International Women’s day: the Heroines of Iran

Today’s the international women’s day. Though some are celebrating or ignoring the real issues, a woman in Iran, who removed her hijab to protest the mandatory veiling during the recent protests, has been sentenced to two years in jail. Most of the feminists groups including the Women’s March have been hypocritcally silent about the women’s protests in Iran. Today’s about awareness, appreciation and support, but how much do you we know about the women who are fighting all around the world?
Women in Iran have been oppressed for the past four decades and now they are leading the protests. They risk their lives protesting for basic human rights that have been taken away from them by Islam and Islamic regime.
From 1905 to 1975, Iranian women played a prominent role in political and societal events achieving outstanding success. To mention a few, removal of mandatory hijab, ratification of family law, ban of polygamy, raise of legal age of marriage from 15 to 18, right to vote and more! However, after the Islamic revolution, things changed drastically! Women were robbed of their freedom.
After the 1979 revolution, Islamic laws took over. Family protection law was revoked, minimum age of marriage was reduced to 9(later raised to 13)! Women were forced to wear mandatory hijab and government workers were forced to follow an obnoxious dress code. Massive segregations happened. Schools were all seperated. Women were banned from going to beaches and sport events, becoming a judge and even singing! Yes! Women were and still are banned from singing in Iran.
Now in 2018, hijab is still mandatory in Iran and “bad hijab” is punishable by 70 lashes, fine or imprisonment. Women cannot marry without their father’s written permission or leave the country without their husband’s or father’s written permission. Niether, can they go to stadiums. Men has the first right of divorce, meaning that a man can divorce his wife anytime he wishes to. Siqa (temporary marriage) is still legal and being practiced in Iran, which is a very fucked-up thing in Islam. The value of a woman in Islam is seen as half as a man’s. The Diyah (blood money) of a woman is half of a man, the value of their statements in a court is half as that of a man too. So if they need one male witness to make a statement. They need two female witnesses!! Also, in degree of heirship, wife inherits 1/8, if there are any children.
I can go on and on about the injustice towards women in Iran and the rest of the Islamic world. However, one thing is unavoidable, and it’s women’s urge and power to overrule the injustice. As I said, they did it before the Islamic revolution, they can do it again! Those women who remove their hijab in the streets of Tehran are my heroines. My mom is my heroine who against all odds in that country raised us to be free thinkers, to revolt, to stand against the inequality. I am humbled by your strengths and power.

Morality of religion… NO! Thank you!

It is believed that religion is the ultimate model of morality, and whoever follows a religion is considered as a moral person within that specific religion.
Religion texts are ancient, and they reflect the values of the times when they were written”. Humans live and thrive on a corrective feedback system. We improve ourselves everyday. Thirty years ago, we used to smoke every where, now we can’t smoke even outside a restaurant in Melbourne. This is corrective feedback system. Now, do you think the values and morality of the past three milleniums have stayed exactly like how they used to be? The answer is an obvious no! You may argue that the Bible or Quran is God’s words and it is never-ending and it’s always true. In this case, I would offer you my counter-arguments with examples of both texts. As follows, the examples given are instances of social issues or behaviours which were believed to be moral or ethical, but in the modern world we consider them irrational and preposterous.
1- Slavery: Bible has numerous references to slavery. Not condemning it but basically giving instructions and guidlines as how to own slaves. For more info you can read Leviticus 25:44-46 where the guidlines of ownership are explained and Exodus 21:20-21 where how to behave with slaves is explained. Quran has the same situation. If you look at Quran 8:69, 24:32, 2:178, 16:75 and 30:50, you can see that Quran doesn’t condemn slavery, but appraise it. According to Quran, muslims are more than welcome to take war booty (women as sex slaves and men as slaves). Also, muslims can have sex with their slaves. They can also have unlimited supply of sex if they temprorarily marry them. Temporary marriages (Nikah mut’ah) are a dark side of Islam which I will discuss in another post. Also, there are numerous hadiths about slavery. Here I quote one of them: Sahih Bukhari (80:753) – “The Prophet said, ‘The freed slave belongs to the people who have freed him.'”
2- Homosexuality: According to the Bible, homosexuality is punishable by death (Leviticus 20:13). Quran 7:80-84 explains how God rained stone on ‘the people of Lut’ who were the people of Sodom and Gomorrah, because of their sexual practices. As they died by rain of brimstones, islamic clerics have interpreted that as a punishment for homosexuality. Thus, the punishment is stoning!
3- Adultery: According to the Bible, adultery must be punished by death (Leviticus 20:10). In Islam too, according to Sahih al-Bukhari, v.9,book 83, Hadith 17 the blood of a Muslim can be shed if a married person commits illegal sexual intercourse. In Quran, there’s no reference to capital punishment for adultrey, however, there are lots of hadiths that affirm such punishment.
4-Deconversion: In Islam, deconversion from Islam is punishable by death. According to Sahih al-Bukhari, v.9,book 83, Hadith 17, the blood of a Muslim can be shed if one leaves Islam.
5- Wife-beating: It is clearly stated in Quran that a Muslim man must beat his wife if she is disobidient. Quran 4:34 advises that if a wife is arrogant and disobedient you must first advise her, then forsake her in bed and then strike her.
Out-of-context argument: Many believers would argue that the mentioned texts above have been misinterpreted out of context. As a linguist, who has worked decoding and understanding layers of language in morphology, semantics and pragmatics, I have to say that the texts whether in context or out of context have the same meaning. They are stand alone sentences, following the grammar rules of their written language. The texts above are not phrases or clauses, they are complete sentences. Also, by pragmatics of language, they are prefectly meaningful. So the agument of out-of-context is a total fallacy.
Morality can perfectly exist outside of religion. As it does in animals. Moral standards are social constructs that change overtime. Morality by religion is argument ad populum. Since, many people believe in it and practise it, does not make it true! People believed that the Earth was flat. Did it make it flat? No!

