The topic of hijab is one of the main topics in the social sphere that, after the victory of the revolution in 1357, has become one of the issues, or better to say, problems between the people and the government.

The issue of mandatory hijab for women has been a subject of debate among many religious authorities, scholars, and intellectuals since the early days of the revolution.

Critics of compulsory hijab, among whom we can mention the esteemed scholar Ayatollah Seyyed Mahmoud Taleghani, believe and have believed that hijab is not a mandatory practice. They argue that Iranian women have the power to choose their clothing according to societal norms, and that Islam does not impose any kind of compulsion on them.

On the other hand, supporters of compulsory hijab consider it a definite and jurisprudential ruling and emphasize its obligation to the extent that they intend to introduce non-compliance with it as equivalent to a violation and undermining of the law by turning this draft into a law, so that they can strongly deal with violators according to their statements.

However, it must be accepted that the issue of hijab has, due to illogical strictness, become a part of the government’s authority since the establishment of the Islamic Republic, and has transformed from a “cultural and social” issue to a completely “political” one. This narrow-mindedness has made solving this problem very difficult and faced with great challenges, and perhaps if it had been approached from a cultural and social perspective, it would not have taken on such extensive dimensions.

Now, almost a year after the death of “Mahsa Amini,” an innocent girl who was arrested by the “Guidance Patrol” for “improper veiling” and lost her life, and widespread protests by the people against this tragic incident and its devastating consequences, which led to the death of more than 500 people and the arrest of nearly 30,000 protesting citizens across the country, a 70-article bill has been submitted to the parliament by the government of “Ebrahim Raisi,” known as the “Hijab and Chastity Bill” (Family Protection Bill through the promotion of the culture of hijab and chastity), to be reviewed and potentially passed as a law, not only in the public session but also in the “Legal and Judicial Commission.”

More than 35 ministries, organizations, institutions, and government and semi-governmental agencies are somehow responsible and in charge of this law, if it is approved; a bill that has sparked strong objections from religious scholars, legal experts, and independent lawyers, and even some government officials have expressed their objections to it.

However, one of the members of the Legal Commission of the Parliament, in response to a journalist’s question about why this bill is not being brought to the public session and is set to be approved in this commission, said: “Because this bill is specialized and judicial experts and those who have signed it must give their opinions about it, and on the other hand, we did not want it to be prolonged and forgotten like the “Protection of Virtual Space” law.”

As mentioned earlier, the issue of hijab is a social and cultural matter and it is better to be addressed in relevant committees. However, referring it to the legal and judicial committee shows that this issue has gained a status for the government and therefore, it is approached politically. The problem lies in this point; when some political figures support mandatory hijab in order to advance their agenda, it is natural for it to be viewed from a political perspective.

The topic of compulsory hijab and dress code is highly debated among university students, as there are many opponents who, based on the opinions of some intellectuals, legal experts, and professors in the field of religion and university, have expressed their opposition to this bill. They consider it to be against the law and custom, and even argue that it lacks a strong religious justification.

“In Article 14 of this bill it is stated: “Review, amendment and implementation of behavioral guidelines and regulations regarding the dress code of professors, students and employees, both homogeneous and heterogeneous, including doctors, employees of medical centers, and providers of health and medical services, as well as university centers and their subsidiaries, including hospitals, clinics, pharmacies, laboratories, etc. in the diagnostic and treatment departments, with regards to observing modesty and hijab, and full implementation of the Medical Affairs Conformity Law, and review and improvement of indicators and adherence to its principles in the process of accrediting hospitals and health centers, in accordance with the provisions of this law.”

But the remarkable and astonishing point of this bill is that in the articles addressed to all ministries and organizations, for example in article 34, paragraph 4, it is explicitly emphasized: “Review of continued cooperation and legal support for companies… that in any way promote “nudity, immorality, immodesty, indecency, and acts against public chastity”. The astonishment and regret in this statement is that it also carries a heavy burden of legal consequences, that “immodesty” is equated with crimes such as “nudity, immorality, and acts against public chastity” which have no relation to the dignity, character, and position of Iranian women and are a direct insult to the mothers, wives, sisters, and daughters of this land.

Opponents of this bill also consider it as an introduction to “gender segregation in universities”; a subject that has been met with strong opposition from professors and students in most universities in Iran for years.

“Ayatollah Musavi Bojnourdi” in an interview with the Jamaran website, published on August 20, 2014 on the Imam Khomeini Portal, quoted the founder of the Islamic Republic as saying: “Imam Khomeini, according to a memory that Mrs. Tabatabai [his daughter-in-law] narrates from him, was not in favor of separating male and female students with a wall. It was these women who came out of their homes during the Islamic Revolution, chanted “death to the Shah” and played a role alongside men in the victory of the movement.”

Ayatollah Musavi Bojnourdi, referring to Ayatollah Khomeini’s emphasis on the importance of women in society, said: “Gender segregation is an insult to the status of women, and those who discuss these issues in universities are trying to define women as a “subhuman” being.”

This university professor, with a 32-year teaching experience in various universities, mentioned and continued: “During my time teaching at these universities in different levels of master’s and doctorate, in all classes, girls and boys sit together. So far, I have not seen any misconduct in the university and I know that students in class are fully focused on studying. This is while women hold high positions and, according to Imam Khomeini, “man ascends to heaven through the skirt of a woman.” Therefore, those who speak from the official tribune of the system should not hurt the emotions of a large segment of society with their words.”

He added at the end of this conversation: “The principle and foundation of the university is based on Islamic ethics and piety. We must respect the students and through encouraging them to pursue knowledge and morality, we can elevate the level of universities.”

Let’s not forget that the university, in the eyes of many Iranians, is first a cultural and then an educational institution. Some politicians in Iran have risen to government and ruling positions from these very universities and know better that the language of conversation with students is a cultural one and not hierarchical. Supporters of gender segregation in universities, who have repeatedly tried to segregate dining halls in some universities last year but failed, have no logical reason behind their narrow-mindedness. Women and men are present together in all public places, from the metro to cinemas, conferences, exhibitions, concerts, restaurants, and even religious and political ceremonies. It is unclear why this unnecessary sensitivity is only directed towards universities.

The spectrum of radicals in the Islamic Republic has repeatedly raised irrational restrictions at the societal level and has often been misinformed. From the closure of video clubs and the ban on video in the 1960s to the ban on satellite dishes and others, all of these backward restrictions, despite the allocation of exorbitant budgets and the use of a lot of energy, did not lead to any results and ultimately it was the people who achieved their rightful demands.

“Little hope remains that the bitter events following the death of “Mahsa Amini” and its heavy costs for the nation and, of course, the government, have at least added constructive experiences and lessons to the responsibilities of the country’s officials so that, by using such bitter experiences, the wrong paths of the past will not be repeated. If this happens, the consequences may be much heavier, more severe, and bitterer than what we have seen so far.”