Iranian Chill Thread

[Hack-Hook]

Underage is a legal notion. Mental and social readiness are there in young people, and they can furthermore be transmitted by parents, society, state. A lot of practical social skills are acquired on the go as well, through experience, through trial and error.

maturity on mental and social ability won't be gained by practice , and f you want to let it be acquired after marriage , it will be gained when its too late.

God dislikes it and therefore the Islamic government and Muslims must do what they can to direct people towards greater abnegation, patience and towards a mindset in which divorce is no longer considered an acceptable solution to trivial marital conflicts. Whether or not people think they have other options is eminently subjective and conditioned by culture.

Divorce always is an acceptable solution as its acceptable in the holy book and hadith and our tradition.
and that everything they can do is a troublesome word , they can advice , they can counsel , they can solve problems . but barring it is against God guidance.

Strawman

refrain from answering when the answer hurt

I showed valid sources which make it clear that from an Islamic perspective, this is not something to be encouraged nor promoted, but rather to be considered an absolute last resort suited for extreme cases only. At the societal level, it should thus be the exception rather than the rule.

and nobody promote it , but can you show it references , hadith and anything that say we must use force to bar people from it ? or allowed in extreme cases only ?

Nor any mention that the introduction of quotas is haram. When the phenomenon reaches unacceptable proportions, much to the displeasure of God, it is an Islamic government's obligation to counteract the trend.

the government cant put limit on what is advised in holy book
so please don't rationalize a wrong

It's an Islamic regulation determined by Muslim clerics well versed in God's Law.

again where in Islam its such ?
no its a man made law that is fixed years ago.

They aren't.

they are

Islamic values, Islamic lifestyle are never going to be "dead". Generalization of divorce and questioning of the institution of marriage are anti-Islamic.

Economic considerations per se aren't a cause for divorce and don't need to be. Only when combined with individualist and materialist thinking will they have such an effect. Individualism and materialism are non-Islamic as well.

not Islamic value , read the post again

All these considerations have a social dimension to them. Trying to promote divorce among the poor is an act of social engineering and akin to social pressure in its effects.

no one try to promote divorce among poor , I don't knew from where you get it , I clearly stated when they put quota on how many divorce can be made in a city , its bound to make mre trouble for the poor people who want too get a divorce than wealthy one . I don't go in detail because it will be dirty but if you insist i can be more clear on what will happen

So preventing the use of subterfuges intended to circumvent the law is to establish a "dystopic police state"? Quite an absurd reasoning that would be.

no having taught police , is dystopic , dictating to incompatible people they must live with each other is dystopic , barring people from doing what is their god given right is dystopic

Iran's political system ensures that legislation passed by Majles is verified as to its compatibility with Islamic law.

and again Majlis can't enter in something that determined by Fiqh and Quran . its irrelevant that it later must pass from Guardian council .

If a couple fulfills all the legal conditions, then it will have no problem obtaining divorce inside Iran. If authorities refuse to meet their request, it means they do not legally qualify.

again blind support . Majlis was talking about passing a law that put quota on the number of divorce in each city can be made . it means if that quota is reached even if you met all the necessity to get a divorce you can't get it.
by the way what is the legal condition for getting a divorce ? the only condition in islam is the man and woman agree and a just person hold the cermony for it in front of two witness , is there any more condition for it that I'm not aware of ?

 

[SalarHaqq]

again your backward taught on women must be barred from higher education , the real goal of such thing is keep women weak , keep them slaves to your whim and it in nature is against islam , come from old European beliefs

Please read again.

patriarchal , don't mean keep women week , in that patriarchal society women could be commander of army , could be a governor of a province , could be naval commander , could be king and even could wage war, yes real war against king.

There were indeed such cases, which I'm not denying, but as a matter of fact they only exceptionally did so.

it mean the young must not told to marry to make children and more population , they must understand the purpose of mariage is making a family which is the bricks that make a society , making babies come later.

To have offspring is part and parcel of marriage, founding a family means having children.

