My book on women dress code in Quran
-
Salamun Alaykum,
In another thread, I mentioned that I wrote a book on the issue of the dress code for women in the Quran. I had completed it, however there were some minor changes that had to take place. Now that I'm done, here's a link for those who are interested in reading it. It is not officially published or anything, nor do I think it will be for quite a lot of time, however, I thought that I should share it with you guys and see what you guys think (It's a private file, so only those with the link can see it)
removed
Feel free to object, and if you come across any typo or grammatical mistake, do tell me.
-
Peace Fallen Angel.
It is a step towards the giant task of freeing the women from oppression and men s rules.
Well done.
Your words are fine. It is similar to what I understand from Qoran.
Peace.
-
w/salaam,
It is good, but I think a few things could be improved.
Some corrections
p2, trace each and every word
derive, not drivep4
signs of god, not singsi dont understand why you capitalise taqwa, and other words throughout your work.
p6
awkward phrasing - when you look at men of the opposite gender
you could clarify better that lower gaze or furuj is also said for believing mencould emphasise more
http//misconceptions-about-islam.com/dress-code-women-veil.htmFurthermore, the verse clearly brackets what beauty it is referring to by saying "...the child who has not yet understood the composition of women" implying it is relating to what is specific to a woman (i.e. what is different between man and woman) nothing else.
This understanding would also fit with The Quran's instruction on the body parts that are to be cleansed during daily ablution (hands, arms, face, head and feet), see 56, 443.your understanding of 3358-60 involves significant interpretation
I recommend http//misconceptions-about-islam.com/dress-code-women-veil.htm -
Peace Fallen Angel.
It is a step towards the giant task of freeing the women from oppression and men s rules.
Well done.
Your words are fine. It is similar to what I understand from Qoran.
Peace.
Thanks for the kind words, I really hope that day comes soon.
-
w/salaam,
It is good, but I think a few things could be improved.
Some corrections
p2, trace each and every word
derive, not drivep4
signs of god, not singsThank you so much for pointing that
i dont understand why you capitalise taqwa, and other words throughout your work.
It's a habit inherited by my fellow Pakis, it runs in the veins, the need to capitalize any 'Odd' word ( I'm trying to get rid of it though
p6
awkward phrasing - when you look at men of the opposite gender
you could clarify better that lower gaze or furuj is also said for believing menI'll correct it
could emphasise more
http//misconceptions-about-islam.com/dress-code-women-veil.htm
your understanding of 3358-60 involves significant interpretation
I recommend http//misconceptions-about-islam.com/dress-code-women-veil.htmI went through the link a long time ago, but thanks for reminding me of it, I've re uploaded the file. The link is the same.
My answers in bold
-
What always baffles me is that I am constantly told by Muslims around me that women are treated equally to men and women were liberated by Islam - yet I find endless sentences in the Koran and the sunnah as well as entire books all concentrating on women and special commands recommendations only addressing the females.
"garments that protect you from heat, and garments that protect you during fighting" only for women?
"O Children of Adam!" addressing only women?
Somehow, I was missed, when it came to sewing and beautifying as I lack that knowledge. I also have no need for protective clothing. I am not a warrior.
Suggestion "So you should not have theintention of attracting attention of men or making otherwomen jealous of you, or any other sort of ill thought, lookgood for yourself." split the sentence as the last part is nonsensical.
In Lowering your gaze "from looking at inappropriate to look" is wrong 2x. Hahaha, you make it sound similar to the Christians who get punished just for thinking about lust.
What are private parts and what makes them private? A medical doctor is not unmarriageable kin (mahram), not a husband or anything related, yet must be able to examine a person including anything private. What if a midwife is male? There are lots of examples where this entire construct quickly becomes meaningless and even dangerous as was the case for the girls who were sent back into a burning building because they were not dressed properly. Sad.
In covering your beauty (oh, page numbers would help, but I don't see any) you interpret something the way you would like it to be. Why doesn't the Koran, instead of presenting you with a puzzle, simply say women, cover your bodies excepting hands and feet? Why are the scholars, who tell women what they think it means and what a woman can wear exclusively men?
What about the ankle chains with little bells women used to wear in the 7th century? They shook and made a noise when women wanted to attract attention.
