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

  Reply to Topic    Printer Friendly 

AuthorTopic
Jhangeer Hanif

PAKISTAN
Topic initiated on Tuesday, April 13, 2004  -  11:43 AM Reply with quote
Hijab: Continued...


There seems to be some problem with the original thread on Hijab as it does not allow posts more than the three pages. This problem has been notified to the admn department and hopefully will be fixed soon. Please post your questions/comments regarding this thread here.

I have been sent a question via email because of the problem mentioned above. Lets see what you people have to say about this:

AA,

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.

Jhangeer Hanif

PAKISTAN
Posted - Thursday, April 15, 2004  -  3:04 PM Reply with quote
quote:

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.




What Ghamidi Sahib has written in his Kanoon-e-Mua'asharat (The Social Law of Islam) is mostly based on an approach of positive presentation, that is, without pointing out each and every error in the viewpoints of others. He though has explained his stance in detail by comparing it with others' in the lectures he delivered on this topic. I have reason to believe that these lectures must have been recorded and available. You may write to Mr Sami Mufti for details thereof: sami_mufti@hotmail.com

About me and Razi meeting Javed Sahib, I think it depends on him and not me. In his previous post he has said that he will not.

quote:

Also, I have two questions.

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





This is what the whole discussion was all about. I'd suggest that you please go through the thread and find out what is right and what wrong. I hope that the hotchpotch nature of the FORM does not prevent you to construe the SUBSTANCE. What we have discussed is whether Muslim ladies in general are required to cover their heads, which in turn will affect the standing your questions in particular. Razi says: Yes they are. I say they are not obligated to cover their heads yet it is desirable since this practice complies with their innate concept of Haya (modesty). We need to appreciate that the directives of the Shari'ah are not beyond the realm of one's innate guidance. Shari'ah has given the status of Law to the decrees which otherwise are testified to by our ituition and common sense. In other words, divine interference has raised the decrees of our innate guidance and common sense to the level of legal injunctions. Therefore morality still remains the building block of our religious disposition. What is not included in divine decrees is not sufficient evidence that it falls short of the purview of morality.


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

What do you imply by Satar? If you mean whether woman should cover their heads while in interation with men, then this has already responded been to.

Tariq Hashmi

PAKISTAN
Posted - Friday, April 16, 2004  -  12:14 PM Reply with quote
salams

As a term of islamic Fiqh the word Satar (arabic Aurah) connotes parts of the body that you are not supposed to reveal even before parents and children etc. However, women can reveal their aurah before other women of acquaintance when necessary. This exceptoin can be extended to men for example a doctor may examine her patient.

On the basis of the above explanation we can say that head does not include in the Aurah of women.

Junaidj

CANADA
Posted - Friday, April 16, 2004  -  3:26 PM Reply with quote
For a woman the head is not included in the awrah (Tariq Hashmi). Also, when alone a woman can pray without the head cover (Shehzad Saleem). By extension of this logic, a group of women can pray without head covering (in absence of men so far). This much has been established.

Further question (for extension purposes): Is a woman required to cover the head during Hajj?

If yes: then even in a holy place in presence of men, the head is supposed to be covered. Should extend for normal interaction as well, when chances of impure intentions are greater.

If No, then generation after generation and across various cultures women have covered their heads while in Hajj. Is it not then like mutawatirah?

Only issue is of obligation:

Just like the five elements of fitrah (phyiscal hygiene) which are an obligation to follow.

Or like Sunnah prayers, though mutawatirah but not obligatory.

Edited by: junaidj on Friday, April 16, 2004 3:30 PM
Jhangeer Hanif

PAKISTAN
Posted - Saturday, April 17, 2004  -  10:07 AM Reply with quote

quote:

For a woman the head is not included in the awrah (Tariq Hashmi). Also, when alone a woman can pray without the head cover (Shehzad Saleem). By extension of this logic, a group of women can pray without head covering (in absence of men so far). This much has been established.



