From: hyder@cs.utexas.edu (Syed Irfan Hyder)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.pakistan
Subject: Women and Burqa: Analyzing the recent discussion
Date: 8 Apr 1992 13:56:26 -0500
Organization: U Texas Dept of Computer Sciences, Austin TX
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: pageboy.cs.utexas.edu

I am not going to say any thing about the extent and/or the validity
of hijab. I am still researching the issue. However, taking
cue from Mr. Nadeem's analysis of "bad reasoning", I will attempt to
put this discussion in perspective. 

First I will offer apologies to Ms. Yasmin, on behalf of Mr. Mirza
  or any one else who is using "sarcasm" to side-track some important
  issues being raised by her.

Secondly, we must try to define in what context the debate need
  to be continued.


I feel that Mr. Mirza has completely missed the points raised
by Ms. Yasmin. I admire her for keeping her cool, while
dealing with such side-tracking of issues. I, for one, would
have sharply reacted to any such attempts to side-track my
arguments. Those who remember my rejoinder to Mr. Nagarajan
concerning a wrong conclusion derived from my posting, will
agree that I term such attempts as "scholastic dishonesty".
(although in retrospect, I admit that I was a bit too harsh
on Mr. Nagarajan, and accepted in good faith a little
sarcasm from him, in his reply conceding his point.)

Side-tracking of issues
========================

Following are some of the points which are irrelevant and uncalled for
from Mr. Mirza.  

1. Stuff related with lady Rana Liaqut ali khan.
2: Stuff about Maudoodi's personal life.
3: Question about whether "purdah hinders progress of Islam"
4: Citation of Saudi Arabia as model, what women do or not
   do over there.
5: How women need to toil in their daily life.
6: Connotations to the name of "soharwardi" were in bad taste.
7: Comments about sexy or not so sexy males.


No wonder, Ms. Yasmin had to write:
 
	I found it a little difficult to understand the details of your
	message, but I believe the gist of it was to convince me of the
	holiness of purdah,....


The Real Issues which were Raised 
     (and got side-tracked)
=================================

Let's see the points which are being raised by Ms. Yasmin. I
would like her to correct or add if some thing has been left
out. For those wanting to follow anew the discussion, her
original posting is placed in the appendix.
(People directing their replies should concentrate on the
following sections).

1: What is "proven" Islamically about Hijab or purdah?
2: What are the "proven" limits of Hijab or purdah?
3: Some of the current positions can not be corroborated
    by Quran and Hadith?

    i. The interpretation of present Ulemas, esp. Maudoodi
       can not be corroborated by Quran?

   ii. Which are the relevant Hadiths supporting their
       positions, if any?

4: If the position of ulemas about "purdah" can not be supported
   by Quran and Hadith, then they are an addition ("biddah").
   There is no need to obey them. They can be discarded because
   they are some "male-oriented" views without proper 
   substantiation.

5: Maudoodi's position is based on his personal thinking
   (weakness of women during periods etc.) 


How to Tackle the above Issues?
==============================

a) It is clear that the above issues require a reply from "within"
   Quran and Sunnah. This was explicitly stated by Ms. Yasmin
   in various places.

b) Because of position (a), it will be sufficient to provide
   all the relevant Quran and Hadith sources.

c) This will leave us, then, with the task of interpretting them.

d) How is Quran and Hadith interpretted?
			   ------------
   i.  First lingiustically, literal meanings of the "words" used
       in the citations are explored. 
   ii. It is then confirmed that these "meanings" were in vogue
       during prophet's time. i.e. these are not just some
       recent attributions, which would have surprised even
       the prophet or people of that time.
  iii. What are the other places in Quran and Hadith where the
       same words were used?
  iv. In what sense are these words used.

    [those who have followed the Qadiani debate are well aware
     how  issues (i) - (iv) become serious when the meanings
     of only one word "khatam" were called into question!]

   v. Once the sense is obtained, it is then explored whether
      in all such places where they are used, the context 
      remains clear and does not become ambiguous. This is
      is the most important point.
    
