Iranian Constitutional Revolution Research Articles

Janet Afary. <italic>The Iranian Constitutional Revolution, 1906–1911: Grassroots Democracy, Social Democracy, and the Origins of Feminism</italic>. (The History and Society of the Modern Middle East.) New York: Columbia University Press. 1996. Pp. xxi, 448. Cloth $40.00, paper $17.50

Janet Afary. <italic>The Iranian Constitutional Revolution, 1906–1911: Grassroots Democracy, Social Democracy, and the Origins of Feminism</italic>. (The History and Society of the Modern Middle East.) New York: Columbia University Press. 1996. Pp. xxi, 448. Cloth $40.00, paper $17.50

The Iranian Constitutional Revolution, 1906-1911: Grassroots Democracy, Social Democracy, and the Origins of Feminism

During the Iranian Constitutional Revolution of 1906 to 1911 a variety of forces played key roles in overthrowing a repressive regime. Afary sheds new light on the role of ordinary citizens and peasantry, the status of Iranian women, and the multifaceted structure of Iranian society.

The Iranian constitutional revolution, 1906-1911: grassroots democracy, social democracy, & the origins of feminism

The Iranian constitutional revolution, 1906-1911: grassroots democracy, social democracy, & the origins of feminism

“Is Our Name Remembered?”: Writing the History of Iranian Constitutionalism As If Women and Gender Mattered

Current histories of the Iranian Constitutional Revolution (1905-1909) frequently begin the story of the revolutionary years with 11 December 1905. On that day the bastinado was inflicted on three Tehrani merchants, Sayyid Hashim Qandfurush, Hajj Ahmad Qaysariyah, and Sayyid Isma'il Charmfurush, on orders from ‘Ala’ al-Dawlah, governor of Tehran. This incident, we are told, led the two leading Tehran clerics, Sayyid Muhammad Tabataba'i and Sayyid ‘Abdallah Bihbihani, to stage a protest sit-in with their supporters in the Shah ‘Abd al-'Azim shrine and demand the dismissal of ‘Ala’ al-Dawlah and premier ‘Ayn al-Dawlah, as well as the institution of a house of justice. A month later, the sit-in ended successfully: though ‘Ayn al-Dawlah remained premier, ‘Ala’ al-Dawlah was dismissed and a royal decree to establish a house of justice was issued. Some months later another incident set off the next round of the contest.

Historicizing Revolutions: Constitutional Revolutions in the Ottoman Empire, Iran, and Russia, 1905-1908

The Young Turk Revolution of 1908, the Iranian Constitutional Revolution of 1906, and the Russian Revolution of 1905 unfolded under the impact of the constitutional revolutionary paradigm. This article places these revolutions in a common historical context, arguing that their shared ideology and their method of capturing state power differentiate them from revolutions of later periods. After establishing that these revolutions belonged to the same class of events, this article also explores the differences between the successful Ottoman and Iranian revolutions and the failed Russian revolution. The conclusion is that the Ottoman and Iranian legal assemblies, which were buttressed by extraparaliamentary and extralegal resources, were far more powerful and effective. Furthermore, the intrastate cleavages in the Ottoman Empire and Iran were essential for winning military support in the battle to restore the constitutional regimes in the aftermath of counterrevolutionary backlash.

Peasant Rebellions of the Caspian Region during the Iranian Constitutional Revolution, 1906–1909

Despite a growing literature on peasant movements in the early 20th century, the story of the peasant rebellions of the Caspian region at the time of the Iranian Constitutional Revolution of 1906–11 has been little studied.1 A close look at three sets of materials—the newspapers of the Constitutional Revolution, among them Majlis (1906–1908), Anjuman (1906–1909), Habl al-Matīn (1907–1909), and Sūr-i Isrāfīl (1907–8); British diplomatic reports; and several regional studies and memoirs of the period—reveal that, during the First Constitutional Period of 1906–1908, a number of strikes and sit-ins were carried out by the peasants, often with the support of craftsmen and workers, who had initiated trade union activity. Such revolts were considerably more sustained and prominent in the northern areas of Gilan and Azerbayjan, which were directly influenced by the flow of radical ideas from the Russian Caucasus; they also benefited from a long history of social struggle among the craftsmen and small shopkeepers (pīshahvarāns), who maintained their guilds, and a tradition of alliances among the craftsmen, the urban poor, and the poor peasants.2

