The
Verse
of
Covering
Here's a question,
How come so much is said about the way that women dress,
compared to all the other things there are to talk about in Islam,
especially when so little is said about it in the Qur'an
compared to everything else?
Well, the Qur'an is our first port of call when we need guidance,
so let's see what started things.
What was the situation that existed at the time
when the verses concerning believing women covering themselves descended?
What did people wear?
Well, specifically the women and girls,
as that's who we are talking about covering.
No one seems to care too much about the men.
We know women wore very different clothing,
depending on how wealthy they were,
and we know that with the heat and poverty
there would have been a lot of nakedness,
with slaves wearing little more than chains.
And clearly
at least one muslim woman
didn't feel out of place
walking in the streets bare-breasted,
did she?
For was it not her breasts that attracted the attention
and then harassment
of those local loudmouths,
which Ibn Sa'd offers as the cause of the revelation of the relevant verse of the Qur'an?
And as I understand it, because she was bare-breasted
she was mistaken for a slave and received some harassment.
Now at the time,
it seems some slaves were being put out for prostitution on the streets,
so you can understand that the streets
might not be the best place to be mistaken for a slave,
can't you?
So covering the breasts might not be such a bad idea
in the circumstances.
But cover them with what?
Well, what were they wearing at the time?
Do you think being naked would feel like freedom
in the baking heat of the Makkan sun?
Do you not think that if you could afford a bit of cloth
you would probably have been grateful to cover yourself?
In Makkah a free woman might wear a simple shift
to cover the absolute basics,
with an open front that exposed the breasts,
and perhaps a 'Jalbab',
a sewn garment which would fall from her shoulders like a cape.
The Jalbab was also a sign that
a woman was under the protection of her family or clan,
and at this time,
when believing women could be disowned
from the protection of their clan,
the words of the Qur'an told women
to wrap their jalbab around them
to cover their breasts
and distinguish themselves from the tribal clans in this way,
showing themselves to be part of the community of muslims.
So with this act
a woman could claim the protection of the family of muslims,
and carry that strength out into the wider community,
using her muslim identity as a shield
against harassment by non-believers.
And when Umar chided Sawdah for leaving the house,
and the verse concerning the jalbab was revealed,
it was made clear that she was allowed to go out,
otherwise what would be the point of the protection of the covering?
So here's a question,
what if the covering draws abuse
rather than affording protection?
Do the original guidelines still hold?
And what if you couldn't afford a jalbab?
perhaps you were a believing slave
And what about the men?
Are they not involved in this?
Well,
the section of the Qur'an that deals with
using fabric other than a jalbab
also deals with believing men.
It is in the Surah named Light,
and begins by addressing men and women
in exactly the same way,
telling both to 'lower their gaze',
putting the responsibility for modest behaviour
on the one who looks,
not the one who is looked at.
And both are told to guard their private parts.
But then the Qur'an continues to address the women
saying that they should not display their 'zinat',
their adornment,
but with very little precision of definition,
and even then immediately easing that suggestion,
leaving them to decide what would be acceptable appearance.
After which God again tells the Messenger
to tell the believing women to cover their breasts,
but this time talking not of the jalbab,
but the khumur.
The khimar was a piece of fabric,
certainly in many cases little more than a rag,
that could be used as a kind of shawl,
and in the heat of the sun women would wear their khumur
over their heads and hanging down over their backs.
Now, by drawing their khumur over their breasts,
these women also shared the communal protection
against harassment from non-believers.
Isn't there a report from Aisha
that when the verse of the khumur was revealed,
women with no more than the cloth draped around their waist,
were tearing pieces off the length
to use as khumur wrapped around their breasts,
eager to show they were equal members of this new ummah,
sharing its protection?
But then again, there is no suggestion that muslim women were compelled to dress this way,
and the Qur'an said that the khumur was to cover the breasts,
with no mention being made of hair, or face,
or arms or legs,
and we know that women prayed behind the Messenger
in the mosque at Madinah with their heads uncovered.
That's in Lisan Al-Arab isn't it?
Someone will have to look it up.
So how come this approach to women's clothing could transform so much?
More than 250 years after Muhammad,
didn't al-Tabari hold that both women and men
could show parts of the body that were not pudendal?
And yet in less than 400 years
al-Baydawi required women to cover all but face and hands?
