Why hijab?

This article looks at the veil in the sacred texts of Islam, classical scholastic interpretation, its historical context and some of the changes seen in the contemporary world.

Unveiling the word ‘hijab’

Hijab has a much broarder meaning than headscarf as it has come to mean today, more like the English word veil.  It derives from the Arabic root h-j-b meaning a barrier, cover, something out of sight or a curtain and appears in the Qur’an eight times; as a screen in 33:53, seclusion 19:17, excluded (mahjubun) 83:15, a barrier between God and humans 42:51 or the righteous from disbelievers 7:46, 41:5, 17:45 and the light covering the dark 38:53.  Other important Qur'anic words relating to hijab are khimar or head cover 24:31 and jilbab or outer garment 33:59.

The ‘verse of the hijab’ describes the use of a hijab as one of many etiquettes in the Prophet’s (pbuh) house: {when you ask his wives for something, do so from behind a screen [hijab]: this is purer both for your hearts and for theirs.} [33:53]. Hijab here could mean a symbolic screen customary for royalty being publicly hidden or a physical barrier for privacy or perhaps more likely with the mention of purer hearts is that it is an ethical barrier to avoid sexual desire not only from men looking at women but women looking at men.  The verse’s applicability to all Muslim women is somewhat speculative since earlier the Prophet’s wives were told: {you are not like any other woman} [33:32], the hijab now being understood in this sense as a screen of privilege that separates the Prophet’s wives from other women; Bukhari’s collection reports the Prophet identifying Safiya as his wife by spreading a 'hijab' between her and the people.  Most commentators, however, assume the verse is focused primarily on women's veiling as it is addressing male guests and asks a male (the Prophet pbuh) to screen the women; the great exegete al-Qurtubi (d. 1273) comments: "The consensus of Muslims is that the genitals and backside constitute nakedness for men and women, as well as all of woman except her face and hands, but some disagreed about the latter two."

Hijab is normally understood as veiling one's nakedness and applies to men and women although what is considered nakedness for each gender differs.

Clothing in the ancient Arab World

Very little is known of pre-Islamic Arabian dress.  Herodotus (d. 425 BCE) is the first chronicler to mention the Arabs izara, which was a sheet-like wrap used both as a mantle and a loin cloth tied with a belt.  City dwellers wore more tailored attire than their dessert contemporaries and those on the boarders of The Hellenistic and Persian worlds were also influenced by their fashions.  Early Arabian poetry mentions clothing as expressing status: ‘if a man’s honour is not sullied by baseness, then every rida’ (outer mantle) in which he cloaks himself will become him’ (al Samaw’al b. ‘Adiya’ circ. 6^th Cent.)

At the time of the Prophet (pbuh) clothing for both sexes consisted of an undergarment, a body shirt, a long dress, gown or a tunic, an over gown mantle or coat (jilbab), tight fitting sandals and a head covering (khimar).  The method of draping and use of colours, fabric and jewellery distinguished gender.  The manner of clothing continued much the same with the advent of Islam, but gained new ideological emphasis of modesty both in covering one’s shame and avoiding extravagance: {Children of Adam, We have given you garments to cover your nakedness and as adornment for you; the garment of God-consciousness is the best of all garments- this is one of God’s signs, so that people may take heed,} [7:26].

The Islamic drive for modesty in dress should not be thought of as necessarily dowdy, there is a rich vibrant history of fashions celebrating Divine Beauty inspired by the religion: "God loves to see the effects of His blessing on His servant.” [Tirmidhi] and "No one will enter Paradise who has an atom's weight of pride in his heart." A man said, "What if a man likes his clothes to look good and his shoes to look good?" He said, "God is beautiful and loves beauty. Pride means denying the truth and looking down on people." [Muslim]

Head covers and veiling in antiquity

Head covering is an ancient human practice, for example women as early as 3000 BCE Mesopotamia (approximately modern day Iraq) are known to have veiled their heads and bodies.  Head covering out of modesty was a common practice in the Near East especially among Hebrew tribes (see Genesis 24:64-65 and Isaiah 47:2). Respectable Athenian women were covered in public, Roman free women wore a palla (large rectangular shawls) and Sasanian women veiled as a form of adornment.  The first known statue on dress, Assyrian Law around 1300 BCE, required women who were not prostitutes or slaves to cover their heads in public.  Head covering and forms of gender segregation are so historically common place, not just peculiar to the Muslim World, that it cannot be realistically thought that turbans and hijabs are fundamentally what identifies Muslim from non-Muslim.

