33:59 Women and dress recommendation. A re-examination.
-
Peace,
Rathar than taking the word that was used, which you admit was CLEARLY "lengthen". You can't take "lenghten" and say that it means "nearer to society" and say that "legnthen" and "nearer" mean the same two thigns, they don't and you and I both know this.
I clearly said that 'lengthen' is not what the word 'yudneen' means and that the lengthening was an interpolation of an alternate meaning for 'yudneen' which is 'lower'.
Now if you were to lower your clothing then you would be taking it off!
The primary meaning of 'yudneen' is therefore to make near; or akin to something; hence the translation I offered.
Allah says that "so they will be recognized".... if we were to blend into society, how will you be recognized?
No, and let this be a cautionary lesson to you. The translations you read are not what the God says. That is what the translator has said the original means. When dealing with the Arabic, its often what the 'scholars' (with vested interests) have agreed it means.
This is what I am challenging. The conventional wisdom.
When you are challenging the conventional wisdom you have to have alot of force in your arguments. Fortunately in this case the force is plain to see for people who will examine the evidence without pre-conceived ideas.
thought just crossed my mind
If you wanted ot say "nearer"..... and the ORIGINAL word was "lengthen".... yea you could use "nearer"..... "make your garments nearer to the floor".
As I said the word is not 'lengthen' but rather 'lower'; and if you did that ie. lower your clothes, they would be on the floor leaving you stark naked!
Hence 'yudneen does not mean lower or the strained meaning of lengthen. The phrase is saying, make your clothes nearer or akin to something else - and the next phrase which again uses 'adna' which means 'nearer' and which I translated above demonstrates that the nearness is towards the customs of society.
It does not mean adopting strange or alien behaviour - this is not about costumes and acting.
It's about eliminating exclusive nonsense - to wear the best of what there is without drawing attention to oneself unnecessarily. It eliminates boundaries and any elitism.
Regards.
-
As Salaam Alaikum,
Peace,
I clearly said that 'lengthen' is not what the word 'yudneen' means and that the lengthening was an interpolation of an alternate meaning for 'yudneen' which is 'lower'.Now if you were to lower your clothing then you would be taking it off!
Actually you would not.
If you say, "Lower your dress" it would mean, lenghten it.
You say that you want to challenge original thoguht/interpetation. Ok. but I don't believe it. To me it makes no since. Look at everywhere else where Allah is saying CONCEAL your adornments, and not display your beauty except to.... If the society was UNCONCEALING their adornments and displaying their beauty... all of htat would be aborgated, then.
Also if you want to challenge, that doesn't mean that you want to learn the truth. Obviously your motivation is proving scholars wrong, not actually finding the truth. You tell me that scholars have alternative motives to interpert... well you admit that you have these motives too.
Hence 'yudneen does not mean lower or the strained meaning of lengthen. The phrase is saying, make your clothes nearer or akin to something else - and the next phrase which again uses 'adna' which means 'nearer' and which I translated above demonstrates that the nearness is towards the customs of society.
So "lower" means "near". It doesn't, at all. "Lower to society" does not come close to "nearer to society" at all. Unless you were to say that Allah was describing the society as low, and therefore wanted us to act like that as well... "low". You can't be righteous, or wear the garment of righteousness, but acting "low".
It does not mean adopting strange or alien behaviour - this is not about costumes and acting.
Clothes are very much about customs.
Also I believe it's the Quran that constantly tells us that we will NOT be accepted by non-blievers until we act like them--- and ALlah is in NO WAY saying "well act like them then"... your interpertation proves EXACTLY what Allah is against, and what he warns, and how kaffirs will not accept us until we do what they do and act like how they do.
Don't tell me that I have "preconcieved" opinions. I don't. I'm very accepting to new things. But reality is, I don't believe in your interpertation. I don't believe in it at all. I take things as they are, not what their "root words" mean.
You can read 3360 and clearly see that your interpertation does not make any since when followed by 3360.
Allah says nothing about "society" in ayat 59.
Even you know if you take the word that was USED and the "root word", replacing it with the root word will not mean at all teh SAME THING as the word that was actually used.
another cross that crossed my mind
Lower can mean "lengthen" and not "off" (or however you put it).
If my shirt was folded up on my stomach, revealing my stomach... someone could command me to "lower your shirt"... i would lower it by unfolding it... therefore be covered
salaam
-
The problem with your summarisation is that you make the assumption that the women of the society at large were wearing "indecent" clothes.
