By Ustad Soroush Mahallati, compiled and edited by Sayyid Ali Imran
This entire article is based on five lectures given by Ustad Soroush Mahallati during the days of Fatimiyyah in Qom, between October 23rd, 2026 to October 27th.
In this series, Ustad Soroush Mahallati asks whether the Qurʾan addresses women’s covering and, if so, what limits it sets. The discussion stays strictly with the text of Surat al-Nur, verse 31, without turning to juristic verdicts or the narrations. He argues that the verse sets two separate obligations. The first concerns adornment (zīnah): women may leave apparent adornments uncovered, such as customary makeup on the face or a ring on the hand, but must conceal hidden ones. The second concerns the khimār, a head-covering that must be drawn down to cover the neckline and chest. Drawing on the lexicons, early exegesis and historical narrations, he shows that the verse corrected an existing but deficient pre-Islamic form of covering rather than introducing covering from nothing. He also critiques exegetical readings that go beyond the verse, whether by adding restrictions it does not contain or by attaching coercive enforcement to it. Throughout, he holds that the Qurʾan’s position on covering is logical, defensible and clearly stated.
The question
Among the issues our society faces today is the question of women’s covering. This issue certainly has various social, cultural, and even political dimensions, and I do not intend to examine all of them. But one of the questions being raised is this: what is the view of the Holy Qurʾan on women’s covering? First, is the issue of women’s covering raised in the Qurʾan at all? And second, if it is among the issues the Qurʾan addresses, what limits and boundaries has God set for it in the Qurʾan, and from what perspective has He raised the matter? This is a question people ask, and they are keen to know the Qurʾan’s view on it.
In this approach, the discussion is not a juristic one. We do not intend to present the opinions and verdicts of the jurists on this subject, nor to set out the evidentiary bases of their juristic rulings. Rather, in this opportunity and in these sessions, we approach the issue solely from a Qurʾanic perspective: how is the subject of women’s covering raised in the Holy Qurʾan?
The two verses
In the Qurʾan, the issue of women’s covering is raised in two surahs — that is, where it is raised directly and explicitly. One is Surat al-Nur and the other is Surat al-Ahzab.
In Surat al-Nur, in the verses concerning rulings for women — and correspondingly, rulings for men — an expression is used regarding covering: the term khumur (plural of khimār):
وَلۡيَضۡرِبۡنَ بِخُمُرِهِنَّ عَلَىٰ جُيُوبِهِنَّ
This is verse 31 of Surat al-Nur: women should cast their khumur over their necklines (juyūb), so that the khimār covers the neck and the area around the chest. This is one verse in which the term khumur is used. We must discuss what the khimār is, what function it serves in covering, and how much of a woman’s body — or which parts of it — the khimār covers.
The second verse is in Surat al-Ahzab, verse 59. It is addressed to the Noble Prophet, who is asked to tell his wives and the believing women:
يُدۡنِينَ عَلَيۡهِنَّ مِن جَلَٰبِيبِهِنَّ
that is, that they draw their jilbābs close over themselves and make use of them. In this verse the term jilbāb is used, so we must examine the concept of the jilbāb: what is it, and what role does it play in a woman’s covering?
Our approach to this issue is a Qurʾanic one, exegetical in character. While explaining the noble verses of the Qurʾan, we will also refer to the related narrations, but the discussion revolves around these two verses in Surat al-Nur and Surat al-Ahzab.
The instructions in Surat al-Nur
The verses of Surat al-Nur begin with several instructions concerning women and men. For men, two instructions are given. The first concerns the gaze: men should guard their gaze and not let their eyes wander. The second concerns guarding their chastity and keeping to lawful relations. Verse 30 of Surat al-Nur begins:
قُل لِّلۡمُؤۡمِنِينَ يَغُضُّواْ مِنۡ أَبۡصَٰرِهِمۡ وَيَحۡفَظُواْ فُرُوجَهُمۡ
Tell the believing men to lower their gaze — not to stare, not to let their eyes wander — and to guard their private parts, keeping themselves pure. This instruction concerns believing men.
In the next verse, the instruction turns to believing women, and the Prophet is charged with conveying the duty of the believing women to them as well:
وَقُل لِّلۡمُؤۡمِنَٰتِ يَغۡضُضۡنَ مِنۡ أَبۡصَٰرِهِنَّ وَيَحۡفَظۡنَ فُرُوجَهُنَّ
Tell the believing women too to lower their gaze and not to look at the opposite sex with desire and lust, and tell them to guard their private parts and live chastely.
You can see that these two instructions are shared between women and men: lowering the gaze (ghaḍḍ al-baṣar) and guarding chastity (ḥifẓ al-farj). But in the continuation of the verse concerning women, God adds further instructions for them.
The third instruction for women is:
وَلَا يُبۡدِينَ زِينَتَهُنَّ إِلَّا مَا ظَهَرَ مِنۡهَا
That they not reveal their adornment (zīnah) — not display it or show it — except what is itself apparent. Women must not reveal their adornments except that which is already manifest and visible. This is the third instruction.
The fourth instruction is:
وَلۡيَضۡرِبۡنَ بِخُمُرِهِنَّ عَلَىٰ جُيُوبِهِنَّ
That they cast their khimārs — their head-coverings and headscarves — over their necklines, so that the area around the neck and chest is covered. That is the fourth instruction.
The verse then continues with the cases excepted from the covering of adornment. Those very adornments that are not apparent and must be covered may be revealed before certain individuals; that is, covering these adornments is not required with respect to certain people. The verse enumerates the individuals before whom covering can be lighter and less.
These are the four instructions in this verse directed at women. As I indicated, our discussion is not about the first and second instructions, which are shared between women and men — lowering the gaze and guarding chastity. Rather, the third and fourth instructions are the subject of our discussion. We have titled our discussion of this verse after the khimār, and that is our main topic. At the same time, however, there is another instruction on covering in this noble verse: God first says, do not reveal your adornments except what is apparent. So in this noble verse we will first speak about women’s revealing and displaying of adornments, and then continue with the discussion of the khimār raised in the verse.
Why the Qurʾan’s detail here matters
You can see that this issue is raised in the Holy Qurʾan, and raised explicitly. This shows that, from the Qurʾan’s point of view, the subject of covering carries an importance that warranted its explanation in the Qurʾan itself.
Consider the most important devotional commandments, such as prayer. The Qurʾan states the basic obligation of prayer, repeats it, and emphasizes that prayer must be established. But how one should pray is not explained in the Holy Qurʾan. God states the basic legislation of prayer in the Qurʾan, but the manner of prayer — its components, conditions, time, and place — is all entrusted to the Sunnah, and we must find the answers to our questions about how to pray in the Sunnah of the Prophet and the Ahl al-Bayt. And this is the foremost practical pillar of Islam, with all the importance that prayer carries.
Yet on another issue, covering, the Qurʾan has entered into the details. It has not sufficed with a general heading; it has set out to explain and elaborate the subject. It has specified and defined the scope of covering required of women. Nor did it suffice with presenting a rule on women’s covering that sets out its limits; in addition to stating the rule and its limits, it went on to state the exceptions as well: the rule is this, and these are the cases excepted from it.
Naturally, when the speaker — the lawgiver — goes so far as to enumerate the exceptions, this shows that he is fully in the position of clarifying the limits of the ruling, and wants to present it very clearly, not leaving it dependent on a later, secondary explanation. This kind of elaboration regarding women’s covering is one of the special cases in the Holy Qurʾan’s presentation of rulings; in many other cases, God suffices in the Qurʾan with stating principles and generalities. But this is a matter that, at the time of revelation, had to be explained to women directly by God, without being deferred to later clarification. At the very point where the rule is raised, its limits are explained; and at the very point where its limits are explained, its exceptions are immediately appended. The cases in which covering can be less and lighter — these very exceptions — are enumerated one after another, so that the addressee of the noble verse becomes fully aware of this ruling.
For this reason, whereas for many rulings one must turn to the Sunnah as the primary source and receive them through the Sunnah, on the issue of covering the situation is the reverse: the principal and primary source is the Book of God, and every other proof on the subject is subordinate to it and comes after it. And it makes a great difference what the principal source is. Here we are facing a ruling whose principal source is the Holy Qurʾan, and this ruling is presented in the Qurʾan in a very clear manner.
