On Intolerance and the Killing of Dissidents

Even a cursory and chronological glance at the history of our homeland, and a look at the birth, formation and continuation of intolerance and killing of dissidents, and political and ideological opponents leaves no doubt that this issue has been a historical, political, cultural, religious, social and individual feature of our society in all its forms and its violent utility.

This violence takes different forms such as verbal, psychological, and physical, and includes such behavior as inflicting injury, insulting, rejection, exiling, battery, imprisonment, torture, killing and massacre. To give historic examples of such intolerance and the killing of dissidents would only be repetitious, simply pointing to a chronic problem whose causes and solutions have already been identified. Still, the problem persists and continues to damage.

In an effort to better understand mankind and find new perspectives on him, humanism and thinking about mankind raises the question of what is the cause of man’s intolerance and violence which allows this most advanced creation of nature and matter, i.e. the human being, to commit massacre, while other animals resort to such practices only to feed themselves or to defend their territory or are prompted by other animal instincts. The beast in the human being, which is universally acknowledged, sometimes reaches such levels that it cannot tolerate opposing thoughts or behavior thus displaying the other face of life and love: violence and death.

To understand the causes of this, one must plunge into the history of philosophy, and political and religious thought, in addition to the development of political, social, psychological thought in Iran. This is not possible to achieve for this writer even at a shallow level, and so calls for other thinkers and forums.

But before going any further, it would be useful to review the different definitions of tolerance. Tolerance means patience and forbearance regarding views and behavior that is not acceptable or approved or over which there is negative attitude. One can ignore thoughts and actions that are disliked and simply pass by them indifferently. Or, one can accept and respect them as any person’s right, and put it under critical scrutiny. Being intolerant means not only being indifferent to differing and opposing thoughts and behavior, or being disrespectful to them and not debating it, but also responding negatively to it in varying forms that include its physical elimination.

According to Gordon, cultural pluralism and the necessary patience for its implementation in society appears in two forms: attitudinal and interactional. At the attitudinal level, society accepts tribes and other cultures but refrains from mixing, blending or confronting them. At the interactional level however, not only does society accept the existence and presence of non-conformist groups or individuals, it actually engages them in non-threatening reciprocal relations and utilizes them to improve and provide welfare to society, while also benefiting from their welfare. Social interlocutors define these two forms as negative tolerance and positive tolerance, respectably.  In Iranian culture these two phenomena are known as modara (go along) and isar (selflessness). Negative tolerance (i.e. modara) consists of not distressing or harming dissidents or non-conformists in society, while positive tolerance (i.e. isar) consists of not only not distressing opponents, but involves creating conditions and the means for the growth of diverse thought and behavior.

Causes for Intolerance and Violence

Two causes or general drives have been identified as sources for the initiation and spread of intolerance of conscientious and behavioral dissidents, and of political and ideological opponents that lead to violence:

1. The human cause (psychological), and,
2. The environmental (societal) cause.

Throughout history, both of these have been the source of individual and group violence.

The Human Cause

This cause has also been named the natural, inherent, subconscious and pre-mordial cause. Those who prescribe to it believe that the human psyche has passed on some of its characteristics from one generation to the next, and violence and aggression or animalistic (beastly) behavior are among them. The layer that carries on this feature is called the unconscious or the deviant level.

It is said that this characteristic has come from the first human type – i.e. the primitive human-animal - through a form of memory and gene to subsequent generations. Different biological and psychological terms have been given to this characteristic, the most common of which is instinct. The instinct to destroy, wage war, aggression, inflict harm on others, cruelty, beastliness, death and killing is viewed as the cause of intolerance and violence in human beings. These are internalized characteristics that have both constructive and dangerous consequences. This instinct is viewed to be part of the human subconsciousness, which is the product of biological drives and suppressed energies. This subconscious instinct is viewed to be transferable individually or through groups.

