Samir Zand: Which representative should people tell that they don’t want hijab?

Special Interview of Loghman Madayen, Film Critic with Dr. Mahdi Khazali, Politician, and Samir Zend, Artist

The name of the Khazali family is one that few people have not heard of. Over the past decade, they have been headline news in the country’s media, with members from various political factions and orientations. However, this time, I am turning to the news about the possible return and resumption of activities by Iranian artists living abroad, which has sparked different reactions and analyses. This issue, along with the growing disillusionment among the people about civic participation—an issue that has recently been proven to be serious and was also highlighted in the Supreme Leader’s words—prompted me to visit the two sons of Ayatollah Khazali (may he rest in peace). Both of them could offer relevant and well-tested analyses in the areas I was interested in. It took a lot of effort to coordinate and arrange a joint time for both Mr. Mohammad Hosein Khazali, also known as Samir Zand, who lives abroad, and Dr. Mahdi Khazali, a politician, but with their enthusiasm to share their experiences, this important task was accomplished.

What you are reading is an interview filled with a realistic perspective on the issues we are currently grappling with. It is a taste of the experience that often takes us to other countries to see how similar challenges are addressed there. It also sheds light on how civil, non-violent activities can benefit people and occasionally reveals the concerns and doubts of artists abroad. Whatever the case may be, it was beneficial for me, and I hope it proves to be equally insightful for you, dear readers.

Dr. Mahdi Khazali, let me start with the first question: Did the emergence of an artistic talent in a religious family face any opposition from your late father, Ayatollah Khazali?

My artist brother’s activities went through many ups and downs, but his stage name “Samir” was also chosen by my father. There were those who were obsessive and would go around saying, “In a religious family, no one should be involved in music.” Despite all these concerns, eventually, thank God, my father accepted that this son wanted to pursue an artistic career, wanted to work in music. In the end, my father’s approval for his musical and artistic endeavors was granted. Well, he created some very beautiful works. Some of the religious songs he produced made me cry many times. The beautiful song he sang for Hazrat Ali Asghar (AS), for Hazrat AbulFazl (AS), for the Prophet (PBUH), for Hazrat Ali (AS), and in the pop music genre, he sang beautiful love songs as well, and they are very beautiful.

Dr. Khazali, the Minister of Culture and Islamic Guidance said that Mr. Moein is allowed to return to Iran and resume his activities. Do you think, in a situation where a singer as unobtrusive as Mr. Homayoun Shajarian is banned from leaving the country, the Minister’s suggestion is rational?

I remember back in 2004, when we were talking to Mr. Hashemi to convince him to run for president in 2005, I raised the idea that in the field of art, instead of begging for space to be opened and for people to come and thaw the frozen atmosphere both inside and outside, we could generate income without spending anything. All we needed was to allow a concert by Yanni at Persepolis, and the CD of the Yanni concert at Persepolis itself would serve as the best advertisement for Iran’s tourism.

For instance, we could also bring Mr. Moein, a very reasonable and moderate singer, who has sung for Hazrat Ali (AS), to perform at Azadi Stadium on a day like Eid al-Ghadir. But he should come and go with respect and safely. That would be enough. You don’t need to advertise. Essentially, you would be showing security to Iranians abroad by allowing Moein or any other artist to come and go. This discussion was raised, but Mr. Hashemi did not come, and that year, the miracle of the third millennium happened!

Mr. Samir Zand, I’ll come back to you now. You’ve been living in Turkey for about five years and working there, and by coincidence, you’re also a neighbor of Mr. Moein. How have you found him?

Let me correct that first. I’m not exactly his neighbor, but rather, we live in the same neighborhood. He also has a residence in Kargicak, Alanya. In fact, I do live in a building with one of our well-known and licensed artists, but we’ve had the opportunity to visit him once or twice, and I can tell you he’s a very dignified, calm, and special person. When people talk about him as a Los Angeles-based singer, I’m surprised. In my opinion, he’s far more licensed than many of our so-called licensed artists. In terms of his behavior, his works, and if we consider the criteria of the Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance for issuing permits, I don’t think Mr. Moein has released any work that wouldn’t qualify for a permit. I don’t mean to disrespect the internal artists, the dear ones, and the teachers in the country, but Mr. Moein has a much higher standard than some of those who are allowed to work today, and he’s producing work on that level. Honestly, in my opinion, he deserves to come back and interact with his people in his own country, have performances, and allow people to experience his music directly. People shouldn’t have to exchange their money for foreign currency to go to neighboring countries during Nowruz or other times to listen to his voice and attend his concerts. Why can’t he perform in his own country? First of all, the currency won’t unnecessarily leave our country, and these expenses can be used within our own country. A talented artist like him deserves to be able to connect directly with his people in his own country.

Of course, I should also mention that I’m grateful to the Ministry of Culture for their support. I personally witnessed a few instances where Mr. Esmaeili took a very open approach with the aim of creating opportunities for artists to perform. He directly intervened, offered support, and expressed his views. Even if similar things have happened in previous periods, the current Minister didn’t have as much personal involvement. For example, when we were trying to organize a performance with Mr. Akbar Abdi in Alanya, it had its challenges, especially when it came to obtaining permits, but in that case, we did receive the Ministry’s support, as they encouraged us to go ahead and make it happen.

Mr. Samir, are you saying that the program you were planning to organize with Mr. Akbar Abdi in Turkey had the approval of the Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance in Iran?

