More Modest Clothing Fashions Coming Our Way? YAY!

The Independent - 19 February 2017 said:
_https://uk.news.yahoo.com/modest-wear-making-groundbreaking-appearance-172758189.html

Sana Sarwar
The Independent
19 February 2017

Modest wear is making a groundbreaking appearance in contemporary fashion – and it’s about time

Photo showing various colors and styles of hijab style head coverings are shown in the original article - actually quite attractive imo :)

Over the past few years, we have seen the hijab merge into British culture with more women in the public domain wearing the headscarf than ever before, such as Great British Bake Off winner Nadiya Hussain. “Modest wear” is the newest trend on the block to diversify the face of contemporary fashion.

Ten years ago, as a hijabi (headscarf wearer), I faced the constant battle to find clothing that looked good and didn’t compromise my religious beliefs. My wardrobe often consisted of plain, boring and oversized tops, straight leg denim jeans, neck scarfs that doubled as makeshift hijabs, and a mountain of maxi skirts I care not to count. I yearned for modest clothing that was easy to wear and didn’t require layering – a must for sheer fabrics. It’s fair to say I was a walking fashion disaster; even Trinny and Susannah would have refused to help me. However, since then, modest fashion has taken the industry by storm and is now becoming widely celebrated.

Yesterday, we saw the emergence of the UK’s first ever London Modest Fashion Week, set up by UK-based company Haute Elan, which took place in the iconic Saatchi Gallery. Featuring more than 40 brands from around the world, London Modest Fashion Week is far from Muslim exclusive but simply adheres to our values – or anyone from any faith looking for a more demure look.

UK high streets are also buying into the trend with Debenhams soon to become the first major UK department store to sell hijabs as part of a new range of Muslim clothing. The selection will offer tops, dresses, jumpsuits, kimono wraps, caps, hijab pins and headscarves. London-based clothing brand Aab, which is behind the line, describes itself as selling “contemporary modest wear” for women.

It’s important to note that while getting modest fashion on the high street is a victory for Muslim women, it’s not just for us. Over the years we have seen many celebrities sporting the trend, even on the red carpet. For example, at this year’s Grammy Awards, singer Adele wowed audiences in an olive green, floor-skimming Givenchy Haute Couture gown, with a checkered bodice and delicate beaded sleeves. The dress hails from the autumn/winter 2016 collection, which featured no sleeves – however, Adele’s customisation added long sleeves for a touch of elegance.

In 2016, France introduced a burkini (full body swimwear) ban which was later overturned. Since then, the burkini has remained a controversial topic. While critics look at burkinis as oppressive pieces of clothing for Muslim women, the reality is very different. The burkini first appeared in the UK limelight when TV chef Nigella Lawson wore the head-to-toe three-piece garment on holiday in Australia in 2011. She later explained that the outfit allowed her to avoid reapplying sunscreen after swimming.

Modesty is not to be forced on anyone and means different things to different people, but always remains a choice for women.

Last year, Marks and Spencer launched a burkini as part of its summer and spring 2016 collection. It quickly sold out and proved popular with British customers. Aheda Zanetti, the Australian-Lebanese designer who created the first burkini more than 10 years ago, insists it has little to do with Islam and was intended to give women more freedom, rather than take it away. She adds that over over 40 per cent of burkini sales are from non-Muslim women.

Modest wear is being introduced to add variety to the UK fashion industry and doesn’t just mean the introduction of hijabs and burkinis – it also means clothing that offers more coverage for a wide range of women from different cultures and religions. Fashion should be an inclusive and empowering form of self-expression, available to everybody.

We have also seen a wider diversity of faces in major fashion campaigns. Most recently, Kanye West featured hijabi model Halima Aden in his New York Fashion Week presentation. Aden stood out as a young woman who was committed to her beliefs and willing to challenge industry ideals.

Mariah Idrissi has also revolutionised the fashion industry by becoming the first hijab-wearing model to be signed to one of the top 10 global modelling agencies – Select Models. She also become the first model to wear a hijab in a major fashion campaign, when she featured in H&M’s Close the Loop campaign last year. She also recently modelled for Aab. The London-based public speaker champions the freedom to wear modest fashion for all women and wants to become a positive role model, regardless of religion.

“There is certainly a growth in the interest in modest fashion from both the Muslim and non-Muslim community,” she says. “Within the UK we have a large amount of modest fashion influencers who have certainly been pillars in this revolution and since the H&M campaign we have seen acceleration in the involvement of modest fashion. Modest fashion is not only bridging the gap between Eastern and Western fashion culture but also creating far more diversity within the fashion industry.

“I don’t feel there should be a distinction between modest fashion and modern fashion as modesty is religionless. Modesty is a personal choice the same way you would choose flats over heels or vice versa.”

