ZILKA SPAHIĆ-SILIAK
The female body as a battlefield of morality: mehr and covering the body
The body is far from a neutral space, as various symbols and messages are inscribed upon it—whether through external markers like clothing or through symbolic representations of ethnic, national, or religious values. These values are often embodied in figures such as mothers, sisters, daughters, or wives, who are expected to be protected, a role that frequently involves supervision and control.
Throughout history, various ruling ideologies have exploited, controlled, conquered, and abused the female body. At times, women negotiated with patriarchal systems to preserve positions of power, whether in the private sphere or, occasionally, in the public domain when they managed to become rulers. However, the majority remained under male control, upheld by cultural and religious interpretations that claimed women owed obedience to men, as they were deemed protectors, supporters, and superiors. Women who rebelled or continue to rebel against this order were often labeled with derogatory terms and silenced through force, even murder.
This context makes God’s message in the Qur’an (50:12) especially significant. In it, women are called upon to pledge allegiance (bey’at) directly to the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and join the first Muslim community. God did not ask their fathers, brothers, or husbands to do this on their behalf, but rather, invited the women themselves to take the oath as individuals. In Islam, women—like men—are recognized as individuals, not simply as wives, mothers, daughters, sisters, or members of a tribe, because faith is witnessed personally, not through intermediaries. Furthermore, women are called to work alongside men in promoting good and preventing evil (Qur’an, 9:71). Despite such messages, ancient customs of exclusion persisted.
Although a woman was initially raised as a full-fledged individual with the duty to participate in the community alongside men, patriarchal interpretations of Islam quickly returned her to the control of her father, guardian, or husband, who claimed authority over her sexuality, movements, and role in the community. Rather than being treated as a subject, the woman was once again reduced to an object, managed by men.
In this brief reflection, I examine the ways in which control over women’s bodies and sexuality is exercised through the institution of mehr (the wedding gift). In Islamic tradition, mehr was intended as a form of protection for women. However, as Amina Wadud (2005) argues, due to the “shirk of patriarchy,” which places men above women—contrary to the egalitarian and reciprocal nature of the Qur’an’s message—it has instead been distorted into a tool of male dominance.The veil, originally intended as a means of protecting women, has instead become a tool for controlling their sexuality, movement, and lives.
Examples of dress code enforcement exist today in both the East and the West.In East, in many Muslim-majority countries, women are legally required to cover themselves, and if they refuse, they face punishment or even death, as in the case of Mahsa Amini in Iran, who was killed for violating state law. In contrast, in the West, particularly in France, where secularism (laïcité) is strongly upheld, women wearing a burka or headscarf are barred from studying or working in public institutions and face financial penalties if they violate state regulations. In both instances, the female body is treated as a battlefield—a territory controlled by men in power under the guise of religious or state law. Women are not granted the autonomy to decide for themselves whether to cover or uncover their bodies or to make other significant decisions regarding their lives.
The critical question is: where does this need for control originate, and why do men feel entitled to decide over women’s bodies? To find answers, we must delve deep into history, for the control over women’s bodies and sexuality has long been shaped by cultural, political, and religious forces.
Ancient Practices of Control and Protection
Since the earliest days of urban civilization in Mesopotamia, men have sought to control women through legal codes (such as Hammurabi’s Code) and customary norms. The female body and sexuality were often viewed as commodities, subject to trade, with corresponding price and protection. For instance, marriage established a woman’s sexual availability to her husband, with payments and specific dress codes marking the distinction between married, protected women and prostitutes.
The institution of mehr (wedding gift; Arabic: mehr, Hebrew: mohar) developed as material compensation for a woman’s virginity, sexual maturity, and ability to bear children. Leila Ahmed discusses this in her book Women and Gender in Islam: Historical Roots of a Modern Debate (1992). Traditionally, mehr was paid to the virgin’s father or guardian, transferring her from the property of her father to that of her husband, to whom she was obliged to be sexually available and bear children. If she was not able to do so, she would be replaced.
