The second part of the unpublished interviews of Mr. Boroujerdi- March 20091. How do you consider some punishments like prison juristically?
2. How do you think of terror and suicidal actions?
3. What is your opinion on the juridical subject, dissimulation?
4. What’s your opinion about Vilayat-e-Faqih?
5. What’s your reason to reject the punishments for homosexuality, double adultery and etc and also some legal punishments like execution, stoning, amputation and flogging?
6. Please exactly explain that if you propagate a new religion or the preacher of another Islam?
7. Do you call yourself clergy yet or not? Have your beliefs and stances been in this manner and this form before the events of last years too?
……………………………………………..
1. How do you consider some punishments like prison juristically?
There is no punishment as imprisonment in Shiite jurisprudence. Even judicial authorities of Iran have explicitly said that prison is non Islamic several times! and must be removed, although this matter has never been fulfilled and the number of prisons and prisoners is increasing day by day as has destroying and irretrievable results such as material and spiritual annihilation and it is exactly opposite to the way of the holy prophet Mohammad that according to his way “ harming is not permitted in Islam”.
Whatever I have found in the traditions and words of the prophet and of the holy Quran is revering for human position and prestige. Unique God granted human greatness and chose him as his successor and he never sent a prophet to annoy and torture his best creation. He is kind and merciful and has created heaven, but he shows his anger and has created hell too to make people understand that these are a danger sign in order to keep society away from the devilish plans and temptations.
2. How do you think of terror and suicidal actions?
Terror is against liberal thought and independent culture. Terrorist doesn’t understand logic. The main and undeniable method of prophets has been debate, discussion and propagation not terror.
Unfortunately Iran government has supported terroristic actions in the world specially in the Middle East overtly, secretly and multilaterally to insure its continuance and to assassinate the character of its antagonists also some religious authorities have confirmed it by unreal lawful reasons as this matter has led that Islam be introduced as a terrorism religion while holy Quran explicitly says: “لا تلقوا بایدیکم الی التهلکه don’t perish yourselves”.
3. What is your opinion on the juridical subject, dissimulation?
In religious culture and Quran interpretations dissimulation is equivalent to piety and also equivalent to acting based on situation, it means hiding your real and hearty beliefs in order to get security and save your life also it has been advised that whenever that the revelation of secrets and expression of events may lead to conflict, keep the secrets and follow dissimulation law. Dissimulation is variable and depends on the situation, it has a certain framework and must be used in special positions and if we want to know that when dissimulation is used we should pay attention to Imam Bager’s word that said: “in the time of danger and emergency dissimulation is permissible”.
But the most important challenge and argument that today is expressed about dissimulation is because of the unreal promises that the founders of revolution 79 in Iran gave to people and the next authorities of the government didn’t fulfill them too, so governmental clergies used the word “dissimulation” to justify those lies! If every deceit and trick is called dissimulation (if the meaning of dissimulation is so) then what’s the own meaning of those vices (hypocrisy, lie, trick and imposture)?! I don’t believe in unreal promises of the leaders and authorities of Iran government as dissimulation, but I know them only as a political tactic for the purpose of deceiving the world and getting the nation’s support for endurance and expansion of their government and in my opinion it is completely opposite to the way of the holy prophets.
4. What’s your opinion about Vilayat-e-Faqih?
I brought up some Quran, rational and traditional reasons and documents in my trial sessions and I proved that according to “ Quran- tradition- rationality- unanimity” the government of jurists (Vilayat-e-Faqih) is rejected and I hope the film of that debate be available to all as soon as possible. But I explain in brief that Vilayat-e-Faqih according to the statements of its theoreticians is based on a series of personal reasoning and misinterpretations on Quran words and traditions as they have tried to interpret it along God’s Vilayat (guardianship), by using many alterations and personal interpretations and imposed jurists’ government on people in this way that I don’t agree with it and I have brought some reasons of Quran in my book “Resal-e-Azadi” that reject Vilayat-e-Faqih and prove that God has created human free and given him freedom. If some one claims to have a guardianship that is along God’s, he must be defender of the right of freedom and spread the principle of tolerance and forgiveness not be the acting of harshness, terror, despotism and suffocation! It is mentionable that most jurists, clergies and religious authorities have opposed to clergies’ government, relying on religious rules and shiism laws and this lack of unanimity between religious leaders about clergies’ governments is another reason that proves religious government in absence of the Imams chosen by God, is unlawful.
Unfortunately the jurists govern on Iran call themselves as the owner of people’s life, wealth, thought and fate, but Imam Sadeq quotes from the holy prophet: “jurists are the successors of the Imams until they don’t involve themselves in the world and worldliness” and when he was asked that how we can know worldly jurists, he replied: “when they obey and follow governor, in this case avoid them and don’t trust” so according to this word the position and place of governmental clergies is cleared and in addition the worse is that they themselves govern on people .
5. What’s your reason to reject the punishments for homosexuality, adultery and also some legal punishments like execution, stoning, amputation and flogging?
punishment for those sins that have been committed between God and his slave such as homosexuality, double adultery and etc in the lack of a just leader is not allowed and impossible, because only just leaders can punish some one for these sins and history has shown that they always tried to provide a situation as he can escape and save himself from punishment. Some other jurists believe that execution of such these laws and punishments in the absence of a just leader are impossible.
Some day before Imam Ali’s government, when the officials of government were taking a man to governor to punish him for theft, Imam Ali stopped them and said “first it must be cleared that whether this man has got his right of treasury from the governor completely or not, if he has not got, the governor’s hand must be amputated instead of his hand!
