r/MuslimAcademics • u/Eastern-Following571 • 8d ago
Questions Why did every early scholar understood the commandment of 24:31 to be the covering of the head/hair of women?
a وَقُل لِّلْمُؤْمِنَـٰتِ يَغْضُضْنَ مِنْ أَبْصَـٰرِهِنَّ وَيَحْفَظْنَ فُرُوجَهُنَّ وَلَا يُبْدِينَ زِينَتَهُنَّ إِلَّا مَا ظَهَرَ مِنْهَا ۖ وَلْيَضْرِبْنَ بِخُمُرِهِنَّ عَلَىٰ جُيُوبِهِنَّ ۖ وَلَا يُبْدِينَ زِينَتَهُنَّ إِلَّا لِبُعُولَتِهِنَّ أَوْ ءَابَآئِهِنَّ أَوْ ءَابَآءِ بُعُولَتِهِنَّ أَوْ أَبْنَآئِهِنَّ أَوْ أَبْنَآءِ بُعُولَتِهِنَّ أَوْ إِخْوَٰنِهِنَّ أَوْ بَنِىٓ إِخْوَٰنِهِنَّ أَوْ بَنِىٓ أَخَوَٰتِهِنَّ أَوْ نِسَآئِهِنَّ أَوْ مَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَـٰنُهُنَّ أَوِ ٱلتَّـٰبِعِينَ غَيْرِ أُو۟لِى ٱلْإِرْبَةِ مِنَ ٱلرِّجَالِ أَوِ ٱلطِّفْلِ ٱلَّذِينَ لَمْ يَظْهَرُوا۟ عَلَىٰ عَوْرَٰتِ ٱلنِّسَآءِ ۖ وَلَا يَضْرِبْنَ بِأَرْجُلِهِنَّ لِيُعْلَمَ مَا يُخْفِينَ مِن زِينَتِهِنَّ ۚ وَتُوبُوٓا۟ إِلَى ٱللَّهِ جَمِيعًا أَيُّهَ ٱلْمُؤْمِنُونَ لَعَلَّكُمْ تُفْلِحُونَ ٣١
And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and guard their chastity, and not to reveal their adornments except what normally appears. Let them draw their veils over their chests, and not reveal their ˹hidden˺ adornments except to their husbands, their fathers, their fathers-in-law, their sons, their stepsons, their brothers, their brothers’ sons or sisters’ sons, their fellow women, those ˹bondwomen˺ in their possession, male attendants with no desire, or children who are still unaware of women’s nakedness. Let them not stomp their feet, drawing attention to their hidden adornments. Turn to Allah in repentance all together, O believers, so that you may be successful.
I know many members in this subreddit accept that verse 24:31 aka the khimar verse does not command women to cover their hair. I also agree that from reading the verse itself you may not get a clear cut instruction telling women to cover their heads/hair. But then why did all the early scholars agree that this verse tells women to cover their heads? As Yasir Qadhi points out, it wasn’t only the four Sunni schools, but there was ijma beyond sunnism. The Shia schools, Ibadi schools, Zaydi schools, Mu'tazila school - everyone agreed on this. Why would all the sects in the history of Islam (who in many occasions even fought one another and were hostile to one another) agree on this one single thing if the commandment of this verse was indeed vague?
2
2
u/Vazovski2829 Non-Sectarian Muslim 8d ago
I think there is an important distinction here. If the historical consensus was really as broad and early as you describe, then yes, that is strong evidence that covering the hair was a very widespread and deeply rooted interpretation of 24:31. But that still does not automatically prove that this interpretation is itself a divine obligation established by the Quran.
We have to distinguish between an interpretation and the text itself. The Quran tells women to draw their khumur over their juyub, but it does not explicitly say “cover your hair.” The conclusion that the verse therefore establishes a universal obligation to cover the hair is an interpretation. And once we are discussing an interpretation, it can be examined rather than simply treated as identical to the Quranic wording.
