Qu'ran and the Hijab/veil/niqab etc.?
-
peace herbman,
I haven't read that thread, and the reason I have not read it is in the original post you did not explain the Arabic letters that follow JLB, according to your hypothesis. Let us know when you have satisfactorily explained this, and the verse(s) make sense, then I will review it. Please continue in that thread, not here. Thanks.
-
peace herbman,
I haven't read that thread, and the reason I have not read it is in the original post you did not explain the Arabic letters that follow JLB, according to your hypothesis. Let us know when you have satisfactorily explained this, and the verse(s) make sense, then I will review it. Please continue in that thread, not here. Thanks.
Dear Wakas,
Please read my thread at the end, I don't know what you mean by "the original post you did not explain the Arabic letters that follow JLB", hope you help because this is one of the biggest lie by sunnies.
All is proved along the thread with references and so on from gramatical point of view untill definition of word.Regards
-
Peace Wakas, all.
I am sorry I couldn't reply earlier.
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.There are commands for the believers throughout the Quran. There is no reason for this one to be any different. There is no reason for me to believe that it is suggesting targeting at all.
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.
This is not a good argument. It is not about informing them that there are people who can harm other people, but about commanding them to take precaution. And there is no point in commanding the disbelievers to follow.
There are just too many assumptions in your understanding above.
Ironically, it is your understanding that has the assumptions.
Take this assumption for example
"the mumineen only have jurisdiction over what happens to their people or is done by their people in this area"
"The picture painted is one of the mumineen not being the rulers of the area."
Where does it paint such a picture?
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?
Maybe. I am open to all views. Lets see
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).
This statement is in clear contradiction with the Quran's claim that being "recognized" will reduce, not increase, "harm/annoyance", which you had previously agreed with.
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.
The reasoning in this statement is nullified anyway because of the reason I have given above, but this statement is also illogical because the command is from God, and the nabi makes no fault therein that is to be forgiven.
- 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.
This traditionist tafsir is pure conjecture. Forgiving for one thing, merciful for the other?! No evidence.
Brother, no offense, but the "deductive logic" in your above two points, is entirely speculative.
My understanding can fit with both, yours can only fit with (2).
Only a crooked understanding can fit with two contradicting views.
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.
-
They may or may not in specific situation as well depending on severity/frequency. Therefore it does not prove it is situation specific.
-
You mention "significant harassment", which implies a subjective threshold in specific situations as well, which you previously attributed to my understanding alone
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.
Therefore this should not be a problem for me as it is not exclusive to my understanding.
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.
-
Neither of the above two point pose any problems for my view. You may review both points, then if you still think so, please explain how. Then we can move forward.
-
I have already given examples, which I didn't need to give, but they are irrelevant to deciding whether this is situation specific or not.
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.
That's illogical. Why do I have a problem if it is not a rule?
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.
Again, that would only be the case if it was a rule that a word form always has the same meaning throughout the Quran. Illogical again.
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.
So the subject is being "recognized". And it is only logical that the subject is being "recognized" because it is "recognizable".
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
Brother, the woman does not "receive modesty", but "is perceived as modest".
-
-
Peace,
Respectfully.I'm against men who force women to wear unQuranic, unIslamic dresses, i'm definetely against burqa and it should be banned. They're seriously considering banning this inhumane outfit which puts women way below normal humans and makes her suffer even more. We all know, see and are aware that women are still oppressed even today in this society, even in this part of the world so we must all strive to strike the enemy where it hurts the most. WE must strike with The Quran and destroy the oppressors with Knowledge.
Peace.
-
Huruf,
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.
I did quote you properly and I also asked you about it. You ignored it. I can quote that too if you want me to.
- 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.
Why not?! You agree that verse 24/31 has a "dress code" for believing women. You wrote
You can play with words as much as you want. I don't care. But where does the aya qualify the instruction for that specific circumstance as islamic dress code? Your "islamic dress code" is given already in 7.26 y 24.31. This aya is nothing to do with any islamic dress code hypocrite driven and sick-hearted driven.
But 24/31 also mentions "khumuri-hinna"(like "jalabibi-hinna". So is it addressing the women only then and there also? So the rest of the momin women can go around without covering their chests?
Nowhere does it say that any woman must dress in jilbab.
24/31 says that momin women must draw their khumur upon their chests. In order to do that the momin women should have the khumur as part of their dress. By the same logic, in order to bring their jalabib near upon themselves, they should have the jalabib as part of their dress.
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.
Is the chest covering also for then and there only?
To derive any dress-code obligation from those ayas is imposing what the Qur'an has not imposed.
And what about deriving it from 24/31?
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.
No, YOU do not think that the Quran is valid for all times, I repeat, YOU called its recommendation "Arabian fashion of the VII century", not me.
Because you do not think it could have helped Bosnian women. Thanks for making that clear.
It only adds weight to my views that it may not be intended for situation specific purposes. You are welcome.
I will end here my exchange with you for the sake of the readers. I don't think ego wrestling is an enjoyable thing.
Ok. Peace.
-
peace Fahad,
No need to apologise for your delay in reply. I only saw your reply today.
There is no reason for me to believe that it is suggesting targeting at all.
Here is my evidence for it
It says those who harm "believing men/women", i.e. it doesn't say others are being harmed, and if it was, why say only those who harm believers are in the wrong, how about those who harm others? To assume others are being harmed is an assumption. Thus, probability on its own, points to targeting.
Since you do not agree with my dress code identification understanding, then I cannot cite that as evidence.It is not about informing them that there are people who can harm other people...
I know. Harm is already occurring.
And there is no point in commanding the disbelievers to follow.
I know, and I never said that. I simply pointed out that AQ could have said what I suggested, which would have given weight to your view, but as it stands, it gives weight to my view.
Where does it paint such a picture?
