24:31 (and to display of their adornment only that which is

The

The following is Pickthall's translation:

24:31 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 their bosoms, and not to reveal their adornment save to their own husbands or fathers or husbands' fathers, or their sons or their husbands' sons, or their brothers or their brothers' sons or sisters' sons, or their women, or their slaves, or male attendants who lack vigour, or children who know naught of women's nakedness. And let them not stamp their feet so as to reveal what they hide of their adornment. And turn unto Allah together, O believers, in order that ye may succeed.

How do you understand the part and to display of their adornment only that which is apparent (Feel free to use any translation, buddies)

**AhmedBahgat**

Salam bro

I am going to put the verse in Arabic then think about it for a while, however if you would like to start with your understanding to the verse, it would be a great kick off

24:31 وقل للمؤمنات يغضضن من ابصارهم ويحفظن فروجهن ولا يبدين زينتهن الا ما ظهر منها وليضربن بخمرهن علي جيوبهن ولا يبدين زينتهن الا لبعولتهن او ابائهن او اباء بعولتهن او ابنائهن او ابناء بعولتهن او اخوانهن او بني اخوانهن او بني اخواتهن او نسائهن او ما ملكت ايمانهن او التابعين غير اولي الاربة من الرجال او الطفل الذين لم يظهروا علي عورات النساء ولا يضربن بارجلهن ليعلم ما يخفين من زينتهن وتوبوا الي الله جميعا ايها المؤمنون لعلكم تفلحون
[The Quran ; 24:31]

Cheers

The

Before I go into the verse itself, I will provide the lead up to this thread. I was discussing with a Sunni buddy Asad's translation, and I wrote the following:

_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________

I will put forth Asad's interpretation of 24:31, and we will see how it compares with or contrasts the Jewish recommendations.

Backdrop: Muhammad Asad was born into a Jewish family, and from an early age was thoroughly indoctrinated in his ancestral religion, his grandfather being a rabbi. He converted to Islam in 1926, and later went on to pen his own "adaptable" translation of the Quran, which reflects the mood then prevailing in certain segments in the Indian subcontinent.

Asad was a descendant of a long line of rabbis. However, his father was a barrister. He received a thorough religious education. He was proficient in Hebrew from an early age and was also familiar with Aramaic. He studied the Old Testament, as well as the text and commentaries of the Talmud, the Mishna and Gemara. Furthermore, he delved into the intricacies of Biblical exegesis, the Targum.

Let me now move to the verse under consideration. Following is his translation:

And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and to be mindful of their chastity, and not to display their charms [in public] beyond what may [decently] be apparent thereof; hence, let them draw their head-coverings over their bosoms. And let them not display [more of] their charms to any but their husbands, or their fathers, or their husbands' fathers, or their sons, or their husbands' sons, or their brothers, or their brothers' sons, or their sisters' sons, or their womenfolk, or those whom they rightfully possess, or such male attendants as are beyond all sexual desire, or children that are as yet unaware of women's nakedness; and let them not swing their legs [in walking] so as to draw attention to their hidden charms.

Below is his detailed analysis of the verse:

And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and to be mindful of their chastity, and not to display their charms [in public] beyond what may [decently] be apparent thereof; [My interpolation of the word "decently" reflects the interpretation of the phrase illa ma zahara minha by several of the earliest Islamic scholars, and particularly by Al-Qiffal (quoted by Razi) as "that which a human being may openly show in accordance with prevailing custom (al-adah al-jariyah)". Although the traditional exponents of Islamic Law have for centuries been inclined to restrict the definition of "what may [decently] be apparent" to a woman's face, hands and feet - and sometimes even less than that - we may safely assume that the meaning off illa ma zahara minha is much wider, and that the deliberate vagueness of this phrase is meant to allow for all the time-bound changes that are necessary for man's moral and social growth. The pivotal clause in the above injunction is the demand, addressed in identical terms to men as well as to women, to "lower their gaze and be mindful of their chastity": and this determines the extent of what, at any given time, may legitimately - i.e., in consonance with the Quranic principles of social morality - be considered "decent" or "indecent" in a person's outward appearance.] hence, let them draw their head-coverings over their bosoms. [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 all 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 cleavage 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.] And let them not display [more of] their charms to any but their husbands, or their fathers, or their husbands' fathers, or their sons, or their husbands' Sons, or their brothers, or their brothers' sons, or their sisters' sons,...

I will paraphrase his explanation to make for an easier reading:

According to him, the prevailing custom determines which parts of her body a woman may openly show. He further observes that while the traditional understanding has been that a woman is permitted to display only her face, hands and feet (or even less), the Quran allows her to show much more than that. He then takes us back to the time of the Revelation (no pun), and informs us that it was the fashion back then for women to reveal their cleavage. As such, the khimar was ordained to hide a woman's cleavage, and is otherwise not needed.

