Alhassanain(p) Network for Heritage and Islamic Thought

Mothers

The Old Testament in several places commands kind and considerate treatment of the parents and condemns those who dishonor them. For example,

“If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death.” (Lev. 20:9)

And

“A wise man brings joy to his father but a foolish man despises his mother.” (Proverbs 15:20).

Although honoring the father aloneis mentioned in some places, e.g.

“A wise man heeds his father’s instruction.” (Proverbs 13:1)

The mother aloneis never mentioned . Moreover, there is no special emphasis on treating the mother kindly as a sign of appreciation of her great suffering in childbearing and suckling. Besides, mothers do not inherit at all from their children while fathers do.1

It is difficult to speak of the New Testament as a scripture that calls for honoring the mother. On the contrary, one gets the impression that the New Testament considers kind treatment of mothers as an impediment on the way to God. According to the New Testament, one cannot become a good Christian worthy of becoming a disciple of Christ unless he hates his mother. Itis attributed to Jesus to have said:

“If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters -- yes, even his own life -- he cannot be my disciple.” (Luke 14:26)

Furthermore, the New Testament depicts a picture of Jesus as indifferent to, or even disrespectful of, his own mother. For example, when she had come looking for him while he was preaching to a crowd, he did not care to go out to see her:

“Then Jesus’ mother and brothers arrived. Standing outside, they sent someone to call him. A crowd was sitting around him and they told him, ‘Your mother and brothers are outside looking for you.’ ‘Who are my mother and my brothers?’ he asked. Then he looked at those seated in a circle around him and said, ‘Here are my mother and my brothers! Whoever does God’s will is my brother and sister and mother.’” (Mark 3:31-35)

One might argue that Jesus was trying to teach his audience an important lesson that religious ties are no less important than family ties. However, he could have taught his listeners the same lesson without showing such absolute indifference to his mother. The same disrespectful attitudeis depicted when he refused to endorse a statement made by a member of his audience blessing his mother’s role in giving birth to him and nursing him:

“As Jesus was saying these things, a woman in the crowd called out, ‘Blessed is the mother who gave you birth and nursed you.’ He replied, ‘Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it.’” (Luke 11:27-28)

If a mother with the stature of the Virgin Mary had been treated with such discourtesy, as depicted in the New Testament, by a son of the stature of Jesus Christ, then how shouldan average Christian mother be treated by her average Christian sons ?

In Islam, the honor, respect, and esteem attached to motherhoodis unparalleled. The Qur’an places the importance of kindness to parents as second only to worshipping God Almighty:

“Your Lord has decreed that you worship none but Him, And that you be kind to parents. Whether one or both of them attain old age in your life, Say not to them a word of contempt, nor repel them, but address them in terms of honor.And out of kindness, lower to them the wing of humility, and say: ‘My Lord! Bestow on them Your Mercy as they cherished me in childhood.’” (17:23-24)

The Qur’an in several other places puts special emphasis on the mother’s great role in giving birth and nursing:

“AndWe have enjoined on man to be good to his parents: In travail upon travail did his mother bear him and in two years was his weaning. Show gratitude toMe and to your parents.” (31:14)

The very special place of mothers in Islam has been eloquently described by Prophet Muhammad (S) :

“A man asked the Prophet: ‘Whom should I honor most?’ The Prophetreplied: ‘Your mother’. ‘And who comes next?’ asked the man. The Prophetreplied: ‘Your mother’. ‘And who comes next?’ asked the man. The Prophet replied: ‘Your mother!’. ‘And who comes next?’ asked the man. The Prophet replied: ‘Your father’” (Bukhari and Muslim).

