Christian Women Have To Wear Hijab According To The Bible

Kaleef K. Karim

Is covering the hair a religious commandment for Christian women? Does the Bible impose Hijab on Christian women? There can be only one answer to this: yes, it is! Simply, a person only needs to open the Bible, go to 1st Corinthians, chapter 11 verses 3-10,

  But I would have you know that the head of every man is Christ and the head of the woman is the man, and the head of Christ is God. Every man praying or prophesying with his head covered, disgraces his head. But every woman praying or prophesying with her head uncovered disgraces her head, for it is the same as if she were shaven. For if a woman is not covered, let her be shaven. But if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her cover her head. A man indeed ought not to cover his head, because he is the image and glory of God. But woman is the glory of man. For man was not created for woman, but woman for man. This is why the woman ought to have a sign of authority over her head, because of the angels. – Corinthians 11:3-10

 

 The word “Cover”

 

The Greek words used in 1 Corinthians 11:3-7 make it clear that the veil is what is intended and nothing else:

 

1 Corinthians 11:3-7 – 3 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. 4 Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. 5 And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered–it is just as though her head were shaved. 6 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 or shaved off, she should cover her head. 7A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man.

 

I have spoken to some Christians, they tell me the word “cover” doesn’t mean cover with cloth (veil). According to them it means hair. So in other words, Paul wants women to cover their head with HAIR.

Let’s see if these Christian scholars agree with the above claim on 1st Corinthians Chapter 11 verse 3-7.

COMMENTARIES

A Critical And Exegetical Commentary On The First Epistle Of St Paul To The Corinthians, By Reverend Archibald Robertson, and Reverend. Alfred Plummer:

 1.   The Veiling of Women in Public Worship.
“The Gospel does not overthrow the natural ordinance, which is really of Divine appointment, that woman is subject to man. To disavow this subjection before the congregation must cause grave scandal; and such shamelessness is condemned by nature, by authority, and by general custom. Now, as to another question, I do commend you for remembering me, as you assure me you do, in all things, and for loyally holding to the traditions just as I transmitted them to you. But I should like you to grasp, what has not previously been mentioned, that of every man, whether married or unmarried, Christ is the head, while a woman’s head is her husband, and Christ’s head is God. Every man, whether married or unmarried, who has any covering on his head when he publicly prays to God or expounds the will of God, thereby dishonours his head:  whereas every woman, whether married or unmarried, who has her head uncovered when she publicly prays to God or expounds the will of God, thereby dishonours her head; for she «s then not one whit the better than the wanton whose head is shaven. A woman who persists in being unveiled like a man should go the whole length of cutting her hair short like a man. But seeing that it is a mark of infamy for a woman to have her hair cut off or shorn let her wear a veil.  A man has no right to cover his head; he is by constitution the image of God and reflects God’s glory: whereas the woman reflects man’s glory. Man was created first; he does not owe his origin to woman, but woman owes hers to him.” [1]

