Iranian Cops Arrest Models and Photographers For Instagram Pics of “Un-Islamic” Hair

Allah must have blessed Iran with a culture that’s free of theft, rape, murder and other serious crimes. Why else would law enforcement officials instead go after models with uncovered tresses?

Iran has arrested eight people working for online modeling agencies deemed to be “un-Islamic,” the prosecutor of Tehran’s cybercrimes court has said. The arrests are part of an operation that has seen women targeted for posting photos showing them not wearing headscarves on Instagram and elsewhere.

Those harlots! Time to teach them a lesson!

The eight unnamed people were among 170 identified by investigators as being involved in modeling online. They included 59 photographers and make-up artists, 58 models and 51 fashion salon managers and designers, according to a statement from the court. … Of the 170 people found to be involved in online modeling, 29 were warned that they were subject to criminal investigation, the prosecutor added.
The arrests were announced by the court’s prosecutor Javad Babaei during a state television program broadcast late on Sunday that focused on the “threats to morality and the foundation of family” posed by social media. Mr. Babaei claimed modeling agencies accounted for about 20% of posts on Instagram from Iran and that they had been “making and spreading immoral and un-Islamic culture and promiscuity.”

Proud filth extractors are now eagerly combing through Iranians’ social-media accounts:

A spokesman of the Iranian Centre for Surveying and Combating Organized Cyber Crimes, Mostafa Alizadeh, said: “Sterilizing popular cyberspaces is on our agenda.”
“We carried out this plan in 2013 with Facebook, and now Instagram is the focus,” he added, saying fresh operations would begin in the coming days.

I’m sure a theocratic paradise awaits once all glimpses of human beauty are removed.
By way of comparison, this is what Iran looked like before 1979, when the fundies took over. Notice anything different?


http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2016/05/20/iranian-cops-arrest-models-and-photographers-for-instagram-pics-of-un-islamic-hair/


So astounding a religion that claims its followers have free will, by denying them any rights whatsoever.
Will the left stand up for womens rights here or again fear offending Islam?

That's pretty bloody stupid! Isn't there enough misery and crime going on in the world that they have to worry about this trivial crap??

Will the left stand up for womens rights here or again fear offending Islam?

So all these women who are being unfairly persecuted, I take it they don't follow Islam as well?

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Will the left stand up for womens rights here or again fear offending Islam?

So all these women who are being unfairly persecuted, I take it they don't follow Islam as well?

Yes they do follow Islam and one of the views of islam
Islam based on its present state of elevating supposed deeds by Muhammad to that of their own diety, is where the problem is and how its engineered to face any challenges with direct control and denying the ability of people to choose freely.
Its designed to control its followers and yet now many with the advent of the internet, want a more progressive Islam, being abled to follow their faith, but you and other regressives so afraid to be critical of Islam, constantly end up aiding those who control Islam.
That is what you fail to see, when you shy away from condemning.
You make the control acceptable, instead of how where before people spoke out on Christianity, it brougght for a more open and progressive Christianity

For once learn your history, as you fail to have learnt from how speaking out on wrongs on Islam, will help those trying to progress the faith

Paul Ettinger wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Will the left stand up for womens rights here or again fear offending Islam?

So all these women who are being unfairly persecuted, I take it they don't follow Islam as well?

Yes they do follow Islam and one of the views of islam
Islam based on its present state of elevating supposed deeds by Muhammad to that of their own diety, is where the problem is and how its engineered to face any challenges with direct control and denying the ability of people to choose freely.
Its designed to control its followers and yet now many with the advent of the internet, want a more progressive Islam, being abled to follow their faith, but you and other regressives so afraid to be critical of Islam, constantly end up aiding those who control Islam.
That is what you fail to see, when you shy away from condemning.
You make the control acceptable, instead of how where before people spoke out on Christianity, it brougght for a more open and progressive Christianity

For once learn your history, as you fail to have learnt from how speaking out on wrongs on Islam, will help those trying to progress the faith

So these women are speaking out against Islam?

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Paul Ettinger wrote:


Yes they do follow Islam and one of the views of islam
Islam based on its present state of elevating supposed deeds by Muhammad to that of their own diety, is where the problem is and how its engineered to face any challenges with direct control and denying the ability of people to choose freely.
Its designed to control its followers and yet now many with the advent of the internet, want a more progressive Islam, being abled to follow their faith, but you and other regressives so afraid to be critical of Islam, constantly end up aiding those who control Islam.
That is what you fail to see, when you shy away from condemning.
You make the control acceptable, instead of how where before people spoke out on Christianity, it brougght for a more open and progressive Christianity

For once learn your history, as you fail to have learnt from how speaking out on wrongs on Islam, will help those trying to progress the faith

So these women are speaking out against Islam?

