33:59 Women and dress recommendation. A re-examination.
-
Peace all,
There is some active debate on the topic of women's clothing and 'hijab' (head cover) lately. One of the verses that is used to defend the islamist idea of women being covered from head to toe is 3359. This is mistranslated to create the type of meanings that are sought. Here is the transliteration and for discussion purposes the free-minds translation...
3359
ya ayyuha alnnabiyyu qul li-azwajika wabanatika wanisa-i almu/mineena yudneena AAalayhinna min jalabeebihinna thalika adna an yuAArafna fala yu/thayna wakana Allahu ghafooran raheemanO prophet, tell your wives, your daughters, and the wives of the believers that they should lengthen upon themselves their outer garments. That is better so that they would be recognized and not harmed. God is Forgiver, Merciful.
This is grossly misinterpreted and the clues to the correct translation are internally obtainable - the verse explains itself in a marvellous way.
Firstly the word "yudneen" can mean 'lower' thus interpolating 'lengthening' - but the word itself is derived fromt he root "Danaa" which means TO BE NEAR; BE AKIN TO.
Note that the verse also contains the word "adna" (also derived from the same root) which means 'nearer' so it leaves little doubt which way the word "yudneen" should be taken.
So what is it that the women should come near or be nearer to? The verse makes it clear that it refers to the clothes upon the women that this 'nearness' is related to.
I argue that this is telling the believing women to dress nearer to what the community at large is wearing so that they be known as a part of the common society.
The context is important. These ladies were living in a time where hostility was high - being known or recognizable is to become a target - what was desirable was to blend in; to be nearer to what everyone else was wearing.
The aim is to NOT BE HARMED, not to draw attention - but to be nearer to the society and blend in.
Is there a confirmation of this in the verse? Apart from the clarification of 'yudneen' meaning closer - the final statement in the verse is very revealing.
It says that the God is FORGIVING and MERCIFUL. Why should it mention forgiveness and mercy in a verse where the women are allegedly told to wear a uniform distinguishing them? We can clearly see that to make sense, the God is saying here that He is forgiving of the need to sometimes dress in ways which might 'mimic' other women to escape harm.
In today's world there's such a diversity of clothing styles in societies that one does not have to mimic a single dominant style of dress which the prophet's women would have had to. It is entirely possible to wear quite ordinary clothes and still be conservative.
Wearing head covers, and going out of one's way to appear DIFFERENT to society is actually going completely against the nature of this verse which advises women to try and be inconspicuous. When covered women are spat at, and verbally abused in our societies we can see that sticking out is not helpful at all.
Regards.
-
Salaamun alaikum,
While the 'yudeena' observation was excellent, I think you need to not take the word by itself and proceed to interpret from there.
Yudnna `Alayhinna Min Jalbbihinna - 'yudeena on them from thier jalabiib'. So 'yudeena' is a verb pertaining to their garments, not to the society.Secondly, 'dzalika anda an yu'rafna' , if taken in context shows the previous act (which is commanded to believing women) is for them to be recognised (ma'ruuf is 'recognised) and therefore distinct. 'Blending in' in nowhere to be seen here.
Thirdly, 33/60 Truly, if the Hypocrites, and those in whose hearts is a disease, and those who stir up sedition in the City, desist not, We shall certainly stir thee up against them Then will they not be able to stay in it as thy neighbours for any length of time
This is a follow up from 33/59 and it would make sense if the dressing strategy in 33/59 would be cause recognition that these women are believers and so pestering them would not be tolerated.
-
Salaamun alaikum,
While the 'yudeena' observation was excellent, I think you need to not take the word by itself and proceed to interpret from there.
Yudn?na `Alayhinna Min Jal?b?bihinna - 'yudeena on them from thier jalabiib'. So 'yudeena' is a verb pertaining to their garments, not to the society.Secondly, 'dzalika anda an yu'rafna' , if taken in context shows the previous act (which is commanded to believing women) is for them to be recognised (ma'ruuf is 'recognised) and therefore distinct. 'Blending in' in nowhere to be seen here.
