Punishment For Not Wearing Hijab

[Abbas.]

Salams

 

Would appreciate your help in answering below questions with credible references. 

 

1) Can someone refer me to Iran’s detailed laws regarding veil/hijab, specifically the punishment (official links will be quite helpful, if any)?

 

2) What is the basis of the punishment for not wearing proper dress code? Is it Islamic? Is it a specific law of Iran based on society’s preference? Or is a decision of the Supreme Leader of Iran? E.t.c

 

3) If it’s Islamic, can someone kindly share references used by law makers (are there any such Islamic references at all)? For example, were women punished for not covering themselves in the times of the Prophet P.b.u.H? Or did our Imams endorse the punishment for not observing hijab?

 

4) If it’s based on society’s preference, can someone clarify whether it was devised in consideration of the general consent of the (majority of) public and/or its representatives?

 

5) There are protestors seeking freedom to wear what they want. There are also protestors who want the government officials to strictly impose moral dress. Are there any official or third party statistics suggesting the majority view?

 

6) Are the punishments strictly carried out or do most people get away with a warning?

Thank you

[Ibn al-Hussain]

(salam)

In their penal code, the punishment for Hijab is written out specifically under the section of Punishments NOT Specified in Shari’a and Deterrent Punishments.

 

Chapter Eighteen- Crimes against public prudency and morality

 

Article 638- Anyone in public places and roads who openly commits a harām (sinful) act, in addition to the punishment provided for the act, shall be sentenced to two months’ imprisonment or up to 74 lashes; and if they commit an act that is not punishable but violates public prudency, they shall only be sentenced to ten days to two months’ imprisonment or up to 74 lashes.

 

Note - Women, who appear in public places and roads without wearing an Islamic hijab, shall be sentenced to ten days to two months’ imprisonment or a fine of fifty thousand to five hundred Rials.

Source 1 & Source 2

 

I think it being listed under the category mentioned shows that 1) there isn't any specified punishment in Islam for someone who doesn't observe hijab and 2) not wearing hijab is being defined as an act that is going against the moral values of the society, since it is an open sin. Thus the punishment is meant to be a deterrent.

 

From my brief readings on this subject, Imam Khomeini (qas) gave a lecture in early March of 1979 at Madrassah Faiziyyah about women still appearing in offices without hijab and spoke of the necessity of wearing it. The very next day the government announced that it agreed with the statements of Imam Khomeini and it was casually encouraged in offices and other institutions. By 1980, it was deemed mandatory to wear it in governmental and public offices and by 1983 after an amendment was made to the constitution, it was made compulsory for all women including non-Muslims and tourists, and the punishment for not wearing it in public was also added. The protests, sit-ins by those opposing the law, and the violence that took place during those years are well-known and documented. It appears that the punishment for not obeying this law, was well debated and discussed before being implemented.

 

I've heard from a few individuals that Shaheed Mutahhari was against the hijab being forced, however I have read contradictory material. Here is a quote from Muhammad Reza Hakimi, sharing a story about himself where he says Shaheed Mutahhari was against it being forced (let me know if a translation is required):

 

در منزلم در تهران بودم که به وسیله یکی از دوستان متوجه سخن امام در خصوص اجباری شدن حجاب شدم و از آنجا که این اقدام را در آن زمان خیلی به صلاح نمی دانستم، به شهید مطهری که ایشان را بسیار نزدیک به امام می دانستیم، تماس گرفتم و گفتم: این اقدام در این زمان و قبل از اینکه شعارهای اصلی انقلاب محقق شود، صلاح نیست و نکند حجاب اجباری نسبت به عدالت و مسائل اصلی انقلاب پیشی بگیرد
 
شهید مطهری با تعجب گفتند: حکیمی تو هم مخالفی؟ اتفاقاً من هم نسبت به این دستورالعمل در این موقعیت زمانی انتقاداتی دارم و اگر تو هم مخالفی، بیا فردا به قم پیش امام برویم و اگر هر دو نظراتمان را به امام بگوییم و استدلال کنیم، بهتر است

 

 

 

Source

 

But on the contrary there is material available that says the opposite:

 

درباره شایعه‌ مخالفت شهید مطهری با اجباری شدن حجاب:  نه، مخالف نبودند. وقتی ایشان شهید شدند، کاغذی از جیبشان بیرون آوردند که در آن، کارهایی را که با امام داشتند نوشته بودند از جمله اینکه نوشته بودند: «موقوف شدن مساله حجاب به استقرار نظامات اسلامی». شاید ایشان قصد طرح این مساله را با امام داشتند یا در همان روزها طرح کرده بودند

 

 

Source: An interview with Ali Mutahhari

 

If I were to reconcile the two stories above, it seems that at one point he was against it being forced, but later changed his mind.

