nice footage of Reza Shah with Ataturk and others.

[Serpentine]

You are in confusion and dilemma. at the same time. Half of you supports one thought, while the other part opposes it.

I didn't exactly support any group here, so I think it's the vice versa. You can specify what exactly you mean here.

 

[Islamic faith&Secularism]

I didn't exactly support any group here, so I think it's the vice versa. You can specify what exactly you mean here.

I did not claim you support some group; instead i mentioned about thoughts; As you can see , They are not the same things.

If you claim that people did not know the meaning of Islamic republic, that means those people were less religious than today; At this point, your other half intervenes and claims They now cannot act as they wish because they were elected by the majority. But if People now know it well, then how can they claim that Hijab wearing depends on the own wish of women.

You cannot be that much oxymoron in one speech.

 

[Serpentine]

I did not claim you support some group; instead i mentioned about thoughts; As you can see , They are not the same things.

If you claim that people did not know the meaning of Islamic republic, that means those people were less religious than today; At this point, your other half intervenes and claims They now cannot act as they wish because they were elected by the majority. But if People now know it well, then how can they claim that Hijab wearing depends on the own wish of women.

People didn't know about IR because it was simply a 2 words term, and nothing more, there were still some shadowy parts explaining this term, it laws and ways of ruling the country. They were just passing a revolution supported by absolute majority of the country, with different mindsets, It has nothing to with people being less religious or not.

And I am saying the IR shouldn't do anything it wants only because people voted for it in 1979, like imposing a mandatory hijab. Matters like this should be put for another referendum in the country.

 

[Islamic faith&Secularism]

People didn't know about IR because it was simply a 2 words term, and nothing more, there were still some shadowy parts explaining this term, it laws and ways of ruling the country. They were just passing a revolution supported by absolute majority of the country, with different mindsets, It has nothing to with people being less religious or not.

And I am saying the IR shouldn't do anything it wants only because people voted for it in 1979, like imposing a mandatory hijab. Matters like this should be put for another referendum in the country.

Ok, i am putting aside the Word of Republic for a second.

You cannot say people at that moment did not know Islam. If you say, then you cannot claim hijab should today not be dependent on the free choice of women.

Even you (seeming liberal) have some confusion in that matter. If you believe IR, then you cannot claim such thing; but if you are in favour of Democracy, then you can claim so.

So you should decide whay you are supporting; otherwise it seems oxymoron comments by you, which may not be taken serious by people.

 

[Serpentine]

Ok, i am putting aside the Word of Republic for a second.

You cannot say people at that moment did not know Islam. If you say, then you cannot claim hijab should today not be dependent on the free choice of women.

Even you (seeming liberal) have some confusion in that matter. If you believe IR, then you cannot claim such thing; but if you are in favour of Democracy, then you can claim so.

So you should decide what you are supporting; otherwise it seems oxymoron comments by you, which may not be taken serious by people.

I don't think my words are that difficult to understand, so it seems you are deliberately trying to play with me with my own words, just like last time.

I didn't say people didn't know what Islam is, I said people were not familiar with an IR as a political system, as they didn't have previous experiences.

I said matters like mandatory hijab should be put on a separate referendum for people to decide about it, but my own personal belief is that hijab should be completely free, people should be able to decide what to wear or not and on the other hand, there shouldn't be any ban on hijab in any parts of the country, like some other countries are doing so.

 

[mohsen]

If it's against democracy to prohibit women from wearing hijab, it's also against democracy to prosecute those who don't want to wear hijab.
Voting for Islamic Republic doesn't mean they can do anything they want only because they have been voted by majority. People back then had a vague view about what an Islamic Republic is, and what it's gonna do or not.

Hijab should not be banned anywhere, whether in government institutions, public places or private ones, and I don't agree with those laws in Turkey, France or other countries, but at the same time, hijab should be absolutely free, and no one should be forced to wear it,by any means.

And many many Iranians are Muslims only in statistics and birth certificate, not in actual life, if use of hijab becomes free one day, you would be so surprised seeing number of women who don't want to wear hijab and ironically, this number has increased significantly compared to pre revolution era. All thanks to failed policy of mandatory hijab, which is creating problems that is much worse than simply exposed hairs.