The questions ahead
In light of this introduction: this is one verse, and there is also the verse of Surat al-Ahzab, which uses the term jilbāb. We must then discuss what the khimār is, what the jilbāb is, how the two differ, and to what extent each provided covering for women according to the custom (ʿurf) of the time. Was it a covering of the head? Of the face in addition to the head? Or neither head nor face, but rather a covering of the neckline and the area around the chest? These are questions we must answer from the Holy Qurʾan, and our discussion, in its first stage, centers on what the noble verse of the Qurʾan signifies.
In this verse of Surat al-Nur we must speak about two points. The first is that women must not reveal their adornment except what is apparent — وَلَا يُبۡدِينَ زِينَتَهُنَّ إِلَّا مَا ظَهَرَ مِنۡهَا. This is our first discussion. Our second discussion concerns the second sentence — وَلۡيَضۡرِبۡنَ بِخُمُرِهِنَّ عَلَىٰ جُيُوبِهِنَّ — that they cast their head-coverings over their necklines. We will speak first about the first sentence, and then turn to the second sentence concerning the khimār.
Apparent and hidden adornment
The content of the first sentence is clear: do not reveal your adornments except what is apparent and visible. This sentence assumes that women’s adornments are of two kinds — apparent adornments and hidden adornments — and on this assumption it states two different rulings for them: covering apparent adornments is not obligatory, but covering non-apparent adornments is obligatory.
The first question that arises here is: what is the criterion for distinguishing apparent adornments from hidden ones? How can we draw the line, and how can we determine which adornment is apparent and which is hidden?
This very question has produced an ambiguity in the statements of the exegetes, so that from the time of the companions until today, different interpretations have been offered for distinguishing these two kinds of adornment. Some interpretations are maximalist, going so far as to say that the adornments that must be covered are beautiful clothes themselves, while ordinary, customary clothing need not be covered. Others have interpreted this adornment as jewelry, and still others as the natural beauties that appear in women’s faces. These are the various interpretations that exist, and, God willing, we must examine them and see how, through reflection and close attention to the noble verse, we can identify the adornments — some of which must be covered and some of which need not be.
Beauty, adornment, and ornament
We have zībāʾī (beauty), zīnat (adornment), and zīvar (ornament) — three different concepts.
Beauty can be entirely natural: a beautiful eye, a beautiful eyebrow, without any need for cosmetics. The eye is beautiful, the hair is long and beautiful, the eyebrow is beautiful. This is beauty. Is the term zīnah used for this kind of natural beauty, such that it must be covered? No — beauty is something other than zīnah.
The second term is zīnat in the sense of making oneself up (ārāyish): this same eye or eyebrow is beautified and made up, and something is added to its natural beauty. In the past, for example, kohl was used and the eye was made beautiful; today cosmetics are used to beautify the eyebrow, the hair, the eye, and so on. This too is a kind of zīnah.
The third is the specific term zīvar, which is distinct from zīnat. Zīvar refers to the items and objects used to beautify oneself: a necklace is zīvar, an earring is zīvar, a bracelet is zīvar, a ring is zīvar.
The term used in the Holy Qurʾan is zīnah. Does it include all three? That is, are even the natural beauties that God has placed in a person’s face intended? Or the cosmetic adornment added to that natural beauty? Or neither of these, but rather the ornaments a person wears? Which of these must be covered, and which need not be?
You can see that in this noble verse, the matter of covering adornments — وَلَا يُبۡدِينَ زِينَتَهُنَّ — is itself a separate instruction, distinct from the matter of using the khimār, and the two must be distinguished from each other. One matter is lā yubdīna zīnatahunna: that women must not reveal their adornments except what is apparent. The other instruction is wal-yaḍribna bi-khumurihinna ʿalā juyūbihinna: that what is placed on the head must also cover the neckline.
We begin, then, with the first instruction, concerning zīnah, and then turn to the second, concerning the khimār.
Regarding the duty placed on women with respect to covering, verse 31 of Surat al-Nur contains two statements. The first is:
وَلَا يُبۡدِينَ زِينَتَهُنَّ إِلَّا مَا ظَهَرَ مِنۡهَا
The first statement concerns adornments and ornaments, and the second concerns the use of the khimār. We will speak first about the first matter, and then go on to the issue of the khimār.
O Prophet, tell the believing women not to reveal their adornments except what is apparent of them. What is adornment, and how is its ruling stated in this verse?
Two separate matters
In this verse and in other verses on women’s covering, two subjects are raised independently and separately: one is adornment and covering it, and the second is covering the body. Some have wanted to place these two under a single heading, but the truth is that they are two independent matters, and the Holy Qurʾan speaks about them separately.
As for the first matter, adornments: this verse indicates that women’s adornments are of two kinds — apparent, visible adornments, which need not be covered, and non-apparent ornaments and adornments, which must be covered. But how are these two kinds distinguished, and where is the line between apparent and non-apparent adornment? Various interpretations have been offered on this.
The first interpretation: adornment as the place of adornment
One interpretation is that apparent adornment means the face, which is visible and apparent, and hidden adornment means the rest of a woman’s body. The apparent adornment — the face — need not be covered, but the whole of a woman’s body other than the face must be covered.
Well, why would the face be referred to as adornment? To convey this to the addressee, would it not have been better for God to say that women may leave their faces uncovered and must cover their bodies? Why is the obligation framed around adornments — cover your adornments except what is apparent?
According to one view, adornment here does not mean adornment itself but the place of adornment. For example, a ring is an adornment, but a woman or a man wears it on the hand, so the hand is the place of adornment. An earring is an adornment, but the ear is its place. A necklace is an adornment, and the neck is its place. According to this interpretation — which is also the view chosen in al-Mizan — the meaning of “cover your adornments except those that are apparent” is that whatever is apparent of the places of adornment need not be covered. The adornments that sit on the face have an apparent place, so covering them is not obligatory. But the adornments placed on the hands and feet have a hidden place, so the adornment itself must also be covered. This is one view on this noble verse.
Why adornment means adornment itself
As I indicated, we do not much agree with this view. If God is stating a ruling about the face and the body, He can use words that signify the face itself or the body itself. To say “adornment” and mean not adornment but the place of adornment on the face goes against ordinary, customary understanding. If it is said that certain adornments must be covered, or need not be covered, the subject of covering or not covering is, in any case, the adornments themselves.
This means, of course, the adornments a person is wearing, not adornments separate from the person — such as those someone has taken off and put away in her dresser, a bracelet here, an earring there. Clearly those are not what is meant in this noble verse. Adornment actually in use is sometimes apparent and sometimes hidden. Otherwise, whatever is in a jeweler’s display window would count as apparent adornment; it has no connection to any person, and covering or not covering it is not even an issue. What is meant is adornment a person wears. Men also use adornment, and some adornments, such as rings, come in both men’s and women’s versions.
In our view, then, the verse is about adornments themselves. We believe the Holy Qurʾan contains two instructions concerning covering: one concerns ornaments, and the other concerns covering the body. This matter is important specifically for women, not for men, and the reason is clear: women use adornments widely and frequently.
Women’s adornment, of course, has various stages. The simplest is that girls and women, in the early stages of their lives and in their youth, beautify their skin by removing the fine hairs on the face; from olden times, threading the face has been common. Another stage is thinning and shaping the eyebrows, removing excess eyebrow hair; this too is a kind of adornment and beautification of the face. Another stage is using cosmetics, like kohl in the past, or the other products available today for beautifying the eyes, eyebrows, eyelashes, cheeks, and so on. All of these are found among women.
The Holy Qurʾan has an instruction about adornments that is distinct from the instruction about covering the body or covering the face. It may be that covering the face is not obligatory, yet adornments themselves have a separate ruling, and there is an additional obligation regarding them. So the Holy Qurʾan states the ruling of covering for the head and face — وَلۡيَضۡرِبۡنَ بِخُمُرِهِنَّ عَلَىٰ جُيُوبِهِنَّ, which we will take up later — and, in addition to covering, it addresses the ruling on adornments.
Are women obliged, in general, to conceal all these adornments? That is, if they want their face to be uncovered, must it be a face without adornment? If a woman has threaded her face, must she then cover it? If she has shaped her eyebrows, is it obligatory for her to cover her face? If she has used kohl or an eye or eyebrow pencil, must she cover her face? This matter of adornment is itself an independent, separate issue.
