UPDATED Death, Confusion, and Clerics in Iran: The Case of Mohammad Amin Valian

UPDATE 6 MARCH: Iranian Students News Agency has confirmed the "mohareb" death sentence handed down to Mohammad Amin Valian. Valian's attorney says the case has not yet gone to appeal.

The International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran claims, from a source, that "[Valian's] family is under immense pressure to withhold interviews with the media and human rights organizations....Ministry of Information authorities have promised his family that if they don’t get the media involved, they would somehow secure a clemency for him from the Supreme Leader."

We still do not have confirmation of the "mohareb" (war against God) death sentence allegedly handed to Mohammad Amin Valian. What we do have, however, are some high-profile politics and religious moves which may point to deeper issues for the Islamic Republic. Mr Verde analyses:

Ayatollah Sane'i, in response to the question: “What are the criteria for identifying mohareb and what are the punishments for it?” has issued a fatwa (decree) on his site.

The Latest from Iran (4 March): A Death Penalty Mystery

The fatwa describes what is mohareb (which, from my reading, clearly does not include the actions of protesters, even on Ashura --- 27 December). More significantly, it says that in certain conditions when people are protesting for their rights, their defence of those rights is not only permitted, but is obligatory. [Sane'i uses the word “vajeb”, which is a strong word when it is used in fatwas --- for example, "vajeb" is used in relations to namaz (daily prayers), roozeh (fasting in Ramadan), and Hajj (the once in the lifetime pilgrimage to Mecca).]


In addition to Sane'i's fatwas, there are rumors that Ayatollah Mostafa Mohaghegh-Damad is lobbying the Qom Grand Ayatollahs to give fatwas to stop the execution of Valian. As EA has reported, Grand Ayatollah Makarem-Shirazi has denied that he ever issued a fatwa calling for the execution of protesters, even those who demonstrated on Ashura.

(A side note: both the Sane'i fatwa and Makarem-Shirazi denial were issued on the eve of the Prophet’s birthday. That may also be an indication of how important they think the issue is.)

We know that the Sane'i fatwa and Marakem-Shirazi's denial of fatwa are authentic: they are published on their own websites.  We are not sure of the authenticity of the Mohaghegh-Damad move. However, I am thinking that it might be true. The reason: his name has always been mentioned in an alleged protest to Sadegh Larijani, the head of Iran's judiciary, about the two executions in January.

Usually the clergy do not talk much about their behind-the-scene moves (they don’t like to publicize what they do). But if an untruth is told about what they are saying or doing, they usually issue a very strong denial. as Makarem-Shirazi has now done. Makarem has left no doubt that he not only does not want people executed, but he also wants them released).

If all of the above is true, we may be witnessing a new front (or better put, a new crack) appearing within the regime:

Sane'i supports the reformist camp. His fatwas are usually a slap down for Ayatollah Khamenei, who has --- far from incidentally --- lesser religious credentials.

Neither Mohaghegh-Damad or Makarem-Shirazi are reformists, however. They are conservative clerics who have good religious credentials. So we might be witnessing the conservative clerics trying to distance themselves from the actions of the regime and also from the Supreme Leader.

If this process continues, either the regime (and more significantly, Khamenei) will have to give in, or the regime will have to rely even more on the military and less on its religious legitimacy. (Its public legimimtacy no longer exists.)
These moves would be the first time that the reformists and conservative clerics have allied publicly.  It may also give more meaning and significance to Hashemi Rafsanjani’s speech on Wednesday.

This cannot be good for Khamenei.

Comments

[Jack]

Scott, your opinion if you please.

Has Sane’i, with his fatwa, placed the SL in a position where he must execute Mohammad Amin Valian? My premise is that he could probably find an excuse to back down in the face of moves by Mohaghegh-Damad and Makarem-Shirazi, but that he loses too much credibility within the ranks of the non-clerical hardliners if he now caves in to something demanded by Ayatollah Sane'i.

[Bahman]

My guess is that in light of this fatwa and denial of fatwa, the judiciary will do a U-Turn and either announce that to show their "forgiveness" they are reducing the sentence or that they discovered an error in the judge's verdict.

[Scott Lucas]

Jack,

At this point no one in regime is committed because there has been no announcement --- as far as I know --- of a death sentence being handed down. And even if it was public, SL would not be committed until he had taken public stance: officially, it can be said this is matter for Iran's judiciary.

S.

[Arshama]

Mr Verde,

Thank you so much for your Ayatollah watch.
Sounds funny, but isn't at all. Every Iranian, who loves his country, must have been terrorized by the series of insults, delivered by an inframinor putschist and his footmen against foreign politicians or chiefs of respected international organisations during the last two weeks.

Obviously these deliberate and extremely dangerous provocations finally did alarm the Iranian clergy, and I suppose it was Rafsanjani, who urged them to intervene before this house would be set on fire. Imho he is the only remaining influential politician and cleric, capable of mobilising the silent clerical majority, but this is mostly a guess.

