Iranian Law May Require Non-Muslims to Wear Badges (Source Retracted)

UPDATE:

The 13-article bill — which focuses on economic incentives for Islamic dress — has been touted by conservatives as a vital tool to curb Western influence in the conservative Islamic Republic. No date has been set yet on a final vote on the bill.

"This bill brings no obligation, no imposition," said Emad Afresh, an Iranian lawmaker.

"It only requires the government to support the private sector," he said, adding that it was a way to "resist the (Western) cultural onslaught in a world where globalization is being imposed."

The bill does not call for police or other bodies to enforce stricter styles of dress for women. Instead, it rallies state agencies to promote Islamic dress and "encourage the public to abstain from choosing clothes that aren't appropriate to the culture of Iran," according to the copy received from the parliament's press office.

Also this in regards to the original accusations of Tagging religious minorities.

On Friday, a Canadian newspaper, The National Post, quoting Iranian exiles, said the law would force Jews, Christians and other religious minorities to wear special patches of colored cloth to distinguish them from Muslims. The report drew a condemnation from the United States, which said such a law would carry "clear echoes of Germany under Hitler."

A copy of the draft law obtained by The Associated Press made no mention of religious minorities or any requirement of special attire for them, and the Post later posted an article on its Web site backing off the report.

Yahoo.com

The canadian post backed off the story, and the Associated press themselves has a copy of the draft law which they claim has nothing to do with religious minorities.

As far as I can see is that the draft law is an incentive to bring traditional Islamic dress code for women by favoring companies which manufacture the clothes, as well as a way to "resist the (Western) cultural onslaught in a world where globalization is being imposed."


I have also posted this in the other related thread. Would you people like to deny ignorance now or continue to live in denial and find a reason for war?

[edit on 5/20/2006 by DYepes]

But Muaddib still thinks Saddam had WMD's in the run-up to the Iraq invasion. He wont let this articles retraction by the same publication that broke it nudge him off message.

The case for attacking Iran is that flimsy, and blantantly baseless, that laughable propaganda needs to be relied upon. I dont know about the rest of you guys with brains, but I take comfort in knowing that these liars have to stoop SO LOW as to make up fairytales mirroring Nazi Germany to bolster their feeble call to yet-another-War.

This broken record propaganda would be highly entertaining if the consequences were not so grave.

Originally posted by subz
But Muaddib still thinks Saddam had WMD's in the run-up to the Iraq invasion. He wont let this articles retraction by the same publication that broke it nudge him off message.

What are you takling about he clearly stated he doubted the story and thought it was made up. What more do you want? :shk:

Originally posted by Muaddib
For now it does seems that this was made up.

Originally posted by shots
What are you takling about he clearly stated he doubted the story and thought it was made up. What more do you want? :shk:

So does that mean, according to Muaddib, the Iranian government is not anti-Semetic and is not a threat to Israel? For that is the message.

Originally posted by DYepes
.......................
I have also posted this in the other related thread. Would you people like to deny ignorance now or continue to live in denial and find a reason for war?

Would you read what I said in my last post instead of trying to make people believe I posted this as a reason for going to war with Iran?.... Where in my posts did i even say we should go to war with iran over this?.....

Originally posted by subz
So does that mean, according to Muaddib, the Iranian government is not anti-Semetic and is not a threat to Israel? For that is the message.

.....How does this, however this was started which appears to be an exageration to something that is happening, dismiss the fact that the Iranian president has called for Israel to be wiped off the map and the rest of the regime's rhetoric?...

I am sorry Maudibb I did not mean to direct that comment to you. The other topic of this topic had people ready to wage war and "completely wipe the middle east off the map" comments before these accusations were debunked.

Also subz, Iraq has been done and can not be undone, It should not be relevant to bring Maudibb's opinion on that matter into this topic.

Originally posted by subz
But Muaddib still thinks Saddam had WMD's in the run-up to the Iraq invasion. He wont let this articles retraction by the same publication that broke it nudge him off message.

You know damn well that I have given ample evidence to support the fact that Saddam still had wmd programs..... But anyways, this is not about wmd in Iraq....

Originally posted by subz
The case for attacking Iran is that flimsy, and blantantly baseless, that laughable propaganda needs to be relied upon. I dont know about the rest of you guys with brains, but I take comfort in knowing that these liars have to stoop SO LOW as to make up fairytales mirroring Nazi Germany to bolster their feeble call to yet-another-War.

