Freedom of choosing what you wear doesn't mean freedom from consequences (to paraphrase the very popular, and idiotic, phrase about free speech that some people tend to use).
The first comment on the search you’re sharing seems to be about an exec stepping down (I guess that’s a euphemism for getting fired) as a consequence of something he said or did (it seems contributing to a campaign).
Is your point that an exec losing his job (he can get several thousand lower paying jobs and still survive like most people do) is somehow analogous to a woman being jailed or killed for what they choose to wear (or not to wear, in this case?)
Freedom from consequences in the context of speech means you are going to be subject to the social consequences of what you say. Not that it is possible to say it despite it being illegal.
It is, unfortunately the "Islamic Republic of Iran" is anything but Islamic. Show trials, murdering innocents, etc. They're emboldened by their Soviet allies, CCP, etc.
And indeed a few who live in places where governments [propose to] intervene to prevent them from wearing items of clothing associated with some Muslims' ideas of modesty...
Those are almost universally people living in secular states or more moderate muslim ones.
Muslim people living in places with the freedom to choose generally consider it a choice whereas those living in places without that freedom do not or will not admit to such a belief.
I don't know about KZ policy[0], but in at least a couple of countries it's much easier to get asylum if one has reasons to fear for one's safety in one's home country.
[0] although it does seem similar to most countries', judging by the (commonly observed) fact that several of their international athletes started out competing under a different flag.
I feel proud as a human to see these brave women standing up for their rights and wish them and their fellow countrypeople all of the success with no bloodshed. It's time we move out of the age of religious compulsion on all fronts.
Funny thing is, as a practicing muslim - there is no compulsion in religion (direct quote from the Qur'an). Iran literally is using the ignorance of the populace to push their own means of controlling the masses.
(My dad’s grandfather was an imam.) That means that you can’t compel people to convert to Islam: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Baqara_256. That does not mean you can’t have binding religious law Muslims are required to follow.
That being said, the religious requirement is modest dress. Some traditions interpret that to require covering the hair or face. Other traditions do not. Hijab was uncommon in Bangladesh when my parents were growing up, but is increasingly common today due to growing cultural influence from middle eastern schools of Islam. That said, it’s worth noting that Islam is not like Protestant Christianity where lay people are supposed to interpret the meaning for themselves. Where relevant Islamic experts have spoken you’re supposed to defer to their interpretation.
Thank you for the contextualization - but Iran’s handling is nowhere close to Islamic, not observing the hijab doesn’t take you out of the fold of Islam (also where have men been held to the hijab - covering awrah, in such places?) - the 5 pillars are the fardh, everything else is something we strive towards.
Allah SWT’s mercy is boundless, hudhud punishments can’t be enacted for something minor of this sort. Iranian government lost the plot and is using every excuse to feign legitimacy when it never had any.
You are missing the point. Individual should be free to ignore religion. Every religion has bad verses. Quran advocates to kill non belivers and other religious people and yet many choose not to do it. This is not a problem when you live in a secular democratic country. But once you live in a islamic state this law can not be questioned even if you dont like it. For this reason the main point here is not what religion allows or dis allows. It is people should have the right to say fuck off to religion.
I think that the protestors want as much support as possible. If you take the risk to protest then you want your allies and supporters to cheer you on.
Except this movement was not started by the protestors on the ground. It was started by protestors on twitter, some of whom spread false news to exacerbate the situation.
The main reason for these demonstrations is the systematic repression of this corrupt dictator's regime for over 4 decades, and not the coverage of the news and the reflection of the people's voices by Iranian journalists like Alinejad. What causes the killing of people is this bloodthirsty regime and its dictator, Khamenei. Please don't write the regime's fallacies here, no one buys it.
I doubt anyone, save Iran's western opponents, believes the demonstrations are a result of built up systematic repression. ONLY women are participating the vast majority of the times and males who are attempting to support THEM. This is not something that has been building up. But rather was instigated in a color revolution.
Calling Alinejad a journalist is like calling Edward Snowden a journalist. They are nothing other than whistleblowers. Except Alinejad lied this one instance and shows glee when people die.
