Burqa or chador?

Aisha

Aisha

New Member
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Points
1
Location
Italy
Yesterday i had a chat with my 18 y.o. cousin in a garden, she wore a black chador and i lifted the burqa over my head because i could relax a bit more in this quiet place. She said to prefer the chador because the integral veil gives her a bad feeling and upset her. I said to be used to the burqa now having worn it since i was 19 even if my cousin sometimes try to convince me to show my face in public but i suppose to wear it until my death.
 
This seem accurate?
upload_2017-6-15_21-0-15.png
 
in the west you dont have to wear niqab; maybe it's safer not to wear it?
 
Aisha said:
Yesterday i had a chat with my 18 y.o. cousin in a garden, she wore a black chador and i lifted the burqa over my head because i could relax a bit more in this quiet place. She said to prefer the chador because the integral veil gives her a bad feeling and upset her. I said to be used to the burqa now having worn it since i was 19 even if my cousin sometimes try to convince me to show my face in public but i suppose to wear it until my death.
Click to expand...

Response: The wearing of the Burqa or chador is cultural. Not Islamic. So is the head cover. These are cultural practices and has nothing to do with Islam. In Islam, women are required to cover their private parts (breasts, and the area between the bottom of their butt to their waistline) in clothing that does not flaunt their curves. There is nothing that says womem cannot show their legs or hair.

However, womem are required to be modest and in many cultures, exposing your legs and hair are immodest and seductive. Therefore, women are required to do so.
 
Al-Fatihah said:
Response: The wearing of the Burqa or chador is cultural. Not Islamic. So is the head cover. These are cultural practices and has nothing to do with Islam. In Islam, women are required to cover their private parts (breasts, and the area between the bottom of their butt to their waistline) in clothing that does not flaunt their curves. There is nothing that says womem cannot show their legs or hair.

However, womem are required to be modest and in many cultures, exposing your legs and hair are immodest and seductive. Therefore, women are required to do so.
Click to expand...
Please be wary of giving such contradictory advice to that of any Madhah. I will agree that I see some leeway on hair cover, but I would never advise anyone outside of my personal family of such. My reason for saying hair is questionable, is the Hadiths that were recorded only said the prophet pointed to his face and feet and hands. Face here could be taken as just face or head, but it seems that when he mentioned this to female reverts that they all took to covering their head. I certainly wouldn't go as far as giving an option on legs from a religious standpoint. I see nothing that would allow such.

Aisha said:
Yesterday i had a chat with my 18 y.o. cousin in a garden, she wore a black chador and i lifted the burqa over my head because i could relax a bit more in this quiet place. She said to prefer the chador because the integral veil gives her a bad feeling and upset her. I said to be used to the burqa now having worn it since i was 19 even if my cousin sometimes try to convince me to show my face in public but i suppose to wear it until my death.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure which Madhah (I hope I am spelling this correctly) you subscribe to, but I'd say most do not require a veil at all. The Burqa is IMO overkill. If that is your choice then may Allah give you blessings for going to the extremes to veil yourself from the gaze of men other than your husband. But I am pretty sure most schools teach that anything over a headscarf is completely optional.
 
BigJoeNobody said:
Please be wary of giving such contradictory advice to that of any Madhah. I will agree that I see some leeway on hair cover, but I would never advise anyone outside of my personal family of such. My reason for saying hair is questionable, is the Hadiths that were recorded only said the prophet pointed to his face and feet and hands. Face here could be taken as just face or head, but it seems that when he mentioned this to female reverts that they all took to covering their head. I certainly wouldn't go as far as giving an option on legs from a religious standpoint. I see nothing that would allow such.
Click to expand...
Response: There is nothing to be wary regarding anything I have said. It is all logical and factual. The hadith regarding the Prophet pointing to his face, feet and hands is not authentic. So to rely on it as evidence is not valid. The most reliable and strongest evidence says to cover your breasts and the area from your waist and buttox and to be modest.That is it. Anything else is an opinion of a scholar and based on culture. There is no unambiguos and reliable evidence to cover the face. There is no unambiguous and reliable evidence to cover the hair or even the legs. I have studied many sources and logic related to the matter and it does not exist. I am not a layman.

However, Islam does teach and advocate chastity and modesty and as such, since thighs can be deemed sexual in most culturals it would go against modesty, so it is covered in Islam based on the principle of chaste and modesty. The same applies to wearing tight clothing that flaunts a woman's curves or clothing that causes the privates to jiggle as they move. Yet the fact remains that there is nothing that literally says to cover the hair, face, or legs. It says to be modest or chaste and according to the culture and the principle of chaste and modesty, these things are covered.
 
Last edited:
wil said:
Why is there no such edict for men?
Click to expand...

Response: Because the natural attraction of men and women are different. Men and women are not the same emotionally and psychologically, so attraction is also different. Women are naturally more sensitive and less inclined to fight. Men are less sensitive and more inclined to fight. So because women are more sensitive, it takes much more for a woman to be aroused. Men are not as sensitive, so it does not take much. Men are more visually aroused, which is why the restriction of modesty is more on women.

Yet this serves as a benefit for women because that means that since men are not naturally sensitive, then only through the modesty of a woman can a man be utmost in compassion and sensitivity. Without it, no man can attain it because by nature, men are not naturally inclined to be sensitive and compassionate. That means that a woman can use her modesty to influence and control a man, which means a woman is truly the woman who can influence the society.