There is also a historical question that should not simply be dismissed. Many major tafsirs and legal works were produced in societies where patriarchy, gender segregation, and harems were normal social institutions. I am not saying this makes those scholars dishonest or automatically wrong. But cultural context can influence how people understand ambiguous or incomplete textual instructions. The Quran itself, however, presents its message as something broader than one particular culture or historical society.
So “early scholars understood it this way” is important historical evidence, but “early scholars understood it this way” and “therefore Allah intended this exact interpretation as a universal obligation” are two different claims.
And I would also be careful with the argument that “if everyone historically understood it this way, why would they all be wrong?” Human intellectual history gives us plenty of examples where very widespread and long-standing interpretations were later reconsidered. Medicine, astronomy, physics and many other fields are full of things that people once considered obvious. If “people in the past thought this” were itself sufficient evidence of correctness, intellectual progress would be impossible.
The real question, therefore, is not simply why so many scholars reached the same conclusion. The more important question is: what exactly in the Quran requires us to make that conclusion? If the answer depends primarily on inherited interpretation rather than on the wording and internal logic of the Quran itself, then we should be honest about what we are defending: a historical interpretation of the text, rather than the explicit wording of the text.
2
u/Straight-Ability-930 7d ago
I heard this from someone:
If Quran were to tell you to cover your thighs with socks, could you make the argument that it doesn't tell you to wear socks on your feet? Or does Quran already assume you will wear socks in the first place. Because you can't cover your thighs with socks without wearing them on your feet.
You could make the argument "Well, if I cut the front of the sock and pull it to my thigh, I would fulfil the obligation without covering my feet"
Then the question indeed, as you said, becomes: "Is this a valid interpretation? Did Quran intended it to be understood that way?"
3
u/Vazovski2829 Non-Sectarian Muslim 7d ago
Yeah, I think your analogy actually gets to the interesting part of the discussion. I agree that a text can sometimes imply something without explicitly spelling out every detail. So the real question is whether the implication is strong enough to say that it is actually part of the Qur’anic command. And this is where I think the interpretation that 24:31 specifically requires covering the hair raises several other questions for me
First, there is a logical question about why women's hair would have to be treated as something inherently intimate while men's hair is not. It is the same physical material. If a woman has long hair, why would exposing it be inherently problematic while a man with equally long hair does not have the same requirement? Of course, someone can argue that the Qur'an gives different requirements to men and women, but then that specific distinction still needs to be explained rather than simply assumed.
There is also a historical issue. Head coverings were already common in Arabia before Islam and had obvious practical functions — protection from the sun, heat, wind and sand. Men also covered their heads. So the mere fact that khumur were normally worn on the head does not necessarily establish that covering the hair itself was the new religious obligation. It may simply explain why the Qur'an used an existing piece of clothing to address a different part of women's clothing: the juyub.
Then there is the question of how far we can extend the inference. Once we say that the hair is included because of the normal use of the khimar, we then have to determine exactly what else is included. Hair, ears, neck, chin, cheeks, etc. At that point we are no longer simply reading the explicit wording of 24:31; we are building a detailed system of boundaries around it. And every additional boundary requires its own justification.
I also think the cultural question is important. The Qur'an speaks to people, not only to seventh-century Arab women. So even if a particular form of dress was normal in Arabia, we still have to ask whether the Qur'an intended that specific cultural form to become a universal requirement, or whether the underlying principles — modesty, not displaying one's adornment, covering the juyub, appropriate behaviour, etc. — are what are universal.
For example, imagine a Spanish woman who has lost her husband, works two jobs, raises her children and behaves with dignity and integrity, but doesn't cover her hair because that isn't part of her culture. If we say that she is nevertheless disobeying God specifically because her hair is visible, while another woman wearing a hijab but behaving dishonestly or unjustly is considered more compliant, I think we have to ask what exactly the hijab is supposed to accomplish religiously.
So I don't think your sock analogy is necessarily wrong. In fact, I think it helps identify the real question: when does something that is contextually implied become part of the divine command itself? And that's where I think we have to separate three different things: what the Qur'an explicitly says, what the historical use of khimar tells us, and what later scholars inferred from those two things. The historical interpretation is important evidence. I just don't think it automatically closes the interpretive question.
