The issue of mandatory hijab became a problem for the ruling government from the early days of the revolution in February 1979, and every time they try to come up with a plan or bill to solve it, they end up with no desired results and move on to another plan or bill. In less than two years after the 1401 protest movement, we were faced with at least two bills and plans in which the government tried to impose mandatory hijab on the Iranian society. The latest of these was a plan called “Noor Plan”. This “Noor Plan” also became an excuse for us to sit down and have a conversation with Dr. Ahmad Bakharai, a university professor and sociologist, about it and the issue of mandatory hijab in Iran. In the beginning of our conversation, Dr. Bakharai criticized the use of force in the “Noor Plan” and told Khat-e-Solh magazine that, in his belief, the “Noor

This sociology professor also mentioned in the conversation about the peace talks that the fate of such bills and plans turns against itself and leads to an increase in anti-veiling sentiments in society. He said that in this issue, the political aspect is what bothers the government and “feels that the veil is the vertical tent of the ideology that hides behind it and is rising.” According to this sociologist, in Iran, “ideology has merged with power and politics and has become a mask for the unity between power and wealth.”

You can read the detailed conversation of the monthly magazine “Khat-e-Solh” with Dr. Ahmad Baharai in the following.

برسد

A project called “Noor Project” is currently being implemented with the aim of observing hijab in Iran. Can this project achieve its goals?

“I am looking for a new car.”

Even in short.

“I love to live in peace.”

How long should society cover up its actions?

The plan of light, or better to say the plan of force, is a plan that has forcefully put the garment of law on the body of an ideological and moral debate. Last year, a bill was presented to the parliament. Of course, this bill was proposed and drafted by the judiciary itself. While a bill is supposed to be presented to the parliament by the government. This means that even in this way, the introduction of the bill is legally incorrect.

Their perception of the hijab issue is also a moral and ideological debate. They think that this matter is similar to issues such as Sunday closures, increasing taxes, and traffic lights, where the law can be enforced. They first made a fallacy with this perception and then said that it is the law and for the sake of maintaining social order, it must be followed. They never look back to see the issue. Can a law be imposed on something that is inherently a matter of personal taste, like eating? Or in the privacy of individuals, how they should or should not behave. Just as they cannot force people to pray. The nature of the hijab issue is the same and logically it could not be enforced as a law and force people to wear a certain type of clothing. It is natural that the fate of such bills and plans in a society that wants to move forward and its global outlook and culture is strengthening day by day, will turn against itself and will not have a different fate

Do you think the situation of hijab in Iran will return to before Shahrivar 1401?

Now, the issue of optional hijab is more of a reaction to the existing closed space than an ideological matter. It’s not about whether a scarf that used to cover the hair and reveal the face until yesterday and before the year 1401, now wants to drop down ten centimeters and cause an argument over those ten centimeters. The issue is that in 1401 and during the story of Mahsa’s uprising, when the slogan “Women’s Life, Freedom” spread, women were confronted. Optional hijab is also an analyzable reaction to this action and confrontation of the government with women. It means that the political dimension of the debate about the existence or non-existence of the hijab is intertwined with its ideological dimension. It means that I want to say that now it is a symbol and sign for women to come and express their protest against the conditions. From my perspective, this dimension is much more significant than saying whether the scarf is ten centimeters higher or lower

In fact, it is not in line with the discussion of legal exceptions and the veil in hijab.

Yes. What was once just a matter of hijab, now we can say that the ideological, ethical, and legal debate about it is about sovereignty. This political dimension is exactly what bothers the government and makes it feel that the veil is the vertical tent of the ideology that is hidden behind it and is growing. In fact, in the end, power and wealth have joined hands and are moving forward with the mask of ideology and have created a relative legitimacy for themselves inside. The reality is that inside and from the perspective of those who are legally and ideologically committed, they also have a relative legitimacy. The hijab debate is a political issue for the political system. That’s why it has a lot of security implications for them. You see, the police come to the streets with bulletproof vests and with those methods, as if they want to arrest a life or a killer. So the story goes beyond the hijab and its legal and ideological meaning.

What damages can such plans cause to the Iranian society beforehand?

I mentioned that the more opposition there is, the more the veil becomes a symbol of religious belief. In sociology, we say that religiosity has three dimensions. One is belief and faith. One is inclination and the other is behavior. Now imagine that a person is weak in terms of behavior and, for example, does not fast or pray. This person may have inclination and belief. But when people force the community to a religious behavior, those who have the other two dimensions – inclination and belief in religion – also retreat. They say that humans crave what is forbidden to them. Here, voluntary hijab is forbidden. Naturally, they will crave it more.

Hijab is a symbol and has always been discussed in different ways in all religions. This government pressure, in addition to being against hijab, also leads to religious discrimination. Just as religious discrimination has been on the rise in recent decades and will continue to do so, if the political system imposes this coercion from an ideological perspective, it will still fail to achieve its goal. If it also imposes it from a political perspective, like previous examples, if there has been any success in history with such behaviors and if society has been able to make progress under such pressures and the political system has gained more legitimacy, the same thing will happen here. Naturally, this has not happened and the result of these behaviors is even more delegitimization.

Why does the government insist on mandatory hijab to this extent? Do you think there is a relationship between the definition of government and mandatory hijab?

