Archive

Archive for January, 2017

Domestic Violence Permitted by a False Hadith

January 27, 2017 1 comment

There is a false hadith in Sahih al-Bukhari. It permits domestic violence.

Rifa`a divorced his wife whereupon `Abdur-Rahman bin Az-Zubair Al-Qurazi married her. `Aisha said that the lady (came), wearing a green veil (and complained to her (Aisha) of her husband and showed her a green spot on her skin caused by beating). It was the habit of ladies to support each other, so when Allah’s Messenger came, `Aisha said, “I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women. Look! Her skin is greener than her clothes!” When `Abdur-Rahman heard that his wife had gone to the Prophet, he came with his two sons from another wife. She said, “By Allah! I have done no wrong to him but he is impotent and is as useless to me as this,” holding and showing the fringe of her garment, `Abdur-Rahman said, “By Allah, O Allah’s Messenger! She has told a lie! I am very strong and can satisfy her but she is disobedient and wants to go back to Rifa`a.” Allah’s Messenger said, to her, “If that is your intention, then know that it is unlawful for you to remarry Rifa`a unless `Abdur-Rahman has had sexual intercourse with you.” Then the Prophet saw two boys with `Abdur- Rahman and asked (him), “Are these your sons?” On that `Abdur-Rahman said, “Yes.” The Prophet said, “You claim what you claim (i.e., that he is impotent)? But by Allah, these boys resemble him as a crow resembles a crow.” (Sahih al-Bukhari 5825)

The woman with the bruised face is required to stay with her abusive husband according to this hadith. The man is never reprimanded by Muhammad for beating his wife according to the hadith.

I am appalled by this false hadith permitting men to beat their wives until their faces turn green. This hadith was written down over 200 years after Muhammad died. The compiler of the Sahih al-Bukhari collection of hadiths was born in 810 and died in 870. Muhammad died in 632.

It is not all right for a man to beat his wife in such a way. In the Koran, it says:

And of His signs is this: He created for you helpmeets from yourselves that ye might find rest in them, and He ordained between you love and mercy. Lo! herein indeed are portents for folk who reflect. (Koran 30:21, Pickthall)

A man who beats his wife like that has shown no love and mercy toward her. The Koran also says that men should live with their wives in kindness. (Koran 4:19) The Koran also says:

And they (women) have rights similar to those (of men) over them in kindness, and men are a degree above them. Allah is Mighty, Wise. (Koran 2:228, Pickthall)

A man who beats his wife in such a way is definitely not practicing kindness toward her, nor is he demonstrating love and mercy toward her. One can unfortunately use this false hadith to misinterpret this verse from the Koran.

Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great. (Koran 4:34, Pickthall)

Yusuf Ali added a word in his translation in parentheses to help one better interpret this verse.

Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband’s) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For Allah is Most High, great (above you all). (Koran 4:34, Yusuf Ali)

I think that Koran 4:34 is teaching that a man should give his wife a gentle tap as a last resort in order to express his displeasure. Any such tap should be given lovingly, mercifully, and in kindness. In the Koran it says:

Then do they not reflect upon the Qur’an? If it had been from [any] other than Allah, they would have found within it much contradiction. (Koran 4:82, Sahih International)

If one uses the false hadith to interpret Koran 4:34, then Koran 4:34 would contradict Koran 2:228, 4:19, and 30:21. If one uses Koran 2:228, 4:19, and 30:21 to help interpret Koran 4:34, then one should not think that Koran 4:34 is encouraging domestic violence.

Finally, think about these verses from the Bible.

So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as the Lord does the church. (Ephesians 5:28,29, NKJV)

Nevertheless let each one of you in particular so love his own wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband. (Ephesians 5:33, NKJV)

Now, think about these verses from the Koran.

Nothing is said to you, [O Muhammad], except what was already said to the messengers before you. Indeed, your Lord is a possessor of forgiveness and a possessor of painful penalty. (Koran 41:43, Sahih International)

Say: ‘I am not an innovation among the Messengers, and I know not what shall be done with me or with you. I only follow what is revealed to me; I am only a clear warner.’ (Koran 46:9, Arberry)

The Islamic prophet taught the same thing that is in the Bible. He did not encourage a man to abusively beat his wife. It says in the Second Surah.

Kind speech and forgiveness is better than charity followed by injury; and Allah is Self-sufficient, Forbearing. (Koran 2:263, Shakir)

That is how a man should behave toward his wife. He should speak to her kindly and forgive her. Behaving toward her this way is better than giving money to the poor while at the same time inflicting injury on her.

I am strongly opposed to such false hadiths. They encourage barbarism, contradict the teachings of the Koran and the Bible, and should be ignored by any decent human being. Domestic violence is not halal. It is haraam.

“For the Rest of My Life” by Maher Zain

Religious Tolerance and Some False Hadiths

January 22, 2017 3 comments

I watched a video one of David Wood’s Youtube videos recently that outraged me considerably. He showed a film clip of PISSI forcing Yazidis to convert to their religion of Pseudo-Islam. (PISSI is the Pseudo-Islamic State of Syria and Iraq.) He quoted some false hadiths which he thinks inspired PISSI to force people into converting to their religion. I want to talk about those false hadiths and how dangerous it is for people to believe and practice them.

First, watch the video that David Wood posted on Youtube a couple of years ago.

Here are three false hadiths which say that Muhammad was commanded by God to use military means to force people to accept Islamic monotheism. David Wood quoted two of them in his video.

Narrated Abu Huraira: When the Prophet died and Abu Bakr became his successor and some of the Arabs reverted to disbelief, ‘Umar said, “O Abu Bakr! How can you fight these people although Allah’s Apostle said, ‘I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah, ‘and whoever said, ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah’, Allah will save his property and his life from me, unless (he does something for which he receives legal punishment) justly, and his account will be with Allah?’ “Abu Bakr said, “By Allah! I will fight whoever differentiates between prayers and Zakat as Zakat is the right to be taken from property (according to Allah’s Orders). By Allah! If they refused to pay me even a kid they used to pay to Allah’s Apostle, I would fight with them for withholding it.” ‘Umar said, “By Allah: It was nothing, but I noticed that Allah opened Abu Bakr’s chest towards the decision to fight, therefore I realized that his decision was right.” ( Sahih al-Bukhari 6924, 6925)

It is reported on the authority of Abu Huraira that the Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people so long as they do not declare that there is no god but Allah, and he who professed it was guaranteed the protection of his property and life on my behalf except for the right affairs rest with Allah. (Sahih Muslim, Book 1, Hadith 30)

It has been narrated on the authority of Abdullah b. ‘Umar that the Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah, and they establish prayer, and pay Zakat and if they do it, their blood and property are guaranteed protection on my behalf except when justified by law, and their affairs rest with Allah. (Sahih Muslim, Book 1, Hadith 33)

The compiler of the Sahih Bukhari collection of hadiths was born in 810 and died in 870. The compiler of the Sahih Muslim collection of hadiths was born in 815 and died in 875. Muhammad died in 632. Any rational person should be skeptical about a story about someone which was written down over two hundred years after he died. These hadiths are hearsay and totally contradict the Koran.

Enjoin ye righteousness upon mankind while ye yourselves forget (to practise it)? And ye are readers of the Scripture! Have ye then no sense? (Koran 2:44, Pickthall)

In the Koran, it is quite clear that Muhammad was not called by God to be a tyrant who enforces his religious beliefs on others.

We are most knowing of what they say, and you are not over them a tyrant. But remind by the Qur’an whoever fears My threat. (Koran 50:45, Sahih International)

Twice in the Koran, it says that Muhammad was to be a witness, bearer of good tidings, and a warner.

