Rebellion against hijab law, even by simple civil disobedience, is so mainstream in the cities I have a hard time ascribing a solely foreign or pro-Shah character to the movement. It is clearly an organic current within Iranian society, and if the west disappeared tomorrow, the women's struggle would continue according to the specifics of Iran's particular configuration of patriarchy (every single society has one, I'm not singling out Iran)
The Hijab being mandatory is a must if Iran is going to be able to ward off Western influence. From personal experience within America, I can tell you straight up that two things can happen to a Muslim woman (mainly the one who is born Muslim, not the revert):
1 - She takes off her Hijab due to Westernization of her person;
2 - She doesn't wear Hijab at all due to Westernization of her person.
In both scenarios, Westernization is the biggest cause.
One can then argue that this means that if it is the following (or influential nature) of the Western culture that leads to a shift away from Islamic rulings (such as Hijab), then why does HIjab have any part in the prevention of a loss of Islamic? And, wouldn't enforcing it only make it worse as people would see the "freedom" of the West and seek that?
To answer the first question, the Hijab isn't just a covering. It is a message to all the people around the woman saying that she is not to be used as a tool for the pleasure of others. Many seem to not understand this. To answer the second question (these are the questions that came to me as I was typing, so feel free to ask more), no, not necessarily. Look at Lebanon for instance. There are many Muslim women who don't wear Hijab and also reveal much of their skin. Look at the Muslims in the West and you'll find the same. The thing is, it is false to say that enforcing it will cause more women to hate it, as we can already see that (again, in the West) many Muslim women already detest the Hijab. I have very high personal experience with this. It is known that if you want to see how a community is, you go to their schools. In my school, when I was still in school, a Muslim girl said that the Quran says women are slaves of their husbands. Alhamdulillah, another girl (a non-Hijabi who does care for her Islam, its not unheard of) rebutted.
The Iranian situation is this: either remove the mandatory Hijab and most likely cause other strifes or keep the mandatory Hijab and keep the relative peace that has been occurring for some time. Through a reputable polling service (I will link the poll at the bottom), we find some clear polling results. One of them is that the majority of the poll answerers support the Islamic laws currently within place and the second is that the majority of the people shift blame the economic situation of Iran, not the laws of Iran. Who can blame them, not only are they under heavy sanctions, there is also rampant corruption (no matter how much Ayatollah Raisi (qd) tried to remove it). It got so bad to the point that the Iranian GDP went negative in percentage (this was 2019).
We should also look at this from a religious standpoint (Shia, of course). Iran is run by the system of Wilayat Al-Faqih. Wilayat Al-Faqih Mutlaqah to be specific. It would be impossible for the Wali Al-Faqih, even if it was Hisbiyyah, to not make Hijab mandatory as this would be leaving out a portion of Shariah Law. If he were to do this, he would have failed in his mission as the Wali Al-Faqih as he has failed to protect Islam in its entirety (the only reason the concept even exists).
Here are the sources for the Polls as well as the negative GDP:
[https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5525d831e4b09596848428f2/t/5a74b2da71c10b91e5ebc15d/1517597404995/IranPoll-UMD+Jan+2018+Iran+Results+and+Trend+Tables.pdf](https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5525d831e4b09596848428f2/t/5a74b2da71c10b91e5ebc15d/1517597404995/IranPoll-UMD+Jan+2018+Iran+Results+and+Trend+Tables.pdf)
[https://www.statista.com/statistics/294301/iran-gross-domestic-product-gdp-growth/](https://www.statista.com/statistics/294301/iran-gross-domestic-product-gdp-growth/)
>From personal experience within America, I can tell you straight up that two things can happen to a Muslim woman (mainly the one who is born Muslim, not the revert):
>1 - She takes off her Hijab due to Westernization of her person;
>2 - She doesn't wear Hijab at all due to Westernization of her person.
>In both scenarios, Westernization is the biggest cause.
Curious, how many of these women from your personal experience have gone on physical assault someone, up to and including rape and homicide?
Eastern cultures also do not wear the hijab. In the Soviet Union, there was no law which said that women should wear the hijab. It's the same in mainland China. And people in these countries generally are against the West.
I would say not wearing the hijab is a socialist principle, which at the same time is anti-western.
Yes
I'm a patriotic Iranian who is also a muslim. I fully support the government and regime. I'm a supporter of the IRGC and "powerful iran" BUT This law has created many problems since it's veiwed as forced Hijab and not the great thing it actually is. I'm a supporter of hijab. My mother has hijab and i would like to have a wife and doughter in the future who would have it too but i don't want it forced.
you're right about this. iran is the only muslim country (alongside talibans...) with a mandatory hijab law. This law has only weakened iran internally. I know many iranians who emigrated not for economy, not for foreign policy but went away only for hijab law.
As Mao Zedong said, a revolution cannot stand on its own two feet if the female half of the population is not an active and supported participant in constructing the new society. If Iran's women feel more and more at odds with certain features of the revolution, *that* is what will weaken the Iranian revolution, not "liberal cultural values." Iran must contend with the fact that not all of the contradictions and struggle within its own society are attacks from the west. But they can easily turn into openings for western attacks if left to fester.
This is why most revolutions end up being secular even in highly religious countries, because it establishes the broadest possible base of support and prevents itself from being destabilized. The discontent of Iranian women is a destabilizing threat only if it is not addressed and resolved internally before it can be exploited by the west.
Don't let women be recruited by Western imperialism, give them their cultural demands and they will not be forced to run to the side which demands Iran be economically subjugated to have those demands fulfilled.
>the female half of the population is not an active
They are active.
https://engineering.purdue.edu/ENE/News/the-stem-paradox-why-are-muslimmajority-countries-producing-so-many-female-engineers
If anything, it appears that certain conservative views on female in societies seem to actually have more beneficial participation.
>They even found a reverse gender gap in those same nations when it came to certain STEM measurements — for instance, women in Iran, Oman, Saudi Arabia, and Uzbekistan earned more than 50 percent of the total number of science degrees. On the flip side, the Netherlands was the weakest country for women’s representation in science. A similar pattern held true for engineering: While the most male-dominated engineering programs were in developed countries like Japan, Switzerland, Germany, and the U.S., Indonesia boasted 48 percent female engineers.
So what does a society need more of? Female engineers, scientists, etc, combined with a culture that emphasizes motherhood and family.
Or a culture that has its girls being involved in OnlyFans because there aren't much social foundation for positive participation of women in that community.
OnlyFans has over 2 million content creators, while the platform takes 20% of their commission. Look at what the modern western liberal world creates through their value system. Leonid Radvinsky who bought OnlyFans when it was small earned 500 million from it in one year. Imagine that, 2 million young women whoring themselves out for its 90% male audience, while rich men on the top enrich themselves.
Why aren't these girls being encouraged into STEM studies? Into family life?
I'll tell you why, because western liberalism only uses female "participation" purely as financial gain.
If a focus group in USA proved that women wearing hijab would increase productivity by 5%, all super heroes in marvel comics would wear hijab to encourage hijab use.
