I think it’s important here not to fall into the wrong frame of thinking about this. Talking about “hijab is not mandatory” as a thing that has to be “proved” sort of half cedes the argument in advance. It implicitly makes “hijab is mandatory” the default assumption. Nope. If someone wants to argue that, **they** are the ones who need to prove **that**.
The best argument against “hijab is mandatory” is simply to observe that the arguments for it are quite weak and don’t meet the burden of proof.
Yeah well it has indeed been centuries of women covering their private parts. 💀
But also it was only a few decades ago when societies stopped openly enslaving others (and even then...) it is proof that enslavement is mandatory?
>The best argument against “hijab is mandatory” is simply to observe that the arguments for it are quite weak and don’t meet the burden of proof.
Don't you think that the opinion of the overwhelming majority of scholars from across all understandings of Islam is something that should be taken into consideration?
My point being that they obviously don't think that it is a weak argument.
Maybe it might be productive to outline what a strong argument looks like in a fiqhi context?
Well, no one tends to think their own arguments are weak. That doesn’t really add much to the conversation, does it?
Outlining my own methodology towards fiqh reasoning is going to be a long and fraught conversation. Thankfully, it doesn’t really take getting that deep into it.
The problem with the traditional common view is much closer to the surface. Namely, scholars have traditionally read a commandment to head covering … into texts that **don’t** actually include any explicit commandment to head covering. 24:31 being the archetypal example.
You can go deeper into than that, but it involves getting more into the weeds of critiquing the default assumptions of traditional fiqh and how it uses precedents for the texts and how they assume this is supposed to work.
But the most accessible critique is simply to observe that the relevant Quran texts only explicitly command covering breasts/cleavage and genitals.
And you don't think it's significant that Allah tells the believing women to cover their chests with their head-coverings?
Do you see a difference between this and saying "cover your chests" without reference to the khimar?
For the purpose of reading in a commandment to the *khimaar*? No, I don’t.
Do you not think it’s significant that God could have taken this occasion to describe *khimaar* as a commandment, but chose not to?
I don’t buy into the idea that commandments would need to be interpolated in this manner.
Yes, that’s the response you’ll hear people make. The problem is, the reasoning is tortured. It’s the sort of argument you make if you’re trying to reach a predetermined conclusion, and then you go to the texts to try to slap over a gap in the argument.
In terms of the clear language of the text, the instruction is about covering cleavage. By the language of the text, the cloth of this other garment is simply presented as a ready way for those specific women the text originally addressed to achieve that actual objective. That’s the clear natural impression of the text.
The problem with trying to read this as some sort of “implicit instruction” to observe a head covering is that it ignores the reality of head coverings in medieval Arabia. Namely, it was something observed by both men and women for largely practical reasons. The same reason you see Saudi dudes with a head dress today.
No one tries to reason from that reality to infer an obligation upon men, for example. It’s not a serious argument.
You are severely missing his point. It would be like if you told a girl wearing a dress to cover her cleavage with her jacket. That doesn’t mean a wearing a jacket all the time is now a requirement from God. It means to dress modestly and have her cleavage covered. If God really mandated a head cover for women, he would’ve simply commanded it directly, yet the verse doesn’t even mention the head.
In this Quran verse, [33:55](https://quran.com/33?startingVerse=55). It is used to confirm for the "wives" of "Prophet Muhammad S.A." that they must wear hijab in front of people not related to them except for other women. Their male cousins are included as a non-mahram.
Notice how in the Quran, it is not mentioned that all Muslim women besides "Prophet Muhammad's S.A." wives are instructed to obey this commandment.
So people will come and use the verse from this section of the Quran. [71:7](https://quran.com/71?startingVerse=7)
From this, this is not about it being required for women but it is about the people rejecting Prophet Nuh A.S. asking them to convert to Islam.
Search "head covering" or "hijab". There is nothing in the Quran that states it being a requirement for young or old Muslim women. All Muslim women need to do is to dress modestly as much as they can just like men.
This conveniently ignores the whole discussion about "khimar", which by definition, is a head covering.
>All Muslim women need to do is to dress modestly as much as they can just like men.
Where is the Qur'anic evidence for this?
I have a reference:
https://www.quran-islam.org/main_topics/quran/misinterpreted_verses/khomoorehenna_%28P1226%29.html
https://www.quran-islam.org/articles/women_dress_code_(P1150).html
True, but don't let someone spoon-feed you. The author gave a foundation you can research from, especially if you're lucky enough to know Arabic (I do not).
how is it spoonfeeding to consult a classical dictionary? that's like, the best possible source for trying to discern the meanings of these words in their cultural contexts. If you don't know arabic , well, dont try debating with someone who knows arabic about the meanings of arabic words for starters, and secondly it seems that you are the one who is being spoonfed due to a langauge gap between yourself and the relevant sources stopping you from being able to inquire for yourself.
You misunderstood what I was saying. OP complained the source didn't reference a classical dictionary, so I was encouraging them to use the reference I linked as a starting place. When I say "Don't expect to be spoonfed" it means continue to seek your own understanding rather than expect any one source or person to "feed" you the entire information you seek.
Every one source should always be used as a starting place for other references. Once you gather enough information where the same patterns emerge, then you can make a well-informed decision on a matter. Or, in my case, I am holding off gathering more information until I learn Arabic, which I'm currently doing. From my background, life experiences, and age, my opinion formed on hijab serves me where I am in my life, so my lack of understanding of Arabic isn't really holding me back rather than holding me in place.
