Mingling with the opposite sex ????
-
salam sytalls
and welcome
i adher to your view posted above and have followed a similar way also converted about 20 years ago and have been long time in the spiritual desert, same ideas on dressing, staring, walking,...
What i would like to add all depends on where you are (be in country, or context,...) i believe one has to adapt to the circumstances (hey your not obliged to go to that "naked beach" though... lol
this post of yours would also be well placed on the "women as sex objects" thread. Decent dress and attitude resolve most problems
Elke
-
Thank you, Elke. And salam.
I totally agree about location. In making my choice, I thought that wearing clothes that weren't part of my culture would actually draw more attention than wearing, say, business attire.
D If we'd crossed paths out there in the desert, we could've shared a campfire and talked about the Quran.
There were times when people would talk so much about the hadith that I wondered if they'd ever actually opened a copy of the Quran. This one young woman (American) I met just a couple of months ago had recently converted (after marrying a Sunni Muslim) and was all covered up from head to toe. When I asked her if she found the Quran as beautiful and spiritually fulfilling as I had, she said she hadn't read it yet. She was studying the hadith and would get to the Quran later.
This situation was tough. I told her my views and recommended she go ahead and read the Quran. But I was concerned about pushing the issue too much, since I feared for her safety at home.
-
Salaamun alaikum sytalls,
She was studying the hadith and would get to the Quran later.
UNBELIEVABLE. It is so unfortunate that "muslims" who are supposed to uphold the Quran as the source of law and guidance are not doing it, instead they are deserting it. Looks like satan is having a heyday !
2531 And the messenger said "My Lord, my people have deserted this Quran."
-
Salaamun alaikum all,
There are quite a few resourceful individuals who are true muslims and believers. I was wondering how come no one has tried to form a group and buy a private island or something where the true believers can form a true Islamic state and implement the laws of The God in it so all the true believers can practically lead their lives according to Islam. Then all of the believers can migrate there and live happily ever after !!
We all talk a lot but there is no practical action at the community level !
-
yeah i know it is amazing ... they think we-re misguided .. i swear i want to start a movement or smth like the FOllowers of ONLY THE QURAN >... i live in london so yeah .. neone lives in london as well ?
Check the 'Europe' forum, the 'London' thread. I'm in London (at least for the next 5 months) and some others are too.
-
Peace ammar,
Even in a loose outer garment the outline of the hips can be accentuated by striking the feet in a certain way. I think that is what is being described in this part of the ayat. It does not mean one can wear tight clothes. Jilbab was a loose outer garment worn by arab women. The God wants believing women to lengthen upon themselves their jalabeeb which implies a loose outer garment.
3360 O prophet, tell your wives, your daughters, and the wives of the believers that they should lengthen upon themselves their outer garments (jalabeeb). That is better so that they would be recognized and not harmed. God is Forgiver, Merciful.
-
Salaamun alaikum Hasan,
Following are different translations of the ayat in question
024031
Pickthall ..........or male attendants who lack vigour, or children who know naught of women's nakedness.
Yusuf Ali ..........or male servants free of physical needs, or small children who have no sense of the shame of sex;
Shakir ........... or the male servants not having need (of women), or the children who have not attained knowledge of what is hidden of women;
Sher Ali ........... or such of male attendants as have no desire for women, or young children who have not yet attained knowledge of the hidden parts of women.
Khalifa ........... the male servants or employees whose sexual drive has been nullified, or the children who have not reached puberty.
Arberry ........... or such men as attend them, not having sexual desire, or children who have not yet attained knowledge of women's private parts;
Palmer ............ or their male attendants who are incapable, or to children who do not note women's nakedness;
Rodwell ............ or their slaves, or male domestics who have no natural force, or to children who note not women's nakedness.
Sale ........... or unto such men as attend , and have no need , or unto children, who distinguish not the nakedness of women.
Progressive Muslims or the male servants who are without need, or the child who has not yet understood the composition of women.According to tanveermd they are "male servants who are sexually impotent."
But that is only a human being's presumption rather than God's words. What God is saying in 2431 is that those men are the "needless men belonging to the believing woman."
What they do not need can only be conjectured rather than decided on God's behalf because no human being is God's spokesperson.
Some people have mistakenly presumed that the word zeena in 2431 stands for the attractive parts of the believing woman's body. And since God says that there is no harm in her exposing her "zeena" to the people listed in the verse, those people in the list are the ones who can not marry her, such as her father and sons.
However "the needless men belonging to the believing woman" are also included in the list. Who must they be?
The anwser has to be "the sexually needless ones" as only they can not marry the woman.
However, that is against what God announces in 2458, where He says that even the children who have not yet reached puberty are forbidden from seeing the attrative parts of their mother's body; that is her awrah.
Can the sexually needles men be allowed to see a believing woman's awrah while the sexually needless children can not?
The truth is that the zeena mentioned in 2431 are the jewellery the believing woman wears; and the needless men who work for her do not need her jwellery.