Instead of this assumption, you must think more broadly. If a group is distinguishing themselves by wearing all white clothing for example when the society wears bland beiges and browns then this is sufficient difference to mark the believers as odd ones out
I'm afraid I can't think its an assumption because the subject of this verse is believing women and they are told how to dress (24/31). IF here they are being told to relax their dress code, then the relaxation would in the direction towards kufr.
This is harmonious with the general thrust of the One God, one humanity message of the reading. We see many examples of religious garb in the community at large; sikhs with their head gear, buddhists in their orange garbs etc. These serve to create distinction and demarcation between people. They create barriers and alienation and exclude.
49/13 mentions that the various shuuban/linneages and qabail/acceptabilites are there to mutually recognise one another. Dressing alike isn't part of the Quran's idea of oneness.
I thank you for noticing yudneena and adnaa but your subsequent interpretation doesn't work for me. Believing women to me are to do something to show themselves as under protection and so if the munafiqeen bother them, Allah will raise the believers against them.
-
As SAlaam Alaikum,
Peace
Could you give an example where this idea is actually promulgated in an english speaking society? I have never heard of 'lower your shirt/pants' meaning to 'lengthen' them.
Joe
Again say for instance I was in class and I had my shirt up, revealing my stomach... my teacher can easily say, "Lower you shirt". In this context, because I folding up half of my shirt, which would be revealing my stomach, I would have to "lengthen" the shirt to cover up (pull the other half down, lenghtening the shirt).
Also, "lower" can be in the context of covering aswell.
In the USA, an English speaking country, many schools, if not all, have rules on dress codes. Of course the most popular one that gets many of us girls mad is the rule about how long our skirts should be.
The rule at my school is it must be at least to the knees, or it can only be 3 inches above the knees. When this rule is broken, teachers often say "You need to lower your skirt".... not in the context of pulling the skirt all the way down, but in the contect of COVERING the parts that should be covered.
Actually, "covering" would probably be much better than "lengthen", which is exactly how many people translate the verse, with the word "cover".
salaam
-
Peace,
The problem with your summarisation is that you make the assumption that the women of the society at large were wearing "indecent" clothes.
Instead of this assumption, you must think more broadly. If a group is distinguishing themselves by wearing all white clothing for example when the society wears bland beiges and browns then this is sufficient difference to mark the believers as odd ones out
I'm afraid I can't think its an assumption because the subject of this verse is believing women and they are told how to dress (24/31). IF here they are being told to relax their dress code, then the relaxation would in the direction towards kufr.
It's not about relaxing dress, or becoming indecent. It's about wearing things befitting to society - not adopting something unusual that marks one out.
This is harmonious with the general thrust of the One God, one humanity message of the reading. We see many examples of religious garb in the community at large; sikhs with their head gear, buddhists in their orange garbs etc. These serve to create distinction and demarcation between people. They create barriers and alienation and exclude.
49/13 mentions that the various shuuban/linneages and qabail/acceptabilites are there to mutually recognise one another. Dressing alike isn't part of the Quran's idea of oneness.
I thank you for noticing yudneena and adnaa but your subsequent interpretation doesn't work for me. Believing women to me are to do something to show themselves as under protection and so if the munafiqeen bother them, Allah will raise the believers against them.
The purpose of the directive in 3359 is so that the women may avoid harm - we agree on that point at least. Now let's examine it from that point of view and draw in the required logic.
The women were obviously being targetted, harassed and victimised. That is what was ALREADY happening. How do you suppose the society at large knew that these women were muslim?
That's the key to understanding what was happening. Let's examine 3358...
3358 Those who persecute the believing men and the believing women, who did not do anything wrong, have committed not only a falsehood, but also a gross sin.
There is a persecution going on that is targetting believing men and women for some perceived wrong they are accused of. These people are readily identified already.
Since the directive in 3359 involves modification of clothing then the way they are identified is logically through the adopted garb of these people.
Why would there be a directive then to make them stand out even more? If the aim is make them MORE VISIBLE then why not instruct them to paint a red cross on their backs?
The idea is quite plainly to make them LESS VISIBLE/NOTICEABLE and thereby escape harm and persecution!
The common understanding would have you believe that they are going from ALREADY VISIBLE to EVEN MORE VISIBLE to escape harm. That does not make sense.
