Statements of the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution in Meeting with Members of the Guardian Council

In the Name of God, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful

First of all, I extend a warm welcome to my dear brothers. It has been a while since we have gathered with this esteemed Guardian Council; although I have met some of the gentlemen. Secondly, I thank the dear brothers for their efforts, and I know that they have made considerable efforts for the elections with sincerity and diligence. We ask the Almighty God and hope that His grace will encompass us and accept these efforts, rewarding all brothers—both those in the center and those who have worked throughout the country.

All those who work and strive for the elections are rewarded before the Almighty God; because elections are truly an important matter in our country. What has been able to silence the mouths of the spiteful and obstinate enemies of the Islamic Republic and render their excuses weak and flimsy in everyone's eyes is the presence, participation, selection, and involvement of the people in the affairs of governance. Certainly, if the religious government did not have this great backing, the enemies would have had more grounds for their unfair judgments.

Anyone who works for the elections with sincerity and as a duty has a very high reward; both those in the Ministry of Interior and those who work for the esteemed Guardian Council, as well as the esteemed members of this council themselves. Therefore, although the pressure of work has been very high and will continue to be so, when one thinks of the reward and satisfaction of God, they feel that heavy and significant tasks become easy for them, and they can work with enthusiasm.

Regarding the differences of opinion that exist between the supervisory councils and the central supervisory council and the Ministry of Interior—such differences have always existed—my recommendation to both sides has always been and remains to set the law as the criterion; because what can serve as a guiding line and prevent chaos arising from differing opinions is the law. They should set the line of the law as the criterion and work according to the law. This way, "the mouths of the obstinate will be silenced"; those who truly harbor enmity cannot find excuses or weaknesses to press upon.

Regarding the verification of qualifications, I have previously had multiple discussions with Mr. Jannati and also with some other friends. What comes to my mind regarding the verification of qualifications is that it is the duty of the Guardian Council to verify, and naturally, it must verify the qualifications; just as it is also the duty of the Ministry of Interior. Anyone who volunteers to enter a field that has conditions must have those conditions verified in them, and you are responsible for this passage. This is not exclusive to the Guardian Council; it is the responsibility of all. Of course, gentlemen should take verification seriously; however, do not narrow the scope of what is verified too much; that is, the qualifications required for the parliament should be clearly defined. We should truly see how much commitment exists regarding the Constitution and the commitment to the pure religion of Islam and other conditions. This can be considered a matter of gradation that has degrees of intensity and weakness. The intense commitment that can be compromised by something minor may not be necessary for a parliamentary representative; it may be necessary for leadership or for some other high-ranking officials. For the parliament, a certain level of these characteristics and conditions is required, which we call qualifications. That level must be accurately identified and verified. Sometimes, for instance, a person finds themselves in a situation where they become emotional and say something that may not be a good or correct statement; however, this does not indicate that the person lacks commitment to religion or to the Islamic Republic. Suppose there is a young person who has found themselves in an emotional environment and has said something after hearing a few remarks from others, or in a meeting where two, three, or five friends are discussing the country and Islam, they may have said a sentence that could be acceptable in a friendly discussion—even if it was critical; or a criticism of the leadership or some of the foundations of the system—but we cannot take this sentence and statement that has reached our ears as evidence that this person has lost their qualifications. I mentioned this to clarify the meaning of not narrowing the scope of what is verified. There are conditions that must be verified; however, the extent of these conditions in different individuals may vary; just as the issues that indicate the presence or absence of these conditions also differ in various circumstances and situations.

Another point is that we consider verification to be essential; however, in such cases, it is usually not possible to have certain and scientific verification, and verification in the sense of establishing evidence is almost the same. Although it has been said that two or three witnesses are sufficient, it is rare to find cases where two just witnesses come forward and testify about a matter. In many of these issues, the boundaries of conjecture and perception are close together, and sometimes conjectures become confused with perceptions; especially since there is often room for various interpretations in many statements and remarks; that is, a person has said something, and when you refer to them, they say their intention was something else. One cannot hold them accountable for the apparent meaning of their words. If someone has intended something contrary to the apparent meaning, or at that time did not pay attention to the apparent meaning, they have not committed a sin. Therefore, "it is possible" that a person has spoken contrary to the apparent meaning; as soon as this possibility arises, the probability comes into play and weakens the basis of testimony based on perception. Thus, when we speak of verification, we mean verification in the sense of common understanding derived from signs and indications that must be established, and a person must reach a common understanding with a certain level of confidence, which, of course, may exist on both sides; for example, if a person has said something in one place and said something else that contradicts it in another place, this must also be taken into account, and one must verify the matter based on the totality and outcome of these.

Fortunately—as Mr. Jannati pointed out—the law has a logical scope and extension; that is, the subject is examined in the county and provincial councils and then in the central committee over the course of twenty-one or twenty-two days, and during this time, there is an opportunity for the Guardian Council itself to review what has occurred. This is a very good opportunity and there is no problem with it. Of course, whenever one realizes that a matter is right, there is no problem in saying that we made this determination at that time, and now something else has become clear; we can retract our statement. One should not insist on what they have understood and determined to be right.