2. The First Epistle of Paul To The Corinthians – James Moffatt:

It was argued, should devout women be obliged to wear a covering veil on the head when men did not? Did not men and women worship bare- headed in Greek rites? As the Christian meetings were held in a large room of some private house, it was felt that, while women’s heads might be covered out of doors, there was no reason why the veil should be retained within the Household of the Lord. Like a Roman matron, the Christian woman would pull the corner of her robe over her head as she walked from her house to the meeting, but surely indoors she was in a family circle, where the head was not covered. Paul vigorously objects. The common opinion is that he resented such an innovation as an undesirable departure from social etiquette, since only women of loose character appeared in public bare- headed… The conservative Valerius Maximus (vi. 3. 10) had just noted, indeed, that one of the first causes of divorce was a married woman daring to appear out of doors with nothing on her head. His curiously warm objection to it is primarily based on a belief that the Creation order controlled life in the Church, and on a rabbinic interpretation of that order. A covering on the head is a mark of social deference and inferiority, in short; God made woman subject to man, and therefore for her to worship bareheaded in man’s presence would be as unnatural as for him to worship in her presence with his head covered. It would be unnatural, especially as it would violate the original plan for the sexes before God (3-12, 13-15)…, Paul begins by using it figuratively to describe the broad design of God. God, Christ, Christians ‘ —he had already said (iii. 22, 23) ; but now it is ‘ God, Christ, man, woman.’ Man as the lord of 4 creation would be violating the law of his position under God, as God’s direct likeness and representative, if he suggested, 7 even in dress, any inferiority. At worship, as elsewhere, his headship must be preserved…. The religious novelist who wrote the Acts of Thomas (liii.) was true to life when he described shameless women as ‘ immodest creatures who walked about bare- headed.’ What we call ‘ barefaced ‘ was in those days ‘ bare- headed.’ The modern reader finds it difficult to understand why Paul grew so shocked and indignant over the question whether or not a woman should have something on her head when she joined actively in public worship; but for the apostle a woman praying or preaching bareheaded was contravening the divine order which made man supreme over her and therefore entitled alone to appear bareheaded. As Calvin and Bengel saw, ‘ is ‘ means represents (as in xi. 25). A male being exhibits on 7 earth the divine authority and dominion, as he was directly created by God ; he has supremacy over the female who in turn represents the supremacy of man—not his likeness, for she is his counterpart in the order of creation, made from him and 8 for him. The veil that covers her head is a sign or symbol of this subordinate position, to be worn out of reverential respect 10 for (in view of) the angels who uphold the divine order…. Since a covering for the head signified subjection, it was only appropriate therefore for women. Rabbis artificially found a text for this in Num. v. 18. Paul is content to assume it as binding for married women… before God must be displayed by the female, and displayed particularly in wearing some sort of covering for the head. The English version—’ a woman ought to have power on her head because of the angels ‘ —might suggest, as it did suggest to Tertullian first, that she required to be protected against the lustful looks of evil angels, as though at worship a woman whose beauty was unveiled was specially exposed to malign supernatural influences…. Indeed at a very early period the term was changed to ‘ veil.’ What Paul intends to say is not that she exercised power, but that power was exercised over her ‘ Covering ‘ is for him not so much a mark of her honour and dignity as a respectable woman in society, although he brings that in ; it is pre-eminently a mark of her subordination as a daughter of Eve. Before man, the lord of creation, woman must have her head covered at worship, since that is the proper way for her to recognize the divine order at Creation. [2]

3. An exposition of the first Epistle to the Corinthians – Charles Hodge:

Such being the order divinely established (viz, that mentioned in v.3,) both men and woman should act in accordance with it; the man, by having the head uncovered, the woman by being veiled… This public function, the apostle says should not be exercised by a man with his head covered. Among the Greeks, the priests officiated bareheaded; the Romans with the head veiled; the Jews (at least soon after the apostolic age) also wore the Tallis or covering for the head in their public services. It is not to be inferred from what is here said, that the Christian prophets (or inspired men) had introduced this custom in the Church. The thing to be corrected was, woman appearing in public assemblies unveiled. The Apostle paul says, the veil is inconsistent with the position of man, but is required by that of the woman. The woman who goes unveiled is said to dishonour her own head, I.E as what follows shows, herself, and her husband… So the apostle says, for a man to appear with the conventional sign of subjection on his head, disgraced himself. If the man be intended to represent the dominion of God, he must act accordingly, and not appear in the dress of woman. The veils worn by Grecian women were of different kinds. One,, and perhaps the most common, was the peplum, or mantle, which in public was thrown over the head, and enveloped the whole person. The other was more in the fashion of the common eastern veil which covered the face, with of the eyes. In one form or other, the custom was universal for all respectable woman to appear veiled in public. The Apostle therefore says, that a woman who speaks in public with her uncovered; dishonours her head. Here  is used, her own head; not her husband, but herself. This is plain, not only from the force of the words, but from the clause, for that is even all in one as if she were shaven. This is the reason why she disgraces herself. She puts herself in the same class with women whose her has been been cut off. Cutting of the hair, which is the principal natural ornament of woman, was either a sign of grief, deut. 21,12 or a disgraceful punishment. The literal translation of this clause is; she is one and the same thing with the one who is shaven. She assumes the characteristic mark of a disreputable woman. [3]

Commentary on Corinthians – John Calvin:

