Let's Start the Discussion from Suffering

Radio Farda has published articles in recent weeks regarding religion, government, and democracy. Radio Farda welcomes the examination of various opinions and continues discussions related to religion and democracy. Social scientists, unlike philosophers and theologians, begin the discussion of religion and democracy or religion and government not from abstract concepts and definitions but from events, observations, and experiences. They do not seek to fulfill or undermine a political agenda or a political faction, unlike politicians or political activists, and do not defend or attack a specific political program or individual without considering historical developments or the intellectual evolution of individuals. Social scientists can analytically show that democracy, as a method of governance, does not accept religious or non-religious constraints, or what terrible consequences the intersection of religion and state has in human society, but they do not create a distance between themselves and observation and discussion from below. They start their discussion on this topic not by searching for the opinions of religious reformers or exploring religious texts but from several specific and tangible instances of these relationships that Iranian citizens feel in their flesh and blood, where human suffering is well reflected: seven areas of the intersection of religion and state: 1. The budget of the religious bureaucracy: The Islamic Republic government (leadership and state apparatus) spends tens of thousands of billion tomans of public and national budget annually on mosques, shrines, Quran and prayer programs, retreats and pilgrimages, religious councils, seminaries, sending missionaries inside and outside the country, and other religious programs and institutions, while sectors related to transportation, communications, environment, education, nutrition, and health require heavy investments; 2. Otherness: Any form of otherness, including homosexuality, is a crime in the Islamic Republic, and homosexuals are at risk of execution by the judiciary at any moment for religious reasons. Otherness individuals are deprived of many civil rights, and the government treats them in a way that suggests they do not exist; 3. Mandatory hijab and gender segregation and discrimination: Under the religious government, women must wear the clothing that the government mandates and must be separated from men in many areas (from the sea to the subway, and from libraries to buses); only women and men who are mahram (non-marriageable relatives) can have relationships, and any other relationship is a crime and subject to legal prosecution; women are deprived of many positions and opportunities; Iranian women hold only 2% of the country's wealth (Minister of Industry, Mine, and Trade advisor, ISNA, January 7, 2015); 4. Suppression of Baha'is, Jews, and missionary Christians: For 36 years, hundreds of thousands of Iranian Baha'is have been deprived of their most basic rights because the government does not recognize Baha'ism. Baha'is even face difficulties in burying their dead, let alone education, government jobs, and advancement based on work and effort. Some missionary Christians have been slaughtered by government agents, and some are currently in prison. Some Iranian Jews have been killed and imprisoned for unfounded reasons; 5. Cruel Sharia punishments: Stoning, amputation, and execution for changing religion are undeniable Sharia laws that are included in the Islamic Penal Code and have been executed and continue to be executed; 6. The project of Islamization: Shia Islamists in Iran have been trying for 36 years to Islamize everything from art and science to politics and society and culture, and under this title, they have homogenized the public sphere and deprived tens of thousands of people of their jobs and professions; 7. Supervisory guardianship and ideological selection: Only individuals who are Sharia-compliant and loyal to the leader of the government and the lifestyle approved by it can run for elections and hold executive positions and state staff. The core of the above issues is the intersection of "ideologized religion" and the state. The importance of looking at the above issues is that it clarifies the boundaries between secularists (religious and non-religious) and Islamists, as well as between traditional and pragmatic Islamists, community-oriented and militaristic Islamists. The questions that social scientists pose to advocates of religious democracy (whether claiming it has been achieved or is possible) are as follows: Can an individual who explicitly denies God, resurrection, and the Prophet of Islam run for election in a religious democracy? Will discrimination against women be abolished? Will harmful and destructive "Islamization" programs be archived? Can an Iranian Jew or Zoroastrian become Minister of Education? If more than 50% of the people oppose harsh punishments like amputation, will this ruling be removed from the laws of religious democracy? Can homosexuals marry if they manage to make more than 50% of the people aware of their rights? Can Baha'is worship their God in their temple? Can Jews travel to Israel? Can Iranian women travel without the permission of their male guardian? Will the government prosecute those who sexually harass women? How do advocates of democracy or religious democracy respond to these questions? Islamists are embarrassed. Some religious individuals are explicit about the relationship between religion and democracy: either they completely reject any demarcation and distance between the two, or some consider religion to be related to the personal sphere and view government administration as a secular matter (from Sufis to religious secularists who explicitly oppose any form of religious government). The first group does not recognize the private sphere of individuals or freedom of religion, and religion is their tool for governing without any constraints, while the second ignores the well-known social and public Sharia laws and reduces Islam to prayer, fasting, and other individual worship and personal matters. Among them, of course, there are groups under the titles of reformists, intellectuals, revivalists, and religious reformers who do not want to deprive