The interpretation of female dress in Islam is one of the most contentious issues in both Islamic jurisprudence and global politics, yet a close reading of the Koran reveals a primary emphasis on the ethical principle of modesty rather than mandating specific historical garb like the niqab (face veil) or burqa. The Koranic verses concerning dress call for women to draw their outer coverings (jilbab) close and utilize veils (khimar) to cover their adornments, but they focus on dignified presentation and discouraging harassment, not explicitly concealing the face. For many adherents of a Koran-centric theology, the imposition of the face veil as a religious necessity is seen as a form of innovation (bid’ah), adding to the religion what God did not explicitly detail in His complete book.
This distinction between divine principle and human interpretation is crucial for women’s autonomy. The Koran establishes the highest law by proclaiming, "There shall be no compulsion in [acceptance of] the religion" (2:256). This core tenet implies a fundamental right to individual choice and conscience. Therefore, forcing a woman to wear the niqab under penalty of law, just as forcing her not to wear it through state mandate, both represent a violation of her fundamental right to religious expression and self-determination. The divine standard respects the individual’s choice and intention (niyyah) above all else.
This dual violation highlights a glaring hypocrisy in much of the modern Western liberal discourse. On one hand, Western states frequently criticize traditional Islamic societies for coercing women into wearing the veil, claiming to defend liberty. On the other, several European nations have implemented bans on face coverings in public spaces, forcibly removing the very expression they claim to defend when it is worn by choice. This selective application of freedom demonstrates a political prejudice disguised as secular law. In the eyes of the Koran, this kind of duplicity—to outwardly champion a value (freedom) while secretly contradicting it for political or cultural expediency—is condemned as hypocrisy (nifaq), defined as one of the gravest moral failings.
The ultimate guide remains the Koran, which emphasizes internal purity over external symbols. Furthermore, the argument that if such garments were required, they would have evolved naturally as an extension to their body through natural selection starkly contrasts with the nature of divine law. Religious guidance is not a biological imperative; it is a framework for conscious, ethical submission. It tests the believer’s deliberate choice to align conduct with morality, a choice that must come from conviction, not from biological programming or political mandate. The integrity of the faith, therefore, requires recognizing the limitations of human law and honoring the sovereign choice of the individual, which is the only form of submission truly valued by the divine.