# Women's rights in Iran

During the late 20th and early 21st centuries in Iran, women's rights have been severely restricted, compared with those in most developed nations.

## Quotes

* Women can do whatever they wish when they are by themselves, but when they are members of society they must behave in such a way that their behavior is accepted by the society at large
** Masoud Pezeshkian according to President Pezeshkian on womens rights in Iran Fareed Zakaria interview with the President of Iran aired on Sept 29, 2024 (video ~2:20)
* [there] are no laws that penalize or prevent the dismissal of pregnant women from work, nor are there laws that provide rights for paternity or parental leave or tax-deductible payments for childcare. The Iranian Civil Code confers power on a husband to prevent his wife from taking any job found to be incompatible with the family interest or the dignity of the husband or his wife. Women have no legal protection against domestic violence or sexual harassment by anyone, and the constitution has no non-discrimination clause with gender as a protected category.
** Women, Peace, and Security (WPS) Klugman, Jeni (October 2017). Women, Peace and Security Index 2017–18 report (PDF) (Report). p. 84. ISBN 978-0-692-94090-7. Archived (PDF) from the original on December 9, 2018. Retrieved December 8, 2018. Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial 3.0
* According to a report included in the Jāmi of al-Khallāl (d. 311 A.H. / 923 A.D.), 'Ibn Hanbal maintained that 'if Zoroastrian and idolatrous women are taken prisoner, they are coerced into Islam; if they embrace it, sexual relations with them are permissible' and they can (also) be used as maidservants. If they do not embrace Islam, they are used as maidservants but not for sexual relations (wa idhā subhīna (sic) al-majūsiyyāt wa ‘abadat al awthān ujbirna 'alā al-Islām fa-in asl ama wutiʼna ma 'stukhdimna wa in lam yuslimna 'stukhdimna wa lam yūtaʼna). The contradiction inherent in this passage is evident: despite the unspecified coercive measures, some of the women in question refused conversion and, consequently, the masters could not take full advantage o their services. If the only way to embrace Islam is pronouncing the declaration of faith, the conversion of a defiant woman may not be possible: it is not always feasible to force someone to utter the shahāda. 'According to a tradition transmitted on the authority of Hasan al-Basri, the Muslims used various devices to attain their objective: they turned the Zorastrian slave-girl toward the Ka‘ba, ordered her to pronounce the shahāda and to perform ablution. Her master then engaged in sexual relations' after she had one menstruating period while in his house. Others hold that the master must teach the slave-girl to pray, to purify herself and to shave her private parts before any intercourse. The participation of the girl in this procedure is minimal, and this wording may be interpreted us a considerable lowering of the conversion requirements so that the girl becomes eligible for sexual intercourse as expeditiously as possible. Among the early traditionists, only 'a few were willing to go beyond this and allow sexual relations with a Zoroastrian slave-girl without insisting on at least a semblance of conversion'. Shafi‘i's treatment of the issue is slightly different. Speaking of grown-up Zoroastrian or polytheist women taken into captivity, he maintains that no sexual relations with them are allowed before they embrace Islam without bringing up the question of converting them forcibly. If the female captives are minor but were taken captive with at least one of their parents, the ruling is the same. 'If, however, the girl was captured without her parents, or one of her parents embraced Islam, she is considered a Muslim and is coerced into embracing it' (nahkumu lahā bihukm al-Islām wa nujbiruhā ‘alayhi). 'Once this happens, sexual relations with her are lawful.'
** Friedmann, Yohanan, Tolerance and Coercion in Islam: Interfaith Relations in the Muslim Tradition, Cambridge Studies in Islamic Civilization, Cambridge University Press, pp. 107-108, ISBN 9780511497568, Archived from the original on August 2009
* We have also seen that according to the prevalent view of the traditionists, a female polytheist must be converted to Islam, by coercive measures if necessary, before any sexual relationship with her can take place... Conversion to Islam is not mentioned here as a necessary condition for sexual relations. In the opinion of Mujahid, the captive girl should shave her pubic hair, trim her hair and pare her nails. Then she should perform ablution, wash her clothes, pronounce the shahada and perform a Muslim prayer. But even if she refuses to do these things, her master is still allowed to have sexual relations with her once she has had one menstrual period in his house. And Safiıd b. al-Musayyab simply says that “there is nothing wrong in a man having sexual relations with his Zoroastrian slave-girl”... Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya observes, on the other hand, that: "they (i.e., the Prophet’s companions) did not make sexual relations with Arab captives contingent on their conversion; rather they had sexual relations with them after one menstrual period. God allowed them to do this and did not make it conditional on conversion." Summing up, Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya says that there is not a single tradition which makes sexual relations with female captives contingent on their conversion.
** Yohanan Friedmann, Tolerance and Coercion in Islam : Interfaith Relations in the Muslim Tradition, Cambridge University Press, 2003.— pp. 176-178
* The prevalent view of the jurisprudents is that sexual intercourse of any kind is not permissible with Zoroastrian or idolatrous women. According to some, a Muslim who has intercourse with such a woman is (from the religious view point) not better than the infidel woman herself. This being so, most fuqaha maintain that women belonging to these groups should embrace Islam before any intercourse can take place. If they refuse, they are used as servants, but sexual intercourse with them is not permitted. This is evidently not an optimal solution, and numerous traditions maintain that women who refuse to embrace Islam willingly should be subjected to coercion.
** Yohanan Friedmann, Tolerance and Coercion in Islam : Interfaith Relations in the Muslim Tradition, Cambridge University Press, 2003.— pp. 107
* If Zoroastrian and idolatrous women are taken prisoner, they are coerced into Islam; if they embrace it, sexual relations with them are permissible and they can (also) be used as maidservants. If they do not embrace Islam, they are used as maidservants but not for sexual relations.
** Ibn Hanbal, cited in Jāmi‘ of al-Khallāl (d. 311 A.H. / 923 A.D.). Quoted in Yohanan Friedmann, "Tolerance and Coercion in Islam: Interfaith Relations in the Muslim Tradition (Cambridge Studies in Islamic Civilization)". Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006, pp. 107-108
* There is nothing wrong in a man having sexual relations with his Zoroastrian slave-girl.
** Said ibn al-Musayyib. Safiıd b. al-Musayyab, quoted from Yohanan Friedmann, Tolerance and Coercion in Islam : Interfaith Relations in the Muslim Tradition, Cambridge University Press, 2003.— pp. 176-178