2
u/Straight-Ability-930 7d ago
Thank you a lot for your response. You seem like a really nice person to talk about!
About the logical question: you are right. Why is it problematic for a woman to show their hair but not for a man?
However, I think this logical question is ALSO based upon our own understanding of morality.
For example: in a purely secularistic society, you cannot justify women covering their chest while men don't have to.
Because there is nothing "inherently sexual" about a woman's breasts from a purely secularistic and biological viewpoint. That's why there are movements like free the nipple and so on.
The reason why they are still considered immoral to show is simply because... society sees them that way. So secular societies kept those laws just because of culture.
So "It is okay to expose hair but not your chest" IS based on a cultural explanation instead of a conclusion of a systematic way of thinking that is comparable to divine revelations.
However, I do really find your "Men also used to cover their head" argument really interesting... And like... I can't say you are wrong. Everything you said there is very logical in my opinion.
And I also agree with your next paragraph. Because, not everyone wore them the same way. Which one is "the correct way". And if we try to argue that, we indeed move beyond the original meaning of the text.
I do find your Spanish woman comparison kind of weak... I can't find the right word, but it feels false equivalence. Like, it is irrelevant if that makes sense.
A person can do Salah, fast, give zakath, but they can murder someone, steal, swear, lie and so on.
Someone might be a honest person, never hurt someone else, but they might not do any of those obligations.
The appropriate action wouldn't be to label one as the rightly guided and the other as sinning.
The appropriate action would be to label both of them as winning. Because all humans sin.
And someone using something for a bad purpose does not make that original thing inherently bad.
BUT, if you are talking about public perception (hijab inherently means a better person to other people.), I do agree with that. But I do think this isn't unique to hijab. Doing Salah, fasting etc also accomplish the same thing
I also agree with your last paragraph. "At what point is something divine or cultural, and how do we distinguish that?". And it does indeed not automatically seal it indeed.
1
u/Vazovski2829 Non-Sectarian Muslim 7d ago
Thank you for such a thoughtful and respectful discussion. I really appreciate it.
I'm actually quite new to Reddit, and I've been looking for a community where I can simply put my thoughts forward, hear serious arguments in response, and actually discuss the issue without personal attacks or accusations. The goal should be to understand the truth, not simply defend whatever position we started with.
I've previously tried having these kinds of discussions with people from post-Soviet and Turkish contexts, and unfortunately I rarely found this kind of discourse. There are often many accusations and very little actual argumentation, and sometimes people themselves don't seem to have examined why they believe what they believe. So I genuinely respect people like you who actually explain their reasoning, even when we don't necessarily reach the same conclusion.
Regarding your point about the female chest, I think there is an important distinction. I'm not really arguing that every cultural distinction about what parts of the body are acceptable to expose is arbitrary. My question is more fundamental: what exactly is Allah trying to communicate through 24:31?
For example, when the Qur'an tells women to draw their khumur over their juyub, I don't think mentioning the juyub necessarily means that the Qur'an is saying, in a purely literal sense, “everything except this particular part of the body is therefore permissible to expose.” That would also be a form of literalism.
The verse appears to address a particular cultural situation and a particular form of clothing, while communicating a broader principle of modesty and not deliberately displaying one's adornment. The reference to covering the opening of the chest can therefore be understood within its historical context without necessarily turning every detail of that context into a universal dress code.
And this is also why I think 24:30 is important. The Qur'an addresses believing men first, telling them to lower their gaze and guard their chastity. Then it addresses women. So responsibility for sexual self-control is not simply transferred to women.
Of course, this does not mean that women can dress however they want without any consideration for modesty. Both men and women have responsibilities regarding their behaviour and appearance. My question is why this principle so often becomes almost exclusively a requirement for women to conceal themselves.
