The Islamic Modest Dress
Second Lesson
Our discussion will center on the issue of the modest dress (hijab)
in Islam but as we had mentioned, we must first hold a more general
discussion because the modest dress is not exclusive to Islam. That is,
it is not the idea that the modest dress appeared for the first time in
the world with Islam. It existed before Islam among ancient peoples
other than the Arab nations. It existed in ancient India and in ancient
Iran, as well. The modest dress which ancient India and Iran had was
much stricter than that which Islam brought. Of course, if we take the
Arabian peninsula into consideration, the Islamic modest dress was
established, not imitated. That is, Islam imported the modest dress into
the Arabian peninsula but it existed in non-Arab lands throughout the
world.
It is a phenomena which existed during non-Islamic times.
Philosophical, social, economic, ethical and psychological reasons have
been given as the cause for the development of this phenomenon and as to
how it happened that the modest dress came to appear in history among
people. It is necessary to mention these reasons because they have said
that these are the causes for the appearance of the modest dress and
that it first appeared because of certain very particular conditions
which existed in those times. Conditions whereby it was, perhaps,
necessary for it to be but now that those conditions no longer exist,
there is no reason for the modest dress.
Thus, we have to see what the reasons mentioned are, whether or not
they are the real causes or is it, as some people say that which caused
the modest dress to come into being was unjust. Is it that from the very
beginning the modest dress itself was imposed upon women? If this is so,
they conclude that this is even more reason why it should never have
come into being.
In the last discussion we mentioned two reasons, one of which was the
sense of insecurity. We said that this has been mentioned as a reason
for women wearing the modest dress . The other reason mentioned was the
sense of asceticism, the sense of struggling against sexual urges. This
is something which existed in the world, in both the East and the West.
In the East, one of its largest centers was India and in the West,
Greece.
The Economic Reason
Another reason given for the modest dress is that they have said that
the modest dress developed because of economics, and of course, it was
to exploit women. As a result of this, it is unjust. They came and
divided things this way. They said history shows that there have been
four eras in the relations between men and women, including the present
age.
The first age of humanity, according to this view, was a communal age
with reference to sex. That is, essentially no family life existed. The
second era was when men dominated over women and women were seen as
their slaves and a means to serve men. The second era, then, was the era
of ownership by man. The third era was the age when women arose in
objection to men and the fourth era is the era of equality of rights
between men and women.
The first era, the communal age, they say, relates to pre-history. The
era of ownership is the longest era that history has recorded where man
dominated over woman and they identify Islam as an example of this era.
The third era, which is known as the era of rebellion, occurred in the
second half of the 19th century. The fourth era is the one which more or
less has appeared or is appearing. It is the era of seeking complete
equality between men and women's rights.
It is clear that these eras were developed from what others said about
economics which refers to the various eras of humanity with the first
era being communal, then the feudal era, the era of capitalism and the
era of communism. That which they have mentioned as to the economic
causes for the appearance of the modest dress does not relate whatsoever
to these economic stages mentioned by others.
These four stages expressed in this manner are all erroneous. There are
no facts regarding the first era which they mention as being communal.
There is no evidence that family life did not exist from the very
beginning.
We do not intend to go into detail about these eras but simply to refer
to the fact that they say the modest dress relates to the era when men
dominated over women. If we do not accept that era, they say that it
resulted from men being the mediator for women: A man hired a woman for
his own purposes. He kept her in his home to do his work. He left some
of his work for a woman to do for him.
This was similar to when they imprisoned slaves and prevented them from
leaving to better perform the work of their master. Men saw that it
would be to their advantage to put women behind a curtain and prevent
their comings and goings so that they would better undertake the work of
the house which had been given to them to do. Thus, men did this in
order for them to have hired women from the economic point of view and
to have turned them into an instrument. Otherwise there was no reason to
do such a thing. Wherever the modest dress has appeared, it was
accompanied by such a situation of the employing of women by men to work
in the house.
