Non-Mahram is the Root of Islamic Hijab
August 4th, 2007Islamic hijab is a tool of preventing contacts between “non-mahrams”. “Non-mahram” describes the man or woman with whom a Muslim adult can marry, marriageable. Therefore, for Muslims, there are two groups of people in the society:
The first group called mahram people is a little group of non-marriageable closed family members – parents, grand-parents, children, brothers/sisters, uncles/aunts, grand-children, stepchildren, parents-in-law and stepparents.
The second group called non-mahram people is the rest of society. A Muslim woman should wear hijab in front of all adult males of this group.
Non-mahram is the most determinant factor of character formation in all Islamic societies. It has created a religious based- collective consciousness. In extension, it is cumbersomely present in any aspect of social life. For example, we can retrace its footsteps in Islamic architecture:
A typical Muslim house is built around a central, mostly rectangular, courtyard. To respect the dogma, the interior space is important, not the outside. Therefore, a part of the house is separated for females. The men’s reception (or guest) room tends to be located next to the entrance lobby of the house so that non-mahram visitors do not see the females. The windows are inside not outside of the house so that eye contact between non-mahrams does not occur. In the big house, where several generations can dwell together, measures are imposed so that the contact between non-mahrams like cousins or brother/sister-in-law of opposite sex dwellers does not lead to an eventual sexual temptation.
In Islamic countries, we see more clearly the marks of the non-mahram traits in the old palaces, where no access to the harem area, except for castrated servants, was possible. Such palaces had to conform to the restrictions of non-mahrams. Here, the Woman’s body is the red line to be far from visual and acoustic fields of non-mahrams. The palace, as a house of Caliph or king, must conform to Islamic principles. Therefore, its aspect must respect the rules of gender segregation. Therefore, in such palaces, paintings, frescos, music, theatre, ceremonies…, are all male domains—no woman statute, no female artist, no female… It is important to know that from these palaces, official and domninant styles and norms were being extended into the whole Islamic society.
“Madresseh” (traditional school) was preferably built for male Muslim children. Such a school had to respect the rule of non-mahram by imposing gender segregation as a moral requirement. Madresseh taught children the phobia of sexual temptation if the gender segregation would not be respected.
One of the main components of Islamic hijab is its sense of misogyny, which is older than hijab itself. It is a primitive tradition of social hierarchy, when the strong sex had the upper hand.
The dominant idea in Islam — not completely different from other established religions — considers that women, by nature, desire to be looked at, adored, and cherished. Since the man is inclined towards non-mahram women, it is believed that Allah warns women about their nature, which may lead men astray if women do not exercise caution and take necessary safeguards. Here, hijab would prevent a non-mahram’s man to astray.
In Iran, with the adoption of Western culture, hijab began to disappear, but the Islamic regime in Iran gave it a new life in recent decades. For the IRI, hejab is allegedly the only safe guarantee for the Iranian women’s protection against the danger of brazen indecency and eye contacts of non-mahrams.
Effects of sex segregation have left crucial results in social backwardness. Under the strict conditions of Islamic hijab, work conditions, education, sport, and entertainment are particularly difficult for women. Women’s non-participation in the economy and production of social needs is another reason for backwardness.
Today, Islamic society seems to be so amalgamated with the Islamic hijab that it represents an obvious emblem for such societies.
Whatever the origin or reason of Islamic hijab is, Islamic hijab is today an important blockade to woman’s freedom, gender equality, and democracy for the Islamic world.
Loading ...
Loading...
Jahanshah Rashidian, you wrote, “Women’s non-participation in the economy and production of social needs is another reason for backwardness.”
This is a commen belief said in the West. This may be true in certain countries, but in general in the West it was only after there was economic development, the Industrial revolution and the accumulation of wealth that Western women eventually got their equal rights and participated in the economy.
If it is the Hijab and Islam that makes Muslim countries backwards, than how come there are many non-Muslim countries in Africa, Asia and South America that are poor and “backward?”
Here is some interesting information about women in Iran from http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?itemid=12278
Here is an interesting hitory of Islamic dress http://www.womeninworldhistory.com/sample-13.html
I will just quote a paragraph:
Dear Randalljones,
In response to your comments, here are my answeres:
Wearing a headdress was a long tradition of European women, a status symbol from the upper classes that attracted the envy of those less privileged than themselves. This is however not comparable with the Islamic hijab derived from the dogma of Non-Mahram with no privilege or attraction for women.
There are speculations about the origin and motive of hijab. The origin could go back to Iranians themselves, to its main present victims, to the 6th. Century BC under Cyrus the Great and the Achaemenian Empire in Persia. Together with the idea of female seclusion, it persisted under Alexander and the Byzantine Empire, and was adopted by the Arab conquerors of the Byzantines. Its use was revived and adjusted in respect to the Prophet of Islam to apply the “Non-Mahram” dogma.
