| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Jihad Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Grab your coat, grab your hat, your chador, and your running shoes, and then leave your worries on the doorstep (maybe). It's not just summertime that presents the possibility of running afoul of the Iranian police. "Tight trousers targeted in Iran clothing crackdown," from Reuters:
TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iranian police will crack down on women in Tehran flouting Islamic dress codes with winter fashions deemed immodest, such as tight trousers tucked into long boots, an officer was quoted as saying on Saturday.
"Considering the start of the cold season and its special way of dressing, police will start early next week a drive against women who wear improper dress," Tehran police chief Ahmad Reza Radan was quoted as saying by state news agency IRNA.
"Tight trousers tucked inside long boots while wearing short overcoats are against Islamic codes," the police chief said.
"Wearing a hat or cap instead of scarves is also against Islamic dress codes."
Police officials were not immediately available for comment. The Iranian week begins on Saturday.
Police regularly clamp down on skimpier clothing and looser headscarves in the summer. Usually this is for just a few weeks but this year the campaign has run into the autumn.
There has not recently been a move against winter fashion.
Enforcement of Islamic dress codes that require women to cover their hair and disguise the shape of their body with loose overcoats has become progressively sterner since President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad came to power in 2005.
Women found dressing inappropriately may be warned or, particularly for repeat offenders, can be taken to a police station and fined. Police this year have also cracked down on men sporting what are considered "Western" spiked haircuts.
In October, a newspaper said 122,000 people, mostly women, had been warned about their clothing and nearly 7,000 of those had to attend classes on respecting the rules.
Young women, particularly in wealthier urban areas, often challenge limitations by wearing tight clothing and colorful headscarves that barely cover their hair. The codes are less commonly challenged in poor suburbs and rural regions.
Iran has rejected criticism by rights groups of such crackdowns and said its efforts were aimed at "fighting morally corrupt people".
Posted by Marisol at December 1, 2007 1:47 PM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
Iran has rejected criticism by rights groups of such crackdowns and said its efforts were aimed at "fighting morally corrupt people".
Ummm.... people who act like their prophet are morally corrupt and bankrupt. Sad.
![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/nav-commenters.gif)
at December 1, 2007 2:10 PM
Morally corrupt? For wearing pants? I'll spare listing all the offenses listed. But muslims have no leg to stand on in regards as immoral dress. We have San Fransisco.(beat that mahmoud..*thumping chest) Of course muslims have no legs to stand on anything, but I digress. Besides, if the ladies still wear large flowing outerwear won't the be following the (chocking) law? I constantly hear how the Iranian people are ripe for revolution. What will it take??? If they are waiting for the US to back them it'll be awhile, unfortunately. Since Bush show an unwillingness to add more to his plate as well as to not offend his peaceful muslim friends. And I see no one in the bullpen ready to take over the game.
Posted by: Kevin at December 1, 2007 2:12 PM
I may be wrong but I don't think even Stalin, arguably the most heinous monster to have ever lived, was this oppressive.
Posted by: SaracensAtTheGates at December 1, 2007 2:13 PM
Am I the only one who thinks that Iran has some of the most beautiful women alive?
Posted by: RoobartSbunsar at December 1, 2007 2:33 PM
No Roobart. You are not alone. Persian women can be extremely beautiful. Of course I think it also has to do with the nature of their heritage, you know, the mysterious factor.
Posted by: Kevin at December 1, 2007 2:50 PM
At least 5 trousers-clad women could gang up on the chador-encumbered ugly Basija and whoopass would prevail...in my world.
Posted by: Jauhara Al-Kafirah at December 1, 2007 3:08 PM
Just try to imagine living with this crap everyday. Some old ugly bag telling you how to dress.
Jauhara Al-Kafirah, I have often wondered why people don't just gang up and kick the s**t out of the religious police. I guess the threat of hanging and other islamic love taps is good enough reason.
at December 1, 2007 3:47 PM
Wardrobe Police -- now I've heard of everything! Next they'll have a police squad handing out citations for saying BAD WORDS and for thinking BAD THOUGHTS. Islam is lame.
Posted by: champ at December 1, 2007 3:58 PM
No mention of "cracking down" on men and what they are required to wear and not wear. That's right -- I almost forgot -- men are exempt from such silly laws.
Islam, where double standards reign supreme.
Posted by: champ at December 1, 2007 4:22 PM
"Jauhara Al-Kafirah, I have often wondered why people don't just gang up and kick the s**t out of the religious police. I guess the threat of hanging and other islamic love taps is good enough reason."
They got big batons, I guess. Honestly, though, I've often wondered the same thing.
Posted by: RoobartSbunsar at December 1, 2007 4:36 PM
...Iran has rejected criticism by rights groups of such crackdowns and said its efforts were aimed at "fighting morally corrupt people".
