> The Origin of Veiling the Women in Islam and its Present Role
>
> by Dr Radhasyam Brahmachari
>
> 16 Sep, 2008
>
> On Tuesday, January 1, 2008, A 50 year-old Egyptian-born Muslim taxi
> driver, Yaser Abdel Said, murdered his two daughters, Sarah Said (17)
> and Amina Said (18), in Las Colinas, a suburb north of Dallas, in
> Texas, USA, for discarding Islamic dress-code and refusing to wear
> hijab (veil). He shot his daughters in his taxi, which was parked in
> front of a hotel and let them die in the taxi. Texas authorities are
> in a manhunt for the absconding father who supposed to be armed and
> dangerous.
>
> Hardly a month ago, a Pakistani taxi driver in Toronto, Canada, killed
> his own daughter due to the same reason. The sixteen year old Aqsa
> refused to cover her body with hijab or veil and wanted to live like
> other Canadian girls. According to press report, the girl died in a
> local hospital on Monday night (December 10) after she was allegedly
> strangled by her father Muhammad Parvez, 57, in a Toronto suburb,
> where many Pakistani lives. Police spoke with the students of
> Applewood Height Secondary School, where the girl studied. Students
> said that Aqsa was afraid of her father and she was arguing with her
> devout Muslim family for several months over her wish to shun the
> veil. “She was always scared of her father and brother”, said her
> classmate Ashley Garbett.
> In the present context, it should be mentioned that, Hojatulislam
> Ghulam Reza Hassani, a top cleric of Iran, said on December 19, that a
> Muslim woman in Iran, who does not care to wear hijab or Muslim head
> scarf, should die. "Women who do not respect the hijab and their
> husbands deserve to die," said Hassani, who leads Friday prayers in
> the city of Urumieh, in Iran. "I do not understand how these women who
> do not respect the hijab, 28 years after the birth of the Islamic
> Republic, are still alive," he added. One should also recall that,
> when Talibans were in power in Afghanistan, the punishment for
> disobeying Islamic dress-code by women, was death by shooting them in
> the head from point blank range.
>
> Most probably, Turkey is the only country where veiling of Muslim
> women was prohibited by law. But its new Prime Minister Mr Tyyiap
> Erdogan said in a press conference on September 19, that he was going
> to bring an amendment to the existing constitution that bans on
> wearing veil and head-scarf by the women of Turkey. Mr Abdullah Gul,
> the present President of Turkey, is a devout Muslim, and is determined
> to re-introduce veil in the country. The opposition leaders are afraid
> that President Gul had other hidden Islamic agenda that he would try
> to impose in future. They are afraid that such an attempt would
> blacken the country’s secular image.
>
> On October 28, 2006, the renowned film actress Ms Sabana Azmi, while
> receiving the coveted International Gandhi Peace Prize in the House of
> Commons of the British Parliament, said, “The Quran speaks about women
> wearing clothes to cover her modesty. A woman is supposed to cover
> herself to be modest. She does not need to cover her face”. But back
> home, clerics called her a non-Muslim and questioned her understanding
> Islam. “Who has authorised Azmi to interpret the Quran? Her profession
> is to sing and dance. She has no right to mislead the Muslim women”,
> thundered angry Syed Ahmed Bukhari, the Imam of Delhi’s Jama Masjid.
> “Azmi is not a Muslim, she is just an entertainer. She does not
> represent the mainstream views. … Sura (chapter) 18 and Sura 22 of the
> Quran clearly ask Women to wear veil”, the Imam continued.
>
> The controversy over wearing veil by Muslim women living in Britain
> began in October, 2006, when Ms Aishah Azmi, a Muslim teaching
> assistant at the Headfield Church of England Junior School in
> Dewsbury, West Yorkshire, refused to remove her veil during lessons.
> The school authority said that a face to face communication was
> essential for her job. The Kirklees Council ultimately suspended Ms
> Aishah Azmi, 24, from her job. Ms Azmi then filed a case against the
> authorities on the ground of ‘injury to feelings, victimisation,
> direct and indirect discrimination and harassment. On 19th October,
> the court awarded her ₤1,000 as compensation of her ‘injury to
> feelings’ and dismissed her other complaints of discrimination and
> harassment.