O Prophet! Lo! We have sent thee as a witness and a bringer of good tidings and a warner. (Koran 33:45, Pickthall)

Lo! We have sent thee (O Muhammad) as a witness and a bearer of good tidings and a warner, That ye (mankind) may believe in Allah and His messenger, and may honour Him, and may revere Him, and may glorify Him at early dawn and at the close of day. (Koran 48:8,9, Pickthall)

Numerous places in the Koran is it emphasized that Muhammad was a warner.

Verily We have sent thee in truth as a bearer of glad tidings and a warner: But of thee no question shall be asked of the Companions of the Blazing Fire. (Koran 2:119, Yusuf Ali)
O People of the Book! Now hath come unto you, making (things) clear unto you, Our Messenger, after the break in (the series of) our messengers, lest ye should say: “There came unto us no bringer of glad tidings and no warner (from evil)”: But now hath come unto you a bringer of glad tidings and a warner (from evil). And Allah hath power over all things. (Koran 5:19, Yusuf Ali)

Do they not reflect that their companion has not unsoundness in mind; he is only a plain warner. (Koran 7:184, Shakir)

Say: For myself I have no power to benefit, nor power to hurt, save that which Allah willeth. Had I knowledge of the Unseen, I should have abundance of wealth, and adversity would not touch me. I am but a warner, and a bearer of good tidings unto folk who believe. (Koran 7:188, Pickthall)

(Saying): Serve none but Allah. Lo! I am unto you from Him a warner and a bringer of good tidings. (Koran 11:2, Pickthall)

Then, it may be that you will give up part of what is revealed to you and your breast will become straitened by it because they say: Why has not a treasure been sent down upon him or an angel come with him? You are only a warner; and Allah is custodian over all things. (Koran 11:12, Shakir)

Stretch not thine eyes to that We have given pairs of them to enjoy; and do not sorrow for them, and lower thy wing unto the believers, and say, ‘Surely, I am the manifest warner.’ (Koran 15:88,89, Arberry)

Say: ‘I am not an innovation among the Messengers, and I know not what shall be done with me or with you. I only follow what is revealed to me; I am only a clear warner.’ (Koran 46:9, Arberry)

There are many more such passages in the Koran which emphasize that Muhammad’s mission was to warn people so that they would turn from idolatry and and an immoral life and worship the one true God and serve Him. The Koran also emphasizes that only God can guide someone to the truth. Muhammad could not change another person’s heart so that he believed his message. Only God could do that.

Had Allah willed, they had not been idolatrous. We have not set thee as a keeper over them, nor art thou responsible for them. (Koran 6:107, Pickthall)

Say, “With Allah is the far-reaching argument. If He had willed, He would have guided you all.” (Koran 6:149, Sahih International)

If it had been thy Lord’s will, they would all have believed,- all who are on earth! wilt thou then compel mankind, against their will, to believe! No soul can believe, except by the will of Allah, and He will place doubt (or obscurity) on those who will not understand. (Koran 10:99,100, Yusuf Ali)

For verily thou (Muhammad) canst not make the dead to hear, nor canst thou make the deaf to hear the call when they have turned to flee. Nor canst thou guide the blind out of their error. Thou canst make none to hear save those who believe in Our revelations so that they surrender (unto Him). (Koran 30:52,53, Pickthall)

Muhammad was not to be concerned about those who disbelieved his message.

And if they argue with thee, (O Muhammad), say: I have surrendered my purpose to Allah and (so have) those who follow me. And say unto those who have received the Scripture and those who read not: Have ye (too) surrendered? If they surrender, then truly they are rightly guided, and if they turn away, then it is thy duty only to convey the message (unto them). Allah is Seer of (His) bondmen. (Koran 3:20, Pickthall)

And they say, “[We pledge] obedience.” But when they leave you, a group of them spend the night determining to do other than what you say. But Allah records what they plan by night. So leave them alone and rely upon Allah. And sufficient is Allah as Disposer of affairs. (Koran 4:81, Sahih International)

And with the truth We have sent the Qur’an down, and with the truth it has descended. And We have not sent you, [O Muhammad], except as a bringer of good tidings and a warner. And [it is] a Qur’an which We have separated [by intervals] that you might recite it to the people over a prolonged period. And We have sent it down progressively. Say, “Believe in it or do not believe. Indeed, those who were given knowledge before it – when it is recited to them, they fall upon their faces in prostration, And they say, “Exalted is our Lord! Indeed, the promise of our Lord has been fulfilled.” (Koran 17:105-108, Sahih International)

Hast thou seen him who chooseth for his god his own lust? Wouldst thou then be guardian over him? (Koran 25:43, Pickthall)

God said that He would deal with the unbelievers.

Perhaps those who disbelieve will wish that they had been Muslims. Let them eat and enjoy themselves and be diverted by [false] hope, for they are going to know. (Koran 15:2,3, Sahih International)

Far from easy for those without Faith. Leave Me alone, (to deal) with the (creature) whom I created (bare and) alone! (Koran 74:10,11, Yusuf Ali)

Muhammad was not in charge of those who disbelieve, nor was he responsible for their unbelief.

Thy people (O Muhammad) have denied it, though it is the Truth. Say: I am not put in charge of you.(Koran 6:66, Pickthall)

Had Allah willed, they had not been idolatrous. We have not set thee as a keeper over them, nor art thou responsible for them. (Koran 6:107, Pickthall)

Your Lord knows you best; He will have mercy on you if He pleases, or He will chastise you if He pleases; and We have not sent you as being in charge of them. (Koran 17:54, Shakir)

And (as for) those who take guardians besides Him, Allah watches over them, and you have not charge over them. (Koran 42:6, Shakir)

The Koran stresses that man has a choice to accept the message of Muhammad or reject it.

There is no compulsion in religion. The right direction is henceforth distinct from error. And he who rejecteth false deities and believeth in Allah hath grasped a firm handhold which will never break. Allah is Hearer, Knower. (Koran 2:256, Pickthall)

Lo! This is a Reminder. Let him who will, then, choose a way unto his Lord. (Koran 73:19, Pickthall)Lo! this is an Admonishment, that whosoever will may choose a way unto his Lord. (Koran 76:29, Pickthall)

Someone might say that these nice verses of the Koran were abrogated by the Sword Verse.

Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. (Koran 9:5, Pickthall)

This verse must be read in the context of the whole passage in order to understand it properly.

And a proclamation from Allah and His messenger to all men on the day of the Greater Pilgrimage that Allah is free from obligation to the idolaters, and (so is) His messenger. So, if ye repent, it will be better for you; but if ye are averse, then know that ye cannot escape Allah. Give tidings (O Muhammad) of a painful doom to those who disbelieve, excepting those of the idolaters with whom ye (Muslims) have a treaty, and who have since abated nothing of your right nor have supported anyone against you. (As for these), fulfil their treaty to them till their term. Lo! Allah loveth those who keep their duty (unto Him). (Koran 9:3,4, Pickthall)

The Muslims were to attack the idolaters with whom they did not have a treaty. The reason for doing this is found in verses 12 and 13.

And if they break their pledges after their treaty (hath been made with you) and assail your religion, then fight the heads of disbelief – Lo! they have no binding oaths – in order that they may desist. Will ye not fight a folk who broke their solemn pledges, and purposed to drive out the messenger and did attack you first? What! Fear ye them? Now Allah hath more right that ye should fear Him, if ye are believers. (Koran 9:12,13, Pickthall)

The idolaters had attacked the Muslims first. The war was in self-defense. They broke their treaty with the Muslims. They also assailed the Muslims’ religion. So, the war was also because of religious persecution.In verse 6, we can see that polytheists were not required to accept Islamic monotheism against their will.

