By Dr. John Andrew Morrow
The Qur’an, the revelation of which ended in 632, suggests that women cover
their saw’at, their shame or pudendum (7:26-27), namely, their genitalia.
The Qur’an states that women should guard their furuj or genitals (24:31),
and not display their zinah or beauty (24:31), namely, their private parts.
The Qur’an counsels women to cover their juyub or breasts with their
khumur or coverings (24:31) in dangerous times and places.
The Qur’an tells women they can show ma zahara minha, or “what may be
apparent” (24:31), namely, everything but their private parts and perhaps their
bosom.
The Qur’an cautions the wives of the Prophet against tabarruj which has
been interpreted as “making a dazzling display of themselves” as women did
during the Days of Ignorance (33:33).
As Cyrille Moreno al-‘Ajami has shown, however, the verb tabarraja originally signified “to show off with pride” (2020: 238). It was later exegetes who gave it the sense of ostensibly exhibiting beauty, thereby modifying the sense of the Qur’an (2020: 238-239). This verse has nothing do with the eternal obligation of gender segregation (2020: 238). What is more, it only applied to the wives of the Prophet (2020: 238). The exegetes and jurists twisted and distorted this verse, and applied it to all Muslim women, when the Qur’an stated clearly that it referred only to the wives of the Prophet as they were not like other women (33:32).
According to Tabari, this verse was revealed in response to their desire for
material acquisitions and their wish to lead a leisurely and luxurious lifestyle (El
Guindi 200: 156). Such materialism so infuriated the Prophet, who was a
proponent of humility, that he secluded himself from his wives in protest (El
Guindi 200: 156).
The Qur’an instructs women to wear a jilbab or garment when going out so
they may be recognized and not annoyed (33:59).
The Qur’an explains that the dress code can be relaxed among family
members (33:55) and need not be adhered to by older women (24:60).
The Qur’an asks women to wear beautiful clothing (7:31).
The Qur’an describes the attire of the women of Paradise as if they were
straight out of a Vogue magazine (7:26, 7:31, 18:31, 22:23, 76:21).
Qatadah (d. c. 644) stated that women could show their bracelets, implying
that women can show part of their arms.
‘A’ishah (d. 678) stated that women could show their bracelets, implying
that women can show part of their arms.
Sakinah bint al-Husayn bin ‘Ali (also known as Fatimah al-Kubra), the great grand-daughter of Muhammad, and the daughter of Fatimah and ‘Ali, invented a hairdo or style known as al-turrah al-sukayniyyah (Sukaynah-style curls) that she wore in public. She refused to cover her hair and was imitated by the noble women of the Hijaz. She was a proud nashiz and a proud barzah.
Sa‘id ibn Jubayr (d. 714), a follower of the companions, and a leading early
jurist, ruled that there was no Qur’anic requirement for women to cover their
hair. According to some accounts, he was a companion of ‘Ali. According to
others, he was a companion of Zayn al-‘Abidin, which seems more sensible. As
al-Jassas (d. 981), the Hanafi jurist noted in Ahkam al-Qur’an, Sa‘id ibn Jubayr
was asked whether it was prohibited for men to look at the hair of non-mahram
women. He responded: “It is not in the verse.”
The ‘Ibadis, the earliest sect of Islam, required women to cover everything
but their face, hands, and feet. They did not believe in the niqab.
The school of Zayd ibn ‘Ali (d. 740) ruled that women must cover their
entire bodies, except for the face and the hands. The feet are considered part of
their ‘awrah.
Abu Hanifah (d. 767) ruled that women must cover their entire bodies,
except the face, hands, and feet, in public. According to another account,
however, he included the feet in the ‘awrah. Veiling the face, while not
mandatory, was recommended.
Malik (d. 795) ruled that women must cover their entire bodies, except for
their faces and hands, in public. He considered the feet to form part of women’s
“lesser ‘awrah.” Veiling the face, while not mandatory, was recommended.
Shafi‘i (d. 820) ruled that women must cover everything in public,
including their faces, hands, and feet.
Ahmad ibn Hanbal (d. 855) ruled that women must cover everything in
public, including their faces, hands, and feet.
Virtually all Sunni and Shiite jurists concluded that enslaved Muslim
women were not permitted to cover their hair in public or while performing their
ritual prayers. Others viewed it as detestable. Only a minority of jurists, like Ibn
Hazm (994-1064), the Andalusian polymath, believed that the dress code for
enslaved women was the same as that of free women. The vast majority held
that slave girls only had to cover their genitals, or between the navel and the
knees, and could appear in public with their breasts bare. Ironically, they gave
more freedom to their female slaves than to their “free” wives.
The ‘Alawites do not require women to wear hijab. This theologically
extreme Twelver Shiite sect was founded by Muhammad ibn Nusayr (d. after
868). He was considered the representative of ‘Ali al-Naqi and Hasan al-
‘Askari, the tenth and eleventh Imams of the Twelver Shiites. He claimed to be
the bab or gate to the Hidden Imam, Muhammad al-Mahdi.
In 963, Mu‘izz al-Dawla, the Buyid sultan, “ordered that… women
should… go into the markets with their faces and their hair disheveled, beating their faces and wailing over Hussein” (Aghaie 2007: 118). If the hijab were
wajib, why would he have commanded them to do so?
The Shafi‘i jurist, traditionist, and Qur’anic commentator, Muhammad alShashi (904-976), known as al-Qaffal al-Kabir, argued that the extent of bodily
exposure was a matter of prevailing of prevailing custom: al-‘adah al-jariyyah.
Muhammad al-Tabari (d. 923), the Muslim historian, scholar, and exegete
of the Qur’an, acknowledged that some early authorities believed that the
‘awrah of women consisted only of their genitalia. He confirmed that the khimar
extended to everything that covered the body with the exception of the head
(‘Ajami 2020: 132). He noted, however, that contemporary scholars wanted to
extend its meaning to cover women’s hair (132).
Tabari (d. 923), Abu Yusuf (d. 798), and Sarakhsi (d. 1090) noted that some
early jurists did not include the arms or forearms in the ‘awrah of women.
Ibn Junayd al-Iskafi (d. 991), one of the earliest Twelver Shiite jurists, part
of the qadimayn, or “ancient ones,” believed that the ‘awrah of women
consisted of their genitals, the front, and the back, namely, the vagina and the
anus, and that men and women were equal in this regard. He ruled,
“What is obligatory to cover of the body is the genitals — the front and the back — for the man and the woman and this proves that both men and women are equal in this regard, that what is obligatory to cover is the genitals — front and back — and nothing else.”
Al-Iskafi acted as an agent for the Twelfth Imam, corresponded with him, and collected money on his behalf. If he were wrong regarding the ‘awrah of women,
would not the Mahdi have corrected him?
The Zahiri school of jurisprudence, the leading exponent of which was Ibn
Hazm (d. 1064), ruled that women must cover everything but their faces and
hands.
In his dictionary of rare words found in the Qur’an, al-Raghib al-Isfahani
(d. 1108/1109) noted that the term khimar derived from the root khamara which
means: to cover, to envelop, and to hide, and that etymologically, it designated
anything that blocks the gaze (‘Ajami 2020: 132). He noted, however, that its
meaning had been stretched to include the sense of something that covers the
heads of women (‘Ajami 2020: 132). This meaning, however, was posterior to
the Qur’an (‘Ajami 2020: 132).
Ibn al-Barraj al-Tarabulusi (b. c. 1009/1010-d. c. 1088), a Twelver Shiite
jurist and judge, who was a student of al-Sharif al-Murtada (b. 956/959-1044), a
Twelver Shiite jurist and theologian, and al-Tusi (995-1067), a Twelver Shiite
jurist and traditionist, noted that some Shiite scholars did not believe that
women were required to cover their heads and necks (Ridgeon 182). He
acknowledged that “a group of jurists have differences of opinion about whether
it is necessary to cover all the hair” (Ridgeon 188). He also noted that “a group
of jurists believe it is not necessary to cover hair which is longer than the head
and neck” (Ridgeon 188). This is precisely the style that prevailed during much
of Islamic history. Women covered part of the hair on their head — the crown —
but did not cover anything that extended beyond the neck. Rather than follow
the “hijab of ethnicity,” they were clearly in conformity with Islamic law, as
understood by many jurists of the time.
Zamakhshari (d. 1074), the Mutazilite theologian, linguist, and
commentator of the Qur’an, argued that what women cover or uncover is
determined by custom and nature.
‘Ali ibn Ahmad al-Wahidi (d. 1075), the Qur’anic commentator, argued that
women could uncover half of their arms.
Ibn Hayyan (987-1075), the Andalusian Berber historian, believed that
clothing was determined by custom, nature, and practicality. In his mind,
working class women should not be required to cover like upper class women.
Ibn ‘Atiyya (d. 1147), the Qur’anic exegete, allowed women to uncover half
of their arms.
The Qarmatians, an Ismaili movement, active between 899-1077, were
known for their egalitarianism. They were monogamous and prohibited
polygyny. They did not practice gender segregation. And their women went
unveiled. They were followers of seven Imams from ahl al-bayt. They were
Shiite abolitionists. They did not believe that the Prophet and the Imams were
slave masters who owned concubines. For them, this was just another one of
countless innovations introduced by the Umayyads, the ‘Abbasids, and even
other Shiite sects.
Nizami Gencevi (1140-1209) wrote, “If it is a sin to look at a woman, cover your eyes, and not the woman.”
Nizam al-Din al-Nisaburi (d. 1328/1329), the exegete of the Qur’an,
allowed women to uncover their arms to the elbow.
According to Ibn ‘Abidin (d. 1836) some early jurists ruled that women
were permitted to show their arms.
Yusuf al-Qaradawi (d. 2022) noted that some early jurists ruled that women
could show four inches to half of their arms.
Ibn ‘Ashur (d. 1973) noted that some early jurists ruled that women could
expose their heads and hair in public.
Among the Almoravids (r. 1050-1147), men, not women, wore the litham or
face veil at all times, including during communal prayers. Ibn Rushd (d. 1126)
even passed an edict in favor of this unorthodox practice. After all, veiling the
face of men was the practice of the Touareg since time immemorial. Their men
veil their faces while their women show their hair freely.
The Almohads (r. 1121-1269) mocked Almoravid men for covering their
faces while the faces of their women went uncovered in an inversion of their
understanding of Islam. Among the Almoravids, gender norms differed from
those of other groups. Their women had a relatively high status and were not
required to veil themselves.
Increasingly, many Amazigh women in North Africa reject the hijab and
choose to show their hair to signify their rejection of Arabic-Islamic imperial
imposition. They stress the matriarchal nature of Berber culture, reject strict
female dress standards and gender segregation. They are undergoing an
evolution of identity (Almasude).
Fakhr al-Din al-Razi (d. 1209), the polymath and Qur’anic commentator,
believed that women could uncover their faces, hands, and feet; however, he noted that the extent of bodily exposure was a matter of prevailing custom (al-
‘adah al-jariyyah). In other words, it was subject to variation based on various
factors.
Most jurists from the Twelver Shiite school of jurisprudence ruled that
women must cover everything in public, except their face and hands. Their feet
are part of their ‘awrah in public, but not in private prayer.
Many Sufi exegetes of the Qur’an did not comment upon the so-called hijab
verses. Their silence screams. Those who did gave them a mystical significance.
For Rashid al-Din Maybudi (d. 12th century), 24:31 did not speak about literally
covering one’s bosom, but rather, covering one’s heart and secret core. It
referred to spiritual modesty.
Commenting on 24:31, Rashid al-Din Maybudi (d. 12th c.) had this to say in Kashf al-asrar or Unveiling the Mysteries:
“The allusion is that the servant has an adornment that it is not permissible to make manifest, just as women have private parts, and that it is not permissible for them to show their adornment. In the same way, if someone makes manifest to the people the adornment of his secret core, such as the limpidness of his states and the purity of his acts, the adornment turns into a stain, unless he makes manifest something to someone that he did not do on his own or undertake.”
al-Kashani (d. 14th c.)