 

But in any case, there were others who were against it being forced, such as the Ayatullah Taleqani and Ayatullah Montazeri, I don't know of their reasoning, although I am not sure why any Muslim would allow public sinning to take place. I don't think the rule is based primarily on society's preference. If a society prefers publicly sinning, I don't see why any Islamic Republic trying to uphold Islamic values would listen to the false preferences of a society. Also let us keep in mind that the majority did vote for an Islamic Republic during the referendum of 1979 (which seems to have taken place after Imam Khomeini's speech) and so the society should have expected this law to be a part and parcel of it sooner or later.

 

As far as the punishments, fines and warnings are concerned, to me it is pretty clear that they are not strictly enforced in the country. Have no clue about your question #5.

 

Wassalam

Edited May 28, 2014 by Ibn al-Hussain

[repenter-gone4awhile]

1. I'll try to find this for you as it is not in the national constitution, but rather a law made by parliament.

 

2. The judge, if taken so far, is the one issuing the punishment. 

 

3. This is a good question and needs to be investigated.

 

4. It was made by parliament majority vote, and approved by the council

 

5. Not that i know of.

 

6. Most people if not all, get a warning first with their name registered(if the law enforcer bothers to do this). Next time you get a ticket, and finally you will probably be arrested, but I personally never seen it happen nor read about it anywhere.  

[Ibn al-Hussain]

(salam)

 

From Ayatullah Makarem Shirazi:

 

46- حکم به تعزیر برای بی حجابی

 سؤال:آیا بی حجابی مانند شرب خمر حد دارد؟

پاسخ: حدّ خاصی برای آن تعیین نشده است اما حاکم شرع می تواند در موارد مقتضی در این زمینه حکم صادر کند و او را تعزیر نماید.

 

Source

 

Rough translation:

 

Question: Does not wearing the hijab have a hadd like drinking alcohol does?

Answer: No special hadd has been specified for not wearing the hijab, however when appropriate, the hakim sharh can issue a decree for it and punish the person (for not wearing the hijab).

 

Wassalam

[Abbas.]

Salams

 

Thank you Ibn al-Hussain

 

You've shared some gold mines. I tried googling them but couldn't find the sources. 

 

 

 

But in any case, there were others who were against it being forced, such as the Ayatullah Taleqani and Ayatullah Montazeri, I don't know of their reasoning, although I am not sure why any Muslim would allow public sinning to take place. I don't think the rule is based primarily on society's preference. If a society prefers publicly sinning, I don't see why any Islamic Republic trying to uphold Islamic values would listen to the false preferences of a society. 

 

What are your thoughts on the argument that public sinning, for which a punishment has not been decreed in sharia, can be discouraged by other effective means such as Islamic education in schools, colleges & universities, public awareness regarding respect for women, inspiring people through leadership, researching and getting to the root causes of why people rebel or adapt un-islamic life styles e.t.c. In other words, the argument questions Hakim sharh's ability to first bring about changes in the system, and then allow people to fully understand and accept the change as their way of life before enforcing it on people through punishment. 

 

Also, the reason why I am considering majority view regarding the punishment is because if this is what they trully want, there is no reason left for any one to complain. After all, the critics are usually the champions of democracy. So if it can be proven that the punishment law is based on society's preference (along with the decree of Hakim sharh), welcome to the democracy you don't like.

 

1. I'll try to find this for you as it is not in the national constitution, but rather a law made by parliament.

 

2. The judge, if taken so far, is the one issuing the punishment. 

 

3. This is a good question and needs to be investigated.

 

4. It was made by parliament majority vote, and approved by the council

 

5. Not that i know of.

 

6. Most people if not all, get a warning first with their name registered(if the law enforcer bothers to do this). Next time you get a ticket, and finally you will probably be arrested, but I personally never seen it happen nor read about it anywhere.  