Group subconsciousness is viewed as a remnant of pre-historic life or tribal man which can exist along with individual or personal subconsciousness which is the product of personal experience that can shape the inhuman and anti-social aspects of a person’s personality. In his social life, the human being covers up or hides this characteristic by various ways until his spiritual or material needs are endangered. At that time, this cover is set aside and the inner force takes over, which could be in the form of intolerance of others, leading to violence and eruption which lacks the capacity to love or like. This is the victory of the semi-animal or semi-beastly part over the semi-angelic nature. Some believe that this characteristic cannot be completely removed from man, and that man will remain a beast because this wolf-like grain is necessary for the persistence of human life and is therefore part of his nature.

The Environmental Cause

Those who believe in environmental causes of intolerance argue that human nature is not an abstract entity but a collection of all his social interactions. This is a receptive characteristic as opposed to inborn. In fact, human thought and behavior is primarily determined by his environment and social institutions. “Man is a social animal” whose humanity is not separate from his sociality.

Followers of this theory believe that those who prescribe to the human cause view (i.e. the psyche) as the source of human behavior and his violence, view humans as a natural and biological entity. They question this view and believe in the following to be the causes of violence and intolerance:

1. Politics. Political thoughts and their practical materializations are among the most important factors in the advancement of social events, in education, and in socialization among individuals of a society. If political power and political structures, which are manifestations of political thought, engage in impatient, arbitrary and selfish behavior, they transmit and disseminate these traits to society and promote these values and behavior rather than innovation. Dictatorial political power and behavior can promote and lead to intolerant and violent social structures, justifying killing and making it the norm. Examples of this are to be found in the political views of the German Nazi party that practiced biological cleansing.

In Iran we too have had such political views in the past especially when political thought joined hands with regressive customs and religion. The views of Iran’s current president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Israel and the Jews and also regarding other dissidents are the most recent example of this issue.

During most historic periods, political power in Iran that stood for the ‘small man’ in fact imprisoned the psyche, which then searched for an authority that also had revolting tendencies. Not only were political thought and its behavior dictatorial among those in power and the political structure of society, but it was also present among the opposition. In fact both the ruling ideology and structure, and the opposing power and its structure were examples of intolerance and impatience, which appeared in political groups and movements.

Political thought that is contaminated with arrogance, centricity, self-love and monopoly has no outcome other than intolerance of dissidents, of non-conformist behavior, and of political and ideological opposition. This contamination may have its roots in the archetypal thoughts of “Eastern Asiatic despotism”, “absolute political power”, etc.

The Achamenians tolerated the followers of other religions and gods so long as they remained small in size and ineffective in power in society, which accepted the position of the king of kings and his claim to represent god. Ashkanians and the Sassanians too treated the followers of other religions, tribes and political groups in the same fashion. Most of the ruling dynasties and kings in Iran between the Arab invasion and the constitutional movement in late 19th century however were not as tolerant of their dissidents as were the Achamenians, even within their own court.

When for example, Malek Shah developed a disagreement with his Prime Minister Khaje Nezam al-Molk over something, he sent him this message: “If you are my deputy and under my command, then you must obey me.” The reply by Nezam al-Molk was sharp and to the point: “If you do not know that I am your partner, then know that you did not come to this power without my thoughts and actions.” “Now that his affairs are organized and everybody has conceded to his rule, and now that he has conquered all the towns near and afar, and their citizens have promised to be obedient, he lists my faults and listens to my enemies. Tell him that his throne depends on this government.”

This is still not the worse example in Iranian history, although it makes the point. There are plenty of instances of family feuds leading to murders for the sake of attaining power or maintaining it.

During the period of the constitutional movement and a few years after it till today, whenever political thought distanced itself from religion, regressive social customs and other contaminations, dissidents, dissident political activists, and political and ideological opponents have been somehow tolerated, and political and social forces and groups have shown greater acceptance of each other.

2. Religion. Religion is the most important and decisive factor in the introduction of intolerance, and impatience against dissidents and political opponents. Created by mankind himself, religions have turned into instruments that negate other human beings just as they are used to alienate, and dominate human views and values of others.

