Dr. Liyaghatali's meeting with Grand Ayatollah Saanei
Question: Do you consider non-Muslims impure?
What is your edict about having a meal with them?
Answer: All humans are pure. No one is unclean unless they have found the truth in Islam; nevertheless, express hostility against it. Such a person is exceptionally rare and should be given the benefit of the doubt.
Thus all Non-Muslims including Hindus, Fireworshipers, Cowdasists, and so on are pure. 'Impure ' has only been associated with atheists in Quran. God commands atheists to be away from the Holy Mosque. Atheist is a person whose soul has grown into impure. Soul impurity arises when somebody ascribes partners to God while he knows God is the absolute one.
Ascribing partners to God through neglect, man is not atheist, but unenlightened.
In view of taking food, they are as respectable, as Muslim mealmates. All people, Muslim, or non-Muslim should call God's name, when slaughtering animals for food; otherwise, the food is not clean.
Question: Is the slaughtered animal by Non-Muslim clean?
Answer: It makes no difference; only God's remembrance and mention is necessary, no matter what language or religion he has. If you are doubtful about God's mention at the time of slaughter by a non-Muslim, the food is impure. At Muslims’ market, it is clean.
Question: Does this all include Jews too?
Answer: Certainly, yes. You can ask him to mention God's name at slaughter, and the food is clean.
Question: what is your attitude in general towards non-Muslims?
Are their good deeds acceptable by God?
Answer: I am of the opinion that the outcome of good deeds and eschewing evils according to one's understanding will be paradise. Regardless of the religion they practice, owing to the fact that they are convinced by the righteousness of their ideology without the slightest doubt, they get what they deserve. God says: 'Good deeds will be rewarded ten times as much as they deserve, and evildoers will be given punishment which fits the evil; You shall not be unfairly treated.'
According to Molla-Sadra, paradise inevitably evolves from spiritual development.
In some Quranic verses, faith is a vital prerequisite for paradise, which I interpret it, as sincere belief in the goodness of one's deeds not belief in God. Strong belief is associated with the mental serenity, and it contributes to spiritual development. However, someone with a sense of being under compulsion can never be consistent in doing good deeds and improve.
Neither identification nor label, i. e. Christian, Muslim, or Buddhist is the requirement for paradise, but indeed good deeds are. An agnostic involved in his skepticism can not believe in God or prophet. Neither do Christians put trust in Prophet Mohammad. It would be utterly inconceivable if God called for a particular identification on the Doomsday. Would it be unfair?
Quran says reassuringly: "God shall not be unfair to any of his creatures."
Similarly, evil doing mortifies human soul, which will result in hell. It makes no difference which religion or belief you have, but which deeds you perform. If doubt is cast upon the authenticity of his ideology, one has to seek the truth; other wise he is guilty of laxity.
Question: what is your view on women's rights?
Answer: Women do have equality in all rights except inheritance which is half as much as men, but I consider it fair, and I have given elaborate explanation on this issue.
Question: Are they regarded equals in giving testimony?
Answer: They have equality. In ' The cow’, the first chapter of Quran, two women are found necessary to testify in the court of law where one man suffices. The reason is one of them can serve as a reminder to help vivid remembrance. There, we come to understand that women are more likely to forget a past event in this special case. Now, This Quranic verse was revealed with relevance to commercial affairs. Having few social associations, women mostly did not know much about financial and commercial subjects.
To guarantee a fair judgement, two women would testify. Similarly, to provide assurance, the testimony of two men is essential when they are more likely to forget a past event than women are.
The criterion is knowledge and awareness. Both men and women can be of equal number when they have equal knowledge.
Question: what is your verdict on blood money for women?
Answer: I regard men and women equals in the following cases: blood money, retaliatory punishment, appointment as a judge, and even being an expert on jurisprudence.
Question: Can I follow a female expert on Muslim law?
Answer: It is like other fields of science; the foremost criterion is expertise.
Question: what is your perspective upon stoning as a punishment?
Answer: Regardless of what is being enforced in Islamic countries presently, there are two jurisprdential answers two this question.
1) Some great experts believe fixed Islamic penalties can not be enforced at Occultation Time (when Imam Mahdi is absent.)
2) In Islam, legal procedure concerning punitive law is so constraining that we can not prove a wrongdoing such as fornication. Legal sanctions can not be executed until hard proof is submitted.
As far as fornication is concerned, four just people should have witnessed the sexual intercourse vividly. It would be impossible unless wrongdoers committed this action in public. We can also prove a suspect's guilt when he makes the confession of fornication for four times, and also when his confession derives from pang of conscience; the evildoer wants to set himself free from sin. The confession should not be extracted under pressure in prison.
When Imam Ali was at realm of his Islamic State, a woman came to him for the penalty to be executed after she had committed fornication. The woman visited Imam Ali for three times, and each time was told to leave by Imam Ali. She was pregnant when she came the forth time, therefore, Imam Ali postponed the penalty until the child was born. Having given birth to her baby, she was told to leave until the child could distinguish good from bad. In Fact, Imam Ali never wanted to enforce the law. It was his unique policy to stop corruption. Here, we come to understanding that the judge can not put the pieces together and state the fixed penalty of stoning against the suspect. In such cases, we can only enforce some discretionary punishments. In conclusion, there should be some corrections in the legal procedures.