Asserting “Non-Mahram” dogma in Islam is not unrelated to the Prophet’s bothers with his harem, as described by Ali Dashti in his book “Bisto-Seh Saal” (23 Years), which can make any Muslim convert into a non-Muslim, the Prophet used accordingly many verses of “Surah Ahzaab” to consolidate his position against his very younger wives and to force them into absolute obedience and chastity, as they are the “Mothers of Believers”.
In his demand for chastity no standard of Islamic dress has been mentioned while banning, through “God’s word”, his wives to remarry after his death. The idea of definitive segregation between his own harem and “Non-Mahrams”, seems to be his own human obsession.
Contrary to the phobia of temptation staged by the “Non-Mahram” dogma resulting sex-segregation, based on Freudian psychoanalysis, such a sex-separation not only reduces the learning efficiency but also damages the normal sequence of developmental stages of children “Oedipus Complex”. In extension, it and can lead to later sexual perversities. Sexual frustration can transform into sadism, aggression or blind obedience as remarked in religious or authoritarian societies, described by W. Reich.
Low rate of sexual crimes in Iranian rural population, comparable with cities, is an obvious example for rejecting of “Non-Mahram” dogma focusing on the idea of temptation. In fact despite being governed by the IRI, peasant and Bedouin women neither wear hijab, nor are they locked away in the house.
The effects of sex-segregation as resonance of the “Non-Mahram” dogma have had also crucial results on the social backwardness. As a psychological effect, a group of mixed-sex persons behaves not only socially but also in performance very differently from a group of same sex. Considering only the factor of mixture, the first group is more motivated and more efficient than the second one. The women’s non active participation in economy and production of social needs is another reason for backwardness. The secluded Muslim woman would not be a pattern symbol for her children’s actualisation with modernity, progress and democracy.
If we have a relative high rate of educated women in Iran, the rate is not due to IRI’s wishes but a sort of spontaneous and collective protest reaction of Iranian women to their damaged rights and status in Iran. IRI’s wish is that women go back to the traditional status or back to their “Mahram” circle for their principle work, namely caring about her children and her husband. Despite of such high rate of women educated, their participation social life and many professions is very limited by the IRI.
This is a sincere question, not an attempt to start an argument. I’d read before about the large number of female physicians in Iran: how do they deal with having to physically examine and treat male patients?
““Non-mahram” describes the man or woman with whom a Muslim adult can marry, marriageable.”
If I understand this correctly, it means that to the young hijabi that I meet in the street every morning, I am a mahram…. I’m twice her age AND I’M MARRIED ALREADY. (Marrying a second and younger wife would get me into BIG trouble with Danish law and my even more so with my mrs.)
To this girl I am absolutely non-marriageable, so she needn’t cover her hair from me ?
Grumpy,
I remember seeing a picture of an Iranian female dentist treating a male patient. I don’t know what happens with other fields of medicine. Another question would be, do the nurses and health aids have to be of ther same gender as the patient they are treating?
Maybe th Iranian bloggers can take a break from reporting about stonings and executions and tell us someting abnout the lives of the millions of Iranians.
Women’s non-participation in the economy and production of social needs is another reason for backwardness.
Indeed, a lot of the economic success of the developed world can be attributed to the fact that women in that part of the world a very liberated. Western society can count on maximizing the talents and productivity of 100% of society, while Muslim societies are mostly limited to the male half.
Additionally, there have been studies (mostly in Scandinavia) regarding the necessary factors in ensuring the successful education of whole societies: the number one factor in ensuring that a child, – male or female – becomes educated on a sustainable basis… is that the mother is educated (the father does not have to be educated for that to happen). Educated mothers thus play a crucial role in society as a whole, and is certainly a factor in the level of ignorance in Muslim societies where females are not considered worthy of education.
Your post was most informative and worthwhile, by the way.
Finnpundit.
Industrilization and economic development came before women got their equal rights.
You can find many Muslim and non-Muslim countries were women are working and the countries are underdeveloped. Western corporations see no problem in exploiting the labor of young women and girls in developing nations. The girls spend all of their day working for slave wages so they do not have a chance to go to school.
In Muslim socities were the family can afford it, the females are sent to school.
RandallJones: your arguments are the epitome of non-sequiturs.
[...] Mideast Youth – Thinking AheadArticle: Non-Mahram is the Root of Islamic HijabOriginaly Posted On: 2007-08-04 [...]
[...] Share This [...]
Grumpy:
They wear their Hijab! when it’s heavily physical treatment then they would rather to refer them to male physicians.
but, regime was trying to rule same gender patient for physicians.
