Qu'ran and the Hijab/veil/niqab etc.?
-
Salaam Wakas,
First of all, AQ only mentions harm to believing men/women. To assume anything else is going on (i.e. harm to other women) is a pure assumption. An assumption, your view seems to depend on I might add.
I am sorry, I meant believing women as well. But your views assume that a particular group of munafiqeen and the sick-hearted would specifically allowed to harass women other than the momin women, like announcing "these women you can't harras, and these women you can".
I think you have misunderstood my point. I mean that there is little point in recommending a modification in dress code to believing women for their protection if you have no authority/power to do anything about it if it does not work.
The dress code is for general precaution, not specific. You are worrying about authority/power because you are assuming the presence of "open enmity".
As essentially, this will basically be identifying your women, exposing them, and since you have no authority/power it makes the position your women are in more dangerous not less dangerous.
Again, that will only be the case when you assume the presence of open enmity.
From my studies, I have found AQ to use its words precisely. So, when it says "Forgiving, Merciful" I ask myself, what is their to forgive or show mercy for? That is my question to you, unless you feel this wording has no relevance. Either way, let me know.
The Quran does use its words precisely but how does it effect my view?
The whole point of recommending a modification in outergarment is so that they will be recognised and not harmed. Of course, you could argue it refers to a non-physical harm and non-physical recognition, i.e. it is referring to harming their reputation/integrity/character, and recognition refers to being recognised as decent/modest/righteous. How is "harm" and "recognised" used in AQ physical/literal or non-physical/metaphorical? (I have not studied this)
I have not studied it either, but as far as I remember, from what I have read in translations, Alif-Zal-Ya(?) is used for annoyance, harassment, and at some places physical hurt as well. And Ayn-Ra-Fa, it seems, has connotations of being modest, decent, reasonable, proper.
Also, do you think those with disease in their hearts will desist spreading such lies, if you feel it is about this only, just due to a modification in dress? I dont, I think they will desist only when given an ultimatum via dress-code indentification and they know the consequences.
There is no clear-cut command for giving ultimatums or announcing the consequences. You are assuming an open enmity/hostility.
Interestingly, modifying their dress code implies others were wearing it the same way as them previously, unless we assume momim women were dressed more indecently than others to begin with which is highly unlikely, thus we can only imagine what the people were saying about the non-momin women. Of course, this makes little sense. It makes more sense that momin men/women were targeted specifically due to hostility.
I am not sure I understand. Why does there have to be open enmity, war like situation, for the possibility of women being harassed? Aren't women harassed without open enmity? Why insist on the presence of open enmity?
Further, I say it is open enmity, because of the punishment implied. It seems severe. So you will have to explain how the law of equivalence relates to these verses, i.e. lying about someone / slander about reputation/character, results in physically being run out of town and killed.
It is not a punishment, rather seems like a natural consequence.(and it is not about slander)
My question was based on what AQ says. It refers to harm to momin men/women only, nothing else. It is very possible that momin men/women only have jurisdiction over what happens to their own or by their own, unless they are THE authority/rulers of the area.
I do not understand how your view leads to minimising chances of women getting hurt
I think the verse is very clear about this
It says
"that is adna/nearer/closer that u'rafna/they will be recognized, FA/THEREFORE la u'zaina/they will not be harrassed."
That is, the dress code brings them nearer to being "recognized", i.e the "recognition" is not 100%. And because the prevention of harassment is due to recognition, it will also not be 100%, but the chances of harassment will be reduced.
if you do not agree with open enmity, then I can only assume you think slandering is going on, nothing else, but the worst slander a person can do to a women is possibly say they are unchaste, but if this is the case, then their punishment is discussed in AQ, it is certainly not being run out of town and/or killed! So, by default, something else is going on.
No, I don't think it is about slandering.
-
Peace Fahad,
I am sorry, I meant believing women as well. But your views assume that a particular group of munafiqeen and the sick-hearted would specifically allowed to harass women other than the momin women, like announcing "these women you can't harras, and these women you can".
No. You are taking one theoretical possibility and making out this one theoretical possibility is the one happening.
