Some Quran-hijackers try to interpret the "Quran alone" (without hadiths) to innovate some religion which would fit the culture they live in. They turn out to lack sound thinking and/or honesty.
Their hypocritical takfir style (seeing hadiths as "polytheism"), sounds like submitters.
They oppose hijab (tesettur). [@ @] They lobby to culturally-relativize the Islamic clothing.
QRG is not alone, in opposing hijab. e.g: Ironically, T.C.'s Mehmet Aydin is similar.
Their anti-hijab slogans, turn out to be entirely hypocritical. To respond, section by section,
The Islamic hijab (tesettur) is how Muhammed (s.a.s.) understood the words of Allah.
In contrast, QRG bragging that "Quranic Research" suggests the opposite, might only be suggesting that their prophecy is guessing the words more precisely, somehow.
Hijab (tesettur) had not been the popular Hijaz style, before that was told by the Quran.
If QRG acknowledges that in pre-Islamic times, there was no Mecca tradition that was commanding hijab, then how would that happen other than because of Islam? If they were not with hijab before Islam, why would they opt for some other culture (after becoming the rulers of that country)? And muslims went in all directions. Not only to single country. There was hijab in all. Spain, Egypt, Iraq, Syria, etc. They were traveling all the time before Islam, too. Why would they supposedly get some other tradition (and communicate that to all corners of the geography), exactly after Islam?
QRG is trying to relativize, hypocritically. Looking around, you would see something else.
Besides, what sociologism is that? Interpreting the material toward studying sociology (or, physics, embryology, history) is all right. But making the religious code from that, is totally different. That is the exclusive job of the field expert, that was Muhammed (s.a.s.), who told us what the words stood for. See the story of Adam (a.s.) who angels thought not worth/necessary, but Allah taught Adam (a.s.) the words, then angels had to accept that Adam (a.s.) had something more. The QRG, in contrast, is refusing to acknowledge their ignorance, by guessing the words, toward what they would like to.
What a chaos, at what a time! In the world that is globalizing in the 21st century, will new muslims in Africa or South America (tropical natives) reflect their own cultures's "modesty standards?!?"
With that hypocritical, relativistic logic, nudity would be "sufficient," maybe except a cloak behind, once in a life time. Certainly, that is not what Muhammed (s.a.s.) told us.
The street clothing is not only seen by your citizens. Not at all, by "who know you well."
Tradition is not formed in vacuum. Some issues might have been remnants of old styles, but a thoroughly Islamic state such as the Ottoman state had most of their "traditions" from Islam.
Thus, their traditions are often more valuable than a contemporary group you adopt.
But Ottomans having uniform restrictions, were presumably only not to allow non-official people look like officials. Now, T.C. probably protects the T.S.K. costumes.
Likewise, presumably, they had guild standards, for people of a profession.
Ottoman State was allowing other faiths not to follow Islamic hijab rules. Today, some tyrannically anti-Islamic hypocrites, try to reflect their own oppressiveness to muslims. (And unlike QRG which takfirs against muslims, those other hypocrites openly oppose the Quran ayets. If so, then muslims would not bother to talk about their "hijab," at all.)
Ironically, QRG is quoting Araf(7):26, but next, Araf(7):27-28 is most fitting to favor hijab, rather than vice versa. That expresses the context of a point which QRG is trying to turn upside down.
Araf(7):27-28, is a fine metaphor, relating to the last century. Lots of cultural-relativists try to justify what their parents have committed, as if that were legitimate precedent -- such as what has happened in the last century in the West (like T.C.). If satan was able to urge your parents to be in (non-hijab) swimsuits in mixed-sex "contemporary" groups, that will still not make that Islamic. Satan causes people to compromise the taqwa/hijab -- to open the path to sins and guilt. Getting stripped off is no good.
Prefer inviting your parents to Islamic styles, rather than follow their non-Islamic habits.
The central theme of the Quran-hijackers is that, if they are not able to spot something in explicit words stated fully in the Quran, they oppose that. They commit to multiple fallacies.
