• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Is Iran really that bad?

Saint Frankenstein

Here for the ride
Premium Member
Give me two short reasons why the Sharia is bad.
The funny thing is, Jewish law has the same amount of ickiness as Islamic law does. The Talmud contains a lot of nasty stuff. Orthodox Judaism is just as sexist and homophobic as conservative Islam. (It can be ethnosupremacist or racist, as well). But, just as with Islam, different sects interpret things differently, so opinions on various matters varies. Neither religion has a central authority, so you see both imams and rabbis saying wildly different things according to denomination, culture, interpretation, etc.
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
Theocentric isn't bad, it is better than democracy. A nation lead by God is always better than a nation lead by its people.
In what way is the Shariah disrespectful to women? Because of the headscarf? Well, this is your own subjective opinion.
No can do, mate. I am not accepting this post of yours as a conversation element.
 

crossfire

LHP Mercuræn Feminist Heretic Bully ☿
Premium Member
Do you know what these "protesters" did? They burned cars and houses and attacked police officers. How do you expect Iran to react? This was not a demonstration, this was rebellion. Iran had no choice but to show toughness.
The UN just released a high-level report on Iran's crackdown on protesters. That report stated, "the violations uncovered “amount to crimes against humanity – specifically those of murder, imprisonment, torture, rape and other forms of sexual violence, persecution, enforced disappearance and other inhumane acts”.

Iran committed crimes against humanity during protest crackdown, UN says
Iranian authorities raped prisoners
You are distorting the facts here. You are indirectly claiming that Iran would tolerate rape, but that is not true. In Iran, the penalty for rape is the death penalty. If you don't like Iran, that's your right, but please don't lie about Iran.
So, does this mean that the government authorities who committed these rapes will be getting the death penalty?
 
Last edited:

Brickjectivity

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
I question the UN as a source of information. As I have come to learn it is not good at keeping itself honest.

@Cordelro Reuters is a 'Western Media' outlet. The article you post shows that its willing to criticize USA. That is not to say that I rely upon commentary from Reuters or other media, not as if they are unquestionable.

I think everyone here that you have so far met in this thread is aware that in the past USA interfered in Iran's election process. I feel badly about that. I also am sorry that we are so quick to virtue signal about problems that our own country has had.

While I do not think its good to punish people for being gay or for falling in love with the same sex, I don't think its my country's place to comment on your laws about it. Not long ago it was illegal here, too. My thinking is that some people are simply gay, and its not something they choose to be. Some people do have a choice but not everyone.

I understand Iran's desire to see USA influence leave the Middle East. I do not view Israel as a proxy for the USA, and I view Iran's antagonism against that country as incitement to get the USA involved in the region. Its not a proxy but it is an ally, and its a country we cannot ignore. If everybody could just calm down and stop shooting the USA would leave as soon as humanly possible. We were almost out. We were almost free, but then October 7 happened. Now we are paying to send ships to prevent missiles hitting Israel.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Assuming for arguments sake that America hates Iran, that doesn't explain how they treat their citizens.
I can explain how they treat their citizens.
But brutal treatment of a country's citizens
alone doesn't engender USA's hatred.
With allies (at various times) like Saudi Arabia,
Israel, Iraq, etc, it's clear that oppression isn't
a deal breaker for friendship.
It's more like families....old grudges endure,
no matter how irrational they be.
 

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
View attachment 89543
This article is based on subjective opinion poll of experts and has no real basis in terms of comparison.
India does have relatively high prevalence (33%) of violence against women as the UN study has shown.
Global, regional, and national prevalence estimates of physical or sexual, or both, intimate partner violence against women in 2018
But these studies do not cover autocratic theocracies like Iran where it's impossible to get correct results by asking women. But researchers have still studied and sampled domestic violence against women in Iran and the data shows 66% median prevalence. Here is a systemic review of more that 16 studies all showing the same result.
Domestic Violence Among Iranian Women: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
I have been following the Western media for some time now and I have noticed that no country in the world is attacked as harshly by the Western media as Iran. The western media uses everything to put Iran in a bad light. Am I the only one who finds this strange?
I may have a different media diet than you, but I don't see Iran at the top of the "bad guys" list. There are North Korea, Russia, Israel, Saudi Arabia and the US who are either oppressing their own population or committing war crimes (or both).
But is Iran really that bad? I mean, let's compare Iran with a country like India. In India, horrible things happen against women every day. But does the Western media report on it? No, they don't. They did recently report on the rape of a woman in India, but that was only because the woman was European. Every day Indian women are raped and beaten in India, but the Western media remain silent. But when a woman is arrested in Iran for not wearing a headscarf, the Western media goes crazy. Is wearing a headscarf worse than rape?

If I asked you whether you would rather live in Iran or India, which would you choose? As a Christian, I would prefer to live in Iran.
I'd prefer India, the food is better.

(And India has at least a somewhat democratic government. They respect human rights more and they aren't prejudiced against western people.)
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
You present it as if clothing laws are worthless. But they are not. Iran is absolutely right that women must be covered. Should women be sexualized like in the West? Should they see half-naked women on television and on the streets like in the West? Iran is trying to protect its youth from this poisonous ideology. Iran bans LGBTQ and wants its women to dress decently. In Iran, you even get the death penalty if you possess or spread pornography. Iran is trying to protect its population from spiritual corruption.
And it's failing. Iran is likely to have another revolution within the next 5 years. Turns out that young people don't want to be protected from "spiritual corruption".
 

lukethethird

unknown member
I have been following the Western media for some time now and I have noticed that no country in the world is attacked as harshly by the Western media as Iran. The western media uses everything to put Iran in a bad light. Am I the only one who finds this strange?

