Praying with the Hijab
-
Salam,
Will it be a sin to continue praying with veil one, knowing the fact that it is not prescribed in the Quran? I mean, sure it is not prescribed, but it is forbidden to wear one while praying (with cultural and habitual aspects as the reason)?
As long as you know that it is not a requirement from God, then there is no harm (it becomes a personal choice/preference - just like the foods Jacob forbade for himself).
-
Salam,
How can Jacob forbid anything for himself? He was a nabiy and therefore only judged with Allah's law. Israil is not Jacob. Please read the bible and you'll see the how Jacob got to be renamed israil. There's nothing quranic about it.
-
Salam,
How can Jacob forbid anything for himself? He was a nabiy and therefore only judged with Allah's law. Israil is not Jacob. Please read the bible and you'll see the how Jacob got to be renamed israil. There's nothing quranic about it.
I do not read the bible to understand God's system - we have the Quran which is sufficient as well as overriding.
Being a nabi does not mean that a person is receiving divine instruction all the time.
-
That's perfectly fine. If you uphold the salat by yourself, then I'd say that it is up to you what you wear. If you are around others, then you should follow the following guidelines
2431 Tell the acknowledging women to lower their gaze and guard their private parts, and that they should not show off their attraction except what is apparent thereof, and let them cast their clothes over their cleavage...
After looking more into that passage, I'm thinking that's not a really good translation of the verse. Firstly, it tells the believing women to lower their gaze and guard their chastity, instructing them to hide (or not make apparent) their beauty. Other passages also tell them not to show their beauty, saying it's like the ignorant people of past times (i.e. Q. 3333). Also, 2431 says "illa ma zahara min-ha"/except what appears thereof. This most likely applies to what it customary for the women to wear, most likely referring to their faces and hands. Therefore, "clothes over their cleavage" is not a good translation of the passage. The word "khimaar" means head-covering. So, when appearing in public, women should cover their heads. I kind of agree with the interpretation by "pcborg" on his website.
http//www.detailedquran.com/
It makes the most sense on this subject...Now, this is only talking about modesty in public or around other people. So, obviously, in the privacy of your own home, there's no uniform for observing "al-salaat", and people should do what makes them feel most comfortable.
-
Salam,
I do not read the bible to understand God's system - we have the Quran which is sufficient as well as overriding.
Agreed. However, with the Quran alone, you can never reason that Israil is Ya'qoob who forbade things for himself. Take a look
Quran 393
What does the 'torah' have anything to do with Jacob? And where can one find the equivocation that Israil is actually Yaqoob? Your reasoning is from the bible, im sorry to say.
Being a nabi does not mean that a person is receiving divine instruction all the time.
It's not about recieving divine instruction 'all the time'. It's about making things forbidden for himself outside God's command. Being a nabiy isnt a 9 to 5 job where the guy can go home, get out of his nabiy uniform, break out a six-pack and once a week (although watching football is ok), have poker night with the boys. He's entitled to have his preferences sure, but he's not allowed to make things forbidden outside God's forbiddings. The Nabiy was actually told off for doing this (661-2)
-
Salam,
Agreed. However, with the Quran alone, you can never reason that Israil is Ya'qoob who forbade things for himself. Take a look
Quran 393
What does the 'torah' have anything to do with Jacob? And where can one find the equivocation that Israil is actually Yaqoob? Your reasoning is from the bible, im sorry to say.
Here is why I find Jacob to be Israel
- According to 393 and 1958, Israel is a person who exsted before the Torah was revealed.
- According to 512 and 7160, the 'children of Israel' are made-up of twelve tribes/people.
- According to 124, Jacob had 12 sons.
- According to 1299, it was Joseph who brought his family and brothers to live in Egypt.
- According to 2047, the first time we read about the 'children of Israel' is in Egypt where Moses is sent.
As you can see, my conclusion has nothing to do with the bible...just by putting together the clus given to us in the Quran.
