Author: Nong Darol Mahmada
What is Liberal Islam Network’s (JIL) interest in publishing a book on
hijâb (recognized as jilbab in Indonesia)? Actually this question is a personal
one because the answer must necessarily be subjective. I’m very conscious of
the fact that my thoughts on this issue are derived from my personal
experience.
I remember that when I was a child my grandmother was very strict about
wearing a veil though then it was merely a piece of cloth for covering the
head. She was a pious Muslim up to her death (âllâhummâghfirlâhâ). To her, the
hair of an adult (baligh) woman should not be exposed since it is aurat (part
of the body which may not be visible). If anyone breaks this rule, her hair
would be burnt in hell. Surely, the idea of burning in hell haunts me and worse
still as a statement coming from someone I adore. Hence, when I grew up and
became an adult, I faithfully wore the veil due to the fear of the consequences
for not wearing it.
Nevertheless, my decision to wear the veil did not stop my criticism and my
search for the answer to the question of why it is that a woman’s head and hair
happen to be aurat and thus have to be covered. Why is it that women are deemed
aurat so that they must be covered while a man’s aurat is limited only from the
knee up to his navel? That curiosity triggered me to study more about the veil.
Apparently, the matter is not as simple as I had been led to believe. It is
not merely about definitions of aurat and burning in hell. It is far more
complicated than that. For example, in every case of the implementation of
Islamic sharia, the first step is to always make women wear veils. Similarly,
for example, in several regions in our country, the first consequence of
implementing Islamic sharia in the region would be the obligation upon women to
wear veils. Thus the regulation of wearing the veil is singled out as it is the
most physical evidence or indicator of the success of the implementation of
Islamic sharia law. It is almost as if wearing the veil is synonymous with
Islam itself. The question is this: Is it true that wearing the veil is an
essential aspect of Islamic sharia?
The answer is certainly lengthy and not a black or white one. Even though
the veil is merely a part of a woman’s outfit, this concept has a long history.
The word Jilbab is derived from the word jalaba meaning to gather and to carry.
In the period of the prophet Muhammad SAW the Jilbab was an outfit covering the
whole of an adult woman’s body. In contrast, the head covering outfit in
Indonesia was initially recognized as a veil, but by the ‘eighties the word
jilbab became more popular.
Jilbab in the sense of being merely a head cover is acknowledged only in
Indonesia. In several Muslim countries it is a full body cover. The jilbab-like
costume known variously as the chador in Iran, the pardeh in India and
Pakistan, the milayat in Libya, the abaya in Irak, the charshaf in Turki, and
lastly, the hijâb in a number of Arab-African countries like Egypt, Sudan and
Yemen.
Actually the concept of hijâb is not exclusive to Islam. For instance in
the Old Testament, the Jews Holy Book, the hijâb was referred to as tif’eret.
Similarly in the Bible, the Holy Book of the Christians, the terms of zammah,
re’alah, zaif and mitpahat all refer to the veil. Even according to Eipstein,
as quoted by Nasa-ruddin Umar in his article contained in Journal of Ulumul
Quran, the concept of hijâb (in the sense of a head cover) predated the samawi
(sky revealed) religions (Jew and Christian). According to Mr Nasar, this sort
of wear became established in the Code of Bilalama (3.000 SM) and continued in
the Code of Hammurabi (2.000 SM) and the Code of Asyiria (1.500 SM). The
regulation of wearing the veil was practiced in several ancient cities like
Mesopotamia, Babilonia, and Asyiria. (Kompas, 25/11/02)
The tradition of wearing the veil was an aspect of family law amongst the
Assyrians. This law stipulated that wives, daughters and widows should wear the
veil whenever they go out into public space. In analyzing this concept further,
when Adam and Eve were evicted from the garden of Eden, covering their genitals
was the first thing they had to do (aurat) (QS. Thaha/20: 121). In this regard,
the Jewish literature mentions that the use of hijâb began with the original
sin: the sin of eve tempting her husband, Adam, to eat the forbidden fruit. The
consequence is that Eve and her clan (women) were cursed not only to wear the
hijâb but also to menstruate and to be restricted by menstrual regulations. The
difference between the concept of hijâb in the Jewish and Christian traditions
and in Islam, is that hijâb has no relation at all with original sin or with
menstruation. In the Islamic concept, hijâb and menstruation have their own
contexts. The accentuation of the Hijâb is much more closely related to ethic
and aesthetic issues.