“[O Children of Adam! We have sent down on you] a garment to conceal your shameful parts,” (7:26) that is to say, a divine law that covers up the vile aspects of your descriptions and the lewdness of your acts, and feathers, that is, beauty that will distance you from any likeness to neglected cattle and that will adorn you with virtuous character traits and beautiful acts, and the garment of God-fearing, that is, the attribute of abstinence and caution against the attribute of the soul, that is better, than the sum total of the pillars of the law, since it is the fundament and the basis of religion.
In 1019, the Druze asked the chief judge of the Fatimid state to adjudicate
their cases according to the standards of the spiritual law. This would have
included the right of women to be relieved of the hijab.
The Fatimid Ismailis abolished the veil and hijab at some point in the
twelfth century, along with other aspects of the external law.
Ibn ‘Arabi (d. 1240), the scholar, mystic, poet, and philosopher, ruled that
the ‘awrah of women was limited to their genitals. In his words,
“Some people say that all of a woman’s body, with the exception of her face and hands, constitutes her ‘awrah. Another group excludes her feet from being ‘awrah, while a third considers all of her body without exception to constitute the ‘awrah… In our opinion, the only parts of her body that are ‘awrah are her genitals. God, the Exalted says: “When they tasted of the tree, their shameful parts became manifest to them, and they began to sew together the leaves of the Garden over their bodies.” God put Adam and Eve on equal footing regarding the covering of their shameful parts, which are their genitals. If women are still ordered to cover their bodies, it is for the sake of modesty, and not because their bodies are shameful.”
The Bektashi tariqah, a Twelver Shiite/Sufi sect founded by Haji Bektash
Veli (d. 1271), does not practice gender segregation, nor does it require women
to veil themselves. It is not customary for Bektashi women to wear headscarves.
The Alevis, another Twelver Shiite/Sufi sect, who follow the teachings of
Haji Bektash Veli (d. 1271), do not practice gender segregation, nor do they
require women to wear headscarves.
Ahmad ibn Muhammad al-Ardabili, also known as al-Muhaqqiq alArdabili (d. 1585), the Twelver Shiite jurist and expert in intellectual and
narrative sciences, believed that the interpretation of the verse “except what
[ordinarily] appears thereof” (24:31) depended on the norms and customs of the
time. He did not view the veil or hijab as an essential and immutable part of
Islam. As Ahmad Ghabal notes,
Muqaddas Ardabili gave his opinions about the … [bodily] parts that
were not usually covered: “If one looks at the apparent custom and
tradition of the time [when] the verse was revealed, in particular, [the
custom of ] poor women, usually the neck, the upper chest, the
forearms, the shins, and some other places too were uncovered, and …
the command on the issue is problematic.” So, there are no clear words
on the subject of “the need to cover the head and neck” in the verse of
sura 24… It confirms the permissibility of not covering parts of the
body (that according to the custom of the time when the revelation
came), as it was fashionable not to cover them. Historical research …
confirms the unfashionable [nature] of covering the head and shoulders
(in all circumstances and in all public places). (Ridgeon 195)
Muhammad ibn ‘Ali al-Musawi al-‘Amili (d. 1600), known as Sahib alMadarik, ruled that it was not obligatory for women to cover their heads and
necks (Ridgeon 182). He was a maternal grandson of al-Shahid al-Thani (d.
1557), the Twelver Shiite jurist, and a descendant of ‘Allamah al-Hilli (d. 1325),
a scholar of such erudition that he was the first to be called ayatullah or sign of
God. As ‘Amili wrote in Madarik al-ahkam,
Know that in this passage, just as [in the] declarations of other Shi‘i
jurists, there has been no engagement with “the need to cover the hair.”
Rather, from this passage it is clear that “covering the hair is not
necessary”… and Shahid-i Avval has considered it closer [to the truth]
(nazdiktar bi vaqi‘a) and his support is a report of “Ibn Babuya from
Fuzayl” which has been reported by Imam Baqir … and this narration,
if its chain of transmission (sanad) is trustworthy, does not include any
proof for the need to cover the hair. Yes, one can reason the lack of
need to cover the hair from this narration, and the narration of “Zarara”
… too points to the lack of necessity for covering. (Ridgeon 189)
As far as Muhammad ‘Amili was concerned, the traditions address covering
during prayers, not covering the hair in general situations (Ridgeon 189-190).
Muhammad Baqir Sabzavari (1608-1679), the author of Kifayat al-ahkam
[Sufficiency of the Commands], and the grand mufti of Isfahan, admitted that,
There are problems on the topic of proving the command for “the need
to cover a woman’s neck” and in most declarations and expressions of
the jurists there has been no mention of “the need to cover the hair.”
Although Shahid-i Avval considered it necessary, one should hesitate
in agreeing with his perspective on this topic. (Ridgeon 189)
Majlisi (d. 1627-1699), the influential Twelver Shiite scholar from Safavid
times, noted that there was no consensus among jurists that women were
required to cover their hair. He noted that most Shia jurists up to his time had
never decreed that women were required to cover their hair with a hijab. He
recognized that men and women were mandated to conceal their private parts.
He defined the private parts of men as the penis, testicles, and anus, and that of
women as the vagina till the anus. He pointed out that for some jurists, the
private parts of men and women extended from the navel to the knee, and for
others, from the navel till half the thigh (Haqqul Yaqeen 849). As he wrote in
Bihar al-anwar,
Know that in the discussions of many Shi‘i jurists there is no talk of
“the need to cover the hair.” Shahid-i Avval considered the need to
cover the hair as closer [to the truth)… and this approach of his
corresponds more with [the principle of] caution. (Ridgeon 190)
As Ahmad Ghalab emphasized, the question begs to be asked.
How has it come to pass that one of the most famous Akhbari Shi‘i
jurists, who has assembled the most comprehensive collection of Shi‘i
hadith (Bihar al-anwar, 110 volumes) — and there is no other more
famous among Shi‘i Akhbaris — ultimately resorted to [the principle of]
caution and could not find support for a “fatwa” and “clear command”
specific to covering hair? (Ridgeon 191)
Two things become immediately clear: 1) there is no basis for the hijab in the
hadith literature and 2) many jurists up the early eighteenth century believed that the ‘awrah or saw’at of men and women were the same and consisted only of
their genitals.
Khamis ibn Sa‘id Shiqsi al-Rustaqi (17th c), the ‘Ibadi scholar, noted that
laws vary according to time and place and that it was acceptable, in some
regions, for women to show their hair. He noted that if women covered their hair
in Oman, it was not because it was viewed as beautiful but because showing hair
was considered ugly. So, the hijab, in their social context, was for beautification.
In Mustanad al-Shi‘ah, Muhaqqiq Naraqi (1772-1829), an influential
mujtahid, also conceded that,
The command [of the shari‘ah] related to “hair” is clear, and “covering
the hair is not necessary,” just as some Shi‘i jurists have argued. But
the [shari‘ah] command also makes clear “the lack of a need to cover
the neck,” just as some jurists have related. And the command for “the
lack of a need to cover the ears” is also clear. (Ridgeon 191)
Like many other jurists, Naraqi recognized that there was no explicit basis for
the hijab in primary and even secondary Islamic sources. At best, it was a matter
of ihtiyat or precaution. Shiite scholars, like their Sunni counterparts, eventually
caved and capitulated under cultural or political pressure. Consequently, a non-obligation became a precaution, a precaution became a recommendation, and a
recommendation became an obligation. The Islamic ruling on the covering
required of women experienced a volte-face. It was turned upside down.
In 1848, Tahirih, also known as Qurrat al-Ayn (d. 1842), the courageous
Persian poet and follower of the Bab (d. 1850), cast off her veil at a conference
in a revolutionary act of defiance. She was the first Iranian executed for “waging
war against God.”
Baha’u’llah (d. 1892), the founder of the Baha’i faith, believed that the
choice of clothing was a matter of personal discretion that principles of modesty
should inform.
Aqa Rida Hamadani al-Najafi (d. 1904), the Twelver Shiite jurist who
became the leading religious authority after the death of his teacher, Mirza
Shirazi (d. 1895), another source of emulation, did not believe that hijab was a
religious requirement. In fact, as Ahmad Ghabal noted, “Hamadani … said on
the reliable narration of Ibn Bakir from Imam Sadiq that ‘the free Muslim
woman can pray without covering the body’” (Ridgeon 197).
‘Ali Tabataba’i (1748-1815/1816), a Twelver Shiite jurist who studied
under Wahid Bihbihani (1706-1791), ruled that women were not required to
cover their heads and necks (Ridgeon 182).
Muhammad Hasan al-Najafi (1785-1850), the Twelver Shiite source of
emulation, ruled that there was consensus among jurists that the ‘awrah of
women had to be covered but that there was no consensus that this extended to
their hair (Ridgeon 182). Najafi noted that “covering head hair is based upon
[observing] caution” (Ridgeon 182, 188). He also spoke of the “probability for
the exemption of long hair” (Ridgeon 188).
When a jurist defers to ihtiyat or precaution, he is not issuing an edict of
halal or haram. His opinion on the subject is not binding and his followers or
muqallidin are therefore free to follow the edict of another mujtahid on the issue.
So, if Najafi said that wearing hijab was a matter of ihtiyat, however strong, his
followers could ascribe to the view of scholars who hold that it is mandatory or
adhere to the opinion that it is not obligatory. For Najafi, it was merely
mustahab (Ridgeon 188). He admitted that “reliable, related proofs” for
definitive commands on the “necessity of absolute covering of the head hair of
free Muslim women do not exist in primary shari‘ah texts” (Ridgeon 188).
Muhammad ‘Abduh (d. 1905), the Egyptian scholar, “lashed out at the
triple stigmatization of the Muslim female: a shameful nakedness, a dangerous
temptation to immorality, and an uncontrollable lust” (Hajjaji-Jarrah 210). He
argued that men who viewed women as a source of fitnah or temptation to
immorality were women-phobic and that “women are not required to assess it or
to recognize it” (211). It was up to those men to lower their gaze (211). If men
were so concerned about being tempted by women, he suggested they should be
the ones to veil and conceal themselves (211).
On January 8, 1936, Reza Pahlavi (d. 1944), the Shah of Iran, banned the
veil in all its forms. In so doing, he was aware that there were different views on
the subject in Islamic jurisprudence and counted on the support of the clerics
that he had consulted. The edict, known as Kashf-e hijab, prohibited the hijab
and the chador. Its swift and brutal implementation would prove to be a
catastrophe that backfired and added fuel to the fundamentalist opposition.
Mustafa Ghalaynini (d. 1944), a Lebanese theologian, noted that veiling
was a pre-Islamic custom that had been adopted by Muslims from other cultures.
In 1947, the General Assembly of the Islamic Community in Bosnia and
Herzegovina supported banning the niqab and jilbab. The Islamic leadership
concluded that veiling was a cultural practice and that it was wrong and
damaging to mistake such customs as forming part of the principles of Islam
(Mekić 144).
In the 1950s, President Gamal Abdel Nasser (d. 1970) mocked the request
made by Muslim Brotherhood leaders to veil all women.
‘Abd al-Qadir al-Maghribi (d. 1956) viewed hijab as an aristocratic custom
that distinguished wealthy and prestigious women from others.
In 1957, President Habib Bourguiba (d. 2000) of Tunisia prohibited wearing
the veil in schools.
Sultan Mohamed Shah (d. 1957), Aga Khan III, expressed opposition to
purdah, the burqa, and hijab, insisting that Islam did not mandate them.
Tahar Haddad (d. 1935), the Tunisian scholar and reformer, concluded that
the hijab was not rooted in the Qur’an. He viewed it as the manifestation of male
immorality. He was declared a heretic and an apostate. Since he was declared an
unbeliever, the establishment decreed he was prohibited from marrying any
Muslim woman.
