Head covering?

format_quote Originally Posted by Xander

It does not need to be followed today.

LOL says who? You? Pope? Preacher? Dude, you may as well right your own bible too

format_quote Originally Posted by Xander

format_quote Originally Posted by Woodrow

I understand now. Is this a general belief of all Christians, that all that needs to be followed is that which is applicable to the political and social ideology of the time?

I guess next there will be no need to follow "Thou Shalt not kill"

OOOps,

Abortions
Assisted suicides
Euthanasia of the elderly and Disabled

Time for a new revision of the Bible to keep up with current trends.

Read it for yourself. It was talking about the people in that certain Church. As well, it says thou shall not commit murder. Not kill. If it did, then God will be sinning every time someone died.

I apologize. I was being sarcastic and carried it to far.

My point would have been better made without a try at sarcasm.

The translations to update language changes often result in new interpretations to meet the times. It does result in a constant change of meaning and an updating to suit the people instead of remaining the same message. Just my opinion but to me I see the Bible as becoming a form of Situational Ethics and subject to change as society changes.

What was spoken in Aramaic would not be the same as what was written in Greek. The Latin translated from the Greek would have at least subtle differences and over time each Translation would carry with it subtle changes. The end result being the Bible has become what the Social majority want it to be.

With the best of intentions and the most stringent semantic scrutiny, it is impossible to translate from one language to another without losing and or changing some of the original meaning.

As a simple illustration, take a word like "eat". The word itself is a product of the cultural and historical influences that played critical roles in the development of the language. So when an English man reads the word "eat", he will comprehend a totally different meaning from that experienced by, say, a Malay man who reads the word "makan". To the English man, the word "eat" will bring up mental images of, say, bread and bacon, whereas the Malay man will relate the word "makan" to, say, budu and rice.

This already happens when it involves just one word. The dissimilarities are compounded when an entire page of text is translated. The final result would be rather different from the original. This error is made more dangerous by the assumption that the translation is as good as the original.

Once I had the opportunity to browse in a Christian bookshop. Out of curiosity, I randomly picked out two bibles from different versions. I turned to the Parable of the Sower in both books. In one, there was a black crow. In the other, it was just a bird. Do they both mean the same? Not at all. A crow is a bird but a bird is not necessarily a crow. The black crow can be used as a symbol of the devil. A bird can be anything from a sparrow to an eagle. What the bird will be depends on the reader. If he pictures a sparrow, the significance of the parable is different from what he understands if he pictures an eagle.

This is why the Quran must always be in the original Arabic language. If it is translated, then it is stated clearly that it is a translation. A translation of the Quran can never be labeled as the Quran. This is to make sure that the meaning of the Quran is never changed.

By the way, this scrupulous attention to detail is actually not an oddity. I have seen legal tomes which are translated but are clearly marked that, in case of dispute, the original language shall be the definitive and legally-binding point of reference.

Hope this is useful. Insha Alllah.

format_quote Originally Posted by Xander

All birds in the Bible, unless mention otherwise (such as a white Dove), are viewed as evil. Your example of a black crow was an attempt for the translators to culturalize the Bible, in which I am against, in order to increase understanding. Translations are designed for the Bible, just like they are in the Qur'an, allow the reader to read with an easy-to-understand language while maintaining the meaning of the message.

However we place very strong emphasis that the translations are not the Qur'an and at best simply a mere attempt to approximate the Qur'an, until a person is capable of reading it in the original Arabic. No translation contains the full meaning.

A person has not read the Qur'an until they have read it in Arabic, as only the original Arabic is the Qur'an.

format_quote Originally Posted by

All birds in the Bible, unless mention otherwise (such as a white Dove), are viewed as evil.

That's interesting. What's the authority for that assumption?

^where did you find that? Obviously from an anti-Islamic website.

I can tell you for a fact i agree with what the brother above you said (YM Usrah Umar).

format_quote Originally Posted by YM Usrah Umar

ok back to the head covering....in my opinion ALL women...yes ALL women do feel threatened when someone looks at them at a degrading lustful way at times....so how do you counter this and if a women would like to go out knowing that she is secure about herself etc...then head covering will be the solution

It was narrated from ‘Urwah that ‘Aa’ishah said: The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) used to pray Fajr and the believing women would attend (the prayer) with him, wrapped in their aprons, then they would go back to their houses and no one would recognize them.

Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 365; Muslim, 645.

This hadeeth talks about during the time of the Prophet Muhammad (saw), those women werent recognised meaning from their faces.

This is a really long discussion.

You do know that there are arab speaking muslim women, who wear the Hijaab in accordance of the Qur'aan. Im speaking about those who actually studied the Qur'aan in its original form, they have better knowledge than you and me, and those who studied the Qur'aan and sunnah in every way, such as scholars. Are you trying to say these arabs who studied the language of Qur'aan are failures, dont know anything?

If there isnt anything referring to Hijaab as in the full covering, then why are muslim women today covering themselves from head to toe? Because they want to look more attractive to anyone whos not related to? what form of modesty do you see missing in then wearing the Hijaab? Do you see anything wrong with a wife covering infront of everyone besides her husband? Is this shameless?

I would suggest to you, when the words are clearly infront of you, why are you then interpretating them to something they are not, or denying them to fit them according to your desires? why are making up lies?

How much more clear does it need to be, read this insha'Allaah, these are also words of the Qur'aan.

“And tell the believing women to lower their gaze (from looking at forbidden things), and protect their private parts (from illegal sexual acts) and not to show off their adornment except only that which is apparent (like both eyes for necessity to see the way, or outer palms of hands or one eye or dress like veil, gloves, headcover, apron), and to draw their veils all over Juyoobihinna (i.e. their bodies, faces, necks and bosoms) and not to reveal their adornment except to their husbands, or their fathers, or their husband’s fathers, or their sons, or their husband’s sons, or their brothers or their brother’s sons, or their sister’s sons, or their (Muslim) women (i.e. their sisters in Islam), or the (female) slaves whom their right hands possess, or old male servants who lack vigour, or small children who have no sense of feminine sex. And let them not stamp their feet so as to reveal what they hide of their adornment. And all of you beg Allaah to forgive you all, O believers, that you may be successful”

[al-Noor 24:31]

As muslims it is our duty to tell the truth, the posters who told the OP why muslim women wear Hijaab, they speak from Islaam not from their whims and desires, not something they made up. Then why are you trying to twist things up?

Subhaan'Allaah

SubhanAllah. ^ "Thinker" Please educate yourself in Islam and then come and make such statements!

format_quote Originally Posted by Thinker

There is nothing in the Qur’an that dictates that women should cover their heads. The verses used to justify covering head hair refer to modesty, specifically to covering the breats as in the 6th century it was not uncommon for women to wear their breast exposed (as some African women do today). How and why covering breast stretched to to covering head hair is the question!

The hijab as you see it today was most definitely not worn by women in 6th century Arabia. The word ‘hijab’ appears in the Qu’ran seven times, five as the word ‘hijab’ and twice as the word ‘hijaban,’ - see verses 7:46, 33:53, 38:32, 41:5, 42:51, 17:45 & 19:17. None of these references to hijab are used in reference to what we know today as a hijab. The word hijab as it appears in the Qur'an has nothing to do with the Muslim women’s' dress code.

If you want to search through Qur’an, hadith etc for evidence of what should be covered by a woman you will find no distinct reference to covering the head only references to modesty and beauty and in searching through for what 6th century Arabs defined a woman’s beauty it is her eyes. Hence there is a more plausible argument for wearing the burka than the hijab. There is Islamic text commanding that Muslims appear differently than non-Muslims. There is plausible argument that leaders of Islam command that the hijab be worn for the same reasons that men are commanded to wear the first long beard – to identify them as Muslims.

Again we see incorrect information attributed to Islam from someone who knows not how to "think" but gets all of his information from anti-Islamic websites. There is no place in this forum for such a person who even after given many warnings and in my last post gave a friendly warning yet he decided to continue his hate campaign against Islam and Muslims.

The obligation of hijab is evident when we examine the grammatical structure of this verse.

