The Jurists Have No Understanding of Oppression and Tyranny

After the passing of Ayatollah Abolqasem Khazali, Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati said at his funeral: "I was friends with him for about 60 years, but I never saw him commit a sin; what characteristic could be greater and higher... His love for Imam Ali was above the love of people like us; he cried a lot for the oppression of Amir al-Mu'minin and always had Imam Ali's name on his lips... He was a man of jihad and a warrior in the path of God." These words were astonishing. How can it be possible for a human being—considered fallible, indeed required to err—to not commit a single sin in 60 years of life? If you ask Ayatollah Jannati, he would say: Ayatollah Khazali prayed, fasted, went to pilgrimage, did not drink alcohol, did not commit adultery, did not engage in sodomy, and so on, thus he did not commit a single sin. For most jurists, sin is summarized in such matters. However, this understanding of sin is neither correct, nor was Ayatollah Khazali an innocent person. The concept of "innocent human" is fundamentally paradoxical. To explain this claim, consider the following points: First—Everyone knows Ayatollah Khomeini. The mass execution of political prisoners in the summer of 1988 was one of his actions. Nevertheless, even he did not believe that Ayatollah Khazali—and other jurists on the Guardian Council—had not committed any sins. In 1988, he wrote to the jurists of the Guardian Council: "Dear respected jurists of the Guardian Council. Greetings and wishing success for you and all those whose hearts beat for the victory of Islam. Sometimes it is seen that some respected gentlemen enter into issues that undermine the Guardian Council. The respected jurists should pay attention that they should not get involved in contentious matters. For example, it is not appropriate for the Guardian Council and even for Mr. Khazali himself to be harsh towards various individuals. It is clear that it is forbidden to attribute communism to a Muslim from the pulpit or anywhere else. Ayatollah Khomeini is well-known. The mass execution of political prisoners in the summer of 1988 was one of his actions. Nevertheless, even he did not believe that Ayatollah Khazali—and other jurists on the Guardian Council—had not committed any sins. Akbar Ganji assumes that he did not make the accusation, but they acknowledge that they said: they say Mr. Salamat is a communist. What is the legal status of this great insult and sin from a person who is a member of the Guardian Council to a Muslim who is a representative of the people of Tehran? As long as you act this way, do you still expect revolutionary youths to respect you? Is a person who comes to the jurists of the Guardian Council and says: if I have sinned, I repent, on the right path, or is someone who recounts this repentance from the pulpit as a weakness of a representative? The discussion is not about the goodness or badness of representatives and other individuals; it is about sin and deviation. We all need to pay attention not to become tools in the hands of political actors. It should be attempted that the gentlemen are not introduced as aggressive speakers who are willing to go this far; do not say that they speak ill of us and we respond to them with these words. Those who speak ill of you do not hold the sacred position of the Guardian Council. You are in a position where you should resolve many issues with your silence and dignity. Be careful that you do not suddenly realize that the Hojjatieh Association has destroyed everything you have. I am interested in you gentlemen, but I find it necessary to sometimes remind you when I see an issue." Thus, Ayatollah Khazali not only committed sins, but the "great sin" of insult, lying, and slander has repeatedly occurred from him—and other jurists of the Guardian Council, especially Ayatollah Jannati—and continues to occur. Second—Long-term membership in the Guardian Council was one of the many responsibilities of Ayatollah Khazali in the Islamic Republic. The right to determine one’s fate through becoming candidates for political responsibilities or selecting different candidates is a fundamental aspect of the people's rights. The work of the Guardian Council from the beginning until now has been depriving people of their rights. Opponents of the Islamic Republic are deprived of the right to candidacy. Nevertheless, the Guardian Council has always disqualified candidates of critics and political rivals. In the parliamentary elections after the sixth parliament, in one election, the qualifications of 2,500 individuals were disqualified, and in another election, about 3,500 individuals were disqualified. The work of the Guardian Council from the beginning until now has been depriving people of their rights. Opponents of the Islamic Republic are deprived of the right to candidacy. Nevertheless, the Guardian Council has always disqualified candidates of critics and political rivals. In the parliamentary elections after the sixth parliament, in one election, the qualifications of 2,500 individuals were disqualified, and in another election, about 3,500 individuals were disqualified. Akbar Ganji asks: Is depriving this many candidates of their right to candidacy not and has not been oppression and sin? Should different social classes not be able to have their representatives in the political system? Is depriving millions of citizens of their political rights not and has not been oppression and sin? Third—Members of the Guardian Council intervene in every election in favor of their acceptable candidates. The explicit and open support of Ayatollah Khazali—and other members of the Guardian Council, including