For decades Iran has been the center for controversy. This week's headlines about Iran could invoke an image in one's mind of a boiler tank with vapors of suppressed religious anger bursting through the seams.
Below are some examples of the headlines:
Clashes erupt as Iran marks anniversary of embassy siege
Thousands rally in Tehran
In Iran, anti-government protests rival anti-American rallies
'Death to America' Day: How Iran Trained Its Young to Protest
Iran police to "strongly confront" Nov. 4 rallies
Iran warns of crackdown on any opposition protest
The tank could explode at any moment giving way to the accumulated pressure of hatred, threatening any opposition in its furious path.
Recently my reading of the memoir, Reading Lolita in Tehran has opened my eyes to the meaning of these headlines. The author, Azar Nafisi paints a painfully beautiful portrait of her life as an English Literature professor struggling to teach a subject that is contrary to the oppressive theocratic rule of the government in power. Her teachings of the literary works of James and Fitzgerald and Nabokov quietly defy the Islamic Republic and their fundamentalist beliefs with characters of independent thought and individualism; a stark contrast to the image of the ideal Muslim, an ideal which Nafisi and her secret students come to describe as "irrelevant". Reading her memoir has aroused my interest to learn more of what lies behind the headlines.
If you peer into the past you will see that these headlines are just a continual reincarnation from decades past. Since as early as the sixties the controversy has been boiling in two pots; Moujahedin's modernism and the totalitarian, anti-American ideologies of Khomeini. The intrinsic difference behind the two ideologies is democracy and human rights.
Up until 1979 Iran was a monarchy; that is until that monarchy under Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was overthrown and Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini was given status of Supreme Leader. Since that time these headlines have dominated many newspapers throughout the world. The reason is because of the totalitarian principle of velayat-e-faqih, the basis upon which Khomeiniism stands. Velayat-e-faqih is the principle of absolute theocratic rule. Khomeini believed only in the religious rule of the clergy or Islamic government.
Khomeini earned the support of many Shi'ite Muslims by earning the title of Ayatollah. The title itself, Ayatollah means "God's exemplar on earth", and Shi'ite Muslim fundamentalists believe this literally. This religious fervor and emphatic support made it easy for Khomeini to create an atmosphere that forced his opposition to acquiesce.
Khomeini preached the strict adherence to the Islamic government or "God's government". His word was absolute, and disobedience was considered a "revolt against God". In a talk at the Fayzieah School in Qom, August 30, 1979, Khomeini warned opponents: "Those who are trying to bring corruption and destruction to our country in the name of democracy will be oppressed. They are worse than Bani Ghorizeh Jews, and they must be hanged. We will oppress them by God's order and God's call to prayer." This threat of oppression wasn't just aimed at Bani Ghorizeh Jews, but targeted Iranians as well. An example is Azar Nafisi's expulsion from the University of Tehran after years of teaching because of her refusal to wear the veil. No longer were women in Iran allowed a choice; the religion became law. (Wikipedia, 2009)
Reading Azar Nafisi's memoir changed my perception of Iran. How Azar Nafisi remained passionate about literature before her expulsion was my first step to understanding the unrest in Iran. Imprinted on my mind is the tornado atmosphere that Nafisi managed to dodge for so long. She seemed to weather the storm up to this point by standing in the calm-eye of the storm, a calm which she created by immersing herself and her students in the fantasy world of Lolita, the honest world of The Great Gatsby and the passionate world of Daisy Miller. All the while, fundamentalist banners were being hung all over the walls of the university, protests were resonating from outside the classroom windows and the worst image, a student who set fire to himself running through the halls. Our most humble respect must go to Azar Nafisi for persisting to teach Western literature in such a convulsive climate where the leadership considered those teachings to be "of the devil". Nafisi held on longer than any other self-respecting free person could expect.
