When we talk about justice, we usually have a simple image in mind: laws that apply equally to everyone, without discrimination, without exceptions, without predetermined assumptions. But a closer look at religious laws concerning women is enough to see how far this simple image is from reality. In a society like Iran, where religion is not merely a personal belief but a legal and political framework, this question takes on heightened importance. Can laws shaped by religious texts truly align with the modern concept of justice?
To answer this, we must distance ourselves from cultural assumptions. Many of us grew up in environments that portrayed these laws as natural and even sacred. We were told that these rules came from God and are therefore not only just but complete and flawless. Yet if we set this assumption aside for a moment and examine these laws like any other legal system, a different picture emerges.
Women Within the Framework of Religious Law
In many laws based on Sharia, women are not defined as independent individuals equal to men. Instead, their position is often determined in relation to the men in their family. Fathers, husbands, or brothers play a decisive role in major life decisions. From the right to travel and choose attire to, in some cases, the right to work, this legal dependency is plainly visible. If we define justice as personal autonomy and the right to choose, this structure is hard to defend.
In laws of inheritance, court testimony, child custody, and even blood money, clear differences exist between men and women. These differences are often justified by appeals to “natural distinctions” or “traditional roles.” Such justifications might have made sense when society was actually built on those traditional roles. But in today’s world, where women are present in every sphere, these arguments no longer hold. The question becomes: why can a law that claims to be divine fail to adapt to human realities?
The Conflict Between Modern Justice and Religious Law
The modern concept of justice is built on legal equality. Every individual, regardless of gender, religion, or any other attribute, should enjoy equal rights. This principle is enshrined not only in human rights documents but also confirmed by the historical experience of diverse societies. When we measure religious laws against this standard, the contradiction becomes obvious.
For instance, in many religious interpretations, a woman’s testimony in court is valued at half that of a man’s. This presupposes that a woman is less trustworthy. Or in inheritance, a woman’s share is typically less than a man’s, with the rationale that men are responsible for the family’s financial support. But this rationale collapses in conditions where many women are themselves their family’s primary breadwinners.
These contradictions show that religious laws were not shaped by some universal, timeless understanding of justice, but emerged within specific historical and cultural contexts. What is presented today as divine law is, in fact, a reflection of past social structures. Once we accept this point, we can no longer treat these laws as beyond critique.
The Question of Women’s Bodies and Their Control
One of the most prominent areas where religious laws play a heavy role is the control of women’s bodies. From mandatory hijab to restrictions on personal relationships, these laws are often designed to regulate women’s behavior. They are justified on the surface with concepts like chastity and morality. But the practical result is the curtailment of women’s individual freedoms.
When we view this from a non-religious angle, a simple question arises: why should a woman’s body be the subject of so much legislation? Why should a woman’s choice of clothing or lifestyle be placed under supervision and control? If we treat morality as personal — grounded in consent and mutual respect — this level of intervention can no longer be justified.
In truth, many of these laws are designed not to protect morality but to preserve a particular social order. An order in which men hold more power and women must move within predetermined boundaries. This view not only contradicts the concept of equality but also poses a serious barrier to women’s personal and social growth.
The Lived Experience of Women in Iran
If we move beyond theory and look at the actual lives of women in Iran, the effect of these laws is clearly visible. Women who must worry about judgment, social pressure, or even legal consequences for the simplest of choices. Women who face structural obstacles in their pursuit of financial or intellectual independence.
Many of these women gradually arrive at the conclusion that the problem lies not merely in enforcement but in the laws themselves. Laws shaped by an unequal worldview that cannot, even at their best implementation, produce real justice. This is where doubt begins — doubt that often leads to a deeper reconsideration of religious belief.
Can These Laws Be Reformed?
Some believe that, with new interpretations, these laws can be reconciled with modern conditions. This view tries to bridge tradition and modernity. But this effort faces serious challenges. Many of these laws are explicitly stated in religious texts, and changing them amounts to questioning those very texts.
Moreover, experience shows that piecemeal reforms cannot resolve a fundamental problem. When a legal system is built on discrimination, superficial changes cannot make it just. This is perhaps why so many of those who think seriously about these issues eventually conclude that we must step away from the religious framework altogether.
A Personal View and Conclusion
In my view, the answer to this question is clear. Laws built on belief in a metaphysical and uncriticizable source cannot be compatible with rational, human standards of justice. This is not a rejection of morality or human values — on the contrary, it is an attempt to redefine them on the basis of reason, experience, and empathy.
When we make human beings the center — rather than a sacred text or historical tradition — we can begin to imagine laws that are genuinely just. Laws that view women and men not through predetermined roles but as two equal human beings. Such a shift in perspective is not simple, but it is, in my view, essential.
Finally, questioning the justice of religious laws about women is not merely a theoretical debate. It concerns the daily lives of millions of women — their choices, opportunities, and futures. And perhaps most importantly, it concerns whether we have the courage to put these laws into question. Because without questioning, no change ever occurs.
