`


THERE IS NO GOD EXCEPT ALLAH
read:
MALAYSIA Tanah Tumpah Darahku

LOVE MALAYSIA!!!


 


Saturday, May 26, 2012

Al Azhar PhD : Hijab Is Not Fard In Islam



Here is more revelation from the religious scholars themselves. This one is supposedly a thesis written by one Arab scholar, a certain Sheikh Mustafa Mohamed Rashid who submitted a PhD thesis to the Al Azhar University in Cairo.

Sheikh Mustafa Mohamed Rashid  argues that the hijab is not a requirement of Islam. 

Here is the article from an Arab newspaper. The title says "Al Hijaab laysa fareedat Islameeyah" which means "The hijab is not obligatory in Islam".

Folks, jangan marah saya ok. Ini bukan saya yang cakap. This is what the religious scholars are saying. Itu pun a scholar who submitted his PhD thesis on the subject to the Al Azhar University - the foremost center of learning for the Sunni religion in the entire world.













Here is an English version of Sheikh Mustafa's  findings.  You can search Yahoo or Google for "Sheikh Mustafa Mohamed Rashid's PhD thesis" and you can double check the article yourself.  Note the words in red.


"Al Azhar endorsed Sheikh Mustafa Mohamed Rashid's PhD thesis on Sharia and Law for which he obtained a grade of  excellencewhere he 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 has 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.  (My comments : ha ha ha ha ! ! )

'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 covering 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."  -  End of article.




Well folks, your friendly Blogger OutSyed The Box (thats me) has been saying this for years now and without even having to go to Al Azhar University which is located in the Club of Doom.

I can also tell you that the Book of Corinthians in the Bible speaks of the headcover for women. It is a Biblical teaching. Dont believe me? Then who is this in the picture ? It is not Cik Jah. This is the late Mother Theresa wearing her trademark hijab.  It is a Biblical teaching.  (Please dont say that Mother Theresa took secret night classes at Al Azhar University).





There is certainly no mention of any headcover in the Quran.  I have said it before but not in my Blog, that if anyone can show me the verse in the Quran which says that the woman's hair is her "aurat" or nakedness then I will eat that page. Todate no one has been able to show me any such thing in the Quran.

People have already argued that a PhD thesis is not Islamic Law. These people do not understand what Sheikh Mustafa Mohamed Rasheed has done. He is saying that the belief that hijab is part of Islamic Law has no basis.  He says there is no evidence.  The more relevant question is : if it is not in the Quran and the other references are questionable, then where does Islamic Law come from?  

Laws made by your favorite religious scholar, by your mazhab or by your tok guru CANNOT be Islamic Law.  Dont get confused.


5 comments:

  1. And it takes a thesis done by phd holder and then endorsed by Al Azhar to finally make people realize that women tak payah pakai tudung? Laaaaaaa.....kalau rajin sikit and buat kajian sendiri dengan simple thing like baca quran yang memang ditujukan oleh Allah direct kepada kita, manusia dah dapat tahu dah bahawa se nyer, pompuan tak payah pakai tudung...

    tapi, apa kan daya...manusia majoritinya tergolong dalam golongan 6:116

    [6:116] "Were you to follow the common run of those on earth, they will lead you away from the way of Allah. They follow nothing but conjecture: they do nothing but lie."


    to my knowledge, there is only one mention of "head cover" which is in 24:31 only by Shakir...albeit..if one were to study the word by word translation, one would wonder, what was shakir on when he managed to pull out, out of thin air, the word "head cover" to translate the meaning of "khamr" (which if one were to check the concordance, it is translated as intoxicant..which make sense if "khamr" in 24:31 is translated as cover...as intoxicants are something that covers the sanity of the mind...). But cover here is not to cover hair, but to cover the boobs. The actual word of "head" in arabic is "roosa"...which is non existent in 24:31..so again, either shakir was high on tapai, or his human anatomy sucked...

    Kalau terlampau penting sangat lah kan...kan...kan..sure Allah mention at least ONCE, for women to pakai tudung right? lagipun, 24:30 states for men to tunduk and jaga anu dia sendiri kalau rasa lain macam tengok pompuan (actually, from a medical practitioner point of view, anyone get turned on looking at women's hair need psychiatric treatment...why ask women to bungkus kepala when the real problem is the men?)

    [24:30] Say to the believing men that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty: that will make for greater purity for them: And Allah is well acquainted with all that they do.

    Then again, most translators translated to suit the demands of their society at the time, refusing to get into trouble with it...can't blame them...they too were humans..subjected to political and society's pressure.

    To cover the boobs on the other hand...now, that would fit in the "khamr" context, coz boobs can intoxicate the minds of the men....ahaaa...ahaaa.... that is why i suspect how boobs got it's name by the way...boob = idiot...what happens to men (and sometimes women) when they see a woman's breast...imagine what the plurality of boob can do ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thank you so much for posting this, Syed! I agree completely with you and Pah Nur...yaa, I have been saying this for years ever since I read the actual Qur'anic verse, and I didn't need to go study in al-Azhar either, I just used my own brain. But hopefully coming from an al-Azhar scholar, people might actually take it more seriously. When I try to debate this issue with orang Melayu, they refuse to believe me, because after all I am not an ulama. I'm very happy to see other Malaysians highlighting and supporting this.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Oh sorry tersilap; Mohd. Kamal, terima kasih ye!