Among the few precepts ofIslam which Muslims still faithfully observe to the present day is the considerate treatment of mothers. The honor that Muslim mothers receive from their sons and daughters is exemplary. The intensely warm relations between Muslim mothers and their children and the deep respect with which Muslim men approach their mothers usually amaze Westerners.2

Female Inheritance

One of the most important differences between the Qur’an and the Bible is their attitude towards female inheritance of the property of a deceased relative.The Biblical attitude has been succinctly described by Rabbi Epstein :

“The continuous and unbroken tradition since the Biblical days gives the female members of the household, wife and daughters, no right of succession to the family estate. In the more primitive scheme of succession, the female members of the familywere considered part of the estate and as remote from the legal personality of an heir as the slave. Whereas by Mosaic enactment the daughters were admitted to succession in the event of no male issue remained, the wife was not recognized as heir even in such conditions.” 3

Whywere the female members of the family considered part of the family estate? Rabbi Epstein has the answer: “They are owned --before marriage, by the father; after marriage, by the husband.” 4

The Biblical rules of inheritanceare outlined in Numbers 27:1-11. A wifeis given no share in her husband’s estate, while he is her first heir, even before her sons. A daughter can inherit only if no male heirs exist. A mother is not an heir at all while the father is. Widows and daughters, in case male children remained, were at the mercy of the male heirs for provision. That is why widows and orphan girls were among the most destitute members of the Jewish society.

Christianity has followed suit for a long time. Both the ecclesiastical and civil laws of Christendom barred daughters from sharing with their brothers their patrimony. Besides, wiveswere deprived of any inheritance rights. These iniquitous laws survivedtill late in the last century.5

Among the pagan Arabs before Islam, inheritance rightswere confined exclusively to the male relatives. The Qur’an abolished all these unjust customs and gave all the female relatives inheritance shares:

“From what is left by parents and those nearest related there is a share for men and a share for women, whether the property be small or large --a determinate share.” (4:7)

Muslim mothers, wives, daughters, and sisters had received inheritance rights thirteen hundred years before Europe recognized that these rights even existed. The division of inheritance is a vast subject with an enormous amount of details (4:7,11,12,176 ).

The general rule is that the female share is half themale’s except the cases in which the mother receives equal share to that of the father. This general rule if taken in isolation from other legislations concerning men and women may seem unfair. In order to understand the rationale behind this rule, one must take into account the fact that the financial obligations of men in Islam far exceed those of women (see the “Wife’s property” section).

A bridegroom must provide his bride with a marriage gift. This gift becomes her exclusive property and remains so even if she is later divorced. The bride is under no obligation to present any gifts to her groom. Moreover, the Muslim husbandis charged with the maintenance of his wife and children. The wife, on the other hand, is not obliged to help him in this regard. Her property and earnings are for her use alone except what she may voluntarily offer her husband. Besides, one has to realize that Islam vehemently advocates family life. It strongly encourages youth to get married, discourages divorce, and does not regard celibacy as a virtue.

Therefore, in a truly Islamic society, family life is the norm and single life is the rare exception. That is, almost all marriage-aged women and men are married in an Islamic society. In light of these facts, one would appreciate that Muslim men, in general, have greater financial burdens than Muslimwomen and thus inheritance rules are meant to offset this imbalance so that the society lives free of all gender or class wars. After a simple comparison between the financial rights and duties of Muslim women, one British Muslim woman has concluded that Islam has treated women not only fairly but generously.6

Notes

1. Epstein, op. cit., p. 122

2. Armstrong, op. cit., p. 8.

3. Epstein, op. cit., p. 175.

4. Ibid., p. 121.

5. Gage, op. cit., p. 142.

6. B. AishaLemu and FatimaHeeren , Woman in Islam (London: Islamic Foundation, 1978) p. 23.

Plight of Widows

Because of the fact that the Old Testament recognized no inheritance rights to them, widows were among the most vulnerable of the Jewish population. The male relatives who inherited all ofa woman’s deceased husband’s estate were to provide for her from that estate. However, widows had no way to ensure this provisionwas carried out, and lived on the mercy of others. Therefore, widows were among the lowest classes in ancient Israel and widowhoodwas considered a symbol of great degradation (Isaiah 54:4).

