Protests in Iran

[crescent]

The morality police in Iran detained a young woman from Iran's Kurdish province:

Mahsa Amini died in hospital on Friday after spending three days in a coma.

In Sari, north of Tehran, large crowds cheered as women set their hijabs alight in defiant acts of protest.

Ms Amini was arrested in the capital last week by Iran's morality police, accused of breaking the law requiring women to cover their hair with a hijab, or headscarf, and their arms and legs with loose clothing.

It seems to be spiraling now. There's video of protesters beating police officers, flipping cars, starting fires. Some of the women are making a show of cutting their hair, although I don't understand the context of that. Video of protestors attacking an ambulance they believe to be used to hold and transfer prisoners. Pulling photos of the Ayatollah down from public buildings.

It seems to be nationwide.

Another set of events that's worth watching. News junkie overload lately.

 

[angrysoba]

Very brave women fighting the despicable regime.

 

[The Don]

It's a very difficult and dangerous dynamic between a small urban, comparatively liberal "elite" and a much larger, far more conservative, poorly educated and poor rural population - especially when there's a theocratic government which relies on that rural population to remain in power.

It's a situation which seems to crop up in Iran periodically, but the regime continues to enjoy the support of the rural majority and the oppression only seems to get worse.

 

[ZiprHead]

Some of the women are making a show of cutting their hair, although I don't understand the context of that.

It's illegal for women to cut their hair.

 

[crescent]

It's illegal for women to cut their hair.

Ah. I didn't know that. Thanks.

Iran always has such a mix of secular and religious society, even its civil service seems to have parts that are largely secular under the President and parts that are largely religious under the Ayatollah and Republican Guard.

Internet from Iran seems to have been cut off, so even if the protests keep going there will be less video of it making onto social media.

Which is bad, very bad.

There's a saying going around social media today: "At this point it seems clear that Iranian women have bigger balls than Russian men."

 

[Cosmic Yak]

So perhaps now I will be believed?
I said before that Iranians associate Islam with their oppressive government, and that protests are aimed at both.
This suggestion was met with scorn.
And yet here we are.

 

[Lplus]

So perhaps now I will be believed?
I said before that Iranians associate Islam with their oppressive government, and that protests are aimed at both.
This suggestion was met with scorn.
And yet here we are.

And IIRC my point was that Islam IS the oppressive government. Those headscarves are required by Islam and for no other reason. Whilst the religious authorities are still backed by the poor religious conservatives in the countryside, demostrations by the city liberal elites will have minimal effect.

 

[The Don]

And IIRC my point was that Islam IS the oppressive government. Those headscarves are required by Islam and for no other reason. Whilst the religious authorities are still backed by the poor religious conservatives in the countryside, demostrations by the city liberal elites will have minimal effect.

I disagree, or more specifically, the regime in Iran have determined that religion is the way they can retain and wield power so they have twisted that religion to suit their needs.

 

[Lplus]

I disagree, or more specifically, the regime in Iran have determined that religion is the way they can retain and wield power so they have twisted that religion to suit their needs.

You may give religion the benefit of the doubt, but I don't.

 

[The Atheist]

I'm just sitting back relaxing and puffing my cigar as I ponder the number of times I've been assured over the past half century that hijabs and niqabs and the other accoutrements of islam aren't oppressive to women.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

And IIRC my point was that Islam IS the oppressive government.

Your point was that Iranians would not demonstrate against their government because it was Islamic.
My point was that Iranians see their oppressive government as inextricably linked to Islam, and that their anger is directed against both. This is what is happening with the current protests.

Those headscarves are required by Islam and for no other reason. Whilst the religious authorities are still backed by the poor religious conservatives in the countryside, demostrations by the city liberal elites will have minimal effect.

No. The Quran states there shall be no compulsion in religion. The mandatory wearing of headscarves is a law imposed by the Iranian mullahs via the Iranian government. That is the reason they are required- it is part of the overall repression of women under that regime. Women should be allowed to choose, but in Iran, they are not.
To add to this: Iranians are, of course, protesting against the strict, oppressive and fundamentalist version of Islam promoted by the Shia regime in Iran. That is not to say that, should that regime be toppled, that some percentage of the population will renounce Islam, though this seems likely. There could, I think, instead be a shift to a more moderate version. I don't think there is any way of knowing what would happen until it actually does take place. All I can say is that the Iranians I spoke to there were anti all Islam, and attendance at the mosques was low. Right now, their protests are against both the regime and its version of Islam, and that's all we know for sure.
As for your comment about the middle class, it is mistaken. The middle class is generally more politically active, and is ofetn heavily involved in the success of numerous revolutions worldwide.
For example:
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/businessreview/2017/10/10/why-middle-class-activism-surprises-economists/

 

[Lplus]

Your point was that Iranians would not demonstrate against their government because it was Islamic.My point was that Iranians see their oppressive government as inextricably linked to Islam, and that their anger is directed against both. This is what is happening with the current protests.

