It is never accurate to ascribe meaning to an Arabic word rooted in Islam, from a non-Arabic source rooted outside of Islam, in this case "Hijab" and "Britannica".
As Muslims, we have to get into the habit of using the sense of things as stipulated by Allah and His Messenger, otherwise we would always be in a state of conflict when it comes to creedal matters, the "Hijab" is a case in point.
There is no where in the Qur'an or Sunnah, were "Hijab" is used in the sense of a an "Islamic headscarf", rather its use is always in the sense of a "screen/barrier", for example:
"And in no way is it feasible for a mortal that Allah should speak to Him, except by revelation or from behind a Hijab/screen.." — (ash-Shura, 42:51)
وعن أم سلمة رضي الله عنها قالت: كنت عند رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم وعنده ميمونة، فأقبل ابن أم مكتوم، وذلك بعد أن أُمرنا بالحجاب فقال النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم : "احتجبا منه" فقلنا: يا رسول الله إلىس هو أعمى لا يبصرنا، ولا يعرفنا؟ فقال النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم : "أفعمياوان أنتما ألستما تبصرانه؟!" ((رواه أبو داود والترمذي: وقال حديث حسن صحيح)).
Umm Salamah (May Allah be pleased with her) said: I was with the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) along with Maimunah (May Allah be pleased with her) when Ibn Umm Maktum (May Allah be pleased with him) (who was blind) came to visit him. (This incident took place after the order of Hijab). The Prophet (ﷺ) told us to hide ourselves from him (i.e., observe Hijab). We said: "O Messenger of Allah (ﷺ), he is blind and is unable to see us, nor does he know us." He replied; "Are you also blind and unable to see him?"
So the word "Hijab" has always implied "screen/barrier" that separates not a "headscarf" that should be worn to conceal the hair from a blind man but a "screen" that blocks sight from sight, but does this imply that there are no injunctions regarding a woman's clothing style in Islam? Off course not, in fact the injunctions are not concerning a "headscarf" alone, but rather, a "head-to-ankle" clothing style, broken into two "outward" requirements.
The first outward clothing style requirement deals with covering all the head except the face, all the way across her bosom, this is called Khumurihinna (ِخُمُرِهِنَّ):
"And say to the female believers to cast down their be holdings, and preserve their private parts, and not display their adornment except such as is outward, and let them fix (Literally: strike) closely their veils over their bosoms, and not display their adornment except to their husbands, or their fathers, or their husbands' fathers, or their sons, or their husbands' sons, or their brothers, or their brothers's sons, or their sisters' sons, or their women, or what their right hands possess, or (male) followers, men without desire (Literally: without being endowed with "sexual" desire) or young children who have not yet attained knowledge of women's privacies, and they should not strike their legs (i.e., stamp their feet) so that whatever adornment they hide may be known. And repent to Allah altogether, (O) you believers, that possibly you would prosper." — (an-Nur, 24:31)
The second outward style requirement deals with covering from the kneck to the ankle, this is called Jalabibihinna (جَلَـٰبِیبِهِنَّۚ):
O you Prophet, say to your spouses and your daughters and the women of believers, that they draw their outer garments closer to them; that will (make) it likelier that they will be recognized and so will not be hurt. And Allah has been Ever-Forgiving, Ever-Merciful." — (al-Ahzab, 33:59)
So the two piece-outward clothing style requirement for "believing" women, is the khimar (Khumurihinna (ِخُمُرِهِنَّ)) and the jilbab (Jalabibihinna (جَلَـٰبِیبِهِنَّۚ)), this two piece clothing constitute the "attire" or as you put it "uniform" of a "believing" woman.
As to how "Hijab" & its false connotations, came to represent the clothing style of women in Islam, is beyond me at the moment, therefore the notion of "Hijabis" or whatever is really an identity of ignorance. Further research is needed to find the source of this poison. Nevertheless the ignorance of the basic commandements of one's dress code as it is stipulated in Islam, be it for women or men, is as a result of a long custom of abandoning the tenets of Islam, first in parts gradually then as a whole rapidly, which is why you're right to say:
"..it should be obvious that enforcing the hijab from the top down instead of fostering it from inward to outward is an insane idea. If you’re dealing with a religiosity issue in your “Islamic society”, and the only way your women will wear the hijab is if you threaten them with beatings and jail time, you’ve failed from the outset and are dealing with far larger problems than you’re willing to admit. It’s like trying to treat a samurai sword neck wound with bandages and ibuprofen."