Thirdly, 33/60 Truly, if the Hypocrites, and those in whose hearts is a disease, and those who stir up sedition in the City, desist not, We shall certainly stir thee up against them Then will they not be able to stay in it as thy neighbours for any length of time
This is a follow up from 33/59 and it would make sense if the dressing strategy in 33/59 would be cause recognition that these women are believers and so pestering them would not be tolerated.
Peace mquran,
Thank you for raising some discussion points. The points you raise and some research in relation to them justify my understanding even more.
-
The 'yudneen' does refer to the garments. The garments are made nearer in appearance to the ones of the society. It's in the original post - that the 'nearness' relates to the clothes worn.
-
Ma'ruf - can mean "befitting and custom of the society" according to Abdul Mannan Omar's dictionary of the Quran.
The "custom of the society" can include the garments worn, and hence the meaning of the verse clicks into place quite nicely. 'dzalika anda an yu'rafna' becomes 'this is nearer to the custom of society'.
- 3360 strengthens the reason for these changes - that victimisation was in fact occurring. So that after these changes to the garments - ie. wearing garments that are nearer to the custom of the society - that if the victimisation did not cease then they would become subject to eviction.
Regards.
-
-
- The 'yudneen' does refer to the garments. The garments are made nearer in appearance to the ones of the society. It's in the original post - that the 'nearness' relates to the clothes worn.
According to the syntax of the ayat (Yudnna `Alayhinna Min Jalbbihinna - 'yudeena on them from thier jalabiib'. So 'yudeena' is a verb pertaining to their garments) if you say they are meant to look like women of society at large, no new clothing is mentioned at all.
- Ma'ruf - can mean "befitting and custom of the society" according to Abdul Mannan Omar's dictionary of the Quran
In the Quran, ma'ruf doesn't mean 'custom of society' because Quran commands 'amr bil ma'ruuf' in nurmerous places and as you know, nowhere does the Quran uphold local customs! Ma'ruuf is something recognised as opposed to munkar, which isn't. So mumin women are told to be recognised, which would make sense given what's coming next.
- 3360 strengthens the reason for these changes - that victimisation was in fact occurring. So that after these changes to the garments - ie. wearing garments that are nearer to the custom of the society - that if the victimisation did not cease then they would become subject to eviction
.
So what you're saying is, if there's pressure on women wearing decent clothing, they should render thier clothing indecent and then if they're still bothered, THEN there'll be trouble.
Therefore Islam becomes like so
- we uphold gods laws
- we are harassed
- we regress back to non-islamic norms
- then if harasment continues, we rise up.
sorry, but this makes no sense to me at all.
-
- 3360 strengthens the reason for these changes - that victimisation was in fact occurring. So that after these changes to the garments - ie. wearing garments that are nearer to the custom of the society - that if the victimisation did not cease then they would become subject to eviction
.
So what you're saying is, if there's pressure on women wearing decent clothing, they should render thier clothing indecent and then if they're still bothered, THEN there'll be trouble.
Therefore Islam becomes like so
- we uphold gods laws
- we are harassed
- we regress back to non-islamic norms
- then if harasment continues, we rise up.
sorry, but this makes no sense to me at all.
Peace mquran,
The problem with your summarisation is that you make the assumption that the women of the society at large were wearing "indecent" clothes.
Instead of this assumption, you must think more broadly. If a group is distinguishing themselves by wearing all white clothing for example when the society wears bland beiges and browns then this is sufficient difference to mark the believers as odd ones out.
The reading is therefore instructing the believers to not distinguish themselves out - or create alienation of themselves.
This is harmonious with the general thrust of the One God, one humanity message of the reading. We see many examples of religious garb in the community at large; sikhs with their head gear, buddhists in their orange garbs etc. These serve to create distinction and demarcation between people. They create barriers and alienation and exclude.