>
> Meanwhile, the then Prime Minister Mr. Tony Blair waded into the
> controversy on 17th October, 2006, calling the practice of wearing
> veil as a ‘mark of separation’ which has to be tackled as part of a
> wider debate on integration of Muslims into British society. At his
> monthly press conference he said “It (the veil) is a mark of
> separation and that’s why it makes other people from outside the
> community feel uncomfortable. Nobody wants to say that people don’t
> have the right to do it. … But I think we do need to confront this
> issue about how we integrate people properly with our society”.
>
> In the pre-Islamic days of Arabia, veil was unknown and the practice
> originated in Medina, after the Prophet Mohammad took shelter in the
> city. One should recall that the fundamental teachings of the Quran is
> to divide the humanity into two groups, momens and kafirs. The Arabic
> word Islam stands for unconditional surrender, not peace. Who
> surrender to Allah’s Quran Allah’s apostle Muhammad, are momens and
> those who refuse to do so belong to the category of kafirs (or
> nonbelievers). It has been pointed out earlier that, according to the
> Quran, these kafirs are no better than animals and Allah instructs the
> believers to wage war or jihad against these kafirs. The doctrine of
> jihad includes indiscriminate killing of the kafirs, setting their
> houses on fire, looting their valuables, raping their women and
> finally to prevail over the kafirs and occupy their land and thus
> create an empire of Islam.
>
> When the prophet migrated to Medina in 622 AD, he became the chief
> administrator, chief of army, chief of judiciary and chief law maker
> in Medina and according to the self invented doctrine of jihad,
> started oppressing the original non-Muslim inhabitants of the city.
> But sometimes it happened that Muslims erroneously fell victims to
> Muslims, and Muslim women were molested and raped by their own
> believers (as in the eye of Allah, raping a kafir woman is merit for
> the rapist Muslim). So, necessary arose to distinguish Muslim men and
> women so that they could be easily identified from the non-Muslim
> kafirs. The problem for the male believers was solved by the Prophet
> by asking them to keep beard and shave moustache. But it became
> difficult to distinguish the women.
>
> At such a juncture, Umar, a close associate and son in-law of the
> Prophet, suggested that Muslim women, when went out door, should wear
> clothes to cover their modesty. And Allah wasted no time to approve
> the idea by revealing a verse (surah 33, verse 59) of the Quran, that
> reads - “O prophet, speak unto thy wives, and thy daughters and the
> wives of the true believers, that they cast their outer garments over
> them when they walk abroad; this will be more proper, that they may be
> known to be matrons of reputation, and may not be affronted by
> unseemly words or actions. Allah is gracious and merciful” . [ KORAN,
> Translated into English by George Sale; & Published by Frederick Warne
> Ltd., London- (only word God has been replaced by Allah)].
>
> It is not difficult to notice that Allah had no hesitation to tell
> that the basic need of such a dress code for Muslim women was firstly,
> to distinguish them from kafir women and secondly, to escape
> humiliation and molestation by their own people. In no time, Allah
> revealed other similar verses - “And speak unto the believing women
> that they restrain their eyes and preserve their modesty and discover
> not their ornaments, except what necessarily appeareth thereof; and
> let them throw their veils over their bosoms and not show their
> ornaments, unless to their husbands, or their fathers, or their
> husbands’ fathers, or their sons, or their husbands’ sons, or their
> brothers , or their brothers’ sons, or their sisters’ sons, or their
> women, or their captives which right hands shall possess, or unto such
> men as attend them, and have no need of women, or unto children, who
> distinguish not the nakedness of women. And let them not make a noise
> with their feet, that their ornaments which they hide may thereby be
> discovered” (Quran: 24/31). “And sit still in your house; and set not
> out yourselves with the ostentation of the former time of ignorance;
> and observe the appointed times of prayer, and give alms; and obey
> Allah and his apostle; for Allah desireth only to remove from you the
> abomination of vanity, since ye are the household of the prophet, and
> to purify you by a perfect purification” (Quran: 33/33) and “It shall
> be no crime in them as to their fathers, or their sons, or their
> brothers, or their brothers’ sons, or their sisters’ sons, or their
> woman, or the slaves which their right hands possess, if they speak to
> them unveiled; and fear Allah; for Allah is witness of all
> things” (Quran: 33/55). One should not miss the point that the verse
> (33/33) conclusively proves that a thing like veil was unknown in pre-
> Islamic Arabia.
