149. In all, the Prophet had four daughters – all through Khadijah. (The Shi`ah deny that the Prophet had any daughter other than Fatimah. They say other daughters were offspring through Khadijah and issues of previous husbands. Their ignorance is of such order that they failed to notice that Allah used the word in plural: daughters - Alusi).

The Prophet’s Daughers:

First was Zaynab. She was married to her maternal cousin Abu al-`Asi b. al-Rabi`. She died in the 8th year after hijrah. The Prophet buried her. Second was Ruqayyah. She had been married to Abu Lahab’s son `Utbah, (while another of his daughter was married to his second son) but had not left their houses for his house. When the Qur’an revealed saying, “Abu Lahab’s hands be destroyed” (Surah Masad), he said to his sons, “My head is unlawful to your head if you do not divorce them.” So `Utbah divorced her. Subsequently `Uthman married her. At the marriage ceremony, Quraysh women sang,

أَحْسَنُ شَخْصَيْنِ رَأَى إِنْسَانُ ... رُقَيَّةُ وَبَعْلُهَا عُثْمَانُ

“The best of two persons that a person saw were Ruqayyah and her husband `Uthman.”

She migrated to Abyssinia (when persecuted. The Prophet said about her and `Uthman when they migrated: “The first pair to migrate in Allah’s way after Ibrahim”: Au.). Her first pregnancy was a miscarriage. Second pregnancy resulted in a son called `Abdullah. When he was six, a rooster pricked his face while he was asleep. He died of the wound. Thereafter she did not bring any child. She migrated to Madinah along with `Uthman and was sick when the Prophet started for Badr seventeen months after hijrah. He told him to stay back to look after her. She died while the Prophet stood (facing the Quraysh) at Badr. When Zayd b. Haritha arrived bringing the good news of victory to the Madinans, `Uthman was leveling her grave.

A third daughter was Umm Kulthum. She had been married to another of Abu Lahab’s son `Utaybah. She too was divorced upon Abu Lahab’s instruction, and she too the Prophet married off to `Uthman after Ruqayyah was dead. This is the reason why `Uthman was nicknamed “Dhun Nurayn” (“he of two Lights”). She died in the ninth year after hijrah and was lowered down into the grave by the Prophet himself. The last of his daughters was Fatimah. She took birth five years before the Prophet was commissioned and was married to `Ali in the second year after hijrah, in Ramadan. She survived the Prophet but was the first of his household to die after his own death, dying six months after him (Qurtubi).

150. What is a jilbab? A word not uncommon in pre-Islamic times, Qurtubi defines it as a cloak that covers the whole body. Ibn Kathir describes it as a cloak that women wear over their outer veil-covering (khimar). Zamakhshari says it is a piece of cloth bigger than a khimar, and smaller than a cloak, which women pull down over their faces on the one side, and with the other they cover the front part of their body. It is said, adds Zamakhshari, “When a woman’s face gets uncovered, you better pull down your own cloak on your face.”

The earliest commentators disagreed over the exact manner of Muslim women “letting down” their jilbab. Ibn `Abbas said that they should pull down the outer cloak to cover the head and the face leaving a hole open for one eye. (When asked to explain) Ibn `Awn demonstrated it, to whom Muhammad had demonstrated it, to whom Abu `Ubaydah had demonstrated. Ibn `Awn covered his head with his cloak. Then he wrapped it around his face covering the nose and one eye, and then pulled it down from the top to cover or nearly cover the two eyebrows. Another report of Ibn `Abbas says that free women used to wear what slave-girls wore. Allah instructed them to cover their foreheads. Qatadah said something similar (Ibn Jarir, Ibn Kathir). Ibn Sirin said, “I asked `Ubaydah al-Salmani about it. He said that she should take one end of the cloak and cover everything above the brows, then twist it around the head, and bring it forward to cover the nose” (Zamakhshari, Razi, Qurtubi, Alusi and all others, in different words or in parts). Hasan said she should cover half her face. `Umar used to say, “What would go wrong if a woman came out of her house - if she has to come at all - she comes out with an old worn out cloak taken from her housemaid, so that she returned but could not be recognized who she was?”! (Qurtubi).

