EurasiaNet: Could you explain your concept of Islamic human rights? Kadivar: First of all, human rights supersede religion. In other words, regardless of their religion or beliefs, people should have basic human rights no one should be forced to migrate, be killed or tortured. We don't have a thing called "Islamic Human Rights." We could say there are a few points in Iranian Islamic doctrine that oppose the [United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights]. For example, the declaration states that civilian rights among people of different religions are equal. This means that any person can hold any position regardless of their religion. But, for example, in our law key elected official must be Muslim. There is a difference between jurisconsults and other people in Iran. They have special rights. [Note: members of the ruling Guardian Council, who have authority to interpret Islamic law, are called jurisconsults in a rough translation of Farsi.]
EurasiaNet: Are you saying that jurisconsults have judicial immunity in Iran? Kadivar: Nowhere in the world do you find a requirement that states, for example, that the president of the country must be an economist or the best political scientist. But our constitution says that the leader of Iran must be a jurisconsult. This specification is not compatible with the Declaration of Human Rights.
The other aspect is freedom of speech. We have a punishment for a person who converts from Islam to another religion. And we have limited freedom of speech. This view differs from modern Muslims' opinions. Another difference in opinion appears in laws allowing punishment such as lashing, stoning to death, severing body parts and torturing. There is no reference in the Koran [to incorporating such things into civil law]. We should understand the difference between sin and crime. Crime is to oppose the law and sin is to oppose God's order.
EurasiaNet: But it looks like Iran's constitution is based on Islam. When do you think people in Iran will have the opportunity and freedom to express what they want? Kadivar: In the United States, I was asked which Islamic country I thought most democratic. I answered, Iran. Despite being jailed during this regime, I still believe that Iran is the most democratic country in the Islamic world and in the Middle East. Of course, it is not a source of pride for Iran. The problem is the general lack of democracy in Islamic countries and the Middle East. Debate has recently begun in Iran. What I have said about human rights, I couldn't have said 15 or 20 years ago. I believe the points that I am making now will become apparent in the future. People will question [a religious civil leader] regarding his views on non-Muslim minorities.
EurasiaNet: Do you think a secular government in Iran could guarantee the rights of minorities? Kadivar: This is a serious question. Religion in society is a blessing but also a curse. Without religion, society faces a lot of ethical issues. With religion that is strictly defined and has a specific interpretation, it sounds cliché, but it's difficult to live with. Having a religious government was an auspicious experience if we take lessons. I am not necessarily saying it was good. Rather, it means Iranians have a unique experience in the Islamic world. We had several elections but people could change 20 percent of the issues they wanted to change. The other 80 percent was predetermined. Twenty-four years ago [when revolutionaries overthrew the Shah], people made a vote that changed the rest of their lives and their children's forced to stay with their parents vote. Is it fair?
In a democratic system, an elected official must answer to the people, and peacefully and legally step down from power when the people have decided to change leaders. The laws of society should be written and executed in a democratic manner.
EurasiaNet: Are you talking about a new government? Kadivar: I believe the Islamic Republic that was established during the revolution sought nothing different than what we want today. Independence, freedom, justice and Islam are our wishes of yesterday and today. The wishes haven't changed. The fact is that leaders should be honest and give people what they want. If one day the people decide they no longer want their leaders, it is their right and no individual can impose his or her will on society.
EurasiaNet: Do you think it is time for a referendum? Kadivar: In the Iranian constitution, a referendum was anticipated, but in Articles 58 and 68 there is room for a legal dictatorship. Referendums can only be held with the approval of the Supreme Leader. At most, the parliament could make a formal request if the government did not already order parliament to stop.
EurasiaNet: It appears as though all the options are blocked by the constitution. Is this the end? Kadivar: I believe that the debate between parliament, president and intellectuals is useful. The debate is whether to recognize an Islamic Republic with a Supreme Leader. Can it change? If the two bills [Khatami proposed to curtail the Guardian Council's power] aren't passed, then this will tell us: "the regime lost the opportunity to correct itself through the law." [For background, see the Eurasia Insight archives.] And they are recommending that you use means other than law to correct any situation. And a number of people could take advantage of this opportunity
Editor's note:
Camelia Entekhabi-Fard is a freelance journalist specializing in Iranian and Afghan affairs.
