Religious Intellectuals and Their Recent Statement

 
Without a doubt, the statement issued by Messrs. ‘Adol’ali Bazargan, ‘Abdolkarim Soroush, Mohsen Kadivar, Akbar Ganji, and ‘Ayatollah Mohajerani has proved more controversial and provoked more debate than all the other statements. After a careful reading of these five’s statement and after their announcement of the institution of a think tank, some questions occurred to this reader. Perhaps finding the answers to these questions can clarify, to a certain extent, the issues relevant at this juncture. Why did these five intellectuals find it necessary to pen and publish a statement to explain and complete/complement Musavi’s Statement No. 17? Claiming to represent the Green Movement, which insists it needs no leader, why did they decide to institute a think tank? Were Musavi’s views, as set forth in his Statement No. 17, so incomprehensible that it was necessary to issue a statement to explain it? Why did the five religious intellectuals who wrote this statement bring up the necessity to “optimize” or improve upon the demands of the Green Movement?

 
The five points brought up by Mr. Musavi in his statement constitute the most honest effort toward making room for the demands of the Green Movement within the framework of the Islamic Republic and the existing Constitution. In his statement, Musavi has included as his maximal demands what actually constitutes the minimal demands of the Green Movement. From the perspective of those who believe in the preservation of the existing regime, under the present circumstances, this statement is the best and most practical proposal for reaching a semblance of “national reconciliation.” In this statement, Musavi has made an effort to remain as true as he possibly can to the demands of the people, while still preserving the regime yet trying to reform it. In short, Musavi suggests that the Green Movement operate within--and set forth its demands under--the framework of the Islamic Republic and the current regime. At the same time, he warns the regime that he is not willing to betray the people and their demands and that he will persevere in this path to the very end.

 
Of course, one must not ignore the fact that Musavi’s proposed solution does not touch upon the ideological basis of the current regime, the “Rule of the Jurisprudent,” which contradicts democracy and the rule of law. It is important to note that, in their statement, the five religious intellectuals do not question the principle of “Rule of the Jurisprudent” either: in fact, they consider this principle lawful and valid. Of course, some of these intellectuals have never questioned this principle. And it is not clear why and how others, who had opposed the “Rule of the Jurisprudent” until now, have now stepped back from that stance. While the incongruity of the juxtaposition of the names of the said five intellectuals had been glaringly obvious from the beginning, in practice, the fact that one of them said some things against another one of them practically precluded the success of the think tank before they were inaugurated. Even before the proverbial ink on the five intellectuals’ signatures was dry, Mr. Mohajerani said that he is ashamed that his name appears next to Ganji’s name. He called some of Ganji’s criticisms of the Shi’ites’ beliefs “devoid of value” and added that there was no need to respond to them. Exactly 48 hours after the publication of Musavi’s statement and 24 hours after the publication of the letter co-authored by Mohsen Makhmalbaf and Mohsen Sazegara seconding that statement, the five intellectuals suddenly reached an agreement amongst themsleves and published their statement, improving upon or optimizing the demands of the Green Movement. So far, these political activists have opposed every proposal or suggestion for institution of an intellectual group or task force in support of the Green Movement with the participation of various viewpoints, whether religious or secular, which had been put forth many times by those such as Makhmalbaf, without offering a reason for their opposition.

 
This hurry in improving upon Musavi’s proposal leads one to believe that, in issuing their statement and announcing the institution of a think tank for the Green Movement, these five intellectuals’ main purpose has been to distance themselves from Musavi’s other supporters and, especially, to distinguish themselves from the secular forces. Their statement absolutely insists on drawing boundaries between the religious and the secular forces: this distinction can be gleaned without even getting into the content of the statement and by just taking a cursory glance at the signatures at the bottom of it. The disagreements among the signatories and the fact that the supporters of the Green Movement inside Iran have not welcomed this statement and especially the inauguration of the brainstorming sessions abroad, particularly in this form, have, in practice, rendered any discussion of this statement moot and without value. However, what is worth thinking about and discussing is the constant drawing of lines of demarcation between of the religious factions and the secular factions and the spreading of the concept of “insiders vs. outsiders” to the Green Movement. Another topic that should not be ignored is the fact that the said five individuals and, in fact, most religious factions, have not negated the principle of “Rule of the Jurisprudent.” In their 10-point statement, the five political and religious activists have remained silent on the issue of the necessity of deposing Ayatollah Khamenei. This statement considers Khamenei a “lawful Jurisprudential Ruler.” However, although it emphasizes the responsibility and accountability of the Jurisprudential Leader “in the current crisis,” it does not negate the principle of the “Rule of the Jurisprudent.” Nor does it make any reference to the dictatorial nature of this system. Given that, in Iran, taking a stand on the principle of “Rule of the Jurisprudent” is the prologue to any type of political change, silence in this regard is quite significant and, to a certain extent, worrisome.

 
These five individuals’ silence on this matter, like the silence of Messrs. Karubi and Musavi, has led to a suspicion that the goal here is to transform the current dictatorial “Rule of the Jurisprudent” into a type of bona fide constitutional “Rule of the Jurisprudent.” This statement seems not to take issue with religious rule and limits it’s discussion merely to the “type” of religious rule. Since the authors of this statement refer to Article 27 of the Constitution—which allows political groups to be active so long as they are “not injurious to Islam” or, in effect, do not contradict the basic tenets of Islam—it is difficult to come away with the impression that its authors seek the separation of church (religion) and state. Of course, the ambiguity of this statement on the relationship between religion and government cannot be considered solely the result of unclear or poor wording. Some of the authors of this statement are confused: in terms of where they stand, they appear to have one foot in secularism and another in religious rule. On the one hand, they demand the rule of law and the promulgation of a bona fide Civil Code. On the other hand, by making reference to the fact that Muslims constitute the majority of the population of Iran, they call for the presence of the lofty spirit of Islam in the day-to-day operation of society and government. If one reads this statement without taking notice of its authors, one comes away with the impression that it serves as a context for bringing together those religiously inclined who, on the one hand, detest the current rulers, and, on the other, consider themselves distinct from the leaders of the reform movement (Khatami, Musavi, Karubi) but, at the same time, do not wish to be placed in the secular front.