Is wearing the veil Islamic?

[Zakk]

The Writers quite a respected lawyer and fairly conversant in Islamic law

By Qazi Faez Isa

http://www.dawn.com/2003/text/fea.htm#4
A member of the provincial assembly of the NWFP has introduced a resolution requiring that wearing a veil should be made compulsory for every girl above 12 years of age (Dawn, May 2). Without citing any Quranic text in support of the resolution, Pir Muhammad Khan of Muttahida Majlis-i-Amal assumes that Islam ordains the veil for women.

If God directs women to veil their faces, then Muslims have no option but to abide by this command. But if on the other hand our Benevolent Creator has not imposed any such injunction, no man can impose it. An attempt to add to the commands of God Everlasting is an abomination and completely unacceptable in Islam. No matter how well intentioned a man may be such desire cannot be substituted for God’s law and it is not permissible to diverge from the truth.

God commands to judge among them by what Allah has revealed, and follow not their vain desires, diverging away from the truth that has come to you. To each among you, We have prescribed a law and a clear way (5:48). And again in the chapter entitled ‘The Clear Evidence’ (Al-Bayyinah) after referring to the purified pages of the Quran, God the Eternal tells us that the Quran contains right and straight laws (98:3) thereby removing any discretion to add or subtract therefrom.

Those advocating the veiling of women do so by prescribing the hijab. Hijab is the Arabic word for ‘veil’ and may also be used to describe a screen, cover(ing), partition, division, mantle, curtain, drape or divider. The word hijab appears seven times in the Quran, five times as hijab and twice as hijaban. Let us commence by examining each of these verses wherein the term hijab or hijaban appears in the Holy Quran.

The term hijab is used as a barrier or screen separating the dwellers of Paradise from the dwellers of Hell in verse 46 of Surah Al-Araf. How to behave in the Prophet’s (pbuh) house is contained in verse 53 of Surah Al-Ahzab, which states that when you ask for anything you want, ask them from behind a screen (hijab). Forgetting the time for prayer and the imagery of (the sun) hidden in the veil (hijab) (of night) is used in verse 32 of Surah Sad. The term hijab is used as an analogy in verse 5 of Surah Fussilat; those who have not opened to the truth say - “Our hearts are under veils from that to which you invite us; and in our ears is deafness, and between us and you is a screen (hijab)”.

In the Surah which follows (Ash-Shura, verse 51) the Creator informs us that He does not speak to any human being unless by Revelation, or from behind a veil (hijab). God places an invisible veil (hijaban) between the Prophet (pbuh) and those who do not believe in the Hereafter (verse 45 of Surah Al-Isra). Maryam (Mary), the most revered amongst ladies, placed a screen (hijaban) from them when God sent His Ruh to her, we are told in verse 17 of the Chapter of the Quran named after this great lady.

In none of the aforesaid seven verses the word hijab is used to indicate a dress code for a Muslim lady. Allah the Merciful in His Infinite Wisdom did not use the word hijab for women’s apparel or dress code but Man did and having done so insinuated the veil. These men use the word (hijab) out of context, and in a context that God Himself does not, and then its meaning (veil) is applied to women’s dress, a meaning that the Creator does not.

The application of the word hijab to women’s attire is all the more surprising since the Quran uses specific terms to describe what is appropriate dress and such description does not use the word hijab. The word khomoorehenna is used in verse 31 of Surah An-Nur to describe how women should dress. In this verse God requires women to conceal their bosoms with a cover. The term khomoorehenna is derived from the word khumar (plural khimar) and could be a shirt, shawl, blouse or any other covering. Again the verse stipulates the covering of the bosom and not the face, head or the hair. The word used is juyubihinna, derived from the word jayb (plural juyub), meaning bosom. If the intention of the Creator was to impose the veil there was nothing stopping Him from mentioning the face and the veil in this verse. But the verse does not use the Arabic word for face (wajh, wujah, qubul), head (raas) or hair (shaar) nor uses the word veil (hijab).

The aforesaid verse may also suggest that the face should not be covered since women may not show off their adornment except that which is apparent. If there is any part of the human body which in the words of the Quran is apparent it is the face. The face is required to be exposed since through the nose one breathes and smells, from the mouth one breathes, drinks and eats, through the eyes one sees and from the ears one hears. Both sight and hearing is impaired if the eyes or the ears are even slightly covered. Eating or drinking is also not possible if the face is covered and eating and drinking are not practised in a closet. The use of the veil constitutes a difficulty and our Merciful Creator tells us that He has not placed in religion any difficulties (22:78).