I hope the logic and the surrounding statements, as well as internal proof shows that the idea is for the women to wear non-conspicuous clothes that does not show them to be readily different. It talks about garments and not behaviour.
Regards.
-
As SAlaam ALaikum Truth,
The purpose of the directive in 3359 is so that the women may avoid harm - we agree on that point at least. Now let's examine it from that point of view and draw in the required logic.
The women were obviously being targetted, harassed and victimised. That is what was ALREADY happening. How do you suppose the society at large knew that these women were muslim?
That's the key to understanding what was happening. Let's examine 3358...
3358 Those who persecute the believing men and the believing women, who did not do anything wrong, have committed not only a falsehood, but also a gross sin.
Truth the Surah that you have quoted doesn't mean that at the time they were under persecution. It's not saying that at the time they were under persecution. It is a general statement about those who annoy believing men and women.
And uhh excuse my ignorance, especially of Arabic (i don't read an arabic Quran)... But in an English translation 3358 and 3359 are divided up into two different sections. 3358 is in section 7 of the Surah, and 3359 is in section 8 of the Surah. Maybe this is just done like this in an English translation.... i'm not sure. But if this is done in the Quran (arabic) as well, then obviously context has changed.
There is a persecution going on that is targetting believing men and women for some perceived wrong they are accused of. These people are readily identified already.
AGain what you quoted was a general statement, simply about those who persecute Muslims. In no way does it imply that 3358 and 3359 are in anyway related. The approach is not as if persecution is actually going on And as a result believers must cover a certain way.
The idea is quite plainly to make them LESS VISIBLE/NOTICEABLE and thereby escape harm and persecution!
When you blend in you are not noticable. 3359 is clearly saying "so that tehy should be known".
The common understanding would have you believe that they are going from ALREADY VISIBLE to EVEN MORE VISIBLE to escape harm. That does not make sense.
Again, the way that I have interperted this ayat is in the way reality really is, not matter how awful it may sound. Reality is, when you dress more modest you are treated with more respect than the one who does (i'm not saying all of the time, but i do believe that this is in general)... therefore the one who is more modest is often less annoyed by men.
salaam
-
Peace NP,
And uhh excuse my ignorance, especially of Arabic (i don't read an arabic Quran)... But in an English translation 3358 and 3359 are divided up into two different sections. 3358 is in section 7 of the Surah, and 3359 is in section 8 of the Surah. Maybe this is just done like this in an English translation.... i'm not sure. But if this is done in the Quran (arabic) as well, then obviously context has changed.
Why do you suppose a translator might want to separate those two verses if not to try to obfuscate the context and fabricate a sectarian understanding?
There are no divisions in the reading such as 'sections' within chapters.
The verses are to be understood together and are not random isolated statements. You are naive at the moment and have much to learn in relation to this, but if you persevere it will become easier.
Again, the way that I have interperted this ayat is in the way reality really is, not matter how awful it may sound. Reality is, when you dress more modest you are treated with more respect than the one who does (i'm not saying all of the time, but i do believe that this is in general)... therefore the one who is more modest is often less annoyed by men.
You are, like mquran, making an assumption that the societies dress was inherently immodest or indecent. What is clear is that the muslims were sticking out like beacons, ready to be targetted for persecution. They were becoming harmed because they were identifiable.
The basic rules for dress are already given in 2431 - to cover the chest and being modest.
When you are dressing today do you wear middle eastern shalwars and robes in a Western society? No, you probably wear jeans, shirts etc. so you in effect wear what the general society is wearing. Is that immodest or indecent? It depends on what you choose isn't it? There's nothing inherently wrong with the stuff the society at large wears. That's the message - to not draw attention to oneself by marking oneself out as different.
What is ridiculous is anglo men who convert to islam and go around in Arabic shalwars and robes, and grow beards with moustaches shaved off and believe that somehow they have attained something great. They have done nothing but succumbed to islamism.
The same is true for women who embrace islam and immediately don big black trenchcoats and covers over their heads. They immediately look out of place and where there is no tension then they may be tolerated by the society - but when there is tension then they are singling themselves out for persecution - and it does happen.
Women are not sheep that need to be marked out as belonging to a certain identity. Just wear what is modest and normal, and realise that the best garments are those of righteousness.
O children of Adam, we have provided you with garments to cover your bodies, as well as for luxury. But the best garment is the garment of righteousness. These are some of GOD's signs, that they may take heed.
