Dress code for women in Islam

Since one of the most visible signs of distorted Islam is the dress code for women, this is a detailed analysis of the female dress code according to the Quran. It is a bit lengthy and repetitive but if you stay with it and read the whole post, it may give you a different perspective. It is also hoped that a more accurate sense of the Quranic injunctions in Quran 24:31, 33:59 and 24:60 will be detailed. In addition, clarify if “except what appeared/is visible from it” in Quran 24:31 refers to specifics in the verse or is a snippet within the verse referring to something in general. In addition, I hope to clarify the meaning of some key Arabic words.

The verse Quran 33:53 is sometimes quoted for dress code but it is not accurate to do so.

Two sets of people are mentioned in the verse Quran 24:31 below, a general set, which includes everybody you may encounter in a public place and just one single subset with detailed qualification as to who should be included in this single subset. This detail needs attention. The presence of the husband with the other members of this subset is the first key and appears to be central to the understanding of this verse. Where will you find this group? There is no indication to further divide this subset or a hint of different degrees within this subset as some commentators would like us to believe and this is the second key, I will explain.

Literal: And say to the believers they (F) lower/humble from their eyesights, and they (F) protect/safe keep from their genital parts between their legs, and they do not show their decoration/beauty except what appeared/is visible from it, and they hold in place/sew (E) with their head covers/covers on their collar opening in clothes/chests , and they do not show their decoration/beauty except to their husbands, or their fathers, or their husband's fathers (fathers-in-law), or their sons, or their husband's sons (step- sons), or their brothers, or their brother's sons (nephews), or their sisters' sons (nephews), or their women, or what their right (hands) owned/possessed (i.e. caregivers under contract), or the followers/servants (those) not (owners) of need/desire/intelligence and resourcefulness (without a sexual drive) from the men or the child/children (the very old or very young), those who did not see and know of on the women's shameful genital parts , and they (F) do not beat/strike with their (F) feet to be known what they (F) hide from their decoration/beauty , and repent to God all together , oh you the believers, maybe/perhaps you succeed/win. Quran 24:31

If the above verse was supportive of "Hijab" as defined by some Muslims today (the word incidentally is not present in the verse) then it would pose a number of difficulties. First of all, there is no consensus on the issue that it does refer to Hijab furthermore it will be demonstrated that there is no basis for it to start with because the verse has to do with the relaxation of the dress code as much as compliance with certain standards in public. In fact, according to most commentators, face and hands are not included in the parts of the body not to be exposed in public. The presence of both husband and father in the list settles the issue. It cannot be face and hands because you do not need a detailed relaxation injunction to show your face or your hands to your husband or father. Thus, relaxation in the verse will not apply to face and hands because there is no need for it. It would be like telling the kids, don’t give your home telephone number to any stranger on the street but if you run into your Dad or Mom on the street you are allowed to give it to them. Your natural reaction to mentioning Mom or Dad in the advice would be like Duh or OKAY. Then what is God referring to in the verse?

Furthermore, since very small children are mentioned in the subset, who are not yet aware of a woman's sexuality, point towards something related to a woman’s sexuality, small children never associate a woman’s face with her sexuality. Most important the very old were also not deemed to associate a woman’s sexuality with her face even though they had a lifetime to make the association. Finally linking the identical word form "zeenatahunna" to beating/swinging/striking of feet bury the notion of face and hands as something linked to it.

We have to look at the issue from inside out, we have to agree on the part (s) of body, either fully exposed and/or apparent through clothing that can be seen by the husband and the other members of the subset, that is the father, the father in law, small children etc. Once we have identified which parts of the body, we can then settle the issue of which parts of the body are not to be shown in public. In terms of set and subset, to show to the subset but not show to the general set. Logic dictates that the verse is not referring to hiding your whole body from head to toe in public. Because, if the injunction were to hide your whole body in public then the exceptions dictate you are allowed to show your whole body to your husband along with the father and father in law, that would be simply absurd. The inclusion of husband in the list is very important to point us in the right direction.

One thing is very clear, I repeat, two sets of people are detailed, a general set (everybody) and just one single exhaustive subset with detailed qualification as to who should be included in this single subset. There is no indication to split this subset further as I already mentioned. Now where are you going to run into all these people, why of course at home, it is not about going around to the individual members of this group but the place where all these people assemble.

Now let's analyze the flow of verse Quran 24:31 to try and determine the context of certain terms in the verse;

.......... they (F) protect/safe keep from their genital parts between their legs, and they do not show their decoration/beauty except what appeared/is visible from it, and they hold in place/sew (E) with their head covers/covers on their collar opening in clothes/chests, and they do not show their decoration/beauty except to their husbands, or their fathers, ........

