-
Use Of Word Khimar: Compulsion For Muslim Women To Cover Their Hair
https://yaqeeninstitute.org/read/paper/is-hijab-religious-or-cultural-how-islamic-rulings-are-formed
In this article there was a point I seek a clarification for. It says the root word for khimar is khamr which means intoxicant/ that which covers the intellect according to the Quran. If we assume that Allah assumed that if the khimar was used to cover the chest it would automatically cover the neck and hair, then the contemporary stand that headscarf is an obligation is justified. Please read the article and apparently Javed Sahab’s views are incoherent with this article so I don’t know who is right. Allah knows the best. I understand that contemporary scholars do not differentiate between awrah and zeenah, but Maududi sahab derived the rules of niqab from the understanding that zeenah can be worn on the face therefore it must be covered, misreading the verse,” what appears thereof”. So the issue of zeenah is clear for me. But the usage of khimar instead of any other piece of cloth is bothering me. Does not covering the hair incur a sin for not doing wajib acts ? I live in india where muslims feel a lot of workplace discrimination especially if they wear religious clothing and invite a lot of unwanted scrutiny for wearing headscarfs, if the hijab is not wajib or fard then is it an obligation for me to start wearing it. I dress modestly but I would consider doing Adaab acts ( hijab being one of these acts) so can I wear the hijab sometimes instead of wearing it on a regular basis like wearing it in functions or outings but avoiding it in workplace or during hot summer days? Can I be a practicing muslim if I don’t wear the headscarf but wear loose modest clothing from the neck to the feet?
-
19 Replies
-
Use Of Word Khimar: Compulsion For Muslim Women To Cover Their Hair
updated 2 years, 11 months ago
5 Members
·
19
Replies
-
-
-
Sir please comment on the khimar point whether we can make an assumption from the root word Khamr that the khimar was covering the head and so it is naturally assumed that usage of the word means the obligation of covering the chest is attached to that of covering the head. And is it necessary to do Adaab acts regularly? Because from Ghamidi Sahab’s argument I infer that wearing the hijab/ covering one’s hair is an Adaab and not fard.
-
How does Javed Sahab define ijma? is there a consensus among scholars about the obligation of covering the hair?
-
There is one additional requirement for women which is to hide items of ‘Zeenat’ including the ones on chest area with the exception of hands, face and feet. The word ‘Zeenat’ in classic Arabic is never used in terms of beauty, rather it refers to anything used to complement the beauty like jewelry etc.
Regarding the word Khimar, the women of that time used to cover their heads with ‘khimar’ as a headgear, it was part of their culture, but when Allah wanted to give them directive to cover their ‘zeenat‘, they were asked to use the same ‘khimar’ to cover their chest area. This requirement doesn’t make use of ‘Khimar’ as a headgear a separate directive. Had it been the case, it would’ve been separately mentioned. Already available clothing was being made use of to give directive to cover ‘zeenat’ for women.
For comments of Ghamidi Sahab, please refer to the video below from 1:51:34 to 1:57:46
-
Please also refer to the video below from 00:06:31 to 00:09:04
-
But sir, there’s another hadith that says that when women heard this ayat, they tore some cloth(sorry I don’t remember exactly which cloth the hadith was talking about) and “khimaared themselves” with it. As we know, khimaar was used as a headcover, so “khimaared themselves” could mean that used those torn pieces of clothes as headcover, right?
But then, the ayat says to put their khimaars over their bosoms while the hadith says that they just put on a khimaar, so if we go by the literal meaning of the hadith, it would mean they put those pieces of clothes on head like a khimaar and the hadith doesn’t mention anything about covering the bosom, so if we interpret this hadith as saying “they put on a khimar”, it isn’t fully compatible with the meaning of the ayat. So to harmonize the hadith with the ayat, we have to say that the women made khimaar out of those torn pieces of cloth and wore it like it was ordered in the ayat i.e, over their bosoms, with nothing being mentioned about the head being covered or not, is it so? But it is also said that to harmonize this hadith with the ayat, we have to understand it as saying that they covered their heads AS WELL AS their bosoms with it , because from other ahadith, we know that the meaning of putting on a khimar is covering head with it, like the hadith which goes something like “the prayer of حائض is not accepted without a khimar.”,which is generally used to prove that women must cover their heads during prayer (Ghamidi Sahab also considers it to be a part of
aadaab at least).How do we know which one is the more correct view?