To start with yes, then changed that in response to a post by you telling me I was wrong.

No. The Quran states there shall be no compulsion in religion. The mandatory wearing of headscarves is a law imposed by the Iranian mullahs via the Iranian government. That is the reason they are required- it is part of the overall repression of women under that regime. Women should be allowed to choose, but in Iran, they are not.
To add to this: Iranians are, of course, protesting against the strict, oppressive and fundamentalist version of Islam promoted by the Shia regime in Iran. That is not to say that, should that regime be toppled, that some percentage of the population will renounce Islam, though this seems likely. There could, I think, instead be a shift to a more moderate version. I don't think there is any way of knowing what would happen until it actually does take place. All I can say is that the Iranians I spoke to there were anti all Islam, and attendance at the mosques was low. Right now, their protests are against both the regime and its version of Islam, and that's all we know for sure.
As for your comment about the middle class, it is mistaken. The middle class is generally more politically active, and is ofetn heavily involved in the success of numerous revolutions worldwide.
For example:
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/businessreview/2017/10/10/why-middle-class-activism-surprises-economists/

Precisely my point. Islam is more than just your holy book. When that book is interpreted in oppressive fundamentalist ways it becomes government in itself.

I should be heartily pleased if the people of Iran could free themselves from the tentacles of their religion, but I just don't see it happening. If it should happen I will be the first to congratulate them, but until then I feel my point stands.

 

[ZiprHead]

Women of #Iran tell their story of bravery, defying oppression and fighting for a most basic right. It’s simple yet powerful:

 

[crescent]

It's really hard to tell from afar, but it seems like the protests are still getting bigger.

There are a few vids of police shooting at protesters, and more vids with the sounds of police shooting at protesters. When there is only the sound it is hard to tell if it is actual real bullets, or rubber bullets, flash bangs, or what. But two vids or what are obviously "real" guns fired at protestors - a rifle and a pistol. But even that, so far just individual shots popping off, nothing like sustained heavy gunfire.

Video of protesters thrashing a courtroom. They captured a pretty senior police officer. Burned big public portraits of the Ayatollah and the President. They are chanting "death to the dictator" and the dictator in question seems to be the Ayatollah (not the President).

This seems bigger than the 2019/2020 protests, but then again the government then killed some thousands of protestors in putting those down. It remains to be seen if they'll do that again.

Even f they put this one down, the frequency of big protests in Iran seems to be going up. Iran is getting more unstable.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Precisely my point. Islam is more than just your holy book. When that book is interpreted in oppressive fundamentalist ways it becomes government in itself.

No, that was not your point. You said that Iranians would not demonstrate against their government because it was Islamic. That is obviously not true.

Also, Islam is not just a religion: its tenets cover all aspects of life, including government. The Hadiths and Sharia courts apply Islamic principles to everything. It doesn't need an oppressive fundamentalist interpretation to make it government itself: it already is government.
It doesn't automatically follow that such government should be oppressive. Whilst democracy and human rights are very much in their infancy in the Arab world, there is a vast range of approaches in the wider Muslim world, from very moderate (Turkey pre-Erdogan, Tunisia) through tolerant but still with restricted or no democracy (Oman, Lebanon, Morocco, Egypt) to the nastier end (Iran, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bangladesh). The version in Iran is a convenient justification for maintaining the theocracy's grip on power. For sure, the imams believe that what they are doing is good for the souls of their people, but the way they enforce that ensures that opposition is crushed, often in very cruel ways. They are using Islam as an excuse for oppression, and that, as I have said, will be the undoing, not only of their government, but also of their version of Islam. (Yes, I have modified my viewpoint here: as I say, it's hard to tell to what extent a liberated Iranian populace would continue as believers.)

I should be heartily pleased if the people of Iran could free themselves from the tentacles of their religion, but I just don't see it happening. If it should happen I will be the first to congratulate them, but until then I feel my point stands.

Well, I think the first step will be to free themselves from their oppressive government. You have doubted that this will happen, and I'm wondering why that is? They have, after all, done this before, with the Shah. I see no reason why they couldn't do that again.
By the way, your point before was doubting that Iranians would remove their government. Now you seem to have changed that to renouncing Islam. Am I reading this correctly?
As a final point, it is being reported - as has been posted here already- that the protests are spreading, and include the working class as well as the urban middle class. If that is the case, do you still doubt that the Iranians have a chance of regime change?

