Iranian Students Lashed 99 Times Over Coed Party

[Albertoo]

Religion, the gift that keeps giving..

The Iranian police monitored 58 homes in the hope of catching people having parties to teach them “Islamic behavior” by means of 99 lashes. Great use of their time, to be sure.

I wonder why CAIR in America doesn't expound this aspect of “Islamic behavior”?

Iranian Students Lashed 99 Times Over Coed Party

TEHRAN — More than 30 college students were arrested, interrogated and within 24 hours were each given 99 lashes for attending a graduation party that included men and women, Iran’s judiciary has announced.

The punishments, which were believed to be part of a wider crackdown by a judiciary dominated by hard-liners, ....

The Qazvin prosecutor, Esmail Sadeghi Niaraki, said that more than 30 female and male students — the women were described as “half naked,” meaning they were not wearing Islamic coverings, scarves and long coats — were arrested while “dancing and jubilating” after the authorities received a report that a party attended both by men and women was being held in a villa on the outskirts of Qazvin.

Mixed-gender parties, dancing and the consumption of alcohol are illegal in Iran, although they have become common over the past decade, especially in cities. Col. Mojtaba Ashrafi of the Semnan police told the news agency that the raids were carried out over a 48-hour period, after the authorities monitored for several weeks 58 homes in which single people were believed to be living.

The judiciary has responded by stepping up its own activities, and last week it announced the arrest of several so-called Instagram models. A blogger was arrested, and prominent actors and actresses, who have huge social media followings in Iran, were given warnings about adhering to Islamic dress code and “Islamic behavior.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/28/world/middleeast/iranian-students-lashes-party.html?_r=0

[guillaumeb]

1. This is no more a reflection of "Islamic behavior"

than lynching is a reflection of US democratic behavior. It is a reflection of intolerance, and intolerance is certainly not limited to Muslim nations. See: Donald Trump.

[Albertoo]

3. No, Sir. This action has been instigated by the Islamic authorities.

The religious authorities are the final authority in Iran.
They wanted this crackdown as a reassertion of their power after the recent elections.
This action of the police is enforcement of "Islamic behavior" as the Islamic clergy sees it fit.

99 lashes for partying are "Islamic values" as defined by the Islamic clergy.

[guillaumeb]

6. Again, you are simplifying to make a point:

When you responded:

The religious authorities are the final authority in Iran.
They wanted this crackdown as a reassertion of their power after the recent elections.
This action of the police is enforcement of "Islamic behavior" as the Islamic clergy sees it fit.
99 lashes for partying are "Islamic values" as defined by the Islamic clergy.

You could have written:

The religious authorities are the final authority in Iran.
They wanted this crackdown as a reassertion of their power after the recent elections.
This action of the police is enforcement of "Islamic behavior" as the Islamic clergy defines it.

99 lashes for partying are "Islamic values" as defined by the government appointed Islamic clergy in Iran.

If you had written it this way it would merely be a condemnation of the intolerance exhibited by some Iranian Muslims. Is your larger point that Muslims as a group are intolerant?
Or that Islam itself promotes intolerance?

[Albertoo]

7. So you know Islam better than the Iranian clerics?

The Supreme Leader and the Special Clerical Court have defined that 99 lashes for partying are an expression of Islamic values. They base their views on lifelong studies of the Islamic texts. Are you saying you know or understand the Islamic texts better than them?

[guillaumeb]

11. What I am saying is that each Muslim defines what Islam is.

by their behavior toward others, their conduct toward others.

There are numerous Christian and Judaic variants. Is there one true version, or are there many paths?

[Albertoo]

14. By your definition, Islam means nothing (and I agree)

You wrote

each Muslim defines what Islam is

It logically follows Islam has no intrinsic message, no intrinsic value. I define what Islam is (a rabbit hole with a Cheshire cat and having tea with a mad hatter), et voila, it's Islam?

However, there are people who defined 4 schools of islamic jurisprudence, and they have the trust of a billion+ believers. And according to these respected schools of jurisprudence, 99 lashes for partying among consenting young adults (not even involving sex) is OK.