When people are unnecessarily limited, they will seek alternatives and hence the situation usually becomes worse.

in a democracy everything will be chosen through elections, like it or not the demand of the majority will be the rule of the country. as I said you may like it or not, that's the meaning of democracy.

by your logic n#dists should be able to walk n@ked in western countries without being arrested by police. but it's not gonna happen, every society has a definition for a minimum clothes that you should use in public places, their actress play fully naked roles in movies, but the same actress has to wear her clothes when she appears in the society. why? because it's the people's demand, because people have the right to not see such a disgrace too, because it has become their law.
the same thing applys to Iran too, and our definition for minimum clothes is the Hijab.

you said current Iranian are less religious, well it's your imaginations, just look at the pre-revolution pictures and movies to see the opposite. a while ago I was in a hospital in the ceter of the town and from hundreds of women that I saw, the number of bad hijabs wouldn't reach the 10. the fact is that these bad hijabs which are mostly from the upper class families appear more in public and shopping malls, but it's just a false flag. also you go to small towns and villages and it's really hard to find some instances.
also even most of these bad Hijabs will disagree with your idea for a complete freedom in society.

and finally you said limitation would lead to wore scenarios, so may I ask why the number of crimes, the number of sexual harassment in western countries is bigger than Iran?
the fact is that human's sexu@l desire is endless, the more you see, you just become more addicted, more h@rny, so your plan for removing the limitations will lead to even worse scenarios, as it already has happened in western countries, and I guess you can find the statistics yourself.

 

[Islamic faith&Secularism]

I don't think my words are that difficult to understand, so it seems you are deliberately trying to play with me with my own words, just like last time.

I didn't say people didn't know what Islam is, I said people were not familiar with an IR as a political system, as they didn't have previous experiences.

I said matters like mandatory hijab should be put on a separate referendum for people to decide about it, but my own personal belief is that hijab should be completely free, people should be able to decide what to wear or not and on the other hand, there shouldn't be any ban on hijab in any parts of the country, like some other countries are doing so.

Please do not turn this into a personal issue. I have no intention of playing with anything; ı am just trying to understand you, Because i have for a few times talked to people from Iran when they were at Istiklal Street in Taksim in Istanbul; they were liberals like you; but were holding the same confusion.


I am trting it again. People knew the meaning of Republic at that moment, right? People did at that moment know the sharia, right? Otherwise, How could they vote for IR? At this point you claimed that it was vague. and i asked you that if people today know it better, then how come they can claim it should be dependent of the own wish of people. If they claim so; then how come they are in favor of IR.

Do we have more clean understanding of each other now?

 

[Serpentine]

in a democracy everything will be chosen through elections, like it or not the demand of the majority will be the rule of the country. as I said you may like it or not, that's the meaning of democracy.

by your logic n#dists should be able to walk n@ked in western countries without being arrested by police. but it's not gonna happen, every society has a definition for a minimum clothes that you should use in public places, their actress play fully naked roles in movies, but the same actress has to wear her clothes when she appears in the society. why? because it's the people's demand, because people have the right to not see such a disgrace too, because it has become their law.
the same thing applys to Iran too, and our definition for minimum clothes is the Hijab.

you said current Iranian are less religious, well it's your imaginations, just look at the pre-revolution pictures and movies to see the opposite. a while ago I was in a hospital in the ceter of the town and from hundreds of women that I saw, the number of bad hijabs wouldn't reach the 10. the fact is that these bad hijabs which are mostly from the upper class families appear more in public and shopping malls, but it's just a false flag. also you go to small towns and villages and it's really hard to find some instances.
also even most of these bad Hijabs will disagree with your idea for a complete freedom in society.

and finally you said limitation would lead to wore scenarios, so may I ask why the number of crimes, the number of sexual harassment in western countries is bigger than Iran?
the fact is that human's sexu@l desire is endless, the more you see, you just become more addicted, more h@rny, so your plan for removing the limitations will lead to even worse scenarios, as it already has happened in western countries, and I guess you can find the statistics yourself.

The example of nudists walking in streets is irrelevant, it's a social taboo in all countries, but women without hijab weren't social taboos in Iran, not even now after all these years.
Who defines that 'minimum clothes' that people should wear? Who says the majority are in favor of mandatory hijab? Why don't they hold a referendum if they are so sure that majority wants it?

Your example about pre-revolution Iran doesn't make sense, because back then those stuff were allowed to be produced, but now, it doesn't mean that people who are willing to produce or use those stuff don't exist.

