***Grammatical corrections... the irony.
Salaam,
But I'm really not trying to find the ultimate truth which all women should follow, I'm just trying to find what I want to believe in and what I want to practice. It is hard thinking outside of your social situation and questioning something which everyone takes as a given fact that bares no questioning.
Salaam Nour,
I quote the text from the root list pertaining to kh-m-r
Kha-Miim-Ra = cover/conceal/veil, becoming changed/altered from a former state/condition, mixed/mingled/incorporated/blended, intoxication/wine/grapes, make-up, any intoxicating thing that clouds/obscures the intellect, come upon secretly/unexpectedly, crowding of people, odour of perfume, women's head cover, man's turban, a covering, something fermented/matured.
khamr n.fem. 2219, 590, 591, 1236, 1241, 4715
khumur n. masc. pl. 2431
...and let them draw/set/cast (walyadribna) with their veils/covers (bikhumurihinna) over (AAala) their breasts/bosom (juyoobihinna)...
Lane gives some examples ?the dwelling was hidden by the trees?, ?he concealed his testimony?, "She (a woman) applied KhaMaRat as a linament, to beautify her complexion.".
...
From the very wording of the Qur'an the mention of the khumur is too casual. It is like saying "don't make a fuss of it, just throw over the bossom anything you may have at hand (as opposed to cut and sew a particular piece of garment for the purpose)", thereby the imprecise general use of the cover, which is a general term.
...
My experience is that the insistence on the hijab has made societies where it is imposed by social pressure more hypocritical and less virtuous. It is not an hommage paid to God, who does not need that kind of hommages, but a subservience to social pressures. Do you think God is angry with women? Angrier than with men? Do you think God considers women a danger? God says in sura 4.1 reverence God... and reverence the wombs... If the hiyabis were more interested in reverencing th wombs than in their little obssessions moral would be better served. The second part of aya 24.31 is there to warn women from being exploited for their looks and to warn them from exploiting their looks themselves. It is not there to blame them for their looks nor to make them submit to a special tax because of their looks. God is loving with women in the Qur'an, tender and considerate. God does not blame women. But the list of all the subversion of holy revelations perpetrated by men to put down women is too lengthy to even attempt to make a summary. 24.31 has been turned into a jungle in order to extract from it something far from what the peace of mind of the women requires and that God provided for them.
Salaam,
It takes a very patient person to listen to someone's questions and arguments. So thank you again for being patient.
I understand the frustration people feel with the discussion over this topic. Unfortunately a woman's body is still political and economic grounds which is the reason why it is continually debated about. But I'm really not trying to find the ultimate truth which all women should follow, I'm just trying to find what to believe in and what to practice. It is hard thinking outside of your social situation and questioning something which everyone takes as a given fact that bares to questioning.
That being said, I enjoy the sermons because they help me balance the weight of the mainstream social discourses. I think I comprehend your perspective, I will keep mulling it over in my head until I make up my mind. Thank you for the source, it is really helpful. If anyone has any other sources, please send them my way. I'm constantly seeking knowledge and the more the better.
Thanks again!
If you are currently wearing hijab, and are considering taking it off, then why do you feel it is a big one-time, irreversible decision? Even if you take it off, you are totally free to start wearing it again whenever you choose.
Is it that you feel that your current surrounding is such that you really need to have strong arguments for what you are doing?
sun
I'm sure that there is a part of me that feels that way. But there is also a huge part which is too afraid of making mistakes afraid that I would "die tomorrow". Mistakes are beneficial as long as they're worth making.
khumur is plural, khimar, is any cover. On the other hand, why should any headcover be so large as to cover more than the head? It would not be a headcover, it would be a shawl.
If God wanted head covered, unless He was really into the fashion business and introducing the khimarxwz, it would have sufficed to state plainly what he wants covered. He does say things plainly when they are straight orders or injunctions... But it seems that we are unable to assimilate that He has not done so and we try to milk this cow by hook or crook to extract hiyab butter.
I'm really not biased or trying to milk anything, I simply want to make sure that I am making the right decision of taking off the Hijab without being biased towards what I want. So that's why i need to make sure that there is no possible way for the Hijab being a requirement. And linguistic argument is the only thing I'm lacking right now.
So I at your statement, I'm stopping at #2. Because I still retain that if #3 is to be correct, then #2 would have to be correct. Otherwise my argument of "redundancy" could still stand.
So do you, or any of the people following this post, have any dictionary sources or names of older dictionaries of the Arabic language which could help me confirm that the word Khimar really means cover and does not signify cover of the hair at all?
Thanks again for being so patient with me 
Linguistically whatever might be that khumur means, it does not matter at all, because what is being enjoined is to throw something over the bossom, not to use a particularly defined pieace of cloth. And khimar is a cover, whatever cover, just like khamr is a cover a mind cover, so it might have said, throw anything on the bossom to cover it, which is exactly the same thing as "throw a cover", anything that covers.
I think that there is no doubt that God is not short of words and when He enjoins or order something as to simple or practical questions he doesn't tell conumdrums nor vagueness but says it clearly. An this is the case also in 24.31. He says what it says and whoever wants to milk something else, wastes his or her time and energies.
