{"id":183,"date":"2010-03-01T20:15:41","date_gmt":"2010-03-02T04:15:41","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/doctorsoroush.com\/english\/?p=183"},"modified":"2012-10-04T16:31:41","modified_gmt":"2012-10-04T23:31:41","slug":"the-current-iranian-system-rests-on-obedience-not-human-rights","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/drsoroush.com\/en\/the-current-iranian-system-rests-on-obedience-not-human-rights\/","title":{"rendered":"The Current Iranian System Rests on Obedience not Human Rights"},"content":{"rendered":"

Interview with Abdulkarim Soroush<\/em><\/p>\n

By: Nooshabeh Amiri\u00a0 for Roozonline.com<\/em><\/p>\n

This time, we spoke to Dr Abdulkarim Soroush about the separation of religion and the state, the disputes between the secularists and the religious modernizers, and the Green Movement\u2019s prospects. Dr Soroush said that \u201cwith the political secularism of a non-theocratic state, pious individuals, too, will be reassured that their religion and their faith will be safeguarded, and that the state will not attack their beliefs and their deeds\u201d. He said that \u201cyou can\u2019t extract democracy from Islam\u201d. He also said: \u201cBelievers must recognize that, nowadays, the implementation of justice, which religion also demands, is only possible through democracy; not through individual rule, not through guardianship.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Political secularism versus philosophical secularism<\/strong><\/p>\n

Q. Dr Soroush, you\u2019ve said that, politically speaking, you\u2019re a secularist. And the crux of the dispute seems to be over the separation of religion and the state. So, what are our intellectuals quarrelling about?<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

A. In all truth, there is no quarrel. Maybe some people want to stir up a quarrel. In fact, this is why I raised the issue of \u2018political secularism versus philosophical secularism\u2019, so that, even if there seems to be a dispute, it can be resolved and clarified. This way, people can see clearly in what sense we are secularists and in what sense we are not secularists.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The problem that has arisen, especially among expatriate Iranians, is that many of the people who say they are secularists are also secularists in their beliefs. In other words, they don\u2019t believe in spirituality and religion. Of course, they\u2019re free to be this way. But when they speak in defence of secularism, secularism takes on a terrifying sense for Iranians back home. That is to say, they think that calling for secularism means abandoning their beliefs and religiosity. This mistake and illusion must be rectified.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Q. So you want to rectify this mistake?<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

A. Yes. This is what I did. I said, We have two types of secularism. Of course, I should add by way of a parenthesis that secularism is a very subtle and complicated issue. No matter how much we talk about it, we will not have said all that there is to say. I have worked on secularism as a specialist subject. I have discussed it with some of the big experts in this field. This is why I really find it difficult to talk about secularism and I believe that some of the simplistic things that some people say are very dangerous.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

It was in the light of all these problems and ambiguities that I said that we can at least agree on one thing; namely, the division between political secularism and secularism in terms of beliefs. We don\u2019t have any quarrel with anyone over secularism in terms of beliefs, although we disagree with them. Everyone is free to have their own beliefs. But what we can agree on is political secularism or, to use the term I coined for this purpose, \u2018a post-theocratic state\u2019 or \u2018a non-theocratic state\u2019, meaning a state that transcends the religious or, effectively, a state that transcends fiqh<\/em>. This would be a moral state that regards all religions impartially. A state that would not give the followers of any religion any special privileges. A state that would officially recognize religious and political pluralism. A state that would apply the law equally to everyone and operate on the basis that everyone has equal rights. This is what political secularism means and I think we can all agree on it.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

As I explained in the previous interview [entitled \u201cWe Must have a Referendum in Iran\u201d], with the political secularism of a non-theocratic state, pious individuals, too, will be reassured that their religion and their faith will be safeguarded, and that the state will not attack their beliefs and their deeds.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Q. Why? Do democratic countries have a particular clause to this effect? In these countries, religion is separate from the state and, in keeping with the law, people\u2019s faith hasn\u2019t been harmed either. Why is there a need for such a reassurance?<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

A. The reassurance is needed because religious people in Iran may flee democracy and secularism on the assumption that they contravene and negate religiosity. So, it has to be explained to them that the establishment of political secularism and a religious democracy will not harm anyone\u2019s religion or beliefs; it will not detract from anyone\u2019s faith. I think this is a very important and necessary message.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

