Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

Rate this topic

Forcing Hijab is good?  

14 members have voted

  1. 1. Is it right for a Jurisdiction to Force or Ban the Hijab? (Head Dcarf)

    • Yes, any Jurisdiction has the right to Force or Ban the Hijab.
      5
    • No Jurisdiction has the right to Force or Ban the Hijab
      5
    • Only the Imam (AJF) should have such powers.
      5


Recommended Posts

Salam,

A jurisdiction would set a law Forcing women to wear hijab.

Another jurisdiction would set a law Banning hijab in schools/universities/workplace etc

Aren't they both extremes? Aren't they both wrong?

As far as the Qur'an teaches us, there cannot be compulsion or forcing in Deen,

لا إِكراهَ فِي الدّينِ

La Ikrah Fil Deen

There is no Compulsion in Religion.

(2-256)

 

Isn't forcing women to wear hijab counter intuitive? Wouldn't such a law push people away people from the faith simply because they're being forced to adhere to it?

Just as some western jurisdictions' banning of the hijab had created a backlash of Muslims holding onto it even more. Your thoughts?

Please also take a second to answer the poll to gauge the views.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Reza said:

These are different things, and it’s inaccurate to call these extremes on the same spectrum, because they exist independently of one another.

They are both laws regarding religious garments set and enforced by jurisdictions. Therefore, they both do share the same spectrum.

This issue is not about minimum or maximum clothing standards, rather, the freedom to wear or not wear a religious garment. 

This is a commonly misunderstood ayat. It refers to there being no compulsion in internal belief or accepting a faith, not absolving one of public laws. 

Tafseer Al Mizan (Sayed Tabatabaei Vol 2 P324 Arabic)

الاكراه هو الاجبار والحمل على الفعل من غير رضى،

Ikrah is forcing to undertake an action without consent.

9 hours ago, Reza said:

 

In the West, hijab is seen as an individualistic expression of faith. In majority Muslim societies, it serves a collectivist function. 

Hijab in many Muslim countries is something many females have no real choice in, because of family, cultural or societal pressure. Which is also a problem. 

What I'm trying to get to is that forcing a religious garment is just like banning it. It creates a knee jerk reaction and actually pushes many people away from faith.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Such question was never a question before western powers colonized us or dictators inspired by western ideologies ruled Muslim countries (attaturk, pahlavi). I think what I said must resume very well what we must think about "force hijab".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:salam:

Difficult to prove the forcing of hijab a hukm shar'I, but politically there is nothing saying that a Wali Amr can't enforce it, especially when there is societal benefit to it. In which case, there is no real universal law for or against enforcement of hijab, rather it would depend on a case by case basis. This would be true for anything else, not just hijab, for example forcing people to shut their stores during prayers time, of forcing them to go to the masjid to pray during prayer time etc.

Wasalam

Edited by Ibn al-Hussain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Ibn al-Hussain said:

:salam:

Difficult to prove the forcing of hijab a hukm shar'I, but politically there is nothing saying that a Wali Amr can't enforce it, especially when there is societal benefit to it. In which case, there is no real universal law for or against enforcement of hijab, rather it would depend on a case by case basis. This would be true for anything else, not just hijab, for example forcing people to shut their stores during prayers time, of forcing them to go to the masjid to pray during prayer time etc.

Wasalam

But so here the question I ask often without real answer.

"If not the hijab what is supposed to be the limit ?" "And according to what ?".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Pschological Warfare

Islam is not only, individual prayer, fasting, Hajj, reciting Qur'an.....

Tawheed, is not only what has been used to justify everything under the sun to usurp what belongs to other humans, because they are polytheist. 

Real Polytheism is very prevalent these days, in different form. 

One is "The Image Issue" - Mental slavery and worship of a deity  of "Them" or " What they think of Us"  New word Polytheism. 

If this issue of Hijab is looked in this light, we will understand that it is  the Opinion of others in the family, friends, over all society, workplace which is the driving force behind its outright rejection or some fiqh(Jurisprudence)  loophole , or some other clever argument up forward. Or utilization of some "charged"  or derogatory word, which implies a dictatorial concept. 