We see that in all probability the word form "zeenatahunna" is related to a woman’s sexuality and pointing to a woman's figure in terms of buttocks and breasts/bosom. Both qualify as something difficult to conceal completely even under clothing. Hence, “except what appeared/is visible from it” refers specifically to buttocks and breast/bosom, it does not refer to anything other than the established subject matter of the verse. Linguistically as well, the absence of a specific subject in these words necessitate, that it must be related to the subject matter before it or after it or both. The use of the word "thahara" is again pure genius, it is a root word in itself and focuses on readily seen, visible, clear or obvious. The word is positioned between mentioning the area with the term "furoojahunna", which include the buttocks and the part of the verse that mentions the covering of the "juyoobihinna" breast/bosom, both universally associated with a woman’s sexuality. Both parts of body draw attention when one beats/swings/strikes foot/feet on the ground. And the use of word form "juyoobihinna" literary refers to "collar opening" or any opening in clothes hence the chest area or any other such opening. It's a simple matter of ensuring that the chest area is taken care of (a difficult area to hide with normal shirts or blouses most women will confirm) when it comes to "covering" which is the theme of related verse Quran 33:59.

Thus, it is clear from the verse, when in public, cover your buttocks and breasts with an outer garment in addition to normal clothing if the normal clothes are tight for instance while specifically ensuring that the neck opening is covered. Now under what conditions can a woman or young girl be seen with buttocks and breast not covered with a piece of cloth in addition to normal clothes. That would be a young girl or women in a home environment. Furthermore, under what conditions women can be seen, with partially exposed breasts that would be a young mother not fully covering the breasts at home while nursing a child for instance. This again would make sense, even in a joint family with servants; a nursing mother should not have to keep looking for corners to nurse her baby. Think not only of well-off large joint families with mansions to live in but large poor families living in cramped spaces.

Are there instances that women are exposing their buttocks or breasts fully or partially in public? So that an injunction is needed. Visit any European beach or numerous tribes in Africa and South America and you will find just that. Not to mention the evergreen fashion of the low cut dress.

Now if our analysis is correct, it simultaneously settles the debate about breastfeeding in public. Furthermore, it takes care of all kind of conditions for example; feeling comfortable in hot humid conditions or going out in windy conditions when the contour of a women body can become “apparent” so to speak. It also takes care of eliminating the potentially awkward situations that can result when your maternal or paternal uncles are visiting. Finally, a woman should be able to lower her guard at home and relax among her immediate family members.

The verse Quran 24:60 is a further indication that the relaxation must be the buttocks and breasts, otherwise what is she (older women) allowed to reveal other than her buttocks and breasts (face and hands have already been discounted, see above ) not covered by an additional outer garment or loose part of clothing since these two parts of the body of an older women cease to be associated with her sexuality. In fact the use of the word form thiyābahunna, meaning garments, general term, when referring to not obligated to cover, kind of dismiss the notion that the dress code has to be of a particular form and even the outer garment need not be always a Jalbab mentioned in 33:59 in the word form jalābībihinna.

Literal: And the menopausal/non-child bearing from the women, those who do not hope/expect marriage, so an offense/guilt/sin is not on them (F) that they put (on) their clothes/garments not showing off beauty/decoration with decoration/ornament , and that they be chaste/pure (is) best for them, and God (is) hearing/listening, knowledgeable. Quran 24:60

So now, let us look at the third verse related to dress code for females:

Literal: You, you the prophet, say to your wives and your daughters and the believers' women they (F) near (lengthen) on them from their shirts/gowns/wide dresses, that (is) nearer that (E) they (F) be known (better than being identified), so they (F) do not be harmed mildly/harmed, and God was/is forgiving, merciful. Quran 33:59

Even if we were to ignore the natural question "where" altogether, first of all, the tone of this verse is not an injunction or "Hukum" and the mentioning of wives and daughters of the Profit Pbuh places it in a specific time and circumstances. The drawing near or close as is indicated by the word "adna" will not only take care of the lengthening and drawing near of an outer garment or a loose part of a garment but at the same time take care of another aspect related to drawing the garment nearer in the verse. This, in fact, discourages the loose flowing garment style of the rich and royalty, which tend to be the opposite of modest attire. The specific reference to the wives and daughters of the Profit Pbuh is very significant and points to protocol. Thus, the reason for drawing the clothes nearer has to do with protocol, recognition, and not the transformation of women into a tent. Furthermore, the manipulation in terms of drawing near of the garment rule out the "burka", "abaya" and shuttlecock kind of dress requirement in public, which does not need drawing near or close. In any case, the word form "jalabeebihinna" has never been associated with a stitched outer garment.

The important thing in the verse is the reason for covering in a certain way. The reason, of course, being protected from harm so if one could be harmed by being identified then it would stand to reason not to stick out like a sore thumb. Once we accept the rationale behind it, it is rather pretty straightforward to set the guidelines for when to adopt which option. 

Now we can see that by not covering her buttocks and breast in public with an outer garment or a loose part of a garment, there is a strong possibility of a women’s breast being exposed either intentionally or due to the nature of the contours. (It is sometimes difficult to avoid exposure through the neckline). However, once covered by an additional outer garment or a loose part of a garment to what one would wear normally, the injunction of covering the breast specifically is satisfied and after that, if the contours are still apparent through one or possibly two layers of clothing then that is acceptable in a public space. (Note: in case the breast would be visible through the neckline, then only the outer garment or a loose part of a garment, one layer, will be doing the covering).