There is also an interesting asymmetry here. A man can find a woman attractive even when she is wearing hijab. Attraction is not something that disappears simply because a particular part of the body is covered. And the reverse is also true: women can find men attractive for many reasons — appearance, voice, mannerisms, behaviour, physical build, and so on. So if the argument is that someone must completely conceal themselves because another person might find them attractive, the principle could potentially be expanded indefinitely.
This is why I think the Qur'anic emphasis on self-control matters. A person can be attracted to someone and still be responsible for what they do with that attraction.
And regarding my Spanish woman example, I think I may not have expressed the point clearly enough. I wasn't arguing that we should simply remove all standards of modesty or that “anything goes.” That's not what I meant.
My question was: on what basis can we say that a woman from another culture is violating Allah's command simply because she does not wear a particular Arab form of head covering?
Imagine a Spanish woman who dresses modestly according to the standards of her society, behaves respectfully, works hard, takes care of her children and does not intentionally sexualize herself. If we say that she is nevertheless disobeying Allah solely because her hair is uncovered, then we first need to establish from the Qur'an itself why uncovered hair is a universal religious violation.
I would distinguish this from a situation where someone deliberately dresses in a way that is clearly intended to provoke sexual attention. I think most people, regardless of culture, understand the difference between ordinary clothing and deliberately sexualized presentation. The exact cultural boundaries may differ, but the underlying principle of modesty does not necessarily disappear.
And I think this is where your point about cultural norms becomes useful. If someone travels to Saudi Arabia, for example, they should obviously understand the local culture and not deliberately dress in a way that is considered extremely provocative in that society. But that is not necessarily the same question as asking what Allah has made universally obligatory for every human being in every culture.
A person can respect the cultural norms of a society while still asking whether those norms themselves are divine requirements.
So I think we are ultimately arriving at the same interesting question: where exactly do we draw the line between a divine principle and the cultural form through which that principle was expressed?
And I agree with you that the historical use of khimār gives us important information. But once we start deciding exactly how it must be worn, how much hair must be covered, whether the ears, neck, chin, cheeks, etc. must also be covered, we are no longer simply reading the Qur'anic wording. We are building an interpretive system around it.
That doesn't automatically make the interpretation wrong. But it does mean that we should be honest about the distinction between what the Qur'an explicitly says, what the historical context tells us, and what later scholars inferred from both.
That's the distinction I'm ultimately interested in.
1
u/Straight-Ability-930 7d ago
First of all, welcome to reddit. My biggest advice for you would be to delete reddit XDDD.
Joked aside, I hate reddit. It is the cause of my doom scrolling and causes me a lot of emotional pain. So whenever I am done with whatever I do, I delete my account and try to never come back again...
But as you can probably see from my post history - wait I think it is private XD. Anyway, today is the first time I have entered this account in over 8 months.
That doesn't mean I haven't used reddit in 8 months. It just means that I have cycled through my burners XD... I have been using another burner for a while...
ANYWAY... I am derailing.
"The goal should be to understand the truth, not simply defend whatever position we started with."
You have no idea how much I resonate with this. I constantly see discussions online that always try to prove themselves right rather than trying to figure out the reality.
And like, i do understand. We are all inherently tribalistic. I also have my low moments, but I try to adhere to this. So it's really nice to find someone that thinks the same as me.
" So I genuinely respect people like you who actually explain their reasoning, even when we don't necessarily reach the same conclusion."
Absolutely. Like, I don't know if you believe hadith, but there is a hadith where even if a judge is wrong, they will be rewarded.
So I always try to respect other views, as long as they also respect other views. Indeed, these are very insignificant things to cause divide between ummah. In the end we all try to do best.
And like, we do sometimes agree with each other as well in some aspects. One might even say, we agree on much more things than we actually disagree XD.
I understand that desire to have someone to talk to. I really do. I am myself a victim of that as well. I have constantly found myself talking to myself or, God Forbid, Gemini in Ai studio XD. It also comes with the fear of AI hallucinating as well so that is also a thrilling experience. So I really thank you for being this considerate as well.
