Muslim women speak out against the hijab as an element of political Islam

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Is Asra Nomani's name continually brought up because her lifestyle is considered unsavory? What about her co-author Hala Arafa?

It's odd that you invoke Leila Ahmed as an authority for your view when the article cites her as one of the Muslim scholars supporting the interpretation they set forth of the particular Quranic verse in question.

Leila Ahmed is a serious academic on Islam and its history. That is way more than can be said for any of the various so-called scholars whose views on Islam are disseminated on the internet telling women they must wear the hijab or face damnation.

There are hundreds of Islamic scholars out there who can match Leila Ahmed degree for degree, and view covering as necessary. Plus, I really don't think you are qualified to sort the serious from the un-serious. You are armed with nothing but your ardent wish of "how things ought to be" and it just isn't a good yardstick for measuring pedigrees in Islamic scholarship. Just because someone says things you don't like doesn't make them unqualified.

But it was you, or a PP of your views, who trotted out Leila Ahmed as supporting the view that the Quran requires the hijab. That is not her view based on her reading of the texts, and she is far from alone. But the PP somehow felt her credentials were impressive enough to cite her in defense of the view that the hijab is required.

Most of what passes for Islamic scholarship is a joke and is mired in mind boggling literal mindedness that has never experienced critical thinking. This is particularly true in the Middle East where the very bottom of matriculants to universities enter the school of religion because their grades are so low none of the other schools can accept them. They best and brightest go into medicine and engineering; the worst and dimmest go into religion. If it weren't so pathetic, it would be laughable that people look to these so-called scholars for a deeper understanding of their religion.

The situation is different in the West, where there is a long tradition of some of the brightest going into the liberal arts, including theology, and bringing rigorous critical analysis to bear on their disciplines. And this tradition comes to us by way of the Renaissance, which in turn was heavily influenced by the great Muslim thinkers who preceded it. Unfortunately, Islamic scholarship has been in serious decline since.

It wasn't me. I am agnostic on Leila Ahmed and unaware of the rigor of her theological pedigree. I know her primarily as a historian who wrote about women's rights and position in pre-Islamic Arabia, and her views on the subject are far apart from the tired myth of "jahilia was hell for women."

I am merely pointing out that you can't really evaluate the rigor of someone's Islamic scholarship credentials based on whether you personally approve of what you have to say. There are literally hundreds of scholars who believe, based on their studies, that covering is necessary, and it's illogical to discard their scholarship wholesale because you happen to disagree with its conclusions. Furthermore, if everyone who majors in Islamic studies comes from the bottom of the genetic barrel, then this charge would apply equally to Leila Ahmed. Just saying. I don't know you but I am sensing that you aren't really well versed in Islamic scholarship enough to be able to sort out whose daleel (chain of evidence) is right and whose is bogus. You are evaluating scholars based on your personal views about conclusions to which they come, and that's wrong.

Finally, there are like dozens of Western-educated Islamic theologians who all support veiling.

NP. Sure, there are many many Islamic scholars who support covering. Does that invalidate the ones that don't? Do you count the numbers, and if more are on one side of an issue than the other, then follow the majority? Islam seems to be full of scholars, who support all sorts of contradictory opinions. I don't automatically assume they are all wrong, or worthless scholars.

Did you mean to use the word "support"? Because almost ALL scholars support veiling if done by women for modesty. The point is not to debate its requirement. We know this is a point of contention and the Quran does not force it. The point is that modest clothing is required in Islam and hair shoukd not be displayed for beauty.

The most important point is for Asra to gracefully bow out of discussions where she tries to interpret Islam. She lacks credibiity by virtue of her unidlamic lifestyle. Even her coauthor lacks authority to interpret the Quranic ayahs.

I knew Asra back when she was just 9 years old. I knew her family. She was angry from the very beginning. She hated the "rules" Islam imposed on women. She has just been trying to find a way to fit in. She couldn't, so she thought she could change Muslim public perception of Islam. She can't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
There are not billions of Muslims. More like 1.5 billion.

Yes, many Muslims read the Quran--more like memorize it--without the slightest idea of what it means. But if you Arab and literate, as Ms. Arafa is, it is not so different from an English speaker reading Shakespeare because written Arabic has changed very slowly relative to written English. With a few aids, you certainly can understand it.

