She's Not Naked !!!
-
Peace,
There is no compulsion from Quran. Its Allah 's warning for women to protect themselves. Many women get trapped outside of home while in the evening when they loiter late night movie shows, parties, dances etc. The evil in the men is fully functional during the night time.
Whereas Allah wants to purify by 3333, whereas we like get out of House, then its our risk and shirk against 3333.
At least be prayerful while getting out of House and make direct commitment to GOD. "Oh Lord , I am going out of House. Forgive me. I am going against your command 3333. Please make my return safely. Save me from evils from men.". Now step out with GOD confidence that too if its necessary to go out. But Night time stay at home and obey Allah and his messenger. Stay peacefully like a Queen. But you should know your messenger within your community. If you don't know your messenger you are far away from Quran. Everyone should know their messenger. They keep coming but not stop coming.
Salaam,
RED The evil in men is fully functional whenever we let shaytaan whisper to us. If YOU (thus not women) listen to Allah then saytaan will NEVER approach you, not in the morning not late at night not on the beach not even late at night in a disco on the beach.
BLUE "Bayt" doe NOT mean "House". And be carefull with saying things in the name of Allah on things you have little or no knowledge of.
Salaam,
Bender -
Peace
Your post contains a man in fully revealing bikini and you asked me if I liked it and encouraging me to tell you it is ok to tell us you really liked it drfazl. This in my understanding reminds me of Lut people. Am I right? or wrong? Explain to me. If you still say I am wrong, then my hands are up. May be I have misunderstood you. But please explain.
Yes, you are wrong because you apparently develop deliberate comprehension issues when put on the spot. I asked you why equal opportunity to the male in a bikini wasn't given instead of the woman being spam posted. Even if we accept your erroneous rendering of events, i.e. asking you if you liked a man in a bikini (instead of what was actually said) still does not explain "I do not belong to your Lut kind as you imagine me to be". Do you perhaps see the your there? Or is it a case of selective myopia? I've heard prayers from a pure soul work and perfect vision is restored, except in a dark room.
It's alright to just tell us you really liked that image drfazl...no need to spam the link or bring in fruit salads and/or Tarzan/Jane allegories. How about this one? Does this not suit your fancy or raise your ire as much as the woman?
-
Yes, you are wrong because you apparently develop deliberate comprehension issues when put on the spot. I asked you why equal opportunity to the male in a bikini wasn't given instead of the woman being spam posted. Even if we accept your erroneous rendering of events, i.e. asking you if you liked a man in a bikini (instead of what was actually said) still does not explain "I do not belong to your Lut kind as you imagine me to be". Do you perhaps see the your there? Or is it a case of selective myopia? I've heard prayers from a pure soul work and perfect vision is restored, except in a dark room.
It does give this evil sense to me in RED. So I am taking strong objection to your posting me of the image of a man in fully revealing bikini; and then you asking me if I liked it and encouraging me to tell you it is ok to tell us you really liked it drfazl; yet I overlooked it for the sake of decency; but you kept on insisting I should explain without shame; I am not wrong at all according to my clear understanding. I am not put in a spot at all when I said "I am not of your Lut kind of a person or a gay, as you imagine me to be. I do not know how better I can express my ad nauseam. It is a terrible mistake I responded to you; I quit of you for good. I will never respond to you again. Enough is enough.
-
peace
I decided that a bikini or bathing suit is appropriate on a beach or at a swimming pool. Going swimming in a full body suit does not make sense to me, nor is it fun.
sun
Btw., this is the kind of bathing suit the original poster was referring to. Apart from the fact that the model is horribly emaciated I can't see anything "inappropriate" in the picture.Link to bathing suit.
