format_quote Originally Posted by
sonz
St. Paul in the New Testament made some very interesting statements about the veil:
"Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head - it is just as though her head were shaved. If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or shaved off, she should cover her head. A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head" (I Corinthians 11:3-10).
St. Paul's rationale for veiling women is that the veil represents a sign of the authority of the man, who is the image and glory of God, over the woman who was created from and for man.
This is the problem with these sorts of apologetics - where does Paul even mention the veil? He says to cover her hair. Like man should show respect by uncovering his head while praying, a women ought to show respect by covering her head while praying. And those keys words are "while praying". Paul says nothing about the rest of the time and you can see pious Catholic women wearing some sort of lace cover for their head, in Church, in Latin America and southern Europe today.
So to recap 1. Paul does not mention the veil much less hijab and 2. this applies in Church and only in Church.
St. Tertullian in his famous treatise 'On The Veiling Of Virgins' wrote, "Young women, you wear your veils out on the streets, so you should wear them in the church, you wear them when you are among strangers, then wear them among your brothers..." Among the Canon laws of the Catholic church today, there is a law that requires women to cover their heads in church
.
Tertullian was a heretic all his life until the very end. His views on Christianity are hardly representative - you will notice he was not canonised nor his he a Father of the Church. Indeed he says about "heretical" women (i.e. Catholics I guess) "What a impudence among their women! They dare to teach, dispute, exorcise, to promise cures, perhaps to baptize" (Praescr., XLI, 5). The importance of this is that he gave advice, he did not lay down Church law.
He was also Tunisian by the way and so probably influenced by local culture.
Some Christian denominations, such as the Amish and the Mennonites for example, keep their women veiled to the present day. The reason for the veil, as offered by their Church leaders, is that "The head covering is a symbol of woman's subjection to the man and to God", which is the same logic introduced by St. Paul in the New Testament
The Amish and Mennonites do not veil their women. Their women, if pious, cover their hair with a cloth. Again you blur the line between covering the head and hijab. The two are not even remotely similar.
Thus, the purpose of the veil in Islam is protection. The Islamic veil, unlike the veil of the Christian tradition, is not a sign of man's authority over woman nor is it a sign of woman's subjection to man.
Well first of all Paul does not make the veil a sign of man's authority over women. You have misunderstood that passage. And second, of course it is a sign of women's subjugation to men in Islam - because Muslim men cannot be expected to control themselves, women have to adapt to their demands.
The Islamic philosophy is that it is always better to be safe than sorry. In fact, the Quran is so concerned with protecting women's bodies and women's reputation that a man who dares to falsely accuse a woman of unchastity will be severely punished:
"And those who launch a charge against chaste women, and produce not four witnesses (to support their allegations)- Flog them with eighty stripes; and reject their evidence ever after: for such men are wicked transgressors" (24:4)
First of all, it is not clear that Islamic philosophy does always say it is better to be safe than sorry. At least it is not clear when it comes to rape, which it is better to be safe for - the victim or the criminals. The Quran punishes men who attack a woman's reputation. I notice that glides so very easily in your passage into protecting their bodies but that is simply dishonest. That passage only refers to their reputations, not their bodies.
Compare this strict Quranic attitude with the extremely lax punishment for rape in the Bible:
" If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives" (Deut. 22:28-30)
And again you take one small passage out of context and argues that applies to all rape. This is not a respectable way to behave. An honest approach would be to quote the entire passage on rape
[23] If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;
[24] Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.
[25] But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die:
[26] But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter:
[27] For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her.
[28] If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
[29] Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.
One must ask a simple question here, who is really punished? The man who only paid a fine for rape, or the girl who is forced to marry the man who raped her and live with him until he dies?
Who says she is forced to live with him until she dies?
Another question that also should be asked is this: which is more protective of women, the Quranic strict attitude or the Biblical lax attitude?
You pass over the fact that the Quran does not talk about rape at all. And when the Hadith do, they demand four eyewitnesses. What chance of four eyewitnesses to a rape in the countryside where there is no one around? So in that particular circumstance Islamic law would not punish the rapist at all unless he confessed. So which is more protective of women in this specific case you have chosen - the Islamic law which would impose no punishment, or Jewish law that would impose a stinging fine?
Some people, especially in the West, would tend to ridicule the whole argument of modesty for protection. Their argument is that the best protection is the spread of education, civilised behaviour, and self restraint.
We would say: fine but not enough. If 'civilization' is enough protection, then why is it that women in North America dare not walk alone in a dark street - or even across an empty parking lot ?
Actually they do. Every day. In the West you find women walking alone after dark, even in a state of intoxication, all the time. There are parts of the US where education, civilized behaviour and self-restraint have broken down but even there women are fairly safe. Unlike Bangladesh where 30 percent of rural women report their first sexual encounter was "forced".
If education is the solution, then why is it that a respected university like Queen's has a 'walk home service' mainly for female students on campus?
To be on the safe side.
If self restraint is the answer, then why are cases of sexual harassment in the workplace reported on the news media every day? A sample of those accused of sexual harassment, in the last few years, includes: Navy officers, Managers, University professors, Senators, Supreme Court Justices, and the President of the United States!
Because the demands of women have grown to not only include not being raped, but not being approached and talked to inappropriately - something the Muslim world has not begun to grapple with as can be seen be any woman who walks down the road in any Middle Eastern town or city. The rise of sexual harrassment shows how the battle against rape has been won in the West - it is not an important issue any more. Can Muslim women say the same?
And the difference between nuns and Muslimas, is that nuns choose a life of piety and holiness and renounciation. Their brothers do not force it on them.
Bookmarks