Mahsa Amini, 22-year old Iranian, dies after morality police arrest

[root]

Thank God we got to see Ammars deep, professional and unbiased opinions on a very complex, probably british funded rioting in Iran. We would truly be lost without this young master of geopolitics. 

[Andaros]

40 minutes ago, 313_Waiter said:

Salaam,

could someone answer this western propaganda against Islam. I saw posted on r/islam reddit that women protesters were married so that they could be executed. The source was these two links:

https://www.ihrr.org/ihrr_article/violence-en_sexual-torture-of-women-political-prisoners-in-the-islamic-republic-of-iran/
https://women.ncr-iran.org/2015/11/13/female-prisoners-who-are-virgins-must-be-raped-before-execution-to-prevent-them-from-entering-heaven/

Salalm,

No. Just no. My heart is overburdened already. Perhaps someone else can answer..

[EiE]

Sheikh imran husein says that the enemies of islam and enemies of Iran saw an opportunity and made it their full-time mission, by taking advantage of Amini's death in order to destabilise the country, bring about its destruction, and install a secular government in its stead. Nobody has any regard to her death. It's all about taking advantage of her death.

And, yeah, I agree with him. Furthermore, none of these influencers or other commoners who are only interested in getting likes and approval have the slightest regard for women. Iran is not the only country that would benefit from their assistance if they cared about women, there are tons of other countries that really could benefit from their support, but nah. And if they are so adamant about helping the Iranian ladies, then help them by opening your doors to them rather than destroying another nation and imposing your laws on it.

[Ashvazdanghe]

7 hours ago, 313_Waiter said:

Salaam,

could someone answer this western propaganda against Islam. I saw posted on r/islam reddit that women protesters were married so that they could be executed. The source was these two links:

Salam second link of "ncr" belongs to mko terrorists which they are spreading such propganda due to their grudge & enmity with Iran & Shia islam which in similar fashion "ihrr" is an american backed propganda site which uses propaganda of MKO terrorists as it's main source of information.

[Haji 2003]

[Haji 2003]

 

[Eddie Mecca]

'Who Were The Rioters In Iran?' / Islamic Pulse 3 (50 min)

 

[Eddie Mecca]

On 11/10/2022 at 3:07 PM, -Rejector- said:

[Mod Note: After Quran recitation and dua, the speech starts at 47:30 minutes.]

Edited Thursday at 09:52 PM by Hameedeh
Mod Note

Not gonna lie...that was physically painful to watch...35 minutes of my life that I won't get back...does ranch dressing come with that word salad?

[علوي]

 

[علوي]

 

[Haji 2003]

Quote

Among the demonstrators, there are those who kill the other, so that the regime is accused of murder

 

[Andaros]

What I find most distressing about the protests is the fundamental bidirectional disrespect on display.

 

It is impossible for me to envision the young people in my family being treated and responding with such disrespect.

 

[Allah Seeker]

The way I would like to imagine a 'way out' for the current Iranian government from this, is to survive the storm. This storm can only be survived with the parable of a bamboo or palm tree. It bends, it's flexible, strong, etc. My point is that the bamboo has to bend and respect the wind, while being free to change direction a bit here and there. 

As someone expecting to be questioned by God, who told us to follow the Way of the prophet and the ahl bait, my choices are limited in this issue, to point out that after years of research I have yet to find a single Hadith saying that these rules were ordered by these holy personages to the general public, as is the case in Iran since the revolution. Not only that, but please correct me if I'm wrong, but there seems to have never been a single punishment for this lack of garment. 

So to me personally, I must stand with these women who are fighting for the rights that existed under those times. Yet my prayers and hope are that both the great Iranian people, including their government - have a smooth transition, in what seems to be a new age dawning. WAllah Aalam

[Haji 2003]

 

[Haji 2003]

17 hours ago, Allah Seeker said:

As someone expecting to be questioned by God, who told us to follow the Way of the prophet and the ahl bait, my choices are limited in this issue, to point out that after years of research I have yet to find a single Hadith saying that these rules were ordered by these holy personages to the general public,

So you don't consider their own behaviour to be any source of guidance?

[kadhim]

3 hours ago, Haji 2003 said:

So you don't consider their own behaviour to be any source of guidance?

This is not a coherent question. It’s casually blurring together two distinct things.