Wakas "the mumineen only have jurisdiction over what happens to their people or is done by their people in this area".
Can you bring an example from The Quran in which believers are shown to have jurisdiction over others, e.g. not those under their authority, or if others commit crimes for example upon others not associated with them etc. The only example I can think of is 475, but even in this case, it is implied the people oppressed are monotheists at least. I just cant see a mandate for them to do anything to others, other than what I said above, unless they govern the area.Wakas "The picture painted is one of the mumineen not being the rulers of the area."
If they were in authority/power, if harrassment was going on, I'm sure they would do something about it immediately. Not adopt what is suggested in 3359. Further, in 3360 when it says "then We will let you overpower them, then they will not be able to remain as your neighbors except for a short while.", this implies to me they are not in power/authority in this city/region.It is simply a matter of weighing up the possibilities, and as it stands, it is weighted in favour of my view that they are not in power.
This statement is in clear contradiction with the Quran's claim that being "recognized" will reduce, not increase, "harm/annoyance", which you had previously agreed with.
FACT harm is taking place
FACT modification in dress code will make recognition of momin women easierWhat is the obvious possiblity?! That they will be easier to identify and thus harm! The Quran is simply acknowledging this undisputable fact. I am confident that is the reason for "God is Forgiver, Merciful".
The reasoning in this statement is nullified anyway because of the reason I have given above, but this statement is also illogical because the command is from God, and the nabi makes no fault therein that is to be forgiven.
Thank you for this good point.
I would be very interested to see the context of other similar commands that are issued in this way, i.e. "O prophet, tell....". And also the context of all usage of "God is Forgiver, Merciful". Until then, your point isn't proven, but good enough for me to consider another and thanks to your observation I have thought of another possibility since this modification in clothing may result in more harm, or more temporarily, some women may not wish to adopt it, and God knows this, hence is Forgiving, Merciful. This now seems the more likely option.Brother, no offense, but the "deductive logic" in your above two points, is entirely speculative.
First of all, it is not "entirely speculative" as there was some logic/evidence to it. Secondly, I even said the latter was weak. And last but not least you offered no explanation, and still haven't.
Only a crooked understanding can fit with two contradicting views.
Your use of "contradiction" and "contradicting" should be reviewed, as you are using the words incorrectly or too loosely.
- You mention "significant harassment", which implies a subjective threshold in specific situations as well, which you previously attributed to my understanding alone
Therefore this should not be a problem for me as it is not exclusive to my understanding.
The difference between mine and your "subjective threshold" is huge. Let me walk you through it
Wakas' view
harm/harassment occuring ---> modification of dress* ----> liklier to be known ---> not harmed/harassed ---> if persist, retaliaton ---> run out of town and/or killed*ultimatum. If persist, proves targeting, paves the way for just retaliation.
Fahad's view
wearing of jilbab in modified way ----> liklier to be known ---> not harmed/harassed ---> if harmed ---> run out of town and/or killedNo ultimatum. So, according to you, some random day, suddenly the believers can just go round running people out of town and killing!!
After doing the above arrow diagram, I inadvertantly gathered more evidence for my view, let me clarify
harm ---> modify jilbab (or whatever interpretation inbetween these two points) ---> if persist, take action
As everyone can clearly see, it says "if persist", this is conditional upon there being harm in the first place, and this harm occurs BEFORE the modification in dress. Thus, in no way can it be taken as a general command, as it is proven to be conditional. Harm/harrassment must be present first. FACT.
You danced around these two crucial points, and never answered, just like you you never answered on why "God is Forgiver, Merciful"
- 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.
Please answer all 3.
That's illogical. Why do I have a problem if it is not a rule?
I agree, it is not a rule, but it is a problem for your view in terms of simple probablity. If your understanding of a word does not fit elsewhere, and makes no sense elsewhere, then you definitely have a problem. To not even acknowledge it as a problem is telling, and I'm disappointed by your statement.
Brother, the woman does not "receive modesty", but "is perceived as modest".
"perceived" is an action affecting the onlooker, NOT the subject is being acted upon, i.e. receiving the action expressed in the verb.
Again, your view disproven by grammar. Please try again.
-
Peace Wakas.
There is no reason for me to believe that it is suggesting targeting at all.
Here is my evidence for it
It says those who harm "believing men/women", i.e. it doesn't say others are being harmed, and if it was, why say only those who harm believers are in the wrong, how about those who harm others? To assume others are being harmed is an assumption. Thus, probability on its own, points to targeting.
Since you do not agree with my dress code identification understanding, then I cannot cite that as evidence.It does not say that only those who harm the believers are in the wrong. Rather this particular verse is concerned about the believers, just like other verses about the believers are. It is also unwise to assume that disbelieving women are not harmed. You are assuming that other women are not harmed because you are assuming targeting/open enmity(which, we will see in this post, is disproved by the context).
Thus there is need to say it any other way.
For example, it is unwise to assume that the sick hearted will be tempted by the "soft speech"(33/32) of ONLY the wives of the nabi. Even a disbelieving woman who speaks in that manner will also tempt the sick hearted. But it is only that that particular verse is not concerned about the disbelieving women.
It is not about informing them that there are people who can harm other people...
I know. Harm is already occurring.
Therefore there is no need to say it any other way.
And there is no point in commanding the disbelievers to follow.
I know, and I never said that. I simply pointed out that AQ could have said what I suggested, which would have given weight to your view, but as it stands, it gives weight to my view.
It does not give weight to your view because, I repeat what I said before, there is no reason for it to be any different than all the other commands for the believers.
Where does it paint such a picture?
Wakas "the mumineen only have jurisdiction over what happens to their people or is done by their people in this area".
Can you bring an example from The Quran in which believers are shown to have jurisdiction over others, e.g. not those under their authority, or if others commit crimes for example upon others not associated with them etc. The only example I can think of is 475, but even in this case, it is implied the people oppressed are monotheists at least. I just cant see a mandate for them to do anything to others, other than what I said above, unless they govern the area.Wakas "The picture painted is one of the mumineen not being the rulers of the area."