RandallJones:
If there is a male physicians available, he should visit male patient so women too. specially for specialists in women, they should be women!
We write about whetever we like to write if you do have problem with them just get out. if you do want to know about our daily lives go ahead and find appropriate blog! is it really hard to understand that ususally bolggers write about one or some specifis topics?
HalalHippie:
In Islamic law, you could marry to them too!
Don’t confuse yourself with two different laws!
Fariborz: that’s what I was afraid of. If women can only be treated by women and men only by men then patients are will die with a physician standing right next to them but unable to provide treatment because they’re the wrong gender.
Randal:
So why are women still repressed in the IRI? Is the country is not sufficiently developed economically, not sufficiently industrialized, or lacking in wealth?
Grumpy:
Most likely women should be treated by women but men could treat women if there’s no women physician although there’s no exception about women special disease or midwifes they should be women! and people died specially in small cities which they are more prejudice and Islam fanatic than people in city.
Surgeons are usually men and they treat both genders. Funny part is if physician is male then somebody should accompany female patient!
If we study feminism movement (also known as the Women’s Movement or Women’s Liberation) history we would notice that first-wave feminism started during the nineteenth century and early twentieth century in the UK and the US while Industrial revolution occurred in the late 18th century and early 19th century and there were no accumulation of wealth in those western countries!
I should add the first-wave movement outcome was Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution (1919) in the US which it was a great victory.
So it wasn’t just about being just economically developed or being sufficiently industrialized! The Industrial Revolution era was a major shift of technological, socioeconomic, and cultural conditions. this major shift couldn’t happen if there were not open-minded people in leadership who listen to people and accept changes for their own people good. Don’t get me wrong, there were resistance and always there would be resistance to changes.
In answer to your question, I should write an introduction at the first place. In many Islamic societies, there is a division of roles creating a woman’s space in the private sphere of the home and a man’s in the public sphere. (In early Islam era, because of economic reliance of woman on men, the Koran justifies that men should always be in charge over woman. so Muslims extended this viewpoint to nowadays) Still a woman’s primary responsibility is usually interpreted as fulfilling her role as a wife and mother.
Women are allowed to work in Islam, if their work is in adherence to Islamic principles, including the maintenance of modesty, and if it does not “affect other duties which cannot be neglected, such as her duty towards her children and husband, which is her foremost and basic duty. “Should a woman be in need, it is recommended that they work, such as the Quranic example of two female shephards” Qur’an 28:23.
Also Islam discourages social interaction between men and women when they are alone. In some Islamic countries, such as Saudi Arabia, sex segregation has been or is strictly enforced. Even in countries where the sexes mingle socially, they generally remain segregated within the mosque.
Iran is not a developed or economically stabled or sufficiently industrialized country but as I earlier just we can’t justify women repression in lack of above items in country. it comes back to Islamic culture in these countries. In Iran, it’s a mixture of everything and at the end of day there is Islam and Muslim clergies who run the country. And no matter what, Islam sex segregation is ruling in Iran. I should say Iranian women is in better shape than their fellows in Saudi Arabia because Women in Iran can drive, vote and go out alone so the Iranian women movements which started earlier is continuing and we hope they could change the course and of course we support them.
I hope I answered your question.
Fariborz you wrote,
There was accumulation of wealth from colonolialism and exploitation of labor.
What do you mean by “first-wave feminism started during the nineteenth century and early twentieth century?” WHat did femininsm accomplish during that time?
You mention the 19th amendement; most Muslim countries allow women to vote.
Regarding Saudia Arabia, without the suppport of the United States, the royal family would have been out of power a long time ago.
Hello, Randal,
Do you have an answer for my question above?
Opps: I forgot to answer your question. First wave feminism was primarily about the suffragette movement: the right to vote.
Grumpy,
I already stated that in most Muslim countries women have the right to vote. I don’t know why the Iraninan governmnet represses women, or any other group of people? I do know that if the United States decides to attack Iran, it will setback any rights women have now, just like what has happened in Iraq. THe Iraninan people are the ones that have to reform their own country.
Do you know why the United States, while preaching human rights and democracy, goes around engaging in regime change and supporting brutal dictators and kings that do its bidding?
Randall,
You keep bringing up economic/industrial development and accumulation of wealth as pre-requisites for equal rights in the West (we’ve discussed this before and you make a reasonable case). Can you please explain what your point is in reference to the Islamic countries that we’re talking about here?
It sounds as though you’re saying that we shouldn’t expect women to have equal rights in Iran and Saudi Arabia because those countries have not yet accumulated sufficient wealth, or aren’t sufficiently industrialized, etc. Is that what you’re saying?