The Veil

Women’s veil was nothing foreign to the Christian or Jewish cultres until recent times. Writes Uta Ranke-Heinemann in a work critical of the Church: “.. he (Clement of Alexandria) does make it clear how they (women) should dress: ‘Women should be completely veiled, except when they are in the house. Veiling their faces assures that they will lure no one into sin. For this is the will of the Logos, that it befits them to be veiled in prayer (Paedagogous III, 79, 4).’” [Eunuches for the Kingdom of Heaven, Penguin Books, 1991, p. 127-8]. Parenthical words by Au.).

The above author also quotes:

“The commandment for women to be veiled applied above all to the realm of the sacred. The Apostolic Constitution (II, 57 – composes ca. 380) laid down that women could take Communion only while wearing the veil. In his famous Response to the Bulgarians in 866 (C.E.) Pope Nicholas I also called for women to wear the veil in church. In the sixth century the Church even demanded that women’s hands be veiled: ‘A woman may not approach the Eucharist with bare hands’ (Mansi 9, 915).” [Ibid, p. 128].

And,

“Invoking a supposed regulation of the Apostle Paul ... Chrysostom bade women ‘be veiled not only at the time of prayer, but continuously’ (Twenty-sixth Homily on 1 Cor. 11:5).” [Ibid, p. 128].

And,

“Like Chrysostom, Ambrose too ordered women to go veiled in the streets: ‘Let the woman cover her head, so as to secure her modesty even in public. Her countenance should not be readily offered to the eyes of a young man, and for that reason she should be covered with marriage veil’ (On Pennce I, ch. 16)” [Ibid, p. 129].

Yusuf Ali comments, “The object was not to restrict the liberty of women, but to protect them from harm and molestation. In the East and in the West a distinctive public dress of some sort or another has always been a badge of honour or distinction, both among men and women. This can be traced back on the earliest civilisations. Assyrian Law in its palmiest days (say, 7th century B.C.), enjoined the veiling of married women and forbade the veiling of slaves and women of ill fame: see Cambridge Ancient History, ##111. 107.”

Separation of women from everyday humdrum of economic struggle has been the norm from the time of Adam, in every age, and every culture, Roman or Chinese, Aztecs or Indian, ancient or modern, Eastern or Western, Judaic or Christian. In Judaism women cannot to this day intermingle with men in the Synogogue. Irksome to modern Jews, they are separated with a curtain. In pre-modern churches, women were not allowed into the Church without a scarve covering the head. In Shakespearian times, women of noble families wore the veil in public. It is only since about 200 years that they began to appear in public without the veils. Two factors have played important role in bringing out women into streets, offices, shops, fields and factories. (1) the spread of material culture, which believes and tolerates only material development of man and society, and (2) two world wars after which shortage of labour was a constraining factor in rebuilding nations in rubble (Au.).

Mufti Shafi` Deobandi’s comments could be summarized here:

Covering of the body has been inherited from the first pair Adam and Hawwa. According to all religious traditions, once their private parts became visible, Adam and Hawwa kept themselves covered in Paradise, although husband and wife, with no third human around.

The Qur’an told us about Shu`ayb’s two shepherd daughters that they stood apart and gave the reason why they stood apart: men were crowding around the well. Then, when one of them came to invite Musa to her house, it was not on her own, but on the invitation of her father. Similarly, and although hijab verses had not yet been revealed, we find reported that Zaynab sat facing the wall while there were guests in the Prophet’s house. Hence, in all cultures, to remain naked even when privacy is assured, is disapproved. In Islam, if someone prayed naked, in a dark night, at home, with no other human around, his prayer is not valid. In fact, to uncover the body, in private, without any physical or Shari`ah need is also disallowed in Islam.

Verses revealed in the Qur’an pertaining to hijab are spread in two chapters: this Surah and Surah Nur. Among them, according to consensus, the first to be reveled was the 53rd verse of this chapter, while those of the Surah Nur were the last to be revealed, around 6th year after hijrah.

To put it breifly, we can say that the veil, hijab, or `awrah are of three levels. (a) Women should ordinarily remain at home. (b) But it is unthinkable that they will not need to go out. Therefore, when they do so, they should cover their whole body, head to foot, exposing an eye. (c) At a third level they should cover the same parts of the body (as under item “b”) against those they cannot marry.

Many people argue that the face is not included in hijab. But the question that arises is, if the face is not included, what was the point in asking the Prophet’s wives to interact with men from behind a veil. If the face is excluded, what was the point in the curtain?