What I feel is that you are generalising the opinions of the two persons quoted above. You better confirm whether Tariq and Shehzad Sahib believe that it falls within the purview of etiquette and manners for women to pray without head covering under normal circumstnaces.


quote:

Further question (for extension purposes): Is a woman required to cover the head during Hajj?


You seem to imply by 'required' obligation. They are not obligated by the Law yet they should cover their heads.

quote:

If No, then generation after generation and across various cultures women have covered their heads while in Hajj. Is it not then like mutawatirah?


Yes. It is a tradition which has perpetuated through generations after generations. But perpetuation does not make everything obligatory. Does it?

Junaidj

CANADA
Posted - Saturday, April 17, 2004  -  12:14 PM Reply with quote
Can we use the words 'should cover their heads' despite absence of obligation?

If women can roam the streets without the head covering (where impure intentions abound in greater probability) technically in absence of obligation, then they most surely can while in prayer (certainly when alone or in presence of other women).

If an act is not obligatory then do you suppose we must have examples like women occasionally praying without head cover, if only to dispel the obligatoriness of the command.

Else we will have made a recommended action into an obligatory action in the garb of ettiquette and manners.

In this regard, I am reminded of the Prophet's decision on not continuing with the Taravih prayer despite it being recommended.

Edited by: junaidj on Saturday, April 17, 2004 2:26 PM
Junaidj

CANADA
Posted - Sunday, April 18, 2004  -  2:18 AM Reply with quote
Shehzad Saleem's response follows my queries/comments:

1) For a woman the head is not included in the awrah (Tariq Hashmi). Also, when alone a woman can pray without the head cover (Shehzad Saleem). By extension of this logic, a group of women can pray without head covering (in absence of men so far). This much has been established.


And if women can roam the streets without the head covering (where impure intentions abound in greater probability) technically in absence of obligation, then they most surely can while in prayer (in presence of men and certainly when alone or in presence of other women).

If an act is not obligatory then we must have examples like women praying without head cover, if only to dispel the obligatoriness of the command.

Else we will have made a recommended action into an obligatory action in the garb of ettiquette and manners.

Response:
1. Since the quran has discussed the hijaab directives in detail, the madatory and the optional must be derived from these verses and not from the general adherence of people to certain mannerisms. hence if the quran has not regarded the hijab of the head as obligatory, adherence to it shall be understood to mean an adherence to customs and conventions.

2) If the head cover is merely recommended and not obligatory, then it is not very different from a beard. So we cannot be more emotional on the head cover than on the beard.

Response:
2. yes indeed.
Jhangeer Hanif

PAKISTAN
Posted - Tuesday, April 20, 2004  -  2:52 PM Reply with quote

quote:

Can we use the words 'should cover their heads' despite absence of obligation?


Yes, we can; if we are clear about the fact that the basis of this act is in the concept of Haya (modesty).


quote:

If women can roam the streets without the head covering (where impure intentions abound in greater probability) technically in absence of obligation, then they most surely can while in prayer (certainly when alone or in presence of other women).


Your question is about 'can'; my response therefore is 'yes'; they can offer the prayer without head covering. It is just like one man asks me whether his obligtory prayer be considered offered without wearing Kameez or Shirts; I will definitely say, yes. But I will also to explain him that it is not the right way to offer the prayer.



If an act is not obligatory then do you suppose we must have examples like women occasionally praying without head cover, if only to dispel the obligatoriness of the command.


It is like asking that it is not obligatory to take medicines when we fall ill. Then, should we not give up medicines for atleast once when we fall terribly ill so as to eradicate the possibility of our action being considered as obligatory. What would you say in this regard?

quote:

In this regard, I am reminded of the Prophet's decision on not continuing with the Taravih prayer despite it being recommended.


