Crackdown in Iran over dress codes

[doodlebug]

Some people just don't see the good but are quick to judge for anything they perceive as evil when it is not so. Iran is not the only one, malaysia is enforced proper dress code as well. And they are enforcing it on non-muslims too. Why? becuase it is a muslim country that has the right to protect the decency in their land. They were always open and relaxed but it till them chinese women started wearing see thru and other skanky clothes that were just too inappropriate to be ignored. People get out of hand when you give them freedom, look at nude beaches in france and US and other countries. Laws are made to discipline and protect the society. Those who are crying about this news, what have they done to protect or even cry about the oppression against muslim women in the so called liberated and free kuffar nations like UK, France, turkey and other places where you can't even go to school if you have hijaab on.

I totally am against the schools who are denying the hijaab and think it's ridiculous.

I also agree with enforcing hijaab in an Islamic state since the men have to be protected, but to the point that they seem to be doing it, i.e. if a speck of hair is showing then they are admonished or if it is not the color black, etc. It just is getting very nit picky and that is scarey to me. What is next, enforcing the burkah like the Taliban did? There needs to be a wee bit of wiggle room. Obviously not in the sense of allowing mini skirts, etc. but moderation of the law would be nice. I mean in your example a nonmuslim would have to wear the scarf, right? Well fine they should wear it out of respect for the law but do they have to do it so drastically or can they do it like they do in Pakistan?

The decision to wear the scarf is a personal one and a very difficult one at best. Believe me, I'm in the midst of it myself. I have opted to do it gradually so that it's not such a big shock. I've lived 41 years without putting a scarf on my head and just like tend to ease into a pool with one toe at a time, I am only able to do what I am able to do. If someone right now were to come to my home and tell me it's the law that I need to do it so extremely right this minute I would actually resent it and would probably be put off by it.

 

[islamirama]

I totally am against the schools who are denying the hijaab and think it's ridiculous.

I also agree with enforcing hijaab in an Islamic state since the men have to be protected, but to the point that they seem to be doing it, i.e. if a speck of hair is showing then they are admonished or if it is not the color black, etc. It just is getting very nit picky and that is scarey to me. What is next, enforcing the burkah like the Taliban did? There needs to be a wee bit of wiggle room. Obviously not in the sense of allowing mini skirts, etc. but moderation of the law would be nice. I mean in your example a nonmuslim would have to wear the scarf, right? Well fine they should wear it out of respect for the law but do they have to do it so drastically or can they do it like they do in Pakistan?

The decision to wear the scarf is a personal one and a very difficult one at best. Believe me, I'm in the midst of it myself. I have opted to do it gradually so that it's not such a big shock. I've lived 41 years without putting a scarf on my head and just like tend to ease into a pool with one toe at a time, I am only able to do what I am able to do. If someone right now were to come to my home and tell me it's the law that I need to do it so extremely right this minute I would actually resent it and would probably be put off by it.

Schools? try the whole society. It's against the law to wear hijaab in france. Many schools kick 12yr old out for wearing niqaab in uk, and in tureky anyone with hijaab on is banned from university and public offices for jobs. Tureky, 90% muslim, is ruled by securlar extremists. The army with generals from the kuffar attaturak era have staged many coups in history to ensure secular gov't, havee you seen the latests elections in there now? army is ready to do coup, many are protesting and against a muslim practicing guy to run for president and will not allow her wife (hijabi) to enter the "attaturak" presidential palace. And they want to kiss europe behind to get into UN when they can't even let a practicing muslim win by democracy.

There is not need to be nit picky or anything, nor is there any relaxation or compromise in Islam. men and women both have their respective hijab ordained for them and they must fulfill all criteria of the hijaab. Malasians are not forcing their non-muslim population to wear hijaab, just that they put some decent clothes on for a change, like saudi asks of the non-muslims there.

No gov't in the world is perfect and so you see all these things that are semi-islamic. We shouldn't need the gov't tell us how to dress and what not if we had initially taken the time to learn (or be taught) from early age what Islam is so that we are keen to do it ourselves and not worry about what the world thinks. Firstly, it is a command of Allah and we do it to please Allah and submit to his will, 2ndly it is for the betterment of society as a whole and helps in keeping society from going corrupt.

