-
How Should We Understand The Command Regarding Khimar In Surah An-Nur 24:31?
I recently came across an explanation of Qur’an 24:31, where Allah says:
“And tell the believing women to lower their khumur over their bosoms…” (24:31)
I understand that khimar (خمار) was a known garment used by women at the time of the Prophet ﷺ, generally understood as a covering for the head. The practice of women wearing something over their heads was already present in pre-Islamic Arabia, but some women would leave the opening around the neck and chest exposed. The verse therefore instructed believing women to draw their khumur over their bosoms as well.
This raises several questions for me regarding the interpretation that khimar/head-covering is not itself a religious obligation, but rather a cultural practice that the Qur’an simply instructed women to use in a more modest manner.
1. Why did the Qur’an specifically mention khimar?
If the head-covering itself is merely a cultural custom and is not part of the religious command, why did Allah specifically use the word khimar and tell women to draw their khumur over their bosoms?
Wouldn’t this wording indicate that Allah was giving guidance through an already-existing garment, while also establishing a standard of modesty concerning the chest?
In other words, is the command only about covering the chest, or does the use of khimar also have implications for how a Muslim woman is expected to dress?
As I understand it, throughout Islamic history the overwhelming majority of Muslim scholars understood the Qur’anic and Prophetic guidance to require women to cover their bodies, with differences concerning precisely what constitutes the awrah and whether the face, hands and/or feet must also be covered.
If this understanding remained dominant among scholars for centuries, how should we evaluate a modern interpretation that reaches a substantially different conclusion?
Of course, the number of scholars holding a particular opinion does not by itself prove that the opinion is correct. But is it reasonable to conclude that generations of scholars, who devoted their lives to Qur’an, Hadith, Arabic and Islamic jurisprudence, collectively misunderstood such an important matter?
What methodology allows a contemporary scholar to reject such a long-established interpretation?
If the Prophet ﷺ and the women of the first Muslim community understood khimar as a head covering and then acted upon 24:31 by extending it over the chest, shouldn’t that historical practice have significant weight in determining the meaning of the verse?
If the answer is that the practice was cultural rather than religious, what evidence establishes that distinction?
-
This discussion was modified 2 weeks, 4 days ago by
Sara Ahmad.
-
This discussion was modified 2 weeks, 4 days ago by
-
5 Replies
-
How Should We Understand The Command Regarding Khimar In Surah An-Nur 24:31?
updated 1 week ago
2 Members
·
5
Replies
-
The majority of scholars have adopted the opinion of Ibn Abbas, who allows exposing the hands and face. It is the later opinion that scholars are inclined towards the idea that the whole body of a woman should be covered. This has been indicated with proofs from the early Islamic literature in my book Khawateen ka parda.
These queries have been addressed in the video series by Ghamidi Saheb, “Khawateen ka Parda”. In my book on this topic, “Khawateen ka Parda, I have elaborated on it. I present some relevant excerpts in English here:
“Khimar” refers to a scarf or covering cloth, commonly used to cover the head. In this sense, it is called khimar, meaning a head covering. It is similar to the word dupatta. A dupatta is generally worn by placing it across the two shoulders, and that is why it came to be called dupatta (literally, “two-fold”). However, the way something is normally used is not necessarily part of the meaning of its name.
For example, because it is called a dupatta, it does not mean that it must always be worn over both shoulders. Whether it is worn over the head, tied around the waist, spread over the whole body, or placed over only one shoulder, it is still called a dupatta. Similarly, the name khimar, or the particular way it is commonly worn—such as covering the head—does not necessarily mean that this particular way of wearing it is an essential part of the meaning of the word.
In verse 31 of Surah An-Nur, the instruction concerning the khimar does not mean that the khimar must first be placed on the head and then allowed to hang down to the neckline in such a way that the face becomes covered. That is not part of the meaning of khimar in this verse. The instruction simply means to place the khimar over the neckline/chest. This does not mean that the head should not be covered. The point here is to identify the specific purpose of the command, i.e., to cover the chest when it is adorned.
