Recently, Youshaa Patel, in his seminal study on tashabbuh (imitation), critiqued academics for overlooking the importance of embodied practices in shaping Muslim religiosity. He argues that contemporary perspectives are often influenced by a Protestant view of religion, where belief systems are reduced to theological doctrines. In contrast, Muslims have historically employed embodied practices, material objects, or physical spaces to demarcate boundaries between Muslims and non-Muslims, as well as between genders.[1] In line with this view, the present essay highlights an interesting unpublished manuscript related to the sensory history of Muslims. The manuscript is titled Shan al-Ghāra ʿalā man Aẓhar maʿarrat taqawwulih fī al-Ḥinnā wa-ʿAwārah (“Launching the War on Those Who Exposed the Disgrace and Wrongfulness of Their Opinion about Henna”). It is written by Shihāb al-Dīn Aḥmad b. Muhammad b. ʿAlī b. Ḥajar al-Haytamī al-Anṣārī (d. 974/1566), one of the most renowned Shāfiʿī scholars in the early Ottoman period. Born in Egypt in 909/1503, Ibn Ḥajar al-Haytamī studied at al-Azhar under notable scholars such as Zakariyya al-Anṣārī (d. 926/1520) and Nāṣir al-Dīn al-Ṭablāwī (d. 966/1559). In 947/1540, he relocated to Mecca, where he taught until the end of his life. Two copies of this manuscript are housed in al-Azhar Library. One copy contains 42 folios, while the other comprises 31 folios. The second copy appears to date back to Ibn Ḥajar’s lifetime, as the scribe included a prayer at the end asking Allah to grant the author a long life. The manuscript also bears the endowment mark of Sheikh Manṣūr al-Tablāwī (d. 1014/1606) confirming its early date.
Ibn Ḥajar recounts that his motivation for writing this treatise arose during the pilgrimage season of 952/1546, when pilgrims from Yemen presented him with three Yemeni treatises addressing the ruling on men applying henna to their hands and feet. Two of these treatises argued in favor of permissibility, while the third argued against it. The pilgrims sought Ibn Ḥajar’s view on the matter, which prompted him to compose his treatise. Although Prophet Muhammad is known to have applied henna to his beard, the practice of men applying henna to their hands or feet was widely regarded as a distinctly feminine form of adornment and thus deemed inappropriate for men. However, it appears that in Yemen, henna was traditionally used by both men and women on their hands and feet. The Yemeni scholars held differing views on whether men’s use of henna constituted tashabbuh of women. I tried to locate any of those treatises written by Yemeni scholars about henna but was unsuccessful. One potential manuscript addressing the issue of henna for men is held in the Tarim Library in Yemen and attributed to an anonymous author. However, upon closer examination, it appears to be another copy of the treatise of Ibn Ḥajar.[2]
Fortunately, Ibn Ḥajar’s response allows us to reconstruct the main arguments presented by the two Yemeni authors who permitted permitted men to apply henna to their hands and feet. A Yemeni author argued that in Yemen henna is not perceived as a feminine marker. Many men, including qāḍīs, scholars, and pious individuals, apply henna to their hands and feet without viewing it to be tashabbuh. The thought of intending to imitate women never crosses their minds. Moreover, he reasoned that the definition of tashabbuh depends on societal norms. What is considered feminine in one context may be viewed as masculine in another, and the ruling in this case should be subject to the Muslim community’s perception in each place. He referenced a fatwā by al-Nawawī (d. 676/1277) suggesting that women may wear crowns if this is acceptable in their society, while in places where crowns are customarily male attire, women should refrain from wearing them to avoid imitation. As he explained, “This means the ruling varies based on the customs of each region. Where women commonly wear crowns, it is permissible; in places where it is unusual, it becomes prohibited, as it could indicate tashabbuh with men.”[3] Therefore, the ruling of henna should align with local customs, which may vary from one region to another, as long as there is no specific text explicitly permitting or prohibiting the practice. The Yemeni author adds that the ḥadīth that condemns men who imitate women is general and does not define what “imitation” is, making it different from ḥadīths that clearly forbid men from wearing silk and gold. This distinction explains why all Muslims agree that silk and gold are feminine and therefore forbidden for men, while opinions differ on which clothing items are considered feminine or masculine, as these may vary according to local customs. In addressing early Shāfiʿī scholars who prohibited applying henna for men, the author suggests that their rulings may have been shaped by cultural contexts where henna was regarded as exclusively feminine. Another interpretation is that the ruling referred specifically to naqsh (decorative henna patterns), which is considered distinctly feminine, unlike the solid henna application which lacks decorative elements traditionally used by men in Yemen. Yemenis themselves agree that naqsh should be prohibited for men as a feminine practice.
Ibn Ḥajar, while supporting the idea that defining feminine or masculine attire can vary regionally, draws a line between clothing and henna application. He contends that labeling henna as feminine is grounded in textual sources, and therefore cannot be determined by cultural practices. He references a ḥadīth in which some men during the Prophet’s time applied henna. The Prophet asked about their actions, and when he was informed that they were imitating women, he ordered their exile from Medina. Ibn Ḥajar concludes that, like gold and silk—which are prohibited for men regardless of local customs—henna should be similarly restricted. Moreover, he argues that even if we accept the absence of textual evidence prohibiting henna for men, it is sufficient to note that the perception of henna as an exclusively feminine practice is widely shared among Muslims in regions such as the Levant, Kurdistan, the Arabian Peninsula, Egypt, Yemen, Iraq, and Khorasan. Therefore, even if some places in Yemen view henna as gender-neutral, their opinion is insignificant when weighed against the overwhelming majority of the Muslim community. He states, “The view of some specific Yemeni regions that this does not constitute tashabbuh is meaningless; variations do not carry weight in this matter.”[4] It appears that while Ibn Ḥajar acknowledges the relativity of tashabbuh, he believes this flexibility does not extend to cases that challenge the perception of the broader Muslim community (ummah). In this instance, he favors the global concept of Muslim society (ummah) over local custom, or, as he phrases it, the general custom (ʿurf ʿām) over the specific custom (ʿurf khāṣ).[5] Also, Ibn Ḥajar rejects the Yemeni scholar’s argument that none of the men who apply henna do so with the intention of tashabbuh. He argues that tashabbuh does not require intent; simply resembling a practice exclusive to women is sufficient to constitute imitation, regardless of the individual’s intention.[6] Therefore, whether a man intends to imitate women, or has no such intention, the resemblance itself remains a matter of tashabbuh. Furthermore, earlier ʿulamāʾ did not specify whether the henna application should be categorized as naqsh (decorative) or otherwise. After presenting various Shāfiʿī positions, Ibn Ḥajar accuses the Yemeni author of lacking comprehensive knowledge of the madhhab and of misinterpreting the earlier ʿulamāʾ’s rulings.[7]
This manuscript exemplifies a transregional debate of the premodern era, where local customs were scrutinized in light of broader, more global perspectives. While both interlocutors agree that ʿurf has authority in the absence of specific Islamic texts, they differ significantly on what they consider textually based and what they do not. Even with the presence of certain ḥadīths, there remains disagreement on their interpretations. My contribution here is to introduce this manuscript to the readers, with a more detailed analysis to be presented in a future study.
Notes:
[1] Youshaa Patel, The Muslim Difference: Defining the Line Between Believers and Unbelievers from Early Islam to the Present (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2022).
[2] Ibn Ḥajar al-Haytamī, Shann al-Ghāra ʿalā man Aẓhara Maʿarrat Taqawwulih fī al-Ḥinnā wa-ʿAwārah, ms. no. 4135 (Cairo: al-Maktaba al-Azhariyya).
[3] Ibid., folio 17.
[4] Ibid., folio 20.
[5] Ibid., folio 14.
[6] Ibid., folio 2.
[7] Ibid., folio 19.
(Suggested Bluebook citation: Muhammad Al-Marakeby, Defining Femininity between Local and Global Islam: A Manuscript on Henna Application for Men, Islamic Law Blog (Dec. 26, 2024), https://islamiclaw.blog/2024/12/26/defining-femininity-between-local-and-global-islam-a-manuscript-on-henna-application-for-men/)
(Suggested Chicago citation: Muhammad Al-Marakeby, “Defining Femininity between Local and Global Islam: A Manuscript on Henna Application for Men,” Islamic Law Blog, December 26, 2024, https://islamiclaw.blog/2024/12/26/defining-femininity-between-local-and-global-islam-a-manuscript-on-henna-application-for-men/)