 |
| Dress code for Christian females |
We all know Paul was an advocate of the Hijab (head covering) to the extent of essentially forcing Christian women to wear the Hijab by offering the ultimatum of chopping off their locks (hair) or wearing the Hijab, but we are not sure why Paul was so in favour of the Hijab.
The Jesus scholar,Geza Vermes, offers some insight concerning our difficulty and his theorizing is interesting to say the least:
The idea of potential sexual rapport between angels and women continued to float in the air even as late as in the New Testament times. Indeed, when St Paul forbade the female members of the church of Corinth to attend Christian assemblies with the head uncovered, he justified this prohibition by his belief that the sight of their hair might lead astray some passing-by sons of heaven: 'That is why a woman ought to have a veil on her head, because of the angels', Paul insisted (1 Cor 11:10). [1]
Christian men tempted by Christian women without hijab?
If Vermes' view concerning Pauls' reasoning is correct one wonders as to the extent early Christians thought hijab-less women as a temptation to sin. After all, if they thought angels could not resist unveiled Christian women then what about the lay Christians? So why in the world are they freely mixing with uncovered Christian women at churches every Sunday? Not only that, what about day to day activities. I cannot ever recall seeing a lay Christian woman in hijab yet I have lived in the Christian West all my life!
Christians need to stop presenting Christianity as secualrism with a belief in a trinity and blood sacrifice. It's not.
Paul ignored by Christian women...
Paul's precautions against sexual sin (the hijab) have largely been ignored by most Christian women.
We would very much encourage Christian women to ignore Paul on his mistakes but act upon the teachings which have a ring of truth and sense to them. The hijab is something Mary wore and something which all women should strive for.
Of course, we as Muslims are not going to accept the idea that angels are tempted to sexual sin. Muslims believe angels do not disobey God.
Christian men...
Why are Christian men so lax in encouraging the Hijab? For some reason, Christians follow Paul theologically to the letter yet ignore him practically as in this case. I'd like to see Christians ignore Paul theologically and adopt Paul's teaching of hijab...
You don't have to believe Paul's alleged reasoning for the hijab, just start handing out hijabs to women who claim to love Jesus (p).
PS You can get all your hijabs from an Islamic centre near you, please pick some literature up on the way out. Thanks. May God bless you.
Invitation to Islam
Do you want a relationship with God? The God who created Jesus and whom was worshipped by Jesus? If yes, please come to Islam today.
[1] The Nativity, Geza Vermes, Penguin Books, 2006, p53
FEEDBACK: yahyasnow@yahoo.com
Become a Muslim if you love Jesus (p)
Sexism: Reason to change the Bible
Discover Islam
New Testament Discussed
23 comments:
We all know Paul was an advocate of the Hijab (head covering) to the extent of essentially forcing Christian women to wear the Hijab by offering the ultimatum of chopping off their locks (hair) or wearing the Hijab, but we are not sure why Paul was so in favour of the Hijab.
:) Of course, we ALL know!
Here you go, fool:
Head Covering and Hermeneutics
The command stands today. It does not teach that a woman must wear a veil, but only that she should not look like a man. She should have long hair and maintain a feminine appearance. If any part of the passage is indeed restricted to the culture of that day, to take the reference to a shaved head as a possible example, notice that it still has no effect on the application. The basis of Paul's argument is still creation and not culture, and the application still requires women to look like women and men to look like men.
I honestly believe that many Christians criticize Islam, without reading about Islam from reputable Islamic sources. Furthermore, I believe that Christians do not read their Bible. Take, for example, the head scarf, may Christians think that women in Islam are oppressed because men forced them to wear head scarf. How about the hundred of thousands of Muslim women in the West who put Hijab on? Can men force them to do that in the west?? This is just a big lie against Islam.
Have you ever seen Virgin Mary in a movie without headscarf? She used headscarf in normal life.
Hijab is a part of dressing.
Now let's see what the Bible say about covering womens' head:
1 Corinthians 11. (King James Version)
5-6 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven . 6 For if the woman be not covered , let her also be shorn : but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven , let her be covered .
10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.
13 Judge in yourselves : is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?
1 Corinthians 11 (New Revised Standard)
5 but any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled disgraces her head—it is one and the same thing as having her head shaved. 6 For if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or to be shaved, she should wear a veil.
10 For this reason a woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels
13 Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head unveiled?
Reference: http://www.biblestudytools.com/bible-versions/
What the Bible says about HIJAB...
(NKJV): 1 Corinthians 11:6 For if a woman is not covered, let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered.
(NASB): 1 Corinthians 11:6 For if a woman does not cover her head, let her also have her hair cut off; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her cover her head.
(KJV): 1 Corinthians 11:6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered.
(RSV): 1 Corinthians 11:6 For if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her wear a veil.
