«(...) The West interprets veiling as repression of women and suppression of their sexuality. But when I travelled in Muslim countries and was invited to join a discussion in women-only settings within Muslim homes, I learned that Muslim attitudes toward women's appearance and sexuality are not rooted in repression, but in a strong sense of public versus private, of what is due to God and what is due to one's husband. It is not that Islam suppresses sexuality, but that it embodies a strongly developed sense of its appropriate channelling - toward marriage, the bonds that sustain family life, and the attachment that secures a home. (...)No cristianismo, o sexo conjugal e a fertilidade são bençãos, como no judaísmo, donde provem.
(...) I put on a shalwar kameez and a headscarf in Morocco for a trip to the bazaar. Yes, some of the warmth I encountered was probably from the novelty of seeing a Westerner so clothed; but, as I moved about the market - the curve of my breasts covered, the shape of my legs obscured, my long hair not flying about me - I felt a novel sense of calm and serenity. I felt, yes, in certain ways, free.
Nor are Muslim women alone. The Western Christian tradition portrays all sexuality, even married sexuality, as sinful. Islam and Judaism never had that same kind of mind-body split. So, in both cultures, sexuality channeled into marriage and family life is seen as a source of great blessing, sanctioned by God. (...)»
Phyllis Chesler, na sua reacção ao artigo de Wolfe, sugere algumas explicações para a torrente de fina hipocrisia da apologista do Islão: mercenarismo e/ou calculismo político.
Via Gates of Vienna.
Addendum: aparentemente, Wolf não apreciou particularmente a reacção de Chesler, a quem exige correcções e um pedido de desculpa, o que já mereceu reacção de Chesler. Também o comentário de Glazov ao artigo de Wolf suscitou a sua reacção e uma réplica daquele.