So it's not about adopting 'indecent' clothing; as much as adopting the clothing of the society at large. There are plenty of conservative clothing choices that women can wear without drawing attention to themselves.
It goes for men also - wearing Arab head gear and apron/shalwar in the West is actually an affront to the society one lives in. To grow a distinctive fistful beard with moustache shaved off in order to be a part of an exclusive group is not what the God's system is about. Neither is it about donning head covers.
The garments of righteousness are what we should strive to 'wear', not a uniform.
Regards.
- 3360 strengthens the reason for these changes - that victimisation was in fact occurring. So that after these changes to the garments - ie. wearing garments that are nearer to the custom of the society - that if the victimisation did not cease then they would become subject to eviction
-
As Salaam Alaikum Truth,
I don't buy into your interpertation.
Personally, when we have to go into root word, after root word, I believe that things are taken out of context, and then the Quran looses it's beauty as being clear and detailed. You are taking a word, then taking it's root word to make it into something that you want.
Rathar than taking the word that was used, which you admit was CLEARLY "lengthen". You can't take "lenghten" and say that it means "nearer to society" and say that "legnthen" and "nearer" mean the same two thigns, they don't and you and I both know this.
Allah says that "so they will be recognized".... if we were to blend into society, how will you be recognized?
And as for "Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful", your logic doesn't make any since there. If he is commanding us to "blend" into a kaffir society, then why would he forgiving us for doing it in the first place? That is HIS command, so why are we getting sins for it??
Let's look really---- Do you think that it is more temptatious to blend and act like a kaffir, or act and "look" like a believer? Personally it is more temptatious to act and look like a kaffir, not like a bleliever. If it was "easier" to act like a believer, than none of us would be as sinful as we are now.
So I believe htat the "oft forgiving" part is about not obeying hte command to "lengthen" your garments.
I mean come on truth. "Lengthen" and "nearer" are not the same things, and clearly the word "lengthen" was used.
thought just crossed my mind
If you wanted ot say "nearer"..... and the ORIGINAL word was "lengthen".... yea you could use "nearer"..... "make your garments nearer to the floor".
I'm a covered woman....i'm not spat at our cursed.
Again, if you want to get into root word, after root word, then you will be changing the whole Quran around.
The Quran was meant for all mankind, and for the common reader. Everyone knows that the "commoner" does NOT know root word after root word of their own language. For goodness sakes, I know English and I sure don't know root word, after root word. What you are doing is essentially asking everyone to be arabic scholars (including arabs themselves) and learn all root words. That means that the Quran would only be for the educated.
There is no way in your mind you can say "lengthen" means "nearer"... Accept what was used, and try not to replace it.
And persoanlly, let me make an assumption
If you were in Saudi Arabia where you would be forced to wear a niqab, abaya, and whatever stuff that they were... or were in Iran where tehy are forced to cover as well.... that verse would have all knew meanign to you and you would be like "no this verse means lengthen, and it doesn't tell you how much to lengthen".... now wouldn't you? I would bet so.
salaam
-
Peace,
Rathar than taking the word that was used, which you admit was CLEARLY "lengthen". You can't take "lenghten" and say that it means "nearer to society" and say that "legnthen" and "nearer" mean the same two thigns, they don't and you and I both know this.
I clearly said that 'lengthen' is not what the word 'yudneen' means and that the lengthening was an interpolation of an alternate meaning for 'yudneen' which is 'lower'.
Now if you were to lower your clothing then you would be taking it off!
The primary meaning of 'yudneen' is therefore to make near; or akin to something; hence the translation I offered.
Allah says that "so they will be recognized".... if we were to blend into society, how will you be recognized?
No, and let this be a cautionary lesson to you. The translations you read are not what the God says. That is what the translator has said the original means. When dealing with the Arabic, its often what the 'scholars' (with vested interests) have agreed it means.
This is what I am challenging. The conventional wisdom.
