| Author | Topic |
marwan
UNITED KINGDOM
|
 Posted - Thursday, November 9, 2006 - 11:02 AM 
perv 1
quote:
What has this to do with the above verse. READ WHAT YOU HAVE WRITTEN. i.e use your head covering to cover your bossoms.
IT DOES NOT SAY COVER YOUR HEAD. If you draw that inference that is all your doing interperting it according to your whims for there is nothing in the above which says cover your head.
I am no expert in clothing but exactly how do you cover your bosoms and head with the same scarf. Has it not occured to you that God considered covering the bosoms far more appropriate than the head. DO NOT CONFUSE YOUR OPINION WITH FACTS.
The verse should better be translate as cover your bosoms WITH/USING your head covering.
Also, its very easy to cover your breasts with a head covering, make it large enough, so that its ends can be wrapped under your chin and over your breasts... very easy, many Muslim women do this.
It very clearly states that they use their headcovering to cover their bosoms. If you cant accept the plain words then I'm sorry for you.
Imagine the sentence, "cover your bellybutton with your top, that is better for modesty", will I then say, where are we told to cover anywhere other than the bellybutton? The answer, is we have a context of modesty. Allah guides with specifics and general guidelines where needed. According to you, unless Allah says to cover, individually and explicitly, every part of the body, then any part not mentioned need not be covered.
AGAIN I quote the paper which answers your question
quote:
* They must draw their HEAD COVERINGS around and over their bosoms.
o It is disingenuous and illogical to say that they must/can remove their head coverings to cover their bosoms because: -
1. There is no need to do so in order to fulfill the command.
2. The hair of a woman is a part of her beauty, of what makes her attractive. So it must be covered.
o It’s like saying (within the context of modesty) “I was told to cover my navel with my top… so I took off my top and wrapped it
around my belly”… Illogical. But this is the position of the liberal Muslim, they say (by analogy), well Allah only said to cover the naval,
so covering anything else must be a cultural thing that we can choose to do or not do.
o To say that you are not told to cover your head is also disingenuous, because if you are told to cover your bosoms with your head
covering (within the context of modesty), it is taken for granted that you are covering your head, so there is no need to explicitly state it.
o The Qur’an makes the practice of the headscarf covering the head and the bosoms into a rule.
* Consider: -
o Allah nowhere explicitly says that a woman’s back must be covered by clothing.
o Allah nowhere says that ¾ of a woman’s leg cannot be exposed
o Etc…
o But they are unambiguously implied by the command to hide a woman’s beauty (and what contributes to it) and by the command to
cover themselves with a Jilbab and to use the Khimar to (also) cover their bosom. So the argument that the head is not mentioned explicitly (within the context of covering beauty and the mention of the khimar (head cover)) is merely a biased tactic to avoid wearing the head
cover.
next...
quote:
quote:
because: -
There is no need to do so in order to fulfill the command.
The hair of a woman is a part of her beauty, of what makes her attractive. So it must be covered.
Again your opinion not a stated fact. Indeed some may consider a covered woman as more attractive because it adds mystique to her appearence -what do you suggest then nakedness!
No, I do not suggest that: -
1- Because that is not the command of Allah
2- Because such people would constitute the vast minority (also covered women should not wear make up etc...)
next...
quote:
quote:
It’s like saying (within the context of modesty) “I was told to cover my navel with my top… so I took off my top and wrapped it around my belly”… Illogical.
And exactly which verse are you referring to here. The example is illogical and makes no sense in relation to any Quranic referrence.
Its called logic... check answers.com. I used this logic to make people like you understand. But truely only Allah can make the blind see...
next...
quote:
quote:
But this is the position of the liberal Muslim, they say (by analogy), well Allah only said to cover the naval, so covering anything else must be a cultural thing that we can choose to do or not do.
?????????
Its strange you don't understand that... quite ironic actually. The above is essentially your position. Because according t your position, as the covering of the top of her body is not mentioned, only the navel, then we have no grounds to insist that the upper body must be
covered. now compare, Allah says khimar (top) and cleavage (navel). Allah gives more details also (jilbaab, modesty, covering what beautifies).
next...
quote:
quote:
To say that you are not told to cover your head is also disingenuous,
Why is disingenious? do you think God is incapable of not being specific?
Allah was specific, but not in a way that you like.
1- Allah tells women to cover their beauty and what contributes to it.
