Yes, that’s why you see so many Jewish women wearing face veils. But labeling something “Jewish” in Egypt is likely to get more people to oppose it; that could be Amna Nosseir’s strategy. In reality, the niqab and burqa arise from the assumption underlying the idea that a woman must cover her hair. Muhammad did indeed only mandate that a woman must cover everything except her face and hands, but he did so based on the notion that it is the woman’s responsibility to keep men from being tempted by her. So if the face tempts a man, it has to be covered as well.
“Egypt drafts bill to ban burqa and Islamic veils in public places,” by Siobhan Fenton, Independent, March 9, 2016:
The Egyptian parliament is drafting a law banning women from wearing the niqab veil. The ban will apply to wearing the clothing in public places and government institutions, it has been reported.
The full-face veil is worn by some followers of Islam and typically covers all of the wearer’s face other than their eyes. The clothing is common in Egypt which is a predominantly Muslim country.
MP Amna Nosseir, professor of comparative jurisprudence at Al-Azhar University, who has backed the ban, said that wearing the veil is not a requirement of Islam and in fact has non-Islamic origins. She has argued that it is a Jewish tradition which appeared in the Arabian Peninsula prior to Islam and that a variety of Quran passages contradict its use. Instead, she has advocated that the Quran calls for modest clothing and covered hair, but does not require facial covering….

Sam says
Shame on this journalist to say predomently Muslim country there are many Christians in Egypt particularly upper Egypt which is south. However in Cairo or north of Egypt it is predomently Muslim. Shame on the media they always portray Islamic Cairo as whole of Egypt which is of course wrong.
NYgal says
Egypt is a predominantly Muslim country where Christins constitute ever shrinking minority. If there are areas with larger Christian communities it still doesn’t change the reality of the overall numbers.
gravenimage says
Sam, Egypt is 90% Muslim, and Christian Copts are treated as oppressed dhimmis.
Sam says
What are you talking about half of Egypts Muslims live in poverty they are the dhimmi now. Hahahahaha it called reverse psychology I feel inferer I therefore treat someone opposite as inferior but the reality is he is better.
Sandra Lee Smith says
Much of the Egyptian population, sadly, lives in poverty now; and has for several decades, but I remember a time when Cairo was actually a very cosmopolitan city, where women dressed much like western contemporaries in colorful business suits, with bared heads, and beautiful coiffures, where men dressed in business suits, and maybe wore a fez with it, but mostly not. Beards were rare, and the streets bustled with commerce and tourists. When I told a younger Egyptian friend how shocked I was seeing the films of the riots in Tahrir Square, and how depressed and degraded the city had become. HE, born and raised there, since ’70, was stunned! He had no memory of such a city, and was amazed that I did, going into the early ’50s.
Sam says
Hahahaha most of Egypt’s Muslims are basically Copts except Arab tribes who surrounded to Islam from Islamic ruling because of persecution. They are a product surrounding and they know it. While Christians either paid tax or fled to upper Egypt hiding from Islamic ruling. Hahahaha there is no such thing a dhimmi its all false Islamic propaganda.
Sam says
I mean surrender
Wellington says
Your arguments, Sam, are not only rooted in error but incoherence as well, thus they are not arguments at all but gibberish. But thanks for the laughs.
Sandra Lee Smith says
Dhimmitude is written RIGHT INTO Obamacare in our nation; for something that doesn’t exist, that’s pretty strange!
Mirren10 says
**Excellent news**. (Apart from the usual ghastly anti-Semitic sideswipe).
So, if an **islamic** country can do this, then why the **hell** can’t we, in the West ? Israel should do it as well.
خَليفة says
Agreed.
So, to make a funny point, if the basis for the ban is that veils are a Jew thing, then they should also ban parts of the Quran, which are also plagerized from the Torah.
This is yet another example of how truly twisted Islam is, and always will be. For nearly ever rule in Islam, there is another rule that lets you get around the first one. Makes you wonder if Islam was just the creation of evil twisted lawyers.
