نماز باران

[SirAlex]

امام جمعه شيراز:
خشكسالي نازل شد تا قدر نعمت*ها را بدانيم
خبرگزاري فارس: نماينده ولي فقيه در فارس و امام جمعه شيراز با بيان اينكه نزول خشكسالي امتحان الهي براي دانستن قدر و ارزش نعمات خداوند است، گفت: خشكسالي را به ما دادند تا نماز باران بخوانيم.

به گزارش خبرگزاري فارس از شيراز محي*الدين حائري شيرازي در خطبه*هاي نماز جمعه اين هفته افزود: ما بندگان متكبر خداوند نيستيم كه با يك بار خواندن نماز باران و نازل نشدن رحمت الهي قهر كنيم، باز هم نماز باران خواهيم خواند و در گرفتن نعمت از پروردگار گداياني سمج هستيم.
نماينده ولي فقيه در استان فارس از مقام معظم رهبري درخواست كرد تا ايشان هم براي طلب باران دعا كنند، گفت: همه نمازي كه ما مي*خوانيم يك*طرف، يك آمين رهبري هم يك*طرف، دعا به وسيله آمين اولياي دين اجابت مي*شود، اگر ما همه قنوت*ها و تكبيرها را بگوييم براي اجابت نماز باران بايد اين نماز به اولياي دين وصل باشد.
حائري شيرازي گفت: مردم از فردا (شنبه) به مدت سه*روز روزه بگيرند و همه در روز سوم يعني دوشنبه در جوار تربت پاك شهيدان نماز باران را در سراسر استان اقامه كنند.
نماينده ولي فقيه در استان فارس همچنين با تاكيد بر لزوم تداوم برخورد قانوني با هنجارشكنان در جامعه گفت: مسئولان بدون توجه به تائيد و تكذيب*ها با كساني كه هنجارها را مي*شكنند، برخورد كنند.
حائري شيرازي تامين امنيت اجتماعي مردم در خيابان*ها و معابر را لازم توصيف و تصريح كرد: نبايد به افراد اجازه داد با لباس**هاي محرك به خيابان*ها آمده و بگويند آزاد هستم، هر لباسي را كه مي*خواهم بپوشم.
امام جمعه شيراز گفت: هيج كس اجازه ندارد جوان مردم را تحريك كند، اين رفتارها امنيت جامعه را با مخاطره روبرو مي*كند بنابراين بايد با قدرت با چنين رفتارهايي برخورد كرد.

​

 

[Niloufar]

حائري شيرازي تامين امنيت اجتماعي مردم در خيابان*ها و معابر را لازم توصيف و تصريح كرد: نبايد به افراد اجازه داد با لباس**هاي محرك به خيابان*ها آمده و بگويند آزاد هستم، هر لباسي را كه مي*خواهم بپوشم.
امام جمعه شيراز گفت: هيج كس اجازه ندارد جوان مردم را تحريك كند، اين رفتارها امنيت جامعه را با مخاطره روبرو مي*كند بنابراين بايد با قدرت با چنين رفتارهايي برخورد كرد

and this is definition of Freedom in Islamic-run countries! bastards..

 

[Agha Shojaa]

And....

حجت الاسلام والمسلمين سيداحمد علم الهدي خواستار براندازي قاطع و قانوني بي حجابي به عنوان يک جرم شد.به گزارش ايرنا، امام جمعه مشهد در خطبه هاي نماز جمعه اين شهر با بيان اينکه بي حجابي در جامعه اسلامي يک جرم است، افزود؛ «افراد بي حجاب بايد به عنوان يک مجرم تحت پيگرد قانوني قرار گيرند.»وي ادامه داد؛ «بي حجابي منشاء اکثر ناهنجاري هاي اجتماعي است. برخي مسوولان بر اساس يک منطق غلط عنوان مي کنند معضل بي حجابي را بايد با يک سري فعاليت هاي فرهنگي برطرف کرد در صورتي که بي حجابي بايد به عنوان يک جرم با قاطعيت و قدرت براندازي شود.»وي گفت؛ «در طرح عفاف و حجاب مصوب شوراي عالي انقلاب فرهنگي در دو سال گذشته، براي همه دستگاه هاي اجرايي، قضايي و امنيتي وظايف قانوني به منظور برخورد و ريشه کني معضل بي حجابي پيش بيني و تنها 21 وظيفه قانوني براي نيروي انتظامي تعيين شده است.»خطيب جمعه مشهد اضافه کرد؛ «اگر هر يک از دستگاه هاي اجرايي، قضايي و امنيتي از وظايف قانوني خود در برخورد با معضل بي حجابي کوتاهي کنند قانون شکن هستند و مردم آنها را بازخواست مي کنند.»

