According to the opinion of the majority of jurists, hijab is one of the necessities of religion and its observance is obligatory. In Noor verse 31, women are ordered
Hijab FAQ
Is hijab obligatory?
According to the opinion of the majority of jurists, hijab is one of the necessities of religion and its observance is obligatory. In Noor verse 31, women are ordered to tie their headscarves so that their necks are covered. (Hijab from the perspective of Islam) It is also emphasized in many hadiths that the limit of women's hijab is the same as the face and the shroud. It means that women should cover their entire body except for the face and palms in front of non-mahram. (Hijab Hadiths)
Is hijab mandatory?
There is no compulsion in religion. Because religion is one of the categories of belief and you cannot force someone to believe in something. A Muslim can not pray or fast. But in hijab, the story is different. Unlike prayer and fasting, hijab is not an individual and private matter. Some religious prohibitions, such as dressing badly or drinking alcohol, have social effects, and therefore, if not observing them causes chaos in the society, the ruler of the Islamic society can make that issue legal and mandatory. Currently, in the domestic and foreign media, there are countless negative advertisements against hijab and social cover, and the issue of "dressing" which is related to the rebellious instincts of humans, is trivialized to the extent of brushing teeth, can there be any laws and Did not set a limit?
Was hijab compulsory during the time of the prophets?
Some believe that hijab was not compulsory during the Prophet's rule. Various opinions have been expressed in this matter. Some people say that during the Prophet's time, hijab was not an issue of the government; Why? Because at that time, even before the mission of the Prophet, women used hijab and headscarves. However, because their hijab was incomplete, i.e. they did not cover their necks, the verse was revealed that these parts should be covered as well. In addition, it is not found anywhere in the historical books of Sadr Islam that some enemy of the Prophet or imams fought against hijab in the society or made negative propaganda against it. As a result, hijab was traditionally observed and there was no need for legislation.
Of course, some people, citing some hadiths, have said that by the way, during the time of the Prophet and Imam Ali, a law was established for hijab. For example, Martyr Motahari believes: It is not possible to show a period in which hijab was generally more severe than the time of the Holy Prophet. And probably this severity of the hijab shows the diligence of the prophetic government in implementing this divine order.
The next point is that social and governmental decrees are rationally and Sharia part of the authority of the ruler. It is not exclusive to Ahl al-Bayt's way of life and is completely consistent with the conditions of time and place. That is, an issue can be irrelevant in one period and be the issue of the society in another period. It's like Imam Ali (a.s.) taxing horses, while this tax did not exist at the time of the Prophet (s.a.w.). Or that some imams did not collect khums from Shiites during their period.
Therefore, legislating for hijab is part of the authority of the ruler and does not need to conform to the period of leadership of the Ahl al-Bayt. Hijab can be socially not strict in one period and obligatory in another period. This difference exists even today. For example, rural women in the rice fields may raise their sleeves up to the elbows, but no guidance patrol will warn them, but the same hijab in the city is subject to the law. Both are against Sharia, but one can not be a legal issue for social and customary reasons and the law enforcer can ignore it.
When we did not deal with not wearing hijab during the time of Ahl al-Bayt, then where did this punishment come from?
Punishment in Islamic law has 4 titles. Dayat, retribution, limits, and ta'zeer. There are limits in Sharia. Dayat and retribution are also clear and for intentional and unintentional crimes and compensation. But the punishment is completely based on the conditions of time and place that the ruler imposes. Wearing hijab is also a kind of tazeer.
Why is the discovery of hijab an infringement on the rights of the majority?
This sentence that they say "Well, men should not be provoked" is to downgrade the issue. It is said that the removal of the hijab is an infringement on the rights of the majority because the conditions become difficult for religiosity. For example, it is forbidden to look at the hair of a non-mahram woman without provocation. Why should the majority suffer when some people want to be comfortable in the middle of society?
The next reason is that a city that is supposed to be an environment of religion and spirituality for the society becomes prone to immorality. The duty of a government is to build a platform that is a preparation for religion, not a promoter of immorality.
