Chinese
Color
Orange
Black
Blue
Purple
Green
Deep Blue
Laman Utama
Forum
Fokus
Semasa
Kolumnis
Search
25865
View
198
Reply

Aku nak tanya pada muslim..

[Copy link]

Author: Truth.8       Show all posts   Read mode

Author
 Author| Post time 18-4-2014 03:18 PM | Show all posts
kid posted on 18-4-2014 02:17 PM
I have the opinion that Khimar is head covering in that verse, it is impossible it was table cloth b ...


Originally men and women in Saudi use head cover due to the excessive sun heat (not to cover hair purposely, but to cover the head from the heat), even until today men in Arabian peninsula still use head covering.

very true, in saudi is hot and sandy...that the  reason why peoples over there cover the head just like here peoples used hat or cap to cover from heat...commen sense
Then Allah said in Quran for women to lower their khimar to cover their chest.
The instruction from God must be due to a reason, where the chest of women mostly not covered.
So Allah instruct to cover the chest
very true...in many societies womens cover their chest just like the hindus women who cover it with saree.

From the verse we knew that Allah put more attention on chest, rather than the head. Hair wasn't mentioned in that verse.
What is wajib is to cover the chest definitely.

true again, men easily getted tempeted with chest and etc...so it good to cover or dress modesty...
If women use tudung or not it is not as important subject in that verse. You can use tudung or not, but you have to cover the chest.

So that is what I can get from the verse, it is pretty obvious I think.
meaning not necessary covering the hair lah...

Reply

Use magic Report

Post time 18-4-2014 03:46 PM | Show all posts
Truth.8 posted on 18-4-2014 10:09 AM
meaning to says taking  vitamin d  rest of the life?
do you know that all this vitamin  which not a natural source can effect our internal organ?
so, it is natural source still the best.
as for milk, how much vitamin d you going to get???

compare muslims women with  covering and muslims women do not cover.
you can see vast differences in terms working , activities and etc...


another question you should ask, we now live in more civilised generations compare prophets times where no rules and law. consider llike babarians ...in malaysia we are bless that  women not been  raped in bus or etc...such incident happened in india  all the time and why not in arabs who kept sex slaves. so, covering the whole body is encourage for safe guard..

                      Burkha and hijabs came into practice because of the lustful nature during your prophet times.  They attacked and killed men and took away women and girls as bounty. Then they raped them and kept them as slaves. To protect themselves against from lustful men,  beautiful women started covering their faces so that they were not visible to those monsters. . I rather think what is good than following  something do not make sense and not part of God law.

plus it is cultural and traditonal

.....and one of  your muslim  says  this:
Kha-Miim-Ra = cover/conceal/veil, become changed/altered from a former state/condition, mixed/mingled/incorporated/blended, intoxication/wine/grapes, make-up, any intoxicating thing that clouds/obscures the intellect, come upon secretly/unexpectedly, crowding of people, odour of perfume, women's head cover, man's turban, something fermented/matured?

Lane gives examples of ?the dwelling was hidden by the trees? & ?he concealed his testimony?.

Its primary signification is 'to cover'.

As far as I can tell, to say 'khumur' in 24:31 means 'head cover' is an extrapolation. If one takes its core meaning, it simply means 'cover/veil'.

...and let them draw/set/cast (walyadribna) their veils/covers (bikhumurihinna) over (AAala) their breasts/bosom (juyoobihinna)... [24:31]

Kha-Miim-Ra is in the plural in this verse.
link :  http://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=8900.0
there you can debate also if you dare

- What is wrong with taking supplement of vitamin d for the rest of one's life?
- Not a natural source can effect our internal organ? Provide the academic studies
- I stated vitamin D fortified drinks like milk , which is the practice in the US

I don't see any difference of the working attitude between a hijab muslimah and a non hijab muslimah (or a non muslim female) for that matter. It boils down to the attitude towards work. What a funny man you are.

Now you are providing an argument from an opinion in a forum? I asked for an authoritative opinion meaning from dictionaries or scholars not layman opinions. They refer to Muhammad Asad commentary of the Quran. from your link ,
Does khimar always mean head-covering when referring to clothing worn by a woman?

Even in translations by Muhammad Asad and Ahmed Ali it is referred to as a head-covering and veil, respectively.

In Muhammad Asad's commentary, he writes, "The noun khimar (of which khumur is the plural) denotes the head-covering customarily used by Arabian women before and after the advent of Islam. According to most of the classical commentators, it was worn in pre-Islamic times more or less as an ornament and was let down loosely over the wearer's back;..."

Too bad for you , we can access to Muhammad Asad commentary of Quran24:31
38 The nounkhimar (of which khumur is the plural) denotes the head-covering customarily used by Arabian women before and after the advent of Islam. According to most of the classical commentators, it was worn in pre-Islamic times more or less as an ornament and was let down loosely over the wearer's back; and since, in accordance with the fashion prevalent at the time, the upper part of a woman's tunic had a wide opening in the front , her breasts were left bare. Hence, the injunction to cover the bosom by means of a khimar (a term so familiar to the contemporaries of the Prophet) does not necessarily relate to the use of a khimar as such but is, rather, meant to make it clear that a woman's breasts are not included in the concept of "what may decently be apparent" of her body and should not, therefore, be displayed.

Again , it is confirmed by Muhammad Asad (the reference of your reference) that 'khimar' means head cover. Quran24:31 in his commentary states that the 'khimar' or head cover need to be used to cover the breast. In simple terms , the headcover ('khimar') needs to cover the head and lengthwise , the breast. This means the head is covered as well as the breast. It doesn't mean cover the breast but not the head. Your reference again have soundly refuted you.

This is from your reference to the said forum which refer to Muhammad Asad commentary. This commentary confirm that khimar means head cover which is also used lengthwise to cover the breast. This has been explained for more than 10 times yet you have problem understanding. Such confirm your poor communication skill , your lack of intelligence and your huge ego despite the shortcoming of your education and knowledge.

All dictionaries (authoritative sources) and scholars like Dr Yusuf Qaradawi and Muhammad Asad is in support of my argument that 'khimar' means head cover. You arguments are taken from non muslim polemicists and Quran only people. More so than likely the Quran only people are those who cannot understand arabic but reject the hadith which is a valuble historical resource informing about environment of the revelation of the verse. In fact hadiths is the best historical attestation of a period in history in which documentation is in its infancy. All these due to the system of isnad and mantn. Most likely , Quran only people having starved themselves of this valuble historical resource , the hadiths (as they reject it) ,comes up with their own opinion , like in Quran24:31 which the Quranists are more than often wrong. A good example is this argument of 'khimar' is not headcovering.

In short tambi , we muslims bagi fakta , you bagi auta. You have lost and lost big time.