 

[Payandeh Iran]

Noor be ghbret bebareh Iraj Mirza:

Khodaya ta be kay saket neshinam
Man inha jomle az cheshme to binam

Hameh zarrate Alam mantareh tost
Tamameh fetneha zireh sareh tost

To in Akhoondo molla afaridi
To tooyeh chorteh ma mardom davidi

Khodavanda magar bikar boodi
Keh khalghe mar dar bostan nemoodi

....

 

[The_Referee]

LOL at the poem PI jaan.
And for the main topic of the thread,
اين حائري چقدر توت فرنگي شعر ميگه

(For the meaning of توت فرنگي refer to General dictionary of some words related to some parts of female body)

 

[IPride]

Ah ah.. someone throw his ugly ass into a gas chamber please.

 

[ashtar]

[/size]

and this is definition of Freedom in Islamic-run countries! bastards..

baz ham harf e moft?
You think these laws are unique to "Islamic-run countries"? How stupid, clueless and ignorant can one be of the world around them?

Indecent exposure laws exist in almost every society on earth with some degree of civilization. What defines the boundaries and limitations is merely relative and defined and identified based on "prevalent standards of decency", cultural practices and beliefs and arbitrary laws. Go learn some history and law before yapping away about "Islamic" this and that.

During the Victorian era, exposure of a woman's legs was considered indecent in much of the Western (non-Muslim) world. As late as the 1930s, both women and men were largely prevented from bathing or swimming in public places without wearing bathing suits that covered above the waist. An adult woman exposing her navel was also considered indecent in the West up through as late as the 1960s and 1970s.

In England, Wales and Northern Ireland, Indecent exposure is defined as someone, male or female, exposing their genitals intending another person to see them and to be caused alarm or distress (Sexual Offences Act 2003).

Here are some written laws in an un-Islamic country like US (not personal opinions as in the case of Haeri Shirazi):

Unnatural and lascivious act. in Florida (chapter 800.02 of Florida Statute)--A person who commits any unnatural and lascivious act with another person commits a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
(chapter 800.03 of Florida Statute)--It is unlawful to expose or exhibit one's sexual organs in public or on the private premises of another, or so near thereto as to be seen from such private premises, in a vulgar or indecent manner, or to be naked in public except in any place provided or set apart for that purpose. Violation of this section is a misdemeanor of the first degree.

(Sec. 11?9 of Illinois Statute). Public indecency:
(a) Any person of the age of 17 years and upwards who performs any of the following acts in a public place commits a public indecency:
(1) An act of sexual penetration or sexual conduct as defined in Section 12?12 of this Code; or
(2) A lewd exposure of the body done with intent to arouse or to satisfy the sexual desire of the person.
(c) Sentence: Public indecency is a Class A misdemeanor. A person convicted of a third or subsequent violation for public indecency is guilty of a Class 4 felony.

(General laws of Massachusetts) -- CHAPTER 272. CRIMES AGAINST CHASTITY, MORALITY, DECENCY AND GOOD ORDER
Section 16. A man or woman, married or unmarried, who is guilty of open and gross lewdness and lascivious behavior, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than three years or in jail for not more than two years or by a fine of not more than three hundred dollars.

Even in case of Freedom of Speech in US for example the courts in Miller vs California case decided that obscenity is not protected by the First Amendment. And what is patently offensive is to be determined by applying community values. This applies not only to verbal speech but also the dress that you wear and what picture or message might be on it. Thus, you cannot site "Freedom" as excuse to wear a T-shirt with a picture of a naked person for example in a religiously conservative town where such T-shirt might be considered obscene.

Now what did Haeri Shirazi say? He essentially reiterates the above views (from non-Muslim sources) that "freedom" is not an excuse for people to wear or behave however they please in public. Again, what is to determine the boundaries and definitions of what constitutes obscene, lewd or lascivious is determined by community values.

 

[Behrooz_C]

In England, Wales and Northern Ireland, Indecent exposure is defined as someone, male or female, exposing their genitals intending another person to see them and to be caused alarm or distress (Sexual Offences Act 2003).

