Comments on the ban on the hijab and niqab in some countries, and the ruling on non-Muslim women being uncovered in Muslim countries

Praise
be to Allah.

Firstly: 

The
Muslim who cares about his religion feels deeply hurt when he sees
opposition to Islam and its symbols, not only from the disbelievers but even
from Muslims who outwardly claim to belong to Islam. Among them are some who
speak out of ignorance, and there are some who speak on the basis of evil
and heresy. 

When
we compare the war on modesty and chastity in non-Muslim countries and some
countries that claim to be Muslim, we will find that the enmity in the
latter countries is more severe and greater, because they have promulgated
laws that ban covering the head, whereas those non-Muslim countries – such
as France and Belgium – have promulgated laws that ban covering the face
only. There is a clear difference between the two matters. But the distress
in the hearts of those who care about Islam was – and still is – due to a
number of reasons: 

1.    

These countries are supposedly Muslim, not Christian or
Jewish

2.    

They ban covering the head and punish people for doing so;
they humiliate  the chaste women who wear hijab, and prevent them from
studying, working or seeking medical treatment.

3.    

Their war on chastity and modesty is an old one; they were
decades ahead of non-Muslim countries. 

Secondly: 

With
regard to the claim of some defeatists, that if we criticize the
disbelievers for banning the niqab in the name of personal freedom, then how
can we force their women to wear the abayah – or cover up – in our country,
the answer to that is as follows: 

1.    

There is no country in the Muslim world that obliges
non-Muslim women to cover their bodies when they go out in the street,
except one country, namely
Saudi
Arabia. We ask Allah, may He be exalted, to preserve this good and not let
it change. As for the other Muslim countries, they do not oblige their own
women to cover up, so how could they oblige non-Muslim women to do so?

2.    

Wanton display and nakedness are not permissible for
Christians and Jews according to the original teachings of their religions;
the command to them to cover up is the original command in their religions.

3.    

We do not criticise the disbelievers for banning face
coverings for Muslim women, if their reasons for doing so stemmed from their
religion. Rather we criticize them for several reasons, such as the
following:

a.     

they claim that they are secular and that they have separated
church from state, so why are they fighting a religious symbol?

b.    

They claim that they are protecting personal freedom, so why
do they apply this to everyone who takes off her clothes or most of them,
but they do not apply it to the one who covers her body or most of it?

c.    

They are not fighting anything but Islam using the issue of
how its women dress. These countries all have different types of clothing
for both men and women, so why are the women of those religions and groups
and sects left to dress as they wish, except Muslim women, who are being put
under pressure with regard to something that is obligatory for them in their
religion? 

Thirdly: 

Those
who oblige non-Muslim women to wear the abaya and cover up may be asked:
have you obliged the women of your own country to do so? They will answer
yes. They may be asked: Do you differentiate between a non-Muslim woman of
one religion and a non-Muslim woman of another religion? They will say: No,
we do not differentiate. And finally they may be asked: Does your religion
enjoin you to do this? Their answer will be: Yes. 

Hence
no one should criticize those who rule according to secularism or anything
else for allowing non-Muslim women to go uncovered in their own countries,
but those who rule according to sharee‘ah should not be blamed or criticized
either. Secularism allows non-Muslim women to go uncovered, but the religion
of Islam does not allow that, so the former allows them to do that and the
latter does not. Hence wise people directed their blame and criticism to
non-Muslim countries because they rule according to secularism yet despite
that they ban the covering of the face, even though their own principles do
not allow them to do that, let alone criminalize the woman who covers her
face or those among her family who called her to do that or instructed her
to do that. If that is not dictatorship or fascism or terrorism, then what
is? 

It is
not permissible for anyone in a position of authority in any Muslim country
to allow the uncovering of ‘awrahs or wanton display from anyone in his
country. He is responsible for every sin that is committed in the area over
which he has authority, even if it is committed by non-Muslims. There is to
be no differentiation between a Muslim woman and a non-Muslim woman with
regard to preventing wanton displays or nakedness, just as there is no
differentiation between them in terms of it being prohibited for men to look
at them. 

Al-Haafiz
Ibn Hajar (may Allah have mercy on him) said, concerning the lessons learned
from the hadeeth of Haatib: 

Ibn
al-Munayyir said: There is nothing in the hadeeth to say whether the woman
was a Muslim or a dhimmiyyah (from a non-Muslim people living under Muslim
rule); but because the ruling on the prohibition of looking at her
unnecessarily applies equally to both (i.e., both the Muslim woman and the
non-Muslim woman), the evidence refers to both. 

