Eubios Journal of Asian and International Bioethics - Eubios Ethics ...

20 Eubios Journal of Asian and International Bioethics 22 (January 2012)
An action done in good faith which represents the
legitimate right of an individual according to law, is not
permitted if there is a possibility of a damage to the
Islamic state or its image. In fact, the Supreme Leader
has referred to the “priority” of preserving and protecting
the “Islamic State” as justification of so many
controversial decisions that were made during the
demonstrations in 2009 following the June presidential
election. In many such cases, the possible
“consequence” of an action, weakening the state, is
emphasized as taking precedence over the
“deontological” aspect of that action itself. However, this
is far from “utilitarian” views that are commonly implied by
theological theories. Islam holds each individual
ultimately responsible for all his actions to God, and not
to the people. The Quran says, "...We ordained for the
Children of Israel that if any one slew a person - unless it
be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it
would be as if he slew the whole people. And if anyone
saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the
whole people...." (Quran 5:32)
Another important distinction in the Islamic Republic of
Iran is in the integration of religion and politics. Choosing
a secular stand, a belief in separation of religion from
politics, is a big taboo in the Islamic Republic of Iran, and
may even lead to persecution by law. The Islamic
Republic of Iran seems to be unique in implementing
such a strong integration of religion and politics. Iranian
peoples come from a wide variation of ethnic, cultural,
linguistic, as well as religious beliefs. Many minorities
have complained of sociopolitical injustice for their
specific religious affiliation. The anti-secular stance of the
government in the Islamic Republic of Iran has added to
the general challenge of respecting the “universally
equal” dignity and value for all humans irrespective of
their religion. This may be a challenge to most Islamic
philosophers to portray the equality of humans in the
original teachings of Islam. Quran basically regards
monotheist religions highly and refers to their texts with a
lot of respect. These include Christianity, Judaism and
probably Zoroastrianism. Quran defines Islam as
“surrendering oneself to God” and in this way does not
differentiate between the religion that Muhammad
brought and those monotheist religions before him. The
following verse refers to this fact, and also states that
other (polytheist) religions would never be accepted by
the God:
Quran 3:85: “If anyone desires a religion other than
Islam, never will it be accepted of him and in the
Hereafter he will be in the ranks of those who are losers."
Unfortunately, some readers have interpreted this
verse to mean that non-Muslims will not be accepted by
the God. In this case, obligations that a Muslim has
towards another Muslim, such as not to lie to them, may
not hold as strongly to non-Muslims especially those
without a recognized religion. The relevant point for the
Islamic Republic of Iran is the ethical value of Muslims
versus non-Muslims. Essentially, only certain religions
are recognized by law in the Islamic Republic of Iran,
which include Christianity, Judaism and the Zoroastrian
religion. Followers of other religions may be considered
as Kafer (unbeliever, disbeliever, an atheist) or Moshrek
(polytheist) and as such may be deprived of equal human
rights in the society. In the Islamic Republic of Iran,
everyone has to be formally registered as belonging to
one of the recognized religions, Shi’a Islam, Sunni Islam,
Judaism, Christianity, and Zoroastrian. The Bahai
minority in Iran with an estimated population of 300,000
is not a recognized religion and therefore if discovered,
they may face severe discrimination and persecution by
law. The legally recognized minorities are allowed to live
and practice their own religion almost freely; however,
they may still not receive a fully equal respect, value and
religious freedom as Shi’a Muslims. Such a view has
been reflected in some shari’a laws, including those of
qisas (retaliation law), and are generally a point of
concern for equal human rights for all Iranians.
It may be difficult to make a broad statement on the
standpoint of Islam on human rights in general. It is
helpful to note that a person’s “rights” may be translated
into “duties” or “obligations” on others to treat that person
in a certain way. Thus Muslims may not be obliged by the
same duties towards non-Muslims, as they are towards
fellow Muslims. An action that is haram towards a Muslim
may be makruh or mobah towards a non-Muslim, and an
action that is wajeb towards a Muslim may be only
mostahab or mobah towards a non-Muslim. Accordingly,
the view of human rights in the perspective of the
obligations of a Muslim individual (or an Islamic state)
towards other individuals could be totally different. The
United Nation’s Human Rights reports on Iran especially
commonly give a grim view that is confirmed by hundreds
of reports in the news and other media.
The fact is that the socio-cultural experience of more
than 3 decades of life under the Islamic Republic of Iran
for the majority of Iranians has not been a positive one.
Mental health problems have been estimated to exist in
more than a third of Iranians; drug addiction rates have
been steadily worsening, and especially violence and
aggressive behavior have become more and more
commonplace. Carl Rogers has done a seminal work on
the significance of developing “congruence” between the
true feelings and wishes of people, and the image they
project to others. According to Rogers, people treated
with “conditional” regard may suppress or deny their true
feelings and as a result “incongruence” develops which
causes a sense of not being true to oneself which then
causes low self-regard, unhappiness, neuroticism, and
negative feelings. The socio-political atmosphere in the
Islamic Republic of Iran follows such a pattern whereby in
order for the people to get by in ordinary life, they need to
project an “acceptable” image to the government.
A final point is the issue of “virtue ethics” which is
explicitly or implicitly mentioned in the justification of
many controversial decisions made by the Supreme
Leader. There are a lot of validated references to the
simple way of life of both Grand Ayatollah Khomeini and
Ayatollah Khamenei, far from the common conceptions
people may have from politicians corrupted by power and
wealth. According to this view, the Supreme Leaders
were religious freedom fighters who sacrificed their
personal lives in the carrying out of God’s wishes for the
people and have never asked for more than the God’s
satisfaction in following their Islamic obligations.
However, the facts of the matter, confirmed in the many
reports by the United Nation’s Human Rights observers,