Like the use of word/concept behind this word "Force".  ( No one will articulate wearing clothing, as "forced"/dictatorial on normal humans in normal societies- people who want to wear the bare minimum can make this " Forced argument but common sense will reject it ) . But some how we digest this manipulation in the case of Hijab without a concern. 

Vested interest form some within, as its looked as an economic negative and hinders progress in secular world. Government/corporation see it as a hurdle in economic growth and new markets for their products- They have to open internal markets and  Imagine opening up outside markets and making them secular- expansion in to untapped markets and mega profits   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Pschological Warfare
1 hour ago, Ibn al-Hussain said:

:salam:

Difficult to prove the forcing of hijab a hukm shar'I, but politically there is nothing saying that a Wali Amr can't enforce it, especially when there is societal benefit to it. In which case, there is no real universal law for or against enforcement of hijab, rather it would depend on a case by case basis. This would be true for anything else, not just hijab, for example forcing people to shut their stores during prayers time, of forcing them to go to the masjid to pray during prayer time etc.

Wasalam

إِنَّمَا وَلِيُّكُمُ اللَّهُ وَرَسُولُهُ وَالَّذِينَ آمَنُوا الَّذِينَ يُقِيمُونَ الصَّلَاةَ وَيُؤْتُونَ الزَّكَاةَ وَهُمْ رَاكِعُونَ {55}

[Shakir 5:55] Only Allah is your Vali and His Messenger and those who believe, those who keep up prayers and pay the poor-rate while they bow.
[Pickthal 5:55] Your guardian can be only Allah; and His messenger and those who believe, who establish worship and pay the poordue, and bow down (in prayer).
[Yusufali 5:55] Your (real) friends are (no less than) Allah, His Messenger, and the (fellowship of) believers,- those who establish regular prayers and regular charity, and they bow down humbly (in worship).

Your opinion on this issue, under the concept of " Establish Worship" ? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Pschological Warfare
Quote

because of family, cultural or societal pressure.

Opposite is also true. Due to family, cultural,Nurture,etc... People abandon things..But why is that we do not question it from that angle? 

Quote

What I'm trying to get to is that forcing a religious garment is just like banning it. It creates a knee jerk reaction and actually pushes many people away from faith.

Polytheist, were forced to abandon many things( they were accustomed to, for years or since childhood) , and adopt many new things(anti Nurture)  in the early days of Islam.

So, this argument may have a validity, when dealing with people who lack faith/or proper understanding- the Fundamentals of Religion are not clear. 

There is no compulsion in Religion. One is not forced to accept Islam( Tawheed, Justice, Prophethood, Imamate, Day of Judgement) , but once you accept and acknowledge, you follow.

Like, no one is forced/(no compulsion here) to enter a country, but once you do- you do need to follow the law of the land. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Guest Pschological Warfare said:

Opposite is also true. Due to family, cultural,Nurture,etc... People abandon things..But why is that we do not question it from that angle? 

Family and peer/societal pressure works both ways indeed but the difference in ratio, especially in Muslim majority countries is vast. 

Quote

 

Quote

Like, no one is forced/(no compulsion here) to enter a country, but once you do- you do need to follow the law of the land

If the law of the land was the banning of religious garments It would be wrong and Muslims would be up in arms. If the law of the land was enforcing religious garments it would also be wrong.

It's hypocritical of us to accept the former and reject the latter. 

Edited by Moalfas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Moalfas said:

What I'm trying to get to is that forcing a religious garment is just like banning it. It creates a knee jerk reaction and actually pushes many people away from faith.

You’re repeating what you said before and I already responded to these arguments.

Anything new to add beyond the same liberal talking points?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Guest Pschological Warfare said:

إِنَّمَا وَلِيُّكُمُ اللَّهُ وَرَسُولُهُ وَالَّذِينَ آمَنُوا الَّذِينَ يُقِيمُونَ الصَّلَاةَ وَيُؤْتُونَ الزَّكَاةَ وَهُمْ رَاكِعُونَ {55}

Your opinion on this issue, under the concept of " Establish Worship" ? 

