Use Of Word Khimar: Compulsion For Muslim Women To Cover Their Hair
السلام علیکم! No, no, your words were not confusing. I just wanted to be able to address your points in order. 1) Can you please reread my previous reply (there were 2, maybe you haven’t read one of them). I discussed how this would be an allegory of the words of the Quran out of context. The Quran doesn’t say these words out of context but asks for the خمار to be placed on the جیب so that the ornaments are not displayed. One can ask why doesn’t the Quran just ask for a cloth to be placed on the جیب instead of mentioning the خمار. We have to understand the اسلوب of the Quran. It doesn’t say that in difficulty, you can skip a fast. It says if you are sick or travelling, you can skip a fast. It actually demonstrates situations in which a fast may be skipped. Similarly, instead of asking for necklaces to be covered, it asks for the خمار which women worn to be placed on the جیوب as a way of covering the necklaces. I have mentioned how the fact that concealing the ornaments is what is required from the خمار is clear from the Quran. 2) Ghamidi Sahab doesn’t agree that the Quran is to be understood through reports. When he says that they explain the Quran, it doesn’t mean that we understand the Quran through them. The Quran gives broad injunctions. Through history we find how certain injunctions were applied by the Prophet. For example, the Quran says that iniquity and unwarranted rebellion is Haram. From the reports we find that the Prophet applied this in the matter of gold and silk and made them Haram for men based on these principles. But the principles themselves are not to be understood using reports. So, we won’t search the reports that have reached us on what the Quran meant when it gave certain injunctions. 3) Again, how you understand Ghamidi Sahab’s words is not what Ghamidi Sahab means when he says that reports explain the Quran. The injunctions of the Quran will always be understood independently (so the injunction of اضراب خمار will be understood independently). In history, we get how the Prophet applied certain broad injunctions. That we get through these reports. These are not conclusive. So, any report can be rejected if someone subjectively suspects it. 4) Firstly, no such confusion arises. It only arises because we have grown up in an environment which continuously says that the head cover is mandatory. Muhammad Asad, for example, reaches almost the same conclusion that the real thing is for the bosom to be covered and not that this has to be done using a خمار. However, let’s say confusion did arise. Then we will still say (in my opinion) that head cover is not mandatory because God would’ve made two things extremely clear: I) the things which are forbidden and II) the things which are mandatory. 5) Lastly, again, we absolutely don’t look for explanations in reports. Whether women covered their heads with it or not is not our concern. They were already covering their heads before this revelation. Our concern is what the Quran says and whether the women did that or not. Now, look at it this way: we all agree that the Quran asks for the جیب at least to be covered. We don’t find in the report (in its literal words) that the women covered their جیوب. So, now what? We turn a blind eye to the words of the Quran and say that it was actually talking about the head and not the جیب? Of course not! The Quran has delineated what is required and that is the covering of the جیب to conceal ornaments.
السلام علیکم Can we get a link please, Rehmat Bhai?