Is it true that Ws reason existed in those places in the world where
the modest dress appeared? We do not deny that perhaps in some corners
of the world this situation existed. If men prevented women from leaving
their home and prevented others from seeing them in whatever form, if
men imprisoned women, the roots of such a cause might have been
economic. However, we are discussing Islam. Islam, on the one hand,
established and brought the modest dress and, on the other, very
directly stated something which is among the very clear aspects of Islam
which is that a man has absolutely no right to gain economically from a
woman. That is, a woman has economic independence. Great emphasis has
been given to this issue.
That is, a man has no right to benefit economically in anyway
whatsoever from a woman. The jobs of a woman belong to her. If, within
the home itself, work is given to a woman to do if she so desires. But
if a woman were to say, "No. I won't do that," a man has no right to
force her to do it.
A woman is free in whatever work she does. In the first place, she has
a right to refuse; a man has no right to order her to do something.
Secondly, if she says, "I will do this for such and such a wage," she
has a right to receive a wage, in the case of nursing her child, for
instance. Even though a mother has priority to nurse her own child, she
still has a right to obtain a wage for it. Her priority is in the sense
that if another woman wanted to nurse her child and says, "I will take
1,000 rials a month to nurse the child," the mother herself says, '1
will not take more than that," then the mother has priority to nurse the
child unless the other woman, for some reason, is more suitable.
A woman has a right to work outside the home as long as it does not
harm the family environment. Whatever she earns belongs to her alone, no
matter what legitimate work she performs.
It must be clearly recognized, then, that Islamic precepts do not
intend for the modest dress to be a means to economically exploit women.
If this had been the intention, the rulings would have reflected this.
For instance, the precepts would have stated that a man has the right to
employ his wife in his home and a woman must wear the modest dress. Then
these two things would have been connected. A system which states that a
man has no right to exploit a woman but, on the other hand, that same
system has established the modest dress, clearly, then, did not
establish the modest dress to exploit women.
We do not think, either, that this reason was a very major one for
wherever in the world the modest dress existed but some Iranians who
have written against the laws of Islam have greatly stressed this point.
That is, they say in order for men to be able to keep women in their
homes to exploit them and to turn them into their own tools, they
imprisoned them. This is one reason they have given and as we have
stated, this reason in no way conforms with Islam.
The Ethical Reason
Another reason they have given for the appearance of the modest dress
has an ethical aspect. That is, it relates to the character and nature
of individual.
They say it stems from the selfishness of men and men's jealousy. A man
dominated over a woman so that he could enjoy her exclusively himself;
so that no other man would share with him, not only in sexual
intercourse but in everything. He wanted to monopolize a woman so that
the touching of her body and even the viewing of her be exclusively his
privilege. That is, a type of excessive greed which existed in men
caused them to present the modest dress.
Russell says just this. He says that human beings have been able, to a
certain extent, to dominate over their greed for wealth in such a way
that they later encouraged charity and sharing one's table with others
because these related to wealth. They came to regard excessive greed as
something disagreeable in human beings but they were not able to control
their greed for sex in the same way. Thus, they came and changed the
name of this to 'manliness' or 'zeal'.
They considered jealousy and greed under this name to be a virtue
whereas if charity is good and if it is good in relation to wealth, it
should be good in relation to women as well, or else it is wrong in both
areas. How is it that when it comes to something that belongs to a
person, it is good to be generous and liberal with it but then when it
relates to women, it is evil. No, there is absolutely no difference
between them. If it is good, it is good for both and if it is bad, it
relates to both.
In the first place, it is not right to compare 'having a wife' to
'having property'. Secondly, from our point of view, there is a
difference between jealousy and zeal (passion, fervor or ardency,
ghairat). We believe them to be two different feelings. Zeal is a
natural instinct given to humanity. It is a collective word. That is,
its roots are to preserve society, not an individual. It is like a
policeman that God has placed within humanity to preserve future
generations.
As we have pointed out, however, much satisfaction a man receives in
sexual pleasures, his sense of zeal becomes more weakened along with his
sensitivities towards modesty, piety and moral will-power. Lustful men
do not object to their wives having affairs; they may even enjoy it and
defend such deeds.