Sandra Lee Smith says
NT as well as OT have been plagiarized into that book, but then Satan does know the Holy Scriptures too!
H says
They have to sweltering to death under all that black fabric in the burning desert.
Peggy says
Maybe they have little inbuilt fans.
Hottest places on earth and they dress like that. What morons.
How do the women cope without vitamin D?
Simone Fields says
I’ve often thought that, someone said they have to rely on walking sticks as they get older, a lot suffer from weakened bones.
Sandra Lee Smith says
They don’t; why do you think old men are marrying children? The women are dying very young even when they aren’t being murdered by their husbands for some crime.
Angemon says
You sneaky little she-devil! 😀
mortimer says
MP Amna Nosseir, professor of comparative jurisprudence at Al-Azhar University!! Such credentials!
That would make her an expert on Islamic clothing, if she says so.
Islam is harder to understand every day, isn’t it?
I wonder if Caliph al Baghdadi will be convinced?
Sandra Lee Smith says
Not holding my breath there; but Al Sisi is a lot more amenable!
Guest says
I always thought it had more to do with riding through deserts in sand-storms. You know, the way men on camels in films always wrap their heads and faces up pretty well too. And somehow this sensible idea took over into sexist madness.
mortimer says
Nothing to do with sand storms, though there is a virtual ‘sand storm’ of confusion about it.
Sandra Lee Smith says
I may be mistaken, but I think it may even predate the camel caravans, and just relate to living in a desert where dust/sand storms are common.
African infidel says
Egyptians deserve credit for overthrowing the M.B “moderate” jihadist group and their leader(muhamed mursi).
Sandra Lee Smith says
Yes, they do, and for outlawing the MB in Egypt since then.
NYgal says
I have come to a conclusion that Arabs, especially Muslims, are completely demented, regardless of the levels of education. Unfortunately they are exporting their backwardness and prejudices to the West, where we thought those prejudices eradicated after WW2. Unfortunately, those mental derangements are making a comeback, like tuberculosis has, with those new arrivals.
Christianblood says
NYgal
Arabs and muslims are taking full advantage of the deep cultural weakness and the crippling political-correctness that exists in the Western world and they are imposing their evil islamic ideology on the West because they know no one will stop them. Arabs and muslims are playing the Western world like a violin, imposing islamic jihad hatred, taqqiyah, and sharee’a law everywhere and playing the “islamophobia” victim card whenever their evil agenda is exposed. They are too smart for the dump, naive, materialistic and morally and religiously compromised Westerners. The only hope for America and may be for the Western world in general is if Donald Trump becomes President of the USA.
gravenimage says
Most Arab Christians are pretty sane. Sometimes they are somewhat damaged from long years of living under dhimmitude, but they certainly are not trying to impose Shari’ah law on us.
The problem is Islam and Muslims–whether their background is Arab or not.
Christianblood says
gravenimage
I agree. By “arabs” I meant arab muslims.
Raja says
NYgal,
Radical Islamist must be much below average to believe Mohd to be a prophet. The more they read Koran with “beautiful poetry” the more they will lose their reasoning mind. That is just the opposite of what is required to understand bible. The Bible known for its historical and geographical accuracy and details requires man to reason to understand God and His word. I guess those NOT effected by Koran are lot more saner and reasonable.
Geraldine says
Surely it’s more complicated than that. There are at least two arguments not covered here.
Firstly, head covering was borrowed from Christian women – I forget why.
Second, and more likely, it was to distinguish upper-class Muslim women from the hoi poloi when going about their business. Without the veil, they were likely to be accosted by Muslim men. You know, like in Cologne.
gravenimage says
Geraldine, Christian women haven’t worn head coverings *for centuries*–and it was never a part of the faith.
And they never wore face veils–except for briefly in Spain, when they had been influenced by the Muslim conquest.
But you are right that Muslim women wear Hijab so they won’t be molested by Muslim men.
The message of the Hijab is, “hey, don’t rape me–rape that unveiled slut over there”. *Ugh*.