Not head covers and Arab robes for men.
Regards.
-
As Salaam Alaikum,
Peace NP,
Again you are like mquran making an assumption that the societies dress was immodest or indecent. What is clear is that the muslims were sticking out like beacons, ready to be targetted for persecution.
And again, I don't feel that the two verses (58 & 59) relate, even without the divisions of the chapters. 58 is a very general statement, and it does not indicate that at the time Muslims were actually under persecution.
The rules for modest dress are already given in 2431 - to cover the chest and being modest.
And lowering your jilbabs is apart of that in my belief.
I have decided to interpert at face value, not "what does the root word mean? though the word actually used is totally different and the sentence makes no since when replaced by the root word, even when I try to make it sound the way that I want"
"nearer upon themselves their outergarments"... that doesn't even sound close to "blend into society and look like a disbeliever."
When you are dressing today do you wear middle eastern shalwars and robes in a Western society? No, you probably wear jeans, shirts etc. so you in effect wear what the general society is wearing. Is that immodest or indecent? It depends on what you choose isn't it? There's nothing inherently wrong with the stuff the society at large wears. That's the message - to not draw attention to oneself by marking oneself out as different.
And yet Allah is saying so we will be KNOWN.
Women are not sheep that need to be marked out as belonging to a certain identity. Just wear what is modest and normal, and realise that the best garments are those of righteousness.
O children of Adam, we have provided you with garments to cover your bodies, as well as for luxury. But the best garment is the garment of righteousness. These are some of GOD's signs, that they may take heed.
You know it quite annoys me that you keep bringing up this righteous thing, as if we we were the ones who first started talking about the way women should dress. You're the one who seems to be attacking the way women and men dress, out of preference.
salaam
-
Peace NP,
And again, I don't feel that the two verses (58 & 59) relate, even without the divisions of the chapters. 58 is a very general statement, and it does not indicate that at the time Muslims were actually under persecution.
It's not enough of an argument to say you simply "feel" that they do not relate. The truth is that you cannot accept that they relate because it proves what is being presented.
But since you want to doubt what I am saying, perhaps some evidence may help?
If you examine 3358 then you'll find that what's happening to the believers is that they are "yuthoona" - being harmed/annoyed. And if you look at 3359 the same word is being used "yuthayna" - harmed/annoyed so there is no justification to deny the clear link here.
The rules for modest dress are already given in 2431 - to cover the chest and being modest.
And lowering your jilbabs is apart of that in my belief.
I have decided to interpert at face value, not "what does the root word mean? though the word actually used is totally different and the sentence makes no since when replaced by the root word, even when I try to make it sound the way that I want"
What you have decided to do is accept the translators bias because it suits you.
I have presented a logical and coherent argument which shows the situation for what it is.
When you are dressing today do you wear middle eastern shalwars and robes in a Western society? No, you probably wear jeans, shirts etc. so you in effect wear what the general society is wearing. Is that immodest or indecent? It depends on what you choose isn't it? There's nothing inherently wrong with the stuff the society at large wears. That's the message - to not draw attention to oneself by marking oneself out as different.
And yet Allah is saying so we will be KNOWN.
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ma'aruf
Ma'ruf Arabic
is an Arabic Islamic term meaning that which is commonly
- known
- understood
- recognized
- acknowledged
- accepted
The word is most often found in the Qur'anic exhortation "Amr bil Ma'ruf wa Nahy an al Munkar | ." This is often translated as "Command the good and forbid the evil," but this translation fails to reflect the subtleties of the Arabic. Amr refers to the enforcement function of the duly constituted government of an ummah (community.) In this context, Ma'ruf, when applied to a particular law, means a law which is -
- known to the community (i.e. the community is aware of its existence)
- intelligible (understood by & makes sense) to the community
- generally recognized and commonly acknowledged as a good law
- accepted by the community as applicable to itself - the meaning of acceptance is strongly implied by the contrast with the word Munkar, which means "rejected."
There is a hadith in which Muhammad is quoted as saying, "My ummah will never agree upon an error." This has been interpreted to mean that the consensus of the community is a source of moral and legal authority, but has also been interpreted as an Islamic counterpart to papal infallibility.
Thus, a better translation of "Amr bil Ma'ruf wa Nahy an al Munkar" would be "Enforce that which is accepted , and prohibit that which is rejected."