Rape that happen 1400 years ago is the same as rape in the current time. Your argument is just BS

From your post #114
The Arabic word khimar means cover. Any cover can be called a khimar, such as a curtain, a dress. A table cloth that covers the top of a table is a khimar. A blanket can be called a khimar and so on. The word khamr, which is used in the Quran for intoxicants, has the same root as khimar. Both words mean that which covers. The khimar covers a window, a body, a table and so on, while khamr is that which covers the mind. Traditional translators, obviously influenced by Hadith and culture, claim that khimar in 24:31 has only one meaning, and that is veil or hijab. Thus, they mislead women into believing that 24:31 commands them to cover their hair! The correct meaning of the word khimar can easily be verified by consulting any Arabic dictionary.

Can you now show me the dictionary reference that state 'khimar' is not head covering?

The dictionaries I posted all confirm that 'khimar' is 'head covering'.

Per your post #112
(1) How do you come to the understanding that us muslims understand hijab = head cover? Nobody stated so
(2) Look at your post #101 , is there a bracket between the word 'head cover'? Yes or no?
(3) Where is the reference of the article that confirm 'khimar' is not head cover? There is no authoritative reference

Can you provide the authoritative source(s) that the word 'khimar' in Quran24:31


does not mean headcover?

Why are you so scared to answer?

Last edited by sam1528 on 18-4-2014 04:55 PM

Reply

Use magic Report

Author
 Author| Post time 18-4-2014 05:31 PM | Show all posts
sam1528 posted on 18-4-2014 03:46 PM
- What is wrong with taking supplement of vitamin d for the rest of one's life?
- Not a natural s ...

for your info, too  much vitamin is  not natural source is not good. side effect. i provide fact you provide auta.

"And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and to guard their

private parts, and not to reveal any of their zinatahhunna (beauty spots)

except what is normally apparent, and to draw their khumurihhinna

(their khimars) over their juyoob (cleavage/bossom)"

24:31

The starting point for this inquiry is to address the following questions:
Do we see the Arabic words 'shaar' (hair) or 'raas' (head) in 24:31? The answer is no.
Are there any words in 24:31, or anywhere in the Quran, which address women and which say in plain words cover your shaar (hair) or raas (head)? The answer once again is no.

However, traditional scholars and Imams insist that God issued such a command for women to cover their hair and they refer to 24:31 to make such 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 is it 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 can be called a khimar such as a curtain, a dress, also a table cloth that covers the top of a table is a khimar, also a blanket can be called a khimar and so on. The word khamr, which is used in the Quran for intoxicants, has the same root as khimar. Both words mean that which covers. The khimar covers a window, our body, a table and so on, while khamr is that which covers the mind. Traditional translators, being influenced by Hadith and culture, claim that khimar in 24:31 has only one meaning, and that is veil or hijab, and thus 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 shirt, a blouse, a scarf and so on to cover their cleavage/bosoms.

2- Is there a command in 24:31 for women to cover their hair?

For a start, we note that 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 cleavage/bossom
2- The tool, which is the khimar.

The command is only obligatory in relation to the subject and not the tool.
If the obligation was for the tool as well God would have said:
cover your hair and cleavage 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, 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 in obligation between the command and the tool, reference can be made to 5:4. In 5:4 God tells us that we can eat what our trained birds of prey catch for us. Does this mean that all believers are commanded to own or use a trained bird of prey for what they eat?
Obviously not, for even though the trained birds of prey are mentioned in 5:4 (as a tool), yet the message of 5:4 is related only to how God made it lawful for us to eat the catch of trained birds.
Similarly, in 24:31 all women are obliged to obey the command to cover their cleavage/bosom. As long as the woman covers her cleavage she would have obeyed Gods command in 24:31. She can use any garment she is wearing (tool) to cover her chest (subject of the command).

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? This rationale proves once again that the Quranic command to cover the cleavage/bosom indicates that there is no obligation to cover what is above the bosom, that being the neck, head and hair.

Finally a mention must be included regarding the words:

not to reveal any of their zinatahhunn (beauty spots) except what is normally apparent

Somehow, the scholars managed to manipulate these words as well to imply that the woman must be covered from head to toe.
This claim can be easily refuted by analysing these words.
The immediate question is: what are the parts of the body which people (in general) and women (in particular) normally cover, and thus would be described as "normally apparent"? When we have defined what is normally covered, it follows that the remaining parts of the body are what is referred to as "normally apparent", 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 with 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 apparent.
To imply that the words normally apparent mean all the body, as some Imams preach, is yet another manipulation of Gods words.
If God wanted the woman to cover all her body God would not have bothered with words such as the cleavage nor with what is normally apparent! 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.
For more info please see the following related page:
Last edited by Truth.8 on 18-4-2014 06:01 PM

Reply

Use magic Report

Post time 18-4-2014 06:09 PM | Show all posts
Truth.8 posted on 18-4-2014 05:31 PM
"And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and to guard their

private parts, and not to  ...

Ha ha , you are going round and round in circles chasing your own backside.

You don't have any resources to argue that 'khimar' in Quran24:31 does not mean head cover. Do you? All you have are articles after articles of lay people giving their unqualified opinion. Somehow or rather , when it comes to the bible you keep on yapping to refer to pastors even though we muslims go one better by referencing to scholars like Prof Geza Vermes. In short , you are a hypocrite. Oops , a hypocrite who lacks education and knowledge but with a big ego in addition to having poor communication skill.

Your last post reference to Muhammad Asad. Too bad for you , his commentary confirm 'khimar' to be head cover. Such is also confirmed by Dr Yusuf Qaradawi and 2 dictionaries (authoritative sources). Suddenly you are trying your best to forget about your own reference link of Muhammad Asad.

Ha ha , now its back to you chasing your backside arguing about hair and head. Go back to my post #102 and #107 which addresses these issues and until now you are so scared to answer. Why are you talking about hair? We are talking about head cover. Why should we look for 'raas'? The word 'khimar' comes from a tri lateral root combination. Where is the arabic word 'raas' (رئيس) meaning head in headache? The arabic word for headache : صداع . Ha ha , suddenly you cannot answer? Why are you avoiding this issue?

This is funny from you :
The Arabic word khimar means cover. Any cover can be called a khimar, such as a curtain, a dress. A table cloth that covers the top of a table is a khimar. A blanket can be called a khimar and so on. The word khamr, which is used in the Quran for intoxicants, has the same root as khimar. Both words mean that which covers. The khimar covers a window, a body, a table and so on, while khamr is that which covers the mind. Traditional translators, obviously influenced by Hadith and culture, claim that khimar in 24:31 has only one meaning, and that is veil or hijab. Thus, they mislead women into believing that 24:31 commands them to cover their hair! The correct meaning of the word khimar can easily be verified by consulting any Arabic dictionary.
The dictionaries we have are as follows :
(1) Lane Lexicon (pg 809) :

(2) Dictionary and Glossary of the Koran by John Penrice (Adam Publishers and Distributors) , pg 45


The arabic dictionary we have confirm that 'khimar' is head covering. Such is the correct meaning of 'khimar' in this verse.

