Power display in the style of radical clerics in Qom
What is revealed behind the incident of a cleric photographing a young mother in Qom
A cleric secretly films and photographs a woman sitting on the ground in a corner of a clinic in Qom holding her baby, with her scarf draped over her shoulders. The young woman becomes upset, protests to the cleric, and demands he delete the photos. The cleric refuses, and the woman repeats her request loudly. The video of this confrontation and the young mother’s distress upsets and angers the public.
As the young mother’s anger and concern grow, a group of women rush to her aid, surrounding the cleric and demanding that he hand over his phone so they can delete the video and photos. The cleric resists, and the women insist on their demand. The young mother experiences a seizure.
The video of this confrontation highlights important and thought-provoking aspects of the situation in Iranian society, aspects we are all aware of—both the people who criticize such behaviors and those who know that their photographing and filming cause worry and anger in part of the society, leading to accumulated tension, resentment, and hatred. Consider this video as a random survey. Everything happened suddenly, but those present in the clinic sided with the young woman and protested against the middle-aged cleric. It’s like a random survey with the question: Do you approve of the middle-aged cleric’s action or not? Based on people’s behavior, the answer is a resounding no.
But when we know that such behaviors fuel people’s anger, distrust, and concern, and it is entirely clear and obvious that they are fruitless, why do we keep repeating them? Behind this incident lies a big, troubling ‘why,’ and ultimately, why do such coercive and fruitless behaviors occasionally appear in a corner of the city and country, causing anxiety and anger among the people?
This video also reflects the current status of the clergy in Iranian society. The clergy is a very old and deep-rooted institution that, not too long ago, was among the respected and credible groups in Iranian society. In the past, merely the presence of a cleric would prompt women to observe their hijab, without even needing a reminder. But today, not only does their presence lack such impact, but even their words do not carry the same weight as before. This incident, as an example, shows the status of the religious institution and its caretakers in society. If anyone doubts this, they can refer to recent surveys, which show that fundamental beliefs have also declined. What is the reason for this situation?
In the literature of religious sociology, there are various classifications regarding religiosity, one of which is official religiosity, which in Iran after the revolution is usually represented by the clergy. When a cleric appears in public in his distinctive attire, there is no need for him to say that he is a religious person; his attire has become a symbol of his religiosity. Therefore, if a behavior from a cleric, who believes in public and ritualistic religiosity, occurs and the society does not accept it, it affects people’s judgment of official religiosity.
Many researchers, sociologists, and experts in religious and political affairs have warned in recent years that tendencies toward religiosity in Iranian society have declined. They believe that all the main indicators of religious commitment or religiosity among the people have faced a decline over the past few decades. This behavior and social situation show that the clerics find themselves in a society where religious behaviors and tendencies are in decline. Now the question is, do such behaviors reduce the distances?
The logic and goal of such behavior, as inferred from the words of those defending coercive actions, is to strengthen the religious and spiritual values of society. It is clear that such behaviors do not lead to an increase in the credibility of religious values; on the contrary, they cause a decrease in these values and consequently reduce the credibility and status of the clergy. At the same time, such behavior leads to a large segment of the population distancing themselves from the government and religious values, and more broadly from the clergy.
So why this insistence? There can be multiple answers to this question. One of these answers is the need to demonstrate power, especially in conditions where its elements are declining. Individuals and groups who have lost their social base, whose words no longer have the same impact, whose media monopoly has vanished, and who lack the power to rebuild a declining institution in Iranian society, because all their thoughts and energies are focused on maintaining power.
When there is no other way, it is natural that, knowing their behavior is fruitless and even has a reverse effect, they resort to power and force, trying to achieve what they want. Therefore, the more the problems increase and their influence decreases, the more they will resort to coercive methods and the use of force and policy.
Unfortunately, the official religious authorities also show less interest in seeing the realities of society under such conditions, and even with their silence, they endorse this process. Just look at the Friday news. Some officials, many Friday prayer leaders, and some new parliament members, just a few days after the elections, emphasized coercive actions regarding hijab in their speeches. Some even encouraged people to take to the streets and confront non-compliance with hijab. The nature of all these words and policies was the same, and the issue of using policy and power in social matters has existed for years and will continue.
If it manifested in the past with issues like video and later satellite, it will continue in the future, even if the issue of hijab is resolved, in new topics. In fact, the presence of such individuals is tied to these confrontations and diversions, even at the cost of steering the country’s developments into the realm of emotions, confrontation, and destruction. In any case, the result of these behaviors and power displays will be detrimental to the religious culture of society.
Another point is that people do not differentiate between clerics regarding these behaviors. Although some clerics and devout individuals express concern over such confrontations and conflicts, when those who criticize such behaviors do not openly and explicitly express their opposition, do not speak out, and do not show any action, it is natural that people do not differentiate.
If the religious authorities and clerics who do not approve of such methods do not explicitly criticize these behaviors and choose to remain silent, how are people supposed to understand their stance on these confrontations? The result is that people do not differentiate between clerics and religious authorities in matters that society disapproves of, and the institution of the clergy loses its social base even further.