I acquired my copy of the novel Reading Lolita in Tehran by Azar Nafisi in Doha, and read it here. This made it possible for an interesting comparison between two conservative self-proclaimed Muslim societies, one is the Islamic Republic of Iran and the second is the State of Qatar – notice that as much as Qatar is committed to its Islamic heritage, the official name of the country does not mention any reference to religion.
Even though it is quite tempting to discuss Nafisi’s literary approach and tools, I am going to focus in this post mainly on how both societies differ from each other and the ramifications of such difference on Nafisi’s work.
Nafisi describes her country, Iran, as a paradise that was turned into a living hell ever since Islamic laws were implemented. Music and Western literature are banned, strict dress codes are enforced, and arbitrary curfews are imposed, to name just a few of the restrictions Nafisi and her students suffered from. Qatar, on the other hand, reached some type of a compromise that allows in the luxury of Western lifestyle while still preserving its Islamic identity and values. Conservative values of this society are evident in the way most citizens adhere to national dress, although oftentimes worn as a sign of cultural pride rather than religious obligation. Incoming residents and tourists are also expected to dress and behave in a modest way in public. But, again, imported international goods in the form of literature, music, clothing, etc are widely distributed and are part of everyday life.
Apart from the different approach to “Islamic laws” in both countries, there is also the obvious fact that the majority of the population in each country belong to a different sect of Islam. But I won’t delve much into that to avoid igniting any sectarian prejudice.
So which one is the real representation of Islamic society? The smarter question would actually be "is there only one version of how Islamic societies are supposed to be"? Even though many would claim otherwise, but really no one has the authority to decide.
This leads me to my main problem with Nafisi’s novel where she regards the actions of the Iranian government as the sole true manifestation of Islam. Therefore, founds her novel on the idea of lashing both institutions with ruthless criticism. I understand that she is deeply frustrated. However, this shouldn’t turn into a mental blind spot against other possibilities within Islamic societies, as my example shows.
To be honest, I was quite disappointed as I expected a scholar and professor like Nafisi to have sharper abilities in distinguishing between a theory and its varied implementations in real life.
Even though it is quite tempting to discuss Nafisi’s literary approach and tools, I am going to focus in this post mainly on how both societies differ from each other and the ramifications of such difference on Nafisi’s work.
Nafisi describes her country, Iran, as a paradise that was turned into a living hell ever since Islamic laws were implemented. Music and Western literature are banned, strict dress codes are enforced, and arbitrary curfews are imposed, to name just a few of the restrictions Nafisi and her students suffered from. Qatar, on the other hand, reached some type of a compromise that allows in the luxury of Western lifestyle while still preserving its Islamic identity and values. Conservative values of this society are evident in the way most citizens adhere to national dress, although oftentimes worn as a sign of cultural pride rather than religious obligation. Incoming residents and tourists are also expected to dress and behave in a modest way in public. But, again, imported international goods in the form of literature, music, clothing, etc are widely distributed and are part of everyday life.
Apart from the different approach to “Islamic laws” in both countries, there is also the obvious fact that the majority of the population in each country belong to a different sect of Islam. But I won’t delve much into that to avoid igniting any sectarian prejudice.
So which one is the real representation of Islamic society? The smarter question would actually be "is there only one version of how Islamic societies are supposed to be"? Even though many would claim otherwise, but really no one has the authority to decide.
This leads me to my main problem with Nafisi’s novel where she regards the actions of the Iranian government as the sole true manifestation of Islam. Therefore, founds her novel on the idea of lashing both institutions with ruthless criticism. I understand that she is deeply frustrated. However, this shouldn’t turn into a mental blind spot against other possibilities within Islamic societies, as my example shows.
To be honest, I was quite disappointed as I expected a scholar and professor like Nafisi to have sharper abilities in distinguishing between a theory and its varied implementations in real life.