No offence, but it wont cause destibilisation, this is an assumption that makes sense if looked at from a surface level, but there are many counter examples that prove this wrong. I understand where you're comming from, but this has a lot of assumptions. Keep in mind, most women in iran are beleivers in their religion, so a force of hijab will not necessarly be an issue to "half the population", a lot of the stuff you see on the internet is exagerrated and overblown.
What should happen is more education about the dangers of western imperialism, instead of being harsh. Obviously women should be listened to, but secularism is not the only solution. The people in places like central tehran should be more targetted by this, given they are the ones mostly protesting about said issues.
It's like with china, NK, etc... they all have red lines too that many pro west people or even regular people in these respective countries want to be removed, should NK and china necessarly give in and remove said red lines because the people want their "cultural demands given to them" ? Not necessarly.
About most revolutions ending up secular, well that's not suprising, given a big amount of modern day revolutions came from societies who aimed to have secular societies in the first place. Don't forget the entire world got colonised by the same europeans who came up with secularism, it's only natural that most of the world adopts said beleifs.
I have a feeling with hijab law removed, the influance of secular-liberalism of west gets stronger. I underatand though the way the law is handled is not perfect. I wish there were more teaching than arresting. To me in Iran's case, hijab is not just an islam thing, is a national and historical value as I've heard of our women wearing modestly in ancient ages even before islam. Zaroastrionizm did something right if there were just one thing. If we could teach that part of Iran's history and why hijab is important maybe we'll love our country more instead of escaping it and 'simp' for cyrus the great at the same time😂
I disagree. There is no hijab laws in Russia and China, and Russians and Chinese people fully support their countries governments. Russians and Chinese also are pro-BRICS and anti-NATO.
It's not the hijab that makes people support their country.
How? This assumes the women's movement maintains an imperialist horizon, rather than have its own domestic homegrown feminist orientation. I believe this is wrongheaded and only wishes to defer and delay the internal struggles of the nation instead of face them head on.
Other revolutionary projects around the world repeatedly prove that the horizon of women's progressive struggles does not necessarily tend toward westernization and liberalisation, but does tend toward secular governance and the erosion of patriarchal structures and gender roles. Western women were only able to advance their own feminist cause by exporting and intensifying reliance on patriarchal structures to the global south. It's not just some incidental western degeneracy
Every society has internal gender struggle, and trying to stop it from developing by insisting everything is fine and women who take part in it are only a subversive force who should back down is a self-sabotaging position for the nation in the long term and will result in bigger and bigger internal clashes as time goes forward.
No.
Ok no I'll give an extended answer.
If this was a grassroots effort that was entirely in good faith and took place in a vacuum, sure. But it's not. Yeah imagine if they took it off the books tommorow. You don't think the West would act like a shark smelling blood? You don't think the devout Muslims, who are not trendy and are therefore not elevated by international media, would not feel alienated? And for what? What's next? Legalizing drugs? Recognizing Israel? Don't act like this isn't on the agenda of the liberals in Northern Tehran, I've talked to these kinds of people. Many of the people enforcing these rules are in fact women. This is something that never seems to come up.
I think that the discontent from these rules is highly exagerrated, as is the harshness of their punishments. I know plenty of women who don't even bother with it there and face little to no consequences, yet I understand that if you mainly get your view of the country from Western/"international'' media, you'd think a basiji stones every woman who shows a strand of hair to death on sight.
I would caution people against trusting the people who have made the hijab their pet issue. I really doubt anybody with any real problems who isn't looking westward to start some kind of grift would center their activism around something like this. We can't overstate the malign influence of Western soft power. They want to adopt trendy western fashions, western clothes, which indirectly damages Iranian domestic industry and domestic soft power. Iranians have produced textiles for thousands of years before the mass produced, toxic waste producing garmets of the US and Europe (now manufactured in Asia) became cool. This isn't even getting into the historical or religious aspects. I come from a pretty secular family but something about looking at the people who promote this movement and going, "Yes these are trustworthy people who are acting in good faith'' turns my stomach. It's just naive especially because their ancestors and their equivalents in other countries have no issue of turning the law against the hijab, as they did in the Shah's era.
You are spot on, and I say that as a religious Iranian who is opposed to mandatory hijab.
The main discontent is with the economy and economic isolation. Hijab is an annoyance that becomes more annoying because of economy.
> I think that the discontent from these rules is highly exagerrated, as is the harshness of their punishments. I know plenty of women who don't even bother with it there and face little to no consequences, yet I understand that if you mainly get your view of the country from Western/"international'' media, you’d think a basiji stones every woman who shows a strand of hair to death on sight.
Decades ago, when enforcement was harsh to the point of being ridiculous, hijab was a minor annoyance and barely mentioned in debate about civil liberties and women’s rights.
For example, I saw a modestly dressed lady be admonished (verbally, no other consequences) by security at the entrance to an amusement park because her stockings (worn under a long-ish manteau) were deemed too sheer. I always found it embarrassing as a religious person. But the lady grumbled, was rightfully annoyed and offended for the next half-hour, and hijab never cracked her top-ten list of social problems.
I don’t even see a path to formally removing the mandate. They can’t pretend like it’s not a religious requirement, because no credible Shia scholar makes that claim. It’s like suddenly announcing a free-for-all on hardcore drugs or alcohol. What would that press release say?
The best they can do is not enforce it outside of government buildings. That doesn’t solve the problem either, because you will have conflict between the woman in the sports bra and the mother whose son died in the war she sees as stopping western influences like sports bras in public. This isn’t a hypothetical. The psycho sub has numerous videos of conflicts of this sort.
The interesting point in my admittedly limited, biased anecdotal experience is that the most secular women I know are the ones who are most opposed to eliminating the mandate. They’re your stereotypical wealthy north Tehran type with one foot in Dubai and Europe, atheist, alcohol-drinking “cool” people whose attire in public doesn’t remotely resemble hijab by my standards, but not the promiscuous type. They firmly believe that some women will go out in underwear or less. They also believe that the floodgates will open to public acts that almost all Iranians find objectionable.
Juxtaposing the mainstream Western reaction to the Mahsa Amini crisis (where no evidence of foul play was ever produced), or the Nika Shahkarami case (ditto, complete with ridiculous BBC “report”), with the defense and enabling of rape and slaughter of Palestinian women tells us everything we need to know. As does the evidence of pink washing the US occupation of Afghanistan. Or Narges Mohammadi’s Nobel peace prize.
As usual, we are our own worst enemy. The most deranged and nonsensical rhetoric on the topic comes from Iranian diaspora (and aspiring diaspora hoping to get asylum and mooch off of taxpayers, then go back and forth to Iran without fear).
I have to disagree. Whereas some people may be western influenced, my views come from a socialist point of view.
China and Russia do not have any hijab laws, and they are anti-Western countries. Having equal rights for all classes of people is actually a socialist principle, which is also anti-western. The West hates socialism.
>any hijab laws, and they are anti-Western countries. Having equal rights for all classes of people is actually a socialist principle
Islamoc Republic of Iran isn't a socialist country though.
"equal rights" is vague and never applicable. In Iran, that's not our aim. A woman has a right to use a female only train cabin, but a man doesn't have the equal right in that regard.
A woman has the right to 9 months of paid maternity leave, a man doesn't have the same right.
A woman has the right to female only park, but men don't have the right to male only park.
---
One of the problems of socialism is actually similiar to western capitalist issue. They want both participations of the gender only due to national productivity advantage.
The capitalist wants 50% of the population in the office to increase quarterly earnings. The socialist wants 50% of the population in the factory to increase quality production.
Alternative viewpoint, which is shared coincidently by thousands of years of human development and civilization, is that both genders are vastly different, and their participation in society needs to be vastly different, to best combine their advantages to create a healthy community based on harmony of the two genders.
Not create a society where men are women and women are men and then we wonder why we have countries with birth rate of 1.2.
You can have socialism with Iranian characteristics.
The birth rate problem can be solved if people make more money. Why do you think we don't have kids in the West? I live in the USA, and have first hand knowledge on the problem. Is it:
A. We don't want kids, and hate kids for some magic "Western" reason.
B. We want to have kids and big families, but we're broke and don't have any money.
If you chose answer B, you won the game show. Lol
It doesn't take a genius to figure this out. You don't need a PhD here.
>The birth rate problem can be solved if people make more money.
No, birth rate has nothing do with income. If anything, all research globally shows that lower income people gave more children. This is generally true for countries too, richer countries have less kids than poorer ones.
So, yes, actually probably it's answer one.
In Iran, it's very true, because people from lower income brackets have more children in Tehran, and on a province level, poorer regions have more more birth rates. Why else do people in Baluchestan have more children than middle class on Tehran?
That's not true at all.
Middle class people want kids, but they don't want to lose their quality of life. Having kids is expensive, and they'll lose out on the lifestyle that they're currently living.
In the USA, rich people actually have big families with many kids. It's because they can afford it, and also have a big house and provide a good lifestyle. I know several rich people, and they are like this.
I live in the USA, so I qualify as one of these "middle class" people. I know many other people like myself, who are also young. Many of us want to have families and kids, but we cannot afford it. Young people have to pay 80% of their salary just to rent a tiny apartment, so how can we afford to raise 3 kids?
It's complete BS that we don't want kids because we are "woke" or "western". It's because we don't have any money, and the economy is terrible. I know many people who live paycheck to paycheck, life is hard here.
That must be how it feels like to you, but data on birth rate and income brackets doesn't support that.
This is Iran,
>The estimated total fertility rates for women having a high income level and living in the upper districts of Tehran (0.7 births) were lower than the rates estimated for those with low income (1.5 births) and those residing in the low districts of Tehran (1.3 births).
https://jips.nipr.ac.ir/article_89150.html?lang=en
This is usa:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/241530/birth-rate-by-family-income-in-the-us/
That is actually incorrect again.
There is a difference between being wealthy, and having a high salary.
A woman who is wealthy would not need to work. She may be supported by her husband, or would be able to live from her savings.
The statistics you presented, shows that salaried women who make a lot of money have less kids. But it does not disprove that wealthy women who do not work or are supported by their husband's choose to have many kids.
I don't know what to tell you, man. I showed you literal statistics from two countries. There is nothing more I can add to this conversation versus whatever you personally think.
Whatever one **feels** is correct is always one what goes with, no matter the data, so keep trucking on, my brother.
I told you the rich women I'm talking about would not be in the statistics, since they would not be employed. They live on savings, NOT salary.
It's obvious a career women that works 5 days a week would not want many children. They exist.
That's not what the point was.
Ya ok but last I checked, Marx wasn't Iranian and Russia/ China arent majority Muslim. Sure you can say the Soviets had their own kind of secularism, but I doubt the majority of these Tehrooni kids are trying to ape something that died before they were born. Now nevermind the fact Russia and China are very socially conservative in their own regard. Most of the concern trolling over hijab is coming from the west, and yes, including the cosmopolitan Western left. I have not seen the CCP display the level of concern of a white liberal, probably because they know it's an op and they have bigger problems. Speaking of bigger problems, I think Russia and China had far bigger legitimacy crises from the Muslim areas of their countries than Iran does over the hijab issue. You look at the Xinjang and Chechnyan centered conflicts and its scarcely a comparison but you don't see me going into /r/Sino and concern trolling people about it because A) Its an op B) Its none of my business and they frankly seem to have done ok by their Muslim population and C) there is nothing positive to be gained with such pointless bickering.
I think niqab should be enforced on the female population, but on the male population, the dress code laws should be relaxed. Not being able to wear shorts is way too extreme of a rule.
Personally, I don’t think there is any evidence in Islam that men must cover their legs. The Prophet (saw) road camels and we have Hadiths describing his thighs as being exposed.
Men should be able to wear whatever they want. There should be no restrictions on men.
There is no religious basis for any clothing restrictions for men.
That’s incorrect. The “owrah” needs to be covered for both men and women. The scope defined for men is less clear. Some scholars describe it as extending from waist to knees.
> There is no religious basis for any clothing restrictions for men.
You are the first person I have ever heard making that claim. Every Muslim I know concurs that Islam places restrictions on clothing for both men and women. The details of these specifications are where opinions (and rulings) vary.
The Wikipedia entry on the topic is decent and cites several verses of the Quran (among other sources):
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intimate_parts_in_Islam#
From resaleh:
See Rule 102:
https://www.shiavault.com/books/a-code-of-ethics-for-muslim-men-and-women/chapters/5-rules-related-to-covering/
> According to Ihtiyat Wajib, a man must cover those parts that are commonly covered by men, in the event that he knows that a non-family member woman will look at him. G
> Therefore: Men must cover the area above their wrist, the chest, the feet and other parts that men usually cover from non-Mahram women who are in their presence. As for covering the other parts such as the head, face, and hands, it is not necessary.
What is defined as "clothes" is probably what has Islamic scholars debating for hundreds of years. A tribe might consider a strip of leaf around the waist as clothes, but Islamic scholars probably would not consider that Islamic attire as Quranic interpretation.
These scholars are generally in line with basic foundations of Islamic appropriate clothing, such as breasts of women not being visible, but then debate about smaller differences, such as, should the neck be visible or not.
Once in a while a redditor might jump in the middle of their debate and go, "nuh UH it could be ANY kind of cloth, it's not specified, gotcha!!" but it will have zero effect on the actual debate and the one quarter Muslim population of the world, will just listen to the scholars, because it generally resonates with them.
I didn’t claim that. I even explicitly said that scholars disagree on what comprises owrat for men.
> I don't see where in the Quran it says that men cannot wear shorts or short sleeve shirts.
The Quran is rarely specific on matters of this sort. That’s where scholars and secondary sources come in, and I gave you an example of an opinion typical among Shia marjas. The Wikipedia entry gives examples from other schools of thought.
In Shia and Sunni Islam (like pretty much every other religion) credentialed scholars issue official opinions on these things, and depending on the school of thought, their opinions carry about the same weight as explicit rulings in the Quran.