Nick McConnell says
As far as I know, the earliest law code that mentions veiling women is the Middle Assyrian Law (MAL) Code, which was apparently written in about 1050 BCE and probably enforced during the subsequent ~ 400 years. In particular, MAL #40 is as follows (which has some portions missing):
“40. Whether wives of men […] or women […] on the street (shall veil) their heads. Men’s daughters […] whether out-door (?) garments […] or […] garments, or […] shall be veiled […] their heads […] whether […] whether […] veiled, if she walk on the street by day she shall be veiled; the hierodule who has taken a husband shall be veiled […]; the foreign captive woman is veiled, the prostitute is unveiled, her head is uncovered; whoever sees a prostitute veiled shall seize her, he shall summon witnesses and take her to the portal of the palace. Her ornaments they shall not take away, but the garment in which she was seized they shall take. They shall give her 50 lashes and pour asphalt on her head. But if a man shall see a prostitute veiled and shall let her go and not bring her to the portal of the palace, they shall inflict on the man 50 stripes, his batikan and his garment they shall take, they shall pierce his ears, shall insert a cord in it, and bind it behind him and for one full month he shall perform work for the king. Female slaves are not veiled. Whoever sees a slave-woman veiled shall seize her and bring her to the portal of the palace; they shall cut off her ear. He who seized her shall take her garments. If a man sees a slave-woman veiled and lets her go and does not seize her, and does not take her to the portal of the palace, they shall arrest and try him; they shall give him 50 lashes, pierce his ear, insert a thread and bind it behind him, his batikan and garment they shall take, and for one full month he shall perform labor for the king.”
If this is the earliest documentation of veiling laws, it appears that the law was created (undoubtedly by patriarchs) to categorize women. In her book “Women in Mesopotamia”, Jessica Bieda writes:
“ Middle Assyrian Law #40 institutionalized a ranking order for women: at the top, the married lady or her unmarried daughter; beneath her, but still counted among the respectable, the married concubine, whether freeborn or slave or temple prostitute; at the bottom, clearly marked off as not respectable, the unmarried temple prostitute, the harlot, and the slave woman… Before the creation of the law sacred prostitutes, who, as priestesses representing various goddesses, had been fairly autonomous, independent, and even respected… Under MAL 40 the sacral nature of sexual temple service was no longer the decisive factor in determining a woman’s “respectability”, for the temple prostitute was regarded in the same way as the commercial prostitute… In ancient Mesopotamian society, there was a clear distinction between religious and commercial prostitution, however MAL 40 blurred this distinction. Such a law served to lower the social standing of certain groups of women, therefore dividing them, and was an early sign of the open intervention of the state into the realm of private sexual conduct…
“Throughout Mesopotamian history, women experienced different liberties and their role changed with each successive civilization. A patriarchal revolution took place that greatly affected women’s status; in general, women had a higher standing in the earlier Mesopotamian periods. The Code of Hammurabi [ ~1800 BCE] was the beginning of the institutionalization of the patriarchal family as an aspect of state power… It reflected a class society in which women’s status depended on the male family head’s social status and property. With the MAL 40, the state assumed control of female sexuality, which had previously been left to individual heads of families. From the middle of the second millennium BCE on, from the public veiling to the regulation by the state of birth control and abortion, the sexual control of women has been an essential feature of patriarchal power… Unfortunately, the sexual control of women by outside forces is still a problem that is trying to be overcome today.”
Jan Aage Jeppesen says
Interesting historical account. Thanks for the trouble.
Ian H says
Goats in niqabs; the obvious next step. We wouldn’t want anyone to be tempted.
gravenimage says
Egypt drafts bill to ban face veil for women, says it’s Jewish tradition
……………….
Just laughable. But then, Muslims label *anything* they dislike as “Jewish”–even if it is, as here, profoundly Islamic.
Pious Muslims opposing the face veil ban will probably claim that MP Amna Nosseir is “a Jew”.r
salim says
From the Islamic point of view this is utter rubbish and wrong.
