Wearing the Veil in Islam - Essay Example

I believe that the core and kernel of Islam is the search for beauty - the search for Gods inexhaustible beauty and the beauty of Gods creation." - Abou El Fadl (xix)1 Introduction Though long associated with Islam, the precise origin, function, and legitimacy of the veil has generated a substantial amount of debate. On the one hand, there are those that argue that the veil is the sixth pillar of Islam and should therefore be treated as a religious feature of vital importance. These people believe that the veil derives from the Qu’ran and that it is a mandatory religious obligation. The evidence for this proposition, however, is scarce and perhaps non-existent. The evidence is at best scarce, both in terms of Islamic theology and, surprisingly, in terms of the views of modern Islamic women, because none of the available textual sources can pinpoint a reference to the veil worn by women as deriving from Islam. In place of specific textual references, there are a number of analogies and vague definitions that obfuscate rather than clarify the issue. Indeed, a leading proponent of women wearing the veil, Abu Al Ala al-Mawdudi, an Indian Muslim "whose writings have since inspired conservatives and fundamentalists all over the Islamic world"2 has admitted this lack of primary evidence by arguing instead that "though the veil has not been specified in the Quran, it is Quranic in spirit."3 In short, even a strict fundamentalist is compelled to admit that the veil is not a theological imperative and therefore not an explicit sixth pillar of Islam. His resort to the “spirit” of the Qur’an is both disingenuous and flimsy. The spirit is to general to answer questions definitively and can be used as an intellectual crutch to declare anything that one desires to be in the spirit of the Qu’ran. Who is to decide? More interestingly, if the truest core and kernel for Islam is “the search for Gods inexhaustible beauty and the beauty of Gods creation”4 then a veil which cloaks the beauty of God’s creation, in this case a woman, seems wholly contradictory. Modesty does not necessitate a veil, not if God’s greatest gift was the search for beauty. The veil would appear to hinder rather than aid the search. Is the spirit of the Qu’ran beauty or ugliness? The fundamentalists, whom do not struggle with the veil issue, might very well struggle with this issue. Their spirit arguments cloak deeper ambitions and personal desires rather than the essence of Islam. Significantly, even those that choose to wear the veil in modern times tend to resort to reasons that do not imply the veil as the sixth pillar of Islam. For instance, a Saudi educated woman, who has an MA in social sciences in London, has explained why she chooses of her own accord to wear a veil, stating rather matter-of-factly that, "It is because I lived in the West and I saw all the corruption and immorality in their, as they call it liberated society of illicit sex and drug abuse, that now I am more convinced of our local traditions and I am sticking to them. I want to preserve my Arab-Islamic identity, and for me, this is a way to show it.” 5 Her reliance on personal choice and symbolism is informative. An educated woman, living in London, does not feel compelled to wear the veil; more specifically, she does not understand the veil to be mandated by Islam itself. Significantly, this point of view is not limited to educated women in Islamic society. "For a 34 year old uneducated woman, wearing a veil is just a result of growing up with it and getting used to it. As she expressed it: I dont wear the veil. I was born in it, and I grew up with it."6 What is striking is the uniformity of opinion that evolves from a discussion of the veil with both educated and uneducated women in Islamic societies. The veil is not really viewed as a pillar of Islam nor as a theological directive; quite the contrary, a careful reading of the opinions of these women suggest that the veil is more a symbol of their culture and way of life and to that end a personal choice. They choose to reveal their beauty or to demonstrate it through the symbolic fashion device of the veil. In either event, Islamic women are behaving in a manner consistent with Islam. On the other hand, there are those that advocate a more stringent interpretation. These types of arguments treat the veil as an essential feature of Islam and a precondition for women to be truly Islamic. For example, Abou El Fadls wife told him about an incident involving a women who had "been wanting to take the Shahadah for a year now but the people in the mosque tell her she must first wear the hijab!"7 This line of reasoning is hardly unique; to be sure, fundamentalists and many others in the Islamic world treat the veil as part of the Islamic woman. The veil and the woman, in this sense, cannot be severed. A woman without a veil is not truly Islamic, she is not allowed to participate in Islamic traditions, and her opinions are irrelevant. It is here, where assertions that the veil is a pillar of Islam, that the evidence does not match the alleged