Iran’s state broadcasting authority recently escalated its campaign to legitimize forced hijab, circulating a pamphlet on social media falsely asserting that Judaism enforces stricter modesty laws on women than Islam. The pamphlet, which characterizes Jewish law as requiring women to cover their faces and hands, follows months of civil unrest in Iran over compulsory religious dress codes and comes amid persistent condemnation from international human rights organizations.
The pamphlet is part of a broader regimen of information control deployed by Iran’s Islamic Republic to justify restrictions imposed on women. Since the death of Mahsa Amini in September 2022—who died in police custody after being detained for an alleged hijab violation—protests have intensified across the country, with thousands risking arrest to challenge laws enforced by Iran’s religious police and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). In response, the regime has attempted to reframe the debate by claiming that strict religious dress for women is common to all monotheistic faiths, and thus, not unique to Islam or Iran.
Yet experts unanimously refute the claim about Jewish law. In normative Jewish tradition, modesty (tzniut) implies conservative dress, particularly in observant communities, but does not demand face or hand coverings for women. Mainstream Halachic authorities—both classical and contemporary—stipulate that married women in Orthodox circles may cover their hair and generally wear modest clothing, but do not require concealment of the face or hands. The public life of Israeli society, as well as Jewish communities worldwide, reflects a spectrum of women’s dress from secular to ultra-Orthodox; face veiling is all but unheard of outside a negligible fringe.
Crucially, in Israel—the world’s only Jewish state and a democracy—there is no law enforcing any religious dress. Women in Israel, including Jews, Muslims, Christians, and others, may wear attire of their choosing, protected by law. The option for personal or community observance coexists with a strong public commitment to civil freedoms; rabbis, legal scholars, and government officials regularly confirm that religious coercion plays no role in the country’s legal system.
Iran, by contrast, maintains mandatory hijab laws, enforced by security agencies including the IRGC and so-called morality police. Failure to comply subjects Iranian women to threats of violence, incarceration, or worse. These policies have drawn widespread international criticism and spurred expressions of solidarity from global communities. Human rights organizations, including Amnesty International, document systematic abuses tied to gender-based repression in the Islamic Republic.
The Iranian regime’s use of religious comparisons is a calculated strategy to deflect criticism. The state’s annual Ramadan communications, and now the new pamphlet on religious modesty, are shaped to construct an image of ‘universal’ modesty codes. Analysts see this as an effort to neutralize dissent and bolster domestic legitimacy at a time when Iranian society is grappling with economic hardship, political unrest, and growing international pressure.
Israeli officials have denounced the Iranian campaign as propaganda. A spokesperson for Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs stated unequivocally that ‘women in Israel are free to dress as they choose—unlike those under Iranian law.’ Jewish scholars categorically reject the pamphlet’s claims and underscore the voluntary nature of modest observance in Jewish practice.
Attempts by the Iranian regime to compare its policies to those of other religions are not new. Over the years, Tehran has repeatedly invoked religious equivalence to justify its own restrictions on women, minorities, and dissidents. These efforts frequently coincide with acute moments of unrest or international scrutiny.
Tehran’s latest initiative comes as protests against compulsory hijab continue. Despite stepped-up enforcement, many Iranian women, particularly in urban centers, have challenged the law by appearing in public without a head covering. The hijab, intended by the regime as an emblem of Islamic virtue, has become, for many, a symbol of repression and a focal point for calls for democracy and gender equality.
In clear contrast, Israel is a society where women participate fully in public life—serving in leadership positions, the military, academia, and business—and where choice over personal attire reflects both individual liberty and the diversity of Israeli society. Even among Israel’s most observant Jewish communities, modesty is enforced only as a matter of voluntary collective norms, not by the power of the state.
Iran’s recent propaganda move, falsely invoking Jewish law to rationalize the compulsory hijab, further exposes the regime’s anxieties about its hold on public opinion and highlights the stark difference in religious freedom and gender rights between Israel and the Islamic Republic. For Iranian women seeking validation of their struggle, the lived reality of Jewish women in Israel—who freely choose how to dress—offers a powerful counter-narrative.
As the ideological and military conflict between Iran (and its regional proxies such as Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis) and Israel persists, so too does the contest over information and narratives. Iran’s resort to distorted religious comparisons will likely intensify as the regime seeks to shore up its authority internally and counter growing condemnation internationally. Only by rigorous reporting and exposure of the facts can the stark moral and practical differences at play be made clear to global audiences.
In summary, Iran’s attempt to deflect blame for its repression of women by claiming spurious religious equivalence with Judaism is baseless both in religious law and social fact. The campaign is notable less for its accuracy than for what it reveals: a regime in defensive posture, seeking both to undermine criticism and to reinforce a system of coercion sharply at odds with the universal values of human rights. The contrast with Israel’s democratic norms is, once again, unmistakable.
