From: merchant@davidsys.com
Newsgroups: soc.culture.pakistan
Subject: Re: Women and Burqa: Analyzing the recent discussion
Date: 13 Apr 92 09:47:08 PST
Organization: DAVID Systems Inc, Sunnyvale CA

In article <12281@tamsun.tamu.edu>, gagrawal@cs.tamu.edu (Gopal Agrawal) writes:
> In article <1992Apr11.133825.30008@davidsys.com> merchant@davidsys.com writes:
>>In article <12047@tamsun.tamu.edu>, gagrawal@cs.tamu.edu (Gopal Agrawal) writes:

> NO?! You think I feel happy when some of my relatives in the rural 
> areas still stick to the purdah. You think I shouldn't give a damn
> when someone accuses me of permitting my sister to play badminton 
> with males. Or when I hear the parents of my cousins saying 
> "Aur padke kya karegee ? Ghar mein baeth".  

Yes, I see your point too. :-)  Please accept my apologizes
> 
>>> I think the underlined sentences in the above posts should indicate what 
>>> I am getting at. All your arguments seem to be based on the fact that there
>>> is no clear evidence that Islam forbids women from discarding purdah in any
>>> given era. Hence it is ok for you to not wear the purdah these days. 
>>
>>The two last statements seem contradictory.
>>
> 
> I'm not quite sure how it is contradictory. I'm not very good in semantics.
> But I think its clear what I wanted to say.

Perhaps you could explain it again.  I cannot clearly grasp what it is
you are saying.

> 
>>On the subject of hijab, I believe that all the verses and evaluation
>>of Ms. Yasmin seem relevant.   I believe there is an hadith, the gist
>>of which says that Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) stated that the woman should
>>be covered except for the face, the hands and the feet.  I can look up
>>the referred hadith and post it.  I'm sorry about not having the exact
>>words by heart.
> 
> Yes, I have read one of the translations of some verse that goes like this:
> "And tell the believeing women-folk to be chaste in their looking and to keep
> their sexual instincts under control and not parading their charms beyond what
> is chastely seen but drawing their veils over their bosoms. Let them not
> display their charms except to ...(a whole lot relations mentioned here...)
> Let them not draw attention to theirr hidden charms by the way they tap their
> legs..."   -- surah 24.27-33 (I'm not sure what this means). 
> 

No, the hadith I was referring to follows:
'Aishah related that when Asmah the daughter of Abu Bakr came to
visit Rasulullah (pbuh) waring thin clothes he turned away from
her and said:
	When a woman comes of age, it is not right that any part
	of her should be seen, except this and this.  And he pointed
	to his face and his hands. 
	(Abu Daud)
------------------
The above hadith was taken from the book "Guidance from the Messenger(pbuh)",
a treasury of ahadith, by Dr. Mazhar ul-Hag Kazi.

I tried to find the hadith in Sahih Bukhari, but I could not find it.
There were more hadith to do with men's dress on topics of trousers,
shirts, and Khuffs (socks).  Perhaps, someone could shed on what is
the appropriate dress from men. :-)

Someone on the net had also referred to the mentioned hadith saying
that one can conclude that women have to wear socks all the time.
I don't believe that is correct, since one hadith cannot be
the basis of the dress code.  Also men were asked to wear
sandals, and if they didn't have sandals, then to wear Khuffs (socks).
Therefore I can conclude that feet were not mandated to be covered up.
Also, one can conclude by appropriateness of dress for prayer that
feet is not under restriction.  Again, someone can elaborate more 
on this.

> I didn't see anything that mentions exactly how much is to be 
> covered/uncovered. But other verses may exist that do that. 
> 
>>I am replying as a female netter on SCP, even though probably most of this
>>issue can be better discussed on SRI.  I may be incorrect in my 
>>understanding of this issue, so, Insha Allah, someone can state the
>>issue and understanding in a better light.
>>
>>-Rukhsana [ A servant of Allah ] Merchant
> 
> I think I understand your point well enough. Its interesting 
> to see how people can come to the *same* conclusions through 
> widely disparate routes.
 
Yes, I see your point too.

> E-mail - gagrawal@cs.tamu.edu       |   /   All Std. Disclaimers apply.

The points that were mentioned by Ms. Yasmin, and Salman are to
applied as well.  Covering of the chest, wearing the outer garments
so that the figure is not visible, lowering the gaze are instruments
so that women are taken as believing women and it is a mechanism for
protection.  Whatever, is allowed and not allowed by Allah is for the
good of mankind, therefore a blessing for humankind rather than an
adversity.  All things stated are to be taken as a whole, but I can
come to no conclusions that purdah or burqa is required.  Rather, the
burqa is just an example that implements the requirements.  It is not
a must.  There is nothing wrong with women wearing the burqa, but it is
not the only example a woman can use to follow the requirements.

I don't think tight jeans on a woman would be allowed.  But then I dont
think tight jeans on a man are allowed either.  Perhaps some men
can discuss what it is that is allowed or recommended as to the
man's dress code.

Rukhsana Merchant
Newsgroups: soc.culture.pakistan