You will notice that the concept of "yuAArafna" or "known" in this sense is not simply 'knowledge' but involves community and acceptance.
I hope this makes it easier to acknowledge that the translation I am providing fits in with this concept seamlessly.
Women are not sheep that need to be marked out as belonging to a certain identity. Just wear what is modest and normal, and realise that the best garments are those of righteousness.
O children of Adam, we have provided you with garments to cover your bodies, as well as for luxury. But the best garment is the garment of righteousness. These are some of GOD's signs, that they may take heed.
You know it quite annoys me that you keep bringing up this righteous thing, as if we we were the ones who first started talking about the way women should dress. You're the one who seems to be attacking the way women and men dress, out of preference.
Why does it annoy you that I show you from the reading itself that your clothes and garments do not make you a muslim. The God makes it abundantly clear that clothes do not a man make. That righteousness is the goal - not to make oneself stick out like the proverbial sore thumb.
Regards.
-
the Surah that you have quoted doesn't mean that at the time they were under persecution. It's not saying that at the time they were under persecution. It is a general statement about those who annoy believing men and women.
100% right, a very general verse indeed and should apply any time.
And uhh excuse my ignorance, especially of Arabic (i don't read an arabic Quran)... But in an English translation 3358 and 3359 are divided up into two different sections. 3358 is in section 7 of the Surah, and 3359 is in section 8 of the Surah. Maybe this is just done like this in an English translation.... i'm not sure. But if this is done in the Quran (arabic) as well, then obviously context has changed.
there is no sections as such in the Quran, the two verses are in the same sura but the first was general warning to all humanity the second is specific guidance to the believing women
There is a persecution going on that is targetting believing men and women for some perceived wrong they are accused of. These people are readily identified already.
Yes and it was happeneing far more at the early years of Islam, in fact many were targeted because they were muslims in the first 10 years of Islam, but Islam is now very well established and is prevailing over all other religions and there should be no fear to be a muslim, hence the logic presented is 100% falwed, ie. if muslims now are discriminated against then they should stand firm against it not not to hide their Islam
AGain what you quoted was a general statement, simply about those who persecute Muslims. In no way does it imply that 3358 and 3359 are in anyway related. The approach is not as if persecution is actually going on And as a result believers must cover a certain way.
You are right 100%, also The point many also miss is this the Aza (harm)mentioned in 3359 may be due to sexually motivated actions by other men, hence when they cover themselves, that Aza can not be iflicted by these horny men
Again, the way that I have interperted this ayat is in the way reality really is, not matter how awful it may sound. Reality is, when you dress more modest you are treated with more respect than the one who does (i'm not saying all of the time, but i do believe that this is in general)... therefore the one who is more modest is often less annoyed by men.
100% correct, and the Quran told us clearly in another location that we are allowed to hide our faith if we are being obressed and weak enough not to stand to our rights, so there is no need to use 3359 as an evidence of that because another verse stated it and regarding the whole faith not just the women and their cloth, the guidance in 3359 is only specific for the muslim women and to protect their modesty
peace
-
Yes and it was happeneing far more at the early years of Islam, in fact many were targeted because they were muslims in the first 10 years of Islam, but Islam is now very well established and is prevailing over all other religions and there should be no fear to be a muslim, hence the logic presented is 100% falwed, ie. if muslims now are discriminated against then they should stand firm against it not not to hide their Islam
Islam was never meant to be a "religion". The idolworshipping Arab Religion is paying its price.
-
As Salaam Alaikm Truth,
Peace NP,
And again, I don't feel that the two verses (58 & 59) relate, even without the divisions of the chapters. 58 is a very general statement, and it does not indicate that at the time Muslims were actually under persecution.
It's not enough of an argument to say you simply "feel" that they do not relate. The truth is that you cannot accept that they relate because it proves what is being presented.
No it does not. Like I said, I believe that ayat 58 is in general, and has no particular relation to ayat 59.
But since you want to doubt what I am saying, perhaps some evidence may help?
If you examine 3358 then you'll find that what's happening to the believers is that they are "yuthoona" - being harmed/annoyed. And if you look at 3359 the same word is being used "yuthayna" - harmed/annoyed so there is no justification to deny the clear link here.
Look at the verse itself!
"And those who annoy believing men and womrn underseverdly, bear a calumny and a glaring sin"
It DOES NOT say that believers are being annoyed, harmed, etc. What it is a warning against those who choose to harm or annoy them!
