| |
|
|
 |
|
Lectures by Mrs. Rajavi, for an audience of Iranian women - Paris-1995 |
|
|
|
|
Sunday, 12 June 2005 |
A series of lectures by Mrs. Maryam Rajavi, the Iranian Resistance's
President-elect, for an audience of Iranian women - Paris - Autumn 1995
Topics:
- Misogyny, Driving Force of Khomeini-style Fundamentalism
-
Misogyny in eyes of reactionaries
-
The principal value and criterion
-
Fundamentalism in power
-
Omnipresent clampdown
-
A devastating war
-
Export of terrorism and fundamentalism
-
The sanctity of family
-
Women's Equality In Judgeship and Leadership
-
Unfounded reasons
-
According to the Quran
-
According to the Tradition of the Prophet:
-
According to the religious scholars:
-
According to common sense:
-
Dynamic Nature of the Quran
-
Women in Islamic Thought
-
Women in the Iranian Resistance
-
Future Prospects
-
Our message
Throughout the world, women still suffer discrimination and oppression,
for no reason other than their gender. In essence, the plight and
suffering of women is the same for all of us. But let there be no doubt
that we women have undoubtedly taken major strides forward.
So, in the beginning of this speech, I salute the tens of thousands of
women who sacrificed their lives or freedom in the cause of the Iranian
Resistance, the thousands of women victimized by the violence and
terror of reactionaries in other countries, and those women who
endeavor for the equality of women, today. Greetings from the bottom of
my heart to you all, for thanks to your efforts, today we do not have
to begin our struggle from nothing.
Today, major issues such as peace, social and economic development and
the spread of democracy have become unavoidably entangled with the
issue of women. All of these issues merit research and study, but our
discussion today focuses on Islam's approach to the equality of women
and men. I find this a subject deserving far greater attention than has
been accorded to it so far, not only because of the challenges existing
in Iran, but in light of developments in all Islamic countries and
among the Muslims of other nations.
I begin my speech with a reminder of a few obvious facts on the
inequality and oppression women suffer from, before I move on to the
main subject.
According to the data released by the United Nations,1 women make up
only 10% of the world's parliaments, and hold only 5.7%2 of ministerial
positions. According to Mrs. Edith Creysson, France's former Prime
Minister, the stereotype of power in political circles is masculine;
the boss is a man. This model further considers a pro-women outlook as
very short-sighted.
The situation is worse in the field of economic management: a glass
ceiling covers the world. At most 1 to 2% of senior executives are
women.3 Yet women pay a higher price for unemployment than men do. For
the same amount of work, women on average receive less than 75% of
men's wages. In some cases, this figure drops to 50%.
Another United Nations study discovered that women contributed $11
billion to the world economy through their invisible labor.4 And yet,
70% of the world's poor are women.5
The other matter of concern is a woman's struggle to strike the right
balance between her job, her housework and the upbringing of her
children. Creating harmony between family life and professional life is
a laborious exercise which exacts a heavy price from women everyday.
Different forms of violence against women - at home and in society -
are on the rise, becoming an acute social crisis in many parts of the
world.
Women's typical reaction to these conditions is a mixture of passivity
and resignation. The question is, why are women being eliminated from
the social and political scenes, and why do they acquiesce to their own
elimination?
In reply, I find myself in agreement with Simone de Beauvoir's
assertion that the story of woman is the very essence of her womanhood.
If she is eliminated, if she eliminates herself, if she is obsessed
with a lack of identity and disbelief in herself, and if she is viewed
as the "second gender" or "the other gender," it is because she has
always been viewed as a woman, not as a human: being a woman means
being passive and inevitably on the defensive.
Look back in history and you will see that whether a woman was put
down, humiliated and reproached, or whether she was admired and held
sacred, it was because she was a woman and none else. The great
calamity lies in the fact that a woman is known by her "womanliness," a
view which she shares, herself. This vicious cycle of degeneration is
the product of gender discrimination which has enchained women.
Despite its defiance, the male-dominated regime is retreating step by
step. Yet at the same time, a reactionary, violent and suppressive
force called fundamentalism is emerging. Misogynous in character,
fundamentalism or religious fanaticism, best represented by Khomeini's
successors in Iran, is threatening all the achievements of the
civilized world, particularly those of women. Under the banner of
Islam, they are denying the equality of women and men.
I will suffice by citing a document from the fundamentalist regime
ruling Iran which critiques the "Convention on the Elimination of All
Forms of Discrimination Against Women." The mullahs' Council of
Cultural Revolution prepared this document on the eve of the United
Nations' Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing. It describes the
Convention as "one of the UN's orchestrated and fundamental
initiatives" to realize "colonialist objectives disguised as 'defending
women's rights.' " The document views the "Convention's overall
spirit," namely women's equality with men, as contrary to the
foundations of the clerical regime. It quotes Khomeini's remarks to the
regime's leaders: "State your repugnance at equal rights (for men and
women)." It adds: "According to the sayings of the Imam, equality
between the sexes destroys all Divine edicts and oppresses women. His
Eminence the Imam had denounced as apostates (which automatically
carries the death sentence) those advocating this notion."
Although gender oppression is common to all reactionary philosophies,
fundamentalist mullahs stand in a class of their own. They derive their
vigor and inspiration from their discrimination against and suppression
of women; it is their life's blood. Beyond the whip, in a literal
sense, the fundamentalist form of oppression is the worst because it is
compounded by a cultural persecution which takes advantage of the name
of Islam.
Today, I deliberately wish to step out of my position in the Iranian
Resistance and speak as a Muslim woman. In my view, fundamentalism
clearly runs counter to Islamic thinking. This is precisely what I wish
to speak about today. At the conclusion of my presentation, I will try
to share with you some of the experience gained in 17 years of
resistance by Iranian women, and complement it with our suggestions on
the prerequisites for women's emancipation, which must definitely be
earned by women themselves. Let me reiterate that in challenging the
mullahs, whose reactionary rule has shackled my homeland, I
deliberately want to present my case as a Muslim woman.
Notes:
1. Platform for Action, Fourth World Conference on Women, Beijing, September 1995, Chapter 1, Global Mission: No. 28.
2. The World's Women 1995: Trends and Statistics, United Nations, Chapter 6, Power and Influence.
3. Ibid.
4. Human Development Report 1995, p. 4.
5. World of Work, International Labor Organization, December 1994.
-
Misogyny, Driving Force of Khomeini-style Fundamentalism
Rafsanjani, the Iranian regime's President, says: "Justice does not
mean that all laws should be the same for women and men... The
differences in body, height, sturdiness, voice, growth, muscle quality,
physical strength, perseverance in the face of disasters and resistance
to disease in women and men show that men are stronger and more capable
in all these areas... Men's brains are larger... These differences
affect the delegation of responsibilities, duties and rights!"1
The fundamentalist mind considers physiological traits as the
determining factors. We, on the contrary, believe that on the basis of
the reasoning laid out in the Quran, it is the distinctive human
characteristics - cognizance, free will and responsibility - that set
the criteria. For this reason, and in diametric opposition to what
Rafsanjani says, there is no innate difference between women and men in
the delegation of rights, responsibilities and duties.
In the mullahs' fundamentalist worldview, gender-based differences are
used to justify sexual discrimination and inevitably lead to enmity
towards women. This is the bedrock of the fundamentalists' rationale,
the leitmotif and cornerstone of their ideology, which gives them
inspiration and the power to mobilize their forces.
The ruling clerics in Iran issue directives dictating the color and
style of women's dress, prohibiting them from smiling in public, and
barring them from attending soccer matches. Through such acts, they
motivate their fanatic forces and claim that these actions advance the
cause of Islam. We, on the contrary, consider such acts detrimental to
Islam. We do not tolerate any restrictions or discrimination against
women. In tomorrow's Iran, free from compulsion, women will fully enjoy
their individual and social rights. The National Council of Resistance
ratified and published in April 1987 a 13-point plan on the rights and
freedoms of women.2
By way of clarification only and without drawing any comparisons on the
content, I propose that gender-based discrimination does for
fundamentalists what the notion of racial supremacy did for Hitler's
National Socialist ideology: with it, he motivated his forces and
mobilized them to invade other countries.
Following the oppression of women, suppression of, and violent
crackdown on, thought is indispensable to this regime. Another example
from Iran's ruling regime: By issuing the anti-Islamic fatwa to murder
Salman Rushdie, his publishers and anyone selling his book, Khomeini
revitalized his zealots, demoralized by the Iran-Iraq War. The regime's
theorists called it "a new manifestation of power." We condemned the
terrorist fatwa as anti-Islamic and said that Khomeini had struck the
most terrible blow to the dignity of Islam.
The mullahs have murdered several Iranian converts. Among others, they
arrested the Reverend Mehdi Dibaj on this charge and sentenced him to
death. Having been forced to release him under international pressure,
they deemed extrajudicial execution the best solution: Reverend Dibaj
was murdered shortly after his release from prison. These acts, in our
views, are abominable crimes, especially since the Quran has explicitly
emphasized, la Ikraha fed-din, there is no compulsion in faith.
In tomorrow's Iran, Church and State will be separated and any form of
discrimination against the followers of other religions and
denominations in the enjoyment of individual and social rights shall be
prohibited. No citizen shall be treated favorably or discriminated
against in getting elected, voting, employment, education, judgeship
and other individual and social rights on the grounds of his or her
belief and non-belief. Neither will the qualification of judicial
officials be based on their religious and ideological positions. Any
form of compulsory religious and ideological teaching and any attempt
to force practice or non-practice of religious rites and customs shall
be forbidden. The right of all religions and denominations to teach,
disseminate and freely perform their rites and traditions, and the
respect and security of all places of worship belonging to them are
guaranteed. We have unequivocally stated our views in this respect. The
NCR ratified and published the plan in question in November 1985.3
Prior to that, in our platform, we had pledged to ban and condemn any
form of censorship and inquisition. Contrarily, the mullahs scrutinize
everyone's beliefs as a prerequisite to employment in offices or
admission to universities. They subject all books to stringent
screening before publication. They have even required that "Islamic
covering," i.e., veils, be drawn onto the pictures of girl children in
the school books. Under the aegis of the mullahs, inquisition pervades
all sections of society.
We consider all such conduct as anti-Islamic and flagrant abuse of
religion to maintain power. Without such methods, the mullahs cannot
rule. Lying at the core of the mullahs' "religious beliefs", however,
is gender-based suppression, segregation and discrimination - a
phenomenon that can be studied in its theoretical sense or practical
applications.
-
Misogyny in eyes of reactionaries
Theoretically, Islamic fundamentalism establishes its thesis on the
differences between the sexes and the conclusion that the male is
superior and hence the female is a slave at his service. A
parliamentary deputy in Iran is on record as saying, "Women must accept
the reality of men dominating them and the world must recognize the
fact that men are superior."4
Ultimately, the fundamentalists do not believe women are human. More
recently, however, the fundamentalist ideologues try to equivocate in
this respect. One such theorist, Morteza Motahhari, contends
paradoxically, "... Women and men are equal in their human essence, but
they are two different forms of humans, with two different sets of
attributes and two different psyches..." Immediately, the emphasis:
"Such differences are not a consequence of geographic, historic or
social factors, but are enshrined in the essence of Creation. There is
a purpose to these natural differences, and any practice which
contradicts nature and man's natural disposition will bring about
undesirable consequences."5
Worries about the dangers of overlooking the physiological differences
between men and women are illusory. The real danger throughout history
lies in overemphasizing these differences to justify and legitimize
discrimination against women. An evident example is Motahhari's
endorsement of the conclusions from the differences between the sexes:
"All women are fond of being supervised ... Men's spiritual superiority
over women was designed by Mother Nature. No matter how much a woman
wants to fight this reality, her efforts will prove futile. Women must
accept the reality that because of their greater sensitivity, they need
men to control their lives."6
From this standpoint, the right to divorce is exclusive to men, and is
justified as follows: "If the man does not put away his wife and
remains loyal to her, the woman will also love him and remain loyal to
him. Therefore, nature has given the key to the natural dissolution of
the marriage to the man."7
Accordingly, a woman's self esteem derives from the man, and so she
does anything to gain his esteem. Her soul and flesh, her feelings,
even her basic identity belong to and are identified with him. Man
replaces God for a woman, a view plainly contradictory to monotheism.