We have already seen that "Hijab" in Islam is synonymous with "screen/barrier" while a women's clothing-style requirement in Islam, is Khumurihinna + Jalabibihinna, on the other hand I would advise we re-calibrate our language to reflect the truth, instead of "Hijab" it ought to be "Khimar & Jilbab". I have an issue with using "Islamic + anything" because this obfuscates the truth, however this is not the subject now, rather the subject rests on a simple question, whose responsibility is it to teach and inculcate girls to become "believing" women in style and lifestyle?
Obviously for us the answer to that question is clear, it is not the "Amir" who is the institutional embodiement of the non-Muslim "state", rather it is the father who is the shepherd of his family before anyone else, thus you are right in stating:
"The tough reality is that whether you get mass wearing of hijab or not depends on whether you’ve cultivated the kind of society that allows women to operate without these fears, many of which come about as a result of the cancerous, secular western society that has been pedestaled as the role model for the rest of the world. The pressure on a woman to wear the hijab should not come from the state or a society built on filthy consumerism, but from familial, spiritual, and cultural discipline."
But then we are faced with another question, who is responsible for teaching and inclucating boys to become "believing" fathers in style and lifestyle? Once again it is the father, what happens when the father fails in his responsibility who is next in line in the chain of succession of responsibility and authority?
We all know the answer to that question, and that the "Amir" is the last in the chain of succession of responsibility and authority, and his intervention is only when everyone else fails, which raises the question of what kind of principles are guiding the "Amir" or "state" in which you have such a systematic succession of failures?
There is much to discuss in this regard, but I wouldn't want to veer off course, suffice to say that, the principles by which the Islamic Republic of Iran was founded upon and is guided by, are rooted outsed the folds Islam not inside of it, in fact it says so in its name, therefore one cannot expect except what you rightly stated:
"The reasons for the protests in Iran are not surprising at all, and most of those causing chaos don’t really care much about women or “their rights” at all, but that’s not the point. Iran has a growing society of young people that clearly want to be secular but legally can’t, and the dumb and incompetent regime full of tyrannical boomers thinks the solution is just to beat and shoot them a little more, and that they’ll quiet down."
In other words, a society in chaos, between and within its members, between the fault lines of differences amongst its members, like gender, creed, age e.t.c., and within the hearts and minds of its members by the dividing lines of truth and falsehood.
I agree with much of this, thank you. As for using the definition in the beginning, that was deliberate. That is how it's defined by westerners, and this post was in part about that perception.
At the end of the day, it comes down to the men. Each Muslim man is responsible for his own family. When you relegate the duty of women wearing the hijab to the state, that indicates a gigantic failure on the part of men towards their own families.
Narrated 'Abdullah bin 'Umar: The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) as saying: Each of you is a shepherd and each of you is responsible for his flock. The amir (ruler) who is over the people is a shepherd and is responsible for his flock; a man is a shepherd in charge of the inhabitants of his household and he is responsible for his flock; a woman is a shepherdess in charge of her husband's house and children and she is responsible for them; and a man's slave is a shepherd in charge of his master's property and he is responsible for it. So each of you is a shepherd and each of you is responsible for his flock." - {Sunan Abi Dawud 2928}
Notice the man's domain of responsibility is the *the inhabitants of his household and he is responsible for his flock* Keep in mind the Prophet (ﷺ) says الرَّجُلُ in other words "man" not husband, brother, uncle, father specifically but "man" as it generally encompasses all those roles within the jurisdiction of his authority i.e. "his household", in other words authority is tied to ownership, if you have claim of ownership to a place be it directly as an owner or indirectly as potential owner as in an heir, then you have a responsibility towards the "inhabitants" occupying that place, this is not just within the confines of "familiality".
Unfortunately and am not sure how exactly, men, particularly Muslim men, have been hoodwinked into thinking "responsibility" is transferable, while that is true for boys it is not for men, therefore to assume that mode of thinking is to remain a boy which brings us back to your point that:
"Iran has a growing society of young people that clearly want to be secular but legally can’t.."