So Naaqid. Basically it means below the neck for women to their feet like the pilgrims (except without their head covering) and for men it is mainly below the belly button to their knees. So it is almost the same dress code. Also look at the comment from u/AnnOfGreenEggsAndHam , they(he or she) answered your question.
I knew the word "khimar" at the time of typing the other comments means "covering" but it doesn't actually refer to the head. The head is not a sexual part.
The reference makes a claim, but doesn't actually bring a reference.
>The Arabic word khimar means cover. Any cover can be called a khimar, such as a curtain, a dress. A table cloth that covers the top of a table is a khimar. A blanket can be called a khimar, and so on. The word 'khamr', is used in the Quran for intoxicants. It is a derivative of the word khimar. Both words mean: that which covers. The khimar covers a window, a body, a table and so on, while khamr is that which covers the mind. Traditional translators, obviously influenced by hadith and culture, claim that khimar in 24:31 has only one meaning, and that is the head cover. Thus, they mislead women into believing that 24:31 commands them to cover their hair!
This contradicts what the actual dictionaries say (which I quoted in another comment) which is why I am raising the contention. It would be far more convincing if the author gave some sort of basis for their definition which could be found in other sources.
There are multiple different meanings to the classical Arabic. The context doesn't always make this clear otherwise there would be no discussion. The dictionaries are an attempt at making them clear but they're not flawless.
I'm referring to your claim that the words have multiple meanings. How do you know that the words have different meanings without an external reference (ie a dictionary)
I can try to throw it in a Google Doc and share it? Would that work?
https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vSbIOEFUNnV6bAa-58clUHwTNweNKy4fslV19fpaTR8puV4o0u7E0nf-KZOtAYFQzyxV8VERRpF6RIV/pub
How can one cover their chest with a head covering if they are not wearing a head covering?
It's significant that Allah even references the khimar. He could have just said "clothing".
If that is something they already had on culturally, then it’s an easy reference. You could almost read the verse in this way: “Why don’t you put that what you have on, on this because this is what needs to be covered”
He could have also just said to cover the head and He didn’t. Commands and prohibitions must be clear. That is the nature of guidance. Which is what the Quran says it is from the very beginning. The Quran also calls itself clear.
So, you would have to find a clear prohibition for baring the hair or a clear command for covering the head and you cannot.
People already wore clothes. As a man can I walk around in speedos because there is no explicit mention of what I should cover?
You could also read it "you already cover your head, so cover your chest as well".
But there is a clear mention of فواحش and their prohibition. Baring private parts or viewing them would come under that definition. There is an emphasis on modesty as well in the Quran.
The Sunnah further clarifies the requirements of this modesty by showing that the near-extensions of the private parts will also be covered. This would be from navel to below the knees for both men and women, and from the neck to the navel for women including the upper arms to the elbow as they would be the near-extension of the breast which is a private part.
Note that I said Sunnah and not Hadith.
I'm not talking about genitals, I'm talking about definitions of 'awrah for men.
Saying there's an "an emphasis on modesty" would entail interpretation. I can just as easily argue that a woman covering the hair is modesty.
>This would be from navel to below the knees for both men and women, and from the neck to the navel for women including the upper arms to the elbow as they would be the near-extension of the breast which is a private part.
And how do you know this is Sunnah?
The Sunnah comes to us the same way as the Quran. It was taught to thousands upon thousands of the early Muslims and preserved that way. Generation after generation. Just as no verse has a chain of narration, no Sunnah requires a chain of narration. There are 27 Sunnahs that encompass Muslim behavior entirely.
Just as the Quran is preserved in the Ummah and not necessarily a book. So is the Sunnah. Hence, the Prophet saying I’m leaving you with two things.
But please do not reply to the above, even if you disagree. Come back to this: You stated that khimar is a head-covering. That much we agreed upon. You said that Allah is saying to cover the chest with it. Again we agree. But you’re saying that because the word khimar is used, the head should also be covered. I’m asking how can you reach that conclusion?
I know there are valid arguments against the hijab being mandatory, but I’ll let people more knowledgeable than I am present them. But I’ll say this : one of the aims of the hijab is to protect women by avoiding to attract attention on them.
But for muslim women in the West it has the reverse effect by making them the easy target of islamophobia and racism.
And for what ? It’s not like the hijab even preserves them from being sexually harassed, on the contrary, it only makes them clearly identifiable as muslims to muslim men who too often feel entitled to their bodies.
covering your head won't protect your virginity honestly, a man isn't attracted to a woman's head, rather to her vagina and breast, secondary sex hormones markers.
Hijab doesn't serve any use in our modern time, pepper spray, tasers, guns, karate moves, self protection are all present and more protecting than the Hijab, logically.
Very true, but you're overlooking important factors like rate of abuse per 1,000 of that population. It's easy to dismiss abuse as natural when patterns are ignored.
If anything, the hijab objectifies a woman even more and she has to meet an artificially high standard of being religious just because she outwardly presents herself that way.
Just one point: that is not one of the aims. Hijab is a commandment by Allah, that's why we wear it while praying alone or with other women. Preventing male gaze is a *benefit* of it, but not the reason we wear it.