Every woman praying or prophesying Here we have the second proposition — that women ought to have their heads covered when they pray or prophesy; otherwise they dishonour their head For as the man honours his head by showing his liberty, so the woman, by showing her subjection. Hence, on the other hand, if the woman uncovers her head, she shakes off subjection involving contempt of her husband. It may seem, however, to be superfluous for Paul to forbid the woman to prophesy with her head uncovered, while elsewhere he wholly prohibits women from speaking in the Church.(1 Timothy 2:12.) It would not, therefore, be allowable for them to prophesy even with a covering upon their head, and hence it follows that it is to no purpose that he argues here as to a covering. It may be replied, that the Apostle, by here condemning the one, does not commend the other. For when he reproves them for prophesying with their head uncovered, he at the same time does not give them permission to prophesy in some other way, but rather delays his condemnation of that vice to another passage, namely in 1 Corinthians 14. In this reply there is nothing amiss, though at the same time it might suit sufficiently well to say, that the Apostle requires women to show their modesty — not merely in a place in which the whole Church is assembled, but also in any more dignified assembly, either of matrons or of men, such as are sometimes convened in private houses. For it is all one as if she were shaven. He now maintains from other considerations, that it is unseemly for women to have their heads bare. Nature itself, says he, abhors it. To see a woman shaven is a spectacle that is disgusting and monstrous. Hence we infer that the woman has her hair given her for a covering Should any one now object, that her hair is enough, as being a natural covering, Paul says that it is not, for it is such a covering as requires another thing to be made use of for covering it And hence a conjecture is drawn, with some appearance of probability — that women who had beautiful hair were accustomed to uncover their heads for the purpose of showing off their beauty. It is not, therefore, without good reason that Paul, as a remedy for this vice, sets before them the opposite idea — that they be regarded as remarkable for unseemliness, rather than for what is an incentive to lust. The man ought not to cover his head, because he is the image of God. The same question may now be proposed respecting the image, as formerly respecting the head. For both sexes were created in the image of God, and Paul exhorts women no less than men to be formed a new according to that image. The image, however, of which he is now speaking, relates to the order of marriage, and hence it belongs to the present life, and is not connected with conscience. The simple solution is this — that he does not treat here of innocence and holiness, which are equally becoming in men and women, but of the distinction, which God has conferred upon the man, so as to have superiority over the woman. In this superior order of dignity the glory of God is seen, as it shines forth in every kind of superiority. Paul here commends, showing that the woman was created for this purpose — that she might be a distinguished ornament of the man. For the man is not from the woman. He establishes by two arguments the pre-eminence, which he had assigned to men above women. The first is, that as the woman derives her origin from the man, she is therefore inferior in rank. The second is, that as the woman was created for the sake of the man, she is therefore subject to him, as the work ultimately produced is to its cause. For this cause ought the woman to have power From that authority he draws an argument in favor of outward decorum. “She is subject,” says he, “let her then wear a token of subjection.” In the term power, there is an instance of metonymy, for he means a token by which she declares herself to be under the power of her husband; and it is a covering, whether it be a robe, or a veil, or any other kind of covering… When, therefore, women venture upon such liberties, as to usurp for themselves the token of authority, they make their baseness manifest to the angels. This, therefore, was said by way of amplifying, as if he had said, “If women uncover their heads, not only Christ, but all the angels too, will be witnesses of the outrage.[4]

Conclusion: As we have read the verse in its context, when Paul said to “cover”, here in the verse he made it clear that a woman should be covered with a “veil”, not hair as some modernist 21st century Christians have claimed. Christian commentaries on the Bible quoted also made it abundantly clear that Christian women should be covered with a “cloth” i.e a “veil” (Hijab) and that is what Paul meant by it in 1st Corinthians 11:3-10.

 

Don’t forget to follow Discover The Truth on Facebook and Twitter. PLEASE help spread the word by sharing our articles on your favourite social networks.

 

References:

[1] A Critical And Exegetical Commentary On The First Epistle Of St Paul To The Corinthians, By Reverend Archibald Robertson, and Reverend. Alfred Plummer, page 226 – 227
[2] The First Epistle of Paul To The Corinthians, By James Moffatt, page 149 – 153
[3] An exposition of the first Epistle to the Corinthians. By Charles Hodge Page 207 – 209
[4] Commentary on Corinthians By John Calvin, volume 1, page 298 – 300

 

This article was originally published in the following site: discover-the-truth.com

Advertisements


Categories: Christianity

Tags: , , , , ,

49 replies

  1. For long hair is given to her as a covering. – 1 Corinthians 11:15b
    If a woman’s long hair is given to her has a covering; what need has she of a covering over her covering?

