See #257 first.
Christian Byzantium is well known to have had the veil.
<b>The christoislamic veil is biblical in nature. Example of appearance in bible of covering the head of women (includes christian reasoning):</b>
http://www.thebricktestament.com/epistles_...n/1co11_04.html
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->1 Corinthians 11:4 For any man to pray or to prophesy with his head covered shows disrespect for his head.
1 Corinthians 11:5 And for a woman to pray or prophecy with her head uncovered shows disrespect for her head.
1 Corinthians 11:5 It is exactly the same as if she had her hair shaved off.
<b>1 Corinthians 11:6 Indeed, if a woman does go without a veil, she should have her hair cut off too.</b> Link
1 Corinthians 11:7 But for a man it is not right to have his head covered, since he is the image of God and reflects God's glory; but a woman is the reflection of man's glory.
1 Corinthians 14:34 As in all the churches of God's holy people, women are to remain quiet in the assemblies, since they have no permission to speak: theirs is a subordinate part.
1 Corinthians 14:35 If there is anything they want to know, they should ask their husbands at home: it is shameful for a woman to speak in the assembly.
1 Timothy 2:11-12 During instruction, a woman should be quiet and respectful. I give no permission for a woman to teach or to have authority over a man. A woman ought to be quiet.
Ephesians 5:22-23 Wives should be subject to their husbands as to the Lord, since as Christ is head of the Church and saves the whole body, so is the husband the head of his wife.
Ephesians 5:24 And as the Church is subject to Christ, so should wives be to their husbands, in everything.
1 Corinthians 11:3 I should like you to understand that the head of every man is Christ.
1 Corinthians 11:3 The head of woman is man.
1 Corinthians 11:3 And the head of Christ is God.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Even in The Netherlands until 50 years ago (watch any WWII movie set in NL) you'd have seen young women wandering around in scarves - the old generation still does. It's not for the cold - those scarves aren't warm like mufflers which the men wore when it was cold. No. The reason is the bible. (This might also be why Russian women until at least 50 years and more ago - and under communism, going by the films of that time - still wore scarves.)
Times of the Dutch/Flemish painters: look at many paintings and you'll see women had their hair covered most of the time with long cloths (like the one Scarlet Johanssen wore in the film Girl with a Pearl Earring or whatever it's called). Go back to the Middle Ages, nearly all women had their hair covered ALL THE TIME with long cloths - that was certainly due to the christian religion, even <i>if</i> afterwards they kept the tradition going because of inertia or some other reason. Go back to Byzantium and the veil is there.
<b>Heck, look at the nuns and their habits along with the head gear. That's the most obvious example.</b> Every order of nun that I know of in NL and DE had their hair covered. Watch 'The Sound of Music' say - although the heroine's hair on the front showed from under her head gear when she wore it, I've never seen this happen in real life. Watch any old or historical film on nuns.
Though this is all well-known stuff, Indian christos don't appear to know how imperative veiling is amongst their female kind. They imagine the veil is solely islamic. Mwahahahahahaha.
Anyway, though I digressed, I had several points to make and find it impossible to summarise:
- Islam certainly has the veil - it's christoislamic, as both the babble and koran command it. The reasoning is religious and very strict. Islam did not get the idea of veiling the woman from Zoroastrianism, although it may - on contact with Persia - have borrowed certain forms from there. Islam just kept the Arabian fashion/custom and made it religious, mandatory and then on top of that introduced further islamic rules to inhibit women's external appearance and expression.
- Zoroastrianism had the veil for a different, non-religious reason; had a system similar to purdah (as N India knew it) and large swathes of Northern India was for a time under Persian control and there are certainly a few signs that that region been somewhat influenced by Persian contact clothing-wise.
Note that I am in no way pleading for reinstating any female-veiling system prevalent in a period of late Zoroastrian Persia. Only saying that (1) I've not read any proofs that it was religious nor any proofs that the early Zoroastrians did this to the same extent as the later ones; (2) it was not misogynistic but more for class distinction reasons - and it seems some men used the veil for similar reasons; (3) haven't come across any indication that Zoroastrian women were threatened of being beaten up for not wearing their veil - like islamic Afghan women today are - or threatened with having their hair cut off (like the bible commands for christian women who go around with their hair exposed).