-
The principal value and criterion
From the fundamentalist mullahs' perspective, sexual vice and virtue
are the principal criteria for evaluation. The most ignoble and
unforgivable of all sins is sexual wrongdoing; piety, chastity and
decency are basically measured by sex-related yardsticks. Seldom do
they apply to the political and social realms. Purity or corruption are
essentially judged according to criteria that are in one way or another
related to sex. When such a value system evolves into the social norm,
the walls of sexual demarcation become taller, thicker and even more
ubiquitous. Fundamentalism conceives of woman as sinister and satanic;
she is the embodiment of sin and seduction. She must not step beyond
her house, lest her presence in society breed sin. She must stay at
home, servicing her husband's carnal desires; if she fails to comply,
she is compelling her man to commit sin outside the home.
The fundamentalists look at the world and the hereafter through
distorted, sex-tinted glasses. Throughout history they have fabricated
their own fantasies and moral lessons and attributed them even to the
Prophet Mohammad's ascension to Heaven. Predictably, the fabricated
stories focus on the gravity of sexual sins and the severity of
punishment meted out when such sins are committed. Here's one
reactionary theorist's fantasies shamelessly attributed to the
Prophet's me'eraj, or his ascension to Heaven : "I saw a woman hanging
from her hair whose brain was boiling because she had not covered her
hair. I saw a woman who had been hanged from her tongue and Hell's
boiling water was being poured into her throat, because she had
irritated her husband. I saw a woman in a furnace of fire, hanged from
her feet because she had left home without her husband's permission ..."
Such fantasies fabricated by the reactionaries are nowhere to be found
in the Quran. The Quran contains more than 6,200 verses, the great
majority of which deal with the question of existence, history and the
human being, emphasizing the responsibilities of the human race. The
total number of verses focusing on religious precepts does not exceed
500, of which only a few deal with sexual vice and virtue.
According to the Hadith (sayings of the Prophet), the Prophet
enumerated seven mortal sins, namely loss of faith in God's mercy,
homicide, robbing orphans of their belongings, sorcery and demagoguery,
usury, and slandering virtuous women. A common theme runs through these
seven sins, however diverse they may be: rather than being
introspective, they all relate in one way or another to social
relations and the individual's relations with others in society.
Looking at the list of the seven mortal sins, the question comes to
mind that while one of the mortal sins is slandering women, why do
fundamentalists exaggerate the sexual distinctions? They do so because
it is the only way for them to maintain a monopoly on Islam and seat
themselves upon the throne of religion. The fundamentalists abuse
religion in the most despicable manner. In the name of religion, they
induce in their followers a constant feeling of guilt emanating from
sex-related criteria. They thus introvert the people, leaving the
masses wandering lost within themselves while the clerics reproach them
in the most vehement of religious terms. On one side are the sinful
throngs, who must look for some way to make up for their wrongdoing; on
the other are Khomeini and his clerics who portray themselves as
paragons of piety, distant from all sin and forbidden sexual domains.
This is the mechanism whereby many of these human beings, who have been
turned inward by feelings of guilt induced in them by the demagogic
mullahs, are made to feel indebted and obedient to the "pious religious
jurist," the Vali-e-faqih. The more sins they commit, the more they owe
to the clergy. The mullahs in turn provide these people with enough
material benefits to make it worth their while to be recruited into the
regime's various agencies of repression.
When such reactionaries take over the helm of politics, they base their
rule on gender-based apartheid and discrimination and legalize the
suppression of women. This is where the inconceivable pain and
suffering of millions of my fellow Iranian women begin.
Omnipresent clampdown
The Quran teaches that people should not be subjected to scrutiny,
particularly in their private lives. In contrast, Iran's ruling clerics
order their agents to burst into people's homes at midnight to find out
if women guests in private parties are observing the compulsory veil.
One woman reported that government spies had asked her 8-year-old
daughter at school whether her mother wears the chador (the black
head-to-toe veil) when her uncle visits them at home.
The mullahs' apparatus of suppression is not comparable to those of
classical dictatorships, for the basic fact that the conventional
methods of social control employed by such dictatorships could not
maintain the detested clerics in power. The Iranian regime has 20
specialized, nationwide organs of suppression. Besides, the mullahs
have established ostensibly religious societies and associations in all
offices, universities, schools, factories, military units,
neighborhoods and even in the religious seminaries. The main task of
these associations is to keep the public in check. In addition to
keeping watch on political behavior, the members of these associations
must monitor the relationships between men and women, and focus
particularly on the personal behavior of women. It is these duties -
supervising the styles and colors of women's apparel; enforcing the
segregation of men and women in schools, universities, buses and taxis;
and keeping women and men apart at private parties, in parks and on
vacation trips - that give these associations and organs their raison
d'être.
A devastating war
The clerics continued the war with Iraq for eight years, rejecting all
peace proposals, for the simple reason that the war helped them to stay
in power. Through deceit and by taking advantage of the lay people's
religious beliefs, they sent human waves over minefields. Eyewitnesses
have reported that mullahs were present at the warfronts, preaching to
prospective victims and telling them that they would be cleansed of
their sins and go to Heaven if they walked over the mines. The world
was shocked to find that boy soldiers as young as nine and ten years
old were among Iranian casualties and POWs. They carried small plastic
keys given to them by the mullahs on the eve of their human-wave
assaults and were invariably told that the keys would open for them the
gates of Paradise, where their sins would be redeemed.
-
Export of terrorism and fundamentalism
The mullahs whip up this same misogynous hysteria to export their
reaction and terrorism to other countries. Their uneducated,
disenchanted foreign recruits are led to believe that sexual
promiscuity is the bottom line of all democracies, and that their
afflictions are caused by the social inclusion of an evil, seductive
being, called woman. Against this backdrop, the recruits are shown
photographs of certain unveiled women to fill them with hatred, and
prepare the grounds for the assassination of working women and
journalists.
In 1963, Khomeini asserted that granting women the right to vote would
corrupt society. With this rationale, in the early days of the 1979
revolution the mullahs' hoodlums attacked the prostitutes in Tehran,
set their homes on fire and stoned them to death. They believed that
this was more than a good deed; it was the most effective, most
valuable way to cleanse society.
According to Islam and Islamic precepts, a woman owns her body and all
her property. Under the pretext of the sanctity of the family, the
reactionaries consider the man as the owner of his wife's body and
life, thus making her his slave. Under the mullahs, new legislation has
been introduced to legalize this viewpoint. Mullah Mohammad Yazdi, the
head of the Judiciary, says it all: "Your wife, who belongs to you, is
in fact your slave..."9
Article 105 of the clerical regime's civil code notes: "In the
relationship between a man and a woman, the man is responsible as head
of the family." The Council of Guardians, the regime's watchdog body -
has decreed that a woman cannot leave her home without her husband's
permission, even to attend her father's funeral. Article 1117 of the
civil code states that the husband may ban his wife from any technical
profession that conflicts with family life or her character. Article
1133 of the civil code states: A man can divorce his wife whenever he
so chooses and does not have to give her advance notice.
