From veiling to prevailing: The evolving Muslim attire.
Saleem Ahmed, PhD. President, Pacific Institute for Islamic Studies, Honolulu.
ABSTRACT
The centuries-old lawlessness rampant in pre-Islamic Arabia, which compelled
terrified women to veil themselves as protection against potential rapists, was
transformed into a lawful society during the 23 years of Muhammad’s prophethood.
Women could then move around freely, dressed modestly, without the need to
“protect” themselves by wearing a veil. However, since the Qur’an’s non-
chronological arrangement precludes the possibility of tracing this transformation,
some Muslim women continue to veil themselves in the belief it is required. This
suggests the need for Muslims to understand the chronology of the evolving guidance
on various subjects. This might help trigger a paradigm shift in the Muslim perception
of their religiously-obligated actions on several issues which are currently tearing
apart the Muslim society.
INTRODUCTION
Like the ebb and flow of tide, perceptions of the Muslim veil fluctuate across cultures.
In theocratic Muslim societies, for example, while many women consider veiling a
religious obligation and follow it zealously, others consider it “cultural annihilation”
and wear the veil grudgingly. In still other Muslim societies, a rainbow of attires –
from the burqa, chador, niqab, and hijab (full/partial veil), to no veil – fills the
landscape (while niqab, chador, and burqa are full tent-like coverings enshrouding
the woman’s body, the hijab generally leaves the face uncovered. In this article, the
term hijab is being used to refer to all three.). With emotions running high, the
controversy simmers on the back-burner, with much being written about it,
emotionally, eloquently, and effectively, by veiling proponents and opponents
(Ahmed, L; Mernissi; Vanzan; and https//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijab.)
THE EVOLVING GUIDANCE ON VEILING IN ISLAM
Genesis
Since no Qur’anic verse asks women to wear the veil (except for verse 33.53 asking
men to speak to the prophet’s wives from “before a screen”) the belief that Muslim
women are required to do so is generally based on the following hadith:
Narrated Asma (elder sister of the prophet’s wife Aisha): “I visited the prophet
wearing thin clothes.” He said: “O Asma, when a woman reaches the age of
menstruation, it does not suit her to display her body parts except this and this,” and
he pointed to my face and hands” (Hadith: Abu Dawood 1902).
Reflection: This hadith raises some serious questions: (i) Could Asma, a devout
Muslim woman, have gone to see the revered prophet – her brother-in-law — wearing
“thin clothes”; (ii) Wouldn’t she have violated sacred guidance on modesty, such as
verse 24.30-31 asking men and women to “dress modestly”? (iii) Wouldn’t she have
invited herself to ta’arrud in that revealing outfit on the way to, and back from, the
prophet’s home, on the streets of Mecca, where terrified women enshrouded
themselves to deter potential Romeos? (iii) Why was she not stopped by Aisha and the
prophet’s other twelve wives? (iv) Did she go clandestinely?
Alternative responses are: (1) We don’t care; we follow this hadith; and (2) This is a
false hadith and we don’t follow it. I propose a third response: (3) This is an authentic
hadith; but our assumption about its chronology is incorrect. I suggest this incident
occurred in Mecca, probably even before Muhammad became a prophet (which was
in 610 CE. Living next door to Muhammad was Abu Bakr with his family, including
daughters Asma and Aisha. Around 605 CE, pubescent Asma (born around 595 CE),
may have gone next door in night clothes to play with the prophet’s daughters. Since
Khadija (Muhammad’s first wife), came from a Christian background, the prophet
may have had in mind the habit worn by Christian nuns in suggesting Asma’s dress to
help her avoid any unpleasant incident on the streets of Mecca. It is noteworthy that
the prophet did not suggest that Asma enshroud herself inside the pre-Islamic veil.
The fact that such questions about this hadith have not been raised over the past 1,400
years underscores the absolute and unquestioned devotion with which Muslims
generally view the Qur’an and hadith. To them, any such questioning is blasphemy.
Based on the above questions, however, I believe it would be inappropriate to use this
hadith to conclude that veiling is required by all Muslim women.
Proposed evolution of guidance on veiling
I suggest guidance on people’s attire in Islam went through three stages during the
period 623 CE to 627 CE, before the final revelation (verses 24.30-31) asking men
and women to “dress modestly” was decreed in 630 CE. It is interesting that, in all
four cases presented below, a Qur’anic revelation came to the prophet’s rescue when
he was apparently at a loss regarding how to respond to the situation on hand.
