Iran: Forgotten lessons of history

The beating of war drums has begun but for the sake of the many lives that will be affected, I hope the leaders of Israel, USA and the other countries learn from history. Invading a country’s sovereign land will push the people towards a more aggressive nationalism which will only benefit the fundamentalists.

Israel’s need to “protect” itself seems laughable because we all seem to be focusing on Iran and its supposed Nuclear weapons, but nobody questions Israel and its nuclear arsenal, they have not signed the NPT, and they maintain “nuclear ambiguity” about their WMD, neither refusing nor accepting. Not being part of the NPT makes them evade International Atomic Energy Association’s (IAEA) inspections, and while in Iran they conduct them every now and then, they have no legal authority to do so in Israel. A little hypocritical, don’t you think? The argument that they need to protect themselves from the surrounding hostile nations, well, how are they in that situation in the first place? Who asked them to intervene in Lebanon which gave rise to the Hezbollah, or their human rights violations which gave rise to Hamas in Gaza or their intervention in Syria and Iraq’s supposed nuclear program and occupation of the Palestinian lands. As George Monbiot in one of his columns clearly puts it, “Nuclear weapons in Israel's hands are surely just as dangerous as nuclear weapons in Iran's… Iran is not starting a nuclear arms race, but joining one.”

Like most of the people, even I’m not that thrilled about these countries having nuclear weapons, since most of them are in the grips of terrorism, lawlessness and dictatorial governments. But that does not give Israel the right to be a bully and get its way.

Recently, an Israeli diplomat was attacked in Delhi, I remember the hue and cry that the Israeli government made blaming Iran for the attack and that was before any evidence was even established. Israel was already charging Iran as the culprit – innocent until proven guilty? It may have been Iran just as well that it may not have been, but this eagerness that the Israeli government is portraying does more harm than good. Ahmadinejad at home can tell his people, ‘look, they are after us,’ and in this way the fraudulently elected President gains legitimacy, in a previous post on the persecution of Baha’is I gave a few news headlines, what those told us was that Baha’is and Israel have become a convenient bogeyman where there is anything wrong in the country, they are the ones blamed and acts like this by the Israeli just strengthens that position. Oh and I also wonder what happened when those Iranian scientists were assassinated, didn’t hear of it? Don’t blame yourself; the story was given a quick burial.

Whenever there needs to be change in a country, rest assured the people themselves are going to do it, not the Americans not the Israelis, they wanted to ‘help’ Iraq, yeah, we all saw how that turned out. Nobody is going to change the way Iran is today other than Iranians themselves, we can help sure, but bombs and war will only push the country into extremism. History has tons of lessons; the world needs to learn from them.

As Israel repeatedly claims that it has the right to arm itself, since it’s surrounded by hostile nations, then doesn’t Iran have the same right! Let’s look at the facts’, they have Turkey, America’s ally to the north-west, Bahrain to the south which is where the US Fifth Fleet is based, Qatar, hosts the US Central Command headquarters, Turkmenistan to the north-east, which is refuelling centre for American planes since 2002 and Saudi Arabia whose king has often enough called for America to “attack Iran.” The Iranian state is threatened so don’t they have the right to protect themselves, it’s a state whose scientists have been assassinated in their own land, ‘stuxnet’ a computer worm that was used against them has set back their nuclear facilities by “two years”, the economic blockade that has crippled their economy and reduced their market to a barter system. One of the reasons there was no war between Soviet Russia and USA during the cold war was because both the countries had nuclear weapons and for their own good were prudent enough to follow a policy of ‘détente’ where they both knew that it was in their interests to avoid a nuclear war, so they diplomatically worked towards a solution. As Mehdi Hassan in his column in the Guardian puts it, “the fundamental geopolitical lesson that you and your countrymen learned over the last decade: the US and its allies opted for war with non-nuclear Iraq, but diplomacy with nuclear-armed North Korea.”

The biggest question is if the Iranians actually have nuclear weapons or not, a recent report on Reuters makes this question abundantly clear, “The United States, European allies and even Israel generally agree on three things about Iran's nuclear program: Tehran does not have a bomb, has not decided to build one, and is probably years away from having a deliverable nuclear warhead.”  Israel, why all the huffing and puffing!

The US intervention of Iran has already put the country in the hands of the mullahs. It irks me to see the ‘big brother’ attitude that the American government seems to give itself. I don’t like the idea of Iran having nuclear weapons as much as I don’t like the idea of Israel or USA having them, but if they want to engage with Iran for a solution, they need to first question their own hypocrisy in this matter.

This cartoon sums it up quite nicely:

 

Iran: After effects of the Coup

With the overthrow of Mossadegh, the Shah, who had been won over by the US on the assurance that he would be get his old throne back was making sure this time around that no one could threaten him off his peacock throne. His needs were extravagant, he could not withstand criticism, any of it led to oppression and brutality and within no time the people had had enough with the result that the anger found voice in the leadership of the Islamic fundamentalists and with them came the dawn of a new regime.

