Latest from Progressive Muslims United

Check out our bookstore...

Wednesday, March 4, 2009

Gulf TV in Hebrew to Educate Israelis on Islam

From the MidEast News Source

Gulf TV in Hebrew to Educate Israelis on Islam

Written by The Media Line Staff

Published Monday, March 02, 2009

Leaders of the Support Prophet Mohammed Organization, based in the Gulf state Bahrain, on Sunday stressed the need to establish a TV channel in Hebrew to teach Israelis about Islam's values, the Dubai-based newspaper Gulf News reported.
 
The organization hopes that with the help of TV, which they consider to be the most effective medium, and by using people familiar with Israeli society, they can present explanations about Islam to Jews and help them better appreciate the religion, the paper reported.   
 
The decision was made after a cast member on the Israeli version of the reality show Survivor, said he had named one of his shoes Muhammad, and the other was named after an Israeli Arab cast member who the Israeli cast member did not get along with.   
 
The organization was established in Bahrain after cartoons of the prophet Muhammad were first published in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten in 2005, which sparked riots among Muslims.
 
The controversy regarding the publication caused a fierce debate regarding the limitations of freedom of speech, and led to the cartoons being re-published as acts of support for the Danish paper by newspapers in Norway, Germany and the Netherlands.
 
 Some 100 people lost their lives as police in various countries tried to control the ensuing demonstrations. In addition, Danish embassies in Syria, Lebanon and Iran were set on fire and death threats were issued against the cartoonist and the editor-in-chief of the paper.

Italy and Indonesia Hold Joint Inter-faith Conference

Rome, 4 March (AKI/The Jakarta Post) - The Indonesian and Italian governments and an Italian Catholic lay organisation were to hold a cultural conference on Islam and coexistence in Rome on Wednesday.

Musurifun Lajawa, a counsellor at the Indonesian Embassy in Rome, told Indonesian state news agency Antara that the conference, themed "Unity in Diversity: The culture of coexistence in Indonesia", was aimed at introducing Indonesia as model for a moderate Muslim country where people of religious beliefs and culture can live side by side.

Lajawa said that the conference, hosted by the Communita di Sant' Egidio, was expected to help create dialogue between representatives of Indonesian Muslim organisations and Italian experts.

Italian foreign minister Franco Frattini and his Indonesian counterpart Nur Hassan Wirajuda were scheduled to give speeches at the conference's opening session.

There were to be two main sessions in the conference, one themed "Christianity and Islam for a culture of coexistence" and "Civil Society, Islam, Coexistence."

Among the main Indonesian speakers at the event were Hasyim Muzadi, chairman of the country's largest Islamic organisation Nahdlatul Ulama, and Bachtiar Effendi and Azyumardi Azra of the State Islamic University.

Indonesia is an archipelago with more than 17,000 islands and 240 million people from 45 ethnic groups who practise all of the world's major religions.

However, more than 85 percent of the country's inhabitants are Muslim.

Caucasus Muslims Leader to Urge Islamic Nations to Develop Inter-religious Dialogue

Article from Trend News - March 4, 2009

Study Paints Rare Portrait of Muslim-Americans


Study paints rare portrait of Muslim-Americans

By MIKE MOKRZYCKI

The Associated Press
Monday, March 2, 2009; 11:33 AM

-- Muslims in America have a much more positive outlook on life than their counterparts in most predominantly Muslim countries and some other Western societies, according to a poll released Monday.

The Gallup Organization study found Muslim-Americans to be racially and ideologically diverse, extremely religious, and younger and more highly educated than the typical American.

Gallup asked respondents to evaluate their life situation by placing themselves on a ladder where the bottom step, zero, equals the worst possible life and 10 the best possible life. Gallup defined as "thriving" those who said they're currently on at least step seven of that ladder and expect to be on step eight or higher about five years from now.

Muslim-Americans (41 percent) were slightly less likely than Americans overall (46 percent) to be thriving. Yet the proportion of Muslims thriving in the United States was among the highest of Western societies surveyed, Gallup found. For example, only 8 percent of Muslims in the United Kingdom and 23 percent in France were thriving.

One exception: 49 percent of Muslims were deemed thriving in Germany, which welcomed many immigrants from Turkey during labor shortages in the 1960s and 1970s.

In predominantly Muslim countries, only in Saudi Arabia were more Muslims _ 51 percent _ thriving than in America.

Gallup found only 11 percent of Muslims thriving in Indonesia and Pakistan, 13 percent in Egypt, in the high teens to 20 percent in Bangladesh, Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan, and 24 percent in Morocco. Gallup found the proportion "suffering" _ answering 0 to 4 on both ladder questions _ ranging from 20 to 26 percent in Turkey, Egypt and Lebanon and as high as 33 percent in Jordan and 45 percent in Pakistan.

In short, Muslim Americans look more like other Americans in their life outlook than they resemble Muslims in most predominantly Muslim nations.

The Gallup study painted an uncommon portrait of Muslims in a U.S. and global context by combining interviews with 946 Muslims from polling of more than 300,000 Americans throughout 2008 and comparing them to Gallup surveys in more than 140 other countries. With Muslim-Americans probably making up only around 1 percent of the nation's population, few sound surveys have targeted the group, despite interest after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

In an essay for the Gallup report, Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn. _ the first Muslim elected to Congress _ urged Muslim Americans to "step out of the shadows of your own world, and step forthrightly into a participatory America."

"For too long _ and particularly after 9/11 _ Muslims have withdrawn into their own mosque-defined communities, denying themselves their rightful place in the fabric of America," Ellison wrote. "'Being Muslim' shouldn't need to be explained, but rather be observed by how each of us lives our lives, and the values we espouse. However defined we are by our religion, we are equally defined by our nationalism; we are Americans."

Results were subject to sampling error of plus or minus 4 percentage points for Muslim-Americans, 0.2 points for all Americans and varying ranges in other countries.

___

On the Net:http://gallupmuslimstudies.com
 

Tuesday, March 3, 2009

CAIR: Minnesota Muslims Oppose Bill Banning Hijab on Driver's Photos

March 3, 2009

CAIR: Minn. Muslims Oppose Bill Banning Hijab on Driver's Photos

Activists to meet with legislators at state capitol on March 10

ST. PAUL, Minn., March 3 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ --The Minnesota chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-MN) said today that a proposed bill banning head coverings in driver's license photographs would infringe on the First Amendment rights of Muslims who wear a religiously-mandated head scarf, or hijab, and of Minnesotans of other faiths who wear religious attire.