If a specific group (e.g. mumineen) are in a certain area and people target them and are hostile to the momin women, then the mumineen only have jurisdiction over what happens to their people or is done by their people in this area. It is very unlikely they can protect and thus enforce their laws on other groups. IF harm/annoyance is occurring to other women, then whichever group those other women belong to have to deal with it, unless they defer it to the area rulers (if any).
The picture painted is one of the mumineen not being the rulers of the area. So, it is not giving a green light for the munafiqeen and sick-hearted to harass other women, it is to prevent them giving any excuses, and is akin to issuing an ultimatum (i.e. now you know who these women are, anyone mess with these women then it is us who you will deal with), after which, the muminen have the right to deal with the perpetrators. I just thought of another reason, this modification in garment could be a tactic to expose these people, and prove the momin women are being singled out, thus clearing the way for retaliation.I repeat, AQ does not say other women are being harmed/annoyed, it implies specific targeting of mumineen. You would have a point if the mumineen were the ones in power/authority, area rulers etc.
The Quran does use its words precisely but how does it effect my view?
Please just answer the question. Why do you think AQ is using forgiving/GH-F-R, merciful/R-H-M with regard to your view? Once you answer, then I can give my view, then we can weigh them up.
I have not studied it either, but as far as I remember, from what I have read in translations, Alif-Zal-Ya(?) is used for annoyance, harassment, and at some places physical hurt as well. And Ayn-Ra-Fa, it seems, has connotations of being modest, decent, reasonable, proper.
Yes, Ayn-Ra-Fa, as a total may have this connotation, but not in this word form. It simply means "known/recognised".
There is no clear-cut command for giving ultimatums or announcing the consequences.
In the sense it is not word-for-word, but is pretty close to it, and definitely enough to be taken as implicit. In actuality, there is more of a problem for your view than mine on this point, because according to you, since it is a general dress-code command, then when is the point that the mumineen can legitimately take action? When the annoyance/harm crosses a subjective threshold? But in my understanding, the issuing of an ultimatum via dress code identification signals the crossing point. If they still persist, well, then AQ makes it clear what may/will happen.
Before I comment any further, I am confused by your view. You say it is not about open enmity and it is not slander, then what is it about?! Judging by your wording, I have an indication, but please clarify as clearly as possible what you think is going on or are trying to say.
I think the verse is very clear about this
It says
"that is adna/nearer/closer that u'rafna/they will be recognized, FA/THEREFORE la u'zaina/they will not be harrassed."
That is, the dress code brings them nearer to being "recognized", i.e the "recognition" is not 100%. And because the prevention of harassment is due to recognition, it will also not be 100%, but the chances of harassment will be reduced.
I agree! What you seem to neglect in your cause and effect chain is the actual cause that triggered this
threat of or actual harm/harassment occuring ---> modification of dress ----> liklier to be known ---> not harmed/harassed ---> if persist, retaliaton
-
Peace
What happens back where I am from and probably other Islamic countries too is that the men will harrass women who are dressed indecently then when they see a modestly dressed woman they will act more respectful and pious. In the latter case the woman is recognised as a believing woman. It is hypocritical! One second they are checking out the indecently dressed then the next they are lowering their gaze.
Indecent men will go after anything that can be called "woman". Do you think women in Saudi Arabia are not harrassed even in their black cover? Believing men will not care even if you walk naked in front of them. Just look at muslims here in the UK would they dare touch, or comment, on a woman, even if she is dressed indecently? Not that they are all good, believing men here; but the society does not tolerate that, and they can be controlled. My comment quoted by Fahad was wrongly misunderstood, and is not a general rule, but a rule for those dysfunctioning societies whre the balme is always on women, and it's not to be understood that a dress code would protect women from sick men, but can at least turn the balme from her, which should not be put on her in the first place.
-
Indecent men will go after anything that can be called "woman". Do you think women in Saudi Arabia are not harrassed even in their black cover? Believing men will not care even if you walk naked in front of them. Just look at muslims here in the UK would they dare touch, or comment, on a woman, even if she is dressed indecently? Not that they are all good, believing men here; but the society does not tolerate that, and they can be controlled. My comment quoted by Fahad was wrongly misunderstood, and is not a general rule, but a rule for those dysfunctioning societies whre the balme is always on women, and it's not to be understood that a dress code would protect women from sick men, but can at least turn the balme from her, which should not be put on her in the first place.