(1) Around 623 CE: When Umar (later, the second caliph) suggested to the prophet to
ask his wives to veil themselves, and since Muhammad was apparently against
veiling, the following Qur’anic verse was revealed (Hadith Bukhari 1.148):
(Verse 33.59). O Prophet! Tell your wives, daughters, and believing women, that they
should cast their outer garment over their persons (when abroad).
Comment: Since this verse asks women to wear an “outer garment”; it seems to
“veto” Umar’s suggestion of veiling.
(2) Around 626 CE: When Sahla, a Muslim woman, asked the prophet how should she
be dressed when her pubescent adopted son, Salim, visits her at home while she is
“uncovered” (not wearing her outer garment), the prophet probably received Qur’anic
verse 4.23 clarifying relationships which are considered mahram (incestuous or
illegal), in which the woman does not have to wear a veil in the presence of a mahram
person. This includes mother-son relationship. So, the prophet suggested to Sahla to
give the young boy Salim 10 drops of her milk to make him her son (Hadith Al-
Muwatta 30.12). ( I believe Salim, whom Sahla adopted after the Battle of Badr, might have
been in his early teens when this incident took place).
Compliance: (i). Later, when Aisha learned of this hadith (after the prophet had died),
she took it as precedent and would ask her sister and nieces to give their milk to men
Aisha desired to see unveiled; so also did Hafsa, another widow of the prophet (hadith
Al-Muwatta 30.12). Since both had no children, they would get milk from their close
relatives. (ii) Following upon this hadith, on June 9, 2010, a Saudi cleric advised
Saudi women who wished to see their male friends while unveiled, to feed them their
milk http://disinfo.com/2010/06/saudi-clerics-tell-women-to-feed-their-breast-milk-to-
male-friends/. As a follow-up, on June 29, 2010, some Saudi women threatened to
breast-feed their drivers if they were continued to be disallowed to
drive http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/babylonbeyond/2010/06/saudi-women-use-
fatwa-in-driving-bid.html. (I am not sure how the issue was resolved – except that
some women were jailed for a day and had their passports confiscated).
(3) 627 CE: On the day that the prophet married Zaynab bint Jhash, some guests
lingered on. Since Muhammad did not know how to ask them to leave, God revealed
verse 33.53 advising men to speak to the prophet’s wives from “before a screen”. So,
he hung a curtain between Zaynab and his lingering guests (Hadith Bukhari 7.375).
Comment: While verse 33.53 specifies veiling was for the prophet’s wives only, some
conservative Muslims apply it to other Muslim women as well.
(4) 630 CE. After the prophet conquered Mecca, Hind, a pagan woman, came to him
wearing a veil (the normal pagan custom) and desired to convert to Islam. After
conversion, she unveiled herself and informed the prophet who she was. Perhaps
verses 24.30-31, asking men and women to “dress modestly”, were then revealed. So,
the prophet welcomed her as a Muslim, unveiled.
Compliance: Later, Aisha led her army, unveiled, against caliph Ali in the Battle of
the Camel, (656 CE, www. Alim.com: Ali bin Talib). That was the first Muslim civil
war. Dismayed at caliph Uthman’s assassination and caliph Ali’s apparent delay in
pursuing the case, Aisha fought against him. She was defeated and subsequently led a
life of seclusion.
And here are two cases of Muslims women with hair exposed: (i) Laila, a Muslim
woman, whose “breath-taking beauty and long glossy hair” impassioned Khalid bin
Walid (an army general) so much that he killed her husband and married her (632
CE, www.Alim.org: Biography of ‘Umar); and (ii) Qataum, a Kharajite Muslim
woman, whose “outstanding beauty and flowing jet black tresses” captivated Abdur
Rahman bin Muljam al Sarimi, Ali’s designated assassin (661 CE, www.Alim.org,
Khalifa Ali bin Talib). Conservative Kharajites assassinated caliph Ali for apparently
not following “their” version of Islam.
THE EVOLVING DEBATE ON VEILING
During the prophet’s time: Following the Qur’anic command asking men to speak to
the prophet’s wives from “before a screen” (verse 33.53, revealed in 627 CE), veiling
was then apparently observed by his wives only, and the phrase ‘she took the veil’ is
used in some hadith to mean that a woman became Muhammad’s wife (Ahmed, Leila:
55). Leila explains that “for some time after Muhammad’s death, veiling and
seclusion were considered as being peculiar to Muhammad’s wives. It is not known
how the custom spread to the rest of the community. The Muslim conquest of areas in
which veiling was commonplace among the upper classes (see the earlier section on
the history of veiling), the influence of wealth, the resultant changed status of Arabs,
and the prophet’s wives being taken as models, probably combined to bring about
their general adoption” (Ahmed, Laila: 55-56).
