I am not hijabi but when I read Qur'an I cover myself.

That is nice. May this decent act of yours also bring reward to you. As a digression, I however would mention that covering head while reciting the Holy Qur'an has not been prescribed by the Shari'ah. It is on the other hand a decent cultural practice which I myself still see in vogue in Muslim households in Pakistan. Actually, we must keep the distinction in mind as we also explain these things to others as well.

When I am reading Qur'an from computer screen should I cover my head then?

That depends on what you decide for yourself.

Can I pray in the presence of non-muslims in the room?

Of course, you can. Muslims even have prayed in churhes and synagogues not to mention praying in front of non-Muslims.




Edited by - jhangeer hanif on March 04 2004 17:09:50

No doubt, this verse delineates directives regarding male and female interaction but it does not promulgate anything regarding head covering.

You are perhaps referring to the part: let them wear their head-coverings over their bosoms

It needs to be appreciated that this specific verse is asking the ladies to cover thier bosoms; it is not commanding them to cover their heads and then cover their bosoms. This means that the concern of Shari'ah is covering of the chest as the Law does not always go into minute details. In Shari'ah, we find minimum possible directives. We are not given a complete list of everything that falls within the ambit of good and evil. There is no need to think of a good act in the lower terms if it has not been ordained by Allah. Our moral sense does guide us. Under the influence of this moral sense, women have been wearing head covering since ages. I just know it will perpetuate just as our moral sense is definitely going to perpetuate no matter if such perpetuation is on smaller scale. A downward movement in a civilization is a harbinger of the boom that will definitely pervail.

quote:

---

This means that the concern of Shari'ah is covering of the chest as the Law does not always go into minute details.

---

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. If the concern of Shari'ah was only the covering of chest, there was absolutely no need to mention "Head-covering" in this verse.

The Holy Qur'an is employing what is in vogue to put across its message. The Noble Word needs human language and their practices to communicate the directives. It has talked about polygamy in case of orphans. This verse may be interpreted as to be promulgating polygamy whereas, in fact, it is only concerned with the welfare of the orphans. And since polygamy is in vogue--something prevalent--it is alluding to their practice in order to make life easeir for the widows and the orphans.

I give you another simple example. A father on seeing his son wearing untidy and wrinkled pants say: Beta, Hamaisha Dulhi hoin Pants Mahna Karo (Son, always wear clean and tidy pants). One may interpret this sentence to mean that the son is ordered to always wear pants and such interpretation cannot be precluded since the father is not here!

Anyhow, I again assert that we must acentuate that the Shari'ah had not explicitly said: cover your heads and your bosoms.

There is one question in my head. There are so many decent acts in our society, which we essentially comply with. We do not renounce them merely on the basis that these have not been clearly and expressly mentioned in the Book. I do not understand why to question head covering. Perhaps, its renunciation owes itself to the wave of feminism.




Edited by - jhangeer hanif on March 10 2004 16:07:50

The word used for 'head covering' in this ayat is 'Khumr'. In Arabic this word is specifically and only used for the head covering cloth. If God did not mean to direct towards the observance of head covering, usage of such a word seems unnecessary and a cause for confusion, charateristics that the word of God certainly do not possess.
The fact that this word is used and no other is in itself a pointer towards head covering

I agree the Quran presupposes an intelligent reader, then this aspect of language was enough rather than a discourse about the issue.

Will you please see my response which I have written in the above message regarding why this word has been used? Of course, we can discuss it further.

The women of those times, before the advent of Islam, used to cover their head and let the rest of the cloth trail behind

I agree that head covering was in vogue in pre-Islam Arabia.

Thus firstly there was no need to directly say 'cover your heads' or something to that effect but what was needed was to rectify the practice and the way this ayat is pronounced does just that. It presupposed the head covering and tells the women to cover their chests with it as well.

With a practice corrupted, Quran usually only pointed to the parts of it that had been corrupted. Like its tells the Jews to offer 'Ruku', since bowing was a practice that they had given up in praying.

And I also agree that the revelation does interfere in matters where mankind is not able or has failed to adhere to the right approach. This is exactly the point that I'd like to make. The Shari'ah has not taken up the issue of covering their heads yet it is clear that this practice should perpetuate. The Shari'ah does not talk about whether lions, horses and lizards are edibles yet we clearly know that they are not meant to be eaten. It is patently obvious that women should cover their heads. However, as long as the Shari'ah has not talked about head covering specifically, we cannot say that head covering is part of the Shari'ah. And you agree that the Shari’ah has not given any explicit directive. Obviously, only an express decree includes one practice within the circle of divinely ordained practices. We do not have any right to declare something part of Shari'ah.

Yes we have an innate criterion about good and evil. The need for a revealed criterion was to reaffirm that innate criterion and be a lighthouse in case of confusion or divergence.

The divergence on head covering seems to have arisen only recently. Even in Christian communities this practice has been adhered to and only recently been renounced.

Hence, just as there can be a difference of opinion on the matter of horses and donkeys, there can also be a difference on the matter of head covering. I am though certain that neither it is appropriate to eat horses nor is it appropriate to renounce head covering.

The whole issue revolves round the use of the word, Khumur.

You ask me why 'head-covering' has been used and not something else. And you contend that it creates confusion; therefore Allah should not have used this word if his objective was not promulgate head covering. I ask you why in explicit words Allah has not said: cover your heads and your bosoms? In other words, you need to see the difference between the sentences: use your head covering to cover your heads and your bosoms and use head covering to conver your bosoms.

I know you have commented on this in that we do not need to be spoon-fed. But just down this verse, we see the words:

Women may dislpay their ornanments to their HUSBANDS.

I ask you if we are not spoon-fed and left with hints why Allah is describing this exception, husbands. Do you think it would be unlawful for wives to display their beauty before their husbands?

I know this is just another example. You have rejected both examples given above. You have noted:

It becomes very clear from the context that the verses about polygamy refer to a particular situation and not to be accepted as a norm. I don't think a parallel with the verses on women's dress code is appropriate in this case.

However, this sentence, for anyone with a reasonable understanding of English, is clearly pointing to the second interpretation BUT in the case of the verses on "Head-covering", i don't see the matter as being so irrefutably evident. So here again the comparison is a bit inept.

Again the comparison in my opinion is misplaced. It is not at all "patently obvious" that women should cover their heads.

I do not deny that my comparison cannot be inept, misplaced or unparallel. But how it is so, I have failed to find anything in your comments to that effect. This is why I leave this matter to be further clarified by you. Why the Holy Qur'an has not just said: take care of orphans without referring to 'polygamy'. It should have avoided confusion by just saying the former sentence only.

You have further said:

A highly subjective point about which no one can pass universal judgements unless Allah Himself clears the matter.

Intresting point is that you will not find any directive to the effect of male and female interaction in the Bible. It is only the Holy Qur'an which takes up the issue and deals with it. Head covering was an issue, which was no ISSUE during the Prophet's time. Had the situation been like it is today, we would definitely been given a positive or negative verdict. Allah himself does clear the matter by intervening. But when? That is the question for you to consider.