Whenever a group views itself to be the source of absolute and superior truth, and of being the representative of God, of absolute truth and the final word, any exchange of views, discussion and coexistence with other views is closed. Religions always believe in absolute truths and do not leave room for skepticism. And this is precisely the beginning of imposition and violence.

Glancing at the history of religions, and looking at Israel, the United States of America and Iran, reveals this reality.  The history of religion is full of intolerance, impatience and war. In this respect Islam has a special place. Throughout the Quran, its verses repeat the message that its word is eternal and that no person or thing can change it. It claims that its pages contain everything there is to know while it lacks any shortcomings or flaws. Mohammad too viewed himself as the final prophet who said the last word on everything.

But by looking at the Quran, and the words and actions of Mohammad we see contradictions, especially in the treatment of dissidents, and active political and ideological opponents. Here is an example from the Quran.

Say, "The truth is from your Lord": Let him who will believe, and let him who will, reject it”, Verse 18 Ayeh 29 of the Quran translated by Yusufali).

The simple message of this verse is that religion should not be forced onto people. But in other places, the Quran incites Muslims against those with other views.

“O Prophet! Strive hard against the unbelievers and the Hypocrites, and be firm against them. Their abode is Hell,- an evil refuge indeed” (Towba, Ayeh 73 of the Quran translated by Yusufali).

Unfortunately, the history of Islam, particularly in relation to its dissidents and opponents is dark. The only parts of the Quran and Mohammad’s teachings that are promoted and publicized today are those that encourage flogging, detention, jihad and killing. This history is full of egotism, superiority, fanaticism mixed with violence and killing of dissidents and non-conformists and those with opposing beliefs. This is truer after the fourth Islamic century (i.e. after the first millennium) when internal differences between clerics heightened and reached appalling levels. The regime of Iran today is a model of the rule of the clerics.

The behavior of the state towards religious minorities is a momentous example. To get a glimpse of the intolerance of the Islamic regime vis-à-vis its dissidents, it may suffice to look at just some parts of the Gesas law (part of the criminal law of Iran), which propagates and disseminates hate and revenge among people. The preference of Muslim over non-Muslim is clearly demonstrated in different parts of the Gesas law. Here is an example.

A.                Article 5 of Gesas law says, “If a Muslim is killed at any time, the killer shall be punished similarly (i.e. with death), regardless of whether the killer be a Muslim or not.” However, there is no provision for a non-Muslim being killed. Regarding infidels, article 7 of the law merely mentions the killing of an infidel at the hands of another infidel. But this is only true for Zemmi infidels, meaning those that have books of revelations such as Christians and Jews, and by some accounts Zoroastrians. The remaining infidels are classified as Harbi infidels and are excluded from this provision. So according to this law, it is not clear what is the punishment, if any, of a Muslim who kills a Zemmi infidel, i.e. a Christian or a Jew. Or if a Muslim or say a Zemmi infidel (the one with a book of revelation) killed a Harbi infidel (the one without a book of revelation) would s/he be punished?

According to article 36 of the constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran, punishment in criminal cases must be based on the law. So in these latter cases, the killer will not be punished because there is no law for him. Even if a different perspective is taken, the result is the same. Here is an example. Article 4 of the constitution provides that all laws and regulations, including those relating to crimes, must conform to Islamic principles, and further states that, “this principle supercedes all other principles of the constitution and other rules and laws.” On the other hand, article 167 of the constitution says that whenever the law is silent on an issue, the judge is made responsible to find a law in the civil code, and if not found, he can resort to valid Islamic sources or fatwas to issue his judgment. He cannot “refrain from judicial procedure and not issue a judgment on grounds that the law is silent on an issue.” Even though this principle is general, it basically applies to civil cases. Article 289 of the amended code of criminal procedure however echoes this provision and mandates it in criminal cases! Therefore, one must refer to Shiite law for reference on such cases. In none of the legal sources for such cases, which go back to the middle ages of Islamic history, as was mentioned earlier, is a Muslim killer punished through Gesas, i.e. in equal proportion for killing a non-Muslim, but is only judged to pay a monetary fine.

