March 9, 2003
READ THIS NOW
Samizdata.net has posted a letter from The Student Movement Coordination Committee for Democracy in Iran on the status of woman in Iran and Islam. I don't think I have read anything as recklessly brave since the death of the USSR. Here's a taste:
Yes, during this hundred year period, only in the years of the rule of the Pahlavi kings has it been that Iranian women were able to possess unprecedented progressive rights in an Islamic country. These rights that mainly due to the backwards religious beliefs of the Iran of the times and the fear of the women from the religionists was mainly implemented from top-down at the request of a great many progressive and educated women, began with the unprecedented order of the "unveiling" by the late Reza Shah. An unprecedented order that for many of the women at the advent of the Constitutionalist era and their descendants meant the arrival of the nullification of "sexual slavery" and prejudice in our country, which led to many interpretations and radical changes and reactions in the years after it, and which continues to stir resistance in the Iran of today following this order, it was on "17th Dey 1314" (January 7, 1936) that suddenly half of the country that was condemned, till then, to covering their entire bodies, masking their faces and staying at home found the opportunity to tend to any education and career. Unprecedented opportunities for the entire region that until 50 years later and with the cancellation of these rights, simultaneous with the fall of the Kingdom of the departed late Mohammad Reza Shah, had continued and which even today do not exist in many countries in the region.
This is, at least putatively, an Iranian woman praising her country's pagan past, condemning 1400 years of Islam in terms that would make Harry blush, praising the Shah and condemning the revolution. No moderation here. Go read it, now. Posted by David Cohen at March 9, 2003 10:34 PM
The examples of Turkey and Iran raise the question of whether a prolonged period of rule by pro-Western strongman is a prerequisite for democracy in the Islamic world.
Posted by: oj at March 10, 2003 12:07 AMThere's plenty of material in Islam which supports the rights of women. Pity the religious establishment frequently tends to ignore it.
And it is a tragic irony that Iran's theocracy has done more to damage Islam than any outsider possibly could have.
Ah, the infinitely malleable dogmas of Islam!
Pity they all lead to the same setup.
These women, or this woman, seem to have
reached the same conclusion that I have,
namely that Islam cannot be modernized or
cannot co-exist with modern institutions.
Odd, with Islamic countries like Pakistan having
had women presidents, which the U.S. still
has not had. Still, there it is.
Certainly, the U.S. campaign to establish
itself in the eyes of the Islamic and Arab world
ought to be dropping leaflets with this
manifesto in every village of the Koran Belt.
In the short term, the Muslim Street will
read it and hate us even more, if possible, than
now. In the long run, it is the only way out.
Bush, breaking bread with the enemy, is not
the man to take such a long view, though.
Harry: Benazir Bhutto only got into power like her contemporaries in Bangladesh thanks to her last name.
Posted by: M Ali Choudhury at March 10, 2003 7:01 AMMaybe so, but she did get into power.
Just an oddity. I don't think the rise of women to the chief executive post all over South Asia signifies anythign fundamental.