If there is a degree-of-freedom in some expression of the Quran, referring to a term, (sunni) muslims turn to Muhammed (s.a.s.), to look up that term. Even little kids, when they see women all the time with hijab (outside home), they know what the hijab routinely is. The Quran is telling the fine points of modesty, on top of that basic level. Not refuting. Vice versa. Referring to what Muhammed (s.a.s.) was instructing, as the visible case. Beyond that, is still a trouble even today.
That is most so, probably in the tesettur/hijab fashion shows or advertisements. Most of those in the photos, are probably not actually maintaining hijab, normally. With optimism, you could think that, the Islamic female's attitude is not reflected there, because such a female is not posing for a publishable photo. But hopefully, the published "tesettur/hijab" photos will not set the trend for how to behave publicly -- in mixed-sex (non-married) situations. Loveliness/liveliness is all right among girls/women -- when no boys/men might see. Love/warmth is perfect for a spouse.
Telling the visible basics is trivial. The Quran is not a text for listing all trivia -- especially to people who oppose merely because of their antipathy to the hadiths.
Hadiths surely curse those who invent (false) hadiths in his (s.a.s.) name, but that is not this, because in this case, we know that the case is authentic, massively known.
That both khimar and jilbab exist as cover names (both in need of specifying, if not taking from Muhammed (s.a.s.)), is hinting that relativism could not be the "key" to know a word.
What is a khimar? What is a jilbab or seeyab? Worn together? Who is to guess?
The bankruptcy of the Quran-hijackers is obvious, but they "confess" that under a veil of assaults.
Likewise, in the issue of how many times to pray (namaz/salah) daily, such submitters confess that they have not found the exact count in the Quran, but the wording they tell is something like "The Quran is only telling of some odd number. So, I see that, that is 3." But that is five! We know that from the first know-how (massively, again). That is routine. People could not have gone wrong in reporting how many times, daily, they were gathering for namaz/salah. Allah does not need to iterate such trivia in the Quran.
The QRG list of absurd suggestions (ornaments supposedly being "wiggling breasts") with their gross anatomy talks, amount to nothing. In fact, feet hitting to the ground is also known to relate to the feetly anklet/bangle ("halhal") popularly worn by outward females in those times, before Islam.
That anklet/bangle theory is probably the most fitting. That is, the case of the women who were committing such behavior, and exactly their motivation is explicitly pointed out. With or without anklet/bangle, women provoking men, is the issue. (Similar case is known about alcoholic beverages. Forbidding not only that wine, but drunkenness.)
Not to mention another self-important Quran-hijacker, Luxenberg, as quoted in Wikipedia hijab article (retrieved Apr.17,2009), who interprets all that, as relating to a chastity-belt. With that logic, "inferrably" people in tropic locations (or, topless sun-bathers) with a slip/fibers would count having worn the sufficient khimar?! Guessing?
Hair is thought as adornment, by almost all women in the World. Why neglect that?
That is a gross fallacy, to pinpoint a specific site of the body ("the bosom") as the ornaments/adornments of a female. That not only neglects the equally (or more) valid alternatives (butts, or hair), but that is contradicting their own persistent leitmotif, too. Namely, the Quran is not specifying the word "breast" but adornments. Specifying any other word, especially a word which restricts the word to a specific gross anatomy, would be modifying the otherwise more sensible statement. Why only mention "the breasts" if hair or butt-shaking would attract men, too? Allah has chosen the right, well-covering word. Specifies just right. Neither overspecifying, nor underspecifying. Allah is pointing out exactly what would attract the opposite sex, and hadiths have explained that likewise. The visible ornament list might include eyes & hands, because that is what we know from hadiths, as allowable -- whether eyes would "wiggle" or not, because there is no word such as "wiggling" in the Quran. Those Quran-hijackers try to hijack through "explaining" that, as the "wiggling breasts" only. That is false.
Besides, breasts/bosom is not a truly lifelong "ornament" for lots of women. For example, there is a curse of a tribe that curses "I hope your breasts will always remain like young." which means she will not have born a child. Childbirth is a tension that might change that adornment status. Hair is a relatively more-lifelong adornment.
