380
western women rights
(thelemmy.club)
inspired by lemmitors at https://lemmy.ml/post/49343381
any guy in it just for women to wear skimpier clothing should probably be investigated.
What is a jihab?
Did you know Reza Shah threw acid on women wearing the chador to force them to wear western clothing? You have no fucking idea what you are talking about
Same energy lol https://youtu.be/gE2OzGfIDLQ
Zerush is very concerned about jihab and Muslamic ray guns 😔
I know this case, but it also change nothing of what I said, the difference between having the option to wear what you want and being forced to wear what other want. In extremis like in the case which you mencioned, irrelevant if it is a chador, hijab or western clothes. if it is against what the women want.
The whole point is that it is a choice in Iran, it is not compulsory. Go to Iran right now and you will see women choosing not to cover their hair, walking around with the same fashion sense that you'd see in Venice Beach or NYC. There are women walking around in jean shorts and no head covering in Tehran every day without an issue.
I'm from South Spain and here are living a lot of muslim immigrants. As you say, a lot of women which cover their hair and others not. Normally they cover their hair when they are married. But same asin some other countries, it's their decision, because religion or tradition to do it, when nobody is forcing to do it by drastic laws, like in some islamic theocracies where they don't have a choice.
In Iran the law was recently paused and because of this, naturally some women don't wear the hijab, but in other countries they are even forced to wear an burka without any liberty of choice. As said, it's different to have a choice or to be forced by others.
https://www.euronews.com/2024/12/18/iran-pauses-implementation-of-stricter-hijab-law-for-women
Yes in some places there are conservatives due to the way that colonialism and imperialism has impacted the world but as far as Iran goes, your quote shows that the people of Iran were sufficiently progressive to reject an attempt by some conservatives to push a conservative agenda. They were defeated in this attempt by the masses who are still overwhelmingly Muslim, but understand that the Quran says hijab is voluntary because it explicitly states religion cannot be compulsory.
No one here has defended it being compulsory, Muslims by and large are not pushing for it to be compulsory, and those that do are embodying a reactionary mindset imposed on them via colonialism and imperialism. Instead of focusing on what Muslims do and don't do it would be better to focus on ending capitalism so that people everywhere have more freedom from oppressive power structures, access to education and the ability to make decisions from a place of clarity and stability
I would push back against this framing a little bit. I feel as if the idea that Iranian hijab isn't real and therefore many women are without, is in many ways a way of appealing to the liberals and watering down the nature of the revolution. Hijab is enforced for people who represent the nation and appear on state television and hold office. I think this is great (hijab is also defining men's clothing too but idk if westerners even know that).
Holding onto it is a visible and tangible way to reject westoxification and reject liberalism. This isnt the place to enumerate but the position of the martyred Leader was that it should be heavily encouraged but nobody should be berated or attacked for not wearing good hijab. Here is link: https://english.khamenei.ir/news/9390
I don't really expect many people here to grasp the nuances of what is being expressed though.
But I categorically reject the idea that all people who support compulsory hijab are backwards conservatives etc. There is a famous letter from Fanon to Ali Shariati where he observes that the characteristics of Islam make it uniquely capable of countering westernized cultural domination. In many ways "hijab is a fortress against cultural imperialism"
I believe that, instead, it is these western xenophobic clowns that are the reactionaries.
Of course we already know The takfiris like isis/al qaeda do not represent Islam but idk if war on terror brain allows people to understand that.
this is the only point I am trying to make, that it is not inherent to the religion to compel hijab, which undermines the entire position of westerners who think it is compulsory. pointing out that there are non religious people and non muslims living their lives without fear of retribution drives the reality home that most people are choosing to veil because they are religious and personally want to, and not because of some threat of violence. they see people being good Muslims and want to emulate that out of devotion, not coercion.
while I agree with the benefits of wearing hijab for those who choose to, and I also understand how the imperialist and colonial powers are driving an anti-western sentiment that contributes to many clinging to hijab as something that should be compulsory as a defense against imperialist cultural hegemony, the desire to make anything compulsory for anyone else seems inherently conservative. Conservationism is often a natural defensive reaction from some external conditions, and even if it is understandable reaction to the legitimate enemy of the world it doesn't make it something I would personally agree with as the desired end goal. in the end it needs to be a personal decision or else the intention in the heart is impure and it is not legitimate submission to the will of Allah swt but a deception born of coercion.
I think i am not communicating what I mean. What I am saying is that "mandatory hijab" for public facing people such as athletes representing their country or newscasters etc can be a good thing. A funny example is like look at the womens volleyball team. One might argue that this isnt even Islamically hijab anyways lol its a symbol nonetheless. Let me just post some images and quotes and you can see what I mean for the nuance.
I think there is some nuance here which is getting lost
Ahh ok I was talking about the idea that wsterners have of mandatory hijab enforced on citizens at large but it seems like you're specifically talking about the dress code requirements for state representatives ?
Yes I'm talking about the requirements that exist for state & media representatives and such wear hijab (even if its "bad hijab") in order to represent the country
The French ban is not analogous at all. Like a fabrication.
But you understand right that the majority of the cases where people are enforcing dress on women it is people forcing western clothing on them? Do you not understand the hypocrisy of posting an image like what you did and saying that this has to be what the women want but implying that they want the thing that is repeatedly forced on them? The people in Iran chose this government with revolution and they have a constitutional democracy, they need to be empowered to work within their system. By posting pictures of women under the Shah wearing American clothes and implying this is best you are simply supporting imperialism against them
Yes, I understand perfectly, but it isn't the same. I know that society, fashion and other influences can push a women th use some clothings, but she isn't really forced by law to do it, she always has the choice, it's different in countries where a women is drastically punished if she don't wear a hijab or even a burka, even if she don't want to wear it. Sorry if YOU don't see the difference.
Thanks for letting me about a new worthless account to block