Liberty in the Political Thinking of the Holiness Imam Khomeini

In the present paper, the civil liberties from the viewpoint of the holiness Imam Khomeini’s political thinking are investigated. This article terms Imam Khomeini’s theory in this field as `legal liberty’ besides it searches the different aspects of it in the opinions and performances of the Imam. In this article, the individual space in the Imam’s theory is like a module in which the government has not a right to enact the law and restrict its scope.
The holiness Grand Ayatollah Imam Khomeini the leader of splendid Islamic revolution and founder of the Islamic Republic of Iran system, was recognized as a prominent scientist in the varied Islamic sciences (viz. philosophy, theosophy, jurisprudence, principles, interpretation, morals and dignitaries) and have left his invaluable works in this science.
From the other viewpoint, he was a politician who had a familiarity with the world and imperialistic powers and empowered a praiseworthy power, courage and skill in leadership of a great and successful revolution against old system and was supported by the huge global powers. But in the strait of the ``political thinking’ he was not accredited as it was worthy.
What is usually in this field well-known about him is mainly the `principle of supreme jurisconsult’, while he has expressed significant views about the subjects such as: human nature, administration constitution, government aims, legitimacy, social contract, state laws, administration types, constitution, freedom, justice, happiness, etc. that even the principle of supreme jurisconsult cannot be well realized without understanding and correct explanation of these views.
In the present paper, it has been endeavored that in a compact manner one of these principles i.e. `liberty’ is explained. It is hoped that the success of sufficient explanation of this principle and also the other considered principles is availed by the writer.

1- Definition of liberty

A- Philosophical or descriptive liberty

In the philosophy of the Imam, liberty has been expressed in two meanings: philosophical or descriptive freedom or in other words (Free-Will), and (Freedom) or prescriptive. In the `predestination and free-will’ which is the most ideological subject of the Islam, the Imam has rejected the theory of `predestination’ expressed by Ash’arism and introduces it as an oppression to the Almighty God and violation of discerns right.
Predestinates believe that the masses in general are immune from the effects and the entire influences such as stewardship and without an intermediary to the eminence God are in the citation.
As a result a human ``devoid of free-will and liberty’ is subdued of the determination of the Almighty’s right. Similarly, the theory of `submission’ which have been made and treated by the sect of schismatic has been described as the polytheism to the Almighty God. The believers believed in submission:
Whenever an enthrall carries out a work or any creature manifests some or the other type of effects the holiness omnipotence, the impostor, its presence or absence is the same……(and) the eminence God has created an imposer and has surrendered his works to him.
The result of this theory is that a human``possesses complete freedom and independence in his/her works’’, and the determination of the eminence God does not have any role in his/her life. The eminent Imam after the rejection of `determinism and free-will’’ theory, quoted and explained the `` Al-Amr bayn Al-Amrayn‘’ theory which is the theory of Imamiyya’s that:
In the entire subsistence and realization-holder there is no other independent nominator except the eminence God and the other existences as in the existential principle are not independent but are merely in correlation and their existences is like poverty and dependency and are kindred and needy besides their attributes, works and activations are not independent. They have attributions and possess effects and carried out works, but in none of these have independence…….
In one of the auspicious paradigms he mentioned that: You will not desire until the Almighty God desires that while augmenting ordination for masses expresses its dependency on the foreordination, not that it wants to say that two things are influential: creation ordinance and creator ordinance, and or are effective in a participative manner, but it is in a way that ordinance (the human being) could be the manifestation of God’s ordinance and relates and belongs to foreordination.
The Imam knows a human as liberal and empowered, but not independent of power, the will and propensity of the Almighty God. As a result, a human is not subdued to divine will.
On the other hand, the Imam while accepting that nature of humans in relation to desire towards dualism is different, beneficence and difference of human beings in semen, the purity and impurity of uterus, mother’s behavior during pregnancy and nursing an infant, the educational environment and other matters leads to their difference in the desirability level to dualism, but does not treat any of these as an impediment of ``free-will and freedom of a human in decision-making and deed’’ and does not consider a man as the subdued of nature, inheritance and educational environment.
The speech outcome: The Imam believed that a human being is a creation having determination, free-will and freedom in decision-making and deed; neither divine’s will nor inheritance, nature, subsistence, development and growth environment have subdued a human’s determination and obliged him/her….this is a `philosophical or descriptive freedom’ which is a controversial assumption of ``legal and prescriptive freedom’. If in a philosophical debate a human is considered subdued, forced and lack of free-will, then there will not remain any space for debating that whether it is good to keep a human free in his/her works or some humans are allowed to impose their determination on other humans and limit their freedom.

B- Legal or prescriptive liberty

While the philosophical liberty is related to the discussion of the determination existence of a human being and the debate is about `presence and absence’, a legal liberty is related to an approval to keep a human free in decision-making and deed, and is a debate about `should and shouldn’t’. Here the Imam defined liberty as the absence of obligation and reluctance via the others and defined it as `a conditional position, in which a person is not obliged, is not bound, is not interfered in education and is not pressurized’. Here, the Imam as Isaiah Berlin believed that ``as the lack of interference module gets wider, my liberty is increased’. The Imam in response to Oriana Fallaci, whom solicited presentation of a simple definition, mentioned that: liberty is not an issue that has a (complicated) definition. The people’s belief is free, no one necessitates them that they should have such an opinion, no one obligates you that you must select this, no one compels you that where you should have your dwelling or which job you should choose. Liberty is an evident entity.

