Reconstructing Interpretations of Islam From The Grassroots: Human Rights and The Case of Iran

By Nema Milaninia

As a prevalent factor in politics and daily life, Islam’s influence shapes how many states respond to universal human rights norms. Governments in predominantly Muslim countries, however, have sometimes used Islam as a pretext to violate international human rights law.

But in the case of Iran, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) are beginning to take the lead in formulating an Islamic response to the government’s religious justification of human rights abuses.

Within civil society, the most important independent source of information and accountability is the NGO. In human rights and international law, NGOs are the most pervasive and vital actors because, above all, they bring out the facts. How NGOs interact and respond to Islam is therefore a critical aspect in determining their ability to successfully rally the populace and influence the government in bringing about institutional changes. The case of Iran provides the clearest example of how the institutionalization of Islam influences the relationship between civil society and government and thus the protection of international human rights law.

The Iranian Revolution in 1979 dramatically transformed the legal culture by making Islam the basis for all legal agreements. Consequently, under the guidance of Ayatollah Khomeini’s fatwas serving as “transitional laws,” the Supreme Judicial Council issued proclamations directing courts that all un-Islamic legislation was suspended and all existing laws must conform to the Islamic legal system. Accordingly, the Guardian Council of the Constitution (Shora-ye Negahban-e Qanun-e Assassi), a constitutional council of sages which has the authority to veto any bill passed by the lower houses and is currently dominated by conservative and traditionalist jurists, has continuously rejected laws passed by the reformist-dominated parliament (majlis) on the ground that they were “contrary to Islam.” Thus the precondition for accepting or denying principles of international law falls under the burden to prove that such principles are compatible with interpretations of Islam. As a result, the Iranian government has denied bills which would have limited the widespread practice of torture and the use of forced confessions in criminal trials, or expanded the protection of women’s and minority rights, all under the pretext of Islam.

However, the position on human rights promoted by the government is vastly different from the perspectives of human rights NGOs who support the universality of human rights and the promotion of international law. Shirin Ebadi’s attempt to collapse the notion of human rights and Islam together by claiming “no conflict” is one which highlights this struggle. Many Iranian thinkers, including the population at large, have internalized the notion that a concept of “Islamic human rights” does not exist. Rather, as Dr. Mohsen Kadivar, a favorite student of Grand Ayatollah Hussein Ali Montazeri and a former political prisoner, explains “human rights supersede religion” particularly because of its perversion in political institutions. As a result the infamous principle of Velayat-e Faqih (supreme leader of Iran) has recently been the subject of sharper criticisms and widespread debates among the clerics and Shi’a seminaries. Thus how NGOs are able to counter human rights abuses, in large part, depends on how they confront the problem presented by dominant interpretations of Islam.

This problem is not isolated specifically to Iran but is representative of a growing challenge faced by civil society in confronting human rights violations justified by Islam. Islam’s emphasis on the compatibility of religion and politics creates a number of possibilities for the relationship between the religious community and state authority, and consequently between international law and the government. In particular, when the views and practices of the Islamic community are integrated into the state, the value of international law as a binding force on state practice becomes more tenuous and complicated. Consequently the role of NGOs in shaping and reflecting the concerns of citizens and non-citizens becomes all the more important in determining whether Islamic values integrate or conflict with universal human rights norms.

The ‘traditional’ legal framework in Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh) needs to be critiqued and reconstructed before attempting to integrate human rights law into Islamic law. Within the context of Iran, this has given rise to the development of a new and modern Islamic theology, often referred to as Modernist Islamic Thought. The backbone of this movement, which encompasses that of progressive Islamism in general, is the critique and reconstruction of interpretative methods in Islamic law (shari’ah) to better reflect the conditions of the 21st Century, specifically the protection and promotion of human rights and democracy. The writings of Dr. Abdolkarim Soroush and Dr. Mohammad Mojtahed-Shabestari, are most reflective of leading Modernist Islamic thinkers. Unless the traditional framework is reformulated, human rights activists and sponsors of international law will always lose arguments to conservative factions on “religious grounds.” Hence a coherent and systematic study outlining the Islamization of NGOs in countering this traditional framework is all the more vital.

Nema Milaninia is a graduate student in International Human Rights Law at the American University in Cairo and author of Iranian Truth.