In my opinion, this "transference of responsibility" mentality by men to other men be it teacher, police, politician e.t.c. or institutions like schools, courts, parliaments, e.t.c., is indicative of a fundamental failure in recognizing who is the rightful shepherd of each flock.
Take the famous example of Adam and Hawwa, we all know both Adam and Hawwa got expelled from paradise, as a consequence of committing a crime, thus banishment from perpetual pleasure for the crime of temporal pleasure, but who got blamed?
So the two of them ate of it, (and) so their shameful parts became displayed to them, and they took to splicing upon themselves (some) of the leaves of the Garden. And Adam disobeyed his Lord; so he became misguided." — {Taha, 20:121}
The Adam, the first man got the blame, and this has been the precedent ever since, in fact Allah adds a bit more detail to what causes a man to end up in such a predicament:
We had already, beforehand, taken the covenant of Adam, but he forgot: and We found on his part no firm resolve." — {Taha, 20:115}
So "forgetfulness" of one's covenant to you Creator, which includes your duties and responsibilities as a "man" as it pertains to the varying roles you have, be it in your family or otherwise, and the lack of "firm resolve" in executing your duties and responsibilities as is expected of you are ingredients for familial and communal disaster, and when the chickens of your irresponsibility come home to roost you try to placate the extreme of laxity with the extreme of rigidity, the result is what you accurately captured:
"..the only way your women will wear the hijab is if you threaten them with beatings and jail time, you’ve failed from the outset and are dealing with far larger problems than you’re willing to admit."
There ought to be a candid discussion of the forces driving this transition from being "alert and firm" of one's duty and responsibility, to being "forgetful and lax", even though some ascribe the forces to "time/generation" which they capture in statements like:
"Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times."
I think it is much more subtle than that because time/generation is a condition not a cause of the dereliction of one's duty and responsibilities, as a man.
It is never accurate to ascribe meaning to an Arabic word rooted in Islam, from a non-Arabic source rooted outside of Islam, in this case "Hijab" and "Britannica".
As Muslims, we have to get into the habit of using the sense of things as stipulated by Allah and His Messenger, otherwise we would always be in a state of conflict when it comes to creedal matters, the "Hijab" is a case in point.
There is no where in the Qur'an or Sunnah, were "Hijab" is used in the sense of a an "Islamic headscarf", rather its use is always in the sense of a "screen/barrier", for example:
۞ وَمَا كَانَ لِبَشَرٍ أَن يُكَلِّمَهُ ٱللَّهُ إِلَّا وَحْيًا أَوْ مِن وَرَآئِ حِجَابٍ ... ٥١
"And in no way is it feasible for a mortal that Allah should speak to Him, except by revelation or from behind a Hijab/screen.." — (ash-Shura, 42:51)
وعن أم سلمة رضي الله عنها قالت: كنت عند رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم وعنده ميمونة، فأقبل ابن أم مكتوم، وذلك بعد أن أُمرنا بالحجاب فقال النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم : "احتجبا منه" فقلنا: يا رسول الله إلىس هو أعمى لا يبصرنا، ولا يعرفنا؟ فقال النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم : "أفعمياوان أنتما ألستما تبصرانه؟!" ((رواه أبو داود والترمذي: وقال حديث حسن صحيح)).
Umm Salamah (May Allah be pleased with her) said: I was with the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) along with Maimunah (May Allah be pleased with her) when Ibn Umm Maktum (May Allah be pleased with him) (who was blind) came to visit him. (This incident took place after the order of Hijab). The Prophet (ﷺ) told us to hide ourselves from him (i.e., observe Hijab). We said: "O Messenger of Allah (ﷺ), he is blind and is unable to see us, nor does he know us." He replied; "Are you also blind and unable to see him?"
So the word "Hijab" has always implied "screen/barrier" that separates not a "headscarf" that should be worn to conceal the hair from a blind man but a "screen" that blocks sight from sight, but does this imply that there are no injunctions regarding a woman's clothing style in Islam? Off course not, in fact the injunctions are not concerning a "headscarf" alone, but rather, a "head-to-ankle" clothing style, broken into two "outward" requirements.