Under the islam they are living under, yes

Is that only what you took from my last post?

You are too far gone as a regressive, seriously, you are so in fear of being critical to poor beliefs. Thinking wrongly, it will make you prejudice against Muslims, when you fail to see how you can help liberate many, who want to progress islam

Seriously, you have not got a fucking clue have you?
How do you think Christianity progressed in the west?
It was not by people like you, that is for sure

Paul Ettinger wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Paul Ettinger wrote:


Yes they do follow Islam and one of the views of islam
Islam based on its present state of elevating supposed deeds by Muhammad to that of their own diety, is where the problem is and how its engineered to face any challenges with direct control and denying the ability of people to choose freely.
Its designed to control its followers and yet now many with the advent of the internet, want a more progressive Islam, being abled to follow their faith, but you and other regressives so afraid to be critical of Islam, constantly end up aiding those who control Islam.
That is what you fail to see, when you shy away from condemning.
You make the control acceptable, instead of how where before people spoke out on Christianity, it brougght for a more open and progressive Christianity

For once learn your history, as you fail to have learnt from how speaking out on wrongs on Islam, will help those trying to progress the faith

So these women are speaking out against Islam?

Under the islam they are living under, yes

Is that only what you took from my last post

You are too far gone as a regressive, seriously, you are so in fear of being critical to poor beliefs. Thinking wrongly, it will make you prejudice against Muslims, when you fail to see how you can help liberate many, who want to progress islam

Seriously, you have not got a fucking clue have you?
How do you think Christianity progressed in th west.
It was not by people like you, that is for sure

Thanks, Didge. These women indeed are NOT any less Islamic than the idiot troglodytes who are trying to tell them how to wear their hair. Thus, we see once again that the problem is not some mythical, monolithic, homogeneous "ISLAM." The problem is fundamentalism, which is a problem in every belief system, whether religious or otherwise.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Paul Ettinger wrote:

Under the islam they are living under, yes

Is that only what you took from my last post

You are too far gone as a regressive, seriously, you are so in fear of being critical to poor beliefs. Thinking wrongly, it will make you prejudice against Muslims, when you fail to see how you can help liberate many, who want to progress islam

Seriously, you have not got a fucking clue have you?
How do you think Christianity progressed in th west.
It was not by people like you, that is for sure

Thanks, Didge. These women indeed are NOT any less Islamic than the idiot troglodytes who are trying to tell them how to wear their hair. Thus, we see once again that the problem is not some mythical, monolithic, homogeneous "ISLAM." The problem is fundamentalism, which is a problem in every belief system, whether religious or otherwise.

Wow, so now you are an authority on beauty and call beautiful women something I can only guess is from your regressive days as a Catholic.
You are so clueless as it is from islam, that the teachings mean how people should look and be seen and yet you are now backing the hardline twats who enforce their views. The problem is not fundementalism, that is sheer bullshit.
Example, how and why do you think people are being butchered in Bangladesh at the moment?
Is it to do with a central belief that its punishable by death to claim their is no God and thus be blasphemy?
Do you think that is fundementalism, or a central core belief|?

Take your time

Why Islamists Are Sex Obsessed:


Sexual freedoms have become a litmus test between open societies and closed ones, and too many Muslims around the world are headed in the wrong direction.LONDON — Imagine making a televised court appearance broadcast to the whole nation to make a humbling, humiliating apology for … showing your hair. Last Sunday, the Iranian regime carried out just such a “public shaming” of some of the country’s most famous models.With a black scarf and black gloves replacing the happy wedding outfits and brightly dyed blond hair to which her Instagram followers had become accustomed, 26-year-old Elham Arab confirmed to two prosecutors that modeling had brought her nothing but “bitter experiences.” She went on to warn aspiring young models that they “can be certain that no man would want to marry a model whose fame has come by losing her honor.”


Welcome to Operation Spider 2. Yes, Iran’s War Against Hair even has a code name. In a sting led by no less significant a unit than Iran’s cybercrimes division, eight other models were arrested and charged with “promoting western promiscuity.” State prosecutor for cybercrimes Javad Babaei confirmed that his unit was focused on Instagram and is concerned with “sterilizing popular cyberspaces.” Many of the country’s leading models have reportedly suffered this clampdown. They are accused of promoting "immoral and un-Islamic culture and promiscuity.” Another state prosecutor warned the nation’s women, “If you take part in vulgar sessions, we will publicly announce your names.”