In my opinion, the hijab is a symbol and a sign, and they have an ideological mask on their face. In Islamic ideology and many heavenly ideologies, concepts such as hijab, women, and gender are very prominent. This means that in this religious perspective, women are somehow in service of men. Patriarchy has also been strengthened throughout history with a religious perspective, both in terms of content and politics.

While they try to add to their legitimacy or at least not diminish it, what is the definition of legitimacy here? It refers to the support they receive from the masses. Which masses support them? The masses who have a religious outlook and feel that, for example, it is a religious government and may be critical, but overall its existence is better than its absence. Now, in order to maintain their legitimacy, one of its main and significant signs, which is the issue of hijab, must be firmly held onto. This is the pillar of the tent. The issue of hijab is not like drinking alcohol or praying, it is an issue that is intertwined with politics. If there was no religious government and, for example, let’s say it was like during the time of the Shah, the religious authorities were also in a corner and did not have sensitivity towards hijab, and they could not issue a specific ruling that, for example, you do not have the right to do business with

Can it be imagined that the general policy of mandatory hijab could change and be replaced by optional hijab? Finally, in the history of our government, we have also had discussions about heroic flexibility.

See! They have a belief in their theology that says “removing corruption is better than corruption.” This means that something that is more corrupt is removed through the act of a corrupt action. This means that a corrupt action is better than a more corrupt action. With this argument, accepting corrupt actions can find justification in certain situations. For example, they say that it is permissible to lie in order to save the Prophet. This means that it is true that lying is corrupt, but it is possible to lie in order to save the Prophet’s life. This principle can be applied everywhere and in all situations.

This political system, with the command that drives the political machine, will not end up in a good place. We have multiple crises. One of the imminent crises that threatens the political system is the economic and livelihood crisis. Now, when pressure on the government increases, usually that religious principle that I mentioned comes into play. That is, in order to preserve their system – when it comes to that point – many concessions will be given. This concession is also an example of expediency. It sacrifices something. At that time, they will say that preserving the Islamic Republic is more important than, for example, the hijab. If the government reaches the point where people will be more satisfied with less strictness regarding the hijab, they will remain silent and accept it, and we will definitely move in that direction. Don’t pay attention to these current distractions. They are natural and also serve as a way to keep society entertained. Right now, in this issue of the hijab and our

It seems that the statistics of these religious masses are decreasing, at least based on the national survey of values and attitudes of Iranians in 1402 and also comparing the votes cast in various elections in recent years. This means that the number of these religious masses and the body of the ruling people is also decreasing. Do you think that in order to solve this problem, the government will not turn to optional veiling?

You mentioned the traditional and religious roots of the hijab, which was a good topic. Both of these roots have a foundation. The issue of hijab is specifically supported by these two roots. It means that a woman who may not be very strict about it for religious reasons, may still choose to wear it partially to protect herself from the gaze of men, and she believes that it is better for her to be wearing it than not. This is a type of reaction towards the culture of male dominance. This culture of male dominance is also added to the traditional perspective.

In a patriarchal culture, a woman is a slave and in the service of a man. She must cover herself so that no one else looks at her. Her permission and consent are at the disposal of the man in all situations. The more traditional it is, the more rigid and inflexible this concept becomes. There is also a group of people who observe the hijab for the sake of heaven and hell. When all of these factors and groups come together, this issue becomes important in terms of quantity and quality. It is not like we can say, for example, that in the 1402 parliamentary elections, forty percent participated and this percentage has decreased compared to the 1398 parliamentary elections, or how many people participated in the second round. Or that those who participated were loyal or disloyal. These things are not easily comparable. This is where we need to give life and soul to these statistics and make a sociological interpretation. So, considering that various factors and groups contribute

In recent decades, we have faced changes in the social behavior of people regarding hijab, which seems to have intensified especially after the events of 1401. Do you think this social change is solely a result of defiance and conflict with authority, or have the foundations of defining norms and abnormalities among people also changed?

Defenders of optional hijab must be seen from two perspectives. One is the perspective of choice. Eventually, society has grown in a rational direction, with more educated individuals and a deeper and broader global outlook in Iran, and choices have also become more modern. This is one of the perspectives that I call action. The second aspect is the defense of optional hijab, which has a reactive aspect and relates to political issues. It means a woman who is confined in various areas and cannot even raise her voice, now finds an opportunity to express her protest and voice by letting her hair flow in the wind. Both of these perspectives exist. You cannot say that one is less important than the other. Of course, it is possible that one of these factors may be more prevalent in an individual. But on average, both are important. So it has both a political aspect and also redefines norms for society. After all, how can a small culture be impossible in a larger culture? For example,

It seems that until two or three decades ago, and in our history, most references for defining norms and values were religious references. But it seems that we are moving towards a more secular definition of norms and do’s and don’ts in society, and references to common sense have become more prevalent. What is your opinion?

See, we have two categories of norms. One is specific norms and the other is general norms. General norms, such as respecting others, saying that honesty is good and lying is bad, or that discrimination against others is wrong. These are general norms that are not specific to Muslims or non-Muslims, Eastern or Western cultures. But specific norms are specific to a society, whether at a national level or at the level of subcultures and ethnic groups within a society. Specific norms always slowly give way to the benefit of general norms in the process of rationalizing societies. This means redefining norms. This means that in matters such as the issue of hijab, marriage, choice of spouse, method of spouse selection, and even dietary patterns, this redefinition takes place. The more specific the norms are, the more they give way to the general norms.

Thank you for the time you have given us in the monthly magazine of the Peace Line.