Dear Marie ,
Peace,
Why not Ibis (originally from Jin) was pretending to be an angle?
You Lord and through our creation willed to reveal his true self among all angels ! "2118 "
See the rest of the story in here ?
http//19.org/forum/index.php?t=msg&goto=15163&rid=0&S=8fcb06def1fb554d47ba2f0b2c544458#msg_15163
Dear Marie
Dear David,
First of all , David , concerning hypocrites you can follow this thread.
http//www.submission.org/friday/enemies010705.html
Thanks for your explanation. But as one said every one seems to put forward his own views that better suits his understanding, or else his vision. Many may see this as a dump discussion! I realized that you are sticking to the idea of verse (3359) was a major demand from the lord as a dress code of Islam. Therefore, you were discussing it from your point of view and looking for evidences and proof that would secure your point. While, I was viewing it as I understood, the verse (3359) as an advice for a limited time.
There are many terms mentioned in the quran were mistakenly interpreted by people throughout the years, that were ended up in a new mold of usage.
We end up creating our words to suit our interest and argue about it in the quran as if the Lord were using them in the wrong way!!
Our Lord Words, sentences and verses are designed well and there is no chance of mistake, or ambiguity if we are to follow logic!
I have to draw your attention that the terms I used here for the word - covered- I meant "wholly covered" as you claim to be the case in (3359), where the term uncovered would mean "dressed in modest" and not nude! oops
Chaste vs. Unchaste
The word chaste in the whole quran was mentioned in three verses (46),(2433)and (2460) where the word was used to describe ?keeping morals high? for both men and women that were unable to marry ,and not through dressing more clothes or using some dress code.
Our Lord hereby attest that chaste men and women are not judged by the look of a dress or else how to be dressed, But by those who kept their morals high. Otherwise when our Lord told them to keep chaste, he would have added that they should dress more clothes or else informed how to dress as to keep them chaste!! Parallel to what Jews, Christians and Sunnis have done!! Ask their women to Tent themselves, in a way to keep them look modest. We should end up this joke..
Whilst the word unchaste on the other side , were referred to in verse (425) in terms of ?taking secret lovers?, (mutachithat Akhdan) in Arabic, and adulteress (musafihat) in Arabic!
Back to your discussion
A ? If you assume that verse (3359) was for a women code dress request , there would be no reason for you to assume that (3359) comes before (2431), other wise verse (2431) would not be of any importance, and there will be no need to ask them to cover their bosoms spaces! Since females wearing as in verse (3359) is already covering their whole body, might including the head as well!!
The request of ? yudneen elayhenna? means to bring closer to them ,bring their garments closer to their bodies. And not lengthen, since if they were not long enough it will be silly request and a stupid act of bringing the garments closer, otherwise, parts of her body will be exposed once dressed in short garment.
B- Same manner apply to clicking heels. But considering following logic, and for the sake of understanding the truth in things, I need to discuss a little about it. Therefore, we can attribute ?heel clicking- to several reasons, although no need to argue this issue now, nevertheless
1- If the women was wholly covered , the reason behind heel click is solely to draw the attention (as a sign) of some men to follow her (bad girls hunting bad boys)! This option only applies to wholly covered women. Since covered women has nothing to reveal by this ?heel click-! Once they are not wholly covered, they are already identified in faces. Therefore, I don?t see any other reason for a wholly covered lady to click their heel- except to tell someone to follow her, since she would be unidentified by him, in addition that her beauty would be unseen as to claim that she was showing her beauty.
2- If the women were uncovered, then clicking heels- might be
2A- a bad habit of walking!
2B- a sign for demonstrating her beauty, whilst allowing some parts of her body to move, that is done by teenagers and as well as by matured ladies, though should not be considered as a matter of unchaste, since young teenagers and some matured women only like to show off innocently, irrelevant to unchaste belief!
3- If the word (yadrubma biarjulihinna) would mean ? mingle among them, then it would indicate that they were not covering their whole body for the same above conclusion!