The Shah had mainly survived on US aid which according to some figures was nearly more than $1 billion in the decade following the coup. After he abdicated his throne and ran, he took shelter in the United States. Which mixed with the part the Americans had played in the 1953 coup resulted in a “frenzy of rage” where Iranian radicals stormed the American embassy in Tehran and took fifty-two American diplomats as hostages for more than fourteen months. This was another turning point in American-Iranians relations and have things have only been going downhill since then. Few years down the line we saw a war break out between Iran and Iraq, where the US support was reserved for Iraq which further strengthened the position of Saddam Hussein in the country. It was during this period that the anti-American feeling in the people became intense; the interference by the Americans has been a sour and festering wound all these years. In the US it was also the strengthening of the role of CIA, “covert action came to be regarded as a cheap and effective way to shape course of world events.” The Dulles brothers of whom I mentioned in the last post, were already planning CIA’s second coup d’état, this time it was Guatemala, from then they only moved on to Cuba, Chile, Congo and Vietnam. President Truman who had been steadfast in his opposition to interfering in Iran had warned that any mishandling of the Iran crisis will lead to “a disaster to the free world.”

Obviously the biggest result was the establishment of the Islamic Republic; the fundamentalists who came to power imposed “religious fascism” in the country. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who is the current Supreme Leader in Iran, at that time said, “We are not liberals like Allende and Mossadegh, whom the CIA can snuff out.” It’s no secret that the new regime in Iran has secretly funded organisations such as the Hezbollah and Hamas. I have already written on a few issues concerning the Islamic Republic, women, media and religion.

James A. Bill an American historian who spent considerable time researching the effects of the coups points them out clearly when he says, “American policy in Iran during the early 1950s succeeded in ensuring that there would be no communist takeover in the country at the time, and that Iranian oil reserves would be available to the Western world at advantageous terms for two decades afterwards. It also deeply alienated Iranian patriots of all social classes and weakened the moderate, liberal nationalists represented by the organisations like the National Front. This paved the way for the incubation of extremism, both of the left and of the right. This extremism became unalterably anti-American…The fall of Mossadegh marked the end of a century of friendship between the two countries, and began a new era of US intervention and growing hostility against the United States among the weakened forces of Iranian nationalism.”

                                                 

The events of that day changed Iranian politics, and as we can see the future of the country. Who knows if the coup of 1953 had never happened, maybe, Iran could have been a secular country with secular laws. 

Iran: Coup of 1953

In the early years of the 19^th century a discovery was made in Iran, which changed its politics forever – the discovery of oil. The site where it was found still holds the sign “Well Number One” in the town of Masjid-e-Suleiman in South West Iran. The site pumped oil for 70 years. The British controlled the Iranian oil industry for nearly 50 years; they had paid only $75,000 to pump oil in Iran for 60 years. The business of oil was under the control of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC) which was mainly controlled by the British government, at the time it was the most profitable British business in the world. The main grouse that the Iranians had was that the money that came out of their natural resources went back to the fat cats in England, the injustice of it was visible everywhere, the British workers lived in swanky clean colonies separated from the Iranians who lived in ghettos and slums, without proper water and sanitation, and only the Britishers could hope to reach higher positions in the company, it was a monopoly of the British, by the British, for the British. The British had their own gardens, theaters, golf courses that were completely inaccessible to the Iranians; they were for Brits only, sounds familiar?

In the year 1931, Mohammad Mossadegh came onto the political scene and soon enough became symbolic of the Iranian anger against the AIOC and the British. By 1951 he had been elected as the Prime Minister of Iran, and soon after coming to power he nationalised the oil company. The Iranians were celebrating while the British were outraged.

The British reaction was swift, first, they tried to sabotage the workings of the Abadan Refinery they did all they could to ensure that the machineries wouldn’t work after they left, second, an embargo was imposed on Iran, crippling its economy and its people, but in spite of it, they managed to ride through it and their support for Mossadegh continued. When that didn’t work British turned to only other thing they knew at the time – armed action. They approached the US who under the Presidency of Harry Truman refused to take part in any such action. For the Americans at that time this was nothing less than imperialism, and they refused to be a part of it.

After the US refusal only two options were left, either “leave Mossadegh alone or organise a coup.” The British kept working behind the scenes trying to influence US foreign policy in their favour.

For the British, things took a turn for the better when Dwight Eisenhower came to power. The Britishers had soon realised that they had to change tactics to win any ground, and at point in history fuelling the paranoia over Communism was the perfect card to play. The brothers – John Foster Dulles and Allan Dulles – who had become the Secretary of State and CIA director respectively, “considered the world an ideological battleground” and for them Iran and its communist nationalism had to be stopped. And so together they went about changing the minds of people and politicians in the US, that if they did not intervene, Iran will fall to communism.

This moment forth started the beginning of the psychological warfare that was to bring down a government in a country far, far, away. Operation Ajax had started.

In the summer of 1953, the streets of Tehran were filled with CIA paid mullahs, politicians and channels with news commentators that denounced Mossadegh and his policies.  According to the CIA papers about the coup, the whole campaign cost nearly $20 million. Fazlollah Zahedi who succeeded Mossadegh as the PM was already paid more than $100,000 by the CIA. In the history of the coup by Donald Wilber who himself was part of organising it, he writes, “covert agents would manipulate public opinion and turn as many Iranians as possible against Mossadegh…staged attacks on religious leaders and make it appear that they were ordered by Mossadegh…On the morning of “coup day” thousands of paid demonstrators would stage a massive anti-government rally.”

August 19^th, 1953 was a turning point in Iranian history. It was the day that witnessed the end of the only democratic regime the country has ever had.

