69 million page views

A Matter of Interpretation

Reader comment on item: Boston Bombing Lesson: Ban Niqabs and Burqas
in response to reader comment: Veil

Submitted by Mike Ramirez (United States), Apr 26, 2013 at 00:23

Susan: Regarding Quran 33:59, you wrote in part: "There is room for discussion, n'est-ce pas?" Yes, and that's the neat thing about Canada and America. We can still have a freedom of discussion and even disagreement about the interpretation and application of this verse. However, such is not the case where the official ruling is made within an Islamic society that is controlled, for example, by the hard-line ruling of the Taliban. Women in such controlled societies have no room for discussion at all. Granted, there are several sects of Islam that vary in how they interpret some of the Qur'anic verses just as there are varying ways to interpret a verse that is found within other religions like Judaism, Christianity, etc. However, there is only one fundamental truth to the intended meaning and yet even that is debated by all.

As a side note, I found the following verse to be quite a contrast to the head covering that is obligatory in Islam and shaving of the head that some Orthodox sects used to abide by: 1 Corinthians 11:15: "But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering." Now, that also could be open for discussion and debate but still there is really only one original intended meaning just as their is one original intended meaning for the head covering that is obligatory in Islam.

Thus, upon research of the Qur'an and Ahadith, my personal conclusion would be that Muslim husbands were to be extremely protective of their wives not being looked upon by other men and therefore, the verse of the veiling of women was to be included in the Qur'an, as stated in the previously cited Hadith. (ref. Sahih Bukhari, Vol. 1, Book 8, No. 395). The niqab and burkah would certainly prevent the "flirtatious attraction" by a man seeing a woman in public and perhaps that was another of the strict controls that Muslim men were to have over their wives during the time of Muhammad. Thoughts?

Submitting....

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".

Comment on this item

Mark my comment as a response to A Matter of Interpretation by Mike Ramirez

Email me if someone replies to my comment

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".

See recent outstanding comments.

Follow Daniel Pipes

Facebook   Twitter   RSS   Join Mailing List

All materials by Daniel Pipes on this site: © 1968-2022 Daniel Pipes. daniel.pipes@gmail.com and @DanielPipes

Support Daniel Pipes' work with a tax-deductible donation to the Middle East Forum.Daniel J. Pipes

(The MEF is a publicly supported, nonprofit organization under section 501(c)3 of the Internal Revenue Code.

Contributions are tax deductible to the full extent allowed by law. Tax-ID 23-774-9796, approved Apr. 27, 1998.

For more information, view our IRS letter of determination.)