Regarding 33:59, the so-called hijab verse, Muhammad Muhaqqiq Damad
(1907-1968), the Twelver Shiite jurist, provided some needed clarity. As he
explained,
Discovering the secret of this verse and the confusion of its beginning
and the end renders a conclusion contrary to proving the need to cover.
It convinces the jurist that the command in this verse explains nonobligatory [but] preferential customs… and it is clear that these words and the language that is used is not in principle an expression of requirement or necessity… So, the glorious verse, in relation to conveying necessity is incomplete. (Ridgeon 195-196)
Shah Karim al-Husayni (b. 1936), Aga Khan III, has reiterated his refusal to
recognize the hijab as an Islamic obligation, viewing it as an antiquated social
custom.
Abdullah Yusuf Ali, the Muslim scholar and translator the Qur’an, noted in
his commentary to verse 53 that “for Muslim women generally, no screen or
hijab (purdah) is mentioned, but only a veil to cover the bosom and modesty in
dress.”
Muhammad Mehdi Shams al-Din (d. 2001), the Twelver Shiite jurist,
declared that the hijab was not obligatory, only recommended, and it could not
be coerced. “The language of this verse,” he notes, “does not [indicate]
compulsion or necessity; perhaps it expresses desirability and dictate more than
anything” (Ridgeon 196). He viewed the hijab as divisive to social cohesion and
national unity. He did not believe that Muslim women should be visibly
distinguished from Christian ones.
Mohamed al-Talbi (d. 2017), the Tunisian historian and Islamologist,
asserted that the Qur’an said absolutely nothing about the hijab. In fact, he
argued that “all the problems of the shari‘ah are connected to the problem of the
hijab.” He believed that “If Muslim women abandoned the hijab, out of
faithfulness to the Qur’an, men would follow, and Muslim thought would be
renewed” (Bestandji 2021: 112). Talbi was condemned to death by three
Islamist movements, and the police refused to provide him protection. He
remained defiant until his death, insisting that true Islam was freedom.
On March 6, 1979, Khomeini declared that “naked women must not enter
Islamic ministries. Women must wear the hijab in all ministries” (Ridgeon 132).
In response, over one hundred thousand Iranian women marched on March 8,
1979, to celebrate International Women’s Day (Ridgeon 132). The women, who
came “from all sectors of society,” including the young and the old,
demonstrated for six days (Ridgeon 132).
Mahmoud Taleghani (d. 1979), the Twelver Shiite source of emulation,
ruled that “hijab is not compulsory.” He assured women it would not be
enforced and would only be voluntary (Ridgeon 133).
In 1983, after consolidating their power, Khomeini and his Islamist
supporters felt secure enough to impose the hijab by law and force (Ridgeon
133). Moral law enforcers, both male and female, were deployed to chastise and
punish women who showed a single strand of hair (Ridgeon 133). They harassed
women for wearing tight clothing, makeup, lipstick, nail polish or perfume
(Ridgeon 133). As Kaveh Basmenji describes,
“Moral police” … aided and abetted by Ansar-e-Hezbollah thugs…
under the watchful gaze of officers in olive-colored uniforms, [and]
female police agents clad in black chadors stopped young women,
barking at them, questioning them, and dragging the more defiant ones
towards buses waiting in line. Members of Ansar-e-Hezbollah were
chanting “Marg bar Badhejab” (death to those with improper hijab),
breaking with stones the windows of shops displaying lingerie or short
robes, and beating up whoever happened to be in their way. (Ridgeon
133-134)
Warith Deen Mohammed (d. 2008), who brought the Nation of Islam into a
more mainstream Muslim tradition, only believed that women should wear hijab
in the mosque and while performing their prayers. He did not view the hijab as a
religious obligation. He was denounced as a heretic and an infidel by Salafi
terrorists.
In the early twentieth century, Farzana Hassan (b. 1957), the former
president of the Muslim Canadian Congress, asserted that “the modesty
recommended in the Qur’an has more to do with modesty in conduct and
demeanor” (Fatah 292). She noted that “the Qur’an remained silent as to the
specific apparel worn [by women]… except for the occasion where it
specifically suggested covering the bosom with a khimar,” something that was
“specifically designed to discourage the practice of earlier times when women
dressed scantily with their bosoms remaining exposed” (Fatah 292). As a result,
Islamist terrorists threatened to assassinate her on grounds of apostasy.
For Tarek Fatah (1949-2023), an author and journalist, “the commandment
in the verse is clear: cover your chest or bosom” (293). However, due to the
“fabrication of medieval scholars and the cowardice of contemporary translators… Muslims are being told that the Qur’an prescribes the covering of
one’s head or hair” (293). He made the following “Plea to My Sisters:”
Originally a reflection of modesty, the hijab has now become a political
tool. All women have, at some time in their lives, chosen to wear a
head cover, whether in a snowstorm or freezing rain. At times, the
covering of the head, irrespective of what religion one practices, is
crucial to one’s survival. In the deserts of Arabia, whether one is a
Muslim or a pagan, the covering of one’s head and face is an absolute
necessity — not just when facing a blistering sandstorm, but any time
one steps out of the home into the searing sunshine. But what is
essentially attire for a particular climate and weather has been turned
into a modern symbol of defiance and, at best, a show of false piety by
Islamists and orthodox Muslims…
There is not a single reference in the Qur’an that obliges Muslim
women to cover their hair or their face, or to lower the voice. The only
verse that comes close to such a dress code, Sura 24:31, directs
believing women to cover their bosoms. Yet, in the past few decades,
Islamists and orthodox Muslims have made the covering of a woman’s
head the cornerstone of Muslim identity. It is true that through history
some Muslim women have chosen to wear the hijab for reasons of
modesty. Today, however, some wear it for the opposite reason.
“Young women put on a hijab and go dancing, wearing high heels and
lipstick. They wear tight jeans that show their bellies,” seventy-five-year-old Nawal Al-Saadawi, Egypt’s leading feminist, noted recently,
adding that “The hijab has nothing to do with moral values.”
Beyond fashion, however, this supposed symbol of modesty has
assumed a decidedly political and religious tenor, dominating the
debate on civil liberties and religious freedoms in the West. Any
opposition to the hijab is viewed as a manifestation of Islamophobia. It
should be noted that the head scarf that pre-dated the hijab, was worn
by Arab women before the Qur’an’s stipulations on modesty of dress
and demeanor… 24:31 did not introduce the garment but modified its
use when it said that Muslim women should “wear their khimar over
their bosoms” — previously, breasts were left bare, although bedecked
with jewelry and ornaments.
Therefore, to turn the hijab or khimar into a religious and political
issue belies its original intent. Muslim women who so vociferously
defend its use should consider its history before deciding whether they
must wear it. Islamists have turned the hijab into the central pillar of
Islam… Islamists consider Muslim women who do not cover their
heads — the majority — as sinners or lesser Muslims. They ban the
books of women who stand up to spousal abuse and depict Muslim
feminists as women of questionable character. As despicable as this
blackmailing is, it pales in comparison to the fact that these men in robes are using young Muslim girls as shields behind which they pursue a political agenda. Can God be fooled? (301-302)
Based on his theory of limits, Muhammad Shahrur (d. 2019), the Syrian
intellectual and philosopher, concluded that the minimum Muslim women had to
cover in the public sphere were their genitals and breasts. In other words, a
Muslim woman who wore a bikini by a pool or a beach was abiding by the
minimum limit of the law. In his view, covering cleavage, which includes the
breasts, armpits, and buttocks, was generally required, and could be fulfilled by
wearing a t-shirt and a pair of shorts. However, he had no qualms about women
showing more in specific social settings, such as concerts, celebrations, the
theatre, and the opera. In contrast, the maximum that a woman could cover
would be everything but her face and hands.
Afaf Lutfi al-Sayyid-Marsot (b. 1933), Leila Ahmed (b. 1940), Fadwa El
Guindi (b. 1941), Nimat Hafez Barazangi (b. 1943), Riffat Hasan (b. 1943),
Amina Wadud (d. 1952), Asma Barlas (1950), Ziba Mir-Hosseini (b. 1954),
Asma Lamrabet (b. 1961) Ayesha S. Chaudhry, Nevin Reda, Aysha A.
Hidayatullah, and Zahra Jalaeipour, among many other Muslim women scholars,
have provided evidence that the hijab is not obligatory in Islam.
Abla Hasan, the Syrian American professor, does not believe that hijab can
be forced upon women in any shape or form.
Tedjini Haddam, who was a rector of the Great Mosque in Paris, explained
that all that was required was that “a woman be decently dressed.”
Sultan Abdulmajeed argued that “the idea that all Muslim women are
required by Islam to veil themselves (in any form) is false and damaging to
women, to Islam, and to people who might otherwise consider accepting Islam
as their faith.”
According to Gamal Al-Banna (1920-2013), the Egyptian author and
critical thinker, nothing in the Qur’an or authentic sunnah requires women to
cover their hair. The relevant Qur’anic verses command women to cover their
chests. In his words, “nothing in the Qur’an, nor the hadith require women to
wear a headscarf” (Guitta).
Fatima Mernissi (d. 2015), the Moroccan sociologist and feminist, argued
that the veil was a symbol of unjust male authority over women that was “a
construction of the ‘ulama,’ the male jurist-theologians who manipulated and
distorted the religious texts in order to preserve the patriarchal system.” It
should be noted, however, that Mernissi wrote her famous book, The Veil and
the Male Elite, at a time when nobody in Morocco even knew what a hijab was
(Yahia 121).
In her book, Hijab: A Modern Vision, Iqbal Baraka (b. 1944), an influential
feminist in the Arab world, argued that veiling is a demeaning pre-Islamic
practice not stipulated in the Qur’an or the hadith (Lichter 100). Far than having
anything to do with Islam, the hijab, in her view, is a relic of the Dark Ages. Not only is she opposed to the hijab, but she advocates abolishing the niqab
(MEMRI).
Ziauddin Sardar (b. 1951), the British-Pakistani intellectual, has concluded
that there is no Qur’anic warrant for burqas, chadors, abayahs, and niqab.
Azar Nafisi (b. 1955), the Iranian American academic, argues that the veil is
a political tool of the totalitarian Islamists to control people (Lichter 182). She
views the imposition of mandatory veiling as a usurpation of Islam, namely,
“changing what had been a freely chosen expression of religious faith into a rote
act imposed on them by the state” (Lichter 182).
Cyrille Moreno al-‘Ajami, a French theologian who specializes in Arabic
language, literature, and Qur’anic exegesis, believes that the Islamic obligation
to wear the hijab has no basis in the Qur’an and that “nothing obliges Muslim
women to wear hijab.” The text calls upon women to be chaste, decent, and
reserved, a standard that applies equally to men.
Al-‘Ajami stresses that the term khimar simply signified a covering in
Qur’anic usage and that women were only required to cover their cleavage and
private parts (2020: 133). To claim that the Qur’an asks women to cover their
cleavage in order to cover their hair is, in his view, “farfetched” and an act of
“exegetical trickery” (2020: 133). As he insists, “any command must necessarily
be explicit and unambiguous” (2020: 133). “Since the Qur’an did not visibly say
what Islam wanted it to say, some hadith were produced to obtain the result was
expected by legal exegesis” (2020: 134-135).
Khaled Abou El Fadl (b. 1963), an Islamic jurist, has ruled that it is
permissible to not wear hijab.
Numerous Twelver Shiite scholars, both traditionalists, and reformists, have
expressed their opposition to obligatory hijab, including Muhammad Ishaq al-Fayyad (b. 1930), a senior source of emulation, Muhammad Kazem Mousavi
Bojnourdi (b. 1942), and Hasan Khomeini (b. 1972)/
Wassyla Tamzali (b. 1941), the Algerian writer, lawyer, Muslim,
freethinker, and secular feminist, strongly opposes the veil.
