Powered by UITechs
Get password? Username Password
 
 
<< Previous Page
1 2 3 4
Next page >>
Page 3 of 4

  Reply to Topic    Printer Friendly 

AuthorTopic
Razi Allah

PAKISTAN
Posted - Thursday, April 08, 2004  -  10:58 AM Reply with quote
quote:

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


Would you tell me your opinion on slavery in Islam. Do you believe slavery is prohibited or is it just "inappropriate" to keep slaves? Please answer from the Quranic perspective strictly.
Also do you believe a man can marry a women and her mother's sister and keep them both as their wives at the same time? If you think it is prohibited, please show me where is it "mentioned in words" in the Quran?

I don't want to derail the dialogue but i guess a simple point is not being appreciated and i want to see how the logic being presented works in other cases.

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.


This is what you had written in some of your previous posts:
But it has not used the word Khimar there. Instead, it has independantly used Thuab (24:60). Had the original concern of Shari'ah been 'Khimar', something with which Arab women cover their heads, it should have used this word instead of Thaub. This means that the concern of the Shari'ah was to cover the bosoms with whatever means it is attained.

The verse 24:60 exempts the old ladies, who are beyond marriage age, from the directive of covering their bosoms though it is still desirable for them to do so. Here a general word, Thaub (cloth, garment), has been used instead of Khimar. Thaub does not have the connotation of head covering, I think you would agree. This shows that the original concern of the Shariah is not Khimar but the directive given about covering of the bosoms.

I was responding to this point and i think i have made my point clearly. Yes i did say that usage of "Khimar" attests to my argument's validity which you tried to overturn with circular logic, insisting on "Thaub".
I didn't say that usage of a word is "merely" a divine prerogative. It is not "merely" that but definitely that too. You are making my words sound like i give no importance to words. That i never said neither has it ever been my intent. But surely i am not here to second-guess God.

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.


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?

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.


I don't think head-covering was "not an issue at that time" as you would like to believe. Important or not is a discussion that is a minefield. Importance of things could justifiably change with time unless of course you refuse to change with time. Divine decree, however, is a different matter altogether.

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?


There is innate guidance given to man which is reinforced by revealed guidance. Man has always known what is to be eaten and what is not. Even today no one eats elephants, lions, tigers etc. If today some cultures have adopted certain creatures as their culinary delights, that is a deviation from the innate guidance. There could be differences of opinion and deviations in that respect just as there is in the understanding and application of revealed guidance. Comparing this concept with the idea of head-covering is like comparing apples and oranges. If you want to now argue that head-covering is an innate guidance, then i can only marvel at this idea. If it is not part of either of the two categories, then the importance of head-covering stands on a flimsy ground. This is what i have implied and not that to me head-covering has no importance, which anyway makes no difference.

quote:

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


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. I never negated that Muslim scholars have derived head-covering from the Quran; rather i implied quite the opposite. It's upto you to give whatever meaning to my words. Here is what the doyens of Classical Islamic tradition have to say on this issue:

Our scholars say that this [exemption] denotes the woman's face and hands. (Abu Bakr Jassas)

Since the normal case is that a woman’s face and hands are revealed by the force of habit and for worship, as this is required in salat and hajj, then it is appropriate to say that the exemption [in 24:31] applies to these. (Imam Qurtubi)

Since the showing of the face and hands is necessary, the jurists had no choice but to agree that they are not awra. (Imam Fakhr ad-Din Razi)

[I prefer this opinion] because necessity demands that the face should be uncovered for buying and selling, and the hands should be uncovered for giving and taking. (Imam Ahmad ibn Qudama)

The part of the woman's body which has to be concealed is the whole of it except her face and her hands. (Imam ibn Hazm)

The strongest and most accurate view is that which says that the exemption [in 24:31] refers to the face and the hands up to the wrist. (Imam Abu Jafar Tabari)

Why is the woman permitted to display 'what is apparent of it'? Because to conceal that would cause her inconvenience. A woman is forced to deal in commodities with her hands. She is compelled by genuine need to expose her face especially at the times of giving evidence, litigating in court, and marriage. She is compelled to walk the streets and expose her feet, especially poor women. This is the meaning of 'illa maa zahara min ha', that is, what the situations of ordinary life compel her to expose. (Zamakhshari)

Women's clothing must cover at least the entire body excepting the hands and face. (Imam Nawawi)

As for the third issue - that is, the extent to which a woman should cover herself - is concerned, most of the scholars are of the opinion that her whole body, except her face and hands, should be covered. (Ibn Rushd )

The consensus of the Muslims is that all of a woman [is awra] except her face and hands, but some disagree about these two. (Imam Qurtubi)

It is because of this opinion of the large majority that they don't even bother getting into whether the next part of the verse implies only covering of the chest using a head-cover or promulgates both. And this is what i meant when i said Muslims have been deriving head-covering from the Quran throughout history and not taking it merely as a part of their civilization.

