Amir Hossein Torkashvand: There Is No Reason for the Hijab to Be Compulsory

Making the hijab compulsory or not is one of the debates that has been ongoing since the beginning of the revolution and has always had its opponents and proponents. Each of the opponents and proponents has their own specific arguments and seeks to refute the reasoning of the opposing group. In recent days, with the presence of social media, this debate has once again become a controversial discussion, to the extent that even some members of parliament have commented on it. Religious intellectuals have also been extensively active on this issue. One of these intellectuals who has worked tirelessly in the field of re-examining religious texts is Amir Hossein Torkashvand. The author of the book "Hijab-e Shar‘i dar Asr-e Payambar" [The Religious Hijab in the Age of the Prophet], which sparked many discussions in academic circles at the time of its publication and is still a primary source in the field of re-reading religious texts, recounted his views on the compulsory hijab in an exclusive interview with a reporter from the Razavi News Agency. He believes that not only the hijab, but no religious ruling can be made compulsory as long as it does not lead to harm to others. Torkashvand's scholarly mastery, combined with his candor, makes the conversation with him a compelling read.

Wouldn't making the hijab a law tarnish its religious image and undermine its functions?

There is a general discussion here. It is not just about the hijab specifically, but in our jurisprudence, all religious and Sharia rulings, from the perspective of our jurists, must be codified into law, even if those rulings involve no harm to others; that is, in fact, they believe that all Sharia rulings, even if doing or not doing them brings no evil to others and does not harm the personal sphere of others, must still become law. This problem is not limited to the issue of the hijab; meaning, if you try and prove that a visible headscarf causes no harm to others, and that in many other countries, even Muslim ones, people do not wear headscarves and it does not cause anyone to fall into sin, yet they believe that harm to others is not the only thing that matters, but rather, simply because the Sharia has asked us that women must wear a headscarf, therefore that ruling must be enforced compulsorily and must be clothed in the garb of law. This is a worrying issue that exists; but regarding the question, in my opinion, making the hijab compulsory damages its religious image in society and weakens this matter, and in fact, brings with it all those problems that intelligent religious people have pointed out. However, for reform, we have no choice but to re-examine religious texts and prove that fundamentally, Sharia rulings should not be clothed in the garb of law, except for those rulings that human custom and reason also acknowledge the necessity of their legal codification. Unfortunately, this is a bad occurrence that exists in our traditional texts. We hope that our jurists and other authorities will consider undertaking a new re-examination of the texts.

Was the opinion of all religious elders on the matter of making the hijab law the same at the beginning of the revolution?

At the beginning of the revolution, some elders believed that there was no compulsion in the matter, and by reasoning based on rich, primary Islamic sources, citing Quranic verses, and also citing the conduct and method of the Prophet, peace be upon him and his family, at the time of his emergence, they believed that there should be no compulsion or obligation regarding the hijab. Therefore, in the first one or two years of the revolution, the project of legally mandating and making the hijab compulsory experienced some fluctuation. But gradually, some religious intellectual thinkers who opposed making the hijab law passed away, and some others were marginalized, and unfortunately, the project of making the hijab law was pursued with seriousness.

What were the arguments for making the hijab compulsory from the perspective of its proponents?

Proponents have theological reasons as well as serious jurisprudential reasons for this. They believe that God created this world, that God is the lawgiver, and that when He enacts a law, human beings—whose benefactor is God—are obligated to implement all those laws. The legal channels, in the opinion of this group, are the Book of God, the words of the Prophet, and the Infallibles (peace be upon them). In fact, they believe that whatever is said through these three channels and reaches us via the jurists is the very view of God Almighty, and since God Almighty is the benefactor of human beings, therefore humans must carry it out, regardless of whether the ruling pertains to the rights of people (haqq al-nās) or the rights of God (haqq Allāh). That is, even if the ruling is a right of God that causes no harm to others, simply because God Almighty has said you must do this, it must be done. Of course, this is the understanding of our traditional scholars on these matters; otherwise, today, religious intellectuals say that the interpretations made so far of the exegesis of the Word of God Almighty, the conduct of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him and his family), and the sayings of the Infallible Imams (peace be upon them) need to be re-examined. In other words, religious intellectuals have launched the project of rereading and revising religious texts, and fortunately, over these past few decades, many issues have been reconsidered, the interpretations of previous scholars on religious matters have been rejected, and they themselves have arrived at new interpretations. In any case, the argument of those in favor of making the hijab compulsory and legal is that this ruling comes from God and is, in fact, the word of the Sharia, and therefore, because it is attributed to God, it is obligatory to implement. Hence, they have shown seriousness in this regard and have instituted discretionary punishments (ta'zīrāt). Ta'zīrāt means that if someone commits a customary or religious sin, they must be subjected to ta'zīr and flogged. A customary sin is one whose ugliness and evil the people themselves acknowledge; but a religious sin consists of acts whose evil people do not recognize, yet their ugliness is explicitly stated in the Sharia. In short, if someone does not pray, they must be flogged; if they repeat it, they must be flogged again; and if they repeat it a third or fourth time, they must be executed. Whereas praying or not praying, fasting or not fasting, causes no harm or evil to others. Yet they say that since prayer, fasting, and the like are the command of God, the relationship between servant and master necessitates that these rulings must be implemented, and if one does not implement them, this person becomes disobedient. In fact, the reasoning of these jurists for making the hijab and other religious rulings into law is that if these rulings are not observed, the person is in a state of rebellion against God Almighty and deserves punishment. We object to this argument on two fronts. First, regarding the understanding of religious matters, which in our view, it is not clear that this understanding is correct. For example, they say that someone who commits adultery while married (zinā-yi muhsina) must be stoned, whereas when we examine it, we see that stoning was never part of Islam; rather, Islam opposed it, and I have written a book on this subject. The second point is that, supposing we have understood that the Sharia has indeed stated this, and for instance, has said that women must wear the chador, yet doing or abandoning it causes no harm to others, we must make it optional, not compulsory.

.

---

.

Exclusive Interview of Amir Hossein Torkashvand with Razavi News Agency

There Is No Reason for the Hijab to Be Compulsory

Source: Razavi News Agency

.

---

.