|
View: 7297|Reply: 119
|
[Dunia]
Al Azhar confirms HIJAB is not a part of the religion
[Copy link]
|
|
|
Wednesday, May 23, 2012
Al Azhar confirms HIJAB is not a part of the religion
HIJAB IS NOT A PART OF RELIGION
URL - http://worldmuslimcongress.blogspot.com/2012/05/al-azhar-confirms-hijab-is-not-part-of.html
The following statement is in reference to the "Burqa ban movement" in United Kingdom, it sounds more like a political movement to appease someone. Burqa Ban is brutish and driven by men's primal instinct to control women. No one should have the right to impose what a woman wears or not wears. However, we should seek acknowledgements and endorsements from Muslims that Burqa in it is form is cultural and not Islamic. Over a generation or two, either the practice will continue or fade for a sizable population, but it should never be forced.
Our position on Hijab
Islam is about freedom and not compulsion, Q 2:256, "Let there be no compulsion in religion". We recognize that culture is deeply ingrained into each one of us, and a full Hijab wearing woman will not go cold turkey and quit wearing the Hijab the very next day. She will not be comfortable with it and none of us have the right to tell her to wear or quit wearing it. The change should come out of her own volition as it is a part of her cultural life. It is like forcing a vegetarian to eat meat or ordering a meat eating person to quit eating meat.
As Muslims we should be pro-choice based on Quran and Prophet's teaching, the prophet had said, if the husband compels her to believe (in matters of faith) other than what she believed, she does not have to obey him. Meaning a woman should have the freedom to wear full Hijab, partial Hijab or just the head covering or not wear the covering at all, but never forced.
That is the genuine freedom, a critical value of Islam.
Mike Ghouse,
World Muslim Congress.
A think tank committed to nurture the pluralistic values of Islam.
# # #
AA
This statement is in reference to the "Burqa ban movement" in United Kingdom, it sounds more like a political movement to appease the secular government. Burqa Ban is an useless and losing battle. However, we should seek acknowledgements and endorsements from Muslims that Burqa in it is form is cultural and not Islamic. Over a generation or two, either the practice will continue or fade for a sizable population, but it should never be forced.
Go for the winning battles, small ones and gradually big ones. You will create enemies out of average Muslims and then it becomes a fight.... is it necessary? What is the need to employ so much energy on this issue?
Several articles are referenced below, and two versions of the stories, both from Egypt, one affirms that Hijab is not a part of the religion, and another Zealot Shaykh Tantawi compels a woman to take the Niqab off. He is wrong, however big he is to compel and take advantage of his position of a scholar. Islam is about freedom and not compulsion.
A good guideline for discussion would be resisting the temptation to reject a presentation by others as propaganda.
As far as your statement, “A statement of a Ph D thesis cannot change the ruling of the scholars of all times”, kindly note, that only God’s word remains unchangeable, and Prophet’s words remain unchangeable, provided, they are his words. Everyone else’s word should be questionable. Muslims are to read (Iqra), question and believe.
A few Muslims have been threatened, frightened and reduced to meekness with no guts to question the veracity of the scholars. With the unprecedented availability of knowledge, two generations down the road, you will see that new breed of Muslims will have stronger faith in God to question everything. They will be Allah fearing and not Mullah fearing, and they will question the authenticity of Imam Bukhari, Hanbali, Shafii, Jaffari and others without batting an eye. That is when Islam will be re-realized to its fullest extent. Right now our fear to question has put layers of dust over Islam…
I hope Gehan can provide further research on this, however the responsibility falls on all of us, we are responsible to find the truth on our own.
Some 15 years ago, we had a Muslim woman scholar giving a talk about the same subject; the Muslims “In charge” of the event were scrambling to shut the woman down, because they did not have the stomach to hear that Hijab is cultural and not Islamic.