In fact, I used the previous interview to convey a message to two groups of people. It was a good message that seems not to have been received. On the one hand, I conveyed the message to religious people that democracy and political secularism will not harm your religion and your religious deeds. On the other hand, I conveyed the message to non-religious people that, with the advent of democratic believers, your political creed will not be harmed either. In other words, we can have peaceful coexistence under a democratic system.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u201cAdvent of democratic believers\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Q. How will this \u2018advent of democratic believers\u2019 occur and display itself in the new state?<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

A. The advent of democratic believers will occur via elections. If you establish a democracy and if religious people are in the majority\u2014<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Q. You mean like a Christian democratic party?<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

A. Yes, but you mustn\u2019t judge Islam by Christianity.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Q. I was talking about the formal aspect.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

A. Yes. Let\u2019s imagine that, as a result of the revolution\u2014which was not, in fact, a democratic development\u2014democratic believers had come to power; say, Mr Mehdi Bazargan and the Freedom Movement. Then, the situation would have been different. Now, too, if this happens or if pious democrats win the majority of votes in a sound electoral system, then, non-religious people mustn\u2019t fear that their rights will be trampled by the democratic believers or that they will approve laws that will turn non-religious people into a second-class minority.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

We must, at the same time, give the same assurance to religious people. We have to tell them that if democratic secularists\u2014because there are also despotic secularists\u2014come to power, they will respect a democratic system and religious people can rest assured that their religion, their beliefs and their values will not be harmed.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Q. Look, what usually happens is that, after this sort of change, a constitution is drawn up. This constitution must enshrine principles that, whilst being in keeping with our culture, comply with the rules of democracy. Is it the constitution that you\u2019re talking about?<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

A. Let\u2019s take the constitution. If democratic believers draw it up, it will turn out one way and if believers who abide by the velayat-e faqih<\/em> [current Iranian system of rule by a cleric] draw it up, it will turn out another way.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Mr Khomeini was the leader of the revolution and the people were his followers. If he had had a different way of thinking, the revolution would inevitably have taken a different course. If he had had the slightest affinity and familiarity with the democratic ideas of the time, he would, of course, have acted differently.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Of course we don\u2019t expect a revolutionary change to take a democratic course from day one. All revolutions generate some disorder at first and the emerging states do some inexcusable things. But they should gradually move in the direction of rationality. But Ayatollah Khomeini\u2019s fiqh<\/em>-based thinking basically did not allow the revolution to take a different course. It did not allow the constitution to be drawn up differently. Now, if democratic believers come to be in a position where they can draw up a new constitution, it will obviously be different from the current constitution and human rights, equality, tolerance, decency, a non-theocratic form of government, etc. will undoubtedly be respected within it.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Q. Where do the points that you say they\u2019ll respect come from? From religion or from the general rules of democracy?<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

A. I\u2019ve explained repeatedly in my writings that you can\u2019t extract democracy from Islam.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Q. So, what will these democratic believers write in the constitution that is not part of the principles of democracy? What\u2019s the source of the things they\u2019ll write?<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

A. Look, democracy is a way of governing \u2018rights-oriented people\u2019 using a \u2018low-error system of management\u2019. These two principles are present and fixed in any democratic system; i.e., an orientation towards rights and a system of management that is designed to minimize errors. Despotic systems have a \u2018high-error system of management\u2019, because a single individual makes all the decisions and because the people are deemed to have duties, not rights.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Now, when you say, Where do these principles come from, what we\u2019re saying is that these principles are not extracted from the tenets of religion, but they don\u2019t contravene the tenets of religion either.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Q. For example, in France\u2019s constitution, where do the democratic foundations come from? What do you find in it that contravenes religion?<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

A. First, France is not a good example because its secularism has more or less turned into a militant secularism, which isn\u2019t very admirable. Secondly, some years ago, someone criticized me, saying: \u201cYour religious government is very similar to the governments of other countries.\u201d I said: \u201cYes, that\u2019s true. If everyone is walking on their legs, should we be walking on our heads?\u201d<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