There is no doubt that we are seeing more demure looks in today’s industry as the hijab and modest wear trend enter popular culture. They are a celebration of the inclusion of diversity in modern fashion. To see Muslim women and popular fashion brands leading the way to provide more choice for all women is truly inspiring.
* * * * * * *
https://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,43414.0.html

Forum > Esoterica > The Work
On page 12 of the thread "Ariana Grande and the question of apropriate expression of sexuality"


There has been some discussion about how what we women wear sends a signal to the universe about how we see ourselves and how we wish others to see us. As far as I can tell, it's all about calling attention to ourselves by inspiring admiration, appreciation, and attraction. In a way, it's like attracting food. We eat up the attention, appreciation, admiration and build our self-confidence by observing that we have the power to attract attention.

I don't know how others feel about that, but to me it feels kind of repulsive, yucky and gross. It also seems sort of childish - like pulling on mother's apron strings & wanting mom's attention - mommy, mommy, (or daddy, daddy) look at me - look at me - see what I'm doing. There's some kind of need for validation, approval, & praise. It just seems so needy and pathetic. As if we don't exist unless we are seen or noticed or acknowledged by others. Maybe that makes some sense when we're infants, toddlers, children. But it makes less sense to me that adults would constantly need this applause from our friends, family, and even strangers. Or, at least, I currently see it this way.

Hopefully the pendulum of extreme sexy dressing is swinging towards a more modest style of dressing. I, for one, welcome it. Sometimes I have the impression that the extreme sexualized dress codes of the past many years were a way of forcing people to focus on what people looked like externally in order to distract people from noticing what's going on inside their minds & hearts. Like the matador waving the red cape in order to distract the bull from the matador's sword. Preventing people from actually SEEing us as human beings to be related to and restricting us to seeing us a human things to be treated as objects.

If this more modest clothing trend is because of the Muslim influence, I salute this particular contribution towards dulling the razor blade edge to our wild, wild west. Putin's influence in Russia towards a more conservative and reasonable approach to international relations as well as traditional cultural and artistic modes of expression are also welcome by me personally.
 

Alada

The Living Force
13 Twirling Triskeles said:
If this more modest clothing trend is because of the Muslim influence, I salute this particular contribution towards dulling the razor blade edge to our wild, wild west. Putin's influence in Russia towards a more conservative and reasonable approach to international relations as well as traditional cultural and artistic modes of expression are also welcome by me personally.
For a style of dress to be considered 'modest' wouldn't the prevailing culture also have to be taken into consideration? To insist on wearing what the prevailing culture may see as strange and unusual, and/or even demeaning to women, doesn't that fly in the face of modesty? Is it's own kind of narcissism and attention seeking, albeit disguised as 'morality' or 'modesty'.

Particularly within western cultures, wouldn't modest clothing be that generally went unnoticed within the broader context of everything around it? It can still look great/be fashionable but not draw attention? Especially if it's hooked up to the idea of religion, where having to wear specific clothing that sets one apart as different or 'speshul' doesn't seem genuinely modest, only superficially so.
 

msante

Dagobah Resident
FOTCM Member
13 Twirling Triskeles said:
There has been some discussion about how what we women wear sends a signal to the universe about how we see ourselves and how we wish others to see us. As far as I can tell, it's all about calling attention to ourselves by inspiring admiration, appreciation, and attraction. In a way, it's like attracting food. We eat up the attention, appreciation, admiration and build our self-confidence by observing that we have the power to attract attention.

I don't know how others feel about that, but to me it feels kind of repulsive, yucky and gross. It also seems sort of childish - like pulling on mother's apron strings & wanting mom's attention - mommy, mommy, (or daddy, daddy) look at me - look at me - see what I'm doing. There's some kind of need for validation, approval, & praise. It just seems so needy and pathetic. As if we don't exist unless we are seen or noticed or acknowledged by others. Maybe that makes some sense when we're infants, toddlers, children. But it makes less sense to me that adults would constantly need this applause from our friends, family, and even strangers. Or, at least, I currently see it this way.
Well, maybe in a sense it is so, many people try to grasp attention dressing in some way, but it is not the only way to do it. Many times we, the adult people, act looking for others' attention in different ways: maybe trying to look smart, or being cheerful and friendly, or pleasing others, or being the better doing something, etc... I think that It is not just about dressing, it is about our everyday actions. And I agree with you, we are adults, but you will see that it is very difficult find an adult that have not wounds from his/her childhood; so it is understandable that most of people act in one sense or another sometimes as child and looking validation from others.

That's why I cannot see it as pathetic, repulsive, yucky or gross,... just it's the life. IMO we should try to be compassionate toward people that seek this kind of attention, and also be good Workers and look for this kind of attitudes in ourselves. Without much effort I can find in myself many opportunities in which I did something, at least partially, looking for approval or a "pat on the back".

