Origins of Hijab

noorlain

Thanks for the info but I was looking for an answer similar to these lines:

1.A symbol to reassure her husband that she is subordinate, will not assert her superiority in anyway, or rock the family boat.

2. Pride about her Christian roots.

3. An obvious signal to the world that she is not interested in any advances.

so no thanks

Interesting article. I learned some history that I did not know already. Thanks Mr. Gill.

While it is true that at one time (in the 7th century) the hijab might have made sense does it do so now? Also, what was an elevation of status in the 7th century is perhaps not so any more. Muslim women are some of the most repressed people in the world. Not every Muslim woman, of course, before the brickbats begin, but in theocratic Muslim states. They have little control over their bodies, their likes and dislikes, marriage (ignorning Islam`s assertion that women have the right to choose), etc. etc. Individual women within these societies may succeeed in carving out some independence for themselves but by and large their state remains appalling.

Also, there are varying accounts of the status of women in pre-Islamic Arabia. In a largely tribal culture, the rights of women varied from tribe to tribe. Portraying pre-Islamic Arabia as universally intolerant and cruel towards women I think is rather simplistic and, is one of the ways, in which Muslim women are taught to be thankful that their status was elevated into what it is now.

There were female goddesses being worshipped in Arabia at that time which is one of the indicators in pre-history of the status of women. Like the other Judeo-Christian faiths, goddess worship seemed to have been one of the biggest threats to Islam. For example, a pre-Christian goddess was transformed into the Whore of Babylon in the Bible. Regardless, historically, many tribal women had the right to choose who they married, were regarded as equals, could initiate and get divorced (a right that Muslim women still do not have) and were quite free to do as they wanted with their bodies.

Was there oppression and female infanticide? I am sure it was and that it was widespread. Tribal societies were arenas where the strong oppressed the weak and women were physically weaker and, therefore, less desirable in some (perhaps even most) tribes.

My point is, that as Muslims, and as Muslim women especially, we need to look at and examine and re-examine our long held beliefs and assumptions before we can make real progress. Why do we call pre-Islamic Arabia the age of Jahiliyat (with all its connotations)? Primarily because that is what the Quran calls it. My point is we cannot prove the Quran is right or wrong based on the Quran itself. These things have to be exmained with academic rigor, using historical analysis. Both the hypothesis of an argument and its proof cannot be the same or be from the same source.

The hijab has been so politicised recently in this strange wave of Islamic feminism. You accept your own lower (yes, to my perhaps culturally biased eyes it is so. and I am not just talking hijab here) status in society to prove that you are emancipated. Frankly I don`t care if women choose to wear hijab or not. It is a personal choice, I am told. I am not so sure it is that.

More on that later.

I write this as a Muslim woman who feels increasingly against the wall. To be honest, I practice a pick and choose religion. I pick the elements I feel okay with and discard the rest. I am sure many others do the same. I am a Muslim and will always remain so but I find myself alienated from it because fundamental feelings that resonate within me are sometimes opposed to what the Quran teaches. Yet, I cannot be anything else. On the other hand, I find myself more and more troubled to claim allegiance to a religion that considers me inferior. We need to move our religion forward, to not stagnate in the 7th century. If Islam was a radical new movement at that time why are some of its practioners so intent on making us return to that time? I want us to capitalize on the spriit of that radical change, not make the change itself frozen in time.

Yes, I am sure I will get slammed for this for being anti-Muslim by some while others will see me as a convenient tool to beat up (figuratively) Muslim interactors on this board. My goal is not to be either. Unfortunately, neither on this board nor in life can I control what is made of my words here today.

Peace

Gill Sahib’s reference to Khadija as sort of an independent woman is not accurate either. She was Christian . . .

Khadija was Christian? I thought she was Jewish. . .

Gill sahib is not up to snuff on history. He has relied on Fatima Mernissi, a Moroccan professor for some historical data. Google search appears to show that her credentials as historian are not immaculate. She appears more of a women rights advocate.

Mr. Gill himself does not appear to have any historian credentials and the only way we can analyze this article is by gut feeling.

