Year: 2014

Isa Saharkhiz, a well-known journalist, was arrested in July 2009 following widespread arrests after the controversial 2009 presidential election. He received his release papers in October of this year while in the hospital, but was sentenced to 3 years in prison by Judge Salavati, the head of Branch 15 of the Revolutionary Court in Tehran, on charges of “insulting the leadership” and “propaganda against the regime”. Despite completing his sentence in June of last year, he was not released and was sentenced to an additional 1 and a half years in prison in another case.

Isa Saharkhiz, the General Director of Internal Media at the Ministry of Guidance in the government of Seyyed Mohammad Khatami, was also the managing editor of the newspaper “Eghtesad” and the monthly magazine “Aftab”, both of which have been confiscated. In addition, he was one of the founders of the Association for the Defense of Press Freedom.

On the occasion of Mr. Saharkhiz’s freedom, on behalf of the human rights activists in Iran, we went to his house and during this visit, our colleague in the peace line also sat down with him for a detailed conversation.

Isa Saharkhiz, in this conversation, while emphasizing that he is owed two and a half months of leave from the authorities, doubts that we will reach the spring season of the media.

Mr. Saharkhiz, before any questions, please accept congratulations for your recent release. As a political prisoner who has suffered greatly from physical and medical problems during your time in prison, please inform us and our readers about your current physical condition.

Thank you. I have multiple difficult-to-treat diseases, some of which are incurable. The most important issue is perhaps kidney failure, meaning that about 70% of my kidneys are not functioning and this non-functioning affects the function of my kidneys and heart, causing fluctuations in blood pressure. Along with that, there are vascular and heart problems; my left ventricle has thickened and my heart rate is such that there is a pause between the blood being pumped and the blood being returned, which sometimes leads to a lack of blood supply to the brain and causes me to suddenly collapse…

Next to these, there is a problem with potassium. My adrenal glands have become overactive and this overactivity has caused my body to excrete potassium. Potassium is one of the body’s sensitive electrolytes that affects the kidneys and heart, and it must be constantly monitored and the medications adjusted accordingly. Having high levels of potassium can lead to blood poisoning and ultimately cardiac arrest, while low levels can result in cardiac death. This must be managed within a specific range. In summary, I have severe fluctuations in these problems; they are both high and low at the same time, and my blood pressure changes every two to three hours, which doctors cannot control. In addition, there are other conditions such as thyroid problems that also need to be managed. Along with these, there is also anemia or a special condition (minor thalassemia) that must always be monitored. There are also other diseases such as herniated discs in my back and neck.

Mr. Saharkhiz has observed that many individuals, before being arrested, were healthy, young, and vibrant, but during their arrest or imprisonment, they become afflicted with various and sometimes serious illnesses. Do you know the reasons and roots of these problems?

See, the prison environment itself is stressful and this stress causes constant fluctuations in blood pressure. We have individuals who, due to the pressures of their interrogation, seeing an officer or an interrogator completely disrupts their system and they become agitated and nervous; that’s why I believe that those who are in prison should seek a psychoanalyst after their release, who with medication or conversations, can erase their memories and mindsets. In fact, until these issues are cleared, there are difficult mental and physical conditions in the unconscious mind of individuals. This is one of the factors itself. Improper nutrition is also a very bad issue; the prison food is not edible at all, there is no chicken, no meat, and no fish in the prison menu, the only thing available is soy, which is also animal-based and they may not even eat that. Imagine that they make “Abgoosht” – a dish made with meat – with soy. In a situation where everyone says not

I am returning to our initial discussion; you see, in prison, before an inmate goes to court, they are transferred to solitary confinement. In solitary confinement, besides the issue of having a toilet inside the cell (which itself brings other problems such as cockroaches and foul smells), going out to use the toilet is a problem. The long hours of holding in urine and not being able to urinate, especially for older individuals with prostate problems, causes the bladder to fill up and the urine to go back into the kidneys, damaging the kidney cells. For example, there have been cases that have affected my kidneys: I was taken to the rooftop as a form of punishment (if I am not mistaken, it was the 17th or 18th of Bahman month in 88, it was a cold night and the temperature in Tehran was six to seven degrees below zero) at 1:30 in the morning, without socks, slippers, or warm clothing, just a

As a result, my point is that prison conditions affect everyone in a certain way, and this issue causes most people, especially mentally, to be under pressure, even if their mental strength is high. For example, look at how some prisoners are constantly told that we want to release you conditionally and this person is waiting for their release. If a person promises themselves freedom or even a furlough, their eyes are constantly on the door, waiting for someone to open it and bring their release order. Well, you see, there are few people who are not affected by these conditions and they just go with the flow and say, whenever the prison door opens and they tell me to go, I think I’m free. Especially many prisoners, like myself, who were not even given a furlough. Well, according to the prison regulations, I was supposed to go on furlough once a year, but in reality, I was a debtor for four and a half months and they

This law exists that a person who has served one third of their sentence can be released. Well, this should be implemented; of course, they implement it for many prisoners such as thieves or drug addicts, but it is not implemented at all for political and ideological prisoners. We have good conditions, look at the ideological prisoners, those who are Baha’i, those who are Kurdish prisoners or Sufis, they have not been granted furlough at all…

What do you think about the recent freedoms that are said to include 80 political prisoners?

