Hot on the heels of last year's program's smashing success at making the Iranian government look busy while doing nothing about issues of corruption and domestic economics. "Iran launches new crackdown on dress code offenders," from Reuters:
TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iranian police will launch a crackdown next month on small companies which fail to enforce strict religious dress codes, Mehr News Agency reported on Wednesday.
The move indicates an expansion of a clampdown on "immoral" conduct launched last year against women flouting rules to cover their heads and disguise the shape of their bodies in public, in line with Iran's Islamic system.
"In the first stage, police will only confront companies ... that are active in small buildings or complexes," the head of the moral security police, Ahmad Rouzbehani, was quoted as saying.
Mehr said the move was "to prevent social damage" and the hijab, or veil, "should be respected". It said the campaign would start from around May 4.
Iran's religious codes require women to cover their hair and wear long, loose clothing to disguise their bodies in public, including offices where they may work with male colleagues.
Police sometimes check offices to ensure the codes are upheld and can shut them down. Some coffee shops have been closed after police said workers or customers were not meeting standards.
Restaurants and other public places often have signs asking customers to respect the Islamic Republic's dress requirements.
The enforcement of "hijab" has been a cornerstone of the Islamic system introduced after the 1979 revolution.
The crackdown against what clerics see as "corrupt" Western influence coincides with rising pressure on Iran by the West over its nuclear program. The United States and its allies say Iran wants to build an atomic bomb, which Tehran denies.
"Everybody, both women and men, just as they want financial and physical security, like to have moral security," Rouzbehani said, adding that police had urged people "to come forward with their reports".
In the past, crackdowns tended to be launched at the start of Iran's hot summers and petered out soon after. But last year's extended into winter and included a drive against tight women's trousers and even men with spiky "Western" hairstyles.
Those who violate dress codes are usually cautioned on a first offence, sometimes after a brief visit to a police station. But they can be held for longer, taken to court and required to have "guidance classes" after repeat offences.
Dress codes are most often flouted in wealthier, urban areas. Conservative dress is the norm in poorer, rural areas.
Islamic males should wear the hijab and veils!
Go for it, "sheeted" Muslim males! Hey - you'll love it (esp. in hot weather) just like the females do! Go for it!
Iran launches new dress code while preparing to launch future missles aimed at Israel/USA/Europe. Hmmm.
Moral security? How about morally bankrupt!
Hey, Darcy! Yeah, what's good for the goose should be good for the gander, right?
LOL, champ - try telling that to uber-misogynist male Mohammedans.
Reuters forgot to add, as we saw in pics last year, men forced to drink from (and hang around their necks) a water-pitcher-type container used to clean your bottom after using the restroom. Also men and women beaten bloody and whisked away in the middle of the day as they walk down the street, to who knows what fate.
ALL THE WHILE SO-CALLED LIBERAL HUMAN RIGHT SUPPORTERS SAY NOTHING! NOTHING AT ALL!
Champ,
Right on! Can we say "Police State"?
Oh, wait, that's all muslim countries...sorry!
"Moral Security" has a nice, warm Orwellian/Hitlerian ring to it. For every Iranian who gripes and grumbles about the crackdown, there are probably several who agree with it and think more is in order.
Darcy, males in Islamdom are also restricted to the kinds of clothing. It involves colors, material, pants length and fit.
Shirttail tucked?
http://islamqa.com/index.php?ref=150&ln=eng&txt=trousers
http://islamqa.com/index.php?ref=3280&ln=eng&txt=trousers
Pants too long?
http://islamqa.com/index.php?ref=762&ln=eng&txt=clothes%20color
Gold?
http://islamqa.com/index.php?ref=652&ln=eng&txt=silk
There are ruling on colors, but I did not look for any; I think I found enough.
Terror is their 'morality', ultimately.
Which makes it insanity, primordially.
