Why Do Muslim Theologians Need to Contemplate on the Hijab Controversy?

By Dr. Bilal Ahmad Sheikh, Nowsheena Akhter and Muskaan Mohi-ud-din, New Age Islam 16 January 2023 Wearing Of The Hijab Is Relatively A Matter Of Personal Choice Keeping In View The Quranic And Prophetic Obligations Under Considerations. ----- Recent anti-hijab demonstrations over the unfortunate death of Mahsa Amini following her arrest by the morality police in Tehran for wearing an inappropriate Hijab and the opposition to the Hijab in educational institutions in Karnataka have brought the hijab controversy back to the forefront. Although there are still demonstrations taking place in Iran, the Karnataka case has been referred to a larger-bench of the Supreme Court that will hear and examine the case afresh as the two-Judge bench of the Supreme Court could not reach a consensus. The Karnataka High court had already given its verdict saying that Hijab is not an essential practice in Islam and thus upholding the Karnataka Government’s ban on Hijab in Educational Institutions. In Karnataka the objection to the Hijab is because it is a religious symbol and as such should not be allowed in a secular institution. The Hijab is also criticized for being a patriarchal emblem that limits women's rights, according to some of its detractors. They firmly advocate banning the Hijab entirely because they genuinely feel that doing so will empower women. Those who support the Hijab contend that education, rather than removing the Hijab from women's heads, will give them more power and that, with higher education, women will be able to choose their clothing choices consciously in the future. However, the government's detractors contend that the prohibition on the hijab is a covert effort to eradicate the Muslim way of life from public settings. Another group strives to defend schoolgirls' freedom of choice to wear the hijab as a justification for their right to do so. The freedom of choice lobby, on the other hand, is criticized for failing to acknowledge that families who adopt hijab typically make it necessary for their female children when they are too young to make a deliberate decision about what to wear. They accuse a rigid culture and obscure interpretations of religious laws for making it so difficult for Muslim girls to make their own decisions. However, it appears that the debate over the hijab and uniforms is a risky attempt to sow strife in a country that is both religiously and culturally diverse. India is well known for its diversity and the efforts of some of its leaders including Nehru to unite such a diverse population. We must respect our culture's diversity and moral standards while establishing school uniform requirements rather than importing the concept from some foreign culture. We don't need female students to wear pants and shirts like guys do for the purpose of the uniform in educational institutions. A section of Iranian ladies are actively resisting the government-imposed dress restrictions. As a demonstration of their opposition to the government's control over their personal decisions, they torched their Hijabs during rallies. A section of Women out there want the state to respect their wishes in both situations. They consider it just as disgusting to force someone to take off their hijab against their will as it does to make them wear it. Additionally, they think that since religious obligations are between God and his followers and God alone has the power to judge whether or not someone is breaking their religion's laws, the Iranian government has no jurisdiction to force women to follow them by citing a binding religious law. However, this group of women underrates the authority of a contemporary state. No one can prevent the Iranian government from becoming the Hegelian state as ‘God's march on earth (read indisputable authority), if it somehow manages to shed its theocratic stance and become more secular. Why do a small number of Muslim countries interpret the Hijab law differently than the vast majority of Muslim countries? It will become evident how local cultural practices and the patriarchal mentality of the society influence how the Islamic law is interpreted if we carefully consider why such interpretations have recently been produced in several nations. The treatment of women in Taliban-run Afghanistan is an obvious illustration of how the tribal society's traditional customs can affect how Islamic law is interpreted. However, several schools of thought have differing interpretations of the Hijab prohibition in the Quran. It depends on how one school's viewpoint differs from the others. Some people claim that since Islam has not changed, a few concepts need to be rethought. Since jurisprudence is the subject of many debates, it is anticipated that by giving it a modern interpretation, Islamic practices will become more comprehensible to the contemporary world. According to some Muslim scholars, the doctrine of Tajdid permits the modification or abolition of sharia practices. The notion of renewal proposes that Islamic communities must undergo continuous change in order to maintain their purity. Others believe that the Islam that was practiced in the seventh century was the purest form of Islam. However, it is well known for contemporary governments to change legislation seen to be Islamic. When granting women the right to drive in 2018, Saudi Arabia cited Islamic law. The Modern secular State in India amended several aspects of Sharia. When the British began to rule India and upheld the Sharia law of their Mughal forebears, they discovered many of its provisions to be incompatible with contemporary society and amended them—a task that has traditionally been the province of Ulema in Islam. For instance, the law of homicide (Qatl) in Islamic criminal law was based on the tribal philosophy of the 7th century, where