The campaign that had started months earlier came to revolve around two days – 19^th and 15^th of August – one turned out to be a failure while the other a success for the West.

On the night of 15^th August, men in army fatigues walked down the streets of Tehran towards the home of Mohammad Mossadegh carrying a Firmaan authorising his dismissal as the Prime Minister of Iran. The Firmaan signed by the then Shah – Mohammed Reza Pahlavi – was in itself of dubious legality as only the Parliament could dismiss the PM and not the Shah.  

Colonel Nasiri, who was a huge supporter of the Shah, led the men that night, and while they walked the streets confidently what they failed to notice were the signs of disquiet in the air, and as Nasiri reached Mossadeghs home, there was reversal in the possible outcome he imagined, instead of arresting Mossadegh, Nasiri himself was arrested by segments of the military that was still loyal to the government, he was stripped of his uniform and declared a traitor.

An hour after midnight the radios crackled to life as Mossadegh came on air announcing victory over a coup attempt organised by the Shah and ‘foreign elements’.

Kermit Roosevelt, a CIA officer, was sitting in a basement waiting for news that would have been just the opposite of what was being announced on the radio, and hence, the first failure. Soon after he got a call from back home (USA), ordering him to come back following the failure of the coup, which he had so carefully organised in the months before.  He stoutly refused; he would only leave after he finished the job he came for.

He still had a few cards up his sleeves, and he would reveal them all climaxing at the “coup day”. First and foremost, he asked agents to go out and bribe who they can, the large network of gangs, paid thugs and protestors that they had organised in the months leading up to the coup were all given a chance to come out and play. Roosevelt also had on his payroll General Zahedi, who held considerable sway in “officer corps and was willing to do whatever was necessary to reach power.” His other weapon was the Firmaan in his hand, he gave that out to his agents who distributed it on the streets, and made sure they appeared in the newspapers the next day. The importance of the Firmaan was such that it gave them traditional authority. The people of Iran still respected royal power. Every day was worse than the last, paid gangs and mobs plundered and caused friction across Tehran in the name of Mossadegh. During this time Mossadegh made his own mistakes, naively believing that the first coup was organised by the Shah (Roosevelt spent months trying to convince the Shah to their cause, the Shahs sister was quite helpful after she was gifted a mink coat) who had fled the country and that they would not try again so soon. He also made the mistake of banning all public demonstrations after he was deceived into believing by and American ambassador that Iranians were harassing the US citizens in the country. To put a stop to this he gave this fateful order of no demonstrations, and he asked General Daftary to deal with the rioters, unknown to Mossadegh, Daftary was a close friend of Zahedi. So instead of working against the conspirators he turned against the government and Mossadegh himself. Since, Mossadegh himself had banned people from coming to the streets his supporters stayed at home, while the paid mobs walked to the city center.

Everything was in place and all that they had needed was chaos.

As the American agents in Tehran waited the radios again crackled to life, but this time the person on the other end spoke a different message, “The government of Mossadegh has been defeated. It was a government of rebellion and it has fallen.” Roosevelt and his team got up and left the basement they were working in, it was time to go home.

Iran: Poets and Empires

Persian art has flourished for more than 2000 years, ever since the days of the Assyrian Empire of the Nineveh. Around 500 years before the coming of Christ, the Iranians, captured Nineveh and put an end to the Assyrian Empire. This dynasty that overthrew the Assyrians is the Achaemenids, whose kings are referred in the Greek texts as the ‘Great Kings’, and these Kings today are the ones who are perhaps more widely recognised than others they are Darius, Cyrus and Xerxes. Their empire flourished for 220 years until the coming of Alexander the great of Macedon.

During the time of the Achaemenids many different religions and cultures flourished, the Achaemenids are today and were then considered great builders. In their capital city of Persepolis, the grand palace is considered to be the most prime example of Achaemenid art and architecture. It was also under this dynasty that Iran’s first significant library was established at Estakhr, sadly, it was destroyed by the invading armies of Alexander.

After the conquest of Persia by Alexander, the Greeks ruled for a brief period under Seleucus, during which time the region witnessed Hellenic influences, although only artistic in nature, as the religion of Persia – Zoroastrianism – continued to flourish. After this foreign empire, came the very nationalistic Sassanid dynasty which with its aggressive nationalism was quite intolerant and narrow minded. It was during this period that the sacred book of Zoroastrians, the Avestha was finished, the book dealt with not only the teachings of the Prophet Zoroaster but also cosmology, law and liturgy.

And then comes one of the most significant turning point in Iranian history, the coming of Arabs in the middle of the seventh century. Within ten years of the death of the Prophet, Persia was under the rule of the Caliph. Like I’ve already mentioned in my post on Shia Islam in Iran and how although the Iranians accepted Islam, they did so on their own terms, similarly in terms of art and culture, although the Arabs had a significant impact, the Aryans still stuck to their own language which was then Pahlavi. And since the Arabs forbade the use of the Persian language, Arabic became the mode of literature till the ninth century following which the empire broke down into smaller pieces. And as such during this period the many famous names in Arabic literature were Persians by birth.

During this period we meet the genius of Abu Ali Sina or more commonly known as Avicenna. He was a philosopher and a doctor. Although, for him philosophy kept him busy major part of his day, in his thirst for knowledge he also delved into medicine, and it worked for him as ‘people in the eleventh century paid far more for medical than for philosophic advice.’ And by the young age of fifteen, the scholar had gained quite a reputation.