But the plight of a widow in the Biblical tradition extended even beyond her exclusion from her husband’s property. According to Genesis 38, a childless widow must marry her husband’s brother, even if he is already married, so that he can produce offspring for his dead brother, thus ensuring his brother’s name will not die out.

“Then Judah said toOnan , ‘Lie with your brother’s wife and fulfill your duty to her as a brother-in-law to produce offspring for your brother.’” (Genesis 38:8)

The widow’s consent to this marriage is not required. The widowis treated as part of her deceased husband’s property whose main function is to ensure her husband’s posterity. This Biblical lawis still practiced in today’s Israel.1

A childless widow in Israelis bequeathed to her husband’s brother. If the brother is too young to marry, she has to wait until he comes of age. Should the deceased husband’s brother refuse to marry her, sheis set free and can then marry any man of her choice. It isnot an uncommon phenomenon in Israel that widows are subjected to blackmail by their brothers-in-law in order to gain their freedom.

The pagan Arabs before Islam had similar practices. A widowwas considered a part of her husband’s property to be inherited by his male heirs and she was, usually, given in marriage to the deceased man’s eldest son from another wife. The Qur’an scathingly attacked and abolished this degrading custom:

“And marry not women whom your fathers married--Except what is past-- it was shameful, odious, and abominable custom indeed.” (4:22)

Widows and divorced womenwere so looked down upon in the Biblical tradition that the high priest could not marry a widow, a divorced woman, or a prostitute:

“The woman he (the high priest) marries must be a virgin. He must not marry a widow, a divorced woman, or a woman defiled by prostitution, but only a virgin from his own people, so he will not defile his offspring among his people.” (Lev. 21:13-15)

In Israel today, a descendant of the Cohen caste (the high priests of the days of the Temple) cannot marry a divorcee, a widow, or a prostitute.2

In the Jewish legislation, a woman whohas been widowed three times with all the three husbands dying of natural causes is considered ‘fatal’ and forbidden to marry again.3

The Qur’an, on the other hand, recognizes neither castes nor fatal persons. Widows and divorcees have the freedom to marry whomever they choose. There is no stigma attached to divorce or widowhood in the Qur’an:

“When you divorce women and theyfulfil their terms [three menstruation periods] either take them back on equitable terms or set them free on equitable terms; but do not take them back to injure them or to take undue advantage, if anyone does that, he wrongs his own soul. Do not treat Allah’s signs as a jest.” (2:231)

“If any of you die and leave widows behind, they shall wait four months and ten days. When they have fulfilled their term, there is no blame on you if they dispose of themselves in a just manner.” (2:234)

“Those of you who die and leave widows should bequeath for their widows a year’s maintenance and residence. But if they [the widows] leave (the residence) there is no blame on you for what they justly do with themselves.” (2:240)

Notes

1. Hazleton, op. cit., pp. 45-46.

2. Ibid., p. 47.

3. Ibid., p. 49.

Polygamy

Let us now tackle the important question of polygamy. Polygamy is a very ancient practice found in many human societies. The Bible did not condemn polygamy. To the contrary, the Old Testament and Rabbinic writings frequently attest to the legality of polygamy. King Solomonis said to have had 700 wives and 300 concubines (1 Kings 11:3)

Also , King David is said to have had many wives and concubines (2 Samuel 5:13). The Old Testament does have some injunctions on how to distribute the property of a man among his sons from different wives (Deut. 22:7). The only restriction on polygamy is a ban on taking a wife’s sister as a rival wife (Lev. 18:18). The Talmud advises a maximumof four wives.1

European Jews continued to practice polygamy until the sixteenth century. Oriental Jews regularly practiced polygamy until they arrived in Israel where itis forbidden under civil law. However, under religiouslaw which overrides civil law in such cases, it is permissible.2

What about the New Testament? According to Father Eugene Hillman in his insightful book, ‘Polygamy Reconsidered’, “Nowhere in the New Testament is there any explicit commandment that marriage should be monogamous or any explicit commandment forbidding polygamy.” 3

Moreover, Jesus has not spoken against polygamy thoughit was practiced by the Jews of his society . Father Hillman stresses the fact that the Church in Rome banned polygamy in order to conform to the Greco-Roman culture (which prescribed only one legal wife while toleratingconcubinage and prostitution). He cited St. Augustine, “Now indeed in our time, and in keeping with Roman custom, it is no longer allowed to take another wife.” 4

African churches and African Christians often remind their European brothers that the Church’s ban on polygamy is a cultural tradition and not an authentic Christian injunction.

