AhlulBayt News Agency (ABNA): The case of the trial of a number of Shiite scholars in Bahrain cannot be examined solely from the perspective of the charges against the defendants or the testimony of a security officer; because what is happening in this court is part of a broader debate about the relationship between security, politics, religion, and the judiciary in Bahrain.
The recent session, especially the manner of the security witness's presence and testimony, has highlighted the question of to what extent security narratives can maintain coherence and solidity in the face of direct questions and judicial standards of proof.
One of the most important axes of the session was the lawyers' questioning about the concept of "Wilayat al-Faqih" (Guardianship of the Jurist); a jurisprudential and political concept that holds an important place in the security narrative of the case. However, according to the published report of the session, the witness was unable to provide a clear definition of this concept.
The significance of this issue arises from the fact that when a religious concept is used as part of the evidence for charges, it is expected that the witness and the bodies preparing the case have an accurate understanding of its meaning. Otherwise, there is concern that a jurisprudential concept, without careful examination, has been separated from its religious meaning and turned into a security and political sign.
Another issue is the quality of the testimony and how the witness faced the defense's questions. Lawyers have objected to the witness's refusal to answer a large number of questions, as well as the contradictions in his statements. The witness's repeated response to "refer to my statements before the prosecution" is also particularly significant; because the philosophy of a witness's presence in court is the possibility of direct questioning and examination of his claims.
When a significant part of the answers are indirectly referred to previous statements, the question arises as to whether the court is independently evaluating the evidence or reproducing the investigation stage's narrative.
In this context, the claim about the establishment of the Islamic Scholars Council is also noteworthy. According to the published report, the witness claimed that Ayatollah Sheikh Isa Qasim established this council on the orders of Ayatollah Sayyid Ali Khamenei; a claim that is important due to its role in shaping the hypothesis of "foreign connection."
For such a claim to have probative value, it requires a document or verifiable evidence, including written documents, correspondence, direct testimony, or material evidence. The absence of such a document during the session, at least based on the published information, subjects this claim to serious questioning.
From an analytical perspective, the important point of the case is how religious relations are interpreted as security relations. A scholar's connection with a religious authority, membership or activity in a religious institution, and belief in a jurisprudential theory are in themselves a religious reality; but if the security apparatus interprets these same elements as a sign of organizational affiliation or foreign political connection, a gap is created between the "religious reality" and the "security interpretation."
Therefore, the main question is with what documents and evidence this gap has been filled.
This issue becomes more important regarding Bahrain's Shiite community; a community whose religious institutions, scholars, religious seminaries, rituals, and social networks form part of the country's historical and social structure. In such circumstances, the securitization of religious concepts and institutions can have consequences beyond a judicial case and affect the public perception of a social and religious group.
For this reason, the use of concepts such as "Wilayat al-Faqih," "religious authority," and "foreign connection" in security cases requires double precision and the presentation of clear evidence.
On the other hand, this case should also be viewed in the context of the history of judicial and security treatment of political cases in Bahrain. The experience of the State Security Law and then the "National Safety" courts in 2011, along with political cases in later years, has made the issue of the independence of the judicial process and the extent of the influence of security narratives on judicial cases a constant subject of debate.
In such a history, each new political case can raise the question again of whether the court merely examines the evidence presented, or whether the security narrative has already traversed an important part of the path of proof before entering the court.
Within this framework, the testimony of the security officer in the recent session takes on symbolic importance. On one side is the security apparatus, which has based its charges on its information and reports, and on the other side is the defense, which tries to test this same information through direct questioning.
If the witness cannot provide a precise explanation of the main concepts of the case or contradicts himself in his answers, it is natural that the weight and credibility of his testimony become a fundamental issue for the court. Of course, the final judgment on the credibility of the testimony and evidence is within the court's jurisdiction, and one cannot judge the judicial outcome of the case solely based on a media report.
Ultimately, the significance of this session should be sought in the confrontation between the security narrative and the judicial test. A case built on concepts such as Wilayat al-Faqih, religious authority, foreign connection, and religious institutions' activities can be reliable from a legal perspective only when each of these claims is accompanied by specific, verifiable, and defensible evidence in court.
From this perspective, the main question of the recent session is not merely what a witness said, but whether the security narrative of the case can pass the stage of claim and become clear and judicially provable evidence.
**************
End/ 345E