D- Verse (2431) is an indication for women to be cautious about such habit; an act that will expose them to those who have disease in their hearts and hypocrites. The verse talks of itself. Our Lord explicitly informs the goal of this request.
The verse (2431) applies not for dress code but for one slight modification that is to cover their ?juyub? ?openings(space)between breasts, and telling those women who were unable to marry to take precaution steps once taking their dress off during the presence of some categories of men and children.
E- Verse (3359) is talking to the prophet which means this regulation applies to the time of the prophet, as precaution purpose at that time. Just like the order in (492)& (3356)!
F- We should not ignore the facts in the quran that talks about the existence of Jews and Christians that were living at that time. While reading their Talmuds, we understand that they were wearing their traditional dress code which is similar to those ?Tent moving women - covering head and body. And there is doubt not to expect that those Ignorant ( jahelliya) people that were used to claim themselves as the followers of prophet Abraham, whilst having no facts among their hands about his religion, were copying them ,(ironically as scholars times). Claiming there are Lords? demands!
The tradition of wearing (by women) was adopted by the Jews who wrote it in the Talmud (Talmud equals the Hadiths and Sunna), neither are the words of God!
G- In addition to the above, Quran inform us about the mentality of the people at that time, or part of them. Arabia before Islam was a society where there were no common rules, (4826) except that the strong dominated the weak. It seems reasonable to expect that a natural byproduct of such society would be the oppression of women. Oppression includes forcing women to do what men want. Some of the women were having no freedom to do as she likes, but was receiving her orders from her male, boss? leader.
H- In quran we read about female infanticide, (1658-59) would only be done with the one who submit to his own rules, surely it would not be done by man of principles, unless he is a hypocrite that displays the opposite of his own wishes.
Would such father with such mentality allow for his daughter to express herself freely? Would you believe that he would allow her to dress as she wishes? Only Fathers with this mentality would ask their daughters and wives to cover wholly. Ironically, this was the attitude of most of the (ignorance) jahelliya period, as not to fall off the ruling saddle! Same as our Scholars of today... all pretending or attributing the issue of tenting their wives as ? Chastity!! Whilst verse (726) explicitly talks about code dress in term of righteous.
I- Dear David it was much better to assume in having very few females that are free in dressing differently from the manner of the disbelievers and hypocrites, Jews and Christians, who?re wholly covered, pretending chastity! Those few dressed differently are the free minded one that exists all time, who would reject the illogic.
Those were the group of people that would agree and support the Prophets? Mohammed mission or messenger ship,(362) hence it meets their principles, conveyed from prophet Abraham, that can only be attained through logic and mind.
J- Your question Do you think that all the hypocrites suddenly would develop amnesia and forget who the other ?muslims? were? Do you think that the hypocrites after 3359 did not continue to be part of ?muslims? and their gatherings? Do you think that they would forget who the wives of the prophet were and who his daughters were just because they changed their dress?
There is a difference between women gathering in their society (Moslem society) or else mingling with other societies, such as disbelievers. the issue is not if the Moslem were on power, since Hypocrites always tend to aside seeking their interest and they are not only doing that for the strong party.
Hypocrites and hence Islam having no exact dress code for Moslems at that time kept their women, dressing same as other disbelievers, whilst pretending to be submitters!
K- It is very interesting to view that some usage of the word ? libas & Yalbes ?in quran that should mean clothing or dressing in Arabic were not used in quran as to indicate so but else were used as a description , of confusion (50150), (69), camouflage (665) or hiding the truth (242), (371), deceiving (682).. etc.
Whilst the only dress ?libas?, is the clothes of righteous (726).
God bless,
Dear David ,
Peace,
Dear David ,
Thank you for your advice, I am all mind open!
Yes, is my reply. There would dress up same as those disbelievers and hypocrites as to mingle without being recognized or identified as to escape their harm.
Please understand dressing same clothes will not affect your behavior, it is for precaution purposes.
Let us see the definition of the word hypocrites
In Dictionary
hypocrite
(1) A person who engages in the same behaviors he condemns others for.
