Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You are assuming the khimar may have been worn for protection from the sun instead of modesty reasons. We know that modesty is important in Islam because God asked women to use that cloak or shawl to cover women's breasts. He asked women to cover their adornments too. He didn't ask women to wear the khimar to protect themselves from the sun. Hair is often used to attract people of the opposite sex. It can be seen as a woman's adornment. As such, it can be assumed that covering it is in keeping with the modesty requirement.

If God had wanted women to cover their hair, wouldn't He have been clear on such an important issue? Why is it necessary to make assumptions about an important point like this? Further, why can't we make assumptions that go in a different direction, e g., that women aren't responsible for men's urges, but instead men should learn, as a religious duty, to control their own urges.

God didn't say women are responsible for men's urges. He also asked men to lower their eyes and control themselves.

Jesus said that. "But I say to you, anyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery in his heart. If your right eye makes you stumble, tear it out and throw it away...." Harsh, maybe, but it puts the responsibility where it belongs. Is there a comparable Quranic verse?

Why SHOULD there be one? Why do you want Islam to be just like Christianity?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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.

The point, which you're apparently incapable of addressing, is that you're wrong about your own religion when you keep insisting that decades of study of history and Quranic Arabic are necessary. Or that in the absence of decades of study, Muslims should all to listen to a priestly class of your vaunted theologians. (Which of the many individuals and schools of theologians, BTW?)

Pretty sure Karen Armstrong agrees with me on the issue of decades of study not being required. You're saying something antithetical to the stated purpose of your own holy book. Not to mention, putting interpretation in the hands of men with their own cultural biases and agendas when it comes to things like veiling.

Being unable to address the point, you go for cheap insults. And since when does citing writers like Karen Armstrong, without mentioning her position on veiling, constitute an adult way to conduct an argument?

She isn't saying decades of study are required to understand her religion. She is saying that those who DID put decades of study toward understanding it happen to understand it better than you, my little two-semestered darling.

Your sad, repeated attempts to change the subject aren't going to get you out of this. Not are the childish insults.

Once again, the whole point of her holy book is that she should be able to read it and come to her own conclusions.

Denying this makes her (and you) sound either brainwashed or extremely ignorant.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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.

The point, which you're apparently incapable of addressing, is that you're wrong about your own religion when you keep insisting that decades of study of history and Quranic Arabic are necessary. Or that in the absence of decades of study, Muslims should all to listen to a priestly class of your vaunted theologians. (Which of the many individuals and schools of theologians, BTW?)

Pretty sure Karen Armstrong agrees with me on the issue of decades of study not being required. You're saying something antithetical to the stated purpose of your own holy book. Not to mention, putting interpretation in the hands of men with their own cultural biases and agendas when it comes to things like veiling.

Being unable to address the point, you go for cheap insults. And since when does citing writers like Karen Armstrong, without mentioning her position on veiling, constitute an adult way to conduct an argument?

She isn't saying decades of study are required to understand her religion. She is saying that those who DID put decades of study toward understanding it happen to understand it better than you, my little two-semestered darling.

It all depends on how one studies ancient texts.

in order to PROVE that the texts are divinely inspired

or

to PROVE they're simply a representation of cultural and historical beliefs

Do you study the texts in a bubble or do you reach OUTSIDE of your comfort zone to learn the real truth?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You are assuming the khimar may have been worn for protection from the sun instead of modesty reasons. We know that modesty is important in Islam because God asked women to use that cloak or shawl to cover women's breasts. He asked women to cover their adornments too. He didn't ask women to wear the khimar to protect themselves from the sun. Hair is often used to attract people of the opposite sex. It can be seen as a woman's adornment. As such, it can be assumed that covering it is better in keeping with the modesty requirement.

What about this nice looking lad? Shouldn't he cover his hair, too? It would be a distraction to women, no?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You are assuming the khimar may have been worn for protection from the sun instead of modesty reasons. We know that modesty is important in Islam because God asked women to use that cloak or shawl to cover women's breasts. He asked women to cover their adornments too. He didn't ask women to wear the khimar to protect themselves from the sun. Hair is often used to attract people of the opposite sex. It can be seen as a woman's adornment. As such, it can be assumed that covering it is in keeping with the modesty requirement.

