On Religion in Iran Before and After the Revolution
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2018/09/02
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Your book Limu Shirin, The Bitter Story of Life After the Iranian Revolution speaks to personal experience of post-Islamic Revolution of Iran. Religion comes in multiple flavors. What was the flavor — so to speak — of religion since the Revolution in personal life in Iran?
Arya Parsipur: Before the revolution Iran was blessed with a society that accommodated followers of many religions (including Judaism) who lived in comfort and harmony; but post-revolution regime of Iran would not tolerate freedom of speech, freedom of religion and the civil rights of non-Muslims. During the early stages of the revolution back in the 80’s Iran was at the peak of radicalism and many non-Muslims and non-believers who had lost their jobs and property fled the country. Even the lives of Muslims who stayed back were at risk if they proved to be against the regime and the revolution’s values. Frequently houses were inspected by the regime’s guards in search of western films and music (considered un-Islamic at the time) or any other objects that verified people’s beliefs i.e. holy books of other religions, images of the late Shah, alcoholic drinks, etc. and Imprisonment and execution would have been the outcome if such objects were found. You could say that was a very similar situation of “Inquisition” in the olden times. Speaking of flavour, I would say Iranians have experienced a very unpleasant and bitter flavour of religion since the Revolution.
Jacobsen: How does religion graft itself onto Iranian society and influence politics?
Parsipur: Before the Revolution, although the majority of Iranians were Muslims, had religious beliefs and attended mosques, religion had no influence in the politics. The Shah was a secular Muslim, had modern views and the country was run by people according to their merit rather than religious views. The society also was very open-minded when it came to hijab and dressing codes. (Refer to the first chapter of my book, “Two Sides of the Same Soil” for a more thorough outlook)
The post revolution regime, however, has created much sensitivity about religion; and politicians are handpicked based on their commitment to Islam, hijab, and other Islamic values, who then through their power inject and execute such values into the society. Moreover, having the national media under full control, Islamic views have been force-fed to the society on a daily basis over the last 39 years. Despite such efforts the majority of Iranians do not practice Islam. Some don’t believe in it; others hold open views about it. They consume alcohol stealthily and have recently started to remove their hijab on the streets, both coming with harsh consequences if caught.
Jacobsen: What other national examples reflect this form of grafting religion onto the political and civic life of a country?
Parsipur: There is a big gap between the regime and the people and the Iranian society is largely polarized. The theocratic regime is established on people’s tendency to religion so the main reason to insist and invest on Islamic conduct is to stay in power rather than Islam itself. So one way of showing disapproval towards the regime is to deviate from religion and disobey the Sharia law. A recent prominent movement has begun by young women who attach their headscarf to a stick while standing on a power box and holding it out in public. The first girl that started this was on “Enghelab” street (meaning Revolution) and that’s how the movement got its name “The Girls of Revolution Street”. After that the movement spread quickly across the country. This has been the only systematic united movement women have done to fight against the compulsory hijab since 1985 when the law was passed in the parliament.
These days girls have the courage to remove their headscarves and simply walk or dance on the street and film themselves to share on social media. Most of the time they get harassed and even beaten by “Islamic ethic police” or fanatic individuals but the movement has not stopped.
Jacobsen: What seems like the weaker points of the theocrats in Iranian society? How does this provide a basis for activism on the ground, from the people, in the latter 2010s and early 2020s?
Parsipur: At the early stages of the regime Khomeini and his circle were genuinely concerned about establishing an Islamic state, and wished to expand Shiism through their power. However, as the years went by, the world initiated oil trades with Iran and the Ayatollahs got wealthy, so they showed more interest in financial activities and owning monopolies for import and export of goods and only using Islam as an excuse to stay in positions within the regime that gave them access to Iran’s oil money. Gradually traces of the IRGC force (known as SEPAH a military assembly initially created to protect the regime) was found in industrial sectors of Iran and today they are a multibillion-dollar business owning almost all economic sectors of the country. With this has come corruption, fraud and disloyalty among these men in power which is weakening the regime from inside. We often hear testimonies or threats that they make against one another and I believe this hollow monster will soon collapse from within. However, people’s protests on the streets could accelerate this downfall.
Jacobsen: How can international humanist and non-religious organizations provide some help in the reduction of theocratic tendencies in the world through support of the ordinary citizens who value the Enlightenment principles, the United Nations values, of freedom in various forms and the protection of personal autonomy?
Parsipur: Countries like Iran that are run by Islamic sharia law are most certainly violating rights of women, non-Muslims, atheists and homosexuals. The humanist organizations should be more focused on the life quality of the residents and harsher scrutiny and pressure should be on the leaders of such countries. These organizations could also educate the residents about their human rights and the necessity of secularism for a better life for everyone. The larger human rights organizations such as the UN should stop their hypocrisy and refuse to accept such countries as members.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Arya.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
In-Sight Publishing 