HEARING THE VOICE OF A
1. Ayatullah Sayyid Muhammad Kazim Tabatabai Yazdi, "Urwatul Wusqa" Section on Marriage, Chapter One Issue 39.
This is among the things which are very clear. it is permissible to hear the voice of a non-mahram woman as long as her voice is normal and not one to cause lust or arouse the fear of deviating.
The verse of the Holy Quran is clear. It does not say women shouldnot speak. No. It says they should not change the tone of their voice. Woman continuously went to the Holy Prophet and to the Imams and asked the questions they had. This is clear.
THESE ARE ISSUES OF RELIGIOUS EDICTS
edicts exist which are comparable to the ones mentioned that include the religious edicts of the great 'ulama' but these are the edicts of the minority, not the majority.
For instance, Shaikh Tusi gave such an edict as well as Shaikh Hadayiq and Shaikh Ansari. All three are among the most learned shi'ite scholars. The others mentioned these reasons, like Ayatullah Hakim in Mustamsak but when it comes to issuing a religious edict, they hold back. The actions of Muslims, to this point, have been opposed to these views so the faqih moves beyond the issue.
If we asume that Muslims have acquired a custom from the beginning of Islam whereby it is discovered to be from the customs of the Holy Prophet and the Imams, which is a lesson they learned from them and if this, then this is a custom which goes back to the time of the Holy Prophet which is a thing he practised, it is clear that it is something which should be preserved. However, a custom of the people is not proofin itself except when it is discovered to be among the customs of the Holy Prophet. Then it becomes proof and must be observed.
For instance, take the beard. Some people say that the real proof for it is that men from the time of the Holy Prophet and later all had beards. Thus, we rely upon this. Now note what they answer. If someone had said that it is forbidden to grow a beard we would have said that people in the past, according to custom, had a beard and this existed from the time of the Holy Prophet. Thus, it was not forbidden to have a beard. If it had
been forbidden, it could not have become the custom. But the question then arise whether growing a beard is obligatory or recommendatory. We assume the possibility that it is a part of custom which is at least, recommendatory or unspecified. Custom only dictates when there is a lack of respect involved. Therefore it is either obligatory or recommendatory.
A thought has occurred to me here which is a historical social point and most often the reason why the religious authorities become fixed here is because they do not attend to the social issue. The hijab did not exist among the pre-Islamic Arabs. Islam brought the covering of the head, neck and chest, etc. and the forbidding of looking with lust. But a part of that which Islam brought existed in non-Arab areas. It was a very strong influence in Iran, in particular, among the Jews and people were influenced by their way of thinking.
Islam did not make it obligatory to uncover the face. It said it is obligatory to cover the hair, not to display the face. Clearly, those nations which came to accept Islam were following their own customs because Islamic precepts did not say it was obligatory to display the face, except in the haram. Nor did they say it was forbidden to cover the face, it gave a choice. It left it up to the various nations to practise their own customs of hijab if they so desired.
History shows that non-Arabs felt it was obligatory to cover the face. Thus this custom of covering the face, as we find it now, is not a custom of the Holy Prophet and the Imams.
Another point which is very sensitive and should also be considered, relates to caution. Every religious jurisprudent speaks this way out of caution. They all know that these two things exist, one in a woman and one in a man. That which exists within a woman is the desire to show herself off, it is a part of her nature. That which exists within man is an inclination towards looking, not just looking but flirting and receiving pleasure from it. Both of these exist. Will Durant says that there is nothing in
the world more firm and more persevering than a man's desire to look at a woman. It exists no matter how much it is restrained and it is referred to in the traditions. It is because of this that a religious jurisprudent does not find the courage, in spite of the fact that all of these reasons and proof exist, to issue a religious edict. They say caution should not be put aside. The caution relates to human nature itself.
This brings up another issue. Some people follow a philosophy and that philosophy is that in those areas which are ruled by customs; whatever one does not say to the people is better. It is better not to say it than to say it.
