Salaam all.
I know there have been some rigorous discussions about hijab and whether it is obligatory or not according to Islam.
The main arguments against have somewhat been done to death, so I don't want to rehash them. Instead I want to address what I have found to be the most common retorts that pro-hijabi commentators have come up with - and refute them.
1. The Quran is clear and unambiguous.
What rubbish. Lets start with 24:31 - the relevant ayat calls on women to "cover your 'jaeb' with your khumurs (plural of khimar)". Jaeb is understood as the opening around your cleavage, while 'khimar' is alleged (by classical scholars) to mean a "head cover". Assuming this interpretation is correct, and setting aside all other arguments and assumptions about what you actually do with it - the very use of the word 'head cover' on its own is self evidently ambiguous. What head cover? The generic term "head cover" covers a whole array of possibilities - Is it a cap? a turban? a cowboy hat? But even more important than the style, is what does it do? - does it just sit on the head ornamentally, does it actually cover the hair, or just part of the hair? Its not clarified. And yet pro-hijabis would have us believe that the mere reference of a non-specific term as "khimar" is somehow a clear and unambiguous command for women to don a specific type of head scarf that covers all the hair.
The second verse that is usually used to support mandatory hijab is 33:59, and is even more ambiguous than 24:31 - in that it doesn't even mention anything that is related to 'head cover'. The short verse merely tells women to draw a cloak known as a 'jilbab' over themselves - in order that they not be harassed.
These verses are apparently so crystal clear about the obligation of hijab - that pro hijabis cannot even explain them without drawing on external tafsirs and ahdiths to explain them. For example in case, heaven forbid, that any muslim takes 24:31 at face value and inteprets it as simply covering their 'jaeb' with their head cover - and logically concludes that because there is no mention of the head or hair, it therefore is not commanding to cover the hair- pro hijabis must call on medieval tafsirs to claim that the khimars must necessarily be already on the head, and that the command is to take the ends of the already worn khimar and drop them over the jaeb.
2. the Quran is well supported by hadith
Essentially there are two hadiths that pro-hijabis use to support mandatory hijab. The first is a narration by the Prophet's wife Aisha who , according to various translations , nararted that when the quran verse 24:31 was revealed, women started to tear up their garments and started veiling themselves. However such transations are dishonest. The actual verb used was "itkhumurrun" - literally to "khimar themselves". On the surface this appears to mean
'put on a headcover' - yet given the fact that it is in direct response to 24:31 - ie cover your jaeb, (not your hair), it could reasonably be translated as doing exactly what 24:31 commanded - simply overing their jaeb. The veiling translation is also problematic in light of the description that women had to tear up garments in order to make the coverings - suggesting they didn't actually have a khimar on hand to start with (n.b the pro hijabis argument that the khimar was already worn).
The second hadith used by pro-hijabis is from the Abu Dawud collection, where the Prophet is said to have seen his wife's sister Asma dressed with transparent clothing, and he told her post-puberty girls should have everything covered except "this and this" - which the narration claims the Prophet pointed to the hands and the face. This hadith is widely dismissed as weak by Islamic scholars, mainly because it has a broken chain of transmission - most crucially between the first transmitter and the narrator. It is also considered weak because the words hands and face are not actually quoted from the Prophet, but is merely inferred by the narrator. Amusingly, the hadith is perhaps most vigorously opposed by Hanbalis and other schools that insist that hijab includes face veiling - given that this narration allows the face to be uncovered.
3. "Ijma" (consensus)
Ijma refers to consensus of opinion by Islamic jurists on matters of Islamic fiqh (law). Pro hijabis will haughtily lecture us that there is 1400 years of ijma on the matter of hijab, and therefore who are we to question such wisdom?
Actually this is a lie. Let me explain.
It is true, scholars from the classical period right into the modern period have overwhelmingly agreed in the interpretation of the two Quranic verses as meaning the women should be covered from head to toe, including the hair. However there is a techinical difference between understanding what a verse means, and agreeing what that means in terms of Islamic law. The reality is, that there have really only been two areas of Islamic law in which the issue of the woman's 'aura', or what can be exposed and what must be covered have been discussed by Islamic jurists. And that is in relation to what women wear while praying and what they can wear when courting for marriage/engagement. Of course one may make assumptions about the jurists' position on the hijab in relation to all other aspects of public life is, but it would be complete guesswork. The only thing we can say with certainly regarding the ijma on hijab, is that women must cover from head to toe in the specific situation of praying and marriage/engagement propositions.
The other important point to make about Ijma, is the class-based rulings the jurists made on veiling. that were completely contrary to the values that the pro-hijabis profess to hold today. It would come as a shock to the Islamic standards of today to learn that the classical jurists reached a different ijma - namely that the 'aura' of a free woman muslim was different to a slave muslim - which resulted in different veiling rulings. It was common for jursts to rule that the 'aura' of a slave women didn't even include the breasts - and indeed she was permitted to pray, at the mosque, bare breasted. Not all jursts went that far, but suffice to say, the jursts reached a clear 'ijma' that slaves did not have to cover up like free women - which usually mean exluding them from head covering. I wonder ,when pro-hijabi commentators boast about the ijma of hijab, if they are aware that a key bedrock of that ijma was reinforcing the stratification of society along class lines (something they will be amongst the first to claim Islam came to destroy)