I could be wrong but you look a little angry about all this stuff. IMO the emotions that you tell us feel sounds a little disproportionate for the situations that you are describing. I wonder if there will be a personal factor on your side in this?
 

Laura

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
It sounds to me like a liberal backed media promotion. And what is "modest" about covering the head? Yeah, I know it is just part of it, but what is going on here is not about "modesty" per se.
 
Alada said:
13 Twirling Triskeles said:
If this more modest clothing trend is because of the Muslim influence, I salute this particular contribution towards dulling the razor blade edge to our wild, wild west. Putin's influence in Russia towards a more conservative and reasonable approach to international relations as well as traditional cultural and artistic modes of expression are also welcome by me personally.
For a style of dress to be considered 'modest' wouldn't the prevailing culture also have to be taken into consideration? To insist on wearing what the prevailing culture may see as strange and unusual, and/or even demeaning to women, doesn't that fly in the face of modesty? Is it's own kind of narcissism and attention seeking, albeit disguised as 'morality' or 'modesty'.

Particularly within western cultures, wouldn't modest clothing be that generally went unnoticed within the broader context of everything around it? It can still look great/be fashionable but not draw attention? Especially if it's hooked up to the idea of religion, where having to wear specific clothing that sets one apart as different or 'speshul' doesn't seem genuinely modest, only superficially so.
Well, I just did some searches about modesty. OMG. It seems that even modesty is now being touted as the newest form of sexy. Should I even be shocked? Isn't everything coopted for the predators' benefit?

I think the article sparked my interest only partially because of the modesty considerations - which were initially triggered by reading the Arianna post.

What really intrigued me was the photograph in the original article showing the head coverings. I've always loved head coverings and have played around with and created numerous designs of my own. And I've always had a fondness for wearing hats of every kind.

So when I saw that picture, it excited me because I could see the possibilities and potentials for creating more fun as well as practical head coverings.

Well, if we get our mini ice age, and we lose our grid, head coverings might be pretty handy. As I mentioned, I already use scarves & head coverings of various fabrics and designs. Mostly to protect my hair from cigarette smoke discoloring it as well as for warmth.

I've been examining my own attitudes about this subject since considering your replies.

What I realize is how much I yearn to see people dressed in almost anything other than western style clothing. I would love to live in a community where people could comfortably wear every type of tribal or traditional clothing and accessories of every culture everywhere. If I never ever saw another pair of jeans, t-shirt, ball cap or sneakers, I would feel like I literally lived in paradise.

It's a matter of aesthetics for me. There are certainly many western clothing designs that I do find aesthetically pleasing. But I rarely see ordinary people wearing them.

One of the greatest disappointments for me during my travels was seeing the cloned western dress styles being worn by people in cultures as diverse as Mexico, India, Bali, Thailand, Singapore.

Oh. I wasn't even thinking about the hook up to religion - even though I mentioned Muslim in my original post. I was thinking more cultural than religious. Mostly though I'm just seeing attractive head coverings as I mentioned above.

Unfortunately, there weren't any pictures of any actual clothing. Just head coverings. I would love to see what kinds of clothing designs these women come up with. And wouldn't it be refreshing to wear stylish clothing designed by women rather than men? And by non-western women at that? I'm looking forward to seeing what they'll come up with.

I'm seeing this rather differently than you are. I specifically made reference to the thread about Arianna Grande and how wearing the kinds of revealing clothes that have beome the prevailing de-rigeur style in western culture has contributed towards more objectification of women. The issue of what women wear and how what we wear leads to us being treated as sex objects was brought up as a contributing factor in Arianna's being treated as a sex object.

There are so many arguments and counter-arguments about how we, as women, contribute to our own victimization and objectification. The clothes we wear are only one aspect.

Maybe it's less about attention and more about the specific kind of attention we are seeking to avoid. I think we will be objectified regardless of what we wear. For me personally, I find it less objectionable to receive the sort of admiration one would bestow upon a beautiful work of art or inspiring piece of music than to elicit lust or desire.

Certainly we can limit ourselves to what western designers offer as modest clothing. Been there & done that. I was interested in expanding my options for modest clothing that I would personally find more aesthetically pleasing than what I've seen so far from the western offerings.
 

msante

Dagobah Resident
FOTCM Member
13 Twirling Triskeles said:
I've been examining my own attitudes about this subject since considering your replies.