We do not agree with the exegetical view of those who hold that what is meant is the place of adornment, and that the verse states the ruling for the place of adornment rather than for adornment itself. We also have an argument on this point. First, the noble verse discusses adornments: adornments are of two kinds, apparent and hidden, and what is apparent need not be covered (I will offer an explanation of this expression “apparent”). Second, the verse وَلَا يُبۡدِينَ زِينَتَهُنَّ is fundamentally about adornment, so there is no reason to reinterpret adornment as its place. Beyond these two, there are two further indicators here showing that the issue is adornment itself, not its place. These are two places in the verses of the Holy Qurʾan where a ruling is stated specifically about the adornment women use.
First indicator: the anklets
One is the continuation of this very verse. The verse is fairly long, and we began with its opening, but further on, verse 31 reaches this point:
وَلَا يَضۡرِبۡنَ بِأَرۡجُلِهِنَّ لِيُعۡلَمَ مَا يُخۡفِينَ مِن زِينَتِهِنَّ
Tell the Muslim women not to stamp their feet so that their hidden ornaments become known. This adornment on the feet — the anklets they would fasten around the ankle, which, like bracelets, would strike one another and make a sound — the noble verse calls hidden adornment, not apparent adornment. This adornment is by nature hidden and customarily lies beneath one’s clothing in society. But if a woman stamps her feet as she walks, others hear the sound of this adornment, and the Qurʾanic verse forbids this: women should not stamp their feet so that their hidden adornments become known.
This latter part of the noble verse itself shows that adornment is an independent issue, separate from covering the woman’s lower leg, which is taken for granted. The point is that the adornment worn on the lower leg must itself also remain hidden.
Here we agree with the exegetical view of the late Ayatullah Khoei, not that of the late Allamah Tabatabai. Allamah interprets adornment in the verse as the place of adornment, which is a reinterpretation and contrary to the apparent meaning. Ayatullah Khoei, however, explains the verse this way: apparent adornments need not be covered, and adornment itself is the subject of the ruling. Why? Because this is the apparent meaning of the verse, and the latter part of the verse shows that the issue is not the place of adornment, since it is assumed that the place of adornment on the lower leg is already covered. The issue is the adornment, which must not become known or exposed to non-maḥram men.
Second indicator: elderly women
We have another indicator as well: the ruling God states about elderly women. The verse we have been reading is verse 31 of Surat al-Nur, but in verse 60 the issue of women’s covering is raised again. When women reach old age, are no longer of marriageable age, and are no longer objects of sexual desire, they may lessen their covering, and there is a concession for them regarding covering:
وَٱلۡقَوَٰعِدُ مِنَ ٱلنِّسَآءِ ٱلَّٰتِي لَا يَرۡجُونَ نِكَاحٗا فَلَيۡسَ عَلَيۡهِنَّ جُنَاحٌ أَن يَضَعۡنَ ثِيَابَهُنَّ غَيۡرَ مُتَبَرِّجَٰتِۭ بِزِينَةٖ
For women who are past childbearing and have no hope of marriage, there is no harm in their laying aside their garments — that is, wearing less outer clothing. But there is an exception here, a condition on reducing covering even for these elderly women: غَيۡرَ مُتَبَرِّجَٰتِۭ بِزِينَةٖ — provided they have not adorned themselves and do not intend to show themselves off.
This verse shows that one issue is covering: as a woman ages, her covering is lightened. When women reach an age at which they are no longer candidates for marriage and are elderly, their obligation of covering decreases and they may reduce these garments; the limits of this must be discussed separately. In short, while women at this age have a concession in covering and their covering becomes lighter, they have no concession regarding the other obligation — adornment and tabarruj. These are two separate obligations. They should not think that because their covering is reduced, using adornments, revealing them, and tabarruj become permissible for them at this age.
This verse, too, shows that we must treat covering and tabarruj as two separate issues, and not think that the adornment mentioned in the noble verse relates to leaving the face uncovered. Rather, it shows that some adornments are hidden and some are apparent.
What is apparent adornment?
What, then, are apparent adornments? According to the first interpretation, put forward by figures such as Allamah Tabatabai, apparent adornment means the face — an interpretation we do not agree with. According to the second interpretation, apparent adornments are those that are normally and naturally visible. For example, if someone applies kohl to her eyes, her adornment is ordinarily considered apparent. The noble verse does not require covering apparent adornments. But adornments on parts other than the face, which count as non-apparent, must also be covered, in addition to covering those parts of the body themselves.
The view of Tafsir Tasnim
Since our discussion is exegetical, I would also like to speak about the opinions of the exegetes here and present them as far as possible. I brought Tafsir Tasnim by Ayatullah Jawadi Amuli in order to discuss his exegetical view as well. Here, as in many other places in his tafsir, he interprets the verse the same way as al-Mizan. In volume 59 of Tafsir Tasnim, page 612, the section heading is “The obligation of covering the places of adornment.” The word “places” has been added here to the Qurʾanic concept. The Qurʾanic concept is the covering of hidden adornments; here the word “places” has been added and the qualifier “hidden” has been dropped, which does not fully correspond to the meaning of the noble verse. He then says that women must cover the places of their adornment except what is apparent, and that adornment here means the places of adornment, such as the face and hands.
Two views that do not fit the verse
It seems that this noble verse, and this sentence in particular, have not received the discussion and reflection they deserve. In the face of the noble verse, we have ended up with two other views, in both tafsir and fiqh, neither of which fits the verse.
The first is the view of those who hold, in general, that women must cover every kind of adornment and ornament, whereas the Qurʾanic verse distinguishes two kinds of adornment — apparent and non-apparent — and restricts the ruling of covering to the second kind.
The second is the view that sets aside the subject of adornment in the noble verse altogether and turns the discussion to the place of adornment, that is, to the face. In other words, it disregards what the Holy Qurʾan has raised regarding women’s adornment.
It mattered, and still matters, to the Qurʾan to speak specifically about women’s adornment across several verses. As emphasized earlier, on women’s covering God has fully stated the scope and limits of the ruling, mentioned its conditions, and even mentioned its exceptions — the Qurʾan rarely enters into such details elsewhere. What is the ruling for elderly women? Does it differ from that for middle-aged and young women? In what respect do they receive a concession, and in what respect do they not? The Holy Qurʾan attends to all these details, even on the matter of adornment. So in this Qurʾanic discussion we want to understand these aspects better, especially in light of the subtleties of the Qurʾan’s expression.
As we have seen, God has asked believing women to leave only apparent adornments uncovered and to cover all other adornments. The important question is: what is apparent adornment? What does it include — adornment that need not be covered and may be shown — and which adornments must be covered?
Three possibilities
Three possibilities have been raised on this question.
The first possibility is that being apparent or not is left to custom (ʿurf). In each society, according to that society’s customs, it is determined which adornments are apparent and which are not. On this view, there is no fixed, settled standard across different human societies; it is variable and changing.
The second possibility is that the apparent adornments that need not be covered are the adornments on the face and hands, which a person ordinarily cannot keep covered given the needs of daily life. For example, if a person’s face has some adornment — kohl applied to the eyes, say — it is naturally and normally exposed to the view of others. So apparent adornments are those seen under ordinary, natural conditions. This second possibility is necessarily narrower than the first, covers a smaller range, and naturally yields a fixed standard across different societies.
The third possibility is that the standard for apparent adornment is adornment located on parts of the body that, according to the Shariʿah, need not be covered. If, according to the Shariʿah, the face need not be covered, then any adornment on the face is apparent adornment. That is, we draw on a legal indicator and say that for any part of the body that need not be covered, the adornments on that part need not be covered either.
Why custom cannot be the standard
These are the three possibilities. The first cannot be accepted. Why? Because such an instruction would necessarily be pointless and futile.
To explain: sometimes the customary view is uniform and the same everywhere. Take the concepts of water or rain. The Shariʿah has rulings about them — water purifies, the sun purifies, the earth purifies. These are rulings the Shariʿah has stated, but custom identifies their subject matter, and custom in different regions and societies has the same understanding of the sun, the earth, rain, or water. In cases like these, leaving the subject matter to custom is reasonable, because customary views are more or less the same.
