Specific Women’s Issues: The Practice of Covering the Head and Face in Christianity

 

 

Demystifying Islam

 by Dr. Ali Shehata

 

The Practice of Covering the Head and Face in Christianity

 

Early Christianity too continued this requirement for women as not only a tradition, but also due to scripture. In the New Testament, Paul writes:

 

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 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. [NIV, 1 Corinthians 11:5-10]

 

Although this is the only Biblical passage explicitly requiring the covering of the head, a number of Early Church Fathers discussed, at length, head coverings in their works. The classic nun's garb, for example, stands as being most representative of the conservative style of female dress in the Christian world. Furthermore, Christian art from its earliest forms shows women, such as the Virgin Mary, wearing head coverings. In Christian writings and art though, as opposed to those of Judaism, greater attention is paid to the issue of modesty as it relates to the covering of the head, and even at times the veiling of the face. Dr. Alan Ingalls, Assistant Professor of Old Testament at the Baptist Bible Seminary in Clarks Summit, Pennsylvania writes:

 

Whether a woman wore a veil at all times or not is best left to further study. The woman, like the man, seemed to wear some kind of head-covering as a part of her normal attire. That head covering was likely different than that worn by the man. It seems safe to say that veils which obscured the face might be worn by women, at least at times, as a sign of modesty or propriety. Removal of the basic everyday head covering was a sign of immodesty or vulnerability. Ingalls, A.D. (2000). Head coverings in the Old Testament. The Journal of Ministry & Theology. Vol. 4, No. 2, pp. 41-52

 

To better understand the reasoning behind the veiling of women’s heads in Christianity, we shall now review some quotes taken from the writings of several Church Fathers and other significant personalities in Church history. 

 

The great Church Father Tertullian is often sited on this matter, for he dedicated an entire work, On the Veiling of Virgins, to the subject. In it, he argues that virgins are not exempt from the law of veiling. He argues in conjunction with St. Paul's text that the veil should be worn “on account of the angels.” Further, Tertullian calls for women to keep themselves veiled, out of modesty, even outside of the liturgy:

 

... as they veil their head in presence of heathens, let them at all events in the church conceal their virginity, which they do veil outside the church. They fear strangers: let them stand in awe of the brethren too; or else let them have the consistent hardihood to appear as virgins in the streets as well, as they have the hardihood to do in the churches. 

 

He continues:

    I pray you, be you mother, or sister, or virgin daughter—let me address you according to the names proper to your years—veil your head: if a mother, for your sons' sakes; if a sister, for your brethren's sakes; if a daughter for your fathers' sakes ... Put on the panoply of modesty; surround yourself with the stockade of bashfulness; rear a rampart for your sex…. Børresen, Kari E. (1986). Tertulliano. De virginibus velandis. Augustinianum 26 (3):591-593.

 

These writings of the 2nd and 3rd centuries are enhanced by another distinguished Christian author of the 3rd century, St.Clement of Alexandria. In his extensive work called The Instructor (Paedagogus), St. Clement goes further and connects the face veil to the issue of modesty:

 

Woman and man are to go to church decently attired ... Let the woman observe this, further. Let her be entirely covered ... For that style of dress is grave, and protects from being gazed at. And she will never fall, who puts before her eyes modesty, and her shawl; nor will she invite another to fall into sin by uncovering her face. For this is the wish of the Word, since it is becoming for her to pray veiled.  Clement of Alexandria. (1867). The Instructor, Book III. Tr. William Wilson. Edinburgh: T&T Clark. Retrieved from: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/AnteNicene_Christian_Library/The_Instructor:_Book_3

 

Next, we look to the writings of one of early Christianity’s most renowned Biblical scholars, St. John Chrysostom, who was sometimes called the “Golden-mouthed Doctor”. St. John Chrysostom, in his homilies on St. Paul's text from 1 Corinthians, sees St. Paul as saying that women should be veiled at all times, not only in church:

