Chastity and Hijab in
the Teachings of Prophets Muhammad and Jesus
By:
Dr. Ahmad Shafaat
(1999)
INTRODUCTION
In our age many people consider
chastity as a value of little or no importance. In North America
this became vividly clear when a majority of Americans were not
overly bothered by the fact that President Clinton engaged in all
kinds of sexual relations outside of his marriage. This erosion of
the value of chastity seems to be connected at least in part to a
very negative attitude in the West to the Muslim practice of hijab,
which as understood in Islam, is a means and a symbol of modesty and
chastity. This is ironically also true of those in the West who
describe themselves as Christians, even though in the past centuries
Christians prided at their sexual ethics and criticized Muslims for
"promiscuity" because under certain conditions divorce as well as
polygamous marriages are allowed in Islam. The new modern attitude
on the part of Christians is no doubt due to their bowing to modern
trends. However, for those Muslims and Christians who want to be
true to their religions the most important thing should not be what
the current trend is but what the Prophets Muhammad and Jesus had to
say. In this article I examine the
teachings of these two religious figures on the subject of chastity
and hijab and in the process attempt to correct some Western and
Christian misconceptions about hijab.
More specifically, the contents of the
paper may be outlined as follows:
1) TEACHINGS OF THE
PROPHET MUHAMMAD
-
The Qur`an
-
Clothing of material and clothing of
righteousness (7:22, 26)
-
Purity of eyes
-
Khimar (24:30-31, 60)
-
Lowering gaze or reducing gaze?
-
Hijab and jilbab (33:32-33, 53, 59)
-
Head to be covered?
-
Arguments for and against.
-
Face to be covered?
-
Arguments for and against.
-
Confined to the houses?
-
Clearly not.
-
Participating in the community life?
-
As much as desired
-
Hadith
-
The story of ifk
-
Versions in Ibn Ishaq, Bukhari, and
Muslim
-
Version in Ibn Sa`d
-
The earliest recorded version does
not assume covering of face
-
The occasion of the revelation of
the hijab verses
-
First version
-
Second contradictory version
-
Hijab from the blind Ibn Umm Maktum
-
First version
-
Second contradictory version
-
Turning the head of al-Fadl bin
‘Abbas
-
Ahadith about haya
-
Other ahadith
2) THE TEACHING OF THE
PROPHET JESUS
-
The Jewish background
-
The Old Testament
-
The Rabbinic or oral tradition
-
The sayings attributed to the Prophet
Jesus with a discussion of their authenticity
-
Purity of the eyes
-
Prohibition of divorce as a way to
stress chastity
-
Celibacy
-
Later developments
-
Divorce
-
Celibacy
-
Head-covering
3) SOME MODERN/WESTERN
OBJECTIONS AND PERCEPTIONS ABOUT HIJAB
-
The perception that hijab is a symbol
of women’s subjugation to men
-
The perception that hijab is a
suppression of female sexuality
-
The perception that through hijab more
burden is put on women than on men
-
The argument that hijab is not needed
in the West where people are used to partial nudity
THE TEACHING OF THE
PROPHET MUHAMMAD
The primary source of the divinely
inspired teachings of the Prophet Muhammad is the Qur`an whose
authenticity in its present extant form, apart from some minor
uncertainties about vowels and dots, is above any doubt despite some
Muslim traditions insinuating to the contrary (see John Burton,
Collection of the Qur`an, 1977) and despite the misuse of such
traditions by some non-Muslim scholars to raise doubts. A second
source is the Hadith literature, which records many sayings and
actions of the Prophet but this literature needs to be examined
critically for the authenticity of its reports, since it is not
above all suspicion. However, even unauthentic reports are valuable
in that they tell us how the teachings of the Prophet were
understood by the Muslims in the earlier centuries and in this way
they can shed some light on his teaching also. In what follows I
discuss what the Qur`an and Hadith have to say about chastity and
hijab.
The Qur`an
In the earlier period of the Qur`anic
revelation there is a frequent exhortation to guarding one's
chastity and restricting sex to within well-recognized publicly
known sexual partnerships. As the Muslim community enlarged, the
Qur`an prescribed more specific regulations on various matters,
giving more concrete form to its general moral and ethical
teachings. The principle of chastity was also expressed in a
concrete form through some regulations, in particular some
regulations about dress.
CLOTHING OF MATERIAL AND
CLOTHING OF RIGHTEOUSNESS
Some connection between clothing and
sexuality is established in the Qur'an at the very beginning of
humanity. When Adam and Eve disobeyed God at the temptation of Satan
and ate the forbidden fruit, they became conscious of their
nakedness and began to cover themselves with leaves:
Thus (Satan) led (Adam and Eve) on
with guile. So when they tasted of the (forbidden) tree they
became conscious of their nakedness and began to cover
themselves with pieced-together leaves from the garden ...
(7:22).
A few verses later the Qur`an describes
human clothing as a sign of God and two purposes of clothing are
mentioned: covering the nakedness and providing a "plumage," a
reference to the protection from weather as well as beautification
that plumage provides the birds with.
O children of Adam! We have bestowed
unto you the garments to cover your nakedness and as plumage;
but the garment of righteousness is best. This is among the
signs of God, that they may pay heed (7:26).
Here the Qur'an recognizes that
righteousness is what is really important. This statement provides
the spirit in which regulations about clothing and hijab
should be understood. This emphasis on the spirit however should not
reduce the importance of the more concrete regulations. For an idea
or attitude which is not expressed in terms of concrete actions
usually dies or at least becomes too weak to exert any real
influence. Likewise, an action which has lost its purpose and spirit
becomes ineffective. Consequently, the Qur'an always brings idea and
action, inner spirit and outer form together. Therefore, while
teaching that the "garment of righteousness is best" the Qur'an also
gives concrete guidance in order to help the attainment and
maintenance of righteousness.
PURITY OF EYES
Probably the earliest such regulation is
found in 24:30-31 which begins as follows:
Tell the believing men to lower
their gaze and (thus) guard their chastity. That is purer for
them. Lo! God is aware of what they do. And tell the believing
women to lower their gaze and (thus) guard their chastity, ....
"Lowering gaze" does not mean
looking downward. The Arabic term is
ghadda which means to reduce something but not necessarily to
the zero level. In 49:3 and 31:19 it is used of lowering one's voice
without, of course, being silent. Just like voice, "looking" also
has different degrees of intensity. One can look without really
noticing anything or look and register every detail. "Lowering
gaze" means to bring down the intensity of looking or to use some
restraint while looking. In the context of the present passage,
it means not to look with an observant lustful look. This may at
times mean turning one's eyes away.
The passage quoted above in part
continues:
and not to display of their
adornment (zinah) except what (normally) becomes apparent
thereof and to draw their head-coverings over their bosoms. [And
also tell them] not to reveal any of their adornments save to
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
their slaves, or male attendants who lack vigor, or children as
yet unaware of women's nakedness. And let them not stamp their
feet so as to draw attention to what they hide of their charms.
And turn unto God, O believers (both men and women), in order
that you may prosper (24:30-31).
... The women who have arrived at
the stage when they do not expect to get married commit nothing
wrong by lightening (literally, laying aside) their clothes
without making a show of their adornment (zinah). If they
also maintain modesty it is good for them. GOD is hearer, knower
(24:60).
Zinah
(translated above as adornment) includes attractive clothes as well
as ornaments, make-up, and bodily features that attract the opposite
sex. In addition to zinah there is also the concept of 'awrah
which means:
1) a place of danger;
2) something, of which exposure is embarrassing;
3) something naked and unprotected.
In 33:13 the hypocrites want to return
from the battle field on the false excuse that there houses are 'awrah,
that is, unprotected from the enemies and open to danger. In
24:57 three occasions at which slaves and children should take
permission before coming in the presence of the parents are
described as three 'awraat (plural of 'awrah), times
of privacy. The present passage mentions children as yet
unaware of women's nakedness among the exceptions to the
rule against women displaying their adornments. The word for
nakedness is 'awraat which is used in the sense of private
sex-related things concerning women. In Islamic fiqh the term
came to refer to the part of body that should not be exposed except
to one's spouse.
In time the 'awrah in this sense
was fixed as follows:
For women in front of men this is the
whole body except hands, feet, and the head. For women in front of
other women as well as for men in front of other men and women it is
the part between navel and knees.
KHIMAR
Arabian women, both before and after
Islam used to wear head-covering (khimar; pl. khumur)
both as a protection from the sun and as an adornment. In accordance
with the fashion prevalent at the time, the upper part of a woman's
tunic had a wide opening in the front, leaving her breasts partly
bare (Ibn Kathir). Undoubtedly, women at times showed modesty by
covering their bosoms with their head-covering. The Qur`an is
enjoining that such modesty should be a regular feature of Muslim
women's dress.
The Qur`an does not explicitly tell
women to cover their heads. Does that mean that the covering of the
head is not obligatory? The focus of the passage is certainly on the
covering of the bosom and one may argue that the reference to the
head-cover reflects the situation of Arabia. Because of intense
heat, both men and women carried some piece of cloth to cover their
head when they went out. The Qur`an is simply telling the women to
use this piece of cloth to cover their bosoms as a practical matter
and not with the expectation that the head should necessarily be
covered. On the other hand, one could argue that it is understood
that the head-covering will cover the head.
To appreciate this point suppose somebody asked a person to cover
his navel with the trousers. It would be a mockery of this
suggestion, at least in the context where modesty is being taught,
if the person took off his trousers and wrapped them around his
waist to cover the navel, remaining naked below the waste. For in
the context of teaching modesty it is understood that the trousers
must cover what they normally cover. Similarly, when in the context
of teaching modesty the Qur`an tells women to cover their bosoms
with the head-coverings it is understood that the head-coverings
must cover what they normally cover, namely, the heads. Furthermore,
hair is among the attractive parts of a woman's body and the
Qur`anic commandment is to hide female charms unless it is awkward
to do so. Now there is nothing awkward about covering the head.
Women in all cultures often do it, either as fashion or for some
religious or practical reasons.
Some who deny that the Qur`an enjoins
the covering of the head also point out that khimar does not
necessarily mean head-cover, but any sheet or cloth that is used to
cover something such as a blanket or curtain or table-cloth (the
word is related to khamr ( an alcoholic drink, which is so
called because it covers the consciousness). But the word can
certainly mean "head-cover". In the Qur`anic verse it certainly
refers to something that women normally carried, for the verse does
not say that they should cover their bosoms with a
khimar but with their khumur, and women
normally did not carry a table-cloth or a curtain or a blanket.
It seems from the above considerations
that the arguments in favor of the interpretation that head should
be covered are stronger. But the case for covering head becomes even
stronger in view of other verses to be discussed further below.
The words "except that which becomes
apparent" are understood in two ways:
1) that part of a woman's zinat
which is exposed by some accident, e.g. her head covering is removed
by a strong wind; according to this interpretation, a woman needs to
cover the whole body, including her face (except eyes);
2) woman need not cover what is awkward
to cover such as the face and the hands.
The second interpretation is almost
certainly the correct one. If the Qur`an meant the words in the
first sense, why does it tell women only to cover their bosoms with
their head coverings?
However, it would also be against the
spirit of the Qur`an if a woman put a very attractive make-up and/or
ornaments on her face and/or hands and exposed them while covering
the rest of her body or making the head-covering itself very
attractive and fashionable or wearing transparent or very tight
clothes. Notice how the Qur`an often combines the concrete
regulations about dress with a reminder of their purpose and spirit.
Thus in 24:60 while the requirements of dress are relaxed for
elderly women the requirement of inner modesty are still inculcated.
And in 33:33, 53, to be discussed next, it is said that regulations
about hijab are for the purpose of removing uncleanness and
for achieving purity.
HIJAB
AND JILBAB
Sometimes after the revelation of the
verses discussed above, the following verses were revealed:
33:32. O wives of the Prophet! You
are not like any of the [other] women. Therefore, if you are
mindful [of your duty to God] do not be over-soft in your
speech, lest any whose heart is diseased should be moved to
desire, but speak in a proper and goodly manner.
33:33. And stay in your homes, and
do not flaunt your charms as they used to do in the time of
ignorance. Pray regularly and give the due portion in charity,
and obey God and His messenger. God just wishes to remove
uncleanness far from you, O members of the [Prophet's]
household, and lead you to complete purity.
33:53. ... And when you (O
believers) ask of them (the wives of the Prophet) anything, ask
of them from behind a hijab. This is purer for your
hearts and their hearts ...
33:59. O Prophet! Tell your wives
and your daughters and the women of the believers to draw over
them some outer garments [when in public]. That is better for
being recognized and not being annoyed. God is ever forgiving,
merciful.
