RESPONSE

In "Hands of Ignorance", Gloria Yazdani takes the nation of Iran to task for being immersed in the dark clouds of religious ignorance.  Ms. Yazdani’s emotional appeal is replete with gratuitous slanders targeting the Iranian nation.  The core of her argument is inconsistent and illogical, a non sequitur at best and unadulterated ignorance at worst. Were her audience as imperceptive and irrational as her inquiry so clearly is, the tirade she has fashioned from such emotive words and devices as “sadly,” “suffering,” “brutally,” “!” inter alia would likely persuade the mob.  Fortunately, the discerning reader can with just a little effort neutralize Ms. Yazdani’s commotional style by applying, and not merely appealing to reason.

The execution of Shahla Jahed does not offer any special insight into the Iranian nation’s understanding of women, let alone any entrenched cultural or social misogynistic tendencies.  Ms. Yazdani’s flawed premise draws a link between a murder conviction and the socio-cultural condition of a people.  At best, the Jahed execution might offer insight into institutional misogyny in Iran, expressed in a possibly flawed legal judgment. However, to then take that judgment and draw from it conclusions about a nation’s democratic maturity and its understanding of women seems to me to be an unfounded and uninformed leap.  Furthermore, the fact that in this particular case, the victim’s family vehemently opposed clemency and actively participated in the execution of Ms. Jahed renders an already false link even less tenable.

Even if we forgive her the false premise, Ms. Yazdani still fails us inasmuch as she confuses nation and state in Iran or perhaps is unaware of this most crucial distinction.  While the bulk of her argument unabashedly condemns the Iranian nation for its moral transgressions vis-à-vis women, Ms. Yazdani concludes with an unambiguous vindication of that very nation, revealing that Iranians are in fact ruled by the hands of ignorance. Although she ends it there, it’s safe to assume that by hands of ignorance she means the clerical regime.  So which is it Ms. Yazdani?  Is the nation of Iran steeped in religious ignorance or is it struggling to overcome, by hook today and maybe one day by crook, the poisonous fusion of religion and politics?  You cannot in the same breath vindicate and condemn ordinary Iranians.  

The basic unit of Ms. Yazdani’s assault is the nation of Iran.  In one breath, she extols a potential murderer as an outspoken woman in love and in another lambasts 75 million Iranians for their ignorance of democracy. Does Ms. Yazdani not have even the most basic understanding of what nations are?  Does she not know that nations are complex, variegated, diverse, ever-changing, unique and authentic?  On what grounds does she license her derisive and unnuanced reading of this dynamic community of peoples?  Does she not know that it was ordinary Iranians who spilled onto the streets in the wake of the disputed electoral results and voiced their yearning for authentic democracy?  Has she forgotten the basic question Iranians were asking: “where is my vote?” 

Deconstruct this question and you’ll have some of the critical components of liberal democracy, a la the West. The “my” represents the citizen who, after auctioning her/his faith in the power of the vote now demands to reap the benefits.  The “where” points to that streak of unrelenting, yet reasoned skepticism that is the patrimony of open societies not averse to questions and questioning.  And the emphasis on “vote” signals a critical awareness oftentimes taken for granted in advanced democracies, namely the sheer power and value of an otherwise simple act.

Ms. Yazdani, the Iranian nation has not lost its lustre nor is it steeped in ignorance.  The Iranian nation furthermore, needs no lessons in democracy and enlightenment from presumptuous and ill-informed foreign observers.  Iran is a cultured nation with a rich past and a bright future.  In the long view of history, she finds herself struggling with a reactionary state and an imbalanced and exploitative global power arrangement as she progresses towards meaningful and authentic democracy.

It is indeed a meandering and hazardous route to trek, and yes, many innocent victims have perished along the way. However, you insult the memory of men and women of conviction and courage who today and in years past have died in the struggle for authentic freedom and authentic democracy in Iran when you raise their spectre to defend a convicted murderer.  Better next time to heed the Socratic credo: if for whatever reason you can’t engage in dialogue, at all costs avoid chatter.