Manifestations Of Tabarruj
1. Not wearing the Khimār (head-covering).
2. Not wearing the Jilbāb (but wearing jeans, scrubs, skirts, or shorts instead).
3. Wearing the Khimār, but with the hair, ears, or neck exposed, or with the earrings showing.
4. Wearing a tight Jilbāb that shows the curves of the body.
5. Wearing a belt around the waist of the Jilbāb, because this displays the curves of the body.
6. Wearing Jilbābs with decoration on them.
7. Wearing a Jilbāb that is transparent (i.e. see through).
8. Wearing the Jilbāb on the shoulders, as opposed to over the head, covering the Khimār and draping down to the feet.
9. Wearing high heels (outside of the home).
10. Wearing sandals without socks (outside of the home).
11. Exiting the home wearing perfume, scents, or fragrances.
12. Exiting the home wearing makeup, mascara, kohl on the eyes, lipstick, or glossy lip balm.
[A Comprehensive Guide For The New Muslim, pg.136. Authored By Anwar Wright]I
@salafiway
Thank you for the reply, I appreciate that too. Forgive me for posting this publicly but I believe it’s extremely important and needs to be said. Also, I did not have enough space to say everything I wanted to say in the comments.
You claim Niqab protects women from males I assume protection against sexualization. But one can argue, when a woman covers herself from her head to toe she is defining herself by her sexuality; reducing herself to purely an object of sexuality and desire that needs to be hidden away because it is sinful, in the process, dismissing her own humanity. Mind you, this type of covering you are talking about is an extreme end, and on the opposite extreme end, you have sexualization of the woman’s body that you see in the West. They both have the same outcome: reducing a woman to her sexuality. That’s why we should always take the moderate path— the middle path, as the prophet (PBUH) himself taught. Look at the example of the average man. He is not sexualized because He isn’t reduced to just a body. The patriarchy gave itself that benefit. And we (women) can also achieve that state by not reducing ourselves to our bodies - that is to say, avoiding covering ourselves up to the point of concealing our humanity in the process and not being so exposed as to bring about our own sexualization. That is to say, take the moderate route. Think of the average man. When he wears a garment, that garment does not speak to his sexuality whatsoever. It is just a means to an end. For a man, his sexualization does not even cross his mind when he chooses which clothes to wear for the day. And his clothes reflect that. They are neither covering him up nor revealing too much. And I believe women are entitled to the same privilege. Also- why would God need to emphasize the need for males to lower their gaze if women are completely covered already? The supposed need for a woman to cover her entire body counteracts a mans need to lower his gaze, because there would be nothing to see and no need for it. If it was really God’s will to cover the entire female body, He would have no need to tell men to lower their gaze - He would just emphasize covering up of the entire female body from head to toe, which again, He doesn’t - not once in the Quran. He kept it intentionally vague. The function of this is to allow the society, culture and era to define what “modesty” means and to allow the Quranic interpretation to constantly evolve with societal norms and standards. Again, what’s important in the Quran and emphasized is the need to control the male gaze, not the female body. Do you see how much responsibility this places on men? And where the early male “scholars” intention and motives to completely cover the female body originates from? It originates from a fear of being held accountable.
Now, regarding the verse you mentioned, (al-Ahzaab 33:55), it’s very interesting that you use that translation specifically, because, as I’m sure you are already aware, the definition of the word “hijab” which is mentioned in the verse above it (33:53) is taken out of context. We (Muslim women) should make it our responsibility to know that hijab as we define it today and as it was defined at the time of the prophet adopts a different meaning. To quote Mohammad Asad,
“The term hijab [in verse 33:53] denotes anything that intervenes between two things, or conceals, shelters or protects the one from the other; it may be rendered, according to the context, as ‘barrier’, ‘obstacle’, ‘partition’, ‘screen’, ‘curtain’, ‘veil’, etc., in both the concrete and abstract connotations of these words. The prohibition to approach the Prophet's wives otherwise than ‘from behind a screen’ or ‘curtain’ may be taken literally - as indeed it was taken by most of the Companions of the Prophet - or metaphorically, indicating the exceptional reverence due to these ‘mothers of the faithful’”.
As you can see, from this definition, there is no mention or reference to the veiling of the head, which would’ve been made explicit and clear by God in such a way as to leave no room for different interpretations and definitions. Again, “hijab” did not mean head covering, and we shouldn’t define it as such either.