The words in verse 33, "stay in your
homes" seem to have suggested to some that in Islam the ideal is
almost total physical seclusion of women through confinement to
homes. But in regard to these words it should be noted that they are
addressed to the wives of the Prophet and the passage begins with
the statement that they are not like other women. Moreover, the
command "stay in your homes" should be understood in the
light of the subsequent words: "and do not flaunt your charms as
they used to do in the time of ignorance". That is, the command
does not exclude going out for other purposes such as work or
prayers or participating in some legitimate activity which is
beneficial for the woman individually or for the community at large.
This is as true of the wives of the Prophet as of other women. Thus,
in verse 59 the Prophet's wives and daughters are specifically
addressed along with other women and told to draw their outer
garments over them. This instruction will not make sense if women,
including wives and daughters of the Prophet were to always stay
home. Finally, in 4:32 it is taken for granted that some women might
engage in jobs or businesses, which of necessity will require going
out.
In verse 53 believers are told to
communicate with the Prophet's wives from behind a "hijab".
This word means some form of barrier such as a curtain that secludes
one party from the other. Thus in 19:17 Mary chooses seclusion (hijab)
from her people to receive glad tidings of Jesus' birth. In 7:46 it
refers to a barrier that will separate the people of heaven from the
people of hell and in 83:15 we read that the unbelievers will be
debarred (mahjub) from God. God is said in 42:51 to speak to
man only by way of inspiration or from behind a hijab. In
these verses the word may not refer to a physical barrier, since
God, Heaven and Hell are not physical realities in our ordinary
sense. Surah 17:45 speaks of a hidden barrier (hijab mastur)
that is created between the Prophet and the unbelievers when he
reads the Qur'an (see also 41:5). But in Islamic tradition the word
has come to signify one or the other of the ways whereby men and
women to varying degree separate themselves from each other for the
purpose of promoting modesty and chastity. Very often the word is
further specialized to the head cover that Muslim women wear.
However, the word used by the Qur'an for head-cover is khimar.
The fact that the believers can
communicate with the wives of the Prophet albeit from behind a
hijab shows that the purpose of the Qur'an is not to isolate
women from community life.
In the verses of Surah 24 women were
only commanded to draw their head coverings over their bosoms while
keeping the dress that they normally wore, which was a long tunic,
although they were told not to display their adornments. In 33:59
they are asked to draw some outer garments (jalabib, plural
of jilbab) over them. Jilbab, in classical Arabic
means a large sheet, as we can see from the usage of the word in
Hadith (see further below). But a sown outer garment such as is
often used by many women in the Middle East can serve the same
purpose. Like khimar respectable women might have used
jilbab cover themselves over them in pre-Islamic times. The
Qur'an made that practice into a rule.
Jilbab
and hijab serve the same purpose. When a woman goes outside
she covers herself by jilbab. But at home, of course, she is
dressed in a much more relaxed way. Consequently, first of all,
people are told to enter the house only after getting permission and
second of all women are told to speak from behind a hijab.
This hijab is only for extra convenience. Otherwise, if women
are always wearing a jilbab there will be no need for
hijab.
The word used for putting the jilbab
on is idna' 'ala. idna' means to bring something near
or close. Thus in the same verse (59) it is said that it is better
for being recognized, where "it is better" is a translation of 'adna'
which may be more literally translated, "it is closer". When
followed by ila the word means wrap around while idna'
'ala means to put over. Thus in the verse there may be a word
play: idna' 'ala of the jilbab is 'adna' for
being recognized as respectable women.
How far jilbab should cover the
woman is subject to interpretation. Clearly, it is not intended that
everything should be covered, since at least the eyes need to remain
uncovered. Some, including most of the classical interpreters such
as Tabari, Zamakhshari, Razi are of the opinion that only eyes
should be uncovered. On the other extreme it is said that even the
head need not be covered. The words idna' 'ala, however, are
more naturally interpreted that covering of the head is intended.
Books of Hadith can be used to support both interpretations,
although we will show later by a detailed analysis of a very early
hadith that in the first century hijri the face was not
covered. The interpretation that everything except the eyes needs to
be covered became a prevalent view sometimes during the second
century. The classical interpreters seem to be guided by this
second-century prevalent view rather than by the words of the Qur’an
or any authentic hadith.
Against the covering of the face one may
argue that this can cause undue hardship for women, especially in
hot countries and it is not the intention of the Qur'an to make life
unduly hard for believers:
God desires ease for you; he does
not desire hardship for you (2:185).
Another argument against the covering of
the face is that in 24:30 the Qur’an tells the believing men to
lower their gaze. This will not be necessary if women were to cover
their faces. This argument will, however, loose its force if the
verse about jilbab came after the verse about lowering gaze.
Also, even after the verse about jilbab there can be
occasions when a person will be face to face to a member of opposite
sex and when the lowering of gaze will be relevant.
In interpreting any Qur`anic regulation
we should keep in mind that an interpretation stricter than the one
intended can be as wrong as an interpretation more liberal than the
one intended. For, each time when we become stricter we prohibit
what God has permitted while each time we are more liberal than the
Qur`an we allow something that God has prohibited and the Qur`an
makes it clear that both are wrong (5:87, 6:150, 7:32, 9:37, 66:1).
It is one of the missions of the Prophet to prohibit exactly what is
necessary and in the performance of this mission the Prophet
sometimes lifts from earlier ummahs the strict regulations in
which they had imprisoned themselves (7:157), either by too strict
interpretations of the divine regulations or by adding to those
regulations (3:93). That people can imprison themselves in stricter
interpretations may seem difficult to understand, for, we generally
expect people to take the easy route. There are two reasons why
people may insist on stricter interpretations:
a) The tendency to relax the
requirements of a regulation for making things easy for oneself
are fought by the opposite tendency to insist on stricter
interpretations.
b) The stricter interpretation gets
associated with piety and some people who want to feel or show
themselves to be very pious choose the stricter interpretation
without being too concerned with what the regulation itself
intends.
Hadith
As might be expected the hadith
literature contains several traditions mentioning khimar,
jilbab or hijab or related concepts. We now examine these
traditions in detail, especially those found in the four most
reliable books: Ibn Ishaq, Mu’watta, Bukhari, and Muslim. Our
examination shows that hadith literature does not add any
substantial authentic teaching to what we can already
deduce with considerable probability from the Qur’an.
THE HADITH OF IFK
Probably the most reliable tradition
mentioning hijab is the story of the false accusation (ifk)
against A’isha because it has the earliest documentation and
deals with an incident referred to in the Qur'an. This story is
found in such relatively early books as Ibn Ishaq (sirat rasul
allah, preserved in an edited form by Ibn Hisham), Bukhari,
where it occurs in a detailed form thrice (kitab al-maghazi, bab
hadith al-ifk; kitab al-shahadat, bab ta’dil al-nisa’ ...;
and kitab al-tafsir, bab law la idh sami’tumuhu ...) and
Muslim (kitab al-tawbah, bab fi hadith ifk). The earliest
documentation of the story is found in Ibn Ishaq (died 151 AH) as
quoted by Ibn Hisham (died 218 AH). Ibn Ishaq’s authority is Ibn
Shihab az-Zuhri.
Az-Zuhri, as quoted by Ibn Ishaq, says
the story was first told by ‘A’isha herself and then from her
related in parts by four men:
'Alqama bin Waqqas,
Sa'id bin Jubayr,
'Urwa bin al-Zubayr, and
'Ubaydullah bin Abdullah bin 'Utba.
After mentioning these four sources,
az-Zuhri said:
"each contributing a part of the
story, one remembering more of it than another, and I have put
together for you what the people told me."
The three detailed narrations of the
story in Bukhari have different final link in the chain of narrators
but they all quote Ibn Shihab as follows:
"Related to me 'Urwa bin al-Zubayr,
Sa'id bin al-Musayyib, 'Alqama bin Waqqas and 'Ubaydullah bin
Abdullah bin 'Utba bin Mas'ud from 'A'isha, the wife of the
Messenger of God (may God bless and raise him evermore)
regarding the time when the slanderers said about her what they
said. Everyone among them related to me a part of the story and
some of them who had better memories reported more and with
better retention, and I tried to retain from what everyone
related to me from A’isha and their reports confirmed one
another."
This quotation is from kitab al-maghazi.
The detailed narrations in
kitab al-shahadat
and kitab al-tafsir quote Ibn
Shihab az-Zuhri in essentially the same terms.
In Muslim we read:
"Sa'id bin al-Musayyib, 'Urwa bin
az-Zubayr, 'Alqama bin Waqqas and 'Ubaydullah bin Abdullah bin 'Utba
bin Mas'ud on the story of 'A'isha, the wife of the Messenger of
God (may God bless and raise him evermore) when the slanderers
said to her what they said God exonerated her of their
allegation -- everyone of them reported a part of the story and
some of them who had better memories reported more and with
better retention, and I tried to retain what every one of them
reported to me, their reports confirming one another."
All three documents agree that the
source of the story are partial reports communicated from A’isha
herself by four men: Sa'id bin al-Musayyib, 'Urwa bin az-Zubayr, 'Alqama
bin Waqqas and 'Ubaydullah bin Abdullah bin 'Utba bin Mas'ud. Ibn
Ishaq and Bukhari also agree that the partial reports were put
together by Ibn Shihab az-Zuhri. Muslim does not clarify exactly who
put the pieces of the story together, but after relating the story
he too refers to az-Zuhri as follows:
And az-Zuhri said that this is the
last we have received of the matter concerning these people (who
were involved in ifk}.
Thus it is almost certain that the
versions in Ibn Ishaq, Bukhari, and Muslim are all dependent on the
account produced by az-Zuhri and not directly on what the earlier
reports said. Despite the reported trustworthiness of az-Zuhri the
possibility must be admitted that in the process of weaving the
earlier partial reports into a comprehensive story some new elements
were introduced and others were given a new light. But even after
the story was once put together by az-Zuhri it underwent significant
changes during its transmission. This is evident from numerous
differences among the various extant versions and some other
problems that they all raise.
Thus in Ibn Ishaq's version we read:
The Prophet "went out to the men and
addressed them and recited to them what God had sent down
concerning that. Then he gave orders about Mistah bin Uthatha
and Hassan bin Thabit and Hamna bint Jahsh who were the most
explicit in their slander and they were flogged with a precise
number (80, Qur'an 24:) of stripes."
Muslim, however, does not mention at all
any such flogging of the three participants in the slander and
concludes his version, as already noted, with the words:
"az-Zuhri said that this is the last
we have received about the matter concerning these (the two men
and the woman involved in the slander),"
which leaves no room whatever of any
report of flogging. Bukhari is also completely silent about any
flogging. In Abu Da'ud, however, we read:
"'A'isha said: When my vindication
came down the Prophet mounted the pulpit and mentioned that.
Then when he came down from the pulpit he ordered the two men
and the one woman (who were involved in the slander) should be
given the prescribed beating."
Ibn 'Abd al-Barr in Isti'ab also
mentions flogging but while he says that Mistah was flogged he is
uncertain about the flogging of Hassan and Hamna. Muslim and Bukhari
seem to be more reliable, since the people involved committed their
crime before it was made a crime and punishment for it was
prescribed. Usually punishment for an action is not given if the
action is committed before the law prescribing the
punishment for it has been laid down. Thus we do not hear of any
punishment for drinking or stealing or adultery given for such acts
committed before the punishment for them was prescribed.
It is also significant that Ibn Sa'd
(died 230 AH) in his Tabaqat, probably written a little
before Bukhari (died 256 AH) and Muslim (died 261 AH) compiled their
collections of ahadith, presents us with some drastic differences
from the three versions based on az-Zuhri’s account. Thus in his
chapter on Ghazwah al-Musayri` --named after a well of that name,
and also called Ghazwah al-Mustaliq (after the tribe that used the
well and were involved in the battle) -- Ibn Sa`d says:
"The Messenger of God (may God bless
and glorify him) arrived in al-Muraysi` ... He ordered that his
tent be erected there. He was accompanied by ‘A`isha and Umm
Salamah. ... It was in this Ghazwah that 'A'isha's necklace fell
and when people stopped in its search the verse about
tayammum came down. Usayd bin al-Hudayr said, 'O family of
Abu Bakr! how good is this first blessing of yours.' In the same
Ghazwah the incident regarding 'A'isha and the false accusation
against her took place. The narrator said that God sent down a
declaration of her innocence. In this Ghazwah the Messenger of
God stayed away from home for 28 days and returned to Medina
when the moon for the month of Ramadan was sighted."
This account differs radically from the
other versions. Thus it tells us that the loss of 'A'isha's necklace
was the cause of people stopping. But in the other versions people
are unaware of the loss of the necklace and the loss is the cause of
'A'isha being left behind:
"I touched my chest to find that my
necklace of zifar beads (Yemenite beads partly black and
partly white) was missing. So I returned to look for my necklace
and my search for it detained me. (In the meantime) the people
who used to carry me on my camel, came and took my howdah and
put it on the back of my camel ... and all of them left " (Bukhari,
similarly Ibn Ishaq and Muslim).