Besides, the word of the Quran is homophobic, sexist and supremacist. It's difficult to "define what Islam is" without a reference to that hateful text.

[guillaumeb]

19. Again, an extremely broad brush is being used by you and others here.

Let me pick up that broad brush:

Because the US founders only intended that rights be exercised by white males, it follows that the US system is tainted by that genocidal racism and can never be changed. It further follows that all US citizens are equally racist.

You own overheated rhetoric puts you firmly on the side of Islamophobes who condemn billions for the actions of a few.

Whether that hateful rhetoric reflects a generalized hatred for religion or is confined to Islam remains to be determined.

[Albertoo]

21. The equivalence fails: the US Constitution never claimed to be perfect and eternal

The Quran claims to be the eternal, unalterable word of a perfect god. So the violent, homophobic, sexist, supremacist passages of the Quran cannot be amended.

While the US Constitution was the work of men of their times, rather enlightened by comparison to what existed elsewhere, but clearly imperfect in retrospect. Its sexism has been amended (women's rights), its homophobia has been amended (marriage equality), its supremacism has been amended (abolition of slavery). And the Constitution probably still can be improved on.

I do not have an "overheated rhetoric", I just stated that the Quran contains violent, sexist, homophobic and supremacist passages. Will you challenge this statement? I guess not.

[840high]

28. this

[skepticscott]

10. It is a reflection of intolerance SPECIFICALLY directed and motivated

by Islam and its dictates. Nowhere do "democratic behavior" or the dictates of democracy forbid black equality or mandate punishment for blacks who step out of their place.

Your analogy is horseshit, and really despicable apologetics for a progressive website. Why on earth would any decent person try to defend what Islam does here?

[guillaumeb]

12. Islam is more than a cleric. It is more than a group of clerics

in any particular country.

Are Americans defined by Dick Cheney?

This type of simplistic, reductionistic post is designed to frame Islam as sui generis intolerant. It fails, as do all similar posts because no belief system comprised of billions of faithful can in any way be defined by the actions of a few.

[skepticscott]

13. "Americans" is not a religion or a belief system

Islam is.

Your attempt at an analogy is bullshit. As is your claim that fundamental intolerance of Islam is only the actions of "a few" unless by "a few" you mean hundreds of millions of Muslims who agree with the dictates of their religion.

Try again.

[guillaumeb]

17. You have constructed an excellent straw man, but it bears

no actual resemblance to reality. Except in the mind of reflexive Islamophobes and religion haters.

[skepticscott]

22. I notice you can't prove that claim

or even point out what this alleged "straw man" is. All you have is phony insults.

Try again.

[guillaumeb]

25. These are your words:

As is your claim that fundamental intolerance of Islam is only the actions of "a few" unless by "a few" you mean hundreds of millions of Muslims who agree with the dictates of their religion.

Specifically stated by you, (and highlighted in bold by me for your reference) ,is that hundreds of millions of Muslims agree with the dictates of their religion, as that religion is defined in the post. This unproven allegation is paired with the original post's unsupported assertion that a group of clerics in one country can speak definitively for the billions of Muslims all over the world. This is the straw man that you and others like to build.

Atheists at DU love to tar all believers with the actions of a few, but resent strongly the attempt to tar all atheists with the actions of atheists like Joseph Stalin. Reciprocity?

[skepticscott]

29. In the first place, you obviously don't even understand

what a "straw man" is. Please educate yourself about the meaning of that term before you fling it.

As far as my claim, how big a fool would you like to look like? Here is a compilation (just one of MANY) of the numbers of Muslims who support the murder and violence dictated by their religion:

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/articles/opinion-polls.aspx

I'll just hit a few of many highlights:

World Public Opinion: 83% of Egyptians approve of attacks on American troops.
26% of Indonesians approve of attacks on American troops.
26% of Pakistanis approve of attacks on American troops.
68% of Moroccans approve of attacks on American troops.
90% of Palestinians approve of attacks on American troops.
72% of Jordanians approve of attacks on American troops.
52% of Turks approve of some or most groups that attack Americans (39% oppose)
A minority of Muslims disagreed entirely with terror attacks on American troops.
About half of those opposed to attacking Americans were sympathetic with al-Qaeda’s attitude toward the U.S.