Peace
I'm not sure about Saudi Arabia as I have never been. There are different types of men. Some men are like you said, they will chase any woman. Some men (the believing men) will not care if you walk naked in front of them (like you said). But you still get men who are hypocritical and treat girls differently. Some muslim guys would check out girls who they think 'are asking for it' (the blame game, like you said) but when they see a muslim girl who they perceive as modest in their eyes they will act respectful towards her. But is is just that, an act. As a respecting person would not harrass a woman regardless of what she is wearing.
And that is right, the blame should never be put on the woman. Whatever her intentions, men should not harass women or even stare.God bless
-
Believing men will not care even if you walk naked in front of them.
thast true, when believing men see a naked woman they say estaghfirullahi Rabbi and close their eyes and shut their mouth.... not like this
-
so we come back to the subject of the ayas we were examining, which is the presence of hypocrites and persons with diseased hearts, and there is no doubt about who creates mischief and pushes believing men and women into resorting to constrictions they do not need to put up with more than what is required to bring those mischiefers back in order.
Salaam
-
http//www.submission.org/efarsi/arabic/Surat24_files/24_19.gif
2419 Verily, those who love to see "Fahisha" spread among the believers, shall be punished in this world and in the life to come. For, Allah knows and you know not.men/women roaming arround naked shall be punished and not ignored.
-
http//www.submission.org/efarsi/arabic/Surat24_files/24_19.gif
2419 Verily, those who love to see "Fahisha" spread among the believers, shall be punished in this world and in the life to come. For, Allah knows and you know not.men/women roaming arround naked shall be punished and not ignored.
Do you see many of those around? I think in Europe, in spite of what is said, fashion now is not more disclosing than in past epochs. Feminine fashion has mostly relied on exagerating women specific features even to the utmost ridicule. Today it is more natural and measured. We are very much misled by the flood of advertising and media where women are again shown with exagerated attributes and nakedness.
Salaam
-
Huruf,
Huruf,
First let me take you to the verse in question
It says "zaalika adna an u'rafna fa la u'zaina"
that is adna/nearer/closer that u'rafna/they will be recognized, FA/THEREFORE la u'zaina/they will not be harrassed.
That is,
Quote
a) the adoption of the dress code brings them closer to being recognized.b) And THEREFORE, i.e. as a consequence of being recognized, they will avoid getting harrased/hurt/annoyed. That is the more "recognized" they are(due to the dress code), the less their chances of getting harrased.
So here I have attempted to show you that the adoption of the dress code makes the believing women better recognized, as a consequence of which she can avoid being harrased. Please let me know if you agree or not.
But that is what I am saying all along, that the the virtue of the dress has nothing to do with any amount of decency but with being recognized.
The word for "recognized" has connotations of being modest/decent, specially when linked with the sick hearted in such a way.(33/32)
Now I will address your questions, only those which I think are relevant
Well, you have not answered any of my questions on Bosnian women and I think they are VERY, VERY relevant. VERY relevant indeed. In connection with the ayas in question they are as relevant as anything can be, as relevant as what happened on the occasion which is the subject of the ayas themselves. In fact I do not believe that you do not find them relevant, rather that you would want them not to be relevant.
I do not believe that you really believe that.
If you think that the islamic dress code is not decent, what can I do?
You can play with words as much as you want. I don't care.
I am not playing, the word has connotations of being modest/decent, specially in the context.
Your "islamic dress code" is given already in 7.26 y 24.31.
Why even that?!
But where does the aya qualify the instruction for that specific circumstance as islamic dress code?.....................This aya is nothing to do with any islamic dress code hypocrite driven and sick-hearted driven.
A verse telling women how to dress has nothing to do with the islamic/quranic dress code? What makes a dress code islamic/quranic?
Hypocrites and sick-hearted people can anywhere.
Yes and this is what the Qur'an has in store for them if they do not mend
33.59
33.59. If the hypocrites and those with disease in their hearts and those who spread lies in the city do not refrain, then We will let you overpower them, then they will not be able to remain as your neighbors except for a short while.