Furthermore, the versions based on
az-Zuhri’s account tell us that whenever the Prophet intended to go
on a journey he used to draw lots among his wives and take with him
the one on whom the lot fell. In Ghazwah al-Mustaliq the lot fell on
A’isha and therefore he took her with him. Ibn Sa`d, on the other
hand says nothing about drawing lots and says that not only 'A'isha
but also Umm Salamah went with the Prophet. From such differences it
seems highly probable that Ibn Sa'd is using traditions that are
independent of the versions in Bukhari, Muslim, and Ibn Ishaq.
Ibn Sa`d’s story that A’isha lost her
necklace which caused people to stop and search for it and provided
the occasion for the revelation about tayammum is found in
the books of Hadith, including Bukhari and Muslim. The necklace is
sometimes said to be of Asma’ (Bukhari, kitab al-tafsir (on
Qur’an 4:43)) or of A’isha (Bukhari, kitab al-tafsir (on
Qur’an 5:6)) or given to A’isha by Asma’, her sister (Bukhari,
bab fadl A’isha). It would be somewhat strange that A’isha lost
her necklace twice, so that the possibility must be admitted that
one story about the loss of a necklace is taking different forms in
Ibn Sa’d and the other three sources, Ibn Ishaq, Bukhari, and
Muslim.
Neither in terms of his ability as a
historian nor in terms of the date of his writing Ibn Sa'd is to be
preferred over Ibn Ishaq, Bukhari and Muslim but the fact that there
existed alternative traditions about the incident of ifk does
provide some cause for caution.
Let us now look more closely at the
direct and indirect references to hijab in the story. It is
expressly said in all versions that the incident took place after
the verses about hijab had been sent down. This is called
into question by several facts:
The verses about hijab and
jilbab are believed to have been revealed sometimes after
Ghazwah al-Ahzab (the Battle of Confederates, also called Ghazwah
al-Khandaq , the Battle of the Trench) as they are found in the
surah which refers to that Ghazwah. Now Ibn Ishaq quotes az-Zuhri
expressly saying that ifk
took place during Ghazwah
al-Mustaliq or Ghazwah al-Muraysi'. But there are reports which
suggest that Ghazwah al-Mustaliq took place before Ghazwah
al-Ahzab, in which case ifk
took place before the verses about
hijab
and
jilbab
were revealed, and not after,
as Ibn Ishaq, Bukhari and Muslim tell us.
Ibn Sa'd in his Tabaqat
explicitly gives the following dates for the two battles:
Ghazwah of al-Muraysi' or al-Mustaliq
--- Sha'ban 5 AH
Ghazwah al-Ahzab ---- Dhu al-Qa'dah 5
AH.
Thus Ghazwah al-Mustaliq took place 3
months before Ghazwah al-Ahzab and hence the incident of ifk took
place at least three months before the verses about hijab and
jilbab.
The uncertainty about the dates of the
two Ghazwat and therefore of their relative temporal order
and the relative temporal order of ifk and the revelation
about hijab/jilbab is raised not just by the evidence from
Ibn Sa`d. It is also raised by the evidence from Ibn Ishaq, Bukhari
and Muslim themselves.
Bukhari mentions the following dating by
Musa bin 'Uqbah about the two battles:
Ghazwah al-Mustaliq ---- 4 AH
Ghazwah al-Ahzab ---- Shawwal, 4 AH
(See the chapters in Bukhari on the two
Ghazwat). Bukhari does not say which month Ghazwah al-Mustaliq took
place and therefore we cannot say which of the two Ghazwat took
place first.
Ibn Ishaq, however, gives the
following dating:
Ghazwah al-Mustaliq ---- Sha'ban 6AH
Ghazwah al-Ahzab ----5 AH,
thus agreeing with Ibn Sa'd as far as
Ghazwah al-Ahzab is concerned and disagreeing with the dates of both
battles as given in Bukhari on the authority of Musa bin ‘Uqbah..
Dating the incident of ifk after
al-Ahzab not only conflicts with the dating of the two battles in
some sources but also creates another difficulty. In all three
versions there is an argument between some people from different
tribes about whether the person(s) responsible for the slander
should be killed. In Ibn Ishaq the argument is between Usayd bin
Hudayr and Sa'd bin Ubada. But in Bukhari and Muslim the argument
also involves Sa'd bin Mu'adh who is universally believed to be
martyred during Ghazwah Banu Qurayza which took place
immediately after Ghazwah al-Ahzab. Ibn Ishaq puts the martyrdom of
Sa'd bin Mu'adh during Ghazwah Banu Qurayza which is said to have
taken place soon after Ghazwah al-Ahzab before Ghazwah
al-Mustaliq. Imam Nawvi raises the problem in his Sharh of
Muslim and says that "the reference to Sa'd bin Mu'adh is difficult
to understand because he died soon after Ghazwah al-Khandaq (=
Ghazwah al-Ahzab) whereas the incident of ifk took place
during Ghazwah Banu al-Mustaliq which was undertaken in 6 H." All
writers of siyar are agreed on this date except Waqidi. Qadhi
Ayad said that the reference to Sa'd bin Mu'adh in the story is not
factual. The fact is that it was only Usayd bin Hudayr who spoke
along with Sa'd bin Ubada. Musa bin 'Uqba said that Ghazwah al-Muraysi'
(=Ghazwah al-Mustaliq) took place in 4 AH which is also the year of
Ghazwah al-Khandaq. Then it is possible that both Ghazwah al-Mustaliq
and the incident of ifk took place before Ghazwah al-Khandaq
when Sa'd bin Mu'adh was alive". Thus either Bukhari and Muslim are
both wrong in mentioning Sa'd bin Mu'adh in the story of ifk
or all three versions are wrong in mentioning that the incident took
place after the regulations for hijab.
While some facts suggest that the
incident of ifk took place before the revelation of the
verses about hijab, there is at least one argument that
supports it. Thus the versions of the incident of ifk in Ibn
Ishaq, Bukhari, and Muslim all assume that the marriage of the
Prophet with Zaynab bint Jahsh had already taken place. For example,
it is said that Zaynab's sister Hamna bint Jahsh was among those who
spread the false accusation and the reason given is that "her sister
Zaynab bint Jahsh was one of the apostle's wives and only she could
rival me in his favor" (Ibn Ishaq; similarly Bukhari and Muslim).
Now some traditions in Bukhari and Muslim (see below) tell us that
the verses about hijab were revealed on the day of the
walimah (marriage) party for the Prophet’s marriage with Zaynab.
This means that the incident of ifk took place after the
revelation of the verses about hijab.
That the uncertainty about the dates and
the relative temporal order of the two battles was considered
significant enough is shown by the versions of the incident of
ifk in Bukhari and Muslim. Bukhari refers to the view of
az-Zuhri that the incident took place in Ghazwah al-Mustaliq but
himself shows reservations about that view. He first has a chapter
on Ghazwah al-Mustaliq, then on Ghazwah al-Anmar and then on the
incident of ifk. And in his version of the story of ifk
it is simply stated that the Prophet took 'A'isha on "one of the
Ghazwat" without mentioning the name of the Ghazwah. Muslim's
version also does not mention the name of the Ghazwah and simply
speaks of "a Ghazwah". Clearly the versions in Bukhari and Muslim
are trying to avoid the problem created by the dating of the Ghazwat.
In view of the uncertainty about dates
pointed out above, the possibility remains that the incident of
ifk took place before the regulations of hijab and
jilbab and consequently the statements to the contrary in Ibn
Ishaq, Bukhari and Muslim are historically inaccurate.
In any case, let us now look at the
references to hijab and jilbab in the story of ifk
in the various versions and compare them. As we shall soon discover
this comparison brings to light an important fact.
The part of the story of ifk
related to hijab in the various versions read:
Ibn Ishaq:
So I wrapped myself in my outer garment and then lay down where
I was, knowing that if I were missed they would come back for
me, and by God I had but just lain down when Safwan bin al-Mu'attal
al-Sulami passed me; he had fallen behind the main body for some
purpose and had not spent the night with the troops. He saw my
form and came and stood over me. He used to see me before the
veil was prescribed for us, so when he saw me he exclaimed in
astonishment, "The Apostle's wife" (za'ina, a woman
carried in a howdah)" while I was wrapped in my garments. He
asked me what has kept me behind but I did not speak to him.
Then he brought up his camel and told me to ride it while he
stood behind. So I rode it and he took the camel's head going
forward quickly in search of the army, and by God we did not
overtake them and I was not missed until the morning. The men
had halted and when they were rested up came the man leading me
and the liars spread their reports and the army was much
disturbed.
Bukhari,
kitab al-shahadat:
So, I went to the place where I used to stay, thinking that they
would discover my absence and come back in my search. While in
that state, I felt sleepy and slept. Safwan bin Mu'attal As-Sulami
Adh-Dhakwani was behind the army and reached my abode in the
morning. When he saw a sleeping person, he came to me, and he
used to see me before veiling. So, I got up when I heard him
saying, "inna lillahi wa inna ilayhi
raji’un (We are for God, and we will
return to Him)." He made his camel kneel down. He got down from
his camel, and put his leg on the front legs of the camel and
then I rode and sat over it. Safwan set out walking, leading the
camel by the rope till we reached the army who had halted to
take rest at midday.
Bukhari,
kitab al-maghazi:
[Sometime during night time departure of the troops is announced
and 'A'isha is left behind.] So I intended to go to the place
where I used to stay, thinking that they will miss me and come
back to me. While I was sitting in my resting place, I was
overwhelmed by sleep and slept. Safwan bin al-Mu'attal as-Sulami
adh-Dhakwani was behind the army. When he reached my place in
the morning, he saw the figure of a sleeping person and he
recognized me on seeing me as he had seen me before hijab
(was prescribed). So I woke up when he recited istirja
(that is, inna lillahi wa inna ilayhi
raji'un) as soon as he recognized me.
I veiled my face with my outer garment (khammartu
wajhiya bijilbabi) at once, and by
God, we did not speak a single word, and I did not hear him say
any word besides the istirja'.
He dismounted from his camel and made it kneel down, putting his
leg on its front legs and then I got up and rode on it. Then he
set out leading the camel that was carrying me till we overtook
the army in the extreme heat of midday while they were at a
halt.
Bukhari,
kitab at-tafsir:
Then I found my necklace after the army had gone. I came to
their camp but found nobody therein so I went to the place where
I used to stay, thinking that they would miss me and come back
in my search. While I was sitting at my place, I felt sleepy and
slept. Safwan bin Al-Mu'attil As-Sulami Adh-Dhakwani was behind
the army. He had started in the last part of the night and
reached my stationing place in the morning and saw the figure of
a sleeping person. He came to me and recognized me on seeing me
for he used to see me before veiling. I got up because of his
saying: "inna lillahi wa inna ilayhi raji’un," which he
uttered on recognizing me. I covered my face with my outer
garment, and by God, he did not say to me a single word except,
"inna lillahi wa inna ilayhi raji’un," till he made his
she-camel kneel down whereupon he trod on its forelegs and I
mounted it. Then Safwan set out, leading the she-camel that was
carrying me, till we met the army while they were resting during
the hot midday.
Muslim:
The story in Muslim is very similar to that in Bukhari,
kitab al-maghazi.
In many points there is agreement
between the three sources but when it comes to jilbab and
hijab there are serious disagreements:
1) In Ibn Ishaq 'A'isha wrapped herself
in a smock and is recognized by Safwan as the Prophet's wife because
before the regulation about hijab came down he had seen her.
This means that her face was not covered. Bukhari and Muslim also
say that 'A'isha was recognized but the two versions in Bukhari and
the one version in Muslim say that after seeing Safwan she covered
her face. Ibn Ishaq and one version in Bukhari (kitab al-shahadat)
say no such thing. Clearly in the time of Ibn Ishaq the view had not
yet been established that women have to cover their faces. Such a
view probably got prevalent only sometimes between the writing of
Ibn Ishaq and of Bukhari, that is, sometimes between the first half
of the second century and the early decades of the third century.
But Ibn Ishaq does say that Safwan recognized 'A'isha as the
Prophet's wife because he saw her before the regulation about
hijab came down. Does that mean that after the verse about
hijab he could not have seen her since she would not have gone
out without covering her face? Not necessarily. The verse about
hijab might have limited opportunity of seeing 'A'isha because
now believers could not enter the Prophet's house (and each others'
houses) without permission and were to talk from behind hijab
and the Prophet's wife went out of the houses much less.
2) In Bukhari and Muslim it is said that
'A'isha fell asleep and was still sleeping when Safwan discovered
her. In Ibn Ishaq 'A'isha does not fall asleep. Perhaps the purpose
of sleep in the versions in Bukhari and Muslim is to explain why 'A'isha's
face was not covered when Safwan saw her and recognized her. In Ibn
Ishaq this question does not arise since his version is not assuming
that women's face needs to be covered.