The Qur’an, too, allowed polygamy, but not without restrictions:

“If you fear that you shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans, marry women of your choice, two or three or four; but if you fear that you shall not be able to deal justly with them, then only one.” (4:3)

The Qur’an, contrary to the Bible, limited the maximum number of wives to four under the strict condition of treating the wives equally and justly. Itshould not be understood that the Qur’an is exhorting the believers to practice polygamy, or that polygamy is considered as an ideal. In other words, the Qur’an has “tolerated” or “allowed” polygamy and no more but, why? Why is polygamy permissible?

The answer is simple: there are places and times in which there are compelling social and moral reasons for polygamy. As the aboveQur’anic verse indicates, the issue of polygamy in Islamcannot be understood apart from community obligations towards orphans and widows. Islam as a universal religion suitable for all places and all times could not ignore these compelling obligations.

In most human societies, females outnumber males. In the U.S. there are, at least, eight million more womenthan men . In a country likeGuinea there are 122 females for every 100 males. In Tanzania, there are 95.1 males per 100 females5 .

What should a society do towards such unbalanced sex ratios? There are various solutions, some might suggest celibacy, and others would prefer female infanticide (which does happen in some societies in the world today!)

Others may think the only outlet is that the society should tolerate all manners of sexual permissiveness: prostitution, sex out of wedlock, homosexuality, etc. For other societies, like most African societies today, themost honorable outlet is to allow polygamous marriage as a culturally accepted and socially respected institution. The point thatis often misunderstood in the West is that women in other cultures do not necessarily look at polygamy as a sign of women’s degradation. For example, many young African brides, whether Christians or Muslims or otherwise, would prefer to marry a married man who has already proved himself to be a responsible husband. Many African wives urge their husbands to get a second wife so that they do not feel lonely.6

A survey of over six thousand women, ranging in age from 15 to 59, conducted in the second largest city in Nigeria showed that 60 percent of these women would be pleased if their husbands took another wife. Only 23 percent expressed anger at the idea of sharing with another wife. Seventy-six percent of the women in a survey conducted in Kenya viewed polygamy positively. In a survey undertaken in rural Kenya, 25 out of 27 women considered polygamyto be better than monogamy. These women felt polygamycan be a happy and beneficial experience if the co-wives cooperate with each other.7

Polygamy in most African societies is such a respectable institution that some Protestant churches are becoming more tolerant of it. A bishop of the Anglican Church in Kenya declared that, “Although monogamy may be ideal for the expression of love between husband and wife, the church should consider that in certain culturespolygyny is socially acceptable and that the belief thatpolygyny is contrary to Christianity is no longer tenable.” 8

After a careful study of African polygamy, Reverend DavidGitari of the Anglican Church has concluded that polygamy, as ideally practiced, is more Christian than divorce and remarriage as far as the abandoned wives and childrenare concerned.9

I personally know of some highly educated African wives who, despite having lived in the West for many years, do not have any objections against polygamy. One of them, wholives in the U.S., solemnly exhorts her husband to get a second wife to help her in raising the kids.

