One Hundred Years Ago in the Land of Lion and Sun; The Social Life of Iranians

In the upcoming series of talks, we introduce a book titled 'Life in the Muslim East'; the author of this book is Pierre Pounafidin, who wrote it in Russian, and his wife, Emma Koushiran Pounafidin, translated it into English. The English translation of the book was published in 1911, a little over 100 years ago, and contains the author's memories of 36 years of work and life as the consul of the Russian Empire in Iran and the Ottoman Empire, as well as his travels to various regions of Iran, 'Turkish Arabia' (Hijaz, Baghdad, Basra, and parts of Kurdish Iraq), and 'India'. The section on Iran is titled 'In the Land of Lion and Sun'. However, there are also references to topics related to Iran in other sections, including the status of women in Iran within the framework of Sharia and custom, as well as the general situation of Kurds who lived at that time in terms of citizenship in both the Ottoman Turkey and Iran. This work also contains photographs taken by the author and his wife from Iran, the Ottoman Empire, and India. The social life of Iranians a hundred years ago in the land of lion and sun. Book: Life in the Muslim East (1911) by Pierre Pounafidin. Selected and free translation: Abbas Javadi. The social life of Iranians in earlier eras has been such, and today (a hundred years ago) it remains the same. It is as if customs and traditions have coagulated over hundreds of years; changes have occurred, but these changes have only remained at the surface and appearance. The Quran defines and determines the smallest details of the lives of Muslims, and Muslims believe that not only the spirit and essence of the Quran but even no word of it is subject to change or modification in any way. This also shows why what astonished foreign travelers in Iran in the 17th and 18th centuries still persists today. We are astonished by the absence of law. Anarchy has replaced the law. We are astonished by widespread bribery and corruption, by brutal punishments, and so on. Do you think that at least in the last ten years, I have seen several decapitated bodies in the squares of major cities in Iran? Yes! Bodies without heads hanging on the gates of cities, or men nailed to the walls by their ears in the markets, or an executioner dragging a criminal while carrying his severed hand in his hat. I will never forget the day my wife excitedly came into my study and said that the next day a murderer was to be dismembered in the square near our house in Mashhad. My wife pleaded with me to do something to make the execution less brutal. His freedom was impossible because they said he had killed thirteen people. Of course, I had no authority to intervene in the affairs of the governor of Khorasan. But I thought that as a human being, I could make an effort. I went to him. He was the brother of the king at the time. At first, he strongly defended his decision. Then he said this man had not limited himself to one crime, otherwise his death sentence could have been less painful. On the other hand, according to him, this would be a good lesson for that social class that has no ear for the law. Ultimately, none of my words had any effect on him. But the last argument I made was effective, and that was that I said this act would provoke European countries, and they would raise their voices in protest. This statement was more important to him than humanitarian arguments. Finally, he agreed that the criminal would be executed by cannon fire, which at that time was considered the fastest form of execution. But the unfortunate murderer was indeed unfortunate because my efforts yielded little result. At the time of execution, the murderer was brought and, as usual, placed on a height so that his stomach was right in front of the cannon's mouth. He, while facing the cannon, watched all the preliminary actions of his execution with open eyes. Of course, such a death is immediate and probably painless. In an instant, your body is divided into dozens of pieces, and each piece is thrown somewhere. We had witnessed the falling of body parts of those executed by cannon in the past several times. Once, it almost happened that one of those pieces fell on our heads. By the coincidence of fate, that day they apparently had not tied the hands and feet of this criminal tightly. As soon as he saw the executioner reach for the cannon's fuse, he fearfully threw himself to one side of the execution area, so that only half of his arm was severed. The executioner, who was probably already lazy, reloaded the cannon and threw the murderer to the ground and severed his head from his body. I remember that a few years ago in Urmia, several highway robbers were thrown into a pit and buried alive. It would be a mistake to attribute all these events to the violence of this or that governor. The root of the matter likely lies in the ancient principle of retribution, which is known in the sacred texts of the Semitic people as 'an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth'. In Iran, apart from Sharia, meaning the Quran and other religious texts, there is no other written law for punishing criminals and those accused of crimes, and the interpretation of these laws can only be carried out by clerics. Therefore, only those who have studied Islamic jurisprudence can judge. Among Shia Muslims, these people are called 'Mujtahid', and non-Mujtahid individuals cannot question their rulings. In the past, the monopoly of the Mujtahids' right to issue punishment rulings was absolute, but over the past few centuries, civil authorities, meaning non-religious ones, have also gained some authority. This is why today we find alongside Sharia laws, rulings that are also issued and executed by non-religious authorities, namely by government officials. These rules are collectively called 'custom', meaning principles and methods that are unwritten but are valid among the people, without necessarily being stated in religious sources. In the second half of the 19th century, the need for fixed and fair laws led to the establishment of an institution called the 'Ministry of Justice'. However, in practice, neither the Minister of Justice nor his assistants could issue rulings as judges, as they had not studied religion and Sharia. As a result, religious advisors who had religious education were appointed to the Ministry of Justice, and they could