If some people have discovered correct methods for managing a country and exercising power, what could be better than for us to learn from them and benefit from their experience, whilst recognizing that none of these things is cast in stone. This brings us to fiqh<\/em>. There are a series of laws in fiqh <\/em>which, as long as they do not explicitly contravene human rights, we, as Muslims, are bound to abide by. This is what eminent people, such as Iqbal of Lahore, have said.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Fiqh <\/em>has always safeguarded the identity of Muslims. For example, we have particular laws in fiqh<\/em> for buying and selling, for renting, for hunting and slaughtering animals, for food and clothing, etc.\u00a0 There are different laws in France in these respects. There are different laws in Britain. But there is no reason why we should change our fiqh<\/em>-based laws as long as they do not contravene human rights. There\u2019s no reason why we should, for example, model ourselves on France. There\u2019s no need for it. But you may find other rulings, such as the rulings relating to apostasy, that contravene human rights. Here, we must exercise ijtihad<\/em> [reasoned formulation of new rulings based on the circumstances of time and place] and bring them into line with Islamic morality. Islam is not just fiqh<\/em>; it is also a philosophy and a morality. We must also bear them in mind. In this way, an Islamic system, which Muslim people approve of, can be established, with rulers who are committed to a just and democratic Islam.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Justice can only be achieved through democracy<\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Q. Look, in our historical experience, whenever anything has been qualified with \u2018but\u2019 and \u2018unless\u2019\u2014for example, when it\u2019s been said that the people are free unless\u2026 \u2014this has led to problems. So, we have to have defined rules. Of course, different officials may implement these rules slightly differently, but they are rules nevertheless. This is why the people on this side are, for their part, afraid of political believers. Why must we use these arguments to qualify democracy\u2014which can muddy the waters?<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

A. No, there\u2019s no muddying of waters. As it happens, the currently existing democracies have these kinds of ambiguities and it is, in fact, in the light of this that I want to propose something for our country that is free of these ambiguities.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Look, schoolgirls have been banned from wearing the hijab in state schools in France. Building mosque minarets has been questioned in Switzerland. Elsewhere, in the United States, for example, pharmacies that don\u2019t believe in abortion refuse to sell medicines that are related to abortion, although the law tells them they\u2019re not allowed to do this. So, you see, democracy is not as straightforward as you might think; there are many subtleties. Taken as a whole, it might seem straightforward, but when it comes to details, it\u2019s not at all straightforward. It depends on a society\u2019s sensitivities. It may be that in the United States people aren\u2019t sensitive to alcoholic drinks but they are sensitive to abortion. And the religious Americans who have this sensitivity may disobey the law or protest, etc.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Q. Do you think you can make provisions for these details through legislation and prevent these things from happening? You should also bear in mind that the hijab was not an issue in France in the past and what you see happening today is a reaction to a particular situation. It\u2019s the same in Switzerland or the Netherlands or elsewhere.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

A. Yes.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Q. Be that as it may, you think that provisions can be made in the law for all these things?<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

A. No, you can\u2019t make provisions for everything because you don\u2019t know what might happen in the future. I just want to show how complicated democracy is. When a democratic system is established somewhere, it\u2019s not as if everyone gets what they want in absolute freedom. There is give and take. In a democracy of believers, these things have to be clear at least. Here, too, there must be give and take. When I said in that interview that we will establish a democracy based on our religious duty, I was making an important point and I did it advisedly. Believers must recognize that, nowadays, the implementation of justice, which religion also demands, is only possible through democracy; not through individual rule, not through guardianship.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Intellectual leadership versus political leadership<\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Q. I agree with you that Iran has a religious society, but there are different religions there. So, its constitution should be drawn up by a group of people who represent its different strands.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

A. Yes, of course.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Q. If our society wants to move in a direction in which it wants to look further into the future, shouldn\u2019t we go towards establishing think-tanks that include all the different strands of thinking?<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

A. Absolutely. In fact, intellectual leadership and political leadership are two separate things. This is something that has become confused in our society. Even the theory of the velayat-e faqih <\/em>has been misinterpreted. I mean, even if we accept the theory of the velayat-e faqih<\/em> and assume that there\u2019s nothing wrong with it politically, religiously and morally\u2014<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Q. Assuming the impossible\u2014<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