All that for the protection of the sensibilities of their muslim brothers?
And in another 400 years we find al-Khafifi
ruling that no part of a woman
should be visible outside the walls of her home,
no face, hands or feet?
Which didn't leave far to go over the next 400 years.
But here we are 400 years later, and according to the Islamic Centre of Edinburgh
“For proper veiling it is not enough to wear a scarf, face veil, headcover or an outer garment.”
What then?
Can it really now be true what they say about veiling,
that for proper veiling
“The outer garment should be long, loose and opaque.
... It should hide the whole body of the woman
starting from her head,
hair, face, hands and bosom
down to the toe of her feet.”?
When did that happen?
And who said?
At what time did it happen
that a dress code by which muslim women
claimed the protection of their muslim brothers
against the molestations of the jahiliyya non-muslim men,
transform into muslim women being asked to treat all men
including their muslim brothers
as rapacious beasts with no self-control
and no responsibility for their actions
if shown even a glimpse of any part of any woman?
Especially when the Qur'an immediately follows the mention of covering the breasts with the khumur
with a list of exceptions
that not only includes husbands,
fathers, fathers-in-law, sons, step-sons, and nephews,
as well as other women and children,
but also male slaves and servants.
This still shows very little concern for a considerable amount of nakedness,
doesn't it?
Nowadays, what would seem to be extraordinary about the relevant Qur'anic verses
is how little clothing was needed to fulfill their requirements.
Would you find any women walking bare-breasted on the streets of any major city in the world today?
In most places they would be arrested
wouldn't they?
And do many women view that as an unwelcome restriction?
So clearly it's not just the amount of clothing, but the attitude with which it is worn,
which would also relate to the instructions not to stamp their feet
and ring the bells round their ankles
to let people know just what adornments they had hidden.
Then as now, I'm sure that
a girl with not a lot of clothing
could show off a few suggestive moves
to the rhythm of the bells on her ankles.
I guess that means
we'll have to work out how we think about that kind of issue today.
How much is the clothing and how much the come on?
How do we deal with the expression of each?
And if we look to the principles behind the words
that were relevant to the occasion,
do we not also discover the principles
that lie at the heart of behaviour for the male?
Because in matters of principle,
the Deen of course, applies to all.
Which is where the verse in the Light Surah closes,
with us all,
by returning to the body of believers, men and women,
instructing them to turn towards God
for success all together.
No talk of male or female,
just 'turn to God together'.
In the Qur'an, God speaks to all humankind,
and all the words are there for all.
said to the Angels
"I am putting on earth
someone to take care of it
for Me"
they said
"Will You put someone there
who will spread sickness
and spill blood
while we sing Your praise
and call You Holy?"
Hu said
"I surely know
what you know not"
I have sent down
which proves true
what is with you
and do not be
the first
to disbelieve it
and do not sell My Signs
for a low price
and be Mindful of Me
when no soul will stand
in the place of another
for anything
and begging forgiveness
for another
will not be accepted
no ransom will be taken
nor will they be helped
with the Tribe of Israel
"You shall not serve
anyone except God
and to be good to parents
and family
and to orphans
and the poor and needy
and speak good to people
and make the Sala
and pay the Zaka"
then you turned away
swerving aside
all but a few of you
sent down
Signs to you
Clear Signs
and none are
ungrateful
for them
except the wicked
the East and the West
wherever you turn
there is
the Face of God
God is Everywhere
All-knowing
We have given the Book
and who read it
in the way
it should be read
they believe in it
and whoever is
ungrateful for it
they will be
the losers
"We believe in God
and in what has been
sent down on us
and sent down on
Abraham and Ishmael
Isaac and Jacob
and the Tribes
and in
what was given
to Moses and Jesus
and the Messengers
of their Liege
we do not make
division
between them
and to God
we surrender"
is by God
and who could be
fairer
at colouring
than God?
Hu we are serving
who have passed away
waiting for them
is what they deserve
and waiting for you
is what you deserve
and you
will not be asked
about the things
they did
looking up into heaven
turning your face
this way and that
We will surely turn you
to a direction
that will please you
turn your face towards
the Holy Mosque
and wherever you are
turn your faces
towards it
those who have been
given the Book
know it is the truth
from their Liege
God does not ignore
the things they do