First thing to note here is that the status of the Prophet (pbuh) is different from that of ours. Second, the example of Taraweeh is not appropriate here since it was an act that was analagous to the canonical prayer. Therefore Taraweeh could be entered into the cricle of five prayers if offered consistently in communinion with other Muslims. In other words, the Prophet (pbuh) did not prohibit the prayer itself; he only abstained from creating the resemblance with one obligatory action.

Junaidj

CANADA
Posted - Thursday, April 22, 2004  -  3:12 AM Reply with quote
Going without a shirt is already a social aberration. I am not sure whether one can compare it with the head covering. Perhaps, more appropriate would be the beard.

The fact that almost all but a tiny minority considers the head covering as obligatory speaks for itself. Is it not that we have made a recommended act an obligatory one?

Many women will cover the head before praying when alone, but will not do so when going to a market, where it is perhaps more important. Thus, a tradition which looks hypocritical and absurd.

I guess what I would like to say is that if a few women pray without the head covering then that should be analogous to men praying without the beard and should be treated as such.

About the head covering stemming from modesty, I cannot answer and I suppose females can answer this one better. To each his own. If a few women feel that not covering the head is analogous to a man not wearing a shirt then so be it.

But if many women feel the two are not comparable then again so be it. In either scenario, it will be upto them whether to continue with the convention or to part from it.
Jhangeer Hanif

PAKISTAN
Posted - Thursday, April 22, 2004  -  9:29 AM Reply with quote

What you see in this particular instance of head covering, I see it at an enormous scale, which bewilders me and worries me a lot. Our ideals have changed, life style, attitude, behaviour and everything...Saying 'see you' or 'okay' when people part instead of saying 'Khuda Hafiz' or 'Assalama Alaykum' is apparently a minor change of practice, but, to me, it is indicative of a major malady ailing the Muslims. This shows but sad consequences of our civilization clashing with a civilization, which was nourished and nurtured on a non-religious basis.

The reason that women feel comfortable without head covering is that a tremendous change has come to take place in the collective Archetypes of the Muslims.

You are right in saying that going outside without shirts is still unconventional. This is why men do not dare go outside without shirts. Believe you me, if you ask any scholar, he will tell you that wearing a shirt for men is not obligatory. Why then men do not do away with this practice? And why the temptation to do away with head covering is greater on the part of women?

Junaidj

CANADA
Posted - Thursday, April 22, 2004  -  10:19 AM Reply with quote
>>Our ideals have changed, life style, attitude, behaviour and everything........................
This shows but sad consequences of our civilization clashing with a civilization, which was nourished and nurtured on a non-religious basis.

On a major scale things back home maybe changing. Cultural permeation. However, if you look toward the West, I can tell you of Muslims here. Many women wear the head covering despite harrasment after September 11.

Infact a lady in Europe (possibly Sweden??) had written to Renaissance that her life seems to be in danger due to wearing the head covering. The point is that she considered writing to scholars even in dire circumstances, where perhaps a man in her position would have shaved his beard off immediately, speaks volume of her strength in faith.

AS such, the resistance put up by our sisters in France is yet another testimony to the faith still professed by many. (This despite that half baked fatwa issued by the Al-Azhar Imam on following the law of the country rather than Islam. Talk of double standards.)

And all this for not even an obligatory act but a recommended one by our knowledge. (That they would consider it obligatory is another issue)

Even at home, it is not as if women have started wearing skirts and the like. Pakistani women have their own fashions which revolve around the traditional dress. Thus, there is still our own individuality that we as a people and nation maintain.

>>Why then men do not do away with this practice? And why the temptation to do away with head covering is greater on the part of women?

I guess the answer to that might lie in level of exposure and comfort. Men have increasingly started to wear bermudas and shorts, now haven't they? They were eager to strip away what they wanted.

However, having said that a woman without a head cover seems normal today, and those with niqabs look really weird.

With all due respect part of the moral decadence in the Northern areas of Pakistan is explained by the utter segregation of men and women. Need I mention the analogy with the filth that ensues in prisons.