Arab free men and women covered their heads before Islam in various forms, the turban not gaining the significance as ‘the badge of Islam’ or ‘the crown of the Arabs’ until much later.  It was common for women to appear veiled in public covered in a large wrap around sheet (jilbab) and although less strictly observed before Islam, Arabian women of good standing would veil their face from strangers.  Men too, on occasion, would veil particularly the young and handsome to guard against ‘the evil eye.’  The Prophet (pbuh) is reported in Bukhari to have veiled his face as a sign of respect for his elders.

At the dawn of Islam people would have understood the head covering and veiling to be a fairly normal practice of modesty, respect and to signify higher social status.

Nakedness (a'wrah) in prayer

Discussion of the a’wrah is generally only found in the chapters concerning the pre-conditions of prayer in Islamic texts.  A’wrah linguistically comes from the root a’-w-r meaning losing an eye or something kept out of sight such as a defect or something shaming and is technically used to mean the private area that should be covered.  It is used in the Qur'an for the parts of the body that should be out of sight {...or children who are not yet aware of women’s nakedness (a’wraati)...} [24:31] and as a time of privacy {...These are your three times for privacy (a’wraatin)} [24:58] and so perhaps a more representative understanding of the Qur'anic usage of a'wrah is a vulnerable place.

Scholars have generally understood covering of the a’wrah to be one of the preconditions of a prayer’s validity citing: {Children of Adam, dress well whenever you are at worship} [7:31]. The companion ibn Abbas is reported to have said, when asked about this verse: "There were people who used to perform Tawaf (circumbulate) around the House while naked, and God ordered them to take adornment, meaning, wear clean, proper clothes that cover the private parts. People were commanded to wear their best clothes when performing every prayer,” [ibn Kathir].

A man's a'wrah is considered minimally from the navel to the knee: “the a’wrah of a man between his navel and his knees” [Ahmad].  And a woman’s a’wrah is considered her whole body except for her face and hands (some also said her feet): “a woman is a concealed a’wrah” [Tirmidhi] and “there is no prayer for a woman who has started menstruating except through a covering” [Agreed upon].  A minority argued the face is also part of a woman’s a’wrah, but the majority argued against this since it is impermissible for a woman in ihram (ritual attire for performing pilgrimage) to cover her face: “the ihram of a woman is in her face” [Bayhaqi].

Clothes were items of great value and would commonly get stolen when set upon by brigands, classical texts frequently mention that if you cannot find something to clothe yourself then you are to pray sat down, bowing and prostrating by indication as the companions ibn Abbas and ibn Umar did, so that the private parts are hidden; “the reason is that covering is obligatory due to the claim of the prayer and as a right of the public” [al Hidayah] so not to be a public nuisance.

There is no disagreement that in prayer men and women should be suitably covered whether praying alone or with others.  As an act of worship the reason is known to God, but the outward form of modesty has inward significance. Outward practices are believed to transform a person internally, like the psychosomatic phenomenon but in reverse. Veiling is not just a marker of piety and modesty before God, but it is part of what defines piety and modesty.