A. Nevertheless, if we assume that this is the case, still, being a political leader is different from being an intellectual leader. In other words, the theory of the velayat-e faqih<\/em> is at most a validation of a particular type of political leadership. It does not give Mr Khamenei, or whoever else is in the post, the right to make pronouncements on the social sciences or philosophy or medical science. It only gives him the right to make pronouncements on political matters. I mean, this is what the theory of the velayat-e faqih <\/em>authorizes him to do; only this and nothing more. This is a very big mistake that has occurred in our society. In fact, it\u2019s sophistry, not a mistake. They\u2019ve resorted to sophistry to confuse and combine two things that aren\u2019t combinable.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Now, what I\u2019m saying is that society should be guided by truthful people from the realm of thought and culture. And this entails a very grave responsibility. You can think of it as think-tanks if you want.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Q. Sometimes it\u2019s as if we\u2019re all saying the same thing, but each in a different language. It\u2019s as if one of us is speaking French; one, English; one, Persian. But everyone is saying the same thing. What can we do to minimize the quarrels?<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

A. This is one of the bad side-effects of despotism. It prevents people from hearing and understanding each other properly. Once, Mr Hashemi[-Rafsanjani] said that Iran is the freest country\u2014<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Q. Ahmadinejad said it\u2014<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

A. Hashemi[-Rafsanjani] said it too, a few years ago. Ahmadinejad said it too. When you hear them say this, you can assume either that they\u2019re lying knowingly or that they basically have a different understanding of what freedom is and, so, they think Iran is free; not just free, but the freest country in the world. In fact, I think the second one is the tragedy. If they\u2019re lying knowingly, that\u2019s good, because they realize that Iran isn\u2019t free. But if they really misunderstand freedom and have a twisted conception of it, then, they\u2019ll lead us to ruin and call it progress.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Who has to make them realize that they have an incorrect understanding of freedom? A free people and a free press. But when there is no press freedom, pronouncements like this are not criticized, they\u2019re not analysed, and the rulers remain ignorant of their ignorance, and ignorance of ignorance ultimately leads to\u2014<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Q. It\u2019s the old problem of which comes first, the chicken or the egg. As long as they think like this, there won\u2019t be a free press\u2014<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

A. Yes, but reality sometimes has a way of opening people\u2019s eyes by force.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Q. You spoke of twisted thinking. Does Mr Khamenei fall into the first category or the second? I mean, does he know that it\u2019s not true or does he think that it\u2019s true?<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

A. It\u2019s hard to judge, but it seems to me that the things he says about the social sciences, for example, point to a lack of knowledge. But on political matters, he doesn\u2019t approve of freedom. That is to say, he thinks that the freedoms that people want are inimical to human decency and that an Islamic system cannot and should not grant people these freedoms.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u201cFreedom as method\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Q. You mean Mr Khamenei is opposed to freedom?<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

A. Yes, he\u2019s opposed to freedom. He is truly opposed to freedom. He believes that freedom means depravity, sexual permissiveness, Westoxication, and so on and so forth. So, he thinks he has the right to oppose these freedoms and to suppress anyone who opposes him. As simple as that.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Q. So, if someone is opposed to freedom in this way, he gets to the point where, in order to preserve the situation he\u2019s created, he pretends not to notice even when the principles of religion are being transgressed\u2014<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

A. Like what?<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Q. Like everything that has happened during this time\u2014which Mr Khamenei has not spoken out against. The lies. The raping of detained teenagers. The blatant looting of public assets. I mean, has he been pushed into this situation because he opposes freedom? Does he have a religious justification for these actions?<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

A. I\u2019m not in Mr Khamenei\u2019s mind. But even if we assume that Mr Khamenei doesn\u2019t know about some of these things, his lack of knowledge, too, is a product of the system that he\u2019s created\u2014a system that gives him wrong and twisted information, and has trapped him in a circle of spies and sycophants. This is one of the characteristics of dictatorial systems. All dictators are uninformed about how things stand.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

In the early days of Mr Khatami\u2019s presidency, I wrote an article entitled \u201cFreedom as Method\u201d. There, I said for Mr Khamenei\u2019s benefit: In order to have a correct picture of things, give people freedom. This freedom is a correct method for obtaining information. The people themselves will tell you in a hundred and one ways what they want and what they don\u2019t want. You don\u2019t need to marshal spies to bring you information, which will undoubtedly be incomplete anyway.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

