Advertise here

Fate of Hijab after the Islamic Regime

Balatarin

 

What will happen with controversy Islamic hijab in Iran once the people of Iran get rid of the Islamic regime? This question might be answered by the four following options:

 

1- Muslim fanatics even after the fall of the Islamic regime are expected to uphold hijab as a tradition of their religion. With bated breath for the release of new version of hijab. Hijab for them does not forcibly represent an emblem of Islamofascism, but rather an apolitical tradition and thus a religious duty. They will water down the notorious weight of hijab by differing it as to whether hijab should be required to be shrouded form a head-to-toe black chador to a thick scarf. It would be enough to cover the hair, neck, shoulders, and bosom by a thick scarf to match both their Islamic tradition and a bit fashionable styles.

2- Female Muslims would not consider hijab as Islamic self-assessment, nor as an acceptance of Islamism. They look down on full face cover women, would reject Islamic hijab, but not forcibly hijab. For them, Islamic hijab is an old dated tradition which does not fit today’s norms of emancipated woman and participation of women in all spheres of social life, but are not against that. This is similar to women’s individual freedom under the Shah. To this category all Muslim women will belong who are today compelled to wear Islamic hijab under the Mullah’s regime.

3- All other women who for political or conscious achievements are fed up with the supremacy of Islam throw away hijab. People with such ideas would propose radical laws prohibiting or restricting limiting Islamic hijab. In a radical form, they will propose ban of Islamic hijab in any form on public places. They would argue that the wearing of any garment that obscures the face and prevents identification of a female, in schools, universities, sport clubs, government office, at any entertainment venue, and on any means of public transportation must be banned. The primary purpose of such a ban is to liberate women from irrational restrictions. This option targets devout Muslims and especially the leftovers of the Islamic regime, those who consider Islamic hijab as an obligatory code of dress for women in Islam.

4- There will be a liberal category who argues that women are free to choose themselves: from the head-to-toe black chador, women in full burqa and Islamic headscarf and any form of clothing so far as in mini skirt “minijupe”, and bikini. This category follows unconditional liberty of individual freedom. For them, hijab or non-hijab should not be an obligatory and mandatory decision imposed by the state. Muslim parents can decide for child hijab and force their daughters of any age to wear hijab, for “moral or safety” reasons, not to participate in entertainments, sports, play, and in other words all a girl with Islamic hijab cannot or is too limited to do.

Ban of hijab in Iran was first experienced by Reza Shah in 1936. The process took different steps such as approving the unified clothing. However, the influence of Islam was still too imposing. Most women refused running “naked” in the streets and stayed mostly home. Reza Shah's forced unveiling diminished with the end of his reign when he was deposed by the Allies 1941 in favour of his son Mohammad Reza Shah. Reza Shah’s secular ambitions, including unveiling, were inspired from Mustafa Kemal Atatörk, but without sufficient support of Iranian population. Islamic hijab came back after his reign namely under his son.

 
Today, there is no such an analogy between Reza Shah’s forced unveiling and a ban of hijab. Most Iranians consider hijab as an obvious manifestation which is linked to political Islam rather than Islam itself.

 

Wearing of Islamic hijab is today an obstinate symbol of Islamism; it is therefore banned or restricted in many democracies because of people’s demand due to the pressure of people. In France full hijab in banned in public, religious signs like hijab are forbidden in primary and secondary schools. Even Russia, an alley of the Mullah regime, banned Muslim girls from attending classes while clad in any form of Islamic hijab.

 

Similarly, hijab ban or hijab restriction seems to be a likely option of the people of Iran after the fall of the Islamic regime. This will not be a matter of a state, but rather a demand of fervent people in a free Iran who believe that Islam and modern cultures cannot live next to each other. They will see hijab as an affront to society's values and will not feel good to see veiled women still exposing Islamic emblem around.

 

It can be very psychologically imaginable that in free Iran hijab will be exclusively associated with the plague of the Islamic regime, as the Swastika is Germany is associated with all evil. Hijab will also remind women of all misogynistic and sickening measures the regime committed by any means including the Morality Police, acid-throwing, harassment, and humiliation of “bad-veiled” women.

 

As the history of World War II unfolded, the victory of the Allies upon the Nazi Germany caused a ban of all fascist symbols. Namely, no Swastika, no Nazi uniform, no Nazi salute…. is permitted in Germany. 