- Just because India most likely derived the Persian variety (when under the influence of the Persian empire) before islam, doesn't mean that when the muslims (and their later subset, the Mughals) did invade, these didn't strictly enforce their sharia terrorism concepts. Islamis have been known to do this in lots of places where they invaded in medieval times. Whether Iranianised muslim invaders had accepted the Iranian style of veil when enforcing the islamic concept of it or whether they just kept to the Arabian covering when they attacked different places (Afghanistan, Turkey, Berber country, Syria, Iran, India) is moot. By the time they got to India, they wanted the (existing?) Persian and other veil-styles *enforced* - not for any Zoroastrian-social or fashion reasons - but for islamic ones. They certainly added immense cause for women to stay indoors in the North. Even if the clothing custom of a veil had already been introduced earlier, even their Eminencies cannot find evidence that it was either violently impressed on the women at that earlier time, or even uniformly in all of India before islam came with its religious reasoning for the veil.
It's hard to find a way for me to clearly say what I wish to explain, but here's my attempt:
(1) The hysterical Hysterians have conveniently ignored all Zoroastrian influences from Persia on India. When even islamis admit that Purdah is originally Persian (regardless of how the concept got transformed under islam; though, as seen from the koran, the *islamic* veiling system can not be blamed on Persia) - still, their communist eminencies are historically and geographically-challenged. In their narrow view of hystery, if they can somehow prove a form of x existed before islam in India, then islam can't be blamed for the form in which x exists today, and it must be entirely native to the 'evil Hindoo religion'. It would be rather inconvenient for them to acknowledge that Purdah does not appear to be overtly offensive in the Persian context (because it's not mandated by Zoroastrian religion), and that under islamic rule the existing custom was exacerbated and perverted by islam - perhaps that's why the reds choose to ignore Persia altogether in their arguments against Hindoooooooism.
(2) Even though it may have been used in India before, it does not mean that islam didn't enforce their own terrorist regulations concerning *islamic veiling* on the Hindu population - i.e. for islamic reasons, and pushing it on people through violence - a la Afghanistan. (Meaning it was no longer for fashion or other social reasons. This is the same as how Arabian women who were already wearing their veils because of the weather, were *made* to wear it because of islam after Arabia's conversion.)
Christian Byzantium is well known to have had the veil.
<b>The christoislamic veil is biblical in nature. Example of appearance in bible of covering the head of women (includes christian reasoning):</b>
http://www.thebricktestament.com/epistles_...n/1co11_04.html
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->1 Corinthians 11:4 For any man to pray or to prophesy with his head covered shows disrespect for his head.
1 Corinthians 11:5 And for a woman to pray or prophecy with her head uncovered shows disrespect for her head.
1 Corinthians 11:5 It is exactly the same as if she had her hair shaved off.
<b>1 Corinthians 11:6 Indeed, if a woman does go without a veil, she should have her hair cut off too.</b> Link
1 Corinthians 11:7 But for a man it is not right to have his head covered, since he is the image of God and reflects God's glory; but a woman is the reflection of man's glory.
1 Corinthians 14:34 As in all the churches of God's holy people, women are to remain quiet in the assemblies, since they have no permission to speak: theirs is a subordinate part.
1 Corinthians 14:35 If there is anything they want to know, they should ask their husbands at home: it is shameful for a woman to speak in the assembly.
1 Timothy 2:11-12 During instruction, a woman should be quiet and respectful. I give no permission for a woman to teach or to have authority over a man. A woman ought to be quiet.
Ephesians 5:22-23 Wives should be subject to their husbands as to the Lord, since as Christ is head of the Church and saves the whole body, so is the husband the head of his wife.
Ephesians 5:24 And as the Church is subject to Christ, so should wives be to their husbands, in everything.
1 Corinthians 11:3 I should like you to understand that the head of every man is Christ.
1 Corinthians 11:3 The head of woman is man.
1 Corinthians 11:3 And the head of Christ is God.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Even in The Netherlands until 50 years ago (watch any WWII movie set in NL) you'd have seen young women wandering around in scarves - the old generation still does. It's not for the cold - those scarves aren't warm like mufflers which the men wore when it was cold. No. The reason is the bible. (This might also be why Russian women until at least 50 years and more ago - and under communism, going by the films of that time - still wore scarves.)