With the disintegration of the Arabic empire in Baghdad which also controlled Persia, there was a space for new rulers and here we meet a man who is common to both our history and the Iranians – Mahmud of Ghazni. His was a brief-lived empire and was soon enough replaced by the Seljuk turks who fought against the Christian Crusaders. I have been skipping through dynasties as quickly as the water escapes our fingers, but what I’m trying to show is that how even through all these very different empires, tribes and dynasties, the old culture and art of Iran has persisted, they have accepted changes, they have moulded themselves with the culture of the Arabs or the Turks, but they have always maintained a link with their old ‘national and traditional’ past. And this is most fluently portrayed in the most important piece of literature in Iranian history – The Shahnama or Book of Kings by Firdausi – this epic was finished under the patronage and time of Mahmud of Ghazni, the sixty-thousand odd lines are a celebration of the history of Persia before the coming of the Arabs and Islam.

Soon after Firdausi came Omar Khayyam, who perhaps is the most widely recognised out of all the names that I’ve mentioned here. Khayyam was not only a poet but also an astronomer from the city of Nishapur. From the few bits that I have read of Khayyam’s work, following is the one I like best, according to one biographer it reflects Omar as an, “unhappy philosopher, an atheist and a materialist,” which is of course debatable:

Oh, come with old Khayyam, and leave the wise
To talk: one thing is certain, that life flies;
One thing is certain, and the rest is lies;
The flower that once has blown for ever dies.

In the thirteenth century came a force that changed the face of central Asia and which in a single blow swept away centuries of culture in Iran. It was the Mongols. It’s said that Central Asia never fully recovered from this misfortune. And it was in this period under constant pressure of attack from the Mongols that Jalaluddin Rumi was born. Rumi is considered to be one of the most inspiring mystics not only of his time but also for the generations to come. Attar, a Sufi master, remarked Rumi as, “There goes a river dragging an ocean behind it.” Rumi wrote his most famous ghazals under the book title - Masnavi-ye Ma'navi or Spiritual Couplets.

From here I’m going to jump directly to the establishment of another nationalist empire of the Safavids who came to power after defeating the Timurids, who had themselves defeated the disintegrating Mongol Empire in Persia. The Safavi dynasty lasted for 200 year from 1502 to 1722. This period is referred to as the golden period of Persian art. Isfahan, their capital city, became the centre for artists and was especially noted for its paintings. Shah Abbas’s planning of the city has been called a “masterpiece of classical purity and taste”.

This Iranian culture spread far and wide, from Turkey on the west to India on the east. Today we can see the influence that Persia had on India in the grandeur of the Taj Mahal. Babar, one of the first Mughal kings in India was one of the Princes of the Timurid dynasty in Persia; Persian also became the lingua franca during Akbar’s reign. From Persian we have developed our own languages – Hindustani/Hindavi – and from it came Hindi and Urdu. 

Iran: Status of the Media

The Iranian media has a number of press policies that while they may be considered restrictive compared to ‘western’ concepts cannot be called draconian. The media functions fall under Article 24 of their constitution which says that while, “publications and the press have freedom of expression,” they cannot express views which can be considered, “detrimental to the fundamental principles of Islam or the rights of the public.” There is also the Press Law of 1986, which was updated in 2000, that deals with what topics the media can or cannot discuss, for instance it should not “promote subjects which might damage the foundation of the Islamic Republic,” “propagate luxury and extravagance,” or which, “offends the leader of the Revolution or recognised religious authorities.” And if the media violates this the offending journalist can be subjected to months of jail time, fines or lashings. Usually when writing about the functions of the press, we have things like objectivity, truth and other ethical objectives, the Press Law in Iran adds another one where the media is required to “propagate and promote genuine Islamic culture and sound ethical principles.”

 Apart from this, the conservative Islamic Revolutionary Court has the authority to monitor the print media and revoke licences of newspapers and magazines if they find it guilty of publishing material which is either “anti-religious,” or “against national interests”. According to a UNHCR report, Iran has shut down nearly 100 publications since the year 2000. Journalists in Iran are also required to register with the Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance. Things were relatively better before the 2009 protests, where before the government usually withheld official subsidies to journalists critical of the government along with it being common practice for journalists who covered human rights issues to do short prison stints. But post 2009, the situation has worsened where now authorities directly shut down magazines, papers, journals to stifle criticism, it has made it increasingly difficult for foreign journalists to get access to the country and often times they are expelled altogether, the journalists live in fear of being arrested and the government often targets them by going after their homes, property and family.

In its December 2011 report Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) has named Iran the world’s worst jailer of Journalists. It has surpassed China which has been on the top of the list since it has 42 journalists incarcerated on charges ranging from “membership in illegal groups,” “pawns of the west,” “spreading lies,” “being anti-religion,” and “against national interests.” In its report on Sexual Violence CPJ also points out that the use of rape to ‘humiliate’ and ‘control detainees’ has been widely documented inspiring fear in the minds of both female and male journalists.

