Feminist activist in Iran sentenced to 24 years in prison for removing hijab.

All the "hip restaurants", coffee shops, cafes etc in Iran, where young people (and not so young ones too) go out for dinner on their dates, need to attract their customers without them feeling that the 'morality police' will barge into the restaurant or cafe to check whether people are observing their hijab! Large parties or weddings in Iran also needs to worry about the same thing but also the morality police snooping to see if alcohol is being served. And this means they pay 'extortion money' to the morality police in their neighborhoods in return for promised protection from any such disturbance. These aren't minor sums either: the budget for a typical wedding party includes around $3,000 that will need to be paid out just for this purpose. (Iran has a large young population, so every weekend you will have hundreds of such parties and wedding, so the amounts can add up and be rather substantial). It is basically a racket and a rather lucrative one, especially for the folks who work in these "morality police" units who get to keep and divide the money between them.

Don't be stunned.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indecent_exposure_in_the_United_States

Westerners who visit Iran are amazed by the 'ingenuity of Iranian woman in finding ways that defy the laws of physics to have headscarf that stay on their heads but don't cover any hair'

But, yes, not having something that can be called a scarf would very likely result in someone being taken to police custody and having to either sign some papers say they won't do it again, or if it isn't their first time, being sent to court and face prosecution. While the legal standards are vague (see below), and allow room for interpretation, not having a scarf with you at all would not be wise. If you have the scarf, you can always claim it just fell off from your head or something -- and if the morality police does run into you, you can pull the scarf to cover the hair.

 

"They pay extortion money." The "they" is the restaurants, coffee shops, cafes and wedding venues?

I'm certainly STUNNED! You're obviously a better Western legal historian than me!

 

Yes. For weddings, the amount is calculated by the wedding venue as part of the cost of doing the wedding. But for the rest, the amount is paid by the restaurant, coffee shop etc as part of their "charitable contributions" to the "morality police", albeit contributions that aren't recorded for 'tax purposes' by either side

Thanks.

 

So they basically become 'safe spaces' for the public which then the businesses profit from. Interesting. Presumably the government knows about this and presumably it is illegal for police to receive money for ignoring breaches of the law.

 

edit: wrong thread

 

Wait, i thought we were the bad guy and Iran was the good guys???
I cannot keep up with all this change.

 

I am not sure businesses see themselves as profiting from it, but rather the reverse (albeit a cost they are willing to pay). For the government, this is ultimately not a major issue as Iran has bigger problems in terms of corruption. And this kind helps keep budget costs down, as the real pay for some of these jobs isn't the official salary.

This is an old report and the costs have changed since 2010. But as the report mentions, sometimes you do run into "complications" as well. Not for the hijab, or even so much alcohol, but if the whole thing looks too "wild", even a bribe won't help much.

https://www.macleans.ca/news/world/how-to-throw-a-party/
How to throw a party in Iran

 

Well then what's the motivation for them doing it?

 

All businesses are motivated by profit, but I am sure they will regard the issue differently than you are suggesting. They will see it as an unnecessary cost which they wouldn't have to pay if they could run their business like many places outside of Iran.

 

I'm just not sure why they HAVE to pay it.

 

They don't "have to" and many don't. But those who don't want to regulate how people dress in their restaurants, and avoid issues with the morality police, will make such "contributions". And try to keep a good relationship with the neighborhood police and basij forces.

 

What issues do they avoid? Do they risk being prosecuted for having illegally dressed people in their property?

 

If the practice is persistent, and their business can be shown to be a venue to promote "immorality", it can be shut down.

I think you should watch this video I posted a while back about Iran, which is by an American and does a good job. Not on these issues, but in giving you a sense of life in Iran which goes beyond what we are discussing and will give you a more balanced picture of things. Unlike most videos of this nature, this one doesn't zoom in so much on tourist sites but traveling the country and learning about it. It is also very watchable.

