The myths of creation and hijab: Iranian women, liberated or oppressed?
Introduction In societies ruled by religious norms, gender is constructed within the value system of such norms. Hence, the study of the "sacred" (god/gods, universal truth, etc.) and religious stories or myths (1) helps us to understand how, why, and for what purposes concepts such as obedience, deception, sexuality, gender and so on are processed and formed. I use the term "processed" since these formations are gradual and often influenced by factors such as culture and politics.For over two thousand years, Iran was dominated by different religions, and hence, religious texts constructed identity, status, and rights for women. In this work, I study the image of woman in relation to the concept of god, obedience, deception, and the process of human creation in the Zoroastrian Holy Scriptures and the Qur'an. I chose the myth of creation of the first human couple since it is in this story that both genders play an equal or complimentary role. Therefore, I analyze the first human couple's obligations vis-a-vis obedience and in terms of why and how they disobeyed their God. I show how the stories gradually changed and constructed a female body capable of decadence and corruption. I then analyze the contribution of such stories to the construction of the institution of hijab and gender roles, as well as gender discrimination.
In this work, I also show how, in poetry and articles written by Iranian women and men since the turn of the twentieth century, the hijab is connected to women's identity, sexuality, chastity, liberation, education, and progress. Twentieth century Iran witnessed a politicization of the hijab in the form of a secular decree to unveil, issued by Reza Shah in 1936 in the name of modernization and women's emancipation, later followed by a religious decree (fatwa) to veil by Ayatullah Khomeini, this time in the name of Islam and in an effort to emancipate women and the Muslim community from "westoxicated" corruption. During both events, Iranian women and their voices were stifled through the efforts of men in power.
Since the Islamic Revolution of 1979, the hijab has become an institution used to identify a Muslim woman, define and protect her chastity, and measure her commitment to her religion, her home and her ummah (Muslim community). It has moreover become the defining symbol of Muslim women not only in the eyes of some Muslims and Islamic government, but even in those of non-Muslims.
Research Method
This work is based on critical textual analysis of some verses of the Qur'an and its exegeses as well as the relevant Zoroastrian texts and other literatures on hijab in the Persian language. It is not within the scope of this work to extend the research to the Ahadith (Traditions of the Prophet). It is academically fashionable and considered a must by many in the fields of gender and cultural studies to incorporate methods and theories that avoid overgeneralization and in the case of my study, eschew orientalist scholarship and, even more so Islamophobic comment. Theoretically this work is based on the slogan "I act, therefore, I am", reflecting a school of thought that began in 1994 among a number of Iranian women scholars, artists, novelists, human right activists, movie directors and producers. I have shown the thoughts and acts of some of these courageous women in my previous studies of their cultural production. To this end, I position and locate the present work under the slogan of "I act, therefore, I am." Thus, I too act and challenge over two thousand years of religious, cultural, social, and familial patriarchy while by the same token I emancipate my study, and hence my voice, from the existing theoretical and philosophical boundaries in the fields of religious (in this case Islamic), cultural, social and gender studies for the reasons I will explain below.
I have argued elsewhere that, notwithstanding the challenge of Said's Orientalism to outsiders' scholarship on the Orient in general and Muslim women in particular, and its consequent weakening if not destruction of "colonial feminism", this internationally acclaimed work, along with the epidemic of post-modernism infecting academia with the fever of "cultural relativism" (Moghissi 1994; Derayeh, 2006), has contributed to the marginalization of some Muslim women (including a large number of Iranian women) on the one hand, and to the consolidation of the existing patriarchy in Muslim societies on the other. In the words of Jane Kalbfleisch (1997): "For many contemporary feminists, post-feminism--along with its partner in crime, postmodernism --amounts to nothing more than a fashionable version of patriarchy" (quoted in Derayeh, 2010, p.152). Moghissi argues that postmodern scholarship on Muslim women tends to offer a universal view concerning issues such as human rights, hijab, and family law. This is a view that is seemingly close to "fundamentalist conservatism" and that fails to expose the reality of life and experiences of those Muslim women whose voices are silenced by "a style of thought shaped by postmodern relativism, which dominates the European and, particularly the North American Academy". (Moghissi 94, 47) Scholars such as H. Afshar (1994) E. Fernia (1997), H. Hoodfar (1993), N. Jawad (1993), C. Joppke (2008) Z. Mir-Hosseini (1996) N. Tohidi (1994) and others have provided over generalized apologetic works consolidating patriarchy, often all these under the shield of postmodernism, post-colonialism and post-Orientalism. I strongly argue that both cultural relativism and Saidian anti-orientalism should be carefully negotiated and critically approached when human rights and women's rights are studied (A. E. Mayer 2007, 6-7,).
Islam is not monolithic. Within the broad framework of the shared basic Islamic message, there is a rich diversity. This diversity influences the understanding of some Islamic principles and practices, and allows a multitude of interpretations. The application of the great common themes in daily life is influenced by local customs and traditions hence there are myriads of exegeses that influence the understandings and practices of veil. Added to this is the continuous academic production of theories and theorists on the veil. In the works on hijab in the Qur'anic verses, we have a range of positions extending from Barlas' position of fencing off the Qur'anic verses and holding the exegeses, hence patriarchal elements, as responsible for constructing the institution of veiling (Barlas, 2002, 16-17; 49-58), to Bullock's argument that the veil is clearly stipulated in the two relevant Qur'anic verses as a means to cover a woman's body (Bullock, 2002, 175), to Ali's approach to exploring veiling within an ethical framework rather than as part of a code of law (Ali, 2006, 133-134). On hijab in practice, we have myriads of works presenting hijab as a means of providing mobility for Muslim women (Milani, 1992), as a catalyst and empowering agent (Hoodfar, 2001), as a sign of identity (C. Joppke, 2009; Najmabadi, 2006), and so on. During the past decade however, scholars have been preoccupied with establishing a convergence between the ban on hijab in public governmental institutions (France and Turkey) and the violation of human rights (Ezekiel, 2006; Hamdan, 2007; Killian, 2003; McGoldrick, 2006; Winter & Hawthorn, 2008). Interestingly however, these scholars have conveniently avoided considering the pressure on Muslim women to veil exerted by political regimes (Iran) as a violation of their rights. Nevertheless, it is outside the scope of this work to delineate the tensions existing among theories and theorists on this issue.
