The issue of the hijab has several levels, There is the purely personal, abstract, and trivial level,There is no exaggeration in saying that a woman should wear what she wants to wear, what makes her comfortable and what she likes, Her attire is not a matter of destiny, and public affairs have no relation to her or her clothes.

  The issue here is a personal “inclination” of hers, not a “stance” related to her surroundings or to public affairs,However, the problem at its other levels is not so abstract or trivial, The rejection of the hijab is a conscious manifestation of what is partially buried in the unconscious, and of what is perceived by the conscious mind that observes and evaluates reality, In the unconscious lies a kind of certainty that the woman is captive and coerced, and therefore, in most cases, she must wear the hijab against her will, Sometimes, this coercion manifests itself in the execution of direct, draconian, and unjust orders, such as the 16-year prison sentence for an unveiled Iranian woman who removed her hijab, and others like her! Indirect coercion through an intermediary or broker may be faith, which can be manufactured using various means, including enticement and intimidation,A woman may be convinced to wear the hijab when presented with several options, all bitter: either paradise with the hijab, or hell without it, or hell in the prisons of the mullahs of the Guardianship of the Islamic Jurist, even in Lebanese prisons when Hezbollah and its Secretary-General succeed in transforming Lebanon into the desired Guardianship of the Islamic Jurist!    

 The creature was convinced of the option of Paradise, and then the conviction could turn into a self-sufficient faith., Then the connection between veiling and the necessity of protecting oneself from the intensity of the sun or a dust storm would cease to exist, Then the woman would veil herself out of fear of the fire of Hell, regardless of whether there was a storm or intense sun or not,The connection here is between veiling and the fear of Hell or of the mullahs and their prisons, In this case, the influence of personal inclination on the behavior of the oppressed and threatened woman from all sides decreases, and the objective “situational” influence increases, The objective situational influence is part of the public matter, and attending to the public matter is a social duty, Therefore, we intervene strongly and condemn the punishment of the Iranian woman’s imprisonment for sixteen years because of her refusal to wear the hijab,The prison of the Iranian Supreme Leader is a real, visible, and tangible Hell, while the Hell of Heaven is a matter of faith and hypothetical and has no relation to reason.

  The issue of the hijab cannot be separated from the issue of religion, because religion is the believers, it is their way of understanding and perceiving religion, If they are oppressed in the name of religion, then religion is oppressive., The imprisonment of the Iranian woman for sixteen years is an injustice committed by the believers, i.e., religion, even if religion is fortified with barriers that obstruct criticism, which does not please the believers, because criticism, as they claim, wounds the divine essence, and it is not permissible, in their opinion, for the defiled human to transgress against the divine sanctity, We are not bound by those prohibitions, nor are we afraid of fortifications and barriers, nor do we accept injustice from any side that comes from it. Man wants progress, advancement, and the consecration of his humanity, even if all of that contradicts religious or human constants, There is no escaping the need to criticize, deconstruct, and analyze all aspects of life, regardless of the source of the mechanism that controls it, whether it is a sacred divine or a defiled earthly one.

  Nations have only progressed by confronting obstacles and impediments to progress, whatever their source. Otherwise, it means remaining in backwardness, which does not remain at a fixed level, Backwardness also has its own dynamics, which gradually increase its catastrophicness until it leads to the annihilation of society, In fact, the peoples of this region are in a state of true social death!

  Many believers, in defending their positions promoting the hijab, proceed from a perspective that considers critics of the hijab to be encroaching on women’s independence and interfering in matters that don’t concern them. They interpret criticism of the hijab as promoting nudity, as if a woman who doesn’t wear a headscarf is naked! The problem here has a logical structure. First, the imposition of the hijab through intimidation and enticement, such as sixteen years imprisonment in addition to the threat of hellfire, compels those who see this as injustice to oppose and resist it, The perpetrator is the terrorist of intimidation and enticement, while the one who reacts is the defender of humanity and human dignity, This is the difference between the crimes of the virtuous mullahs (may God sanctify their secrets) and the humanity of the defender of human beings.