Coming back to your posted article - where is the so called arabic dictionary that state 'khimar' is not head cover? Until now you cannot produce anything. Ha ha , again and again you just copy pasted useless articles of a person's opinion (most probably a Quaranite) who probably don't even know of Quranic Sciences.

This comes back to my question : Can you provide the authoritative source(s) that the word 'khimar' in Quran24:31


does not mean headcover?

The dictionaries we have confirm that 'khimar' is 'head covering'.

Per your post #112
(1) How do you come to the understanding that us muslims understand hijab = head cover? Nobody stated so
(2) Look at your post #101 , is there a bracket between the word 'head cover'? Yes or no?
(3) Where is the reference of the article that confirm 'khimar' is not head cover? There is no authoritative reference

Ha ha , what next are you going to recycle? A person like you who keeps on doing the same but expecting different result is what we call a crazy person.

Ha ha , I am laughing my ass off looking at your stupidity. It really fun to refute a person with poor knowledge but having a high ego. I think bro Ibnur was trying to put this to a stop because out of pity he didn't want you to make a public fool of yourself. You are just asking for it and I am obliging at every turn.

How does it feel to be made foolish? Ok , in your case , you probably like it because it comes naturally for you .... ha ha

Reply

Use magic Report

Author
 Author| Post time 18-4-2014 07:43 PM | Show all posts
sam1528 posted on 18-4-2014 06:09 PM
Ha ha , you are going round and round in circles chasing your own backside.

You don't have any  ...

you failed miserably in this thread ....70% muslims view not necessary to cover the hair but most important is solat...

16 Apr C Baru-baru ini penerbit filem sensasi, Raja Azmi telah mencetuskan kontroversi apabila membuat kenyataan yang berbunyi "Kalau betul tak pakai tudung satu dosa yang amat besar sampai orang kata kalau orang perempuan tak tutup rambut akan masuk neraka Kak Mi tak boleh terima semua itu".
Kenyataan yang dikeluarkan oleh penerbit filem ".....Dalam Botol" itu nyata mengundang kemarahan ramai, malah dikritik hebat. Bagaimanapun, Raja Azmi berkata, dia tetap dengan pendiriannya dan mempunyai alasan dan prinsip sendiri untuk tidak memakai tudung.
"Pemakaian tudung merupakan pilihan masing-masing, tetapi hal ini melibatkan keikhlasan hati, kita perlu betulkan perkara asas seperti solat lima waktu dahulu.
"Saya sememangnya telah bersedia untuk berhijrah, namun buat masa ini saya akan bertudung pada masa tertentu sahaja. InsyaAllah saya berusaha untuk melakukan perubahan sedikit demi sedikit demi kebaikan saya," katanya kepada sebuah akhbar tempatan.
Tambah penerbit berusia 54 tahun itu lagi, buat masa ini apa yang mahu ditekankan dahulu adalah perkara asas seperti menunaikan solat lima waktu.
"Kalau solat loma waktu pun compang-camping, macam mana hendak melakukan kebaikan lain."


Reply

Use magic Report

Post time 18-4-2014 11:12 PM | Show all posts
Truth.8 posted on 18-4-2014 07:43 PM
you failed miserably in this thread ....70% muslims view not necessary to cover the hair but most important is solat...

16 Apr C Baru-baru ini penerbit filem sensasi, Raja Azmi telah mencetuskan kontroversi apabila membuat kenyataan yang berbunyi "Kalau betul tak pakai tudung satu dosa yang amat besar sampai orang kata kalau orang perempuan tak tutup rambut akan masuk neraka Kak Mi tak boleh terima semua itu".
Kenyataan yang dikeluarkan oleh penerbit filem ".....Dalam Botol" itu nyata mengundang kemarahan ramai, malah dikritik hebat. Bagaimanapun, Raja Azmi berkata, dia tetap dengan pendiriannya dan mempunyai alasan dan prinsip sendiri untuk tidak memakai tudung.
"Pemakaian tudung merupakan pilihan masing-masing, tetapi hal ini melibatkan keikhlasan hati, kita perlu betulkan perkara asas seperti solat lima waktu dahulu.
"Saya sememangnya telah bersedia untuk berhijrah, namun buat masa ini saya akan bertudung pada masa tertentu sahaja. InsyaAllah saya berusaha untuk melakukan perubahan sedikit demi sedikit demi kebaikan saya," katanya kepada sebuah akhbar tempatan.
Tambah penerbit berusia 54 tahun itu lagi, buat masa ini apa yang mahu ditekankan dahulu adalah perkara asas seperti menunaikan solat lima waktu.
"Kalau solat loma waktu pun compang-camping, macam mana hendak melakukan kebaikan lain."

70%? Where did you get this percentage? From your ass?

Like I said , argument from your imagination does not count. This is like you arguing that Quran24:31 do not state of head covering by referring to the useless personal opinions of lay people but all authoritative sources confirm that 'khimar' in the verse mean head covering.

Do you actually read and understand your copy paste? It states of her personal opinion. Like I stated , personal opinion is the opinion of lay people. We refer to authoritative sources and scholars. If Raja Azmi tells you to eat shit , I suppose you will be eating shit and telling the whole world it taste good.

Per your post #112
(1) How do you come to the understanding that us muslims understand hijab = head cover? Nobody stated so
(2) Look at your post #101 , is there a bracket between the word 'head cover'? Yes or no?
(3) Where is the reference of the article that confirm 'khimar' is not head cover? There is no authoritative reference

Can you provide the authoritative source(s) that the word 'khimar' in Quran24:31


does not mean headcover?

Why so scared to answer?

Dey tambi , you want to pray also , one must be sincere lah
Last edited by sam1528 on 18-4-2014 11:14 PM

Reply

Use magic Report

Author
 Author| Post time 19-4-2014 04:11 PM | Show all posts
sam1528 posted on 18-4-2014 11:12 PM
70%? Where did you get this percentage? From your ass?

Like I said , argument from your imagina ...



compare the before and after...same person
covering chest and another without covering chest...

simple understanding yet you pretending







and peoples do not get aroused seeing hair but the following yes:



Last edited by Truth.8 on 19-4-2014 05:30 PM

Reply

Use magic Report

Post time 19-4-2014 10:06 PM | Show all posts
Truth.8 posted on 19-4-2014 04:11 PM
compare the before and after...same person
covering chest and another without covering chest...

simple understanding yet you pretending







and peoples do not get aroused seeing hair but the following yes:

The one in pretension is you. The Quran explicitly state of headcovering. Yet you come up with absurd argument of how come hair is not mentioned. You still cannot answer what grows on top of a person's head.

Do you see any difference?