On this basis, we can assume that the information that Mr Khamenei receives is twisted and incomplete. But, in all truth, what difference does it make whether he knows all the details of what\u2019s happening in the country\u2019s prisons or not? He is fully and absolutely responsible anyway.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Q. Yes, Mohsen Ruholamini\u2019s father spoke to Mr Khamenei and appealed for justice.[1]\u00a0 Other people spoke to Mr Khamenei and said what needed to be said.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

A. Look, Mr Khamenei sees this sort of thing as the system\u2019s accidentals, not as its essentials. This is where we disagree with him. I believe that torturing and mistreating prisoners, cheating in elections and systematically abusing human rights have become essential and necessary to this system, and people like Mesbah-Yazdi have provided the underlying theories for this kind of behaviour. Moreover, clerics and statesmen have, unfortunately, lost their sensitivity to injustice. Dreams of serving the leader and paranoia about various enemies have become so entrenched in their minds that they\u2019ve forgotten the people and, consequently, morality.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

At the same time, Mr Khamenei has chosen bad teachers and associates. The more I think about it the more I can see that Hashemi-Rafsanjani\u2019s approach is closer to that of Mr Khomeini than Khamenei\u2019s. Hashemi[-Rafsanjani] is more rational than Khamenei and less superstitious. Ayatollah Khomeini would never have allowed individuals like Nuri-Hamadani, who is mentally disturbed, or Mesbah-Yazdi, who is deranged, to come out of the woodwork and stir up trouble. This is all a product of Mr Khamenei\u2019s lack of judgement.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Human rights versus obedience<\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Q. Of course, someone who had great influence on Mr Khamenei or served as his political guide was Navvab-Safavi.[2] Also, Mr Khamenei has translated Sayyid Qutb\u2019s book. In other words, he follows Sayyid Qutb\u2019s line of thinking.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

A. Yes, Mr Khamenei has translated Sayyid Qutb\u2019s book. And he met Navvab-Safavi. Mr Khamenei likes to tell a story about Navvab-Safavi. When Yasir Arafat was a student at Cairo University, Navvab-Safavi told him: \u201cWhat are you Palestinians doing in Egypt? Go to your land and raise the banner of struggle.\u201d<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Yes, Mr Khamenei was very much influenced by Sayyid Qutb in particular. And I\u2019m assuming that he is acting on his beliefs. Of course, I\u2019m suggesting this as an optimistic analysis; otherwise, if we assume that he is wicked, we will arrive at a different analysis. I\u2019m not bringing in that kind of factor for the moment. I\u2019m saying: Let\u2019s assume that he has good intentions and is acting on his beliefs.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Q. Now, if we assume that he\u2019s wicked, what would your analysis be then?<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

A. The answer to that is clear. But we\u2019re assuming that that is not the case. Be that as it may, Mr Khamenei\u2019s beliefs and twisted ideas are dangerous and can destroy Iran. Moreover, the boundary between wickedness and normality is not all that definite and clear. Do you think a dictator considers himself to be a dictator or a wicked person? Things can become so entangled and human beings have such a capacity for self-deception that they can see injustice as justice and hell as heaven.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

I remember Mr Khamenei used to say: \u201cThese foreigners that you see\u2014with their seemingly kind and smiling faces, clean, scented hands and well-groomed hair\u2014can kill people without batting an eyelid.\u201d Now, I\u2019m sad to say that our clerics, too\u2014except for a small minority\u2014have shown that they\u2019re not very different. They\u2019re prepared to commit any injustice in the name of religion without losing any sleep over it.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

But, at the outset, you asked me what the quarrel is about. I spoke about the quarrel between intellectuals. Now, let me say that the quarrel between the nation and the government is over tyranny. Our problem for the past 105 years, since the constitutional revolution, has been tyranny. We removed the monarchical tyranny and we replaced it with religious tyranny. Unfortunately, our people are still grappling with this problem and struggling against tyranny. Of course, the gentlemen use sophistry to accuse people of being opposed to religion. No, we\u2019re not opposed to religion; we\u2019re opposed to religious tyranny. And we believe that political secularism and a non-theocratic state will benefit religion.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Q. Opposed to any kind of tyranny.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