2- Value of liberty

A- Liberty a God-given right

In the Imam’s opinion, liberty possesses a sublime status. Liberty is a primitive, natural, and God-given right. These are not governments that grant liberty to the people, but the human’s creator has created him/her free and endowed him/her a liberty. The governments have neither given freedom to citizens nor can ignore it. Liberty is a God-given right that governments are bound to observe and patrol it.
The Imam in a speech prior to the Islamic revolution in the description of the nation’s ideal from revolution against the imperial government mentioned that:
Our country has insurrected today and this insurgence is revolutionary where we all are obligated to follow it. Whoever is present, is a resident of this country, following these residents should be his/her country so that this work is carried out, but it is an issue that is logical and a human being should follow it. They are demanding the basic right of humanity. It is a basic right of a human that I want to be liberal, and I want my utterance to be liberal.
With this statement, the Imam considered freedom as a prime right for humans and encouraged them to acquire this primal right.
The Imam in a press interview in the explanation of the liberty existence of the religious minorities and ideological in the Islamic government mentioned that:
The Islam more than any religion and more than any ideological has given liberty to religious minorities, they also should enjoy their natural freedom that the eminence God has bestowed to all the human beings. We will take care of them in the best possible manner. Even in the Islamic Republic the communists are free to express their opinions.
The Imam in refusal to the speech of the former king of Iran who claimed to have granted liberty to the people and satirized the liberty granting of government and mentioned that:
This is which kind of enactment that persists in Iran? This is which kind of liberty that they have granted? Whether liberty is grantable? This word itself is a crime. The word that we have granted this liberty is a crime. Liberty is for the people, the law has given liberty, the Almighty God has given liberty to the people, the Islam has given liberty, the constitution has given liberty to the people…the granted liberty is not a real freedom.
Though here, the Imam believed the theory of John Locke, an English philosopher, that humans are naturally liberal, equal and independent and no one can be deprived of this asset, and he/she cannot be subdued to the other political power without his/her consent, the consent which is achieved through an accordance with the other approaches, but since Imam was a divine philosopher he not only considered the liberty as God’s endowment but also for the creator itself contemplated the right of interference in a human’s liberty preserved.
The result of this principle: ``Liberty is a primal, inherent, natural and God-given right for a human’’ and accounts to a government that should be concerned about the liberty of its citizens and assure it.
The Imam in this regard has mentioned that”
The liberties should be secured in the best possible way in the limitations of the Islamic sacred rules and constitution.
In another place about the observance of religious minorities the Imam mentioned that:
All the religious minorities in the Islamic government can carry out their entire religious duties freely and the Islamic government is bound to protect their rights in the best possible manner.
From the Imam’s opinion, liberty can neither be unavoidable and unseen, nor is it suitable that people relinquish it, and it is not an entity that is given by the government to the people and it is even not an entity that the government is permissible to violate it.
Liberty is a God-given right that people should seek it and governments must observe it. For this reason the Islamic government cannot be a despotic government. In the Islam, the dictatorship is never in the proposition, nil, never existed, never exists, and never will exist.
The imam believed that the Islamic government is not similar to any of the despotism varieties. The Islam has founded a government which is methodically not a dictatorship in which the self-opinion and desires of a person is dominant in the entire society, and it is not a liberal or pure styled which is based on the human laws where those laws are dominated on the entire society by a group of people.
But, the Islamic government is a system that gains vision from divine inspiration and in all the fields takes the assistance of divine law and none of the rulers of society affair have a right of despotism to vote.
In this manner, the Imam with the rejection of despotic autocratic government announced his approval for a constitutionalism and the Islamic Republic. The government in which, besides the implementation of divine rights and commandments, the liberty, will and desire of the citizens are totally considered.

B- Liberty and security

In the political thinking of the Imam, the government and a civil society formation via human is for the termination of chaos, oppression and insecurity situation. For this reason a human surrenders before the government affairs to nestle him or herself in a calm and safe environment and in such environment manifests his/her law study (including the natural freedom right and excellence development).
Here, the Imam combined the theory of Hobbes `security acquisition’ especially in the philosophy of the government formation with the theory of Locke `liberty assurance’ and besides linked it with the teaching of Pluto `excellence development’ which are government duties. The Imam described a society without a government as the involved societies `chaos and insecurity’ and believed that a human for escape from insecurity and procurement of security have opted for the government establishment:
The need to form a government for the expansion of justice and education (citizens) and order maintenance (social) and oppression elimination and protecting (country’s border) and preventing invasion of the aliens is the most obvious intellectual precepts without the existence of any difference between the different countries or varied periods. At the same time, even a logical reason is implicated for this subject.
The Imam considered the existence of security in a society as a prerequisite of all worldly pleasures and joys and believed that the mundane happiness without a security is impossible and for this reason considered the Islamic government bound to provide the mundane happiness of citizens and even responsible for their security maintenance:
If… the Islamic content demodulates in all points of the country, an assured attitude is gained by the nation in the country which is origination of all nobilities. If a man has all the pleasures, but does not have an assured attitude and is instable, all these pleasures will turn bitter, this spiritual deliberation is the best entity that exists in a human.
In the environment of the Islam, an Islamic country is not a fear; however, in the tyrant environment is a dread.
The Imam bonded freedom and security in a manner that: liberty is that an individual with a sense of security exploits from his freedom otherwise a freedom with anxiety and fear is unworthy.
Liberty is about criteria…..Is about freedom laws and rules, which mean you, will not be frightened of anyone…. It means thank God we are now liberal.
The Imam later linked the happiness which is aimed and ideal of the Islamic government to the liberty and introduced it as a commitment:
With the happiness of the Islamic Republic, well-being (and) prudence is for the entire nation. If the Islamic commandments are implemented….all the nation strata will gain their own rights, oppression, aggressiveness and tyranny will be uprooted. In the Islamic Republic there is no coercion, in the Islamic Republic there is no oppression. In the Islamic Republic there is liberty, independence, and all the nation strata should be in prosperity in the Islamic Republic.
In this manner, in the political thinking of the Imam, liberty along with security is not only an invaluable and a respectable principle that should be guarded, but also is accounted by him as one of the main goals of government establishment and one of the principles of the Islamic Republic which is an ideal government model.

C- Liberty, civilization and development

The value of liberty for was so much for the Imam that he considered it as one of the constitutional pillars of civilization and positioned it against the savagery :``The civilized society is a society that is not wild’’. With this contrast, the Imam praised the ``civilized society’’ and denounced the ``wild society’’. Civilization in such a value that in case of its absence nothing will remain except ``savagery’’ that all the humans hate it as the nature’s verdict. Then he considered ``civilization’’ with ``liberty’’ and ``savagery’’ with ``deprived freedom’’ equal and concluded that a non-free society is a ``wild society’’ and the government that is based on these societies are non-civilized and wild:
Primarily, the status of civilization is the liberty of a nation……..A country with no liberty has no civilization. A country that does not have independence….it cannot be said to be a civilized country. A civilized country is that which is liberal, its publications are liberal, and the people are free to express their views and opinions…… the people who want liberty and independence are not wild. They are civilized that want liberty and independence, wild are those that have taken liberty and independence from them, not those that want liberty and independence. Liberty and independence are two things that are……from basic human rights and all the humans are aware, that the one who deprives it from the masses is wild; the one who wants this right is civilized.
The Imam emphasized so much on the value of liberty and considered it as a necessity for a happy and prosperous civilized society and has a contradiction with the `Enlightened Despotism’’: even for the sake of attaining development and progress, liberty should not be ignored. Promotion, progress and development are good, but for attaining them repression should not be used. In this manner, the Imam declared his belief based on the ``liberalized development’’:
When we talk about the Islam it does not mean not considering progress and development, but in contrast in our opinion the Islam is a progressive religion and we are enemies of the regimes that for the sake of reestablishment, bring about the dictatorship and oppression methods. Prior to anything we believe that pressure and repression are not the means to access the development.