To justify their gender-based ideology, the Iranian clerics try to sell
their reactionary viewpoints and fundamentalist dogma as religious
precepts and Islam. In this way, they forbid women from social
activity, particularly political, social and ideological leadership so
as to solidify women's "second class" standing, portraying it as
stemming from women's inherent deficiencies.
Notes:
1. Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, interview with Ettela'at, 7 June 1986.
2. Plan on the Rights and Freedoms of Iranian Women, The National Council of Resistance of Iran, 17 April 1985.
3. Plan on the NCR Relationship with Religion and Denominations, The National Council of Resistance of Iran, 12 November 1985.
4. Abbas Abbassi, parliamentary deputy, Jomhouri Islami, 8 October 1994.
5. Morteza Motahhari, Nezam-e Hoqouq-e Zan Dar Eslam (The Rights of Women in Islam), Sadra Publications, Tehran: 1990.
6. Ibid.
7. Ibid.
8. Mohammad Baqer Majlessi, Hayat-ol Qolub (The Life of Hearts).
9. Mohammad Yazdi, Head of the Judiciary, Ressalat, 15 December 1986.
-
Women's Equality In Judgeship and Leadership
The mullahs preach that a woman's place is in the home, that her voice
should not be heard by strangers, that she must not call to prayers,
that she must not deliver speeches, that she must not sing. Here,
banning women from judgeship and religious and political leadership is
of paramount significance because it deals with the most important
responsibilities. According to Article 115 of the clerics'
Constitution, the President, in particular, must be nominated from
among the religious men. As a Muslim woman, I declare that these claims
are contrary to Islam. In Islam, women enjoy all these and other
rights, equal with those of men.
To deny women their right to judge, govern or become religious leaders,
the mullahs draw on common collection of citations. Most of their
discussions focus on judgment, from which they derive the ban on female
political and religious leadership. Hence, if the reasoning behind the
ban on female judges is proven to be groundless, the same applies to
the ban on women's religious and political leaders.
Ijtihad (contemporary interpretation of allegorical verses of the Quran
by qualified scholars) requires that every decree or judgment be
evaluated according to four criteria: 1. The Quran, 2. The Traditions
(meaning the methods, sayings and writings) of the Prophet and the
Imams, 3. The consensus of Ulema (religious scholars), and 4. Common
sense.
-
The mullahs' logic conforms to none of these specifications.
1. According to the Quran:
There are no statements in the Quran depriving women from acting as
judges, and religious or political leaders. On the contrary, when the
Quran speaks of judgeship and leadership, it addresses both men and
women: "God dot command you to render back your trusts to those to whom
they are due; And when yea judge between peoples, that yea judge with
justice."1
Verses 71 of Repentance2 and 74 of The Criterion3 underscore women's equal social responsibility and right to leadership. "
2. According to the Tradition of the Prophet:
None of the mullahs' citations from the Traditions (sunna) imply that
the Prophet forbid women from becoming judges or political leaders.
Besides, it is common knowledge that after the Prophet's death, women's
citations of the Prophet's sayings were considered credible and many
have been incorporated into the main body of the hadith.
The citations used by the mullahs to prove that Islam bars women from
becoming leaders or judges are baseless. The mullahs argue, for
example, that if a woman were to become a judge, men would hear her
voice when she speaks, promoting sin. Therefore, women are not
permitted to sit on the bench. Such reasoning is not only absurd but
without credence. Did women, such as Umma Salama, not narrate the
Traditions of the Prophet? Did the Prophet's daughter and
granddaughter, Fatima and Zeinab, not deliver elaborate sermons in the
mosques and among the people?
3. According to the religious scholars:
Contrary to the notion that all religious jurists concur on these
prohibitions, some of the most renowned Sunni jurists think otherwise.
Abu Hanifa, leader of the largest Sunni branch,4 does not believe any
such prohibitions existed. Mohammad Jarir Tabari, prominent jurist and
the author of the acclaimed Tabari's History,5 wrote: "Since women are
allowed to master Ijtihad, they can also become judges, just like men."
Sheikh Mohammad Hassan an-Najafi, author of Jawaher-ol Kalam (The Gems
of Discourse), cites "consensus" as proof that judges must be male.6
Allamé Helli, a key Shiite jurist of his time, wrote in Nahjol-Haq (The
Road to Truth) that there is no such consensus.7 Hossein Ali Montazeri,
the once designated successor to Khomeini who was much acclaimed by his
mentor as a jurist, rejects Najafi's contention that there is a
consensus in this regard, writing: "In all the books of citations from
the infallible Imams I have studied, I have not encountered such a
matter."8
One can conclude, therefore, that the serious disagreements among the
religious scholars make it clear that there are no citations in the
Prophet's Tradition or in the Hadith which prohibit women from
judgeship and thereby leadership.
4. According to common sense:
A simple question can be enlightening for any Muslim. How is it
possible that women and men bear an equal responsibility, both in terms
of their religion and society, to propagate the faith; and bear an
equal responsibility, stated in the Quran, to promote justice and
Towhid (oneness); but when it comes to the most crucial means of
advancing these objectives - judgeship and religious and political
leadership - women are excluded? If women are permitted to master
Ijtihad, then how can they be deprived, on a par with lunatics and
criminals, of the right to religious leadership, even when more
qualified? Why should the public be deprived of a woman's superior
insight or more comprehensive understanding of the faith?
We are free to debate, at whatever length, the qualifications required
for a jurisprudent, judge or leader, until we arrive at a definite
conclusion. It is very different, however, to deprive women of the
chance to acquire the necessary qualifications and religious knowledge.
As you can see, according to the criteria of jurisprudence, being a man
is not a prerequisite to becoming a judge or a leader. Contrary to what
the fundamentalists attribute to Islam, the logic of the Quran clearly
articulates that women can be judges as well as religious and political
leaders.
Muslims believe, as explicitly proclaimed by the Quran and the Prophet
of Islam, that the religion and book of God exist to guide all
generations of Muslims. The primary paradox invalidating the
fundamentalist point of view, therefore, is that it transforms God's
religion and book into a set of rigid, lifeless precepts; as Imam Ali,
the fourth Caliph and the first Shiite Imam, said of such
interpretations of Islam, "Theirs is the version most alien from Islam
and the Quran."