When you are challenging the conventional wisdom you have to have alot of force in your arguments. Fortunately in this case the force is plain to see for people who will examine the evidence without pre-conceived ideas.
thought just crossed my mind
If you wanted ot say "nearer"..... and the ORIGINAL word was "lengthen".... yea you could use "nearer"..... "make your garments nearer to the floor".
As I said the word is not 'lengthen' but rather 'lower'; and if you did that ie. lower your clothes, they would be on the floor leaving you stark naked!
Hence 'yudneen does not mean lower or the strained meaning of lengthen. The phrase is saying, make your clothes nearer or akin to something else - and the next phrase which again uses 'adna' which means 'nearer' and which I translated above demonstrates that the nearness is towards the customs of society.
It does not mean adopting strange or alien behaviour - this is not about costumes and acting.
It's about eliminating exclusive nonsense - to wear the best of what there is without drawing attention to oneself unnecessarily. It eliminates boundaries and any elitism.
Regards.
-
As Salaam Alaikum,
Peace,
I clearly said that 'lengthen' is not what the word 'yudneen' means and that the lengthening was an interpolation of an alternate meaning for 'yudneen' which is 'lower'.Now if you were to lower your clothing then you would be taking it off!
Actually you would not.
If you say, "Lower your dress" it would mean, lenghten it.
You say that you want to challenge original thoguht/interpetation. Ok. but I don't believe it. To me it makes no since. Look at everywhere else where Allah is saying CONCEAL your adornments, and not display your beauty except to.... If the society was UNCONCEALING their adornments and displaying their beauty... all of htat would be aborgated, then.
Also if you want to challenge, that doesn't mean that you want to learn the truth. Obviously your motivation is proving scholars wrong, not actually finding the truth. You tell me that scholars have alternative motives to interpert... well you admit that you have these motives too.
Hence 'yudneen does not mean lower or the strained meaning of lengthen. The phrase is saying, make your clothes nearer or akin to something else - and the next phrase which again uses 'adna' which means 'nearer' and which I translated above demonstrates that the nearness is towards the customs of society.
So "lower" means "near". It doesn't, at all. "Lower to society" does not come close to "nearer to society" at all. Unless you were to say that Allah was describing the society as low, and therefore wanted us to act like that as well... "low". You can't be righteous, or wear the garment of righteousness, but acting "low".
It does not mean adopting strange or alien behaviour - this is not about costumes and acting.
Clothes are very much about customs.
Also I believe it's the Quran that constantly tells us that we will NOT be accepted by non-blievers until we act like them--- and ALlah is in NO WAY saying "well act like them then"... your interpertation proves EXACTLY what Allah is against, and what he warns, and how kaffirs will not accept us until we do what they do and act like how they do.
Don't tell me that I have "preconcieved" opinions. I don't. I'm very accepting to new things. But reality is, I don't believe in your interpertation. I don't believe in it at all. I take things as they are, not what their "root words" mean.
You can read 3360 and clearly see that your interpertation does not make any since when followed by 3360.
Allah says nothing about "society" in ayat 59.
Even you know if you take the word that was USED and the "root word", replacing it with the root word will not mean at all teh SAME THING as the word that was actually used.
another cross that crossed my mind
Lower can mean "lengthen" and not "off" (or however you put it).
If my shirt was folded up on my stomach, revealing my stomach... someone could command me to "lower your shirt"... i would lower it by unfolding it... therefore be covered
salaam
-
The problem with your summarisation is that you make the assumption that the women of the society at large were wearing "indecent" clothes.
Instead of this assumption, you must think more broadly. If a group is distinguishing themselves by wearing all white clothing for example when the society wears bland beiges and browns then this is sufficient difference to mark the believers as odd ones out
I'm afraid I can't think its an assumption because the subject of this verse is believing women and they are told how to dress (24/31). IF here they are being told to relax their dress code, then the relaxation would in the direction towards kufr.
This is harmonious with the general thrust of the One God, one humanity message of the reading. We see many examples of religious garb in the community at large; sikhs with their head gear, buddhists in their orange garbs etc. These serve to create distinction and demarcation between people. They create barriers and alienation and exclude.