Peace Leyna,
I think a person should wear whatever they wish, you say that This and This
are both appropriate on the beach, but do they fit your standard of modesty as well? and
what about This one and This one?God bless
peace
-
It does give this evil sense to me in RED. So I am taking strong objection to your asking posting to me of a man in fully revealing bikini; and then you asked me if I liked it and encouraging me to tell you it is ok to tell us you really liked it drfazl; yet I overlooked it for the sake of decency; but you kept on insisting I should explain without shame; I am not wrong at all according to my clear understanding. I am not put in a spot at all when I said "I am not of your Lut kind of a person or a gay, as you imagine me to be. I do not know how better I can express my ad nauseam. It is a terrible mistake I responded to you; I quit of you for good. I will never respond to you again. Enough is enough.
Well done. You really didn't need any help digging that deep hole for yourself did you, and the kicker is...all you had to do is choose something like option f) even after all that kicking and flailing because it was the simplest and truest answer given the recorded evidence. It's easy to deduce why you didn't pick it, but it does take epic arrogance not to have done so and to still continue twisting and turning to make yourself appear an innocent victim of a vicious indecent attack on your saintly person. You see, if I didn't know your bag of tricks by now, I'd be shocked at the amount of dust you can throw up in your evasive maneuvers. Suffice it to say, this is a somewhat expected outcome...just wanted to see if even something this clear could be denied, an exercise in limits, if you will. Your zeal to save your persona is limitless.
Btw, just for the record, if someone spam posts a link to a woman in a fully revealing bikini and then turns around and says 'I am taking strong objection to your asking posting to me of a man in fully revealing bikini" ...it's called hypocrisy, let's not even talk about shame because you won't understand what it means unless you can use it in your favour. Perhaps the evil you sense is closer to home than you think.
-
Excuse me Hawk, I consider you a polite person, even if I do not agree with you on different things, I consider you a benevolent person and that is one reason why I am surprised at your questions to Leyna. Mind you, I do not assume any twisted intention in your questions, but me, excuse me they really look out of place. They look exactly like those of a confessor of the catholic church pryingin your intimacy see if you had this or that thought, touched yoursel or other here or there...
Really do yo9u want to know the things you ask? Do you not think that modesty is personal and that you should ask yourself what is modest for you to do or think or look or put on or off where and when or in whose presence Would you like to be pried that way about your intimacy.
Let us not distract ourselves, modesty is the keeping of our intimacy, not an hommage we pay to a lurking evilthinker to whom we should give explanations.
Being worried about the way others protect their intimacy may be charitable if you shut up, do not look at them and look the other way or cover up what you see as their failings. Trespassing and prying in their own personal self image, unless asked, is offensive, INMODEST and out of place.
I know I would give a cold shoulder to whoever did pry inmodesly in my intimacy. Mind your business should be the best advice. If you do not like what you see, do not look. If you disagree, don't do it. Prying is inmodest. Oggling is inmodest and uncivilised.
I guess you have asked out of curiosity, but even for curiosity myself I would not bother to take any noticr of the questions that are out of place, inmodest, unless it is somebody belonging also to my intimacy.
The modesty fetiche is realy making inroads into the sanity of males of muslim culture. Too bad. There is no need for that and there is no merit or usefulness in it.
Salaam
-
Plus, this is an international forum so please use God and verse(s) instead of Allah and ayat.
I think all english speaking forum became international forum yes
Sometimes this kinda thread is often turned into circus because there are those who interpret Quran using their desires such as barbarian-influenced minds and hedonist-influenced minds.
This happens when I get discussion both in here n domestic forum.
Wrote statements with Quranic verses, wrote statements with Quranic verses and over and over again.That's why the same issues repeated many times in this forum for many decades. (What kind of religion is this)
2431 And tell the believing females to lower their gaze and keep covered their private parts, and that they should not reveal their beauty except what is apparent,"
This the only wahy about rule of female dress.
RED word This depend on where the female lives.If the region legalized bikini and see it as normal so just wear it, and if the region doesn't then just don't do it.Simple I think.
More complete, please read http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9605748.0
"Bayt" doe NOT mean "House". And be carefull with saying things in the name of Allah on things you have little or no knowledge of.
