Addressing a Modernist Argument for Why the Hijab Is No Longer Applicable Today

Deleted L · Feb 2, 2022

Addressing a Modernist Argument for Why the Hijab Is No Longer Applicable Today

By Bassam Zawadi

Some modernist academics today argue that the only reason the hijab was obligated in the past was to differentiate between free and slave women. They contend that since there is no more slavery today, there is no need for the hijab anymore, as its utility has become defunct.

These ignoramuses fail to understand that there is a difference between the wisdom (hikmah) of a ruling and the ratio legis (‘illah), or the determinant cause or reason for a ruling. The ‘illah for a ruling is basically the factor (or factors) required for a ruling to take effect. Without the ‘illah, there is no ruling to be enacted. However, the wisdom of the ruling typically accompanies the ruling and represents the benefits that arise as a result of the ruling being actioned.

For example, the ‘illah for shortening Salah during traveling is traveling itself (with all the preconditions met, of course). Thus, traveling must occur in order for there to be a dispensation for shortening prayer during traveling (common sense). Now the wisdom of this concession could be easing the hardship upon the traveler. The wisdoms could be several for a single ruling in fact.

It is important to make this distinction, as the ruling is not directly interlinked with its wisdom, but rather with the ‘illah. So let us say, for example, that someone says that a traveler is traveling on business class for a relatively short trip, and a driver will pick him up from the airport and take him to a five-star hotel. There is no hardship whatsoever for this traveler. Does this mean that he cannot shorten his prayer while traveling? No, because the ruling is connected to the ‘illah (i.e., traveling), not the wisdom (ease of hardship).

The same thing applies to Salah and fasting. We do not say that someone who is not spiritually benefitting from these actions does not need to do them until he does. Some rulings are still enforced despite the wisdom (or one of its wisdoms) not arising in that particular time.

Now, in the case of the hijab, yes, one of the wisdoms for it was that it was said to differentiate between free women and slave women; however, this is not the ‘illah for the ruling of hijab. So even in the absence of this wisdom today, as there is no slavery anymore, this does not mean that the ‘illah for hijab is not still applicable. The ‘illah namely being (according to the consensus of scholars) at the very least: being a pubescent adult free woman (keeping aside minor exceptions like certain old women, see 24:60).

Keeping aside the differences of opinion of scholars on this issue, like whether slave women truly were not obliged to wear the hijab, or the nature of the differentiated dress code they wore even according to those who did believe they had to differentiate themselves, or whether all slave women were bound by this ruling or only those who were deemed to be sexually unattractive according to custom, etc. it is very clear just by reading the Qur’an and ahadith alone that the hijab was instituted for different reasons as well.

Allah’s listing of the mahrams in Surah 24:31 is clearly connected to those from whom one would not fear sexual desires. Otherwise, the list could have extended to anyone who would not confuse the free woman for a slave girl (e.g., a close acquaintance, cousin, husband’s close friends, children’s friends, etc.,). Moreover, it was revealed because “bad men” could be tempted seeing women unveiled (see https://sunnah.com/bukhari:4790). And it being more purifying for our hearts, as stated in 33:53. 33:53, would not make sense if hijab’s only goal was to differentiate between free women and slaves, as the context itself already insinuates the person knows he is speaking to the Prophet’s wives. And to use this ayah to restrict hijab being only applicable to the prophet’s wives (which is refuted only six verses later) would require one to explain why male-female interactions would have only been risky in that given scenario.

Also, the modernist needs to consider something here carefully. He states that back then, men were more prone to being attracted (and thus potentially harass) free women; rather than slave women. Okay, well, seeing that all women today are free, how has this ‘manly’ trait changed exactly? These modernists do not even carefully contemplate their stance carefully enough and lack basic comprehension of fiqh.