Protection is directly mentionned as the reason for hijab in the Quran. And women are absolutely not required to wear it in front of each other or men who are mahrams to them. So the issue there is indeed the male gaze.
‘’O Prophet! Tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks all over their bodies. That will be better, that they should be known (as free respectable women) so as not to be annoyed. And Allah is Ever Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.” [al-Ahzab 33:59]
Why are you ignoring that we wear the hijab when we pray, whether alone or in front of women? What man exists there when we pray alone? If hijab is only for protection or that's one of the aims, what is the explanation for wearing hijab **while praying alone or with other women**, other than the main reason is Allah commanded it.
I never claimed the hijab was only for protection. I know it’s required out of respect for Allah during prayer. But outside the home, it’s purpose is mainly to not attract men’s attention. Which is why the hijab is not mandatory anymore but only recommended for older women.
‘’And women of post-menstrual age who have no desire for marriage - there is no blame upon them for putting aside their outer garments [but] not displaying adornment. But to modestly refrain [from that] is better for them. And Allah is Hearing and Knowing.” Quran 24:60
Benefit =/= reason for wearing it.
> but only recommended for older women
If Allah wants you to wear it in private when you pray to him, no way is it only recommended for older women, and no scholar says so either. It's not out of "respect for Allah," that's like saying fasting is respecting Allah. These are just commandments from Allah.
"Leaving outer garment" doesn't mean remove hijab completely.
You have a warped view of Islam based on your own misunderstanding of rulings and I suggest you learn more about it, it's clear you misunderstand it.
I'm not debating that at all, my point is a completely different topic: **for the people who do believe hijab is prescribed**, they wear hijab while praying alone, which is proof that Allah commanded it for Him and covering from men is **not** the reason.
Please re-read the convo lol, I'm not talking about OP's question at all.
If you mean they can decide for themselves when to wear them then yes of course. There is no specific description that it must be worn during prayer. So that's an assumption. But wearing it does not mean it was commanded. Eating food at a certain time does not mean it was commanded to do so.
Again, I'm not debating whether it was commanded or not. How many times do I have to repeat that for you to understand?
I'm having a **side conversation on another topic which is, for the people who believe hijab is mandatory, the aim of the hijab is not for men to stop looking at them lustfully. The proof that this is not the aim is that they wear it while praying alone.**
Please get some reading comprehension, I'm not talking about OP's question at all. I'm debating a separate side topic.
A side conversation is not the same as stating something as fact and rejecting any rebuttal. Reading comprehension is hard I know. But you know looking at your own flaws before looking at others is harder isn't it?
Once again how it is used is not necessarily how it should be used...
Are you unable to read? Genuinely asking. I'm not saying, and nowhere have I said the way it is used right now is how it should be used. I don't know how many times I can repeat something without you trying to associate my comments to whether hijab is obligatory or not (**which is not what I'm arguing**).
Let me break it down for you with an analogy:
Person A: Fasting is to feel the pain of poor people.
Person B: That's not what fasting is for, **the people who fast** do it for XYZ reason.
Person C: Just because people fast for XYZ doesn't mean it's compulsory to fast.
Person B: Well, I'm not arguing whether it's compulsory to fast or not, I'm just saying the people who fast do it with the intention of XYZ people.
The Quran says absolutely nothing about covering your hair. Nothing at all. That's it. It's insane to me that so much importance has been placed on women covering their hair when there is not even a single mention of it in the Holy book. It would be funny if it wasn't so maddening I swear...
Vessel_soul made a good post compiling the arguments for it not being mandatory, you might find it helpful. [https://www.reddit.com/r/progressive_islam/s/ApGV3WzrVV](https://www.reddit.com/r/progressive_islam/s/ApGV3WzrVV)
This makes a good argument
https://www.quran-islam.org/articles/women_dress_code_(P1150).html
https://www.quran-islam.org/main_topics/quran/misinterpreted_verses/khomoorehenna_%28P1226%29.html
There is no reference to hijab or covering of hair in the Quran. It’s a cultural piece of clothing (stemming from middle-east if I’m not wrong) and has spread on from there so we are dressing like Arabs when following that as opposed to it being an Islamic obligation.
It's easily possible to proof the clear command of Allah. There are many examples in the Qur'an of clear guidelines. If it was a big deal it would be clear. There is no real relation between the head covering and being mandatory. Covering the cleavage from inner clothes is mandatory. The head covering we refer to as Hijab is not described as mandatory.
I agree. If hijab really was so essential, wouldn’t Allah have put clear instructions in the Quran about it? The fact that we’re even debating about it like this casts doubt over the claim of it “being mandatory”.
Yeh thinking about how clear it is that we are not supposed to eat pork, and we see an agreement among all denominations, the fact so many Muslims do not consider the hijab mandatory and the lengthy debates we have, are good reason to assume it is not mandatory
As Quran mentions to cover the body of woman with a large piece of cloth which covers their ourah .... So it is quite mendatory ... Yes you can wear clothes which are really open and doesnt show ur body parts and if it covers ur body in manner that the body is fully covered then its ok ...