    Like

    • A woman’s hair is nothing more than her hair; a cloth is a covering. How easily Christians are confused by their own scripture.

      “Ruined were those who indulged in hair-splitting” ~ Prophet Muhammad

      Like

  2. Christian women do need to wear long outfits instead of the nakedness in their look.
    I’ve seen a pastor’s pic with his wife in the beach! I can’t describe it!
    What are those people thinking?
    The matter of hijab is a metaphysic thing for them maybe although it’s in their bible.

    Like

    • What people wear to the beach is generally different from what they wear to church; we view the things as two entirely different activities that require two different wardrobes. Women do not wear bikinis all of the time, everywhere they go, nor do men wear swimming trunks all of the time, everywhere they go.
      Up until the 1960s; it was common for ladies to wear hats to church; but it was the fashion of the time; even men used to wear hats everywhere they went. But fashions change and for the most part, it’s just not done anymore. Our understanding of the verse also changed, to: “Women must cover their heads, their hear is the covering on their heads with which they must cover.”
      Though some churches do keep up the tradition of women wearing hats, it’s not meant to hide a woman’s whole head or to cover up all her hair so that nobody can see it. Particularly in the prominently African-American churches; women who wear hats choose extravagant ones that are bright, bold, colorful, and big and fashion their hair in such a way it goes well with the hat.

      Like

    • So is OK for Christian women to be naked at the beach ?

      Liked by 1 person

    • So according to Jamie, if a Christian girl is in a strip club it is ok for her to be naked as that is considered a different activity which requires a different wardrobe (or not).

      >”Our understanding of the verse also changed….”

      Should Christians follow the newest understanding of the scripture or should they follow the original meaning of the scripture?

      >”Though some churches do keep up the tradition of women wearing hats, it’s not meant to hide a woman’s whole head or to cover up all her hair so that nobody can see it. Particularly in the prominently African-American churches; women who wear hats choose extravagant ones that are bright, bold, colorful, and big and fashion their hair in such a way it goes well with the hat.”

      The practice of wearing extravagant hats to church is nothing more than a warped outward show of pride, boasting, wealth, fashion, over the top extravagance, and attention seeking. The women who wear such hats look more like primping clowns than pious devotees of the one true God. I am sure Jesus would never have approved of such buffoonery, as it has nothing to do with real piety or the Abrahamic tradition of wearing a shawl, scarves or cloth covering over the head.

      Even in the minor details, Christians have fallen so far from the Abrahamic Tradition.

      Like

  3. …what?

    “If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off…”

    Seems really redundant if your interpretation (basically “if you don’t have hair, then cut off your hair”) is correct.

    Liked by 2 people

  4. Let’s ask Mary the Mother of Jesus:

    Liked by 1 person

  5. This is another perfect example of a very confusing Bible and Christian message. They cannot even come to an agreement on if women should cover or not cover, as there is disagreement on what would seem to be a basic and simple issue. The issue is also indicative of how Christians have left the traditions and divine laws of the Abrahamic faith in favor of their own opinions, preferences and desires.

    Like

  6. How is one supposed not to hate Christians after reading this “Christian” defence of sluttery? I don’t like to generalise but this is really disgusting.

    Like

    • Rider,
      Don’t hate them, Pity them. And pray that Allah may guide the righteous among them into the true path of Islam.

      Like

    • Rider, are you saying is that women should be held responsible for men’s sexual conduct because men are far too weak to control themselves?

      Like

    • LTSI,
      That old claim? Stale. You need some new material.

      Like

  7. Well, since we are into selective quote mining, I’ve discovered that Muslims can actually drink alcohol! Since Muslims follow the sunnah, and Muhammad drank alcohol, then Muslims likewise must as well.