Please don't make these protests largely about the regime. They are specifically protesting for their rights.
Seeing a lot of people here saying wearing hijab is a free-choice in Islam. As a Muslim this is totally wrong. Religion is not just "I believe in God" and now I can do whatever I want. There are rules and regulations that must be followed in private and public life. This is how Islam has always worked.
Traditionally, the Islamic government legislates and enjoins these rules upon the people. Hijab is one of those rules. From our perspective there is no logical difference between this and Western dress codes in public.
The reason people find a problem with this whole Iran/Hijab thing is not because Women are being compelled to wear it. This wouldn't make sense because governments force things on us all the time.
The real reason is that they hate the hijab. To them, the hijab is oppressive, a sign of patriarchy, a sick form of sexual repression. I mean why else are women protesting in the streets because of it? Surely it must be a symbol of oppression that is finally finding expression in public? Right?
This is a much more sensible reason for us. The haters of Islam have always been running their mouths. They have never made a difference to us Muslims.
What kind of dress codes are there for muslim men? I regularly see muslim immigrant families in the summer where the man wears shorts and no shirt, and the woman wears a long black fully covering fabric. And young daughters maybe six years old with hijab.
Men = generally the navel to the knee must be covered.
> And young daughters maybe six years old with hijab.
To encourage them to wear it, get them accustomed to it. Its not required for them.
Again if someone's knee-jerk reaction to that is "oh my God you are indoctrinating little children who are so innocent, this is child abuse!!!" then I want them to know THAT IS OKAY for them to believe.
Like I said above, hatred of Islam and its public expression is something we are used to.
Yeah this is stupid and blatantly sexist. Used to live by a lot of Muslim immigrants and the boys had no covering but then you have 6yo girls that are covered head to toe.
Just guessing but that is going to mess with kids body-image and cause lots of psychological problems in the future.
I am not defending hijab, but your point about “body image” and “psychological problems” sounds odd to me. It seems to me that westerners, especially women, have way more body image issues than people in my Muslim home country. I don’t know if it’s the revealing clothing or the worship of youth. But it seems disingenuous to complain that someone else’s culture is going to cause body image issues when in your culture people in their 40s are dieting and hitting the gym striving to look like they’re in their 20s.
Hijab is a stupid relic of a bygone era (Ancient Rome and Mesopotamia) & was also adopted by some Muslim countries.
I’d guess the body image issues & mental health kinda play second fiddle to the fact that in a lot of Muslim countries you can legally beat the shit out of your wife and then rape and impregnate her…
Just as long as that stays in Afghanistan and isn’t imported to the developed world we’re all good lol.
As another Muslim, my view is that clothing that attracts attention of others doesn't fulfill the purpose of hijab. So, if you're the only one wearing a head covering, people are going to pay unnecessary attention to you. The same applies if you're the only one not wearing one.
Basically, as long as you're not dressing in a way that attracts attention to yourself, then you're fulfilling the purpose of hijab.
This is against the orthodox Islamic interpretations if you’re saying that a free woman can uncover her hair in public if that’s the social norm. It is quite well known what the limits of awrah are (the parts that need to be covered). If everyone is wearing bikinis, it doesn’t make bikinis permissible.
So if this is only your opinion, it is not an opinion based in sound evidence, or at least please bring some to support it.
There's substantial disagreement around this issue in the Muslim world as evidenced by the fact that many women don't wear head coverings. But I will say that if you're attracting attention to yourself in an effort to be modest, then that's a logical contradiction. Allah gave us the ability to reason and based on one's ability to read through the source material (Quran and Hadith), one should be able to come up with a reasonable interpretation.
I would like to note the fact that some numbers of people comply or do not comply in accordance with divine law does not imply a disagreement with the validity of the law. Rather, it may be due to someone’s ignorance, or shortcomings that they make mistakes.
Many orthodox methodologies of deriving legal rulings (fiqh) from Islamic sources already exist. Scholars from all orthodox schools of thought agree on the woman’s hair being part of what must be covered.
One can come up with many interpretations of divine revelation, but unless someone is guided on the right path, they may come up with conclusions that go astray from the correct way. This is the last part of the supplication of Surah Al-Fatihah (opening chapter of the Quran): a request to be guided on the right path and not of those who are displeasing or misguided.