The hijâb institutionalization in Islam is based on two verses of Qur’an
QS. Al-Ahzab/ 33: 59 dan QS. An-Nur/24: 31. These verses affirm the regulations
in regard to dress for Muslim woman. In surah An-Nur, the word khumur is a
plural form of khimar, meaning veil. While the word juyub is the plural form of
jaib, means ash-shadru (chest). Hence the sentence and to draw their veils over
their bosoms, is a reaction to the dressing traditions of the women of Arab
Jahiliya. In the era of ignorance, the Jahiliya period, women used to go out in
public with naked breasts and would reveal their necks in order to show off
their adornments as illustrated by Al-Allamah Ibnu. For instance, Imam Zarkasyi
wrote that in this period the women wore dresses that revealed their necks and
chests as well as other parts of their bodies. They also drew their veils
backwards while leaving the front parts wide open. Consequently, they were
commanded to draw their veils forward in order to cover their chest.” Moreover,
dress codes even incited the war between the unbelievers (kafir) of Mecca with
the Muslims at the battle of Uhud
The tradition is political, discriminative and elitist-natured. Surah Al
Ahzab contains the verse about hijâb revealed after the battle of Khandaq (5
Hijriyah), while surah An-Nur was revealed long after that. They are political
because the verses are revealed in order to answer the attack by the munafik
(unbelievers who pretend to be Muslims, hypocrites), in this case Abdullah bin
Ubay and friends. This attack of munafik “used” the Muslim women by slandering
the wives of prophet, especially Aisha. The event is known as al-ifk.[1] In that period, this event was so important so that it
was affirmed in five separate verses: QS. An-Nur/23: 11-16. The problems this
has created for Muslim women are incessant though the verses were intended to
protect Muslim woman from acts of disrespect. Allah has decreed that the reason
for wearing jilbab is so that women maybe recognized and not annoyed and so
that the free can be distinguished from slaves.
Thus the laws can be understood to be both elitist and discriminative,
since this verse distinguishes between free and slave Muslim woman. Here the
ambiguity of Islamic law regarding slavery can be observed. On the one hand
Islam is opposed to slavery yet on the other hand, it still supports the
distinction of dress for different classes. In my opinion, to avoid ambiguous
interpretation, the interpretation should stress the ethical issue of the
verse, and not be read merely as a code about the regulation of dress. There
should be no difference between a free woman and a slave, good manners and
modesty should apply equally to both.
In the Muslim world, many books have been written about hijâb which mention
that it is a good Muslim woman’s clothing which separates woman and limits
contact between women and men who are not family. The verses do not deliver
explicit orders rather they provide expectations about woman’s modesty and the
regulations applied to the prophet’s wives. Fatima Mernissi in Women in Islam,
has written that in the beginning of Islam the Prophet did not set up a
dichotomy between the his own private space and his wives’ with that of other Muslims’.
QS. Al-Ahzab/33:53 affirms that there was originally no dichotomy between
public and private space.
The institutionalization of the veil and the separation of woman from
public space crystallized when the Muslim world came into contact with Hellens
and Persians in cities. In these contexts, the veil which was formerly used as
an occasional costume became institutionalized and women became obligated to
wear it. Moreover, the codification of the standard books like hadits, tafseer,
fikh, history, including the codification of standard writing (rasm) and
reading (qira’at) of Alqur’an, were influenced by Hellenism and Persian
culture. For example, the Israiliyat (transmitted from Israel) history is
included in the book of Tafseer al-Thabary and it subsequently became the
reference of the ulemas in codifying the tafseer.
According to Ruth Rodded in her book Kembang Peradaban, the debate has
centered upon the meaning and practical implementation of the verses of hijâb.
Her opinion is based on what consists the proper definition regarding certain
words (including the terms hijâb), their contexts and whether the regulation
set for the prophet’s wives should become norms for every Muslim woman.
Nevertheless as it has been argued by Harun Nasution, “the view that says that
hijâb is an obligation, could be answered yes to. And those who say it is not
an obligation, could be answered yes to as well. But the clear regulation
boundary regarding hijâb is not mentioned in the Qur’an and the hadits
mutawatir.” (Islam Rasional, p.332).
In short then, this book takes the view that wearing the jilbab is not an
obligation. Even Al Asymawy has proclaimed that the hadits taken as the
reference regarding jilbab or hijâb obligation is a hadits ahad (transmitted by
single person) which cannot be perceived as having a legal foundation. If
jilbab was obligatory for women, the impact would certainly be substantial. As
he quoted: “the statement that woman’s hair is aurat, is because it is their
crown. It follows that her face, which is her throne, is also aurat. Then her
voice which is her authority becomes aurat and her body which is her kingdom
aurat. Eventually, the entire female being is considered aurat.” The
implication is ultimately that woman cannot do anything as Allah’s creature
because she is all-aurat.
We are used to reading books or booklets regarding the obligation of
wearing jilbab in the verses of Qur’an and Hadits as well as in experiencing
threats made to women who do not want to wear it. For us, this book, bluntly and
frankly, explains that wearing the jilbab is not an obligation. Even the
tradition of wearing the jilbab amongst the sahabat (prophet’s companions) and
amongst their followers is more of a cultural obligation than a religious one.
I wish this pocket book could be a positive contribution for everyone who
does or does not wear jilbab. I am not entirely for or against wearing the
jilbab as long as wearing it is due to someone’s consciousness that it is an
option and one potential mode of expression of self-searching for a Muslim
woman. When used without coercion it is a legitimate dress code.
Note
Artikel ini diterbitkan melalui
situs IslamLib.com pada 05 April 2003. [lihat]
[1] The event of al-ifk occurred when Aisha was left out of
the group in a battlefield because she was looking for her lost necklace. When
she reached the camp, nobody was there anymore. The entire troop had left the
location. During the time when Aisha was alone in the camp, Safwan ibn Mu’attal
al-Sulami arrived with his camel and carried her to Medina. This incident
became widely known and was utilized by the munafik (hypocrites) coordinated by
Abdullah bin Ubay such that the Prophet formed a special team to investigate the
case.