    Muslim 3753 “We were with the prophet of Allah and he was thirsty. And a man said: ‘O prophet of Allah, do you want to drink wine?’ Prophet of Allah said: ‘Yes’. The man went to get the wine. The prophet of Allah said: ‘Make it intoxicated’. And he drank.”

    Now before you try to offer any other explanation by appeal to other Hadith or ayat you must remember that no alternative reasonable position is allowed, just like the approach above in this post.

    Cheers, everyone, enjoy a glass of beer or wine

    Like

    • Paulus,
      That is a fabricated hadeeth, probably written by your deceitful friends at wiki-Islam, and lazily copied and pasted by you without any research.

      Here is the real Hadeeth Muslim 3753 which has nothing to do with alchohol whatsoever:

      “Mujahid said to Tiwus: Come along with me to Ibn Rafi b. Khadij in order to listen from him the hadith transmitted on the authority of his father (pertaining to the renting of land) from Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him). He (Tawus) scolded him and said: By Allah, it I were to know that Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) had forbidden it, I would have never done it. But it has been narrated to me by one who has better knowledge of it amongst them (and he meant Ibn ‘Abbas) that Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: It is better if a person lends, his land to his brother (for cultivation) than that he gets recognised rent on it.”
      Sahih Muslim 3753

      and here is an explanation of the controversy:
      http://therealwikiislam.weebly.com/alcohol—not-permitted–for-good-reason.html

      Liked by 4 people

    • Don’t give him a chance to flee from the subject at hand.
      Paulus, deal with subject at hand if you dare.

      Like

    • I already told you- you are not allowed an alternate theory or interpretation- just like the article above.

      If you like I could also quote someone internet scholars that appear to support my bias?

      Talking of which, do any of these scholars refer to a “hijab” or is that just another mistruth? 😂😂😂😂

      Like

  8. Ibn Issam said: LTSI, That old claim? Stale. You need some new material.
    -Not until I get a good answer, Ibn.

    Like

    • Do a web search there are plenty of good answers which have been written by many Muslims on the subject. I wont encourage your laziness.

      Like

    • Rider used the word “sluttery” to describe all women’s right to choose not to wear veils. This is a sure sign of someone who thinks that women should be held responsible for men’s sexual conduct. All because a fear that men are far too weak to control themselves if they see a woman without a veil. That view is in fact very degrading for both women and men.

      Like

    • LTSI
      I don’t condone the use of foul language, and neither do Islamic teachings. Don’t make assumptions about all Muslims and Islam just because you came across one person whose vocabulary you disagree with.

      Like

    • Everyone who thinks that women should be held responsible for men’s sexual conduct, degrades not only women, but also men, Ibn Issam.

      Like

    • You are projecting your modern feminist attitudes onto Islam and Hijab. One thing has nothing to do with the other. I don’t support degrading anyone, nor is Hijab about men’s sexual conduct. You either have absolutely no real understanding of what you are talking about, or you are attempting to bash Islamic belief with what you think is an indefensible position.

      In either case you are simply wrong.

      Like

    • Ibn,

      Why then are you commanded to look down if it’s not about sexual desire?🤣🤣

      Like

    • It’s about something called “Haya.” A virtue you Christians never seem to understand.

      Like

  9. It is obvious that the concept of covering up women has got something to do with men’s sexual conduct. A concept which is embraced by self proclaimed male “moral” guardians in our immigrant neighbourhoods, who call unveiled women “whores”, and stop at nothing to impose their unpleasant opinions on others, not even death threats or violence.

    Like

    • Back in the days if you covered up and wore more clothes it was a sign of modesty. These days Christians have become like animals butt-naked, no shame and humiliate and attack women who choose to cover up.

      Christian fundamentalists are like animals. Always attacking people of other faiths, at the same claim higher ground and proclaim to follow “pacifistic” religion. In reality many missionaries have more in common with the Devil than the Jesus of the New Testament.

      Liked by 1 person

    • It’s called being modest.

      Yahya related from Malik from Salama ibn Safwan ibn Salama az-Zuraqi that Zayd ibn Talha ibn Rukana, who attributed it to the Prophet (saws) said, “The Messenger of Allah said: ‘Every deen has an innate character. The character of Islam is modesty.’ ” [Al-Muwatta Hadith 47.9]

      Liked by 1 person

    • LTSI spews her own hypocritical “unpleasant opinions” about Muslims and covering, while smugly helping to spread hate, fear, and misunderstanding of Islam.

