Opposits don't attract

Incompatibility of Islamic theocracy & American values

Share/Save/Bookmark

Opposits don't attract
by kondyak
22-Mar-2009
 

On February 1, 1979, Ayatollah Khomeini returned from exile to the cheers of millions of Iranians, ousting the pro-American Shah and instituting an Islamic Republic in what would later be known as the Islamic Revolution. To put it mildly, US-Iranian relations have been strained ever since, beginning with the 1979 hostage crisis in which over 50 US diplomats were held in Iran for over a year. Even today, there are no official diplomatic US relations with Iran (Mahbubani 207). Many of the policies instituted by the Islamic theocracy in Iran since 1979 are incompatible with the most basic and traditional American ideals – the separation of church and state, freedom of speech, and equality for all.

Support for secularism - the idea that government should be separate from religion - originated in the US because many of the very first American colonizers were fleeing state-sponsored religious persecution in Europe. As a result, there was fervent support of creating a “high wall between church and state,” as Thomas Jefferson wrote in a famous letter to the Danbury Baptists (Floyd 2). The ratification of the Bill of Rights in 1791 solidified the separation of church and state as a key concept in American society, with the very first amendment to our constitution forbidding Congress from making any law “respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” (Wise 185). While religion has always been a very important aspect of American society, it has never played an extremely large role in government.

In Iran, on the other hand, church and state are inextricably entwined. This is the definition of a theocracy - the church is the state. In Iran, the Supreme Leader must be an expert in Islamic jurisprudence and the “Assembly of Experts,” the elected body that chooses the Supreme Leader, is comprised completely of Mujtahids, or Islamic scholars (Dilip 61). Iran’s constitution even states that all laws are to be based on Islamic criteria (Maggi 129). If there exists a complete opposite to the American model with regards to the relationship between church and state, it exists in Iran.

Another right that has existed in American society ever since the ratification of the Bill of Rights is the freedom of speech - certainly one of American’s most guarded personal liberties. Again, in the very first amendment, Congress is forbidden from making any law “abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press” (Taylor 230). These rights are a staple of American society, in which the press is free to criticize the government to their heart’s content (and they do – just turn on the radio and listen to Rush Limbaugh!). The government does not control newspapers or censor material, protestors are allowed to assemble peacefully, and most everyone can say whatever they want to say, provided they don’t incite violence.

An entirely opposite system operates in Iran. In fact, Iran has its own ministry, the Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance, to decide what Iranian citizens are allowed to read and watch, banning books such as “The Da Vinci Code” and many Western websites, even NYTimes.com (Tait 1). As seen in the BBC documentary “Rageh Inside Iran”, all newspapers and magazines must have their articles approved before publication. There is no private television, only state-controlled television that consists of seven channels, and ownership of satellite dishes is illegal (Samii 1). With total power, the Iranian government is able to completely control the media in a manner that would make most Americans cringe. But it doesn’t stop there; even dress codes are enforced. Iran detained 150,000 people in its annual sweep against non-Islamic clothing in 2007 (MacFarquhar 1). Bloggers face threats and jail time for publishing ideas or images seen as threatening to the Islamic regime. Journalists could even face death, as in the case of Zahra Kazemi, a Candian-Iranian woman who was detained after attempting to take pictures of a controversial Iranian prison and died in prison of a head wound after reportedly being raped (CBC News 1). This clear absence of the freedom of speech is a direct result of a theocracy intent on keeping an iron grip on control. Naturally, the theocracy uses religion to justify its actions. Shaikh Fazlallah, one of the most influential clerics to oppose the Iranian Constitutional Revolution, took issue with the call for liberty during the early 20th century, especially the freedom of the press, arguing that it caused “sedition and permitted the spreading of calumny” (Martin 186). The current leaders of Iran use his example, and today he is celebrated in Iran as a martyr for defending Islam against democracy. In other words, thanks to government promotion of the choice interpretation of the Qur’an by certain conservative influential clerics like Fazlallah, there is no freedom of speech in Iran – Iranian citizens see what their government allows them to see. Regardless of the root of this reality, freedom of expression in Iran stands in stark contrast to the situation in the US.