By the 7th century, earlier legal and customary practices were incorporated into Sharia law, though with modifications that aligned with the fundamental principles of Islam. One significant change was that mehr was given directly to the woman, rather than her father or family. This was intended to protect women materially and symbolically, ensuring financial security until remarriage, as this was the predominant form of economic sustenance for women at the time. Although Muslim women could receive state support through zakat (a compulsory tax), opportunities for employment and economic independence were scarce. Exceptions existed for women from privileged backgrounds or those who inherited family wealth.
In addition to mehr, husbands were required to financially support their wives and children. In return, the wife was expected to be sexually available to her husband whenever he requested. This concept is explored in depth by Kecia Ali in her work Sexual Ethics and Islam: Feminist Reflections on Qur’an, Hadith, and Jurisprudence (2006). Ali’s analysis of Islamic law reveals that most pre-modern fiqh authorities viewed sexual relations as a man’s right and a woman’s duty, despite ethical interpretations like those of the scholar Al-Ghazali, who emphasized mutual satisfaction in marriage.
So, although it is in its early years. Islam’s mehr was the financial and economic security of women, very quickly tribal customs overcame the essence of what should have been the progressively developed legal thought and practice of Sharia. Today, many traditionalist and feminist Muslim women proudly highlight the dignity and protection provided by the institution of mehr, but its spirit is often undermined. Men frequently exploit mehr in divorce proceedings, making a woman’s life unbearable through coercion or blackmail to avoid paying it. Educated women who understand their rights and have family or community support are better able to resist such abuses.
Similar forms of abuse are also evident in the enforcement of head and body coverings, where what was once intended for protection has been twisted into a means of oppression. This practice existed even before Islamic times, where veils covering the face were worn only by women from the upper strata of society. It dates back to Assyria (1200 BCE) in Mesopotamia, where married women in royal courts introduced veiling as a fashion statement to distinguish themselves from other women. Prostitutes, on the other hand, were forbidden from covering their faces, so the veil effectively categorized women based on their sexual activity. If a woman wore a veil, she was seen as being under the protection of a man and worthy of respect. Otherwise, it signaled to men that they could approach her freely, leading to potential attacks if she did not conform to this specific dress code. This system provided an opportunity for malicious individuals to exploit veiling rules as an excuse for violence against women.
Similar justifications were used in cases of sexual harassment and persecution of women in Medina in the 7th century. Arabs criticized the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) because his wives walked in public without veils. This criticism was one reason behind the revelation of the following verse: “O Prophet, tell your wives and your daughters, and the women of the believers, to lower their garments. That will be more appropriate so that they may be recognized and not harassed” (33:59).
However, the patriarchal structure of Mesopotamian societies had already placed women within a class hierarchy based on their relationship with men. This system of regulating female sexuality and restricting women’s freedom of movement continued, albeit in a modified form, in Muslim societies as well. While Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) sought to change attitudes toward women—and numerous examples show that he neither excluded women from society nor forbade them from participating in work—the ease with which male authorities chose to keep women veiled and marginalized shows a preference for controlling women rather than creating legal norms to protect them and punish offenders.
In the Islamic tradition, great emphasis is placed on moral uprightness and chastity. Both women and men are obligated to cover their bodies and guard their private parts, as prescribed in the Qur’an (24:30-31). Mainstream Islamic interpretations see covering the body and head as a religious duty and a way to protect women from objectification and commodification. However, progressive Islamic scholars, such as Khaled Abou El Fadl, Omid Safi, Abdolkarim Soroush, and Ebrahim Moosa, argue that covering is not obligatory but a tool of patriarchal control over women. Both viewpoints tend to overlook a woman’s personal agency in deciding how to express chastity—whether through covering her body or practicing moral uprightness in other ways. Of course, the issue of freedom is complex, and it can be difficult to discern whether a woman is truly free to choose or is indirectly pressured by her family or societal norms regarding the display of her body and sexuality.