The problem of the unbalanced sex ratios becomes truly problematic at times of war. Native American Indian tribes used to suffer highly unbalanced sex ratios after wartime losses. Women in these tribes, who in fact enjoyed afairly high status, accepted polygamy as the best protection against indulgence in indecent activities. European settlers, without offering any other alternative, condemned this Indian polygamy as ‘uncivilised’.10

After the Second World War, there were 7,300,000 more womenthan men in Germany (3.3 million of them were widows) .There were 100 men aged 20 to 30 for every 167 women in that age group.11

Many of these women needed a man not only as a companion but also as a provider for the household in a time of unprecedented misery and hardship. The soldiers of the victorious Allied Armies exploited these women’s vulnerability. Many young girls and widows had liaisons with members of the occupying forces. Many American and British soldiers paid for their pleasures in cigarettes, chocolate, and bread. Children were overjoyed at the gifts these strangers brought. A10 year old boy on hearing of such gifts from other children wished from all his heart for an ‘Englishman’ for his mother so that she need not go hungry any longer.12

We have to ask our own conscience at this point: What is more dignifying to a woman?- An accepted and respected second wife as in the native Indians’ approach, or a virtual prostitute as in the ‘civilised ’ Allies approach? In other words, what is more dignifying to a woman - theQur’anic prescription or the theology based on the culture of the Roman Empire?

It is interesting to note that in an international youth conference held in Munich in 1948 the problem of the highly unbalanced sex ratio in Germanywas discussed . When it became clear that no solutioncould be agreed upon, some participants suggested polygamy. The initial reaction of the gathering was a mixture of shock and disgust. However, after a careful study of the proposal, the participants agreed that it was the only possible solution. Consequently, polygamy was included among the conference final recommendations.13

The world today possesses more weapons of mass destruction than ever before and the European churches might,sooner or later , be obliged to accept polygamy as the only way out. Father Hillman has thoughtfully recognized this fact, “It is quite conceivable that these genocidal techniques (nuclear, biological, chemical) could produce so drastic an imbalance among the sexes that plural marriage would become a necessary means of survival....Then contrary to previous custom and law, an overriding natural and moral inclination might arise infavour of polygamy. In such a situation, theologians and church leaders would quickly produce weighty reasons and biblical texts to justify a new conception of marriage.” 14

To the present day, polygamy continues to be a viable solution to some of the social ills of modern societies. The communal obligations that the Qur’an mentions in association with the permission of polygamy are more visible at present in some Western societies than in Africa. For example, In the United States today, there is a severe gender crisis in the black community. One out of every twenty young black males may die before reaching the age of 21. For those between 20 and 35 years of age, homicide is the leading cause of death.15

Besides, many young black males are unemployed, in jail, or on dope.16

As a result, one in four black women, at age 40, has never married,as compared with one in ten white women.17

Moreover, many young black females become single mothers before the age of 20 and find themselves in need of providers. Theend result of these tragic circumstances is that an increasing number of black women are engaged in what is called ‘man-sharing’.18

That is, many of these hapless single black women are involved in affairs with married men. The wives are often unaware of the fact that other women are ‘sharing’ their husbands with them. Some observers of the crisis ofman-sharing in the African American community strongly recommend consensual polygamy as a temporary answer to the shortage of black males until more comprehensive reforms in the American society at large are undertaken.19

By consensualpolygamy they mean a polygamy that is sanctioned by the community and to which all the parties involved have agreed, as opposed to the usually secret man-sharing which is detrimental both to the wife and to the community in general. The problem ofman-sharing in the African American community was the topic of a panel discussion held at Temple University in Philadelphia on January 27, 1993.20

Some of the speakers recommended polygamy as one potential remedy for the crisis. They also suggested thatpolygamy should not be banned by law, particularly in a society that tolerates prostitution and mistresses . The comment of one woman from the audience that African Americans needed to learn from Africa where polygamy was responsibly practiced elicited enthusiastic applause.

PhilipKilbride , an American anthropologist of Roman Catholic heritage, in his provocative book, ‘Plural marriage for our time’, proposes polygamy as a solution to some of the ills of the Americansociety at large . He argues that plural marriage may serve as a potential alternative for divorce in many cases in order to obviate the damaging impact of divorce on many children. He maintains that many divorcesare caused by the rampant extramarital affairs in the American society.

