Rethinking Hijab and ‘Awra of Women: Embracing Flexibility and Contextual Realities and Rejecting Patriarchy and Traditionalism
By
Adis Duderija, New Age Islam
21 March
2024
While The Majority Of Classical Jurists Considered A Woman's Entire Body, Except For
The Hands And Face, As ‘Awra , Others Held Valid Minority Opinions That
Restricted It To Parts Below The Elbow Or Knee. Additionally, Slave Girls Were
Exempted From Certain Clothing Requirements, Such As Head Covering During
Prayer, Based On A Consensus.
------
For
references to this article in addition to hyperlinks in the main text
below please click here.
The
concepts of hijab
and ‘Awra
which pertain to
head covering and the parts of the body that should be concealed, have long
been subjects of intense debate in Islamic jurisprudence. It is crucial,
however, to recognize that the early rulings on these matters were heavily
influenced by the social and historical contexts in which they emerged. As
societies evolve, it is necessary to reconsider these rulings by carefully
examining original source texts and shedding light on overlooked elements. This
re-evaluation, firmly grounded in Islamic legal theory, can enable us to
identify aspects of the laws that require flexibility to adapt to different
circumstances across time and place.
One key
factor that underscores the need for reconsideration is the varying positions
of premodern Muslim jurists regarding the definition of ‘Awra for women. While the majority of classical
jurists considered a woman's entire
body, except for the hands and face, as ‘Awra , others held valid
minority opinions that restricted it to parts below the elbow or knee.
Additionally, slave girls were exempted from certain clothing requirements,
such as head covering during prayer, based on a consensus. These discrepancies
suggest that the concepts of ‘Awra
and modes of veiling were still evolving organically, shaped by the
specific contexts in which they were applied, rather than being rigidly defined
edicts.
Moreover,
several traditions also situate the revelation of veiling verses within a
specific sociocultural
framework, indicating that women faced harassment on their way to relieve
themselves at night. The solution provided was contextual, addressing a clear
harm rather than prescribing a universal standard of adornment. Furthermore,
reports describe women in Medina regularly wearing modest but partially
revealing attire, such as head covers thrown behind their shoulders, leaving
their chests exposed. This affirms the early fluidity in sartorial practices.
If strict veiling had been an absolute injunction, deviation would likely have
been met with censure rather than tacit acceptance.
Moreover,
the exemption of slave girls from veiling requirements, despite their regular
interactions with men, implies that functionality outweighed concerns of
modesty related solely to physical attraction. Their unique status as
contributing members of the economy necessitated active mobility, which
warranted leniencies in dress. If exceptions can be made based on necessity,
why not also consider situations in which the requirements of covering
negatively impact the welfare and rights of modern women? Analogical reasoning
and consideration of the public interest represent important aspects of Islamic
legal discretion.
Significantly,
early sources make no mention of the term ‘Awra in prayer rulings;
instead, they address appropriate types of clothing. This suggests that ‘Awra was a separate concept that was evolving
independently of the requirements for prayer attire, thereby warranting
detachment from direct implications on matters of faith. Furthermore, the early
scholarly disagreements regarding the validity of prayer without ‘Awra coverings indicate divergent understandings
of the centrality of ‘Awra to
acts of worship, affirming a certain level of flexibility.
When
revisiting traditions that involve praying in a state of nakedness or minimal
dress due to compelling circumstances, we find that the underlying principle is
the fulfilment of religious duties, unhindered by the absence of optional
coverings. While these allowances are exceptional, they exemplify the
prioritization of essence over circumstance and invite reconsideration when the
requirements of covering disproportionately impact rights or roles. The
endorsement of praying under exceptional uncovered conditions found in hadith
literature parallels matters of customary
flexibility found more generally in Islamic law.
Taken
together, these findings imply that concepts of modesty, adornment, and their
religious implications were shaped organically through interaction with dynamic
social practices, rather than being fixed and unchangeable. They indicate that
early efforts were focused on addressing identified vulnerabilities rather than
imposing rigid sartorial regulations. These concepts remained flexible enough
to accommodate divergent standards based on contextual considerations for
specific populations, such as military personnel or servant-girls in times of
need.
Importantly,
the issues of ‘Awrah and veiling for women were also based on certain
patriarchal interpretations
of the Qur’an,
certain understanding of the nature of the concept of Sunna and its
relationship with the idea of custom ( ‘Urf /’Adat) and these were underpinned by the logic
of patriarchal honour.
While core
values, such as importance of privacy and modesty , remain integral, a deep
look at historical rulings allows for
the contextualist and culturally variable
rethinking of practices of hijab
and understandings of the concept of ‘Awra
and therefore the very idea of modestly itself. As I argued elsewhere,
moreover, there is an urgent need
for decoupling
these ideas and concepts from patriarchal interpretations of
the Qur’an and sunna and the broader
socio-cultural processes marked by patriarchy. Continuous questioning and
reasoning focused on the best and most reasonable community’s
interests (Maslaha) is the approach that is needed rather than continued
preference for de-contextual thought
and traditionalism that is still
widely followed among those who insist on retaining the understandings on these
issues inherited from classical Islamic laws.
-----
A decades old patron of New Age Islam, Dr Adis Duderija is a Senior
Lecturer in the Study of Islam and Society, School of Humanities, Languages and
Social Science; Senior Fellow Centre for Interfaith and Intercultural Dialogue,
Griffith University | Nathan | Queensland | Australia. His forthcoming books
are ( co-edited)- Shame, Modesty, and
Honora in Islam and Interfaith
Engagement Beyond the Divide (Springer)