Whereas the opposite is true of men who struggle against their ego's
desires and lust. In this struggle, gathering together their moral
forces, they dominate over vices such as greed, envy or the worship of
money within themselves. They become what the term 'human being' really
means. They then devote themselves to serving people as a sense of
providing service to others develops within them. Such men have greater
'zeal' or 'sense of manliness' and are more jealous and protective of
women. As a matter of fact, they protect all women in general. That is,
their conscience does not permit them to allow any kind of aggression
against women in society for it is as if they were the protectors of all
women.
Imam Ali said, "A noble, zealous person never commits adultery." He did
not say 'a jealous person never commits adultery' but rather a zealous
one. Why? Because manliness is a noble, human virtue. It is a human
virtue which relates to society and its purity. Just as a zealous man
does not allow the corruption of women he is related to, neither is he
content to see the women of society being corrupted. This is because
zeal is other than jealousy. Jealousy is a personal and individual
affair and stems from a series of spiritual beliefs but zeal is an
emotion and a sensitivity which relates to the human species as a
whole.
The secret of the fact that men have a very great sensitivity towards
their wife having sexual intercourse with other men is an instinct which
creation gave to every man to preserve future generations. If this did
not exist, if the singular affection for children did not exist, not
even one individual would be inclined towards reproduction. If this
sense of wonder did not exist within the human being to protect and
guard the place of the seed so that other seeds, which are similar,
would not fall there, the relation between the sexes would be completely
cut off. No one would know their father and no father would know his
child whereas the connection between one generation to another is one of
the principles of human society. If it did not exist, there would be no
society.
Human beings have been given an instinct which is the basis for the
preservation of society and that instinct is this: Women are desirous of
preserving their generations and so are men but women are protected as a
result. When a child is born, it is clear who its mother is and the
mother knows her child. Even if she were to have intercourse with a
thousand men, she would know that the future generations are assured but
men are not reassured in this way unless they have guarded that woman
and created some precautions whereby they are assured of their
fatherhood.
Can a person say that we must eliminate this instinct called 'zeal'
which exists within human beings? And, that this is the same thing as
jealousy? This is something which even those who have a community type
of living as far as property is concerned have not said in relation to
women.
The Psychological Reason
Some people believe that the modest dress and staying at home are based
on psychological reasons and that women have had an inferiority complex
towards men from the very beginning. This feeling is based on two
reasons: One is that some women think they lack something organic in
their body in comparison to men. The other reason is the bleeding during
their monthly menstruation and following childbirth.
The monthly period was considered to be a kind of deficiency in ancient
times. That is why women were isolated during their monthly period and
everybody avoided associating with them.
Perhaps that was the main reason for asking the Holy Prophet a question
on this subject. God revealed a special verse in answer to this
question. The Quran does not say that menstruation is something
deplorable and that a woman is to be isolated during this time and that
no one should associate with her. It says that it is a kind of harm
leaving the body and during this time, they should not have sexual
intercourse. It does not say that they should not associate with each
other.
"They ask you about menstruation. Say: It is a kind of harm. Do not have sexual intercourse with women at this time." (2:222)
According to the Quran, it is a kind of harm like many others and it is
far from being deplorable.
Abu Dawud related a Tradition of the Holy Prophet: "Ibn Malik said that
the Jewish people used to send their wives out of their home when they
were menstruating. They did not eat with them and did not drink water
from their glass. They did not remain in the same room with them either.
For this reason, the Prophet was asked about this and the above verse
descended. The Prophet forbade the isolation of women at this time and
said, 'Nothing is forbidden except sexual intercourse.'[^1]
According to Islam, the menstruating woman is muhdis, that is, a person
who does not perform the partial or total ritual ablution. Such a person
is deprived from performing the ritual prayer and fasting. Every hadas
is a kind of ritual impurity which is removed by ritual purification
such as a partial or total ablution. By this we mean that the state of
menstruation is like the state of having had a wet dream or sexual
intercourse, etc. But this ritual state is not special for women and it
is removed by partial or total ritual ablution.
Many ideas have been expressed about the fact that women have a sort of
deficiency in their feelings and because of this, both men and women
thought that women were abased. Whether they are correct or incorrect,
there is no relation between this and the philosophy of Islam about
women and the modest dress or 'covering'. Islamic precepts neither refer
to menstruation nor the modest dress as reasons to consider women lowly
or abased.