D- Liberty and monotheism

The Imam in the peak of prioritizing the liberty, addressed the most fundamental constitution of the religion and the most excellent principle of trust, i.e. ``monotheism’’, he considered the liberty as a resultant of the sole worshiping, since the trust to the only Almighty God will lead to liberty and deprivation of liberty results to paganism:
The root and origin of all…….beliefs that is the most important and the most invaluable conviction of ours, is the principle of monotheism. According to this principle, we believe that the creator and the world originator and all the existing factors and human being ….is the only holy essence of the eminence God and is aware of all the facts and empowers and is the owner of everything. This principle teaches us that a human being should only surrender before the most sacred essence of God and should not obey any man, unless obeying him is obeying the Almighty God. On this basis, no man has a right to enforce the other man to surrender before and we learn the principle of human liberty from this trust principle that no man has the right to deprive another man, and or a society and nation from the liberty, and configure the law for him and regulate his relations and behavior as his perception and recognition and or as per his demands and desires which is very imperfect. And from the principle we also believe that the legislation to advancements is in the authorization of the eminence God.

3- Liberty module

A – Legal liberty

The Imam in his statements had sometimes emphasized upon the cases on liberty and sometimes had expressed limitations for the colloquial liberty in the world that of course with their counting a perfect adding up cannot be obtained. In addition to the fact that while we sought to explain the liberty in the ``political thinking’’ of the Imam, this work is undertaken by the science of knowledge and constitutional rights, Therefore, here we are competent only with the mentioned cases field.
In the Imam’s viewpoint, the freedom of opinion and its expression even exists for the Marxists. The free presses are liberated to publish the facts, but the misleading writings are not permissible. Any kind of society and party formation that will not threaten the nation’s interest is free. All types of corruption and operation of the corruption centers are forbidden. Public debauchery, inobservance of veiling, plotting against the regime, abusing the right of others, treasonable and sabotage actions are forbidden in the Islamic government.
In a general viewpoint the Imam believed that the Islamic government has two important responsibilities that have to be realized in line with each other: 1- execution of Islamic commandments and divine limits, 2- shielding the liberties of the people.
We should not oppress others and inquisition into the houses of people and see what is happening is banned, and besides, no one has right to make a brothel or gambling house. In the Islamic government for such affairs campaigns are formed. We want the commandments of the Almighty God to flow, the other side exists and even this side persists… the Islamic government is bound to assure people in everything …..From the other side also if some are against the Islam and want to form public debauchery, will be chastened.
The Imam considered the determination of the ``divine commandments’’ and ``civil liberties’’ as the responsibility of the law and believed in ``legal liberty’’: It is only the law that determines the liberty cases and the duties of citizens and the Islamic government as it is obliged to have the trouble of execution of laws for the establishment of orders, securities and morals in the society, same way it is obsessed to guard the sanctum of liberties of the masses.
The liberties should be provided in the best possible manner in the limits of constitutional and the divine laws of the Islam.
It is interesting here that the Imam as a global yardstick (in front of the experts) believed that liberty is the ``prime principle’’, whereas the obligatory divine which arises from its creativity is in the second status and in this manner the legal and juridical restrictions are secondary.
It is doubtless that the primal principle is like the originality and authenticity of its and generalization is that whatever is created on this earth for the human syntactic is that each entity should be used as it is permissible unless a reason is erected on its honor.
Then Imam in this issue pointed out the contrast of experts and doctrinaires and stated that the experts for the observation of `divine taboos’ restrict the liberty limits of the masses and in cases of the unknown commandments, cautioned law to carry out the necessities and thus do the reasoning:
The principle in everything is prohibition and the entire world, from sky to earth, is the creation of the Almighty God and besides the imposer himself is enthrall of the eminence God. Therefore, all the human works generic from movement and placement happens only with the consent of the eminence God and an order that is issued via him. And no one has the right to seize unless permitted by him, since both the seizer and what is being seized by him are the properties of the Almighty God. The imam rejects these kinds of arguments and as a sole yardstick authenticates that ``original is an intrinsic acquittal and revelation is unoriginal’’.
But an objection enters the theory of ``legal liberty’’ and it is: the protection, the privatization and liberty via public rules, is a method in which the law contents are not considered in it. The public law from the content view could be repressive and frustrating. A government could bring the criminal laws up to a brutal point and for all the small crimes consider the death penalty. In the legal theory, nothing persists to prevent such a thing.
But the Imam with a belief in ``individual space’’ for the citizens drew an inviolate realm of liberty that even law should not get close to it. In this case, although the imam approaches the school of liberals which believe in the persistence of an individual space for the citizens and with bonding it with the ``individualism’’ includes a wider realm in the said area. But, the Imam with the consideration of the other principle that `the sources from the divine inspiration narrow the circle of ``individual space’’ and in this subject even prioritized the ``public morality’’. The Islamic government is a government that considers the public morality as well as the eternal happiness of the people besides considering the worldly happiness, welfare and their freedom.

B- Individual space

From the viewpoint of the Imam, the citizens are free in the realm of their private lives in the lawful limits. The individual space of the individual’s lives is determined in the following realms:

1- Belief

The Imam believed that one should not enter the belief domain of the other and in this case research, investigate and interfere: the Islam commandments in its entire dimensions should be implemented, i.e. no spying, and no opinion inquisition and public debauchery should take place.