Even more etched in my mind is the reason why immersing herself in Western literature would surround her in calmness amidst the turbulence of a revolutionary Iran, and strike such a universal chord with her readers and her students. To illustrate this point we must go into Nafisi's class where The Great Gatsby becomes controversial enough to be put on a mock trial. Representing the book itself Nafisi defends Gatsby against the Islamic Republic of Iran and its trouble with the novels morality. Nafisi's response:
"You don't read Gatsby...to learn whether adultery is good or bad but to learn about how complicated issues such as adultery and fidelity and marriage are. A great novel heightens your senses and sensitivity to the complexities of life and of individuals, and prevents you from the self-righteousness that sees morality in fixed formulas about good and evil." (Nafisi, 2004)
The message I take home from that is the attribute of empathy. All of the books Nafisi studies with her students have one thing in common. The characters are all flawed. There is no clear hero or a clear villain. Their portraits are in watercolor, blurring the hero and the villain. You have empathy for both. Zarrin, Nafisi's student, after very ably defending Gatsby in the mock trial said to Nafisi: "This is an amazing book. It teaches you to value your dreams but to be wary of them also, to look for integrity in unusual places." Zarrin has no sense to act immorally after reading the book. Instead she sees through the characters eyes and learns from their flaws. And reading these books under the context of a revolutionary Iran seems to awaken Nafisi's students to the fact that morality cannot be forced upon people. These books do not have some mystical power to entrance someone into acting out evil as the revolutionaries claim. I am convinced that the reason why these books strike such a chord with the reader is because of the characters freedom to choose. Ideals and religious laws are not things that can be forced upon an individual because the truth is they will never be accepted, just as with Humbert or the blind censor. It's ironic actually that these books are considered by the Khomeini supporters to be powerful enough to force the ideals of its characters on the reader. Ironic because that is exactly what the revolutionaries are doing, enforcing "morality" on its subjects with its Revolutionary Guards. It is in true narcissistic form, accusing your enemy of what you are guilty of. But the individual cannot be fooled.
"Neither Humbert nor the blind censor ever possesses his victims, they always elude him, just as objects of fantasy are always simultaneously within reach and inaccessible. No matter how they may be broken, the victims will not be forced into submission." (Nafisi, 2004)
Nafisi's memoir is a call to every man and woman that Iranians want democracy. They want the freedom to choose without the fear of death and oppression from the Khomeini supporters. She wants us to know that despite Khomeini's death in 1989, his ideologies and oppression rage on. In fact his death only shows how much of a hold he had on his supporters. "Iranians poured out into the cities and streets to mourn Khomeini's death in a "completely spontaneous and unorchestrated outpouring of grief." Since then, the Islamic Republic of Iran has tried to stay faithful to his ideology. (Wikipedia, 2009)
There is a majority that does not agree with absolute theocratic rule. Today their anti-government protests play out on the streets of Iran. The most active opposing anti-government group Moujahedin, seek democracy, human rights, liberty and grace and compassion versus violence and vengeance; a stark contrast to the oppressive and absolute theocratic rule in place now. We can read the result of their efforts in the declaration of the National Council of Resistance of Iran. A summary of the declaration can be found in Chapter 15, Modern, Democratic Islam: Antithesis to Fundamentalism of the book Islamic Fundamentalism - The new Global Threat:
"The program of the National Council of Resistance of lran recognizes the "individual and social rights of all citizens as stressed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights." It guarantees general freedoms, including freedom of association, thought and speech, the media, parties, unions, councils, faiths and religions, and professions. The NCR program also calls for "the abolishment of military and extraordinary tribunals, the investigation of political offenses in civil courts with juries present," and guarantees the "right of the accused to defense and to the choice of the defense counsel, and the right to appeal" It emphasizes "the banning of torture under any pretext,"' and stresses "the judicial and professional security for all citizens and abolishment of Komitehs and the Guards Corps." (Mohaddessin, 1993)
This National Council of Resistance of Iran has given hope to the many Iranian's, especially women, who suffer the oppression from the absolute rule of the Republic of Iran. But will we ever see the end of this battle? Will Iran emerge from the clutches of Khomeini's terrorist-religious tyranny? The Mojahedin believe so; in fact they believe it is a necessity. Perhaps it may be in your lifetime, or perhaps not. As for now one can only cast a glimpse into the future to see what Iran will become (should the democratic liberating Islam triumph) by reading the words of the Mojahedin's Massoud Rajavi:
"We shall live in peace and coexistence with our neighbors. Democratic Iran will not recognize any place for vengeance, blind hatred, or Khomeini's tribunals or brand of anarchy. We are responsible enough not to be involved in internal and international adventurism. We do not want an antidemocratic theocracy like Khomeini's. Instead of "exporting the revolution," we shall invite our country's experts to return to Iran. In democratic Iran no one will be persecuted for his ideology or religion. Tomorrow's Iran will be free of repression and religious hypocrisy. Women, workers, peasants, religious and ethnic minorities will not be oppressed. Kurds, Turks, Jews, Muslims, Armenians, Christians, Zoroastrians, and non-Muslims will enjoy equal rights. Iran will become a symbol of peace, stability, and friendship in the Middle East." (Rajavi, 1982)
I am a business student recognized as an outstanding business student and sit on the dean's list with a 3.9 grade point average. Currently I am an officer in the PBL (Professional Business Leaders) Club as webmaster. I am also the president of an Icelandic cultural association. I believe in giving back to the community and raising awareness. My strengths are in presentations, personal selling, customer service and developing systems and procedures that increase productivity.
No comments:
Post a Comment