2- Allah tells the to use their headcoverings to cover their cleavage.
3- Allah tells women to cover themselves/their bodies with a jilbaab.
But you want Allah to make a list,
cover: -
1- your head
2- your neck
3- your chest
4- your back
5- your stomach
6- your private parts
7- your thighs
8- your knees
9- your lower legs
10- your arms
11- your hair
So why was Allah not so specific? Because the second list is unneccesary, it is covered by the first list in a more eloquent and complete manner.
next...
quote:
quote:
because if you are told to cover your bosoms with your head covering (within the context of modesty), it is taken for granted that
you are covering your head,
Only by you and those who like you think that God is incapable of being exact.
Only by those with logic and without the liberal bias you have. It is implied by the command to cover what contributes to beauty ALONE, but on top of that we have Allah telling women to cover their chest with their head covering.
next...
quote:
quote:
so there is no need to explicitly state it.
No need. Correct but not for the reason you mention. Interesting you accept that it is not explicitly stated and then draw a conclusion and
expect everyone to accept your conclusion as fact-very logical!
neither is the covering of thighs, calfs, arms or back. Yet we can logically infer they must be covered... You see, logic is important... And there is no need because we are uder no doubt it is required.
next...
quote:
quote:
The Qur’an makes the practice of the headscarf covering the head and the bosoms into a rule.
You state that it does not mention head covering explicity but now say it is a Quranic rule. We obviousouly have different idea as to what constitutes a Quranic rule.
Allah tells us to not even go near to fornication. to lower our gaze and protect our modesty etc... now from this we can easily derive that we cannot watch pornography. But according to you as Allah does not say "do not watch porn whether in vhs or dvd or wmv or avi or ram or etc..." then we can watch porn. Allah gives guidelines and specifics where needed. Does Allah explicity mention not watching porn? where? BUT IT IS VERY CLEARLY IMPLIED BY ANALOGY AND BY UNDERSTANDING THE GENERAL RULINGS OF MODESTY ETC...
quote:
I think you need to be clear what is a fact and what is opinion. Your opinion (no matter how clever you think it is) does not become a
Quranic fact.
Simple every day scenario. If I ask you use you bed covering to cover your dining table (let us ignore my reasons for the moment) I am not
telling you to cover both but explicity told you to cover your dining table with your bed covering. If I wanted you to cover both even simpleton like me would have said so and yet we are talking about God (who never runs out of word).
I WILL STATE AGAIN YOUR OPINION IS YOUR OPINION AND NOT QURANIC FACT.
regards
Your scenario fails as it does not mirror the Qur'anic example. The bed and the table are not the same object (unless you are poor), whereas a head and breasts are not only on the same body, they are close to each other and the covering of both fits in under the general rule of modesty and the covering of what contributes to beauty. It is true Allah does not run out of words, but Allah also only says what is needed, otherwise the Qur'an would be 1000000 pages long.
I found this last night... It is not necessary for my point but it may help you.
From renaissance 2000: -
Is Covering the Head essential for Women?
Question: I am a student of the Qur’an. After going through it many many times, I have come to the conclusion that nowhere does it mention that women should cover their heads. In the following verse, God is asking women to cover their bosoms with a Khimar (a dress, a coat, a shawl, a shirt, a scarf, etc.), not their heads or their hair.
And tell believing women to lower their eyes, and maintain their chastity. They shall not reveal any parts of their bodies, except that which is necessary. They shall cover their chests, [with their Khimar] and shall not relax this code in the presence of other than their husbands, their fathers, the fathers of their husbands, their sons, the sons of their husbands, their brothers, the sons of their brothers, the sons of their sisters, other women, the male servants or employees whose sexual drive has been nullified, or the children who have not reached puberty… (24:31)
After all the Almighty does not run out of words. If He required of the believing women to cover their heads, He would have clearly said so. Is not then covering the head a cultural tradition? Is it not that it is this tradition which scholars have erroneously identified with Islam? Please comment.
Answer: You see it is imperative while interpreting the verses of the Qur’an to determine the addressee of a particular verse otherwise one
is bound to end up misinterpreting the verse. The address in the Qur’an changes among the various groups present (Muslims, Jews, Christians, Hypocrites), and if one reflects on the context of a verse and has a flare for the language of this Divine masterpiece, it is not difficult to grasp who among the groups is addressed.