Ex.
"Whoever hurts my daughter, they will be beaten down".That does not mean that "my daughter" is being hurt.. it is just a WARNING for those who ever choose to hurt her.
What you have decided to do is accept the translators bias because it suits you.
LOL bias? Are you not the one who has admitted to only wanting to "challenge" the norm?? Yes. Aren't you the one who has chosen to go into ROOT words, and replace the arabic "lower" with the arabic"near"... becuase obviously LOWER didn't suit you, eventhough that is what Allah put? Yes.
I have presented a logical and coherent argument which shows the situation for what it is.
No what you did is replace an arabic word used in the Quran, with another arabic word that was the root to suit you. Then you said that ayat 58 showed how believers were being persecuted, when it didn't! It was a GENERAL statement, a WARNING against those who would ever choose to. Ayat 58 didn't tell a story, WARNED.
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ma'aruf
Ma'ruf Arabic
is an Arabic Islamic term meaning that which is commonly
- known
- understood
- recognized
- acknowledged
- accepted
The word is most often found in the Qur'anic exhortation "Amr bil Ma'ruf wa Nahy an al Munkar | ." This is often translated as "Command the good and forbid the evil," but this translation fails to reflect the subtleties of the Arabic. Amr refers to the enforcement function of the duly constituted government of an ummah (community.) In this context, Ma'ruf, when applied to a particular law, means a law which is -
- known to the community (i.e. the community is aware of its existence)
- intelligible (understood by & makes sense) to the community
- generally recognized and commonly acknowledged as a good law
- accepted by the community as applicable to itself - the meaning of acceptance is strongly implied by the contrast with the word Munkar, which means "rejected."
There is a hadith in which Muhammad is quoted as saying, "My ummah will never agree upon an error." This has been interpreted to mean that the consensus of the community is a source of moral and legal authority, but has also been interpreted as an Islamic counterpart to papal infallibility.
Thus, a better translation of "Amr bil Ma'ruf wa Nahy an al Munkar" would be "Enforce that which is accepted , and prohibit that which is rejected."
Oh wow... so now you are using HADITHS to back up what you are saying?
And look "KNOWN TO THE COMMUNITY" does not mean "accepted and loved by".
You will notice that the concept of "yuAArafna" or "known" in this sense is not simply 'knowledge' but involves community and acceptance.
You are the only one believes that "looking different" means that you wont be "accepted".
I hope this makes it easier t acknowledge that the translation I am providing fits in with this concept seamlessly.
Like I told you, I don't believe that your interpertaiton of the ayat is correct. If I felt that it was true, then I would accept it... why would I run from the truth if I knew it was true?
The Quran is clear and detailed, for you to go into root words totally ruins that concept. Not only that, but Allah does NOT need you to replace the word that he used with another word!
"Lower" does not mean in anyway "nearer", though "near" may be the root word. And that is all that your logic is... "oh since this is the root word, I'm going to use this instead and explain why it's acceptable". No!
Ex.
The word suicide's root word is "cide" which means to kill. I couldn't replace "suicide" with "cide" and get the same meaning accross, unless I change the whole sentence."I am going to commit suicide"
does not mean
"I am going to commit cide".
You're going to commit to kill? Ok.... but who? (obviously the first setence told us WHO---Ones ownself!)
In order for me to get the point across that I am going to commit sucide (kill myself), with the word cide, I'd have to say
"I am going to cide myself".
When you put "near" it makes no since, and doesn't even get the point across.
Why does it annoy you that I show you from the reading itself that your clothes and garments do not make you a muslim. The God makes it abundantly clear that clothes do not a man make. That righteousness is the goal - not to make oneself stick out like the proverbial sore thumb.
It doesn't annoy me that you show me that clothes and other garments don't make you a Muslim. BUT from the way your tone is you make it seem as if we are saying that it does, and we are the one who started this "what should women wear?" thread. You started this thread, becuase obviously you were concerned about the way women dress.... don't try to flip the script and make it seem that we were the ones that were.
salaam
-
Peace,
It's not about relaxing dress, or becoming indecent. It's about wearing things befitting to society - not adopting something unusual that marks one out.We'll have to agree to disagree, im afraid. I just dont see the right words to prove this.
The purpose of the directive in 3359 is so that the women may avoid harm - we agree on that point at least. Now let's examine it from that point of view and draw in the required logic.
Yes, certainly.
