Can Modesty and Exhibition coexist? Thoughts on the first Hijabi supermodel

"And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze, guard their chastity( ft.1) and not to make a display of their attractiveness (ft.2) except what is obvious (ft.3), that they should drape their coverings (Khumurihinna) over their chests, and not to display their attractiveness except to their husbands....they should not strike their feet to draw attention to their hidden attractiveness. Turn towards God, all of you, O you who have faith, so that perhaps you will be successful." [Q 24:31]

A story on euronews I saw last week, and picked up by a number of news outlets, concerns Halima Aden. A young Somali-American, she has become famous for being on the runway of New York's Fashion show. Her story has received much attention, considering that she was born in a Kenyan refugee camp, and now is seemingly making a successful life in this field. A practicing Muslim, she wears Hijab [see here] , which obviously brings attention to the subject of modesty or Islamic dress in a field that thrives on sex appeal.

These discussions are not new. We have had both Hijabi and Non Hijabi Muslim women participating in the Olympics, and of course last year Hijab clad Noor Tagouri ( a journalist) appeared in Playboy [see here ]. While many on the Muslim community have treated this trend with approval, because they view these as examples of Muslims being accepted as a part and parcel of the American mainstream, other voices have expressed caution, as to the possible erosion of Islamic ethics.

What does the Qur'an say?

The Quranic verse which opens this article is one of three verses which are normally cited with regards to dress. We have opted for this verse, which comes from the twenty-forth chapter (called "The Light") because it appears within a context of broader social expectations. The chapter speaks on adultery and its legal [Shar'i] punishment ( vv. 2-9) (see ft.4), slander ( vv. 10-20), whom to marry ( in particular verse 26) , avoiding invading the privacy and personal business of others ( vv.27-29) 
  and that both sexes are to avoid objectifying each other  (vv.29-30). In other words, the so called Ayatul Hijaab here is given within a set of guidelines that are met to govern human interactions.

In 24:30 it says that men are supposed to guard their chastity(ft.5) because "That is the purest for them". In other words, it is best for men to avoid the temptations out there because it brings them into more problems.

We do have other texts within the Qur'an which speak of a dress code. Q 33:59 tells us that Muslim women are to wear coverings which would not bring forth undue and unwanted advances and that they be "known" as women of respect and "off-limits" in terms of harassment. The context there is interesting, in that speaks of "hypocrites and those who have diseased hearts" (33:60). I think that this informs us that while many men would not be bothered at all, regardless of how a woman is dressed [and such seems to be a healthy mentality], others would indeed be inspired to improper behavior and perhaps even worse! Therefore, the Quranic guidelines is that women should not even risk it!


Islamic values should influence the culture, not vice versa

Men and women both make judgements all the time, in terms of who and what they see as attractive. That would happen regardless of how much clothes is being worn, if a woman wears a scarf or not, or even if a woman wears a face-veil (Niqaab) (ft.6).

The Islamic position is that sex appeal should NOT be used to sell products or ideas. The Islamic position is that such an appeal, particularly for women, should be restricted, not as an item for oppression, but rather as a way to maintain public respect and decorum.

This does not require men to be awkward around women or women to be awkward around men. That does happen as well, and is a problem. Every culture has certain norms and expectations, and while we should be able to navigate all of them in such a way that we cause offense to no one, at the same time we should  avoid contradicting Islamic values of modesty and proper behavior.

I believe that Muslim women have rights just as men have rights, however for women in particular, be they Muslim or Non Muslim, they should not allow themselves to become little more than display models, products to be sold and objectified.

Hijab is meant to prevent that very thing, if we take the time to read the aforementioned Quranic texts.  Even within American culture, a Catholic nun [who, until relatively recently, used to wear a uniform that was similar to Muslim clothing, symbolizing modesty] may be attractive, and her attractiveness was evident, but was viewed and treated in public with respect.

So just as the dress of Catholic nuns denoted a loyalty to God and the church, as an example for the rest of society to consider, the Hijab should likewise be seen in the same light, and not be co-opted into a capitalist economy which considers everything for sale. Islam should inspire the best impulses in human beings, and a healthy questioning of the thinking modern life seems to preach is a good place to start.