QRG "logic" would fit to list nothing as "cover" -- "except" once in your life, hitting a type of cloth to your bosom. Most likely, a throat-scarf in winter. :-)) Thusly, nudity would be their "cover" (if there is no word telling to cover your overcoat all around yourself, nudes might keep a cloak/cape, hanging behind). :-)) QED. Reductio ad absurdum.
In contrast, the Quran is marvelously endorsing Islam, with artful, forceful statements. To slam/hit (a fist) to bosom/chest is known (otherwise, when tough men do that), a gesture of sturdiness, firmness. That is, hijab is a gesture of strength, too. That is, the hijab attitude is individually toughness, but (roughness is rarely necessary because) from a full/aggregate view, that is the perfectly lovely society, with firmly chaste people.
The (sunni) Islamic attitude is right.
The popular word "tesettur" not existing in the Quran, would not suggest the concept not existing.
Besides, there is the Kehf(18):90 (setr) as "hiding/cover" (but without a cloth-list).
Then, quoting Arabic vocabularies (none older than the Quran, for sure) is absurd.
Inspired by that case of the "tesettur" word (if that is a Turkish term, mostly), I could guess that the words mikna & nasif, might have been even new words. But normally, that is not a serious concern. While crafting a text, there is a widely permissible list.
Khimar is not necessarily to cover "only hair/head," athough that is the frequent style (thus, term).
Integrating some newly specialized term to dictionaries, is totally the natural process.
If not before Islam, but certainly after Islam, that the term khimar/"cover" came to stand for head/hair/bosom-cover so pervasively, then that is further support that the term has Islamic root. Before Islam, they probably were not caring about self-covering.
The massively visible hadith (sunneh) of hijab is not contradicting khimar as "only" a cover.
A well-known literary art. Not telling that portion of a visibly known term, "[head] cover."
QRG is not able to point at any inaccuracy with "khimar" but only expect to be redundantly specified as "headcover" but then, like with almost all redundancies, that hack might need further fixes (like hammering a metal sheet). What if the khimar is not only for head? Mostly, that is not!
That covers various portions of the body. The word they suggest is less accurate than the normally intended "cover" sense of the word. The cover is for covering all of the body -- inclusive of the head. Not only the head (such as the caps of astronauts most fit). A cover/shawl would do well, for Islamic hijab to cover the head, too. Redundancy is not necessarily a good thing, if to specify something that will be some law. (See the yellow baqara/cow finding case of Moses (a.s.), too.) For example, in the hadith with his (s.a.s.) daughter Fatma (r.a.), she tells that "Father, there is a single cloth. If I pull that up, the low portion is open, if I pull below, my head is open." Now, assume she would sit as a ball, and cover herself totally with that. If Allah were to specify that (redundantly), "head"-cover, that cloth would not work, even in case that were long enough. That would constrain people to have something categorically a "head"-cover.
Not only the head, but all of hair is covered. Hair is next to almost half the body, of lots of women.
"Hair"-cover? But if no hair (bald woman), then again that is a "head"-cover. Therefore, even specifying what to hide explicitly (head or hair, with single cloth or "hair"-cover (hair/head-&-bosom-cover, as now there is the renaming called for), etc).
Why would Allah need to specify that hairy thing in the book, with case studies in explicit words?
I am not suggesting that Allah might find that "hard" to specify in explicit words, what we need to hide. He might have written that at length, in some of the old books. But there is no right to justify relativism, if/when He left the words referring to somethings.
Muhammed (s.a.s.) was able to trivially, visibly explain that -- to non-hypocrites.
Omar (r.a.) was known to listen to the talks of Judaists. Therefore, he (r.a.) might have known about the hijab laws of Allah, from what had been known. For Islam (the religious affairs), the Quran is the exclusive text. No need to find the text of old books where hijab might have been written at further length. Muhammed (s.a.s.) was able to tell visibly, what the word was referring to. Period.
Allah does not have to repetitively tell the same words, when they are understood (woven into the culture, or explainable by the prophet). The Quran is telling that Allah taught Jesus (a.s.) both Torah and the Bible. Likewise, the Quran is yet another book. Jesus (a.s.) was referring to the text of the old book (Torah), but we know what is necessary through the word-explanation, that suffices.
That title of their section, "uniform," actually reflects the islamophobic, oppressive nature of QRG.