(MKJV (Green)): 1 Corinthians 11:6 For if the woman is not veiled, let her also be shorn. But if it is a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be veiled.
(LITV (Green)): 1 Corinthians 11:6 For if the woman is not veiled, let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn, or to be shaved, let her be veiled.
(Darby): 1 Corinthians 11:6 For if a woman be not covered, let her hair also be cut off. But if (it be) shameful to a woman to have her hair cut off or to be shaved, let her be covered.
( Wey NT ): 1 Corinthians 11:6 If a woman will not wear a veil, let her also cut off her hair. But since it is a dishonor to a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her wear a veil.
(Young): 1 Corinthians 11:6 For if a woman is not covered -- then let her be shorn, and if (it is) a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven -- let her be covered;
(CEV): 1 Corinthians 11:6 A woman should wear something on her head. It is a disgrace for a woman to shave her head or cut her hair. But if she refuses to wear something on her head, let her cut off her hair.
(TEV): 1 Corinthians 11:6 If the woman does not cover her head, she might as well cut her hair. And since it is a shameful thing for a woman to shave her head or cut her hair, she should cover her head.
(RVR 1960): 1 Corinthians 11:6 Porque si la mujer no se cubre, que se corte tambien el cabello; y si le es vergonzoso a la mujer cortarse el cabello o raparse, que se cubra.
(ISV NT): 1 Cronthians 11:6 So if a woman does not cover her head, she should cut off her hair. If it is a disgrace for a woman to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her own head.
( Rotherham ): 1 Corinthians 11:6 For, if a woman doth not veil herself, let her also be shorn; but, if it were a shame in a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be veiled.
(NAB) For if a woman does not have her head veiled, she may as well have her hair cut off. But if it is shameful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should wear a veil.
Hey all,
let me get this strait.
According to a minority interpretation of Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians wives should wear a head covering as a symbol of their husband’s authority when praying or prophesying at a local Christian gathering.
What does that have to do with the Islamic command for Women to cover up their bodies in order to “guard their modesty” and so that they “may be distinguished and not be harassed”?
It’s like saying that Muslims and Vikings have a lot in common since often the men have beards.
Or it’s like saying the Buddhist Monks and Islamic clergy are related since they both sometimes wear robes.
Peace
at fifth monarchy
hijab prevents a man checking out a woman, stalking her and taking pictures/videos of her and then uploading it onto youtube. it prevents men from making sexist remarks. obviously God cares about his creations and wants them to be protected.
and i don't get why christians re-interpret everything, then go to 'scholars' and copy their views. its completely obvious. christians are afraid to accept their bible.
Face the facts: American Christians dont want their women wearing head scarfs so they reinterpret and twist their scriptures in the silliest of ways. The Bible clearly tells women to cover hair but American Christians like Hollywood and MTV so reintterpret the Bible.Christians who understand the Bible and are HONEST wear hijab or at the very least admit hijab is part of Christianity.
Christians be honest and stop making illogical excuses
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. 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.
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 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.
In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God. Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering. If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice – nor do the churches of God. (1 Corinthians 11:3-16)
Do you see what it is?! IT IS A BIG ARGUMENT THE APOSTLE IS USING. You are taking parts of his argument out of the whole. This is not how we understand arguments, and context, in the Bible. Our Bible actually has a context for its passages. We have to read the whole argument from beginning to end. You have to understand his MAIN point, which is that women should dress like women and men like men, ie. men short hair women long hair, as they were created. It is an eternal law.
What you have in Islam is literally a big problem of Muslim soldiers NOT being able to distinguish between slave girls and wives at night while raping them. They could only rape the slaves, but since it was dark, they were raping the wives of other Muslims on accident. We cant have that. So a law came down from Muhammad that gave Muslim wives a "wrapper," but only the wives, and not the slave girls, so the Muslims could distinguish in the dark. Talk about "culturally inspired" text! And you cannot say the same thing about the Tanakh since your Prophet is the final "seal" while the OT has the Promise of the coming Messiah.
ali said,
and i don't get why christians re-interpret everything, then go to 'scholars' and copy their views.
I say,
It is you who are re-interpreting if you believe that a covering to be warn when praying and prophesying at a gathering of Christians as a sign of the husband’s authority somehow equals a hijab that “prevents a man checking out a woman”.
Lots of Christian women wear a covering in our gatherings but you would not know that because you as a Muslim never go to those places.
Some women instead refrain from prayer and prophesying out loud in our gatherings altogether
Some Christian women(the Amish and Mennonites) wear prayer caps and
some women grow their hair long to serve as a covering
Quote:
but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering.
(1 Corinthians 11:15)
End quote:
But none of these practices has anything whatsoever to do with the hijab. I’m amazed that the subject even comes up.
It’s like saying that Irish folks kissing the blarney stone is the same practice as Muslims kissing the black stone.