(2) A person who professes certain ideals, but fails to live up to them.
(3) A person who holds other people to higher standards than he holds himself.
In Quran ,
The Quran provides us information about the character of the hypocrites and making decisions regarding them together with a warning as to how dangerous they could be. The danger lies in the fact that they are deceitful people or ?deceiving disbelievers? as in adjective form. i.e. they are disbelievers but a deceiving one.
Since Some disbelievers confess their disbelief and dissociate themselves and their lives from believers while others hypocrites mingle with believers to spread doubts and to repel from the path of God.
It is acceptable right here?
I will go on?
Now the hypocrites already know the women of the believers since they are living among them. What would you think that the women of the believers had to do to escape the harm of those hypocrites?
The women of the believers have to copy the dress of the disbelievers in order to escape their harm, then they will become unidentified to the hypocrites. The hypocrites would not tell who these are ? are these the women of the believers or of the disbelievers!!
Now if the Moslem women have to dress all in one uniform, this would make it easy for the hypocrites to identify them and harm them. So when you lord asks the prophet to tell the women of the believers during that limited period to dress as such it was for precaution purposes. It was not full time code dress!
Now, when our Lord asked the women of the believers to bring their garments closer to them ? as to cover themselves- so they will be less identified. It was for precaution purposes not for chastity!
But suppose that this type of coded dress demanded by your Lord , (bring your garments close to you ? cover yourselves ) were done only by the women of the believers . With this coded dress request, will be the sign for identifying the women of the believers. In other words, they will be identified since they were the only women dressing as such.
Therefore, the women of the believers were asked to copy the dress of the disbelievers as not to be identified as the women of the believers and be exposed to harm.
I can not be clearer than that, unless my English is too bad to be understood!
Dear Marie ,
Bonjour ,
The verses you listed has no reference to what we have discussed !
I rest my case here!
Simply, you are mixing things altogether, hence you are still adhering to old ideas that are not practical anymore. I respect your view to the issue and by no mean you should consider this as as offence.
The verse you mention (4825) , (2431) have no indication to dress code mentioned on the argued verse (3359)!
The said argued verse (3359)came as a demand for some reason of ? less identifying ? recognition - so as to evade harm. there is not a matter of decensy , or chaste or chaste believers dress or else!
The verse at Sura (2431) ? are demands form Lord for keeping up women private things as private, that has no link to the previous argued verses!
I have no intention to deviate you from what you believe, every free minded person would feel by logic to accept or to refuse any information, but this should be done based on facts and not expectations or else feelings, or wrong interpretation. My Lord is enough witness and I seek his guidance !
Verse (4825) should read as follows
(4825) They are the ones who rejected and barred you from the Restricted Temple, and has deviate the way to guidance for you though you want reach it. But that was not for some believing men and women whom you did not know, otherwise you may underestimate them thus felt ashamed of them unknowingly, once you know them, Thus , God will admit into His mercy whomever He wills. Had they become identified or recognized for you , We would then have punished those of you that will undervalued them with a painful retribution.
The word- ?Hady? here is guidance, it has no relevance to do with donations, hence the whole verses before and after has no indication of that whatsoever.
It is the guidance that you will not reach, hence they have deform it for you, but it was not the case with some believing men and women whom you may think of them as low level , thus you will feel ashamed of once you knew them! But your Lord admits to his mercy whomever he wills. And if somehow you came to confront them, and felt ashamed off , your Lord punish them(arrogant people) with a painful retribution.
To God belongs the knowledge !
God bless you
Dear Noor, peace,
I also have some questions
Verse 3359 seems to be indicating a change in dress.
Who do you believe are those that are harming the women?
I will reply , just open your mind this time with no offence what soever !
Reply
Those are the either the disbelievers or the hypocrites as you said.
For the belieievng women to dress in a different code will make them more identified by that dress and thus are exposed to harm, UNLEss those who harm them are their husbands.
But if the dress was copied from the women in that society , they will be less identified and thus will escape harm.