As far as 24:31 is concerned, it is obvious from its very first words that the believing women of the Prophet’s times are addressed.
The Arabic word used for believing women is ‘Al-Mu’minat’. People normally translate this word without taking into account the article ‘Al’
(alif-lam) appended to the word ‘Mu’minat’. The particle ‘Al’ if properly translated together with the word ‘Mu’minat’ to which it is attached would mean ‘these believing women’ and not ‘believing women’. The phrase ‘these believing women’ obviously refers to the believing women who were present at the time these verses were revealed. It is an established historical fact the believing women of those times used to wear a khimar (a covering) on their heads and then made it fall along their bodies without covering their chests. It is they who are addressed and told that they must cover their chests as well.
In other words, since the directive is given to women who already covered their heads but did not cover their chests, it was not required to mention the covering of the head. So the point which needs to be understood is that while translating these verses one must give due consideration to the word ‘Al-Mu’minat’ and see in what form believing women already dressed and what was the additional directive given to them.
Moreover, the nature of this directive is such that it cannot be confined to the believing women of the Prophet’s times: it pertains to every believing women. All directives which have moral implications are general. For example if it had been said in the Qur’an that ‘these believing women should always uphold the truth and never lie’, then though the believing women of a particular age are addressed, it obviously cannot be concluded that believing women of later times are not bound by this directive.
Therefore, in my opinion, covering the head is neither a cultural tradition nor the product of some scholar: It is the purport of the Qur’an.
Edited by: marwan on Thursday, November 09, 2006 11:10 AM
Edited by: marwan on Saturday, July 10, 2010 2:18 PM |
|
oosman
USA
|
Posted - Thursday, November 9, 2006 - 4:42 PM
marwan,
I am very hurt and offended by your implication that I am blind. You seem rather arrogant in your overconfidence.
quote:
It is an established historical fact the believing women of those times used to wear a khimar (a covering) on their heads and then made it fall along their bodies without covering their chests.
First you need to present evidence of this.
Second, it was very easy for Allah to say 'cover the head'. But He did not, in it is mercy and ease from Allah for the believers. If the believer so desires to do it, then she can do it. If not, then it is enough that she be modest.
I have nothing more to say to you at this time, you seem rather arrogant in your belief you are correct and your opponent is blind.
May Allah have mercy on us and guide us. |
|
marwan
UNITED KINGDOM
|
Posted - Thursday, November 9, 2006 - 5:20 PM
salaam,
to oosman, my apologies if you are hurt by what I said. It is my failing which drives other from the discussion of the word of Allah.
Regarding how easy it would be for Allah to say cover the head... well consider that the only two parts i can remember Allah explicitly mentioning to cover are the private parts and the breasts. that's it. So does this mean to you now that they are the only two parts that must be covered?
once again, my apologies for the offence. |
|
oosman
USA
|
Posted - Thursday, November 9, 2006 - 6:02 PM
The verse says cover with outer garments when you go out. The outer garments generally cover the thighs and stomach, etc, but not necessarily the head. If your outer garments cover your head, then that is fine.
Even marwan has said in his paper that there is no explicit mention that head should be covered. At least we all agree on that. From this he speculates and draws conclusion based on his logic. That is all fine, that is his interpreation. But we should remmember that when there is one way of drawing an inference, then there is another way also. So there is room for interpretation, and we need to respect other views also. This I feel is lacking among many members of this forum.
There are two kinds of injunctions in the holy Book. One is clear cut, there is no doubt about them. Like eating pork, zina, etc. Then other leave some room for interpretation. This issue is one that leaves room for interpretation.
My point is that Islam is a lenient religion, Allah has made things easy. And we should not make things difficult for ourselves. If you feel you should cover the head, then do it. If you feel it is not needed and a modest dress is enough, then that is fine too. Of-course the more modest you are, the better it is. There is no strick specific mention that head should be covered. That is all. One should do what is modest, and piety is closer to Allah.
Edited by: oosman on Thursday, November 09, 2006 6:15 PM |
|
marwan
UNITED KINGDOM
|
Posted - Thursday, November 9, 2006 - 6:07 PM
Nida
quote:
Assalaamu 'Alaikum Brother marwan. There are a few people who say that for some men, the face of a woman is more attractive than her hair; then why doesn't Allah order the women to hide their faces?