I mean get real
Peace
@anonymous,
Grow up. Please.
I see no reason for you to go absolutely crazy against Islam with cheap insults just because Geza Vermes points out something concerning Paul's support of the Hijab.
I have read the wrok of a conservative Christian scholar on this issue and I can tell you all this silly twisting of scripture and injecting your own meanings are not doing the text a seervice at all.
The EASIEST view to defend exegetically is that of Paul supporting the Hijab and it being a symbol which should be in use even today.
The silliest is that of the hair being the covering. That is a downright exhibition of dishonest and/or ignorance. Anon1 gave us the explanation of the woman not looking like a man. Hmm? Well, yes, if she wore her hijab she would not look like a man. You cannot run from the clear verse which instructs Christian women to wear hijabs. Why reinterpret it to suit your own desires...
Iron sharpens iron as one man sharpens another
@Fifthmonarchyman
The hair being the covering is a view which is denounced by Christian scholarship. PLEASE do not espouse it as it is simply wrong.
Watch this space, God willling I shall put up a post to help educate us further on this issue.
Peace
yahya,
The hair being the covering is a view which is denounced by Christian scholarship. PLEASE do not espouse it as it is simply wrong.
I say,
You completely miss the point of my comment.
I'm not espousing any view. I’m just pointing out that there are many interpretations of
of this passage and absolutely none of them have anything remotely in common with the Muslim hijab.
But while we are on the subject please forgive me if instead of accepting the opinion of a Muslim as to what constitutes "Christian Scholarship" I share the opinions of some of the most beloved commentators of the Church
Quote:
But if a woman have long hair - The Author of their being has given a larger proportion of hair to the head of women than to that of men; and to them it is an especial ornament, and may in various cases serve as a veil.
(Clark’s commentary on the Bible)
And:
Should there not be a distinction kept up between the sexes in wearing their hair, since nature has made one? Is it not a distinction which nature has kept up among all civilized nations? The woman's hair is a natural covering; to wear it long is a glory to her; but for a man to have long hair, or cherish it, is a token of softness and effeminacy." Note, It should be our concern, especially in Christian and religious assemblies, to make no breach upon the rules of natural decency.
(Mathew Henry’s whole bible commentary)
End quote:
If you are unconvinced by old books how about a popular Christian website:
Quote:
This covering not only means a cloth but also can refer to a woman's hair length. How can we say that? We must take this verse in the context or the setting in which it is presented. "Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him? But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering" (1 Corinthians 11:14-15). Therefore, in the context of this passage, a woman who is wearing her hair longer marks herself out distinctively as a woman and not a man. The Apostle Paul is saying here that in the Corinthian culture, when a wife's hair was longer than her husband's, it showed her submission to his headship. The roles of the male and female are designed by God to portray a profound spiritual lesson, that is of submission to the will and the order of God.
(gotquestions.org)
End quote:
Again keep in mind I am not espousing this mainstream view just bringing it to your attention.
I recommend you check out as many commentaries on this passage as you can get your hands on.
You will discover that Christian understandings of this text have absoulutly nothing to do with the Islamic concept of covering up to “prevent a man checking out a woman”.
Peace
what happened to my post?
@Yahya
I love it how Muslims bash Paul day in and day out. Then just turn turn around and site Paul as a source.
To funny so sad and so pathetic
I posted a response to Yahya explaining that I was not espousing any view and reiterating my actual point which was that no Christian view is consistent with the Islamic concept of the Hijab
Then for good measure I quoted three respected Christian commentators who supported the hair as covering view.
For some reason it has disappeared from this page. Can anyone tell me why?
Yahya, I see no reason for you to go absolutely crazy against Islam with cheap insults
What cheap insults? This is your history. Its Kathir, Zamakhshari, and Qurtubi. Kathir says "fornicators of the people Medina," the wives were getting raped along with the slaves, the wives got a wrapper the slaves did not. Among the fornicators obviously were Muslims S. 33.59. In fact, being unveiled became a characteristic of the female slaves - they rightly wanted to be covered so they would not be molested or raped - so Umar Ibn al Khattab "would beat her with a whip to preserve the apparel of the free ones."
I called you a fool because you have been refuted on this Paul and the Hijab appeal in about a dozen of your own posts.
The silliest is that of the hair being the covering.
what bible are you reading?
For LONG HAIR IS GIVEN TO HER AS A COVERING. If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice – nor do the churches of God. (1 Corinthians 11:16)
Like I said, you have to take the WHOLE argument into account, which starts back at 1Cor 11.3 and goes to the sixteenth verse. The author of the Bible actually put things in context for us IN the Bible ITSELF! We do not need to look at secondary sources, like hadeeth, to understand context We just need to read the WHOLE passage. You cannot just pick and choose one liners like your Qur'an does.
