Iran and Headveiling

[Ernie]

I didn't know this before but in 1936, Reza Shah, the founder of the ruling dynasty, mandated that women could not wear veils in public. Police were ordered to forcibly remove veils.

In 1941, Mohammad Reza Shah rescinded the ban.

In the late 1970s, many women began wearing the hijab or chador specifically as a political statement against the Shah’s Westernized regime, even if they were not traditionally religious.

Since 1983, the government has been enforcing the wearing of veils.

That is quite the radical shift in policy.

[JohnH]

I didn't know this before but in 1936, Reza Shah, the founder of the ruling dynasty, mandated that women could not wear veils in public. Police were ordered to forcibly remove veils.

In 1941, Mohammad Reza Shah rescinded the ban.

In the late 1970s, many women began wearing the hijab or chador specifically as a political statement against the Shah’s Westernized regime, even if they were not traditionally religious.

Since 1983, the government has been enforcing the wearing of veils.

That is quite the radical shift in policy.

Yes; the Persian term for it is the Kashf e-hijab (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kashf-e_hijab). I have written about it here on MennoNet before, back when the zeitgeist from the left half of MennoNet was that the Iranian government was evil and we should support the freedom of protesters or whoever who wanted to repeal the Iranian dress codes (and I detailed my suspicion that such movements were probably funded and promoted by Western and American intelligence agencies).

Here is one of my prior posts on the topic:

https://forum.mennonet.com/viewtopic.ph ... 96#p274996

The enforcement of the anti-hijab and anti-traditional clothing rules was quite pernicious under the American-aligned Shah; basically, people who wore traditional clothing were marginalised (and usually poor), and in order to go anywhere in society you had to adopt Western dress styles and not practice hijab. This led to a very deep level of resentment from poorer communities and/or traditionalist communities who just wanted to keep wearing the clothing they always had.

Of course, I'm not saying any of this to defend the current Iranian regime, but it is worthwhile to consider how hamfisted the series of Western policy choices were that led to the revolution in 1979 and the subsequent alignment of Iran with Russia, which persists to this day.

[Anthony]

Even though I am not Muslim or Iranian, i see the hijab requirement as a positive development, and feel more solidarity with the Ayatollah and the current regime than the Shah and its liberal outlook. Its tangentially in line with Scripture and our own Mennonite coverings.

Does anyone else think the same?

[JohnH]

Even though I am not Muslim or Iranian, i see the hijab requirement as a positive development, and feel more solidarity with the Ayatollah and the current regime than the Shah and its liberal outlook. Its tangentially in line with Scripture and our own Mennonite coverings.

Does anyone else think the same?

I certainly don’t feel aligned with the Shah telling people they have to wear skimpy western clothing.

[JimFoxvog]

Even though I am not Muslim or Iranian, i see the hijab requirement as a positive development, and feel more solidarity with the Ayatollah and the current regime than the Shah and its liberal outlook. Its tangentially in line with Scripture and our own Mennonite coverings.

Does anyone else think the same?

Not here. Both forcing the hijab and requiring it are equally wrong. Religious practices should not be required or prohibited by governments.

But religious observances should be a personal choice. Often, Muslim women who keep their heads covered are being coerced by males in authority over them.

[JohnH]

Even though I am not Muslim or Iranian, i see the hijab requirement as a positive development, and feel more solidarity with the Ayatollah and the current regime than the Shah and its liberal outlook. Its tangentially in line with Scripture and our own Mennonite coverings.

Does anyone else think the same?

Not here. Both forcing the hijab and requiring it are equally wrong. Religious practices should not be required or prohibited by governments.

But religious observances should be a personal choice. Often, Muslim women who keep their heads covered are being coerced by males in authority over them.

I think forcing people not to wear traditional, modest clothing is worse.

As an example, I think forcing people to wear pants and long robes or dresses or hijabs etc. is not nearly as bad forcing everyone to be stark naked.

[MattY]

Even though I am not Muslim or Iranian, i see the hijab requirement as a positive development, and feel more solidarity with the Ayatollah and the current regime than the Shah and its liberal outlook. Its tangentially in line with Scripture and our own Mennonite coverings.

Does anyone else think the same?

Not here. Both forcing the hijab and requiring it are equally wrong. Religious practices should not be required or prohibited by governments.

But religious observances should be a personal choice. Often, Muslim women who keep their heads covered are being coerced by males in authority over them.

I think you mean "both forcing the hijab and prohibiting it are equally wrong." And I agree. Forced religious observance is meaningless. But in many places, the hijab is a symbol of oppression and misogyny, and the practice of Christian headship veiling should not be equated to it.

[JohnH]

I think you mean "both forcing the hijab and prohibiting it are equally wrong." And I agree. Forced religious observance is meaningless. But in many places, the hijab is a symbol of oppression and misogyny

I really don't agree with this. That is, however, what the Western propaganda has been for a long time. Christian headcovering and the hijab are virtually the same thing (for example, both religions teach that it provides protection for women against evil spirits).

[MattY]

I think you mean "both forcing the hijab and prohibiting it are equally wrong." And I agree. Forced religious observance is meaningless. But in many places, the hijab is a symbol of oppression and misogyny

(for example, both religions teach that it provides protection for women against evil spirits).

I'm aware some Christians have taught this. I first read it in a book my parents have, called Sunset of the Western Church, by Ellis Skofield. It turns head coverings into a lucky charm. I believe it's bunk. Head coverings are not magic. The protection of a Christian woman against evil spirits is the presence of the Holy Spirit in her life. It has nothing to do with head coverings.

[Neto]

In a college course called "World Religions" we studied many different religions. All have some thing or another in common with Christianity. (I suppose that is because they are all counterfeits of truth, mixtures of truth and error. I told the professor that if I were not a Christian, of all of the others I would choose Zen. I don't remember why now, but she was rather scandalized, because it is a concern of those who teach such courses that none of their students are lead astray.)

The Banawa religious belief system had more safe-guards built into it than every Christian group I have ever heard of. But that didn't make their belief system equal to, or better than that which is based on the words of God recorded for us in the Scriptures, and through the 'witness' of His Spirit.