I gather you are not a native Arabic speaker as you seem so in awe of what you present as a document accessible only to those with special knowledge. This is a form of gnosticism, and is totally contrary to the spirit of the Quran.

Interpretation is a different matter altogether. There are many, many interpretations possible. I repeat that true Islamic theologians find the matter of women covering of no consequence as it is such a peripheral issue and so non-central to Islam.

History of fashion is an altogether different matter. The relevant historical fact here is that the hijab is very recent in origin and generations of women did not cover their hair without anyone suggesting they were in violation of Islamic dictates.

You prefer Mr. Yusuf's version. So much so that you linked him twice--no link to Leila Ahmed, who herself does not wear hijab, so--just guessing here--I am pretty sure she does not think it's necessary to enter heaven. (I can't believe you really said that. Really? No hijab, no heaven?)

This, a million times. The whole point of the Quran was that, supposedly, Christians and Jews had got it wrong, so God was finally going to send something so clear that the average person would be able to read and understand immediately. There was supposed to be no need for a hierarchy of theologians to interpret things, at least among the Sunnis.

Which is why it's so annoying to read on DCUM, quite frequently, that "if you disagree, it's because you haven't spent years learning Quranic Arabic and history."

In Islam's early days and for centuries thereafter, many women didn't veil because they worked in the fields or at manual tasks, and a veil would have been impossible to manage. The veil was actually a symbol of class status.

+1 to everything, especially the part that is bolded.

Well maybe to prove us wrong you should study the Quran and islamic history and then come back and tell us if you hold the same opinion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Muslim men are encouraged to have beard. Clothing wise, as long as it covered between the navel and knee, loose clothing.

The beard is for emulating Mohammed. Who was modest, it goes without saying, but modesty isn't the first reason for the beard.

This was a way to show off their manliness, right?

Well, some women have beards, too, you know. . .

No, they're imitating Mohammed. Which some women can indeed do....

I remember reading one interpretation of the beard as a representation of manliness.
http://www.al-islam.org/articles/islamic-perspective-of-the-beard

The Three Aspects Regarding The Beard

1. The beard is a part of the male anatomy which beautifies, gives respectability and adorns the man. (That is only when it is kept in good trim).

2. The beard is a natural inherent part of the biological characteristics of the male gender of the human being, its purpose is to differentiate between the male and the female. This very conclusion is also derived by logical reasoning and intellect. We should also bear in mind that the intellect is one of the most important factors which separates the human being from the other animal species.

3. In answer to the supplication made by our grandfather Adam (as), Allah, the Blessed, the Exalted, made the growth of the beard an in-built natural feature of the male, a feature which will continue being such till the day of reckoning.

And an attractively worn veil may actually look sexy. They key is the individuals intent. Most Muslim who wear beards dont do it to show off manliness. LOL. Its to be humble and try to follow Prophet Muhammad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
There are not billions of Muslims. More like 1.5 billion.

Yes, many Muslims read the Quran--more like memorize it--without the slightest idea of what it means. But if you Arab and literate, as Ms. Arafa is, it is not so different from an English speaker reading Shakespeare because written Arabic has changed very slowly relative to written English. With a few aids, you certainly can understand it.

I gather you are not a native Arabic speaker as you seem so in awe of what you present as a document accessible only to those with special knowledge. This is a form of gnosticism, and is totally contrary to the spirit of the Quran.

Interpretation is a different matter altogether. There are many, many interpretations possible. I repeat that true Islamic theologians find the matter of women covering of no consequence as it is such a peripheral issue and so non-central to Islam.

History of fashion is an altogether different matter. The relevant historical fact here is that the hijab is very recent in origin and generations of women did not cover their hair without anyone suggesting they were in violation of Islamic dictates.

You prefer Mr. Yusuf's version. So much so that you linked him twice--no link to Leila Ahmed, who herself does not wear hijab, so--just guessing here--I am pretty sure she does not think it's necessary to enter heaven. (I can't believe you really said that. Really? No hijab, no heaven?)

This, a million times. The whole point of the Quran was that, supposedly, Christians and Jews had got it wrong, so God was finally going to send something so clear that the average person would be able to read and understand immediately. There was supposed to be no need for a hierarchy of theologians to interpret things, at least among the Sunnis.

Which is why it's so annoying to read on DCUM, quite frequently, that "if you disagree, it's because you haven't spent years learning Quranic Arabic and history."