Citing "public safety" concerns for the ban, the bill accommodates those who wear a head covering for medical reasons but fails to provide an accommodation for those who wear it for the constitutionally-protected right to practice their religion.

[In 1999, the U.S. Supreme Court let stand the ruling of an earlier court that two New Jersey Muslim police officers had the right to wear beards for religious reasons. The ruling held that, since there was a medical exemption for officers who had a skin condition, a religious exemption must be granted as well.]

SEE: Bill to Ban Driver's License Headgear Proposed (Star Tribune)

http://www.startribune.com/40527747.html

SEE ALSO: Bill Would Ban Hijab On Driver's License Photos

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22S7NvpeM0s

CAIR-MN challenged the safety assertion by the bill's sponsor, saying instead that current Transportation Safety Administration (TSA) and State Department passport rules allow religious head coverings to be worn in photographs and while passing through airline security.

A similar bill has been introduced in Oklahoma following a successful campaign by CAIR's chapter in that state to allow Islamic head scarves in driver's license photographs.

SEE ALSO: Muslim Woman Takes Driver's Photo with Head Scarf (Video)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQHU6JXdCl8

SEE ALSO: Religious Freedom Under Attack in Oklahoma

http://tinyurl.com/chv4ek

"This proposed legislation has a clear disparate impact on people of faith and cannot pass a First Amendment test," said CAIR-MN Civil Rights Director Taneeza Islam. "Muslims will not be the only people in Minnesota affected by this legislation. Individuals from the Sikh, Jewish, Catholic, and other religious communities who wear head coverings will also have their religious rights negatively impacted."

She questioned whether the proposed bill would permit law enforcement officers in the field to force the removal of religious head coverings.

Ms. Islam said Muslims from across Minnesota will gather on March 10 for the annual "Muslim Day on the Hill" to discuss the bill and other issues of concern to the Muslim community with legislators. The event will include a rally at 10 a.m. in the Rotunda of the State Capitol, followed by individual meetings with elected officials. The event is co-sponsored by CAIR-MN, the Muslim American Society of Minnesota (MAS-MN) and the Islamic Center of Minnesota (ICM).

CAIR-MN will contact Rep. Steve Gottwalt, who introduced the legislation, to request a meeting to discuss the bill and the negative impact it will have on the constitutional rights of all Minnesota faith communities.

According to a 2004 CAIR review, most states, with the exception of Georgia, Kentucky and New Hampshire, have addressed religious accommodation concerns. Five states -- Arkansas, Mississippi, Kansas, Missouri, and Maine--- recognize some religious practices, while the other 42 states have adopted more inclusive approaches to religious accommodation policies.

SEE: Religious Accommodation in Driver's License Photographs

http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/documents/LWVJ.pdf

CAIR, America's largest Islamic civil liberties and advocacy group has 35 offices and chapters nationwide and in Canada. Its mission is to enhance the understanding of Islam, encourage dialogue, protect civil liberties, empower American Muslims, and build coalitions that promote justice and mutual understanding.

CONTACT: CAIR-MN Communications Director Jessica Zikri, 612-226-3289, E-Mail: jzikri@cair.com; CAIR-MN Civil Rights Director Taneeza Islam, Esq., 651-587-4712, E-Mail: tislam@cair.com; CAIR-OK Executive Director Razi Hashmi, 405-248-5853, E-Mail: rhashmi@cair.com; CAIR National Communications Director Ibrahim Hooper, 202 488-8787 or 202-744-7726, E-Mail: ihooper@cair.com

Monday, March 2, 2009

Muslim (Journalist) Send Home; A Legal Visa Holder Meets Unreason at Dulles

From the Washington Post - March 2, 2009

Muslim Sent Home
A Legal Visa Holder Meets Unreason at Dulles

By John Marks
Monday, March 2, 2009; A17

On Jan. 26, my office received a call from an immigration agent at Dulles International Airport, who said that my colleague Rashad Bukhari had been refused entry to the United States. He was not charged with anything, the agent said, and would be eligible for a future visa.

In fact, when Rashad arrived at Dulles, his Pakistani passport contained a valid, multi-entry visa, issued less than two years before by the U.S. State Department in Islamabad. He used this visa in 2007 to enter the United States without difficulty. Rashad is 36, and he worked for two American organizations, including the U.S. Institute of Peace, before he joined us at Search for Common Ground in 2007. He is Urdu-language editor of our Common Ground News Service, whose goal is to build bridges between the Muslim world and the West.

Immigration officials at Dulles could have easily verified all of this if Rashad had been allowed to make a phone call or if they themselves had chosen to check. Rather, they detained him for 15 hours, temporarily took away his cellphone and laptop, and eventually put him on a plane back to Pakistan. They prepared a transcript of the encounter in which an official justifies the United States not honoring Rashad's visa by saying, "You appear to be an intending [sic] immigrant."

Rashad answered that he has a wife and three children in Pakistan, that his job is based there, that he had a return ticket and that he had no intention of remaining in the United States.

Rashad later told us that the agent said -- in words that do not appear in the transcript -- that if he "voluntarily" withdrew and did not try appealing to more senior immigration officials, he would have a chance to return to the United States after getting a new visa; otherwise, he would face a five-year ban. In either case, Rashad was told, he would have to leave.

Faced with this Hobson's choice, Rashad "voluntarily" left the country.

Rashad noted afterward, "The immigration officer was actually very polite and remained nice to me. We chatted a little about my work and about international politics. He said, as an individual, he regretted the decision, saying he saw me as a good man. He repeatedly suggested that I should come back again with a new visa. He told me that he had studied history and politics and said that the work I am doing is more important than any military action."

Since Sept. 11, 2001, I have heard of many incidents similar to this one. My first reaction when I was told about Rashad's treatment was: In dealing with immigration and visa issues, nothing can be done.

And no, I do not believe that what happened to Rashad, who is Muslim, would have occurred to, say, a white Englishman of the same age.

I travel frequently to Muslim countries, and I know there is a widely held perception that the United States is not a welcoming place for Muslims. This has done serious damage to our national reputation at a time when improving the U.S. image in Pakistan and other Muslim countries and rallying support against extremism are major American foreign policy objectives.

I also know that, only days before this incident, Barack Obama declared in his inaugural address, "To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect."

I hope that means the Obama administration will carry out a full review of policies and procedures regarding how immigration officers deal with Muslims from other countries. There need not be a contradiction between securing our borders and providing equitable treatment to all those who wish to enter the United States legally.

And, on the human level, it would be wonderful if the federal government apologized to Rashad and to others who have been badly treated at our airports and borders.

