quote:

---

My point is simply that the directive in question is not mentioned in words. We are inferring.

---

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:

---

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:

---

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:

---

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:

---

It is so interesting what the Holy Qur'an left implicit was also left by the scholars as implicit.

---

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:

---

Conclusion on the discussion of the meaning of the Qur'anic verse can only help us udnerstand the Hadith. We cannot move backward.

---

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.

I had raised the point of implicit and explicit in response to your explanation: Omitting "husbands" from this list, which portends to be exhaustive, could have been problematic. I had noted: 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... This is the point which you refuted and said that the directive what may ordinarily displayed 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.

What you should have accepted in this regard or negated , 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.

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.

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:

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 mention of the word Khimar (Head covering) was according to you fundamental in how we should look at this verse and the resulting directive.

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 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.

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.

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.

I don't think head-covering was "not an issue at that time" as you would like to believe.

To this, I cannot add any further. From my little study, I did not find it an issue as such.

You have previously raised an objection about why the head covering is important if it is not backed by divine guidance and noted:

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?

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?

Are you insinuating that I take on different stances to save my face? What do you mean by now in your sentence if you want to now argue that head covering is an innate guidance.

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:

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.

What you have termed audacious was a reference to your words. This is why I had very carefully chosen my words by saying we should consider the question whether head covering has been derived by the earlier scholars, which you yourself have negated in words. What you do is throw your point back on me, I do not know what else to say. This is what you had written:

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.

What I am to understand by the words: They take it as a given and move on . Are my words inept: What was left implicit by the Holy Qur’an was also left implicit by the scholars.

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 La Yadhribna Bikhumurihinna Ala Ghiyubihinna 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?

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.

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.

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

Let me think about my question to your syllogism. I have explained it twice. Could not think of anything better than that at the moment.

quote:

---

I think we have a mental block in this dialogue. On many occasions, i feel my points were not properly appreciated and i guess you would have the same complaint against me. I, in all humility and goodwill, bow out of this discussion.

I hope and pray that the Almighty leads me to the right path and grants me the courage to accept the truth as it is.

Edited by: Razi Allah on Thursday, April 08, 2004 8:36 PM

---

Never mind. I think we should have a meeting face to face to better understand the concerns of each other. We can meet when you visit Al-Mawrid at your convenience; we can also arrange a meeting with Javed Sahib too.

quote:

---

Asalamu Alaykum

Quran addresses the ordinary man and women, its purpose is to guide every man and woman. The style of language it adopts is therefore that of man's literature .......


Edited by - nadya on March 27 2004 05:15:23

---

quote:

---

I would most certainly like to have a meeting but the best way to have a dialogue, i believe, is written communication. That way we can have access to whatever resources we may want to use, have more time to ponder over the issue, have better chance of not allowing our egos to come in the way of sincere understanding and can avoid altercation.

---

quote:

---

It is very easy for a person like him to silence me into submission in a one-to-one talk merely on the basis of his astounding knowledge.

---

quote:

---

I could have responded to your post but i didn't see this discussion going anywhere. Anyway, i appreciate your time, effort and sincerity.

---

quote:

---

My question is we often see films and TV programs for recreation. In these programs, women also take part. Most of the time they donot have their head cover. Can we watch these these programs. Can we see women without their head coverings because while watching TV, we can't interact with them. So is it safe or islam prohibits it.

---

Would you mind sharing with us what you yourself feel about this issue in the perspective of your knowledge of the religion and your inborn guidance and modesty?

The following questions were sent to me in an email for the reason mentioned therein.

I have been trying to post a response on the studying-islam.org forum on Hijab. However, my response does not get posted immediately after your post (3rd page) but rather on the first page of that forum, which is quite odd.

Anyways following is my post.

I would very much like if you could post Ghamidi's detailed argument on the head-covering. As well any interesting conversation the two (Razi) of you might possibly have with him.

Also, I have two questions.

1) Is it required for women to cover their head during prayer?

My point is men are not required to cover their head normally as well as during prayers. I hope you see where I am going with this.

2) Does the head for a woman come under the sutra/satar (??)

Many thanks,

Junaid.

The laws promulgated by the Islamic Shari'ah are doubtless practiceable in all ages. But I do not think it is right to say that Allah has given directives of varying difficulties to accomdate later eras.

Whereever allowance is given, it was as much avaivable to the men of early ages as it is availablve to modern men.

Morever, it is erroneous to believe that Islam consists of laws only. Acting upon the Law is very important;however obsession with the law is utterly absurd like Jesus (pbuh) criticized the Israelites.

I have responded to your question on the forum of the course, Norms of Gender Interaction. Please see; you may discuss anything of importance in that forum.