There is nothing wrong in wearing the Hijab, if one is used to, and no one should compel the woman not to wear or to wear. It should be her choice. However, to force on as religious duty is wrong, because it is not religious. Who am I to say this? An ordinary Muslim, whom Prophet told to read and understand the book , as I am responsible for my acts on the day of judgment .
Mike Ghouse, World Muslim Congress.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RE: MuslimsTogether :: al Azhar confirms HIJAB is not a part of the religion
This is sheer propaganda. Please give us the whole Ph D thesis for checking. A statement of a Ph D thesis can not change the ruling of the scholars of all times.
Who are these people of WMC? What is their interest?
Shah Abdul Hannan
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: WorldMuslimCongress@yahoogroups.com [mailto:WorldMuslimCongress@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of ISLAM
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2012 9:44 PM
Subject: MuslimsTogether :: al Azhar confirms HIJAB is not a part of the religion
here is my humble interpretation:
Finally al Azhar clarifies its position and announces that hijab has nothing to do with religion
al Azhar's endorsed Sheikh Mustafa Mohamed Rashid's PhD thesis on Sharia and Law for which he obtained a grade of excellent, where he stated that hijab is not an Islamic requirement (fard), and that the interpretation (tafseer) of the verses (ayat) and the circumstances during which they appeared has led to the widespread misunderstanding about the so-called 'Islamic Hijab' denoting covering the head, of which there is absolutely no mention in the Quran.
Yet some have misconstrued the intent and correct interpretation of the Sharia, refusing the logic and sequence of its appearance, abandoning the proper methods of citing and interpreting of the verses (ayat), their historical background and reason for them. They have done so either intentionally, or with good intention but with lack of the essential analytical savvy.
This hijab issue imposed itself on the Islamic and non-Islamic psyche, and thus becoming the defining factor, meaning, and nature of the Islamic faith to non-Muslims, which led some non-Islamic nations to consider it a divisive political statement. In consequence to the resulting friction, some female students have been expelled from universities and jobs, only due to their adherence to this false belief, thereby attaching to Islam a non existent requirement.
So inconsistent and misguided have the proofs of the supporters of the hijab theory been, that it would sometimes take the form of khimar or jalabeeb, which distanced them from what they meant by head cover, which is indicative of their restrictive set of mind.
'Hijab' was mentioned in verse (ayah) 53 of al AHzab, where it signifies 'wall' or 'what prevents view' and it was in regards to pure "ummuhat al mo'mineen" where a "hajib" is to be placed between them and any men.
As for verse (ayah) 31 of Al Khimar - Sourrat al Noor, that is also a redundant claim, as the intent here is the cover of the breast and neck - the background here is the covering of the breast whose exposure is un-Islamic, and not what is now understood by hijab for the head.
And in regards to the historical background of verse (ayah) 59 of Sourrat al AHzab was to distinguish between the pure and the promiscuous whores and slaves.
Finally, in the mis-use of the Hadith about Asma'a, daughter of Abu Bakr, when she walked in on the prophet (pbuh)s gathering, and he ordered her to not expose her face or palms - this Hadith is not a binding Hadith, as it is one of al AHaad and not one of the consistent, or the connected confirmed.
http://worldmuslimcongress.blogspot.my/2012/05/al-azhar-confirms-hijab-is-not-part-of.html?m=1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
nanti bungkus laa bisnes hijabsta  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dalam Al Quran sebut..tudung perlu dilabuhkan pada bahagian dada dan pinggul.
