Do not take Jews or Christians as your wali...
- Thread starter S.A.M.
- Start date
No I have heard them justify it based on Quranic verses which also do not say anything about covering head or face. But they live among Christians and Jews in whom this covering was justified by Bible verses and was the common mode of dress. The Byzantine for example considered any unveiled woman to be a whore, which may have influenced those in their society to adopt the prevalent norms of respectability.
Once again, my question is, the Christians and Jews obviously do not believe in these scriptural edicts anymore [there are some interesting interpretations out there to justify that], but Arab Muslims are still continuing the customs which were not theirs to begin with [see representation of Arab women from sixth to sixteenth centuries]
Why?
No, they don't.SAM said:
They don't live among such Christians, and they don't justify their dress by reference to Bible verses. They live among their fellow Muslims, and justify their dress by referring to the Quran.
You mean why didn't Islam undergo a Reformation and Islamic peoples an Enlightenment ? Why feminist thought remains alien to Islamic culture? Excellent question.SAM said:
Last edited:
Which Christians did not veil at the time of the Byzantines?
If you don't know, why are yu claiming they did not adopt it?
How do you know that? Is there a record of Christians wearing or not wearing the veil? The Byzantinians did not depict women in art (the Arabs did)
I don't know if they were Christians, or who was and who wasn't a Christian at the time.SAM said:
They certainly weren't in the upper class Mediterranean society, and there is no record of any of them wearing veils for any reason ever. And then came the Enlightenment and so forth.
So you don't know, basically. Maybe they were lower class, like my ancestors, but apparently their point of view has prevailed inspite of the scriptures. I am still puzzled how Arabs went from the depiction in their arts to their current status.
edit: perhaps Slysoon could add some historical notes?
Last edited:
Compare this to Far Eastern (Buddhist and Hindu) views on women - they are generally considered "less" (less intelligent, less worthy ...) than men.
In Buddhism, the monastic code seems to segregate strongly against women - women have more rules to obey, a nun is always subordinate to a monk, regardless of age and ordination difference, some say that the Buddha was a mysoginist.
Sometimes, they explain this that these rules are actually meant to protect the women from the lust of men.
There is the story of a beautiful woman who wanted to become a nun, but was rejected by the abbot. He said she was too beautiful and that this would disturb the monks very much, so that they couldn't concentrate on their meditation and would instead think lusty thoughts. Which would not be good for monks.
So the woman went away, cut her face up, and then came back to the monastery, upon which she was accepted.
Perhaps veiling has a similar function - so that women don't unnecessarily give rise to lusty feelings in men, so that men are less likely to take advantage of them.
Another example is the Victorian era. Some of its strictness is myth, some is true.
Yeah, hopefully one day we'll get rid of idols that demand the sacrifice of children too. The practice of shaving the heads of widows, stripping them of their clothes and jewelry and putting them in isolation [where they often resorted to prositution to feed themselves] as well as the generally poor status of women in Indian society [beholden to her father, husband and son at various stages of life for identity and social recognition] is an issue we still struggle with.
http://www.feminist.com/news/vaw75.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CS8euwO4o8k
Thats a sad story.
Another example is the Victorian era. Some of its strictness is myth, some is true.
In school we weren't allowed to wear skirts shorter than "four fingers above the knee" [they would measure it if it looked suspicious, I used to tie it at the hips when measurement seemed imminent
] for the same reasons.
Last edited:
I don't know the scriptures so well, but from what I have so far read from the Bhagavad-gita and the Srimad Bhagavatam, does not seem to suggest that such as the above is the desired social reality (although it's clear enough that women are considered "less"). Yet actual life in India seems to suggest the opposite.
If one's view of a religion/society is based mostly on scriptures, it can be difficult to make sense of the actual reality of that religion/society.
Perhaps this phenomenon is something that several religions/societies have in common.
Ideally, it should make one rethink about the value of pursuing sense gratification and remaining in samsara, being reincarnated over and over again ...
Saint Paul, in his letter to the Christians of Corinth, Greece, wrote what would eventually become known as First Corinthians, the seventh book of the New Testament. Saint Paul was not satisfied with the practices of the Christians of Corinth, and was worried as to whether or not a pious Christian community could thrive in such a cosmopolitan city. In his letter, he commanded the Corinthian women to cover their hair, as opposed to allowing it to flow freely down their backs. The respectable women of Saint Paul's time all covered their hair, both inside and outside of Church. Women of the time who were suspected of committing adultery were obligated to uncover their head and let their hair flow freely. The command to wear a head covering by Saint Paul probably referred to a shawl of some sort.
The traditional garment of Byzantine women was practically the same as the traditional garment of Roman women. The Byzantine women wore what is called a stola, which was a long dress (with sleeves) worn over a tunic. The stola was accompanied by a palla, a shawl-like garment which covered the hair and rested over the shoulders. This garment was not exactly the same as the garments Muslim women wear today, and it was not necessarily as strict, but the idea behind both are the same, and there is good reason to believe one lead to the other. The Qur'an itself requires women to "cover up", but whether or not that command requires a hijab or simply modest dress is the dispute because details in the Surah are not given.
Why Muslim women practice the custom of covering their hair today has two primary reasons. First, many scholars of the Qur'an and Hadith believe that it truly is a religious requirement. Secondly, the custom has been followed for so long that it naturally feels like an obligation, sometimes religiously, sometimes culturally, and sometimes both. Would you prefer it, S.A.M., for Muslim women to drop the concept of covering one's hair? It may not seem like a significant change, but the veil has permeated deeply various Muslim cultures and has become a form of identity for Muslim women.
Huh?
What does this have to do with the veil?
:shrug: Maybe you should ask Arab society at large what it has to do with the veil. Personally, I think the connection could be alternately viewed as tenuous...although the spirit certainly seems to be there.
Women today should certainly draw strength, then, from the knowledge that their suppression is simply a spurious occurrence. If you'd care to post some (appropriate) pictures, we could discuss it further. My suspicion is simply that the veil was a handy device for the fulfillment of the conservative impression of the ayah quoted; these ayahs in turn derived from Mohammed's exposure to his own society.
First, you have to define it as actually ignoring their religion. The ayahs (ayahae?) quoted certainly resemble conservative Islamic societies of today (i.e.: Saudi Arabia). The best I could find in Christian scripture is Timmy's Corinthians, which everyone of sense has the sense to politely ignore. Or have you seen some veiled women in church abouts?
I'll let you know "what our societies say".
Fascinating. Do they now?
Ah: you did post pictures. Thanks.
I notice that all the pictures illustrate women with hair covered; both before and after the invasion of Islam.
I think that settles the question. Thanks again for the pics.
Oh: you, ah, might stop to ask yourself whether a) these women had the right not to wear such coverings and b) whether they have to wear them all the time.
Thanks again. You've been remarkably helpful.
These Muslims of the Middle East?
Sixth century Arab women:
Or these?
Twelfth centruy Arab manuscript
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d1/Maler_der_Geschichte_von_Bayâd_und_Riyâd_002.jpg
Or these?
16th century Arab woman
I notice that all the pictures illustrate women with hair covered; both before and after the invasion of Islam.
I think that settles the question. Thanks again for the pics.
Or these?
Oh: you, ah, might stop to ask yourself whether a) these women had the right not to wear such coverings and b) whether they have to wear them all the time.
Thanks again. You've been remarkably helpful.