paul@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (02/28/91)
In article > References: <1991Feb24.174955.5985@wpi.WPI.EDU> > From: zama@midway.uchicago.edu (iftikhar uz zaman) writes.. > I appreciate the response that Christy@CRVAX has posted to paul@kuhub > regarding the issue of "the function of hijab" -- certainly someone > who wears the hijab in America "stands out" but the nature of this > conspicuosness is different... > > A Muslim married couple which I knew had a little argument: the man > thought that when they went to the beach his wife "stood out" too much > by being over-dressed and wished she would wear a bikini. The woman > was outraged . . . I would sympathize with the woman for similar reasons > to the one Christy@CRVAX has pointed out . . . Let's not forget what the verses say! The verses warn to "dress non-provocatively" and "walk non-provocatively" - "cover the breasts". There are some women who wear robes on the beach. Robes cover the breasts and hide the "ornaments" (zina - which, some translators taking their cues from 24:31 translate as "bosoms"). Sweat suits also do a rather good job of obscuring women's "charms". I'm not advocating ignoring the verses, just understanding the intent and applying them, accordingly. Islam is trans-cultural, after all! To carry forward traditions (from the ahadith) from the Arabs, literally and to the slightest nuance, without an understanding, really does nothing to help us penetrate the deepest meaning of the religion. Aren't we supposed to penetrate the deepest meaning, or do we let "form" rule over "content"?