Rashad later told me, "My friends in Pakistan, as well as in [the] U.S., are equally disturbed and upset. I prefer to go where I am welcome. Please understand how many layers of impact such incidents create. At a personal level, it puts a stain on my record and a question mark over my future international travel; at a more general level, it reinforces the negative reality that we at Search for Common Ground are trying to shift. I understand that security agencies need to protect their country from harm. And I support them. But unnecessary screening and overreacting because of distant fears and suspicions do not get us anywhere."

Rashad concluded his message with the hope that what happened to him will be a "catalyst for positive change." Would that this will be the case.

The writer is president and founder of Search for Common Ground, a Washington-based nonprofit organization that works to find peaceful solutions to conflict around the world.

Turkish Women Battle for Rights

From the Common Ground News Service

Turkish women battle for rights
by Evre Kaynak
24 February 2009

Istanbul - In the past two decades, a movement of some 30 Turkish non-governmental women's rights organisations has spearheaded legal, political and social change to promote equality and eliminate violence against women. Change, however, is not coming easily as these NGOs try to battle ingrained traditional views toward women amidst much turmoil.

Today in Turkey, people's lives are severely disrupted by the continued militarisation in the Middle East and rising conservatism globally. As a result of the armed conflict between the Turkish military and Kurdish rebels in east and southeast Turkey, and recent bombings in Istanbul and Izmir, issues such as women's demands for equality, the elimination of gender-based violence and the rule of law have fallen behind in the public agenda.

With rising security measures in the country, including security forces on the streets and identification checks by police, particularly in Kurdish cities such as Diyarbakir and Van, many people venture out only for basic needs, and many families do not allow women to leave the house at all, due to fear for their safety.

In this tense atmosphere, women's NGOs are concerned about increased violence, its psychological effects on women and limitations to their right to move around freely. With societal pressure focused predominantly on women's immediate physical safety, these groups hope to eventually guide communities away from "protecting women", and toward "protecting women's rights".

At the end of August 2008, 60 women from several organisations that work on women's issues came together in the small eastern city of Elazig for a three-day workshop to discuss women's rights issues at the national and regional levels. Participating groups included the Saray Women's Association, Van Women's Association, Yaka-Koop and Bitlis Guldunya Women's Center, as well as the Filmmor Women's Cooperative and Women for Women's Human Rights.

Participants discussed ongoing issues affecting women, including the right to be free from violence, sexual and reproductive rights, freedom of association – and especially the effect that recent violence has had on Turkish women.

All agreed that the rise of militarism in the country has been perpetuating the patriarchal hegemony in Turkish society and that NGOs have to work to reverse outdated attitudes resulting from armed conflict and uncertainty, attitudes that have restricted women's equal participation in social, economic and political life.

These attitudes have only made it more difficult for such NGOs to accomplish their goals, as restrictions on movement are preventing women from organising around their own needs and networking. Some in Turkey have attempted to justify these attitudes by arguing that independent women's organisations exist only to undermine "family values" and "public morality", break apart families, and help women get divorces.

The current atmosphere requires this already strong network of women's NGOs throughout the country to continue to work to achieve gender equality, even in this increasingly militant and conservative atmosphere.

After all, Turkish women have stepped up to similar challenges.

The women's movement in Turkey has been successful in bringing about a number of revolutionary legal changes, such as the reform of the Civil Code in 2001, which now recognises the equality of women and men in all matters related to marriage, divorce, custody, inheritance and property. The Penal Code was also reformed in 2004, and now guarantees women's autonomy and acknowledges women's ownership over their own bodies and sexuality.

Last year, the women's movement in Turkey again flexed its political muscle by demonstrating against a constitutional amendment by the governing Justice and Development Party (AKP) that would remove the clause "men and women are equal" from the current constitution, which eventually led to the demise of this amendment.

Women and women's NGOs in Turkey must not lose sight of their goals, especially during the current militaristic atmosphere, and must continue to work alongside one another to achieve full equality between the sexes. The movement should build on the momentum and political clout it has generated over past years by continuing to push for non-violent and fair solutions to achieve their goals.

###

* Evre Kaynak is an activist working for Women for Women's Human Rights (WWHR)-New Ways (www.wwhr.org) in Istanbul, Turkey. This article was written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews) and can be accessed at www.commongroundnews.org.

Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 24 February 2009, www.commongroundnews.org

Sunday, March 1, 2009

Iran Angered Over Films 'The Wrestler' and '300'

Iran angered over films 'The Wrestler' and '300'


Associated Press Writer - March 1, 2009

An adviser to Iran's president on Sunday demanded an apology from a team of visiting Hollywood actors and movie industry officials, including Annette Bening, saying films such as "300" and "The Wrestler" were "insulting" to Iranians.

Without an apology, members of Iran's film industry should refuse to meet with representatives from the nine-member team, said Javad Shamaqdari, the art and cinema adviser to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

"In my viewpoint, it is a failure to have an official meeting with one who is insulting," Shamaqdari told The Associated Press.

The film "300," portrays the battle of Thermopylae in 480 B.C., in which a force of 300 Spartans held off a massive Persian army at a mountain pass in Greece for three days. It angered many Iranians for the way Persians are depicted as decadent, sexually flamboyant and evil in contrast to the noble Greeks.

Iranians also criticized "The Wrestler" starring Mickey Rourke as a rundown professional wrestler who is preparing for a rematch with his old nemesis, "The Ayatollah." During a fight scene, "The Ayatollah" tries to choke Rourke with an Iranian flag before Rourke pulls the flagpole away, breaks it and throws it into the cheering crowd.

Neither movie was shown in Iran.

While American actors such as Sean Penn have traveled to Iran, it is rare for such a large group to visit. In February, Iran denied visas to a U.S. women's badminton team that had been invited to compete in a tournament in Iran.

The group includes the President of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, Sid Ganis; actors Bening, and Alfre Woodard; producer William Horberg; AMPAS Special Events Programmer and Exhibitions Curator Ellen Harrington; and Tom Pollock, the former Universal Pictures chairman.

According to the Web site of Iran's Cinema Association, the group arrived Friday in Iran. They met a group of Iranian artists on Saturday, and will be holding educational seminars in directing, screenwriting, acting, producing, marketing and film distribution.

Shamaqdari says Iranians will warmly host the visiting Americans "but it will not stop Iranians from demanding an apology."

The visits come as President Barack Obama has indicated a new willingness to open up relations with Iran.

Relations between the two countries have been strained over concerns in the West that Iran is trying to develop a nuclear weapons program, something Tehran denies. The U.S. has also alleged that overwhelmingly Shiite Iran supports Shiite militias in Iraq, which Iran says is not true.