Hey, Boneshack! No kidding, Police State, err, Police Countries is right, you filthy kafir! :-)
Let's see if we can book a gig in Tehran for Haifa Wehbe. :)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7376167.stm
What a middle Eastern doll! It's the eyes, can't hide those eyes even in a chador.
I wonder if it´s true that a lot of Iranians have come to hate Islam, having experienced its full brunt.
Those freaks! I think they're trying to use the Jedi Mind Trick on the locals... you don't see those two US Aircraft Carrier Battle Groups floating in the gulf... Tuck in your Shirt!!
http://www.asharqalawsat.com/english/news.asp?section=1&id=8060
"The USS John C. Stennis and its accompanying strike group joined the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower in the Sea of Oman but has not yet entered Gulf waters, the US Fifth Fleet said Tuesday from its base in Manama."
It's getting awfully busy over there...
Pelayo, that Islam website is so revolting. Did you read "Our Attitude Concerning Mockery of the Prophet?" In which we are called "fools and criminals" and "insolent" and Mo is referred to as "the greatest man who ever walked on this Earth." Oh, they're going to fight to the death to avenge wonderful Mo. Nothing new there. Yawn.
http://www.islamqa.com/index.php?ref=86109&ln=eng
The above link I posted is truly alarming.
I hope everyone will click and read. It provides a real window into what Muslims think about us - no taqiyya.
LOL!! Battle_of_Tours!
The woman in that picture is so....WESTERN looking! At first glance I thought it said, "a raunchy Lesbian singer"; which if it were true, would have created quite a stir in Islamaland. Thank goodness I read it wrong!
Darcy...I read some of that...the more truth these people tell, the scarier they sound.
What we are talking about here is really nothing more than the sort of sumptuary law - sumptuariae leges - which all primitive societies indulge in.
Medieval Islamic sumptuary laws were based upon teachings found in the Koran and Hadiths. Regulations on the wearing of silk, and the prohibition of depictions of human and animal figures on clothing, formed the basis for Islamic sumptuary laws.
For example, dress regulations for minorities in the early Islamic period were very specific with non-Muslims being required to wear distinctive marks in public, such as metal seals a fixed around their necks. Tattooing and branding of slaves and captives were, and are, widespread in the Islamic world. Lead or copper seals were used to mark non-Muslims and slaves in the Islamic world. Likewise, non-Muslims were not allowed to wear colours associated with Islam, particularly green.
The practice of physically branding Jews and Christians appears to have been begun in early medieval Baghdad and was considered highly desirable by most Muslims. In many Islamic countries, Christians and Jews were required to wear special emblems on their clothes, also. The yellow star badge was first introduced by a Caliph in Baghdad in the ninth century and appears to have spread to the West in medieval times. In public baths, non-Muslims wore medallions suspended from cords around their necks so no one would mistake them for Muslims. Belts, headgear, shoes, armbands and sometimes cloth patches were also used to identify the infidel. In 1005 the Jews of Fatimid Egypt were ordered to wear bells on their garments. This practice was quickly abandoned for it made the Jews seem joyous and free and significant numbers of conversions were alleged to have taken place.
Now, a post by Ali Eteraz leaves me wondering and seeking some enlightenment, permit me to quote it in full (from http://eteraz.wordpress.com/2007/09/30/hijab-and-molestation/ ):
Are people familiar with ‘illa? It is an idea devised by traditional scholars which is translated as rationication or “operative cause.”
The operative cause is the element that triggers a law into action. For example, the prohibition of alcohol has the operative cause of intoxication; as such, even though the Quran says nothing about cocaine, you can’t snort.
Let’s apply ‘illa to hijab. Shall we? Verse 33:59:
O Prophet, tell your wives, daughters and the women of the believers to lower (or possibly, draw upon themselves) their garments. This is better so that they will not be known molested. And, God is forgiving and merciful. This is the Khaled Abu el Fadl translation of the verse. Here is Muhamad Asad (with explanation).
