Letter to the Editor of Muslim Link on Hijab
August 16, 2000
Editor
The Muslim Link
5301 Edgewood Road
College Park, MD 20740
Editor:
In the Jan. 2000 issue (v.2 #1) of The Muslim Link,staff writer Sadia
Razaq rightly expresses concern with what she calls the
obsession over hijab, but her article only perpetuates the
problem. I am reluctant to contribute further to the obsessive
literature myself, and therefore I will not attempt to correct all the
errors in her article. However, two misrepresentations, one
regarding a quote from me and another about the text of the Qu'ran
itself, demand a response.
The writer complains that "the Washington Post, in it's Dec. 9, 1999
issue unfortunately found Muslims … that were prepared to emit … a
negative image of hijab." She then offers as an example my
statement that "It's an inference on the part of Islamic jurists to say
that because modesty in the Prophet's day meant covering the hair that
it is therefore immodest for women today to leave the hair
uncovered." It is beyond me how my simple and true statement
about the position of the jurists "emits a negative image of hijab."
More disturbing than the misrepresentation of my statement is her
suggestion that the verses in the Qur'an in which the word hijab
appears constitute a rebuttal to those who question whether it is
mandatory for women to cover their hair. She states categorically
that "Allah (Subhanu wa ta`ala) revealed the verses of hijab in the
Qur'an, which is eternal, for all peoples and places" without
mentioning that in not a single one of these seven verses does the
Arabic word hijab refer to a hair covering! Here is Yusuf Ali's
translation of the verses in which the word hijab appears with the word
left untranslated so that the reader may see the obvious:
Between them [the companions of the garden and the companions of the
fire] shall be a hijâb and on the heights will be men who would
know everyone by his marks: they will call out to the companions of the
garden "peace on you" they will not have entered but they will have an
assurance (thereof.) (7:46)
When thou dost recite the Qur'an We put between thee and those who
believe not in the Hereafter a hijâb invisible: (17:45)
And he [Solomon] said "Truly do I love the love of Good with a view to
the glory of my Lord" until (the sun) was hidden in the hijâb (of
Night): (38:32)
They say: "Our hearts are under veils (concealed) from that to which
thou dost invite us and in ours ears is a deafness and between us and
thee is a hijâb: so do thou (what thou wilt); for us we shall do
(what we will!)." 41:5
It is not fitting for a man that God should speak to him except by
inspiration or from behind a hijâb or by the sending of a
Messenger to reveal with God's permission what God wills: for He is
Most High Most Wise. (42:51)
She [Mary, mother of Jesus] placed a hijâb (to screen
herself) from them [her family]: then We sent to her Our angel and he
appeared before her as a man in all respects. (19:17)
O ye who Believe! enter not the Prophet's houses until leave is given
you for a meal (and then) not (so early as) to wait for its
preparation: but when ye are invited enter; and when ye have taken your
meal disperse without seeking familiar talk. Such (behavior)
annoys the Prophet: He is ashamed to dismiss you but God is not ashamed
(to tell you) the truth. And when ye ask (his ladies) for
anything ye want ask them from before [warâ'] a hijâb: that
makes for greater purity for your hearts and for theirs. Nor is
it right for you that ye should annoy God's Apostle or that ye should
marry his widows after him at any time. Truly such a thing is in
God's sight an enormity. (33:53)
Only the last of these constitutes a command for a hijab and that is a
command for men to ask from behind (warâ' means "behind", not
"before" as translated by Ali) a screen when they ask for things from
the Prophet's (pbuh) wives. This is a command for men when in the
presence of the Prophet's wives, not a clothing prescription for women.
The fact that the Qur'an contains no explicit command for women in
general to "wear" hijab does not in itself mean that it is not
mandatory to cover the hair. One could interpret the verse of
khumr [24:31] to refer to hijâb, or one could interpret the verse
of jilbâb [33:59] to refer to hijâb. Either way, as I
was quoted saying in the Post article, Islamic jurists have inferred
that it is mandatory. It was on my recommendation that the Post
reporter interviewed Dr. Taha Jabir al- Alwani, the president of the
Graduate School of Islamic and Social Sciences to get an authoritative
view on this issue. It is unfortunate that the editors of The
Muslim Link did not ask a scholar of his stature to present the ahadith
and legal reasoning on which the jurists base their conclusions rather
than printing a staff writer's reckless statement about the "verses of
hijab."
It is ironic that the writer, having conjectured an interpretation of
these verses without bothering to quote them, then goes on to denounce
those "who call themselves Muslims … who interpret the Qur'an using
their opinion and conjecture." The fact is that there
is nothing backward about a Muslim woman covering her
hair. The backwardness of Muslims today lies, rather,
in our willingness to substitute freewheeling assertions for
well-reasoned opinions such as our best jurists produced for centuries
when they issued their fatwas. I pray Allah will give us the
wisdom to have at least as much concern for the clarity of the thoughts
within our heads as we seem to have for the opacity of the cloth on top
of them.
As-salâmu `alaikum!
Imad-ad-Dean Ahmad, Ph.D., President
Minaret of Freedom Institute
Return to home page