This entry belongs to the Shahrurian lexicon. In Shahrur’s work, dress appears on two levels: a general human meaning connected to covering, adornment, and custom, and a specific application in women’s dress, where he rejects turning custom into a fixed religious principle.
The meaning in Shahrur
Dress is not merely a single material form, but a social function that changes according to custom, time, and place. He therefore reads the verses on dress within the theory of limits: the text sets a limit and a function, while the details move within society.
Distinctions
- It differs from the hijab in its common traditional sense, because Shahrur prefers to regulate the terms dress, adornment, and khimār from within the text.
- It is not identical to khimār; the khimār is a covering drawn over the openings of the garment in the verse of light, whereas dress is a broader domain of covering, adornment, and custom.
- It is not a fixed devotional ruling in every detail, but a domain in which limits, custom, and social function intersect.
- It does not negate modesty or covering, but it prevents the conversion of a particular social model into a permanent religion.
Foundational links
- The verse of Light sets a minimum for dress and leaves the rest to custom
- The verse of the Parties is a situational directive, not a permanent dress code
- Dress is more precise than hijab
- Khimār is a covering drawn over the openings
- Hijab, as a concept of dress, does not match common traditions
- Women’s dress is a matter of custom
- الحجاب
- الخمار
- Woman, dress, and guardianship
- Light 31
- Parties 59