In Iran, journalism is considered an ‘anti-state’ activity. Many journalists have been imprisoned with impunity and most of them don’t even get a chance to defend themselves. Many of the journalists still languish in jail, those who fear imminent arrest have left the country, some have been released on outrageously high amount of bail money, some have been subjected to lashes for their articles and many still have been given life sentences. If the journalists want to be released they are often pressurised into publicly claiming that they are repentant for all their actions and wrong about what they wrote or said. Most of the media is in some form or another controlled by the state and 80% of Iranians have access to only state run media outlets; the journalists who work for these official or semi-official outlets are given specific instructions on the kind of angle they can give to their news and failing which they can be suspended for three months.

Throughout modern Iranian history there have been periods where the ‘reformist’ newspapers and publications have flourished and one such time was under President Mohammed Khatami’s rule. According to Reporters Without Borders, following Khatamis victory there was an ‘explosion of reformist newspapers’ and reporters were given greater ‘latitude to cover even controversial state matters.’ But this period was quite short lived as in the year 2000, the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei launched a crackdown on these reformist publications labelling them as anti-Iranian and aides of US and Israel which led to most of these publications shutting down.

In the year 2010 attempts were made by 36 parliamentarians who supported President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad by signing a bill under which detained government opponents would be regarded as “mohreb” (enemies of God) who will be executed “within a maximum of five days” of their arrest hoping to make the life of journalists even more dangerous and harder than it already is.[1]

As of now there are nearly 300 newspapers in Iran, but only a few national dailies and most of these are either connected ideologically to political parties, factions or politicians and are also funded by the same. For instance, the most widely circulated conservative paper Kayhan, is owned by the Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei; even reformist papers like E’temmad (Trust) is licensed to a member of the Majlis – Elias Hazrati. The Iranian government itself publishes three English-language newspapers – Tehran Times, Iran Daily and Iran News.

For the people of Iran, Television and Radio are the most important sources of news but the government exercises complete control over the two. The heads of all TV channels and radio channels are appointed by the Supreme Leader; there are no private or independent broadcasters in Iran. Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB) controls all internal and external broadcasting, Press TV which is widely known also falls under the control of IRIB. Although, people have circumvented this by gaining access through satellites to channels such as BBC Persian, Voice of America, Radio TV etc. but this too is quite difficult and limited as satellite dishes are banned.

With little access to traditional forms of media some Iranians are making ample use of the freedom internet seems to offer. Today, out of the 74 million population 27.9 million are internet users.  According to Harvard University’s Berkman Centre for Internet and Society, there are nearly sixty thousand Persian-language blogs which are updated regularly. And while, opposition leaders have little access to the traditional media to voice their opinions they have turned to the internet and many now have their own websites. Although there are attempts to censor these blogs, Iranians have tried to creatively circumvent such limitations, but then again, the number of Iranians who have access to the internet is very limited still, and while many called the 2009 protests a twitter revolution it was far from it, because as Malcolm Gladwell in one his column points out most of these tweets were in English rather than Farsi and were by people who were outside Iran. The Iranian government itself has become swift and more technologically advanced in catching people who post blogs illegally, or do so after circumventing Iranian firewall. For instance, in October 2010, Hossein Ronaghi Maleki was sentenced to 15 years in prison for hosting many Iranian bloggers by circumventing government censorship.

The comparatively large amounts of information we have about the situation is Iran can be attributed to all the journalists and activists who were forced to leave their homes and now find shelter in other countries, but it’s also due to the

---

[1] http://en.rsf.org/iran-iran-is-world-s-biggest-prison-for-06-01-2010,35838

Iran: Curious case of the shortest marriages

In Shia Islam there is a concept of temporary marriage where a couple can be married from anywhere between an hour to 99 years. It is believed that the practices existed in the time of Muhammad and it was mainly adopted by pilgrims who travelled to the holy cities of Qom and Meshed, and since, they were far away from their homes and wives temporary marriages seemed like a reasonable way to satisfy their sexual needs. In Iran, it’s quite easy to enter into a temporary marriage, a cleric can pronounce a couple husband and wife, or even easier, they can get married privately if they so want. While the men may have up to four permanent wives and endless temporary wives, women can have only one husband and even if she is in a temporary marriage she cannot initiate divorce easily.

There are many reactions to temporary marriage in Iranian society, while some consider it as legalised prostitution, where men provide support to the women in exchange for sex. There are others who believe that ‘sigeh’ or temporary marriage provides a loophole in the Islamic system to provide inheritance rights for children who would be otherwise born out of wedlock and support to divorced or widowed women.  

The Iranian society seems quite divided on the issue, while some feminists like Shahla Sherkat, the editor of Zanan, a feminist monthly, which was recently shut down believe that, “First, relations between young men and women will become a little bit freer. Second, they can satisfy their sexual needs. Third, sex will become depoliticised. Fourth, they will use some of the energy they are putting into street demonstrations and finally, our society’s obsession with virginity will disappear.” There are others who ardently oppose it, especially in context of the ‘Family Protection Law’ that Ahmadinejad tried to push in 2008 which made it easier for men to enter into temporary marriages. They also believe that temporary marriage is biased towards the ‘needs’ of rich married men and mostly women who are desperate enter into these marriages. As one womens rights NGO puts it, “Men do it for fun. Women do it for money; they don’t enjoy it at all.”