Such is the Iranian theocracy’s fascination with female hair, that even elected officials have not been spared by the morality police. Moderate female politician Minoo Khaleghi was barred by the hard-line all-male Guardian Council from taking her seat in parliament, after images of her emerged on social media purportedly showing her without a head scarf. Prosecutor Jafar-Dolatabadi ordered Ms. Khaleghi to explain to judicial officials why the “offending” images of her existed. For her part, Khaleghi had no choice but to prop up the absurd notion that there’s something wrong with showing one’s hair by arguing that the images are “malicious fakes” and proclaiming, “I am a Muslim woman, adhering to the principles of Islam.”


As moderate political forces continue to gain ground in Iran’s educated city centers, establishment clampdowns against “Western promiscuity” are becoming more visible, and more desperate. Last year, hardliners warned Iranian women that they would have their cars impounded if they were caught driving without a hijab, or headcovering. And every time a woman has tried to run for president, she has always been turned down by the country’s powerful Guardian Council, which vets all candidates for public office.


For a long time, with the notable exception of France’s peculiar stance, Western democracies have stepped away from interfering in how a woman chooses to dress. Rightly so, the law has pulled back in order to allow culture to decide the issue. With men and women free to participate in the debate around headscarves, one key principle has been safeguarded: that of choice.


Feminist Arab authors are writing about the need for a sexual revolution in the Arab world. Male Arab journalists are penning columns about the sexual misery in the Middle East. Feminist Muslim women are organizing online magazines such as Sister-hood and Sedaa in order to reclaim a voice for female secular progressives of Muslim heritage. Head-scarfed women have chosen to remove their hijabs in defiance of restrictions on female dress. Other women have taken to more radical action, by protesting naked.

Exhibitions have emerged challenging assumptions around sexuality in Islam. Islamic theologians have started to question openly whether the hijab is religiously mandatory. And in a recent courageous move, Zahra Haider—an unmarried Pakistani Muslim woman—has even written a column about her sexual experiences with 12 different partners while living in Pakistan’s capital, Islamabad. This led to quite an online furor, as one can imagine.


These are all examples by Muslim, non-Muslim, male and female activists. Everyone has a stake in this debate, because everyone suffers its consequences. Just as one need not be gay to challenge homophobia, nor black to challenge racism: One need not be a Muslim woman to challenge theocratic misogyny.  A desire to restrict any of these voices is a desire to control. When enforced on others, religion becomes nothing but a tool of power and control. Sexuality, in particular, obsesses male theocrats more so than any other topic.


Whether in Iran and Saudi Arabia, where women’s dress is government enforced, or in Syria and Afghanistan, where Islamist terrorists seek to enforce it, or across Muslim-majority nations more generally, sexual expression has fast become a dividing line for fundamentalists harboring presumptuous assumptions about a “pure” East and a “promiscuous” West. Oddly, hundreds of years ago it was the opposite. A Europe in the Dark Ages, plagued by the Inquisition and conflicts caused by religious intolerance, placed a similar premium on sexuality. Back then, it was the East that European Orientalists fetishized as overly “promiscuous,” while the West valued its prudishness. The one common factor is a correlation between the rise of theocratic demands anywhere, and restrictions on sexuality.


In this way, sexuality has become the axis upon which enlightened values and progress have pivoted between nations. Sexual freedoms have become a litmus test between open societies and closed ones. The drug that dogmatic ideologues are usually addicted to is control, and the thirst for control almost always manifests itself in sexual control. This is why the subject of sex among women, gays and “unmarried” youth fascinates extremists of all bents. And it is why—regardless of our gender or sexual orientation—the struggle against controlling sexuality should preoccupy us all.



http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/05/22/why-islamists-are-sex-obsessed.html



Sadly though the regressives keep championing this barbaric sexist practice, failing to understand that millions of women suffer.
They claim it is a choice when in many countries it is not a choice and its never a choice when a person has been indoctrinatd to think they should be ashamed of how they look

Paul Ettinger wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Paul Ettinger wrote:

Under the islam they are living under, yes

Is that only what you took from my last post

You are too far gone as a regressive, seriously, you are so in fear of being critical to poor beliefs. Thinking wrongly, it will make you prejudice against Muslims, when you fail to see how you can help liberate many, who want to progress islam

Seriously, you have not got a fucking clue have you?
How do you think Christianity progressed in th west.
It was not by people like you, that is for sure

Thanks, Didge. These women indeed are NOT any less Islamic than the idiot troglodytes who are trying to tell them how to wear their hair. Thus, we see once again that the problem is not some mythical, monolithic, homogeneous "ISLAM." The problem is fundamentalism, which is a problem in every belief system, whether religious or otherwise.