And if anyone of the idolaters seeketh thy protection (O Muhammad), then protect him so that he may hear the Word of Allah, and afterward convey him to his place of safety. That is because they are a folk who know not. (Koran 9:6, Pickthall)

An abrogating revelation must be either better than or similar to the abrogated revelation.

None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar: Knowest thou not that Allah Hath power over all things? (Koran 2:106, Yusuf Ali)

War is not similar to religious tolerance, nor is it better. “Peace is better.” (Koran 4:128) People need to ignore those false hadiths and not use them to establish a religious practice of forced conversions like PISSI is doing.

Those hadiths quoted earlier in this blog post clearly contradict the teachings of the Koran. They were written down over two hundred years after Muhammad died. They are hearsay. Why should anyone believe that God told Muhammad to engage in military conflict with non-Muslims in order to force them to convert to Islamic monotheism?

Here is another video about hadiths. It is very informative.

Believing and practicing these false hadiths is not a good idea. Forcing people to change their religious faith only alienates them in their hearts. They believe with their mouths because they are forced to do so, but in their hearts they resent having been forced to accept a religion they disagree with. Eventually, people will rebel against their oppressors. The Koran does not teach that people should be forced to accept Islamic monotheism. It teaches that conversion is a combination of man’s free will and God’s grace working together. Man must choose, but God must give the ability to believe and change one’s conduct.

People have been known to use religion for political ends. Maybe, those false hadiths originated with rulers who wanted to motivate people to engage in military conflict to expand their kingdoms. They most likely do not contain the words of Muhammad at all. Muhammad was a witness, a bringer of good tidings, and a warner to mankind. Nowhere in the Koran does it say that he was supposed to be a warlord. The war verses in the Koran indicate that the seventh century Muslims were fighting wars because of religious persecution, oppression, and in self-defense against others who started a conflict.

One should be critical of those hadiths written down over two hundred years after Muhammad died. They are hearsay. Believing them is foolish. Those false hadiths, in the end, only produce conflict and not peace which is always better.

Koranic Modesty

January 16, 2017 Leave a comment

Modesty is a girl’s best dress. — Welsh proverb

I want to talk about the subject of modesty today from what I think is the perspective given in the Koran. I will not use any hadiths, because, in my opinion, the hadiths are nothing more than hearsay. I will provide in this blog post some videos made my Muslims on this subject. They do not agree with each other totally. One of them takes a completely opposing view to the other two. I will also provide a video from a young Muslim journalist. She is in favor of wearing the hijab and makes some very good points for wearing it. I intend also to provide my own interpretation of the verses from the Koran pertaining to modesty and some passages from the Bible, the Church Fathers, and ancient Christian writers. I think that many Christians will be shocked to learn what the Church Fathers and ancient Christian writers say.

First of all, we need to know some terminology. Here is an illustration of various types of Islamic apparel.

I will refer to these by their Islamic names in this blog post.

In the Koran, it says:

O children of Adam, We have bestowed upon you clothing to conceal your private parts and as adornment. But the clothing of righteousness — that is best. That is from the signs of Allah that perhaps they will remember. (Koran 7:26, Sahih International)

According to the story in Genesis, man was created naked.

And the two were naked, both Adam and his wife, and were not ashamed. (Genesis 3:1, LXX; Genesis 2:25, Hebrew)

God created man to be immortal.

For God created man to be immortal, and made him to be an image of his own eternity. (Wisdom 2:23, KJV)

He had the right to eat from the Tree of Life in the midst of the Garden of Eden, but he never ate from it. Instead, he ate from the forbidden tree — the only tree that God forbade him to eat from. (Genesis 2:8,9,15-17; 3:2,3) After his wife and he ate from this tree, they realized that they were naked and covered themselves with tree leaves. God, later, provided them with garments of skin to cover themselves.

And the Lord God made for Adam and his wife garments of skin, and clothed them. (Genesis 3:22, LXX; Genesis 3:21, Hebrew)

The Koran says:

The (human) soul is certainly prone to evil, unless my Lord do bestow His Mercy. (Koran 12:53, Yusuf Ali)

St. Paul said similarly:

For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold under sin. For what I am doing, I do not understand. For what I will to do, that I do not practice; but what I hate, that I do. If, then, I do what I will not to do, I agree with the law that it is good. But now, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me. For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells; for to will is present with me, but how to perform what is good I do not find. For the good that I will to do, I do not do; but the evil I will not to do, that I practice. Now if I do what I will not to do, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me. I find then a law, that evil is present with me, the one who wills to do good. (Romans 7:14-21, NKJV)

In Ecclesiastes, it says:

For there is not a righteous man in the earth, who will do good, and not sin. (Ecclesiastes 7:20, LXX)

Because there is no contradiction made on the part of those who do evil quickly, therefore the heart of the children of men is fully determined in them to do evil. (Ecclesiastes 8:11, LXX)

People sin. Even good people sin. King David committed adultery with Bathsheba after he saw her bathing. (II Samuel 11:2-5) Therefore, ever since the fall of man, people should wear clothes. Public nudity was all right before the Fall, but not after the Fall.

In Koran 7:26, it says that God created clothing so that people may cover their private parts, that is, their genitals. Someone who displays his or her genitals publicly is therefore immodest according to this verse from the Koran. The Koran says:

Tell the believing men to lower their gaze and be modest. That is purer for them. Lo! Allah is aware of what they do. (Koran 24:30, Pickthall)

In the 70th Surah, it says:

And those who guard their private parts except from their wives or those their right hands possess, for indeed, they are not to be blamed.  (Koran 70:29,30, Sahih International)

Men can display their genitals to their wives or to “those their right hands possess,” that is, to their slaves.

In the verse 24:31, it says:

And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and be modest, and to display of their adornment only that which is apparent, and to draw their veils over their bosoms, and not to reveal their adornment save to their own husbands or fathers or husbands’ fathers, or their sons or their husbands’ sons, or their brothers or their brothers’ sons or sisters’ sons, or their women, or their slaves, or male attendants who lack vigour, or children who know naught of women’s nakedness. And let them not stamp their feet so as to reveal what they hide of their adornment. And turn unto Allah together, O believers, in order that ye may succeed. (Koran 24:31, Pickthall)

A woman must cover her genitals like a man is required to do. (Koran 7:26) She must also cover her adornment except that which is apparent and her bosom, that is, her breasts. She should not stamp her feet “so as to reveal what she hides of her adornment.” “What she hides of her adornment” must include her genitals and her buttocks. It is unclear in this passage just how much of her legs must be covered. It also does not mention anything about wearing a head-scarf.

Another verse in the Koran pertaining to modesty is in the 33rd Surah.

O Prophet! Tell thy wives and thy daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks close round them (when they go abroad). That will be better, so that they may be recognised and not annoyed. Allah is ever Forgiving, Merciful. (Koran 33:59, Pickthall)

Whenever a woman leaves her home, she should be wearing a cloak which I should think would cover a significant portion of her body. She was supposed to wear the cloak in order to be recognized and not annoyed. I think that this means that she would be recognized by others in the community as a pious woman. In her home among her family, she is not required to wear such a garment. This probably explains why Muhammad’s wives had to speak to people within their home from behind a curtain. In the home they were not wearing the cloak.