“They had prepared these freedoms in three lists, and those who went to apply for furlough were faced with the issue that they were told they were supposed to be released; of course, the higher authorities of the prosecutor’s office were the ones saying these things. One list was about conditional releases and was related to those who had served one-third or one-half of their sentence; well, most of them were also included because even if they had twelve years of imprisonment (like Nasrin Sotoudeh), they had served one-third of their sentence and were supposed to be released. Now we have cases where they have a maximum of five or six years of imprisonment and they are supposed to be released. The second group was for those whose sentence was less than this issue and they had served their sentence and, to some extent, like my case, they were seeking furlough, which would actually lead to their release. There was another list that included prisoners who were sick and had a

Mr. Saharkhiz, during the time that you were the head of the press, is known as the “spring of the press”. Now, considering the limitations that we have witnessed in recent years, do you think that under Mr. Rouhani’s government, the media space in the country will reach a relative freedom? What is your prediction in this regard?

I know it’s far-fetched that we will reach that spring you are referring to, and I have a few reasons for it. One is that the combination that has been chosen and the project that is being pursued are very distant from that time. Look, the current deputy of the Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance is someone who was the head of domestic media during Mr. Hashemi’s government and when we took the government from them; meaning I replaced Mr. Entezami. Well, one can compare their time with the present. Now people change, but I doubt that Mr. Entezami, even considering all the changes and developments, would have the courage and bravery to support the media and journalists. I don’t want to boast about myself, but I’m talking about the time of reforms, especially the first two years. In 1977, when we came, only thirty newspapers were published and got a license. Many of the newspapers that are currently being published or are going

I don’t want to be too negative. Anyway, I think as long as it doesn’t cause trouble for them and doesn’t provoke the sensitivities of the central power core, they allow for activities. Surely the level of censorship and self-censorship will not be as much as during Mr. Ahmadinejad’s time. In just these one or two months that have passed, we see that the red lines have been pushed back a bit and newspapers are mentioning names that they couldn’t before and it wasn’t even possible. The same goes for books…

I hope that a space will be created where we can have media and publications that truly represent a moderate government. But look, right now the Neshat newspaper, which was supposed to be published, has run into trouble and I have no information about other newspapers and whether they are under pressure or not. The Rouhani government has emphasized that we support professional organizations, but in practice, nothing has happened for the Iranian Journalists’ Association and their illegal closure has not been lifted. This is happening at a time when someone like Mr. Rabii, who is a journalist himself and is actually one of the founders of the Journalists’ Association, has become the Minister of Labor and the Journalists’ Association is under the supervision of the Minister of Labor and with the cooperation of the Minister of Culture and Guidance. At the very least, it was expected that the Journalists’ Association would be reopened, like the cinema house.

In recent years and following pressures from the security apparatus, we have witnessed a large number of Iranian journalists leaving our country in order to survive. In your opinion, what impact do these migrations have on the media landscape in our country in the short and long term?

During that spring, we witnessed a very high volume of media, especially from the young and new generation, who wanted to enter the profession of journalism. The School of Journalism and special courses held by the Ministry of Culture and Media, even courses held with the help of foreign journalists in Iran, provided a generation of journalists who were active in a large number of publications. Well, as you say, many of them left the country, or a very large number of these individuals who are still in Iran are unable to do any work; they are officially or unofficially banned from writing or working. Some have been sentenced and banned from media activities, and when some of them intend to collaborate with a newspaper, they contact the newspaper’s officials and say that this person should not be used. Some prefer low-risk work and have gone into public relations, for example. In any case, the profession of journalism is a risky one and these years have shown that the highest number of prisoners are from this profession.

With all of this, in my opinion, we are not facing a shortage of journalists. Just today, when I went to the office to visit some newspapers, I witnessed that people were calling and offering jobs, and the editor-in-chief was saying that we have closed our staff and we are not facing a shortage of manpower. The reason for this is that, in addition to the increase in the number of journalists, we have also had an increase in the number of newspapers that have actually closed down, compared to the spring of 1979 when there were massive closures of media outlets and about 20 newspapers and magazines were shut down overnight. Well, those journalists became unemployed and naturally, in these years when our number of newspapers is limited, we are not facing a significant shortage, although we may have some quality issues; especially in the past year when journalists were arrested for being members of the Iranian Journalists’ Association, we faced a shortage of editors and officials who have the ability to guide and

Thank you very much for giving your time to the monthly magazine “Khat-e-Solh”.

Mr. Rolf Gompertz, born on December 29, 1927 in Krefeld, Germany. He had a difficult childhood due to being Jewish and it was impossible for his family to live a normal life. Hitler had launched a campaign to demonize Jews and his slogan was “Jews are the cause of our misfortune.” The Nazis burned books written by Jews and in this regard, the books of Rolf’s family were also burned. This law included any book written by a Jew, any book written about Judaism, and any book that was incompatible with Nazi ideology. Gradually, Rolf was no longer able to socialize and play with his non-Jewish friends. Then on November 9, 1938, known as “Kristallnacht” or “Night of Broken Glass,” organized attacks against Jews began throughout Germany and Austria. Nazi soldiers also came to Rolf’s family home. But his father told them that he had served in the German army

You are a survivor of the Holocaust and know people who lost their lives in the Holocaust. How did you feel when you heard that Ahmadinejad denied the Holocaust?

I got angry. Ahmadinejad’s denial was a heartless, ugly and unacceptable act. I felt like history was repeating itself. Mr. Ahmadinejad had no knowledge or understanding of history. One day, he decided to gain the approval of radical groups by denying the Holocaust, in order to increase his popularity among Arab countries. The Jewish community, especially those who had experienced World War II, were deeply shocked. We did not expect such behavior from the president of Iran, whose responsibility is to improve relations with other countries and promote peace. He is a representative of a country. Iran is a great and diverse country with peace-loving people. How could he represent these people? Instead of showing sympathy for the victims, he chose to use this issue as a political strategy. Denying the Holocaust only added to the pain of the victims and those who value humanity.