What I realize is how much I yearn to see people dressed in almost anything other than western style clothing. I would love to live in a community where people could comfortably wear every type of tribal or traditional clothing and accessories of every culture everywhere. If I never ever saw another pair of jeans, t-shirt, ball cap or sneakers, I would feel like I literally lived in paradise.
Yes, I can understand this feeling. I feel in that way sometimes, I feel disgusted about not just western style clothing but about western values in general. Consumism, superficiality, lack of responsability, individualism, etc. IMO all these are pieces of the same puzzle. And yes, as you say, it seems just another way of the depredator's work, a way to distract from the important things. But I do not think that extremes positions or partials views are a good place to see all that. Many live in this cultural context and it is very difficult be totally "impervious" to the cultural flow (although would be desiderable to do our best effort to minimize this kind of influence IMO).

13 Twirling Triskeles said:
I'm seeing this rather differently than you are. I specifically made reference to the thread about Arianna Grande and how wearing the kinds of revealing clothes that have beome the prevailing de-rigeur style in western culture has contributed towards more objectification of women. The issue of what women wear and how what we wear leads to us being treated as sex objects was brought up as a contributing factor in Arianna's being treated as a sex object.

There are so many arguments and counter-arguments about how we, as women, contribute to our own victimization and objectification. The clothes we wear are only one aspect.
I tend to see the clothing more like a symptom than a cause. The people dress in some way because they need attention or validation from others and they have grown in a cultural context that focus in the superficial aspects of our reality (physicality, the material side so to say). Of course one of the consecuence of all this is objetivation of humans being.

13 Twirling Triskeles said:
Maybe it's less about attention and more about the specific kind of attention we are seeking to avoid. I think we will be objectified regardless of what we wear. For me personally, I find it less objectionable to receive the sort of admiration one would bestow upon a beautiful work of art or inspiring piece of music than to elicit lust or desire.
I am not so sure about it. I think that there is different ways to divert people from what really is important. For someone can work try to look nice and attractive to others through clothing, and for others can work try to be a famous artist for example. IMO ultimately it seems to be all about intentions. And we, being complex creatures, often have more than an only one intention about what we do. In fact many times we have contradictory intentions because we have literally many little "Is" inside us with their own agendas.

EDIT: grammar and clarification...
 
msante said:
13 Twirling Triskeles said:
I've been examining my own attitudes about this subject since considering your replies.

What I realize is how much I yearn to see people dressed in almost anything other than western style clothing. I would love to live in a community where people could comfortably wear every type of tribal or traditional clothing and accessories of every culture everywhere. If I never ever saw another pair of jeans, t-shirt, ball cap or sneakers, I would feel like I literally lived in paradise.
Yes, I can understand this feeling. I feel in that way sometimes, I feel disgusted about not just western style clothing but about western values in general. Consumism, superficiality, lack of responsability, individualism, etc. IMO all these are pieces of the same puzzle. And yes, as you say, it seems just another way of the depredator's work, a way to distract from the important things. But I do not think that extremes positions or partials views are a good place to see all that. Many live in this cultural context and it is very difficult be totally "impervious" to the cultural flow (although would be desiderable to do our best effort to minimize this kind of influence IMO).
I could probably write an entire book about how what we wear influences our behaviour, attitudes, thoughts, interractions with others - and on & on. Similar to the food we eat influences our brains & bodies.

There's a reason that the fabrics & designs of office clothing reflect a corporate predator consciousness. They match and resonate with each other. They influence one's mind-set.

Just guessing that your definition of 'important things' would be those in alignment with the principles and aims of this Forum, yes? If so, then I would agree that networking helps remind us of our priorities.

As a practical consideration probably clothing could be relegated to the most basic & simple idea that clothes serve our health - as in maintaining a comfortable body temperature. Like the foods we eat. We eat to live rather than live to eat. We dress to live not live to dress. Pretty sure it helps stimulate the appetite if the foods we eat in order to live actually taste good. Because if the food tastes horrible, we're probably not gonna eat it unless we're starving to death - and even that's debatable. So we can dress for the same reasons.

My nature is to raise whatever I do to its highest art form anyway I possibly can. My natural frequency has always resonated to aesthetics, beauty, harmony, organization, what's pleasing & salubrious to the mind & senses. I could claim that this is all subjectively my own personal opinion but I would then have to discount and dismiss all the unsolicited affirmation & confirmation from others. My mind just naturally flows in the direction of improving, altering, adjusting, experimenting, creating & playing with physical world objects (including clothing) to see if I can achieve a more beautiful & aesthetically pleasing arrangement. I'm a walking Fibonacci golden mean kind of girl. LOLOL :)

13 Twirling Triskeles said:
I'm seeing this rather differently than you are. I specifically made reference to the thread about Arianna Grande and how wearing the kinds of revealing clothes that have beome the prevailing de-rigeur style in western culture has contributed towards more objectification of women. The issue of what women wear and how what we wear leads to us being treated as sex objects was brought up as a contributing factor in Arianna's being treated as a sex object.