I may have mentioned that I once received a letter in praise of the book I wrote called "Stories of Good People". The ritual prayer leader in Khuzistan read the book. He said that he looked up all of the stories. Although not one idea was changed and they had been presented in a very readable, pleasant style, he had two criticisms. The first criticism related to a story about Hazrat Fatimah and Hazrat 'Ali, peace be upon them. Their work had been devided so that Hazrat 'Ali die the work outside of the house and Hazrat Fatimah, the word within the house; a division which the Holy Prophet had made at the very beginning of their marriage. When Hazrat 'Ali was home, he helped Hazrat Fatimah within the house and when he was not home, Hazrat Fatimah did the work outside the house as well. One day she was covered from head to toe in shoot from having started the fire and because there was no flowing water in Madinah, it had to be carried from the wells, often at some distance a way, the pressure applied by the straps of her water bag remained on her body because of all the water she had carried to her house. This man said that even though this story was true and was part of the traditions, I should not have mentioned it because it could be misused.
I do not deny the general principle that if telling the truth will cause the people to deviate, it should not be said because the
reason for telling the truth, in the first place, is to guide the people, not to turn away from it. Of course, the Holy Quran tells us, "Those who conceal the clear (Signs) we have sent down and the Guidance after we have made it clear for the people in the Book ... on them shall be God's curse and the curse of those entitled to curse ..."1 The tone of this verse is very strong. There are very few verses in the Holy Quran where such a strong and angry tone is found. At the same time, I believe the purpose to be that people should not conceal the truth because of their own interests but to conceal the truth because the truth itself under very limited, temporary and definite conditions so that it is not misused and does not pertain to this verse. In other words, it is forbidden to lie but it is not always obligatory to speak the truth. That is, there are occasions when one must remain silent.
I am of the belief that this kind of prudence, when it is based upon the real issue of the truth has no problem but, not when it is based on individual, personal or group interests. Now the point is whether or not it is prudent thinking not to issue a religious edict about buying or selling a radio or that it is not obligatory for a woman to cover her face and hands. It is correct kind of thinking? Is it intelligible? Does it produce the correct result or not? Will some women who cover their face and hands then uncover their face and hands and finally their whole form by saying this truth? Or is the opposite true?
That is, many men and women think that the bases of the religious viewpoint is that the face of a woman should not show for when the face shows, there will be no stopping the rest. On the other hand, the covering of the face is impractical and, from the point of view of logic, it is indefensible. No reasoning or deduction can be given for it being so. Therefore, they will then completely uncover themselves.
Some sociologists believe that the cause for the extremity in
woman's dress and their lack of modesty is because of the erroneous belief that society had about the hijab. Yet the error was that the truth was not spoken! If it had been expressed just as the Islamic precepts express it, things would never have reached this point. It is here that one should refer to the proverb, "being, more Catholic than the Pope", or jumping "from the frying pan into the fire".
The Holy Quran says in Surah Hujarat, "O believers, advance not before God and His Messenger".1 What is meant by 'advance' is a point beyond which God and His Prophet said there by, 'advancing before God and His Messenger'.
Amir al-Mu'minin, 'Ali, peace be upon him, said, "God has given limits. Do not aggress beyond them. (He has specified the forbidden, do not disobey). He has specified the obligatory and the precepts; do not shun them and so to the things for which He remained silent about (neither forbidden nor oblige it was not because He forgot them but rather He wanted you to be free in regard to them. Therefore, do not restrict yourself there and make something your duty in the name of God's religion and God."
The Holy Prophet said in a tradition recorded in Jama' al-Saghir, "Just as God dislikes that which He prohibited, people should obey and He likes them to do what is allowed; whatever is without any problem should be considered to be such and they should not forbid anything which God has not forbidden ..."
This tradition has also been recorded as the following, "God loves people who allow whatever He has allowed and prohibit whatever He has prohibited."
Perhaps I am mistaken. As I have mentioned, in areas covered by religious edicts, each person must follow the edicts of their own mujtahid.