The first outward clothing style requirement deals with covering all the head except the face, all the way across her bosom, this is called Khumurihinna (ِخُمُرِهِنَّ):
وَقُل لِّلْمُؤْمِنَـٰتِ يَغْضُضْنَ مِنْ أَبْصَـٰرِهِنَّ وَيَحْفَظْنَ فُرُوجَهُنَّ وَلَا يُبْدِينَ زِينَتَهُنَّ إِلَّا مَا ظَهَرَ مِنْهَا ۖ وَلْيَضْرِبْنَ بِخُمُرِهِنَّ عَلَىٰ جُيُوبِهِنَّ ۖ وَلَا يُبْدِينَ زِينَتَهُنَّ إِلَّا لِبُعُولَتِهِنَّ أَوْ ءَابَآئِهِنَّ أَوْ ءَابَآءِ بُعُولَتِهِنَّ أَوْ أَبْنَآئِهِنَّ أَوْ أَبْنَآءِ بُعُولَتِهِنَّ أَوْ إِخْوَٰنِهِنَّ أَوْ بَنِىٓ إِخْوَٰنِهِنَّ أَوْ بَنِىٓ أَخَوَٰتِهِنَّ أَوْ نِسَآئِهِنَّ أَوْ مَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَـٰنُهُنَّ أَوِ ٱلتَّـٰبِعِينَ غَيْرِ أُو۟لِى ٱلْإِرْبَةِ مِنَ ٱلرِّجَالِ أَوِ ٱلطِّفْلِ ٱلَّذِينَ لَمْ يَظْهَرُوا۟ عَلَىٰ عَوْرَٰتِ ٱلنِّسَآءِ ۖ وَلَا يَضْرِبْنَ بِأَرْجُلِهِنَّ لِيُعْلَمَ مَا يُخْفِينَ مِن زِينَتِهِنَّ ۚ وَتُوبُوٓا۟ إِلَى ٱللَّهِ جَمِيعًا أَيُّهَ ٱلْمُؤْمِنُونَ لَعَلَّكُمْ تُفْلِحُونَ ٣١
"And say to the female believers to cast down their be holdings, and preserve their private parts, and not display their adornment except such as is outward, and let them fix (Literally: strike) closely their veils over their bosoms, and not display their adornment except to their husbands, or their fathers, or their husbands' fathers, or their sons, or their husbands' sons, or their brothers, or their brothers's sons, or their sisters' sons, or their women, or what their right hands possess, or (male) followers, men without desire (Literally: without being endowed with "sexual" desire) or young children who have not yet attained knowledge of women's privacies, and they should not strike their legs (i.e., stamp their feet) so that whatever adornment they hide may be known. And repent to Allah altogether, (O) you believers, that possibly you would prosper." — (an-Nur, 24:31)
The second outward style requirement deals with covering from the kneck to the ankle, this is called Jalabibihinna (جَلَـٰبِیبِهِنَّۚ):
يَـٰٓأَيُّهَا ٱلنَّبِىُّ قُل لِّأَزْوَٰجِكَ وَبَنَاتِكَ وَنِسَآءِ ٱلْمُؤْمِنِينَ يُدْنِينَ عَلَيْهِنَّ مِن جَلَـٰبِيبِهِنَّ ۚ ذَٰلِكَ أَدْنَىٰٓ أَن يُعْرَفْنَ فَلَا يُؤْذَيْنَ ۗ وَكَانَ ٱللَّهُ غَفُورًۭا رَّحِيمًۭا ٥٩
O you Prophet, say to your spouses and your daughters and the women of believers, that they draw their outer garments closer to them; that will (make) it likelier that they will be recognized and so will not be hurt. And Allah has been Ever-Forgiving, Ever-Merciful." — (al-Ahzab, 33:59)
So the two piece-outward clothing style requirement for "believing" women, is the khimar (Khumurihinna (ِخُمُرِهِنَّ)) and the jilbab (Jalabibihinna (جَلَـٰبِیبِهِنَّۚ)), this two piece clothing constitute the "attire" or as you put it "uniform" of a "believing" woman.