While some supporters claim that there is benefits to sigeh where, children born out of wedlock can gain legitimacy, it’s not really true, because many in Iranian society prefer that people have affairs rather than go for Sigeh, as its considered a taboo, and therefore, any children born out of this practice are often ostracised much live the wives. A society which lays a lot of emphasis on virginity, it’s difficult to see how a practice that more or less blares out that the woman is not virgin will benefit from it. After the end of temporary marriage, it’s difficult to see who will marry a woman if she’s not a virgin and that makes her inherently dependent on men, generally older rich men, who want something on the side apart from their wives.

While many of the personal stories that I came across are of women, who although resent the stigma and would prefer a permanent marriage are quite happy with it. These were generally women who would not be allowed to travel or be out in public with their boyfriends, so to deal with that they entered into temporary marriage, or widows who had a family to support, would find some companionship and support from another man.

The problem here as I generally see it is that the practice is quite lopsided in the favour of men. For instance, I read a story about a 55-year-old doctor who had one permanent wife and three temporary marriages; one of those was to a 21-year-old law student from a poor family, so in exchange for sex he supported her and her family. It sounds like prostitution and the helplessness of the woman becomes apparent, but under the name of ‘sigeh’ it dons a religious cloak that gives it legitimacy.

The belief that it happened during the Prophets time and he allowed and approved it, gives a stamp of approval on the practice making it possible to have what the westerners call a ‘live-in relationship’ but here its legally approved and allowed.

Sigeh is curiously most commonly practiced among the clergy, many of whom strongly condemn premarital sex or extramarital sex and somehow under temporary marriage it seems a man can basically have sex with a person who’s not his wife, but it’s even then not considered extramarital sex, weird. And many of the urban youth seem to reject the practice just because the clerics support it, for them it reflects the very nature of the Islamic Republic which they cull.

But in the end the question is not really on permanent or temporary marriage, the question is why is there a need for the label of a temporary marriage, I understand for the clerics, its a cloak behind which they appear saint like but still get to behave and act as for lack of a better word like ‘men’, but it also suggests the extent of patriarchy in the society, as a man can sleep around and have as many wives as he wants and at the same time feel good about it because, ‘Hey, I’m only helping out a person in need’, and it’s not considered a big deal because, well, ‘men have needs’.

Iran: The Status of Women

Before 1979, Iranian women were no different from their European counterparts at least in terms of lifestyle. They went dancing, attended parties, wore ‘western’ outfits and were as 'modern' as they come. But all this changed in 1979, with the establishment of the Islamic Republic, women who were doctors, judges and diplomats etc. found themselves without a job as they were considered too ‘emotional’. There were twenty-two women in Parliament before 1979, now reduced to just a few members.  

In the newly formed Islamic Republic, women were restricted to their homes, barred from practising their profession and were told to adhere to a strict dress code when out in public.

The veil has often been seen as the symbol of suppression in Islamic countries, Turkey is considered quite modern as it has banned the veil and hejab in public places, and likewise Saudi Arabia and Iran are considered ‘conservative’ as they have laws that make the Chadors and Hejab compulsory.  But it’s important to note that wearing of the veil was not based on interpretation of religion but social class. Before the coming of Islam in the seventh century, it was only the upper-class women in Byzantine Empire that wore the veil as a mark of their high status. Even today, the veil is wore differently in different cultures, some cover the whole face, some cover the face partly or some not at all. The Koran very clearly lays out that men and women are considered equal in the eyes of God. The Prophet himself was married to a trader, a warrior, a leatherworker and an imam. He made female infanticide which was quite common at the time unlawful, he made the education of girls a sacred duty and gave them the right to own and inherit property. A religion that called for equality has been twisted and is now used as the reason to establish inequality.

The women’s rights movement in Iran began at the turn of the 20^th century. Reza Shah Pahlavi for all his despotism was a man that pushed - albeit with force - for modernism in Iran.  Under his rule (1925 onwards) Women’s movement was given a new lease of life, he started many State run secondary schools and vocational schools for girls, he also gave access to Women to attend Tehran University.  In 1936, he passed a policy called kashf-i-hejab which required women to unveil, women with veils were not allowed on buses or baths, shops were not allowed to sell veils to women and women found wearing veils were beaten up.

This ‘openness’ continued into the rule of his successor, Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, under his rule the Parliament passed the Family Protection Law (FPL) in 1967. The law gave women decent rights in marriage, divorce and child custody. Amendments were made to FPL in 1975 allowing women to become judges and represent clients in court.

But soon enough the things that made them modern, became symbols of ‘western’ powers and imperialist culture, along with being representative of the repressive regime of the Shah and in a way this belief served as a platform for the comeback of the Veil and Chadors.

And so when the clerics came to power, they rolled back all the progress that was made in Iran towards growing freedom for women. On 26^th February, 1979, Ayatollah Khomeini suspended the FPL calling it ‘un-islamic’, he also reverted back the marriageable age for women to nine (it had become 18 under FPL). Women could also no longer initiate divorce proceedings, they were not allowed to serve in the army, and women could work outside their homes but had to wear the hejab to work. Many Iranians responded at the time with protests and sit-ins, but they were often attacked and beaten by conservative men and women. By 1983, the Majlis (Iranian Parliament) passed a law that any women caught without a hejab would be charged on a criminal offence and punished with seventy-four lashes.

