Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum
Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026
A non-Muslim woman's view on hijab
Comments
-
maitri wrote:Fair enough.
BTW, do you also think that men are religiously obliged to cover their face behind a beard, and never wear trousers that cover the ankles?
I know this was not directed to me but I think the different schools will differ slightly on this one. But the hanafi do require this and will not accept the witness of a clean shaved man in court....... although its been a while since Ive read this so please dont ask for exact hadith
0 -
Well, it's a maybe for sure. But I'll leave it as just a maybe and resign it to the realm that by knowledge doesn't include.maitri wrote:Or maybe the female guest in "your" hadith for some reason was "among the women who were (for some reason ) ordered to use veil" in "my" hadith?
Well, that's fair enough and you're perfectly entitled to that opinion. But we don't have to know all the reasons for all the things that were supposed to do. Sometimes God may give us a reason in the Quran or a hadith for why we are meant to do things and sometimes not. For example, we're told not to eat pork but we're not told why. There are plenty of theories as to why God has forbidden it but the truth is that nobody knows for sure. I believe that there are some things where we are meant to prove our obedience to God by doing them by doing them without knowing why.maitri wrote:For me to observe and believe in a rule, you see, I really need to understand why the rule is a good rule. And when it comes to the hijab, I don't understand why it should be a rule.
The following verse talks a bit about that.
An-Nisa:46
"Among those of the Jewish faith there are some who distort the meaning of the [revealed] words, taking them out of their context and saying, [as it were,] "We have heard, but we disobey," and, "hear without hearkening,” and, “hearken thou unto us, (O Muhammad)” - thus making a play with their tongues, and implying that the [true] Faith is false. and had they but said, "We have heard, and we pay heed," and "hear [us], and have patience with us," it would indeed have been for their own good, and more upright: but God has rejected them because of their refusal to acknowledge the truth - for it is in but few things that they believe."
As it happens, the wearing of hijab is given a reason in the following verse (although this verse, unlike verse 31 from Surat Al-Nour, doesn't mention the "khimar").
Al-Ahzab:59
"O Prophet! Tell thy wives and thy daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks close round them. That will be better, that so they may be recognized and not annoyed. Allah is ever Forgiving, Merciful."
As for other reasons, they've already been mentioned a good bit in this thread. Funnily enough, I just watched the following video and the woman in it gives her view of it as well. Of course, we should keep in mind all along that the primary (and only?) reason that any woman should wear hijab is to do it in submission to God.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8117928554020588386&q=susan+carland
I don't think that men are religiously obliged but I do think it's better to wear a beard.maitri wrote:BTW, do you also think that men are religiously obliged to cover their face behind a beard, and never wear trousers that cover the ankles?
And I know that
is only an expression that's used but I personally don't like it as I think it sends out the message that wearing a beard is somehow unclean. You can have a beard and keep it cleanDino Bot wrote:clean shaved
As for the trousers thing, it's important to know the reason from the hadith. When the Prophet Mohamed (peace be upon him) mentioned how wearing a garment that goes past the ankles is wrong, Abu-Bakr (one of the Prophet's closest companions) got up and said (something like) "I wear a long garment that goes past my ankles O Prophet". To which the Prophet replied (something like) "The people I mean are the ones who do it out of pride". Like those people that wear long garments/capes etc and feel very proud of themselves when doing it. So, I don't let my jeans go past my ankles out of pride. I just do it to keep my ankles warm And God knows my intention.
Well, maybe a little bit about how he got to know Islam and what appealed to him about it if it's not too much trouble. Thanksmaitri wrote:I can't think of anything right now. But if you have questions of course I'll try to answer. 0 -
the_new_mr wrote:
Well, that's fair enough and you're perfectly entitled to that opinion. But we don't have to know all the reasons for all the things that were supposed to do
I think we do.the_new_mr wrote:
I believe that there are some things where we are meant to prove our obedience to God by doing them by doing them without knowing why.
For what it’s worth: I remember very well the very same sort of argumentation from the Church when I was Catholic (regarding e.g. strong religious obligation to go to Church every Sunday, to go to confession at least once a year, and before my time: also a strong obligation never to eat meat on Fridays – some people feared Hell if they broke that one).