It's not about recieving divine instruction 'all the time'. It's about making things forbidden for himself outside God's command. Being a nabiy isnt a 9 to 5 job where the guy can go home, get out of his nabiy uniform, break out a six-pack and once a week (although watching football is ok), have poker night with the boys. He's entitled to have his preferences sure, but he's not allowed to make things forbidden outside God's forbiddings. The Nabiy was actually told off for doing this (661-2)
not so, prophets are human and they can forbid and make mitakes like other humans (see 1267 where Jacob tells his sons to enter in certain mannor, yet in 1268 we are told this makes no difference to the will of God - or, see 661 were the prophet forbids what God made awful just to please his wives). When we are speaking of prophets, that is a state of being, when we are speaking of a messenger, that is a spcific function.
-
I recommend the following
http//misconceptions-about-islam.com/dress-code-women-veil.htmIt smashes the myth of the traditional women's dress code, including headcover.
Hmmm... hmm Thanks for the link; it's very interesting and informative...
-
After looking more into that passage, I'm thinking that's not a really good translation of the verse. Firstly, it tells the believing women to lower their gaze and guard their chastity, instructing them to hide (or not make apparent) their beauty. Other passages also tell them not to show their beauty, saying it's like the ignorant people of past times (i.e. Q. 3333). Also, 2431 says "illa ma zahara min-ha"/except what appears thereof.
"...Except what is apparent thereof" shows that women are allowed to show part of their beauty/attraction.
Therefore, "clothes over their cleavage" is not a good translation of the passage. The word "khimaar" means head-covering.
...and let them draw/set/cast (walyadribna) with their veils/covers (bikhumurihinna) over (AAala) their breasts/bosom (juyoobihinna)...
Putting a HEAD-COVER over the BOSOM doesnt make sense..
The link which Wakas has provided has very good info. Also check out this one http//www.submission.org/dress.html
-
[
Salam,
Here is why I find Jacob to be Israel
- According to 393 and 1958, Israel is a person who exsted before the Torah was revealed.
- According to 512 and 7160, the 'children of Israel' are made-up of twelve tribes/people.
- According to 124, Jacob had 12 sons.
- According to 1299, it was Joseph who brought his family and brothers to live in Egypt.
- According to 2047, the first time we read about the 'children of Israel' is in Egypt where Moses is sent.
As you can see, my conclusion has nothing to do with the bible...just by putting together the clus given to us in the Quran.
You?re right, your conclusion has nothing to do with the bible. My apologies for thinking so. However, I must say, I really question your conclusions from the above ayaat.
Take 512 for example
Here we can see that the so-called ?tribes? isn?t real. It?s Allah who established the 12 captains. The 12 captains have nothing
to do with Jacob?s 12 sons.Here?s another one, 2/60
Here you can see why Allah organised Bani Israil into 12 groups. Again it has nothing do with the word used so often in the Quran, dhuriyat. The word which would have been so appropriate here had your conclusions been right is missing.
not so, prophets are human and they can forbid and make mitakes like other humans (see 1267 where Jacob tells his sons to enter in certain mannor, yet in 1268 we are told this makes no difference to the will of God - or, see 661 were the prophet forbids what God made awful just to please his wives). When we are speaking of prophets, that is a state of being, when we are speaking of a messenger, that is a spcific function.
Nubuwwah is not entirely separate from risalah. If you have a read of 492-3, it shows that ?rasul Allah? is the same as ?an-nabiy?. And we know that the rasul and the believers judge by the Book (54. Sure the nabiy can make a mistake, you?re right. But his mistakes which are preserved in the Quran cannot be left uncorrected. If Israil was a nabiy (which I doubt it is) and he wrongfully made haram something, we cannot be left to copy it.
-
Here?s another one, 2/60
Here you can see why Allah organised Bani Israil into 12 groups. Again it has nothing do with the word used so often in the Quran, dhuriyat. The word which would have been so appropriate here had your conclusions been right is missing.
