Moeinuddin Saeedi, a member of parliament, questions whether the Azgol Garden incident or a few strands of women’s hair have a negative impact on religion.
Moeinuddin Saeedi, a member of parliament, says that equating chastity and hijab is not necessarily correct. The meaning of hijab is not necessarily chastity, and one cannot fault the chastity of some individuals. Interestingly, during national events, the very same unveiled individuals are featured on national television, but after elections, such matters are forgotten. Does the embezzlement involving Dabesh tea and the northern Tehran garden, which was named after the Friday prayer leader without his knowledge, have a negative impact on religion or a few strands of women’s hair?
Regarding why the hijab bill did not reach a conclusion, he told Entekhab that we did not discuss the chastity and hijab bill in the parliament because it was subject to Article 85 of the Constitution and was referred to a joint commission, so it was not raised in the parliament.
Saeedi, responding to Kayhan’s claim that there is no need for a hijab law, said we have certain principles regarding attire. If it’s merely a matter of law, we already have a law banning the use of satellite dishes, but can this law be enforced? A law must be enforceable. Hijab is undoubtedly a religious and political necessity, but there are many issues that are more pressing. The issue of usury in banking is much more important, and there are serious religious doubts about it. The issues of livelihood, the shrinking of people’s tables, and the soaring prices of meat and chicken are more important topics. The issues of waste scavenging, the disabled, housing, and child labor are a thousand times more important.