Mr. Gomperz, the Holocaust is not the first genocide in history, but it receives special attention. Can you tell why?

Other regimes in the world have also committed such criminal acts. But what sets this genocide apart from others is not because of the Jewish people, but because it was carried out by a highly civilized country that prided itself on its culture, and it was done systematically and using the most advanced and modern methods and technology. What is even more important is that this genocide was one-sided and based solely on ethnicity and religion. The Jews in Germany were not enemies on the battlefield and did not take up arms against German soldiers. Therefore, the efforts of the Nazis to annihilate them are understandable.

Why do you think it is important for people around the world, including Iran, to know the truth about the Holocaust?

I hope they know; of course, years of propaganda and lack of access to independent books and media have hindered this. However, social ignorance can lead to history repeating itself. If awareness is high, such tragic events will not have a place in society. Not just for Jews, but also for other ethnic and religious minorities. It is also important for people to not only know that the Holocaust happened, but also how it happened. The tyrannical and insane leaders who seduced the German people with false promises, betrayed them through lies and because the people were in individual and collective despair, they wanted to believe those promises and lies.

The Iranian regime is making organized efforts to promote hatred against the Jewish minority in this country (Iran). It controls the subjects taught in their children’s textbooks, prevents them from having high-level government jobs and sometimes even entering university, and some extremist groups, who receive open support from the Iranian regime, have threatened to destroy their sacred places. These actions have led to many migrations. They are acts of non-violence, but can they be ended and can the spread of awareness be successful in preventing hatred, or do you think the expansion of hatred has been successful in preventing a tragedy like the Holocaust – not on the same scale and dimensions -? What are the consequences of the spread of hatred in society?

Even though you say these actions are not violent, I disagree. Attempting to destroy sacred places is violence. Preventing education, employment, and labor rights, restricting economic and intellectual freedoms, is violence. The famous German writer and poet, Heinrich Heine (1707-1856), saw all of this happening in Germany. He predicted it a hundred years before the Holocaust by the Nazis: “Those who begin by burning books, will end by burning people.” When the world can witness Holocaust denial, you can no longer say these crimes will not be repeated. The spread of hatred, even in its non-violent form, ultimately leads to violence, even if it is just words. There is a thin line between words and actions.

Iranian Jews are not able to speak about their mistreatment and violation of their rights. In such cases, what is the role of human rights organizations and how can they help?

If you are an activist or a human rights organization and you know that Iranian Jews are under pressure, then fulfill your human duty. Establish two-way communication with them and stand by their side to solve their problems. Raising awareness, spreading news, and taking peaceful actions will help them and improve the situation of minorities in Iran.

On November 9, 2008, the 70th anniversary of “Kristallnacht”, I wrote and said: “I wish this was an old story. Oh God, I wish it was like this.” But the genocide is still with us, everywhere in the world, threats and violations of human rights and individual freedoms are still with us, here and all over the world, and for the Jews too, who are still targeted; through despicable and shameless ways, to promote hatred, slander, and death.

We must speak and act freely, without fear and with boldness. This was a lesson learned through a difficult path by Martin Niemöller. He was a German commander, a hero of World War I, a supporter and follower of Hitler in the 1920s. Niemöller became a Protestant minister and later turned against Hitler. In 1933, Hitler came to power and the following year, Niemöller realized his support for Hitler was a mistake. He began preaching against Hitler and the Nazis. In 1937, Hitler’s patience ran out and Niemöller was arrested on charges of “misuse of position” and “crimes against the state” and sent to forced labor camps. Niemöller survived and after the war, whenever he spoke about it, he would say, “First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out because I was not a communist. Then they came for the social democrats, and

Nimulor has given us the answer. We must speak and act freely, without fear and with boldness. In any way we can, whether it be little or much, we must protest against genocide. We must bravely speak out for human rights and individual freedoms, especially in defense of groups and individuals who are different from us. We must act for their sake and ultimately for the sake of our own souls.

Do you have a message for the people and activists of Iran?

My message to the people is to strive to overcome the hardships imposed on you by this regime and raise awareness about human rights and the rights of minorities in Iran. Read history to understand the importance of peace and become an example for other nations and countries in the Middle East. Your great history and glorious civilization have made you a unique and special nation. By advancing in the culture of tolerance and peace, you can overcome difficulties. I see a bright future for Iran and its extraordinary people.

And with this invocation from the Torah, I put an end to my pleas.

Praise be to you, O Lord, our God.

You, O Lord, who bind us to life.

م

We keep ourselves safe.

And you give us the ability to live throughout the span of time!

Shalom

How does Mr. Naraghi, in regards to opinions and other schools of thought, take a stance on the Qur’an? In other words, is the tone of this book pluralistic, centrist, or confrontational and aggressive?

In my opinion, religious books are mostly exclusivist rather than pluralistic – meaning they want to convey a new perspective of truth from their own point of view to the audience. Even when the Quran invites us to consider different opinions, it ultimately considers its own opinion and perspective as the correct one. This suggests that religions have an exclusivist approach based on their own nature. However, the Quran also combines this exclusivist approach with a sense of tolerance and compassion in many cases. For example, the Quran has a broad and tolerant view towards the People of the Book, recognizing their rights and dignity to a great extent. It sees diversity as an inevitable and essential aspect of human life and considers it a sign of God’s wisdom. Islamic history also testifies that non-Muslims had more rights and dignity in Islamic society. For example, after the defeat of Muslims in Andalusia, many Jews willingly migrated with Muslims because they preferred living under Muslim rule rather than Christian rule. Overall, compared to other

How exactly is this system? According to your interpretation, is it based on recognizing the right of the wronged or is it based on the relationship between the superior and the inferior, as mentioned in verse 29 of Surah Tawbah regarding paying tribute in a state of humiliation?