At the same time in a home environment if an additional cloth or cover is not drawn across a woman's buttocks or chest than that would be acceptable. This is the relaxation, which satisfies the husband, father, father in law etc at the same time. Similarly, a nursing mother would be acceptable in a home environment as it should be. I repeat, think not only of well-off large joint families but large poor families living in cramped spaces.

One cannot and should not draw a conclusion from the verse Quran 24:31 that merely identify what must be hidden in public without a clear focus on the relaxation aspect of the injunction, the relaxation must satisfy a comprehensive set of people as a group, this group is detailed, taking up more than half the length of the verse. It is a mistake to say, it is the face and the hands only or the entire body and then be dumbstruck when asked, what can I show to; both my husband and father in law simultaneously, for which I need a special injunction. There is no mention of degrees or implied degrees for the exact set of people; it is a black and white issue as far as the relaxation aspect goes. It is about a woman being able to relax in her own home.

Quran 33:59 has taken care of the body and perhaps the breast by the use of the words "adna" and "jalabeebihinna". But to ensure, as always when God wants us to do something specific or refrain from something specific God always spells it out in no ambiguous terms. Hence, dress injunction specific to covering the breasts is revealed in Quran 24:31, if the head or the face or any other part of the body were to be covered through these verses, God would have mentioned it specifically as always. Most conservative commentators have tried to focus on the incidental mention of "khimar" and "jilbab". They have then proceeded to try to define these terms to mean what they want them to mean without success. Let us keep in mind the fact that if God wanted to convey the sense that head covering was obligatory, He would have used a more specific word from the Arabic language, Quran is Revealed in the Arabic tongue and the Arabic language has more specific and restrictive words for a head cover and other articles of clothing used to cover various parts of the body; Ghifar, Rida, Miqna, Izaar, Milhafa and indeed Hijab (Hijab again is a Quranic term and the Quran does not use it as a head cover), or even "Niqab" to settle the issue as claimed by some commentators. Needless to say, they have failed in making a case for "Hijab" and covering of the head and hair. It appears that the tactic of focusing on the incidentals was and is aimed at deliberately muddling the issue sufficiently, to draw attention away from the clear message of modesty in these Quranic verses.

Let me add, Quran is a showpiece for Self-Reference, it was revealed when the very notion of Self- Reference was not yet established. The use of the word Khimar instead of a more specific word for a head cover clearly points to the logical conclusion that yes cover your chest with a head cover if you are wearing one. In case you are not wearing one then use any other article of clothing that is available. Hence yes wear a head cover by all means if the objective is to dress modestly but it is not mandatory. God's infinite wisdom shines through, Hijab by itself is not oppressive but declaring it obligatory invariably would have opened the door for people to use it for oppression. The evidence of it is for all to see, the sect scene's fixation on "Hijab" has done exactly that, the door is so wide open that closing it is now the defining battle.

The following verse settles the issue for me;

O children of Adam, We have bestowed upon you clothing to conceal your private parts and as adornment. But the clothing of righteousness - that is best. That is from the signs of Allah that perhaps they will remember. Quran 7:26

Furthermore, if one would compare the instruction of "Wadu" in the Quran to the above verses and go on and on about the sources of water used in the Wudu and write volumes on the temperature and quantity to be used, what kind of salts are allowed in the water, what shape and color containers to be used for the "Wudu" water and how to dispose of the water etc, the natural reaction would be, wait a minute, none of that is in the verse. It is surprising that a lot of Muslims have fallen for the sophistry and fail to ask the tough question that has a direct impact on their lives 24/7.

To sum it up, as far as the dress code of women in Islam goes, the logical aspects of all three verses are fulfilled and the linguistic constrained are satisfied. A woman should go in public by covering her body in general but breasts specifically with an outer garment or a loose part of a garment but can forgo the outer garment or not have to draw the loose part of a garment across the chest when at home. There are some commentators who say that not just the collar opening of the chest area but any opening in one's garments. Additionally, you may nurse your child in a home environment but you may not do it in public without covering your chest area. As always, keeping with the spirit of tolerance in Islam, if necessary, the nursing in public will be understandable either way.

The irony is that as usual in all these innovations, Quranic terms are plucked out from the Quran and used to define totally unrelated concepts, unsurprisingly "Hijab" has a very different meaning in the Quran as we all know.

The most important thing in trying to interpret the Quranic verses is to have firm belief in the wording of God and instead of looking for shortcomings, look for reason and logic because that is exactly what God wants us to do.

One last thing I feel compelled to add, it took over 1800 words to articulate the three verses comprising of just 300 or so words. The repetitions were intentional to avoid ambiguity. If you were to just follow the injections in these verses pertaining to the dress code of women in Islam instead of looking for hidden meanings and adding extra words in brackets then you would instinctively benefit from all the above verses, without having to analyze them.