But where customary views differ across societies — the clothing people wear differs, and how much of the body is covered or uncovered varies completely — it is clearly unreasonable for the Shariʿah to leave the statement of a legal ruling to these differing and conflicting customs. There are societies where covering is at its maximum, others where it is greater still, and others where many parts of the body are exposed, even for women. How can one say the Shariʿah has left these matters to custom? That would not be consistent with the logic of this verse, which goes on to say that women should cast their khimārs over their necks and cover the area around the neckline.
The second possibility: what is ordinarily visible
As for the second possibility — what is seen of a person’s body under ordinary, natural conditions: a woman, after all, is a human being. She is present in society and comes and goes. Sometimes, in the course of her comings and goings and the needs she must meet, she shops, carries things in her hands, holds a child in her arms, goes to an office on some administrative matter, or appears in court, where she must be identified so that her identity is clear to the court, and so on. Naturally and ordinarily, certain parts of her body, such as her face and hands, must remain free so that she can carry out her normal activities. The adornments on these parts — the apparent parts — are apparent adornments. By this reasoning, we should take the scope of apparent adornment to be the scope of those natural parts of the body that the demands of life require to be visible.
This is the second interpretation, and many exegetes of the Qurʾan have accepted it. For example, Zamakhshari, the author of al-Kashshaf, explains that a woman cannot, in her social life, fully cover all the parts of her body — not even her face or hands — since she buys and sells and comes and goes, and these are not possible with the face fully covered. She appears in court, needs to give testimony, must be seen in matters of marriage, and so on. He then says that this makes clear that the parts of the body which must necessarily be visible — as the habits and needs of life show — are the face and the hands up to the wrist. On this basis, apparent adornments are those placed on such parts.
Other exegetes have accepted the same interpretation. After Zamakhshari in al-Kashshaf, Tabrisi holds the same view in Jawamiʿ al-Jamiʿ, and Imam Fakhr al-Razi says the same in his al-Tafsir al-Kabir: needs and necessities must be taken into account, along with the parts of the body that, in ordinary, natural life, must in any case be in view and uncovered; otherwise life would run into difficulty. These are Sunni exegetes and Shiʿi scholars who agree on this view.
In fact, the third view also comes back to this second one. Its premise is that the Shariʿah has not made it obligatory for a woman to cover certain parts of the body, and where covering the part itself is not obligatory, covering any adornment on it is not required either.
On this basis, the meaning of the noble verse becomes fairly clear. The parts of the body are of two kinds, and adornments, following the parts of the body, are also of two kinds: parts of the body that must be covered, and parts that may be left uncovered. As for the specific instances, the continuation of the verse determines which of these parts must be covered and which need not be — this is discussed below. But whether adornments are to be covered or not follows from the parts of the body. This is what can be drawn from the noble verse of the Qurʾan on this matter.
Where some views go beyond the verse
In contrast to what we draw from this verse, which I have briefly outlined here, we encounter remarks and opinions among some exegetes and some jurists that do not accord with the apparent meaning of the noble verse. In my view, while this verse stresses that women must take care not to reveal their hidden adornments, it also permits a certain kind of adornment to be revealed. That is, it does not proceed on the basis of an absolute prohibition of ornaments or of revealing every kind of adornment. This is something that exegetes and jurists sometimes find hard to accept and endorse.
There are three points I want to mention briefly here. Based on the logic of the Holy Qurʾan, which I have explained to some extent and which is not complicated, we need to be more precise about covering for women. By precision I mean that the very points found in the Holy Qurʾan must be observed in the scope of covering — exactly those, and no more. We have no right to be more Catholic than the Pope and to get ahead of the divine rulings; God Himself forbids us from putting ourselves before God and His Prophet. There are a few places, regarding this noble verse, where some may have gotten ahead in this way.
Before I mention them, keep the main point in view. God says in the Qurʾan that women should not reveal their adornments — وَلَا يُبۡدِينَ زِينَتَهُنَّ — except what is apparent. So adornments are of two kinds, and those that are themselves apparent need not be covered. This division is explicit in the noble verse. Now to the points that are sometimes overlooked, and the other opinions that have been expressed which are inconsistent with the apparent meaning of the verse.
First point: adornment itself is overlooked
The first point is that the subject of adornment has been overlooked altogether. The whole discussion becomes about which part of the body must be covered and which need not be. Then, for a part that need not be covered, is adorning it permitted or not? That becomes a second-level question.
Yes, it is said, for example, that covering the face is not obligatory — though even this with some disagreement, as some have held a different view. But when we say covering the face is not obligatory, this differs from the verse. The noble verse is saying that not only is covering the face not obligatory, but covering the apparent adornments on the face is not obligatory either. The meaning of the noble verse is more specific than that. It does not mean you may leave your face uncovered on condition that it has no adornment at all. The verse does not say that. On the contrary, the verse says that since the face comes with apparent adornments, covering those apparent adornments is not obligatory — and naturally, when covering the apparent adornments is not obligatory, covering the face is not obligatory either.
Is it required that someone who does not cover her face have no adornment or makeup at all? What the noble verse raises is not a face without adornment. That is not what is excepted. Rather, a face with adornment is excepted: إِلَّا مَا ظَهَرَ مِنۡهَا, meaning the adornment that becomes apparent. There is no prohibition on this adornment becoming apparent. The verse does not say: because you have applied kohl to your eyes, you no longer have the right to show your face. No — the noble verse says that if an adornment is apparent, it need not be covered. Our narrations, as it happens, give this very example.
Of course, the instances of adornment and makeup differ over time. At one time it may be kohl, and at another time some other adornment in place of kohl. When we reach the forbidden line mentioned earlier — the stage of tabarruj, where a person wants to show herself off through her makeup, and her makeup is unconventional, or, if conventional, belongs to special occasions, such as makeup worn at a wedding — that is the issue of tabarruj, a line that is not permitted even for elderly women. But setting that aside, the ordinary, customary makeup a woman may wear is something God has permitted in this noble verse, and He has not prohibited it from being seen. The verse is specific and does not negate adornment. In my view, this is an important and fundamental point for understanding the noble verse, and it is sometimes overlooked.
Second point: the permission is not limited to necessity
The second point is that وَلَا يُبۡدِينَ زِينَتَهُنَّ إِلَّا مَا ظَهَرَ مِنۡهَا in the noble verse is not restricted to cases of necessity or need. Take someone who has applied kohl or eyeliner, to that extent. We are not speaking of heavy makeup that is unconventional and reserved for special occasions; that clearly falls under tabarruj. Let us for now take just this minimum from the noble verse — never mind anything more — the minimum that is not unconventional. The noble verse has permitted revealing these. Is that permission tied to conditions of necessity, or not?
This is a concession, an ease — a facilitation regarding covering and makeup — and this facilitation is not limited to cases of necessity. Even if there is no necessity and she wants to apply kohl, must she then put on a veil after applying it so that her kohl is not seen? Is that how it is? No. Pay close attention, dear friends: in the noble verse, the exception مَا ظَهَرَ is not an exception for cases of necessity and compulsion. This means the act is permissible under ordinary, natural conditions as well, and needs no secondary heading such as necessity or compulsion.
That is a separate discussion. Yes, under conditions of compulsion, the head may be uncovered and the neck may be seen — for example, someone who is ill and goes to a doctor. That situation falls under compulsion and necessity for the sake of treatment, so some parts of the body that would otherwise have to be covered no longer have to be. But this verse is not about cases of compulsion. We cannot take what God has made lawful — a facilitation He has provided so that a woman need not, say, wipe off her kohl and the like every time she goes out — and forbid it by saying it applies only to conditions of necessity or compulsion. Yet this strictness is sometimes seen in the words of the exegetes.
The noble verse has made adornment easy for women within reasonable bounds, not unreasonable ones. Through this very division between two kinds of adornment, it has made the matter reasonable and has not made things hard for women: women must not reveal hidden adornments, but as for apparent adornments — within the red line of not reaching tabarruj — the Shariʿah has not prohibited them.
I am surprised to see in Tafsir Tasnim, under this very verse, that leaving the hands and face uncovered is qualified here with “in the case of necessity.” That is, when the verse says إِلَّا مَا ظَهَرَ مِنۡهَا, it has been channeled into necessity, meaning that under ordinary conditions a woman has no right to wear customary adornments on her face. This does not fit the logic of the Holy Qurʾan, and we are not permitted to restrict a permission and facilitation found in the Shariʿah to cases of necessity. That is the second point.