Salaam
RED then what?
BLUE Looks like some members in here became spokesman/woman of GodSalaam
Earthdom -
I think a person should wear whatever they wish, you say that This and This
are both appropriate on the beach, but do they fit your standard of modesty as well?
and
what about This one and This one?I don't see the point in discussing each particular style of swimming garments. It depends on the person's preferences what they consider modest or not, and on the circumstances.
-
2431 And tell the believing females to lower their gaze and keep covered their private parts, and that they should not reveal their beauty except what is apparent,"
This the only wahy about rule of female dress.
RED word This depend on where the female lives.Earthdom
"Illa ma Dhahara" translated as "except what is apparent" I do not think that it means what you say, because let us consider that, as it was in ancient Mexico, males were supposed to go almost naked, not for exhibition, but for the sake of being manly, that is not complain about cold, whether and so forth, other wise higher classes did embelish themselves with feathers and other adornments, but they should be "men" enough to withstand hardship and not complain like sissies.
What happened if you did not live up to that? Would it be morally wrong?
Another thing, if as it happens, it was imposed that all women should wear burqa, would that be what the Qur'an enjoins, that women are imposed a dress that is full of shortcomings from many points of view? Or would they be right in going against what is the rule, be it imposed by law or by habit for the sake of comfort and dignity, which according to the Qur'an are the foundation of dressing?
I think that "la yubdina zinatahunna illa ma thahara minha" means something else. It does not min, that whatever it is consider the sina is not seen, beccause if that was the meaning it could have been said so, but it says "yubdina", that is, make an exhibition, call attention to it. Dhahara means that it is seen, that something is seen it does not mean that it is being exhibited, that is, that the purpose is that it is looked at. When people normally in whatever way, it is not to be in exhibition, but to be comfortable and with enough dignity for the place or occasion where they mean to be present. So the question is not that smoething is seen or not, but that it is not exhibited nor attention is called to it.
Going back to the anciente mexico, the purpose was not that their bodies were looked at, so they did not exhibit their bodies, although they might exhibit their feathers and adornments. and of course they did cover their private parts and did have high moral standards as regards sex. You could say their bodies Dhahara, but no that they were exhibited.
So what the usages of the place are, does have a bearing on this, but it is not by any means all and if thethose uses are unhealthy or uncomfortable or tyranical, people have a right to go against them and uphold the purpose of dressing which is comfort and feeling of dignity of the user.
Feminine clothing in European gashion has always been rather uncomfortable, many times most unhealthy. It is nowadays that the way european women dress in the street is most comfortable and decent, except may for teeangers, when they are feed the horrible fashion industry. The way women dress in the west is not what peopladvertising. You just jave to stand in a street and watche the way people dress.
Salaam
-
peace
I decided that a bikini or bathing suit is appropriate on a beach or at a swimming pool. Going swimming in a full body suit does not make sense to me, nor is it fun.
sun
Btw., this is the kind of bathing suit the original poster was referring to. Apart from the fact that the model is horribly emaciated I can't see anything "inappropriate" in the picture.Link to bathing suit.
I don't see the point in discussing each particular style of swimming garments. It depends on the person's preferences what they consider modest or not, and on the circumstances.
Peace leyna,
In your earlier post you did decide that the bikini was appropriate for the women
at the swimming pool, so my natural follow up question to you is, are those swimsuits in the links for men
appropriate as well? If you are embarrassed by the question I understand, and no answer is required.God bless you
peace
-
1188 He said, "O my people, have you considered if I am upon clear evidence from my Lord and He has provided me with a good provision from Him... ? And I do not intend to differ from you in that which I have forbidden you; I only intend reform as much as I am able. And my success is not but through Allah . Upon him I have relied, and to Him I return.