There are so many arguments and counter-arguments about how we, as women, contribute to our own victimization and objectification. The clothes we wear are only one aspect.
msante said:
I tend to see the clothing more like a symptom than a cause. The people dress in some way because they need attention or validation from others and they have grown in a cultural context that focus in the superficial aspects of our reality (physicality, the material side so to say). Of course one of the consecuence of all this is objetivation of humans being.
Yes. That's the conclusion I've come to as well. Especially after reading the Arianna thread where someone posted that he knew someone who had sexual fantasies about women wearing burkas. Which is why the arguments and counter-arguments that what we wear can and likely does contribute to our own sexual objectification but there are also so many other factors that need considering. In other words, it's not a black & white issue. Objectification isn't going to stop because we wear more modest clothing. We're dealing with mechanical thinking, hormones, and a whole host of other factors too numerous to name.

But I don't think the fact that what I wear may or may not contribute towards my objectifiation excuses me from not taking whatever steps I can take to wear more modest clothing. Which is what I do anyway so it's not a big deal.

I'm not sure what the consensus on the Forum is with respect to wearing modest clothing. I'm guessing that we'd pretty much all agree that it's preferable. And with that and the Arianna thread in mind, I posted the article about modest clothing designers who happen to be Muslim and expressed my joy that they are doing so because I see it as a service to all women who prefer to wear modest clothing. The fact that Muslim women would feel and see the need for more modest clothing makes perfect sense to me. It's a part of their own culture so of course it would make sense for them to introduce this into the discourse.

To discount it or be suspicious because it's coming from Muslims which must automatically make it liberal propaganda is something I hadn't considered. It's a good thing to consider because we know the attempts of the liberal left to control the narrative and influence our political views is over the top these days. And it is not beyond their nefarious minds to use my own natural attraction to aesthetically pleasing clothing to use my own nature against me. I believe it's been called - there's a program for everyone. And I think they just hooked me on my own program. Pretty darn clever of them. Thanks Laura for the wake up alarm. I gotta hand it to these guys though. They truly are awesome in their skills & talents and abilities to ensnare me. I am totally laughing out loud at myself for being so easily duped and deceived. Good lesson. I'll hopefully be more alert and on my guard for more of these little hooks and traps. Networking works. Without the feedback, I would never have seen that even my aesthetics could be a program and could make me vulnerable to deception. Wow. They never miss a trick do they.

Thanks very much. Aaargh!

13 Twirling Triskeles said:
Maybe it's less about attention and more about the specific kind of attention we are seeking to avoid. I think we will be objectified regardless of what we wear. For me personally, I find it less objectionable to receive the sort of admiration one would bestow upon a beautiful work of art or inspiring piece of music than to elicit lust or desire.
msante said:
I am not so sure about it. I think that there is different ways to divert people from what really is important. For someone can work try to look nice and attractive to others through clothing, and for others can work try to be a famous artist for example. IMO ultimately it seems to be all about intentions. And we, being complex creatures, often have more than an only one intention about what we do. In fact many times we have contradictory intentions because we have literally many little "Is" inside us with their own agendas.
Yes to all you say. I'm still reeling from the happy shock of realizing how easily I may have been hijacked due to my natural aesthetic resonance. Talk about using the light against me. I just got hoisted on my own petard me thinks. LOL

Don't know if I'm connecting a dot that isn't really relevant, but I just had the thought about STS forces disguising themselves as angelic or alien beings of light and easily deceiving people. Did something similar just happen to me too? Did I just respond to a 'bid' tied to my own aesthetic programming?
 

Laura

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
I think it is helpful to understand the origins of the idea that women ought to be draped and have their heads covered: it is a legacy from the Enochian Book of the Watchers (3rd, 2nd century BC) where all the evils of mankind were blamed on angels coming to earth and mating with human women, thus giving birth to "mighty men" which have all the characteristics of psychopaths. That story, in itself, is similar to the Greek legend of the Titans and may actually be describing cometary bombardment and the resulting mutations of humans that produced a particular variant of psychopaths. See my book "Comets and the Horns of Moses" for some details and arguments.

The clue that this comes from ideas that were fermenting around Enochian apocalypticism, which heavily influenced the apostle Paul, is in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16. I've bolded the important bit in the passage below:

2 I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the traditions just as I passed them on to you. 3 But 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 But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is the same as having her head shaved. 6 For if a woman does not cover her head, she might as well have her hair cut off; but if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should cover her head.

7 A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. 8 For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; 9 neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 10 It is for this reason that a woman ought to have authority over her own head, because of the angels. 11 Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. 12 For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God.

