For decades, Iran has been at the center of controversy. This week’s headlines on Iran might conjure up an image in the mind of a boiler tank with vapors of pent-up religious anger bursting through the seams.

Here are some sample headlines:

Clashes erupt as Iran commemorates anniversary of embassy siege

Thousands of protesters in Tehran

In Iran, Anti-Government Protests Rival Anti-American Demonstrations

‘Death to America’ Day: How Iran Trained Its Youth to Protest

Iran’s police will ‘strongly confront’ the November 4 protests

Iran warns of crackdown on any opposition protest

The tank could explode at any moment giving way to the pent up pressure of hate, threatening any opposition in its raging path.

Recently, my reading of the memoir, Lolita Reading in Tehran, has opened my eyes to the meaning of these headlines. The author, Azar Nafisi, paints an achingly beautiful portrait of her life as an English literature teacher struggling to teach a subject that is contrary to the oppressive theocratic regime of the ruling government. Her teachings from the literary works of James and Fitzgerald and Nabokov quietly challenge the Islamic Republic and its fundamentalist beliefs with characters of independent thought and individualism; a stark contrast to the image of the ideal Muslim, an ideal that Nafisi and her secret students go so far as to describe as “irrelevant.” Reading her memoirs has sparked my interest to learn more about what’s behind the headlines.

If you look back, you’ll see that these headlines are just a continuous reincarnation of decades past. Since the sixties the controversy boils in two pots; The modernism of the mujahideen and the totalitarian and anti-American ideologies of Khomeini. The intrinsic difference behind the two ideologies is democracy and human rights.

Until 1979, Iran was a monarchy; that is until the monarchy under Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was overthrown and Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini was given Supreme Leader status. Since then, these headlines have dominated many newspapers around the world. The reason is due to the totalitarian principle of velayat-e-faqih, the foundation on which Khomeinism is based. Velayat-e-faqih is the principle of absolute theocratic rule. Khomeini only believed in the religious rule of the clergy or Islamic government.

Khomeini gained the support of many Shia Muslims by earning the title of ayatollah. The title itself, Ayatollah, means “the example of God on earth”, and is taken literally by Shia Muslim fundamentalists. This religious fervor and emphatic support made it easy for Khomeini to create an atmosphere that forced his opposition to accept.

Khomeini preached strict adherence to Islamic rule or “government of God.” His word was absolute, and disobedience was considered “rebellion against God.” In a talk at the Fayzieah School in Qom on August 30, 1979, Khomeini warned opponents: “Those who are trying to bring corruption and destruction to our country in the name of democracy will be oppressed. They are worse than the Jews of Bani Ghorizeh, and they must be hanged. We will oppress them by God’s command and God’s call to prayer.” This threat of oppression was not only directed at the Jews of Bani Ghorizeh, but also at the Iranians. An example is the expulsion of Azar Nafisi from the University of Tehran after years of teaching for his refusal to wear the veil. Women in Iran were no longer allowed to choose; religion became law. (Wikipedia, 2009)

Reading Azar Nafisi’s memoirs changed my perception of Iran. How Azar Nafisi maintained his passion for literature before his expulsion was my first step in understanding the unrest in Iran. Imprinted on my mind is the tornado atmosphere that Nafisi managed to dodge for so long. She seemed to weather the storm to this point by staying in the calm eye of the storm, a calm she created as she immersed herself and her students in the fantasy world of Lolita, the honest world of The Great Gatsby, and the passionate world of Lolita. by Daisy Miller. Meanwhile, fundamentalist banners hung all over the walls of the university, protests resounded outside the classroom windows and the worst image, a student who set himself on fire running through the corridors. Our humblest respect must go to Azar Nafisi for persisting in teaching Western literature in such a troubled climate where the leadership considered such teachings to be “of the devil.” Nafisi endured longer than any other self-respecting free person could hope for.

