Khameni’s Violent Approach Cannot be Reconciled with Islam

 
Gozaar: The People’s protests against the election result in the last few months have received a deadly response from the regime. The regime has shown little tolerance in these years, but its reaction to the people’s peaceful demonstrations was of another sort. Bullet, baton, pepper spray, arrest and torture in such a naked fashion and to such an extent have been almost unprecedented.

 
Violent events in Iran after the June election gave rise to the question as to whether the savage repression of people was sanctioned by Islam. Is the Iranian regime, which regards itself as an Islamic system and is headed by an individual who gives himself the title of valiye faghih, founded on Islamic principles? Does Islam justify this behavior toward opponents?

 
-Keeping in mind that the Iranian regime regards itself as an Islamic system, does Islam allow religious rulers to use violence? If the answer is positive, what are its boundaries?

 
I can sum up my interpretation of the teachings of Muhammadan sharia in one sentence: “except at the times of emergency, the use of any kind of violence is prohibited.” Force can only be employed if it prevents social and individual acts of violence. The use of force is justified only if it is enacted in a controlled and rational manner and within the legal parameters set by common law and sharia.

 
Based on this view, in relation to other kinds of violence (i.e., threat, verbal violence, deprivation from social and individual rights), the use of physical violence should be the last resort. This approach dominates all school of thoughts which are founded on human or divine rationality. In other words, from Islam’s perspective, “violence is an act which is intrinsically abominable and can become acceptable only in the time of emergency.”

 
-Are there any specific cases in the sharia and the sunnah (habit and usual practice) of the Prophet and the twelve Imams that urge Muslims to avoid violence?

 
1-In my view, Islam does not authorize “war and violence” without cause and reason. In an address to his son, Ali, the Commander of the faithful, says: “Never challenge anyone to battle. But if someone challenged you, accept his call to confrontation because he is unjust.” Therefore, we must absolutely avoid “initiating war and violence” because, whatever the cause, its initiator is considered a tyrant.

 
Islam also instructs us to avoid inflicting cruelty and oppression on “the enemy and his unjustness” and commands its followers to observe fairness and justice on all occasions. Therefore, an invasion or preemptive act of war cannot be legitimized even if it aims to “implement Islamic principles” or “remove the obstacles to guiding people.” If Muslims have committed such acts after the Prophet’s death, their actions are not derived from the method and guidelines of the sharia but are occasioned by the political necessities of their era.

 
The Shiite Imams’ probable support of Rashidun Caliphs (even if it is proved, a suggestion that cannot be easily substantiated) has been a political expediency and not an obligation dictated by the sharia. If they had any control over their political system, they would not probably invade any country. No invasion occurred during Ali Ibn Abitaleb’s reign and he governed over a geographical area whose borders had been designated before his rule.

 
2-The story of “Ahle Baghi” (the internal tyrants) is interesting. The use of force against this group only happened after they initiated an armed onslaught. They began the war and rejected peaceful solutions. Of course, there was no choice but to resort to defensive attack in order to thwart their plot. But we must carefully comprehend the juridical differences that separate this kind of war from a war with foreign armies. This means that, after confrontation and defeat of the enemy, their fleeing and wounded members should not be harmed or persecuted unless it becomes evident that their commanding core has survived which may continue the intrigue.  

 
These surviving members of despotic Muslim groups are not regarded as either heretic or “monafegh” (divider), but must be classified as “oppressors.” Their legal and legitimate rights must be respected and even their stipends from the national treasury should not be discontinued. In other words, all their citizenship rights must be observed. In two narratives about Imam Baqir and Imam Sadiq, this point is emphasized: “The Commander of the faithful did not call the enemies who were fighting against him as either heretic or divider. Instead, he described them as our religious brothers who had inflicted injury on us.”

 
The Quran clearly states that “If two groups of the faithful engage in battle, reconcile them and make peace between them. But if one of these groups oppressed the other….” This shows that “Ahle Baghi” are viewed by the Quran not as heretics or dividers, but as “a group of the faithful” that has turned to unjust actions.

 
The verse “Be Severe with Disbelievers” and other similar verses are about “the disbelievers, dividers and heathens” of Prophet’s time and we cannot carry out their decree without a convincing reason or a similar situation. “Certain Arabic letters in this verse condition the execution of its decree to the existence of a specific context which, in turn, depends on the existence of specific groups with definite attributes within a particular historical period. In this sense, this edict cannot be generalized or extended to other eras and historical conjunctures.” The pronouns also refer to particular groups of people, the disbelievers and heathens who were constantly at war with the Muslims and confiscated their possessions and properties. They had put Mecca under economic siege and had engaged in torturing and depriving the Muslims of their right to life, security and family.

