Some jurists have said that if the hair that is attached is from another woman’s hair, it is obligatory to cover it and it is forbidden to look at it, but if it is from a man’s hair or animal hair or synthetic fibers, it is not forbidden. I have not come across anyone who believes in this, but it has been mentioned in various jurisprudential books and in most cases, it has been denied.

Note: One of the ways to portray Muslim women who play the role of women without a veil has been to use wigs. Of course, using wigs is not specific to this case and there are various motives for portraying women with wigs; Motives such as beauty, showing lack of commitment to religion, showing a non-Muslim lady, etc. Here the question arises whether it is permissible for women to wear a wig while they are in the sight of non-mahram men? In this report, Hujjat lslam Muh. Sadiq lbrahimi, a doctoral student at Jami’at al-Mustafa, has examined the opinions of jurists on this issue.

By following the fatwas of jurists, it is found that they have different opinions regarding the use of a wig by a Muslim woman in front of a non-mahram; with the difference that some jurists have said absolutely that a wig is an adornment and therefore it is forbidden, and some others have said that if it is an adornment, it is forbidden. Of course, some jurists have also said that a wig is an external adornment and therefore its use is not forbidden.

The late Sayyid Yazdi, in his Urwat al-Wuthqa, raised this issue and issued the following fatwa: “Apparently, covering the hair that is attached to a woman’s hair is obligatory and looking at it is forbidden, whether it is a woman’s or a man’s hair. However, the obligation to cover and the prohibition of looking at a wig made of anything other than hair, as well as jewelry, if the skin of the body is not exposed, is questionable, although caution dictates that they be covered.” [1]

The late Sayyid Muh. Muhaqqiq Damad, explaining the statement of the late Sayyid Yazdi, writes: “The statement is used that covering the attached hair, like the original hair, is obligatory and looking at it is forbidden. The ultimate argument that can be given for it is that among the Arabs, having abundant and long hair on women was common and popular. For this reason, poets have composed poems describing and praising it. In such an environment, it must be common to wear hair extensions and wigs, and the quality of the hair must be such that the viewer thinks that the original hair and the hair extensions are the same. The verses on the obligation to look (the prohibition of looking – Surah Al-Nur, 31) and the prohibition of showing the hair include both hair (original and extended hair).” [2]

The late Ayatullah al-Khu’i also believes that the title “foreign hair” that is used in the narration on the subject of the ruling on the obligation to cover and the prohibition of looking is not true for extended hair; therefore, the evidence for the prohibition of looking at “hair” is insufficient. Of course, it may be forbidden as an adornment and decoration. [3]

Some jurists have said that if the hair that has been attached is from another woman’s hair, it is obligatory to cover it and it is forbidden to look at it, but if it is from a man’s hair, animal hair, or synthetic fibers, it is not forbidden. I have not come across anyone who believes in this, but it has been mentioned in various jurisprudential books and has been denied in most cases. For example, the late Muhaqqiq Damad, while proposing this fatwa, writes in his explanation and reasoning for it: “The argument that may be put forward for it is istishab; with the explanation that: covering this hair was previously (when it was the hair of another woman) obligatory and looking at it was forbidden; therefore, istishab rules that it is forbidden now as well. Then he responds that istishab is not applicable here; because istishab is the principle and is used where there is no evidence; whereas in this case, we have a definite view that it is not obligatory to cover the separated hair. The evidence for this is that at that time, even the hair that was plucked from women’s hair or that was shaved was left and they were not ordered to cover it, for example by burying it. We also see something similar in Hajj, where shaving and taqsir are performed, but burial is not obligatory.

In addition, it is stated in a narration that Imam al-Sadiq (‘a) was asked about women wearing wigs, and the Imam (‘a) said: “There is no problem if it is made of animal hair or the woman’s own hair, but wearing another woman’s hair is disliked.” The dislike in this narration – most likely – does not mean prohibition, but rather the meaning of the term, which is the priority of leaving. In this case, the husband of this woman can look at the hair of a stranger, which is itself evidence that it is not disrespectful to look at the hair of a woman plucked from a stranger.” [4]

Ayatullah lshtehardi also responded to the above explanation by saying that the prohibition of looking at a non-mahram woman’s hair before it was cut off was from the point of view that it was forbidden to look at a non-mahram woman, while after separation, it is not. [5]

A review of the footnotes and comments of ‘Urwah shows that the majority of jurists have expressed opinions within the scope of the opinion mentioned above; however, for the sake of clarity, some of these opinions will be mentioned:

Imam Khumayni considers it obligatory to cover the hair that has been attached, as well as the wig and jewelry, as a precaution.

Ayatullah Gulpaygani also considers leaving it in accordance with the precaution, although he believes that covering it is not obligatory.

Ayatullah al-Khu’i believes that if it is considered part of adornment – both in the hair and the wig and jewelry – it is not unlikely that it is obligatory.

Ayatullah Makarim Shirazi believes that if it is an example of inner adornment, then it is obligatory to cover it. [6]

Ayatullah Shaykh Muh. Reza Al-Yasin believes that covering it is not obligatory.

The scholars of Sayyid Ahmad Khansari, Sayyid Abu al-Hasan Isfahani, al-Hakim, and Golpaygani consider the obligation of covering it to be questionable, although they consider it prudent to avoid it. [7]

Ayatullah Musavi Ardebili: There is no problem for women to use regular wigs, but they must be covered from non-mahrams, because wigs are usually considered a type of adornment for women, and a woman’s adornment must be covered from non-mahrams. [8]

Ayats Subhani and Muntazeri: There are different types of artificial hair, such as wigs or transplanting hair bulbs that take on the natural state of hair, and tying bundles of artificial hair to the roots of the hair. Therefore, a man who is mahram should not cover his head with wigs or tying hair that covers the head or part of it. However, if the transplanting is such that it becomes part of the person’s own body and grow and develop like the person’s own hair, there is no problem, and if it is necessary to use prohibited items, he must pay atonement. [9] [10]

[1] Al-Urwa al-Wuthqa (by Sayyid Yazdi), vol. 1, p. 550.

[2] Book of Salat (Muhaqqiq Damad), vol. 2, p. 88.

[3] Al-Imam al-Khu’i Encyclopedia, vol. 12, p. 85.

[4] Book of Salat (Muhaqqiq Damad), vol. 2, p. 88.

[5] Al-Arwa documents (lshtehardi), vol. 12, p. 533.

[6] Al-Arawa al-Wuthqa with comments, vol. 1, p. 452.

[7] Al-Arwa Al-Wuthqa (Al-Mahshi), vol. 2, pp. 317-318.

[8] Musavi Ardebili, Explanation of the issues, issue: 3026.

[9] Subhani, Rituals of Hajj, issue: 390.

[10] Muntazeri, Tawzih al-Masa’il, issue: 2565.