Francuski Vogue uzburkao javnost: Promoviranje marame, dok su muslimanke zbog toga progonjene

[Crvena Nit]

Nestalo adekvatnih argumenata.

Znači
Cijela ulema, svi učenjaci svih mehzeba se slažu po pitanju propisa pokrivanja žena i došla crvena da kaže da je ona upravu.

Biž ba
Baš nekad pretjeruješ.

Netočno

https://www.moroccoworldnews.com/2012/0 ... ty-scholar

Vi pretjerujete

[Max]

Znači
Cijela ulema, svi učenjaci svih mehzeba se slažu po pitanju propisa pokrivanja žena i došla crvena da kaže da je ona upravu.

Biž ba
Baš nekad pretjeruješ.

Netočno

https://www.moroccoworldnews.com/2012/0 ... ty-scholar

Vi pretjerujete

Takoe

[Max]

Znači
Cijela ulema, svi učenjaci svih mehzeba se slažu po pitanju propisa pokrivanja žena i došla crvena da kaže da je ona upravu.

Biž ba
Baš nekad pretjeruješ.

Netočno

https://www.moroccoworldnews.com/2012/0 ... ty-scholar

Vi pretjerujete

na kraju teksta
(kojeg vidim nisi pročitala skroz) stoji diclamer
Update to the article:

Al Azhar University published a statement in June 2012, denying the claims that one of its scholars had defended a thesis that concluded that Hijab, or the veil, is not an Islamic duty.

Dakle

Obrati pažnju na ono što iznosiš kao istinu, poturajući ono što tebi paše, hear say, ili ti rekla mi u mene mi tetka da je u onog dijete prnulo na sokaku, a istini za volju, dijete nije ni bilo na sokaku.

[Max]

Pa dalje kaže
Self-proclaimed imam Sheikh Mustapha Mohamed Rashed.
I mečeš pod vjerodostojno, što sam u tri klika skontao o liku.

[Crvena Nit]

Netočno

https://www.moroccoworldnews.com/2012/0 ... ty-scholar

Vi pretjerujete

na kraju teksta
(kojeg vidim nisi pročitala skroz) stoji diclamer
Update to the article:

Al Azhar University published a statement in June 2012, denying the claims that one of its scholars had defended a thesis that concluded that Hijab, or the veil, is not an Islamic duty.

Dakle

Obrati pažnju na ono što iznosiš kao istinu, poturajući ono što tebi paše, hear say, ili ti rekla mi u mene mi tetka da je u onog dijete prnulo na sokaku, a istini za volju, dijete nije ni bilo na sokaku.

Obratila sam prije tebe, ne brini

ALEXANDRA KINIAS

Is veil an Islamic requirement, or not?

Article written by Sheikh Mustafa Mohamed Rashid and published in Rosa-Al-Youssef magazine in 2009: Veil is not an Islamic requirment.
By: Alexandra Kinias

When the Egyptian newspaper Al-Massa published on May 25th, 2012 an article about Al Azhar’s endorsement to Sheikh Mustafa Mohamed Rashid’s PhD thesis on Sharia and Law, which stated that veil is not an Islamic requirement (fard), not much reaction to this controversial news was reported. Ranked at the bottom of the government publications that had lost credibility with the public, Al-Massa newspaper is hardly read by Egyptians. In May, the news media and Egyptians were already tangled with the presidential race and an article in Al-Massa was the last thing anyone would pay attention to. Rashid had previously written an article for Rosa Al Youssef magazine in 2009 where he had explained the reasons behind his arguments. Since Rosa-al-Youssef’s main audience are seculars, not much attention was given to Rashid’s article. They already knew it.

The World Muslim Congress blog translated Rashid’s article on which his thesis was based:

In his thesis, Rashid stated that hijab is not an Islamic requirement (fard), and that the interpretation (tafseer) of the verses (ayat) and the circumstances during which they appeared had led to the widespread misunderstanding about the so-called ‘Islamic Hijab’, denoting covering the head, of which there is absolutely no mention in the Quran.

Yet some have misconstrued the intent and correct interpretation of the Sharia, refusing the logic and sequence of its appearance, abandoning the proper methods of citing and interpreting of the verses (ayat), their historical background and reason for them. They have done so either intentionally, or with good intention but with lack of the essential analytical savvy.

This hijab issue imposed itself on the Islamic and non-Islamic psyche, and thus becoming the defining factor, meaning, and nature of the Islamic faith to non-Muslims, which led some non-Islamic nations to consider it a divisive political statement. In consequence to the resulting friction, some female students have been expelled from universities and jobs, only due to their adherence to this false belief, thereby attaching to Islam a non existent requirement.