Third point: the appeal to hardship
The third point, which again in my view reflects strictness in understanding and applying the verse, is that many exegetes have raised the issue of hardship (ḥaraj) here: if there is a permission and facilitation concerning the face, its beauty, and its adornment, it is due to hardship — otherwise difficulty and burden would arise. It is as if God, in view of the principle مَا جَعَلَ عَلَيۡكُمۡ فِي ٱلدِّينِ مِنۡ حَرَجٖ (He has not placed upon you any hardship in religion), has granted this permission and based this concession on hardship.
It is truly unclear to me where in the verse this issue of hardship comes from, and what the continuation of the verse has to do with hardship at all. Why do some of the great exegetes, especially with a strict outlook, say that the basis for harm (mafsadah) is present here in principle, but the sacred Shariʿah has made a concession and permitted it so that hardship and difficulty do not arise?
What hardship is there? If a woman were told, for instance, “Take off the ring or band you are wearing when you go out into the street; there is nothing wrong with your hand being uncovered, but you must not wear a ring or band” — there is no hardship in that at all. What hardship would it be? Yes, the issue of hardship does arise with covering the face or hands themselves. There, social life and relations, coming and going, shopping, being present in society, studying — these would truly make life hard and difficult. But that relates to our next discussion; whether hardship plays a role there or not is another discussion. In the present discussion, however, God’s permission for مَا ظَهَرَ has nothing to do with hardship occurring.
Once the matter is placed in the channel of hardship, the outlook will necessarily be negative. It will necessarily be interpreted to mean that a woman should avoid exposing herself to this as much as possible, because hardship implies that there is a basis for harm and the Shariʿah is not pleased with it; the Shariʿah has made a concession only so that life does not become hard and burdens do not multiply. But the apparent meaning of the noble verse of the Qurʾan contains no such qualifications. This facilitation for women regarding adornments covers the customary adornments that women typically use — not extraordinary, unusual adornments reserved for special occasions. When these kinds of adornment are apparent, there is no need or necessity to cover them.
Reflections on the exegetical tradition
A specialized treatment that presented, critiqued, and examined the opinions of the exegetes could go into far greater detail. The aim here, however, is to present the meaning drawn from the noble verse in an open, simple, and accessible way, referring only briefly to some of the existing views.
I firmly believe that what has come in the Holy Qurʾan regarding covering for women is entirely logical, reasonable, and defensible. If we sometimes express a view that seems unreasonable, it may be because we do not have a correct and clear understanding of the noble verse, and these misunderstandings become the source of some questions and objections. In my view, this part of the verse — وَلَا يُبۡدِينَ زِينَتَهُنَّ إِلَّا مَا ظَهَرَ مِنۡهَا — contains no ambiguity. Yet our exegetes have not taken these verses very seriously, and at times they have gone in a direction that places women under pressure and constraint beyond what is in the verse of the Qurʾan.
It surprises me why Shaykh Tusi in al-Tibyan, the late Tabrisi in Majmaʿ al-Bayan, and Rawd al-Jinan — these are our important tafsirs, and they have offered good discussions on this subject — did not explain the matter very clearly, but instead placed conflicting opinions side by side and moved on. I think we need to return once again to the logic of the Qurʾan, reflect very clearly on this very verse, contemplate it, and draw from it.
And a point worth noting, with which I will end my discussion: contrary to what is found in these tafsir works, we have several narrations from the Imams (a) under this very verse, وَلَا يُبۡدِينَ زِينَتَهُنَّ إِلَّا مَا ظَهَرَ مِنۡهَا, in which they gave examples such as kohl and the ring. Rather than interpreting adornment as the places of adornment, or as necessity, or as hardship, they stated these very things as instances of مَا ظَهَرَ — exactly what is drawn from reflecting on the verse. It would have sufficed for our great scholars, if they found any ambiguity in the verse, to present it very clearly in light of the statements that have come down to us from the Imams.
That way, the verse would convey its message well to those who are not observant — that you have a duty to observe it, not to fall short, not to be lax in covering — and also to those who are strict in this matter, strict with themselves and strict with their children and families. This noble verse gives attention and care to both sides.
Verse 31 of Surat al-Nur raises the matter of women’s covering from two angles. The first — women’s duty regarding the adornments and ornaments they use, which may be revealed and which must remain covered — has been discussed above. We now turn to the second.
The second part: the khimār
In the second part, in this same noble verse, an instruction and obligation regarding the use of the khimār is directed at women. The noble verse is:
وَلۡيَضۡرِبۡنَ بِخُمُرِهِنَّ عَلَىٰ جُيُوبِهِنَّ
In brief, the meaning of the verse is that women must cast their khimārs — that is, the covering they place on their heads — over their chests. Khumur is the plural of khimār, and khimār means a head-covering. In Persian we have words such as rūsarī and maqnaʿah, but the meaning of khimār is general: a covering used for the head. Women are to cast this covering down far enough that the front of the garment, which is open and has a slit in it, is covered over the chest. This is the verse we have in Surat al-Nur on covering. Of course, in Surat al-Ahzab there is another verse whose subject is the jilbāb. For now we are speaking about the khimār raised in Surat al-Nur, and, God willing, we will later speak separately about the jilbāb and how it differs from the khimār.
Various questions are raised about this verse. The first is: what does khimār mean? The second is: which part of the body is the khimār used, or to be used, to cover? Alongside these two main points, other points arise as well.
As for the concept of khimār: since the obligation directed at women here concerns a particular way of using the khimār — وَلۡيَضۡرِبۡنَ بِخُمُرِهِنَّ — it is essential for us to establish fully the concept of the khimār and its function in covering. Note that the verse does not say women should cover their heads, nor that women should cover their necks. Rather, it names a covering familiar to its addressees at the time of revelation, called the khimār, and asks them how to use it. So for now we must speak about the khimār.
The khimār in the lexicons
Let us turn to the lexicons. The root kh-m-r and its derivatives mean covering. Of course, depending on what is being covered, the usage of the word varies, but at its root, everywhere, kh-m-r carries this same meaning of covering. For example, Maqayis al-Lugha, one of the reliable sources of the Arabic lexicon, defines the root this way: kh, m, and r form a single root indicating covering (الخاء والميم والراء أصل واحد يدل على التغطية).
Well, covering what, or covering whom? And if a person is involved, is that person a woman or a man? And if a woman or a man, which part of the body is covered? The lexicons explain the word kh-m-r, and especially this derivation khimār, whose plural is khumur, and state explicitly that the khimār is a covering specific to women. Shared coverings such as a shirt or trousers, although they are coverings and the root may be applied to them lexically, are not a khimār. The same Maqayis al-Lugha states that the khimār is a woman’s khimār; in the Sihah of the lexicon too, the khimār is for the woman. This is a specific covering. That is, when the root is used in this form, it takes on a specific meaning: a covering particular to women.
Thus Raghib al-Isfahani, in his Mufradat, first defines the root as covering a thing, then says that a khimār is that with which something is covered, and then adds that the word khimār has, in common usage, become the name for what a woman covers her head with. The word has come into this conventional usage for the covering with which a woman covers her head. A man also sometimes covers his head with a piece of cloth, but the Arabs do not call the covering a man uses for his head a khimār. So Lisan al-ʿArab says that a man covers his head with a turban, just as a woman covers hers with her khimār. That is, for a man’s head-covering the word ʿimāmah is used, while a woman’s covering is the khimār. So we can say that the khimār is women’s head-covering. The reliable lexicon al-Misbah al-Munir says exactly the same: the khimār is a cloth with which a woman covers her head. Lexically, this is clear.
Why khimār should not be translated as a modern garment
Of course, in Persian we use particular words for the cloth that covers the head, and these are not necessarily what Arabic calls a khimār. Khimār is a general term: a head-covering. In Persian, the word used in the past was chāriqad; today the word used is rūsarī. These are in fact particular coverings we have in our own time. The rūsarī is a square piece of cloth, usually folded into a triangle when worn and placed on the head. This particular design is not necessarily the meaning of khimār; it is the rūsarī of our time’s custom. Today we also have something else called a shāl, which differs from the rūsarī; it is usually rectangular, longer and more elongated. Persian has yet another similar item, the maqnaʿah, which covers the head and neck completely, leaving the face out.
