Letters

Write for The Iranian Editorial policy

Saturday
November 3, 2001

Secular and religious terrorism

After I read Mrs. Sabety's emotionally-charged article, ["Anthrax of the masses"], in which she proclaims religion to be a "bloody f---- business" and outsmarts Karl Marx by changing "opium of the masses" to "Anthrax of the masses", I thought it was time to take readers on a brief historical tour. I understand Mrs. Sabety's anger and I hope she does not take this personally. I even agree with some of her views.My only problem with our hot shot scholars, professors and Ph.D. candidates expressing their profound insights is that sometimes they display the intellectual sophistication of a college sophomore in their writings. They don't support their arguments with enough evidence, make hasty generalizations, cannot put different issues into perspective, and their articles suffer from a clear case of intellectual paralysis mixed with emotional hyperactivity. Let's start with Eve.

Feminism

There are issues so firmly rooted in the collective psyche of humanity, so prone to misunderstanding and misinterpretation, and so sensitive to touch upon that it seems nearly impossible to conduct an objective analysis of them. Gender-related issues, especially Feminism, belong to this category. The suffering of women throughout history is an undeniable fact and it goes back to the very beginnings of the human civilization.Ancient Greek culture was the mother of Western civilization. The invention and the implementation of "democracy" was one of the greatest achievements of the ancient Greeks; however, in such culture, barbarians (non-Greeks), slaves and women had virtually no rights (there were few champions of women's rights such as Plato).

Moving forward through periods where cultures and politics were dominated by great, monotheistic, orthodox religions, we would still see women portrayed by both state and religious authorities and textbooks as low-life, submissive creatures forever at the mercy of their husbands.I am not an Islamic apologist, but the fact of the matter is that such attitudes do not necessarily exist within the confines of a single religion such as Islam.

In chapter 2 of Genesis we read the story of a God who created man first, then wild animals, and then woman. Apparently, wild beasts were not a good companion to man. So, God decided to create woman! Why God did not create woman in the first place is not clear. In Ephesians 5:23-24, we read: "Wives, submit to your husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is Savior of the body..."In her book, The Dark Side of Christian History (1995, p. 7), Helen Ellerbe offers this explanation for the existence of such attitudes toward women: "Within an orthodox belief structure, there is no understanding of shared authority and supremacy between genders; one must be superior to the other."

Having said all this, I do not want the readers to automatically assume that I endorse all kinds of feminist theories and ideologies. Unfortunately, some feminists do not have a good understanding of the biological and cognitive differences between men and women. In his book, The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition into the Forces of History (1995, pp. 30 -35), Howard Bloom writes:

Margaret Thatcher, the female former prime minister of Britain, won the Falklands War, supplied the British military with nuclear submarines, and packed those subs with atomically tipped ballistic missiles. Indira Gandhi led a military campaign against Pakistan, jailed her opponents, and suspended civil liberties. And Peru's Shining Path guerrilla assassination squads were headed almost entirely by women...it is useless for women to blame violence on men, and it would be futile for men to blame violence on women. Violence is built into both of us.

On the other hand, historical observations tell us that religion, one of the greatest forces in the history of mankind, is essentially a male-driven enterprise used many times to subjugate and oppress women of all races. Moreover, a look at politics reveals the fact that political power is not evenly distributed among genders.How many Presidents of the United States and France, South American, African and Asian leaders, Moslem politicians, British Prime ministers and German Chancellors do you know who happen to be women? In his article, "Feminism, the Noble Lie" (Free Inquiry, 1995, vol. 15, no. 2, p. 13), Robert Sheaffer makes the claim that NO matriarchal societies have ever existed in the history of mankind. He writes:

Some people simply confuse existing matrilineal and matrilocal societies (denoting the primacy of the mother's role in inheriting property or in determining residence, respectively) with nonexistent matriarchal ones (ruled by women). In a matrilineal or matrilocal society, the woman typically is subject to the authority of her brother or maternal uncle, rather than her husband.

