In Part I, we unpacked Masood Azhar’s course flyer that why JeM is focusing on purdah instead of jihadism in its course. Now we move on to investigating the doctrine of purdah itself.
Could Purdah/Hijab—as Part of Unreformed Theology—be Linked to Radicalization?
Pondering over the JeM leaflet is bound to raise two important questions. First, why is a hardcore militant group preaching women to observe purdah? Curiously enough, JeM does not jump to the problematic understanding of jihad anywhere in this course. Instead, the group begins the process of women’s radicalization by teaching them to cover up and become secluded, because being Muslim women purportedly makes them “different” from men and non-Muslim women. Second, if an Islamist terrorist organization is preaching this, could the so-called hijab and the idea of differentiation have anything to do with radicalization—which might then facilitate terrorism?
It is instructive to understand that the word “hijab” (one of whose Urdu translations is “purdah”), or a variation of it, is mentioned eight times in the Qur’an and does not pertain anywhere to a woman’s garment. It rather means a barrier or curtain, for instance, the divide between those who will reside in heaven and hell. Although hijab can be translated as seclusion, it nowhere refers to Muslim women donning some attire and staying at home, shunning public life.
Thus, it is noteworthy that the term “hijab” used in the Qur’an, just like the word “kafir”—meaning an ingratiate or disbeliever (someone who covers up the truth despite knowing that it is the truth)—is widely misappropriated to mean something that was not meant in the holy text.
It was the Iraqi fourth Sunni Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal in the 9th century (whose literalist jurisprudential school came to be followed by early Islamist ideologues Ibn Taymiyyah and ibn Abd al-Wahhab), who emphasized and systematized the idea of women’s veiling, seclusion, and conservative behavior—all already thought to be included within “hijab”—to reflect modesty, chastity, and piety.
All traditionalist clerics even today, who neither condemn terrorism and nor promote equal human rights for women and girls—thereby supporting Islamism indirectly—preach what they believe is “hijab.” Its sartorial form is outlined below by the Australian preacher, Abu Bakr Zoud, who himself was educated at the all-male, Salafist-inclined Islamic University of Madinah:
The reason the above-described conditions by Zoud constitute only the sartorial conditions for the so-called hijab is because it is taken to signify “not a piece of cloth on [one’s] head,” but a “way of life,” as explained in an article on the website of the founder of al-Huda International, Farhat Hashmi.
As opposed to the widely held incorrect understanding that “hijab” in the dominant Shari’ah only means a headscarf, this article essentially advises that in order to avoid fitnah or arousing men sexually, women must stay completely secluded from them physically and virtually and interact minimally when only needed, be careful while walking so as to be respected for modesty, avoid perfuming themselves in any way, and even abstain from wearing shoes that produce sound while walking.
This overarching way of life, which restricts women’s public roles, is all considered “Sharia’h purdah.” Non-observance of its sartorial form is an act of “disobedience to God” and a “grave sin” worthy of punishment in hell, as per Mufti Waseem Khan of Darul Uloom Trinidad and Tobago. It is this misogynistic way of living which JeM’s women’s course teaches, India’s Darul Uloom Deoband madrasa scholars recommend in their edicts, and the Taliban preserve practically in Afghanistan, to quote a few examples.
Notably, as per Zoud’s guidelines copied above, Muslim women should be fully veiled, as such public erasure—or a denial of their humanity—would distinguish them from “disbelieving women” or “infidels.” Thus, it is understandable how such differentiation could help to divide humanity mentally into “Us (believers) versus Them (disbelievers).”
Commanding a global following, Saudi Arabian Salafist cleric Assim al-Hakeem also believes that the idea of a woman working freely outside the house, while her husband is able to provide for her—a violation of purdah—is from the “enemy” whom Muslims must not “allow to advance by compromising their religion.” With such a dichotomous discourse masquerading as mainstream Islam in physical and online spaces, French scholar of South Asia, Christophe Jaffrelot, rightfully observes that the faith’s image today is “often dominated by the idea of segregation, even exclusion.”
