According to the information portal of the Research Institute of Contemporary Jurisprudence Studies, the Women’s and Family Affairs Jurisprudence Group of this institute, in collaboration with the Contemporary Religious Thought Research Center and the Vice Presidency for Women and Family Affairs, held its 267th scientific session on the topic “Review of the Amendment to the Dowry Law from the Perspective of Governmental Jurisprudence” on Sunday, 14 Dey 1404 SH (January 4, 2026).
In this session, Dr. Masoumeh Zahiri and Hujjat al-Islam wal-Muslimeen Mehdi Sajjadi Amin presented their viewpoints, while Hujjat al-Islam wal-Muslimeen Dr. Mehdi Davoudabadi served as the scientific secretary and moderated the discussions.
At the outset, the scientific secretary extended condolences on the sorrowful passing of Hazrat Zaynab Kubra (peace be upon her) and, underscoring the significance of the topic, stated: “The dowry law and its amendment represent one of the major challenges facing the country’s legal and jurisprudential system today, necessitating a thorough examination from the perspective of governmental jurisprudence.”
Dr. Davoudabadi continued: “This session seeks to explore the jurisprudential and legal dimensions of the issue by presenting arguments both in favor of and against amending the dowry law. It also aims to propose solutions for reducing judicial caseloads and strengthening family foundations through the development of new theoretical literature in the fields of women and family from a jurisprudential standpoint.”
Dr. Masoumeh Zahiri, highlighting the role of dowry in individual and social jurisprudence, stressed that Islamic jurisprudence must address society’s emerging needs and affirm that “religion knows no impasses.” Describing dowry as a financial right of the wife and a mutual agreement between spouses, she argued: “Restricting the spouses’ autonomy in determining dowry contradicts the principle that ‘people have dominion over their properties,’ and any governmental intervention must be carefully balanced against broader social and cultural interests.”
Criticizing the imposition of numerical caps on dowry, she observed: “If governmental intervention in setting such caps disregards social realities, it risks rendering the law obsolete and ineffective, potentially diminishing the incentive for marriage.”
As secretary of the Women’s and Family Strategy Council at the Seminary, she pointed to the social issue of men imprisoned for inability to pay dowry, noting that this not only imposes financial burdens on the state but also leaves families without providers and exacerbates social problems—factors that justify governmental involvement in reforming the law.
Dr. Zahiri further addressed the social repercussions of legal caps on dowry: “A law that sets a ceiling solely for marriage registration purposes may simply prompt couples to replicate the same pressures through alternative clauses, ultimately leading to a renewed increase in dowry-related imprisonments.”
Emphasizing the need for cultural development and avoidance of gender confrontation, she added: “Altering laws without regard for societal culture diminishes enthusiasm for legitimate marriage and fosters illegal alternatives. Existing problems, which are limited in scope, should be addressed through ethical and cultural initiatives rather than broad legislation that harms a significant portion of society.”
Hujjat al-Islam wal-Muslimeen Mehdi Sajjadi Amin, a member of the Scientific Council of the Women’s and Family Affairs Jurisprudence Group at the Research Institute of Contemporary Jurisprudence Studies, focused his presentation on the governmental jurisprudence approach. Distinguishing between individual and governmental jurisprudence, he explained that the latter prioritizes the obligations of the ruler and public institutions toward society, permitting intervention only when public interest is at stake.
He stressed the importance of macro-social interests: “Governmental jurisprudence defines the responsibilities of the governing authority, shifting focus from individual actions to the broader family and societal systems.”
Noting that facilitating marriage and consolidating family structures constitute key interests in Sharia and upstream policy documents, he argued: “When exorbitant dowries deter marriage, the governing authority may legitimately intervene to safeguard public welfare.”
Explaining the amendment that removes imprisonment for dowries exceeding 14 coins, he stated: “The legislator’s intent is to alleviate fears surrounding marriage by eliminating criminal penalties for high dowries, thereby facilitating family formation.”
Hujjat al-Islam wal-Muslimeen Mehdi Sajjadi Amin also clarified that many dowry-related prisoners are solvent individuals who refuse payment, and the reform aims to prevent dowry from becoming a barrier to marriage.
During the session, Hujjat al-Islam wal-Muslimeen Professor Bostan raised questions regarding divergences among the presented views and underscored the need for reliable statistical data in law reform. He remarked: “Those advocating amendment presume an existing societal problem; however, without accurate statistics, assessing positive or negative outcomes is impossible.”
Critiquing numerical caps, he added: “Restrictive laws may yield unintended social consequences. I found no justification for the figure of fourteen coins; given current inflation, even this amount is beyond many people’s means.”
The discussions highlighted that amending the dowry law demands an integrated approach combining jurisprudential insight, social interests, and precise statistical evidence—one that upholds women’s individual rights while mitigating harms from excessive dowries.
In conclusion, the scientific secretary emphasized the topic’s importance and called for additional sessions to enable more thorough evaluation of the jurisprudential, legal, and social aspects of dowry law reform.