 

[England]

I like the Turkish

 

[doodlebug]

While it may have been inadvertent, your posting in actuality, it speaks to a blatant and overt bias. For example, I’m always amused at the endless carping engaged in by moslems as they view as discriminatory, the suggested bans on flagrant displays of religious symbols in public schools as proposed by the France not long ago. While this ban would apply to all religious symbols, moslems appear to believe that there are universal rights which they hold, and which don’t apply to others. There were expressions of indignation and shocked surprise as the West was slammed with accusatory epithets of racism and discrimination for infringing on moslems “rights”.

Apparently, discrimination, when applied to favor your particular circumstance is somehow acceptable. Perhaps your professed indignation at the notion of Muslims in the U.S. bearing the scar of discrimination could be equally applied to those of competing faiths in Islamic nations. Will you now champion the cause of Christian churches being constructed in Saudi Arabia? Will you petition Iran to drop it’s retrograde practice of declaring Islam as the State religion? How about Egypt – freedom of religion?

A true Islamic state, such as the one our Prophet, saw, set up would allow Christians/Jews, etc. to practice their beliefs without any threat whatsoever.

The reason we get upset at secular countries such as France banning the hijaab is because it is very very different to ban a hijaab as opposed to say banning the act of someone wearing a cross around their neck. Wearing the cross or any other display of Christianity is not ordained by God, yet wearing the hijaab is. BIG difference. I can't think of a similarity in Christianity at all.

 

[doodlebug]

I can’t speak to what a true Islamic state is or isn’t. I suppose there are many definitions of such a thing but clearly, the non-theoretical examples of Islamic states that we do have are typically nightmares of injustice and ill treatment not just to Moslems but especially to the hated kuffar.

The fact is, the only external example of islam that we have are Moslems. I would suggest to you that the true Islamic state is precisely what we see today.

Let’s remember; Half of the “rightly guided Caliphs” were assassinated by other Muslims. All of them fought civil wars with other Muslims and Muslim rebels.

Exactly WHEN did this wonderful “system” ever really exist?

It never did. It’s just a figment of your imagination.

There is a reason why Islam is in disarray while Western style democracy and capitalism are in the ascendant. Isn’t that why you and many, many others on this board live in the U.S. or the West?




I’m not convinced that wearing the hijaab is mandatory at all. I’ve read arguments claiming it is and emphatic arguments that it is not.

Nevertheless, my argument remains (and you carefully avoided answering it), you need to understand that your perceived entitlements do not supersede the laws and norms of a nation that has had success keeping it’s schools as secular institutions.

So what about the practice of banning competing religions in Moslem nations? A ban on overt religious displays seems like small potatoes compared to Moslems obsession with banning the faiths of others. Are Moslems insecure about their religious convictions? Is that why they have this need to squash other religious convictions?

I didn't ignore your question, I adressed it by saying that a true Islamic state does not exist and if it did it would allow people of other religions to practice their beliefs in peace.

It's not a figment of my imagination it really did exist in Medina and was headed by the Prophet, saw, himself. There were jews and christians who lived there and were absolutely able to practice their religion in peace.

There is no true Islamic state that exists today. The only close call is Saudi Arabia, but they have a long way to go before they're at the state that our Prophet's state was at.

The reason I live in the US is because I was born here. My family goes back about four generations here. I would much rather live in an Islamic state to be honest because I believe the US is way too secularized.

Even the Pope is disgusted the way Europe and other countries are squashing out God. It's really sad if you ask me.

 

[Muezzin]

I’m not convinced that wearing the hijaab is mandatory at all. I’ve read arguments claiming it is and emphatic arguments that it is not.

Nevertheless, my argument remains (and you carefully avoided answering it), you need to understand that your perceived entitlements do not supersede the laws and norms of a nation that has had success keeping it’s schools as secular institutions.

Please. Laws can and will be changed according to 'perceived entitlements' which will then become future norms. It's wrong to force people to wear the headscarf, and it's just as wrong to force them not to. The one is forcing people to be Islamic, the other is forcing them to be secular. Both hamper the person's freedom of expression, a quality that I, as a Muslim living in the West, value greatly. If my sister wishes to wear a headscarf in school, is a good student, is not hurting anyone, is not forcing people to convert, then who has the right to tell her she can't? Nobody. It's a fundamental liberty that some people are opposed to simply because on some level the idea of religion rubs them the wrong way. And that right there, trying to ban something because it offends you, is contrary to freedom of expression. It's secularism perverted.

