The Background:  My Personal Experience

Those who follow my writing know that I recently wrote an article entitled “Why I Took Off Hijab: Open Sin vs. Hypocrisy” for a site dedicated to issues related to Muslim women, particularly those living in the West.

After writing this article, I found myself engaged in a detailed discussion in the comment section from a reader who felt that the article “marginalized” (i.e. singled out for blame) non-hijabis while ignoring the sins of hijabis.

Due to my abnormally busy schedule, I generally do not spend much time on message boards, especially in response to obviously negative feedback that appears to be inspired more by emotionalism than rationalism.

However, after consulting Allah through du’aa and Istikhaarah, I made an exception in the comment section of my “Why I Took Off Hijab: Open Sin vs. Hypocrisy” article due to the widespread misconceptions regarding what it means to command the good and forbid the evil on the issue of removing hijab.

This article is a detailed examination of, firstly, the flawed psychological disposition of those who insist on categorizing people in static groups of “hijabi” and “non-hijabi”  and, secondly, the harmful effects of approaching the issue of commanding the good and forbidding the evil based on these imagined “groups.”

The Source of the Problem:  A Mental Disconnect

When reading the negative comments on my article “Why I Took Off Hijab: Open Sin vs. Hypocrisy” as well as the negative comments on other related articles online, I immediately noticed a pattern in the mindset of those who took the greatest issue with the articles’ content:

They erroneously viewed the issue of commanding the good and forbidding the evil regarding hijab as addressing a definite group of people guilty of this sin as opposed to addressing a sin any group of people may be guilty of.

Though on the surface this appears to be a trivial distinction, amazingly, it is this mental disconnect that is the cause of many Muslims’ annoyance with hearing about hijab addressed repeatedly or “too often.”  It is also the cause of Muslims imagining that “non-hijabis” are being singled out for blame while “hijabis” are assumed to be sin-free.

Categories That Don’t Exist: 'Hijabis' and 'Non-Hijabis'

Often when those who feel hijab is “overrated” discuss hijab, they repeatedly use the terms “hijabi” or “non-hijabi” when refuting points covered in a lecture or article.  They generally avoid focusing on the act of “wearing hijab” or “removing hijab” and instead prefer to focus on the person in either “group.”

Unfortunately, because most of us imagine the issue of wearing hijab or removing hijab as connected to static groups of people—as opposed to sinful actions—the following mistakes occur in our discussions and perceptions of the “hijab issue,” even as it relates to our personal lives:

The Hijabi’s Mental Disconnect: Self-proclaimed “Hijabis” who may fall into the sin of removing hijab—by wearing tight clothes or “abayas” or by intentionally showing a “bit” of hair when going out—remarkably imagine themselves to be in the static group of women who wear hijab. This they imagine for themselves although they repeatedly violate conditions of the hijab when going out.

Due to them putting themselves in the static category of being a “hijabi,” it rarely (if ever) occurs to them that they often fall into the “non-hijabi” group when failing to adhere to the Islamic guidelines of hijab.

If those of us who imagine ourselves to be “hijabis” had thought of wearing hijab as an action that one must repeatedly choose each day when going out, we would perhaps be more vigilant of being just as prone as a “non-hijabi” to not covering properly—even as a piece of cloth may be on our heads.

The Non-Hijabi’s Mental Disconnect: Self-proclaimed “Non-Hijabis” who make the repeated daily choice to indulge in the sin of removing hijab imagine themselves to be part of a static group of people who “don’t wear hijab.”  This often subconscious “static” categorization serves two purposes: Firstly, it allows the one indulging in sin to essentially absolve herself from blame while repeatedly choosing to sin.  Secondly, it allows her to assign herself to a category of “powerless” people similar to that of oppressed racial or ethnic groups.

Because the one indulging in sin now defines herself by this disobedience, she assumes that others are doing the same (i.e. labeling her as a “sinful person”).  Thus, when the issue of wearing hijab is discussed in lectures or online, she interprets it as a personal attack.   Indignant at this attack, she may retort, Non-hijabis are not the only ones guilty of sin!

Because of this flawed psychological state, the self-imagined “non-hijabi” interprets a simple incident of commanding the good and forbidding the evil—regarding an action—as the absolute assumption of evil—of a person.  Yet, in reality, the reminder about hijab (like the reminder on other sinful actions) is merely a sincere advice and admonition—from one struggling Muslim to another, both of whom struggle adhering to the action of consistently obeying Allah.

Perhaps the most tragic result this “static” categorization connected to an act of disobedience is this:  The “non-hijabi” now views loyalty and hypocrisy based on her imagined “group.”