Wrong translation. Verse says establish Salat. In any case, even in the technical sense of Fiqh, the topic of hijab isn't discussed under worship (ibadaat).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/23/2019 at 5:12 AM, Moalfas said:

La Ikrah Fil Deen

There is no Compulsion in Religion.

(2-256)

People often interpret it wrong. This isn't about not following the obligatory acts.  'No compulsion in Religion' means no compulsion in choosing a religion.

If you look at the whole verse 

There is no compulsion in religion: Truth has become distinct from error. So one who disavows the Rebels and has faith in Allah has held fast to the firmest handle for which there is no breaking; and Allah is all-hearing, all-knowing.

This verse was revealed when people started converting to Islam they would RasulAllah about their children who were still kuffar.

Later, Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) ordered Prophet(صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) to take 'Jizayah' from the people who didn't what to convert to Islam and let them be non-Muslims even after Prophet(صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) conquered Makkah.

So one can be a Christian, Hindu or Jew and no one should try and forcefully convert him. However, once you choose Islam out of free will and Islam literally means submission to Allah then you have to perform all the obligatory acts...salat, fasting, zakat,hijab and others. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Moalfas said:

 

If the law of the land was the banning of religious garments It would be wrong and Muslims would be up in arms. If the law of the land was enforcing religious garments it would also be wrong.

It's hypocritical of us to accept the former and reject the latter. 

It depends. Some countries claim that they are secular and everyone is free to practice their religion. For such a country to ban a religious garment would indeed be a matter of contention. If they clearly said that their country was against Islam and Muslims then the muslimeen would need to leave and find another country to live in as per Islamic law. 

Other countries claim to rule based on religious law or religiously inspired law. In this case it's obvious that what is haram in Islam would also be haram in the laws of the country.

The key is to be consistent and honest. 

Wallahu a'lam 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Pschological Warfare
4 hours ago, Moalfas said:

Family and peer/societal pressure works both ways indeed but the difference in ratio, especially in Muslim majority countries is vast. 

If the law of the land was the banning of religious garments It would be wrong and Muslims would be up in arms. If the law of the land was enforcing religious garments it would also be wrong.

It's hypocritical of us to accept the former and reject the latter. 

You are adding unnecessary Complexity, and it is not going to take away from the fact that your understanding was different,

"There is no compulsion in Religion. One is not forced to accept Islam( Tawheed, Justice, Prophethood, Imamate, Day of Judgement) , but once you accept and acknowledge, you follow.

Like, no one is forced/(no compulsion here) to enter a country, but once you do- you do need to follow the law of the land. "

Above, should have been self explanatory, as it is a (layman)way to clarify in an false assumption you made, to construct your argument. 

Non God centric religion, and God centric Religion is a way of Life. So, countries with non God centric religion( or Money/Economic Centric religion/way of life) and countries with God centric Religion - Both enforce certain laws that promote/protect their way of life. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/24/2019 at 9:26 PM, Ibn al-Hussain said:

:salam:

Difficult to prove the forcing of hijab a hukm shar'I, but politically there is nothing saying that a Wali Amr can't enforce it, especially when there is societal benefit to it. In which case, there is no real universal law for or against enforcement of hijab, rather it would depend on a case by case basis. This would be true for anything else, not just hijab, for example forcing people to shut their stores during prayers time, of forcing them to go to the masjid to pray during prayer time etc.

Wasalam

The enforcement of it can come under nahi an al munkar (as all sins can be) and it can be enforced via ta'zir as well in an Islamic court.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sumerian said:

The enforcement of it can come under nahi an al munkar (as all sins can be) and it can be enforced via ta'zir as well in an Islamic court.

Well last time I slightly opened up about certain aspects of Hijab in another thread some readers and stalkers began to feel very uneasy, so I don't want to do that again out of empathy, but nevertheless I will mention that some jurists have questioned the inclusiveness of the principle کل من خالف الشرع فعلیه التعزیر in respects to Hijab specifically. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salam,

Allah does not use the term Hijab for clothes and neither does the Prophet or his ahl. From what understand the use of the word Hijab is an innovation in the Arabic language.