What a load of irrelevant crap as usual from you.
I mean surely you can tell the difference between exposure of one's genitalia to hejab as is referred to in this context by this fascist akhound! Can you not? He is referring to hejab which in this context means women covering the hair on their head.

Having said all this and having read your irrelevant nonsense over the months, I wouldn't be surprised if you didn't know the difference between your head and your genitalia any way most of the things your write are the product of the latter part of the body :1:

 

[Farzad-USA]

baz ham harf e moft?
You think these laws are unique to "Islamic-run countries"? How stupid, clueless and ignorant can one be of the world around them?

Indecent exposure laws exist in almost every society on earth with some degree of civilization. What defines the boundaries and limitations is merely relative and defined and identified based on "prevalent standards of decency", cultural practices and beliefs and arbitrary laws. Go learn some history and law before yapping away about "Islamic" this and that.

During the Victorian era, exposure of a woman's legs was considered indecent in much of the Western (non-Muslim) world. As late as the 1930s, both women and men were largely prevented from bathing or swimming in public places without wearing bathing suits that covered above the waist. An adult woman exposing her navel was also considered indecent in the West up through as late as the 1960s and 1970s.

In England, Wales and Northern Ireland, Indecent exposure is defined as someone, male or female, exposing their genitals intending another person to see them and to be caused alarm or distress (Sexual Offences Act 2003).

Here are some written laws in an un-Islamic country like US (not personal opinions as in the case of Haeri Shirazi):

Unnatural and lascivious act. in Florida (chapter 800.02 of Florida Statute)--A person who commits any unnatural and lascivious act with another person commits a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
(chapter 800.03 of Florida Statute)--It is unlawful to expose or exhibit one's sexual organs in public or on the private premises of another, or so near thereto as to be seen from such private premises, in a vulgar or indecent manner, or to be naked in public except in any place provided or set apart for that purpose. Violation of this section is a misdemeanor of the first degree.

(Sec. 11?9 of Illinois Statute). Public indecency:
(a) Any person of the age of 17 years and upwards who performs any of the following acts in a public place commits a public indecency:
(1) An act of sexual penetration or sexual conduct as defined in Section 12?12 of this Code; or
(2) A lewd exposure of the body done with intent to arouse or to satisfy the sexual desire of the person.
(c) Sentence: Public indecency is a Class A misdemeanor. A person convicted of a third or subsequent violation for public indecency is guilty of a Class 4 felony.

(General laws of Massachusetts) -- CHAPTER 272. CRIMES AGAINST CHASTITY, MORALITY, DECENCY AND GOOD ORDER
Section 16. A man or woman, married or unmarried, who is guilty of open and gross lewdness and lascivious behavior, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than three years or in jail for not more than two years or by a fine of not more than three hundred dollars.

Even in case of Freedom of Speech in US for example the courts in Miller vs California case decided that obscenity is not protected by the First Amendment. And what is patently offensive is to be determined by applying community values. This applies not only to verbal speech but also the dress that you wear and what picture or message might be on it. Thus, you cannot site "Freedom" as excuse to wear a T-shirt with a picture of a naked person for example in a religiously conservative town where such T-shirt might be considered obscene.

Now what did Haeri Shirazi say? He essentially reiterates the above views (from non-Muslim sources) that "freedom" is not an excuse for people to wear or behave however they please in public. Again, what is to determine the boundaries and definitions of what constitutes obscene, lewd or lascivious is determined by community values.

Agha Ashtar, I don't why when some one said something bad about this regime, you resort to bring the laws of other countries to justify the laws of IRI is not that bad, there are over 190 countires in the world so you want to find something in those laws to justify your points. Look at the general laws of those countries, the freedom of expression and freedom of choice. There is a reason that you live in this country, becaue if you did not like this country and its law you are free to leave or work to changed the law or laws that you think are not justify.

You are comparing some one exposing his/her private part to hijab in Iran, I really expected more from you.

 

[Niloufar]

What a load of irrelevant crap as usual from you.
I mean surely you can tell the difference between exposure of one's genitalia to hejab as is referred to in this context by this fascist akhound! Can you not? He is referring to hejab which in this context means women covering the hair on their head.

Having said all this and having read your irrelevant nonsense over the months, I wouldn't be surprised if you didn't know the difference between your head and your genitalia any way most of the things your write are the product of the latter part of the body :1:

LOL!!! well responded Behrooz jan. u made my job easy!!