Yes, yes, absolutely. We coordinated everything to ensure that Mr. Abdi, who is active with proper permits in Iran, wouldn’t face any issues. We checked all of that, and it was supported. This was one of the rare occasions where I saw the Ministry of Culture support any artist moving forward, and there was no sign of the obstacles we’ve seen in the past.

Mr. Doctor, you are well-known in politics, and your brother in the field of arts. Both of you, based on your activities, have interacted with the Ministry of Culture, and perhaps one point where your paths intersect is here. How do you evaluate Mr. Samir’s statements? Do you think the current performance of the Ministry of Culture is appropriate?

I believe that even if the opposing faction or our rivals are opening up the space, we should support it. For me to say that this would benefit the opposing faction would be a mistake! The Minister said that Mr. Moein is allowed to return, but then some started saying that he would face 28 years of imprisonment, and later, the Judiciary denied it. This kind of negativity and false reporting was wrong.

Mr. Samir, you had a joint project with the late Habib, and it’s even said that you brought him to Iran. Was Mr. Habib also concerned about the lack of security for entering Iran?

When I was in Dubai, I met Mr. Habib at a hotel near Al-Riqqa Street, the Delmon Hotel. He had shows there at night. He told me that he wanted to come to Iran but had been told that he would be arrested upon arrival. I asked him, “Why would they arrest you?” He replied, “Do you really think they won’t arrest me if I return?” I asked, “But why? You’re a veteran artist. First, such a thing wouldn’t happen to you, and second, what’s the reason? Just saying ‘they’ll arrest you, they’ll arrest you’ doesn’t make sense. Why? Do you have a case, or a history? That can be checked. Why would they arrest you?” Later, many said I brought him to Iran, but in reality, when he arrived in Iran, I only found out after he had arrived. I got a call while we were in the studio, and a friend handed the phone to him, and the rest, as they say, is history.

But Mr. Samir, it has been said that Mr. Habib’s laptop and passport were confiscated upon arrival. Do you consider this action logical?

Well, they took his laptop and passport to go to the security building, and this is a standard procedure. It’s not just for Mr. Habib; it happens to anyone who has been away for a long time. They tell you, “Come, let’s see what you’ve been doing. What’s your story?” This happens even for ordinary people. If someone has been absent for 20 or 30 years, it’s the same everywhere. If someone hasn’t returned to the U.S. for years, the FBI would ask, “Come, let’s see what you’ve been up to during this time.”

So, the “they take this, they take that” narrative, in my opinion, doesn’t come from those who genuinely care about the country. These statements are made by those who want to scare everyone into preventing a more open environment in the country. They don’t want many artists and Iranians living abroad to come back. Just recently, I heard that someone was given a mission by the president’s office to actually support the safe return of Iranians from abroad—whether they plan to come and stay or just visit and leave.

Mr. Doctor, your brother spoke with the late Habib in Dubai and convinced him to return. Have you had a similar experience in facilitating the return of Iranians from abroad?

I met Mr. Jahan Qashqai, may he rest in peace. I had brought a package for him from Tehran, sent by one of his relatives. We sat down in a hotel and had some coffee. At that time, I didn’t know who he was, so I asked him what he did. He said, “I sing.” That’s when I realized he was a singer. Later, I became familiar with his deep, raspy voice, and I always played his music in the car. But he was afraid. He said, “If I come, I will be arrested.” I reviewed his resume and told him, “Let me go to Iran and make an inquiry. If there’s no problem, come. Why are you afraid?” So I went and checked with some of our contacts, and they said there was no issue, no open cases against him. He came and left safely. This was around the time of the Bam earthquake. He even planned to hold a concert for the earthquake victims, and we were going to help him get the necessary permits. His CD was taken by my brother to the Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance to get approval for his lyrics. However, there was a bit of negligence on our part, and the follow-up wasn’t done in time. Otherwise, he would have gotten the permit and performed here. But his visit was short, and the process for obtaining permits was much slower back then. By the time the permit would have been issued, he had already left. But he came and went with no problems. I’ve heard of others who had similar experiences. Apparently, Shakila also had visits where she came and went without any issues.

Dr. Khazali, the individuals you mentioned are considered part of the high art music scene. If we look a little lower, why hasn’t someone like Mr. Tataloo, who even sang on a warship, been able to obtain permission for a concert?

If they knew better, instead of placing someone who promotes anti-culture next to Mr. Raisi, they should have placed someone like Moein beside him. At the very least, if you want an artist, a singer, to sit next to you, you need to recognize who the leaders of this art form are. Shajarian should have sat next to you, Shahram Nazeri should have sat next to you, and we should not be afraid of the activities of renowned female artists like Hayedeh, may she rest in peace, Mahasti, googoosh, Shakila, and others. This space should be opened up.

Dr. Khazali, this raises the question: is a woman’s voice considered sacred or not?

The part that concerns us is its legal and theological discussion. I wrote an article in 1997 about the voice of women, based on the view of Ayatollah Sistani. In the wedding of Imam Ali (A.S.) and Lady Fatimah (S.A.), there was a 9-kilometer distance from the Prophet’s house to the home of the groom in the area of Khiba. The rope of Lady Fatimah’s camel was in the hands of Salman al-Farsi, who was a non-mahram. Surrounding the camel were women, similar to the wives of the Prophet (PBUH), who were singing poetry, and it was a wedding song, not a mourning song. “Fatimah is the best of women, and her face shines like the moon.” This poetry was being sung, almost like a song. It was a wedding, not a mourning. You yourself have written in your books that the wives of the Prophet (PBUH) sang, and their voices were heard by the companions who gathered around the camel of Ali (A.S.), meaning in the presence of non-mahrams. So, you tell me: is it sacred or not?