If they were in authority/power, if harrassment was going on, I'm sure they would do something about it immediately. Not adopt what is suggested in 3359. Further, in 3360 when it says "then We will let you overpower them, then they will not be able to remain as your neighbors except for a short while.", this implies to me they are not in power/authority in this city/region.Lets take a look at the context, according to which the believers are in power and there is no open enmity present with the munafiqeen and the sick hearted
Shakir 33/9-13
O you who believe! call to mind the favor of Allah to you when there came down upon you hosts, so We sent against them a strong wind and hosts, that you saw not, and Allah is Seeing what you do.
When they came upon you from above you and from below you, and when the eyes turned dull, and the hearts rose up to the throats, and you began to think diverse thoughts of Allah.
There the believers were tried and they were shaken with severe shaking.
And when the hypocrites and those in whose hearts was a disease began to say Allah and His Apostle did not promise us (victory) but only to deceive.
And when a party of them said O people of Yasrib! there IS no place to stand for you (here), therefore go back; and a party of them asked permission of the prophet, saying. Surely our houses are exposed; and they were not exposed; they only desired to fly away.a. The "hypocrites" and the "sick hearted" were not from the enemy camp in the area. They were among the believers. But when the going got tough, they were exposed. (hence no "open enmity"
b. They asked permission from the nabi, which shows that they were subordinate to him.33/15-16
And certainly they had made a covenant with Allah before, that) they would not turn (their) backs; and Allah's covenant shall be inquired of.
Say Flight shall not do you any good if you fly from death or slaughter, and in that case you will not be allowed to enjoy yourselves but a little.They made a covenant with Allah but didn't fulfill due to fear of death or slaughter. i.e. they were to fight alongside the believers.
33/25 And Allah turned back the unbelievers in their rage; they did not obtain any advantage, and Allah sufficed the believers in fighting; and Allah is Strong, Mighty.
The enemies were sent back. They were not in the believers' area. There was no open enmity in the area.
33/26-27
And He drove down those of the followers of the Book who backed them from their fortresses and He cast awe into their hearts; some you killed and you took captive another part.
And He made you heirs to their land and their dwellings and their property, and (to) a land which you have not yet trodden, and Allah has power over all things.The believers inherited the lands and the properties. They were in power.
33/32 O wives of the Prophet! you are not like any other of the women; If you will be on your guard, then be not soft in (your) speech, lest he in whose heart is a disease yearn; and speak a good word.
If there was open enmity in the area, the wives of the nabi would not have been speaking with them.
Wakas "The picture painted is one of the mumineen not being the rulers of the area."
If they were in authority/power, if harrassment was going on, I'm sure they would do something about it immediately. Not adopt what is suggested in 3359. Further, in 3360 when it says "then We will let you overpower them, then they will not be able to remain as your neighbors except for a short while.", this implies to me they are not in power/authority in this city/region.It does not say "We will let you overpower them", it says "We will stir you with them".
It is simply a matter of weighing up the possibilities, and as it stands, it is weighted in favour of my view that they are not in power.
For you it may be a matter of weighing up possibilities. I regard it as speculation/conjecture.
And the context disproves your view that they are not in power.
This statement is in clear contradiction with the Quran's claim that being "recognized" will reduce, not increase, "harm/annoyance", which you had previously agreed with.
FACT harm is taking place
FACT modification in dress code will make recognition of momin women easierFACT therefore they will be NOT BE "HARMED"/fa la yu'zaina.
What is the obvious possiblity?! That they will be easier to identify and thus harm! The Quran is simply acknowledging this undisputable fact. I am confident that is the reason for "God is Forgiver, Merciful".
I cannot accept that because of the reason I have given above the FACT that you left out. Your "obvious possibility" is in obvious contradiction with the Quran.
The reasoning in this statement is nullified anyway because of the reason I have given above, but this statement is also illogical because the command is from God, and the nabi makes no fault therein that is to be forgiven.
Thank you for this good point.
No problem bro.
I would be very interested to see the context of other similar commands that are issued in this way, i.e. "O prophet, tell....". And also the context of all usage of "God is Forgiver, Merciful". Until then, your point isn't proven, ...
No brother, until then, your point isn't proven. You made that point initially, I attempted a refutation.
...but good enough for me to consider another and thanks to your observation I have thought of another possibility since this modification in clothing may result in more harm, or more temporarily, some women may not wish to adopt it, and God knows this, hence is Forgiving, Merciful. This now seems the more likely option.
It will not result in more "harm". This view of yours is also in clear contradiction with the Quran. The problem with this views is the same as the first one
- 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.
Brother, no offense, but the "deductive logic" in your above two points, is entirely speculative.
First of all, it is not "entirely speculative" as there was some logic/evidence to it.
I don't think so. The "logic" of "more recognition, more harm" was contradictory to the Quran and there was no Quranic evidence for the "Forgiving Merciful" part, only speculation/conjecture. The other point that you said was weak was also purely conjectural.
Secondly, I even said the latter was weak.
You still speculated about it.
And last but not least you offered no explanation, and still haven't.
I didn't speculate.
Only a crooked understanding can fit with two contradicting views.
Your use of "contradiction" and "contradicting" should be reviewed, as you are using the words incorrectly or too loosely.
I stand by my statement.
- You mention "significant harassment", which implies a subjective threshold in specific situations as well, which you previously attributed to my understanding alone
Therefore this should not be a problem for me as it is not exclusive to my understanding.
The difference between mine and your "subjective threshold" is huge. Let me walk you through it
Wakas' view
harm/harassment occuring ---> modification of dress* ----> liklier to be known ---> not harmed/harassed ---> if persist, retaliaton ---> run out of town and/or killed*ultimatum. If persist, proves targeting, paves the way for just retaliation.
