The translation is: “Persian language”
Sousan Mohammadkhani Ghiasvand

I didn’t have a good feeling about getting tangled up in a chador and mantoo. From the age of six or seven, a distance began to grow between me and my playmates. A few years later, I felt alienated from my own body. I was afraid of my own body. I was told so much about hellfire, fiery bullets, our hair being burned and hanging from our chests that I thought the flames were always chasing me. Flames that I felt were coming for me with every millimeter of my chador sleeve going up and down, with colorful socks, with a few strands of hair falling out from under my chador, or with a very gentle lipstick rubbing against me to make me dirty. In the streets, in the alleys, in school, everywhere there were people to warn me about covering my body.

Sepideh, who teaches at high school, continues her conversation and mentions the early days of her marriage. She says, “In those early days, whenever my husband would talk about my hair or body, I didn’t feel good at all. My body, which had always been a source of pain and humiliation for me since childhood. A body and hair that I had to constantly cover up. I was terrified of facing and being exposed in front of my own body. When my husband talked about me, I felt like I was naked in front of a crowd. He wasn’t just one person, he was everything to me. Everyone I had to hide my body from. I felt like I had done something wrong and the matrons were standing over me with their rulers and angry eyes. The pleasure of those moments was taken away from me because of the fear that had been instilled in me since childhood and was repeated every year and every moment.”

He remembers the voices of the female principals and supervisors who strive every day from the loudspeakers of schools and high schools in Iran to teach young girls the height and size of Islamic hijab, to remember God and to scare them from the fire of hell. In the face of every schoolgirl, he searches for his childhood. Years that he thinks have been very difficult and sad for him due to the imposition of hijab and religion.

Compulsory hijab after the 1979 revolution not only affected women, but also put the lives of young girls under its influence. The law of compulsory hijab cast a shadow on the bodies, minds, and souls of young girls. Girls who, from a young age, were carriers of ideology and religious beliefs through wearing Islamic clothing. In their childhood, they were taught to target and condemn the world and those who thought differently, and to put death upon their words.

Educational and propaganda institutions impose Islamic veil and beliefs on Sunni children in Iran, who do not yet have the ability to analyze issues. Various programs are held every year in girls’ schools by school officials or Basij forces to promote Islamic veil and promote the chador as the superior veil. According to the fatwas of the jurists, the age of responsibility for girls is nine years old, but they are forced to observe the veil from the age of seven and some even before this age, in kindergartens.

“این عکس یک منظره زیبا از کوهستان است که در آن آسمان آبی و ابرهای سفید پر از نور قرار دارند.”

This photo is a beautiful landscape of mountains with a blue sky and white clouds filled with light.
Ava Homa

Ava Hama: Veiling children is killing their childhood spirit.

Ava Homa, a writer and journalist, talks about her feeling when she was forced to wear a hijab for the first time at the age of six. She says, “I felt suffocated and enslaved. The hijab created a lot of restrictions and took away the ability to be active, run, and play. I was very aware that boys didn’t have to do this. They could go to school in comfortable clothes, run around and play. This hijab played another role for us. From the age of six, other layers of hijab were imposed on our activities. We couldn’t laugh. Forcing children to wear hijab and clothes that were difficult to tolerate and get used to, in my opinion, was killing all the joys and killing the spirit of childhood. Entering this harsh and rough world at a young age was very difficult and the beginning of oppression.”

He remembers being scolded multiple times for having his hair out, white shoes, colorful socks, and having his clip taken away from him while standing in line, and being reprimanded by the school authorities. What’s wrong with these things!? This is a question that Homa has always asked her school authorities, and each time she has been told about her wrongdoing. The definition of a good woman or girl was to not be seen. The image they gave us was that men are hunters and we are the prey. The only way for us to survive was to not be seen and to cover ourselves in dark black, navy, and brown colors.

Every day I was bothered. They would tell me that your family is a cultured family, why do you dress like this!? They would inform my family. I felt humiliated. My family was bothered. I was under pressure from them to no longer cause them discomfort and harm.

Ava Homa, by referring to how the hijab has violated her rights as a young girl, says: “When I said that the hijab is the beginning of oppression, it is because it starts to control a woman’s body. A woman’s body is introduced as something shameful and must be hidden so that others cannot see it. Others can control a woman’s body. This means that a woman does not decide how to dress her body. This effort to hide women and make them responsible for their actions from a young age was against the desires of men. Now these desires could be a natural attraction to the opposite sex or something they interpreted as lustful. The effort to control a woman’s body was actually a denial of her desire, as a young girl, to get to know boys and talk to them.”

