Another veiling question

[stevecanuck]

I would like some direction from the Muslims on this forum. I did a deep dive into the Qur'an on the issue of veiling, and came up with more questions than answers.

Verse 33:59 tells Muslim women to "draw over themselves their outer garments" so that they will be "known and not abused". This is suggestive of an extra layer of coverage sufficient to differentiate Muslim women from others.

Verse 24:31 adds, "And tell the believing women ... to not expose their adornment except that which [necessarily] appears thereof and to wrap [a portion of] their head covers over their chests and not expose their adornment except to their husbands, their fathers, their husbands' fathers, their sons, their husbands' sons, their brothers, their brothers' sons, their sisters' sons, etc. ...".

I think it's pretty clear from the underlined phrases, especially in 24:31, which sandwiches the admonition to wear a veil between two instructions to hide their "adornment", that women are required to cover themselves to the extent of concealing their femininity.

Just when you think you might have a handle on it, verse 24:61 comes along and casts doubt on the whole concept. It says of postmenopausal women that, "it is no sin on them if they discard their (outer) clothing in such a way as not to show their adornment". Wait. What? This brings into question the necessity of veiling in the first place. It clearly implies that it is possible for women to not wear an extra layer while at the same time not showing, "their adornment".

Can anyone make sense of all that for me, or do we just chock this up as another example of the real author of the Qur'an (Mohamed) having trouble keeping his story straight?

 

[exchemist]

I would like some direction from the Muslims on this forum. I did a deep dive into the Qur'an on the issue of veiling, and came up with more questions than answers.

Verse 33:59 tells Muslim women to "draw over themselves their outer garments" so that they will be "known and not abused". This is suggestive of an extra layer of coverage sufficient to differentiate Muslim women from others.

Verse 24:31 adds, "And tell the believing women ... to not expose their adornment except that which [necessarily] appears thereof and to wrap [a portion of] their head covers over their chests and not expose their adornment except to their husbands, their fathers, their husbands' fathers, their sons, their husbands' sons, their brothers, their brothers' sons, their sisters' sons, etc. ...".

I think it's pretty clear from the underlined phrases, especially in 24:31, which sandwiches the admonition to wear a veil between two instructions to hide their "adornment", that women are required to cover themselves to the extent of concealing their femininity.

Just when you think you might have a handle on it, verse 24:61 comes along and casts doubt on the whole concept. It says of postmenopausal women that, "it is no sin on them if they discard their (outer) clothing in such a way as not to show their adornment". Wait. What? This brings into question the necessity of veiling in the first place. It clearly implies that it is possible for women to not wear an extra layer while at the same time not showing, "their adornment".

Can anyone make sense of all that for me, or do we just chock this up as another example of the real author of the Qur'an (Mohamed) having trouble keeping his story straight?

I think we just chalk it up as another instance of your apparent Islamophobic obsession.

 

[Left Coast]

I would like some direction from the Muslims on this forum. I did a deep dive into the Qur'an on the issue of veiling, and came up with more questions than answers.

Verse 33:59 tells Muslim women to "draw over themselves their outer garments" so that they will be "known and not abused". This is suggestive of an extra layer of coverage sufficient to differentiate Muslim women from others.

Non-Muslim here, but what does this have to do with "veiling?" This is about them wearing some sort of cloak.

Verse 24:31 adds, "And tell the believing women ... to not expose their adornment except that which [necessarily] appears thereof and to wrap [a portion of] their head covers over their chests and not expose their adornment except to their husbands, their fathers, their husbands' fathers, their sons, their husbands' sons, their brothers, their brothers' sons, their sisters' sons, etc. ...".

I think it's pretty clear from the underlined phrases, especially in 24:31, which sandwiches the admonition to wear a veil between two instructions to hide their "adornment", that women are required to cover themselves to the extent of concealing their femininity.

Again, why would this require a "veil" and not, say, a hijab?

Just when you think you might have a handle on it, verse 24:61 comes along and casts doubt on the whole concept. It says of postmenopausal women that, "it is no sin on them if they discard their (outer) clothing in such a way as not to show their adornment". Wait. What? This brings into question the necessity of veiling in the first place. It clearly implies that it is possible for women to not wear an extra layer while at the same time not showing, "their adornment".