Mr. Samir, what is your opinion about the prohibition of a woman’s voice? Do you agree with your brother on this matter?

Well, we have no higher example than the voice of the Prophet’s (PBUH) own daughter, which was heard in the presence of Salman and other companions. Sometimes, this doubt arises in my mind, of course, not to offend anyone, but it is a doubt. Could it be that we are trying to be more Muslim than the Prophet? I mean, have we made something that, as mentioned in the narration, when the Imam of the Time (AJ) comes, the scholars of the time will say he has introduced a new innovation? “A man will come with a new religion,” meaning the scholars of the time will say this is a man who has brought a new religion. What kind of religion is this? What have we done? How much have we changed the religion? How much have we distanced people from the faith? I mean, excuse me, but here, where we don’t have the censorship of the broadcasting organization, really, honestly, compared to ten or fifteen years ago, do the Ramadans still have the same spirit? Does anyone fast in the same way as before?

Dr., I think you had a comment that you wanted to share, we are at your service.

Look, every extreme has its opposite. At the beginning of the revolution, we installed loudspeakers at mosques, and they would play mourning chants for an hour. Sir, you can play a 30-second or one-minute call to prayer, but the rest should be taken inside the mosque. Now, the situation has become such in the heart of Islam, the city you claim to be the center of, here in Tehran, we don’t even hear the call to prayer. They don’t even dare to raise the volume of the call to prayer. It’s neither the strong, vibrant call to prayer that used to play mourning chants from morning to night, nor the dull, lifeless 30-second call that you don’t even play. The Arabs play it, it’s played in Spain, and in Turkey, where the government is secular, it is played five times a day, but in the heart of the Islamic world, with the claim of being the leader of the Muslims, claiming to spread Islam to the world, we are afraid to play the call to prayer.

Mr. Zand, you have experience living in Turkey. Do people there have a positive reaction to the call to prayer being broadcast?

Of course, many people complain there because loudspeakers have been installed at some intersections. There is no mosque, but the call to prayer is broadcast, and some people are upset, saying that this loud sound might disturb someone who is sick at home. The loudspeaker facing the building and playing the call to prayer might disturb someone who is lying down sick. In my opinion, broadcasting the call to prayer five times a day throughout the entire city is not ideal. It’s like, to make an analogy, honking the car horn five times a day. That sound, with such a large volume, can be disturbing to some people who are sick or even to non-Muslims. I believe we need to view society in a much broader way than just imposing our own preferences. It shouldn’t be like, because I am this way, everyone else must be the same. We have our values, our religion, and anyone who wants to come can come, and anyone who doesn’t want to, doesn’t have to. It should be like this: just because my brother prefers to wear a suit and tie and button it up, I should have the freedom to leave my collar unbuttoned and wear a short-sleeved shirt.

Dr., our citizens are not all Muslims, we have Christians too. Why shouldn’t the church bell be heard like the call to prayer?

Well, you’ve raised an interesting point. The discussion is about why we say the church bell should also be broadcasted. Why is the church bell silent in Tehran? Why isn’t the call to prayer broadcast from the minaret? However, this needs to be a demand from the people, meaning the same democratic process should be followed, where people, through their representatives in the parliament or city council, can make their views known. Even if they say the call to prayer is disturbing, the opinions of the people, psychologists, sociologists, and doctors should be taken into account, and the elected representatives of the people will decide the appropriate volume for the call to prayer or the church bell. The process should start from here.

Mr. Zand, do you think there is space for people to implement their views through their representatives?

Actually, could you enlighten me about how often representatives from cities go and sit with the people to understand what they want and then convey it? Even if they do convey it, how successful are they? A representative comes with a certain appearance to maintain their position and status, and they try to convince the person who comes to them that they are wrong! For example, this might even be a sensitive issue that shouldn’t be mentioned, but in the case of hijab, many people say they don’t want to wear the hijab. Who can they tell this to, and where can the representative raise this issue? How can they bring up this request? The representative might be opposed to this request, and if they raise it, they might be removed from their position.

Dr., one of the officials said that not every issue can be put to a referendum and it is not feasible, even in cases where people might not be fully informed to give an accurate opinion. How much do you agree with this perspective?

Let me give you an example from abroad. The country isn’t democratic, the ruler is a king, and the system is hereditary. Sultan Qaboos, may God have mercy on him, in Oman, when the issue of whether hookah should be served in restaurants arose, he consulted with doctors about health concerns and with religious authorities about its Islamic perspective. Then, it was sent to the parliament, and television broadcasted the debates in detail. In the end, the parliament approved the ban on serving hookah in Oman’s restaurants. Unlike Iran, where one restaurant offers it and another doesn’t, because one has paid for the license, and the other hasn’t, or in one restaurant, someone might say, ‘Women shouldn’t smoke hookah,’ which is their personal opinion. Suddenly, someone comes to question the woman and her husband about why smoke is above her head. Where do these laws come from? Or they gather, and local authorities come and say it’s banned. Then, when you go to Firouzkouh, their local government says it’s banned, but when you pass Firouzkouh’s jurisdiction, it becomes legal again. When you reach Khorasan, the president of Khorasan, Mr. Alamolhoda, banned it. The president of Khorasan governs in Mashhad, but in Torghabeh, the head of the parliament, Mr. Qalibaf, is in charge, and because he likes hookah, it is allowed there. What I want to say is that this situation of fragmented rule, like in a tribal system, should end. If we want to serve hookah, I, as a doctor, give my opinion, the cleric gives their opinion, the sociologist gives their opinion, and then parliament passes a law for hookah to be either allowed or banned, and that’s it. It should be the same for the hijab.