A few paragraphs later you acknowledge the figurative or allegoric nature of scripture and yet apply literal standards when it suits you.
The whole topic would be superfluous if a tiny sentence had been incorporated, simply saying to not force anyone to do something they don't want to and the problem would be solved. As it stands your booklet is another example of women justifying a questionable cultural ritual and saying it is so natural and normal at the same time. If it really were so natural, why the need to justify it?
-
Peace StopS
First, I would like to say, can you please not be so angry? It scares me, or maybe I'm not understanding you well, either way please remain calm.
Ok
"garments that protect you from heat, and garments that protect you during fighting" only for women?
"O Children of Adam!" addressing only women?
Somehow, I was missed, when it came to sewing and beautifying as I lack that knowledge. I also have no need for protective clothing. I am not a warrior.
Did you notice my constant use of 'Us' in that section? I was referring to us humans, men and women, it was an introduction to the concept. You don't need to have protective clothing, the main point of that section was to show the purpose of clothing, and mainly, clothing of God cautiousness is the most important thing for all of us.
Suggestion "So you should not have theintention of attracting attention of men or making otherwomen jealous of you, or any other sort of ill thought, lookgood for yourself." split the sentence as the last part is nonsensical.
Thanks, I'll look into it, I wrote that a long time ago, it took me some time to write this booklet, now that I read it, it sounds absurd to me too lol .
In Lowering your gaze "from looking at inappropriate to look" is wrong 2x. Hahaha, you make it sound similar to the Christians who get punished just for thinking about lust.
What's so wrong in it? I'll rephrase it to 'Intentionally looking at inappropriate to look at things', is that better?
What are private parts and what makes them private? A medical doctor is not unmarriageable kin (mahram), not a husband or anything related, yet must be able to examine a person including anything private. What if a midwife is male? There are lots of examples where this entire construct quickly becomes meaningless and even dangerous as was the case for the girls who were sent back into a burning building because they were not dressed properly. Sad.
Honestly speaking I have no answer for this yet. As I haven't studied verses dealing with medicine and health and all in the Quran.
In covering your beauty (oh, page numbers would help, but I don't see any) you interpret something the way you would like it to be. Why doesn't the Koran, instead of presenting you with a puzzle, simply say women, cover your bodies excepting hands and feet? Why are the scholars, who tell women what they think it means and what a woman can wear exclusively men?
The thing is, due to the ever changing society, God has only specified what needs to be covered, rather than what can be uncovered. According to my understanding of the verses, Bosom, Hips/Buttocks, and Thighs are what God Himself wants women to cover, and not only cover, but hide, perfectly. This means covering any possible way of 'Peeking' at these areas as well. From there, all that's left are hair hands arms feet calves etc., which depend on culture and all. What will cause temptation, or will look lewd must be covered, while what will be ok to make apparent may be made apparent.
What about the ankle chains with little bells women used to wear in the 7th century? They shook and made a noise when women wanted to attract attention.
The Quran does say that women should walk in modest manner as to not expose their Zeenat, which if taken as adornment would mean that if women wear anklets, they have to walk in a manner that wouldn't attract attention.
A few paragraphs later you acknowledge the figurative or allegoric nature of scripture and yet apply literal standards when it suits you.
Can you elaborate this? Where did I do this? Just like you quoted things above.
-
Peace StopS
First, I would like to say, can you please not be so angry? It scares me, or maybe I'm not understanding you well, either way please remain calm.
Do I write as though I am angry? No, not at all. Maybe frustrated because I don't understand it and am often confronted with this contradiction of women being equal, yet requiring special commands and attention as they are not THAT equal.
Ok
Did you notice my constant use of 'Us' in that section? I was referring to us humans, men and women, it was an introduction to the concept. You don't need to have protective clothing, the main point of that section was to show the purpose of clothing, and mainly, clothing of God cautiousness is the most important thing for all of us.
I seem to really make unclear statements. What I am trying to point out is that these sentences are not incredibly applicable, as I - or anyone else I know - do not require combat clothing and I - or anyone else I know - has any knowledge of sewing or sees clothing as covering one's "shame". Humans are not physically "children of Adam", so I find this phraseology odd, especially as you are addressing women specifically.
