Islamic Fiqh > Marriage and family > Looking, touching and khalwa > Khalwa and special cases of looking
Contents
Updated on 24 September 2026 at 7:46 PM
This second part of the chapter on the rules of looking and touching brings together thirteen sheets of the fiqh encyclopedia. It covers a woman looking at another woman, looking through a mirror or water, the awrah of a slave woman, the slave looking at his mistress, looking between spouses, kissing between spouses, intercourse in the anus, uncovering one's awrah in solitude, and the rules of seclusion (khalwa) with a non-mahram woman. School positions are reported with their evidences, hadiths and classical references.
The jurists agree that it is forbidden for a woman to look at the awrah of another woman without necessity, based on what Muslim reported from Abu Sa'id al-Khudri, may Allah be pleased with him: the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, said:
"Let no man look at the awrah of a man, nor a woman at the awrah of a woman, and let no man lie with a man under one garment, nor a woman with a woman under one garment."Narrated by Muslim (338)
Al-Nawawi said that this hadith contains the prohibition of a woman looking at the awrah of a woman, and that there is no disagreement on it (Sharh Sahih Muslim 4/30). As for the limit of the awrah of a woman before another woman, it is, for the majority of jurists, what lies between the navel and the knee: this is the position of the Hanafis in the sound view, the Malikis, the Shafi'is and the Hanbalis. Whatever a man may look at of another man, a woman may look at of another woman, and whatever is not lawful for the one is not lawful for the other.
A woman may therefore look at all the body of another woman except what lies between the navel and the knee, for there is in her looking no fear of desire or of falling into fitna, as with a man looking at a man; and if she fears that, she avoids it as the man does. She may only look between the navel and the knee in case of necessity: a midwife may for example look at the private part during childbirth, and there is no harm in examining it to establish the virginity of a wife afflicted with obstruction ('innin) or of a slave girl bought on condition of virginity, in case of dispute.
It follows that they must not be prevented from entering public baths, contrary to what some people say: the well-known custom in all lands of building baths for women and letting them enter them proves this. Women's need to enter baths exceeds men's, for the aim is adornment, and the woman needs it more than the man; a man can wash in rivers and pools, while a woman cannot.
According to Imam Abu Hanifa, which is an anomalous (shadhdh) view even among the Shafi'is, a woman's looking at another woman is like a man's looking at his mahrams, unlike her looking at a man: since men need to expose themselves more in their work, she may not look at her back or her belly. The first view is the sounder one (al-Mabsut 10/146, 30/108, Bada'i' al-Sana'i' 5/124, al-Muhit al-Burhani 5/169, al-Hidaya 4/85, al-'Inaya 14/240, Tabyin al-Haqa'iq 6/18, al-Bahr al-Ra'iq 8/219, al-Jawhara al-Nayra 6/360, Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil 1/246, al-Sharh al-Kabir with Hashiyat al-Dasuqi 1/344, al-Bayan 9/130, Rawdat al-Talibin 4/666, al-Najm al-Wahhaj 7/28, Mughni al-Muhtaj 4/220, Tuhfat al-Muhtaj 8/502, al-Dibaj 3/173, al-Mughni 7/80, al-Kafi 3/8, Kashshaf al-Qina' 5/14, Sharh Muntaha al-Iradat 5/106, Manar al-Sabil 2/538). The ruling of a woman looking at a woman for a reason, and of a man looking at a woman for a reason, was detailed earlier.
The jurists differed over the awrah of a Muslim woman before a disbelieving woman: may a Muslim woman let a non-believing woman, whether from the People of the Book (kitabiyya) or otherwise, look at her as a Muslim woman would, beyond what lies between the navel and the knee, or may she not uncover before her? The Hanafis in the soundest view, the Malikis in the adopted view, the Shafi'is in the soundest view and the Hanbalis in one narration hold that the awrah of a Muslim woman before a disbelieving woman is like her awrah before a stranger man: she may show her only her face and her palms, according to the sound view among them.
The evidence that showing anything else is not permitted is Allah's saying:
"And let them not display their adornment except to their husbands, or their fathers, or their husbands' fathers, or their sons, or their husbands' sons, or their brothers, or their brothers' sons, or their sisters' sons, or their women"
Surah An-Nur, 31
That is, the Muslim women; and the disbelieving woman is not among their women: if the disbelieving woman's looking were permitted, the specification would have no purpose. It is also authentically reported that Umar, may Allah be pleased with him, prevented dhimmi women from entering baths with Muslim women. There is also the fact that she may describe the Muslim woman to her disbelieving husband: the prohibition therefore proceeds from an incidental factor, not from the notion of awrah, unless the disbelieving woman is her slave, in which case her awrah before her is that of a man before his like, that is, between the navel and the knee.
On the opposite side, the Hanafis (against their soundest view), the Malikis in one opinion, the Shafi'is (against their soundest view, which al-Ghazali preferred) and the Hanbalis in the madhhab hold that there is no difference between a Muslim woman and a disbelieving one: the Muslim woman may show the disbelieving woman all her body except what lies between the navel and the knee. There is no more difference between two Muslim women and a Muslim woman with a dhimmi woman than between two Muslim men and a Muslim man with a dhimmi man as regards looking.
Imam Ahmad, may Allah have mercy on him, said: some people hold that she does not lower her veil before the Jewish and Christian woman; as for me, I hold that she neither looks at the private part nor attends her childbirth. And the disbelieving women, among the Jewish women and others, used to enter upon the wives of the Prophet, peace be upon him, without their veiling and without the hijab being enjoined on them. From Aisha, wife of the Prophet, peace be upon him:
"A Jewish woman came to ask her and said to her: may Allah protect you from the punishment of the grave. Aisha, may Allah be pleased with her, then asked the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him..." (the rest of the hadith)Narrated by Bukhari (1002) and Muslim (903)
The Prophet, peace be upon him, did not rebuke her for it. Asma, may Allah be pleased with her, said:
"My mother came to me while she was a polytheist, in the time of the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him. I consulted the Messenger of Allah and said: my mother has come willingly; shall I keep ties with her? He replied: yes, keep ties with your mother."Narrated by Bukhari (2477) and Muslim (1003)
For the veil between men and women serves a purpose that does not exist between the Muslim woman and the dhimmi woman: the veil must therefore not be established between them, as between a Muslim man and a dhimmi man; and the hijab is only obliged by a text or an analogy, and neither of the two is found here. As for Allah's saying "or their women", it can mean women in general (al-'Inaya 14/250, al-Durr al-Mukhtar with Hashiyat Ibn Abidin 6/371 and 6/382, Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil 1/246, al-Sharh al-Kabir with Hashiyat al-Dasuqi 1/344, Hashiyat al-'Adawi 1/215, Hashiyat al-Sawi on al-Sharh al-Saghir 1/482, Rawdat al-Talibin 4/666, al-Najm al-Wahhaj 7/29, Mughni al-Muhtaj 4/222, Tuhfat al-Muhtaj 8/502, al-Dibaj 3/173, al-Mughni 7/80, al-Kafi 3/8, Kashshaf al-Qina' 5/14, Sharh Muntaha al-Iradat 5/106, Manar al-Sabil 2/538).
Does a man's looking at a stranger woman in a mirror or in water take the ruling of looking at her directly, or not? Imam Ibn Abidin, may Allah have mercy on him, said: I have seen nothing on the case of one who looks at the stranger woman in a mirror or in water; and they explicitly stated that affinity (musahara) is not established by seeing a private part in a mirror or in water, for what is perceived is the likeness of the thing, not the thing itself.
It is otherwise with looking through glass or water in which she is: sight passes through glass and water and sees what they contain. The conclusion is that looking at the stranger woman in a mirror or in water is not forbidden, except that a distinction must be made: the prohibition of establishing affinity through looking has stricter conditions because its basis is permissibility, unlike looking, which is only forbidden for fear of fitna and desire, and that fear is truly present here. I have read in the fatawa of Ibn Hajar of the Shafi'is that he mentions their disagreement and prefers the prohibition, in a manner close to what we have said (Hashiyat Ibn Abidin 6/372).