Mr. Samir, do you think that the democratic process for the hijab, which should involve a public survey, has been followed?

What we see is that we either confront people or we confront them 100%. In my opinion, we should first see how many people are in favor of this law and how many are opposed. Even if the majority say they want the hijab, and a minority, say 10 million or 20 million people, say they do not want it, do they not have the right in the country? Let’s say 60 million people say they want the hijab, but 20 million say they don’t want it, without promoting immorality or other issues, just that they don’t want the hijab. Do these 20 million people, with their own number, not have a right? Do they not have a share in their country?

Dr., Mr. Samir says, assuming the opponents of the hijab are a minority, do these minorities have the right to demand change?

I have a question for my brother. I want to ask, where did they get this stipulation from? He said 20 million people say they don’t want the hijab, where did they get this demographic statistic? He said, without the promotion of immorality, well maybe even a million people want to be without hijab while promoting immorality. What should we do then? What about those who want alcohol? Should we give them their right? Unless they want immorality and alcohol, don’t they have a right to their share of the country? What should we do with them? Isn’t everything free in Dubai? Don’t they take action there?

Mr. Samir, you’ve placed a condition in your statement, and Dr. says where is the reference for that? And you mentioned your experience in Dubai, is alcohol free there?

You see, I gave the statistical example to mean that they are a minority, in the best possible scenario, which is an ideal. I said this because I know my brother’s ethics, I also know the ethics of the system, and I am familiar with the ethics of many people. That’s why I quickly added that we guarantee there will be no promotion of immorality. But what if we consider this situation? Now let’s go to Turkey, there it’s all free. Alcohol is available in supermarkets, in kiosks, but in Dubai, it’s not like that. Dubai says if you promote immorality, if you go into a park and create an interaction that we call promoting immorality, we will take action, deport you, and you won’t be allowed to step foot in Dubai again. But they don’t interfere with basic things like what to wear. When you tell someone what to wear, let’s say I put myself in the shoes of that woman, for example, if I told my brother, Dr. so-and-so, that you can no longer wear this color of suit from tomorrow, and I ask you to sign a commitment, would that be bearable?

Dr., you mentioned that you had a point to make, please go ahead.

Yes, let’s not leave Dubai; let’s stay in the UAE. In Dubai, up until the Al Nahda bridge, which leads to Sharjah, alcohol is served in hotels but not sold in stores, it is only available in hotels and airports. Once you cross the bridge into Sharjah, alcohol is completely banned. On the Dubai side, hookah is served everywhere, but in Sharjah, not only is hookah banned and not served, if you take one to the beach, you’ll be fined 100 dirhams. Even if someone drinks alcohol and goes to the beach intoxicated, they’ll be fined, and a punishment will be imposed. If you smoke hookah on a balcony, the police will knock on your door and confiscate the hookah, fining you another 100 dirhams. Look at the differences. If we go a bit further, we reach Ajman. On one side of the street, which is Sharjah, all the restrictions I mentioned are in place, but on the other side, which is Ajman, alcohol is sold in stores. So, anyone who wants alcohol just goes to Ajman and buys it.

Mr. Samir, please share your thoughts.

Actually, this brings up an interesting point. So, Ajman, Fujairah, Sharjah, Dubai, and Abu Dhabi are all different, just like Mashhad, Tehran, Qom, and Isfahan are different. Our Channel 5 has some freedoms, but Channel 1, which is nationwide, doesn’t, it’s more restricted because it’s broadcast in smaller cities. We know these differences, but do we have a valve here, like Channel 5, or like the cases of Fujairah or Ajman, where at least the 20 million people can access what they want?

Dr., here’s my response to you.

Well, my first point was to highlight the differences in the policies of different countries. For example, in Azerbaijan, you can walk down the street and find a child sitting on the sidewalk with a box of fruit, selling alcohol. Let’s keep these differences in mind. Now, let’s look at Sultan Qaboos’s approach, which I personally liked. He said, ‘You give your opinion; I am nothing in this process.’ He took the people’s vote and banned hookah. No one says why anymore.

Mr. Samir, do you think this style of voting has been effective for us until now?

In the past 40 years, have we held any votes on something like hookah? Let’s even talk about simpler things that people want. For example, regarding nightlife, people want to have a nightlife. Where should they go to announce this or demand it? Should they tell their representatives? The representative, who has made it to office with a certain set of costs, hasn’t come to engage the people with him; he brought along the votes, not the people. Now, he may not have a listening ear and may not be the people’s voice. If people really have a demand, where should they express it, how should they express it? We don’t think that we are fully aware of the issues people are reacting to and demanding. So why don’t we make it clear and simple for them to express their desires, like the voting system my brother mentioned, such as the referendum in Oman regarding hookah? Why don’t we hold a public vote on these matters? People shouldn’t need to speak through their representatives—let them speak directly through a referendum.

Dr. Khazali, we return to the statement of a government official who said that not every issue can be put to a public referendum. Do you believe everything should be put to a public vote?