In other words, they are the ones whom she can trust her jewellery to. But she is never allowed to expose the attractive parts of her body to them.
Brother you are accusing me of conjecture and presumption whereas you are doing that yourself.
2457 O you who believe, let those who are your dependants and have not yet attained puberty request your permission regarding three times Before the dawn contact-method, and should you take off your attire from being outdoors, and after the dusk contact-method. These are three private times for you. Other than these times, it is not wrong for you or them to intermingle with one another. God thus clarifies the revelations for you. And God is Knowledgeable, Wise.
In this ayat The God is saying that the children who have not yet attained puberty have to ask permission before entering and NOT that they cannot see the awrah (private parts). It is not about the awrah, it is about private time in which one could be having intimacy, thereby the need for permission. The one inside could be a male or a female, but in your post you imply that the one inside is only the mother. The audience clearly is the believers, which includes both male and female. You are conjecturing here when you say that the pre-pubescent children cannot see the awrah in this ayat; there is no mention of awrah here. Then after that you build up your arguement based on this conjecture. It is completely possible for the person inside to give permission to the pre-pubescent child to enter and not cover his/her zeena.
You also are confusing the list of people who are allowed to see the zeena with the list of people one cannot marry. The list is not mutually inclusive. Following are the two ayat
2432 And let them not show-off their beauty except to
their husbands, or
their fathers, or
fathers of their husbands, or
their sons, or
the sons of their husbands, or
their brothers, or
the sons of their brothers, or
the sons of their sisters, or
their women, or
those who are still their dependants, or
the male servants who are without need, or
the child who has not yet understood the composition of women.Out of this list, the women can marry the male ma malakat aimanahunna and they can also marry the male servants without need.
The list of the ones that are forbidden to marry is following
424 Forbidden for you are
your mothers, and
your daughters, and
your sisters, and
your fathers' sisters, and
your mothers' sisters, and
the daughters of your brother, and
the daughters of your sister, and
your foster mothers who suckled you, and
your sisters from suckling, and
the mothers of your wives, and
your step-daughters residing in your homes from your wives which you have already consummated the marriage with; if you have not consummated the marriage then there is no sin upon you; and
the wives of your sons that are from your seed, and
that you join between two sisters except what has already been done. God is Forgiving, Merciful.That is for a male believer, and by extrapolation it includes the male counterparts of the above for a female believer.
As you can see, the two lists are not mutually inclusive.
Let's break down your post now
According to tanveermd they are "male servants who are sexually impotent."
But that is only a human being's presumption rather than God's words. What God is saying in 2431 is that those men are the "needless men belonging to the believing woman."
What they do not need can only be conjectured rather than decided on God's behalf because no human being is God's spokesperson.
As I have clearly demonstrated above, you are conjecturing and making presumptions too. I agree that The God is talking about "male servants without need". The phrase "ghayri olee al-irbati" according to classical arabic dictionaries means without need. No dictionary states that it means without need for jewellery. Please see all the translations of 2431 by various translators at the beginning of this post. According to context of ayat it means without need of zeena.
Some people have mistakenly presumed that the word zeena in 2431 stands for the attractive parts of the believing woman's body. And since God says that there is no harm in her exposing her "zeena" to the people listed in the verse, those people in the list are the ones who can not marry her, such as her father and sons.
Please prove that it is a mistake to define zeena as attractive parts of the women's body. Also as I have shown above, the list of people who can see the zeena and the list of people one is forbidden to marry is not mutually inclusive. So your second statement is wrong too.
However "the needless men belonging to the believing woman" are also included in the list. Who must they be?
The anwser has to be "the sexually needless ones" as only they can not marry the woman.
IMO you are right that "ghayri olee al-irbati" means "those without physical or sexual need" but not because they cannot marry the women. Marriage has nothing to do with "consummation" of marriage or sexual intercourse. One can be married and has not consummated the marriage yet, and one is still considered married and still has to get a divorce if one wants to get out of the marriage contract
2235 There is no sin upon you if you divorce the women before having sexual intercourse with them, or before committing to what was agreed for them.
2236 And if you divorce them before having sexual intercourse with them, but you have already agreed to the dowry; then you must give half of what you have agreed, unless they forgive or the guardian over the marriage contract forgives.So being married has nothing to do with actual consummation of marriage. Theoretically, a male can be without sexual need and still be married to a female. Nowhere does The God forbid a woman from marrying the male servant without need.
However, that is against what God announces in 2458, where He says that even the children who have not yet reached puberty are forbidden from seeing the attrative parts of their mother's body; that is her awrah.
As I have shown above, nowhere in 2458 The God mentions awrah or talks about awrah or says that pre-pubescent children are forbidden to see awrah. One should refrain from inventing lies about The God.
Can the sexually needles men be allowed to see a believing woman's awrah while the sexually needless children can not?
First a conjecture and fabrication, then an arguement built on fabrication.
The truth is that the zeena mentioned in 2431 are the jewellery the believing woman wears; and the needless men who work for her do not need her jwellery.