There is an individual voluntarily taking the example of the aimmah as an example to be followed as a personal commitment between themselves and God.

And then there is the idea of making that ought a shall with the force of the state to enforce it.

[Allah Seeker]

2 hours ago, Haji 2003 said:

So you don't consider their own behaviour to be any source of guidance?

The Iranian people are the ones who backed and as a majority decided to support the Islamic revolution. At the same time the armies that fought Saddam were Iranians, and the clerics are Iranian. It's an internal thing with general ambitions of representing "Islam". The Iranians took it upon themselves, and officially represent the limits and laws implemented by Allah and the prophet, while being more lenient in this day and age is a must in most things. Thankfully people aren't getting their hands cut off, for instance. But seeing more strict rules than that of the prophet or Ali pbut is painful and can't be the right way in my books. 

So what I hope that the Iranians don't make hasty , drastic moves against their own government, but at the same time the government should not be afraid to bend to things that they have no true "Islamic" backing, such as the head scarf mandate. That mandate won't fly, as it is against the way of the prophet. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but is there a single proof that the prophet mandated this, and even killed people to defend such a mandate? Or prosecute anybody for not wearing a head veil?

[Guest enough]

3 hours ago, kadhim said:

This is not a coherent question. It’s casually blurring together two distinct things.

There is an individual voluntarily taking the example of the aimmah as an example to be followed as a personal commitment between themselves and God.

And then there is the idea of making that ought a shall with the force of the state to enforce it.

It's perfectly coherent to the rest of us. You're the only one who seems to be having trouble receiving what we say. You talk like this because you have no comeback.

[Haji 2003]

3 hours ago, kadhim said:

It’s casually blurring together two distinct things.

But the person who I was replying to did not make the distinction either.

Their argument focused on the lack of explicit guidance on the issue, while at the same time claiming to follow esteemed personalities in Shia Islam. And it was that specific point I was replying to.

[Haji 2003]

4 hours ago, Allah Seeker said:

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but is there a single proof that the prophet mandated this,

A detailed discussion based on any analysis of the primary literature is above my pay-grade, so I'll defer to a secondary source, while acknowledging that others may come along and analyse the reliability of the Hadiths being referenced:

Quote

Abu Nasr al-Bazinli quotes Imam ‘Ali as-Rida (‘a) as follows: “A woman does not have to cover her head in the presence of a boy who has not yet reached the age of puberty.”4 The implication of this statement is obvious that once a boy who is not related to a woman reaches the age of puberty, she has to cover her head in his presence.

https://www.al-islam.org/hijab-muslim-womens-dress-islamic-or-cultural-sayyid-muhammad-rizvi/sunna-and-hijab

This link has more explicit reference to the Qur'an itself. The following is a discussion of 24:31:

Quote

The meaning of khimar and the context in which the verse was revealed clearly talks about concealing the head and then using the loose ends of the scarf to conceal the neck and the bosom. It is absurd to believe that the Qur’an would use the word khimar (which, by definition, means a cloth that covers the head) only to conceal the bosom with the exclusion of the head! It would be like saying to put on your shirt only around the belly or the waist without covering the chest!

https://www.al-islam.org/hijab-muslim-womens-dress-islamic-or-cultural-sayyid-muhammad-rizvi/quran-and-hijab

Based on what you have said I guess you are already familiar with these arguments, so I am only posting them here for the benefit of those who are reading this thread and who are not.

[Allah Seeker]

4 hours ago, Haji 2003 said:

A detailed discussion based on any analysis of the primary literature is above my pay-grade, so I'll defer to a secondary source, while acknowledging that others may come along and analyse the reliability of the Hadiths being referenced:

https://www.al-islam.org/hijab-muslim-womens-dress-islamic-or-cultural-sayyid-muhammad-rizvi/sunna-and-hijab

This link has more explicit reference to the Qur'an itself. The following is a discussion of 24:31:

https://www.al-islam.org/hijab-muslim-womens-dress-islamic-or-cultural-sayyid-muhammad-rizvi/quran-and-hijab

Based on what you have said I guess you are already familiar with these arguments, so I am only posting them here for the benefit of those who are reading this thread and who are not.