And I’m really sorry I know I’ve been bothering you guys with similar questions again and again but I’m really confused and I want to remove all of my doubts that’s why I’m doing so.
Also, there was something written about this hadith in Dr. Amir Gazdar’s book, but since I don’t know much Arabic, I couldn’t understand it properly. So if anyone could translate that part, I’d be really grateful to them.
And thank you for your patience 🙂
-
???
-
السلام عليكم
Yes, they (the immigrant women) covered their head like they were doing all along way before the verses of Surah Al-Nur were revealed. They just used a different cloth, like the report says, so that their own wishes (covering the head) together with the wishes of their Creator (covering the جيب) may be fulfilled.
I think we are interpretting the report differently. I am interpretting it like this: when the verses of Surah Al-Nur were revealed, the immigrant women (notice how the report does not mention the women of the helpers even though this was the Medinan period of the Prophet’s صلى الله عليه وسلم life) changed the cloth they used for their خُمُر.
Here is how I think you are interpretting it and correct me if I’m wrong please: before the verses of Surah Al-Nur were revealed, Muslim women in general were not covering their heads. Hearing these verses, they, for the first time, starting regularly covering their head with خُمُر.
Regarding whether they just covered the جيوب or the heads together with the جيوب, probably the latter. However, covering the جيوب was the directive of God while keeping their heads covered (which they had already been doing anyways due to culture) was their own initiative.
And don’t be sorry. We’re not bothered in the least. Don’t worry! 😁
Also, I don’t disagree with the fact that اختمرن means to don a خمار which is a headcover. My disagreement is that you are taking the directives of God from the actions of men (women really, but this expression just hits the nail on the head, I think) instead of His own statements, which even you agree (as far as I understand) do not include the covering of the head.
Regarding the discussion of this report in Dr. Gazdar’s book, I haven’t reached that far yet (I should start reading it again. I actually started reading ألف ليلة وليلة and stopped reading مواقف العلماء), so if you can send me images of his discussion, I may be able to translate them for you ان شاء الله. All the best!
-
Thanks for your response
Actually I don’t think about whether they covered their head or not before the revelation of this ayat, my concern is how they reacted to the revelation of this ayat. Since these women lived at the time of revelation, they probably understood the language of the Qur’an much better than anyone else who came later, so what they understood this ayat to mean is really important in my view.
Yes, it could be that they always covered their heads because of their culture, but that’s exactly the same argument put forth by those who say that hijab is compulsory. Their argument is that since these women already covered their heads with a khimaar, the order of they ayat was for the women to cover their heads (as they would do because of their culture) and also their bosoms ( a new command) i .e , not to stop their old practice but add a new one to it.
Ghamidi Sahab also discussed a similar hadith in the last video of 23 questions: Pardah. Interestingly , that hadith mentions the women of Ansaar, instead of the immigrant women. Ghamidi Sahab says that this hadith means that the women did exactly what was said in the Quran i.e, cover their bosoms and hide their ornaments with that “dupatta” (since Hasan sahab read the Urdu translation of the hadith which uses this word) . I’m confused if Arabic linguistics permit this interpretation of the hadith. Not that I’m doubting Ghamidi Sahab’s intentions, just wanted to be completely sure about the meaning of this hadith.
And if this hadith actually means that they covered their heads with the khimaar, how can we say that head covering isn’t compulsory? The argument used by those who believe in its compulsion is that since those women heard it from their men , who in turn heard it from Prophet ﷺ, they must have done exactly how Prophet ﷺ understood this verse and if we think that the Qur’an isn’t saying exactly this, then their must be a problem with our interpretation, that we must have interpreted it incorrectly. Is there a video of Ghamidi Sahab on this topic(Hadith-Quran relationship)? Please share the link if you know .
-
السلام عليكم
Ok. Those that take the fact that women culturally (and maybe due to حياء too) covered their heads to mean that it is an obligation need to know that this is not how matters are decreed by God. Men used to wear ازار and God did not stop them from doing so. That doesn’t mean wearing the ازار is a directive of God. They would (in my opinion, of course) be right in saying that the Quran was not stopping them from wearing a headcover but they would be wrong in claiming that wearing one is a directive of God. If God wanted to make a headcover mandatory, He would have said something on the lines of قل للمؤمنات ان…يختمرن ويضرب بخمرهن على جيوبهن (“Tell the believing women to…don a خمار and use it to cover their جيوب”). God did not do this because covering the head was not the purpose of the verse. Look. It isn’t like the Quran just touches upon the أداب of gender interaction and then starts talking about something else. It goes into quite a lot of detail. How dare we say that it just forgot to mention that donning a headcover is mandatory?