Imam Ibn Hajar al-Haytami said in his commentary on al-Nawawi's words in the Minhaj ("it is forbidden for a mature male to look at the awrah of a free woman"): the likeness (the image) is excluded, so that looking at an image, as in a mirror, is not forbidden, as more than one scholar has ruled. Their saying supports it, namely that if divorce were made conditional on seeing her, he would not be bound by seeing her image in a mirror, for he did not see her; and the place of the prohibition, as is apparent, is where one fears neither fitna nor desire. The voice, among which are the ululations, is not part of the awrah: hearing it is therefore not forbidden unless fitna is feared from it, or if one takes pleasure in it, as al-Zarkashi discussed; the same applies to the effeminate (amrad) (Tuhfat al-Muhtaj 8/486, 487). The Shafi'i al-Ramli stated the same in his commentary on the Minhaj (Nihayat al-Muhtaj with Hashiyat al-Shabramallisi 6/216, 21).
There is no disagreement among the jurists that what lies between the navel and the knee of a slave woman is awrah. Al-Mirdawi, may Allah have mercy on him, reports that Shaykh Taqi al-Din said: the madhhab does not differ over the fact that what lies between the navel and the knee of a slave woman is awrah; a group of our companions reported that her awrah is only the two passages, like the narration concerning the awrah of a man; and this is an ugly and grave error, contrary to the madhhab in particular and to the Law in general, and Ahmad's words are the farthest from this view. Al-Mirdawi adds: his grandfather and his successor, in Majma' al-Bahrayn, together with Ibn Ubaydan, reported that what lies between the navel and the knee of a slave woman is awrah by consensus (al-Insaf 1/450).
The jurists then differed over the rest of the slave woman's body. The majority of jurists, the Malikis, the Shafi'is in the soundest view and the Hanbalis in the madhhab, hold that the awrah of a slave woman is like the awrah of a man: looking at her without desire is permitted, except between the navel and the knee, based on the Prophet's saying, peace be upon him:
"When one of you marries his slave woman to his slave or his servant, he must not look at anything of her awrah; for what is below the navel down to the knee is awrah."Hasan hadith: narrated by Abu Dawud (4113, 4114) and al-Daraqutni (1/230)
Its implication is the permissibility of looking at the rest. The Hanafi madhhab follows the majority, adding her belly and her back, for it is a place of desire resembling the space between the navel and the knee. Her belly and back are counted as awrah because they adjoin the private part: proof of this is that in li'an, if a man likens his wife to the back or the belly of his female mahrams, it is as if he likened her to her private part. The back is what faces the belly, from the bottom of the chest to the navel. The rest of her body is not awrah, for she differs from the free woman in that she is property that is bought and sold, and thus differs from her in covering (al-Hidaya 4/86, 78, al-'Inaya 14/246, Majma' al-Anhar 1/122, al-Jawhara al-Nayra 1/315, al-Bahr al-Ra'iq 8/421, al-Ifsah 1/101).
The Shafi'is against the soundest view, and the Hanbalis in a narration preferred by a group of them, hold that the slave woman is awrah except for what appears of her in her work and becomes uncovered in her service: the head, the neck and the forearm are not awrah according to the Shafi'is; or what usually appears of her, the face, the head, the hands and the shins, according to Ibn Qudama and other Hanbalis. Umar, may Allah be pleased with him, struck a slave woman of the family of Anas whom he saw veiled and said: "Uncover your head and do not resemble the free women." This proves that the practice was well known among the Companions, to the point that Umar rejected its contravention. Abu Qilaba said: Umar did not leave, during his caliphate, a slave woman veiling herself, and said: "The veil is for the free women." If looking at her had been forbidden, he would not have prevented her from covering; he would have commanded it.
And from Anas, may Allah be pleased with him:
"The Prophet, peace be upon him, stayed three nights between Khaybar and Medina, consummating his marriage with Safiyya bint Huyayy. I invited the Muslims to his wedding feast, in which there was neither bread nor meat; he ordered leather mats spread, on which dates, fresh cheese and clarified butter were thrown, and that was his feast. The Muslims said: is she one of the Mothers of the Believers or one of those his right hand possesses? They said: if he veils her, she is one of the Mothers of the Believers; if he does not veil her, she is one of his slave women. When he set out, he made a place for her behind him and stretched a veil between her and the people."Narrated by Bukhari (4864) and Muslim (1365)
This proves that the absence of veiling of slave women was widespread and well known among them, and that the veiling of others was a known thing. Ibn Qudama said: if the slave woman is beautiful and fitna is feared through her, looking at her becomes forbidden, like looking at the boy from whose temptation one fears. Ahmad said of the beautiful slave woman: she must wear the niqab; the owned slave must not be looked at: how many a look has cast troubles into the heart of the one who cast it (al-Mughni 7/79, al-Majmu' 3/171).
A Shafi'i opinion, preferred by al-'Imrani, al-Nawawi, al-Ghazali, al-Jurjani, the qadi Abu al-Tayyib, Ibn Abi Asrun and others, as well as by some Hanbalis, holds that the awrah of the slave woman is that of the free woman: he may only see her face and palms, by Allah's saying "and let them not display their adornment except what appears of it" (Surah An-Nur, 31) and "Tell the believing men to lower their gaze" (Surah An-Nur, 30). A slave woman may be more beautiful than a free woman; the cause of prohibiting looking is the fear of fitna, and the feared fitna applies equally to the free woman and the slave woman, freedom being only a legal status that does not act upon the natural disposition. It is said in al-Rawda: she is like the free woman, and this is a strange view hardly found with anyone but al-Ghazali. Al-Nawawi answers: the author of al-Bayan and others explicitly held that the slave woman is like the free woman, and this is the import of many statements; it is the stronger by evidence. And in the Minhaj: the soundest view according to the verifiers is that the slave woman is like the free woman (Rawdat al-Talibin 4/665, al-Najm al-Wahhaj 7/28, Mughni al-Muhtaj 4/221, Tuhfat al-Muhtaj 8/501, al-Mughni 7/79, al-Mubdi' 1/362, al-Insaf 1/450).
Imam Ibn al-Qayyim devoted a section to the difference between looking at the free woman and the slave woman: to hold forbidden the look at the deformed old free woman while permitting it at the beautiful, capable slave woman is a lie against the Lawgiver; Allah only said "Tell the believing men to lower their gaze", and Allah and His Messenger did not grant the lustful license to look at beautiful, capable slave women. If fitna is feared through looking at a slave woman, it is forbidden to him beyond any doubt; the doubt arose from the fact that the Lawgiver prescribed for free women to cover their faces before strangers without imposing it on slave women. But this concerns slave women taken for service and debasement; as for slave women kept for intimacy whom custom protects and veils, where would Allah and His Messenger have permitted them to uncover their faces in the markets, the roads and the gatherings of people?
This error was reinforced by the words of some jurists: the free woman is entirely awrah except her face and her palms; the awrah of the slave woman is what does not usually appear, like the belly, the back and the shin; some concluded from this that what usually appears has the ruling of the face of a man. But that applies to prayer, not to looking: awrah is twofold, an awrah of looking and an awrah of prayer. The free woman prays with her face and palms uncovered, but may not go out thus to the markets and the gatherings of people (I'lam al-Muwaqqi'in 2/80).
The jurists differed over the slave of a free woman as to what he may look at of her. The Hanafis and a Shafi'i opinion hold that he is like the stranger man with her: he may only see her face and her palms, for he is a male with neither a mahram bond nor a marriage bond, and desire is truly present, since marriage with her is possible in principle.
It is reported from Sa'id ibn al-Musayyib and Sa'id ibn Jubayr, may Allah have mercy on them: "Let Surah al-Nur not deceive you: among females it is below the males", meaning Allah's saying "or what their right hands possess". Al-Sarakhsi said: this is a place of difficulty, for the condition of the slave woman draws near to that of the man, to the point that she travels without a mahram; hence the doubt as to whether uncovering before her slave is permitted to her. This doubt was removed by Allah's saying "or their women", whose general wording covers free women to the exclusion of slave women: there is between them neither marriage nor mahram bond, and the permission to look at the places of hidden adornment is built upon this cause.
The prohibition of marriage between them is incidental, resting on an honour that expires, so that the slave woman is to him like the wife of another or the woman in her waiting period. The obligation of covering and the prohibition of seclusion with a man aim at the fear of fitna, which is present here; it is only removed by the mahram bond, for the permanent prohibition diminishes desire, whereas ownership does not diminish desire but leads to the lifting of shame. The meaning of temptation is nevertheless not realized, for slaves are taken for service outside the house, not inside it, according to the saying: "Whoever takes a slave for service inside his house is a shameless man (kashhan)" (al-Mabsut 10/157, 158, al-Hidaya 4/87, al-Jawhara al-Nayra 6/364).
