Introduction

According to its linguistic definition, hijab means to cover or veil, encompassing a comprehensive meaning. Sufis also consider hijab as a veil that separates humans from the closeness to God, and they divide it into two categories: oppressive and luminous.

But nowadays, hijab has become synonymous with covering the body. The meaning that quickly comes to mind when hearing the word hijab and unconsciously makes women reach for their hair, in case a strand has escaped, to tuck it under their headscarf. This writing will also address this aspect of the meaning of hijab.

The issue of hijab and freedom of dress has always been a subject of scrutiny by many researchers due to its importance. However, it seems that the key to solving the issue of hijab lies in examining and paying attention to this matter from various and different perspectives.

Therefore, this article attempts to briefly examine and address several concerns regarding the issue of hijab from five perspectives of human rights, politics, society, religion, and psychology, and concludes that compulsory hijab is not merely a religious matter, but rather a political and psychological issue.

Hijab and Human Rights

Freedom of clothing is recognized as one of the fundamental and natural rights of humans. This means that every person has the right to choose their clothing in any way and to any extent they desire, regardless of any other perspective, or to discard it altogether. In this regard, it is clear that one person’s preferred type of clothing cannot impede the rights of others, and using it as an argument to violate the rights and freedoms of others is unacceptable. Governments are also obligated to protect this freedom by enacting educational, supportive, and protective laws in order to preserve human rights. They should not infringe upon this right by claiming that freedom of clothing leads to increased violence and harm towards individuals and the deterioration of society, nor should they shirk their responsibility.

Unfortunately, in Iran, we witness the government often shifting responsibility and claiming that many assaults are due to the clothing of the victims. They believe that by enforcing strict dress codes, particularly for women, they can prevent these assaults. However, instead of punishing the perpetrators, the victims are often reprimanded and punished for their clothing choices. This approach does not address the root issue of ensuring safety and security in society.

Undoubtedly, the government’s support for the right to freedom of dress also includes the situation of those who wish to appear in full hijab in society. In other words, in this article we are talking about freedom of dress, not about being veiled or unveiled. And the examination of this principle from the perspective of human rights will be based on abstract and general principles, and current laws are enacted in a partial manner to protect these rights.

Hijab and politics

Foucault argues that the government’s imposition of a certain type of clothing on people is aimed at expanding power relations to the extent of human existence. In fact, Foucault believes that the regulation of human bodies creates a space for the exercise of power. Through this regulation, human bodies become the site of political power. In this process, humans are reduced to passive objects of the manifestation of ruling power in society.

This issue is not only about compulsory hijab, but other forms of mandatory dress codes imposed by the government on the people of a society are equally condemned. For example, the case of the unveiling of Reza Khan’s hijab or the forced use of Pahlavi hats by him are examples of such attempts by the government to extend its power over human life.

After the 1957 revolution, Iran gradually gained the ability to impose its own form of clothing as a symbol of its authority in society. This was done either by enacting laws or by making life difficult for individuals by imposing new values. The slogan of “headscarf or veil” was used to harass and oppress unveiled women in the early days of the revolution, or through laws mandating the hijab in the following years, or through laws prohibiting the sale and use of neckties in this regard.

Hijab and society

The level of acceptable coverage in society varies in different communities. In some societies, nudity is not considered indecent or a sign of immodesty, while in others, even a woman wearing a headscarf without a veil is considered immodest. I remember in a small town in Iran, where the bus terminal was located outside the city, one of the pastimes of the young people was to go to the terminal and watch the female university students getting off the buses wearing long coats and headscarves, but without veils! Meanwhile, just a few kilometers away in the center of the province, a short coat or loose hair did not attract any attention. The painful point is that in these cities, the rate of group harassment or aggression is much higher and more disturbing than in the centers.

This example was brought up to come to the general conclusion that the discussion of covering and its extent is not an eternal and everlasting issue, but rather a result of the customs and people’s perspective on the issue of covering in that society. Therefore, the inherent interpretation of hijab, as believed by advocates of mandatory hijab, is actually a form of narrow-mindedness and limited view in its own time and place, towards general principles such as religion and other relevant documents.

Hijab and Islam

Many Islamic scholars and religious intellectuals believe that religion speaks in a specific and timely manner, and that it demands different practical forms in different times and places. Therefore, regarding the issue of hijab, this group speaks of the principle of purity, stating that preserving hijab is essential to achieving this inherent principle. Considering the varying practical limits of achieving this principle in different times and places, the type and extent of hijab will also differ.

On the other hand, this group of religious thinkers believe that the veil of the mind is more important than the veil of the body. Even if the body is fully covered, a corrupt and shameless mind will still be destructive and harmful. Therefore, it is not possible to preserve society by violating the right to freedom of women’s clothing.

Some also believe that by understanding the principle of preventing the ugliness of religion and not forcing the preservation of Islamic hijab, despite emphasizing the maximum level of coverage for the preservation of Islamic hijab, with reliance on the principle of tolerance, forcing it on the entire society and individuals who do not have strong religious beliefs is not considered beneficial for the religion.

Hijab and Psychology

In Iran, the issue of hijab and body covering has been a major political controversy in recent centuries. Once, during the early years of the recent Shamsi century, Reza Shah imposed a law to remove hijab and, in his opinion, modernize society. Less than 50 years later, due to the Islamic Revolution of 1357, this policy was completely reversed and this time the rulers enforced mandatory hijab and, in their opinion, aimed to Islamize society by any means necessary. Despite the stark difference in appearance, what is interesting is that both of these policies share the same underlying principles. In both cases, there is a disregard for individual rights and a superficial approach to social reconstruction.

With a psychoanalytic perspective, it seems that the mandatory hijab law was actually a psychological and vengeful reaction by traditional Islamists after the 1979 Iranian Revolution to the unveiling law of Reza Shah, which had caused deep wounds in the souls and minds of this group of political activists. When they witnessed the violent treatment of their dignity and saw their hijabs being forcibly removed, irreparable psychological damage was inflicted upon them. Therefore, after seizing power, they attempted to heal this wound by enforcing the hijab and calming their hearts.

Conclusion

The result of what was briefly mentioned shows that although freedom of choice in type and amount of clothing is recognized as a natural right, achieving this requires educating society and increasing public awareness, rationality, and culture of acceptance and respect for the rights of others. In this regard, the ideology of authority in determining the type of clothing is only for the extension of power and rule over human beings and lacks religious and moral standards. Therefore, the issue of hijab is not just a religious issue, but a political maneuver that is also in conflict with all human rights standards. On the other hand, looking at the past 100 years, it can be concluded that mandatory hijab in Iran after 1957, in addition to the reasons mentioned above, has also been a psychological reaction towards healing the old wounds caused by the unveiling of Reza Shah. As a result, Reza Shah’s disregard for social norms and psychological issues in enforcing the unveiling law has led to the current rulers also forcefully expanding mandatory