An adulterer woman was taken to Jesus, he said: “every body that has committed no sin stay to start stoning” (it is a law that only some one who has committed no sin can stone a sinner), but every body went and no body stayed. Then Jesus gave some advises to that woman and released her without punishment. There are a lot of such these stories that have been written in historical books that indicate punishment for such these sins without the continued and comprehensive control of a just and pacifist leader is not possible and is rejected.
But the subject “retaliation” is different, because it is due to men and some one has been harmed and is plaintiff. About unintentional manslaughter retaliation is not allowed, but blood-wit has been come for this matter. And about intentional manslaughter the psychological condition of the murderer in the time of crime is important and must be consider by a psychologist too and also the age of the murderer is another factor must be considered that whether he is younger than 18 or not? And he must not be imprisoned for the sentence “retaliation” until he becomes 18 and other cases too.
Imam Ali said to a pregnant woman who has come to him to punish her for adultery: “may be you have dreamed or supposed”! And when he faced with her insistence on execution of the sentence, he accepted, but he postponed it to after delivery, then under the pretext of two years feeding and after those two years under the pretext of that this child needs a guardian practically rejected the sentence “stoning” in this way. Of course one of a side results of this story is forbidding abortion of an adultery fetus that this matter itself is deduced that execution has been negated. Because when an adultery fetus is revered so, the credit and importance of man’s life will explicitly be appeared. Also another result is negation of confession. In the matter of punishment there is a juridical basis that says: “the confession of a sane man against himself is acceptable” that confirms that we can use the confession of a criminal against himself, but we see that Imam Ali not only doesn’t pay attention to the confession of the criminal, but teaches her a way to release from the punishment! In another story has been come that a person came to Imam Ali and confessed to his homosexuality, but Imam said: “you have probably dreamed or imagined”. When Imam Ali was asked about the reason of these actions, he replied: “sin is a matter between God and his slave, He knows how treat His slave and I can’t judge and issue a sentence”!
So, we can see that just leaders always avoided punishing and getting confession some one. Now please compare those who commit every kind of crime and oppression with the utmost cruelty to get confession and make file under the name of Islam with the acts of Ali!
There is a basis in jurisprudence called secondary laws means change first laws based on situation also juristic laws in Shiism is changeable proportionate to the situation in order to bring ease for people not torment and difficulty and to be in their interests. In addition, there was a tradition in Islam that indirectly negated violation. For example slave selling had been a usual and common trade in Jazirat-Al-Arab as no body could forbid in fact the situation was so hard that it was impossible to forbid and change it formally and directly, so it was indirectly rejected and some laws were enacted that said “release a slave in lieu of such and such a crime” or slave releasing was ordered in the shape of moral advices for getting heavenly rewards and making atonements and etc. all these laws and basis along with others like dissimulation and a principle like “in Islam harming is forbidden whether yourself or another one” solve many of problems.
I have had many documented and special researches about the various religious and juristic matters during past years before my latest detention and the result is various books and assays which unfortunately are not permitted to publish because the existing restriction of opinion and press in Iran and most of those works were confiscated during governmental attacks by governmental agents and now are in Special Court for clergy. I found according to the mentioned researches that the aim of all religions is reverence, peace, elevation and perfection of humans and in a sentence, human must be pacifist and benevolent.
In addition according to different bases, religious commands are flexible. Of course governmental Ulema themselves accept such these bases, but they use them in an inhuman manner. For example: suicidal actions or torture are not allowed in Islam, but the religious authorities who believe in political religion issue such these anti-human licenses by abusing juristic laws! While some laws like secondary laws and etc that I explained a part of them, must be used for removing restrictions and violations and spreading peace and calm.
6. Please exactly explain that if you propagate a new religion or the preacher of another Islam?
The religion I speak about, is the comprehensive Islam, I mean I don’t have any prejudice on Islam, but I support and agree with all religions that lead human to God and it is one of my privileges. I don’t have any prejudice on my fathers’ religion against other religions because I heartily believe in the sentences of the holy Quran that say: “لانفرق بين احد من رسله there in no difference between prophets” and also “نزل عليك الكتاب مصدقا لما بين يديه this book, Quran that has been brought down on you, confirms all the last holy books”.
My thought and opinion is based on Quran and the tradition of God’s messengers and agrees with the unanimity of the intelligentsia and the benevolent scientists of international society and also is opposed to the monopolistic and illogical views of the religious governors of Iran. I believe they call people their obedient and under their domination as they don’t accept and believe in independent theism. Of course they have never accepted my requests for an open and formal debate.
Unfortunately today Shiism has been become a plaything of the fanatic leaders and politicians as the governmental clergies change religious laws as they themselves want not in people’s interests and my public and practical protests against them have been faced with their rough and inhuman reaction.
The words I said are only a small part of my documents and researches which I hope be released of the confiscating of the Special Court for Clergy as soon as possible and be available for all.
7. Do you call yourself clergy yet or not? Have your beliefs and stances been in this manner and this form before the events of last years too?
Worldly clergies have discredited this position in Iran and all over the world by abusing it during last years as I have advised my children to avoid joining and choosing this position. I have heretofore said too that I saw cleric position merely as a responsibility for the purpose of propagation of religion as I can present my progressive views proportionate to present matters as a religious specialist and can stand up against the heresies of the worldly clergies, but now I would rather continue my goal and propagate religion in another way so I leave the clergy position willingly. But about the second part of your question; I have a lot of words and facts to say, but I think it is enough to say that my situation was not proper to take the effective actions about the special and important matters explicitly, but I have always supported the basic resolution “separation of religion from government” and had efforts to prepare opinions to accept it. My detentions in 1995 and 2000, strict news boycott, tormenting my family and me also the murder of my father have all been the results of the government’s enmity and opposition to my thoughts and stances before recent years.
No comments:
Post a Comment