Under Mohammad Khatami, the President of Iran from 1997 to 2005, things started to take a turn for the better, he supported many women rights and NGOs, many new laws were implemented like relaxation in hejab rules, and marriage age for girls was raised from nine to fifteen although later it was again reduced to thirteen.  The limitations of the President to do anything came from branches of the regime that was still dominated by radical conservatives; it’s no secret that the president is more or less a figurehead, as the real power lies with the supreme leader.

But the little progress that was made under Khatami met a dead end called Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who became the President of Iran in 2005, he restricted women’s freedom pertaining to employment, increased the strictness relating to dress code and most importantly his government introduced the Family Protection Act, which reduced the rights that women had fought for over the years under family law, the women’s rights movement gave it the name of anti-family law as under the law, polygamy and temporary marriages became easier for men, getting a divorce became a process much worse than getting a passport in India and it also, criminalized the marriage of non-Iranian to an Iranian woman without proper authorization. Although, after many requests and protests by women’s rights activists, the parliament committee did put on hold some controversial parts of the bill.

The regime during this time also shut down many women’s magazines and websites like, Zanestan and in 2008, it shut down what was considered the most important women’s magazines for sixteen years – Zanan.

There has been progress; I can call it progress when compared to Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and Iraq. But nevertheless, women in comparison to men are treated as second class citizens by the constitution and the government. Women have to wear the hejab in public, regardless of any religion. The men may have up to four permanent wives and infinite temporary wives. In the case of divorce, mothers have custody of their children only till they are the age of seven after which the father gets automatic custody. Women who get convicted of adultery are stoned to death, whereas men, enjoy complete immunity from punishment and if they murder their adulterous wives and their lovers even then they are liable to walk free.

Defiance is the only thing that separates the Iranian women from women in many Islamic countries in the region that are what we can call ‘conservative’. They find creative ways of pushing back the boundaries of dress code, if they wear headscarves, they are often transparent, and since only eyes are often visible, it will be hard to find anyone in the world having as beautiful eye makeup than Iranian women. They drive cars, make documentaries, and run their own businesses. Today, women in Iran make up 70% of University intake, although they often do not translate into jobs as they make up only 25% of the work force, but even still it’s an improvement to what their situation was in the early years of the Islamic Republic.

Iran: Story of a Forgotten Religion

There was a young merchant in early 19^th century Persia who one day revealed to the world the coming of a new Prophet, the one who would fulfil the prophecy about the twelfth imam, the one who will guide not only Shi’ites but the rest of the human race into a new world order. Before his revelation he was known as Siyyid `Alí Muḥammad Shírází but now he’s remembered as the ‘Bab’ which in Arabic means the gate.

His revelation opened the world to the coming of Baha’u’llah, the messenger of God for the Baha’i faith. He came with a message that I believe many of us today need to pay heed to, it made sense then as it makes sense now.  

At a time when the world was brewing with scientific and social growth, he laid out the new message from God, a world where men and women are equal, a world where schools should teach the ‘western sciences’ and most importantly he called for a world where there is no need for the mullahs or the priests, as he believed people had matured enough to find their own way to God and truth. And it’s no surprise that, then, even as now, it’s the mullahs who have instigated violence against the community, even though in the starting many of the converts to the religion were mullahs, most of the clerics considered the new religion to be a threat against their whole system of power. Apart from the clerical fear of threat to traditional power the interpretation by many Muslims that Prophet Muhammad was the ‘Seal of the Prophets’ added to the hostility against this youngest religion of the world. This is contradicted by the Shia belief which has been waiting for the coming of the ‘Hidden Imam’ as Baha’u’llah by many is considered to be the fulfilment of that prophecy.

In the beginning the Baha’is were known as the Babis, followers of the Bab, and 20,000 of them were killed due to incitement by religious leaders while the Qajar dynasty rulers chose to let it happen than to make enemies out of the clerics.

The persecution at that time was sporadic, but when the clerics came to power with the birth of the Islamic revolution, the community was subjected to the worst kind of persecution in its history. In the first few years of the revolution more than 200 Baha’is were officially executed, a number disappeared and were put in jails. Since the revolution there has been systematic persecution of Baha’is in terms of social isolation, cultural cleansing and economic persecution. All Baha’i schools which attracted thousands of students were shut down in 1934, and just recently 800 Baha’i students were prevented from getting their National Entrance Examination scores which they need to gain admission to Iranian universities. The dismissal of Baha’is from the public sector, taking away their pensions and at times the authorities have even asked them to pay back the salaries they have taken over the years, tells us about their economic persecution. Cultural cleansing has been a part of an effort to obliterate Baha’i history from the land and the minds of the people, in 1979, two of the most sacred places of the Baha’i faith were demolished – the house of Bab and the house of Baha’u’llah – and out of all the Baha’is targeted 50% have been heads of Baha’i institutions or its important leaders.

Even though other religions like that of the Christians, the Zoroastrians and the Jews are granted protection under the Iranian Constitution, the Baha’is, their largest religious minority, the whole 300,000 of them are considered as ‘non-persons’ and as such are not recognised by the state.

One of the most disturbing example of the reasons under which Baha’is are often persecuted can be seen from the case which occurred in June 1983, when ten Baha’i women – including two teen‐aged girls – were hanged for having taught Baha’i classes, for being members of Baha’i youth committees, for being unmarried, for allegedly being supporters of Zionism, or for refusing to recant their faith. (Roohizadegan, 1993)

Reza Shah, founder of the Pahlavi dynasty in Iran in 1925, made sure the Baha’is were left alone; to do otherwise would be to concede that the mullahs influenced his policies. The governments and the rulers tolerated the Baha’is using them to appease the mullahs who would guarantee them support in times of revolt or disillusionment against the royals.

