“Scholars who say it isn’t obligatory are against niqab”
Seven contemporary scholars are named here who hold it non-obligatory. Most are also recorded commending the practice, though not all, and the exception matters. Holding something non-obligatory is not the same as opposing it.
The argument runs in both directions and is wrong in both. Supporters cite the non-obligation view as evidence that a scholar opposes niqab; opponents cite it as evidence that the practice has no standing.
The list below makes the mistake visible.
Seven who hold it non-obligatory — and what each also says
Saʿīd Ḥawwā: non-obligation is a concession; covering the face is the ʿazīmah, the fuller course.
ʿAlī al-Ṭanṭāwī — the face is not ʿawrah, but not exposing it is more complete and preferable; a woman already wearing niqab does best to continue.
Nāṣir al-Dīn al-Albānī: covering is encouraged, and may become obligatory in particular circumstances, especially where the face or hands are adorned.
Wahbah al-Zuḥaylī — not obligatory; permitted or encouraged in conditions of fitnah; done out of scrupulousness and caution, it earns reward, with local custom taken into account.
Yūsuf al-Qaraḍāwī: permissible in principle rather than obligatory or recommended, but encouraged in specific situations, such as where a woman's beauty may attract attention, provided it causes no hardship.
ʿAlī Jumʿah — and here the pattern breaks. He holds the correct view to be the majority's, that uncovering the face and hands is permissible, and that this is what is practised and given as fatwa in Egypt. Societies whose culture suits the Ḥanbalī position may follow it, but he is explicit that for them face covering is ʿurf and culture and has no connection to their religion. He adds that if niqab is made a mark of division or a religious banner, it moves from recommended or permissible to bidʿah.
That is not a scholar commending the practice.
Maʾmūn Ḥammūsh: the face is not an ʿawrah that must be covered, but in present conditions he holds covering preferable.
The distinction that gets lost
Six of the seven treat the practice as good, preferable, encouraged, or in certain conditions required. Their positions range across a spectrum, not a camp, and none of them is a scholar opposing niqab.
The seventh is different, and saying so is the point. ʿAlī Jumʿah treats it as culture rather than religion. Flattening him into the same group to make a neater argument would be the exact error this page exists to correct.
Nor should the others be treated as saying the same thing — each of the seven is quoted separately, and their rulings and their reasons differ from one another.
Why this matters to how this site is read
It is also the reason this site does not adjudicate the obligation question. The disagreement runs between scholars who all regard the practice as legitimate. A page that resolved it would be taking a side in an argument this site deliberately declines to enter.
Check your understanding
The note lists seven contemporary scholars who hold niqab non-obligatory. What does it conclude about most of them?