(ii) After the prophet’s death: With an emotional following of the Qur’an and hadith
becoming popular, Abu Dawood’s hadith No.1902 – with which we started this article
– became sine qua non; the unquestionable point of reference supporting veiling.
Some conservative Muslims even consider veiling to be a “commandment of Allah”.
Thus, the debate thus far has been more on different interpretations and implications
of the status quo than on questioning the status quo itself. Ibn Ishaq, who wrote on the
prophet’s life within 100 years of his death, effectively presents the evolving political
and socio-cultural context of the prophet’s actions. This can serve as an effective
backdrop to a meaningful discussion of veiling among Muslims. Here are some other
recent and thoughtful insights – for and against veiling — on this issue:
1. Arlene MacLeod challenges the stereotypical Western view of the meaning of the
veil and veiling and attempts to disentangle the confusion existing between languages
regarding the veil. Her analysis illustrates the layers of meanings attached to veiling,
in Muslim and non-Muslim countries.
2. In discussing the practice of veiling in Algeria, Malek Alloula displays postcards of
supposedly Algerian women that were sent by the French in Algeria to their relatives
in France during the French colonization period of Algeria (early twentieth century).
We get to experience the French “colonial gaze” of Algerian women.
3. Faeghehi Shirazi’s provocative book underscores the diversity of views on veiling
that go beyond current clichés and homogenous representations. She emphasizes that,
whether seen as erotic or romantic; or as symbol of oppression, or sign of piety,
modesty, or purity, the veil carries thousands of years of religious, sexual, social, and
political significance.
4. Entekhabi-Fard emphasizes that, while many westerners see veiling as a symbol of
repression, many Iranian women feel they have gained through the wearing of the
hijab.
5. Alvi elucidates the importance of veiling in Islamic contexts and the reasons for its
persistence. Veiling, she argues, is a value held by both genders and may be located in
diverse contexts, such as death, marriage, gift-exchange, Sufi-poetry, asceticism,
mysticism, and sacredness. The word sharam, so often invoked in regard to the
Muslim veil, is commonly translated in English as shame, and is associated with
modesty, morality, piety, and female sexuality. Alvi, however, points out many more
meanings of the term, including: nakedness of humans and sacred items, virginity,
honor in responsibility and as embodied self-control, reverence for the other, self-
sufficiency, vulnerability, security and protection, embarrassment, an obligation to be
humble, and humiliation. All this shows that the veil is much more than a female
garment, and Alvi argues that concealment is a way of life, not merely a fashion or a
religious obligation, and it reflects a culturally specific relation of a person to the
world.
6. Emphasizing the need to understand the context of Qur’anic revelations, Fatima
Mernissi (93) clarifies: “It is impossible to understand a verse without the qissa
(story/context) and the causes that led to its revelation.” And arguing against a blind
following of the Qur’an and hadith, Leila Ahmed (62) underscores: “From the
beginning, there were those who emphasized the ethical and spiritual message (of
Islam) as fundamental and agreed that the regulations that Muhammad put into effect,
were merely the ephemeral aspects of the religion, relating only to that particular
society at that historical point. They were never intended to be normative or
permanent”. She concludes that the current view (requiring women to be veiled) stems
from a manipulation of hadith, misinterpretation of the Qur’an, and male elitist
authority as opposed to the actual tenets of Islam. Thus, Mernissi and Leila Ahmed
seem to be among the few researchers who have questioned the status quo. I do not
think that veiling is due to a “misinterpretation” of the Qur’an and hadith; I believe it
is due to a misplacement of the chronology of revelations.
In the absence of information on the chronology of events, debate between veil
supporters and opponents has often focused on semantics and meanings of words
rather than on chronology of revelations. This is exemplified by the following
opposing views of the following two Qur’anic verses:
Verse 33.59: O prophet! Tell your wives, daughters, and (other) believing women that
they should cast their jilabib (outer garments) over their persons: that is most
convenient, that they should be known (as such) and not molested.
“Conservative” interpretation: Al-Hilali and Khan (p. 536) add the following
extrapolation (in bold) to their translation of this verse:
O prophet! Tell your wives and your daughters and women of the believers to draw
their cloaks (veils) all over their bodies (i.e. screen themselves completely except the
eyes or one eye to see the way). . . .”
“Moderate” rebuttal: Isa rebuts as follows:
“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 word jalabib means shirt, covering, or cloak. . . . Can the
meaning be extended to mean covering the face or being veiled? Clearly not. 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. In fact, the verse may be
interpreted to even mean that a veil may not be used, because . . . women must be
apparent and known; and if their faces are concealed by veils, they are neither
apparent nor known.”