“Moderation” means recognizing the unjust right in a specific territory and is ethically permissible. In the discussion of moderation, we are faced with several important questions: firstly, is the concept of “moderation” as the concept of “unjust right” possible and internally compatible or not? Secondly, what are the justifications for this moderation as the unjust right? Thirdly, what is the extent of unjust actions and beliefs that are worthy of moderation, and how and on what basis should this limit be determined? And fourthly, how should this moderation be promoted as a virtue in the character of citizens and protected as a right in the legal and political system of society? In my opinion, in Islamic culture, a certain level of moderation (which was very worthy of attention and resolution in its time) was recognized. Especially in Islamic society, compared to other contemporary religious societies, there was more tolerance towards religious minorities (at least the People of the Book) and provided them with the possibility

How do you see the relationship between Shiism and violence? Specifically, Shiism has a long history of promoting violence alongside themes of oppression, revenge, jihad, and peace.

Is it possible or is there an obstacle?

Until the issue of violence is concerned, I do not see a significant difference between the historical reality of Shiism and other Islamic sects. Imam Ali, who was the leader of the Shiites, showed patience towards his political and ideological opponents (as long as they did not draw their swords). He was one of the most trusted advisors of Abu Bakr and Omar, and he himself says that he was so cautious in defending the third caliph that he was afraid he might have gone too far, as is well-known in his story with the Kharijites. As for the uprising of Imam Hussein, which is the source of revolutionary inspiration for Shiites, historical accounts do not necessarily align with the ideological narrative that was later developed. Some historical evidence suggests that he tried his best to avoid conflict and bloodshed, but it was the soldiers of Yazid who prevented his return and escalated the situation into a bloody battle. Imam Jafar Sadiq was the first to introduce a kind

Mr. Naraghi, some violence has been committed by the Green Movement on Ashura day, which is attributed to the historical memory of Shia Muslims. What is your opinion on this?

I am not sure if establishing a direct relationship between current political and social events and the historical, religious, and cultural memory of a nation is an accurate approach. First, it must be determined who and under what circumstances resorted to what type and degree of violence, and then the motivations behind their violent actions must be examined, including their cultural influences, such as their religious beliefs. As far as I can judge, the people who took to the streets during those days had peaceful and civil protests and were subjected to the most extreme, heinous, and violent forms of attack, yet they nobly refrained from resorting to violence themselves. However, if some of them were forced to resort to violence in self-defense, provided that they had no other means of protecting themselves, we cannot condemn their actions from a moral standpoint.

You mentioned the impact of political and social conditions on violence or peacefulness of religions or their followers. Different individuals and groups in today’s world use Islam to justify violent actions. Why is Islam so vulnerable to these conditions and easily manipulated by those in power? Where does this ability to justify violence come from?

Islam has been the foundation of peaceful and flourishing life for Muslims and their good relationship with followers of other religions for centuries. As I mentioned before, the level of tolerance that Muslim societies have shown towards non-Muslims throughout the centuries (compared to Christian empires) has been remarkable. Even today, the majority of Muslims in the world, especially in countries like Indonesia and Malaysia, are peaceful and peace-loving people. In my opinion, there is not a significant difference between Islam and other religions in this regard. Violent tendencies are not exclusive to Islamic societies. For example, many Jewish fundamentalists in Israel try to justify the crimes committed against the people of Palestine in Gaza based on the teachings of Judaism, and many Christian fundamentalists in America are the most heinous perpetrators of violence against Muslims (and sometimes Jews). We have not forgotten the violence of Hindu fundamentalists against Muslims in Kashmir and other regions. This is true. However, in all of these religions, the majority of people are disgusted

What was the position of human rights in the discussions of the 1957 revolution? Did the Iranian society generally recognize human rights? Or if they did, did they value it? How did the revolutionaries view human rights? In the following conversation with Abolhassan Banisadr, the first president of Iran, we will inquire about his opinions on this matter.

Dear Mr. Banisadr, if we were to have a dominant discourse or statement for every revolution, just as the dominant discourse in the American Revolution is freedom or in the Soviet Union is equality, what was the dominant discourse in the 1957 Revolution?

The nationalization movement of oil had two guiding principles: independence and freedom. Independence meant freeing Iran from foreign domination and establishing a national and Iranian government, while freedom meant eliminating the despotic nature of the government and establishing national sovereignty and a representative government for the people. After the coup of 28 Mordad, a dispute over principles arose and four major tendencies emerged in society. One tendency prioritized freedom, which was manifested in the second national front with the slogan of establishing a rule of law. Another tendency prioritized independence, which included nationalistic tendencies. The third tendency sought both independence and freedom, and most of the Mossadegh supporters fell into this category. The final tendency was the leftists, who prioritized social justice. After 1942, Ayatollah Khomeini entered the scene with the slogan of Islamic primacy, while the Pahlavi regime also emphasized progress as its main slogan.

