The God of Violence Created by Clerics; A Response to Sadegh Larijani's Claims about Human Rights

Sadegh Larijani, the head of the judiciary, spoke again about human rights at a meeting of the Human Rights Headquarters on November 14, 2017. He has commented on human rights on several occasions, including December 18, 2013, June 19, 2014, August 1, 2016, and August 4, 2016. In this article, I aim to respond to some of his claims regarding human rights made in the aforementioned speeches. For instance, he often criticizes Western governments for their double standards regarding human rights. However, this writing focuses on human rights itself, independent of what others have done or are doing. Here, I will address six key points of his claims: 1- Islamic Human Rights: Consider Larijani's claims that there is disagreement about the definition of humanity, rights, and the meaning of human dignity; that philosophical and theoretical views on these topics are very complex; that Westerners view human rights through a materialistic, liberal, and secular lens; that the Quran and religious teachings contain profound discussions about human rights and the inherent dignity of humans; that Islamic human rights differ significantly from Western human rights; and that Islamic human rights are superior because the Creator of humanity, who knows His creation better than anyone else and is the absolute knower and pure good, has established them. Let's assume all these claims by Larijani are true and justified. The burning question that arises after all these claims is: What is the result? More precisely, what is 'Islamic human rights'? In the world, there are many chefs claiming to cook, but all claimants must present their food to people, who will judge which chef's food is the best and which chefs have made salty, sour, tasteless, or poisoned food. A chef may claim to prepare a dish that, after consumption, takes the life of the eater. The response of Larijani—and other clerics—is clear: the legal rulings are Islamic human rights. However: First, discrimination and inequality among humans are the basis of legal rulings: inequality between men and women, Muslims and non-Muslims, slaves and masters, clerics and non-clerics. Second, based on this anthropological discrimination, legal rulings impose numerous legal discriminations. Third, clerics like Larijani claim that the Islamic Republic is the best form of democracy in the world, while based on the same discriminations, governance and political authority are a 'special right' of clerics. Fourth, harsh criminal punishments in Islamic law are morally unacceptable and considered inhumane by contemporary humans, such as the punishment of amputating a thief's hand, the punishment of amputation of limbs for those who wage war, stoning for adultery, flogging for drinking alcohol, execution for drinking alcohol, flogging for adultery, execution for apostasy, execution for insulting the Prophet and the Imams, execution for corruption on earth, retribution, etc. The right of parents to punish children, as stated in section 't' of Article 158 of the Islamic Penal Code, is described as follows: 'The actions of parents and legal guardians and caretakers of minors and the insane, which are carried out for the purpose of disciplining or protecting them, provided that such actions are within the limits of reasonable and religiously permissible discipline and protection.' There is no such thing as Islamic human rights. For this reason, Larijani states that it must be formulated in collaboration with religious seminaries, universities, and Islamic countries. Of course, one can provide an interpretation of the Quran and valid traditions that is compatible with human rights, but in this way, it neither becomes Islamic human rights nor has Islam or any other religion invented modern human rights. Fifth, the imposition of Islam on non-Muslims or the ruling of offensive jihad as interpreted by most Muslim clerics throughout history. Sixth, the issuance of fatwas and rulings against millions of people under the title 'deviant sect of Bahaism' and depriving all followers of this religion living in Muslim societies of their citizenship rights. Larijani states, 'Some present the implementation of legal punishments and retribution as a violation of human rights, but we will not back down from implementing these, and we are not afraid of the accusation of violating human rights. Opposition to executions for retribution, legal punishments, and corruption on earth is opposition to Islam. Human rights claimants argue that the enforcement of legal punishments is inhumane, contrary to human dignity, and unwarranted violence.' 2- The Violence of Legal Rulings: Legal punishments have been and are very harsh. People in pre-modern societies may not consider such punishments violent, but modern humans do. The fundamental and complex issue is that clerics do not understand or feel the violence and inhumanity of these types of punishments. 'Understanding and feeling violence' constitutes part of human beings' humanity. The clerics' insistence on enforcing these punishments and considering them superior indicates that either they do not understand or feel the violence, or they consider these immoral and inhumane acts necessary. For this reason, Larijani harshly criticizes those religious reformists who oppose these punishments, stating that Westerners consider legal punishments and executions for corruption on earth to be inhumane and violent, and you also accompany them and are enemies of Islam, because these are Islamic rulings. 3- The God of Violence: One of the eternal questions of theology, philosophy, and ethics has been why God created such a violent world. Some have taken the problem of evil—here human evil—as a denial of God. Particularly after the Holocaust, this discussion became widespread. Martin Buber—a Jewish mystic, born in 1878 and died in 1965—had to defend the 'eclipse of God.' 