Chanting “independence or death,” the shrouded women of the Persian revolutionary movement stormed the government building in Tehran. Demanding national independence and liberty, these women boldly unveiled, tossing their chadors to the ground in mass, public protest. Questioning the very manhood of the men who were an embarrassment to their fathers, these patriots threatened to take the lives of their sons, their husbands, in addition to their own, lest they live their remaining days in an occupied and stunted Persia.

This dramatic scene did not happen recently, nor did it occur during the more commonly understood Iranian Revolution of 1979. This happened during the waning days of a vibrant constitutional movement that would forever change the nation of Iran. From it they gained a parliament (or Majlis), and for the first time in Persian history, a set of rights and entitlements that didn’t flow from the crown or the cleric. Tradesmen, clergymen and secular intellectuals, men and women alike, desperately attempted to salvage the last vestiges of their young constitution from a despotic shah and his Cossack thugs.

Their efforts would ultimately prove futile, and the combination of Russian and British imperialism would soon stifle the constitutional revolution that had been drafted and codified in 1906. Based heavily off of the Belgian constitution of 1831, the ulema (Islam’s learned) and the secular intellectuals, albeit momentarily, set aside differences in order to strip from the shah the authority they believed he had long ago abdicated. The constitution, structured to take the reigns of Persian justice carried down from Cyrus to King Abbas, also granted unprecedented rights and liberties to people of all faith, tribe and region.

This ambitious movement was short lived. Just a year later, Islam would be declared the official faith of the land and outside occupiers would dismiss the legitimacy of the Majlis. Later, the hyper-nationalistic Reza Shah Pahlavi would distort the democratic principles established in 1906, and impose a brutal, Franco-style Westernization on his people that was more cosmetic than cultural. This oppressive brand of Persian Maoism would be a catalyst for the Khomeini revolution, thus killing secular constitutionalism in Iran.

Why does this historical anecdote matter? Much attention has been given as of late to the reformers and dissidents throughout the Muslim world. While Americans and political candidates seem to embrace the idea of a freedom agenda, few can agree on what such a movement should actually look like. Some have proposed the ill-conceived idea that Islam is the problem, thus requiring some kind of Islamic “reformation.” Ali Eteraz, in a recent series written for the Guardian, dismisses this argument by noting that the patent on Muslim dissent has already been claimed by the extremists. “Many hopes (and careers) are pinned on the idea, but there is no such thing coming. The Islamic reformation has already happened. The Muslim equivalent of nailing the 95 theses was the desecration of a graveyard and the stoning of a woman for adultery.”

The same might be said of misguided democracy movements. While women adorning purple fingers are an inspiring sight, it contributes nothing to civil society and freedom if not supported by the law. The most vaunted example of Muslim democracy today is Turkey, where the legal foundation established under Atatürk stands as a monument of national pride. Not far behind is Jordan, where the constitutional monarchy enables the crown to protect the law from Islamists who seek to veto secular legislation. Toppling dictatorships and setting up polling places does not create the foundation for civil society to flourish. Furthermore, supporting separatist groups, whether they are Baluchi separatists in the Iranian southeast or Kurdish separatists in the Iraqi north, gets us no closer to a democratic and free Middle East. Kicking the ant hill over doesn’t rid us of the ants, it merely spreads them all around.

We must remain leery of the calls for Islamist democracy. We’ve already witnessed what that looks like in Gaza and Lebanon. In rushing to emancipate and arm the masses of the Muslim world, we’ve skipped over a very crucial step. Save your moderates, dissidents and democrats, and show me the constitutionalists in the Muslim world. It’s in these activists that Western support has the greatest potential for success. Islam is not the problem, nor is gross commercialization the answer. Promote the religious benefits in a secular society, one which enumerates the rights of the individual, and you may find yourself on the right path to freedom and liberty in the Muslim world.

This won’t be easy, as it would require that the clerics choose the secular over the Sharia. It would mean relinquishing their traditional role as the anointed jurists, and accept the notion that a society that protects the rights of all includes the rights of Muslims.

Embrace secular constitutionalism, and the rest will follow. We witnessed it briefly in Persia over 100 years ago. Why can’t it happen again?