Regime’s Justification NOT Supported by Islam

Persian2English - Habibollah Latifipour is a Kurdish student activist who was arrested by the Iranian regime, jailed, and issued a death sentence on the false and unfounded charge of Moharebeh [enmity against God].

Habibollah Latifi was not given any legal opportunity to present his defense in the Islamic Revolutionary Court and his trial only lasted a few minutes. The death sentence verdict issued is based on the ruling of presiding Judge Hassan Babaei who cited verse 33 of a chapter titled Maedeh in the Qur’an, articles 1,3, and 5 of chapter 6 of a Tahrir oll-masael, a book written by Ayatollah Khomeini, and sections 183, 186, 190, and 191 of the Islamic Penal code.

We contacted Muslim organizations to get their perspective on the charge against Habibollah, considering that the Islamic Republic of Iran claims it is religious based. The organization Muslims for Progressive Values responded to our inquiry with the following statement:

“The context of this verse itself will clear any negative perceptions against Islam. One cannot quote verse 5:33 without quoting verse 5:32 (prohibition of murder) and verse 5:34 (command to forgive).”

But, in summary, the punishment of crucifixion was never carried out in the case of robbery (the incident to which this Qur’an verse is related to and for which attribution of the revelation is made), and, even so, some scholars say that the command to carry out this type of punishment was abrogated by a later command to not mutilate people. If we are to stick to the text strictly without considering any of the arguments brought about by the scholars there is at least the option to choose one of the punishments mentioned, including exiling the guilty from the land, and there is also the option of mercy. It has been explained by various commentators that the punishment was given because the nomadic, tribal people of the Arabian peninsula were very harsh and would not respond or constrain themselves unless there was such a harsh punishment.

The incident that precipitated the revelation of this verse – 5:33 – was the theft of camels that belonged to Mohamed and/or his companions and the killing of the shepherds tending those camels. Many have called this act “treason” although it is very easily recognizable that the crime in question is murder and robbery.

The problem with using this verse in connection to the case of Habibollah Latifi is that this individual is an activist protesting,

presumably, policies or actions of the state against the populace. This is being labeled “treason” which is itself a very weak

attribution while treason itself being deduced from murder and robbery is a very weak attribution as well. The Islamic Republic of Iran, by charging a dissenter of treason, presumes itself equal to the authority of Mohamed (the Prophet) and even equal to God. Further, this is a very common tactic for Iran to accuse dissenters of treason as the thinking that allows them to do this is so convoluted that it makes it very difficult by logical means to defend the victim against those charges.

The best bet for this man, and others in his position, is for world pressure on Iran to use the option of exile (and mercy) and expel the accused from Iran. Of course, this means that there must be a willing host country (or countries) to receive these refugees.

And, on a final note, we must understand that while there are statements in the Qur’an that permit or direct the reader to mete out.

some very harsh punishments or actions against other human beings, it is fully within the option of the reader to choose not to do these things. One very good example is the public condemnation and outlawing of slavery (which came about by the pressure of negative world opinion), and also there are numerous countries that have majority Muslim populations who have formally outlawed polygamy.

It is our position that while the Qur’an states maiming and/or killing for the crime of murder and robbery, that it is an option and even best to ignore those punishments and to enact a punishment that is more effective and more humane.