Women, the Victims of the Iranian Revolution

Iranian women played a significant role in the victory of Iranian Revolution in 1979. They were also the first segment of population that, in the name of Islam and revolution, was treated with disrespect and animosity. Immediately after the Revolution on February 11, Iranian women lost the rights they had acquired in the last decade of Pahlavi monarchy. This report sums up some examples of this assault that, in different shapes and forms, has continued for thirty years. Meantime, the legal status of women has deteriorated greatly in comparison to the pre-revolutionary days. During the last three decades, all women activists have experienced imprisonment, insults and constraints and many have been forced to leave their homeland. Currently, many courageous Iranian women, who have supported the protesting national movement, are in prison. Some have been released, but their heavy bails and the threat of going back to prison have compelled them into silence; they cannot even describe what has happened to them in prison. In addition, a large group of women have been summoned and threatened with imprisonment by the Ministry of Intelligence and the revolutionary courts.

Iranian women played a significant role in the victory of Iranian Revolution in 1979. They were also the first segment of population that, in the name of Islam and revolution, was treated with disrespect and animosity. Immediately after the Revolution on February 11, Iranian women lost the rights they had acquired in the last decade of Pahlavi monarchy. This report sums up some examples of this assault that, in different shapes and forms, has continued for thirty years. Meantime, the legal status of women has deteriorated greatly in comparison to the pre-revolutionary days. During the last three decades, all women activists have experienced imprisonment, insults and constraints and many have been forced to leave their homeland. Currently, many courageous Iranian women, who have supported the protesting national movement, are in prison. Some have been released, but their heavy bails and the threat of going back to prison have compelled them into silence; they cannot even describe what has happened to them in prison. In addition, a large group of women have been summoned and threatened with imprisonment by the Ministry of Intelligence and the revolutionary courts.

We can find the roots of women’s dissatisfaction and protests in the methods by which their rights and human dignity have been crushed underfoot. The following is a report on the systematic violation of women’s rights after the revolution. This report is based on observations, documents and what has been printed in the press during that period.

It was the first half of March 1979. During an important speech, Ayatollah Khomeini, the revolution’s leader, asked the clerics in religious seminaries to cancel their classes and travel to remote cities and villages to prepare the country for the upcoming referendum. Imam Khomeini instructed his followers to encourage people to vote for the Islamic Republic. That was all, not a word more or less. He also asked the women, who were government employees, to wear the sharia-prescribed hijab at work.

Before this historic speech, many people had insisted on the urgency of sharia-prescribed hijab, but nobody took them seriously. This subject was put forward and justified doggedly by the state-run television which was taken over by the Islamic fundamentalist. But the word of Ayatollah Khomeini had a unique power and stature. The women who were employed by government began to sense the seriousness of this danger. Some of them decided to influence the decisions of the county’s new administrators by staging peaceful protests. In some cases, these protests drew a lot of attention. The women members of the Association of Lawyers organized the first protest and the Ministry of Justice Palace became the gathering place of educated and professional women who did not want to surrender to compulsory hijab. In other words, Iranian women were the first group that resorted to peaceful protests during the political incidents that occurred after the revolution, a trend that has continued until now.  

In the context of Iran’s political and social transformations, the enforcement of compulsory hijab is a turning point. One can look at this issue from a hundred angles and analyze the political events that occurred after the revolution as its aftermath. It is a simplification to assume that the professional Iranian women surrendered to compulsory hijab without any resistance after the speech by Ayatollah Khomeini. We closely witnessed what transpired. A look at contemporary Iranian history reveals that Iranian people have reacted against compulsory hijab, perhaps more than any other restriction, by engaging in individual and collective protests. The widespread dismissal of women from their jobs was one of the main factors that gradually paved the way for the enforcement of compulsory hijab in government offices. After the purge in various offices and companies which was carried out by Islamic Associations and Reconstruction Boards, and despite all the insults that the protesting women had tolerated, the country’s Organization for Employment Affairs issued the circular letter No. 29280 in 1981 and made compulsory hijab mandatory as women employees’ uniform. This happened four years after Imam Khomeini’s speech.