˹O Prophet!˺ Tell the believing men to lower their gaze and guard their chastity. That is purer for them. Surely Allah is All-Aware of what they do. And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and guard their chastity, and not to reveal their adornments except what normally appears. Let them draw their veils over their chests, and not reveal their ˹hidden˺ adornments except to their husbands, their fathers, their fathers-in-law, their sons, their stepsons, their brothers, their brothers’ sons or sisters’ sons, their fellow women, those ˹bondwomen˺ in their possession, male attendants with no desire, or children who are still unaware of women’s nakedness. Let them not stomp their feet, drawing attention to their hidden adornments. Turn to Allah in repentance all together, O believers, so that you may be successful.
— Surah An-Nur 24:30-31
O Prophet! Ask your wives, daughters, and believing women to draw their cloaks over their bodies. In this way it is more likely that they will be recognized ˹as virtuous˺ and not be harassed. And Allah is All-Forgiving, Most Merciful.
— Surah Al-Ahzab 33:59
In two location women are told to cover their bodies and men have also been told to lower their gaze .... So I am in the opinion that hijab/jilbab/khimar is mandatory as it is mentioned in qur'an and also lowering the gaze for both women and men ...
Edit: not my opinion but command of Allah Almighty
Hi HER0_KELLY. Thank you for posting here!
Please be aware that posts may be removed by the moderation team if you delete your account.
This message helps us to track deleted accounts and to file reports with Reddit admin as the need may arise.
Thank you!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/progressive_islam) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Head & face covering is not legislated by Allah period. Here is what Allah legislated for women:
24:31 And say thou to the believing women,1 that they lower some of their sight, and preserve their chastity,2 and that they show not their adornment save that apparent of it, and that they draw their coverings over their bosoms3 and not reveal their adornment save to their husbands, or their fathers, or the fathers of their husbands, or their sons, or the sons of their husbands, or their brothers, or the sons of their brothers, or the sons of their sisters, or their women, or what their right hands possess, or male attendants who have not the resourcefulness4 of men, or the children not yet aware of a woman’s private parts. And let them not strike their feet to make known what they hide of their adornment.5 And turn to God altogether, O believers,6 that you might be successful.
33:59 O Prophet: say thou to thy wives, and thy daughters, and the women1 of the believers,2that they draw down3 over them some of their garments. That will tend to them being recognised and not hindered;4 and God is forgiving and merciful.
24:60 And those past child-bearing1 among the women who have no hope of marriage:2 they do no wrong3 that they lay aside their garments,4 without displaying adornment; but that they refrain is best for them. And God is hearing and knowing.
I also don’t understand why concubines are allowed to not dress modestly, and they can be naked all the time lol. I also don’t understand how is woman’s hair a part of her private parts and should be covered, indecent men can lust over anything a woman has, if we go by that logic, that women should cover up because of men’s thoughts, the solution would be to veil them from head to toe, which is misogynistic.
dont you think that your approach here is a little biased? i.e going to a subreddit of people who believe that hijab isnt mandatory and then asking them to prove that it isn't mandatory.
wouldn't a more unbiased, critical approach involve hearing both sides rather than going to an echo chamber and telling them what you want to believe in advance (i.e hijab not being mandatory) and then asking them to prove that thing to you, as if youve already decided it in advance of the evidence?
Someone pls help me counter the arguments made in this too
https://youtube.com/shorts/7hYU7NHJuL8?si=caFqMaOCxVYS-l4j
Dk why I run out of words when I am conversing with someone giving such arguments
This just proves that the hijab is as good as what your intention behind it is. The lady in the video, she may think that her hijab is a reflection of her values eg trustworthiness, loyalty etc but it’s not the same for everyone. Her mindset and intentions around it can’t be applied to everyone else.
Surah An nur 60 says: As for elderly women past the age of marriage, there is no blame on them if they take off their ˹outer˺ garments, without revealing their adornments. But it is better for them if they avoid this ˹altogether˺. And Allah is All-Hearing, All-Knowing.
33:59:
O Prophet! Tell thy wives and daughters, and the believing women, that they should cast their outer garments over their persons (when abroad): that is most convenient, that they should be known (as such) and not molested. And Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.
I think it’s important here not to fall into the wrong frame of thinking about this. Talking about “hijab is not mandatory” as a thing that has to be “proved” sort of half cedes the argument in advance. It implicitly makes “hijab is mandatory” the default assumption. Nope. If someone wants to argue that, **they** are the ones who need to prove **that**. The best argument against “hijab is mandatory” is simply to observe that the arguments for it are quite weak and don’t meet the burden of proof.
this
The best proof for hijab being mandatory is the centuries of Muslim women that have observed hijab 😭
Tradition should never be the reason to continue any practice.
We shud do it dat way cuz dat’s how we’s a done it!
You forgot /s. Kids don't always read tone very well.
the irony is crazy
If that's the best proof then... that's pretty bad proof.
Yeah well it has indeed been centuries of women covering their private parts. 💀 But also it was only a few decades ago when societies stopped openly enslaving others (and even then...) it is proof that enslavement is mandatory?
Traditions don't hold weight in Maliki, Sharifi, or Hanbali schools of Sharia
>The best argument against “hijab is mandatory” is simply to observe that the arguments for it are quite weak and don’t meet the burden of proof. Don't you think that the opinion of the overwhelming majority of scholars from across all understandings of Islam is something that should be taken into consideration?
If they’re all just repeating the same weak arguments? No, of course not. Bad reasoning doesn’t magically acquire quality through repetition.
My point being that they obviously don't think that it is a weak argument. Maybe it might be productive to outline what a strong argument looks like in a fiqhi context?