Thanks, I'll look into it, I wrote that a long time ago, it took me some time to write this booklet, now that I read it, it sounds absurd to me too lol .
What's so wrong in it? I'll rephrase it to 'Intentionally looking at inappropriate to look at things', is that better?'Intentionally looking at inappropriate to look at things', no, it's still wonky and I can't even make a suggestion, as I have no clue what it is you are trying say. You can maybe intentionally look at things which are inappropriate?
Honestly speaking I have no answer for this yet. As I haven't studied verses dealing with medicine and health and all in the Quran.
The thing is, due to the ever changing society, God has only specified what needs to be covered, rather than what can be uncovered. According to my understanding of the verses, Bosom, Hips/Buttocks, and Thighs are what God Himself wants women to cover, and not only cover, but hide, perfectly. This means covering any possible way of 'Peeking' at these areas as well. From there, all that's left are hair hands arms feet calves etc., which depend on culture and all. What will cause temptation, or will look lewd must be covered, while what will be ok to make apparent may be made apparent.
What a pity. This is an area I would like to understand. I am trying to understand how Muslims in 2012 are managing to consolidate the Koran with everyday life.
The problem I see is that the Koran does NOT specify "what needs to be covered" and only provides some vague indications, leading to what you are doing, having humans interpret the intentions.
I understand what you are trying to say, but this is bound to fail due to the human brain, where e.g. a foot fetishist will get turned on by the sight of a foot. Also, I don't understand how the creation of a god could solely be intended for lewd and lascivious thoughts.The Quran does say that women should walk in modest manner as to not expose their Zeenat, which if taken as adornment would mean that if women wear anklets, they have to walk in a manner that wouldn't attract attention.
Sorry, my failing again. In the 7th century women would stomp their feet and walk to be heard by wearing ankle chains. In many Arabic cultures, women were the head of a tribe, the matriarchy. To accentuate their demands the noise of the ankle chains were used. The Koran intended to eradicate this.
Can you elaborate this? Where did I do this? Just like you quoted things above.
I will try. In some sentences, you use purely spiritual constructs, such as "you need to have a pure heart. In this case youmust have clean intentions" or "don?t stare lustfully at him,because that?s where the sin is" and then go way overboard by stating with confidence that a word in the Koran such as "private parts" or bosom has to mean "I conclude that covering your bosom does not mean that you have to only cover your bosom, but you should also cover your upper chest, shoulders and underarms, similarly covering your thighs includes covering your knees, and covering your hips/buttocks includes covering your waist."
Very specific and technical. Without explaining why different communities have different standards and why you consider this the true definition. You are picking and choosing and applying your own subjective standards.
Now go and compare what a Brazilian woman on the Copacabana thinks is modest and appropriate. What do I think when I am on a nudist beach? What do all the 1000s of people on nudist beaches think? Are they, in your opinion, only interested in sex? -
I seem to really make unclear statements. What I am trying to point out is that these sentences are not incredibly applicable, as I - or anyone else I know - do not require combat clothing and I - or anyone else I know - has any knowledge of sewing or sees clothing as covering one's "shame". Humans are not physically "children of Adam", so I find this phraseology odd, especially as you are addressing women specifically.
I think I'm the one being unclear. What part of 'The main point of that section was to show the purpose of clothing' don't you get? I know that you don't require combat clothing, I know that many women don't know about sewing garments, but I wasn't addressing women there in the first place. It was a general introduction to the concept of clothing, that the Quran sees clothing for three things Beautifying ourselves, covering our shame, and protecting ourselves from heat and our enemies. As for your understanding on 'Children of Adam', can you explain it? It seems quite interesting.
'Intentionally looking at inappropriate to look at things', no, it's still wonky and I can't even make a suggestion, as I have no clue what it is you are trying say. You can maybe intentionally look at things which are inappropriate?
What I mean by 'Intentionally looking at inappropriate to look at things' is looking at porn, peeking at others with lustful intentions, lustfully gazing at others' bodies. Looking at things/Looking at things in a way that is inappropriate.
What a pity. This is an area I would like to understand. I am trying to understand how Muslims in 2012 are managing to consolidate the Koran with everyday life.
The problem I see is that the Koran does NOT specify "what needs to be covered" and only provides some vague indications, leading to what you are doing, having humans interpret the intentions.