The Malikis permit the slave to see the hair of his mistress, for the need is realized since he enters upon her without permission, and based on what was reported from Ibn Abbas, may Allah be pleased with them both: "There is no harm in the slave looking at the hair of his mistress." Abu Umar Ibn Abd al-Barr said: Malik went in this direction and permitted the slave's looking at the hair of his mistress; something similar is reported from one of the Mothers of the Believers, and a group held it (al-Tamhid 12/236).
Imam al-'Imrani raised the question: when a woman owns a slave, does he become for her like a mahram as regards looking and seclusion? Two views. The first: he becomes a mahram to her; it is said in al-Muhadhdhab that this is the explicit text, by Allah's saying "or what their right hands possess" (Surah An-Nur, 31), which counted him among the mahrams. Umm Salama reported that the Prophet, peace be upon him, said:
"When one of you has a slave contracted for manumission (mukatib) with a remaining payment, let her veil herself from him."Weak hadith: narrated by Abu Dawud (3928), at-Tirmidhi (1261) and Ibn Majah (2520)
Otherwise veiling would not have been enjoined on them when it was not obligatory upon them before. It is also reported that the Prophet, peace be upon him, gave Fatima, may Allah be pleased with her, a slave; he intended to enter upon her while with her were Ali and the slave and she was wearing a single garment (fadul); she wished to cover with it her head and her feet but could not, and the Prophet, peace be upon him, said:
"No harm upon you: he is only your father, your husband and your servant."Authentic hadith: narrated by Abu Dawud (4106)
For ownership is a cause of prohibiting marriage between them: he must therefore be to her a mahram like lineage and suckling. The second view: he is not a mahram to her. Shaykh Abu Hamid said this is the sound position among our companions, for prohibition is only established between two persons between whom no desire was created, like the brother and the sister; whereas the slave and his mistress are two persons between whom desire exists: he is therefore like a stranger. As for the verse, the exegetes say it means slave women, not male slaves; as for the hadith, the boy may have been small (al-Bayan 9/130, 131, al-Muhadhdhab 2/34, Mughni al-Muhtaj 4/219).
The Hanbalis: Ibn Qudama said that the slave of a woman is not a mahram to her, for she is never permanently forbidden to him; but he is permitted to look at what usually appears of her, by Allah's saying "what their right hands possess". Umm Salama reported that the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, said: "When one of you has a mukatib who has paid what he owed, let her veil herself from him"; at-Tirmidhi reported it and said it is a hasan sahih hadith, and it indicates that she does not veil herself from him before that; the need calls for it, for she needs his service, so that he resembles a mahram (al-Kafi 3/6). It is said in al-Mughni: the slave of a woman may look at her face and her palms, by Allah's saying "or what their right hands possess" (Surah Al-Mu'minun, 6).
The same hadith of Umm Salama is graded weak in the note (narrated by Abu Dawud 3928, at-Tirmidhi 1261 and Ibn Majah 2520), while at-Tirmidhi declares it hasan and sahih. Abu Qilaba said: "The wives of the Prophet, peace be upon him, did not veil themselves from a mukatib as long as a dinar remained upon him to pay", reported by Sa'id in his Sunan. And from Anas: "The Prophet, peace be upon him, came to Fatima with a slave he had given her; Fatima wore a garment with which, if she veiled her head, it did not reach her feet, and if she covered her feet, it did not reach her head. When the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, saw that, he said: no harm upon you, he is only your father and your boy", an authentic hadith narrated by Abu Dawud (4106).
Abu Abdillah (Ahmad) disliked the slave's looking at the hair of his mistress, as did Sa'id ibn al-Musayyib, Tawus, Mujahid and al-Hasan; Ibn Abbas permitted it to him, by the two verses and the two hadiths mentioned and by Allah's saying "Let those whom your right hands possess and those among you who have not reached puberty ask permission at three times... No sin upon you nor upon them" (Surah An-Nur, 58); and because guarding against it at all times is difficult: it was therefore permitted to him like the mahrams. The companions of al-Shafi'i say he is a mahram, with the ruling of the blood mahrams, according to one of the two views.
For us (the Hanbalis): Ibn Umar reported that the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, said: "The travel of a woman with her slave is ruin (day'a)", a weak hadith narrated by al-Bazzar (5993), who said: this hadith is reported from the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, only through this single chain, and no one is known to have narrated from Bazi' other than Isma'il ibn Uyyash. For she is never permanently forbidden to him while enjoying her is not permitted to him: he is therefore not a mahram like the husband of her sister. He is not trustworthy towards her either, for there is not between them the repulsion of the mahram bond, ownership not implying that natural repulsion, as shown by the master with his slave woman. Only what need calls for is permitted to him of looking, like the suitor and the buyer; some of our companions likened him to a stranger, but the sound position is ours, if Allah wills (al-Mughni 7/76).
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyya said: Allah's saying "or their women, or what their right hands possess" indicates that she may show her hidden adornment to her slave; two views: the first, that it means slave women and scriptural slave women, as Ibn al-Musayyib said, and this is what Ahmad and others preferred; the second, that it means the male slave, as Ibn Abbas said, and this is the other narration reported from Ahmad. This entails the permissibility of the slave's looking at his mistress, and hadiths support it, on account of need: she needs to speak with her slave more than seeing the suitor, the dealer or the interlocutor; if their looking is permitted, the slave's is more fitting.
This does not entail that he is a mahram who travels with her: those permitted to look are not mahrams who travel with her. Not everyone permitted to look is therefore permitted to travel with her or to be in seclusion with her; the slave looks at his mistress out of need, though he has with her neither seclusion nor travel (Majmu' al-Fatawa 22/111).
The people of knowledge agree that each of the two spouses may look at all the awrah of the other as long as the marriage subsists, except the private part, over which they differed into three views. First view: each of the two may look at the private part of the other without dislike, for intercourse and enjoyment are permitted, which is above looking; the permissibility of looking is therefore more fitting. This is the view of the Hanafis, the Malikis and the Hanbalis in the madhhab. Al-Hafiz Ibn Rajab said: most of the scholars hold that it is not forbidden (Fath al-Bari 1/337); the proof of it is the well-known reports from Aisha, Umm Salama and Maymuna, Mothers of the Believers, may Allah be pleased with them: they used to bathe with the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, from a single vessel. In Maymuna's report he had no waist-wrapper, for it states that he "put his hand into the vessel then poured over his private part and washed it with his left hand".
Allah said:
"...and who guard their private parts, (5) except with their wives or those their right hands possess, for they are not to be blamed (6)"
Surah Al-Mu'minun, 5-6
Allah commanded guarding the private part except with the wife and the slave possessed: there is therefore no blame in it, and this rule extends in general to seeing, touching and mixing. Utba ibn Abi Hakim asked Sulayman ibn Musa about the man who looks at his wife's private part; he answered: I asked Ata', who said: I asked Aisha, who said:
"I used to bathe, I and my beloved, peace be upon him, from a single vessel in which our hands took turns", pointing to a vessel in the house of about six mudds in size.Narrated by Ibn Hibban in his Sahih (5577)
The Hanafis say: the man looks at the private part of his slave woman and of his wife, with desire or without desire, since intercourse and enjoyment are permitted, which is above looking; if looking were not permitted, neither of the two would have stripped before the other; and since what is above looking, touching and covering, is permitted, looking is more fitting. Aisha, may Allah be pleased with her, said: "I used to bathe, I and the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, from a single vessel." Ibn Umar, may Allah be pleased with them both, used to say: "It is better that the man look at his wife's private part at the time of intercourse, so as to attain the meaning of pleasure more completely."
Abu Yusuf said in al-Amali: I asked Abu Hanifa, may Allah have mercy on him, about the man who touches his wife's private part or is touched by her so as to arouse him: do you see any harm in that? He answered: I hope the reward will be great. It remains that it is better that neither of the two look at the awrah of the other, based on the Prophet's saying, peace be upon him: "When one of you comes to his wife, let him cover himself and not strip as two donkeys strip", a weak hadith narrated by Ibn Majah (1920), and because it causes forgetfulness. There is no harm in the man touching his wife's private part and her touching his to arouse him (Bada'i' al-Sana'i' 2/331, Tabyin al-Haqa'iq 6/18, 19, al-Muhit al-Burhani 5/171, al-'Inaya 14/241, al-Jawhara al-Nayra 6/360, 361, Majma' al-Anhar 4/201, Hashiyat Ibn Abidin 6/366, 367, Hashiyat al-Tahtawi on Maraqi al-Falah 1/36).