Fahad's view
wearing of jilbab in modified way ----> liklier to be known ---> not harmed/harassed ---> if harmed ---> run out of town and/or killedNo ultimatum. So, according to you, some random day, suddenly the believers can just go round running people out of town and killing!!
After doing the above arrow diagram, I inadvertantly gathered more evidence for my view, let me clarify
harm ---> modify jilbab (or whatever interpretation inbetween these two points) ---> if persist, take action
You said that threshold in my general situation understanding is subjective. Your understanding involved "significant harassment" which also implied a subjective threshold. To show the "huge difference" between our subjective thresholds, you'll have to describe what you mean by "significant" harassment.
You have not shown, how the threshold in a general situation is more subjective than in a specific situation. You say your understanding involves an ultimatum(which does not prove any thing about the subjective threshold btw), but before the ultimatum comes your "significant harassment"(the subjective threshold), which you did not address.
Both thresholds are subjective, regardless of the "huge difference". What is to say that the "huge difference" is not subjective either? Nothing in what you have written above.
As everyone can clearly see, it says "if persist", this is conditional upon there being harm in the first place, and this harm occurs BEFORE the modification in dress. Thus, in no way can it be taken as a general command, as it is proven to be conditional. Harm/harrassment must be present first. FACT.
How does it disprove its being a general command? You already agreed that the "harassment" can take place in a general situation too.
According to your understanding women should WAIT for harm to occur! THEN they will start taking precaution!
You danced around these two crucial points, and never answered, just like you you never answered on why "God is Forgiver, Merciful"
Quote from Wakas
- 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.
Please answer all 3.
-
You said these points cause problems for my views. You didn't explain what problems. Please explain.
-
I had told you before in a previous post that I have not studied these occurances in the Quran. If you want me to study them, please first show me their relevance to proving the situation specific-ness of the dress command.
That's illogical. Why do I have a problem if it is not a rule?
I agree, it is not a rule, but it is a problem for your view in terms of simple probablity. If your understanding of a word does not fit elsewhere, and makes no sense elsewhere, then you definitely have a problem. To not even acknowledge it as a problem is telling, and I'm disappointed by your statement.
If your understanding of a word does not fit elsewhere, and makes no sense elsewhere, then you definitely have a problem.
You can try to give me some example from the Quran about how probability causes problem for my view.
Brother, the woman does not "receive modesty", but "is perceived as modest".
"perceived" is an action affecting the onlooker, NOT the subject is being acted upon, i.e. receiving the action expressed in the verb.
Again, your view disproven by grammar. Please try again.
So "recognized" is grammatically OK, but "perceived" isn't?!
-
peace Fahad,
What I am saying is very simple AQ says harm is occurring to group ABC, so I assume harm is occuring to group ABC and most likely it is not for others, or not the same. You on the other hand need harm to be occurring to others for your interpretation to work. If you think that's the same, fair enough.
You never brought an example from The Quran in which believers are shown to have jurisdiction over others, e.g. not those under their authority, or if others commit crimes for example upon others not associated with them etc.
Lets take a look at the context, according to which the believers are in power and there is no open enmity present with the munafiqeen and the sick hearted
The topic we are discussing begins from verse 3358. You bring your evidence from verses 339-27.
a. The "hypocrites" and the "sick hearted" were not from the enemy camp in the area. They were among the believers. But when the going got tough, they were exposed. (hence no "open enmity"
Is proving no open enmity for these verses equal to proving no open enmity for 45 verse later?!
b. They asked permission from the nabi, which shows that they were subordinate to him.
Firstly, it was a section of them who asked permission. But yes, the believers are meant to be subordinate to him. Thanks for stating the obvious. What's your point? Please link it to our verses in question.
I have not studied the whole chapter with regard to this point. What is interesting is I assume you did review the immediate context before 3358 but could not find anything, thus the best you have is from 31 verses back. I would like to review it properly when I have time however.
It does not say "We will let you overpower them", it says "We will stir you with them".
Thanks for the info. No surprise that the translation was wrong. Still, to stir one against the other, and for them to remain neighbours in it for a short while does not exactly suggest rule of the area. We would need to review the whole chapter, with accurate translation this time.
FACT therefore they will be NOT BE "HARMED"/fa la yu'zaina.
Did you neglect the first part of this conditional sentence for a reason?
Asad this will be more con?ducive to their being recognized and not annoyed.
I would have to check the translation, but the point is, it is not as absolute as you make out. If it was so absolute as you make out, then why "if they do not desist" in the next verse? Further, simple logic tells us that a modification in dress is not a guarantee of no harm. Luckily for us, AQ is logical precision par excellence, thus would never imply what you are implying.
No brother, until then, your point isn't proven. You made that point initially, I attempted a refutation.
You are correct, you attempted a refutation, but did not prove it. Hence this point is unproven, and thus my point is "in the air" so to speak.
Both thresholds are subjective, regardless of the "huge difference". What is to say that the "huge difference" is not subjective either? Nothing in what you have written above.
Yes, there is subjectivity in both, no denying that. As I said previously, your subjective threshold is very different to mine and can result in running people out of town and/or killing them with no warning. This is completely unacceptable to me as an understanding as it goes against what AQ promotes. If that's acceptable to you, then state clearly for all to see. What is interesting is you did not disagree with what I said about your view, so let me repeat it again for all to see
No ultimatum. So, according to you, some random day, suddenly the believers can just go round running people out of town and killing!!
How does it disprove its being a general command? You already agreed that the "harassment" can take place in a general situation too.
Yes, but significant harassment would be rare. Since no-one knows in your view what kind of magical harassment you refer to and how people can be run out of town for it and/or killed, then I cant say much about your view on this point.