When determining punishment in criminal cases, the Islamic Republic of Iran looks at the religion of the parties and not at the nature of crime, even when individuals are concerned. This principle is in fact a license to kill the followers of religions that are not categorized as ‘official” in Iran, and thus includes free-thinkers - whether they are Bahais, Buddhists or idol worshippers – and individuals who consciously have opted to be non-religious or merely philosophical. 

B.                 According to article 99 of the Gesas law, fornication between a non-Muslim with a Muslim woman is punishable by death. But if the parties are reversed (i.e. a Muslim man with a non-Muslim woman) then the general rules governing fornication rule which in some cases is not punishable by death. The same principle determines article 152, which deals with homosexuality.

C.                 Even among the Islamic umma (i.e. Islamic nation), according to article 22 of the Gesas law, “Murder is punishable according to Gesas (i.e. punishment or retaliation of equal proportion) only if the victim did not deserve to be killed. If he deserves death, the killer must prove his justification for death in court,” thus freeing the perpetrator from being reprimanded with a punishment equal to the crime, i.e. with death. Islamic principles provide that if a person insults the Prophet or the Imams, or if he rejects the “basics” of Islam, he deserves death. If the religious leader proclaims the state’s political opponents to be outcast or culturally blacklisted, then they too deserve the death penalty. But more than providing a license to kill, these rules and principles turn every single person into a judge allowing him to reach his own conclusions and take the law into his own hands. This principle was recently exercised in the case of Bahman Shakoori who was accused of insulting religious leaders (court documents misspelled the religious term in all its instances in the judgment, indicating the level of education, even religious education, of the judiciary and those involved) and sentenced to death. One can imagine what would follow if this principles was relegated to all the extremists and fanatics in the country.

D.                Apart from the above, there are two provisions in these laws that either reduce the sentence of a murderer or completely negate the crime. According to paragraph 2 of article 2 of the Diat law (compensation through blood money), “If it is proven in court that a pre-meditated crime has been committed against a person who was believed to be Mahdoor al-dam (i.e. who deserved death), but later it was found that the victim was not a Mahdoor al-dam, the crime shall be deemed to be a mistake and semi-premeditated.” Article 21 of Islamic Criminal Code says that, “Acts whose punishments have been identified, are not crimes under the following conditions … 3-If the act was to perform Amr be Maaruf va Nahi az Monker” (i.e. commanding good and forbidding evil)! Therefore, according to this article, the punishment for murder will only be a material compensation, whose payment as we shall see later, may be the responsibility of the relatives of the perpetrator, or it may even be completely waived.

In Iran, not only the Gesas law, but even the Constitution of the land displays the supremacy of the Shiites, and the imposition of their religion on political and ideological dissidents. According to these laws, no individual or group activity is permissible against the religion of Islam, and whether an act is judged as such or not is determined by 6 clerics of the Guardians Council.

As an example, ideological and political dissidents can participate in elections in Iran on the condition that they meet the following requirements, as provided in article 28 of the elections law of 1999:

1. Belief in and dedication to Islam and the holly Islamic Republic of Iran
2. Citizenship of the Islamic Republic of Iran
3. Expression of allegiance to the Constitution and the progressive principle of Velayat-e Faghih (the rule of the clerics)

Forget about being a dissident!

It should be borne in mind that Ayatollah Khomeini was not the only anti-dissident personality in the history of Iran. Most clerics throughout history have held similar beliefs.

