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]I don't know what created confusion in my previous post; this is what i wrote: [maroon]This is an Implicit +Explicit directive in that "save those which are ordinarily displayed" is clearly an implicit referrence. [/maroon] What i was getting at is that the directive in itself might be clear [b]BUT[/b] the implicit reference is a part of this directive which makes it easily susceptible to disagreement. Therefore, the argument of unambiguous and unequivocal reference doesn't work. Likewise, i believe that the directive of "drawing head-covering over their bosoms" is explicit but the reference to "Head-covering" is an implicit directive subject to debate. [maroon]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. [/maroon] There was a reason for my asking you for your understanding of this verse. Your insistence on the use of the same word is uncalled for since it is a divine prerogative. I can reverse it and ask you why, if the Quran's sole intent was the promulgation of the directive of chest-covering, did it use "Khumr" in 24:31? It should have simply used "Thaub" to convey its intent. And we will get into a never-ending loop of circular-reasoning. [maroon]Here is a very interesting point to note. I do not know what you understand of this verse by quoting translation outer garment . 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. [/maroon] I never disputed the fact that abiding by decent acts, prima facie, is desirable. What i said was that the definiton of decency is as varied as human thought itself, and in this particular case, the Almighty Himself has stated what is decent and modest. [maroon]Jilbab means Caadar . This word has been used in 33:59. If you state your concerns in this regard, I would be better able to respond.[/maroon] I am unaware of the word "Caadar". Could you please explain it further. You might be referring to "Chaddar" but i am not sure. I see 33:59 as a situational directive, hinging upon peculiar circumstances. My concern was the use of the word "Jilbab". Seeing your insistence on the usage of a particular word, i am beginning to think why the Quran didn't use "Khumr" in place of "Jilbab" in 33:59, or conversly, "jilbab" in 24:31. Since you say that the usage of "Khumr" was simply a reference to an existing practice among Arab women, "Jilbab" too was a prevalent practice among decent Arab women. Why the choice of "Khumr" and not "Jilbab" in 24:31, especially when, as Maulana Amin Ahsan Islahi notes, "jilbab" was generally worn by women while going outside? To me, it is a clear case of choosing "Khumr" as the preferred code of dress which has been made mandatory by the Quran in giving a universal directive vis-a-vis etiquette of dress for women. For me, it is not [green]JUST [/green]inappropriate to eat donkeys; rather it is amongst the prohibitions of nature. Just as it is not just inappropriate to eat lions, tigers, hyenas, skunks etc but our nature's abhorrence points to their prohibiton. [maroon]Because it is the immanent part of Islamic civilization. And because Muslim women have been wearing head covering under their innate concept of Haya [maroon]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. 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. [/maroon](modesty) all through these ages.[/maroon] I see it as a dismantling of history, that it is simply an immanent part of Islamic civilization and that Muslim women have been wearing head covering ONLY because it is an innate concept of Haya. What you are doing is conflating your opinoin with the conduct of women from the advent of Islam till today. It is like saying: Muslims have been cutting hands of thieves because of a strong sense of justice which has always been a part of Islamic civilization. Well, it surely is justice to do so but from where Muslims have been deriving this concept is not their innate sense of justice but the book of Allah. Similarly, Muslim scholars have throughout considered "Head-covering" obligatory and that is why they do not even go into justifying its observance when commenting on 24:31. They take it as a given and move on. And this is precisely the source from where Muslim women throughout history have drawn the concept of "Head-covering" which for them has also become a concept of Haya. The question of parental consent in marriage is debatable. I am not saying that i disagree with you; just that it is your opinion and hence you will justify it through the civilizational route. [maroon]Do you mean by ‘deeds’ the actual ‘acts’ described in the Holy Qur’an as important ones [u]or deeds falling under the general category made up by some general verdict[/u]?[/maroon] I couldn't understand the implication of the underlined statement of yours. Would you care to elaborate with an example? [maroon]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.[/maroon] I don't think of it as a mere explanation of a family-elder to his family. I see it as the explanation of a Quranic directive. I don't believe that whatever the Prophet(sws) utters constitutes Shari'ah. However, i do believe that he explains and annotates Shari'ah in the best possible way and that's what he's done here. If you try to understand this hadith with a preconceived interpretation, i.e. "Head-covering" not being obligatory, you will have to explain it away. Edited by - Razi Allah on March 18 2004 04:07:11[/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