Since my article Ayatollah Ebadi was published I received considerable number of responses. Most of them were encouraging. Some were critical of my point of view at the same time as providing well-reasoned arguments and factual references to historical events, and I value and appreciate such opposing views. There were also some angry notes and remarks published on Iranian.com. Some of those remarks are not worthy of response, for example that Ms. Ebadi was fighting in Iran while I was spending my time in nightclubs or as women we must stand behind Ms. Ebadi. Here I try to summarize and respond to some of the opposing views to the best of my ability. Am I not confusing Islamic Republic with Islam. Am I attacking Ms. Ebadi for her religious beliefs? The answer is no. As a matter of fact, the article was not an attack on Islam, Fegh, or even Islamic Republic or Ms. Ebadi's beliefs. It was an objection to Ms. Ebadi's approach to address profound social and cultural problems in Iran through reconciling Fegh with human rights. Compatibility of Islam with democracy and human rights is a hotly debated topic within religious circles. Ms. Ebadi and some renowned clerics believe Islam and human rights can be reconciled, many others don't share this view. If we listen to Friday sermons in Iran we find numerous examples of the latter group. Islamic theologians are welcome to spend years and years debating this issue and I will be very interested to follow this debate closely. While I am not in a position to participate in this debate, I have the right to demand that the fate of our nation shall not hinge upon the outcome of such debate. The history of mankind has shown that only through separation of religion and state, religion gets the dignity it deserves and the society gets the freedom it needs to foster and safeguard the so-called "marketplace of ideas." The odds that our nation suddenly discovers a new magical recipe that contradicts thousands of human experience is, realistically, slim to none. Ms. Ebadi is living and working in Iran. She cannot express her opinions freely. Am I not expecting too much? It is a rather tricky question, which also keeps me wondering. On the one hand I have to admit that she is already under so much pressure. After all she is a human being with all the emotions and fears. And in fairness to Ms. Ebadi, she didn't choose to become a Nobel Laureate. On the other hand, there are numerous examples of people shouting their conscience under much harsher conditions without enjoying a Nobel class protection. A few examples are Abbas Amir-Entezam, Akbar Ganji, Hashem Aghajari, Heshmatollah Tabarzadi, Kianoush Sanjari, Ahmad Batebi, Mohammad Maleki, Manouchehr Mohammadi,... The list goes on. Each of these people has broken new grounds at the same time as having not shied away from speaking up. As a matter of fact I can point to some specific examples of people who have pursued a timid approach and have been punished more heavily (does Abdi and Poorzand ring a bell?) If Ms. Ebadi decides to continue helping women and children and represent victims, nobody can force her to do otherwise. But when she suggests a particular approach to solving Iran's profound problems, she opens the door to criticism. This is the responsibility of every one of us to challenge each other and to make the views transparent. One reader noted that my reference to Black civil rights movements was indeed an example of how change could come from within the legal system instead of being a counter-example by pointing to the role of the Warren Supreme Court. While this is certainly an interesting and productive discussion, my point was to warn against setting a discourse blindly without examining the alternatives from the wealth of experience provided by human history. Finally some readers found the title of the article provocative. This objection goes to Mr. Jahanshah Javid (Iranian.com editor) who picks the titles! All that is left to us by tradition is mere words. It is up to us to find out what they mean. -- ibn al-'Arabi, Tarjuman al-Ashwaq, in The Mystics of Islam, translated by Reynold A Nicholson Read Niloofar Beyzaie's latest article.

We, the Iranians, usually don't listen to each other. When we do we usually hear only what we want to hear. I am not sure if the crowd that praises Ms. Ebadi has ever listened to what she has to say, and if so, if they have actually heard her out. Let me make it clear that as an Iranian I am very proud to see an Iranian woman to become not only the first Iranian Nobel Laureate but also the first Muslim woman to receive this honor. But I have to admit that I am extremely disappointed by her views. In a round table with BBC, she made several disturbing remarks. First was her emphasis on the possibility of reconciling human rights with Islamic Fegh. She gave examples of the flexibility of Islamic Fegh to serve the specific needs of the society through the so-called "ahkam-e-sanaviyeh." This was given against the backdrop that "reason" is one of the sources of knowledge and wisdom in Islam. Make no mistake Ms. Ebadi. The Islamic establishment in Iran is very pragmatic in the way they handle Fegh. The only problem is that they use it as a flexible tool to serve their own goals and why not? After all they are the "supreme interpreters" of what Fegh should be about. Ms. Ebadi, what you are suggesting was institutionalized years ago through formation of the Expediency Council (which is now headed by Mr. Rafsanjani)? Recall that this council was established with the mandate to even abolish daily prayers as seen fit by the members. Somebody wrote on one of the Internet sites: "Ms. Ebadi please leave Fegh to Foghaha." Let them do their job you do yours. Second, Ms. Ebadi vehemently insists on abiding by the laws of the land. It is not clear though whether it is her belief, some sort of moral judgment, or just a convenient tactic. What if the "laws of the land" are inherently discriminatory, with no room for meaningful changes except by the approval of the discriminators (which in almost all practical situations would mean never)? Should they then be abided by? Is this Aristotelian view of the law the only alternative? Black Americans challenged Jim Crow by intentionally but peacefully breaking the segregation laws of the South. Does this make their struggle any less worthy? What about Gandhi's civil disobedience movement? What about American antiwar protesters who burned draft cards to refuse to serve in the Vietnam War? Weren't those people, speaking, or actually shouting their conscience? Isn't the over-emphasis on abiding by the law one of the biggest impediments of the reformist movement? Hasn't it been one of the leading causes of the current political stalemate? Laws that don't reflect the conscience of the society deserve no more respect than the rules set by a band of thieves. Without complete separation of religion and state we will be doomed to re-experience failures over and over. Ms. Ebadi seems to be far from acknowledging this, let alone taking any steps towards leading the society in such direction. Nevertheless, I still have some hope that the people of Iran could benefit from her standing as a Nobel Laureate but it all depends on us. Now that the honeymoon is over, we have to look at the hard facts and increase our level of expectations from her. Meaningless "tarofs" will do us no good, nor will it do justice to Ms. Ebadi. Ms. Ebadi needs our help to prove it to herself and to the world that she indeed deserved the honor. For this to happen, Ms. Ebadi should set an example of a Muslim who can be democrat and who can respect human rights not a preacher of Islamic democracy and Islamic human rights.