According to your understanding women should WAIT for harm to occur! THEN they will start taking precaution!
Normal dress code, if we take 3359 out of it, is still plenty modest and thus taking precaution. My understanding is when significant harassment in this type of situation occurs, not a blanket rule for all the time.
Now let me clarify the questions you have evaded yet another time
- 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 significant repercussions discussed by AQ, i.e. run out of town and/or killed. For example, what the criteria is for such a retaliation, according to your view.
- Please explain why The Quran uses the words "Gos is Forgiver, Merciful" according to your view.
- Can you provide us with any example in The Quran where your translation of the passive word form 3RF actually works? I will even provide the occurrences for you (impf. pass. 3359, 5541; pcple. pass. 2178, 2180, 2228, 2229, 2231, 2231, 2232, 2233, 2233, 2234, 2235, 2236, 2240, 2241, 2263, 3104, 3110, 3114, 45, 46, 48, 419, 425, 4114, 7157, 967, 971, 9112, 2241, 2453, 3115, 3117, 336, 3332, 4721, 6012, 652, 652, 656)
So "recognized" is grammatically OK, but "perceived" isn't?!
Yes. What part of "perceived" is an action affecting the onlooker, NOT the subject is being acted upon, i.e. receiving the action expressed in the verb." did you not understand? If you disagree with what I said, please state clearly. Perhaps someone with knowledge of Arabic can clarify, perhaps you will accept it then.
Until you answer the questions in bold, I'm out. Peace.
-
Peace Wakas.
What I am saying is very simple AQ says harm is occurring to group ABC, so I assume harm is occuring to group ABC and most likely it is not for others, or not the same.
You didn't address the logic I presented. I showed you, by the logic in verse 33/32 in the example quoted below that the sick hearted being tempted by the "soft speech" of the nabi's wives does not mean that it is most likely not for others. Of course it is for others too who speak in the same way. I think that's very logical. It is only that the verse is not concerned about the other women. In the same manner, the non-believing women who do not adopt the dress code are of course more exposed to "harm" than the believing women adopting the dress code
For example, it is unwise to assume that the sick hearted will be tempted by the "soft speech"(33/32) of ONLY the wives of the nabi. Even a disbelieving woman who speaks in that manner will also tempt the sick hearted. But it is only that that particular verse is not concerned about the disbelieving women.
You on the other hand need harm to be occurring to others for your interpretation to work. If you think that's the same, fair enough.
I don't need it to be occurring to others. It may or may not occur to others, the verse is not concerned about them, just like all the other verses about the believers. While your interpretation cannot work without assuming that it is occurring only/specifically to the momineen, i.e. targeting. I gave you the example of 33/32. You didn't address it.
You never brought an example from The Quran in which believers are shown to have jurisdiction over others, e.g. not those under their authority, or if others commit crimes for example upon others not associated with them etc.
I didn't have to because the munafiqeen and the sick hearted are very well under the authority of the nabi as the context shows.
Lets take a look at the context, according to which the believers are in power and there is no open enmity present with the munafiqeen and the sick hearted
The topic we are discussing begins from verse 3358. You bring your evidence from verses 339-27.
The topic of this dress command begins and ends with 33/59. The context, however, does not. The context stretches throughout this particular chapter.
Btw, I think you do not have anything left to hold on to your view of believers not having power. A mistranslation of "we will stir you with them" was your only hope, but that's gone now.
a. The "hypocrites" and the "sick hearted" were not from the enemy camp in the area. They were among the believers. But when the going got tough, they were exposed. (hence no "open enmity"
Is proving no open enmity for these verses equal to proving no open enmity for 45 verse later?!
WHY not? How many verses later should it have been to prove it? There is no sign of believers loosing their power, no signs of jumps in circumstances. The verses establish that the enemies have been driven back and the munafiqeen and sick hearted are very well under the nabi's authority. The general context remains the same throughout the chapter. You need to ignore all that the earlier verses have established for your interpretation to work.
b. They asked permission from the nabi, which shows that they were subordinate to him.
Firstly, it was a section of them who asked permission. But yes, the believers are meant to be subordinate to him. Thanks for stating the obvious. What's your point? Please link it to our verses in question.
I was referring to the hypocrites and the sick hearted, not the believers, asking permission from the nabi. Which proves that the nabi has power/authority over them. And that remained unchanged throughout this chapter. There is no indication of a change in power.
I have not studied the whole chapter with regard to this point. What is interesting is I assume you did review the immediate context before 3358 but could not find anything, thus the best you have is from 31 verses back.
I could not find any changes in circumstances or power position in the context either. No indication that the believers lost their lands, properties and power which it mentions just 31 or so verses earlier that God made them gain . The context remains the same throughout the chapter.
I would like to review it properly when I have time however.
Until then, my point stands undisproven.
I have checked the context. There is no indication of any change in authority.
It does not say "We will let you overpower them", it says "We will stir you with them".
Thanks for the info. No surprise that the translation was wrong.
That mistranslation was your only "evidence" for believers not being in power/authority. Not anymore.
Still, to stir one against the other, and for them to remain neighbours in it for a short while does not exactly suggest rule of the area. We would need to review the whole chapter, with accurate translation this time.
-
The believers' rule of the area has already been established in the earlier verses.
-
Your wrong understanding of the "stirring" was your evidence to support your view of believers not already being in power. That has also been disproven now.
Both points disprove your view of believers not already being in power, and prove mine.
FACT therefore they will be NOT BE "HARMED"/fa la yu'zaina.
Did you neglect the first part of this conditional sentence for a reason?
Asad this will be more con?ducive to their being recognized and not annoyed.
I did not neglect the first part. The first part was already quoted by you
FACT modification in dress code will make recognition of momin women easier
I only pointed out what you neglected, the second part. Did you neglect it because it contradicts your view of "more recognition, more harm"?
