Today we hear incident after incident of Muslim women being harassed, attacked, even murdered in the street in Europe. A common theme running through each news item appears to be that woman was wearing the veil.
One of the strongest qur'anic evidences in favour of the wearing of the veil is (Q. 33:59): {يَا أَيُّهَا النَّبِيُّ قُلْ لِأَزْوَاجِكَ وَبَنَاتِكَ وَنِسَاءِ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ يُدْنِينَ عَلَيْهِنَّ مِنْ جَلَابِيبِهِنَّ ذَلِكَ أَدْنَى أَنْ يُعْرَفْنَ فَلا يُؤْذَيْنَ وَكَانَ اللَّهُ غَفُورًا رَحِيمًا} (O Prophet, say to your wives and daughters, and the womenfolk of the believers to draw their jilbabs around them. That is more fitting, that they might be recognised and not harassed. God is Forgiving, Merciful.)
Let us be clear from the start: there are those who will rightly say that the authenticity of many of al-Wahidi's reasons for revelation fall far short of the criteria applied by al-Bukhari and Muslim. However, the implication here is that, at the time of the Prophet (PBUH), Yathrib/Medina was a multicultural, multi-faith city with a mixed economy. If the Prophet (PBUH) had the power to force a change to that reality, then he certainly didn't use it. Hence, owners of female slaves were presumably free to pimp their property on the streets at night; and young men, possibly the worse for wear due to alcohol, were wont to loiter about and accost any women who happened to be out for whatever reason. The image is of a city not altogether different from parts of the towns and cities where we live and work today. It is in this context therefore, in a society in which the Prophet (PBUH) lacked the constitutional right to deprive non-Muslims of the usufruct of their property, that {وَنِسَاءِ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ} (the womenfolk of the believers) are told to dress in such a way as to avoid being {يُؤْذَيْنَ} (harassed) by men who are referred to (Q. 33:60-61) as {الْمُنَافِقُونَ وَالَّذِينَ فِي قُلُوبِهِم مَّرَضٌ وَالْمُرْجِفُونَ فِي الْمَدِينَةِ} (hypocrites, those who have sick minds, and rabble-rousers) and {مَّلْعُونِينَ} (cursed). No one, looking at the verse in context, can honestly accuse the Qur'an of victim-blaming.
It would be ridiculous to suggest that the fundamental problem which the above verse was revealed in order to address, based on al-Wahidi's research in earlier Qur'an commentaries and collections of hadiths, was the way women dressed in public as opposed to the inexcusable anti-social behaviour of those men who harassed women on the street at night.
Simply to insist on the lawful right to do something (e.g. leaving one car doors unlocked and the keys in the ignition) is not a guaranteed way to prevent theft. Although not criminal to act otherwise, the car owner is therefore advised to take reasonable precautions in order not to suffer loss. Whereas the car-owner may rightly be called unwise, even foolish, if the car is stolen, the only criminal is the thief. Likewise the rapist of a scantily clad drunk, or the islamophobic murderer of woman in a burqah. In each case, the victim is within his or her legal rights. But that right is no protection from a committed criminal.)
(Q. 13:11): {إِنَّ اللَّهَ لا يُغَيِّرُ مَا بِقَوْمٍ حَتَّى يُغَيِّرُوا مَا بِأَنْفُسِهِمْ} (God does not change what affects a people until they change what affects themselves.)
One of the strongest qur'anic evidences in favour of the wearing of the veil is (Q. 33:59): {يَا أَيُّهَا النَّبِيُّ قُلْ لِأَزْوَاجِكَ وَبَنَاتِكَ وَنِسَاءِ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ يُدْنِينَ عَلَيْهِنَّ مِنْ جَلَابِيبِهِنَّ ذَلِكَ أَدْنَى أَنْ يُعْرَفْنَ فَلا يُؤْذَيْنَ وَكَانَ اللَّهُ غَفُورًا رَحِيمًا} (O Prophet, say to your wives and daughters, and the womenfolk of the believers to draw their jilbabs around them. That is more fitting, that they might be recognised and not harassed. God is Forgiving, Merciful.)