Secularism was intended to prevent one religion becoming dominant, not to justify intolerance of religion.

So what about the practice of banning competing religions in Moslem nations? A ban on overt religious displays seems like small potatoes compared to Moslems obsession with banning the faiths of others. Are Moslems insecure about their religious convictions? Is that why they have this need to squash other religious convictions?

That's like saying, 'I'm not going to clean my room, because look at the guy's next door! His is really dirty!' Avoiding the issue.

But to address what you're saying, banning competing religions in Muslim nations is not Islamic to say the least. Living in harmony with people of all faiths is what Islam teaches. Whether all Muslims learn that is another matter, but you seem to be attributing the flaws of Muslims to Islam itself, which is fallacious, like blaming a car for the mistakes of its driver.

 

[Uthman]

An Islamic state ruled by the Sharia' would truly promote a pluralistic society. Please see the article that I posted here.

 

[AzizMostafa]

Whether you are a muslim or not, if you see someone trying to set him/herself on fire, will you:
A. stop him/her by force to save his/her life?
B. let him/her burn for a while then extinguish the fire?
C. watch him/her burn to death as he/she intended?
_______________________________
Let it be known,
1. We never let a mother of 3 kids serve in an army occupying a remote land+violating neighbour's waters?!
2. We do not encourage ladies to live single successfully, and
3. We teach our girls how to choose the strong and trusty man,
by reminding them of the 2 daughters of Prophet Sho'aib (28:23-28),
______________________________________
... and when Moses came to the waters of Midian, he found a company of the people there drawing water,
and he found, apart from them, two women holding back their flocks.
He said, "What is your business?"
They said, "We may not draw water until the shepherds drive off and our father is passing old."
So he drew water for them; then he turned away to the shade, and he said,
""O my Lord, surely I have need of whatever good You have sent down upon me"

Then came one of the two women to him, walking modestly, and said,
My father invites thee, that he may recompense thee with the wage of thy drawing water for us.

So when he came to him and had related to him the story, he said,
" Be not afraid, you have escaped from the people of the evildoers"

Said one of the two women, Father, hire him, surely the best man thou canst hire is the one strong and trusty.
He said, I desire to marry you to one of these my two daughters, on condition that you hire yourself to me for eight years, and If you compelet ten, that shall be of your own accord, I do not desire to press hard upon you
you shall assuredly find me, if God wills, one of the righteous, Said he,
So let it be between me and you, whichever of the two terms I fulfil, it shall be no injustice to me
and God is guardian of what we say....
____________________________________
Peace+Flowers

 

[KAding]

Well England,
1. We — Human beings walk on 2 legs not 4, i.e marks are not hidden?!
2. Forcing females to go half-naked does not save them from men like me.
3. Females are created lovely+shy, once bitten, twice thrown.
4. Hijab is to encourage healthy sex not to suppress it.
5. All the above-mentioned activities are means not goals.
6. Tell me what happens when a child sees parents (Pin)balls?
7. What is the difference between indoors + outdoors?
_______________________
Forcing the good is good but forcing the bad is bad?!
Peace + Flowers

Those are just you beliefs. There are many nudists camps on this planet, where whole families go around completely naked. Yet, these people function just fine. Like many things human it is simply a matter of habituation and culture. The idea that women are by nature lovely and shy is such a cultural construct IMHO.

 

[Uthman]

Greetings Ruggedtouch,

I'm a little busy with coursework at the moment, but I will respond to just a couple of points.

We have no practicable examples to support that statement.

Yes, we do. From the 7th Century Umayyad dynasty to the Ottoman dynasty.

Clearly, Moslems have little tolerance for competing faiths. If need be, I can post a litany of Koranic verses to support that claim.

Please do.

Regards

 

[KAding]

Greetings Ruggedtouch,

I'm a little busy with coursework at the moment, but I will respond to just a couple of points.

Yes, we do. From the 7th Century Umayyad dynasty to the Ottoman dynasty.

Please do.

Regards

Well, they might have been reasonably tolerant compared to others in that day and age. But in all honesty, Islam did not then and does not now consider non-Muslims equal.

Sure they have some rights, but not the same as Muslims. For example, there testimony is not as valid in court and they pay different taxes. Also there are not allowed to proselytize and there are restrictions on building non-Muslim places of worship.