themselves of the powerful force of religion in the public sphere and even believe in democracy and freedom, attributing a social role to religion. Of course, this role is not only played by clergy, but naturally, when non-clerics play in this arena, the clergy will also enter. These groups, by attributing a social and political role to the institution of religion (under the supervision of clergy or non-clerics), are ultimately Islamists but express their embarrassment from the actions of another group of Islamists by patching dozens of labels onto Islamism. They, as political activists, want to take advantage of the religiosity of certain groups of people to gain power when the opportunity arises. The goal of "Islamizing" matters is not to preserve religion, as experience has shown that this has been detrimental to religiosity and religious institutions. The areas of intersection. This third group makes every effort to say that despite believing in the social and political role of the religious (not as citizens but as religious citizens), they are not like ISIS, the Taliban, the Revolutionary Guards, the Basij, or Boko Haram. Because the market for political and social religion today in most Muslim societies is dominated by another faction and group, this group has a hard time selling their product. Among the group of reformists/revivalists/religious intellectuals, those who have distanced themselves from other Islamists in the above areas are few and far between. They have either remained silent on the above challenges or hold the same positions as the other side. The topic or area of the intersection of religion and state is not limited to "the divinity of the ruler" or "the subordination of the state to religious leaders" or "the non-interference of the state in religious institutions" so that if someone criticizes these three, they become a secularist or an opponent of religious government. Religious government has various dimensions, such as granting special privileges to believers of a religion, officially declaring a religion for a nation in the constitution, policymaking based on religious teachings, displaying religious symbols in government and public buildings, granting veto power over laws and regulations to a group of religious authorities, and fundamentally violating equality of opportunity and equality before the law based on religiosity and commitment to a specific religion. Is the problem of the relationship between religion and democracy only in the interference in the faith and belief of the people, or is the issue larger than these? Interference in the private sphere of people and determining the rules for food, clothing, bedding, grooming, and recreation is interference in all aspects of individuals' lives or only in their religion and faith? If the ruling believers in religious democracy (non-velayat-e faqih) do not want to interfere in the religion, faith, and morals of the people, why do they enter the public sphere and political competitions under the banner of religion and faith at all? Why should a key that is not meant to be used be hung around the neck? Tangible criteria. Due to the existence of the above challenges and areas of intersection between religion and state, advocates of democratic religious government or religious democrats must tell their audiences, instead of making general claims about the possibility of coexistence between religion and democracy or religion and freedom, what their religious government does about filtering, censorship, and jamming? Can girls and boys kiss each other in the street? Can women and men dance in the street as they can pray in the street? Does the government have the right to use public funds for mourning or religious celebrations? If the answers to the above questions all point towards the separation of religion and state and the delegation of power to the people within secular frameworks, and if "Islamic government" or "religious government" is a government chosen by the people and its laws are also formulated and executed based on the will of the people, then what is the religious or Islamic constraint for? Religious democrats know that the velayat-e faqih system is not the only type of religious tyranny or interference of religion in private life and the public sphere, and if we remove velayat-e faqih from the constitution of the Islamic Republic, this system does not become a democracy. They know that discrimination, sacred hatred, and the interference of ideologized religion and Sharia imposed on coercive powers in the public and private spheres of citizens are not merely the product of the velayat-e faqih system. "Achieved religious democracy". There are those who consider religious democracy possible. Some of them go further and say that one of its realized examples is the Islamic Republic of Iran. From the perspective of Shia Islamists who believe in velayat-e faqih, the Islamic Republic is both democratic and Islamic. Some may dislike it, but it is one of the realized examples of this idea. What Islamism does with democracy can be seen in this government. Due to the sufficient age of this system, the performance and viewpoints of various trends of Islamism from the government of Mehdi Bazargan (nationalist Islamism) to the government of Mir Hossein Mousavi (community-oriented or socialist Islamism) and from the government of Mohammad Khatami and Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani and Hassan Rouhani (pragmatic Islamism) to the government of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (militaristic Islamism) have been realized in it. Advocates of religious democracy and critics of velayat-e faqih say that the Islamic Republic could have been democratic without velayat-e faqih, and if believers had taken power in this system, they would not have interfered in the religion and faith of the people. The problem is that various believers in religious democracy have had a share in the power of the Islamic Republic in certain periods and have somewhat interfered in the religion and faith of the people and have trampled many criteria for the separation of religion and state or the criteria of democracy. Of course, all of them believe that "they were not allowed" to realize their ideas, thus evading responsibility and accountability.