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?


I could not understand this question, please elaborate.

quote:

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


Well not always. I think it works both ways. Simply saying what you said is unfairly restricting and downplaying the importance of Hadith. If there is a difference of opinion in reaching a conclusion about a verse, hadith will surely aid us in arriving at the right opinion. You would have used the hadith had it gone in favour of your opinion. Why do you use occassion of revelation to reach a conclusion? Why for instance would you use history to give a verdict on 33:59 as being related to some incidents? I think you should completely divorce yourself from Islamic history and Hadith and form opinions on Quranic verses unconstarined by "outside" influences and let's see how you fare.
Jhangeer Hanif

PAKISTAN
Posted - Thursday, April 08, 2004  -  6:21 PM Reply with quote

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

Jhangeer Hanif

PAKISTAN
Posted - Thursday, April 08, 2004  -  6:25 PM Reply with quote

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.

Razi Allah

PAKISTAN
Posted - Thursday, April 08, 2004  -  8:35 PM Reply with 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
Jhangeer Hanif

PAKISTAN
Posted - Friday, April 09, 2004  -  4:33 AM Reply with quote
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.

gohar

PAKISTAN
Posted - Friday, April 09, 2004  -  7:32 PM Reply with quote
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


I do believe n I came to kno when i read the Quran that it is for ery one, n ery kind of person,,,whoever wants to know it....
It has meanings for ery level of reader,,,as i have read it in different levels of my life n knowledge,,,,n it appears to man's concience. Although it has knowledge for ery intellect n u can dig deep as much as u can.

the point i want to make is that ,,,I do appreciate the above logical analysis of certain intellects,,,
but one thing missing in this whole conversation is "the actual perception "of the ayath,,,"that y n wat reasons r discussed in thats ayah for the implementation of hijab."

If we r unable to reach any conclusion abt the practical implementation of hijab thru this sm "logical scientific numeric analysis of words n phrases" y r we forgetting the real essence of the the concept,,,,which is "the modesty",,,

now if we ask our selves; ery woman n man,,,that how we can achieve modesty, n wat r those actions, gestures, displays of body parts, n gazes , n flirts ,,,,we may know that how we r going to achieve modesty..

Although i fully understand that Quran needs to b properly interpreted to get the real meaning,,but this interpretation shud not only b in the sense of syntax analysis...i mean u cant just get the meaning out of syntax analysis....
wat abt the concepts???

in the ayah described,,,as u analyse "khimr" isnt there a chance that viel was just described as it was used,,,,so if quran was reavealed to pathaans,,so the "shuttlecok, or burqa" wud b used..

or if the it was revealed in sm areas of pakistan,,than it wud have been called "dupatta",,,so does that wud have been meant,,that we r not supposed to cover heads but only cheast n with only a small n thin dupatta or chunri....

Cant we just go for those things which r clearly identified, instead of involving in the ambigous ones....and i think to purify n develop our souls we need to know the concepts wat the quran wants to teach us...

In this ayath,,,it teaches us the "modesty n keeping away sexual temptations",,,the rest r the ways to achieve them...

now can we work on that how modesty is good for us?
wat changes does it bring us in our personality?
how it benifitts us as a society?
how can we achieve it in the present situations of our practical life?
Razi Allah

PAKISTAN
Posted - Friday, April 09, 2004  -  8:07 PM Reply with 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. We have discussed alot better than we would have verbally although problems have arisen. As for meeting with Javed Sahib, i think it suffices for me to listen to his views on this issue on Cd. 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. My opinion is that he has made an egregious error of understanding in this case and i concur with the opinion of his esteemed teacher Amin Ahsan Islahi on the obligation of head-covering. This discussion has only strengthened my view for it has enabled me to see subtleties i had hitherto overlooked.
I could have responded to your post but i didn't see this discussion going anywhere. Anyway, i appreciate your time, effort and sincerity.
Jhangeer Hanif

PAKISTAN
Posted - Saturday, April 10, 2004  -  5:23 AM Reply with quote
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.
.