The verse reads:

وَقُل لِّلْمُؤْمِنَاتِ يَغْضُضْنَ مِنْ أَبْصَارِهِنَّ
وَيَحْفَظْنَ فُرُوجَهُنَّ
وَلاَ يُبْدِينَ زِينَتَهُنَّ إِلاَّ مَا ظَهَرَ مِنْهَا
وَلْيَضْرِبْنَ بِخُمُرِهِنَّ عَلَى جُيُوبِهِنَّ

The translation:

"And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what (must ordinarily) appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms..." [Abdullah Yusuf Ali]

The style of the language employed in the verse is very important. Allah Most High begins with the imperative form of the verb "qalla," which means to say or tell. Thus, Allah Most High is commanding the Prophet, peace be upon him, to tell the believing women to take a series of steps:

1. To guard their gaze, which is an important factor in modest interaction;

2. To guard their chastity or sexuality;

3. To conceal their adornment and natural beauty, which scholars have interpreted to mean the whole body, (there is a difference of opinion whether the face should be covered or not), hands, and (for Hanafis) the feet.

4. And, finally, to emphasize the above point, Allah Ta'ala uses the phrase, "wa-lyadhribna bikhumurihinna ala juyubihinna." The verb "yadhribna" which means "to draw or pull over" appears as a feminine plural, thus going back to the original subject of the verse, the believing women. Most importantly, it starts off with the letter "lam," which is called "lam al-amr." Lam al-amr, when prefixed to a present tense verb, such as "yadhribna," makes the verb an imperative, that is, a command. It is not understood as a recommendation, but a specific command directly from Allah Most High to His slaves among the believing women.

Lam al-amr is used in other imperative contexts in the Qur'an. For example, Allah Ta'ala says, "Let the man of means spend according to his means: and the man whose resources are restricted, let him spend according to what God has given him..." [Al-Talaq, 65:7]

The Arabic reads:

لِيُنفِقْ ذُو سَعَةٍ مِّن سَعَتِهِ
وَمَن قُدِرَ عَلَيْهِ رِزْقُهُ فَلْيُنفِقْ مِمَّآ ءَاتَاهُ اللَّهُ لاَ يُكَلِّفُ اللَّهُ نَفْساً إِلاَّ مَآ ءَاتَاهَا

Here, Allah Most High is commanding men to spend according to their means in the context of child support for divorced wives.

This is understood to be a command, not a recommendation, since men are required to support their children. The lam of command, or lam al-amr, once again appears prefixed to the present verb, "yunfiq," meaning "to spend." [Qatr al-Nada, Dar al-Asmaa, 96]

To return to the verse in question, the phrase "wa-lyadhribna bikhumurihinna ala juyubihinna," is a command for women to draw their veils over their bosoms. Allah Most High did not say, "And tell the believing women to put on their veils," because implicit in the verse is the understanding that women were already expected to veil. However, unlike the practice at the time of leaving the scarf hanging down the back with the neck and cleavage exposed, Muslim women were to take it one step further and draw the "khimar" or veil over the neck and cleavage area. Those who argue that the Qur'an says nothing about veiling are completely misreading this verse. Not only does the Qur'anic text make it clear that women are expected to veil, it also dictates the extent of the veiling, i.e., covering the neck and cleavage.

This point is elucidated by reports from Aisha, may Allah be pleased with her, and other women of the Sahaba, who immediately implemented this verse by tearing up pieces of cloth and covering their hair and bodies. Al-Bukhari recorded that Aisha, may Allah be pleased with her, said: "May Allah have mercy on the women of the early emigrants. When Allah revealed the verse:[وَلْيَضْرِبْنَ بِخُمُرِهِنَّ عَلَى جُيُوبِهِنَّ]

(and to draw their veils over their bosoms), they tore their aprons and veiled themselves [made khimars] with them.'' [Tafsir Ibn Kathir]

The actions of the Sahaba, may Allah be pleased with them all, did not indicate that hijab was optional. I find it interesting that hijab was not legislated in stages, as opposed to the ban on intoxicants. When the verses in Surat al-Nur were revealed, the female Sahaba immediately covered themselves. Would that we had a fraction of their iman!

And Allah knows best in all matters

Source: http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.a...D=5849&CATE=89