The conclusion of a futurist report on hijab: There is no choice but tolerance
The conclusion of a futurist report on hijab: There is no choice but tolerance. A futurist study on the obligation of hijab in Iran, after examining the historical trajectory of hijab in terms of customary legislation and reviewing jurisprudential opinions and research conducted on hijab, has concluded that Iranian society has no choice but to move towards greater tolerance and for the government to step away from managing the hijab issue.
In this report, prepared by the Strategic Heritage Review Group, it is stated that our message to those compatriots who believe in hijab and enjoining good and forbidding wrong, and do not have a heartfelt belief in tolerance, is that the lack of tolerance will lead to a negative societal response towards hijab. In other words, a lack of tolerance practically paves the way for the spread of non-hijab. For effective enjoining good and forbidding wrong, it is suggested that independent cultural and religious activities be carried out with the aim of persuading society.
Based on this study, since 1935 with the enactment of the law for unveiling by Reza Shah, the issue of hijab in Iran took on a political and governmental aspect. From 1941 to 1979, with hijab becoming optional, religious institutions organized cultural activities to promote hijab, which perhaps did not achieve significant success overall. After the revolution, government intervention in the matter of hijab further exacerbated the issue.
For this reason, currently, the issue of hijab, with this background, has largely turned into a political matter. This situation causes the religious and cultural meaning of hijab to become less significant and vulnerable to political protests. In other words, unveiling is interpreted as opposition to the government, and wearing hijab is interpreted as agreement with the government. This damage will lead to a further decrease in commitment to hijab in the long term. The published report from this study points to four potential scenarios facing Iranian policymakers.
From Coexistence to a Smoldering Fire
Coexistence: In this scenario, society tolerates diverse thoughts and lifestyles, and all currents have representation in the government. The hijab issue is resolved peacefully through the representatives of the people and according to the opinion of the majority of society. Hijab and various forms of dress are accepted as a personal choice within the framework of the law and do not lead to the separation of people.
Line-up: In this scenario, people have a very low tolerance for different thoughts, but all currents have their representative in the country’s governance. Society’s tolerance for diverse thoughts decreases, and tension spreads to the political level. In addition to sharp confrontations among people, the political space also becomes a battleground for different currents. The symbolic political and ideological aspect of hijab increases, leading to tension in social relations among people.
Paper Tiger: In this scenario, society deals with various groups with tolerance and leniency, but the country’s political space is dominated by a specific current, and not all viewpoints are reflected. Strict laws and penalties are imposed for violators of the hijab law, but people live together with tolerance and acceptance of diverse lifestyles, and hijab laws lose legitimacy. Hijab is accepted as an individual choice and does not cause tension or separation among people. The moral police are separated from women who wear hijab.
Smoldering Fire: In this scenario, only a specific group of people have representation in governance, and society does not tolerate diversity in thought and lifestyle. Part of society, backed by political power, suppresses the other part and enforces its desired laws. Part of the population, which has no representation in the government, expresses some of its anger by harshly confronting women who wear hijab and religious symbols. The ground is prepared for widespread protests and the emergence of violence.
Scenario Outcomes
The Coexistence scenario: If society is tolerant and an open political space is realized, one can think about educating the next generation to prevent the recurrence of conflict over the hijab issue. Attention to the next generation to prevent renewed conflict is important in all scenarios, so this point is not repeated in the rest of the scenarios.
The Paper Tiger scenario: In conditions where society is tolerant and a closed political space leads to conflict over hijab, the community’s effort to remove the government from managing the issue and for society to play a central role in resolving the hijab issue is of greater importance.
The Line-up scenario: If a non-tolerant society engages in widespread conflict in an open political space, efforts to recognize diverse currents become the main priority of civil society activities.
The Smoldering Fire scenario: In conditions where society is non-tolerant and part of the population supports the suppression of another group by the government, the first priority is recognizing diverse currents, and in the next stage, the role of society in resolving the hijab issue is important.
Government Withdrawal from Hijab Management
In this report, to reduce further damage to hijab, suggestions have been made to civil and cultural institutions, including: 1. Demanding maximum government withdrawal from managing the hijab issue. 2. Recognizing diverse currents.
The study goes on to point out that it seems the different parties in the hijab issue do not have a correct perception of each other. Incorrect labeling and interpretations of the thoughts and motivations of the different parties in the issue of women’s dress choices lead to the closure of dialogue and the blockage of thinking about a solution to the issue. It is crucial to note that the lack of possibility for official social and cultural activities for different groups leads to the expansion of the grounds and motivations for the emergence of violence.
In the medium term, it is likely that Iranian society will face a decrease in the choice of traditional hijab as women’s clothing. In this situation, advertising to monopolize the concept of modesty and chastity in hijab leads to labeling the non-hijab groups in society as immodest and unchaste. These derogatory labels around the hijab promotion movement lead to disgust towards hijab, increase tension, and simultaneously harm the issue of modesty and chastity.
The end of this report also states that the suggestion for tolerance is not to negate the enjoining good and forbidding wrong. The suggestion for tolerance includes the heartfelt level of enjoining good for those who adhere to the traditional Shia interpretation, but attention must be paid to the negative effects of verbal and practical enjoining good in the current hijab issue.
In this context, articles have been published on Iran Gate.
- Moral Police or Death Chariot
- Hijab Referendum: Yes in Turkey, No in Iran
- Moral Police is Just an Excuse