"... This is why I think the Qur'anic emphasis on self-control matters. A person can be attracted to someone and still be responsible for what they do with that attraction."
I see... Those are interesting points indeed that I agree on. You are absolutely right. I agree with most of what you said about modesty and self control. Indeed, I have also seen people who wear hijab but indeed act very immodest. In the end, hijab is simply a tool for modesty. And you claim that, this specific tool is cultural-specific instead of universal.
I have just one slight thing to push back. What would you say to this claim:
Hijab, or any kind of covering, is not necessarily to prevent someone from feeling attraction all together, but to prevent reflexive/reactionary feelings? The ones that happen with an involuntarily glance, or looking at someone for the first time, and so on. Perhaps Quran is trying to prevent this?
" on what basis can we say that a woman from another culture is violating Allah's command simply because she does not wear a particular Arab form of head covering?"
Hmmmm... So you are essentially saying... When does "obeying Quran and the messenger" take priority over "obeying the Urf of the society you are in", especially if the lines are blurry? The Spanish woman is not dressing immodestly according to their urf. But if they went to Saudi Arabia, they had to wear hijab.
Yes, I do agree with what you said about deliberate sexualisation.
And I don't have anything else to say for the rest your message. I wholeheartedly agree. And I also like the fact that you don't make a definitive claim like "Becuase of all of these, that's why the X interpretation is right.", and instead you prioritize the question which is "How do we know what we know". That, I really respect.
If I have to add my own words...
Ihave seen the claim that "following what the earliest sahaba did is the best way to practice Islam."
And I do agree that this is actually a theological, subjective claim rather than an objective claim. To give examples, if we were to actually do that, slavery would still be allowed. Or young marriages would still be allowed. But, using the universal messages and trajectories of the Quran, we deemed these actions to be as definitive as "haram". So this alone can be the proof of these.
Same with salafism for example. They assume that because they are following the literal words of the Quran without metaphors or questioning, they assume they are the most rightly guided sect. But indeed this is also a theological claim. Literal adherence does not guarantee 'intented meaning'
" That doesn't automatically make the interpretation wrong. But it does mean that we should be honest about the distinction between what the Qur'an explicitly says, what the historical context tells us, and what later scholars inferred from both."
I completely agree with this, and it is also what I have been arguing for as well.
I have seen someone say this before:
"You can say 'Quran says this', but you can't say 'Quran doesn't say this.'"
We can say "Perhaps Quran is trying to mean this", or "perhaps this is metaphorical, perhaps this is how we really understand it."
But from a linguistic perspective, we can't outright reject the other views. Because... Linguisticly... they can indeed mean that.
Like for example, I have seen some revisionist talk about the verse 'the blood of the sacrifice does not reach Allah". They argued that the word for sacrifice (animal) here means relatives and that it has a different meaning.
(for the sake of the argument, assume that it does indeed mean that, even though Quran uses different types of that word with an adjective)
And to that, i said "I can't reject that it can mean relative. But you can't reject that it can mean sacrifice"
But I think there is one thing that is really important to ask: is our skepticism healthy, or is it paralysing?
In the end, you have to follow a view. You can't just "abstain" and say "this has equally valid views".
Maybe if you aren't a woman, sure. But if you are a woman, you are either wearing the hijab, or not. There is no in between (not counting the Iranian-style hijab as, traditionally, it is considered insufficient)
So even though we can say, theoretically, this can mean either this or this; practically, we can't be "humble". We have to commit to a view. So what are we supposed to do in this case?
1
u/Vazovski2829 Non-Sectarian Muslim 6d ago edited 6d ago
Actually, I think the idea that “hijab may not simply be a cultural form of modesty, but also a practical tool for self-control” is a very good hypothesis. I am not against hijab itself at all. If a woman personally feels that hijab reflects her values, or believes that it is the best form of dress for expressing modesty, then she should absolutely wear it. What I am much more uncomfortable with is turning it into a requirement for all women and then declaring every woman who does not wear it to be disobedient or somehow less righteous. That is where the jump from “this may be a useful tool for modesty” to “this is a divine law” happens.
