Shall I go down in history for my encomium of the noble ethics of hairdressers, do you think?
Here is another passage for consideration:
Genesis 38:14,15
Quote:
And she put her widow's garments off from her, and covered her with a vail, and wrapped herself, and sat in an open place, which is by the way to Timnath; for she saw that Shelah was grown, and she was not given unto him to wife.
When Judah saw her, he thought her to be an harlot; because she had covered her face.
|
Here Tamar is taken for an harlot, not because she was flaunting her ankles, but
because she covered her face. And in general the language seems to imply that her harlot's garments covered rather more than her widow's garments. Once again, patriarchal culture does not support a Muslim idea of modesty. (And speaking of Muslims, is it not true that so far from their garments lending to modesty, it actually turns women into sexual objects? I think it works like this:
1. Sexual objects are dangerous;
2. Women are sexual objects;
3. Women are dangerous.
1'. Dangerous things must be covered
2'. Women are dangerous things.
3'. Women must be covered.
That would perhaps explain the report that it is common for fully covered Muslim women to be sexually solicited, more or less aggressively, by Muslim taxi drivers. Muslim men are not honoring their women in making them dress that way; they are rather inflaming their own sinful lusts by behaving as though women were nothing but illicit pleasure sacks.)