So I think when you say substantial disagreement, this is not correct. Someone may accept that what they are doing is wrong but are too weak to change. Also, if the people who disagree are not educated or well-studied, their opinion holds less weight than an expert in that particular field.
Reason is very important, which is why interpreting revelation without considering the scholarly tradition may lead to unreasonable conclusions.
> the fact that some numbers of people comply or do not comply in accordance with divine law does not imply a disagreement with the validity of the law. Rather, it may be due to someone’s ignorance, or shortcomings that they make mistakes.
That's not a true premise and an argument based on that isn't sound.
In any case, I'm not on Hacker News to discuss religion, so I'll end the discussion here.
Your point is not quite clear. What I was able to gather is that you are Muslim.
Considering that you are spending the effort to write a comment on HN, I guess you are trying to argue for some position. Being Muslim, you have an insider view on the topic, and I'm very curious to see it.
What should my takeaway be?
I'm genuinely confused by your statements. The way I read it, when you ask "Right?", the prior sentence must be sarcastic. Is it? If so, what should the non-sarcastic explanation be?
A woman was killed by the morality police for not wearing her hijab. Where in the Koran does it say that the punishment for not wearing the hijab is death?
The reason women are protesting in Iran is not because they hate Islam. They’re protesting against an unaccountable and corrupt dictatorship which acts only in its own interests, not in the interest of upholding a fair and just Islamic society.
I thought it’s not clear how she died… it’s really muddled. Clearly Iran leadership has many problems but maybe this is more a powder keg… anyways if you saw videos of Iran you’d see hijab rules were usually lenient at least in urban places it seemed.
“From our perspective there is no logical difference between this and Western dress codes in public.”
Western dress codes generally do not distinguish between men and women and for the most part the convention against exposing women’s breasts in public is not a legal one, and there are protests. And where there are protests the protestors aren’t being tortured and killed like they are in Iran.
It’s interesting when we discuss the concept of freedom, if u look I think some enlightenment thinkers considered freedom in terms of freedom from base desires and vulgarity, to liberate man into higher thought. Then there are also concepts of public/private.
From this regard, is not it freedom to have society less restrained by basal desires and the widespread practice of modesty makes it easier to be private with regard to exposing one’s body?
>From this regard, is not it freedom to have society less restrained by basal desires and the widespread practice of modesty makes it easier to be private with regard to exposing one’s body?
No, it's not. That's a primitive manner of thought that we have hopefully progressed from over the last couple centuries. Freedom is individual choice, not an imposition from another person.
Is there truly freedom? This is a deep question beyond patronizing insults about primitiveness. What freedom is there truly, when humans are so prone to influences that would seem to chain them.
What freedom is there if one becomes addicted to some substance, for example? What freedom is there in being distracted from one’s purpose and higher rational aims due to being in a temptous environment?
I think you will not find “freedom” has much value if it is trapped in loops of dopamine
What makes those higher rational aims so special? Why are they higher? Aren't you also distracted from your "purpose" by needing to eat and rest? So why not also by the need for beautiful company?
You don't really have a purpose in the greater scheme of things. Your desire to not be distracted shouldn't impinge on others. If it's so important to you then lock yourself away rather than chaining the dress code of women or anyone you might find attractive.
You and I are different and I have no agreement with your conclusions.
Eat and rest are also things that do well to be moderated.
You mention chains but modesty and purity is a form of freedom from basal desire and unpleasantness. And many times in society we make socially responsible decisions. For example, it is pretty much understandable that drinking culture in the US with driving has been dangerous, thus DUI laws.
Similarly, encouraging modesty in society and cultivating shyness protects against many harms to society, like increased relationships out of wedlock, greed (modesty is also about humbleness and avoiding looking at what others have), and objectification/commercialization of the human body.
Nothing wrong with relationships out of wedlock. That's how you find out who you like and what you like.
You have your freedom concept upside down. Like I say, you are free to lock yourself in a room if you can't control your own desires, and that way the rest of us can get on with our lives. This sounds like your problem and nobody elses.