According toKilbride , ending an extramarital affair in a polygamous marriage, rather than in a divorce, is better for the children, “Children would be better served if family augmentation rather than only separation and dissolution were seen as options.” Moreover, he suggests that other groups will also benefit from plural marriage suchas: elderly women who face a chronic shortage of men and the African Americans who are involved in man-sharing.21

In 1987, a poll conducted by the student newspaper at the University of California at Berkeley asked the students whether they agreed that menshould be allowed by law to have more than one wife in response to a perceived shortage of male marriage candidates in California. Almost all of the students polled approved of the idea. One female student even stated that a polygamous marriage wouldfulfil her emotional and physical needs while giving her greater freedom than a monogamous union.22

In fact,this same argument is also used by the few remaining fundamentalist Mormon women who still practice polygamy in the U.S . They believe that polygamy is an ideal way for a woman to have both a career and children since the wives help each other care for the children.23

It has tobe added that polygamy in Islam is a matter of mutual consent. No one can force a woman to marry a married man. Besides, the wife has the right to stipulate that her husband must not marry any other woman as a second wife.24

The Bible, on the other hand, sometimes resorts to forcible polygamy. A childless widow must marry her husband’s brother, even if he is already married (see the “Plight of Widows” section), regardless of her consent (Genesis 38:8-10).

Itshould be noted that in many Muslim societies today the practice of polygamy is rare since the gap between the numbers of both sexes is not huge. Onecan, safely, say that the rate of polygamous marriages in the Muslim world is much less than the rate of extramarital affairs in the West. In other words, men in the Muslim world today are far more strictly monogamousthan men in the Western world .

Billy Graham, the eminent Christian evangelist has recognized this fact: “Christianity cannot compromise on the question of polygamy. If present-day Christianity cannot do so, it is to its own detriment. Islam has permitted polygamy as a solution to social ills and has allowed a certain degree of latitude to human nature but only within the strictly defined framework of the law. Christian countries make a great show of monogamy, butactually they practice polygamy. No one is unaware of the partmistresses play in Western society. In this respect Islam is a fundamentally honest religion, and permits a Muslim to marry a second wife if he must, but strictly forbids all clandestine amatory associations in order to safeguard the moral probity of the community.” 25

It is of interest to note that many, non-Muslim as well as Muslim, countries in the world today have outlawed polygamy. Taking a second wife, even with the free consent of the first wife, is a violation of the law. On the other hand, cheating on the wife, without her knowledge or consent, is perfectly legitimate as far as the law is concerned! What is the legal wisdom behind such a contradiction?Is the law designed to reward deception and punish honesty? It is one of the unfathomable paradoxes of our modern ‘civilised ’ world.

Notes

1.Swidler , op. cit., pp. 144-148.

2. Hazleton, op. cit., pp 44-45.

3. Eugene Hillman, Polygamy Reconsidered: African Plural Marriage and the Christian Churches (New York:Orbis Books, 1975) p. 140.

4. Ibid., p. 17.

5. Ibid., pp. 88-93.

6. Ibid., pp. 92-97.

7. Philip L.Kilbride , Plural MarriageFor Our Times (Westport, Conn.: Bergin & Garvey, 1994) pp. 108-109.

8. The Weekly Review, Aug. 1, 1987.

9.Kilbride , op. cit., p. 126.

10. JohnD’Emilio and Estelle B. Freedman, Intimate Matters: A history of Sexuality in America (New York: Harper & Row Publishers, 1988) p. 87.

11. UteFrevert , Women in German History: from Bourgeois Emancipation to Sexual Liberation (New York: Berg Publishers, 1988) pp. 263-264.

12. Ibid., pp. 257-258.

13.Sabiq , op. cit., p. 191.

14. Hillman, op. cit., p. 12.

15. Nathan Hare and Julie Hare, ed., Crisis in Black Sexual Politics (San Francisco: Black Think Tank, 1989) p. 25.

16. Ibid., p. 26.

17.Kilbride , op. cit., p. 94.

