Why Should We Oppose the Death Sentence for Mohammad Ali Taheri?

A note by Akbar Ganji -- The news was brief. The death sentence for Mohammad Ali Taheri was communicated to his lawyer. This is a preliminary court ruling, and the lawyer has stated that he will appeal. Ethical and civic responsibility necessitates that something be said about this ruling: First, European countries, which consider the purpose of punishment to be the prevention of crime recurrence, have concluded through sociological and criminological research that the death penalty has no effect on reducing crime and have therefore abolished it. Of course, the opponents of the death penalty do not only oppose it based on this discredited goal. Other purposes of punishment have also been criticized by opponents, who have called for the abolition of this punishment for other reasons. On this basis, even in the case of the heinous crime of "murder accompanied by sexual assault on children," they do not accept the death penalty. Second, even if the death penalty were justified, in modern societies committed to human rights, no one is executed for creating a religion or sect. The creation of religions and sects is part of human rights and the right to freedom of expression. New religions and sects will be invented and constructed. No political regime – even with severe repression – can prevent this. Look at the experience of the invention of the Baha'i Faith by Iranians. It has been 154 years since Mirza Husayn Ali Nuri, known as Baha'u'llah, declared a new religion in 1863. What has 154 years of continuous repression achieved? Baha'is think like Muslims and Shiites in most religious beliefs, except for the finality of prophethood. Meanwhile, within the Islamic society of Iran, sects have emerged that deny the main pillars of Muslim beliefs and still consider themselves "Muslims." Ayatollah Khamenei – and the court clerics following the king – not only tolerate them and allow them to spread their ideas in Iranian society, but they also engage in dialogue with them and respond to their denials. When the denial of all fundamental beliefs of Islam is tolerated wisely and pragmatically, why is the Baha'i Faith not tolerated and is deprived of all civil rights in the name of "deviant sect"? Repression and deprivation of civil rights will not only not lead to the destruction of Baha'ism but will also lead to its growth. The victimization of the oppressed minority will increase attention to them. Third, the Quran does not prescribe any worldly punishment for apostasy. Apostasy is severely condemned, and only mentions punishments in the afterlife. In fact, apostasy will not be punished in the afterlife either. According to the philosophy of Mulla Sadra – which is the prevailing philosophy in the religious seminaries of Iran – there are no worldly punitive sanctions in the afterlife. No being – God, angels, jinn, or others – will punish humans for actions they performed in their worldly lives. Life after death is of the nature of "embodiment of deeds." All "this worldly" behaviors are embodied in "that world" in the individual's existence. A bad individual acquires a bad existence, and a good individual acquires a good existence. This is a simple expression of the theory of Sadr al-Muta'alin. Heaven and Hell are existential. Just as an apricot tree bears apricots and a pine tree bears pine cones. Fourth, the clerics also know that the Quran lacks a worldly punishment for apostasy. They resort to tradition. They narrate instances of the execution of apostates by the Prophet or his successors. The oldest narrative and historical texts of early Islam were written 150 to 200 years later. However, a) in the age of communication, where all events are depicted, people dispute over events. b) When it comes to memory, most people do not remember what happened in the previous weeks or months. c) One cannot trust the memory of those who narrate events from 150 to 200 years ago, who were not present at the time. d) Human interests have always been important. In tribal times, tribal interests were very significant. Undoubtedly, they have influenced the retelling of the past with familial and tribal interests. Do not humans today do the same? e) The narrative and historical texts of early Islam lack citation until the time of "historical criticism." Especially when human lives are at stake and may be taken based on a historical event. Do all Muslims and Shiites consider the massacre of Jews during the Banu Qurayza incident a historical fact? A fully technological structure, if it separates a person's head from their body every minute, will execute 720 individuals in 12 hours. Then, how did Ali ibn Abi Talib single-handedly behead 700 to 900 Jews in one day with his sword? "Such a lion, God did not create." f) A group of modern historians have shown through "historical criticism" that the instances cited as evidence for the execution of apostates are invalid and untrue. Fifth, let’s assume that the death penalty for apostasy is mentioned in the Quran. All criminal punishments are signed jurisprudential rulings. The Prophet of Islam "signed" the common sense of his time – which was constructed by pre-Islamic Arabs – with reforms for implementation at that time. The clerics have misunderstood and continue to misunderstand the Prophet's actions. They claim that any ruling signed by the Prophet must be executed today as well. However, following the Prophet as a model means following the "signature of the common sense of their time." The Prophet of Islam signed the common sense of his time so that his followers in later generations would also sign and implement the common sense of their time. Muslims did this with slavery mentioned in the Quran. That is, when the rational people of the modern era rejected slavery as a severely inhumane and unethical act, Muslims also accepted the common sense of the modern era. Now, how is it that when there is no punishment for apostasy in the Quran, and the rational people of the modern era unanimously reject punishing individuals for "creating religions" and "sect-making" and "changing religions," the fundamentalist clerics still defend the death penalty for apostates and intend to execute individuals who change their religion? Sixth, what is Mohammad Ali Taheri's crime? This is the main issue of this writing. His crime is creating a "false mysticism" and leading a group of Muslims astray in this manner. The words and writings of Mohammad Ali Taheri lack claims that the clerics could take as evidence for apostasy. At the same time, a) the history of jurisprudence shows that clerics have always excommunicated and punished mystics and philosophers. b) History shows that there is no epistemological and practical distinction between "false mysticism" and "true mysticism." Mysticism constructed by Muslim mystics has been condemned to apostasy by clerics. Historical resistance and endurance have forced clerics to retreat, and those mysticisms and mystics that were excommunicated are now considered "true mysticism" and real mystics. c) If the words and writings of Mohammad Ali Taheri remain stable and his followers increase their theoretical richness and number, in the future, clerics will have to tolerate them as a mystical circle. d) The clerical system of the Islamic Republic has made corruption structural and systematic. Rent-seeking and discrimination are the basis of this system. If Mohammad Ali Taheri were a "war criminal," if he were like Ebrahim Raisi, Mostafa Pourmohammadi, and Neiri, "criminals of history," if he had committed the crime of abusing children and killing them; he and his followers should be ashamed and humiliated. But creating a type of mysticism that has no shame or humiliation? It is easy; if I were a mystic or had created a mysticism, I would even boast about it. e) How is it that a "criminal of history" – according to Ayatollah Montazeri – is appointed by Ayatollah Khamenei as the custodian of the Astan Quds Razavi and a member of the Expediency Discernment Council, while a person who has invited a group of Muslims to mysticism must be executed? This is a great disgrace for the Islamic Republic. Mohammad Ali Taheri should be freed to freely promote his ideas. Opposing clerics have always been against opening new shops next to their own. But they must understand that they are forced to live in an era of "market." Rumi understood this. He said, "He saw the market of reason and began to trade." He also established a new shop next to the clerics' shop. He said, "Our Masnavi is the shop of unity." Competition among shops in the market of religion and mysticism is free. Of course, like any market, competitors will also use undesirable methods.