Iranian chess player who removed hijab gets Spanish citizenship
Iranian chess player who removed hijab gets Spanish citizenship
An Iranian chess player who moved to Spain in January after she competed without a hijab and had an arrest warrant issued against her at home has been granted Spanish citizenship, Spain said on Wednesday.
MADRID, July 26 (Reuters) - An Iranian chess player who moved to Spain in January after she competed without a hijab and had an arrest warrant issued against her at home has been granted Spanish citizenship, Spain said on Wednesday.
Sarasadat Khademalsharieh, better known as Sara Khadem, took part in the FIDE World Rapid and Blitz Chess Championships held in Kazakhstan in late December without the headscarf that is mandatory under Iran's strict Islamic dress codes.
Laws enforcing mandatory hijab-wearing became a flashpoint during the unrest that swept Iran when a 22-year-old Iranian-Kurdish woman, Mahsa Amini, died in the custody of the morality police in mid-September.
The 26-year-old has told Reuters she had no regrets over her gesture in support of the protest movement against her country's clerical leadership.
Spain's official gazette said the cabinet approved granting Khadem citizenship on Tuesday "taking into account the special circumstances" of her case.
You're viewing a single thread.
Imagine not being able to return 'home' because you took your hat off. 🤔
I hope her friends and family wont catch any retribution for her 'escaping' shitty islamic justice
Imagine not being able to return ‘home’ because you took your hat off. 🤔
I never quite realized just how pedestrian taking the hijab off is, yeah. Never really thought about it. It is quite literally just taking your hat or well, head-scarf, off. It's like when my great-grandma came in from the rain and took that plastic headband off she always wore to keep her hair dry.
Ridiculous how backwards we as a species can be, and sadly often are. 😔
Is it too reductive to conclude this is just men wanting to be able to dictate what women should and shouldn't do? Anyone claiming otherwise, even women who "would gladly wear it" feels like Stockholm syndrome to me.
Maybe I'm wrong to think this, but alas, I do.
I don't think it's too reductive, considering religion as a whole is always about exercising control.
Yeah the whole thing sucks just remember their are religious fanatics within all religions.
Fanatics and extremists exist regardless of religions. The latter just allows them to control people easier, and islam happens to be particularly good at that.
Of course, most 'religious' people have enough common sense to not follow them to the T. When the government is religious though, like islam encourages, you have a big problem
Fanatics and extremists exist regardless of religions. The latter just allows them to control people easier, and islam happens to be particularly good at that.
This is more accurate.
It's not that "fanatics exist in all religions", it's "fanatics exist", and religions just give them a cover that is depending on society difficult to challenge as in many places, a religion's influence on society and rules is quite normalized, completely ignoring how ridiculous this influence is.
>it's "fanatics exist", and religions just give them a cover
It isn't much of a leap to understanding that religions have always served the purpose of controlling people.
When a leader has a tool that allows the people to think his pronouncements have the endorsement of a God, that leader is going to use that tool.
Islam isn't better at it than other religions it just happens to be the major religions in the countries where those fanatics managed to seize the power. You can find similar examples with Christianism (Europe, USA), Judaism (Israel), Hinduism (India), Buddhism (Myanmar) and probably many more.
Islam isn't better at it than other religions it just happens to be the major religions in the countries where those fanatics managed to seize the power
That's no coincidence imo.
I see all religions as negative, but Islam is the only one I can personally attest to, being an ex muslim. It's cult-y and tends to bring out the worst in people, more so than most religions from what I've seen.
Your personal experience is not a good argument.
Here's a recent exemple of Hindu fanatics attacking Muslims: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Delhi_riots and another from Christian fanatics attacking the institutions of the USA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_6_United_States_Capitol_attack
Let's not compare atrocities committed by religions; islam's would be never-ending if we did, as your comment also suggested.
I will add though that buddism's continued oppression of muslims in Myanmar is sickening, in addition to your examples
> Let’s not compare atrocities committed by religions
Isn't it what you do when singling out Islam ?
If the poster hadn't specifically stated that they were commenting because that was their former religion, yes. But given the context, no.
Yup. I think the conclusion is obvious, as my comment indicates, so there's not much need to compare them here.
Islam doesn't encourage any more for theocracy than other Abrahamic religions. The existence of religious fundamentalist Islamic theocracies is a lot more complex than Islam. A lot of it can be traced to colonialism, the decolonization process and Western interference in Islamic countries. This is largely why Iran is one of those. The last Shah was seen corrupt autocratic puppet of the West by many. As a counter to it, the country over-corrected and landed in fundamentalist Islamic theocracy. Radicalization of Islam leading to similar governments happened in other Islam-majority countries. Before the 60s and 70s, many Islamic countries didn't differ a lot from Western countries when it came to social liberties. There are a lot of images of Tehran and Kabul with women in mini skirts for example.
While I am not saying that modern Islamic countries are not problem or thousand when it comes to civil liberties and democracy, Islam in my knowledge was more tool and less reason behind it.
The problem is when a government is captured by religion.
There is nothing quite so bad as religious types getting power based purelly on being religious types.
I suspect that, because it's the most fanatical power-hungry types (Moralism is really just a way of justifying the forcing of others to your will) who both have the most motivation to seek positions were they can have free rain to really go on powertrips on other people, and display more overtly the very religiosity that is the whole reason for a government whose power is based on religion.
Certainly those who feel no need to impose their will on others and who can even *gasp* see some actions as overzealous, don't have anywhere the same drive, zealotry and backstabbing instincts to climb up the ladder in such power structures.
You are very right the same is being seen in the united states with Evangelical fanatics taking over all forms of government and a disturbing pace.