They also say that a woman may look attractive if she shows off her hair, but what about men? Men also look attractive at times when they show off their hair. Should they start covering their hair then?
Brother, I know extremely well that all these questions are very illogical. But I just wanna know from you how these should be answered? How would you answer these people?
1- a few people who say that for some men, the face of a woman is more attractive than her hair; then why doesn't Allah order the women to hide their faces?
well: -
o- The hair is an ornamental decoration around the face, it adds to the overall appearance of the face, who looks better, a bald woman or a woman with nice hair? As to which is preferred, the hair or the face, well either way, covering the hair decreases the appeal of the face.
o- Alah may well have not ordered the covering of the face specifically for the choice and ease of the lady. However the mandate to cover what contributes to the beauty in 24:31 which, held in balance with the evidence I cite (in my article,
e.g. 24:30) to show that at least a part of the face is expected to be normally exposed, we can see that the woman certainly has the option to cover her face.
2- They also say that a woman may look attractive if she shows off her hair, but what about men? Men also look attractive at times when they show off their hair. Should they start covering their hair then?
Generally for such comments...
It is the position of the Qur'an that Muslims should help each other in righteousness: -
009.071
And (as for) the believing men and the believing women, they are allies of each other; they enjoin good and forbid evil and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, and obey Allah and His Messenger; (as for) these, Allah will show mercy to them; surely Allah is Mighty, Wise.
Hence men should dress in a manner which makes it easier for women.
But it is clear that Allah has not put as many regulations on dress for men as was put on women. This makes practical sense for the following reasons: -
1- Men are thought to react more to visual-sexual stimuli, their capacity to objectify a woman's body being undeniable.
2- Women are BY FAR the largest victims of sexual harrasment and attacks.
3- women want to be appreciated physically to a very large extent, which is why women nowadays do so much to look attractive to everyone, make up, diets, freaking out about appearance, tight clothes, make up etc etc etc... So removing the avenue of looking attractive and nice when going out removes this time wasting burden from the woman. This allows only her mind, taqwa and eeman to be the proper concern of any man she finds the need to talk to, and helps her to fly under the sexual attraction radar of unscrupulous men.
It makes practical sense for women to dress more to reduce the first problem above and hence reduce the second problem.
People who give out about this really need to start living in the real world.
Finally, why didn't Allah explicitly tell women to cover their faces and for men to cover up more? Because Allah did not and Allah does what he wills.
I hope these help, please discuss them if you find them deficient in logic. |
|
oosman
USA
|
Posted - Thursday, November 9, 2006 - 6:24 PM
marwan, you said
quote:
1- Men are thought to react more to visual-sexual stimuli, their capacity to objectify a woman's body being undeniable.
Please present some evidence to support this claim. I have mentioned before that women have just the same sexual impulses as men. One example of that I gave of Aziz's wife and prophet Yusuf (a.s). Although one example is not enough.
It is very sad that in the third world Muslim societies, because of forced veil, arranged and forced marriages, without the consent of the girl, the woman no longer feel any desire for men. It kills their sexual appetite. If we remove this social impediment, where women are more free to marry whom they want to, then we can see that women do have the same urges as men. In the so called 'decadent' western society, you can see clearly women are just as much sexual as men are, if not more.
I think your inference is based on your cultural background that women do not react the same way as men do.
Please present your evidence. |
|
oosman
USA
|
Posted - Thursday, November 9, 2006 - 6:30 PM
marwan,
quote:
3- women want to be appreciated physically to a very large extent, which is why women nowadays do so much to look
This is another generalization without evidence. If you want to include such statements in a professional paper, then you must back up with evidence of scientifically conducted studies.
Take a look at this news story
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5391910.stm
It shows how some Muslim men are increasingly opting for plastic surgery to enhance their looks. I think this throws back your generalizations and assumption about typical men and women.
quote from the article: quote:
He has performed so many of these operations - more than 30,000 in his career so far - that he can literally do it with his eyes shut..... Dr Navab says he only does three operations - noses, eyelids and face lifts - and his schedule is completely full the year round. And increasingly his patients are Iranian men.
Edited by: oosman on Thursday, November 09, 2006 6:30 PM |
|
marwan
UNITED KINGDOM
|
Posted - Thursday, November 9, 2006 - 6:51 PM
quote:
marwan, you said
quote:
1- Men are thought to react more to visual-sexual stimuli, their capacity to objectify a woman's body being undeniable.