So tak perlu dibahas sebab ayat tu jelas.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ayat mana? setahu aku, nie semua agenda yahudi 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lobai_Shalom replied at 28-4-2017 03:52 AM
ayat mana? setahu aku, nie semua agenda yahudi
Firman Allah (a.w): ‘Waqulil mukminati yaghdudna min absorihinna ... (hingga) ...watubu ilallahi jami’an aiyuhal mukminuna layallakum tuflihuna.’ [Yg bermaksud: Katakanlah kepada para wanita yang beriman, supaya mereka menundukkan pandangan mereka, supaya mereka memelihara kehormatan mereka (yakni, farajnya), dan jangan mempamirkan perhiasan (kecantikan) mereka, kecuali apa yang seharusnya terlihat di antaranya (iaitu hanya muka dan kedua telapak tangan mereka); dan hendaklah mereka labuhkan tudung mereka ke leher sehingga (sehingga sampai menutupi) dada; dan jangan memperlihatkan perhiasan (kecantikan) mereka (kepada sesiapa sahaja), kecuali kepada suami mereka, atau kepada bapa mereka, atau kepada bapa suami mereka, atau kepada anak lelaki mereka sendiri, atau kepada anak tiri lelaki mereka, atau kepada saudara lelaki mereka, atau kepada anak saudara perempuan mereka, atau kepada mereka sesama wanita, atau kepada hamba sahaya mereka, (atau kepada) lelaki yang betugas dan tidak mempunyai nafsu berahi, dan kanak-kanak yang belum mengerti aurat wanita. Dan, janganlah mereka menghentakkan kaki mereka (semasa berjalan, dengan niat) supaya diketahui orang perhiasan (diri) mereka yang tersembunyi. Taubatlah kamu semua kepada Allah (a.w) wahai orang-orang yang beriman! Mudah-mudahan kamu beruntung (yakni, mendapat balasan syurga)]. [Ayat 31, Surah an-Nur] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
yahudi dah tambah perkataan dlm kitab tohan
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lobai_Shalom replied at 28-4-2017 04:12 AM
yahudi dah tambah perkataan dlm kitab tohan
Yang mana tambah nye? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OP-ED
Muslims are not required to cover up: ‘Hijab’ has nothing to do with morality or Islam
by Tarek Fatah • January 25, 2014
“Young women put on a hijab and go dancing, wearing high heels and lipstick. They wear tight jeans that show their bellies,” 75-year old Nawal Al-Saadawi, Egypt’s leading feminist, noted recently. She is bitter at how the covering of a women’s head has been misrepresented as an act of piety and the defining symbol of Islam. 
April 18, 2007
Farzana and TFBy Farzana Hassan
and Tarek Fatah
The Globe and Mail, Toronto
Originally a source of modesty, the hijab, or Muslim head scarf, has become a political tool.
Its latest manifestation came this week with the sight of 10-year old Muslim girls refusing to give up their hijab in a Quebec tae kwon do tournament, when the helmets would have served the same purpose of modesty and much more.
All Canadian women have, at some time in their lives, chosen to wear a head cover. In blinding snow storms or freezing rain, the covering of the head, irrespective of what religion one practises, is crucial to one’s survival.
Halfway across the world, in the deserts of Arabia, whether one was a Muslim or a pagan, the covering of one’s head and face was an absolute necessity — not just when facing a blistering sandstorm, but any time one stepped out of the home in the searing sun.
What was essentially attire for a particular climate and weather has been turned into a modern symbol of defiance and, at best, a show of piety by Islamists and orthodox Muslims.
There is not a single reference in the Koran that obliges Muslim women to cover their hair or their face. The only verse that comes close to such a dress code (Sura 24, “The Light,” verse 31) directs believing women to let their head coverings obscure their bosoms.
Yet, in the past few decades, Islamists and orthodox Muslims have made the covering of a woman’s head the cornerstone of Muslim identity. The head cover been pushed as a symbol of piety and only the Egyptian and Saudi version of the head cover — the hijab — is considered worthy of respect. Coverings that originate in South Asia, the sari or the dupatta, have been relegated as less authentic under Islam.
It is true that through history, Muslim women have chosen to wear the hijab for reasons of modesty. Today, however, some wear it for the opposite reason. “Young women put on a hijab and go dancing, wearing high heels and lipstick. They wear tight jeans that show their bellies,” 75-year old Nawal Al-Saadawi, Egypt’s leading feminist, noted recently. She is bitter at how the covering of a women’s head has been misrepresented as an act of piety and the most defining symbol of Islam.