Twelver Shiite jurist, Hassan Yousefi Eshkevari (b. 1950), argues that the
hijab, as understood and practiced, is not based on the Qur’an, and cannot be
imposed on women. He does not believe that women are required to cover their
hair. What is more, he argues that the concept of modesty is social, contextual,
and changeable. The Islamist regime in Iran condemned him to prison and
defrocked him.
In his study on the history of the hijab, Twelver Shiite scholar, Amir
Hussein Torkashvand (b. 1964), drew attention to the divergent rulings on the
subject. He noted that the main position, which has been shared by
contemporary scholars, and those from the recent past, is that the ‘awrah applied
to all parts of a woman, except her face and hands, with a minority including the
feet as well. Although known to few, he notes that the earliest view was that the
‘awrah of women referred only to their genitals. He concluded that the original view was between both positions and that the ‘awrah women, like men, extends
from the shoulders to the knees. In other words, women, like men, are free to
show their hair, arms, and lower legs.
In “A Religious Revision of Hijab,” published in 2007, Moslem Khalafi (b.
1969) reminded Muslims of the various rulings regarding women’s dress and
asked why it was that only the strictest views that mandate the veil are known
while moderate ones are entirely unknown.
Elham Man’ea (b. 1966), the Yemeni-Swiss political scientist, issued the
following plea to Muslim women:
I call on you, my Muslim sister, to take off the veil. This is an honest
call… Its intention is not to defile you, nor to encourage you to [moral]
lassitude. I call on you to exercise [free] thought and to use your own
mind. I am not calling on you to stop praying, fasting, or believing in
Allah. I call on you to take off the veil… Be yourself — a woman — and
not [a collection of] private parts. (Lichter 369)
Zaki Badawi, the Imam and founder of the Muslim College in the United
Kingdom, who passed away in 2006, asserted that the hijab was not obligatory
and that the face-veil was an innovation devoid of any Islamic foundation
(Goodwin 30).
In 2004, Ahmad Ghabal (d. 2012), the Twelver Shiite jurist, ruled that
women did not need to cover their hair and necks according to Islamic law and
that it was only recommended. He still insisted they should cover their bodies.
In 2016, he warned,
A red line has been drawn for the controversy of covering the head and
neck and a sanctuary has been made for it. It is as if no duty existed but
regurgitating repetitions and confirming populist understandings for
researchers and jurists of the current age. Establishing the limits for
[the hijab] has reached the extent that it has been called “the Islamic
flag,” an invented name, and all efforts of our great [scholars] in fiqh
have been and are spent to protect it. (Ridgeon 199)
The Islamist regime in Iran arrested him numerous times and convicted him of
waging war against the ruling system and insulting the “Supreme” Leader. He
died while under hospital arrest.
Kassim Ahmad (d. 2017), the Malaysian philosopher, has declared that the
Qur’an does not ordain the hijab and that women’s hair is not a part of their
‘awrah or private parts.
Mohammed Arkoun (d. 2010), an original and influential scholar of Islam,
affirmed that “The hijab has never been a canonical obligation.” He denounced
Islamist movements for turning it into an imaginary obligation.
Abul-Ghasem Fanaei (b. 1959), the Twelver Shiite scholar, concluded that
there was no basis in the Qur’an for the laws of hijab and that two vague verses
cannot be used to make laws and limit the freedom of women. He noted that
modesty is contextual and varies according to time and place. He believes
women should not flaunt their bodies to sexually arouse men deliberately. He
recognizes that, in some countries, wearing a bikini at a beach is not viewed as
provocative, does not endanger women, and does not result in sexual
harassment. In short, he believes that modesty rules are mutable, flexible, and
changeable.
Mahmoud Mohamed Taha (d. 1985), the seminal Sudanese scholar,
declared that “the veil (al-hijab) is not an original precept of Islam.”
In 1994, Muhammad Sa‘id al-Ashmawi (d. 2013), an Egyptian judge, ruled
that the hijab was not part of the shari‘ah and was not a religious obligation
(fard). He insisted that the fatwa on the veil was religiously illegitimate. It was a
pre-Islamic practice that early Muslim jurists wrongly and mistakenly adopted.
Since there has never been any proof that hijab was an absolute religious
requirement, and considering changes in social conditions, he believed there was
no convincing ground for maintaining it (Bloesch and Minister 60). He argued
that “the real meaning of hijab lies in thwarting the self from straying toward
lust or illicit desires and keeping away from sinful behavior, without having to
conjoin this [understanding] with particular forms of clothing and attire”
(Bucar). For daring to opine that Muslim women did not have to cover their hair,
he received death threats from Islamists and was placed under protection
(Stratton 167).
In 1999, ‘Abdollah Nuri (b. 1950), a cleric who served as Khatami’s
Minister of the Interior, was taken to court for advocating greater tolerance and
pluralism (Ridgeon 143). The court argued that granting people greater freedom
of choice endangered Islamic principles and promoted corruption and
immorality (Ridgeon 143). “By pointing to the non-compulsion for the hijab on
non-believing women and non-Muslims,” writes Ridgeon, “Nuri suggested that
the requirement to cover the head was not as straightforward as some have
asserted” (144). Although Nuri neither supported nor opposed the hijab, “his
defense of the general principle to allow different lifestyles indicated where his
sympathies lay” (144). Despite his long years of service to the Islamic Republic,
and his commitment to Khomeini’s doctrines, he was condemned to five years
of prison.
Muhammad Asad (1900-1992), the Qur’an translator and commentator, explains:
The noun khimar … denotes the head-covering customarily used by Arabian women as an ornament (not as hijab to cover their head) before and after the advent of Islam. According to most … classical commentators, it was worn in pre-Islamic times … as an ornament and was let down loosely over the wearer’s back; and since, in accordance with the fashion prevalent at the time, the upper part of a woman’s tunic had a wide opening in the front, her chest was left bare…. The injunction to cover the bosom by means of a khimar … does not necessarily relate to the use of a khimar as such but is … meant to make it clear that a woman’s chest is not included in the concept of “what may decently be apparent” of her body and should not … be displayed. Covering the head… is not a requirement. In the matter of hijab, the conscience of an honest, sincere believer alone can be the true judge, as has been said by the noble Prophet: “Ask for the verdict of your conscience and discard what pricks it.”
My interpolation … of the word “decently” reflects the interpretation of the phrase illa ma zahara minha by several of the earliest Islamic scholars, and particularly by al-Qiffal [904-976] (quoted by Razi), as “that which a human being may openly show in accordance with prevailing custom (al-‘adah al-jariyyah).” Although the traditional exponents of Islamic law have for centuries been inclined to restrict the definition of “what may (decently) be apparent” to a woman’s face, hands, and feet — and sometimes even less than that — we may safely assume that the meaning of illa ma zahara minha is much wider, and that the deliberate vagueness of this phrase is meant to allow for all the time-bound changes that are necessary for man’s moral and social growth. The pivotal clause in the above injunction is the demand, addressed in identical terms to men as well as to women, to “lower their gaze and be mindful of their chastity:” and this determines the extent of what, at any given time, may legitimately — i.e., in consonance with the Qur’anic principles of social morality — be considered “decent” or “indecent” in a person’s outward appearance.
Twelver Shiite scholar, Mohsen Kadivar, previously believed that the
minimum boundaries of hijab remain the same: namely, they should cover from
the neck to the knees. Depending on the context, he conceded that covering the
hair might not always be necessary. While his views have evolved, and he once
held the dominant restrictive interpretation of hijab, he now believes that the
hijab is neither necessary nor desirable, that clothing should accord with custom,
and that it should not violate the ethical basis of the Qur’an (Ridgeon 8, 234). In
fact, “he goes as far as saying that there is no Qur’anic imperative for women to
wear the hijab” (Ridgeon 8).
Twelver Shiite scholar, Moslem Khalafi, has pointed out that Islamic
sources include extremely permissive and restrictive narrations regarding
women’s dress. Some, for example, allowed women to pray without head
coverings and allowed men to look at the faces of women, even with attraction.
Why, he asks, have only the most restrictive positions regarding women’s dress
been favored over the more permissive ones?
Most of the children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren of the leaders
of the Islamic Revolution of Iran belong to the reformist camp, including Hasan
Khomeini, the grandson of Ruhollah Khomeini, and are proponents of voluntary
as opposed to compulsory hijab.
Javed Ahmed Ghamidi (b. 1952), the Pakistani philosopher, believes that
Muslim women are required to lower their gaze, wear modest clothing, cover
their bosom, and not expose themselves in public.
Farhad Shafti, a professor who holds a PhD in Islamic Studies, has asserted
that wearing a headscarf is not a religious act and has nothing to do with
modesty.
Moiz Amjad (b. 1962) concluded that “Islam does not make it mandatory
for women to cover their heads.”
In 2001, the Arab Times published a “Letter from Queen Rania” that was
sent to them directly from the email of Her Majesty on December 11 of that
year. It provided a synthesis of Qur’anic teachings on the hijab. It allowed the
newspaper to publish the piece so long as it withheld the email of the Queen and
did not sell or exploit it without the permission of the Royal Hashemite Court.
On January 14, 2002, New York attorney John S. Willems sent a letter to
the editor of the Arab Times claiming that the article should not be attributed to
Queen Rania. The editor, Osama Fawzi, responded by noting that the attorney
failed to identify the party he represented. Was he retained by Queen Rania
personally, Her Majesty’s husband the King of Jordan, the Royal Hashemite
Court, the Jordanian Embassy in Washington, or the Jordanian Intelligence
Agency? To all appearances, no further communications came from the attorney
and the “Letter from Queen Rania” has been available online, on numerous sites,
since 2001.
Although more detailed than the sound bites she provides in interviews, the views shared in the letter, and the language and style in which they are expressed, sound very much like those of Queen Rania. In fact, she has been repeating the talking points found in that disputed article for over two decades. Apparently, her interview with Oprah Winfrey in 2001, which touched upon the sensitive religious issue of hijab, had struck some nerves, and Jordanian intelligence was attempting to put out some fires to placate the Islamists. The entirety of the letter is found online.
In 2002, the Iranian regime banned the Persian translation of Fatima
Mernessi’s The Veil and the Male Elite, a timid work on the topic.
When Oprah Winfrey contrasted Queen Rania’s westernized look to that of
women who wear hoods, burqas, and hijabs, during the course of an interview
in 2001, Her Majesty answered as follows:
[Just] like in Christianity, there are different interpretations of Islam,
and there are different degrees of conservatism. It’s a personal choice.
Some people are more conservative than others. The important thing is
the spirit of Islam. That is all about tolerance, about doing good,
diversity, equality, and human dignity. The fact that Islam is very
tolerant means that it doesn’t impose anything on other people. You are
supposed to behave in a certain way, or dress in a certain way out of
conviction, not because somebody imposes their own ideology on you.
I believe one’s relationship with God, and how one chooses to practice
religion, is an intensely personal choice.
“So you as an individual choose whether or not you want to be robed or not
robed, or wear your head covered or not?,” asked Oprah, “That’s not imposed
upon you by your religion?” “In our country,” responded the Queen, “that is
what we believe. We give women the choice to wear the headscarf or not. It’s a
personal choice. As I said, it is not the state that is supposed to impose on
individuals what they believe in. That is their own personal choice” (Come and
See).
In 2003, Queen Rania of Jordan denounced the fact that the identity of Arab
women was being reduced to a single article of clothing, the hijab (Queen
Rania).
In 2006, Hossein Khomeini, the oldest grandson of Ruhollah Khomeini,
stated that “the hijab is a personal issue. If a woman wants it, she may [wear it],
and if she doesn’t, she may [refuse it]” (Ighani).
In a 2007 interview with the Italian daily Corriere della Serra, Queen Rania
of Jordan insisted, “Islam neither requires one to be practicing, nor to dress in
one way or another… Imposing the veil on a woman is contrary to the principles
of Islam… Wearing the veil is a free personal choice.” She urged “all moderates
to stand up and let their voices be heard.” As she explained,
Many people are frustrated in the Arab world. Many give in to anger
because they are accused of violence. But instead we should get up,
explain who we are and what we believe in. Over the last three years,
most victims of terrorism have been Muslim. So there’s not a war
between Muslims and non-Muslims, but between extremists and
moderates of all the religions. What is important is not to live in fear.