 

... the man he compels not to be always uncovered, but only when he prays ... But the woman he commands to be at all times covered ... [he] also proceeded to say, "for it is one and the same thing as if she were shaven." But if to be shaven is always dishonorable, it is plain too that being uncovered is always a reproach. And not even with this only was he content, but added again, saying, "The woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head, because of the angels." He signifies that not only at the time of prayer but also continually, she ought to be covered. St. John Chrysostom. (n.d.). Homilies on First Corinthians, Homily 26, ver.4. Retrieved from: http://www.documentacatholicaomnia.eu/03d/ 03450407,_Iohannes_Chrysostomus,_Homilies_on_First_Corinthians,_EN.pdf

 

Shifting ahead to the middle ages, we next see in the commentary of St. Thomas Aquinas on the same Biblical passage (Commentary on First Corinthians) his understanding that women must be veiled "because of the angels." St. Thomas states that this can be comprehended both literally and metaphorically. In the literal sense, "angels" actually means angels:

 

This can be understood in two ways: in one way about the heavenly angels who are believed to visit congregations of the faithful, especially when the sacred mysteries are celebrated. And therefore at that time women as well as men ought to present themselves honorably as reverence to them according to Psalms 138 (v. 1): "Before the angels I sing thy praise." Aquinas, T. (n.d.). Super I Epistolam B. Pauli ad Corinthios lectura. Tr. Fabian Larcher. Retrieved from: https://dhspriory.org/thomas/SS1Cor.htm

 

In a more metaphorical way, St. Thomas says that "angels" can also be understood to mean the priests who celebrate the liturgies, and in this way he too connects the issue of veiling to modesty:

Therefore, the woman should always have a covering over her head because of the angels, i.e., the priests, for two reasons: first, as reverence toward them, to which it pertains that women should behave honorably before them ... Secondly, for their safety, lest the sight of a woman not veiled excite their concupiscence.

 

Moreover, the first Protestant Reformers also required the covering of the head. Katharina von Bora, Martin Luther’s wife and a former nun, was known to wear a head-covering even after leaving Catholicism. Also, 16th century Protestant founding fathers like John Knox and John Calvin both called for women to cover their heads. John Calvin’s views on the veiling of women are also tied to the question of modesty. He writes:

So if women are thus permitted to have their heads uncovered and to show their hair, they will eventually be allowed to expose their entire breasts, and they will come to make their exhibitions as if it were a tavern show; they will become so brazen that modesty and shame will be no more; in short they will forget the duty of nature. Skolnitsky, S. (tr.). (1992). Men, Women and Order in the Church: Three Sermons by John Calvin. Dallas, TX: Presbyterian Heritage Publications

 

Furthermore, European Renaissance artists and those who came later—well into the 16th and 17th century—regularly depicted women, both commoners and those of high status, as covering everything except the face and hands. This trend continued with the settling of America as can be seen in Puritan portraits of women wearing head coverings, and lasted into the late 19^th century and early 20th century. In the early 20^th century, Protestant churches did away with their requirement that women cover their heads during church service. In Catholicism, though it was Church canon that women should cover their heads and also "desirable" that women should be separate from men in church, the Roman Catholic Church also omitted these requirement in the 1983 Code of Canon Law. In this manner has Christianity continued to change its position on this matter up till the present day where now only a few sects of Christianity still implement female head coverings. 

  Source 

Covering the Hair. Is it Just for Muslim Women?

 

 

Demystifying Islam

 by Dr. Ali Shehata

 

Covering the Hair. Is it Just for Muslim Women?

The modest dress code of the Muslim woman, which includes the hair covering, but is not limited to that.

