{"id":74465,"date":"2025-12-22T15:33:53","date_gmt":"2025-12-22T15:33:53","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.peace-mark.org\/?post_type=conversation&p=74465"},"modified":"2025-12-22T16:53:56","modified_gmt":"2025-12-22T16:53:56","slug":"the-murder-of-the-yasouj-doctor-through-the-lens-of-local-values-and-modern-law-a-conversation-with-hossein-imani-jajarmi-ali-kalaei","status":"publish","type":"conversation","link":"https:\/\/www.peace-mark.org\/en\/conversation\/the-murder-of-the-yasouj-doctor-through-the-lens-of-local-values-and-modern-law-a-conversation-with-hossein-imani-jajarmi-ali-kalaei\/","title":{"rendered":"The Murder of the Yasouj Doctor Through the Lens of Local Values and Modern Law; A Conversation with Hossein Imani Jajarmi\/ Ali Kalaei"},"content":{"rendered":"

The case of the murder of a doctor in Yasouj, the grand funeral of the convicted killer after his public execution, the participation of a local preacher in the ceremony, and ultimately the presence of a member of parliament at the home of the executed man to offer condolences have raised serious questions in the public sphere and among observers about the relationship between law<\/em>, culture<\/em>, and justice<\/em>. How a criminal act is transformed into an act of honor\u2014or even a justified action\u2014within local narratives, and what causes formal structures of justice to become weakened or retreat in the face of tribal normative and semantic systems, are questions that require reflection beyond mere legal references. Another pressing question is how such a mechanism is reproduced and what consequences it holds for the legitimacy of official institutions.<\/p>\n

This incident once again highlighted that the gap between the logic of modern legal systems and deeply rooted local values remains active in certain parts of the country and can present challenges to the legitimacy and societal acceptance of formal institutions. In this light, Peace Mark Monthly Magazine<\/em> spoke with sociologist and university professor Hossein Imani Jajarmi<\/em>. Dr. Imani, who also heads the Institute for Social Studies and Research at the University of Tehran, analyzes the social causes and conditions behind such events using sociological concepts and approaches\u2014from the role of tribal ties and the weakening of traditional mediation mechanisms to the performance of the judiciary and the consequences of ignoring cultural differences in public policy.<\/p>\n

Below is the full interview of Peace Mark Monthly Magazine<\/em> with Dr. Hossein Imani Jajarmi:<\/p>\n

In the case of the murder of the Yasouj doctor, we were dealing with a criminal act that, through its social portrayal, was transformed into an act of honor\u2014even of justice-seeking. From a sociological perspective, how does this shift in meaning occur, and what social conditions make it possible?<\/strong><\/p>\n

What we\u2019re seeing here are two systems. One is the modern urban system centered in Tehran, and the other is the traditional tribal system that still holds powerful sway in the western regions of the country. The events that took place reflect the conflict between these two systems. A case of medical malpractice should be handled by specialized institutions, and the punishment is certainly not death. But in a legal system grounded in tribal structures, blood ties, and close relationships, that doctor is not viewed as a trained professional but rather as a murderer. Therefore, members of the tribe to which the deceased belonged are expected to react. And that reaction, essentially, is one of revenge. I view this issue within that framework. The act that led to the doctor\u2019s murder was a form of tribal revenge, which is precisely why the killer became a local hero.<\/p>\n

How do we understand and evaluate the transformation of a killer\u2019s action\u2014what you call a local hero\u2014into an act of justice-seeking?<\/strong><\/p>\n

I wouldn\u2019t call it justice-seeking.<\/p>\n

Even if not justice-seeking, as you said, the individual has become a local hero.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Exactly, and this is the issue of the act taking on an honor-based dimension. What you have here are two value and normative systems. According to the modern normative and value system, what this individual did is a crime. He committed a criminal act and, under Iranian law, was sentenced to death. But under their local value and normative system, this person performed a heroic act\u2014he avenged his brother\u2019s death and seemingly embraced death himself. The presence of a large crowd at his funeral and the subsequent ceremonies does not suggest that a criminal was brought to justice. Even a member of parliament went to offer condolences to his family. This shows that the tribal and clan-based value and normative system is significantly stronger than the modern system in that region\u2014strong enough that a parliamentarian, who is essentially a modern political figure, felt compelled to conform to local social expectations.<\/p>\n

