Taking off the Hijab
-
Alen, I believe Ayisha's post was tongue-in-cheek. She was referring to the argument that women MUST wear hijab because men are just not able to behave if they see a woman who is not completely covered.
As you rightly noticed, this is a very derogatory view of men. Personally, I fully agree that most men are not as described above. Men are not animals, flies, wolves, lions, slaves to their instincts, as we so often hear.
Despite the fact that I've complained about street harassment on this thread, my overall experience with men is not like that. I have always mingled with men, I have close male friends, and I have never had any negative experiences. But that is exactly why I believe harassment is not an issue of how women dress, but how men are brought up, how they perceive women etc. And that's why it bothers me when people who have never lived in an environment where interaction with women is normal and nobody obsesses about how they dress, insist that the women are being responsible for bad male behaviour.
peace
as ever you say it much better than I ever could ;D
-
So again you think its down to the woman to remind you? I thought it was supposed to be women that needed reminding of things.
Women are only refereed in the quran to being reminded when they get involved in financial contracts.
Yes it is for the woman to tell the man.
-
Wrong. prostitution has nothing to do with sleeping with someone without marriage or we could say there are thousands of Muslim men and women who are prostitutes by that logic and wrong definition.
Prostitution is the giving of sexual favours for financial reward..................hhmm ok I will change what I said because in the majority of muslim countries women are bought for marriage, financial reward is given and the sexual favour granted! Now I understand why you think prostitution is to do with marriage! ;D
Prostitution is as according to the etymology of the term.
The quran refers to women who are forced, or people who are zani.
-
http//img13.imageshack.us/img13/3531/stupidki.gif http//img13.imageshack.us/img13/3531/stupidki.gif http//img13.imageshack.us/img13/3531/stupidki.gif http//img13.imageshack.us/img13/3531/stupidki.gif http//img13.imageshack.us/img13/3531/stupidki.gif
Cut that out.
-
In fact, the way many traditional scholars describe marriage, it reminds indeed of prostitution. Sex and service for the man, money and a dignified position for the woman -- that's the deal. Some even say that if the woman refuses to have sex with the husband, he is entitled to stop providing for her.
If that's not prostitution, I don't know what it is. nope
Marriage and slave girl is different then prostitution.
1520s, "to offer to indiscriminate sexual intercourse (usually in exchange for money)," from L. prostituere "to expose to prostitution, expose publicly," from pro- "before" + statuere "cause to stand, establish" (see stature). The noun sense of "harlot" is from 1610s, from L. prostituta "prostitute," fem. of prostitutus, pp. of prostituere. The notion of "sex for hire" is not inherent in the etymology, which rather suggests one "exposed to lust" or sex "indiscriminately offered." However, this is now almost the official European term for the institution, e.g. Ger. prostituierte, Rus. prostitutka, etc. Figurative sense (of abilities, etc.) is from 1590s. The noun meaning "a woman who offers her body indiscriminately" (usually for money) is from 1610s. Of men, in reference to homosexual acts, recorded from 1886 (in form prostitution).
We have to study why a woman would be exposed to lust indiscriminately. My only understanding is that such women were raped into living such a life.
-
024.004 And those who launch a charge against chaste women, and produce not four witnesses (to support their allegations),- flog them with eighty stripes; and reject their evidence ever after for such men are wicked transgressors;-
024.023 Those who slander chaste women, indiscreet but believing, are cursed in this life and in the Hereafter for them is a grievous Penalty,-
Mashallah.
-
prove it. How can you say non were muslim? there is a LARGE muslim population in UK so your statistics are not valid unless it takes form the population AS A WHOLE
YOU said that many lied, not me. ???It's obvious that he's referring to his past relationship... you get it now?
-
Maybe this is interesting for some in regards to the original subject. peace
Portrait Emel Abidin-Algan
Faith without the Headscarf
http//www.qantara.de/files/549/58/453e3155c6f7c_Emel_Abidin-Algan.jpg
She's ugly compared to you, of course she doesn't have to cover her head.
-
I agree. It is very interesting that early scholars had different views on the subject and some even said a slave woman can pray bare-breasted. But you rarely hear about that; instead you are always being told that there has always been a "scholarly consensus" on the issue, which is clearly a lie.
References!
-
References!
Well that wasn't in response to my post, but I can give you some references. Check out Kahled Abou El Fadl's "Speaking in God's Name" - he has extensive endnotes which state which jurists said what - and which jurists said that slave women were not required/allowed to cover their heads and the ones that said they only had to cover from knee to navel like a man. I could type it up, but it's a good page worth and it's time consuming so unless you absolutely can't look it up yourself, I won't type it.