 

4) Bro see if you can get a reference for this... thx

[Marbles]

Also, the reason why I am considering majority view regarding the punishment is because if this is what they truly want, there is no reason left for any one to complain. After all, the critics are usually the champions of democracy. So if it can be proven that the punishment law is based on society's preference (along with the decree of Hakim sharh), welcome to the democracy you don't like.

 

This is misapplication of democracy and that which goes against the very principle of democracy itself: it is government made legitimised by majority's assent but at the same time it ensures the protection of minority rights, their freedom of religion and all core freedoms, from being trampled upon by the majority. Let me give you an extreme but relevant example. Say tomorrow if a referendum is held and 82% of the people of Iran vote for a blanket ban on the education of a minority community (say Bahais), thus depriving them of all formal education, the results of that referendum and the application of such a policy would not be democracy but a contravention of democracy (There's great difference between a ballot and democracy). This is where much maligned rights groups come in with the aim to seek rights of a people not viewed favourably by the system either on religious grounds, or ethnic, or linguistic, or political grounds.

 

A good test to see if a society practices democracy is to see how it treats its minorities. This is not only for Iran but for every society on the face of earth.

Edited May 28, 2014 by Marbles

[baqar]

A good test to see if a society practices democracy is to see how it treats its minorities. 

 

And the unprivileged.

 

Who cares about  the rickshaw pullers or the young girls who have been abducted from Nepal or Romania and sold into the flesh markets of Mumbai or Frankfurt or the coolies at the railway stations of India ?

 

To me, they are just as important as the Bahais of Iran, the Gastarbeiter in Germany and the natives of Peru.  

 

Some countries like India may have the numbers but these unsung heroes of the unprivileged, under-privileged and deprived world are everywhere - in some places in huge numbers.

 

When people talk about minorities, unfortunately they are talking only about the  Muslims and Christians of India, the Hindus of Pakistan and the Bahais of Iran.

 

The world of the forgotten minorities is, in fact, much, much bigger.  

 

Unfortunately, no one in interested in recognizing the rights of the rickshaw wallah, the abducted girl and the coolie at the railway station.   

[Shamati]

This is misapplication of democracy and that which goes against the very principle of democracy itself: it is government made legitimised by majority's assent but at the same time it ensures the protection of minority rights, their freedom of religion and all core freedoms, from being trampled upon by the majority. Let me give you an extreme but relevant example. Say tomorrow if a referendum is held and 82% of the people of Iran vote for a blanket ban on the education of a minority community (say Bahais), thus depriving them of all formal education, the results of that referendum and the application of such a policy would not be democracy but a contravention of democracy (There's great difference between a ballot and democracy). This is where much maligned rights groups come in with the aim to seek rights of a people not viewed favourably by the system either on religious grounds, or ethnic, or linguistic, or political grounds.

 

A good test to see if a society practices democracy is to see how it treats its minorities. This is not only for Iran but for every society on the face of earth.

democracy means 'the rule of the people'. Nothing more. Minority protection is not a part of democracy but of modern neoliberal ideology.

For a democracy to be successful the nation needs an educational system that is built to form he people into citizens. Citizens who have a duty and obligation to serve their nation & thereby the greater good as defined by the majority of the people. In the west this part of democracy has been drastically changed since the introduction of identity politics through specific minority 'rights' not available to the 'majority group'.

But a successful nation should as far as possible assimilate it's inhabitants into the national heritage & ideology with a culture of citizenship.

[Hazyn]

(Bismillah)

(Salam)

^Apparently the US is an oligarchy.

(Wasalam)

[Saintly_Jinn23]

But in any case, there were others who were against it being forced, such as the Ayatullah Taleqani and Ayatullah Montazeri, I don't know of their reasoning, although I am not sure why any Muslim would allow public sinning to take place.

 

 

I can think of a couple reasons they may have felt that way

 

They likely didn't find anything in the hadith that said it could be forced. Therefore, to force it in the name of upholding the Shariah could be seen as an innovation of the legal rulings.