But the Iranian Revolution fundamentally presented a new definition of balance. Islam encompassed freedom of independence, freedom, growth, and social justice, and from this perspective, the priority of Islam over these principles was also lost. Because without including these principles, Islam becomes empty. Unfortunately, Mr. Khomeini put aside Islam as a symbol of freedom. He had taught the concept of Vilayat-e-Faqih in Najaf, but not in the sense of what is now ruling over Iran, but in the sense of the rule of Islamic laws. According to his teachings in Najaf, people are in the position of minors and the Faqih is responsible for their leadership. After Mr. Khomeini’s arrival in France, seventeen issues were raised by the world media, and among these seventeen issues, the role of clerics in the next regime and the danger of religious fascism are of interest to me. The proposed solution was for Mr. Khomeini to step down from Vilay

The steadfastness of Mr. Khomeini against the elected president was a new form of confrontation between the clergy and the people. For example, Mr. Kashani also stood against Mossadegh and opened the way for coup and foreign interference, but this confrontation was between a clergyman and a national leader. However, Mr. Khomeini’s coup was a major confrontation between the clergy and Islam as a symbol of freedom. This blow caused the clergy to start thinking about a rights-based Islam, for example, Mr. Montazeri published a booklet on human rights a few years after the publication of the book “Rights and Judiciary in Islam”. These days, I am reading a book published in Iran under the title “Religious Veil in the Time of the Prophet” which tries to correct a religion that has been imposed on Muslim countries based on patriarchy. Similarly, there is an important transformation taking place in the principles of religious guidance. Finally, there have been discussions about the

“You mentioned the four principles of independence, freedom, growth, and social justice as the dominant discourse in the 1957 Revolution. From the perspective of revolutionaries and society, where did the discourse of human rights rank among the dominant discourses in the Iranian Revolution?”

There were two major currents. For example, the ideology of the left currents was Marxism-Leninism. They believed that human rights were bourgeois formulations. Shia and Sunni jurisprudence, on the other hand, is a jurisprudence of obligation, not rights. In this jurisprudence, humans are obligated, but beyond these two currents, there were those who supported proletarian dictatorship and those who supported the righteous oppression. Tendencies in favor of independence and freedom considered human rights to be of great importance, as evidenced by the formation of the Human Rights Defense Committee during the revolution. We had been abroad for a long time, under the leadership of Jean-Paul Sartre, we had formed a committee to defend political prisoners, a committee that was formed at our request and with his consent, and defended them equally regardless of the tendencies of political prisoners. Similar committees existed in other countries as well, because it was very necessary to show the people of the world how indifferent the Shah regime

I must remind my young compatriots of an important issue at this time, when we did not think we would have a disagreement with the clergy about human rights. Our assumption was that jurisprudence is the epitome of human rights, we did not know that this is not the case and that jurisprudence is, in fact, duty-oriented.

Is your defense of political prisoners and clerics directed towards defending human rights or advancing the fight against the Shah regime, Mr. Banisadr?

I explained that the defense of human rights from the perspective of prominent Western figures was the only option, meaning we did not expect more from them because it was a universal defense. A good example of this was our defense of the rights of mass prisoners, even though we did not agree with them and even considered them traitors, we still defended them based on human rights. We even defended some clergy who were not actively fighting against the Shah’s regime, but from our perspective, they were still human beings and we defended their rights. In our view, human rights were above one’s thoughts and actions, even if they were a criminal.

In the second half of the 1950s (years 55 to 60), how was the concept of human rights perceived by the majority of society? In other words, did the general public and revolutionaries hold human rights in the same universal sense as today? Or did they view it as a religious right for all people? Did they recognize Islamic human rights as the Islamic Republic does today? Or did they generally reject the idea of human rights as a Western or even colonial concept?

At that time, Islamic human rights were not even mentioned. Initially, it should be noted that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was drafted by representatives of the three major religions through an agreement. This declaration does not exclude any religion and has been agreed upon by these religious representatives. The ambiguities in this declaration are due to the different perspectives of these three religions, which have caused some parts to be left ambiguous in order to reach an agreement. At that time, this declaration was referred to and there was no mention of Islamic human rights.

After June 15, 1981, two French lawyers came to me and said that we can defend the human rights of Iranians under the oppression of the Mullah regime whenever we want. They say that Islam has its own rights. What is the meaning of these independent rights? This means that I wrote the book of human rights and judgment in the Quran, which has been published in different languages. It has also been translated into Arabic, but no Arab country has allowed its publication. This lack of publication is very telling, because Arab leaders are afraid that Muslims will know that the Quran contains a complete list of human rights.

You have stated in the book “The Right to Judgment and Humanity in the Quran” that the human rights mentioned in the Quran are more complete than the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Do you still hold this belief?

Yes, I have listed more than fourteen principles in that book, which are present in the Quran but not mentioned in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, human rights from the perspective of Islamic scholars and the human rights that I have extracted from the Quran have been compared in a book and it has been concluded that the most comprehensive and unambiguous statement of human rights is the human rights that have been extracted by Ibn Sadr from the Quran.

These are related to after the revolution, during the revolution it was assumed that the clergy would respect human rights, but if they do not adhere to more than the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, they will do so. But in practice, not only were human rights not addressed for them, but even human life had no importance. Let us remember the famous words of Mr. Khomeini or Mr. Gilani who used to say that if the people we kill are innocent, they will go to heaven.

You believe that besides certain groups such as the leftists and some clerics, the majority of Iranians recognized the values of human rights during the years of revolution in accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. How is it possible for a society to value human rights, yet easily impose mandatory hijab or execute thousands of political prisoners without any hesitation?

There is an important issue here, I have written a book called “Universal Despotism” or “Totalitarianism” which is in the process of being published. In it, all forms of totalitarianism, from its ethnic form to its contemporary forms such as Nazism, Fascism, and Stalinism, have been identified. One of the studies conducted is related to Germany. At that time, Germany, in terms of education level and the power of left and liberal political organizations in Europe, was leading the way. However, in such a country, the Nazi party came to power and established a universal despotism. In the Iranian Revolution, people understood and demanded freedom and independence, and wanted a system based on independence and freedom. But accepting the idea of independence and freedom is one thing, and acting on it is another.

It seems that your intention is for the people of Iran to recognize human rights, but the totalitarianism of the Islamic Republic has created an atmosphere where this idea has been forgotten for a long time.

Exactly. Since people did not act in this direction, Iranians were much more prepared to return to obedience to power than Germans were to Nazism. Iranians had a revolution, but human nature is such that if the revolution is not firmly established and the pillars of power are not rebuilt, the revolution will be lost. This is not unique to Iran; it was also the case in the French Revolution, and in Russia, where it was not a revolution but a coup by Lenin that led to the same situation. At that time, people were regularly warned, but unfortunately those who should not have built the pillars of power did so. New pillars of power, such as the Revolutionary Guards, Basij, Jihad of Construction, Revolutionary Courts, and Committees were built and placed alongside the old pillars of power.

“These [events] brought society back to obedience to power, and know that they did not do this easily. In this regard, the history of Iran reports a great transformation, with the hidden collusion of Reza Shah and Boosheh, the coup of Khordad 60, keeping Iran in eight years of devastating war and sacrificing a generation, and establishing the tyranny of mass killings and executions. It has been thirty years that they have been at war with this nation. Therefore, this Iranian society has shown more resistance against widespread tyranny than the German society did against Nazism.”

Now it is clear that what is against this regime is the people’s inclination towards democracy. Although most people who want freedom also desire power. Michel Foucault says that a type of power discourse is democratic power discourse, meaning the power that secures its legitimacy from the people. But the freedom we desire is for society to perceive power as anti-values and for relationships within society to be based on human rights, and for international relationships to be defined based on national rights. Although freedom of expression is not well-known in Iran, this country has the experience of electing me as president by the people and fighting against the pillars of power, which is an alternative to the tyranny of totalitarianism with totalitarian tendencies.

During your presidency, you have repeatedly witnessed and condemned various human rights violations in Iran. A famous example of this is presenting four hundred photos of post-revolution tortures to the representative of Amnesty International and speaking about the six prisons. If these actions can be considered a defense of human rights, what proactive steps did you take at that time, such as educating citizens or institutionalizing efforts to improve human rights?

“Coincidentally, we focused more on the positive aspects. I went from city to city and explained to people about the four principles of independence, freedom, growth, and social justice. During the presidential election, I also told people that if they agree with these principles, they should vote for me, because I am not prepared for any other work, and seventy-six percent of the people voted for these principles. I went from city to city and talked about women’s rights. No one in the history of Iran has made as much effort as we have for the status of women. We have also achieved great accomplishments, regularly assessing thoughts and measuring men’s behavior towards women, and researching actions that can accelerate this transformation. In the one or two months before the coup, the assessment of thoughts showed that the desired transformation was progressing, to the extent that the relationship between the husband and wife in Iranian families had largely shifted to a cooperative relationship. My book, “Women and Marriage,” is the most

Please compare the human rights situation during the Pahlavi era and the Islamic Republic.

Translating to English:

The violation of human rights in the current regime, which is neither a republic nor Islamic, is more widespread and damaging than ever before. Firstly, it is done in the name of religion, a religion that is of no use if its goal is not to express rights. The expression of power, which is nothing but censorship, enslavement, and massacre of people, does not need religion. Humans have created and continue to create infinite systems of power. Religion is meant to grant humans freedom, independence, and their own rights, and to rid society of conflicts. Religion is meant to create a society with a logical structure, activate motivating forces within itself, and allow humans to grow. Transforming such a religion into what it has become now is not just a simple crime, it is an indescribable crime.

The dissolution of a great and cultured nation and the destruction of a great historical opportunity, at a time when two superpowers were disintegrating and the international arena was opening up to Iran, is a great crime. The young society had the necessary capital, could have had rapid growth, and today could have advocated for the expression of human freedom and the realization of human growth, not just the growth of capital or power. These atrocities are incomparable to the atrocities of the Pahlavi regime.

Thank you for participating in this conversation.

Mahnaz Afkhami was the head of the Women’s Organization during the Pahlavi era and the Minister of Women’s Affairs in the last three years of that period.

Mahnaz Afkhami, who has a high level of education from reputable universities outside of Iran, is a living example of the elite generation that emerged during the Pahlavi era and laid the groundwork for many modern and progressive activities in Iran before the January 1979 revolution. With the inevitable downfall of the Pahlavi monarchy, she left Iran. Currently, Ms. Afkhami is the head of an active non-governmental international organization in the field of education and women’s rights, called the “International Organization for Education and Cooperation of Women,” with its headquarters located in the United States. She is also the founder of this organization.

I had a detailed conversation with Mahnaz Afkhami on the sidelines of a conference in New York on “Women in Leadership and Decision-Making Roles”. We asked her to tell us a little more about herself and how she became the second female minister in Iran.

He believes that beyond individual successes and progress in a specific field, the emphasis should be on pioneering leadership and creating a society with justice and fairness.

You are the second female minister of Iran, after Mrs. “Farrokhro Parsa”. How did this happen and what process did you go through? How did Mahnaz Afkhami choose this path?

From January 1, 1976, I was appointed as the Minister of Women’s Affairs and this was the first time that someone was appointed to such a position in Iran and the entire region; of course, now there are about 100 people in the world who hold a similar position, but at that time it was not very common and as a result, because it was a new and innovative effort towards equality, it provided the opportunity to present new ideas and establish a new framework for work in order to create conditions in the government where we could work better on women’s issues and we took full advantage of this opportunity to the best of our abilities.

Mrs. Farokhro Parsa was the Minister of Education and the first woman to serve in the cabinet. She was a role model for me and when I joined the Women’s Organization as Secretary-General, the issue of a Ministry for Women was brought up. She showed great kindness and welcomed me to work in the field of women’s rights at a national level. In a conversation I had with Mrs. Parsa, I made some requests. As she was in the cabinet at the time, I asked her to collaborate with the Women’s Organization in promoting education for women on a larger scale and to take steps towards changing the textbooks and the role of women in them. In those textbooks, especially in the first few years of elementary school, women were always portrayed in a very traditional and limited role; for example, women were seen with an apron in the kitchen while men came home with a briefcase from work, or a girl would throw a ball up a tree and when it got

Please tell us a little about yourself, your education, and who has been your biggest motivator in your family or outside of it.

I was born into a family that was involved in agriculture (especially my father and my paternal family), but they were relatively well-off. My mother, however, came from a wealthy family and was more focused on academic work, writing, and research. She was one of the first women to attend university and my grandmother was also one of the first women in Kerman (where I was also born) to have her own job as a seamstress and manage her own life, despite being divorced from her husband. Both sides of the family had strong and independent women, and for example, it was not a problem for the women in the family to take on the role of managing inherited land or agricultural resources. As a result, my parents always believed that my sister, brother, and I should pursue higher education. I studied in high school in America and my major was English literature. After returning to Iran, I taught English literature at the national university and became very familiar with the issues facing young girls

In any case, after the conversations we had with these girls, we decided to form a student girls’ association and always organized lectures in it and invited people with opinions to speak, and the girls themselves were constantly discussing and exchanging ideas. The members of this association quickly expanded to 400 people, and this gradually led me to become more involved in women’s activities and join the Women’s Organization. My joining the Women’s Organization was also through getting to know the Shah’s daughter, Ashraf Pahlavi, who was then the head of the Women’s Organization and also the head of Iran’s delegation to the United Nations.

I asked, why is the discourse of successful Iranian women who hold key roles in society important and what message does it ultimately want to convey to society?

In my opinion, this has two aspects; first, that women, who make up more than half of the world’s population, should have their voices heard and play the role they should in decision-making. Second, the way women face issues and how they manage and lead has recently changed and is generally different from what we are used to. It is good that this management style, which I am not saying all women have, but it seems that most of them do, is utilized and we can benefit from this great force. Regarding the success of women, aside from individual achievements and progress in a specific field, my emphasis is more on the perspective that a woman can have and be a pioneering leader; what she wants, why she wants to take on leadership, what she wants to do, and what impact she wants to have in shaping society and how she can create a fair and just society.

Your discussions lead me to this question: How much can society and environmental conditions contribute to the success of a woman, like yourself, in fulfilling her role?

Well, in many societies, there is a huge difference between classes, or the facilities available to those who are from a wealthier class are not comparable to those who are poor. In America itself, one of the fundamental issues currently, unlike what existed in the past, is that the difference between the highest level and the top one percent, who, of course, some of them are in the middle class but a considerable number of them are practically poor, is very high; so that the top one percent can provide all kinds of facilities for their children and send them to any school or university. Those who come from poorer classes and their number is also very high, for example, are in a situation where their parents are not together at all or if they are, they do not have enough facilities and literacy to provide an effective culture for their children. But well, all the importance of female leadership and leadership that seeks justice is in trying to increase these awareness and facilities at the societal level so that

We should not equate the successes of individuals, namely women, and even a significant number of women, with what society makes available. When you look at the relationship between the individual, society, and government in Iran, you see that Iranian women are living under extraordinary difficult conditions. Various forms of sexual apartheid and restrictions, such as segregation in public spaces, the inability to travel freely, and even the right to choose one’s field of study – which has certainly improved compared to before – have made Iran one of the most backward countries in terms of upholding basic rights that a woman, as a human being, needs. This is why the situation is not easy, but the Iranian people are incredibly intelligent, curious, and hardworking, with a great history of striving, and have always wanted to learn from and teach others; for example, while the laws in Saudi Arabia and Iran may be the same regarding women, an Iranian woman is not the same as a Saudi Arabian woman. In the worst

Can Iranian women who are successful outside of the country be considered as suitable role models for Iranian women within the country, given the deep social differences and opportunities available in predominantly Western societies compared to the limitations and restrictions faced by women within the country?

100%, see for example our organization, which is the International Organization for Education and Cooperation of Women. For years, we have been producing educational materials for participatory management and leadership and publishing them in twenty languages, with Persian always at the forefront of the languages we work with. If Iranian women were able to participate in these workshops through the internet or in person, they would be incredibly creative and do a great job.

Another important point is that the issue is not about having a group of women take on management and leadership roles, but rather the type of management and leadership that matters. It is possible through creative teamwork, not individual achievements.

It seems that one of the problems of Iranian society, both before and after the 1957 revolution, is the balance of power between conservative and progressive forces. The first bill to support families was presented to the parliament in 1946 and was passed with amendments in 1953. However, even before that, lawyer Ms. Mehrangiz Manouchehrian, along with 19 other female senators, had proposed a bill to abolish polygamy. What happened to the fate of this proposed bill by Ms. Manouchehrian?