 

Hijab ban will be similarly a victory of Iranians upon the regime of Nazi; it is a victory of the secular assumption and attitude of men-women equality. Hijab will therefore be banned as a symbol of collective prejudices under Islamofascism because it represents more than an Islamic tradition, namely an emblem of political Islam. Furthermore for many average Iranians, not forcibly nationalists or anti-Arabs, the ban of hijab is also a respect for the values of Iranian pre-Islamic civilisation.

 

Considering these four options, any new state in free Iran has a big task to adequately deal with Islamic hijab.

 

 

[Image courtesy Reuters]

 

Balatarin

Comments 62 Pending 0

Sort comments:
farhangpooya

farhangpooya In all situations, in or outside power, social problems require social solutions (در همه شرايط، در حاكميت و يا خارج از حاكميت، مشكلات اجتماعى راه حل هاى اجتماعى طلب مى كنند)

Dear Hooshang and Jahanshah
Writing articles, just for the sake of expressing opinion does not solve problems. There are two powerful camps and their supporters in this world. Neither are seeking to establish the true democracy in its true meaning in the world.
Jahanshah: you can not say, the future government will abolish hijab. look at the pictures of Afghan women football team below. This is the outcome of all out military attack on Taliban in Afghanistan and establishment of a western style democracy.
فینال لیگ برتر فوتبال زنان کابل به روایت تصویر
http://www.bbc.co.uk/persian/afghanistan/2014/06/140607_zs_kabul_football_league_championship.shtml
So it is not as you yas. In the future, hijab is going to abolished.
Religion is still being abused in Afghanistan and as Karl Marx says itis the opium of the masses to guard the opium fields in Afghanistan. Hijab is an essential component of it of this opium. The western style Afghan goverment continue controlling and suppressing half of the population through hijab and other inhumane ways, just like they do in Arab state. Western style democracy does not change the system. I can not deny there has been improvements.
Reformist like Khatami and Mohajerani just talked about collective decision making but they never put such an idea into practice. they neither did in opposition neither in their organisation nor when they were in power. We hear Reza Palavi using the phrase from time to time and yet he makes all the decisions himself.
The nearest form of democracy that that I like to be stablished is being practiced is here in Iranian.com. The only problem in here we just talk for the sake of talking. We need to formulate our common dinaminator and campaign for it. We seem to be all against hijab and torture and execution of political prisoners. Let's just ratify one one paragraph on each issue and go on all out campaign in the name of a big community of Iranian people. I am sure if we practice this it will have a huge impact both here outside and inside Iran. If it comes from a big community, it will make a huge difference.
Hooshang jan: I do not want to be the chief of anything. The chiefs made a complete mess of everything. Chiefs turn into King of kings and Vali Faghih. Khamenehei used to charge 5 tooman in religious ceremonies(rozah). Now he has turned into a complete despot. There is no other way than democratic decision making process, in or outside government. Democracy means rule of people and rule of people means means collective decision making. i promise, no one takes any notice of individuals making noses. You make as much noise as you want. Write articles, make big speeches. Nobody takes any notice and you will get demoralised and give up. Do it collectively and effectively through a democratic process and they will shiver in fear.
Let's go for it or forget about writing all these articles or making comments.

HoshangTarehgol5

Hoshang Tarehgol An injury to one is an injury to all.

Farhang jaan you need to read Karl in its totality, not only the parts that you like. Right after he writes "religion is the opium of the masses," he also adds " it is also the heart in a heartless world." Some say marxism is the opium of intellectuals!
Karl also wrote a lot about commodity fetishism, all due respect what I sense from you is nothing but organizational fetishism. You simply fail to acknowledge the fact that all progress in Iranian social scene has been due to our social movements, not any particular group, party or organization. What we need to do outside of Iran is to strengthen & augment those various social movements inside Iran: students' movements, women's movement, labor movement, environmental movement,...Instead of paying attention to this great task, you just keep repeating how we need to create yet another totally irrelevant group. Such misunderstanding is an obstacle and unacceptable. Cheers

JahanshahRashidian3

Jahanshah Rashidian

Dear Farhangpooya, in my view democracy has universal norms. In another word, under Ideological, religious, class…state democracy is merely a blank word.
Afghanistan, Iraq… is not supposed to have such norms because Islam predominates like a social order and thus acts as a base for dictatorship. Democracy or dictatorship can be helped by key powers in the peripheral countries, but not established mechanically because the base cannot be imported.
The base of dictator under any shape in the Islamic world remains deep in Islam and all other forms of state are the superstructures of the same base.

amirparvizforsecularmonarchy

amirparvizforsecularmonarchy I Love Waterfalls and Find One of the most humorous things in the world; is the notion that Americans are a greater force for good & more civilized than Nazi's, Mullahs and Communists.