Some people have tried to project verse 53 as applicable to the Prophet’s wives alone. But, one may ask, for what reason should common women be considered incapable of rising to high moral and spiritual levels? Why should they be considered lower in spiritual abilities that the wives of the Prophet should have been asked to remain in full hijab, but other, common women not? Sabuni adds: How could the veil have been necessary for the mothers of the believers whom the believers could never marry, but not the common women whom they can marry? (Rawa’i`).

Thus there are various levels of `awrah depending on the kinds and classes of men a woman interacts with. Her whole person is `awrah against a ghayr mahram (against whom there is no legal prohibition for her to marry, at any time in her life). This is the position of the four fuqaha’ and almost all classical scholars. The only difference is that as against the other three (Ahmad, Malik and Shafe`i), Abu Hanifah declared that the face and hands are not included in hijab so long as there is no fear of fitnah. Fitnah is defined as a man looking at a woman with shahwah (carnal desire). If that happens, then she must cover her face. Thus, in a way Abu Hanifah did not digress much from the position held by the other three Imams.

Shami writes in his Radd al-Muhtar: “If there is fear of shawah (carnal look), it is prohibited for a man to look at a woman’s face at any time. Thus, looking at the face is lawful under the condition of lack of shahwah. That, significantly, was in those times. As for our times, it is prohibited altogether to look at a young woman’s face unless it is for identification or some such unavoidable reason. With reference to Prayers, a young woman should not be allowed to Pray along with males with her face uncovered (Shafi`). This is the reason why many women cover their faces during Hajj rites, even in the Grand Mosque, despite the ban on covering the face while in the consecrated state (ihram) – Au.

Interestingly, inspired by, or put to shame by Muslim women in full Hijab, some Jewish women have, particularly in Israel, began to don the Burqah, fully covering their faces. They are derided as Talibanis – from the strictly Islamic group called Taliban (Au.).

151. It is said that in early Islam as women – both free as well as slaves - went out by the evenings to attend to nature’s call (there were no toilets within the homes then: Qurtubi), they encountered men who teased them. The specific manner of covering themselves distinguished free women from slave-girls, who were thus spared molestation (Ibn Jarir, Kashshaf, Ibn Kathir). Hence the following verse chiding the hypocrites who teased and taunted women as they passed by them (Au.).

152. Surah Al-Tawbah had identified ten types of hypocrites. The allusion here, according to `Ikrimah, Abu Salih and Ibn Zayd, is to the type that commits adultery; and the allusion by ‘the disease in the hearts’ is to the predisposition to extra-marital sex (Ibn Jarir, Qurtubi).

153. The allusion by “irjaf” is to sedition, agitation, and rumors that the hypocrites caused and spread, until they lost all hopes of Islam being overcome, and their numbers began to dwindle (Au. from Ibn Jarir).

A popular pastime for the hypocrites was to spread rumors such as: ‘a Muslim expedition has lost such and such a battle,’ or, ‘so many are repoted to have been killed,’ etc. (Zamakhshari, Qurtubi, Thanwi).

In Mawdudi’s words, “The allusion is to such people who, in order to cause panic among the Muslims and to lower their morale, used to spread rumors in Madinah to the effect that the Muslims had suffered such and such a serious setback, that a huge army was gathering together against them at such and such a place, that Madinah was under threat of a sudden attack, etc. They had other pastimes besides this. They would concoct and spread stories about the domestic life of the Prophet’s household and of other prominent Mulisms so as to plant suspicion among the commonfolk and destroy the moral influence of those implicated.”

154. While a close second meaning is “stir you against them,” Ibn `Abbas said it means, “We will make you prevail over them” – Ibn Jarir.

155. A beautiful way of making a commonplace statement, namely, they would be thrown out of Madinah (Au.).

156. However, they remained in Madinah, to survive even after the Prophet’s death, giving us a rule that while a promise should be kept, a threat need not be necessarily executed (Thanwi).

157. Asad comments: “In classical Arabic, the term la`nah is more or less synonymous with ib`ad (’removal into distance’ or ‘banishment’); hence, God’s la`nah denotes ‘His rejection of a sinner from all that is good’ (Lisan al-`Arab) or ‘exclusion from His grace’ (Manar II, 50). The term mal`un which occurs in verse 61 below signifies, therefore, ‘one who is bereft of God’s mercy.’"

158. Just as there has been no change in physical, natural laws that organize and run the universe, there has not been, and will not be anytime in the future, any change in moral laws too (Au.).