The concept of moral uprightness (taqwa) has been understood differently across times, societies, and cultures. In the Qur’an, God says: “O children of Adam, We have given you garments to cover your private parts and as adornment, but the garment of taqwa (righteousness) is the best” (7:26). In Bosnian translations of the Qur’an, taqwa is often translated as godliness, and one of its meanings is moral uprightness. The message of the Qur’an laid the groundwork for the gradual advancement of women’s rights, proportionate to societal progress. However, centuries of Sharia interpretations have often placed women in a second-class position, reducing them to objects defined by their bodies and sexuality. The exaggerated focus on veiling and gender segregation has been presented as a guarantee of moral integrity, though this practice overshadows the broader moral and ethical responsibilities of both men and women.
If the veiling of women were truly a guarantee of morality, then Muslim societies, with their legal enforcement of veiling, should be exemplars of moral integrity. In reality, corruption, nepotism, exploitation of the poor, social injustice, and violence—including violence against women—are widespread, even in societies with strict moral codes. Instead of building institutions that ensure equality, justice, and fair treatment, women’s bodies are often blamed for political and economic problems, with responsibility for preserving family and community morality placed squarely on their shoulders. Patriarchal interpretations of the Qur’an have long portrayed women as emotional, inferior, and incapable of participating in governance or state affairs.
Men have further supported control over women’s bodies and sexuality, claiming that the female body is a source of temptation, disorder (fitna), and sin for men. The supposed solution is to cover and control women’s bodies, ensuring that men are not tempted by them. This overly simplistic approach reduces the female body to a problem that must be managed, while failing to question the male body’s potential as a source of temptation for women. There are several problems in the argumentation used to explain the rules of chastity for the female and male body in classical Islamic thought.
First, God addresses men directly, and only then calls women to lower their gaze and take care of their private parts (24:30-31). Nowhere did God say that a woman is a source of disorder and sin and that she should be removed from the man’s view so that he could practice religion unhindered by the female body and sexuality. If a woman is denied the ability to control her emotions and instincts and her body is interpreted as a temptation and a source of disorder and sin, then the woman is additionally sexualized and objectified. The question is also what kind of morally upright boulders of believers are they who cannot bear to see the exposed female body without stumbling? How strong is their faith if it is possible to rock the exposed female body?
Another problem is that the male body is not at all problematized as a temptation and a challenge to women, although the Qur’anic text also tells women to lower their views, implying that they too have urges that they need to overcome. It is inconsistent and problematic to consider women, on the one hand, as a source of disorder and temptation, and on the other hand, that they are asexual, that they have no sexual needs and that men are their temptation. An example of this is pictures of men in tight jeans and T-shirts which emphasize the lines of the body and muscles, next to which walk women covered with a scarf or veil over their faces.
The third problem lies in the lack of institutions and legal systems that allow women to decide for themselves whether to cover their heads as a symbol of piety and devotion to God, rather than as a sign of submission to men or protection from violence. It is essential to sanction bullies, whether those enforcing veiling in certain Muslim countries or those attacking veiled women in secular environments. It is time for both of them to accept that women should have the freedom to be a subject and not a mere object that is always decided by a man, a family and/or the state, who fight different ideological and moral battles over her body.
Data from the American-Islamic Council shows that 69% of Muslim women who cover their heads have experienced discrimination, compared to 29% of those who do not cover. women who are not covered. Classic Islamic interpretations of the obligation to cover the head and body boil down to the fact that the hijab, although it has a broader meaning than covering the head, will protect a woman from sexual attacks and unwanted interactions. However, in most Muslim countries where Sharia law is applied, covered women are also persecuted and experience various forms of violence both in the family and in society. In its reports, the Musawah organization for equality in the family provides data from Muslim countries on the spread of violence against women.
Thus, violence against women occurs in all societies and social strata, but it is a problem when it is covered up and justified by religious interpretations about the need to control women, whose body is still perceived as the battlefield of morality, while the male body is almost not discussed at all..
Depending on the socio-political and cultural climate in which a Muslim woman lives, she can be persecuted for covering her body or not. Covering the body does not prevent violence, but a well-ordered legal system that will protect women and sanction perpetrators of violence. It is also important to work on developing awareness that violence is unacceptable and that both men and women are responsible for the development of a morally upright and virtuous personality. As long as the double moral standards are in force and as long as men find justifications for control and violence against women, covering women will not be of much help.
