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][quote] My point is simply that the directive in question is not mentioned in words. We are inferring. [/quote] Would you tell me your opinion on slavery in Islam. Do you believe slavery is prohibited or is it just "inappropriate" to keep slaves? Please answer from the Quranic perspective strictly. Also do you believe a man can marry a women and her mother's sister and keep them both as their wives at the same time? If you think it is prohibited, please show me where is it "mentioned in words" in the Quran? I don't want to derail the dialogue but i guess a simple point is not being appreciated and i want to see how the logic being presented works in other cases. [quote] 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. [/quote] This is what you had written in some of your previous posts: [maroon]But it has not used the word Khimar there. Instead, it has independantly used Thuab (24:60). Had the original concern of Shari'ah been 'Khimar', something with which Arab women cover their heads, it should have used this word instead of Thaub. This means that the concern of the Shari'ah was to cover the bosoms with whatever means it is attained.[/maroon] [maroon]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] I was responding to this point and i think i have made my point clearly. Yes i did say that usage of "Khimar" attests to my argument's validity which you tried to overturn with circular logic, insisting on "Thaub". I didn't say that usage of a word is "merely" a divine prerogative. It is not "merely" that but definitely that too. You are making my words sound like i give no importance to words. That i never said neither has it ever been my intent. But surely i am not here to second-guess God. [quote] 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. [/quote] The practice of Chaddar may be prevalent in some parts of our culture but it is not in Arabia. Would you say that 24:31 is a directive specifically for inside of the Muslim homes? If yes, what then is the directive for outside? [quote] 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. [/quote] I don't think head-covering was "not an issue at that time" as you would like to believe. Important or not is a discussion that is a minefield. Importance of things could justifiably change with time unless of course you refuse to change with time. Divine decree, however, is a different matter altogether. [quote] 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? [/quote] There is innate guidance given to man which is reinforced by revealed guidance. Man has always known what is to be eaten and what is not. Even today no one eats elephants, lions, tigers etc. If today some cultures have adopted certain creatures as their culinary delights, that is a deviation from the innate guidance. There could be differences of opinion and deviations in that respect just as there is in the understanding and application of revealed guidance. Comparing this concept with the idea of head-covering is like comparing apples and oranges. If you want to now argue that head-covering is an innate guidance, then i can only marvel at this idea. If it is not part of either of the two categories, then the importance of head-covering stands on a flimsy ground. This is what i have implied and not that to me head-covering has no importance, which anyway makes no difference. [quote] It is so interesting what the Holy Qur'an left implicit was also left by the scholars as implicit. [/quote] Now this is audacious. You are imlying that the classical scholars attached no importance to head-covering and that is why they never talked explicitly about it. I never negated that Muslim scholars have derived head-covering from the Quran; rather i implied quite the opposite. It's upto you to give whatever meaning to my words. Here is what the doyens of Classical Islamic tradition have to say on this issue: [green]Our scholars say that this [exemption] denotes the woman's face and hands. (Abu Bakr Jassas)[/green] [green]Since the normal case is that a woman’s face and hands are revealed by the force of habit and for worship, as this is required in salat and hajj, then it is appropriate to say that the exemption [in 24:31] applies to these. (Imam Qurtubi)[/green] [green]Since the showing of the face and hands is necessary, the jurists had no choice but to agree that they are not awra. (Imam Fakhr ad-Din Razi)[/green] [green][I prefer this opinion] because necessity demands that the face should be uncovered for buying and selling, and the hands should be uncovered for giving and taking. (Imam Ahmad ibn Qudama)[/green] [green]The part of the woman's body which has to be concealed is the whole of it except her face and her hands. (Imam ibn Hazm)[/green] [green]The strongest and most accurate view is that which says that the exemption [in 24:31] refers to the face and the hands up to the wrist. (Imam Abu Jafar Tabari)[/green] [green]Why is the woman permitted to display 'what is apparent of it'? Because to conceal that would cause her inconvenience. A woman is forced to deal in commodities with her hands. She is compelled by genuine need to expose her face especially at the times of giving evidence, litigating in court, and marriage. She is compelled to walk the streets and expose her feet, especially poor women. This is the meaning of 'illa maa zahara min ha', that is, what the situations of ordinary life compel her to expose. (Zamakhshari)[/green] [green]Women's clothing must cover at least the entire body excepting the hands and face. (Imam Nawawi)[/green] [green]As for the third issue - that is, the extent to which a woman should cover herself - is concerned, most of the scholars are of the opinion that her whole body, except her face and hands, should be covered. (Ibn Rushd )[/green] [green]The consensus of the Muslims is that all of a woman [is awra] except her face and hands, but some disagree about these two. (Imam Qurtubi)[/green] It is because of this opinion of the large majority that they don't even bother getting into whether the next part of the verse implies only covering of the chest using a head-cover or promulgates both. And this is what i meant when i said Muslims have been deriving head-covering from the Quran throughout history and not taking it merely as a part of their civilization. [quote] 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? [/quote] I could not understand this question, please elaborate. [quote] Conclusion on the discussion of the meaning of the Qur'anic verse can only help us udnerstand the Hadith. We cannot move backward. [/quote] Well not always. I think it works both ways. Simply saying what you said is unfairly restricting and downplaying the importance of Hadith. If there is a difference of opinion in reaching a conclusion about a verse, hadith will surely aid us in arriving at the right opinion. You would have used the hadith had it gone in favour of your opinion. Why do you use occassion of revelation to reach a conclusion? Why for instance would you use history to give a verdict on 33:59 as being related to some incidents? I think you should completely divorce yourself from Islamic history and Hadith and form opinions on Quranic verses unconstarined by "outside" influences and let's see how you fare.[/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