issue religious rulings. Thus, the law in Iran entered a closed circle that it could not free itself from. In fact, these customary rules are also based on Sharia and law, but they are not written and established. Unlike Sharia laws, which are very categorical, commanding, and violent, customary rules are flexible and can be softer and more compassionate than Sharia laws or, conversely, can be more ruthless and merciless, depending on who and what group issues the ruling under what circumstances and for what purpose. In other words, in practice, the custom, which is executed by the state, can be abused to create an environment of violence even more severe than Sharia. In the second half of the 19th century (from 160 years ago onwards), the need for fixed and fair laws led to the establishment of an institution called the 'Ministry of Justice'. This action was part of 'reforms' in line with the atmosphere of that period. However, in practice, neither the Minister of Justice nor his assistants could issue rulings as judges, as they had not studied religion and Sharia and did not have the right and authority to judge from a religious perspective. Thus, Iranians returned to the previous point. What happened? Advisors were appointed to the Ministry of Justice who had religious education, were clerics, and could issue religious rulings. Thus, the law in Iran entered a closed circle that it could not free itself from. Today (a hundred years ago), the Ministry of Justice has representatives in some cities called 'Divan-Big'. In other cities, all power and authority to issue and execute rulings are in the hands of local government bodies, whether governors, officials, or village heads. The king is at the top of all of them. In Russia, we have an old saying that goes, 'God is in the heavens, and the tsar is far away.' I think this proverb applies even more to Iran than to Russia. The fate of the people depends on the character and will of the rulers, from small rulers to great rulers, and no one has access to them! For understanding the reality and details of the court, the form of judgment, and the whole issue of justice in Iran today (a hundred years ago), I will give an example that can be repeated every day in many parts of Iran. Karbalaei Ali has a dispute with Mashhadi Hossein. Karbalaei Ali, who is confident of his rightness, goes to a Mujtahid, explains his complaint, presents his reasons, and offers his evidence. Naturally, in this first session, the accused, Mashhadi Hossein, is not present. The Mujtahid writes a 'letter' stating that Karbalaei Ali is in the right. The plaintiff, after expressing his gratitude and kissing the Mujtahid's cloak, goes to an official who must execute the Mujtahid's ruling. However, our Karbalaei Ali, before he can reach the execution officer, is forced to greet a group of people such as servants, attendants, students, scribes, etc. All of them show interest in Karbalaei Ali's complaint and accordingly take a 'fair share' from him. While Karbalaei Ali's pocket is getting lighter, he reaches the execution officer and presents the Mujtahid's ruling to him. The execution officer, with the necessary respects, takes the Mujtahid's letter, and before all else, presses the seal he sees on the letter to his forehead as a sign of obedience. The plaintiff goes to a Mujtahid, explains his complaint, presents his reasons, and offers his evidence. Naturally, the accused is not present. The Mujtahid writes a 'letter' stating that the plaintiff is in the right. Before the plaintiff can reach the execution officer, he must lighten his pocket. Sometimes the accused also complains against the plaintiff, claiming he has been wrongfully accused, and everything is repeated in reverse. In the end, both the plaintiff and the accused become severely aggrieved and harmed until the matter is referred to the Ministry of Justice, and the cycle of 'gifts' continues this time with other people until both the plaintiff and the accused become completely bankrupt... After reading the Mujtahid's letter, the execution officer orders that a 'student' go to the house of the accused. 'Student' in Persian (of that time) means 'learner' or 'collector.' A student is referred to a police officer who serves the executive officers. Students were sent to arrest someone, search a house, confiscate property, or collect taxes. Students are usually chosen from among the best 'servants', meaning servants. These people are called 'zarang', meaning smart and agile in Iran. When the student arrives at Mashhadi Hossein's house, without any questions or doubts, he confiscates everything he sees in the house. He considers a room as a 'warehouse' and locks up everything he finds in the house, such as sheep, chickens, carpets, etc. In just a few moments, Mashhadi Hossein is deprived of all his possessions. In such circumstances, his only option is to 'soften' the student. Therefore, Mashhadi Hossein uses all his flattery and becomes a servant and humble follower of the 'most esteemed' student. When this does not work, Mashhadi Hossein realizes that he must present a 'gift' to the esteemed student, which depending on the value of the subject of each complaint may be a sheep, a horse, or cash. The student indeed begins to soften, but he says that a 'gift' is also necessary for his master. Then a conversation begins that ends with determining the limit of gifts for all the people who influence the outcome of this lawsuit. The student leaves the accused's house without taking any action, and usually, the matter ends there. However, sometimes the accused also complains against the plaintiff, claiming he has been wrongfully accused, and this time the plaintiff falls into the position of the accused and goes to the Mujtahid, and all that history is repeated in reverse. In the end, both parties become severely aggrieved and harmed until the matter is referred to the Ministry of Justice, and the cycle of gifts continues this time with other people until both parties become completely bankrupt... Unless one of the two or one of them knows an influential person from the very beginning of this struggle or later and 'softens' him with a large gift, in which case the matter is resolved in his favor. On the other hand, if one of the two parties to the lawsuit is an influential person from the very beginning, there is no doubt that the matter will be resolved much sooner and easier in his favor.