In the famous book, Nahjol-Balagha (The Road to Eloquence),9 Imam Ali
predicted a day that resembles to an amazing degree the present
situation in my country, Iran, ruled by the Pharisees. In sermon 361,
he says, "There will come a day when the mosques are thriving on the
outside, but are corrupted in their guidance. There will come a day
when those who build the mosques and those who attend them are the most
evil on Earth."10
Notes:
1. The Glorious Quran, translation and commentary by A. Yusuf Ali
(U.K.: The Islamic Foundation, 1975), Sura IV: Nisaa (The Women), Verse
58, p. 197.
2. Ibid., p. 461. Verse 71 of Repentance: "The believers, men and
women, are protectors, one of another: they enjoin what is just, and
forbid what is evil..."
3. Ibid., p. 944. The Quran again speaks on behalf of all Muslims, men
and women, in the prayer of verse 74 of The Criterion: "And give us the
grace to lead the righteous."
4. Abu Hanifa was the leader of the largest Sunni branch who passed away in 793 A.D.
5. Mohammad Jarir-e Tabari was a prominent jurist and the author of the
acclaimed Tarikh-e Tabari (Tabari's History), one of the most accurate
accounts regarding the history of early Islam. Tabari died in 953 A.D.
6. Sheikh Mohammed an-Najafi, Jawaher-ol Kalam (The Gems of Discourse), Beirut: 1981, Vol. 40, p. 12-14.
7. Allamé Helli, Nahj-ol Haq (The Road to Truth), originally cied in Jawaher-ol Kalam, op. cit. Allamé Helli died in 1405 A.D.
8. Hossein Ali Montazeri, Mabani-e Fiqhi-e Hokumat-e Islami (The jurisprudential foundations of Islamic rule), Qom, Iran.
9. Nahj-ol Balagha (The Road to Eloquence), is a compilation of sermons, letters, and sayings of Imam Ali ibn Abi Talib.
10. Nahj-ol Balagha (The Road to Eloquence), translation and commentary
by Haj Alinaqi Faiz ol-Islam (Tehran: Faiz ol-Islam Publications,
1972), sermon 361.
-
Dynamic Nature of the Quran
The fundamentalists preach that Islamic laws and precepts should be
carried out today exactly as they were 1,400 years ago. Maybe this is
why they are called fundamentalists! Let me comment, in passing, that I
do not believe this name is appropriate for them at all. They
absolutely do not abide by the fundamentals. Instead, they dogmatically
adhere to the secondary commandments and outdated forms, and sacrifice
the principles and fundamentals to the pettiest of their own interests.
In the 20th century, they absurdly calculate religious fines (diyat)
and tithes based on the value of camels, sheep, dates and the currency
of 14 centuries ago.
Beyond the precepts and rules relevant only within a certain
time-frame, we must understand the spirit of Islam and the genuine
outlook of the Quran. The precepts must not be interpreted as
unalterable dogmas; as circumstances change, they must be replaced with
new precepts more compatible with Islam's ideal society. This is the
dynamism of the Quran and of an ideology which claims to respond to the
problems and needs of humankind and society in any circumstances. When
this dynamism is overlooked, it inevitably leads to retrogression,
oppression and discrimination emerging under the cloak of Islam.
Dogmatism about the letter of the law while overlooking its spirit is
not, of course, exclusive to Islam, but has a long history in all
ideologies and creeds. To distinguish right from wrong, one must first
differentiate between the overall objectives and strategies and the
tactical means of achieving those objectives. Consider, for example, a
boat sailing toward the shore. The ultimate objective is to reach the
shore, and the strategy is to go straight ahead, directly east, for
example. Paddling, adjusting the speed, and other mandatory behavior at
any stage should never be considered unalterable and inflexible.
Otherwise, tactics will replace strategy, diverting or reversing the
desired direction. The objective will be forgotten, and the means will
become the end to themselves.
No matter how definite and unchangeable a goal is, therefore, rules,
regulations and tactical precepts are flexible, provided they are not
rejected due to opportunism or personal interest. Dogmatic adherence to
them will stunt efforts to achieve the final objective or delay its
achievement. We must move forward toward the goal, without dogmatism,
without opportunism, without profiteering, without an outdated approach
to tactical rules, regulations and precepts. Otherwise, we will be
deviated from the correct path.
Aside from this introduction, Islam is a religion, an ideology, with
fundamental views on humankind, society and history. It defines each of
these concepts within the philosophy of Towhid, or monism. One
fundamental and central theme, derived from Islam's monistic approach
to existence, is equality among human beings. It is explicitly
emphasized in the Quran that all human beings are equal, regardless of
gender, race or nationality. According to this principle, the only
criterion for differentiating among people is the extent of their
cognizance, emancipation, and sense of responsibility, which in Quranic
terminology is called Taqwa. The equality of women and men is one of
the most obvious aspects of the Towhidi philosophy.
This guiding principle is proclaimed in the chapter The Inner
Apartments, verse 13: "O' People! We created you, men and women, and
made you into Nations and tribes, that yea may know each other. Verily
the most honored of you in the sight of God is the most righteous of
you."
Another guiding principle is that Islam's social ideal strives for
freedom, justice and social unity. The Quran describes the mandate of
monotheist prophets as inspiring humankind to rise up and establish
Qest, the ultimate stage of social freedom, justice and unity. The sura
Iron, verse 25, reads: "We sent aforetime, our apostles with Clear
Signs and set down with them The Book and the Balance (of right and
wrong), that peoples may stand forth in justice." In such a society,
the oppressed and the talented - whose talents have been suppressed -
will be free and, at the zenith of their development, will occupy
positions of leadership, and the community will flourish. The
Narration, verse 5: "And we wished to be gracious to those who were
abased in the land, to make them leaders and make them heirs."