A Mythical Portrayal
You are the father and the mother of people in the world. I created you chaste. With this chastity respect law, think good, and be good in speech and behavior. (the Gatha)
O People, fear your lord, who created you from a single self (person), created out of it its pair and disperse from both of them many men and women. (the Qur'an, 4:1)
Prior to the coming of Islam to Iran, Zoroastrianism (2) was the official religion of the Sasanid (Sasanian) dynasty (226 to 650 CE), although Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, and many other religions were also practiced there. The holy book of the Zoroastrian faith, the Avesta, consists of eight books. (3) The oldest surviving part of the Avesta, the Gatha, includes five songs and was written by Zartosht himself. These songs are in syllabic form and contain mostly Zartosht's questions or prayers to Ahura Mazda. The songs in the Gatha have a monotheistic theme and show a distinct difference in their forms as well as their meanings from the rest of the Avesta owing to the fact that the faith and its followers went through different political, social, religious, and cultural stages over fourteen centuries. In fact, from the seventh century BCE to the seventh century CE, people who worshiped Ahura Mazda as their god and followed Zartosht as their prophet went through three different empires in addition to undergoing the occupation of Alexander of Macedonia and the influence of Hellenistic culture.
The Ahura Mazda of the Gatha has no specific gender yet shares certain similarities with the Yahweh of the Hebrew bible and the Allah of the Qur'an. As such, Ahura Mazda is "the creator of heaven and earth, source of the alternation of light and darkness, a sovereign lawgiver, an originator of the moral order, judge of the entire world, alone worthy of worship, and the creator of the first human couple" (Yasna, Ostavad Gatha, 44: 3-7).
The story of the creation of the world in the Zoroastrian faith also shows certain similarities with the Abrahamic versions. (4) These "myths of history" (Esposito, 2002, 19-20) begin with the pre-existence of a god, his creation of the world for his specific purpose or desire and, finally, an end. Moreover, this god is an active participant in the stories, accompanies humans through all the historical events, and protects those loyal to him. Thus, the main message of all these myths is the creation of a righteous world in order to establish peace and justice. To achieve such a goal, the primary means is "obedience", as well as compliance with basic principles of the faiths. These principles include "to talk rightly, think rightly and behave rightly" in the case of Zoroastrian faith, "follow the way of the Torah" in the case of Judaism, "the acceptance of divine grace and the incarnation of God" in the case of Christianity, and "submission to the will of God" in the case of Islam. Notwithstanding the similarities between these gods, the creation of the first human couple in the Gatha is in fact very unique and quite different from the stories related to Adam and Eve in the Bible and the first human couple in the Qur'an. For instance, according to the Gatha, Ahura Mazda planted a seed on earth. From this seed, a huge rhubarb plant with two branches wrapped together and grew to a great size, so that gradually these two branches formed human beings. The male was named mashiyeh, and the female mashiyaneh. Then Ahura Mazda blew soul into both and told them: "You are the father and the mother of people in the world. I created you pak (pure, chaste, innocent). With this paki (purity) respect law, think good, and be good in speech and behavior." This story continues with the mashiyeh's and mashiyaneh's acceptance of the doctrine "Ahura Mazda is the only Creator of water, earth, plants, living beings, stars, the moon and the sun. He is all flourishing and everything that is right from its foundation" (Lahiji & Kaar, 1999, 281-282; Ensafpur, 1965, 24-26; and Pirnia, 1995, 1-2, translation is mine). So far, emphasis is placed on monotheism as well as on ethical issues such as good speech, good thought, and good acts.
The story continues with Ahura Mazda warning them both not to be tempted by Ahriman (Satan). They are also told that they should not kill animals and eat their flesh, if those animals can provide them with milk. It is interesting to note however that later in their journey, they fail to respect that warning and they kill a sheep and eat it. This apparently was their first disobedience. They are both then punished with barrenness for fifty years. Ahura Mazda later forgives them and they become pregnant with twins, although apparently the infants are so sweet that the couple chooses to eat them. This act, however, is not their fault, and therefore Ahura Mazda intervenes and diminishes the desire for "child eating," replacing it with "love for children." The couple then proceeds to have seven sets of twins who later marry each other and give birth to other children. In the meantime, Ahura Mazda teaches them agriculture and other crafts such as carpentry and sewing (Kaar and Lahiji, 1999, p. 283). As we see in this part of the story, although the focus is obedience, nevertheless both genders are held equally responsible for disobeying their God and face the consequences together.
Although the concept of obedience is as much the main theme behind the events in the Garden in the Qur'an as it is in the Biblical versions, nonetheless, the Qur'anic myth shows some differences as regards the process of the creation of the first female, the events in the Garden, the temptation, the disobedience, and the consequent expulsion. It should be remembered that Prophet Muhammad began his teachings in the city of Mecca in Arabia, a city with multicultural and multi-religious environment. In fact, the available sources confirm the existence of at least three different religions practiced in pre-Islamic Arabia: paganism, Judaism, and Christianity. Prophet Muhammad's tribe (Quraysh), for instance, originally practiced paganism. (5) We have no information concerning any myths related to the creation of the world held by the pagan Arabs. Nor do we know if any specific explanation regarding the origin of human beings existed in this tradition. However, there is a common belief among scholars that Prophet Muhammad was exposed to different myths of the Judeo/Christian heritage as well as the fundamental beliefs in both doctrines. Consequently, they argue that the Qur'anic version of the creation of the first human couple and the events in the Garden shares certain similarities with the Judaic and the Christian accounts. In all the three versions, the creation of the male was followed by that of the female and later temptation by Satan and their disobedience leading to their expulsion from the Garden.
Here, I would argue that this is an overgeneralization and that the Qur'anic version is indeed quite unique and distinct. For instance, according to verses 38:71-72, the entire process of the creation of the human race took place in three steps: "Just recall the time when your Lord said to the angels, 'I am going to create a human of clay; when I perfect it in every way, and blow into it my ruh (spirit), all of you should bow down before it' (Maududi, quoted in Wadud, 1999, p. 16). These three steps are the initiation of creation, khalaqa (to create); the formation or perfection, sawwaya (to separate); and the bringing to life by breathing soul into that form. The creation of Adam and his wife is explained in verse 4:1 thus: "He created you from a single self (person), created out of it its pair." These two are known as the original parents. I must also mention that with the exception of Mary, mother of Jesus, none of the references to female characters in the Qur'an are acknowledged by their names but rather often by their relationship to the male characters (Stowasser, 1994, p. 67). Hence, the first god-made female (known in the Biblical versions as Eve) is addressed as zaujah or pair of Adam.