I say no difference. The main point here is to dress to according God's instruction. Similar to the nuns , muslimah know that God is ever seeing.

You have this misconception about arousal. This is not so. Even nuns have been raped. This means that the menfolk need to control themselves. In the same verse , we are required to lower our gaze on women whom we are not mahrams. Simple as that in addition to the instruction to control oneself. In Islam there is a code of mixing between the genders , which is not present in the bible.

Per your post #112
(1) How do you come to the understanding that us muslims understand hijab = head cover? Nobody stated so
(2) Look at your post #101 , is there a bracket between the word 'head cover'? Yes or no?
(3) Where is the reference of the article that confirm 'khimar' is not head cover? There is no authoritative reference

Can you provide the authoritative source(s) that the word 'khimar' in Quran24:31


does not mean headcover?

Why so scared to answer?


Last edited by sam1528 on 19-4-2014 10:07 PM

Reply

Use magic Report

Author
 Author| Post time 20-4-2014 10:18 AM | Show all posts
sam1528 posted on 19-4-2014 10:06 PM
The one in pretension is you. The Quran explicitly state of headcovering. Yet you come up with abs ...

Nun from  roman catholic? worshipped mary...not interested in their faith
....urs...covering the whole things which not relevant to your quran

admit it that you       fail


Reply

Use magic Report

Post time 20-4-2014 10:59 AM | Show all posts
Truth.8 posted on 20-4-2014 10:18 AM
Nun from  roman catholic? worshipped mary...not interested in their faith
....urs...covering the whole things which not relevant to your quran

admit it that you       fail

I quote from your post #104
the problem with certain muslims, they always not agreeable each other. now you says as per your claimed  is not authentic but the others (muslims) says is fabricated or manipulated...

It now appears that you are disagreeing with the Catholics calling them idol worshipers. In short you are doing exactly the same with your own fellow christians as what you claim in your post#104. You are a hypocrite.

If you say head covering is not relevant to the Quran then provide the authoritative sources(s) that say so. Until now , there is nothing from you except useless articles from Quran only people and polemicists that does refer to any authoritative source(s) but their own opinions. This is exactly the same like you imposing your own unlearned opinion thus making you appear rather silly. BTW , this Quran only movement is only about 100 - 200 years and most of them are just interpreting the Quran from their own unlearned opinion as they do not even look into the historical setting of the verses which comes in the form of the hadith which we can view being the practical refllection of the Quran in historicity.

Per your post #112
(1) How do you come to the understanding that us muslims understand hijab = head cover? Nobody stated so
(2) Look at your post #101 , is there a bracket between the word 'head cover'? Yes or no?
(3) Where is the reference of the article that confirm 'khimar' is not head cover? There is no authoritative reference

Can you provide the authoritative source(s) that the word 'khimar' in Quran24:31


does not mean headcover?

Why so scared to answer?

Reply

Use magic Report

Author
 Author| Post time 21-4-2014 10:46 AM | Show all posts
sam1528 posted on 20-4-2014 10:59 AM
I quote from your post #104

It now appears that you are disagreeing with the Catholics calling  ...

you such moron...does the Bible says worshipped mary or idols???
are they well in Bible verses when it says hair as covering???

you also failed because many muslims do not agreed that hair need to be cover rather the chest....so, in your faith it has shaky foundation...

Reply

Use magic Report

Post time 21-4-2014 12:22 PM | Show all posts
Truth.8 posted on 21-4-2014 10:46 AM
you such moron...does the Bible says worshipped mary or idols???
are they well in Bible verses when it says hair as covering???

you also failed because many muslims do not agreed that hair need to be cover rather the chest....so, in your faith it has shaky foundation...

I would like all the Catholics in this forum to know that 'truth.8' call you people infidels and idol worshipers.

Per your logic , where in the bible biblical Jesus state 'I am God , worship me'. However you still worship him being God. Again you are a hypocrite.

Why are you still arguing about the mention of hair in the Quran? I have already asked you more than 7 times - how do you cover your head without covering your hair (head covering is stated in Quran24:31)? You are so scared to answer but keep on whining about covering / not covering the hair. "Syok sendiri' ka?

This is the logical fallacy which you , the polemicist and the Quaranites rely on - 'Argument From Silence' , it being hair in not mentioned therefore no need hair covering. Such argument lacks evidence hence the reliance on induction more so conjectures.
An argument from silence (in Latin argumentum e silentio) is a conclusion based on the absence of statements in historical documents, rather than their presence.[2][3] In the field of classical studies, it often refers to the induction from the lack of references to a subject in the available writings of an author to the conclusion that he was ignorant of it

Many muslims , mostly Quaranites , might not agree but all I am asking for evidence up till now cannot be produced. The majority of muslims agree that the head need to be covered (this by default includes the hair).

This goes back to my point , the majority of christians are catholics. Per your logic , your denomination of Christianity is wrong. That makes you on even shakier foundation.

Per your post #112
(1) How do you come to the understanding that us muslims understand hijab = head cover? Nobody stated so
(2) Look at your post #101 , is there a bracket between the word 'head cover'? Yes or no?
(3) Where is the reference of the article that confirm 'khimar' is not head cover? There is no authoritative reference

Can you provide the authoritative source(s) that the word 'khimar' in Quran24:31


does not mean headcover?

Why so scared to answer?



Reply

Use magic Report

Author
 Author| Post time 21-4-2014 12:38 PM | Show all posts
sam1528 posted on 21-4-2014 12:22 PM
I would like all the Catholics in this forum to know that 'truth.8' call you people infidels and i ...

hahahha now you cannot even debate or i could says u fail, now asking about Jesus is God issue...it has been rebuke by me long time ago....
you got problem real problem because most muslims view that covering of head is not part Quran as it stated covering the chest...

what can i says....
memakai tudung tidak perlu tapi aurat itu penting....aurat ? pakaian tidak ketat ....ketat hingga nampak bahagian2 sulit perempuan atau lelaki  mahupun  dada wanita (chest) ....jadi kain kena lah longgar2 ....rambut? adakah rambut itu aurat??

lu pikir lah sendiri

here is another one:

Really?  Where in the quran does it say to cover your head, the verses mentioned don't have the word hair (Shahr in arabic) or head (ra'as in arabic), yes I speak arabic fluently, there is NOTHING in the quran about covering your head or hair.


And what and what?                                               

http://www.paklinks.com/gs/relig ... yptian-scholar.html



WASHINGTON: A leading Arab Islamic scholar has said that neither the Quran nor the authentic Sunnah demand that women wear the hijab or cover their hair.

There is no specific verse that obliges women to wear headscarves, but you find verses setting the broad lines for public modesty or decency, according to Gamal El-Banna, brother of Hasan El-Banna, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.