Thanks. Well that is the first I see in terms of a Hadith. It's just that if it truly was a public mandate, then certain questions arise:

1. Wouldn't there be a single narration depicting the public proclamation of those limits from a minbar for instance. There would have been a narration from several witness from the public and friends and family. 

2. Also, wouldn't there be a single narrated incident of ladies being punished or told off for not wearing headscarf?

Thirdly: isn't it unanimously agreed upon that slaves during and after the time of the prophet would not be even allowed sometimes to wear a veil, as it was a status symbol? ( I read that they ripped the veils off the remaining female ahl bait in Karbala, as they were treated as the worst of slaves, and by the pseudoislamic army of yazid )

For these reasons, and others as well, I personally stand with the first protests by the great Iranian women, at the very beginning of the revolution, who were negatively surprised by this mandate. Many pro revolutionary people lost faith in the government from then, even though they were for it to that point. I guess they saw it as not part of the bargain and vision the people had at that time. 

But I'm open to discuss this head cover mandate issue till somebody can prove to me that it was truly publicly, politically mandated the way it is in Iran today.

Let us pray for the Iranians and all the people

 

[Allah Seeker]

What concerns the word Khimar, without being an official scholar, let me say that this word does not occur that much in the Quran, and only used once in context to dress.

Then it is used today for 'Kheyma' for instance, which is 'tent', and also for khmr, which is consciousness altering drugs and stuff.

So the meaning isn't clear, and actually that is the beauty of it. Because the meaning of khmr can be unanimously said to mean cover. Cover what? Does it say "head" or "hair" in the Quran? No. So it is definitely not a very strong argument for me that the 'cover' - or cloud - is in reference to the head.

Also the tafseer of the words in the Quran are ideally linked to narrations concerning those verses. Do we have a single narration interpreting the verses and words ( Khimar) this way? If you do, please let me know. Thanks

[kadhim]

10 hours ago, Haji 2003 said:

The meaning of khimar and the context in which the verse was revealed clearly talks about concealing the head and then using the loose ends of the scarf to conceal the neck and the bosom. It is absurd to believe that the Qur’an would use the word khimar (which, by definition, means a cloth that covers the head) only to conceal the bosom with the exclusion of the head! It would be like saying to put on your shirt only around the belly or the waist without covering the chest!

By itself, this is a pretty weak argument though. 

The khimaar was referenced in this passage as something with spare cloth to make use of because it was something women were commonly wearing (at least in certain social strata) in that society. To go from that fact to assume an implicit commandment to cover the head for women is tenuous reasoning.

For one, head covering was part of common dress for both men and women. Probably primarily because of the climate and environment. Even today Saudi/Qatari/Emirati men will wear head covers. I don’t see anyone trying to use that historical reality to argue for an obligatory kufi for men. Why not? 

Second, another verse (33:59)  talks about using part of a jilbaab (a cloak) to similarly perform the role of covering the chest. No one takes that to implicitly imply that women have to wear cloaks. Why not? And the fact that a different garment is being named as a way to perform the role of covering the chest supports the reading that the point was not the khimaar in itself, but the fact that it was available to draw upon to cover the chest.

If you want to argue for hijab or khimar, the hadith are honestly probably a better bet. It’s more direct. If you take the methodological assumption that if it was commanded then, it applies now, there you have it. 

Though even there there are some contextual question marks. 

For example, there are some indications that in that social context, the khimaar was more of a class status symbol for free women. For example, in the hadith, we see that believing slave women were not required to veil themselves. Unless they were “ummul walad” — mother of one of her master’s children. Which placed her in a higher status. 

[Ashvazdanghe]

9 hours ago, Allah Seeker said:

o the meaning isn't clear, and actually that is the beauty of it. Because the meaning of khmr can be unanimously said to mean cover. Cover what? Does it say "head" or "hair" in the Quran? No. So it is definitely not a very strong argument for me that the 'cover' - or cloud - is in reference to the head.

Salam

look at this thread instead of making false conclusions about Calling Shia Islam in Iran as Iranian Shiism as creation of Iranians & for argument about hadith about head covering .

 

[Allah Seeker]

51 minutes ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

Salam

look at this thread instead of making false conclusions about Calling Shia Islam in Iran as Iranian Shiism as creation of Iranians & for argument about hadith about head covering .