Sloganeers in T.C. coercion styles, keep assaulting that way. Such lies have been known, and people trivially answer that ( but you see, the QRG recidivism is there):
Islam is not setting a uniform, but telling what to hide. Blue jean trousers that most of us have, is like uniform. But nobody is calling T.S.K. to fight against blue jeaners.
The Islamic minimum is to hide entirely, except hands, feet, and face.
People with taqwa (apprehension against committing some wrong), have chosen to have more of that, and that is actually good -- but taqwa is people's own judgment (perhaps, by weighing their context), and not appropriate to "coerce to taqwa."
QRG talks as if niqab were excess. QRG is hypocritical, denying the world they know.
Not all of the males might be lowering their gazes. Thus, that portion of the Quranic system might not be there. Is that too excessive, if some felt to compensate that immodesty of males by hiding females more? Personally, if to put that into law, I would have to coerce the males to lower their gazes, not staring at women. But people might have found that relatively trivial to have their personal relief, by hiding themselves or their lovely daughters or wives, rather than trying to correct all of the rest of the society.
Warning: When walking at night, Muhammed (s.a.s.) told people the name of his (s.a.s.) wife (r.a.) there, not to allow satan provoke people to think slanderous things.
(( Unfortunately, to fight crime (esp. abduction, slavery), there is the need to know who is who. Hopefully, identities are verifiable by guard women, at checkpoints. ))
Interestingly, Ahzab(33):59 (hide, identifiably) covers all senses together. (Fits hadiths, & against abductions.) That is, niqab is wonderful, but keep identifiable, not to be hurt.
Not to mention the criminal cases, when criminals might try to hide with niqab. (In T.C., the state is opposition to the Quran courses of some pious people (like in th Fatih town of Fatih town of Istanbul), was a source of the urban legend (or truth) that, male police was lookin for courses, in niqab.) Identifiability helps protecting muslims against foes (whether outlaws, or those who "lawfully" (or, coup'fully) grab the state mechanism, against people). Identifiability is good against the peril of anonymity, when "someone" of that group, seems to commit some crime. When identifiable, people would think isolating the case. Otherwise, that might be slanderous to the category.
The less-than-hijab style of village (ignorant) people, have been the suggestions of some traditionalist, not-so-Islamic types. Ironically, the girl-lifting (abduct, rape, then might marry) sort of traditions, had been almost entirely in the villages, until the modern times, when Islamic style gave way to the "contemporary" life styles. They slander the Islamic hijab or niqab as if hell, but theirs is hell, and they carry that.
When females hide their charm, the "males' world" lose the scenery.
Some of the most-selling (obscene) magazines, and huge internet traffic, publish women's pictures. Who would suggest that the "male world" would not need females?
The evil that comes to mind, is the category-crossers -- types of hypocrites who sleep out-of-wedlock, but want to keep Islamic circles, by marrying chaste somebody. (The Quran is not allowing chaste people to marry that kind of people (adulterers).)
QRG is trying to falsify, but ironically, right after pointing at the word jilbab as "the keyword" for understanding Ahzab(33):59, QRG is trying to (relativistically) obfuscate that "keyword" as not-telling-this-or-that. If that word is left to your whim for interpreting, why would the Quran list the word? In that case, that would fall to the category of "muteshabih" (AleImran(3):7), that only hypocrites like to interpret. That again, is pointing at the bankruptcy of that relativism of QRG.
Various people having various standards, is not opposing the hijab as the necessary (minimum). Actually, in hajj while circumambulating the Kaaba, women might not have niqab but only hijab. That is the minimum (ihram). There is nothing confusing in that.
I might interpret the finishing phrase of Ahzab(33):59 "forgiving, merciful."
People live in social worlds. If you would provoke people from TV, they might reflect their resulting excitation to some victim they find relatively accessible. By establishig the for-all rule of hijab (tesettur), Allah is demonstrating His mercifulness. That is, Allah is not only thinking that who commits-something-wrong-and-faces-the-consequence.
For example if you watch a Marilyn Monroe movie, you have no option of harassing her, because she is not living, since 1962. Your arousal would more likely look around.