Furthermore, the events in the Garden consist mainly in the fundamental guidance of avoiding the tree: "O Adam, dwell, you and your wife, in Paradise and eat from wherever you will but do not approach this tree, lest you be among the wrongdoers" (7:19). According to 20:120, Satan tempted Adam to eat from the forbidden fruit: "Then Satan whispered to him; he said, "O Adam, shall I direct you to the tree of eternity and possession that will not deteriorate?" Verse 7:20, however, involves Adam's wife as well and it reads, "But Satan whispered to them...." Moreover, verse 20:121 confirms only Adam's error and disobedience. According to 2:37 and 20:122, Allah accepts Adam's repentance and forgives him. Hence, in the Qur'an there is no notion of original sin as is the case with Christianity. Finally, the Qur'an recognizes Adam as a khalifah (one holding authority in succession) on earth.
As mentioned earlier, in the Gatha's version of the creation myth, man and woman were created from one seed, and grew equally in size and strength. They went through a mutual and simultaneous process of being shaped as humans. Furthermore, both were chaste. Ahura Mazda addressed both of them and imposed identical laws on them. They both however disobeyed, and both were punished and later forgiven. Such equality is not, by contrast, observed in the "Story of Creation" presented by the Hebrew Bible, the Old Testament or to some extent the Qur'an. Moreover, nakedness or awareness of sexuality is not mentioned in the Zoroastrian version. However, the Gatha's version did not last long due to the fact that (as previously mentioned) Zartosht's teachings or the Gatha were collected and compiled during different social, political, and cultural phases. For instance, the latter compilation of the Avesta abandons this simplicity and presents the creation of the world as a historical drama covering four periods of three thousand years each. In this version, the faith takes on a dualistic nature and portrays two powerful sources: the good, named Ormazd, who dwelled in the light, and the evil Ahriman, who resided below the good power in the darkness for three thousand years. The story continues into the second historical period with Ahriman's unsuccessful attempt at crossing Ormazd's domain resulting in his fall into the abyss. Thereafter, Ahriman produces demons and Ormazd creates the sky, water, earthly plants, the primeval ox and primeval man. At the end of the second period, "a woman named Jih or Jihi, a demon who represents female evilness, corruption, and prostitution" instigates Ahriman to kill the primeval man (Kaar and Lahiji, 1999, p. 280). Interestingly, in this version, it is Ahriman who is tempted by a woman, resulting in the killing and cutting into pieces of the primeval man and the primeval ox. Apparently, from the pieces of the man's body, other humans and various metals were created, while the pieces of the ox's body gave rise to the animals and plants. This version has a dualistic nature and thoroughly contradicts the earlier monotheistic Gatha. The story centers on the female's evil power to seduce, and in this case even to use the evil power to deceive the good power or god. It should be mentioned that this version shares some similarities with the story of the ancient hero of Mesopotamian religion Gilgamesh and Tiamat of the Sumerians and the Babylonians. (6)
The influence of Vedic literature can also be seen in the story of Gayomart (primeval man) and his role in the myth of creation. In the Rig-Veda, the myth concerning the creation of the world and humankind also initiates the establishment of the caste system in Hindu faith. Accordingly, the original cosmic man, Purusha, consents to be sacrificed; subsequently, the gods divide him into different portions creating the sun, the moon, the air, the earth, and different castes (varnas), (7) Moreover, the concepts of karma and dharma helped to legitimize the institution of caste for centuries.
In fact, most scholars agree that the Aryan migrants brought their caste institution to the Indus valley and introduced it to the indigenous people living in that region. Accordingly, Vedic literature appears to have been influenced by the political, social, and economic system consolidated by the occupying Aryans. The Aryan migrants to Iran also established a systematic hereditary stratification that lasted until the coming of Islam. However, in Iran, caste remained within the social domain and did not penetrate into the religious sphere. In fact, Zartosht's teachings in the Gatha inherently support equality and justice in both thought and actions: "Those humans who behave and think honestly, their prayers are recognized as the best by Ahura Mazda. So they are dear to us" (Yasna, Vohuxstar Gatha, 51:21).
Despite these encouraging trends, however, Iranian women lived under a caste-oriented system and hence were subject to discrimination that varied according to their social status. Later, with the coming of Islam and the introduction of the hijab as a means to protect women's chastity and preserve society from corruption, women gradually disappeared into seclusion. Consequently, the portrayal of woman as an agent of deceit and disobedience remained not only in Iranian culture but also in the works of philosophers, poets, historians, and people in power throughout the Muslim world for centuries. Consequently women lost ownership of their bodies and became what Crawley et al. call "gate keepers of their own body" (2009, 106). The first challenge to this misrepresentation of women came in the 1990s in writings by Iranian women scholars (Mehrangiz Kaar and Shahla Lahiji) and novelists (Qazi Nur, Nooshin Ahmadi Khorasani). Hence, the scholarship produced since the 1990s in Iran offers a new reading of Iranian women's historical identity and their political, social, and economic contributions throughout history. For example, among novelists, Nooshin Ahmadi Khorasani brings to life an "Eve" who raises awareness among women and liberates them from patriarchal culture.
Ahmadi-Khurasani in 'Yek Sib, Yek Zan, Yek Shahr' [One Apple, One Woman, One City], brings the "events in the Garden" up to the present time. In this short story, a beautiful, blue-eyed woman gives an apple to a young married woman. After she eats the apple, she falls into a deep sleep for one week. When she wakes up, she has no memory of her past and she only remembers her mother. She is a new woman who is disobedient and does not even know the meaning of being a mahjub (modest, also covered) or a bahaya (reserved, prudent) woman, characteristics that her husband claims she used to have. She begins reading books and expressing her beliefs. She pays a high price for what she has become: her husband burns her books (which later begins a fire in the house), locks her inside, and goes for a walk. Coming back, he finds his house on fire and he screams for help. A person in the crowd says, "Tonight, many houses are on fire in our city." The apple of wisdom in Ahmadi-Khurasani's story in fact uncovers the inner desires of a woman and strips them bare: her desire to be independent, to choose her future husband, to get a job, to read books, and so on (Derayeh, 2006, 203-205).