 

Why not answer with one historic proof that the entire Ummah under the political control of prophet Muhammad ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) had such a mandate for the public, and show us a single proof of an implementation, including physically arresting and scolding women by government representatives for not wearing it. If you can't show me one such proof, then you lost the case brother.

[Allah Seeker]

4 hours ago, kadhim said:

By itself, this is a pretty weak argument though. 

The khimaar was referenced in this passage as something with spare cloth to make use of because it was something women were commonly wearing (at least in certain social strata) in that society. To go from that fact to assume an implicit commandment to cover the head for women is tenuous reasoning.

For one, head covering was part of common dress for both men and women. Probably primarily because of the climate and environment. Even today Saudi/Qatari/Emirati men will wear head covers. I don’t see anyone trying to use that historical reality to argue for an obligatory kufi for men. Why not? 

Second, another verse (33:59)  talks about using part of a jilbaab (a cloak) to similarly perform the role of covering the chest. No one takes that to implicitly imply that women have to wear cloaks. Why not? And the fact that a different garment is being named as a way to perform the role of covering the chest supports the reading that the point was not the khimaar in itself, but the fact that it was available to draw upon to cover the chest.

If you want to argue for hijab or khimar, the hadith are honestly probably a better bet. It’s more direct. If you take the methodological assumption that if it was commanded then, it applies now, there you have it. 

Though even there there are some contextual question marks. 

For example, there are some indications that in that social context, the khimaar was more of a class status symbol for free women. For example, in the hadith, we see that believing slave women were not required to veil themselves. Unless they were “ummul walad” — mother of one of her master’s children. Which placed her in a higher status. 

And as this is the "Islamic" Republic of Iran we are talking about, supposedly implementing Islamic laws, it would not exactly be off topic to bring Islam into this political discussion. The WF does not make that distinction, which in principle is good, but very easily abused among man kind. 

It is also one of those stories we hear of people walking around the House of God naked, or with one transparent cloth, while I read narrations of people actually doing so at the time of the prophets advent, as some couldn't afford more clothes. I don't remember hearing and violence or arresting ( probably feels a bit like being kidnapped by strangers as a woman , I would imagine ). Must be scary and kind of disrespectful feeling.

In any case, we have so many nations pointing towards the Islamic way of argument asking Muslims is the following ( for instance in the letter to Malik El Ashtar in Egypt ) 

- when debating, seek guidance from God and the prophet of God.

A - seeking an answer to a debate from Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) is through the Quran , aka Furqan ( meaning differentiator )

B - seeking guidance from the prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) is through the commonly known narrations we have about him.

So here we are in an age where all the women can see what these narrations are online, and can find answers in search engines in seconds. This argument is like the emperor who has no clothes. There is no support from the books the scholars claim to defend to support a general public law, passed by the prophet, which states all women must cover their heads. 

So from a Laywoman point of view it smells like typical women's oppression and hiding the truth. At the same time the majority of people who won't even bother to research the scholarly issue through the books, will simply blame Islam, blame Quran, blame the prophet. So in a way, the way I see it, is that they are blocking the way to talk Islam with these moves. 

How can there scholars make it harder for the women than the women had it in the time of the prophet.

The question is now, that if anybody here can't show a single Hadith from anywhere showing this political mandate to the entire Arab peninsula by prophet Mohamed ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)), then I don't understand how anyone claiming to be holding on to the 'Thaqalayn' can keep defending a lost cause like that. Please everybody contact all scholars you know or can access, and ask them for proof of this public mandate system, including the system of punishment for this headscarf 

[Allah Seeker]

4 hours ago, kadhim said:

By itself, this is a pretty weak argument though. 

The khimaar was referenced in this passage as something with spare cloth to make use of because it was something women were commonly wearing (at least in certain social strata) in that society. To go from that fact to assume an implicit commandment to cover the head for women is tenuous reasoning.

For one, head covering was part of common dress for both men and women. Probably primarily because of the climate and environment. Even today Saudi/Qatari/Emirati men will wear head covers. I don’t see anyone trying to use that historical reality to argue for an obligatory kufi for men. Why not? 

Second, another verse (33:59)  talks about using part of a jilbaab (a cloak) to similarly perform the role of covering the chest. No one takes that to implicitly imply that women have to wear cloaks. Why not? And the fact that a different garment is being named as a way to perform the role of covering the chest supports the reading that the point was not the khimaar in itself, but the fact that it was available to draw upon to cover the chest.