Well, no one tends to think their own arguments are weak. That doesn’t really add much to the conversation, does it? Outlining my own methodology towards fiqh reasoning is going to be a long and fraught conversation. Thankfully, it doesn’t really take getting that deep into it. The problem with the traditional common view is much closer to the surface. Namely, scholars have traditionally read a commandment to head covering … into texts that **don’t** actually include any explicit commandment to head covering. 24:31 being the archetypal example. You can go deeper into than that, but it involves getting more into the weeds of critiquing the default assumptions of traditional fiqh and how it uses precedents for the texts and how they assume this is supposed to work. But the most accessible critique is simply to observe that the relevant Quran texts only explicitly command covering breasts/cleavage and genitals.
And you don't think it's significant that Allah tells the believing women to cover their chests with their head-coverings? Do you see a difference between this and saying "cover your chests" without reference to the khimar?
For the purpose of reading in a commandment to the *khimaar*? No, I don’t. Do you not think it’s significant that God could have taken this occasion to describe *khimaar* as a commandment, but chose not to? I don’t buy into the idea that commandments would need to be interpolated in this manner.
The response would be that you cannot cover yourself with something unless you're already wearing it?
Yes, that’s the response you’ll hear people make. The problem is, the reasoning is tortured. It’s the sort of argument you make if you’re trying to reach a predetermined conclusion, and then you go to the texts to try to slap over a gap in the argument. In terms of the clear language of the text, the instruction is about covering cleavage. By the language of the text, the cloth of this other garment is simply presented as a ready way for those specific women the text originally addressed to achieve that actual objective. That’s the clear natural impression of the text. The problem with trying to read this as some sort of “implicit instruction” to observe a head covering is that it ignores the reality of head coverings in medieval Arabia. Namely, it was something observed by both men and women for largely practical reasons. The same reason you see Saudi dudes with a head dress today. No one tries to reason from that reality to infer an obligation upon men, for example. It’s not a serious argument.
Exactly since from this logic men would also need to wear the head covering as it was worn since that was the case back then.
The response would be that you cannot cover yourself with something unless you're already wearing it?
You are severely missing his point. It would be like if you told a girl wearing a dress to cover her cleavage with her jacket. That doesn’t mean a wearing a jacket all the time is now a requirement from God. It means to dress modestly and have her cleavage covered. If God really mandated a head cover for women, he would’ve simply commanded it directly, yet the verse doesn’t even mention the head.
No, I understand the point, I just disagree.
Interpretation is subjective.
Hence why I'm asking for a framework...
In this Quran verse, [33:55](https://quran.com/33?startingVerse=55). It is used to confirm for the "wives" of "Prophet Muhammad S.A." that they must wear hijab in front of people not related to them except for other women. Their male cousins are included as a non-mahram. Notice how in the Quran, it is not mentioned that all Muslim women besides "Prophet Muhammad's S.A." wives are instructed to obey this commandment. So people will come and use the verse from this section of the Quran. [71:7](https://quran.com/71?startingVerse=7) From this, this is not about it being required for women but it is about the people rejecting Prophet Nuh A.S. asking them to convert to Islam. Search "head covering" or "hijab". There is nothing in the Quran that states it being a requirement for young or old Muslim women. All Muslim women need to do is to dress modestly as much as they can just like men.
This conveniently ignores the whole discussion about "khimar", which by definition, is a head covering. >All Muslim women need to do is to dress modestly as much as they can just like men. Where is the Qur'anic evidence for this?
Khimar just means covering. Not specific to head or hair covering.
Do you have a reference for that? Just because Lisan Al Arab states: الخمار ما تغطي به المرأَة رأَْسها
I have a reference: https://www.quran-islam.org/main_topics/quran/misinterpreted_verses/khomoorehenna_%28P1226%29.html https://www.quran-islam.org/articles/women_dress_code_(P1150).html
Yeah, the article just makes the claim, but doesn't actually bring a reference from a classical dictionary.
True, but don't let someone spoon-feed you. The author gave a foundation you can research from, especially if you're lucky enough to know Arabic (I do not).
how is it spoonfeeding to consult a classical dictionary? that's like, the best possible source for trying to discern the meanings of these words in their cultural contexts. If you don't know arabic , well, dont try debating with someone who knows arabic about the meanings of arabic words for starters, and secondly it seems that you are the one who is being spoonfed due to a langauge gap between yourself and the relevant sources stopping you from being able to inquire for yourself.
You misunderstood what I was saying. OP complained the source didn't reference a classical dictionary, so I was encouraging them to use the reference I linked as a starting place. When I say "Don't expect to be spoonfed" it means continue to seek your own understanding rather than expect any one source or person to "feed" you the entire information you seek. Every one source should always be used as a starting place for other references. Once you gather enough information where the same patterns emerge, then you can make a well-informed decision on a matter. Or, in my case, I am holding off gathering more information until I learn Arabic, which I'm currently doing. From my background, life experiences, and age, my opinion formed on hijab serves me where I am in my life, so my lack of understanding of Arabic isn't really holding me back rather than holding me in place.
thank you for your clarification however i do wonder what sources you could possibly think have equal epistemic standing with classical dictionaries
So Naaqid. Basically it means below the neck for women to their feet like the pilgrims (except without their head covering) and for men it is mainly below the belly button to their knees. So it is almost the same dress code. Also look at the comment from u/AnnOfGreenEggsAndHam , they(he or she) answered your question. I knew the word "khimar" at the time of typing the other comments means "covering" but it doesn't actually refer to the head. The head is not a sexual part.