 

Few things today are quite as attention-grabbing in the Western media as the issue of Muslim women’s dress code. The hijaab has a different meaning depending on who you ask though. In the West, women dressed in hijaab evoke both anger and sympathy, as some see them as having no voices, no rights and no place outside the home. It has been called oppressive and degrading, and open calls have been made to “liberate women” from these restrictive garments. There is one glaring problem with these impassioned cries though—no one really cared to ask Muslim women what they thought about the whole matter. Before actually exploring this very important question, a brief review of the views of the three religions regarding veiling—all three of which either currently require or have historically required the veil—will again be made.

 

Beginning again with Judaism, one quickly discovers the requirement for covering the hair of the woman, which continues till today among the Orthodox sects. In Judaism though, a number of factors appear to be at play when attempting to understand the reasoning behind the traditional requirement that women cover their hair. The Midrash of the Talmud, on one hand, unreservedly understands Eve's beauty as having contributed to her temptation of Adam. As a result, she was then required to modestly cover her hair, as it was considered so sexually alluring that men would be simply incapable to resist. Again from the Midrash: 

 

Why does a woman cover her head and a man not cover his head? A parable. To what may this be compared? To a woman who disgraced herself and because she disgraced herself, she is ashamed in the presence of people. In the same way Eve disgraced herself and caused her daughters to cover their heads. Bronner, L.L. (1994). From Eve to Esther: Rabbinic Reconstructs of Biblical Women. Westminster: John Knox Press.

 

The Midrash continues in this regards, explaining that women are required to cover their heads as they walk before the bier at funeral processions in order to atone for Eve having brought death into the world by her sin. This is also related to the ten curses placed on women that was mentioned previously.

 

Yet, from another perspective the act of covering the hair in Judaism has also been viewed, as we shall also see in Islam, as a badge of honor and distinction. In the Jewish case, it is because it is a requirement only for women who are, or have been, married. A woman who has never been married is not required by most Jewish authorities to cover her hair. The Talmud [Kesuvos 72a] regards the source for this requirement as being Numbers 5:18 which deals with the laws of a sotah (a suspected adulteress) and states, 

The priest shall stand the woman before God and uncover her hair...

 

Rabbi Shlomo Yitchaki of the 11th century provides two explanations for the Talmud's conclusion requiring veiling. Firstly, she is punished for exposing her hair to her lover which demonstrates that the act of uncovering the hair before another man (other than family) is prohibited, and, secondly, from the fact that we expose her hair we see that under typical conditions, a Jewish woman's hair should be covered.

 

Jewish men, married or not, must cover their heads in virtually all Jewish sects. This requirement, however, does not only stem from ideas of modesty or temptation, but as a symbol of the “Fear of Heaven”. This concept comes from the Talmud, where the mother of Rabbi Nachman bar Yitzchak would not allow him to go with his head uncovered saying, "Cover your head in order that you should have the fear of heaven upon you." Krauss, S. (1945). The Jewish Rite of Covering the Head. Hebrew Union College Annual. Vol. 19, pp. 121-168. Retrieved from: https://www.jstor.org/stable/23503676?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

 

  Source 

Specific Women’s Issues: Divorce

 

 

Demystifying Islam

 by Dr. Ali Shehata

 

Divorce  

Divorce is understood to be the act of fully dissolving a marriage bond between husband and wife, releasing them from all marital obligations. Throughout time, this important issue has been the source of much contention and disagreement. The position of the Judaism, Christianity and Islam is rather variable on divorce and reflects much on the position of the woman. 

 

In Judaism, divorce has historically been completely acceptable, and can in fact be performed for any reason of displeasure. The only major stipulation though is that a husband alone can initiate a divorce. 

