Middle East References
May 12, 2004
Syria is seeing an Islamic Revival
FT.com / World / Middle East & Africa
By Kim Ghattas
Published: May 11 2004 5:00 | Last Updated: May 11 2004 5:00
Staunchly secular Syria is seeing an Islamic revival, fuelled by anger at the occupation of Iraq, at violence in the Palestinian territories, and frustration at the slow pace of internal reform.
Syria has been ruled by the Ba'ath party - socialist, secular and nationalist - for more than 40 years. Now, however, more people going to the mosque, more women are wearing the veil and clerics are urging armed jihad in Palestine and Iraq.
"There is very obviously a more populist militant Islam growing in Syria," said analyst Samir el Taqi in a recent interview. "You can never know whether this energy is going to be turned against the regime or the Americans. For the moment, events in the region and the humiliation felt by people mean that the anger is turned at the Americans."
The regime crushed a Muslim Brotherhood rebellion in the early 1980s, killing more than 10,000 people, and Syria is still a country where Islam is mostly moderate and apolitical. Sheikh Salah Kaftaro, director of the Islamic Abu Nour foundation, recently said: "There is no room for political Islam on our agenda."
At the foundation, a centre for charity and religious education founded in 1975, the message taught to some 5,000 students, 20 per cent of whom are foreigners, is one of moderation. "We try through our teachings to inculcate in the minds of our students of the Sharia [Islamic law], the notion of moderation, tolerance and dialogue with non-Muslims and respect," said Sheikh Salah Kaftaro, the son of the Grand Mufti of the republic, Sheikh Ahmad Kaftaro.
"We believe this is one of the pillars of our religion. Islamic schools such as ours have a great role at a national and Muslim level, at atime when Islam is being accused of being a religion of extremism and terrorism."
"I've chosen this particular place because of its reputation as a balanced teaching school of the religion. This school is not about debating, it's not about having dialogues on current events," says Mansour, 22, an American from Atlanta, Georgia. "This school is about teaching the language and the fundamentals of religion and that's what I mean with balanced, it doesn't try to have a mental influence on our political views because we do hear about other schools which want their students to be more indoctrinated with their philosophies."
Certainly, some people seem to be coming away from Syria with a different message. In April last year, Asif Hanif, a British Muslim, blew himself up in a Tel Aviv bar. He had studied Islam and Arabic in Damascus.
After the bombings in Turkey last year against British and Jewish targets, Syria expelled 22 Turks suspected to be linked to the bombing. Some of them had fled to Syria after the attacks and three of them had been studying at the Abu Nour foundation.
In March, Syria announced it would no longer allow foreign students to register at the Islamic schools. But Sheikh Salah Kaftaro said the foundation and other Islamic institutes could not be held responsible for the actions of every person that once attended the school.
Slightly less moderate is Sheikh Mohsen al Qaaqaa, a very popular firebrand cleric in Aleppo. Until a few months ago he was protected by men wearing camouflage trousers and openly calling for an Islamic state in Syria though he stopped short of advocating armed struggle. He was recently removed from the mosque and says this was due to temporary administrative problems, though people in his entourage say he had gone too far for the authorities.
"The regime has propped up benign Islamists it keeps under its control for two reasons," said analyst Abdel Razzak Eid from Aleppo. "One is to silence internal demands for reform and justify the continued clampdown because of the threat of Islamists as well outside threats, such as from the US.
"Syria also wants to show the world, including the US, that if the current regime crumbles, it will be replaced by those Islamists."
Those Sexy Iranians: Kristof and video on Iran and resources
All Kristof articles: Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/19/opinion/19kristof-iran.html
Kristof video - very good
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/politics/20040413_PANEL_LIVE/
The New York Times > Opinion > Op-Ed Columnist: Those Sexy Iranians
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
HIRAZ, Iran — If, as the poet Philip Larkin observed, sex began in 1963, it has finally reached Iran over the last year.
True, girls and women can still be imprisoned for going out without proper Islamic dress. But young people are completely redefining such dress so it heightens sex appeal instead of smothering it.
Women are required to cover their hair and to wear either a chador cloak or an overcoat, called a manteau, every time they go out, and these are meant to be black and shapeless. But the latest fashion here in Shiraz, in central Iran, is light, tight and sensual.
"There are some manteaus with slits on the sides up to the armpits," said Mahmoud Salehi, a 25-year-old manteau salesman. "And then there are the `commando manteaus,' with ties on the legs to show off the hips and an elastic under the breasts to accentuate the bust."