One of his worst experiences regarding the violation of his rights as a child in public places is when he goes to the Sennandaj Dam with his family. He enters the water for swimming with his father and brother, but goes under the water when he sees the officer’s gaze. The officer pulls him out of the water and says, “You have grown up, you are a girl and should not swim.” His only recreation during those years was going to the Sennandaj Dam with his family and swimming in the dam water, which is taken away from him in this way.

This journalist believes that the mixed law and religion is more of a violation of their rights than tradition and custom. She mentions that even according to religion, a girl is not required to wear a hijab until the age of nine, but according to the laws of the Islamic Republic, she is forced to wear a hijab to go to school. Homa, by reading the laws of the Islamic Republic as “anti-women,” says that these laws take away our right to freedom, laughing, and running in public places. At the same time, Sanandaj is not a city where she can easily go about without a hijab at the age of 15, and she believes that the reason for this is the dominance of the laws of the Islamic Republic.

“این عکس یک پاییز زیبا در کوهستان است”

“This photo is a beautiful autumn in the mountains.”
Nasrin Madani

Nasrin Madani: I never had a good feeling about wearing a hijab since childhood.

Nasrin Modani, also a writer, has never had a positive feeling towards hijab since childhood. As she says, she often brought her veil home from school and sometimes faced ridicule from passersby.

He talks about the problems he has faced due to not observing hijab, saying: “In middle school and high school, which I remember well, I was repeatedly reprimanded by the supervisors and religious and educational teachers for not wearing hijab. In my childhood, I showed my opposition to what the teachers and supervisors defined as stubbornness. In high school, I did not give a satisfactory answer and did not comply.”

Civil hijab does not simply mean wearing a headscarf and veil: “As I was riding my bicycle and getting older, I would often hear, ‘A big bear like you shouldn’t be ashamed to ride a bike?’ As I reached puberty, I tried to hide my developing breasts out of shame for what society had defined for me. I wanted to participate in cultural activities at school, but the strict condition for acceptance was to wear a tight hijab or chador. Either way, it gave me a feeling of rejection and not being accepted in society. I was often ridiculed by strangers, both men and women, for my childish appearance, under the guise of promoting modesty, in order to fix my hijab and clothing… Now, looking back, I see that these people, who gave themselves the right to dictate my actions, were violating my privacy. I don’t understand how my hair could have promoted corruption and disrespect!”

He refers to the cries that were pulled on his head at the pilgrimage sites; cries to force him, as a young child, to wear a chador. He speaks of his mother’s struggles with the guardians at the door to prevent them from forcing the chador on him: “These humiliations were not only in pilgrimage sites, but also on the streets, in schools, during prayers when you had lipstick on, and when a lady in a meeting allowed herself to scold you and make you feel embarrassed and humiliated in front of a group. They were all violations of my rights.”

Nasrin Madani considers culture to be a collection of behaviors and beliefs that can be incorrect in her opinion. This author says, “In my childhood and adolescence, the hijab was completely accepted by society, both for women and men, or it is better to say that if there was any objection during that time of war, it was either silenced or pushed to the sidelines in the shadow of war. At that time, a girl or teenager who did not wear a proper hijab was treated as if she were a soulless being. I remember that most school administrators wore chadors and were, so to speak, supporters of Hezbollah. Being unveiled was equivalent to defiling the blood of martyrs. In a way, they also inflicted a moral punishment on our childhood world. And how much I now detest those walls with phrases like ‘improper hijab and unveiled = hypocrite’.”

The author believes that the current society has become more open-minded about hijab. People have become more aware and have a very different perception and viewpoint about hijab compared to twenty or thirty years ago. He talks about the role of tradition in imposing hijab on children, saying: “From a traditional perspective, not considering hijab as something important, even from a child’s point of view, was seen as disrespectful and incompatible with prevailing ethical standards.”

According to the laws of Iran, hijab is a religious obligation and it is mandatory for Iranian girls and women, as well as any non-Iranian woman entering the country, to observe it. Civil rights activist, Masih Alinejad, discusses the role of religion in the veiling of Iranian girls and women, saying: “From a religious perspective, I must say that I had read a book which stated that Aisha, the wife of the Prophet, did not wear a hijab and there was a major disagreement between her and Omar, who would whip his slaves for not wearing hijab and she would reprimand him. In the religion and laws of the Islamic Republic of Iran, which is considered a Shia government, after the 1979 revolution, gradually in 1983, hijab was made compulsory for women and even punishments such as whipping, imprisonment, and fines were imposed for not wearing it.”

