Covering Hair
Your question is valid, but it comes from assuming that hair = zeenat in every situation, which is where the confusion starts. In Ghamidi Sahab’s framework, zeenat (adornment) does not mean every form of natural beauty by default. It mainly refers to beauty that is enhanced, displayed, or intentionally presented — not just something that exists naturally. So yes, hair can be part of zeenat, but not in an absolute sense. It depends on how it is being presented. For example: Naturally having hair is not the same as styling it, decorating it, or presenting it in a beautified way Similarly, the face is also naturally beautiful, but it is still exempt — which shows that not all natural beauty is treated as zeenat that must be covered So the principle is not: → “anything attractive must always be covered” Rather it is: → “beauty that is being displayed or enhanced in a way that draws attention falls under zeenat” That’s why Ghamidi Sahab limits the obligation specifically to situations of adornment, not all times. Hair is not treated as absolute zeenat in every state. The ruling is tied to presentation and context, not just existence If someone argues that hair must always be covered simply because it is attractive, then by the same logic: the face would also need to be covered, and that contradicts the clear exception given So h air can be part of zeenat when it is intentionally beautified or displayed → But it is not automatically treated as zeenat in every situation→ Therefore, covering it is not made universally obligatory in all contexts The ruling is not based on “what is naturally attractive,” but on “what is being consciously presented as adornment.”