The two countries have not had diplomatic relations since the 1979 Islamic Revolution and the hostage-taking at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran.

Aasiya Zubair Hassan, Domestic Violence and Islam

Pamela K. Taylor

Pamela K. Taylor

co-founder, Muslims for Progressive Values

Aasiya Zubair Hassan, Domestic Violence and Islam

The brutal and gruesome murder of Aasiya Zubair Hassan has prompted a great deal of soul searching in the Muslim community. National organizations, the local community, imams, Muslim social workers, activists and writers have all agonized over how the community did not do enough to protect Aasiya, despite evidence that her husband, the man charged with killing her, was known to be violent. They have called for imams to preach against domestic violence as against the standards of Islam, and for communities to stand in solidarity with Muslim women who complain of abuse, rather than counseling patience or questioning if there is anything they might have done to cause the abuse, or that they could change in order to avert future abuse.

To be sure, domestic violence is indeed against the teachings of Islam, and murder of family members is especially repugnant. The Qur'an teaches that men should remain with their wives in kindness, or separate from their wives with kindness, and specifically that they should not stay with their wives in order to do harm to them (2:229, 2:231). It offers a vision of spousal equality when it prescribes a decision making process within the family of mutual consultation (2:233), and labels both husband and wife with the term "zauj" (4:1 and others) and describes them as protecting garments for one another (2:187).

Physical and/or emotional abuse has no place in this vision of marriage. Indeed, when women came to the Prophet complaining of their husband's treatment, the Prophet admonished the men saying that those who treated their families poorly were not among the best of men. Mu'awiyah al-Qushayri, one of the companions of the Prophet, reports "I went to the Apostle of Allah and asked him, 'What do you say about our wives?' He replied, 'Feed them with the food you eat, clothe them as you clothe yourself, and do not beat them, and do not revile them." (Sunan Abu-Dawud, Book 11, the Book of Marriage, Number 2139)

Clearly, this understanding of Islam leaves no room for men domineering themselves over women, or for physical or emotional abuse within the family,

And yet, if all the soul searching the Muslim community has done these past few weeks is to have any effect, we must acknowledge that there are problematical verses in the Qur'an and there are certain hadith which must be countered. Unfortunately, the calls for the Muslim community to openly stand up against domestic violence, have been silent with regards to the parts of our scriptural heritage that have been and continue to be used to justify all sorts of barbarous treatment of women.

It is fact, nonetheless, that the Qur'an and hadith have been used to foster a culture of patriarchy so absolute that many Muslim men perceive it as their right to expect abject obedience from their wives. Some imams and scholars go so far as to say that it is a husband's duty to hit his wife if she errs, discussing at length the limits to such hitting: It must be done in such as way as to leave no mark, they say. It cannot be on the face or other sensitive areas, It should be done lightly, using a small stick, with little force. Others discuss the provocations that could merit such physical punishment -- ranging from those who say it is only in the case of adultery or flagrant breaking of marital vows, to those who say it can be for any sort of spiritual lapse, to those who allow it in any kind of open disobedience to the husband's wishes.

It should be acknowledged that none of these imams or scholars are advocating domestic violence as we think of it -- a man hitting his wife in rage, hurling abuse verbally and physically at her. Rather they are predicating a calm scenario, one in which the man first admonishes his wife about her lapses, then spends a few nights away from her bed, then finally resorts to a calm, reasoned, and limited physical punishment. Unfortunately, the effect of such pronouncements is that many men feel justified in their physical abuse, pointing to the fact that imams say it is ok to hit one's wife, while ignoring all the other limitations placed upon that hitting. Worse, they feel entitled and empowered by the patriarchal norms these imams and scholars preach, seeing themselves as the kings of their home, rather than as domestic partners as the Qur'an teaches and the Prophet modeled for them.

The fulcrum of this patriarchal interpretation is verse 4:34. Translations vary wildly, ranging from those defining men the the defenders of women to those who render it as men being in charge of women. (The Arabic word, qawamun, comes from a root which means to stand up, thus men are called to stand up for women.) The verse goes on to say that devout women protect that which Allah would have them protect in their husbands absences. Again, the interpretations vary wildly -- from those who read it quite literally, describing pious women as devoted to Allah, to those who take it mean women should be devoutly obedient to their husbands. It continues, saying that if men fear "nushuz" (understood variously as openly rebellion, adultery, spiritual negligence, or wifely disobedience), they should admonish their wives and then separate from them in sleeping arangements. And then the third phase -- the word used is "daraba."

Daraba is used for many, many things in the Qur'an, from sexual intercourse to parting company, from metaphorically striking a parable to physically striking a person or thing. The vast majority of commentators, have understood the meaning of 4:34 to mean hitting. Modern interpreters such as Ahmed Ali and Laleh Bakhtiar , have made a case that this interpretation is wrong.

Bakhtiar's argument is particularly strong. She described her approach to this verse in a lecture I attended two years ago. She told the audience that she went to many, many scholars and asked them, "Did the Prophet ever hit his wives?" To which all them replied, "No, he never hit his wives." This is directly supported by a hadith narrated by his wife Aishah, who reported "The Messenger of Allah never struck a servant of his with his hand, nor did he ever hit a woman. He never hit anything with his hand, except for when he was fighting a battle in the cause of Allah." Bakhtiar then asked the scholars, "And the Prophet always obeyed Allah, correct?" To which the answer was an emphatic "Yes, the Prophet was the embodiment of the Qur'an."

"Then, how," she asked, "do you explain that when he had problems with his wives, he admonished them, he refrained from sleeping with them for a month, but he never went to the third step and hit them? Was he being disobedient to Allah, or have we misunderstood verse 4:34?" To which, she says, the scholars had no answer.

Her answer is that we have misunderstood 4:34, and that we have to look at what the Prophet actually did after that month's separation -- which was to offer his wives the choice of divorcing him or remaining with him while resolving to avoid the behaviors he found so objectionable. While, she translates "daraba" as "to go away from them," (which is the most common usage of the term in the Qur'an), it seems that it might be better rendered as "to strike a bargain with them."

In either case, Muslim feminists often point to the fact that classical commentary also ignores a verse in the same chapter (4:128), which tells women if they fear "nushuz" from their husbands that they are free to reconcile -- presumably by admonishing and sending him to sleep on the couch for a week as described a few verses earlier when advising men what to do when they feared "nushuz" from their spouses -- or to seek divorce, which is either the third step in the process if you believe "daraba" means to go away from, or a final, fourth step after physically punishing him, if you believe daraba does indeed mean to hit.

