Document Type : Original Article
Authors
1 Department of Quran and Hadith Sciences, Bent al-Hoda Higher Education Complex, Al-Mustafa International University, Qom, Iran.
2 Corresponding Author, Department of Family Jurisprudence, Bent al-Hoda Higher Education Complex, Al-Mustafa International University, Qom, Iran.
Abstract
Highlights
Introduction
This research, focusing on a critique of Mohammad Shahrour's theory of Hudud (boundaries) regarding the issue of Hijab, aims to analyze, using a descriptive-analytical method, the theoretical foundations, interpretive framework, and jurisprudential and epistemological implications of this theory. Mohammad Shahrour (1938-2019), an innovative Syrian Quranic scholar, through his Hudud theory and by offering a contemporary reading of the Quran, attempted to redefine religious concepts and rulings, including Hijab, based on his specific presuppositions. By differentiating between constants (Thawabit) and variables (Mutaghayyirat), he believed that God has defined the general boundaries of legislation, and the operational details of rulings, within these boundaries, are subject to custom (Urf) and the conditions of time and place (Shahrour, 1990). In his view, Hijab also has a minimum and a maximum, and the determination of its specific manifestations is left to societal custom. This approach, although undertaken with the aim of reconciling Islamic rulings with the exigencies of the contemporary world, has faced serious criticisms; including the lack of a solid interpretive foundation, selective interpretation of Quranic verses, disregard for Sunnah and consensus, relativism, reductionism in the concept of Hijab, and influence from non-Islamic epistemological foundations. Within this framework, the current research, while explaining Shahrour's Hudud theory and his viewpoint on Hijab, examines and critiques his specific interpretations of key terms such as Juyub, Khimar, Jilbab, and Nisa, as well as his interpretation of apparent and hidden adornments and the concept of Ghaz Basar.
Method
The current research was conducted using a qualitative, descriptive-analytical method with a qualitative content analysis approach. In the descriptive section, Shahrour's theoretical foundations, his academic biography, the theoretical framework of his Hudud theory, and his interpretation of verses related to Hijab were re-examined based on his primary works such as Al-Kitab wa al-Quranah: Qira'at Muasirah (Shahrour, 1990), Nahw Usul Jadidah li al-Fiqh al-Islami: Fiqh al-Mar'ah (Shahrour, 2000), and Al-Kitab wa al-Quran: Rawiyah Jadidah (Shahrour, 2017). In the analytical and critical section, his views were examined and critiqued by relying on authoritative linguistic and interpretive sources, including Lisan al-Arab (Ibn Manẓur, 1414AH), Al-Ṣihaḥ (Jawhari, 1407AH), Majma al-Bahrayn (Ṭurayhi, 1375AH), Al-Mizan (Tabatabaei, 1995; 2011), classical commentaries, and contemporary critical studies (cf., Amin, 1423AH; Mutamid Langeroudi & Fatahizadeh, 2020; Imran, 1415AH; Ahmadzadeh, 2001). Furthermore, existing research on Shahrour and his Hudud theory was utilized (Ahmadi and Pourazar, 2021; Rajabzadeh, 2021; Rajabzadeh et al., 2021).
Results
The research findings indicate that Shahrour bases his Hudud theory on two principles: Istiqamat (steadfastness) and Hanafi. Citing verses such as "These are the limits [set by] Allah" and "And whoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger and transgresses His limits" (Nisa: 13, 14), he believes that God has established the general frameworks of legislation, and the details within these boundaries are subject to change (Shahrour, 1990). He divides Hudud into six states: the state of minimal, the state of maximal, the state of minimal and maximal, the state of minimal and maximal at a single point, the state of maximal as an asymptote, and the state of closed maximal and negative minimal (Shahrour, 1990). Regarding Hijab, he considers verses 30-31 of Surah Nur as the minimal boundaries of legislation and believes that the minimum Hijab is covering hidden Juyub, and further covering such as hair or face is subject to custom and the conditions of time and place (Shahrour, 1990). In his view, Juyub includes the two breasts, beneath the breasts, armpits, private parts, and buttocks, and a woman is only obligated to cover these parts. He considers Khimar a general covering not exclusively for the head, and Jilbab as a customary and educational garment, not a legislative one (Shahrour, 1990; 2000). He also interprets the word Nisa not as a plural of women, but as referring to individuals who come later in subsequent generations (Shahrour, 1990). Shahrour divides adornment into two categories: apparent and hidden, considering hidden adornment to be Juyub (Shahrour, 1990). In interpreting Ghaz Basar, citing the meaning of the word Ghaz, he considers it referring to refraining from looking in situations where an individual does not wish to be seen, and believes that not all glances at non-Mahram are forbidden, but only lustful glances are prohibited (Shahrour, 1990). He leaves the determination of what constitutes a forbidden gaze to societal custom.
