Simin Rouzgar

“Systems and individuals often use arguments such as the need to protect the security or interests of the people and society, to justify “exceptions” and resort to violence and torture, and at different times, they use various names such as “fighting terrorism” to justify their actions. With this definition, can torture be considered an effective exception? On the other hand, in a society where peace is not established in the relationships between its members, and between people and nature, how is it possible for its government not to be inclined towards torture?”

These are some of the questions that we have discussed with Dr. Mohammad Reza Nikfar, a theorist and philosopher in the field of political philosophy and a critic of the religious intellectual movement. Dr. Nikfar has extensively addressed the issue of violence and torture in his books and articles, including “Violence, Human Rights, and Civil Society” and the article “Theology of Torture”.

Dear Mr. Nikfar, acts of violence are almost always accompanied by exceptional circumstances; with this approach, can torture be considered an effective exception?

It is not correct to say that acts of violence have always been accompanied by exceptional circumstances. Resorting to exceptional circumstances has always been a justification for acts of violence. However, if you mean that violence has been the exception rather than the rule in history, I must say that unfortunately this has not been the case. Human history is not just violence, but its fabric is soaked in blood.

There are two approaches among supporters and opponents of torture that are very common; one approach follows ethical principles and believes in not using force and torture in any circumstances, while another group of pragmatists justify the torture of individuals in specific situations by using the well-known theory of the ticking time bomb. How do you evaluate these two approaches?

The excuse of a “time bomb” or something similar is a common excuse for justifying torture. When we talk to a bomber, we find that he also justifies his terrorism by resorting to exceptional circumstances, meaning that we do not want to, but there is no other solution for us. Well, our world should be such that the excuse of “…there is no other solution for us” becomes meaningless. The transition from a “helpless” world to a world that offers various solutions is a comprehensive transformation. The transition from “helplessness” requires establishing justice. But the transformation can start from now: there is always a solution; there is a solution right now.

“There is still a solution, it must first be placed against the excuse of resorting to violence out of helplessness. This is not just a moral approach to advising; it is an invitation to political action, an invitation to expel all regimes, institutions and authorities that resort to violence out of “helplessness”. The solution to violence is primarily to expel all “helpless” systems. Helpless systems become torturers.”

Is it possible nowadays to establish a limit and boundary for the prevention of violence and torture?

Our boundary is our misery. In our world, there are real possibilities to find solutions for justifiable tortures; there is no limit beyond which torture is acceptable.

You have addressed the impact of some cognitive, moral, and attitudinal systems on the use of torture in your article on theology. How do you see this in relation to human rights, which is a global issue that is being discussed today?

Universal human rights means that there are fundamental rights that belong to everyone, including immunity from torture and abuse. When these rights are suspended in a system that claims to be based on divine principles, it means that torture (even under the guise of religious justification) is allowed. We can then call these divine principles, principles of torture. The concept of divine principles of torture was not discussed until recently; we thought it was a phenomenon of the past. But now it has become prevalent in the Islamic world. The right thing to do after this realization is to examine any type of divine principles, whether Islamic or non-Islamic, from the perspective of its potential to become principles of torture.

In your opinion, in a society where there is no peace among its members, between its intellectuals, or between people and nature, how is it possible for its government not to be a perpetrator of torture?

This is a question raised by Immanuel Kant: How can we have a just society made up of individuals who are inherently selfish? Kant’s assumption is that we can have such a society. The efforts made to establish democracy prove the validity of Kant’s assumption. These efforts show that in order to have democracy, it is not necessary for everyone to be a democrat; people are nurtured to become democrats in a democratic system. Therefore, we must move forward from both sides. No society deserves to be punished. “Nature” does not desire any human to be punished.

Thank you for the opportunity you have given us…