      Funny how people like Sunshine never insinuate that Virgin Mary covered because early male Christians couldn’t control their men’s sexual conduct. Neither do such people criticize orthodox Jewish women for covering with headscarves, or make comments about Jewish men’s sexual conduct.

      This only serves to highlight the bias and bigotry that is reserved only for Muslims and directed at everything Islam by such disingenuous moral supremacists.

      Like

  10. 1 Timothy 2:9

    In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;

    Looks like this messenger was 600 years too late with his message.

    Paul also said it much more eloquently don’t you think?

    Like

  11. Women should be able to walk without the veil, and yet not risk being sexually molested, neither called “whores” nor be blamed of “sluttery”. In cases of sexual molestation it is always the molester who should be blamed, not the molested victim.

    Like

    • Agreed. But women should also be free to wear hijab without being lectured by a moral supremacist like you.

      Like

    • Ibn,

      Assuming you were married and your wife no longer wanted to wear hijab, would you allow her?

      Like

    • Unfortunately it is a duty, a necessity today, to point out how the veil is sometimes used to supress women. Reading the comments on this page confirms this. Women who choose to not to use veils are decribed as “buffoonery”, “sluttery”, “animals butt-naked”, etc. – outrageous.

      Like

    • LTSI,
      Most Muslim women I know do not feel that they are being “suppressed” by their wearing of Hijab and/or covering, in fact many of them feel liberated by it. These women would be offended at your misguided, self righteous demagoguery, and your audacious pretention to be the self-appointed defender of women’s rights. Why don’t you go find a real cause celeb that is more beneficial to the people you presume to serve.

      The only thing “outrageous” here are your own prejudices.

      Like

    • If you see a veil as a sign of modesty, the implication is at the same time that you think that women who do not wear veils are immodest. In certain neighbourhoods, women have to put out with smear and mockery because they have chosen not to wear veils. It is a fact, Ibn.

      Like

    • LTSI,
      It seems that YOU are the one who is lumping people in to broad categories, resorting to stereotypes, and confusing the issues. You are conflating hijab and covering, with misogyny when they are not related to each other, any more than wearing a “wife beater” undershirt indicates that a man beats his wife. You need to stop focusing on a simple article of clothing.

      If you want to address disrespectful behavior towards women that is fine and I support you 100%. Islam teaches us to respect and honor women and mothers. It also teaches us that “there is no compulsion in religion” and that Allah is the judge not us. If a woman prefers not to wear hijab, it is not for me to judge her, and neither is it your place to judge her or her religion if she chooses to abide by the faith and wear it.

      Like

    • LTSI,
      You presume to know what I and a Billion other Muslims think about women, but you only project false stereotypes. You only focus on some negative reports and instances related to Muslims yet ignore the rampant misogyny in your own western culture. In your blind focus on Islam, you fail to point out that women in many Christian, jewish, hindu and other cultures and societies have to put up with “smear and mockery” in their own non-Muslim neighborhoods. Mistreatment of women is not encouraged by Islam and it is not a Muslim only phenomena as you try to portray it.

      Like

    • Still: a lot of people associate the veil with “modesty”. This association is problematic, because it has the implication that women without veils are seen as “immodest”. Needless to say, this is a very provocative underlying statement for most of them.

      Like

  12. LTSI,
    And you associate the head-covering with “men’s uncontrollable sexual lust” and “suppressing” women, neither of which is related to the true intent which motivates so many women to freely wear Hijab.

    Needless to say your own inept stereotypical associations are a very provocative underlying statement which betrays your irrational ignorance, bias and bigotry toward Islam.

    Hanna Yusuf asks why a simple piece of clothing is seen as the very epitome of oppression. She says many women find empowerment in rejecting the idea that women can be reduced to their sexual allure – and we should not assume that every women who wears the hijab has been forced into it.

    Like

  13. Wrong again Ibn. The point is this: if you are one of them who associate veils with “modesty”, it has the degrading implication that women without veils are seen as “immodest”. Women who entices men. Needless to say, this is a very provocative underlying statement for most people, both men and women.

    Like

Please leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: