This article explores how jurists articulated the distinction between free and enslaved Muslim women through sartorial norms in the formative and early post-formative periods of Islamic law. Drawing on works of fiqh (positive law), tafsīr (Qurʾān commentary) and ḥadīth (Prophetic and non-Prophetic reports), I posit that this distinction attests to the tensions between “proprietary” and “theocentric” sexual ethics, as noted by Hina Azam. Specifically, I track the variant transmissions of a widely-cited report featuring the Caliph ʿUmar (r. 13–23/634–44), and trace how jurists responded to the free-slave binary in their discussion of “modesty zones” (ʿawrāt) and veiling practices. Based on a detailed examination of fiqh sources to the early fifth Islamic century (with some attention to subsequent material), I argue that Islamic modesty norms are best understood in light of the proprietary/theocentric binary, and that the divergence between juristic expectations of free and enslaved women increased in the post-formative period.

本文探讨了法学家如何通过伊斯兰法律形成时期和早期后形成时期的服装规范来阐明自由和被奴役的穆斯林妇女之间的区别。借鉴fiqh（实在法）、tafsīr（古兰经评论）和ḥadīth（先知和非先知报告）的著作，我认为这种区别证明了“专有”和“以神为中心”的性伦理之间的紧张关系，正如 Hina 所指出的阿扎姆。具体来说，我追踪了一份被广泛引用的以哈里发 ʿUmar (r. 13–23/634–44) 为特色的报告的变体传输，并追踪法学家在讨论“谦虚区”时如何回应自由奴隶二进制文件 ( ʿawrāt ) 和戴面纱的做法。基于对fiqh的详细检查 根据 5 世纪初伊斯兰世纪早期的资料（对随后的材料有一些关注），我认为最好根据专有/神权中心论来理解伊斯兰的谦虚规范，并且在自由妇女和被奴役妇女的法律期望之间的分歧在此后增加了——形成期。