2- Expression

The imam believed that the Islam possesses a strong logic and has an accountability power to all the uncertainties and the arguments of the other schools, therefore the Islamic government completely confers the freedom of expression and of course it will not be a betrayal act to the country.
The Islamic government, in a real meaning is a democratic government…..and each person can express his opinion and the Islam has the responsibility to respond to the entire opinions and the Islamic government, will reply all the logics, logically.
Moreover, the Imam in response to the question raised by a reporter who inquired about his opinion about the left political parties activities without relying on foreign powers in the Islamic Republic mentioned that:
In the Islamic Republic each individual will enjoy the freedom of opinion and expression, but no individual or group dependent to the foreign powers will be permitted to treason.
The Imam in another place, exactly in response to the same question mentioned that:
If it is harmful to the condition of a nation, it will be prevented, if not and only is the opinion expression then there is nil hindrance.
In this manner, sheer opinion expression is described as non-harmful and as a result unrestrained the freedom of expression.

3- Residence and work place

The Imam believed that the private residence and workplace of an individual should be immune from aggression and individuals in the residence and work realm are completely free and it is merely due to the security of said area, that also in a limit that country’s security necessitates, is invaded:
No one has the right to enter the home, or shop or workplace of a person without the permission of its owner or arrest someone or as discoverer of crime or sin prosecution pursuit or care for him…..and or for the discovery of sin and crime not matter how big is the crime, listen and or be after the secrecy of people and investigate about the other crimes…….all these are sin and crime and some of them……are very big……..
What was mentioned and declared as prohibited, except those the cases that have a relation with conspiracy and the small groups that are against the Islam and the Islamic Republic system which…… for the sabotaging plans and demoralizing the contribution of the society….. [and] if for the discovery of the team houses and spying centers and demoralizing against the Islamic Republic System to enter the private residence or workplace of anyone through an error and mistake and there encounters with the entertainment instrument or gambling instruments and prostitution and other deviated directions, such as drugs, they do not have a right to reveal it to others, since the spread of prostitution is one of the biggest sins……. And does not have the right to arrest or detain with the beat and assault the house owner and its inhabitants and oppression of divine limit is a tyranny…… but those whose jobs are detected to be the collection of the drug and its distribution among the people….will be in the corrupt verdict on earth…..and should……they are introduced to the judicial authorities and as well each of the judges have no right to initially issue a verdict that through which the execution bailiffs have the right to enter the homes or work place of individuals where neither the home is secure and team based nor it is the place for other conspiracies against the Islamic Republic system. Such a verdict will be considered as the legal and canonical prosecution.
Even the Imam in the discussion of Velayat-e-Faghih (Supreme Jurisconsult) had a clean respect between ``social issues’’ and ``private life’’ and announced that the circle of Velayat-e-Faghih (Supreme Jurisconsult) does not include the private life of individuals:
In the aspects related to the government the total which is in the custody of all the prophets and Imams after him, is the Salavat (Peace be upon him) Allah Eliyhom Ajmaaen, is in the custody of wise Faghih (Jurisconsult)…..but if a prophet and Imams Infallibles, a Velayat (Supreme) is not proved via the government then [this Velayat (Supreme) is not proved for the Faghih (Jurisconsult)]. So, if we believe that an Infallible has a Velayat (Supreme) on the man who is separated from his spouse or wishes to sell her property or wants to acquire it, even if has not initiated by the general will, then this Velayat (Supreme) is not proved for the Faghih (Jurisconsult).

4- Licensees

The holiness Imam believed that the field of `recommendations, abominable, permissions’ can be defined in a word `licensees’, and is in the `individual space’ and it should not be encroached. What is considered as the subject of adducing is the same enjoying food and forbidding wrong or divine `confidentialities and imperatives’, an enforcement should not take place in the limit of licensees; this subject is clear and needless of any description.

5- The obligatory differential commandments

In the Islamic government, the imitation of case imitation is the responsibility of citizens and the selection of the imitation case has been assigned to the diagnosis of citizens themselves, this matter is clear and is not discussable and doubtless.
Therefore, if the citizen imitate the case or cases that give decree to authorization and legalization of some works, others (viz. government and state organizations cannot and do not have a right to adduce some other decrees, and enforce the strict decree to imitator of a simplified decree, the Imam in the second issue in the chapter mentioned about the conditions of enjoying good:
If an issue is in the case of difference of opinion and (enjoying good) probability that the decree of the performer of a specified work or its leaving, (in the case that he does not strive hard) is opposing him and provides a probability that what an individual has done as per his view point is eligible, is not imperative but it is not eligible that he is forbidden from doing this work, till what he achieves so that he authenticates this matter.
In another place, the Imam made it clear that the subjected legislation should not be against the Law of the Islam, it does not relate that the said legislation should not be opposing the leader decree or the decree of the religious jurisprudence of the Security Council, but that legislation should not be against the Islam. It seems that the purpose of the `Islam’ here `is a decree consensus and the vested verdict and a non-moral religious jurisprudence’.
The Security Council does not say that this (the legislative assembly) is against my decree or is against the decree of superabundance (i.e. the leader), it says that this is against the Islam.
So if cannot be or should not enforce the strict decree on the individuals that follow the simplified decree, and if the guardian council should not carryout the opposition of the legislation of the masses representatives with the decree of the Security Council of the religious jurisprudence or the decree of leader, opposes that law, and if the government is obligated to shield the freedom of people and if the prime principle of the exonerate, is legalizing and freedom; so the subjected rules that gains a lawful should create the `minimal prohibition’ and effectively is the protector of the vested verdict and consensus religious jurisprudence. All these cases are the result of the logical principle which the holiness Imam trusted. The result of `religious jurisprudence difference commandments’ is located in the field of `individual space’ of citizens.