Some Reflections on Third World Feminist Historiography

COMMENT: Some Reflections on Third World Feminist Historiography Janet Afary In her "Six (or More) Feminists in Search of a Historian," Sharon Sievers presents an eloquent argument for a historically grounded feminist theory. Much of the nonwestern world views feminism not as a revolutionary ideology but as a form of cultural imperialism that is to be shunned, and the reasons for this attitude are found in the pervasive ethnocentrism of the western feminists, she argues. European and American feminists construct theories of feminism that are oblivious to the actual historical experiences of nonwestern cultures. Studies in the history of the nonwestern societies demonstrate, however, that feminism—perhaps without the term and definition as we know it today—has existed in a variety of forms within these societies in the past few centuries. A historicaUy grounded feminism that recognizes the existence of the idea of feminism within a multiplicity of cultural and national traditions would further explore contradictions of this history rather than shy away from them. Sievers contends further that this means distinguishing women's history from feminist history, exploring those forms of feminism that have historically accommodated themselves with colonialism and western imperialism, and trying to make clear choices about "what is and is not universal about feminism." There is no question that the construction of a multicultural history of feminism will not only begin to correct the errors of ethnocentrism and broaden the concept of feminism itself, but also give us a new and more complex view of the historical past in the political, social, cultural, and ideological realms. For example, the historiography of the first decade of the 20th century has begun to recognize socialist and feminist dimensions of the labor movement and other social movements in both Europe and the United States. But the same period has generaUy been seen as an era of nationalist movements in the nonwestern world. Closer study of this period demonstrates , however, that the movements that shook Iran, Turkey, India, British Guyana, Mexico, South Africa, as well as China and Japan—movements which were often inspired by the Russian Revolution of 1905—also witnessed the participation of activist women on a large international scale and as a distinct social group for the first time. In British Guyana, the women involved in the movement were referred to as the "Amazons." The revolts in South Africa were referred to as the "maid's revolt," and in parts of India the rebellions were known as the "women's war."1 In several of © 1989 IQURNAL OF WOMEN'S HISTORY, VOL. 1 NO. 2 (FALL)_________________________ 148 JOURNAL OF WOMEN'S HISTORY FALL these countries, the movement found a clearly recognizable socialist and feminist dimension. In China, some of the most powerful writings against male domination, the practice of foot binding, and forced marriage were penned at this time.2 Sievers has movingly described the history of Japanese feminists and socialists as early as 1904 in her Flowers in Salt: The Beginnings of Feminist Consciousness in Modern Japan.3 In my article in this volume, I have attempted to show that the Iranian Constitutional Revolution of 1906 quickly developed a strong socialist component that called for an eight-hour day, land to the peasants, and education for women. A number of women activists, who were influenced by socialist ideas from the Russian Caucasus, estabUshed the Council for Freedom of Women and many other semisecret societies of women, as well as schools, hospitals, and cultural centers. Feminist intellectuals in Iran called for an end to the dowry tradition, polygyny, and easy male divorce; when confronted by a hostile minority of conservative clerics, they did not hesitate to speak out or publish articles on the subject in the newspapers of the period. A second question emerges in this period when the history of the women's movements of Iran and other nonwestern societies are studied within the context of the debates among European socialists of the time, namely the debates within the German Social Democracy on the relationship of social movements in the underdeveloped east to those in the technologically more advanced west. These debates can inform our discussions and criticisms of western ethnocentrism in a new...