49/13 mentions that the various shuuban/linneages and qabail/acceptabilites are there to mutually recognise one another. Dressing alike isn't part of the Quran's idea of oneness.
I thank you for noticing yudneena and adnaa but your subsequent interpretation doesn't work for me. Believing women to me are to do something to show themselves as under protection and so if the munafiqeen bother them, Allah will raise the believers against them.
-
As SAlaam Alaikum,
Peace
Could you give an example where this idea is actually promulgated in an english speaking society? I have never heard of 'lower your shirt/pants' meaning to 'lengthen' them.
Joe
Again say for instance I was in class and I had my shirt up, revealing my stomach... my teacher can easily say, "Lower you shirt". In this context, because I folding up half of my shirt, which would be revealing my stomach, I would have to "lengthen" the shirt to cover up (pull the other half down, lenghtening the shirt).
Also, "lower" can be in the context of covering aswell.
In the USA, an English speaking country, many schools, if not all, have rules on dress codes. Of course the most popular one that gets many of us girls mad is the rule about how long our skirts should be.
The rule at my school is it must be at least to the knees, or it can only be 3 inches above the knees. When this rule is broken, teachers often say "You need to lower your skirt".... not in the context of pulling the skirt all the way down, but in the contect of COVERING the parts that should be covered.
Actually, "covering" would probably be much better than "lengthen", which is exactly how many people translate the verse, with the word "cover".
salaam
-
Peace,
The problem with your summarisation is that you make the assumption that the women of the society at large were wearing "indecent" clothes.
Instead of this assumption, you must think more broadly. If a group is distinguishing themselves by wearing all white clothing for example when the society wears bland beiges and browns then this is sufficient difference to mark the believers as odd ones out
I'm afraid I can't think its an assumption because the subject of this verse is believing women and they are told how to dress (24/31). IF here they are being told to relax their dress code, then the relaxation would in the direction towards kufr.
It's not about relaxing dress, or becoming indecent. It's about wearing things befitting to society - not adopting something unusual that marks one out.
This is harmonious with the general thrust of the One God, one humanity message of the reading. We see many examples of religious garb in the community at large; sikhs with their head gear, buddhists in their orange garbs etc. These serve to create distinction and demarcation between people. They create barriers and alienation and exclude.
49/13 mentions that the various shuuban/linneages and qabail/acceptabilites are there to mutually recognise one another. Dressing alike isn't part of the Quran's idea of oneness.
I thank you for noticing yudneena and adnaa but your subsequent interpretation doesn't work for me. Believing women to me are to do something to show themselves as under protection and so if the munafiqeen bother them, Allah will raise the believers against them.
The purpose of the directive in 3359 is so that the women may avoid harm - we agree on that point at least. Now let's examine it from that point of view and draw in the required logic.
The women were obviously being targetted, harassed and victimised. That is what was ALREADY happening. How do you suppose the society at large knew that these women were muslim?
That's the key to understanding what was happening. Let's examine 3358...
3358 Those who persecute the believing men and the believing women, who did not do anything wrong, have committed not only a falsehood, but also a gross sin.
There is a persecution going on that is targetting believing men and women for some perceived wrong they are accused of. These people are readily identified already.
Since the directive in 3359 involves modification of clothing then the way they are identified is logically through the adopted garb of these people.
Why would there be a directive then to make them stand out even more? If the aim is make them MORE VISIBLE then why not instruct them to paint a red cross on their backs?
The idea is quite plainly to make them LESS VISIBLE/NOTICEABLE and thereby escape harm and persecution!
The common understanding would have you believe that they are going from ALREADY VISIBLE to EVEN MORE VISIBLE to escape harm. That does not make sense.
I hope the logic and the surrounding statements, as well as internal proof shows that the idea is for the women to wear non-conspicuous clothes that does not show them to be readily different. It talks about garments and not behaviour.
Regards.