I have to say I’m very happy to have abandoned that kind of thinking. It’s such a great freedom, but of course it also implies a great responsibility.the_new_mr wrote:For example, we're told not to eat pork but we're not told why. There are plenty of theories as to why God has forbidden it but the truth is that nobody knows for sure.
At the time the Qur’an was written there were very good medical reasons not to eat pork, from what I’ve heard. I am not so sure that there are any such reasons today, though personally I’m a vegetarian and wouldn’t dream of touching any meat from the industrialized meat factories knowing in what horrible misery and suffering the animals have lived and died.the_new_mr wrote:
As it happens, the wearing of hijab is given a reason in the following verse (although this verse, unlike verse 31 from Surat Al-Nour, doesn't mention the "khimar").
Al-Ahzab:59
"O Prophet! Tell thy wives and thy daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks close round them. That will be better, that so they may be recognized and not annoyed. Allah is ever Forgiving, Merciful."
Like verse 31 (where the point in my humble non-Muslim opinion seems to be “cover their chests”) verse 59 doesn’t say anything about covering the hair (nor does it say anything about neck or ears), it says: “draw their cloaks close round them” .
The point in this text (verse 59), as I understand it, seems to be that they shall not be annoyed (or harassed in the streets) because they are recognized as good Muslim women. I’m sure it was so in that society and at that time that women who were not dressed "modestly" according to norms of the society were harassed, but today I have a female Muslim friend who say that she was actually much more annoyed and harassed in the streets (also by Muslim brothers, sadly enough) when she wore the hijab than when she stopped wearing it.the_new_mr wrote:
I don't think that men are religiously obliged but I do think it's better to wear a beard.
I can understand that it was better not to shave in a time and a society where men shaved their face with the same knife they used for killing animals (which caused infections). But why today?the_new_mr wrote:
As for the trousers thing, it's important to know the reason from the hadith. When the Prophet Mohamed (peace be upon him) mentioned how wearing a garment that goes past the ankles is wrong, Abu-Bakr (one of the Prophet's closest companions) got up and said (something like) "I wear a long garment that goes past my ankles O Prophet". To which the Prophet replied (something like) "The people I mean are the ones who do it out of pride". Like those people that wear long garments/capes etc and feel very proud of themselves when doing it. So, I don't let my jeans go past my ankles out of pride. I just do it to keep my ankles warm And God knows my intention.
I’m happy to hear that you are not proud!
However, couldn’t the same sort of argumentation be used in regards to verse 31:
“walyadribna bikhumurihinna AAala juyoobihinna
which says to make their "khimars" cover their "chests".” ?
Doesn’t it seem possible that point here is not the khimar but to cover the chest?(whatever the word khimar means – and especially of course if “khimar” doesn’t mean veil as some claim it doesn’t - but even if it does mean "veil", the verse doesn’t say anything about how much the veil should cover)the_new_mr wrote:
Well, maybe a little bit about how he got to know Islam and what appealed to him about it if it's not too much trouble. Thanks
Well, over the years he made a lot of Pakistani friends through his work as a doctor, and so he came to know and be very fascinated about the country and also the culture and the religion. When asked about what appealed to him, I remember he said: “I’ve come to the conclusion that science doesn’t explain everything in life, and I really like the Muslim ethics”. He wouldn't say much more about his decision when I asked. 0 -
Yes, I noticedmaitri wrote:I think we do.
I don't think that it's supposed to be that way when it comes to the foundations of belief. Just with respect to a few things to prove obedience.maitri wrote:For what it’s worth: I remember very well the very same sort of argumentation from the Church when I was Catholic (regarding e.g. strong religious obligation to go to Church every Sunday, to go to confession at least once a year, and before my time: also a strong obligation never to eat meat on Fridays – some people feared Hell if they broke that one).
It is indeed.maitri wrote:I have to say I’m very happy to have abandoned that kind of thinking. It’s such a great freedom, but of course it also implies a great responsibility.