Allegory of Cave: leaving the cave for actual truth

Imagine a cave where people have been imprisoned from birth. These prisoners are chained so that their legs and necks are fixed, forcing them to gaze at the wall in front of them and not look around at the cave, each other, or themselves. Just as we are born into a religion. We are indoctrinated in one specific religion constantly and we are not allowed to look at any other religion or ideology. In this analogy, we consider the cave as religion or a religious society which can be as small as a nuclear family or as big as a nation. The prisoners are the people who are born into the religion or religious society, and the outside world is the state of deconversion to non-religion.

Behind the prisoners in the cave is a fire, and between the fire and the prisoners is a raised walkway with a low wall, behind which people walk carrying objects or puppets “of men and other living things”. The people walk behind the wall so their bodies do not cast shadows for the prisoners to see, but the objects they carry do (“just as puppet showmen have screens in front of them at which they work their puppets”). The prisoners cannot see any of what is happening behind them, they are only able to see the shadows cast upon the cave wall in front of them. The sounds of the people talking echo off the walls, and the prisoners believe these sounds come from the shadows. Socrates suggests that the shadows are reality for the prisoners because they have never seen anything else; they do not realize that what they see are shadows of objects in front of a fire, much less that these objects are inspired by real things outside the cave which they do not see. Let’s go back to religion. When people believe in a religion, they consider it as the ultimate truth, fact, reality! Any type of shadow that the religion casts in front of them is their reality. They have not seen outside the religion. They have not seen or been educated in anything else but their religion. One thing which is really important to consider in the allegory of the cave is the lack of education.

Plato then supposes that one prisoner is freed. This prisoner (a believer in our case) would look around and see the fire. The light would hurt his eyes and make it difficult for him to see the objects casting the shadows. If he were told that what he is seeing is real instead of the other version of reality he sees on the wall, he would not believe it. When someone questions their religion, and is trying to walk out, it is painful! The information outside of religion is overwhelming. Yet, you won’t consider it as truth, because the reality is still the religion. Plato continues, the freed prisoner would turn away and run back to what he is accustomed to i.e. the shadows of the carried objects, religion in our case. Plato writes “… it would hurt his eyes, and he would escape by turning away to the things which he was able to look at, and these he would believe to be clearer than what was being shown to him.” Coming back to the familiar reality of religion is way easier than leaving it with the overwhelming facts questioning the reality that we have known since birth. So one would never leave the cave so easily.

Plato continues: “Suppose… that someone should drag him… by force, up the rough ascent, the steep way up, and never stop until he could drag him out into the light of the sun. Slowly, his eyes adjust to the light of the sun. First he can only see shadows. Gradually he can see the reflections of people and things in water and then later see the people and things themselves. Eventually, he is able to look at the stars and moon at night until finally he can look upon the sun itself .” Only after he can look straight at the sun “is he able to reason about it.” When the person outside of religion gets used to the harsh facts, and realizes that his shadows were not real, he looks at the bigger picture. He remembers, analyses and reflects. Then, he can distinguish the reality, no matter how harsh it looked in the begining.

Now that the man is outside of the cave/religion, he thinks that the world outside is superior “he would bless himself for the change, and pity [the other prisoners]” and would want to bring his fellow cave dwellers out of the cave and into the sunlight and show them the reality outside of religion. However, as his eye are accustomed to sunlight now, he would be blind when enters the cave. The cave would be too dark for him to see. Nothing inside the religion would make sense anymore. So, the prisoners, according to Plato, would infer from the returning man’s blindness that the journey out of the cave/religion had harmed him and that they should not undertake a similar journey. Socrates concludes that if the prisoners were able, would therefore reach out and kill anyone who attempted to drag them out of the cave.

Leaving one’s religion requires some extensive force, whether internal or external and it does not happen overnight. It’s a difficult process where one must leave their familiar reality for a new and often harsher reality. When you eventually leave religion, you come back to tell others about the actual reality and how beautiful it is. However, you sound so strange to them that they would assume that the world outside of religion was dangerous, galling and antogonizing. The believers would defend themselves by verbally or physically abusing you, and in extreme cases would kill you if they could.

Reference: Plato. Rouse, W.H.D., ed. The Republic Book VII. Penguin Group Inc. pp. 365–401.