Talking about the "Hijab" is no longer just a debate about clothing choices; over centuries, it has transformed into a tool for moral blackmail, social compliance, and an imaginary scale to measure women's ethics and chastity.
This piece of cloth has been employed as a "thermometer" for social control and guardianship. What was once an "environmental habit" worn in ancient times for protection against sun and sand has become a religious obligation to which people are driven by intimidation. It has shifted from a "piece of cloth" linked to a specific environment to a "ticket to heaven," in a scene that reduces the entire religion into a few strands of hair.
In this article, we will re-read the Quranic text away from the noise of tradition, to discover how "Hijab" is a human creation and a collection of customary accumulations, unsupported by the Arabic language or the logic of revelation. We will explore how the "unspoken" (the head) became an obligation, while the "explicitly stated" (general modesty) became mere detail.
1. The Khimar.
Those who argue for the obligation of the Hijab rely on the verse: "and let them wrap their headcovers (khumur) over their chests (juyub)" [An-Nur: 31]. The methodological error here begins with confusing the "tool" with the "purpose."
In the Arabic language, "Khimar" is everything that covers (from 'khamara,' meaning to cover). Historically, both men and women in the Arabian Peninsula wore head coverings as a functional environmental habit for protection against the sun, dust, and head parasites. Even today, these customs persist in some tribal areas.
The Quran did not say "wear the Khimar," but rather used the "tool" they were already wearing to direct them to cover another area that was exposed at the time: the "Jib" (the chest opening). It is exactly like telling someone wearing a hat: "pull your hat down over your eyes to protect you from the sun." Here, you haven't legislated "wearing a hat," but directed the use of what is available (the hat) to achieve a goal (eye protection).
2. The Pre-Islamic (Jahiliyya) Contradiction.
This is the point that breaks traditional logic. It is historically established that women of the Jahiliyya period wore the "Khimar" and let its ends fall behind their backs, while the chest opening (Jib) remained exposed.
Here we ask the mind: If the headcover in that era was a "garment of modesty," how could a woman accept covering her hair while leaving her chest bare?!
This proves that the "Khimar" had no religious or moral significance; it was merely a functional piece of clothing to protect hair from the desert environment. The Quranic intervention came to correct a flaw in practical modesty, telling them: instead of throwing the Khimar back, wrap it over your chests (Juyub) to cover them. The divine command is focused on the "chest," while the "head" remained mentioned as part of customs, not legislations. The essence here is covering the "Jib," not the sanctity of the "Khimar."
As for those who argue that the head was "implicitly" covered and thus there was no need to mention it in the verse:
We ask here: Is everything that is "implicit" religiously binding?
A simple rational rule: Legislation is not built on assumptions, but on specific text. If we open the door to the "implicit," we would introduce intention, custom, tribal understanding, and dominant culture. This would destroy the idea of revelation as an independent guiding text and return us to the authority of society, not the text. What is the standard that makes this "implicit" binding while we reject thousands of other implicit matters? There is no standard except tradition. This indicates that covering the head was a custom at the time and not a religious legislation.
3. Legislative Silence.
The Holy Quran is precise in its wording. When God wanted to mention washing (Wudu), He said: "and wipe over your heads" [Al-Ma'idah: 6]. When He mentioned Hajj, He said: "and do not shave your heads" [Al-Baqarah: 196]. Why, then, when the discussion turned to covering and modesty, was there no mention of the "head" or "hair," while the "Jib" (chest) appeared?
If a woman's hair were an "Awra" (private part), the text would have clearly said: "let them wrap their headcovers over their heads." The silence regarding the head in the verses of adornment and covering is a "deliberate silence," because God does not legislate customs; He legislates values.
4. The Verse of Jilbabs.
In Surah Al-Ahzab, we find the verse: "O Prophet, tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to bring down over themselves [part] of their outer garments (jalabib). That is more suitable that they will be known and not be abused." [Al-Ahzab: 59]
Jurisprudents have long interpreted this verse as a distinction between the "free woman" and the "slave woman," as if God asks for the protection of the free while leaving the slave to harassers! This is a deficient understanding that insults divine justice.
Defining Visual Identity: "To be known" does not mean "known as an aristocratic class," but rather "known as adherents to the new moral path." In Medina, fools used to harass women who appeared in a way that suggested vulgarity. The Quran asked believing women to declare their "visual identity" through the Jilbab (a wide garment) to block the excuse of harassers who used to say, "we thought she was a woman of the night."
The Jilbab here was a "defensive means" to prove seriousness and chastity in a turbulent environment, not an eternal legislation for a woman's body.
Here we ask a question: Did the Quran permit the harassment of slaves?
Many stop at verse 59 but ignore verse 60 that immediately follows it, which threatens harassers with curse and expulsion from the city: "If the hypocrites and those in whose hearts is disease and those who spread rumors in al-Madinah do not cease, We will surely incite you against them..." [Al-Ahzab: 60]. God did not say "we will expel whoever harms a free woman and leave whoever harms a slave," but made the general punishment a deterrent to protect all women.
Based on this, the "Jilbab" was not a devotional obligation, but an "identifying mark" (visual ID) for the purpose of safety. Today, the reason (identification of identity) has fallen away while the value (modesty and covering) remains.
5. The Deception of "Apparent Adornment."
When God says: "and not expose their adornment except from it what is apparent" [An-Nur: 31], He left "what is apparent" subject to custom and environment. In human creation, the face, head, and hands are naturally apparent parts for interaction. The Quran never classified "human hair" as a "Sawa'ah" (shameful part) that must be hidden. Instead, it left the matter to customs and general taste according to each society.
The upside-down reality today is that we see a woman covering every strand of her hair with a "Hijab," yet she wears clothes that define her charms, and she is still called "veiled"! Meanwhile, a woman who covers her body and chest with a modest shirt but exposes her hair is accused in her religion. This shift from "essence" to "crust" is the product of traditional thought that sanctified the "means" (the Khimar) and lost the "end" (general covering).
Why do many insist on the sanctity of the Hijab? Because it has turned into an ideological "banner." Women's "chastity" has been reduced to a piece of cloth, enabling societies and currents to practice full guardianship over the woman's body. The blackmail begins by deluding the woman that God will hang her by her hair if she exposes it—an intimidation that has no origin in the Book. The truth is that "covering" is a moral value, and the means of covering evolve with the evolution of times.
A modern shirt and a high collar today achieve the command of "wrapping over the chests" mentioned in the Quran much more than the "Khimar" of the pre-Islamic era. Religion is essence, and piety is the best garment: "but the clothing of righteousness - that is best." [Al-A'raf: 26].
The Hijab in its current form is "environmental folklore," an inherited habit dressed in the garment of sanctity to turn into an authoritarian tool. The Quran called for modesty and protecting the body from degradation; it did not make the "head" a battle of faith. God addressed the mind, and the mind says: "Covering is in the hearts and essence, and distinction is through ethics and law. As for heads, they have a Lord who judges what is inside them, not what is on top of them."
It is time for us to reconcile with the divine text away from the illusions of interpretation, to free ourselves from "jurisprudential blackmail," and to return to the Quranic text that came to liberate human beings. We must realize that God judges what is in hearts and minds, not what covers heads.