How about the males who like talking about loose women, then generalizing that to other "similar" women? The "signs" of "similarity" might be entirely unobvious to chaste women who have no business with adulterous types. Eye of the beholder. Not to mention, the negotiative harassments, when the victim is thought potentially fallible.
Girls/women who have no interest in out-of-wedlock sex, might have no opinion about the signs of "bad women" -- or, not all of the signs, that is. For example, I know from the newspapers that in the country I live (w/ T.C.), lots of people (law people, too) think that if man paid the restaurant bill, woman gave the consent to the rape). Mini skirts, similarly thought (irrespective of who pays anything). But how would somebody know such "signs" unless through the newspapers (by chance), or being truly bad oneself?
In the West today, where their criteria are way low (expecting consensuality, little or nothing else), lots of offenses (harassment, rape) have been reported. That is, the West has not been able to find a safe, good alternative to the Islamic hijab, to protect chaste living. That is not to suggest the non-existence of chastity in the West, nor in the jahiliyya (ignorance) times before Islam. Individuals might have that ability to keep chaste. The cause of burying girls in jahiliyya-times is sometimes suggested to be the possibility that they would be unchaste when they would grow up (then, calling men). Islam forbids burying girls, and took that environmental feed of lust, out of the context.
To fight malaria, we get rid of the wetlands -- or, kill all of the mosquitoes. (To kill mosquitoes is all right, but humans should better not fall rather than face punishment.)
Allah is reflecting His personality (that we know from His forgivefulness), by ruling a system that is not having men harass women. That obviates the feedback loop of who caused the other's pain (woman provoking man, or man harassing woman). The forgivefulness & mercifulness are the two aspects of His personality, reflecting well through that hijab ruling, because He would rather not punish, but Allah will not forgive (but rarely, might intercede) when there is a victim of the crime. The Judgment Day is a court of law. Thus, the hijab system is His pre-emptive remedy (when forgiving is not available), for not having to punish lots of people who "found the girls too attractive."
That is a hypocritical wishful thinking, to expect that you might know psychology so perfectly to weigh off the safety standard told by Allah as visibly taught by the prophet, Muhammed (s.a.s).
Allah created people. We have no complete knowledge of human behavioral contexts, let alone the various safety issues dynamism. How would a mere human know what is the optimal or acceptable safety, not lessening from the standard set by Allah?
I'm not telling that we would necessarily fail if we would guess that ourselves. But that would take lots of time, we would need lots of trials while lots of lives would be in abyss. Perhaps, through studying our data extensively, psychology/sociology would some day suggest all women/people to get into hijab, such that nobody has agony.
A computer-profession journal (CACM, Communications of ACM) was quoting the harassments at MIT (USA), in Nov. 1990 (pp.36-37). Back then, I had taken that to a psychology professor after her quoting something like "less-thinking people think about their low parts." Next, she was belittling her words, as not to be taken literally.
Now, while looking for that Nov.1990 article, I found a CACM article on trouble-potential, that I might quote from (and I had highlighted this with phosphor pen, too).
Unfortunately, that is the case for people, too.
Not to mention that, in the case of software, the risk of hardware malfunction or hostile interventions, might be rarities (other than virus, etc). In contrast, humans face lots of abuses of satans of various sorts, which try to provoke malfunctions in our lives.
QRG is trying to exemplify their false point of taking the Quran in isolation from Muhammed (s.a.s.), by pointing to the portions which QRG thinks that Allah has told in full or (hasha) excess.
Is ablution (abdest) only how Maide(5):6 is listing that? That is QRG's circular logic. If you think that is all, then you might think that the Quran is explaining how a perfect ablution is. But we know that, the Quran is listing only the necessary (farz) portion.
The organs list is explicit for ablution, but there is only a concept of "ornaments" for hijab. If Allah were intending that only as "bosom," a "why" question would be the vice versa: Why is He not listing that as "bosom," like listing what to wash, in ablution?
If we might reflect, Allah is listing the process, in both cases. A process is a tricky thing to watch and report.The rules of a process is not necessarily inferrable by watching that a few times, especially if there is a herd of issue-specific rules. A famous joke is that "the voice of donkey, would necessitate getting ablution again (but if that donkey is carrying your water, and you had to get ablution with teyemmum, when that donkey was lost)." The Quran is capturing the critical points of the processes.