Arshama

[Jack]

Bahman and Scott,

I see the point. And there are plenty of examples since the election, of reversals and fine tuning of policy while cross pointing fingers. It also helps, I suppose, that there exists so much chaos, that the issue of one prisoner's fate - for better or worse - can always be buried under the mountain of new news which stacks up every day.

My initial question exposes, I suppose, the dangers of applying western political analysis to the complexity of Iran. Every time I think I have an insight, the degree of nuance in Iranian politics confounds me further.

[pessimist]

Always the ayatollahs, but what about the Army ? Do they exist ?

What surprises me more and more is the silence, (either real or just on this blog ?) of opinions coming from the real Iranian army forces. Don't they have blogs ? don't they express themselves about what is going on ? I think they do, but it's not translated, at least I haven't seen anything except those previous letters on Homylafayette's blog. So what are their positions, what are they saying, they are individuals too ?

Because the scenario in a mind of someone like me, would be that the glorious patriotic army is going to intervene and stop this madness that they, can't accept. There will be a coup, an interim gvt while things calm down before new elections but that's the story, what is the reality ? .....Anyone ?

[Bahman]

pessimist, I don't have any recent info on how the Iranian army has evolved. What I can tell you is that for the first couple years after the 1979 revolution, time after time all of their top professional commanders were executed.

The Revolutionary Gurads were supposed to be a temporary structure to help with the internal policing against concerns over a coup by shah's army and later played an active role in the Iran-Iraq war.

But obviously instead of going away, the IRG has grown rapidly and now operates its own navy, airforce, and ground forces.

So if I had to guess, I would guess that the regular army has been dissimated and plays the little brother role to the IRG. Although I would think that their drafted soldiers would be reasonably sympathetic to the Greens, I'm sure that the regime has used the past 31 years to ensure that all its current commanders pass its ideological criteria.

So absent any facts, my guess is that the soldiers would be happy to join the greens IF they sense that the balance has clearly shifted to them but without any conducive command structure, I'd be surprised to see the army taking the lead on anything.

I believe that there are no silver bullets and as Mousavi's latest announcements have clearly indicated, it is up to the greens to do the hard work.

They need to gradually shift the loylaty of the remaining sincere regime supporters. And they also need to get the large numbers of bystanders to decide that it is to their advantage to actively oppose the regime.

No easy Hollywood rah rah plan.... but if things go well, I believe that the outcome will be one of the most politically-aware, freedom-loving, progressive nations not just in the region but in the world....the potential is there.

[Bill]

The stark reality is the regime has a precedence for doing this kind of thing. The most glaring example is the murder of 10 to 12,000 leftists in the early 80's. These same leftists were the ones who helped bring the revolution about naively thinking they would be ushering in a democarcy. Little did they know it was going to be a theocracy that meant their deaths! The difference now is the regime does not have absolute control and it will actually be putting to death the sons and daughters of the revolution. Now the regime is caught in a no win situation of their own creating--just another example of the stupidity endemic with totalitarian regimes. Sadly the little guys, the protestors, are the pawns up for sacrafice. Lets all pray this brave soul and all the others find their freedom soon.

[pessimist]

correction, not homylafayette's blog but here (and others, see archives). (nothing certain, of course)

http://mikverbrugge.tumblr.com/post/280185744/from-the-grapevine-soldiers-talk

[Nick]

It may be worth providing a full translation of the fatwa. Not only does it not include the actions of the protestors, but it is interesting for its explicit linking of the crime of mohareb with terrorism. Here's an amateur attempt:

From the books and sunnat and grand ayatollahs' fatwa, one can conclude that a mohareb is a person that, to create chaos, terror, and unsafety in society and strip people of their freedoms, use weapons and creates terror among people.

Therefore, among any groups that

[1] rise against the legitimate and lawful government that protects the regime and is committed to both the public's safety and justice,
[2] with intent to cause terror and chaos,
[3] rise violently with weapons [connoting bombs and guns, not knives and stones],

those from the group that had weapons on their hands are mohareb. However, those of them that did not use a weapon, although guilty, are not mohareb.

However, it should not be overlooked that a group of people that are oppose to the doing and the attitude of their government and voice their opposition, not only are not mohareb, but also their work is defending their rights and rising against oppression. This act is not only permissible but to some extent its mandatory [vajeb]. Therefore, calling those people mohareb and sentencing them to death is abusing Islam.

[Sentence:]
In their sentencing there are a lot of disagreements between grand ayatollahs. And for sure, the trial and the judge should only use capital punishment in rare cases of terrorist operations and be proportionate so it does not cause dislike to Islam. And if it does not used with caution, capital punishment is one of those punishments that if it becomes known that it was a mistake, then it cannot be undone.

[Bestandsaufnahme zum Fall Moha]

[...] http://enduringamerica.com/2010/03/06/death-confusion-and-clerics-in-iran-the-case-of-mohammad-amin-... [...]