Were they commanded to wear the veil, to cover the face, or to do other things regarding modesty? The Qur'an did not explain any of that, and there is nothing i

In fact, the apparent meaning of the surah indicates that Yusuf was living in a society that was different from the religion of the prophets. Therefore, he said: "And I have followed the religion of my fathers, Ibrahim, Ishaq, and Ya'qub. It was not for us to associate anything with Allah." [Surah Yusuf, 12:38]. And he said after that: "O my two companions of the prison, are separate lords better or Allah, the One, the Subduer? You do not worship besides Him except names which you have named, you and your fathers, for which Allah has sent down no authority. The command is only for Allah. He has commanded that you worship none but Him. That is the straight religion, but most people do not know." [Surah Yusuf, 12:39-40]. These verses clearly show that Yusuf was calling a people among whom polytheism was prevalent to worship Allah alone, and was explaining to them the corruption of what they were doing in worshipping others besides Allah. Allah also said: "He could not take his brother according to the king's law, unless Allah willed." [Surah Yusuf, 12:76]. Sheikh Abdurrahman as-Sa'di (may Allah have mercy on him) said: "Because it was not part of his religion to take possession of the thief. They had a different punishment for him. So if the matter was referred to the king's law, Yusuf could not have kept his brother with him. But he made the ruling according to their system to accomplish what he wanted." [Taysir al-Karim ar-Rahman, Tafsir of Surah Yusuf, verse 76]. These verses indicate that the society in which Yusuf lived was not based on Allah's law. As for the rulings regarding women in Yusuf's law concerning the veil and modesty, revelation is silent about them. So it is not permissible to build an argument on an unknown matter. If someone says: If Yusuf was given such great beauty, why was he not commanded to cover his face by analogy with women? The answer is that this is exactly the kind of reasoning that scholars have shown to be invalid. Sheikh Muhammad Nasir ad-Din al-Albani (may Allah have mercy on him) said: "...And they were told, by way of counter-argument: The most handsome part of a man, in relation to a woman, is his face. So command men also, with your philosophy, to cover their faces in front of women, especially those who are exceptionally beautiful. As mentioned in the biography of Abu al-Hasan al-Wa'iz, known as 'al-Misri': 'He had a gathering where he would speak and give sermons. Men and women would attend his sermons. He used to put a face veil over his face, fearing that women would be tempted by his handsome face.' (Tarikh Baghdad, 12/75-76)." [Ar-Radd al-Mufham, p. 12]. This question is based on a philosophy that al-Albani showed to be flawed. If this analogy were correct, it would have to be applied to all men, because the assessment of beauty differs according to individuals, times, and tastes, and cannot be regulated by a legal standard. No scholar has ever said this. Al-Hafidh Ibn Hajar (may Allah have mercy on him) clearly stated this, saying: "Men were never commanded to wear the veil so that women would not see them." [Fath al-Bari, 9/337]. This clearly shows that Islamic law made a distinction between men and women in this matter, and that this distinction is an intended legislation. It is not permissible to cancel it by mere analogy or personal preference. This does not mean that Islamic law ignored the temptation of women by men. In fact, it deals with it if it occurs in a particular individual, without making it a general legislation for all men. This happened in the story of Nasr ibn Hajjaj. Sheikh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him) said: "Even more than that is that 'Umar ibn al-Khattab exiled a man about whom women spoke and desired, namely Nasr ibn Hajjaj. He heard a woman speaking about him and desiring him, and saw that this was a cause of temptation. So he cut his hair, thinking that the cause of temptation might be removed. But he saw that he had the most beautiful cheeks, so he sent him to Basra. Then he sent word asking to return to his homeland and saying he had no sin, but 'Umar refused, saying: 'As long as I am alive, no.' This is because when a woman is commanded to cover herself, to avoid displaying her beauty, and to do other things that are causes of temptation for her and through her, then if there is a man who has become a temptation for women, he is also commanded to remove the cause of temptation, either by changing his appearance or by moving away from the place where the temptation occurs. This is because by doing so, he protects his religion and protects the religion of women." [Al-Istiqamah, 1/362]. This is a specific treatment for a specific situation, not a general legislation for all men. This is unlike the veil, which Allah legislated for all women. It confirms that Islamic law considered the temptation of women by men, but dealt with it in a way that suits it, just as it considered the temptation of men by women and legislated general rulings for them that achieve the Lawgiver's aim of preserving honour and blocking the means to corruption. An important methodological point is that, in what I have seen of the interpretations of the early scholars, I have not come across any of the great commentators, such as at-Tabari, Ibn Abi Hatim, al-Baghawi, Ibn 'Atiyyah, al-Qurtubi, and Ibn Kathir, who addressed this point when interpreting the verses of Yusuf or the verses of the veil. Nor did they make a comparison between the two places. If this were a correct way of reasoning or a valid method of deriving rulings, the early commentators would have preceded us in explaining it. They would not have missed such a meaning, given their great concern for addressing the questions and objections that arise regarding the verses. Thus, it becomes clear that using the story of Yusuf to raise this question is not valid for opposing the legislation of the veil. Because it combines opposing clear texts with a flawed analogy, building that on unsupported assumptions, and using a narrative story that is not a source of legislation, while ignoring the distinctions that the Lawgiver made between men and women. Moreover, the texts themselves show that the Lawgiver considered, in this matter, causes of temptation that are broader than mere beauty. He even forbade the woman from making the sound of her covered adornment heard. This indicates that the basis of the legislation is not merely physical beauty, but rather what Allah knows about the strength of men's attraction to women and the resulting harms. If this were a correct way of reasoning or a valid method of deriving rulings, the early commentators would have preceded us in explaining it, as far as we know. But it appears to be based on a kind of reasoning that is not found in the sayings of the early scholars or in the interpretations of the predecessors. The story of Yusuf is a report of an event, not a general legislation. So it is not permissible to use it to oppose the clear texts regarding the rulings of the veil, nor to deviate from the rulings established by explicit revelation. Allah knows best about what He created, and He is the Most Subtle, the All-Aware. And Allah knows best. May peace and blessings be upon our Prophet Muhammad, and upon his family and all his companions. Abu 'Atiyyah Al Husayn 9 Safar 1448 AH. Source: https://t.me/madrasatunaa/504