Referring to what is visible, fits the Quran command to obey Muhammed (s.a.s.), too.
In the case of that ablution ayet, that we need to get ablution only when without, is from hadiths, too. That ayet is not obvious about that. But people could trivially see that, if they went to a mosque, because otherwise people would have to get ablution, every time they would rise up for another portion of salah/namaz. If you neglect Muhammed (s.a.s.), then go get ablution again and again. For the rest of us, actually that ayet is telling when ablution is lost (except when we would need ablution after sleeping).
That is, just how I might not tell "I have drunk water, I need no food," nobody would have the license to take one command while neglecting the other. If we would find the Quran alone, then we would have to apply all of the commands individually. The sunneh is tieing the two commands, thus relieving people from ablution specific to namaz-rise-up. Otherwise, from the text, we would have no clue for combining the two commands, and would think that the latter list is ablution for other tasks (such as for touching the Quran, etc), while for namaz/salah, rising up to feet, needs new ablution.
In summary, if your previous ablution is not broken, no need to get another. That suffices when you stand up, next. Likewise, females need to keep their hijab.
The mere minds of QRG, seems to find the historical events mentioned in the Quran to be not-so-necessary luxuries. QRG is hypocritical, in guessing such. If Allah told us those cases, there might be some marvelous sense of that, we might reflect upon encountering issues in the World.
Ironically, many of such supposedly "Quran alone" people (submitters), take that courage of alienating the prophet (s.a.s.) mainly because they think the Quran is verifiable by the "code 19" miracle, without acknowledging the truthfulness of the people who kept that intact until this day, along with the sunneh (and lots of hadiths).
But, miracles are there in those historical cases, too. After finding the Rosetta Stone, the precision of how the Quran quotes from old Egypt, was noticed as a miracle.
If the "jilbab" portion were nullifiable through relativism ("whatever you find fit"), then the rest of that ayet would be only telling to "look after yourself, do not be harmed." Does QRG think that ayet is only against ambivalence-to-molesting? On the street, relativistic hypocrisy is absurd.
All of your citizens might know you well. Go, assume so. But still, how would that help tourists walking on the street, rate you (without hijab), to the level visible with hijab?
The male instincts of various times might not be so varying. Statistically, almost constant, probably. What makes the people outside today, any better? Nothing.
How is QRG planning to establish their innovative standard of clothing, to signal the level of personal distance (not open to negotiations) that hijab conveys? Hypocrites try to laxify the hijab standard, by pretending to suggest alternatives. But so far as I know, none is visibly as perfect.
Islamic hijab is reflecting a firmness, well-known all around the world for more than millenia. The similar styles of old ummahs, such as the christian nuns, presumably reflect the good old & well-kept, law of Allah, the God. That is millenia old. Merely our history after Muhammed (s.a.s.), is a cool fourteen centuries of high-standard.
In summary, individuals might (or, might not) keep chaste with a wide spectrum of attire. But hijab is the preferrable, for signalling the reservedness as the Quran is suggesting, upfront, visibly.
QRG echoes that absurd theory of relating hijab (tesettur) to the hot climate of Hijaz (hee juz).
The QRG mockery through pretenses of sociology, is thoughtless.
Ironically, if some people oppose hijab because that might keep you hot (thus, perhaps a trouble in summer), and then when that is sunny (thus, hot), if you think that hijab would protect in hot climates, then the hijab is not actually the trouble, but relief.
Thus, hypocrites contradict why they often oppose, otherwise.
Furthermore, QRG contradicts what they said in the previous section, about jahiliyya times of Hijaz ("there were women who went around semi-naked"). Has a surgeon-general set new rules?
That is almost so, today in lots of Western cities (t-shirts, & minis/shorts). No surgeon-general in USA has forbidden all of that (not even only for California). Islam has.
QRG's absurdness continues. Pointing to Ahzab(33):52, they question how the beauty was visible, if women were entirely hidden (niqab). Trivially respondable, with perfect cases.