The reason behind the confusion is that the word hijab has been wrongly used for head scarf. Hijab is Arabic for total barrier and means full thick veil that completely hides the face.
Therefore, it is the full veil that is ordered in the Quran. There is nothing in the Quran or hadith that mentions the hair cover (head scarf )
Initially( in the 1970s and 1980s), it was easier for the Muslim Brotherhood to propagate the head scarf. Having succeeded in that, they started propagating the real thing – the full veil.
The head scarf, which people wrongly call hijab, has no place in Islam and only serves as a sign of allegiance to the Muslim brotherhood or any of its hundreds of branches. It is to political islam like wearing a swastika was to the Nazis.
It is the head cover ( wrongly called hijab ) that should be banned because it has no religious basis, the full veil is actually required in Islam.
A woman with full veil is a true Muslima just as a bearded man with no moustache is a true Muslim. Such Muslims are true Muslims, others are Muslims who want to appear more moderate to be accepted in the society, but deep down they are not.
Solution: Either allow the full veil OR (better) ban practicing Islam altogether.
mortimer says
Salim is correct. The full veil is what is demanded in the Koran. See my post below about Omar, who tricked Mohammed into concocting a new revelation, thus showing Mohammed was actually ‘Allah’. The revelation of the veil in the Koran is one of the most suspect episodes in Islam that should convince any reasonable person that Mohammed was a fraud. Omar realized that Islam was a hoax and Mohammed was a conman using ‘Allah’ to make people think he was receiving revelations.
sidney penny says
teenage boys
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2016/03/they-prefer-boys-in-afghanistan
Dan Jones says
I am male so can I have all the veils to make a quilt???
More End Time News At:
http://www.shininginthedark.com/?page_id=6088
tilda says
There’s an interesting verse in the Old Testament which seems to provide some support for this.
Genesis 38.15: “When Judah saw her, he thought her to be an harlot; because she had covered her face.”
The verse clearly indicates a time when covering the face was the sign of a whore / prostitute.
Nick McConnell says
tilda, I was surprised when I read your comment, since it suggested the the Hebrew practice was opposite from the Assyrians’ (see my comment, earlier, about the Middle Assyrian Law Code). But I then checked your reference (as given in the New English Bible), and it gives the opposite from what you quoted (i.e., showing that the Hebrews were following the same custom as the Assyrians): “When Judah saw her, he thought she was a prostitute, ALTHOUGH she had veiled her face.” Will someone, here, who can read the original Hebrew give us the correct translation?
tilda says
I don’t read Hebrew, but can offer (1) Strong’s definition and (2) the verse as found in numerous translations of the bible. The verse I originally posted (above) is from King James.
(I hope this post makes sense because, for some reason, posts on this page are showing on my screen with many missing letters.)
Strong’s # H3588
kı̂y
kee
A primitive particle (the full form of the prepositional prefix) indicating causal relations of all kinds, antecedent or consequent; (by implication) very widely used as a relative conjugation or adverb; often largely modified by other particles annexed: – and, + (forasmuch, inasmuch, where-) as, assured [-ly], + but, certainly, doubtless, + else, even, + except, for, how, (because, in, so, than) that, + nevertheless, now, rightly, seeing, since, surely, then, therefore, + (al-) though, + till, truly, + until, when, whether, while, who, yea, yet,
Total KJV occurrences: 4454
Genesis 38:15
(Tyndale) When Iuda sawe her he thought it had bene an hoore because she had couered hyr face.
(ASV) When Judah saw her, he thought her to be a harlot; for she had covered her face.
(Bishops) When Iuda sawe her, he thought it had ben an harlot, because she had couered her face.
(CEV) When Judah came along, he did not recognize her because of the veil. He thought she was a prostitute
(DRB) When Juda saw her, he thought she was a harlot: for she had covered her face, lest she should be known.
(ESV) When Judah saw her, he thought she was a prostitute, for she had covered her face.
