Hijab is a cultural category and should not be made a security measure – Mehr News Agency Iran and world’s news
According to Mehr news agency, the fourth meeting of the series of programs “Discovering the realities of hijab” was held by Farhangsarai Andisheh.
In this program, Farajullah Hedayatnia, a member of the Islamic Culture and Thought Research Institute, and Mohsen Burhani, a member of the Tehran University’s academic faculty, examined the issue of hijab from the perspective of jurisprudence and legal aspects.
Hedayatnia started his speech by asking two questions and said: In the world, from the legal point of view, there are several approaches regarding hijab; From the approach of banning the hijab in France to the optional hijab in some countries and the legal and mandatory hijab in our country. From the point of view of jurists, the enforcement guarantee of a law is important; Ali al-Qaeda, a group of audience, do not enforce the law by their own will. The most important issue is how the legislator wants to ensure the implementation of the law. Does he want to use criminal methods like other laws? Another question is whether this criminal method can institutionalize covering in the society and become a culture or not?
Borhani also pointed to the necessity of a cultural approach to the issue of hijab and added: The undeniable fact about the issue of hijab is that hijab is one of the challenging issues of our day and it has entangled the minds of many people. We must note that we are facing a cultural issue that has jurisprudential, legal, political and social dimensions, but until we consider the starting point of the discussion as a cultural and social issue, it will not be possible for us to have a dialogue.
He said: When an issue becomes a social issue, it needs social persuasion, and social persuasion will not be realized unless there are conflicting opinions. Therefore, one of the harms that does not allow this issue to be fully investigated and decided is to give a security cover to a cultural category.
In response to the question of some community members that “the hijab is a personal matter”, Hedayatnia added: “I think it is better to go beyond this statement and even say that the hijab is a social matter; My question is, is the social nature of hijab sufficient justification to consider it a crime? I don’t think there is enough justification, because we have many social harms that are not crimes and we are just trying to prevent them from happening. Be careful that in civil matters, we say that if someone behaves injuriously, then we consider that behavior as a crime if it does not have a civil solution. My main question is that there are no other solutions for the hijab issue and the only solution is criminal action? I don’t think the answer is positive and there are other solutions.
While referring to the duality of “obligation or obligation” in the issue of hijab, Burhani said: One basic point should be taken into account, and that is whether our concern regarding the issue of hijab is obligation or obligation. Obligation means that I use force to lead people to my desired direction, but obligation has a different meaning. If the discussion about hijab is limited and we increase its red line, commitment will not be realized, because commitment is persuasion. The result of the lack of commitment to hijab in the society is that some people raise the doubt in the virtual space whether hijab is legally obligatory. Therefore, I once again emphasize the need for dialogue and raise the question, why has the social issue not been included in the social dialogue and persuasion?
In response to the raised issues, Hedayatnia added: Mr. Doctor said that we are looking for obligation or commitment? In my opinion, hijab cannot be introduced as an absolute obligation. When we talk about hijab, the statistics are very misleading. In the statistics previously published by the Majlis Research Center, it is claimed that women who willingly observe the Sharia hijab are about 30% of the society, those whose type of clothing is breaking the norm are 10-15%, and the rest wear the customary hijab. Now, my question is, should we have a criminal confrontation with all those who wear traditional hijab and break the norms?
He said: I think this model of criminalization is not correct. In fact, we should remove those who wear traditional hijab from the government’s criminal interventions and only go to those who break the norms. Here, the hijab is no longer the main issue, but we will witness its combination with other criminal titles. In my opinion, if we modify our approach and convince those who wear traditional hijab with other methods such as generous preaching, a better result will be obtained.
While reviewing the hijab law in our country, Borhani added: In the category of hijab, we are faced with 100% extra-legal behaviors; In the note of Article 638 of the Punishment Section, the law says that women who appear in public without a religious hijab will be punished. Its punishment is not flogging and it was removed in 1375, but its punishment is short-term imprisonment of 2 months and a fine. 2-month short-term prison was amended in 1392 based on Article 65 of the Islamic Penal Code; In such a way that imprisonment under 3 months becomes “substitute of imprisonment”. Therefore, our punishments in the current situation are two things; Fines and alternatives to imprisonment.
A faculty member of Tehran University said: On the other hand, the punishment mentioned in Article 638, based on Article 19 of the Islamic Penal Code, is of the type of crimes of the 7th and 8th degree, which according to the criminal procedure law, the crime of the 7th and 8th degree can be tried directly in court. will be Therefore, there is no right to take people to the court and the person should be taken directly to the court. In fact, if the police catch someone for not wearing a veil, they only have to take him to court and that’s it! He can’t even ask his name and check his history or can’t keep him somewhere and ask someone to bring him a tent. Therefore, we are faced with a series of illegal and tasteful behaviors.
Hedayatnia also added in completing the raised issue: The Law “Executive Solutions for the Promotion of the Culture of Chastity and Hijab” passed in 2004, two institutions have been allowed to define a series of frameworks regarding the issue of hijab. One of these devices is the police force and the other is the headquarters of the Amer Be Maruf. With this description, the police force cannot be held accountable, because it is fulfilling its assigned responsibility.
In another part of his speech about the fact that it is said that a fine will be set for not wearing a veil, Borhani said: the question should be asked, what is the standard for this law and how are people fined? In my opinion, the clauses of this resolution are ambiguous and it may be said that we are facing a kind of legal anarchism and instead of being a legal expression, it is an expression of taste.
In the final part of his speech, Farajullah Hedayatnia added, referring to ways to encourage society to wear hijab, “I think our social conditions today are like a father who is unable to provide for his child’s basic needs, but at the same time makes demands from him.” In my opinion, in the current situation, some parts of the society do not accept the norms announced by the government willingly. If our social problems in the fields of business, celibacy, divorce, unemployment, etc. are solved or reduced, parts of our society will willingly go along with the norms announced by the government. I believe that the customary hijab should not be considered as a social harm. It seems that some kind of confrontation is forming, and this is dangerous.
In the end, he said: I believe that the hijab issue is becoming a social crisis, while if we correct our methods, we will achieve better results. Don’t be misunderstood; As a scholar in the field, I say that hijab is a religious and social duty and the government is responsible for it. However, criminal treatment does not result in it. If someone insists on criminal action, it should be limited to that specific group of violators. And that is not because of veiling, but because it is mixed with another title, which is invitation to corruption. This is where the title of the crime can be applied.