ISLAM AND POLITICS

Hijab in Islam (Part 1)

In dealing with the issue of the hijab, Mernissi, one of the scholarly feminists, suggests that to know the real meaning of the Quranic verse on the hijab, it is necessary for Muslims to know the historical context in which the Quranic verse on the hijab was revealed. This necessity to investigate the hijab from its beginnings through its interpretation in the centuries that followed, will help Muslims to understand its resurgence in the modern era, when Muslims in search of identity put the accent on the confinement of women as a solution for a pressing crisis.

The Sura 33 verse 53 is regarded by the Muslim scholars as the basis of the institution of the hijab. This verse is not the only one on this issue, but it was the first of a series which in effect led to a splitting of Muslim space. The Quran says:

O you who believes, enter not the Prophet?s houses -- until the leave is given you-- for a meal, (and then) not (so early as) to wait for its preparation: but when you have taken your meal, disperse, without seeking familiar talk. Such behaviour annoys the Prophet: he is ashamed to dismiss you, but Allah is not ashamed to tell you the truth. And when you ask (his ladies) for anything you want ask them from before a screen: that makes for greater purity for your hearts and for theirs. Nor is it right for you that you should annoy Allah?s messenger, or that you should marry his widows after him at any time. Truly such a thing is in Allah?s sight an enormity.

According to Mernissi, year 5 of the hijra -- the year of the descent of the Quranic verse on the hijab --was a particularly disastrous year for the Prophet. Since the battle of Uhud, the Prophet had ceaselessly organised expeditions to keep alive the desire for victory and the memory of the battle of Badr. But he was unsuccessful in realising his dream of conquering the Meccans. At this time, Islam went through a severe military crisis, which it did not surmount until the spring of year 8 of the hijra. The revelation of the Quranic verse above that took place during the night of the Prophet?s wedding to Zaenab must be resituated in its context -- an epoch of doubts and military defeats that undermined the morale of the inhabitants of Medina.

Furthermore, Mernissi points out that a careful rereading of this verse reveals to us that Allah?s concerns in this verse are about tact. He wanted to intimate to the Prophet?s companions certain niceties that they seemed to lack, like not entering a dwelling without asking permission. In addition to the incident about the lack of politeness of the guests at the wedding, it seems that the hijab came to give order to a very confused and complex situation. The hijab was to be the solution to a whole web of conflicts and tensions. Thus Mernissi asks whether Muslims are obliged to limit their investigation of that verse to the wedding night of Zaenab, or on the other hand, they are entitled to seek the cause elsewhere -- in the historical context?

To answer this question, Mernissi suggests examining all the information, especially the linguistic dimensions of the word hijab. The concept of the word hijab has three dimensions, and the three dimensions often blend into one another. The first dimension is a visual one: to hide something from sight. The second dimension is spatial: to separate, to mark a border, to establish a threshold. And finally, the third dimension is ethical: it belongs to the realm of the forbidden. So we have not just tangible categories that exist in the reality of the senses -- the visual, the spatial -- but also an abstract reality in the realm of idea. Mernissi says that the concept of the hijab is a key concept in Muslim civilisation, just as sin is in the Christian context, or credit is in American capitalist society. Reducing or assimilating this concept to a scarf that men have imposed on women to veil them when they go into the street is truly to impoverish this term, not to say to drain it of its meaning. For Mernissi, protecting women from change by veiling them and shutting them out of the world has echoes of closing the community to protect it from the West.

By looking at the historical context in which the Quranic verse on the hijab is revealed and investigating the linguistic dimensions of the word hijab, it seems that Mernissi does not only examine the literal and textual meaning of the first Quranic verse on the hijab, but also explains the Prophet?s trouble during the period in which the Quranic verse on hijab was revealed. Unfortunately, Mernissi does not examine other Quranic verses which are directly related to the obligation of wearing the hijab, including the Sura 24 verses 30 and 31.

Leila Ahmad, another scholarly feminist, argues that throughout Muhammad?s lifetime, veiling, like seclusion, was observed only by his wives. It is not known how the custom spread to the rest of the community. The Muslim conquests of areas in which veiling was commonplace among the upper classes, the influx of wealth, the resultant raised status of Arabs, and Muhammad?s wives being taken as models probably combined to bring about their general adoption. In discussing the veil, Leila Ahmed, moreover, examines a book written by Qassim Amin, The Liberation of Women, which has traditionally been regarded as marking the beginning of feminism in Arab culture. Amin?s book was his response to the misconception about the veil in Islam. The veiling -- to Western eyes, the most visible marker of the differentness and inferiority of Islamic societies -- had become the symbol of both oppression of women and the backwardness of Islam, and it had become the open target of colonial attack and the assault on Muslim societies. Thus, the demand that was most vehemently and widely denounced was Amin?s call for an end to segregation and veiling. His arguments, like the discourse of the colonial power, are grounded in the presumption that veiling and seclusion were customs. The veil constitutes, writes Amin, a huge barrier between woman and her elevation, and consequently a barrier between the nation and its advance. Amin?s argument against seclusion and veiling was simply that girls would forget all they had learned if they were made to observe seclusion after they were educated. The age at which girls were veiled and secluded, twelve to fourteen, was a crucial age for the development of talents and intellect, and veiling and seclusion frustrated that development; girls needed to mix freely with men, for learning came from such mixing.

Amin argues that Islam allows a woman to uncover her face and her palms, and the gauze face-cover and the veil are not part of the Sharia. The veil does not preserve morality, and some type of veiling might even cause sexual stimulation. The veil has been part of ancient traditions that precede Islam and has continued to survive. Amin further maintains that it is no more appropriate for a woman to cover her face than for a man to cover his. Nor does the Sharia require women to be secluded. In addition, Leila Ahmad points out that Amin?s argument against veiling is rationally made. The custom compels women to conduct matters of law and business through an intermediary, placing poor women, who need to earn a living in trade or domestic service, in the false and impossible position of dealing with men in a society that officially bans such dealing.

Unfortunately, Amin?s arguments are not textually based on the Quranic verses on the veil. Amin has used the issue of women and the call for unveiling to conduct his generalised interpretation of veiling on Islamic society; so too do the rebuttals of his work come in the form of an affirmation of the customs that he has attacked -- veiling and segregation. In Leila Ahmed?s opinion, analysts routinely treat the debate as one between ?feminists?, that is Amin and his allies, and ?antifeminists?, that is, Amin?s critics.

posted by Alin at 9:59 AM