I hope these few words generate thought and discussion. I would also like to point out that none of this should be seen as an attack on Halima Aden or anyone else, nor a questioning of anyone's loyalty to Islamic ethos. Indeed, in any field, identifying as a Muslim is an act of courage. We are simply seeking to impart that we need to think about this subject, as well as other topics that come up in the modern world.

Footnotes

[1] Furujahunna literally means their private areas. It is an expression oft used in the Qur'an to denote sex. In keeping with other translators, we have rendered it here as "chastity".

[2] The word rendered here as "attractiveness" is Zeenah (Zeenatahunna). There is some disagreement as to what exactly this entails, however I think that this would be recognizable to any adult, regardless of backround or cultural experience. There are clothing, speech and behavior that occurs within the familiar and the close circle that would not be deemed acceptable with those outside of that. It is sometimes imagined that Zeenah here refers to, in essence, attractive clothing, makeup, etc.. that should be only worn for the benefit of marriage relationship, yet the verse goes on to say that such Zeenah cannot be displayed except for husbands and  fathers, and so forth. It is well known that Islam restricts the intimate ties [and forbids incest and the like] so the verse cannot be simply speaking about, for example, lingerie. In light of these realities, we explain the verse as given in this note, that there is simply a limitation being made on the levels of openness to be made with those outside of a certain circle. Perhaps we can use more examples, such as how any person dresses in their home in the presence of their family, they will dress differently in the presence of strangers or non family members.

[3] Illa Maa Dhahara Minhaa, rendered as "except what is obvious" is another phrase that whose understanding varies among the commentators. A man or woman may be judged as handsome or non handsome, a woman attractive or non attractive, by any observer they encounter. Some believe the term Khimaar (The plural Khumur is given in the verse) includes covering of the eyes, in fact, one Tafseer states that only one eye of a woman is allowed to be seen, however that does not coincide with the Qur'an. If The Qur'an [Q 24:30] commands women to cover their faces, the injunction to not objectify women [translated by Yusuf Ali as "say to the believing men that they should lower their gaze"] would be meaningless!

It is worth remembering that every culture has its norms. In places within the Persian Gulf, as well as within Afghanistan and Western Pakistan, it is the norm for women to cover their faces. While it is not our intention to pass judgements on this practice, the Qur'an obviously speaks of a society in which men and women are at least, in normal circumstances, able to see each other. This seems to be the normative situation in human societies.

In recent times we have witnessed a trend among Muslim activists to dismiss and downplay Hijab. The argue that the word Hijab is never used in the Qur'an for a head covering. While this is true, the Qur'an 24:30 uses the term Khumur (Singular Khimaar as explained above) and this is what is today commonly called Hijab. The Khimaar is understood to have to cover not only the hair, but also the neck, ears, and the verse places emphasis on covering up the chest.

Any other clothing item[s] that have the same function as explained above is Islamically acceptable. shirts, head scarves, bonnets and hats, etc... and indeed throughout the Muslim world we see that clothing style varies, especially among women.


[4] The Qur'an prescribes lashes as a penalty for Zinaa [Adultery]. However, it also requires four witnesses ( Q 24:14) to the act, and the scholars have stated that they must witness actual penetration. This is an almost impossible requirement, a criterion unneeded in any other legal situation. Moreover, in Islam there are prohibitions against getting into the private lives of others (Q 49:12, as well as the Prophet's statement "from among the pleasant Islamic [decrees] is to leave alone that which has no meaning to him", in Tirmidhee's collection]. So the punishment is to be given only in instances where public health and morality are under threat. It is also interesting that historically the Hanafi Fuqahaa seemed to have treated Zinaa and Nikaah [marriage] as the same, so that practically the prohibitions of marriage [for example, not being allowed to marry one's mother in law] also applies to Non marriage relationships. It is said that Imam Abu Hanifa felt that those who did have relation outside of marriage should simply get married. The treatment of Zinaa and Nikaah as being equal is not agreed upon by the scholars. Great luminaries such as Imam Shafi'ee and Imam Malik are examples of those who totally rejected the Hanafite viewpoint.