Yeah, I've heard this too but that still doesn't say why God has forbidden it. Also, the Quran is supposed to be a revelation to be followed for all time so either pork is still very bad for your health (and there is some evidence to support this I believe) or there's some other reason. At the end of the day, it may well just be a proof of faith and obedience and nothing more and I'm very happy to do that.maitri wrote:At the time the Qur’an was written there were very good medical reasons not to eat pork, from what I’ve heard.
Yeah, that sucks. I'm not too happy with the way a lot of animals are kept. Some are treated humanely but unfortunately a lot of people have very little respect for the animals' comfort. There's a lot of ignorance in Muslim countries on how to treat animals and it's really annoying. Especially when you consider all the hadith where the Prophet emphasises the importance of treating animals well. Such as the time when he made the entire Muslim army take a slight detour so as not to bother a dog that was giving birth.maitri wrote:...knowing in what horrible misery and suffering the animals have lived and died.
Yeah, I know it doesn't but I only quoted Al-Ahzab:59 to give the reason.maitri wrote:Like verse 31 (where the point in my humble non-Muslim opinion seems to be “cover their chests”) verse 59 doesn’t say anything about covering the hair (nor does it say anything about neck or ears), it says: “draw their cloaks close round them” .
To emulate the Prophet. Also, the hadith mentions other reasons (for Muslims to distinguish themselves from others).maitri wrote:I can understand that it was better not to shave in a time and a society where men shaved their face with the same knife they used for killing animals (which caused infections). But why today?
I hope it's truemaitri wrote:I’m happy to hear that you are not proud!
Well, you know. I've thought about that possibility. But then there's the hadith where the Prophet said only the face and hands should be apparent. And the fact that over a thousand years of tradition have meant that a lot of Muslim women around the world wear it in a certain way (even if the styles can be slightly different) indicating to me that this is the way intended and instructed at the time. And God knows best.maitri wrote:Doesn’t it seem possible that point here is not the khimar but to cover the chest?(whatever the word khimar means – and especially of course if “khimar” doesn’t mean veil as some claim it doesn’t - but even if it does mean "veil", the verse doesn’t say anything about how much the veil should cover)
Thanks for the info on your father by the way 0 -
the_new_mr wrote:
Yeah, I've heard this too but that still doesn't say why God has forbidden it. Also, the Quran is supposed to be a revelation to be followed for all time so either pork is still very bad for your health (and there is some evidence to support this I believe) or there's some other reason. At the end of the day, it may well just be a proof of faith and obedience and nothing more and I'm very happy to do that.
I have never really understood the point of obedience - or what faith really means in that context - but if you’re happy with the way you live you’re life, that’s the most important as I see it.the_new_mr wrote:
Yeah, that sucks. I'm not too happy with the way a lot of animals are kept. Some are treated humanely but unfortunately a lot of people have very little respect for the animals' comfort. There's a lot of ignorance in Muslim countries on how to treat animals and it's really annoying. Especially when you consider all the hadith where the Prophet emphasises the importance of treating animals well. Such as the time when he made the entire Muslim army take a slight detour so as not to bother a dog that was giving birth.
I am happy to see that there is a growing awareness when it comes to animal rights also in parts of the Muslim world, though I agree with you that a lot of people sadly enough have very little respect (and compassion ) for the animals.
If I remember correctly there’s at least one verse in the Qur’an that says that you should treat animals kindly, and as you say there are a lot of hadith on this. Isn’t there one hadith that tells about a very sinful woman who got all of her sins forgiven because she one day saw a thirsty cat (or was it a dog?) she was filled with compassion and gave it water out of her shoe.the_new_mr wrote:
And the fact that over a thousand years of tradition have meant that a lot of Muslim women around the world wear it in a certain way (even if the styles can be slightly different) indicating to me that this is the way intended and instructed at the time
I understand what you’re saying, but note that not all Muslims agree:
This article, e.g. concludes :
“In conclusion, it seems that the hijab is a construction created shortly after the Prophet's
time and maintained till today by patriarchal society in order to keep women in a
subordinate position. Because of the vagueness of its prescriptions on the dress code for
women, the Quran has been manipulated at various historical times, including in our own
times, in order to uphold various political agendas.”the_new_mr wrote:
Thanks for the info on your father by the way
You’re very welcome 0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
It's all about submission to One God which is what Islam is all about. By following the verses in the Quran and obeying prohibitions whether we are given the reason or not, we are obeying God. In the case of things like pork where we aren't given the reason then it's a chance for us to show God that we will obey Him even if we aren't given the reason. Like when you trust a friend sometimes even when they don't explain a situation in full or at all. Surely God is more deserving of our trust?maitri wrote:I have never really understood the point of obedience - or what faith really means in that context - but if you’re happy with the way you live you’re life, that’s the most important as I see it.