rationale. Dress, in the case the veil, is treated as a magical keys that protects them from sexual predators, which grants them access to community and ceremonial affairs, and which grants them a cloaked access to the outside world. This essay will argue that the search for beauty is the essential characteristic of Islam and that assertions that the veil is a pillar of Islam are simply incorrect. To this end, this essay will discuss the origins of the veil concept, the Islamic notions of female modesty and man’s lack of sexual control, and the neo-modernist trend regarding the veil and Islamic scholarship. God’s greatest allowance, granting us the search for beauty, is hindered by fundamentalist notions that the “spirit” of the Qu’ran mandates the wearing of a veil in order for a woman to be truly Islamic. The Qu’ran is about hope and beauty, not as the naysayers preach about fear and ugliness. The Veil: Origins and Mistaken Interpretations As a preliminary matter, the veil in this essay (also known as the hijab per Arabic) refers to the head veil. The head veil cannot be identified as originating from the Qu’ran; indeed, the available evidence suggests rather strongly that the origins of the veil are more social, symbolic and historical than religious. One of the difficulties derives from translation efforts as “Islamic hijab is often translated as "veil", which can be misleading since they constitute different meanings and behavioral standards and have distinct social implications."8 It must be conceded, as some Islamic traditionalists do, that the precise meaning of the word is itself unclear. Thus, even at the basest level of linguistic analysis, there is no clear and convincing evidence that a hijab refers exclusively to a head veil to be worn by a woman. Initial confusion may be caused by the translation difficulties, but a closer examination of history suggests this should not be a problem. This is because this linguistic confusion is buttressed by other evidence that indicates that the veil pre-dates the Qu’ran and the Qu’ran says nothing about women being veiled about the face. Some of this evidence is historical, suggesting that the practice or wearing a head veil did not even originate with Arabs or through Islamic theology. Indeed, it has been pointed out that “The practices of veiling and seclusion were adopted by the Arabs from previous civilizations mainly by the upper classes as a sign of status and prestige"9 The implications of such evidence are profound. First, and most significantly, it links the social practices of veiling and seclusion for purposes of modesty to pre-Islamic civilizations. Veiling was neither new nor innovative. Second, the origins of the practices of veiling and seclusion were social in nature rather than religious. The upper classes adopted the practices, handed down from previous civilizations, and they were done to symbolize social status and prestige. This suggests a practice akin to British royalty wearing crowns, American judges wearing black robes, or Native Americans wearing bird feathers in their headbands. Finally, the practice of veiling and seclusion was already well-entrenched, at least in the upper classes, by the time Arab peoples began to adopt and record the tenets of Islam. In short, veiling preceded Islam, reflected social status and prestige, and was a social option rather than a theological mandate. The veil did not spring mysteriously from the pages of the Qu’ran; it was already a well-established feature of many Arabic tribes and peoples. Consistent with this historical evidence, many modern Islamic women view the wearing of a veil today as a continuation of their ancestors’ cultural and historical traditions rather than a theological mandate, “While some women argue that Islam is the reason for wearing a veil, others insist that it is more a question of values and traditions."10 The debate in Saudi Arabia is interesting because those women whom argue that Islam mandates the wearing of a veil cannot dismiss the historical facts that the veil pre-dated Islam and that it arose as a cultural feature of the Arab upper classes. Further, they can pinpoint no textual evidence in the Qu’ran to distinguish the hijab from the prior veiling of their ancestors. There is divided opinion among women in Saudi Arabia, but many women recognize the veil as a cultural product rather than a theological necessity. Given the fact that Saudi Arabia is a rather extremist Islamic country, the fact that many women understand the historical realities is positive. When pressed for a precise reference to the Qu’ran, even hard-core Islamic fundamentalists are hard-pressed to provide a persuasive answer. Whereas the conservative women in Saudi Arabia ignored the historical evidence, those in other Arab countries have sought instead to link the head veil to the Qu’ran through rather vague and attenuated references. For instance, in Egypt, illustrating a common approach, “On the basis of Sura 24:31, Egyptian conservatism, for instance, reckons that this hijab must cover the womens head, throat, and upper part of the chest; on the