In Islam's early days and for centuries thereafter, many women didn't veil because they worked in the fields or at manual tasks, and a veil would have been impossible to manage. The veil was actually a symbol of class status.

+1 to everything, especially the part that is bolded.

Well maybe to prove us wrong you should study the Quran and islamic history and then come back and tell us if you hold the same opinion.

Words fail.

You're talking to me. I did, however, do two semesters of Islamic history in college (as part of a Middle Ages history major). I have also read the Quran, including tracking the changing historical context as the Quran was revealed. Willing to bet I know more about it than you do. I haven't been posting much on this thread, but if academic creds are an issue for you, than as a non-Muslim I may have better creds than you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Muslim men are encouraged to have beard. Clothing wise, as long as it covered between the navel and knee, loose clothing.

The beard is for emulating Mohammed. Who was modest, it goes without saying, but modesty isn't the first reason for the beard.

This was a way to show off their manliness, right?

Well, some women have beards, too, you know. . .

No, they're imitating Mohammed. Which some women can indeed do....

I remember reading one interpretation of the beard as a representation of manliness.
http://www.al-islam.org/articles/islamic-perspective-of-the-beard

The Three Aspects Regarding The Beard

1. The beard is a part of the male anatomy which beautifies, gives respectability and adorns the man. (That is only when it is kept in good trim).

2. The beard is a natural inherent part of the biological characteristics of the male gender of the human being, its purpose is to differentiate between the male and the female. This very conclusion is also derived by logical reasoning and intellect. We should also bear in mind that the intellect is one of the most important factors which separates the human being from the other animal species.

3. In answer to the supplication made by our grandfather Adam (as), Allah, the Blessed, the Exalted, made the growth of the beard an in-built natural feature of the male, a feature which will continue being such till the day of reckoning.

And an attractively worn veil may actually look sexy. They key is the individuals intent. Most Muslim who wear beards dont do it to show off manliness. LOL. Its to be humble and try to follow Prophet Muhammad.

How is wearing a beard a humble gesture? to look like a homeless man on the street?

wtf?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
There are not billions of Muslims. More like 1.5 billion.

Yes, many Muslims read the Quran--more like memorize it--without the slightest idea of what it means. But if you Arab and literate, as Ms. Arafa is, it is not so different from an English speaker reading Shakespeare because written Arabic has changed very slowly relative to written English. With a few aids, you certainly can understand it.

I gather you are not a native Arabic speaker as you seem so in awe of what you present as a document accessible only to those with special knowledge. This is a form of gnosticism, and is totally contrary to the spirit of the Quran.

Interpretation is a different matter altogether. There are many, many interpretations possible. I repeat that true Islamic theologians find the matter of women covering of no consequence as it is such a peripheral issue and so non-central to Islam.

History of fashion is an altogether different matter. The relevant historical fact here is that the hijab is very recent in origin and generations of women did not cover their hair without anyone suggesting they were in violation of Islamic dictates.

You prefer Mr. Yusuf's version. So much so that you linked him twice--no link to Leila Ahmed, who herself does not wear hijab, so--just guessing here--I am pretty sure she does not think it's necessary to enter heaven. (I can't believe you really said that. Really? No hijab, no heaven?)

This, a million times. The whole point of the Quran was that, supposedly, Christians and Jews had got it wrong, so God was finally going to send something so clear that the average person would be able to read and understand immediately. There was supposed to be no need for a hierarchy of theologians to interpret things, at least among the Sunnis.

Which is why it's so annoying to read on DCUM, quite frequently, that "if you disagree, it's because you haven't spent years learning Quranic Arabic and history."

In Islam's early days and for centuries thereafter, many women didn't veil because they worked in the fields or at manual tasks, and a veil would have been impossible to manage. The veil was actually a symbol of class status.

+1 to everything, especially the part that is bolded.

Well maybe to prove us wrong you should study the Quran and islamic history and then come back and tell us if you hold the same opinion.

If you study the Quran w/in a context, you'll find that "God's" rules were man-made. Take halal, for example. Do you really think a voice from the heavens warned people not to eat carrion? lol!

There was no way of knowing how long an animal had been dead. Therefore, stay away from it, as it can be diseased. That's not God's word; that's common sense.

