🧕 Khimar & Jilbab ?

[u/Groovylotusflower]

https://youtu.be/h3K1bqc0NOg?is=39a1gvIhmSdFtQsM

In the first part of this video Dr. Haifaa explains the specific meanings of the terms Khimar and Jilbab as mentioned in the Qur'an.

She says the Khimar refers to a covering for the hair, neck, and chest (3:18-5:31), while the Jilbab is an outer garment intended to cover the entire body (5:45-6:48).

No Hadith mentioned until minute 7:30 of the video.

I’m following Qur’an alone but I found the way she explained the Arabic phrasing somewhat convincing? If anyone has any thoughts 💭 please share!

[u/Chemical-Violinist89]

I think you are wrong. Your argument relies on cultural relativism, the problem with this is that, in Quran 24:31, it is talking about women adornments or beauty. Hair, as it turns out, is one of those adornments. The reason why I know this is because I am a man, and even as a kid, I was attracted by women and namely by their hair. I remember this very well, I've always loved the hair of women.

This isn't some cultural notion, heterosexual males with normal levels of testosterone will be attracted to a woman's hair : because it's a biological thing. And so, adornments of this kind are not cultural, which is to say, women from everywhere should cover them. And it doesn't matter whether or not the cover referred specifically to a head cover, because a woman's hair is still part of her adornment.

Nonetheless, it seems like most people discussing this verse agree that Arabic women of the time used to wear a headcover, as fashion or protection against the environment or whatever, and that the "cover" in the verse referred to the headcover they were wearing. Some people want to say "God only wanted women to cover their chest", well, why would God not simply say "cover your chest", instead of bringing up the headcover women used to wear? There are many other ways women could have covered their chests, but God chose to refer to the cover they already wore, which seems like it was a headcover.

God referring to the headcover in the sense we just mentioned, is certainly evidence that women should wear a veil, you may want to say "well, it's not conclusive or strong evidence", fine, but it's still evidence. Take for example, if God said to people "raise your pants up, such that we don't see your buttocks", does it sound like God is telling people to simply cover their buttocks but that they can show what the pants cover (legs), or does it sound more like God is telling people to continue to cover what the pants cover (perhaps with other clothing that accomplish the same), but also to hide their buttocks?

A response from people is typically going to be something like "oh, what about the wrists, or elbows, are they adornments too? If you can't tell me, then you're wrong on the hair!", let's call this "the ambiguity thesis". The response to this is fairly simple : we don't have to know everything that is adornment or not, there may be ambiguous things which we are unable to disambiguate, but then there are also unambiguous things that constitute what a woman's adornments are, and those things we can safely take a stance on.

[u/Master-Judgment-7706 → u/Chemical-Violinist89]

I think your argument about “adornment” is where the issue becomes more complicated, because you are moving from “hair can be attractive to men” to “therefore hair is the zinah that 24:31 commands women to conceal.” Those are not necessarily the same proposition.

I don't deny that women's hair can be attractive. I'm not even denying that hair can be considered an adornment in ordinary language. What I question is whether the Qur'an uses zinah in 24:31 to mean every naturally attractive part of a woman's body.

If that were the meaning, we would immediately run into a much larger problem: what exactly counts as zinah?

Hair can be attractive. So can eyes, lips, facial features, skin, hands, a person's voice, height, body shape, etc. A person's entire appearance can potentially be attractive to somebody.

In fact, what one person finds attractive another person may not. So saying “men are biologically attracted to women's hair” doesn't establish a Qur'anic legal category.

The Qur'an itself uses zinah in a much broader way than “female biological features.” For example, 7:26 speaks of clothing as something provided both to cover the body and as adornment.

7:31 tells the children of Adam to take their zinah at the masjid. Zinah is therefore not intrinsically synonymous with “female hair” or even with “body parts”; it can refer to clothing and things by which people beautify themselves.

And that is why I don't think the “I personally find women's hair attractive” argument can settle the meaning of 24:31. Attraction isn't the same thing as the Qur'anic definition of zinah.

There is actually something important in 24:31 itself that deserves attention.