Nakedness (a'wrah) in public

The a’wrah of prayer is also extended by jurists as an obligation to cover outside of prayer, but to what extent varies on the context. Jurists sub-divides what constitutes a'wrah into the following - in order from least to most strict -categories: with one's spouse (there is none), when alone, with close family members, with those of the same gender and with those of the opposite gender.  Generally speaking a person should be covered at least from navel to knee at all times except for a reason, such as washing, and women should additionally cover completely except for the hands and face in front of males not from one's family: "It is obligatory to cover one's nakedness in front of others by scholarly consensus and even when alone according to the correct opinion... God Most High... sees the one covered as exhibiting proper manners" [Radd al Mukhtar].

{Prophet, tell your wives, your daughters, and women believers to make their outer garments (jilbab) hang low over them so as to be recognized and not insulted: God is most forgiving, most merciful,} [33:59]. This verse is often understood for women to draw their outer garment (jilbab) completely around themselves for the purpose of safety in keeping with the norms of society: ‘That makes it likelier that they will be known, to be free women, and not be molested, by being approached. In contrast, slave girls did not use to cover their faces and so the disbelievers used to pester them. And God is Forgiving, of any occasion in the past when they may have neglected to cover themselves, Merciful, to them in His veiling them’ [al Jalalayn].  By the Abbasid period (approx 750 - 1260 CE) complete public veiling in Baghdad and the surrounding areas was taken for granted, including for Jewish and (it is assumed) Eastern Christian women. The veil became so ubiquitous by the High Medieval period that to uncover the face (kashf al-wajh) had the idiomatic meaning of being exposed to shame rather like the English 'losing face.' A notable exception to this is the Western caliphate of al Maghrib (around Spain, Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia) not only due to Berber and European influences, but also - separated from Abbasid influence - in loyally replicating the less strict adherence to veiling of the earlier Umayyad period.

{And tell believing women that they should lower their glances, guard their private parts, and not display their charms (zina) beyond what [it is acceptable] to reveal; they should let their headscarves (khumur, sing. khimar) fall to cover their necklines (juyub) and not reveal their charms (zina) except to their husbands, their fathers, their husbands’ fathers, their sons, their husbands’ sons, their brothers, their brothers’ sons, their sisters’ sons, their womenfolk, their slaves, such men as attend them who have no sexual desire, or children who are not yet aware of women’s nakedness (a'wrah); they should not stamp their feet so as to draw attention to any hidden charms (zina). Believers, all of you, turn to God so that you may prosper} [24:31]. What is 'acceptable' is understood to be the face and hands: “When a girl reaches the menstrual age, it is not proper that anything should remain exposed except this and this. He pointed to the face and hands" [Abu Dawud].

Hijab, in the broadest sense, is presented here more as modest action rather than modest dress since the verse starts by the recommendation to lower the gaze and finishes with not deliberately drawing attention, as the great early exegete Tabari comments: 'looking corrupts the heart'.  Charm here is a translation of zina which in Islamic Law is the word for fornication and adultery, but the Qur'anic usage is a morally neutral beauty, such as that of the heavens (37:6) (41:12) and (50:6).  The use of zina later to refer to that which has attention drawn to it may even imply that the charms are those added such as jewellery rather than natural beauty.  Juyub means an opening or a space between and could mean the opening of the a garment or most likely the cleavage.  The verse is commanding women to bring their head scarves (khumur) over the front covering the cleavage in front of men outside of her family, it is not obviously clear the neckline is meant necessarily covering the ears and neck (as Abdel Haleem has translated above).  Some commentators have understood the verse to mean: "they should wear the outer garment in such a way as to cover their chests and ribs, so that they will be different from the women of the Jahiliyyah (pre-Islam), who did not do that but would pass in front of men with their chests completely uncovered, and with their necks, forelocks, hair and earrings uncovered." [ibn Kathir].

Slaves are exempt from the same requirements of dress as free women due to the companion Umar's words: 'get rid of your veil filthy wretch, do you wish to pass as a freewoman' [al-Razzaq and al-Zayla'i].  A slave woman's a'wrah is classically understood to be the same as a man's (navel to knee) but also includes her front torso and back.  The argument given is 'she usually goes out on errands for her master in her work clothes, thus to avoid hardship, her state is judged to be like that of a woman in the prohibited category (mahram) for all men' [al-Hidayah].  The same argument is used for why the face, hands and some said feet and forearms are not part of the a'wrah for a free woman since they necessarily must be uncovered to avoid unnecessary hardship.