The article you linked to is quite interesting but I have to say, she makes a fairly large jump to the ideas she put forward in the article and the part where she begins to say "In conclusion...". Especially the bit about keeping women in a subordinate position. I know of a lot of Muslim women who would feel very angry at such a statement and would say that they don't feel like they've been kept in a subordinate position at all. Sister Susan Carland (from the video link earlier) made an interesting point that she sees that God chose women as the flag bearers of Islam. It's an interesting point and I guess very possible.
Actually, I've been thinking about that a lot and I'm leaning more and more towards that idea.
There are a few errors in the article. One example is the idea that the Quran was compiled under the 3rd khaliph of Islam (Uthman Ibn 'Affan). As far as I know, the Quran was compiled under the 1st khaliph of Islam (Abu Bakr Al-Sadeeq) only two years after the Prophet's death. The truth is that it wouldn't have made any difference whether it was under Abu-Bakr or Uthman since literally thousands had the Quran completely committed to memory but it's just an example of inaccuracy in the article.
Also, I'm not sure of the level of Arabic of the author of that article (my Arabic isn't perfect anyway that's for sure) but I don't know if she fully understands the meaning of the word hijab. It essentially means a barrier of some kind or another. This may be in the form of a burning bush, a wall, a curtain or dress and this is the meaning with reference to what the discussion is about. She seemed to show this with the references to the verses of the Quran she quoted but just because it's not specifically used with reference to dress doesn't mean it's not part of Islam if you catch my drift?
And then what's in a name? Hijab by any other name would still be hijab Also, although the author explained what hadith are early on in the article, she didn't reference any of the hadith themselves.
Another point touched on in the article but not explored is the connection between Christianity and Judaism. As Muslims, we believe that these two religions are religions from God and (for want of a better expression) are earlier versions of Islam. Nuns are supposed to cover their hair and this for me shows the instruction existing before the revelation of the Quran. Of course some people could say "Yeah, but this wasn't required of Muslim women since the revelation of the Quran".
I know I'm repeating myself a lot here but I honestly don't see how such a tradition could be "invented" as it were.
Thanks InFront for the verse. It's not the one I was thinking of though. I think the following verse is the one I was thinking of.
Yunus:59
"Say: "Have you ever considered all the means of sustenance which God has bestowed upon you from on high -and which you thereupon divide into 'things forbidden' and 'things lawful? Say: "Has God given you leave [to do this] -or do you, perchance, attribute your own guesswork to God?" "
This is God clearly showing how saying something is unlawful when it's not is a seriously bad idea so I can't imagine how hijab in the form we see today could have started up without protests from God fearing men and women.
But Insha Allah (God willing) the author of that article is sincere in her writings and thoughts and Insha Allah will be rewarded according to her sincerity. God knows best.0 -
InFront wrote:Yes, she was a prostitute and even as such was forgiven because of this act. http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/054.sbt.html#004.054.538
Yes, that’s the one I was thinking about. Thanks InFront!InFront wrote:Maitri, to invent our own versions of what is haraam would clearly be very wrong. Anyone trying to do that goes beyond his human limits and transgresses against Allah’s Godhood. I think the only motivation for scholars to consistently conclude that hijab is fardh, is that Allah has ordained it as such.
You seem to trust the scholars and their insight in what’s Allah’s will very much.
As I see it it’s not really a valid argument in itself that a scholar or a thousand scholars or even all scholars say something.
What is important IMHO is the logic validity of their arguments.
And (ahem!) I think I actually have some support for this argument from the Qur’an itself. It says:
"You shall not accept any information, unless you verify it for yourself. I have given you the hearing, the eyesight, and the brain, and you are responsible for using them." [17:36]
I’ve always loved this verse!:)
When it comes to "inventing versions of what is haraam" (as you say), it seems to me that this sadly enough happens a lot.