O Ye who believe! Enter not the dwellings of the Prophet for a meal without waiting for the proper time, unless permission be granted you. But if ye are invited, enter, and, when your meal is ended, then disperse. Linger not for conversation. Lo! that would cause annoyance to the Prophet, and he would be shy of (asking) you (to go); but Allah is not shy of the truth. And when ye ask of them (the wives of the Prophet) anything, ask it of them from behind a curtain. That is purer for your hearts and for their hearts. And it is not for you to cause annoyance to the messenger of Allah, nor that ye should ever marry his wives after him. Lo! that in Allah’s sight would be an enormity. (Koran 33:53, Pickthall)

One other verse pertaining to modesty is in the 24th Surah. It says that women post-menopausal women may discard their outer clothing, but not reveal their adornment.

As for women past child-bearing, who have no hope of marriage, it is no sin for them if they discard their (outer) clothing in such a way as not to show adornment. But to refrain is better for them. Allah is Hearer, Knower. (Koran 24:60, Pickthall)

These women can reveal more of their bodies than the young women. So, young women obviously are supposed to wear more clothing.

Before I go any further in my discourse on this subject of modesty, it would be good for my readers to see some videos that some Muslims have made explaining these verses from the Koran. The first one was made by a Muslim woman who uses the Koran to defend the Islamic dress code which requires women to wear the hijab.

Now, look at this video done by a Muslim man. He argues that nowhere in the Koran does it say that a woman must cover her head.

Here is another video by another Muslim who also says that the Koran does not require that a woman wear a hijab.

Well, in the Arabic version of the Koran the word, hijab, occurs only seven times and nowhere in the Koran is this word used to refer to an article of clothing such as a head-scarf. (Koran 7:46; 17:45; 19:17; 33:53; 38:32; 41:5; 42:51)

Well, if we stop here at analyzing only these six passages from the Koran (Koran 7:26; 24:30,31,60; 33:53,59; 70:29,30), we will not get a complete picture. The Koran also gives other instructions which I regret to say that many Muslims ignore.

The messenger believeth in that which hath been revealed unto him from his Lord and (so do) believers. Each one believeth in Allah and His angels and His Scriptures and His messengers — We make no distinction between any of His messengers – and they say: We hear, and we obey. (Grant us) Thy forgiveness, our Lord. Unto Thee is the journeying. (Koran 2:285, Pickthall)

And argue not with the People of the Scripture unless it be in (a way) that is better, save with such of them as do wrong; and say: We believe in that which hath been revealed unto us and revealed unto you; our God and your God is One, and unto Him we surrender. (Koran 29:46, Pickthall)

Unto this, then, summon (O Muhammad). And be thou upright as thou art commanded, and follow not their lusts, but say: I believe in whatever Scripture Allah hath sent down, and I am commanded to be just among you. Allah is our Lord and your Lord. Unto us our works and unto you your works; no argument between us and you. Allah will bring us together, and unto Him is the journeying. (Koran 42:15, Pickthall)

Muhammad and the first generation Muslims accepted the Bible that Orthodox Christians used. There was no Protestant Reformation in the seventh century. Therefore, they accepted the larger canon used by the Orthodox Church today.

In the Koran, it also says:

Verily in the messenger of Allah ye have a good example for him who looketh unto Allah and the Last Day, and remembereth Allah much. (Koran 33:21, Pickthall)

So, if Muhammad accepted the Bible, Muslims should accept the Bible, too, in order to be following Muhammad’s example.

The Koran also says:

O ye who believe! Believe in Allah and His messenger and the Scripture which He hath revealed unto His messenger, and the Scripture which He revealed aforetime. Whoso disbelieveth in Allah and His angels and His Scriptures and His messengers and the Last Day, he verily hath wandered far astray. (Koran 4:136, Pickthall)

Lo! those who disbelieve in Allah and His messengers, and seek to make distinction between Allah and His messengers, and say: We believe in some and disbelieve in others, and seek to choose a way in between; such are disbelievers in truth; and for disbelievers We prepare a shameful doom. (Koran 4:150,151, Pickthall)

The Scripture which God has “revealed aforetime” is the Old and New Testaments of the Bible. Muslims are required to accept the Bible and even study it. (Koran 3:79) Islam without the Bible is not genuine Islam.

The Koran says furthermore:

Allah would explain to you and guide you by the examples of those who were before you, and would turn to you in mercy. Allah is Knower, Wise. (Koran 4:26, Pickthall)

Some of “the examples of those who were before you” were mentioned in the Bible. So, Muslims are supposed to look at the examples of godly men and women in the Bible. Christians are supposed to do the same.

For whatever things were written before were written for our learning, that we through the patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope. (Romans 15:4, NKJV)

Now all these things happened to them as examples, and they were written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the ages have come. (I Corinthians 10:11, NKJV)

Brethren, join in following my example, and note those who so walk, as you have us for a pattern. (Philippians 3:17, NKJV)

Well, if those Muslims who had made the three videos posted earlier in this blog post had studied the Bible on this subject and the Church Fathers, they would all agree on this subject about the hijab and the niqab. (The niqab is the face veil.)

Let us first look at the example of Rebecca in Genesis. Abraham sent his servant back to his father’s country to find a wife for his son, Isaac. Abraham did not want him to marry any of the Canaanite women probably because they were polytheists and also immoral. Abraham was a monotheist. When Abraham’s servant met Rebecca for the first time, he noticed that she was very beautiful. Apparently, he could see her face.

And it came to pass before he had done speaking in his mind, that behold, Rebecca the daughter of Bathuel, the son of Melcha, the wife of Nachor, and the same the brother of Abraam, came forth, having a water-pot on her shoulders. And the virgin was very beautiful in appearance, she was a virgin, a man had not known her; and she went down to the well, and filled her water-pot, and came up. (Genesis 24:15,16, LXX)

It is unclear in this passage whether or not she wore a hijab, but it is reasonable to assume that she did not wear a niqab at the time.

Later, when she finds out that her fiancé, Isaac, was walking toward her, she covered herself with a veil. This is probably the niqab.

And Rebecca lifted up her eyes, and saw Isaac; and she alighted briskly from the camel, and said to the servant, Who is that man that walks in the plain to meet us? And the servant said, This is my master; and she took her veil and covered herself. (Genesis 24:64,65, LXX)

So, we can learn from Genesis 24 that it was the custom for women who were about to be married to wear a niqab when they were in the presence of their fiancés.

The next passage to look at is also in Genesis. Thamar was Judah’s daughter-in-law. Her first two husbands who were brothers had died not leaving a child to be their heirs. According to the levirate marriage custom, the brother of a deceased brother who had died childless was supposed to marry his brother’s widow. The first child that he had by her would be the heir of his deceased brother’s estate and have his brother’s name. Er had married Thamar and died childless. Onan married her and died childless. Judah had one other son, Shelah. He told Thamar that she could have him as her husband after he was grown up. Well, Judah did not keep his promise to Thamar. So, here is what happened.

And it was told Thamar his daughter-in-law, saying, Behold, thy father-in-law goeth up to Thamna, to shear his sheep. And having taken off the garments of her widowhood from her, she put on a veil, and ornamented her face, and sat by the gates of Ænan, which is in the way to Thamna, for she saw that Selom was grown; but he gave her not to him for a wife. And when Judas saw her, he thought her to be a harlot; for she covered her face, and he knew her not. And he went out of his way to her, and said to her, Let me come in to thee; for he knew not that she was his daughter-inlaw; and she said, What wilt thou give me if thou shouldest come in to me? And he said, I will send thee a kid of the goats from my flock; and she said, Well, if thou wilt give me an earnest, until thou send it. And he said, What is the earnest that I shall give thee? and she said, Thy ring, and thy bracelet, and the staff in thy hand; and he gave them to her, and went in to her, and she conceived by him. And she arose and departed, and took her veil from off her, and put on the garments of her widowhood. (Genesis 38:13-19, LXX)

Judah had sexual relations with his daughter-in-law. He did not know that she was Thamar because her face was veiled. He thought that she was a prostitute. It was apparently the custom of prostitutes to wear a niqab.