To summarize, both in the Zoroastrian and in Islamic creation accounts, the first woman does not appear to have been originally singled out as the agent who disobeyed her creator's orders. In both traditions, it seems that it was only later, under the influence of various cultures and diverse interpretations that women began to be viewed as the source of deception and seduction. With the introduction of Islam in Iran, gradually, it was a woman's body and her sexuality that became an instrument of deception, seduction, corruption and decadence. As such, prevention was only possible if their bodies and sexuality were completely covered and this by the power bestowed by the exegeses on verses 24:31 and 33:59, relating to Muslim women's veiling or hijab.
The Qur'anic injunction in verse 33:59, for instance, describes the veil as a means to identify the female members of the Prophet's household and Muslim women in general and reads, "O Prophet! Tell your wives and daughters and the believing women that they should cast their outer garments over their persons (when abroad); that is most convenient, they should be known (as such) and not be molested." It appears that the object of this verse was mainly to identify Muslim women and separate them from "other" women in order to protect them from any harm or kidnapping by the "hypocrites" (munafiq, see 33:58 and 60). Some scholars argue that the requirement of the veil came much later and that it was the result of assimilating the cultures of the conquered people as new Muslims (L. Ahmed, 1992, P. 5; C. Regan, 1985, P. 62; n. Minai, 1981, p. 27).). As I showed elsewhere, this statement is not entirely true; the veil was only common among the elite castes in the Sasanid Empire, where it served as a sign of nobility (Derayeh, 2006, p. 126).
Here I argue that the term hijab, which literally means curtain, is not mentioned in the Qur'an, verses 33.59 and 24:30- 31; instead, we find there the term absar (plural of basar, literally means eyes and is commonly interpreted as "gaze"). Another term used in these two verses is furuj (plural of faruj); whose literal meaning is "opening" and is commonly interpreted to mean "private parts." According to 24:30 and 31, both Muslim men and women are to lower their "gazes" and protect (hafaza) their private parts. The term sow', also commonly interpreted as private parts, is used in the verses concerning the events in the Garden (e.g., 7: 19, 20, 22 and 20:121), and again for both Adam and his wife. The root of sow' is saa' and it means to be evil or to cause harm. Hence, its reference to the pudenda signifies that exposure of the genitals results in evil deeds and causes harm. In verse 24:31 however, the terms zinat and 'aurat are also mentioned. Zinat means adornment, while the literal sense of 'aurat is something whose exposure causes shame and embarrassment. The use of 'aurat, which is commonly interpreted as signifying private parts or genitals in this verse is related to not showing one's adornment to " children who are not yet aware of the private aspects [genitals]) of women."
Say to believing men that they should lower their gaze and protect (guard) their private parts; that will make for greater purity for them. Indeed, Allah is aware of what they do. (Qur'an, 24: 30).
And say to the believing women to lower their gaze and protect (guard) their private parts; that they should not display their ornaments (zinah) only that which is apparent, and to draw their veil [head cover] over their bosoms, and not to reveal their adornment except to their husbands, their fathers, their husband's fathers, their sons, their husband's sons, their brothers, their brothers' sons, their sisters' sons, their women, that which their right hand posses (slaves), or those male who have no physical desire, or children who are not yet aware of the private aspects [genital]) of women. And let them not stamp their feet [walk heavily] to make known what they conceal of their adornment. And turn to Allah in repentance, all of you, o believers, that you might succeed. (Qur'an, 24:31)
Notwithstanding the fact that this verse requires covering of only the private parts of the body, interpreters came to consider the entire female body private and shameful; hence, they argued that a Muslim woman's entire body should be covered in order to avoid sexual appeal and decadence. Consequently, their exegeses contributed to a gradual increase in the restrictions and seclusion forced on women. According to Stowasser (1994), the exegete Baydawi (d.1285), for instance, suggests that every part of a free woman should be covered, and that the face and the hands can be uncovered only during prayers: "This (face and hands) applies to prayer only, not appearance; the whole body of a woman is pudendum." He further argues that the phrase "lower their gaze," mentioned in the Qur'an is due to the fact that "the glance is the messenger of fornication" and that "what is meant by adornment is the places adornment is worn" (quotations in Stowasser, 1994, pp. 28-28). Later, al-Khafaji (d. 1659), one of the authorities of the Shaf'i School of law, wrote the following gloss on al-Baydawi's exegesis: "The whole body of a woman is pudendum ... face and hands are pudendum except during prayer" (Stowasser, pp. 27-28). As a result of these exegeses, by the seventeenth century the whole body of a Muslim woman, including her eyes, was to be completely covered. Interestingly, all these commentators failed to consider other verses of the Qur'an about covering and clothing. Again, verse 7:26; for instance, is very clear on the issue of clothing and the private parts of humans: "O children of Adam, We have bestowed upon you clothing to conceal your private parts and as adornment. But the clothing of righteousness [piety]--that is best. That is from the signs of Allah that perhaps they will remember." This verse, however, was conveniently ignored by the commentators of all Sunni schools of thought, as well as the Jafari Shiite school, throughout the history of Islam.
For example, on women's hijab, the Jafari Shiite (8) alim (scholar) Mulla Muhammad Baqir Majlisi (1627-1699) held the same position as his Sunni brethren and did not offer any changes. Even in the twentieth century, many prominent Jafari Shiite scholars voiced the same interpretations and viewed uncovered women as agents of decadence and corruption for Muslim men and for the Muslim community at large. Ayatullah Mutahhari, for instance, an academic and theologian of Iranian heritage, argues that the veil is to protect the family and the Muslim community from sexual corruption. Furthermore, Mutahhari argues: "The reason why the Islamic command to cover is exclusive to women is because the desire to show off and display one's self is a particular trait of women. It is the female instinct that, because of its particular nature, wishes to capture hearts and imprison the male" (p. 13, translation is mine). Ayatollah Khomeini also followed the lead of his predecessor Mulla Mohammad Baqir Majlisi on the issue of veiling. Ten sections of his Tawzih al-Masail (Answers to Problems) are devoted to rulings regarding acceptable glances. More specifically, he makes it clear who can look at whom. His ruling on veiling calls for full covering of the body; the only excluded parts are the hands and the oval portion of a woman's face (Khomeini, 1984, p.15).
Ayatullah Ali Meshkini, however, argues that both men and women are to exercise an "Islamic gaze/glance" (pp. 109-110) and practice jihad al-akbar (the greater jihad, or effort, to avoid temptation and follow Allah's law). The Ayatullah further declares eye-play to have an active role in temptation and gazing at another as sexually provocative. He even connects the eyes, lips, and hands with adultery and corruption, stating, "Eyes commit adultery through glancing and gazing, lips by kissing, hands by touching. Glance is lustful and aphrodisiac, hence the excitement caused by it leads to corruption" (109-110, translation is mine).
