Does the Hijab Reflect “Adherence to Sharia Law”?

The recent outrage surrounding Jeanine Pirro’s remarks concerning the hijab is a reflection of the abysmal degree to which common sense is under assault in America.

Context: While discussing Muslim Congresswoman Ilhan Omar’s anti-Israel remarks with Nancy Pelosi, Pirro said:

This is not who your party is. Your party is not anti-Israel. She is. Think about this, she’s not getting this anti-Israel sentiment doctrine from the Democratic Party, so if it’s not rooted in the party, where is she getting it from? Think about it. Omar wears a hijab which according to the Quran 33:59 tells women to cover so they won’t get molested. Is her adherence to this Islamic doctrine indicative of her adherence to Sharia law, which in itself is antithetical to the United States Constitution?

Common sense dictates that this is a fair question. If Muslims meticulously follow the minor, “outer” things of Islam, including dress codes, logically speaking, does that not indicate that they likely also follow, or at the very least accept as legitimate, the major, “inner” themes of Islam—such as enmity for and deceit of the infidel, and (when capable) jihad?

Tawfik Hamid, a former aspiring terrorist, accurately observes that “the proliferation of the hijab is strongly correlated with increased terrorism…. Terrorism became much more frequent in such societies as Indonesia, Egypt, Algeria, and the U.K. after the hijab became prevalent among Muslim women living in those communities.”

The reason for this correlation is clear: Islamic Sharia commands jihad (“terrorism”) against unbelievers no less than it commands Muslim women to don the hijab. Where one proliferates—evincing a societal adherence to Sharia—so too will the other naturally follow.

In other words, Muslims who adhere to non-problematic aspects of Islam also tend to adhere to problematic aspects of Islam. Why? Because the selfsame source—Sharia—contains both “moderate” and “radical” teachings (distinctions that exist only in the Western mind).

In this regard, consider the findings of an important 2011 Arabic language article titled (in translation), “The Truth about the Moderate Muslim as Seen by the West and its Muslim Followers.” Its author, Dr. Ahmed Ibrahim Khadr writes:

Islamic researchers are agreed that what the West and its followers call “moderate Islam” and “moderate Muslims” is simply a slur against Islam and Muslims, a distortion of Islam… They also see that the division of Islam into “moderate Islam” and “radical Islam” has no basis in Islam—neither in its doctrines and rulings, nor in its understandings or reality.

Khadr goes on to list all the many things true (“radical”) Muslims accept—including enmity for and jihad against non-Muslims, the execution of apostates and blasphemers, and men’s dominance over women. Among his findings is this sentence: “Radicals embrace the wearing of hijabs and niqabs; moderates reject it.”

The correlation between outer signs of piety and inner radicalization are hardly limited to the hijab. Consider the Muslim beard, which is the defining physical characteristic of observant Muslim men no less than the veil is for observant Muslim women. Because Muhammad wanted his male followers to look different from Christians and Jews, he ordered them to “trim closely the moustache and grow the beard.”

At the same time, wherever one looks, Muslim men with mustache-less beards—such as ISIS members—are involved in “radical” activities.

In 2011, many popular Egyptian clerics (most deemed “radical” by Western standards) called on all men in Egypt to show their obedience to Islam by growing their beards. Amr Adib, a secularized Egyptian personality mocked this call on his television show: “This is a great endeavor! After all, a man with a beard can never be a thug, can never rape a woman in the street, can never set a church on fire … and can never be dishonest!”

His sarcastic point, not missed on his viewers, was that it is precisely those Muslims who follow the outer minutia of Islam who are most prone to engage in more “radical” activities, such as raping unveiled/infidel women, burning churches, and engaging in subversive tactics against the state. Towards the end of the program, Adib spoke more seriously, saying this issue is not about growing a beard, but rather, “once you grow your beard, you give proof of your commitment and fealty to everything in Islam.”

Similarly, one can say that, once you don the hijab, “you give proof of your commitment and fealty to everything in Islam.”

