hijaab east and west

[NahidSarvy]

thats not your choice It is not fitting for a Believer, man or woman, when a matter has been decided by Allah and His Messenger to have any option about their decision: if any one disobeys Allah and His Messenger, he is indeed on a clearly wrong Path. 33:36

Have you read my comments? I don't advocate denying God's will; I think that interpretations have been skewed and that what is claimed to be God's will does not match what is stated in the Qur'ân.

I see much gynephobia and misogyny in the Umma, which does not match the Prophet's actions and respect for women and the explicit notion that men and women are equal or that God created a human being, not a man from whence a rib was taken to make an inferior sex.

Your argument is therefore misguided, because I'm not claiming we can ignore God's commandments. I'm saying that God's commandments aren't what they are popularly understood to be.

 

[*noor]

Have you read my comments? I don't advocate denying God's will; I think that interpretations have been skewed and that what is claimed to be God's will does not match what is stated in the Qur'ân.

I see much gynephobia and misogyny in the Umma, which does not match the Prophet's actions and respect for women and the explicit notion that men and women are equal or that God created a human being, not a man from whence a rib was taken to make an inferior sex.

Your argument is therefore misguided, because I'm not claiming we can ignore God's commandments. I'm saying that God's commandments aren't what they are popularly understood to be.

Islam clearly states that women cover their bodies except for the face and the hands
Islamc clearly states that men cover from their navel to their knees.
Its clear and we can't say that its not.
Id rather one of my sisters to tell me that she is not strong enough to wear hijab than to tell me its not mandatory.

 

[NahidSarvy]

Islam clearly states that women cover their bodies except for the face and the hands
Islamc clearly states that men cover from their navel to their knees.
Its clear and we can't say that its not.
Id rather one of my sisters to tell me that she is not strong enough to wear hijab than to tell me its not mandatory.

Peace, NurOfIslam.

• Unfortunately, your preferences are not my concern.
• Also unfortunately, the Qur'ân does not say women cover their bodies except for one's face and hands.
• Even more unfortunately, it's not at all clear and we can, in fact, say it is not.

You are free to believe what you like, but it doesn't change the fact that people have and do disagree with this issue, both now and in the past.

 

[Umm Yoosuf]

Peace, NurOfIslam.

• Unfortunately, your preferences are not my concern.
• Also unfortunately, the Qur'ân does not say women cover their bodies except for one's face and hands.
• Even more unfortunately, it's not at all clear and we can, in fact, say it is not.

You are free to believe what you like, but it doesn't change the fact that people have and do disagree with this issue, both now and in the past.

Allah in the Quran does indeed command the women to dress in a certain way. I don't think i need to quote you the Ayaah's of the Hijab. What is IMPARATIVE though, is how we should understand the Qur'an. And how is that? Well, we should understand the Qur'an according to how the Prophet (saw) and his sahaba understood.

Read the Tafsir (explanation of the Qur'an) of the Ayaah's which talk about the Hijab:

http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=24&tid=35857

http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=33&tid=42166

 

[NJUSA]

I've read the Tafsir of Ibn Kathir, and when you remove the personal opinions, what you get is a Qur'anic injuction for women to cover their torsos, roughly the area from the clavicle down. It's the extraQur'anic sources, i.e. the opinions of the various scholars who have put their two cents in, that you get the opinion that women are required to cover more than that. None of us is bound to the opinion of any scholar. Keep in mind that while we may seek to follow the Divine Will by consulting scholars, their opinions are not in fact the Divine Will, and can be laid aside if their opinions are not suitable.

 

[Sunflower]

Assalamu Alaykum

this maybe completely of the point but i was tlkin 2 a friend of mine about the scarf and she told me that because she is a ****e she believes that covering your feet is more imporatnat than ur hands... i tried to point out to her that covering ur hands is not a fardh but she wasnt listening... is this tru nwyz that covering ur feet is important and that it is a must to be covered coz i really didnt no if it was!