 

There seems to be some misunderstanding over the length of Saba Kord Afshari's sentence. According to http://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/...24-years-behind-bars-for-removing-complusory-
hijab/ she was given extra time because of "numerous charges and previous records." This brought her sentence up from
15 years to 24 years. According to the New York Post, August 29, 2029, (cited in my original post) she received 15 years
for "spreading corruption and prostitution by taking off her hajib and walking without a veil."

The Friendly Atheist article concluded, "Afshari is a hero. She deserves praise, not punishment. No government relying
on outdated religious principles to form laws designed to hurt minorities and vulnerable citizens deserves to be taken
seriously by the rest of the world. No religion that can be used to inflict these cruelties should go unchallenged. The
more international outrage, the better." Of course, this is a somewhat extremist view, and this group is equally opposed
to Christianity. As for international outrage there appears to be very little.

 

The vast majority of women (sans the brainwashed sharia loving ones and ) want equality and equal rights. This makes these women feminists.

They are not however -radical feminists.

 

All people, male or female, 'sharia loving' or not, want was as much rights and power as they can get away with under their individual, social, cultural, and political mandates. Some 'sharia loving ones" in Iran fight for "equal rights" for women, while some secular ones don't. On balance, unless 'equal rights' relates mainly to what kind of fashion you are to imitate and follow, I have found much less correlation than you assume between a woman's quest for equal (or even superior) treatment under the law based on whether they are religious or not. Some of the strongest voices working to empower women in Iran are women from religious backgrounds. While there are tens of thousands of Iranian women of secular, westernized, backgrounds which have never lifted a finger to do anything for anyone other than themselves.

There are many Iranians, consciously or unconsciously, following the footsteps of the extreme anti-religious forces unleashed following the French revolution, and which made France a divided society on such issues for a couple of centuries and through various "republics" and other forms of government, who want to also divide their society between the 'secular' and 'religious' in very sharp tones. Not only that won't be a fair fight for them, as they would (unless they can establish a dictatorship) lose since even today religious Iranians predominate over secular ones, it is also quite a narrow minded way to handle the issue. If they want inspiration in any foreign, western, model, the British model would be better for them.

While I am not religious, Iran has a very enlightened religious tradition and that tradition, freed from certain misguided concepts which can easily be removed from within in due course, would leave more than enough room for an agnostic like me to live comfortably in my country. And for the religious tradition to then evolve into a search for knowledge and truth, unburdened by any past dogma of any kind (whether in scripture or any other ideology, foreign or domestic), simply guided by reason and attempt to fulfill the needs and demands of society as it evolves. If lessons derived from such a quest are then given an "Islamic imprimatur" and stamp of approval, and treated as Islamic principles, I see nothing wrong with it. It is not the label that matters; it is the educational content.

 

My sharia comment was not directed at Iran but radical feminism. At the end of the day - regardless of what a person's actions are - if they belief in Sharia Law they are against individual liberty.

It is one thing to believe in adhering to the principles of Sharia on a personal basis - it is quite another to force others to adhere to those principles though law / physical violence.

It is then a huge burst of hypocrisy for someone to want individual liberty for themselves but then to turn around and support legislation that takes individual liberty away from others.

You are correct about the France - Catholicism as a hairs breath away from being banned there during the 1700's. This anti religious fervor however was not limited to France .. people in general - including the founding fathers - were fed up with the horrible practice of mixing Church and State.

This is not to say that Sharia is the only example of people engaging in this kind of hypocrisy - not understanding the difference between 1) having a personal belief and 2) forcing that belief on others through law. This kind of hypocrisy is at plague proportions in the US at the moment -under the guise of "Utilitarianism".

 

To me, at least, the contours of individual liberty should be decided by reason and needs of society. Not by dogma of any kind, whether based on scripture or ideology of any sort. And those contours should develop and evolve based on the internal experiences in each country.

In the meantime, while issues regarding "hijab" aren't even really about religion, but are socio-economically driven cultural wars which have many permutations, only some of which I have touched on here (1), the real area where there is clear-cut and undeniable conflict between scripture and enlightened learning/science, relates to the teaching of evolution. It is simply not possible to believe in any literal meaning of scripture and yet be open-minded about evolution. Yet, among all Muslim countries, to include Turkey (which is the most secular), no where is the teaching of evolution as unhampered by religion as Iran (which is a theocracy).

