Zakir Naik on Hijab – Islamic Veil

Thanks to his fans, we have enough YouTube video postings of Zakir Naik’s take on various aspects and practices of his brand of Islam. Continuing with our objective of denouncing falsity and irrationality, we now analyze Zakir on his defense of the indefensible hijab.

The Hindu lady in a video asks Zakir that isn’t a Hindu woman who wears a salwar kameez modest? Why degrade women by forcing Hijaab (veil)? She also mentions that since Zakir is so inspired by reformist Raja Ram Mohan Roy, why doesn’t he accept his stand against the purdah (hijab, veil) system?

Zakir, the literalist follower of Islamic scriptures that he is, presents the following arguments to defend the retrograde 7th-century Arabic practice.

Zakir Naik: I can’t agree with ALL reformists’ ideas

Zakir argues that just because he agrees with many of Raja Ram Mohan Roy’s reformist ideas, it does not mean that he must agree with ALL the reformist ideas of Raja Ram Mohan Roy.

To reinforce his argument, Zakir gives the example of Mr. L. K. Advani’s statement that “rapists deserve death punishment”. He supports Mr. Advani’s statement because it’s in line with Islam. But this does not mean he will agree with every statement of Mr. Advani.

Analysis :
• We concur with Zakir that it’s impossible to agree with or follow all the views of any person, no matter how great that person be. This much of his argument is rational indeed, and we would add that Zakir should apply the same logic on Muhammad too. Many Muslims blindly follow each and every tradition of the Prophet (Sunnah) no matter how inordinate or irrational they be in current context. [For instance wearing trousers that don’t reach your ankles!. Others refuse to use soap after lavatory because soaps were not manufactured during Prophet’s era!]
• But the rest of this argument of Zakir is a departure from rationality and a surrender to blind belief. Nowhere does Zakir enlighten us about Raja Ram Mohan Roy’s arguments against purdah and his rebuttal of those arguments. Instead, he gives us a glimpse of the rigid yardstick that he uses to accept or reject an argument. This is evident from the example he presents. He agrees with Mr. Advani that “rapists should be put to death” NOT because of any rational merit (that it may act as a deterrent) BUT only because that statement is in line with Islamic Law (Sharia). Zakir in a way admits that his brand of Islam is not open to reforms. It’s well known that a religion that is not open to noble ideas from within and outside is bound to transform into an irrational fanatic cult dominated by dumb-heads.)

Anyway, this part of the lady’s question and Zakir’s response has little bearing on the subject topic of Hijaab. It only highlights the rigidity of Zakir’s doctrine. So let’s move forward.

Zakir Naik: Modesty levels differ according to different regions

He then informs us that modesty levels differ according to different regions/cultures. What is modest here may be considered immodest elsewhere. He also takes a jibe on Indian Saree and eulogizes the great Islamic culture of not casting a second glance on women as this would be considered “feasting on her beauty.”

Analysis :
• When Zakir knows that modesty is better defined by the culture and region we live in, how foolish is it for his brand of Islam to force a single rigid dress code on women (and men) across the world? Zakir has rather naively exposed his brand of Islam that does not respect cultural differences but wants all cultures to succumb to a 7th-century Arabic culture, no matter what the negative implications of such a custom be on the people! Very Sad indeed.
• While taking a Jibe at Indian Saree, Zakir forgot that modesty of any other culture might seem taboo and preposterous in another culture. Does he know that an Arab village woman may lift her skirt to cover her face if spotted without a veil (as for her revealing her face is the most immodest act!). She may end up revealing what most of the world may consider immodest exposure.
• Zakir also doesn’t know or doesn’t want the audience to know that the Islamic dress code was not a reformist step for women at large. One must know that slave women were NOT ALLOWED to wear the veil. So the devout Muslims were always free to “feast on the beauty”(yuck!) of slave women all the time! Islamic veil is not to maintain modesty of women but to make distinction between free Muslimah and a slave girl! [By the way, doesn’t allowing Muslims to keep women as sex-slaves expose how much Zakir’s Islam is concerned about modesty of women?]

What springs up from the literal accounts of Islamism is that women in Zakir’s Islamism are no more than sex objects. Some of whom (called wives) are protected exclusively for husbands and rest (called slave women) need not be protected as their modesty carries no weight and they are public property in Zakir’s terminology.

Here’s how it’s been immodestly and explicitly mentioned in the Tafsirs and Sahih Hadith: (These are not taken from anti-Islamic sites by the way. They are lifted straight from Islamic Publication Houses versions that are online on almost every other Islamic site.)

Quran [33:59], Tafsir Ibn Kathir-
Here Allah tells His Messenger to command the believing women, especially his wives and daughters, because of their position of honor, to draw their Jilbabs (Islamic veil for women) over their bodies, so that they will be distinct in their appearance from the women of the Jahiliyyah and from slave women…..if they do that, it will be known that they are free, and that they are not servants or whores.