Is it me or is it strange that all the powers that are abusing the rights of others against the wishes of their own people are "the democratic systems" which are unproven and do not work in practice. The Military Industrial Complex, the Academic cover it gets as if it were a success and the media black out on the countries involved in wars of aggression against others for money, like in the case of Libya, North African and Middle Eastern Countries, these all come about in democratic systems, not Iran's Shah-han-shahi which respected the rule of law better than any other system and enjoyed lower levels of corruption than western democratic systems.

behsaba

behsaba

Just imagine, if we still had the Shah, some weirdos would've been allowed in my country, free to spout rubbish, call it poetry, and glare in the camera while high on speed. We''l worry about our own problems, thank you very much.

HoshangTarehgol5

Hoshang Tarehgol An injury to one is an injury to all.

Don't need to imagine a thing, all needed is the courage, integrity & a pair of eyes to see that monarchy didn't go anywhere. Pahlavi monarchy was replaced with mullah monarchy, crown was replaced with a turban.
Iran became the largest producer & exporter of synthetic hard core drugs (crack, methamphetamine,...) in Middle East.
Weirdos have been running everything for the past 35 years, chanting death to this & death to that, thinking it's very poetic & such.
Just recently they've discovered it's not all that poetic at all; too little, too late!

amirparvizforsecularmonarchy

amirparvizforsecularmonarchy I Love Waterfalls and Find One of the most humorous things in the world; is the notion that Americans are a greater force for good & more civilized than Nazi's, Mullahs and Communists.

he is being sarcastic, look at the weirdos that occupied Iran for the last 34 years, they are un-Iranian and traitors to both king and country, as well as the national culture of Iran. He is saying if the king was here now , all these social ills and diseases and unhappiness would not exist as they do today and they did not before. Iran is not even in top 100 for prosperity and joy of life, where as with the late shah it was in top 10.

farhangpooya

farhangpooya In all situations, in or outside power, social problems require social solutions (در همه شرايط، در حاكميت و يا خارج از حاكميت، مشكلات اجتماعى راه حل هاى اجتماعى طلب مى كنند)

What really concerns me is that we all talk and do nothing.
Does it really make any difference what Jahansha, Farhang, .... think?
What will future government do?
Who knows what future holds?
Our action or inaction will determine what future holds for our women.
We need to have a strong democratic society which can speak with one strong voice.
We may not be able to agree on every single issue but we all seem to be strongly against the way our women are treated and the way political prisoners are subjected to horrendous daily torture and execution.
Why don't we agree to form an Iranian society in here and pass a resolution to strongly oppose these basic violation of human rights.
You all seem to be all in favour of condemning the violation of these two basic human rights. If that is the case then let's take some action right now.
Why don't we do it with one strong union voice?
Come on then Mr and Mrs right.
Take some actions, we must fight

JahanshahRashidian3

Jahanshah Rashidian

Since the inception the Islamic regime, unity has been the watchword. The word looks to compensate the lack of any harmony. One main reason that concerns the opposition is a narcissistic trend of the Eslahtlaban, MKE and Monarchists who feel compelled to keep or restore the same form of state which cannot be in essence much different from the one presently in power. The urgency of success for such an apposition does not sufficiently matter our people because they are already victim of such a narcissistic regime.

amirparvizforsecularmonarchy

amirparvizforsecularmonarchy I Love Waterfalls and Find One of the most humorous things in the world; is the notion that Americans are a greater force for good & more civilized than Nazi's, Mullahs and Communists.

How predictably self serving of you JR, to define opponents as narcissistic or "megalomaniac as used by the media" and then in the same breath to define your own views as the only just ones. Unimaginatively disingenuous at best, comparing the Mullahs/MeK with those who put Irans Pre-Islamic Culture and her people first. Meanwhile mullahs are not at all sensitive to criticism like narcissists, its not that they don't feel empathy like narcissists, they just have zero standards and care about all the wrong things.

HoshangTarehgol5

Hoshang Tarehgol An injury to one is an injury to all.

Farhang Jan I nominate you as the president & commander in chief of this new Iranian society you propose to create. Hoping this new Iranian society unlike tens & hundreds of Iranian societies before it will solve all our problems once and for all. Also have a feeling with you at helms mullahs will take notice & abdicate once & for all.