It is true,as Anonymous said,for Paul wearing a hijab(an actual piece of cloth) and having long hair were equivalent.
For LONG HAIR IS GIVEN TO HER AS A COVERING/VEIL/HIJAB(1 Corinthians 11:16)
So he accepted it either way.As for covering the hair "because of the angels".
The OT story is some heavenly angels were tempted by the beauty of women.I do not see why Paul could not have been using a METAPHOR,dress modestly or you will be too much of a temptation for others.
minoria said,
I do not see why Paul could not have been using a METAPHOR,dress modestly or you will be too much of a temptation for others.
I say,
Because the context of the passage has absolutely nothing to do with dressing modestly.
The context of the passage (chapters 11 through 14) is all about proper behavior in Christian gatherings. Read the whole passage brother not just a snippet.
Context is vital in understanding the Word of God
The situation was that some women were publicly praying and prophesying with out a sign of their husbands headship.
It seems that given the liberating nature of the gospel and our equality in Christ certain women were appearing to abandon all earthly authority. Paul was just concerned that women not freelance in our worship services but instead take into account the husband's role as head of the household.
With that background in mind read the passage again…..
Quote:
Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.
That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.
Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman; for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God.
(1 Corinthians 11:9-12)
End quote:
Paul is not interested in modesty here but in a sign of the husbands authority. We can speculate as to what the phrase “because of the angels.” means exactly but we can’t divine meanings that foreign to the context.
Remember
A text taken out of context is pretext for a proof text
Peace
As for the meaning of the phrase "because of the angels".
It is likely that Paul is concerned that we behave properly when the Word of God is being proclaimed because angels are in attendance at such times..
quote:
Concerning this salvation, the prophets who prophesied about the grace that was to be yours searched and inquired carefully, inquiring what person or time the Spirit of Christ in them was indicating when he predicted the sufferings of Christ and the subsequent glories. It was revealed to them that they were serving not themselves but you, in the things that have now been announced to you through those who preached the good news to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven, things into which angels long to look.
(1 Peter 1:10-12)
and
Just so, I tell you, there is joy before the angels of God over one sinner who repents."
(Luke 15:10)
and:
Are they not all ministering spirits sent out to serve for the sake of those who are to inherit salvation?
(Hebrews 1:14)
Peace
Hello Monarchy Man,
reading your comment your idea of "because of the angels" makes more sense.Probably Paul was simple saying "our actions are being watched by God and his angels".
I DECIDED TO READ SHABIR ALLY'S BLOG
I found this statement from 2009:
"But even if we grant that they believed that Jesus died and that God restored him to life this does not mean that the post-resurrection narratives in the gospels should be believed. We now know that there was an earlier faith that Jesus was assumed into heaven from his grave (pre-Markan passion), and perhaps another that he was assumed into heaven alive (a la Zeller). In this case we can see a series of developments:
1. Jesus is believed to have been assumed into heaven alive (Q Gospel);
2. Jesus is believed to have been assumed from his tomb into heaven (Pre-Markan)"
Ally accepts Zeller's idea.Ally always talks of the Sign of Jonah in Q.
In Matthew 12:40 the phrase appears with the words "be in the heart of the earth".It doesnt appear in Luke 11:29-30.
The Jews then didnt bury their death put them in grave or "heart of the earth" but in a cave.
The heart of something is usually its CENTER so the phrase means Jesus would really be dead,as though put in the center of the earth.
Ally knows that but prefers to pretend Luke's version is all there is.
HE EVEN REJECTS THE ULTRA-RADICAL JESUS SEMINAR
They put the 1 Cor 15 creed at 2 years after Jesus' death,or 32 AD,and it says Jesus died.Or if you want to reject it,then...
THE CARMEN CHRISTI
It is from about 20 years after Jesus' death,or at least as early as Q(50 AD).It is an official creed.It says Jesus died.Or if you want to reject that,then...
THE EBIONITES
Which I suppose Ally accepts as being the real followers of Jesus in Jerusalem,THEY said Jesus DIED.
THE PRE-MARKAN PASSION ACCOUNT
Some scholars believe such an account existed,from 37 AD(7 years after Jesus' death).It says Jesus died.
INDEPENDENT AND MULTIPLE SOURCES
It is obvious the real,from the beginning belief was Jesus died(not was taken alive into heaven in the cave).Ally is not interested in being a scholar,he combines one detail from one man and another from another but shows no evidence why his version should overtoppled the contrary evidence
Lol, as long as they distinguish themselves from Islam and Muslims, christians will interpret their scripture to always be at odds with Islam. No folks, the bible teaches them to wear bikinis, mini skirts, drink alcohol and party all night, eat the meat of pig and drown in sexual debauchery from age 11-till death. amazing how they actually want to distance themselves from MODESTY. They would rather be known as the girls gone wild christianity than have anything to do with head scarves...pitiful.cheers
Post a Comment