We cannot translate khimār as rūsarī, shāl, or maqnaʿah, because each of these has a specific present-day meaning in our time and our language, whereas khimār had a more general meaning in the past and in Arabic. If we want to capture that general meaning and overall concept, we must say that a khimār is a head-covering — something placed on the head. In one instance, at one time, it could take the form of a rūsarī, or it could take the form of a maqnaʿah. If I translate khimār as rūsarī, your mind turns to today’s rūsarīs, whereas that is not it; or if it is translated as maqnaʿah, your mind turns to today’s maqnaʿahs, whereas that is not it either. As I read to you from the lexical sources, nothing more than this can be drawn from the lexicon: a cloth cast over the head, which can take different forms in different cultures. So there is no vagueness or ambiguity in the word khimār.
The khimār in usage
Besides the lexicon, we can draw on the various usages of this word in Arabic. From its usages, one can understand the meaning and concept of a word. Usually, wherever khimār appears in usage, a head-covering is involved. For example, an Imam is asked whether a woman may wipe over her khimār — that is, whether, instead of removing her head-covering, she may perform the wiping of the head over the khimār. What does khimār mean here? It is the covering on the head. Or in the sermon of Lady Fatimah al-Zahra (s), when she came from her house to the Prophet’s mosque to speak: لاثت خمارها على رأسها — she wrapped her khimār about her head. Clearly, this is a covering placed on the head, and it pertains to women.
I have offered this explanation especially because I have seen some people remark that the khimār is a covering, but it is unclear what kind. No — it is a covering that pertains to the head and to women. Neither lexically nor in usage is this hidden or ambiguous, and one cannot say the word khimār is ambiguous in meaning or concept. The lexicon does not raise such ambiguity, nor do the exegetes, and in the various usages in the narrations we see no ambiguity about this term: a head-covering for women. Sometimes, to make expression easier, terms such as rūsarī and the like are also used, but we must take care not to fall into conceptual error here.
Three rulings in the verse
From this noble verse we can draw three rulings. It is quite interesting that this verse raises women’s covering, yet the ruling on covering differs for different parts of the body.
One is covering the face, and from this very verse we draw that covering the face is not required. Another is covering the chest. Many Arab women wore garments open at the front, so the chest and the area below the neck could be seen. The expression juyūb in this noble verse refers to exactly this front of the garment, which opens. Here the Qurʾanic verse states explicitly that this part — this slit and opening at the front of the garment, through which the chest is visible — must be covered. That is the second part. So: the face, no; the chest, yes. These two rulings concern two parts of the body.
The third part concerns the head and neck. Where do we draw this from? We draw the covering of the head and neck from the verse implicitly. So this noble verse has an explicit signification and an implicit signification. Its explicit signification is that the cloth placed on the head must hang down so that it covers the front of the chest, and the garment that is open at the front and shows the chest is covered. That is the core of what the verse signifies, and it concerns covering this part. But to cover this part — this jayb, this neckline, this opening in the garment — God has said: cast this head-covering down from above until it reaches here. From this it is understood implicitly that the head must be covered. Why? Because God, in speaking of the covering to be used here, has used the word khimār, and as you saw, lexically the khimār is the covering placed on the head. So covering the head and neck is drawn from the noble verse implicitly. These are the three parts.
How large must the khimār be?
Now, to make clear whether this noble verse sets any limits for this covering at all: the word khimār itself, like the word rūsarī, has no clear, specific, definite dimensions. As you can see today, a rūsarī can be small or large; rūsarīs differ, some small and some large. The word khimār is the same. We cannot say clearly that in the Arabic of that time a khimār was a cloth of such-and-such length and width, with particular dimensions; it has no fixed size.
But there is an indicator by which we can determine how large the khimār must be — that is, how much of a woman’s body the khimār that the verse asks women to cast over their heads must cover. This can be drawn from the verse. From where? From the fact that God has said this covering you place on your head — the khimār — must cover the chest. This is the minimum that is obligatory and required.
That is, if this rūsarī, or whatever covering is used for the head, is tied under the chin — it reaches here and is tied here — but below the chin it does not cover the neck, the chest, and the garment with an opening at the front, then clearly it is not an instance of what this noble verse describes. Someone who uses such a short, small khimār has not used it in accordance with the obligation God states in this noble verse; that is, she has not fulfilled her duty and obligation. Why? Because the verse said عَلَىٰ جُيُوبِهِنَّ — cast your khimārs over your chests — so that this opening at the front of the garment is covered. That is, you cast down the two ends of this cloth and tuck them into the garment so that the garment’s neckline is also concealed and covered. What the noble verse asks of women is this size of khimār. A khimār may of course be larger — very well. But this minimum is drawn from the noble verse itself: if it is less, the concealment and covering that must take place at the front of the garment, covering the chest and neckline, has not been achieved, and the person has necessarily not fulfilled her duty and obligation in this matter.
So although the word khimār is ambiguous as to being small or large — a small rūsarī and a large rūsarī, a small maqnaʿah and a large maqnaʿah, head-coverings in general, small and large, are all called khimār — there is an indicator within the noble verse itself showing that the khimār must be such that, when cast from the head, it can also cover the front of the chest: وَلۡيَضۡرِبۡنَ بِخُمُرِهِنَّ عَلَىٰ جُيُوبِهِنَّ. Its dimensions are naturally known in light of this indicator. This concerns the size, extent, and natural dimensions of the khimār, which can of course vary according to a person’s build; one person is smaller and another larger, but in any case it must be of such an extent.
Of course, if we assume that a woman’s garment is closed at the front — its collar is a collar that does not open — then the khimār cast over the head no longer needs to cover the front of the garment in addition to the head and neck, because the garment itself has provided that covering. But a khimār that is meant to cover must come down from above, cast over the head, to the front of the chest, so that the covering is complete. This is what is drawn from the noble verse of the Qurʾan.
I believe that God, in this verse, by framing the matter around the khimār — and around using the khimār to cover the opening at the front of the garment, the neckline, and the chest — makes the matter very concrete and tangible, understandable and practicable for women: how they should observe their covering.
The verse corrects the covering of the Jahiliyyah
To understand this noble verse better, one point must be noted: this verse is, in a way, also looking at the kind of covering women had in the Jahiliyyah and at the time of revelation, and is in fact correcting that covering. They had a covering, but it was deficient, and the noble verse is correcting that Jahili covering: not that way, but this way.
The covering women had — as can be drawn from the verse itself, from the Qurʾan, and from historical evidence I will mention — had two features with respect to covering the upper body (not the lower body), both of which Islam came and reformed. The first feature was that women’s garments were open at the front. That is, the collar would open, for ease in putting the garment on or taking it off. In any case, the front and collar of the garment were completely open, and this resulted in the chest being visible. That is the first point.
The second point is that women before Islam also had a kind of head-covering, but that head-covering was deficient as well. The khimār they used — that cloth placed on the head — they would tie behind their heads. That is, the part that was covered was like the turban I am wearing: it came from above the ears. You may have seen in some regions of Iran, more or less, that village women who come out for farming, herding, and the like — or when they are working, baking bread, doing some task — sometimes tie up their heads while the neck and front are left open, with only the head bound. Men also do this sometimes; in bakeries, for instance, many bind the front of their heads with a cloth so that the heat does not strike their heads directly.
There is evidence showing that in the Jahiliyyah, and at the time the noble verse was revealed, women’s covering was like this. In this context the verse is telling them: do not tie the khimār you have on your head behind your head. No — undo it and cast it forward, so that your chests, which are visible, and the front of your garment, the collar of your garment, which is open, are closed off by that khimār. The result is that the head is covered; then, after the head, the khimār falls and comes down, so that it also covers the neck, and the front of the garment, the collar, and the chest.
This can take different forms; the essential thing is that the covering completes these parts. One form could be that the cloth is cast with one end thrown behind the neck, so that the head is covered and the neck and front are covered too, like a shawl thrown behind the neck. That is one form. Another form, mentioned in some books, is that the khimār is cast down and tucked into the neckline, into the collar, and secured there. Or any other form — if it is long, they can join it at the front with a knot or a ring so that the front of the collar is covered, so that, if the collar is open, the chest is not seen. These details make no difference. What matters is that the head is covered, the neck is covered, and the front of the garment is covered, and the khimār must have enough length and width to provide this kind of covering for the head in these parts.
