anoosh@mips.com (Anoosh Hosseini) (04/02/91)
In article <1991Mar31.205647.29791@nntp-server.caltech.edu>, bes@nntp-server.caltech.edu (Behnam Sadeghi) writes: > In article <1661@spim.mips.COM> anoosh@wildcat.mips.com (Anoosh Hosseini) writes: >>jenAb AghAyeh Sadeghi [ deleted ] >> Since you have some free time, how about doing some homework on >>the culture of people living in the tropical regions and parts of Africa.These >>people dress "naked" even by Western standards. They neither follow Islam nor >>and Chritianity, but their societies do not exhibit the moral problems >>associated with lack of "proper" clothing. Maybe we could learn something >>from these people. I hope you agree that it is moral values of society which >>determine behavior (and thus self control) not the amount of clothing. > > I am know of these societies. But I don't see how you can say that they > "don't exhibit the moral problems associated with lack of proper clothing." > Can you elaborate on this? > Sure, in these societies, the people dress in what we would consider an unacceptable level of body cover. In previous discussions it had been pointed out the social problems with having the female body exposed to males who are not immediate relatives. But I have yet to see a report that says that these societies have extreme levels of rape, adultery, or any other sins of the flesh which has been claimed to become prevalent in the absence of hejab. I stand by the thought that it is people with strong social values which prevents these problems, not the mere cover of the female/male body. >>For example if you watch news video tapes of Iran, on the surface you get the >>impression of strict conduct based on Islam due to all the ladies >>wearing hijab, >>and the men with their beards and "anti-western" clothing. The PR departments >>would like the outside world to have this view. But given social and economic >>conditions, partly due to war, there is quite a bit of action going on >>under the >>covers. Enough that the government wanted such activity "legallized" under >>sigheh, and thus making it socially exceptable. The enforcement of Hijab >>in Iran, like the forced removal of it in the previous governments, has >>more to do with the government's external image and self interest, rather than >>its concern for the morals of society. > > There's always going to be immoral activities in every society. I don't know > about the extent of this problem in Iran (though I am sure it is orders of > magnitude lesser than in the West). > True, but for the majority of Iranians who believe in Islam, no enforcement of hijab should be required. The men should not be looking at other people's daughters and wives, and vice-versa. Those who wish to be involved in immoral activity, will do so with or without hejab enforcement. Hejab by itself does not prevent such activity. > As for hijab: I believe every society has the right to regulate people's > clothes based on the society's cultural taboos. The particular African > societies you mention have this right; the North Americans have this right and > excerise it; why shouldn't Iranians have this right? > Ah, but the issue we are discussing is not society's rights, rather the purpose of enforcing hejab. >>On the issue of whether to discuss religious topics in S.C.I. OK, but >>remember that religious culture is subset of Iranian culture. If you post >>about hijab, and since you are a moderator for soc.religion.islam, then at >>least have the courtesy to cross post all the related traffic there >>also,so that >>our Islamic brothers and sisters can have a full picture of life in Iran, >>and those who are inspired by us and desire Islamic Republics in their own >>countries, can get first hand information. :-) (I hope you agree that >>discussion >>of Hijab correlates more to soc.religion.islam than soc.culture.iranian, even >>if posted in both) > > I don't have the responsiblity to post in s.r.i everything written in other > groups that's relevant to Islam. My job is merely to review and post > submissions to s.r.i. Nobody is preventing people from posting articles > about hijab in s.r.i. > done deal, here I am. > > Behnam Sadeghi -anoosh
hanif@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Hanif G Khalak) (04/09/91)
In article <1991Apr1.185557.2314@nntp-server.caltech.edu> anoosh@mips.com (Anoosh Hosseini) writes: >In article <1991Mar31.205647.29791@nntp-server.caltech.edu>, bes@nntp-server.caltech.edu (Behnam Sadeghi) writes: >> In article <1661@spim.mips.COM> anoosh@wildcat.mips.com (Anoosh Hosseini) writes: >>>jenAb AghAyeh Sadeghi [ deleted ] >>> Since you have some free time, how about doing some homework on >>>the culture of people living in the tropical regions and parts of Africa.These >>>people dress "naked" even by Western standards. They neither follow Islam nor >>>and Chritianity, but their societies do not exhibit the moral problems >>>associated with lack of "proper" clothing. Maybe we could learn something >>>from these people. I hope you agree that it is moral values of society which >>>determine behavior (and thus self control) not the amount of clothing. I'm sure that a lot can be learned, but you've pretty much taken this issue out of the context of sciety as a whole. Sexual deviance/crimes are not the part and parcel of the problems of society. Many seem to have an infatuation with it, but this does not mean that it is the only 'deal'. Propriety is both functional and principle. Islamically speaking, there is benefit in all good (Please, I'm not giving Fatwah), but this benefit does not PRECEDE that good. You've made a valid point, in the same line, that self-control is not strictly due to propriety. But this lack of mutual inclusion does NOT make the situation mutually EXCLUSIVE. >stand by the thought that it is people with strong social values which prevents >these problems, not the mere cover of the female/male body. This is close to the argument that 'pornography is not an issue, after all, people don't just go out and buy magazines; go crazy; and rape/hurt'. Even aside from the issue of propriety, addressing the factor of influence: this view seems to be very opaque. The immediate effect of immodest dress/ behavior is NOT always apparent, and it is not the short-term effect which is necessarily the issue. People talk about being brain-washed, being effected by environment, and the 'mind-mush' effect of TV. Sensation is a complicated thing. Your assumption that morality is not a function of dress would seem to ignore this. >True, but for the majority of Iranians who believe in Islam, no enforcement >of hijab should be required. The men should not be looking at other people's >daughters and wives, and vice-versa. Those who wish to be involved in >immoral activity, will do so with or without hejab enforcement. Hejab by >itself does not prevent such activity. I have very little insight into Iranian culture/religiosity, but I know that in America, one can be arrested for indecent exposure. I know very few people, given the circumstances, say, that someone went into Martin Brother's Cafe and exposed indecent, who would blame the management for calling the police or throwing that person out. I included. :) The issue here is not privacy, is it? After all, that person would have, under your assertion, a moral right over the patrons in the restaurant for their lasciviousness in looking at him/her. Where IS that self-control, PEOPLE?! >done deal, here I am. ?? > >-anoosh Walaikum Assalam, Hanif -- /~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\ | Hanif G. Khalak | hanif@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu | | 308D WRW, UT/Austin | hanif@ticom.ae.utexas.edu | | Austin, TX 78712 | phone: (512) 471-4704 | \__________________________________________________________________/