But is Iran really that bad? I mean, let's compare Iran with a country like India. In India, horrible things happen against women every day. But does the Western media report on it? No, they don't. They did recently report on the rape of a woman in India, but that was only because the woman was European. Every day Indian women are raped and beaten in India, but the Western media remain silent. But when a woman is arrested in Iran for not wearing a headscarf, the Western media goes crazy. Is wearing a headscarf worse than rape?

If I asked you whether you would rather live in Iran or India, which would you choose? As a Christian, I would prefer to live in Iran.

Is Iran really that bad?​


No, not at all. Personally I don't pay attention to U.S. propaganda, it's mainly based on xenophobia.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
The US goverment just hates Iran because their government won't get us steal their resources. Also, Israel hates Iran and wants us to attack Iran for them. They just don't want Iran to have nukes so we can attack them without worrying about a nuclear exchange.

As with most of the world's problems, the U.S. government's problems with Iran are the consequence of obsessive anti-communism, They were so afraid that Iran was going to turn communist that they installed the Shah in 1953, but then he was overthrown in 1979 and suddenly we had a regime in that country which virulently hated the United States.

Nevertheless, Reagan still liked them, as they helped him get elected President. Reagan was also obsessively anti-communist that he was all too willing to jump into bed with the Islamic Republic in order to punish our Latin American neighbor for defying U.S. hegemony. So, as I see it, Iran willingly joined the game and supported Ronald Reagan. America's short-lived peaceful turn in the brief period between the end of the Vietnam War and Reagan's election in 1980 apparently did not suit Iran, so they worked on ruining Carter's presidency in favor of Reagan, who was much more of a warmonger than Carter, and who then proceeded to ramp up the Cold War and U.S. military aggression worldwide.
 

Saint Frankenstein

Here for the ride
Premium Member
As with most of the world's problems, the U.S. government's problems with Iran are the consequence of obsessive anti-communism, They were so afraid that Iran was going to turn communist that they installed the Shah in 1953, but then he was overthrown in 1979 and suddenly we had a regime in that country which virulently hated the United States.

Nevertheless, Reagan still liked them, as they helped him get elected President. Reagan was also obsessively anti-communist that he was all too willing to jump into bed with the Islamic Republic in order to punish our Latin American neighbor for defying U.S. hegemony. So, as I see it, Iran willingly joined the game and supported Ronald Reagan. America's short-lived peaceful turn in the brief period between the end of the Vietnam War and Reagan's election in 1980 apparently did not suit Iran, so they worked on ruining Carter's presidency in favor of Reagan, who was much more of a warmonger than Carter, and who then proceeded to ramp up the Cold War and U.S. military aggression worldwide.
Very weird, that Iran supported Reagan! I think Carter was the last president who was actually a decent human being. I haven't heard anything nasty about him. It better not come out that he ate babies or something, when he dies. Fingers crossed!
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Very weird, that Iran supported Reagan! I think Carter was the last president who was actually a decent human being. I haven't heard anything nasty about him. It better not come out that he ate babies or something, when he dies. Fingers crossed!

Their grudge against Carter seemingly centered on Carter agreeing to allow the Shah to come to the United States after being exiled from Iran. He may have caved in to pressure from people like Kissinger and David Rockefeller, who were staunch supporters of the Shah. The Iranians stated that they would not release the hostages while Carter was still President, insinuating their support for Reagan. Reagan also made arms-for-hostages deals with Iran to secure the release of American hostages, while using the proceeds from the arms sales to help fund the Contras in Nicaragua.
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
From Iran's perspective, I think that they lent Reagan a measure of good will as a consequence of he simply being a new POTUS with a clearly established rivalry with Jimmy Carter.

There was not much in the way of objective, rational reasons to favor Reagan over Carter (either in Iran or in the USA), but they are a community that officially claims to be attempting to follow the will of the creator of existence. It is not unusual for those to convince themselves to expect good will just because. It has happened before in Muslim communities and probably will happen many times yet.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Any God, or the one True God?
OIP.nCqC1UR2hFip4UYr48xAOgHaGn
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
From Iran's perspective, I think that they lent Reagan a measure of good will as a consequence of he simply being a new POTUS with a clearly established rivalry with Jimmy Carter.

There was not much in the way of objective, rational reasons to favor Reagan over Carter (either in Iran or in the USA), but they are a community that officially claims to be attempting to follow the will of the creator of existence. It is not unusual for those to convince themselves to expect good will just because. It has happened before in Muslim communities and probably will happen many times yet.

Perhaps it may have been that. Or they may not have understood some of the subtleties of American politics. Reagan himself didn't seem to have much of a coherent policy regarding the Middle East, as he was still seemingly stuck in the 1950s Cold War McCarthyite frame of thinking. Since he was fixated on commies so much, anyone who was not that (which would include the Islamic Republic, Saudi Arabia, and the forerunners of the Taliban, among others) was not really included in Reagan's anti-communist agenda.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Perhaps it may have been that. Or they may not have understood some of the subtleties of American politics. Reagan himself didn't seem to have much of a coherent policy regarding the Middle East, as he was still seemingly stuck in the 1950s Cold War McCarthyite frame of thinking.
Huh?
 
Top