Individuals’ statements and treatment from different institutions concerning hijab indicate their view and personality. In most cases, unfortunately, it indicates lacking a category called logic in this regard.
Covering has a direct relationship with individuals’ belief from the religious viewpoint. While, two years after the Revolution, it became considered in law and therefore, it became obligatory for those women who did not believe in that issue. The expectation of respecting this issue by these women could not be a rational expectation in a society where rule of law cannot be observed in any areas or systems. We should regard that when law is defined by the society, particularly different institutions in the form of individual interest and can be often bypassed, according to what practice, we expect these women who do not believe in this issue to observe this law completely?
If we look at the different life areas around us, where can we touch adherence to law?!
We and Hijab for More Than Three Decades
Apparently, the only law that its observing is the concern of many officials in different institutions is hijab, since apparently believing in the corruption resulted from this this issue has created a systematic homophony between the institutions so that all have employed different literature kinds from “zeal and modesty” to “chastity” to legalize this stratum of women.
Since measures in the direction of adherence to hijab according to the applied methods are not included in the category of belief teachings and the necessary condition for propagating is good temperament and morality, law-orientation is prioritized in this regard, irrespective of the fact that to observe law, there should be a model with the lowest fault so that others respect for observing the law by referring to and observing that model.
Who can claim this model if the friends from different institutions consider their conscience to judge? The model, which is free from any kinds of breaking the law egregiously.