Shabtabnews In this dark night, I have lost my way – Arise from a corner, oh you the star of guidance.
Iran-HRM – “Now I am a captive. My body is chained in a dark, damp cell, and my soul imprisoned in the shadow of a deadly thought… I am condemned to die, condemned to die! This doom is my only companion, haunting me relentlessly. My entire being is frozen by the chilling weight of it, my body bent under the crushing, unbearable burden…”
(“The Last Day of a Condemned Man”, Victor Hugo)
Written by Dr. Aziz Fouladvand
Part 5: The Ruling Regimes That Anchor Their Legitimacy in the Heavens
Ruling systems that derive their legitimacy from divine claims often cloak themselves in sanctity, labeling their opponents as “children of the devil” and using religious terminology as a tool to justify suppression and the taking of human lives. Immersed in delusion and hubristic arrogance, such regimes consider themselves the earthly representatives of God, interpreting any dissent against their tyranny as a challenge to the “sacred order.” Protesters against their injustice are silenced through the use of theological language, framing opposition as defiance against divine will. This pernicious practice echoes the horrors of medieval Europe, where, for over a millennium, executions, torture, and persecution were conducted in the name of religious sanctity. The clerical regime in Iran seeks to impose this archaic worldview on the modern world with a millennium’s delay. In the shadow of self-fashioned “sacredness,” this malevolence thrives and expands.
In the mullahs’ regime, the persistence and resilience of the death penalty are justified on religious grounds.[1] However, these justifications are both indefensible and devoid of substantive legal or theological foundation. The religious concepts invoked are fabricated constructs, manipulated and weaponized by the regime’s security and judicial apparatus to serve authoritarian ends. This selective and arbitrary expansion of religious doctrines into instruments of repression is a practice as old as despotism itself. Within the framework of Islamic jurisprudence, it is equally possible to argue for the abolition of the death penalty. Many of the legal punishments and death sentences prescribed in Shia jurisprudence lack grounding in the Quran and are built on narrations with questionable authenticity and reliability. In fact, the death penalty stands in direct contradiction to the fundamental philosophy of religion, which is rooted in mercy, forgiveness, and peace. A deeper and more nuanced interpretation of Islamic teachings reveals ample evidence supporting this claim. For instance, Quranic verses such as Surah Al-Baqarah (2:179)[2] emphasize that the purpose of retribution is not vengeance but the preservation of life. The verse underscores the sanctity of life as the central objective of Islamic teachings, affirming that individual and societal preservation are paramount. Moreover, extensive studies and empirical evidence demonstrate that neither retribution nor the death penalty serves as a deterrent to crime. These methods fail to achieve public welfare or promote social order. Instead, there is a pressing need to develop alternative mechanisms grounded in modern rationality and human rights principles to address these objectives. Central to any such approach must be an unwavering commitment to the sanctity of the right to life.
Furthermore, if there is doubt in the decision to issue a sentence, the guiding principle (from a religious perspective) is embedded in the legal rule “al-hudud tudra’ bish-shubahat”[3] (punishments are to be averted in cases of doubt). This means that in cases of doubt, punishments should be suspended. The Prophet Muhammad is quoted as saying: “As much as you can, avoid executing punishments on God’s servants. If you find a way to avoid applying the punishment to a Muslim, then let him go. It is better for a ruler or leader to make a mistake in pardoning than in punishing.”[4] This rule can be compared to the “principle of strict interpretation of criminal laws” in modern law. The enforcement of punishments, considering doubts about their permissibility during the time of the occultation of the 12th Shiite Imam, should be suspended. Imam Ali is quoted as saying: “It is better for a thousand criminals to go unpunished than for one innocent person to be punished.”[5]
The implementation of legal punishments (Hudud) from an Islamic jurisprudence (Fiqh) perspective is a highly specialized and serious issue. There is no consensus among Shiite scholars regarding the enforcement of Hudud during the occultation of the Imam of the Age (Imam Mahdi). Many scholars believe that the authority to enforce such punishments lies solely within the jurisdiction of the Prophet or the infallible Imam, and no one else is qualified to intervene in these matters. However, the Iranian regime’s first Supreme Leader, Khomeini, positioned himself above the “infallible Imam” and argued for the enforcement of punishments such as “moharebeh” (enmity against God) during the time of occultation of the 12th Imam, insisting on their implementation. He promoted this view while staying in Najaf, Iraq, arguing that the violence inherent in these rulings should not prevent their execution[6]. He pursued this same approach with the doctrine of “absolute guardianship of the jurist” (velayat-e faqih). It was he who issued the decree (fatwa) for the brutal mass executions that occurred in the summer of 1988, commissioning the “Death Committees” to execute thousands of political prisoners, mostly members of the PMOI and other activists[7]. The 1988 massacre represented one of the most brutal acts in history.
The use of the term “mohareb” (enemy of God) is also in conflict with traditional jurisprudential principles. “Moharebah” in this interpretation refers to a crime against the security of the people, not a political protest against the government. In traditional jurisprudence, the examples of “moharebah” are “highway robbery” or “armed theft.” In Sunni jurisprudence, “moharebah” is discussed under the heading of “cutting off the road.” Self-defense against security forces or fighting against this criminal regime is not considered “moharebah” even in traditional jurisprudence. There is no jurisprudential argument to support this arbitrary interpretation of the term “moharebah.” Moreover, many Shia scholars have rejected the clerical regime’s fascist definition of “mohareb” and stood against it. “Moharebah” is classified as one of the “hudud” (fixed punishments), which, according to the views of prominent Shia scholars, cannot be enforced during the time of the 12th Imam’s occultation. The clerics are even violating the Sharia they claim to uphold. Religious fascism can arbitrarily execute anyone by misusing these imprecise concepts. The blade of Khomeini’s Sharia rests on the throats of all citizens.
[1] Since the 1980s, the mullahs’ regime has always claimed that international condemnations regarding executions, torture, and repression are a consequence of the culture, history, and religion of Iranians. However, this is a great lie, because both the history of Iran, the culture of its people, and the authentic teachings of Islam all reject such acts of violence.
[2] And there is for you in legal retribution [saving of] life, O you [people] of understanding, that you may become righteous.
[3] “Punishments are averted by doubts.”
[4] This hadith is from the Prophet of Islam, Prophet Muhammad. It is found in the book Kanz al-‘Ummal (Hadith No. 12971), and the text is as follows:
“Avert the prescribed punishments from the Muslims as much as you can. If you find a way out for a Muslim, then let him go, for it is better for the leader to err in forgiveness than to err in punishment.”
[5] This famous quote is attributed to the first Imam of Shia, Ali ibn Abi Talib:
“It is better for me to forgive a thousand criminals than to execute one innocent person.”
[6] Khomeini wrote in his book *Islamic Government* (or *Wilayat al-Faqih*) that the caliph is not meant to merely convey legal rulings. He does not require the caliph for the mere pronouncement of rulings. He goes on to add that the caliph is needed for actions such as cutting off the hand of a thief, carrying out punishments (Hudud), and stoning adulterers. The very foundation of the government is for such matters.
[7] Khomeini’s decree for the mass execution of political prisoners affiliated with the PMOI (Mujahedin-e Khalq) is attached in Appendix No. 152 of *The Memoirs of Hossein Ali Montazeri*, page 623, Volume 1.