Even more etched in my mind is why immersing yourself in Western literature would surround it with calm amid the turbulence of a revolutionary Iran and strike a universal chord with its readers and students. To illustrate this point, we need to go to Nafisi’s class, where The Great Gatsby becomes controversial enough to be put in a mock trial. Representing the book itself, Nafisi defends Gatsby against the Islamic Republic of Iran and its problems with the novels’ morality. Nafisi’s response:

“One doesn’t read Gatsby… to find out if adultery is good or bad, but to learn about how complicated issues like adultery, fidelity, and marriage are. A great novel heightens one’s senses and sensitivity to complexities. of life and people, and warns you of self-righteousness that sees morality in fixed formulas about good and evil”. (Nafisi, 2004)

The message that I take home is the attribute of empathy. All the books that Nafisi studies with his students have one thing in common. The characters are all flawed. There is no clear hero and no clear villain. His portraits are in watercolor, blurring the hero and the villain. You have empathy for both. Nafisi’s student Zarrin, after very ably defending Gatsby in mock trial, told Nafisi, “This is an incredible book. It teaches you to value your dreams but also to mistrust them, to seek integrity in places unusual”. Zarrin has no sense in acting immorally after reading the book. Instead, he sees through the eyes of the characters and learns from their flaws. And reading these books in the context of a revolutionary Iran seems to awaken Nafisi’s students to the fact that morality cannot be imposed on people. These books do not have any mystical power to make someone do wrong as the revolutionaries claim. I am convinced that the reason these books strike a chord with the reader is because of the freedom of choice of the characters. Religious ideals and laws are not things that can be imposed on an individual because the truth is that they will never be accepted, as happened with Humberto or the blind censor. It is actually ironic that Khomeini’s supporters consider these books powerful enough to impose their characters’ ideals on the reader. Ironic because that is exactly what the revolutionaries are doing, imposing “morality” on their subjects with their Revolutionary Guards. It is in a truly narcissistic way, accusing your enemy of what you are guilty of. But the individual cannot be fooled.

“Neither Humbert nor the blind censor ever possesses their victims, they always elude him, just as fantasy objects are always both within reach and inaccessible. No matter how they are broken, the victims will not be forced into submission.” (Nafisi, 2004)

Nafisi’s memoirs are a call to all men and women that Iranians want democracy. They want the freedom to choose without the fear of death and the oppression of Khomeini’s supporters. She wants us to know that despite Khomeini’s death in 1989, his ideologies and oppression continue. In fact, his death just shows how much control she had over his followers. “Iranians took to the cities and streets to mourn the death of Khomeini in a ‘completely spontaneous and unorchestrated outpouring of grief’. Since then, the Islamic Republic of Iran has tried to remain true to its ideology. (Wikipedia, 2009)

There is a majority that does not agree with absolute theocratic rule. Today, their anti-government protests are taking place in the streets of Iran. The most active anti-government opposition group Mujahedin, seeks democracy, human rights, freedom and grace and compassion in the face of violence and revenge; a stark contrast to the outright theocratic and oppressive government that now exists. We can read the result of their efforts in the statement of the National Council of Resistance of Iran. A summary of the statement can be found in Chapter 15, Modern and Democratic Islam: Antithesis to Fundamentalism in the book Islamic Fundamentalism – The New Global Threat:

“Iran’s National Council of Resistance program recognizes the “individual and social rights of all citizens, as outlined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.” It guarantees general freedoms, including freedom of association, thought and expression , the media, parties, unions, councils, creeds and religions, and professions.The NCR program also calls for “the abolition of military and special courts, the investigation of political crimes in civilian courts with juries present,” and guarantees the “accused’s right to defense and to the choice of defense counsel, and the right to appeal. It emphasizes “the prohibition of torture under any pretext,”‘ and emphasizes “judicial and professional security for all citizens and the abolition of the Komitehs and the Guard Corps.” ( Drawing by Mohad, 1993)

This National Council of Resistance of Iran has given hope to many Iranians, especially women, who are suffering from the oppression of the absolute government of the Republic of Iran. But will we ever see the end of this battle? Will Iran get out of the clutches of Khomeini’s religious-terrorist tyranny? The mujahideen believe so; in fact they believe it is a necessity. Maybe it will be during his lifetime, or maybe not. For now, one can only take a look into the future to see what Iran will become (if democratic and liberating Islam triumphs) by reading the words of Massoud Rajavi of the Mujahideen:

“We will live in peace and coexist with our neighbors. Democratic Iran will recognize no place for revenge, blind hatred, Khomeini courts or the kind of lawlessness. We are responsible enough not to get involved in internal and international adventures. We want an undemocratic theocracy like Khomeini’s. Instead of “exporting the revolution”, we will invite our country’s experts to return to Iran. In democratic Iran, no one will be persecuted for their ideology or religion. The Iran of tomorrow will be free of repression and religious hypocrisy. Women, workers, peasants, religious and ethnic minorities will not be oppressed. Kurds, Turks, Jews, Muslims, Armenians, Christians, Zoroastrians and non-Muslims will enjoy the same rights. Iran will become a symbol of peace, stability and friendship. in the Middle East.” (Rajaví, 1982)