Sahih Bukhari Vol 5 Hadith 523:
Narrated Anas bin Malik: The Prophet stayed with Safiya bint Huyai for three days on the way of Khaibar where he consummated his marriage with her. Safiya was amongst those who were ordered to use a veil.

Sahih Bukhari Vol 5 Hadith 524:
Narrated Anas: ….The Muslims said amongst themselves, “Will she (i.e. Safiya) be one of the mothers of the believers, (i.e. one of the wives of the Prophet ) or just (a lady captive) of what his right−hand possesses” Some of them said, “If the Prophet makes her observe the veil, then she will be one of the mothers of the believers (i.e. one of the Prophet’s wives), and if he does not make her observe the veil, then she will be his lady slave.” So when he departed, he made a place for her behind him (on his and made her observe the veil.

The brand of Islam that Zakir follows glorifies the traditions of 7th century Arabic Muslims, which is an insult to modesty anywhere in the world today. Keeping women as a slave is not only immodest but cruel and inhuman. Isn’t it painfully ridiculous that Muslim men cannot stare Muslim women but stare and rape slave women? Can this at all help in keeping the Muslim men modest in their thought, speech, dress, and action?

Here are few Sahih Hadith which expose how much Zakir’s Islam cares for modesty of women.

Sahih Muslim: Book 008, Number 3371:
Abu Sirma said to Abu Sa’id al Khadri (Allah he pleased with him): 0 Abu Sa’id, did you hear Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) mentioning al-’azl? He said: Yes, and added: We went out with Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) on the expedition to the Bi’l-Mustaliq and took captive some excellent Arab women; and we desired them, for we were suffering from the absence of our wives, (but at the same time) we also desired ransom for them. So we decided to have sexual intercourse with them but by observing ‘azl (Withdrawing the male sexual organ before emission of semen to avoid conception). But we said: We are doing an act whereas Allah’s Messenger is amongst us; why not ask him? So we asked Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him), and he said: It does not matter if you do not do it, for every soul that is to be born up to the Day of Resurrection will be born.

Sahih Muslim: Book 008, Number 3373:
Abu Sa’id al-Khudri (Allah be pleased with him) reported: We took women captives, and we wanted to do ‘azl (coitus interruptus) with them. We then asked Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) about it, and he said to us: Verily you do it, verily you do it, verily you do it, but the soul who has to be born until the Day of judgment must be born.

Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 137:
Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri: We got female captives in the war booty, and we used to do coitus interruptus with them. So we asked Allah’s Apostle about it, and he said, “Do you really do that?” repeating the question thrice, “There is no soul that is destined to exist but will come into existence, till the Day of Resurrection.

So this is the “modesty” that Zakir’s Islam brought to the world. How comfortable would you be with this kind of twisted modesty? “Allowing rape of innocent women,” is this about modesty at all?

Zakir Naik: Modesty as per Quran and Hadith

Then he quotes the Quran and Hadith to inform us about all that Islam considers as modesty and how men and women should guard their modesty.

Analysis :
Zakir has cleverly skipped the context in which the veiling verses were revealed. The context would have surely helped his audience appreciate how this “noble” practice of wearing the hijaab was started in Islam. There must have been some good reason for starting this practice…Right?

Well, no problem, we will give the context, and you be the judge!
Here’s how Umar, the companion of the prophet, forced the veil on Muslim women for all times to come

Sahih Bukhari (an authentic Islamic scripture) Volume 1, Book 4, Number 148:
Narrated ‘Aisha: The wives of the Prophet used to go to Al-Manasi, a vast open place (near Baqia at Medina) to answer the call of nature at night. ‘Umar used to say to the Prophet “Let your wives be veiled,” but Allah’s Apostle did not do so. One night Sauda bint Zam’a the wife of the Prophet went out at ‘Isha’ time, and she was a tall lady. ‘Umar addressed her and said, “I have recognized you, O Sauda.” He said so, as he desired eagerly that the verses of Al-Hijab (the observing of veils by the Muslim women) may be revealed. So Allah revealed the verses of “Al-Hijab” (A complete body cover excluding the eyes).

Did you read it right? YOU SURE DID! Shockingly, while it was Umar who deserved punishment for bothering the prophet’s wives, Zakir’s God chose to punish the wives instead of punishing Umar for the uncivilized and indecent act. The All-Just God of Zakir’s hadits rewards the culprit and punishes the victim.

Well, this is just half the story. You must be interested in knowing as to how effective was the veil injunction of the All-Knowing God in defending the woman’s modesty!

If you are a rational person, you would have already guessed that by letting the perpetrator go scot free and punishing the victim, no good could have possibly come out of this injunction. And that is what exactly happened.