Sadly, modern translators of the Qur'an infect the Qur'an with their own patriarchal assumptions, translating "nushuz" when it refers to women as "ill-will, "disloyalty and ill-conduct" or "rebellion" while translating it as "ill-treatment" or "cruelty or desertion" when it refers to men's behavior.

Again, we see the Qur'an setting up a parity between the spouses, each of whom has the right to a process of dealing with "Nushuz" on the part of their spouse, however one understands the meaning of "nushuz", and however one understands that process. But this parity has been completely ignored in classical commentary, and in modern Muslim culture.

Indeed, the overwhelmingly accepted interpretation of verse 4:34 posits men as being in charge of women to the extent that they become father figures, with the unilateral right to correct their wives as though those wives were children.

For any anti-domestic violence agenda within the Muslim community to be effective, we must come to term with this verse. We must be very clear that it can in no way be used to justify domestic abuse, and that it does not mandate the abject subjugation of women within the marital relationship. We must be firm that even under the most patriarchal interpretations, it does not give men the right to terrorize women, to harm them physically or emotionally, and to seek to dominate and control their lives.

Even more, it is time for the Muslim community globally to reassess the widespread belief that Islam mandates patriarchy. As a feminist and a Muslim, I believe that the Qur'an and hadith give us ample material to establish egalitarian families and societies. To do so, we will have to prefer hadith which establish the equality of all humankind and which show the Prophet living as a partner to his wives not a lord or boss over other other hadith which which subjugate women to men, much as advocates of patriarchy prefer the hadith which support patriarchy over those which support egalitarianism.

We will have to prefer interpretations of 4:34 that currently only a minority support, rejecting the notion of physical punishment for anyone, just as the Prophet rejected physical punishment. We must understand men as "qawamun" of women in light of verses that say, "The believers, men and women, are protectors of one another" (9:71). We must take 4:34 and 4:128 taken together, as echoing that sentiment, setting out how husbands and wives each can cope with a problematic spouse. We can no longer afford to look at 4:34 in isolation, as establishing the hegemony of men over women.

Similarly, we must look at verse 2:228 in it's entirety, rather than isolating the final line as though it gives men more rights than women. 2:228 begins: "Women who are divorced shall wait, keeping themselves apart three monthly courses. And it is not lawful for them that they should conceal that which Allah hath created in their wombs if they are believers in Allah and the Last Day. And their husbands would do better to take them back if they (the women) desire a reconciliation." (Note: The form of "they desire" makes it clear that the party desiring the reconciliation is the women, not the men.)

It then proceeds with some very dense language. Literally it says, "For them the like of that which is over them, and men have a degree over them." Again, the form of "them" is the feminine plural, making it clear that for women are the same things that are against women. This has been translated in various manners, but the most popular is "And women shall have rights similar to the rights against them, according to what is equitable; but men have a degree of advantage over them."

This verse, then, commands women who are divorcing or being divorced that they should ascertain whether they are pregnant, and admonishes men to defer to women if the women wish reconciliation in light of the fact that they are pregnant, telling the men in no uncertain terms that women have as many rights as the men do, though men do have a degree (of flexibility, of advantage, of ease) over women in that they do not have to wait three months to remarry, and they are in an easier situation, as they do not face the physical, emotional and economic challenges of being pregnant and divorced.

Many have used this verse to shore up patriarchal notions, reading it to mean that men's rights are above women's rights universally and unequivocally. It is easy to read the verse that way, especially if the last line is taken out of context.

It is also easy to read in ways that are not patriarchal. Men's degree over women can readily be seen as 1) women having to wait three months before remarrying, a waiting period that men are not subject to since they do not get pregnant, and 2) women facing a more difficult situation regarding divorce because they also face physical, emotional and economic difficulties men do not face if they happen to be pregnant at the time the divorce is happening.

In fact, the verse is admonishing men to remember women's rights at a time when marital discord is likely to make men neglect those rights.

Like verse 4:34, verse 2:228 has been used to promote the notion of men's dominance over women. These patriarchal formulations contribute to a cultural atmosphere that enables domestic violence.

Domestic violence activists have long insisted that domestic violence is not about out-of-control anger, it is about controlling the life of one's spouse. They point to the fact that abusers such as Aasiya's husband, Muzzammil Hassan, do not lash out at, say, an employee who misses a deadline; they are able to control to whom and at what times they exercise violence. They usually hit women in places where bruises and cuts will not be visible, further evidence that it is not a matter of losing control, but of calculated intent to dominate, harm and manipulate a specific individual. Another example is that even in the middle of beating up their wife, if the phone rings, or police come to the door, the abuser is able to shut down his supposed rage, appearing and sounding calm and reasonable.

When religion is used to support notions that men are entitled to rule over women, we are only encouraging domestic violence.That is not to say that religion causes the violence; nor that Muslim abusers quote scripture as they lash out at their spouses; nor even feel justified by that scripture to commit the violence they do. It is quite clear that beating up one's wife, or hurling invectives at her, has no place in Islam; that even those who advocate a man's unilateral right to physically punish his wife do not enivision domestic violence, but a reasoned, calm, and limited response to severe provocation.

Rather, religion and cultural norms contribute to the abuser's feelings of manly entitlement. His expectations of being the boss of the home are validated and reinforced.

American Muslims are coming to grips with the fact that we have often turned a blind eye to violence in the home. Our leaders have come to understand when violence is ignored, or worse, when women are counseled to be patient, or asked what they have done to provoke such violence, they are complicit in the crime. That they have created a culture in which domestic violence carries no stigma, and thus abusers feel free to do as they like.

What we have not yet addressed, is how mainstream interpretations of Islam also contribute to an atmosphere where domestic violence can flourish.

The harsh reality is that even in cultures where domestic violence is soundly condemned, where abusers face stiff criminal sentences, domestic violence persists. Nearly 1200 American women lost their lives at the hands of a husband, boyfriend, or ex last year, according to the Center for Disease Control, and domestic violence is a problem in nearly 30% of all marriages.

Thus, we cannot expect to eradicate domestic violence among Muslims. But we can take strong and principled stands against patriarchal interpretations that enable abusers, and we can take concrete and significant action against abusers. I can only hope that the horrible death of Aasiya Hassan acts as a catalyst for much needed change.

