What is the response to the claims of those who attack the niqab, saying that it is not from the religion but rather a custom, and that Allah did not command it, and if it were so, He would have commanded its removal in the Haram, and that if it were a religious obligation, Allah would not have commanded men to lower their gaze, and that Imam Malik issued a fatwa that the niqab is not from the custom of the people of Egypt and therefore is not a religious obligation?

We are surprised by the attack on the woman's niqab and the call to uncover her face in these times when religious commitment has weakened. We ask about the advantages gained and the harms resulting from this. The argument that the niqab is not part of religion, based on the fact that a woman in ihram uncovers her face or on the command to lower the gaze, is a weak argument. A woman in ihram is forbidden from wearing a niqab, not from covering her face, and covering her face may become obligatory for her without a niqab. Even if we assume that covering the face is forbidden for a woman in ihram, this does not mean that covering the face is not part of religion, for legislation may forbid something at one time and obligate it at another. As for the argument based on lowering the gaze, it is also weak, because looking at a woman, even if she is covered, may arouse desires, and one's gaze may fall on something uncovered unintentionally. As for attributing the fatwa to Imam Malik permitting the uncovering of the face, it pertains to rulings based on changing customs, whereas Shar'i rulings like hijab do not change with the change of time and place. No one denies the existence of disagreement on this issue, and whoever issues a fatwa permitting the uncovering of the face, following those who permit it, is not to be denounced. There is no scholar among the Ummah's scholars who says that covering the face is not part of religion; those who permit the uncovering of the face qualify it with the condition of not fearing fitna (temptation).