Beyond Superficial Similarities: A Normative Divergence
At first glance, both Machiavellianism and the rule of Aham and Mohem may appear consequentialist, seemingly permitting the violation of certain norms in times of crisis. However, their underlying philosophies represent a profound normative divergence.
Machiavellianism recognizes no a priori moral boundaries; its ultimate and sole criterion is the acquisition, preservation, and expansion of power.[1] In stark contrast, the rule of Aham and Mohem operates exclusively within a strictly regulated ethical and Sharia-compliant framework. It does not grant rulers a blank check to trample upon fundamental moral principles under the guise of political expediency. Instead, it serves as a jurisprudential mechanism to resolve Tazahum—a situation where two legitimate, lawful values or duties conflict, and the simultaneous fulfillment of both is impossible.
The Six-Step Diagnostic Model: A Bulwark Against Instrumentalism
To prevent arbitrary interpretations and the abuse of power, the application of the Aham and Mohem rule is not left to the subjective whim of politicians. It requires the strict fulfillment of a six-step diagnostic model. A political decision is deemed legitimate only if it meets all the following criteria:
- Actual Conflict (Tazahum): The clash between two rulings must be real and mutually exclusive in practice, not merely hypothetical or perceived.
- Verifiable Superiority (Aham): The primacy of the “greater good” over the “lesser good” must be established through objective and valid evidence, not through mere political claims.
- Exhaustion of Alternatives: There must be absolutely no other legitimate pathway to resolve the issue and achieve the objective without sacrificing the lesser value.
- Proportionality: The extent of the compromise or harm inflicted must be strictly proportional to the magnitude of the anticipated greater good.
- Harm Minimization: The damage to the sacrificed value must be restricted to the absolute minimum required by the necessity.
- Competent Authority: The evaluation and execution of this delicate balance fall exclusively within the jurisdiction of legally and religiously competent authorities, precluding arbitrary individual actions.
Case Study: The Illegitimacy of Torture
To practically grasp the distinction between this rule and Machiavellianism, one can examine the issue of “torturing a suspect to extract critical information” (often framed as the ticking time bomb scenario).
From a Machiavellian perspective, acquiring life-saving intelligence easily justifies the use of torture. Conversely, in Islamic jurisprudence and under Article 38 of the Iranian Constitution, torture is strictly and unconditionally prohibited.[2]
Can the rule of Aham and Mohem be invoked to justify torture by arguing that the “information” is the greater good? The jurisprudential answer is a resounding no, based on several key failures within the diagnostic model:
- Uncertainty of Outcome: The result of torture (obtaining truthful information) is never guaranteed, failing the “Verifiable Superiority” criterion.
- Institutional Corruption: Legalizing torture, even in limited scopes, leads to irreversible institutional corruption that destroys the foundations of public trust and justice—a harm that outweighs any isolated benefit.
- Availability of Alternatives: There are invariably more legitimate and sophisticated intelligence-gathering methods available.
As explicitly discussed in the 1979 debates of the Assembly for the Final Review of the Constitution, the risk of torture becoming systemic is so immense that it cannot be rationalized under the guise of prioritizing the most important.[3] Arbitrarily justifying torture is, in essence, a descent into Machiavellian instrumentalism, not the disciplined application of Islamic jurisprudence.
Conclusion
The rule of Aham and Mohem in Islamic political thought is not a loophole for evading ethical responsibilities. Rather, it is a complex, disciplined, and rule-bound instrument designed for managing ethical and legal crises. Unlike Machiavellianism, which acknowledges no boundaries for the ends justifying the means, Islamic jurisprudence—through rigorous constraints like the six-step model—ensures that even in states of emergency, human dignity and the fundamental frameworks of justice are never sacrificed on the altar of fleeting political expediency.
Endnotes
[1] Niccolò Machiavelli, The Prince, chaps. 15–18.
[2] Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran, art. 38.
[3] Detailed Proceedings of the Assembly for the Final Review of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran [Mashruh-e Muzakarat-e Majlis-e Barrasi-ye Nahayi-ye Qanun-e Asasi-ye Jomhuri-ye Eslami-ye Iran] (Tehran, 1979).