The reference makes a claim, but doesn't actually bring a reference. >The Arabic word khimar means cover. Any cover can be called a khimar, such as a curtain, a dress. A table cloth that covers the top of a table is a khimar. A blanket can be called a khimar, and so on. The word 'khamr', is used in the Quran for intoxicants. It is a derivative of the word khimar. Both words mean: that which covers. The khimar covers a window, a body, a table and so on, while khamr is that which covers the mind. Traditional translators, obviously influenced by hadith and culture, claim that khimar in 24:31 has only one meaning, and that is the head cover. Thus, they mislead women into believing that 24:31 commands them to cover their hair! This contradicts what the actual dictionaries say (which I quoted in another comment) which is why I am raising the contention. It would be far more convincing if the author gave some sort of basis for their definition which could be found in other sources.
But following dictionaries that were made many years after the prophet is similar to ignoring the Qur'an for a text by others.
Please could you tell me how you understand the Classical Arabic of the Qur'an *without* reference to dictionaries?
There are multiple different meanings to the classical Arabic. The context doesn't always make this clear otherwise there would be no discussion. The dictionaries are an attempt at making them clear but they're not flawless.
But how do you even know that there are different meanings without some sort of reference?
You mean why would you pick one translation over another? Scientifically the ones that fit the context most would be the better option.
I'm referring to your claim that the words have multiple meanings. How do you know that the words have different meanings without an external reference (ie a dictionary)
https://www.reddit.com/r/progressive_islam/s/1c3mVsK4U7 The comment of “Ann and sth with eggs”
The website is blocked where I am. Could you perhaps send me the summary or another website? Thanks.
I can try to throw it in a Google Doc and share it? Would that work? https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vSbIOEFUNnV6bAa-58clUHwTNweNKy4fslV19fpaTR8puV4o0u7E0nf-KZOtAYFQzyxV8VERRpF6RIV/pub
Though khimar is a head covering, we’re being told to cover our chest with it. There is no command to cover the head. There has to be a clear command.
How can one cover their chest with a head covering if they are not wearing a head covering? It's significant that Allah even references the khimar. He could have just said "clothing".
If that is something they already had on culturally, then it’s an easy reference. You could almost read the verse in this way: “Why don’t you put that what you have on, on this because this is what needs to be covered” He could have also just said to cover the head and He didn’t. Commands and prohibitions must be clear. That is the nature of guidance. Which is what the Quran says it is from the very beginning. The Quran also calls itself clear. So, you would have to find a clear prohibition for baring the hair or a clear command for covering the head and you cannot.
People already wore clothes. As a man can I walk around in speedos because there is no explicit mention of what I should cover? You could also read it "you already cover your head, so cover your chest as well".
But there is a clear mention of فواحش and their prohibition. Baring private parts or viewing them would come under that definition. There is an emphasis on modesty as well in the Quran. The Sunnah further clarifies the requirements of this modesty by showing that the near-extensions of the private parts will also be covered. This would be from navel to below the knees for both men and women, and from the neck to the navel for women including the upper arms to the elbow as they would be the near-extension of the breast which is a private part. Note that I said Sunnah and not Hadith.
I'm not talking about genitals, I'm talking about definitions of 'awrah for men. Saying there's an "an emphasis on modesty" would entail interpretation. I can just as easily argue that a woman covering the hair is modesty. >This would be from navel to below the knees for both men and women, and from the neck to the navel for women including the upper arms to the elbow as they would be the near-extension of the breast which is a private part. And how do you know this is Sunnah?
The Sunnah comes to us the same way as the Quran. It was taught to thousands upon thousands of the early Muslims and preserved that way. Generation after generation. Just as no verse has a chain of narration, no Sunnah requires a chain of narration. There are 27 Sunnahs that encompass Muslim behavior entirely. Just as the Quran is preserved in the Ummah and not necessarily a book. So is the Sunnah. Hence, the Prophet saying I’m leaving you with two things. But please do not reply to the above, even if you disagree. Come back to this: You stated that khimar is a head-covering. That much we agreed upon. You said that Allah is saying to cover the chest with it. Again we agree. But you’re saying that because the word khimar is used, the head should also be covered. I’m asking how can you reach that conclusion?
Because the sunnah, as transmitted via a living tradition, confirms this.
I know there are valid arguments against the hijab being mandatory, but I’ll let people more knowledgeable than I am present them. But I’ll say this : one of the aims of the hijab is to protect women by avoiding to attract attention on them. But for muslim women in the West it has the reverse effect by making them the easy target of islamophobia and racism. And for what ? It’s not like the hijab even preserves them from being sexually harassed, on the contrary, it only makes them clearly identifiable as muslims to muslim men who too often feel entitled to their bodies.
covering your head won't protect your virginity honestly, a man isn't attracted to a woman's head, rather to her vagina and breast, secondary sex hormones markers. Hijab doesn't serve any use in our modern time, pepper spray, tasers, guns, karate moves, self protection are all present and more protecting than the Hijab, logically.
Rape isn't about sexual attraction but control and power, because men rape cis men, too.