You look at any study of a society and you can see, that the most compassionate and sensitive of men are those who are amongst women who are the more modest. Even in your own society, the woman who walks the street flaunting her curves and sexuality will not be as loved and respected as the woman who is modest. This shows the significance of a woman's modesty.
 
Al-Fatihah said:
Response: Because the natural attraction of men and women are different. Men and women are not the same emotionally and psychologically, so attraction is also different. Women are naturally more sensitive and less inclined to fight. Men are less sensitive and more inclined to fight. So because women are more sensitive, it takes much more for a woman to be aroused. Men are not as sensitive, so it does not take much. Men are more visually aroused, which is why the restriction of modesty is more on women.

Yet this serves as a benefit for women because that means that since men are not naturally sensitive, then only through the modesty of a woman can a man be utmost in compassion and sensitivity. Without it, no man can attain it because by nature, men are not naturally inclined to be sensitive and compassionate. That means that a woman can use her modesty to influence and control a man, which means a woman is truly the woman who can influence the society.
Click to expand...
Could I get some references on this? Since we're in the Islamic section the Quran or a strong Hadith is probably appropriate.

Al-Fatihah said:
You look at any study of a society and you can see, that the most compassionate and sensitive of men are those who are amongst women who are the more modest. Even in your own society, the woman who walks the street flaunting her curves and sexuality will not be as loved and respected as the woman who is modest. This shows the significance of a woman's modesty.
Click to expand...
You reference society here so perhaps a study that quantifies and compares modesty and respect in different societies.
 
A Cup Of Tea said:
Could I get some references on this? Since we're in the Islamic section the Quran or a strong Hadith is probably appropriate.


You reference society here so perhaps a study that quantifies and compares modesty and respect in different societies.
Click to expand...

Response: I'm referring to firsthand evidence as my source and study. What I have studied and observed myself. If you disagree, you can refer to any study or reference that you would consider valid, and I can show you from the source you provide my point, as I can only show from deductive logic my position since you desire secondhand sources.
 
Last edited:
Al-Fatihah said:
You look at any study of a society and you can see, that the most compassionate and sensitive of men are those who are amongst women who are the more modest.
Click to expand...

Study?

The most compassionate and sensitive of men?

So Nazi Germany & Hiro hito's Japan had women walking nude in the streets?

Maybe the quote is about Eskimos and Amish and Catholic Priests and Buddhist Monks?
 
Al-Fatihah said:
a woman ... truly ... can influence the society
Click to expand...

IMO, eating a female that supplies milk to children ---leads to violent adults.

IMO, eating un-cooked & un-refrigerated cadavers ---leads to mad-cow.

Studies show this to be true ---but wealthy interests hide this from the purveyors of advertisement
 
Al-Fatihah said:
Response: I'm referring to firsthand evidence as my source and study. What I have studied and observed myself. If you disagree, you can refer to any study or reference that you would consider valid, and I can show you from the source you provide my point, as I can only show from deductive logic my position since you desire secondhand sources.
Click to expand...
So you are saying that
a) there is no edict for men
b) that there is a reason
c) but the reason is not in scripture

All a, b and c is true?
 
A Cup Of Tea said:
So you are saying that
a) there is no edict for men
b) that there is a reason
c) but the reason is not in scripture

All a, b and c is true?
Click to expand...

Response: Not at all. I am saying that the conditions for men and women are different in regards to covering in Islam because men and women are naturally different emotionally and psychologically. The reasoning is not scriptural. It is evident from deductive logic based on observable, testable evidence.

The same way your own country and society has laws for public indecency for men and women because your own government and society recognizes there is a difference between men and women. However, the reasoning is not stated in the law but evident in the claims of psychologists who conduct psychological studies, the society and the implementation of the law.
 
Last edited:
Al-Fatihah said:
Response: Not at all. I am saying that the conditions for men and women are different in regards to covering in Islam because men and women are naturally different emotionally and psychologically. The reasoning is not scriptural. It is evident from deductive logic based on observable, testable evidence.

The same way your own country and society has laws for public indecency for men and women because your own government and society recognizes there is a difference between men and women. However, the reasoning is not stated in the law but evident in the claims of psychologists who conduct psychological studies, the society and the implementation of the law.
Click to expand...
So it's testable! And it is there in laws and psychology, I'm sure there must be some source you can point to. I seems almost self evident?
 
A Cup Of Tea said:
So it's testable! And it is there in laws and psychology, I'm sure there must be some source you can point to. I seems almost self evident?
Click to expand...

Response: Your own society and government acknowledges it. Surely, you can conduct some form of research yourself to verify? I'm sure my word is not evidence, so it would only be incumbent to do so?

I try to avoid the fallacy of appealing to authority so I do not refer to secondary sources as a basis for my position. Only firsthand evidence, then deductive logic from it. However, since you find secondary sources as valid, why not conduct some form of research yourself for a source?
 
Last edited:
Al-Fatihah said:
Response: Your own society and government acknowledges it. Surely, you can conduct some form of research yourself to verify? I'm sure my word is not evidence, so it would only be incumbent to do so?

I try to avoid the fallacy of appealing to authority so I do not refer to secondary sources as a basis for my position. Only firsthand evidence, then deductive logic from it. However, since you find secondary sources as valid, why not conduct some form of research yourself for a source?
Click to expand...
So everything that isn't from your mind is a secondary source? Is the Quran a secondary source? I'm guessing it is an exception if that is so?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top