Your Excellency, Ayatollah Rafsanjani:

You are universally regarded as one of the bulwarks of the Islamic Republic of Iran, not only by virtue of the fact that, as the head of the Expediency Council, you have the last say in almost every matter, but by the evidence of your certain statements. For instance, you were the first and the only person to warn Ayatollah Khamenei when President Khatami won a landslide victory in May 23 1997. I clearly remember your exact words: "This is a warning to the Leadership." You were also the one and the only person who said, "It doesn't concern the Leadership", when some officials reminded you that the Leader himself had permitted investigating the institutions under his supervision. And of course, there is no doubt about the range and depth of your erudition and theological authority. Considering the above-mentioned facts, therefore, I have selected you, as the most qualified person to answer my questions. To tell the truth, I am somewhat pessimistic that you will answer my questions, but as the saying goes, "asking doesn't hurt', especially when not answering a question often confirms the doubts of the inquirer.

My first question is about chador. Apparently, Imam Khomeini, and after him many clerics including yourself, have considered chador as hijab par excellence. Obviously, the word chador, not being Arabic, does not appear in the holy Qoran. And as far as I know, there is no equivalent to this word all over the Holy Book. Then, how could it be considered an Islamic hijab, let alone being hijab par excellence? Besides, did Immaculate Fatemeh, the daughter of our Holy Prophet, wear a chador? And that too made of black and slippery satin or silk, in order to further hamper the mobility of a woman? Did any religious authority before the Islamic Revolution ban the cotton and linen chadors with print? Allow me to point out that black is considered reprehensible or hateful, makruh, in Islam, and Iranians, who hated Abbasid caliphs, contemptuously called them Black-clad. Moreover, according to Mohammad-Baqer Sadr, Imam Ja'far Sadiq, the sixth Imam, always wore pink and urged others to do the same (Helyet- ulmottaqin).

I am sure you know very well the history of chador, yet I would like to recount it briefly for the sake of those who might not be aware of it. Chador was originated from the Sassanid court, most probably on the behest of the kings themselves, in order to hide their numerous young and pretty wives—who were hand-picked by the court officials from throughout the country (Karnamak-e Anousheravan)—from their numerous young sons, who often were attracted to their stepmothers. Of course, the trick didn't work, as it is evidenced by the story of Shirin and Shiruyeh, where the former asks for the latter's hand after killing his father Khosrow-Parviz (the Shahnameh.) I have to add that, similarly, the device has never worked to prevent prostitution. It is a known fact that almost all the prostitutes in Iran ply their trade under the cover of chador. At any rate, chador never became popular in Iran, and indeed was unknown to common people till the Safavid period when it was imposed on women in many parts of Iran—more or less for the same reason as in Sassanid court. Nevertheless, the women in Northern Iran, Kurdistan, Lorestan, and many other tribal communities did not adopt it till the victory of Islamic Revolution. So, how is that chador is considered 'hijab par excellence'? In one word, what does chador have to do with Islam? I beg you not to tell me it is part of Iranian culture, for many aspects of Iranian culture are considered paganistic by the Islamic Republic.

My second question concerns the issue of hijab as a whole, and the punishment for not observing it. Every Moslem is aware that God, in the Glorious Koran, has decreed women to cover their hair and necks, besides which there is no mention of covering other parts of the body (except the privies). However, it could be implied that also the rest of the body should be covered, leaving only the face, the hands and the feet uncovered (although no woman in Iran is allowed to appear in public without socks, even if she is wearing trousers or a long robe.) Yet, no punishment has been decreed by God to a woman who doesn't observe hijab, unlike in the case of, say, drinking alcoholic beverages, which is punishable by whiplashes or stoning to death an adulterer or adulteress or cutting off a thief's hand. Therefore, I am asking you: What is the punishment for a woman who doesn't observe hijab, and who is authorized to decide the kind or the manner of punishment? What does the Prophetic tradition (hadith) ordain in this case? What is the collective opinion of theologians on this matter?

My third question is again about hijab. Is a person, who believes women have the choice to observe or not to observe hijab, considered an apostate? If so, why wasn't your daughter Ms. Faezeh reprimanded, let alone to be considered an apostate, when she declared, during her campaign for the parliament elections, that women don't have to observe hijab if they choose to do so? And probably sensing the possibility of being asked then why she was wearing a chador, she immediately added, "I personally like chador." What is interesting here is that your daughter didn't say she wore chador because it was decreed by our faith. She simply stated that it was as a matter of her personal preference.

My fourth question is far more important than the issue of hijab, for it really reveals a discriminatory attitude toward the so-called minorities in Iran. You are well aware that, in the next year's budget, millions and millions of tomans have been allocated to religious institutions. Obviously, by religious institutions, it is meant Shiite institutions. Allow me to add parenthetically that President Khatami, and recently Ayatollah Khamenei keep on proclaiming that Iran belongs to all Iranians. Of course, you might wash your hands from such a claim, for you have never said such a thing. However, as an authority and as a follower of the Leader, you may feel bound to clarify the discrepancy and defend their statements. The question is that, if Iran, with all its resources and wealth, belongs to all Iranians, and if all Iranian toil and sweat in serving the country and pay taxes, why should only those institutions which propagate Shiism receive an enormous portion of the country's budget? If the Sunnis aren't discriminated against and Shiah and Sunni are the same in the eyes of Islamic Republic, as the authorities have claimed it time and again, why hasn't any Sunni institutions been established in Iran? Why don't the Sunni clerics get such a lion's share of the budget to propagate their branch of Islam, which, by the way, they consider as the original Islam? Why hasn't a little share been allocated to Zoroastrian fire-temples, Christian churches and Jewish synagogues? You might say that non- Moslems, living in an Islamic country, have to endure certain hardships, including paying extra taxes and being exempted from Islamic donations. Then, how do you expect them to be loyal to Islamic Republic?

Yet, even though the Iranian minorities have been severely discriminated against by being deprived of what has been generously granted to Shiites, there is a greater flaw in allocating government revenues to religious institutions. Should promoting and propagating religious beliefs be financed by government, the result will be degrading not only the religious leaders but the very faith itself. For, some clergy would curry favor with the government for material gain, as it was the case during the Shah's regime. As for the present, the government being Islamic, it is mainly the clergy who decide what portion of the budget should be given to religious institutions. However, using the government revenues in religious establishments could understandably be considered as a measure of exploiting the people by the clergy, whose authority the people might or might not appreciate. If the clergy consider themselves as the followers of the late Imam, as almost all claim to be, they should remember that he insisted on the financial autonomy of the religious leaders and institutions. Moreover, nowhere in the world, especially in those countries with diverse religions, does a government provide for the religious guidance carried out by religious leaders. Islam, more than any other religion, has provided for different ways of getting subsides from the rich and well-to-do people in order to finance religious establishments as well as to help the poor. Therefore, my last question is: Do the clergy in Iran need to take bread from the mouth of the poor children in order to carry out their religious duties and obligations?

Suri Dalir, Ph.D
suriD@excite.com