If, as you suggest, the verse is asking the women to dress in such a manner that they are not identified as believers (by fitting in), then, whose style of dress are they adopting?
The reply is given above. in 1. There is no indication from the verse that dressing as such so they will be identified as believers. if that is true , it means those who harm the women in general are the husbands of the believers , and with that dress , they will escape the harm of their husbands, whilst being more identified by their husbands!!
Why were the believers dressing different from those that would harm them in the first place?
Because they were a free minded people. Their main concern was the truth. If they were poor people without principles, they would did not succeed the mission! simple as that.
Only principles make you hard against the disbelievers. Prophet Mohm'd would not be able to succeed with his mission if they were not people with principles among them.
people with principles knows well that dress is not of any importance ,nor a sign for believing or disbeleiving.
Hope this is clear.
God bless
peace
Salaam Noor, Marie,
I do agree with your assessment, except for one difference.
Alalameen= the known things.
Since GOD knows everything, then he is the Lord of everything.
Salaam
Hussein
Dear Hussein,
Please read all the discussions as to view the derived piece of information about Rab ila'lemeen!
Rab is used as superlative tool !
Rab Alemeen - is the Rab ( Superlative )the best of the best of the knoweldgeables !
God bless,
Noor
Dear Marie,
As I see you either have missed my point , or I was not clear in that.
Nevertheless ,The word Salih and Saleheen are not of same example as A'alm in sigular form! I do not know about your Arabic level on grammer or else if you would recall the verbs in arabic lang. and their transformation , you would not cite that example. But, There is Fa'el and Fa'al , so Salih belongs to Fa'el same as Alem , but Alam belongs to other category Fa'al ! so it is different. and their plural form is as well different.
But in a second thought , (raised now) ! so simple and direct ! (Superlative)
Although, at first you argued about The Lord of the known things.... and I agree with you that He is the Lord of everthing ( kulli shai") , hence I was expecting your reply (read my previous post one more time).
But now , I have a better tool to convey my understanding to you and others..
for "example" you argue with your sis , and say I am the most beautiful among my friends !
But your sis would say - I am the (for example" Rab aljamilat" in other words in superlative form , she needed to convey the level of her beauty it means the best of the beautest. including your friends and family and all ladies.
Now on same manner, Man (for example) is the most knwoledgeable creature among other creatures! .. But our Lord would tell us He is the Lord of the wisest (superlative form) in other words He is the most Wisest of them all. (omniscient) Rab ul ........ !
On the same manner the Basmallah - mentioning about the knowledgables, savants .. But Our Lord is the most Knowlegeable of them all.. Rab Alalemeen ( superlative case) ! The best One among those knowers and savants .. He is the Rab of them all ' Rab ela'lemeen! The highest level . on top.
On same trend , When He says He is the greatest of them all. there is the great , greater, greatest and the greatest of them all is your Lord.
Ihope this time , the thing is much clearer.
peace,
Peace,
The word "Worship God " per my understanding using the Quran alone
means - to Live per the will of your Lord.
that is the word 'Worship" would mean to live per the will of ..... "
Therefore, it is possible for someone to worship satan , if he live per the will of Satan. Or to worship your Boss if you live per his will ,although negating the will of the Lord.
Our Ibad - those who works per our will... whether servants , workers employees, all those who work per the will of the Manager and Bosses are termed as Ibad!! (2432)
(18104) will tell you that those who seeks other's will, are the loosers thinking they are on the straight path ' believing that the word worship- would only mean - to pray , fast and etc.. But the meaning is much stronger and larger than you expect.
I hope this is clear.
Peace,
Noor
Dear Marie,
Well, I believe that the exact translation of ( Rab Alemeen) should read ? Those who know, and although this will create confusion for those who do not know and others, but allow me explain my self here,
My view to this is a little bit a philosophical one, but since you have an open mind, I will share it with you. But I will try to make as short as possible!
This life (our life) is an illusion! (638, (3185) ..etc.
The hereafter is the fact ? (2860) , (4236), (8717).