Such examples vividly express Islam's genuine views on humankind and
history. The leaders of Islam, inspired by this outlook and striving to
move toward Islam's ideal society, responded to the extent that their
circumstances allowed change. For such a society to be realized, of
course, many grounds had to be prepared. It was not possible even for
the Prophet of Islam to instantly realize these ideals in the primitive
society of his time. The Prophet could not simply issue a decree
abolishing even the most violently oppressive and blatant form of
discrimination, slavery; instead, he laid the groundwork for its
annihilation. The Tradition, guidance and direction provided by the
Prophet and the Quran led to the rapid elimination of this inhuman
phenomenon. Today, we can appreciate that given the economic structure
of the time and the rudimentary state of the forces of production, any
decree to completely abolish slavery would have brought progress
neither to the society nor to the system of production as a whole. So
premature a measure would have delayed the actual eradication of
slavery. It is evident in the spirit of all the teachings and actions
of the Prophet, however, that slavery is a stigma on the visage of
humanity; one that must be removed as soon as possible, so that the
tremendous gap between the infancy and maturity of the human race can
be bridged.
It is important to note that today, even the fundamentalists cannot
claim that the Quran, because it did not explicitly abolish slavery,
condoned the practice, let alone defended it.
So the key is to grasp the spirit and genuine outlook of the Quran.
This understanding will enable the followers of this religion at any
historical stage to determine the precepts and laws suited to their
time. To understand this concept, let us read the Quran to see how
verses are categorized and defined. The Family of Imran, verse 7: "He
it is Who has sent down to thee the Book: In it are verses fundamental
(muhkamat); They are the foundation of the Book: others are allegorical
(motashabihat). But those in whose hearts is perversity follow the part
thereof that is allegorical, seeking discord."
The fundamentalists and reactionaries interpret all the precepts and
temporal rules as unchangeable dogma. This interpretation contradicts
the Quran's own definitions and categorization. Muhkamat are the
fundamental principles of Islam, definite and unchangeable.
Motashabihat are relative, dynamic and flexible. Elsewhere, the Quran
uses the term mathani (which means flexible and having dynamism) for
motashabihat.
The Crowds, verse 23: "God has revealed the most beautiful Message in
the form of a Book, Consistent with itself, (yet) repeating (its
teaching in various aspects)."
Take the precepts on inheritance, for example: Fourteen centuries ago,
a woman's share was set at half a man's. If the historical
circumstances are ignored and this ruling is interpreted as permanent,
then its significance at the time cannot be appreciated. Furthermore,
the unrealistic conclusion would be that Islam opposes the equality of
women and men. In fact, Islam accorded women a share in inheritance at
a time when they basically inherited nothing, but were themselves
inherited. They were part of their husband's property, to be owned by
his heirs or other men of their tribe.
So the very idea of according women the right to inheritance, in and of
itself, was a revolution. We all know that until just recently, even in
European countries, women had no financial independence. Another
important point to note is that 14 centuries ago, women did not play
any role in production and men provided for the family expenses. All
things considered, it is natural to conclude that when socio-economic
progress allows, and when women's socio-economic status has changed or
been allowed to change, the Quran's dynamism calls for changes in
inheritance laws, and that is why, as we have already declared, women
and men enjoy equal and identical rights with respect to inheritance.
The same holds true for many other precepts on social or legal issues,
such as testimony, the payment of fines, etc. Consider the precept on
testimony, whereby the testimony of two women is equal to that of one
man. In this case, too, a dogmatic interpretation would presume that
this decree is immutable and eternal. Again, that would mean
inequality, attributed to Islam. Whereas 14 centuries ago, when women
had no rights in primitive societies and female infants were buried
alive, such decrees were very important, bold initiatives towards
establishing women's rights. Now look at the fundamentalists, and see
how they have distorted the liberating message and ideal of Islam with
their dogmatic interpretations, reducing it to a deficient,
short-sighted and profiteering mentality.
I would like to add that the fundamentalist mullahs' claim that they
are carrying out the religious precepts in accordance with the
Tradition of the Prophet is a blatant lie. It is common knowledge that
one of the most brilliant aspects of the Prophet's mission was to
emancipate and teach respect for women. It was he who made it a mortal
sin to slander a woman, who levied a heavy punishment for the
slanderer, and who ruled that to prove the accusation, one had to
produce four witnesses. Even when faced with a confession, time and
again he simply turned his face away and urged the sinner to repent.
The misogynous mullahs, however, slander hundreds of women every day,
detain them, flog them or stone them in public. Imam Ali tells us:
"There will come a time when nothing will remain of the Quran but a set
of rituals. And nothing will be more common than attributing falsities
to God and the Prophet."
Let us also acquaint ourselves a little with Imam Ali's views on the
Quran and the religious precepts. "The Quran has spelled out what is
lawful (halaal) and unlawful (haraam); what is obligatory (wajeb) and
recommended (mostahab); what is renewing (nassekh) and outdated
(mansookh); what is general and specific; what is fundamental and
allegorical." He continues: "The Quran has proclaimed some things as
obligatory, but they have been annulled by the Prophet's Tradition.
There are also certain matters that have been considered as obligatory
in the Tradition, but the Quran allows their annulment. There are also
matters that were obligatory in their own time, but were later
abolished." Do these remarks by Imam Ali endorse the fundamentalist
interpretation, or prove the dynamism of the Quran?
The introduction of Ijtihad to respond to the questions and
developments of any historic juncture is more solid proof of the
dynamism of Islam and the Quran. Ijtihad is undertaken by a decent,
competent leader who believes in the religion, has a good knowledge of
the ideology and its emancipating mandate, and is also abreast of the
developments of the time. Unfortunately, despite official Shiite
recognition of Ijtihad, in practice this institution has been used not
to reflect the dynamism of the Quran, but to formulate reactionary
readings of the precepts and distort the liberating message of Islam.
Relying on the principal Islamic texts, such as the Quran, the
Mojahedin have discovered the dynamism of the Holy Book. For their
part, the fundamentalists cannot produce any viable counter arguments.
Islam, free of rust and reactionary distortions, has become the
essential, eternal premise and "breakthrough" ideology of the People's
Mojahedin of Iran. Their grasp of genuine Islam was made possible by
the organization's ideological research based on the Quran, the
original texts of Islamic culture, and 30 years of practical experience
under the leadership of Massoud Rajavi. He truly is Iran's most
qualified, most decent, most selfless leader and Islamic ideologue. He
has conveyed and taught the Mohammadan Islam as a religion of mercy and
tolerance, freedom and democracy, progress and advancement of science
and society to an unrelenting generation of Muslims.