You appear to be quoting verse 60 here, not 61. But I'm still not seeing anything about "veiling," which to me suggests a face covering. Where are you seeing something about a veil?

The next sentence says "But it is better for them if they avoid this ˹altogether˺." This to me suggests that this is a concession to women who are past their prime but can still adequately cover themselves up to some extent. But he'd rather they covered completely.

Doesn't that seem like a reasonable interpretation of what he's trying to say?

 

[stevecanuck]

I think we just chalk it up as another instance of your apparent Islamophobic obsession.

Let me guess - it's a lovely evening where you are, so you decided to go out for a troll.

 

[stevecanuck]

Non-Muslim here, but what does this have to do with "veiling?" This is about them wearing some sort of cloak.

Oh.

It's the very same thing. I'm talking about the command for women to "hide their adornment". What you call the article of clothing to do that is irrelevant.

 

[stevecanuck]

Where are you seeing something about a veil?

Where are you not? Apparently 10's of millions of Muslims see it.

The next sentence says "But it is better for them if they avoid this ˹altogether˺." This to me suggests that this is a concession to women who are past their prime but can still adequately cover themselves up to some extent. But he'd rather they covered completely.

Doesn't that seem like a reasonable interpretation of what he's trying to say?

That's what I'm asking Muslims to explain. First they're told to cover themselves in what looks like an attempt to "hide their adornment", but then 24:61 indicates that it's possible to NOT cover themselves while still not displaying "their adornment".

 

[Left Coast]

Oh.

It's the very same thing. I'm talking about the command for women to "hide their adornment". What you call the article of clothing to do that is irrelevant.

Okay, so it sounds like you agree that a "veil" or face covering is not implied by these verses. I love a quick resolution to a question!

 

[Left Coast]

Where are you not? Apparently 10's of millions of Muslims see it.

Muslims aren't a monolith. Some wear face coverings, some don't. Some wear a hijab, some don't. But I don't see in any of these verses something that requires us to understand what they're supposed to wear as a "veil."

That's what I'm asking Muslims to explain. First they're told to cover themselves in what looks like an attempt to "hide their adornment", but then 24:61 indicates that it's possible to NOT cover themselves while still not displaying "their adornment".

I'm not seeing a response here to the interpretation I offered. What are your thoughts on that?

 

[stevecanuck]

Okay, so it sounds like you agree that a "veil" or face covering is not implied by these verses. I love a quick resolution to a question!

The Qur'an never explicitly tells Muslim women to cover their faces. We agree on that (although the wording of the verses I quoted could be understood that way).

I'm using the word "veil" as a catch-all to describe whatever extra covering that Muslim women are required to wear. The fact that they are required to wear extra covering is not in doubt. Also very heavily implied by 24:31 is that the covering is required to "hide their adornment".

This thread was created to ask Muslims to explain the apparent contradiction caused by 24:60 per the OP. Actually, just reread the OP.

 

[Left Coast]

The Qur'an never explicitly tells Muslim women to cover their faces. We agree on that (although the wording of the verses I quoted could be understood that way).

I'm using the word "veil" as a catch-all to describe whatever extra covering that Muslim women are required to wear. The fact that they are required to wear extra covering is not in doubt. Also very heavily implied by 24:31 is that the covering is required to "hide their adornment".

This thread was created to ask Muslims to explain the apparent contradiction caused by 24:60 per the OP. Actually, just reread the OP.

It just strikes me as odd to call something a "veil" that doesn't cover someone's face. But okay.

I'm still wondering if you read the interpretation I offered to your central question? Given that we're taking about clothing, and we all understand clothing is routinely layered, does it not stand to reason that the text could be referring to layering? Ie, it's better to be more covered up than less covered up, but it's better to be less covered up than not covered at all.

 

[stevecanuck]

It just strikes me as odd to call something a "veil" that doesn't cover someone's face. But okay.

I'm still wondering if you read the interpretation I offered to your central question? Given that we're taking about clothing, and we all understand clothing is routinely layered, does it not stand to reason that the text could be referring to layering? Ie, it's better to be more covered up than less covered up, but it's better to be less covered up than not covered at all.

You said, "This to me suggests that this is a concession to women who are past their prime but can still adequately cover themselves up to some extent. But he'd rather they covered completely.