Worse, from the point of view of hard-line mullahs, young women in such clothing aren't getting 74 lashes any more — they're getting dates.
"Parents can't defeat children," Mr. Salehi mused. "Children always defeat their parents."
And that's what Iran's baby boomers, a wave of 18 million people 15 to 25 years old, are doing. They will transform their country, just as baby boomers in the West changed America and Europe. I don't think Iran's theocracy can survive them, for I've never been to a country where young people seem more frustrated.
The regime's problem is that Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini exhorted Iranians to have more children, and they responded — today, 60 percent of the country's population was born after his Iranian revolution. And these young people are determining social mores and carving out a small zone of freedom for themselves.
In one sense, the relaxation in clothing requirements is superficial, and some Iranian women have scolded me for asking them about head scarves when they are more angry about discrimination in divorce, child custody and inheritance rules. But the clothing rules affect every woman every day and raise the central question in Iran's future: should a few aging male mullahs still determine the most basic and intimate elements of every Iranian's life?
From that vantage point, it looks to me as if the revolution is sputtering. The mullahs are refusing to accept real democracy, but they are giving in to popular pressure in some areas. The draft is immensely unpopular among young men, for example, so this year the hard-liners shortened the service requirement. More important, individual Iranians are reclaiming their individuality and their autonomy — and how they dress is the best measure of that.
The morals police no longer order women to cover up stray hairs. These days, the fashion is for brightly colored, glittery see-through scarves, worn halfway back on the head.
"It's possible head scarves will be gone in another year or two, the way things are going," said Amir Suleimani, a scarf salesman in the Tehran Bazaar. "God willing."
No wonder conservative newspapers in Tehran denounce Iranian women for strolling around "nude."
The baby boomers include Saghar Tayebi, a 17-year-old in Isfahan who wore a tight manteau with high slits, embroidered jeans and a red headband. Her mascara was hefty and her lipstick bold, and her sleeves were rolled up to reveal lots of bracelets. Lots of hair escaped her scarf. But when I asked her whether she dreamed of wearing Western-style skimpy clothing, she looked aghast.
"We totally reject that," she said indignantly. "We don't want that freedom."
Conversations with young people like Saghar suggest that youths want to remain good Muslims, and that some are happy enough in an Islamic republic — but that, above all, they want to laugh and love. Many are not overtly political, nor sure exactly what kind of government they want, but they do know that this isn't it.
"We want fun," declared Tannaz Haj Hosseini, a 20-year-old university student who was out with her boyfriend in Tehran. "There's no joy here."
I protested that her nail polish and see-through scarf — not to mention the boyfriend — underscored the progress in Iran. A few years ago, she would have been lashed.
"I don't compare myself with 10 years ago," she said. "I compare myself to what I could have and don't."
Ayatollahs, look out.
KRISTOF interview with Grand Ayatollah Hosein Ali Montazeri (May 11, 2004
The New York Times: KRISTOF Responds (Forum/Message Board): "nicholaskristof - 7:05 PM ET May 11, 2004 (#389 of 391)
nicholaskristof - 7:05 PM ET May 11, 2004 (#389 of 391)
Grand Ayatollah Hosein-Ali Montazeri welcomed me for an interview in his office in Qom, Iran, with a few words in English and a nice, folksy manner. Later, we tried to communicate in Arabic: I spoke to him a bit in Cairo colloquial Arabic, and as far as I can tell he couldn’t understand a word, and then he replied in Quranic Arabic that I couldn’t understand a word of. Because it’s not often that you hear a Grand Ayatollah saying that Iran is as bad now as under the shah, I’ve made a partial transcript of the translation from Farsi. For a video of the interview, click here:
http://www.nytimes.com/videopages/2004/05/11/opin [...]
Q: Since you’re known as a frank person, can I ask the state of the Islamic Revolution today? Is it healthy or sick? If it’s sick, is it terminally ill?