Writing in the magazine Egypt Today, El-Banna lays to rest the controversy over the increasing use of hijab by explaining that there is no Quranic authority or injunction for donning the hijab. He writes, The Quran states: And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and be modest, and to display of their adornment only that which is apparent and to draw their veils over the bosoms (24:31). If the Quran wanted to oblige women to cover their hair, it would have stated it very clearly. Why would the Quran resort to expressions that have a variety of interpretations? The fact is that the Quran can be understood directly without resorting to interpretation if it couldnt, we would have clergy to lead us.

In his book al-Hijab, El-Banna declares that the veil is not an Islamic tradition, but a pre-Islamic one. He bases this view on the research he has completed on the Arab world prior to the advent of the Holy Prophet (PBUH). In those days, he says, Arab women covered their heads and left the upper parts of their chest uncovered. He concludes that the Quranic verse commands women to cover their chests, not their heads.

According to El-Banna, the Prophet (PBUH) improved the status of women as much as he could given his cultural milieu. He also opened the door for further aspects of emancipation. However, the Arab society was reluctant to tolerate this new reality, so many of them started to make up ahadith that would maintain the status quo. Similarly, El-Banna says, there is no religious foundation that prevents women running for any elected office, including the presidency.

El-Banna dismisses accusations that he is calling on the faithful to abandon the Sunnah, but insists that the orally transmitted traditions of the Prophet (PBUH) are less binding on Muslims than the Quran itself. We cannot deny the Sunnah, even though it has been proven that most of the sayings attributed to the Prophet (PBUH) have been made up, were narrated in other peoples words or were transmitted inaccurately. This does not mean that there are no true sayings that set many Islamic fundamental principles; what it does mean is that its high time to study the Sunnah in a different way, El-Banna says.

http://www.paklinks.com/gs/relig ... yptian-scholar.html


Last edited by Truth.8 on 21-4-2014 01:28 PM

Reply

Use magic Report

Post time 21-4-2014 02:02 PM | Show all posts
Truth.8 posted on 21-4-2014 12:38 PM
hahahha now you cannot even debate or i could says u fail, now asking about Jesus is God issue...it has been rebuke by me long time ago....
you got problem real problem because most muslims view that covering of head is not part Quran as it stated covering the chest...

what can i says....
memakai tudung tidak perlu tapi aurat itu penting....aurat ? pakaian tidak ketat ....ketat hingga nampak bahagian2 sulit perempuan atau lelaki  mahupun  dada wanita (chest) ....jadi kain kena lah longgar2 ....rambut? adakah rambut itu aurat??

lu pikir lah sendiri

here is another one:

Really?  Where in the quran does it say to cover your head, the verses mentioned don't have the word hair (Shahr in arabic) or head (ra'as in arabic), yes I speak arabic fluently, there is NOTHING in the quran about covering your head or hair.


And what and what?                                                

http://www.paklinks.com/gs/relig ... yptian-scholar.html

Ha ha , you rebuked and refuted about biblical Jesus being God? With the lame excuse that he was born without sexual intercourse? I thought I stated that with that logic , Adam is a bigger God , no father no mother. You did not respond. In short , you then ran away.

Why are you still arguing that 'rambut' is not aurat? The simple question that you have continuously ran away from. How do you cover the head without covering the hair as headcovering is mentioned ('khimar') in Quran24:31? You have no answers but going in circles chasing your own backside.

Post#20 in your link answers the claim of the person who supposed speak fluent arabic :
lol speaking arabic and understanding quranic arabic are 2 different things. surely you are no scholar (as most credible scholars will tell u headcovering IS mentioned in Quran) so plz dont start giving me your interpretation of what the quran is saying or not saying.

and what and what?

Again , your reference is arguing from his own unlearned interpretation.

Gamal El Banna a scholar? Since when did he became a scholar?

He was an author plus being a liberal and secular activist. That is why he did not have any problems with the Egyptian regime of then Anwar Sadat and Hosni Mubarak. Different from his brother Hassan who established Ikhwan. Gamal is highly opinionated but to his own beliefs and interpretation. Therefore wht he argues is from his opinion without any authoritative reference.

Even the western journalist agree to the fact that Gamal is not a scholar (Arab West Report).
These experiences with al-Banna were characteristic of his individualism. He was an original thinker, not afraid to be divert from mainstream beliefs, such as a controversial claim a few years ago stating that it was permitted to smoke during Ramadan. He was not willing to compromise on what he believed to be true himself. Jaml al-Bann has often been presented as a scholar and an
academic, but he was not and never claimed to be. The work that I was able to see was often not well researched. He was well-read, but lacked the scrutiny of an academic.

Again you refer to a person who provides his own unlearned opinion. Why do you keep on doing this? The answer is because you do not have any authoritative source(s) and you are not a careful person when it comes to critical understanding.

Per your post #112
(1) How do you come to the understanding that us muslims understand hijab = head cover? Nobody stated so
(2) Look at your post #101 , is there a bracket between the word 'head cover'? Yes or no?
(3) Where is the reference of the article that confirm 'khimar' is not head cover? There is no authoritative reference

Can you provide the authoritative source(s) that the word 'khimar' in Quran24:31


does not mean headcover?

Why so scared to answer?
Last edited by sam1528 on 21-4-2014 02:08 PM

Reply

Use magic Report

Author
 Author| Post time 21-4-2014 02:32 PM | Show all posts
sam1528 posted on 21-4-2014 02:02 PM
Ha ha , you rebuked and refuted about biblical Jesus being God? With the lame excuse that he was b ...
Gamal El Banna a scholar? Since when did he became a scholar?

He was an author plus being a liberal and secular activist. That is why he did not have any problems with the Egyptian regime of then Anwar Sadat and Hosni Mubarak. Different from his brother Hassan who established Ikhwan. Gamal is highly opinionated but to his own beliefs and interpretation. Therefore wht he argues is from his opinion without any authoritative reference.

are you saying muslims has so many sects do not agreed each other? how sure that u are wrong and his is right?

Reply

Use magic Report

Post time 21-4-2014 05:41 PM | Show all posts
Truth.8 posted on 21-4-2014 02:32 PM
are you saying muslims has so many sects do not agreed each other? how sure that u are wrong and his is right?

When did I say that muslims have many sects and all not agreeable with one another? You are just arguing from your own 'syok sendiri' imagination. Farting thru your mouth or what?

My argument of head covering in Quran24:31 has the references of arabic dictionaries and the opinions of scholars. However your argument is just based on the unlearned opinions of polemicists and / or Quranists. This is very poor of you. If these people tell you to eat shit , are you going to eat shit and then claim it taste good?

Per your post #112
(1) How do you come to the understanding that us muslims understand hijab = head cover? Nobody stated so
(2) Look at your post #101 , is there a bracket between the word 'head cover'? Yes or no?
(3) Where is the reference of the article that confirm 'khimar' is not head cover? There is no authoritative reference

Can you provide the authoritative source(s) that the word 'khimar' in Quran24:31


does not mean headcover?