As we see, he has emphasized (via repetition) that it is the prevailing fashion or custom that ultimately decides what makes for decent public display, and then makes a particular case for khimar, claiming that it's only use is to cover cleavage, and is not to be used as an additional garment otherwise. He also makes a point that the scope of Quranic injunction allows for a much wider display than the face, hands and feet.

It is not my endeavor here to challenge his understanding, rather only to see how it stacks up against the Jewish understanding. The following is from a Jewish website which is answering a query about women's dressing:

Traditionally, there are halachic rules and community customs that lead to a particular pattern of dress for those that observe the halacha regarding modesty. This is most typical among the Orthodox segment of Judaism, but is occasionally found elsewhere. It is good to keep these rules in mind if you visit traditional communities, especially in Israel. These dress rules/customs include:

Sleeves are typically covered as far as the elbow.

The neckline does not expose any cleavage.

Skirts are long enough to cover the knee when seated.

Depending on the area, pants or slacks may be allowed; for example, in many religious kibbutzim the women wear pants out of habit, for the simple reason that they work in agricultural areas or other activities where a skirt would be less modest. However, this is the exception; when not performing these activities,
skirts are worn. Women not in such situations at all are encouraged not to wear pants. The problem with pants are two-fold: first, some communities still consider them banned under the laws that prohibit cross-dressing. The other is that any attire that shows the location of the croch is considered immodest attire for women. If the problem is only the latter, then perhaps a skirt or apron over pants would be permitted. Different rabbis and communities follow different norms

Let us now compare the Jewish answer with Asad's understanding.

Asad:

It is the custom or culture that determines the dress code.

Cleavage display not allowed.

Parts displayable - Much wider than face, hands and feet.

Jewish:

It is the custom or culture that determines the dress code.

Cleavage display not allowed.

Parts displayable: Face and neck till the cleavage, elbow downwards, knee downwards.

From another website (regarding women wearing pants):

What is unique about this prohibition, a rarity in the Torah, is that the application of this prohibition is affected by the social norms in any given place at any given time.

For example, in days gone by where a woman wearing pants was virtually unheard of, it would indeed have been prohibited for a woman to wear such clothing. In our day and age, in the Western world at least, pants are not reserved merely for men. It is quite normal for a woman to wear pants. As such, a woman who does so would not violate this prohibition.

It's pretty plain to see where Asad is coming from.

_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________

In the next post I will share my understanding of the verse. Take care, buddy.

The

I will break down the verse to facilitate its understanding:

And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and be modest,

A. and to display of their adornment only that which is apparent,

B. and to draw their veils over their bosoms,

C. and not to reveal their adornment save to their own husbands or fathers or husbands' fathers, or their sons or their husbands' sons, or their brothers or their brothers' sons or sisters' sons, or their women, or their slaves, or male attendants who lack vigour, or children who know naught of women's nakedness.

D. And let them not stamp their feet so as to reveal what they hide of their adornment.

And turn unto Allah together, O believers, in order that ye may succeed.

Let us now try to understand each of these parts separately and also in relation to each other.

A. and to display of their adornment only that which is apparent,

This part of the verse commands the believing women to display/reveal of their 'zeenat' only that which is apparent/readily visible.

B. and to draw their veils over their bosoms,

If we understand bosom to be apparent, then [A] tells us that a woman can display what is apparent, and as such there would be no need to cover it with 'khimar'. If we do not understand bosom as apparent, then the injunction to cover it is already provided in [A]. As such, we understand from [A] and [B] that 'khimar' is an additional garment that the believing women are commanded to cover their bosom with.

D. And let them not stamp their feet so as to reveal what they hide of their adornment.

Quite evidently, believing women have been commanded to conceal their 'zeenat'. This injunction to mind their gait (not stomp their feet) ensures that the concealed does not become known, and thereby enjoins that a woman's figure should not be discernible.

What I have managed to derive from the verse thus far:

1. A woman's figure should not be discernible.

2. An additional garment has to be worn over her bosom.

I will next try to look at parts [A] and [C] a little in depth.

The

Before moving ahead with my analysis of the verse, I think I should take a look at another(?) "reformist" interpretation . We have already seen (via the rulings of Jewish rabbis) how Asad's understanding coincides with that of his ancestral religion, and I think it is in place here to unveil Parwez in this very regard. Below is an excerpt from his letter to Tahira, where he makes a "clarification":

I would like to make it clear that the Quran has mentioned 'Khamar' and 'Jalbab' because these were prevalent among Arabs at that time. It is not necessary for us to wear the Jalbab and Khamar or similar coverings. The Quranic aim is to conceal your adornments when going out. For this purpose we can wear what we like. The cut and style of the dress is dictated by your social mode, which keeps on changing with time. The main purpose is to adhere to the Quranic goal of hiding your adornment.

