Holy Doubt

A interview with Mehdi Jahandar

Mehdi Jahandar is managing director of the public relations office representing the 4'000 mosques of greater Tehran. He preaches at the Hazrat-e Abolfazl mosque in south Tehran, teaches English, and is currently learning French. Mr. Jahandar is 27 years old.

We realize that many of our readers shall beg to differ on this point, but we consider it important and worthwhile to see what the official spokesman of the religious establishment of Tehran has to say on women's issues.

Mahsa Shekarloo: What are your responsibilities towards your mosque?

Mehdi Jahandar: I speak there, and I go on field trips with the community. When you're responsible for a mosque, you take all sorts of decisions, even on general changes in the neighborhood, like the time we laid the gas pipelines.

The brothers and sisters both helped lay those pipelines — and that's something you'll see in very few mosques in Tehran, or even Iran. In our mosque, the women are very active, and helpful, and influential. Most of them have more time than their husbands, since they don't have full-time jobs, so they're more present, and invest a lot of effort. The pipelines aside, they've been active in neighborhood security, repairing the sidewalks, building the mosque, repairing the mosque, and many other things.

Tirdad Zolghadr: How did you gain your position at the mosque?

MJ: Well it's a mosque that has had 24 different mollahs since it was established 18 years ago. There are three different groups in the community, three groups with major differences, and every time a clergyman was invited, at least one of the three groups was opposed to him.

The first group are the women, who hold their own assemblies, and who would formulate their own demands toward the mosque, but their expectations were never met. Either they weren't taken seriously, or they would be told they couldn't even use the mosque. The second group are the men who have been in the neighborhood from the very beginning. They're Azeri. One could say they practice religion in a traditional sort of way. The third are a newly-formed group who brought a lot of tensions into the community. Some of them are basijis [ members of the Islamic militia] , including the so-called leader of the group. He isn't a basiji in the legal sense of the term, he has no legal standing, but he calls himself a basiji and does pretty much what he likes. He insulted many of the clergymen who came to preach, and drove them away. But he also beat people up, or he slipped drugs in people's pockets and arrested them as "drug dealers", and other things of the kind.

Let me mention that I was a basiji myself, from when I was a kid. But we believed a basiji was to offer people refuge and protection.

Anyway, since I had lived in the area, all three groups knew me, and invited me to come and preach. I waited for a while, until a second invitation arrived by way of a friend of mine, and then I accepted. But when I showed up at the mosque, there was a row of people blocking my way, and that basiji I mentioned stopped me from entering, and said I was opposed to the velayat-e faqih [ Supreme Leader of the Revolution] . But I held my service nonetheless.

On that first day at the mosque, besides the women, of which I don't know how many were present, there was one little girl and one man praying. That was it. And the guys outside were playing tapes at full volume, and doing anything to distract us.

The next day, I contacted all my friends who were clergymen or basijis themselves, and had them come over to the mosque. From then on, noone could accuse me of being anti-velayat-e faqih, or anti-basiji or whatnot. And when the people saw I wasn't backing down in front of that particular group, they started coming. And the mosque actually filled up, and now has more visitors than ever before.

MS: The group of women you mentioned — in what ways is it active?

MJ: In many ways, from running Qoran classes, to schooling for kids, to the neighborhood development projects I mentioned.

MS: Are you in the know about all their activities?

MJ: Of course. They answer to me.

MS: What has changed, compared to before you were running the mosque?

MJ: Well, before I arrived, there was always someone there who thought he could boss people around, and who would sometimes get insulting and stupid. Noone could get any work done in the mosque.

I have to say that ever since I've been working for the public relations office, I'm only at the mosque one night a week. I have a representative there.

But I do what I can, I help them in their studies, I mediate during conflicts.

MS: In what way?

MJ: I say, "Listen, the Prophet said the big must be kind to the small, and have mercy upon them, and the small must respect the big". Everyone has their own place. Noone can neglect the rights of a spouse, a parent, a child. Everyone is entitled to a specific amount of respect.

A husband, for example, cannot start insulting his wife out of sheer suspicion. Even if his wife did do something wrong, one has to understand her motives.

MS: It's a matter of how you define "respect". Some women behave a certain way, and see that as a way of respecting their husbands, while their husbands don't. And on the other hand, sometimes husbands abuse their wives, but call it something else. So what you say is great, but it's a little more complicated than that.

MJ: Of course people do wrong things in the belief that they're doing right.

MS: Does a man have the right to beat his wife?

MJ: The Qoran says it's permissible, but he must do so affectionately, with a stalk of sweet basil [ reyhaaneh] . If he hurts her, and her skin turns red or blue, he's liable to pay a fine [ diieh] , and the incident becomes grounds for divorce.

MS: That's not exactly what happens in practice

MJ: Well, some people may not follow the rules, but if you want to be a Muslim, it's what you should do.

Then it can also happen as a last resort, in anger, when all else has failed.

MS: So there are circumstances under which it's permissible.

MJ: Absolutely. But one must add that Islam is extremely restrictive in this respect, compared to the religions before it, or to the modern countries of today. I know a number of foreigners very well. Take this German academic, a very respected man, who tells me that "every family needs a boss, and only a man can be a boss", and all that stuff. As final and as easy as that.

One must also ask: "what is a man?", and "what is a woman?". Based on the things that a man has in common with all other men around the world, and those that a woman has in common with all other women, due to those things, we can say the well-being of men and women depend on different conditions. We can't expect the two sexes to be the same.

MS: Do you have any children?

MJ: I have two daughters.

MS: Would you allow their husbands to hit them?

MJ: I'm raising them in a way that no man would ever dare.

MS: About the difference between the sexes: that itself is a question of interpretation. The way you define the difference between the sexes will be very different to how I or other women define it.

MJ: Of course. For one thing, a man can never understand what it's like to be a woman, and vice versa. Women often have to point out, "Listen, there's this point that you haven't understood, and that's because you're a man". That's a reality.

MS: Does Iranian law take this into account, or does it presume that men have understood everything once and for all? For instance, there are women who have interpreted the Qoran in new ways. They show that you cannot be sure what interpretation you must use, and that some words had different meanings in different contexts. Do you think there is a place for those kinds of debates in Iran today?

MJ: Of course there are different readings and interpretations of the Qoran, but they're all of one color. There's a limit. You can't differ too much on this end, or too much on the other.

You know, it's not just a question of women's issues, and their complexity. It's humankind that's complex. And no law can be applicable to the whole of humankind throughout history. In Shiism, we have something called moghtazian-e zamaan o makaan [ adequacy of time and place] . Conditions change, and the basis of these changes also affects the appearance of our rules and directives. For example, the criterion of respect for humankind is absolute, but the way it is acted out changes.

The environment in Iran is completely open to dialogue. Within the religious field, we have an expression called "holy doubt" [ shak-e moghadas ] . We doubt in everything, from the very beginning, even in the existence of God himself. If you can't doubt in something, you can't prove its existence, nor its attributes.

The Prophet says the highest form of belief is thought and reflection. If we say, "You don't have the right to question this", then how can we start thinking about it? We can only think if we doubt. Thought begins with doubt, with questioning, putting different thoughts together.

I hope I've answered your question.

TZ: Are there conditions under which a wife can beat her husband?

MJ: I've already answered that question. Just as the definition of "woman" or "man" isn't always the same throughout space and time, likewise, there are conditions under which any act may be permissible. And there are conditions under which that same act is a mistake. So, yes, there may be conditions under which a woman had better raise her hand against her husband. Say he's threatening her life, for example. No law can deprive a woman of her right to self-defense.

MS: So both sexes have that right.

MJ: That's what I've been saying all along. It all depends on the context. If you look at the Islamic laws, and the Shii laws, you'll see that every law has an osroharaj, that is, for every law, there are situations in which it doesn't apply. If you're lost in the desert, and you only have wine on you, then there's nothing wrong with drinking it. Every law is general, and has a limited applicability, and different interpretations.

Sometimes it's necessary for a marja' [ religious leader] to come and pick the best one, but that marja' won't be able to work out a directive that applies to all the details of your everyday life. There's no limit to the number of different contexts. And there's no limit to the number of interpretations.

TZ: So is there a context or an interpretation that allows for a woman to be a marja'?

MJ: In Shiism, a woman can be a mojtahed, she can study Islam, but only for herself. She can reach the ejtehad [ qualification for religious leadership] , and work out religious directives for herself, but she can't publish resaleh [ religious dissertations] to be followed by others.

MS: What is your own position on this issue.

MJ: You see, having a woman as a leader presents certain difficulties. People follow women for the wrong motives. In many foreign countries, we've seen that women have been elected because of their appearance. Women the world over are being used for their looks. And obviously, looks have nothing to do with the quality of their work.

TZ: One of the conservative parties of Iran has just picked a woman candidate for the presidential elections. Are you saying they should send her back home?

MJ: That's a different issue. The conservatives have realized that a woman can attract far more votes than a man. It's been proven in parliamentary elections in the past. And that's why they started putting up women.

MS: Actually, if you look at the figures, you'll see that most of the votes for women candidates came from the women themselves.

And besides, if we look at the early history of Islam, we can see there used to be far more woman leaders than there are now.