 

[catsmate]

I disagree, or more specifically, the regime in Iran have determined that religion is the way they can retain and wield power so they have twisted that religion to suit their needs.

Rather like Saudi Arabia.

 

[catsmate]

It's really hard to tell from afar, but it seems like the protests are still getting bigger.

There are a few vids of police shooting at protesters, and more vids with the sounds of police shooting at protesters. When there is only the sound it is hard to tell if it is actual real bullets, or rubber bullets, flash bangs, or what. But two vids or what are obviously "real" guns fired at protestors - a rifle and a pistol. But even that, so far just individual shots popping off, nothing like sustained heavy gunfire.

Video of protesters thrashing a courtroom. They captured a pretty senior police officer. Burned big public portraits of the Ayatollah and the President. They are chanting "death to the dictator" and the dictator in question seems to be the Ayatollah (not the President).

This seems bigger than the 2019/2020 protests, but then again the government then killed some thousands of protestors in putting those down. It remains to be seen if they'll do that again.

Even f they put this one down, the frequency of big protests in Iran seems to be going up. Iran is getting more unstable.

There are at least fifty deaths confirmed by reliable sources. And protests in more than sixty towns and cities.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Rather like Saudi Arabia.

Actually, it's not quite the same.
The Sauds made a pact with the Wahabbis, who are an austere and fundamentalist sect of Sunni Islam, in which they agreed that should a kingdom be formed, the Sauds would get the political power and the Wahabbis would get the religious power.
Thus, the rulers are the Sauds, but they have had to run everything past the Wahabbis to get reforms passed. This was more difficult in the past: MBS, however, has severely curtailed the power of the Wahabbis, especially the religious police, and has instituted reforms that a few years ago would have been unimaginable. The power is very much in the hands of the Saudi monarchy now.
In Iran, the Supreme Leader is the Ayatollah Khameini, who is more powerful than the elected president. Iran's regime is a theocracy, whereas Saudi Arabia's is an absolute monarchy.
It goes without saying that the Saudi royal family has played heavily on their control over Mecca and Medina. One of the King's titles is 'Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques'. They use this geographical coincidence to assert themselves as being in charge of other Muslim countries and peoples. I don't think it's a case of twisting religion to suit their purposes, and religion is not the key to the Saudi royal family retaining power. Rather, it was a treaty that bound them to the Wahabbis, and one I get the feeling they had rather not signed.

 

[Delvo]

the Saudi royal family has played heavily on their control over Mecca and Medina. One of the King's titles is 'Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques'. They use this geographical coincidence to assert themselves as being in charge of other Muslim countries and peoples.

And in the case of Mecca, it isn't just a symbolic or mystical thing. The kingdom controls the distribution of passes to that monstrous annual pilgrimage to Mecca. Most Muslims see that as not just an idea that might be cool to go through with someday but an obligation that they must fulfill if they can possibly find a way. It's right up there with faith in the only God, praying, charity, and fasting during Ramadan as the five most important things a Muslim needs to do. But the location is only so big and can only take so many people, so other countries get told each year how many of their citizens will be allowed. Get on the Sauds' naughty list, and you get lower priority for the Ḥajj, which means more of your citizens getting told they can't go.

 

[theprestige]

Actually, it's not quite the same.
The Sauds made a pact with the Wahabbis, who are an austere and fundamentalist sect of Sunni Islam, in which they agreed that should a kingdom be formed, the Sauds would get the political power and the Wahabbis would get the religious power.
Thus, the rulers are the Sauds, but they have had to run everything past the Wahabbis to get reforms passed. This was more difficult in the past: MBS, however, has severely curtailed the power of the Wahabbis, especially the religious police, and has instituted reforms that a few years ago would have been unimaginable. The power is very much in the hands of the Saudi monarchy now.
In Iran, the Supreme Leader is the Ayatollah Khameini, who is more powerful than the elected president. Iran's regime is a theocracy, whereas Saudi Arabia's is an absolute monarchy.
It goes without saying that the Saudi royal family has played heavily on their control over Mecca and Medina. One of the King's titles is 'Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques'. They use this geographical coincidence to assert themselves as being in charge of other Muslim countries and peoples. I don't think it's a case of twisting religion to suit their purposes, and religion is not the key to the Saudi royal family retaining power. Rather, it was a treaty that bound them to the Wahabbis, and one I get the feeling they had rather not signed.

Kinda sounds like the royals made a deal with the priests to affirm the divine right of kings. I.e., church endorsement of the crown, in order to encourage temporal obedience in the faithful, in exchange for spiritual concessions to the faithful and their priesthood.

But it's a two way street, and if the church can use the crown, the crown can also use the church.