Sahih Bukhari Volume 6, Book 60, Number 318:
Narrated Aisha: Sauda (the wife of the Prophet) went out to answer the call of nature AFTER it was made obligatory (for all the Muslims ladies) to observe the veil. She was a fat huge lady, and everybody who knew her before could recognize her. So ‘Umar bin Al-Khattab saw her and said, “O Sauda! By Allah, you cannot hide yourself from us, so think of a way by which you should not be recognized on going out. Sauda returned while Allah’s Apostle was in my house taking his supper and a bone covered with meat was in his hand. She entered and said, “O Allah’s Apostle! I went out to answer the call of nature and ‘Umar said to me, so-and-so.” Then Allah inspired him (the Prophet), and when the state of inspiration was over, and the bone was still in his hand as he had not put it down, he said (to Sauda), “You (women) have been allowed to go out for your needs.

Tell me, dear friends, what kind of a cruel joke is this. A man harasses a woman going out to answer the call of nature. Allah punishes the woman by forcing her to wear a veil and even after veiling herself; she is still harassed. Zakir’s God, as reflected in the hadith, is incompetent and completely incapable of correcting the corrupt. Instead, He unjustly punishes the victim.

• Which sane woman in the world would like to wear a veil on this ground?
• Is this about modesty at all or about defending an eve-teaser simply because he is a favorite of God’s favorite Prophet?
• Can letting the eve-teaser culprit go away scot free help the victim?
• Can punishing the victim reform the culprit? And if yes, why not apply the same standards to self?

As we said, YOU BE THE JUDGE!

Ironically this icon of injustice is draped and aped mindlessly by Muslim women across the world. Or perhaps even if they have the mind after getting ill due to Vitamin D deficiency, still who cares about ‘half-intelligent’ women (this is how women are described in Hadiths of Zakir’s Islam) in the fanatic Islamic world? Ignorance is not always bliss.

Zakir Naik: Six criteria of modesty in the hadiths

Then Zakir lectures us on the six criteria of modesty as described in the hadiths, one of which is that a man should not wear a woman’s garment.

Analysis :
This criterion is absolutely shocking to us, and it could be equally shocking for Zakir too. We are informed by all prominent Islamic sites and books that the Prophet received revelations when he was in the garment of his beloved youngest wife. It was for this reason that he preferred to stay more with her than the other wives.

Zakir must protest against these sites that shamefully insult prophet by highlighting these cross-dressing accounts as Sahih (Authentic).

She told that the people used to choose: ‘A’isha’s day to bring their gifts, seeking thereby to please God’s messenger. She said that God’s messenger’s wives were in two parties, one including ‘A’isha, Hafsa, Safiya, and Sauda, and the other including Umm Salama and the rest of God’s messenger’s wives. Umm Salama’s party spoke to her telling her to ask God’s messenger to say to the people, “If anyone wishes to make a present to God’s messenger, let him present it to him wherever he happens to be.” She did so, and he replied, “Do not annoy me regarding ‘A’isha, for inspiration had not come to me when I was in any women’s garment but ‘A’isha’s.” They then called Fatima, sent her to God’s messenger, and she spoke to him, but he replied, “Do you not like what I like, girlie?” She said, “Certainly,” so he said, “Then love this woman.” (Bukhari and Muslim.) Mishkat Al Masabih, Volume II Book XXVI

A similar account is available online says:

He said to her, ‘Do not injure me regarding ‘A’isha. The revelation does not come to me when I am in the garment of any woman except ‘A’isha.”

We await Zakir’s future videos which clarify if cross-dressing is halaal (and modest) or if there’s any proof that the above hadiths are false. The intention of presenting this Sahih Hadith is not to embarrass, but to help the likes of Zakir in appreciating that it’s naive to be so rigid on dress codes when even the Prophet was flexible about such things.

Zakir Naik: Hijaab prevents the teasing of women

He then frivolously gives the example of twin sisters walking the street and encountering a ruffian. He is sure that a ruffian will tease the sister in a mini skirt and not the other sister in a hijaab.

Analysis :
We have already seen through Sahih hadiths that despite wearing a veil, the wife of the prophet was bothered by Umar Al- Kattab. Umar is regarded as one of the best Muslims, a Sahaba (companion of the Prophet). If one of the best Muslims can behave like this against veiled women, a ruffian may end up harassing both the girls in all probability…Right?
So the argument that a woman wearing a veil can be any deterrent is proved wrong from hadiths themselves.

Also, Zakir forgets to ponder as to why are not men forced to wear the veil? Can’t they have the charms to distract women the same way women can? Zakir would do good to learn from the Vedas in which both men and women are encouraged to wear non-provocative dresses, and strict punishment is prescribed for anyone who teases women. The definition of provocative dress is left to social situations.