 

Jewish belief stems from the idea that a man may divorce his wife if she:

… becomes displeasing to him because he finds something indecent about her. [NIV, Deuteronomy 24:1]

 

In this case, the man may “write her a certificate of divorce,” and send her out of his house. This verse of Deuteronomy has caused much debate amongst Jewish scholars due to the difference of opinions on what the words “displeasing” and “indecent” mean within their context. The Talmud records their differing interpretations:

 

Beth Shammai say: a man should not divorce his wife unless he has found her guilty of some unseemly conduct, as it says, because he hath found some unseemly thing in her. Deuteronomy 24:1

Beth Hillel, however, say [that he may divorce her] even if she has merely spoilt his food, since it says, because he hath found some unseemly thing in her.  Rabbi Akiba says, [he may divorce her] even if he finds another woman more beautiful than she is, as it says, it cometh to pass, if she find no favor in his eyes. Babylonian Talmud Mishnah: Folio 90a

 

Both historical and modern day Jewish law are based upon this Hillelite interpretation wherein the man may divorce his wife on grounds of any dislike that he may have. Also, according to the teachings of the Talmud, it is obligatory for a husband to divorce his wife if she is barren, defined as not bearing any children for ten years. 

 

The Mishnah (Talmud: Yevamot 6.6) says that when a married couple is childless for many years, the husband must take another wife in order to fulfill the commandment to be fruitful and multiply: “If a man has taken a wife and been with her ten years, and she has not born child, he may not abstain [from fulfilling the commandment to be fruitful and multiply]. If he divorces her, she may be married by another man, and that man may live with her for ten years.

Rabbi Tahlifa bar Abimi quotes Samuel: “even if he has taken a wife and been with her for ten years [during which time] she has not born a child, he is to be forced [to divorce her].”  In the time of the Talmud, divorce depended entirely on the man’s wishes; also, polygamy was permitted.  The law only began to change on these two issues in the 12th century, with the laws known as the Ban of Rabbenu Gershom. For more on this ban, see Encyclopedia Talmudit, Vol. 16, pp. 384-390.

 

A woman’s right to divorce though is quite different in Jewish law—it doesn’t exist. In no circumstance can she actually call for a divorce or give a certificate of divorce. If a Jewish wife desires a divorce from her husband, she can appeal to a Jewish court. She must have a valid reason for why she desires such a divorce though. For instance, if her husband has a physical defect or he is not fulfilling his responsibilities, she may succeed with her petition in court. The court though cannot actually dissolve her marriage, only a husband can truly grant a bill of divorce. If judgment is found in favor of the wife, then the court can whip, fine, imprison, or ex-communicate the husband to coerce him to give the wife a bill of divorce. Although these measures may be taken to compel the husband, he still can refuse to grant a divorce to his wife. This right lies solely with him. 

 

This legal structure has a number of far-reaching consequences. In some cases, husbands choose to leave their wives, deserting them. This places the wife in the dilemma of being unmarried and “undivorced”. The woman is left unable to remarry or to live legally with another man, for to do so means to commit adultery. Moreover, if a woman would choose one of these options (in effect committing adultery), and then bears children, these children, called mamzers, and the next ten generations would be considered illegitimate*. Agunah (literally, chained woman) is the name given to women in such a plight. * “A mamzer shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord; even to his 10th generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the Lord.” [Deuteronomy 23:3]

 

On the other hand, the runaway husband can still legally marry again or live with a single woman. Since it is legal, the children from either of these two relationships would then be considered legitimate. 

 

In Christianity, on the other hand, divorce is completely forbidden in agreement with the Shammai Jewish school position. There is only one exception to that rule—if a wife is unfaithful to her husband. In this case, a husband may divorce his wife. The New Testament records Jesus as saying:

It has been said, “Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.” But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery. [NIV, Matthew 5:31-32] 

 

So a husband may then grant his wife a certificate of divorce if she had committed adultery during their marriage. Otherwise, neither husband, nor wife, can divorce each other.