Please present some evidence to support this claim. I have mentioned before that women have just the same sexual impulses as men. One example of that I gave of Aziz's wife and prophet Yusuf (a.s). Although one example is not enough.
It is very sad that in the third world Muslim societies, because of forced veil, arranged and forced marriages, without the consent of the girl, the woman no longer feel any desire for men. It kills their sexual appetite. If we remove this social impediment, where women are more free to marry whom they want to, then we can see that women do have the same urges as men. In the so called 'decadent' western society, you can see clearly women are just as much sexual as men are, if not more.
I think your inference is based on your cultural background that women do not react the same way as men do.
Please present your evidence.
Present your evidence to contrary. My position is the consensus position, yours is the fringe position, so present your evidence.
I can tell you that what I have told you is the general wisdom that both women and men know.
It has to do with the nature of men and women. Men can have absolutely emotionless sex with 100s of women with ease, this would happen less with women. Though it is not non existent.
The only challengers of this are evolutionary psychologists who on brain scans find that the brains of men and women can react in similar ways to erotic pictures. But the follow through is not there to my knowledge, that is, testing if the client felt and equal desire to have sex afterwards etc...
one paper i found in a few minutes is this one which finds greater reaction in men, though more research is needed to test subjective responses also.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=15004563&dopt=Abstract
and for a group of such papers
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Display&itool=abstractplus&dopt=pubmed_pubmed&from_uid=15004563
and a recent paper in nature (the above first one i cited): -
http://0-www.nature.com.innopac.ucc.ie/neuro/journal/v7/n4/full/nn1208.html
quote: -
"Functional neuroimaging studies have identified a growing number of sex differences in human brain function. In addition to cognitive differences1, 2, 3, men and women also differ markedly in aspects of sexual behavior, such as the reportedly greater male interest in and response to sexually arousing visual stimuli4, 5, 6"
"In summary, the current findings suggest a possible neural basis for the greater role of visual stimuli in human male sexual behavior3, 4, 5, 6. Whether the sex differences observed here reflect inherent differences in neural function or stem from differential experience is a matter for further study."
There is other kinds of research on this I would like, but i won't spend the time now.
enjoy.
The example of Aziz is as you said just one example, and it actually goes against you, because try as she might she could not force him, whereas, if he tried to force her she would not have been able to stop him.
Next, recall that his handsomeness was obviously beyond compare, why else would the women have cut their hands when they saw him?
Is this the average man? I think not.
Your point stands refuted.
Edited by: marwan on Thursday, November 09, 2006 7:13 PM
Edited by: marwan on Thursday, November 09, 2006 7:25 PM |
|
oosman
USA
|
Posted - Thursday, November 9, 2006 - 7:18 PM
Marwan,
I am not going to do your homework for you. If you want to make a general statement, then you need to back it up with scientific papers. Otherwise it is just your view and that of other people with the same thinking. You have written the paper, I have not. So you should bring the evidence.
quote:
I would be fairly confident the its prevalence among women is at least 2 to 3 times that for heterosexual men.
Marwan, your are so full of conjecture. Where do you come up with these half baked numbers? Your paper is also full of assumptions and conjecture!
Ok, I do not want to debate unless you have something new to add. I have already said enough |
|
perv1
UNITED KINGDOM
|
Posted - Thursday, November 9, 2006 - 11:36 PM
Salaam marwan
I mistakenly engaged in a debate with you thinking you were capable of intelligent discussin using FACTS FROM THE QURAN. unfortunately you like many confuse your prejudices with logical facts. Let me see if we can simplify this so that you may be able to understand:
Mona Lisa is a painting by Leonardo De Vinci- A Fact. Yes! Agreed. It is an excellent painting an opinion. Rubbish painting again an opinion. Can you see the difference. If I think the painting is rubbish then in my opinion it is Rubbish and the fact that majority may think otherwise does not make my opinion wrong. If you cannot grasp this simple principle then it is truly futile discussing anything with you.
If however you are capable of understanding the above then:
quote:
The verse should better be translate as cover your bosoms WITH/USING your head covering
.
That is your quote. Show me from the above where it states that the head should be covered. Your quote is that bosom should be covered. You seem obsessed by the word logic (it might be useful if you acquired some). Logically it could be argued that God is more interested in covering of bosom than the head covering which was the cultural practice. However it is only my opinion and not a fact-no more than your opinion is a fact.
