This is a question that is currently being asked frequently due to the widespread availability and relative affordability of these methods, and the increased need for it by most women, which can be considered in Islamic terminology as “general affliction with the problem.” I will organize the answer in points without going into detail about the evidence, as we are dealing with a fatwa and not a research topic.
Firstly, the ‘awrah (private parts) of a Muslim woman with a foreign man:
A foreign man refers to any man whom it is not permissible for a woman to marry, either permanently or temporarily. This includes both Muslim and non-Muslim men. Scholars have differed in their opinions regarding the ‘awrah of a woman in the presence of such a man:
• The majority of the scholars of the different schools of Islamic jurisprudence hold the view that the ‘awrah (private parts) of a woman includes all parts of her body except for her face and hands. The Hanafi scholars added the feet to this, while Abu Yusuf added the forearms as they are often exposed in certain professions. This is the view that we choose and give fatwa based on in general.
• Some scholars of the different schools of Islamic jurisprudence, as well as some Hanbalis, hold the view that the ‘awrah (private parts) of a Muslim woman in the presence of foreign men includes the entire body, and nothing should be exposed to them except for what is necessary.
• The scholars exempted from the majority the extremely beautiful woman who is considered likely to cause temptation (fitnah) and obliged her to cover her face as well, not as an obligation, but as a means of blocking the means (sadd adh-dhara’i).
• The Hanbalis and those who agree with them made an exception for an elderly woman who is not attractive and allowed her to remove some of her clothing for the sake of comfort and protection from temptation (fitnah).
Secondly, the ‘awrah of a Muslim woman in the presence of other Muslim women: Scholars have also differed on this issue, and we can summarize their opinions as follows:
• The majority of scholars, which is the predominant view among the Hanafis and the well-known view among the Malikis and the relied-upon view among the Shafi’is, and also the view of the Hanbalis, is that the ‘awrah of a Muslim woman in the presence of other Muslim women is from the navel to the knees, similar to the ‘awrah of a man in the presence of other men, according to the most popular opinion.
Therefore, a Muslim woman is allowed to show her hair, hands, legs, and breasts to her sisters in faith. Imam Al-Kasani, one of the Hanafi scholars, said: “Whatever is permissible for a man to see from another man, it is permissible for a woman to see from another woman… Therefore, a woman can look at the rest of her body except for what is between the navel and the knees.” (Bada’i Al-Sana’i).
– Imam Al-Hattab Al-Ra’ini, a Maliki scholar, said: “As for the ruling regarding a Muslim woman’s ‘awrah in the presence of other Muslim women, the well-known opinion is that it is like the ruling for a man in the presence of another man.” (Mawahib Al-Jaleel).
– Al-Khatib Al-Shirbini, a Shafi’i scholar, said: “A woman’s ‘awrah in the presence of another woman is like a man’s ‘awrah in the presence of another man… It is permissible to look at what is between the navel and the knees with safety and security, and it is forbidden with desire and fear of temptation.” (Mughni Al-Muhtaj).
– Imam Al-Mardawi, a Hanbali scholar, said: “For a woman in the presence of another woman or a man in the presence of another man, it is permissible to look at what is between the navel and the knees.” (Al-Insaaf).
• As for the second opinion, which is attributed to Imam Abu Hanifa and is a marjooh opinion (what is outweighed by another) within the school of law: a Muslim woman’s ‘awrah in the presence of other Muslim women is similar to her ‘awrah in the presence of her male relatives (mahram), and only her face, hands, feet, head, chest, shins, and forearms can be shown. However, her stomach, back, and thighs should not be exposed.
• The third opinion, which is the view of the Hanbalis according to one narration and Ibn Hazm, is that the ‘awrah of a Muslim woman in the presence of other Muslim women is only the essential ‘awrah, which is the front and back private parts, based on their analogy (qiyas) to the ‘awrah of a man in the presence of another man according to their school of thought.