Conscious optimism 

The Iranian Noble Peace prizewinner, Ms. Shirin Ebadi may be an excellent choice for the future of Iran if only she uses her popularity to advocate genuine human rights and democracy for Iran as well as the Muslim world.

What would Ms. Ebadi's Nobel peace prize mean for Iran and the Iranian people struggle for democracy? It is still too early to say. So far one may understand Ms. Ebadi's position in two different ways. One is a more humane interpretation of Islam. The other is a secular interpretation; one that asserts Muslims can remain Muslims at the same time as being modern, tolerant, and democratic. The dividing line between these two interpretations is fine and delicate. The former conditions the acceptance of human rights and democracy on compatibility with Islamic law by trying to create Islamic human rights, Islamic democracy and so on; a sort of "modernity light" if you will. The latter advocates genuine human rights and democracy for the Muslim world. The former is what Soroush and the reformist camp have tried to establish for many years with absolutely no success whatsoever. The latter can bring about radical changes not only in Iran but also in the whole Middle East. Only time will show what camp Ms. Ebadi really belongs to and how she would use her influence as a Nobel laureate to shape the future of Iran and the Middle East. No matter what, now is the time for celebration. Congratulations to Ms. Ebadi for this great achievement. What would the mullahs do if the US launched an air strike at a nuclear plant in Iran? What would the Iranian people think about it? The key point in this debate is that we are dealing with an irresponsible government in Iran. The international community and the Iranian people have every right to be concerned about nuclear ambitions of the regime. This includes not only military use of nuclear technology but also peaceful use such as power production. Personally I don't want to be living anywhere near Bushehr nuclear power plant should it ever become operational because I seriously doubt that safety concerns keep mullahs and their Russian contractors awake at night! And God help us if these people ever get their hands on nuclear trigger. In the event of air strikes, I don't think Mullahs can do much other than making some noise and throwing some people in jail to consolidate their rule. People may act in many different unpredictable ways. Everything and anything is conceivable so I don't know What would the Iranian people think about it!

Parenting

There are a few rules that the baby has to follow and one of them is sleeping at 8:00 p.m. but we had pacifier-crises last night! The baby is not allowed to have her pacifier anywhere but in the bed. The baby's one and only pacifier was out of sight and her dad decided to go and buy the-baby's-exact-pacifier. He spent some $18 on it but she rejected it and refused to sleep. Around 11:30 I couldn't keep my eyes open any longer and decided to retire to bed. As I walked up the stairs I heard my husband's voice pleading: Don't leave me with the baby, pleaszzz ... the little girl was running around the house and didn't seem to be sleepy... 

It was a difficult-night at parenting a baby and one to remember for years to come.

Welcome to the Islamic Republic of Iran, a country where a rapist has more rights than a woman. Welcome to the Islamic Republic of Iran, a country where defending yourself from an aggressor is a crime and punishable by death under Sharia.

On July 27th, I had received an invitation to attend a Middle Eastern Studies conference at Harvard. The plan was for my husband (P), the baby and I to go for the weekend (P and the baby to spend the weekend sightseeing Boston.) This was the plan made three months ago...for last weekend... but what happened were an exam (Sheema having an exam) and a cold (Sheema having fever and cold!) We ended up staying home with a cranky Sheema (myself) and a husband who was discussing Iran's current political events while trying to assemble the baby's first vehicle (a green, yellow and navy blue, German-made tricycle.)

Invocation

We are busy with the luxury of things.
Their number and multiple faces bring
To us confusion we call knowledge. Say:
God created the world, pinned night to day,
Made mountains to weigh it down, seas
To wash its face, living creatures with pleas
(The ancestors of prayers) seeking a place
In this mystery that floats in endless space.

God set the earth on the back of a bull,
The bull on a fish dancing on a spool
Of silver light so fine it is like air;
That in turn rests on nothing there
But nothing that nothing can share.
All things are but masks at God's beck and call,
They are symbols that instruct us that God is all.

Farīd ud-Dīn Attar Abū Hamīd bin Abū Bakr Ibrāhīm