As we see, he has echoed Asad's sentiments, with an equal disregard for what the Quran says. Like Asad and the rabbis, he proposes the "dress as the society dresses" mantra, and asserts that 'khimar' and 'jilbab' are not necessary as per the Quran. We have already seen from (parts [A] and [B ] of) 24:31 that 'khimar' is an additional garment that a believing woman is supposed to cover her bosom with. Let's now tackle the question of 'jilbab'.

Before putting forth his "clarification", Parwez makes the following observation about 'jilbab':

In another place it is said: They should gather their 'Jalbab' and keep it near them (33:59). Jalbab is a cloth that is worn over one's clothes when going out.

Despite his clarification baloney, he recognizes that 'jilbab' is an additional garment that the believing women were ordered to wear when outside their house. Let us now take a look at the injunction concerning 'jilbab' and see if the verse (33:59) makes it optional:

O Prophet! Tell thy wives and thy daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks close round them (when they go abroad). That will be better, so that they may be recognised and not annoyed. Allah is ever Forgiving, Merciful.

The injunction to cover their 'zeenat' is already in place (24:31), and this verse now presents the manner in which the believing women should dress when they are outside their house. In this regard, the Quran tells the believing women to cover themselves with 'jilbab' so that they may be recognized for who they are, and not be outraged. Plainly, nowhere does the verse hint that the decision regarding whether or not to adopt the 'jilbab' is to be left to the "social mode".

As we have seen throughout this exercise, these verses never expound, explicitly or implicitly, that it is the prevailing fashion that will decide the dress of a woman. Additionaly, the Quran makes it clear that neither 'khimar' nor 'jilbab' is an accessory which the believing women might discard in deference of social norms, but are rather among the injunctions which God has enjoined on them. Whatever factor shaped the understanding of Asad and Parwez, it is certainly not the text of the Quran, for which neither of them shows any regard. (Note that both of them had worked alongside the poet-philosopher Iqbal, so it is likely that this shared understanding is not a coincidence).

In the next post, we will get to see a little more of Parwez's spurious interpretations and specious arguments.

(A little busy with other engagements, so I will be adding as and when I can find the time)

**AhmedBahgat**

Salam brother The

Since you raised this issue, I could not stop thinking about it, in fact I have an idea but I am not sure if it is compatible with any understanding, possibly more compatible with yours

I believe that the verse means by their adornment, their body parts, like breasts, face hair, etc etc, I believe that some parets should be aparant and not concealed, and I believe that the parts that should be apparent are the face and the hand, but not including the hair,

For me the women breasts, hair, mouth, nose, body figure can all be considered as adornment for women, I do not take the adornment as thigs that she might wear, like jewerley.

So, for me the verse means covering the hair with some khimar that extends to their bosoms, which should conceal the hair and the top body figure including breasts. The bottom body figure should already be covered with a long and loose dress, her feet should be covered with a shoe, or even partialy covered with a sandel or something like that

So all the apparent parts for me are, face, hands (not arms) and possibly part of their feet (not legs)

However I will accept to be corrected but with some compelling proofs from Quran only that might give some insight to some of the words used in the verse, I need to research it myself but I will have to spare some time for it as my Quran translation second draft is taking most of my time and I fell a bit behind the schedule I planned for the second draft, especially that I will do a third and final draft which planned to be finished by mid 2011 inshaallah

Salam

The

As promised, I will dissect Parwez's reasoning on the permissibility of displaying the face. Note that I am only challening Parwez's reasoning, and not touching on the question of permissibility.

Parwez writes:

It is thus obvious that whether you cover your chest with your head-gear, or whether you wear something over your clothes, there is no mention of hiding your face. If concealing the face had been necessary, then why were men directed to keep the eyes downcast? It may be objected, that when it is directed that 'Zeenat' be concealed, then as the face is the more prominent place of beauty, it should be hidden first. However, the Quran itself enjoins: Cover your adornments except those parts which remain open inevitably (24:30), and it then describes methods of covering which leave the face exposed. As such, hiding the face cannot be a Quranic tenet.

We begin with his confession that "the face is the more prominent place of beauty". To put it crudely, a woman's face is a big turn on, and Parwez has no qualms in admitting this. Yet, he tries to make a case for not covering it, and it's his arguments that we will scrutinize.