-
As SAlaam ALaikum Truth,
The purpose of the directive in 3359 is so that the women may avoid harm - we agree on that point at least. Now let's examine it from that point of view and draw in the required logic.
The women were obviously being targetted, harassed and victimised. That is what was ALREADY happening. How do you suppose the society at large knew that these women were muslim?
That's the key to understanding what was happening. Let's examine 3358...
3358 Those who persecute the believing men and the believing women, who did not do anything wrong, have committed not only a falsehood, but also a gross sin.
Truth the Surah that you have quoted doesn't mean that at the time they were under persecution. It's not saying that at the time they were under persecution. It is a general statement about those who annoy believing men and women.
And uhh excuse my ignorance, especially of Arabic (i don't read an arabic Quran)... But in an English translation 3358 and 3359 are divided up into two different sections. 3358 is in section 7 of the Surah, and 3359 is in section 8 of the Surah. Maybe this is just done like this in an English translation.... i'm not sure. But if this is done in the Quran (arabic) as well, then obviously context has changed.
There is a persecution going on that is targetting believing men and women for some perceived wrong they are accused of. These people are readily identified already.
AGain what you quoted was a general statement, simply about those who persecute Muslims. In no way does it imply that 3358 and 3359 are in anyway related. The approach is not as if persecution is actually going on And as a result believers must cover a certain way.
The idea is quite plainly to make them LESS VISIBLE/NOTICEABLE and thereby escape harm and persecution!
When you blend in you are not noticable. 3359 is clearly saying "so that tehy should be known".
The common understanding would have you believe that they are going from ALREADY VISIBLE to EVEN MORE VISIBLE to escape harm. That does not make sense.
Again, the way that I have interperted this ayat is in the way reality really is, not matter how awful it may sound. Reality is, when you dress more modest you are treated with more respect than the one who does (i'm not saying all of the time, but i do believe that this is in general)... therefore the one who is more modest is often less annoyed by men.
salaam
-
Peace NP,
And uhh excuse my ignorance, especially of Arabic (i don't read an arabic Quran)... But in an English translation 3358 and 3359 are divided up into two different sections. 3358 is in section 7 of the Surah, and 3359 is in section 8 of the Surah. Maybe this is just done like this in an English translation.... i'm not sure. But if this is done in the Quran (arabic) as well, then obviously context has changed.
Why do you suppose a translator might want to separate those two verses if not to try to obfuscate the context and fabricate a sectarian understanding?
There are no divisions in the reading such as 'sections' within chapters.
The verses are to be understood together and are not random isolated statements. You are naive at the moment and have much to learn in relation to this, but if you persevere it will become easier.
Again, the way that I have interperted this ayat is in the way reality really is, not matter how awful it may sound. Reality is, when you dress more modest you are treated with more respect than the one who does (i'm not saying all of the time, but i do believe that this is in general)... therefore the one who is more modest is often less annoyed by men.
You are, like mquran, making an assumption that the societies dress was inherently immodest or indecent. What is clear is that the muslims were sticking out like beacons, ready to be targetted for persecution. They were becoming harmed because they were identifiable.
The basic rules for dress are already given in 2431 - to cover the chest and being modest.
When you are dressing today do you wear middle eastern shalwars and robes in a Western society? No, you probably wear jeans, shirts etc. so you in effect wear what the general society is wearing. Is that immodest or indecent? It depends on what you choose isn't it? There's nothing inherently wrong with the stuff the society at large wears. That's the message - to not draw attention to oneself by marking oneself out as different.
What is ridiculous is anglo men who convert to islam and go around in Arabic shalwars and robes, and grow beards with moustaches shaved off and believe that somehow they have attained something great. They have done nothing but succumbed to islamism.
The same is true for women who embrace islam and immediately don big black trenchcoats and covers over their heads. They immediately look out of place and where there is no tension then they may be tolerated by the society - but when there is tension then they are singling themselves out for persecution - and it does happen.
Women are not sheep that need to be marked out as belonging to a certain identity. Just wear what is modest and normal, and realise that the best garments are those of righteousness.