18. Ibid., p. 95.

19. Ibid., p. 95.

20. Ibid., pp. 95-99.

21. Ibid., p. 118.

22. Lang, op. cit., p. 172.

23.Kilbride , op. cit., pp. 72-73.

24.Sabiq , op. cit., pp. 187-188.

25. AbdulRahman Doi , Woman inShari’ah (London: Ta-Ha Publishers, 1994) p. 76.

The Veil

Finally, let us shed some light on whatis considered in the West as the greatest symbol of women’s oppression and servitude, the veil or the head cover. Is it true that there is no such thing as the veil in theJudaeo -Christian tradition? Let us set the record straight. According to Rabbi Dr.Menachem M. Brayer (Professor of Biblical Literature at Yeshiva University) in his book, ‘The Jewish woman in Rabbinic literature,’ it was the custom of Jewish women to go out in public with a head covering which, sometimes, even covered the whole face leaving one eye free.1

He quotes some famous ancient Rabbis saying, “It is not like the daughters of Israel to walk out with heads uncovered” and “Cursed be the man who lets the hair of his wife be seen (...) a woman who exposes her hair for self-adornment brings poverty.” Rabbinic law forbids the recitation of blessings or prayers in the presence of abareheaded married woman since uncovering the woman’s hair is considered “nudity”.2

Dr. Brayer alsomentions that “During theTannaitic period the Jewish woman’s failure to cover her head was considered an affront to her modesty. When her head was uncovered she might be fined four hundredzuzim for this offense.” Dr. Brayer also explains that veil of the Jewish woman was not always considered a sign of modesty. Sometimes, the veil symbolized a state of distinction and luxury rather than modesty. The veil personified the dignity and superiority of noble women. It also represented a woman’s inaccessibility as a sanctified possession of her husband.3

The veil signified a woman’s self-respect and social status. Women of lower classes would often wear the veil to give the impression of a higher standing. The fact that the veil was the sign of nobility was the reason why prostituteswere not permitted to cover their hair in the old Jewish society. However, prostitutes often wore a special headscarf in order to look respectable.4

Jewish women in Europe continued to wear veils until the nineteenth century when their lives became more intermingled with the surrounding secular culture. The external pressures of the European life in the nineteenth century forced many of them to go outbare-headed . Some Jewish women found it more convenient to replace their traditional veil with a wig as another form of hair covering. Today, most pious Jewish women do not cover their hair except in the synagogue.5

Some of them, such as the Hasidic sects, still use the wig.6

What about the Christian tradition? Itis well known that Catholic Nuns have been covering their heads for hundreds of years, but that is not all. St. Paul in the New Testament made some very interesting statements about the veil:

“Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covereddishonours his head.And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovereddishonours her head - it is just as though her head were shaved. If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or shaved off, she should cover her head. A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head” (I Corinthians 11:3-10).

St. Paul’s rationale for veiling women is that the veil represents a sign of the authority of the man, who is the image and glory of God, over the woman whowas created from and for man. 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.7

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.8

From all the above evidence, it is obvious that Islam did not invent the head cover. However, Islam did endorse it. The Qur’an urges the believing men and women to lower their gaze and guard their modesty and then urges the believing women to extend their head covers to cover the neck and the bosom:

“Say to the believing men that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty (......)And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what ordinarily appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms....” (24:30,31 )

The Qur’an is quite clear that the veil is essential for modesty, but why is modesty important? The Qur’an is still clear:

“O Prophet, tell your wives and daughters and the believing women that they should cast their outer garments over their bodies (when they go out) so that they should be known and not molested.” (33:59)