From my perspective, compulsory hijab was the first step toward pitting Iranian women against each other. These women had coexisted peacefully before the revolution. The destructive phenomenon of “women against women” was born and nourished by this incident and assumed a government-sponsored and aggressive form. I should relate an event that set in motion a calamitous episode in the history of social and political changes in Iran:

After the anti-hijab demonstration in the Ministry of Justice Palace, Sadeq Qotbzadeh, the first head of Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB), joined a large gathering of supporters and, after a speech by Gohar-ol-sharieh Dastgheyb, a prominent supporter of Khomeini, laid the groundwork for attacks against the women who had refused to wear hijab. He spoke before an excited crowd that had been organized by the new regime and included the women who wore complete hijab. Claiming that 150 thousand people have been injured or sacrificed their lives for the Islamic Revolution, he officially declared that “As of today, we will make explicit what the concepts of the Islamic Republic mean.”

A statement was issued during this demonstration which, extolling Qotbzadeh’s lofty personality, demanded the formation of an organized force for the repression of critics and defended the action of women against women. The following are two paragraphs of this statement:

Paragraph 11: “Our heroic women condemn and reject any form of division and gap in the united and organized lines of their revolutionary brothers.”

Paragraph 12: “Our Muslim sisters propose and declare hijab as the weapon of combat and the barricade of virtue for all fighting and revolutionary women.”

This incident marked the transition from one stage of Iranian revolution to another as it gave rise to a slogan that, like a warning, remained constantly visible before everyone’s astonished eyes:

“My sister, your hijab is mightier than my blood.”

The image that accompanied this slogan on walls was the face of a woman that had been transformed into a fist while a tight scarf was wrapped around her head. Thus, in the name of Islam and revolution, the first right that Iranian women lost was the right to choose or reject hijab freely. The revolutionary regime violated this right so uninhibitedly that now Iranian women are even deprived of the right to choose their own kind of hijab. We must never deny that a large segment of the country’s revolutionary women assisted the new-founded government in these assaults. If a large part of Iran’s population, for any reason (ideological or material), had not supported the radicals, these onslaughts would have been stifled in embryo and we would not have to struggle against so many obstacles to regain our human rights after thirty years.  

Before the revolution, some marja’-e taqlid (religious source of emulation) suggested that Islam banned women from acting as judges. In a few interviews, Ayatollah Shariatmadari, a most distinguished marja’-e taqlid , expressed the view that, according to Islam, women cannot be appointed as judges. In interviews with the Reuters and Voice of America on January 27, 1979, Ayatollah Shariatmadari confirmed that women are not equipped adequately to act as judges (Keyhan Newspaper, January 31, 1979). Following Ayatollah Ali Shariatmadari, other clerics also shouted from the pulpit and declared that the right of women to act as judges, a right that had been established before the revolution, was non-Islamic. These fatwas (religious decrees) and other statements by various Islamic jurists were printed in newspapers a few days before the Islamic Revolution overthrew the Shah. Of course, the revolution had sealed its victory some time ago because the Shah’s regime had already announced its own death. Immediately, and on the basis of these fatwas, the swearing-in ceremony for judges was held without the participation of any women. The then-Minister of Justice, Mr. Asadollah Mobasheri, who was educated in law and was a veteran politician of Mossadeq’s era, instead of disapproving this action, went along with it. Since he did not wish to lose his rank and position, he tried to circumvent the issue. Responding to a question by a reporter, he said: “Because of administrative necessities and without any infringement on the rights of female trainees, they have been suggested to work as administrators and assistants to the public prosecutor.” Apparently, either this jurist and political fighter did not know the definition of law or he thought these words would not be registered in history. It is hard to believe that he did not know the disastrous impact of his words on women’s rights. Later on, the spokesperson for the Iranian Society for the Defense of Human Rights asked this question of Mr. Mobasheri: “Your Excellency, you have been a founder of Iranian Society for the Defense of Freedom and Human rights. Naturally, you should endeavor to preserve the acquired rights of individuals and it was expected of you to facilitate the judicial appointments of female trainees” (Ayandegan Newspaper, April 10, 1979).

Therefore, if Iranian women, especially the young generation, wish to find the foot prints of those who initiated the assaults on their acquired rights and know them well, they should not only search for the marja’-e taqlid or clergymen. The people educated in Iranian and western universities also contributed to bringing about the present predicament. Currently, some of their survivors pose as the defenders of women’s rights, but they are not very trustworthy. They want to climb up the shoulders of Iranian women and, when consolidated their power, direct us to the same deviant path.