The principle is that any issue affecting the community should be put to the representatives of the people for a vote. This is different from a referendum. So, that union, that cooperative, or that syndicate can say, ‘Hey, restaurant owners need to be open until 2 am, not just until 12,’ and they can give their request to their representative to review. It’s a serious discussion, like in the UK, where shops close at a certain time. Some shops close at 5 pm, while others stay open until 8 pm, and when you go out late, there’s nothing else open except bars and similar places. Why do they close at 5 pm?

Mr. Samir, do you think union mediation could be helpful?

How many of us have unions that truly, without considering their position, without considering all the bureaucratic procedures, and without playing games to maintain their seats in the union, go out and find out what shop owners want? They don’t do this. How many shop owners truly trust these unions and their members?

Dr., how correct is it that the government is controlling everything and making decisions for the people?

The year we invited Mr. Hashemi, I asked him two things. I said the government should be reduced to one-tenth of its size, to become a supporting, overseeing government that only looks at what the people want and ensures it. The government should ask the people, ask the market, and say, ‘What do you want? I am here to oil the gears so that things run smoothly for you. That is all I am here for—to oil the machinery and do nothing else. I am here to support you, not to control you.’ That was one point: to reduce the size of the government. Right now, the government controls the people. All of our oil revenues are spent on government employees, which Mr. Hashemi said we should first strengthen the private sector with good salaries so that people have places to go, and over 10 years the government should gradually shrink and the private sector should grow. His point was correct, that within 10 years the government should shrink gradually, and we should not be responsible for many things.

The second point was that subsidies are against social justice because they encourage high consumption. For example, an elderly person in a village leaves a hundred lights on and the government gives a 90% subsidy for it, even though they go to sleep early and turn off the lights at night. Meanwhile, in places like Beverly Hills, they heat pool water under the snow with saunas and jacuzzis, illuminating huge gardens, and all this electricity is being consumed, yet we should pay 90% of their electricity bills. Or we pay the electricity for the 15 million foreign nationals living in the country, and for their bread subsidies. These subsidies should be removed. If we want to support people, the vulnerable groups should come under the government’s umbrella and say, ‘I am struggling. I am a widow, disabled, elderly, unemployed.’ Then the government can provide them with a minimum living standard and meet their basic needs. Mr. Hashemi agreed with this approach.

Dr., what was Ayatollah Khazali’s stance on mandatory hijab?

These are another set of discussions, but I’m glad our conversation is heading in a good direction. On the issue of hijab, at the beginning of the revolution, Mr. Taleghani, Motahhari, Beheshti, and even Imam Khomeini said it was not mandatory. But Mr. Rouhani made it mandatory. Now, he has changed his position, like the human heart—sometimes shifting from the left to the right, gradually changing direction as he ages. But all the harshness and confiscations of property were carried out by the left wing. Even my father, who was considered right-wing, always stood against confiscations, executions, and such things. People like Mr. Qodosi, Motahhari, and Beheshti were all against it, but the left wing, such as Khalkhali, were considered the radicals.

Mr. Samir, how did you know your late father?

I would like to share a memory about my father. Early in the revolution, Mr. Khalkhali wanted to execute a colonel. My father sent his documents to Imam Khomeini, explaining that this man should not be executed, and it was happening unjustly. Imam Khomeini responded saying that the execution should be stopped. Mr. Khalkhali, however, declared that he would not accept this without written orders. That night, my father set out, received the handwritten letter from Imam Khomeini, and went to Qom. Khalkhali had a habit of executing people after the dawn prayer, but that night, to prevent the prisoner from being freed, he executed him before the letter arrived, even before the dawn prayer. By the time the letter reached him, the man had already been executed. My father was a strong opponent of certain injustices, but unfortunately, his image was portrayed in such a way that people believed he was a rigid person.

One day, I was talking to Mohammad Esfahani on the phone about doing something for Ghadir, and I mentioned that I had shared a couple of his works with my father, and he really liked them. Mohammad Esfahani asked, ‘Does your father listen to music? Doesn’t he have a problem with music?’ I said, ‘What problem?’ He replied, ‘Well, that’s what we’ve always heard.’ I told him, ‘Just because it’s written doesn’t mean it’s the truth!’ My father’s image was portrayed as very rigid and conservative, but that was not the case at all. My brother can confirm that we had a relative who would change the doorbell to make sure it didn’t have any melody, but I never saw my father say anything like, ‘Why is the television playing music? Turn it off!’ He was not rigid at all.

Dr., you have the most religiously similar mindset to your father among the family. Do your children have permission to listen to music?

The relative who was completely against music—once, when we traveled to the north, I went to the market and bought a cassette of ‘Gol Pamchal’ (a famous Iranian song from the past). It was still available on cassette tapes at that time. I played it in the car, and he started singing along with the song. This relative said, ‘Turn it off!’ I said, ‘No! You have to listen to it.’ He asked, ‘Why?’ I said, ‘Look, my child listens to this song at home while watching a movie, and your child does too. My child is listening to it in a permissible way, but your child, with your mindset, has crossed the first line of sin. What will happen in the future? He will keep crossing the lines of sin again and again until it becomes normal to him. You need to make a decision about this. Either it’s permissible, and your child can listen to it freely, or if you think it’s forbidden, then know that your child is crossing that forbidden line every day.

Mr. Samir, does this respected relative have any relation to the Khazali family through marriage?

No, actually, they are very lovable and ethical people! They are not political and don’t engage in these matters. But I just can’t understand people who hold such views about music!

Dr., how do you think this religious deviation should be resolved?

