Ayatollah Seyyed Mojtaba Nourmifidi in an Interview with Jamaran: In the Slogans and Behavior of All Prophets and Imams, the Place of the People’s Livelihood is Never Left Empty
Jamaran News Agency: These days, the subject of chastity and hijab in Islamic society, due to the summer season and the resumption of the social policing patrols (Guidance Patrol), has become one of the primary news topics discussed in society.
One of the hot topics in our society today is the issue of hijab. We are eager to hear your definition of hijab, its obligatoriness, whether it is fundamentally a Shari’ah-mandated obligation and among the essentials of religion (daruriyyat), and finally, if it carries legal enforcement, whether this enforcement was seen in the history of Islam—especially during the early days of Islam—or not? Furthermore, what is your view on the way it is explained and the atmosphere currently governing the discourse on hijab?
Hijab has a clear and obvious meaning, particularly for women. For men as well, a certain limit of coverage is defined in various cultures, though human societies today are unfortunately moving toward nakedness or semi-nakedness. However, the core of the discussion on hijab is focused on women.
In that certain limits have been determined for women from the perspective of the Shari’ah, permitting them to expose and reveal only specific parts of the body, we can say it is nearly agreed upon by both schools of thought (Shi’a and Sunni). Regardless of the fact that some even consider covering the face and hands necessary for women (citing the narration “Woman is a weakness and an ‘awrah,” which has been refuted in its proper place), they generally permit revealing these parts. In any case, the limit and extent required for coverage from the perspective of the Shari’ah has been expounded in its proper place. There is no doubt that this is a definitive and established religious and Islamic ruling, and all Islamic schools of thought accept it.
However, the discussion raised is that because this is an individual ruling carrying social repercussions, it acquires different dimensions. For instance, prayer is obligatory, but we cannot religiously prosecute or punish someone for not praying, nor can we create legal enforcement for praying; no one has issued such a fatwa, unless a secondary ruling (al-unwan al-thanawi) arises.
Or, for example, regarding fasting, that which carries legal consequences and directs responsibilities to the Islamic ruler and others is the public violation of fasting; we have no precedent of forcing someone to fast even inside their own home. These are purely individual actions that, in a sense, do not carry direct social repercussions.
A series of actions are intrinsically social; but certain matters are, in a sense, individual yet carry social reflections, and hijab is of this kind.
Therefore, we cannot compare the issue of hijab with purely individual obligations and assert that because there is no enforcement regarding purely individual obligations, the same applies here. Ultimately, the hijab and the coverage of women, or the lack of its observance, certainly carry social consequences, and we cannot ignore this.
We do not currently wish to discuss the proofs for the obligatoriness of hijab; this is a settled matter, and certainly, anyone who does not observe this divine ruling commits a major sin. However, regarding the responsibilities directed to the Islamic ruler in this regard, I have analyzed this issue in detail during our jurisprudential lectures (kharij Fiqh) on the coverage of women, examining whether the Islamic ruler, as a primary ruling (al-unwan al-awwali), possesses the right and authority to obligate women to observe the hijab or not.
Please briefly explain the meaning of “primary ruling” (al-unwan al-awwali) for the readers.
At times, specific conditions emerge in society and certain emergencies arise; this is a secondary ruling (al-unwan al-thanawi). Under a secondary ruling, the ruler possesses authority in all matters; this carries no limitation and is not unique to the hijab. Whenever an emergency dictates, or even in a broader scope, when public interest (maslahah) dictates, the ruler can make decisions.
When we say “primary ruling,” we mean the proofs that grant this authority to the ruler independent of emergencies and temporary expediencies, thereby legitimizing the enforcement of hijab by the Islamic ruler. In our lectures, I discussed this in detail and cited numerous proofs from the verses and narrations showing that the ruler possesses such a right.
Please note that legal enforcement is not synonymous with resorting to harsh and violent methods. The enforcement of hijab even includes establishing regulations such as fines and certain administrative restrictions; enforcement is meant in its broad and general sense. The enforcement of hijab is sometimes equated with resorting to force, whereas enforcement is distinct from the use of force; yes, one of its manifestations can be the use of force, but the scope of enforcement is much broader.
The Islamic ruler, based on what we have derived from the proofs, possesses this authority. However, if secondary rulings arise—such as this action causing a form of disrepute (wahn) to Islam, or the conditions being such that not only is the desired public acceptance not achieved, but it produces a counterproductive effect—then this right and authority is set aside under the secondary ruling.
Therefore, the assertion that the Islamic ruler possesses such a right, and whether he can exercise this right or not, is not evaluated under secondary rulings; because both positively and negatively, a secondary ruling can take another form.