Another instance where a woman wore a niqab is found in the Septuagint version of the Book of Daniel.

And it came to pass the next day, when the people were assembled to her husband Joacim, the two elders came also full of mischievous imagination against Susanna to put her to death; and said before the people, Send for Susanna, the daughter of Chelcias, Joacim’s wife. And so they sent. So she came with her father and mother, her children, and all her kindred. Now Susanna was a very delicate woman, and beauteous to behold. And these wicked men commanded to uncover her face, (for she was covered) that they might be filled with her beauty. Therefore her friends and all that saw her wept. (Daniel 1:28-33, LXX; History of Susanna 28-33)

Susanna was a very beautiful married woman. She wore the niqab in order to obscure her beauty. Tertullian lived in the second and third centuries. He wrote:

Let a holy woman, if naturally beautiful, give none so great occasion (for carnal appetite). Certainly, if even she be so, she ought not to set off (her beauty), but even to obscure it. (On the Apparel of Women, Book II, chapter III, by Tertullian, vol. 4, p. 20, Ante-Nicene Fathers)

In the Book of Judith, one of the Ecclesiastical Books of the Old Testament, there is the example of Judith.

Judith remained a widow in her house for three years and four months, setting up a tent for herself on the rooftop of her house, and she wrapped sackcloth around her waist and wore the garments of her widowhood. (Judith 8:4,5, SAAS)

Beautiful in stature, she was very lovely to look upon. Manasseh, her husband, left her gold and silver, men and women servants, and livestock and fields. She kept up this property, and no one spoke ill of her, for she feared God and was devoted to Him. (Judith 8:7,8, SAAS)

SAAS stands for St. Athanasius Academy Septuagint. Judith “was very lovely to look upon” and she was a widow. Apparently, beautiful widows did not always wear a niqab. In the next chapter of this book we learn something else pertaining to modesty.

“O Lord God of my father Simeon, to whom You gave a sword for vengeance against the foreigners who loosened the girdle of the virgin to defile her, and disgracefully exposed her thighs, and violated her body to humiliate her, for You had said, ‘It shall not be done,’ and yet they did it.” (Judith 9:2, SAAS)

Judith is talking about the incident in Genesis 34. The polytheists “disgracefully exposed” the thighs of Dinah, Simeon’s sister. So, a woman should keep her thighs covered.

In chapter 10, it tells about how Judith beautified herself. She was going to seduce Holofernes with her beauty so that she could deliver her people from him.

There she took off the sackcloth she was wearing and removed her widow’s garments. She washed her body with water and anointed herself with precious ointment. She braided her hair and put a headdress on her head, and put on festive attire she had worn when her husband Manasseh was alive. She placed sandals on her feet, and put on her bracelets, her anklets, her rings, earrings, and all her jewelry. She made herself very beautiful, inviting to the eyes of all the men who might look on her. (Judith 10:3,4, SAAS)

In this passage we learn that she wore festive attire while her husband was alive and sackcloth and widow’s garments after he had died. She braided her hair. Apparently, she did not usually braid it. If she braided her hair, then people could see it. However, she did have a headdress on her head. So, her head was covered to some extent.

In II Samuel, we can learn that the buttocks should be covered.

And Annon took the servants of David, and shaved their beards, and cut off their garments in the midst as far as their haunches, and sent them away. And they brought David word concerning the men; and he sent to meet them, for the men were greatly dishonoured: and the king said, Remain in Jericho till your beards have grown, and then ye shall return. (II Samuel 10:4,5 LXX)

The men that David sent to Annon were dishonored after their garments were cut off in the midst as far as their haunches. Since women are required to cover more of their bodies than men, it is reasonable to assume that a woman should cover her buttocks, too.

In Isaiah, it says:

Come down, sit on the ground, O virgin daughter of Babylon: sit on the ground, O daughter of the Chaldeans: for thou shalt no more be called tender and luxurious. Take a millstone, grind meal: remove thy veil, uncover thy white hairs, make bare the leg, pass through the rivers.  Thy shame shall be uncovered, thy reproaches shall be brought to light: I will exact of thee due vengeance, I will no longer deliver thee to men. (Isaiah 47:1-3, LXX)

This passage is a metaphor speaking about the Babylonian Empire. Nonetheless, it is still possible to learn something about how virgins dressed. They wore veils and covered their hair. They, therefore, wore a face veil and a head-scarf. They also covered their legs.

Now, let us look at the New Testament.

In like manner also, that the women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with propriety and moderation, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly clothing, but, which is proper for women professing godliness, with good works. (I Timothy 2:9,10, NKJV)

If a woman is wearing modest apparel, she should be wearing something that covers most of her body. Her breasts, buttocks, genitals, and legs should be covered. If she is exceptionally beautiful, she should wear the niqab, like Susanna.

In I Peter, it says:

Wives, likewise, be submissive to your own husbands, that even if some do not obey the word, they, without a word, may be won by the conduct of their wives, when they observe your chaste conduct accompanied by fear. Do not let your adornment be merely outward — arranging the hair, wearing gold, or putting on fine apparel — rather let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the incorruptible beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is very precious in the sight of God. For in this manner, in former times, the holy women who trusted in God also adorned themselves, being submissive to their own husbands, as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord, whose daughters you are if you do good and are not afraid with any terror. (I Peter 3:1-6, NKJV)

Both St. Paul and St. Peter say that pious women should not wear expensive clothes, gold, and jewelry. The Koran says:

But the clothing of righteousness — that is best. (Koran 7:26, Sahih International)

This clothing of righteousness consists of “the incorruptible beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is very precious in the sight of God.” (I Peter 3:4, NKJV)

The Koran confirms the Bible. It does not contradict it.

And this is a Book which We have sent down, blessed and confirming what was before it, that you may warn the Mother of Cities and those around it. Those who believe in the Hereafter believe in it, and they are maintaining their prayers. (Koran 6:92, Sahih International)

See also Koran 3:3,4; 5:48; 10:37; 21:24; 41:43.

As for the hijab, the commandment for women to wear this article of clothing is in I Corinthians.

Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you. But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonors his head. But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, for that is one and the same as if her head were shaved. 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. For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. For man is not from woman, but woman from man. Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man. For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. Nevertheless, neither is man independent of woman, nor woman independent of man, in the Lord. For as woman came from man, even so man also comes through woman; but all things are from God. Judge among yourselves. Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 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. But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God. (I Corinthians 11:2-16, NKJV)

One of the principles for interpreting the Bible is found in one of St. Peter’s Epistles.

Knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, (II Peter 1:20, NKJV)

Another principle is found in St. Paul’s First Epistle to Timothy.

But if I am delayed, I write so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. (I Timothy 3:15, NKJV)

The Church is “the pillar and ground of the truth.” In order to hear the voice of the Church, one must look at the writings of the Church Fathers and the Ecumenical Church Councils. In the Koran, it says:

So if you are in doubt, [O Muhammad], about that which We have revealed to you, then ask those who have been reading the Scripture before you. The truth has certainly come to you from your Lord, so never be among the doubters. (Koran 10:94, Sahih International)

If Muhammad needed to ask Christians and Jews about God’s revelations, his followers should need to do the same thing. They should follow his example. (Koran 33:21)

There is one way a Muslim can find out what Orthodox Christians think about a passage of Scripture. They can read the Church Fathers and the writings of the Ecumenical Church Councils.