basis of the Quranic reference to hidden anklets in Sura 24:31, it must also be long and loose-fitting gown that reaches to the heels; as established by Prophetic tradition, only hands and face should remain visible." Sharawi (conservative preacher) however when asked about "the shape and "doing -up" of the head cover.. leaves that to the individual wearer, because he says, "you women know more about this than we men do.""11 Even this textual reference is wrought with confusion, and interestingly enough, a certain amount of discretion. The vagueness and the discretion suggest rather strongly that even this brand of Egyptian conservatism acknowledges the fact that they are, in effect, making things up as they proceed. First, the references to the hijab are to the head, the throat, and the upper part of the chest. These requirements could be met with a baseball cap, a scarf, and a bra. To jump from these barest of all references to a complete veiling of a woman’s face is both inaccurate and an alteration of the textual information relied upon. Second, the reference to “hidden anklets” again does not address the practice commonly known as veiling A covering of the anklets does not include the face any more than a covering of the thumbs includes a covering of knees. Third, there is a Prophetic tradition that is acknowledged, the practice of maintaining the visibility of the hands and the face. This is consistent with the thesis of this essay, that the essence of Islam is the search for and the revelation of beauty rather than its veiling. Finally, the conservative preacher, Sha’rawi, delegates complete discretion in terms of the “head cover.” He makes this delegation, he grants this discretion, because women know far more about the making of beautiful things than men. Implicit in this discretion is an acknowledgement that there is no theological design and that beauty and comfort ought to be the controlling considerations in terms of the head cover’s design. What evolves, after a careful reading, is a portrait of the veil as an evolutionary feature of Arabic culture rather than a theological mandate. From an historical point of view, it is clear that the veiling of women was practiced by pre-Islamic societies. This veiling was a prerogative of upper class women, no doubt a symbol of their hidden beauty, and was already institutionalized to some extent in Arabic communities when Islam arose. In Egypt, a head covering was referred to rather than a complete veiling; more, the face and the hands were to remain visible. An examination of sources dealing with other Arabian tribes reveals similar views and approaches, “Al-Rimehi, almana, and Algadi (Arabian tribes) all indicate that Hijab is a product of social life rather than of the teaching of Islam."12 A piecing together of the historical evidence, derived from different Arabic tribes, results in a rather consistent portrait of the origins of the veil. This piecing together of the evidence dismisses the notion that the veil originates from the Qu’ran, that it is somehow a sixth pillar of Islam, or that it was ever intended, in fact, to cover the face of all Islamic women. Beauty was valued, if not by many today, then most certainly by the pre-Islamic ancestors of the Arabs. Nothing in the Qu’ran sought to alter that quest for beauty. In addition to the historical and textual information, the acceleration of political, social, and economic development in modern countries has further sharpened the debate regarding the complete veiling of women in Islamic cultures. Indeed, it has been observed that, “While the linkage of women and culture continues as a dominating theme in Muslim religious theory, socioeconomic changes have now also left their mark on the precise "meaning" of the hijab in its practical, although not in its symbolic, terms."13 This commentary regarding Muslim religious theory suggests that there have been affirmative attempts to link women more directly to the religion. One can therefore begin to hypothesize how the notion of facial veiling has developed over time. Conservatives have moved from upper-class veiling in pre-Islamic times, to head coverings, to a more extreme interpretation that seeks to force women to behave in certain ways. Women have no choice because they are subservient to the Qu’ran; that, as stated hereinabove, the Qu’ran cannot be cited as an authoritative source for this veiling seems to escape the conservatives. As countries develop economically, there are corresponding social effects. If a country like Saudi Arabia clings to the indefensible notion of compulsory veiling for women, then there are other Islamic countries which take a more moderate and reasoned view of the issue. “In the contemporary normative Islamic language of Egypt and elsewhere, the hijab now denotes more a "way of dressing" than a "way of life", a (portable) "veil" rather than a fixed "domestic screen/seclusion."14 (which was the old meaning of Hijab). Socioeconomic change is compelling a more honest form of debate. Educated people, in different Islamic countries, are free to pursue their own research rather