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/feb09/STARTII_Feb09_rpt.pdf

Pew Research (2013): Large majorities of Muslims favor Sharia. Among those who do, stoning women for adultery is favored by 89% in Pakistanis, 85% in Afghanistan, 81% in Egypt, 67% in Jordan, ~50% in 'moderate' Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand, 58% in Iraq, 44% in Tunisia, 29% in Turkey, and 26% in Russia.

http://www.pewforum.org/uploadedFiles/Topics/Religious_Affiliation/Muslim/worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-full-report.pdf

Pew Research (2010): 84% of Egyptian Muslims support the death penalty for leaving Islam
86% of Jordanian Muslims support the death penalty for leaving Islam
30% of Indonesian Muslims support the death penalty for leaving Islam
76% of Pakistanis support death the penalty for leaving Islam
51% of Nigerian Muslims support the death penalty for leaving Islam

http://pewglobal.org/2010/12/02/muslims-around-the-world-divided-on-hamas-and-hezbollah/

al-Jazeera Website Survey (2015): 81% of respondents approve of "regional conquests: by ISIS.

http://www.algemeiner.com/2015/05/25/al-jazeera-survey-shows-81-percent-support-islamic-state/#

Now read that list and all of the others at the link, and then come back here and say with a straight face that only "a few" Muslims approve of the murder and violence dictated by, and committed in the name of, their religion.

Your Stalin analogy is bullshit, and has been shown to be so many, many times on this board, so please don't weary the ears of intelligent people with another rehash, unless you can provide a list of things he did that were dictated by, and in the name of, atheism. We both know you'll fail miserably. But I will enjoy watching you try.

[guillaumeb]

31. Somewhat chaotic and incoherent on your part, but let me try to respond:

Your first items of proof regarding US troops reflect more the belief that the US is biased against the Muslim world. No serious commenter would conflate that with Islamic beliefs or the essential nature of Islam.

As to you other statistics, polls can be designed to prove anything. If polls, show that a significant percentage of US citizens do not believe in evolution does that disprove evolution?

Stalin was also seen as a strong leader in atheist Russia. Similarly for Mao tse-Tung. Does this prove that atheists favor world conquest and domination? Please.

While you excel at ad hominem nonsense it does not help your argument. And your argument, the one that you make over and over here, is that religion is sui generis a bad thing. That is simplistic and unprovable but it obviously does not stop you from making the attempt.

[skepticscott]

32. More nonsense from you

The polls I cited are offered to show what people think believe, which is exactly what they do. They say nothing, nor are they claimed to, about the correctness of those beliefs. Your evolution analogy is bullshit.

Your Stalin/Mao analogy has already been shown to be bullshit,,and yet you repeat it.

My argument in this thread has never been that "religion is sui generis a bad thing. Anyone reading this knows that. It is, as you know perfectly well, that your claim that that the violence, murder and intolerance cited here is supposed by only "a few" Muslims and is not "Islamic behavior", when in fact majorities or large minorities of Muslims all over the world believe that it is.

I can't tell if you're really this dense, or if you're just being deliberately obtuse and intellectually dishonest to stir shit, but it's clear in either case that you're not capable of arguing honestly. We're done here.

[rug]

15. That's true only since Sherman took Atlanta.

[guillaumeb]

20. And not even true today.

Racism in the US is not codified in law, as was the custom, but unwritten belief is equally strong. Racism simply hides under a hood. Sometimes it is called states rights.

[trotsky]

16. Then your logic dictates that when a Muslim is doing charity, or some other noble activity...

that it doesn't reflect "Islamic behavior" either. Congratulations, you've made religion completely irrelevant. Thanks!

[guillaumeb]

18. Interesting how some of the free thinkers at DU are so quick

to categorize and condemn. And so quick to presume to speak for others.

If you, or any non-believer, call someone a name, does that ignorance reflect on all atheists, or only the ignorant ones?