If God had wanted women to cover their hair, wouldn't He have been clear on such an important issue? Why is it necessary to make assumptions about an important point like this? Further, why can't we make assumptions that go in a different direction, e g., that women aren't responsible for men's urges, but instead men should learn, as a religious duty, to control their own urges.

God didn't say women are responsible for men's urges. He also asked men to lower their eyes and control themselves.

But if they should slip and keep their eyes up, the veiling will kill all sexual urges.

Hail to the veil, I say!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You are assuming the khimar may have been worn for protection from the sun instead of modesty reasons. We know that modesty is important in Islam because God asked women to use that cloak or shawl to cover women's breasts. He asked women to cover their adornments too. He didn't ask women to wear the khimar to protect themselves from the sun. Hair is often used to attract people of the opposite sex. It can be seen as a woman's adornment. As such, it can be assumed that covering it is in keeping with the modesty requirement.

If God had wanted women to cover their hair, wouldn't He have been clear on such an important issue? Why is it necessary to make assumptions about an important point like this? Further, why can't we make assumptions that go in a different direction, e g., that women aren't responsible for men's urges, but instead men should learn, as a religious duty, to control their own urges.

God didn't say women are responsible for men's urges. He also asked men to lower their eyes and control themselves.

Jesus said that. "But I say to you, anyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery in his heart. If your right eye makes you stumble, tear it out and throw it away...." Harsh, maybe, but it puts the responsibility where it belongs. Is there a comparable Quranic verse?

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.

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.

Of course it irks me - and many others.

It took about 1300 years for the Greeks to establish their religious framework - finally dying off around the 4th C. So it takes time for these beliefs to form and then they're given a "structure." Christians believe their religion is as old as Christ - or "evolving" after the death of Christ. So that's about 1900 years or so. And Islam is even "newer," about 600 years old.

So what you THINK is the word of God is only a set of beliefs created by men.

Hinduism is interesting b/c although there's a belief in one supreme being, this being is represented by "minor" gods who oversee specific areas. So if you want money, you pray to one god - Lakshmi, I believe. traveling? pray to another

Geography defines culture and culture creates belief systems.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You are assuming the khimar may have been worn for protection from the sun instead of modesty reasons. We know that modesty is important in Islam because God asked women to use that cloak or shawl to cover women's breasts. He asked women to cover their adornments too. He didn't ask women to wear the khimar to protect themselves from the sun. Hair is often used to attract people of the opposite sex. It can be seen as a woman's adornment. As such, it can be assumed that covering it is in keeping with the modesty requirement.

If God had wanted women to cover their hair, wouldn't He have been clear on such an important issue? Why is it necessary to make assumptions about an important point like this? Further, why can't we make assumptions that go in a different direction, e g., that women aren't responsible for men's urges, but instead men should learn, as a religious duty, to control their own urges.

Or that women should simply show modesty with their hair as well as dress, by wearing it plain (undyed, uncurled, unperfumed), putting it up in buns or even keeping it cut short.

Anyway, can't you see how sexist it is to think that women don't simply have hair, but instead they're always using it to "attract members of the opposite sex".

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You are assuming the khimar may have been worn for protection from the sun instead of modesty reasons. We know that modesty is important in Islam because God asked women to use that cloak or shawl to cover women's breasts. He asked women to cover their adornments too. He didn't ask women to wear the khimar to protect themselves from the sun. Hair is often used to attract people of the opposite sex. It can be seen as a woman's adornment. As such, it can be assumed that covering it is better in keeping with the modesty requirement.

The khimar is a garment that existed before Islam at a time when modesty was not particularly valued, and it was not uncommon for women to have their breasts exposed.

So the khimar was not worn for modesty purposes at the time of Muhammed but for other purposes, the most likely being protection from the elements as that is the functional purpose of almost all early everyday garments. More importantly, for purposes of this verse, the least misleading way of reading this word is whatever garment is at hand because the command is to cover the chest and the khimar is just the tool for doing so.