3) In Ibn Ishaq, Safwan exclaims:
za'ina, a woman carried in a howdah and then asked 'A'isha how
she got left behind but she did not speak to him. But in Bukhari and
Muslim the only word that Safwan speaks is the istirja'.
Besides this neither he nor 'A'isha say any thing. The tradition it
seems is overstressing that the two did not even talk, even though
the Qur'an only says that believers should talk with the wives of
the Prophet from behind a hijab and not that they should not
talk at all.
Thus our examination of the most
reliable hadith mentioning hijab shows that the first
generations of Muslims did not think that women have to cover their
faces.
THE OCCASION OF THE REVELATION OF
THE HIJAB VERSES
There are two different types of
accounts about the circumstances under which the verses about
hijab were revealed. Both accounts are found in both Bukhari and
Muslim.
First account.
The more reliable account is attributed to Anas bin Malik and
describes the occasion as the party (walimah) for the
marriage of the Prophet with Zaynab. Various versions of this
account are collected by Muslim in his kitab al-nikah, bab zawaj
Zaynab bint Jahsh wa nazul al-hijab. Bukhari also has most of
these ahadith in his kitab al-isti’dhan, bab ayah al-hijab and
kitab at-tafsir, bab la tadkhulu buyut an-nabi .... . One of
these ahadith reads:
Anas bin Malik narrated that he was
a boy of ten at the time when the Prophet emigrated to Medina.
He added: I served the Messenger of God for ten years (the last
part of his life) and I know more than the other people about
the occasion whereupon the order of hijab was revealed.
Ubay bin Ka'b used to ask me about it. The order about hijab
was revealed during the marriage of the Messenger of God with
Zaynab bint Jahsh. In the morning, the Prophet was her
bride-groom and he invited the people, who took their meals and
went away, but a group of them remained with the Messenger of
God. When they prolonged their stay the Messenger of God got up
and went out so that people leave. I too, went out along with
him till he came to the lintel of 'A’isha's dwelling place. He
thought that those people had left by then, so he returned, and
I too, returned with him till he entered where Zaynab was and
found that they were still sitting there and had not yet gone.
The Prophet went out again, and so did I with him till he
reached the lintel of 'A’isha's dwelling place, and then he
thought that those people must have left by then, so he
returned, and so did I with him, and found those people had
gone. At that time the ayah of hijab was revealed,
and the Prophet set a screen between me and him (his family).
Let us recall the verse about hijab.
It reads:
33:53. O believers! Do not enter the
dwellings of the Prophet for a meal without waiting for the
proper time unless permission is granted to you. But when you
are invited do enter and when the meal is over then disperse. Do
not linger for (idle) chat. This would indeed annoy the Prophet
but he would be shy of you (to ask you to go). And when you ask
of them (the wives of the Prophet) anything, ask of them from
behind a hijab. This is purer for your hearts and their
hearts. And it is not for you to annoy the Messenger of God nor
that you should ever marry his wives after him. That in God’s
sight will be an enormity.
This verse fits well with the story
described in the above hadith and that supports the authenticity of
the hadith in some form. But hadith is not without difficulties, for
there are many important differences among the various versions.
Thus while in the above version the Prophet goes to the dwelling of
‘A’isha in other versions he goes to the dwellings of all the wives
and greets them. In the above version he goes away several times, in
others he goes away only once. Also in the above version Anas goes
with the Prophet as he leaves the gathering, but in others he seems
to stay behind and then informs the Prophet when people leave, as in
the following version:
Anas bin Malik narrated: When
the Prophet married Zaynab, the people came and were offered a
meal, and then they sat down (after finishing their meals) and
started chatting. The Prophet showed as if he wanted to get up,
but they did not get up. When he noticed that, he got up, and
some of the people also got up and went away, while some others
kept on sitting. When the Prophet returned to enter, he found
the people still sitting, but then they got up and left. So I
told the Prophet of their departure and he came and went in. I
intended to go in but the Prophet put a screen between me and
him, for God revealed:-- 'O you who believe! Enter not the
Prophet's houses..' (33.53) (Bukhari,
kitab al-istidhan).
Note also that in the above two versions
all the people are gone when the verse about hijab is
revealed and screen is set between Anas and the wife of the Prophet.
But in another version the people are still present when the verse
is revealed and the screen (hijab) is set up in their
presence, after which they leave:
So the Prophet went out and then
returned several times while they were still sitting and
talking. Then God revealed the verse [33:53]. So the screen was
set up and the people went away.
Still other important differences exist
between the various versions. Thus in some versions meat and bread
are served at the walimah while in others only hais (a
sweet dish made from butter cheese and dates) was served. According
to a version in Muslim, hais was sent by Umm Sulaym, Anas’
mother, and was miraculously multiplied to serve several hundred
people, a story that is told in Bukhari in connection with the
Prophet’s marriage with Safiyyah and not Zaynab.
Second account.
Another account of the circumstances that led to the revelation of
the verse of hijab is also found in both Bukhari (kitab
al-istidhan, bab ayah al-hijab, kitab at-tafsir, bab la tadkhulu ...)
and Muslim (kitab as-salam, bab ibahat al-khuruj li an-nisa ...).
According to this account it is at the prompting of ‘Umar that the
verse about hijab was revealed. In one simple form in Bukhari
the account runs as follows:
Umar narrated: I said, "O
Messenger of God! Good and bad persons enter upon you, so I
suggest that you order the mothers of the believers (i.e. your
wives) to observe hijab."
Then God revealed the verses of
hijab.
But in other versions a more elaborate
story is told:
'A’isha narrated: ‘Umar bin al-Khattab
used to say that the Messenger of God, "Let your wives be in
hijab". But he did not do so. And the wives of the Prophet
used to go at night to al-Manasi (a vast open place near Baqia
at Medina to answer the call of nature). Once Sawda bint Zam'a
(the wife of the Prophet) went out and she was a tall lady. 'Umar
bin al-Khattab saw her while he was in a gathering and said, "I
have recognized you, O Sawda!" (He said so, as he desired
eagerly that the verse of al-hijab may be revealed.) So
God revealed the verses of al-hijab.
This account raises some questions. Why
was ‘Umar more anxious for the verse of hijab than the
Prophet and why was the revelation so dependent on what ‘Umar
thought? In the hadith quoted earlier ‘Umar tells the Prophet, "Good
and bad persons enter upon you". Were God and his Messenger
unaware of the situation and needed to be reminded of it? More
seriously, we have another hadith where ‘Umar sees Sawda not
before but after the verse of hijab had been revealed:
Narrated ‘A’isha: Sawda (the
wife of the Prophet) went out for her need after hijab
had been ordained. She was a fat huge lady, and
everybody who knew her before could recognize her. So 'Umar bin
al-Khattab saw her and said, "O Sawda! By God, you cannot hide
yourself from us, so think of a way by which you should not be
recognized on going out. Sawda returned while the Messenger of
God was in my house taking his supper and a bone covered with
meat was in his hand. She entered and said, "O Messenger of God!
I went out for a need and 'Umar said to me so-and-so." Then God
inspired him (the Prophet) and when the state of inspiration was
over and the bone was still in his hand as he had not put it
down, he said (to Sawda), "You (women) have been allowed to go
out for your needs." (Bukhari, kitab
at-tafsir, bab la tadkhulu buyut an-nabi ...
)
It is possible to argue that ‘Umar twice
saw Sawda go out, once before the revelation of the verse of
hijab and once after. But it is more natural to conclude that we
are dealing here with a single story that is being used in two
different ways. And it is far from certain that there is any
historical truth behind any of the two traditions. This second
tradition is confused about the issue involved. ‘Umar is telling
Sawda to dress in a way that she is not recognized. He is not saying
whether women can get out. But when the Prophet receives
inspiration, he says that women can go out for their needs, which is
not at all the issue for ‘Umar. This is also not an issue in the
verses about hijab and jilbab, where the Qur’an is
taking it for granted that women including the wives of the Prophet
can go out (see above). So why is there need for a
non-Qur’anic revelation for permitting women to go out? Also, on
what grounds in Islamic teaching ‘Umar is saying that a woman should
be dressed in such a way that she is not recognized.
It seems that some people who in
contrast to the authentic teaching of the Qur’an and Hadith wanted
to cover women from head to toe or to confine them to houses were
inventing all kinds of stories to project their sentiments and of
course in the process producing traditions with all kinds of
contradictions.
HIJAB
FROM THE BLIND IBN UMM MAKTUM
There are several references in Hadith
where looking at a member of the opposite sex is mentioned. In some
cases the reference can be taken to a lustful look only but in
others it seems to be in a more absolute sense.
Thus in one hadith the Prophet tells
'Ali, "Do not follow one look by a second one. For while the first
look is (automatically) forgiven, the second is not" (Ahmad,
Tirmidhi, Abu Da'ud, Darimi). (See also the hadith about al-Fadl bin
‘Abbas discussed below.) In another hadith a lustful look is
described as an adultery of the eyes:
Ibn ‘Abbas narrated: I have not seen
a thing resembling ‘lamam’ (minor sins) more than what
Abu Hurayra reported from the Prophet who said: "God has written
for son of Adam (i.e. human being) his share of adultery which
he inevitably commits. The adultery of the eye is looking (with
desire), the adultery of the tongue is talking; the self wishes
and desires and sexual organs then either testify all this
(i.e., go along with the desire) or deny it" (see, e.g. Bukhari,
kitab al-'isti'dhan, bab zina al-jawarih ...).
The Qur'an makes parallel statements
about men and women in that it commands both to lower their gaze.
One hadith points in the same direction. Thus in Ahmad, Abu Da'ud,
and Tirmidhi it is reported that two of the wives of the Prophet,
Umm Salamah and Maymuna, were sitting with the Prophet when his
blind companion Ibn Umm Maktum came. The Prophet told the wives to
do hijab. They said, "Is he not blind? He will not see us,
nor recognize us." The Prophet said, "Are you two also blind? Will
you not see him?" Contrary to this we have another hadith found in
the earlier collections Mu’watta (kitab at-talaq, bab ma ja’a fi
nafaqat al-mutallaqa) and Muslim (kitab at-talaq, bab al-mutallaqah
al-na’in la nafaqah la ha), according to which the Prophet
advised a divorced woman to stay in the home of the same Ibn Umm
Maktum, saying "He is blind. You can stay there with freedom to
dress with ease." While the first tradition is closer to the Qur’an
in that it expects similar standards from both men and women, it may
have misinterpreted the Qur’an in assuming that lowering gaze is
complete avoidance of looking. The second hadith may have captured
the Qur’anic spirit better in that it does not view lowering of gaze
literally and absolutely. The concern in the hadith is more about
privacy than about looking, although the latter is also important
within the limits of the Qur’an. Incidentally, this hadith in
Mu’watta and Muslim shows us another aspect of the atmosphere in
early Islam. For the hadith relates that before sending the divorced
woman to the house of Ibn Umm Maktum the Prophet considered the
possibility of sending her to the house of Umm Sharik, but discarded
the idea saying that "this is a woman whom my companions visit".
Clearly, we do not have here a segregation of women that later
became part of the Muslim ideal of piety.
TURNING THE HEAD OF AL-FADL BIN
‘ABBAS
Bukhari and Muslim tell the following
story:
Al-Fadl bin 'Abbas rode behind
the Prophet as his companion rider on the back portion of his
she-camel on the Day of Nahr (slaughtering of sacrifice, 10th
Dhul-Hijja) and Al-Fadl was a handsome man. The Prophet stopped
to give the people verdicts. In the meantime, a beautiful woman
from the tribe of Khath'am came, asking the verdict of God's
Messenger (on a question relating to hajj). Al-Fadl started
looking at her as her beauty attracted him. The Prophet looked
behind while Al-Fadl was looking at her; so the Prophet held out
his hand backwards and caught the chin of Al-Fadl and turned his
face (to the other side in order that he should not gaze at
her). She said, "O God's Messenger! The obligation of performing
hajj enjoined by GOD on His worshippers, has become due
(compulsory) on my father who is an old man and who cannot sit
firmly on the riding animal. Will it be sufficient that I
perform hajj on his behalf?" He said, "Yes." (see also Muslim,
kitab al-hajj, bab alhajj an al-ajiz
...).
This shows that even as late as the
farewell hajj of the Prophet women did not cover their faces. This
is sometimes justified by the argument that the incident took place
during hajj and ihram and women are not allowed to wear
niqab during hajj. Yet for this argument to carry any weight the
view that women cannot wear niqab during hajj has to be
firmly established. But that is far from being the case. Traditions
in this connection do not go very early and are contradictory. Thus
in Mu’watta there are two opinions of the companions, one permitting
niqab during the state of ihram and one prohibiting
it:
Abdullah ibn Umar used to say
that a woman in ihram
should wear neither a
veil (niqab)
nor gloves.