I know that some Muslims have been taught e.g. in Qur’an schools that there is a "right and a wrong way to drink a glass of water" (three draughts), a "right and a wrong hand to use when you get dressed in the morning" and a "right and a wrong foot to be used when you enter a bathroom", just to mention some examples, that really scare me. These rules are certainly not from the Qur’an, but are based on certain hadith.
I have often wondered how Muslims - especially those who say and believe that every word of the Qur’an is infallible and directly from God - can defend religious rules based on the hadiths (and not the Qur'an) when the Qur’an itself says:
"..........We did not leave ANYTHING out of this book." [6:38]
"The word of your Lord is COMPLETE, in truth and justice. Nothing shall abrogate His words. He is the Hearer, the Omniscient." [6:115]
And:
"Have they not looked at the dominion of the heavens and the earth, and all the things God has created? Does it ever occur to them that the end of their life may be near? Which HADITH, besides this (Quran) do they believe in?" [7:185]
[45:6] These are GOD's revelations that we recite to you truthfully. In which HADITH other than GOD and His revelations do they believe?
[45:7] Woe to every fabricator, guilty.InFront wrote:An-Nahl: 116
Hence, do not utter falsehoods by letting your tongues determine [at your own discretion], "This is lawful and that is forbidden", thus attributing your own lying inventions to God: [141] for, behold, they who attribute their own lying inventions to God will never attain to a happy state!
So the Qur’an says - and also:
"O you who believe, do not prohibit good things that are made lawful by God, and do not aggress; God dislikes the aggressors." [5:87 ]
And:
"
"Say, "Did you note how God sends down to you all kinds of provisions, then you render some of them unlawful, and some lawful?" Say, "Did God give you permission to do this? Or, do you fabricate lies and attribute them to God?" [10:59]
* All Qur’an verses are taken from Authorized English Translation ,
by Dr. Rashad Khalifa, (http://www.submission.org/efarsi/arabic/quran_table.html )0 -
Continued from page 5...InFront wrote:
So clearly, it is in nobody's interests to pretend that something is haraam when it is not. And I'm not familiar with any scholar who has suggested going without a headscarf in public is OK.
Well, the four main religious schools which base their teachings on tradition and hadith in addition to the Qur’an are all pro-hadith, as you say.
But there are Muslim scholars who don’t see hijab as a religious duty. For example the president of Islamic Research Foundation International, Dr. Ibrahim B. Syed, Ph.D (http://www.ifew.com/insight/authors/ibsyed.html ),who argues for his viewpoint in this article:
http://www.islamfortoday.com/syed06.htm
Other example is the Egyptian-born leader Zaki Badawi,[UK]
After the London Bombing:
'A woman wearing the hijab in the present circumstances could suffer aggression from irresponsible elements. Therefore, she ought not to wear it,' said Zaki Badawi, chairman of the Council of Mosques and Imams and head of the Muslim College in London.
Also Turkey has a long tradition of Muslim women who don’t wear headscarves, so I guess there must have been a lot of Muslim scholars there throughout history who didn’t agree with the pro-hijab view.
And what about Pakistani scholars? I remember the first Pakistani women who came to Norway very well. None of them covered their hair totally and certainly not their necks or their ears. At least they can’t have considered hijab as a religious duty?
I can also mention the brother of Hassan al-Bannas (founder of The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt), Gamal al-Banna who is a progressive scholar in Egypt who suggested that Muslim women in Europe use hats instead of hijab to create less attention (and harassment).
However, for me the main point is not so much who says what, but rather: What are their arguments.
BTW, a little off topic, but I’m curious: Have you (e.g. InFront and The_new_mister) always been Muslims or are you converts? What are your stories?
PS: I just saw your last post, the_new_mister. I will come back to it when I have time to look at it. Must go back to school here...0 -
Advertisement
-
Well, the scholars are scholars because they're scholarsmaitri wrote:You seem to trust the scholars and their insight in what’s Allah’s will very much.
As I see it it’s not really a valid argument in itself that a scholar or a thousand scholars or even all scholars say something.
