Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[nenjin]

They are going to be stoned to death, you realise, right?

I imagine they were aware of that consequence when they started beating the crap out of a cleric. I feel the same way about their decision as I do about black people in the 1950s fighting back against white people.

[Karnewarrior]

I'm not sure why that's a good thing though. Dude was a Imam, so him telling the girls to cover up, so long as he actually did so politely, is like Punching a Priest in the gut for telling you kindly to accept Jesus as your savior. A bit of an over-reaction.

The Hijab isn't repressive, it's modest. Iran is oppressive in other ways, true, but if you're a muslim girl you probably should wear the Hijab since it's... part of your religion.

Then again, that was his side of the story, I'd like to hear about what the girls heard him say before I make judgments about who's the asshole here.

[Nadaka]

I doubt he was as "polite" as he claimed. He was insulted when they told him to cover his eyes. Only after he responded to that did they beat him.

[Karnewarrior]

That's what I was thinking, but we never got the girls side of the story.

Depending on the tone and phrasing of how he told them to cover up, I could see this both ways.

"Hey, you should probably cover some more hair lass, God might get mad." Is a different tone than

"PUT SOME GODDAMN CLOTHES ON!" or "Stop looking like a American Slut."

The last two I could definitely see him getting socked one for, but the first one would make the rest of the story look like an over-reaction to me.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I'm not sure why that's a good thing though. Dude was a Imam, so him telling the girls to cover up, so long as he actually did so politely, is like Punching a Priest in the gut for telling you kindly to accept Jesus as your savior. A bit of an over-reaction.

Priests can't call down the police on you for not accepting Jesus as your savior. Its different in a theocracy. The Imams have authority.

The Hijab isn't repressive, it's modest. Iran is oppressive in other ways, true, but if you're a muslim girl you probably should wear the Hijab since it's... part of your religion.

The Hijab is repressive. Its part of a knee-jerk desire to cover up women because they are seen as inherently seductive beings who try to lure good, pious men away from Allah. Obviously there are some who wear the Hijab for modesty, but this is Iran. The law states that women have to wear it.

Furthermore, the Hijab isn't in the Qur'an, and there are places where mainstream Islam actually opposes Hijabs. The Qur'an says to "dress modestly", that's it. Its more of a regional practice than an actual part of Islam.

And even if it were, an individual has the freedom to follow or not follow parts of their religion anyway.

[Karnewarrior]

Really? I thought it was a religious headgarment similar (though quite obviously different) to the skullcap jewish men wear when in a Synagogue.

As for women being inherently seductive, there is a bit of truth to that, at least in most western cultures. Men are usually the ones who go after women so we've been conditioned to be the more active in looking for a mate. Women pray at the back of the mosque for this reason, so guys trying to pray don't get distracted by the rows of... yeah.

Hair's never been so much seductive as a way of showing Vanity. They cover up their hair so they show they don't care so much about physical appearence as they do about God. There are less devout women in every religion, so I'm not surprised to learn some don't wear the Hijab, but it's tradition among the culture of Islam and not really all so oppressive.

[Nadaka]

The reason for the hajib and more extreme coverings is that even good godly men will have no choice but to rape if they see a sufficiently attractive woman. Its her fault, so to prevent men from suffering that temptation, she has to cover herself up. It is the final form of the "she was asking for it by dressing so slutty" defense.

[Leafsnail]

You could follow every word of the Qur'an completely literally and still not wear a Hijab because it's never mentioned.  It's not a matter of being devout at all.

It's not a problematic thing if it's voluntary.  Thing is, often it's not, especially in Iran where it is legally enforced.  Being forced to hide your identifying features is pretty oppressive.

[GlyphGryph]

Just because it's not in the book doesn't make it not religious. See: Catholics, and all the Catholic stuff they do.

[Leafsnail]

It's still unfair to say you're a less devout Muslim if you don't wear a Hijab.  It'd be like saying you're a less devout Christian for not believing in Original Sin or Limbo or any other Catholic doctrine.

[Nadaka]

It's still unfair to say you're a less devout Muslim if you don't wear a Hijab.  It'd be like saying you're a less devout Christian for not believing in Original Sin or Limbo or any other Catholic doctrine.

And yet, they both say exactly that. The more conservative Catholics will say you are less devout or even a faithless heathen if you don't believe in their particular dogma. Just like a lot of extreme evangelists insist that Mormons worship Satan and Catholics are wicked idolaters.

[Willfor]

Hair's never been so much seductive as a way of showing Vanity.

Hair has been a very strong element of seduction in certain cultures. Even in ancient western cultures. Just because it isn't today in the west doesn't mean that it never has been.

[Frumple]

Also saying that hair doesn't have a strong element of seduction in western culture is pretty much ignoring all media ever over here. Have you seen freaking commercials or glam mags and crap? Hair features prominently in a lot of sexually charged (which is close to everything, at times) material. I mean... damn, listen to hair commercials. Half the time it sounds like something right out of erotica literature with all the glistening.

I'll give it's not bluntly stated very often, but it's most definitely still a thing. Bed-head (i.e. just been through a hard shag), etc., so forth, so on.

[GreatJustice]

That's because these were interventions that weren't called for. But here there's an uprising and the people want us to help - look at approval ratings for the EU and the US in Libya. (Just saw that I said that before, but it seems that point hasn't been appreciated )

Last I checked, Libya featured the US embassy being raided by angry extremists. It has a barely functional central government which is completely disregarded by a good third of the country, acts as a big American puppet and is reliant on militias that aren't likely to disarm any time soon. Oh, and radical Islamists are significantly more powerful than they were previously.

Remember, it doesn't matter whether 80 of 100 people like you over 40 of 100 if 20 of the remaining 20 detest you and want to kill you from the former whereas the remaining 60 are apathetic in the latter. Every Libyan with dead relatives from NATO bombings is naturally very, very anti-West right about now, as are the opportunistic foreign Al Qaeda types.

Keep in mind that Syria has basically the same elements as Libya did: the rebels aren't terribly virtuous, are backed by foreign Islamists, and the best of them are effectively powerless. Oh, and they'd just love to go to town and massacre the Alawites if given a chance. So no, intervention is probably the worst thing that could be done.

[Tellemurius]

in truth i rather arm and left them go at it than send in our troops. They want training, sure. they want guns, ok here some stuff. You want us to invade, uh yea so that training.....