 

Islam though, stands on a middle ground between Christianity and Judaism with respect to its laws on divorce. Islam does not entirely forbid divorce, yet it discourages it by all means, providing reconciliation remedies for couples to first apply, in hopes of preserving the marriage. Islamic teachings encourage men to be patient and treat their wives with kindness, even if they are is some element of dislike towards them. The Quran states:

Live with your wives on a basis of kindness and equity. If you dislike them, it may be that you dislike something in which God has placed a great deal of good. {4:19} 

The Prophet Muhammad pbuh gave a similar instruction: 

A believing man must not hate a believing woman. If he dislikes one of her traits, he will be pleased with another. [Muslim]

 

If however, the marriage reaches the point of no return, Islam gives right to both partners to end their matrimonial relationship. The husband holds the primary right for divorce, while the court, unlike in Judaism, has full rights to grant the wife a divorce. If the husband dissolves the marriage by divorcing his wife, he cannot take back any of the marriage gifts he has given her. The Quran clearly prohibits them from this, no matter how expensive or valuable these gifts might be: 

But if you want to replace one wife with another, and you have given one of them a great amount in gifts, do not take back from it anything. Would you take it in injustice and manifest sin? {4:20}

However, the wife, if she dissolves the marriage, she must return the marriage dowry to her husband. In this case, it is considered fair compensation for the husband who did not want the marriage to end while she chooses to leave him. The Quran has instructed Muslim men not to take back any of the dowry they have given to their wives, except in the case of the wife offering it when she is the one choosing to dissolve the marriage: 

And it is not lawful for you to take anything of what you have given them unless both fear that they will not be able to keep [within] the limits of God. But if you fear that they will not keep [within] the limits of God, then there is no blame upon either of them concerning that by which she ransoms herself. These are the limits of Allah, so do not transgress them. {2:229} 

 

This act, referred to as Khula’ in Islamic law, means the separation of the wife in return for a payment; the husband takes the payment of the dowry he gave and lets his wife go. 

 

Another evidence for this practice comes from the words of the Prophet when one woman (The wife of Thaabit ibn Qays ibn Shammaas) came to him seeking a divorce, although she found no fault in the character or religious commitment of her husband—she just didn’t like him. The Prophet asked her, “Will you give back his garden [given to you as the dowry]?” She agreed, and so the Prophet said to her husband to take back his garden, and divorce her. [Bukhari]

 

In other cases, a Muslim woman might be willing to keep her marriage, but find herself obliged to seek divorce because of some compelling reasons such as: cruelty of the husband, desertion without a reason, a husband not fulfilling his conjugal responsibilities, not providing for her as he should financially, etc. In these cases, the Muslim court dissolves the marriage. Sabiq, A.S. (1972). Fiqh al-Sunnah. al-Qa¯hirah: Da¯r al-Kita¯b al-Isla¯mi¯

 

In fact, even the secular court’s ruling in such cases is considered Islamically valid as well, as evidenced by the following religious verdict (fatwa) given to a physically and emotionally abused woman who divorced her husband in a US court: 

 

With regard to what you mention, that a woman in your country might arrange her own divorce through the [secular court], if this is for a reason for which it is permissible to seek a divorce, such as disliking her husband, not being able to stay with him or disliking him because of his immoral ways and his indulgence in forbidden and illegal actions, etc.—then there is nothing wrong with her seeking divorce, but in this case she should divorce him by khula’ and return to him the dowry that he gave to her. 

 

But if she is seeking divorce for no reason at all, then that is not permissible and the court ruling on divorce in this case does not count for anything in terms of [Islamic law]. The woman still remains the wife of the man. Now we have a problem. The fact that she is still married to him means that she cannot marry anyone else, but according to the court ruling she is apparently divorced from him, and [can remarry after her Islamic waiting period ends]. I think that the only way out of this problem is that good and righteous people should get involved in this matter, to bring about reconciliation between the man and his wife. Otherwise she has to give him some payment, so that it will be a proper khula’. Liqa’ al-baab al-Maftooh, Uthaymeen

 

In short, Islam has offered the Muslim women some unequalled rights: she can end the marriage through khula'. A Muslim wife thus can never become chained by a bitter and merciless husband. 

  Source