They could start with Almondnuts himself.
We have a very large expat Iranian population in Vancouver (North Vancouver to be more precise) and yes Roobart, the ladies are gorgeous!
http://www.asianpacificpost.com/portal2/402881910674ebab010674f4b7ad1359.do.html
at December 1, 2007 4:40 PM
"We have a very large expat Iranian population in Vancouver (North Vancouver to be more precise) and yes Roobart, the ladies are gorgeous!
http://www.asianpacificpost.com/portal2/402881910674ebab010674f4b7ad1359.do.htm"
To quote the great Borat: "WAWAWEWA!"
Posted by: RoobartSbunsar at December 1, 2007 4:54 PM
Islam is slavery and Muslims are slaves, plain and simple.
what a perverted twisted anti human theology this pathetic excuse for a faith is. it has to rank as the most violent and destructive cults in the history of humanity.
Posted by: MoBlows at December 1, 2007 5:16 PM
The whole idea behind forcing women to dress like demonic nuns is so Muslim men don't have to keep their own lusts in check -- they instead focus on what a woman is wearing.
Covering a woman from head to toe means they don't have to take responsibility for their OWN lust, and it's easier to blame the woman, rather than examine their own heart.
And when I weigh these outrageous Muslim dress codes up against something Jesus said, then I realize how much MORE Muslim men are avoiding their own responsibility and struggle with lust, and how they are pinning the problem squarely on the womans shoulders and the way that they dress.
How backwards, but then that's par for the course. Anyway....Lets look at what Jesus said:
"Whoever looks upon a woman to lust after her has committed adultery already with her in his heart."
When I read this passage, I hear Jesus not only pointing out the seriousness of lust, but I also hear him aiming the problem of lust at the person who is lusting, not on the subject of lust. He makes no mention of what the other person might be wearing. None.
Granted, the Bible encourages modest dress, but in this particular passage Jesus is not raising how a woman is dressed because I believe He wants to focus on where the problem of lust truly lies -- within a mans (or womans) own heart.
at December 1, 2007 5:29 PM
champ writes:
""Whoever looks upon a woman to lust after her has committed adultery already with her in his heart.""
By this standard, I've had hundreds of adulterous
relationships (in my heart, of course) but here
on Earth I've been bucking the odds (and not f--,
errr, you know...) and been a faithful husband for
years.
at December 1, 2007 5:43 PM
Hi root_cause:
"f--"....whatever do you mean?!! :-)
I hear you, because we have all lusted after someone we aren't married to -- all of us -- I was simply trying to focus on a particular aspect of this passage, and that's who is solely responsible for the problem of lust - and it ain't how someone else is dressed!
Posted by: champ at December 1, 2007 5:54 PM
The only way they can wriggle from under the clerics' thumbs is an armed revolt, and that has as much a future as iceberg in the Arabian Sea.
Only when the men have had enough of the mistreatment of Iranian women will things change. Iranian men are Muslims; we know how much empathy they will have for their women. Not only will a woman face jail, she will face the wrath of her male family members who will blame her for the disgrace.
The silence of women in the US and Europe is deafening.
Posted by: Pelayo at December 1, 2007 6:10 PM
Armed revolt--that will follow if Ahmadinutjob gets his way and instigates (inaugurates the Mahdi's) Apocalyse Now. That's the only way to make sense of "fighting morally corrupt people" on the streets of Tehran--a fanatic's attempt to pave the way for the Twelfth Imam's return by "purifying" his nation.
If we anticipate what follows these frantic apocalyptic preparations (at an unsustainable pace), then we see another attempted Holocaust--May God preserve His own!--followed by defeat, disillusionment, and revolution, in quick succession.
Posted by: John C at December 1, 2007 8:47 PM
How long will it be before these idiots search everyone's house for offensive clothing? It'll be just like "Fahrenheit 451", complete with the burning of the offensive material right on the spot.
Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at December 1, 2007 8:58 PM
Granted, the Bible encourages modest dress, but in this particular passage Jesus is not raising how a woman is dressed because I believe He wants to focus on where the problem of lust truly lies -- within a mans (or womans) own heart.
Posted by: champ
Just to show a further difference. Not having a Bible right next to me to confer, modest dress is something left to society to determine. The West has changed its definition of modest as time has progressed. Muslims, as usual, are stuck in the 7th century. If anyone knows factually that the Bible does indeed specify what is modest dress please let me know. For if it does, it further shows the differences and who is being unreasonable.
Posted by: Kevin at December 1, 2007 9:28 PM
Welcome to islam. Well, this is what they wanted since 1979, isn't it? ...Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it (This is something all those mulims who live in a western country and wish for sharia law to think about).