I think my doubts over your statement here fall in the following questions
1- Does "yadrebna" mean throw, or could it also mean extend?
2-And if it means extend, then perhaps the thing to be extended must be there in the first place. So, for me to extend my socks to cover my ankles, I need to be wearing socks to begin with.
3- If the word Khimar means head cover, then it would be a problem of redundancy over vagueness. The Qur'an would not say "use your head covers to cover your heads and chests" (by head I mean hair).
There is no word "drop down on chest" in the sentence; nor head. the preposition signifies "upon" and not "towards". Shoulders have relationship with the chest not the head.
Dropdown of shawls is prescribed while moving out of the houses into market etc.
....
Face does not have a role to play in shape. Niqab is disallowed since eye to eye focussed contact is discouraged in Qur'aan. Beauty-"Hussan" is only of face and it is non-disturbing-one says Subhan Allah.
Sorry, I really meant hair not head.
What I'm trying to get at here is that
a- what is the difference between "yadrebn" and "yadneen". Because if it's possible that they both mean "extend" then I think that is just another way of saying "drop down on chest".
b- Although the Jalaleeb Ayah does not describe any part of the woman's body, you assumed that it means hips/hourglass area. So can that same assumption be made to the Khimar Ayah? I'm talking about the general argument used by most Sheikhs who say "in order for women to extend their Jalaleeb, they must be wearing a Jelbaab. So in order for women to extend (their chosen definition of Yadrebna) their Khimars over their chests, they need to be wearing Khimars to begin with. Is it true that the same logic could be applied to the linguistics of both Ayahs?
c-How does "" differ in meaning between the Jalaleeb Ayah and the Khimar Ayah?
d- Also, if Khimar means "head cover" (as in scarf wrapped around one's hair, leaving the face exposed), wouldn't that replace the word "head", because it would be redundant to say "use the head cover to cover your head and chest"?
Just to make sure we're on the same page. I'm not disagreeing with your statements, I'm just sharing questions with you so that hopefully your ideas can make a lightbulb go off in my own head. But I do disagree with your meaning of the word Jelbab, as I think it means "dress", not "shawl". But I don't really think that this difference matters in what we're saying, but just letting you know in case it's important to your understanding of what I just stated above.
The verb needs an instrument-an object to carry it out to achieve its objective. It is described by Prepositional Phrase coupled with possessive phrase "with the use of thier respective unsown sheets of cloth".
is plural and is definite being the first noun of construct where the second noun is definite.
The area of activity of the verb-action is described "upon their respective chests". It is a prepositional phrase coupled with possessive phrase-for semantic meanings it is an inseparable grammatical unit. is also definite; signifying their respective chests where the bossoms have become protuberant and self visible even when are behind the sewn clothes.
Thank you for your response.
So my analysis of your linguistic dissection is
Because it's a prepositional phrase, Khumur and Juyoob cannot be separated from each other nor from their grammatical sense. So the order of the verb-action is then to carry out one single meaning, which is to cover the chests and nothing else. However, would a different meaning of the word Khumur imply a different meaning to the prepositional phrase? In other words, if the word Khumur meant head cover, could the prepositional phrase be carrying two orders/two different meanings (of covering the head and covering the chest)?
Let me know if the way I phrased things does not make any sense. And thanks again for your reply.
Peace everyone!
I have been wearing the Hijab for three years and I would like to discuss some intellectual questions that have been occupying my mind and preventing me from meeting the pure intentions required for anyone to commit an act of faith. So any help in any direction would be great. If you don't feel like writing, but have a list of recommended sources, I would be glad to check them out.
This is a strictly linguistic thread, and not one about theories. What I mean is that I want to discuss the vocabulary and the grammar of the verse 2431. I do not ant to discuss the meanings, the implications, the purposes, the philosophies of what the verse is trying to discuss. I know that it's hard to separate meanings from linguistics, but I'm not asking people to separate them in this thread, I'm asking them to discuss this topic with a focus on linguistics.
Some of the arguments that have been occupying my mind are the following
-The meaning of the word Khimar. Does it always mean head covering? Are there strong sources which point to it having a more general meaning than head covering? Or do all linguistic sources point to head covering?
-In grammatical sense, does the order being given in the Ayah mean that women must use head covers to draw on their chests, or does the order only include the bosom? In other words, does "yadrebn b khumurehen 'ala jyubehen" mean that women must cover their heads and chests, or does it mean that they must cover their chests? In the grammatical sense, what is the object of the order verb?
-What is the difference between "yudneen" and "yadrebn"? "Yudneen" is the word used to mean extend or lengthen in an Ayah which tells women to lengthen their garments. "Yadrebn" is the word used in the Ayah of the Khimar. Most scholars often apply the same logic to both Ayahs. They say that for a woman to extend her garment, she needs to be wearing a garment in order to extend it. And so the same logic applies to women using their Khimars to cover their bosoms. So that a woman would have to be wearing a Khimar in order to draw it on her bosom. Of course this assumes that Khimar means head covering.
Please be respectful and do not make assumptions about others.
Thanks everyone.