-
References!
Check out Kahled Abou El Fadl's "Speaking in God's Name" - he has extensive endnotes which state which jurists said what - and which jurists said that slave women were not required/allowed to cover their heads and the ones that said they only had to cover from knee to navel like a man. I could type it up, but it's a good page worth
The term 'awrah is defined by referring to those parts of the body that must be covered during prayer and that are prohibited from being seen. Ibn Muflih, al-Mubdi; 1359. Linguistically, it refers to something faulty (nuqs?n or 'ayb) or repulsive (mustaqbah or qubh). Al-Bah?t?, Kashsh?f al-Qin?', 1312; Ibn Nujaym, al-Bahr al-R?'iq, 1467.
Generally, jurists provide a definition of the 'awrah when addressing how a Muslim should dress when making obligatory prayers (sal?t). Interestingly, the earliest traditions on the subject do not reflect a specific discussion on 'awrah. Rather they address different dress styles and, at least in the case of women, draw distinctions between certain classes of women. For instance, early works relate traditions of the Prophet praying while wrapped in a single thawb or garment that draped over his shoulders and covered his front and back (layukh?lifu bayna tarafayhi 'al? 'Abd al-Razz?q, al-Musannaf, 1350, 353. See also, Ibn Abi Shayba, al-Kit?b al-Musannaf, 1275-277.
Others suggest that it is better to pray with two garments, namely one wrapped around the waist (iz?r) and another draped around the shoulders (rid?'. Al-San'?n?, al-Musannaf, 1349, 353-354, 356; Ibn Abi Shayba, al-Kit?b al-Musannaf, 12'75-276. See also, al-Raml?, Nih?yat al-Muht?j (1992), 213; al-Bah?t?, Kashsh?f al-Qin?', 1316-317. However, the conflict over men's proper attire arises when one's garment is too small. One set of traditions holds that if a man's garment is large enough, he should drape it over himself (mutawashshih), but if it is small, he should pray with the garment wrapped around his waist (muttazir or yukh?lifu bayna tarafayhi). Al-San'?n?, al-Musannaf, 1352, 353; Ibn Abi Shayba, Kit?b al-Musannaf, 1275, 276, 277. See also, al-Qar?f?, al-Dhakh?rah, 2112; Ibn Muflih, al-Mubdi, 164. Others argued that he can pray with a single garment as long as part of it can be draped over his shoulder. Al-San'?n?, al-Musannaf, 1353; Ibn Abi Shayba, Kit?b al-Musannaf, 1278. See also, al-Bah?t?, Kashsh?f al-Qina?', 1318; Muhammad Amin Ibn 'Abid?n, H?shiyat Radd al-Muht?r, (1966), 1404.
According to the Companion Ibn Mas'?d, if one cannot find sufficient material, then it is permissible to pray with only one garment. However if sufficient material is available, then he should pray with two. However, others such as Umar b. al-Khatt?b disagreed> and held that only one garment wrapped around the waist was sufficient for prayers. Al-San'?n?, al-Musannaf, 1356; Ibn Abi Shayba, Kit?b al-Musannaf, 1278-279. See also, Ibn Rushd, Bid?yat al-Mujtahid. 1159.
Incidentally, one report suggests that wearing a garment around the waist was endorsed partly to distinguish the Muslims from the Jews. Al-San'?n?, al-Musannaf, 1352; Ibn Abi Shayba, Kit?b al-Musannaf, 1278. Notably, the term 'awrah does not appear in this discussion. Likewise, it is not used in the early discussion on women's attire in prayer. The traditions instead address the kinds of clothing a woman must wear in prayer, and distinguishes between the appropriate attire for free and slave women. Specifically, al-San'?n? relates traditions on two issues. The first issue concerns what a free woman must wear when praying. Generally, the items for consideration are a khim?r, jilb?b, dir` s?bigh, and milhaf. al-San'?n? al-Musannaf, 3128-129, 131, 135; Ibn Abi Shayba, al-Musannaf, 236-37. See also, al-M?ward?, al-H?w? al-Kab?r, 2169; Ibn Muflih, al-Mubdi', 1366; al-Raml?, Nih?yat al-Muht?j (1992), 213-14; al-Bah?t?, Kashsh?f al-Qin?', 1318; Ibn Hazm, al-Muhall? 22249-250.
