Sharia and political prohibition or maintaining sovereignty?

Worrying about not wearing a hijab, which has recently become a serious concern, is based on what religious ruling? An issue that does not have a promise of heaven for hijab, nor a warning of hell for not wearing a hijab. 46% of authorities (19 out of 41 people) have ruled on compulsory hijab, in other words, there is no consensus on this issue. More than 30% of women can not wear hijab due to middle age. (Surah Noor verse 60)

Non-Muslim women are also not required to observe hijab. The Qur'an recommends hijab for believing women, wives and daughters of the Prophet. (Surah Nur verse 31, Surah Ahzab verse 59). The first verse of the hijab is for men to protect their eyes. (Surah Noor, verse 30) Nearly 30 verses describe the duty of the Prophet to convey and guide, but not to implement. Many verses have explicitly called forced faith unhelpful, which we clearly see as the result of such a policy (that is, anti-religion instead of religiosity). Taking into account the above points, it raises necessary questions:

1) On what religious basis is the Sharia prohibition of not wearing a hijab made? Which action is more forbidden? Unveiling or imprisonment of freedom seekers, rights seekers, justice seekers, followers of other religions and critics, executions against the laws, illegal courts and behind closed doors, inhumane and illegal interrogations, and obtaining forced confessions in ways that are against human rights. Maintaining dominance by abusing religion, destroying the country's resources and destroying the land, the presence of incompetent and sometimes corrupt managers. Existence of systematic corruption and embezzlement and not punishing the violators and the corrupt. Disregarding the laws, prioritizing personal and gang interests over national interests, making people needy and spreading poverty, isolating thinkers and elites and the worthy and rational. playing with public beliefs and betraying national ideals and...

2) Isn't insisting on hijab a policy to maintain dominance and power for more survival? Linking the credibility of the system to women's hair, considering the lack of a solid basis (for forcing hijab) and the lack of consensus among scholars, as well as the disregard for all kinds of harams and violations in the administration of the country, can it have a purpose other than protecting the rulers? Declaring a political ban on the hijab, considering the facts mentioned, is not the suppression of human rights and concern about the conquest of other embankments by the people in realizing their rightful demands?

I believe that the least duty of us hijab wearers is to not allow the hijab to be used as a tool to increase dominance and to persist in the continuation of this historical mistake. We should put opposition to the mandatory hijab as one of our priorities and try to strengthen the idea of ​​separating religion from politics by accompanying this public demand and with the aim of saving religion and Iran.

Kalameh - Faezeh Hashemi