13 Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14 Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, 15 but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering. 16 If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God.
This passage is probably NOT originally Pauline but deutero-Pauline, i.e. interpolated by followers of Paul who had particular theological axes to grind, mainly diminishing the importance of women. Paul, himself wrote:

Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
People can argue all they want about context, but Paul was pretty clear here and the above passage about veils and that nonsense does not even "feel" like Paul.

So, even though Paul, himself, was much influenced by the Enochian traditions and ideas, his focus was elsewhere and whoever wrote the 1 Corinthian passage was really stretching in a way Paul never would have, though he was using the same materials to build his theological point: Book of the Watchers. If women stay covered up, the "angels" won't get attracted to them and corrupt the purity of the group/race and bring on horrible disasters.

Obviously, immodesty has its own issues, but this head covering business, and covering women up completely in big, ugly sacks, is ridiculous. Women can, and should be attractive though certainly, the extent to which sexiness has been emphasized has taken all the mystery out of it and had placed the emphasis on raw, animal sex, and not where it belongs, on psychological and spiritual compatibility.

I noted in another thread the fact that whoever wrote the Koran was reading and utilizing Paul's letters (and pseudepigraphic apocalypses), and obviously after redaction because proto-koranic texts came much later, and this is just another bit of evidence that this was the case. Here is the post:

Laura said:
For those interested in deep/secret history, scholar Carlos A. Segovia has established (IMO after reading his arguments) that Paul's Abrahamic argument in Romans 4 and Galatians 3 - which he originally put forward to substantiate his core claim to the inclusion of the gentiles in God's people - was polemically reworked and reframed in a number of texts. First, by Christians who used it to EXCLUDE Jews entirely, and then, by someone working up the proto-Islamic Koran who combined those ideas with the pseudepigraphic text "The Apocalypse of Abraham" to create the core/founding myth of Islam.

He notes that it is clear that the editors of the Qur'an knew of Galatians 3 and were familiar with its Christian interpretation. He writes:

The Qur'an is surely more than an apocalypse, but if it may also be defined as an apocalypse - and I think it should be, due to the revelatory and eschatological concerns that lie at its very center - then I see it as an apocalypse entirely based upon the Apocalypse of Abraham. For all that we can find in the Qur'an (its non-negotiable monotheistic claims and polemics, which are, in fact, traced back to Abraham; its many allusions to a revelation received from above whose first witness was Abraham; the announcement of God's judgment as inevitable; and the distinction between Abraham's followers and everyone else in both the present and the future life; and so on) is already present in the Apocalypse [of Abraham]. ... The Jews are no longer God's chosen ones (as was claimed in Apoc. Ab. 22:5); they have been replaced by the "foremost" in faith and monotheism (Q 56:10). Actually, this is the only verse in the Qur'an where such a replacement explicitly takes place. Some may object that there ultimately is no supersessionism in the Qur'an; that the Qur'an accepts all prior revelations while simultaneously denouncing their intrinsic limitations and their eventual corruption by their own followers. The Quranic reuse of the Apocalypse of Abraham proves that this is not so: the new Umma is expressly said to substitute Israel. But then, it could be legitimately argued that the "sectarian milieu" out of which Islam emerged was, in fact, a Christian one.

The Apocalypse of Abraham provided the editors of the quranic text ... with the very core of the myth itself. It also provided them with its precise apocalyptical form. Once readapted, it offered them a place to inscribe their ideological construction. ...

It is fascinating to see that withing a single text of as yet unclear provenance, such as is the Qur'an, Paul's Abrahamic argument as re-framed by the church is subliminally (re)used against the Jews in a passage that puts forth a new founding myth that literally draws upon the post-Pauline Jewish discussion of that very argument in the Apocalypse of Abraham, to which the quranic myth is therefore fully indebted. The quite vexing fact that the apparent distinctiveness of such a new myth conceals a Christian reinterpretation of an intra-Jewish argument - as well as the textual corruptions of the latter - prevents us from assigning too much distinctiveness tho this myth itself. Hence, my hesitation to label it Islamic, for there is nothing specifically Islamic in such a myth. Perhaps this could help us understand though, as an aside, the reason why the quranic prophet is mentioned in the Qur'an (7:157-58; 62:2) as the "apostle/prophet to the gentiles."
 

msante

Dagobah Resident
FOTCM Member
13 Twirling Triskeles said:
As a practical consideration probably clothing could be relegated to the most basic & simple idea that clothes serve our health - as in maintaining a comfortable body temperature. Like the foods we eat. We eat to live rather than live to eat. We dress to live not live to dress. Pretty sure it helps stimulate the appetite if the foods we eat in order to live actually taste good. Because if the food tastes horrible, we're probably not gonna eat it unless we're starving to death - and even that's debatable. So we can dress for the same reasons.
It is an interesting point of view. I never saw it in this way. Actually I wear my jeans and t-shirt every day and just I go to work :P .