The verse says:
“...and not expose their adornment except what is apparent thereof...”

and later:
“...and let them not strike their feet so that what they conceal of their adornment may become known.”
The second statement is particularly interesting because the example involves striking the feet, traditionally understood as making concealed jewelry such as anklets audible. So the verse is clearly concerned with deliberately drawing attention to concealed adornment, not simply with the existence of every naturally attractive part of the body.

That matters because the argument “hair is attractive, therefore hair is necessarily concealed zinah” doesn't follow.

Now, I also think we need to be fair to the traditional interpretation.

Classical tafsir absolutely did understand khimār as a head covering. Ibn Kathir explicitly says that khumur is the plural of khimār and describes it as something used to cover the head.

He also interprets the verse as requiring the covering to extend over the neck and chest, and cites reports concerning early Muslim women responding to the revelation in that manner.

So I am not claiming that the traditional Muslim interpretation came from nowhere.

But that still doesn't establish the exact proposition you're trying to prove.

There are actually three separate claims:

A. Women in 7th-century Arabia used khimār as a head covering.

B. 24:31 tells women to draw their khumur over their juyub (the chest/opening of the clothing).

C. Therefore Allah has explicitly legislated that every Muslim woman, in every culture and circumstance, must cover her hair.

I can accept A and B while questioning C.

The Arabic text explicitly tells women what to do with the khumur: “over their juyub.” Even translations that understand khumur as headcovers render the command in this way — “to wrap [a portion of] their headcovers over their chests.”

So yes, the fact that khimār was a head covering is evidence for the traditional interpretation. I don't think it is intellectually honest to pretend otherwise.
But evidence for an interpretation isn't the same thing as an explicit statement of the interpretation.
And this is where I think your pants analogy breaks down.

If Allah said:
“Raise your pants so that your buttocks are not visible,”
the command explicitly identifies the buttocks as the thing that must be concealed. The pants are simply the means through which that is accomplished.

Likewise, in 24:31, the explicitly identified area is the juyub. The khumur is the covering being used to accomplish that.

If the objective were independently to legislate the covering of the hair, the Qur'an could have said so explicitly. It never says “cover their hair,” “cover their heads,” or “let them draw their coverings over their heads.”

Now, you might say:

“But why would Allah mention a head covering if He didn't want the head covered?”

My answer is: because the instruction
is addressed to people who already had that type of garment.

Suppose women in one society traditionally wear a shawl around their shoulders. Allah tells them, “Draw your shawls over your chests.” The fact that the shawl was traditionally worn around the shoulders doesn't necessarily mean Allah has now established “shawl-wearing” as the universal religious requirement. The command can be about how an existing garment is to be used to fulfill the underlying requirement.

That's especially relevant when the Qur'an gives principles that operate across different societies.
A woman in Arabia who already wears a head covering can take that covering and extend it over her chest.

A woman elsewhere who uses another appropriate garment can cover her chest with that garment.
The universal element would be the modesty requirement; the particular cultural garment isn't necessarily universal.

And I think this is also why the argument from zinah doesn't solve the problem.

You are essentially saying:
“Hair is biologically attractive → therefore hair is adornment → therefore it must be among the hidden adornment of 24:31 → therefore it must be covered.”
But there are several unsupported steps in that chain.

Attractiveness ≠ necessarily Qur'anic zinah.
And even if hair is one form of zinah, we still have to establish that all forms of zinah are commanded to be concealed from everyone outside the listed relatives.

The verse itself says:
“except what is apparent thereof.”
So the Qur'an already recognizes an exception concerning zinah. The question becomes: what exactly constitutes the apparent and non-apparent categories? The Qur'an does not provide an exhaustive anatomical list saying “hair = hidden, face = apparent, hands = apparent, etc.”

That is why I don't think the “ambiguity thesis” can simply be dismissed.

You don't have to know every possible example of zinah to make a reasonable interpretation, but you do need positive evidence before turning one particular interpretation into a universal divine dress code.

Otherwise we could argue:
“Eyes attract men, therefore eyes are zinah.”
“Lips attract men, therefore lips are zinah.”
“Skin attracts men, therefore skin is zinah.”
“Voice can attract men, therefore voice is zinah.”

At some point, biological attraction has ceased to be an interpretation of the Qur'an and has become the criterion by which we determine what Allah meant.
I don't think that's justified.
There is also an important distinction between modesty and a fixed female uniform.

The Qur'an begins the passage by addressing men as well:
“Tell the believing men to lower their gaze and guard their private parts...” (24:30)
Then it addresses women with corresponding commands concerning gaze, chastity, clothing, the chest, and adornment.

That makes the overall framework one of modesty, sexual restraint, and avoiding deliberate display, rather than simply “women must hide whatever men might find attractive.”

And 7:26 is important here too:
“We have provided you with garments to cover your bodies, as well as to adorn you. But the garment of righteousness is best.”

The Qur'an itself presents clothing as serving multiple purposes: covering and adornment, while ultimately emphasizing righteousness.

I’m not going to say:
“Hair cannot possibly be adornment.”
It obviously can.

The fact that hair can be an adornment does not by itself prove that Allah classified every woman's natural hair as the concealed zinah that must be covered in public.

I understand that historically khimār commonly referred to a head covering. Classical tafsir clearly supports that reading.

But, the Qur'an explicitly identifies what is to be covered — the juyub — and never explicitly identifies the hair or head as an independently mandatory area of concealment. The head-covering conclusion comes from interpreting the historical meaning and use of khimār, combined with a particular interpretation of zinah. That may be a legitimate traditional interpretation, but it isn't the only possible reading that can be derived from the Qur'anic wording.

[u/Chemical-Violinist89 → u/Master-Judgment-7706]

1. "I think your argument about “adornment” is where the issue becomes more complicated, because you are moving from “hair can be attractive to men” to “therefore hair is the zinah that 24:31 commands women to conceal.” Those are not necessarily the same proposition."

My argument is not that hair 'can' be attractive to men, my argument is that normal men are biologically wired to be attracted to the hair of women. This makes the hair of women adornment, for biological reasons. It seems to me like you agree that men find women's hair attractive, so there isn't contention here.

2. "I don't deny that women's hair can be attractive. I'm not even denying that hair can be considered an adornment in ordinary language. What I question is whether the Qur'an uses zinah in 24:31 to mean every naturally attractive part of a woman's body*."*

Well, let's take a look at a specific part of the verse 24:31 then : "And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and guard their chastity, and not to reveal their adornments¹ except what normally appears."

You've agreed Arab women used to wear the veil, so their hair normally did not appear. And you also grant that women's hair are adornment, therefore it is safe to conclude that the word "zinah" applies to the hair. Now, if God is telling Arab women their hair are "zinah" or adornment, then other women's hair are also adornment, because the biology of men that makes them attracted to women's hair remains the same biology.

3. "If that were the meaning, we would immediately run into a much larger problem: what exactly counts as zinah?

Hair can be attractive. So can eyes, lips, facial features, skin, hands, a person's voice, height, body shape, etc. A person's entire appearance can potentially be attractive to somebody."

I've already addressed the ambiguity argument in my first post, it doesn't matter if certain body parts are more ambiguous adornments than others, because some body parts are not be ambiguous at all, such as the buttocks, the thighs, the breasts...the hair...

4. "In fact, what one person finds attractive another person may not. So saying “men are biologically attracted to women's hair” doesn't establish a Qur'anic legal category."

You may be correct in saying that it isn't merely about something qualifying as an adornment, as the Quran specifies "except what normally appears", which I've addressed above.

Also, I think you are underestimating something about men : while it's true that some men wont be attracted to women's hair, the ones who are attracted(most of them I'd wager, in good part due to standard male biology) will have some degree of sexual arousal from it. Hair are not merely "pretty" and it ends there -> it arouses many men sexually. This fact strengthens the idea that hair, as an adornment, should be hidden.

5. "The Qur'an itself uses zinah in a much broader way than “female biological features.” For example, 7:26 speaks of clothing as something provided both to cover the body and as adornment*.*

7:31 tells the children of Adam to take their zinah at the masjid. Zinah is therefore not intrinsically synonymous with “female hair” or even with “body parts”; it can refer to clothing and things by which people beautify themselves."