- - - - -

I was watching this documentary on PKK and the guy who founded it genuinely believed tha society will be ultimately "free" when women are "free". So he thinks women should start doing farm work and being in war. He is probably one of the first radical feminists.

Yes, and liberals in Iran (i.e. reformists and moderates) are trying to push similar agendas... under the cover of Islam. Or rather, American Islam as Imam Khomeini (r.a.) put it. In his letter to ayatollah Montazeri, the Imam was crystal clear as to his radical opposition to liberalism, when he explained that Montazeri would have handed the country over to the liberals if he was allowed to become the next the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution, as he was initially slated to. Hence Montazeri was sidelined and placed under house arrest.

His political heirs are the reformists and moderates, they're still here and trying hard to impose their cultural and political westernization agenda on Iranians. But the revolutionary core of the system, namely Supreme Leader Khamenei and the IRGC, as well as well inspired, pious Muslims are holding them in check.

 

[Hack-Hook]

Read up on the history of the Constitutional Revolution again. We had clerics who had been initiated into masonry. Besides, as said, it was a hijacked and infiltrated movement, something masonry specializes in.

There was no single religious leader of Iran, and Sheykh Fazlollahe Nouri was one of the greatest alims of the past century as far as his political engagement is concerned. He inspired Imam Khomeini (r.a.) and the Islamic Revolution, which is why expressways and other locations are named after him in Iran today.

He was not Marja , the top clerics and Marja's supported it even wrote book in support of it .
by the way if it hijacked , it was later not when people made Mashrootah revolution .
and i have debate on if it was hijacked or not .

No nonsense there, only cold hard facts.

nonsense not fact , more like made the glass muddy so the picture wont be clear anymore

Mashruteh was infiltrated and hijacked by freemasonry, a secret society which among other things makes a mockery of democracy by defining decisive policy measures behind closed doors. The Islamic Repubilc has nothing to do with that.

later after its success . not when people made the revolution

Just that it wouldn't be the end of the world if they did

it will be , it make them dependent. and that will limit their decision making capabilities .
that make them a proxy of their husband and fathers .
wonder what you think is Islam view on taking away people independence

Islamic armies never recruited women in the same manner as men. There is obligation of lesser jihad upon the Muslim man, not upon the Muslim woman unless she is directly attacked. Exceptions are what define a rule.

obligation of Jihad even is for children and there is no being directly attacked condition there

I am talking about the innate differences between male and female nature, something that is reflected in the different rights and expectations attributed to men and women in Islam including the Holy Quran. Women and men have different roles, and the military fighting function was always essentially reserved for men in the history of Islam. Islamic armies always consisted practically exclusively of men.

exactly whats that innate difference please elaborate

I have no pride of this sort. Gheyrat requires us to protect women, who by nature are less apt at defending themselves.

not at all , I wonder from where you get women by nature are less apt at defending themselves ? do you believe its still 500 year ago that women are less capable of handling sword and spear because of their lesser body mass ?

Not a single one of it is. Feminism and liberalism however are western to the core and they represent the opposite of Islam or Iranian culture.

the notion of women must have lesser education and must be dependent is european

I was watching this documentary on PKK and the guy who founded it genuinely believed tha society will be ultimately "free" when women are "free". So he thinks women should start doing farm work and being in war. He is probably one of the first radical feminists.

no the women must not have job? good if their husband die they can go and beg

Read again.

read what , its clear

Could, but as a matter of fact they did exceptionally only.

they had their jobs and income, they had their property, is that also exceptional ?

To have offspring is part and parcel of marriage, founding a family means having children.

its not a necessity of having a family , it my come with parcel it may not come , around 20% of parents can't have children but they are a family. there are something more important than that when a family is formed

 

[Hack-Hook]

His political heirs are the reformists and moderates, they're still here and trying hard to impose their cultural and political westernization agenda on Iranians. But the revolutionary core of the system, namely Supreme Leader Khamenei and the IRGC, as well as well inspired, pious Muslims are holding them in check.

