When I wanted to write about the dual or multiple approaches of the Islamic Republic of Iran towards gatherings of supporters, opponents, or protesters, my initial decision was not to refer to the laws of the Islamic Republic. This is because the Islamic Republic of Iran is not even bound by its own enacted laws and will break the law whenever necessary. However, after delving deeper into Article 27 of the Constitution and the discussions and debates that took place during its enactment, I came to the conclusion that it is better to focus more on this clause: “Holding gatherings and processions, as long as they are unarmed and do not violate the principles of Islam, is allowed.” It seems that the lawmakers were not fully aware of the implications of this clause when they included it, but they still intentionally or unintentionally passed it into law. Although in Article 24 of the Constitution, which is about freedom of expression, we are faced with the condition that all media and publications are free to express their views

Until now, we have learned that freedom of assembly and demonstration is guaranteed in the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran, but this guarantee is accompanied by conditions and limitations. Of course, the writer acknowledges that laws and the clarity of the law are subject to conditions and limitations, and the philosophy of government is hidden behind this, which is that people unite to combat lawlessness and anarchy, and by sacrificing some of their individual freedoms to the government, they establish a government of law that protects them from anarchy and insecurity caused by lawlessness. In an anarchic government, there are no specific laws, and whoever has the strongest arms, the thickest neck, and the most powerful weapon, becomes the law and imposes their own interpretation of the law on others through violent force. But in simple terms, a government based on law, although it may use violence at times, does not allow for the confiscation of desired things or the imposition of personal interpretations of the law, as the power of

The first question that should be raised is what are the foundations of Islam? Twenty years after the adoption of this law, the then Minister of the country – as the issuing authority for holding gatherings – in July 1998, requested clarification from the Guardian Council on the meaning and definition of the foundations of Islam so that they can make a decision on the requests for gatherings by referring to this definition and clear meaning of Islamic foundations, whether the requested gathering is against the foundations of Islam or in accordance with them. It should be noted that the managers and employees of the Ministry of the country are not religious scholars or sources of emulation and are not capable of forming a religious council for each request for demonstrations and gatherings, in which the council can specialize in discussing whether a certain request is against the foundations of Islam or not. In other words, until these Islamic foundations are defined and their meaning is clarified in the law, they are not enforceable; let alone being referred to.

However, the interesting point here is that the Guardian Council, twenty years after the approval of the mentioned clause, has not considered itself obligated to respond to the request of the Ministry of Interior and has not clarified the meaning and concept of the foundations of Islam and has refrained from giving an answer. (1)

From that time, almost twenty years have passed; after almost forty years since the establishment of the Islamic Republic, there is still no clear understanding of the foundations of Islam, for the government and rulers to use as justification for granting or opposing permission for gatherings. Furthermore, the requester or participant in a gathering or march does not have a clear definition of what constitutes a violation of the foundations of Islam, so that their obligation is determined by themselves whether the gathering they are participating in is illegal or legal. Here we are faced with a confusing and ambiguous issue in the first principles of linguistics and the definition of concepts. A law has been passed, but the law is meaningless and the sentence is empty. At the time of the passage of this law, Ayatollah Makarem Shirazi mentions an example of gatherings of Baha’is or other non-Muslim religious minorities against Muslims, which is a violation of the foundations of Islam. Of course, it is clear to the reader that all non-Muslim religious

But here, there is a legal issue that there is no consensus on, and it has affected the fate of millions of people. In a matter called the foundations of Islam, which jurists and scholars do not have a clear definition of, how can a manager or minister or employee provide a clear definition of it in order to implement the law correctly? Basically, we are a people of a land where a woman’s hair and sometimes the color of her T-shirt and coat are considered against the foundations of Islam; now how can a citizen determine these foundations in order to make decisions and determine whether their actions are against them or not? Basically, the philosophy of law and governance is the clarity of action, restrictions, and rights. This means that a citizen knows that according to the law, they have these restrictions and limitations of “A” and “B”, and according to the same law, they have the right and rights, for example, “D”. On the other hand, the government and