And all this assumes that you are a 'people of the book', ie. Jewish or Christian. How tolerant is Islam of atheists or polytheists? Will they be allowed to live in this 'pluralistic society'? I've never seen any indication they will be tolerated. And what about different ethnicities or nationalities and their customs, doesn't Islam frown upon non-Islamic practices?

Then there is the issue of alternative lifestyles or sexual orientations. We all know Islam is very strict on what is haram and what is not. It is my understanding that it is the obligation of any Islamic State to make sure nothing haram happens. In other words it is the government task to prevent for example music from being made or pork being eaten, especially in public. I just don't see how you could characterize such a system as 'promoting pluralism'. Unsurprisingly Islamic government promotes Islam not pluralism!

 

[AzizMostafa]

> There is a reason why Islam is in disarray while Western style democracy and capitalism are in the ascendant.

Ruggedtouch, I love your logical analysis+conclusions and hope you stick to it.
When 2 (teams—Muslims or not) fight one another, there are 2 possibilities:
Both of them are wrong. Or one of them is wrong and one is right?! But never both are right?!

Prophet+Messenger Mohammed's grandsons were massacred at Karbala/Iraq by so called Muslims. Just 50 years of Mohammed departure. How and why?!

Just as the democratic US+West fooled Saddam to invade Iran+then Kuwait, and now are backing a group in lebanon against Hizbullah, a group in Palastine against Hamas, and some Iraqis against Muqtada as-Sadr, the Jews had created the theory of the Companions and succeeded in dividing the ignorant Muslims into sections As they created the theory of Democracy and the stories of 9/11 and Holocaust?!
Nothing wrong with Islam, but some Muslims are to blame.
______________
Peace+Flowers

 

[barney]

Just out of pure curiosity, does the police go around enforcing that all men have beards as well? If not then they should if they're going to do this to the women.

http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2006/07/e945ff89-0fe4-4a15-b524-16fc67682466.html

In states where Sharia law has been fully implemented, it's been unpopular. Somalia/ Afganistan for example. This brings up the question, why would true muslims find it unpopular? It's Gods law, what is there to argue about or find unpopular?

People escaping the regimes that enforce it for western ones that dont must have to consider: Are they fleeing the state or are they fleeing the religion. and dosnt that make them apostates?:enough!:

 

[Uthman]

Greetings KAding,

Well, they might have been reasonably tolerant compared to others in that day and age. But in all honesty, Islam did not then and does not now consider non-Muslims equal.

We believe that, on the day of Judgement, everybody will be judged on their piety and good deeds. Equally.

Sure they have some rights, but not the same as Muslims. For example, there testimony is not as valid in court and they pay different taxes. Also there are not allowed to proselytize and there are restrictions on building non-Muslim places of worship.

True.

And all this assumes that you are a 'people of the book', ie. Jewish or Christian. How tolerant is Islam of atheists or polytheists? Will they be allowed to live in this 'pluralistic society'? I've never seen any indication they will be tolerated. And what about different ethnicities or nationalities and their customs, doesn't Islam frown upon non-Islamic practices?

Originally, the status of Dhimmi was only granted to the 'people of the book'. Later on, however, the status was extended to include others such as Mandeans, Zoroastrians, Sikhs. Even Hindus and Buddhists in some parts.

Islam does frown upon actions that contradict with it's teachings.

Then there is the issue of alternative lifestyles or sexual orientations. We all know Islam is very strict on what is haram and what is not. It is my understanding that it is the obligation of any Islamic State to make sure nothing haram happens. In other words it is the government task to prevent for example music from being made or pork being eaten, especially in public.

With regards to sexual orientations, it must be clear that attraction between two people of the same sex is not forbidden. This cannot be forbidden. It is action that is forbidden. Having said that, I am unsure of the rules with regards to non-Muslims living in the state. I think (not sure) that the eating of pork by the non-Muslims was simply frowned upon but not outrightly forbidden. As for music, the only comment I will make on this is that it is a controversial issue in Islam.

I admit this isn't very well-researched so don't take my word for this.

I just don't see how you could characterize such a system as 'promoting pluralism'. Unsurprisingly Islamic government promotes Islam not pluralism!

Well, Princeton defines pluralism as [SIZE=-1]a social organization in which diversity of racial or religious or ethnic or cultural groups is tolerated.

This is definitely promoted under Islamic law.