I would have to check the translation, but the point is, it is not as absolute as you make out. If it was so absolute as you make out, then why "if they do not desist" in the next verse?
I never said that there will be no "harm" at all. It says "if they do not desist" because it reduces harm, it does not prevent it altogether. But it does not increase harm like you are saying. Your understanding of the "harm" increasing due to dress code is the absolute opposite of what the verse is saying.
Further, simple logic tells us that a modification in dress is not a guarantee of no harm.
I never said that dress modification guarantees NO harm. But there are definitely less chances of "harm", never more. Just what the logic of the verse is saying.
Therefore AQ is implying what I am implying modification in dress, less "harm".
Luckily for us, AQ is logical precision par excellence, thus would never imply what you are implying.
You talk about logical precision of the Quran, while at the same time you are saying that the Quran is implying 180 degree opposite of what its text is saying. You need to turn the verse's logic on its head to make your interpretation work.
A sincere advice for you bro You are letting your interpretation of Ayn-Ra-Fa/"recognition" and Alif-Zaal-Ya/"harm" effect the logic of the verse. It should be the other way around.
No brother, until then, your point isn't proven. You made that point initially, I attempted a refutation.
You are correct, you attempted a refutation, but did not prove it. Hence this point is unproven, and thus my point is "in the air" so to speak.
Brother, let us recall what happened
You raised the "forgiver, merciful" point in order to prove your point about the dress command being situation specific. And you failed to provide any evidence for it. I repeat, the "logic" of "more recognition, more harm" was contradictory to the Quran and there was no Quranic evidence for the "Forgiving Merciful" part, only speculation/conjecture. The other point that you said was weak was also purely conjectural.
You wrote
"I would be very interested to see the context of other similar commands that are issued in this way, i.e. "O prophet, tell....". And also the context of all usage of "God is Forgiver, Merciful". Until then, your point isn't proven, ..."
Until then my point isn't proven?! No bro, you raised the "forgiver merciful" point to prove your point, not mine, which you failed to provide evidence for. Therefore it is your point that is unproven and pointless.
As for my point/refutation, here it is again
the "logic" of "more recognition, more harm" was contradictory to the Quran and there was no Quranic evidence for the "Forgiving Merciful" part, only speculation/conjecture. The other point that you said was weak was also purely conjectural.
To which you replied
I would have to check the translation, but the point is, it is not as absolute as you make out. If it was so absolute as you make out, then why "if they do not desist" in the next verse?
To which I replied in this post
I never said that there will be no "harm" at all. It says "if they do not desist" because it reduces harm, it does not prevent it altogether. But it does not increase harm like you are saying. Your understanding of the "harm" increasing due to dress code is the absolute opposite of what the verse is saying.
And so my point remains undisproven.
Both thresholds are subjective, regardless of the "huge difference". What is to say that the "huge difference" is not subjective either? Nothing in what you have written above.
Yes, there is subjectivity in both, no denying that. As I said previously, your subjective threshold is very different to mine and can result in running people out of town and/or killing them with no warning. This is completely unacceptable to me as an understanding as it goes against what AQ promotes. If that's acceptable to you, then state clearly for all to see. What is interesting is you did not disagree with what I said about your view, so let me repeat it again for all to see
No ultimatum. So, according to you, some random day, suddenly the believers can just go round running people out of town and killing!!
- You still did not show what is the huge difference in the subjectivity between our post. You are insisting that I answer irrelevant questions(the relevance of which you cannot explain) while you will not answer the directly relevant ones!
What is the "subjective threshold"/"significant harassment"?!
What is the "huge difference"?!
What is to say that the "huge difference" itself is not subjective?!
-
How does an ultimatum prove anything at all about subjectivity, since the ultimatum comes only AFTER the subjective threshold/"significant harassment" as shown in your arrow diagram?
-
You wrote
As I said previously, your subjective threshold is very different to mine and can result in running people out of town and/or killing them with no warning. This is completely unacceptable to me as an understanding as it goes against what AQ promotes.
While previously you wrote something that is in direct contradiction with your quote above
If they were in authority/power, if harassment was going on, I'm sure they would do something about it immediately. Not adopt what is suggested in 3359.
So if they were in authority/power, they would do something about the harassment immediately without adopting the ultimatum first!!! That is, they would go against what you think the Quran promotes?! But that was "completely unacceptable" to you earlier!
As we can see, your understanding is riddled with internal contradictions, external contradictions(contradictions with the Quran) as well as speculation/conjecture.
This is completely unacceptable to me as an understanding as it goes against what AQ promotes. If that's acceptable to you, then state clearly for all to see. What is interesting is you did not disagree with what I said about your view, so let me repeat it again for all to see
No ultimatum. So, according to you, some random day, suddenly the believers can just go round running people out of town and killing!!
The question is, which of your two contradicting understandings above is acceptable to you?
How does it disprove its being a general command? You already agreed that the "harassment" can take place in a general situation too.
Yes, but significant harassment would be rare. Since no-one knows in your view what kind of magical harassment you refer to and how people can be run out of town for it and/or killed, then I cant say much about your view on this point.
Do you yourself know what kind of magical harassment you are referring to?! The "significant harassment"?! The subjective threshold?! It appears you yourself have no idea of the points that you have raised. Yet you are insisting me to explain them!
According to your understanding women should WAIT for harm to occur! THEN they will start taking precaution!
Normal dress code, if we take 3359 out of it, is still plenty modest and thus taking precaution.
The only dress component specified for precaution against "harm/annoyance/harassment" is in 33/59, not in any other verse.
My understanding is when significant harassment in this type of situation occurs, not a blanket rule for all the time.
Your understanding is WHAT when significant harassment in this type of situation occurs...? That they should WAIT for "significant harassment" to occur?
HOW MANY TIMES, and HOW SIGNIFICANTLY, should "SIGNIFICANT harassment" occur before they start taking precaution?
