In classical Islamic law and practice, the hijab was not treated as a universal requirement of modesty for all women. It functioned primarily as a marker of free status. Free Muslim women were ordered to cover themselves so they could be distinguished from slave women. Slave women were not required—and in many rulings were actively discouraged or prevented—from wearing the outer garment (jilbab) that free women used.

This distinction is rooted in the Quran, early tafsirs, the practice of the Companions, and the consensus of the four Sunni schools of jurisprudence.

Quranic Basis

Quran 33:59 instructs the Prophet to tell his wives, daughters, and the believing women to draw their outer garments (jalabib) over themselves so that they may be recognized and not harmed. Classical commentators (Ibn Kathir, al-Tabari, al-Qurtubi, Mujahid, al-Suddi, and others) explain that the purpose was social differentiation: free women who wore the jilbab would be left alone, while women without it would be identified as slaves and therefore remained vulnerable to harassment.

The verse does not extend the same covering requirement to slave women. As a result, slave women continued to appear in public without the jilbab.

Pre-Islamic Continuity

The practice of restricting the veil to high-status women was already present in pre-Islamic Arabia and earlier Near Eastern societies (Assyria, Byzantium, Persia). Veiling marked respectability and free status; slaves and prostitutes were forbidden to veil. Islamic rulings largely continued this class-based distinction rather than inventing a new universal standard of modesty.

Rulings on the ‘Awrah of Slave Women

All four Sunni schools agree that the ‘awrah (the part of the body that must be covered) of a slave woman is significantly less extensive than that of a free woman:

• The standard position across the schools is that a slave woman’s ‘awrah is from the navel to the knee.
• Her chest, breasts, back, and most of her body could therefore remain uncovered in public.
• Free women’s ‘awrah is the entire body except the face and hands (with some variation on the face).

This ruling appears in major works of Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi‘i, and Hanbali fiqh. Early authorities such as Imam Malik, Abu Hanifa, and others witnessed or recorded the widespread practice in Medina and elsewhere of slave women appearing with their upper bodies uncovered.

Umar ibn al-Khattab is reported to have struck slave women who attempted to wear the jilbab, telling them not to resemble free women. This enforcement is cited in classical sources as evidence that the distinction was actively maintained.

Practical Consequences

Because slave women were not required to cover in the same way, they appeared in markets, streets, and even mosques with their breasts exposed. Slave markets operated under these rules for centuries. Buyers could examine slave women’s bodies, including private parts, within the limits set by the navel-to-knee ‘awrah.

Slavery was only formally abolished in Saudi Arabia in 1962 under international pressure; photographic and documentary evidence from the early 1960s still shows the persistence of earlier practices.

Apologetic Responses and Counter-Arguments

Modern defenders sometimes claim that later scholars such as Ibn Hazm or Ibn Taymiyyah equalized the ‘awrah of free and slave women. These opinions appear centuries after the formative period and lack direct Quranic or Hadith evidence that overrides the earlier consensus and practice. The dominant historical reality for over a millennium was the navel-to-knee standard for slave women.

Attempts to reinterpret Quran 24:31 (the verse about drawing the khimar over the juyub) as requiring slave women to cover their breasts are not supported by classical lexicography or the earliest tafsirs. The verse is addressed to believing (free) women, and “juyub” refers to the neckline/bosom area rather than a full covering of the breasts for all females.

Broader Implications

The historical record shows that the hijab functioned as a status marker rather than a pure expression of universal modesty. Free women received protection through covering; slave women did not. Critics argue that a system claiming divine concern for women’s dignity left a large class of women without that protection for centuries.

This history raises questions for contemporary discussions of the hijab: if covering was primarily a privilege of free status rather than an absolute requirement of modesty, how should that affect modern claims about its necessity?