This broken record propaganda would be highly entertaining if the consequences were not so grave.

.....Could you point to us where did i state that this was ground for any war?.....

Do YOU have to "stoop SO LOW" that you have to put words in my mouth and make up allegations?.....

[edit on 21-5-2006 by Muaddib]

BTW, I did find the following article about the 13 article bill.

Iran's parliament approves "national dress" bill
Last Updated(Beijing Time):2006-05-16 14:28

Iran's Majlis (parliament) has adopted a "national dress" bill in a bid to boycott current Western-style fashion trend, local press reported on Monday.
The bill was approved on Sunday with 137 votes in favor, 45 against and 11 abstentions. It has to be finalized by the Guardian Council before coming into effect.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has called for introduction of a "dress code" in line with Iran's national and Islamic identification and culture.

He said that the new outfit should have a variety of forms and colors and must be economical.

It is still unclear how exactly the national outfit is supposed to look like.

The Ministry of Culture and Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB) will have the primary responsibility of promoting the required dress and prevent Western-style fashion that are against Islamic teachings.

en.ce.cn...

So there seems to be at least some truth to the original story, it could have been exagerated a bit, but I think it is too early to say either way. It is a "required" dress code, as can be seen mentioned in the article.

[edit on 21-5-2006 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by Muaddib
So there seems to be at least some truth to the original story, it could have been exagerated a bit, but I think it is too early to say either way. It is a "required" dress code, as can be seen mentioned in the article.

As far as I know, the bill won't affect non-muslims and men.
An Iranian on MP.net already posted several pictures of the new clothing that is set to be introduced when this bill passes.
Link

[edit on 21-5-2006 by shire19]

Wow! There's several threads on this. I'm going to post what I posted in another thread here, because I want feedback if my understanding of Sharia on this issue is wrong. Thanks.

*******************

Gee - when something like this happens it is almost a lose-lose situation. This article being published and claiming Iran has passed this law recently appears to be false. But what great timing, right?

At the same time when people start pointing out the falseness of the article, they run the risk of masking the fact the law was already in place!

As some one else pointed out the zunnar is required by Sharia law to be worn by non-Muslims.

Discussion on Dhimmi in Sharia law

Reference of zunnar by imam in speech

History of Zunnar and Dhimmi

Basically, by my understanding (which is open to correction by anyone with a better understanding), the non-Muslim in a Muslim society basically enters into a contract which provides them protection from harm if they follow the Dhimmi requirements, which include wearing the zunnar (which can have badges of varying signifying colors attached to them in accordance with the local authoritative decision). If the non-Muslim does not follow the restrictions they lose the protection.

Please correct me if I misunderstand.

Originally posted by Valhall
Wow! There's several threads on this. I'm going to post what I posted in another thread here, because I want feedback if my understanding of Sharia on this issue is wrong. Thanks.

*******************

Gee - when something like this happens it is almost a lose-lose situation. This article being published and claiming Iran has passed this law recently appears to be false. But what great timing, right?

At the same time when people start pointing out the falseness of the article, they run the risk of masking the fact the law was already in place!

As some one else pointed out the zunnar is required by Sharia law to be worn by non-Muslims.

Discussion on Dhimmi in Sharia law

Reference of zunnar by imam in speech

History of Zunnar and Dhimmi

Basically, by my understanding (which is open to correction by anyone with a better understanding), the non-Muslim in a Muslim society basically enters into a contract which provides them protection from harm if they follow the Dhimmi requirements, which include wearing the zunnar (which can have badges of varying signifying colors attached to them in accordance with the local authoritative decision). If the non-Muslim does not follow the restrictions they lose the protection.

Please correct me if I misunderstand.

I was aware that the Dhimmi status was abolished in many countries. For example the tax for non-muslims is no longer present in Islamic countries today. And I would figure considering the pictures we've seen of non-muslims in Iran that the Zunnar is probally also a thing of the past.

Also I believe Iran still has Islamic law (sharia law) but an adjusted version that promotes alot more equality between sexes and minorities.
For example, before the Islamic revolution the Sharia law that was present under the Shah allowed men to marry 4 permanent wives. In 1979 a law was passed (family protection law) that required the man to ask permission from the wife if he wished to marry another women.
I'm not an expert on Sharia law but Islamic laws in countries have been bend and changed before according to their timelines.