Now let me clarify the questions you have evaded yet another time
-
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 significant repercussions discussed by AQ, i.e. run out of town and/or killed. For example, what the criteria is for such a retaliation, according to your view.
-
I asked you to tell me the relevance of these questions. I take that you are not telling any because you don't know any. I know it has no logical relevance to the situation specific-ness of the dress command.
-
You said these points cause problems for my views. But you are unable to mention the problems. It seems you don't know any problems to mention. And therefore it seems I don't need to answer any of these questions and deviate the discussion towards irrelevant things.
- Please explain why The Quran uses the words "Gos is Forgiver, Merciful" according to your view.
The Quran has made no specification about why these words are used, therefore it can not be put forward as evidence for any view, but only as speculation, which will not prove any thing. Hence it is irrelevant for me to speculate about it. Isn't it?
- Can you provide us with any example in The Quran where your translation of the passive word form 3RF actually works? I will even provide the occurrences for you (impf. pass. 3359, 5541; pcple. pass. 2178, 2180, 2228, 2229, 2231, 2231, 2232, 2233, 2233, 2234, 2235, 2236, 2240, 2241, 2263, 3104, 3110, 3114, 45, 46, 48, 419, 425, 4114, 7157, 967, 971, 9112, 2241, 2453, 3115, 3117, 336, 3332, 4721, 6012, 652, 652, 656)
When I asked you why do I have to provide you with an example when there is no rule that a word form should always have the same meaning throughout the Quran, you replied that "simple probability" causes a problem for me. I asked you to provide us with an example from the Quran of how "simple probability" causes a problem for me, but you have not provided it, and neither is there any comprehensive study on this topic/rule.
Why then are you asking me to answer irrelevant questions, when you will not answer the directly relevant and logical questions, or even expound on your own questions?
So "recognized" is grammatically OK, but "perceived" isn't?!
Yes. What part of "perceived" is an action affecting the onlooker, NOT the subject is being acted upon, i.e. receiving the action expressed in the verb." did you not understand? If you disagree with what I said, please state clearly. Perhaps someone with knowledge of Arabic can clarify, perhaps you will accept it then.
Ok, ok. My mistake. "Perceived" is not the correct word to express my view. Lets just replace it with "recognized" "recognized as modest". Everything alright now?
Until you answer the questions in bold, I'm out. Peace.
That's OK brother, because I am not going to answer irrelevant questions to deviate the discussion. But anyway, thank you for discussing. I hope that you have not taken anything personally.
Peace.
-
-
peace Fahad,
I do not take anything personally, but what does bother me is when people misquote me or misrepresent my view. Please read my posts carefully and do not read anything into them that is not explicitly there. Please remember, use of quotation marks can imply you are quoting someone (i.e. me), when you are just really paraphrasing what you think I said. Please use the quote function of the forum software if quoting me.
When I read your post, I thought to myself "Wait a second, did I really say the believers were not in authority/power?" and to my surprise, even though at the start of this discussion and in the short article I wrote (link below), I do say the authority/power is in place
http//misconceptions-about-islam.com/dress-code-women-veil.htmThen in this discussion, I seemingly changed my view, but I realise now how that happened. When I said early on you would have had a point if they were in power, but now I realise I meant you would have had a point theoretically, not that I considered it had any weight, just theoretically possible. At this point, I wasn't sure if they definitely were the authority/power or they had just enough authority/power to carry out the retaliation in the verses.
IF, what you say is correct, and they are the authority/power, then I dont see how this affects my view and am happy to return to my original view outlined in this article.
At this point, I have not thoroughly reviewed the chapter however.I apologise if the above caused confusion. It may have done.
Now, let me be clear YOU said that I said that the modification in dress would result in MORE harm. I did not say that. I said it may temporarily. I am simply acknowledging the theoretical possibility, that does not mean I think this is the most likely outcome. More accurately, I am saying, as a result of change in dress code, it is easier to recognise them, thus the obvious possibility is harm may result or continue or those previously unharmed may come to harm, hence some women may not wish to do this, hence God is Forgiver, Merciful.
If I did not address 3332, it is because it is clearly addressed to the prophet's wives, like other commands specific to them. If YOU want to assume it applies to others, that is up to you. Similarly, if YOU want to assume harm is occurring to other than the believers even though 3358 says no such thing, that is up to you.
Before we move on, I think we will have to address this point by point
- If my view of believers being in the authority causes problems for my view, then please let me know clearly.
-
peace Fahad,
I do not take anything personally, but what does bother me is when people misquote me or misrepresent my view. Please read my posts carefully and do not read anything into them that is not explicitly there. Please remember, use of quotation marks can imply you are quoting someone (i.e. me), when you are just really paraphrasing what you think I said. Please use the quote function of the forum software if quoting me.
Ok.
When I read your post, I thought to myself "Wait a second, did I really say the believers were not in authority/power?" and to my surprise, even though at the start of this discussion and in the short article I wrote (link below), I do say the authority/power is in place
http//misconceptions-about-islam.com/dress-code-women-veil.htmThen in this discussion, I seemingly changed my view, but I realise now how that happened. When I said early on you would have had a point if they were in power, but now I realise I meant you would have had a point theoretically, not that I considered it had any weight, just theoretically possible. At this point, I wasn't sure if they definitely were the authority/power or they had just enough authority/power to carry out the retaliation in the verses.
IF, what you say is correct, and they are the authority/power, then I dont see how this affects my view and am happy to return to my original view outlined in this article.
At this point, I have not thoroughly reviewed the chapter however.I think the wording in the article implies the same as your view in the discussion, that the authority is in place as in believers having a leadership, i.e. as in believers having someone to command them in fight or command them to fight
From the MOI article
- The authority is in place to fight/expel those persisting in this behaviour
It does not clarify whether the munafiqeen and sick hearted are under the authority of the nabi too.