Shaikh Fazlallah Nuri and the Iranian revolution 1905–09

In studies of the Iranian Constitutional Revolution there has been a tendency to concentrate on the role of the ulama as leaders of the constitutional movement, and to overlook the fact that an important group of mullahs supported the traditional system of government, and, from 1907 onwards, came out in open opposition to constitutionalism. Hairi has thrown some light on the anticonstitutionalist arguments of Shaikh Fazlallah Nuri, the most significant member of the group.' Arjomand has discussed the ulama's traditionalist opposition from 1907-09 and considered whether it represented ideological divisions, or merely superficial differences resting on a common outlook.2 It is the purpose of this study to examine the role and viewpoint of Shaikh Fazlallah during the whole period of the Revolution. Shaikh Fazlallah was already one of the most prominent mujtahids of the capital before the Revolution. Born in Tehran in 1843, he studied in Najaf, first under his uncle, a leading mujtahid, and secondly under Mirza Hasan Shirazi, the chief mujtahid of his day.3 He returned to Tehran in about 1882. Compared with other mujtahids of the capital, such as Sayyid Abdallah Bihbihani and Sayyid Muhammad Tabataba'i, Shaikh Fazlallah was something of an outsider. He did not come, as they did, from a long line of mujtahids resident in Tehran with family influence and connections, particularly in the bazaar. Initially he seems to have made his way primarily as a scholar of exceptional merit, and was generally acknowledged the most learned of the ulama of the capital.4 He is twice described as being in the process of giving classes, whereas such references have not yet come to light for other mujtahids.5 He was one of the ulama who opposed the Tobacco Concession in 1891-92. He also combined with Mirza Hasan Ashtiyani, then chief mujtahid of Tehran, against the reformist policies of Amin al-Daula, chief minister of 1897-98. In 1897, however, he was reported to be poor and living a secluded life.6 Shaikh Fazlallah really began to emerge politically in 1902-03. He was one of those most critical of the next chief minister, Amin al-Sultan, whose policy of borrowing from the Russians to meet the needs of an impecunious government met with fierce opposition among the ulama. Shaikh Fazlallah wrote letters to the ulama elsewhere, and his cousin, Mirza Muhammad Nuri, was active in rousing agitation in the 'Atabat, the Shrine cities of Iraq.7 In 1903 Amin al-Sultan was ousted by a combination of ulama and a court faction led by 'Ain al-Daula, who then became chief minister, with Shaikh Fazlallah as his leading supporter among the ulama. Shaikh Fazlallah benefited greatly from this connection, for 'Ain al-Daula removed from the care of the mujtahid Bihbihani the government business in the shari'a courts and gave it to Fazlallah.8 Bihbihani, who was a partisan of Amin al-Sultan, consequently lost influence and prestige.

イラン立憲革命とロシア

イラン立憲革命とロシア

The “New Woman” of the Interwar Period: Performance, Identity, and Performative Act of Everyday Life in Egypt and Iran

This article is about visual culture, identity, and women in interwar Egypt and Iran. I use a transnational feminist approach to connect the histories of Egypt and Iran, in their differences and commonalities, during the interwar period. By emphasizing women’s education as the source of advancement of the society, the late nineteenth century Egyptian thinkers, Qasim Amin and Mohammad Abduh, and Iranian intellectuals Jamal al-Din Asadabadi (al-Afghani), Abdolhossein Khan Kermani, and Yusef Ashtiyani, invoked a male representation of a “feminist” discourse. During the 1906-1911 Iranian Constitutional Revolution and the 1919 Egyptian anti-British Revolution, the discourse of education was translated into women’s first quest for legal and political rights. National modernization policies, as diverse as they were in each country, translated the “woman question,” both as a discursive and a practice, into the question of women’s appearance in public.

Iranian politics 1900–1905: background to revolution

The following article comprises a preliminary version of three chapters of a manuscript on the background and development of the Iranian Constitutional Revolution of 1905-11. To give a very brief background to the events of 1900-05: in 1896 the powerful and long-lived Naser ed-Din Shah had been assassinated by a political radical, and he was succeeded by his weak and ailing son, Mozaffar ed-Din Shah (1896-1907). The new Shah, although of a more kindly disposition than his father, was incapable of ruling, and was accompanied to Tehran from his former post in Tabriz by a group of greedy courtiers, mostly of Azerbaijani Turkish origin, who came to be known as the Tabrizi or Turkish party. Gifts, pensions, and sales of crown lands to this group quickly drained the Iranian territory, while the Shah began almost immediately to clamour for a foreign loan to finance the trips abroad that were recommended by his doctors. Mozaffar ed-Din Shah at first dismissed his father's unpopular Prime Minister, the Amin os-Soltan who, since the defeat of British interests at the time of the mass movement against a British tobacco monopoly in 1891-92, had been following a pro-Russian policy. The new Shah appointed the liberal and pro-British Amin od-Dauleh to be Prime Minister in 1897, and he attempted reforms that stirred up some of the ulama and other vested interests. In 1898, weakened by the high level opposition and by the British failure to offer the loan that the Shah was seeking, the Amin od-Dauleh was forced to resign, and soon afterwards the Amin os-Soltan was recalled to power. The Shah's demands for money hastened the movement toward substantial Russian control over the Iranian government in these years.