'God's withdrawal from the world' was Buber's solution to the complex issue of how God allowed His chosen people to be abandoned and handed over to the Nazis (Martin Buber, The Eclipse of God, Studies on the Relationship between Religion and Philosophy, translated by Abbas Kashaf, Abutaleb Sohrab, Farzan Publishing). However, some theologians went further than him. For example, Eugene Borowitz—a theologian—wrote about this: 'A God who allows humans to be burned, a God who remains silent while humans are being burned and hides His face is not worthy of belief. We may have previously had to limit our understanding of God, but now Auschwitz forces us to completely dismiss that understanding. After such a great evil, belief in a benevolent and omnipotent God has become so unreasonable that humans claim: God is dead.' (Michael Peterson et al., Reason and Religious Belief, An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion, translated by Arash Naraghi and Ebrahim Soltani, Tarh-e-No, p. 176). Philosophers of religion have explained the problem of evil in a way that does not deny the existence of God. However, another issue is now in dispute: Can God command violence? Consider William Alston's theory of 'God's perceptual experience'—a Christian philosopher, born in 1921 and died in 2009. He equated the structure of personal experience of God with the structure of sensory experience and attributed the same validity to the perceptual experience of God as to sensory experience. Suppose a mystic or believer claims that in my perceptual experience of God, God commanded me to kill all Bahais, Zoroastrians, or atheists. Naturally, everyone would have serious doubts about this claim or revelation. Because God does not command 'mass murder.' Kierkegaard—born in 1813 and died in 1855—considers religion 'essentially irrational,' 'logically impossible,' and 'unethical.' Consider his 'knight of faith' who goes to sacrifice his son at God's command. According to the biblical account, Abraham's dream command was interpreted, and God prevented the sacrifice of his son. Kierkegaard says God asked Abraham to do something unethical to prove his faith. If his son had actually been sacrificed, Abraham would still have been a knight of faith. Critics of Kierkegaard's theory have asked how one can distinguish between a murderer and Abraham. How can one be sure that their actions are justified and correct? With this view, it is possible for demons to become 'knights of faith': 'There is a concern that some may feel entitled to kill others because they claim God has commanded them to do so... Does society have any protective measures against delusional violent individuals who believe they are undergoing a divine test, or worse, those who consider such a test an excuse for the murders they have committed? ... All of these should be considered morally criminal and punished.' (Susan Lee Anderson, Kierkegaard's Philosophy, translated by Khashayar Diehimi, Tarh-e-No, pp. 162-161). As far as I understand, the all-knowing and purely good God does not command punishments that future generations of humans would consider immoral and inhumane violence. This contradicts His absolute knowledge, which knows the future, and His absolute pure goodness. Multiculturalism is desirable and beneficial for humanity. However, modernity—whether we like it or not—is the dominant global thought. Have not Iranian Muslims—and clerics—accepted each and every modern achievement out of necessity? What is the separation of powers? John Locke and Montesquieu were its inventors. Clerics also accepted it and established it in the constitution. All the mentioned punishments, as clerics themselves have explicitly stated, are 'endorsed rulings.' That is, these punishments existed in tribal societies before Islam, and the Prophet of Islam endorsed and approved them for his time with slight modifications. These are not commands from God (refer to the article 'The Problem of Clerics with Secular Rationality; Pre-Islamic Tribal Arabism in Contrast to Islamic Secular Rationality'). As Walter Terence Stace—an English empiricist philosopher, born in 1886 and died in 1967—has said, this experience (the perceptual experience of God) has seven characteristics: 1- Unity awareness, true unity, emptiness, pure awareness. 2- Timelessness and placelessness. 3- A sense of objectivity or truth. 4- A sense of blessing, peace, and tranquility, and the like. 5- A sense of the sacred, reverent, or divine. 6- Paradoxicality. 7- Ineffability (W.T. Stace, Mysticism and Philosophy, translated by Bahaddin Khorramshahi, Soroush Publishing, sixth edition, p. 134). Where is this experience and where is the command to violence? None of the criminal punishments are God's inventions; they are constructs of pre-Islamic simple societies. The same ruling applies to discriminations. A just God who commands justice cannot be the commander of structural discriminations among humans. 4- Denial of Islamic Human Rights: There is no such thing as Islamic human rights. For this reason, Larijani states that it must be formulated in collaboration with religious seminaries, universities, and Islamic countries. Of course, one can provide an interpretation of the Quran and valid traditions that is compatible with human rights, but in this way, it neither becomes Islamic human rights nor has Islam or any other religion invented modern human rights. This ruling also applies to democracy, freedom, pluralism, tolerance, feminism, and other constructs of modern humanity. Religious people cannot extract them from their religion; rather, they can provide new narratives of their religion that are compatible with these modern human achievements. 5- Imposition of the West: Larijani states, 'Why do Westerners impose their view of human rights on the world? According to Westerners' conception of humanity, men can marry men and women can marry women, but we do not accept these. The Westerners' misinterpretation of human dignity leads to the permissibility of homosexuality; the Islamic human being has no affinity with this image of humanity.' Multiculturalism is desirable and beneficial for humanity. However, modernity—whether we like it or not—is the dominant global thought. Have not Iranian Muslims—and clerics—accepted each and every modern achievement out of necessity? What is the separation of powers? John Locke and Montesquieu were its inventors. Clerics also accepted it and established it in the constitution. In the book and tradition, there is no separation of powers. What is a republic? The republic is also a modern achievement that clerics accepted. What is a revolution? Revolution is a phenomenon belonging to the modern era. Where did the term 'Islamic Revolution' come from? Just as the internet and social networks have imposed themselves on clerics, human rights, democracy, and non-discrimination will also impose themselves on clerics. Larijani promises that with the amendment of the drug law, executions in Iran will significantly decrease, and this is a great transformation. What is the product of this transformation? Is it not the case that human rights institutions reported so much about the very high rate of executions in Iran and condemned Iran that clerics began to think about reforming the law? 6- The Repressive Cleric: I have tried to critique only the views and claims of Sadegh Larijani regarding human rights. However, he is one of the repressors of the Islamic Republic, and it is a grave injustice to confront him as a scholar and thinker. On this very website, I have made many critiques of his repressive actions (for example, refer to the three articles 'Why are Reformists and Moderates Seeking to Oust Sadegh Larijani?', 'Does the Clerical Regime Leave Room for Judicial Independence?', and 'How the Judiciary Became the Stronghold of the Steadfast Front?').