I never said there shouldn't be limitations. The law itself is basically a limitation that is a good thing. I'm saying unnecassary limitations should be lifted which I think mandatory hijab is one of them.

And about your example of small towns or cities. It's spreading in those places too, just like it spread in big cities, and not only in upper class families, but families from all levels and it's going to spread all over the country sooner or later, it's happening now, you can't deny that.

Please do not turn this into a personal issue. I have no intention of playing with anything; ı am just trying to understand you, Because i have for a few times talked to people from Iran when they were at Istiklal Street in Taksim in Istanbul; they were liberals like you; but were holding the same confusion.


I am trting it again. People knew the meaning of Republic at that moment, right? People did at that moment know the sharia, right? Otherwise, How could they vote for IR? At this point you claimed that it was vague. and i asked you that if people today know it better, then how come they can claim it should be dependent of the own wish of people. If they claim so; then how come they are in favor of IR.

Do we have more clean understanding of each other now?

Constitution of Iran is not solely based on Sharia if you didn't know.

Take Pakistan as an example, it's an Islamic Republic, but women are free to wear hijab or not. That's the best example I can give you to make myself clear. A country can be an IR without hijab being mandatory in it.

I can't say for sure if majority of people completely support IR or not, things have changed dramatically since the revolution. Also, there are many persons who may agree with IR, but oppose a mandatory hijab law.

 

[SALMAN F]

in a democracy everything will be chosen through elections, like it or not the demand of the majority will be the rule of the country. as I said you may like it or not, that's the meaning of democracy.

by your logic n#dists should be able to walk n@ked in western countries without being arrested by police. but it's not gonna happen, every society has a definition for a minimum clothes that you should use in public places, their actress play fully naked roles in movies, but the same actress has to wear her clothes when she appears in the society. why? because it's the people's demand, because people have the right to not see such a disgrace too, because it has become their law.
the same thing applys to Iran too, and our definition for minimum clothes is the Hijab.

you said current Iranian are less religious, well it's your imaginations, just look at the pre-revolution pictures and movies to see the opposite. a while ago I was in a hospital in the ceter of the town and from hundreds of women that I saw, the number of bad hijabs wouldn't reach the 10. the fact is that these bad hijabs which are mostly from the upper class families appear more in public and shopping malls, but it's just a false flag. also you go to small towns and villages and it's really hard to find some instances.
also even most of these bad Hijabs will disagree with your idea for a complete freedom in society.

and finally you said limitation would lead to wore scenarios, so may I ask why the number of crimes, the number of sexual harassment in western countries is bigger than Iran?
the fact is that human's sexu@l desire is endless, the more you see, you just become more addicted, more h@rny, so your plan for removing the limitations will lead to even worse scenarios, as it already has happened in western countries, and I guess you can find the statistics yourself.

We have democracy before the west it's called shura we don't need western democracy because will not fit us

 

[Islamic faith&Secularism]

in a democracy everything will be chosen through elections, like it or not the demand of the majority will be the rule of the country. as I said you may like it or not, that's the meaning of democracy.

by your logic n#dists should be able to walk n@ked in western countries without being arrested by police. but it's not gonna happen, every society has a definition for a minimum clothes that you should use in public places, their actress play fully naked roles in movies, but the same actress has to wear her clothes when she appears in the society. why? because it's the people's demand, because people have the right to not see such a disgrace too, because it has become their law.
the same thing applys to Iran too, and our definition for minimum clothes is the Hijab.

you said current Iranian are less religious, well it's your imaginations, just look at the pre-revolution pictures and movies to see the opposite. a while ago I was in a hospital in the ceter of the town and from hundreds of women that I saw, the number of bad hijabs wouldn't reach the 10. the fact is that these bad hijabs which are mostly from the upper class families appear more in public and shopping malls, but it's just a false flag. also you go to small towns and villages and it's really hard to find some instances.
also even most of these bad Hijabs will disagree with your idea for a complete freedom in society.

and finally you said limitation would lead to wore scenarios, so may I ask why the number of crimes, the number of sexual harassment in western countries is bigger than Iran?
the fact is that human's sexu@l desire is endless, the more you see, you just become more addicted, more h@rny, so your plan for removing the limitations will lead to even worse scenarios, as it already has happened in western countries, and I guess you can find the statistics yourself.