Consequently, another phenomenon emerges:  The woman who struggles with hijab will persist in sin even when she is in an environment that not only welcomes the hijab but requires it (such as at a Muslim da’wah event, at a masjid hosting a lecture, or in a Muslim society that legislates hijab).  Due to her misconstrued notions of loyalty and hypocrisy, the “non-hijabi” will consciously choose to sin when Allah has actually made obedience easier for her in this case.

The sinner justifies this obstinate behavior by saying to herself, “I don’t want to be a hypocrite”—thereby showing loyalty to her “minority group” over loyalty to her commitment to Allah.  Thus, her static categorization of herself as a “non-hijabi” has made her overly concerned about how people would view her “lack of loyalty” to non-hijab, as opposed to how Allah would view her persistence in sin, especially when choosing sin is the more difficult option in this case.

“Civil Rights” Activists for the Non-Hijabi Cause: Because of the mental disconnects of both “hijabis” and “non-hijabis” placing themselves in static categories, an amazing phenomenon is occurring among Muslims—the emergence of “civil rights” campaigns aimed at demanding “equality in sin representation” for hijabis and non-hijabis alike.

The foundational ideology for this “equal representation of sin” group is this:

Hijabis commit sins too!  So tell people about their sins,

not just those of non-hijabis!

For me, this proclamation is always a head-scratcher.  And there are primarily two reasons for my puzzlement at such campaigns:

As aforementioned, these static categories of hijabi and non-hijabi do not exist, as none of us fall neatly into one “group” or the other:  We can only hope to be written as the former in front of Allah (even if we violate conditions of hijab at times), and we can only pray to never be written as the latter in front of Allah (even if we struggle with hijab daily).

When we translate this “civil rights” ideology into its proper action-based Islamic context and then apply to the translation the “equal representation of sin” ideology [which does not allow singling out any group over another regarding any sin], these activists’ ideology translates as this:

“Those who obey Allah also disobey Allah!  So tell everyone about the sins of those who obey Allah, not just of those who disobey Allah!”

The mind boggles…

Such a convoluted ideology begs the question:  Exactly who or what is being unjustly represented here?

For the Sake of Argument:  Supporting the Non-Hijabi Cause

Convoluted ideology and illogic aside, let’s say for the sake of argument alone that we take these “activists for the non-hijabi cause” on their word—that they truly wish for us to assign sin equally to non-hijabis and hijabis alike.

In supporting them, we must choose at least one of two approaches, one which is impossible and cumbersome, the other which is sinful and slanderous:

Impossible and Cumbersome Approach. Clause one of the “Equal Representation of Sin Civil Rights Legislation” states:  Whenever a “group” of people guilty of sin are advised regarding their sin, at least one sin of the opposite obedient group must be mentioned.

Task 1 in supporting this legislation:  (Let’s start with the “group” of backbiters we’ve just advised.)  Name at least one sin that all non-backbiters are guilty of…

You can’t.

Because there is not a single sin that you can be absolutely certain that all non-backbiters are guilty of, hence this task is practically and logically impossible.

O-kay…. Hmm…

Task 2 (i.e. “Plan B” to make up from the illogic and impossibility of Task 1:  Let’s go back to the “group” of backbiters we’ve just advised).  Name all the sins you can think of that non-backbiters might be engaged in—so that all non-backbiters will be “equally represented in sin.”

Now, this I can do….

“Lying, cheating, stealing, swearing, committing zina, disobeying parents, delaying Salaah, disrespecting elders, not paying zakaah, hitting in the face, drinking alcohol, eating pork, not wearing hijab, mistreating animals, killing, harming,….”

I think you get the point.  This is cumbersome and an utter waste of time (And oh yeah, by the way, we should add “wasting time” to the list of sins above!)

The Sinful and Slanderous Approach. Clause two of the “Equal Representation of Sin Civil Rights Legislation” states:  Whenever the sinful are described according to sin, the obedient must also be equally described according to sin.

Task 1 in supporting this legislation:  Those who are neglectful of prayers are connected to the sin of…(imagine that) neglecting prayers.  Therefore, we must describe those who pray as equally connected to sin…

…Let’s stop here.

Out of respect for Allah and the religion of Islam, I will not even dignify this “for the sake of argument” task by describing the People of the Qiblah by sinful terms, and I will not, in doing so, slander the religion of Islam by claiming that a person who engages in obedience to Allah is connected to sin just as the disobedient is.