 

Also While it is a Muslims duty to enjoin the good and forbid the evil, a Muslim cannot take it upon himself to hound and harass people who may otherwise be faithful Muslims for not observing the Shariah completely especially when their lack observance in those areas has no prescribed punishment. The lack of a prescribed punishment was probably taken by them to mean that the Islamic state cannot enforce it but that it must be a personal decision of the individual that they must make when they are emotionally and spiritually ready. So they may have wanted to prevent certain women from being mistreated or prevent them from becoming resentful of hijab after being forced to give up their preferred fashion.

 

Society, theoretically at least, can accomodate for the lack of observance in the general population with regards to those specific areas in which a prescribed punishment is not given and can leave it as a private affair the person must work out for the most part rather than something requiring the immediate intervention or meddling of the state. For example, we can't necessarily punish someone ourselves for not observing prayer, though we can encourage people to observe prayer constantly through a kind word of advice and propaganda. Also, scholars have often understood the different levels of hijab and so for some scholars, even if they believed full hijab was desirable and obligatory from a religious standpoint, they may have felt it was enough for a state during the Greater Occultation that people observed at least a partial hijab or a lighter sense of modesty, provided that observance of full hijab was still permissible, rewarded and encouraged by said state. The Qu'ran also does not really lay out the specific details of hijab beyond the covering of the bosom and private parts so they may have seen the lack of such specific rulings in the main source for Islamic law as indicative that, at least from a purely legal standpoint, the more "Westernized dress" that had become popular among some young women and the full and complete hijab were both to some degree permissible even if latter from a religious standpoint was considered better and preferable to the other according to other sources of law.

 

They were probably using their skills and authority in ijtihad to try to bridge the gap between two sharp perspectives without undermining the principles of religion.

Edited May 28, 2014 by Saintly_Jinn23

[Jahangiram]

democracy means 'the rule of the people'. Nothing more. Minority protection is not a part of democracy but of modern neoliberal ideology.

For a democracy to be successful the nation needs an educational system that is built to form he people into citizens. Citizens who have a duty and obligation to serve their nation & thereby the greater good as defined by the majority of the people. In the west this part of democracy has been drastically changed since the introduction of identity politics through specific minority 'rights' not available to the 'majority group'.

But a successful nation should as far as possible assimilate it's inhabitants into the national heritage & ideology with a culture of citizenship.

Many people confuse liberal democracy with the classical formulation of democracy. The democracies of old had nothing to do with equal rights for everyone or freedom of conscience, it was simply ruling with the ballot as you said. Neither did they envision universal suffrage, many didn't have the vote throughout the ages; the working class in England didn't have the vote for a significant part of the 19th century (nevermind women).

[PeaceLoving]

Many people confuse liberal democracy with the classical formulation of democracy. 

 

Good point brother

 

But the important thing is that whether you have democracy or dictatorship, everyone's rights should be protected. 

 

A good government should also apply compassion wherever possible and where no one's rights are trampled.

 

Justice for all and compassion for those in need!

[Marbles]

Many people confuse liberal democracy with the classical formulation of democracy. The democracies of old had nothing to do with equal rights for everyone or freedom of conscience, it was simply ruling with the ballot as you said. Neither did they envision universal suffrage, many didn't have the vote throughout the ages; the working class in England didn't have the vote for a significant part of the 19th century (nevermind women).

 

The very process of democracy gradually led to the inclusion of all sections of society into the democratic practice. It started as a struggle for equal rights for all free men and spread to other groups, successfully. It was a slow and gradual process. Democracy can't be implemented by slogans, by underwriting it in the constitution after a violent putsch, or by the barrel of a gun. Liberal or conservative or Islamic, this or that, are labels to confuse people. If the basic human rights of minorities aren't protected or compromised in some way, call it by any name, but the system won't be a good democracy.

 

democracy means 'the rule of the people'. Nothing more. Minority protection is not a part of democracy but of modern neoliberal ideology.

 

The same as above bro. Democracy means much more than the rule of the people. We don't have to start from 200 years ago, because it is not a surprising coincidence that all functioning democracies today protect their minorities and rights. And it's a good touchstone: whenever minorities are threatened, as they are being made to feel so in some pats of Europe, you can conclude that democracy in those countries is going down.