I agree to this. However, there are problems in written discussion as well. It is more prone to digression and many a time, one is hardly able to construe what the writer must have intended. Kalaam has the quality of being understood as it is whereas text is more likely to be misinterpreted. You also have the choice to write Javed Sahib; If you want to discuss with him on this issue, while addressing him, you can simply write down all your arguments and thereafter post him. I am sure you will get a response.

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.


Why to fear knowledge in search of 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.


You can respond to my post any time you like. I too appreciate your time and effort. I have addressed multi-pronged questions in this discussion, which have augmented my insight though I am fully aware of my weaknesses in areas of Islamic Disciplines.
salman

PAKISTAN
Posted - Sunday, April 11, 2004  -  4:51 AM Reply with quote
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.

Jhangeer Hanif

PAKISTAN
Posted - Monday, April 12, 2004  -  4:37 AM Reply with quote

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?

Jhangeer Hanif

PAKISTAN
Posted - Tuesday, April 13, 2004  -  3:44 AM Reply with quote

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.

salman

PAKISTAN
Posted - Tuesday, April 13, 2004  -  8:27 AM Reply with quote
I think tht Islam discourages girl/boy friendship because even a modest relationship can lead to very dangerous results. As in electronic media, we see recreational programs which exhibits a society which is based upon romanticism and romantic verbal relationship b/w opposite sexes. Some go as far to represent the actul pre-marital physical relationship b/w opposite sexes. Therefore i think recreational programs are a necessity of soul, but one must avoid nudity, representation of physical contact b/w opposite sexes. This way i think we can get recreation and as well as avoid the anger of God upon us.
StudyingIslamUK

UNITED KINGDOM
Posted - Thursday, September 09, 2004  -  12:56 PM Reply with quote
assalamualaykum wrt

ps Gender Interaction
http://www.studying-islam.org/forum/topic.aspx?topicid=863&pg=2&lang=&forumid=32

personally i started covering head after i went for umrah and when i spoke to the arab ladies there they explained that because a woman's hair adds to her beauty enormously, therefore its reasonable to cover them as a norm of modesty whether it is ordered by Qura'n or the prophet sws or not. its rather a part of common sense however we do understand that it is not something which if not practiced would make you liable for punishment may Allah guide us to the way of His Paradise amenNajeeba

Berks studying Islam circle UK

Edited by: StudyingIslamUK on Friday, September 10, 2004 10:04 AM
Faiza Arif

PAKISTAN
Posted - Friday, September 10, 2004  -  1:58 PM Reply with quote
Assalaam-u-Alaikum,
I read the arguements both of you gave in support to your views. Brothers i just want to know whether the words "khumur" means'a cloth specifically used to cover head' and "Thaub" means'cloth wrap around body" written simultaneously were used because these directives are to be followed in every era, therefore using two different words in the same context gives us 'the humans' a provision and the needful space to accomodate ourselves according to the continual changing social set up. With my limited knowledge i have gathered that the prime importance has been given to the covering of the bosom,thats why directive in this regard is very explicit, while head covering probably doesnt stand high in importance therefore its directive is implicit.As it says "Aur Hum nay deen ko muqammal kar diya" meaning that The Laws laid, are and will accomodate all the eras till The End of Time. And as to crop up mass disputatiousness over the changing social needs regarding head covering it is left undefined, or better left on one's personal choice. I will really appreciate if i get proper guidance from the respected scholars about my perception regarding hijab.
Regards.
Jhangeer Hanif

PAKISTAN
Posted - Friday, September 10, 2004  -  3:35 PM Reply with quote

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.

amnew

INDIA
Posted - Wednesday, April 20, 2005  -  11:36 AM Reply with quote
Could you please explain why the word "Zeenat" in the verse 24:27-31 be construed as "Ornaments" and why not "beauty as well as ornaments"?.

Thanks.

Reply to Topic    Printer Friendly
Jump To:

<< Previous Page
1 2 3 4
Next page >>
Page 3 of 4


Share |


Copyright Studying-Islam © 2003-7  | Privacy Policy  | Code of Conduct  | An Affiliate of Al-Mawrid Institute of Islamic Sciences ®
Top    





eXTReMe Tracker