Fath
al-Baari
(6/191). 

At
the time of the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) there was
not a particular type of dress for non-Muslim women, because wanton displays
and nakedness were not known among them; rather even the women during the
Jaahiliyyah were not known to dress in indecent ways. The Prophet (blessings
and peace of Allah be upon him) stated clearly that he had not seen this
type of people, when he said: “There are two types of the people of Hell
whom I have not seen, men with whips like the tails of cattle with which
they strike the people, and women who are clothed yet naked, mumeelaat
maa’ilaat walking with an enticing gait (or turning away from
righteousness and leading others astray) with their heads like the humps of
camels leaning to one side. They will not enter Paradise nor smell its
fragrance, and its fragrance may be detected from such and such a distance.”

Narrated by Muslim (2128) from the hadeeth of Abu Hurayrah (may Allah be
pleased with him). 

Even
if we say that we respect personal freedom, preventing the non-Muslim woman
from dressing indecently and making a wanton display is not contrary to that
principle – even if we go along with it – unlike banning the Muslim woman
from covering her head or face, because that ban is contrary to the
principle of personal freedom. 

Shaykh Mahmaas ibn Jal‘ood (may Allah preserve him) said: 

For
non-Muslim women to go out in the midst of a Muslim society with clothing
that provokes desire and temptation should either be within the framework of
civil laws or within the framework of personal rights; in both cases it is
not permissible for non-Muslim women to be uncovered in Muslim society. 

Civil
law is based on the obligation to respect the feelings of all people, and it
is not permissible for anyone to provoke their feelings or desire, and cause
pain to them. This manner of appearance of non-Muslim women in Muslim
countries is offensive to people’s feelings and harmful to their spiritual
wellbeing, whether the beholder is a Muslim or a non-Muslim. That is for two
reasons: 

1.    

If the one who sees those non-Muslim women dressing in a
manner that is not chaste or decent is a Muslim, then he will see in that
something which will provoke anger his this obvious violation of religious
teaching and this kind ofconduct that is contrary to the rulings of Islam.
If he is one of those who are weak in faith, he may feel sexually provoked
which will cause him pain, embarrassment and hardship. No matter who he is,
he is a sensitive human being, a man of flesh and blood, who is sensitive to
what he sees and hears, and is affected by it whether in a positive or
negative fashion.

2.    

If we assume that the Muslims lower their gaze and do not
look at this nakedness and indecent scenes, the male non-Muslims will feel
provoked sexually, which may prompt them to commit crimes of various kinds
in order to quench that desire, which they cannot find anything to quench or
direct it in sound ways, because they are so far removed from faith and
Islam 

In
the case of civil laws that are based on Islamic sharee‘ah, it states that
Muslims and ahl adh-dhimmah are equal in terms of outward moral duties, and
no exception is made in that regard for the dhimmis apart from alcohol and
pork. They may make and drink alcohol in private, so long as none of that or
its harms affect the Muslims. And they may raise pigs, eat them and buy and
sell them amongst themselves. 

This
applies if we say that by not allowing the non-Muslim women to go out
dressed improperly is in harmony with civil rights. 

But
if someone were to say that going out in whatever clothes she wants to wear
is one of a woman’s personal rights, we say that despite the weakness of
this view for reasons that we have mentioned above, we may add that the
personal laws of the Jews and Christians are based on the Torah and the
Gospel, despite the fact that they have been distorted, and there is nothing
in the scriptures to suggest that these indecent kinds of dressing and this
ignorant wanton display is permitted. Muslim societies deal with ahl
adh-dhimmah in a manner that allows them to practice their religion with
regard to personal matters, but with regard to that which is proven to be
prohibited to them and to the Muslims, it is forbidden to all of them
equally. The extant texts in the Gospel that speak of this matter instruct
women to wear a face cover and mention different sizes thereof and the Torah
also says that Rebekah wore a face veil because she was a respectable
woman. 

Al-Muwaalaah
wa’l-Mu‘aadaah fi ash-Sharee‘ah al-Islamiyyah (2/684-691); this is a lengthy
chapter and we have quoted only part of it. 

And
Allah knows best.