Kosher rules apply to pigs, too. So you'll see connections between halal and kosher practices. One theory states that pigs, which were part of the Philistine diet, were off limits to Jews b/c Jews wanted to distinguish themselves from the others. God didn't come down and say, "NO PIGS! They are unclean." And they drained animals of blood b/c they didn't want to consume the animal's soul which they believed was house in the blood.

These beliefs are so outdated and laughable. Yet people are anchored to them and can't make a move w/o first consulting an ancient text.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Leila Ahmed was born in Egypt and reared there, but her family emigrated to Europe when life became difficult under Nasser. She received her PhD from Cambridge. So her scholarship is in the Western tradition.

Dalil means proof and is used in Islamic law. Are you sure you did not mean isnad, or chain of narrartors of a hadith? I ask because what is being contested here is what is in the Quran and not what it is in the hadith. Hadith are not needed to discern meaning in the Quran, which itsel says its meaning is clear, so whether you are speaking of dalil or isnad it is irrelevant.

I wasn't aware that you have single-handedly decided that hadith has to be excluded from the body of Islamic law foundations. I mean, you are free to think that hadith is irrelevant. You should know that this is a minority position in the Islamic theologian crowd. Most scholars look to strong hadith as examples of how Quranic verses were practiced. But do please feel free to tell Muslims the way they pray is wrong and irrelevant - because you know, the movements of Muslim prayer aren't really outlined in the Quran, but somehow the entire Muslim world knows how to pray.

You are twisting what I said. I said that that hadith is not needed to understand verses in the Quran. If you hold the position that the hadith are needed then you are positing that the Quran is obscure and unclear, in contradiction to what the Quran itself says.

Understand in this context means to the extent needed by ordinary human beings. It does not rule out that there may be deeper meanings in the Quran that few grasp. But certainly, how you are supposed to dress has to be one of those things that needs to be clear to ordinary human beings.

Thus, the passage about women drawing their khimar about their chest (which is the verse used used to say women must wear the hijab) has to be about exactly that--a command for women to cover their chests. It has nothing to do with hair and it has nothing to do with faces, even though the khimar was a kind of cloak sometimes slung around the shoulders and other time around the head partially covering the hair, much as a shawl today might be used.

This is all pretty clear, and there is no need to go scurrying off to the hadith to figure out what is meant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
There are not billions of Muslims. More like 1.5 billion.

Yes, many Muslims read the Quran--more like memorize it--without the slightest idea of what it means. But if you Arab and literate, as Ms. Arafa is, it is not so different from an English speaker reading Shakespeare because written Arabic has changed very slowly relative to written English. With a few aids, you certainly can understand it.

I gather you are not a native Arabic speaker as you seem so in awe of what you present as a document accessible only to those with special knowledge. This is a form of gnosticism, and is totally contrary to the spirit of the Quran.

Interpretation is a different matter altogether. There are many, many interpretations possible. I repeat that true Islamic theologians find the matter of women covering of no consequence as it is such a peripheral issue and so non-central to Islam.

History of fashion is an altogether different matter. The relevant historical fact here is that the hijab is very recent in origin and generations of women did not cover their hair without anyone suggesting they were in violation of Islamic dictates.

You prefer Mr. Yusuf's version. So much so that you linked him twice--no link to Leila Ahmed, who herself does not wear hijab, so--just guessing here--I am pretty sure she does not think it's necessary to enter heaven. (I can't believe you really said that. Really? No hijab, no heaven?)

This, a million times. The whole point of the Quran was that, supposedly, Christians and Jews had got it wrong, so God was finally going to send something so clear that the average person would be able to read and understand immediately. There was supposed to be no need for a hierarchy of theologians to interpret things, at least among the Sunnis.

Which is why it's so annoying to read on DCUM, quite frequently, that "if you disagree, it's because you haven't spent years learning Quranic Arabic and history."

In Islam's early days and for centuries thereafter, many women didn't veil because they worked in the fields or at manual tasks, and a veil would have been impossible to manage. The veil was actually a symbol of class status.

+1 to everything, especially the part that is bolded.

Well maybe to prove us wrong you should study the Quran and islamic history and then come back and tell us if you hold the same opinion.

Words fail.

You're talking to me. I did, however, do two semesters of Islamic history in college (as part of a Middle Ages history major). I have also read the Quran, including tracking the changing historical context as the Quran was revealed. Willing to bet I know more about it than you do. I haven't been posting much on this thread, but if academic creds are an issue for you, than as a non-Muslim I may have better creds than you.