It would really be a positive result to turn this apparent well-timed false report around to definitively answer the question concerning whether Dhimmitude and the requirement for wearing zunnar are still in effect in Iran or not.

At least when we walk away from this we would walk away knowing the facts of the matter and not some half-truth either way. Maybe that is what we should center on here instead of letting this false news report jerk us into an area of conflict between ourselves (and Iran) at a time that level-headedness is more required than ever.

[edit on 5-21-2006 by Valhall]

Originally posted by Muaddib
You know damn well that I have given ample evidence to support the fact that Saddam still had wmd programs..... But anyways, this is not about wmd in Iraq....

Your fuhrer doesnt even believe that any more.

Originally posted by Muaddib
.....Could you point to us where did i state that this was ground for any war?.....

Do YOU have to "stoop SO LOW" that you have to put words in my mouth and make up allegations?.....

Hmm I wasnt refering to you, unless you made this story up, but its interesting that you automatically assume im talking about you with reference to liars.

(For the benefit of Muaddib: im not talking about you any more chief)

Unless we are prepared to accept a foreign culture dictating to us what we should(nt) be wearing, we have no grounds to do it to others. If the Iranian government issues guidelines that the Iranian women should dress conservatively we have no right to interfere. It is an issue between the Iranian public and their government.

They did just fine removing an oppressive dictator all by themselves, inspite of US resistance may I remind you all. They do not need outside interference trying to portray what is best for their nation. Especially when its only a thinly veiled rhuse designed to spread discontent amongst the populace to overthrow a democratically elected leader who doesnt bend to their every demand.

Compassionate Imperialism is still imperialism, im sure the missionaries thought they were doing the "right thing" when they mutilated African/South American cultures. We have no right telling other nations what to do, especially when it comes to freedom, democracy and civil/human rights. We cant even force our own governments to obey the democratic process, human rights legislation and the rule of law, why are we devoting any effort trying to "fix" other nations?

so according to what i read, the canadian media says this law is coming to effect, but the iraninains say there is no such thing???

that sounds very fishy to me.. has anyone found out why the media would screw themselves like that?

why would the canadians do something like that i dont know.

[edit on 21-5-2006 by worksoftplayhard]

Originally posted by subz

Your fuhrer doesnt even believe that any more.

Wow, so that's your anwser...calling me a nazi?....

Your attempt at being a smartass has just made you a dumbass...

First of all i am Hispanic, which for your information is a minority group...something which all Nazis hated/hate, second the U.S. has in power several people who belong to minority groups, which again demonstrates that your lying tongue, and fingers, and those like yourself try to resort to this tactic, are babling about something you obviously don't know....

Originally posted by subz
Hmm I wasnt refering to you, unless you made this story up, but its interesting that you automatically assume im talking about you with reference to liars.

Well, as can be seen in your attempt to label me as a Nazi, there is a reason for me believing that you were resorting to the same stupid tactics you always try to use.

Originally posted by subz
Compassionate Imperialism is still imperialism, im sure the missionaries thought they were doing the "right thing" when they mutilated African/South American cultures.

Nice try at taking the subject off a tangent.....

[edit on 21-5-2006 by Muaddib]

Anyways, back to the topic at hand. Did anybody not read the second link and excerpts i gave which points out that there is some truth to what was said in the original article?

i also found another article which shows that this new law is being forced on people, for now it appears to be forced on women, but also on men with different hairstyles, and people walking their pet dogs, but I guess all of that is fine according to some of the members around here.

BTW...I am not calling for a war on Iran because of this...

Police in Tehran ordered to arrest women in 'un-Islamic' dress

· Taxi drivers responsible for clothes of passengers
· Purge allied with effort to cut viewing of western TV

Robert Tait in Tehran
Thursday April 20, 2006
The Guardian

Iran's Islamic authorities are preparing a crackdown on women flouting the stringent dress code in the clearest sign yet of social and political repression under President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
From today police in Tehran will be under orders to arrest women failing to conform to the regime's definition of Islamic morals by wearing loose-fitting hijab, or headscarves, tight jackets and shortened trousers exposing skin.