Grumpy,
I am not saying what you should expect. I am saying let the people living in the Muslim countries take care of reforming their own countries. If those living in the West want to help, they should try to do something about the foreign policy of the U.S. and its allies that constanlty use military interventions as a way of solving problems and for taking control of the natural resoueces of other countries.
Huh. Well, that has no bearing on the topic at hand; why don’t you go post that on a thread about US foreign policy?
Come on, Randall: you said, “Industrialization and economic development came before women got their equal rights.” What was your point?
Grumpy,
I said that in response to
Jahanshah Rashidian’s original post where he wrote,”Women’s non-participation in the economy and production of social needs is another reason for backwardness.”
I know, and his point makes sense. What is your point?
How does this:
apply to this:
The only way your post makes sense is if you’re saying that gender inequality in Islamic nations is the result of their lack of economic and industrial development, and accumulation of wealth.
Grumpy,
I am saying that the United States and other Western countries managed to develop economically before women got equal rights. So women not having equal rights in Muslim countries is not the reason they are not as economically developed as Western countries. Also there are many non-Muslim countries that are “backward.”
While Western countries preach equal rights and education for women in developing countries, they exploit children and women labor in these countries.
To RandallJones:
I am addressing your cause in following.
Sure, there was but right now Muslim countries (at least Saudi Arabia, Emirates, Bahrain, Qatar and somehow Iran) are wealthiest than the time that the US accumulated wealth from colonialism and exploitation of labor. I relativley pressed my opinion.
As I addressed in my past post, the Industrial Revolution era was a major shift of technological, socioeconomic, and cultural conditions.
What did they accomplish was not just about getting right to vote! Right to vote was constitutional and legal side of it; on the other side they actually challenged gender oppression within their own culture and society whereas in some Islamic countries although women can vote, they are still under Islamic rules and traditions of stratification of power along lines of gender.
Muslim women are still oppressed by their own Islamic culture, traditions and laws. Just awareness can make a shift in the society.
Ah! Well, that’s certainly true, or at least it’s not the main reason. I believe that NOT utilizing the talents of the female population does slow a society’s development in every area, though.
You know, when Finnpundit wrote, “Women’s non-participation in the economy and production of social needs is another reason for backwardness” I have to admit that I didn’t think twice about it. He’s right (in my opinion) about, “…maximizing the talents and productivity of 100% of society…” I wonder how many women in Iran and Saudi Arabia could have been great engineers, chemists, administrators?
I think you’re right about the social advance of equality coming only after a certain stage of economic development. In that case there’s something of a vicious circle going on: the lack of economic development slows down social advancement, even though that advancement would speed up economic development.
The question is, has Iran achieved sufficient economic development to allow the social advance of gender equality? I would say yes, despite the country’s problems with inflation and unemployment, but I could be wrong. If I’m right, though, then the repression of women is NOT due to economic factors but comes entirely from the religion and the culture.
In that case, being a little more progressive socially would cause a huge increase in resources. If total equality could be achieved today then the labor force would increase almost instantly. Starting in eight years or so the number of doctors, architects, etc. would also jump as more and more women entered the high level professions.
A free woman can contribute much more to society than one who’s kept in a cage…
It’s very good one!
I can’t recall of many of them. I am sure there are more Iranian successful females outside of Iran than inside Iran and we know that’s just all about cultural freedom.
That’s right.
it’s very good conclusion.
I don’t think so it’s about numbers! I think it’s all about upbringing in a free society or closed Islamic society! Because even now, females can apply for almost any course but the environment they get educated in, is much more important than how many get educated.
Thanks Grumpy, I really enjoyed your conclusion.
Either way i feel that we should accept people irrespective of how they dress whether they wear the hijab or not
zoi:
we didn’t discuss about accepting people with hijab or not! this discussion is far from what you wrote.
Grumpy wrote, Sure, there was but right now Muslim countries (at least Saudi Arabia, Emirates, Bahrain, Qatar and somehow Iran) are wealthiest than the time that the US accumulated wealth from colonialism and exploitation of labor.
Many women in these countries are active in their societies and have high college enrollment rates.
Look at the United States, it spends billions of dollars on its schools, but when compared to other industrial countries, its students perform poorly in math and science.
By the way, some of the political and military actions of the United States and its allies today, are as damaging as colonialism.
sun life insurance company of america…
shorting cultures introductory preparation …
Shake Lady,you cash employ general control animal target partner clear concentration search arm front grant finance age basic each weight home existing leadership revenue paint demand temperature reasonable choose situation public touch edge teacher freedom computer write defence present note surprise aye situation problem summer leading parliament drink green include what male bed income reasonable amongst sound expectation total northern just expenditure interested winner reading nobody affair patient spread take author body against master hill quickly collect want north injury fly wage blow leaf planning late domestic own absolutely