What is important IMHO is the logic validity of their arguments. What I mean is that they have more knowledge. But that doesn't mean I should just take them at face value. Sometimes I hear a scholar make a ruling and it doesn't click with me at all as their reasoning seems a bit off. Also, scholars differ with each other on different matters and they of course can't all be right if they differ (well, maybe they can in that different scholars in different locations of the world may give different opinions based on what God wants to be heard in that location... but that's another thread really).
You're right that just because a scholar says something then that doesn't necessarily make it true. But I think that what InFront meant was that since a large majority of scholars tend to come to this opinion based upon their vast knowledge then there must be something in it. Having said that, there are scholars who say that the hijab is not obligatory (as in the article you pointed out).
In passing though, I think the quote of that man Zakawi Badawi was in the context of when women in the UK were being harassed after 9/11 or 7/7.
Also in passing, the verse number 17:36 (Surat Al-Isra) seems to have a different meaning to what I understand from the Arabic and the other three translations I read. It's not really relevant to the discussion but I felt compelled to say so since it's something I know and therefore it is an obligation on me to say it.
Isra:36 (Asad)
"And never concern thyself with anything of which thou hast no knowledge: verily, [thy] hearing and sight and heart - all of them - will be called to account for it [on Judgment Day]!"
Isra:36 (Ali)
"And pursue not that of which thou hast no knowledge; for every act of hearing, or of seeing or of (feeling in) the heart will be enquired into (on the Day of Reckoning)."
Isra:36 (Picktall)
"(O man), follow not that whereof thou hast no knowledge. Lo! the hearing and the sight and the heart--of each of these it will be asked"
Isra:36 (Shakir)
"And follow not that of which you have not the knowledge; surely the hearing and the sight and the heart, all of these, shall be questioned about that."
That's not to say that the translation of Dr. Rashad Khalifa is invalid altogether (although I'm not familiar with it). Just that maybe this particular verse wasn't translated as well. I personally end up selecting verses from different translations after examining them.
Did a bit of quick research on Dr. Rashad Khalifa and there seem to be a few dodgy things about him (claiming that he was prophesied in the Quran???). Don't really want to pass judgment based on such little research as it mightn't be true but just feel a little uneasy.
As for the verses you mentioned, there are a few important notes. I found a site with some verses as a counter-point to the idea that the hadith should be rejected. The following are the verses:
I recommend using either http://www.islamicity.com/QuranSearch/ or http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/ to check them.2:129
2:239 (this shows that Allah taught the Muslims how to pray)
2:151; 3:31; 3:32; 3:132
3:31-32
3:164 (messengers are sent to teach the scripture and al hikma could be the Sunna as well)
4:13-14; 4:42
4:59 (shows that Allah and Muhammad are separate to obey)
4:61; 4:64; 4:69; 4:80
4:113 God sent the wisdom
5:92 (the Prophet has to deliver the message clearly, what is the point if he just shows it to them)
7:157 (the Prophet will make things halal and haram for the people, why if they can just read the Quran?)
7:158
14:4 (messenger should make Quran clear)
16:44; 16:64, these verses show that Muhammad was sent to explain the Quran. It doesn’t just mean to proclaim. To proclaim is to ‘baligh’ like in 5:67.
24:54 (the Prophet has to deliver the message clearly, what is the point if he just shows it to them)
24:56 (why keep obeying the Prophet? What else does the Prophet have to say for us to obey him? Why can’t God just say to obey him?)
33:21 (he is an example for us to follow, eg. how to pray etc.)
33:36 (if Allah OR Muhammad made an order it should be obeyed. Clear distinction)
33:66 (why not just say obey Allah, isn’t that enough?)
62:2 (messengers are sent to teach the scripture as well)
64:12 (the Prophet has to deliver the message clearly, what is the point if he just shows it to them)
Also, that site says that a large majority of hadith are unauthentic. This also complies with something my cousin told me once (and he's pretty knowledgeable in these things) that only about 600 hadith can be considered authentic. Not sure what amount of truth is in that. Must find out more about this some time.