Here, several issues must be separated from one another:
First, we must look at the issue of coverage and hijab from the perspective of implementing a Shari’ah ruling; meaning, a divine Shari’ah ruling and a recognized good (ma’ruf) that must be prioritized alongside other recognized goods. All of these must be addressed together. That is to say, the mindset of society must be prepared. If the society and the people see that the same priority given to implementing this divine ruling is also given to confronting larger prohibited evils (munkarat), it naturally disarms those who wish to exploit this situation.
In this regard, I believe that a comprehensive set of actions—a complete package—must be considered. A portion of this package consists of establishing regulations and laws; the enforcement I mentioned is only a part of the task. Asserting that the ruler has this right does not mean that the work should be limited to this action alone. A complete package must be considered here, of which the enforcement of hijab is but one part. Alongside this, I believe other actions that pave the ground for implementing this divine ruling—indeed, the implementation of all Shari’ah rulings—must be carried out, and these must be viewed together; each of these is a partial cause (juz’ al-illah).
For instance, cultural development must take place; meaning, the finest promotional and educational works must be presented in the format of various arts. This issue must be explained in the best manner using gentle language and through experienced, aware, and knowledgeable individuals.
During these very days, alongside some of the clips that are broadcast and are highly regrettable, sometimes images are shown of appealing and highly effective behaviors carried out by some individuals: utilizing gentle language, with good character, and accompanied by honoring the addressee according to their situation, whether through verbal reminders or practical respect, and the positive effect of this is immediately revealed. This is highly important. For cultural development, a wide spectrum of tools must be utilized, including state broadcasting (Seda-va-Sima), cinema, and other media.
Another issue is that we must strive to prevent the enemies from achieving their goal of turning this issue into a tool and an instrument for political confrontation. Currently, they are presenting this as a campaign against the government, the system, and the clergy, and some of us are unknowingly fanning the flames of this issue. It is highly important that we prevent this with cleverness and intelligence and not allow it to turn into such a confrontation. They want to utilize any excuse to create and strengthen this division; it is we who must be careful that this does not happen.
The Believer’s Livelihood Must Be Secured
In the slogans and behavior of all prophets and Infallible Imams (a.s.), the place of the people’s livelihood is never left empty.
We must not present the Imams (a.s.) as otherworldly figures who did not live in this world; if so, they can never serve as role models.
Angels can never be our role models, because they are not human; the prophets and Infallible Imams (a.s.) are presented as role models because they are human beings who lived in this world.
Another issue is the state of the people’s livelihood, which carries a immense impact. We cannot completely separate this from the public’s inclination toward Islam, the clergy, and the system. Yes, the Revolution and its ideals transcend material affairs; human salvation, which is the slogan of the prophets, has a very broad scope. However, in the slogans and behavior of all prophets and Infallible Imams (a.s.), the place of this issue is never left empty. They strived both verbally and practically to ensure that the people’s lives in this world are also prosperous; a prosperous life is distinct from being drowned in the material world.
The believer’s livelihood must be secured. Yes, the believer must not be drowned in material possessions and material pleasures, but does enjoyment and benefiting from worldly blessings necessarily mean being drowned in materialism?! The Imams (a.s.) themselves, to the extent that conditions dictated and permitted, benefited from worldly and material affairs. We must not present the Imams (a.s.) as otherworldly figures who did not live in this world; if so, they can never serve as role models. Angels can never be our role models because they are not human; the prophets and Infallible Imams (a.s.) are presented as role models because they are human beings who lived in this world.
In any case, for this Shari’ah obligation and other Shari’ah obligations or prohibitions to be observed, there is a need for a comprehensive and widespread action. This comprehensive and widespread action must be carried out by preachers, officials, influential social figures, and families. Everyone must stand hand in hand and help advance this matter with subtlety, precision, and vigilance.
If the Livelihood is Corrected, the Ground for Many Shortcomings and Deviations is Removed
In fact, your meaning is that if the livelihood is corrected, the ground for marriage, family formation, and employment will also be facilitated.
Yes, the reality is that a portion of social anomalies is due to the deception of Satan, a greedy disposition, and the dominance of carnal desires over rational faculties. Some of the wealthy face no livelihood problems yet possess many moral problems; we do not mean to say that if the livelihood is corrected, everything will be resolved. However, at least the ground for many anomalies and deviations will be removed. Ultimately, for someone who is occupied, has employment, and has a livelihood, a very large percentage of these anomalies will decrease.
The Majority of the Clergy and Seminaries Seek to Reform the People Through Soft and Ethical Methods
You mentioned that the ruler can enforce only up to the point where it does not cause wahn (disrepute) to Islam. In what cases can wahn be caused, especially given recent confrontations in the country?