What should be done if we do not want the hijab law? Where does the legitimacy of this law come from?
If we don't discuss within religion; With the logic of democracy and human rights, the law derives its legitimacy from observing the interests of the majority. That is, the minority must respect the rights of the majority according to morality and reason. The hijab law was written based on the expediency of Muslims.
Who said hijab fans are the majority? Let's hold a referendum.
There is no fear of the referendum. But the logic of this argument is flawed. Choosing a religion is optional, but choosing the components of religion is not optional. It means that a society can reject Islam by voting and of course they will be held accountable in the Day of Resurrection, but the components of religion cannot be voted on. The choice of the Iranian nation is also Islam. The most important witness is the referendum at the beginning of the revolution, which voted for Islam in the form of the executive model of the Islamic Republic.
That was the opinion of our fathers and we do not accept it. What is the assignment?
The answer to this question has two aspects. negative and positive Its positive part is that the referendum has been extended many times during the revolution with elections and political participation of the people. That is, it is not like a referendum has been held once and that's it.
But the negative side of it is that if someone says the day after the new referendum, I don't accept this either and there should be another referendum, what is the duty? This vicious circle has no end.
Who has Hijab been made by Ershad Gasht until today? Why do we insist on implementation?
It has been said that coercion is ineffective in dealing with modesty. ineffective in what?
Some people think that with Ershad's Gasht , he is going to become veiled. It is grossly wrong.
Some people think that Hijab is going to grow in the society with Irshad patrol. This is also grossly wrong.
So what is Ershad's Gasht ?
The guidance patrol is the defense of people's rights; Something beyond God's right. Individual hijab is a Shariah duty and a right of Allah, but the duty of the system is to defend the rights of people.
The questioner's mistake is that he thinks that coercive behavior is bad. It is also there, but it is not the first priority. Forcible treatment is for the protection of religious society.
The laws of the government should be such that not only the hijab people do not feel alienated, but also the social atmosphere itself encourages them. The legalization of the hijab is one of the methods that harmonizes the social atmosphere with the inner desire of those who wear the hijab.
Those who believe that the hijab should be optional for anyone to come to the street as they wish, are probably not ready to accept the consequences of their words. If the hijab has no restrictions, then they should not expect the family to have privacy and sanctity in its Eastern and Islamic style. Abandonment of the society and immorality on the other side are illicit relations between men and women and the destruction of the family center, etc. As we see today in the West. Optional hijab is a chain, on the other side of which is the Instrumentalization of women in society. Do we stay with the consequences of this chain?
Therefore, it is compulsory to protect the society, which is supposed to be a platform for remembrance, spirituality and religion, not necessarily by wearing a hijab without a hijab. With this explanation, it becomes clear that dealing with obscenity may not affect a particular person, but it has made the society safer. Suppose we had today's situation 20 years ago. Aren't we facing the decline of religiosity?
Reminder; It is clear that we defend the coercive philosophy, not wrong and violent behavior. Note that we are defending the obligation, not violence. Seat belts are required, but not violent.
what should we do?
Enjoining what is good and forbidding what is bad, regardless of whether it is an individual or a sovereign, has a necessary and primary prerequisite, and that the wrongdoer must consider that matter to be good or bad. The hijab issue is still not clear for a part of the society.
This is where the issue of tolerance arises in Islam. Tolerance is an educational principle that empathizes and accompanies a person so that the problem can be clarified for him in the next steps. Tolerance is different from tolerance. Tolerance is an active and conscious patience, and tolerance is neglect and indifference caused by blasphemy.
For this reason, law enforcement is not only limited to Irshad Patrol, and 23 other institutions should play a role in this regard, which are unfortunately closed.
It should be noted that the issue of tolerance is for the people's text and deconstructions like the White Wednesday campaign are out of this issue and require forceful confrontation. According to its main branch, the destination on white Wednesdays is subversion, not voluntary or compulsory hijab.