So inconsistent and misguided have the proofs of the supporters of the hijab theory been, that it would sometimes take the form of khimar or jalabeeb, which distanced them from what they meant by head cover, which is indicative of their restrictive set of mind.

‘Hijab’ was mentioned in verse (ayah) 53 of Al Ahzab, where it signifies ‘wall’ or ‘what prevents view’ and it was in regards to pure “ummuhat al mo’mineen” where a “hajib” is to be placed between them and any men.

As for verse (ayah) 31 of Al Khimar – Sourrat al Noor, that is also a redundant claim, as the intent here is the cover of the breast and neck – the background here is the covering of the breast whose exposure is un-Islamic, and not what is now understood by hijab for the head.

And in regards to the historical background of verse (ayah) 59 of Sourrat al Ahzab was to distinguish between the pure and the promiscuous whores and slaves.

Finally, in the mis-use of the Hadith about Asma’a, daughter of Abu Bakr, when she walked in on the prophet (pbuh)s gathering, and he ordered her to not expose her face or palms – this Hadith is not a binding Hadith, as it is one of al AHaad and not one of the consistent, or the connected confirmed.

Exactly two months after the article was published, and with Mohamed Morsy the Islamic candidate elected president, the article was once again revived. Not only has it started a heated argument, but when an official from Al Azhar was confronted he denied that the institution had ever accepted such thesis, not to mention that it had awarded its researcher a PhD.

The argument that the veil is not an Islamic requirement is not new. It had been previously discussed by scholars, but naturally views from secular scholars are always discredited. This was the first time that a religious scholar from Al Azhar openly discussed it. With the re-emergence of the article, sited by multiple newspapers, this time it caught the attention of the readers and created a controversy between those who believe in it and those who don’t. The battle that has been going on for a while is now taking center stage.

https://alexandrakinias.wordpress.com/2 ... nt-or-not/

[Atomic]

Kad bi svi raspravljali o necemu o cemu smo istrazivali,a ne samo na brzinu naci neki link,forum bi bio bolji

[Max]

na kraju teksta
(kojeg vidim nisi pročitala skroz) stoji diclamer
Update to the article:

Al Azhar University published a statement in June 2012, denying the claims that one of its scholars had defended a thesis that concluded that Hijab, or the veil, is not an Islamic duty.

Dakle

Obrati pažnju na ono što iznosiš kao istinu, poturajući ono što tebi paše, hear say, ili ti rekla mi u mene mi tetka da je u onog dijete prnulo na sokaku, a istini za volju, dijete nije ni bilo na sokaku.

Obratila sam prije tebe, ne brini

ALEXANDRA KINIAS

Is veil an Islamic requirement, or not?

Article written by Sheikh Mustafa Mohamed Rashid and published in Rosa-Al-Youssef magazine in 2009: Veil is not an Islamic requirment.
By: Alexandra Kinias

When the Egyptian newspaper Al-Massa published on May 25th, 2012 an article about Al Azhar’s endorsement to Sheikh Mustafa Mohamed Rashid’s PhD thesis on Sharia and Law, which stated that veil is not an Islamic requirement (fard), not much reaction to this controversial news was reported. Ranked at the bottom of the government publications that had lost credibility with the public, Al-Massa newspaper is hardly read by Egyptians. In May, the news media and Egyptians were already tangled with the presidential race and an article in Al-Massa was the last thing anyone would pay attention to. Rashid had previously written an article for Rosa Al Youssef magazine in 2009 where he had explained the reasons behind his arguments. Since Rosa-al-Youssef’s main audience are seculars, not much attention was given to Rashid’s article. They already knew it.

The World Muslim Congress blog translated Rashid’s article on which his thesis was based:

In his thesis, Rashid stated that hijab is not an Islamic requirement (fard), and that the interpretation (tafseer) of the verses (ayat) and the circumstances during which they appeared had led to the widespread misunderstanding about the so-called ‘Islamic Hijab’, denoting covering the head, of which there is absolutely no mention in the Quran.

Yet some have misconstrued the intent and correct interpretation of the Sharia, refusing the logic and sequence of its appearance, abandoning the proper methods of citing and interpreting of the verses (ayat), their historical background and reason for them. They have done so either intentionally, or with good intention but with lack of the essential analytical savvy.

This hijab issue imposed itself on the Islamic and non-Islamic psyche, and thus becoming the defining factor, meaning, and nature of the Islamic faith to non-Muslims, which led some non-Islamic nations to consider it a divisive political statement. In consequence to the resulting friction, some female students have been expelled from universities and jobs, only due to their adherence to this false belief, thereby attaching to Islam a non existent requirement.