I want to assert that the majority of the clergy and seminaries seek to reform the people through soft and ethical methods. Throughout history, this has been the case; following the conduct of the Infallibles (a.s.), the Maraji’ and prominent figures, in these recent years where these problems have manifested themselves more, have always tried with kindness and affection to return those who disobey to the correct and straight path.
The clergy in the past and today are by no means in favor of violent methods that produce reverse results.
Numerous stories of this affectionate and appealing approach have been narrated from our prominent scholars, which there is no opportunity to recount here. The people must be mindful that the clergy, in their proud past and today, are for the most part by no means in favor of violent methods and approaches that produce reverse results. Even among the hard-working security and law enforcement forces, they generally do not employ such confrontations; however, even if they are few, they are so ugly that they must not occur, and one must not remain indifferent to them. It is these very actions that create the pretext for the objectives of the enemies.
We must never violate the law to enforce the law.
We have no right to act in an un-Islamic, unethical, or non-Shari’ah manner to prevent a social anomaly.
I want to assert that we must never violate the law to enforce the law. Let us assume that someone has committed theft or murder; are we permitted to behave contrary to the established criteria toward them? Here as well, the most that can be said is that some act contrary to the law, but we have no right to act in an un-Islamic, unethical, or non-Shari’ah manner in implementing this law or to prevent an anomaly.
Certainly, such confrontations are not acceptable, and everyone must be careful to avoid them completely, because apart from the exploitation that foreign adversaries may make of these incidents, domestically these behaviors and confrontations create repulsion (dafe’ah) and cause people to run away; they may even push those who are devout to take a stance.
It is not correct to hand over such an important matter to individuals who know nothing of psychology or sociology.
Let us make the discussion a bit more detailed. Considering the economic, social, political, and cultural conditions of society, if the issue of hijab is to be imposed on the people in a legal format, does it have a greater impact, or as a religious duty? That is, do the people of Iran accept a matter more if they feel it is a Shari’ah-mandated duty, or if it is made into a law?
Both aspects are important. Ultimately, this is a Shari’ah duty. This duty must be correctly explained; the philosophy of hijab must be correctly explained; the corruptions resulting from non-observance of hijab must be well explained in the format of various artistic works, films, plays, etc., and there is no debate in this.
On the other hand, the issue cannot be left completely unregulated. If, for instance, we say there should be no regulation whatsoever regarding this matter in offices and places where government employees are present, it is truly unknown where this would lead. In many countries, specific regulations exist for government employees regarding their coverage—even down to the style of makeup or the length of hair. Ultimately, the workplace must be an environment where peripheral issues do not dominate; the workplace is not a fashion runway. In the schools of European countries, they even enforce restrictions on the use of certain items because they create negative effects in the educational environment among classmates, which carries its own specific philosophy.
Ultimately, it is a rational matter for a government to establish regulations to organize the behaviors of its employees and place enforcement guarantees for them.
The fact that this is a Shari’ah duty and must be correctly explained, while simultaneously having legal enforcement to prevent certain problems (which arise naturally and are not unique to this country)—these two must be carried out in a balanced and simultaneous manner, in the finest form, and through detailed and expert study. Why should we create a binary and say either enforcement or a duty that the individual must perform on their own? It is both a duty and, where necessary, it must become a law. I mentioned that enforcement is not synonymous with force; however, this requires mature and expert individuals. It is not correct to hand over an issue of this importance to those who know nothing of psychology or sociology. If, from our perspective, poor veiling is a religious and social anomaly, then it requires experts to plan for it. How is it that we utilize experts regarding other social anomalies, but when it comes to this issue, anyone who wishes to act is left completely free and unregulated? This requires immense subtlety.
Generally, we confront issues and problems in a temporary and sporadic manner.
The issue of hijab is not something over which an uproar should be raised every once in a while, only to be abandoned afterward.
What is the main problem? The main problem is that we highlight a topic every once in a while, raise an uproar, and then abandon it. The issue of hijab is not something over which an uproar should be raised every once in a while, only to be abandoned afterward. If poor veiling is a problem, why is it that only when an uproar is raised does everyone address it—from the legislator and executive to the security, law enforcement, and cultural institutions? This is very bad. Generally, we confront issues and problems in a temporary and sporadic manner, whereas indeed, this requires a long-term and continuous program that is constantly evaluating programs, monitoring implementation, and receiving feedback, correcting any flaws we find.
In a short while, this issue will subside, and after some time, another uproar will be raised; but what is the actual output of these discussions? The relevant institutions, from the legislators to the executives, the judiciary, and on the other hand, the cultural developers, preachers, and clergy, must all perform foundational work. Ultimately, this is something that requires a program.
