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

What, with these two links below?

https://www.economist.com/middle-ea...hy-iran-is-a-hub-for-sex-reassignment-surgery
https://foreignpolicy.com/2008/02/25/want-the-government-to-pay-for-your-sex-change-go-to-iran/

 

The first one mentioned the fatwa (or religious edict) that underlines Iran's government policy on the issue.

 

And that's it? Doesn't that conflict with Islam's principles?

 

Simple answer: No.

In shia Islamic practice and tradition, Islam is basically whatever the "consensus of Shia jurists" say it is, using reason, the example of Shia Imams, their study of Hadith (Sayings of the Prophet) and the Koran, for their edicts. In Shia Islam, properly trained jurists who have finished the various clerical studies, and who attain the rank of "mojtahed" (someone who can give independent judgment), can then seek followers, with those 'mojtaheds" or faqihs with the greatest number of followers regarded as "marjah" (source of emulation). At any one time, you might have a dozen or so prominent "marjahs" among whom an individual can choose as his/her source of emulation. Ayatollah Khomeini added to this the concept of "Velayat Faqih" - or Guardianship of the Jurist, which was then enshrined in Iran's constitution. While not quite like the Pope whose judgments are seen as infallible, as other jurists in Iran may disagree with an edict by the Supreme Leader, this institution vests affairs of the state under guardianship of the supreme jurist or now the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution chosen by an elected Assembly of Experts.

 

I'm confused. Don't Muslims believe that Allah made only men and women?

 

There is no reason to be confused. Under Shia Islam, religion and its principles aren't for laymen to interpret or adduce on their own. In that sense, Shia Islam is more akin to Catholicism than Protestant tradition. But with one major difference: the last of what would be analogous to our "infallible Pope" (the hidden Imam) is in occulation and will only return on Judgment day. In his absence, properly trained jurists following the sources of Islamic law and methodology I mentioned, who have attained the rank of "mojtahed" finishing the final stage of clerical education and publishing their treatise (i.e., Ayatollahs and Grand Ayatollahs) serve as 'sources of emulation" for the faithful to follow in religious matters. Whatever your 'source of emulation' says is what Islam requires or provides, is what it requires or provides. If there is a consensus between the Ayatollahs on the issue, that then becomes enforceable Islamic law. In other cases, in Iran with the institution of Guardianship of Jurist, the same happens if the issue is supported by the Supreme Leader and is reflected in law.

 

Incidentally, while the above brings Shia Islam slightly closer to Catholicism than Protestant tradition, the fact that our 'Catholics" (Shia) did not hold power in the Muslim world during the caliphate, but served as opponents of those who held power (Caliphs, who were regarded as usurpers), means that the struggle for justice and reform of religion would have found a greater source of resonance in Shia Islam than Sunni Islam (whose principles require greater attention to Islam as someone would commonly understand the term based on scripture, Sayings of the Prophet, and consensus of the Prophet's companions (not scholars now).

 

I didn't say anything about laymen. I'm asking what the Islamic stance on sex is.

 

Somehow we are talking past each other. I posted a report that told you that Ayatollah Khomeini had issued a fatwa (religious edict) recognizing transgender surgery as the appropriate medical treatment under Islamic law for transgender people. You appeared to me to question that edict, specifically wanting to know whether it wasn't the case that under "Islam", God (Allah being the Arabic term for God; in Persian "Khoda") had created man and woman. I replied that under Shia Islamic principles, these issues aren't determined in the manner you were suggesting and laid out the methodology and procedure for them, where questions are addressed to a 'source of emulation' (a Grand Ayatollah) and the fatwa or edict that ensues becomes the proper interpretation regardless of what someone else (except for another Grand Ayatollah) might feel about the issue and whether it is consistent with their understanding of what 'Islam' might hold. Now, if another Grand Ayatollah issues a contrary fatwa on the same question, you then don't have a consensus and each person is entitled to follow his/her own source of emulation as long as what they are doing is not in contradiction with the law in Iran. In the case of this particular fatwa, issued by Iran's highest authority, and subsequent enactments pursuant to it, the issue is now settled law.

As for your question now, namely "Islam's stance on sex", that is obviously too broad a question for me to answer unless you narrow the question. And when I answer your question, I would have to ultimately see if there is something like an authoritative fatwa on what you are asking. Otherwise, under Shia Islamic law, I would not be qualified to answer your question.

 

Can you answer ANY question about Islam without seeing if there is "something like an authoritative fatwa" on the subject that is being asked about?

 

I can answer questions which relate to Islamic history, Islamic practices and various Islamic philosophies. But even if I was religious, and I am not, under the Shia Islamic tradition, the answer would be no if the question is about a theological issue. If I was religious and had a question about a religious matter, the proper course under the Shia approach is to address that question to any one of these "Marja Taghlids" (sources of emulation) listed in the article below.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_Maraji

 

Strange. As far as I knew, Western Muslims generally reflected Western conservative principle, especially on the gender nonsense. In England, a group of Muslims protested the school that their kids went to because they were teaching gender nonsense. I assumed that their position was influenced by their faith.

 

Most of the Muslims you are talking about in England would be Sunni, not Shia. But even a Shia Muslim might do as you suggest, if he/she has asked a source of emulation a question and is told some practice is not consistent with Islam.