Beyond fashion, however, this supposed symbol of modesty has assumed a decidedly political and religious tenor, dominating the debate on civil liberties and religious freedoms in the West. Any opposition to the hijab is viewed as a manifestation of Islamophobia.
This was the argument when young Asmahan Mansour was barred from a soccer league in Quebec, as she refused to remove her hijab while playing the sport. Quebec’s electoral officer recently moved to disallow fully veiled Muslim women from voting, as they would not be able to identify themselves adequately.
The piece of cloth becomes a subject of controversy also because those who favour its use claim it is religiously mandated and regard its use as their Charter-protected right. To dispense with the garment while playing a sport would amount to committing a sacrilege.
An inquiry into historical precedent, however, suggests the Koran does not mandate the hijab at all.
It should be noted that the khimar, a head scarf that predated the hijab, was worn by Arab women before the Koran’s stipulations on modesty of dress and demeanour. Verse 24:31 did not introduce the garment, but modified its use when it said that Muslim women should “wear their head-coverings over their bosoms” — previously, they were left bare, although decked with jewellery and ornaments.
The intent of the verse was to exhort believing women to cover their nakedness rather than their hair, which was left partially uncovered even though the khimar was a head dress.
Moreover, the khimar was never rooted in religious precept — it was rooted in custom. Modifications for its use were introduced into Islamic practice when the religion spread into Byzantine and Persian territories, where once again the head dress was prevalent as a social custom.
The khimar was also a symbol of class and distinction rather than of religion precept in pre-Islamic and early Islamic history. Indeed, there existed a hierarchy of sorts where slave women were actually barred from veiling.
Omar bin Khattab, Islam’s second caliph, for example, ordered harsh treatment to slave women who donned the veil. Surely, if the veil was based on religious precept, its use would not be enforced so selectively.
Therefore, to turn the hijab or khimar into a religious and political issue belies its original intent. Muslim women who so vociferously defend its religious use should consider its history before determining whether they must wear it.
Islamists have turned the hijab into the central pillar of Islam. They consider Muslim women who do not cover their heads — the vast majority — as sinners or lesser Muslims. They should come out and debate the issue rather than using young Muslim girls as shields to pursue a political agenda.
http://tarekfatah.com/muslims-are-not-required-to-cover-up-hijab-has-nothing-to-do-with-morality/ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lobai_Shalom replied at 28-4-2017 04:20 AM
OP-ED
Muslims are not required to cover up: ‘Hijab’ has nothing to do with morality or Islam
by ...
Akhbar Toronto boleh guna pakai ke?  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
JULY 30, 2012 · 1:31 PM
Is veil an Islamic requirement, or not?
Article written by Sheikh Mustafa Mohamed Rashid and published in Rosa-Al-Youssef magazine in 2009: Veil is not an Islamic requirment.
By: Alexandra Kinias
When the Egyptian newspaper Al-Massa published on May 25th, 2012 an article about Al Azhar’s endorsement to Sheikh Mustafa Mohamed Rashid’s PhD thesis on Sharia and Law, which stated that veil is not an Islamic requirement (fard), not much reaction to this controversial news was reported. Ranked at the bottom of the government publications that had lost credibility with the public, Al-Massa newspaper is hardly read by Egyptians. In May, the news media and Egyptians were already tangled with the presidential race and an article in Al-Massa was the last thing anyone would pay attention to. Rashid had previously written an article for Rosa Al Youssef magazine in 2009 where he had explained the reasons behind his arguments. Since Rosa-al-Youssef’s main audience are seculars, not much attention was given to Rashid’s article. They already knew it.