The only other verse specifically dealing with women’s attire is verse 59 of Surah Al-Ahzab. This is addressed to the Prophet (pbuh) and he is directed to tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to draw their jalabib over their bodies. The word jalabib is the plural of jilbab and means a shirt, covering or a cloak. The question arises whether the meaning of this word (jalbib / jalabib) can be extended to mean covering the face or being veiled. Clearly not, because God, the Wise, would have used words stating so, after all if the ocean were ink for the Words of my Lord, surely, the ocean would be exhausted before the Words of my Lord would be finished (18:109). Again the context in which the word (jalabib) is used excludes such possibility.

Women are told to cover their bodies so that they should not be molested and that they should be known. If a woman’s face is veiled she cannot be known. The only apparent part of the body by which everyone is distinguished and recognized or known is the face. All other methods of identification whether by finger or genetic printing or retina examination are only possible with the aid of extraneous tools.

There is not a single verse in the entire Quran that requires women to veil their faces. The Holy Quran is significantly silent. In fact the above cited verses may be interpreted to even mean that a veil may not be used, because these verses stipulate that women must be apparent and known and if their faces are concealed by veils they are neither apparent or known. Even in present day strictly veiled Saudi Arabian society, the true faith is witnessed during the Hajj, when no face can be concealed. If the Hajj is an exception, as the veil-lobby contends, it is inexplicable and a contention that is not supported by the words of the Quran.

The beauty and majesty of the Quran is limitless. Through it God, Most Kind and Most Gracious, tells us that the intention of the believer is very important. O children of Adam! We have bestowed ‘libas’ (clothing or raiment) upon you to cover yourselves and as an adornment; and the raiment (‘libas’) of righteousness, that is better (7:26). And the only judge of the raiment of righteousness is our Creator. The matter is therefore taken away from man’s nitpicking ways and laid for consideration before the Master of the Highest Kingdom.

Those who want to blacken the faces of women and reduce them to mere objects must remember that God the Omnipotent directs believing men to lower their gaze (24:30). If women were veiled there would be no need for men to lower their gaze. The Commandment to lowering one’s gaze is often brazenly flouted. Would it then not be more appropriate to legislate for affixing blinkers on men’s eyes, like those on a mule or donkey, rather than having the effrontery to put rags on the faces of 12-year old-girls?

[MyStiCaL_MisS]

Many people are against covering the face...
but some women choose to do it themselves, for modesty..

[armughal]

the person who wrote this has no sense of language and i dont know how he can argue on the fact that one word can be used for different meanings....

i cud quote many examples from Quran itself where one word is used to represent different meanings, but since the quickest i can think of is the word kuffaar (plural of kaafir), used for atleast two different meanings....
one for the common meaning we all know, one for farmers, and both of them r correct....

and secondly, the way he used the verse of gazing to justify his point is rather stupid....
since gazing is prohibited means the faces r meant to be uncovered otherwise if they r covered, looking upon them wud have no effect....
so shall we similarly conclude that private parts be also left open, cuz gazing is still prohibited....

P.S. i am not in favor of veils, just dont like the way he has tried to explain it....
rather childish and unscholarly....

[Zakk]

Islam, women, and equality — II
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk
Asma Barlas

Contrary to what many Muslims claim, the Qur’an does not establish men as ontologically superior to women or as rulers over them; rather, it designates women and men as each other’s “guides”

(The first part of this essay, which is an edited and amended version of a talk I gave at Ithaca College, was published on May 6, 2003.)

I raise two sets of questions in my book as a way to flesh out the Qur’an’s position on equality. First, is the Qur’an a patriarchal or misogynistic text? When I ask this question, “I am asking whether it represents God as Father/male or teaches that God has a special relationship with males or that males embody divine attributes and that women are by nature weak, unclean, or sinful. Further, does it teach that rule by the father/husband is divinely ordained and an earthly continuation of God’s Rule, as religious and traditional patriarchies claim?