How ignorant can one be for NOT knowing the HUGE difference bn exposure of genital, which is banned in most countries of the world, as opposed to exposure of your Hair, and your completely covered body without the need for another type of cover, which is banned in Islamic-run countries.

Your response just showed how off the topic u r, and just argue for the sake of arguing. like always..!

 

[ashtar]

Agha Ashtar, I don't why when some one said something bad about this regime, you resort to bring the laws of other countries to justify the laws of IRI is not that bad, there are over 190 countires in the world so you want to find something in those laws to justify your points. Look at the general laws of those countries, the freedom of expression and freedom of choice. There is a reason that you live in this country, becaue if you did not like this country and its law you are free to leave or work to changed the law or laws that you think are not justify.

You are comparing some one exposing his/her private part to hijab in Iran, I really expected more from you.

First who says I'm trying to justify anything? In this case, I merely pointed out the laws of other countries to show how stupid and moronic it is to suggest that such laws are unique to "Islamic-run countries".

Second, if you had bothered to read my entire post you'd realize that Indecent exposure laws (as exist in NON-Muslim Western countries) have changed throughout years and until recently included non-genitalia body parts (as they still do regarding women's breasts). The change in their laws is not somehow a reflection of the enlightenment of their judicial system but rather a direct reflection of the changes in general social and cultural attitudes and standards. There is no right or wrong on this issue. Because what some may consider an advancement in this regard, others justifiably view as mere decay of morality and decency in society.

Third, since you (and this goes for those morons Behrooz C and Niloofar) are so smart, explain to me why an exposed genitalia or woman's breast are so obviously obscene and their exposure indecent? What is so obvious to you is not so obvious to others. Just as what is so obvious to others (like Haeri Shirazi) doesn't seem so obvious to you.
Because as someone who supports public nudity and freedom for consenting adults to do whatever they please in public I fail to understand why people like you so clearly see that there is nothing wrong with a woman showing her hair in an Islamic country or an African woman showing her ankles or couples making out in public in Hong Kong or Britney Spears wearing her revealing cloth in her tour of Communist China but you somehow see something wrong with the genitalia or the hair that covers it!

 

[Niloufar]

First who says I'm trying to justify anything? In this case, I merely pointed out the laws of other countries to show how stupid and moronic it is to suggest that such laws are unique to "Islamic-run countries".

Second, if you had bothered to read my entire post you'd realize that Indecent exposure laws (as exist in NON-Muslim Western countries) have changed throughout years and until recently included non-genitalia body parts (as they still do regarding women's breasts). The change in their laws is not somehow a reflection of the enlightenment of their judicial system but rather a direct reflection of the changes in general social and cultural attitudes and standards. There is no right or wrong on this issue. Because what some may consider an advancement in this regard, others justifiably view as mere decay of morality and decency in society.

Third, since you (and this goes for those morons Behrooz C and Niloofar) are so smart, explain to me why an exposed genitalia or woman's breast are so obviously obscene and their exposure indecent? What is so obvious to you is not so obvious to others. Just as what is so obvious to others (like Haeri Shirazi) doesn't seem so obvious to you.
Because as someone who supports public nudity and freedom for consenting adults to do whatever they please in public I fail to understand why people like you so clearly see that there is nothing wrong with a woman showing her hair in an Islamic country or an African woman showing her ankles or couples making out in public in Hong Kong or Britney Spears wearing her revealing cloth in her tour of Communist China but you somehow see something wrong with the genitalia or the hair that covers it!

Avalan moron, unkasiyeh ke behet Adab yad NADADEH to learn that u dont argue using insult. U dont have to get involved in an argument, if u dont know its rules.

Then, who says we support exposure of genitalia in public? bc exposure of genitalia is not appropriate for underage people to view in public, most countries do now let nudity in public. although they have nude beaches,etc for those who like to get exposed.

But the reason for u comparing exposure of genitalia to exposure of u head hair or your knee in public, is beyond anyone's imagination.How can these two even be compared to each other? and more importantly, how come its only "moharek" for women only, in Islamic-run countries?! Atleast in rest of the world, when they ban nudity, they ban nudity for both genders, but its always a one way road in IR and alikes?!!
If some1 like Shirazi, considers exposure of head hair "moharek" just like nudity, that just shows his dirty-mind or ignorance!