Many examples worldwide of people getting married happily and successfully without extended courting, cohabitation, and premarital relations.
And you are free to leave off arguing and jabs but seems that desire still pulls you in. I am done with this discussion, and freely choosing to end it.
Sure, there's many examples of many things, but that's not really significant. The point of being free to court, cohabit and have relations is that you're also free not to do those things. Why restrict other people from doing what they want in this context just because you don't want to?
Yeah but I'm OK with it, and I kept coming back because you never address the central issue. Why do other people have to moderate themselves because of your desires?
I doubt you'll read this but here's a simple thought experiment. If you went away on vacation and came back and found that everyone in your office had decided to work wearing only underwear, for how long exactly would this bother you and prevent work? I reckon I'd be distracted for maybe 5 minutes. I've seen all there is to see already, as has every other adult in the room. Desire should come from intimacy and possibility, not from seeing someone dressed in what is, in your opinion, provocative. What about the people who find moderate dress sexy and overtly sexy clothing a turn off, where do they exist in your world?
83 comments
[ 4.7 ms ] story [ 133 ms ] threadhttps://www.azquotes.com/quote/728639
Is your point that an exec losing his job (he can get several thousand lower paying jobs and still survive like most people do) is somehow analogous to a woman being jailed or killed for what they choose to wear (or not to wear, in this case?)
(Edit: typos)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Mahsa_Amini
Unspecified "Muslim people on Facebook" say something you are almost certain to disagree with.
No examples, no nuance, just a call to racism.
Muslim people living in places with the freedom to choose generally consider it a choice whereas those living in places without that freedom do not or will not admit to such a belief.
[0] although it does seem similar to most countries', judging by the (commonly observed) fact that several of their international athletes started out competing under a different flag.
That being said, the religious requirement is modest dress. Some traditions interpret that to require covering the hair or face. Other traditions do not. Hijab was uncommon in Bangladesh when my parents were growing up, but is increasingly common today due to growing cultural influence from middle eastern schools of Islam. That said, it’s worth noting that Islam is not like Protestant Christianity where lay people are supposed to interpret the meaning for themselves. Where relevant Islamic experts have spoken you’re supposed to defer to their interpretation.
Allah SWT’s mercy is boundless, hudhud punishments can’t be enacted for something minor of this sort. Iranian government lost the plot and is using every excuse to feign legitimacy when it never had any.
The same thing is repeated all over the world unfortunately with other religious faiths.
I fear that many of the people who have encouraged these protests are still in the shadows smiling everytime someone dies.
Alinejad is one of them.
Calling Alinejad a journalist is like calling Edward Snowden a journalist. They are nothing other than whistleblowers. Except Alinejad lied this one instance and shows glee when people die.
Please don't make these protests largely about the regime. They are specifically protesting for their rights.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-63847173
And she will not return to Iran. She and her husband already moved to Spain.
Quite a number of Soviet chess players defected while attending tournaments abroad.
Traditionally, the Islamic government legislates and enjoins these rules upon the people. Hijab is one of those rules. From our perspective there is no logical difference between this and Western dress codes in public.
The reason people find a problem with this whole Iran/Hijab thing is not because Women are being compelled to wear it. This wouldn't make sense because governments force things on us all the time.
The real reason is that they hate the hijab. To them, the hijab is oppressive, a sign of patriarchy, a sick form of sexual repression. I mean why else are women protesting in the streets because of it? Surely it must be a symbol of oppression that is finally finding expression in public? Right?
This is a much more sensible reason for us. The haters of Islam have always been running their mouths. They have never made a difference to us Muslims.
> And young daughters maybe six years old with hijab.
To encourage them to wear it, get them accustomed to it. Its not required for them.
Again if someone's knee-jerk reaction to that is "oh my God you are indoctrinating little children who are so innocent, this is child abuse!!!" then I want them to know THAT IS OKAY for them to believe.
Like I said above, hatred of Islam and its public expression is something we are used to.
Just guessing but that is going to mess with kids body-image and cause lots of psychological problems in the future.