+1 here. Words fail me too, and I am betting I also have better creds than you.

I did many semesters of Islamic history and studied classical Arabic, reading medieval texts including the Quran. Not in its entirety, to be sure, and it's been many years. But I can read the Arabic in it yet today, sometimes needing the help of a dictionary and my old grammar books.

Despite this, or maybe because of this, I absolutely refute the view that one needs to be scholar to properly understand Islam. This feeds directly into the hands of the neo-Islamists whose agenda is to cow Muslims into believing they must rely on and follow the dictates of a priestly scholar class to be true Muslims as a way of gaining power over them. This is distinctly contrary to Islam, but it is a clever way to usurp political authority over susceptible people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
There are not billions of Muslims. More like 1.5 billion.

Yes, many Muslims read the Quran--more like memorize it--without the slightest idea of what it means. But if you Arab and literate, as Ms. Arafa is, it is not so different from an English speaker reading Shakespeare because written Arabic has changed very slowly relative to written English. With a few aids, you certainly can understand it.

I gather you are not a native Arabic speaker as you seem so in awe of what you present as a document accessible only to those with special knowledge. This is a form of gnosticism, and is totally contrary to the spirit of the Quran.

Interpretation is a different matter altogether. There are many, many interpretations possible. I repeat that true Islamic theologians find the matter of women covering of no consequence as it is such a peripheral issue and so non-central to Islam.

History of fashion is an altogether different matter. The relevant historical fact here is that the hijab is very recent in origin and generations of women did not cover their hair without anyone suggesting they were in violation of Islamic dictates.

You prefer Mr. Yusuf's version. So much so that you linked him twice--no link to Leila Ahmed, who herself does not wear hijab, so--just guessing here--I am pretty sure she does not think it's necessary to enter heaven. (I can't believe you really said that. Really? No hijab, no heaven?)

This, a million times. The whole point of the Quran was that, supposedly, Christians and Jews had got it wrong, so God was finally going to send something so clear that the average person would be able to read and understand immediately. There was supposed to be no need for a hierarchy of theologians to interpret things, at least among the Sunnis.

Which is why it's so annoying to read on DCUM, quite frequently, that "if you disagree, it's because you haven't spent years learning Quranic Arabic and history."

In Islam's early days and for centuries thereafter, many women didn't veil because they worked in the fields or at manual tasks, and a veil would have been impossible to manage. The veil was actually a symbol of class status.

+1 to everything, especially the part that is bolded.

Well maybe to prove us wrong you should study the Quran and islamic history and then come back and tell us if you hold the same opinion.

Words fail.

You're talking to me. I did, however, do two semesters of Islamic history in college (as part of a Middle Ages history major). I have also read the Quran, including tracking the changing historical context as the Quran was revealed. Willing to bet I know more about it than you do. I haven't been posting much on this thread, but if academic creds are an issue for you, than as a non-Muslim I may have better creds than you.

+1 here. Words fail me too, and I am betting I also have better creds than you.

I did many semesters of Islamic history and studied classical Arabic, reading medieval texts including the Quran. Not in its entirety, to be sure, and it's been many years. But I can read the Arabic in it yet today, sometimes needing the help of a dictionary and my old grammar books.

Despite this, or maybe because of this, I absolutely refute the view that one needs to be scholar to properly understand Islam. This feeds directly into the hands of the neo-Islamists whose agenda is to cow Muslims into believing they must rely on and follow the dictates of a priestly scholar class to be true Muslims as a way of gaining power over them. This is distinctly contrary to Islam, but it is a clever way to usurp political authority over susceptible people.

You do have better creds than me! We agree, however, that the idea of a priestly class charged with interpreting the Quran is antithetical to sunni Islam's original presentation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Leila Ahmed was born in Egypt and reared there, but her family emigrated to Europe when life became difficult under Nasser. She received her PhD from Cambridge. So her scholarship is in the Western tradition.

Dalil means proof and is used in Islamic law. Are you sure you did not mean isnad, or chain of narrartors of a hadith? I ask because what is being contested here is what is in the Quran and not what it is in the hadith. Hadith are not needed to discern meaning in the Quran, which itsel says its meaning is clear, so whether you are speaking of dalil or isnad it is irrelevant.