St. Paul also said:

Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle. (II Thessalonians 2:15, NKJV)

One can learn from the Church Fathers and ancient Christian writers what is Apostolic tradition.

Here is what Blessed Augustine wrote regarding the hijab. He lived in the fourth and early fifth centuries.

But those who belong to the world have also to consider how they may in these things please their wives if they be husbands, their husbands if they be wives (1 Corinthians 7:32-34); with this limitation, that it is not becoming even in married women to uncover their hair, since the apostle commands women to keep their heads covered. (1 Corinthians 11:5-13) (Letter CCXLV, by Blessed Augustine, vol. 1, p. 588, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series)

In his 15th Homily on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians, St. John Chrysostom wrote:

Now, however, some have come to such a height of indecency as to uncover the head, and to drag their maid-servants by the hair. — Why do ye all blush? I am not addressing myself to all, but to those who are carried away into such brutal conduct. Paul says, “Let not a woman be uncovered.” (1 Corinthians 11:5-15) And do you then entirely strip off her headdress? Do you see how you are doing outrage to yourself? If indeed she makes her appearance to you with her head bare, you call it an insult. And do you say that there is nothing shocking when you bare it yourself? (Homily XV on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians, by St. John Chrysostom, vol. 13, p. 124, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series)

In his 26th Homily on St. Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians, St. John Chrysostom wrote:

   Well then: the man he compels not to be always uncovered, but only when he prays. “For every man,” says he, “praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonors his head.” (I Corintians 11:4) But the woman he commands to be at all times covered. Wherefore also having said, “Every woman that prays or prophesies with her head unveiled, dishonors her head,” he stayed not at this point only, but also proceeded to say, “for it is one and the same thing as if she were shaven.” (I Corinthians 11:5) But if to be shaven is always dishonorable, it is plain too that being uncovered is always a reproach. And not even with this only was he content, but added again, saying, “The woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head, because of the angels.” (I Corinthians 11:10) He signifies that not at the time of prayer only but also continually, she ought to be covered. But with regard to the man, it is no longer about covering but about wearing long hair, that he so forms his discourse. To be covered he then only forbids, when a man is praying; but the wearing long hair he discourages at all times. Wherefore, as touching the woman, he said, “But if she be not veiled, let her also be shorn” (I Corinthians 11:6); so likewise touching the man, “If he have long hair, it is a dishonor unto him.” (I Corinthians 11:14) He said not, “if he be covered” but, “if he have long hair.” Wherefore also he said at the beginning, “Every man praying or prophesying, having any thing on his head, dishonors his head.” (I Corinthians 11:4) He said not, “covered,” but “having any thing on his head;” signifying that even though he pray with the head bare, yet if he have long hair, he is like to one covered. “For the hair,” says he, “is given for a covering.” (I Corinthians 11:15)
“But if a woman is not veiled, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be veiled.” (I Corinthians 11:6)
Thus, in the beginning he simply requires that the head be not bare: but as he proceeds he intimates both the continuance of the rule, saying, “for it is one and the same thing as if she were shaven” (I Corinthians 11:5), and the keeping of it with all care and diligence. For he said not merely covered, but “covered over,” meaning that she be carefully wrapped up on every side. And by reducing it to an absurdity, he appeals to their shame, saying by way of severe reprimand, “but if she be not covered, let her also be shorn.” (I Corinthians 11:6) As if he had said, “If you cast away the covering appointed by the law of God, cast away likewise that appointed by nature.”
But if any say, “Nay, how can this be a shame to the woman, if she mount up to the glory of the man?” we might make this answer; “She does not mount up, but rather falls from her own proper honor.” Since not to abide within our own limits and the laws ordained of God, but to go beyond, is not an addition but a diminuation. For as he that desires other men’s goods and seizes what is not his own, has not gained any thing more, but is diminished, having lost even that which he had, (which kind of thing also happened in Paradise) so likewise the woman acquires not the man’s dignity, but loses even the woman’s decency which she had. And not from hence only is her shame and reproach, but also on account of her covetousness.
Having taken then what was confessedly shameful, and having said, “but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven,” he states in what follows his own conclusion, saying, “let her be covered.” (I Corinthians 11:6) And he said not, “let her have long hair,” but, “let her be covered,” ordaining both these to be one, and establishing them both ways, from what was customary and from their contraries: in that he both affirms the covering and the hair to be one, and also that she again who is shaven is the same with her whose head is bare. “For it is one and the same thing,” says he, “as if she were shaven.” But if any say, “And how is it one, if this woman have the covering of nature, but the other who is shaven have not even this?” we answer, that as far as her will goes, she threw that off likewise by having the head bare. And if it be not bare of tresses, that is nature’s doing, not her own. So that as she who is shaven has her head bare, so this woman in like manner. For this cause He left it to nature to provide her with a covering, that even of it she might learn this lesson and veil herself. (Homily XXVI on I Corinthians, by St. John Chrysostom, vol. 12, pp. 152-153, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series)

Clement of Alexandria lived in the second century. He wrote:

   Woman and man are to go to church decently attired, with natural step, embracing silence, possessing unfeigned love, pure in body, pure in heart, fit to pray to God. Let the woman observe this, further. Let her be entirely covered, unless she happen to be at home. For that style of dress is grave, and protects from being gazed at. And she will never fall, who puts before her eyes modesty, and her shawl: nor will she invite another to fall into sin by uncovering her face. For this is the wish of the Word, since it is becoming for her to pray veiled. (I Corinthians 11:10)
They say that the wife of Æneas, through excess of propriety, did not, even in her terror at the capture of Troy, uncover herself; but, though fleeing from the conflagration, remained veiled. (The Instructor, Book III, chapter 11, by Clement of Alexandria, vol. 2, p. 290, Ante-Nicene Fathers)

Christian women in the second century wore hijabs and niqabs. Remember in the Koran, that a woman has to put on extra clothing before leaving her house. (Koran 33:53) “Let her be entirely covered, unless she happen to be at home.”

In another place in Clement’s writings, it says:

“Because of the angels.” By the angels he means righteous and virtuous men. Let her be veiled then, that she may not lead them to stumble into fornication. For the real angels in heaven see her though veiled. (From the Books of the Hypotyposes, Oecumenius from Book III on I Corinthians 11:10, by Clement of Alexandria, vol. 2, p. 578, Ante-Nicene Fathers)

In the Old Testament, there is a story about angels marrying human women and having children by them.