In the United States, descendants or followers of those who protested a 'church' telling them the true meaning of religion, i.e. protestants, may have overcome one hurdle to free thinking, but created another one. Of course, if the "church" that tells people what is God's mandate is stuck in dogma and doesn't have the tools to escape such dogma, its teachings will become dogmatic too. But that doesn't mean the scripture which forms the basis for the dogma disappears if that church disappears. It only means that people who for whatever reason are reared in a religious tradition, and who need that tradition to tell them right from wrong and other things, will then follow folks who may begin reading scripture on their own and give it their own literal interpretation. Isn't that what you have with evangelicals who are still arguing over teaching evolution?

Now, imagine instead, an educational setting ('religious seminaries) where you can pursue learning in any disciple, where there is absolute freedom of thought within that seminary, and where it is taught that God's principle and most direct communication with man is through "reason"; that the God's design is ultimately to further progress of mankind to reach a level of understanding that befits his glory and his sense of justice. That scripture is to be understood and interpreted in that light, with any apparent conflict with scripture and reason, only a sign that the interpretation of scripture is misguided. One which allows whatever is developed in this process to further evolve, because ultimately in entrusts interpretation of scripture and religious dictates to properly trained scholars and considers their 'consensus' (which is allowed room to change and be challenged from within by equally trained scholars) to be the true meaning of religion. Wouldn't that process develop a more enlightened answer than what you assume would come from 'separation of religion from state', where religion is left without any responsibility to handle real problems and can stick to old dogmas without the need to adjust its teachings. And thereby still indoctrinate its followers (who will be there) to such dogmatic beliefs?
----------------
1- Besides the socio-economic and cultural issues, there are also policy reasons sometimes offered for this: attempts by many in Iran to develop a fashion and fashion industry that doesn't simply follow what comes from Paris, New York, or London but can produce fashion that can one day make itself the center for others in our region to emulate (and thereby reap the same economic benefits that come to those who control this industry).

 

The "Who" is easily discovered just by reading your summation. The "Who" responsible is a seventh century theocracy which has no interest in human rights and freedoms, whereby people are free to pursue their own personal happiness in order to make the most of their limited time here on earth.

The very ignorant people making these decisions are in no position to tell anyone what to wear on their heads much less how to live their lives. These despicable religious freaks and thugs should be condemned everywhere they go and turned away from every civilized society.

 

1) I was was not talking about the hijab .. and veering off the topic a bit in response to a question of Feminism.
2) The short answer to you question is no .. not in any practical sense.

It would be nice if we had some kind of book of wisdom that was not connected to religion. Humans have learned stuff throughout the ages and we should benefit from this learning. There is some of this wisdom in religious texts - unfortunately - there is bad stuff that comes with the package.

This religion that you speak of is fictitious - unfortunately... if there was such a religion I would certainly sign up. There is not.

This is not a solution to the problem of how to engineer society because it is based on something that does not exist.

 

I know, but I am also trying to do 2 things at the same time, first make sure an understandable rejection of many things associated with "religion", does not basically pave the way for others here and elsewhere to wage their own wars that are no less "religiously" inspired (in neither case, religion being much more than a convenient packaging and tool). Second, while challenging some stereotype, also sounding off views I hold on how a country like mine might bridge the gap between enlightenment and religion without waging a war against either.