So inconsistent and misguided have the proofs of the supporters of the hijab theory been, that it would sometimes take the form of khimar or jalabeeb, which distanced them from what they meant by head cover, which is indicative of their restrictive set of mind.

‘Hijab’ was mentioned in verse (ayah) 53 of Al Ahzab, where it signifies ‘wall’ or ‘what prevents view’ and it was in regards to pure “ummuhat al mo’mineen” where a “hajib” is to be placed between them and any men.

As for verse (ayah) 31 of Al Khimar – Sourrat al Noor, that is also a redundant claim, as the intent here is the cover of the breast and neck – the background here is the covering of the breast whose exposure is un-Islamic, and not what is now understood by hijab for the head.

And in regards to the historical background of verse (ayah) 59 of Sourrat al Ahzab was to distinguish between the pure and the promiscuous whores and slaves.

Finally, in the mis-use of the Hadith about Asma’a, daughter of Abu Bakr, when she walked in on the prophet (pbuh)s gathering, and he ordered her to not expose her face or palms – this Hadith is not a binding Hadith, as it is one of al AHaad and not one of the consistent, or the connected confirmed.

Exactly two months after the article was published, and with Mohamed Morsy the Islamic candidate elected president, the article was once again revived. Not only has it started a heated argument, but when an official from Al Azhar was confronted he denied that the institution had ever accepted such thesis, not to mention that it had awarded its researcher a PhD.

The argument that the veil is not an Islamic requirement is not new. It had been previously discussed by scholars, but naturally views from secular scholars are always discredited. This was the first time that a religious scholar from Al Azhar openly discussed it. With the re-emergence of the article, sited by multiple newspapers, this time it caught the attention of the readers and created a controversy between those who believe in it and those who don’t. The battle that has been going on for a while is now taking center stage.

https://alexandrakinias.wordpress.com/2 ... nt-or-not/

jel 2012
2009 ili 2016
de ba text prepun nedoslijednosti...
BTW
evo šta kažu o dotičnom

Self-proclaimed imam Sheikh Mustapha Mohamed Rashed.
I mečeš pod vjerodostojno, što sam u tri klika skontao o liku.

[Crvena Nit]

https://www.searchforbeauty.org/2017/06 ... the-hijab/

Pitanja žene koja nosi hidžab

22. May 2017
FATWA: On the hijab in our day and age and addressing past scholarly opinions on the hijab
Letter 1:



Thank you for responding to this email.



I read the fatwa on the permissibility of not wearing the headscarf in the United States and found it compelling, logical, and easy to understand. I truly appreciate the detail given in the explanation for passing the fatwa. Most scholars usually pass a ruling, or give advice without giving detailed explanations as to why they have reached such conclusions. I have been wearing the headscarf for more than 10 years and I live in Canada and personally do not feel threatened and have never been harassed for my decision to wear the headscarf. However, I do question whether it is actually obligatory or not to wear a headscarf. For several years I did not question the reasons for wearing a headscarf (albeit, I did not have much knowledge surrounding the issue either) however after having children and deciding on a career that requires personal interaction with clients, I began to look into the matter as I began to feel burdened by it. Although the explanation for the fatwa was informative, I still have questions that need to be addressed by an expert in the subject matter such as yourself. I would like to take this moment to make it clear, that my intentions and desire is solely for the pleasure of God and to increase my knowledge on the matter in the hopes that I can be of benefit to others in the process.



My questions are as follows:



1. Traditional scholars have always stated that the legal ruling for the headscarf has never been debated historically (as far back as the time of the companions) and has always been a necessity in all times and circumstances and they have stated that it is absurd to argue otherwise (ie: their argument essentially states that since it has been viewed as a truth historically, it is erroneous to assume otherwise).



2. Traditional scholars also argue that the command for the headscarf is implied in surah Nur. Is it common for the Quran to imply a command (ie: are there are other instances where rulings/commands in the Quran are not explicit)? If not, is it reasonable to assume that legal rulings in the Quran are explicit and not implied? If there is an example of any other command in the Quran that is implied could you please provide an example so that I can better understand.



If Allah wanted a woman to wrap her head scarf around her neck head and chest, why would the commanding verb "wa yadribna" begin with a "striking or throwing over" the neckline, where the body first begins? Why would Allah skip the neck and go straight to the chest? Also Quran commentators explain that women during the time of the companions wore the headscarf and had the two ends thrown behind them, and that Allah instructed them to bring the two ends forward and wrap it around their neck and chests. Are there any authentic reports to back this historical claim? Also if Allah wanted women to extend or wrap around with their head coverings, wouldn't He use an Arabic word for wrap, or say to lengthen by saying "min" (from) instead of "bi " (with) khamoor? Allah says to cover their chest with the khimar, and didn't say extend or wrap around. What do you think of such arguments?