I wasn't aware that you have single-handedly decided that hadith has to be excluded from the body of Islamic law foundations. I mean, you are free to think that hadith is irrelevant. You should know that this is a minority position in the Islamic theologian crowd. Most scholars look to strong hadith as examples of how Quranic verses were practiced. But do please feel free to tell Muslims the way they pray is wrong and irrelevant - because you know, the movements of Muslim prayer aren't really outlined in the Quran, but somehow the entire Muslim world knows how to pray.

You are twisting what I said. I said that that hadith is not needed to understand verses in the Quran. If you hold the position that the hadith are needed then you are positing that the Quran is obscure and unclear, in contradiction to what the Quran itself says.

Understand in this context means to the extent needed by ordinary human beings. It does not rule out that there may be deeper meanings in the Quran that few grasp. But certainly, how you are supposed to dress has to be one of those things that needs to be clear to ordinary human beings.

Thus, the passage about women drawing their khimar about their chest (which is the verse used used to say women must wear the hijab) has to be about exactly that--a command for women to cover their chests. It has nothing to do with hair and it has nothing to do with faces, even though the khimar was a kind of cloak sometimes slung around the shoulders and other time around the head partially covering the hair, much as a shawl today might be used.

This is all pretty clear, and there is no need to go scurrying off to the hadith to figure out what is meant.

Of course the hadith is needed to understand the Quranic verses that are unclear or obscure. Of course the Quran has those. It doesn't matter what the Quran itself says about its supposed clarity; of course it would say that, wouldn't it?

The Quran tells you to pray. It doesn't tell you how to pray. Yet clearly there IS a way to pray, which the entire Muslim world has embraced. The way to figure that out was to watch people do it at the time when it was revealed as they believed it.

The Quran asks women to cover their adornments "except that which is apparent." If that phrase is not obscure, I don't know what is. Do you know which ones of your adornments are apparent? No? The way to understand just what it means is to look at practice of those who were present at the time this verse became law. If they interpreted this verse as the command to cover everything except the face, well, that's your answer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Leila Ahmed was born in Egypt and reared there, but her family emigrated to Europe when life became difficult under Nasser. She received her PhD from Cambridge. So her scholarship is in the Western tradition.

Dalil means proof and is used in Islamic law. Are you sure you did not mean isnad, or chain of narrartors of a hadith? I ask because what is being contested here is what is in the Quran and not what it is in the hadith. Hadith are not needed to discern meaning in the Quran, which itsel says its meaning is clear, so whether you are speaking of dalil or isnad it is irrelevant.

I wasn't aware that you have single-handedly decided that hadith has to be excluded from the body of Islamic law foundations. I mean, you are free to think that hadith is irrelevant. You should know that this is a minority position in the Islamic theologian crowd. Most scholars look to strong hadith as examples of how Quranic verses were practiced. But do please feel free to tell Muslims the way they pray is wrong and irrelevant - because you know, the movements of Muslim prayer aren't really outlined in the Quran, but somehow the entire Muslim world knows how to pray.

You are twisting what I said. I said that that hadith is not needed to understand verses in the Quran. If you hold the position that the hadith are needed then you are positing that the Quran is obscure and unclear, in contradiction to what the Quran itself says.

Understand in this context means to the extent needed by ordinary human beings. It does not rule out that there may be deeper meanings in the Quran that few grasp. But certainly, how you are supposed to dress has to be one of those things that needs to be clear to ordinary human beings.

Thus, the passage about women drawing their khimar about their chest (which is the verse used used to say women must wear the hijab) has to be about exactly that--a command for women to cover their chests. It has nothing to do with hair and it has nothing to do with faces, even though the khimar was a kind of cloak sometimes slung around the shoulders and other time around the head partially covering the hair, much as a shawl today might be used.

This is all pretty clear, and there is no need to go scurrying off to the hadith to figure out what is meant.

LOL you say it is clear and then in the same breath you say the cloak was sometimes worn around the shoulders and sometimes around the head, so how do you know from which position it has to be drawn?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
If you study the Quran w/in a context, you'll find that "God's" rules were man-made. Take halal, for example. Do you really think a voice from the heavens warned people not to eat carrion? lol!

There was no way of knowing how long an animal had been dead. Therefore, stay away from it, as it can be diseased. That's not God's word; that's common sense.