On this point, you are only partially right. This is not quite what we have now, but it is ultimately all derived from Iran's Islamic traditions in the past, during times when there Islamic philosophers and thinkers who were free to think for themselves. Indeed, much of what they thought on the subject even became part of the dogma that was then formed (1). But all dogma, whether called religion or ideology, ultimately fails if it cannot grow, evolve, and think anew to meet new challenges in society.
---------------
1- Shia seminary education is based on the trivium of logic, grammar and rhetoric. That is what you first study to become a "mullah" in Iran! The sources of law in Shia Islam include, besides the Koran and the Hadith, also Reason and consensus of opinion of Shia scholars finally. There are shia scholars that have regarded reason to be God's most direct form of communication with man. And others who have shown scripture has no meaning, except what we make of it ourselves. Also, Shia Islam has both a religious hierarchy to keep out untrained rabble-rousers from expounding on religion, and also something opposite of it, namely the fact that ultimately (unlike say the Catholic church) is up to each individual to pick his/her "religious guide" among these scholars, with the hierarchy being loose enough to allow it to ultimately challenge dogma. And, finally, unlike Sunni Islam, in the real Shia tradition, Islam is basically what the "consensus of opinion of Shia scholars" say it is! Sunni methodology requires finding the consensus among the companions of the Prophet as a source of law. Shia Islam looks to the consensus now, not in the past. In short, all the ingredients for an Islamic renaissance exist within Iran's own shia traditions. A few walls constructed since just need to be deconstructed, which will happen when religion has to evolve and meet the challenge of standing up to the world's strongest superpower while managing the affairs of a large complicated society like Iran. In this, we don't need to blindly follow traditions which haven't produced the best answers anyway either.

 

O come on - rational thought is abandoned as soon as you claim "God says" - "God says" is neither a logical or rational justification for law because it is based on a fallacy - the false premise that some Imam or Scholar knows what God says or thinks.

 

While there may be some merit in you pointing the finger for the 'Who' in the direction you point, you intentionally avoid the responsibility of the others I mentioned simply because that is a cause you explicitly have endorsed in any case. But for me, the fingers can be pointed in more than one direction, while I ultimately know that the biggest danger to Iran today doesn't come from what I would otherwise fight against. The biggest danger instead comes from the people who you follow, and who represent you, having chosen to wage a multi-faceted war against my country to bring about its demise. If "Operation Iraqi Freedom" was full of lies and motivated by ulterior motives, it at least was packaged to have some little good in it too. The "implosion" objective behind the "maximum pressure campaign" (and all of its related cousins) all have one goal in mind: to weaken Iran enough to then take it out, without even bothering to spill American blood. Instead, by using Iranian blood to accomplish it all. Kind of like in Syria.

As for Iran's mullahs being how you describe them, I believe that shows more your ignorance than the truth. They are certainly not the enlightened bunch I would prefer, but they are often a lot more educated than the folks who call them ignorant. Which is one of the reasons why Professor Mottahadeh's book a couple of decades ago made such a splash! It made people realize that these "mullahs" they had pigeon-hold as 'backward' and 'ignorant' are actually quite sophisticated and educated in their own ways.

To begin to realize how much you really don't know, you need to start by reading this book, "chosen by Foreign Affairs magazine as 'one of the top 75 books of the twentieth century'", described by the Wall Street Journal as a "remarkable treasure", a book that when it was first published, the New York Times Review of Books properly rightly called a "masterpiece" -- one that the author "with dazzling erudition", exposes "the subterranean Sufi and poetic heritage lying just below the surface of Khomeini's seemingly granitelike orthodoxy."

 

Like you, I don't need to accept learning because it supposedly tells me what "God" says. But there are a lot of people who kind of need that authority behind any teaching to be convinced!

Remember, even today, your own Supreme Court, with its own "bevy of Platonic guardians", and lesser judges sitting below them, all still need to wear robes and clothing that is ultimately not only quite similar to the robes and clothing our mullahs wear, but is meant to say one thing to mere mortals: that what they say is inspired by something above what mere mortals can discern and needs to be afforded such greater respect as well.

 

The question here is not one of robes or authority figures. The question is one of valid justification for law. I began with stating that we need to have some book which is a compilation of learning and wisdom from the past. ... This should be the authority figure.

We need to educate people in the basic principles - things like the Golden Rule - basis for Classical Liberalism - Republicanism and the founding principles - and the basics of Philosophy - Logic, Logical Fallacy, what constitutes a valid argument, critical thinking.

I swear people are far less educated these days with respect to the above than 100 years ago.