The use of Baha’is as a pawn in this political game has been common, even today; anything that goes wrong in the country is blamed on the Baha’is. Some of the very common phrases or reasons used to denounce the community are that, Baha’is are funded by the Zionists and the western states, they are a ‘misguided’ sect and are compared to Satanism and they are out to undermine Islam and the state. The most popular is of course the supposed links to Zionists and western powers and this is continuously reflected in the media, state controlled and ‘free’. Here are some of the headlines from a few Iranian newspapers and online publications.

• “Nonsensical Utterances of the Báb”, 8 November 2005, this appeared in Kayhan, a state run daily newspaper, with significantly wide circulation across the country.
• “The Connection between Baha’ism and Zionism”, 2 November 2005, Kayhan
• “Baha’ism in pursuit of gradual subversion of Islam”, 8 March 2010, Rasa News (Online)
• “Water-coolers:  A tool to attract people to the misguided Bahaist sect”, 8 September 2010, Javan Daily (Online)

The effect of this blunt government propaganda and discrimination is obvious with the violence that is perpetuated against the community. The relationship between government propaganda and violence is symbiotic, for instance, over a period from 2008-2010, Baha’i properties were targeted, hate speeches were scrawled on Baha’i buildings, Baha’i children in the school were discriminated against and all these incidents occurred following a two-part anti-Baha’i lectures held in Tehran, which according to internet reports, sought to analyse the links between the Baha’i faith and Zionism. [1]

Over the years, especially with the establishment of the Islamic Revolution, members of the Baha’i community have chosen to migrate to different countries, like Australia, USA, Europe and also India, where they are a community of two million strong.

After all this discrimination, even now all the Baha’is that have been executed or arrested have not been given a chance to defend themselves, and remain at the mercy of the prejudiced.

---

[1] http://bic.org/resources/documents/inciting-hatred-book

Iran: The followers of Ali

Today, Iran is home for majority of Shia Muslims across the world as they make up 90% of its population. When the Arabs marched into Persian lands they brought with them the message of Islam and although Iranians did accept the Prophet and his message they shaped it around their own beliefs and way of life. Shi’ism though a minority in the beginning gained prominence during the Safavid period (1501-1722) when it became the state religion of Persia. ‘Shi’ism was born among the Arabs but flourished under the Persians.’ (Manochehr Dorraj, From Zarathustra to Khomeini: Populism and Dissent in Iran)

The Iranian religion or way of life before the coming of Islam was Zoroastrianism, which flourished under Cyrus, who’s considered the greatest Persian leader. Under Zoroastrianism, is a concept called Farr, which is the divine right to rule and it can only be acquired by worthy moral behaviour. And this concept became even more important when the followers of Ali believed that the Caliphs for whom the Prophets son-in-law was overlooked had been corrupted by power and worldly temptations and hence lost the Farr to rule. Although in the starting the conflict was mainly on the question of succession, it would be misleading to leave it at that, as its also connected to the question of authority, while the Sunnis believe the Muslim community (elite) or Ulama should hold the ultimate authority and decide who should be the Caliph, the Shias believe that the Prophets descendants, who have been passed divine knowledge should be the rightful leaders. Two themes became common over the centuries among the Shia faith, that of Martyrdom and the concept of the ‘hidden Imam’.

Ali was considered the legitimate successor of Muhammad as he married his daughter Fatima and he was the one to whom he recited the revelations he received, which became the Koran. Ali was passed over thrice from becoming the Caliph as the Sunnis believed that blood should not determine who the successor should be and hence chose a non-relative of Muhammad to be the Caliph.

Ali and his successors are attributed with greatness among Shias and not just because they were related to the Prophet or were his blood descendants but also because they represented the righteousness and the morality that a leader should possess – the farr.

When Ali did become the Caliph, he was soon enough assassinated and the conflict became violent between the Shi’at-Ali (Followers of Ali) and Sunnis. Soon after his death the fight was carried forward by his son, Hussein who led seventy-two of his followers into a suicidal battle against an army of the then Caliph Muawyia, at Karbala in 680. Hussein was killed and his head was cut off, and as such he is known today among the followers as the ‘lord of martyrs’. The importance and the meaning that the Shias attribute to the deaths of Ali and Hussein are evident by the emotion and passion that is expressed over the tragedy even today during the period of mourning called Ashura, and to an onlooker it would seem as if it was only yesterday that Hussein was killed.

The difference between Shias and Sunnis is relevant even more so today. The difference is now very political as it threatens the power systems of each other’s sects. And today this difference on the old question of power and authority is what continues to separate the two branches of Islam.

The conflict demands understanding especially since the Islamic revolution in Iran, the war fought between Iran and Iraq and the US invasion of Iraq. Also, considering the recent spate of bombings directed at Shias and their mosques in Afghanistan and Pakistan or the tempestuous relationship between Saudi Arabia and Iran, or Iran-Lebanon-Israel are all in a way interconnected and can be understood more accurately only in the context of Sunni-Shia conflict.