The Malikis say: in a valid marriage permitting intercourse, each of the two spouses may look at all the body of the other, down to the private part, from the front or from behind, whether during intercourse or otherwise. What has been reported to the effect that looking at her private part causes blindness is a rejected (munkar) report with no basis (al-Taj wa-l-Iklil 2/482, 483, Mawahib al-Jalil 5/27, 28, Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil 3/166, al-Sharh al-Kabir with Hashiyat al-Dasuqi 3/4, 5, Tahbir al-Mukhtasar 2/533, Hashiyat al-Sawi on al-Sharh al-Saghir 4/410).
Abu al-Walid Ibn Rushd al-Qurtubi said: Asbagh reported that Ibn al-Qasim was asked whether a man may speak to his wife during intercourse; he said: yes, and he may resume talking with her; there is no harm in that, by way of permission. Ibn al-Qasim reported from al-Darawardi, from the one who transmitted to him, that al-Qasim ibn Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr al-Siddiq was asked about the option (takhyir) at that moment; he answered: "When you are alone, do as you wish." Asbagh asked: may the man look at his wife's private part during intercourse? He said: yes, there is no harm in it. He was told: some people mention a dislike of it; he answered: whoever dislikes it dislikes it by custom, not by knowledge; there is no harm in it and it is not disliked.
Muhammad ibn Rushd said: in the original transmission heard, to the question about the man's looking at his wife's private part during intercourse, the answer was: yes, "and he licks it with his tongue"; al-Utbi dropped this wording, finding it too ugly. In the book of Ibn al-Mawwaz: "and he licks it with his tongue", which is uglier still. The scholars nevertheless permit citing such statements for the sake of explanation, so that nothing that is not unlawful be forbidden: many of the common people believe that a man may never look at his wife's private part, and some asked me about it, astonished that it should be permitted. Likewise, the man speaking to his wife during intercourse poses no problem, and no dislike attaches to it (al-Bayan wa-l-Tahsil 5/79).
The Hanbalis say in the madhhab: each of the two spouses is permitted to look at and touch all the body of the other, including the private part, without dislike, based on what Bahz ibn Hakim reported from his father, from his grandfather: I said: O Messenger of Allah, our awrah: what may we show and what must we guard? He said:
"Guard your awrah, except before your wife or the one your right hand possesses."Hasan hadith: narrated by Abu Dawud (4017), at-Tirmidhi (2769), Ibn Majah (1920) and an-Nasa'i in al-Kubra (8972)
For enjoyment of the private part is lawful to him: looking at it and touching it are therefore permitted like the rest of the body. The qadi said: kissing the woman's private part before intercourse is permitted, and it is disliked after it; he reported it from Ata' (al-Mughni 7/77, al-Kafi 3/8, al-Mubdi' 7/12, al-Insaf 8/32, 33, Kashshaf al-Qina' 5/16).
Second view: the looking of each spouse at the private part of the other, without need, is disliked without being unlawful; this is the sound view among the Shafi'is and a Hanbali narration chosen by Ibn Qudama, may Allah have mercy on him, based on Aisha, may Allah be pleased with her: "I never looked at the private part of the Prophet, peace be upon him", a weak hadith narrated by Ibn Majah (662, 1922) and Ahmad (24389, 25609). And from Ibn Abbas, may Allah be pleased with them both, raised to the Prophet, peace be upon him:
"When one of you has intercourse with his wife or his slave girl, let him not look at her private part: that causes blindness."Fabricated hadith: reported by Ibn Hibban in al-Majruhin (1/202) and mentioned by him in al-Mawdu'at (2/175, 176), where he declares it fabricated
It is cited in support of this view in al-Muhadhdhab (2/35), al-Bayan (9/131, 132), Rawdat al-Talibin (4/668), al-Najm al-Wahhaj (7/35), Mughni al-Muhtaj (4/226), al-Mughni (7/77), al-Kafi (3/8) and al-Insaf (8/32, 33). Third view: looking at the private part of the spouse is forbidden for each of the two; it is a Shafi'i view.
Al-Nawawi said: as for the spouses, each of the two has the right to look at all the awrah of the other, except the private part itself, over which our companions have three views: the soundest is that looking at the private part of one's spouse without need is disliked without being unlawful; the second is that it is forbidden to both; the third is that it is forbidden for the man and disliked for the woman, and looking at the inside of the private part is more strongly disliked and forbidden (Sharh Sahih Muslim 4/30, Rawdat al-Talibin 4/668).
The basis in the mutual enjoyment of the spouses is permissibility, except what a text forbids, such as intercourse during menses or lochia, in the anus, or with a menstruating or fasting woman; everything else rests on permissibility according to the majority of the people of knowledge. They explicitly permitted the man to kiss his wife's private part, and each of the two spouses to touch the private part of the other, caress it and kiss it: all of that involves no hardship and no forbidding text, and falls under the evidences of the permissibility of mutual enjoyment.
"Your wives are a tilth for you; so come to your tilth as you wish."
Surah Al-Baqara, 223
And since penetration in the private part, the highest form of enjoyment, is permitted, what is below it is more fitting for permissibility. The basis is that each of the two spouses may enjoy all the body of the other without exception, except the anus, the menses and the lochia: everything else remains on the basis of permissibility.
Abu Yusuf, may Allah have mercy on him, said: I asked Abu Hanifa, may Allah have mercy on him, about the man who touches his wife's private part or is touched by her so as to arouse him: do you see any harm in that? He answered: no; I hope the reward will be great (al-Muhit al-Burhani 5/171, Tabyin al-Haqa'iq 6/19, al-'Inaya 14/241, Hashiyat Ibn Abidin 6/368). Muhammad ibn Rushd, may Allah have mercy on him, reported the account already cited: to the question about the man's looking at his wife's private part during intercourse, the answer was yes, "and he licks it with his tongue"; al-Utbi dropped the wording as too ugly, and the book of Ibn al-Mawwaz mentions it as uglier still. The scholars permit citing such statements for the sake of explanation, so that what is not unlawful not be forbidden, many of the common people believing the contrary (al-Bayan wa-l-Tahsil 5/79).
Al-Hattab, may Allah have mercy on him, said: al-Qabbab, in the chapter on women looking at men, said: the woman's looking at her husband or her master is the same as their looking at her in all that preceded; the only difference is her looking at his private part: no prohibition reached us concerning it as for the man's looking at hers. Benefit: Asbagh said that whoever dislikes looking at the private part dislikes it by custom, not by knowledge, and that there is no harm in it and it is not disliked. Al-Qabbab said in the chapter on men looking at women: when the woman is lawful to the man as regards intercourse, only his looking at her private part remains debated, a place of disagreement that the Malikis permitted.
It is reported from Malik that he said there is no harm in looking at the private part during intercourse, and one narration adds: "and he licks it with his tongue", which is an exaggeration in permissibility that does not correspond to his apparent position (Mawahib al-Jalil 5/27, 28). Imam Ibn al-Arabi al-Maliki said: the people differed over the permissibility of the man's looking at his wife's private part into two views: the first, that it is permitted, since enjoyment is permitted, looking is more fitting; the second, that it is not, based on Aisha's words about her situation with the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him: "I never saw that of him, nor he of me." The first is sounder, and is understood as a matter of etiquette; Asbagh, of our scholars, permitted licking it with the tongue (Ahkam al-Qur'an 3/383, Tafsir al-Qurtubi 12/232).
The Shafi'is say: the husband may take every enjoyment from his wife except her anus, including sucking her clitoris or being masturbated by her hand (I'anat al-Talibin 3/616, Fath al-Mu'in 3/340). The Hanbalis say: the wife may touch the husband's private part and kiss it with desire, even while he sleeps. The qadi said: kissing the woman's private part before intercourse is permitted, and disliked after it, for it then becomes impossible; he reported it from Ata' (al-Insaf 8/33, Kashshaf al-Qina' 5/16).