And it came to pass when men began to be numerous upon the earth, and daughters were born to them, that the angels of God having seen the daughters of men that they were beautiful, took to themselves wives of all whom they chose. (Genesis 6:2,3, LXX, Codex Alexandrinus; Genesis 6:1,2, Hebrew)

Most manuscripts of the Septuagint say “angels of God” and not “sons of God.” Here is what Tertullian, an ancient Christian writer who lived in the second century and early third century, said:

But wherefore “ought the woman to have power over her head, because of the angels?” (1 Corinthians 11:10) If it is because “she was created for the man” (1 Corinthians 11:9), and taken out of the man, according to the Creator’s purpose, then in this way too has the apostle maintained the discipline of that God from whose institution he explains the reasons of His discipline. He adds: “Because of the angels.” (1 Corinthians 11:10) What angels? In other words, whose angels? If he means the fallen angels of the Creator, there is great propriety in his meaning. It is right that that face which was a snare to them should wear some mark of a humble guise and obscured beauty. (Genesis 6:1-4; I Corinthians 11:10) (Five Books Against Marcion, Book V, chapter 8, by Tertullian, vol. 3, p. 445, Ante-Nicene Fathers)

For they, withal, who instituted them are assigned, under condemnation, to the penalty of death — those angels, to wit, who rushed from heaven on the daughters of men; so that this ignominy also attaches to woman. For when to an age much more ignorant (than ours) they had disclosed certain well-concealed material substances, and several not well-revealed scientific arts — if it is true that they had laid bare the operations of metallurgy, and had divulged the natural properties of herbs, and had promulgated the powers of enchantments, and had traced out every curious art, even to the interpretation of the stars —  they conferred properly and as it were peculiarly upon women that instrumental mean of womanly ostentation, the radiances of jewels wherewith necklaces are variegated, and the circlets of gold wherewith the arms are compressed, and the medicaments of orchil with which wools are coloured, and that black powder itself wherewith the eyelids and eyelashes are made prominent. What is the quality of these things may be declared meantime, even at this point, from the quality and condition of their teachers: in that sinners could never have either shown or supplied anything conducive to integrity, unlawful lovers anything conducive to chastity, renegade spirits anything conducive to the fear of God. If (these things) are to be called teachings, ill masters must of necessity have taught ill; if as wages of lust, there is nothing base of which the wages are honourable. But why was it of so much importance to show these things as well as to confer them? Was it that women, without material causes of splendour, and without ingenious contrivances of grace, could not please men, who, while still unadorned, and uncouth and — so to say — crude and rude, had moved (the mind of) angels? Or was it that the lovers would appear sordid and — through gratuitous use — contumelious, if they had conferred no (compensating) gift on the women who had been enticed into connubial connection with them? But these questions admit of no calculation. Women who possessed angels (as husbands) could desire nothing more; they had, forsooth, made a grand match! Assuredly they who, of course, did sometimes think whence they had fallen, and, after the heated impulses of their lusts, looked up toward heaven, thus requited that very excellence of women, natural beauty, as (having proved) a cause of evil, in order that their good fortune might profit them nothing; but that, being turned from simplicity and sincerity, they, together with (the angels) themselves, might become offensive to God. Sure they were that all ostentation, and ambition, and love of pleasing by carnal means, was displeasing to God. And these are the angels whom we are destined to judge: these are the angels whom in baptism we renounce: these, of course, are the reasons why they have deserved to be judged by man. What business, then, have their things with their judges? What commerce have they who are to condemn with them who are to be condemned? The same, I take it, as Christ has with Belial. With what consistency do we mount that (future) judgment-seat to pronounce sentence against those whose gifts we (now) seek after? For you too, (women as you are,) have the self-same angelic nature promised as your reward, the self-same sex as men: the self-same advancement to the dignity of judging, does (the Lord) promise you. Unless, then, we begin even here to pre-judge, by pre-condemning their things, which we are hereafter to condemn in themselves, they will rather judge and condemn us. (On the Apparel of Women, Book I, chapter II, by Tertullian, vol. 4, pp. 14,15, Ante-Nicene Fathers)

   Turn we next to the examination of the reasons themselves which lead the apostle to teach that the female ought to be veiled, (to see) whether the self-same (reasons) apply to virgins likewise; so that hence also the community of the name between virgins and not-virgins may be established, while the self-same causes which necessitate the veil are found to exist in each case.
If “the man is head of the woman,” of course (he is) of the virgin too, from whom comes the woman who has married; unless the virgin is a third generic class, some monstrosity with a head of its own. If “it is shameful for a woman to be shaven or shorn” (I Corinthians 11:6) of course it is so for a virgin. (Hence let the world, the rival of God, see to it, if it asserts that close-cut hair is graceful to a virgin in like manner as that flowing hair is to a boy.) To her, then, to whom it is equally unbecoming to be shaven or shorn, it is equally becoming to be covered. If “the woman is the glory of the man,” how much more the virgin, who is a glory withal to herself! If “the woman is of the man,” and “for the sake of the man” (I Corinthians 11:8,9), that rib of Adam was first a virgin. (Genesis 2:22) If “the woman ought to have power upon the head,” all the more justly ought the virgin, to whom pertains the essence of the cause (assigned for this assertion). For if (it is) on account of the angels — those, to wit, whom we read of as having fallen from God and heaven on account of concupiscence after females —  who can presume that it was bodies already defiled, and relics of human lust, which such angels yearned after, so as not rather to have been inflamed for virgins, whose bloom pleads an excuse for human lust likewise? For thus does Scripture withal suggest: “And it came to pass,” it says, “when men had begun to grow more numerous upon the earth, there were withal daughters born them; but the sons of God, having descried the daughters of men, that they were fair, took to themselves wives of all whom they elected.” (Genesis 6:1,2) For here the Greek name of women does seem to have the sense ” wives,” inasmuch as mention is made of marriage. When, then, it says “the daughters of men,” it manifestly purports virgins, who would be still reckoned as belonging to their parents — for wedded women are called their husbands’ — whereas it could have said “the wives of men:” in like manner not naming the angels adulterers, but husbands, while they take unwedded “daughters of men,” who it has above said were “born,” thus also signifying their virginity: first, “born;” but here, wedded to angels. Anything else I know not that they were except “born” and subsequently wedded. So perilous a face, then, ought to be shaded, which has cast stumbling-stones even so far as heaven: that, when standing in the presence of God, at whose bar it stands accused of the driving of the angels from their (native) confines, it may blush before the other angels as well; and may repress that former evil liberty of its head — (a liberty) now to be exhibited not even before human eyes. But even if they were females already contaminated whom those angels had desired, so much the more “on account of the angels” would it have been the duty of virgins to be veiled, as it would have been the more possible for virgins to have been the cause of the angels’ sinning. (I Corinthians 11:10; Genesis 6:1-4) If, moreover, the apostle further adds the prejudgment of “nature,” that redundancy of locks is an honour to a woman, because hair serves for a covering, of course it is most of all to a virgin that this is a distinction; for their very adornment properly consists in this, that, by being massed together upon the crown, it wholly covers the very citadel of the head with an encirclement of hair. (On the Veiling of Virgins, chapter VII, by Tertullian, vol. 4, pp. 31,32, Ante-Nicene Fathers)

Maybe this what St. Jude was talking about in his epistle when he said that the angels did not keep their proper domain, but left their own abode.

And the angels who did not keep their proper domain, but left their own abode, He has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of the great day. (Jude 6, NKJV)

Here are some more passages from Tertullian’s writings about the hijab and the niqab.

