There are two distinct, but converging forces at work that make the answer “yes.”
The first is the despotism inherent in Sharia, or Islamic law. A kinder, gentler Sharia remains a theoretical construct of apologists and revisionist historians; it would require a syncretism of Sharia with the values found in a Western liberal democracy — a system Sharia is intended to subvert and replace. In short, the values that would purportedly “save” it are the values it seeks to destroy: Those include equal rights for men, women, believers and non-believers, and above all, the right of citizens to change their government. Even to change an Islamic government to a non-Islamic one.
In a related vein, the second factor is the Achilles’ heel of even the most benign theocracy with the best intentions one could dream up, let alone a regime based on Sharia: Power corrupts. By nature, a theocracy — a government by clerics charged with implementing purportedly divine will and the “ideal” design of society — does not lend itself to limitations on power, separation of powers, or any official restraint beyond platitudes on a printed page. Hence, accountability to the populace is lost, and government itself is permeated with the arrogance of presuming it not only knows best, but has a divinely granted right and duty to keep the cheeky commoners in line.
It is these factors that have led to the displays of brutality on the streets of Tehran.
“‘Punished mercilessly’ — Is this Islam?,” by Octavia Nasr for CNN, June 27:
“Annihilate the rioters,” demanded one of Iran’s fundamentalist clerics during Friday prayer. He believes that the opposition “defied the orders” of Iran’s Supreme Leader, who “rules by God’s design.” Therefore, “they should be punished mercilessly.” Either way, his words couldn’t be harsher or more extreme. Some would say those words couldn’t be more un-Islamic.
The word Islam means “surrender.” The entire religion is based on surrendering one’s self, speech, action and thoughts to god. When moderate Muslims hear what this Mullah has called for, they wonder which brand of Islam he is advocating.
That’s ultimately immaterial to the matter of “surrendering”: A deity could be an awful character, shooting pool with inhabited planets and smoking stinky cosmic cigars, and still expect his creations to surrender their selves, speech, action, and thoughts.
The first pillar in Islamic faith is the declaration called “Shahda” that there is no god but Allah and that Mohammed is his prophet.
The first verse of every chapter in the holy Muslim book, the Quran, goes like this, “In the name of God, most merciful, most compassionate.” Devout Muslims start many of their activities or speech with these glorious words.
Herein lies a logical fallacy that permeates much of the supposed “common ground” between Islamic and Western traditions with respect to “tolerance,” “human rights,” and yes, compassion and mercy: The fact that we use the same terms does not guarantee we mean exactly the same thing.
Where is the compassion in the Iranian mullah’s speech? Where is the Mercy?….
For all the reasons mentioned above, that mullah may believe he is being perfectly compassionate and merciful — a little “tough love” to preserve Allah’s government. And he may find Allah tremendously compassionate and merciful for not prescribing the inconveniences of something like a Bill of Rights. After all, he’s only trying to do the right thing. In closing, see also: the Milgram Experiment, which measured how much pain people are willing to inflict if they think they are ultimately “helping” the victim. As the Qur’an itself instructs those carrying out the flogging of adulterers: “Let no compassion move you” (24:2).