The jurists differed: may a man have intercourse with his wife in her anus or not? The majority of the people of knowledge, the Hanafis, the Malikis in the famous view, the Shafi'is and the Hanbalis, hold that this is not permitted to him, while permitting him all forms of enjoyment except penetration in the anus, by Allah's saying "Your wives are a tilth for you; so come to your tilth as you wish" (Surah Al-Baqara, 223), that is, the place of tilling: come to that place as you wish, from behind or from the front, standing, sitting or lying. The mention of tilling proves that approach to a place other than the one permitted is forbidden, women being likened to the tilth because it is sown with offspring. Tha'lab said: "The wombs are only lands for us to plough; the sowing is ours, and the growth belongs to Allah." The woman's private part is like the earth, the semen like the seed, the child like the plant (Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil 3/166, al-Sharh al-Kabir with Hashiyat al-Dasuqi 3/5, al-Taj wa-l-Iklil 2/483, Tahbir al-Mukhtasar 2/533, 534).
They also cited what Abu Hurayra, may Allah be pleased with him, reported from the Prophet, peace be upon him: "Allah does not look at the man who has intercourse with his wife in her anus", an authentic hadith narrated by Ibn Majah (1923). And Khuzayma ibn Thabit reports that the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, said:
"Allah is not shy of the truth (three times): do not approach women in their anuses."Authentic hadith: narrated by Ibn Majah (1924), Ahmad (21914) and Ibn Hibban in his Sahih (4200)
Imam al-Shafi'i, may Allah have mercy on him, said: Allah said "Your wives are a tilth for you" and explained that the place of tilling is the place of the child, and that He permitted approach therein except during the menses; "as you wish" means from wherever you wish. The permission of approach to the place of tilling suggests the prohibition of approach elsewhere: approach of the anus to the degree of approach of the private part is therefore forbidden by the Book and then the Sunna. As for enjoyment without penetration of the private part, between the two thighs and on all the body, there is no harm in it (al-Umm 5/94). Abu Ja'far al-Tabari said: after their consensus that the man may enjoy all the body of the woman except the anus, they differed over approaching women in their anuses. Malik said: "There is no harm in the man approaching his wife in her anus as in her private part", which Yunus transmitted to us from Ibn Wahb.
Al-Shafi'i said further: approach in the anus up to the degree of approach of the private part is forbidden by the Book and the Sunna; enjoyment without penetration of the private part, between the thighs and on all the body, does no harm, whether for the slave woman or the free woman. She should not leave him for that: if she goes to the imam, he forbids him; if he admits intending to return, he is disciplined without the legal punishment and without indemnity, for she is his wife; were it fornication, the punishment would apply if he did it, and the rapist would pay the dower of her like; whoever does it must perform the full washing and has invalidated his pilgrimage, as al-Rabi' transmitted to us. Abu Hanifa, Abu Yusuf and Muhammad said: approaching women in their anuses is forbidden, according to al-Jawzajani from Muhammad.
The reasoning of whoever follows Malik's view is the consensus of all that marriage has made lawful to the married person what was forbidden; that being so, the kiss is not more fitting for legalization than the anus. The reasoning of whoever follows al-Shafi'i's view is the report that Muhammad ibn Abi Maysara al-Makki transmitted to me: Uthman ibn al-Yaman, from Zam'a ibn Salih, from Ibn Tawus, from his father, from Ibn al-Imad, from Umar ibn al-Khattab, that the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, said: "The private parts of people are forbidden: do not approach women in their anuses." It is further argued that all agreed before marriage that everything with her is forbidden, then differed over what marriage makes lawful to him of her; the forbidden does not pass to the lawful by consensus except through what must be accepted: the Book, the Sunna, consensus or analogy on a consensual basis. What they agreed to legalize is lawful, and what they differ over is forbidden: approach in the anus is disputed, so it remains on the consensual prohibition (Ikhtilaf al-Fuqaha p. 303, 305; see: Sharh Mushkil al-Athar 3/40, 46, Ahkam al-Qur'an of al-Jassas 3/39, 40).
Imam al-Mawardi, may Allah have mercy on him, reported that al-Shafi'i said: some of our companions held lawful the approaching of women in their anuses, others unlawful; as for me, I do not grant license in it, I forbid it. Al-Mawardi said: know that the madhhab of al-Shafi'i, of his companions, of the majority of the successors and of the jurists is that intercourse with women in their anuses is forbidden. It is narrated from Nafi', Ibn Abi Mulayka and Zayd ibn Aslam that it is permitted, and Nafi' reported it from Ibn Umar. The narrations from Malik differ: the people of the Maghrib report that he permitted it in the Book of the Sira; Abu Mus'ab said: I asked him about it and he permitted it; Ibn al-Qasim said: Malik said: I never met anyone whose religion I follow who doubts that it is lawful. The Iraqis denied this of him and reported its prohibition. When Ibn Abd al-Hakam moved from the madhhab of al-Shafi'i to that of Malik, he reported from al-Shafi'i these words: there is no established hadith on approaching women in their anuses, and analogy requires its permissibility, intending thereby to defend Malik. Al-Rabi' heard of it and said: "He lies; by Allah, there is no deity but He, al-Shafi'i explicitly stated its prohibition in six books."
Whoever holds it permitted argued from Malik's report from Nafi', from Ibn Umar: a man approached a woman in her anus and felt intense pleasure in it; Allah then revealed "Your wives are a tilth for you..." (Surah Al-Baqara, 223). And His saying "Do you approach the males of the worlds (165) and leave what your Lord created for you of your wives? (166)" (Surah Ash-Shu'ara, 165-166) proves that He permitted of the wives what He forbade of the males; and His saying "They are a garment for you and you are a garment for them" (Surah Al-Baqara, 187) proves that all of them are a garment to be enjoyed in general. If the anus were excluded at the marriage contract, the contract would be void, and if divorce occurred, it would carry to the rest: this proves that it is intended for enjoyment. And as it is one of the two private parts, its approach is lawful like that of the private part; and when he equated it with the private part in the full dower, the prohibition of affinity and the obligation of the punishment, he equated it in permissibility.
Our evidence (for the prohibition) is Allah's saying "They ask you about the menses. Say: it is harm, so keep away from women during the menses" (Surah Al-Baqara, 222): He forbade intercourse during the menses because of harm, so the anus deserves prohibition more, for the harm is greater; then He said "and when they have purified themselves, come to them as Allah has commanded you", that is, by the private part, which proves the prohibition of approaching them through the anus.
Muslim ibn Sallam reported from Ali ibn Talq that a Bedouin asked the Prophet, peace be upon him, and said: we are in the desert and find relief, and water is scarce; he said: when one of you passes wind, let him perform ablution. Then he addressed the people and said: "Do not approach women from behind, for Allah is not shy of the truth." Sahl ibn Abi Salih reported from Muhammad ibn al-Munkadir, from Jabir ibn Abdillah, that the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, said: "Be shy before Allah, for Allah is not shy of the truth: do not approach women in their private parts." Hajjaj ibn Arta'a reported from Amr ibn Shu'ayb, from Abdillah ibn Harmi, from Khuzayma ibn Thabit: I heard the Prophet, peace be upon him, say: "Allah is not shy of the truth: do not approach women in their anuses", and he said: "Cursed is he who approaches a woman in her anus."
Qatada reported from Amr ibn Shu'ayb, from his father, from his grandfather, that the Prophet, peace be upon him, was asked about approaching women in their anuses and said: "It is the lesser sodomy." Narrated by Ahmad (6967, 6968); al-Haythami said in Majma' al-Zawa'id (4/298): narrated by Ahmad, al-Bazzar and at-Tabarani in al-Awsat, and the men of Ahmad and al-Bazzar are men of the Sahih. Yusuf ibn Mahak reported from Umm Habiba, wife of the Prophet, peace be upon him: a woman came to the Prophet, peace be upon him, and said that her husband approached her while she was facing away from him; he said: "No harm, if it is in one single passage."
Al-Shafi'i reported from Jabir ibn Abdillah that the Jews used to say: whoever approaches a woman in her private part from behind will have a cross-eyed child; Allah revealed "Your wives are a tilth for you..." (Surah Al-Baqara, 223). A man asked the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, about it, and the Prophet, peace be upon him, said: "In which of the two fields? Or of the two rows of grains? Or of the two hollows? From the anus into her private part: yes; from the anus into her anus: no. Allah is not shy of the truth: do not approach women in their anuses." To this is added the consensus of the Companions, reported from Ali ibn Abi Talib, Abdillah ibn Abbas, Ibn Mas'ud and Abu al-Darda' (al-Hawi al-Kabir 9/317, 319).