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

NahidSarvy,
Could I get a response to this post:
http://www.islamicboard.com/270137-post53.html
And to the evidence I gave concerning the obligation of hijab in this post:
http://www.islamicboard.com/268610-post42.html
It doesn't make sense to ignore evidence provided by someone and then claim that there is no evidence, does it?

NJUSA,
Could I get a response to this post:
http://www.islamicboard.com/271987-post57.html
And some of the points you left unanswered from this post:
http://www.islamicboard.com/270161-post54.html

 

[NahidSarvy]

First, let me quote Keller who specifically refutes the view of those who claim that the structure of the verse does not mandate the Khimar:

You prefer Keller. I do not. I like Wadud and Barlas.

I do not agree with Keller's understanding. In fact, he says exactly what I did: that the khumur was what people wore, men and women, as a headcovering - but the conclusions are all backwards.

The Islamic revelation confirmed the practice of covering the head, understood from the use of the word khimar in the verse, but also explained that the custom of the time was not sufficient and that women were henceforth to tie the headcover in front and let it drape down to conceal the throat and the dress’s opening at the top.

This is why Muslim women cover their heads: because the Qur’an unambiguously orders them to, and there is no qualifying text or hadith or even other lexical possibility to show that the Qur’anic order might mean anything besides obligation.

Again I say, it says, "take that piece of clothing you wear every day and cover your breasts with it." Otherwise, wouldn't God have specified that men must cover their heads? There's no parity or sense to the text if we insist that the mention of the khimar means that every woman everywhere must wear a specific piece of clothing.

And Keller insists that the hak-kiffot of the Jews are a "sign" of their faith, not a requirement, but that is wrong as well. A Jewish man - and a modern Jewish women - wears hak-Kuffa because the Torah tells him or her to to respect God.

Your claim the khimar is not mandatory does not make sense in light of the verse. The verse says draw the khimar of the jayb, which, as explained above, forms the proper headcovering. If you don't have a khimar or headcovering, then you are not fulfilling the verse. The verse does not say to simply cover the bosom, it says to draw the khimar over the juyub.

We are going in circles. I sum up my position: it says juyub, I cover juyub. Khimar is just the clothing they wore at the time. It is the breasts, not the hair, that is a problem.

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

You prefer Keller. I do not. I like Wadud and Barlas.

I examine the argument itself, not who is providing it.

I do not agree with Keller's understanding. In fact, he says exactly what I did: that the khumur was what people wore, men and women, as a headcovering - but the conclusions are all backwards.Again I say, it says, "take that piece of clothing you wear every day and cover your breasts with it."

The verse commands all Muslim women to wrap a khimar in front of them, which forms the headscarf. This is how the women did it; all the narrations show that they understood this commands to include the covering of the hair as no one simply took the cloth off and wrapped it just around the body leaving the hair exposed.

Otherwise, wouldn't God have specified that men must cover their heads?

Sorry I'm not following you here.

There's no parity or sense to the text if we insist that the mention of the khimar means that every woman everywhere must wear a specific piece of clothing.

What they must do is take a headcloth and wrap it around in front of them, the end result being the hijab.

We are going in circles. I sum up my position: it says juyub, I cover juyub. Khimar is just the clothing they wore at the time. It is the breasts, not the hair, that is a problem.

from my previous post:

The verse says draw the khimar of the jayb, which, as explained above, forms the proper headcovering. If you don't have a khimar or headcovering, then you are not fulfilling the verse. The verse does not say to simply cover the bosom, it says to draw the khimar over the juyub.​

If the verse simply said cover the juyub, then your view might be justified, but it doesn't; it says draw the khimar over the juyub, which forms the headcovering.

And you ignored the other evidence I posted:

First we have the explicit directive from the Prophet Muhammad pbuh, narrated in Sunan Abi Dawûd, where he said O Asma’! When a girl reaches the menstrual age, it is not proper that anything should remain exposed except this and this. He pointed to the face and hands.. If the Prophet Muhammad pbuh stated this, should I not accept the Prophet's ruling? The Qur'an says:

4:65 But no, by your Lord (O Muhammad), they have no Faith, until they make thee judge in all disputes between them, and find in their souls no resistance against thy decisions, but accept them with the fullest conviction.