Because of Mr. Mobasheri’s unfaltering cooperation with the enemies of equal rights for women, the young female judicial trainees, who had soaring ambitions and expected the revolution to provide them with new opportunities, became disillusioned and from the June of 1979 began their sit-in for one week in the Ministry of Justice Palace. They sat on a coarse carpet and held some slogans written on cardboards in their hands. Although people took food and drinking water for them, a group of violent thugs finally forced these hopeful women out of the building. Probably, these thugs had received permission from educated bosses such as Mr. Mobasheri, the then-Minister of Justice! And surely, they succeeded in realizing their plan by the help of women who endorsed their use of revolutionary and physical violence against these young trainees. The incidents that came later made it clear that no one paid any attention to the protests of women. The revolution’s engine was moving hurriedly and ruthlessly over the corpse of the acquired rights of Iranian women, intending to bury it once and for all. This engine was driven with such breakneck pace that on April 12, 1979, the governor of Anzali suddenly came up with an ingenious plan: “The plan to separate men and women in their use of the sea.”

Women were preparing themselves for the Women’s Day on March 8, 1979 when the office of Ayatollah Khomeini announced the annulment of Family Protection Act. First, a person named Haj Naser Zarkub, a retired employee of Ministry of Justice, asked for a fatwa from Ayatollah Khomeini:

“His Excellency, Ayatollah Imam Khomeini, the supreme leader of Muslims,

The Family Protection Act, which is enacted in courts to divorce men and women, is in direct contradiction to the precepts of our magnanimous Quran. I did not find anything about the Family Protection Act in your scientific pamphlet. What is your opinion?” 

The office of Ayatollah Khomeini replied:

To the respected head of the Family Court, whose success I wish from God,

The Family Protection Act is contrary to the enlightening sharia and the Grand Ayatollah has unequivocally commanded this law to be suspended until the Ministry of Justice announces its abolishment.

The Office of Ayatollah Khomeini.”

Immediately after the formation of Guardian Council in 1979, its religious jurists assailed the acquired rights of women regarding custody and guardianship of children. Approving a bill, they annulled the laws that were contrary to the provisions of Civil Code about custody and guardianship (this bill had been published in The Collection of Laws of 1980, p. 206, by the Publisher of Official Newspaper).

The Guardian Council did not consider this attack on the rights of women sufficient and, in 1984, orchestrated all its efforts to eradicate the laws which had been legislated before the revolution. Although the laws of pre-revolutionary Iran did not uproot polygamy—since it was permitted by the sharia—they, at least, stipulated certain conditions to control and constrain it. The courts in the Shah’s time could legalize polygamy only if the first wife gave her consent. And if anyone violated this condition, he would be punished. The Guardian Council dismantled all the stipulations that the concerned lawmakers in pre-revolutionary period had implemented to diminish polygamy. The Verdict of Guardian Council (No. 1488—July 31, 1989) on the Marriage Act and Article 17 of Family Protection Act was stated in this way:

Paragraph 3 of the Verdict: “The punishment of the man and woman who take part in an unofficial marriage, along with the notary who marries them (which is stressed in Section 1 of Marriage Act), and the punishment of the man who marries a second wife (which is mentioned in Section 17 of Protection Family Act) are contrary to the Sharia.”

Thus, the Guardian Council announced the necessity of an official marriage certificate (the subject of Section 1 of Marriage Act) in contradiction to the Sharia. As a result, the punishment of those who violated Section 17 of Family Protection Act—which was imprisonment not less than one year for the man, the second wife and the notary—was nullified and lost its legal justification. The Guardian Council has been in the forefront of assaults on the acquired rights of women.

Divorce Demanded by Woman

The commission, which in 1982 was appointed by the Supreme Judicial Council to review and reform the Civil Code, changed some of the marriage laws. It approved Article 1130 of Civil Code in this form:

“In the following circumstances, the wife can refer to the Islamic judge and request for a divorce. When it is proved to the Court that the continuation of the marriage causes difficult and undesirable conditions, the judge can, for the sake of avoiding harm and difficulty, compel the husband to divorce his wife.” (The Collection of Verdicts by the Guardian Council, edited by Dr. Hassan Mehrpoor, first period from June 1980 to June 1986, vol. 1, p. 301, Keyhan Publication).