This life is a test for us.. Test whether we acknowledge our Lord or not!
This life is a test for us to acknowledge the truth of our Lord! (5120-23), and other verses.
This life is the pavement we have to make as to enjoy the true Life!
This life is the kit that triggers the next real one!
Only, the time we die, will be the true wake up, then we will be aware of the truth of our Lord (5022) but then we have no return, nor a way to go back.
Therefore, while we are living this life, we are learning to know about our Lord and his bounty.
Our Lord is manifesting His existence through the things he created for us here in this life.
Those who believe will acknowledge these facts and will be among those who know!
Those who disbelieve will never acknowledge this fact and will remain as ignorant! Those who do not know!
Knowing things in this life is the step toward acknowledging our existence, hence acknowledging our Lord existence.
Those who do not know or acknowledge, will never be (5022), since their refusal to acknowledge their Lord is refusal to acknowledge their existence. I mean how would a creature refuse to acknowledge his creator? If he refused to acknowledge His creator, it would mean simply that he is not there.
Those who acknowledge themselves and things around are really acknowledging their creator, their Lord.
You may Ask, but this is the Lord, if you deny his existence, He is still you?re their and is your Lord!!
That is true. But the big question is Will this be your reply if you were not acknowledging Him?
Acknowledge come from knowledge!
The time you came to know something, it means you are acknowledging him, his fact, his nature, his behavior.
Knowing things is not simply to know name.. But to identify and recognize after a study.
Therefore, as you go by with the rest of the (basmallah), you see those who know their Lord and acknowledge that are the ones who would ask God for his help and support and ask Him to guide them to the straight path, and to evade them from the path of the astray and the disbelievers.
Those who do not know will never say as such! But will insist on not acknowledging this fact.
I hope I made myself clear,
Peace,
Dear David,
Though I have not understood your point of view, and even I have not seen what is you are aiming at.
Therefore, I have three questions for your good self
What is the need of the request for the dressing fit for believing women, Is it to identify them or to make them less identified ?
Who are those that are harming the believing women?
How can a dress be a secure for the believing women?
Please reply,
peace,
Noor
Peace noor, all
A verse that might add some understandings.
2943
--
Peace,
I believe the word you mention in plural form in the above verse would mean - those who have knowledge, and it has no reference to (Worlds/ universes) ,since the word ( Ya'kel" is there as to mean , to think of..
Therefore , it is not the same argued word that I raised.
I already noted that there are two plural forms for the word -knowers and these are
in subjuctive case - Alemoon , and in accusative and genetive case which is Alemeen.
But there is not for the word that would mean Universes - Alamon with a letter a - and not Alemoon , with a letter e ... since the plural form of the word Alam is as I said previously Awalem!
I hope I made myself clear.
God Bless,
Dear Layth ,
Thank you for reading my post.
Are you planning to rehearse the translation of this verse with progressive muslims and others.
Since after all, in a second though the word - Adna - would mean less in arabic lang, in statistical means .
As you said I am gaining less or low salary .. in arabic we use the word adna - , or else for results of or with low perentage or possibilities we use the word adna ..
..etc.
In addition, this for sure will be the proof that Moslem women dressing in Moslem world today and during the many decades back is a copy of other nations dress esp. Jahelliyah ,Jews and christians and has nothing to do with real submittors dress, besides they are not per the demand of the Lord.
May God bless you,
Salam,
It is true that the description made for Ibrahim as hanifan is for Ibrahim only. where it means a sincere Submittor.
The word hanafa would mean dedicate to, and Ibrahim is a dedicated submittor to his Lord.
Those who dedicate themselves to their Lord are described as monotheist ,since he only pursue his Lord satisfaction and not any other besides Him.
Peace,
Salam,
There is nothing there needs to be refuted nor to agree... after all you should identify clearly what is meant by millat.
And here we go ..
The word in question is " Millat " derived from the word "yumli" dictated.
The word millat is meant by those who would accept what was dictated on Abraham" ! It is not neceesarily would mean rituals! But the main point - Monotheist.