If you want to argue for hijab or khimar, the hadith are honestly probably a better bet. It’s more direct. If you take the methodological assumption that if it was commanded then, it applies now, there you have it. 

Though even there there are some contextual question marks. 

For example, there are some indications that in that social context, the khimaar was more of a class status symbol for free women. For example, in the hadith, we see that believing slave women were not required to veil themselves. Unless they were “ummul walad” — mother of one of her master’s children. Which placed her in a higher status. 

And as this is the "Islamic" Republic of Iran we are talking about, supposedly implementing Islamic laws, it would not exactly be off-topic to bring Islam into this political discussion. The WF does not make that distinction, which in principle is good, but very easily abused among mankind. 

It is also one of those stories we hear of people walking around the House of God naked, or with one transparent cloth, while I read narrations of people actually doing so at the time of the prophets advent, as some couldn't afford more clothes. I don't remember hearing any resulting violence or arresting ( probably feels a bit like being kidnapped by strangers as a woman , I would imagine. For a woman being taken away like a true criminal by physical force is a big deal to me)

In any case, we have so many narations pointing towards the Islamic way of arguing asking Muslims. ( for instance in the letter to Malik El Ashtar in Egypt ) 

When there is a disagreement, we should follow the two step path:

- when debating, seek guidance from 1. God and 2. the prophet of God.

A - seeking an answer to a debate from Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) is through the Quran , aka Furqan ( meaning differentiator )

B - seeking guidance from the prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) is through the commonly known narrations we have about him.

So here we are in an age where all the women can see what these narrations are online (scholars don't have the usual Monopoly on the books anymore, you don't need access to a physical library, and you can translate anything), and can find answers through search engines in seconds.

This argument of forced innovative mandates is like the emperor who has no clothes. There is no support from the books the scholars claim to defend to support a general public law.

So from today's Laywoman point of view it smells like typical women's oppression and hiding the truth. At the same time the majority of people who won't even bother to research the scholarly issue through the books, will simply blame Islam, blame Quran, blame the prophet. So in a way, the way I see it, is that they are blocking the way to Islam with these moves, and are creating a bad image. Islam isn't as hard as people think. Islam is cool, Islam is fun, Islam is open minded and tolerant, Islam does not force beliefs and definitely - if anything - the rules of today should be way easier than those of 1,400 years ago. And definitely not more strict. Those poor women who have less physical freedom now.

And above all the scholars of today, who are ironically mostly men, will never mention that they are also to keep their eyes and minds in control. It is a two way thing, and includes men a well, who should try to dress nicely. "But righteousness is the best attire".

The question is now, that if anybody here can't show a single Hadith from anywhere showing this political mandate to the entire Arab peninsula by prophet Mohamed ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)), then I don't understand how anyone claiming to be holding on to the 'Thaqalayn' can keep defending a lost cause like that. Please everybody contact all scholars you know or can access, and ask them for proof of this public mandate system, including the system of punishment for this headscarf.

Why don't people just say " oh it seems I was wrong in my opinion, and thanks for sharing this."

Can't they give the reality that there is no proof for such a public historic mandate, some weight in their opinion, and moving on to higher levels of faith? I don't know how some people think, but hope that God guides us all.

Edited November 22, 2022 by Allah Seeker

[Haji 2003]

13 hours ago, Allah Seeker said:

1. Wouldn't there be a single narration depicting the public proclamation of those limits from a minbar for instance. There would have been a narration from several witness from the public and friends and family. 

2. Also, wouldn't there be a single narrated incident of ladies being punished or told off for not wearing headscarf?

As I said I can't give expert advice on fiqh and Hadith etc.

However what I can do is report back on conversations I have seen here over the past 20+ years between informed people who have discussed these topics and from reading texts on these subjects.

You are identifying 'quality' criteria (points 1 and 2 above) that no one has mentioned before, to my knowledge.

I wonder how many other rulings would qualify as worthy of adherence using your criteria.