You see, these issues need to be worked on. In the matter of apostasy, we worked hard in the “Saraye Ghalam” (House of Pen), held sessions, and since the time we began seriously addressing these issues, no one has been executed under apostasy charges. In fact, a Christian convert went inside and was freed sooner than anyone, without being executed for being Christian or changing religions. They were freed unless they had established a religious school or a home church, which requires a permit. If someone operates without a permit, it’s a violation, and they can get into trouble.

If, unfortunately, some people hadn’t misused the situation and mixed their political demands into the cultural issue of hijab, it wouldn’t have become such a controversial topic. When people started chanting “Hijab is the pretext, the system is the target,” the political agenda behind it became clear. If these events hadn’t happened, the hijab issue would have been dealt with differently. The government sees the harsh slogans being shouted, and they don’t want to lose the first front.

Mr. Samir, do you also believe that the hijab issue became complicated because of this?

I think people didn’t side with them, but rather, they tried to ride the wave of popular sentiment. And I think the phrase “Hijab is the pretext” is incorrect. If I say, “My shirt is the pretext, and it symbolizes something else,” should I be beaten from tomorrow?

Dr., did the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) enforce religious duties in the same manner?

You see, we first need to understand that we should not approach the issue of hijab from a theoretical or ideological battle because it is an essential part of the faith. However, this essential part of the faith was not made compulsory in Medina. Prayer is also a pillar of faith, but did anyone ever get taken to the mosque by a van or a “prayer patrol”? In Saudi Arabia, they do that, they close shops at prayer times, but we don’t do that. But when it comes to hijab, we grab people by the collar. There could have been beautiful ways to approach the hijab issue without putting people in a confrontational position, making the government view uncovered hair as a form of disrespect. You see, when threats are made to hang people on electric poles, and figures like Mohammad Khatami and Ahmad Khatami are seen together, these two become common enemies. So, at this stage, they stand together to avoid being hanged. The events that happened in 2022 were violent, they were against religion and the system, they insulted and said, “The system is the target.” That’s how issues get complicated.

Mr. Samir, how did you view last year’s protests? Do you think they were accompanied by insults?

Many of the protests we saw in the streets were accompanied by offensive language. Of course, we have many people who enjoy buying tickets at a high price, ranging from $100 to $1000, and they go just to hear insults. They go with their families to get insulted. We have people who find pleasure in being insulted. I’m not generalizing this to our entire society. In fact, since I’ve been living in Turkey, I’ve observed Russians, Ukrainians, Scandinavians, and others. In terms of cleanliness, hygiene, demeanor, and behavior, Iranians are among the most decent and gentlemanly people. When we observe their behavior, we understand just how much more refined and respectable Iranians are. For example, when Mr. Ebrahim Hamidi (Abbi), who is neither a supporter of the regime nor its opponent, posts a normal photo with his wife on a boat in the middle of the water, the people who are aligned with the opposite side of the spectrum, started launching a barrage of insults under the photo. They didn’t care whether the person was Abbi or some religious singer from this side. It had become a form of entertainment for them to just insult everyone.

Dr., do you think this social anxiety has a boundary between political factions?

You see, a certain actor, who opposed the government and went abroad, was surrounded by people who insulted him. Mr. Ali Payam (Halo), for instance, went to participate in demonstrations against executions. He himself says that during a demonstration in London, royalists assaulted him. Now, think about what these people would do with young people if they came to Iran. If they didn’t attack religion, if they, like Cyrus the Great, respected all religions, if they didn’t behave badly, if they didn’t give obscene insults to people, we could have tackled the issue of hijab in a specialized manner, just like we did with apostasy and stoning, which were abolished. We could have held discussions on stoning being against the Quran, and that execution of apostates contradicts the Quran. It’s true that it’s present in Shia and Sunni jurisprudence, but it’s against the Quran. We could have worked on the issue of hijab and opened the path, but they didn’t let us.

Mr. Samir, how much responsibility do you think people share in the rise of secularism?

As the old saying goes, “Pin a needle to yourself and a thorn to others.” Didn’t people used to greet a cleric from afar during the Shah’s time? Why did they stand against them now? One day, we were sitting at the Iftar table with one of our relatives, who was a cleric and has passed away (I’m not referring to my late father). He said, “The plainclothes officers have ruined the reputation of the clergy.” I replied, “Excuse me, Haj Agha, if I go to a corner and extort money from people, will the police or extortionist become a bribe-taker? If I commit a mistake in that outfit, I tarnish the dignity of the clothes. How can I tarnish the reputation of this outfit with a different uniform?” He didn’t take it well. What I mean is that our actions cause people to oppose us. For example, when the Friday prayer leader of Isfahan says, “Don’t be upset if acid attacks happen tomorrow,” he’s tarnishing the reputation of the uniform.

Dr., do you agree that the sanctity of the shrine belongs to its caretaker?

You see, the decreasing respect for the clergy is a natural outcome, especially when economic problems arise and sanctions are imposed. People vent their frustrations on the ruling authority, whether it’s the Shah or the clergy. Regarding the family member my brother mentioned, I have to say that the cleric was right. Back then, plainclothes officers came and imposed their authority on society, whether it was about the hijab or coloring short sleeves or cutting long hair. These plainclothes officers, supported by people like the Friday prayer leader of Isfahan, were the problem. Meanwhile, a person like my father, or Mr. Marvi, who was the first vice president of the judiciary, said openly at the dinner table, “Do you know why your prayers aren’t answered?” We asked, “Why?” He said, “Because even the oil you’re eating is not from a non-expropriated factory. Everything is expropriated!” He said the expropriated goods were not permissible. He believed prayers wouldn’t be answered in such conditions. Mr. Beheshti, the head of the judiciary, was opposed to this, as was Mr. Qudosi, the revolutionary prosecutor, who fought against it, saying, “What are you doing?

