First off, the niqab/khimar/hijab/jilbab were practised way before the dawn of Islam, not only Persian/Roman high society, where it was a mark of social status(see HBO's Rome), but also in Jahili-era of Arabia:
To start, the niqab is not something uniquely Islamic. Rather, nearly 400 years prior to Islam, the Christian writer Tertullian — himself exorting unmarried Christian “virgins” to cover their faces — reveals to us that women living in the Arabian peninsula did likewise:
Arabia’s heathen females will be your judges, who cover not only the head, but the face also, so entirely, that they are content, with one eye free, to enjoy rather half the light than to prostitute the entire face. A female would rather see than be seen.
— Tertullian (d. 220 CE), On the Veiling of Virgins
https://tradicionalista.wordpress.com/2 ... -on-hijab/In Medina there were women walking around bare breasted! This is a historical fact.
there were uncovered women in Medina because the slaves were not allowed to cover! So Muslims should get out of this obsession with women! It’s a sickness in our own hearts. Just lower your gaze! We’re living in a society where people are walking around naked and we’re worried about a girl not wearing a scarf on her head
Hamza Yuusuf speech in 2007
Barechested ???!!! WHY???!!!
Cuz yo' boy Umar finna lay a-hurtin' on'em, should they have the audacity to actually want to be modest and cover up. And why would he do that? Because Umar strongly believed in slavery(the Reformation will officially abolish slavery) and he felt that slaves should know their place and not try to appear like "free women".
In other reports, Umar is reported “hitting” the jilbab off of slave women, or exhorting them to remove it:
عبد الرزاق عن معمر عن قتادة عن أنس أن عمر ضرب أمة لآل أنس رآها متقنعة قال اكشفي رأسك لا تشبهين بالحرائر
Umar hit the slave women from the family of Anas ibn Malik, when he saw them covered and said, “Uncover your head, and do not resemble the free women.”
— Abd al-Razzaq al-Sanani (d. 211 AH/826 CE). Al-Musannaf
Umar’s actions seem to have caused disagreement among Muslim jurists. Was Umar simply removing her jilbab — or the khimar as well? Unfortunately, the answer seems to have skewed disproportionately in favor of the latter: Slave women were not only prohibited from wearing the jilbab, but also the khimar. Jurists in the following centuries allowed Muslim slave women to pray without a head covering, and walk topless in public. The slave woman’s awrah — the legally delineated area that must be covered in order to avoid sin — became the same as the man, from the navel to the knees. Whereas the free woman’s awrah encompassed only her face, hands, (and in some cases) feet
Slave women were not only prohibited from wearing the jilbab, but also the khimar. Jurists in the following centuries allowed Muslim slave women to pray without a head covering, and walk topless in public. The slave woman’s awrah — the legally delineated area that must be covered in order to avoid sin — became the same as the man, from the navel to the knees. Whereas the free woman’s awrah encompassed only her face, hands, (and in some cases) feet.
ولا ينبغي للرجل أن ينظر من أمة غيره إذا كانت بالغة أو تشتهي مثلها أو توطأ إلا ما ينظر إليه من ذوات المحرم ولا بأس بأن ينظر إلى شعرها وإلى صدرها وإلى ثديها وعضدها وقدمها وساقها ولا ينظر إلى بطنها ولا إلى ظهرها ولا إلى ما بين السرة منها حتى يجاوز الركبة
It is not permissible for a man to look at a slave woman other than his own, if she has reached puberty (baligha), or he has a desire for her, except what it is permissible to look at from his relatives (maharam). So, there is no harm that he look at her hair, her chest, her breasts, her arm, her foot, or leg(editor's note: let's not forget that we are "better" and have "higher morality" than the gaalo, #mmkaythxbye) And he does not look at her stomach or back, or what is between the navel and the knees.
— Muhammad ibn al-Hassan al-Shaybani (d. 189 AH/804 CE). Al-Mabsut, vol. 3, p. 47
Although Muslims now live in societies that have abandoned slavery (due to colonial pressure over the past two centuries, little effort from Muslims themselves), this radical dynamic would have incredibly influenced Muslim societies and perceptions of Islam. The differences in modesty between slave women and free women would be immediately clear. The concerns in the Muslim world today over women not wearing the hijab pale in comparison to the slave markets, and topless slaves of centuries ago (yes, you read the above quote correctly, classical Muslim jurists also permitted men to look at their female relatives’ breasts). The fact that most modern Muslims lack cognizance of this fact is simply damning, and speaks volumes to the ways in which society, culture, and government policies can come to shape perception of religion, the limits of scholastic worldviews, and also how people can retain the label of religion, but come to believe whatever they want. I wonder what all the Muslim feminists who defend hijab in the name of modesty would think, if given a full accounting of this history, where Muslim women were in fact punished if they tried to be modest?
I lower my head in shame, part IIHowever, there is a near consensus between the four schools of Sunni Islamic law that slave women either did not have to — or were prohibited from — wearing clothing to cover their heads and breasts.
No, lowering my head in shame is not enough; i cringe in shame & embarrassment
We will have a reverse transition, a transition away from the polluted-dogma(hijab is obligatory!, but slaves can't wear it and have to walk around half-naked) concocted by ignorant men in the 7th and 8th century, and a transition back to the original message of Islam: wamaa arsalnaaka ilaa raxmatin lil caalimeen, a message of mercy & moderation to all of mankind.How exactly this transition took place from tacit modesty for slave women, to the view that they were basically sexual objects who couldn’t even cover their bodies, is unknown to me. However, it was clearly an issue of contention within the first Islamic centuries, which came to last up until the 19th century
The Reformation is coming
Source: https://selfscholar.wordpress.com/2012/ ... lamic-law/