Hijab: Liberation or Oppression?
Although the first step towards unveiling was initiated by Qurrat al-'Ayn in 1836, when she appeared and unveiled before a public Babi gathering, until the early twentieth century, the majority of Iranians considered veiling as a command required by the Qur'an and the Prophet, and hence, a religious requirement for protecting women's chastity. However, by the late nineteenth century, Iranian women demonstrated their strong interest in political affairs by participating in two important events: the Tobacco Movement of 1889-1891 and the Constitutional Revolution of 1906-1911. Although their contribution to the success of these events was not acknowledged and their demands never materialized, they continued their quest in different arenas. One such arena was that of newspapers and magazines published in Iran or abroad, in which both women and men put forth demands for women's equal rights in education and employment opportunities and women's suffrage, as well as for widespread unveiling. In this genre of literature, unveiling is often connected to emancipation, education, and progress.
For example, between 1912 and 1932, the 'Alam-i Zanan [Women's World] magazine included a column entitled "Isn't woman a human being?" This section had a dialogic format in which letters related to the topic were published. In 1927, most of the letters published in this column discussed the institution of hijab. In the April issue, for instance, Beliqays Nazeri's letter challenges the Islamic knowledge of the proponents of the hijab and states: "There is no doubt that hijab is a big obstacle to women's employment. The proponents of hijab and its continuation only confirm their lack of knowledge of holy Islam, nothing more ... Why do Iranians keep half of their population enslaved? Why do they keep women suffering and imprisoned? Why do they stop women from progress and development?"(quoted M. Fathi, 2004, pp. 94-95, translation is mine).
Fatemeh Ardeshiri's letter from the October 1927 issue identifies hijab as an obstacle to progress as well: "The cause of our descent is hijab. It is hijab that has chained and detained us at home ... We Iranian women must begin a movement in order to liberate ourselves from suffering and hardship. We must open a path of prosperity and progress for our children" (Fathi, p. 96, translation is mine).
A proponent of the hijab, on the other hand, published articles in the periodical Shukufeh [Blossom], when it was under the editorial direction of Mariam Amid. In an article entitled "Philosophy of hijab", it was argued that:
Everybody is aware that removing hijab leads to men and women mixing together. No wise person can deny the consequences of such mixture. We see that since the hijab is removed and men and women are mixed in Europe, every family is in danger and experiences extraordinary problems ... If we think deep in the philosophy of the profound command of hijab, we will understand that our dear prophet prevented ethical decadence by the command of hijab. This is how he consolidated salvation for women. (Fathi, p. 83, translation is mine)
During the period 1927 to 1933, Zandokht Shirazi, a columnist and poet of the early twentieth century, founded a women's organization in Shiraz, and also published a bi weekly magazine called Majalleh-ye Dukhtaran-i Iran [The Magazine of the Maidens o Iran]. In all her publications, Zandokht boldly propounded equal rights for men an women. Moreover, she encouraged unveiling and promoted women's participation in education and sports activities (Ensafpour, pp. 436-437). Zandokht also argued tha women should be provided with an opportunity to choose whether to adopt the veil and that men should also be educated on the issue of hijab. She also argues that men need t be made more aware of their moral responsibility:
About hijab, I believe this is a matter of choice and should be dealt with gradually. Meaning, a law must be enacted providing people with a right to choose. Those who want unveiling should be free to do so. ... However, youths and men should also be educated so that unveiling should not lead to moral decadence and corruption (quoted in Fathi, 2004, p. 91, translation is mine).
Therefore, while some saw the hijab as protection for women, family and society, others found it an obstacle to women's progress. In fact, this dichotomized discourse revived after Iran's Islamic Revolution of 1979, this time outside of Iran, and was reflected in the works of many scholars.
In a patriarchal culture such as that of Iran, women were considered an ethical issue; hence, hijab was analyzed against an ethical spectrum. Consequently, during the 1920s, some poets sought an ethical answer in the culture and began a dialogue between what they called hijab-i batini (esoteric hijab) and hijab-i zahiri (exoteric hijab). In Iranian culture the concept of batini, or esoteric, signifies things that are long lasting, inward and exhibited through human thought and behavior. In different works of advice, zibaei-yeh batini (esoteric beauty) is identified with characteristics and attributes such as good manners, kindness, honesty, empathy, generosity, loyalty, spirituality, chastity and piety. Therefore, the authors argue, a woman who is covered by a hijab-i batini is pious, modest, spiritual, loyal, ethical, chaste, and decent. The term zahiri (exoteric), on the other hand, is said to be superficial and of short duration. For example, zibaei-yeh zahiri (exoteric beauty) does not endure and gradually disappears with aging, while zibaei-yeh batini lasts even after a person dies in people's memories. Some poets, based on the concepts of batini and zahiri, argued that the physical veil is exoteric and therefore superficial, and that women should strive for an esoteric veil that is the spiritual veil of piety and chastity. Furthermore, they argued that such spiritual piety and chastity is only possible if women are educated. In fact, this genre of literature was born soon after the publication in the newspaper Habl al-Matin of the following poem by an unknown poet:
Remove this curtain from your body Take this mask from your face The curtain that the Curtain-Keeper of Creation Has covered you in, is wisdom The golden veil is piety The keeper of chastity is piety. (Nasurllah Pour-Fatemi, 1989, translation is mine in Derayeh, 2006)
Following the publication of this poem, in January 1918, Abul-Qasim Lahuti, then residing in Istanbul, Turkey, wrote a poem on hijab and Iranian women's emancipation. He entitled the poem "Be Dukhtaran-i Iran" (To Maidens of Iran); in it, Lahuti reminds Iranian women that education is the best investment and the highest beauty for them: "Unveil, go to school, and get educated; Calamity is the fruit of ignorance. Remove the black mask from your face; teach your son and daughter knowledge, hard work and freedom" (Aryanpur, quoted. Derayeh, 2006)
In general, until 1936 those who publicly criticized veiling were condemned by the ulama, harassed by the mob and became subject to persecution by the government. In 1919, for instance, the government of Sayyed Zia-aldin Tabatabaei issued a memorandum supporting the hijab and niqab (face cover) for women. The memo authorized the police to arrest those who violated the hijab and the niqab requirements (Makki, 1945, pp. 167-168). Another such event took place on 17 September 1923, following the publication in Nameh-ye Javanan [Youth Paper] of an article supporting girls' education and criticizing the institution of the veil. Ebrahim Khawjeh-Nuri, the editor of the paper, was attacked by the clergy, detained by the authorities, and sentenced to three years in prison for supporting these causes. According to Ostad Malek, Khawjeh-Nuri was an active participant in meetings of the Association of the Women Patriot. Accordingly, despite support from the members of the association, who attended his trial completely veiled, wearing niqabs and asking for his release, he ended up in jail (Fathai 1988, 117).