"On Faith" panelist Pamela K. Taylor is co-founder of Muslims for Progressive Values and director of the Islamic Writers Alliance. She is a member of the national board of advisors to the Network of Spiritual Progressives, and served as co-chair of the Progressive Muslim Union for two years. Taylor is a strong supporter of the woman imam movement, which seeks the full participation of Muslim women in every aspect of life, including the pulpit. In July 2005, she became the first woman in centuries to officiate Friday prayers in a mosque when the United Muslim Association of Toronto and the Muslim Canadian Congress invited her to serve as guest imam. (This event followed a number of services, sermons and prayer sessions led by women held in private venues because no mosque agreed to host them.) In February 2006, when the former Grand Mufti of Marseilles visited Toronto, he requested that Taylor lead him in congregational prayer as an unequivocal demonstration of his support for female imams. Taylor has also been active in interfaith dialogue for 20 years, both in local initiatives and speaking at numerous conferences, universities, and churches. She received her MTS from Harvard Divinity School, and writes regularly on spiritual matters and the Islamic faith. She has essays in Nurturing Child and Adolescent Spirituality: Perspectives from the World's Religious Traditions (2006) and the forthcoming The Veil: Women Writers on Its History, Lore, and Politics (2007). She has written hundreds of articles and opinion pieces for newspapers, magazines, and journals, and is an award winning poet.

Friday, February 27, 2009

Lipstick Revolution: Iran's Women are Taking on the Mullahs

From the Independent - February 26, 2009

Iranian women, and not just the sporting queens or Nobel prize winners, are standing up to the mullahs

REUTERS

Iranian women, and not just the sporting queens or Nobel prize winners, are standing up to the mullahs

Lipstick revolution: Iran's women are taking on the mullahs

It started with a switch from hijabs to Hermès headscarves. Now, after 30 years of Sharia law, the fight for women's rights is gathering pace. Katherine Butler meets the Iranian rally drivers, bloggers and film-makers demanding change

Zohreh Vatankhah slides into the driving seat of her BMW X3, flicks a switch to some pulsating Persian pop and we're soon zipping along the narrow lanes near her home in northern Tehran, almost in the foothills of the snow-capped Alborz mountains. Most Iranians behave in traffic as if they are in charge of dodgems, not potentially lethal vehicles: the traffic is heart-stoppingly dangerous, but with this woman I can relax. A professional racing driver, she's used to competing, and winning, at speeds of up to 180mph.

She's glamorous, too, wearing high-heeled boots over her jeans (a controversial look in the eyes of the Iranian morality police) and a Rolex on her wrist. When she's not confounding stereotypes of Iranian women by beating men on the rally circuits, she's climbing mountains (she recently conquered Mount Damavand, the highest peak in the Middle East), or, here, in the axis of evil, sworn enemy of the United States, watching US (banned but tolerated) satellite TV channels; 24 is one of her favourite shows.

"I LOVE Barack Obama," she says, "and Michelle, she's so stylish and so smart."

At 31, Vatankhah was born a year before Iran's Islamic revolution. In February 1978, Tehran had nightclubs and dancing and girls-about-town who dressed as fashionably as their counterparts in Europe. A year later, the Shah had fled from his Peacock Throne; Iran was reborn as an Islamic Republic and women, many of whom supported the overthrow, were waking up to find their lives drastically changed. Not only obliged to cover up from head to toe, and banned from singing or performing in public to conform with Ayatollah Khomeini's narrow interpretation of Sharia law, they were also, as Shirin Ebadi, Nobel prize winner and Iran's first woman judge, found to her cost, sidelined from senior jobs. Women, "too emotional", were no longer employed as judges.

The woman in the driving seat next to me looks anything but downtrodden. Yet, the tension between modernity and tradition that weighs heavily on women's lives in Iran is never far away. At one point she leans over to say: "Please, your scarf," when the bothersome piece of cloth on my head slips down.

But then something happens that could be a metaphor for the revolution that may be quietly taking place in contemporary Iran. Our drive stalls when an irate male motorist, assuming she's trying to enter a one-way road, hogs the intersection and waves at her to go back. Vatankhah doesn't budge – she knows she's in the right. She holds her ground, presses on, but when he passes he shouts an obscenity. She rolls down her window calmly and tells him whatever the Farsi equivalent is of shut up and get a life.

Iranian women, and not just the sporting queens or Nobel prize winners, are standing up to the mullahs. And some of them are experiencing a frightening political backlash.

On our journey downtown, we pass within sight of a forbidding-looking building set back from the road, framed by the mountains, a reminder that we're in a country with an extraordinary recent history. This is Evin prison, Iran's biggest and most notorious jail, where unknown numbers of political prisoners are held.

This month, a woman called Alieh Egham Doost began serving a three-year jail sentence in Evin. Her crime was to attend a peaceful women's rights protest three years ago. Dozens of other women have been arrested and sentenced on similar charges, but Egham Doost is the first to be actually put behind bars. Her jailing has caused alarm abroad and raised suspicion that a crackdown on the nascent Iranian women's movement is under way, and that more women like Egham Doost could be thrown into the high-security cells.

Parvin Ardalan, a 39 year old Tehran journalist, could be one. She helped to set up a campaign with the aim of gathering one million signatures petitioning for a fairer deal for women under the law. Despite winning Sweden's Olof Palme human rights prize last year, she has been convicted by the revolutionary courts of "acting against national security". Now, she waits at home for the knock on the door. If her appeal fails, she will be serving six months in Evin prison.

"It was awful. We were five or six to a cell" she says of a brief spell on remand in Evin when she was first arrested. Thousands of "enemies" of the revolution were incarcerated and executed in the same prison in the early 1980s; Shirin Ebadi, a human rights lawyer as well as Nobel prize winner, was jailed here, and Zahra Kazemi, a Canadian photojournalist was so badly beaten up after being taken into custody at Evin that she died of her injuries. Ardalan's passport has been confiscated to stop her travelling. "There's no point in being scared," she says, in a matter-of-fact tone.

Iranians have "a fantastic talent for waiting" wrote Ryszard Kapuscinski in Shah of Shahs, his account of the 1979 revolution. "They can turn to stone and remain motionless for ever". And Iranian women have certainly shown extraordinary forbearance. It took 27 years after the Islamic regime was installed before they staged that first public demonstration in 2006. Police reacted by beating and arresting dozens of them. So Ardalan and a few others decided to change tactics. Now they fan out in ones and twos, to small towns and villages, going into shops, beauty salons, schools and offices, or stand at bus stops explaining "face to face" how the Iranian interpretation of Sharia law is stacked against half the population. They ask men and women to sign their petition. Those who refuse are asked to take a leaflet detailing the manifold forms of legal discrimination.