[Ashvazdanghe]

On 11/22/2022 at 2:18 AM, Allah Seeker said:

It is also one of those stories we hear of people walking around the House of God naked, or with one transparent cloth, while I read narrations of people actually doing so at the time of the prophets advent, as some couldn't afford more clothes. I don't remember hearing any resulting violence or arresting ( probably feels a bit like being kidnapped by strangers as a woman , I would imagine. For a woman being taken away like a true criminal by physical force is a big deal to me)

Salam this is what you are talking about Hajj are just distorted narrations by enemies of prophet Muhammad (pbu) & Ahlulbayt (عليه السلام) which doing Hajj naked has been tradition of Jahilia which has been banned by prophet Muhammad (pbu) after conquering of Mecca.

On 11/22/2022 at 1:56 AM, Allah Seeker said:

Why not answer with one historic proof that the entire Ummah under the political control of prophet Muhammad ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) had such a mandate for the public, and show us a single proof of an implementation, including physically arresting and scolding women by government representatives for not wearing it. If you can't show me one such proof, then you lost the case brother.

You have not shown any evidence or narration for approving your wrong conclusions also WF has authority of impalnting secindary rullings until it doesn't violate Quran & first rullings likewise Namaz & Fasting & etc which covering body & hair is mandatory for praying also many narrations have been mentioned aout ordering covering of Head & body of women in public by Prophet (pbu) & Ahlulbayt (عليه السلام) which you deny whole of it under westernized secular interpretation of Islam which just advises Islam for praying inside Home & mosque  without implanting Islamic rullings in society in similar fashion your accusation about "arresting & scolding women by  government representatives for not wearing it" is just based on anti Shia & anti Iran propganda of west & msm against Iran which you only judge based on only radical action of a very samll group which have not received prpoper & enough training about applying law which you have expanded it to whole of government of Iran just based  on based on anti Shia & anti Iran propganda of west & msm against Iran .

On 11/22/2022 at 2:18 AM, Allah Seeker said:

The question is now, that if anybody here can't show a single Hadith from anywhere showing this political mandate to the entire Arab peninsula by prophet Mohamed ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)), then I don't understand how anyone claiming to be holding on to the 'Thaqalayn' can keep defending a lost cause like that. Please everybody contact all scholars you know or can access, and ask them for proof of this public mandate system, including the system of punishment for this headscarf.

Why don't people just say " oh it seems I was wrong in my opinion, and thanks for sharing this.

lol political mandate  of prophet Muhammad (pbu) has been for whole of world specially muslim world insimilar fashion Imam Ali (عليه السلام) has had similar mandate which you have just limited it to Arabian Peninsula which both of Imam Ali (عليه السلام) & prophet Muhammad (pbu) have punished breaking Islamic laws likewise lashing  of anyone who has drunk wine or commits sins in public or fighting with Khawarij by Imam Ali (عليه السلام)

You expect that Imam Ali (عليه السلام) to say to cursed Muawiah & Khawarij & his enemies that " oh it seems I was wrong in my opinion, and thanks for sharing this. so then let them to do anything against Islam & muslims community because they just have different opinions which your conclusion is likewise Wahbists that say that cursed Muawiah has his own Ijtihad done Ijtihad which in similar fashion Imam Ali (عليه السلام) has done his own Ijtihad so then their disagrement is not important which somehow Imam Ali (عليه السلام) has been wrong because he has caused division between muslims by fighting with muslim army of Muawiah & his enemeis from muslim commumnity.

[VoidVortex]

3 hours ago, Allah Seeker said:

 

The question is now, that if anybody here can't show a single Hadith from anywhere showing this political mandate to the entire Arab peninsula by prophet Mohamed ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)), then I don't understand how anyone claiming to be holding on to the 'Thaqalayn' can keep defending a lost cause like that. Please everybody contact all scholars you know or can access, and ask them for proof of this public mandate system, including the system of punishment for this headscarf.

Why don't people just say " oh it seems I was wrong in my opinion, and thanks for sharing this."

because deriving laws of the religion correctly and accurately is a complex process. There are many books on principles of jurisprudence, so even if your criteria is not met, it does not invalidate X or Y's position on this subject because there are different methods for deriving laws. 

There are also scholarly books on the mandate for hijab in Iran, its not like ulama pulled it out of their back pocket. And if other ulama disagree that's fine, no problem, however the ulama in charge of Iran believe in the mandate and therefore the mandate is being implemented.