[5] The term Furuuujahum appears here, as referring to males (contrasting to females as explained in footnote 1). This shows us that contrary to popular opinion, chastity is a requirement for both genders!

[6] Niqaab, as well as it's variants worldwide, is something not commanded by the Qur'an. Our reasoning is articulated in footnote 3. This does not mean that we see the Niqaab as being prohibited. Ultimately people can wear whatever they want, as dictated by personal taste and cultural styles. There is a level of common sense in all of this as well. Ski masks are not allowed in banks, and universally passport pictures require that the face be shown, yet, in places in the Middle East and West Africa, it is necessary to cover the face to protect it from sunburn.

Issues of the day

These days it is very common to see aspects of "Islamic law" [Sharee'ah] brought up in media outlets and discussions with anti-Muslim elements [indeed, even among some Muslims on occasion], as a way to embarrass or ridicule the overall message of Islam itself, while at the same time maintain the "superiority" of the "Western' way of doing things.

Islam as religious practice and as a Political ideology are both seen as inherently inflexible, unable to function in modern society.Our intransigence has made us hateful, we are told, of the physical accomplishments of the Non-Muslim world, and manifests itself in "our" women wearing various "Islamic clothing" [everything from the Khimaar to the Niqaab], by 'fanatically' clinging onto five daily prayers, by having 'distinctive' architecture [ take for example the minarets traditionally attached to the Mosques, now made illegal in Switzerland] and eventually this intransigence leads to violence against some innocent third parties.

It is our intention here to present in a condensed form some thoughts on these issues, as well as what we perceive to be the genesis of the above.

Islamic Law vs. "Western" law [democracy/secularism]

Obviously, "law" to a Muslim encompasses a great number of things. It can refer to the prayer format [i.e. Qur'an recitation, prostrations, etc...] to the prohibition of Alcohol and Pork, all the way to the penalties for murder.

We acknowledge that the "democratic" legal tradition can be argued to be lacking when compared to the Islamic law in some respects, after all, with the exception of Murder mentioned above, there are no laws in any Western nation regulating prayer methods and dietary practices yet we have to also admit that the Qur'an does not give direct rulings on every single legal issue. Certainly, it contains prohibitions and punishments regarding theft, murder, embezzlement, etc... and does give some punishments that would be deemed unacceptable in a multicultural, modern world as ours. Cutting the hand of the [perpetual] thief, execution of rapists, a physical penalty for Zinaa are some examples.

The message of the Qur'an, the practice and the spirituality that emanates from the Qur'an, should not be misinterpreted or summarized just in the presence of exemplary punishments. That would be over simplistic. Every legal tradition evolved in a unique set of circumstances, and the presence of exemplary [or 'harsh'] punishments in the legal texts [for Muslims, the ultimate source is the Qur'an itself] only shows that there has to be some remedy available for extreme circumstances. Indeed, this has been historically recognized, in that theft [for example] was only to be punished by cutting the hand when a certain amount was taken, all of which depending on the particular case itself. This is the Muslim scholars approach. Even in the early days, during the reign of the Khalifah 'Umar ibn Al-khattab [d. 644 C.E.], famine swept the Arabian peninsula, so he [the Khalifah] deemed it unjust to punish theft, especially of food items, knowing full well the citizenry was in dire straits. May God be pleased with him, one of the wisest and most fair rulers of all time. The point being the Islamic message need not be seen as "rigid" and inflexible.

Besides, any legal system imposes limitations on what is allowed and what is not. If there were no such limitations in place, the system would be meaningless. So why is it that only the Muslims or their religion is seen as 'rigid'?

Muslims and Islam are sometimes two different things

This author has a "Muslim look" [beard, olive skin complexion], and a while back I was asked by some random guy on the street "why do you kill your women?' He also asked me "why do you force your women to wear all black?" It is true the guy was looking for an argument, but even in such circumstances I tried to be reasonable. Some women wear black as part of their cultural expression, but such choices are not mandated by the Qur'an at all. There is nothing inherently Islamic or Un-Islamic by wearing black. It is a neutral issue, a moot point, as far as the Islamic texts are concerned. This is the answer I provided for the guy, and also for you, our noble reader.

