and the third is that one may look at her entirely, both the private and non-private parts, for it is explicitly stated that it is permissible to look at her when she is uncovered!" I said: The second narration is closer to the apparent meaning of the ḥadīth and the application of the Companions, and Allāh knows best. Ibn Qudāmah said in "al-Mughnī" (7/454): "The reasoning for the permissibility of looking at what is usually visible is that the Prophet (ṣallá Allāhu ʿalayhi wa-sallam) allowed looking at her without her knowledge. It is understood that he permitted looking at all that is usually visible, as it is not possible to single out the face for looking while other parts share in being visible. And because it is usually visible, it is permissible to look at it like the face. And because she is a woman whom he is permitted to look at by the command of the Lawgiver, it is permissible to look at her in that way as with female relatives." Then I came across the book "Refutations of Falsehoods" by the esteemed Sheikh Muḥammad al-Ḥāmid, where he says (p. 43): "The opinion that it is permissible to look at more than the face and hands of the betrothed is invalid and unacceptable." This is an extreme boldness from someone like him, which I did not expect to issue from him, as the matter is a subject of disagreement as previously explained. It is not permissible to assert the invalidity of the opposing opinion to his school of thought except by responding to its evidence and proof, such as these ḥadīths. He did not do any of that; rather, he did not even make the slightest reference to the ḥadīths, misleading the readers into thinking that there is no evidence for this opinion at all. The reality is otherwise, as you see, for these ḥadīths in their generality indicate the opposite of what his eminence stated. How can it not be when it contradicts the specific statement of the Prophet (ṣallá Allāhu ʿalayhi wa-sallam) in ḥadīth (99): "what invites him to marry her," for every person of understanding..