The issue of dress codes for women has been a debating point for long. Some Islamic scholars believe that there is no such decree in the holy books, while others interpret it counter-wise to make their case. Even with so much new research conducted on the subject, there is no consensus among Islamic scholars and clerics as to the relevance and value of dress codes for women. The Niqab and Hijab in particular are two dressing items that have come to focus in Islamic critical discourse. Scholars such as Yusuf al-Qaradawi and Fatima Mernissi have helped bring about great clarity to the problems. Based on their writings, it is possible to argue that the Niqab and Hijab were incorporated into the Islamic code due to exceptional and temporal circumstances; and that their continued usage in modern times is subject to the demands of changed sensibilities. The following passages will offer evidence from the readings in support of this thesis.
In the reading titled Is Wearing the Niqab Obligatory for Women, author Yusuf al-Qaradawi gives copious examples from the sacred texts to suggest that the covering of face is not part of the original holy decree. He argues that in the early years of Islam’s assimilation into Arabic society, there are numerous references to men being attracted and fixated by a woman’s beauty and these occurrences would not have been documented had women’s faces been obstructed by a Niqab. Complementing the inference of this observation is the fact that in a predominantly trade-oriented society at the time of Islam’s origins, it would be a big encumbrance for women to carry out everyday tasks such as receiving and giving merchandise, receiving and giving money, etc, if their hand was covered by clothing. Furthermore, although a woman’s hand is considered to be an aspect of her beauty, there is no consensus as to whether it is classified as an ‘awra. For example, from the following translation of Shīrāzī, the Shāfiʿī author of the Muhadhdhab, we learn that
“As for a free women, all her body is her ʿawra, apart from her face and hands—Nawawī states, up to the wrists—because of the verse, (and let them not display their beauty (zīna) except what [usually] appears of it).9 Ibn Abbās states that [what is excepted] refers to her face and her hands,10 because the Prophet r prohibited women in the state of iḥrām11 from wearing a niqāb and gloves.12 If the face and hands were part of theʿawra, it would not have been impermissible (ḥarām) to cover them, and [in addition, everyday] needs require showing one’s face in buying and selling, and showing one’s hands in giving and taking, so they have not been made part of the ʿawra.” ( Yusuf al-Qaradawi, p.4)
Also, not many scholars agree that the hands and face of a woman provoke sexual desire in a man; or even if it does so, the solution is not to cover them up with clothing. It has been indicated in the holy books that when struck by the beauty of a woman, a man should lower his gaze as a way of dissipating the heightened state of sensuality that he is prone to. Also, as revealed in the Hadith, a man is allowed to look at a woman’s face when asking for her hand in marriage, for the face captures the essence of her entire beauty and character. This would be quite impossible if practices such as wearing the Niqab and the Hijab were adhered to during the early days of the religion.
Fatima Mernissi is another scholar who illuminates the debate on dress codes. Not only is she a radical interpreter of Islamic holy texts, but also a feminist who is open to modern views. Hence her take on the relevance of Hijab is both interesting and provocative. She asserts that at the time of the Hijab’s conception, the word had a very broad meaning. And “reducing or assimilating this concept to a scrap of cloth that men have imposed on women to veil them when they go into the street is truly to impoverish this term, not to say to drain it of its meaning, especially when one knows tha the hijab, according to the Koranic verse and al-Tabari’s explanation, ‘descended’ from Heaven to separate the space between two men.” (Mernissi, p.95). The two men in the original context were Prophet Mohammad and his companion Anas Ibn Malik so as to secure the privacy of the former. That is, Prophet Mohammad, having recently married Zaynad, was anxious and longing to consummate his marriage. But due to the insensitivity of his guests to respect the privacy of the newly wed, Prophet Mohammad creates a ‘hijab’ to descend at the entrance of his nuptial chamber, as a way of separating himself and his wife from Anas Ibn Malik and others. And this practice has continued till today in some parts of the Islamic world, albeit in a modified form, divorced from the original meaning. But, while originally it served as a curtain between two men, in its present manifestation it is employed to separate men from women. Interpreted more radically, the Hijab can now be construed as a piece of clothing that separates women from their own selves and undermines their individual identity.
Mernissi also notes that at the time of the Hijab’s first implementation in late 7th century A.D, there was widespread strife and warfare in the Middle East. And Prophet Mohammad was particularly troubled by these political instabilities. A messenger of God known for his equipoise and deliberation, in the case of the invocation of the Hijab, he acted out of character. Its consequences to generations of followers was not fully thought out. Hence, Mernissi seems to suggest that one has to look a the social, political and historical contexts in which the Hijab was instituted. Although Prophet Mohammad was the chosen messenger of Allah, he was vulnerable to frailties common to all humans. While there could be no doubt about the noble intentions of the Prophet, some leeway has to be made for errors of thought and lack of rigorous analysis due to chaotic political circumstances of the time. The intrigue surrounding Prophet Mohammad’s own life, when he feared for the safety and sanctity of his wives after his demise, might have also contributed to the creation of the Hijab. Hence, what was possibly born of personal insecurity of one individual had been taken for a universal truth by the Prophet’s followers.
Mernissi seems to be suggesting a broader principal, namely one of bringing a critical perspective based on historicities of the holy texts. Mernissi’s views do not conform to mainstream Islamic scholarship. Interpreting from within the feminist framework, Mernissi argues that the Hijab as it is applied today, helps keep women in a subordinate position in a male-dominated Islamic culture. She points out the void in Islamic scholarship about the lack of women’s voices and views on the issue.
In conclusion, it is apt to say that Islamic mandates on women’s dresses, especially the Niqab and the Hijab, have been taken too literally by the faithful. The differences between various schools within Islamic theologians, as pointed out by Yusuf al-Qaradawi, and the lack of importance given to historic contexts of the holy scriptures (as elucidated by Mernissi), combine to validate the stated thesis. In this scenario, it is only reasonable that a more liberal stance on the Niqab and the Hijab are called for; and that Islamic theologians will come to recognize the distinction between the literal and implied meanings of holy decrees and would try to promulgate the latter.
Works Cited:
Yusuf al-Qaradawi, translated by U. Abdullah, Is Wearing the Niqab Obligatory for Women?, part 1 of 2., retrieved from <http://www.suhaibwebb.com/blog/islam-studies/is-wearing-the-niqab-obligatory-for-women-part-1-of-2-by-yusuf-al-qara%E1%B8%8Dawi-translated-by-u-%CA%BFabdullah/> on 17th November, 2010
Fatima Mernissi, translated by Mary Jo Lakeland, Medina in Revolution, The Veil and the Male Elite: A feminist Interpretation of Women’s Rights in Islam. Published by Addison-Wesley