[skepticscott]

23. Interesting how you completely dodged the point trotsky made

and instead resorted to more personal attacks and bullshit analogies.

Calling someone a name is not part of any of the dictates of atheism (since there are none). Killing apostates and those who insult Islam and Mohammed ARE dictates of Islam, that are supported by many, many millions of Muslims all over the world (not your silly claim of "a few&quot . Even those without the gumption to carry out those dictates directly still support and enable those who do in large numbers. Those who cherry-pick and choose not to follow them do so in spite of their religion, not because of it.

[guillaumeb]

26. A mind reader?

Interesting that you presume to speak for the mindset of billions. If I presumed to speak for all atheists I would be attacked by the militant atheist types here.

And interesting that you can claim what it is to be a believer.

[skepticscott]

30. I don't need to be a mind reader to know how Muslims

think and feel about such things. They have told us. Over and over and over. Read my post 29.

And please stop wasting bandwidth with such lame apologist shit...really. If you want to have a discussion, bring some facts and logical arguments.

[trotsky]

24. Yeah, that's what you did. Presumed to speak for others.

You don't get to decide what Islam is either. You seem to forget that in your vicious condemnations of others.

I don't know why I'm going to bother saying this because it's been pointed out to you more times than I can remember and it still hasn't registered with you. But anyway, what the hell.

There's a difference between criticizing a religion and criticizing all the followers of that religion.

Not one of your posts has ever indicated an ability to distinguish the difference between criticizing ideas and criticizing people. I hope one day you can.

[guillaumeb]

27. Perhaps you should read reply #23.

Is this what you are talking about? Post #23 specifically criticizes and categorizes Muslims.

I do not seek to define Islam, or any religion. It is you and a few of the various militant atheists here who seek to define and condemn religion.

Remove the speck from your own eye first.

[trotsky]

33. It criticizes particular Muslims.

I see you still don't get it. Sad.

[guillaumeb]

34. One of us does not "get it", but..........

Here is reply #23, absent the silly ad hominem:

Calling someone a name is not part of any of the dictates of atheism (since there are none). Killing apostates and those who insult Islam and Mohammed ARE dictates of Islam, that are supported by many, many millions of Muslims all over the world (not your silly claim of "a few&quot . Even those without the gumption to carry out those dictates directly still support and enable those who do in large numbers. Those who cherry-pick and choose not to follow them do so in spite of their religion, not because of it.

So the phrase "many, many millions" should be taken as referring to particular Muslims?

Nice attempt on your part to explain that this Islamophobic statement is actually aimed at a few. Perhaps you and the skeptical one are convinced.

[trotsky]

35. Yes, clearly one of us does not.

Do you understand the difference between the words "many" and "all"?

I kind of think that if millions of people believe something, that qualifies as "many." It certainly doesn't mean "few" or "none" or "all."

[guillaumeb]

36. You really should decide if the description is

particular, or
many, or
a few. All of these descriptions have been used. But it is evident that some few posters in the religion forum love to paint belief as something that automatically equates with intolerance. Statements are made condemning believers, but when called on the broad brushing tactic the responder will state that only some believers was meant. If only some believers are intolerant, why not simply sat that in the first place? And if some people generally are intolerant, why single out believers?

I realize that to admit that intolerance is a fault that is spread among the whole population it takes away from the remarks about religion being the cause of intolerance.

While I dislike the judgmentalism that is found among some believers, I also reject the condescension and ignorance of some non-believers. Dawkins is no better than Oral Roberts in this regard.

[WhiteTara]

2. Yikes! I'd be immigrating as fast as I could

if that was the way of life.

[Albertoo]

4. Just don't emigrate to Saudi Arabia, Sudan or Afghanistan to party

Or Pakistan or Bangladesh if you do not believe in 'god'.

[WhiteTara]

5. Or Indonesia for that matter

Yeah, there are few places where religion doesn't rule and soon we may not be able to say that about the US either!

[pokerfan]

8. No religion...

... no religious police.

[Albertoo]

9. ^^^ a valid equation ^^^