This is the whole point, modesty is prescribed to protect women frommolestation or simply, modesty is protection. Thus, the only purpose of the veil in Islam is protection. The Islamic veil, unlike the veil of the Christian tradition, is not a sign of man’s authority over woman nor is it a sign of woman’s subjection to man. The Islamic veil, unlike the veil in the Jewish tradition, is not a sign of luxury and distinction of some noble married women. The Islamic veil is only a sign of modesty with the purpose of protecting women, all women. The Islamic philosophy is that it is always better to be safe than sorry. In fact, the Qur’an is so concerned with protecting women’s bodies and women’s reputation that a man who daresto falsely accuse a woman ofunchastity will be severely punished:

“And those who launch a charge against chaste women, and produce not four witnesses (to support their allegations) - Flog them with eighty stripes; and reject their evidence ever after: for such men are wicked transgressors.” (24:4)

Compare this strictQur’anic attitude with the extremely lax punishment for rape in the Bible:

“ If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl’s father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.” (Deut. 22:28-30)

One must ask a simple question here, who is really punished? The man who only paid a fine for rape, or the girl whois forced to marry the man who raped her and live with him until he dies? Another question that alsoshould be asked is this: which is more protective of women, theQur’anic strict attitude or the Biblical lax attitude?

Some people, especially in the West, would tend to ridicule the whole argument of modesty for protection. Their argument is that the best protection is the spread of education,civilised behaviour , andself restraint .

We wouldsay: fine but not enough. If ‘civilization’ is enough protection, then why is it that women in North America dare not walk alone in a dark street - or even across an empty parking lot? If Education is the solution, then why is it that a respected university like Queen’s has a ‘walk home service’ mainly for female students on campus? Ifself restraint is the answer, then why are cases of sexual harassment in the workplace reported on the news media every day? A sample of those accused of sexual harassment, in the last few years,includes: Navy officers, Managers, University Professors, Senators, Supreme Court Justices, and the President of the United States!I could not believe my eyes when I read the following statistics, in a pamphlet issued by the Dean of Women’s office at Queen’s University:

• In Canada, a womanis sexually assaulted every 6 minutes,

• 1 in3 women in Canada will be sexually assaulted at some time in their lives,

• 1 in4 women are at the risk of rape or attempted rape in her lifetime,

• 1 in 8 women will be sexually assaulted while attending college or university, and

• A study found 60% of Canadian university-aged males said they would commit sexual assault if they were certain they wouldn’tget caught.

Something is fundamentally wrong in the society we live in. A radical change in the society’s life style and culture isabsolutely necessary . A culture of modesty is badly needed, modesty in dress, in speech, and in manners of both men and women. Otherwise, the grim statistics will grow even worse day after day and, unfortunately, women alone will be paying the price. Actually, we all suffer but as K. Gibran has said, “...for the person who receives the blows is not like the one who counts them.” 9

Therefore, a society likeFrance which expels young women from schools because of their modest dress is, in the end, simply harming itself.

It is one of the great ironies of our world today that the very same headscarf revered as a sign of ‘holiness’ when worn for the purpose of showing the authority of man by Catholic Nuns, is reviled as a sign of ‘oppression’ when worn for the purpose of protection by Muslim women.

Notes

1.Menachem M. Brayer,The Jewish Woman in Rabbinic Literature: A Psychosocial Perspective (Hoboken, N.J:Ktav Publishing House, 1986) p. 239.

2. Ibid., pp. 316-317.Also seeSwidler , op. cit., pp. 121-123.

3. Ibid., p. 139.

4. Susan W. Schneider, Jewish and Female (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1984) p. 237.

5. Ibid., pp. 238-239.

6. Alexandra Wright, “Judaism”, in Holm andBowker , ed., op. cit., pp. 128-129

7. Clara M. Henning, “Cannon Law and the Battle of the Sexes” in Rosemary R.Ruether , ed., Religion and Sexism: Images of Woman in the Jewish and Christian Traditions (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1974) p. 272.

8. Donald B.Kraybill , The riddle of the Amish Culture (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1989) p. 56.

9.Khalil Gibran, Thoughts and Meditations (New York: Bantam Books, 1960) p. 28.