I understand what you are trying to say, but this is bound to fail due to the human brain, where e.g. a foot fetishist will get turned on by the sight of a foot. Also, I don't understand how the creation of a god could solely be intended for lewd and lascivious thoughts.The thing is, both sides need to work together. Women have to cover the necessary to cover parts, and those parts which will cause even a modest man to be tempted, while men restrain their gaze in regards to what is left uncovered by women. Women don't have to totally hide from head to toe, but at the same time not go off exposing their whole bodies either. So the foot fetishist has to restrain himself. I don't get what you mean by ' Also, I don't understand how the creation of a god could solely be intended for lewd and lascivious thoughts', sorry.
Sorry, my failing again. In the 7th century women would stomp their feet and walk to be heard by wearing ankle chains. In many Arabic cultures, women were the head of a tribe, the matriarchy. To accentuate their demands the noise of the ankle chains were used. The Koran intended to eradicate this.
Oh..now I get what you were saying. I like your approach to the Quran. What I can say is, that...........well...yes..the Quran eradicated this. I don't have anything to say, unless I take back my claim that adornment can also be covered by that verse, and say that God is only referring to bodily beauty, then this question wouldn't arise. But then again, it doesn?t look like THAT big of a problem. The Quran does say that God doesn?t like those who show off, or are arrogant, or like to boast and all. Cant women find a better way to get their demands fulfilled? They can change the tone in their voice, or be bold and all rather than stomp their foot.
I will try. In some sentences, you use purely spiritual constructs, such as "you need to have a pure heart. In this case youmust have clean intentions" or "don?t stare lustfully at him,because that?s where the sin is" and then go way overboard by stating with confidence that a word in the Koran such as "private parts" or bosom has to mean "I conclude that covering your bosom does not mean that you have to only cover your bosom, but you should also cover your upper chest, shoulders and underarms, similarly covering your thighs includes covering your knees, and covering your hips/buttocks includes covering your waist."
Very specific and technical. Without explaining why different communities have different standards and why you consider this the true definition. You are picking and choosing and applying your own subjective standards.
Now go and compare what a Brazilian woman on the Copacabana thinks is modest and appropriate. What do I think when I am on a nudist beach? What do all the 1000s of people on nudist beaches think? Are they, in your opinion, only interested in sex?The places where I have written spiritual explanations is because the concepts are spiritual and all. Tell me, how would you explain the concept of ?God cautiousness? other than by saying things like ?Having righteousness, having a pure heart? etc.? You did read the footnotes and the sentence before ?"I conclude that covering your bosom does not mean that you have to only cover your bosom, but you should also cover your upper chest, shoulders and underarms, similarly covering your thighs includes covering your knees, and covering your hips/buttocks includes covering your waist.? right? It isn?t my being technical that caused me to say this, it is because of God?s ruling of ?Libas?, and His making clear the covering of cleavages that caused me to write that, and His usage of Arabic, The word that God used in the phrase ?Do not strike their feet as to make known what they hide of their Zeenat?, (which here I am taking as bodily beauty) for ?Hide? is ?Yukhfina?, it has two contradictory meanings, and in this case, it?s latter meaning, that is ?Hiding? as in totally making something out of sight is applied. In other words, those parts that get revealed when a woman strikes her foot must be perfectly hidden, not only covered. That?s why I wrote what I wrote.
Regardless of what people think or not, men have to restrain their gaze, women have to restrain their gaze, and women have to cover the necessary to cover parts, there are no exceptions to these rules. -
I think I'm the one being unclear. What part of 'The main point of that section was to show the purpose of clothing' don't you get? I know that you don't require combat clothing, I know that many women don't know about sewing garments, but I wasn't addressing women there in the first place. It was a general introduction to the concept of clothing, that the Quran sees clothing for three things Beautifying ourselves, covering our shame, and protecting ourselves from heat and our enemies. As for your understanding on 'Children of Adam', can you explain it? It seems quite interesting.
Ok, I am aware of the concept of an introduction )
All I was trying to say is that the sentences used are a bit nonsensical and outdated."O Children of Adam" is odd, because the woman is the one giving birth, not the male. Also, the process of one single man and one single woman providing a planet with humans is not conceivable.