Fatima bint al-Mundhir said,
"We used to veil our faces when we were in
ihram
in the company of Asma bint Abi Bakr
as-Siddiq." (Mu’watta, kitab al-hajj, bab takhmir al-muhrim
wajhahu)
But about a generation later the opinion
that women cannot wear niqab while in ihram is
attributed to the Prophet. Thus in Bukhari we read:
Abdullah Ibn ‘Umar said: A
person stood up and asked, "O Messenger of God! What clothes may
be worn in the state of ihram?" The Prophet replied, "Do
not wear a shirt or trousers, or any headgear (e.g. a turban),
or a hooded cloak; but if somebody has no shoes he can wear
leather stockings provided they are cut short off the ankles,
and also, do not wear anything perfumed with wars or
saffron, and the muhrima (a woman in the state of
ihram) should not cover her face, or wear gloves." (Bukhari,
kitab jaza al-sayd ..., bab ma yunha min al-tayyib li al-muhrim
wa al-muhrima)
The words "the muhrima (a
woman in the state of ihram) should not cover her face, or
wear gloves" are exactly the same in Arabic as the words
attributed to ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Umar as quoted in Mu’watta. The above
hadith from Bukhari is also quoting Abdullah ibn ‘Umar but while in
Mu’watta the words are no more than the opinion of ‘Abdullah ibn
‘Umar in Bukhari ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Umar is attributing them to the
Prophet. One naturally asks, Why did Imam Malik not attribute these
words to the Prophet? Malik taught in Medina in the first half of
the second century hijri. Many men and women had performed hajj by
that time. Various sayings of the Prophet about hajj would have been
reported in order to know the procedure for hajj. It seems difficult
to believe that sitting in Medina Imam Malik did not hear about the
Prophet prohibiting the wearing of niqab during ihram.
This suggests the conclusion that this prohibition existed as an
opinion of some individual, possibly that of ‘Abdullah ibn Umar, and
by the time Bukhari compiled his Sahih the opinion was attributed to
the Prophet himself. It is evident from the second tradition in
Mu’watta (which talks of women wearing niqab in the state of
ihram in the presence of Asma) that the opinion was not
shared by all.
One may argue that the very existence of
the opinion that women should not wear niqab during the state
of ihram means that they were expected to wear niqab
when not in ihram. However, if we use this argument we would
have to conclude that men should also cover their faces when not in
ihram. For, in Mu’watta it is stated:
‘Abdullah bin ‘Umar used to
say that a man in ihram
should not cover anything above his chin. (Conflicting with the
opinion of ‘Uthman bin ‘Affan who was once seen, according to
another tradition in Mu’watta, covering his face when in
ihram).
This clearly does not mean that outside
of ihram a man should cover what is above his chin -- face
and head. Similarly, the view that a woman should not wear niqab
while in ihram does not mean that she should wear niqab
when out of ihram.
AHADITH ABOUT
HAYA
Books of Hadith talk of a quality called
haya which means modesty (especially in relation to sexual
matters), bashfulness, self-respect. It is probably the same quality
which makes Adam and Eve cover themselves with leaves when they
became conscious of their nakedness. In Mu’watta, the Prophet is
reported to have said that every religion has a characteristic (khuluq)
and the characteristic of Islam is haya (kitab husn al-khuluq,
bab ma ja’a fi al-haya). Another hadith in the same chapter of
Mu’watta reports the Prophet as saying that haya is a part of
iman. This latter hadith is also reported by Bukhari (kitab
al-adab, bab al-haya) and Muslim (kitab al-iman, bab sha’b
al-iman). Bukhari reports two other ahadith in the same chapter.
In one the Prophet is reported to say that nothing but good can come
from haya while in the other it is said the Prophet himself
had more haya than a veiled virgin girl.
OTHER RELEVANT AHADITH
In Bukhari we read the following report:
Hafsa said: "We used to forbid
our young women to go out for the two 'Id prayers. A
woman came and stayed at the palace of Bani Khalaf and she
narrated about her sister whose husband took part in twelve holy
battles along with the Prophet and her sister was with her
husband in six (out of these twelve). She (the woman's sister)
said, "We used to treat the wounded, look after the patients and
once I asked the Prophet, 'Is there any harm for any of us to
stay at home if she doesn't have a
jilbab?' He said,
'She should cover herself with the
jilbab
of her companion and should
participate in the good deeds and in the religious gathering of
the Muslims.' When Umm 'Atiya came I asked her whether she had
heard it from the Prophet. She replied, "Yes. May my father be
sacrificed for him (the Prophet)! (Whenever she mentioned the
Prophet she used to say, 'May my father be sacrificed for him) I
have heard the Prophet saying, 'The unmarried young virgins and
the mature girl who stay often screened or the young unmarried
virgins who often stay screened and the menstruating women
should come out and participate in the good deeds as well as the
religious gathering of the faithful believers but the
menstruating women should keep away from the Musalla (praying
place).'" Hafsa asked Umm 'Atiya surprisingly, "Do you say the
menstruating women?" She replied, "Doesn't a menstruating woman
attend 'Arafat (Hajj) and such and such (other deeds)?" (Bukhari,
kitab al-hayd, bab
shuhud al-ha’id
...)
For the authenticity of this hadith it
can be said that it brings to mind extreme poverty so much so that
some women could not afford even a jilbab. By the time of
Uthman and even Umar it seems that the days of such poverty were
gone. Even if not authentic, this hadith clarifies the meaning of
the word jilbab. For it tells us that jilbab is not a
sown cloth but rather a sheet of any kind. If one woman does not
have a jilbab she can share the jilbab of her
companion which of course cannot be done for a sown cloth.
In Bukhari (kitab al-isti’dhan, bab
awl Allah, ya ayyuha-lladhina ‘amanu la tadkhulu buyutan
...) we find the following tradition:
The Prophet said, "Beware! Avoid
sitting by the road sides." The (people) said, "O Messenger of
God! We cannot avoid sitting there as we have talks there." The
Prophet said, "If you insist on sitting there, then give the
roads its right." They asked, "What is the right of the road?"
He said, "Lowering your gaze, refraining from harming others,
returning greeting, and enjoining what is good and forbidding
what is evil."
In Abu Da'ud (kitab al-libas)
there are some ahadith to the effect that when 24:30f was revealed
Muslim women made scarves out of what they could find -- sheets,
other pieces of clothes -- and started to wear them. An earlier
version of this is found in Bukhari:
'A’isha used to say: "When (the
verse): "They should draw their head-covers (khumur)
over their bosoms [24:31]," was revealed, (the ladies) cut
their waist sheets at the edges and covered with (the cut
pieces)" (kitab at-tafsir,
wal yadribna bi khumuri hinna ...).
In his translation of Bukhari Muhammad
Muhsin Khan writes "covered their faces". But "faces" are not at all
mentioned in the original Arabic. And in any case it would not make
sense that the Qur’an commanded women to cover their bosoms and
they, in fulfillment of the Qur’anic command started to cover their
faces, as if they could read the mind of God! In earlier times many
people used to fabricate or modify ahadith to project their points
of view, as we have seen above. In our time we do so through our
translations!
In Sunan Abu Da’ud we read the following
story:
Thabit ibn Qays narrated: A woman
called Umm Khallad came to the Prophet while she was veiled. She
was searching for her son who had been killed (in the battle).
Some of the Companions of the Prophet said to her: You have come
here asking for your son while veiling your face? She said: If I
am afflicted with the loss of my son, I shall not suffer the
loss of my modesty. The Messenger of God said: You will get the
reward of two martyrs for your son. She asked: Why is that so, O
Messenger of God? He replied: Because the people of the book
have killed him.
This story does not seem to be attested
by any earlier book of hadith. Also, it is not clear why martyrdom
at the hand of the people of the book should double the reward.
Little creditability can be given to this hadith, but even if true
the story does not establish the need for covering the face, since
the Prophet does not in any way comment on the woman’s actions or
words. It seems that an incident of the type mentioned in the story
took place well after the time of the Prophet when niqab had
become common. Later the incident was projected back into the time
of the Prophet.
A mention may also be made here of the
following hadith in Bukhari which concerns shaking the hand of a
member of the opposite sex.
Narrated 'Aisha: (the wife of the
Prophet) When believing women came to the Prophet as emigrants,
he used to test them in accordance with the order of God. 'O
you who believe! When believing women come to you as emigrants,
examine them . . .' (60.10) So if anyone of those believing
women accepted the above mentioned conditions, she accepted the
conditions of faith. When they agreed on those conditions and
confessed that with their tongues, God's Messenger would say to
them, "Go, I have accepted your oath of allegiance (for Islam)."
By God, the hand of God's Messenger never touched the hand of
any woman, but he only used to take their pledge of allegiance
orally. By God, God's Messenger did not take the pledge of
allegiance of the women except in accordance with what God had
ordered him. When he accepted their pledge of allegiance he
would say to them, "I have accepted your oath of allegiance." (Bukhari,
kitab at-talaq, bab idha aslamat al-mushrikah...,; see
also another hadith from A'isha in kitab al-ahkam, bab bay'ah
an-nisa).
Later books such as Ibn Majah and Nasa'i
also mention this hadith, but Muslim (which was written about the
same time as Bukhari) and Mu'atta (which is earlier) do not. In
Bukhari the two versions have the same source, said to be A'isha.
Bukhari does record another tradition on the pledge of allegiance
taken by the Prophet from women which comes a different source (Umm
Atiyyah), but that tradition says nothing about the touching of
women's hands:
Narrated Umm Atiyyah: We gave the
pledge of allegiance to the Prophet and he recited to me the
verse (60.12): "That they will not associate anything in
worship with God ..." (60.12). And he also prevented us from
wailing and lamenting over the dead. A woman from us held her
hand out and said, "Such-and-such a woman cried over a dead
person belonging to my family and I want to compensate her for
that crying" The Prophet did not say anything in reply and she
left and returned. None of those women abided by her pledge
except Umm Sulaym, Umm al-'Ala', and the daughter of Abi Sabrah,
the wife of al-Mu'adh or the daughter of Abi Sabrah, and the
wife of Mu'adh (Bukhari, kitab al-ahkam, bab bay'ah an-nisa).
After reading this version you
would observe that here there is no mention of the Prophet not
touching the hands of women. From this fact and the from the
observations made earlier we can see that the authenticity of the
report that the Prophet while taking the
pledge of allegiance from women did not touch their hands is far
from assured.
Since the Qur'an tells the believers to
lower their gaze when encountering members of the opposite sex, it
is understandable why some Muslims do not regard shaking hands with
them permissible. Nevertheless it is important to recognize that
this position is probably not founded on authentic tradition. It is
a matter of ijtihad. Since politeness is also an Islamic
principle, at the very least we should not refuse to shake hand with
a member of the opposite sex if the hand is extended and if refusing
to shake it would be taken as impoliteness.
Finally we may mention some ahadith
which concern ‘awrah, the part of the body that must not be
exposed even to the member of the same sex. Muslim records the
tradition which prohibits women to look at the 'awrah of a
woman and a man looking at the 'awrah of a man without
specifying what that 'awrah is. Abu Da'ud, Tirmidhi, Ibn
Majah have traditions which specify the ‘awrah for men and
women, as previously mentioned in this paper.
To summarize, the authentic teaching of
the Prophet Muhammad, as seen from the above discussion of the
Qur’anic passages and prophetic ahadith, enjoins that:
** men and women should show respect
to the members of the opposite sex, avoiding lustful looks.
** women should, moreover, use extra
modesty in dress, talking to men behind a screen (hijab)
when in the privacy of their houses and covering themselves with
a large sheet or a similar outer garment (jilbab) when
going out, so that their charms (zinah), whether in the
form of hair, or adornments or bodily shape are not displayed.
They can either use one outer garment to cover their heads and
bosoms as well as to hide their shapes. Or they can use a head
cover to cover their heads and bosoms and use another sown outer
garment to hide their shapes .There is no requirement for them
to cover their faces.
** women are not to be confined to
houses, although neither women nor men should roam around
purposelessly.
THE TEACHING OF THE PROPHET JESUS
The Jewish Background
OLD
TESTAMENT
In the Old
Testament chastity is stressed. One of the ten commandments is
:"You shall not commit adultery" (Exod 20:14, Deut 5:18). A woman
guilty of illicit sex is to be stoned to death whether or not she
is married. A man guilty of illicit sex with an unmarried woman is
to be forced to marry her and to stay married to her for the rest
of his life while a man guilty of such sex with a woman married or
engaged to another man is to be stoned to death (Deut 22:20-29).