When the Society and the Youth Feel That the Relationship of the Clergy and Rulers with Them is Precisely That of a Father to His Children, the Matter Will Be Vastly Different
Are poorly veiled people bad people in your view? Because some use derogatory terms; like someone who said a few days ago that if we leave these people free, after a while they will hang their underwear on sticks. Is poor veiling equivalent to unchastity? Are these confrontations correct?
Definitely not. The Supreme Leader himself explicitly stated in a gathering that many of those whose appearance we do not favor are good-hearted, faithful, and pure people, but they have made a mistake. To make such a judgment regarding a wide spectrum of the youth of this society is not correct. For whatever reason, they have not been informed, and issues have not been explained to them; they have not yet realized the importance of this divine ruling.
How did the Prophet (PBUH) behave at the beginning of his mission and the start of his call, and subsequently, toward those who had similar problems? Was it anything other than viewing the entire society as his children?! The Prophet (PBUH) has a saying: “I and Ali are the two fathers of this Ummah.” When the Ummah acquires the status of a child, it evokes the utmost compassion, care, and concern regarding their future. If we explain these matters correctly, it is highly impactful. When the society and the youth feel that the relationship of the clergy and the rulers with them is precisely that of a father to his children—not that we merely claim this, but that they deeply perceive that we truly view them as our own children—the matter will be vastly different.
You mentioned that hijab is obligatory and carries enforcement, but we have no narration or historical case showing that it was forced during the era of the Prophet (PBUH) and Hazrat Amir (a.s.).
Firstly, in my view, this is to some extent a fallacy. To compare the dawn of the rise of Islam with current conditions, asking whether examples of these behaviors occurring today existed in that era or not, has a fundamental flaw in my opinion.
What we can cite from the conduct of the Prophet (PBUH) and Amir al-Mu’minin (a.s.) that can support the legitimacy of enforcing the hijab—and I included this in the discussion we had—is that the Prophet (PBUH), in cases where he sent governors to certain lands or in the letters he wrote to them, offered this general recommendation or gave this order: to act toward establishing the recognized good (ma’ruf) and preventing the rejected evil (munkar).
To say “why did they not say a single explicit word about poor veiling?” is weak, because many things were not explicitly stated in those brief commands. When the Prophet (PBUH) writes and orders, “When you go there, be vigilant regarding the rejected evils,” within those recommendations we see this as a clear line: they maintained the necessary vigils regarding divine rulings, the recognized good, and the rejected evil. This issue is also pointed to in some of the writings of Amir al-Mu’minin (a.s.).
If we search for a narration that explicitly says, for instance, that Amir al-Mu’minin (a.s.) or the Prophet (PBUH) did this specific action, neither the proponents nor the opponents can argue and reason with each other in this manner. The perspective of approaching our religious sources and narrations must be correct. Here, someone might say, “I searched extensively but did not find a single narration, so such a right does not exist and enforcement is rejected.” Or someone who supports enforcement might find a few cases that are open to objection; one should not enter the discussion in this manner.
My assertion is that we have general principles that encompass the issue of hijab as well. Furthermore, the philosophy of the Islamic government and the goals it pursues must be taken into account. Please note that the Islamic government has an ultimate and primary goal, which is human salvation, and it also has an intermediate goal, which is the implementation of divine rulings; these divine rulings must be implemented for the salvation of human beings. Alongside these, of course, security, livelihood, and welfare are also among the intermediate goals of the Islamic government, like any other government. We cannot say that the Islamic government is indifferent to livelihood, security, and welfare; if anyone makes such a claim, they have certainly understood neither government nor Islam.
The Intergenerational Gap Has Become Very Wide Today
As a jurist and an expert in the sphere of jurisprudential and social issues, how much do you believe the behavior of today’s generation reflects a change in the form of life—meaning, this issue relates to the lifestyle of the people? Many of our girls, if they do not have the coverage we desire, are neither hostile nor opposed, but rather the form of life has changed. How much do you believe in this issue, and what should be done?
There is no doubt whatsoever that the tastes of this generation have changed. Indeed, their discourse and literature have changed, and we have a distance from them and do not understand this correctly. The intergenerational gap has become very wide today. This is an important issue; some manifestations of this difference do not conflict with religion and divine rulings, but some of us, for various reasons, do not favor them and see a conflict between them and religious beliefs.
However, some manifestations truly cannot be reconciled with the spirit of religious teachings. We must differentiate between these, and this requires a correct and complete understanding of the developments and evolutions of human societies.
Of course, these changes, which have occurred alongside the rapid growth and progress of technology, carry their own risks; but these must not create a separation between the authorities—especially regarding cultural issues and particularly the clergy—and this generation. The most important danger is that we and this generation do not find a common language and confront each other in two separate and alienated spaces.