Ḥijābī: Like a Wrapped Lollipop?

Written by: Sister Shameela Shaikh

In today's era, the sensitivities that surround us are appalling and unending. Every word that is uttered is taken out of context and misconstrued meanings are derived from simple statements. In a society like this, it is almost impossible to defend even the purest of Islamic teachings. In my opinion, the ‘hot topic’ of today is feminism. That’s a whole other topic on its own. But within that, I hear the word ‘objectify’ a lot.

The example of women being compared to a lollipop by scholars/elders is being spoken about quite a bit recently – saying that women are being objectified. With regards to this, I completely agree that in order to explain the concept of ḥijāb, a better example can be employed. Nonetheless, the goal of the example is to emphasise the message it delivers rather than the metaphor itself. The message depicted is that in order for women to remain pure from the fitnah inevitably present with the opposite gender, they must remain protected. 

What is one method that will allow them to acquire this protection? Through observing ḥijāb which follows the guidelines of the Sharīʿah. It seems that many understand the message of the example so there is no need to emphasise that. 

What I am unable to sympathise with is that the example is “a trigger for Muslim women.” The concept of covering for protection is being compared in this example, just as you would find in the following examples: our money remains concealed in a wallet; we don’t walk around with money in our hands, as it is too valuable to keep it out in the open. The example of a pearl is also given, that a pearl is protected, concealed in a shell. These are very small examples that were given to simplify the concept as much as possible so that the youngest of minds, and even the most illiterate of people, can comprehend.

It was never meant to objectify a woman and I fail to see how it is in fact objectifying women. The metaphor in the example is based on the basis of a lollipop and women both bearing the qualities of attraction; not that they are both objects. We hear many times, “teach the men to have manners; teach them to lower their gaze. They should have enough control over themselves to just look away.” I agree, teach the men. Teach the men just as you teach the women. We teach the women to cover right? Do they all cover? We teach the men to look away, do they all look away? This is because of free will and nafs. One person can not physically hold another and force them to oblige – we can’t control people – we can guide and educate, we can try. Consequently, we should take our own precautions. It is definitely possible that “the ants should just walk away from the sugar” but it is not easy for the ants to do this.

Ants are generally attracted to sugar and sweets. Scientifically, sugar is a valuable food for ants because it contains a lot of calories, which act as energy for ants. Hence, not only will they be attracted to sugar; they will actively seek it as well. So, it would be very difficult for the ants to walk away from the sugar. (Wait, did you just objectify me? Did you just compare me to food? To sugar? I don’t think so.) Similarly, it is in the nature of man to be inclined to the physical attraction of a woman. For this reason, it is better for the woman to cover and fulfil her obligation, and for the man to lower his gaze and fulfil his obligation. But to expect that a man should be able to control himself no matter what he sees is erroneous. Thus, it is in this light that the example is given.