Recently a trend has emerged amongst British Muslim females of predominantly non-Arab descent to scarf in a fashion that has its origin in an exotic Arabia. This trend, which is part of a broader project of “consuming piety” and rich cultural exchanges within a global multicultural society/context, has elicited a peculiar fatwa I wish to occasion with here. It proscribes the practice of donning the Hijab in a camel hump manner, associating it with a Hadith found in Sahih Muslim.
In a culture obsessed with appearances and images, and where realities are pinned exclusively to manifestations, it is not surprising to find quasi-jurists and novice legal practitioners confound resemblance with imitation. It is thanks to my dear comrade Moulana Uzair Khan of Bra'ford who brings to my attention developments on the gender front, which are otherwise seldom noted, that I present the following passages as a token of affection and comradeship.
A more perceptible message in the form of simplified glossy posters has been the corollary of the fatwa since, one of which I append to this post. It gave rise to some discussion amongst our fraternity. A few days ago, Sheikh al-Sharif Hatim ibn 'Arif al-'Awni of Ta’if posted his response to the issue engaging with an unnamed jurist who, logically following his literal reading to its end, extended the prohibition of wearing the camel hump headscarf “to even the confines of intimacy with one’s spouse”. His rebuttal is forceful and sufficient.
A translation of it is produced here after an example of one of the gloss posters currently being circulated amongst young teens:
-----------------------
“There are two types of dwellers in Hell I have not seen: 1) a community who will have whips like the tails of cows, with which they will flog people and 2) naked clothed women, seducing and attracting, their heads like the titled humps of camels. These women will not enter Paradise nor will they find its fragrance --- and its fragrance can be found from such and such a distance (i.e. from very far).”
As for the clause in the Prophetic dictum "their heads like the tilted humps of camels", there is nothing in it that indicates the prohibition of wrapping hair on top of the head, lest someone claim that it is prohibited for the female to do so, even in the privacy of her home and in front of her husband. This is why no scholar has stipulated this prohibition, nor has any Hadith commentator from the great Imams --- al-Maziri, al-Qadhi 'Iyadh, al-Qurtubi, al-Nawawi, al-Suyuti, al-Munawi et al. --- asserted the prohibition of tying hair in this manner.
Otherwise, according to this understanding, it would be illicit for a woman to wear tight clothes in front of her husband due of the clause "clothed naked women", as well as talk titillatingly to him which is one of the interpretations of the clause "[women who] seduce and attract".
All these descriptions have appeared in the Hadith report. Why, then, does he narrow the prohibition to the particular case of wearing the scarf in a camel hump fashion in front the husband alone, to the exclusion of the other descriptions?
Furthermore, given the Hadith has depicted the whip as being characteristic of one of the two groups threatened with Hell, this erroneous understanding would entail the unconditional prohibition of utilising oxtail like whips even if it is not used for abusing humans or animals.
So what is the meaning of the Hadith then?
The Hadith came to prophesise an unknown event that was/is to occur, of oppressors who will flog people with whips like oxtails and of promiscuous women that will lure strangers and draw their attention through various means.
The Hadith makes reference to some women who beautify themselves to lure strangers. Does this, however, prove the impermissibility of make-up and beautification? Or does it apply only to those who take beautification as a means to seduce others?
The Hadith has not come with an unconditional prohibition of oxtail like whips, …, nor wearing tight clothes even in front of one's spouse.
Thus, the understanding that the Hadith prohibits the gathering of hair on top of one’s head in a camel hump fashion is poor and considerably inaccurate. It necessitates several inconsistent and flawed stipulations, none of which have been held by any scholar as mentioned above.
Extending this weak understanding to the prohibition of the deed, even in the intimate company of one's spouse, then is flawed and innovative - again, owing to the fact that none of the previous scholars of note have voiced this opinion.
In fact, statements like this do not fall under the rubric of reliable ijtihad. Rather, it is an unreliable ijtihad for its innovativeness, in addition to it having no rational or textual basis.
If we are to explore the rational grounds behind the ruling and its purpose, then this approach will place the flawed opinion in complete contradiction with reason. However I have sufficed on demonstrating its divergence from the text leaving aside the rational arguments. Those interested in them can pursue them for themselves.
The purpose of this exposition is to show how the correct understanding of texts should be and how the incorrect understanding of texts contradicts not only with texts but also reason and scholarly consensus.
UN
If we are to explore the rational grounds behind the ruling and its purpose, then this approach will place the flawed opinion in complete contradiction with reason. However I have sufficed on demonstrating its divergence from the text leaving aside the rational arguments. Those interested in them can pursue them for themselves.
The purpose of this exposition is to show how the correct understanding of texts should be and how the incorrect understanding of texts contradicts not only with texts but also reason and scholarly consensus.
UN
No comments:
Post a Comment