On the other hand, in 2 Sam 11:1-12:25 we are told that one
afternoon King David saw from the roof of his house a beautiful
woman, Bathsheba, taking a bath and committed adultery with her.
He had her husband murdered and then married her, later begetting
Solomon through her. Although condemned by God through Nathan the
prophet for these actions, the law of Deut 22 is not at all
mentioned. Since Bathsheba was married, both she and King David
were punishable by death by stoning. Yet this punishment is not at
all considered. This probably means that the law of Deut 22 took
shape after King David, that is, centuries after Moses, to whom it
is attributed. In any case, it is certain that by the time of
Nehemiah and Ezra, adultery became a serious crime in Judaism.
The
concern for chastity in the Old Testament does not seem to be
accompanied by any regulation about modesty in dress. In Gen
24:65, Rebecca covers her head when she sees Isaac, to whom she is
to be married. But this is not in any way equivalent to hijab,
since earlier she does not cover her head when she meets with
Abraham's servant and the party of men with him. Rebecca=s
veiling herself represents her reverence and subjection to her
would-be husband and not, as in Islam, a means and a symbol of
chastity and modesty in general. A traditional Christian
commentary on the Bible explains Gen 24;65 as follows:
Ashe
took a veil, and covered herself‑‑The veil is an essential part of
female dress. In country places it is often thrown aside, but on
the appearance of a stranger, it is drawn over the face, as to
conceal all but the eyes. In a bride it was a token of her
reverence and subjection to her husband@
(Jameison-Faussett-Brown Commentary and Explanatory on the
Whole Bible).
Another
interesting text is Genesis 38:15, where Tamar is taken for a
prostitute (zonah) by Judah because
Ashe
had covered her face@.
Later in 38:21 she is described as
Atemple
prostitute@
(kedeshah). In ancient pagan religions prostitutes were
employed and their hire was used to pay for the sacrifices (cf.
Num 25:1-2, Deut 23:18, Hosea 4:14). It was the custom for such a
Asacred@
prostitute to cover her face by a veil. Writing in the 5th century
BCE Herodotus (1;199) describes this veil as being like a wreath
of string covering the head and face. This veil could signify an
attempt to appear respectable or the prostitute=s
submissiveness.
In the Old
Testament divorce and polygamy are permitted. To be sure in Deut
17:17 it is said that the king should not multiply wives for
himself, but this is not set as a law against polygamy but rather
an advice against luxury. For the same passage says that the king
should not multiply horses and wealth for himself. Clearly this
does not mean that it is illegal to have more than one horse.
Also, when in 1 Kings 11:3-8 and Neh 13:25-27 Solomon is said to
sin under the influence of his wives, the issue is not polygamy
but having foreign wives.
RABBINIC OR ORAL TRADITION
From the
few references found in the Old Testament, it does not appear that
something like the veil or head cover is a well established
practice in Judaism. But Jewish traditions are not entirely based
on the Old Testament. Rather, oral traditions, many of which were
written by the Rabbis at various times, play as much or greater
part in determining Jewish beliefs and practices. From these it
becomes evident that head-cover was widely practised by the
religious Jewish women. According to Rabbi Dr. Menachem M.
Brayer,
Ait
was the custom of Jewish women to go out in public with a head
covering which, sometimes, even covered the whole face leaving one
eye free.@
Ancient rabbinical authorities said that "it is not like the
daughters of Israel to walk out with heads uncovered," "cursed be
the man who lets the hair of his wife be seen,@
and
Aa
woman who exposes her hair for self‑adornment brings poverty."
Rabbinic law forbids the recitation of blessings or prayers in the
presence of a bareheaded married woman since uncovering the
woman's hair is considered "nudity". During the Tannaitic period
(between the advent of Christianity and Islam)
Athe
Jewish woman's failure to cover her head was considered an affront
to her modesty. When her head was uncovered she might be fined
four hundred zuzim for this offense." But the veil was not always
considered a sign of modesty. Sometimes, the veil symbolized a
state of distinction and luxury rather than modesty. The veil
personified the dignity and superiority of noble women. It also
represented a woman's inaccessibility as a sanctified possession
of her husband (The Jewish Woman in Rabbinic Literature:
A Psychosocial Perspective (Hoboken, N.J: Ktav Publishing
House, 1986, pages 139, 316-317, quoted from Dr. Sherif Abdel
Azeem,
AThe
Women in Islam Versus Women in the Judaeo-Christian Tradition: The
Myth & the Reality@).
According
to Susan W. Schneider, Jewish and Female (New York: Simon &
Schuster, 1984, pages 237-239), the veil signified a woman's
self‑respect and social status. Women of lower classes would often
wear the veil to give the impression of a higher standing. The
fact that the veil was the sign of nobility was the reason why
prostitutes were not permitted to cover their hair in the old
Jewish society. However, prostitutes often wore a special
headscarf in order to look respectable. Jewish women in Europe
continued to wear veils until the nineteenth century when their
lives became more intermingled with the surrounding secular
culture. The external pressures of the European life in the
nineteenth century forced many of them to go out bare‑headed. Some
Jewish women found it more convenient to replace their traditional
veil with a wig as another form of head covering. Today, most
pious Jewish women do not cover their head except in the
synagogue. Some of them, such as the Hasidic sects, still use the
wig.
JESUS=
TEACHINGS
The
emphasis on chastity already found in the Jewish tradition is
enhanced greatly in sayings early attributed to Jesus. These
consists of the sayings where Jesus stresses the purity of eyes
and prohibits divorce. One also needs to consider his presumed
celibacy.
Jesus
and purity of eyes.
In a saying recorded only by Matthew among the four canonical
gospels Jesus is reported to have said:
You have
heard that it was said, "You shall not commit adultery". But I say
to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already
committed adultery with her in his heart (Matt 5:27-28).
This
saying is found in the famous sermon on the mount. While this
sermon contains some authentic material, the sermon as a whole
cannot be considered reliable words of Jesus. It is even doubtful
that Jesus stood on a mount, as Matthew tells us, since Luke in
recording some of the parallel sayings says that Jesus stood on a
"level place" (Luke 6:17). Matthew it seems brings Jesus on a
mountain because he wants to present Jesus as the second Moses who
like the first Moses receives or delivers his law on a mountain.
Usually the reliable material about Jesus is to be found among
sayings which have an independent attestation by another source,
especially Luke. The above passage has no independent attestation
by Luke or any other source and hence cannot be confidently
accepted as Jesus' word. However, it teaches something that Jesus
could have said.
The above
saying, of course, recalls the Qur=anic
verse about lowering gaze. But two important differences are worth
noting. In the gospel saying only men are addressed, whereas the
Qur=an
addresses both men and women, thus recognizing that women are as
much sexual beings as men (this is also recognized in the New
Testament, as in 1 Cor 7:2-5). Secondly, the Qur=an
avoids the exaggerated position that a lustful look already
amounts to adultery. The gospel saying resembles more closely
the hadith in which looking (with desire) is described as a form
of adultery (see above). But again a more balanced attitude is
shown in that the looking is described as one of the minor sins (lamam)
whereas actual adultery is a major sin.
Jesus
and divorce.
Another saying of Jesus which is relevant to chastity has much
greater claim to authenticity. This is the saying about divorce
which in fact is one of the best-attested sayings of Jesus, being
quoted or referred to by varied sources -- Paul, Mark, and Q (the
material common to Matthew and Luke but not to Mark) and the
Shepherd of Hermas (4.1:6, 10), written about 100 CE in Rome.
Unfortunately, the various sources quote the saying in different
forms making it necessary to reconstruct the probable form of the
original story by a detailed analysis.
In
addition to the saying, Mark and Matthew also record a controversy
story in which Jesus answers a question about divorce. We can
begin our analysis by examining this controversy story. Its
versions in Mark and Matthew read:
MARK
MATTHEW
Some
Pharisees came, and to test him Some Pharisees
came to him, and to test him
they
asked, "Is it lawful for a man to they asked,
"Is it lawful for a man to
divorce
his wife?" He answered them, divorce his wife for
any cause?@
He answered,
"What did
Moses command you?"
They said,
"Moses commanded a man to
write a
certificate of dismissal and to
divorce
her." But Jesus said to them,
"Because
of
your
hardness of heart he wrote this
commandment for you. But from the "Have you
not read that the one who
beginning
of creation,
>God
made them made them at the beginning 'made
them male
male and
female.' 'For this reason a man and female,' and
said 'For this reason a man
shall
leave his father and mother and be shall leave
his father and mother and be
joined to
his wife, and the two shall joined to
his wife,' and the two shall
become one
flesh.' So they are no longer become one flesh'?
So they are no longer
two but
one flesh. Therefore what God has two but one flesh.
Therefore what God has
joined
together, let no one separate." joined
together, let no one separate."
They said to him,
"Why then Moses commanded
us to give a certificate of dismissal and to divorce
her?" He said to
them, "It was because you
were
so hard-hearted that Moses allowed you to
divorce
your wives, but from the
beginning
it was not so.
Then in
the house the disciples asked And I say to
you, whoever divorces his wife,
him again
about this matter. He said to except for
unchastity, and marries another,
them,
"Whoever divorces his wife and commits
adultery" (Matt 19:3-9).
marries
another commits adultery
against
her; and
if she divorces her husband and
marries
another, she commits adultery"
(Mark
10:2-12).
Some of
the differences between Mark and Matthew are worth noting:
1) In
Mark the Pharisees ask the question, "Is it lawful for a man to
divorce his wife?" This question, though understandable in Mark's
Gentile church, is strange in the Palestinian context, since every
Jew must have known that the law allows divorce. Matthew therefore
has added to the question the words: "for any cause." That is, in
Matthew the question is about an unqualified permission for
divorce.
2) Just
as in Mark the question raised by the Pharisees is strange in a
Palestinian environment so also is Jesus' response in the form of
the question: "What did Moses command you?" Matthew has taken care
of this also. In his gospel Jesus answers the Pharisees' question
using Gen 1:27 and 2:24 as in Mark. This answer does not fit with
the general understanding of the Mosaic law on divorce and
naturally leads the Pharisees to ask, "Why then Moses commanded us
to give a certificate of dismissal and to divorce her?" Jesus then
answers with a reference to the hardness of hearts as in Mark.
3) In
Matthew Jesus says to the Pharisees: "but from the beginning it
was not so." These words, which are not found in Mark, presumably
mean that at some point in history hard-heartedness and/or the
permission to divorce did not exit.
4) In
Mark the saying about divorce is spoken after the controversy with
the Pharisees in a house to the disciples privately while in
Matthew it is part of the public dialogue. This is because in his
version of the sermon on the mount Matthew has already made this a
part of Jesus' public teaching. Also, the words "And I say to
you," which are not found in Mark's version are an echo of the
sermon on the mount. These are special to Matthew and probably
reflect his way of saying that Jesus as the second Moses brings
something new.
5) In
Mark the saying about divorce is found in two parallel parts, one
about men and the other about women: "whoever divorces his wife
... if she divorces her husband ...". In Matthew the part about
women is omitted. This is because in the Jewish tradition a woman
does not divorce her husband, she only asks for a divorce. But in
Roman custom in the New Testament times women could divorce their
husbands. Mark probably reflects this Roman custom.
It is
almost certain that Matthew knew and used Mark rather than other
way around. Thus the more original form of the story is to be
found in Mark. But the story in Mark reflects the environment of
the Gentile church rather than the Palestinian environment in
which Jesus lived. Hence it is difficult to attribute it to Jesus.
This is further suggested by the fact that unlike the saying about
divorce the controversy story is not attested independently of
Mark. It seems that the story was composed by someone outside
Palestine using legal arguments about the Jewish law concerning
divorce that were already going on there among the Hellenist Jews.
But even
if the controversy story is authentic, it does not amount to an
abrogation of the Mosaic law of divorce. For it can be interpreted
as follows: The law has to make allowances to all kinds of human
weaknesses. What man should or should not do cannot therefore
always be determined by looking at the law. The law does indeed
allow divorce, but that does not mean that divorce should be
practised.
Let us now
examine the saying about divorce more closely. We have five
canonical versions. Mark 10:11-12, Matt 5:32, 19:9, Luke 16:18, 1
Cor 7:10-11. The last of these passages reads:
To the
married I give this command -- not I but the Lord -- that the wife
should not separate from her husband (but if she does separate,
let her remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband),
and that the husband should not divorce his wife. (1 Cor 7:10-11).
This is of
course the earliest reference to the saying about divorce. But
since here Paul is paraphrasing in his own words what Jesus was
reported to have said, it does not provide any direct help in
determining what Jesus actually said.
Luke 16:18
and Matt 5:32 probably come from a common source (Q) and may be
looked at together:
Anyone
who divorces his wife and marries
Anyone who divorces his wife, except on
another
commits adultery,
and whoever the ground of unchastity,
causes her to
marries
a woman divorced from her husband
commit adultery; and whoever marries a
commits
adultery
(Luke 16:18). divorced woman
commits adultery (Matt 5:32).