The World Muslim Congress blog translated Rashid’s article on which his thesis was based:
In his thesis, Rashid stated that hijab is not an Islamic requirement (fard), and that the interpretation (tafseer) of the verses (ayat) and the circumstances during which they appeared had led to the widespread misunderstanding about the so-called ‘Islamic Hijab’, denoting covering the head, of which there is absolutely no mention in the Quran.
Yet some have misconstrued the intent and correct interpretation of the Sharia, refusing the logic and sequence of its appearance, abandoning the proper methods of citing and interpreting of the verses (ayat), their historical background and reason for them. They have done so either intentionally, or with good intention but with lack of the essential analytical savvy.
This hijab issue imposed itself on the Islamic and non-Islamic psyche, and thus becoming the defining factor, meaning, and nature of the Islamic faith to non-Muslims, which led some non-Islamic nations to consider it a divisive political statement. In consequence to the resulting friction, some female students have been expelled from universities and jobs, only due to their adherence to this false belief, thereby attaching to Islam a non existent requirement.
So inconsistent and misguided have the proofs of the supporters of the hijab theory been, that it would sometimes take the form of khimar or jalabeeb, which distanced them from what they meant by head cover, which is indicative of their restrictive set of mind.
‘Hijab’ was mentioned in verse (ayah) 53 of Al Ahzab, where it signifies ‘wall’ or ‘what prevents view’ and it was in regards to pure “ummuhat al mo’mineen” where a “hajib” is to be placed between them and any men.
As for verse (ayah) 31 of Al Khimar – Sourrat al Noor, that is also a redundant claim, as the intent here is the cover of the breast and neck – the background here is the covering of the breast whose exposure is un-Islamic, and not what is now understood by hijab for the head.
And in regards to the historical background of verse (ayah) 59 of Sourrat al Ahzab was to distinguish between the pure and the promiscuous whores and slaves.
Finally, in the mis-use of the Hadith about Asma’a, daughter of Abu Bakr, when she walked in on the prophet (pbuh)s gathering, and he ordered her to not expose her face or palms – this Hadith is not a binding Hadith, as it is one of al AHaad and not one of the consistent, or the connected confirmed.
Exactly two months after the article was published, and with Mohamed Morsy the Islamic candidate elected president, the article was once again revived. Not only has it started a heated argument, but when an official from Al Azhar was confronted he denied that the institution had ever accepted such thesis, not to mention that it had awarded its researcher a PhD.
The argument that the veil is not an Islamic requirement is not new. It had been previously discussed by scholars, but naturally views from secular scholars are always discredited. This was the first time that a religious scholar from Al Azhar openly discussed it. With the re-emergence of the article, sited by multiple newspapers, this time it caught the attention of the readers and created a controversy between those who believe in it and those who don’t. The battle that has been going on for a while is now taking center stage.
With the rise of political Islam, veiling is used as an indicator to monitor the infiltration of the Islamic ideology into the societies where the Islamists are pushing to dominate. It is obvious from the way women are using the veil that, as long as the number of scarves adorning the heads of women are increasing, it doesn’t really matter whether women wear it for cultural or religious reasons.
By preaching to the masses, who are mostly illiterate and uninformed, that hijab is a religious requirement and wrongly including it as the sixth pillar of Islam, the more women cover their heads, and that brings them closer to the Islamization of the society, which in turn will hand them the keys to the gates of their resurrected Caliphate. Women are being threatened and warned about God’s punishment for keeping their heads uncovered. They wear the veil not knowing that they are in fact being manipulated by the Islamists to accomplish their objectives.