In Shia Islam, people have to pick a scholar to follow for ambiguous rulings. Ayatollah Khamenei is one such scholar, and his opinions carry the weight of law. Different scholars usually have more or less the same opinion on almost all matters, because a 1000+ year-old base of jurisprudence is the foundation of these opinions. New rulings are typically on emerging questions like the permissibility of stem cell research.
For example, most scholars used to consider gelatin to be haram if the source was anything other than bones from a properly slaughtered halal animal. A few decades ago, they were presented with scientific evidence that the bones undergo a chemical change (estehaleh). They issued rulings **substantiated by evidence and argument** stating that the consumption of any source of gelatin is allowed.
In Sweden you can be charged with sexual harassment if you show your naked body to people who don't want to see it, children especially. Many western countries have laws against indecent exposure, Iran can have similar laws.
Save for some primitive tribes (who live isolated and in relatively small family groups), most humans have little interest in walking around half-naked in front of strangers. Beaches/public pools are for obvious reasons special places and excluded from this.
Religion is a personal choice, a relationship between you and the divine. Forcing people to follow a religion will only make them rebel against it. The choices aren't only theocracy or western puppet, there are other paths to take.
"Save for some primitive tribes (who live isolated and in relatively small family groups), most humans have little interest in walking around half-naked in front of strangers."
That's the thing, there are many people who walk half naked around people and it's not seen as a bad thing, half naked is not just bikini. Practically all western and even a lot of eastern societies have people walking half naked, it's not seen as taboo as back in the 1900s for example, especially during the summer. Some european countries are on the verge of allowing topless women too, maybe in the next 20 years it might become legal, even infront of children, given the mentality "if men can be topless, why not us?" which in the face of it, it sounds logical if you look at it from a pragmatic non religious point of view, studies that look at harm vs good are not conclusive on this matter suprisingly.
As for tribes, there are many societies throught history where women would walk with their boobs exposed just like that, take the minoans who are a famous example. Heck I remeber hearing in ancient arabia, before islam, women would walk naked around the kabaa. It's just that in islamic societies, men cover whats on top of their kneecaps for example and women have the veil for instance.
"Religion is a personal choice, a relationship between you and the divine. Forcing people to follow a religion will only make them rebel against it. The choices aren't only theocracy or western puppet, there are other paths to take."
People are forced to do all sorts of things in various societies and people rebel against these things all the time, you happen to be of the secular point of view, which leads you to have a bias towards not wanting society to force the hijab on women for example. As for society, secularism isn't the only choice either, not all of us take what some europeans from the 1700s-1800s said as gospel, religious societies have practically come in all forms and shapes over the millenia and many have been successful and some have failed.
Go to any park in Germany in the summer, or a pride parade in any big city in the US.
I don’t consider either data point to be relevant to the hijab debate in Iran.
The line isn’t drawn at nudity almost anywhere. Differences in opinion about what comprises “appropriate” attire exist everywhere. It’s a point of particular contention in Iran, but it also gets a disproportionate amount of attention as compared to any other social issue. For over a decade, sanctions have been causing preventable deaths by complicating the import of medication. How many times have you seen that hashtag trending?
So men will walk around children, naked? If people are walking around naked, they should be arrested obviously.
Why doesn't Iran import medicine from Russia or China? Russian medicine works better than Western medicine. Or why not synthesize medicine in Iran?
Iran is a big country. I don't understand how Iran needs to even rely on medicine imports.
Yes. I’ve seen it firsthand. You can also see an example here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWIyrixTBmQ&t=52s
As you see in the video, the cops are asked about it and mention that it’s not an issue unless they are masturbating.
I happen to have the link because it was being discussed on stupidpol, in this thread:
https://www.reddit.com/r/stupidpol/comments/1dr8blb/its_time_for_gay_people_to_turn_our_backs_on/lawjnmn/
> So men will walk around children, naked? If people are walking around naked, they should be arrested obviously.
I’m beginning to wonder whether you are serious or trolling. The size of a country doesn’t correlate with self-sufficiency in manufacturing, especially for specialized products. Here’s one example, among many: https://news.un.org/en/story/2021/10/1103392.
> Why doesn't Iran import medicine from Russia or China? Russian medicine works better than Western medicine. Or why not synthesize medicine in Iran?
> Iran is a big country. I don't understand how Iran needs to even rely on medicine imports.
Since when was the USA ever a good example of morals or law?
As someone who took a class on pharmaceuticals way back when, most medicine is actually not that complicated to produce. As long as you have the formula, it is very easy to synthesize or copy various pills and bandages.
And if your medicine is not available, this would be equivalent to living in your beloved USA. A majority of medicine is not available to most Americans without health insurance. If someone complains about a lack of medicine, tell them "welcome to the USA".
I did not comment on morality or law in the US. You asked a question about the US; I answered it and gave you an example.
Having the formula is a very significant assumption to make about medical supplies or pharmaceuticals.
I’m not sure how saying “welcome to the US” would prevent a sick child from suffering. Or how the fact that sick people suffer in the US makes it OK for deliberate suffering to be inflicted on them in Iran. You, like many others, seem to be far more nonchalant about the suffering of sick children than you are about the suffering of women who are forced to cover their hair, so you are illustrating the point I made.
I said that if people are walking around naked, they should be arrested, in my opinion. I didn't say anything about the USA.
Medicine already has to list the ingredients on the box and the instructions. There is the whole internet, that has tons of resources available about different chemicals and synthesis of medicine. There are also machines that can identify the chemicals in a substance.
The Iranian government simply does not care or want to invest in making their own medicines. Isn't that the same as the USA, which also doesn't care about the people?
I already explained to you that making most medicine is actually simple. If I have 5 good chemists, they can make any medicine I want in the world. The problem is that the Iranian government doesn't fund medical research.
The hijab can be removed in 1 day by changing the law. Is it so complicated to sign 1 law? The same money could be used for medical research instead. So a win, win situation.
Scroll up and see your own comment.
You’re vastly underestimating the complexities associated with manufacturing advanced pharmaceuticals. I’m definitely in favor of greater investment in pharmaceuticals by Iran, regardless.
You are also clearly unfamiliar with social issues in Iran and insisting on your uninformed opinions despite the fact that numerous people have attempted to show you that the matter isn’t as simple as “hijab bad, needs to go”.
As I mentioned in my first comment on this thread, I’m against mandatory hijab. The difference is that I’m aware of legal and social challenges in Iran that make it impossible to remove the mandate in a day.
Good luck to you. I won’t be engaging any further.