 
What God recommends to His Prophet in such cases enables the latter to overcome his compassion and mercy so that he can muster a logical defense and attack against the aggressors to the rights of Muslims.

 
4-The Quran speaks about history in a concise manner. For example, in the history of Noah’s tribe, Noah’s invitation to his tribe to follow God’s ways lasts 950 years and his patience for their disobedience continues for close to 1000 years. This causes God’s rage who decides to torment the unruly tribe. But can we really imagine anyone capable of such patience? Is this torment, after putting up with aggression, oppression, ridicule and degradation of the faithful for a millennium and continual endeavor to guide them is the sign of God’s violence?

 
Some of us who read these verses think that the degree of God’s patience is equal to the physical gaps that exist between the verses in the Quran. For example, this entire episode, from its beginning until the time when the words about the torment of the rebel tribe are uttered, happens in a few verses which can be read in one or two minutes. Here we may misunderstand the reality of this episode and think that God is impatient. That is why we speak of a “violent God.” I do not think anyone in any period of history has possessed, or can even imagine, the extent of God’s mercy, tolerance and respect for the rights of humans. Unfortunately, people overlook “divine benevolence” because the Muslims, who are gripped with rage and anger and do not partake of God’s compassion, create an incorrect and unpleasant picture of God by their method of defending religion and sharia.

 
5-Although the accepted punishments in the Muhammadan sharia are based on the common laws of Prophet’s time, they are much more rational and fairer than the punishments prevalent in that era. For example, in the case of “qesas” (retaliation for a crime), it was customary that the tribe of a murdered person would seek retribution. This would lead to a clash with the murderer’s tribe and a bloodbath would ensue. Islam forbade this practice and, reluctantly, sanctioned a “one for one” formula of “qesas.” Of course, Islam prefers “to forgive” and recommends the replacement of punishment by “diyeh” (blood money). Thus, while trying not to overlook the individuals’ desire for revenge in a less harsh manner, Islam stresses that “revenge” is an immoral act and should be replaced by “forgiveness.”

 
As to heresy, I think the verse has intended to respond in kind to the threat that the Jews who lived in Medina had posed to the Muslims in those days. Here Islam resorted to a “rhetoric” that fortunately was never put into action.

 
In regard to “amre be maroof” (encouraging people to do good) and “nahy az monker” (forbidding them from committing evil) and other kinds of punishment, these are basically specific laws that every government needs in order to maintain order and security and ensure the observance of citizens’ rights. Legislators do not make laws just because they like to see people punished. In fact, punitive measures are considered as “undesired punishments” which administrators are forced to inflict on the transgressors who commit crimes.

 
We can see that the penal code in religious and non-religious societies is a means of defense against aggressors, which is a legitimate and logical defense.

 

-What do the existing interpretations of Islamic thinkers say in this respect? Do the majority of these thinkers agree with the view you just described?

 
Unfortunately, the approach of most Muslims, many sharia scholars and the governments that have been established in the name of Islam throughout history has been a violent and coercive one. This negative approach is not confined to the relations with the non-Muslims and can also be seen in the relations between the Muslims quite visibly. The magnitude of wrongful bloodsheds in internal conflicts among the Muslims and various Islamic sects is a few times more than the casualties of non-Muslims. The abuses and oppressions that some Muslims have inflicted on other Muslims are also many times more than the cruelties and injustices that were dealt to the non-Muslims. Of course, there have been a number of despots who, in the name of Islam, have also oppressed the non-Muslims. It is as if there had been a “competition for oppression of people” among those who were trying to overtake one another.

 
I have no doubt that the violent acts attributed to the Prophet of clemency in some history books and narratives are in essence irreconcilable with the Quran’s account of his “great masses” and what he has called “compassion for the world.” Therefore, the narratives that are not in accord with the Quran are wrong and incorrect. The holy Quran says: Be quick in the race for forgiveness from your lord.

 
Ali Ibn Abi Taleb, the Commander of the faithful, received more blows from his friends (the Shiites) than from his rivals. Most untrue accounts of violent acts attributed to Ali are composed as extreme eulogies to his power and bravery. In his quest for righteousness, he made no compromises and constantly defended the rights of the oppressed and the downtrodden. He never transgressed the circle of justice, fairness, rationality and logic. Nonetheless, the individuals who surrendered to oppression, along with their oppressors, have accused him of being violent.