6- The consequences interferences of the Islam endurance

The eminent Imam believed that interferences in the affairs that lead to the Islam endurance is not permissible, even if that activity is against the vested and its accomplisher in the other world is guilty in front the eminence God. He in the tenth issue mentions about enjoying good conditions:
If enjoying good and forbidding wrong in cases in relation to some individuals leads to the endurance of the pure religion (the Islam), though in front of others, is not eligible; especially if the probability of impact also does not vanish, but also that work is of the important cases and the cases are different.
In another location the Imam mentioned that:
The eyes of the enemies are observing …….and cavil. Those who are opposing the Islamic Republic….. Among the Muslims are many. The imperialistic governments …..Foreigners….. Those who do not believe in the Islam [and also] in inside….. those who oppose the Islamic Republic ………all these have kept their eyes so that they find a mistake from our side, make one mistake into thousands, in their writings…….and in the foreign, make a minute matter a very big issue. These people are our enemy that with their poisoned filled pens pollute this crusade, and blame it, and exhibit to the world that this is the Islam [though] these pretense that the Islamic government is a justified government…..and if God forbidden you do a small mistake or a fault ….It is not that a person who has made a mistake….is not accounted on these persons….they account it on the ideology……in other words they do injustice…..God forbidden it should not happen that an ideology testimony comes in the picture…..[And] say this regime [the Islamic Republic] like the same regime (the king prior to the Islamic Revolution], because…. When we look the surrounding and individuals, we find that these are the same category and carry out the similar works, they all intrude the homes of the masses. If it is justified, then also it should not be carried out in a manner that it is justified, one should not carry out a work that its face, the face is void, though it is a justified reality, some consider it to be void.
4- Methods that guarantee liberty
The provision of liberty and social security is the same liberty in the individual space of an ideal life and it is necessary that its research is institutionalized in the custody of the efficiency guaranties. Now it is a question that how this right can be shielded and how in relation to their consideration an assurance can be availed from the government? The freedom-desiring observers have suggested some methods for the recovery of this affair that are being summarized in the following axles: Constitution and power restrain through the constitution, lawful government and separation of powers.
Holiness Imam in addition to the mentioned axles had as well pointed out the axis of `supervision of the selected and accountable leader’.

A- Constitution

In a constitutional government or a government based on the constitution, the administration of the country and the institutional activities of the state based on the lawful hierarchy are administrated that in their peak the constitution persists.
In an outlook that believes the constitution is formulating an institutional regulations that a government performers under their supervision, and it will be logical that the constitution has the supremacy of a constitution that can be said that the constitution is higher that the entire written and unwritten laws.
The constitution is a political course which maintains that the power of politics should be stipulated to the institutions that limit and restrain the law enforcement. Such institutions discuss the regulations which stipulate the state as well as the organizations and bodies (state) which enforce the political powers.
The constitution theory and restrain of the government power in the recent two decades has been manifested in the module of the institutions that the `constitution’ has been located at the center point of the institutions that enforce this limitation. The constitution besides ordering `the organization of and describing the governmental institutions consists of a `bill or declaration of rights’ that in this section, the constitution states the general, sacred, natural and non-partitioned masses that the government is charged to consider them.
The Imam as regards constitution and a government based on the constitution has mentioned that:
The Islamic revolution regime is reliant on the constitution that is from the Islam, and is reliant on the Islam and the commandments of the Islam.
The purpose is that in the Islamic government, the Islam and the Islamic government rules, and individuals do not rule for themselves and as per their thinking…… In the Islamic government the government of God messenger and the commander of the faithful is the law of the government.
The Imam specifically about the role of constitution in the restrain of government power and prevent from despotism and dictatorship mentioned that: if we i.e. all of us, the individuals that exist in our country and all the groups that are present n the country and the institutions that are present in the entire country if we all become humble and respect the law no difference will occur …..Nevertheless, the dictators do not like the law…..but the law that is for the entire nation……and is for the mental peace of the nation ….this law should be respected.
Then the Imam in apostrophe to the representatives of the experts’ assembly that in the codification of the constitution about the `rights bill‘mentions that: the constitution [should] be comprehensive and should possess the following characteristics: A- Preservation and support of the rights and affairs of the entire stratum away from the illicit nepotisms ….. In this regard, the eminent Imam guaranteed the consideration of the rights and freedom of the people through constraint of the Islamic government to the constitution.

A- Rule of law

Rule of law is said to the existing condition of a country in which the enacted laws from the legislative power via police and juridical system is conducted and this situation in an equal manner is comprised of all the citizens. The rule of law is utilized against the police governments that in which, the administration and governmental authorities behave as per their will and sometimes without consideration of the laws and regulations interfere in the people’s general and private affairs.
In the theory of freedomist, in the civil freedom the assumption is on the presence of individualistic rights and prohibition of liability and compulsion from the government area, only if its opposition is proved. The government with ``law’’ citation can interfere in the freedom of individuals. The purpose of the law refers to the propositional laws that is in concurrence with the constitution is enacted.
The propositional laws must have the following features:
Primarily the law should be having a theorem in which nothing is mentioned in the odd cases or special individuals and from before for the adaptation on the entire cases and all the individuals in an absolute manner has been enacted. As per the concept of Rousseau, the law should collectively consider the citizenry and vested their implementations. Though, it is possible that some of the rewards are ordained, but should never give these rewards to the person so that he is being denominated.
Secondly, the law should be distinguished and clear. As per the concept of Hegel, the law should contain determined and defined liabilities.
Thirdly the law should not be referenced to the precedent. These are the principles bout accepting the civilized world, specifically to the government of law.
The eminent Imam besides emphasizing on the obstinate negation in the Islamic government and also that all the people, even the leader under the divine law should perform, the propositional laws of the Islamic council assembly that have been approved by the security council is legally as well as religiously described and then it becomes the assembly domination and introduces it as the center of all the laws: the law i.e. the propositional rules of the assembly. Then all the authorities and institutions, even the leader becomes the function of the propositional laws of assembly:
All should be conditional to accept he law, though it could be against your opinion, should be accepted for the reason that it is the majority rate and the diagnosis of the Security Council is neither opposing the constitution nor the Islam, the level is that, we all should accept it. I also may be opposing many of the things, since I am a theological (leader), but when law persists and a thing is (enacted and approved), then we will also accept it.
Though, the holiness Imam besides considering the fact that all the authorities, and government institutions should function as per the propositional law, but he clearly mentioned the aforesaid triathlon about the statutory law: The law should be general and clear and should not reference to the precedent.
Meanwhile the Imam though, believed that the sublimate God has functioned in the `creation’ on the basis of general order, in the `legislation’ also has functioned on the basis of the enactment of the general laws. The Imam in few places of the principle discussions has mentioned about the origination of the speech that most of the principle followers did not believe it and that origin is an imaginative religious jurisprudence that is offered as the `legal apostrophes’.
The Imam further mentioned about the general divine laws that:
The prevailing principle [and general method] in the world laws [humanity] is that the leader after the consideration of prudence and corruption of a thing and believing that the enactment of the verdict and its command, is in the prudence of the status of its followers, his decision and resolution for the enactment of verdict as a general law belongs to all the humans or the groups of humans. So a general verdict is enacted and places it in a position where the referrer searches it there and an imposer approaches it for the diagnosis of the responsibility and in this subject does not matter that whether the leader is one person or few people, except that in the second condition the functioning verdict is the view of the majority…….
In another place he as well mentioned that:
The tasks and the lawful verdicts are exactly like the secular rules [and the human being] that is enacted and ordained for the preservation of society and coordination of the works. In addition, similarly, for the case of the human laws, several apostrophes and citations (in each work and for each person) does not exist, but each law from that angle is an apostrophe and is dependent on a general consideration, and is a contention on the entire imposed human beings, and in case of the law too, the apostrophes belonged to the believers or people, it is like this, so here even a legal apostrophe is a unit and includes all.
Similarly, the Imam in another place in relation to the propositional laws stated the same subject that:
The law considers the entire society ……..If the law is structured that verifies himself to a group, or gives verification to a person, this is not a law. The law is positioned in a vertex and all the individual of a country should verify him or herself of that law…it is then when a country, becomes the law country.
The Imam in relation to the necessitation for the clearance of a verdict and law besides discussing the knowledge of principles in an independent manner, in a message apostrophe to the assembly of experts for the codification of the constitutions mentioned that:
The constitution [should] be comprehensive and contain the following characteristics: A-……B-….. C- Openness and the clearness of the legal concepts in a manner that the possibility of the explanation and paraphrase of wrong in the direction of the dictatorship fancies and self-worshippers of history are not in it……
It is doubtless that Imam had mentioned this point with regards to the constitution, but with attention to the below independence i.e. principle of jurisprudence and specialization it can be even transmitted to the general law.
Finally, the holiness Imam in relation to nil reference to the precedent in the discussions of religious jurisprudence principle mentioned that:
It is reasoned that on the exoneration to the quadrathlon viz. the Quran, tradition, consensus and intellect; but the paradigms: one of the paradigms is the saying of the Almighty God: and we do not torture (a person) except that we send a messenger.
[This paradigm in the plan] is an impeccable of the Almighty God and with this sentence wants to state that torturing prior to the statement [verdict] with the stature divine has profits….. and in a better explanation, this paradigm or in the plan it wants to make one understand that torturing [the individuals and opposing the divine verdict] prior to statement [that verdict] is profitable with its justice and tranche and has profit with the charity, alms, and his kindness in relation to the individuals…but the intellect justification (on the principle of exoneration] : so it is doubtless that the intellect governs towards the ugliness the torture (human beings) without statement (as per the lawful verdict) towards the imposer is eliminated ……and this [principle] is the vested cases.
And in this manner, the Imam with trust on the law domination searched the freedom, the justice and security in the Islamic government.