It seems though that now some people would be too willing to have hypocrites and heart-diseased amonst if that way they could force on women the "islamic" dress code they dream with, because the most important seems to be not to be rid of hypocrites and diseased hearts but to have some extra dress requirement imposed on women by hook or crook.
-
The verse does not say that you can drive people out for being hypocritical and sick-hearted.
-
I did not say anything about forcing the dress code on women.
-
A women takes precaution by being modest/decent/recognized as in verse 33/32, so the sick hearted among the people are not tempted. But some knowingly don't want to take precaution. Maybe they are just as sick hearted.
-
Can't you see that the Quran has layed more stress on women's "fashion" than on men's?
No, IT hasn't. But some would have liked it so and want to see it so. It isn't so.
Everyone can see you are being dishonest. You clearly despise what verse 33/59 commands. You even called it "Arabian fashion of the VII century". That's too bad, and too biased.
-
-
But you still get men who are hypocritical and treat girls differently. Some muslim guys would check out girls who they think 'are asking for it' (the blame game, like you said) but when they see a muslim girl who they perceive as modest in their eyes they will act respectful towards her.
Exactly what I am trying to say. This is how being perceived as modest minimize the chances of getting harassed.
-
Huruf,
But that is what I am saying all along, that the the virtue of the dress has nothing to do with any amount of decency but with being recognized.
The word for "recognized" has connotations of being modest/decent, specially when linked with the sick hearted in such a way.(33/32)
Well, you have not answered any of my questions on Bosnian women and I think they are VERY, VERY relevant. VERY relevant indeed. In connection with the ayas in question they are as relevant as anything can be, as relevant as what happened on the occasion which is the subject of the ayas themselves. In fact I do not believe that you do not find them relevant, rather that you would want them not to be relevant.
I do not believe that you really believe that.
You can play with words as much as you want. I don't care.
I am not playing, the word has connotations of being modest/decent, specially in the context.
Why even that?!
A verse telling women how to dress has nothing to do with the islamic/quranic dress code? What makes a dress code islamic/quranic?
Yes and this is what the Qur'an has in store for them if they do not mend
33.59
33.59. If the hypocrites and those with disease in their hearts and those who spread lies in the city do not refrain, then We will let you overpower them, then they will not be able to remain as your neighbors except for a short while.
It seems though that now some people would be too willing to have hypocrites and heart-diseased amonst if that way they could force on women the "islamic" dress code they dream with, because the most important seems to be not to be rid of hypocrites and diseased hearts but to have some extra dress requirement imposed on women by hook or crook.
-
The verse does not say that you can drive people out for being hypocritical and sick-hearted.
-
I did not say anything about forcing the dress code on women.
-
A women takes precaution by being modest/decent/recognized as in verse 33/32, so the sick hearted among the people are not tempted. But some knowingly don't want to take precaution. Maybe they are just as sick hearted.
No, IT hasn't. But some would have liked it so and want to see it so. It isn't so.
Everyone can see you are being dishonest. You clearly despise what verse 33/59 commands. You even called it "Arabian fashion of the VII century". That's too bad, and too biased.
Your judgements about what other despise or not do not oblige anybody but yourself and other people are quite able to state themselves what they despise and what they don't, so you needn't bother writing anything on at least my behalf. No use either confusing your opinion with the honoured Qur'an. As to what other people see, I guess they can speak for themselves if they want to.
Telling women to guard their private parts, just as telling men do as much and other injunctions to modesty are exactly that, injunctions to modesty, they are not a dress-code, in the same way that injunctions to be just and truthful and not to cheat or deprive people are not a civil code nor a legal code. But may be with some connotations one may contrive such a code.
And "recognize" above any other connotation, has the connotation of "recognizing", even in Arabic.
You keep repeating things that I and others have already answered more than once, but, even after such a long exchange
you still have not answered the questions I asked as to how should Bosnian women have dressed so as to be recognized and therefore not harmed .
Salaam
-
-
peace Fahad, all,
The word for "recognized" has connotations of being modest/decent, specially when linked with the sick hearted in such a way.(33/32)
Firstly, different word forms in 3359 and 3332.
Secondly, the occurrence in 3359 is in the imperfect passive, meaning the subject is in the process of receiving the action expressed in the verb, i.e. the subject is acted upon. Thus, it is not about being the action expressed in the verb.