In other words, they are the ones whom she can trust her jewellery to. But she is never allowed to expose the attractive parts of her body to them.
Complete presumption and conjecture. IMO "ghayri olee al-irbati" in 2431 clearly means without physical or sexual need for women.
Regards,
Tanveer
-
Nowhere it says that they would NOT be recognized. The ayat says that they would be recognized
3360 O prophet, tell your wives, your daughters, and the wives of the believers that they should lengthen upon themselves their outer garments (jalabeeb). That is better so that they would be recognized and not harmed. God is Forgiver, Merciful.
Some more translations
Shakir O Prophet! say to your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers that they let down upon them their over-garments; this will be more proper, that they may be known, and thus they will not be given trouble; and Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
Khalifa O prophet, tell your wives, your daughters, and the wives of the believers that they shall lengthen their garments. Thus, they will be recognized (as righteous women) and avoid being insulted. GOD is Forgiver, Most Merciful.Jilbab is a loose outer garment like a gown or a cloak worn over the regular clothes. It has nothing to do with the face or head. When a believing woman wears a long loose outer garment she will immediately be recognized as a pious or righteous person and will not be treated like a piece of meat by indecent or immoral people.
Cloak \Cloak\ (?; 110), n.
- A loose outer garment, extending from the neck downwards,
and commonly without sleeves. It is longer than a cape,
and is worn both by men and by women.
Gown \Gown, n. n; cf. OF. gone, prob. of the
same origin.]- A loose, flowing upper garment; especially
(a) The ordinary outer dress of a woman; as, a calico or
silk gown.
(b) The official robe of certain professional men and
scholars, as university students and officers,
barristers, judges, etc.; hence, the dress of peace;
the dress of civil officers, in distinction from
military.
He Mars deposed, and arms to gowns made yield.
--Dryden.
(c) A loose wrapper worn by gentlemen within doors; a
dressing gown. - A loose outer garment, extending from the neck downwards,
-
2234 And there is no sin upon you if you openly propose marriage to these women, or you keep it between yourselves. God knows that you will be thinking of them, but do not meet them secretly, unless you have something righteous to say.
what does this mean? ....u cant hang out with girls if ur a guy n vice versa?
-
ok .. so do ya guys think these kinda tops r alright in the pics ?
http//www.pakstop.com/pmforums/showthread.php?t=7203salam ammar .
what if men were wearing lesser clothing , like the tops in the pics . what is ur opinion . would it look alright ? what do u think ? -
In my opinion, there is nothing wrong and I think all of them are wearing very decent dress.
And what is decency ? is it in the dress or in a persons attitude ?
Imagine a girl wearing veil but very rude in her behavior....would you call her a decent person ?
It all depends on how you see it. Its all in the intension.
The Dress thing evolved for our comfort. And also the definition of comfort can vary from person to person.
I think we are so paranoid about dress when it comes to religion cause we humans have become so much materialistic that when ever we see some skin or short dress, instantly we associate it with some negativity.
But if can learn to take everything normally than you will find life more enjoyable, easy and peaceful.
Peace
-
ok .. so do ya guys think these kinda tops r alright in the pics ?
http//www.pakstop.com/pmforums/showthread.php?t=7203salam ammar .
what if men were wearing lesser clothing , like the tops in the pics . what is ur opinion . would it look alright ? what do u think ?Well if guys wore lesser clothing it would look Gay .. hehehe but it wouldnt really be bad ...
Shamsul I really like ur argument .. I think there is nuthing wrong but when Allah said cover ur bosoms then He did mean cover ur bosoms .. dont u think ?
-
2234 And there is no sin upon you if you openly propose marriage to these women, or you keep it between yourselves. God knows that you will be thinking of them, but do not meet them secretly, unless you have something righteous to say.
What does this mean ? Does it mean that one girl and a boy cant be alone ? ....
Btw i have also noticed that some girls who wear the Hijab and the Jilbaba are very rude in behaviour .. especially to guys !! Not generalising though
-
ok .. so do ya guys think these kinda tops r alright in the pics ?
http//www.pakstop.com/pmforums/showthread.php?t=7203salam ammar .
what if men were wearing lesser clothing , like the tops in the pics . what is ur opinion . would it look alright ? what do u think ?Well if guys wore lesser clothing it would look Gay .. hehehe but it wouldnt really be bad ...
and men exposing their curves ? of their private parts like females are supposed to . is that ok ? also checkout http//www.geocities.com/rationalreality/women.htm
salam.
-
ok .. so do ya guys think these kinda tops r alright in the pics ?
http//www.pakstop.com/pmforums/showthread.php?t=7203salam ammar .
what if men were wearing lesser clothing , like the tops in the pics . what is ur opinion . would it look alright ? what do u think ?Well if guys wore lesser clothing it would look Gay .. hehehe but it wouldnt really be bad ...
Shamsul I really like ur argument .. I think there is nuthing wrong but when Allah said cover ur bosoms then He did mean cover ur bosoms .. dont u think ?
arent they covering their bosom in the pic ? I think they are...)