(Geneva) When Iudah sawe her, he iudged her an whore: for she had couered her face.
(ISV) When Judah saw her, he thought she was a prostitute, since she had concealed her face.
(JPS) When Judah saw her, he thought her to be a harlot; for she had covered her face.
(KJV) When Judah saw her, he thought her to be an harlot; because she had covered her face.
(KJV-1611) When Iudah saw her, he thought her to be an harlot: because she had couered her face.
(LITV) And Judah saw her. And he thought her to be a harlot, because she had veiled her face.
(MKJV) When Judah saw her, he thought she was a harlot, because she had covered her face.
(Vulgate) quam cum vidisset Iudas suspicatus est esse meretricem operuerat enim vultum suum ne cognosceretur
(WEBA) When Judah saw her, he thought that she was a prostitute, for she had covered her face.
(Webster) When Judah saw her, he thought her to be a harlot; because she had covered her face.
Nick McConnell says
tilda, thank you! Sorry to be so slow responding: my internet connection has been down for ~12 hours. And yah: my posts, too, are losing many letters — especially i’s. [I wonder how that will appear!]
You certainly have assembled an impressive array of references supporting your original quote. [That must have been a lot of work! Again, thank you.] Yet, I still wonder about the correct translation, in part because it suggests that the relevant Hebrew custom was exactly opposite from that of the Assyrians (and besides, it would seem strange that harlots would cover their faces — when their profession requires covering nothing else!) and in part because I came to trust the translations as given in the New English Bible (e.g., they give “Reed Sea” rather than “Red Sea” and “a young girl” rather than “a virgin”).
So, although you’ve amply supported your original quote, my thought is to leave the matter unsettled until an expert in ancient Hebrew weighs in.
Simone Fields says
I too have noticed today that in all the posts letters, especially ‘I’ are missing, all seems to be a bit scrambled. Wonder why?
tilda says
@ Nick McConnell
1) What about this one:
From Chabad.org
English translation of the entire Tanach with Rashi’s commentary. Translation edited by esteemed translator and scholar, Rabbi A.J. Rosenberg.
“15 When Judah saw her, he thought she was a harlot, because she covered her face.”
2) It took me no time to collect that list of various translations of the verse. There’s a useful (free) programme out there called e-sword (can be downloaded at http://www.e-sword.net). I just went to the verse, clicked a button, and copy pasted the list above.
I’m not religious, but I found the programme some years ago when various people online (including those of the Islamic persuasion) were throwing bible quotes around. I’ve found e-sword very useful; it not only gave me multiple bible translations at the press of a button, but also King James with Strong’s numbers, dictionaries and commentaries etc.
Nick McConnell says
tilda, that e-sword is a great reference (even for me, also not religious). Thank you.
And I see your Rosenberg quote, but then, looking back at your quote from Strong, notice that one of the definitions for ‘kee’ is “(al-) though”, as The New English Bible (NEB) used — and again, it’s the only one that seems to me to make sense, given the (Assyrian) custom / law (probably similar throughout the Middle East during the second millennium BCE) as well as the “needs” of the profession. Thus, I wouldn’t be surprised if the reasoning of the biblical scholars who put together the NEB was something similar to the following.
The story is about how Tamar, by posing as a harlot, was able to trap her father-in-law, Judah, for not conforming to the custom that, when a man died, his widow “belonged” to the deceased man’s oldest brother. But she wouldn’t be able to trap her father-in-law if he recognized her; therefore, she wore a veil — even though that wouldn’t be customary for a prostitute — at least according to Assyrian law, and also, one would expect it would be uncommon for any prostitute to be veiled. That’s what seem to me to fit with the NEB’s, “When Judah saw her, he thought she was a prostitute, ALTHOUGH she had veiled her face.”
tilda says
@ Nick McConnell
We could probably engage in endless exchange without reaching agreement about the correct translation of this passage.
However, I believe that we can probably agree that this passage from the Old Testament clearly indicates that veiling was indeed a practice known to the Jews. (And that is what the above article is about.)