Times of the Dutch/Flemish painters: look at many paintings and you'll see women had their hair covered most of the time with long cloths (like the one Scarlet Johanssen wore in the film Girl with a Pearl Earring or whatever it's called). Go back to the Middle Ages, nearly all women had their hair covered ALL THE TIME with long cloths - that was certainly due to the christian religion, even <i>if</i> afterwards they kept the tradition going because of inertia or some other reason. Go back to Byzantium and the veil is there.
<b>Heck, look at the nuns and their habits along with the head gear. That's the most obvious example.</b> Every order of nun that I know of in NL and DE had their hair covered. Watch 'The Sound of Music' say - although the heroine's hair on the front showed from under her head gear when she wore it, I've never seen this happen in real life. Watch any old or historical film on nuns.
Though this is all well-known stuff, Indian christos don't appear to know how imperative veiling is amongst their female kind. They imagine the veil is solely islamic. Mwahahahahahaha.
Anyway, though I digressed, I had several points to make and find it impossible to summarise:
- Islam certainly has the veil - it's christoislamic, as both the babble and koran command it. The reasoning is religious and very strict. Islam did not get the idea of veiling the woman from Zoroastrianism, although it may - on contact with Persia - have borrowed certain forms from there. Islam just kept the Arabian fashion/custom and made it religious, mandatory and then on top of that introduced further islamic rules to inhibit women's external appearance and expression.
- Zoroastrianism had the veil for a different, non-religious reason; had a system similar to purdah (as N India knew it) and large swathes of Northern India was for a time under Persian control and there are certainly a few signs that that region been somewhat influenced by Persian contact clothing-wise.
Note that I am in no way pleading for reinstating any female-veiling system prevalent in a period of late Zoroastrian Persia. Only saying that (1) I've not read any proofs that it was religious nor any proofs that the early Zoroastrians did this to the same extent as the later ones; (2) it was not misogynistic but more for class distinction reasons - and it seems some men used the veil for similar reasons; (3) haven't come across any indication that Zoroastrian women were threatened of being beaten up for not wearing their veil - like islamic Afghan women today are - or threatened with having their hair cut off (like the bible commands for christian women who go around with their hair exposed).
- Just because India most likely derived the Persian variety (when under the influence of the Persian empire) before islam, doesn't mean that when the muslims (and their later subset, the Mughals) did invade, these didn't strictly enforce their sharia terrorism concepts. Islamis have been known to do this in lots of places where they invaded in medieval times. Whether Iranianised muslim invaders had accepted the Iranian style of veil when enforcing the islamic concept of it or whether they just kept to the Arabian covering when they attacked different places (Afghanistan, Turkey, Berber country, Syria, Iran, India) is moot. By the time they got to India, they wanted the (existing?) Persian and other veil-styles *enforced* - not for any Zoroastrian-social or fashion reasons - but for islamic ones. They certainly added immense cause for women to stay indoors in the North. Even if the clothing custom of a veil had already been introduced earlier, even their Eminencies cannot find evidence that it was either violently impressed on the women at that earlier time, or even uniformly in all of India before islam came with its religious reasoning for the veil.
It's hard to find a way for me to clearly say what I wish to explain, but here's my attempt:
(1) The hysterical Hysterians have conveniently ignored all Zoroastrian influences from Persia on India. When even islamis admit that Purdah is originally Persian (regardless of how the concept got transformed under islam; though, as seen from the koran, the *islamic* veiling system can not be blamed on Persia) - still, their communist eminencies are historically and geographically-challenged. In their narrow view of hystery, if they can somehow prove a form of x existed before islam in India, then islam can't be blamed for the form in which x exists today, and it must be entirely native to the 'evil Hindoo religion'. It would be rather inconvenient for them to acknowledge that Purdah does not appear to be overtly offensive in the Persian context (because it's not mandated by Zoroastrian religion), and that under islamic rule the existing custom was exacerbated and perverted by islam - perhaps that's why the reds choose to ignore Persia altogether in their arguments against Hindoooooooism.
(2) Even though it may have been used in India before, it does not mean that islam didn't enforce their own terrorist regulations concerning *islamic veiling* on the Hindu population - i.e. for islamic reasons, and pushing it on people through violence - a la Afghanistan. (Meaning it was no longer for fashion or other social reasons. This is the same as how Arabian women who were already wearing their veils because of the weather, were *made* to wear it because of islam after Arabia's conversion.)