the concepts of Diya (financial compensation paid to the hiers of a victim) and Qisās (equal retaliation-eye for an-eye) made it a civil dispute as opposed to a state-enforced punishment to maintain order. It was declared a crime against the State by the British. The Triple Talaq, also known as Talaq-e-Biddat (an instant divorce), which has no backing in the Quran, was recently outlawed by the Indian government. Many Islamic nations currently forbid instant triple Talaq. All of the changes or reforms made to Muslim society or law by contemporary secular legal institutions have one thing in common: in each instance, it has been determined that the modified rule or practice is not an essential Islamic practice or that the reform is not in opposition to Islam's core principles. Many people praised the Supreme Court’s 2017 ruling invalidating Talaq-e-Biddat in the Shayara Bano v. Union of India case as well as the amended Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019, for restoring the originality of divorce law as permitted by Islam. It was ruled to be unconstitutional due to its arbitrary nature and conflict with the Quran. According to the majority, the practice was not protected by Article 25 because it was not addressed by the Quran. A portion of Muslim clerics and people were hostile to the reforms rather than supporting them. There were customs that were approved by Islam in the seventh century, but as time went on, their incompatibility with contemporary society grew to the point where no one insisted on their continued use. For instance, slavery was such a pervasive evil in 7th century Arabia that neither the Qur'an nor any other religious text makes any attempt to outlaw it. It does, however, include a variety of rules intended to improve the status of slaves. The institution itself eventually lost its compatibility with contemporary society. Can they use the fact that Islam permitted it to resurrect it in contemporary society? Concubinage was another practice that was extensively acknowledged by Muslim thinkers in pre-modern times. A slave lady who shared sexual intercourse with her lord was known as a concubine. Slave concubinage is not, however, acceptable in the present Muslim world, according to both scholars and laypeople, who also hold that marriage is the only institution where sexual interactions are morally acceptable Furthermore, there is a heated argument over what the Quran sanctions versus what practices come from local customs. In this regard, Aligarh Muslim University's Professor Rashid Shaz, an Islamic scholar, states: “One of the greatest reasons for our decline is the fact that over time we gave so much importance to local customs, concepts, norms and traditions that the real spirit of Islam got buried under them. In most Muslim societies, the conception or roles that have been assigned to Muslim women, have become more embedded in local custom and traditions than Islam, though we have evolved them to the status of sacraments! Whereas the fact is that the woman of Prophetic era is quite different from the traditional religious woman of our times.” However, a sizable portion of Muslims in India detest Rashid Shaz's “misguided understanding of Islam” and refer to him as a sort of hybrid of Waheed ud din Khan and Javid Ghamdi. Nevertheless, on the hypocrisy of advocates of conservatism, he further writes that “You did not consider it praiseworthy that your own daughter should study in a co-educational medical institute, but when you needed to have one, you thought it better to consult a Muslim woman doctor. There was a clear contradiction in what you preached and what you practiced.” Their social environment is thought to have had an impact on how they perceive Islamic law. Allow Muslim women to offer the Namaz in Masjids the way there is a provision for it in Islam, you will observe the intensity of opposition from the conservative group who would reinterpret the ruling as per their understanding of Islam. The Muslim scholars must therefore think about few other laws that need to be revisited due to the changing of the times, such as Ijtihād-based renewal, in addition to the discussion surrounding the Hijab and the circumstances that support its mandatory wearing. The traditional Muslim should also be aware that Tajdid or Ijtihad do not signify a complete cede to contemporary society, making divine teaching susceptible to the sway of shifting social mores and mental constructions. Islamic principles and fundamental laws are not amenable to these methods of renewal and reform in the sense of developing new viewpoints that are compatible with contemporary reality. We still need them, though, to help us understand some of these ideas and ideals more clearly. If we wait any longer, as has occasionally been noticed, current so called secular law authorities may adopt its flag. Islam has a flexible legal system that can effectively respond to shifting circumstances, and this is something we should all be aware of. Additionally, the wearing of the hijab is relatively a matter of personal choice keeping in view the Quranic and prophetic obligations under considerations. It must be supported and safeguarded, rather than differing interpretations of religious beliefs. ------ 1. Dr. Bilal Ahmad Sheikh (Teaching History at Government Degree College Sogam, Kupwara, J&K 2. Nowsheena Akhter (Masters in History from Panjab University, Chandigarh) 3. Muskaan Mohi-ud-din (B.A. 5th semester student at Govt. Degree College Sogam, Kupwara) URL: https://newageislam.com/islam-women-feminism/muslim-theologians-hijab-controversy/d/128880 New Age Islam, Islam Online, Islamic Website, African Muslim News, Arab World News, South Asia News, Indian Muslim News, World Muslim News, Women in Islam, Islamic Feminism, Arab Women, Women In Arab, Islamophobia in America, Muslim Women in West, Islam Women and Feminism