Nick McConnell says
Yes, I agree — doubly 🙂
The only thing I’d add is: “It’s been a pleasure.”
mortimer says
The Revelation of Veiling due to Omar’s Interference:
Allah did not think of compulsory veiling until Omar (later caliph) demanded the revelation of Mohammed: Sahih Bukhari 1:4:148; Sahih Bukhari 8:74:257; Sahih Muslim 26:5397.
The sequence of events as laid out in the ahadith are as follows:
1.Umar repeatedly asks Muhammad that Allah should reveal verses for the Qur’an pertaining to the veiling of women.
2.No such revelation is sent down.
3.Umar follows Muhammad’s wives one night when they go out to relieve themselves (go to the toilet) and calls out to Muhammad’s wife Sauda.
4.Sauda goes home in a state of embarrassment and relates to Muhammad what has happened.
5.Allah then reveals the hijab verse as Umar had wanted all along.
Of course, this brings up some obvious questions:
– If Muhammad is ‘just a messenger’, relating Allah’s word, why did Umar need to ask Muhammad for the hijab revelation? Why did he not just pray to Allah and ask directly?
– No revelation was sent down until after Umar spied on Muhammad’s own wives. Why did Umar do this? How did he know (or at least suspect) that it would be successful? Why does Allah care about toilet privacy so much that he revealed a verse in his eternal book pertaining to all Muslim women that will ever live?
A common apologetic for this is that Allah was waiting for Umar to do this so that the situational revelation could come down. However this is not mentioned anywhere, thus there is no evidence for it. Moreover, Umar confirms that he came up with the idea first and then Allah “agreed with him”.
ALLAH SUSPICIOUSLY AGREED WITH OMAR
Narrated Anas:
Umar said, “I agreed with Allah in three things,” or said, “My Lord agreed with me in three things. I said, ‘O Allah’s Apostle! Would that you took the station of Abraham as a place of prayer.’ I also said, ‘O Allah’s Apostle! Good and bad persons visit you! Would that you ordered the Mothers of the believers to cover themselves with veils.’ So the Divine Verses of Al-Hijab (i.e. veiling of the women) were revealed. I came to know that the Prophet had blamed some of his wives so I entered upon them and said, ‘You should either stop (troubling the Prophet ) or else Allah will give His Apostle better wives than you.’ When I came to one of his wives, she said to me, ‘O ‘Umar! Does Allah’s Apostle haven’t what he could advise his wives with, that you try to advise them?’ ” Thereupon Allah revealed:–
“It may be, if he divorced you (all) his Lord will give him instead of you, wives better than you Muslims (who submit to Allah)..” (66.5) – Sahih Bukhari 6:60:10
WHAT WAS OMAR’S REAL MOTIVE IN VEILING
Since Omar wanted Mohammed’s wives to be unrecognizable, we must SUSPECT there was a POLITICAL MOTIVE for Omar to keep women outdoors from recognizing one another. It is possible that Omar was carrying on intrigues and needed his spies to pass unrecognized. Or Omar may have wanted Mohammed’s wives to go about unrecognized and not attract anyone to them for conversation in order to isolate Mohammed from gaining information passed from woman to woman.
VEIL SUPPOSEDLY TO PREVENT RAPE
In non-Islamic societies, women are generally free to walk around unveiled and not be harassed/assaulted every few blocks by men, but in an Islamic society (e.g. in Egypt where women and young girls are harassed 7 times every 200 meters or in Saudi Arabia where the observance of hijab is strictly enforced but the country still has one of the highest rape scales in the world) this would not be the case. If not arrested under indecency laws, women would be constantly harassed and/or assaulted by Muslim men.