Years before Khomeini seized power in Iran, the demarcation between the
Mojahedin's ideology and the ideas of Khomeini and his reactionary
clerics had surfaced. In the early days of Khomeini's rule, a
tremendous number of young people, intellectuals, and progressive
clerics chose the Mojahedin's interpretation of Islam and supported
Massoud Rajavi. Since the 1906 Constitutional Revolution, generation
after generation of Iranians have been aware of the views of the
reactionaries. Subsequent to the anti-monarchic revolution, these very
ideas basically served the political ends of a suppressive regime,
enjoying neither influence nor ideological weight. Consequently, a
furious Khomeini had to call off his unpopular televised classes in
which he interpreted the Quran. He also had to close down the weekly
classes at Sharif University of Technology, where 10,000 university
students eagerly gathered to listen to Massoud Rajavi teach philosophy
and a comparative study on the nature of existence. On March 1, 1980,
Le Monde wrote: "Among the most important events not to be missed in
Tehran are the courses on comparative philosophy, taught every Friday
afternoon by Mr. Massoud Rajavi. Some 10,000 people presented their
admission cards to listen for three hours to the lecture by the leader
of the People's Mojahedin on Sharif University's lawn."
"In the weekly conferences at Sharif University," Le Monde continued,
"Mr. Rajavi draws help from the Quran, the Old Testament and the Bible
as well as from Plato, Socrates, Sartre, Hegel, Marx, and others to
explain the Mojahedin's ideology. The courses are recorded on video
cassettes and distributed in 35 cities. They are also published in
paperback and sold by the hundreds of thousands of copies."
Now, let us study Islam's view of women and compare it, in accordance
with its fundamental principles, with the outlook of the
fundamentalists. This is a discussion which I think will bring many
pervious discussions into perspective.
By defining woman on the basis of her gender characteristics and
physiological differences from man, fundamentalists divide humankind
into two sexes with differing natures. Such dualism inevitably leads to
a relationship based on physical power. One sex becomes stronger, the
other weaker. One becomes primary, and the other secondary. According
to this formula, one must inevitably dominate the other. The
fundamentalists theorize and legitimize this unequal relationship,
blame it on nature, and then issue a decree for all time that women are
inferior to men.
The Islamic outlook is the complete opposite. Towhid views men and
women as absolutely equal. Why? Because it defines human beings by
their uniquely human and social characteristics, manifested in
humankind's consciousness and free will. From this perspective, women
and men are not different. Because they choose in awareness, they are
held accountable, both individually and collectively.
Human beings are responsible before their society and the outside
world. The bond between human beings, their social milieu and the
outside world provides the setting in which their sense of
responsibility flourishes. There is an innate, intrinsic need in every
human being for this setting.
Islam teaches that human beings are accountable to the Absolute Being,
God. In monotheistic anthropology, human beings are not only held
responsible before society but before the whole world as well. With
such orientation, human beings, both men and women, are able to break
free of the constraints imposed by nature, instincts and society, and
take up the task of bringing about change in their social existence.
A world view whose guiding principle is gender-based discrimination
constrains human beings under a tight lid, forcing them to introvert.
Feeble, in a constant state of debility, the human being is subdued by
the circumstances dictated by his or her surrounding and, worst of all,
is subjugated by an unjust and merciless "God."
If we have risen up against gender-based discrimination, it is because
we cannot stand by and see human beings condemned to a blind destiny
determined by circumstances outside their control, such as their
physical appearance, nationality, gender, language or other
characteristics beyond their free choice. I must add, however, that
this rejection of gender-based values, although essential, is not of
itself sufficient. To reach maturity, it must be complemented by fusion
with a liberating ideology, and an identifiable, objective guide from
without. Otherwise, as the clerics and merchants of the gender-based
world wish, women will remain feeble, exchangeable commodities, passive
and irresponsible. In a woman's psychology, this is synonymous with
introversion, coiling up inside, and evading responsibility.
Evidently these two world views contradict one another, each with its
own set of mechanisms. Naturally, there are physiological differences
between men and women. But the reactionary fanatics overemphasize these
gender differences and present them as the basic foundation of the
human personality. The fundamentalist looks down on woman as a feeble
being to be constantly compared with men and humiliated. Even her basic
social, political and economic rights as a human being are denied. She
is recognized only by her "femininity," shunned by society and driven
to a corner of her home.
In the fundamentalist mullahs' system of values, discrimination,
dualism, war, suppression and bloodshed are the norms. A viewpoint
which regards woman as wicked and satanic inevitably sees man as
inherently corruptible. Hence, the fundamentalist quests for "purity"
through bloodletting and killing. In the final analysis, the
reactionaries view humankind as evil. So vengefulness, hostility,
deceit, and all the other negative human characteristics become
legitimate and predominant.
Indeed, in a society where women are second-class citizens, deprived of
their genuine rights, how can any man claim to be free and not suspect
his own humanity? Humankind affirms and enhances its humanness through
social interaction and relationships. Are men not in bondage, too? I
believe they are. Of course, their situation is different. They are
enchained by their quest to dominate women and impose their will on
them, and inevitably on society and history.
In contrast, monism, or Towhid, bases its values neither on men's
physiques and insatiable desire for prominence, nor on women's weakness
and femininity. It considers awareness, freedom of choice, and a sense
of responsibility as the basis of human character. A woman thus takes
on a stable, independent, and completely equal human personality, which
is how others view her. From towhid's point of view, women and men
complement each other and live in harmony with one another. They need
each other to the same degree. Neither is thus an appendage of the
other.
This world has its own yardsticks. The sanctity of life, livelihood,
love, mercy, altruism, trust and honesty are the fundamental values.
Deficiencies, complexes, and even physical differences - like being
male or female, black or white - though real, are not regarded as
values. The Towhidi perspective is reflected in the Prophet of Islam's
emphasis, 14 centuries ago, on the equality of women and men, and in
his invitation to women to become Muslims. The first person to believe
in Mohammad's message was a woman. The first martyr to the cause of
Islam was a woman. At least three of the first nine Muslims to join up
with the Prophet were women.
The human being is described in the Quran as God's heir and vicegerent
on Earth. Women, such as the Virgin Mary, are respected on a par with
the prophets, and are entrusted with the greatest of historical
responsibilities. The Quran chooses its models of humanity from among
these women: From Assiyah and Hagar,... to Khadijah and Fatima in the
era of Islam .
Today, the grave responsibility of emancipation has been bestowed upon
women. This represents not only her own liberation. In it, I envision
the liberation of humankind. Let us pause a moment and imagine that the
world really is passing through this stage. Now, let me repeat that for
us women, "freedom begins the moment we believe that no one can prevent
the emancipation of a woman who is determined to live freely, free from
the chains we all know so well." I believe that from an anthropological
perspective, the crux of the issue lies here. This is the issue that
will cure forever the agony - history long - of being a woman. Let the
flame of responsibility ignite within a woman, then you will see that
no obstacle can stand in her way.