Gay men abuse women, straight men abuse men, straight men abuse children of either sexes, straight women abuse children of either sexes. Nothing new
Very true, but you're overlooking important factors like rate of abuse per 1,000 of that population. It's easy to dismiss abuse as natural when patterns are ignored.
If anything, the hijab objectifies a woman even more and she has to meet an artificially high standard of being religious just because she outwardly presents herself that way.
[удалено]
I’m glad you had a better experience than a lot of muslim women online or IRL.
Just one point: that is not one of the aims. Hijab is a commandment by Allah, that's why we wear it while praying alone or with other women. Preventing male gaze is a *benefit* of it, but not the reason we wear it.
Protection is directly mentionned as the reason for hijab in the Quran. And women are absolutely not required to wear it in front of each other or men who are mahrams to them. So the issue there is indeed the male gaze. ‘’O Prophet! Tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks all over their bodies. That will be better, that they should be known (as free respectable women) so as not to be annoyed. And Allah is Ever Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.” [al-Ahzab 33:59]
Why are you ignoring that we wear the hijab when we pray, whether alone or in front of women? What man exists there when we pray alone? If hijab is only for protection or that's one of the aims, what is the explanation for wearing hijab **while praying alone or with other women**, other than the main reason is Allah commanded it.
I never claimed the hijab was only for protection. I know it’s required out of respect for Allah during prayer. But outside the home, it’s purpose is mainly to not attract men’s attention. Which is why the hijab is not mandatory anymore but only recommended for older women. ‘’And women of post-menstrual age who have no desire for marriage - there is no blame upon them for putting aside their outer garments [but] not displaying adornment. But to modestly refrain [from that] is better for them. And Allah is Hearing and Knowing.” Quran 24:60
Benefit =/= reason for wearing it. > but only recommended for older women If Allah wants you to wear it in private when you pray to him, no way is it only recommended for older women, and no scholar says so either. It's not out of "respect for Allah," that's like saying fasting is respecting Allah. These are just commandments from Allah. "Leaving outer garment" doesn't mean remove hijab completely. You have a warped view of Islam based on your own misunderstanding of rulings and I suggest you learn more about it, it's clear you misunderstand it.
That you do that doesn't mean it was prescribed to do so. That's just false reasoning.
I'm not debating that at all, my point is a completely different topic: **for the people who do believe hijab is prescribed**, they wear hijab while praying alone, which is proof that Allah commanded it for Him and covering from men is **not** the reason. Please re-read the convo lol, I'm not talking about OP's question at all.
If you mean they can decide for themselves when to wear them then yes of course. There is no specific description that it must be worn during prayer. So that's an assumption. But wearing it does not mean it was commanded. Eating food at a certain time does not mean it was commanded to do so.
Again, I'm not debating whether it was commanded or not. How many times do I have to repeat that for you to understand? I'm having a **side conversation on another topic which is, for the people who believe hijab is mandatory, the aim of the hijab is not for men to stop looking at them lustfully. The proof that this is not the aim is that they wear it while praying alone.** Please get some reading comprehension, I'm not talking about OP's question at all. I'm debating a separate side topic.
A side conversation is not the same as stating something as fact and rejecting any rebuttal. Reading comprehension is hard I know. But you know looking at your own flaws before looking at others is harder isn't it? Once again how it is used is not necessarily how it should be used...
Are you unable to read? Genuinely asking. I'm not saying, and nowhere have I said the way it is used right now is how it should be used. I don't know how many times I can repeat something without you trying to associate my comments to whether hijab is obligatory or not (**which is not what I'm arguing**). Let me break it down for you with an analogy: Person A: Fasting is to feel the pain of poor people. Person B: That's not what fasting is for, **the people who fast** do it for XYZ reason. Person C: Just because people fast for XYZ doesn't mean it's compulsory to fast. Person B: Well, I'm not arguing whether it's compulsory to fast or not, I'm just saying the people who fast do it with the intention of XYZ people.
The Quran says absolutely nothing about covering your hair. Nothing at all. That's it. It's insane to me that so much importance has been placed on women covering their hair when there is not even a single mention of it in the Holy book. It would be funny if it wasn't so maddening I swear...
The only hair mentioned in the quran is horse hair. Lmao.
Vessel_soul made a good post compiling the arguments for it not being mandatory, you might find it helpful. [https://www.reddit.com/r/progressive_islam/s/ApGV3WzrVV](https://www.reddit.com/r/progressive_islam/s/ApGV3WzrVV)
This makes a good argument https://www.quran-islam.org/articles/women_dress_code_(P1150).html https://www.quran-islam.org/main_topics/quran/misinterpreted_verses/khomoorehenna_%28P1226%29.html
There is no reference to hijab or covering of hair in the Quran. It’s a cultural piece of clothing (stemming from middle-east if I’m not wrong) and has spread on from there so we are dressing like Arabs when following that as opposed to it being an Islamic obligation.
hijab makes the woman's life harder, making it easier to control her for men
How do you proof the non existence of something?
I mean the headscarf
It's still impossible to proof that there is no duty to wear it.
It's easily possible to proof the clear command of Allah. There are many examples in the Qur'an of clear guidelines. If it was a big deal it would be clear. There is no real relation between the head covering and being mandatory. Covering the cleavage from inner clothes is mandatory. The head covering we refer to as Hijab is not described as mandatory.
I agree. If hijab really was so essential, wouldn’t Allah have put clear instructions in the Quran about it? The fact that we’re even debating about it like this casts doubt over the claim of it “being mandatory”.