These, then, are the five causes which others have more or less related
and from none of the five which are mentioned is one able to say that
the modest dress is no longer necessary or that it was unjust from the
very beginning.
Can the modest dress have another cause or not? May we offer the fact
that the modest dress in Islam has other reasons which do not compare to
any of these Rve mentioned: the well-being of a person's 'self', family
and society.
It is well known that the spirit of the human being, just like a
person's body, can either be healthy or sick. What is the cause for its
sickness? They have given many reasons. One of the reasons mentioned is
frustration, the failure to attain one's desires, deprivation or
disillusionment.
Some people have suggested that these sexual frustrations arise from
social limitations. With the removal of these limitations, all
individuals will then succeed in the area of sexual affairs and sexual
frustrations will disappear. This assumption was put forward but the
drawbacks to it became quite apparent. It became clear that although it
is true that sexual frustration causes psychological illnesses, it
cannot be eliminated by the removal of the limits because if we remove
social limits, we will only serve to further stimulate sexual urges,
thereby increasing demands which only lead to further disillusionment
within the human being.
For instance, say that a human being had a limited number of demands,
such as the demands in relation to food. Every society has a certain
amount of demand for food. If a country has a population of 20 million,
the amount of food required is clear. If their supply is greater than
that, they cannot consume it. It should not be less but if it is more,
they have to throw it away.
When demands are limited, they can be satisfied . Demands can even be
decreased in relation to the supply but it has been proved that the
demand of certain things in human beings are unlimited. However much
they are satisfied, the desire persists. Things which have a quality
which are not solely physical are like this. For instance, in the area
of material things, if we want to say how much food a society needs, we
can estimate this but if we were to ask how much money a society needed,
the demand would be unlimited.
We may ask, "How much wheat would it take to satisfy the people of
Iran?" This is possible to estimate. But it is more difficult to
estimate if we ask, "How much money would satisfy the people of the
country?" If you give as much as possible to an individual, he would
never say: That's enough. Knowledge is also like this.
Many of the demands of human beings are rooted in unending human
desires. When you relate to them, a person still says: I want more.
Wealth is also like this. It cannot be satiated. A tradition of the Holy
Prophet relates to this. "There are two kinds of hunger which are never
fulfilled, the hunger for knowledge and the hunger for wealth."[^2]
Can one fulfil the ambition of a person? Can a society fulfil the
ambition of a person? No. No matter what position a person is given,
that person wants an even higher position. Even if you gave him the
highest position, he still would not be satisfied . The reason for the
development of ethics was because of this very thing, that is, to
regulate unending human desires which have created chaos and
conflicts.
Sexual enjoyment is limited from the physical point of view. A man can
be satisfied from one woman, or, at the most, two. But from the point of
view of attachment that a man and a woman develop, even Russell mentions
the fact that physical sex differs from the attachment which can result
from it. When it takes on this quality, can it be fulfilled? Given a man
who has fallen into this way, a man, for instance, who has a harem of a
thousand beautiful women. If someone were to say to him, "There is a
beautiful woman in such and such a place", would he then say, "No. I am
satisfied with my harem and my relations with the women there." There is
no question of ever being satiated.
It was because of this that they readily saw that the desire for sex is
like wealth. It is insatiable. They came and gave another suggestion.
The human being must be made to deviate from this way. A person must be
placed upon the unending road, a road that leads no where. Freud
suggested it. He first struggled against any kind of social limits and
limitations. He then saw that giving people limitless sexual freedom
created more difficulties and problems for them. It created far greater
psychological disturbances. He said, "This spirit must be directed to
other things so that it becomes preoccupied with art, literature, etc.
because this way is impossible!" This spirit has to be allowed to
develop without anything standing in its way.
Experience and statistics have shown that in the West where sexual
freedom is very great and in some areas, there are no limitations,
psychological illnesses are greater than in a society which has
limitations. The greater the stimulation, the more the desires increase.
They increase several times just like fire. Can a person satiate a fire
with fuel? This clearly cannot be done.