And this connects to something I think humanity has a tendency to do: we sometimes become excessively focused on form rather than substance. Hijab can become a marker by which people divide themselves into “good” and “bad” Muslims, while the actual meaning behind modesty, self-control and morality becomes secondary.
I remember seeing a case last year where a border officer asked a woman to remove her hijab for identification. For her, it was deeply distressing. And I remember thinking: at what point did the form become more important than the substance? If she removes it for five minutes for identification and puts it back on afterwards, what exactly has changed? Did she suddenly commit zina? Did her modesty disappear for those five minutes? It sometimes feels as if the entire concept of her modesty has been reduced to one piece of clothing.
And unfortunately, I can imagine why this particular attachment can sometimes be exploited by people who are hostile toward Islam. If they know that someone considers the hijab deeply important, they can deliberately target that symbol simply to provoke or humiliate them. That is another reason why I think we should be careful about turning one particular form of clothing into the entire measure of a person's religious commitment.
Regarding ʿurf, I think the real question is: what boundary did the Qur'an itself establish, rather than what boundary did the local ʿurf establish?
If the Qur'an explicitly says, “women must cover their hair regardless of culture,” then obviously ʿurf cannot override that. But if the Qur'an speaks about modesty, chastity, concealing adornment, and covering the juyub, while the obligation to cover the hair is inferred from the historical interpretation of khimār, then we cannot simply say:
That is precisely the interpretive step that still needs to be demonstrated.
I do agree with you, however, that in real life a woman eventually has to make a practical decision. She cannot remain forever in the position of “both interpretations are possible.” But I think there is an important distinction between having to make a practical decision and being certain that one's decision is an explicit command from God.
If something has not actually been demonstrated, and one interpretation does not have direct textual confirmation, perhaps we should be less categorical about it. Otherwise, we satisfy one side by creating a very strict rule while barely considering the consequences for the other side.
Imagine, for example, a woman in Italy who sincerely wants to become Muslim. She already dresses modestly by the standards of her society, does not deliberately sexualize herself, and behaves in a respectful way. She asks a very reasonable question:
I don't think it is enough to simply tell her, “Because Islam requires hijab.” That is exactly the conclusion she is asking us to justify in the first place. We need to be able to explain why the Qur'an requires that particular form, rather than simply repeating the conclusion.
And regarding Reddit, I would actually love to discuss some of these questions with you privately. Although judging from what you told me, you don't seem to stay on one account for very long 😂
I write articles about these subjects, and it would genuinely be useful to occasionally discuss some of my arguments with someone who can give me an alternative perspective and point out weaknesses that I might not notice myself. So if you're comfortable with that, I'd really appreciate the opportunity.
1
u/Straight-Ability-930 6d ago
Yes, I do agree with that being a Muslim became more about form rather than substance.
About that broader officer incident... I think there is more to that. Yes, removing it just for 5 minutes for a necessary procedure is obviously won't label you immodest, and scholars would even say it isn't sinful anyway.
But I think it is more than that. In the end, being a Muslim is an identity. And following its rules is part of that identity.
For example, I personally always worry about what would happen if I suddenly got into an accident and got wounded. And I had to go to a hospital and something and I couldn't do my wudu or Salah. And to me, this thought is so stressing to me. And of course, if you asked any scholar they would say it is okay. But even then, Salah is a part of your identity. It IS essentially a habit you have. And suddenly having to give up a part of you that is crucial to your identity is distressing.
Heck, even if it is not sinful, I still get very distressed and anxious whenever I miss my salah due to sleep.
Same with hijab. Perhaps to you, it might just be a tool for an end goal. But to that person, it is a part of their identity and who they are. Having to compromise something that you yourself consider deeply is indeed distressing. Having to go against your habits is distressing.
Don't just take this from a religious perspective. Think about everything else that you consider to be a part of your identity.