The above two points cause problems for your statement above.
As a side note, the word forms are grouped together for all to see in Project Root List, under Ayn-Ra-Fa
http//www.studyquran.co.uk/PRLonline.htm -
Peace Wakas,
I am sorry, I meant believing women as well. But your views assume that a particular group of munafiqeen and the sick-hearted would specifically allowed to harass women other than the momin women, like announcing "these women you can't harras, and these women you can".
No. You are taking one theoretical possibility and making out this one theoretical possibility is the one happening.
If a specific group (e.g. mumineen) are in a certain area and people target them and are hostile to the momin women, then the mumineen only have jurisdiction over what happens to their people or is done by their people in this area. It is very unlikely they can protect and thus enforce their laws on other groups. IF harm/annoyance is occurring to other women, then whichever group those other women belong to have to deal with it, unless they defer it to the area rulers (if any).
The picture painted is one of the mumineen not being the rulers of the area. So, it is not giving a green light for the munafiqeen and sick-hearted to harass other women, it is to prevent them giving any excuses, and is akin to issuing an ultimatum (i.e. now you know who these women are, anyone mess with these women then it is us who you will deal with), after which, the muminen have the right to deal with the perpetrators. I just thought of another reason, this modification in garment could be a tactic to expose these people, and prove the momin women are being singled out, thus clearing the way for retaliation.I repeat, AQ does not say other women are being harmed/annoyed, it implies specific targeting of mumineen. You would have a point if the mumineen were the ones in power/authority, area rulers etc.
But the harassment of believing women can also happen in a general situation, so why insist on specific targeting? Because it mentions believing women only? Well that's because the deenillah is for believers only to follow, not for the disbelievers. What other reason is there for insisting on open enmity? I don't think you addressed that question.
There are just too many assumptions in your understanding above.
Please just answer the question. Why do you think AQ is using forgiving/GH-F-R, merciful/R-H-M with regard to your view? Once you answer, then I can give my view, then we can weigh them up.
I don't know the answer. Why don't you please tell me what you think.
I have not studied it either, but as far as I remember, from what I have read in translations, Alif-Zal-Ya(?) is used for annoyance, harassment, and at some places physical hurt as well. And Ayn-Ra-Fa, it seems, has connotations of being modest, decent, reasonable, proper.
Yes, Ayn-Ra-Fa, as a total may have this connotation, but not in this word form. It simply means "known/recognised".
Maybe. I'll need to check related verses to make sure of that.
There is no clear-cut command for giving ultimatums or announcing the consequences.
In the sense it is not word-for-word, but is pretty close to it, and definitely enough to be taken as implicit. In actuality, there is more of a problem for your view than mine on this point, because according to you, since it is a general dress-code command, then when is the point that the mumineen can legitimately take action? When the annoyance/harm crosses a subjective threshold? But in my understanding, the issuing of an ultimatum via dress code identification signals the crossing point. If they still persist, well, then AQ makes it clear what may/will happen.
So in a general situation, a momin will not take any action?
I don't think it is close at all, I am sorry. It may seem close only when open enmity is assumed.
Before I comment any further, I am confused by your view. You say it is not about open enmity and it is not slander, then what is it about?! Judging by your wording, I have an indication, but please clarify as clearly as possible what you think is going on or are trying to say.
I think it is about harassment of (believing)women in general. It mentions believing women only because there is no point in commanding the disbelievers to follow the deenillah. I also quoted Nsws1988 in my previous post to clarify what I am trying to say.
-
Firstly, different word forms in 3359 and 3332.
Do different forms change the meaning entirely?
Secondly, the occurrence in 3359 is in the imperfect passive, meaning the subject is in the process of receiving the action expressed in the verb, i.e. the subject is acted upon. Thus, it is not about being the action expressed in the verb.
When the action will have been received by the subject, has it 'become' the action then?
-
peace Fahad,
But the harassment of believing women can also happen in a general situation, so why insist on specific targeting?
Of course harassment of believing women can also happen in a general situation! I do not deny this.
I insist on specific targeting because that is what AQ says! Ironically, you are the one assuming different to this.Because it mentions believing women only? Well that's because the deenillah is for believers only to follow, not for the disbelievers.