After the killer’s execution, we saw an extensive and symbolic funeral ceremony. How do you interpret this? What social and symbolic function did that ceremony serve?<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00c9mile Durkheim has a classification of “mechanical and organic” societies. I think this classification is quite useful here. In mechanical societies and traditional communities, you\u2019re not dealing with individuals. The individual is a product of the modern world, where individuality becomes important. Hence, individuals also accept legal responsibility. According to Durkheim, modern legal systems are restorative\u2014they aim to repair the collective conscience wounded by wrongdoing or error. But in traditional societies, the individual is meaningless. The act of the killer in this case is not seen as an individual act\u2014it is a collective response. That\u2019s why those who gathered and honored him saw themselves as part of the action. Here, you\u2019re dealing with a collective, not an individual. You have to view the matter from the standpoint that this man is not merely an individual but part of a larger group that felt compelled to take revenge.<\/p>\n

Why did this group feel compelled to take revenge\u2014especially when a legal and judicial process existed? Why did they feel the need to act on their own and carry out an honor-based act?<\/strong><\/p>\n

We need more information about this case. We need to know exactly what happened because these kinds of cases are often surrounded by rumors and misleading information. But based on what we do know, the doctor in question was not a local\u2014he was considered an outsider. Another important point is that, unfortunately, our medical system fails to consider the social dimensions of its work. It doesn\u2019t train doctors going to culturally different regions to understand that certain considerations are necessary. In other words, they need what we call “cultural literacy.” Iran has a wide range of cultures: Arab, Turkmen, Lori, Balochi, and others. This is not a culturally homogenous and fully modernized country.<\/p>\n

I believe part of this issue stems from the medical system itself forgetting the social dimensions of its work. Another issue is that the doctor allegedly committed medical malpractice\u2014I don\u2019t know if that\u2019s true\u2014but it appears that the doctor\u2019s actions led to the death of a patient. The local community here isn\u2019t just one person or family\u2014it\u2019s a tribe that felt one of its own had been killed, and the justifications provided were not acceptable to them. That\u2019s why revenge was taken and the killer\u2019s act was viewed as heroic and honorable. This must be understood within that framework. It\u2019s similar to many honor killings. There are many such cases in Iran: someone kills his daughter or sister, and the local community praises him. While such actions are considered crimes under modern legal and judicial standards, in the traditional framework, they are seen as acts of honor and dignity meant to protect the family or tribe\u2019s reputation.<\/p>\n

You mentioned tribes. In a tribal context (like the one where this event occurred), what role did tribal elders, local leaders, and community figures play in legitimizing or solidifying this narrative?<\/strong><\/p>\n

I think that if those tribal elders and leaders had retained their traditional authority and influence, things might not have escalated this far. These individuals usually try to mediate and find conciliatory solutions. Part of the problem may be that the traditional tribal authority no longer functions as it used to. So decisions are made at lower levels, and those decisions may be arbitrary. But since traditional social and historical ties still hold strong, such actions are praised in that context.<\/p>\n

Can such actions be seen as purely cultural, or should they be viewed as social-political acts?<\/strong><\/p>\n

My understanding is that it wasn\u2019t political. It was more of a collective revenge against an outsider whom the group believed had committed a fatal error. The tribal group didn\u2019t see the medical error as negligence or malpractice but as intentional murder. So they retaliated. In my view, this particular case had no political dimension.<\/p>\n

In such cases, where is the line between social sympathy with the killer\u2019s family and the whitewashing or legitimizing of violence?<\/strong><\/p>\n