And since Prophet Mohamed was not at that time aware of "what was dictated on Abraham" , our Lord here is encourging Mohamed that since the Jahilliyah people were debating Mohammed that they were following prophet Ibrahim, therefore our Lord is telling Mohammed to rest assure in that what our Lord is giving you Mohamed is the same what was given to Ibrahim, and on same time advising Mohommed not to follow the jahilliya wishes (their wishes), since they are not following Ibrahim, but their wishes.
Therefore, I believe that what was revealed on Quran at the end is same what was dictated to Abraham - through Suhuf Ibrahim ...leaflets of Ibrahim.
Peace,
Dear Sara ,
Peace,
God created us in truth and for truth and by truth as for it to prevail.
(673) , (3473), (1585), (211, (2944), (4439),(463) ....etc.
God do not play around , Our creation is meant for the truth to prevail. hence our creation and the creation of all things around is a manifestation of the truth itself.
(673)- He is the one who created the heavens and the earth truthfully, Whenever he says " be " His word (action) is the absolute truth (and for truth) .....etc.
Peace ,
peace,
I wish to raise some inquiries concerning the verse (2180).
It seems as if it talks about the will and indicates that the will to be made before the person dies, should go for Parents and relatives ?
But as we look on , on verse (411-12), we see that the Lord is already imposing on people of how to make the the inheritance as God's will!!! And on verse (413) Our Lord is finishing the Will subject or else inheritance issue , reminding us about his limits and we should not transgress!!
As I understand the issue if not , the will is to divide the money a person leaves per his satisfaction!! While the inheritance left, if he did not leave a will, is to be divided per God's satisfaction.
But if that person before he dies would write a will that should goes only to parents and relatives . But really on the other hand, he is transgressing God's orders on how to divide his inheritance! He would really be transgressing.
verse (2181) in its old concept is worthless , since over all he is transgressing His Lord commands about his inheritance using the Will!
And it should be the will of God to be accepted regardless reasons!
The question is What is the features of will stated on (2180) and what is the need for such?
Or else would we be able to interpret verse (2180) as follows That it is not will- but talks about the custodians ? guardians? if he has children underage? & wealth ..
Any comments !
Peace
Peace all,
The Lord of the Universes!!! (Rab Alameen)!!
In Arabic we say Rabul ilallamin, Indicating the meaning of Lord of the Universes, where else pertaining the understanding we inherited from old scholars and school, family and are using till today!
I have tackled this issue many times and I can not accept the definition of the word ? Alameen as being the worlds or universes!! Although the word Alam in Arabic would mean ? World/ Universe!
These are my reasons
1- It is very peculiar that the word (considered as Alameen- Universes) always come in plural form and in genitive case and esp. after the word Rab. So one may ask what is the plural form of this word in subjective case? All will see that no where in the quran you may find the word in plural form of Alamon ,(if it is really belong to that category of verbs) as in subjective case or else in singular form as Alam!! Universe!
Have you ever questioned this extraordinary case!? Or else what is the plural form of universes in subjective case?
2- The plural form of the word ( Alam) universe in Arabic is
( Awalem) universes! And not Alamin! Unless the specified object was a different issue than we claim to be as universes!
3- In the whole Quran , we see that there is the word ?Alem - indicating knowledge and knowledgeable people , as ( Alem )in singular form and its plural form ? Alemoon (subjective) or Alemeen (accusative or genitive case), in Arabic.
4- It is important to indicate that there is a different word specifying knowledgeable people (but in plural form where indicating human being, never in singular form) in the whole quran, where else it is same attribute given to our Lord is in singular form,(Aleem ) or ( Alim) ? the plural form given for human being as an attribute is Ulama? in verse (26197) and some other verse. This word is in plural form, as I presume happened twice in the Quran. It might refer to knowledge with experience, or knowledge of hidden information, or knowledge of specific branch of Science, i.e (specialist)!