Despite the fact that he cannot ignore the role of customs, traditions, and religion in violating the rights of children, he believes that the law plays a key role: “While the enforcement mechanisms of this law, including advertising, can be one of these mechanisms, in strengthening the violation of children’s rights, it is crucial in this particular matter. The growth of public awareness, their behavior and reactions, can gradually change the elements of violation of rights, in parallel with such laws. For example, kindergartens have organized dance classes for children. In various news articles, we see that a space has been created where mental health and the dignity of children’s rights are discussed and debated, issues that we did not even think about during our childhood.”

“این عکس یک پاییز زیبا در پارک است”

This photo is a beautiful autumn in the park.
Hassan Farshchian

Hassan Farshchian:

The current term of hijab invites to a veil.

There is a difference at the beginning of Islam.

Is the hijab that is currently imposed on women in Saudi Arabia and Iran a direct order from the Quran and Islam, or is it the interpretation of Shia and Sunni scholars of Islam, hadiths and traditions? Is the hijab mentioned in the Quran specifically for the wives of the Prophet, or are all Muslim women required to observe it? Some Shia scholars and Muslim Arab feminists have rejected the obligation of hijab in Islam. Others believe in considering time and place for wearing hijab. Some also believe that the purpose of hijab in Islam is not to cover the face or hair.

Hassan Farshchian, a religious scholar, says about this: “It seems that the current concept of hijab in these countries differs from the hijab described in the primary sources of Islam.”

He believes that what has been mentioned in the verses of the Quran and narrations are modest and chaste coverings that prevent nudity and arousal. In some verses of the Quran, such as verses 30 and 31 of Surah An-Nur, which emphasize chastity and purity, both men and women are addressed.

According to this researcher, in the Quran, the word “hijab” is used for curtains that were used as doors and partitions in homes. The Quran advises Muslims that if they wish to request something from the wives of the Prophet, they should address them from behind a hijab, meaning from behind a curtain.

He refers to the nudity of some women’s body positions during the emergence of Islam, saying: “At that time, Muslims were so poor that they could neither fully satisfy their hunger nor cover their bodies completely; therefore, when they went into prostration and bowing during prayer, it was possible for parts of their bodies to be seen. For this reason, it is mentioned in narrations to be careful that these body positions are not seen.”

According to the teachings of Islam, the concept of modesty varies. There are differences in the level of covering between women in rural areas and women in cities, as well as between young and elderly women. In Islamic jurisprudence, exceptions have also been made for women living in the desert or in the wilderness, meaning they have their own customary veil. The important thing is the customary covering, which is a step towards achieving the principles of chastity and purity. In the Quran, there are concessions for women who are not likely to be married, as stated in verse 60 of Surah An-Nur. This refers to women who have reached an age where they are no longer desired by men, meaning they do not need to cover themselves as much as a young woman would.

This religious scholar believes that from these differences, it can be understood that the intention of a cultural hijab is related to the place, age, and status of individuals. This limit and amount have also been explained by the customs of the religious authorities and followers. However, later on in the religious customs, hijab has taken on the meaning of the current term.

He also considers the prohibition of unveiling in primary Islamic sources as a means of preventing the spread of immodesty and disrespect towards women: “The value of being a Muslim, according to the orders issued from primary Islamic sources, has been the necessity of modest covering as a means of promoting abstinence, chastity, and respect for the sanctity of individuals and society.”

Angels consider the concept of hijab as a universal commandment of modesty. However, some have believed that hijab is specific to the wives of the Prophet. This belief may have stemmed from verses in the Quran, such as verses 31 and 59 of Surah Al-Ahzab, which give recommendations regarding the dress and adornment of the Prophet’s wives. Other verses, like verse 53 of Surah Al-Ahzab, also remind Muslims of the proper etiquette when speaking to the Prophet’s wives. Additionally, in the early days of Islam, full coverage from head to toe was considered a luxurious form of dress, just as it is still seen as a luxurious garment among clergy and priests today. Naturally, a part of the hijab of the Prophet’s wives was luxurious, as they were the mothers of the believers. However, the reasons for the necessity of hijab cannot be solely attributed to the wives of the Prophet, even though they were the primary audience for