We don\u2019t have a universally accepted normative system in our society that everyone subscribes to. Even in advanced countries, you see cultural differences. For example, in Sweden, some people from the Sami ethnic group are still herding reindeer. They have a cultural system different from that of the Swedish majority. Human societies often have such characteristics.<\/p>\n

So when an action takes place, it must be interpreted within its cultural and social context. Our minds are conditioned to assess actions using universal standards\u2014we tend to think in generalist terms. But if tradition remains strong in a particular area, it\u2019s a different matter. I\u2019m referencing Talcott Parsons\u2019 concept of pattern variables here. Universalism is a trait of modern societies, whereas societies that are not yet fully modern or have ambiguous modernity are particularist. That means individuals there don\u2019t care about the law, rules, courts, or medical systems. They simply say, \u201cThis person killed my brother, I must take revenge.\u201d You could argue with such a person all you want\u2014they\u2019re not operating within that legal framework.<\/p>\n

The problem is that local subcultures still hold significant power and presence. But in our policymaking and planning, we ignore them. And so these issues manifest in this way. That\u2019s why I said that anyone practicing medicine and going to areas with strong subcultures and historical backgrounds must understand the demands of their work. For example, during World War II, Americans stationed in Iran were given a booklet instructing them to study cultural codes about Iranians. It explained, for instance, that Iranians tend to be very polite and that if they offer you something, don\u2019t immediately accept it. Or if you go to a poor household for dinner, don\u2019t eat everything\u2014because some family members may have sacrificed their own meals out of hospitality. These details were taken seriously then. But today, we send young specialists to different regions without any training in local culture, and these problems arise.<\/p>\n

After all, the cultural contexts of different parts of Iran are vastly different. Iran is a multicultural country, and we need to acknowledge that.<\/p>\n

Given the phenomenon we\u2019re discussing and based on your points, could sympathy with the killer\u2019s family reproduce violence? That is, might another person from the same tribe see how such an act is praised and feel encouraged to commit a similar act? Where is the line?<\/strong><\/p>\n

The point is, they don\u2019t see that person as a killer. To them, he is an honorable person who sought revenge and restored his tribe\u2019s tarnished dignity. What I\u2019m saying is that the concepts and roles we easily talk about are not necessarily universal. You see a difference in perspective and position here. From the point of view of you and me\u2014urban-educated individuals\u2014that person is a killer. But from the perspective of people who are his tribal kin, he may not be seen that way.<\/p>\n

This brings us back to cultural and social considerations. A modern state aiming to build a universal legal system must make accommodations for communities with strong internal cultures. In countries like the U.S., India, or Malaysia, there are indeed specific legal or administrative considerations for various ethnic and cultural groups.<\/p>\n

In Iran, fortunately, all these groups identify as Iranian, and we don\u2019t have deep cultural divides in that regard. But this subject is worth further discussion. There\u2019s no clear solution right now to say, \u201cDo this to prevent the reproduction of violence.\u201d We have to accept that these issues exist in Iran and that we\u2019ve neglected them. The consequences are what we see today: a person dies due to alleged medical malpractice, a doctor whom many believe was wrongfully killed, and a young man executed for seeking revenge. All of this is cause for concern. These are damages\u2014losses for Iran. These were valuable individuals in different ways.<\/p>\n

Part of the problem, in my opinion, is that we\u2019ve underestimated the role of culture and value systems. We thought these would fade over time. But that\u2019s not the case. In fact, modernity\u2014and especially the recent widespread access to the internet\u2014has actually empowered expressions of local identity. Local identities in Iran are now stronger than before, because they have the tools and platforms to represent themselves and connect globally. We\u2019re facing a more complex reality than in the past. Sadly, we\u2019re neglecting this.<\/p>\n

In this case, we even witnessed more bizarre actions: a member of parliament expressing sympathy with the family of the executed man and a preacher praising him during the funeral. What\u2019s your take on this?<\/strong><\/p>\n