Article 1130 created disagreements among the members of Guardian Council: “While some members of Guardian Council view the forcing of husband to divorce his wife against the sharia, other members see it in conformity with the sharia.” Finally, the Guardian Council decided to consult Imam Khomeini regarding this issue. Ayatollah Khomeini responded in the following manner:  

A more cautious way is to advise the couple about the necessity of divorce. If the problem was not resolved in this way, the matter should be referred to the sharia judge. If I had more courage, I would recommend another solution which would be much easier.

Article 1130 was approved under these circumstances. But this question lingered in the minds of all women: what fear had stopped Ayatollah Khomeini from proposing the solution which was “much easier”? Why had the revolution’s leader, who was famous for his courage, expressed his lack of “courage” when the rights of women were concerned?

The verdicts of Guardian Council and the fatwas of Ayatollah Khomeini only remind us of the injustice that religious jurists, in the name of Islam, have inflicted on women throughout history. They lack the boldness and audacity to tackle this historical problem seriously. Instead, they do their best to put women under more pressure. This is not a simple matter. When a personality such as Ayatollah Khomeini is afraid to address this issue, we should perhaps fear too, and choose the right tactics to achieve our goal.

Here I consider it more fruitful to organize my discussion around Article 1130. However, I should mention that Article 1133 of Civil Code regained its authority and returned to its former glory when it was approved by the Guardian Council in 1979. According to this Article, “A man can divorce his wife whenever he wishes to do so.” This law has made the Family Protection Act essentially inoperative and superfluous. The recent changes in its phrasing are sly and conniving because they have not altered its patriarchal essence in any way. Men can still divorce their wives if they wish, but a woman’s right to get a divorce from her husband depends on many conditions. Under such circumstances, if a woman can no longer tolerate her married life, she will give up all her financial rights, and even more, to receive her husband’s consent and avoid hesitations and legal obstacles in court.

Iranian mothers have lost their acquired rights for the custody of their children by the hostile interventions of Guardian Council. The Family Protection Act had empowered the court with the right to determine the child’s guardian according to the latter’s best interests. After the nullification of this law and the restructuring of Civil Code, the custody of female child until age of seven and the custody of male child until age of two were awarded to the mother. However, the father can assume the guardianship of his child when he/she reaches these ages. According to the Family Protection Act, if the husband had died, the wife’s claim for the custody of her child/children was weighed equally against the claim of her husband’s male ancestral line. Since the annulment of Family Protection Act, this equality has been tipped in the favor of husband’s male ancestral line that, as in the Civil Code that existed during Reza Shah’s era, can take over the child’s guardianship.

The required age for a girl’s marriage, which the Family Protection Act had increased to 18 years old, was reduced to 9 by the juridical view of Guardian Council. In addition, the new law gives the father and his male ancestral line such unbounded powers that they can even marry their children while they are infants. According to the juridical view of Guardian Council, which quickly turned into the official position of the Islamic Republic, women are held criminally responsible from age of 9. Previously, the age for being criminally responsible for both man and woman was 18. In the section that specifies punishments, certain Articles are included that are unprecedented throughout the history of legislation in Iran. One of these laws asserts that the blood money for woman is half the blood money for man. These negative changes in legislation became generally possible after the assault on the Family Protection Act.

This Article was passed in the July of 1968:

“Article 1: In order to allow women to participate more than ever in the country’s social transformation, and according to the principles of “Revolution by the Shah and the People,” cultural, health, medical and social services are also recognized as the holy duty of women. Performing these services will be mandatory for women who acquire a high school diploma or higher degrees.”

“Article 2-The aforementioned services include the following:

1-Cultural and educational services

2-Campaign against illiteracy

3-Health and medical services in ministries and government institutions

4-Services related to public welfare and social assistance and the promotion of housewifery.”

Article 4 exempted women with high school diploma from performing the above services provided they were subject to the following conditions:

“1-Women who were married or had children;

2-Women who were the sole supporter of their family;

3-Women who, according to medical evidence, were not able, physically or mentally, to perform the above services.”