Moreover, we find explicit statements from the companions which confirm their understanding of the verse. Abdullah ibn Abbas, Anas ibn Malik, Abdullah ibn Umar, Miswar ibn Makhrama, all explained the meaning of the verse as mandating the covering of the entire body, 'except that which is apparent', meaning the face and the hands. In fact, Aisha ibn Abi Bakr, the wife of the Prophet Muhammad pbuh said that when the Muslim women recieved this verse they covered themselves, appearing like crows were perched on their heads because of the head covering. Aisha also explained that the covering women were mandated was "nothing short of what covers both the hair and skin."

 

[NJUSA]

Ansar, an abridged bibliography:
Barlas, Asma. Believing Women in Islam: Unreading Patriarchal Interpretations of the Qur'an. University of Texas Press, 2002.
Wadud-Muhsin, Amina. Qur'an and Woman: Rereading the Sacred Text from a Woman's Perspective. Oxford University Press,1999
Mernissi, Fatima. The Veil and the Male Elite. A Feminist Interpretation of Women's Rights in Islam. Perseus Books Group(Reprint),1992
Ahmed, Leila. Women and Gender in Islam : Historical Roots of a Modern Debate Yale University Press (Reissue) 1993
Abou el Fadl, Khaled. Speaking in God’s Name: Islamic Law, Authority, and Women. Oxford: Oneworld Publications, 2001

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

NJUSA,
Could I get a response to this post:
http://www.islamicboard.com/271987-post57.html
And some of the points you left unanswered from this post:
http://www.islamicboard.com/270161-post54.html

Ansar, an abridged bibliography:
Barlas, Asma. Believing Women in Islam: Unreading Patriarchal Interpretations of the Qur'an. University of Texas Press, 2002.
Wadud-Muhsin, Amina. Qur'an and Woman: Rereading the Sacred Text from a Woman's Perspective. Oxford University Press,1999
Mernissi, Fatima. The Veil and the Male Elite. A Feminist Interpretation of Women's Rights in Islam. Perseus Books Group(Reprint),1992
Ahmed, Leila. Women and Gender in Islam : Historical Roots of a Modern Debate Yale University Press (Reissue) 1993
Abou el Fadl, Khaled. Speaking in God’s Name: Islamic Law, Authority, and Women. Oxford: Oneworld Publications, 2001

Sister NJUSA,
Instead of providing a response to the posts containing my arguments as I requested, you've simply posted a list of secularist references. What do you feel that accomplishes? How does swapping bibliographies contribute to the discussion? Is this your only response or can I expect a response to my arguments?

 

[Muslimaatan]

Alhamdulilah i wear hijab, and i got used to the jilbab cuz itz my school uniform, so Alhamdulilah
n btw..some sis said it looks weird wearin jeans n top n a hijab?? don feel like quotin that..im 2 tired..but ITZ NOT WEIRD!! u can wear jeans with a long nice shirt..but remember "long!" it will look very nice..i used 2 alwayz wear that..but by time i sticked to the jilbab..Alhamdulilah!

 

[dishdash]

my mum used the same excuse on ma beard.

NO DONT GROW IT, THEY'LL DEPORT YOU. lol but im like.... well all the better the reward ;D.

PS: Its more fard in a kuffar country coz more digusting people. Man they will stare at just your face if thats all thats showing, SIKNESS!!!!

You CLEARLY haven't spent any time in a Moslem country have you... Trust me, there are plenty of disgusting people whereever you go in the world.

ANd what does 'more fard' mean? Have you developed a new status my scholarly friend?

 

[dishdash]

I examine the argument itself, not who is providing it.

The verse commands all Muslim women to wrap a khimar in front of them, which forms the headscarf. This is how the women did it; all the narrations show that they understood this commands to include the covering of the hair as no one simply took the cloth off and wrapped it just around the body leaving the hair exposed.