Offenders could be punished with £30 fines or two months in jail. Officers will also be authorised to confront men with outlandish hairstyles and people walking pet dogs, an activity long denounced as un-Islamic by the religious rulers.

www.guardian.co.uk...

I also found the following report on the discrimination on religious minorities in Iran.

The following report was released in 2004, on how women are not allowed to dress how they want. In it it is stated that back then the enforcement of the dress code was eased, but on the article which i posted above it shows that it is being forced once again.

Women are not free to choose what they wear in public, although enforcement of rules for conservative Islamic dress has eased in recent years. Women are subject to harassment by the authorities if their dress or behavior is considered inappropriate and are sentenced to flogging or imprisonment for such violations. The law prohibits the publication of pictures of uncovered women in the print media, including pictures of foreign women. There are penalties, including flogging and monetary fines, for failure to observe norms of Islamic dress at work.

www.iranfocus.com...

I still think that "in part" it appears the original article was right.

Here is another article and excerpt which shows that the dress code is being enforced.

2006-04-29 Syria-Lebanon-Iran
Police in Tehran ordered to arrest women in 'un-Islamic' dress
Iran's Islamic authorities are preparing a crackdown on women flouting the stringent dress code in the clearest sign yet of social and political repression under President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

From today police in Tehran will be under orders to arrest women failing to conform to the regime's definition of Islamic morals by wearing loose-fitting hijab, or headscarves, tight jackets and shortened trousers exposing skin.

Offenders could be punished with £30 fines or two months in jail. Officers will also be authorised to confront men with outlandish hairstyles and people walking pet dogs, an activity long denounced as un-Islamic by the religious rulers.

The clampdown coincides with a bill before Iran's conservative-dominated parliament proposing that fines for people with TV satellite dishes rise from £60 to more than £3,000. Millions of Iranians have illegal dishes, enabling them to watch western films and news channels.

The dress purge is led by a Tehran city councillor, Nader Shariatmaderi, a close ally of Mr Ahmadinejad who helped to plot last year's election victory.

rantburg.com...



[edit on 21-5-2006 by Muaddib]

Again, let me post once more the second article and the excerpts to it, because it seems people are too fast to dismiss this and some people don't bother going back a few posts to read given excerpts and links...

Iran's parliament approves "national dress" bill
Last Updated(Beijing Time):2006-05-16 14:28

Iran's Majlis (parliament) has adopted a "national dress" bill in a bid to boycott current Western-style fashion trend, local press reported on Monday.
The bill was approved on Sunday with 137 votes in favor, 45 against and 11 abstentions. It has to be finalized by the Guardian Council before coming into effect.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has called for introduction of a "dress code" in line with Iran's national and Islamic identification and culture.

He said that the new outfit should have a variety of forms and colors and must be economical.

It is still unclear how exactly the national outfit is supposed to look like.

The Ministry of Culture and Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB) will have the primary responsibility of promoting the required dress and prevent Western-style fashion that are against Islamic teachings.

en.ce.cn...

So it does seem there is at least some truth to what was being said in the original article. As for the reason why the article was retracted, we all know what has been happening with controversies in the Muslim community such as what has been happening in Europe, so it is possible the retraction was done not to infuriate the Muslim community. Again, I could be wrong, but it does seem that several of the points raised in the original article, are backed by other news reports.



[edit on 21-5-2006 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by Muaddib
Anyways, back to the topic at hand. Did anybody not read the second link and excerpts i gave which points out that there is some truth to what was said in the original article?

"Some truth"? That is a very vague statement. The bulk of the article you cited earlier talks about putting badges on Jews and other religious minorities, yet nothing in those articles or in reality about the situation has to do with putting badges on Jews, Muadibb.

i also found another article which shows that this new law is being forced on people, for now it appears to be forced on women, but also on men with different hairstyles, and people walking their pet dogs, but I guess all of that is fine according to some of the members around here.

Yes, the Islamic republic of Iran has in the past done this and then laxed controls on dress and now is trying to restrict them again. A good book about how many Muslims in Iran despise these laws is "Reading Lolita in Tehran" by Azar Nafisi. Actually, I find it odd that so many people are in an uproar too about "badges on Jews", but don't care about the oppression of the average Muslim in Iran.

[edit on 21-5-2006 by Jamuhn]