A: I believe the revolution of the Iranian people resulted from their protests against the former system. In our country there was no independence, since the country was in the hands of the Americans, and before them it was in the hands of the British and Russians. What independence was there when our army was run by Americans? And people didn’t have any freedom either. They were not decision-makers. The only decision-maker was the shah, although the shah was supposed to be a constitutional monarch, and was not supposed be running the country day to day. And people were not free to practice their religion either. So the slogans of the revolution were freedom, independence and an Islamic republic. Of course, we eventually got independence. Foreigners weren’t allowed to meddle here. But freedom, which was another demand of the people, never materialized. In the shah’s time, they used to detain people for nothing and now they do the same. Therefore, the freedom that was a demand of the people has not been achieved. And a republic means a government that is democratic, where people have a say in the politics of their country. But we see that it is not that way today. You saw for instance in this recent election that the guardian council imposes anybody it wants on the voters. In fact, they are the new masters of the people, choosing winners in place of the people. But all elements of society have rights to decide the fate of their country. When minorities in the country have members in parliament, then religious elements of society should have the same right [rather than be excluded by hardliners] Religious elements have right to be represented in parliament, but they are denied this right. [in other words, reformers should be allowed in parliament] The full freedom and democratic government, in which all people participate, has not been achieved. If the demands of the people from the revolution aren’t achieved, it’s possible that they will start shouting their demands. Since the trend in the world today is not the one of force and imposing things on people, you cannot force people to have religion.. Either officials change their methods and give freedom to the people, and stop interfering in elections, or people will rise up with another revolution
(continued in next post)
nicholaskristof - 7:07 PM ET May 11, 2004 (#390 of 391)
Q: I’ve traveled to more than 110 countries, and I don’t know that I’ve ever seen more discontent among young people. They’re frustrated by unemployment, rising prices and a lack of fun in their lives. Are you afraid that this frustration is turning young people away from Islam itself and from the idea of clerical rule, rather than just from this particular regime?
A: These gentlemen became dominant in this country in the name of Islam. They do what they do in the name of Islam. All this repression, all these convictions, are done in the name of Islam. Islam is presented as a tough and harsh religion. And the young may well be turned off by that. The style of these gentlemen has caused it. And they should rethink how they do things and give more freedom to the young. More than 100 newspapers have been shut in the last few years. Why do they shut down these newspapers? These days, in contrast to most of the world, the mass media are in the hands of the state. And if people want to put out their own ideas and criticism, they do not have access to the media. For instance, I participated in the revolution myself. No newspaper is allowed to write the things I say. Forget about radio and TV that are run by the state. There is no freedom. Repression is carried out in the name of Islam, and that turns people off. Young people in their heart are naturally interested in religion. It’s instinct. …but violence and harsh actions, arrests and court summons, done in the name of religion turn people off. Officials should reexamine and change their practice. All these court summons, newspaper closings, and prosecutions of dissidents are wrong. These are the same things that were done under the shah and are now being repeated. And now they are done in the name of Islam and therefore alienate people.
Q: Are things now as bad as under the shah? Better? Worse?
A: Both now and back then, law and logic are violated. Think of these three religious nationalists that have been in jail for a year and are then sentenced to five years, seven years, without anybody hearing about their trials. They’re political prisoners. We don’t even have political offenses in Islam at all. Imam Ali in his own time had no arrests of political prisoners. Anybody who had complaints would come to him and speak to him frankly. He didn’t jail people for their beliefs or their statements, unless they committed crimes. Jails are for felons. People shouldn’t be in prison for their opinions. These religious nationalists, in jail for a year, and now sentenced to prison -- nobody ever heard of their trials, there was no jury or public trial. They were just victims of the whims of the rulers. If someone opposes one of the governing factions, they arrest him and leave him in jail for 100 years. In the shah’s time they would do the same. Such things are against logic and against Islam. Imam Khomeini was asked in Paris whether communists could express their opinions and he said yes, even communists can speak out. In Imam Ali’s time, people rose up against him and they would chant slogans against Ali in front of him or while he was praying, but he never jailed them for that. He didn’t repress them before they raised swords against him.
Q. You knew Imam Khomeini very well. If he were to come back today, what would he do? Would he lead a new revolution, or would he work within the system?
A.: He wouldn’t approve of the way these gentlemen act…. We have the right to decide our country’s destiny. Three-quarters of the population was not alive when the present laws were adopted, so these laws should not bind them. Ask them what laws they want. If we give them freedom, then they will be interested in religion too. [Implicitly, he’s suggesting that it’s time to let young people establish a new constitution and even a new system of government to replace theocracy in Iran.]
(continued in next post)
nicholaskristof - 7:08 PM ET May 11, 2004 (#391 of 391)
Q. When I talk to clerics about you or Ayatollah Taheri, they tend to say that you are great scholars but that you are out of the mainstream. Do you think most clerics agree with you but are scared to say so, or are you indeed outside the mainstream?
A. I don’t know what they think. But I know this much. I’ve always been frank. Both with Ayatollah Khomeini and Ayatollah Boroujerdi, I was frank. I would say what I thought and offer advice. My comments caused some ill will and led people to tell lies behind my back [apparently to Khomeini]. I couldn’t defend myself. That’s how I am, and I think everybody should be like that. I don’t believe in diplomatic-style speech.