But, in regard to that which is mentioned as prudent thinking and saying it is not advisable to mention something even though it is the truth, I disagree with this prudent thinking. I believe it is advisable to express the truth and that which is advisable is to counteract the concept that women today express, "The hijab is impractical." We must prove to them that the Islamic hijab is logical and practical.
Secondly, we must make efforts to establish cultural, social, and health activities, particular to women, and resist the mixed activities which are limitated from Europe. It is only in this way that women will rediscover their real personality and the possibility that they will no longer be a tool, a toy and means to men's lust in the name of freedom and equality.
THE RELIGIOUS EDICTS ON
To begin with, what is the opinion of religious jurisprudents as to the covering of the face and hands and secondly, what edicts have they issued in regard to looking?
1. The last section of this lesson was added later by Shaheed Mutahhari and is not on the tapes but because of the importance of the issues referred to, it has been translated and appears here.
As to the fact that it is not obligatory to cover the face and hands, there appears to be no difference of opinion among all of the religious jursiprudents, Shi'ite or Sunni. There was only one Sunni who disagreed. He was Abu Bakr ibn 'Abd al-Rahman ibn Hisham and it is not clear if his opinion related solely to the ritual prayer or if it included those people who were not mahram, as well.
There is no difference of opinion as to the face but some differences have appeared with regard to the hands to the wrist and the feet to the ankles as to whether or not they are included among the exceptions. Before mentioning what they have said, two points should be noted. First, the issue of covering is dealt with in two places in jursiprudence. One is in relation to the fact that it is obligatory in the ritual prayer for women to cover all of their body, whether or not a non-mahram is present. Here the question arises whether or not the face and hands must also be covered. The second place the issue is discussed is in relation to marriage and to what extent a suitor has the right to look at the woman he may decide to seek permission to marry. Here, there is most often a general discussion about covering and the permissibility or impermissibility of looking.
Thus, from the point of view of jurisprudence, we have two kinds of covering, one is the covering which is obligatory for the ritual prayer which has certain rules such as the clothes worn must be ritually pure, not usurped, etc. The other is the covering which is obligatory, other than for the ritual prayer, before men whom a woman is not mahram and which does not have the special requirements of the covering for the ritual prayer. As we will later point out, there appears to be no difference as far as the extent of covering is concerned between the covering for ritual prayer or the covering before a mahram.
The second point to be noted is that the religious jurisprudents employ a term which refers to the body other than the face and two hands. This term is "aurah" 'exposed' or 'bare'
or 'naked'. It is possible that this term appears unattractive to some people in the sense that nakedness may be considered to be unattractive. We then ask if a woman's body, other than her face and hands, be something which is considered to be ugly or unattractive from the point of view of Islamic jurisprudence?
The answer is that the word "aurah" in no way refers to something ugly or unattractive. In the first place, not every ugly or undesirable act is referred to as "aurah" and the opposite is also true. The word "aurah" is often used in reference to something which has nothing to do with ugliness.
In the Holy Quran, the word is used in verse 33:12 "Truly our houses are open (exposed, vulnerable "aurah" by which excuse they hoped to be exempt from fighting. It is clear that no ugliness is referred to in relation to their houses. In verse 24:59, which will be referred to, three times are mentioned where even a mahram needs to seek permission to enter an area of another's privacy (except a husband or wife) and these are called the time of three "aurah".
In the Majma' ul-Bayan the author, who is uncomparable among the commentators in his ability to cleave apart the meaning of words in reference to the use of the word "aurah" in verse1 says, "aurah" refers to anything which can easily be harmed which one is concerned about like the borders or frontiers of a country or something related to a war. A bar or exposed or naked place or house is a house which is vulnerable and easily harmed".
Thus, it becomes clear that the word is not used by the religious jurisprudents to abase or weaken. The body of a woman is referred to as vulnerable because it is like a house which contains no walls and can be easily harmed and must be covered by some kind of an enclosure.
Now let us look at what the edicts say. 'Allamah in Tazkirat
ul-fuqaha' wrote, "The totality of a woman's body is a "aurah" vulnerable) other than her face according to all of the 'ulama' in the various cities other than Abu Bakr ibn Abd al-Rahman Hisham who believes all of the body of a woman is vulnerable. His opinion is in the minority.