But what is the purpose of this ambiguity – which, in fact, the rulers are aware of – why do the rulers of the Islamic Republic of Iran not promote transparency? The combination of ambiguity and meaninglessness, or in the best case with different meanings, “contrary to the principles of Islam” has been mentioned abundantly in most articles about freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and freedom of parties. As mentioned, there has never been a consensus on its meaning and concept, not only during the life of the Islamic Republic of Iran, but also throughout the history of Islam, and scholars and religious leaders have always had different opinions on it. Here, due to the common theme of “contrary to the principles of Islam” which is mentioned in all laws related to freedom, an attempt is made to delve deeper into the application of this ambiguous and confusing combination.

According to statistics and evidence, the majority of people in our country are Muslim and believe in the religion of Islam, and they live their lives according to this belief, which is important to them to some extent. On the other hand, the government, by being aware of this belief among the masses, adds the clause “contrary to the principles of Islam” to laws related to freedom of speech, and since the opposition has no choice but to criticize and gather, and the government’s hands are empty of an answer, they punish their opponents by stating that their statements are against the principles of Islam, and they restrict their freedom of speech and assembly, and also suppress critics by portraying themselves as legitimate in the eyes of the people and their supporters because they are against the principles of Islam. This issue has various dimensions, and one of its components is the manipulation of the emotions of the oppressive forces, security forces, and supporters of the religious government to create dependence and loyalty to the government. In other

In the second stage, the restriction of “no weapons allowed” has been mentioned in the freedom of assembly. Although some mention the reason for adding this restriction as the existence of armed parties in the early days of the Islamic Republic, who claimed to be fighting for their cause. However, this reason is not very logical; those who are seeking to gather and protest do not believe in armed struggle, and these two are not compatible. In general, armed struggle takes place when civil protest conditions do not exist and the government cannot be replaced by votes and civil protest. Moreover, armed struggle is a hidden matter and those who engage in it do not come to the streets with weapons and ammunition to protest, and this is not a form of protest, and most likely it is a civil war and including the restriction of “no weapons allowed” in the law related to the right to assembly is a sign of a type of government’s pre-judgment. That is, by provoking the sense of security

But does this place fall into duality in dealing with its critics and supporters or not? I am not particularly in favor of duality and multiplicity. Of course, at first glance, it is true that supporters gather, threaten, and sometimes even take up arms, and there is no guarantee that they are adhering to the principles of Islam or not. However, the government ultimately cooperates with these types of gatherings and most of the time, those who receive promotions and salaries are government employees who participate in such demonstrations. Even for participating in such gatherings, most of the time, leave with pay and expenses such as transportation and refreshments are provided by the government. (Of course, the writer does not advocate violence against gatherings and marches of government supporters, similar to what the government or their supporters do against their critics, and this is only mentioned for the sake of comparison). On the other hand, as mentioned, the blatant violence and brutality of the government towards critics who are arrested and

The reality is that the issue goes beyond these words. The problem lies in the fact that in this government, the citizen is free to support the government, and the rulers are free to silence critics. There is no law here that allows for a dual standard. In a country where, after forty years, a simple definition of restriction and limitation, such as “violating the principles of Islam,” is not available, one cannot speak of a national government or a ruling body that treats its citizens with a dual approach. We are in a state of “firstness.” Some who have thick necks make deals with many others, and the written exercise called the law is a vague and ambiguous task that neither we nor the enforcers understand. The rulers, in order to solidify their power, accuse anyone who threatens their rule of violating these vague laws and silence the voices of dissent. But what exists is the blatant violence of the ruling power against critics, and the laws of the Islamic Republic of

Note:

• Ashkboos, Hamza, a series of sessions for reviewing the detailed discussions of the Parliament – Final review of the 1358 Constitution (review of the twenty-seventh article), Guardian Council Research Center, pp. 23-24.

“I am learning English”

من در حال یادگیری زبان انگلیسی هستم.

I am learning English.