3 hours ago, Allah Seeker said:

Why not answer with one historic proof that the entire Ummah under the political control of prophet Muhammad ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) had such a mandate for the public, and show us a single proof of an implementation, including physically arresting and scolding women by government representatives for not wearing it. If you can't show me one such proof, then you lost the case brother.

just because one of the criteria you presented isn't met, that doesn't invalidate our position. 

[علوي]

 

[Haji 2003]

https://twitter.com/mohammed_na_jf/status/1595756667924258817

 

[kadhim]

20 hours ago, -Rejector- said:

 

I think overall this is pretty balanced and fair in terms of trying to “steel man” the point of view of the conservatives in Iran. (Here I’m using conservative in the sense of someone who mostly wants to keep things the same)

One point I don’t think is very persuasive though. That’s the idea that if a female protestor burns her hijab in a protest, that’s some sort of offence against traditional Muslims, since it’s a “symbol of Islam” for them. I find this a little silly as an argument. It’s a bit hypocritical, and in bad faith. 

Hypocritical in that Iranian conservatives don’t tend to really respect this principle in general. You can’t burn American flags, or chant Death to America, and then turn around and get upset at someone “desecrating your symbols.” 

And then linked to that, I think it’s being a little obtuse and disingenuous in how it’s portraying what a woman who is doing this is trying to communicate or express with that act. I think if someone wants to say “death to X,” and expect people to not literally understand from that either “death” or that it’s about the entirety of X, then that person should also be able to get into the head of one of these women and understand it’s not necessarily attacking hijab as something some people might choose to do, in its entirety. For some it may be that, but it’s not a reasonable way to take it in general. A much more reasonable way to read a lady burning her hijab is, “I don’t accept this or choose this for myself, and I reject others forcing this on me.” 

And may I add in general, I wish as a community we would generally put away this notion that the hijab is a “symbol of Islam.” It’s a weird framing. It puts too much weight on superficial externals. And it poisons the whole conversation. 

How about symbols that are substantial and, instead of driving wedges, bring people together and bring admiration even from outsiders. Charity as a “symbol of Islam.” Social work as a “symbol of Islam.” 

 

 

[علوي]

Iran's Jewish Community Condemn Violent Riots

Quote

The Tehran Jewish Committee has condemned weeks of riots in Iran triggered by the death of a young Iranian woman in police custody in September.

In a statement, the committee, an umbrella group of Jewish organizations working on behalf of the Jews in Iran, voiced its support for Iran and the Islamic establishment in the face of the disturbances. 

The committee said it has always followed the guidelines set by Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei, and has been at the forefront of the fight against those who wish to disrupt order and security in the country.

https://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2022/11/25/693384/Iran-Tehran-Jewish-Committee-riots-unity-Leader-security-polarization

 

[Ashvazdanghe]

13 hours ago, kadhim said:

And may I add in general, I wish as a community we would generally put away this notion that the hijab is a “symbol of Islam.” It’s a weird framing. It puts too much weight on superficial externals. And it poisons the whole conversation. 

How about symbols that are substantial and, instead of driving wedges, bring people together and bring admiration even from outsiders. Charity as a “symbol of Islam.” Social work as a “symbol of Islam.” 

Salam agai you have  compared apples with oranges because  non of these things are just "symbols of Islam" because  all of three of Hijab & charity & social work have existed bfore advent of Islam which Islam has refined or revived them by introducing Hijab as "symbol of modesty & dignity for women" & Charity & social work as most recommended deeds for both of Muslim men & women which incident of burning Hijab has been a zionist plan against Iran by misusing from death of Mahsa Amini because Zionists specially Israel sees Hijab of women in Iran as one of main columns of IRI which naive people likewise you think that only conservatives in Iran are guardians of Hijab in Iran but on the other hand Hijab in IRan dates back to entering of Islam to Iran which before advent of Islam , Arabs have adopted Hijab from Iranians as symbol of nobelity & modesty which now anti iran groups likewise Bahais & zionists have attacked to it for spreading  corruption in Iran specially between women which ironically they have said under guise of freedom of speech you must remove Hijab of women but on the other hand women who want to keep their Hijab can't keep their Hijab because it's only an IRI innovation which naive people likewise you believe to every nonsense of Zionists due to your gruge against Iran & pious shia Marjas & scholars .