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>There is a minor problem in this whole dialogue, which, I fear, will make it go all in vain. Conclusion or understanding of one point should only lead to the next; I do not know how we can proceed without deciding about one thing. Anyhow, my response to your recent post is as under. <p align=justify>I had raised the point of [green] implicit and explicit [/green] in response to your explanation: [i] Omitting "husbands" from this list, which portends to be exhaustive, could have been problematic[/i]. I had noted: [i] Following the trail of explicit directives, it is quite unintelligible that the Holy Quran should move on to take an implicit wording for head covering. In other other words, it should say: use head covering when it is implying cover your heads... [/i] This is the point which you refuted and said that the directive [i] what may ordinarily displayed [/i] is also an implicit reference open to debate. This was though not a response to my original point, I however responded to it saying that there may be difference of opinion as to the application of the directive in question but it is not an implicit directive itself. <p align=justify>What you should have [b] accepted [/b] in this regard or [b] negated [/b], as you have the very right to, is whether the directive is EXPLICIT. It is only after you respond to this end that we can address some other aspect of the issue. <p align=justify>Lest you should feel that I avoid your questions, I must say that I have nowhere implied that directives apparent from the context and structure of a particular paragraph are but of no concern to me. <p align=justify>If my words seem to give the notion that you give no importance to words. I clarify, for the sake of forum mates, that I do not maintain that you give no importance to words. My humble point was that this discussion was initiated by you on the basis of the word, Khimar; it is precisely for this reason that, I feel, you should not have attributed insistence on words to me. The very first post of yours read: <p align=justify> [i] I do not agree with Jhangeer's opinion which in turn is Javed Ahmed Ghamidi sahib's opinion on this matter. I believe that while referring to the "Head-covering", the Quran is actually taking it as a given for women to observe. [/i] <p align=justify>[i]If the concern of Shari'ah was only the covering of chest, there was absolutely no need to mention "Head-covering" in this verse. [/i] <p align=justify>The mention of the word [i]Khimar[/i] (Head covering) was according to you fundamental in how we should look at this verse and the resulting directive. <p align=justify> [i] 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? [/i] <p align=justify>I was not producing an exhaustive list of what is prevalent where; I was merely explaining the meaning of the word Jilbab. If you would like, you may look it up in a dictionary and find out whether there is a difference between Jilbab and Khimar. I also have the question of difference between these two words, of which I presented my understanding so far based on what I found in Lughaat. If you may, your findings will also be helpful to me. <p align=justify>The directive of covering the bosom is not confined to the inside of a house. The Holy Qur’an alluded to residential houses and non-residential places before giving these directives. These directives therefore pertain to every place where men and women come across each other. <p align=justify>Zamakhshari had noted one observation, which I also found in some other Tafaseer. I tried to place it in one scenario. In simple words, I did not give a context to the words of the Qur’an; I tried to understand where such non-compliance must have happened about which Zamakshari is talking. <p align=justify>[i]I don't think head-covering was "not an issue at that time" as you would like to believe. [/i] <p align=justify>To this, I cannot add any further. From my little study, I did not find it an issue as such. <p align=justify>You have previously raised an objection about why the head covering is important if it is not backed by divine guidance and noted: <p align=justify>[green]Why should it remain important today? Without divine backing, important is a relative term, isn't it? If women of today no longer consider it a so-called decent Muslim practice and they can still be within the realm of decency while discarding this practice, why should it be considered desirable to adhere to it? [/green] <p align=justify>Then you explained that eating the animals mentioned elsewhere are from among the ‘prohibitions’ of nature and it was not just inappropriate to eat them. My question was not to explain the deviation of a people. What I wanted to see and still do is that how you explain this prohibition without divine backing. Without divine backing, what authority do you have to attach importance to your notion? <p align=justify>Are you insinuating that I take on different stances to save my face? What do you mean by [red] now [/red] in your sentence [i] if you want to now argue that head covering is an innate guidance. [/i] <p align=justify>I have written in the beginning that it is a decent practice and that Muslim ladies have been wearing head covering under their innate concept of Haya; and in this perspective I told you that I saw the Hadith quoted by you. I do not understand what you are implying. You have written: <p align=justify>[i] 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] <p align=justify>What you have termed audacious was a reference to your words. This is why I had very carefully chosen my words by saying [green] we should consider the question whether head covering has been derived by the earlier scholars, which you yourself have negated in words[/green]. What you do is throw your point back on me, I do not know what else to say. This is what you had written: <p align=justify>[i]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. [/i] <p align=justify>What I am to understand by the words: [i] They take it as a given and move on [/i]. Are my words inept: What was left implicit by the Holy Qur’an was also left implicit by the scholars. <p align=justify>I know you know that what you have quoted, from various sources, pertains to the exemption of Zinat (ornaments), which may ordinarily appear thereof. What does it have to do with head covering? In other words, the part of the verse under consideratoin, from which you are inferring the directive is [i] La Yadhribna Bikhumurihinna Ala Ghiyubihinna [/i] and not the part preceeding it, about which you have quoted the explanation of various scholars. We should indentify first what part of the verse is under consideraton, should we not? <p align=justify>Anyhow, If however you believe that this Zinat pertains to the body of a woman in general, we can discuss this too first by having recourse to Arabic literature and diction. <p align=justify>You should know that I do not disagree with the opinion of the scholar in that I hold that Zinat should not be displayed except for what is worn on hands, face and feet. <p align=justify>I believe it has to be one way; from the Qur’an to the Hadith. The Qur’an reigns supreme and it should always. If any tradition or report in history does not agree with the context of the Qur’anic verses, it will have to be forsaken. I can show you how the words of the Holy Qur’an in Surah Ahzab portray that something perilous going on, if you would like me to, without having recourse to historical reports. Edited by: jhangeer hanif on Friday, April 09, 2004 4:25 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