The potentially radicalizing effects of such gendered segregation on the human mind—as emphasized by JeM’s Tuhfat-ul-Mominaat course—can be understood by considering a fatwa (religious ruling) from Darul Uloom Deoband’s Darul Ifta (house of religious rulings). Responding to an Indian Muslim man about his young sister who has been transferred from a secular school to an exclusive all-girls’ madrasa to facilitate the adoption of an orthodox lifestyle, the Deobandi scholar appreciates the transfer. He further predicts that the 14-year-old will begin to observe Shari’ah purdah and “start hating modern thoughts” after being taught the dominant theology at the madrasa:
This implies the same jihadist discourse that anything other than this “way of life,” modernity in this case, is worthy of hate, since it comes from the “disbelieving other” that is fundamentally opposite to and perpetually conspiratorial toward Muslims. In its extreme form, this hatred of the other could translate into the hostile belief that a harmonious coexistence is impossible with those who are different.
The quest to understand JeM’s obsession with purdah led this author to consult the actual book recommended to Jamaat-ul-Mominaat recruits, who will undergo all required stages of brainwashing and eventually acquire terrorist training—for advancing Azhar’s stated goal of establishing a global Islamist state.
Titled in Urdu, Ae Musalman Behan, translated to “O Muslim Sister,” this book is a collection of editorials and essays authored by Azhar himself for his monthly women’s magazine and is available online openly. Published in 2003, it contains an inflammatory level of misogyny against Muslim women who do not observe purdah—for example, proclaiming them “foul-smelling,” “shameless,” and “accursed”—making it evident why Azhar and his terrorist organization are so committed to enforcing this reclusive way of life upon their recruits.
First, it conveniently begins the black-and-white process of sharpening distinctions physically and mentally between “our Muslim ways” and “their infidel ways” (recalling Zoud), which could help Azhar’s recruits become rejectionist and intolerant toward the already othered Indian Hindus that JeM aims to attack. Essentially, the practice of such a misogynistic way of life provides Islamists a visible identity marker vis-à-vis “disbelievers.” Since it is this belief-based distinctiveness on the basis of which they justify their political struggle, the purdah phenomenon becomes non-negotiable for them.
Second, Azhar notes that the Shari’ah purdah practitioners of the past—whose absence he laments—would motivate their male family members to fight valiantly as jihadists and even lull babies with such “jihad songs.” This is because an “Islam” with purdah or burka is a “package deal” that automatically includes jihadism, as per Canadian author, Farzana Hassan. Therefore, in order to revive such a generation of “pure” and “respectable” women who would serve as intra- and inter-generational carriers of terrorist ideology and help translate it into action, teaching about purdah will serve as a starting point.
Third, as part of purdah, staying at home and avoiding gatherings as “un-Islamic,” will isolate JeM’s female recruits from outside perspectives that differ from what they are being indoctrinated in. Such seclusion is conducive to developing an uncritical, unidimensional mindset consuming only one kind of “knowledge,” whose holders can be more easily radicalized and prepared to commit violent extremist acts in the name of seeking “God’s Pleasure.” (By legally enforcing purdah on the female population and banning free exchange of ideas, the Taliban in Afghanistan are similarly affecting the intellectual growth of the Afghan people and facilitating terrorism.) Additionally, because the recruits are women, their training will serve the jihadist cause even more deeply as they can subsequently influence their families.
How purdah as a part of the current theology being promoted globally entails exclusion and isolation is demonstrated by yet another fatwa from Darul Uloom Deoband—the wellspring of JeM’s Deobandi ideology—in response to a woman’s query. As per the madrasa’s scholar who is authorized to issue religious decrees, a purdah-based lifestyle, which discriminatingly emphasizes only women not leaving home without need and abstaining from celebrations, will earn the practitioner “Divine Pleasure”:
Stay tuned for Part III of this three-part series next week.