The fact that the verse does not mention covering the face when instructing women to draw their coverings over their necklines is an indication that covering the face is not the purpose of this verse. If covering the face were intended, this would have been the appropriate place to mention it. Such an instruction would also conflict with the exception concerning the display of adornment.
The instruction to cover the chest is already included in the command to guard one’s private parts/modesty (hifz al-furuj). Therefore, there was no need to repeat it. If there had been a reason to state it separately, it would have been mentioned immediately after the command to guard one’s private parts, rather than under the discussion of concealing adornment.
The specific instruction to cover the neckline in the context of adornment does not mean that, without adornment, the neckline may be left uncovered. In view of the instruction to guard one’s modesty, a woman is required to ensure that the contours or shape of her chest are not exposed. However, the particular command being discussed here is concerned with covering the neckline when adornment is present.
The reason the verse specifically mentions covering the adornment around the neckline is that, along with the face, the neck and the upper part of the chest connected to it—nahr and ‘unuq—are generally left exposed. These areas are not normally understood to be included in the command to guard one’s private parts. Therefore, one might have inferred that they could remain uncovered under the phrase “except what normally appears thereof” (illa ma zahara minha).
For this reason, the verse clarifies that these areas should not be treated as part of the exception when it comes to concealing adornment. Because the neckline is connected to the chest, it should be covered when there is adornment that would otherwise be visible.
-
Assalamu alaikum,
Thank you for the detailed response. I think I understand the distinction you are making much better now: you are distinguishing between the lexical meaning of khimar as a covering cloth and its customary use as a head-covering, and you are saying that the customary manner of wearing it is not necessarily part of the religious command in 24:31.
However, I still have a few questions about this reasoning.
If khimar was, in the historical context of the Qur’an, a garment that women commonly wore on their heads, and Allah says:
“…and let them draw their khumur over their juyub (necklines/chests)” (24:31),
why should we understand this as changing the manner in which the khimar is worn rather than instructing women to extend an already-existing head-covering over the chest?
In other words, I understand that the word khimar itself may linguistically mean “covering” and does not necessarily mean “head-covering” in every possible context. But shouldn’t the historical usage of the word and the garment at the time of revelation also be relevant to determining what the women addressed by the verse would have understood?
If women were already wearing their khumur on their heads, wouldn’t the natural meaning of the command be: continue wearing the khimar, but draw it down over the neckline/chest so that the chest is also covered?
If not, what evidence establishes that the Qur’an intended to detach the word khimar from its customary use as a head-covering in this verse?
I also wanted to ask about one point in your response that I found particularly interesting. You state that:
“The instruction to cover the chest is already included in the command to guard one’s private parts/modesty (hifz al-furuj).”
If covering the chest was already required under hifz al-furuj, then what precisely is the new legal instruction introduced by “wal-yadribna bi-khumurihinna ‘ala juyubihinna”?
Is the verse simply explaining how women should fulfil an existing obligation, or is it establishing an additional requirement specifically concerning the concealment of adornment?
You also explain that the verse specifically addresses the neckline and upper chest because these areas might otherwise be considered part of “except what normally appears thereof” (illa ma zahara minha).
Could you therefore clarify whether, according to your interpretation, a woman who covers her chest but does not cover her head is still fulfilling everything that 24:31 specifically requires?
And if so, is there any Qur’anic verse, Prophetic Sunnah, or early Islamic practice that establishes a requirement for women to cover the head independently of 24:31? Or is your position that head-covering is permissible and culturally appropriate but not established as an obligatory religious ruling?
Finally, I would like to understand the methodological principle here. If the Qur’an uses an existing cultural garment in a command, how do we determine which aspects of its customary use are merely cultural and which aspects are intended by Allah to form part of the prescribed manner of dress?
For example, if the women of the Prophet’s time understood khimar as something worn on the head and then understood 24:31 as an instruction to extend it over the chest, what evidence would be necessary before we could say that their understanding was customary rather than an indication of how the Qur’an itself was understood?