Mammad

Mammad Mammad

Once again, Mr. JR is at it again, espousing the views of the most reactionary elements in the West as "enlightened" thought. Islamofascism? Who came up with that first? The most reactionary and warmongering elements in the West, particularly the US. Islam being like the Nazi regime? This is simply beyond pale.

There is no need to fantasize about categories of women after the fall of IR> All one needs to do is announcing that hejab is voluntary. Those who want to wear it, for whatever reason, can, and those who do not want to, should not. If we believe in religion being a private affair, then there is no need for such "roodeh derazi." But, of course, in his infinite hatred for JR, he must come up with all sorts of absurd notions, hate mongering, propaganda, etc.

And, whether anyone likes it or not, Islam is here and there to stay. Let's hope Muslim scholars get rid of the reactionaries by isolating them, just as the Christian, Jewish, Hindo, .... reactionaries must also be isolated.

Persianawed

Persianawed

The four options listed were appreciated.
As an outsider who admires Iranian culture and hopes and wishes the best for the Iranian people, I hope the strength and generosity of spirit prevails that chooses to allow women and families to make their own decisions.

I must say, however, that the comparison to World War II Germany and its symbols was jarring for a number of reasons:
1. Based on extensive research and assessment of BOTH sides of the story, "both sides of the story" of the second world war have not yet been told equitably. "Nazism," "Hitler," "swastika," etc. have been reduced to synonyms for absolute by a relentless barrage of propaganda that began in the 1930s and has not let up even today. I think we have not yet allowed the full truths of that war to be told, therefore we are in an even worse situation than those who do not know history: we know a distorted history, and make distorted analyses based upon it.

2. It seems to me that a more appropriate analogy of the hijab as a symbol of a hated, imposed quasi-religious regimen would be to dominance of Roman Catholic authority in the Middle Ages, or to Protestant fundamentalism in the USA in the present day. An analogy from these spheres at least reflects the religious-political tensions that beset Iran's culture.

3. Finally, along with my wish for courage and generosity among the Iranian people, I hope they are able to resist the corrupting influence of so-called Western culture. When I try to understand the mullahs, I think that they are trying to save Iran from the decadence that has overtaken the USA, and have gone to extremes to do so. They are right to be wary of the destructive force that has destroyed family life and the moral core of the USA. But somehow, a middle ground must be sought.

JahanshahRashidian3

Jahanshah Rashidian

Thank you for the support! Hijab is so associated with Islamofascism that Muslim women of my family who used to practice Islam are now against it.

Much more women are against hijab as believed but have not been prepared to express themselves and are held in reserve under these suppressive circumstances in Iran. They simply avoid having more troubles with the brutal authorities.

Apart from some women who are Muslim fanatics or serve the Islamic regime in their political agenda, any woman, like any rebellious stiff-necked apostate, can be punished in Iran. "Bad veiled" woman is to be punished as a member of the disobedient apostates.

JahanshahRashidian3

Jahanshah Rashidian

Thank you for the support! Hijab is so associated with Islamofascism that Muslim women of my family who used to practice Islam are now against it.

Much more women are against as believed but have not been prepared to express themselves and are held in reserve under these supressive circumstances in Iran. They simply avoid having more troubles with the brutal authorities.

Apart from some women who are fanatics or serve the regime in their political agenda, any “bad veil” woman like any rebellious stiff-necked apostate can be punished in Iran

ad veiled” is to punished as a member of the disobedient apostates.

ArvandRud

Arvand Rud Arvand Rud is the proper name of the "Shatt al Arab". Let's just say I would never sell out Iran to the mullahs or the communists.

The mullahs have sought nothing but the solidification of their power through the imposition of many male chauvinist institutions; hejab is just the most noticeable one.

Iranian women should be able to dress themselves however they wish. It's not mens' jobs to dictate to their sisters to put on hejab.

Freedom of religion means freedom to practice religion or not.

The most that should be done by liberals and secularists who fear that in a free Iran, men will force their female family members to observe hijab, should be to educate people, especially men, about the honor in respecting another person enough to let them dress themselves to their own preference.

SoosanKhanoom

akaDarya With life as short as a half-taken breath, don't plant anything but love. - Rumi

Ahhhhhh …. a country where no one covers her hair. Even, the French Nuns from the school that I used to attend in Tehran should be uncovered ….. oh yes … I like that !