Thanks be to God, the Guardian Council is a very valuable and precious body; it consists of esteemed jurists and legal scholars; reputable, well-known, and trustworthy personalities. Therefore, you can truly take a careful look, and the people's confidence will also be gained. I certainly do not recommend that anyone yield to individuals who want to act arrogantly against the law; I have told this to the gentlemen as well as to some of those who came to complain to us; however, I strongly recommend that you be careful that no one's rights are violated; because disqualifying someone is not a trivial matter; that is, to disqualify someone who may actually have qualifications. "Defamation" is a very important issue. It is not enough to say we understood it this way; no, all aspects must be thoroughly considered and respected. In some cases and instances—without intending to go into details—that were presented to me two or three days ago, I saw that this meaning and what one expects was not present. You must strive to ensure that what is done is sound. I have always told my dear and esteemed friends in the Guardian Council that one must choose a solid footing and stand firmly on it; one should not be weak underfoot, and there should be no doubt of deviation or transgression from the law or negligence in compliance with the law.

The people want to participate in the elections, and God willing, they will participate and are interested in the elections, and this process of verification and qualification determination is a worldwide process and is not specific to Iran or the Islamic Consultative Assembly. Everywhere, when a person is assigned to a responsibility that requires appointing a specific individual, they naturally investigate and search to see whether this person has qualifications or not; this has no relation to whether it is the Islamic Consultative Assembly or not. Therefore, this work is a normal task; it is a task that is carried out everywhere in the world and before all rational individuals. Suppose someone is introduced for a responsibility in the parliament. The parliament does not arbitrarily vote for this person; rather, they investigate, research, study, and search to see if this person has any weaknesses. If they do not find them suitable, they reject them. This rejection cannot be criticized by the parliament; because the parliament has not verified that person's qualifications and has rejected them. The same applies to the representatives of the parliament. Therefore, the process is a normal one, and the people accept this process, and the Constitution has also verified this process. What is our duty is to strive to carry out what is legally required with precision and thoroughness, while considering the circumstances of those we are dealing with; that is, no one should be wronged, and no one's rights should be trampled upon. Individuals who have loud voices and whose voices are heard by all, in my opinion, are not as important as that university professor who, for instance, writes a private letter to Mr. Jannati stating that I have been disqualified, while my characteristics and background are this. I feel for that person and for someone who may be overlooked and disqualified, while their qualifications could be verified rationally and commonly with the same ordinary signs. What worries me is that such an event may occur. Now that, thanks be to God, there is an opportunity, truly review the files of each individual present. Of course, some may have a background that based on the signs they have, one confirms that those backgrounds—which are not desirable now—have been severed from those individuals. Therefore, one must judge based on the current situation.

Regarding the representatives of the parliament, I have sent a message to Mr. Jannati—I stand firm on this matter, and in my opinion, there is no doubt about it—that this is a place for presumption, as long as the contrary is not proven; that is, you should not say we were not certain at that time; no, presume it to be valid. In places where you have doubts about both your actions—those who were present—and the actions of others—those who were not present—presume it to be valid. Those who came have come with verification; unless the contrary is proven. If the contrary is proven, do not listen to anyone's words and act according to what has been established; however, if the contrary has not been proven, this verification is a presumption, and there is no need for one to seek to verify this qualification through other means. In my opinion, this can be done regarding the representatives of the parliament. Of course, the case of someone whose disqualification has been proven after verification is separate, and that is not the subject of discussion; but as long as disqualification has not been proven, there is a place for presumption of qualification; at that time they were qualified, and now their qualification should be presumed. In places where there is doubt, presume it. This is specifically for representatives whose qualifications were verified in the previous term. Of course, there are those who have been in previous terms, and naturally, if their qualifications were rejected in the previous term, then this presumption will not apply here; however, if there are those who have been in the parliament in previous terms and have not run for candidacy afterward, the same argument will apply to them.

The path is a smooth one; it is not a difficult path; some try to complicate easy tasks and do not follow the legal path for tasks that have a legal route; no, this work has a legal path, and your legal and formal responsibility has just begun, and you can proceed with your investigations. In this regard, there seems to be no problem.

In any case, we pray for you; we know the difficulties of your work. Such tasks that have a tint of judgment are always subject to attack; ultimately, one of the two parties in judgment will criticize and blame you; this is inevitable, and one must prepare themselves for such matters. The more these pressures increase, the greater your reward before the Almighty God will be; do not be overly concerned about these; they will ultimately exist. In the path of preserving the sacred Islamic Republic and establishing this lofty and solid edifice, which is the hope of the future of the Islamic Ummah and today is also a source of hope for the Islamic Ummah, one must strive and struggle; one must endure hardships. There are various types of hardships, and this is one of them, which is certainly not the only one. God willing, endure these hardships, and the Almighty God will reward you.

Peace be upon you and God's mercy and blessings.