What I mean by 'Intentionally looking at inappropriate to look at things' is looking at porn, peeking at others with lustful intentions, lustfully gazing at others' bodies. Looking at things/Looking at things in a way that is inappropriate.
Then I would suggest using intentionally looking at things inappropriate. Which I personally don't find inappropriate, because looking at bodies how we were born doing things which are completely natural I don't find inappropriate. But that's a cultural or perception problem, not mine.
The thing is, both sides need to work together. Women have to cover the necessary to cover parts, and those parts which will cause even a modest man to be tempted, while men restrain their gaze in regards to what is left uncovered by women. Women don't have to totally hide from head to toe, but at the same time not go off exposing their whole bodies either. So the foot fetishist has to restrain himself. I don't get what you mean by ' Also, I don't understand how the creation of a god could solely be intended for lewd and lascivious thoughts', sorry.
Why do women have to cover anything? Different men are turned on by different things. So what happens if a man is turned on by another man? Covering up all women doesn't do anything then, does it?
A heterosexual can appreciate the outside looks and body of a woman without immediately getting violent. So if a god created thoughts and ideas in the brain, why should they be only sexual fantasies? Why not the intellectual fascination of the woman's ideas?Oh..now I get what you were saying. I like your approach to the Quran. What I can say is, that...........well...yes..the Quran eradicated this. I don't have anything to say, unless I take back my claim that adornment can also be covered by that verse, and say that God is only referring to bodily beauty, then this question wouldn't arise. But then again, it doesn?t look like THAT big of a problem. The Quran does say that God doesn?t like those who show off, or are arrogant, or like to boast and all. Cant women find a better way to get their demands fulfilled? They can change the tone in their voice, or be bold and all rather than stomp their foot.
Cool. That's what I appreciate nuance and classy flirting.... )
The places where I have written spiritual explanations is because the concepts are spiritual and all. Tell me, how would you explain the concept of ?God cautiousness? other than by saying things like ?Having righteousness, having a pure heart? etc.? You did read the footnotes and the sentence before ?"I conclude that covering your bosom does not mean that you have to only cover your bosom, but you should also cover your upper chest, shoulders and underarms, similarly covering your thighs includes covering your knees, and covering your hips/buttocks includes covering your waist.? right? It isn?t my being technical that caused me to say this, it is because of God?s ruling of ?Libas?, and His making clear the covering of cleavages that caused me to write that, and His usage of Arabic, The word that God used in the phrase ?Do not strike their feet as to make known what they hide of their Zeenat?, (which here I am taking as bodily beauty) for ?Hide? is ?Yukhfina?, it has two contradictory meanings, and in this case, it?s latter meaning, that is ?Hiding? as in totally making something out of sight is applied. In other words, those parts that get revealed when a woman strikes her foot must be perfectly hidden, not only covered. That?s why I wrote what I wrote.
Regardless of what people think or not, men have to restrain their gaze, women have to restrain their gaze, and women have to cover the necessary to cover parts, there are no exceptions to these rules.I think I understand the dilemma. You are trying to explain a concept gently yet want to stress that it is a necessity. But then you use your personal interpretation of "needs" to be covered. The Koran does not specify this. You do. With what knowledge? How do you know the intentions of what is written there? No god ever ruled on anything. Not during a human's life-time. You are interpreting and inserting words and statements that you think ought to be there due to your personal upbringing and ethics. Why can't I go to a nudist beach and appreciate the beauty of a naked male or female body? Why should that be wrong?
-
Ok, I am aware of the concept of an introduction
All I was trying to say is that the sentences used are a bit nonsensical and outdated."O Children of Adam" is odd, because the woman is the one giving birth, not the male. Also, the process of one single man and one single woman providing a planet with humans is not conceivable.
Ok, one issue is solved. As for your understanding on 'Children of Adam', I must say that you just got me thinking. I never realized, nor did this come across my mind that I could be wrong in regards to the meaning of this term. Although I won't discuss this with you, as this thread isn't the proper thread for it, I will look into the matter. Thank you for bringing this up.
Then I would suggest using intentionally looking at things inappropriate. Which I personally don't find inappropriate, because looking at bodies how we were born doing things which are completely natural I don't find inappropriate. But that's a cultural or perception problem, not mine.