How can we enforce this law? …. Lashes , traffic citation, starvation, kick in the butt, jail ….. hmmm ?

Oh ….. Iranian women can not wait for men like you to set them free … to dress them up or undress them ?

But , Is that all that you want to be uncovered ?

How about destroying the laws that force women to cover their breasts? Who comes up with these stupid laws anyway? Women in africa are topless.

Please, on your next blog come up with some solution for that too ?

Thanks a bunch !

Persa

Persa http://iranian.com/main/member/jeesh-daram.html

Dear Darya:
Upon your revelation, I completely changed all my prior vacation plans and asked my travel agent to book me a package for the parts of Africa that you brought up, and yes, I think a 5th choice is a must :)

I think at least 90% of Muslim men and possibly the majority of Mormons are fully in support of all the 5 choices that have been offered here so far, they would love to have at least four wives with diverse tastes -behind closed doors, certainly a feasible approach for a global solution.

SoosanKhanoom

akaDarya With life as short as a half-taken breath, don't plant anything but love. - Rumi

lol …

here some info …...

"Women in the ancient Minoan civilization of Crete (Greece) and ancient Egypt are depicted bare-chested in paintings and sculptures from those civilizations.

Before modern times, women across much of pre-colonial Sub-Saharan Africa, the pre-Columbian Americas, the South Pacific, and parts of South and Southeast Asia used to go topless. But as outside influence increased, these women began to adopt clothing that covered their breasts.

Today the practice of going bare-breasted only persists in more isolated areas and among more isolated groups, such as those in the Amazon rainforest, the Andaman Islands, southern Ethiopia (i.e. the Mursi and Dassanach), and parts of Southeast Asia (i.e. the Mentawai). "

Persa

Persa http://iranian.com/main/member/jeesh-daram.html

Darya :) Those were the highlights of age of civilization and no wonder they called it Chalcolithic period also known as the Bronze Age and Copper Age; long before any tanning lotion was invented.

SoosanKhanoom

akaDarya With life as short as a half-taken breath, don't plant anything but love. - Rumi

indeed ! : )

HoshangTarehgol5

Hoshang Tarehgol An injury to one is an injury to all.

There's also a tradition of going bare chested amongst women in parts of Kenya to show their indignation & discontent, also probably as a graphic reminder to men about women's maternal position in society. African culture in its vast complexities is too varied to be reduced to some orientalist "Women in Africa are topless!"

JahanshahRashidian3

Jahanshah Rashidian

Under Islamic norms in Iran, Afghanistan, Iraq, Sudan, Saudi Arabia … woman is not supposed to have the same rights as men because Islam predominates all judicial aspects. The full freedom of women, as for all society, passes off once Islam is removed.

Dakho

Dakho Satirist, humorist, Ph.D. in Laughter Therapy

This goes all the way back to Muhammad himself and his insecurities in dealing with strong women of Arabia. It's so hilarious how Quran at some parts turns into a manual on Muhammad’s marriage and sex life, with "God" telling him how many wives he could have and how to treat them,...
You optimism regarding women's liberation in Iran in a post IR regime is heartwarming, although I don't share it.
Even in many developed Western and Eastern societies women are still struggling to achieve parity with men; not only in economic fields regarding wages and management positions, but also in the social scene and health care regarding reproductive rights,...
Patriarchy is an incredibly deep rooted evil institution in our human "civilization" and is not going anywhere anytime soon; let's not underestimate its strength.

JahanshahRashidian3

Jahanshah Rashidian

Disparity between man and woman has always existed since the patriarchal Age. It is reflected even in the then highest ancient culture as we know Plato’s statement as he thanks God that he was born a man, and not a weak sex (woman).
Bible and Old Testament followed the idea of disparity and canonised it by describing man / woman as two planets with different nature as if they always fly in two orbits. In Muhammad’s paradise, women are not present unless as Huris or paradise’s prostitutes. The paradise is apparently built merely for masculine Muslims.
All these cultural elements make collective prejudices over women and have been also held by lucrative mode of capitalist production. However the disparity in all fields existed under communist regimes as it is also tied to any ideological dictatorship. The worst disparity exists in the Islamic world and especially under Islamic regimes.

madala

madala

In my view, we had the perfect mix during the 70s where women wore what they liked to wear without anything being imposed or restricted..
However, once the oppressive Islamic regime is removed, there could be a backlash of extremes in both directions..