Posted by: mrockroll1969 at December 1, 2007 10:18 PM
the people of iran need to start bombing the Islamics. they need to start targeting local politicians, the imams and the islamic police forces.
Posted by: leonthepigfarmer at December 1, 2007 11:11 PM
BTW, Roobart, though I know little about your native land, isn't Borat a fellow countryman of yours? [All right, so Kamchatka isn't Central Asia--sue me, OK? LOL!]
Posted by: John C at December 1, 2007 11:22 PM
Think wild slutty womens, Roob. (So are you going on the next razzia, or not?)
Posted by: John C at December 1, 2007 11:26 PM
Morrissey weighs in on immigration:
Morrissey complains that immigration has led to the loss of Britain's identity
Posted by: Wimbledon Womble at December 1, 2007 11:46 PM
"Grab your coat, grab your hat..."
No. Grab your coat, and get your hat/leave your troubles on the doorstep/life can be so sweet (or: complete) on the sunny side of the street.
Posted by: Hugh at December 1, 2007 11:53 PM
On the other hand, Louis Armstrong sings "grab your coat and grab your hat":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ehI8gIHZwM&feature=related
Perhaps I am imagining a version I thought I grew up with.
Posted by: Hugh at December 1, 2007 11:55 PM
Up with Morally Corrupt People! Up with Corruption on Earth! Up with Mischief in the Land! Up with Counterjihad and the Anticaliphate of Cyberspace! Up with Our Beloved Antikalifah Robert Spencer I! The Praised One and Captain of Infidels by the Grace of God, All Hail! DEUS VULT!
I figure that what we Infidels need to do is borrow another one of those Islamic innovations, see, and build our OWN personality cult, and creed, around our OWN exalted warlord--just think how that'll piss off those jihadists, what? Send 'em up on their own petard, no? Am I right?
So, who's with me here? Any takers? Guys? Hey, guys? All right, hey! How about spoils--booty? You guys--WILD SLUTTY WOMENS!!
Posted by: John C
at December 2, 2007 12:00 AM
Hugh--
The version I had in mind was, indeed, Louis Armstrong. Slightly more energetic version, though-- a sunnier side of the street and more worries successfully left on the doorstep, I guess.
Posted by: MarisolJW at December 2, 2007 12:12 AM
Marisol and Hugh-
The tune for Iran, at present, would be "Beat Me Daddy, Eight to the Bar".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DVdojmdQK1U
Posted by: profitsbeard at December 2, 2007 1:03 AM
Champ; re the Jesus quote "Whoever looks upon a woman to lust after her has committed adultery already with her in his heart."
Who knows what he actually said or if he said anything to that effect at all, but the English translation is interesting in that it says 'adultery' NOT 'fornication'. http://www.lectlaw.com/def/a160.htm
It sounds rather that he was speaking specifically of Commandments #7 a #10:
...7. You shall not commit adultery.
...10. You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor’s."
Basically, the emphasis is on the theft aspect rather than the sexual. It's pretty hard to find fault with the sentiment as the results of the act can be so destructive.
LUST for unattached women, on the other hand...:)
at December 2, 2007 2:46 AM
"BTW, Roobart, though I know little about your native land, isn't Borat a fellow countryman of yours? [All right, so Kamchatka isn't Central Asia--sue me, OK? LOL!]"
I believe he's from Kazakhstan.
Posted by: RoobartSbunsar at December 2, 2007 7:30 AM
"So, who's with me here? Any takers? Guys? Hey, guys? All right, hey! How about spoils--booty? You guys--WILD SLUTTY WOMENS!!"
Count me in!
Posted by: RoobartSbunsar at December 2, 2007 7:30 AM
GOOD MAN!
Now, we just have to wait for our Illustrious Leader to send us forth--then it's "loose beguiling women, we'll here to liberate you all!" Onward--Deus Vult!
Posted by: John C at December 2, 2007 10:12 PM
Nothing is more invigorating to the libido than a good cybercampaign in the cause of Counterjihad, played by the traditional rules of engagement, coupled with modern technological advances. Being a JihadWatcher sure beats being a Luddite in my book.
Posted by: John C at December 2, 2007 10:25 PM
Hi DaninVan -
Interesting point! Lusting after anything, whether it be a person or a thing, is to want something that doesn't BELONG to you. I mean, it's OK to lust after your own spouse (at least I think it is), but yet it is not OK to lust after someone to whom you are not married. Except after 20 years of marriage, lusting after my husband is somewhat of a chore these days :-) Hey, I'm just being honest!
Posted by: champ at December 2, 2007 10:48 PM
Champ; is there such a word as 'lusticious'? ;)
Posted by: DaninVan at December 3, 2007 12:53 PM
ha - good one! :-)
Posted by: champ at December 3, 2007 5:28 PM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)