Why so scared to answer?

Reply

Use magic Report

Author
 Author| Post time 21-4-2014 10:23 PM | Show all posts
sam1528 posted on 21-4-2014 05:41 PM
When did I say that muslims have many sects and all not agreeable with one another? You are just a ...

than how you expalin most of this nmuslims include the scholar says wearing head covering is not in quran?? u must remember this peoples are arab and their  mother language is arab...u are not...so dont act smart that you know the quran well...

Reply

Use magic Report

Post time 21-4-2014 11:57 PM | Show all posts
Truth.8 posted on 21-4-2014 10:23 PM
than how you expalin most of this nmuslims include the scholar says wearing head covering is not in quran?? u must remember this peoples are arab and their  mother language is arab...u are not...so dont act smart that you know the quran well...

Most of muslims and a scholar? Quranites are just insignificant minority and who is this so called scholar?

Why are you going around in circles chasing your own backside? You have yet to provide your evidence. Unless you are 'syok sendiri' type of person or you are mentally challenged you need to start providing evidence of your argument.

Who are these people , the so called know their mother tongue? You have nothing. Even simple questions you are so scared to answer because you don't have an answer.

The fact is that I know more than you.

Per your post #112
(1) How do you come to the understanding that us muslims understand hijab = head cover? Nobody stated so
(2) Look at your post #101 , is there a bracket between the word 'head cover'? Yes or no?
(3) Where is the reference of the article that confirm 'khimar' is not head cover? There is no authoritative reference

Can you provide the authoritative source(s) that the word 'khimar' in Quran24:31


does not mean headcover?

Why so scared to answer?
Last edited by sam1528 on 21-4-2014 11:58 PM

Reply

Use magic Report

Author
 Author| Post time 22-4-2014 10:55 AM | Show all posts
sam1528 posted on 21-4-2014 11:57 PM
Most of muslims and a scholar? Quranites are just insignificant minority and who is this so called ...

are u saying those arabs   who spoke and write which is their mother language is better than u? u not arab...
so, the arabs  who is muslim says covering head is not according to quran..

why you in denial??

Reply

Use magic Report

Post time 22-4-2014 12:50 PM | Show all posts
Truth.8 posted on 22-4-2014 10:55 AM
are u saying those arabs   who spoke and write which is their mother language is better than u? u not arab...
so, the arabs  who is muslim says covering head is not according to quran..

why you in denial??

Ha ha , 'truth.8' asking questions that have been answered. You might as well call yourself 'retard.8' looking at the way you are arguing and asking questions that have been answered. Go back and read my posts #137 and #139.

Somehow or rather you are so scared answering questions. Wonder why?

Per your post #112
(1) How do you come to the understanding that us muslims understand hijab = head cover? Nobody stated so
(2) Look at your post #101 , is there a bracket between the word 'head cover'? Yes or no?
(3) Where is the reference of the article that confirm 'khimar' is not head cover? There is no authoritative reference

Can you provide the authoritative source(s) that the word 'khimar' in Quran24:31


does not mean headcover?

Why so scared to answer?
Reply

Use magic Report

Author
 Author| Post time 22-4-2014 01:49 PM | Show all posts
sam1528 posted on 22-4-2014 12:50 PM
Ha ha , 'truth.8' asking questions that have been answered. You might as well call yourself 'retar ...

you still in denial:
are u saying those arabs   who spoke and write which is their mother language is better than u? u not arab...
so, the arabs  who is muslim says covering head is not according to quran..

meaning u are fraud and liar

Here I post another  PhD who is arab ...do not agreed on hijab or the head covering....u not a  phd and  arab decendant ....so the issue on hijab and head covering is not God commandement..here is the link:

Morocco World News
Casablanca, June 24, 2012
Last month at Al Azhar University, Sheikh Mustapha Mohamed Rashed defended a thesis that sparked a heated debate among religious scholars. The candidate concluded that Hijab, or the veil, is not an Islamic duty.
The claim is not the first of its kind, but the mere fact that it is adopted in Al Azhar University C the Sunni Islams foremost seat of learning Cmakes it controversial.
Sheikh Mustapha Mohamed Rashed argued that Hijab is not an Islamic duty. He stated that Hijab refers to the cover of the head, which is not mentioned in the Holy Quran at all. Nonetheless, a bunch of scholars insisted vehemently that the veil is both an Islamic duty and one of the most important pillars of Islam, he added.
In doing so, the PhD candidate points out, they deviated from the purposes of the Islamic law and Sahih Atafsir or the true interpretation. They rejected reasoning and relied only on literal text.
According to Mohamed Rashed, these scholars de-contextualized the verses of the Quran and interpreted them in their very own liking, following some ancient scholars, as if what they said is sacred and is no subject to Ijtihad.
Ijtihad is a technical term, which literally means exertion in a jurisprudential sense; it is the exertion of mental energy by a Muslim jurist to deduce legal rulings from Islams sacred texts.1
The researcher continued that the scholars, who claim that Hijab is an important pillar of Islam, departed from Al Minhaj Assahih, or the true path, of interpretation and reasoning, which interprets the verses according to their historical context and the causes of revelation. These scholars  interpreted the verses in their general sense, overlooking the causes of their revelation, intentionally or due to their limited intellectual capacity resulted in psychological scourge. Worse yet, they approached hundreds of important issues in the same way.
The supporters of Hijab as an Islamic duty base their arguments on inconsistent and wrong evidence. They would ascribe various meanings to the veil, from Hijab to Khimar to Jalabib, a fact which shows that they digressed from the true meaning they intended to address, the cover of the head, he added. The researcher attempted to deconstruct the three claims that are derived from interpretations of the sacred texts.
Literally, Hijab means a veil, curtain, partition or separation. 2 The verse in which it is mentioned is specifically addressed to the wives of the prophet; there is no dispute among scholars about that at all. The verse states as follow,
And when you ask [his wives] for something, ask them from behind a partition ( hijab). That is purer for your hearts and their hearts. And it is not [conceivable or lawful] for you to harm the Messenger of Allah or to marry his wives after him, ever. Indeed, that would be in the sight of Allah an enormity. ( Quran 33: 53)
The term hijab then is meant to have a partition between the wives of the prophet and his companions. It is not addressed to the Muslim women, otherwise it would have been stated, says Mohamed Rashed.
Bouthaina Shaaban seems to have held the same belief.3She said that those who imitate the wives of the prophet and wear the Hijab are disobeying Gods will, for He said,
O wives of the Prophet, you are not like anyone among women. (Quran 33: 32)
As for the term Khimar, it is found in a verse of the Quran stating,
And tell the believing women to reduce [some] of their vision and guard their private parts and not expose their adornment except that which [necessarily] appears thereof and to wrap [a portion of] their headcovers over their chests. (Quran 24: 31)
The researcher pointed out that the evidence is invalid. The intent of the text is to refer to the cover of the breast whose exposure is un-Islamic, but not to what is perceived nowadays as Hijab for the head.
In this regard, it is believed that when the pre-Islamic Arabs went to battle, Arab women seeing the men off to war would bare their breasts to encourage them to fight; or they would do so at the battle itself, as in the case of the Meccan women led by Hind at the Battle of Uhud.2
Nikkie Keddie, a prominent historian and an expert on womens issues in Islam, said that this verse does not refer to covering the hair. It was only later interpreted as meaning covering the whole body, including the hair, and most of the face. She continued that; This interpretation is illogical. If the whole body and face were meant, there would be no reason to tell women to veil their bosoms specifically, while the later interpretation of adornment to mean everything but the hands, feet, and (possibly) the face is a forced one.4
However, Al Qaradawi, a famous Egyptian scholar, quoted the same verse to conclude that the Hijab is  compulsory and is an injunction  based on a literal reading of the Koran. He asserted that the Hijab is, not the result of an opinion by jurists or even by Muslims; it is a Koranic order.5
As regards the verse in which Jalabib is mentioned, the researcher considered it to be misplaced evidence.
O Prophet, tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to bring down over themselves [part] of their outer garments. That is more suitable that they will be known and not be abused. (Quran 33:59)
The supporters of Hijab as an Islamic duty overlooked the historical background and the cause of revelation, for the verse was meant to distinguish between the pure and promiscuous women and slaves. At that time, all women tended not to cover their faces. Hence, the verse was revealed so as to protect the pure from some men, who would gaze at them while they were excreting or urinating.
Mustapha Mohamed Rashed rejected the Hadith, reported by Abu Dawud, in which Asma, daughter of Abu Bakr, was ordered by the prophet to expose only her face and palms. He says it should not be taken into any sort of consideration because it is Ahaad or its narration does not fulfill one of the most important required conditions, connectivity.
It is not clear whether the dissertation was preserved on the shelves of Al Azhar University and could not be discussed. This possibility made the Moroccan newspaper, Almassaa, wonder if the Arab Spring was conducive in bringing this issue to the surface.