Therefore, it is not the question of men having more heart attacks or dying by millions in the battlefields. It is a question of control and power in a society and that men have much more political power and hold more sensitive social positions than women. So, is there a contradiction here? If women could be as violent as men, why do we see a clear case of gender imbalance when it comes to politics and religion? Why do women living in today's theocracies are compelled by state authorities to "observe" the dress code? If they don't, they go to prison or are publicly flogged. Why there has never been a single matriarchal society (no, Amazon women do not count)?Has there been a great effort on men's part to suppress women throughout history or does it have much to do with women's cognitive and biological dispositions? Or is it a mixture of both? I really don't know the answer, but one thing that I know for sure is that women living under theocracies, whether in the past or present, are never considered full citizens.

I believe by now the readers have realized how shallow Moji Agha 's arguments and view points are. He compares Mrs. Sabety's thoughts and ideologies to Soft Talibanism and justifies such unfair comparison by making a distinction between ESSENCE and FORM ["Essence vs. Form"].

There is indeed a difference between ESSENCE and FORM, but the point is that even from a FOUNDATIONAL perspective, Mrs. Sabety's thoughts are not comparable to Talibanism. Talibans adovate the repression of women to an extreme degree. It is their ideology and it is what they actually practice.

Mrs. Sabety's version of Feminism might look revolutionary, but she is talking against oppression and dehumanization of women. In essence they might look the same, but they are not. Do you equate in essence the revolutionary tone of all those who speak against the oppression of their fellow citizens with the revolutionary tone of Nazism and Stalinism? Is the confrontational tone of Churchill's WWII speeches FONDATIONALLY equal to that of Hitler and Mussolini?

In her speech, I Am a Moslem Woman, (www.homa.org/speech), Parvin Darabi, sister of the late Homa Darabi says:

Pursuant to article 85 of the constitution, the Islamic penal code was implemented in December 1981. According to article 300, blood money or dieh, a sum paid to the extent of kin as compensation for the murder of a relative, is twice as much in the case of a murdered man as in the case of a woman...My testimony in a court of law is equal to half of a man. In most countries I don't vote and I don't get elected to office. And if I do, it does not mean much. I inherit only half as much as my male siblings...I have no right to choose the clothing I wear in public. This is done by the Office of the Islamic Guidance which sets the color, the style, and the accessories of women and girls as young as 6 years old.

In the face of such double-standards and injustices, is it a crime to speak in a revolutionary tone and is it fair to compare such tone to Taliban's ideology, whether in ESSENCE or FORM? ALL the great religions of the past contain passages in their holy scriptures that degrade women and they also contributed greatly to the continuing existence of such attitudes, but the important thing to remember is that women's suffrage DID NOT begin with the formation of these religions. They existed long before Judaism and Christianity were formed.

I hope the American readers of Iranian.com do not take Moji Agha's views as a representation of thoughts and attitudes of all Iranian men toward women. Despite what he says and despite all the lies and hasty generalizations others (not Moji Agha) write about us "Iranian men", I hope you American readers realize that we Iranian men, at least some of us, are decent beings who respect women and are deeply concerned about the plight of the women of our country. I am sure Moji Agha is a decent human being, too and that he is not promoting such views on purpose.

Terrorism

Therefore when it comes to problem of women's suffrage, I agree with Mrs. Sabety's views, but I don't agree with her other comments. She writes: "I mean has not this tragedy made any one stop and think that the problem is God. That the problem is religion. That no atheist can drive a plane into a building? Or at least no atheist worth this label. I don't hear anyone advocating a general move away from religion."Religion has been used in the past, and is still being used, as a kind of divine justification for committing horrendous crimes and gaining control over masses--especially women. Moreover, there are numerous passages in religious texts that advocate and promote slavery and genocide. But Religion is NOT the source of terrorism.