5- The word that describes other people or other creatures is Umam (in plural form) as mentioned in verse (63where or Lord is indicating about birds and other creatures.
6- The word indicating other universes always were referred by our Lord as in verse(2255) & (2164)by ?(Alsamawat WalArd wama baynahuma) in Arabic.
7- The verse (2122) and (4516) are not referring to the whole creatures nor universes, since bani Israel would not be preferred over the angles, or prophets or messengers, or else will they!!? Verse(318, (4166), (1649)!
8- In verse (5149) our Lord informs us of ?creating in pairs? ? So the meaning might be for dual worlds, i.e. the world and anti world, the death and the live! But again this thing fade away when mentioning the verse (2122) & (4516)! Or else word of manifold meanings (37) allegorical verses!
9- The word Alem might indicate the meaning of ?aware of ?.
10- The basmallah (rab ilalamin), may be interpreted as ? The initiator of ?everything we know?! The initiator of the known. (But in plural form). And this word is of allegorical meanings!
Any comments ,
Peace ,
With reference to (3359) ..
R.K. translation
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
Progressive Moslem translations
O 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.
While I re-read the above verse, many times, I still find it hard to accept such an interpretation ,since it would not make sense unless otherwise there was a drop of one word ? not? in Arabic la after the words (Adna an ) and here are my reasons
1- God in that verse is concerned about the believing women from being harmed. Definitely concerned about them from the Hypocrites! That the hypocrites may harm them.
2- How would the hypocrites harm the believing women? If the hypocrites know the believing women, they (the believing women would be more recognized and identified by the hypocrites) hence will be more accessible for harm. And wearing such a costume or dressing as such will expose the Moslem women to the hypocrites unless all women at that time were dressing same costume. In other words Moslem women were asked to copy others in their dress. It is not a sign for chaste and unchaste, since our Lord knows best of our inner thoughts.
3- If the costume were meant to identify the Moslem women so they would not be harmed, it means that those who harm the women are the Moslems themselves, and for believing women to wear as such costume will make it easy for those Moslems to identify their women so they will evade harming them, which is hard to accept!!
4- There is a possibility that all women at that period were dressing as such and the only way to protect believing women is to ask them to copy others with their costumes so that they will be less recognized and hence less accessible to harm by the enemies of Moslems.
5- we know that the dispute at that time were between the believers and the disbelievers , and the hypocrites and the disbelievers were doing their efforts to harm the believing women, because they believe in God. And I never heard that Disbelievers would harm unchaste women ,but would enjoin them to keep on that track!
6- There is other possibility that Moslem women and unchaste women were dressing same costumes , and the enemies of God were harming the unchaste women though illogic, and for God to protect the believing women , He rather asked them to copy the dressing costume the other women used to dress, thus to prevent them from being harmed! But this possibility will
easily fade, since that the unchaste women would rather prefer to copy that type of dressing in order to hide herself and they would escape harm, hence they would not be easily identified nor recognized and will be less accessible to harm!!
7- Or else the verse, the above interpretation for some of the words are not clear . as for example what is Gilbab? What is meant by yudneen and Adan ?
8- Do the verse meant to be ?O prophet, tell your wives, your daughters, and the wives of the believers that they shall lengthen their garments. Thus, they will be less recognized and escape the harm. GOD is Forgiver, Most Merciful!
9- By the way the word ?lengthen? is not a literal meaning of the word ? Yudneen? whereas the word Yudneen mean to bring closer to them. That is the verse would read O prophet, tell your wives, your daughters, and the wives of the believers that they shall bring their garments closer to them ( to their bodies). Thus, they will be less recognized and escape the harm. GOD is Forgiver, Most Merciful!
10- More to say that Moslem women have not any costume then they were a real free minded people , and the request of your Lord was only for precaution purposes and for a limited time then, or when and where applicable.
11- It is obvious that the safety of the believing women is more welcomed to our Lord that the dress itself.
12- Although some may find that I may made a noise out of nothing, but simply I find it hard to accept such an interpretation, without clarifying it.
God knows best,
Noor