link  :http://www.moroccoworldnews.com/ ... lamic-duty-scholar/


here i leave a youtube . it mentioned many things is  not in Quran







Last edited by Truth.8 on 22-4-2014 02:00 PM

Reply

Use magic Report

Post time 22-4-2014 05:22 PM | Show all posts
Truth.8 posted on 22-4-2014 01:49 PM
you still in denial:
are u saying those arabs   who spoke and write which is their mother language is better than u? u not arab...
so, the arabs  who is muslim says covering head is not according to quran..

meaning u are fraud and liar

Here I post another  PhD who is arab ...do not agreed on hijab or the head covering....u not a  phd and  arab decendant ....so the issue on hijab and head covering is not God commandement..here is the link:

Morocco World News
Casablanca, June 24, 2012
Last month at Al Azhar University, Sheikh Mustapha Mohamed Rashed defended a thesis that sparked a heated debate among religious scholars. The candidate concluded that Hijab, or the veil, is not an Islamic duty.
The claim is not the first of its kind, but the mere fact that it is adopted in Al Azhar University C the Sunni Islams foremost seat of learning Cmakes it controversial.
Sheikh Mustapha Mohamed Rashed argued that Hijab is not an Islamic duty. He stated that Hijab refers to the cover of the head, which is not mentioned in the Holy Quran at all. Nonetheless, a bunch of scholars insisted vehemently that the veil is both an Islamic duty and one of the most important pillars of Islam, he added.
In doing so, the PhD candidate points out, they deviated from the purposes of the Islamic law and Sahih Atafsir or the true interpretation. They rejected reasoning and relied only on literal text.
According to Mohamed Rashed, these scholars de-contextualized the verses of the Quran and interpreted them in their very own liking, following some ancient scholars, as if what they said is sacred and is no subject to Ijtihad.
Ijtihad is a technical term, which literally means exertion in a jurisprudential sense; it is the exertion of mental energy by a Muslim jurist to deduce legal rulings from Islams sacred texts.1
The researcher continued that the scholars, who claim that Hijab is an important pillar of Islam, departed from Al Minhaj Assahih, or the true path, of interpretation and reasoning, which interprets the verses according to their historical context and the causes of revelation. These scholars  interpreted the verses in their general sense, overlooking the causes of their revelation, intentionally or due to their limited intellectual capacity resulted in psychological scourge. Worse yet, they approached hundreds of important issues in the same way.
The supporters of Hijab as an Islamic duty base their arguments on inconsistent and wrong evidence. They would ascribe various meanings to the veil, from Hijab to Khimar to Jalabib, a fact which shows that they digressed from the true meaning they intended to address, the cover of the head, he added. The researcher attempted to deconstruct the three claims that are derived from interpretations of the sacred texts.
Literally, Hijab means a veil, curtain, partition or separation. 2 The verse in which it is mentioned is specifically addressed to the wives of the prophet; there is no dispute among scholars about that at all. The verse states as follow,
And when you ask [his wives] for something, ask them from behind a partition ( hijab). That is purer for your hearts and their hearts. And it is not [conceivable or lawful] for you to harm the Messenger of Allah or to marry his wives after him, ever. Indeed, that would be in the sight of Allah an enormity. ( Quran 33: 53)
The term hijab then is meant to have a partition between the wives of the prophet and his companions. It is not addressed to the Muslim women, otherwise it would have been stated, says Mohamed Rashed.
Bouthaina Shaaban seems to have held the same belief.3She said that those who imitate the wives of the prophet and wear the Hijab are disobeying Gods will, for He said,
O wives of the Prophet, you are not like anyone among women. (Quran 33: 32)
As for the term Khimar, it is found in a verse of the Quran stating,
And tell the believing women to reduce [some] of their vision and guard their private parts and not expose their adornment except that which [necessarily] appears thereof and to wrap [a portion of] their headcovers over their chests. (Quran 24: 31)
The researcher pointed out that the evidence is invalid. The intent of the text is to refer to the cover of the breast whose exposure is un-Islamic, but not to what is perceived nowadays as Hijab for the head.
In this regard, it is believed that when the pre-Islamic Arabs went to battle, Arab women seeing the men off to war would bare their breasts to encourage them to fight; or they would do so at the battle itself, as in the case of the Meccan women led by Hind at the Battle of Uhud.2
Nikkie Keddie, a prominent historian and an expert on womens issues in Islam, said that this verse does not refer to covering the hair. It was only later interpreted as meaning covering the whole body, including the hair, and most of the face. She continued that; This interpretation is illogical. If the whole body and face were meant, there would be no reason to tell women to veil their bosoms specifically, while the later interpretation of adornment to mean everything but the hands, feet, and (possibly) the face is a forced one.4
However, Al Qaradawi, a famous Egyptian scholar, quoted the same verse to conclude that the Hijab is  compulsory and is an injunction  based on a literal reading of the Koran. He asserted that the Hijab is, not the result of an opinion by jurists or even by Muslims; it is a Koranic order.5
As regards the verse in which Jalabib is mentioned, the researcher considered it to be misplaced evidence.
O Prophet, tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to bring down over themselves [part] of their outer garments. That is more suitable that they will be known and not be abused. (Quran 33:59)
The supporters of Hijab as an Islamic duty overlooked the historical background and the cause of revelation, for the verse was meant to distinguish between the pure and promiscuous women and slaves. At that time, all women tended not to cover their faces. Hence, the verse was revealed so as to protect the pure from some men, who would gaze at them while they were excreting or urinating.
Mustapha Mohamed Rashed rejected the Hadith, reported by Abu Dawud, in which Asma, daughter of Abu Bakr, was ordered by the prophet to expose only her face and palms. He says it should not be taken into any sort of consideration because it is Ahaad or its narration does not fulfill one of the most important required conditions, connectivity.
It is not clear whether the dissertation was preserved on the shelves of Al Azhar University and could not be discussed. This possibility made the Moroccan newspaper, Almassaa, wonder if the Arab Spring was conducive in bringing this issue to the surface.