Ibn Qudama, may Allah have mercy on him, said: intercourse with his wife or his slave woman in her anus is forbidden, by the Prophet's saying narrated by Ibn Majah: "Allah is not shy of the truth: do not approach women in their anuses"; and because it is not a place of offspring, resembling the anus of a boy; and there is no legal punishment for it, for it takes place with the wife or the slave woman: it would be a plausible cause (shubha), but he is disciplined (al-Kafi 4/210).
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyya, may Allah have mercy on him, said: approaching women in their anuses is forbidden according to the majority of the early and later generations, as established in the Book and the Sunna, and it is the famous position of the madhhab of Malik; as for the other view granting license, some report it as a narration from Malik, and others deny it (Majmu' al-Fatawa 32/265, 266; see: Zad al-Ma'ad 4/260, 262).
The Malikis, in one opinion, permitted approaching the woman in her anus: it is a narration reported from Malik and Ibn al-Qasim. Imam Ibn al-Arabi said: the scholars differed over the permissibility of intercourse with the woman in her anus; a numerous group permitted it, and Ibn Sha'ban compiled it in his book "Jima' al-Niswan wa-ahkam al-Qur'an", ascribing it to a noble group of Companions and successors and to Malik in many narrations. Al-Bukhari reported from Ibn Awn, from Nafi': "Ibn Umar, when he recited the Quran, would not speak until he had finished; one day I caught him reciting Surah Al-Baqara up to a place; he said: do you know what it was revealed about? I said: no. He said: it was revealed about such and such, then he went on." He then followed it with the hadith of Ayyub, from Nafi', from Ibn Umar, concerning "so come to your tilth as you wish": he approaches her in... and mentioned nothing after that. Al-Zuhri said: "The slave (Nafi') erred in what he reported from Ibn Umar about this."
Al-Nasa'i reports from Abu al-Nadr that he said to Nafi', the freedman of Ibn Umar: much has been said against you, that you report from Ibn Umar that he ruled that women may be approached in their anuses. Nafi' said: they lied about me; but I shall tell you how the matter was: Ibn Umar leafed through the Quran one day while I was with him, until he reached "Your wives are a tilth for you; so come to your tilth as you wish" (Surah Al-Baqara, 223); he said: O Nafi', do you know the matter of this verse? I said: no. He said: we, the Quraysh, used to approach our women; when we entered Medina and married the women of the Ansar, we wanted from them what we wanted from our women; but they disliked it and considered it grave, for the women of the Ansar were only approached lying on their sides; Allah then revealed "so come to your tilth as you wish".
The qadi said: I asked the imam qadi al-Tusi about the issue; he said: intercourse with the woman in her anus is in no way permitted, for Allah, the Most High, forbade the private part during the menses because of the incidental impurity; it is more fitting to forbid the anus because of the permanent impurity (Ahkam al-Qur'an 1/238, 239). Imam al-Qurtubi, may Allah have mercy on him, said: a group held the permissibility of intercourse in the anus, and it was ascribed to Sa'id ibn al-Musayyib, Nafi', Ibn Umar, Muhammad ibn Ka'b al-Qurazi and Abd al-Malik ibn al-Majishun; it was reported from Malik in a book of his called "Kitab al-Sirr" (the Book of the Secret), but the most learned of Malik's companions and their masters deny this book, and Malik is too great to have a secret book. This view appears in the Utbiyya; Ibn al-Arabi mentioned that Ibn Sha'ban ascribed it to a great group of Companions and successors and to Malik in many narrations in "Jima' al-Niswan wa-ahkam al-Qur'an"; and al-Kiya reported that Muhammad ibn Ka'b al-Qurazi saw no harm in it. Al-Qurtubi concludes: what is ascribed to Malik and his companions of this is false, and they are innocent of it (Tafsir al-Qurtubi 3/93, 94).
Al-Hattab, may Allah have mercy on him, said: as for intercourse in the anus, the famous ruling mentioned by the author is that it is not permitted; the view of permissibility is ascribed to Malik in "Kitab al-Sirr" and is found in Ikhtisar al-Mabsut, according to Ibn Abd al-Salam, who reports that Malik said it is more lawful than drinking cold water. As for "Kitab al-Sirr", it is a rejected book: Ibn Farhun said: I examined it; it contains the disparagement of the Companions and the assault on their religion, especially Uthman, may Allah be pleased with him, the attack on the scholars and the accusation of religious deficiency against them despite the consensus of the people of knowledge on their merit, especially Ashhab, to the point that I do not permit its mention; and Malik's piety and religion contradict what "Kitab al-Sirr" contains, a thin volume of about thirty leaves.
Ibn Arafa said: I heard Isa ibn al-Qasim report: I never met anyone worth following who doubts it. Rabi'a transmitted to me from Sa'id ibn Yasar, from Ibn Umar: there is no harm in it. And Ibn al-Qasim permitted it, saying: I do not command it, nor would I like to possess what would fill the great mosque and do it; whoever consults me about it, I command him to leave it. Al-Burzuli said: Ashhab met a man of Iraq holding the prohibition of intercourse in the anus; they discussed it, Ashhab held it lawful and the man forbidden; they argued until Ashhab defeated him with proof. Ashhab said to him: I have such and such oaths upon me if I ever did it; swear then, you too, that you never did it; he refused to swear. Al-Burzuli added: the reported narration is that whoever does it is disciplined, which rests on its prohibition; if it is disliked or permitted, he is not disciplined, for there is no consensus on its dislike (Mawahib al-Jalil 5/28, 29; see: al-Dhakhira 4/416, 417, al-Madkhal 2/193).
The jurists differed over the permissibility of uncovering one's awrah when no one sees him. The Shafi'is in the sounder of the two views and the Hanbalis in the madhhab hold that covering the awrah in solitude is obligatory, based on the hadith of Bahz ibn Hakim, from his father, from his grandfather:
"I said: O Messenger of Allah, our awrah: what may we show and what must we guard? He said: guard your awrah, except before your wife or the one your right hand possesses. I said: O Messenger of Allah, what if people are among one another? He said: if you can manage that no one sees it, let no one see it. I said: O Messenger of Allah, what if one of us is alone? He said: Allah has more right that one be shy before Him than before people."Hasan hadith: narrated by Abu Dawud (4017), at-Tirmidhi (2769), Ibn Majah (1920) and an-Nasa'i in al-Kubra (8972)
Al-Nawawi said: covering the awrah from eyes is obligatory by consensus, based on the earlier evidences; the sounder of the two views is its obligation in solitude, based on the hadith of Bahz and others, whose authentication the author and al-Bandaniji explicitly stated. If he needs to uncover, he may do so to the measure of need alone, as the companions said; the author's words "if compelled" are understood as need, not true necessity, and it would have been more correct to say "if he needs", like the companions, so that the requirement of necessity not be implied. Bathing is among the needs: bathing naked in solitude is permitted, but it is better to cover oneself with a waist-wrapper (al-Majmu' 3/168).
Al-Bahuti, may Allah have mercy on him, said: covering the awrah in solitude is obligatory as it is in front of people, even in darkness, based on the hadith of Bahz ibn Hakim, from his father, from his grandfather (Kashshaf al-Qina' 1/312, Sharh Muntaha al-Iradat 1/298, Matalib Uli al-Nuha 1/328). Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyya, may Allah have mercy on him, said: man must cover his awrah, as the Prophet, peace be upon him, said to Mu'awiya ibn Hayda: "Guard your awrah, except before your wife or the one your right hand possesses. I said: what if one of us is with his people? He said: if you can manage that no one sees it, let no one see it. I said: what if one of us is alone? He said: Allah has more right that one be shy before Him than before people."
He may uncover to the measure of need, as when relieving himself; likewise, when a man bathes alone beside what covers him, he may bathe naked, as Musa and Ayyub bathed naked, and as the Prophet, peace be upon him, did on the day of the conquest, and according to the hadith of Maymuna. Ibn Taymiyya said further, after the hadith: he commanded covering it in solitude, and this is obligatory according to most of the scholars. If one bathes in a secluded place beside a wall or a tree, in one's house or a bath, uncovering is permitted in this case according to the majority, as it is established in the Sahih that Musa bathed naked, that Ayyub bathed naked and that Fatima used to cover the Prophet, peace be upon him, with a garment and he would then bathe. It is an uncovering for need, to the measure of need, like uncovering for natural needs or intercourse; this is why the scholars dislike that the one relieving himself raise his garment until it nears the ground (Majmu' al-Fatawa 21/247, 21/338).