The sole reason they do it is because Umar bin Al-Khattab, a companion of Prophet Muhammad, wished that he would reveal verses from Allah requiring women to wear it. When Muhammad did not oblige, Umar did not consider praying to Allah for assistance. Umar knew he had to make it personal for Muhammad himself in order to bring the revelation down. He followed Muhammad’s wives out when they went to go to the toilet and made his presence known. When Muhammad heard of this, the revelation that Umar had so wanted was sent down from Allah. Umar knew where these revelations were really coming from, which is why he went to Muhammad and harassed his wives instead of asking Allah.
he requirement for the hijab has had the effect of placing full responsibility for Muslim-male self control onto the females – freeing the men of responsibility for their actions if they see an unveiled woman. Lack of self control is not an inherent attribute to men, because men in non-Islamic societies generally do not have such self control issues; when it is rare to see a woman covered so in these societies. The hijab’s purpose, as revealed and to this day, is designed to protect Muslim females from the now acceptable behavior of Muslim males; behavior which has been deemed socially acceptable precisely because of the requirement of Muslim females to wear the hijab.
citycat says
I’m not sure- banning the flesh covering maybe a thing that happens prior to total take over because if there are no infidels left the need for burkos may be less.
And Muslims may become the new infidels because a new religion springs from God knows where.
Maybe from women.
The world is mad and anything might happen.
Historian says
Because of Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians it was generally expected for Christian women to cover their heads inside churches, but not elsewhere. Until the early 1960s the more formal churches (RC, Orthodox, Episcopal) expected women to wear hats during church services. We know from Tertullian’s “On the veiling of virgins”–an entire essay about this topic–that Christian women in his native North Africa c. 200 AD in practice often ignored bossy male churchmen, like Tertullian himself, who insisted women cover their heads while praying.
From Tertullian’s “On the Veiling of Virgins” we also know that it was very common for PAGAN Arab women, 400 years before Islam, to wear full face veils with only an opening for the eyes i.e. the “niqab.” Tertullian, being a prude, holds up PAGAN Arab woman as examples for his fellow Christian women to imitate because so many PAGAN Arab women showed they were more modest than Christian women by veiling even their faces not just their heads . So “Salim”‘s claim that the full face veil is Islamic is completely wrong. Face-veils, as we learn from Tertullian, were a pre-Islamic Arab custom. Like so many other pre-Islamic Arab customs face-veiling got wrongly labeled by Muslims as “Islamic.”
The reason so few Muslims really know what is pre-Islamic and therefore–ironically– what is truly Islamic is that Muslims, unlike Christians, did not preserve pre-Islamic historical or literary texts. Tertullian’s “On the Veiling of Virgins”–which gives us a rare glimpse of pre-Islamic Arab women–was of course preserved by Latin Christians . It’s also why the Muslim Middle East did not have anything like the Renaissance or Reformation. You cannot strip away later or non-Islamic accretions to in an attempt to get to the earliest form of “Islam” if you have no genuine pre-Islamic sources to compare Islamic ones to.
Whenever you hear some ignoramus claiming that Muslims preserved the “classics” don’t be fooled! Even in their intellectual phase (c. 750-c. 1200) that was most open to ancient Greek science and philosophy, Muslim scholars ignored all important Greek histories (Thucydides, Herodotus etc.) and all important Greek literature (drama, Homer etc.). The result: even though some Muslim intellectuals admired Aristotle, they could never understand the society that produced Aristotle, because to do this you have to study history and literature, not just STEM texts. (A lesson for our current “leaders” promoting the idea that STEM is the only useful course of education). And classical Latin literature Muslims completely ignored. The result : Greek ideas of democracy and the even more important Roman ideas of a republic could never have the influence on them that it had on Western political thinkers.
aton says
Actually, the koran says ‘cover your breasts’. There was a tradition of displaying breasts, in honour of Isis, as some Romo-Egyptian sarcophagi demonstrate.
james hazan says
Get your priorities right,If it takes “Jewish” to lift the veil forever, so be it.
james hazan says
This is not what I wrote
Amir Dewana says
The year 2000 has been 15 years away behind the backs of mankind. But those Egyptian Al-Azhar scholars are still busy talking about veils, never having dreamed of manufacturing jumbo airplanes or giant ocean-going supertankers. Europe should have received migrant people of the industrious Mongoloid race from East Asia who are non-muslims. I have come accross a news piece about a young Middle Eastern refugee defecating into a swimming pool in Germany..