>
> Later on, the prophet started to face another serious problem, problem
> of protecting his harem of 12 (or more) wives and some concubines, or
> mainly to protect his youngest wife Ayesha (whom he married at the age
> of 52, when Ayesha was a child of 6) , from the visitors who used to
> come frequently to meet their beloved Prophet to sort out various
> problems. Allah took no time to understand the agony of his beloved
> prophet and spent no time to reveal verses like- “O wives of the
> prophet, ye are not as other women; if ye fear Allah, be not too
> complaisant in speech, lest he should covet, in whose heart is a
> disease of incontinence; but speak the speech which is
> convenient.” (Quran- 33/32). One day the Prophet saw that one of his
> associates, while receiving something from Ayesha, touched her hand.
> Allah could understand the Prophet’s anguish and without delay,
> revealed, “….. And when ye ask of the prophet’s wives what ye may have
> occasion for, ask it of them from behind a curtain. This will be more
> pure for your hearts and their hearts. Neither is it fit for you to
> give any uneasiness to the apostle of Allah, or to marry his wives
> after him for ever; for this would be a grievous thing in the sight of
> Allah” (Quran-33/53). As mentioned above, Syed Bukhari has mentioned
> that there are verses in chapters 18 and 22 of the Quran that ask
> Muslim women to cover themselves from head to foot with black hijabs.
> But the present author has failed to find such commands of Allah in
> the verses mentioned by him. It should also not escape one’s notice
> that, through the verse (33/53), Allah has forbidden remarriage of the
> widows of the Prophet, to console his heart.
>
> In this context, it would be relevant to mention an incident from
> Indian history. When Afzal Khan, a military commander of the Bijapur
> state, led a military campaign against Raja Shivaji in 1659 AD, he had
> 63 wives in his harem. Before the campaign, Afzal slaughtered all his
> 63 wives, as he was afraid that in case of his death, other people
> would enjoy his widows. There is no doubt that a similar psychology of
> the Prophet led Allah to reveal the verse (33/53) of the Quran. After
> Aqsa was murdered by her father, some authors described Muhammad
> Parvez as an animal. But the incident and many other similar incidents
> show that they are worse than animals.
>
> Recently the renowned Islamic scholar Dr Zakir Naik, president of the
> Mumbai based Islamic Research Foundation, has written an article “Does
> Islam make the Face Veil Obligatory for Muslim women?” in the
> December, 2006, edition of the Bangalore based monthly, Islamic Voice.
> And in that article Dr Naik has conclusively proved, with the help of
> several quotations from authentic Islamic scriptures, that it is not
> compulsory for a Muslim to cover her face with a veil. To conclude his
> article, Dr Naik writes, “Some scholars argue that all the ahadith
> (plural of hadith or sunnah), which speak of women’s faces being seen,
> are of the time earlier than the revelation of the verses 33/59 &
> 24/31 of Al-Qur’an , which make covering the face compulsory. Firstly,
> as discussed earlier, these Qur’anic verses do not make covering the
> face compulsory for women. Secondly, to prove that these verses make
> the covering of women’s face compulsory, they have to quote an
> authentic hadith for it, which they don’t. Thirdly, most of the
> ahadith quoted above, are of the time after these Qur’anic verses were
> revealed”
>
> He further says, “Thus it can be concluded that covering the face is
> not obligatory for women. However, covering the face was obligatory
> for the Ummul Mu’mineen, the wives of the Prophet (pbuh) as was
> Tahajjud (midnight prayer) obligatory for the Prophet (pbuh). … Thus
> it is not compulsory for Muslim women to cover their faces, but those
> women, who cover their faces, may continue to do so if they wish”.
>
> So it is evident that Islam does not make it compulsory for women to
> cover their faces and hence Ms. Sabana Azmi has done no wrong by
> making the comment as quoted above. The question therefore arises, why
> her comments made the clerics so furious. Why these people are so much
> inclined to cover their womenfolk with head to foot black garb? The
> reason may be traced somewhere else. It may be pointed out here that
> the fanatic clerics who are bent on to cover there women with burqa or
> veil, also want them to remain indoor, not to receive education and
> become economically self-sufficient. In fact women, in the eye of
> Islam, are no better than subhuman creatures, or domestic animals, or
> simply slaves of their men-folk, or rather an instrument for satiation
> of lust and procreation of children.
>
> To define status of women, Allah says, “Men shall have the pre-
> eminence above women, because of those advantages wherein Allah hath
> caused the one of them to excel the other, and for that which they
> expend of their substance in maintaining their wives. The honest women
> are obedient, careful in absence of their husbands, for that Allah
> preserveth them, by committing them to the care and protection of the
> men. But those, whose perverseness ye shall be apprehensive of,
> rebuke; and remove them into separate apartments, and chastise them.