Kosher rules apply to pigs, too. So you'll see connections between halal and kosher practices. One theory states that pigs, which were part of the Philistine diet, were off limits to Jews b/c Jews wanted to distinguish themselves from the others. God didn't come down and say, "NO PIGS! They are unclean." And they drained animals of blood b/c they didn't want to consume the animal's soul which they believed was house in the blood.

These beliefs are so outdated and laughable. Yet people are anchored to them and can't make a move w/o first consulting an ancient text.

Of course it's manmade, but no one is arguing for its divine origin. If the community of people agrees to follow a set of rules, that's all that matters. The opinion of nonmembers is irrelevant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Leila Ahmed was born in Egypt and reared there, but her family emigrated to Europe when life became difficult under Nasser. She received her PhD from Cambridge. So her scholarship is in the Western tradition.

Dalil means proof and is used in Islamic law. Are you sure you did not mean isnad, or chain of narrartors of a hadith? I ask because what is being contested here is what is in the Quran and not what it is in the hadith. Hadith are not needed to discern meaning in the Quran, which itsel says its meaning is clear, so whether you are speaking of dalil or isnad it is irrelevant.

I wasn't aware that you have single-handedly decided that hadith has to be excluded from the body of Islamic law foundations. I mean, you are free to think that hadith is irrelevant. You should know that this is a minority position in the Islamic theologian crowd. Most scholars look to strong hadith as examples of how Quranic verses were practiced. But do please feel free to tell Muslims the way they pray is wrong and irrelevant - because you know, the movements of Muslim prayer aren't really outlined in the Quran, but somehow the entire Muslim world knows how to pray.

You are twisting what I said. I said that that hadith is not needed to understand verses in the Quran. If you hold the position that the hadith are needed then you are positing that the Quran is obscure and unclear, in contradiction to what the Quran itself says.

Understand in this context means to the extent needed by ordinary human beings. It does not rule out that there may be deeper meanings in the Quran that few grasp. But certainly, how you are supposed to dress has to be one of those things that needs to be clear to ordinary human beings.

Thus, the passage about women drawing their khimar about their chest (which is the verse used used to say women must wear the hijab) has to be about exactly that--a command for women to cover their chests. It has nothing to do with hair and it has nothing to do with faces, even though the khimar was a kind of cloak sometimes slung around the shoulders and other time around the head partially covering the hair, much as a shawl today might be used.

This is all pretty clear, and there is no need to go scurrying off to the hadith to figure out what is meant.

LOL you say it is clear and then in the same breath you say the cloak was sometimes worn around the shoulders and sometimes around the head, so how do you know from which position it has to be drawn?

Doesn't matter. The khimar was a commonly worn large shawl type garment. The important thing was to cover the chest. So you could have the shawl over your shoulders or draped about your head (as many here do when it is cold) and it wouldn't matter in term of covering your chest.

Because the khimar was so common, it was the obvious thing fit for the purpose of covering the chest. The khimar was probably most often worn over the head as protection from the sun, but that does not mean that it covered the hair completely or that anyone thought that was the point or even a side purpose of a khimar (although that is the point of the modern day hijab).

FWIW, in pre-Islamic Arabia it was not uncommon to see quite partial nudity, either because people were poor and had skimpy clothing or because of the style of dress as many garments were not sewn together. In addition, both men and women were known to perform the pilgrimage in Mecca (there was one before Islam) naked or nearly so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
There are not billions of Muslims. More like 1.5 billion.

Yes, many Muslims read the Quran--more like memorize it--without the slightest idea of what it means. But if you Arab and literate, as Ms. Arafa is, it is not so different from an English speaker reading Shakespeare because written Arabic has changed very slowly relative to written English. With a few aids, you certainly can understand it.

I gather you are not a native Arabic speaker as you seem so in awe of what you present as a document accessible only to those with special knowledge. This is a form of gnosticism, and is totally contrary to the spirit of the Quran.

Interpretation is a different matter altogether. There are many, many interpretations possible. I repeat that true Islamic theologians find the matter of women covering of no consequence as it is such a peripheral issue and so non-central to Islam.

History of fashion is an altogether different matter. The relevant historical fact here is that the hijab is very recent in origin and generations of women did not cover their hair without anyone suggesting they were in violation of Islamic dictates.

You prefer Mr. Yusuf's version. So much so that you linked him twice--no link to Leila Ahmed, who herself does not wear hijab, so--just guessing here--I am pretty sure she does not think it's necessary to enter heaven. (I can't believe you really said that. Really? No hijab, no heaven?)