I see a case of we are Muslim , you are not.

 

[SalarHaqq]

maturity on mental and social ability won't be gained by practice , and f you want to let it be acquired after marriage , it will be gained when its too late.

Of course social and mental ability can be gained through practice, why shouldn't it. Vectors of education and socialization are in charge of preparing people for marriage, it's up to them fulfill their role.

Divorce always is an acceptable solution as its acceptable in the holy book and hadith and our tradition.

Not in a systematic fashion. Since it is discouraged in scriptures and tradition, and thus confined to exceptional situations.

and that everything they can do is a troublesome word , they can advice , they can counsel , they can solve problems . but barring it is against God guidance.

Reducing and barring are two different notions.

refrain from answering when the answer hurt

Why should one feel hurt by a rhetoric artifice such as a strawman argument?

and nobody promote it , but can you show it references , hadith and anything that say we must use force to bar people from it ? or allowed in extreme cases only ?

I referenced them above.

the government cant put limit on what is advised in holy book
so please don't rationalize a wrong

The Holy Book demands that Muslims try other ways first. When alternatives aren't sufficiently exhausted and divorce is trivialized like in the irreligious west, an Islamic government must step in to curtail this dangerous trend.

again where in Islam its such ?
no its a man made law that is fixed years ago.

By that logic much of Islamic law would have to be considered as "man made" since the Holy Quran isn't a full-scale treatise of feq. Feq is derived to a significant extent from the Quran and ahadith by scholars.

they are

The feminism and liberalism which reformists intend to make prevalent in Iranian society, represent contemporary western norms.

when they put quota on how many divorce can be made in a city , its bound to make mre trouble for the poor people who want too get a divorce than wealthy one . I don't go in detail because it will be dirty but if you insist i can be more clear on what will happen

Liberal politicians never really cared about the poor, so when they suddenly start getting emotional about them, it's basically crocodile tears. So don't take their antics all too seriously, they're just trying to fool their audience.

As mentioned, divorce is more infrequent among the less affluent classes, and the quotas introduced aren't going to have significant negative side effects on them. But they shall motivate people to readopt welcome habits, namely to stop viewing divorce as a trifling quick fix to marital conflicts.

no having taught police , is dystopic ,

Neutralizing subterfuges intended to circumvent the law is not the same as instituting a so-called thought police.

Moreover, social engineering and mental conditioning (neuro-linguistic programming etc) as practiced by westernized liberals can be considered as even more insidious and distopic than brute coercion.

dictating to incompatible people they must live with each other is dystopic

Subjective perception often makes people confuse inevitable but surmountable discord with fundamental incompatibility.

, barring people from doing what is their god given right is dystopic

Certain practices may be permissible but disliked by God and may potentially have dangerous implications for the Islamic model of society. When these turn into a widespread occurrence, it is incumbent upon the state to intervene in order to cut back on them.

and again Majlis can't enter in something that determined by Fiqh and Quran . its irrelevant that it later must pass from Guardian council .

The Guardian Council vets laws voted by Majles as to their conformity with Islamic rulings. There are experts of feq sitting in that Council.

To consider that Majles cannot pass any laws on topics mentioned in the Quran, ahadith and Islamic jurisprudence would be pretty problematic since by that principle, something like half of the laws currently in effect would have to be considered baseless.

again blind support . Majlis was talking about passing a law that put quota on the number of divorce in each city can be made . it means if that quota is reached even if you met all the necessity to get a divorce you can't get it.

I was referring to those who travel abroad to circumvent national laws.

 

[Shawnee]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1496941570825891843

صلوات بفرستید
من باب تلطیف فضا

با احساسات مردم بازی نکنیم

دیگه حرفی از غرامت نمیزنن
روسیه مدعی غرامت بشه جالب میشه

 

[SalarHaqq]

He was not Marja , the top clerics and Marja's supported it even wrote book in support of it .