Indeed covering the head is embedded in many cultures and women are free to choose whatever dress is suitable for their traditions and circumstances in which they are living in. However, it is not correct to enforce it on women as a religious duty. Women should not be threatened to wear it. They should not be warned of divine punishment that by uncovering their heads they are committing a sin against their creator.
https://alexandrakinias.wordpress.com/tag/al-azhar-phd-veil-is-not-islamic/ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lobai_Shalom replied at 28-4-2017 04:16 AM
baca sendiri laa....... umat kristian & yahudi jgn lupa pakai tudung
https://en.qantara.de/ ...
f I as a Muslim woman living in Germany ask myself whether I should wear a headscarf or not, that gives rise to the question of whether the additional head-covering called for in the Koran (33:59) still fulfils its original purpose of protecting women from male desire. My answer is: no. In contemporary Germany such covering-up no longer serves that purpose. It is even more likely to bring about the opposite of what God intended by exposing wearers of headscarves to discrimination.
Ini lebih pada personal view....kalau ikutkan dalam Al-Quran, Minah ni tak boleh tinggal di negara Kafir seperti German. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lobai_Shalom replied at 28-4-2017 04:26 AM
JULY 30, 2012 · 1:31 PM
Is veil an Islamic requirement, or not?
Dalam Al-Quran dan sebut untuk wanita2 beriman.
Maksudnya mereka dipelihara oleh saudara lelaki dan bapak mereka.
Yg layak tegur saudara lelaki mereka dan bapak mereka.
Dan org beriman tak tinggal dinegara kafir yang menindas. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Manipulation of 24:31
And say to the believing women to lower their gaze and to guard their private
parts and not to show their beauty spots except that of it which is normally
shown. They shall also cover their cleavage with their 'khimars'.
24:31
The starting point for this inquiry is to address the following questions:
1- Do we see the Arabic words 'shaar' (hair) or 'ras' (head) in 24:31? The answer is no.
2- Are there any words in 24:31, or anywhere in the Quran, which address women with the words 'cover your hair' or 'cover your head'? The answer once again is no.
However, traditional scholars insist that God issued a command for women to cover their hair. They refer to 24:31 to make their claim.
The fact that the words 'hair' and 'head' are not found in 24:31 should be sufficient for any unbiased reader to conclude that there cannot be a command to cover parts of the body if these parts are not mentioned in the first place.
Nevertheless, traditional Muslim scholars manipulated the words in 24:31 in order to enforce the covering of the hair on women, but in reality they are enforcing their culture on people and claiming it is Islamic!
It is thus the aim of this paper to analyse 24:31 in detail. In the light of the Quran it can be shown that their claims are all based on manipulated interpretations of the text in 24:31.
Their claim:
They state that the word ‘khimar’ in 24:31 means head cover, and thus they state that this word alone makes it obligatory for all women to wear a khimar to cover their hair. Here it is necessary to analyse two issues:
1- What is the correct meaning of the word khimar?
2- Is there a command in 24:31 for women to cover their hair?
1- What is the correct meaning of the word khimar?
The Arabic word khimar means cover. Any cover is a khimar. A curtain is a khimar, a table cloth that covers the top of a table is a khimar, a blanket can be called a khimar and so on. Equally, an item of clothing, be it a dress, a blouse, a scarf or any other item of clothing can be called a khimar because it covers the body. The word khamr, which is used in the Quran for intoxicants, has the same root as khimar. Khamr (intoxicants) is given that name since it covers the mind.
Traditional translators, influenced by hadith and culture, claim that khimar in 24:31 has only one meaning, and that is veil or hijab! As a result, they mislead women into believing that 24:31 commands them to cover their hair! The fact that the word khimar can mean any cover, and not just head cover, is a matter which can be verified by consulting any Arabic dictionary.
In 24:31 God is telling women to use their khimar (cover/garment), which could be a dress, a coat, a shawl, a blouse, a scarf and so on to cover their cleavage/bosoms. The command in 24:31, regardless of the meaning of the word khimar, is to cover the bossom and not to cover the hair.
2- Is there a command in 24:31 for women to cover their hair?
As mentioned, the words 'head' and 'hair' are not found in 24:31. In addition, we must differentiate between two components in the wording of 24:31.