I apologise if the above caused confusion. It may have done.
No worries.
Now, let me be clear YOU said that I said that the modification in dress would result in MORE harm. I did not say that. I said it may temporarily.
MORE harm temporarily is still MORE harm, not to mention inconsistent with the logic of the verse. According to the logic, the women are definitely safer due to the dress modification.
I am simply acknowledging the theoretical possibility, that does not mean I think this is the most likely outcome.
I cannot accept any theoretical possibility not consistent with the Quran.
More accurately, I am saying, as a result of change in dress code, it is easier to recognise them, thus the obvious possibility is harm may result or continue or those previously unharmed may come to harm, hence some women may not wish to do this, hence God is Forgiver, Merciful.
I could understand what you are saying but I cannot take ayn-ra-fa here to mean anything that even temporarily increases the possibility of aziya(?)/alif-zay-ya. The logic of the verse does not allow that.
If I did not address 3332, it is because it is clearly addressed to the prophet's wives, like other commands specific to them. If YOU want to assume it applies to others, that is up to you. Similarly, if YOU want to assume harm is occurring to other than the believers even though 3358 says no such thing, that is up to you.
But that would imply that the sick hearted have a fetish only for the honorable wives of the nabi and the believing women.
Before we move on, I think we will have to address this point by point
- If my view of believers being in the authority causes problems for my view, then please let me know clearly.
I will have to look back at your posts again. Will do that tomorrow. I will let you know then.
I will be taking a beak from the forum. If you want to continue and address my arguments point by point, please do so. I will reply to it sometime later inshaallah.
-
peace Fahad,
To repeat, accepting a theoretical possiblity does not mean one thinks it is the most likely outcome. You seem to imply more harm is impossible. Note, "impossible" is a very strong word. In fact, it is so strong, that if someone wanted to disprove God and The Quran, according to your view, they simply need to cause more harassment/harm after this change in dress code takes place. Of course, we all know this is illogical.
Once you address the point about how being in authority disproves or weakens my view, then we can address the other points. I do not mind if we take our time, I am also busy.
-
Well anyway...anyone who advocates the wearing of the NIQAB for females must be a hypocrite, as far as what I can recall that is in the sunni books, saying a woman can show HER HANDS AND HER FACE..yet some sunni's are saying it's AN OBLIGATION on a woman to cover her face? Wtf? And also the hands?! Are they going against their false sunna now?
All this apparently because men will look at them...very baseless claim that is not even based on the baseless hadith.
-
There is a point I?d like to bring up. I fell it wasn?t really addressed which could be seen as a reason or a supporter for the traditional scarf.
In 2431 it talks about a charm to be covered? Except to husband, father, father in-law, son, nephews, bro etc.. What kind of charm? Without the traditional hijab what is it?
Men and women will look at anything, people can dress however they want that's their right. Only their injustices that say ?this is a religious practice?, ?this is an obligation? that?s the inequity, that's when it?s wrong.
-
So basically you think it's the striking of the feet, the way they walk?
What I don't get is why would someone wanna 'show off' that charm to family members i mean other than spouse it seems kinda odd.. also wouldn't tight clothing reveal the charm? So in that case modesty would mean no tight clothing..
-
peace Sarah,
So basically you think it's the striking of the feet, the way they walk?
When there is only one possible interpretation, I prefer not to think of it as "what I think" and more like this is what AQ is saying. I will explain, 2431 is almost falling over itself clarifying what it means, e.g.
Tell the believing men to lower their gaze and guard their private parts, for that is purer for them. God is fully aware of what you do.
And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and guard their private parts, and that they should not reveal their beauty except what is apparent of it, and let them draw with their covers over their chests. And let them not reveal their beauty except to their husbands, or their fathers, or fathers of their husbands, or their sons, or the sons of their husbands, or their brothers, or the sons of their brothers, or the sons of their sisters, or their women, or those committed to them by oath, or the male servants who are without need, or the child who has not yet understood the composition of women. And let them not strike with their feet that reveals what they are keeping hidden of their beauty. And repent to God, all of you believers, that you may succeed.should not reveal their beauty except what is apparent of it = proves that at least part MUST be uncovered, as "Arabic min" is a partitive. So, the only question is, how much can be apparent, and how much can be hidden.
By referencing "the child who has not yet understood the composition of women" it is clearly implying that it is referring to what is unique to females. This is further proven by telling males in 2430 to guard their genatalia. What is the only other thing different between men and women? Female breasts, hence mentioned. That is why NOTHING else is mentioned.
Then if the above is not enough, it goes on to say "And let them not strike with their feet that reveals what they are keeping hidden of their beauty." There is only a limited number of parts of a woman's body that could be revealed by such an act. There is no escaping this interpretation, it is clear. It also further clarifies how to determine what is apparent and what is hidden beauty.
To conclude, everything in the verse reinforces each other and only leaves one possible interpretation (or at least I cannot see any other viable interpretation). This surprised me, as I was not expecting this when I researched it. I am now of the view, these observations finally smash the traditional understanding. This can be further proven by the rest of the article, and the ablution, note that in the Quranic ablution nothing of the Quranic female dress code is compromised. It is a perfect fit.
What I don't get is why would someone wanna 'show off' that charm to family members i mean other than spouse it seems kinda odd..
It is not a matter of showing off! This goes directly against the message of 2460, also mentioned in the article. It is all about AQ giving the necessary flexibility, which I briefly commented on here
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9597104.msg202040#msg202040
I also made the mistake you made, and thought the same, but then I realised AQ is referring to what I termed "total beauty" (see equation above). Thus, how much to show of it is left to the individual and will be situational. For example, women's parts are exposed in childbirth and also the breasts in breast-feeding.
I can honestly say that the female dress code according to AQ is a thing of beauty (no pun intended).