Thanks for the suggestion and sharing your opinion.
Why do women have to cover anything? Different men are turned on by different things. So what happens if a man is turned on by another man? Covering up all women doesn't do anything then, does it?
A heterosexual can appreciate the outside looks and body of a woman without immediately getting violent. So if a god created thoughts and ideas in the brain, why should they be only sexual fantasies? Why not the intellectual fascination of the woman's ideas?Men have also been given orders to guard their private parts and restrain their gaze, and that is before the orders for women. So, like I said, if a man ends up with lustful thoughts, which here is not limited to just looking at women, as God never restricted it to women, as God simply said, 'Lower/Reduce from their gaze/comprehension by means of looking', he should look somewhere else, or avoid such situations. As looking with lust, and not controlling one's gaze is the root to sexual indecencies (Or at least that's what I conclude from observation and experience, no, this does not mean that I raped someone, don't take it the other way around lol). To further avoid such situations, women have been ordered to cover. As for the homo case, it's the same thing, both men lower their gaze, and guard their private parts. But then again, we still don't have a consensus on the homo issue, whether it's justified to begin with or not. As for men appreciating women, well..........................I..dunno, I've never come across such a case in my life and society, and it's quite hard to believe that a hetero man can appreciate a body of woman, without being sexually turned on...I seriously don't know bout this. Maybe some man here can help me?
Cool. That's what I appreciate nuance and classy flirting....
Good, or...are you being sarcastic? (Sorry if that offended you, it runs in our blood, we (Pakistanis) can't spend a day without suspecting people, thinking more than thrice, and always think negative before thinking positive)
I think I understand the dilemma. You are trying to explain a concept gently yet want to stress that it is a necessity. But then you use your personal interpretation of "needs" to be covered. The Koran does not specify this. You do. With what knowledge? How do you know the intentions of what is written there? No god ever ruled on anything. Not during a human's life-time. You are interpreting and inserting words and statements that you think ought to be there due to your personal upbringing and ethics. Why can't I go to a nudist beach and appreciate the beauty of a naked male or female body? Why should that be wrong?
Like I mentioned in my last post, it is not me who claims the 'Needs'. Let's see it this way
The 'Needs' that I derive are from this part of the verse (Extremely literal translation) And they should not strike/put forth with their feet to make known what they hide from their beauty.
Now think, imagine, a perfect woman. I hope you know what I mean by 'Perfect'. She is wearing a tunic, that isn't too tight, nor loose. She strikes her foot on the ground, or stomps, or does something similar. What will happen? What parts will get attention? (Remember that they didn't have undergarments in that era either) What will 'Turn heads'?
Whatever is the answer, is what is a 'Need' to be covered because that's what God is expecting to be covered, and that's because I believe in Him.
As for your questions, well, I'm not an expert in dealing with atheists (Your an atheist. right? I apologize if I'm incorrect), so I really dunno what to say, I'll just end up repeating what I've already said. But, if I have to say anything, then my reply is, that to be on the safe side, that people don't let their carnal desires take over them even if they try not to, they shouldn't go off nude.
-
This thing of women dressing in any particular way so as not arouse men is not from the Qur'an. What is written in 24.31 refers to restraining also to women whatever it is beeing usually understood as referring to men. That is, according to that view, women must (olr need or whatgever) do this and that not only not to arouse men, but also not to arouse women.
I disagree completely with the understanding that 24.31 deals with keeping men from temptation, or deals with women doing whatever they are adviced to do so as to keep men from temptation. I do not see that argument anywhere in the aya.
Salaam
-
This thing of women dressing in any particular way so as not arouse men is not from the Qur'an. What is written in 24.31 refers to restraining also to women whatever it is beeing usually understood as referring to men. That is, according to that view, women must (olr need or whatgever) do this and that not only not to arouse men, but also not to arouse women.
I disagree completely with the understanding that 24.31 deals with keeping men from temptation, or deals with women doing whatever they are adviced to do so as to keep men from temptation. I do not see that argument anywhere in the aya.
Salaam
Salaam,
Of course; I agree that it also deals with not arousing women.
hmm..I agree, my bad, but then what is the purpose of those orders? Personally, after rethinking, I think that it basically refers to not getting unwanted attention from men and women, what do you think?