link  :http://www.moroccoworldnews.com/ ... lamic-duty-scholar/

Do you know why I call you a retard? It is because you don't even understand what you read.

Sheikh Mustapha Mohamed Rashed was a PhD candidate defending his thesis , the so called head covering is not dutiful. He was just a Phd candidate , not a scholar yet. I have underlined and bolded the pertinant points for you. Read again and try to understand what you read. I should charge you for teaching you how to understand what you read.

In the same vein , Dr Yusuf Qardawi , a real scholar stated that the headcover in the said verse means headcovering is dutiful. In the end the thesis was shelved. Could be he failed in his Phd .... poor chap - Mustapha Mohamed Rashed , cannot call him a sheikh yet.

Don't you understand what you read? Do you think you need to brush up your english understanding before making yourself a retard? You've got really bad understanding but a very thick skin. Tak tau malu ke? Apa daaa ....

Interestingly , if you go to the link and read one of the comments (at the bottom of page) :
Sheikh Mustapha Mohamed Rashed and Al Azhar University say this story is false! Did Jamal Saidi verify this story with the Sheik or the university or did he see some chatter on Facebook and wrote it as the truth?
It appears that this so called news is a fabrication :
It is therefore no surprise that it has now emerged that the entire report on the Al-Azhar hijab thesis was completely fabricated. According to an official statement from the University of Al-Azhar by Al-Shaikh Usama Al-Sayyid, No one by the name of Mustapha Rashed was granted a doctorate, nor did any student submit a thesis on this subject and it is literally impossible for the University of Al-Azhar to grant a PhD for such a strange thesis that is entirely against the teachings and principles of Islam. He also stated that the officials of the college of Shariah are surprised that such a report could spread so far and wide merely on the basis of a Facebook post. He also noted the timing of the report, which was released during the elections when there were ongoing debates about the implementation of Islamic law in government.
Nak mula bohong ye?

In the end , you are just a liar lah tambi. Issit just that you are desperate that you did not check out the information you have. You are looking really bad here.

Per your post #112
(1) How do you come to the understanding that us muslims understand hijab = head cover? Nobody stated so
(2) Look at your post #101 , is there a bracket between the word 'head cover'? Yes or no?
(3) Where is the reference of the article that confirm 'khimar' is not head cover? There is no authoritative reference

Can you provide the authoritative source(s) that the word 'khimar' in Quran24:31


does not mean headcover?

Why so scared to answer?
Last edited by sam1528 on 22-4-2014 05:43 PM

Reply

Use magic Report

Author
 Author| Post time 22-4-2014 06:10 PM | Show all posts
sam1528 posted on 22-4-2014 05:22 PM
Do you know why I call you a retard? It is because you don't even understand what you read.

She ...
In the same vein , Dr Yusuf Qardawi , a real scholar stated that the headcover in the said verse means headcovering is dutiful. In the end the thesis was shelved. Could be he failed in his Phd .... poor chap - Mustapha Mohamed Rashed , cannot call him a sheikh yet.

Don't you understand what you read? Do you think you need to brush up your english understanding before making yourself a retard? You've got really bad understanding but a very thick skin. Tak tau malu ke? Apa daaa ....

the fact remain that a muslims scholar   mustapha object such head covering..now how could you make a statement he failed phd ? he might be right  in his view because he arab...u are wrong...

now u saying i cant    read....what  kind of  excuses is that? running away from my question...a total failure I guess

Reply

Use magic Report

Post time 22-4-2014 06:53 PM | Show all posts
Truth.8 posted on 22-4-2014 06:10 PM
the fact remain that a muslims scholar   mustapha object such head covering..now how could you make a statement he failed phd ? he might be right  in his view because he arab...u are wrong...

now u saying i cant    read....what  kind of  excuses is that? running away from my question...a total failure I guess

Gee whizz , you are a confirmed to having less than average intelligence.

Didn't you read my response #147? Do you know how to read? If you had read it
- Mustapha Mohamed Rashed was just a Phd candidate defending his thesis , he is not a scholar yet , if his thesis has been shelved it means he failed and his thesis been put to cold storage
- the news is a false news

You now fail on 2 counts
(1) You don't even know what is a Phd candidate
(2) You are spreading false news meaning you are resorting to lying

You are desperate , aren't you?

Per your post #112
(1) How do you come to the understanding that us muslims understand hijab = head cover? Nobody stated so
(2) Look at your post #101 , is there a bracket between the word 'head cover'? Yes or no?
(3) Where is the reference of the article that confirm 'khimar' is not head cover? There is no authoritative reference

Can you provide the authoritative source(s) that the word 'khimar' in Quran24:31


does not mean headcover?

Why so scared to answer?

Last edited by sam1528 on 22-4-2014 06:55 PM

Reply

Use magic Report

Author
 Author| Post time 22-4-2014 07:52 PM | Show all posts
sam1528 posted on 22-4-2014 06:53 PM
Gee whizz , you are a confirmed to having less than average intelligence.

Didn't you read my re ...

the fact remain ...many muslims view head covering is not  as what quran...one example is sister in islam..

Reply

Use magic Report

You have to log in before you can reply Login | Register | Facebook Login

Points Rules

 CARI App
Get it FREE Apple App Store
Get it FREE Google play
 Instagram
cari_infonet
FOLLOW
Copyright © 1996-2017 Cari Internet Sdn Bhd All Rights Reserved(483575-W)
0.059215s Gzip On
Quick Reply To Top Return to the list