The most dangerous [thing to do] is to give up and lose hope. The main
enemy is not terrorism or extremism, but ignorance. (ABC)
In 2007, Ramzan Kadyrov (b.1976), the Chechen despot, commenced a so-called “virtue campaign” to impose the headscarf and the rules of hijab. He proclaimed that he wanted Chechnya to be “more Islamic than the Islamists.”
Kadyrov “openly asserted that women were inferior and should be subjugated to
men, equating women with male property.” He decreed that “all women
working for state institutions had to wear headscarves and expected to see his
wishes carried out immediately.” He did the same for schools, introducing an
Islamist uniform that included headscarves. By 2009 and 2010, the “headscarf
rule” started to spread throughout the rest of society. Men and women viewed
the imposition of the headscarf policy as deeply offensive and humiliating;
however, they were coerced to comply out of fear for themselves and their
families (Human Rights Watch).
Natalya Estemirova (1958-2009), a human rights activist, expressed her
opposition to the compulsory Islamic dress code. In a 2008 interview, she
insisted that forcing Chechen women to wear headscarves was “wrong,
unlawful, and constituted a blatant violation of the right to privacy.” Kadyrov
“personally dismissed Estemirova from the Grozny City Human Rights Council,
raising his voice to her, making derisive remarks to try to shame her for not
adhering to modesty laws, and threatening her with repercussions for her
unyielding criticism.”
On July 15, 2009, Natalya Estemirova was abducted and executed by an
Islamist death squad. Since then, women who do not wear hijab have been
shamed, threatened, and assaulted by Islamists, some even suffering from
paintball attacks committed by former Chechen fighters. The Islamist vigilantes,
all Kadyrov enforcers, left behind leaflets warning women that if they failed to
wear a headscarf, they would resort “to more persuasive measures.” Kadyrov
stated that the men involved in such actions deserved to receive awards and that
the women who were targeted deserved to “disappear from the face of the
earth.” Not surprisingly, there was a direct correlation between the virtue
campaign and the rise in so-called “honor killings” (Human Rights Watch).
In 2005, Seyran Ateş (b. 1963), a German-Turkish attorney, feminist, and
author, was named “woman of the year” for her work in “defense of Muslim
women in immigrant communities” (Bridge). In her 2017 book, The
Multicultural Mistake: How We Can Live Together Better in Germany, she
argued that Muslim women are pressured into wearing the hijab by their
religious communities (Bridge). In a 2009 interview, she asserted that “this
headscarf is nothing but an expression of oppression and inhibition, and the fact
that men would prefer to hide women” (Bridge). In 2018, she warned that “just
by wearing the headscarf,” a woman “signals the strict interpretation of Islam,
that the woman must be hidden from the eyes of men” (Bridge). In a 2021
article, she is said that “[The headscarf] is not for God, it is for men” (Arafat).
Seyran Ateş founded the Ibn Ruschd-Goethe Mosque in 2017, where she
leads prayers as the first female Imam in Germany. The mosque welcomes all
women, with or without hijab, but refuses to admit women who wear the burqa
or the niqab (Bridge). Obviously, this signals that such women are committed to the most extreme and misogynistic interpretation of Islam. Admitting them
would be like accepting men in Ku Klux Klan robes into an African American
church. They may all be Christians; however, they do not share the same
interpretation of the faith. Why, one wonders, would a Klansman want to enter a
black church? Likewise, why would a radical Islamist wish to enter the premises
of a liberal, women-led, mosque, particularly when the women who operate and
attend it receive regular death threats. For Ateş, the full veil has nothing to do
Islam. It is the symbol of a political ideology (Dege).
Seyran Ateş is also opposed to mandatory hijab, as well as the hijab worn
by teachers and public servants, as it is contrary to secular values, contributes to
the creation of parallel societies, and prevents proper socio-cultural integration
(Bridge). In 2019, she was awarded the prestigious Urania Medal for her
inclusive vision. She is required to live under constant police protection in
Germany (Dege). Even the Turkish government has accused Ateş and her
mosque of being a “terrorist organization.”
In a 2006 interview with Oprah Winfrey, Queen Rania of Jordan was asked
why some women wore the veil while others did not. She responded that “it’s a
personal choice… as long as a woman does it because she wants to and she’s not
coerced into it then that is her right” (Queen Rania). As a result, many Muslim
women accused her of being a kafirah or infidel for supposedly flouting a divine
command. Little did they know that no such order was to be found in the
Qur’an. Is it not a mortal sin and crime in Islam to slander and defame women
and to issue death threats?
When asked about the hijab during an interview with Time Magazine in
2007, Queen Rania of Jordan had this to say:
For many, the hijab represents modesty, piety, and devotion to God,
and I truly respect that. Unfortunately, too many people in the Western
world mistakenly perceive it as an expression of powerlessness and
oppression. And increasingly it is being turned into a political tool.
Modernity is not about dress codes. Religion and modernity are not
necessarily mutually exclusive. In Jordan, a woman cannot be forced to
wear a veil against her will. (Time)
When Fareed Zakaria (b. 1964) asked her why more women were wearing hijab
now than thirty or forty years ago, Queen Rania of Jordan provided an
intelligent assessment of the factors at play:
All over the world a lot of societies are feeling challenged by
globalization. They are feeling that … Western values are being
imposed upon them. They fear that … they are losing their sense of
identity so there is a whole movement to feel indigenous now…
Sometimes… going back to your traditions gives you that sense of
maintaining your identity. What we’re trying to do in Jordan is to
demonstrate that you can be an Arab, you can be a Muslim… you can be a world player. You can be progressive. You can have political,
economic, and social reform but these things are not mutually exclusive
so setting that model of moderation is extremely important…
I am not trying to paint a rosy picture. There are still a lot of
challenges for women in the Arab world, not least of which is literacy
rates, unemployment rates, cultural constraints that limit their civil,
their personal liberties, so we still have a long way to go but there is
progress being made and mindsets are slowly… changing. You will
always have though elements of society who have political agendas and
who will justify those political agendas through Islam and sometimes
that will reflect on how they feel women should behave and should
dress. But again… it’s all about education, it’s about reform and
hopefully, as long as we keep the balance and it doesn’t tip to one side
then we can hopefully … help those societies. (Queen Rania)
During an interview conducted in 2008, Muhammad Mujtahid-Shabistari
(b. 1936), the professor, philosopher, theologian, and specialist in hermeneutics,
admitted,
There is no mention of wearing of veils in the Qur’an. There is an
expression in the Qur’an that says that one should keep a dignified
appearance. That refers to a way of life for a particular society and the
Prophet’s precepts were intended to be appropriate for that society at
that time. But that does not mean that these precepts with regard to
ritual or other points mentioned belong to the core of the faith.
(Ridgeon 47-48)
He also pointed out that the Prophet never criticized unveiled women (Ridgeon
213). In fact, he argued that such “distortion” took place during ‘Abbasid times
(Ridgeon 213).
In 2010, Hassen Chalgoumy (b. 1972), a French Imam of Tunisian birth,
who leads the Drancy mosque, near Paris, expressed support for banning the
burqa. Since then, he is forced to wear a bullet-proof vest and requires the
protection of two bodyguards, even when he leads congregational prayers at the
mosque, which is itself surrounded by high security fences. As one can imagine,
he longs for the enlightened, Sufi-inspired, Islam that he experienced as a child
in Tunisia.
In an interview with the BBC, conducted in 2010, Queen Rania of Jordan
stated, “I am a staunch supporter of every woman’s right to wear the hijab, just
as I am a staunch supporter of every woman’s right not to wear it” (Queen
Rania).
In 2011, Raj Bhala (b. 1962), an Indian American jurist and distinguished
professor who focuses on Islamic law, asked a crucial question:
To what does the phrase “privates parts” refer? The common
understanding in the non-Muslim world is that it means, for men, the genitalia, and buttocks. For women, it means genitalia, buttocks, and
breasts. If this interpretation were the one held in the Muslim world…
it would imply neither men nor women should appear in public, in front
of … non-close family relatives with these parts of their bodies
exposed. It would be forbidden… for a Muslim man or woman to go
nude to a nude beach, or topless at a topless beach — though being in
such a beach, in suitable bathing clothes, would be a different matter.
Conversely, hands and feet, arms and legs, head and neck, face, and
portions of the mid-section and back, are not normally understood to be
“private parts” — at least not throughout the non-Muslim world.
After providing an informed overview of the history of the veil in a 2014 article,
Hannibal Genseric, an engineer, journalist, and Amazigh activist, concluded that
“the veil is neither Arabic nor Islamic.”
In a study published in 2011, Mohammad Hashim Kamali (1944), a Muslim
jurist, academic, and professor, concluded that “there is no mandate on veiling
(hijab) and face cover (niqab) in the Qur’an and Sunnah” (49).
Zahra Eshraghi (b. 1964), the granddaughter of Ruhollah Khomeini,
opposes Iran’s mandatory hijab laws. She insists that the chador was forced
upon women and that a traditional garment was turned into a revolutionary
symbol. “People have lost respect for it,” she stressed, “I only wear it because of
my family status” (Ighani).
Naeimeh Eshraghi (b. 1965), the granddaughter of Ruhollah Khomeini,
insists that her grandfather opposed the imposition of the hijab by force. She
claims that he wrote a manifesto in which he only supported the use of gentle
enforcement methods and prohibited offending women in the process. While she
admits that she is not a jurist, she cites legal authorities who state that it is
forbidden to mandate hijab since there is no “legal limit defined for hijab” in
Islamic law (Habibi).
Naeimeh Eshraghi’s daughter, who bears the same name, has made her
position on the hijab perfectly clear by baring her legs, thighs, and arms in mini
dresses while studying in Canada, the “infidel country” denounced by her great
grandfather, Khomeini. Likewise, the granddaughters of other Iranian ayatollahs
are notorious party girls who are famous for wearing micro miniskirts, high
heels, and denim booty shorts. They rebel against the restrictions of the regime
via their clothing. Just like the chador and the hijab became symbols of
rebellion against the rule of the Shah, Western club wear has become an act of
revolt against Islamic fundamentalism and political Shiism.
“By reducing Muslim women to their bodies, and pretending that modesty
is their primary duty,” argued Moin Qazi in 2017, “we strip them of their
personhood.”
Azam Taleghani (d. 2019), a progressive Islamist, and daughter of
Mahmoud Taleghani, was strongly opposed to mandatory hijab.
Like Azam Taleghani, Zahra Rahnavard (b. 1945), the former Chancellor of
al-Zahra University, was a staunch supporter of the hijab, even authoring a book
on the topic. However, like many former hardliners, she had a change of heart
and opposes mandatory hijab. She believes that women should have the right to
wear or not to wear the hijab based on their level of religiosity. A leader of
Iran’s 2009 Green Movement, and a former advisor to President Khatami, she
has been under house arrest since 2011. In response to repression on the part of
the state apparatus, she stated defiantly: “Either kill me as well or give in to the
demands of the Iranian people.”
In a 2014 interview, Asma Lamrabet, a Moroccan medical doctor and
intellectual, asserted that “khimar is not important… The debate over hijab and
khimar is outdated… it is not an obligation at all” (Mir-Hosseini 2022: 135). She
described the hijab as absurd and noted that “God is not waiting for me to wear
khimar” (Mir-Hosseini 2022: 135). In a 2014 interview, Ziba Mira-Hosseini, an
Iranian anthropologist, asked the crucial question: “Why should God care about
us covering our hair?” (2022: 135). In a conference in the same year, she
lambasted the ‘ulama’ in the following terms:
I recognize your work but you do not want to recognize mine. I will tell
you why: because I know the reality of my context, but you are blind to
it; you may know the text, but you do not know the context. You are
not real ulema as the ulema were in the past; those ulema who knew the
text and the context and delt with both. You may know all the verses of
the Qur’an; but you do not want to recognize that our society has
changed, evolved. (Mir-Hosseini 2022: 14)
In 2014, Masih Alinejad launched My Stealthy Freedom, a Facebook page
which encourages Iranian women to defy hijab laws by posting photographs of
themselves with their hair uncovered. Alinejad is not opposed to hijab, per se.