Q. So do you think a lot of clerics are running scared and aren’t saying what they think?
A. It’s about like that. A lot of society’s elites are like that, too. I always tell Iranian journalists who come here not to censor themselves, and if all of them write the truth they can’t all be suppressed….Even Imam Ali would say, 'I’m not above mistakes,’ and he would consult with people, listen to diverse ideas and make decisions. He would give freedom and the right to decide to the people. If that was the way we did things now, our problems would go away. As for depression of the youth, they’re depressed because they’re not being allowed into the game, and because economically life is very hard. Frankly, they have the right to be depressed. If all this unnecessary expenditure for foreign trips and conferences was given to youth, things would be better for them.
Iran: Overdosing on Islam
The New York Times > Opinion > Op-Ed Columnist: Overdosing on Islam
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
OM, Iran — In the offices of an ayatollah here, I was jokingly introduced as coming from the Great Satan.
"Humph," a young man responded immediately. "America is only Baby Satan. We have Big Satan right here at home."
Turbans to the left, turbans to the right — Qom is the religious center of Iran, but even here, there is anger and disquiet. One of the central questions for the Middle East is whether Iran's hard-line Islamic regime will survive. I'm betting it won't.
"Either officials change their methods and give freedom to the people, and stop interfering in elections, or the people will rise up with another revolution," Grand Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri told me.
"There is no freedom," added Ayatollah Montazeri, who is among the senior figures in the Shiite world but is excluded from power in Iran because of his reformist ideas. "Repression is carried out in the name of Islam, and that turns people off. . . . All these court summonses, newspaper closings and prosecutions of dissidents are wrong. These are the same things that were done under the shah and are now being repeated. And now they are done in the name of Islam and therefore alienate people."
Whoa! Ayatollah Montazeri was a leader of the Islamic Revolution, and was initially designated by his close friend Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini to be his successor as supreme leader of Iran. Everything he says carries immense credibility, for he is a more senior religious figure than any of Iran's present leaders. (I've posted comments by Ayatollah Montazeri, along with a video of the interview, at www.nytimes.com/kristofresponds, Posting 389.)
Another Shiite leader outside the club of power, Ayatollah Jalaledin Taheri, has denounced the regime as "society's dregs and fascists who consist of a concoction of ignorance and madness. . . . [and] those who are convinced that yogurt is black."
So the Islamic Republic is increasingly vulnerable to the most devastating accusation of all: that it is un-Islamic and is alienating its youth from Islam. The mullahs have even made beards unpopular.
"I'm sorry — I've been too busy to shave recently," said Ashkan Almasi, a musician, mortified at having a faint beard and not wanting me to get the wrong idea about his politics. "In contrast to what [leading Islamic philosophers] say, this regime is the very opposite of Islamic government," Mr. Almasi said. "It has made Islam unpopular."
On the 1,100-mile round trip between Tehran and Shiraz in the south, I did meet some staunch supporters of the regime. But my experience at a teahouse in a small town was more typical. With a small crowd around me, I asked people what they thought of the government.
"How can you have hope for life any more?" said Abdullah Erfani, a plumber, adding, "If there were a free vote, 99 percent would oppose this system, and only the 1 percent within the system would support it."
A 20-year-old, Hadi Zareai, working hard to look cool in his leather jacket, said: "There will be a Judgment Day, and all of us will meet up. Then I'm going to find those who launched the Islamic Revolution and go after them."
In much of the world, young Muslims are increasingly religious, but compulsive Islam has soured some Iranians on religion. Fewer people go to Friday prayers, and Western-style clothes are the hottest fashion.
One young woman I met, Elaheh Falakmasir, is religious and inclined to support the regime. But smoke was almost pouring from her ears because she and a couple of friends had been kicked out of an exhibition a few hours earlier for being floozies: one wore a red vest over her black overcoat, and Ms. Falakmasir herself wore a silver nose stud.
"I like it," she said hotly. "It's beautiful. God likes it. But they complained." And so the regime alienated three more constituents who want to be good Muslims — but also want to live in a modern world.
There's a useful lesson here for George Bush's America as well as for the ayatollahs' Iran: when a religion is imposed on people, when a government tries too ostentatiously to put itself "under God," the effect is often not to prop up religious faith but to undermine it. Nothing is more lethal to religious faith than having self-righteous, intolerant politicians (who wince at nose studs) drag God into politics.