Finally, I see more harm in karo-kari, in regular wife battery, in domestic rape et al. which eat the fabric of Muslim societies thousands time greater than not wearing the head covering.

The Western society with all its moral debauchery, has firm institutions that a scantily clad girl can press charges against verbal harrasement by a guy, even if she had provoked him in the first place. If she asks him to stop, and he refuses then the guy would be considered guilty.

Now compare this with back home. Where many girls decently dressed are occasionally teased and harrassed.

Only recently, the Saudi newscaster was brutally beaten by her husband, and for what? Answering a telephone. And she is willing to forgive him. How many women in Pakistan continue forgiving battery? I have seen first hand accounts.

Moreover, arabnews.com will tell you that divorce rate in the Saudi Kingdom is as high as 40%. All this is in a society where women wear the head cover?

Edited by: junaidj on Thursday, April 22, 2004 11:47 AM
Jhangeer Hanif

PAKISTAN
Posted - Thursday, April 22, 2004  -  2:26 PM Reply with quote

Hmm. I did not try to quantify the deviation nor did I try to show that problem is at the end of women and not men.

The truth is that a decadent society devours what is low and vomits up what is valuable. Anyhow, this dicussion is taking a turn toward people and therefore may seem discriminatory. I'd suggest that we should go back to ideas here again.

Junaidj

CANADA
Posted - Friday, April 23, 2004  -  12:33 AM Reply with quote
>>I'd suggest that we should go back to ideas here again.

The basic idea:

If it is not obligatory to wear the head covering, then women may pray or read the Koran without one. Choosing to wear it would be only for convention and tradition purposes. In this case the head cover is as trivial as a prayer cap.

However, if it is clear that covering the head stems from modesty (in that not wearing a head cover is something like a man not wearing a shirt), then I agree with you. However, even here the practice would seem more important in market-places than while in solitary prayer. Also, the responsibility of this practice should rest with the women.

Edited by: junaidj on Friday, April 23, 2004 12:33 AM
ibrahim

PAKISTAN
Posted - Tuesday, May 04, 2004  -  12:32 PM Reply with quote
Salam to ALL

I would like to suggest that plz. follow the link: http://www.monthly-renaissance.com/Mayq12y4.html
& read the Q & A regarding Headscarf in Islam & then plz do remember commenting on it.

waiting ur Comments
Hafiz Ibrahim
salwa

UNITED KINGDOM
Posted - Sunday, May 16, 2004  -  6:05 PM Reply with quote
Subhana Allah
when muslims pre-occupy themselves with the shoulds and the don'ts forgetting what the essence of the act of worship.
I think that people posting here should have the responsibility when they talk to fear Allah might they guide others astray. women not cover their head while praying alone? where do you get that from? There is no law on putting your hand in the fire, so do you put it in the fire because there is no law?

Natural law dictates our actions were we to be open to nature, rather than ocuppy ourselves with the the particulars. covering the head is an act of modesty. it is not wanting to be bare in the presence of Allah. It is the same that we shouldn't be naked for a long time because if we do that then we are not shy, and remeber shyness meaning modesty is one of the branches of Iman. Even men put on their kufiyya. These acts though cultural as they may seam have their roots in a deep meaning. but now that we have forgotten the meaning we argue on whether or not it is law.
modesty has no law, it has nature.
Junaidj

CANADA
Posted - Monday, May 17, 2004  -  6:44 AM Reply with quote
>>I think that people posting here should have the responsibility when they talk to fear Allah might they guide others astray.

Are the people who visit these forums so naive that we must preclude certain discussions. Does their faith hinge upon a few lines?

Moreover, if the moderators feel such be the case then they have the carte blanche to delete all such messages.

Edited by: junaidj on Monday, May 17, 2004 1:57 PM

Reply to Topic    Printer Friendly
Jump To:

1 2 3
Next page >>
Page 1 of 3


Share |


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





eXTReMe Tracker