While, on the surface, this verse appears to support a blanket ban on women going unveiled in public, there is scope to argue that the issue is more nuanced. First, the verse contains an order to the Prophet (PBUH) {قُلْ} (say), but not to the women. Furthermore, saying something to someone is not the same as commanding or ordering them to do something. This is backed up by the words {ذَلِكَ أَدْنَى} (That is more fitting), which is a phrase used for advice.
According to al-Wahidi's Asbab al-Nuzul, the reason for the revelation of Q. 33:59 was the following: كانت المدينة ضيقة المنازل وكان النساء إذا كان الليل خرجن فقضين الحاجة وكان فساق من فساق المدينة يخرجون فإذا رأوا المرأة عليها قناع قالوا هذه حرة فتركوها وإذا رأوا المرأة بغير قناع قالوا هذه أمة فكانوا يراودونها، فأنزل الله تعالى هذه الآية (In Medina the houses were close together, and women would go out at night to answer the call of nature. Some of the wicked men of Medina would go out. If they saw that a woman was covered, they would say, “This is a free woman,” and leave her; but if they saw she was uncovered, they would say, “This is a slave woman,” and proposition her: so God revealed this verse.)
Let us be clear from the start: there are those who will rightly say that the authenticity of many of al-Wahidi's reasons for revelation fall far short of the criteria applied by al-Bukhari and Muslim. However, the implication here is that, at the time of the Prophet (PBUH), Yathrib/Medina was a multicultural, multi-faith city with a mixed economy. If the Prophet (PBUH) had the power to force a change to that reality, then he certainly didn't use it. Hence, owners of female slaves were presumably free to pimp their property on the streets at night; and young men, possibly the worse for wear due to alcohol, were wont to loiter about and accost any women who happened to be out for whatever reason. The image is of a city not altogether different from parts of the towns and cities where we live and work today. It is in this context therefore, in a society in which the Prophet (PBUH) lacked the constitutional right to deprive non-Muslims of the usufruct of their property, that {وَنِسَاءِ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ} (the womenfolk of the believers) are told to dress in such a way as to avoid being {يُؤْذَيْنَ} (harassed) by men who are referred to (Q. 33:60-61) as {الْمُنَافِقُونَ وَالَّذِينَ فِي قُلُوبِهِم مَّرَضٌ وَالْمُرْجِفُونَ فِي الْمَدِينَةِ} (hypocrites, those who have sick minds, and rabble-rousers) and {مَّلْعُونِينَ} (cursed). No one, looking at the verse in context, can honestly accuse the Qur'an of victim-blaming.
Today, returning to the original statement, the public safety issue at hand in European cities is not that of pious women being confused for prostitutes during the night and harassed, or else simply raped. Rather it has to do with Muslim women apparently being attacked precisely because they choose to dress in a manner approaching that encouraged by the above verse. So we are bound to ask ourselves: Is the purpose of the Qur'an: (a) to encourage Muslim women to dress in a particular culturally specific way; (b) to put them in danger; or is it: (c) to minimise the risk of their being harassed? According to the verse itself, the purpose is clearly the last, in which case, what are those qualified in interpreting the Sharia doing to ensure that, in the present context, the purpose of the verse is not twisted in such a way that - to use a battlefield analogy - Muslim women are required by our scholars to dress in red coats of British soldiers from the era of the Napoleonic Wars, while Muslim men are allowed to wear camouflage?
Simply to insist on the lawful right to do something (e.g. leaving one car doors unlocked and the keys in the ignition) is not a guaranteed way to prevent theft. Although not criminal to act otherwise, the car owner is therefore advised to take reasonable precautions in order not to suffer loss. Whereas the car-owner may rightly be called unwise, even foolish, if the car is stolen, the only criminal is the thief. Likewise the rapist of a scantily clad drunk, or the islamophobic murderer of woman in a burqah. In each case, the victim is within his or her legal rights. But that right is no protection from a committed criminal.)
(Q. 13:11): {إِنَّ اللَّهَ لا يُغَيِّرُ مَا بِقَوْمٍ حَتَّى يُغَيِّرُوا مَا بِأَنْفُسِهِمْ} (God does not change what affects a people until they change what affects themselves.)