The second issue concerns whether a slave woman must also wear a khim?r for prayer? The khim?r is generally a garment that covers a woman's head. Ibn Manz?r, Lis?n al-'Arab, 4257; Ibn Muflih, al-Mubdi
, 1366; al-Bah?t?, Kashsh?f al-Qin?', 1318. The meaning of dirs?bigh generally suggests some type of loose-fitting garment that extends to one's feet. The relevant distinction is that a dirdoes not necessarily cover a woman's head. Ibn Manz?r, Lis?n al-'Arab, 881-82; Ibn Muflih, al-Mubdi, 1366; Lane, Arabic-English Lexicon, 1871-872.Jilb?b refers to a garment that is larger than a khim?r and generally covers a woman's head and chest area, but may also cover her entire body. In some cases it is used as a synonym for khim?r, and in others for an iz?r. Ibn Manz?r, Lis?n al-'Arab, 1272-273. And a milhaf is a blanket (dith?r) or cover which is wrapped over other clothes. Ibn Manz?r, Lis?n al-'Arab, 9314. Al-San'?n? reports that the Prophet said that menstruating free women must wear a khim?r, otherwise their prayer will not be accepted. Al-San'?n?, al-Musannaf, 3130, 131; Ibn Abi Shayba, Kit?b al-Musannaf, 239-40.
The reference to menstruation is generally regarded as a reference to adulthood or the age of majority. Al-Margh?n?n?, al-Hid?ya, 143. Women who are not adults are not necessarily subject to this requirement. Al-San'?n?, al-Musannaf, 3132. In another tradition, a woman is supposed to wear a khim?r, a dir
, and an iz?r, although there is some countervailing traditions against this position. Ibn Muflih, al-Mubdi, 1366. Some traditions suggest that an acceptable dir' must be long and loose enough to cover the appearance of a woman's feet, although without a khim?r, it is insufficient. Al-San'?n?, al-Musannaf, 3128; Ibn Abi Shayba, Kit?b al-Musannaf, 236.One tradition relates that 'A'isha was seen wearing during prayer a garment around her waist (mu'tazirah), a dir
, and a thick khim?r. Al-San'?n?, al-Musannaf, p. 129. On the other hand, Umm Hab?bah, a wife of the Prophet, is reported to have worn a dir, and an iz?r that was large enough to drape around her and reach the ground. Notably, she did not wear a khim?r. Id. Yet another tradition relates that the Prophet's wives Maym?na and Umm Salamah would wear a khim?r and a dir` s?bigh Ibn Abi Shayba, Kit?b al-Musannaf, 236.107
The issue of 'awrah is complex partly because it is extremely difficult to retrace and reclaim the historical process that produced the determinations as to 'awrah. The conventional wisdom maintains that early on, Muslim jurists held that what should be covered in prayer should be covered outside of prayer. This, however, is not entirely true. The dominant juristic schools of thought argued that the 'awrah of men is what is between the knee and navel. A man ought to cover what is between the knee and navel inside and outside of prayer.A minority view, however, argued that the 'awrah of men is limited to the groin and buttocks only; the thighs are not 'awrah. The 'awrah of women was a more complex matter. As noted below, the majority argued that all of a woman's body except the hands and face is 'awrah. Ab? Hanifa held that the feet are not 'awrah, and some argued that half the arm up to the elbow, or the full arm, is not a 'awrah. A minority view held that even the face and hands are 'awrah and therefore, must be covered as well. An early minority view held that the hair and calves are not 'awrah. In addition, some argued that women must cover their hair at prayer, but not outside of prayer.
Importantly, the jurists disagreed on whether the covering of the 'awrah is a condition precedent for the validity of prayer. The majority held that covering the 'awrah is a fard (basic and necessary requirement) so that the failure to cover the 'awrah would invalidate a person's prayers. The minority view (mostly but not exclusively M?lik? jurists) held that covering the 'awrah is not a condition precedent for prayer - accordingly, this school argued that covering the 'awrah is among the sunan of prayer (the recommended acts in prayer), and the failure to cover the 'awrah would not void a person's prayers. A large number of Hanafi jurists argued that as long as three-fourth of the body is covered the prayer is valid. Interestingly, M?lik reportedly allowed people to pray naked ('ur?h), if they were unable to procure dressing garments. However he suggested that such people should pray alone so as not to see each other's 'awrah, and remain standing throughout.