Muslim women are currently required to observe a specific type of hijab in countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran, which is not mandated by Islam and differs from what Islam has stated. Farshid believes that even if we consider not wearing hijab as a sin, it is not the government’s duty to prevent any sin. Sins that are the rights of God, their punishment is also in the hands of God. Only sins that are the rights of people, the government, as the protector of people’s interests, should prevent them, of course, these sins should be considered a crime so that people’s rights are not violated. In other words, a distinction must be made between “crime” and “sin”. The government’s duty is to prevent crime, not sin, unless the sin is considered a violation of social rights. Therefore, a distinction must be made between “not observing the religious hijab” and “immorality and indecency”. Preventing immorality and inde

Angels do not consider the obligation of hijab as a duty of the government, as it is a personal behavior in their view: “Unveiling and lack of hijab is not equivalent to indecency in the eyes of Iranian society, therefore it should not fall within the realm of government orders and prohibitions.”

He refers to the fact that “hijab was not mandatory in the early months after the 1957 revolution, but later became a moral obligation for the Islamic Republic” and explains the reason for this by saying: “To demonstrate the Islamic nature of the system, displaying other Islamic teachings such as Islamic justice and social justice is a difficult and exhausting task. However, imposing hijab on women is a simpler and less costly task, which also has a clear display aspect. Hijab is the last symbol of the “Islamic” nature of this system and has now become the “symbol of the Islamic nature of the system”.

Non-Muslim and non-religious women living in Iran are forced to observe Islamic hijab. According to angels, even though hijab is considered obligatory for Muslim women, there is no religious obligation for non-Muslim women to wear hijab. Instead, it is a matter of custom and can be approached with tolerance and respect for local customs. Hijab is not obligatory for them, nor is it obligatory for others to force them to wear hijab. This is because non-Muslim women are not obligated to follow Islamic teachings, and rulers who have not been given any religious command by the Quran and the Prophet to enforce hijab on non-Muslim women.

Girls in Iran are required to observe hijab before reaching the age of maturity, which is seven years old, in order to attend school. The angels say: “In Islamic sources, the importance of observing modest clothing has been emphasized. This clothing is obligatory in every level, and its obligation for girls begins at the age of religious maturity. Girls are not responsible for this before they reach maturity. It is also the duty of their parents to observe modest clothing for their children. Modest clothing for children is also a cultural matter and depends on their age, time, and place.”

“این عکس یک پاییز زیبا در کوهستان است”

This photo is a beautiful autumn in the mountains.
Hossein Raeisi

Hossein Raeisi: Many Iranian children are exposed to systematic violation of their rights.

Iran, besides compulsory hijab, also violates children’s rights in other areas, especially in public places. Hossein Raeesi, a prosecutor and human rights activist, believes that many Iranian children are at risk of losing their systemic or non-systemic rights. According to him, the religious and military education (defense) in schools, until compulsory Quran and religious education in educational spaces and public places, has provided the grounds for violating many other children’s rights. Deprivation of education in mother tongue and literature for children of different ethnicities, lack of general education for all children at different levels, especially girls and children in deprived areas, or lack of the right to identity for a large number of children born to an Iranian mother and a non-Iranian father, whose number exceeds millions in the country, or lack of equal access to educational facilities throughout the country for all children are among the violations of children’s rights in Iran that Raeesi points out.

According to the President of Iran, in 1372, Iran signed the Convention on the Rights of the Child, but has included a general condition that defers the implementation of all the provisions of this convention to non-conflict with Islamic standards.

As this attorney general says, some countries have protested against Iran’s government on the condition that the reason for the protest is vague and unclear, but it has not received much attention. Many Islamic countries have also included such a condition in their conventions or in relation to certain articles. Some countries, like Qatar, have recently lifted their right to impose conditions. Iran has also recently joined some optional protocols and annexes to the convention, which its president finds hopeful.

In articles 1 and 3 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, countries are obligated to respect the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion of children. However, these articles also state that countries have the right to limit the freedom of expression of thought and religion of children under certain circumstances. Considering that religion is often transmitted to children through family and religious communities, these two articles leave the power in the hands of governments to impose a specific religion and belief on children.

The president believes that the Convention on the Rights of the Child has outlined minimum rights for children and is flawless, but considers it as one of the important legal documents that all countries in the world have joined.

According to him, the right to freedom of thought and belief is not only in conflict with the government. This right is also defined in conflict with parents. Therefore, parents do not have the right to impose their beliefs, even though the conditions of childhood and the inherent dependence of young children on their parents and family may cause them to be raised and brought up according to the values of that family, and this is inevitable for a child to not be influenced by their parents.

