Return to Answer

• The Hijab
  Here huge possibilities would be given of how to interpret the hijab. By analyzing (#1, #2,#3) why the hijab first was adopted by the Muslims, they would clearly use stage #3 to understand it in its context (why was it implemented, what if it just was a temporary solution to protect the women from the hypocrites of that time? was it cultural accepted already?), see the three points in this answer, and then going to stage #4 analyzing the present context (do we got slaves? do people harm people when they notice they have no hijab?). Following these methods its highly likely that they wouldn't applicate it today or at least not saying it is wajib. Abdullah Saeed seems to express this here, while the speech is more related to niqab. Also in part 1, and part 2 he speaks about gender equality.
  In His book "The Qur'an: An Introduction", page 229, he writes about Khaled Abou El Fadl which he seems to address as a ‘contextualist’ scholar:

• The Hijab
  Here huge possibilities would be given of how to interpret the hijab. By analyzing (#1, #2,#3) why the hijab first was adopted by the Muslims, they would clearly use stage #3 to understand it in its context (why was it implemented, what if it just was a temporary solution to protect the women from the hypocrites of that time? was it cultural accepted already?), see the three points in this answer, and then going to stage #4 analyzing the present context (do we got slaves? do people harm people when they notice they have no hijab?). Following these methods its highly likely that they wouldn't applicate it today or at least not saying it is wajib.
  I would argue that even the famous Shabir Ally, would fall into this category, because he very often contextualizes verses and ahadith. This has made him say that the hijab is not wajib, as expressed in this video.
  Abdullah Saeed seems to express this here, while the speech is more related to niqab. Also in part 1, and part 2* he speaks about gender equality.
  In His book "The Qur'an: An Introduction", page 229, he writes about Khaled Abou El Fadl which he seems to address as a ‘contextualist’ scholar:

This list could go on. But clearly this methods would as most affect the matters regarding fiqh and how to live your life, it seems not to be much related on questions regarding creed or belief.

This list could go on. But clearly these methods would as most affect the matters regarding fiqh and how to live your life, it seems not to be much related on questions regarding creed or belief.

• The Hijab
  Here huge possibilities would be given of how to interpret the hijab. By analyzing (#1, #2,#3) why the hijab first was adopted by the Muslims, they would clearly use stage #3 to understand it in its context (why was it implemented, what if it just was a temporary solution to protect the women from the hypocrites of that time? was it cultural accepted already?), see the three points in this answer, and then going to stage #4 analyzing the present context (do we got slaves? do people harm people when they notice they have no hijab?). Following these methods its highly likely that they wouldn't applicate it today or at least not saying it is wajib. Abdullah Saeed seems to express this here, while the speech is more related to niqab. Also in part 1, and part 2 he speaks about gender equality.
  In His book "The Qur'an: An Introduction", page 229, he writes about Khaled Abou El Fadl which seems to address as a ‘contextualist’ scholar:

• Womens inheritance
  Even though there are some (minority) scholars who think that a woman might have the same amount of inheritance as the men, it is clearly that by these steps of interpretation, a woman will have the same amount of inheritance as men.
• Womens right to travel alone
  We already have opinions that a woman may travel alone if safe. Clearly with these methods, there would be no doubt that a woman may travel completely alone.
• Eating with right hand
  Now this is not in the Quran, but applying these methods to the ahadith would derive that what hand one eats with is clearly has to do with cultural manners and hygienic circumstances applied in a certain time (stage #3), by the methods at stage #4, one would say that it doesn't matter which hand you eat with today (if its hygienic at least).

• The Hijab
  Here huge possibilities would be given of how to interpret the hijab. By analyzing (#1, #2,#3) why the hijab first was adopted by the Muslims, they would clearly use stage #3 to understand it in its context (why was it implemented, what if it just was a temporary solution to protect the women from the hypocrites of that time? was it cultural accepted already?), see the three points in this answer, and then going to stage #4 analyzing the present context (do we got slaves? do people harm people when they notice they have no hijab?). Following these methods its highly likely that they wouldn't applicate it today or at least not saying it is wajib. Abdullah Saeed seems to express this here, while the speech is more related to niqab. Also in part 1, and part 2 he speaks about gender equality.
  In His book "The Qur'an: An Introduction", page 229, he writes about Khaled Abou El Fadl which he seems to address as a ‘contextualist’ scholar:

• Womens inheritance
  Even though there are some (minority) scholars who think that a woman might have the same amount of inheritance as the men, it is clearly that by these steps of interpretation, a woman will have the same amount of inheritance as men.
• Womens right to travel alone
  We already have opinions that a woman may travel alone if safe. Clearly with these methods, there would be no doubt that a woman may travel completely alone.
• Eating with right hand
  Now this is not in the Quran, but applying these methods to the ahadith would derive that what hand one eats with, clearly has to do with cultural manners and hygienic circumstances applied in a certain time (stage #3), by the methods at stage #4, one would say that it doesn't matter which hand you eat with today (if its hygienic at least).