Powered by
UI
Techs
Home
>
Forums
>
>
General Discussion
>
Hidjab - some aspects
Post Reply
Username
Invalid Username or Password
Password
Format
Andale Mono
Arial
Arial Black
Book Antiqua
Century Gothic
Comic Sans MS
Courier New
Georgia
Impact
Tahoma
Times New Roman
Trebuchet MS
Script MT Bold
Stencil
Verdana
Lucida Console
1
2
3
4
5
6
Message Icon
Message
- Forum Code is ON
- HTML is OFF
Smilies
[quote]<p align=justify> The Holy Qur’an says why it is that the Muslims do not fight for the feeble/the oppressed among the men and the women and the children (4:75). <p align=justify>This is an evident directive of the Lord asking the Muslims to fight yet there can be a difference of opinion about the ‘application’ of this directive. In other words, we definitely need to ascertain who are really the oppressed or the feeble and it is an arena where a difference of opinion may arise. But no one will call that the directive itself is implicit. <p align=justify>I am amazed to read that the clear words ‘save what is ordinarily displayed’ can be part of an implicit directive. The Holy Qur’an has evidently said that women should not use display their ornaments but which are normally revealed. No doubt, what is normally revealed is subject to debate and deliberation but I do not know if the directive itself can be termed implicit. <p align=justify> The words ‘Draw your head-covering over your bosom’ should be carefully read. You are considering an implied clause within this sentence. [green] ‘Wear head covering [/green] and [red] draw it over your bosoms.’[/red] And this is why I have said: [b] Implicit +Explicit [/b]. Is this the case with ‘save what is ordinarily displayed’? <p align=justify>You write: <p align=justify>It would be interesting to see how you understand the word "Thuab". <p align=justify>I think I did write my understanding of this word. The verse 24:60 exempts the old ladies, who are beyond marriage age, from the directive of covering their bosoms though it is still desirable for them to do so. Here a general word, Thaub (cloth, garment), has been used instead of Khimar. Thaub does not have the connotation of head covering, I think you would agree. This shows that the original concern of the Shariah is not Khimar but the directive given about covering of the bosoms. <p align=justify>Here is a very interesting point to note. I do not know what you understand of this verse by quoting translation [i] outer garment [/i]. However, from both translations that you have quoted, we learn that Allah has make an exemption for the old ladies, which means that it would not be going against the Law if they do not comply with a certain directive, yet Allah says: it is better for them to cover. An act should not only be done when it is IMPERATIVE. One can abide by decent acts and these will still be desirable. <p align=justify>You ask me to give an explanation of the word at hand in the perspective of philological and hermeneutical aspects. I am sorry I am not the right person for that. I really do not know the exact implication of these two words not to mention giving explanation in the perspective of both. <p align=justify>Jilbab means [i] Caadar [/i]. This word has been used in 33:59. If you state your concerns in this regard, I would be better able to respond. <p align=justify>You write: <p align=justify>So according to you, since we don't find donkeys as forbidden species in the Holy book, it is only appropriate not to eat donkeys. If someone does eat 'em, it can only be deemed inappropriate… <p align=justify>Yes, you are right. It is inappropriate to eat donkeys. <p align=justify>You further write: <p align=justify>just as "it is only appropriate for ladies to cover their heads". Is this the kind of comparison you are doing? <p align=justify>Yes, it is exactly the kind of comparison I am trying to make. <p align=justify> [green]Why it should remain important today? [/green] <p align=justify>Because it is the immanent part of Islamic civilization. And because Muslim women have been wearing head covering under their innate concept of Haya (modesty) all through these ages. <p align=justify> [green]Without divine backing, important is a relevant term, isn’t it? [/green] <p align=justify>Yes it is. <p align=justify>[green]Why it should be consider desirable to adhere to? [/green] <p align=justify>Explained above in response to question two. <p align=justify>If some ladies do not consider that head covering has anything to do with modesty and to them, the Islamic civilization has no value, we can do nothing about it; people are missing their obligatory prayers, which is evidently obligatory and can we do nothing about it? For such ladies, we however cannot change our stance. [b] If a couple contends that it is not the Law which binds them to get married with the consent of their parents, I will agree to them. However I will explain to them that they should not proceed with marriage on their own; the marriage should only be solemnized with the consent of their parents. This is another beautiful ‘form’ which is an immanent part of Islamic civilization. [/b] <p align=justify>I will respond to your syllogism if you answer my one question. <p align=justify>Do you mean by ‘deeds’ the actual ‘acts’ described in the Holy Qur’an as important ones or deeds falling under the general category made up by some general verdict? <p align=justify>What the Holy Prophet (pbuh) has said is what every elder of a family should explain to his family members. And this is why the head covering is also important to me. If however you believe that whatever the Holy Prophet (pbuh) constitutes the Shari’ah, we should discuss this standing first. <p align=justify>I thank you for pointing out a mistake in my wording. I apologize for choosing carelessly some words. However, when I read what you had quoted from the Bible, I wanted to ask you if you had brought something to the ‘effect of male and female interaction’. I mean what you have quoted clearly relates to the context of worship. And the quotation was also unintelligible in offering that ‘woman’ is the glory of ‘man’, therefore it should wear head covering. Anyhow I knew that there are things which could be presented as regards male and female interaction. Therefore I clarified further my viewpoint with one example from the Bible, a clarification which, it seems, turned out to be insufficient. [/quote]
Mode
Prompt
Help
Basic
Check here to be notified by email whenever someone replies to your topic
Show Preview
Share
|
Copyright
Studying-Islam
© 2003-7 |
Privacy Policy
|
Code of Conduct
|
An Affiliate of
Al-Mawrid Institute of Islamic Sciences ®
Top