The women were obviously being targetted, harassed and victimised. That is what was ALREADY happening. How do you suppose the society at large knew that these women were muslim?
That's the key to understanding what was happening. Let's examine 3358...
3358 Those who persecute the believing men and the believing women, who did not do anything wrong, have committed not only a falsehood, but also a gross sin.
There is a persecution going on that is targetting believing men and women for some perceived wrong they are accused of. These people are readily identified already.
Yes but how? Don't forget that the harassers were munafiqeen and that this incident was taking place in al-madeenah. Therefore, to the inhabitants of al-madeenah, these were fellow citizens (i.e. muslims by name). The command to wear identifying jilbaab helps everyone to see all women under an-nabi's protection (33/59 is addressed to him).
Since the directive in 3359 involves modification of clothing then the way they are identified is logically through the adopted garb of these people.
Either way, yes.
Why would there be a directive then to make them stand out even more? If the aim is make them MORE VISIBLE then why not instruct them to paint a red cross on their backs?
The jilbaab is your 'red cross' here. It's quite an outstanding piece of garment.
The idea is quite plainly to make them LESS VISIBLE/NOTICEABLE and thereby escape harm and persecution!
The common understanding would have you believe that they are going from ALREADY VISIBLE to EVEN MORE VISIBLE to escape harm. That does not make sense.
I see it as 'already visible' to 'a warningly scary visible'
I hope the logic and the surrounding statements, as well as internal proof shows that the idea is for the women to wear non-conspicuous clothes that does not show them to be readily different. It talks about garments and not behaviour.
A garment can take on meaning. The hijab for example has become a political statement in France. It all depends on context. The jilbaab in 33/59 is a simple 'dont do it' statement to al-munafiqeen.
-
peace Oben,
You made some interesting points but I disagree with your interpretation. The only point I didn't understand was why it would say "God is ghafooran raheeman", normally translated as "God is Forgiving, Merciful".
ghafooran primary meaning is 'to cover over' which leads to its meanings of 'protecting' & 'forgiving', thus in 3359, it can be seen as "protecting".
Wakas
-
Peace Wakas,
Wonderful.
I was in two minds about the "forgiving" aspect of this and from your prompt I've looked at the meaning underlying "Ghafara" and it means conceal, hide, cover, protect, set affairs right, suppress the defect.
So in effect after telling the women to dress without drawing attention, the God emphasises that He is the one who covers, hides, protects; and that the clothes one wears are not what is the essence.
What is the essence is that the God has given us clothing to wear for cover and for adornment; that we are to guard our modesty; but that the best garments are those of righteousness.
Now all of these together give people the freedom of choice to wear what is modest and beautiful, not create an 'Islamic uniform' to wear one's faith on their sleeve so to speak. To stick out like sore thumbs, and be elitist in appearance and mind. The aim is not to create a uniformed corps of people.
The aim of the verse is to prevent harm from coming to the women - that they be inconspicuous from their clothing point of view.
The final affirmation in the verse therefore confirms that it is the God who covers us for our defects, and protects us as long as we aim to be righteous. It confirms rather than refutes the discussion above in my eyes.
Regards.
-
I have reread this thread in connection with a new thread in the forum Questions regarding aya 33.59
I remembered that the part of this aya when it says Allah is ghafooran, rahiman had been dealt with, and I found it.
I notice that in the ayas before and after this aya woe, curse and loss is the lot God assigns to the persecutors of believers, so, it occurs to me that the Ghafooran rahiman in the aya which is an injunction to the believers, it is telling them that for them if they follow the guidance God is not curse or woe or loss, but forgivenss and mercy. In fact suddenly it feels, the aya, like something soft, caressing for people who are in distress.
Almhandulillah!
Salaam
-
Can we assume that there were wayward young men who teased women passing by regardless whether the women were believers or not? The believing women were being asked to dress distinctively so as to be recognized and left alone.
Not sure what the norms were but some women of those time were perhaps enjoying the attention which was not the case with believing women who were finding it annoying.
Happens these days as well in Middle East and India and Pakistan. Some women even resort to wearing a full Burqa in order not to be stared at and to be left alone. Young men who tease women who do not dress up a certain way assume that the women enjoy attention and erroneously presuming further that they are "loose'. "Why" they ask "the women don't cover themselves up if they don't want the attention?" This of course does not apply to countries where young men don't harass women out in the streets going about their business (other than gawking).
