The issue of the hijab(veil) and other practices considered religious obligations has resurfaced in recent decades, which we consider a death rattle, Advocates of the hijab pose the following question: Does removing the hijab create progress? Then they volunteer to answer their own question in the negative, attempting to prove the validity of their position by presenting some examples of veiled women who achieved progress and glory, according to their assessment of glory, which they consider a personal phenomenon, just as they consider heroism a personal phenomenon. But progress, glory, and heroism are not personal phenomena, but rather social phenomena, It cannot be said that glory and progress were created in Egypt because so-and-so wore the hijab or so-and-so removed the hijab, Egypt and other Arab countries are socially backward, and there are hundreds of reasons for this backwardness, including the hijab, which has recently spread more than it did in Egypt during the time of Saad Zaghloul, Therefore, the question is flawed, and consequently, the answer to it will suffer from the same flaw!
If progress is a social phenomenon, then the decline and fall of nations or peoples is also a social phenomenon, Therefore, it is not permissible to attribute social failure solely to the hijab, However, this does not mean that the hijab does not contribute to the suppression of reason and thus contribute to decline and failure, Comparing Egypt with Japan clarifies this somewhat, Egypt’s natural or underground resources are significantly greater than Japan’s, yet religion, religiosity, and their associated practices are significantly 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, the productivity of the individual Egyptian has declined, reflecting the low productivity of Egyptian society compared to the Japanese. In this regard, there are many legitimate questions, such as how religion, religiosity, and the hijab lead to a decline in women’s productivity and, consequently, the productivity of society, given that women constitute half of society. It can be said with certainty that the veiled woman is hindered in several ways. The hijab impedes interaction and acquaintance between men and women because it obstructs mixing, resulting in distortions. In social relations, such as the quality and methods of establishing marital and family relationships, building a family, and raising children, the veil hinders the practice of many professions and activities, for example, in politics, some forms of sports, physical therapy professions, and many other professions.
On the subject of the hijab, the following question must be raised: Is the priority the appearance or the mind? Is wearing the hijab obligatory? Is forcibly removing the hijab and refusing to wear it a mistake, a crime, or a misdemeanor, as was the case in Saudi Arabia? Removing the hijab or not wearing it is still a crime in Iran, Afghanistan, and some other regions. On the other hand, there is an increasingly strict crackdown against the hijab and veiling, because veiling is practically done by 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 crackdown on the hijab in most parts of the world is not the garment itself, but rather forcing women to wear a specific garment.
The strangest thing said in the debate about the issue of removing the hijab was what Sheikh Khaled El-jendy, the former Grand Mufti of Egypt, said, by coining 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 removing them by force as appeared in a picture of the Iranian Mahsa Amini, What El-jendy said is frightening, especially for those who remove the hijab, It is like declaring war on them and directing the arrows of social violence at their chests, Khaled El-jendy 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-jendy 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 was the crux of the current 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, which is not currently suffering from civil wars? What kind of state is this that refuses the return of its citizens to their homeland? Are there governments of countries more corrupt than the governments of Arab countries?
Why do most Arab refugees throw their identity documents into the sea before reaching European shores? They do this to facilitate their asylum process, as they have become stateless, The hijab, according to some religious figures, is considered an identity, making it difficult to obtain a residency permit, and consequently, access to social assistance, housing, and other benefits, Therefore, the hijab being considered an identity is detrimental to the woman who wears it, who was forced into exile by her own government, 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 states?
,