The women, who were described in Sections 1 and 2 of Article 4, could still perform these services if they chose to.

This law was very progressive, but it was abolished hastily after the revolution’s victory. A legal bill for the annulment of social services by women was passed on March 6, 1979: “From the date on which this Article is approved, the law of social services by women and its later amendments are abolished.”

Less than a month after the revolution’s victory, the Islamic Republic began its onslaught on the acquired rights of women which had been described in 15 Articles in the law to which we have referred. As a consequence, the women, who were eager and enthusiastic to put their knowledge and expertise in the service of socially and economically disadvantaged regions, lost a beneficial opportunity to share in the life of their country. We can highlight the abolition of this law as one of the first signs of a legislative process that aimed to constrain the social life of women and oppress their freedom to choose their lifestyle. This law intended to stifle the national sentiment of women to engage in social services.

Alongside these legal moves, various revolutionary personalities issued numerous decrees to satisfy the religious-revolutionary figures who had now become the main decision-makers. For example, General Dr. Madani, the Islamic Republic’s first Minister of Defense, attended a gathering of professors at the University of Kerman and said: “I have issued an order to exempt women from military service” (1). This example shows that the people who had joined the plot to prevent the vast social presence of women in that period were not necessarily clergymen or marja’-e taqlid. Personalities such as Dr. Madani, who had been educated in the West, contributed to taking the revolution toward the path that religious fundamentalists and revolutionary radicals desired. With an easy conscience, they sacrificed the rights of women to maintain their position in the structure of power.

The Situation in the Sphere of Sports

Among all these attempts to wipe out women’s rights, we must also speak about the constraints that were imposed on women’s sports. The newly appointed officials for sports announced in a press conference that:

“We will pay attention to women’s sports more than the past, but we will not use women as tools. In women’s sports, indecency and rendezvous with men will have no place. Women will play their sports out of the sight of men. We will even build walls around tennis courts. There is nothing wrong with women acting as referees for the games played by women. There is nothing wrong either if spectators are only women. And if you wish to report these games, you’d better think of hiring a woman reporter” (2).

Therefore, it is not surprising that now, after three decades since the revolution, 99 percent of the budget for sports is assigned to men while only one percent of this budget is allotted to women. Besides, women are prevented from participating in the sports which require the removal of Islamic hijab. They are also barred from entering stadia to watch games.

The Situation of Women in the Sphere of Arts

The unconditional presence of women in literary and artistic spheres was one of the most significant rights they had acquired before the revolution. Women had gained these rights in a gradual way which was proportionate to the degree of social development they had achieved. The revolution was still in its early phase when women were driven out of the sphere of arts only because they were women. Later on, in spite of many obstructions, some women resumed their artistic and literary activities. While the problem of hijab in performing arts caused very slow movements by actresses which stripped them of emotion, the prohibition of women from touching men was another factor that diminished the presence of women. In literature, the limitations of writers to describe love or the relationship between an unmarried man and woman reduced the impact of their work dramatically. Writers were prevented from defining womanhood or expressing women’s human desires.

In their first steps, the new managers of the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting informed the press that “Googoosh, Mehasti, Haydeh and many other singers have no longer any place in radio and television.” They claimed that these famous singers “have indulged in debaucheries in the Shah’s court and other corrupt officials.” All these were excuses. They wanted to put an end to the presence of Iranian women as soloist singers. And they succeeded in doing so (look at Ayandegan Newspaper, April 24, 1979, quoted from Shuresh [Rebellion], p. 188).   

When the views of the new heads of Iran’s revolutionary radio and television were printed in newspapers, the Parliament and other institutions had not been formed yet. Nonetheless, the possession of the cassettes of renowned singers became an “evidence of crime.” Keeping these cassettes at home or in car was dangerous and could result in harassment by the armed “committee” members. Celebrated Iranian singers were constantly dragged to courts. Some of them escaped and some stayed in Iran and continued their life in privation. For years, some women, whose fame is engraved in the memory of pre-revolutionary Iran, asked for permission from Iranian embassies abroad to spend their last days in Iran and “die” in their own country. Pouran and Elahe were two prominent singers who went back to Iran and were buried in the earth that was the grave of all their hopes and memories. An unkind earth which accepted their lifeless bodies with kindness. Iran has become a place of dying for the illustrious women who were distinguished in the sphere of performing arts before the revolution.

