A naked society except fom shame

   The Islamic dress code, i.e. the hijab and its accessories, is imposed by force from above,    and is not an underlying response to the reality of harmful naked society ! Yet it is widespread in the vast majority of regions of the world! The veil does not represent a mark of distinction or a superior identity, meaning that the veiled woman is not among the best of people, The veil and the veiling are indicative of the erasure of the “human” entity by an oppressive patriarchal authority that superficially maintains the privacy of its superior social and religious status, The veiling is associated with restricting women’s movement, exercising control over them, and expelling them from the social sphere by the patriarchal authority. The veiling is not a personal decision made by women or even some of their families, nor is it a response to rational religious calls and propaganda, It is an assault on women and all people, and it is no different from forcibly removing the veil from some women, as was done in the streets of Damascus in 1981, The Sharia dress is imposed in a more strict and aggressive manner, It is not a means of protest or social protection against vice, It is a mixture of enslavement, tyranny, and political-religious exclusion that can sometimes cover up sins, as it was said: If you are afflicted with sins, then conceal them!

  The fact that the phenomenon of the Islamic dress code, i.e. the hijab, is a political and religious one makes the social analysis of this phenomenon difficult or of limited use, because social laws do not address personal issues such as the issue of religious affiliation that imposes the hijab, which is an absolutely personal matter, Therefore, confronting the hijab requires addressing the religious assumptions that legislate it, On the other hand, this issue can be included in the matter of general political, social and personal liberation, and the defense of women’s freedom as a fundamental aspect of justice and equality for all people, i.e., a woman has the right to choose her clothes as she wants without intimidation or enticement!

 Perhaps the hijab can be approached more broadly, that is, the issue of the hijab can be analyzed from a socio-economic perspective, For example, the hijab can offer a partial solution to poverty, such as the inability to purchase expensive clothing, cosmetics, and other necessities. Hijabs and jilbabs are inexpensive and do not require significant financial investment, The hijab may also facilitate marriage opportunities for some women in a closed society that does not allow for deep acquaintance between potential spouses, or those considered for sale or purchase, and who are subject to patriarchal authority within the family, Furthermore, some women believe that marriage can liberate them from paternal authority and oppression, Others believe that a “blind” marriage allows a woman to enter the public sphere as a woman or mother, However, there is a vast difference between a female and a woman, and between a woman and a mother, in a society that severely represses the movement of any unmarried girl in the public socio-political sphere, This suppresses the formation of a feminist identity or feminist identities, unlike feminist movements worldwide, with the exception of Muslim-majority groups, such as those in Afghanistan and similar regions, Religious political entities in the region between the ocean and the gulf!

     In backward societies, control isn’t limited to the female body; it extends to the male body and mind, The male body is favored by militant religious groups over the female body because masculinity is combative and signifies the dominance of muscle over intellect, There’s no need for intellect when religious texts take its place in managing life’s affairs, Muscle fights and gains spoils that are divided among the male combatants, as has been the case in this region for centuries and continues to this day in the form of a sectarian civil war. This war, in Syria, is dominated by men and has been termed a revolution, though it bears no resemblance to one. In fact, it represents the antithesis of revolution, with the exception of certain activities during a few months in 2011, A sectarian civil war cannot be a revolution because its sectarian proponents are not revolutionary but reactionary, and a revolution is not a movement backward, The Muslim Brotherhood and its affiliates, representing sectarianism, are primarily concerned with death and martyrdom, not with human life, which they consider trivial and fleeting, despite the Brotherhood’s own professed view of life, The ground is trivial, practically focused on controllingmuslim this life and reaping its material benefits, The upper class of sheikhs did not adhere to asceticism, as evidenced by the size of Al-Shaarawi’s wealth, and the size of Al-Huwayni’s or Al-Qaradawi’s wealth, or even the militant sheikh Abu Amsha, who responded to Al-Julani’s call for donations, and donated several million dollars without fear of being asked where he got those billions from! The matter of Al-Arour’s donations to the current authority of six and a half billion is similar, for God, according to their belief, provides for whomever He wills, especially thieves and swindlers and those who carry the spear (He placed my sustenance under the shadow of my spear),Abu Amsha carried what is more deadly than Ibn Abdullah’s spear, namely the rifle and the cannon, so the great wealth came to him and he became a millionaire, just as Sheikh Al-Arour became a millionaire through theft and fraud, and just as Ibn Abdullah became a millionaire from the proceeds of the fifth of the spoils, according to the confession of the honorable Sheikh Wagdi Ghoneim!

Transforming a human being into a mujahid through devious means, including intimidation and enticement, and then pushing him to death after falsely transforming him into what the thinker Yahya bin Salama called “the supreme Muslim,” such as the martyr who is killed before he is killed, and who strives in the way of God for the spoils of Paradise and the spoils of the earth as well, we see     veiling or veiling or even imprisonment in the house as some aspects of the religious phenomenon of war, which means many things, including the packaging of women according to the formula of “Sharia dress.”

The phenomenon of religious warfare cannot coexist peacefully with the feminist mindset of a mother who doesn’t want her children to die as martyrs, or even as martyrs. The promises associated with what is called martyrdom were among the most prominent forms of controlling human destinies, One manifestation of this control was restricting  a woman’s movement, for example, when she wanted to leave the house to relieve herself, Here, the consent of a male was required, and she had to further enclose herself within thick, opaque walls, like the walls of the house itself, Here, the entire house emerges, and in one of its corners sits a trembling, fearful, terrified woman, In practice, the generous religion allows this woman three exits: the first from her mother’s womb, the second to her husband’s house, and the third to her grave!