Discovering the Headcover - 7

Having established a ground for the use of our reason in developing methods to understand and apply God's orders, it is time to see, for the same matter, few other instances from the Quran that necessitate the use of commonsense and further interpretation.

"And proclaim to the people the Hajj [pilgrimage]; they will come to you on foot and on every lean camel" (22/27) 

"And prepare against them what force you can and horses tied at the frontier, to frighten thereby the enemy of Allah and your enemy and others besides them, whom you do not know (but) Allah knows them;" (8/60)

"and eat and drink until the white thread becomes distinct to you from the black thread of the dawn." (2/187)

In these verses, we see the explicit mentioning of certain words for the fulfillment of certain actions as ordered by God. In the first one, going to pilgrimage on foot or on camels, in the second one, raising and maintaining battle horses, and in the third one, using threads to distinguish the exact time of start for the fasting in Ramadan. Today, we don't come across with a single person who claims that it is God's order to go to Hajj on camels or to raise horses against enemies. It is commonsense to go with the conditions of the time. Aside from these two, if you look at the third case above, you see that its misinterpretation due to literal understanding was corrected by God's messenger himself. He told his companions that the reference here is to the transition of darkness of the night to the brightness of the day. In all of these three cases, what needs to be done is explicitly mentioned by God, and yet, what is done is different what is told in those words!

So what's happening here? Clearly, when the need for re-interpretation or necessity for reading between the lines becomes obvious and compelling, the believers are going with their commonsense. They do this, even if it means abandoning what is literally mentioned by God! Then, what are we to conclude? That orders of God are subject to the confirmation by the commonsense of the majority at a given time in history? I don't think that makes sense. Then, what is the solution here? And how does that solution reflect on the issue of headcover?

Let's remember, if something is an order of God, it is and must be evident to the reader. That is, for example, you don't need to be expert in the Arabic language in order to understand that five daily prayers or fasting is an order of God. Conversely, if something is not evident to the reader, then it cannot attain the level of "order of God". Such lack of evidence doesn't mean, though, that God is not encouraging the believers in that regard. He is. However, the way it is done implies that the individuals must think of their own situation and decide for themselves what to do. The believers can, by all means, consult with each other and take expert opinion to make an educated decision in the matter. Still, the result from such effort is not an order of God that is obligatory for all believers, beyond time and space.

So, what about the cases above, then? How do we make sense of the three examples above in context of the above paragraph? Are we going to say that they are violations or compromises against clear orders of God? Add to that discussion the case of interfaith relations that was discussed in the fifth episode. There, we saw that some Muslims are going against what is told in the Quran repeatedly and openly by establishing good relations with non-Muslims. So, again, what are the Muslims doing when they face a compelling situation that pushes them to go beyond what meets the eye? They do what feels true! They embrace what makes sense rationally!

To understand this situation, I am going to share an observation about the mental development of the children. Prior to the development of basic abstract thinking and empathizing, if you point at something with your finger, instead of looking at what is pointed, young children (toddlers) look at your finger. It is only with the development of the mentioned faculties that the children perceive that mental exchange. Similarly, God's orders point at certain essences, which I am going to call functionality. If you focus on the functionality of what is told in the original text, you see no contradiction in what the Muslims do and what is told by God. So, functionality that is embodied in the literal text of the order is the essence that we, the believers, mine our guidance and energy when dealing with new situations. This concept of functionality can also be carried to the case of the headcover.

In the first verse that is relealed on the matter, God tells the believing women to cover themselves when going out so that they can be recognized and that they are not disturbed by men. Here, the notion of functionality so obvious. In order to ascertain what is ordered by God, the Islamic scholars have been discussing what kind of dress is Islamic and what is not. For that, they dig into the meaning of the word jilbab that is cited by God in 33/59. They go into what was done during the time of the messenger of God in this regard. This is why, today, you see some Muslim women covering themselves in extreme ways, thinking that that is the order of God. 

O Prophet, tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to bring down over themselves [part] of their outer garments. That is more suitable that they will be known and not be abused. And ever is Allah Forgiving and Merciful. (33/59)

However, if you take the same matter under the light of everything discussed so far and especially in the perspective of functionality, things become quite different. Ask yourself what kind of dress is more suitable for the Muslim women in order not to be assaulted not only by men but also by women of different life styles. The answer is going to be different for different countries and different societies. In some countries or cities, the way Muslim women dress puts them in the target, rather than protecting them! Isn't it better, then, to leave the matter to the women themselves to judge what is convenient and protective for them, given the context they are in? Indeed, the fact that the verse says "tell ..." rather than "o believing women, do so and so..." implies that the matter should be left to them. 

If we look under the light of functionality at the second verse, which is at root of the practice of headcover, we again come to the same result. In fact, this was the point that was discussed in the fourth episode. First, let's see the verses on the matter that are going to help us see things clearly:

And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and be modest, and to display of their adornment only that which is apparent, and to draw their veils over their bosoms, and not to reveal their adornment save to their own husbands or fathers or husbands' fathers, or their sons or their husbands' sons, or their brothers or their brothers' sons or sisters' sons, or their women, or their slaves, or male attendants who lack vigour, or children who know naught of women's nakedness. And let them not stamp their feet so as to reveal what they hide of their adornment. And turn unto Allah together, O believers, in order that you may succeed. (24/31)

And (as for) women advanced in years who do not hope for a marriage, it is no sin for them if they put off their clothes without displaying their adornments; and if they restrain themselves it is better for them; and Allah is Hearing, Knowing. (24/60)

The second verse here was not presented before, but it is posed here with the first one in order to highlight how the notion of functionality, rather than an exact style, is obvious in the related verses. The word veil (khumurihinna) is surrounded by adornment throughout these verses. Plus, the aim of covering the adornments and the goal of protecting people from illicit sexual relationships are rather obvious in not only these but also other verses in the same chapter (24/26-33,58-61).  

After this initial step, let's dig a little deeper. The word khamr (intoxicating beverages) and khimar (headcover) come from the same root, both referring to covering, the former for the brain the latter for the head. This common origin is used by some to support the conclusion that headcover is explicitly mentioned in the Quran. However, there is a second way to interpret the same observation. Yes, both usages are referring to the covering, but the khimar (veil) can be taken as a cover, not for the head of the women but, for the eyes of the men. Since men cannot veil their eyes, obviously, they are told to lower their gazes (24/30), and the women are told to use veil to cover the looks of the men. That is, a Muslim lady is covering the looks of the men, not her head, by using khimar. Therefore, such covering of the looks can be done through various ways, one of which could be the covering of the hair. However, khimar is not necessarily limited to the headcover.

As in the verse about the outer garment, in this one on the headcover, too, the verse says "tell..." rather than outlining an exact style. This again could imply that the matter of how to cover the looks of the men should be left to the creative thoughts of the women. In the same context, men can, instead of dictating women how to cover up themselves, help women acquire a sensitivity towards the message of God so that they act not only creatively but also God-consciously.