Three points in the verse
Here it seems to me that the noble verse, with this expression it uses — cast your khimārs over your chests — is reminding us of three points. This very noble verse contains three points.
The first point is that the chest, which is open, must be covered. The second point is implicit: since the chest is covered with the khimār, you use the khimār to cover the front of the garment and the chest, and it follows implicitly that this khimār also covers the head, the neck, and the area around the ears. That is implicit, while the first is explicit: the front must be covered.
The third point drawn from this expression is that the face is not within the scope of obligatory covering. Why? Because, as I indicated, the Arab woman would tie this khimār behind her head, above the neck, and secure it there. The verse came and said: release these and let them fall forward. The khimār was fundamentally not a covering for the face, and the noble verse does not say to cast the khimār over the face. Rather, the end of this khimār, this cloth, is cast down so that it comes under the throat and covers the front of the chest. So the noble verse’s very expression excepts the covering of the face.
This is a subtle point, and some of our great jurists have drawn on this noble verse to argue that covering the face is not obligatory for women. Whether it is obligatory or not is a juristic question, and if it is not obligatory, what is the proof? The late Ayatullah Sayyid Muhammad Muhaqqiq Damad, may God be pleased with him, uses this very noble verse as one of his arguments. The verse says: cast down the khimār placed on the head — not cast it over the face, but cast it so that it covers the front of the chest — and this indicates that the face being left uncovered was taken for granted.
Of course, we said earlier that the verse excepts apparent adornments. When the adornment itself may be left uncovered and exposed to view, and covering it is not obligatory, then naturally the face, which is the place of these adornments, need not be covered either. For example, when revealing an adornment such as kohl applied to the eyes is permissible and covering it is not required, covering the face itself is not required either.
What the verse primarily intends
So this noble verse contains three rulings. But among these three, what the speaker primarily and essentially intends is that the chest should not be open. If we ask which part of the matter of covering is most important from the perspective of the sacred Lawgiver, the noble verse looks chiefly to this part, explicitly. It indicates the covering of the head as well, but implicitly; that is, it takes for granted that the head must be covered. Previously, the covering women had was deficient; now, when the covering is completed so that it comes down over the chest, the covering will be complete. But what the verse primarily, essentially, and explicitly raises is that the front of the chest must not be open for women.
So the verse does not suffice with telling you to cast the khimār around your neck. No, that is not enough. What is required, beyond the head and neck, is that this khimār be able to cover the front of the garment — the collar — which in Arab custom was open; that is, women usually left it open. And this, more than the head and neck, is what causes the greatest problems in interactions, making the atmosphere unethical and provocative; it relates to this front part of the chest and can have a greater negative role than the head and neck.
So the sensitivity in this noble verse is a sensitivity toward this particular part, which is stated explicitly. The covering of the head is implicit, because the khimār is women’s head-covering and then this covering is let down; naturally, when it is let down to cover the front of the chest, it covers the neck as well. Those are implicit, but this is primary.
The force of the command
First, the tone of this noble verse is imperative and binding: Muslim women must do this. The obligations mentioned earlier in the same verse share this imperative, binding tone. This is an obligation God has laid down for believing women.
Second, this obligation is stated with emphasis, which is drawn from the root ḍ-r-b used in the verse. As Persian speakers, we do not readily perceive the subtleties of another language such as Arabic, but those more familiar and at home with Arabic literature have explained that this expression carries emphasis and intensity. Instead of saying “place this head-covering on your heads,” God used the verb ḍaraba — to strike — which shows that the covering must be firm and careful. That is: take covering seriously, do not be lax about it, and let it be done with enough firmness that it does not slip aside or shift but stays in place. So it is an obligation, and one that must be observed properly, with emphasis.
As explained, the khimār (plural khumur) is a covering a woman places on her head. It is not a small covering that covers only the head, like a cap, which pertains to the head alone and not to the neck and below. Nor is it so large and long that it envelops the whole body. The khimār lies between the two: placed on the head, it also covers the area around the neck and the front of the chest. These are the limits of this covering. So the noble verse asks women to cast their khumur over the front of their garments, so that the collar of the shirt — which is slit, and through which, when open, part of the chest can be seen — is closed off and the chest covered:
وَلۡيَضۡرِبۡنَ بِخُمُرِهِنَّ عَلَىٰ جُيُوبِهِنَّ
We drew from this verse that the main issue here is that the front of the chest be covered by the head-covering; the principal emphasis lies here. Of course, when the covering is placed on the head and falls down, it covers both the head and the area around the neck, but the sensitivity in this verse is toward the open front of the chest and that the head-covering must cover it completely. It is not without reason that some careful scholars of Qurʾanic concepts, such as the late Mustafawi in al-Tahqiq, say when explaining this sentence: هذه الجملة في مقام ستر الجيب فقط، وليست ناظرة إلى حجاب الرأس — this sentence concerns covering the neckline only and does not address covering the head. The verse is not stating that women should cover their heads; it takes for granted that there is a covering for the head. But this covering must be complete, covering the front of the chest as well, and the main issue here is the covering of the chest.
Was covering new with Islam?
Because it bears on understanding the verse, I pause here: how did women cover themselves at the dawn of Islam, before these verses were revealed, and in the Jahiliyyah before Islam? Did they have any covering for the head and body at all? If so, what was it like? The setting in which the verse was revealed is itself an indicator for understanding it better.
We have historical and hadith evidence showing that women in the Arabian Peninsula, more or less, had some covering for the head. The custom of Jahili society required covering part of the head; although it was not binding among them, they usually did not leave the head bare. As you know, even today, among Arabs and non-Arabs alike, many settings hold the custom that neither man nor woman should be bareheaded; even for men a bare head is disapproved. This custom has existed from the past. But the problem with the covering women had in the Jahiliyyah was that it covered part of the head, while below it the neck was necessarily left open, and below the neck the neckline and the slit at the front of the garment remained open, leaving the chest exposed. This noble verse addresses exactly this point: complete the head-covering by covering the front of the chest, and use the head-covering so that the neck and chest are covered too.
So the claim made by some great scholars — Martyr Mutahhari in The Question of Hijab, Ayatullah Shubayri Zanjani in his discussion of marriage, and, more or less, in earlier tafsir and fiqh — that hijab is a foundational (taʾsīsī) command in Islam rather than an endorsing (imḍāʾī) one, and that hijab did not exist in the Arabian Peninsula before these verses and that Islam brought it, needs to be completed. I do not want to say it is wrong, but it is not complete, since there is evidence showing that hijab did exist in some form among women in the Arabian Peninsula. What the Holy Qurʾan brought is this: the hijab they had was deficient and weak, and it left exposed parts of the body that needed to be covered. One clear case was the open front of the chest; their garments were open at the front, showing the area around the neck, below it, and the front of the chest. Yet they did have covering; they were not naked. The culture of nakedness found in some societies today does not belong to the pre-Islamic setting or the setting of revelation. There was covering, but covering with this deficiency.
As evidence, there is a book called Maʿani al-Qurʾan by al-Farraʾ, an exegete who died in 207 AH and lived in the second century. In this tafsir, written some twelve hundred years ago, he explains what their dress was like in the Jahiliyyah: إن نساء الجاهلية كن يسدلن خمرهن من ورائهن — the women of the Jahiliyyah would let their head-coverings hang down behind them. They had a covering on the head, but they threw its two ends behind their heads, so the front of the chest remained open and exposed. The noble verse came and corrected the manner of using that covering — not that the head had no covering or that they wore no clothes at all. There was a covering on the head, but they threw or tied its two ends behind the head. The verse said: bring the ends of this covering forward, tuck them into the opening of the garment, or throw them under the neck to the other side. This is what the noble verse addresses.
That is evidence from the second century. From the same era we also have a narration from Imam al-Baqir (a). Since in this discussion we do not cite narrations for juristic purposes, this narration is cited because it shows the state of covering in the Jahiliyyah. Al-Kulayni narrates it from Saʿd al-Iskaf with a reliable chain. It is the well-known story of a young man of the Ansar who noticed a woman without complete covering, was greatly attracted to her, became absorbed in her, and followed behind her without noticing where he was going. He entered an alley, and because he was so smitten and absorbed in her beauty, he walked into a wall; a sharp object struck his face and blood ran from it. According to this narration, the problem began because women would tie the head-covering behind their ears, or let it hang from there — that is, the front of the chest was open — and this is what led the young man to become absorbed and run into trouble.
