Abstaining from the use of violence can be defined as the most basic definition of non-violence. However, it must be acknowledged that violence exists in various forms. Different scientific approaches to non-violence acknowledge that there are different types of violence. The most prominent type of violence, which is seen openly in many societies, especially in Iran, is physical violence, which usually manifests as physical harm to a person or people. However, we should not ignore psychological violence, which has recently become an independent phenomenon or another effect of physical or psychological harm in Iran, and in some cases, can have longer-lasting effects than physical violence. This form of violence targets the minds and souls of victims. Another important issue regarding violence that has been less addressed is the relationship between violence and influence. Negative effects created in the form of various punishments can also be considered a form of violence, as the person or group performing the act considers it a just punishment. On the other hand, there are situations where positive effects

Given that structural violence is usually indirect and culturally accepted, identifying and addressing it can be difficult. Concrete examples of this violence include discrimination against the Baha’i community in Iran or minorities. While the concept of non-violence is often discussed among human rights groups or social activists, there is rarely a clear definition of it. Discussions about non-violence in Iran present it in both negative and positive frameworks. Negative non-violence refers to the absence of direct violence, which although desirable, does not contribute to achieving social justice or fair distribution of power and resources in Iran. On the other hand, positive non-violence refers to the absence of structural and cultural violence, which can be seen in the presence of social justice and equality. Considering both definitions, non-violence is a dual concept: the absence of direct violence and the presence of social justice.

The widespread disregard for violence in Iran by the ruling power has led to two reactions to threats and violence: passive reactions and violent opposition. However, some social activists propose non-violent resistance as a third solution to combat violence. According to this group, while passive reactions may not be considered violent in Iran, they avoid addressing the threat; therefore, passivity can be seen as surrendering to the grip of the majority of Iranian society. On the other hand, confronting violence through reciprocal violence can manifest as revenge, armed rebellion, or violent uprising, which in many cases leads to even more extreme acts of violence. Although this is an optimistic view, considering the entrenched violence of the ruling class, it seems impractical to implement in Iran. The path of non-violent resistance, however, is a third way to achieve a society free of violence. Contrary to the notion of “passive non-violence,” it is not passive; rather, it is an active response that directly addresses the threat

Non-violence can be accompanied by motivation, ethical or religious commitment in Iran. Its goal is to change relationships and opponents through direct actions without violence so that individuals are not subjected to oppression and exploitation. Ensuring the continuity between means and non-violent goals is a key aspect of non-violence. This requires the use of non-violent tools to achieve non-violent goals; for example, this includes the willingness to tolerate and not tolerate suffering and seeking to change enemies. Non-violence takes its power from its stability and is not seen as a way of life. There are no examples of non-violent campaigns in Iran, but outside of Iran, the civil rights movement in the United States and the people’s movement in Northern Ireland can be mentioned. Non-violence, also known as practical non-violence, has a utilitarian nature. Its goal is to achieve specific goals and defeat enemies through direct actions without violence. Tactical non-violence considers physical violence to be ineffective or impractical.

Civil resistance includes protest and persuasion without violence, non-cooperation with oppressive social, economic, and political systems, as well as the creation of parallel social institutions. Civil resistance can lead to the establishment of peace, bring opposing sides to a compromise, or result in the overthrow of a regime or unjust laws and policies. Civil defense involves creating and maintaining democratic structures against invasion, coups, and other threats. Civil defense primarily encompasses the creation of peace, development of tools for changing unjust structures, systems, and policies, as well as resolving tensions, conflicts, and violence without resorting to violence. Training and establishing trained and unarmed non-military teams before, during, or after violent conflicts is another solution. The goal of this is to prevent or reduce violence, provide direct physical support to non-military people under threat, and strengthen or establish local peace infrastructure. Given the current situation in Iran, the proposed actions may seem optimistic, but they can be seen as a roadmap for promoting non-violence