 
Nahjolbalaghe and other books of Shiite tradition plentifully testify to Ali’s efforts to make people aware of their natural and legitimate rights in order to demand them from their rulers without any fears. Rarely has anyone among the Prophet’s companions and even the Shiite Imams spoken so abundantly about these issues.

 
-Do the Islamic Republic’s recent violent reactions to the protesters conform to Islamic teachings? Has such behavior been endorsed since the emergence of Islam?

 
After the Presidential election in June 2009, the attitude of Iranian rulers revealed a naked face of oppression that had never been seen so clearly in the history of the Islamic Republic. Numerous concealed crimes had occurred since the revolution, stretching from the murder of Dr. Sami and the massacres of 1988 to the chain murders of political figures, a process that had continued until the election. The arrayal of the regime’s forces against the people who, peacefully and according to Article 27 of the Constitution, participated in demonstrations against the election result was a turning point in the relations between the regime and the people in the period after the revolution’s victory. The regime savagely killed and beat some protesters and resorted to widespread arrests and unimaginable psychological and physical torture of its critics.

 
The regime neither paid any attention to the country’s common and constitutional laws nor showed any respect for the tenets of Muhammadan sharia. Throughout this incident, it also trampled on all its human commitments. This behavior was obviously contrary to reason and law and, except by magic and geomancy, could not be reconciled with the Islamic sharia. We know that some clerics in the courts of Muslim Caliphs have behaved this way. Iran’s Supreme Leader has also shamelessly described this behavior as modeled on the conduct Ali, the Commander of the faithful.

 
Ali’s security agents had warned him about the sinister intentions of Ibn Moljem who was a survivor of the armed rebellion of Kharijitesin Nahrawan. Although Ibn Moljem’s plan had become apparent to Ali’s agents, the Commander of the faithful had allowed him to live and drift freely in society. Ali had said: “We cannot arrest anybody on the basis of mere suspicion. We cannot subject anyone to “qesas” before he has perpetrated a crime.” He refused to order the arrest of Ibn Moljem, and the latter was arrested only after realizing his plot of murdering Ali some time later. Now, Iran’s Supreme Leader compares his rule to that of Ali who treated someone like Ibn Moljem, with his heavily tarnished political record, in complete fairness and beyond any prejudice. This is quite ironic because the Iranian regime, contrary to its legal commitments, arrests innocent people on false charges and without the due process of law. It puts the detainees under various psychological and physical pressures, extracts unfounded confessions from them and then sentences them to long prison terms, exile and deprivation of their legal rights.

 
It is as if Iranian authorities felt no embarrassment in denigrating Ali by describing their behavior as modeled on his rule. How shameless are these pretenders!

 
But many religious scholars, especially those who have acted as “court clerics,” have always justified the oppression and injustice of governments. Although some of them have possessed the knowledge of the sharia, these accomplices of tyranny and corruption have put their knowledge in the service of power. Of course, the views of some others, who did not share in power and were unaware of corrupt relations, have at times facilitated the misuse of power by oppressors. In other words, the most catastrophic occurrence in the history of Islam has been the unholy emergence of “religious despotism” with governments and caliphates that, while calling themselves Islamic, have trampled on the Muhammadan sharia.

 
-Ayatollah Khomeini has stated that “the preservation of the system is a cardinal obligation.” Does this statement justify violence from a religious perspective?

 
As the renowned Shiite jurist, the magnanimous master and incomparable scholar, Ayatollah Montazeri has asserted, the preservation of a political system without certain stipulations and qualifications has no justification. Only “the establishment of security, just distribution of opportunities and national wealth and respect for the rights of people and society” make the preservation of “a system that guards these values” necessary. Surely, if a system is based on despotic tendencies, not only we have no duty to preserve it, we also commit a sin if we do so. This is basically the sharia’s view on this matter. Of course, the duty of the people, who are constrained by oppressive systems, is to engage in rational and peaceful efforts to unseat despotism and establish a democracy by changing illogical and unjust policies into logical and just ones.

 
If despotic rulers interpret the words of a jurist such as Ayatollah Khomeini in the most irrational manner and then imagine that he has declared that the “preservation of the system, even if it serves the interests of oppressors, is an indisputable obligation,” this is the worst insult to the speaker of these words. Unfortunately, ignorant people with little or no knowledge, along with the individuals who consciously engage in oppression, try to misuse this statement and other speeches of Ayatollah Khomeini.

 
Of course, Ayatollah Khomeini has not been flawless or immaculate in his religious views and interpretations and we should not think that every word he has uttered should be accepted without question. But surely, here he means “a system that guards human and religious values.”