The problem I have with past male jurists making decisions about a woman's clothing is that they lack knowledge of what a woman adorns herself with. For example as a female I know that an adornment that lays exactly on the Juyoob (neckline opening) is a necklace, hence when Allah asks women to not display her adornments then commands to cover the juyoob, I know what adornment is being mentioned. A necklace is exactly the kind of adornment that brings attention to the breast. Hence, Allah is saying cover those adornments that brings attention to ones body parts. What are your thoughts on this?



3. You wrote the evidence for khimar being a cloth that covered the head or covered the face is simply not there. If this is true where do scholars come to conclusions about these types of clothing? Do they not have evidence for the description of jilbab as well? How do we know that jilbab began from the head and that all jilbabs were the same type of clothing? For example, a shirt can be a t-shirt, long sleeve shirt, or a open v-neck shirt.



4. Is there a single authentic hadith (from the Prophet or the companions) that unequivocally states that it is mandatory for a woman to cover her head or hair in public, or that women covered their hair after the verses regarding dress code were revealed? Could the hadith about women looking like black crows refer to the fact that it was night time and it was dark outside when they went out to relieve themselves?



5. Is it possible for the word "zeena" to be interpreted as beauty in general? For example, some scholars have stated that a woman's breasts and hair are considered "zeena", is this interpretation correct?



I have many more questions however I know you have a busy schedule, but I would appreciate if you could answer the above questions.



Thank you for your time.

May Allah reward you.

Odgovorje u nastavku na link

https://www.searchforbeauty.org/2017/06 ... the-hijab/

Nije dobila nijedan konkretan odgovor

[Crvena Nit]

https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/pol ... -authority

[Fatih]

Nije gov.o nego se cuko po.rao.

Nestalo adekvatnih argumenata.

Jok bona. Nestalo zivaca.

[Crvena Nit]

Nestalo adekvatnih argumenata.

Jok bona. Nestalo zivaca.

Sumnjam da to nije uzrok.

[Fatih]

Jok bona. Nestalo zivaca.

Sumnjam da to nije uzrok.

Covjek ima pravo da svasta sumnja. Zaista sam umoran od pravljenja diskusija od tema, koje se mogu obajsniti u 5-6 recenica. Ova tema je jedan takav slucaj. Nista vise, nista manje.

Odoh sada traziti nesto sto sto vrijedi moje paznje i vremena.

[Crvena Nit]

Sumnjam da to nije uzrok.

Covjek ima pravo da svasta sumnja. Zaista sam umoran od pravljenja diskusija od tema, koje se mogu obajsniti u 5-6 recenica. Ova tema je jedan takav slucaj. Nista vise, nista manje.

Odoh sada traziti nesto sto sto vrijedi moje paznje i vremena.

Nisam uopće insistirala da sudjeluješ u debati.

Moj stav ostaje isti, bez obzira na vaše neargumentirano negiranje.

Tema je milion puta spomenuta na forumu.

[Fatih]

Covjek ima pravo da svasta sumnja. Zaista sam umoran od pravljenja diskusija od tema, koje se mogu obajsniti u 5-6 recenica. Ova tema je jedan takav slucaj. Nista vise, nista manje.

Odoh sada traziti nesto sto sto vrijedi moje paznje i vremena.

Nisam uopće insistirala da sudjeluješ u debati.

Moj stav ostaje isti, bez obzira na vaše neargumentirano negiranje.

Tema je milion puta spomenuta na forumu.

Pa cemu onda da iznosimo misljenja, stavove (i islamske propise), kada smo valjda do sad apsolvirali tu temu?

[Iskra]

Ne mogu ja obo citati majke mi.

Tema Vogue
Al jok, hajmo malo truniti o hidzabu i o tome kako nije propisan.

:smaja

[Atomic]

Meni ovo smijesno,zamisli Fatiha da podje pisati o seksu i kontrirati crvenoj
Zato je meni smijesno kad crvena kontrira Fatihu oko islama,znajuci da je covjek predan izucavanju istog

[Max]

Meni ovo smijesno,zamisli Fatiha da podje pisati o seksu i kontrirati crvenoj
Zato je meni smijesno kad crvena kontrira Fatihu oko islama,znajuci da je covjek predan izucavanju istog

Ma haj da ina kontrira fatihu i da su to neka misljenja i razliciti stavovi.
Ali crvena kontrira cijelom ummetu.

Na temu
Vogue i francuska su precijenjeni