That shows the strength of local ties and the power of that community\u2014so much so that even those who are supposed to represent universal values capitulate. I see this as a sign of the strength of that local community. Of course, one would expect a parliamentarian or public official to take the side of the law. When they don\u2019t, they\u2019re shirking their professional and moral responsibility. A parliamentarian should be neutral and speak within the framework of law. So when one goes to console the family of an executed person, what we\u2019re witnessing is a role conflict. But even that shows how powerful these local cultures are. The representative knows that if he doesn\u2019t go, he may not be re-elected next time. Because in regions outside Tehran and major cities, our political system often relies on ethnic and tribal affiliations.<\/p>\n

So if the preacher or representative hadn\u2019t attended, they would have lost their social credibility?<\/strong><\/p>\n

Yes. If you live in a place with strong local ties and want to remain part of that society, you must respect its rules and fulfill the role expectations people have for you. This may result in a role conflict with national laws, but it\u2019s a reality.<\/p>\n

Can we say that in this case, while the judiciary followed legal procedures, it failed to convince the local community?<\/strong><\/p>\n

I believe the judiciary must also consider cultural factors. The problem is that social sciences in Iran are not taken seriously. One of the key tasks of this field since its inception\u2014particularly at the University of Tehran\u2014has been cultural and tribal studies. For example, the Institute for Social Studies and Research had a powerful tribal studies section, and figures like Nader Afshar Naderi and Javad Safinejad conducted in-depth research on Iran\u2019s tribes.<\/p>\n

We even have an Organization for Nomadic Affairs, and one of its responsibilities is to inform other agencies of such considerations. If we can\u2019t convince a significant portion of the population about the legitimacy of the law, we\u2019re failing. It\u2019s vital that the law be respected by a large majority and that law enforcers be seen as rightful actors. But I don\u2019t believe our public institutions\u2014whether in medicine, the judiciary, or elsewhere\u2014account for these cultural realities.<\/p>\n

Are you suggesting that the judiciary should treat murder in certain regions differently?<\/strong><\/p>\n

Yes. If you take cultural and social considerations into account, you realize that murder does not have the same meaning everywhere. When something happens, you must interpret it within its local context and see what mechanisms are available. Suppose instead of taking the matter to the general judiciary, traditional mechanisms had been used. The deceased patient\u2019s family could have spoken with tribal elders. Even if authority has weakened, some respect remains. If a system of elders and local mediation had been used, the outcome could have been different.<\/p>\n

I believe all parties have lost in this case: the medical system, the legal system, and the local community. In the eyes of the broader society, taking personal revenge on a doctor is not acceptable. Doctors on social media are sharing stories of what they\u2019ve experienced. As a sociologist, I see much of it stemming from a lack of cultural awareness. People move from one cultural context to another, and mismatched expectations lead to misunderstandings and conflicts. But with the right information, many of these issues could be avoided. The example remains that WWII-era cultural guidebook for Americans in Iran. Over 80 years ago, they provided those guidelines to their personnel\u2014yet we, as Iranians, still lack awareness about our own country. We\u2019re all residents of the same land and must understand one another better.<\/p>\n

Doesn\u2019t treating such cases differently create inequality\u2014say, handling a murder case one way in Tehran and another in Yasouj?<\/strong><\/p>\n

It\u2019s a matter of legitimacy and acceptability of an organization\u2019s actions. Specifically, we\u2019re talking about the judiciary. If this doesn\u2019t matter to you, you\u2019ll apply the law uniformly, regardless of cultural context. But if it does matter, it\u2019s not contradictory to judicial principles to consider cultural factors.<\/p>\n

They say, \u201cDon\u2019t untie a knot with your teeth if you can use your hands.\u201d A bit of sociological knowledge helps us realize that there are social mechanisms we can use rather than relying solely on rigid, culturally tone-deaf laws. These laws were drafted by a handful of jurists and parliamentarians who often lacked sufficient insight and whose work contains gaps.<\/p>\n