Possibly. But it's more likely that the wearing of hijab was not followed as was the case in Egypt not so long ago before people started to wear it again.maitri wrote:Also Turkey has a long tradition of Muslim women who don’t wear headscarves, so I guess there must have been a lot of Muslim scholars there throughout history who didn’t agree with the pro-hijab view.
Same as Turkey I'd say. There are plenty of Pakistani women who wear the headscarf. Not sure what the general opinion of Pakistani scholars is on the subject but I don't think they are of the opinion that it's not obligatory.maitri wrote:And what about Pakistani scholars? I remember the first Pakistani women who came to Norway very well. None of them covered their hair totally and certainly not their necks or their ears. At least they can’t have considered hijab as a religious duty?
Well, I've always been Muslim. Think the same is true of InFront if I'm not mistaken.maitri wrote:BTW, a little off topic, but I’m curious: Have you (e.g. InFront and The_new_mister) always been Muslims or are you converts? What are your stories?0 -
-
-
-
InFront wrote:Yes, have always been a Muslim, still learning though:)the_new_mr wrote:Well, I've always been Muslim. Think the same is true of InFront if I'm not mistaken.
Cool!InFront wrote:Maitri you mention Pakistani scholars and Hijab. Yes, there are many pakistani women who just wear dupattas and salwaar kameez in public and not proper Hijab. Don't want to be too critical because I like Pakistan a lot (was born there), but it's not a problem with Islam.
You don't think salwaar kameez instead of "proper hijab" is a problem with Islam after all?the_new_mr wrote:Well, the scholars are scholars because they're scholars What I mean is that they have more knowledge. But that doesn't mean I should just take them at face value.InFront wrote:Listening to an expert does not preclude independent thought
Glad to hear that.:) (Not all people are such independent thinkers, though.)the_new_mr wrote:Also, scholars differ with each other on different matters and they of course can't all be right if they differ (well, maybe they can in that different scholars in different locations of the world may give different opinions based on what God wants to be heard in that location... but that's another thread really).
Interesting idea.the_new_mr wrote:You're right that just because a scholar says something then that doesn't necessarily make it true. But I think that what InFront meant was that since a large majority of scholars tend to come to this opinion based upon their vast knowledge then there must be something in it.
I understand your point. It’s very close to the way I was taught when I was a Catholic, though.the_new_mr wrote:In passing though, I think the quote of that man Zakawi Badawi was in the context of when women in the UK were being harassed after 9/11 or 7/7.
Indeed.the_new_mr wrote:Also in passing, the verse number 17:36 (Surat Al-Isra) seems to have a different meaning to what I understand from the Arabic and the other three translations I read. It's not really relevant to the discussion but I felt compelled to say so since it's something I know and therefore it is an obligation on me to say it.
Yes, actually I was familiar with some of the other translations of this verse. Since I am not Arabic-speaking I must admit I have no idea of which one is most accurate. My reform Muslim friends claim that the traditional translations are not very good (sometimes even not truthful) because they are too influenced by hadith, but I cannot tell who is right about this. I just chose that translation of 17:36 because I find it very good advice.
The freeminds translation http://www.free-minds.org/quran/ of the same verse say: “And do not uphold what you have no knowledge of. For the hearing, eyesight, and mind, all these you are responsible for.”
That’s probably very good advice too - especially for me, I am sure a lot of people would say...;) .the_new_mr wrote:
That's not to say that the translation of Dr. Rashad Khalifa is invalid altogether (although I'm not familiar with it). Just that maybe this particular verse wasn't translated as well.
As I said, I have no idea. Just thought it was a great advice. Anyway there are a lot of other verses in the Qur’an (all translations) who urges everybody to think and reflect.the_new_mr wrote:
Also, that site says that a large majority of hadith are unauthentic. This also complies with something my cousin told me once (and he's pretty knowledgeable in these things) that only about 600 hadith can be considered authentic. Not sure what amount of truth is in that. Must find out more about this some time.
That’s interesting, indeed.the_new_mr wrote:
The article you linked to is quite interesting but I have to say, she makes a fairly large jump to the ideas she put forward in the article and the part where she begins to say "In conclusion...". Especially the bit about keeping women in a subordinate position. I know of a lot of Muslim women who would feel very angry at such a statement and would say that they don't feel like they've been kept in a subordinate position at all.