Once you can grasp the difference between a fact and opinion then you might begin to understand the Quran as well.
regards |
|
oosman
USA
|
Posted - Friday, November 10, 2006 - 1:29 AM
perv1,
The verses regarding the covering are really clear as daylight. There is no need to use one's logic to extrapolate. Even if one wants to draw inferences using the logic, that can be accepted as one's interpretation. But I really do not understand why some people try to use religion to make their logical interpretation as the word of God, when it is merely their own opinion. Therefore it cannot and should not be made into Law, it is a human interpretation, and humans are prone to error. We can call it Fiqh, but not Shariah.
Salaam. |
|
waseem
UNITED KINGDOM
|
Posted - Friday, November 10, 2006 - 7:27 AM
This is the opinion of Moiz Amjad from the Understanding Islam web site
it would be more accurate to say that when used in this connotation, the word Dharaba means to 'spread in an encompassing manner'. Nevertheless, because the Qur'an has not specified the limits of this 'spreading', it implies that these limits are to be decided by the individual. Furthermore, it should be kept in mind that the directive of the Qur'an is not merely to 'spread' the Khimar (head-covering) over themselves, but, on the contrary, it is to spread their khimar over their chests. I really do not think that the phrase 'spread the khimar over their chests' can be taken to imply covering ears. The neck, on the other hand, can indeed be included in the scope of this 'spreading'. |
|
perv1
UNITED KINGDOM
|
Posted - Friday, November 10, 2006 - 11:06 AM
Salaam all
Can we stop bandying about the words which we have little understanding. Many on this forum seem to think calling someone a liberal negates their point.
Liberal- my understanding is someone who is tolerant of others beliefs and open minded. The opposite to this is Fascism- Which to me implies bigot, prejudiced, intolerant of others beliefs and views. So those who keep reffering others as liberals, would they then like to be adressed as fascists.
regards |
|
perv1
UNITED KINGDOM
|
Posted - Friday, November 10, 2006 - 12:35 PM
Salaam
quote:
This forum is really a waste of my time. I am trying to argue with logic and evidence and you guys will say and do anything to deny any truth that does not fit in your pathetic, disgustion and futile liberalism [/b)
I agree you are not a liberal. I am happy to call you a fascist. You fit the bill perfectly, opinionated, bigoted, disregard for the facts just your own misguided prejudices and completely closed mind. So I am in full agreement with you and will not refer to you as liberal. At least we agree on something.
regards |
|
Puppy
UNITED KINGDOM
|
Posted - Friday, November 10, 2006 - 1:13 PM
quote:
This is the opinion of Moiz Amjad from the Understanding Islam web site
it would be more accurate to say that when used in this connotation, the word Dharaba means to 'spread in an encompassing manner'. Nevertheless, because the Qur'an has not specified the limits of this 'spreading', it implies that these limits are to be decided by the individual. Furthermore, it should be kept in mind that the directive of the Qur'an is not merely to 'spread' the Khimar (head-covering) over themselves, but, on the contrary, it is to spread their khimar over their chests. I really do not think that the phrase 'spread the khimar over their chests' can be taken to imply covering ears. The neck, on the other hand, can indeed be included in the scope of this 'spreading'.
Waseem, you and your Gurru MOiz both are WRONG!!!!!!!!!! |
|
Puppy
UNITED KINGDOM
|
Posted - Friday, November 10, 2006 - 1:13 PM
quote:
This is the opinion of Moiz Amjad from the Understanding Islam web site
it would be more accurate to say that when used in this connotation, the word Dharaba means to 'spread in an encompassing manner'. Nevertheless, because the Qur'an has not specified the limits of this 'spreading', it implies that these limits are to be decided by the individual. Furthermore, it should be kept in mind that the directive of the Qur'an is not merely to 'spread' the Khimar (head-covering) over themselves, but, on the contrary, it is to spread their khimar over their chests. I really do not think that the phrase 'spread the khimar over their chests' can be taken to imply covering ears. The neck, on the other hand, can indeed be included in the scope of this 'spreading'.
Waseem, you and your Gurru MOiz both are WRONG!!!!!!!!!! |
|
 Reply to Topic 
Printer Friendly |
| Jump To: |
|
|
|