More importantly Allah never orders people to cover their heads or hair in the Qur'an, and people use indirect interpretation of words to say that this term supposedly refers to some garment that was covering the head. While the chest is specifically mentioned in the Qur'an I believe.

At the same time there is no narration of the Prophet ordering people to have their women wear a head cover. There are some narrations that are mentioning the Prophets descendants, but in all the suni and Shia books not as single one says the Prophet ordered it. So I would be sceptical about the hadith from him descendants if the Prophet didn't say it at all.

So from the above we can conclude that

1- the term hijab is not meant to be used for clothes 

2 - it is not in the clear sunnah of Allah and His Prophet to force a head gear on people. 

 

Some might argue otherwise, but to me I see it wrong to enforce something if Allah doesn't clearly state it, and if the Prophet didn't do it.

 

Wasalaam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder why theses discussions is never about the kufi? Is there any country where it is obligatory for men to wear a kufi or grow a beard? Daesh maybe but apart from that?

I think that religious garments should be a sign for the religious or pious person to wear. (I do not specifically say Muslim here because the head scarf was a symbol of piety in many religions in the past.) When you are religious and pious or strives to be you would want to wear this sign of piety. If you are not so religious or don’t't care about piety you would not want to wear it. Maybe some do for other reasons like showing what ethnic culture they are from or to live up to societal norms or because there is a law that enforces it. But what is the point in people wearing religious garments if they don't want to?
I have no sympathy for some one like Yasaman Aryani, but I think the the Iranian revolution made a mistake in making the head scarf obligatory. It only serves as an argument against religion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Revert1963 said:

I think that religious garments should be a sign for the religious or pious person to wear.

This is the commonly held view, especially in the West, that the headscarf is primarily an individualistic expression of personal faith. If that’s the case, why is it only worn outside or with non-mahram people? Why not privately at home to express faith? That’s not widely done (because it’s instinctive ones home takes over the function of the garment). Obviously it’s meant to be external and social in nature, where it’s more outward then inward. The common explanations (modesty, expressing identity, dawah, etc)  are then given.

A majority Muslim society with a state system claiming Islamic values has to see the headscarf more broadly, not simply an individual act, but a collective Islamic identity, a social cohesion, a “school uniform” for citizenship if you will. Does this translate into individual religious conviction? Maybe or maybe not, but that was never the point, although mistakenly some people assume that was the intention. For the sake of argument, if these laws happen to influence personal belief, then there are a thousand other factors and influences that can sway a person one way or another (advertising, health, personal circumstances, economics, etc). So let’s put things in proper perspective. 
 

Finally, while a “have your choice” approach seems appealing, this is ultimately self-defeating. For example, if self declared liberal welfare states stopped making tax compulsory, and instead relied solely on voluntary individual charity for basic social services, you would find the stated premise of that society as perverse and unsustainable. So, really everyone has to pay tax for a basic system to work. Likewise, in an Islamic system, there has to be some mandatory collective actions from everyone to preserve the fundamental identity of the state. If this can’t be done, and it’s a free for all, then it can’t really be called an Islamic system, it has to be called something else.  If some people want “something else”, that’s fine. It can be debated.

However, contrary to Wahhabism or Talibanism, Islam is not a totalitarian or draconian system of control, there’s plenty of freedom within a healthy state, and are not radically more restrictive than any other system in the world. So let’s put that into perspective too, although propaganda and misunderstanding may make us feel otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Revert1963 said:

I wonder why theses discussions is never about the kufi? Is there any country where it is obligatory for men to wear a kufi or grow a beard?

That’s a good question, and relates to what I said about collective identity. However the headscarf is seen as the “flag of Islam”, and is a more potent symbol than beards or kufis. That’s the way it is I guess. But still a thought nonetheless. Ways men can contribute to collective identity is an important discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...