The misogynists wish to separate women from their social and historical
responsibility. We must cut short this oppression. If we do so, women
will then write their own destiny. Their liberation will certainly lead
to the emancipation of men, a transformation in their thinking and
their active role in the cause of equality. Likewise, we will break
through the impasse of social development and democratic expansion, for
democracy and social progress can also be gauged by the degree to which
women are free and bear responsibility.
I am optimistic about the future. I have seen my share of this profound
transition in the movement of the Iranian Resistance, where women have
risen to free themselves. I would like to share with you a brief review
of our experience:
-
Women in the Iranian Resistance;
Challenging the mullahs' misogynous regime are the Iranian Resistance's
women. Not only do they enjoy absolutely equal rights, but they have
also overturned the male-dominated value system by taking on key
positions of leadership and management. Women account for more than
half the members of the Resistance's 570-member parliament-in-exile.
The significance and unique features of this experience may be
summarized as follows:
Firstly, it pertains to an alternative which embraces a wide spectrum
of society and various organizations. This alternative also has
extensive political and military organs. Secondly, the experience has
been tested in every domain and every sphere of responsibility,
including some considered exclusively male. Thirdly, the trend
stretches over a decade.
- The hardships along the way;
To achieve this objective, the Iranian Resistance has traveled a long,
arduous path. It was in 1984, three years after the nationwide
Resistance against the Khomeini regime began, that the leader of our
Resistance raised the question as to why women had not risen beyond the
level of department directors, three tiers below the leadership body,
within the People's Mojahedin, the Resistance's principal organization.
In contrast, in the struggle against the Khomeini regime, they had
taken on wide-ranging responsibilities, and tens of thousands of the
movement's martyrs and prisoners were women. He pointed out that for a
movement fighting the misogynous mullahs, such discrimination between
men and women cannot be tolerated. The issue, ostensibly an
organizational matter which had been juxtaposed with ideological and
political discussions, was debated for months at the various levels of
the organization.
Our struggle against the religious dictatorship had entered a more
complicated stage. Women had fought courageously and in large numbers.
In sacrifice, resistance and risk-taking, they were leading the way,
but in one sphere, the advance was slow and unimpressive: they were not
assuming more responsibility.
We had to discover the systematic causes of this stagnation. The few
exceptions did not help at all, because women generally did everything
but accept positions of responsibility and command. It was as if they
had set a specific limit to their talents, such as running a department
or a small section of the Resistance. Nor did the men believe that
women could actually undertake heavier responsibilities. Even the
extent to which women had shouldered responsibility was not taken very
seriously. More significantly, the men's interest in promoting their
wives went only as far as it did not change the delicate balance in the
family.
In those several months of meetings, women spoke at length about their
problems. For example, those women who had children did not believe
they could undertake any other serious responsibility, even if the
problem of child care was solved systematically. Of course, the
contradiction between attending to family matters and assuming their
political and social responsibilities constitutes a serious problem for
all women in any situation. Since women can only achieve equality by
taking on serious professions and responsibilities, I believe for an
era the contradiction has to be solved in favor of women assuming
responsibility. But, women's non-belief in their potential ran deeper.
You probably know that the organization and liberation army whose
backbone these women form, has been described by the journalists and
correspondents of the international press who have met them, as one of
the best educated armies in the world. The problems these educated
women mentioned were mostly about types of work. Technical and military
jobs were for men. Political work also seemed impractical, because
apparently nobody took women seriously.
After listing a range of problems, they automatically inclined toward
marginal jobs or jobs considered one hundred percent fit for females.
This was their spontaneous inclination. Women from various parts of the
country, with different traditions, of various ages, shared one thing
in common: They were women, and we have seen how much women's problems
are interrelated.
After several years of practical experience, they are now unanimous in
concluding that virtually all these previous obstacles were in their
own minds, and derived from their own lack of faith in themselves and
in the reality that there are solutions to these problems. Some were
afraid to accept the responsibility of command over men and other
women, because of this problem. One commander told me that despite her
skill at driving trucks, she had been obsessed by the difficulty of
getting into these high-chassis vehicles.
Everyone's problems could be summarized in one phrase: Fear of taking
on responsibility. The progress of our movement, however, depended on
women's fully accepting responsibility. We could not walk on one leg.
We needed a revolution to break through these taboos and discover new
conviction in women.
Massoud believed that the solution must come from the top, with the
participation of women in the leadership. Some concurred; others
believed that the solution must come from below, with women's increased
participation in executive affairs. I became preoccupied with this
problem. For years, ever since I had become politically active, I
always thought about how the way could be opened for women's
emancipation. I think this inevitably captures the mind of any woman,
but sooner or later she may give up thinking about it, because it is
just too much, too complicated.
By now, this issue was the subject of debate within a nationwide
Resistance movement, and from various angles, I could appreciate the
need for this step. When I was nominated for the joint-leadership of
the Mojahedin, I was weighed down by the task, and the decision to go
ahead was very difficult and quite intolerable. Only one thing removed
my doubts: the need I felt existed beyond my own personal attitude for
such a step to be taken. The requirements of the Resistance movement
were absolutely genuine, and if we wanted to move forward, we had to
respond to this need. In addition, during those several months of
meetings, I felt that my own and other women's emancipation and ability
to realize our full potential, depended on my taking up that
responsibility.
None of us anticipated what actually happened. This change - a woman in
the leadership - brought about a major internal revolution in our
movement. For women, it acted like a spring board. The organization's
annual report for that year indicated that the percentage of women in
the central council rose from 15 to 34 percent, more than double.
The impasse on women accepting responsibility had been overcome, and it
was just the beginning. This leap forward and the new atmosphere it
brought to the organization allowed us to carry on a profound change in
outlooks, for we did not intend to stop there. The movement's primary
goals, democracy and growth, had become entwined with this drive to
emancipate women. We were a movement which believed, body and soul,
that any progress and development depended on the women's movement.
Therefore, we were poised to go to the end of the line: total rejection
of the male-dominated culture. This required a complete overhaul in our
thinking. As women gradually occupied key positions at the top and in
command, their male subordinates felt as if their world was shrinking.
It was difficult |
 Go To Top
|
|
English
Francais
Deutsch
Italiano
العربيّة