Mrs. Manouchehrian was an extraordinary intelligent, dedicated and top-notch lawyer. She did a great job in preparing this bill and sparked interest in others for this issue. But you see, the issue of rights is very complicated and the most conservative groups working in any government deal with legal issues and bills. It is generally a slow and conservative field that always wants the most, but you can’t always get the most. Mrs. Manouchehrian wanted to take a few women (of course all the enlightened women of Iran wanted this to happen), but you have to convince others as well and society is not always ready. It needs to be discussed, tested, until what one desires can gradually be achieved at a time when society is more prepared.

Well, a few years later, when Ms. Mehrangiz Dolatshahi brought a revised bill, it was accepted. A few years later, when I was working for the Women’s Organization, we worked on revising that law and were able to achieve many things, including limiting polygamy to two wives and only with the permission of the first wife, although this was not everything we wanted; we wanted polygamy to be completely abolished, but in those circumstances, this was the most we could achieve. If there had not been a revolution and everything had not gone this way, the next thing would have been that multiple women would have been completely eliminated; but keep in mind that except for Tunisia at that time, there was no restriction on polygamy in any Islamic country…

Apart from limiting polygamy to a second wife under the conditions I mentioned, the issue of child custody was also important. In the previous law, custody of the child was transferred to the paternal grandfather or the father’s family after the husband’s death. The issue of paying child support for the husband after divorce was initially such that the husband could pay for two months but then refuse to pay and the process would have to continue with court proceedings and the judge’s opinion, making it very difficult and almost impossible for women with less financial means. However, the next bill and its executive regulations were such that if the judge had made a decision once, they could enforce the same ruling in subsequent cases. Another issue was about women’s work. Women were required to get their husband’s permission. We tried very hard to eliminate this requirement, but it was not possible. The Ministry of Justice was not willing to back down on this issue. For example, it was said that a woman might decide to become

In your opinion, why do you think there was no immediate resistance against the cancellation of the Family Protection Law after the 1957 revolution? Do you believe the reason for women’s lack of resistance against the cancellation of the law was due to the societal belief that these reforms were imposed from above and women’s masses were not organized in independent organizations to support such a law?

These are myths that we ourselves have told, and now for various political reasons, we have taken away our sense of self-sufficiency and our sense of the importance of our vote and our own actions, and denied our own power. While all of these movements that have taken place at different stages for Iran have involved the involvement of the masses. Of course, by masses, I do not mean all the people in all the villages or all the corners of the country. Those who do not have access to communication facilities cannot play a determining role in these matters – at least not at the beginning. Usually, movements that lead to a political outcome are taken up by the middle class and a group of intellectuals. The same was true for the issue of education; it is true that Reza Shah played a significant role in putting his power behind this issue, but it was not possible without women wanting it and pursuing it. Or in the case of the stages of women’s suffrage, women made efforts

You may have attributed many of the achievements that women themselves had achieved during this period, and some of which were taboo in society, to the struggle against conservative forces towards the royal family. This may have caused a kind of rift between the women’s organization and the mass of women who were sometimes opposed to the royal family. How do you view this issue today?

The movements related to women were never comparable to what we see in the Third World, even today. One million people were working with the Women’s Organization every year. Every woman, from Mrs. Manouchehrian to female lawyers, journalists, and poets, all collaborated with the Women’s Organization. This means that almost no one in Iran refused to lend a helping hand and cooperate. However, there were groups that were active outside of Iran and were not willing to value or acknowledge anything that was happening in Iran. Regarding the Family Protection Bill, even years after the revolution, we had many discussions with friends who were involved in anti-government activities abroad, until they finally agreed to come and see for themselves the progress that had been made in this area compared to other countries.

Based on your experiences in the field of working on women’s issues in Iran and internationally, if you were to identify three weaknesses that we should work towards improving in Iranian society, what would those three weaknesses be?

The most important issue regarding women is legal and legislative restrictions, and unfortunately, despite decades of effort, women have not been able to work in this field, even during the presidency of Mr. Khatami, when it seemed that reforms were underway. After two terms of hard work, he was unable to even change the legal age for marriage to an acceptable age. Unfortunately, the major issues are legal and legislative, and this is also related to the religious foundation chosen for governing the country. It is not a simple matter and I cannot imagine that without changing the constitution and without a general review of the constitutional foundation, the situation of women can be significantly improved. In almost every field where equality or participation is mentioned, there is a legal barrier that has not yet been overcome. If there have been any changes, they have been small. The issue of buying back all government employees was also on the agenda, and the issue of academic majors that were closed to women has also made some progress, but

The second and third issue is that we return to a culture of social participation and a healthy culture of giving and taking in politics; far from slogans, myths, and creating heroes or villains. This means creating a sense of responsibility in society among individuals so that they see themselves as responsible citizens and make fair judgments. This issue must become a social culture, because each individual in society must accept this culture in order for us to implement it in society. I believe we have the intelligence and talent to handle this, and the main issue is that amending the constitution is necessary.

Do you, as a successful Iranian woman, feel responsible for empowering women within the country, either individually or organizationally? If so, please provide a brief description of its goals, actions, and impacts.

Well, the organizational work that I am currently involved in is related to this. We have both online courses and textbooks in Persian. These educational classes and books have been prepared in various fields, including management, political leadership, horizontal leadership, combating violence against women, how to use technology to equip and educate people in Persian. These have been tested and implemented and are accessible to individuals. Of course, in some specific courses, it is more possible to do this inside Iran, and in some courses, it is much less possible. One of the important things is that fortunately, there is a lot of exchange between Iran and outside of Iran, and what is learned outside is transferred inside as well. Groups working outside are always prepared to use these inside, and hopefully, if the space becomes more open, it will be very helpful to be able to work more widely inside.