From: azhar@duke.cs.duke.edu (D. Salman [Quintessential] Azhar)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.pakistan,soc.religion.islam
Subject: Dress and Modesty
Date: 11 Apr 92 18:43:06 GMT
Followup-To: soc.culture.pakistan
Organization: Duke University Computer Science Dept.; Durham, N.C.

In article <1992Apr6.141815.9509@sarah.albany.edu> ys3359@sarah.albany.edu (Yazmasterj) writes:
>	I just couldn't stay silent here. 

	   Ms. Sohrawardy would be doing us all a great disservice if she
did keep silent.  

>I recently picked up Maulana Maudoodi's book entitled *Purdah and the
>Status of Women*.  One of the first things which struck me was that
>most of the book was his opinion without many relevent verses from
>the Quran.  Another was that the Hadith he referenced were mostly from
>sources other than Sahih Bukhari and Muslim.  The verses in the Quran
>that he did reference (the ones I recognized) did not match the
>translations (specifically the Pickthall translation) I am familiar with.  

	   I all fairness, Maulana Maududi usually took a stand against
anything reminscient of "rights for women". However, in my opinion, it
takes nothing away from his a frist class religious scholar who was
influenced by his surroundings like rest of us. Even the most
respected religious schoalrs (like Imam Malik) have reformed some of
their original stands after being exposed to new cultures. Maulana
Maududi is no weaker in this aspect than any other human being.

	   It is not in the spirit of Islam to accuse Maulana Maududi of
doctoring Quran's translation, if it does not agree with Pickthall's
translation. The truth is that Maulana's interpretation of the some
verses was a little different from other religious scholars. His
interpretation of 33:32-35 (Surah-al-Ahzab = The Allies verse 32),
comes to to mind. M. Shakir translates it as....

-------
 32. O wives of the Prophet! you are not like any other of
 the women; If you will be on your guard, then be not soft in
 (your) speech, lest he in whose heart is a disease yearn;
 and speak a good word.
-------

This verse is followed by two verses which containing further injunctions...

-------
 33. And stay in your houses and do not display your finery
 like the displaying of the ignorance of yore; and keep up
 prayer, and pay the poor-rate, and obey Allah and His
 Apostle. Allah only desires to keep away the uncleanness
 from you, O people of the House! and to purify you a
 (thorough) purifying.

 34. And keep to mind what is recited in your houses of the
 communications of Allah and the wisdom; surely Allah is
 Knower of subtleties, Aware.
-------

This is followed by a verse that "readdresses" the audience...

-------
 35. Surely the men who submit and the women who submit, and
 the believing men and the believing women,  and the obeying
 men and the obeying women, and the truthful men and the
 truthful women, and the patient men and the patient women
 and the humble men and the humble women, and the almsgiving
 men and the almsgiving women, and the fasting men and the
 fasting women, and the men who guard their private parts and
 the women who guard, and the men who remember Allah much and
 the women who remember-- Allah has prepared for them
 forgiveness and a mighty reward.
-------

	   Maulana Maududi interpretation concludes that Then injunctions
in verse 32-34 above should apply to all women, since the wives of the
Prophet were role models for all muslim women. The interpretation of
several other scholars is that since verse 35, specifically changed
the "addressee" to all believing men and women, verses 32-34 were
specifically meant for the wives of the Prophet.

	   I tend to agree with the latter, but am placed in a situation
where I disagree with a religious scholar (Maulana Maududi) that I
respect for his knowledge. In this situation, there is a natural
tendency to deny the scholarship and services of Maulana Maududi to
Islam. However, it is better to overcome that personal bias, and
realize that even the greatest of religious scholars did not agree on
everything, and respected each others interpretations.


>Being a woman who has also been going to school all her life and
>working for many years now, I am amazed that I have done so well
>since I am rendered emotionally and physically disabled for a week
>per month.  Maulana Maudoodi makes a lot of assumptions about women.

	   Everyone's understanding about a population is based on a
small (and heavily biased) samples. While all generalizations are
dangerous, it is equally dangerous to take such generalizations
personally. 

>Why is a man deciding all of these things?  

	   Exactly!!!! No *man or woman* can be appointed a spokesperson
for men/women/humans/dolphins/any-group. In the same spirit, it is
dangerous for men to generalize about men, and women to generalize
about women. The best we can do is to take each other as disctinct
indviduals. 


>I have also read his book entitled *Birth Control*.  He declares that
>women are here for the sole purpose of procreation, therefore birth
>control renders them without purpose.  Again a decision by a man.

	   This decision can't be made by *man or woman*. 

>	The needs of Arabia in the 7th century with their tribal way
>of life and their attitudes towards women...... They were used to
>keeping their women suppressed.

	   Unfortunately, some muslim (men and women) continue to nurture
such suppressions (and in some case oppressions).

>The Quran gave unprecedented rights to women which were later
>ignored. Consent in marriage, rights to inheritance, control of their
>earnings have all been curtailed by men.  

	   Sigh! Shame on us muslims!

>I don't know about other women but a bare chested man is quite
>attractive.  Shouldn't that be covered?  What about sexy arms and
>nice shoulders?  Shouldn't that be covered?  

	   In spirit, Stallone should cover his chest, but that might not
be necessary for Pee Wee Herman.

>What if a man loves a mystery woman?  Then a burqa would be a
>complete turn-on for him?  I am being sarcastic and silly to prove a
>point.  

	   Point, well-taken!


>	Lastly, will someone please tell me where exactly in the Quran
>are the areas of satar specified?  

	   There are two primary places which indicate the areas to be 
covered. Chapter 33 (Al-Ahzaab = The Allies) verse 59, and Chapter 24
(Al-Nur = The Light) verse 30-31. Based on my understanding, verses
30-31 of Al-Nur were revealed after verse 59 of Al-Ahzaab (and this is
in accordance with the opinions of all but a few scholars).
Consequently, 24:30-31 should take precedence in case of conflict.
Having said that, I will not even dare to attempt a translation of
these verse, lest one more unproductive debate ensues. I am sure that
those of us who are submit to Islam will have the desire to read and
understand the Quran as it was intended.

	   BTW, 33:35 promises "forgiveness" to "the men who guard their
private parts and  the women who guard" (along with additional
conditions) without specifying "satar" (or Aura in Arabic). Similar
comments apply to 33:53.  33:50 enlists "mahrams", i.e. those
relatives of opposite genders which are exempt from "aura"/"satar".

	   In my opinion, verses 32-34 of Chapter 33 are specifically
addressed to wives of the Prophet, but still should be referenced in
such discussions because  some interpretations extend them to all
muslim women.

>Yasmin

	   I pray that I have not made any errors.

   Salman [to the best of my knowledge and belief] Azhar

PS: The opinions expressed herein do not influence my duties as a modertor.
-- 
``I will pass you in a small boat trapped by stormy seas, without
saying a word. Perhaps, there is nothing to say, and there is no time
for words. In these situations, words lose their meanings.''
          ----- D. Salman [Quintessential] Azhar
Newsgroups: soc.culture.pakistan