Ayatollah Jannati—for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is well-known. Did Ayatollah Khazali not consider Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as "approved and agreed upon by the Hidden Imam of the Shiites"? He said God brought Ahmadinejad and he has uplifted the Muslims of the world. However, the reality is that the plundering and looting of public assets on a national level was one of the services of Ahmadinejad's two presidential terms. Was unwavering support for the theft and looting of the public treasury of Muslims not and is not a sin? When Ahmadinejad denied the Holocaust and made slogans for the destruction of Israel, he was providing the utmost service to the right-wing forces in Israel, and creating opportunities for Netanyahu to rally the world against Iran and Iranians, Ayatollah Khazali, other members of the Guardian Council, and all conservatives showered him with their full support. The UN Security Council resolutions and the most severe sanctions in history were all the products of the era of Ahmadinejad and the Guardian Council. Bringing Ahmadinejad to power was one of the great mistakes of Ayatollah Khazali, the jurists of the Guardian Council, and Ayatollah Khamenei. If there is a resurrection, if there is a questioning and answering in the grave, Ayatollah Khazali will naturally be accountable for these actions. If those actions and those Don Quixote-like slogans were not present, it is likely that "exceptional" and "beyond international laws" conditions would not have been imposed on Iran, which lacks nuclear weapons, for at least 25 years, and it is likely that all Western governments would not have uniformly supported the non-membership of Israel, which possesses hundreds of nuclear bombs, in the NPT. In 2013, Ayatollah Khazali was also pursuing the presidency of Saeed Jalili, but Ayatollah Khamenei, after the 2009 debacle and the disastrous situation that had arisen for Iran, agreed that the people should vote for one of the eight candidates approved by the system. Otherwise, Ayatollah Khazali had said: "From the very first day of the qualifications announced by the Guardian Council, I said that I had chosen Mr. Jalili. I have thankfully informed all friends that my chosen one is Mr. Jalili, because you are supporters of the Guardianship of the Islamic Jurist. I had also come to you in sessions and I really liked you." In another instance, he said: "God willing, you will win votes and in any case, it is important that the number of your votes is high. God willing, you are supported and since you deal with the guardianship of the Ahl al-Bayt, they are with you. I wish you success and a good outcome from God." If Saeed Jalili had become president, instead of negotiating, he would have invited the members of the P5+1 to Islam and Shi'ism. In that case, it is likely that a military attack on Iran would have already occurred. However, the desire for the continuation of absolute power in Ayatollah Khamenei was so strong that he understood that this approach was no longer sustainable, at least in the realm of nuclear negotiations. Akbar Ganji states that if Saeed Jalili had become president, instead of negotiating, he would have invited the members of the P5+1 to Islam and Shi'ism. In that case, it is likely that a military attack on Iran would have already occurred. However, the desire for the continuation of absolute power in Ayatollah Khamenei was so strong that he understood that this approach was no longer sustainable, at least in the realm of nuclear negotiations. Fourth—Ayatollah Khazali was a member of the Assembly of Experts for Leadership from its inception until his death. This assembly has two responsibilities: electing the Supreme Leader and dismissing the Supreme Leader. However, the Assembly of Experts—through the full cooperation of Ayatollah Khazali in the Guardian Council—has turned into a sycophant of Ayatollah Khamenei. Instead of supervising the irrational leadership and against the national interests of Ayatollah Khamenei, it held meetings twice a year and declared its full support for the "Supreme Leader." The absolute guardianship of the jurist—contrary to what Ayatollah Khomeini claimed—is something whose very conception leads to its denial. Nevertheless, the arbitrary leadership (according to the law) for life of Ayatollah Khamenei—which we are now in the twenty-seventh year of—has been filled with oppression, tyranny, and repression. The Prophet of Islam said: "The best jihad is a word of truth in front of a tyrannical ruler, and he fights for it." Ayatollah Khazali and other members of the Assembly of Experts not only did not criticize the "tyrannical ruler," but they silenced voices and imprisoned the free to intimidate Muslims who intended to act according to this command of the Prophet of Islam. The greatest sin is the oppression of God's creation. The jurists have no understanding of this sin and do not have it. They have spread oppression and consider their tyranny as justice. They consider the usurpation of government—which is a people's right—as a right. If opposition and struggle against tyranny do not become a fundamental aspect of Islam, if the pursuit of justice does not become the ideal of Islam, what will remain of Islam and being a Muslim? Democracy, human rights, and freedom are the most just constructs of humanity to date. The guardianship of the jurist and Islamic government are in contradiction with justice and are nothing but tyranny. To the extent that I understand, opposition to the guardianship of the jurist and Islamic government is a necessary consequence of Islam and being a Muslim, because the outcome of these two in the current era is nothing but tyranny.