God says to women to draw their khimar (garment) over their cleavage/bossom. Here we have:
1- The subject of the command, which is the covering of the cleavage/bossom
2- The tool, which is the khimar.
The command is only obligatory in relation to the subject and never the tool.
If the obligation was for the tool as well God would have said:
'cover your cleavage and your hair with your khimar'.
God is not short of words, nor is God vague in the commands He decrees for us.
God will hold us accountable on the Day of Judgement to the commands He gave us in the Quran, so it is not rational to imply for one moment that God would give us vague commands which lack precision and certainty.
To further demonstrate the difference between the command and the tool, consider the following example:
God tells us in 5:4 that He made lawful for us to eat "what the trained birds of prey and dogs catch".
Here the law relates to what we are allowed to eat, while the tool is the trained dogs and birds of prey.
Could we derive from the words in 5:4 that it is obligatory to eat what our dogs and birds catch?
Such claims would be in parallel to the manipulation in 24:31 which turned the tool (khimar) into being the obligation!
In addition, the command to cover the cleavage/bosom also proves that there is no obligation to cover what is above the cleavage/bosom (neck, head and hair). If these parts above the bosom are also to be covered then why would God single out the cleavage/bosom, unless it is because God did not make it mandatory to cover what is above the cleavage?
Finally a mention must be included regarding the words: "not to show their beauty spots except that of it which is normally shown."
Somehow, the scholars managed to manipulate these words as well to imply that women must be covered from head to toe!
The immediate question is: what are the parts of the body which people (in general) and women (in particular) normally cover, and thus, which parts would be described as "normally shown"? When we have defined what is normally covered, it follows that the remaining parts of the body are what is referred to as "normally shown", or normally uncovered. In general, people cover the following:
1- People cover their private parts in order to maintain righteousness (7:26). For women this would include all parts of the body which have sexual connotation such as the private parts, the backside, the chest, thighs and so on. It is for this purpose that God commands women in 33:59 to lengthen their garments so as not to be too revealing.
2- People also cover their bodies in order to keep warm. In warm climates people would only cover what is included under item 1 above, which would be the minimum clothing required but also for maintaining righteousness, while as in colder climates people would cover more of their bodies depending on the severity of the weather.
The above two points define what parts of the body would normally be covered under the words "normally shown".
To imply that the words "normally shown" mean all the body, as some Imams preach, is yet another manipulation of God’s words.
If God wanted the woman to cover all her body, would God be careful to make the command to cover the "cleavage"? Surely the cleavage would be covered if women covered all their body? If that was what God demanded, God would have simply said “cover all your body”. But for God to single out specific parts of the body for covering is the proof that God never required women to cover all their bodies.
http://www.quran-islam.org/main_topics/misinterpreted_verses/khomoorehenna_(P1226).html |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
alahai yahudi........ asyik nak pesongkan agama islam........ 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lobai_Shalom replied at 28-4-2017 04:28 AM
Zaman sekular memang gambar begini lah.
Kan disebut terserah pada saudara lelaki dan perempuan tu.
Ni dalam konteks orang Beriman (Mukmin) bukan dalam konteks Muslim semata. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Surah 24:31 suruh tutup lurah...... bongok  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lobai_Shalom replied at 28-4-2017 04:34 AM
The Manipulation of 24:31
And say to the believing women to lower their gaze and to guard their p ...
Kau fahamkan dulu maksud Khimar....bahasa Arab Quraish ni bukan mudah nak tafsir sendiri2.
Apatah lagi kau berbangsa Ajam...Cina Kapir. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lobai_Shalom replied at 28-4-2017 04:36 AM
Surah 24:31 suruh tutup lurah...... bongok
Faham kan dulu maksud Khimar mengikut bahasa Arab Quraish.
Apa yg dimaksudkan 'melabuhkan'.
Bahasa Arab Quraish ni tak sama dengan bahasa Arab sekarang ye. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Post time 28-4-2017 03:35 AM
变色卡
Author