Im closely following the thread and following the discussion between dr.fazl and others. What i understood was dr.fazl gave his opinion about the women's dress,for which he quoted ayats from quran. i.e he brought out from what allah is guiding the humans regarding their dress. It is an important component for living ,next to food and shelter. Allah has guided us not only for dress but also for our economy,education,family system, thats the reason we are following islam. Quran is showing the right path for the righteous people. Dr.fazl wanted to bring out the valuable guidance from quran regarding this issue. I learnt many things about islam,from his contribution.
1189 And O my people, let not dissension from me cause you to be struck by that similar to what struck the people of Noah or the people of Hud or the people of Salih. And the people of Lot are not from you far away.
Whenever people receive a right message majority were rejecting in the past and also in the present. This is what is happening now.
1191 They said, "O Shu'ayb, we do not understand much of what you say, and indeed, we consider you among us as weak. And if not for your family, we would have stoned you ; and you are not to us one respected."
Some people dont comprehend what dr.fazl is saying. Allah guides those whom he is pleased with and he leaves the rest to linger in a limbo. Indeed my lord is encompassing of what you do.
-
peace
Wow we again have Salafized (Salafi + suffix 'ized' "God-aloner" on here. The one who propahates no modern medicine laws and nowwwwwww "women-must-be-kept-at-home-only" law. Sorry Fazl. I do not mean to be intolerant but your sexist reasoning is outrageous. You remind me of qatief al-azhar who came to Jilbab thread and preached her Salafism there. If people are not exposed to the world and surroundings, they would have IQ and mental retardations.
I am absolutely perplexed by some of the opinions I've been reading in this thread. Women should stay in the house as much as possible in order to fulfill God's will, and women who are out on the street after dark are somehow doing something dubious and unrighteous? That's bizarre and ludicrous. It's the kind of thing I would expect on a Salafi or very conservative Muslim forum, and that's exactly why I'm staying well away from those sites.
It's exactly this kind of attitude that leads to the epidemic of harassment we've been suffering from here in Egypt for many years. If women don't belong into the public sphere, if good women don't go out unnecessarily, for pleasure, or after dark, then those who do are fair game. Harassment is a way of asserting male authority, dominance, and ownership of the public space. From claiming it's women's obligation to cover up and stay inside as much as possible to victim-blaming it's only a very small step. If you violated God's commands and didn't act like a nice, pious women should, then it's basically your fault if you get harassed or attacked.
hypno
This is not about protection, it's about control of the public space and control of women. I find it repulsive and hypocritical that those who propagate this sort of restriction are trying to justify it by claiming they only want our best and it's all about "protection". If you guys are really concerned with protection of women, why don't you address the dangers women are facing in their very own houses and families?Women are much more likely to become victims of rape, abuse, physical or psychological violence in the home. Why not address domestic abuse and marital rape and the lack of protection many women are suffering from in Muslim countries and communities? Why not address misogynist interpretations allowing husbands to beat their wives and demand that marital violence becomes a criminal offense everywhere in the world? Why not challenge notions of male privilege and authority that lead to so much imbalance and suffering?
That, of course, would mean facing some very uncomfortable issues, and it would mean you'd actually have to practice empathy and critical thinking. And of course it would be much less comfortable than coming on here lecturing women on "appropriate" dress and conduct.
-
Remember that women are to let their head cover fall over their breast area, to conceal the size of it, you know, not the tip of the breasts or its surrounding, but obviously the size.
?
The way the teachings are described in my first post on this thread is exactly how the Quran teaches, not the exact words but the same meaning.There is absolutely nothing in the Qur'an about the size of breasts or the need to "conceal their size". The Qur'an mentions juyubihinna ? their cleavages. There's a huge difference between covering your cleavage and completely concealing the size of your breasts.