O children of Adam, we have provided you with garments to cover your bodies, as well as for luxury. But the best garment is the garment of righteousness. These are some of GOD's signs, that they may take heed.
Not head covers and Arab robes for men.
Regards.
-
As Salaam Alaikum,
Peace NP,
Again you are like mquran making an assumption that the societies dress was immodest or indecent. What is clear is that the muslims were sticking out like beacons, ready to be targetted for persecution.
And again, I don't feel that the two verses (58 & 59) relate, even without the divisions of the chapters. 58 is a very general statement, and it does not indicate that at the time Muslims were actually under persecution.
The rules for modest dress are already given in 2431 - to cover the chest and being modest.
And lowering your jilbabs is apart of that in my belief.
I have decided to interpert at face value, not "what does the root word mean? though the word actually used is totally different and the sentence makes no since when replaced by the root word, even when I try to make it sound the way that I want"
"nearer upon themselves their outergarments"... that doesn't even sound close to "blend into society and look like a disbeliever."
When you are dressing today do you wear middle eastern shalwars and robes in a Western society? No, you probably wear jeans, shirts etc. so you in effect wear what the general society is wearing. Is that immodest or indecent? It depends on what you choose isn't it? There's nothing inherently wrong with the stuff the society at large wears. That's the message - to not draw attention to oneself by marking oneself out as different.
And yet Allah is saying so we will be KNOWN.
Women are not sheep that need to be marked out as belonging to a certain identity. Just wear what is modest and normal, and realise that the best garments are those of righteousness.
O children of Adam, we have provided you with garments to cover your bodies, as well as for luxury. But the best garment is the garment of righteousness. These are some of GOD's signs, that they may take heed.
You know it quite annoys me that you keep bringing up this righteous thing, as if we we were the ones who first started talking about the way women should dress. You're the one who seems to be attacking the way women and men dress, out of preference.
salaam
-
Peace NP,
And again, I don't feel that the two verses (58 & 59) relate, even without the divisions of the chapters. 58 is a very general statement, and it does not indicate that at the time Muslims were actually under persecution.
It's not enough of an argument to say you simply "feel" that they do not relate. The truth is that you cannot accept that they relate because it proves what is being presented.
But since you want to doubt what I am saying, perhaps some evidence may help?
If you examine 3358 then you'll find that what's happening to the believers is that they are "yuthoona" - being harmed/annoyed. And if you look at 3359 the same word is being used "yuthayna" - harmed/annoyed so there is no justification to deny the clear link here.
The rules for modest dress are already given in 2431 - to cover the chest and being modest.
And lowering your jilbabs is apart of that in my belief.
I have decided to interpert at face value, not "what does the root word mean? though the word actually used is totally different and the sentence makes no since when replaced by the root word, even when I try to make it sound the way that I want"
What you have decided to do is accept the translators bias because it suits you.
I have presented a logical and coherent argument which shows the situation for what it is.
When you are dressing today do you wear middle eastern shalwars and robes in a Western society? No, you probably wear jeans, shirts etc. so you in effect wear what the general society is wearing. Is that immodest or indecent? It depends on what you choose isn't it? There's nothing inherently wrong with the stuff the society at large wears. That's the message - to not draw attention to oneself by marking oneself out as different.
And yet Allah is saying so we will be KNOWN.
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ma'aruf
Ma'ruf Arabic
is an Arabic Islamic term meaning that which is commonly
- known
- understood
- recognized
- acknowledged
- accepted
The word is most often found in the Qur'anic exhortation "Amr bil Ma'ruf wa Nahy an al Munkar | ." This is often translated as "Command the good and forbid the evil," but this translation fails to reflect the subtleties of the Arabic. Amr refers to the enforcement function of the duly constituted government of an ummah (community.) In this context, Ma'ruf, when applied to a particular law, means a law which is -
- known to the community (i.e. the community is aware of its existence)
- intelligible (understood by & makes sense) to the community
- generally recognized and commonly acknowledged as a good law
- accepted by the community as applicable to itself - the meaning of acceptance is strongly implied by the contrast with the word Munkar, which means "rejected."