Ironically, the Islamic concept of freedom turns out to be just the opposite of the contemporary Western [social-liberal] notions of dressing less, and working outside of home -- perhaps [at most] to achieve the living standard of their boss. That reminds of the slaves category, in Islam. (Slaves live with the living standards (food, textiles [& vehicle while traveling]) how their masters live.) Contemporary women opt out for that -- perhaps because they have no trust in the males they know. That is not to suggest that Islamic women might not work [outside]. But that is mostly a hobby, or if in need.
The single hadith about times when men were getting ablution together with women, would not be making exception to all of the rest of the knowledge. With honesty, we might think that,
Hijab is the minimum. Thus, no (sunni) Islamic community would be with something less -- "but" QRG might list some ignorant villages, or heterodox communes such as Qizilbashs, maybe.
There is a definite, visible description. Hijab is the minimum. Go hajj, see that.
Without looking into the mezheb books, even from the sentence of QRG, that is tellable that, if only shafii and hanbeli mezhebs suggest hiding the face (so far as I know, that is not, but no problem), then there remain yet other valid sunni mezhebs that acknowledge hijab as their suggestible minimum. Mezhebs harbor ijtihad, that is reflecting the best-practices philosophy of the mezheb-founders. If you would not subscribe to the philosophy of that mezheb, then choose your best-fitting mezheb. (Imam Shafii might have thought what I said, in the previous sections.)
QRG lobbies to support a standard of ignorance. Ignoring all hadiths, neglecting all the world we know. People have taqwa (cautiousness). But, QRG opposes that as "absurd." QRG is absurd.
Furthermore, there is no harm to a female, if males would not sit to her (yet warm) previously-sit place, immediately. Why is QRG objecting to that? That is a high standard, which QRG stubbornly fails to admit. By QRG's logic, nothing other than genital-contact would count as "approaching to adultery," probably. But good-reflecting (sunni) muslims, have thought lots of respectfully-distant rules, it turns out. (I had not known this one previously, but surely totally fond of the fellow muslims, who had kept a high standard, in their lives. That hurts nobody. In contrast, QRG is trying to laxify people, by opposing all self-discipline rules. If you oppose the lifestyles of the cautious people, then rather than harassing those by opposing their cautiousness, find some community, which fits your lifestyle, better. Who knows what lax people think, and commit?)
I wonder whether the QRG gang lower their gazes (or, look away), when walking on the street. That is written in the Quran, exactly. Is QRG honestly applying that, and suggesting to their communities, too? I guess, not. Therefore, no sense of reflecting about how they would interpret "approaching adultery." In QRG's mind, is that ayet strictly redundant, just how siyab, jilbab, khimar was left to their guesses (all muteshabih)? People look at what provokes lust, and generalize that into their lists.
A point I might think (caution about caution), is whether people might keep explicitly/obsessively thinking the "why" of something. (Thus, would fixate more, rather than less.) But, most normally, the custom is routinely applicable (even guests might just copy). Therefore, that hotly-thinking obsessiveness is not the case. In summary, having standards highly set, is fending off the potential of a human contact (warmth, looks), a contact which might fixate the lens of your lust to that opposite-sex.
Opposing hell? The hadiths reporting of hell about certain behaviors of women, might only help women, not the vice versa. Not only in the next world, but in this world, too. A gossip would make hell out of the private lives of lots of innocent, non-abusive people (especially so, if slanderously).
QRG's chapter 21, about the women issues, is similarly wrong start-to-finish -- except when accepting (sunni) Islamic points, by referring to the world people live in.
As far as I now, there is no permission to watch men (of sports) with shorts. The hijab for men, is from knee to navel. Thus, U.S. football costume is all right, but soccer (which QRG is obviously calling "football") is not appropriate to watch by going to a stadium -- but maybe through TV.
I had seen their fatwa, in Türkiye Gazetesi (newspaper), associated with the TGRT TV. They interpret a permission for mirrors, for watching non-hijab scenes, through TV.
They acknowledge that, if there is sexual arousal or attraction, then that is sin, in the mirror/TV case (or, on print), too. (That assumes the responsibility is of viewers.)