As to how "Hijab" & its false connotations, came to represent the clothing style of women in Islam, is beyond me at the moment, therefore the notion of "Hijabis" or whatever is really an identity of ignorance. Further research is needed to find the source of this poison. Nevertheless the ignorance of the basic commandements of one's dress code as it is stipulated in Islam, be it for women or men, is as a result of a long custom of abandoning the tenets of Islam, first in parts gradually then as a whole rapidly, which is why you're right to say:
"..it should be obvious that enforcing the hijab from the top down instead of fostering it from inward to outward is an insane idea. If you’re dealing with a religiosity issue in your “Islamic society”, and the only way your women will wear the hijab is if you threaten them with beatings and jail time, you’ve failed from the outset and are dealing with far larger problems than you’re willing to admit. It’s like trying to treat a samurai sword neck wound with bandages and ibuprofen."
We have already seen that "Hijab" in Islam is synonymous with "screen/barrier" while a women's clothing-style requirement in Islam, is Khumurihinna + Jalabibihinna, on the other hand I would advise we re-calibrate our language to reflect the truth, instead of "Hijab" it ought to be "Khimar & Jilbab". I have an issue with using "Islamic + anything" because this obfuscates the truth, however this is not the subject now, rather the subject rests on a simple question, whose responsibility is it to teach and inculcate girls to become "believing" women in style and lifestyle?
Obviously for us the answer to that question is clear, it is not the "Amir" who is the institutional embodiement of the non-Muslim "state", rather it is the father who is the shepherd of his family before anyone else, thus you are right in stating:
"The tough reality is that whether you get mass wearing of hijab or not depends on whether you’ve cultivated the kind of society that allows women to operate without these fears, many of which come about as a result of the cancerous, secular western society that has been pedestaled as the role model for the rest of the world. The pressure on a woman to wear the hijab should not come from the state or a society built on filthy consumerism, but from familial, spiritual, and cultural discipline."
But then we are faced with another question, who is responsible for teaching and inclucating boys to become "believing" fathers in style and lifestyle? Once again it is the father, what happens when the father fails in his responsibility who is next in line in the chain of succession of responsibility and authority?
We all know the answer to that question, and that the "Amir" is the last in the chain of succession of responsibility and authority, and his intervention is only when everyone else fails, which raises the question of what kind of principles are guiding the "Amir" or "state" in which you have such a systematic succession of failures?
There is much to discuss in this regard, but I wouldn't want to veer off course, suffice to say that, the principles by which the Islamic Republic of Iran was founded upon and is guided by, are rooted outsed the folds Islam not inside of it, in fact it says so in its name, therefore one cannot expect except what you rightly stated:
"The reasons for the protests in Iran are not surprising at all, and most of those causing chaos don’t really care much about women or “their rights” at all, but that’s not the point. Iran has a growing society of young people that clearly want to be secular but legally can’t, and the dumb and incompetent regime full of tyrannical boomers thinks the solution is just to beat and shoot them a little more, and that they’ll quiet down."
In other words, a society in chaos, between and within its members, between the fault lines of differences amongst its members, like gender, creed, age e.t.c., and within the hearts and minds of its members by the dividing lines of truth and falsehood.
Thank you.
I agree with much of this, thank you. As for using the definition in the beginning, that was deliberate. That is how it's defined by westerners, and this post was in part about that perception.
At the end of the day, it comes down to the men. Each Muslim man is responsible for his own family. When you relegate the duty of women wearing the hijab to the state, that indicates a gigantic failure on the part of men towards their own families.
Thank you for your comment.
"At the end of the day, it comes down to the men. Each Muslim man is responsible for his own family"
That is the truth in fact the Prophet (ﷺ) clearly gave us the contours of responsibility:
حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ مَسْلَمَةَ، عَنْ مَالِكٍ، عَنْ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ دِينَارٍ، عَنْ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ عُمَرَ، أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم قَالَ " أَلاَ كُلُّكُمْ رَاعٍ وَكُلُّكُمْ مَسْئُولٌ عَنْ رَعِيَّتِهِ فَالأَمِيرُ الَّذِي عَلَى النَّاسِ رَاعٍ عَلَيْهِمْ وَهُوَ مَسْئُولٌ عَنْهُمْ وَالرَّجُلُ رَاعٍ عَلَى أَهْلِ بَيْتِهِ وَهُوَ مَسْئُولٌ عَنْهُمْ وَالْمَرْأَةُ رَاعِيَةٌ عَلَى بَيْتِ بَعْلِهَا وَوَلَدِهِ وَهِيَ مَسْئُولَةٌ عَنْهُمْ وَالَعَبْدُ رَاعٍ عَلَى مَالِ سَيِّدِهِ وَهُوَ مَسْئُولٌ عَنْهُ فَكُلُّكُمْ رَاعٍ وَكُلُّكُمْ مَسْئُولٌ عَنْ رَعِيَّتِهِ " .