However, there is something in your way of reasoning that I strongly disagree with and that is understanding someone else’s point of view (in this case, the point of view of the companions) through events that lack any context whatsoever. Reports by their very definition is brought to us by a chain of narrators who use their own words, exclude things from the event on their whim whatever they see fit and have conveyed it however they understood it from the previous person in the chain.
Your next point corroborates my statement. That Ghamidi Sahab mentioned a report in which it is not the immigrant women but rather the women of the helpers that are mentioned. This means that we don’t actually know even the few details that the narrators cared to mention 😅. The only thing we can say is that the event pertains to one group of Muslim women exclusively: either the women of the helpers or the immigrant women. Also, regarding how Ghamidi Sahab interpretted this Hadith, can you provide a link to the exact time? 😅
Regarding your last paragraph: we can say that by reading the Quran. We read the Quran, find out it says nothing about covering the head and conclude that headcovering has not been mandated by God. Look, do we agree that a particular group of women changed the cloth they used for their headcover? Nowhere does the report say that that group of women believed what people take them to believe. It is like this:
1) Women were covering their head from eons before the رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسل (this part is agreed upon by most scholars according to what little I know)
2) All women heard these verses
3) A particular group made their headcovers from another cloth
How can this be taken to mean that they believed headcovering had been mandated in the Quran? It can be taken to mean that the Quran said something for which a particular group of women needed to change their headcover for.
Also, the Prophet did not provide an explanation for these verses to the companions. We can say this because they disagreed about its interpretation between themselves. So, we can disagree with the companions too, but everything we say has to be based on evidence from the Quran itself.
Regarding a video of Ghamidi Sahab about Quran-Hadith relation, the moderators can guide you, so you can start another thread for that. I do know, however, that he believes that the injunctions of the Quran are not to be understood through these reports but rather these reports are to be understood in the light of the Quran.
For your next response, can you make bullet points out of your reasoning so that I can understand exactly what you mean and how you reason it out and address each point one by one?
-
Another reasoning that I came across is that the word khimaar has the same meaning as the modern word hijab ( not the ancient meaning of this word, which just means a curtain I think). This means that if today someone tells a woman to ” wrap their hijabs over their bosoms” it would mean to cover the head and then use the rest of the hijab to cover the bosoms. And the hadith would be something like this ” When they heard this ayat , wrap their hijabs over their bosoms, they tore some cloth and wore a hijab made of it” and then this would solve what seemed to be an incompatibility between the ayat and the hadith. How do you view this reasoning?
-
First of all, the word Hijab today does not have the same meaning as the word خمار. 😅 By the way, linguistically Hijab just means a barrier. Secondly, I wouldn’t get what you mean if you tell me that someone has to wrap her Hijab over her bosom. I would kindly ask you to talk in English 😂 Sorry, sorry, that was a joke. I just want to convey that I wouldn’t understand at all what you mean. Having said that, you would be taking the injunction way out of context. The Quran says that they shouldn’t display their ornaments and (for this purpose) put their خمر on their جيوب and thus shouldn’t display their ornaments except in front of… I wrote “for this purpose” in brackets because the phrase isn’t there in wording but anyone familiar with the Arabic language knows that that is what is meant and just one of the evidences is that وليضربن بخمرهن على جيوبهن has been sandwiched between two ولا يبدين زينتهن.
By they way, even if you asked someone who is already wearing a Hijab to wrap her Hijab around her bosom, it would still have nothing to do with you wanting her to cover her head 😅 Also, the word is not wrap but place. Once again, if they were already wearing a Hijab and upon hearing the verses just made another one, it would still not mean that wearing the Hijab is obligatory. It would just mean that the old one didn’t fulfill the purpose intended by the wearer. Remember that scholars generally agree that it was customary for free Arabian women to cover their heads (notice “free” there. Slave women were also women and no one asked them to do anything excep cover from the navel to the knee).
So, those were my thoughts. Waiting for your next reply. 😃
-
Sorry bro my choice of words was confusing
• Yes I know hijab actually means a barrier. What I meant to say was that in modern terminology, the word hijab just means a headcover, just like khimaar meant a headcover back then. So if today someone tells a woman to ” wrap/place their hijabs over their bosoms” and there would be another hadith ” when they heard it they tore some sheets and wore a hijab made of that cloth” , wouldn’t it mean that covering the head is mandatory?