Likewise,
Mark 10:12-13 and Matt 19:9 are parallel sayings. We have already
quoted them, but for the sake of convenience they are reproduced
below:
Whoever
divorces his wife and
And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife,
marries
another commits adultery against except for
unchastity, and marries another,
her; and
if she divorces her husband and commits
adultery (Matt 19:3-9).
marries
another, she commits adultery"
(Mark
10:11-12).
As already
noted, Mark's version reflects non-Jewish custom when it refers to
a woman who divorces her husband. This together with the fact that
other versions do not mention divorce by a woman, makes it highly
improbable that Mark has the original saying. Similarly, the
exception made by Matthew in favor of "unchastity" which is not
found in any other source is an addition made by Matthew.
There is
another difference between the various versions. According to Matt
5:32 anyone who divorces his wife causes her to commit adultery
while according to Mark 10:11-12 and Luke 16:18 anyone who
divorces his wife and marries another himself commits adultery.
So what
did Jesus really say? In the absence of any other indication we
can say that the statements found in the maximum number of
versions may be accepted as the most original. This leads us to
Luke 16:18, which is reproduced below:
Anyone
who divorces his wife and marries
another commits adultery, and whoever marries a
woman divorced from her husband commits adultery (Luke
16:18).
Each of
the two parts of this passage, one highlighted by italics and the
other by underlining, is found in at least two versions.
Now that
we have reconstructed the probable form of the original saying,
how are we to understand it? In this connection we need to keep in
mind that if authentic the saying was probably spoken in Aramaic
whereas we possess only Greek version. As we all know a single
word can sometimes make a big difference in meaning. Also,
interpretation requires knowing the context in which the original
words were spoken. Luke provides us with no context for the
saying. He has taken isolated sayings and put them together.
Matthew puts the saying once in the context of the sermon on the
mount and once in the context of a controversy story, in both
cases spoken in public. This is contradicted by Mark, according to
which the saying was spoken privately to the disciples after the
controversy. Thus we cannot determine the context with any
confidence. We would therefore examine the saying within the two
contexts provided by Mark and Matthew: the controversy story and
the sermon of the mount, keeping in mind that both may be
unhistorical.
In
interpreting the saying the first question is whether it should be
considered a legal statement. In the past most Christians
interpreted the saying as an absolute legal prohibition of
divorce, but while such a legal interpretation of the saying is
understandable it raises several difficulties:
If we look
at the saying in the context of the sermon of the mount, then it
cannot be taken literally and legally. For just before the saying
about divorce the sermon on the mount records another saying in
which Jesus tells people to cut the part of the body which makes
them sin. This cannot be taken literally. Most other sayings in
the sermon are also exaggerated statements to make people think in
terms of morality rather than balanced and practical statements of
the law. Hence the saying about divorce should be put in the same
category and not be taken literally and legally.
If we read
the saying in its Markan context, then the categorical prohibition
of divorce is spoken privately to the disciples, which may mean
that Jesus was only setting a special standard for his apostles
rather than modifying the Law for all.
Most
importantly, there are many indications that Jesus accepted the
authority of the Old Testament and the Mosaic law. This is
suggested by such gospel passages as Mark 1:44, Luke 16:17, Matt
5:17-20, 23:2-3, 23, Luke 11:42, and also by, where even Paul who
abrogates the Jewish law admits that Jesus was under it during his
life on earth. When Jesus did say things about the law his
tendency was, as the Qur=an
also says, to liberalize it rather than to make it more strict.
Therefore it is highly unlikely that in this one instance of
divorce he overturned the Mosaic law making it more rigid and
strict. So we should look for a non-legalistic interpretation.
One such
interpretation is that Jesus is using here exaggeration to
discourage people from leaving their spouses for marrying others
whom they desire. Notice that it is not said simply that divorce
is wrong. The emphasis is on divorcing and marrying
another. If somebody divorced but did not marry another, there
would be nothing in the saying to condemn that (cf. 1 Cor
7:10-11). Or, if someone divorced without the purpose of marrying
someone else but later met someone and married him or her, still
this may not be blameworthy. That is, Jesus is against desiring
someone other than one=s
spouse. This very desire can be called adultery according to one
of the sayings of Jesus considered above. Acting on the desire by
divorcing one=s
spouse and then marrying the person of one=s
desire would be adultery all the more.
.
Jesus and celibacy. Jesus is often said to be
celibate. This is not explicitly stated in the New Testament but
is rather a deduction from a lack of any references there to
Jesus' wife, marriage or children. One argues that had Jesus been
married we would find such references in the gospels just as we
find references to his parents, brothers and sisters. But this
argument is not conclusive, since the gospels do not concern
themselves much with the time between Jesus' birth and childhood
and his baptism by John and the subsequent start of his ministry.
Mark and John say nothing at all about these years of Jesus' life
while Matthew and Luke start their gospels with diverging and
sometimes conflicting traditions about the birth and childhood of
Jesus and then move to Jesus' baptism and his ministry. The
absence of any infancy material in Mark and John and contradictory
material in Matthew and Luke show that tradition preserved almost
nothing reliable about Jesus' life before his baptism.
Consequently, if before his baptism Jesus was married at one time
and then was divorced or became a widower, one cannot expect a
reference to this in the gospel tradition. Only if Jesus was
married during the crucial period after his baptism should we
expect tradition to know and preserve some reference to his wife
or marriage. Notice that if the gospels have references to Jesus'
mother, brothers and sisters it is because they were alive at this
crucial period. The references to his father or step-father Joseph
are much rarer and this has been taken to mean that Joseph died
before Jesus' baptism. Thus from the gospels we can conclude only
that Jesus was probably not married when he started his ministry.
Outside
the gospels, in the New Testament epistles and Revelation,
evidence of Jesus' celibacy is again lacking. Indeed, Paul does
not seem to know that Jesus was celibate because otherwise we
should expect him to mention Jesus' celibacy in addition to his
own when he talks to his converts about celibacy:
I wish
that all were as I myself am. ... To the unmarried and the widows
I say that it is well for them to remain unmarried as I am. But if
they are not practising self-control, they should marry ( 1 Cor
7:7-8).
If Paul
knew that Jesus was celibate, we should expect him to recommend to
the unmarried and the widows to remain unmarried as "the Lord was
and as I am". But he only has his own example to mention.
But the
question whether Jesus was single or married is not the real
issue. For the word "celibacy" has two meanings: 1) the condition
of being single; 2) the condition of being single as a result of a
vow or some other religious intention. The really important issue
is whether Jesus was celibate in the second sense: that is,
whether Jesus was celibate with a religious intention. For one can
remain single for many reasons: for lack of sufficient income or
time, inability to find a suitable spouse, some disease or
psychological problem. Since the New Testament does not mention
Jesus' celibacy, we cannot expect it to give us his reasons for
it, assuming, of course, that he was celibate. We can only
determine his attitude towards celibacy from his recorded sayings.
Only in one passage in the gospels does Jesus support celibacy.
Matthew, after recording the controversy about divorce and Jesus'
prohibition of it, gives the following dialogue between the
disciples and Jesus:
His
disciples said to him, "If such is the case with a man with his
wife, it is better not to marry." But he said to them, "Not
everyone can accept this teaching, but only those to whom it is
given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and
there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others, and there
are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the
kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can" (Matt 19:10-12)
.
In this
passage living as a eunuch (i.e. being celibate and avoiding all
sexual activity) for the sake of the kingdom of God is considered
the highest ideal. But for two reasons this passage must be
regarded as a later creation possibly of Matthew himself. First,
this dialogue is missing from the parallel Markan material
(10:1-12). Second, Paul provides us with a positive evidence that
Jesus never recommended celibacy. In 1 Cor 7:25-31 we read:
Now
concerning virgins, I have no command of the Lord, but I give my
opinion as one who by the Lord's mercy is trustworthy. I think
that, in view of the impending crisis, it is well for you to
remain as you are. Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be
free. Are you free from a wife do not seek a wife. ... I mean
brothers that the appointed time has grown short ... For the
present form of this world is passing away.
Here Paul
is recommending that virgins and other unmarried people should
remain single while married people should not divorce. He then
states explicitly that in his recommendation he has no command of
the Lord, i.e. Jesus. In prohibition of divorce Paul does know of
the command of Jesus. Consequently, what he does not have is any
words of Jesus that speak about the desirability of celibacy. It
may be noted in parentheses that Paul gives a reason for why
divorce and marriage both should be avoided: the end of the world
is near. From other parts of the New Testament we know that this
"near" means within the lifetime of the first generations of
Christians. Since, however, many generations have passed since
Paul without seeing the end of the world, Paul's reason for
celibacy are clearly proved to be wrong.
The
practice of the most prominent eyewitness apostles also does not
seem to favor celibacy. Thus Peter, who is said to be the rock on
which Jesus built his church, was married during Jesus' ministry.
Mark tells us that Jesus healed Peter's mother-in-law who was sick
with fever. This took place in the house of Peter, so that his
mother-in-law either visited him or was actually living in his
house, which leads us to the probable conclusion that Peter was
married at the time. Indeed, long after Jesus we see Peter still
married and even travelling with his wife during missionary
journeys, as we learn from Paul in 1 Corinthian, a letter written
more than two decades after Jesus:
Do we not
have the right to be accompanied by a believing wife [literally, a
sister as wife], as do the other apostles and the brothers of the
Lord and Cephas [=Peter]? (1 Cor 9:5)
Here Paul
mentions Peter specially but his reference to "other apostles and
the brothers of the Lord" shows that many if not all the apostles
and brothers of Jesus were married, that is, the men who had sat
in Jesus' company and held the highest positions in the Jerusalem
church. It is, of course, possible to argue that Peter and the
apostles married before Jesus started to teach and stayed married
because of the prohibition of divorce. Had they been not married
before they became Jesus=
disciples they would have stayed celibate. But we have no positive
evidence to support this argument.
Thus if
Jesus was celibate it is very unlikely that it was because of any
religious reasons. It was for some of the other reasons mentioned
above. At least one of these reasons was present in Jesus' life
and that is lack of sufficient income. Thus during his ministry
Jesus travelled constantly and was dependent on the support of
those who believed in him. There were times that this support was
not available to him so much so that he did not even have roof
over his head, as we learn from the following saying in Q:
Foxes have
holes, and the birds of the air have nests; but this one has
nowhere to lay his head (Matthew 8:20=Luke 9:58).
The Greek
behind our translation "this one" literally means "son of man"
which is a translation of the Aramaic bar nasha. This
Aramaic expression really means "man" and could be used by a
person to refer to himself. The expression in this saying should
not be understood in terms of the apocalyptic Son of Man, for what
have holes and nests and the homelessness of Jesus to do with that
figure? In any case, for our purposes the saying provides evidence
that Jesus' economic situation was probably not such as to enable
him to marry.
Jesus
and hijab.
Jesus does not give any practical guidance to help the community
preserve chastity. In particular, he does not talk about modesty
in dress. The saying attributed to him in Matthew talks about the
Ahijab@
of the eyes but not of the clothes. However, it should be noted
that Jesus taught within a Jewish environment and assumed many of
the Jewish laws and traditions. We should not expect his teaching
to confirm explicitly every single Jewish law or tradition that he
accepted. Since, as appears from what we said above about the
Jewish background, Jewish women covered their heads and Jesus
does not anywhere condemns the practice, it is quite possible
that he took the practice for granted. If so, it is impossible to
tell what interpretation he gave to the practice. From what was
stated above about the Jewish background it seems that head
covering could have both a negative connotation of women=s
subjugation to men or a positive connotation of respectability and
dignity.
To
summarize, we conclude, therefore, that in all probability the
Prophet Jesus
** did not
practise celibacy with a religious understanding and did not
teach that celibacy is good or desirable. The examples of
eyewitness apostles, some of whom were appointed by Jesus himself,
shows furthermore that to be priests, if at all priesthood is
consistent with the teaching of Jesus and the apostles, celibacy
is not a necessary condition.
** he did
not prohibit divorce in a legal sense; but condemned divorcing one=s
spouse out of a desire to marry another.
** he took
the Jewish practice of women covering their heads for granted.
LATER
DEVELOPMENTS
After the
departure of Jesus traditions related to some of the topics
touched above underwent in the church considerable development,
which we now briefly trace.
Divorce.
At some point the main church came to understand Jesus=
saying about divorce as an absolute legal prohibition of divorce,
as the Roman catholic church still does. The exception given by
Matthew was understood by the main church to refer to those
situations which make the marriage itself invalid, e.g., marriage
with a blood relation such as a parent or sibling or an
incontinence on the part of the wife discovered after marriage.
Until quite recently this last rule did not apply to incontinence
on the part of the husband.