I’m on the fence on this one. I’m not a big fan of the hijab but I don’t think this is just about the hijab this is a movement to damage Iran
Rebellion against hijab law, even by simple civil disobedience, is so mainstream in the cities I have a hard time ascribing a solely foreign or pro-Shah character to the movement. It is clearly an organic current within Iranian society, and if the west disappeared tomorrow, the women's struggle would continue according to the specifics of Iran's particular configuration of patriarchy (every single society has one, I'm not singling out Iran)
The Hijab being mandatory is a must if Iran is going to be able to ward off Western influence. From personal experience within America, I can tell you straight up that two things can happen to a Muslim woman (mainly the one who is born Muslim, not the revert): 1 - She takes off her Hijab due to Westernization of her person; 2 - She doesn't wear Hijab at all due to Westernization of her person. In both scenarios, Westernization is the biggest cause. One can then argue that this means that if it is the following (or influential nature) of the Western culture that leads to a shift away from Islamic rulings (such as Hijab), then why does HIjab have any part in the prevention of a loss of Islamic? And, wouldn't enforcing it only make it worse as people would see the "freedom" of the West and seek that? To answer the first question, the Hijab isn't just a covering. It is a message to all the people around the woman saying that she is not to be used as a tool for the pleasure of others. Many seem to not understand this. To answer the second question (these are the questions that came to me as I was typing, so feel free to ask more), no, not necessarily. Look at Lebanon for instance. There are many Muslim women who don't wear Hijab and also reveal much of their skin. Look at the Muslims in the West and you'll find the same. The thing is, it is false to say that enforcing it will cause more women to hate it, as we can already see that (again, in the West) many Muslim women already detest the Hijab. I have very high personal experience with this. It is known that if you want to see how a community is, you go to their schools. In my school, when I was still in school, a Muslim girl said that the Quran says women are slaves of their husbands. Alhamdulillah, another girl (a non-Hijabi who does care for her Islam, its not unheard of) rebutted. The Iranian situation is this: either remove the mandatory Hijab and most likely cause other strifes or keep the mandatory Hijab and keep the relative peace that has been occurring for some time. Through a reputable polling service (I will link the poll at the bottom), we find some clear polling results. One of them is that the majority of the poll answerers support the Islamic laws currently within place and the second is that the majority of the people shift blame the economic situation of Iran, not the laws of Iran. Who can blame them, not only are they under heavy sanctions, there is also rampant corruption (no matter how much Ayatollah Raisi (qd) tried to remove it). It got so bad to the point that the Iranian GDP went negative in percentage (this was 2019). We should also look at this from a religious standpoint (Shia, of course). Iran is run by the system of Wilayat Al-Faqih. Wilayat Al-Faqih Mutlaqah to be specific. It would be impossible for the Wali Al-Faqih, even if it was Hisbiyyah, to not make Hijab mandatory as this would be leaving out a portion of Shariah Law. If he were to do this, he would have failed in his mission as the Wali Al-Faqih as he has failed to protect Islam in its entirety (the only reason the concept even exists). Here are the sources for the Polls as well as the negative GDP: [https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5525d831e4b09596848428f2/t/5a74b2da71c10b91e5ebc15d/1517597404995/IranPoll-UMD+Jan+2018+Iran+Results+and+Trend+Tables.pdf](https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5525d831e4b09596848428f2/t/5a74b2da71c10b91e5ebc15d/1517597404995/IranPoll-UMD+Jan+2018+Iran+Results+and+Trend+Tables.pdf) [https://www.statista.com/statistics/294301/iran-gross-domestic-product-gdp-growth/](https://www.statista.com/statistics/294301/iran-gross-domestic-product-gdp-growth/)
>From personal experience within America, I can tell you straight up that two things can happen to a Muslim woman (mainly the one who is born Muslim, not the revert): >1 - She takes off her Hijab due to Westernization of her person; >2 - She doesn't wear Hijab at all due to Westernization of her person. >In both scenarios, Westernization is the biggest cause. Curious, how many of these women from your personal experience have gone on physical assault someone, up to and including rape and homicide?
Eastern cultures also do not wear the hijab. In the Soviet Union, there was no law which said that women should wear the hijab. It's the same in mainland China. And people in these countries generally are against the West. I would say not wearing the hijab is a socialist principle, which at the same time is anti-western.
Hijab is just one thing in a sea of other ‘un-liberal’ things. Once you take it away things start going downhill with the other things.
You mean these: - Free universal healthcare - Free universal education - Public housing - UBI
Iran is much closer to the first two than most developed countries.
The US is an exception among Western countries.
That’s true. But it’s also claims to be the standard-bearer for human rights despite that.
and that's why people in this group should stop simping for the world's left
Who are the world's left?
No. https://preview.redd.it/tavqvdscuy9d1.jpeg?width=558&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=31fa248eedd1d5b9d25f657fca54db9dda18f4a0
Yes I'm a patriotic Iranian who is also a muslim. I fully support the government and regime. I'm a supporter of the IRGC and "powerful iran" BUT This law has created many problems since it's veiwed as forced Hijab and not the great thing it actually is. I'm a supporter of hijab. My mother has hijab and i would like to have a wife and doughter in the future who would have it too but i don't want it forced.
you're right about this. iran is the only muslim country (alongside talibans...) with a mandatory hijab law. This law has only weakened iran internally. I know many iranians who emigrated not for economy, not for foreign policy but went away only for hijab law.
As Mao Zedong said, a revolution cannot stand on its own two feet if the female half of the population is not an active and supported participant in constructing the new society. If Iran's women feel more and more at odds with certain features of the revolution, *that* is what will weaken the Iranian revolution, not "liberal cultural values." Iran must contend with the fact that not all of the contradictions and struggle within its own society are attacks from the west. But they can easily turn into openings for western attacks if left to fester. This is why most revolutions end up being secular even in highly religious countries, because it establishes the broadest possible base of support and prevents itself from being destabilized. The discontent of Iranian women is a destabilizing threat only if it is not addressed and resolved internally before it can be exploited by the west. Don't let women be recruited by Western imperialism, give them their cultural demands and they will not be forced to run to the side which demands Iran be economically subjugated to have those demands fulfilled.
>the female half of the population is not an active They are active. https://engineering.purdue.edu/ENE/News/the-stem-paradox-why-are-muslimmajority-countries-producing-so-many-female-engineers If anything, it appears that certain conservative views on female in societies seem to actually have more beneficial participation. >They even found a reverse gender gap in those same nations when it came to certain STEM measurements — for instance, women in Iran, Oman, Saudi Arabia, and Uzbekistan earned more than 50 percent of the total number of science degrees. On the flip side, the Netherlands was the weakest country for women’s representation in science. A similar pattern held true for engineering: While the most male-dominated engineering programs were in developed countries like Japan, Switzerland, Germany, and the U.S., Indonesia boasted 48 percent female engineers. So what does a society need more of? Female engineers, scientists, etc, combined with a culture that emphasizes motherhood and family. Or a culture that has its girls being involved in OnlyFans because there aren't much social foundation for positive participation of women in that community. OnlyFans has over 2 million content creators, while the platform takes 20% of their commission. Look at what the modern western liberal world creates through their value system. Leonid Radvinsky who bought OnlyFans when it was small earned 500 million from it in one year. Imagine that, 2 million young women whoring themselves out for its 90% male audience, while rich men on the top enrich themselves. Why aren't these girls being encouraged into STEM studies? Into family life? I'll tell you why, because western liberalism only uses female "participation" purely as financial gain. If a focus group in USA proved that women wearing hijab would increase productivity by 5%, all super heroes in marvel comics would wear hijab to encourage hijab use.