• Yes bro I’m aware about the awrah of slave women as defined by classical scholars. I for one could never understand how they managed to reach that conclusion, despite the fact that the Qur’an clearly instructs ALL Muslim women to cover their bosoms with khimaar and doesn’t make any distinction between free and slave women in this regard. The thing is that I want to reach the truth, from the Qur’an and the Sunnah and the sahih ahadith( Ghamidi Sahab does say that while ahadith do not add anything new, they do explain what’s already mentioned in the Quran , if I’m not mistaken) , and nor what the previous scholars thought about it.
• My point is , Ghamidi Sahab says that while akhbaar-e-ahad don’t add anything new to religion but they still provide an explanation of what’s already been mentioned(again, if I’m not mistaken) so why can’t someone argue that the while the Qur’an just says to wear/place their khimaars over their bosoms, but because khimaar meant headcover, a confusion arises(for those who weren’t there in the community at the time of revelation) on whether the ayat is instructing that the just the bosoms be covered by a khimaar ( or any other equivalent) or the instruction was to wear a khimaar like one normally would and then also cover their bosoms with it, so to clear this confusion, we looked at the tradtions for explanation, and we came across this hadith which probably meant that the women also covered their heads with it?
Thanks
-
السلام علیکم!
No, no, your words were not confusing. I just wanted to be able to address your points in order.
1) Can you please reread my previous reply (there were 2, maybe you haven’t read one of them). I discussed how this would be an allegory of the words of the Quran out of context. The Quran doesn’t say these words out of context but asks for the خمار to be placed on the جیب so that the ornaments are not displayed. One can ask why doesn’t the Quran just ask for a cloth to be placed on the جیب instead of mentioning the خمار. We have to understand the اسلوب of the Quran. It doesn’t say that in difficulty, you can skip a fast. It says if you are sick or travelling, you can skip a fast. It actually demonstrates situations in which a fast may be skipped. Similarly, instead of asking for necklaces to be covered, it asks for the خمار which women worn to be placed on the جیوب as a way of covering the necklaces. I have mentioned how the fact that concealing the ornaments is what is required from the خمار is clear from the Quran.
2) Ghamidi Sahab doesn’t agree that the Quran is to be understood through reports. When he says that they explain the Quran, it doesn’t mean that we understand the Quran through them. The Quran gives broad injunctions. Through history we find how certain injunctions were applied by the Prophet. For example, the Quran says that iniquity and unwarranted rebellion is Haram. From the reports we find that the Prophet applied this in the matter of gold and silk and made them Haram for men based on these principles. But the principles themselves are not to be understood using reports. So, we won’t search the reports that have reached us on what the Quran meant when it gave certain injunctions.
3) Again, how you understand Ghamidi Sahab’s words is not what Ghamidi Sahab means when he says that reports explain the Quran. The injunctions of the Quran will always be understood independently (so the injunction of اضراب خمار will be understood independently). In history, we get how the Prophet applied certain broad injunctions. That we get through these reports. These are not conclusive. So, any report can be rejected if someone subjectively suspects it.
4) Firstly, no such confusion arises. It only arises because we have grown up in an environment which continuously says that the head cover is mandatory. Muhammad Asad, for example, reaches almost the same conclusion that the real thing is for the bosom to be covered and not that this has to be done using a خمار. However, let’s say confusion did arise. Then we will still say (in my opinion) that head cover is not mandatory because God would’ve made two things extremely clear: I) the things which are forbidden and II) the things which are mandatory.
5) Lastly, again, we absolutely don’t look for explanations in reports. Whether women covered their heads with it or not is not our concern. They were already covering their heads before this revelation. Our concern is what the Quran says and whether the women did that or not. Now, look at it this way: we all agree that the Quran asks for the جیب at least to be covered. We don’t find in the report (in its literal words) that the women covered their جیوب. So, now what? We turn a blind eye to the words of the Quran and say that it was actually talking about the head and not the جیب? Of course not! The Quran has delineated what is required and that is the covering of the جیب to conceal ornaments.
-
-
Thank you I understand your point.
-
Brother Mumin if you are interested in knowing the historical evidences and how muslims in early islam saw this discourse I would advise you to watch the halaqa session ( 4 Chapters) by Khaled Abou El Fadl on sound cloud. He does not come to any conclusion of whether it is an obligation to cover the head or not in the videos.
-
السلام علیکم
Can we get a link please, Rehmat Bhai?
-
Sponsor Ask Ghamidi