However if they are praying in the dark of night (layl muzlim), they may pray in congregation with an im?m leading them. Sahn?n b. Sa'?d, al-Mudawwana al-Kubr? (Beirut D?r Sadr, n.d.), 195-96. See also, al-Qar?f?, al-Dhakh?rah, 2106-107; Ibn Muflih, al-Mubdi ; 1370-374. The Shi'i al-T?s? adopts the same view and also allows them to pray in congregation during daylight hours, as long as they pray in only one line and in a sitting Position. al-T?s?, al-Mabs?t, 187.
Al-Bah?t? goes so far as to say that even in this case, congregational prayer remains obligatory. Al-Bah?t?, Kashsh?f al-Qin?', 1324. See also, Ibn Hazm, al-Muhall?, 2255-257. Being unclothed for prayers does not allow one to steal clothes out of necessity, according to al-Raml?. Since one can pray naked, there is no necessity as in the case of stealing clothes to protect oneself from heat or freezing temperatures, or stealing food to prevent death by starvation. Al-Raml?, Nih?yat al-Muht?j (1992), 212. See also, al-Bah?t?, Kashsh?f al-Qin?', 1322-324, who addresses the various means by which those without sufficient clothes can pray.
The overwhelming majority of jurists held that the 'awrah of a slave-girl, or even a female servant girl, is different. Some jurists argued that the 'awrah of such a woman is between the knee and navel - the same as a man. The other jurists held that the 'awrah of such a woman is from the beginning of the chest area to the knees and down to the elbows. Therefore, the majority agreed that a slave-girl or servant-girl may pray with her hair exposed.
A minority view argued that slave-girls should cover their hair in prayer, but do not have to do so outside of prayer. In short, it seems to me that the conventional wisdom is not exactly correct; there seems to be sufficient grounds for differentiating between the 'awrah in prayer and outside of prayer. Furthermore, as noted below, the 'awrah of slave-girls or servant-girls, inside and outside of prayer, raise serious questions about the basis for the historical juristic determinations regarding the 'awrah of women.
See, on the law of `awrah al-San'?n?, al-Musannaf, 3128-136 (documents some of the early opinions). For M?lik? school, see Ibn Rushd (II), Bid?yat al-Mujtahid, 1156-158; Ibn Rushd (I), al-Muqaddim?t al-Mumahhid?t 1183-185; Sahn?n, nl-Mudawwana (Dar Sadr), 194; al-Hatt?b al-Ra'?n?, Maw?hib al-Jal?l 2177-187; al-Qar?f?, al-Dhakh?rah, 2101-105. For Sh?fi'? school, see al-Sh?fi'?, al-Umm (Beirut Dar al-Fikr, n.d.), 1109; al-Raml?, Nih?yat al-Muht?j (1992), 27-8, 13; al-M?ward?, al-H?w? al-Kab?r, 2165-171. For Hanaf? school, see Ibn Nujaym, al-Bahr al-R?'iq, 1467, 469-476; Ibn 'Abid?n, H?shiyat Radd (1966), 1405; al-K?s?n?, Bad?'i' al-San?'i' ; pp. 543-546. For Hanbal? school, see Ibn Qud?mah, al-Mughn? (Dar Ihy?' al-Tur?th al-'Arab?), 1601; Ibn Muflih, al-Mubdi', 1361-367; al-Bah?t?, Kashsh?f al-Qin?', 1315-317. For Ja 'far? school, see al-T?s?, al-Mabs?t, 187-88.