Wow, so now you are an authority on beauty and call beautiful women something I can only guess is from your regressive days as a Catholic.
You are so clueless as it is from islam, that the teachings mean how people should look and be seen and yet you are now backing the hardline twats who enforce their views. The problem is not fundementalism, that is sheer bullshit.
Example, how and why do you think people are being butchered in Bangladesh at the moment?
Is it to do with a central belief that its punishable by death to claim their is no God and thus be blasphemy?
Do you think that is fundementalism, or a central core belief|?

Take your time

What is the definition of fundamentalism, Didge? Take your own time.

Nah, to push the discussion forward a bit, fundamentalism is taking all teachings within a religious faith literally. So yeah, if people didn't take every last word of their Quran or Bible or Torah, etc. so literally, problem solved and nobody gets butchered. So fundamentalism is indeed the real problem, and we need not worry about how to embark upon your desired quest to eradicate religion from the world.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Paul Ettinger wrote:


Wow, so now you are an authority on beauty and call beautiful women something I can only guess is from your regressive days as a Catholic.
You are so clueless as it is from islam, that the teachings mean how people should look and be seen and yet you are now backing the hardline twats who enforce their views. The problem is not fundementalism, that is sheer bullshit.
Example, how and why do you think people are being butchered in Bangladesh at the moment?
Is it to do with a central belief that its punishable by death to claim their is no God and thus be blasphemy?
Do you think that is fundementalism, or a central core belief|?

Take your time

What is the definition of fundamentalism, Didge? Take your own time.

Nah, to push the discussion forward a bit, fundamentalism is taking all teachings within a religious faith literally. So yeah, if people didn't take every last word of their Quran or Bible or Torah, etc. so literally, problem solved and nobody gets butchered. So fundamentalism is indeed the real problem, and we need not worry about how to embark upon your desired quest to eradicate religion from the world.

fundamentalism definition. A conservative movement in theology among nineteenth- and twentieth-century Christians. Fundamentalists believe that the statements in the Bible are literally true. Note: Fundamentalists often argue against the theory of evolution.


Which proves you are an idiot.
You do not have to be a fundementalist to be a literal believer in the words of the text.
So by your belief only a century or so ago, the vast majority of the world were all fundementalist because they were literal believers.
Hence your ignorance on theology
Now go back and answer my pionts instead of constantly avoiding them

You also have another major issue with Islam, as many Muslims are literal believers world over, which backs my point completely. Which ever way you look at this, you fail to recognise the dangers.

Didge do you think it's only religious extremists that are a problem or just all religious people?
Because ordinary every day religious people just go about their daily business, after all.

eddie wrote:Didge do you think it's only religious  extremists that are a problem or just all religious people?
Because ordinary every day religious people just go about their daily business, after all.

Depends on the country and if people can go about their daily lives?
For example in Bangladesh at the moment numeroeus athiests have been butchered in the streets simply for expressing their views online.
Now why should any of them lose their lives to such madness?
Its simply because a religion is engineered and taught to believe any challenge should be met with violence and death.
Now in the west we have secular laws, but then we have religious people here that simply do not abide by them and believe their deity and his commands come first.
That is probematic.
All you have to do Eddie is look at the countries ruled by religious laws and see the levels of terrorism, violence etc and over 2000 years of history to see how dangerous it is. Yes the majority of religious people do not act out, but the problem is on the substancial number that do.

Okay fair enough.

Religion should be used as a tool to bring peace, not death, and that is simply not happening.

Paul Ettinger wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Paul Ettinger wrote:


Wow, so now you are an authority on beauty and call beautiful women something I can only guess is from your regressive days as a Catholic.
You are so clueless as it is from islam, that the teachings mean how people should look and be seen and yet you are now backing the hardline twats who enforce their views. The problem is not fundementalism, that is sheer bullshit.
Example, how and why do you think people are being butchered in Bangladesh at the moment?
Is it to do with a central belief that its punishable by death to claim their is no God and thus be blasphemy?
Do you think that is fundementalism, or a central core belief|?

