Letters

Write for The Iranian Editorial policy

Monday
September 10, 2001

Justification by selectivity

Mr. Simpson ["Amazed at Iranian attitutude"] has made an interesting contribution to the letters section, and amidst what may be howls of anger and protest at his fumbling with Iranian culture, and his erroneous assertions regarding Arabs and Iranians -- we should perhaps read this letter with the idea that all information is useful -- even misinformation can teach us something about the informant.

Mr. Simpson professes to be a student of history, but he seems to have no understanding of either Iranian cultural history, or the long relationship between Muslims and Jews in Iran that existed prior to 1979. As Mr. Simpson is a Zionist and an American it may be necessary to point out that 1979 is recent history in the context of the Middle East.

He takes the Arab invasion of Iran out of context, and does not understand how the country formulated its own objections to Arab rule in a distinctly Persian manner. We amazed the Arabs perhaps much in the same way we amaze Mr. Simpson, when we chose the Shia path of the Muslim faith. The roots of this choice lay in the schism of 680 but emerged centuries later in 1501.

The decision to become Shia and not Sunni is important in understanding Persian history and Iran's relationships with countries in the Middle East and the Western powers today. It was a decision inspired by religious aquisience yet political opposition towards the Arab conquerors. In a profound choice, Persians were united in a faith that suited the emotion of a nation invaded and defeated many times over -- grief. The consequences of that decision are still with Iran.

Mr. Simpson's Arab-inspired mockery aside, there are those of us that hope for another unique Persian solution to the problems in our country today. The unity that religion imposed is important if we look at the wider context of policies in the modern Middle East.

Mr. Simpson clearly harbors an intense dislike for Arabs and for Muslims and he makes his wild accusations accordingly. Yet our student of history and the Qu'ran does not see the similarities between Islam and Judaism, or the great cultural exchanges between the faiths and the cultures of the Middle East, or the uncomfortable ties that bind.

I doubt very much if Mr. Simpson has made a comparative study of religions but when a religious identity is being formed, the essential goal is to set the group apart from forces that would break it up. When the ancient Israelites escaped from Egypt they set out to forge a new identity, one that would unify them. Judaism set itself apart from tribal paganism with elaborate coded systems of what to eat, when to eat, when to pray, what to wear and when to wear it. Islam does much the same thing and for much the same reasons.

In the seventh century Arabia was in crisis, a new unity was needed. Perhaps because it is the most recent of the three large religions that converge at Jerusalem, Islam contains references in its texts to the older two religions, Judaism and Christianity. The Qu'ran does not so much speak out against these older religions as it sets this younger religion apart from them, and it does so in the language of its day.

And therein lies much of the problem in the Middle East today. Three religions converge at one geographical point. They use the rich texture of myth and mystery to remain unique and unified unto themselves and in the process they set themselves apart from one another - they choose not to coexist. It is at this uncomfortable juncture that modern Zionism and fundamentalist Islam are closest of all. Both seek to justify the logic of their actions in government with language borrowed from the illogical realm of religion. At their heart they have no tolerance for the laws that govern secular societies.

Mr. Simpson's erroneous claim that Israel is secular is not grounded in fact or in an understanding of history. Law, because it seeks always to use logic and reason, cannot incorporate such non-secular claims as "we are God's chosen people". That may not have been the catch cry of the early Zionists but as Israel has faced external pressure the Zionists have put the passion and fervor of religion to good use. The lines of religious action and secular action in Israel government policy are blurred for a reason, as we can observe in the expansion of Jewish settlements.

Faith is personal, intangible and wonderful. Religion when it is used to impose a structure to govern people will always fail, and it will always become an instrument of injustice when it is used to defend a course of action against another. In that failure, terrorism and state-sanctioned assassination will always replace reasoned negotiation. When I say I am better than you -- you will always reply that I am not. In the insanity of terrors that is Israel and the Occupied Territories -- there is no logic on either side only the harboring of hatred, and the cold comfort of righteousness.

I am sure I have done nothing to lessen Mr. Simpson's amazement at the recalcitrance of Iranians. We have funny customs, funny views and our pride for our country and our heritage over centuries of attack (verbal, written, or physical) by marauding and ill-informed hordes will stand us in good stead for the future. Past is prologue. I hope that Mr. Simpson will dabble less and that he really will become a student of history, not one who selectively searches to find justification for a narrow viewpoint.

In the interests of enlightenment I refer him to several easy-to-read texts:

* Karen Armstrong's 'Holy War' (Analysis of the modern interaction between the three faiths placed in the historical context of the crusades)

* 'The Battle for God' (a concise and beautifully written analysis on the rise of fundamentalism in the three faiths) by Sandra Mackey.

* 'The Iranians' - (An informed Western view of recalcitrant Iranians and why we are thus) by Sandra Mackey.

To my passionate compatriots: go easy.

Minou

Comment for The Iranian letters section