Argument: the Quran itself enjoins: Cover your adornments except those parts which remain open inevitably (24:30), and it then describes methods of covering which leave the face exposed. As such, hiding the face cannot be a Quranic tenet.

Let's break down his argument and study its claims:

the Quran itself enjoins: Cover your adornments except those parts which remain open inevitably

One only needs to read the verse to see that the Quran isn't talking about "those parts which remain open inevitably," but rather of 'zeenat' which is apparent. Simply put, the Quran doesn't talk about "evitably/inevitably open/closed parts", and this is the first false premise that he has introduced in his attempt to twist the verse to fit his interpretation.

His second and equally fallacious presumption is that the face is a part which will "remain open inevitably". A woman can easily wear a veil over her face, and it will not "remain open inevitably," but Parwez displays his usual uncanny knack of conjuring up baloney.

and it then describes methods of covering which leave the face exposed

Here his argument is that the Quran does not explicitly enjoin the believing women to cover the face. Using the same reasoning, we can argue that the Quran does not explicitly enjoin believing women to cover their waist or their legs, and under his "dress as the society dresses" baloney one can easily make a case for not covering them. Once again he comes up with specious arguments to rescue his surreptitious interpretation.

Argument: If concealing the face had been necessary, then why were men directed to keep the eyes downcast?

This one is so pathetic that it makes for a perfect representation of Parwez's reasoning ability. What does a believing woman's concealing her face have to do with believing men's casting down their gaze? Was he dreaming of an Islamic Utopia?

Whichever way we look at it, by posing this question he has defeated his own purpose. If he argues that the believing women need not cover their face because believing men have been commanded to lower their gaze, then we can easily defeat the argument on the strength of the fact that this earth is not inhabited by believing men alone. Additionally, believing men are going to encounter not only believing women but also other women who may not observe the same standards of dressing as those prescribed for their believing counterparts. Evidently, the command (enjoined upon believing men) to lower their gaze does not lead to the conclusion that the believing women have been allowed to display their face. But it seems that our "reformist" is so absorbed in his attempt to manipulate the Quran to his own liking that he has done away with even the slightest pretense of sensibility while posing his question.

As we can easily see, his arguments are based on nothing but spurious interpretations coupled with specious arguments, and as such in themselves do not make for the permissibility which he falsely attributes to the Quran.

@ahmedbahgat:

It's good to have your understanding to look at, brother. I am a little occupied with another issue at the moment, so I will leave parts [A] and [ B] for a later date, as I expect these parts to demand a lot of time and space. However, my impression is that even with the hair covered there lies a great amount of attraction in a woman's face, and as such is among the prime candidates for veiling.

And wish you luck for your translation project. Take care.

Enlightened

Whether Mohammad Asad based his interpretation on Orthodox Jewish dress or not is of no significance to me. I rely only on Quran and it does not say that a woman should cover her hair whether fully or not. Why do I say this? The verse Ahmed was kind to quote in Arabic refers to covering 'juyubihinna' which in Arabic refers to the chest area. Why should we extrapolate that this also infers covering the hair, indeed that would be like adding verses to the Quran, even if using brackets.

My idea of how a woman should dress relies on the quran which mentions them having to wear 'jalabib'. Everyone who speaks Arabic knows that a 'jilbab' or 'jalabib' refers to a long garb that loosely covers the body so as not to show the shape of a woman's body. That is the wisdom conveyed in the verse, that woman should wear loose-fitting clothes as modesty encourages this practice. It also says that the 'khimar' (literally veil in Arabic, ie: shawl) has the function of covering the bosom. There could be two reasons for this:

1- To further dissimulate the shape of the bosom in case the Jilbab was tighter around the bosom or the woman's breasts are just naturally too big (not joking here).

2- To cover the cleavage since the jilbab present in Arabia during those times did not cover it. We have no reason to assume that the people of Quraish even had a view on this matter and its permissibility. It may just have been something that women wore since there were no cultural restrictions. Even nowadays there are dresses I have seen sold in Bahrain and the UAE which do not cover the cleavage (they show the upper chest, this is still not permissible in Islam).

My opinion is that if covering the hair was so important as a command from Allah then it would have been explicitly stated in one verse at least. I do not believe that Allah wants us to go around confused on this matter but Allah knows best and this is merely my Ijtihad. To sum it up, I think that women should wear long, loose-fitting clothes that do not show the woman's form (tight shirts, T-shirts not OK) yet showing ones hair is permissible as long as the previous requirements for modesty have been met.

Tell me if you think that there is anything wrong with the way she is dressed:

Thumbnail, click to enlarge.

I would like to hear someone else's opinion on the matter because I do not want to make something Halal if it is not so!