The Shafi'is in one view and the Hanbalis in one narration hold that uncovering the awrah in solitude is permitted while disliked. Ibn Taymiyya said: covering it in solitude and otherwise is obligatory, except for need. The qadi said: being naked in solitude is disliked without being unlawful, and some of our companions report it in two narrations; the first is clearer in Ahmad's words and closer to the apparent meaning of the Sunna. The Prophet, peace be upon him, said to Mu'awiya ibn Hayda: "Allah has more right that one be shy before Him", when he told him: what if one of us is alone? And he forbade that a man wrap himself in a single garment raising his private part to the sky, in one wording: "with nothing of his garment upon his private part", reported by the group. From Ibn Umar: the Prophet, peace be upon him, said: "Beware of nakedness, for with you are those who never leave you, except when you relieve yourselves or when the man is with his wife; so be shy before them and honour them", narrated by at-Tirmidhi. Utba ibn Abd al-Rahman al-Sulami reports that the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, said: "When one of you comes to his wife, let him cover himself, and let the two not strip as two donkeys strip", narrated by Ibn Majah.
For Allah has more right that one be shy before Him than before people, and likewise His angels and the rest of His creation: covering the awrah in solitude is therefore obligatory as it is before the eyes of people; this is why it is obligatory in prayer even when alone. It is not a matter of hiding from Allah, the Most High, for He, Glory to Him, sees every hidden thing; it is only the supposition of those who disbelieved, whom Allah described saying: "Indeed, they fold up their breasts to hide from Him; when they cover themselves with their garments, He knows what they conceal and what they declare" (Surah Hud, 5). But one must be shy before Him to the measure of one's effort, as Allah, the Most High, reported of Adam and Eve: when their private parts appeared, they began covering themselves with leaves of Paradise. Abu Bakr al-Siddiq, may Allah be pleased with him, used to say: "O people, be shy before Allah: when I enter the privy, I bend my back out of shyness before my Lord." Abu Musa said the same about bathing (Sharh al-'Umda 4/256, 258).
The people of knowledge agree that seclusion with a non-mahram woman is not permitted, based on what Ibn Abbas, may Allah be pleased with them both, reported from the Prophet, peace be upon him:
"Let no man be in seclusion with a woman except with a mahram. A man stood up and said: O Messenger of Allah, my wife has left for pilgrimage and I have been enrolled in such and such campaign; he said: go back and perform pilgrimage with your wife."Narrated by Bukhari (4935) and Muslim (1314)
The Prophet, peace be upon him, also said: "Whoever believes in Allah and the Last Day must not be in seclusion with a woman without a mahram of hers, for the third of them is Satan", narrated by Ahmad (14692). And from Uqba ibn Amir that the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, said: "Beware of entering upon women." A man of the Ansar asked: O Messenger of Allah, what about the brother-in-law? He said: "The brother-in-law is death." Narrated by Bukhari (4934) and Muslim (2172).
Ibn Battal, may Allah have mercy on him, reports from al-Tabari: the brother-in-law (hamw) among the Arabs is every relative on the side of the husband, brother, father or uncle; as for the husband's mother, she is called mother-in-law (hama), and there is no other usage. By "the brother-in-law is death" he meant that the brother-in-law's seclusion with his brother's wife or his nephew's wife is like death in terms of the disliked seclusion; thus the Arabs describe a thing they dislike, as in al-Farazdaq's words to Jarir: "I am the death that strikes your own self: see how you mean to face it." Tha'lab said: I asked Ibn al-A'rabi about this saying "the brother-in-law is death"; he answered: it is an Arab proverb, like "the lion is death", meaning meeting him is death, and "the ruler is fire", meaning like fire: beware of it as you beware of death. Abu Ubayd said its meaning is "let him die rather than do it", which is far-fetched; the correct sense is that of Ibn al-A'rabi. To this belongs Allah's saying "and death will come to him from every quarter, yet he will not die" (Surah Ibrahim, 17), that is, like death in severity and dislike, for had it meant death itself, he would already be dead (Sharh Sahih al-Bukhari of Ibn Battal 7/359).
Al-Nawawi, may Allah have mercy on him, said: in this hadith and those after it there is the prohibition of seclusion with a non-mahram woman and the permissibility of seclusion with her mahrams; two matters agreed upon by consensus (Sharh Sahih Muslim 14/153). Al-Nawawi said further: the Prophet's words, peace be upon him, "except with a mahram" form a broken exception, for as soon as a mahram is present, seclusion no longer exists; the meaning of the hadith is therefore that a man must not sit with a woman unless a mahram is present. The phrase "a mahram" can mean a mahram of hers or a mahram of him, and this second sense is the one applied by the jurists' rules: there is no difference between a mahram of hers, like her son, her brother, her mother, her sister, and a mahram of him, like his sister, his daughter, his paternal or maternal aunt; sitting is permitted in all these cases. The hadith also applies to the husband, who is like a mahram and more fitting for permission; as for the stranger man in seclusion with the stranger woman without a third, it is forbidden by the scholars' agreement. Likewise if with them is someone before whom one need not be shy because of his young age, like a child of two or three years: his presence is like absence. Likewise if several men are in seclusion with a stranger woman: it is forbidden, unlike a man with several stranger women, which is permitted according to the sound view (Sharh Sahih Muslim 9/109).
It is said in al-Majmu': know that the mahram in whose presence sitting with the stranger woman is permitted must be someone before whom one is shy; if he is too small for that, like a child of two or three years, his presence is like absence, without disagreement. There is no difference in the prohibition of seclusion between prayer and other things, as preceded; and the blind and the seeing are equal in it. Excepted from all this are the places of necessity: if one finds a stranger woman cut off in the wilderness or the like, accompanying her is permitted, indeed obligatory upon him if he fears for her if he leaves her; there is no disagreement on this, and Aisha's hadith, may Allah be pleased with her, in the affair of the lie (al-ifk) proves it. The mahram whose presence permits sitting is either his mahram or hers, and by extension her husband and his wife (al-Majmu' 4/242).
Imam Zayn al-Din al-Iraqi, may Allah have mercy on him, said: the meaning of the prohibition of seclusion with a non-mahram woman is that it is the likely place of falling into immorality through Satan's prompting. At-Tirmidhi reported from Jabir, raised to the Prophet, peace be upon him: "Do not enter by night upon those whose husbands are absent, for Satan runs in one of you as blood runs." An-Nasa'i reported from Umar, may Allah be pleased with him, raised to the Prophet, peace be upon him: "Let no man be in seclusion with a woman, for Satan is their third." Al-Nawawi and others reported the consensus on the prohibition of seclusion with the non-mahram woman and its permissibility with the mahrams (Tarh al-Tathrib 7/39).
The Shafi'is in the famous view among them and the Hanbalis in the madhhab hold that it is not permitted for two men or more to be in seclusion with a stranger woman, based on what Muslim reported from Abdillah ibn Amr ibn al-As, may Allah be pleased with them both: a group of Banu Hashim entered upon Asma bint Umays while Abu Bakr al-Siddiq was married to her that day; he saw them and disliked it. He mentioned it to the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, who said: I see only good. The Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, then stood on the pulpit and said:
"Let no man enter, after this day of mine, upon a woman whose husband is absent, unless with him is one man or two."Narrated by Muslim (2173)
Al-Nawawi, may Allah have mercy on him, said: al-mughiba, with damma of the mim and kasra of the ghayn, is the woman whose husband is absent from her home, whether he is absent from the town travelling, or only from the home while in the town, as the qadi said; and this is apparent and binding. The qadi said: its proof is this hadith, for Abu Bakr, may Allah be pleased with him, was absent from his home, not from the town (Sharh Sahih Muslim 14/155). The apparent meaning of the hadith is the permissibility for two or three men of being in seclusion with a stranger woman; the famous view of our companions is the prohibition; the hadith is therefore interpreted as referring to a group in whom collusion on immorality is improbable, on account of their uprightness, their honour or the like, and the qadi alluded to such an interpretation.
Imam Ibn Muflih, may Allah have mercy on him, said: stranger men must not be in seclusion with a stranger woman; a view can be made, based on what Ahmad and Muslim reported from Abdillah ibn Umar: the story of the Banu Hashim who entered upon Asma bint Umays, to whom Abu Bakr was married that day; he saw them, mentioned it to the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, who said: I see only good. Allah has declared them innocent of it; then the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, stood on the pulpit and said: "Let no man enter, after this day of mine, upon a woman whose husband is absent, unless with him is one man or two." Some Malikis and Shafi'is interpreted it as referring to a group in whom collusion on immorality is improbable.