It explains, how, for example, a man can divorce on a whim, while a woman has to jump through hoops – and then custody of children over seven routinely goes to the husband; a woman can to be stoned to death for committing adultery, whereas a man can have up to four wives and any number of "temporary" wives; a 13-year-old girl can be condemned as a criminal but the age of legal responsibility for a boy is 15; a woman's life is deemed to be worth only half of that of a man or a boy. No woman can stand for the presidency. A woman must cover her head and body at all times in public, and if she refuses can be punished, sometimes in seventh-century fashion, by flogging.

Sitting next to Vatankhah in her $80,000 car, as she tells me about her new penthouse, the unfair laws certainly seem academic. She enjoys a fun-filled life and seems to have everything she wants within the limitations of Iran's global isolation. But the rich, like Vatankhah, have to find ways around the curbs on their freedom. She chose motorsports partly because so many other internationally competitive sports are off-limits to women. "I wouldn't like to try for swimming competitions in Iran. There's some sort of dress you have to wear". A Manchester United fan, she can only dream about ever seeing a real match. It is another of the petty strictures on women that in football-crazy Iran, women are banned from soccer stadiums.

When South Korea played Iran for a world cup qualifying match earlier this month, a small group of Iranian women football fans stood forlornly outside Tehran's Azadi stadium and handed Korean women (who were allowed in) a letter which read. "Dear Korean sisters, Could you please shout once, just once, for us in support of IRAN? Would you do it for us, sisters? While you are screaming, shouting, clapping for your team, we are prisoners in our homes, behind a damn television screen. We have to kill the scream in our throats; we just cry, even when we are happy, because our footballers cannot hear us encouraging them."

The headscarf – compulsory from the age of nine for any woman living in Iran or visiting the country – is the most obvious manifestation of how Iranian women are kept in check. The rules demand, too, that women wear clothes to conceal the natural shape of the body. These elements combine to produce hijab – a concept of modesty as much as actual garments. However, the compulsion to wear such coverings is not the biggest worry for Iran's feminists, explains Parvin Ardalan. That is because the hijab has become, in effect, the symbol of the revolution. Attacking it could lay the women open to charges of political activism aimed at toppling the regime.

In any case, most now appear resigned to covering up. "It's like a part of your body. It feels the same as your jeans feel on your legs," Afsaneh Ahmadi, Zohreh Vatankhah's friend and navigator told me.

To the Western visitor, a compulsory scarf around your head morning to night feels like anything but a part of your body. In Iran's overheated hotels and airports it becomes especially trying. It gets in the way when speaking on a mobile phone. Even some Iranian men find it oppressive. "It makes us feel like beasts," one confided, "as if we wouldn't be able to control our urges."

There is enough repression in the system to prevent open defiance of the hijab rule, but it should perhaps be more worrying for the authorities that many women wear their scarves and modest attire with so little conviction. Two middle-aged figures in black chadors (long cloaks that include head covering), the most severe form of hijab, stood as if on guard at Mehrabad airport as we returned on a domestic flight one day during my stay. "Welcome to Tehran" they announced in Farsi. The real purpose of these sentries, I was later told, was to prevent "bad hijab" among incoming female passengers.

But out in the streets, affluent north Tehrani princesses stay just within the law, while affirming nothing about their commitment to the values of the Islamic revolution. The resulting look can be sexy, if more Fifties-housewife than Angelina Jolie. The scarf, often Hermès and in bright colours, is knotted under the chin, and tilted back at a flattering angle to show a broad band of hair. Blonde highlights, beehives and carefully coiffed fringes seem hot this season. Huge sunglasses pushed up on the head, and a short, tight-fitting belted coat over narrow jeans complete the look. "It signals that we obey the law, but nothing more than that," remarks Ardalan.

Since eyes, nose and hands are the only features on show, eye make-up is applied with scientific precision – and Tehran has become the nose-job capital of the world, with 70,000 rhinoplasty operations a year. I lost count of the numbers of women I saw with post-operative plasters stuck on their noses like starfish. Women are also having tattoos done in increasing numbers, "on the stomach and other places", as one young Tehrani told me.

Appearance, then, is every bit as important as in the West, which is not exactly what the Islamic revolutionaries had in mind back in 1979. In the early years, red lipstick was "an insult to the blood of the martyrs". For men, too, the cadres of the revolution were discouraged from wearing ties (too Western, too reminiscent of the Shah). Many took to wearing plastic sandals to demonstrate their revolutionary credentials. For women, it seems, the clerics wanted the public space free of any trace of overt femininity.

Satellite dishes have put the nail in that coffin. Upper-class Persians were always stylish, but watching shows like Sex and the City or the music videos of Lebanese superstar Nancy Ajram has given women of all backgrounds an eye for fashion and fitness. Even this has its complications.

At the vast and impressively equipped Enghelab sports complex, formerly the Imperial Country Club, a playground for the Shah and his royal entourage, Marjun Massoudi trots in front of me at a brisk pace along a superb "health road" busy with joggers and walkers. She makes a left turn, and we find ourselves at the edge of a fairway on Iran's only golf club which, despite having only 12 holes, has 3,000 members, many of them women.

Disappointingly, there's nobody teeing off, as I had been curious to see how to swing a club in a chador. But Marjun assures me golf is ideally suited to the Islamic dress code.

Huge efforts go into maintaining sexual apartheid in sport, although I notice at the rifle range two girls in headscarves and slim-fitting "manteaus" are taking lessons from a man. Marjun issues me with a swimsuit in case I want to come use one of the women-only swimming pools. Cut low on the thigh area with bulky bra pads, it's not exactly Edwardian, but still pretty modest given that there would be zero chance of being seen by a member of the opposite sex. No wonder home fitness DVDs are so popular here.

There are women who profess to be entirely happy with the status quo. A dozen or so of them spoke at a women's round table organised by the Iranian foreign ministry. "In the name of God the merciful the most compassionate..." each of the speakers began her contribution, a reminder that Iran is, first and foremost, a theocracy. Every woman in the room, apart from a member of the Jewish community, had an ankle-length chador and a head covering that blocked out every wisp of hair. All were highly educated and held senior positions: there was a judge, an agricultural scientist, several university lecturers and academics.

Far from subjugating women, the Islamic revolution elevated them in the family, they claimed, and female life expectancy has gone to 75 years from 58 before 1979. Rather, it was in "liberal democracies" that women were oppressed. "I have seen myself in some countries women are cleaning the streets," one speaker said, "They choose these jobs so that they can say they have equality. We don't think like this."