Despite the death threats to and occasional imprisonment of those who advocated women's rights and unveiling, Iran experienced some freedom of speech and thought from 1909 to 1926. Unfortunately, this limited freedom came to an end with Reza Khan's ascending to the throne in 1926, an event that kept Iranians under authoritarian rule and took Iran through a pseudo-modernization process. During this period, the shah banned almost all those women's associations and groups that had been engaging in autonomous activities since the Constitutional Revolution, with some even demanding emancipation. Moreover, up until 1936, unveiling was not on Reza Shah's modernization agenda. For example, he refused to grant police protection to unveiled women who were often harassed by the mob. Interestingly, however, on 7 January 1936, Reza Shah simply abolished the veil by royal decree as a step toward modernity, progress and women's emancipation. Reza Shah's modernity, however, did not take into consideration people's freedom of choice or speech. Reza Shah always claimed that he had liberated and emancipated women. Among the questions that remain unanswered, however, are, was polygamy abolished? Was men's unilateral right to divorce changed or even modified? Were women provided equality in the laws concerning inheritance and testimony? Were women provided the right to vote and to be elected? The answer to these questions is in each case: No. In fact, the Marriage Law enacted in 1931 was the codified and simplified version of Shiite Jafari law with one departure: according to section 9, the marriage of women under 13 was prohibited, and section 3 of the Law was changed to require the permission of a civil judge for those under 15. Hence, Iranian women, even those with university degrees, or even holding professional positions, although unveiled, were still subject by law to polygamy and inequality in matters of inheritance and divorce (Derayeh 2006, 133-135). So, did the unveiling decree truly emancipate Iranian women? My answer is No.
In fact, the veil, or the chador, was simply a part of the identity of some Iranian women regardless of their religious or socio-economic background. While many Iranian women, some of whom had already taken steps to unveil, certainly appreciated the decree, those women who chose the veil were immobilized and silenced for almost five years. Of course, after Reza Shah's abdication in 1941, veiling became a matter of choice. However, this state of affairs lasted only 38 years. In 1979, and again in the name of 'women's emancipation,' Iranian women were this time forced to take the veil by the decree of Ayatullah Khomeini.
Ayatullah Khomeini's veiling decree was followed by his fatwa (Islamic judicial decree) declaring hijab one of the daruriyat or obligatory laws in Islam, explaining, "The origin of the command of the hijab is from the daruriyat. The one who denies this is considered one who denies daruri (the obligatory). The one who denies daruri is guilty of blasphemy, unless it would be known that he/she does not deny God or the Prophet" (Khomeini 1984, 9). Veiling thus became the concern, even the duty, of every Muslim man or woman. Therefore, right after Khomeini's decree, many Iranian women who went out on the street unveiled were attacked and beaten up by the authorities and the mob, this time composed of both men and women. On Women's Day, 8 March 1979, those Iranian women who marched against the veiling decree were brutally beaten by the Pasdaran-i Inqilab (Guardians of the Revolution) as well as by the mob (Jennings 1979, ABC News; see also End of a Millennium, December 1999). The slogan of the attacker was ya rusari' ya tusari (either a head-cover or a hit on the head).
No doubt, the veil provided mobility for some Iranian women owing to the fact that the compulsory veil provided them with the means to convince their families to allow their attendance at educational institutions and participation in various fields of employment. However, those Iranian women who refused to take the hijab found themselves immobile and forced to remain in seclusion. Moreover, Khomeini's fatwa declaring the veil obligatory, and any challenge to it blasphemy, silenced the many Iranian women who had been fighting for women's rights since the revolution and made it impossible for any person to challenge it publicly in any fashion in Iran. Another set of questions is raised by this situation: Did the compulsory hijab liberate women? Was polygamy abolished? Did women gain the right to divorce their husbands without their permission through the Islamic family court? Were women provided equality before the law in the areas of inheritance and testimony? Do women have the right to have the custody of their children? Do women have the right to choose a place of residence? The answer to all these questions is again: No. Iranian women throughout the twentieth century had demanded equal rights in the family law, and yet Ayatullah Khomeini abolished entire sections of the Family Protection Law (FPL) of 1967 that were contrary to shariah.
I must mention that, despite the set-back after the revolution, Iranian women turned their attention to a number of other important issues such as polygamy, men's unilateral right to divorce, women's right to the custody of their children after divorce or the death of the husband, and women's right to serve in the office of the presidency, the position of faqih and the governorship of the faqih. To reiterate, no one, woman or man, dared to challenge the hijab in any fashion after 1979. Moreover, with the exception of a few pages in Mansoureh Ettehadiyeh's historical novel, almost all literature, academic or otherwise, produced since Khomeini's decree, voiced support for the hijab and condemned Reza Shah's unveiling decree as disgraceful and contrary to Islam. Even Mehrangiz Kaar in her most recent biographical novel Shurish (Rebellion), published in diaspora, criticizes the unveiling decree and writes that the only reason her highly liberated and outspoken aunt--a sharp critic of misogynist tradition--kept wearing the black chador was to make a statement against Reza Shah's decree (2008, 80).
Ettehadiyeh on the other hand, in her book Zendegi Bayad Kard [We Have to Live], based on historical documents, details the lives and experiences of three generations of women (mother, daughter, grand-daughter) under the Pahlavis. She shows how the political, social and economic changes of that era shaped these women's identities and beliefs. Her characters go through the forceful unveiling decree of 1936 and the uprisings, strikes, and demonstrations leading to the Islamic Revolution of 1979. Although Ettehadiyeh remains silent concerning the unveiling decree, she informs her readers, through conversations between her characters, about other policies undertaken by Reza Shah that helped provide Iranian women with opportunities for education and employment.
Summary
I have shown how the stories of the creation of the first human couple are reported in the Zoroastrian faith and Islam. I have also shown how such stories were influenced by factors such as culture and politics, leading to depiction of women as agents of indecency and disobedience and hence as liable to control and oppression.