A. Any kind, whether religious or monarchical. But the one that we\u2019re experiencing now is very novel indeed. People are saying: \u201cRelease us from the evil grip of tyranny. Don\u2019t try to drag us to heaven by force. Let us go to hell of our own free will.\u201d Of course, the gentlemen must relinquish many things before they can take off the garb of tyranny and start behaving justly and democratically.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Q. But they\u2019ve done so many wrong things\u2014<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

A. Yes, they\u2019ve done so many wrong things that repenting has become impossible. As Popper put it, people repent after small wrongdoings; but after big wrongdoings, far from repenting, they rationalize them and, therefore, persist in committing them. This is because big wrongdoings crush the conscience so badly as to rob people of the courage to repent. This is one reason. The second reason is their thinking-system. The gentlemen who are at the helm of power, Mr Khamenei, even Mr Hashemi[-Rafsanjani]\u2014all our clerics in fact\u2014are unfamiliar with the idea of human rights. They haven\u2019t come across it in their studies. What do you expect from them? They\u2019re like barren clouds. You can\u2019t expect rain from a barren cloud.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

In all their studies on fiqh<\/em>, you won\u2019t find a single sentence about human rights. So, what do you expect from them? Mr Khamenei said in his most recent speech: \u201cOur system is based on the verse in the Koran that says: \u2018O believers, obey God, and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you.\u2019\u201d (Al-Nisa, 59) In other words, obey God. Obey the Prophet. And obey the rulers. Mr Khamenei believes that the current Iranian system is based on obedience, not a social contract, not human rights. He said it plainly. Could he have said it more plainly than this? At the moment, neither God nor the Prophet is among us. So, who are we meant to obey? The ruler. And the ruler and guardian has been instated by God. And Khamenei is the ruler. So, the basis of the state is obedience to the supreme ruler.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Of course, another person might have cited another verse from the Koran. There is a verse in which God says: \u201c[We sent the prophets] so that mankind might have no argument against God after the Messengers.\u201d (Al-Nisa, 165) In other words, God acknowledges that people can argue with him. If you can argue with God, you can argue all the more with the ruler, with the ruling cleric.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

These are two different verses from the Koran, but\u2014<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Q. But it\u2019s interesting that it contains both these verses.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

A. Yes, it\u2019s very interesting. But, as Foucault put it, power and knowledge are enmeshed. Political powers highlighted one of these verses and said that the state is based on obedience. But if democrats come to power, they will highlight the other verse and say: \u201cIf you can argue with God, you can argue all the more with our humble selves.\u201d This is a very important point. But Mr Khamenei and his circle don\u2019t mention this verse. And you saw how the Assembly of Experts conducted itself. Everyone sat quietly and no one dared say a word. They all just listened to Khamenei and nodded their heads. Why? Because they\u2019re all from the same school of thought as Mr Khamenei.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Q. Of course, there are also cases against some of them. Mr Yazdi, for example.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

A. Yes. It was only Mr Montazeri who, towards the end of his life, became interested in human rights and the fact that people have rights, that there is something called a citizen, that there is something called pluralism. We mustn\u2019t tar them all with the same brush. But the rest of the gentlemen\u2014<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Q. So, it\u2019s impossible to negotiate with these gentlemen?<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

A. How do you negotiate? Mr Khamenei isn\u2019t saying that the system is based on a contract. He isn\u2019t saying that the system is based on dialogue. He isn\u2019t saying that the system is based on rights. He\u2019s saying that the system is based on obedience. This is a very telling assertion. This is what Mesbah-Yazdi has taught them to say. They will carry on like this until they hit a rock.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Negotiating change<\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Q. So, who are the leaders of the Green Movement supposed to negotiate with eventually?<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

A. The underlying tenets are nonnegotiable. But the leaders of the Green Movement must first eliminate some of the problems that are practical impediments, in order to be able to take the bigger, subsequent steps. They have to resolve the problem of elections. They have to resolve the problem of the prisoners. In my view, they have to solve the problem of the judiciary. At present, I think that the Green Movement should be trying to bring about an independent judiciary.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Q. But the power of Mr Khamenei\u2019s clique is based on exactly these things\u2014on the judiciary in its present form, on the present electoral system, on the currently existing prisons. You can\u2019t expect anything else from them. So, negotiations are effectively impossible?<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