13 Twirling Triskeles said:
msante said:
I tend to see the clothing more like a symptom than a cause. The people dress in some way because they need attention or validation from others and they have grown in a cultural context that focus in the superficial aspects of our reality (physicality, the material side so to say). Of course one of the consecuence of all this is objetivation of humans being.
Yes. That's the conclusion I've come to as well. Especially after reading the Arianna thread where someone posted that he knew someone who had sexual fantasies about women wearing burkas. Which is why the arguments and counter-arguments that what we wear can and likely does contribute to our own sexual objectification but there are also so many other factors that need considering. In other words, it's not a black & white issue. Objectification isn't going to stop because we wear more modest clothing. We're dealing with mechanical thinking, hormones, and a whole host of other factors too numerous to name.

But I don't think the fact that what I wear may or may not contribute towards my objectifiation excuses me from not taking whatever steps I can take to wear more modest clothing. Which is what I do anyway so it's not a big deal.

I'm not sure what the consensus on the Forum is with respect to wearing modest clothing. I'm guessing that we'd pretty much all agree that it's preferable. And with that and the Arianna thread in mind, I posted the article about modest clothing designers who happen to be Muslim and expressed my joy that they are doing so because I see it as a service to all women who prefer to wear modest clothing. The fact that Muslim women would feel and see the need for more modest clothing makes perfect sense to me. It's a part of their own culture so of course it would make sense for them to introduce this into the discourse.
I am not sure what others think but IMO wearing modest clothing being aware about the role and effect that clothing have over others people and how it contributes to objetivation of human being is esencially good. Taking into consideration that every thing we do have an effect over our social context and the world in general, I think that pay attention to it make us more aware, responsable, and coherent with the principles and aim that we accept and make an essential part of our lives.

13 Twirling Triskeles said:
13 Twirling Triskeles said:
Maybe it's less about attention and more about the specific kind of attention we are seeking to avoid. I think we will be objectified regardless of what we wear. For me personally, I find it less objectionable to receive the sort of admiration one would bestow upon a beautiful work of art or inspiring piece of music than to elicit lust or desire.

msante said:
I am not so sure about it. I think that there is different ways to divert people from what really is important. For someone can work try to look nice and attractive to others through clothing, and for others can work try to be a famous artist for example. IMO ultimately it seems to be all about intentions. And we, being complex creatures, often have more than an only one intention about what we do. In fact many times we have contradictory intentions because we have literally many little "Is" inside us with their own agendas.
Yes to all you say. I'm still reeling from the happy shock of realizing how easily I may have been hijacked due to my natural aesthetic resonance. Talk about using the light against me. I just got hoisted on my own petard me thinks. LOL

Don't know if I'm connecting a dot that isn't really relevant, but I just had the thought about STS forces disguising themselves as angelic or alien beings of light and easily deceiving people. Did something similar just happen to me too? Did I just respond to a 'bid' tied to my own aesthetic programming?
Well, I can not respond with certainly but I think that eveyone in one sense or another fall in this trap more than one time. It seems that it is part of the "game" here: they trying to divert and make us slaves, and we trying to learn to avoid it. IMO the Universe have beauty everywhere, and resonate with it can not be bad in any way (at least it is my opinion). But I suspect that there is two kind of beauty, an objective beauty and a subjective beauty. I think that the objective one is more about a perfect mathematical harmony, and the subjective one is more about our little, personal, and temporal view of the world and is a projection of our inner state. To learn to distinguish both maybe can be a gratifying and beneficial work.

Just my thoughs...
 

loreta

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Covering you hair is not modesty, for me. Hair is life, so why to cover one part of you that is life ?Modesty is something that is in your head.

I like simplicity about clothing. And the most important thing is to feel good at what you wear. Not having much money to spend on clothing (I prefer to buy books) I buy always second hand clothing and what is important for me is to feel "a l'aise". I don't care what is the fashion, what people think about how I put clothes on me, I don't care. I just want to feel good, be able to move, and to feel protected: when it is very hot, something for hot weather, when is it is cold, something for the cold. Colors are important also, but the colors I love, not the fashion colors.

Jeans are perfect, they are for me symbol of simplicity. You can be sexy with jeans also, beautiful, attractive. Cotton is good for your body, natural and perfect for hot temperatures.

The other day I was looking at women, how they were dressed and how clothes are a sort of body language. It is interesting to study. But as I don't care how people think or can think about how I dress I don't care and don't judge how people are dressed. What is important is the personality of the person, what is under the clothes. :)

Evidently you try to put clothes that are a sort of extension of you. So if you are modest, you will wear modest clothes. If you are eccentric you will wear eccentric clothing. What is important is put on you what you like, not what is fashion.