I have serious misgivings about the three men and Zainab account as quoted by Mr. Gill. That would be against all Arab cultural and social behavior. Arabs, even to this day would not allow three men with their wives or sisters or even mothers in one room. The Prophet may be “The prophet” but he was an Arab too and was raised in a tribal society. There is no way he would have left his new wife in one room ALONE with three men. This does not make sense.

“They were used to free sex and uncontrolled drinking;”

There is no evidence in history to confirm this either. Most of the Arabs were poor folks and a very small number of people could afford luxuries. There was no reported ``Caligula`` in Mecca before the Prophet. This is lifted right out of some third grade Islamic book with nothing to substantiate this alleged “Free Sex” and “Uncontrollable drinking” in Mecca.

Gill Sahib’s reference to Khadija as sort of an independent woman is not accurate either. She was Christian and was married twice before she married the prophet. Her brother-I forgot his name now- actually was responsible for the business. She inherited money from her dead husbands and she did not make that money. So how was she independent?

It seems that for sometime Prophet did work for her but did he work for her after the marriage is kind of murky. She was sixty five years old when she died. The Prophet was still in Mecca at that time but we find no information if Khadija left him any money or her brother inherited it all. It clearly appears from other historical accounts that the Prophet did not own a house in Mecca and he migrated to Medina from Ali’s house. Even that is not supported by any historical evidence. But that would be too much to discuss for this irrelevant article anyway.

Hijab is an Arab tradition and passing it off as something Muslims of the other countries should emulate is part of the game fundos are playing now in the Muslim dominated countries.
Indian and Pakistani Muslim women use Dupatta and that is good enough to meet all religious requirements. It covers the chest and can cover the head if so required. Dupatta represents our culture too. We don’t need to follow Bedouins.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Quite an interesting historical perspective, Gill Sahab. I admire your manner of precisely stating things in a coherent manner.

To add on to the ``Women-wear-hijab-due-to-acts-of-men`` gripe...If I`m not mistaken, Muslim men are also ordered to lower their gaze in the presence of women. My question is: If patriarchal values had not prevailed (?) in the system, would it be possible the other way round ? (Men in Hijab and Women ordered to lower their gaze in the presence of men)?

We live in interesting times.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

``However, all the women in Arabia were not hapless, disadvantaged, or without material resources. There were women of wealth also in the society who owned their own businesses and had their own free will and ways in day to day life. But such women were few and far between. Khadija, Prophet Muhammad’s first wife, who had employed Muhammad to manage her business, was one of them. The wives of the aristocrats had social status which was due to their husbands’ endowment. Generally, the women had a pitiable lot.``

Is it any worse than the situation today in most islamic societies?

Re. muslim women wearing hijab in the western countries, I had until recently strongly supported the right of women to wear whatever they want. A hijab wearing woman poses no threat to anyone nor does she hurt the sensibilities of most people. However, I have now changed my opinion on this issue. It is now more a political than a religious/cultural issue of in-your-face islam. A woman who, until yesterday, was wearing a western dress and suddenly switches to hijab seems to be saying that she is not part of the Canadian/American/French/British mainstream and will never become part of the mainstream. Kar lo jo karna hai! In that sense, hijab has become a threat to the society from a religious belief which treats the host society as dar-ul-harb.

[The pre-Islamic society in Arabia, the so-called jahiliyya, was structured in a way that the women were totally handicapped; the men dominated in every conceivable way. The women were owned by men just like any other piece of property]

Not that it is any better today. At least in the pre-Islamic times, this evil was confined to the Arabian peninsula alone. Today, the malaise has spread throughout the Muslim world. Every atrocity on a woman is justified in the name of religion. For instance, the law in Pakistan requires a rape victim to produce 4 pious Muslims as witnesses to get the rapist convicted. If at all there are (were?) 4 witnesses, why would they stand by and watch the gory spectacle? Either they would resist the rapist, or join in themselves. And what if there are no witnesses at all? Does it mean there was no rape? And all this BS in the name of Islam.

#14 by hamidm2

[............detroit is not safe any more ..........]

ROTFL!!

Gill Sahab,

I really like the historical treatment of the subject, complete with anecdotes from early Islamic history.

``There are two icons of real power in the Muslim culture and power structure, at least conceptually, namely the caliph who has the supreme political power and the Imam who is the religious head`` I`m not sure what `fiqh` of Islam you are talking about. To the best of my knowledge, `Caliphate` combined the roles of temporal and ecclesiastical power in one. Caliph was supposed to be a man who would lead the Muslim community in prayer as well as battle. It is not for no reason that the first four Caliphs are labelled `rightful` Caliphs; they successfully discharged both these responsibilities.

In my opinion, the veil debate should be the last priority. If I were a Pakistani/Muslim I would start a campaign against that ghastly law which requires a Muslim woman to bring 4 `pious` Muslim males to prove that she was raped. This is misogynous!!

SameerJB:
I had also written in the article: ``However, all the women in Arabia were not hapless, disadvantaged, or without material resources. There were women of wealth also in the society who owned their own businesses and had their own free will and ways in day to day life. But such women were few and far between. Khadija, Prophet Muhammad;s first wife, who had employed Muhammad to manage her business, was one of them. The wives of the aristocrats had social status which was due to their husbands` endowment. Generally, the women had a miserable lot.``

The caliph and Imam as two conceptual icons were quoted from Mernissi to underline the fact that there was no equivalent word for female power. These two icons had only masculine connotation.

I had also mentioned, ``But since hijab had been formally ordained by the Quran, there was no going back and it stayed irrevocably in the Muslim world.`` I had continued with a quotation from Mernissis to emphasize the women`s justified resentment regarding hijab. But I will reiterate that if a woman wants to wear hijab of her own free will, I do not have any business of imposing my will on her to not wear it. To me hijab is just a piece of apparel and if the law of the land does not ban it, women should be free to wear it if they want.

Mohammad Gill

According to Karen Armstrong, the veil was taken from the Byzantine society (which was considered the most sophisticated in those days, both by the christians of western europe and by the muslims of the middle east).

Gill Saheb:

You started the articel with the following sentencs.

[The pre-Islamic society in Arabia, the so-called jahiliyya, was structured in a way that the women were totally handicapped; the men dominated in every conceivable way. The women were owned by men just like any other piece of property ]

Would you be kind enough to enlighten us with the status of Khadija in the jahiliyya? To the best of my knowledge, she owned big business, inherited property and business from first husband and family, hired and fired employees, proposed marriage to the person of her liking, remained the only wife until her death etc......How many of such jahililyya cases do you know in 21st century Pakistan???

hamidm2:
Sir. you`re entitled to your own opinion. The Yemeni lady is enlightened as I said in my post. She is an MBA and if she chooses to blow herself up (which I believe she will not do) just to please you, it will still be her own choice and she may have a reason to do that. Generalizations are always hazardous. If you read my article a little more carefully, you will understand the rationale of the article. We should not be unduly judgemental.

You can express your ideas in an article of your own. But in an inter-act of my article, it creates an impression as if I am being accused of things which I didn`t say. Wishing you well,

Mohammad Gill

Oh, OK, let me see, is this what the author and some of the interactors are trying to say? That . . . Muslim women have to preferably wear a Hijab/burqaa because Muslim men cannot be trusted to behave decently? Next logical step, therefore, is probably to jail Muslim women. Oh wait, that`s already been done, it is part of the Great Arabian Kulture. Been there.

The author makes one BIG error in his summing up. That the Caliph provides political power while the Imam provides religious direction. In reality, in this day and age, the Caliph is probably not relevant anymore, having been swallowed up by the Imam at many places.

The other mistake he makes is when he presumes that ````the debate on hijab in the Western world will continue```` . . . truth is that the main relevant people in this debate, the Muslim women themselves, are not part of this debate. Let us try to rectify that first before laying all the blame on the doors of Western Xenophobia.

Look within first, another great advice from The Book, if you will recall?

http://www.hindu.com/2004/06/24/stories/2004062402521000.htm

From hijab to jilbab

By Hasan Suroor

Shabina Begum`s is a perfect case for the authorities to ``discipline`` her guardians for depriving her of her legitimate right to education.


