After 74 Years of Struggle, Iranian Women Are Still Searching For Freedom Of Dress

*Due to circumstances in Iran, this writer has chosen to write anonymously.

The contention over hijab in Iran has deep historical roots and is tied to more fundamental issues concerning Iranian women’s right to free choice and self-determination. The incident that took place on January 7^th, 1929 can be counted as one of the most tumultuous events in Iran’s contemporary history.  Indeed, the attendance of Reza Shah along with his unveiled wife and daughters at the graduation ceremony of female students of Danesh-Saraye Moghadamati (Preliminary College) on January 7th, 1929, was an official announcement by the ruling government of its willingness to remove the hijab [modest dress in accordance with Shari’s law]. Signs of such inclinations could be observed with the formation of The Women’s Awareness Association in January 1927; the propagation of low-neck dresses; banning the usage of the veil by the Queen; attendance of the first family with a different (unveiled) appearance in Qom at the new year celebration in 1928; and the Afghan Aman Allah Khan and his wife, Soraya ‘s, visit to Iran in May 1928; and, lastly, some Afghan women did not cover themselves at parties and wore European clothing and hats on the way back to Afghanistan when passing through Iranian cities. These were signs of the inclination of Reza Shah’s court to restrict the use of hijab.Reza Shah took different steps in prohibiting the usage of hijab by women such as approving the unified clothing and hat law including four principals and eight amendments during the senate’s sixth meeting in Reza Shah’s third year of kingship; and, in 1932, stating that “women must be free to remove their hijab and in case of prevention by an individual or clergyman, the sheriffs must protect the unveiled women.” Additionally, the formation of the Eastern Women Congress in 1933 in Tehran, and the invitation of unveiled women from other countries also indicated Reza Shah’s inclination to prohibit use of hijab.   Reza Shah established “The Association of Liberal Iranian Women” on May 12th, 1936 with Shams Pahlavi as President, as a new ways to ban the use of hijab in Iran.  Next, the Internal Ministry passed new laws on dress codes in order to reach a unified way of dress for men and removal of hijab for women.  Then, the Shah ordered his ministers and senators to start removing hijab. Initially, wives of ministers, secretaries, lawyers, and government agents removed their veils. Apparently, after the fall of Reza Shah’s government, restriction of wearing the veil was not enforced.

Less than a month after the victory of the Islamic Republic in March of 1979, some talk about hijab enforcement was first heard. The publication of some quotes from Ayatollah Khomeini in Keyhan newspaper on March 7th, 1970 led to demonstrations against hijab restriction on March 8th of the same year.  At these demonstrations it was announced, “Unveiled women should not be allowed to enter the Islamic ministries; women can enter, but they must wear the veil. Women can work, but they must be covered based on the Islamic rules.” This caused protests regarding the new hijab laws to spread and become more intense. Some clergymen such as Ayatollah Taleghani and Ayatollah Mahallati banned any violence in enforcing hijab.

On March 11^th, 1979 Keyhan newspaper published a detailed interview with Ayatollah Taleghani about hijab. He stated, “There is no force even for Muslim women. This was an advice from Ayatollah Khomeini. He was just like a father who advises his children and suggests to them to follow certain rules”. Publication of this interview along with a statement from Tehran’s public prosecutor who declared that those who disturb unveiled women will be “severely punished” appeased the demonstrations for a while.

But, Ayatollah Khomeini’s incisive speech in July 1980, and the 10 day deadline he gave Bani Sadr to enforce all Islamic law pertaining to hijab in government buildings was a crucial step in the process of hijab enforcement. Starting July 5th, 1980 unveiled women were banned from entering governmental buildings. Although known uniforms like the manteau, [long coat] were not common at the time, women had to wear long sleeve dresses and head scarves. However, the hijab enforcement did not become a law until 1984. In the same year, the congress passed the Islamic Punishment Law. Based on the verdict those who did not observe hijab would receive 74 lashes as a punishment.

25 years after the ratification of the veil enforcement law, Iran’s National Television broadcasted criticism against it during the tenth presidential election campaigns for the first time. Jamileh Kadivar, secretary of Mehdi Karroubi’s electoral campaign on women related issues asked him “Do you think that the enforcement of Islamic hijab is logical and useful? You are a clergyman. Do you think that the enforcement of hijab is in accordance with Islamic laws and thoughts?”