-
but also not to arouse women.
Men able to walk around with no shirt on.. please. How is that not their "beauty" I laugh at the navel to knee thing. Really? Cause I can get very turned on by chest and shoulders, and most of all smell. Men need to cover too. Women are not dead down there!
Fallen I am gonna finish reading your stuff on my next break. Good job at taking on such a task. Proud of you.
-
Also, huruf, note that in the list of exceptions to covering your Zeenat, there are 'Men without desire' and 'Children who have no knowledge of women's privacy/shame/nakedness', this might help.
-
Men able to walk around with no shirt on.. please. How is that not their "beauty" I laugh at the navel to knee thing. Really? Cause I can get very turned on by chest and shoulders, and most of all smell. Men need to cover too. Women are not dead down there!
Fallen I am gonna finish reading your stuff on my next break. Good job at taking on such a task. Proud of you.
lol, agreed. The navel to knee is too ridiculous.
And thanks for the encouragement
-
Ok, one issue is solved.
Good.
Men have also been given orders to guard their private parts and restrain their gaze, and that is before the orders for women.
The point is clothing and covering. Women in Islam are told to lower their gaze - but also to cover their entire body. So why the special treatment in order to avoid lust? When lust can't be the issue as we've just seen.
So, like I said, if a man ends up with lustful thoughts, which here is not limited to just looking at women, as God never restricted it to women, as God simply said, 'Lower/Reduce from their gaze/comprehension by means of looking', he should look somewhere else, or avoid such situations. As looking with lust, and not controlling one's gaze is the root to sexual indecencies (Or at least that's what I conclude from observation and experience, no, this does not mean that I raped someone, don't take it the other way around lol). To further avoid such situations, women have been ordered to cover.
Why don't men simply do as they are told and avoid the entire controversy over covering up women?
As for the homo case, it's the same thing, both men lower their gaze, and guard their private parts. But then again, we still don't have a consensus on the homo issue, whether it's justified to begin with or not. As for men appreciating women, well..........................I..dunno, I've never come across such a case in my life and society, and it's quite hard to believe that a hetero man can appreciate a body of woman, without being sexually turned on...I seriously don't know bout this. Maybe some man here can help me?
Nonono, that's not what I said. I said a man can appreciate the good looks of a woman without immediately thinking of rape, getting violent. Like I said, if I encounter a good looking woman on a nudist beach or the sauna, where everyone is naked, I can like what I see and go back to what I was previously thinking. The environment is not conducive to sex. If I flirt with her things change, but there is no need to rape her. Sorry if I am not man enough to help you '
Good, or...are you being sarcastic? (Sorry if that offended you, it runs in our blood, we (Pakistanis) can't spend a day without suspecting people, thinking more than thrice, and always think negative before thinking positive)
No, here I was straight. I like classy women with a high IQ and education who are also quick minded.
Like I mentioned in my last post, it is not me who claims the 'Needs'. Let's see it this way
The 'Needs' that I derive are from this part of the verse (Extremely literal translation) And they should not strike/put forth with their feet to make known what they hide from their beauty.
Now think, imagine, a perfect woman. I hope you know what I mean by 'Perfect'. She is wearing a tunic, that isn't too tight, nor loose. She strikes her foot on the ground, or stomps, or does something similar. What will happen? What parts will get attention? (Remember that they didn't have undergarments in that era either) What will 'Turn heads'?
Whatever is the answer, is what is a 'Need' to be covered because that's what God is expecting to be covered, and that's because I believe in Him.
As for your questions, well, I'm not an expert in dealing with atheists (Your an atheist. right? I apologize if I'm incorrect), so I really dunno what to say, I'll just end up repeating what I've already said. But, if I have to say anything, then my reply is, that to be on the safe side, that people don't let their carnal desires take over them even if they try not to, they shouldn't go off nude.
Hahaha, you sound as though you are blushing. I understand that you need to do a lot of interpreting to establish anything as the topic is not readily explained. But whatever you are doing just remember that not every girl likes being hidden away and actually enjoys being appreciated and treated like a princess. And the safe side is not always the best side. But seriously, I agree 100% with the rest as whatever happens should leave no regrets.