Celibacy.
As already noted Paul, who himself was celibate, taught Christians
that celibacy is an ideal state (1 Cor 7:7, 25-31). After the time
of Paul there further developed the idea that there should be
priests in the churches and that they have to be celibate.
Head
covering.
We earlier saw that neither the Old Testament nor the gospels
enjoin the headcovering although it was enjoined in oral and
rabbinical tradition. It was again Paul who for the first time
made not only the headcovering but also a very negative
interpretation of it a part of the Christian scriptures. Thus he
wrote:
Any man
who prays or prophesies with something on his head disgraces his
head, but any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled
disgraces her head - it is one and the same thing as having her
head shaved. For if a woman does not veil herself, then she should
cut off her hair; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her
hair cut off or to be shaved, she should wear a veil. For a man
ought not to have his head veiled, since he is the image and
reflection [or glory] of God; but woman is the reflection [or
glory] of man. Indeed, man was not made from woman, but woman was
made from man. Neither was man created for the sake of woman, but
woman for the sake of man. For this reason a woman ought to have
[a symbol of] authority on her head, because of the angels (1 Cor
11: 4-10 in New Revised Standard Version).
Despite
the fact that some have understood "authority on her head" in the
sense of "freedom of choice regarding her head" and despite the
obscurity of the words "because of the angels," it is clear that
head covering is viewed in the above passage as a symbol of
woman's inferior position in relation to man and of man's
authority over her. This becomes even clearer when we recall some
background from the Old Testament. Regarding the female slaves,
the book of Deuteronomy says: "suppose you see among the captives
a beautiful woman whom you desire and want to marry, and so you
bring her home to your house: she shall shave her head ..."
(21:12). It is this type of tradition in which shaving the head
was some kind of indication of a man taking possession of a woman
slave as a wife that probably lies behind Paul's words: "For if a
woman does not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair; but
if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or to be
shaved, she should wear a veil." Such a view of the head covering
existed in Judaism before Paul (see our earlier comment on Gen
24:65). But in Judaism along with this type of understanding there
was also the other interpretation which regarded head cover as a
symbol of chastity and dignity.
In another
epistle purportedly written by Paul we read:
I desire,
then, that in every place the men should pray, lifting up holy
hands without anger or argument; also that the women should dress
themselves modestly and decently in suitable clothing, not with
their hair braided, or with gold, pearls, or expensive clothes,
but with good works, as is proper for women who profess reverence
for God. Let a woman learn in silence with full submission, I
permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is
to keep silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve, and Adam was
not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a
transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing, provided
they continue in faith and love and holiness, with modesty (1 Tim
2:8-15).
Here,
again, the reference to modesty in dress is followed immediately
by a reference to the prohibition of women from teaching which in
turn is related directly to the moral inferiority of women and
their subjugation to men.
In the
third century, Tertullian in his famous treatise 'On The Veiling
Of Virgins' wrote, "Young women, you wear your veils out on the
streets, so you should wear them in the church, you wear them when
you are among strangers, then wear them among your brothers..."
From this it seems that wearing a veil out on the streets was a
very common practice among young Christian women. Tertullian=s
exhortation is that they should also wear a veil inside in the
churches, as laid down by Paul.
In view of
the New Testament passages and the views of Tertullian cited above
it is hardly surprising that among the canon laws of the catholic
church today, there is a law that requires women to cover their
heads in church (R. Thompson, Women in Stuart England and
America, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1974, p. 162). These
official statements have been reflected in actual practice. To
this day many Christian women, especially in more traditional
Christian countries, go to church services with their heads
covered. And of course catholic nuns have been covering their
heads both on the streets and inside the churches. Some
Christian denominations, such as the Amish and the Mennonites for
example, keep their women veiled most of the time. The reason for
the veil, as offered by their leaders, is "The head covering is a
symbol of woman's subjection to the man and to God," the same
logic introduced by Paul (Mary Murray, The Law of the Father,
London: Routledge, 1995, p. 67).
SOME WESTERN REACTIONS TO HIJAB
Hijab
represents values that are affirmed in the New Testament to a much
severer degree than even in Islam. Thus as in the Qur'an, so also
in the Bible sex is permitted only within a publicly declared
marriage relationship. The Christian Bible in fact goes further
and considers complete abstinence from sex as the ideal state.
Also, it permits sexual relationship only within one marriage
whereas the Qur'an permits such a relationship within several
marriages, either taking place successively through divorce or
simultaneously through polygamous marriages, although the Qur'an
enjoins considerable caution in the use of both the divorce and
the polygamy.
After the
formation of the New Testament the Christian church tried by and
large to impose the above teachings, in some ways making them
even severer. Thus in addition to the practice of celibacy among
priests and almost absolute prohibition of divorce for lay people
the church introduced many days in the year during which sex was
not permitted even within marriage. Also, pleasure in marital sex
was considered undesirable. Because of this type of sexual
morality, until the 19th century it would have been unthinkable
for any serious Christian to speak against hijab, should he have
been exposed to Muslim culture. Indeed, during earlier centuries
the Muslim values would have been viewed by Christians as not
going far enough. During those earlier centuries Christians
presented Islam as a religion tolerant of promiscuity. Thus the
Christian literature on Islam before the second half of the
nineteenth century hurls untold insults on the Prophet of Islam
because he is reported to have said that he loved women, because
he at some point had several wives, and because he reportedly died
talking to God with his head lying in the bosom of his wife 'A'isha.
Since the
modern Western morality of sex is completely opposed to the New
Testament morality, especially as found in the words attributed to
Jesus, one would think that people in the West would think that
either the modern values or the New Testament or both are wrong.
But while some do seem to have reached this necessary conclusion,
a large number of people here seem to think that both are right.
This latter view assumes that right and wrong are socially
determined. That is, right is what is socially acceptable at a
particular time while wrong is what is socially unacceptable at
that time. Therefore in earlier times it was wrong to have sex
outside marriage and to divorce whereas all this is now right or
at least tolerable. This view of right and wrong is where Islam
and the modern Western culture differ most sharply. In Islam right
and wrong are defined by the nature (fitrah) of human beings, of
human societies, and of the particular universe in which they
exist. Although, circumstances, including social conditions, do
determine whether a certain action is right or wrong, but basic
moral values cannot change unless the very nature of human beings
changes. In particular, both the modern morality of sex and the
New Testament morality cannot be right whatever the time-frame.
One of them has to be wrong. The Muslim view is that both are
wrong. The sexual morality as found in the Christian Bible is
wrong because it is alienated from the nature of human sexuality
while the modern morality is wrong because it is alienated from
the nature of human family units.
Another
Western reaction to hijab seems to be based on the perception that
hijab is a symbol of women's subjugation to men. Related with this
perception is the assumption that it is the husbands who force
their wives to wear hijab. Once a Muslim woman went with her
husband to a shopping center, wearing a veil which covered her
face except the eyes. Some Canadian women stopped and started to
yell at the husband saying that he should be ashamed of himself
doing such a thing and that he should go back to his country. The
husband in fact believes that women need to cover only the head
and not the face. It is the wife who interprets the Qur=an
to mean that everything should be covered except the eyes. Another
married Muslim woman visited by herself a Christian family wearing
the head-cover. The lady of the house told the Muslim woman: You
can take off your head cover because your husband is not present.
It is this perception that somehow Muslim women wear hijab because
they are under the authority of men that had made an issue
interesting for the feminists for whom therefore hijab has become
something to be combatted for the liberation of women.
How did
this perception of hijab develop in the West? For an answer we
must turn to the Bible and the church tradition outlined above.
As we have seen the Biblical and church tradition by and large
connects the head-cover with the inferiority of women and their
subjugation to men. In 1 Cor 11:4-10 and 1 Tim 2:8-15 which we
have quoted earlier it is said that women should wear the
head-cover because they are under the authority of men. From this
many Westerners have concluded that Islamic hijab must have
similar meaning. But of course in Islam hijab has no such meaning.
The Qur'an, when it mentions hijab, does not in any way relate it
to the question of authority and when it does say elsewhere that
man is the head of the family it does not mention hijab. Also,
man's position as the head of the family is not justified in the
Qur=an
by man's moral superiority, but is considered simply a biological
and functional matter. In fact, the moral superiority of men over
women is nowhere suggested in the Qur'an, which rejects the story
that Eve was alone or first deceived by the devil and states
explicitly that both were deceived.. Also, in the Qur'an birth
pangs are a natural phenomenon and not a punishment for Eve's sin
(unlike Gen 3:16). In the Qur'an hijab is mentioned only in
connection with chastity. Its purpose is simply to stress and
promote sexual purity in the society. And Muslim women should wear
hijab only because God had commanded and they should do so even
if their husbands do not want it. For in Islam no one has the
authority to prohibit what God has permitted or to allow what God
has prohibited.
In regard
to the two New Testament passages quoted above, it should be noted
that from the Muslim perspective these do not define true,
divinely revealed, Christianity. First Corinthian, from which the
first passage comes was very probably written by Paul who never
met Jesus, while 1 Timothy, the source of the second passage, is
widely believed to be the work of an unknown person in the
churches founded by Paul. Nothing similar to these passages is
found in the words attributed to Jesus or to his eyewitness
disciples. Likewise in the Old Testament we do not have any
injunction about head cover much less an injunction with the
interpretation given in the Pauline letters.
We also
need to dispel any suggestion whatsoever that hijab is in any way
a suppression or denial of female sexuality. In many cultures
including some
AMuslim@
cultures there has been a tendency to deny or suppress female
sexuality, one of the most cruel form of which is the female
circumcision which is neither enjoined nor encouraged by Islam. It
seems that some Westerners see in hijab a milder attempt to
suppress female sexuality. No statement in the Qur'an or authentic
ahadith supports such a view. In Islam female sexuality is as
fully recognized and given as complete a freedom of expression
within marriage as male sexuality. This is even shown by the
very verse where the head-covering is mentioned. As noted
earlier, when the Qur'an tells both men and women to lower their
gaze it is giving the same recognition to female sexuality as to
male sexuality.
It is
sometimes suggested that Islam unfairly puts on women more
restrictions than on men. This objection comes from the modern
abhorrence of any differences between men and women. Male sexuality
and female sexuality work differently. It is true that men and women
are both attracted to each other physically and the Qur'an also
recognizes this. But men are generally attracted by female physical
charms to much greater degree than women are attracted by the male
body. Similarly, both men and women react to how they feel for each
other but women respond to man's feelings to a far greater degree
than do men to women's feelings. This difference is clearly shown by
the amount of time and money men and women spend on grooming
themselves, by the fact that more women undergo plastic surgery than
do men, by the fact that men visit female striptease shows much more
frequently than women visit male striptease shows, by the fact that
men are much more interested in looking at pictures in the playboy
magazine than women looking at playgirl magazines, and by the fact
that women are much more interested in reading romance novels where
male feelings of deep love and commitment for the heroine are
depicted although it does no harm if the hero is also handsome.
Thus display of physical charms is much more a part of female
sexuality while being attracted to those charms is much more a part
of male sexuality. The difference in the degree to which men and
women are required in Islam to cover themselves reflects this
difference in men and women.
A related
objection is that hijab is a male imposition on women so that it may
become easy for men to control their sexual urges. Once again this
objection shows poor understanding of human sexuality. Women in the
process of displaying their charms can get as much aroused as men in
watching those charms. Consequently, hijab by preventing public
display of female charms helps women to check their sexual urges as
much as it helps men to check theirs. Ultimately, hijab helps the
whole society by creating an atmosphere of modesty and sexual
self-control. In 33:53 after laying down the regulation for hijab
the Qur`an
says that it is purer for both men and women. Hijab is meant to
purify both men and women.
One
appealing argument against hijab in the West is that since most
women here dress with their hair, legs, and parts of their bosoms
bare, men have gotten used to it and hence it is not necessary to
cover these parts of the body. But every move to greater bareness in
the West culminating in the modern standards must have been started
by some immodest women, possibly under the encouragement of some
even more immodest men. But should our standards of modesty be
determined by the immodest? I think not.
Moreover, it
is doubtful that men get completely used to greater nudity. It is
only that the stimuli generated by contact with greater nudity are
not felt at a conscious level but are driven to a subconscious level
where they either create a drive for infidelity or they contribute
to impotence or homosexuality. At the very least they reduce the
pleasure in marital sex, since some of the sexual energy is
dissipated simply in dealing with the stimuli generated by increased
bareness.
Finally, like parables, actions can have several meanings. Even if
in societies like that of the West hijab is not necessary for
helping individual men and women to guard their chastity, it serves
a meaningful purpose. As recent sex scandals involving the
Whitehorse and the public reaction to it show, universally held
values of modesty and marital control over sex are fast corroding
here. Muslim women with hijab are silently giving the message to the
West and to the world at large that these values are important. |