Dr., we always focus our criticism on the government through our platforms. How much do you think the government should have tried and failed, and how much responsibility do the people bear? How much impact do external pressures have?

These are major mistakes. As someone who has been to prison 12 times and gone on hunger strikes 13 times, my critiques are valid. However, when you fight with the system or the colonial powers, it’s not about your religion. You could end up in misery regardless of whether you’re in the Soviet Union, Maoist China, Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea, or East Germany. If we were artists, we wouldn’t let a few youths climb the embassy walls. We would have tried to avoid such conflicts. The mistake is with the authorities for not making that effort. But they won’t leave us alone, and these pressures lead people to associate shortcomings with the religion because the government is religious. But not all criticisms are valid, and we shouldn’t blame everything on religion. We should also acknowledge our own faults. When I sit down and analyze things, I ask myself: Why are we always waiting for the government to do something for us? What have I done? What was my responsibility? We were supposed to become 85 million party members, even having our children support us like they support football teams. A political party could have had 10 million or 20 million members. When it called for votes in an election, its candidate could have gone to the parliament, amended laws, spoken wisely, and avoided extremism. The 77 articles of the hijab law resulted from a parliament in which the people didn’t participate. Ahmadinejad was the result of the second council where people didn’t participate, and he became mayor, then president. We are paying the price because none of us are part of a political party. How many people are in our party or any other party? All the way from the smallest to the largest, it starts from the Volkswagen Beetle and ends in a big company, which isn’t sustainable. We don’t have a strong party. When the British Labour Party decides to raise workers’ wages, they calculate how much it will cost, and ensure the funds to cover it. They don’t just talk; they assess the situation. Meanwhile, here, we only speak. Mr. Raisi gives eight promises but doesn’t account for the costs, like the construction of four million housing units. Has he calculated the budget for that? Did he even have the budget for it? And then, later, Mr. Makber says, “We told the people to build!”

Mr. Samir, do you think the promise of four million housing units was a realistic one?

Actually, four million, meaning one million units per year, was doable. It didn’t even require a lot of money. For example, there are big holdings in Turkey that are ready to build one million homes per year. In return, the oil and gas sector would supply them with the necessary fuel and resources. So it was achievable. But look at the situation now: two-thirds of our LPG is being flared away. We have huge resources, but we waste them. Turkey and Pakistan buy this LPG from us. I’ve researched it. When I asked the Turks why they don’t buy from Iran, they said, “It’s because the sulfur content is higher than 10.” If it were below 10, we’d be happy to buy it. So why are we wasting our resources when we could be selling them?

Dr., you have executive experience. Do you think President Raisi could have achieved his housing promise with this approach?

The issue isn’t just money. Even if you sell all your oil, gas, petrochemicals, and minerals, last year’s budget deficit was 400 trillion rials. That’s a huge amount. And it’s even higher now. You mentioned LPG, but we have many more issues. For instance, the Taliban returned our fuel tankers saying they didn’t meet Euro 5 standards. Our cars don’t meet standards either. If they did, we could save 15 billion dollars annually in fuel consumption. We celebrated when we got 6 billion dollars from Korea, but meanwhile, we waste 15 billion dollars in fuel every year. We’ve been missing out on so many opportunities. We’ve been underperforming for years, and now we can’t even provide enough electricity. Factories go without power for two days a week. If we had handled things differently, we could be supplying power to the region. Why are we short on electricity? Because we offer it for free. Electricity is 90% subsidized. When we produce electricity with solar panels and sell it to the grid, we get paid 2,000 tomans per unit. But when the electricity is consumed by us, we pay just 200 tomans. This is the result of mismanagement.

Mr. Samir, the conversation was supposed to focus on Mr. Moein. Should he come back or not, in your opinion?

From my perspective, I really welcome the direction this has taken. I hope it continues after the elections, next year, and in the years to come. It’s a beautiful movement. Many of my friends on the other side, may God have mercy on Ali Ansarian, used to joke around and say, “Mr. Shahram S, Mr. Shahram Shabpareh,” in front of the camera. He openly said, “Let me return to my country tomorrow morning if you give me permission.” How else can he express his desire to return? And now, with the government opening up the path and giving a green light, encouraging people to come back, I think this is a great step forward.

Mr. Samir, how practical is the statement by the Minister of Culture regarding this?

The practicality depends on whether the security organizations can ensure the safety of these individuals, not just with words. They need to officially state that they will ensure their security so that artists and others living abroad can return safely and securely without fear of being arrested. The taboo that says, “If you go, you will be caught,” needs to be broken. Ali Ansarian, for example, mentioned another dear friend, Uncle Hassan. A while ago, Mr. Hassan Shamaizadeh also spoke about this. He said he spoke with Mr. Moein and asked him, “Did they invite you back?” He said, “Yes, but another person told me I’d face 28 years in prison.” That’s so discouraging! From one side, someone is happy because they can return, but from the other side, they are confronted with the reality that they may not be allowed to return at all due to restrictions. These issues need to be resolved. An artist like Mr. Moein is asking, “Why should I go back just to be detained for even one hour?

Dr., do you think Mr. Moein can return?