    ReplyDelete
  4. ya saya kasih tahu yang sesungguhnya, aku pakai tudung buat senang-senang saja, tudung wajib buat islam itu ditulis oleh orang yahudi yang anti islam. tahun 1980 berharap tahun 2030 asia tenggara berjilbab semua. sungguh tudung tidak wajib tapi al ahzab 59 dan an nur 31 diputar-putar menjadi alat untuk capai tujuan, tujuannya : 1. adu domba antar pakaian budaya melayu dan budaya wanita jilbab. 2. wanita islam bodoh, tak boleh pandai. negeri yang wanita pandai akan negeri yang maju. 3. berharap islam bicara yang kecil saja (pakaian) tak boleh bicara yang besar-besar (damai, kasih, suci dll).

    ReplyDelete
  5. Hi, Assalamualaikum,

    I have found your article and just read on this address too http://heejab.tripod.com/ the arabic version and it's a bit more complete than yours here.
    I had a discussion with someone who has a knowledge about this issue much better than me. I hope you wouldnt mind if i share here.. :)

    Pertama , dari segi penulisan, ini cukup rapih mengingat ini kutipan dari tesis seseorang.
    Tapi untuk mekanisme penulisan, i would like to say that this is not a beginer or medium category.
    Karena si penulis tidak menjabarkan dan memberikan penjelasan lebih mendalam tentang dasar2 ilmu penunjangnya (seperti ushul dan qaidah tafsir).
    Mungkin karena penulis menganggap bahwa hal-hal tersebut umum diketahui oleh masyarakat di Mesir dan keilmuan tersebut sudah dipublikasi massal :

    1. Penulis menganggap Pembaca sudah memiliki dasar2 keilmuan untuk memahami teks nya secara kohern tanpa harus menjelaskan ilmu2 dasar dan apa saja yg dibutuhkan untuk memahaminya (kayak kalangan ulama atau cendekiawan atau para akademisi)

    2. Penulis menganggap bahwa para pembaca sudah memahami gaya penulisan materi, macam2nya, dan ditunjukan kepada pembaca seperti apa artikel tsb.
    Jadi buat orang yg baca, ketika membaca satu atau dua paragraf, dia tahu bahwa text ini terlalu berat materinya (karna terdapat khilafiyah yang sangat kentara dengan fatwa umum yang sudah tersebar di seluruh dunia).
    Sehingga normalnya jika ada suatu berita yang tidak dimengerti, maka diharapkan untuk mengambil jalan terbaik dgn tabayyun kepada yang ahli, meminta klarifikasi (dalam hal ini membaca klarifikasi dari pihak univ al-azhar dsb dsb).
    Dan tidak mengambil kesimpulannya secara mentah-mentah.

    Ibarat skripsi di bangku perkuliahan, bukankah dalam hal pembahasan suatu materi kita perlu juga tau materi di bab 1, 2, 3 dst yang mengantarkan sampai ke kesimpulan?

    Jadi penulis sendiri mengakui ini bukan keputusan final dari judulnya.
    Tentang hijab, kalo dari gaya penulisan, there are some interesting point.
    Pertama ayat hijab dari surah al-ahzab, dijelaskan kalo itu khusus hanya untuk istri2 rosul saja (ummahatul mu'minin) sebab turun ayat karena Sayyidina Umar bin Khattab RA bertanya kepada Rosul perihal hijab istrinya, lalu turun ayat.
    Jadi penulis berpedapat bahwa orang2 yg menggunakan dalil ini untuk membuktikan hijab itu wajib, masih kurang tepat.
    Karena ayat ini MEMANG tidak berbicara dalil Aam (umum), dalam kaidah ushul fiqih ada yang namanya Lafzul amm yuridu bihi khoss (lafadz umum tapi yg dimaksud sesuatu yg khusus) dan ini contohnya.
    Jadi hijab yg dibahas di ayat itu sebenernya membahas batasan hijab istri2 rosul saja, bahwa istri rosul apabila mau ketemu yg bukan mahram maka harus ada satir (penghalang) dan tidak bisa bertatap secara face to face, jadi hanya suara saja yang terdengar.
    Dan ini berlaku HANYA bagi istri2 rosul saja , demi menjaga marwah istri2 rosul dari wanita2 muslimah lain, hal ini TIDAK berlaku bagi muslimat awam.
    Jadi sejak awal tidak ada yang bilang kalo ayat ini jadi dalil wajib hijab, Syekh itu ga salah , tapi ga sepenuhnya tepat, mungkin tujuan dia menjabarkan ini karna banyak orang salah kaprah mengambil dalil ini untuk dalil wajib hijab, ini benar2 keliru.
    Karena memang kewajiban hijab bukan terdapat di ayat tersebut.

    Dan yang ingin saya garis bawahi dari materi ini adalah tema yang penulis bawa bukanlah sebuah fatwa, tapi lebih ke ikhbar (penyampaian berita), yang bersifat debatable dan belum final.
    Sedangkan untuk fatwa harus bersifat final, artinya tidak diperdebatkan lagi.
    Sedang dari judulnya masih bisa diperdebatkan lagi, "Hijab, kewajiban syariat atau siasat pembaharu"
    Di akhir text secara tdk langsung penulis bilang kalau semua bebas mengutarakan pendapat.
    Intinya tujuan artikel ini dimaksudkan hanya untuk kajian ilmu dan wawasan. Bukan sebuah fatwa.

    Demikian. Wallahu a'lam bisshawwaab...
    Semoga Allah menjaga kita untuk tetap istiqomah di jalan yang lurus.

    Wassalam. :)

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.