than relying on the absolute proclamations of alleged experts who often neglect Arab history, whom engage in disingenuous interpretations in order to pursue a particular agenda, whom believe that Arabic history begins and ends with the Qu’ran, and whom insert words into the Qu’ran which do not exist. Further socioeconomic change bodes well for this debate because the true origins of the veil, the allowance for the presentation of feminine beauty, and the discretion once granted to Islamic women to make things beautiful may once again begin to hold sway in Islamic culture and across the Islamic world. Indeed, it has been stated thusly, “What would the devil say about the women wrapped in black, placed behind curtains, and then ordered not to speak?"15 Irony is also illuminating, and good Muslims might very well ask the same question. The conservatives, however, have not admitted defeat. As this section has demonstrated, the origins of the veil and its historical functions combined with a lack of any theological evidence to the contrary preclude the notion that veiling of women is the sixth pillar of Islam. The historical evidence suggests instead that beauty is to be valued, that women have traditionally been the keepers of beauty, and that veiling ought not to be compulsory. Given this historical evidence, the conservatives have fallen back on notions of modesty and man’s innate lack of sexual control; these issues must be addressed if one is to completely undercut the argument that the veil is a sixth pillar of Islam. Female Modesty and Man’s Lack of Sexual Control It has been demonstrated that there is no historical or theological evidence for the proposition that the veil is the sixth pillar of Islam; some commentators have stated this rather explicitly, “Hijab does not involve a pillar of Islam or a hadd crime."16 An alternative approach, used by many conservatives desiring to incorporate the veil into Islam, concerns the concept of modesty. Because the language concerning the hijab is unclear, because there is no explicit reference to the covering of the female face, attempts have instead been made to link the veil with modesty concept. Surprisingly, many Muslim women have succumbed to this line of reasoning and accept without critical thought or research the argument that modesty is required by the Qu’ran, that modesty means wearing a veil, and that once again the veil becomes a theological directive rather than an historical artifact or a cultural symbol. For example, "A Jewish student asked the Muslim sisters why they wear the hijab, and they said for modesty. Because men are weak, women were commanded to cover. What an ugly vision this is - a vision in which men salivate to uncover, and women cower to cover. Yet, this same evening a Jewish student insisted that all women who wear the hijab are extremists. What a repulsive logic this is - a logic which condemns people for practicing their conviction."17 The Qu’ran does not describe Muslim men as sexual predators, it does not describe Muslim women as cowering maidens fretting for their chastity in darkened corners, and it most certainly does not envision a religious community in which its adherents are unable to control themselves. The Muslim woman, according to this logic, is damned if she does wear the veil and damned if she does not. If she does, she admits that she is nothing more than a sexual object hiding from the ravenous sexual appetites of Muslim men or that she is a religious extremist ignorant of history. If she does not, she will be raped and sexually assaulted. There is no beauty in this. It is a savage vision, devoid of respect for either men or women, and it smacks of desperation by fundamentalists. Nonetheless, modesty has, in fact, become the theological justification for the veil. Strangely enough, “No verse has ever specified what a modest look is."18 Instead, modesty is defined in terms of a temptation to Islamic men and a threat to Islamic women. No longer is the veil explicitly required by the Qu’ran; it is required by a vague reference to modesty which is also not defined theologically. Like the “spirit” of the Qu’ran theologists from India,19these arguments conceive of an Islamic tension between men and women that is unnecessary except to control women; worse, by asserting this state of sexual tension and potential violence, conservative males may find a theological sense of legitimacy in desiring women and at the same time compelling them to cower. This harms not only social relations, but institutionalizes a type of sexual violence. Such an interpretation, that modesty compels a hiding of women’s beauty from men, contradicts the notion that an essential tenet of Islam is God’s beauty and the search for beauty. Violence is not beautiful. Raw lust is not beautiful. Modesty, in this, has been transformed from a sense of social decorum into a fearful state of impending rape or sexual assault. Again, there is no verse in the Qu’ran specifying the meaning of modesty. It is simply the latest illusory buzzword for the veiling and the submission of Islamic women. The danger is that