Taken together, this evidence from hadith, tafsir, and history shows that covering, even of the head, existed more or less in the Jahiliyyah. What was neglected in the Jahiliyyah, and what Islam insisted upon, was covering the front of the garment and the upper body. They gave this no importance, and collars were open not only for men but for women as well. Noticing this matters because it helps us better identify the message of the noble verse and the specific aspect of covering about which the Holy Qurʾan is sensitive.
Does the verse require covering all of the hair?
Another point: the verse did not command placing the khimār on the head, nor did it command covering the head. It commanded casting it over the front of the chest so that the chest is covered. These expressions differ. When a woman has placed the khimār on her head and covered the front of her chest, she has obeyed the command in this verse. Now, if some of her hair comes out from the edge of the khimār, does this verse contain any command or obligation that all the hair must be under it? The verse is silent on this, because it only says to cast the khimār. In the terminology of uṣūl, it is “in the position of clarification” with regard to covering the front of the chest — وَلۡيَضۡرِبۡنَ بِخُمُرِهِنَّ عَلَىٰ جُيُوبِهِنَّ — but it is not clarifying whether the khimār on the head covers all the hair. Ordinarily, not every khimār covers all the hair, unless one wears it in a way that does.
Some coverings are complete by nature. Take a sock: when one puts it on, it covers the top of the foot, the sole, and all the toes. An ordinary sock is not one with a toe or two sticking out. If someone says “put on socks,” it means the foot must be covered, and in customary usage this covers all of it. If someone says “put on gloves,” a glove is likewise a complete covering that fully covers all the fingers. But some coverings are flexible, more or less, and can be worn completely or incompletely, like this head-covering: the covering thrown over the head can be worn so that it fully surrounds the head, or so that some hair stays outside.
Had the noble verse said “cover your hair” or “cover your heads with the khimār,” we would understand that it was clarifying that the head and hair must be completely covered. But the verse is clarifying another point: that this head-covering should come forward rather than sit behind the head — in light of the evidence from narration, history, and hadith that in the Jahiliyyah the covering was placed behind the head. It says: release it. Whether, once released, hair remains outside at the back or front of the head, and whether that is an obligation or not, the verse does not attend to. It attends to this: once you release the covering, the front of the chest must be fully covered, the open collar closed off, and the chest not seen.
So on the ruling for hair that falls outside the khimār, this verse is silent. Either we must draw on the verse of Surat al-Ahzab on the jilbāb, or we must draw on the Sunnah regarding complete covering and the limits of covering the hair. For each of the proofs discussed here, it must be made entirely clear how far each one signifies. The basic covering of the head and neck down toward the chest is drawn from the noble verse clearly and explicitly; its details must be drawn from other sources. Since this discussion is purely Qurʾanic, we have stayed with this noble verse and not turned to other proofs and sources. This too is worth noting: the verse does not establish covering the entire head, nor all of the hair, although basic covering of the head and hair is drawn from it. What it clarifies concerns the chest, which must be covered completely.
Concluding reflections
The plan was to discuss both verses over these five sessions — the verse of Surat al-Nur on the khimār and the verse of Surat al-Ahzab on the jilbāb — from the first to the fifth of Aban, while the seminary was closed for the days of Fatimiyyah. Unfortunately, the discussion did not get beyond the verse of Surat al-Nur, and the jilbāb verse remains. Since there is no opportunity to continue for now, the discussion of the Surat al-Nur verse is considered complete here, until, God willing, another opportunity arises to take up the jilbāb verse.
I believe that today we have a duty — not only on covering but on other religious matters as well — to present and explain the logic of Islam, and first of all the logic of the Qurʾan. This task and duty falls on us. I will say it plainly: we have had shortcomings and failings here. It is not without reason that, as a result, many people in this society do not know whether subjects such as covering are raised in the Qurʾan at all, or, if they are, what the Qurʾan’s view is. Many in our society lack sufficient knowledge of these fundamental matters of Islam, and had we not fallen short, our situation today might be different. What was within my ability was very small and brief: to read some of these verses and speak about them.
Commanding good and the question of hijab
Yet I cannot conclude without expressing my distress and unease that we have not explained these noble verses to our society properly — and, more regrettably still, that we have at times accompanied them with inappropriate glosses, blocked their correct understanding, and at times presented the noble verses in a distorted way in people’s minds. I must express my regret. We are not only distressed that some of our young people lack awareness of the divine rulings and the logic of the Qurʾan. We have a greater distress: that at times those in the position of religious scholars, educators, and teachers do not raise these matters properly, but present them in such a way that the result is opposition among people. Instead of bringing them closer, they drive them away from the Qurʾan. I am deeply affected by this; my distress is real.
During these days, when I consulted the tafsirs on verse 31 of Surat al-Nur, among them was the valuable Tafsir Tasnim. This is a detailed tafsir written in our own time, and not much time has passed since volume 59 was written. In it, after explaining this verse, a discussion was appended. What discussion, do you think? A discussion that is not in the verse itself but outside it, attached here: the stages of commanding good and forbidding evil on the question of hijab.
What are these stages? The first is inner revulsion: every believer should feel revulsion at the absence of hijab, and the effects of this revulsion should be visible in his behaviour toward women without hijab. The second: if a believer sees a person without hijab, he should forbid her — and it is explained that this differs from guidance and admonition. Then come the third and fourth stages: prevention, striking, and possibly killing. On what subject? For someone who has not observed hijab — prevention, striking, and possibly killing, which belong to the government and those in authority. The government’s task, it says, is to prevent the commission of crime; it strikes the offender and sometimes kills, so that corruption does not occur.
This appears in explaining God’s ruling in verse 31 of Surat al-Nur — for people in our society, many of whom still struggle to understand the issue. Did God really say this? Is it a fatwa of the jurists? Where did it come from? And if God said it, was it for past times, or does it hold in ours too? There are dozens of questions, and various motives for non-observance, social and political. And here, from the very start, we begin with the first stage: inner revulsion whose effects must be seen in behaviour toward women without hijab. Have the jurists not said that commanding good and forbidding evil is conditional on its being effective? Does showing this revulsion have a positive effect or a negative one? If it has a negative effect, showing revulsion — which in our society is perceived as a kind of insult — is forbidden; it creates hatred of hijab rather than any positive effect, let alone the later stages.
Then killing is brought in to enforce one of the rulings. The text speaks of military and police officers who, so that a crime does not occur, bring down an offender determined to commit it, who will not surrender and is about to commit a felony. As if the girl they are going after — or used to go after, when officers confronted people in the past — were someone about to commit a felony, as though she were about to blow up an airplane and must be shot now to prevent a crime. And all this is based on the guardianship mentioned in the verse of commanding good: وَٱلۡمُؤۡمِنُونَ وَٱلۡمُؤۡمِنَٰتُ بَعۡضُهُمۡ أَوۡلِيَآءُ بَعۡضٖ.
Where we must explain the verse, we fall short. Where we must explain the duty of commanding good — if we append it at all — taking into account its conditions, its meaning, and the demands of the time, we fall short. With this language, which goes out in the name of the Qurʾan — for this is a book of Qurʾanic tafsir, and people turn to it as such — with this language of prevention, striking, and possibly killing on the question of hijab, can we really have a successful record? Have we had one? Are the experiences of the last several decades not enough for religious scholars to come back to themselves and, instead of such material — defensible neither in principle nor in light of social conditions — set these discussions aside and present the text of Islam in a logical language?
Why, in other verses of the Qurʾan that raise matters such as injustice and violating people’s rights, do we see no such appendices — strike and kill those who do not observe rights and justice? Yet here a license to kill is readily issued for some. We have no recourse but to express our regret.
May God forgive us these shortcomings and failings, acquaint us better and more deeply with the truths of the Qurʾan, and grant us all success in knowing and practicing Islam. It is hoped that another opportunity will allow the verses of Surat al-Ahzab, and the jilbāb verse, to be discussed in completion of these discussions.