Narrated 'Abdullah bin 'Umar: The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) as saying: Each of you is a shepherd and each of you is responsible for his flock. The amir (ruler) who is over the people is a shepherd and is responsible for his flock; a man is a shepherd in charge of the inhabitants of his household and he is responsible for his flock; a woman is a shepherdess in charge of her husband's house and children and she is responsible for them; and a man's slave is a shepherd in charge of his master's property and he is responsible for it. So each of you is a shepherd and each of you is responsible for his flock." - {Sunan Abi Dawud 2928}
Notice the man's domain of responsibility is the *the inhabitants of his household and he is responsible for his flock* Keep in mind the Prophet (ﷺ) says الرَّجُلُ in other words "man" not husband, brother, uncle, father specifically but "man" as it generally encompasses all those roles within the jurisdiction of his authority i.e. "his household", in other words authority is tied to ownership, if you have claim of ownership to a place be it directly as an owner or indirectly as potential owner as in an heir, then you have a responsibility towards the "inhabitants" occupying that place, this is not just within the confines of "familiality".
Unfortunately and am not sure how exactly, men, particularly Muslim men, have been hoodwinked into thinking "responsibility" is transferable, while that is true for boys it is not for men, therefore to assume that mode of thinking is to remain a boy which brings us back to your point that:
"Iran has a growing society of young people that clearly want to be secular but legally can’t.."
In my opinion, this "transference of responsibility" mentality by men to other men be it teacher, police, politician e.t.c. or institutions like schools, courts, parliaments, e.t.c., is indicative of a fundamental failure in recognizing who is the rightful shepherd of each flock.
Take the famous example of Adam and Hawwa, we all know both Adam and Hawwa got expelled from paradise, as a consequence of committing a crime, thus banishment from perpetual pleasure for the crime of temporal pleasure, but who got blamed?
فَأَكَلَا مِنْهَا فَبَدَتْ لَهُمَا سَوْءَٰتُهُمَا وَطَفِقَا يَخْصِفَانِ عَلَيْهِمَا مِن وَرَقِ ٱلْجَنَّةِ ۚ وَعَصَىٰٓ ءَادَمُ رَبَّهُۥ فَغَوَىٰ ١٢١
So the two of them ate of it, (and) so their shameful parts became displayed to them, and they took to splicing upon themselves (some) of the leaves of the Garden. And Adam disobeyed his Lord; so he became misguided." — {Taha, 20:121}
The Adam, the first man got the blame, and this has been the precedent ever since, in fact Allah adds a bit more detail to what causes a man to end up in such a predicament:
وَلَقَدْ عَهِدْنَآ إِلَىٰٓ ءَادَمَ مِن قَبْلُ فَنَسِىَ وَلَمْ نَجِدْ لَهُۥ عَزْمًۭا ١١٥
We had already, beforehand, taken the covenant of Adam, but he forgot: and We found on his part no firm resolve." — {Taha, 20:115}
So "forgetfulness" of one's covenant to you Creator, which includes your duties and responsibilities as a "man" as it pertains to the varying roles you have, be it in your family or otherwise, and the lack of "firm resolve" in executing your duties and responsibilities as is expected of you are ingredients for familial and communal disaster, and when the chickens of your irresponsibility come home to roost you try to placate the extreme of laxity with the extreme of rigidity, the result is what you accurately captured:
"..the only way your women will wear the hijab is if you threaten them with beatings and jail time, you’ve failed from the outset and are dealing with far larger problems than you’re willing to admit."
There ought to be a candid discussion of the forces driving this transition from being "alert and firm" of one's duty and responsibility, to being "forgetful and lax", even though some ascribe the forces to "time/generation" which they capture in statements like:
"Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times."
I think it is much more subtle than that because time/generation is a condition not a cause of the dereliction of one's duty and responsibilities, as a man.
Great nuanced writing.