She simply believes that women should not be arrested, fined, and imprisoned
for not doing so. She was eventually forced into exile and now lives in the
United States. Despite having reasonable and rational views, the Iranian regime
views her a serious threat that must be eliminated by any and all means.
Apparently, mandatory hijab is the hill upon which the “Islamic” Republic of
Iran has chosen to die.
In 2014, President Hasan Rouhani of Iran released a survey, conducted by a
government research group, that found that 49.8% of Iranians viewed hijab as a
personal matter in which the government should have no say (Ridgeon 13).
“You can’t send people to heaven by the whip,” he stated in the same year,
apparently alluding to the bad-hijab vigilante squads (Ridgeon 214). In his
memoirs, he admitted that he was involved in making hijab mandatory in Iran;
however, his views on the subject seem to have mellowed over the years
(Ridgeon 214).
In 2015, Muhammad Riza Za’iri asserted that “I strongly believe the policy
of mandatory hijab has been totally wrong” (Ridgeon 14). Since then, however,
he seems to have bowed to the authority of Khamenei (Ridgeon 14).
In 2016, Hassan Khomeini (b. 1972), the grandson of Ruhollah Khomeini,
asserted that there was more to Islam than hijab (Karami).
In 2016, Saliha Marie Fetteh (b. 1962) and Sherin Khankan opened the first
women’s mosque in Denmark (b. 1974). “When people wonder why I am not
wearing hijab, I tell them I do,” explains Khankan, “I just have a different
interpretation of the meaning of hijab. To me, the hijab is about sincerity. It is
about being close to Allah” (Shibeeb). “To me,” she says, “the hijab is a
metaphor for sincerity” (Turner). Hence, she stresses “the inner hijab, which is
your sincerity and kindness” (Turner). She believes that women should have the
freedom to dress as they please. In her words, “I’m fighting for any woman’s
right to wear the hijab and not to wear the hijab” (Buys). Unlike other Islamic
feminists, Khankan even backs the burqa. In her words, “If a woman is isolated
and forced to wear a burqa or the niqab, by criminalizing it, you will isolate her
even more, because she might not be able to go out… It is important to fight for
any women’s right to wear the hijab or not, to wear the niqab or not — if it is her
own choice and her own free will” (Reuters).
These comments, however, are oxymoronic. She admits that women who
wear the burqa or the niqab are isolated and forced into wearing it. She
recognizes that they are convinced or coerced into doing so by
paleoconservative Muslims. However, she opposes its prohibition on grounds
that it further isolates isolated women. She then stresses that women should be
free to wear the niqab out of their own free will. However, she previously
admitted they did not do so freely. According to this logic, we should not
criminalize domestic abuse because battered women are isolated and
criminalizing it would further isolate them. God forbid they would go outside
with a black eye. If there is a problem, one must face it and address it. What is
more, one does not defend the freedom of dress of women who do not believe
that women should have freedom of dress.
In 2016, Maya Ksouri, the Tunisian attorney, author, and activist, asserted
that “the veil represents regression and the enslavement of women.”
In 2016, the otherwise hardline Naser Makarem-Shirazi allowed women in
the West to discard the hijab due to the “onslaught” of Islamophobic sentiment.
In his words, “If committed Muslim females are deprived of higher education…
pious believers will be authorized under such special circumstances to unveil,
but in other cases they are to abide by and maintain the hijab” (Ridgeon 201).
In so doing, he acknowledged that the hijab was not the end all and be all and
that education was more important. One could also argue that employment
overrides the importance of the hijab. Such a ruling provides women who live
and study outside the Muslim world a degree of flexibility.
Mohsen Kadivar, however, was quick to point out the edict’s logical flaws.
He noted that “the respected marja has said that covering a woman’s hair, head,
and neck, is not as important as covering the rest of the body, because it is
possible to ignore [the command] in necessary circumstances” (Ridgeon 231-
232).
Although a woman’s face is more beautiful than her hair, Kadivar found it
strange that it is not considered part of her zinah or beauty that must be
concealed (Ridgeon 252). The requirement for women to cover their private
parts, he notes, derives from the Qur’an, a primary source, whereas “covering a
woman’s head hair is based on local culture, regional conditions and time and
place more than legal requirements” (232).
In 2016, Yousef Saanei, a Twelver Shiite source of emulation, ruled that “if
a commonly acceptable hijab causes such hardship and problems for Muslim
women, they may wear coverings such as wigs so they can get rid of the
problems and, at the same time, they will be observing the laws of shari‘ah.
They may have some difficulties wearing wigs, but they should bear them for
God’s satisfaction and for their salvation and beatitude” (111). Sa‘id al-Hakim
(d. 2021) had passed a similar edict a few years earlier, allowing Muslim women
to wear wigs while remaining technically veiled (369). Mind you, this was a
man who prohibited colored eye contacts or bright hijabs if they turned men on.
However, he found human cloning to be perfectly legal and ethical. Rather than
require Muslim women in the West to wear wigs, like Orthodox Jewish women,
why not opt for a simpler solution? Let them show their hair freely.
Asked about her decision not to wear hijab in 2017, Queen Rania of Jordan
responded,
I really do think that religion is a very personal thing. I feel that it’s
wrong to try to deal with our differences by trying to impose
homogeneity. Many women in my country wear the hijab, and you’ll
also find many women dressed like me. It just baffles me sometimes
that there’s a huge debate about an issue that should really be a non-issue. (Sunday Times).
“Everywhere she goes,” notes the Los Angeles Times, “she talks about her
decision not to wear the hijab” (Hall). As she often responds, “It’s more
important to judge a woman by what’s in her head, not on her head.” When
pressed why she chooses not to wear it, she answers, “for the same reason that
any woman decides how she wants to wear her hair or how she wants to dress.
It’s a personal choice. The funny thing is I get asked more about not wearing the
veil when I’m abroad than when I’m in Jordan” (Hall).
In 2017, Masih Alinejad launched White Wednesdays to protest Iran’s
mandatory hijab policy. It encourages women to wear white and to cast off their
hijabs in public as an act of protest.
Faezeh Hashemi Rafsanjani (b. 1963), the daughter of former president,
‘Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, believes that imposing hijab leads to opposing
Islam. She was imprisoned on two occasions for supporting the 2009 Green
Movement. She was also arrested in 2022 for supporting the anti-hijab protests.
A mob of Islamist hardliners called her a whore and demanded that she be put to
death.
In a 2018 television interview, Taj Hargey, a specialist in Islamic history,
Muslim theology, and Qur’anic hermeneutics, noted: “Nowhere in the Qur’an
does it actually say that women should cover their face, let alone their hair.”
In 2018, Mohsen Kadivar, an exiled Iranian mujtahid, declared that “the
mandatory veil was born with the Islamic Republic and it will die with the
Islamic Republic” (Ridgeon 233).
In 2018, Mufti Abu Layth, a British-Pakistani Muslim cleric, argued that
hijab was not mandatory as the head of a woman was not part of her ‘awrah.
In 2018, Abdullah bin Bayyah and Hamza Yusuf argued that Muslim
women could discard the headscarf and perhaps wear hats to avoid harm or
harassment.
In 2018, Mohammad Taqi Fazel Meybodi (b. 1953), an Iranian “ayatollah,”
asserted that “forced hijab by the way of threats, fear, and imprisonment is not
pragmatic at all. This approach is not backed by strong logic and will ultimately
have [bad] consequences for the society.”
In 2019, Adnan Ibrahim, a Palestinian Islamic scholar with a PhD in Arabic
Studies from the University of Vienna, argued that the hijab was not a religious
obligation.
In 2019, Khalid Zaheer, an Islamic scholar with a PhD from the University
of Wales, explained that the hijab was recommended at most, but not obligatory
based on Qur’anic evidence.
Hassan Farhan al-Maliki (b. 1970), a Saudi scholar of Islam, does not
believe that the hijab is obligatory. Imprisoned since 2017, prosecutors sought
the death penalty against him in 2019 on grounds of heresy and apostasy.
In 2019, over half a dozen Belgian scholars, intellectuals, professionals, and
activists of Muslim culture and background issued a position paper titled “The
Hijab is a Sexist, Deadly, Alienating Prison.” In their words:
It is no coincidence that the veil spreads at the same rate as
Islamism. To remain silent on the subject of the veil or to
surrender is not a matter of defending Muslims. It is to refuse to
treat others as equals. In recent years, each season is the occasion of a
new episode in the saga of the veil… A poster from the Walloon Youth
Parliament featured the image of a veiled young girl, while Décathlon
offered a jogging hijab for sale…. As summer approaches, it is the
burkini that will resurface. Each season, the issue of the veil resurfaces:
the veil at school, the veil at work, the veil at the beach, and the veil in
politics. It is now commonplace to see veiled women and girls in the street, advertisements, or magazines, when it is not on electoral lists or
within institutions themselves… White supremacists and assassins sow
death in New Zealand and …the Prime Minister of New Zealand wears
the veil… As soon as someone dares to question its deep meaning, that
person is ordered to remain silent, sometimes with extreme violence.
The words “racist!” and “Islamophobe!” are cast and it is no longer
possible to speak to each other. Under cover of tolerance, some impose
a real omerta…. It is no coincidence that the veil spreads at the same
rate as Islamism.
What is the Meaning of Hijab?
The hijab is a cloth that covers the hair, neck, and ears. It treats the
entire female body as impure and cannot be removed [in public], no
matter the occasion. The hijab helps protect men who otherwise would
be unable to control themselves. Let us call a spade a spade: according
to this logic, women are temptresses, sluts, men are weak and
libidinous. The veiling of little girls, sometimes babies, accustoms them
to being ashamed of their bodies and prepares them to maintain their
status as sexual objects. The hijab is a sexist, deadly, alienating prison,
and its development is directly linked to the Islamization of societies.
Before the Islamist wave, Muslim women, for the most part, did not
wear the veil. Let us remember the famous video of the Egyptian Head
of State Nasser who, in 1953, aroused the hilarity of the assembly by
narrating his response to the Muslim Brotherhood who wanted him to
impose the veil on women: “I answered him that it was a throwback to
the days when religion ruled, and women were only let out after dark.”
The veil imposed itself alongside Islamism, first in Iran, then in
Algeria, Tunisia… Have you wondered why the first act of Islamists is
to impose the veil, while that of women liberated from Daesh, from
sexual slavery, is to burn hijabs?
Resisters at the Risk of their Lives
Women and men resist and place their lives at risk. They are whipped,
locked up, murdered for refusing the veiling of women! Men, also,
because the veil is not just a matter related to women: it is a political
issue… Lawyer Nasrin Sotoudeh, who defends Iranian women who
dared to remove their veils, was sentenced to lashes and imprisonment
for conspiracy and propaganda against the system. Her original
sentence was increased for indecency because she appeared bareheaded
at her trial. Why would a woman be willing to be whipped and locked
up, if this [struggle] was only about hair? Why did Décathlon call its
running accessory “hijab” and not a “running balaclava?” Let us be
realistic, it is a product intended for countries where the veil is not
imposed. In Islamist countries, women do not need it since they are not allowed to run, swim, or ride a bike. The introduction of the hijab in
our societies is a political act of political Islam. To remain silent, or
give in on the question of the veil is not to defend Muslims. It is to not
treat others as equals. Around the world, Muslims are the first victims
of Islamists!