 

I should add that just because a practice is considered legally permissible, or a group of people are given legal recognition, doesn't mean societal discrimination against them is eradicated. This Euro News piece discusses the situation faced by transgender people in Iran.
https://www.euronews.com/2018/01/12...ty-legally-recognised-yet-socially-ostracised
Iran's transgender community: Legally recognised yet socially ostracised

 

The last news article about that was this year.

 

And yet you can't produce a news link?

 

Top safe you the trouble. You know what I am talking about. It's Garner who got chocked to death in the streets. He posed no thread to anybody and was killed for not paying taxes.

 

Imagine a news headline in Iran, based on the case notme has mentioned, stating: "Man Executed in Public for Not Paying Taxes". Most of the news about Iran in the western press is even more misleading.

Taking the mantra that is treated as a fact, even though there zero basis for it except an unenforceable law: namely the notion that Iran executes gays! Even though that is a total lie, it has become something like a 'fact' in reports about Iran. As though Iran's authorities have any reason to execute some random homosexual person and hide the fact for the punishment that is meted, by 'falsely' claiming the person has been convicted of murder, rape, kidnapping or what have you!

Even more sophisticated, and more factually based, reports on the issue are driven by the LGBT agenda of trying to force Iranian society to recognize LGBT rights, not by any real fear of being persecuted for being homosexuals. Hence, the report below, which deals with a situation faced by Iran's military. Specifically, the fact that the military exemption for gays was being abused with many people who weren't gays claiming the exemption to avoid military service. So a new law went into effect that required that the person claiming the exemption provide details showing he has actually engaged in homosexual conduct. Even with this requirement, not just gays, but some others who are desperate to avoid military service, still claim this exemption. But of course the numbers claiming the exemption on false grounds has dropped significantly. You might not like Iran's policy on this issue at all, but that is the basic facts about it. Regardless, however, if there was any chance anyone would be executed, or even punished, for homosexuality, do you really think they would be claiming the exemption? And Iran's military isn't exactly a bastion of liberal values!

http://6rang.org/english/2261
Confessing to having same-sex relations is the new norm for military service exemptions in Iran

 

So the poorly uninformed people follow whatever directions these 'properly trained jurists' tell them they are, and after a dozen centuries or so it still remains too complicated for the average Muslim to understand.

What the West understands about Islam is that it keeps people ignorant and impoverished, as you just pointed out.

They should turn to Christianity or Judaism so they might have a richer, fuller life and perhaps contribute something of value to the the world.

 

You stick to whatever you like to believe, but as someone who prefers reason over dogma and isn't fond of someone becoming too attached to scripture, what I described provides Shia Islam the avenues it needs to escape what any person picking up scripture and reading it literally might conclude from it. A problem that exists among certain Protestant denominations incidentally.

But unlike Catholicism, the last "infallible Pope" in Shia Islam (the "Hidden Imam") went into occultation and, therefore, there are also avenues for other people (but not laymen who pick up scripture and may be tempted to read it literally) to challenge what any particular Grand Ayatollah may decree. The process, as such, has what is needed for the kind of evolution in doctrine that I care about. Especially since under Shia Islam, reason is a primary source of law and, in some conceptions, the most immediate form of communication between God and his creation.

For me, as an agnostic, established Shia Islamic methodology and jurisprudential philosophy has the requisite ingredients to get to where I like to go. But there are, to be sure, some schools of thought that retard some of the ability for it to be as flexible as it might be otherwise. Overtime, however, with new jurists coming up the ranks, that will change.

p.s.
This all explains why this whole exercise by some anti-Muslim polemicists of taking this or that section of the Koran to say what "Islam" means is ultimately so clueless when it comes to anything relevant on the subject for Iran.

 

If Islam can change over time the doing a damn poor job of it. Maybe some electric prods shoved under the Imam's fancy dress might help. They need incentive.

But why should they change when they have all the power and the people have none? That runs contradictory to most everything we know about power and corruption. Lord Acton was right.

 

I only use your polemics to try to educate people. Otherwise, you generally don't have anything useful to add.

But when it comes to "changing over time", it is mostly because the Iranian revolution has forced Iran's clerics to adjust doctrine to realities of modern society instead of being sidelined as in the past, clinging to unworkable ideas, that we are actually seeing a good deal of change in Islamic doctrines. We see it almost every day in Iran.

And there is no monopoly as such in Shia Islam, as there are 3 dozen or so Grand Ayatollahs today who each have different views on different subjects.

 

And the commonality among these 3 dozen or so grand ayatollahs is that they're all batshit crazy.

 

The commonality between them is that they have all finished the curriculum and stages of education in Islamic studies, which encompasses a wide range of subjects in philosophy, jurisprudence, history as well as the Koran and the teachings and sayings of the prophet and Shia Imams, have published their treatise on the subject, have been accepted as a guide (mojtahed) by some other Ayatollah, and have then acquired a large enough following as a source of emulation to be elevated from the status of an Ayatollah to a Grand Ayatollah. The only other notable commonality between them is that none are women.

While there are Iranian female shia mojtaheds (Ayatollahs), among the Grand Ayatollahs there is a difference of opinion as to whether a woman can attain the same ranks as they hold. But regardless of that divergence of opinion, if a 'lady mojtahed' is chosen by enough Shia faithful as their source of emulation, she will automatically and in essence become a Grand Ayatollah regardless of what any of the current Grand Ayatollahs may believe. That is because the ultimate power of a Grand Ayatollah is in the number of their followers and not in anything else.

 

You know the case that @notme is talking about? Not even I know that and I've been talking to them about this mystery case for a few days! I still don't know what it is!

How do they show that?