Recently, a degree of relaxation appears to have emerged, compared with the past, in the observance of ḥijāb and the maintenance of appropriate boundaries in interactions with non-maḥram individuals among some office-bearers associated with Islamic organisations. This has prompted many people on social media to express their frustration and concern.
The issue is undoubtedly significant and deserves attention. The conduct of individuals in leadership positions, particularly those associated with religious ideals and moral discipline, often extends beyond their private lives and comes to reflect the religious and ethical commitments, organisational culture, and overall public image of the organisations they represent.
Consequently, the matter cannot be reduced merely to a question of personal behaviour or individual preference. It is also deeply connected with the ideological commitments of Islamic organisations, their internal discipline, and the challenge of reconciling their principles with changing social realities.
Nevertheless, rather than resorting to emotion-driven allegations or one-sided criticism, what is needed is a balanced, realistic, and principled discussion. The fundamental importance of ḥijāb and modesty cannot be denied, but neither can the complexities of contemporary social realities be ignored if Muslims are to remain effectively and respectfully engaged in society.
In the past, the leaders and activists of Jamaat-e-Islami and its student organisation appeared to exercise comparatively visible caution and strictness concerning ḥijāb and interactions with non-maḥram individuals. In particular, tutoring female students privately was often discouraged or prohibited under organisational rules. Efforts were also made to observe, as far as possible, the boundaries prescribed by the Sharī‘ah in interactions between men and women, both inside and outside the home.
There were individual exceptions and isolated incidents, and organisational action was sometimes taken against those involved. However, such cases were not generally regarded as representative of the prevailing organisational culture. As a result, a degree of trust and reassurance developed among some women, as well as among the parents and guardians of female students, regarding these leaders and activists.
The contemporary social and institutional environment, however, is considerably more complex than it was in the past.
As a consequence of various social, economic, institutional, and political changes, our lives have become part of a mixed and pluralistic social environment in which the participation of men and women together has become an established reality in almost every major institutional sphere, including education, employment, administration, politics, business, healthcare, and the media.
Consequently, interactions between men and women are no longer merely a matter of personal preference in many contexts. They have become an integral part of education, professional life, administration, civic responsibilities, and public engagement. In many cases, avoiding such interactions altogether is difficult.
Of course, the type of social environment in which an individual chooses to participate actively, and the way of life they choose to adopt, are fundamentally matters of personal choice.
An individual may choose to live in a relatively separate and religiously oriented environment where interaction between men and women is absent or highly restricted, making it easier to observe the requirements of ḥijāb more strictly. Undoubtedly, this represents a path of greater restraint and caution—what may be described in Islamic terminology as ‘azīmah, or the pursuit of a more demanding standard of religious commitment.
Nevertheless, the complete withdrawal of Islam-oriented individuals from the wider social sphere may not always prove beneficial in the long term. In certain circumstances, it may also have unintended consequences.
If they withdraw from education, administration, professional life, politics, and other important areas of society, their values, perspectives, and positive contributions may gradually become less visible in these spheres. This could, in turn, create greater opportunities for alternative ideas and value systems to exert comparatively greater influence in these important areas of public life.
On the other hand, individuals may choose to participate in education, professional life, administration, politics, and other forms of public engagement within a mixed and pluralistic social environment. In doing so, however, the objective should not be to follow prevailing social conventions uncritically, nor to assimilate into the surrounding environment at the expense of one's religious and moral distinctiveness. Rather, it should be to remain actively engaged in the wider society while responsibly reconciling practical realities with religious and ethical principles.
This brings us to a fundamental distinction. One matter is interaction that cannot realistically be avoided and is essential for fulfilling one's responsibilities; quite another is socialising that could reasonably be avoided but is nevertheless pursued for convenience, professional comfort, political acceptability, or personal preference.
The former concerns the constraints imposed by practical circumstances, whereas the latter involves questions of personal choice and moral responsibility.
Therefore, participation in a mixed social environment does not necessarily mean abandoning the principles of ḥijāb. At the same time, it is inappropriate to use the inevitability of such an environment as a pretext for normalising unnecessary interaction where restraint and appropriate distance remain possible.
In practical life, observing ḥijāb does not mean eliminating every form of communication between men and women. Rather, it means keeping necessary communication within appropriate limits and exercising restraint in avoiding unnecessary intimacy and socialising.
