Humanity is known as the best of all creation because it is endowed with benevolent knowledge and awareness which is not even the forte of angels, let alone other creatures. The human being knows the difference between right and wrong and has the discretion to decide which way to go. In doing so, God expects her to keep the values ​​of personal and public morality in mind and that her actions are treated accordingly through a matrix of rewards and punishments.

This grand plan began with the episode where undressing was the first divine punishment given to the first human couple censuring their disobedience to God’s command, although the deity never prescribed an upper limit to the amount of clothing to be worn. to dress yourself.

The implementation of such a genetic mandate then manifested through various offshoots across the global spectrum of religions.

The choice varied divergently, ranging from treating – on the one hand – total nudity as a sanctity to publicly worshiping and celebrating the private parts – on the other hand – carefully dressing every part of the body. In the latter category, some faiths expect both men and women to keep the body properly covered, allowing women to uncover their heads in the presence of elderly close relatives and to undress only in isolation in the presence of her husband.

However, in this regard, within any given religious group, there are shades of divergence from scriptural prescription. Surely, the appropriation of such flexibility depends on one’s shraddha or zarf, that is, how ready one is to adhere. Yet the benevolent purpose of spiritual regulation is to largely ensure an optimal ethical standard in society; not every divergence is divinely taken for a sacrilege invoking retribution.

In Islam, the believer’s duty to dress has been codified. The man has the obligation to always cover himself at least from the navel to the knee and never to undress except in isolation in the company of his wife. Women should refrain from displaying their charms in public and should cover themselves from head to ankles other than the face, hands and feet. Additionally, women are given biblical instructions to defend themselves through the Hijab which is an artefact symbolizing, reflecting and invoking greater consideration, extra decency and mutual respect. Women should also pull their headscarf (also known as Khimar, according to the Quran) over their chest. It is a mechanism of protection against the evil eye which considers it as an object of attraction. Husband and wife are declared to be each other’s clothes (Libaas). During prayers, both sexes should pay particular attention to wearing modest clothing.

In some societies, such obligatory covering for women manifests in the form of what is known as the Naqaab, Abaaya or Burqa. Thus, as in other areas of individual and social life, the clothing of men and women also becomes a combined factor of religious requirements and the cultural traditions that emanate from them. In Islam, the Shari’a phenomenon starts from the Qur’an and the Hadis (prophetic traditions) and winds through these civilizational streams. These have been framed for millennia through a process of societal consultation (Ijma).

A ghoonghat, ghumta, orhni, laaj, chunari, jhund, kundh, dupatta is a headscarf worn mainly in the Indian subcontinent by some Hindu, Jain and Sikh women to cover their heads and sometimes their faces. When I was a three year old boy, I had lost my mother. Later in my wedding, Smt Laxmi Sharma acted as my mother. She was a staunch Hindu and I always found her covering her head in public. The same goes for the wife of my friend of 30 years, Sardar Nirmal Singh.

The famous poet of the last century Akbar Ilahabadi said:

Be-parda kal jo aaeen nazar chand beebiyaan

Akbar zameen mein ghairat-e-qaumi se gar gaya

Poochha jo main ne aapka parda vo kya huwa

Kahne lageen ki aql pe mardon ke par gaya.

Yesterday when I ran into a group of girls without hijab,

I wanted to bury myself in national shame,

When asked where their veil had disappeared,

They answered: it was used to eclipse the prudence of men.

In the early 1990s, the USSR disintegrated, which abruptly deprived Western electoral discourse of the ready-made talking point in the form of the Cold War. The search for an alternative “enemy” resulted in Islam.

It served so many purposes. Hegemony over the Middle Eastern oilfields was consolidated and talking points were invented to fight elections every 4-5 years. In the aftermath, some saboteurs of peace in the world have been assimilated to Islam. The noble concepts of the Quran like Jihad have been tarnished.

Such Islamophobia has also been found useful by right-wing elements in other parts of the world. Some have turned the conjuncture into an art of gaining power and the art of retaining it while shattering the fundamental human concern of maintaining and nurturing collective morality and societal harmony.

In recent years, the Islamophobic drive has manifested itself in movements orchestrated with ulterior motives. The epicenter of the Hijab row is also not in the dress code but far elsewhere in the woods. This is all the more reason why the current unrest must be understood in the proper perspective (striving for short-term parochial gain) and consigned to the insignificance it deserves in relation to the humanity’s long-term effort to raise the level of value. system across generations.

Furthermore, it is well known that everywhere in the global society of the 21st century, revoking a human being’s right to voluntarily express their religious identity is manifestly unconstitutional and illegal. Thus, on the part of the healthiest sections of society, the river should continue to flow steadily and its movement need not be impeded by the pebbles in its path.

(The author is the Chairman of the Zakat Foundation of India. Comments: zakatindia.org [email protected])