injunction either in the Holy Qur’ān or Ḥadīth. In fact, no such injunction could be given when there existed an injunction that women shall remain unveiled in pilgrimage. This injunction rather shows that the veil was adopted simply as a mark of rank or greatness, and the unveiling was required in order to bring all on a level of equality. However that may be, the order to remain unveiled in the pilgrimage is a clear proof that wearing the veil is not an Islāmic injunction or practice. And the verses requiring both men and women to keep their looks cast down40 show clearly that, when the two sexes had to intermingle as a matter of necessity, the women were not veiled, for otherwise there would have been no need for the men to keep their looks cast down. And to make the matter clearer still, it is added that they should “not display their adornment, except what appears thereof.” The part that necessarily appears is the face and the hands, and this is also the view of the vast majority of commentators (IJ—C. XVIII, p. 84; RM. VI, p. 52).41 There is also a ḥadīth according to which the Holy Prophet is reported to have excepted the face and the hands from the parts which were required to be covered: “Asmā’, daughter of Abū Bakr, came to the Holy Prophet, and she was wearing very thin clothes (through which the body could be seen). The Holy Prophet turned away his face from her and said, O Asmā’! when the woman attains her majority, it is not proper that any part of her body should be seen except this and this, pointing to his face and his hands” (AD. 31:30).
All that the Holy Qur’ān requires is that women should be decently dressed when they go out and that they should not uncover their bosoms. This is made clear in 24:31: “And say to the believing women that they … should not display their adornment except what appears thereof. And let them wear their head-coverings over their bosoms.” The practice in Arabia, in pre-Islamic times, of displaying beauty, included the uncovering of the bosom, and hence the injunction relating to its covering. A difference was thus made between the dress of women within their houses and when they appeared in public; in the former case they were
41 Ibn Jarīr quotes three different explanations of illā mā ẓahara min-hā (except what appears thereof); 1.The view of Ibn Mas‘ūd that these words mean the adornment of dress 2. The view of Ibn‘Abbās, Sa‘īd, Dzaḥāk, ‘Aṭā, Qatādah, Mujāhid and others that they mean the adornment which it is lawful for the woman to show, i.e., collyrium, ring, bangles and face; 3. The view of Ḥasan that they mean the face and the clothes; and then adds his own view in the following words:
“The most correct explanation of these words is that they mean the face and hands and include collyrium, ring, bangles and dyeing of hands. We say it is the most correct explanation because there is a consensus of opinion (ijmā‘) that it is obligatory for him who says his prayers that he should cover all those parts of the body which it is necessary to cover, and for the woman it is obligatory that she should uncover her hands and face in prayers and cover the rest of the body, except that it is reported from the Holy Prophet that he allowed the uncovering of half of her wrist. When there is a consensus of opinion on this, it follows as a matter of course that she can keep uncovered that part of the body which is not included in ‘aurāt (the part which it is necessary to cover), for it is not unlawful to uncover that which is not the ‘aurāt. And as she can keep it uncovered, it follows that this is what is meant by illā mā ẓahara min-hā” (IJ—C. XVIII, p. 84). allowed to be more at