To outsiders, and sometimes even among us, cultural or personal choices are mistaken for Islamic! This has always been the case, and will continue to be the case, as long as humans remain human. Fortunately, we have access to the Qur'an, and in the modern world even access to the canonical works of Hadeeth, Fiqh, etc.. [thanks to the internet, book companies, otherwise such works would only be available to the scholars and specialists], so we can find out rather easily what is authentic according to Islam and what is spurious.

It is commonly assumed that 'honor killings" is sanctioned by Islam. Now, while segments of both Muslim and Non-Muslim societies accept it [ one only need to look at Egyptian Christians who engage in the same], no where in the Qur'an or Hadeeth literature can there be found any justification.

Sexual relationships are a sensitive issue, and the Qur'an advocates that such can be engaged in only within certain confines. It also tells us a legal punishment for those who violate that restriction, but it is apparent that the punishment is only in some extreme circumstances. This is because [A] To even make the charge in an Islamic judicial system, a minimum of four witnesses are required. If such are unavailable [and unless the act is taking place in public, they are never available anyways] then the one who makes the charge will be deemed unreliable as a witness for any future cases, and is open to punishment themselves. Please see Qur'an 24:4 [Ft.1].

[B] The Qur'anic punishment is suppose to be for both parties [provided of course the requirements are met as mentioned above]. The wording of the verse is Az-Zaaniyatu waz Zaaniy 'The woman and the man who has done Zinaa..'[Q 24:2], yet it is often imagined [and indeed, when 'honor killings' take place] that the female alone is to be punished. Besides all of this, there is no death penalty given for this.

So, even when there is guilt, when no evidence is available, legally nothing can be done about it. This is God's wisdom, which allows all the parties/families involved to address the issue internally, one way or the other. There is no need for putting all the dirty laundry out there. This wisdom is applicable anywhere, any place and any time. Alhamdulillaah!

Applying Islamic laws in the West?

There is a great fear that the Muslims in the West are a third column, ready to march on capitals, cutting off heads, whipping and amputating. This fear led the Swiss voters to recently ban minarets on Mosques in their country, even though its purpose is only for architecture. Some posters distributed by the supporters of the law asserted that minarets are ''symbols of Islamic fascism". The specter of fear was waved so much that people actually thought the Muslims in Switzerland were ready to take over and impose Islamic laws, even though the Muslims there are a minority.


Well, despite their fears, Muslims are already conducting themselves on the basis of Islamic laws. Our Marriages, funerals, rituals, fasting, etc.. are all done according to Islam, not according to the whims of voters. But as for the laws mentioned earlier in this post, i.e. for theft, Zinaa, etc.. no Muslim in his or her right mind would dream of such a thing in a Western context, for many, many reasons. The least of those reasons is that even in the traditional sense, Non-Muslims were exempted from Islamic laws anyways. Moreover, there are reasons that Muslims living in the West participate in the legal system prevalent.[ft.2]


Concluding thoughts

There are many elements out there, seeking to publish their views and push their agendas. In a world with so much information readily available, it is important that all people remain informed, educated and well-rounded. Such a position can actually reduce tensions, hatred and violence. Mutual understanding and wisdom in dealing with things are needed more so than armies, intelligence agencies and law enforcement. As the Qur'an says "Do not let hatred of a people towards you swerve you away from justice" [ Q 5:8].


Footnotes

[1] It should be noted that the Quranic verse actually says "and those who throw[Yarmoona] [the public accusation of Zinaa] against Al-Muhsanaat.."[Q 24:4] the latter word means "the goodly women", translated as "The chaste women" by both A.Yusuf 'Ali and the Saheeh international translations, shows that the principle here is 'innocent until proved guilty'.

[2] Please see our "Voting for the first time" at http://shamsuddinwaheed.blogspot.com/2008/11/voting-for-first-time-muslims-thoughts.html. Also of interest is this discussion at the Islaminviewforum site, called "Islam and Corporal punishment" http://islaminviewforum.com/index.php?showtopic=1040. This discussion is still open, to contribute to it, become a member of the forum.