109
Qur'?n 3358-60. Reportedly these verses were revealed in response to several incidents in which the hypocrites of Medina harassed and molested Muslim women. Al-R?z?, al-Tafs?r al-Kab?r (1999), 9183-184; al-Tabar?, Tafs?r al-Tabar? 6199-200; al-Qurtub?, al-J?mi' (1993), 14157-158; Ibn Kath?r Mukhtasar Tafs?r Ibn Kath?r, 3114-115.123
Some of the late jurists argued that if a slave-girl will cause a fitnah she must cover her breasts or hair. Al-Hatt?b relates that although a slave woman's 'awrah is the same as a man's, some have said that it is reprehensible for someone who is not her owner to view what is under her garments, or to view her breasts, chest, or whatever else "leads to fitnah" (wa m? yad'? al-fitnah minh?). Consequently, despite having the same 'awrah as men, it is preferred that she bare her head but cover her body. Al-Hatt?b Maw?hib al-Jal?l, 2180, 184. See also, al-Qar?f?, al-Dhakhirah, 2103-104. Al-Bah?t relates views suggesting that as a matter of caution (ihtiy?t), it is preferrable that the slave-girl cover herself in the Same fashion as an adult free woman, including covering her head during prayer. Al-Bah?t?, Kashsh?f al-Qin?', 1316. Ibn 'Abid?n also argues that most of the scholars of the Hanaf? school do not permit a slave woman to have her breasts, chest, or back exposed; however it is said that a slave woman's chest is part of her 'awrah only in prayer but not otherwise. Nevertheless, Ibn 'Abid?n finds this latter view unconvincing. Ibn 'Abid?n, H?shiya Radd (1966), 1405. See also, Ibn Nujaym, al-Bahr al-R?'iq, 1474; al-Margh?n??, al-Hid?ya, 144.126
Reportedly, the early jurists D?w?d b. 'Al? and Jar?r al-Tabar? the founder of a now extinct school of jurisprudence, held that the 'awrah of men and women, slave or otherwise, is the same. See al-M?ward?, al-H?w? al-Kab?r, 2167.127
For instance, al-Rust?q?, Manhaj al-T?lib?n, 821, 26, argues that every place and time have their own iaws. He states that in some places it is acceptable for women to reveal their hair while in Oman it is considered ugly (qab?h). He concludes by stating that whatever Muslims see as ugly is, in fact, ugly. Al-Margh?n?n?, al-Hid?ya, 144, mentions that slave-girls were not required to wear the veil because they need to work and requiring the veil would cause hardship (daf 'an li al-haraj).Al-Qar?f? relates a tradition in which
Umar b. al-Khatt?b asks his son why he was silent about the fact that the latter's slave woman walked about wearing an iz?r like a free woman. Reportedly,Umar then adds that if he were to see her, he would hit her for doing so. Al-Qar?f? explains `Umar's position was relevant only to a very specific historical situation in Medina, in which crazed men would harass slave women but not Irre women.
See al-Qar?f?, al-Dhakh?rah,129
For the six points above see, al-Tabar? J?mi' al-Bay?n, 1893-95, 2233-34 (mentions a variety of early opinions including the up to the elbow and the beginning of cleavage area determinations; also mentions the distinction between free and slave girls; mentions the historical practice); al-Nasaf?, Tafs?r al-Nasaf? (Cairo Dar Ihy?' al-Kutub al-Arabiyya, n.d.), 3140, 313, (mentions '?dah, jibillah, and h?jah; women need to reveal their faces, hands, and feet by custom, nature, and need; mentions the distinction applicable to slavegirls; mentions the historical practice);al-Jass?s, Ahk?m, 3409-410, 486, mentions that slave-girls do not have to cover their hair; mentions the historical practice); al-Kiyy? al-Harr?s?, ahk?m al-Qur'?n (1974), 4288, 354 (notes slave-girls do not have to cover their faces or hair); Ibn al-'Arab?', Ahk?m al-Qur'?n (n.d.), 31368-78, 1586-87 (mentions a variety of details to adornments; discusses the rule as to slave-girls); al-Qurtub?, al-J?mi'(1993), 12152-153, 157; 14156-157 (mentions that the verse was revealed to address the harassment of women, and to differentiate slave-girls from Muslim women; notes the opinion that held that the verse called for the covering of the bosom area);
Ibn Kath?r, Mukhtasar Tafs?r Ibn Kath?r, 2600; 3114-115, (mentions determinations as to the bosom; also notes that free Muslim women must cover their faces); Ab? Hayy?n al-Andalus?, Tafs?r al-Bahr al-Muh?t, 6412; 7240-241 (mentions custom, nature, necessity; mentions the historical practice as to revealing the bosom; mentions the distinction as to slave-girls); al-Zamakhshari, al-Kashsh?f, 360-62, 274 (mentions the historical practice, distinction as to slave-girls, the rules as to functionality and custom, mentions that covering ought not cause hardship);