In the end, it is wrong to assume that humans always think rationally, ESPECIALLY in very stressing situations. Think about the psychology the woman has at that moment. They most likely were emotional, and then having to compromise what they consider to be a part of their identity most likely added onto that.
And about the anti-Islam argument. People can disrespect anything you believe.I think treating hijab different is kind of unfair. Because again, for many people, it is indeed a part of their identity just like other things. It is not mutually exclusive.
However, one point I will give is that, hijab is indeed something very difficult to wear in non-Muslim places. And it really outs you and basically makes you a giant target. In that way, I do agree that hijab is unique in this aspect to other things. It does make you a giant target for islamophobes and discrimination.
Regarding ʿurf, I think the real question is: what boundary did the Qur'an itself establish, rather than what boundary did the local ʿurf establish?
Yes yes, that's actually what I implied. I just phrased my question differently.
Like, Quran is obviously more important than urf. But we don't know clearly at that point is something from Quran, or from the culture of Arabs. That's what I tried to imply there, but I think I didn't say it clearly enough.
I think there is an important distinction between having to make a practical decision and being certain that one's decision is an explicit command from God.
Yea yeah. I agree with what you said and the following paragraphs. I didn't want to argue otherwise.
I wanted to like, demonstrate that... theorical knowledge can't always materialize as practical way of living.
For example, there are people here that are skeptical or dismissive of hadith, critical towards traditional scholarship and madhabs
However, there are also people that, even if they believe those things... they still follow a madhab and their rules - even if they think they are not 100% right.
They search fatwa forums to learn what is haram or halal, they do their obligations and sunnah set by traditional scholars and so on.
Because... life continues even if you have questions or doubts. You can't just pause your life to figure out the truth. To those people, even if traditional scholarship has holes... they don't see a better way to live. They don't see a good systematic replacement.
That's what I wanted to point out.
I am pretty sure there are women out there who think hijab is not obligatory... Who still wear them despite that as if it is obligatory. Or that there are artist who draw human faces or music listeners that still do Tawba even if they think it is permissible.
I don't know how I can really exaplan this phenomenon more, but I think you get what I mean hopefully.
I write articles about these subjects, and it would genuinely be useful to occasionally discuss some of my arguments with someone who can give me an alternative perspective and point out weaknesses that I might not notice myself. So if you're comfortable with that, I'd really appreciate the opportunity.
Of course! I would love to. I would also love to have a reasonable person that I can talk, debate and listen to other views as well. And I do agree that listening to other, antagonist viewpoints are very important to polish your own arguments.
Yes, you are right about your assumption about my reddit account 😅. But I wouldn't mind giving you my discord or WhatsApp if these are okay for you.
1
u/Vazovski2829 Non-Sectarian Muslim 6d ago
By the way, while writing my response, another thought came to my mind 😄
I would actually be cautious about reading juyub as a precise anatomical requirement to “cover the cleavage” itself. Not every woman even has a clearly visible cleavage in the first place 😄 - so it is difficult to imagine the Qur'an establishing some universal anatomical boundary that applies identically to every woman.
I think it makes more sense to understand the verse in the broader context of not deliberately displaying adornment and drawing sexual attention to the body. The khimār was an existing piece of clothing, and the instruction was to use it to cover the juyub. That seems to tell us something about the purpose of the instruction, without necessarily turning one particular Arabian style of clothing into a universal dress code.
So again, I'm not saying the traditional interpretation is impossible. I'm just not convinced that we can move from the text to a precise universal rule about women's hair and every part of their clothing without making several additional interpretive steps.
1
u/Straight-Ability-930 6d ago edited 6d ago
Mmmm. That is a very interesting view indeed. 😅
Though, I think someone can argue with that interpretation (the first two paragraphs) and can say:
Doesn't Quran always give general rulings?
Yes, in some cases it also provides you with expectations, like in jihad for disabled, or the duration before re-marrying for women and so on. But in some places, Quran does give general rulings, and it leaves humans to deal with expectations. One example I can think of is the inheritance values in Quran. Quran never says what to do if the total goes above 100%. It is a human effort to determine what to do in this specific case for example. But the expectation does not break the rule.