The qadi said: the man known for immorality is prevented from seclusion with a stranger woman; the most famous view is the absolute prohibition, mentioned by a group. Ibn Aqil said: even to dispel a doubt that seized her or for treatment. In the rules of 'Uyun al-Masa'il: a man must not be in seclusion with a woman who is not his mahram, otherwise Satan is their third, even if she is an old deformed woman, as the hadith reported (al-Furu' 5/426). Al-Mirdawi, may Allah have mercy on him, said: stranger men must not be in seclusion with a stranger woman; in al-Furu': a view can be made, based on the story of Abu Bakr, may Allah be pleased with him, with his wife Asma bint Umays (al-Insaf 9/314).
The jurists differed over the seclusion of a man with several stranger women. The Hanafis and a Shafi'i opinion hold that it is not permitted: the Hanafis say that seclusion with the stranger woman is forbidden for fear of fitna and of falling into the unlawful, even with other women present. Al-Kasani, may Allah have mercy on him, said: for this reason seclusion with the stranger woman is forbidden even with another woman present (Bada'i' al-Sana'i' 2/123). Al-Zayla'i, may Allah have mercy on him, said the like (Tabyin al-Haqa'iq 2/5; see: Bada'i' al-Sana'i' 5/125, al-Hidaya 1/135, al-Bahr al-Ra'iq 2/339).
Ibn Abidin, may Allah have mercy on him, said: the words of al-Qunya "without a mahram between them" indicate that with a mahram there is no seclusion; it follows that the forbidden seclusion is removed by an intervening party, by the presence of a mahram or of a trustworthy, capable woman. Is it also removed by the presence of another stranger man? I have seen nothing on it. But in Imadat al-Bahr, from al-Isbijabi: it is disliked for women to be led in prayer in a house with no man and no mahram among them, like his wife, his slave woman or his sister; if there is only one of them, it is not disliked, and likewise if he leads them in the mosque. The general use of the word mahram for all those mentioned is by preponderance; the cause of the dislike is seclusion, and its import is that it is removed by the presence of another man, but it also indicates that it is not removed by the presence of another woman, contradicting what preceded about the trustworthy woman.
I then read in Munyat al-Mufti this text: seclusion with the stranger woman is disliked even with another present, with a dislike of prohibitive degree. It appears to me that the trustworthy woman means an old woman with whom one does not normally marry, and who is able to defend herself and the new bride: let this be pondered (Hashiyat Ibn Abidin 6/368, 369). The Shafi'is in the famous view hold that a man may be in seclusion with several stranger women even without a mahram among them.
Al-Nawawi, may Allah have mercy on him, said: Imam al-Haramayn said: none of our companions required that a mahram or a husband be with each of them. Al-Qaffal meant by his words the ruling of seclusion: just as it is forbidden for a man to be in seclusion with one woman, it is forbidden for him to be in seclusion with several women; and if a man is in seclusion with several women while he is a mahram to one of them, it is permitted; likewise if a woman is in seclusion with several men and one of them is her mahram. Al-Shafi'i explicitly stated that a man may not lead women alone in prayer unless one of them is his mahram: this is the text cited by Imam al-Haramayn. The author of al-'Udda reported from al-Qaffal about seclusion the same thing word for word, citing al-Shafi'i's text on the prohibition of seclusion with women alone. The famous view is the permissibility of a man's seclusion with women with no mahram among them, for the absence of corruption in general, for women are shy before one another in this (al-Majmu' 7/56).
Shaykh al-Islam Zakariyya al-Ansari, may Allah have mercy on him, said: a stranger man may be in seclusion with two women, and not the reverse: two stranger men must not be in seclusion with a woman, even after agreeing upon immorality, as al-Nawawi explicitly stated in his Majmu'. But in the Sharh of Muslim he interpreted "let no man enter upon a woman whose husband is absent, unless with him is one man or two" as referring to a group in whom collusion on immorality is improbable, on account of uprightness or honour. Al-Zarkashi said: interpretation departs here from the chosen view, and he reported it as an opinion in al-Majmu' in the chapter on the qualities of imams (Asna al-Matalib 3/407).
The Hanbalis say: it is disliked for a man to lead a stranger woman, or more, in prayer with no man among them, for the Prophet, peace be upon him, forbade the seclusion of a man with a woman, and because of the mixing with the whisperer; but if it involves seclusion, it is forbidden. If he leads his mahrams or stranger women with a man or her mahram present, there is no dislike, for the women used to attend the prayer with the Prophet, peace be upon him (al-Mughni 2/16, Sharh Muntaha al-Iradat 1/570). There is no disagreement among the jurists: seclusion with a stranger woman is permitted in case of necessity.
Al-Nawawi, may Allah have mercy on him, said: excepted from this prohibition are the places of necessity, such as finding a stranger woman cut off in the wilderness or the like: accompanying her is then permitted, indeed obligatory upon him if he fears for her if he leaves her; there is no disagreement on this, and Aisha's hadith, may Allah be pleased with her, in the affair of the lie proves it (al-Majmu' 4/242). Al-Tabari, may Allah have mercy on him, said: a man must not be in seclusion with a woman who is not his mahram, travelling or resident, except in a situation where he has no alternative to seclusion with her, such as seclusion with his wife's slave girl who serves him during his wife's absence; al-Thawri granted license in that (Sharh Sahih al-Bukhari of Ibn Battal 7/358).
Imam al-Bukhari, may Allah have mercy on him, gave a chapter the title: "what permits a man to be in seclusion with a woman among people", and reported in it hadith 4936, from Hisham: I heard Anas ibn Malik, may Allah be pleased with him, say:
"A woman of the Ansar came to the Prophet, peace be upon him, and he was in seclusion with her; he said: by Allah, you are the people dearest to my heart."Narrated by Bukhari (4936)
Ibn Battal, may Allah have mercy on him, said: al-Muhallab said: the legal benefit of this hadith is that there is no harm for the scholar, or the man known for uprightness, in being in seclusion with a woman apart from people, so that she confides her questions to him and asks him about the inner matters of her religion and other affairs. If it is said: the hadith does not mention that he was in seclusion with her among people, as the title indicates; it is answered: Anas's words "he was in seclusion with her" indicate that he was with the people and withdrew with her to a side, at the very least with Anas, the narrator of the story, present. And "he was in seclusion with her" did not mean that he passed out of their sight, but that he was alone with her where those who heard her complaint did not hear it: did they not hear his words to her: "you are the people dearest to my heart", meaning the Ansar, the woman's people (Sharh Sahih al-Bukhari of Ibn Battal 7/360, 361)?
Al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar, may Allah have mercy on him, said: his title means that the man does not seclude with her so that their two persons are hidden from the people, but where they do not hear their conversation if there is something to be kept, like what the woman is shy to mention among people. The author took the expression "among people" in the title from one of the chains of the hadith: "he was in seclusion with her in one of the paths", that is, the frequented roads that people usually travel. "From Hisham": he is Ibn Zayd ibn Anas, already mentioned in the merits of the Ansar through the chain of Bahz ibn Asad, from Shu'ba; and this occurs also in Muslim's narration. In Bahz ibn Asad's narration are added the words: "and with her was her little boy, and the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, spoke with her"; and "the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, was in seclusion with her" means in one of the paths.
Al-Muhallab said: Anas did not mean that he secluded himself out of the sight of those who were with him, but that he was alone with her where those present heard neither her complaint nor the conversation that took place between them; this is why Anas heard the end of the words and transmitted them, without transmitting the conversation, because he had not heard it. In Muslim, through the chain of Hammad ibn Salama, from Thabit, from Anas: "a woman whose mind was affected said: O Messenger of Allah, I have a need of you; he said: O mother of so-and-so, take whichever path you wish and I shall fulfil your need." Abu Dawud reported a similar wording through the chain of Humayd, from Anas, without the mention of her affected mind.
As for his words: "by Allah, you are the people dearest to my heart", Bahz's narration adds: "twice", and Wahb ibn Jarir reports it, in the chapters on oaths and vows, with the words: "three times". The hadith contains a merit for the Ansar, the breadth of the Prophet's clemency, peace be upon him, his humility and his patience in fulfilling the needs of the small and the great; and the fact that private conversation with a stranger woman, in secret, does not harm the religion when fitna is safe. But the matter is as Aisha said: "Which of you can control his instinct as the Prophet, peace be upon him, controlled his?" (Fath al-Bari 9/333).