With the onslaught on the acquired rights of women in the sphere of music, the Farsi segments of many radio and television networks outside Iran became quite attractive. People admired the women who worked in the sphere of arts; they never passed their time without listening to their favorite singers. But the irrational elimination of these stars form the artistic scene of post-revolutionary Iran in the last thirty years has hampered the emergence of new artists who could equal Delkash, Elahe, Googoosh or Pouran.

To attract the viewers to the programs which were more like slogans than performing arts, the state-run Iranian television used all kinds of tactics and employed a group of less known actors who wore different kinds of hijabs, hats, wigs and false hair. The women, who either sat behind the samovar or carried a tray of teacups in a circle among the guests, had to wear hijab in all situations, even when they were asleep. In the sphere of cinema, years passed before the competent Iranian filmmakers (men and women) succeeded in creating their solid works. Despite smothering constraints, they gave rise to unforgettable works in the realm of performing arts. They learned how to dodge censorship and communicate the emotion of love to the audience without any bodily touch between men and women.

But the success of women in the spheres of performing arts, painting and fiction does not lessen the damages that the assault on the acquired rights of women has inflicted on many talents that were prevented from blossoming.

The Situation of Women in the Sphere of Politics

Before the revolution, women had gained the opportunity to work as envoys and members of diplomatic missions. They were being trained as diplomats in a university faculty that was linked to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. There were also many women graduates from the Faculty of Law and Political science at the University of Tehran and other universities who worked in Iranian consulates and embassies. Immediately after the revolution, this acquired right was abolished. The regime either purged women diplomats or transferred them to administrative sectors. It also prevented women from entering the faculty that was linked to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

There are many things to say. What was mentioned in this report is not even a fraction of what has happened to Iranian women. But young readers should not imagine that my generation gave in to these assaults without putting up a fight. It is true that a large number of revolutionary women, who had assumed official positions, supported the onslaught on women’s rights, but there were also many women across the country who advocated these rights. Even in remote cities, women continued their protests, sit-ins and demonstrations for a long time. The struggle of Iranian women against invasion on their acquired rights did not begin with the launching of campaigns. That is why the history of these struggles should be scrutinized carefully.

Review of Women’s Protests after February 11, 1979

-the female members of Sepah-e Danesh (Army of Knowledge) held sit-ins in all offices of Ministry of Education and demanded a supplementary training course and guarantee for employment as teachers after finishing the course. Many cities, including Amol and Gorgan, were the scenes of demonstrations (Shuresh, p. 188 & Ayandegan Newspaper, April 24, 1979).

-a few days after demonstrations by women on March 8, 9 and 10, 1979, other Iranian cities, along with Tehran, became the scenes of unrest in protest against compulsory hijab. For example, the girls’ demonstration in Tabriz turned violent. The Hezbollahis (members of Party of God) attacked the girls’ schools in Western Gilan. Women in various regions of the country issued statement after statement against compulsory hijab (Shuresh, p. 177).

-the service of young women in Sepah-e Danesh and Sepah-e Behdasht (Army of Healthcare) was terminated in March 1979. A number of these women organized a protest in Kermanshahan Province and demanded employment (Shuresh, p.178 and Keyhan Newspaper, March 11, 1979).

-the students of midwifery from one Iranian university held a sit-in in the Ministry of Health. They demanded a higher status for their degrees (Shuresh, p. 187).

-the demonstration of students at 17 Shahrivar Nursing School took place on May 4, 1979 in protest against the school’s new administrative board. It turned violent (Shuresh, p. 189).

-a group of students from Pishahang School gathered in the office of Ayandegan Newspaper to protest against the anti-women actions of their school’s principal (Shuresh, p. 189).

Hundreds of protests erupted across the country, but they were generally repressed. An army of revolutionary women who were completely loyal to the new regime participated in this repression. When they were absent, the raid on women’s rights quickly ceased. Therefore, we cannot speak of these assaults without remembering the role that people played in bringing them about. The educated people who had found a foothold in the structure of power by their opposition to the Shah also contributed immensely to the onslaught on the acquired rights of women.