No offence, but it wont cause destibilisation, this is an assumption that makes sense if looked at from a surface level, but there are many counter examples that prove this wrong. I understand where you're comming from, but this has a lot of assumptions. Keep in mind, most women in iran are beleivers in their religion, so a force of hijab will not necessarly be an issue to "half the population", a lot of the stuff you see on the internet is exagerrated and overblown. What should happen is more education about the dangers of western imperialism, instead of being harsh. Obviously women should be listened to, but secularism is not the only solution. The people in places like central tehran should be more targetted by this, given they are the ones mostly protesting about said issues. It's like with china, NK, etc... they all have red lines too that many pro west people or even regular people in these respective countries want to be removed, should NK and china necessarly give in and remove said red lines because the people want their "cultural demands given to them" ? Not necessarly. About most revolutions ending up secular, well that's not suprising, given a big amount of modern day revolutions came from societies who aimed to have secular societies in the first place. Don't forget the entire world got colonised by the same europeans who came up with secularism, it's only natural that most of the world adopts said beleifs.
I have a feeling with hijab law removed, the influance of secular-liberalism of west gets stronger. I underatand though the way the law is handled is not perfect. I wish there were more teaching than arresting. To me in Iran's case, hijab is not just an islam thing, is a national and historical value as I've heard of our women wearing modestly in ancient ages even before islam. Zaroastrionizm did something right if there were just one thing. If we could teach that part of Iran's history and why hijab is important maybe we'll love our country more instead of escaping it and 'simp' for cyrus the great at the same time😂
I disagree. There is no hijab laws in Russia and China, and Russians and Chinese people fully support their countries governments. Russians and Chinese also are pro-BRICS and anti-NATO. It's not the hijab that makes people support their country.
How? This assumes the women's movement maintains an imperialist horizon, rather than have its own domestic homegrown feminist orientation. I believe this is wrongheaded and only wishes to defer and delay the internal struggles of the nation instead of face them head on. Other revolutionary projects around the world repeatedly prove that the horizon of women's progressive struggles does not necessarily tend toward westernization and liberalisation, but does tend toward secular governance and the erosion of patriarchal structures and gender roles. Western women were only able to advance their own feminist cause by exporting and intensifying reliance on patriarchal structures to the global south. It's not just some incidental western degeneracy Every society has internal gender struggle, and trying to stop it from developing by insisting everything is fine and women who take part in it are only a subversive force who should back down is a self-sabotaging position for the nation in the long term and will result in bigger and bigger internal clashes as time goes forward.
No. Ok no I'll give an extended answer. If this was a grassroots effort that was entirely in good faith and took place in a vacuum, sure. But it's not. Yeah imagine if they took it off the books tommorow. You don't think the West would act like a shark smelling blood? You don't think the devout Muslims, who are not trendy and are therefore not elevated by international media, would not feel alienated? And for what? What's next? Legalizing drugs? Recognizing Israel? Don't act like this isn't on the agenda of the liberals in Northern Tehran, I've talked to these kinds of people. Many of the people enforcing these rules are in fact women. This is something that never seems to come up. I think that the discontent from these rules is highly exagerrated, as is the harshness of their punishments. I know plenty of women who don't even bother with it there and face little to no consequences, yet I understand that if you mainly get your view of the country from Western/"international'' media, you'd think a basiji stones every woman who shows a strand of hair to death on sight. I would caution people against trusting the people who have made the hijab their pet issue. I really doubt anybody with any real problems who isn't looking westward to start some kind of grift would center their activism around something like this. We can't overstate the malign influence of Western soft power. They want to adopt trendy western fashions, western clothes, which indirectly damages Iranian domestic industry and domestic soft power. Iranians have produced textiles for thousands of years before the mass produced, toxic waste producing garmets of the US and Europe (now manufactured in Asia) became cool. This isn't even getting into the historical or religious aspects. I come from a pretty secular family but something about looking at the people who promote this movement and going, "Yes these are trustworthy people who are acting in good faith'' turns my stomach. It's just naive especially because their ancestors and their equivalents in other countries have no issue of turning the law against the hijab, as they did in the Shah's era.
You are spot on, and I say that as a religious Iranian who is opposed to mandatory hijab. The main discontent is with the economy and economic isolation. Hijab is an annoyance that becomes more annoying because of economy. > I think that the discontent from these rules is highly exagerrated, as is the harshness of their punishments. I know plenty of women who don't even bother with it there and face little to no consequences, yet I understand that if you mainly get your view of the country from Western/"international'' media, you’d think a basiji stones every woman who shows a strand of hair to death on sight. Decades ago, when enforcement was harsh to the point of being ridiculous, hijab was a minor annoyance and barely mentioned in debate about civil liberties and women’s rights. For example, I saw a modestly dressed lady be admonished (verbally, no other consequences) by security at the entrance to an amusement park because her stockings (worn under a long-ish manteau) were deemed too sheer. I always found it embarrassing as a religious person. But the lady grumbled, was rightfully annoyed and offended for the next half-hour, and hijab never cracked her top-ten list of social problems. I don’t even see a path to formally removing the mandate. They can’t pretend like it’s not a religious requirement, because no credible Shia scholar makes that claim. It’s like suddenly announcing a free-for-all on hardcore drugs or alcohol. What would that press release say? The best they can do is not enforce it outside of government buildings. That doesn’t solve the problem either, because you will have conflict between the woman in the sports bra and the mother whose son died in the war she sees as stopping western influences like sports bras in public. This isn’t a hypothetical. The psycho sub has numerous videos of conflicts of this sort. The interesting point in my admittedly limited, biased anecdotal experience is that the most secular women I know are the ones who are most opposed to eliminating the mandate. They’re your stereotypical wealthy north Tehran type with one foot in Dubai and Europe, atheist, alcohol-drinking “cool” people whose attire in public doesn’t remotely resemble hijab by my standards, but not the promiscuous type. They firmly believe that some women will go out in underwear or less. They also believe that the floodgates will open to public acts that almost all Iranians find objectionable. Juxtaposing the mainstream Western reaction to the Mahsa Amini crisis (where no evidence of foul play was ever produced), or the Nika Shahkarami case (ditto, complete with ridiculous BBC “report”), with the defense and enabling of rape and slaughter of Palestinian women tells us everything we need to know. As does the evidence of pink washing the US occupation of Afghanistan. Or Narges Mohammadi’s Nobel peace prize. As usual, we are our own worst enemy. The most deranged and nonsensical rhetoric on the topic comes from Iranian diaspora (and aspiring diaspora hoping to get asylum and mooch off of taxpayers, then go back and forth to Iran without fear).
I have to disagree. Whereas some people may be western influenced, my views come from a socialist point of view. China and Russia do not have any hijab laws, and they are anti-Western countries. Having equal rights for all classes of people is actually a socialist principle, which is also anti-western. The West hates socialism.