FIFTEEN-YEAR-OLD Shabina Begum is like any other normal girl of her age, and given a chance she would, presumably, be doing what teenagers do — go to school, have fun in the playground, wear what they fancy and, generally, indulge themselves. Instead, it has fallen to her to become the public face of a campaign by radical Muslim groups to push for an ``Islamic`` dress code in British schools.

Shabina stopped attending school two years ago after she was told that she must conform to its dress policy, which is flexible enough and allows Asian pupils, for instance, to wear salwar-kameez. But her family, apparently egged on by fanatical elements in the community, insisted that she must be allowed to wear jilbab — a full-length burqa-type robe — and took the school to court claiming that it was trampling on her ``religious`` rights.

Last week, the High Court in London ruled in favour of the school saying its decision was not discriminatory and did not breach the girl`s human rights as claimed by her counsel. The Judge held that the school`s uniform policy had the ``legitimate aim`` of properly running ``a multicultural, multi-faith secular school,`` and the limitations imposed on Shabina were ``proportionate`` to that aim. After the verdict, the school urged her to return, but her family refused accusing it of Islambophobia.

From all accounts, the school in question — Denbigh High School in the predominantly Asian area of Luton — is by no means illiberal. Nearly 80 per cent of its pupils are Muslim and the fact that Shabina`s family drew no support from other Muslim parents appears to vindicate the school`s claim that they are perfectly happy with the present uniform policy, which, the authorities say, was agreed in consultation with the community taking into account the religious and cultural sensitivities of the students.

It is suspected that the whole controversy has been stirred up by an extremist group, Hizb-ur-Tahrir (HuT), whose supporters include Shabina`s elder brother, Shuweb Rahman. The group, which is banned in Germany and some West Asian countries, is said to be using the unsuspecting teenager for its own ends. Indeed, the judge hinted at outside influences when, underlining her brother`s pro-active role, he said: ``One wonders why it should have been her brother who articulated what the claimant was perfectly capable of saying herself.`` He also noted that Shabina had been happy to wear the school uniform for two years, and wondered why she had suddenly changed her mind.

The verdict, predictably denounced by the usual suspects in the Muslim community, has been widely welcomed as a much-needed precedent, which, hopefully, will discourage this sort of frivolous litigation in future. But the Shabina case raises issues that will not go away in the current climate of increasing cultural and religious militancy. The basic question is: to what extent can a secular state in a multi-racial and multicultural society be forced to accommodate the competing cultural and religious rights of individual citizens without disrupting social cohesion? And, as one commentator asked, can educational institutions be allowed to become religious battlegrounds in the name of promoting multiculturalism?

Increasingly, what is happening on the pretext of claiming such ``rights`` is an abuse of multiculturalism, which, far from contributing to diversity, encourages separateness and plays into the hands of racist groups. Already, the Shabina Begum case has been seized by the tabloid press to fuel anti-Muslim prejudice amid warnings that Britain is in danger of being ``swamped`` by burqa-clad women and bearded men in quaint dresses.

The fear of a right-wing backlash apart, there is a secular case for the state to start resisting patently sectarian demands, dressed up as religious or cultural rights. There is a growing view that the time has come to draw a line beyond which the state should not bend even if it means losing a few votes. ``If a line is not drawn, the next demand may be for permission to wear a burka, or to be excluded from lessons taught by men... . This could be followed by the desire to be absent from lessons five times a day to pray,`` says Terry Sanderson of Britain`s National Secular Society.

A case such as Shabina Begum`s is particularly disturbing, considering its long-term implications for her future. Here is a girl who has been denied her right to education by her own people who would rather that she remains uneducated than wear a school uniform happily worn by hundreds of other Muslim girls. In a country, where parents are sent to jail for the anti-social behaviour of their children, Shabina Begum`s is a perfect case for the authorities to ``discipline`` her guardians for depriving her of her legitimate right to education. And, for once, nobody is likely to object to the Government playing the ``nanny.``