legitimizing the veil is simply a first step towards more drastic measures. Indeed, "Today the meaning of Tabarrij includes everything from uncovered hair to the elaborate salon-type coiffure, the hairpiece, and the wig; facial foundation, powder and blushers; lid color and mascara for the eyes; manicure and enamel for the nails; "revealing" dress of any sort, but also including all Western clothing in generic terms, especially if it is of the couture kind or has intentions of being fashionable in the Western sense."20 A false premise, that the veil is a pillar of Islam, is subsequently employed to ban a great many other things not addressed by the Qu’ran. What is next? Shall Islamic women have their faces disfigured if they are too beautiful? Shall their breasts be cut off or they be subjected to female castration? The sarcasm might be almost comical if Islamic conservatives were not so convinced of this false reading of the Qu’ran; thus, the notion of modesty is neither benign nor harmless. It is a very real threat to women specifically and to the search for beauty more generally. The potential implications are simply frightening. Beauty becomes irrelevant, a temptation, and must be avoided at all costs. Islamic women themselves seem able to reconcile different preferences without becoming engaged in heated social or theological debate. "It is interesting to note that many Muslim women, both veiled and unveiled, work together in several organizations respectful of each others personal choices: this development is important because it is a step toward acceptance of the opinions of the other and the promotion of a much needed internal dialogue."21 This reality, that Islamic women with different preferences can work together, harkens back to the pre-Islamic days when different tribes adopted the veil in different manners. For some it was a head covering, for others a fashion accessory, and for others a symbol of social status and prestige. Women, despite contrary opinions, seem able to handle issues of personal choice better than men. The notion of an unrestrained sexual desire by Muslim men has been mocked by some scholars; for instance, “Women can see men without getting excited but men cant see women without wanting to have sex with them, Muhammad would explain to his dim-witted Westernised wife when she argued that she would wear the hijab if men also wore it. ‘I could also have told him that there is such a thing as self-control and discipline, that morality is not avoiding temptation but being able to resist it.’"22 The distinction is important. The veiling proponents seem to be stating that temptation cannot be resisted, so they must therefore be avoided. If expounded upon, this type of argument proves itself to be ridiculous. Should corruption in the pursuit of wealth be avoided? The answer is yes. Should money therefore be avoided? Should products, such as oil, remain buried deep beneath the deserts in order to avoid a savage proclivity among men for wealth and power? Islamic men, like men the world over, have the ability to identify temptations and to resist them. Muhammad would have done well to listen to his dim-witted Westernized wife. Perhaps she knew something he did not. There is a school of Islamic thought that is trying to place the study of Islam in a more objective context, “Neo-modernists are more concerned with the essence than the form of Islamic teachings. For instance, they are more interested in whether Muslim women lead ethical, productive lives than in whether or not they wear the headscarf (hijab).”23 The goal is to deal with issues objectively and to reject dishonest or mistaken interpretations of the Qu’ran. Women are to be treated as human beings deserving of respect and dignity. The Qu’ran is still respected, but studied more honestly and more separately from issues of politics or economics. The neo-modernists view the Qu’ran as beauty; in contrast to the aforementioned fundamentalists, they do not see the Qu’ran as a description of weak human beings unable to resist temptation or as a description of the savage nature of men. These are laudable attempts to rejuvenate a great religious tradition unfairly maligned by those who have sought, and who continue to seek, to use the Qu’ran to advance their own political, social, and economic objectives. Conclusions In the final analysis, the veil derives from pre-Islamic civilizations and has long been treated a social symbol and a matter of personal choice. The Qu’ran itself speaks nothing to contradict these historical realities. It neither mentions the complete veiling nor specifies complete veiling as a precondition of modesty. Instead, the Qu’ran and the history of the region focus on beauty and honor and discipline. People can resist temptation, they can search for beauty even in the faces of Muslim women, and God doesn’t view all males as sexual savages. The real and genuine core of Islam, one forgotten by many fundamentalists, is the search for beauty. The hiding of beauty, as the veil does superficially, contradicts everything for which Islam and the Qu’ran stand. Read More