'each people knew from where to drink'. Obviously there was a factor that let each person know which of the 12 groups he/she belongs to - you are looking for a word 'dhuriya' which makes no sence in any of this context (the 12 would all be 'children of israel' - which they are constantly called).
Now, that these people were able to know that they each belonged to a group of 12, that this group never existed before Egypt, that this whole group is called 'children of Israel', that Israel was a person who existed before the Torah was revealed, that Jacob brought 12 sons into Egypt decades earlier...Well, you don't need any leap of faith to connect the dots.
-
'each people knew from where to drink'. Obviously there was a factor that let each person know which of the 12 groups he/she belongs to - you are looking for a word 'dhuriya' which makes no sence in any of this context (the 12 would all be 'children of israel' - which they are constantly called).
Now, that these people were able to know that they each belonged to a group of 12, that this group never existed before Egypt, that this whole group is called 'children of Israel', that Israel was a person who existed before the Torah was revealed, that Jacob brought 12 sons into Egypt decades earlier...Well, you don't need any leap of faith to connect the dots.
Sorry but again you're ignoring some ayaat to explain others without backing. What about 5/12
'Wa ba3athna minhum'. It God's who establishes these captains from THEM. Now if they were 12 tribes, there's no need for God to do this. This is where the Quran and the Bible (i know you're not using it but coincidentally, your conclusions and the bible's are similar despite lack of backing from the Quran) differs. With the Quran, Bani Israil is a group united by ideology, not blood.
Can you think of something more contradictory to Islam than a focus on geneology? Would Musa lead a people united by a common ancestor out of Egypt ignoring the rest? What if someone outside his race wanted to join him? Would he say ?sorry mate, you?re not the right colour to join us?. That would make Musa?s first name ?Adolf?, I think.
The teachings of the messengers do not change. Islam is a movement united by ideas, not race. This was true then and true now.
-
I used to pray when I first converted, but now I never do (the way muslims do), and it is because when I put on the hijab, I feel unsettled and filthy. It is difficult to concentrate on worshipping God when you feel this way. The whole issue of hijab to me seems illogical and unfair, both qualitites that do not belong to the God I believe in.
If you say it is to protect women from men who are not her husband, and I am praying with my husband, then why put it?
Then the argument comes about the djinn...okay, but then if the djinn are with us, would not the woman keep the hijab at all times even when she is alone at home, just in case some nasty horny djinn is peeping?
And finally, if it is an issue of respect and submission to God, which I would totally do if I believed it was, then why not also the men? Are men not also to show humility and submission?
I've raised the same questions this thread explores, for the past ten years, without ever knowing there was a group like this. I've wanted to pray, but have insisted on praying my own way, without hijab. And I do, quite often. Yet, I was missing the peace and stillness that I used to feel while praying a bit more ritualistically (in between adjusting the scarf on my head).
Now that it is Ramadan and I am more focused on my spirituality, I'm driven to pray again, and I guess, like some others have said, have been conditioned enough to be afraid my prayers won't be accepted - even though that's the silliest thing I've ever heard when I think about it logically. The biggest worry I have is that my rejection of the hijab is really just me being prideful - that I am resisting submitting the way God has asked me to. Yet, I've searched and searched, and it's just not there. If I could read where it said it was necessary, I would do it. But as it stands, it sounds to me like it's a manmade rule - and more importantly, something people focus on instead of the main purpose of prayer, which is to worship.
I just think that God knows what is in my heart. And if my heart is calm with my hair pulled back in a ponytail so I can focus on God, He'd rather that than if my heart was in a jumble of confusion and doubt with my head all covered up.
But man, it sure is a steep hill to climb when all the muslim women you know disagree with you. (
Anyway, that's my ramble...I just had to reply because this is the topic I was searching for that brought me to this sight to begin with. It seems like such a petty topic in the grand scheme of Islam, but so much importance is placed on it, that it has caused me great stress.
Salams
DanielleSorry for the long quote, but I can relate so much to everything you wrote here, Danielle! Thanks for articulating it so well -- not a ramble at all!