C. Separation of Powers

Although the individuals like Rapin de Thoiras and Boling Broke and John Loc in the study of the political system of England has addressed the theory of separation of powers, but the person who had codified and explained and brought it forward as an important principle was Montesquieu.
Montesquieu after addressing the three segments of a government viz. Legislative, executive and judiciary as an organ of each government expressed that:
All (liberties and the right of the people) will vanish and if an individual is a unit or groups of the units of main individuals, whether those who are aristocrats and or from the general people, enforces all the three powers. This relates to: 1- the legislation, 2- the power that executes the general decisions and 3- the power that judges about the crimes and difference and arguments of the individuals.
Prof. Maurice J. C. Vile in his book ``Constitutionalism and the Separation of Powers’’ accounted 3 components in relation to the pure belief about the separation of powers:
1) He believed that there exists an experimental focus between the works of legislation, executive and judiciary.
2) Then he suggested that the government is divided into he three aforementioned segments so that they are kept away from one another.
3) And he emphasized that there should not exist any interference between the personnel of these three sections.
The four benefits of the separation of powers are accounted as:
1- The abuse fancies from the public power in relation to the private results, or an action based on the transitory airs, will clarify and approve their positions to the laws that with impartial implementation, increases the public profits.
2- Individualistic freedom as a result of the possibility of planning in an environment that is predictable and the security increases.
3- The division of the works brings about the efficiencies related to the distribution of the laborious works.
4- Such a system guarantees the mutual responsibility of the strength against one another.
It is important to be mentioned that the holiness Imam stated: without consideration of the philosophy and the separation of powers the system could relate in a detailed manner where assumption of the principle of the separation of powers according to the constitution becomes necessary and leads to the lack of the power interference in one another.
This law [constitution] for which the nation has voted………this law should be in the hands of everyone and all [should] determine the limit of this law. The constitution has determined a limit for the assembly, the violation should not exceed beyond this limit. It has been restricted for the president, has set a limit, he should also not violate, for the prime minister and like them and governments, the limit has been determined, they also should not go beyond the limit…….
This is a canonical divine duty ……….. It is for all, it is for the guardsmen, for the army, for the gendarmerie, for the assembly, for the government, for the president. This is a canonical right issue. All are legally bound to it…..and act as per their legal duties…..The [constitution] has determined a duty for all. If one does not obey the law and wants to interfere in the work of another person, he has acted unlawfully.
Now here if we consider the essence of the separation of powers as the division of powers, then we can believe the eminent Imam in that, but if consider the main component of this principle as the mutual responsibility and in contrast to the same, though it is possible that we infer this principle from the Imam’s judicial decrees in the chapter of enjoying good in the book `Instrumental Modulation’, but it seems that an important and significant position for it, can be considered in the political thinking of the Imam.
D- The supervisions of the elected and accountable leader
One of the other factors that guarantees the rights and masses freedoms in the political thinking of the Imam, is that the people select the one who is righteous, political, strives hard and practices religious jurisprudence so that as a leader with the excellent supervisions on the legal institutions prevent their coercion and tyranny and guarantee the nation rights observation via the different government organization, from the view that a leader `righteous’ is bound to perform divine orders, does not do any kind of tyranny and will not violate the private freedom of people. But from the viewpoint that `justice monarch’ is declinable and it is possible that the leader may loose the justice quality, and as well since the possibility of `error’ and mistake exists in him, so people should with their criticisms supervise the leader and if the criticism was not effective and the leader himself is changed into a `despotic’ then the `revolt right’ against him is protected and the nation can with an uprising against him, discharge him, however in such cases his `sovereignty’ is dissolved, as a result the people in such cases will be `the factor to execute the divine verdict’.
In specificity to the existence of a leadership pillar in the Islamic government the eminent Imam mentioned that:
It is not an issue that according to the religion of right, the Imams and rules after the prophet overlord Awasiya, commander of the faithful, and his innocent children (peace be upon him) are one after the other until the period of absence, so they are the guardian of percepts and that public supreme and opposition of the entire divinity which the prophet had, they also have, and but in the period of absence, since the province and the government is not given to any special person, but due to the intellect and narration that is imperious will remain in another method ….so the supreme affair is related to the righteous jurisconsult, and he is the one that has the merit of leit on the Muslims.
The Imam believes that the leader effectually in the absence period is not assigned to an individual or a determined person, and the Almighty God merely manifests the condition for a leader that the Muslims should observe them. These conditions consists of: 1- the science religion in the level of reasoning, 2- the piety and purity in the limit of justice, 3- and the power to administrate the country, because the Islamic government is a government of law, rather only, the government of law is a divine and the reason for its establishment is only to institute the law and expansion of the domestic justice among the people, so perforce a ruler should possess two qualities that these two epithets is the foundation of a legal government and the realization of the legal government without it is unimaginable:
Firstly the science to the law of divine and secondly justice, and the issues of abilities and efficiencies in the same quality of science enters in a wider meaning and a hesitation in its necessity also is not ruling and if you want, then say that: the efficiency is the third condition of the fundamental conditions (ruler) ……therefore, the issue of supreme to jurisconsult is related to the righteous jurisconsult and he is the one who has the merit of protecting the Muslims.
From the viewpoint that a specified person is not yet determined from the Almighty God for the leadership in the absence period, these are the people who should according to the divine commandments choose a person to take over the leadership status.