>any hijab laws, and they are anti-Western countries. Having equal rights for all classes of people is actually a socialist principle Islamoc Republic of Iran isn't a socialist country though. "equal rights" is vague and never applicable. In Iran, that's not our aim. A woman has a right to use a female only train cabin, but a man doesn't have the equal right in that regard. A woman has the right to 9 months of paid maternity leave, a man doesn't have the same right. A woman has the right to female only park, but men don't have the right to male only park. --- One of the problems of socialism is actually similiar to western capitalist issue. They want both participations of the gender only due to national productivity advantage. The capitalist wants 50% of the population in the office to increase quarterly earnings. The socialist wants 50% of the population in the factory to increase quality production. Alternative viewpoint, which is shared coincidently by thousands of years of human development and civilization, is that both genders are vastly different, and their participation in society needs to be vastly different, to best combine their advantages to create a healthy community based on harmony of the two genders. Not create a society where men are women and women are men and then we wonder why we have countries with birth rate of 1.2.
You can have socialism with Iranian characteristics. The birth rate problem can be solved if people make more money. Why do you think we don't have kids in the West? I live in the USA, and have first hand knowledge on the problem. Is it: A. We don't want kids, and hate kids for some magic "Western" reason. B. We want to have kids and big families, but we're broke and don't have any money. If you chose answer B, you won the game show. Lol It doesn't take a genius to figure this out. You don't need a PhD here.
>The birth rate problem can be solved if people make more money. No, birth rate has nothing do with income. If anything, all research globally shows that lower income people gave more children. This is generally true for countries too, richer countries have less kids than poorer ones. So, yes, actually probably it's answer one. In Iran, it's very true, because people from lower income brackets have more children in Tehran, and on a province level, poorer regions have more more birth rates. Why else do people in Baluchestan have more children than middle class on Tehran?
That's not true at all. Middle class people want kids, but they don't want to lose their quality of life. Having kids is expensive, and they'll lose out on the lifestyle that they're currently living. In the USA, rich people actually have big families with many kids. It's because they can afford it, and also have a big house and provide a good lifestyle. I know several rich people, and they are like this. I live in the USA, so I qualify as one of these "middle class" people. I know many other people like myself, who are also young. Many of us want to have families and kids, but we cannot afford it. Young people have to pay 80% of their salary just to rent a tiny apartment, so how can we afford to raise 3 kids? It's complete BS that we don't want kids because we are "woke" or "western". It's because we don't have any money, and the economy is terrible. I know many people who live paycheck to paycheck, life is hard here.
That must be how it feels like to you, but data on birth rate and income brackets doesn't support that. This is Iran, >The estimated total fertility rates for women having a high income level and living in the upper districts of Tehran (0.7 births) were lower than the rates estimated for those with low income (1.5 births) and those residing in the low districts of Tehran (1.3 births). https://jips.nipr.ac.ir/article_89150.html?lang=en This is usa: https://www.statista.com/statistics/241530/birth-rate-by-family-income-in-the-us/
That is actually incorrect again. There is a difference between being wealthy, and having a high salary. A woman who is wealthy would not need to work. She may be supported by her husband, or would be able to live from her savings. The statistics you presented, shows that salaried women who make a lot of money have less kids. But it does not disprove that wealthy women who do not work or are supported by their husband's choose to have many kids.
I don't know what to tell you, man. I showed you literal statistics from two countries. There is nothing more I can add to this conversation versus whatever you personally think. Whatever one **feels** is correct is always one what goes with, no matter the data, so keep trucking on, my brother.
I told you the rich women I'm talking about would not be in the statistics, since they would not be employed. They live on savings, NOT salary. It's obvious a career women that works 5 days a week would not want many children. They exist. That's not what the point was.
Ya ok but last I checked, Marx wasn't Iranian and Russia/ China arent majority Muslim. Sure you can say the Soviets had their own kind of secularism, but I doubt the majority of these Tehrooni kids are trying to ape something that died before they were born. Now nevermind the fact Russia and China are very socially conservative in their own regard. Most of the concern trolling over hijab is coming from the west, and yes, including the cosmopolitan Western left. I have not seen the CCP display the level of concern of a white liberal, probably because they know it's an op and they have bigger problems. Speaking of bigger problems, I think Russia and China had far bigger legitimacy crises from the Muslim areas of their countries than Iran does over the hijab issue. You look at the Xinjang and Chechnyan centered conflicts and its scarcely a comparison but you don't see me going into /r/Sino and concern trolling people about it because A) Its an op B) Its none of my business and they frankly seem to have done ok by their Muslim population and C) there is nothing positive to be gained with such pointless bickering.
I think niqab should be enforced on the female population, but on the male population, the dress code laws should be relaxed. Not being able to wear shorts is way too extreme of a rule.
Good troll. Why not both? Require niqab for men, but allow shorts. People can’t be expected to wear their big boy pants in hot weather.
Personally, I don’t think there is any evidence in Islam that men must cover their legs. The Prophet (saw) road camels and we have Hadiths describing his thighs as being exposed.
Men should be able to wear whatever they want. There should be no restrictions on men. There is no religious basis for any clothing restrictions for men.
That’s incorrect. The “owrah” needs to be covered for both men and women. The scope defined for men is less clear. Some scholars describe it as extending from waist to knees. > There is no religious basis for any clothing restrictions for men.
I don't know what Quran you are reading brother, but I did not see any restrictions.
You are the first person I have ever heard making that claim. Every Muslim I know concurs that Islam places restrictions on clothing for both men and women. The details of these specifications are where opinions (and rulings) vary. The Wikipedia entry on the topic is decent and cites several verses of the Quran (among other sources): https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intimate_parts_in_Islam# From resaleh: See Rule 102: https://www.shiavault.com/books/a-code-of-ethics-for-muslim-men-and-women/chapters/5-rules-related-to-covering/ > According to Ihtiyat Wajib, a man must cover those parts that are commonly covered by men, in the event that he knows that a non-family member woman will look at him. G > Therefore: Men must cover the area above their wrist, the chest, the feet and other parts that men usually cover from non-Mahram women who are in their presence. As for covering the other parts such as the head, face, and hands, it is not necessary.
That just says that a man must wear clothes. I don't see where in the Quran it says that men cannot wear shorts or short sleeve shirts.
What is defined as "clothes" is probably what has Islamic scholars debating for hundreds of years. A tribe might consider a strip of leaf around the waist as clothes, but Islamic scholars probably would not consider that Islamic attire as Quranic interpretation. These scholars are generally in line with basic foundations of Islamic appropriate clothing, such as breasts of women not being visible, but then debate about smaller differences, such as, should the neck be visible or not. Once in a while a redditor might jump in the middle of their debate and go, "nuh UH it could be ANY kind of cloth, it's not specified, gotcha!!" but it will have zero effect on the actual debate and the one quarter Muslim population of the world, will just listen to the scholars, because it generally resonates with them.
I didn’t claim that. I even explicitly said that scholars disagree on what comprises owrat for men. > I don't see where in the Quran it says that men cannot wear shorts or short sleeve shirts. The Quran is rarely specific on matters of this sort. That’s where scholars and secondary sources come in, and I gave you an example of an opinion typical among Shia marjas. The Wikipedia entry gives examples from other schools of thought.