This is especially true when they theorize “absolute monarchy” and link the history of kings with the believers, and call the king to be the evil on earth, while proclaiming the Imam of the time to be among the Saints, sometimes even of the Prophet himself. And thus they pull their swords at dissidents. And when they become the absolute rulers, they draw their deadly swords to kill and present religious justifications for their acts. And when they occasionally take a “democratic” posture, they emerge as ayatollah Khomeini, who said, “Criticism is free and constructive. Political issues do not arrive at their destination without debates, but plotting and weakening of the Islamic Republic is not permissible.”

Ayatollah Khomeini clearly described his views on the principles of governance and the duties of the Muslim umma (i.e. nation), which he said were non-alterable till the day of judgment, in his books and speeches even before he came to power. Here are some examples.

“Legislature is the only way to the Islamic pathway. Nobody has the right to pass laws and no law except that of God’s can be implemented. In an Islamic administration, governance solely belongs to God and laws are his decrees. Governance therefore emphatically belongs to the clerics.” (From an article by ayatollah Khomeini 2 weeks before the 1979 revolution)

The Ayatollah continues:

“Regarding its duties and position, the guardianship of a nation is no different than that of a minor. The same duty that existed for the Prophet and the Imams to form governments and take control of governance also exists for the cleric.”

In stressing his views, Khomeini formally renounces all the rights, freedoms and sovereignty of people calling them against Islam. “Those who call for nationalism are standing against Islam. Nationalists have no use for us, Muslims do. Islam is against nationalism. Nationalism means that we want the nation and not Islam” (quote from Keyhan, December 7th, 1980). “Until now we were haunted with the claims of Mohammad Reza, and now it is notions like the nation, freedom etc that are raised. They go to Mosadegh’s grave nowadays. We did not believe those people and do not believe these. The issue is the same; it has only changed its name. One day they called it the monarchy, and now they call it democracy” (Keyhan, 29 January1979).

Not only do this ayatollah’s views promote violence and war mongering against dissidents and women, his economic views too presage unemployment, poverty, and misery, all leading to violence.

“Muslims do not revolt to feed their stomachs. Economics belongs to donkeys. The goal of a revolution is not to provide for cheap watermelons to the public … “ Khomeini said in a famed speech.

His followers too advance the same ideas. Ayatollah Janati, for example, has said, “They say that thought, ideas, the pen, the tongue, eyes and everything must be free. This Western culture that appears sweet to the youth, is worse than poison in its effects.” Another ayatollah, Mesbah Yazdi has said similar things from his pulpits, “Anyone who insults Islam must be killed, for which there is no need for a trial.” These are of course the interpretations of the “philosopher of violence” of article 513 of the Islamic Penal code, which says, “Insulting religion shall lead to punishment, ranging from one to five years of imprisonment, or to death.”

Other religions have similar provisions. They too emerged by proclaiming to spread justice, brotherhood and tolerance around the world, but in practice changed course.

The religion of Zoroastrianism, for example, at times demonstrated its impatience and authorized destruction on unbelievers and dissidents. Believing that they possessed all truth, the Jews too resorted to impatient and violent acts from the beginning. And Christianity was the same, although there is no doubt that some parts of its thought and life are civilized.

When any of these religions established majorities or joined hands with political power, they rejected and denounced other religious minorities. This is especially true of Islam and Judaism. History is full of bloody factional and internal strife within religions. Throughout history, ideology too has acted like religion. Especially when, like religion, it proclaimed eternal values, views and exclusivity on truth, imposing itself on ideas, and on individual or social group behavior.

E.                 Economic factors, especially poverty, hunger and unemployment, play an important role in the appearance of intolerance and violence. Materialism too can promote violence. A society that is economically disrupted will be an intolerant and violent community. Inequality and injustice in the economic domain are the basis for impatience, intolerance and violence in a society.

F.                  Geographic factors. The desert breeds violence. Wide dispersion and physical distance and isolation from other human settlements promote ethno-centricity and self-governance. Sometimes even the multiplicity of various tribes and cultures breeds cultural and tribal ethnocentricity.