This is evident in that the reverse is also true: stripping off the hijab is one of the chief ways that nominal Muslim women living under Islamic rule celebrate their break from or defiance against Sharia. Recall for instance the many Iranian women who during protests against the Islamist regime publicly stripped off their veils. As Maryam Rajavi, the President-elect of the National Council of Resistance of Iran, once explained “the reason for the hijab is not based on safeguarding chastity or protecting the family, but rather, like all of its suppressive laws, it’s just another method to keep the Iranian people in line” with Sharia.

That “the reason for the hijab is not based on safeguarding chastity” and more about demonstrating conformity to Sharia can also be seen in the sex jihad phenomenon: the first thing young Muslim women did before traveling to Syria to provide lonely Islamic State fighters with “comfort” was to don the hijab: both deeds—dressing “modestly” but also effectively engaging in prostitution—were not seen as contradictory but rather proof that they were good Muslim women following the rules of Islam and making sacrifices to empower it.

Does all this mean that a woman who wears a hijab is a clandestine ISIS member committed to the fall of America? Of course not. It simply means that, connecting the dots between outer and inner forms of Muslim piety, and raising it as a question, as Pirro did, is as commonsensical and prudent as complaining about it is not.

For those who don’t know, the wearing of the cross is a voluntary act, not a coerced act. A cross wouldn’t be mentioned in the Old Testament because the New Testament hadn’t happened yet. Crosses were adopted following the death of Christ, along with lamb and fish symbols. Crosses can be worn as jewelry by nonbelievers; Christians shake the dust of those nonbelievers off their sandals and keep walking on by. Haijbs can’t be worn by nonbelievers without mohamadeans burning the house down and killing all the occupants along with the person selling the hijab in the first place, for blasphemy:

History:
“The practice of wearing crosses around the neck dates from the early church. The precise reason why Christians began wearing crosses has to do with martyrdom, specifically beheading. In the early centuries of the church, when many Christians were put to death as a result of confessing belief in Christ, the most common way to die (sometimes following a series of tortures) was by beheading. The wearing of the cross about the neck (and keep in mind that the cross would usually have been tucked in where nobody could see it) was a reminder to the wearer of the kind of confession he or she may be asked to give. It was also a symbol that the wearer was willing to give that kind of confession—-that the wearer would indeed confess Christ even to the point of beheading or any other kind of martyrdom....

“...Crosses were so venerated in the church that there are even early canons forbidding the placement of crosses in tile work on the floors of churches (so that they would not be stepped on!). This alone shows their respect and veneration for the cross. Some modern Christians have asserted that the cross is a hideous reminder of the death of Christ. But early Christians viewed it as the altar upon which the most beautiful sacrifice was made—a sacrifice of love made by God for his people. It is in this sense that the making of the sign of the cross over one’s self continues to be for many Christian groups the sign of the friendship between God and man.”

“...Added: It is common to read or hear that early Christians did not use or wear the cross. This is not accurate. Christians both used and wore the cross quite often. Both Tertullian and Minucius Felix (2nd century writers) refer to early Christians as “devotees of the cross” and make it clear that they used it extensively. To Felix in particular this was somewhat scandalous and strange (he was not a Christian).

“...To where do we attribute the idea that Christians did not use the cross? This comes from a confusion of a standard cross with a crucifix, the latter having a likeness of the body of Christ on it. The 82nd canon of the 3rd general assembly held at Constantinople (6th Oecumenical) [680 AD] makes it clear that while crucifixes were not unknown, they were not the most common expression of the cross. Up till that time, most crosses seem to have had a lamb in front of them to represent Christ. Commentary on the canon suggests that the practice of using the lamb started as a way to disguise the meaning of the cross from unbelievers.

“...As for those who wore the cross, the earliest example I can think of off the top of my head would be that of St. Anthony the Great.[251-356AD aka ‘father of all monks’] Sources differ as to whether the cross was worn around the neck or stitched onto his tunic. It may even be both. Of course, his was a T shaped cross (I say “of course,” because many call this form “St. Anthony’s cross”). Clement of Alexandria and Paulinus of Nola in the two centuries following also mention the devotion to the cross on the part of the church, so that it appears to have had a long, continuous history.”

https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/28075/why-do-some-christians-wear-crosses

https://www.biblestudytools.com/galatians/6-14.html

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.