I am wondering what kind of reality you live in. It is virtually impossible for a woman to completely conceal the size of her breasts, particularly if she has larger breasts. The only option might be ten layers of clothing, a harness, or a boxlike construction. I think it's obvious that this are not feasible options.
hmm
-
"Illa ma Dhahara" translated as "except what is apparent" I do not think that it means what you say, because let us consider that, as it was in ancient Mexico, males were supposed to go almost naked, not for exhibition, but for the sake of being manly, that is not complain about cold, whether and so forth, other wise higher classes did embelish themselves with feathers and other adornments, but they should be "men" enough to withstand hardship and not complain like sissies.
What happened if you did not live up to that? Would it be morally wrong?
Another thing, if as it happens, it was imposed that all women should wear burqa, would that be what the Qur'an enjoins, that women are imposed a dress that is full of shortcomings from many points of view? Or would they be right in going against what is the rule, be it imposed by law or by habit for the sake of comfort and dignity, which according to the Qur'an are the foundation of dressing?
I think that "la yubdina zinatahunna illa ma thahara minha" means something else. It does not min, that whatever it is consider the sina is not seen, beccause if that was the meaning it could have been said so, but it says "yubdina", that is, make an exhibition, call attention to it. Dhahara means that it is seen, that something is seen it does not mean that it is being exhibited, that is, that the purpose is that it is looked at. When people normally in whatever way, it is not to be in exhibition, but to be comfortable and with enough dignity for the place or occasion where they mean to be present. So the question is not that smoething is seen or not, but that it is not exhibited nor attention is called to it.
Going back to the anciente mexico, the purpose was not that their bodies were looked at, so they did not exhibit their bodies, although they might exhibit their feathers and adornments. and of course they did cover their private parts and did have high moral standards as regards sex. You could say their bodies Dhahara, but no that they were exhibited.
So what the usages of the place are, does have a bearing on this, but it is not by any means all and if thethose uses are unhealthy or uncomfortable or tyranical, people have a right to go against them and uphold the purpose of dressing which is comfort and feeling of dignity of the user.
Feminine clothing in European gashion has always been rather uncomfortable, many times most unhealthy. It is nowadays that the way european women dress in the street is most comfortable and decent, except may for teeangers, when they are feed the horrible fashion industry. The way women dress in the west is not what peopladvertising. You just jave to stand in a street and watche the way people dress.
Salaam sister
Looks like you missunderstood my post, please re-read again if necessary.
Peace
-
towards salafized or deobandized "God aloners" drfazl and company.
peace dbh,
i feel, haste in your judgement.
dbh
to seize the freedom of women to be out of their homes, right?drfazl
Thus Allah says O women folks, during your difficult times against any inimical situations in your precincts stay indoors until normalcy is restored. Then when the normalcy returns and as you go out restrain and refrain from your pride and showy behaviour. Towards this effect the following ayat comes from Allah3359 O Prophet! say to your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers that they let down their over-garments and throw away your head scarfs and become as normally dressed as the other women folk; this act will be more proper, that they may be overlooked, and thus they will not be spotted by their identity and given trouble during any communal strife; and Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
peace
-
i feel, haste in your judgement.
I don't see haste in it but simply observation.
How is the claim that God wants women to be covered from head to toe and to stay inside different from what the Salafi scholars claim? According to them, a woman must be covered from head to toe in clothes that completely conceal the shape of her body, preferably with only one eye showing. She should avoid going out except for "cases of necessity". If she does venture out, she not only needs to be covered, but has to avoid wearing perfume, making her voice heard, and she should preferably croach alongside the walls and make herself as invisible as possible. Of course she should only venture out with the approval of her husband and in the company of a mahram.
All this, of course, has nothing to do with control or suppression. No, it shows the high preference "Islam" gives to the safety, well-being, and protection of women. Whoever isn't able to understand this is either ignorant, not pious enough, not well-read enough, or simply brainwashed by Western feminist ideas.
Of course wider issues such as women's right to work, enjoy outdoor activities, walks, socialize, engaging in politics and public life etc. pp. are never being discussed or mentioned in this context because they simply don't exist in the realm those people are living in. A true believing woman will not desire to engage in any of those activities that contradict the model of female life her creator has chosen for her.
http//foolstown.com/sm/old.gif
-
I don't see haste in it but simple observation.
