Open criticism
It is the responsibility
of every one of us to challenge each other and to make
views transparent
November 26, 2003
The Iranian
Since the publication of my article "Ayatollah
Ebadi?", I have received a considerable number
of responses. Most of them were encouraging. Some were critical
of my point of
view at
the same time as providing well-reasoned arguments and factual
references to historical events, and I value and appreciate such
opposing views.
There were also some angry letters.
Some are not worthy of response, for example that Shirin Ebadi
was fighting in Iran while I was
spending my time in nightclubs or as women we must stand behind
Ebadi [Be
fair].
Here I try to summarize and respond to some of the opposing views
to the best of my ability.
Am I confusing the Islamic Republic with Islam? Am
I attacking Ebadi for her religious beliefs? The answer is no.
As
a matter
of fact, the article was not an attack on Islam, theology (fegh),
or even the Islamic Republic or Ebadi's beliefs. It was an objection
to Ebadi's approach in addressing profound social and cultural
problems in Iran by reconciling theology with human rights.
The compatibility
of Islam with democracy and human rights is a hotly debated topic
within religious circles. Ebadi and some renowned clerics believe
Islam and human rights can be reconciled, many others don't
share this view. If we listen to Friday Prayer sermons in Iran
we find numerous examples of the latter group.
Islamic theologians are welcome to spend years and
years debating this issue and I will be very interested to follow
their arguments
closely. While I am not in a position to participate in this debate,
I have the right to demand that the fate of our nation not
hinge upon the outcome of such a debate.
History
has shown that only through separation of religion and state can
religion gain the dignity it deserves and the society gets the
freedom it
needs to foster and safeguard the so-called "marketplace of
ideas". The odds that our nation suddenly discovers
a new magical recipe that contradicts thousands of human experiences
is,
realistically, slim to none.
Ebadi is living and working in Iran.
She cannot express her opinions freely. Am I expecting too
much? It is a rather tricky
question, which also keeps me wondering. On the one hand I have
to admit that she is already under a lot of pressure. After
all she is human, with all the emotions and fears. And in
fairness to Ebadi, she didn't choose to become a Nobel Laureate.
On the other hand, there are numerous examples of
people shouting their conscience under much harsher conditions
without enjoying
a Nobel class protection. A few examples are Abbas Amir-Entezam,
Akbar Ganji, Hashem Aghajari, Heshmatollah Tabarzadi, Kianoush
Sanjari, Ahmad Batebi, Mohammad Maleki, Manouchehr Mohammadi...
The list goes on. They have broken new ground without shying away
from
speaking up. As
a
matter of fact I can point to some specific examples of people
who
have pursued a timid approach and have been punished more heavily.
If Ebadi decides to continue helping women and
children and represent victims, nobody can force her to do otherwise.
But
when she suggests a particular approach to solving Iran's
profound problems, she opens the door to criticism. This is
the
responsibility
of every one of us to challenge each other and to make
views transparent.
One reader noted that my reference to Black civil
rights movements was indeed an example of how change could come
from within
the legal system instead of being a counter-example by
pointing to
the role of the Warren Supreme Court. While this is certainly
an interesting and productive discussion, my point was
to warn against
setting a discourse blindly without examining the alternatives
from the wealth of experience provided by human history.
Finally some readers found the title of the article
["Ayatollah
Ebadi?"] provocative. This objection should be
directed to the iranian.com editor who picks the titles!
* Send
this page to your friends
|
