Ayatollah Khamenei: The Ideologue and Enforcer of Mandatory Paradise

Hassan Rouhani, as President, stated in 2014 that "people cannot be forced into paradise with whips and coercion." Apart from the clerics appointed by the leadership, Ayatollah Khamenei has publicly criticized this view of Rouhani several times. Nevertheless, during a meeting on September 21, 2017, with members of the Assembly of Experts, he felt it necessary to critique Rouhani's approach again. However, the important point is his theoretical transformation in this regard. Ayatollah Khamenei has always been one of the ideologues who considers leading people to paradise as the duty of the Islamic government. For example, on May 12, 2014, regarding this intellectual dispute, he said: "The Commander of the Faithful said: If you obey me, I will lead you to paradise. The phrase from the Commander of the Faithful in Sermon [156] of Nahj al-Balagha states: If you listen to what I say and act upon it, I will lead you to paradise, even though this is very difficult and bitter. This movement is not a small one; it is not an easy task; this is the goal of the Commander of the Faithful. Leading people to paradise plays a role in the intellectual, spiritual, and social lives of people. I emphasize this because sometimes it is heard from some corners when talking about guidance and expressing religious truths, they say, 'Sir, are we obliged to lead people to paradise?' Yes; yes, that is it. The difference between an Islamic ruler and other rulers is precisely this: the Islamic ruler wants to do something that leads people to paradise; to true happiness and the hereafter; therefore, the paths must be paved. This is not a matter of force and pressure; it is about helping. Human nature is inclined towards happiness; we must open the way; we must facilitate the work for people so they can lead themselves to paradise; this is our duty, this is the work that the Commander of the Faithful has taken upon himself and feels obliged to lead people to paradise." Thus, the most important criterion distinguishing "Islamic government/ruler" from "non-Islamic government/ruler" is leading people to paradise or not. However, he emphasizes that the leader of the Muslims does not drive people to paradise through "force and pressure and imposition," but rather paves the ways for them to reach paradise. Although critics could have asked him at that time what paving the way means? Do you not pave the way with coercion? But the "verbal denial" of the use of force and pressure by the government to drive people to paradise by the leader of the Islamic Republic was somewhat hopeful that "paradise by the whip and sword" is such a gesture and unjustifiable and ineffective that although they do everything in practice, at least in theory and verbally they deny it. The transformation—or better put, the intellectual decline—of Ayatollah Khamenei is that he explicitly defends the use of force to drive people to paradise by the government. Three years have passed since that time. Three more years have added to Ayatollah Khamenei's life, and as he gets closer to death, he seems to have become bolder and feels it is his duty to move more towards religious fundamentalism and sectarianism, perhaps in this way—out of a vain hope—he too will find a way to paradise. He told all the clerics in the Assembly of Experts: "The issue of people's religiosity; well, we want people to become religious. This phrase has been repeated that 'we do not want to force people into paradise'; well, this seems to us to be an incorrect expression, a fallacious expression. No one wants to force anyone into paradise, but we must open the way to paradise for people, encourage them. Prophets came for this; they came to lead people to paradise, not to let them go to hell; all the sending of messengers and the revelation of books and all this effort and struggle was to prevent people from falling into hell. This is our duty; we must do this; people must become religious; there is no doubt about it. Of course, in the right way and in the right manner. It is also not correct for someone to say 'there is no force in Islam in this regard'; then what are these legal limits? What about 'So strike them with a hundred lashes' (Qur'an 24:2) or 'So strike them with eighty lashes' (Qur'an 24:4); what is this? These are the same force." The transformation—or better put, the intellectual decline—of Ayatollah Khamenei is that he explicitly defends the use of force to drive people to paradise by the government. In this regard, several points are worth considering: First—What is force? Ayatollah Khamenei presents legal limits and retribution as the forces of the government to drive people to paradise. Legal rulings such as the limit of theft, the limit of warfare, the limit of apostasy, the limit of stoning, the limit of adultery, the limit of non-marital adultery, the limit of drinking alcohol, the limit of insulting the prophet, the limit of sodomy, and so on; retribution. Of