Zakir Naik: Quotes the Hindu scriptures

Finally, Zakir quotes the Hindu scriptures to show that hijaab and cross-dressing are prohibited in Hinduism too and had Raja Ram Mohan Roy known this he would not have gone against the purdah (veil, hijaab) system.

Analysis :
Instead, what we learn from Zakir’s brand of Islam is a shocking account of how unjust is the practice of forcing women to wear a veil. If Raja Ram Mohan Roy would have known this and if the home minister of India comes to know of it, then they would’ve sure banned the veil as it has been banned in France. The reason why this practice was started is pathetic and grossly unjust. No human being can condone such injustice just for the sake of literally following your religion. The societies that don’t reform and do not respect women are bound to perish.

21st Century Muslims are against Burqa

Having refuted the more unjust than irrational arguments of Dr. Naik above, we draw your attention to the sane voices in the Islamic world, who are not naive to follow scriptures literally. They are proud Muslims (and Muslimahs) that live in the 21st century, respect the diversity of cultures and most importantly understand the harmful effects of such retrograde practices on health and safety:

Ban the burqa? A Canadian Muslim view

Sample this rational article by a Canadian Muslim.

[Source: “Ban the burqa? A Canadian Muslim view”, published at http://bbs.clutchfans.net/%5D

This person highlights how the burqa is an ill-fit and a threat to Canadian society and the Muslim women.

Security: In July this year, an armed man dressed in a burka robbed the Scotiabank in Mississauga and made off with an undisclosed amount of cash.

Safety: In October 2007, a Calgary school bus was involved in a roadside accident in which one girl was killed. Although no news outlet was willing to report this, news clips of the driver showed she was wearing a very restrictive head covering that had almost certainly compromised her peripheral vision and could have been the reason she slammed into a truck parked on the shoulder on a clear day.

Health: New studies in England and Ireland have found that Muslim women who wear the burka or niqab (and their breast-fed children) tend to get rickets due to an insufficiency of vitamin D, through lack of exposure of their skin to sunlight. A study released by British National Health Service doctors said hijab and burka-wearing women were putting their health at risk because they do not get enough sunlight, an alarming number who wear the burka are suffering from bone deficiencies due to lack of vitamin D.

Gender equality: The MCC agrees that the state has no place in the bedrooms or wardrobes of the country. However, if the status of any woman in Canada is affected by what happens in the bedroom or wardrobe, be it spousal abuse or the forced wearing of attire meant to marginalize girls or women, then we feel the state must intervene. Society has a role to play to ensure the human rights of girls and women are not being compromised behind closed doors.

Girl defies burqa diktat for denim

There’s another dangerous aspect to the veil. That it is now being forced on women in radicalized pockets even in our own country. To remind you of this reality here’s a news byte. [Source: “Girl defies burqa diktat for denim”, published at http://www.deccanherald.com/%5D

Rayana R Khasi is a 23-year-old engineering graduate preparing for civil services main exams. However, she has an even tougher task than preparing for the competitive tests, for she has been facing threats from religious fundamentalists. And the two policemen posted outside her house at Vidyanagar in Kasargod show the enormity of the threat. Rayana’s “crime” was that she began wearing jeans and top instead of the burqa. “It is not that I am exposing myself. I don’t do it. But they want me to cover my entire body, including the face, with burqa as other Muslim women do it here, which I don’t want to,’’ the girl told Deccan Herald over the phone.

Imagine, this is happening to an educated girl in a so-called secular democracy! What would be the fate of the Muslimahs, majority of whom are uneducated and cannot be as brave as this girl? Well, haven’t we heard of Muslims being killed or having acid thrown on their faces for not wearing the veil? It’s barbaric, retrograde and despicable!

Conclusion

Women are human beings like men (it’s unfortunate that we have to state this explicitly). To reduce them to the status of a sex-object from head to toe is to deny them their humanity, dignity, and integrity. The veil is also an insult to men! It presumes that men are sex maniacs who can get aroused by just looking at a woman’s face! How can a normal Muslim man accept such an insult upon himself?

Modesty is to be maintained, of course, but as defined by the society and native culture and as agreeable to human health, safety, security, dignity and equality. It must not be dictated or forced through rigid and unjust religious injunctions, as in Zakir’s brand of Islam, where the veil is actually a symbol of a failed strategy to ostensibly protect the victim by further victimizing her.

Wake up and wake others to stop this inhuman practice and terrorists in the guise of doctors.

This Chapter is co-authored by Indian Agnostic.

May Eeshvar give strength to all Muslim sisters realize the following

O woman, you do not deserve to be defeated by challenges and obstacles. On contrary, you possess the power to defeat the stiffest challenge. Defeat the enemies and their armies. You have valor of thousands of men. Realize your true potential and demonstrate your valor. Please us all through your courage. The world demands that from you! [Yajurveda 13.26]

Series Navigation