If you are right, then AQ could have easily said those who harm men and women in general, with no reference to momin, in 3358, then gave a specific recommendation for momin women in 3359 to minimise this. Unfortunately for your view, it doesn't do that.
What other reason is there for insisting on open enmity? I don't think you addressed that question.
I did address it. As well as the dress code identification ultimatum, it is because of the severe consequences of being run out of town and/or killed!! What you termed "natural consequence" which is a contradiction to the law of equivalence. This point alone refutes your view and proves significant harassment.
There are just too many assumptions in your understanding above.
Ironically, it is your understanding that has the assumptions.
I don't know the answer. Why don't you please tell me what you think.
Exactly. Maybe you could not come up with an answer because the wording of Forgiving, Merciful is irreconcilable with your view? To answer my question, it is simply a matter of deductive logic
-
The command is addressed to the prophet, so it could be him.
-
could be his wives/daughters and the believing women.
-
If this command will result in the women more liklely being recognised, and since harassment is already taking place, then issuing this command may result in more harassment (temporarily). Thus, the wording of being Forgiving, Merciful upon the prophet is an acceptable interpretation and thus appropriate. It also indirectly implies, this is an extraordinary/unusual measure, i.e. situation specific. Also see M. Asad's notes on this verse.
-
Some traditional tafsirs say that God is being Forgiving for whatever dress code the women used to wear prior to this revelation, and Merciful in this dress-code recommendation or for what they wear in future. Whilst seemingly plausible, it suggests God is being Forgiving for something of no fault by the believing women prior to this revelation. Personally, I'm a bit uncomfortable with that interpretation.
My understanding can fit with both, yours can only fit with (2).
Maybe. I'll need to check related verses to make sure of that.
Yes, check them and let us know what you find. There are not that many so it should be relatively easy.
So in a general situation, a momin will not take any action?
They may or may not, depends on severity/frequency and rule of law for wherever they are. 3359 is discussing significant harassment, targeting.
I think it is about harassment of (believing)women in general. It mentions believing women only because there is no point in commanding the disbelievers to follow the deenillah.
Thanks for clarifying. Now here are the problems for your view for all to see
- You say it is not about open enmity (i.e. direct) or slander (i.e. indirect), and it is about harassment. What kinds of harassment are you talking about then? Please give us several examples so we can better understand your view.
- Once we understand this magical harassment you refer to, you can then explain why the repercussions discussed by AQ, i.e. run out of town and/or killed.
Now, let's get to the plain and simple Arabic problems
Wakas Firstly, different word forms in 3359 and 3332.
Fahad Do different forms change the meaning entirely?Of course they do not BUT if all occurrences of word form 1 are distinct from word form 2, then you have a problem. Please tell us what other occurrences of this same word form has the same meaning as you want it to have in 3359. This should be easy, if you speak the truth.
Wakas Secondly, the occurrence in 3359 is in the imperfect passive, meaning the subject is in the process of receiving the action expressed in the verb, i.e. the subject is acted upon. Thus, it is not about being the action expressed in the verb.
Fahad When the action will have been received by the subject, has it 'become' the action then?Unfortunately for your view, the word is in the imperfect, i.e. an action in the process of being done, i.e. not done/completed. To prove your point Fahad, bring us a translation of your view WITH explanation staying true to the Arabic so we can all see what you mean. If we substitute your understanding in a simple comparison, the forced meaning is plain to see
woman ---> receives recognition (by others) ---> not harmed
woman ---> receives modesty/decency (by others) ---> not harmed
##############
As a side note, based on my understanding, it would seem the punishment for rape can range from banishment to death.
-
-
There is certain connection between the situation depicted in ayas 33.58, 59, 60 and the one in 24.23.
24.23 Those who slander chaste, indiscreet, believing women are cursed in this life and in the hereafter, for them is a grievous penalty.
To note, no punishment to the woman for being indiscreet, no reproach, no rebuke, no "she should try to be discreet", none of that. No duty upon the woman to not offer any opening to the diseased of heart to bring out their filth. It is on them, on the diseased of heart, it is all on them, ALL. It is clear in this case that what matters as per the word of our Creator, is truth and not appearances, and everybody must assume everybody else is virtuous no matter what. So for those hypocrites and diseased of heart in 33.58-60, no room to blame on others their own filth, no "had those women done this or done that, or had they not gone out in the street..."; and a grievous punishment for them.