The supreme jurisconsult is a person that from all the aspects of morality, piety and nationality and his science and functions is approved before the nation and the nation itself appoints this [individual]. But the right to choose the leader in an indirect manner and is implemented via their representatives. The eminent Imam in this regard mentioned that:
The assembly of experts in the determination of the leader or the leadership council……..possesses the…..special importance….and as I have earlier mentioned in vote casting to the qualified individuals the conditions are freed, and no one can demand the necessity right of anyone else [and] if the people gave their votes for the experts so that a righteous person who practices religious jurisprudence is determined for the leadership of their government, when they also have determined a person to claim the leadership, his forcibility will be accepted by the people. In this case, he will be the only election of the people and his commandment will be dominant.
Then the Imam will ordain certain duties and roles of the leader elected by the people that one of them includes: supervision in the implementation of the divine law which in turn is composed of `liberties of people’. In this regard the Imam mentioned that:
Except the divine law, no one has a government, for no one a government does exist, neither for a jurisconsult nor for a non-jurisconsult, all of them will act according to the law, and they all are regarded as the executives of the law, the jurisconsult as well as the non-jurisconsult, all of them are considered the executives of the law.
A jurisconsult will watch that these (who have he governmental power in the control) to carry out the law enforcement, does not carry out a minor offence, not that he desires to himself govern it, but he wants not to permit these government, although some days will pass from it they will return towards the dictatorship and imperialism, they wish to prevent this to happen………………..
The jurisconsult does not want to make unreasonable demands of the people. If a jurisconsult wants to make illogical remarks, then this jurisconsult will not have any supremacy [and is a recluse). The Islam is present, and in the Islam the law governs. The honorable prophet also functions as per the law, he functions as the divine law, he cannot violate…….and there is no dictatorship in his work. We want to prevent the spread of dictatorship. The supreme jurisconsult is a supremacy on the affairs in order to prevent that this affair goes out of its route, it should control the assembly, the president…….the prime minister…..on all the systems, on the army for fear that they should not do a minor offence…..the supreme jurisconsult is totally against the dictatorship, not the totalitarian.
Then the imam himself for the two reasons felt necessary that the supervision should be carried out on the leader himself: primarily, due to the possibility of an error in him and secondarily, due to the probability of the decline of the justice monarch. In case of the probability of error, the holiness Imam in response to the question of a reporter from Time Magazine asks `whether you have ever carried out an error about something?’ he in addition mentioned that:
Only the prophet Mohammad (peace be upon him) and the other prophets and Imams have never carried out a mistake, any other person is liable to make a mistake. He in relation to the possibility and the manner of justice monarch decline in the issue 29 of the imitation issues mentioned that:
Only the justice of peremptorily with carrying out the greater sins and or [repetition and] insistences on the smaller sins, gets eliminated, but with carrying out small sins [even for one time and without any repetition] also gets eliminated as per the discretion. In another place on the same context the holiness Imam mentioned that:
All these that you see have been corrupted, they were not like that because these in the beginning were in this degree of corruption, ……then also when they have reached a status it was not like that they have done dictatorship from the beginning, but step by step, little by little has progressed towards the dictatorship.
The evil that is in the conscience of a human being with high expertise takes a human being towards the destruction……none of us should ever image that we are secure of this and cannot become a corrupt, we all are susceptible to become corrupt, we all are hand-to-hand with an evil…..besides, no one was corrupt from the beginning and no one is also not secure from this…..that does not become a corrupt or fall in the prey of an evil.
The Imam in a more comprehensive and more profound statement addressed the differences between the Almighty God and his creations and concludes that anyone except the Almighty God is like a `defective’, `interest claimer’ and `lacks the total wisdom’ creature and thus he should be `questioned’ about his works; therefore a leader has an accountable status:
For the absolute act of extremity right there is no prejudice except the sacred essence and the manifestations of his essences…….for every act that evolves with a purpose and extremity of non-essence, immaterial that it is for which extremity though it is for the acquirement of an interest and gaining an access to the other and or for the worship and praise or pray and have a piety for the prophet Mohammad (peace be upon him), is coordinated with it and the presence of it is in the first place from the lack of it and this requires defect and disuse and that for the total pious essence via the generalization and enriched with the essence and is a necessity for the providence is completely impossible.
So there is no quality in his acts and there is no question of quality………and even since his pious essence is completely absolute and his reputability is generalized ……..so the extremity of all his movements and actions, is the pious essence and for the pious essence, there is nil extremity other than the self itself and in addition the Almighty God, though via the theologian is generalized, immaterial of what act is issued by him in the extremity is for making it firm thus should not subjected to a question, in contrary to the others…….since the act of right is in the total perfectionism and in the atom system should not be questioned effectually about what he as well as others are doing and if they are not like that then they must be questioned.
In this manner, the Imam not only considered the leader accountable, but also according to his logic explanations the belief to the lack of his accountability is considered a kind of `polytheism or dualism. He in another place considered the belief to the lack of accountability as an illegitimate `pride’:
In the religious jurisprudences and the scholars of religious jurisprudence and tradition and its templar, also sometimes a person will be found that considers the other people low and scorns on them and consider himself as the swagger of all the bounties and honoring and feels a necessity that the entire people should obey his commands and do not argue about what he says, he in other words considers himself as the only perfection of the Almighty God. And except his knowledge from which he has not got mush benefit, does not consider the other sciences and without any judgment rejects them, and regards them as the tool of perish, and reject the scholars and the other sciences from his ignorance and unawareness and as well present that his honesty has led him to insult and humiliate these, although the knowledge of honesty is free from these morals and consequences…….