In regards to the prophet’s wives covering in the presence of men, it should be clear by now that it is because they held an elevated position in that society, and so covering their face with a khimar was a way to metaphorically observe “hijab” - that is - remain behind a screen, and was meant to have the same function as to establish their role as the “mothers of the faithful” as Asad stated. Also, it must be noted that making a ruling as important as covering all Muslim woman’s entire face and body on the grounds of the prophet (PBUH) “approving” of it is nonsensical. If the prophet (PBUH) willed for all Muslim women to be veiled then he would have explicitly said so. He wouldn’t have just approved of it. Imagine if the only grounds we had for not consuming intoxicants was that the prophet (PBUH) approved of his companions not drinking intoxicants? Again it’s just a non-sensical argument.
Circling back to verse 33:59, which translates to :
O Prophet! Tell thy wives and thy daughters, as well as all [other] believing women, that they should draw over themselves some of their outer garments [when in public]: this will be more conducive to their being recognized [as decent women] and not annoyed. But [withal,] God is indeed much-forgiving, a dispenser of grace!
Again, being taken out of context. At the time of the prophet, wearing the Jilbab by women was as a sign of respectability and high status. In fact it was even socially unacceptable for female slaves to veil and they normally didn’t. This practice basically served to differentiate between ‘respectable’ women and those who were publicly available. So you see, it makes perfect sense for God to advice the believing women to veil during that time, as it would prevent malicious and perverted men (of that time) from being able to differentiate between the ‘respectable’ and slave women. Thus veiling in this verse serves the purpose to literally protect the believing women of the time. Do we have such a need, in the West for example, to veil? Will we be singled out if we don’t veil? In fact one can argue that veiling in the West puts us in harms way, as we are easily recognizable by Islamophobes who intend to harm Muslims. Let us read how Mohammad Asad eloquently answers, or rather implicates the answer, to these questions in his commentary for the verse in Surat al-noor that you mentioned (24:31). First, here is the verse:
And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and to be mindful of their chastity, and not to display their charms [in public] beyond what may [decently] be apparent thereof; hence, let them draw their head-coverings over their bosoms. And let them not display [more of] their charms to any but their husbands, or their fathers, or their husbands' fathers, or their sons, or their husbands' sons, or their brothers, or their brothers' sons, or their sisters' sons, or their womenfolk, or those whom they rightfully possess, or such male attendants as are beyond all sexual desire, or children that are as yet unaware of women's nakedness; and let them not swing their legs [in walking] so as to draw attention to their hidden charms. And [always], O you believers-all of you-turn unto God in repentance, so that you might attain to a happy state!
Notice that the beginning of this verse begins with a call to women to not “display their charms [in public]” and ends with the call to “let them not swing their legs [in walking] so as to draw attention to their hidden charms.” We are literally given the intended meaning of the word within the verse itself! Charms refers to a woman’s curves if you will; her figure. This is implied by the reference to the swinging of the legs. We can thus conclude that God meant for us to cover our figure “except what may decently appear thereof” and not our hair.
Here is the Mohamad Asad commentary on the verse:
“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 (quoted by Razi), as ‘that which a human being may openly show in accordance with prevailing custom (al-'adah al-jariyah)’. 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.”
So you see, this verse, as with the previous verses, are vague in regards to a woman’s dress, with the purpose of making the Quran relevant to evolving societal norm and standards. What this means is, if I, a Muslim woman, leave my house in pants and a t-shirt-- that is perfectly acceptable in Islam, because in my society, this is not seen as crude or vulgar - in fact you can even say that it’s a modest choice in relation to today’s ways of dressing.
I also find it quite ironic that you quoted Bin Abbas. Regarding Hadith on bin ‘Abbas Sahih al-bukhari 6228 Book 79, Hadith 2. A Woman described as strikingly beautiful approached the Prophet to seek his guidance on some religious matters. Bin Abbas began to stare at her because of her beauty. The Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) did not scold the woman for dressing immodestly or revealing her beauty. Instead, he “reached his hand backwards, catching Bin Abbas’s chin, and turned his face to the other side so he would not gaze at her.”
Once again, the responsibility to observe hijab is placed on the man, not the woman. And it makes a lot of sense why Bin Abbas would would want women to cover their face, simply put, he was too weak to lower his gaze.
Look, Islam is a religion of reason. If it doesn’t make sense ethically, there is no place for it here. Islamic fiqh [i.e. human understanding of the divine Islamic law as revealed in the Quran and Hadeeth] that we so loyally abide by today is solely the result of men’s opinions and interpretations. There is not one woman who had a say in Islamic rulings. Doesn’t that seem strange and off-putting to you? As Shehnez from “what the patriarchy” channel on Youtube oh so eloquently puts it:
You can think of Fiqh as men’s interpretations and opinions that are not always correct and often contradict the Quran.
Islam cannot be limited to the Quran only. There must be interpretation - but let’s not limit this interpretation to a single time or gender or group. It should be continuously evolving.