Yes, I also know Muslim women who don’t feel oppressed at all, and probably are not either.
In some Muslim countries, though, women have very little freedom and few rights. And the religion is (mis-)used to keep it that way.the_new_mr wrote:
There are a few errors in the article. One example is the idea that the Quran was compiled under the 3rd khaliph of Islam (Uthman Ibn 'Affan). As far as I know, the Quran was compiled under the 1st khaliph of Islam (Abu Bakr Al-Sadeeq) only two years after the Prophet's death. The truth is that it wouldn't have made any difference whether it was under Abu-Bakr or Uthman since literally thousands had the Quran completely committed to memory but it's just an example of inaccuracy in the article.
Thanks for the corrections!
And thank you both for kind answers/comments to my questions! I don’t claim to have any knowledge of what is "right" or "wrong" Islam, of course. My main point is just that there are more than one opinion about these things (e.g if hijab is a religious duty), also among Muslims.
Have a nice day!
M.:)0 -
Thanks, I'll fix itmaitri wrote:Oh, that's InFront's post. Not mine.
I think what he meant was that it's not Islam that makes them dress that way.maitri wrote:You don't think salwaar kameez instead of "proper hijab" is a problem with Islam after all?
The "was" has sparked my curiositymaitri wrote:It’s very close to the way I was taught when I was a Catholic, though.. What are you now?
Well, it's very complicated because every translation is in truth a translation of someone's interpretation. That's because the translator must read the Arabic verse, decide what it means and then produce the English of what they think it means.maitri wrote:Yes, actually I was familiar with some of the other translations of this verse. Since I am not Arabic-speaking I must admit I have no idea of which one is most accurate. My reform Muslim friends claim that the traditional translations are not very good (sometimes even not truthful) because they are too influenced by hadith, but I cannot tell who is right about this.
What I find is that one translator may translate one verse better than other but the other translator may translate another verse better. That's in my very humble opinion mind you. I can't comment on the one of Dr. Rashad Khalifa but, from my own experience, if you read one of Shakir, Asad, Ali or Picktall, you should be okay.
Yeah, very true. We should definitely reflect. God gave us our minds to use.maitri wrote:Anyway there are a lot of other verses in the Qur’an (all translations) who urges everybody to think and reflect.
That's true in some Muslim countries alright. It stinks like rotten meat.maitri wrote:In some Muslim countries, though, women have very little freedom and few rights. And the religion is (mis-)used to keep it that way.
You're totally welcomemaitri wrote:Thanks for the corrections!
And thank you both for kind answers/comments to my questions!
Yeah, I know what you mean. Don't worry about it. Discussion is good anywaymaitri wrote:I don’t claim to have any knowledge of what is "right" or "wrong" Islam, of course. My main point is just that there are more than one opinion about these things (e.g if hijab is a religious duty), also among Muslims. 0 -
the_new_mr wrote:
The "was" has sparked my curiosity. What are you now?
Well, if I really have to define myself, I would say that I’m Agnostic.
By this I just mean that I try not to pretend that I have knowledge which I really don’t have, especially when it comes to such metaphysical questions that “by their nature” cannot really be proved or disproved. I also try not to form too strong opinions or beliefs about metaphysical (religious) theories or speculations.
When it comes to spiritual practice (meditation) and lifestyle I guess those could be called Buddhist. (And so is my nickname as well as my Nanin-signature right now.)
But I don't find such definitions very important.the_new_mr wrote:Well, it's very complicated because every translation is in truth a translation of someone's interpretation
Anyway, texts that don’t have more than one possible interpretation are usually not all that interesting as I see it.the_new_mr wrote:Discussion is good anyway
Absolutely!:)0 -
Originally posted by maitri
You don't think salwaar kameez instead of "proper hijab" is a problem with Islam after all?
Yeah, what the_new_mr said!the_new_mr wrote:I think what he meant was that it's not Islam that makes them dress that way.
What I should have said is that salwaar kameez is a cultural tradition for the area, and wearing it by itself wouldn't be the described as observing real hijab (for women).0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
Advertisement