I would pobably think that, the permission for looking through mirror (or, water), was for inadvertent cases that were hard not to be seeing, although not looking on purpose.
They have female personnell without hijab, too. In case that (or, similar) would be your question, I might tell of a fatwa/view, so far as I know. That is, a female who is not with hijab, is in the male category. Seeing her hair, might be not your problem. (Likewise, seeing the hair of non-muslim women. Warning that, you need to keep hot thoughts away. Furthermore, if you would rather keep cautious and keep the Quran's word, then lowering your gaze (straightly, or if she is with a mini-skirt, then rolling your eyes to left or right), too.) But as a result, muslim women with hijab, have to keep their full hijab (the shield against males' looking), when such a (hijabless-"male") woman is around.
Furthermore, I need to add that, that (mirror leniency) is nothing to allow a privacy-intrusion (by any theory), but only for seeing someone who is willingly in public view.
Such TVs aim masses, by broadcasting what is (sometimes tangentially) acceptable to Islam.
Presumably, to rival what is altogether not Islamic. Allah knows best.
Parties are probably more troubling to specify right, but people try their best, there, too. For example, I publish Islamic-party.com. Naturally, the wisest is to have single-sex parties, or parties harboring family-units (in tiny rooms within the room/hall). In the good old Islamic-party style, women and men were in separate rooms, while in ziyafets (fiesta, food parties), too. Now, people throw iftar parties, and women without hijab (tesettur), sit with men. There, upholding the old style, is not hard to guess. But, when there is no prior art from the good old (high-style Islamic [Istanbul] parties), I have to think a lot, to specify Islamic-party customs/systems [and rival the non-Islamic].
Furthermore, I would not suggest to first label someone "Islamic" (or, "Islamist"), then trying to guess Islam from that hodge-podge contemporary something. They are not the companions of Muhammed (s.a.s.), but perhaps people somewhat more sympathetic to Islam. QRG is hypocritical in pointing their fingers to such people (especially in the turkish text of their article, but not there in the English translation, probably because that is local to Turkey of T.C.)
Personally-watching non-hijab people (who pose willingly), is the tip of the iceberg, if you would start to list the surprising things, some (supposedly) "Islamic" people do.
For example, lots of people see the governing T.C. political-party AKP (JDP), as "Islamist." (Ironically, Mehmet Aydin is a minister of that (supposedly) "Islamist" party.) AKP is raising the coercion-to-education age, from 15 to 19, which will coerce girls to take their scarves off, at schools, until they graduate (or, drop off, if allowable). Troops (jandarma) will visit houses to collect boys and girls not sent to school until that old age. Parents of the not-sent youngsters will be fined exorbitant sums of money. (For city people, that is not a lot. That was less than 10 dollars per day, the last time I came by that in news, but that was terrible for villagers.) The (supposedly) "Islamic" government is coercing that until old age. Will QRG list that as an argument, too?
In the case of that T.C. government, I know that muslims have mostly neglected such absurdness, because of the belief that, the government is at gunpoint of T.S.K., thus not reflecting what they would truly do, if the democracy were working. Next, QRG is ludicrous, when hypocritically listing such status-quo as if that were reflecting Islam.
I know hadiths against completely shaving the beard. QRG itself is absurd, in listing that as "absurd." If to reflect by culture-bashing, I might question in return that, how is the contemporary habit of daily shaving the face, not absurd? Men rivaling women in having a hairless face?
Ironically, that Ankebut(29):51 which QRG quotes ("Is it not sufficient for them that We have sent down (revealed) the Book to thee, which is read out to them?"), is fitting to what I have kept telling. That is, Allah has sent the Quran to him, Muhammed (s.a.s.), for us to listen.
The message was understood by whom that was sent to (s.a.s). In turn, (sunni) muslims get from him (s.a.s), by upholding that legacy as the key [in religious issues].
The way Muhammed (s.a.s.) told us the words, nothing is confusing. Thus, we might wisely acknowledge the miracle. In contrast, the hijab-opposing types fall to contradictions, while guessing the words. That is a "problem" in scientific studies, too (but science is naturally cheeky about that, revising theories). The religious issues, are not left to theories-about-masses. The message is taken through Muhammed (s.a.s).