Being in a state of continual worship is an Islamic ideal, which then necessitates that one should also continually be properly attired, however this requirement of modesty in dress is limited by practical necessities.

Is Fitnah fitting?

Fitnah derives from the root f-t-n meaning to purify gold or silver, put to the test, afflict, seduce or tempt and is normally used in juristic texts in the sense of a disruption of the peace or public discord, such as in {…trying to sow discord (al fit’nata) among you..} [9:47]. An example of fitnah in social interactions is the prohibition of a man and a woman being alone together in a secluded room because of the risks it might lead to.  Fitnah was not used in relation to a'wrah in earlier Islamic texts, but is a much later justification.  The contemporary scholar Sheikh Abou el Fadl points out that understanding 'hijab' as a form of limiting fitnah causes a number of problems.  One of the core principles of Islamic jurisprudence is that someone should not suffer for someone else's sins; therefore to enforce a hardship on women due to an apparent man's weakness or inclination to lust appears contrary to Islamic Law.  Additionally the fitnah of an unclad slave woman poses just as much risk as a free woman, which makes imperative to cover to avoid fitnah nonsensical.  el Fadl argues this 'dubious logic' is a contradictory immodesty: 'it does not occur to the jurists who make these determinations that this presumed fitnah that accompanies women in whatever they do or wherever they go is an inherent quality of womanhood, but is a projection of male promiscuities.  By artificially constructing womanhood into embodiment of seductions, these jurists do not promote a norm of modesty, but in reality, promote a norm of immodesty.  Instead of turning the gaze away from the physical attributes of women, they obsessively turn the gaze of attention to women as mere physicality.  In essence, these jurists objectify women into items for male consumption, and in that, is the height of immodesty.'

Fitnah is essentially a different issue to a'wrah since the religious motivation to cover is more for privacy, privilege, honour, protection and modesty rather than a subjectively assessed level of fitnah.

Hijab's meaning veiled in modern times

The concept of hijab has taken on new significance within the last two hundred years and is ironically becoming more visible in the media more recently with bans in France and Turkey.  The hijab can be symbolic of two opposite causes; it is a hindrance to education in France, whilst it helps women gain access in Indonesia.  Justification for denying access to education based on the belief that hijab is a sign of fundamentalism not only is over simplistically untrue but also makes women political pawns and further denies Muslim women to be active political participants in the debate as Valorie Vojdik argues.

The hijab has a new political role, for example during the Interfada (1987-1992) Palestinian women who had up until then worn all manner of veils for all manner of reasons started to wear a tailored hijab and overcoat or 'Shariah dress', as Hamas termed it, to protest to Israeli politics of detention, housing demolition and deportation.  Likewise Islam and the hijab as its symbol became an important vehicle for nationalism to resist occupying colonialist powers.  The colonialists often saw the hijab as a sign of backwardness and a hindrance to enforced modernisation, the resulting attempts to unveil women only fuelled its political significance.  The hijab was no longer an expression of faith as chosen by women, but a means to an end in a political war fought by men.  Of the most widespread 'political Islamic movements,' is the Muslim Brotherhood's call for a return to 'Golden Age' by supplanting the humiliating colonialist regimes with with the complete social justice of Islam; hijab being both part of and a symbol of this change.

Islamic Law during its political re-branding in the 19th century saw it change into fixed legislative codes. In terms of veiling, Islamic law was uncharacteristically constricted from the collections of opinion and advise on modest behaviour to a state controlled moral policing requiring women to veil in public; for example in Sudan the criminal code allows flogging or fining of anyone who 'violates public morality or wears indecent clothing.'  Iran, Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan are other examples that have also made the historically innovative assumption that all actions considered sins should be punishable crimes. Shariah generally speaking, and veiling particularly,  looses its religious authority when enforced by the state.