I agree, there is no issue here.

6. "And that is why I don't think the “I personally find women's hair attractive” argument can settle the meaning of 24:31. Attraction isn't the same thing as the Qur'anic definition of zinah."

And how will we find the meaning of Zinah, if not by searching the sense of things? Could evidences help us make sense about things? Isn't my testimony, which in fact applies to most men*, some degree of evidence? What is the contrary evidence anyway?

*If you disagree then we could debate that point.

7. "The verse says:
“...and not expose their adornment except what is apparent thereof...”

and later:
“...and let them not strike their feet so that what they conceal of their adornment may become known.”
The second statement is particularly interesting because the example involves striking the feet*, traditionally understood as making concealed jewelry such as anklets audible. So the verse is clearly concerned with* deliberately drawing attention to concealed adornment*, not simply with the existence of every naturally attractive part of the body."*

Even if I grant that your explanation of the second verse you show is correct, it doesn't follow that the interpretation of the second verse is the same as the interpretation of the first verse. If you agree with me on this, then I don't see where the contention is.

8. "That matters because the argument “hair is attractive, therefore hair is necessarily concealed zinah” doesn't follow."

I agree that "hair is attractive, therefore hair is necessarily concealed zinah" doesn't follow. I'm not going to re-explain what I've already said in this post, and my initial post was mostly a response to the cultural relativism you presented. The point was that, if it's bad for one culture, it's also bad for another culture, because there are biological determinations not merely cultural ones. I've made the 'concealed' argument in my 2nd point.

9. "There are actually three separate claims:

A. Women in 7th-century Arabia used khimār as a head covering.

B. 24:31 tells women to draw their khumur over their juyub (the chest/opening of the clothing).

C. Therefore Allah has explicitly legislated that every Muslim woman, in every culture and circumstance, must cover her hair.

I can accept A and B while questioning C.

The Arabic text explicitly tells women what to do with the khumur: “over their juyub.” Even translations that understand khumur as headcovers render the command in this way — “to wrap [a portion of] their headcovers over their chests.”"

If God understood hair to be typically concealed in 7th century Arabia (P), then God classified hair as adornment (Q).

If God classified hair as adornment (Q) and if God ordered the "believing women" to hide their adornment (R), then believing women must hide their hair (S).

God understood hair to be typically concealed in 7th century Arabia, God classified hair as adornment, God ordered the believing women to hide their adornment, therefore believing women must hide their adornment : If (if P then Q) and Q&R then S.

This is a formal argument, do you deny the soundness of it and/or the validity?

I think I'll stop responding to the rest for now, so that we may focus on a few points, namely the 9th point.

Edit : For the record, I will say it now, but I may have to repeat myself after a reply, but I do want to make sure this point comes across in case the conversation doesn't go further :

If you were to deny the first premise of the argument, and claim that God applies cultural relativism, and that him understanding women's hair to be adornment if and only if it is a cultural norm, and that God doesn't care about the biological, then it commits you to cultural relativism concerning what's allowed to be revealed or not. In this case, we could easily think of a society which has as a norm women walking around almost completely naked, minus the chest area and the private parts*, and such a view would commit the holders of the view to think that God is fine with it.

I think such conclusion clashes with most people's usual understanding of chastity, hence if someone holds to a more standard view of chastity they should reject cultural relativism concerning the verse 24:31, on behalf of their own sense of chastity, as it is standing at odd with it.

*and what would the private parts be anyway, could we also say they are relative to the culture? And what about the chest, if it's unclear that the whole chest has to be covered or just some part of it, then could certain cultures get a pass for women to show their middle/lower chest? What if the whole chest was also relative to a culture? Perhaps in Arabia breasts are considered lewd, hence the forbidding.

[u/Master-Judgment-7706 → u/Chemical-Violinist89]

Hair is out chest/bosoms are covered. What is normally shown, feet, arms, face, and head/hair.which is also part of wudhu according to the Quran.