Personally, I guarantee that he can return and will not face any problems. These are just false barriers and games between here and abroad. I want to say, look at Mohammad Khordadian—according to our laws, they could have charged him with crimes, accused him of things, and yes, he was arrested, but he was released! This means the system turned a blind eye to issues that would have severe punishments according to our laws. They were that lenient. He is a leader of a movement that doesn’t even need witnesses. He openly declares, “I am on this path.” When such leniency is shown, it means that others can come back without much trouble. Mohammad Khordadian came and went back, and no one interfered with him. So, we can see that this growth is happening.

Mr. Samir, do you think this opening, as mentioned by Dr. Moein, should be manifested in some way to build trust? Do you see any way to ease the security conditions?

I believe Mr. Esmaeili and the government should first focus on security. The first step is to ensure security, not just for Mr. Moein but for anyone who wishes to return. As long as someone doesn’t feel secure or isn’t sure how they will be welcomed at the border or at the airport gate, obviously, they will delay their decision to come back.

Through our embassy in Turkey or other countries, it is very easy to hold meetings and show applicants that they are secure, and that they can come back with safety. I am very hopeful that a more open environment will emerge, and the government will support this with security coordination, so that anyone who wants to come and live here, or anyone who wants to come, hold a concert, and leave, will have the opportunity. In short, we need to show the slogan “Iran is for all Iranians” in practice.

Dr., do you think the issue of security can be moved to the embassy?

They could provide a letter of safety, saying that you can come and go. Instead of taking someone’s passport at the airport and sending them to the Stone Building on Jordan Street, where it takes days for them to retrieve it, when Mr. Moein arrives, the embassy could handle the verification and discussions there, processing the cycle without making him tremble at the airport in Tehran. If it’s confirmed, issue a letter of safety, ensuring him that he can come and go freely, and put his mind at ease. There needs to be an effort to operationalize this so that prominent figures can travel without fear. From the very beginning, we used to mention Mr. Moein’s name to the late Mr. Hashemi. I believe the current government’s efforts to bring him back are a legacy of that time. One of the reasons is that he is more well-known and more moderate than anyone else! For example, the late Mr. Jahan came, the late Mr. Habib came and performed with my brother, and other people came and went under the radar. But the point I am making is that they should travel by holding concerts. Instead of someone having to go to Turkey to attend a concert, they can hold a concert here, preventing money from leaving the country, and the government can collect taxes. Recently, on Channel 4, Mr. Mashallah Shamsolvaezin, who had been banned from working and was farming around Saveh, came, made political comments, and criticized, or even Mr. Zibakalam, who was a supporter of the Pahlavi regime and now defends the Zionist regime, writing a book on the birth of Israel, came to Channel 4. I want to say that when your tolerance for these political figures has increased, there should be more tolerance for artists who sing politically in their songs.

Mr. Samir, do you think some of the censorships in concert performances are a normal process?

You know, there was a time when people said, “Everywhere else is bad, and we are the only ones who are good,” and there’s another perspective, “Everywhere else is good, and we are the only ones who are bad.” Why is the neighbor’s chicken always a goose? Now, we say, why do they punish someone who sings politically? Well, in any country, if you perform against the system, they will definitely take action. A recent example is in the UAE—try singing a song about the Persian Gulf there! Mr. Ebi, as an Iranian, refused to sing a song about the Persian Gulf, and someone braver than him, named Shadmehr, went and sang about the Persian Gulf, saying he wouldn’t return. Of course, Mr. Ebi also has experience in Saudi Arabia, where he was willing to perform in an empty concert hall for money, according to videos that have been leaked

Dr., do you also believe that artists outside the country should accept the laws here?

When someone like Mr. Ebi accepts the laws of the UAE and, as an Iranian, refuses to sing the song “Persian Gulf,” listening to their instructions and passing over the Persian Gulf, their homeland, in order to go to Dubai for money, why would he refuse to adhere to the laws here? These are serious points! We must respect the laws everywhere. When these individuals enter Saudi Arabia, they don’t bring Codeine painkillers with them because they know it’s a crime and they will be arrested. But when they come to Iran, they say they don’t accept any of these laws. This is a double standard. Therefore, we should accept the laws and, if we don’t like one, we should try to reform it legally. Join a political party, send people to the parliament or the council, and resolve it. We shouldn’t boycott; the result of boycotting is that we haven’t been able to achieve anything. A party is not about overthrowing the system, it’s about action. It plans and fixes one thing at a time. For example, in our Islamic Medical Association, if we were a real political party, we would have an impact in the medical community as an elite group. We would work in defense of the rights of doctors and public health, not just complain all the time. We would say precisely how much the salary of our doctors should be, even under the current laws of the country. Why do we make them migrate? Why do we make people spend money to go to Dubai for surgery? Let’s provide the proper salaries so they stay. Just like we shouldn’t make artists flee, we shouldn’t make doctors flee either, nor nurses or others. We don’t want to end up in a situation where we have to ask the Taliban for nurses one day, like before the revolution when doctors and nurses came from Bangladesh and the Philippines.

Mr, Samir, final thoughts from you?

A very positive space is opening up, and it’s very encouraging. Both Mr. Esmaili and the other friends in the Ministry of Culture and Guidance are taking steps towards opening up the space and supporting artists, their performances, and programs. I hope this progresses with the same strength, neither slowing down nor stopping. Just as we often complain about things being this way or that way, when something is going well, we should also say, “Well done,” and “Keep it up.” Please continue this.

1403 Calendar Year – Etemad Newspaper