course, government punishments, which clerics who believe in the guardianship of the jurist consider as the authority of the jurist, are another part of the mandatory rulings to drive people to paradise. If this tyrannical ruler truly wants people to go to paradise, he should abolish the religious government, the guardianship of the jurist, and the implementation of limits and retribution. In this case, people will be free. Islam will not bear the cost of the actions of clerics and muftis and so on. Second—Does the implementation of limits and retribution lead a person to paradise? Ayatollah Khamenei has not clarified how the implementation of limits and retribution and government punishments leads to mandatory paradise. Does cutting off a thief's hand make that thief a paradise-bound individual? Does cutting off the hands and feet of a warrior in reverse make the warrior a paradise-bound individual? Does executing a corrupt person lead the corrupt to paradise? Does stoning an adulterer lead them to paradise? Does executing an apostate make them a paradise-bound individual? It is clear that according to clerics, the place of these individuals is hell. An apostate is doomed to eternal hell, and with the implementation of limits, they do not go to paradise. A person who commits adultery also goes to the depths of hell, not paradise. Third—Is the implementation of limits for the fear of others? In fact—using modern terminology, according to clerics, the implementation of limits and retribution and government punishments has, besides being a "deserved punishment," a "preventive role." This means that people, upon seeing these severe worldly punishments—and the promised afterlife punishment—will refrain from committing offenses and sins. Let’s assume that the implementation of limits and retribution indeed has a preventive role, and a high majority of people refrain from committing offenses after seeing these punishments against offenders. In this case, will they necessarily go to paradise? The answer to this question is negative. A person may be completely irreligious. Or they may be polytheistic. Or they may insult God and the Prophet and the sacred in their hearts and minds. Or they may not consider the Prophet of Islam truthful—and thus not consider him a prophet. This "or" can continue in this way. Thus, we will face a very large number of individuals who, although they have not committed acts that fall under limits and retribution, but—according to clerics—certainly their place is hell, not paradise. Fourth—Is the implementation of limits effective? The reality of 39 years of clerical rule in the Islamic Republic and the implementation of limits and retribution shows that the implementation of these punishments has not been effective at all, and the number of offenders of these titles has not only not decreased but has also increased. It is easy. Society has created new titles that did not exist at all during the Shah's era. "White marriage" is one of those cases. I do not think that during the Shah's time, the formalization of sexual relations of some married women had any precedent. Some even declare themselves Jewish, Christian, Bahá'í, etc., in reaction to the coercive paradise of the clerics. The process of converting Muslims to Christianity has severely angered the clerics and Ayatollah Khamenei. The punitive retribution of execution concerning drugs, which according to judicial officials constitutes more than 90% of executions in Iran, and has made Iran one of the top three executing countries, shows how effective the implementation of limits and retribution has been. Fifth—Does the implementation of limits make society moral/paradisiacal? It is also important to imagine what kind of individuals will go to paradise. Clerics have sacrificed religious beliefs and moral virtues at the altar of legal rulings. It seems that not committing acts that fall under limits and retribution makes an individual paradisiacal. Clerics constantly complain about immorality. They know very well that the result of their actions has greatly increased what they consider "social issues" and "bad." Ali Motahari reported that when several sessions reported the status of social issues to Ayatollah Khamenei, he cried in front of the audience. Crying is at least the punishment of Ayatollah Khamenei for what the clerics under his leadership have done to the people and society of Iran. Sixth—What is the best jihad? According to the Prophet of Islam, the greatest jihad is speaking the truth and justice in front of a tyrannical ruler. Ayatollah Khamenei leads a system of "religious despotism." The "tyrannical ruler" rules arbitrarily with the help of court clerics and military personnel. If Ayatollah Khamenei truly wants people to go to paradise, he should abolish the religious government, the guardianship of the jurist, and the implementation of limits and retribution. In this case, people will be free. Islam will not bear the cost of the actions of clerics and muftis and so on.