Sorry I'm not following you here.

What they must do is take a headcloth and wrap it around in front of them, the end result being the hijab.

from my previous post:

The verse says draw the khimar of the jayb, which, as explained above, forms the proper headcovering. If you don't have a khimar or headcovering, then you are not fulfilling the verse. The verse does not say to simply cover the bosom, it says to draw the khimar over the juyub.​

If the verse simply said cover the juyub, then your view might be justified, but it doesn't; it says draw the khimar over the juyub, which forms the headcovering.

And you ignored the other evidence I posted:

JazakAllah for that bro. Nahid, this is all good and valid what the brother is telling you right here.

Quite simply, do not take those ayas in isolation, rather in conjunction with the many evidences in the sunna. They complement one another.

 

[NahidSarvy]

Instead of providing a response to the posts containing my arguments as I requested, you've simply posted a list of secularist references. What do you feel that accomplishes? How does swapping bibliographies contribute to the discussion? Is this your only response or can I expect a response to my arguments?

Peace, Ansar al-'Adl

I am not NJUSA, but I have to say something: those are not "secularists". They are faithful, scholarly Muslims talking about religious issues, not about secular society or advocating leaving the faith.

 

[Nafiisah]

hijaab is the best protection to conserve haaya(modesty)
Wassalaamou'alaikum

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Sister NahidSarvy,

I am not NJUSA, but I have to say something: those are not "secularists".

'Secularist', according to the oxford american english dictionary, denotes someone who advances attitudes, activities or ideas that have no religious basis. I can think of no better term for such people.

They are faithful, scholarly Muslims

Whether they have faith or not, is not my concern. However, I am baffled by your comment that they are 'scholarly'. What defines a scholar in your books? If someone picks up a Qur'an translation and a few books on Islam do they suddenly qualify as a scholar? No, not at all.

Btw, I'm still awaiting your response to my previous posts to you.

 

[NJUSA]

Well, if you feel that the Qur'an, ahdith, and other sources of fiqh have nothing to do with religion, and those who study them are dealing in secular subjects, that's up to you. If you feel that decades of study in fiqh and its applications and acquiring advanced degrees in those areas does not qualify one to be deemed a scholar, that is your choice. However, do know that your views are unusual. I gave you an abridged biography as it would take up large amounts of space (not to mention violate copyright laws) to post the relevant pages.

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Well, if you feel that the Qur'an, ahdith, and other sources of fiqh have nothing to do with religion, and those who study them are dealing in secular subjects, that's up to you.

The Qur'an and Ahadith are sources of Shari'ah. Fiqh is the interpretation and application of the shari'ah. I never said that they had nothing to do with religion, those are your words not mine.

If you feel that decades of study in fiqh and its applications and acquiring advanced degrees in those areas does not qualify one to be deemed a scholar, that is your choice.

I'm interested to know what qualifies as 'studying in fiqh' according to you. And what are these ambiguous 'advanced degrees' ? Please tell me which scholars they have studied under, which branches of Shari'ah they have studied, what kind of ijaazah they hold, which books of Ahadith they have memorized, and so on.

However, do know that your views are unusual.

Since it is not my views which contradict the unanimous consensus of Muslim scholars for 14 centuries, please forgive me if I remain skeptical of that assertion.

I gave you an abridged biography as it would take up large amounts of space (not to mention violate copyright laws) to post the relevant pages.

Then you are not capable of articulating the arguments yourself?

 

[NJUSA]

You deemed the authors in my bibliography to be secularists, when they are Islamic scholars, which means that you may deem what their area of expertise not to be religious studies. I'll get bios for the authors and post them, although I don't have access to everyone's CV. And only someone with an extremely narrow view of Islamic intellectual traditions could ever say that there has been a "unanimous consensus of Muslim scholars for 14 centuries" on anything beyond the absolute essentials, e.g. the Qur'an as Divine Discourse. I haven't written a position on veiling, so I can't post one.