Could the early Muslims have used the khimar to cover modestly? Of course, and this is what the Quran asks them to do. But that is not to say the khimar was invented or worn primarily for purposes of modesty.

It also does not follow that this verse is a command to cover the head or the hair. If it were it would have said so directly instead of commanding women to cover their breasts. The breasts were not normally apparent for most women, but that was not universal at the time even among the early followers of Muhammed. The Quran makes clear that these followers should cover their chests.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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.

The point, which you're apparently incapable of addressing, is that you're wrong about your own religion when you keep insisting that decades of study of history and Quranic Arabic are necessary. Or that in the absence of decades of study, Muslims should all to listen to a priestly class of your vaunted theologians. (Which of the many individuals and schools of theologians, BTW?)

Pretty sure Karen Armstrong agrees with me on the issue of decades of study not being required. You're saying something antithetical to the stated purpose of your own holy book. Not to mention, putting interpretation in the hands of men with their own cultural biases and agendas when it comes to things like veiling.

Being unable to address the point, you go for cheap insults. And since when does citing writers like Karen Armstrong, without mentioning her position on veiling, constitute an adult way to conduct an argument?

She isn't saying decades of study are required to understand her religion. She is saying that those who DID put decades of study toward understanding it happen to understand it better than you, my little two-semestered darling.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You are assuming the khimar may have been worn for protection from the sun instead of modesty reasons. We know that modesty is important in Islam because God asked women to use that cloak or shawl to cover women's breasts. He asked women to cover their adornments too. He didn't ask women to wear the khimar to protect themselves from the sun. Hair is often used to attract people of the opposite sex. It can be seen as a woman's adornment. As such, it can be assumed that covering it is in keeping with the modesty requirement.

If God had wanted women to cover their hair, wouldn't He have been clear on such an important issue? Why is it necessary to make assumptions about an important point like this? Further, why can't we make assumptions that go in a different direction, e g., that women aren't responsible for men's urges, but instead men should learn, as a religious duty, to control their own urges.

God didn't say women are responsible for men's urges. He also asked men to lower their eyes and control themselves.

Anonymous wrote:

You are assuming the khimar may have been worn for protection from the sun instead of modesty reasons. We know that modesty is important in Islam because God asked women to use that cloak or shawl to cover women's breasts. He asked women to cover their adornments too. He didn't ask women to wear the khimar to protect themselves from the sun. Hair is often used to attract people of the opposite sex. It can be seen as a woman's adornment. As such, it can be assumed that covering it is in keeping with the modesty requirement.

If God had wanted women to cover their hair, wouldn't He have been clear on such an important issue? Why is it necessary to make assumptions about an important point like this? Further, why can't we make assumptions that go in a different direction, e g., that women aren't responsible for men's urges, but instead men should learn, as a religious duty, to control their own urges.

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.

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.

Why don't you admit that you've studied your own religion less than others here. Tossing out names of writers isn't persuasive, it's just sad.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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.

The point, which you're apparently incapable of addressing, is that you're wrong about your own religion when you keep insisting that decades of study of history and Quranic Arabic are necessary. Or that in the absence of decades of study, Muslims should all to listen to a priestly class of your vaunted theologians. (Which of the many individuals and schools of theologians, BTW?)

Pretty sure Karen Armstrong agrees with me on the issue of decades of study not being required. You're saying something antithetical to the stated purpose of your own holy book. Not to mention, putting interpretation in the hands of men with their own cultural biases and agendas when it comes to things like veiling.

Being unable to address the point, you go for cheap insults. And since when does citing writers like Karen Armstrong, without mentioning her position on veiling, constitute an adult way to conduct an argument?

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You are assuming the khimar may have been worn for protection from the sun instead of modesty reasons. We know that modesty is important in Islam because God asked women to use that cloak or shawl to cover women's breasts. He asked women to cover their adornments too. He didn't ask women to wear the khimar to protect themselves from the sun. Hair is often used to attract people of the opposite sex. It can be seen as a woman's adornment. As such, it can be assumed that covering it is better in keeping with the modesty requirement.