Terrorism has been used by the great ancient powers and, as far as I know, the modern notion of terrorism goes back to Russian anarchists of nineteenth century.Mrs. Sabety's assertion, that religion is the source of all evil including terrorism, would have made more sense if we could separate nations that do sponsor terrorism and nations that do not, and then conclude that Islamic states promote terrorism and secular states promote peace and freedom for all. The fact of the matter is that ALL nations have used terrorism, in one way or another, to facilitate their political causes and to let the world know of their plights. Eradicate religion and you still see that terrorism exists--maybe to a lesser extent.

The American Heritage Dictionary, second college edition, defines terrorism as "the political use of terror and intimidation", but let me take the liberty of adding "friendly relation with terrorist countries", "indifference to atrocities committed against humanity", "selective reporting of events" and "the political and military support of tyrannical governments" to the definition.I was greatly saddened by the September 11, 2001 tragedy, but what saddens me more is hypocrisy, double-talk and the millions of nameless, forgotten victims who have died in other countries.

Is there a fundamental difference between secular and religious terrorism/expansionism? You might say that the attacks on Western civilization is the attack on the civilized world and the intricate fabric that holds the Western countries together.Yes, I agree, but what do you call the attacks on other countries by either West or Western-supported regimes? Elimination of undesirable, uncivilized savages OR humanitarian attempts to export freedom and democracy to culturally and politically oppressed nations? When an Islamic state expresses her desire for expansion, religion is blamed as the root cause of the problem. But how do you justify the European expansionism which had hardly anything to do with religion? In his superbly-written book, A Brutal Friendship: The West and the Arab Elite (1998, p. 25), Said K. Aburish explains in detail the extent and magnitude of European domination in Middle East:

The British and French, however muddled and impoverished their war-time plans were, proceeded to develop a cohesive policy whose aim was to divide the Arab Middle East into small weak states. Because most of the Arab people opposed this, the Arab patriarchy and the special interest groups who continued to support them were no more than collaborators who had a similar interest in dividing the region along new, self-serving political and economic lines. Except for Egypt, the boundaries of every state which emerged after the war [WWI] were drawn by European powers.

Turkey's secular government still denies the "Armenian Holocaust" and Japan does not seem too concerned about the atrocities committed by Japanese soldiers during WWII in the city of Nanking. In King Leopold's ghosts, we read the story of King Leopold of Belgium and how he murdered more ten million Africans in the turn of the century committing one of the worst crimes in the history of humankind. Great Britain's exportation of opium to China in the eighteenth century ruined the lives of hundreds of thousands of Chinese. In his book, What Uncle Sam Really Wants (1996, p. 58), Noam Chomsky writes:

Suharto's 1965 coup in Indonesia was particularly welcome by the West, because it destroyed the only mass-based political party there. That involved the slaughter, in a few months, of about 700,000 people, mostly landless peasants ---"a gleam of light in Asia," as the leading thinker of the New York Times, James Reston, exulted, assuring his readers that US had a hand in this triumph. The West was very pleased to do business with Indonesia's new "moderate" leader, as the Christian Science Monitor described General Suharto, after he had washed some of the blood off his hands---meanwhile adding hundreds of thousands of corpses in East Timor and elsewhere.

Mao killed millions, but not in the name of religion. Stalin killed a few millions less, not because he was religious or atheist, but because he was becoming more and more paranoid. Members of Germany's Nazi regime considered themselves devout Christians, but Christian doctrine was neither the main reason nor an inspiration for killing Jews. It was just a pretext or an excuse the same way that Nietzsche's philosophy was an excuse. Nietzsche did not create Nazism.I hope Iranian.com writers use better judgments in their future analysis of events and ideologies. When humans cast aside the cloaks the have blurred their visions and incapacitated their rational faculties, then Truth will reveal its true nature. But Beware. Sometimes Truth not only hurts, it sucks too! Good luck with your doctoral studies, Setareh.

Hamed Vahidi