Iran Awakening: A Memoir of Revolution and Hope

In the last twenty-three years, from the day I was stripped of my judgeship to the years doing battle in the revolutionary courts of Tehran, I had repeated one refrain: an interpretation of Islam that is in harmony with equality and democracy is an authentic expression of faith. It is not religion that binds women, but the selective dictates of those who wish them cloistered...

I have been under attack most of my adult life for this approach, threatened by those in Iran who denounce me as an apostate for daring to suggest that Islam can look forward and denounced outside my country by secular critics of the Islamic Republic, whose attitudes are no less dogmatic... I have been told that I must not grasp the real spirit of democracy if I can claim that freedom and human rights are not perforce in conflict with Islam.

When I heard the statement of the prize being read aloud, hearing my religion mentioned specifically alongside my work defending Iranians' rights, I knew what was being recognised: the belief in a positive interpretation os Islam, and the power of that belief to aid Iranians who aspire to peacefully transform their country

As we drove home, I glanced at his profile in the passenger seat and felt the unbearable heaviness of that law simply evaporate. We were back to where we were meant to be, equal. But a tiny part of me still minded very much. After all, I couldn't drag all the men of Iran down to the notary, could I?

I believe in the secular separation of religion and government because Islam, like any religion, is subject to interpretation. It can be interpreted to oppress women or to liberate them. In an ideal world, I would choose not to be vulnerable to the caprice of interpretation, because the ambiguity of theological debates spirals back to the seventh century; there will never be a definitive resolution, as that is the nature and spirit of Islamic interpretation, a debate that will grow and evolve with the ages but never be resolved. I am a lawyer by training, and know only too well the pemanent limitations of trying to enshrine inalieable rights in sources that lack fixed terms and definitions.

When dissidents or just regular old intellectuals come out of prison, often they are not celebrated for simply being brave or having survived but are pruriently examined for their conduct in prison. Did they succumb and agree to videotaped confessions? Did they sig letters? Did they make lists of their comrades? By judging what ethically should be immune from judgement – the response of an individual to a form of torture – we enable the interrogator’s tactics. We legitimize the sickness of the whole enterprise, as though when forced into the wretched position of sustaining torture or breaking down, there is such a thing as a right response.

It seemed incomprehensible to me that the US government, the self-proclaimed protector of a free way of life, would seek to regulate what Americans could or could not read, a practice that is called censorship when enacted by authoritarian regimes.