Equality for all is an American value embedded in arguably one of the best-known phrases of any American political document: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal…” (Jefferson 43). Penned in 1776 by Thomas Jefferson as the first line of the Declaration of Independence, this simple truth has been repeated throughout American history, by Abraham Lincoln in his famous Gettysburg Address and by Martin Luther King, Jr. in his equally famous “I Have a Dream” speech. Granted, American society hasn’t always allowed equality for all races and all genders, but in comparison to most other countries we are relatively egalitarian.

In contrast, the Iranian theocracy allows for major inequality between men and women and between Muslims and non-Muslims. Women especially face blatant discrimination under the law. In Iran, by law women inherit half of what men do from their parents, by law women do not have the right to seek divorce, and by law women need a male guardian’s permission to marry (Peters 72). Women who have been raped run the risk of being charged with adultery if they speak out but can’t prove it (Iran Focus). Perhaps most shocking is that the current minimum marriage age for girls under Iranian law is age 13 (an improvement, believe it or not, from age 9 in 1979), occasionally resulting in the marriages of extremely young girls to men much older (Keddie 116). Time Magazine reported in 2001 that the minimum marriage age has occasionally been exploited by child predators who marry poor young girls from rural areas, use them, and then abandon them (Spencer 187). Even still, this law has been strongly supported from the highest levels of Iranian leadership. In fact, Ayatollah Khomeini, the leader of the Islamic Revolution and a true icon in Iran, once intimated that a girl should have her first menstrual period in her husband’s house, not her father’s (Peters 72). Perhaps Khomeini had personal experience – he, at the age of twenty-eight, married a ten year old, and described marriage to a prepubescent girl as “a divine blessing” (Spencer 187). It is absolutely unfathomable to imagine Americans supporting such a leader. Clearly American views of women’s rights differ greatly from those propagated by the Islamic regime in Iran.

Additionally, under the Iranian theocracy there is inequality between Muslims and non-Muslims. Shaykh Fazlollah, the aforementioned admired conservative cleric, was completely against the notion of “equality of all subjects, regardless of their creed,” noting that such a law would allow the Zoroastrians to freely propagate their faith (Martin 186). Fazlollah preferred a system of law based on the “Divine Will, in which believers have a privileged position distinct from that of unbelievers,” based in his interpretation of Islamic law (Martin 186). Today, true to Fazlollah’s word, the Iranian government actively persecutes members of the Baha’i faith. Seven leading members of the Baha’i community in Iran were arrested last year and will soon stand trial under charges of spying for Israel, desecrating Islam, and campaigning against an Islamic Republic, although it seems clear that no real crime was committed (Moss 1). The persecution of peaceful followers of a minority religion is an act few Americans look positively upon considering our nation’s history.

Clearly the policies instituted by Iran’s Islamic theocracy stand against many American values we hold dear, from simple equality among citizens to freedom of speech and the separation of church and state. Additionally, considering that Iran seems to be pursuing nuclear technology, publicly supports Hezbollah, an internationally recognized terrorist organization, and that the current president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, periodically calls for “Israel to be wiped off the map,” it is no wonder that the US and Iran are constantly butting heads – we simply do not have compatible political ideologies (BBC News 1). Just as American democracy is incompatible with communism, it is similarly incompatible with the current Islamic theocracy in Iran. Without a similar base of state values, it is unlikely that the development of mutual respect necessary to improve US-Iranian relations will occur anytime in the near future.

Works Cited

Da Vinci Code book banned in Iran, BBC, 26 July 2006. BBC News. 3 Mar. 2009.

Floyd, Charlene. Christian Voices: Journeys through Faith and Politics in Contemporary American Protestantism. New York: Praeger, 2007.

Hiro, Dilip. The Essential Middle East: A Comprehensive Guide. New York: Carroll & Graf, 2003.

Iran leader's comments attacked, BBC, 27 Oct. 2005. 3 Mar. 2009.

"Iran's Changing Story." CBC News 27 Nov. 2007. 3 Mar. 2009.

Jefferson, Thomas. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson: 1776-1781. G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1893.

Keddie, Nikki R. Women in the Middle East Past and Present. New York: Princeton UP, 2006.

MacFarquhar, Neil. "Iran Cracks Down on Dissent." The New York Times 24 June 2007. 3 Mar. 2009.