They say that no matter how you try to prevent a human being from
something, the greed for it increases. This is true but the point to
note is that the human being develops greed for something which is both
forbidden and stimulated but if it is not offered or it is offered less,
the human being finds less desire for it. When it is stimulated it is
impossible for everyone to satisfy their desires for it no matter how
much freedom they are given.
Thus, if there is a kind of limitation and sexual desires are to be
satisfied within the marital environment, if society is to be the place
of work and activity, if a woman does not have the right to stimulate
sexual urges nor a man have the right to seek sexual fulfillment outside
the marital environment, if it takes this form, the spirit and morale of
people will clearly develop in a more healthy and wholesome way.
As to the family, efforts must be made so that, to the extent possible,
marital relations become more and more intimate and whatever will weaken
this relationship must be resisted. The limiting of sexual fulfillment
to marriage, whatever kind of fulfillment it may be, causes the married
couple to develop a more profound union because a man and a woman who
knows only her husband to be the source of her pleasure and happiness
clearly will develop deeper and stronger ties.
For instance, some people ask why it is that sexual relations of a man
without a wife and a woman without a husband are forbidden outside of
marriage? Why can they not have sexual relations? We accept the fact
that there is a difference but note this point which appears to be very
clear to me. In the recent past and in the present among societies which
live according to Islamic law, a girl who reaches puberty is not free to
take sexual enjoyment from every youth even though the instinctive
desire exists. When a boy reaches puberty, a desire and inclination for
the opposite sex develops but there are no means to satiate it.
From the beginning he is told, for instance, that he can marry when he
reaches the age of 20 and the girl knows that he will marry in a few
years. Marriage for them is a very sweet and pleasurable thing. Marriage
is a fulfillment of desires after a time of deprivation. That is, sexual
urges may not be satisfied outside of marriage.
This boy who is facing a girl for the first time sees her as the person
who will satisfy his desires, bring him pleasure and happiness and the
girl who faces the boy for the first time, knowing he will bring her
happiness and well-being, develop such emotions that are incomparable to
anything else.
Marriage and the family center is like this. When the satisfaction of
sexual urges is forbidden outside this realm, it becomes the center of
happiness.
Thus this issue of forbidding the fulfillment of sexual activities
outside of the family center serves to strengthen family solidarity
whereas allowing such possibilities outside the family center separates
the family. As we will come to point out, the Islamic modest dress is
nothing more than this; the limiting or restricting the sexual needs to
marriage.
Now we will look at society. It has been said that the modest dress
paralyzes half of the society. I accept that if the modest dress were
that which they say existed among the Indians or that which existed in
ancient Iran, this may be true.
But the Islamic modest dress does not say that a woman should be
imprisoned nor does it say that a woman has no right to leave her home
or to do a particular job which is of a social or economic nature.
Islamic precepts say, as we will read in the verses of the Holy Quran
and in the Traditions, that a woman who leaves her home does not have
the right to leave in such a way that she stimulates other men or
attracts them towards herself. This is a particular duty of women. And
no man has the right to cast a lustful look towards a woman who leaves
her home. This is a particular duty of men.
If a woman did not speak in stimulating tones in a social situation, if
this did not happen, would boys and girls not study better? If boys did
not have the right to flirt, would society not function better? If a
woman is wearing the modest dress and goes to buy something and the
seller knows that this is not the place for games, which way is better?
Clearly if there is the Islamic modest dress, the human task force will
most certainly perform with more efficiency and in this manner, work
productivity will improve.
That which has been created clearly prevents work from progressing as
it should. Students do not study; marketing has been made to deviate
from its main purpose which is selling quality goods. Instead they empty
the pockets of people by showing a beautiful woman who is selling
something. Men go to buy, not caring what the product is, to enable them
to talk to her. Will this cause society to deviate?
Thus, from the point of view of work and social activity, the
improvement of society dictates that it should not be the place for the
stimulation or fulfillment of sexual urges and the Islamic modest dress
serves just this purpose.
[^1]: Sunnan I Abi Dawud. Al Haid, p.102
[^2]: Sunan I al Daremi, Moqaddamah, p.32