As said, honorable clerics supported the movement but condemned the freemason elites who went about hijacking it. A cleric who endorses freemasonry is useless, regardless of rank. Imam Khomeini (r.a.) outlawed freemasonry immediately after the Victory of the Islamic Revolution, had their lodges shut down, their known members fleeing or getting arrested.

by the way if it hijacked , it was later not when people made Mashrootah revolution .

That's what I explained. I wasn't decrying the popular revolution onto itself.

nonsense not fact , more like made the glass muddy so the picture wont be clear anymore

The points I cited make it harder to impose westernization agendas on the Iranian people.

it will be , it make them dependent.

This is not so much of an issue.

and that will limit their decision making capabilities .
that make them a proxy of their husband and fathers .
wonder what you think is Islam view on taking away people independence

The Holy Quran 4:34 defines honest women as those who are obedient to their husbands. Not as some sort of (post-)modern day neurotic, impulsive feminists who act on a whim and have no sense of responsibility towards father, husband and children.

obligation of Jihad even is for children and there is no being directly attacked condition there

Then the question is why in 1400 years of Islamic history, armies consisted of men to something like 99.9%.

In the words of Imam Khomeini (r.a.):

Question: What is the duty of Muslim women in the battle of truth against falsehood?

Reply: Jihad is not incumbent on women, but defence is incumbent on everyone in line with their ability and means.

https://www.al-islam.org/position-women-viewpoint-imam-khomeini-ra/women-and-sacred-defence-jihad

exactly whats that innate difference please elaborate

I evoked the one difference which matters in this context.

not at all , I wonder from where you get women by nature are less apt at defending themselves ? do you believe its still 500 year ago that women are less capable of handling sword and spear because of their lesser body mass ?

It is the case that women on average will suffer an innate handicap in combat against men, even with modern weaponry. Lesser body mass implies reduced force to handle heavy equipment as well as the sort of physical stress one is exposed to in (modern) warfare overall. Then there are differences in respective cognitive postures, induced by differing physiological (including hormonal) conditions. Female violence isn't physical but emotional for the most part.

Notwithstanding outlandish stories concocted by feminist propaganda, men and women obviously aren't biologically identical. This is merely an objective assessment, not a normative value judgement. The fact that women and men weren't created completely equal in physical terms should not cause us to try and deny nature, as much as it shouldn't be invoked to legitimize crimes.

the notion of women must have lesser education and must be dependent is european

Don't remember stating they must have lower education levels. Just that it wouldn't be the end of the world, traditional society used to function well with the broad mass of women not feeling social pressure and not being persuaded to seek higher education at all costs (even at the cost of neglecting their own children as is often the case nowadays).

As for dependence in general, it's not specific to European history. Presently in Europe, so-called "emancipation" of women against any and all male authority is touted as the supposed societal norm anyway. And I doubt the Europeans are actually implementing Islam.

The Holy Quran stipulates that men must act as caretakers / protectors for their women, meaning that women will rely on their husbands in this regard, which in turn implies some degree of dependence.

no the women must not have job? good if their husband die they can go and beg

Or rely on their own families instead, and possibly find themselves another husband at a later point. Hence why it is so important to keep traditional family structures intact. If these fail nonetheless (for instance if not just the husband, but parents and all close relatives are deceased as well), then the welfare state must compensate for it and support these widows financially.

Capitalists however seek to crush the family structure in order to make not just men, but even women dependent on the exploitative wages they pay.

around 20% of parents can't have children but they are a family.

If they could have, they normally would in most cases. Because it's part of the concept of founding a family. Of course, exceptions confirm the rule.

I see a case of we are Muslim , you are not.

This is not at all what I sought to imply. I cited Imam Khomeini (r.a.), who did not excommunicate these subjects, rather he denounced deviations.

Then I used the phrase 'well inspired Muslims', meaning the others are Muslims too but they're mistaken in their interpretations.

So it isn't a fair accusation to make.