A. Look, everything depends on the Green Movement\u2019s power. In fact, politics is the dialogue of powers, the confrontation of powers. If the Green Movement achieves more power, which I think it will\u2014you can\u2019t by any means say that the Green Movement has caved in\u2014then, it can take the negotiations forward based on its power.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Q. You mean the rulers will be forced to negotiate?<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

A. Absolutely.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Q. But when the other side finally agrees to sit at the negotiating table it will mean that\u2014<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

A. It will mean that it is acknowledging that the Green Movement has power and that it has to be taken seriously. They will hold talks with this power and, based on their weight, they will or will not accept what the other side says.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Q. And you think this is achievable?<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

A. Yes. I\u2019ve said it before, this is the only way. After all, we don\u2019t want to bring about bloodshed. So, things have to reach a point where negotiations can take place. And in these negotiations, the force of the people must truly come onto the stage and be determining, so that the people can achieve their demands. Then, it\u2019ll be time for the next round of the negotiations. I mean, in the first instance, it is enough for the state to agree to negotiations. Then, the next stages will naturally follow.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Q. Do you see the prospects for this?<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

A. Yes, I think it\u2019s possible and very likely. I hope I\u2019m not wrong. I\u2019ve also conveyed this hope to others in the Green Movement and will continue to do so. I forbid them to lose hope, because hope is our entire asset.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Q. And it\u2019s not idle hope? It\u2019s real hope?<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

A. Yes, we\u2019re talking about hope based on reality. I think that these demands, which are dispersed throughout society\u2014although voices have been silenced\u2014are determining and, God willing, they will bear fruit. As Forough Farrokhzad wrote in one of her poems, \u201cI\u2019ll plant my hands in the garden and green shoots will grow.\u201d<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Ten years ago, I gave two talks in London. They\u2019ve now been published in Iran. There, I raised the idea of a green discourse. I said that, alongside the red discourse, which was the discourse of the left, and the black discourse, we also have a green discourse, which will rise up and make its presence felt. A discourse that is based on civil society and many other things. Today, I\u2019m glad to see the green shoots of the green discourse growing. My hope was not misplaced. Now, too, I hope that my hopes are not misplaced.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Q. It stands to reason that they are not misplaced.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

A. We will continue along this path and we will all turn green.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Sing, sweet nightingale, keeping singing and you\u2019ll see<\/p>\n

One day, green shoots will grow and the flowers bloom<\/p>\n

Patience and victory have ever been friends<\/p>\n

It is through patience that you\u2019ll meet victory<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Translated from the Persian by Nilou Mobasser<\/em><\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n

[1] Mohsen Ruholamini was one of several young people who died as a result of injuries sustained at Kahrizak detention centre. They had been detained in the course of the protests that followed the disputed presidential election of June 2009. Mohsen Ruholamini\u2019s father is an adviser to Mohsen Rezaie, who is the secretary of the Expediency Council and was a conservative presidential candidate in June 2009.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[2] As a young, radical cleric, Mojtaba Navvab-Safavi founded the Fada\u2019ian-e Eslam <\/em>in 1945. He advocated combating secularization and foreign influence in Iran. Members of the Fada\u2019ian-e Eslam <\/em>carried out several assassinations, including that of Ahmad Kasravi, a writer, and General Ali Razmara, the then prime minister. Navvab-Safavi was executed in 1956.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Interview with Abdulkarim Soroush By: Nooshabeh Amiri\u00a0 for Roozonline.com This time, we spoke to Dr Abdulkarim Soroush about the separation of religion and the state, the disputes between the secularists and the religious modernizers, and the Green Movement\u2019s prospects. Dr Soroush said that \u201cwith the political secularism of a non-theocratic state, pious individuals, too, will […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"ngg_post_thumbnail":0},"categories":[3],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/drsoroush.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/183"}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/drsoroush.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/drsoroush.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/drsoroush.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/drsoroush.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=183"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/drsoroush.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/183\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/drsoroush.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=183"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/drsoroush.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=183"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/drsoroush.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=183"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}