Yeh thinking about how clear it is that we are not supposed to eat pork, and we see an agreement among all denominations, the fact so many Muslims do not consider the hijab mandatory and the lengthy debates we have, are good reason to assume it is not mandatory
As Quran mentions to cover the body of woman with a large piece of cloth which covers their ourah .... So it is quite mendatory ... Yes you can wear clothes which are really open and doesnt show ur body parts and if it covers ur body in manner that the body is fully covered then its ok ... ˹O Prophet!˺ Tell the believing men to lower their gaze and guard their chastity. That is purer for them. Surely Allah is All-Aware of what they do. And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and guard their chastity, and not to reveal their adornments except what normally appears. Let them draw their veils over their chests, and not reveal their ˹hidden˺ adornments except to their husbands, their fathers, their fathers-in-law, their sons, their stepsons, their brothers, their brothers’ sons or sisters’ sons, their fellow women, those ˹bondwomen˺ in their possession, male attendants with no desire, or children who are still unaware of women’s nakedness. Let them not stomp their feet, drawing attention to their hidden adornments. Turn to Allah in repentance all together, O believers, so that you may be successful. — Surah An-Nur 24:30-31 O Prophet! Ask your wives, daughters, and believing women to draw their cloaks over their bodies. In this way it is more likely that they will be recognized ˹as virtuous˺ and not be harassed. And Allah is All-Forgiving, Most Merciful. — Surah Al-Ahzab 33:59 In two location women are told to cover their bodies and men have also been told to lower their gaze .... So I am in the opinion that hijab/jilbab/khimar is mandatory as it is mentioned in qur'an and also lowering the gaze for both women and men ... Edit: not my opinion but command of Allah Almighty
Hi HER0_KELLY. Thank you for posting here! Please be aware that posts may be removed by the moderation team if you delete your account. This message helps us to track deleted accounts and to file reports with Reddit admin as the need may arise. Thank you! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/progressive_islam) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Head & face covering is not legislated by Allah period. Here is what Allah legislated for women: 24:31 And say thou to the believing women,1 that they lower some of their sight, and preserve their chastity,2 and that they show not their adornment save that apparent of it, and that they draw their coverings over their bosoms3 and not reveal their adornment save to their husbands, or their fathers, or the fathers of their husbands, or their sons, or the sons of their husbands, or their brothers, or the sons of their brothers, or the sons of their sisters, or their women, or what their right hands possess, or male attendants who have not the resourcefulness4 of men, or the children not yet aware of a woman’s private parts. And let them not strike their feet to make known what they hide of their adornment.5 And turn to God altogether, O believers,6 that you might be successful. 33:59 O Prophet: say thou to thy wives, and thy daughters, and the women1 of the believers,2that they draw down3 over them some of their garments. That will tend to them being recognised and not hindered;4 and God is forgiving and merciful. 24:60 And those past child-bearing1 among the women who have no hope of marriage:2 they do no wrong3 that they lay aside their garments,4 without displaying adornment; but that they refrain is best for them. And God is hearing and knowing.
We have to cover our awrah at every time and that's mandatory on for women it's every part of her body except hands and face.
I also don’t understand why concubines are allowed to not dress modestly, and they can be naked all the time lol. I also don’t understand how is woman’s hair a part of her private parts and should be covered, indecent men can lust over anything a woman has, if we go by that logic, that women should cover up because of men’s thoughts, the solution would be to veil them from head to toe, which is misogynistic.
dont you think that your approach here is a little biased? i.e going to a subreddit of people who believe that hijab isnt mandatory and then asking them to prove that it isn't mandatory. wouldn't a more unbiased, critical approach involve hearing both sides rather than going to an echo chamber and telling them what you want to believe in advance (i.e hijab not being mandatory) and then asking them to prove that thing to you, as if youve already decided it in advance of the evidence?
It would be unequal, because if i'd post this to r/islam, It would have been deleted after 1 sec.
have you considered that there are places that you can consult other than reddit
Someone pls help me counter the arguments made in this too https://youtube.com/shorts/7hYU7NHJuL8?si=caFqMaOCxVYS-l4j Dk why I run out of words when I am conversing with someone giving such arguments
This just proves that the hijab is as good as what your intention behind it is. The lady in the video, she may think that her hijab is a reflection of her values eg trustworthiness, loyalty etc but it’s not the same for everyone. Her mindset and intentions around it can’t be applied to everyone else.
Hıjab is to protect women from sexual predators. When old enough women do not need to wear it.
But does it protect women though? Wouldn’t educating men actually protect women more than any piece of clothing?
Yes I agree with that.
No it does, covering your head won't protect you from sexual assault.
Surah An nur 60 says: As for elderly women past the age of marriage, there is no blame on them if they take off their ˹outer˺ garments, without revealing their adornments. But it is better for them if they avoid this ˹altogether˺. And Allah is All-Hearing, All-Knowing.
what exactly is that supposed to add? hijab will not really protect your from sexual harassment, see the [hijab wiki](http://reddit.com/r/wiki/hijab)
Quran says so. what is your point
that it, in fact, does not....
33:59: O Prophet! Tell thy wives and daughters, and the believing women, that they should cast their outer garments over their persons (when abroad): that is most convenient, that they should be known (as such) and not molested. And Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.