Karroubi responded: “In my opinion, there are two solutions. First, we should stop being violent since the brutality often leads to contrary results.” Although Iran’s National Television never broadcast Karroubi’s second thought, his first suggestion shows his lack of willingness to enforce hijab. He believes that the force has led to results opposite of what the government intended in promoting hijab.

Even before Karroubi, numerous religious figures, sources of emulation, and researchers called hijab enforcement not only un-Islamic, but also against the Islamic rules and thoughts.

According to Grand Ayatollah Montazeri’s website, in response to a question about hijab enforcement, he said that neither the principles nor the details in religion are forced. Basically, the belief that hijab should be enforced lack religious merit.

In an interview titled, “Hijab: Religious limits, lawful boundaries,” Dr. Mohsen Kadivar, a researcher in Islamic studies, explained his opinions as following: “A sound mind understands Islamic hijab according to two basic points. First, it is optional. In other words, it should not be enforced. Islamic hijab as well as other religious duties must be believed and should not be enforced by law; to observe hijab should be optional. By optional, we mean that if a person chooses not to wear hijab or follow religious rules regardless of her religious views (non Muslim or careless Muslim), she should be able to live her lifestyle freely. However, this is only possible if Islamic law were to be held above civil law. Currently the problem in our society is that the civil laws are based on the Islamic rules and as we can witness, they are not effective. In other words, instead of having Islamic hijab observed and cherished, being uncovered and unveiled is now valued. Obviously, the ones who passed the hijab enforcement law did not have this intention. It is seen even in religious families that females do not obey the Islamic rules on hijab properly.  Disregarding these rules on hijab has become the norm in our current society. Not wearing hijab is no longer considered obscene, indecent, or bad while during the Islamic movement and even the first years after the revolution, females chose to cover themselves freely, and being unveiled was considered unacceptable. ”

Abdol Ali Bazargan, another Islamic liberal figure, has an opinion about hijab based on the Qur’an. He says, “The Qur’an has not called for any mundane penalty for those who do not cover themselves. The punishment implemented in some countries is based on the opinion of those Islamic clergymen who want to guide people and is not based on God’s orders.” So, he believes that enforcement of hijab is mostly a governmental issue rather than a religious matter.

Among all the contemporary religious researchers, Ahmad Ghabel, one of the most recognized pupils of Ayatollah Montazeri, has a different view than other current scholars. Basically, he believes that hijab is an optional act and it is not even a duty. In a detailed article posted on his personal homepage, Ghabel mentions various logical reasons for accepting hijab as an optional act. He does not recognize enforced hijab religiously legal in any case.

Mehdi Karroubi, who mentioned his lack of belief in enforced hijab and its uselessness during his campaign, was not the only one who criticized enforced hijab. In an interview with “Chelcheragh” magazine published in Tehran, Dr. Zahra Rahnavard (the wife of Mir Hossein Mousavi, another reformist candidate in the last presidential election) whose different choice of dress has lead to various reactions, stated, “The Qur’an called hijab as the ‘clothing of piety,’ but this type of clothing, which is the most ideal way of dressing , is formed in an entirely decent society. Why do you only limit women, when you live in a society that has everything else altered?  It means that in a society you have all kinds of corruption such as stealing, rape, misconduct, destroying of national interest, and lack of wisdom, but force the women to act the way you want. In fact, in order to observe the society as a whole, we must make all parts in a relative harmony.” Indeed, Mrs. Rahnavard cleverly tries to question enforcement of hijab.

Since 1936, for the last 74 years the women’s movement has been continuously fighting for its human rights. The women’s movement has faced violence in different eras and has fought it. During Reza Shah’s time, it struggled against veil removal and now it is bearing difficulties of the war against forced hijab. But both governments disregarded the right of women in choosing their way of dress and these governments insisted on their manner of dictatorship. The Green Movement, which contains the lively and highly capable women’s movement, in its heart recognizes hijab as an optional issue and fights to claim its demands. As Mr. Mir Hossein Mousavi declared in his last statement (statement number 17): “We demand an honest, kind, and merciful government which is voted by the people. This regime must count the variety of people’s opinions as an opportunity, not a threat. We recognize acts such as investigating and scrutinizing people’s personal lives and privacy, the imposition of religious conformity, the closing of newspapers and censorship of media against our civilized and liberating religion and the constitution which was based on it.”

Source: Gozaar