Listen to the Voices
From Morocco to Algeria, via Canada, Iran, France, Belgium, or
Sudan, many voices are raised to denounce the political extremism of
which the hijab is the symbol. It is time to hear them! We, women and
men of Muslim culture or background, having lived or undergone the
Islamization of our societies, are concerned to see the development of
an identity argument as rampant Islamism develops in parallel, like
what we have seen and experienced in our countries of origin. We ask
that our voices and our experiences on the issue of the veil and what it
prefigures as a political project be heard, and recognized. We ask
everyone — journalists, politicians, citizens, whatever your origins or
commitments — to join in this debate. It belongs to you, as much as to
us, by ideal and convictions, but also because contradiction is what
extremists of all persuasions fear the most.
Signatories: Bahareh Dibadj; Fadila Maaroufi; Djemila
Benhabib; Daoud Azam Daimoussi; Mouna Messaoudi; Latifa Drissi;
Amir Dibadj; Yeter Celili; Waleed Al-Husseini; Chemsi Cheref-khan;
Hamid Zanaz; Salwa Tazi; Hamid Benichou; Fathi Nouhad; Jamila Si
M’Hammed; Mahyne Nasseri Manzar Banal; Youcef Hadbi;
Mohammed Guerroumi; Sémira Tlili; Omar Gousmi; Fatiha
Boudjahlat; Mohammed Louizi; Khaled Slougui; Kamel Bencheikh;
Abdel Serghini; Sam Touzani. (La Libre)
In 2019, sick of being patronized by the arrogant, self-appointed guardians of
Islam, who harassed, intimidated, and derided her for being a woman, Asma
Lamrabet finally abandoned the hijab that she had worn in the past in solidarity
with Muslim women. She explained her decision as follows:
I arrived at a point where I … felt like a hypocrite with myself … and
the creator… One day, I just said, “it’s over, I can’t handle this
anymore”… In a certain way… it was like agreeing to play the game of
the Islamists… [The Islamists] have … instrumentalized the veil for
political purposes. I felt like I was manipulated by political Islam and
their slogans; they want us to be visible. For them this visibility is
important, to have women with the veil, it comforts them and confirms
… they are politically … strong. One day last year [2019]… I went to
my car without my scarf; and I felt so free, so relieved… it had been
like a responsibility, a lie, something on my shoulder. I said, “Oh my
God, I am now Asma, I am what I am.” Spiritually, I was free… I have the right to choose; in the past I chose khimar and now I choose not to
wear it. (Mir-Hosseini 2022: 147-148)
As a result of their actions against her and her family, Masih Alinejad sued
the Iranian government for harassment in 2019. In 2021, four Iranian
intelligence officials were charged with plotting to kidnap her and take her by
speedboat to Venezuela. In 2022, the Federal Bureau of Investigations thwarted
an assassination attempt against her. Alinejad quoted an FBI agent as saying,
“This time their objective was to kill you.”
In 2022, Twelver Shiite scholar, Mohamad Ali Ayazi, decreed that forcing
women to wear hijab has no basis in Islamic law and that it was opposed by
scholars like Morteza Motahhari, Mohammed Beheshti, and Mahmoud
Taleghani, some of the founders of the Islamic Republic of Iran (Ridgeon 13,
216). Although he believes the hijab is mandatory, Ayazi noted the following on
his website: “My belief is that the hijab, like prayer, fasting, [and paying
religious] taxes, is a personal legal matter. The hijab is like the use of people’s
property; it is not a social issue that entails punishments… The Islamic
government can give teachings about the hijab and encourage people to follow
it, but there has never been any command for retributive clashes” (Ridgeon 13-
14, note 40).
In 2022, Mohammad Taqi Fazel Meybodi, the Iranian theologian and
jurists, mocked the claims of the regime that “bad hijab” was the cause for the
woes of the country. “If not observing the hijab is the cause of high prices,” he
responded, then the world must be starving.” “Think a little,” he urged officials
(Stone).
In the twenty-first century, several scholars, like Edip Yüksel, who place
the Qur’an first and foremost, have warned that it is disingenuous to claim that it
requires women to wear the hijab. For Muhammad Sadiq, accepting religious
orders from anyone but God is idolatry.
On 16 September 2022, Mahsa Amini died in a hospital in Tehran after
being arrested by Iran’s “morality” police. According to eyewitnesses, she was
brutally beaten, a claim supported by leaked medical scans. She appears to have
died of cerebral hemorrhage or stroke due to head injuries inflicted upon her.
She was only one of many victims of the “Hijab-Military-Industrial-Complex.”
In a Facebook post, dated September 19, 2022, Masih Alinejad described
the mandatory hijab as the Berlin Wall of the Iranian regime. “If we tear this
wall down,” she claimed, “the Islamic republic won’t exist.” When it comes to
the “Islamic” Republic, the mandatory hijab is a Berlin Wall of their own
making. Presenting the matter in such terms, and linking it to regime change, is
perilous. If abolishing obligatory hijab is an existential threat to the regime, it
will respond with even greater brutality during its death throes. Countering
Islamism with secularism is counterproductive. Delegitimizing compulsory
hijab from an Islamic perspective is more propitious. Rejecting hijab is not a rejection of Islam. It is a rejection of the Islam of Darkness and an affirmation of
the Islam of Enlightenment.
According to the scholars from Masjid Tuscon,
“Nowhere in the Qur’an do we find the requirement that a woman must cover her hair. The Qur’an orders Muslim men and women to dress modestly and subdue their eyes and tells the Muslim women … to lengthen their dresses and cover their chests (24:31 & 33:59). Many of these men … distort the Arabic word khimar, which … means “cover:” any kind of cover, over anything… They … insist that it is a cover that must come from above, after covering the woman’s hair. They even dig up some Arabic dictionaries, written by equally oppressive men, that advocate the same absurdity… Since it is God’s law that those with doubt in their hearts will always dwell on the multi-meaning verses, we have to thank God for exposing them…”
Ahmed Subhy Mansour (b. 1949), an Egyptian jurist, has ruled that the veil,
hijab, niqab, and burqa have nothing to do with Islam, viewing them as a
prohibited innovation and a major sin. He holds that anyone who holds the hijab
to be commanded by God is a polytheist, infidel, and an unbeliever.
Edip Yüksel (b. 1957), the Qur’an translator and commentator, has also
adopted the same staunch stance, denouncing those who attribute lies to God. In
his view, righteous women should dress modestly and not provocatively;
however, it was entirely up to women to decide how they dressed, how much
they covered, and how much they uncovered, including whether or not they
covered their breasts. The bare minimum they have to cover is their external
genitals. While exposing the pudendum would represent a major sin, exposing
other parts was a minor sin. As far as he is concerned, even exposing their
vaginas would be a lesser sin than fabricating dress codes in the name of God.
Numerous scholars, including Youssef Seddik, Hichem Djaït, Hamadi
Redissi, Raja Ben Slama, Olfa Youssef, and Abdelwahab Meddeb affirm that
the hijab is not a religious prescription but rather an inherited patriarchal custom (Bestandji 2021: 112).
According to Latifa Lakhdar, the Tunisian historian, professor of Islamic
Thought, and former Minister of Culture, “the hijab is not a simple practice; it is
the visible symbol of a vision of the world based on the rupture of the universal
into two parts, men, and women.” For her, “the hijab is the symbol of the
theological confinement of women” (Bestandji 2021: 113)
For Razika Adnani, the Franco-Algerian philosopher and Islamologist,
“[The hijab] cannot be justified morally, socially, historically, or even
religiously” (Bestandji 2021: 347).
Naëm Bestandji, a French author and activist, who represents the views of
many feminist, universalist, and secular Muslims, views the hijab as a “sexist
heresy” and a “sexist innovation” devoid of any Qur’anic foundation whatsoever
(Bestandji 2021: 82, 102). Not only is the hijab a fetish, but it is also idolatrous,
masochistic, and blasphemous (Bestandji 2021: 89). Since it is not found in the
Qur’an, and is apocryphal and unorthodox, adopting this theological aberration
is an act of opposition against it (Bestandji 2021: 89, 104).
As Bestandji explains, the Qur’an intended to protect women from being
offended by asking them to cover their cleavage (33:59) (2016). Its goal was to
help humanity to advance (2016). By deforming the meaning of the Qur’anic
verses in question, in a desire to return to a so-called “authentic Islam,” many
Muslims do the opposite of what God and the Prophet desired (2016). “By
trying to bring Islam back to the Middle Ages,” explains Bestandji, “by
alienating and veiling women, the partisans of veiling are committing a ‘sin’”
(2016). For him, “the veil, with all the values it conveys, is an insult to God and
his Prophet” (2016).
Since they pressure, intimidate, and coerce women into wearing hijab, and insult and threaten women who do not wear it, Bestandji believes that the radicals and extremists are the hypocrites condemned in the Qur’an, those in whose heart is a disease, who slander women, who are cursed by God, and who are threatened with arrest and execution: “If the hypocrites do not desist, and likewise those in whose heart is a disease, as well as those who spread false rumors in the city, we shall surely spur thee against them; then they will not be their neighbors therein, save for a short while. Accursed! They will be seized wheresoever they are found and utterly slain. (33:60)
“The veil,” in the view of Bestandji, “is the yoke of women” (2021: 264). It
is a personal prison (2021: 244). Since Islam resides in the heart and not on the
head, to cast off the veil is a rejection of the Islam of appearance in favor of the
Islam of being (2016). To reject the hijab is to reject Salafism, Islamism,
extremism, and fanaticism (2016). The courageous women who cast off their
veils reject voluntary servitude (2016). They refuse to allow radical Muslim men
to control their lives and their bodies (2016). They understand that by removing
their hijab they do not become two-dollar hookers, to be passed around from
penis to penis, as Hani Ramadan poetically described unveiled women (2016).
On the contrary, they become free women and more mature Muslims (2016).
Nothing prevents them from being fully secular and fully Muslim (2016). After
all, it is up to the secular state, and not Islam, to protect women (2016). Islamic
organizations are concerned with defending the rights of women to veil
themselves: not the rights of Muslim women to unveil themselves and to free
themselves from the shackles placed upon them by extremists and terrorists.
In her 2022 study, No Truth without Beauty: God, the Qur’an, and
Women’s Rights, Leena El-Ali asserted that:
The only three verses in the Qur’an that say something specific about
women and clothing (24:31, 24:60, 33:59) simply tell us that women’s
groin area and, ideally, breasts also must be covered, and indicate a
way for Muslim women at the time to identify themselves upfront when
alone in the wild to ward off hypocritical sexual assailants. (213)
In fact, “apart from covering our private parts (ideally including a woman’s
breasts), and urging us to wear beautiful outfits in general, the Qur’an is neutral
on clothing for women and men alike” (221).
On March 15, 2022, the High Court of Karnataka in India ruled that
wearing the hijab was not an essential religious practice of the Islamic faith. As
such, it was not protected by the Constitution of India’s article on religious
freedom. Schools were within their right to institute dress codes as these did not
violate freedom of speech or expression. According to the ruling, restricting
hijab in educational institutions is both reasonable and constitutionally
permissible in the secular nation of India.
In 2022, Kahina Bahloul (b. 1979), France’s first female Imam, insisted
that “We must stop making the veil a symbol of Islam.”
In 2022, Mimunt Hamido Yahia published her poignant book, No nos
taparán [They Will Not Cover Us Up], which launched a movement of Muslim
women, and women from Muslim cultures, against the veil. Their campaign
revolves around four points: hair, mouths, minds, and cunts:
They will not cover our hair… : We do not wear a veil, nor will we let
them tell us that every Muslim woman must wear it by divine
commandment. Our mothers did not wear it. They will not cover our
mouths… We will not allow them to silence us or … call us
Islamophobes for criticizing those who limit our freedom. They will not
cover our… minds: We will not allow anyone to tell us what our
religion should be and what we can and cannot discuss. They won’t
cover our… cunts. We will not give up our sexuality, our bodies, and
our freedom to share it with who we want and how we want. (175-176)
In 2022, Reza Hosseini Nasab, an Iranian “grand ayatollah” based in the
Greater Toronto Area in Canada, ruled that “it is not permissible to force women
to cover their hair” and that “it is necessary to respect the gender equality of
men and women in law and rights.” When asked whether covering a Muslim
woman’s hair was obligatory in Islam, he issued the following edict:
Covering the body of a Muslim woman is obligatory in Islamic law.