I am asking this because my main difficulty is not simply whether the word khimar can technically mean “covering.” My difficulty is understanding why the historical meaning and customary use of the garment at the time of revelation should not be given decisive weight in interpreting this particular command.
I would be grateful if you could clarify this distinction.
-
These questions have already been addressed in the response above.
The command to cover the chest with a khimar is given in the context of zeenat, specifically where the adornment is worn around the chest area. The customary manner in which a khimar is worn is not inherently included in the meaning of the words themselves. Its particular use or customary manner of wearing it is not part of the linguistic meaning of the command.
I would suggest reading the book or listening to the series **“Khawateen ka Parda”** to understand the linguistic methodology we have adopted for interpreting the Quran.
-
Assalamu alaikum,
Thank you for the clarification. I understand that the fact that a khimār was commonly worn on the head does not automatically mean that “head-covering” is part of the complete dictionary definition of the word, nor does the word alone prove that covering the head is obligatory.
However, I have a few questions about the methodology:
1. How much weight should historical usage have?
If the khimār was an existing garment that women at the time of revelation commonly wore on their heads, should that historical usage not help us understand what Allah was asking them to do in 24:31?
Even if “head-covering” is not the entire linguistic meaning of khimār, why assume that this aspect is incidental rather than understand the verse as instructing women to extend an existing head-covering over their juyub?
2. What do the early reports indicate?
Sunan Abi Dawud 4102 reports from ʿA’ishah that when 24:31 was revealed, the early Muhajir women took pieces of their garments and ikhtamarna bihā—covered themselves with them.
If this report is authentic, how should it affect our understanding of how the first Muslim women understood khumur and the command in 24:31?
Similarly, Sunan Abi Dawud 4101, narrated by Umm Salamah, reports that when 33:59 was revealed:
“The women of the Ansar came out as if there were crows over their heads,”
because of the black outer garments they wore.
Does this narration suggest that the existing form and manner of wearing these garments were relevant to how the first Muslim women understood the revelations?
3. Why treat khimār and jilbāb differently?
If the historical and social function of the jilbāb is important for understanding 33:59, why should the historical use of the khimār as a head-covering not receive similar weight in interpreting 24:31?
Is the difference simply that 33:59 concerns identification and protection from harassment, while 24:31 concerns concealing zeenat?
If so, is the principle that the Qur’an prescribes the function of the garment, rather than necessarily prescribing its customary form?
4. What exactly does 24:31 require?
If a woman covers her chest and neckline properly but leaves her head uncovered, would she, according to this interpretation, have fulfilled the complete clothing requirement of 24:31?
If yes, what Qur’anic or Prophetic evidence establishes the minimum standard of women’s dress beyond the chest and neckline?
5. What about the face?
Does the argument simply mean that 24:31 does not itself command face-covering, or does it go further and conclude that Islam does not require the face to be covered at all?
If it is the latter, should the evidence from 33:59, hadith, the practice of the female Companions, and the early scholars also be considered before reaching that conclusion?
6. A comparative question
There is also an interesting parallel in the Bible. 1 Corinthians 11:5–6 discusses a woman praying or prophesying with her head uncovered and says that she should cover her head.
I am not suggesting that this proves a Qur’anic obligation. Rather, does this broader historical evidence of women covering their heads in the religious and cultural environment of the Near East help explain why head-covering was such an established practice when these Qur’anic verses were revealed?
Ultimately, my question is not simply, “Does khimār mean headscarf?” I understand that the word itself does not automatically establish an obligation.
My question is: When Allah gives a command through an existing cultural garment, how do we determine which parts of its existing use are merely cultural and which parts are relevant to understanding the religious command?
JazakAllah khair.
-
The question is repeated, that the historical or cultural usage must be included in the meaning. We don’t accept this. We don’t include the use of a thing in its meaning. This is not how language works.
Sponsor Ask Ghamidi
