Posted on 09/22/2014 4:29:20 AM PDT by markomalley
“Chastity patrols”, created by an Iranian paramilitary group, are patrolling the streets of Iran to force women to go “well covered” in public.
At the beginning of summer, trendy Iranian women started wearing lighter clothes, more transparent veils to cover their hair and slightly shortened sleeves that still end below the elbow.
That tendency prompted the more conservative sectors to demand imposition of “good hijab” in accordance with a much stricter interpretation of the Islamic dress code.
But the Ansar-e-Hezbollah group has gone further and organised street patrols in Tehran “to control morality in women”, especially young women, who are more relaxed about complying with the hijab, which requires a woman to cover everything except her face, hands and feet.
The paramilitary group, which has the support of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, claims to have trained and launched “dozens of groups to enjoin good and forbid evil”.
The group’s 3,000 women and 1,000 men patrol the streets in civilian clothes to warn and intimidate those women who, in their view, violate the rules of decency required by the Islamic Republic.
The secretary general of Ansar-e Hezbollah, Abdul Hamid Mohtasham says it is necessary “to crush those who spread corruption”.
This development comes shortly after Rouhani, who won an election after promising greater social freedom, said in a speech that behaviour cannot be imposed on people.
“Is it possible to improve culture with vans, minibuses, police and soldiers?” he asked, in a clear reference to the morality police, who also prowl the streets.
“This is a religious dictatorship,” Saide, a 29-year-old resident of Tehran said.
She wears an ordinary veil similar to many young women, exposing much of her hair.
Her classmate Sharshani, 26, believes that “this act shows no respect for people”.
“Each person should be able to dress as he or she wants” is an idea that has been taking hold in a country with a predominantly young population.
Fatima, who works for a tourism company, points out that “in other [Muslim] countries, such as Turkey, there are women who are veiled and some who are not”.
“But those who are veiled do not look down at those who are not, they respect them, but here, they look at us with hatred, just because we wear makeup or nail polish,” she said.
“In theory, we cannot expose our hair in the street. But we all show it, but that means we could be stopped at any time. Always walking in fear.”
The presence on the streets of some 4,000 Islamic hardliners who do not respond to any official authority will only complicate the situation for those who have a more tolerant view of hijab.
Iranian Interior Minister Abdolreza Rahmani-Fazli said the patrols would need official authorisation to operate and made it clear that such permission would be forthcoming.
“The interior ministry is responsible for seeing to these issues and will have an appropriate response to the measures,” he said.
It would be a noble thing for America to arm the women of Iran.
Iran was a predominantly muslim country prior to 1979 and hijab was not necessary. The Shah was muslim. Women could wear bikinis at the beach. So, putting a search label of ‘rop’ doesn’t explain this.
Certainly it does. While the Shah was Muslim, he was deposed by Muslim hardliners in 1978 -- and one of the primary reasons given for this is that he was basically an apostate. When Ataturk established the Turkish Republic, he outlawed traditional Muslim dress...because he wanted the state to become more secular and less Muslim. Any time Muslim hardliners have taken over a country, they have established dress regulations.
In other words, the more stridently Muslim, the more these things happen. Therefore, it is ENTIRELY appropriate to use the keyword "rop" for a thread like this.
There is a difference between "nominally Muslim" and "fundamentalist Muslim". Under the Shah, the fundamentalists were not in a position to impose their positions upon the non-fundamentalists. Currently, they are.
I wonder when the Iranian people decide to respond to these "morality police" with a discrete knife in the back?
“Muslim hardliners”, “stridently Muslim “
qualifying words. These women fighting against the hijab are muslim; members of the ‘rop’ as you put it.
“There is a difference between “nominally Muslim” and “fundamentalist Muslim”. “
So, lumping them altogether under one heading of ‘rop’ is inaccurate. Correct?
It seems that the more one embraces Islam, the more irrational, violent, and misogynistic one gets.
Are you asserting that this is mere coincidence?
It is completely accurate. The only "peaceful", "moderate" Muslims are people who are not really following Islam.
ISLAM itself is never "moderate". There is no "moderate Islam". There is only Islam, and people who follow Islam, versus people who call themselves Muslims but do not follow Islam.
Do you see what I'm saying, or do I have to do into finer detail?
“It seems that the more one embraces Islam, the more irrational, violent, and misogynistic one gets. “
Yes. But you & others use the label ‘rop’ as a pejorative term for the “ irrational, violent,” muslims. Obviously, it doesn’t apply to these women and many others.
That’s my point.
“The only “peaceful”, “moderate” Muslims are people who are not really following Islam.”
They wouldn’t agree. And it’s really not your call, it’s theirs
Not our problem. Our problem is that enlightened nations are throwing civilization away by allowing immigration from these countries. (among other things)
Right, and there can be Christians who sacrifice to Ba'al and deny the resurrection of Jesus.
It's not a question of who's "call" it is. It's the objective answer to "Are they behaving in accordance to what the plain text of the Qur'an says?":
Indeed, Allah has purchased from the believers their lives and their properties [in exchange] for that they will have Paradise. They fight in the cause of Allah , so they kill and are killed. [It is] a true promise [binding] upon Him in the Torah and the Gospel and the Qur'an. And who is truer to his covenant than Allah ? So rejoice in your transaction which you have contracted. And it is that which is the great attainment.
Get ready for Democrat TV spots claiming they were originally Mitt Romney’s idea.
Your examples is ridiculous, because people who would deny the resurrection would not qualify by definition as Christians.
What about Jews who aren’t Kosher? Or Catholics 60yrs ago who ate meat on Fridays & used birth control. Is it your place to say that they aren’t really Jewish or Catholic ? And what about Christians who pick and choose which parts of the Bible they believe ?
I worked with a woman whose husband is a missionary...he believes every word of the Bible is God’s word as written - Old Testament & New. In other words, he doesn’t believe that a story may be an allegory or parable. Are people who don’t, not Christians?
It’s not for me or you to say.
Your Quran quote doesn’t define islam or what is necessary to be muslim. There are millions of muslims who don’t even follow the basic Five Pillars of Islam - they may pray 3 times a day instead of 5 or not fast as they should during the entire month of Ramadan.
It’s not for anyone else to define them as ‘not really muslim’.
Have you actually read the Quran? Yes or no. I have.
Yes. And many muslims haven’t because they can’t read.
So what? If they know only know 5 lines from the Quran, does that mean they’re not muslims?
A Muslim who does not know the Quran can think he's a Muslim, and can think that Jihad is not part of Islam, and thus walk around as one of your "moderate" Muslims.
But what happens when an Imam finally gets around to telling him what the Quran demands of Muslims? He will then have a choice between becoming a "real" Muslim, or deciding that Islam is not for him (at which point he would be considered an apostate by Muslims who actually read the Quran and Hadith, and thus subject to the death penalty).
Or he/she can choose to believe that the quran is full of stories & what went on at the time of Mohammed doesn’t apply these days, and just continue living as they had been, which fortunately is what most do.
Which comes back to my original point, that whatever they call themselves, they are not really people who Mohammed would consider Muslims. Nor would people who reject Jihad be considered Muslims by the dominant clerical opinions of the current day.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.