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>I am sorry for the delayed response. <p align=justify>[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. [/quote] <p align=justify>My point is simply that the directive in question is not mentioned in words. We are inferring. In case of 'those which appear ordinarily thereof', the directive itself is mentioned, though there can debate as to the nature of 'what appears ordinarity thereof'. In simple words, the point of contention is not the 'nature of head covering; how it should be, its color,or size etc. The directive itself is debatable. Even in case of 'private parts', there is a debate among the scholars. But this does not make the directive of 'covering private parts' implicit. Does it? <p align=justify>[quote] 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. [/quote] <p align=justify>It is interesting to see that insistence has been attributed to me. I think you yourself vehemently asserted that since the Holy Qur'an has used a specific word, Khimar, therefore head covering is promulgated. Your whole point loses worth if you happen to believe that usage of any word is merely a divine prerogative. <p align=justify>Words, to me, are nevertheless important since there is no other means to know about the will of God though one has to find out 'why' any word has been used. It is the quest which should represent one's life. <p align=justify>[quote]I am unaware of the word "Caadar". Could you please explain it further. You might be referring to "Chaddar" but i am not sure. [/quote] <p align=justify>Yes, it is Chaadar just as the sound 'Ch' is found in Al-Pacino though I now feel I should not have guessed the sound merely on an italian name. <p align=justify>[quote] 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[/quote] <p align=justify>There is a difference between Khimar and Jilbab. Khimar means Head covering and Jilbab means Chaadar or Shawl. <p align=justify>Khimar: Something with which women cover their heads. (Muheetul Muheet, Page 254) <p align=justify>Jilbab: A large piece of Cloth (Chaadar). (Muheetul Muheet, page 115) <p align=justify>It is a difference that I still observe in our cultural. Muslim ladies do not cover themselves with Chaadar while they are home and with Dupata only instead. It is only when they would leave for outside that they cover themselves with a large piece of cloth, which is termed Chaadar in Urdu. Similarly, in Arabia, it seems that Khimar was not not a garment for outside. Because, being in the relaxed environment of home, they be would somewhat careless in covering their chest, which is obviously inappropriate no matter if it is home. Zamakashri writes: <p align=justify>Their neck would be too large, from which there neckline and chest and whatever was around these would appear. And they would lower their Khimar backward, which would reveal their front, i.e. chest. So they were commanded to lower their Khimar on their front side so that they cover the chest. [commentary on 24:33] <p align=justify>It is obvious that the Holy Qur'an corrected one inappropriate practice. Since covering the head was not an issue at that time as it appears from the explanation quoted above, the Holy Qur'an did not give any verdict against/in favor of the head covering. <p align=justify>However, the fact that the Qur'an has left the issue untouched does not negate the importance of head covering, since there are many important acts which are not decreed in the Shari'ah yet there are so much importantance attached to them. <p align=justify>[quote]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.[/quote] <p align=justify>Can you please explain the mere notion of 'nature'? And how you substantiate that it is among the 'prohibitions' to eat the animals in question? You have often implied that the importance of head covering is no importance if it is not backed by divine decrees. How can your notion of prohibiton be correct if it is not backed by divine revelation? I request you to present some tangible reference to the prohibition of eating these animals. And what is your view of lizards, snakes, monkeys, special delacies of the some eastern countries? <p align=justify>[quote] 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. [quote] <p align=justify>If Muslims are deriving cutting off hands from the Book of Allah, they have been presenting it throughout the Muslim history and not today. The question for us is, whether throughtout the Muslim history, the importance of head-covering has been presented as derived from the Book of Allah, which you yourself negate in words: <p align=justify> [quote] 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. [/quote] <p align=justify>It is so interesting what the Holy Qur'an left implicit was also left by the scholars as implicit. <p align=justify>The prayer, Salah, refers to an important act. Does the Holy Qur'an describe actual acts which should be considered important or the mere basis on which such importance is to be derived? <p align=justify>[quote]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. [/quote] <p align=justify>Conclusion on the discussion of the meaning of the Qur'anic verse can only help us udnerstand the Hadith. We cannot move backward. Edited by: jhangeer hanif on Thursday, April 01, 2004 11:38 AM[/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