Maggi, Michael. Review Of The Convention On Contracts For The International Sale Of Goods Cisg 2002-2003. New York: Kluwer Law International, 2004.

Mahbubani, Kishore. The New Asian Hemisphere: The Irresistible Shift of Global Power to the East. New York: PublicAffairs, 2008.

Moss, Meredith. "Baha'i plan prayer gathering for 7 members jailed in Iran." Dayton Daily News 21 Feb. 2009. 3 Mar. 2009.

Peters, Julie Stone. Women's Rights, Human Rights International Feminist Perspectives. New York: Routledge, 1994.

Samii, Bill. "Iran: State Media Control Extends To Provinces, Airwaves." Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty 2 Oct. 2006. 3 Mar. 2009.

Spencer, Robert. Religion of peace? why Christianity is and Islam isn't. Washington, D.C: Regnery Pub., 2007.

Tait, Robert. Censorship fears rise as Iran blocks access to top websites 4 Dec. 2006. The Guardian. 3 Mar. 2009.

Taylor, Hannis. The Origin and Growth of the American Constitution. Houghton Mifflin company, 1911.

"UN women's rights official raps Iran over abuses." Iran Focus 6 Feb. 2005. 3 Mar. 2009.

Wise, John S. A Treatise on American Citizenship. Edward Thompson Co., 1906.

Share/Save/Bookmark

 
Mammad

So, what is the point?

by Mammad on

That the political systems in the US and Iran are different? Is that supposed to be the discovery of this piece? Or, is it that the author is trying to convince himself that, naa, that (US/Iran rapproment) will never happen?

Is the point that the "value system" in the two nations are different and, therefore, the US will not try to re-establish relations with Iran? Since when has the US political establishment given a hoot to "values"? The US is known for its utter pragmatism. It beds the worst dictators in order to advance its interests. Who says Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Ethiopia, Pakistan, Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan, .... have any political system that is better than the IRI? It supports Israel in its crimes against Palestinians..... Besides, did the US not have close relations with the Shah, the last secular dictator of Iran? What had happened to the "values" at that time? Taking a nap? 

In addition, why don't you talk about other "values" in the US:

45% of children are born out of wedlock.

46 million people are without any health issurance.

5 million children have no issurance.

50% of all marriages end up in divorce.

3 million prisoners, 1 out of every 100 people (in Iran it is 1 in every 500)

millions homeless.

It can go on.

Mammad


default

Interesting but paints a dismal pictute on all..

by George Jetson (not verified) on

theocracies....

Iran's theocracy is not just a theocracy is a DRACONIAN theocracy...

Case in Point: you have England which I will argue that the Queen of England is not only the head of State

She is also the Head of the Church in England as well... therefore England [or the United Kingdom if you want to be more precise] is a constitutional Theocracy...

How ever Iran is a DRACONIAN styled Theocracy...They use Islamic law in it’s severest form as a model for their jurisprudence…Now this could have worked some 600 years ago when it was the Papal states versus the Shah or the Sultan of the Ottoman Empire but those type of Kingdoms are out of date…


default

American Values Incompatible with American Government

by Hunter (not verified) on

Any country can be "compatible" with United States if it is compatible with capitalism. The U.S. Govt. is only compatible with the failing U.S. dollar. Her people have much higher ethics than her government. When they hear of the broken tredies and lies and secret actions of their govt. they are apalled! But they seldom hear, and they don't know what to do.
The separation of church and state should mean the US is compatible with any religion, but the elected officials are elected by majority Christians. Christians, like Islamics, are not compatible with other religions except the Jewish religion which is the root of the Christian religion. Peaceful religions like Zoroasterism and Hindu are the true religions of freedom. They, and maybe Buddhism, are the only tolerant religions compatible with others.


default

IRI is Compatible With What?

by Anonymous500 (not verified) on

:-)) This is almost comical beyond recognition; this chap, Naipaul is a notorious Indian-born Brish raised and fed "itellectul" whose views of Islam and Muslims notwithstanding has been one of the most ignorant among such British-produced "experts" of Islam. To add insult to injury, this "article" is from Wikipedia, one of the most incompetent among Internet sources that no undergraduate student should consult, let alone use it's idiotic views on a difficult subject such as Islam and its belief system.

