Side Note: For those who saw A Separation, this is a spoiler alert. At the end of this essay, I’m going to give my interpretation of the ending, called intentionally vague by many. I disagree.
Swearing an Islamic oath
I was moved to see Razieh, in this movie, refuse to swear an oath upon the Quran, even though this would prove costly to her impoverished family. That’s what inspired my thought about Ayatollah Khamenei doing so. However, I don’t know if swearing an oath upon the Quran would be relevant, since Muslims aren’t supposed to swear an oath on anything other than Allah. [Disclaimer: I don’t know how Khamenei’s brand of Islam “feels” about this.]
I am not a Muslim, although I hasten to add: Among the Muslims I’ve met, I have found all to be at least pleasant or at most exemplary human beings. I have tried to read the Quran, but have found it difficult to understand. To be completely honest, though, I have to admit my attempts to read it have been unfocused and less-than-earnest. This is something I wish to try again in the near future.
I did a brief Wikipedia search concerning Islamic oath-taking and the broader concept of lying within that culture. I was disappointed to find that lying, even when swearing an oath in the name of Allah, can be forgiven. I hope I am wrong with this tentative conclusion, for it would seem to make any such oath worthless. That is, if someone were to swear by Allah that something is true (but that intentional lying even in the name of Allah could be forgiven), how could any listener place any value on such an oath?
That, of course, leads to the larger question: “If invoking a deity’s authority can’t ever mean 100% certainty, doesn’t any oath based on that authority debase that deity?”
My intention underlying any Khamenei oath
If Ayatollah Ali Khamenei were to swear privately (say, with only one person present) that Iran doesn’t intend to build nuclear weapons, should that be enough to satisfy the US government? I suppose some might say such an oath would be more useful if publicly offered. But I doubt Khamenei would allow himself to be forced into this position. I know I wouldn’t if I were in his shoes, for it would seem that I would be debasing my religion to satisfy a hostile and secular authority.
Of course Khamenei wouldn’t swear a public oath just to satisfy (in the words of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini), “the Great Satan” – i.e., the United States. However, a private oath might be a different matter, especially if Khamenei would get something in return:
· If he swears this oath, then the US would back off from its public opposition to even an alleged or potential Iranian nuke weapons program – and, furthermore, would publicly declare that the US would not assist or defend Israel in any way if that country were to attack Iran.
· If Khamenei would swear a different oath – “I swear by the name of Allah that Iran does intend to build nuclear weapons” – the US wouldn’t interfere or object unless Iran were to use those weapons. Furthermore, the US position would be, if their weapons were used: an insistence that Khamenei either abdicate and go into exile or that the US would retaliate militarily – up to and including the use of nuclear weapons. An additional sweetener for the Iranians: If the Israelis were to attack Iran (with or without nukes), the US would retaliate against Israel.
Of course, everything would depend on how much value we could place on this oath sworn by Khamenei. Of course, Khamenei could have the last laugh by telling our agent:
“I am flattered that you would even consider placing any value on my oath. However, suppose we announced to the world that Iran intends to pull out of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (which any country has a right to do) and that we intend to build nuclear weapons (which we could legally do, once we pull out of the NPT). Should I make the US President swear – in public – that he would obey international law and not attack us?”
Which leads to my position
If Iran were to withdraw from the NPT, it would have every right to build nuclear weapons. We might not like it, but we’d have no legal basis for opposing it. I think the US has made a grave error by trying to bully Iran on this matter, going so far as to go tit-for-tat by ratcheting up our responses based on the rhetoric coming from Tehran. The best policy would have been silence – at least from the United States.
If the European Union, other Islamic states, or the United Nations would have wished to apply diplomatic pressure, economic sanctions, or pressure from the International Atomic Energy Agency, the United States would have defused tensions significantly by maintaining its silence – refusing to weigh in, one way or the other.
I understand that the leaders of Iran are faced with significant (though so far impotent) popular opposition, which would tempt some of them to rabble rouse. Political leaders throughout history have found it useful to deflect public attention against a foreign “Satan.” Our mistake was to knee-jerkingly oblige.
So what should the US do if Iran were to ever launch a nuke? There’s no easy answer to that except to say, “Depends on the circumstances.” And that should be enough to make us pause before deciding to react militarily. The first question to be answered: “Did Iran really launch a nuke or is somebody trying to make it appear that they did?” I’m afraid our current media propaganda campaign against Iran would make it difficult for our government to exercise judicious restraint. But, frankly, I can’t see taking action which could kill thousands of Iranian civilians as something to be lightly considered.
Clarifications
My reflections above are meant to be food for thought. And there’s a lot of room for such thought here. On the one hand, I can fully understand how the Iranians (leaders and ordinary citizens alike) could distrust the United States. After all, our CIA precipitated a coup in 1953, which overthrew Iran’s democratically-elected government.
On the other hand, I don’t understand how the crime of desecrating the Quran can be so severely punished (by death, in Pakistan and Afghanistan). And yet, Islam preaches against idolatry. Isn’t elevating a physical object (that is, the book that is the Quran), to such a point that its maltreatment calls for forfeiture of a human life, the same as idolizing it?
Besides, times are different now. Back in the Prophet's day, destroying a Quran could have been considered a severe crime because there were so few Qurans in existence. Today, even if a thousand of them were to be destroyed, it would be an easy matter to fire up the printing presses and instantly print replacements.
Besides, times are different now. Back in the Prophet's day, destroying a Quran could have been considered a severe crime because there were so few Qurans in existence. Today, even if a thousand of them were to be destroyed, it would be an easy matter to fire up the printing presses and instantly print replacements.
The ending of a movie: A Separation
As I promised in the beginning, I’ll explain the ending of A Separation.
The scene: An Iranian couple is standing before a judge, though it’s important here to mention that no lawyers are present (for one of them would have surely objected, as you’ll see). With them is their 11-year-old daughter, Termeh, whom the judge asks: “Have you decided which of your parents you wish to live with?” She answers, “Yes,” but doesn’t give her answer. The judge asks if she needs more time to decide; she says, no, that she’s made up her mind. Yet, she still doesn’t give her answer. The judge, realizing her difficulty, asks her parents to wait out in the hall, so Termeh can give her decision without feeling the pressure of their presence.
The camera shows her parents sitting outside the courtroom, on opposite sides of a heavily-trafficked hallway. And that’s when the credits start to roll. I could tell my fellow viewers were disappointed that we were not given Termeh’s decision. But, actually, we were. I didn’t get it until the following day, when I was reviewing the ending in my mind. And then it seemed all-too-obvious what that decision was:
Termeh told the judge she wanted to live with her mother, but the judge was trying to talk her out of it. Once she told the judge her decision – one way or the other – the parents should have been immediately summoned back into the courtroom. But…the lengthy running of the credits was a subtle way of letting us know that an appreciable amount of time was passing – too much time to account for, unless judicial interference was factored in.
The end-scene with the credits rolling was not a freeze-frame, so we were should have been alert enough to realize: “Hmm…what’s taking so long?” The filmmaker was trying to tell us that the patriarchal nature of Iranian society would allow for such judicial interference. At least, that’s how I understood the ending.
Superior film, by the way. I had seen other Iranian films over the years – for instance, The Circle and Iron Island – so I had a hunch A Separation would be a winner. Well…I also read some strong, positive critical reviews. So I’m not surprised that this feature became the official Iranian submission for the Best Foreign Language Film for the 2012 Academy Awards.
Best wishes on winning that prize!
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Steven Searle for US resident in 2012
Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party
“Wouldn’t it be great if the taking of an oath by one man would be enough to stop a war?”
Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com
No comments:
Post a Comment