Can i visit your planet for my holiday? Do i have to get a visa for it? jokes aside, no offense please.


Your approach to the situation is based on comparisons; however, you skip the one thing, which is that why we are sent to the World.

Do you know that those naked women could go to the haven while you could go to the hell. Today you call people, kafir; however, they could go to the haven as well.

Symbols or other things cannot secure the key to the haven; it must be in your mind and heart, the rest is not that much importan.

 

[Islamic faith&Secularism]

Constitution of Iran is not solely based on Sharia if you didn't know.

Take Pakistan as an example, it's an Islamic Republic, but women are free to wear hijab or not. That's the best example I can give you to make myself clear. A country can be an IR without hijab being mandatory in it.

I can't say for sure if majority of people completely support IR or not, things have changed dramatically since the revolution. Also, there are many persons who may agree with IR, but oppose a mandatory hijab law.

ı know ottoman system, and it was to some point secular.

We are getting closer to my point; ıf people are free in their actions; what is the funciton of the Islam before Republic? When you say IR; what is it you are trying to tell?

If the government and the country is muslm, then how could you say that people can be free in their actions?

 

[death2]

İ dont love ataturk because he killed thousands of muslim people after his coup by external aid, he fought against islam every time, we can see that his against to islam in the consitution of his coup. And after him his followers always kept be western collaborators as him. But your love to him not result from his policy benefiting to people of turkey, if there was an election in his era he wouldnot be elected. He stole the money of peole making a good life for himself and since there was no election he was a dictator as named founder leader serving to his western boss.

as an iranian i am sorry for what he says
ataturk was a great man for turk people in turkey and he made one country of the remained land from ottoman empire that was impossible work and this work needed some one like heros
the man named ataturk( father of a nation) had one boss , that boss was a nation(turkish nation )
he did best for his country he was respectful man

 

[Malik Alashter]

piece of jerk thats him and his kind.

 

[Uhuhu]

Please do not turn this into a personal issue. I have no intention of playing with anything; ı am just trying to understand you, Because i have for a few times talked to people from Iran when they were at Istiklal Street in Taksim in Istanbul; they were liberals like you; but were holding the same confusion.


I am trting it again. People knew the meaning of Republic at that moment, right? People did at that moment know the sharia, right? Otherwise, How could they vote for IR? At this point you claimed that it was vague. and i asked you that if people today know it better, then how come they can claim it should be dependent of the own wish of people. If they claim so; then how come they are in favor of IR.

Do we have more clean understanding of each other now?

you asked about the revolution, you are not educated well because you dont know about that time, at the time people had freedom in everything except in political issues. who was the leader? ayatollah khomeini, have you ever read his messages before revolution in 1979? If you were living that time, you would be in love with him as you are muslim. he always were talking about freedom in everything, like french republic! everyone is free to spread his opinion, in a Islamic state no one force you to do anything,Do not be satisfied with this! not just this world, we will make a good place for you in other world! water will be free, electricity will be free, transportation will be free!he was criticizing shah why you execute some drug dealers!!

do you think leftists and Marxists were stupid!? all voted to Islamic republic and believed in khomeini. why? because of his speech before revolution, under an Islamic state everyone is free.
5 years after revolution people committed to wear hijab by law.

Iranian women demonstrate against mandatory Islamic Hijab, days after Iranian revolution.


people must be free to wear hijab or not, forcing people to wear hijab is as same as ban hijab in universities, governmental buildings and ...
both are wrong and against freedom.

How could you take the view that in a islamic republic all women should wear hijab? how it must be a rule in whole the society and it's not a personal rule?

 

[ALPfollowerOF373]

Nice our jacobean ataturkists show their undemocratic faces, ataturk's acts never depend on the people of turkey, the west gave duties to him and he did it. You can find the duties of ataturk in the turkey of that time in the book of "The epic quest for oil, money and power written by daniel yergin". Ataturk is one like king faisal fought against the ottoman provoked by england. Ataturk is an internal collaborter for UK unlike king faisal. Let me write some in turkish for our jacobeans.

Atatürkçü zorbalar bilin ki zorbalığınızla var olamayacaksınız, millete rağmen birsey yapmayacaksınız, millet sizin ne kadar pragmatist ne kadar işbirlikçi olduğunuzu biliyor bu yüzden sevilmiyorsunuz geniş kitleler tarafindan.