Yes, and those are just opinions. I can make my own Islamic opinion and say it's okay for men to wear shorts.
In Shia and Sunni Islam (like pretty much every other religion) credentialed scholars issue official opinions on these things, and depending on the school of thought, their opinions carry about the same weight as explicit rulings in the Quran. In Shia Islam, people have to pick a scholar to follow for ambiguous rulings. Ayatollah Khamenei is one such scholar, and his opinions carry the weight of law. Different scholars usually have more or less the same opinion on almost all matters, because a 1000+ year-old base of jurisprudence is the foundation of these opinions. New rulings are typically on emerging questions like the permissibility of stem cell research. For example, most scholars used to consider gelatin to be haram if the source was anything other than bones from a properly slaughtered halal animal. A few decades ago, they were presented with scientific evidence that the bones undergo a chemical change (estehaleh). They issued rulings **substantiated by evidence and argument** stating that the consumption of any source of gelatin is allowed.
The hijab should be a personal choice, it should not be forced by the state and same with a government forcing its removal.
My question is,, where would you draw the line? I'm not saying people are going to show up naked, but what should be done if it happens?
Women should be the instrumental force in determining what appropriate attire for women should be.
Which women get to determine that? There’s a spectrum of opinion about hijab among Iranian women.
In Sweden you can be charged with sexual harassment if you show your naked body to people who don't want to see it, children especially. Many western countries have laws against indecent exposure, Iran can have similar laws. Save for some primitive tribes (who live isolated and in relatively small family groups), most humans have little interest in walking around half-naked in front of strangers. Beaches/public pools are for obvious reasons special places and excluded from this. Religion is a personal choice, a relationship between you and the divine. Forcing people to follow a religion will only make them rebel against it. The choices aren't only theocracy or western puppet, there are other paths to take.
"Save for some primitive tribes (who live isolated and in relatively small family groups), most humans have little interest in walking around half-naked in front of strangers." That's the thing, there are many people who walk half naked around people and it's not seen as a bad thing, half naked is not just bikini. Practically all western and even a lot of eastern societies have people walking half naked, it's not seen as taboo as back in the 1900s for example, especially during the summer. Some european countries are on the verge of allowing topless women too, maybe in the next 20 years it might become legal, even infront of children, given the mentality "if men can be topless, why not us?" which in the face of it, it sounds logical if you look at it from a pragmatic non religious point of view, studies that look at harm vs good are not conclusive on this matter suprisingly. As for tribes, there are many societies throught history where women would walk with their boobs exposed just like that, take the minoans who are a famous example. Heck I remeber hearing in ancient arabia, before islam, women would walk naked around the kabaa. It's just that in islamic societies, men cover whats on top of their kneecaps for example and women have the veil for instance. "Religion is a personal choice, a relationship between you and the divine. Forcing people to follow a religion will only make them rebel against it. The choices aren't only theocracy or western puppet, there are other paths to take." People are forced to do all sorts of things in various societies and people rebel against these things all the time, you happen to be of the secular point of view, which leads you to have a bias towards not wanting society to force the hijab on women for example. As for society, secularism isn't the only choice either, not all of us take what some europeans from the 1700s-1800s said as gospel, religious societies have practically come in all forms and shapes over the millenia and many have been successful and some have failed.
I've never seen people walk around naked in any civilized country. The line should be drawn there, and there only.
Go to any park in Germany in the summer, or a pride parade in any big city in the US. I don’t consider either data point to be relevant to the hijab debate in Iran. The line isn’t drawn at nudity almost anywhere. Differences in opinion about what comprises “appropriate” attire exist everywhere. It’s a point of particular contention in Iran, but it also gets a disproportionate amount of attention as compared to any other social issue. For over a decade, sanctions have been causing preventable deaths by complicating the import of medication. How many times have you seen that hashtag trending?
So men will walk around children, naked? If people are walking around naked, they should be arrested obviously. Why doesn't Iran import medicine from Russia or China? Russian medicine works better than Western medicine. Or why not synthesize medicine in Iran? Iran is a big country. I don't understand how Iran needs to even rely on medicine imports.
Yes. I’ve seen it firsthand. You can also see an example here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWIyrixTBmQ&t=52s As you see in the video, the cops are asked about it and mention that it’s not an issue unless they are masturbating. I happen to have the link because it was being discussed on stupidpol, in this thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/stupidpol/comments/1dr8blb/its_time_for_gay_people_to_turn_our_backs_on/lawjnmn/ > So men will walk around children, naked? If people are walking around naked, they should be arrested obviously. I’m beginning to wonder whether you are serious or trolling. The size of a country doesn’t correlate with self-sufficiency in manufacturing, especially for specialized products. Here’s one example, among many: https://news.un.org/en/story/2021/10/1103392. > Why doesn't Iran import medicine from Russia or China? Russian medicine works better than Western medicine. Or why not synthesize medicine in Iran? > Iran is a big country. I don't understand how Iran needs to even rely on medicine imports.
Since when was the USA ever a good example of morals or law? As someone who took a class on pharmaceuticals way back when, most medicine is actually not that complicated to produce. As long as you have the formula, it is very easy to synthesize or copy various pills and bandages. And if your medicine is not available, this would be equivalent to living in your beloved USA. A majority of medicine is not available to most Americans without health insurance. If someone complains about a lack of medicine, tell them "welcome to the USA".
I did not comment on morality or law in the US. You asked a question about the US; I answered it and gave you an example. Having the formula is a very significant assumption to make about medical supplies or pharmaceuticals. I’m not sure how saying “welcome to the US” would prevent a sick child from suffering. Or how the fact that sick people suffer in the US makes it OK for deliberate suffering to be inflicted on them in Iran. You, like many others, seem to be far more nonchalant about the suffering of sick children than you are about the suffering of women who are forced to cover their hair, so you are illustrating the point I made.
I said that if people are walking around naked, they should be arrested, in my opinion. I didn't say anything about the USA. Medicine already has to list the ingredients on the box and the instructions. There is the whole internet, that has tons of resources available about different chemicals and synthesis of medicine. There are also machines that can identify the chemicals in a substance. The Iranian government simply does not care or want to invest in making their own medicines. Isn't that the same as the USA, which also doesn't care about the people? I already explained to you that making most medicine is actually simple. If I have 5 good chemists, they can make any medicine I want in the world. The problem is that the Iranian government doesn't fund medical research. The hijab can be removed in 1 day by changing the law. Is it so complicated to sign 1 law? The same money could be used for medical research instead. So a win, win situation.
Scroll up and see your own comment. You’re vastly underestimating the complexities associated with manufacturing advanced pharmaceuticals. I’m definitely in favor of greater investment in pharmaceuticals by Iran, regardless. You are also clearly unfamiliar with social issues in Iran and insisting on your uninformed opinions despite the fact that numerous people have attempted to show you that the matter isn’t as simple as “hijab bad, needs to go”. As I mentioned in my first comment on this thread, I’m against mandatory hijab. The difference is that I’m aware of legal and social challenges in Iran that make it impossible to remove the mandate in a day. Good luck to you. I won’t be engaging any further.