Perhaps one of our system\u2019s flaws is that we don\u2019t have juries. Juries serve this very purpose: to assess the crime within its social context and give advisory input to the judge. That\u2019s what happens in modern legal systems. Durkheim is right when he says the purpose of modern justice is not to punish and inflict pain\u2014it\u2019s not about revenge. I don\u2019t want to cut off someone\u2019s limbs or behead them so they suffer. That\u2019s not useful in modern society.<\/p>\n

That\u2019s why juries include grocers, teachers, and drivers\u2014not legal professionals. They represent collective wisdom and public understanding. We lack that. A jury could improve judicial decisions. Perhaps if we had juries, many issues we\u2019ve tried to resolve with legal force could have been handled more gently or restoratively. Modern justice isn\u2019t about revenge\u2014it\u2019s about repairing the collective conscience wounded by a murder or similar event. The goal is to restore normalcy.<\/p>\n

Our legal system isn\u2019t like that. We don\u2019t have juries. Everything depends on the interaction between the prosecutor, judge, and defendant\u2014especially the judge. So a social issue is left to one person to decide. That\u2019s why our legal cases often take years. Juries would improve the quality of decisions and provide a broader perspective. That\u2019s my view\u2014legal professionals may disagree\u2014but as a sociologist, I believe our judicial systems must have a social dimension. In modern systems, that dimension is the jury.<\/p>\n

In your view, if murder is portrayed in such narratives as a \u201clast resort of justice-seeking,\u201d what effect will this logic have in the long run on the professional security of groups like doctors, judges, and public service workers?<\/strong><\/p>\n

It clearly has a negative impact. I saw what doctors were saying on social media about Yasouj and its people. There was bitterness, frustration, and even ethnic insults. This is not a good sign for the future.<\/p>\n

Watch Masoud Kimiai\u2019s film Qeysar<\/em>. It\u2019s a symbolic film. A man who has been wronged doesn\u2019t believe public institutions will defend him, so he takes justice into his own hands\u2014motivated by honor and dignity. That works in traditional systems, but we are millions living side by side. We can\u2019t rely on particularistic standards. I\u2019ve said the judiciary must consider cultural sensitivities. In a pluralistic society of millions, there is no other way.<\/p>\n

You must have universal laws\u2014but ones that enjoy broad public acceptance. And in places with cultural differences, people coming from other regions must be trained in cultural sensitivity. We need to acknowledge cultural differences in Iran, because we are not culturally uniform.<\/p>\n

Thank you for your time with Peace Mark Monthly Magazine<\/em>.<\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The case of the murder of a doctor in Yasouj, the grand funeral of the convicted killer after his public execution, the participation of a local preacher in the ceremony, and ultimately the presence of a member of parliament at the home of the executed man to offer condolences have raised serious questions in the […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":74418,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","categories":[],"tags":[55660,56656,54223,50270,57485,54132,50161,50184,51590,56683,56657,56658,56659,55156,56633,52547,56526,56660,56716],"class_list":["post-74465","conversation","type-conversation","status-publish","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","tag-ali-kalaei","tag-doctor-yasouj","tag-emil-durkheim","tag-execution","tag-hossein-imani-jajermi","tag-human-dignity","tag-judicial-system","tag-judiciary","tag---justice-in-humanity","tag-killer","tag-mahmoud-ansari","tag-masoud-davoudi","tag-medical-malpractice","tag-line-peace-en","tag-peace-line-176","tag-personal-revenge","tag-revenge","tag-vigilantism","tag-yasuj"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.peace-mark.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/conversation\/74465","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.peace-mark.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/conversation"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.peace-mark.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/conversation"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.peace-mark.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.peace-mark.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=74465"}],"acf:post":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.peace-mark.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/author\/39587"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.peace-mark.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/74418"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.peace-mark.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=74465"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.peace-mark.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=74465"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.peace-mark.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=74465"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}