The holiness Sadeq (peace be upon him) in his testament wrote that to your companions,…….be afraid of the grandeur and arrogance, since the arrogance only pertains to the essence and the highness of the God, and the one who disputes and claims the God in himself, then the Almighty will also break and oppress him on the day of judgment.
The Imam as well in a logic manner did not consider the ``heartily surrender’, and `belief in the trueness of the leader’s decrees’ necessary, no reason exists that the humbleness and the heartily acceptance and the belief that one has in relation to what the leader considers an order, assumes and necessitates. For this reason not considering the factors that affirms the criticism and rejection of some of the actions and sayings of the leader, there is a nil reason for the lack of criticism license and necessity of heartily surrender before him.
The imam in the discussions of `cut’ of the methodologies knowledge especially in relation to `the necessity to an enforced accordance’ or lack of its necessity mentioned that:
Heartily surrender and acceptance with the heart, and a definite belief towards a thing, does not happen via the determination and choice, without the existence of its preliminaries and the principles. And if we assume that the causes and the ground of it are formed, it is impossible that is violated by the belief and acceptance …….
This [point] is a mere right in this matter, without a difference between the principles of belief and the minutiae practicalities…..so it is no correct that an imposition towards a thing [or] or its research is impossible and or assuredly without any will and authorization the [imposer] is formed, is belonged……
Thus, if we assume that it is possible [that the imposition belonged to the belief with the secondary commandments] is apparently not necessary, since there is no reason for it in the minutiae, neither through the kind of intellectuality nor through the kind of narration, and [also] that an imposition [belongs to the actions] is merely an advisable for an operable submission and [others] that the conscience is doing the judgment that……..if an individual practically obeys [an imposition] but does not believe it, does not deserve to suffer.
The Imam in an ascendancy expressed this principle that primarily, the heartily belief as a truth is not in the will of a human; and what is not optional, does not belong to the divine impositions. Secondly, if we assume that the belonging of an imposition to belief is possible, then there exists nil reason that it is necessitated on the imposers which in relation to the secondary commandments of the religion believe even those that in a certain manner are `divine verdict’.
What is necessary, is doing the prayers and not the definite belief with regards to the incumbency and the necessity of praying, so if the slaves of God narrate the prayers in a manner that have a doubt or hesitation in its incumbency and in their heart, with regards to the necessity of praying have a suspicion from the Almighty God and even express this doubt of theirs, it is not considered an objection and no kind of aquiline and blame is justifiable for them.
Yes, if the obvious and necessary divine verdict is `denied’ by him (not only that he does not believe it or have a doubt in it) and this denial or denying the mission of the prophet Mohammad (peace be upon him), leads to his destruction and terminates in the imperfect realization of his pure destabilizes, in this case, the denial will lead to blasphemy and naturally the expression of such a denial is not permissible.
Now, if the belief in the secondary commandments and the heartily surrender towards the vested divinity commandments is not necessary, the lack of presence of heartily surrender with regards to the decrees of the leader is for sure not necessary, and here even the deny will not be of a problem, since none of the leader’s decrees can be included as the essentialities of the religion (however it is clear that when a leader expresses the needs of a religion or he commands them, here his own order is also unaccounted). The result is that the necessity of obedience from the decrees of leader does not have a relation with the acceptance and will not have a heartily surrender in front of them and any kind of doubt expression, or criticism or their denying is permitted in an absolute manner.
The Imam in addition to describing the belief towards ``lack of leader accountability’ as a `kind of paganism’ and `pride’, stated the principle according to which the accountability of a leader is a method and a tool for guaranteeing the rights and freedoms of the people, and prevention of its violation, is by the statesman. In an interview with an Italian newspaper it is told by him that:
Question: With the consideration that each government in itself is collecting the maximum concentration power, then how an Islamic government can exist without gaining the power in that concentration and besides a controlled and dominant relationship is not established?
The response of the [Imam]: The Islam in the relationship between the government and statesman and nation has specified a limit and ground rules and has determined a right for each one of them on the other that in the case of observing it never such a controlled and dominant relationship will be established. Basically ruling and statesmanship in the Islam is an imposition and a divine accountability…… [And] it is not a tool to impose the glory and greatness upon the others that with this status wants for his benefit violate the rights of a nation. Every individual has a right from the other person that, directly against the other grand pensionary Muslims are impeached and criticize him and he should provide a convincing answer and other than this case if he acts in opposition to his Islamic duties, he will be automatically dismissed from the status of statesmanship and there exist other criteria that will solve this issue.
Eventually, the imam believed that the nation possessed `the right of rebellion’ against the statesmanship which is deviated from the right and violates the rights of people:
The nation has the right that in the Islamic Republic support the governments that are serving the nation [but], if he sees a government that is doing a minor offence, the nation should give a blow to it, if in case one sees a violent system that wants to oppress them, they should complain about it and the courts should provide a petition and if they do not do, then the nation itself should provide a petition, and gives a blow in their mouth, this in the Islamic Republic is not an oppression.
The Muslim should be such that if anyone wants to be the caliph of Muslims…….. [Or] [Any other statesman] who wants to keep his feet aside, he should remove his sword and force him to keep his feet straight.
But, the imam believed some conditions for the legitimacy of `revolt’ and it’s not that he considered anyone legitimate for this work and subsequently prescribed disarray and disrupt in the order.
Nevertheless, the imam reminds in his testament that:
Many of the ammunitions and problems will not be raised via the selection of the most eligible and the most bounded personalities for the leadership or leadership council, or it will be solved with the merit.
In this manner, the holiness Imam, though unlike Montesquieu principle does not emphasize upon the separation of powers in a principled manner, but as Locke emphasizes on the right of the rebellion of the people against the ruler that goes out of the legal limit and in this field his theory is in proximity to the theory of Locke.