How is the claim that God wants women to be covered from head to toe and to stay inside different from what the Salafi scholars claim? According to them, a woman must be covered from head to toe in clothes that completely conceal the shape of her body, preferably with only one eye showing. She should avoid going out except for "cases of necessity". If she does venture out, she not only needs to be covered, but has to avoid wearing perfume, make her voice heard, and she should preferably croach alongside the walls and make herself as invisible as possible. Of course she should only venture out with the approval of her husband and in the company of a mahram.
All this, of course, has nothing to do with control or suppression. No, it shows the high preference "Islam" gives to the safety, well-being, and protection of women. Whoever isn't able to understand this is either ignorant, not pious enough, not well-read enough, or simply brainwashed by Western feminist ideas.
Of course wider issues such as women's right to work, enjoy outdoor activities, walks, socialize, engaging in politics and public life etc. pp. are never being discussed or mentioned in this context because they simply don't exist in the realm those people are living in. A true believing woman will not desire to engage in any of those activities that contradict the model of female life her creator has chosen for her.
http//foolstown.com/sm/old.gif
Maybe I misunderstood but are you one of drfazl followers who say believing women should just stay at home and are you saying that those women who work, enjoy outdoor activities, do not cover from head to toe and involve in politics are brainwashed by feminist proganda, ignorant, not pious?
-
Peace family,
The oppression of women, like all oppression, is the denial of their dreams. Sometimes its the fear
of losing control, or paternalism gone awry that has the effect of making our daugthers unhappy, while
we men say that we "know" what is best, ignoring their pleas for equality which is what is best. We as believers
must prove that God is in control and get out of the way and remove the yoke from around the necks of our
women. Would we men like to be treated as we treat the women? Treating them like children who are not
capable of making their own decisions and mistakes like us?These two ayats understood as one makes it clear that we men are not to control but to let the women
have control over themselves.If a woman senses oppression or desertion from her husband, the couple shall try to reconcile
their differences, for conciliation is best for them. Selfishness is a human trait, and if you do good and
lead a righteous life, GOD is fully Cognizant of everything you do.There shall be no compulsion in religion the right way is now distinct from the wrong way. Anyone
who denounces the devil and believes in GOD has grasped the strongest bond; one that never breaks. GOD
is Hearer, Omniscient.God bless
peace
-
Peace family,
The oppression of women, like all oppression, is the denial of their dreams. Sometimes its the fear
of losing control, or paternalism gone awry that has the effect of making our daugthers unhappy, while
we men say that we "know" what is best, ignoring their pleas for equality which is what is best. We as believers
must prove that God is in control and get out of the way and remove the yoke from around the necks of our
women. Would we men like to be treated as we treat the women? Treating them like children who are not
capable of making their own decisions and mistakes like us?These two ayats understood as one makes it clear that we men are not to control but to let the women
have control over themselves.If a woman senses oppression or desertion from her husband, the couple shall try to reconcile
their differences, for conciliation is best for them. Selfishness is a human trait, and if you do good and
lead a righteous life, GOD is fully Cognizant of everything you do.There shall be no compulsion in religion the right way is now distinct from the wrong way. Anyone
who denounces the devil and believes in GOD has grasped the strongest bond; one that never breaks. GOD
is Hearer, Omniscient.God bless
peace
Yes, indeed, putting oneself in the place of the other is a very sensible and mostly very efficient way of not being unjust. It is very tempting to not notice that others suffer and feel humiliated, and depressed and angrey, very angry, when we ignore their need for respect, their feelings, their existene as persons even, just turning them into a useful object.
We should always try to practice that. We would avoid a lot of suffering and misunderstanding. And the best of it, it is not painful and does not cost money. So we can really do it without fear.
Salaam