I think we've covered the ground and it was fun. Enjoy, take care and good luck with your booklet.
-
Good.
The point is clothing and covering. Women in Islam are told to lower their gaze - but also to cover their entire body. So why the special treatment in order to avoid lust? When lust can't be the issue as we've just seen.
Why don't men simply do as they are told and avoid the entire controversy over covering up women?
Nonono, that's not what I said. I said a man can appreciate the good looks of a woman without immediately thinking of rape, getting violent. Like I said, if I encounter a good looking woman on a nudist beach or the sauna, where everyone is naked, I can like what I see and go back to what I was previously thinking. The environment is not conducive to sex. If I flirt with her things change, but there is no need to rape her. Sorry if I am not man enough to help you '
No, here I was straight. I like classy women with a high IQ and education who are also quick minded.
Hahaha, you sound as though you are blushing. I understand that you need to do a lot of interpreting to establish anything as the topic is not readily explained. But whatever you are doing just remember that not every girl likes being hidden away and actually enjoys being appreciated and treated like a princess. And the safe side is not always the best side. But seriously, I agree 100% with the rest as whatever happens should leave no regrets.
I think we've covered the ground and it was fun. Enjoy, take care and good luck with your booklet.
You're right, men are actually the ones causing the trouble. Men should restrain their gaze first, but sadly, they don't. They put the blame on women, and then force unnecessary rules upon them.
I now understand what you mean by appreciating another body. It's interacting by means of text that caused misunderstandings to arise between us, anyway, I dont fully agree with you, but I see your point, and I believe there is logic in it. It was nice talking to you, take care.
Though this isn't the end of this thread, others who want to reply may reply and discuss my booklet.
-
The aya says to women not to display their beauty, whether natural or applied, it does not tell them that it is wrong if their beauty is seen. Of course it will be seen. they are told "la yubdina, not to exhibit, display, show. That to me, specially since amongst the people they must not parade their beauty in front of are their women (of the women), there is no question of there being a sexual arousal issue with the whole thing, but rather a quetion of vanity. If it was sexual and concerned males, the mention of the women is completely contradictory and also, as stops mentioned, also contradictory that there being and there having been always some people who get kicks off the same sex, what the whole thing suggests is a matter of women not getting hung up on their looks, vanity or simpple redirect their aim, instead to earn social standing an approval thanks to their looks, to earn it in some other way.
The usual way for women up and for them to be valued has rested for a great part on their looks, their attractiveness and their beauty, something which in turn has made them very dependent on that. I think that aya simpli tries to make them think of other values and other means and not to relie in their physical attractiveness to gaing standing or popularity. It ties with the rest of Qur'an.
As to the mention of 'Men without desire' and 'Children who have no knowledge of women's privacy/shame/nakedness' it doesn not override the fact thar women other than "their women" are excluded from the lot, so it cannot be sexual arousal, but a matter of show off. Beauty, feminine beauty anywhere, is considered taking into account attributes such as his, butocks, breasts (covered or uncovered), etc. etc. This that may go unappreciated by those two categories of males. Males' atttractiveness is also tied to their manly aspect, but since beauty for men has not been generally been a weapon or means of gaining standing or poularity, there is no need to warn them about it. Today there is a lot more emphasis on male beauty, but traditionally beauty has been the "domain" of women, and everything has been pushing them to be beautiful or die (or almost, like when they compressed their chest and suffered of continuous fainting) and the amount of estehtic surgery carried on today goes to show that nothing has changed a lot.
Sexual arousement goes another path. For that there is just the moral sense and the will to behave properly of each person. Covering or uncovering doesn't do anything, except obssess people who are not willing to exercise their God given will to behave the way they should or temperament. And as it has been pointed out, one never knows qhat may arise him or her. It may be a gait, however unconspicuous it may be, it may be, and almost always is PURE UNDILUTED IMAGINATION. Sexual attraction is in one's head mostly.
Anyway Fallen Angel I commend your good manners and disposition to take into account other people's arguments. Hope God rewards your endeavours and hope you really do a beautiful job.
Salaam
-
Peace be upon you as well
brothers and sisters, let us not forget that the BEST garment is righteousness.
Humbleness and moderation, not showing off--yet looking good/positive.