Much less may the Christian put the service of idolatry on his own head — nay, I might have said, upon Christ, since Christ is the Head of the Christian man — (for his head) is as free as even Christ is, under no obligation to wear a covering, not to say a band. But even the head which is bound to have the veil, I mean woman’s, as already taken possession of by this very thing, is not open also to a band. She has the burden of her own humility to bear. If she ought not to appear with her head uncovered on account of the angels (I Corinthians 11:10), much more with a crown on it will she offend those (elders) who perhaps are then wearing crowns above. (Revelation 4:4) For what is a crown on the head of a woman, but beauty made seductive, but mark of utter wantonness, — a notable casting away of modesty, a setting temptation on fire? Therefore a woman, taking counsel from the apostles’ foresight, will not too elaborately adorn herself, that she may not either be crowned with any exquisite arrangement of her hair. (The Chaplet, chapter 14, by Tertullian, vol. 3, p. 102, Ante-Nicene Fathers)

   So far, however, as regards the dress of women, the variety of observance compels us — men of no consideration whatever — to treat, presumptuously indeed, after the most holy apostle, except in so far as it will not be presumptuously if we treat the subject in accordance with the apostle. (I Corinthians 11:1-16; I Timothy 2:9,10) Touching modesty of dress and ornamentation, indeed, the prescription of Peter (1 Peter 3:1-6) likewise is plain, checking as he does with the same mouth, because with the same Spirit, as Paul, the glory of garments, and the pride of gold, and the meretricious elaboration of the hair.
But that point which is promiscuously observed throughout the churches, whether virgins ought to be veiled or no, must be treated of. For they who allow to virgins immunity from head-covering, appear to rest on this; that the apostle has not defined “virgins” by name, but “women,” (1 Corinthians 11:5) as “to be veiled;” nor the sex generally, so as to say “females,” but a class of the sex, by saying “women:” for if he had named the sex by saying “females,” he would have made his limit absolute for every woman; but while he names one class of the sex, he separates another class by being silent. For, they say, he might either have named “virgins” specially; or generally, by a compendious term, “females.” (On Prayer, chapters XX and XXI, by Tertullian, vol. 3, p. 687, Ante-Nicene Fathers)

Finally, there is one more video about this subject. It was produced by a Muslim journalist who happens to be a woman. She has given some excellent reasons for the hijab in my opinion.

In conclusion, the Koran by itself does not have any commandments regarding a woman wearing a hijab and/or niqab. The hijab and the niqab are mentioned in the Bible. The Koran commands Muslims to believe and obey the Bible. The Church Fathers and ancient Christian writers taught that a woman should wear a hijab. Some even said that women should wear a niqab. One of the reasons for wearing the hijab, the niqab, and clothing that covers most of the body is to prevent men from lusting after them. Another reason for wearing the hijab is to have a symbol of authority on her head and not upset the angels. We Christians should not criticize Muslim women for obeying our Scriptures.

Save

Categories: Islam Tags: , , , , ,

Those Hearsay Hadiths

January 9, 2017 Leave a comment

Something that I think has been fueling the fire for Pseudo-Islamic extremism is all of those collections of hadiths — short stories containing alleged sayings and deeds of Muhammad. There are different branches of Islam. The three main branches are the Sunnis, the Shiites, and the Ibadis. Each of these branches of the religion has a different collection of hadiths.

The Sunnis have six different collections of hadiths. These collections are named after the compilers.

Bukhari (July 19, 810 – Sept. 1, 870)

Muslim ibn al-Hajjaj (815 – May, 875)

Dawood (817-889)

At-Tirmidhi (824-892)

An-Nasai (829-915)

Ibn Majah (824-889)

One of the four Sunni schools of thought in Islam, the Malikis, reject the collection compiled by Ibn Majah and accept instead of that the collection compiled by Malik ibn Anas (711-795).

According to Sunni tradition, Muhammad died on June 8, 632. The Shiites, on the other hand, say that he died on May 25, 632. Most of the Muslims in the world are Sunnis. All of the Sunni collections of hadiths, except those compiled by Malik ibn Anas, were written down at least two hundred years after Muhammad died. Malik ibn Anas wrote his collection down at least a hundred years after the Islamic prophet died. The Ahmadiyya sect of Islam use primarily the Sunni collections of hadiths. They are not Sunni Muslims though. They have their own version of the religion.

The Shiites have four collections  of hadiths. The compilers of these hadiths are:

Muhammad ibn Ya’qub al- Kulayni al-Razi (864-941)

Abu Ja’far Muhammad ibn Ali ibn Babuya al-Qummi (923-991)

Abu Jafar Muhammad ibn Hassan Tusi (996-1067 — He compiled two separate collections.)

These collections were compiled 250 to 400 years after the death of Muhammad.

The Ibadi Muslims have two collections of hadiths. The compilers are:

Al-Rabi bin Habib al-Farahidi (He lived in the 700s. Therefore, he compiled them about a hundred years after the death of Muhammad.)

Yusuf Ibrahim al-Warjilani (He died in 1175. He compiled them about five hundred years after the death of Muhammad.)

Those compiled by Malik ibn Anas and Al-Rabi bin Habib al-Farahidi are the closest to the death of Muhammad, but still they were written down after a hundred years had lapsed.

Many of the hadiths contradict the teachings of the Koran and the Bible which the Koran is supposed to confirm. (Koran 3:3,4; 5:48; 10:37) Here are some videos about these hearsay hadiths.

As you can see, there are Muslims who reject some or even all of those hadiths. Those who reject all of them are called Koranists. The hadiths are graded as sahih (authentic), hassan (good), and daif (weak). The daif hadiths are ignored by the vast majority of Muslims. The sahih hadiths are the most important ones to most Muslims. However, there are Muslims who reject some of those sahih hadiths because they contradict the teachings of the Koran. The Koran is supposed to be the primary source for religious and ethical instruction. The hadiths, which collectively are called the Sunna, are supposed to be a secondary and inferior source for religious and ethical instruction. Many of the Pseudo-Islamic extremists are exalting those hearsay hadiths over the Koran. The Koran is relatively benign compared to many of the barbarisms found in the hadiths.

I think that Muslims need to read the Koran along with the Bible and also read the writings of the Church Fathers and those of the Ecumenical Church Councils. They need to read more about Church history in order to understand the Koran better. Many of the Islamic scholars do not understand Orthodox Christian theology, although they say they do. They do not understand Church history either. They see something in the Koran which appears to contradict something in the Bible and they immediately want to say that the contradiction is due to corruption of the Biblical texts. They do not try to reconcile the “contradiction.” They rely more on hearsay hadiths than on Sacred Scripture when they try to interpret the Koran. It is no wonder that the Islamic world is in such a mess.

And pursue not that of which thou hast no knowledge; for every act of hearing, or of seeing or of (feeling in) the heart will be enquired into (on the Day of Reckoning). (Koran 17:36, Yusuf Ali)

And they have no knowledge thereof. They follow but a guess, and lo! a guess can never take the place of the truth. (Koran 53:28, Pickthall)

Categories: Islam Tags: , , ,

Don’t Call Them ISIS

January 8, 2017 Leave a comment

That bunch of crazy nuts over there in Iraq and Syria who want to establish a caliphate and force their perverted, barbaric religion on the whole world really should not be called ISIS. ISIS is an acronym for Islamic State of Iraq and Syria.

The British Prime Minister is quite correct in saying that they are neither Islamic nor a state. Here is a video showing a film clip of one of her speeches.

Isis is the name of an ancient Egyptian goddess. Such a being does not exist. God does not have a wife.

And exalted is the majesty of our Lord: He has taken neither a wife nor a son. (Koran 72:3, Yusuf Ali)

There are British Muslims who strongly oppose those lunatics. Here is a video showing some of them speaking out against them.

This young Muslim lady thinks they should be called DAESH. This is an Arabic acronym for Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. I have watched the news and have heard some of our generals call them that. In this video she explains the meaning of the word, daesh.

 I think that I have a better acronym for them: PISSI. This stands for Pseudo-Islamic State of Syria and Iraq. They do not appear to be practicing the type of Islam I have read in the Koran. Their religion is not genuine Islam. It is Pseudo-Islam. PISSI is a good name for them. Let’s call them that.

Categories: Islam Tags: , , ,