MJ: Of course. If we look at Zeynab, for example, who was the first to raise our banner after the battle of Karbala. She held great speeches, and brought great changes. Or we also have Fatemeh, the Prophet's daughter. There's no problem with that. But changing contexts call for different measures.

TZ: What is your position on sigheh [ temporary marriage] ?

MJ: When it comes to sexual relations between women and men, Islam is very, very open. If you look into the matter, you'll see that Islam does not allow for oppression, not under any circumstances whatsoever.

In Europe, people have decided there shouldn't be any restraints on relations between women and men. The difference is simply that they don't call it sigheh. Because that's precisely what sigheh is; it's about a man and a woman who utter a lafz, and declare their intention to have sexual relations. The utterance doesn't even have to be in Arabic, it can be in Farsi, they just have to clearly declare their wishes.

I'd like to point out that if our society has certain problems, these mainly go back to traditions and popular beliefs, not to Islam. Take, for example, gheirat [ overbearing, possessive behavior on behalf of husbands or male relatives] .

Generally speaking, when something is declared illegal, it is suddenly placed within the reach of other illegal activities. And this is how young people come into touch with, for example, prostitution and drugs, and all the diseases and dangers this entails. But if the legal barriers are lifted, as is the case with sigheh, then all those problems can be avoided.

MS: Have you ever done a sigheh?

MJ: No. I'm too busy with my intellectual pursuits for that sort of thing.

MS: To be able to sigheh, a woman has to be divorced, or widowed.

MJ: Yes. In principle, a young, unmarried woman needs the permission of her father.

But here, too, the principle of osroharaj applies. If the father wants to prevent a marriage or a sigheh, depending on what his motives are (should he say, for example, "I'll only let you marry an engineer"), she can override his decision.

MS: But a man can conclude a sigheh even if he's already married.

MJ: Yes. It's been decided that a man has the power to marry several women, but not vice versa. This is something that has taken root in society.

But if a woman desires another man, she can get a divorce, which isn't a problem in Islam. If it is a problem, this is due to popular beliefs, not Islam itself.

MS: The fact is that it really is a problem. It's difficult to divorce a man if he won't consent.

MJ: There are times when individual rights and the interests of society are at odds with one another. Take the example of a soldier. He may die at the front, but that's the spirit of self-sacrifice that society expects of him. This is the case everywhere, you can't pin that on Iran or Islam.

And when it comes to the family, the protective barriers around the children that will be building the future of our society, these barriers are far more important than some individual who is out of luck, and comes asking for individual rights.

MS: Fine. But that doesn't explain why a man can divorce his wife without any particular reason, but not vice versa.

MJ: No, he cannot.

MS: Well, again, there may be a big difference between what the Qoran says and what is actually being done. But now that you see it isn't working the way it should be, what do you suggest?

MJ: Let me put it this way. In a class of students, there may be only one student who passes the final exams. Now, there's no point in saying, well, we'll lower the standards, and from now on, anyone who reaches twelve out of twenty has passed. That defeats the purpose.

There are many people who simply cannot reach twenty out of twenty, and never will. Because of the many oppressive traits in society, because of customs, and the way you're educated — in your family, or in school. This is about oppression.

But as for Islamic laws, they in themselves represent a score of twenty.

MS: You're saying there are few Muslims in our society.

MJ: I'm saying Islam has its strata [ marhale] . Faith has its strata. And there is no system of thought that includes everybody in its upper strata. It's impossible. These religious laws that I've been talking about — and that I can back up, both with rational thought, and with the canon [ aql o naql] — there are many in our society who don't understand them, and don't believe in them. Because they prefer to draw barriers, and call people "un-Islamic", and say, "if you step over this line you're an apostate", and so on.

We have a general, basic precept in Islam: one's duty according to one's capacity and understanding. We can't expect everyone to act according to the highest standards.

MS: It's funny that, it's when it comes to women, so many people fail their exams.

MJ: The problem of the West is that it's trapped in Humanism. The West says: "If you don't adhere to the laws of logic, which we've inherited from ancient Greece, and which will always be true, then you'll never have dependable laws".

The majority of people do what they can, from within the limits that are imposed on them. What do you say to someone in a difficult situation, who failed his exams because he had to take a job and work hard during his studies, so to speak. You don't have the right to belittle him, or say, "look at you, you've failed your exam, you aren't even a human being". What counts is the effort you put in.

MS: Let's talk about these limits. Take the example of cat-calling. Who is under which limitations here. The women can't do very much when they're being hassled on the street. What limits are the men under, in this situation?

MJ: This calls for breaking traditions [ sonnat shekani] . For it all goes back to traditions and beliefs that are old and deeply entrenched — "boys are free, girls are supposed to be at home", and all that.