There is a hadith in which Muhammad is quoted as saying, "My ummah will never agree upon an error." This has been interpreted to mean that the consensus of the community is a source of moral and legal authority, but has also been interpreted as an Islamic counterpart to papal infallibility.
Thus, a better translation of "Amr bil Ma'ruf wa Nahy an al Munkar" would be "Enforce that which is accepted , and prohibit that which is rejected."
You will notice that the concept of "yuAArafna" or "known" in this sense is not simply 'knowledge' but involves community and acceptance.
I hope this makes it easier to acknowledge that the translation I am providing fits in with this concept seamlessly.
Women are not sheep that need to be marked out as belonging to a certain identity. Just wear what is modest and normal, and realise that the best garments are those of righteousness.
O children of Adam, we have provided you with garments to cover your bodies, as well as for luxury. But the best garment is the garment of righteousness. These are some of GOD's signs, that they may take heed.
You know it quite annoys me that you keep bringing up this righteous thing, as if we we were the ones who first started talking about the way women should dress. You're the one who seems to be attacking the way women and men dress, out of preference.
Why does it annoy you that I show you from the reading itself that your clothes and garments do not make you a muslim. The God makes it abundantly clear that clothes do not a man make. That righteousness is the goal - not to make oneself stick out like the proverbial sore thumb.
Regards.
-
the Surah that you have quoted doesn't mean that at the time they were under persecution. It's not saying that at the time they were under persecution. It is a general statement about those who annoy believing men and women.
100% right, a very general verse indeed and should apply any time.
And uhh excuse my ignorance, especially of Arabic (i don't read an arabic Quran)... But in an English translation 3358 and 3359 are divided up into two different sections. 3358 is in section 7 of the Surah, and 3359 is in section 8 of the Surah. Maybe this is just done like this in an English translation.... i'm not sure. But if this is done in the Quran (arabic) as well, then obviously context has changed.
there is no sections as such in the Quran, the two verses are in the same sura but the first was general warning to all humanity the second is specific guidance to the believing women
There is a persecution going on that is targetting believing men and women for some perceived wrong they are accused of. These people are readily identified already.
Yes and it was happeneing far more at the early years of Islam, in fact many were targeted because they were muslims in the first 10 years of Islam, but Islam is now very well established and is prevailing over all other religions and there should be no fear to be a muslim, hence the logic presented is 100% falwed, ie. if muslims now are discriminated against then they should stand firm against it not not to hide their Islam
AGain what you quoted was a general statement, simply about those who persecute Muslims. In no way does it imply that 3358 and 3359 are in anyway related. The approach is not as if persecution is actually going on And as a result believers must cover a certain way.
You are right 100%, also The point many also miss is this the Aza (harm)mentioned in 3359 may be due to sexually motivated actions by other men, hence when they cover themselves, that Aza can not be iflicted by these horny men
Again, the way that I have interperted this ayat is in the way reality really is, not matter how awful it may sound. Reality is, when you dress more modest you are treated with more respect than the one who does (i'm not saying all of the time, but i do believe that this is in general)... therefore the one who is more modest is often less annoyed by men.
100% correct, and the Quran told us clearly in another location that we are allowed to hide our faith if we are being obressed and weak enough not to stand to our rights, so there is no need to use 3359 as an evidence of that because another verse stated it and regarding the whole faith not just the women and their cloth, the guidance in 3359 is only specific for the muslim women and to protect their modesty
peace
-
Yes and it was happeneing far more at the early years of Islam, in fact many were targeted because they were muslims in the first 10 years of Islam, but Islam is now very well established and is prevailing over all other religions and there should be no fear to be a muslim, hence the logic presented is 100% falwed, ie. if muslims now are discriminated against then they should stand firm against it not not to hide their Islam
Islam was never meant to be a "religion". The idolworshipping Arab Religion is paying its price.