QM Forum
The Quran => Women => Topic started by: Reader Questions on July 26, 2012, 04:29:25 AM
-
Question on Joseph Islam's Facebook page by Delwar Hossain
Salamun alaikum sir Joseph,
33:59 "O prophet, tell your wives, your daughters, and the wives of the believers that they should lengthen upon themselves their outer garments. That is better so that they will not be recognized and harmed. God is Forgiver, Merciful."
It is Monotheist translation.
Does it mean the whole body covering since it says "so that they cannt be recognized.."? Or it is translation problem? But it seems to me this translation fit properly to a good sense.
But the problem is, if none can recognize, then how can she communicate with people in her workplace?
This is what Sunnis think.
But we see that in 24:31 we find that the objective of dress is to conceal from sexual senses or attraction, not from natural beauty. And that tells to wear an outer garment over bossom.
Now my question is, does 33:59 means only 24:31 for Koran's consistency, Or it gives a limit between the two extreme?
-
Dear Delawar,
Please see the following article and in particular, sections:
WEAR A 'JILBAB' BUT BE RECOGNIZABLE and COVERAGE OF THE ARMS AND LEGS
HIJAAB
http://quransmessage.com/articles/hijaab%20FM3.htm
I hope this will answer your question, God willing.
Regards,
Joseph
-
Dear sir Joseph Islam,
Salamun alaikum,
I wanted to know actually if the monotheist group's translation is correct when they say that Ayah33:59 tells, "...so that they can not be recognized and teased". Here this 'not' is a common negetion of both- 'recognized' and 'teased'.
But most of our translators refer this 'not' only to 'teased'.
So kindly clarify this.
Sorry my question was not what 'yudnina' means.
Thank you in advance.
-
Dear Delwar,
Walaikum salam.
I have checked the Reformist Translation and I do not see the 'not' in the translation as you suggest.
The Reformist Translation that I have consulted and shared below clearly makes the point that woman should be recognised. I do not see a common negation of both 'recognised' and 'teased'.
33:59 O prophet, tell your wives, your daughters, and the wives of those who acknowledge that they should lengthen upon themselves their outer garments. That is better so that they would be recognized and not harmed. God is Forgiver, Compassionate.
Have you accessed the translation from the Reformist Translation directly or from another website?
Regards,
Joseph.
PS: There are other parts of the translation which would be best noted as an 'interpretation' and not a 'correct' literal translation such as 'lengthen' as is used in the translation. This is rendition of the word 'yudnina'. This I have already discussed.
-
The Monotheist Translation is not Reformist translation brother. It is wrotten by someone else, not Edip Yuksel.
I was talking of The monotheist translation. You can see here:
www.quranix.org/#?RTQ=1&TMG=1&MA=1&RK=1&SH=1&TE=1&A=1&L=en&NA=10&keywords=33%3A59&sinall=cur&slogic=and
As you think it is interpretational problem, not literal, that is, you mean there is plausibility for both, then we can conclude that it cant contradict 24:31's principles, therefore the head-scarf and face-veil are no way supported by Qur'an.
Jazak allahu khayran brother Joseph for the clarification :)
-
Salamun Alaikum,
No problem brother :)
If a translation argues for full total coverage (no recognition) in its interpretation (no matter who it is from - Reformist, Monotheist, x, y or z) as is suggested by the translation you have kindly shared then the rendition is incorrect no matter what the translation calls itself or who it belongs to. I am sure you will appreciate this anyway, God willing.
The Quran is in Arabic. That is why I humbly shared a comprehensive article dealing with this subject of coverage from a Quranic perspective analysing key Arabic terms.
Your brother in faith,
Joseph
-
Please also see:
http://misconceptions-about-islam.com/dress-code-women-veil.htm
Additional notes for Arabic readers:
The word "khumur" is used in 24:31 and can be the plural of "khimaar" or "khimirr", and can mean any cover made of cloth or headcover, according to Classical Arabic dictionaries and Traditional Ahadith/Narrations (see Ibn Kathir tafsir). Please note the Arabic preposition "bi" meaning "with" in "bikhumurihinna", which means they are to cover their chests with their "khumur/covers/headcovers". The usage of preposition "bi" is different to the preposition "min" as used in 33:59 "min jalabeebihinna" which means to use a part of their "jilbab/outer-garment" in the modification suggested, i.e. not all of it has to be lowered or drawn near, just part of it. In 24:31 if God intended that part of it (e.g. headcover) stays on the head and part of it be used to cover the bosom, it would have been more appropriate to use "min khumurhinna". Furthermore, the word "yadribna" as used in 24:31 has no connotation of lengthening or lowering in any other occurrence, unlike "yudneena" in 33:59 which does, thus would have been more appropriate to use.