I also investigated the contribution of Qur'anic exegesis to consolidating the veil as an institution to protect the chastity of women and to preserve society from decadence and corruption for centuries. During the early twentieth century, the hijab and its relation to women's progress, education and emancipation were subject to widespread debate in Iran. In fact, we see that hijab need not be an obstacle to women's progress in any field as long as it is practiced in countries that respect women's choice. In such societies, Muslim women, veiled or unveiled, can indeed participate, if they so desire, in educational, political, and employment spheres. I also argued that Reza Shah's unveiling decree did not respect women's right to choose and kept those who practiced hijab secluded and silenced in their homes. I raised the issue of why a man of such dictatorial caliber, who had curbed the political power of the Shiite leadership in the name of modernity and progress, went no further in the cause of women's "emancipation" than forceful unveiling, while on the other hand codifying laws of the most regressive nature on polygamy and divorce. This was despite the fact that polygamy and men's unilateral right of divorce had already been challenged by some Iranians as far back as the mid-nineteenth century.
Moreover, women's right to choose was once more violated by Ayatullah Khomeini's decree on the hijab-i Islami enacted in March 1979 and enforced on Iranian women since then. This decree, like the previous unveiling decree, was held up as a step forward in women's emancipation. Nevertheless, both leaders had failed to provide Iranian women with a choice, effectively silencing them. In fact, Reza Shah's decree was merely a political move to diminish the power of the religious authorities, while Ayatullah Khomeini's decree failed to consider the efforts undertaken by many Iranians who were concerned to grant women an equal place in the society since the turn of the twentieth century. It was forcibly imposed on women, disregarding the rights of those Iranian women who did not support veiling. During the reign of Reza Shah, the harassment had been limited to forceful removal of the veil and occasionally to physical assaults. After March 1979, the veil became a shari'ah obligation-- God's law-- and hence, those Iranian women who refused to veil or were "improperly" veiled (bad hijab) were arrested, tried in the Islamic courts and subjected to lashing. It is clear that both decrees failed in the end in considering what was just and did not allow women to have their own choice. One recognizes the importance of and agrees with Margaret Mead's words: "All changes should be introduced with the fullest possible consent and participation of those whose daily lives will be affected by change" (Mead, cited in Derayeh, 2006, p. 131).
References
Afshar, Haleh, and Mary Maynard. 1994. The dynamics of "race" and gender: some feminist interventions. London: Taylor & Francis.
Ahmed, Leila. 1992. Women and gender in Islam: historical roots of a modern debate. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Ahmadi-khorasani, Noushin. 1998. Zanan e bi gozashteh (Women without Past). Tehran: Tose'e Publication.
Ali, Kecia. 2006. '"If you have touched women": Female Bodies and Male Agency in the Qur'an' In Kecia Ali ed. Sexual ethics and Islam: feminist reflections on Qur'an, hadith, and jurisprudence. London: Oxford, England: Oneworld Pub.
Aryanpour, Yahya. 1998. Az Saba ta Nima: Tarikh e sad o panjah sale adab e farsi (From Saba to Nima: hundred fifty years history of the Persian literature), Vol. 2. Tehran: Navid Publications.
Barlas, Asma. 2002. "Believing women" in Islam: unreading patriarchal interpretations of the Qur'an. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press
Bullock, Katherine. 2002. Rethinking Muslim women and the veil: challenging historical & modern stereotypes. Herndon, VA: International Institute of Islamic Thought.
Crawley, Sara L. et al. 2009. Gendering Bodies. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Derayeh, Minoo. 2010. "Challenging patriarchy: Iranian women in the motion picture industry." Women Studies International Forum 33 (3):151-58.
--. 2006. Gender equality in Iranian history: from pre-Islamic times to the present. Lewiston, N. Y.: Edwin Mellen Press.
Ensafpur, Ghulam Reza. 1967. Qudrat va Maqam-i Zan dar Adwar-i Tarikh. [Power and Position of Woman in History]. Tehran: Nashr-i Ketab.
Esposito, John L. (2002). World Religions Today. New York: Oxford University Press.
Ettehadiyeh, Mansoureh. 1996. Zendegi bayad kard (ought to live). Tehran: Siamak.
Fathi, Maryam. 1994. Kanon e banovan (Women's Centre). Tehran: Nashr publication.
Hoodfar, Homa. 2001. "Veil in their minds and our heads," in ed. Elizabeth A. Castelli and Rosamond C. Rodman. Women, gender, religion: a reader. New York: Palgrave.
Jafari, Ali Akbar. 1967. Payam e zartosht (zaroaster's message). Tehran: Foruhar.
Jennings, Peter. 1979. ABC News. 8 Mar.
--. "End of millennium." ABC News. Dec. 1999.
Joppke, Christian. 2009. Veil: mirror of identity. Cambridge: Polity.
Kaar, Mehrangiz, and Shahla Lahiji. 1998. Shenakht hoviat e zan e irani dar gostareye pish az tarikh va tarikh (the quest for identity: the image of Iranian women in pre-history and history). Tehran: Roshangaran Publishers.
Kaar, Mehrangiz. 2006. Shouresh (Rebellion). Stockholm: Baran.
Khomeini, Ruhullah. 1984. Dar jostojuye rah az kalam e imam: zan (in search of the path from imam's words: women). Tehran: Amir Kabir Publications.
Mead, Margaret. 1954. "Cultural Patterns and Technical Change." The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science New York: Columbia University Press.
Mayer, Ann Elizabeth. 1995. Islam and human rights: tradition and politics. Boulder, CO: Westview.
McGoldrick, Dominic. 2006. Human rights and religion: the Islamic headscarf debate in Europe. Oxford: Hart.
Mesbah, Muhammad Taqi. 1990."Women or Half of the Body of Society," in Status of Women in Islam, eds. M. T.
Mesbah, J. Bahonar & Lois. L. al-Faruqi, pp.1-30. London: Sangam Books Limited.
Milani, Farzaneh. 1992. Veils and words: the emerging voices of Iranian women writers. Syracuse, N. Y.: Syracuse University Press.
Mir-Hosseini, Ziba. 2002. "Debating women: gender and the public sphere in post-revolutionary Iran." In Amyn B. Sajoo ed. Civil Society in the Muslim World: Contemporary Perspectives. Ed. Amyn B. Sajoo. London: I. B. Tauris & Co. pp. 95-122.
Moghissi, Haideh. 1994. Populism and feminism in Iran: women's struggle in a male-defined revolutionary movement. New York: St. Martin's Press.