However, the ruling on covering the hair of a Muslim woman based on
the Qur’anic verses and Islamic narrations … was one of the Islamic
governmental rulings to differentiate the free Muslim woman from the
non-free maid in a certain period of time when the system of slavery
was still in place.
In 2022, Khalil Andani, an Assistant Professor of Religion at Augustana
College, who holds a doctorate in Islamic Studies from Harvard University,
recognized that, “There’s no Muslim consensus on hijab being mandatory.”
In 2023, Paola García, the jurist and scholar of Islam, reiterated her position
on the hijab:
If we accept that Islam is universal across time and space, how can we
expect the vast diversity of human cultures to adopt a dress code rooted
within the context and realities of seventh century Arabia? It seems
absurd to me to claim that a Muslim woman living in the twenty-first
century in let’s say the Dominican Republic should wear the same
clothing as a woman who lived in seventh century Arabia, especially if
we simultaneously claim that Islam is universal. I believe this fixation
with the hijab reduces Islam to its most superficial layer, mutes the
uniqueness of each culture, and, most problematically, imposes
unwarranted burdens on women that contradict the Qur’anic principle
that Allah intends for us ease…
In 2023, the US Department of Justice charged Rafat Amirov, Khalid
Mehdiyev, and Polad Omarov with conspiring to assassinate Masih Alinejad on
behalf of the Iranian regime.
In 2023, the Iranian regime started to install closed circuit cameras and
facial recognition software to identify women who violate hijab laws. They
would receive text warnings and be subjected to fines, arrest, imprisonment, and
potential corporal punishment.
In 2023, Muhammad Javad Alavi Borujerdi, a Twelver Shiite jurist
bemoaned the Iranian regime’s obsession with the veil and the anti-clerical
sentiment that dominates the nation,
The Imam of the mosque used to be the community’s pillar! People
would die for him! Even girls who did not wear a full hijab would
come to the Imam and ask their religious questions. We are now only
insisting that this girl fix her hijab, while her original beliefs are gone!
Belief is one story; action is another. Belief precedes action, but belief
has been damaged. We have a problem in passing this heritage to the
next generation. (Article Eighteen)
In 2023, the Iranian Islamist regime decreed that opposition to obligatory
hijab was a crime and that anyone who encouraged women to remove their veils
would be prosecuted in criminal court, without the right to appeal. Pro-Iranian
Islamist clerics abroad describe the women protesting against mandatory hijab
as “soldiers of Satan.” Iranian women asked for little: no more than the right to
feel the wind and sun in their hair. If this is deprived of them, and they are
repressed, and have their skulls cracked for peacefully protesting, they will not
be satisfied with this simple concession. Some will burn their bras and toss off
their panties.
Spanish women lived under Catholic fundamentalism and fascism from
1936 to 1975. As the bishop of Malaga decreed in 1943,
- Dresses must not be so tight that they provocatively show off the shape of
the body. - Dresses must not be so short that they do not cover the best part of the
legs; it is not acceptable for them to stop at the knee. - A low neckline goes against modesty and there are some that are so
daring that they could be gravely sinful because of the dishonest intention
they reveal or the scandal they provoke. - It is against modesty not to cover the arm at least to the elbow. Those
who always wear long sleeves which go below the elbow and cover the
whole arm are very worthy of praise. - It is against modesty not to wear stockings.
- It is also against modesty to wear transparent dresses, or dresses with
lace, in places that should be covered. - Girls’ skirts must go to the knee and those twelve years and older must wear stockings.
- Boys must not show their bare thighs.
- For going to church one must wear long sleeves that cover the arm and
forearm, with stockings and dresses that cover most of the legs, without low
necklines or transparent fabric or lace. - Girls’ teachers — especially the religious ones — should know that the
Sacred Congregation of the Council … orders that they do not accept in
their schools and convents those who wear less honest dresses and that,
even when those already admitted, if they do not make amends, expel them.
… - It is a sin against Christian modesty and honesty for men and women to
swim together; to mingle together — in bathing suits — during games or
pastimes, or to wear indecent and revealing bathing suits, hiding from view
the most elemental rules of modesty. NOTE: To be widely distributed among women, especially young women. (Otero-González)
This dress code was posted on church doorways. It was published in the press.
Unrelated men and women could not even shake hands unless they wore gloves.
In fascist Spain, women’s dress was determined by the Church and Franco. They
determined what it meant “to be a woman.” “In the end,” notes Uxía OteroGonzález, “they transformed the social fabric and led to the collapse of the
predominance of Catholic values and, by extension, Francoism.” After the death
of Franco, and the fall of fascism, Spanish women revolted against the Roman
Catholic Church, fervently embracing secularism and liberalism. They went
from the most ultra-conservative women to the most sexually liberated
overnight.
The secular revolution that took place in Spain is set to happen in Iran and
elsewhere. Iranians, including believing, pious, and devout Muslims,
overwhelmingly loathe the radical Islamist mullahs and those who support them.
Throughout the Muslim world, the Islamists are widely despised by secularists.
Just like the fall of Franco brought down the Church, so will the fall of the
Supreme Oppressor, the Seminary, and the Mosque bring about collapse of
socio-political and ideological Islamism. As much as Islamist leaders may claim
that there is a war against Muslim women, the fact of the matter is that “Islam”
is at war with women.
Islamists, along with their apologists and accomplices, may call for choice;
however, how many are willing to give Muslim women the choice not to wear
hijab, the choice to express themselves freely, the choice to criticize Islam, and
the choice to give their bodies to whom they please? Few Muslims would be
willing to go so far. Some might concede that women should not be forced to
cover their hair; however, many would insist that such freedom should only
exist outside of a Muslim state. Under Islamic rule, many would argue that hijab
can or should be imposed by force of law.
While Islamists, along with their apologists and accomplices might demand
the freedom to spread their violent, hateful, sexist, misogynistic, and totalitarian
ideology, none of them would support the rights of Muslims and non-Muslims
to criticize Islam, the Qur’an, the Prophet, or other religious personalities. Their
propagandists can mock, deride, offend, and insult the tenets of Judaism and
Christianity but God forbid anyone express the slightest criticism of Islam and
Muslims. In this Woke New World, one cannot even study portraits of the
Prophet Muhammad, paintings that were produced out of love by Muslim artists,
without getting “cancelled” by intolerant quacks and fired from positions in
academia. A monolithic Islamist Islam has been imposed as the sole expression
of the Muslim faith. A choir of angelic voices has been silenced, leaving only a
single cacophonous soloist to spoil the sound and image of Islam. Apparently,
diversity, equity, and inclusion do not include the broad spectrum of opinion that
is found in the Islamic tradition. Billionaire Islamo-fascists and capitalists have
hijacked Islam. The New Game of the globalists is Grand Theft Islam. True
Islamic values lie in ruins. No more!
As for sexual freedom, this is not something that any Islamist or religious
Muslim would support when it comes to women. Men, of course, have free reign
to fornicate and commit adultery without consequence. Women, however, who
commit the slightest indiscretion are forced into arranged marriages, disowned,
expelled from their homes, beaten, raped, turned over to brothels, or murdered
for offending family honor. The women of We Will Not Be Covered Up reject
the sexist double standards of so-called Islamic and Muslim societies and
cultures. They are informed by the universal values of secularism, feminism, and
human rights. Men and women must be held to the same standards. If Muslim
men are not coerced into covering up, then neither should Muslim women. If
Muslim men are not required to be chaste, then neither should Muslim women.
They refuse to allow men, and the women who serve as their police dogs, to
control their minds and bodies.
As can be appreciated from this comprehensive overview of all opinions on
the subject, there is no conclusive Qur’anic proof that the veil, in any of its
forms, is mandatory in original Islam. There are no trustworthy traditions from
the Prophet and the Imams that it is so. Except for like-minded men, scholars
who lived in echo-chambers of misogyny, there has never been consensus on the
subject. Consequently, Mir Jalili and Mohammad’s claim that “the necessity of
hijab… is definitely unquestionable” according to the Qur’an and traditions is
dishonest and disingenuous, particularly when they demonstrated that the
companions of the Prophet Muhammad did not share common views on the
subject and that their views were the product of independent reasoning or
cultural and political influence.
The opinions surveyed in this study, which span the past millennium and a
half, were emitted by scholars from all walks of life and schools of thought and
jurisprudence. They include Sunnis, Sufis, ‘Ibadis, Mutazilites, Qur’anists, and Shiites of all sects. They include so-called orthodox and so-called heterodox
groups as well as off-shoots of Islam like the Druze and the Baha’i. The authors
cited in this study include jurists, attorneys, theologians, traditionists, exegetes,
academics, and intellectuals with expertise in a wide array of fields. Some were
traditionally trained in Islamic religious seminaries. Others are the product of
universities. They are all perfectly competent authorities. Their views are neither
new nor on the fringe.
The opinions highlighted in this work have been expressed down the
centuries from the dawn of Islam to the present. They belong to more moderate,
tolerant, and women-friendly currents of Islam that have always flowed below
the surface of the patriarchal sea. God, the Father, must not be replaced by God,
the Mother. The dictatorship of the Matriarch should not supplant the
dictatorship of the Patriarch who was placed in power thanks to the coup d’état
orchestrated by misogynistic males. On the contrary, the democracy of the
divine must be restored, namely, the universal harmony of the Sacred Masculine
and the Sacred Feminine. Only then will the rights of men and women be
respected.
Muslim women, as free women, have the right to know the full spectrum of
opinions on the subject of so-called Islamic dress and should have the freedom
to select the one that convinces them the most or to come up with their own
interpretation. The onus is on them, after study and soul-searching, to decide
whether hijab is fard, a religious duty, or a fraud. Muslim women can choose
which opinion to follow.
Either way, women have the right to wear want they want without being
given guilt trips, spiritually threatened, forced, punished, assaulted, tortured,
raped, imprisoned, and murdered. If Islam is freedom, and there is no coercion
in Islam, then women have the right to dress as they seem fit based on a variety
of factors. If men continue to deprive women of liberty, in the name of God,
Islam, the Prophet, and the Imams, women from Muslim backgrounds may seek
it elsewhere. Some have created mosques for women as safe spaces. Others have
embraced secularism or left Islam entirely. If you cannot beat them, leave them.
After all, why be a slave when you can be free? A slave to God is not a problem.
A slave to men and their enforcers, male and female, most certainly is.
Rather than continue disputing the succession of the Prophet Muhammad,
which is the root of all divisions between Islamic sects, Muslims should realize
that they, as human beings, both men and women, are divinely appointed
guardians and custodians, the successors of the Prophet Muhammad, the heirs of
the prophets, and the viceregents of God on earth. It is high time they started
acting like it. As the caliphs of God, we are our rulers. The divine spark or spirit
resides in all of us. Consequently, we have the right to confirm or nullify
previous religious laws and enact new ones.
Although there were a dozen different views on the appropriate attire for Muslim women, a handful of male, medieval, imams decreed that the veil was mandatory for women. Their jurisprudence was adopted by empires and imposed with the force of law. We have the right, in fact, we have to duty, to reconsider those rulings, reject them, and replace them with others that are more closely aligned with the Qur’an and the dignity of humanity. Nothing is sacred. And nothing is written in stone. The guidance of God is within us. As for the mandatory hijab. Lo and behold! It is the greatest lie ever told.
Drawn from Hijab: Word of God or Word of Man? Washington, DC, and London: Academica Press, 2024. Get the book here.
Dr. John Andrew Morrow 