In the opinion of Shi'ite 'ulama', the two hands up to the wrist are like the face and are not considered vulnerable ('aurah'). Malik ibn Anis, Shafe'i, Uwza'i and Sufyan Thawri agree with the Shi'ite 'ulama' because ibn 'Abbas had recorded from the Holy Prophet who said, "The face and two hands are included in the exception." But, according to the view of Ahmad Hanbal and Dawoud Zahiri, the two hands must be covered. The words recorded by ibn 'Abbas are sufficient to disregard this opinion.
Then 'Allamah refers to the two feet saying, "As can be seen the religious jurisprudents refer to Surah Nur for the covering required for the ritual prayer yet it does not refer to the ritual prayer. That which must be covered in the ritual prayer is that which must be covered before a non mahram and if there is a difference of opinion, it is about whether or not more areas need to be covered for the ritual prayer. But, as to the fact that which is not obligatory to cover in the ritual prayers is the same as that which is not obligatory to cover with a non-mahram, there is no difference of opinion."
Ibn Rushed, the famous Andulusian religious jurisprudent, physician and philosopher wrote, "It is the opinion of the majoarity of 'ulama' that the body of a woman, other than her face and two hands, is vulnerable "aurah". Ahmad Hanifah believes that the two feet are also not included. Abu Bakr Abd al-Rahman Hisham believes that the total body of woman is "aurah" without any exceptions.
Shaikh Jawad Mughniyah wrote in his book al-Fiqh ala 'l-Mazahib al-khamsah, "All of the Islamic 'ulama' agree that it is obligatory for men and women to cover that part of the body for the ritual prayer which they cover outside of the ritual
prayer. The difference arises as to how much needs to be covered. The question in regard to women is whether or not it is obligatory for her to cover her face and hands to the extent necessary for the ritual prayer and the question in regard to men is if it is obligatory for them to cover more than the navel to the knee." Then he says, "According to imamiyah Shi'ite 'ulama', it is obligatory for women to cover that much in the ritual prayers which she covers before non-mahram other than during the ritual prayer."
What is strange is that some contemporary 'ulama' have thought that the view of the 'ulama' in the past was that it was obligatory to cover the face and this is wrong.
As to the permissibility of looking, "Allamah wrote, "A man looking at a woman or a woman looking at a man is either necessary (like the look of a suitor) or not. If there is no necessity, it is not permissible to look at more than the face and hands and if there is fear of deviating, this much is also not permissible. If there is no fear of deviating, according to Shaikh Tusi, there is nothing to prevent it but it is disapproved. The majority of the Shafe'i believes the same but some believe that it is forbidden to look at the face and hands."
In regard to looking at the face and hands, there are basically three opinions. First, the opinion that it is absolutely forbidden according to 'Allamah and a few other people including the author of the Jawahir. Second, it is permissible to look once and what is forbidden is repeated looking. Muhaqiq in Sharae', Shaid Awwal in Lum'ah and 'Allamah in his other books hold this view. Third, it is absolutely permissible according to Shaikh Tusi, Kulayni, the author of Hada'iq, Shaikh Ansari, Naraqi in Mustanad and Shaid Thani in Masalik. Shahid Thani dismisses the reasoning of the Shafe'i which 'Allamah had accepted but he says at the end, "There is no doubt that caution should prevail."
The above were the views of the past jurisprudents. Most contemporary jurisprudents do not refer directly to these two
issues and, most often, cover it over by means of 'caution'. But among the contemporary jurisprudents, Ayatullah Hakim in his recital Minhaj al-Salihin, 9th edition, issue 3, in the section on marriage, gives a direct edict in which he states the face and hands are an exception. "It is permissible to look at a person one intends to marry as well as dhimmah women as long as there is no lust in the glance including women whom one cannot prevent from not covering and women who are mahram. It is forbidden to look at any other woman, other than their face and two hands to the wrist, and that only if there is no lust involved."