Motahari, Morteza. 1981. Masale hijab (The hijab issue). Qom: Sadra Publication.
Motahari, Morteza. 1980. Nezam e hoghoughi e zan dar islam (Legal structure of women's right). Tehran: Sadra publication.
Pirnia, Hasan. 1995. Tarikh e Iran (the history of Iran). Tehran: Elham.
Pour-Fatemi, Nasrullah. 1989. Nehzat e azadi e zan: Reza Shah baraye bar andaziye hijabe zan che kard (women's emancipation movement: Reza shah effort to abolish women's hijab). Tehran: Rahavard.
Qazinour, Qudsi. 1992. Raaz (mystery). Stockholm: New Age
Said, Edward W. 1978. Orientalism. New York: Pantheon Books.
Shirazi, Faegheh. 2001. The veil unveiled: the hijab in modern culture. Gainesville: University Press of Florida.
Stowasser, Barbara Freyer. 1994. Women in the Qur'an, traditions, and interpretation. New York: Oxford University Press.
Tohidi, Nayereh Esfahlani. 1994. Situation analysis on women in Azerbaijan: a preliminary study. New York: UNICEF.
Walters, Suzanna Danuta. 1995. Material girls making sense of feminist cultural theory. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Winter, Bronwyn. 2008. Hijab and the republic uncovering the French headscarf debate. Syracuse, N. Y.: Syracuse University Press.
Endnotes
(1) I am borrowing the term "myth" and its usage from John L. Esposito (2002) who uses "myths" as religious stories concerning the origin of the creation of the world, humans and their destiny and it is not used for its common English meanings (p.19).
(2) Zoroastrianism is a monotheistic faith and is named after its founder Zartosht or Zarathustra. Scholars commonly agree that Zartosht was born around 620 BCE and that, at the age of thirty, he called upon people to accept his god Ahura Mazda as the centre of the kingdom of justice, immortality, prosperity, blessing, salvation, and bliss (Yasna, Sepantmad Gatha, 47:1, 5, 48: 1, 5; Ahunvad Gathas, 30: 8, 11).
(3) Zoroastrianism is a monotheistic faith and is named after its founder Zartosht or Zarathustra. Scholars commonly agree that Zartosht was born around 620 BCE and that, at the age of thirty, he called upon people to accept his god Ahura Mazda as the centre of the kingdom of justice, immortality, prosperity, blessing, salvation, and bliss (Yasna, Sepantmad Gatha, 47:1, 5, 48: 1, 5; Ahunvad Gathas, 30: 8, 11).
(4) Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are called as Family of Abraham since they trace themselves to the Patriarch Abraham.
(5) At the rise of Prophet Muhammad, Jews lived mostly in Hijaz and were involved in trading activities. Christians lived in Yemen in the south, Syria in the north and Hira in the east. In Mecca, however, there were only a few Christians and they were mainly from the Quraysh tribe (Muhammad's tribe). The paganism in Arabia had an animistic nature and was very similar to a few non-Abrahamic faiths mentioned in the Hebrew Bible. Male and female gods were worshipped in this religion. Among the few mentioned in the Qur'an are Allah, who was known to the Arabs of Mecca as the supreme being, and other female gods such as Al-Lat (signifying the Sun), Al-'Uzza (god of stars) and Manat (god of fortune and wealth). The statues of these gods were kept in the Ka'aba (an international shrine that was opened to every faith and religion) in Mecca, and female priests as well as male ones were in charge of the related rituals.
(6) According to tablet VI, Gilgamesh rejects the marriage proposal of Ishtar, the female god of love and fertility. Ishtar decides to take revenge and destroy Gilgamesh. She assigns the divine bull to kill Gilgamesh, however, her efforts are unsuccessful and Gilgamesh wins the battle. In this myth with an Akkadian or a Semitic origin, Queen of the dragons of darkness, Tiamat or the bird-god Zu fights against Ninurta, the god-leader of the gods of light and order for the tablets of destiny. In the Babylonian version, Tiamat is the female god of the chaos. Marduk defeats her and splits her into two halves. Marduk also created humans with the blood of god Kingu, Tiamat's ally and second husband.
(7) The term caste is from the word casta, which may be translated as "race" and was used to describe the hereditary social organization of members of the Hindu faith. Accordingly, his head made the sky, his mind created the moon, the sun came from his eyes, his navel blew air into the world, his feet made the earth, his mouth became the Brahmin caste his arms made the Rajanya caste, his thighs became the Vaisya caste and finally the feet produced the Sudra caste (x: 90).
(8) The Safavid dynasty (1502-1736) expanded the Shiite Jafari branch in Iran. The founder of the dynasty, Shah Ismail, claimed that he was a descendent of Imam Musa Kazim and declared Shiism as the official religion of Iran. Iranians who earlier mostly followed the Hanafi school of thought (Sunni) were forced to convert to the Shiite faith. The main reason behind such forceful mass conversion was to establish a state religion different from the Ottoman Sunni Hanafis (Derayeh, 2006).
Minoo Derayeh
Department of Equity Studies, Department of Humanities, Faculty of Liberal Arts and Professional Studies, York University, Canada
Dr. Minoo Derayeh, a specialist on Islam, World Religions and Gender Studies is Associate Professor at York University in Toronto. She received her MA at the Institute of Islamic Studies and her Ph.D. in the Department of Culture and Values, the Faculty of Education at McGill University in Canada.
Her book entitled Gender Equality in Iranian History: from Pre-Islamic Times to the Present was published in 2006. Her article entitled "Depiction of Women in Iranian Cinema, 1970s to Present" is published in the Women Studies International Journal in May 2010. At York University, she teaches variety of courses including, Islamic Thought & Politics: Human Rights in Islam, Contemporary Religious Issues, Islam through the Ages: Issues and Ideas, Women in the Qur'an and the Prophetic Tradition, Equity and Human Rights in Education. Dr. Derayeh's ([email protected]) research interest focus on gender and religion, modernity and tradition, Islam and social justice, and Islam and popular culture.
 Printer friendly
 Cite/link
 Email
 Feedback
| |
| Author: | Derayeh, Minoo |
|---|---|
| Publication: | Pakistan Journal of Women's Studies: Alam-e-Niswan |
| Date: | Dec 1, 2011 |
| Words: | 9631 |
| Previous Article: | The internet: empowering women? |
| Next Article: | Tribal justice system "blood debt" marriage of 12-year-old girl to 85-year-old man. |
| Topics: | |