 

But of course no point in going on if we can't even agree on what stands for democracy\

 

Sorry bro InshaAllah, for pushing your thread into off topic territory. Guys please carry on with the subject of the thread.

Edited May 29, 2014 by Marbles

[Saintly_Jinn23]

Democracy is overrated, but at least be honest and clarify what you mean by the term. I'd rather be told I don't have a right than be fooled to think I have it only to realize I don't.

[Abbas.]

This is misapplication of democracy and that which goes against the very principle of democracy itself: it is government made legitimised by majority's assent but at the same time it ensures the protection of minority rights, their freedom of religion and all core freedoms, from being trampled upon by the majority. Let me give you an extreme but relevant example. Say tomorrow if a referendum is held and 82% of the people of Iran vote for a blanket ban on the education of a minority community (say Bahais), thus depriving them of all formal education, the results of that referendum and the application of such a policy would not be democracy but a contravention of democracy (There's great difference between a ballot and democracy). This is where much maligned rights groups come in with the aim to seek rights of a people not viewed favourably by the system either on religious grounds, or ethnic, or linguistic, or political grounds.

 

A good test to see if a society practices democracy is to see how it treats its minorities. This is not only for Iran but for every society on the face of earth.

 

That is a fair point. The rights of minorities are also important. But here is a counter thought. One can argue that it is not a question of discrimination or mistreatment intended specifically at minorities by introducing the hijab law and relevant punishment. In the example that you have given, a basic right considered valuable by all sections of the society is being taken away from a minority while it is being enjoyed by the majority. But in the case of hijab, it is considered as a minimum standard of upholding public decency by the majority of people in a society. Therefore, relevant laws and code of conduct are being implemented in that society as a whole in consideration of general public's view on the matter.

 

Other countries, for example, also have a minimum dress code applicable in public places. But if someone decides that walking naked in public areas is their way of life and a basic right, and if the authorities stop them, it is not an attempt to subjugate their rights as citizens of the country but they are instead expected to be considerate of minimum standards of decency in that society, as per the will of general public.

 

In both cases, regardless of who is right and wrong, such minorities can only have their will imposed through education and awareness for that is the essence of democracy. It may take several decades and generations but if their claim is genuine and worth consideration, people will listen and change views with time. 

 

p.s this argument is of course based on an assumption, not facts yet, that the majority of people in a society prefer hijab and relevant laws (including punishment) as implemented in countries such as Iran.

[Zaydsservant]

Who are we to implement things and that too enforce it forcefully as an Islamic decree when our Lord has not decreed such?

And who are we to enforce religion or law derived of religion when our Lord has clearly said that religion may not be forced?

And verily, Allah is on the side of the oppressed. Allah was always on the side of the oppressed Shias. And whether Shia or Sunni or Muslim or non-Muslim, Allah does not take well of tyranny.


Then why brothers and sisters is the hijab being forced on our sisters..? This breaks my heart..

[ServantOfTheOne]

@Zaydsservant I agree with your question:

On 12/29/2015 at 1:43 PM, Zaydsservant said:

Then why brothers and sisters is the hijab being forced on our sisters..?

Wearing Hijab is obligatory just like prayers. The problem is, the hijab is a public affair whereas prayers are more private. It is easier for people to notice when someone is not wearing hijab than is someone is for instance, not praying, not fasting, etc. Then add the emotions of brothers and fathers (which is understandable).

The problem happens when peer pressure forces a group in a community to behave a certain way. In an Islamic country, I understand why it is obligatory for women to wear it in public. But in western countries, no one has the right to enforce it on a woman; just like no one has the right to enforce prayer and fasting on anyone else. But there is a limit. At the end of the day, a non-Hijabi is perfectly capable of being more moderately dressed than a Hijabi. Unfortunately, many people keep thinking Hijab is just about covering the skin and hair. They forget that decorations, make up, and showing off body shapes are also supposed to be controlled with Hijab.

[Zarinas]

I don't think anyone should be punished for not wearing hijab.  They can wear modest clothing.

Its one of those rules that should not be forced upon anyone.