Verse 24.30-31: Say to the believing men that they should lower their gaze and guard
their modesty: that will make for greater purity for them. . . . And say to the believing
women . . . that they should draw their veils over their bosoms. . .
“Conservative” interpretation: Al-Hilali and M. Khan (p 446) extrapolate the
translation (in bold) as follows:
“And tell the believing women to lower their gaze (from looking at forbidden things)
and protect their private parts (from illegal sexual acts) and not show off their
adornment except only that which is apparent (like both eyes for necessity to see the
way, or outer palms of hands or one eye or dress-like veil, gloves, head cover, apron),
and to draw their veils (khomoorehenna) all over juyubihinna (i.e., their bodies, faces,
necks and bosoms) . . .”
“Moderate” rebuttal: The word khomoorehenna is derived from the word khumar
(plural khimar) and could be a shirt, shawl, blouse or any other covering. The word
juyubihinna is derived from the word jayb (plural juyub), meaning bosom. God the
Omnipotent directs believing men to lower their gaze. If women were veiled there
would be no need for men to lower their gaze.”
SUMMARY
Breaking away from the pre-Islamic practice of veiling by women (also breaking
away from Judaism and Christianity) to avoid getting raped in that lawless pre-Islamic
Arab society, Islam first made it safe for women to venture out of their homes without
risking molestation, and then emphasized modest dressing by both men and women –
thereby underscoring that spiritual and internal contemplations were far more
important than material and external manifestations. But this transformation did not
materialize overnight: it went through three interim practices — of women wearing an
“outer garment before venturing out; of their feeding their milk to men they wished to
see while unveiled, and of men speaking to the prophet’s wives from “before a
screen” — before the final practice, of modest dressing by both men and women, was
decreed.
The emotional and unquestioned devotion with which Muslims implement their
religion’s directives is underscored by the fact that many women, at the risk of facing
ridicule and possible bodily harm in non-Muslim countries, have continued to follow
this pre-Islamic practice of veiling under the impression that this is required by their
religion.
It is hoped that the thoughts presented herein will trigger large-scale introspection.
The Muslim Council of America could take leadership in organizing a conference to
discuss this topic objectively, unemotionally, and non-defensively.
And while I also possibly face ridicule for making this suggestion, I hope that the
suggested action, of the proposed objective introspection, will follow.
REFERENCES
Ahmed, Leila. 1992. Women and Gender in Islam. New Haven: Yale University
Press.
Ahmed, Saleem. 2008. Islam: A Religion of Peace? Honolulu: Moving Pen
Publishers.
Al-Hilali, M.T. and M. Khan. 1996. Interpretation of the Meanings of the Noble
Qur’an in the English Language. Riyadh: Dar-Us-Salam Publications.
Alloula, Malek. 1986. The Colonial Harem. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota
Press.
Alvi, Anjum. 2013. “Concealment and Revealment: The Muslim Veil in Context.”
Current Anthropology 54:2. April 2013.
El Guindi, Fadwa. 1999. Veil: Modesty, Privacy, and Resistance. Oxford, New York:
Berg.
Entekhabi-Fard, Camelia. 2001. Behind the Veil. Mother Jones.
Hasan, Irfan. 2016. “Hijab: How it protects and benefits women and
society” http://www.islamic-world.net/sister/how_it_protects.htm, retrieved
on August 14.
Isa, Qazi Faez. 2003. “Is wearing the veil Islamic?” Daily Dawn, Karachi. May 19.
Interne edition, Features.
Ibn Ishaq ~ 750. Seerat Rasul Allah. Translated into English as The Life of
Muhammad by A. Guillaume. Karachi: Oxford University Press.
MacLeod, Arelene Elowe. 1991. Accommodating Protest: Working Women, the New
Veiling, and Change in Cairo. New York: Columbia University Press, p. xiv.
Mernissi, Fatima. 1992. The Veil and the Male Elite. New York: Basic Books.
Morgan, J.H. 2014. “Islam and Assimilation in the West: Religious and Cultural
Ingredients in American Muslim Experience.” Journal of Religion and Society.
Volume 16.
Shirazi, Faeghehi. 2001. The Veil Unveiled: The Hijab in Modern Culture. University
Press of Florida.
Vanzan, Anna. 2016. “Veiled Politics: Muslim Women’s Visibility and Their Use in
European Countries’ Political Life”. Soc. Sci. 5(2), 21.