The Qur'an clearly denies that it falls upon the woman to mind anybody else's morals, like the Qur'an says so many times, they are not their guardians, and the Qur'an makes is clear that she must be protected from mischief and that no conduct of hers that is not fahisha warrants anything but full protection for her freedom and liberty to move as she deems fit.
God is in indeed wise, hakim.
Salaam
-
Huruf,
Your judgements about what other despise or not do not oblige anybody but yourself and other people are quite able to state themselves what they despise and what they don't, so you needn't bother writing anything on at least my behalf.
Now you are asking me to let you get away with calling the Quranic dress code "Arabian fashion of the VII century"! Even if it is situation specific, it is still recommended by the Quran, and you mocked it! I am not writing anything on your behalf, I am just highlighting what you yourself wrote.
No use either confusing your opinion with the honoured Qur'an.
Is this rule only for me? Or does it apply to you and others as well?
Telling women to guard their private parts, just as telling men do as much and other injunctions to modesty are exactly that, injunctions to modesty, they are not a dress-code,
-
There is no similar instruction for men in that verse.
-
An instruction about women's clothing is of course a dress code. A Quranic instruction makes it a Quranic/islamic dress code. I think this is very simple to understand.
in the same way that injunctions to be just and truthful and not to cheat or deprive people are not a civil code nor a legal code. But may be with some connotations one may contrive such a code.
And "recognize" above any other connotation, has the connotation of "recognizing", even in Arabic.
Mention of the sick hearted suggests that there is more to it than mere "recognition".
You keep repeating things that I and others have already answered more than once, but, even after such a long exchange
You'd sure like to think that you have answered anything.
you still have not answered the questions I asked as to how should Bosnian women have dressed so as to be recognized and therefore not harmed .
I am discussing the Quran, not Bosnia, so I can only say what I understand the verse is saying, that momin women should bring "near/down" over themselves from their jalabeeb. That, the verse says, is adna/nearer/closer that they will be "recognized", therefore not "annoyed".
-
-
Peace
Now you are asking me to let you get away with calling the Quranic dress code "Arabian fashion of the VII century"! Even if it is situation specific, it is still recommended by the Quran, and you mocked it! I am not writing anything on your behalf, I am just highlighting what you yourself wrote.
Fahad, what is your understanding of the Quranic dress code for women? Headscarf and cloak?
God bless
-
Huruf,
Now you are asking me to let you get away with calling the Quranic dress code "Arabian fashion of the VII century"! Even if it is situation specific, it is still recommended by the Quran, and you mocked it! I am not writing anything on your behalf, I am just highlighting what you yourself wrote.
I am not asking from you anything, I know better than that, but if you are going to say that I am saying something, you should quote me and quote properly, not put your own words. As to your judgement of what I say I repeat that I AM NOT INTERESTED. But I suppose you do not do it for my benefit.
- An instruction about women's clothing is of course a dress code. A Quranic instruction makes it a Quranic/islamic dress code. I think this is very simple to understand.
Not when the Qur'an says "jalabibihinna". It is addressing those women then and there, those who had the jalabib. Nowhere does it say that any woman must dress in jilbab. The qur'an doesn't instruct anywhere to use any particular kind of dress, at the most acknowledges one or two pieces of dress as being used then and there. No where makes a code for using them or any other clothing. To derive any dress-code obligation from those ayas is imposing what the Qur'an has not imposed.
Mention of the sick hearted suggests that there is more to it than mere "recognition".
Of course there is, that is what has been said all along.
I am discussing the Quran, not Bosnia, so I can only say what I understand the verse is saying, that momin women should bring "near/down" over themselves from their jalabeeb. That, the verse says, is adna/nearer/closer that they will be "recognized", therefore not "annoyed".
Following your example I could take from what you say that you do not think that the Qur'an is valid for all time. Because you do not think it could have helped Bosnian women. Thanks for making that clear.
I will end here my exchange with you for the sake of the readers. I don't think ego wrestling is an enjoyable thing.
Salaam