The criticisms raised in the research indicate that these interpretations face serious problems. Shahrour's interpretation of Juyub as slit-like body parts in a woman is inconsistent with authoritative linguistic and interpretive uses, and no dictionary contains such a meaning (Ibn Manzur, 1414AH; Tabatabaei, 1995, 15/157; Mutamid Langeroudi & Fatahizadeh, 2020). His interpretation of Khimar as a covering other than the head also contradicts the predominant meaning of this word in the Arabic language (Ibn Manzur, 1414AH, 4/257; Tabatabaei, 1995, 15/157). Moreover, his understanding of Jilbab and Nisa has been considered an imposition of meaning onto the Quran and an instance of Tafsir bi Ra'y (interpretation based on personal opinion without proper textual support) (Amin, 1423AH; Imran, 1415AH). The categorization of adornment into apparent and hidden in Shahrour's thought is accompanied by internal contradictions; as he considers Juyub simultaneously hidden adornment and, in some cases, apparent (Mutamid Langeroudi & Fatahizadeh, 2020, p.47). In the interpretation of Ghaz Basar and the object of gaze, leaving the determination of the boundaries of looking to custom leads to relativism and the weakening of religious rulings, and is inconsistent with the explicit text of the Quran and the role of Sunnah in explaining verses (Tabatabaei, 2011, 15/120; Nahas, 1421AH, 3/92). Furthermore, Shahrour's intellectual foundations have been described as influenced by Western materialistic schools of thought, Marxism, Darwinism, Freudianism, and Liberalism, and his interdisciplinary approach appears more as theoretical eclecticism than a coherent intellectual system (Akk, 1994; Shawaf, 1993; Manjid, 1994; Imran, 1995).
Conclusions
The research results indicate that Mohammad Shahrour's Hudud theory, although presented with the aim of offering a dynamic and flexible reading of Islam and adapting its rulings to contemporary conditions, faces serious methodological and substantive challenges. Regarding the issue of Hijab, by relying on his specific presuppositions and by redefining Quranic concepts, he posits a minimum and maximum for Hijab and leaves the determination of its specific manifestations to societal custom. This approach leads to relativism, the weakening of religious rulings, the denial of the eternity and universality of Islamic rulings, and a departure from the interpretive tradition of predecessors. His specific interpretations of the words Juyub, Khimar, Jilbab, and Nisa, as well as his interpretation of apparent and hidden adornments and the concept of Ghaz Basar, are inconsistent with authoritative linguistic and interpretive sources and are considered instances of Tafsir bi Ra'y (interpretation based on personal opinion without proper textual support). Furthermore, his disregard for the role of Sunnah and consensus in explaining Quranic verses, and his excessive reliance on custom and social conditions, weaken the jurisprudential and interpretive foundations of Islam. Therefore, it can be concluded that Shahrour's Hudud theory concerning the issue of Hijab lacks theoretical coherence and sufficient academic backing, and cannot be accepted as a valid alternative to traditional Islamic interpretation and jurisprudence. This research shows that any contemporary re-reading of religious rulings, if undertaken without adherence to valid interpretive principles and authentic Islamic sources, will lead to the distortion of the meaning of verses and the weakening of religious constants.
Authors' Contributions
All authors participated equally in the design of the study, writing the article, and editing the final versions.
Data Availability Statement
Data available on request from the authors.
Acknowledgements
The authors express their gratitude to all individuals whose moral and scientific support contributed to this research.
Ethical Considerations
Cases such as falsification of data, distortion of results, plagiarism, and any other unethical behavior have been strictly avoided in this study. The authors emphasize that all ethical principles have been observed in conducting and publishing this research. This has been confirmed by all authors.
Funding
This study was conducted without receiving any financial support from government, commercial, or non-profit organizations.
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest in connection with this study. In other words, there were no financial or personal interests that could affect the results of the study
Keywords
Main Subjects
)