    [I will briefly touch upon this "context" question. Ms. Yasmin
     at one place tries to restrict the "injunction" to the
     prophet's household only. It is done on the basis that
     the addressees were prophet's wives! Does this mean that
     "ALL" injunctions in Quran which are addressed to (say)
     Ibrahim are ONLY for Ibrahim and not for us, or those
     addressed to only specific people are only for those
     people and not for others! Such "naive attempts" at
     interpretation would probably leave us with none
     of the Quran, because the people who were addressed
     in Quran were specifically those of the 
     time of Mohaammad!!!!]

   vi. Once the unambiguous context of all such technical words
	(in this debate the eg. will be "zeenat") is obtained,
   	it is then explored, whether the interpretation so arrived
        at, still keeps the whole "spirit" of Quran togather. i.e.
        interpretation at one place may not contradict some
        other Quranic injunction elsewhere.

After all above [sigh], we may then live happily ever after!


Regards

Irfan Hyder


Clarification
=============

  Any comment above, which the person named feels is 
inappropriate, please accept my apologies in advance.
I am willing to take away that name and instead
substitute a third person pronoun.


Appendix:
==========

ys3359@sarah.albany.edu (Yazmasterj) writes:

>In article <92094.04542432JMVQG@CMUVM.CSV.CMICH.EDU> 
Mahfooz Ahmed Jafry <32JMVQG@CMUVM.CSV.CMICH.EDU> writes:
>>Salam Alaikum :     Burqa and muslim women
>>Maula Madoodi wrote very nice things 

>[lotsa stuff deleted]

>>      Many people are writing on this issue, 
>>but now I would write the pardah a
>>nd men and putting men in the house.  
>>If we read thoroughly (particularly sura
>>nisa, ahzab, noor in detials and with tafseer )
>> then we could find out that Hol
>>y Quran sets equal limitations on men also.  

>Assalamoalaikum

>	I just couldn't stay silent here.  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.  
>	The biggest thing which bugged me was his analysis of women and
>nature.  He went into a detailed account of how women were in fact
>in capable of working outside of the home due to their menstrual
>period.  He declared that women during their menstrual period were
>actually in a period of sickness which completely affected their
>judgment and strength to a non-functional point.  He also declared that
>women were not in control of themselves either physically or emotionally
>during their menstrual period.
>	Now this is really news to me.  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.  He declares that women are soft and 
>unaggressive.  He says they are passive and emotionally tender and
>sensitive.  He says they are not complete without having children.
>Why is a man deciding all of these things?  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.  I have never read
>a passage in the Quran which declared women to be solely for
>procreation.  Certainly Khadija (raa), the wife of the Prophet was not
>solely a procreative force in her husband's life.  
>	The needs of Arabia in the 7th century with their tribal way
>of life and their attitudes towards women which justified infanticide
>of female children in their minds required a different attitude than
>is required today.  The Prophet preached for 23 years which is a very
>short time to transform a culture completely.  The fact that he
>accomplished as much as he did is evidence of his strength and the
>guidance from Allah.  The tribal culture was very much alive and
>remembered when he passed away however.  They were used to keeping
>their women suppressed.  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.  These are rights which have been specifically granted to women
>in the Quran.  It is the height of chauvanism and biased behavior that
>requires women to be fully covered except for their eyes and hands
>(because Maulana Maudoodi mandates the veil also) and men to cover
>only from their navel to their knees.  A comparable area for women
>would be from their shoulders to their knees.  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?  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.  One cannot be responsible for the sexual attraction
>of every single other person around.  There is a big difference between
>an image of modesty and a complete cover.  
>	Lastly, will someone please tell me where exactly in the Quran
>are the areas of satar specified?  Also, all the hadith Maulana Maudoodi
>mentioned on the subject of satar for women did not reference any
>Bukhari or Muslim.  Anyone know of this being specified in the Bukhari
>or Muslim collections of hadith?  

>Yasmin

Newsgroups: soc.culture.pakistan