This, a million times. The whole point of the Quran was that, supposedly, Christians and Jews had got it wrong, so God was finally going to send something so clear that the average person would be able to read and understand immediately. There was supposed to be no need for a hierarchy of theologians to interpret things, at least among the Sunnis.

Which is why it's so annoying to read on DCUM, quite frequently, that "if you disagree, it's because you haven't spent years learning Quranic Arabic and history."

In Islam's early days and for centuries thereafter, many women didn't veil because they worked in the fields or at manual tasks, and a veil would have been impossible to manage. The veil was actually a symbol of class status.

+1 to everything, especially the part that is bolded.

Well maybe to prove us wrong you should study the Quran and islamic history and then come back and tell us if you hold the same opinion.

Words fail.

You're talking to me. I did, however, do two semesters of Islamic history in college (as part of a Middle Ages history major). I have also read the Quran, including tracking the changing historical context as the Quran was revealed. Willing to bet I know more about it than you do. I haven't been posting much on this thread, but if academic creds are an issue for you, than as a non-Muslim I may have better creds than you.

I can't tell if I'm communicating with an adult DCUM'er or an arrogant tween brat here. How old are you? This much I know, your two semesters in college don't put you on quite the same standing as Leila Ahmed, Karen Armstrong, and Mark Jeurgensmeyer, Muzammil Siddiqi. Muslims will not be interested in your interpretation or opinion, either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
There are not billions of Muslims. More like 1.5 billion.

Yes, many Muslims read the Quran--more like memorize it--without the slightest idea of what it means. But if you Arab and literate, as Ms. Arafa is, it is not so different from an English speaker reading Shakespeare because written Arabic has changed very slowly relative to written English. With a few aids, you certainly can understand it.

I gather you are not a native Arabic speaker as you seem so in awe of what you present as a document accessible only to those with special knowledge. This is a form of gnosticism, and is totally contrary to the spirit of the Quran.

Interpretation is a different matter altogether. There are many, many interpretations possible. I repeat that true Islamic theologians find the matter of women covering of no consequence as it is such a peripheral issue and so non-central to Islam.

History of fashion is an altogether different matter. The relevant historical fact here is that the hijab is very recent in origin and generations of women did not cover their hair without anyone suggesting they were in violation of Islamic dictates.

You prefer Mr. Yusuf's version. So much so that you linked him twice--no link to Leila Ahmed, who herself does not wear hijab, so--just guessing here--I am pretty sure she does not think it's necessary to enter heaven. (I can't believe you really said that. Really? No hijab, no heaven?)

This, a million times. The whole point of the Quran was that, supposedly, Christians and Jews had got it wrong, so God was finally going to send something so clear that the average person would be able to read and understand immediately. There was supposed to be no need for a hierarchy of theologians to interpret things, at least among the Sunnis.

Which is why it's so annoying to read on DCUM, quite frequently, that "if you disagree, it's because you haven't spent years learning Quranic Arabic and history."

In Islam's early days and for centuries thereafter, many women didn't veil because they worked in the fields or at manual tasks, and a veil would have been impossible to manage. The veil was actually a symbol of class status.

+1 to everything, especially the part that is bolded.

Well maybe to prove us wrong you should study the Quran and islamic history and then come back and tell us if you hold the same opinion.

If you study the Quran w/in a context, you'll find that "God's" rules were man-made. Take halal, for example. Do you really think a voice from the heavens warned people not to eat carrion? lol!

There was no way of knowing how long an animal had been dead. Therefore, stay away from it, as it can be diseased. That's not God's word; that's common sense.

Kosher rules apply to pigs, too. So you'll see connections between halal and kosher practices. One theory states that pigs, which were part of the Philistine diet, were off limits to Jews b/c Jews wanted to distinguish themselves from the others. God didn't come down and say, "NO PIGS! They are unclean." And they drained animals of blood b/c they didn't want to consume the animal's soul which they believed was house in the blood.

These beliefs are so outdated and laughable. Yet people are anchored to them and can't make a move w/o first consulting an ancient text.

Yes, we are "anchored" to them, because to us it is not man made, it is God's word. We are not interested in debating that with you because in our hearts we are content with our loyalty to that "ancient" text. What is intriguing is how much it irks you, however. Enough that you need to repeatedly mock someone who simply doesn't share your views.