According to this lawyer, identifying these rights can prevent parents from imposing their own values on children. This is why the gap between parents’ beliefs and children’s beliefs has gradually become deeper and wider.

In the Convention on the Rights of the Child, there is no explicit mention of imposing a specific belief on a child and disregarding their right to choose. Recognizing a child’s right to freedom of religion without considering that the child may not be able to have a religious belief at that age, either through imposition by their family or society, is a result of imposing a specific religious belief on the child, just as the religion itself has been imposed on the child.

The recipient of the contract is aware that all children, according to which the child will gradually become an opinion holder in adolescence and should benefit from the freedom of expression. Parents and family members should also not impose their beliefs on the child, prevent their freedom of expression, violate the child’s privacy, or act against the child’s best interests, such as jeopardizing the child’s physical and mental health. This law is addressed to them.

He believes that domestic and executive laws should identify and prevent the harm of children and protect them. According to Mr. Raeesi, it is almost impossible to design a mechanism to prevent family members from promoting their own beliefs on children. He knows that in some cases and places where parental values include violence against children, some governments’ legal systems prevent parents from exercising their discretion along with violence against children.

According to the head of the 4th article of the Law on Protection of Children and Adolescents, passed in 1381 in Iran, harm to the mental and moral health of children is considered a crime, but its implementation is facing difficulties because the responsible party for enforcing this section of the law is not clearly defined. Additionally, there is no definition of harm to mental health, which is mistakenly referred to as harm to the soul, provided.

Human rights activists and children’s rights defenders are trying to not only monitor Iran’s compliance with the Convention on the Rights of the Child, but also report cases of children’s rights violations to international organizations. But how successful have they been in drawing the attention of the global community, human rights defenders, and the United Nations to the issue of children’s rights violations in Iran?

Raisi, referring to the problems of working in the field of children, the difficulty of communication between activists inside and international human rights organizations, and the issue of the arrest and imprisonment of children’s rights defenders and the charges they face in court, says: “All that you have in mind is closed and dependent on religious ideology in a society like Iran, it is not easily achievable. Despite the obstacles, activists in this field have made countless efforts and we can evaluate the result of their efforts in the developments of children’s rights. Children’s rights, despite all its dependence on religion and wrong traditions, has had numerous developments compared to other areas such as women’s rights or minorities. These developments are definitely the result of the activities of individuals and internal institutions and the reflection of problems outside of Iran. As long as I have been representing many children in the country, I have benefited from the support of international human rights organizations in protecting the rights of my clients while considering their interests.”

“Connecting with international institutions can be detrimental to the activities of domestic actors. This prosecutor seeks the reason for this in the incorrect perceptions of domestic authorities and the exploitation of news and events in the field of children’s rights by those who are outside of Iran. He points to the lack of expertise of some foreign civil institutions in the field of children’s rights and human rights, and considers the lack of scientific and legal capacity in many civil institutions outside of Iran as a barrier to effective and appropriate communication between domestic actors and international institutions, as well as a hindrance to the production of suitable content. For this reason, he believes that we should not expect one-sided work solely from domestic actors, and also not expect suitable activity from all foreign institutions. However, he often attributes the information from the United Nations on the difficult conditions of children in Iran to the efforts of activists who have direct communication with children and their problems in the country: “The precise questions that were asked in the previous UPR session regarding

According to Mr. Raeesi, Iran has violated children’s rights in the areas of “execution of children, special courts for children, children’s educational rights, child marriage, and children’s identity rights.” Although, in his opinion, due to the length of childhood and the diversity of children’s rights, there are numerous cases in this regard.

The Iranian government violates the rights of children by imposing the hijab on seven-year-old children and children who have not been born into Muslim and religious families, as well as by imposing religious and ideological beliefs on children under the age of 18.

The imposition of hijab and religion on children is considered an important issue by the president, who believes that there is no appropriate mechanism in place to free children from these conditions, neither on the international human rights stage nor domestically.

This human rights activist believes that as long as educational systems are dependent on government desires and the family system does not let go of its self-control over children, no law can provide better conditions for children.

Forcing children to wear hijab from kindergarten to the end of high school and society’s involvement to a great extent creates a platform for imposing conditions that, from a managerial perspective, require more education and it can be said that in some aspects, it is not possible to pass through.

He concludes by saying, “The mechanism for liberation from coercion in the field of international human rights law for children is somewhat available, but in practice, it cannot provide the level of support that you demonstrate. Furthermore, it should not be overlooked that there are many families, in light of the Convention on the Rights of the Child and other international documents, who must be careful not to impose their beliefs on children.”