G.                Nationalism, Racism and Tribalism. When these feelings interact with others by respecting other nations, groups and their rights, things lead to closeness, friendship, and cultural and political unity. But what dominates and continues to exist in our society is injustice. We have been witness to extremist views on nationalism and tribalism on one hand, and disregard and disrespect for the same on the other (partly in the form of Pan-Iranism and partly as proletariat internationalism that was propagated by Iran’s Communist Tudeh party producing centralism of power, or its extreme sub-national decentralization).

These kinds of tendencies bring about “stereotypes” in judgment, attitudes, and presumptive behavior and generalizations about nations, ethnic groups, and social groups etc, all of which bring about disastrous consequences.

 On the subject of relations with other races too the same holds true. Stereotyping society or individuals is deconstructive and promotes intolerance.

H.                Foreign attacks. Foreign invasions and occupation of Iran, and the ensuing conflict with the invading forces, especially if leading to defeat, have created a psychological anti-foreign and “them vs. us” attitudes. This also brings about impatience and intolerance towards foreigners, which also leads to self-reliance and an introvert mentality. This is how the history of our country has been. Babelians, Macedonians, Arabs, Turks, Mongols, Afghans, and later Russians, British, Americans, Iraqis are examples of foreign invasions and occupations of this land. Events that have fueled the notions of conspiracy views and theories.

A Few Words About Violence

Violence has been defined as a multi-faceted psychological and social phenomenon. It has been categorized into different types as well. Any form of behavior or verbal aggression against oneself or another is a form of violence. Verbal violence, psychological violence, behavioral violence, etc have been grouped into individual, family, group and government types. Their causes, as was described earlier, can be human (i.e. psychological) or environmental (social). These have been attributed to different causes such as educational level of the family and society, and also the economic, political, cultural, gender, and intellectual inequalities, paternal and male dominated environments, social norms, levels of literacy, the absence of laws preventing, containing and monitoring violence, etc were mentioned.

Our society has been witness to all kinds of violence, especially its worst kind which is that of the physical violence and governmental. These types inflict the most physical and psychological damage on the individual or social groups (be they religious, political, ethnic etc). The relationship between power and aggressive behavior, and violence is very blatant in our society and cannot be covered easily. In this open violence-mongering, the role of religion, and especially that of Shiism, is central. This has been a religion that has either itself held the reigns of political power or gave credibility and legitimacy to other political powers. Islam sees it as a duty and a right to practice violence against invaders. Ayatollah Khomeini and many of his followers advocate and spread violence. The jihadi way of thought and life, which believes that regardless of “whether you kill or are killed” you will end up in heaven is a foundation of Khomeini’s and his supporters’ views. Khomeini’s life showed that he was not an honest believer of the verse that he liked either:

“Be harsh on infidels and kind to one another.”

Al-Fath Surah, Ayeh 26 of the Quran.

He was not kind even to his own comrades and spilled their blood and behaved in such a way that his first Prime Minister once said, “If revolution means this, then we repent it three times three, i.e. nine times.” But Khomeini was not alone in his ways and thoughts. He has the likes of Ayatollah Mesbah Yazdi, Ayatollah Gilani, Assadollah Lajevardi, and others supporting him. The representatives of Khomeini’s people have said in the Islamic Majlis, “We believe in the war of civilizations and do not understand what the dialog between civilizations means.”

Or in the words of the commander of the intelligence and security forces of the Islamic regime, “The thinnest plot of the enemy negates any armed and defensive activity.”

So the process of killing and violence, especially against secular intellectuals, has been continuing. On April 14, 2000, ayatollah Khamenei who represents and is the symbol of an absolute leader (Velayate Faghigh) said at a Friday congregation prayer, “Islam has not made the use of force its central element, but neither does it negate legal violence.” He then stresses: “legal violence is not only good, but necessary.” And he identifies the executioners of this “law” to be, “ The youth, the pious and the believers of Iran are not violent, but if law demands them to be so, they will not hesitate.”

And this is how religious despotism, teaches religious and official violence and spreads it in society.