Hijab, Bicycles and the Need for Juristic Clarity
Go to the first question on the tab entitled "Hijab" in Sistani's website in Arabic and you get a question about the permissibility of a woman riding a bicycle. The answer, to quote the Grand Ayatollah's office (fair to assume he didn't write this, because he probably doesn't deal with the easy questions):
It is permissible if she is able to keep her hijab about her entirely, yet that said, it is better to leave it aside.
یجوز اذا تمکنت من حفظ حجابها کاملا ومع ذلك فالافضل ترکه
The misplaced modifier at the end exists in English and Arabic by the way (i.e. leave the hijab aside? Or leave the riding of the bicycle aside?) In fact, in Arabic it's worse in fact it's written improperly since the question was about siyaqat al darraja (i.e. a feminine noun). So if he meant leave the bike aside, he should have said tarkuHA, ie used a feminine pronoun. He didn't, so grammatically the reference is to the hijab--leave the hijab aside. We know what he means,and it's not that, but the grammatical problem remains. Grammar is grammar.
The bigger issue is what in the world the latter part is supposed to mean. We can presume a Najaf cleric doesn't think women can ride bikes in the presence of men unless they're dressed in hijab (the issue there isn't the bike, it's the hijab, just as forbidden to chew gum and lose the hijab), but why is it "better" not to ride the bike, even with the hijab? Is it considered disfavored (makruh)? Is that what better means? Does it lead to lasvicious glances and incite sexual thoughts, so leaving it aside helps to avoid a potential wrong even if not itself wrong? Does the Grand Ayatollah think women aren't strong enough to control the bike and it's a potential public hazard? Is it that women shouldn't do this type of exercise but other things, say walks and yoga? What's "better" about not riding?
It really does matter. After all, if the third of these, then presumably with a stronger and more fit woman, the objection disappears. Or if not then certainly no objection to the stationary bike. If the second option, then perhaps riding as an older person is okay, or riding further from the presence of men. (At a Curves gym on a stationary bike). If the first or fourth, then one has to find other means of doing exercise. For a believing woman told she must exercise, all of this matters.
But we have nothing by way of explanation, just "better". By "explanation" to be clear I don't mean the textual basis of the conclusion reached, heaven forfend I ever suggest that I'm entitled to know why something is forbidden. I just mean a clear, concise and substantially complete directive that one can follow, rather than something vague, cryptic and open ended. "Better to leave aside" doesn't cut it.
As a lawyer, I have to ask. If I am supposed to follow, without question or complaint, the jurist's rules as he lays them down (not that I do, but anyway), is it too much to ask that those rules as laid down are sufficiently clear and complete to understand how to organize my life in response to them? "Better not to"? Really?
HAH
It is permissible if she is able to keep her hijab about her entirely, yet that said, it is better to leave it aside.
یجوز اذا تمکنت من حفظ حجابها کاملا ومع ذلك فالافضل ترکه
The misplaced modifier at the end exists in English and Arabic by the way (i.e. leave the hijab aside? Or leave the riding of the bicycle aside?) In fact, in Arabic it's worse in fact it's written improperly since the question was about siyaqat al darraja (i.e. a feminine noun). So if he meant leave the bike aside, he should have said tarkuHA, ie used a feminine pronoun. He didn't, so grammatically the reference is to the hijab--leave the hijab aside. We know what he means,and it's not that, but the grammatical problem remains. Grammar is grammar.
The bigger issue is what in the world the latter part is supposed to mean. We can presume a Najaf cleric doesn't think women can ride bikes in the presence of men unless they're dressed in hijab (the issue there isn't the bike, it's the hijab, just as forbidden to chew gum and lose the hijab), but why is it "better" not to ride the bike, even with the hijab? Is it considered disfavored (makruh)? Is that what better means? Does it lead to lasvicious glances and incite sexual thoughts, so leaving it aside helps to avoid a potential wrong even if not itself wrong? Does the Grand Ayatollah think women aren't strong enough to control the bike and it's a potential public hazard? Is it that women shouldn't do this type of exercise but other things, say walks and yoga? What's "better" about not riding?
It really does matter. After all, if the third of these, then presumably with a stronger and more fit woman, the objection disappears. Or if not then certainly no objection to the stationary bike. If the second option, then perhaps riding as an older person is okay, or riding further from the presence of men. (At a Curves gym on a stationary bike). If the first or fourth, then one has to find other means of doing exercise. For a believing woman told she must exercise, all of this matters.
But we have nothing by way of explanation, just "better". By "explanation" to be clear I don't mean the textual basis of the conclusion reached, heaven forfend I ever suggest that I'm entitled to know why something is forbidden. I just mean a clear, concise and substantially complete directive that one can follow, rather than something vague, cryptic and open ended. "Better to leave aside" doesn't cut it.
As a lawyer, I have to ask. If I am supposed to follow, without question or complaint, the jurist's rules as he lays them down (not that I do, but anyway), is it too much to ask that those rules as laid down are sufficiently clear and complete to understand how to organize my life in response to them? "Better not to"? Really?
HAH
Comments