Alternatively, does the Qur’an advocate gender differentiation, dualisms, or inequality on the basis of sexual (biological) differences between women and men? In other words, does it privilege men over women in their biological capacity as males, or treat man as the Self… and woman as the Other, or view women and men as binary opposites, as modern patriarchal theories of sexual differentiation and inequality do?”

Second, I ask whether we can read the Qur’an for liberation. When I ask this question, “I am asking whether its teachings about God as well as about human creation, ontology, sexuality, and marital relationships challenge sexual inequality and patriarchy. Alternatively, do the teachings of the Qur’an allow us to theorize the equality, sameness, similarity, or equivalence, as the context demands, of women and men?” (Asma Barlas, “Believing Women,” in Islam: Unreading Patriarchal Interpretations of Islam: University of Texas Press, 2002: 1).

As is obvious, these questions presuppose a particular view of patriarchy and in passing I should mention that no one until now had applied a definition of patriarchy to read the Qur’an even though, as I noted earlier, many Muslims regularly condemn Islam as a patriarchal religion.

“I define patriarchy in both a narrow (specific) and a broad (universal) sense in order to make the definition as comprehensive as possible. Narrowly defined, patriarchy is a historically specific mode of rule by fathers that, in its religious and traditional forms, assumes a real as well as symbolic continuum between a patriarchalized view of God as Father/male, and a theory of father-right, extending to the husband’s claim to rule over his wife and children. I apply this definition in reading the Qur’an because the Qur’an was revealed in the context of a traditional patriarchy, and my aim is to see if it endorsed this mode of patriarchy by representing God as Father or by representing the father or husband as ruler over his wife and children.

Since the Qur’an’s teachings are universal and since father’s rule has reconstituted itself, I also define patriarchy more broadly, as a politics of sexual differentiation that privileges males by ‘transforming biological sex into politicized gender, which prioritizes the male while making the woman different (unequal), less than, or the ‘Other’”(Zillah Eisenstein, Feminism and Sexual Equality: Crisis in Liberal America, New York: Monthly Review Press, 1984: 90. I should note that in her later work, Eisenstein does clarify that difference doesn’t mean inequality, which is a crucial point to which I will return).

Using this definition, I show that it is possible “to answer the first set of questions — is the Qur’an a patriarchal or misogynistic text — in the negative, while [answering…] the second — can the Qur’an be a source for women’s liberation — in the affirmative”(Barlas, p. 2)

To begin with, the Qur’an does not represent God as Father or male; indeed, it explicitly forbids sacralizing God as Father or using similitude for God. Nor does it sacralize fathers or fatherhood. It does recognise that in historically existing patriarchies, men are the locus of authority and it does address patriarchies, but addressing a patriarchy is not the same as condoning or advocating one and indeed, the Qur’an repeatedly says that “following the ways of the father” has prevented people from the path of God.

My reading of the Qur’anic accounts of the prophets Abraham and Muhammad (PBUH), also suggests an inherent conflict between monotheism and patriarchy inasmuch as the latter sacralizes men and their authority over women and children, which the Qur’an does not do.

Thus, contrary to what many Muslims claim, the Qur’an does not establish men as ontologically superior to women or as rulers over them; rather, it designates women and men as each other’s “guides” (awliya) and establishes love and mutuality as the basis of marriage. Moreover, in Islam sexual equality is ontological in that the Qur’an teaches that God created humans from a single self (nafs). It does not privilege the man’s creation or endow him with attributes or faculties not given to the woman. Rather, humans “manifest the whole” (Sachiko Murata, The Tao of Islam: A Sourcebook on Gender Relationships in Islamic Thought, Albany: SUNY, 1992, p. 43; her emphasis).

The Qur’an also does not define men and women as opposites, or portray women as lesser or defective men, or the two sexes as incompatible, incommensurable, or unequal. In fact, it does not even associate sex with gender; thus, while the Qur’an recognises biological differences, it does not assign them any gender symbolism making it difficult to derive a theory of sexual and gender inequality from its teachings. The Qur’an also does not link women and men to specific gender roles. There is not a single verse that suggests that men’s gender roles are a function of their biology, or that biological differences between men and women make them unequal.

Therefore, while the Qur’an does treat women and men differently with respect to some issues this doesn’t mean that it establishes them as unequal. For one thing, difference in itself does not imply inequality. For another, the Qur’an does not tie its different treatment of women and men to any claims about biological superiority or inferiority.