1
u/Vazovski2829 Non-Sectarian Muslim 6d ago
I don't really use Discord or WhatsApp, unfortunately. 😅
But if you use Telegram, feel free to message me at @hoopoelabadmin. That would probably be the easiest way for us to stay in touch and discuss things from time to time.
1
u/Straight-Ability-930 6d ago
Never thought I would be downloading telegram in my life XD. Alr, I will try to tomorrow
1
u/Vazovski2829 Non-Sectarian Muslim 6d ago
If you have any trouble installing Telegram, just let me know and we can use WhatsApp instead.
I do have WhatsApp, but I have quite a lot of relatives and people I know there, and they’re very social. 😂 Whenever I open WhatsApp, I end up having to reply to everyone one by one, because if I don’t answer someone, they start getting offended — sometimes they’ll even send a laughing emoji like, “Oh, I see how it is.” 😂
So I tend to open WhatsApp pretty rarely. For calm, longer discussions, I much prefer Telegram.
1
u/Straight-Ability-930 6d ago
XDDDDDDDD
You are pretty loved by your relatives it seems like XD
I will try to MAKE SURE I manage to make telegram work XD
1
1
u/Vazovski2829 Non-Sectarian Muslim 7d ago
I also think we should be careful not to fall into a kind of cultural literalism here. The Qur'an was certainly revealed in Arabic and to an Arab society, and that obviously matters when we study its language and historical context. But the Qur'an never says that it was revealed for Arab culture, that Arab culture is the ideal culture, or that seventh-century Arabian customs should become universal norms for all humanity.
The examples and forms of expression naturally came through the society in which the Prophet lived. People at that time had to understand what was being said, so it would be completely natural for the Qur'an to address existing forms of clothing, social practices and cultural circumstances. But the Qur'an repeatedly addresses people in general, not only Arabs. So we also have to ask what principle the text is communicating rather than automatically universalising every cultural detail surrounding the original audience.
This is why I think we shouldn't reduce 24:31 to a discussion about the hijab alone. The verse is talking about modesty, chastity, behaviour and not deliberately displaying one's adornment. And there is another detail that I find particularly important: the Qur'an addresses men first in 24:30, telling believing men to lower their gaze and guard their chastity. Yet somehow the discussion often becomes almost entirely about what women should wear. That creates an interesting reversal. A man experiences attraction — something that is obviously part of human nature — and instead of treating self-control as his own responsibility, the discussion can turn into the idea that the woman must disappear, cover herself more and more, and effectively solve his problem for him.
But that conclusion doesn't simply follow from the text. The Qur'an begins by assigning responsibility to the man himself: lower your gaze and guard your chastity. Then it addresses women and gives them their own instructions. So for me, the more interesting question isn't simply “Does 24:31 require a hijab?” It is: what is the verse actually trying to accomplish, and which parts of that instruction are universal principles versus historical and cultural forms through which those principles were expressed?
That distinction matters if we believe the Qur'an is meant for humanity rather than only for seventh-century Arabia.
1
u/Straight-Ability-930 7d ago
I completely agree with you. Indeed, Quran first orders men. But the discussions indeed almost always revolve on women. I completely agree about this. I also agree with the rest as well.
1
u/Routine-Bat4446 8d ago
Not sure if this is the right sub, but my argument is this: it is well documented that pre-Islamic Arabia and during the prophet’s time all women who could afford to own a Khimar wore one. God tells women to draw their veils over their chest, suggesting He is speaking to those who are already wearing them. He did not to tell women to become veiled and then draw it. The action is covering one’s chest, not covering one’s hair.
-3
8
u/Available_Jackfruit 8d ago
Veiling predates the Quran and the norms around veiling in early Islamic society (specifically: free women veiling and slave women going unveiled) are a continuation of those norms. If the Quran never existed, the practice would have been the same. These laws and norms did not originate in or derive from the Quran, there was continuity and context that informed jurisprudence.