Take your time

What is the definition of fundamentalism, Didge? Take your own time.

Nah, to push the discussion forward a bit, fundamentalism is taking all teachings within a religious faith literally. So yeah, if people didn't take every last word of their Quran or Bible or Torah, etc. so literally, problem solved and nobody gets butchered. So fundamentalism is indeed the real problem, and we need not worry about how to embark upon your desired quest to eradicate religion from the world.

fundamentalism definition. A conservative movement in theology among nineteenth- and twentieth-century Christians. Fundamentalists believe that the statements in the Bible are literally true. Note: Fundamentalists often argue against the theory of evolution.


Which proves you are an idiot.
You do not have to be a fundementalist to be a literal believer in the words of the text.
So by your belief only a century or so ago, the vast majority of the world were all fundementalist because they were literal believers.
Hence your ignorance on theology
Now go back and answer my pionts instead of constantly avoiding them

Fuck you.

fun·da·men·tal·ism
ˌfəndəˈmen(t)lˌizəm/
noun
noun: fundamentalism

a form of a religion, especially Islam or Protestant Christianity, that upholds belief in the strict, literal interpretation of scripture.
strict adherence to the basic principles of any subject or discipline.
plural noun: fundamentalisms
"free-market fundamentalism"

Which proves what a pseudointellectual impotent little sparrow-fart you are.

eddie wrote:Okay fair enough.

Religion should be used as a tool to bring peace, not death, and that is simply not happening.

That sadly is the case and it is again becauase it has a methodology that all other beliefs are wrong and not only wrong, but seen as a direct challenge.
Religion has in the main spread by the sword and not through peaceful conversion.
Just look at when Christianity was in control and Islam in history, as all the non-believers were classed as inferior subjects. They never had the same rights, they had less rights and it shows that the Abrahamic religions are based on a racist religious principle, because they both teach of an eternal punishment to those who do not believe. It is a system based on fear and this fear is what drives people to commit acts they deem justify by the religious texts. If these religions actually taught tolerance, there would not be an issue, but all 3 Abrahamic faiths teach intolerance to all other religions, by the simple fact of a view to who is right and who is then wrong. Sadly the early Nazoreans, the earliest Christians were wiped out after the siege of Jerusalem, as well as later gnostic Christian denominations by the Catholics.
If you look at the teachings of Jesus they are good in their nature and accomadating, but due to him stating he did not come to change the law but fulfill the law, meant the Torah and the Jewish part was incorporated as divine law. This has some of the most hateful and violent acts seen in any religion, with the concept of Herem, which is genocide, which you see carrried out by Josuha. Throughout the Middle ages, Kings would justify the sack and butcher of cities based on these very concepts found in the bible.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Paul Ettinger wrote:


fundamentalism definition. A conservative movement in theology among nineteenth- and twentieth-century Christians. Fundamentalists believe that the statements in the Bible are literally true. Note: Fundamentalists often argue against the theory of evolution.


Which proves you are an idiot.
You do not have to be a fundementalist to be a literal believer in the words of the text.
So by your belief only a century or so ago, the vast majority of the world were all fundementalist because they were literal believers.
Hence your ignorance on theology
Now go back and answer my pionts instead of constantly avoiding them

Fuck you.

fun·da·men·tal·ism
ˌfəndəˈmen(t)lˌizəm/
noun
noun: fundamentalism

   a form of a religion, especially Islam or Protestant Christianity, that upholds belief in the strict, literal interpretation of scripture.
       strict adherence to the basic principles of any subject or discipline.
       plural noun: fundamentalisms
       "free-market fundamentalism"

Which proves what a pseudointellectual impotent little sparrow-fart you are.

Which proves your ignorance yet again
Fundementalism is essentially a Christian conservative movement which they now have claimed to absord Islam into, which is utterly absurd, because of the type of Christian movement it is. It is essentially claiming both are the same, when they are not, showing again your complete and utter ignorance.
Now again you failed to answer my points, why?
Because you are as thick as shit on theology and a regressive twat

fundamentalism definition. A conservative movement in theology among nineteenth- and twentieth-century Christians. Fundamentalists believe that the statements in the Bible are literally true. Note: Fundamentalists often argue against the theory of evolution.

Fundamentalism | Define Fundamentalism at Dictionary.com

www.dictionary.com/browse/fundamentalism