Moreover, the discussion remains incomplete if ḥijāb is understood merely as a matter of clothing. In addition to modest dress, it encompasses the ethics of the gaze, speech, behaviour, physical distance, privacy, and the overall conduct of relationships between men and women.
Thus, acknowledging the reality that we live in a mixed society is one thing; using that reality to justify the generalisation or legitimisation of interaction between men and women beyond what is necessary is quite another.
At present, the leaders and activists of Islamic political and social organisations are participating more extensively than before in state institutions, educational establishments, administration, professional fields, and public life. Consequently, opportunities for interaction between men and women have naturally expanded.
If an organisation wishes to engage more broadly with the public and participate actively in policymaking or state affairs, communication and the exchange of views with people from different social and professional backgrounds become unavoidable.
This is particularly true in secular, democratic, and pluralistic political systems, where the participation of citizens—regardless of gender—in education, employment, and public life is institutionally and constitutionally recognised.
Within such social and political structures, therefore, it is often impractical to avoid all interactions between men and women while remaining actively engaged in public and institutional life. For teachers, administrators, physicians, researchers, political activists, and other professionals, necessary communication with female colleagues, students, officials, or members of the public may be an ordinary and integral part of fulfilling their responsibilities.
Under these circumstances, the real question is not simply whether one should interact with women. Rather, the more important question is how to distinguish between interactions that are essential for fulfilling one's responsibilities, those that are limited to genuine needs, and those that are unnecessary.
It is unreasonable to equate necessary academic discussions, administrative communication, medical care, public services, political responsibilities, or professional activities with unnecessary intimacy. Equally, it is inappropriate to normalise personal closeness or unrestricted socialising by using “professional necessity” or “political responsibility” as a pretext.
For the same reason, rather than withdrawing entirely from the wider social sphere, it is important for Islam-oriented individuals to maintain a meaningful presence and make positive contributions in education, professional life, administration, politics, and other important areas of society.
However, both individuals and organisations must remain conscious of ensuring that such participation does not conflict with their religious and moral principles.
Islamic organisations, too, have an important organisational responsibility in this regard. Given changing social and institutional realities, certain restrictions and rules of organisational discipline established in the past may not always be practical to implement in precisely the same manner in every contemporary situation.
This does not mean, however, that the underlying moral and ideological objectives of those restrictions have become irrelevant.
Rather, clear, realistic, and principled guidance is needed on how to maintain a balance, in light of changing circumstances, between ḥijāb, interactions with non-maḥram individuals, professional responsibilities, political activities, and public engagement.
This issue is particularly important for those who occupy leadership positions in public life. Their personal conduct is often perceived as a reflection of the moral commitments and organisational culture of the groups they represent.
Therefore, as public engagement increases, awareness of ḥijāb and modesty, together with the need for self-restraint, should increase accordingly. At the same time, it is not justifiable to label every interaction between a man and a woman as “disregard for ḥijāb” without first understanding the circumstances in which it takes place.
Conversely, accepting everything in the name of “practical reality” is equally untenable. Practical constraints certainly exist, but there is also room for personal choice and decision-making. There is an undeniable moral distinction between something undertaken out of necessity and something voluntarily chosen.
Acknowledging changing realities, therefore, must never be equated with abolishing principled boundaries.
Accordingly, the central focus of the present discussion should not be to create a controversy over the relevance of ḥijāb. Rather, it should be to consider responsibly how its fundamental spirit, modesty, self-restraint, and the ethical boundaries governing interactions between men and women can be preserved as far as possible within changing social, professional, and institutional environments.
It is inappropriate to regard the observance of ḥijāb as irrelevant or unnecessary in contemporary society, for such a view runs contrary to religious values. Equally, it is inappropriate to deny unavoidable responsibilities and genuine practical needs in the name of observing ḥijāb, as doing so may seriously restrict meaningful participation in social and institutional life.
What is needed is a balanced approach:
Where interaction can reasonably be avoided, it should be avoided. Where necessary communication is unavoidable, it should remain within the limits of genuine need. And where personal choice is possible and no particular need for interaction exists, restraint and caution, in accordance with Islamic ethics, should be given priority.
The expectation of members of Islamic organisations should therefore be neither disregard for ḥijāb nor denial of practical realities. Rather, it should be a balanced combination of commitment to religious principles, a proper understanding of contemporary circumstances, and restraint in personal conduct.
Perhaps the real challenge lies precisely here: how to remain responsibly engaged in wider public life while preserving Islamic identity and moral distinctiveness in a changing and multicultural society.