Doesn't that seem like a reasonable interpretation of what he's trying to say?".

Yes. But in the process it brings the whole requirement to cover into question. If [younger] women are required to cover in order to hide "their adornment", then how is it possible to be uncovered (regardless of age) and also not display "their adornment"???? This is why the question of veiling/covering is so contentious. 'Allah' did a crap job of explaining it.

 

[Left Coast]

You said, "This to me suggests that this is a concession to women who are past their prime but can still adequately cover themselves up to some extent. But he'd rather they covered completely.

Doesn't that seem like a reasonable interpretation of what he's trying to say?".

Yes. But in the process it brings the whole requirement to cover into question. If [younger] women are required to cover in order to hide "their adornment", then how is it possible to be uncovered (regardless of age) and also not display "their adornment"???? This is why the question of veiling/covering is so contentious. 'Allah' did a crap job of explaining it.

If "their adornment" means, for example, their feminine figure, breasts, etc. these things generally fade with age. So it makes sense, if that's what the term means, that the requirement could be loosened for women who are less likely to...attract the male gaze, shall we say.

People can reasonably disagree to what degree people are obliged to be modest, I think. But if we read the text at all charitably, it seems fairly clear what the author is saying.

 

[stevecanuck]

If "their adornment" means, for example, their feminine figure, breasts, etc. these things generally fade with age. So it makes sense, if that's what the term means, that the requirement could be loosened for women who are less likely to...attract the male gaze, shall we say.

People can reasonably disagree to what degree people are obliged to be modest, I think. But if we read the text at all charitably, it seems fairly clear what the author is saying.

Okay, can you tell me what women are supposed to hide? Are face and hair allowed to be shown?

 

[Left Coast]

Okay, can you tell me what women are supposed to hide? Are face and hair allowed to be shown?

I thought we agreed the verses did not include a requirement to cover their faces?

The only body part I see mentioned in the verses you quoted is the chest, so it seems they're meant to cover that. I don't know if the word "adornment" in Arabic indicates more body parts, because I don't speak Arabic. Do you?

 

[stevecanuck]

I thought we agreed the verses did not include a requirement to cover their faces?

The only body part I see mentioned in the verses you quoted is the chest, so it seems they're meant to cover that. I don't know if the word "adornment" in Arabic indicates more body parts, because I don't speak Arabic. Do you?

Okay, I guess the problem is that I don't know what you mean by, "it seems fairly clear what the author is saying".

Is covering necessary to "hide their adornment or not?"

 

[Left Coast]

Okay, I guess the problem is that I don't know what you mean by, "it seems fairly clear what the author is saying".

Is covering necessary to "hide their adornment or not?"

It seems to me that it's saying yes, covering is necessary, but for older women they could have less covering. This to me suggests that the author imagines one's "adornment" (if that means chest, torso, etc.) could be covered by multiple layers of clothing, some of which could be removed in the case of older women.

 

[stevecanuck]

It seems to me that it's saying yes, covering is necessary, but for older women they could have less covering. This to me suggests that the author imagines one's "adornment" (if that means chest, torso, etc.) could be covered by multiple layers of clothing, some of which could be removed in the case of older women.

Alright. I think you're being generous, but that's okay.

 

[syo]

adornment

What's this?

 

[stevecanuck]

What's this?

Right, let me know if you find out. It probably means anything that shows or suggests femininity. However, 'Allah' never gets specific, which is why there's no world-wide Islamic standard of dress.

The Arabic word translated by most as 'adornment' is 'zinat'. I found it in other verses that have nothing to do with covering where it's translated as some sort of worldly possession, so that's no help. If it means things like beads and bangles, they could simply be removed rather than having women cover themselves completely. The Qur'an makes a mess of the entire question.

 

[syo]

Right, let me know if you find out. It probably means anything that shows or suggests femininity. However, 'Allah' never gets specific, which is why there's no world-wide Islamic standard of dress.

The Arabic word translated by most as 'adornment' is 'zinat'. I found it in other verses that have nothing to do with covering where it's translated as some sort of worldly possession, so that's no help. If it means things like beads and bangles, they could simply be removed rather than having women cover themselves completely. The Qur'an makes a mess of the entire question.

It's ridiculous.