(59) O Prophet! Tell thy wives and thy daughters, as well as all [other] believing women, that they should draw over themselves some of their outer garments [when in public]: this will be more conducive to their being recognized [as decent women] and not annoyed. [Cf. the first two sentences of 24: 31 and the corresponding notes.] But [withal,] God is indeed much- forgiving, a dispenser of grace!
[The specific, time-bound formulation of the above verse (evident in the reference to the wives and daughters of the Prophet), as well as the deliberate vagueness of the recommendation that women “should draw upon themselves some of their outer garments min jalabibihinna)” when in public, makes it clear that this verse was not meant to be an injunction (hukm) in the general, timeless sense of this term but, rather, a moral guideline to be observed against the ever-changing background of time and social environment. This finding is reinforced by the concluding reference to God’s forgiveness and grace.] From the two translations it can be gleaned that avoiding molestation and avoiding annoyance is the ‘illa of the hijab.
We know this because according to Fadel, “nearly all the commentators agreed that this verse was revealed to protect women from molestation.”
Apparently there was a group of young and corrupt men in Medina who harassed and sometimes molested women at night. However, they targetted only slaves and not free women. The way the young men of that time who molested women distinguished a slave from a free woman was by the cloth that a free woman wore. These verses were thus revealed extolling women to cover themselves so that they would not be molested.
In other words, the ‘illa of this verse — which Asad states is not a timeless injunction — is the prevention of molestation of women.
This obviously means that if without the cloth a woman is not going to be molested, she can do without the hijab just as you can drink non-alcoholic beer because it won’t leave you intoxicated.
In the US and most Western countries a woman without a hijab won’t be molested or annoyed. As such, there is really no need to wear hijab.
(Funnily enough, in Egypt and Pakistan she will be annoyed or molested irrespective of a hijab so I suppose it doesn’t matter whether she wears it or not there too).
I think deep down the tradition recognize this ‘illa. In 2001 when there were incidents of hijabi women being annoyed or harrassed in the US, Hamza Yusuf allowed women to discard the hijab. Why did he do that? Because the tradition recognizes that continued wearing of it would lead to a result that violated the ‘illa behind 33:59.
Anyway, I’m neither a scholar, nor do I want to be, nor am I a woman. I just thought some people would find it useful; especially the point that this position exists within the tradition, especially Fadel’s point about “nearly all commentators.”
I think if you want to oppose the argument I have just laid out you have to argue that there is no such thing as qiyas (analogical reasoning) (because that is where ‘illa comes from). As far as I know, Hanbalis are the only ones who reject qiyas.
The whole tenor of this argument seems to me to be about women cloaking themselves to avoid molestation. Whatever happened to the idea that civilised men should, could and must learn to control themselves? That does not, to me, seem to be a part of Islam! Why not?
Whatever happened to the idea that civilised men should, could and must learn to control themselves? That does not, to me, seem to be a part of Islam! Why not?
Posted by: John M. Joyce
Exactly. Why women are held responsible for men's lust does not make sense to those of us who understand justice, fairness, and equality among the sexes. The idea that women need to cover up so that men can control their sexual appetites is ridiculous and unfair at best; and if God wanted women to look like Hefty bags, then I think He would have created them that way.
Women should not be taught to be ashamed of their beautiful bodies or to feel responsible for a man's lust or lack of self-control. I'm not suggesting that women should dress in a revealing manner, but they should not be asked to dress in Hefty-Halloween costumes either.
God did not intend for women to hate their bodies or themselves.
Oh yeah - I'm preaching to the choir on this issue. Sorry!
Well, there go any plans I might have had to visit the Glorious Islamic Republic of Iran, because the only time this woman will wear a headscarf is in a sport, sexy convertible, a la the incomparable Grace Kelly. Cary Grant alongside wouldn't hurt either!
Is this the mullah's version of spring fashion week?