I’d guess the body image issues & mental health kinda play second fiddle to the fact that in a lot of Muslim countries you can legally beat the shit out of your wife and then rape and impregnate her…
Just as long as that stays in Afghanistan and isn’t imported to the developed world we’re all good lol.
Basically, as long as you're not dressing in a way that attracts attention to yourself, then you're fulfilling the purpose of hijab.
So if this is only your opinion, it is not an opinion based in sound evidence, or at least please bring some to support it.
Many orthodox methodologies of deriving legal rulings (fiqh) from Islamic sources already exist. Scholars from all orthodox schools of thought agree on the woman’s hair being part of what must be covered.
One can come up with many interpretations of divine revelation, but unless someone is guided on the right path, they may come up with conclusions that go astray from the correct way. This is the last part of the supplication of Surah Al-Fatihah (opening chapter of the Quran): a request to be guided on the right path and not of those who are displeasing or misguided.
So I think when you say substantial disagreement, this is not correct. Someone may accept that what they are doing is wrong but are too weak to change. Also, if the people who disagree are not educated or well-studied, their opinion holds less weight than an expert in that particular field.
Reason is very important, which is why interpreting revelation without considering the scholarly tradition may lead to unreasonable conclusions.
That's not a true premise and an argument based on that isn't sound.
In any case, I'm not on Hacker News to discuss religion, so I'll end the discussion here.
Considering that you are spending the effort to write a comment on HN, I guess you are trying to argue for some position. Being Muslim, you have an insider view on the topic, and I'm very curious to see it.
What should my takeaway be?
I'm genuinely confused by your statements. The way I read it, when you ask "Right?", the prior sentence must be sarcastic. Is it? If so, what should the non-sarcastic explanation be?
The reason women are protesting in Iran is not because they hate Islam. They’re protesting against an unaccountable and corrupt dictatorship which acts only in its own interests, not in the interest of upholding a fair and just Islamic society.
Western dress codes generally do not distinguish between men and women and for the most part the convention against exposing women’s breasts in public is not a legal one, and there are protests. And where there are protests the protestors aren’t being tortured and killed like they are in Iran.
From this regard, is not it freedom to have society less restrained by basal desires and the widespread practice of modesty makes it easier to be private with regard to exposing one’s body?
No, it's not. That's a primitive manner of thought that we have hopefully progressed from over the last couple centuries. Freedom is individual choice, not an imposition from another person.
What freedom is there if one becomes addicted to some substance, for example? What freedom is there in being distracted from one’s purpose and higher rational aims due to being in a temptous environment?
I think you will not find “freedom” has much value if it is trapped in loops of dopamine
You don't really have a purpose in the greater scheme of things. Your desire to not be distracted shouldn't impinge on others. If it's so important to you then lock yourself away rather than chaining the dress code of women or anyone you might find attractive.
Eat and rest are also things that do well to be moderated.
You mention chains but modesty and purity is a form of freedom from basal desire and unpleasantness. And many times in society we make socially responsible decisions. For example, it is pretty much understandable that drinking culture in the US with driving has been dangerous, thus DUI laws.
Similarly, encouraging modesty in society and cultivating shyness protects against many harms to society, like increased relationships out of wedlock, greed (modesty is also about humbleness and avoiding looking at what others have), and objectification/commercialization of the human body.
You have your freedom concept upside down. Like I say, you are free to lock yourself in a room if you can't control your own desires, and that way the rest of us can get on with our lives. This sounds like your problem and nobody elses.
And you are free to leave off arguing and jabs but seems that desire still pulls you in. I am done with this discussion, and freely choosing to end it.
Yeah but I'm OK with it, and I kept coming back because you never address the central issue. Why do other people have to moderate themselves because of your desires?
I doubt you'll read this but here's a simple thought experiment. If you went away on vacation and came back and found that everyone in your office had decided to work wearing only underwear, for how long exactly would this bother you and prevent work? I reckon I'd be distracted for maybe 5 minutes. I've seen all there is to see already, as has every other adult in the room. Desire should come from intimacy and possibility, not from seeing someone dressed in what is, in your opinion, provocative. What about the people who find moderate dress sexy and overtly sexy clothing a turn off, where do they exist in your world?