 

[Behrooz_C]

Third, since you (and this goes for those morons Behrooz C and Niloofar) are so smart, explain to me why an exposed genitalia or woman's breast are so obviously obscene and their exposure indecent? What is so obvious to you is not so obvious to others. Just as what is so obvious to others (like Haeri Shirazi) doesn't seem so obvious to you.
Because as someone who supports public nudity and freedom for consenting adults to do whatever they please in public I fail to understand why people like you so clearly see that there is nothing wrong with a woman showing her hair in an Islamic country or an African woman showing her ankles or couples making out in public in Hong Kong or Britney Spears wearing her revealing cloth in her tour of Communist China but you somehow see something wrong with the genitalia or the hair that covers it!

First of all, it's quite clear to most people here that moron khode shoma tashrif darid

Second, talking about what is 'obvious', it is obvious that there is a difference between exposure of hair and exposure of genitalia. In all civilised cultures of which Iran is one, exposure of genitalia in the streets is wrong. It is against the decent standards and cultures of that country. On the other hand exposure of female hair is not indecent and it definitely is NOT against the culture of Iranians. If it were against the culture of Iranians, then why the hell does the regime have to FORCE it on women. If it's so natural then why do so many women resist it? Why don't they naturally wear it without ershaad and Fatti Comandos chasing them for it. Why do you see so many so called bad hejab in all cities of Iran? Is it because all these thousands of women are indecent and only chadotris are decent?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Exposure of one's hair is not in any shape or form equal or even comparable to exposure of genitalia and whoever even considers such a comparison is a degenerate canine.

 

[Behrooz_C]

The bottom line is this:

Islaam farhang nadarad.

 

[ashtar]

Then, who says we support exposure of genitalia in public?

Not me. I asked why don't you?

bc exposure of genitalia is not appropriate for underage people to view in public,...

Says who? Ayatollah Niloofar?
How is that argument different than a Mulla in Iran arguing that women wearing tight cloth that shows their crutch or breasts is not appropriate for the young "people to view in public"?

But the reason for u comparing exposure of genitalia to exposure of u head hair or your knee in public, is beyond anyone's imagination.

no. only beyond your imagination and any other selfish person who thinks everyone else should only see the world the way they see it. Like I said, what is obvious to you is not obvious to others just as what is obvious to others is clearly not obvious to you.

and more importantly, how come its only "moharek" for women only, in Islamic-run countries?!

for the same reason that it's only women's breast in most other parts of the world and women's ankles in some African countries.

Atleast in rest of the world, when they ban nudity, they ban nudity for both genders, but its always a one way road in IR and alikes?!!

You think that they ban something for men as well as women somehow makes it better? How does that justify the action? It's like saying well at least if IR puts its enemies in jail it jails both men and women equally unlike US which has only jailed Muslim men in Guantanamo!!!

 

[ashtar]

The bottom line is this:

Islaam farhang nadarad.

said the uncivilized moron.

 

[Behrooz_C]

said the uncivilized moron.

I would explain it but judging by previous diatribe from you it's going to be way beyond your fahm and sho'oor

 

[ashtar]

I would explain it but it's beyond your fahm and sho'oor

The moron reiterated with a smile.

 

[Behrooz_C]

With or without smile, someone who deson't know the difference between hejab on the head and exposure of genitalia doesn't have fahm or sho'oor.

 

[ashtar]

Second, talking about what is 'obvious', it is obvious that there is a difference between exposure of hair and exposure of genitalia. In all civilised cultures of which Iran is one, exposure of genitalia in the streets is wrong. It is against the decent standards and cultures of that country. On the other hand exposure of female hair is not indecent and it definitely is NOT against the culture of Iranians. If it were against the culture of Iranians, then why the hell does the regime have to FORCE it on women. If it's so natural then why do so many women resist it?

It only has to force it on a small group of women (small compared to the majority who are Muslims and supported the IR revolution and its constitution). By the same token if it's not part of Iranian culture why did Reza Khan have to force it off of so many women and at the end had his and his son's ass kicked for it by the majority? But that said, your argument is not a justification for laws restricting nudity. Your argument is merely a moronic ranting.

Again, I don' support any form of dress code and think all people should be free to dress or not dress at all as they please.
I don't want a Mulla obsessing over my hair just as I don't want you obsessing over my penis.
But you seem to think that somehow because I fornicate with my penis that it's OK for you to hold on to it and dictate how I should cover it but the Mulla should not be allowed to hold on to your hair!