Women wear hijab for many reasons, which contrary to media speculation are rarely due to the commands of over powering husbands or fathers, which are too numerous to mention here.  However, to mention one veiling movement, that has appeared in the last few decades in Egypt, is the hijab as a symbol of capitalist gender equality. Rather than the veil being a symbol of seclusion and confinement to the home, as with classical Greek veiling, it is used as a protest against male financial dependence; as a portable seclusion hijab allows social mobility for a modern career minded women.  In style too the hijab has changed accordingly from traditional lose fitting sheets and wraps to tailored long skirts and head scarves.  This is but one example of trends in 'fashion-veiling' and the multi-faceted forms of identity expression.

The hijab no longer carries the same meaning or even can be thought to materially be the same thing as when it was first conceptualised.

Concluding remarks

There is no disagreement about the requirement of hijab for the validity of the prescribed prayers.  However hijab as an act of worship (i'badat) is a different issue than hijab as a social practice (mu'amalat) and so the requirements of prayer are not as obviously applied outside of prayer.

Scholars disagreed whether what is 'acceptable' from verse 24:31 is referring to a specific area or what is customary or necessary due to hardship (see Bidayat al-Mujtahid and Tafsir al Razi).  Most scholars have defined modest dress for free women as entailing complete covering except for the face and hands in public, however there are minority opinions which allow some flexibility.  Most flexible are the opinions relating to slave women; their a'wrah is considered to be reduced to that of a man's with the inclusion of the breasts, which is perhaps more representative of verse 24:31 and is easily reasoned as the fundamental anatomical difference between the sexes.  More stringent covering of slaves is rescinded due to their socially and economically active lives, which has even occasionally been transferred by some scholars for the main 'bread winner' of poor families. This may mean the extent to which hijab is necessary in the modern public sphere requires re-evaluation since the abolition of slavery renders needing to make a distinction for free women obsolete, customary practice in the UK is not to cover the head/neck/ears and uncovering causes no tangible fitnah and the active involvement of women in society makes normative hijab stipulation as unnecessarily burdensome, as el Fadl states: 'The interaction between the text and the text's social context is not easily transferable or projectable to other contexts.' 

Modest dress both privately and publicly is unquestionably an Islamic virtue, but the stipulation of obligation (wajib) to cover the arms head and lower leg may no longer be applicable in the modern British context, reverting instead to recommended (mustahab), rather like that for men.

The classical hijab rarely has the same meaning - even a contradictory one - in the modern world; can the modern manifestations of hijab even be classed as the same thing as classical hijab? Has it become a symbol of pride and arrogance, which completely inverts its meaning?  The issue is complex and women wear it for many reasons, hijab cannot be thought of as a one size fits all garment.  However it may be argued that there is a trend for the classical concept of veiling - to continually remain in a state of worship and foster an inward state of modesty before God - to be overshadowed by political agendas for state control, political affiliation, Islamic nationalistic identity or as a protest to foreign influences.  Which then asks how valid is it to view hijab in this modern context as a religious requirement or even practice?

Whatever the role veiling should play in modern society, most importantly it should not be reduced to a piece of cloth worn on the head that defines a woman and be seen as the primary objective of Islam. Any outward form loses its significance unless accompanied with an internal meaning. Hijab,  in the broadest sense, as modesty in dress and behaviour has a much higher purpose, and we would do best to remember: “God is more deserving than the people of your modesty” [Tirmidhi].

Further reading

Arab Dress: A Short History, N. A. Stillman (ed.), 2003, Brill, Boston USA.

Speaking in God's Name, K. A. el Fadl, 2001, One World Publications

The Islamic Veil, E. Bucar, 2012, One World Publications

The Veil and the Male Elite, F. Mernissi, 1992, Perseus Books

Women in the Qur'an, Traditions and Interpretations, B. F. Stowasser, 1994, Oxford University Press