If glory is a social matter, then the decline and fall of nations or peoples is also a social matter, Therefore, it is not permissible to hang social failure solely on the hijab, However, this does not mean that imposing the hijab does not perpetuate the suppression of reason, and thus contribute to perpetuating decline and failure, Comparing Egypt with Japan clarifies the matter somewhat, Egypt’s natural or underground resources are greater by degrees than Japan’s, but religion, religiosity, and their associated practices are far less prevalent in Japan than in Egypt, The difference here is between 100% religiosity and its associated practices in Egypt compared to 0% in Japan, Because of religion, religiosity, the hijab, and their associated practices, such as praying five times a day, then dogmatism, faith, monotheism, fatalism, mysticism, sanctification, etc., the productivity of the individual Egyptian has declined, which reflects the decline in the productivity of Egyptian society compared to the Japanese, In this regard, there are many questions, such as: How does religion, religiosity, and the hijab lead to a decline in the productivity of women and, consequently, the productivity of society, since women constitute half of society? Here it can be said with certainty that the veiled woman is disabled in several ways, The veil hinders interaction and acquaintance between women and men because it is an obstacle to mixing, and this results in distortion in social relations such as the quality and methods of acquaintance, establishing marital and family relationships, building a family and raising children. Then the veil hinders the practice of many professions and practices, for example, in the field of politics and decision-making by a woman who is deficient in intellect and religion, or in some forms of sports or professions such as physical therapy, service in the army and many other professions.

Regarding the topic of the hijab, the following question must be raised: Is the priority appearance or intellect? Is wearing the hijab obligatory? Is removing the hijab and refusing to wear it a mistake, a crime, or a misdemeanor, as was the case in Saudi Arabia, and as is still the case in Afghanistan and some other regions, where unveiling or not wearing the hijab is criminalized? On the other hand, there is an increasing tightening of restrictions on the hijab and veiling, because veiling is practically enforced through coercion and intimidation with threats of God’s wrath and punishment in Hell, and so on. It is a black flag of war against free will. The reason for the restrictions on the hijab in most parts of the world is not the piece of cloth on the head, but rather the “forcement” of women to wear a certain garment. Coercion through threats and intimidation distorts the mind, that is, what is in the head!

The strangest thing said in the debate about the issue of the hijab was by Sheikh Khaled El-Gendy, the former Grand Mufti of Egypt, when he coined the term “insulting the hijab” in response to some girls removing their hijabs and throwing them in the air to fall to the ground, or even the murder of the Iranian Mahsa Amini because her hijab was loose,, What El-Gendy said is frightening, especially for those who remove their hijabs, It is like declaring war on them and directing the arrows of social violence at their chests,Khaled El-Gendy did not stop at the hypothesis of insult, but extended the sick hypothesis to consider the hijab a national symbol, meaning that removing the hijab is like throwing the national flag in the trash, This extremism in imposing the hijab represents a kind of blackmail and threat, as Khaled El-Gendy expressed it by saying, “Whoever insults the symbol insults Muslims and people. You will kill him and destroy him.” It would have been more accurate if he had said the opposite, meaning that the punishment will be on the one who imposes the hijab and not on the one who removes it.

Religious figures insist on the hijab because it distinguishes the Muslim woman from others, meaning it serves as an identity, But what is the benefit of a harmful identity? Almost everywhere in the world, some people are harmed by being Muslim, because the label is not associated with positive things but rather with negative ones, Among the negatives are accusations of terrorism or illegal immigration, and then the burden of costs associated with the presence of refugees, which European countries have to bear, A refugee in Europe costs the state 5,400 euros per month, Therefore, countries do not want to bear the expenses of millions of refugees for a long time, while Arab governments want the refugees to remain in Europe, This point in particular represented the core of the dispute between France and Algeria, France wants to deport some refugees, while Algeria wants these refugees to remain in France. How can we understand the actions of the Algerian government and other Arab governments, which are not currently suffering from civil wars? What kind of countries are these that refuse the return of their citizens to their homeland? Are there any governments more corrupt than the governments of Arab countries?

Why do most Arab refugees throw their identity papers into the sea before reaching the shores of Europe? They want to facilitate their asylum application because they have become stateless individuals, The hijab, as the sheikhs claim, is an identity, making it difficult to obtain a residence permit, and consequently, no social assistance, no housing, etc. Therefore, the hijab being an identity is detrimental to the veiled woman, who was forced by her country’s government to seek asylum, Even worse is the refusal of these countries to allow the refugees to return to their homeland, Are there any countries more despicable than these Arab countries?