Thirdly, the ‘awrah of a Muslim woman in the presence of non-Muslim women:
Scholars of the different schools of Islamic jurisprudence have also differed on this issue, and their detailed opinions are as follows:
• The Hanafi and Maliki schools of law, and the more correct opinion according to the Shafi’i school of law, as well as one narration among the Hanbalis, is that the ‘awrah of a Muslim woman in the presence of non-Muslim women is the same as her ‘awrah in front of strange men, as we previously mentioned in detail. Therefore, a non-Muslim woman is only allowed to see her face, hands, and feet according to the Hanafi school of thought, and only her face and hands according to the other schools.
– Imam Ibn Abidin, one of our scholars, said: “It is not permissible for a Muslim woman to expose herself in front of a non-Muslim woman.” (Hashiyat Ibn Abidin)
– Al-Adawi, a Maliki scholar, said: “The conclusion is that the ‘awrah of a free Muslim woman in the presence of a non-Muslim woman who is not her slave-girl is her entire body except for her face and hands.” (Hashiyat Al-Adawi)
– Al-Ramli, a Shafi’i scholar, said: “The most correct opinion is that it is forbidden for a non-Muslim woman, whether she is a dhimmi (protected non-Muslim) or not, to look at a Muslim woman, and thus the Muslim woman must cover herself from her.”
• The second opinion is that the ‘awrah of a Muslim woman in the presence of a non-Muslim woman is the same as her ‘awrah in front of a Muslim woman, and it is permissible for the non-Muslim woman to see all of her body except for what is between the navel and the knees. This is the view of the Hanbali school of law, and Al-Fakhr Al-Razi mentioned that it is also the opinion of the Shafi’i school of law.
– Al-Mardawi said: “As for a non-Muslim woman in the presence of a Muslim woman, the correct opinion according to the school of law is that her ruling is the same as that of a Muslim woman in the presence of another Muslim woman.” (Al-Insaaf).
• The third opinion is based on the qiyas of Imam Ahmad’s view, as mentioned by Ibn Qudamah, which states that the ‘awrah of a Muslim woman in the presence of a non-Muslim woman is only the essential ‘awrah, which is the front and back private parts, based on their qiyas to the ‘awrah of a man in the presence of another man according to his school of thought.
• Ibn Qudamah said: “Some people have held the view that a Muslim woman does not have to wear her veil in front of Jewish or Christian women, but I believe that she should not expose her private parts and should cover herself when she gives birth.” (Al-Mughni)
From what we have mentioned above, we can conclude the following:
The Hanbali school of law, along with the Zahiri school, are among the schools that are lenient in defining the ‘awrah of a Muslim woman in the presence of other women, and they consider the essential ‘awrah to be only the front and back private parts. However, the majority of scholars are more cautious about this, especially in the presence of non-Muslim women. Each school of law has its evidence, but we believe that the Hanbali school of law is more realistic and closer to the spirit of the texts, and it makes things easier for Muslim women in many aspects.
The second issue that we will discuss before reaching a conclusion is the matter of dividing people’s needs into three categories, and I say: the demands of people, according to the division of Islamic law, can be divided into:
1- Necessities: which are essential for life and cannot be lived without, such as a person who is forced to eat something forbidden (like carrion) because they cannot find anything else to eat. In this case, if they reach the point of necessity, then it is permissible for them to consume what is normally prohibited.
2- Needs: which are not essential for life, but their absence would cause the person great hardship, such as the need for a car to commute to work or the need for shelter.
3- Luxuries: which are not necessary for life and can be lived without. If they are lost, the person’s life is not affected. Examples of these include buying entertainment equipment, upgrading a car, or renovating a home.
This is a general principle that is agreed upon, but what we must clarify is that the dividing line between these categories overlaps and varies depending on the individual’s circumstances. What may have been a luxury in the past may now be a need, and an example of this is internet service. If we consider it in isolation, it can be seen as a luxury because human life does not depend on it, and many people would not be greatly inconvenienced if they lost it. However, for others, it has become a necessity because their work and communication with others depend on it, such as those who work in jobs that require constant communication. Additionally, the internet has become a means of da’wah and disseminating knowledge, so it has moved from the category of luxury to the category of need, and in some cases, it may even be considered a necessity.
