An Iranian monarchist who filmed herself pulling the headscarves off Iranians in London fled to Israel after UK police announced they were investigating her.

The woman allegedly responsible is an Iranian pro-Israel activist called Bahar Mahroo, who later closed her Instagram and TikTok accounts and claimed she found the videos online. However, a reserve image search found no sources for the video, other than her Twitter account.

  • geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    It’s a reference to Redditors circlejerking about the same picture of an Iranian woman wearing a bikini in the 1960s. The rest of the country was not dressed like that at all but it makes for a good propaganda story about how the west liberated Iran by overthrowing their government.

    For more information https://www.reddit.com/r/Izlam/comments/8tpg4l/imagine_thinking_you_understand_the_history_of_a/

    And no Muslim that practices the faith will tell you wearing a Hijab is optional for Muslim women. It is not a contested opinion among any scholar either.

    • barsoap@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      4 months ago

      There’s no mention of Hijabs in the Quran and “dress modestly” is very much relative. You also may or may not see Turks drinking plum wine but they’re definitely drinking beer and most definitely Raki.

            • barsoap@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              4 months ago

              So you picked out one non-Muslim (a scholar of comparative religion) among the many Muslims, with doctorates in Islamic Law from Arab universities and everything, to dismiss all of it.

              I tried not to but I have to start to doubt your intellectual honesty. Not towards me, I don’t care, but towards yourself.

              • geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                4 months ago

                The first paragraph contained no reasoning. Only statements. The second with the supposed reasoning is written by Karen.

                I read your link. You did not.

                • barsoap@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  All three paragraphs are written by wikipedia authors summing up longer texts by various scholars. If you want to actually engage with the topic on a deeper level, read those scholars, not just the summary. It’s all linked (those numbers in brackets). Ignore the Christian if you please, noone will blame you.

                  • geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    4 months ago

                    I already read your article my previous link already debunked everything in it.

                    You should consider reading and be intellectually honest instead.

        • footoro@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          4 months ago

          I can’t believe I’m getting involved in this but then you can surely show where it’s mentioned clearly?

          • NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            And tell the believing women to reduce [some] of their vision and guard their private parts and not expose their adornment except that which [necessarily] appears thereof and to wrap [a portion of] their headcovers over their chests and not expose their adornment except to their husbands… until the end of the verse.

            Surah al nur, verse 31.

            It then explicitly assumes that they’re wearing a headcover. The main debate around this verse and similar ones is whether the face and hands must be covered or not, and not whether everything else must be covered.

            • footoro@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              4 months ago

              Aha and which translation did you choose?

              Do you speak Arabic? More explicitly, to an extent that would allow you to understand the nuances in a verse like that?

              I’m asking because I still don’t see any proof that it is clearly written anywhere.

              • NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                4 months ago

                Aha and which translation did you choose? This seems rather odd.

                I don’t remember, but the Arabic word used means “head covering”.

                Do you speak Arabic? More explicitly, to an extent that would allow you to understand the nuances in a verse like that?

                I’m a native speaker so yes.

                • footoro@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  طب وأنا عربي كمان بس ولا عمري رح احكيلك انو فاهم اشي من القران لانو لغة القران مش لغتنا وحتى العربي الي بدو يدرس الدين لازم سنة وهو بدرس عربي بس عشان عن جد يفهم وأنا مش فاهم عربي لهالدرج وإذا أنا مش شيخ مش عارف كيف انت بدك تفهم هيك منيح لتعمل فتوى للناس

                  • NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    4 months ago

                    أنا فاهم قصدك بس الموضوع برده مش صعب للدرجة. الآية بتقول خمار و كلمة خمار معناها غطاء الرأس في اللغة العربية مش محتاجة فتاوى. +أنا دورت قبل ما اتكلم فده كلام علماء مش كلامي.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      It’s a reference to Redditors circlejerking about the same picture of an Iranian woman wearing a bikini in the 1960s.

      Cool, I wasn’t doing that. I was explaining why she might be a Muslim and still be against them.

      And no Muslim that practices the faith will tell you wearing a Hijab is optional for Muslims.

      I look forward to seeing you tell all those millions of religious Turkish women who do not wear anything on their head that they are not Muslims. I hope you forward me their responses when you let them know you have decided what their religion is.

      Edit: South Asian women too.

      • NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        4 months ago

        Even if they don’t wear hijab, they’ll acknowledge that it’s obligatory and what they’re doing is, in fact, haram. If you say hijab isn’t obligatory without an excuse like not knowing the correct ruling you do, in fact, cease to be a Muslim according to Sunni Islam consensus.

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldM
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          Even if they don’t wear hijab, they’ll acknowledge that it’s obligatory and what they’re doing is, in fact, haram.

          Ah, you speak for these women do you? Are you even a woman yourself?

          Your interpretation of Islam is not the only interpretation of Islam.

          • geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            4 months ago

            There is no scholar disputing this. Turkey is heavily secularized you might have heard of a guy called Atatürk.

            If a woman doesn’t want to wear a Hijab that’s up to her. But you don’t claim this is a contested subject among any Islamic scholars or part of Islam. It’s stated extremely clear.

            • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldM
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              4 months ago

              It is extremely clear based on your interpretation of Islam. Clearly not the case in South Asia or in Turkey. Let me guess- In Pakistan, the country with the largest Muslim population in the world, women are unIslamic.

              This is some hardcore misogyny you have going on.

              • geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                4 months ago

                An Arab person or person living in an Islamic country is not by definition a Muslim.

                Calling all Arabs Muslims is just racism.

              • NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                4 months ago

                Uh… I think you’re mixing up the concept of sinning and not being a Muslim. You can, in fact, be a Muslim while still committing sins. And again, almost no Muslim, scholar or not, considers hijab to be optional. It’s just not a thing.

                • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldM
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  Yes, again, I realize that is what the interpretation that you two are pushing is. Your buddy there doesn’t even known that Iranians aren’t Arabs and is calling me a racist over it.

    • footoro@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      If you follow the madhhab of YouTube and you rely too much on Sheikh Wikipedia, you may draw this conclusion but it’s really more nuanced than this and I thought we’re past this kind of radicalism where only one opinion is valid and everyone else goes to hell since ISIS got busted more or less.