Florida Jim says
After all these centuries muslims find a scheme to separate themselves from Jews wait until they hear about a religion where “love they neighbor as thyself’ is the preeminent philosophy.
ciccio says
60 years age, which is about the last time I was there, a woman could not go to a Catholic Mass without a head covering. It is only 100 years since women in the West got the vote, that is woman in the West excluding the highly advanced society of Switzerland where they only got the right a few years ago. For most of history there was no such crime as marital rape.. Finally, in the 21st century, that bastion of freedom and democracy, the fount of parliamentary democracy and individual liberty, Great Britain, the land that claims to have taught the world since the Magna Carta,,Great Britain has finally ruled that the eldest child does bot have to have something dangling between its legs in orderito inherit. That unfortunately only applies to the crown, the lords and barons of the realm will still pass their title on the their second cousin twice removed before giving it to their daughters.
The difference between Islam and the West is that the West learns from its mistakes and is prepared to change its ways, Islam considers itself perfect and immutable.
Fred says
The Islamist boys like to sneak around wearing burkas, so you can’t blame egypt for wanting to ban them.
Mark A says
al Azar University is the leading university on Islamic law and it is saying that burkas are not required by Islam.
That should pretty much settle the debate over burkas and Islamic face coverings in western nations.
If it’s not required by Islam, then people in western countries cannot claim religious tolerance as an excuse or a defense against laws restricting face coverings in public.
Sandra Lee Smith says
NOPE; even goats and camels are not exempt, so why aren’t they also required to wear burkhas or at least hajibs?
Oliver says
ACTUALLY-the professor -is to a limited extent CORRECT.
IT IS (NOW DEFINITELY AMONGST RELIGIOUS JEWS; YEARS BACK-ALL JEWISH WOMEN) TO WEAR A VEIL-
AND READ THE FOLLOWING:
AT HER WEDDING, AND TO BE LIFTED BY HER (SOON TO BE) HUSBAND, SO AS TO (MODERN TERMINOLOGY) TO CONFIRM THAT THIS SI THE WOMAN THAT HE WISHES TO MARRY.
This came about, because (as I recall, it was Jacob) wanted to marry Rachel, but instead married her sister, Leah ( first); so the custom became, the husband lifts the veil, to confirm whom he is marrying.
However, once they are married -the veil comes off.
Usually, the only OTHER TIME a Jewish woman wears a veil is when she is in mourning. (And, that seems to be dying out).
But to wear a veil whenever out in public–NEVER A JEWISH CUSTOM.
Simone Fields says
But all observant Jewish women wear Sheitals (wig) or snoods over their hair and it only ever comes off when with their husband or only in the presence of other women.
jewdog says
I’d add that Islam’s original and koranic view of women as war booty probably underlies much of the rationale for full covering, as women are the private possessions of men, to be encased and sequestered as one would a prized war souvenir. No touch woman, kaffir!
tilda says
Women who are “war booty” are women who have been stolen. The rationale for covering these women is so that their surviving relatives cannot identify them; the rationale is to make it difficult for their relatives (or friends or community) to take them back; the rationale is to hide the signs (bruises) of abuse.
I can recall reading an article — not too long ago — about a father and daughter who were out in public in an area dominated by ISIS (in Iraq or perhaps Syria — I can’t recall). Something happened, and the father (in panic) looked around for his daughter, but could not identify her because every woman was covered. He could not identify his own daughter among the sea of veils.
This is what veiling is about. Veiling means that women cannot be identified; they are reduced to nothing. Veiling makes it so very difficult for individual women to be rescued by those who truly care about them.
don kleim says
What the fuck is up with the feminist movement. They annialte western men for some unintended slight but not a word when women are stoned to death after being raped and no punishment for the rapist. Oh yeah, the man was tempted. My bad.