Regards.
[/SIZE]

 

[Uthman]

Greetings Ruggedtouch,

I'm a little busy with coursework at the moment, but I will respond to just a couple of points.



Yes, we do. From the 7th Century Umayyad dynasty to the Ottoman dynasty.

Sorry. Dhimmitude was already established during the 7th century.

You have nothing to apologise for. However, what you said does not negate the fact that pluralism existed under Islamic rule.

And besides, why would I want to live under the strictures of a society that is modeled on the precepts of fear and superstition that were prevalant and extant on the Arabian Peninsula in the 7th century?

What makes you say that the society was modeled on the precepts of fear and superstition?

I've got to be careful with that. That can be an offense for banning.

No. As far as I am aware, this forum promotes honest and respectful dialogue. You are more than welcome to post these verses from the Qur'an and you would not be violating forum rules. You would only be violating forum rules if you link to an anti-Islamic website.

Bear in mind also, there are as many interpretations of verses as there are interpreters. You and others are free to offer the “but… but… but… but that’s not what that really means… it really means…”

That's fine with me but you're ultimately preaching to the wrong choir.

Are you closed-minded Ruggedtouch?

Otherwise, this thread has gone far afield. Mea culpa

That is the nature of discussion. I do not feel that you are in error and you have no reason to feel guilty.

Regards

 

[barney]

We believe that, on the day of Judgement, everybody will be judged on their piety and good deeds. Equally.]

Just not on earth, where your actions are supposed to matter.




"Sure they have some rights, but not the same as Muslims. For example, there testimony is not as valid in court and they pay different taxes. Also there are not allowed to proselytize and there are restrictions on building non-Muslim places of worship.

True. "

It's on reading things like this that make me despair. The guy just said in effect "Non-muslims are second class citizens" and the response is True and a happy smile about it. So much for mankind being created equal.

 

[Uthman]

Greetings,

It wasn't a 'happy smile' as you understood it. I post smilies spontaneously. My posts are practically littered with them.

Anyway, I will respond properly another time. I just felt the need to clarify this.

Regards

 

[noodles]

Just not on earth, where your actions are supposed to matter.




"Sure they have some rights, but not the same as Muslims. For example, there testimony is not as valid in court and they pay different taxes. Also there are not allowed to proselytize and there are restrictions on building non-Muslim places of worship.

True. "

It's on reading things like this that make me despair. The guy just said in effect "Non-muslims are second class citizens[/I]" and the response is True and a happy smile about it. So much for mankind being created equal.

That is where you are wrong my friend. It is not upto you to decide who is a "second class" citizen or not. You can very well put up a poll in the targeted areas and come to the conclusion, but you can't very well make that assumption. (I'd regard it just as an opinion).

That said, if you consider a different approach, I can argue that in a democracy, that you value so much, one group or another does feel targeted. For example, Muslims feel targeted because they haven't a choice in the matter concerning the Hijab. Similarly, some christians might feel offended if you shun their open display of their religion. Regardless, even in democracies certain groups are bound to feel targeted because of the vote of the majority.

In comparison, both democracy and the "so-called" sharia that exists today are alike in that manner. Therefore, you have no right to say that only non-muslims are 2nd class citizens in an islamic country, because the very same thing is happening in your country too.

 

[Sami Zaatari]

I am curious. Doesn't this crackdown contradict with the following ayah (verse) from the Qur'an (2:256)?

There is no compulsion in religion. Verily, the Right Path has become distinct from the wrong path. Whoever disbelieves in Tâghût[]and believes in Allâh, then he has grasped the most trustworthy handhold that will never break. And Allâh is All-Hearer, All-Knower.

Is the government really acting in an Islamic manner here?


​

your mixing 2 things, no compulsion in religion means we cant force someone to be muslim and believe in Allah, but they will follow the law of sharia, its like saying carrying out sharia punishment is contradicting that passage, for instance the punishment of adultery, if you commit it in an Islamic state, you get stoned, thats the ruling and law, it does not contradict this passage at all.

like in the west, they say you have freedom to do what you want etc, but if you kill someone your gonna get punished! does that contradict freedom? nop. there are rules and laws which you must follow.

 

[Sami Zaatari]

the prophet and his companions said dont immitate the unbelievers, so therefore banning western hair styles and attire is very much in line with the prophet Muhammad's teaching. and when he said dont immitate the unbelievers.