Ibn al-Jawz?, Z?d al-Mas?r f? 'Ilm al-Tafs?r, 5377-378; 6224 (mentions mashaqqah - hardship); al-M?ward?, al-Nukat wa al-'Uy?n, 490-93, 424-425, (notes the opinion that the purpose of revelation was to instruct women to cover their bosoms; mentions the differentiation as to slave-girls); al-Shinq?t?, Adw?' al-Bay?n, 6192-203, 586-600 (mentions a variety of positions; mentions determinations as to revealing the arm up to the elbow and the view that the point is to cover the bosom; mentions the historical practice and differentiation as to slave-girls; author supports covering the face); Ibn Taymiyya, al-Tafs?r, 623, (notes that the law of veiling does not apply to slave-girls); Fakhr al-D?n Muhammad al-R?z?, al-Tafs?r al-Kab?r (a.k.a Maf?t?h al-Ghayb), 23176-179; 25198-199, (mentions al-'?dah al-j?riyah (the habitual custom) and functionality as the focal issues in determining what women ought to cover; mentions the historical practice and the distinction as to slave-girls);
Ibn 'Atiyya, al-Muharrar al-Waj?z, 4178, 399 (mentions the determinations as to the bosom and arm up to the elbow; mentions the rule of functionality and custom; mentions the historical practice and the distinction as to slave-girls); al-Suy?t?, al-Durr al-Manth?r, 545-46, 239-241 (mentions the determinations as to the arm up to the elbow and the bosom; notes the discussion regarding the beginning of the cleavage area; mentions the historical practice and the distinction as to slave-girls); al-Bur?s?, Tanw?r al-Adhh?n, 357-59, 254-255, (mentions the determinations as to the arm up to the elbow and the bosom; mentions the historical practice and distinction as to slave-girls); Ab? Hafs `Umar b. 'Al? Ibn 'Adil al-Dimashq? al-Lub?b f? 'Ul?m al-Kit?b 14355-358; 15588-590 (mentions that according to some reports the verse was revealed to vindicate 'Al?'s family.
Also mentions that other reports contend that hypocrites of Medina would solicit women at night. Girls who practiced prostitution would respond to their solicitation. The verse was revealed partly to end this practice. Mentions the rule of practice and custom (m? u't?da kashfuh), and functionality and rule of necessity; mentions the distinction as to slave-girls); al-Al?s?, R?h al-Ma'?n? (1985), 18140-142; 2289, (mentions the issue of functionality and that slave-girls lead an active economic life; mentions custom, habit, and nature; mentions the historical practice); al-S?w?, H?shiyat al-'All?mah, 3136-137, 288-289 (mentions various positions).
(from Khaled Abou el Fadl's "Speaking in God?s Name ? Islamic Law, Authority and Women"
-
She's ugly compared to you, of course she doesn't have to cover her head.
Neither is she ugly, nor do you know what I look like. And if you say that only attractive women have to cover their head, the logical conclusion of that thought would be to say that a woman with a pretty face should cover her face.
nope
-
Neither is she ugly, nor do you know what I look like. And if you say that only attractive women have to cover their head, the logical conclusion of that thought would be to say that a woman with a pretty face should cover her face.
nope
Of course, now the Hijab takes on a whole new meaning. I guess it's only for non-'ugly' women. And I thought that these guys were trying to push to whole modesty argument. I stand corrected.
-
Well that wasn't in response to my post, but I can give you some references. Check out Kahled Abou El Fadl's "Speaking in God's Name" - he has extensive endnotes which state which jurists said what - and which jurists said that slave women were not required/allowed to cover their heads and the ones that said they only had to cover from knee to navel like a man. I could type it up, but it's a good page worth and it's time consuming so unless you absolutely can't look it up yourself, I won't type it.
"Professor El-Fadl was appointed by President George W. Bush as a commissioner on the US Commission on International Religious Freedom. "
You better type it...
I'll let you guess why.
-
Neither is she ugly, nor do you know what I look like. And if you say that only attractive women have to cover their head, the logical conclusion of that thought would be to say that a woman with a pretty face should cover her face.
nope
I'm going to have to say that you should refer to quran 2430-31 and let me know what entices men to look at women, and what is the zinatan on a woman. Because the logical conclusion of the quran is that a pretty face attracts the eyes of men and that the pretty face is the zinata of the woman, not forgetting everything that would be pretty/alluring on her.
Thank you for quoting that guy... it's obvious that he likes to refer to men over the quran. But of course, we can understand how slave/servant/employed women would not be asked to wear such things... especially when in some cases they were being shared to guests.
That list of quotes doesn't mention dates.
-
Of course, now the Hijab takes on a whole new meaning. I guess it's only for non-'ugly' women. And I thought that these guys were trying to push to whole modesty argument. I stand corrected.
Modesty argument? We push for the quranic argument no?
Of course the hijab is for non ugly people, men are of course ugly females. (anyone who says men can be pretty... gay men aye, but most women are super pretty for men).