When I was living in places that were very cold I used to put scarfs on my head, to protect me. Hairs are a beautiful part of the body, they protect also your head. They are part of your personality, and they need air and sun.
 

mkrnhr

SuperModerator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Laura said:
I think it is helpful to understand the origins of the idea that women ought to be draped and have their heads covered: it is a legacy from the Enochian Book of the Watchers (3rd, 2nd century BC) where all the evils of mankind were blamed on angels coming to earth and mating with human women, thus giving birth to "mighty men" which have all the characteristics of psychopaths. That story, in itself, is similar to the Greek legend of the Titans and may actually be describing cometary bombardment and the resulting mutations of humans that produced a particular variant of psychopaths. See my book "Comets and the Horns of Moses" for some details and arguments.

The clue that this comes from ideas that were fermenting around Enochian apocalypticism, which heavily influenced the apostle Paul, is in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16. I've bolded the important bit in the passage below:

2 I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the traditions just as I passed them on to you. 3 But 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 But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is the same as having her head shaved. 6 For if a woman does not cover her head, she might as well have her hair cut off; but if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should cover her head.

7 A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. 8 For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; 9 neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 10 It is for this reason that a woman ought to have authority over her own head, because of the angels. 11 Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. 12 For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God.

13 Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14 Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, 15 but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering. 16 If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God.
This passage is probably NOT originally Pauline but deutero-Pauline, i.e. interpolated by followers of Paul who had particular theological axes to grind, mainly diminishing the importance of women. Paul, himself wrote:

Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
People can argue all they want about context, but Paul was pretty clear here and the above passage about veils and that nonsense does not even "feel" like Paul.

So, even though Paul, himself, was much influenced by the Enochian traditions and ideas, his focus was elsewhere and whoever wrote the 1 Corinthian passage was really stretching in a way Paul never would have, though he was using the same materials to build his theological point: Book of the Watchers. If women stay covered up, the "angels" won't get attracted to them and corrupt the purity of the group/race and bring on horrible disasters.

Obviously, immodesty has its own issues, but this head covering business, and covering women up completely in big, ugly sacks, is ridiculous. Women can, and should be attractive though certainly, the extent to which sexiness has been emphasized has taken all the mystery out of it and had placed the emphasis on raw, animal sex, and not where it belongs, on psychological and spiritual compatibility.

I noted in another thread the fact that whoever wrote the Koran was reading and utilizing Paul's letters (and pseudepigraphic apocalypses), and obviously after redaction because proto-koranic texts came much later, and this is just another bit of evidence that this was the case. Here is the post:
In an article that I personally found rather weak on the inclusion of Enochic material in the Quran through the messianic/sectarian environment in 7th century Arabia, I found this remark to be interesting:

Finally, in q. 33:33, the following words are addressed to the wives of the Prophet: ‘Stay in your houses and do not make a display, like that of the first Jahiliyya [al-jāhiliyya al-ūlā].’ The reference here would seem to be to the women who had been taught to beautify themselves by the angels (1Enoch 8:1), an innovation which was singled out for particular reprehension by Tertullian in a number of writings. The angels were responsible for the means of ‘womanly ostentation’ such as jewellery and eye makeup; it was on account of the angels that women had to be veiled, he claimed.(90) The Book of Watchers, like the Jubilees and Christian works, sees the flood as the first global disaster to overtake mankind, prefiguring the last judgement.(91) In the Epistle of Enoch, another part of 1Enoch, the flood is explicitly called ‘the first end.’(92) That the first end should have been preceded by the first period of ignorance/barbarism is a natural inference, and the Christians seem to have made it too, though the one example I have come across lacks the eschatological perspective.(93) Some exegetes duly assign the first Jahiliyya mentioned in the Qurʾān to the period before the flood, either between Adam and Noah or between Idrīs and Noah...
Notes said:
90 VanderKam, ‘1Enoch, Enochic Motifs’ (above, note 10), pp. 51, 68; cf. also p. 66, on Clement of Alexandria.
91 J.C. VanderKam, ‘The Righteousness of Noah,’ in G.W.E. Nickelsburg (ed.), Ideal Figures in Ancient Judaism, Chicago 1980, pp. 25f.
92 1Enoch 93:4.
93 Epiphanius identifies the ‘first sect’ as Barbarism (barbarismos), which lasted from Adam to Noah, marked by Adam’s fall, Cain’s fratricide and the introduction of sorcery, witchcraft, licentiousness, adultery and iniquity in the time of Jared, Enoch’s father; see Epiphanius, Panarion, Book i, ed. H. Kroll, Leipzig 1915 (English transl. by F. Williams, Leiden 1987), Proem i, 3, 1f.; Anacephalaeosis 1, 1, section 1.
Not a revolutionary smoking gun but an interesting possibility nontheless.
 
Top Bottom