As to the question of the compatibility of the IRI with any modern and civilized entity, be it the USA or with Iran's pre and post Islamic cultures, the IRI is not compatible with any thing but itself: a diseased, corrupt to its core terroristic and criminal entity that has been decomposing from mid 1980s to present. This palgued corpse should be burried by the people of Iran under tons of armored cement with tons of "Ahak-e Sanati" on top of it as the world over is waiting for this KAFATR'S ultimate demise.


default

Compatibility for whom?

by Landanneshin (not verified) on

The author, tirelessly and at great length,gives the impression as though Iran is applying to join the United States,or America is inviting Iran to join her Union! None of that!

For the sake of making things a bit more simple,may I suggest the author- and the reader, replace all references to Iran in the above article with Saudi Arabia, and then come to a personal conclusion on this question "can there be a kind of normalisation in the US-Iran relations."

Needless to say, there would be no need to compare the socio-political differences between the two Islamic states to arrive at a practical and realistic answer.


Farhad Kashani

kindyak, Thanks for a

by Farhad Kashani on

kindyak,

Thanks for a great article.

IRI is a "different animal". The sooner the world realizes that, the better for Iran.

 

 

 


default

Not so Incompatible ...

by ./. (not verified) on

Iran and Iranians, and strangely the system of IRI are compatible with democracy and freedom. What is made incompatible was the terror inspired coup of 1953 that brought the misery and dispare to Iran so much so that people cannot really understand (let alone practice) democracy with a sense of responsibility, and freedom with a sense of social and cultural compatibility. In 1953 our fathers an fore-fathers were told you are worng on the choice of leader you had made for your nation, we will fix that for you' and by the way here is a despotic leader called the Shah that you did not want, but we want him for you.
That sort of history in fact brings a huge amount of distrust on the side of Iranians, and like a person whose desires are being supressed by a bully, they don't really know what is happening to them and to their society. Therefore lets not forget that ALL humans are equal and all humans want freedom and democracy (COMPATIBLE WITH THEIR CULTURE AND HISTORIC VALUES), but not forced upon them


electric_samavar

Use A Spell Checker

by electric_samavar on

Where did you get your M.D. Mr. Maleknasri?  I hope it is not from any English speaking university.  If so, please let us know so that we make sure our kids not to attend it.  Your spelling and grammar are disasterous.

Regarding your comments, all I have to say is this: You used to shit your pants 30-40 years ago.  Well, I hope as heck you have grown up and have it under control now, although it seems it seeped upward to your logic.


default

Incompatibility of Islamic theocracy & American values

by Faribors Maleknasri M.D. (not verified) on

The incompatibility is many folds approoved. the american imperialistic civilization - Irak and afghanistan - on one side and the Iranian- Islamic culture on the other can never go together. Howevwer it is matter of american nation to make itself able to understand cultur in general. Americans may even have better chances to success than europians. since the latters used to burn living humans just 7ty years ago. and in such a short time is a cohort not able to get such developed to understand and accept cultur. sorry, no chance. Greeting


default

can you define the relation

by babak123 (not verified) on

can you define the relation of america have with saudi, some arab countries, israel witch the jews have more stutus than arb citzen and it is based on religen. former south africa witch was very racist. or china witch is compelete autotherian (checking internet) . conclution is your reasons are rubish if america wanted based on national interest get friend with anybody.


default

Astonishingly lucid

by 456 (not verified) on

Astonishingly lucid understanding from a Nobel Prize winning W. Indian:

"Islam is in its origins an Arab religion. Everyone not an Arab who is a Muslim is a convert. Islam is not simply a matter of conscience or private belief. It makes imperial demands. A convert's worldview alters. His holy places are in Arab lands; his sacred language is Arabic. His idea of history alters. He rejects his own; he becomes, whether he likes it or not, a part of the Arab story.
The convert has to turn away from everything that is his. The disturbance for societies is immense, and even after a thousand years can remain unresolved; the turning away has to be done again and again. People develop fantasies about who and what they are; and in the Islam of the converted countries there is an element of neurosis and nihilism. These countries can be easily set on the boil."

V.S. Naipaul
//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V._S._Naipaul