The only basis on which Islam does distinguish between human beings is on the basis of their moral praxis…; as Sachiko Murata (p. 44) says it “distinguishes between those who have faith and those who do not: the ‘believers’ and the ‘unbelievers.’ In all the perspectives of Islamic life and thought people are separated into groups according to the degree to which they fulfill the purpose of life.’”

It is not just on the basis of such teachings that I describe the Qur’an as antipatriarchal, but also on the basis of the claim that the antipatriarchal nature of Qur’anic epistemology flows from Islamic conceptualisations of God. This part of my argument maintains that since there is an intrinsic relationship between God Being’s and God’s Speech, we need to connect them, which means we need to base our readings of the Qur’an in our understanding of God.

For instance, the doctrine of Tawhid maintains that God is One and God’s sovereignty/rule is indivisible. To my mind, this means that we should not read the Qur’an as designating men as rulers over women, or as intermediaries between God and women, since this constitutes shirk. Similarly, the Qur’an teaches that God is Just and never does zulm to people (zulm, in the Qur’anic context, means transgressing against another’s rights). As such, I believe God’s Speech also cannot teach transgression against the rights of humans. Since patriarchies do transgress against women’s rights by oppressing them, I argue that the Qur’an cannot possibly endorse them and we should read its provisions with this idea in mind. Likewise, the Qur’an teaches that God is unrepresentable; as such, linguistic references to God as “He” should be seen as limitations of human language and not accurate statements about God’s Reality.

If we apply such criteria to read the Qur’an and also read it for its best meanings and as a thematic whole, privileging its clear verses over its allegorical, as the Qur’an itself recommends, then we arrive at an interpretation that captures the radically egalitarian nature of its teachings.

Asma Barlas is associate professor and chair of Politics at Ithaca College, New York. To be concluded next time

[Different]

Re: Is wearing the veil Islamic?

Is wearing the veil Islamic?

This refers to a comment by Qazi Faez Isa (May 19) on the above subject. I am delighted that the gentleman is so concerned about the way in which women are being unscrupulously exploited in the name of Islam that he is researching the true source of the injunction which is the word of God.

But Qazi Sahib has fallen into the same trap as other learned scholars who use the scriptures to prove a point. His references and explanations of the relevant ayat present a powerful argument in favour of his standpoint, but his own commentary undermines the impact and seriousness of God’s word. By trivializing and giving frivolous examples, he makes himself vulnerable to criticism.

Thus by giving the example of the dress code for women during Haj, we would have to conclude that the same applies to men, and that the acceptable dress code for men is the ahraam, which is simply not true. The pilgrimage is indeed an exception to the rule and the baring of the face is most likely to reduce the incidence of mistaken identity in such a huge crowd, rather than a proof that the face should not be covered.

Moreover, his reference to the physical discomfort of a veil is neither serious nor valid. The veil is an outer garment which is to be used only in a mixed company and not in segregated areas. The question of problems with seeing and hearing and eating does not arise, in that context. It is only when a veil-clad woman chooses to drive around town that the garment becomes a hazard, making it dangerous for other drivers and thus being inadvisable.

And his reference to finger-printing and blood grouping is unfortunate. Women were advised to make themselves known as Muslim identities, not as individuals. At all times in history, religions have needed to show their strength by the identification of their numbers. A dress code makes that possible.

As for men needing to lower their gaze, this refers to cases in which some stubborn women choose to be immodest. The question of the veil being Islamic is not debatable, unless you can say that it is un-Islamic, which you cannot. The fact is that it does serve the purpose of making women “apparent” as being Muslims.

Most women of the subcontinent, including Hindu women, practised, and still do, some form of purdah or the other. And in that context it was a cultural thing, not a religious practice. And there has always been a common definition of chaste and modest apparel, for men as well as for women.

An identifiable form of hijab, made it an Islamic identity symbol. But the place for its implementation is in the household, not in the assemblies. Laws are enforced by punishment. And for the veil to have true Islamic significance, it needs to be adopted as a personal choice, not imposed as an Islamic injunction which is questionable, as amply proved by Qazi Sahib. Government schools already have a scarf for girls as part of a uniform. So, where is the need for further stress?

I wish Qazi Sahib the best of luck in his endeavours to arrive at a correct understanding of his religion.

RUKHSANA KHAN

Karachi

Source