 

[Messerschmitt]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1507032087588745228

 

[TheImmortal]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1507286138578518037

 

[Hydration]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1507286138578518037

RIP

 

[Hack-Hook]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1507032087588745228

where you get it , I fell of the chair, specially when he said I want another one

As said, honorable clerics supported the movement but condemned the freemason elites who went about hijacking it. A cleric who endorses freemasonry is useless, regardless of rank. Imam Khomeini (r.a.) outlawed freemasonry immediately after the Victory of the Islamic Revolution, had their lodges shut down, their known members fleeing or getting arrested.



That's what I explained. I wasn't decrying the popular revolution onto itself.



The points I cited make it harder to impose westernization agendas on the Iranian people.



This is not so much of an issue.



The Holy Quran 4:34 defines honest women as those who are obedient to their husbands. Not as some sort of (post-)modern day neurotic, impulsive feminists who act on a whim and have no sense of responsibility towards father, husband and children.



Then the question is why in 1400 years of Islamic history, armies consisted of men to something like 99.9%.

In the words of Imam Khomeini (r.a.):

Question: What is the duty of Muslim women in the battle of truth against falsehood?

Reply: Jihad is not incumbent on women, but defence is incumbent on everyone in line with their ability and means.

https://www.al-islam.org/position-women-viewpoint-imam-khomeini-ra/women-and-sacred-defence-jihad



I evoked the one difference which matters in this context.



It is the case that women on average will suffer an innate handicap in combat against men, even with modern weaponry. Lesser body mass implies reduced force to handle heavy equipment as well as the sort of physical stress one is exposed to in (modern) warfare overall. Then there are differences in respective cognitive postures, induced by differing physiological (including hormonal) conditions. Female violence isn't physical but emotional for the most part.

Notwithstanding outlandish stories concocted by feminist propaganda, men and women obviously aren't biologically identical. This is merely an objective assessment, not a normative value judgement. The fact that women and men weren't created completely equal in physical terms should not cause us to try and deny nature, as much as it shouldn't be invoked to legitimize crimes.



Don't remember stating they must have lower education levels. Just that it wouldn't be the end of the world, traditional society used to function well with the broad mass of women not feeling social pressure and not being persuaded to seek higher education at all costs (even at the cost of neglecting their own children as is often the case nowadays).

As for dependence in general, it's not specific to European history. Presently in Europe, so-called "emancipation" of women against any and all male authority is touted as the supposed societal norm anyway. And I doubt the Europeans are actually implementing Islam.

The Holy Quran stipulates that men must act as caretakers / protectors for their women, meaning that women will rely on their husbands in this regard, which in turn implies some degree of dependence.



Or rely on their own families instead, and possibly find themselves another husband at a later point. Hence why it is so important to keep traditional family structures intact. If these fail nonetheless (for instance if not just the husband, but parents and all close relatives are deceased as well), then the welfare state must compensate for it and support these widows financially.

Capitalists however seek to crush the family structure in order to make not just men, but even women dependent on the exploitative wages they pay.



If they could have, they normally would in most cases. Because it's part of the concept of founding a family. Of course, exceptions confirm the rule.



This is not at all what I sought to imply. I cited Imam Khomeini (r.a.), who did not excommunicate these subjects, rather he denounced deviations.

Then I used the phrase 'well inspired Muslims', meaning the others are Muslims too but they're mistaken in their interpretations.

So it isn't a fair accusation to make.

we are just turning around each other and in this matter , the only thing I can agree with you is that our taste in women is fundamentally different from each other.

 

[thesaint]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1507370197287673861

 

[Dariush the Great]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1507370197287673861

7+ years and they are still struggling with guys walking on sandals. Who advises the Saudi army?

 

[Hormuz]

Russian ambassador to Syria: Israel is provoking us to react

The Russian ambassador complained that Israeli strikes aim to "escalate tensions and allow the West to carry out military activities in Syria."

www.jpost.com

 

[QWECXZ]

شهرام همایون هم داره دوزاریش می‌افته بالاخره

پشت پرده موضع وطن فروشانه "اِبی" در مورد خلیج فارس+فیلم

www.mashreghnews.ir