Comments on the “Equal Representation of Sin” Cause:

Before closing, I will share an excerpt from my response to a comment on “Why I Took Off Hijab: Open Sin vs. Hypocrisy” regarding a reader’s request that I also write articles exposing the sins of hijabis:

…It is actually prohibited in Islam to mention a group of Muslims who adhere to an act of obedience to Allah (such as prayer or wearing hijab) and then, based on this category, connect them to disobedience–such that the listener will assume there is a correlation to obeying Allah and being involved in evil. For example, some people say, “Men who have beards are the WORST in character” or “People who pray backbite the MOST” or “Hijabis flirt with boys MORE than non-hijabis.” The underlying message (even if unintentional on our part) is this: “Obeying Allah [regarding the beard, prayer, or hijab] results in an increase in evil [thus those who don’t do these things are a better group].” For proof of the prohibition to which I am referring, refer to the tafseer of At-Tawbah (9:65) as well as the circumstance of revelation for this verse.

I also said:

Regarding my addressing other issues in my writings and speeches, you can press my name to get to my website. You’ll also find info on my books there. However, I pray to Allah that you will find NONE of my articles making a correlation between obeying Allah in any matter (whether it’s praying or wearing hijab) and indulging in evil(such as backbiting, flirting, etc.). It is sufficient to address each issue separately, as is often the approach in the Qur’an and the Sunnah, and whoever of us is guilty (and we all are, depending on the sin) should seek Allah’s forgiveness with no concern about “Who else is guilty?”

Lessons from Qur’an:  Major Sin in “Equal Sin Representation” Activism

In closing, let us reflect on lessons from the Qur’an and Islamic history regarding the “equal representation of sin” that the activists for the “Non-Hijabi Cause” consistently call for—particularly as it relates to correlating a people ostensibly obeying Allah (i.e. hijabis) with a sinful or reprehensible action:

Abdullah bin ‘Umar said, “During the Battle of Tabook, a man was sitting in a gathering and said, “I have never seen the likes of these reciters [of Qur’an] as yours!  They have the hungriest stomachs, the most lying tongues, and are the most cowardice in battle.” A man in the masjid [who heard this] said, “You have lied.  You are a hypocrite, and I will surely inform the Messenger of Allah, sallallaahu’alayhi wa sallam.’

“This statement was conveyed to the Messenger of Allah, sallallaahu’alayhi wa sallam, and also a part of Qur’an was revealed about it.”

Abdullah bin ‘Umar said, “I saw that man afterwards holding onto the shoulders of the Messenger’s camel while stones were falling on him, declaring, ‘O Allah’s Messenger! We were only engaged in idle talk and jesting.’ Meanwhile, the Messenger of Allah, sallallaahu’alayhi wa sallam, was reciting [from Surah At-Tawbah (9:65)],

‘Was it Allah, His Signs, and His Messenger that you were mocking?’”[1]

In fact, Allah pronounced disbelief on those who engaged in this idle talk and mockery that linked the reciters of Qur’an to the negative characteristics of eating a lot, lying constantly, and being cowardly in battle.

Despite the excuses offered in defense of this correlation between obeying Allah and indulging in evil, Allah says to them,

“Make no excuse.  You have disbelieved after you have believed.
If We pardon some of you, We will punish others among you.”
—At-Tawbah (9:65-66)

Therefore, it is inconceivable that we, in the name of “justice” and “equality,” should engage in the greatest form of injustice:  disrespecting Allah, His Signs, and His Messenger, sallallaahu’alayhi wa sallam—by naming a group of people obeying Allah and describing them in the most reprehensible terms.

It is interesting to note the words of those about whom these verses were revealed match almost the exact same language of the Muslims today who wish to openly defame women who wear hijab.

Notice that Allah gave no attention whatsoever to whether or not some reciters of Qur’an do in fact fall into the sins mentioned.  It was sufficient as proof against these people that they made any correlation between obeying Allah and engaging in evil…

…Even though it is well-known that all Muslims—whether reciters of Qur’an or “hijabis”—are human beings who fall into sin from time to time.

Thus, when I reflect on the well-meaning activists who call for “equal representation of sin”—and demand that sin is connected specifically to a group of people obeying Allah, I wonder if we would have been spared falling into such a grave sin had we understood sin as an action and Muslims as merely humans, as described in this famous hadith:

“All of the children of Adam sin.  But the best of those who sin
are those who constantly repent.”
—Prophet Muhammad, sallallaahu’alayhi wa sallam
(Saheeh Al-Jaami’)

•••

O Allah!  Forgive us the sins of our tongues and the evil of our deeds, and write us down amongst those who constantly turn to You in repentance!

Umm Zakiyyah is the internationally acclaimed author of the If I Should Speak trilogy and the novels Realities of Submission and Hearts We Lost.  To learn more about the author, visit themuslimauthor.com or join her Facebook page.

Copyright © 2011 by Al-Walaa Publications.  All Rights Reserved.