I've talked so much about these issues in my mosque that I'm accused of defending women all the time. But I argue that, listen, this isn't about defending anyone. This is about people's rights. If you call yourself a man of God, and trample on women's rights, I get upset.

But let me add that changing traditions, and making people understand, this isn't just anybody's sort of job. We all have our different duties.

MS: Well it isn't only about understanding. Many people understand, but don't act on it, they don't even speak up.

MJ: Who do you want to speak up?

MS: Anyone. The guy who's standing right next to me. Or the policeman who's great at cat-calling himself. Or the god-fearing man who's passing by.

MJ: Again, this goes back to the values of society at large. If society doesn't accept women who don't wear the [ traditional] chador, it isn't going to defend them on the street, either. And that's because they're uninformed. Many people come and talk to me about the hejab, and they all assume that being "badly veiled" is a sin. Even the women who are only wearing a coat — they try to justify themselves, or they take their distance from me. I always say, listen, values don't depend on someone's appearance.

But then they say, well, that's Mr. Jahandar's position, that's not what religion tell us. But I can prove that it's exactly what our religion tells us. In the end, some believe me, but some don't.

MS: That's to be expected. If you live in the Islamic Republic, which is saying one thing, then along comes a series of clergymen who say another thing, it's pretty confusing.

MJ: I can understand that. The problem is that people don't try to find out for themselves.

If someone's wearing a clergyman's outfit, that doesn't mean he's necessarily speaking the truth. He may be doing wrong, or he may be making a mistake.

MS: A lot of Iranians, particularly the younger generations, have come to dislike Islam. They say that anything that is forced upon you is wrong, regardless of its merits.

MJ: A good point. The question is, how do you approach someone who is committing a sin? Whether it's hair sticking out of a woman's headscarf, or something more serious, like a lie. Do you have the right to beat someone up for that?

Unfortunately, in our society, certain people — unconsciously, or out of hunger for power, or due to personal hang-ups — have come and turned the most inappropriate little things into matters of value and security. If someone has a beard, or if someone leads the public prayers, this has become reason to give him an important position, rather than whether he has the skills to do the job. And the opposite: men and women who don't conform in appearance are pushed aside. Is that logical? There isn't a single resaleh that gives you the right to do this sort of thing. One has yet to show me a single verse that does.

For centuries, and centuries, Iran has suffered from totalitarian rule. They've always been trying to impose things, or ban them by force. And when the revolution came, it was the people themselves who continued to do violence unto themselves. When they would tell someone, "Sir, you're now the head of this office", the man would think it was his right to kick out anyone who said the wrong thing. That's the situation today. People who know better, but who, because of their positions, or because of their insecurities, try and justify what cannot be justified.

MS: Do you think the hejab should remain mandatory?

MJ: There are different positions one can take on this issue. There are some who say, "if the law is lifted, you're opening the door to the exploitation of women that we see in Western countries". To the abuse of women's sexuality and appearance. They say it's a shame for a woman who could have pursued a good job to be wasted in that way.

Then there are others who say there's no point in forcing people to abide by the same cliche, that people are free to let themselves be abused if they wish, and that that is their individual right.

MS: But in Iran, that "abuse of women's sexuality and appearance" is going on anyway.

MJ: Where? Can you name me a single company that uses pretty women to sell its products?

MS: It goes on in different ways. Look at the film stars.

But why won't you answer the question? Are you in favor of the mandatory hejab?

MJ: [ laughs] Look. From the beginning of this interview, I've been appealing to the principle of adequacy of place and time. Noone can say, well, this issue should be resolved like this, everywhere, and always.

Again, there's two possible positions. One is to say, "Islam has never resorted to force". People who wish to live in the right way should do so on their own accord. Then there's the other position that says, "We live in an Islamic society, and even if there's a minority that is unhappy with its rules, why upset the others by lifting them".

MS: Have you been following the Ebadi, Kar and Lahiji stories?

MJ: What difference does that make?

MS: I'm only asking whether you've been following the story.

MJ: Well, of course. It's important. It's current news, and one gets curious. I just don't have the time to read all the papers. And besides, I believe the press has its own priorities, like increased circulation, and propagating their own political lines.

MS: Do you have any thoughts or opinions on their arrests?

MJ: Those are accusations. They don't prove anything.

But people's attitudes towards reformists changed after the Berlin incident. They questioned the direction of the movement. They didn't like the attacks that were made on Iran.

TZ: You keep mentioning changes we need in society. Perhaps we could end on a general note, on how you think they should happen.

MJ: If we don't find a middle way between what we want for the future and what we used to believe, we will not be successful.

Islam is the religion of freedom of thought. If our prayers are held for some ulterior motive, and are not directed to God, they won't be accepted. And if we force someone to pray, he won't be praying to God.

transl.: TZ

Back to top