The physical punishments we found barbaric were merely "theoretical". "You could count on the fingers of one hand the number of stonings carried out in Iran in the past 10 years," said Fa'eze Bodaghi, a lawyer and judge. And floggings? "Physical punishment might look harsh, but it is immediate," she said, adding that Iranian law is quite often "misunderstood". "I don't want to say there is no problem. Inheritance laws [a widow is entitled to only one eighth of her husband's wealth], for example, are under review. But generally I think these women collecting signatures are after Western human rights standards, and we don't think that can work in Iran."

Afterwards, I share a taxi with Farzaneh Abdolmaleki, a senior civil servant. "We don't believe in gender equality, you see," she tells me, shaking her head. "The family is what matters and we all have different roles in the family."

Even if these women wanted a different set-up, they would be fairly powerless to do much about it, despite their relatively privileged positions, since it is men who make and interpret the law. There are, of course, competing factions within Iranian politics, some more secular-minded than others, and reforms have at least allowed women back into the judiciary. But there are still only eight female MPs out of 290, and real power is wielded by the Guardian Council, an unelected body of clerics who can veto any proposed legal change they deem to be unconstitutional.

In the official narrative of Iran, the self-styled superpower, there is scant room for public dissent. In this Iran, there are no disgruntled women, only fulfilled mothers, daughters, wives. "These rumours are just hoaxes got up by foreign enemies," Zahra Mostafavi Khomeini, the daughter of Ayatollah Khomeini retorted when I asked her what she thought of Alieh Egham Doost and the jailing of the activists. Her father, the man who inspired the Islamic revolution, was a champion of fairness for women, she added. "He wanted women to play a full part in society, not just as typists or nurses. At home, he never asked his wife, even once, 'give me a cup of tea', or 'close the door'. He did it himself!".

Attitudes among some Iranian men are less enlightened. One writer and his wife were horrified when they learnt that a friend whose kebab restaurant had run into financial difficulties was pressurising his wife to sell one of her kidneys.

Why the dogmatists among Iran's clerics and politicians should be so eager to gag those women who are not even challenging the Islamic system of government, but merely articulating fairly modest demands for parity within the Sharia legal code, is in some ways puzzling. They must have seen it coming. In the 30 years since the revolution, women have flocked to schools and colleges, literacy rates have rocketed and birth-control programmes have freed them from big families.

The result is that degree and PhD courses are crammed with young women who in earlier generations would have been in rural villages weaving carpets, married off at the age of 13, unable to read or write (two thirds of Iranian women were illiterate in 1979) because their fathers would not countenance them sharing classes with men. By imposing a strict dress code, the revolution opened up higher education to women. Now nearly 70 per cent of university intake is female. Millions of high-achieving Iranian women are now postponing marriage or seeking divorces from husbands they outrank intellectually, while waking up to the cultural and legal obstacles they face.

Parvin Ardalan is adamant that the signatures campaign is entirely compatible with Islam, and has no political agenda. If anything, the women want to challenge patriarchal attitudes that have nothing to do with religion. "We're not out to seize power. I don't need power to achieve what we want. We want change, but without regime change. We have no interest in being a political opposition movement."

But reformists in Iran have been pushed into the background since 2005, and the hardliners know just how potent, and ultimately dangerous, a grassroots movement, such as the women's campaign, could prove. More so, since it hasn't spawned among the usual ranks, the clergy or the merchant classes, but rather in the universities, the legal profession and the blogosphere (women run many of the 70,000 Farsi language blogs that have sprouted in Iran).

If the feminists wanted to tap into a groundswell, the numbers are there: half of Iran's 34.6 million women are under 25. Many young people are more interested in flouting the strictures on dating by swapping mobile numbers with boys, or attending vodka-fuelled "gatherings" in private homes, than in fighting the women's corner. But others like Maryam and Tahminah, a devout-looking pair of students in chadors I bumped into at a museum, told me some of their friends didn't believe in God, want a lot more freedom and spend much of their time on Facebook. "Everyone has anti-filter," Tahminah laughed, when I asked about internet censorship.

After the women's conference, I take a taxi to the offices of Katayoon Shahabi, 43, who against all the odds has set up her own film production company and is a regular at the Cannes, Venice and Berlin film festivals. Over tea and dates she describes some of the battles she had to fight when she worked for the state: "I had no authority to sign letters and they fretted over whether I would have to shake a man's hand if I went on a delegation to the West." (Even touching the hand of a man you're not married to is forbidden.)

But Iran's complexities and contradictions are never-ending, as Shahabi reminds me. Its women are typically matriarchal characters, self-confident, pushy and seem uniquely ill-suited to being cowed into conformity. And its men, she pleads, are not particularly macho. That's when I recalled it was Zohreh Vatankhah, the daredevil racer, who had spoken excitedly about her forthcoming pilgrimage to Karbala, in Iraq, the holiest shrine for Shia Muslims, how she keeps a copy of the Koran in her glove compartment, and has been to Mecca twice. Go figure, as an American might say.

The film producer is pragmatic; perhaps she has to be if she is to stay within Iran's "red lines" and keep her annually renewable business licence. She praises Ardalan's campaign, but won't be signing the petition. Why not? "In Iran, direct confrontation doesn't work. I protest in my own way. All the films I work with are about the condition of women," she says, citing the furore caused by Red Card, Mahnaz Afzali's film about an Iranian sentenced to death for murdering the wife of her football coach lover.

Open criticism, meanwhile, is left to the daughters of the mullahs. Faezeh Rafsanjani, outspoken daughter of ex-president and cleric Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, has assailed the law that gives a woman's life only half the value of a man's, while a liberal granddaughter of Ayatollah Khomeini is open about her support for the petition.

That campaign may now be crushed if Ardalan and the other women are jailed. But Iran is also approaching a fork in the road. Economic stagnation and chronic unemployment means there is a growing impatience with the current hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Elections in June could see him replaced by the reformist Mohamed Khatami, and dialogue with the US is on the horizon.

If the thaw comes, it could intensify the internal pressure for the sexual revolution in Iran. Could that pressure in turn be the spark that ignites the one thing the mullahs dread: a velvet revolution? That fear is perhaps why they are cracking down so hard on the women. "They feel very threatened," says one analyst, "When it is just one woman, like Shirin Ebadi, they can contain it, but the idea of a mighty popular force rising up to challenge them, that is something they could not control."

But curiously, it is not only the mullahs who are fearful of insurrectionist talk. "The experience of revolution showed us that women were not necessarily the winners from violent change," says Ardalan, "We need to take one step at a time". Katayoon Shahabi agrees: "We saw the revolution and we saw war. We know that sudden change is not Iran's solution. But things are moving, like a river. And rivers, as you know, are unstoppable."

Valentine's Day Across the Muslim World (2012)