If we apply this to the subject of the question, we find that removing excess hair, which is recommended or even permissible, may seem like a luxury in many cases, but with some considerations, it may become a need. These considerations include:
• Removing hair for the sake of beautifying oneself for one’s spouse.
• Excessive hair growth that is exhausting and unattractive.
• Hair appearing in places that women usually avoid.
• Embarrassment and difficulty in removing hair through regular methods, such as shaving, which can lead to wounds, sores, infections, and skin discoloration.
These and similar factors can elevate the act of hair removal from a luxury to a necessity. Moreover, if the need becomes urgent, scholars may consider it a necessity according to Islamic law.
If we consider everything mentioned above, we find that the permissibility of removing a woman’s body hair, as allowed by Islamic law, varies according to its location and details as follows:
1- Hair in a non-‘awrah area, such as the face and hands, can be removed, and Muslim and non-Muslim women of trustworthiness can be sought to assist in this. However, it is not permissible to seek the help of a man because even though looking at non-‘awrah areas is permissible for him, touching is not.
2- Hair in an area where scholars have differed on whether it is considered ‘awrah or not, which includes the entire body of a woman except for the intimate parts (the genitalia and anus). Some scholars consider only the intimate parts as ‘awrah, so according to their opinion, it is permissible to remove body hair except for the intimate parts with the help of a Muslim or non-Muslim woman of trustworthiness. Other scholars also permit it if there is a necessity or need that requires it, such as needing to remove hair for medical treatment or similar reasons, under the same conditions mentioned above.
3- As for the area of the pubic region, the majority of scholars prohibit exposing the area for hair removal because there is no need for it. This is the opinion of most jurists.
What we see is that it may also be permissible if there is a need for it, such as if a man or woman has thick hair that is difficult to be removed by ordinary means, or if hair removal causes severe pain, diseases, sores, or if they are unable to remove it themselves. This view is not an innovation, as some Hanbali scholars have also accepted it. Ibn Muflih in his book “Al-Furu'” mentioned it and listed one of the reasons that allow exposing the ‘awrah is: shaving the pubic area for those who cannot do it themselves. Some Shafi’i scholars also referred to this view. Al-Shirbini al-Khatib mentioned in his book “Mughni al-Muhtaj” that “what was mentioned previously about the prohibition of looking at and touching the ‘awrah is only applicable where there is no need for it. However, in cases of necessity, looking at and touching are permitted, even in the pubic area, for urgent need, because otherwise there would be distress in the prohibition.”
The truth is that we can measure this based on what usually happens in gynecology clinics. In most cases, the examiner needs to see the ‘awrah area, even though the disease is only suspected. This is also the case with prostate exams, which involve inserting a finger into the anus, even though the disease is only suspected. In many cases, there is no disease, but it is a matter of preventative measures. The same goes for regular check-ups for pregnant women, which often include checking the ‘awrah area, even though there is no apparent illness, but it is a matter of following up. There are other similar issues where there is no apparent necessity or need.
Therefore, I would say to the questioner that what they asked about is permissible under the following conditions:
1- The person who performs the hair removal should be a trustworthy woman, as the difference lies in women and not men, and the ‘awrah areas are not the same. As Al-‘Izz bin ‘Abd al-Salam said in his book “Qawaid al-Ahkam fi Masalih al-Anam”, looking at something by a man is not the same as looking at it by a woman, and looking at a leg is not the same as looking at the pubic region.
2- There should be no safe alternative.
3- Only what is allowed by Islamic law should be removed by this means. Therefore, hair should not be removed from the head or eyebrows altogether, leaving nothing behind. However, removing some or using it for shaping (tweezing) is permissible, and the evidence for prohibition does not apply to it. And Allah knows best.
Fatwa by Dr. Khālid Naṣr