> But if they shall be obedient unto you, seek not an occasion of
> quarrel against them; for Allah is high and great” (Quran-4/34). So
> women should always remain obedient to men as men have pre-eminence
> over women and this pre-eminence originates from the fact that men
> spend money for maintaining their wives. And due to this pre-eminence
> husband has the right to beat their wives up if they seem to be
> disobedient to the slightest extent and ultimately divorce them by
> simple oath (Triple Talaq), and kick them out of their houses like
> domestic animals without paying any alimony. And women should endure
> all these atrocities without any protest.
>
> If women receive education and get enlightened, and above all, if they
> become financially self sufficient, it will not be possible for men to
> treat them as slaves, and that is the reason they are to be veiled, to
> be confined indoor and should be kept away from education. And that is
> the reason the mullahs and moulabhies are furiously against discarding
> veil and imparting any kind of education to them. In this context one
> should recall what Talibans,when they ruled Afghanistan, had prevented
> women from receiving education and still are doing so in that country.
> As soon as they could gain control over the country, they closed all
> schools and colleges for women and made wearing veil compulsory when
> they went outdoor. And it has been mentioned above that the women who
> violated their order were executed in public places by shooting on the
> head from point blank range. At that time, many women who had lost
> their husbands due to continuous warfare, were earning there living by
> doing odd jobs. But Talibans pushed them towards starvation by forcing
> them to remain indoor and forbidding them from doing outdoor jobs.
>
> On December 9,2006, Taliban fanatics shot down an entire family at the
> village Ghwando, eastern Afghanistan, because two women of that
> family, defying their order, continued to educate girls at their own
> house. A press report says that in the past couple of months, they
> have killed 20 such educators in Afghanistan. In Kashmir, Islamist
> fanatics have blinded several girls by throwing acid for the guilt of
> attending schools. In such an incident on August 6, 2000, Kulsooma 19,
> a girl of class IX at the Nawakadal Higher Secondary School in
> Srinagar, was attacked by 4 fanatics belonging to the terrorist outfit
> Laskar-e-Jabbar and blinded her by throwing acid. On September 15,
> 2006, Gajala Shahin Bathi and her mother Mumtaz Mai were raped by the
> fanatics in Pakistan because Gajala tarnished Islam by receiving
> education up to the post graduate level. In 1998, fanatics in Algeria
> slaughtered 300 minor girls for their un-Islamic practice of attending
> schools. In 1997, in Egypt, a 13 year old girl was tortured to death
> because she raised her veil and made her face visible in a public
> place. One will find umpteen such incidents in the Muslim countries.
>
> So Muslim women around the world should come forward and raised their
> voice against all such Islamic gender discriminations and suppression.
> They should utilise every opportunity to receive education even
> defying the bloodshot eyes of fanatics like Syed Ahmed Bukhari and
> others. At the same time, it is the responsibility of the educated
> Muslim women to educate their illiterate sisters and make them
> conscious of their rights.
>
> Experts around the world are now fully convinced that the root cause
> of the backwardness of the Muslim community all over the globe, in
> every walk of life, is the suppression of their womenfolk. It has been
> pointed out earlier that the authors of the Arab Human Development
> Report 2002 (AHDR 2002) agreed that suppression of women is one of the
> major causes of lack of creativity and backwardness in the Arab world.
> “How can a community prosper if it stifles half of its production
> potential”, the report asked.
>
> But the good sign is that, more and more women of the Muslim community
> are now a days coming to receive education, ignoring the fatwas of
> orthodox and fanatic clerics, and more and more women have started to
> raise their voice against the shameful Islamic gender discrimination.
> In December 2006, Shiite clerics of India have been forced to issue an
> amended version of Nikahnama, endorsing women’s rights to claim
> divorce from their oppressive husbands, which is now an exclusive
> right of the male members of the Muslim society. Last year Kuwaiti
> women have succeeded to win right to vote and contest parliamentary
> election. In the eye of Allah, women are a condemned lot. Merciful
> Allah has therefore forbidden their entry into mosques in this world
> and into the zannah (paradise) in the next. But women in many
> countries have already started their tough fight to win the right of
> entering mosques. So we may hope that within foreseeable future,
> Muslim women will be able to throw away their veils, get themselves
> rid of Islamic fetters of severe gender discrimination and establish
> themselves as an enlightened and advanced community in the world.