|
 MeltdownDirect attack on the leader of the IRI By Ghassem Sholeh Sadi December 7, 2002 The Iranian Letter from former parliament member from Shiraz Ghassem Sholeh Sadi to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic. See Persian text An Open Letter To Hojjatoleslam Mr. Ali Khamenei From God's servant, Ghassem Sholeh Sadi Boundless gratitude to the God Who Has Given man responsibility not to the amount of his ability but his knowledge; and praise to the Prophet of Mercy; and greetings to 'Ali, the supporter of justice; and greetings to Hossein, the god of honor. Please let me talk to you without stuttering, by imitating my pundit, Ali: The Constitution of the Islamic republic of Iran was approved by the Iranian nation on December 3rd, 1979. According to articles no. 5, 107 and 109 the person who will be elected by the majority of the people, will be recognized and accepted to the post of authority and leadership, will take on the responsibility of leadership. When no Faqih (Juristconsult) receives such a majority, then the popularly-elected Khobregan (Experts) will elect the members of the leadership council or the leader himself from among the Maraje' (Taqlid) (Sources [of Imitation]) and those in line with the conditions mentioned in the above-mentioned three articles. The Rahbar (Leader) has, therefore, to possess, firstly, the conditions of marja'iyyat (highest religious authority) and secondly, to be recognized and elected by the majority of the people to the position of authority and leadership (in which the Experts have no say), and only when no such majority would exist, then the Experts would be empowered to elect the members of the leadership council or the leader from among the religious authorities and those possessing the conditions set by articles 5, 107 and 109. Forty days before his death Emam Khomeini ordered the re-evaluation of the Constitution, but before such re-evaluation could be carried out and the regulations of the re-evaluation committee could be approved by the Iranian nation, Emam Khomeini died on June 4th 1989. Since by then no re-evaluation was yet carried out nor anything approved by the Iranian nation, the Constitution of December 3rd, 1979 was still valid and binding. Thus, according to the three above-mentioned articles, the Leader had to meet all the relevant conditions, the "religious authority" condition being one of those. And even if we suppose that Your Excellency have reached today the position of religious authority, still there is no doubt that on that date, namely June 4th, 1989 or the date of Emam's death and your appointment as Leader by the Experts, Your Excellency did not meet the conditions for religious authority. Therefore, the question is how could you accept such responsibility that is totally contrary to the Constitution? If the answer is that by approving your appointment as Leader Emam Khomeini had solved the problem, then I have to doubt that and remind you that: first, Emam Khomeini had no power to appoint someone to replace him; second, that Emam Khomeini had no right to act contrary to the Constitution and disregard the conditions set in the Constitution for Leadership; and third, in reply to the letter by representatives of the third Majles, (Parliament) which I had the honor of being part of it, Emam Khomeini said: "If, until now, there has been any breach of the Constitution, then it was because of the war (with Iraq) and special problems and from now onwards it should be administered within the framework of the laws of the country". Therefore, Emam Khomeini did not have the authority to appoint his successor, nor the right of disdaining the law and the intention to act contrary to the constitution. In spite of the fact that Emam Khomeini had said that the highly-valued faqih (Jurisconsult), Ayatollah Montazeri, gives warmth to the regime and to the howzeh-ha-ye 'elmiyyeh (religious seminaries) and that the regime should profit from his views, still it is some years now that he has been under house arrest without any legal basis, and thus the olama (religious scholars), the people, the regime and the religious seminars are deprived of his views. Personally, because of inaccessibility to him, I am looking for a religious source [to imitate]. I have heard that the Jame'eh-ye Rouhaniyat-e Mobarrez (Militant Clergy Association) and the Jame'eh-ye Modarresin-e Howzeh-ye 'Elmiyeh-ye Qom (Association of the Lecturers of Qomís Religious Seminaries) have also placed you in the category of the Sources (of Imitation). If you really possess the conditions of religious authority, among which are the conditions of religious scholarship (a'lamiyat) and justice seeking (a'daliyat), then I will choose you. But I have doubts concerning you on two reasons. First, because of a letter dated April 25th, 1989, written by Emam Khomeini and addressed to you concerning the re-evaluation of the Constitution, in which he (Khomeini) had addressed you as "Hojjatoleslam". I know [for a fact] that there is a big distance between the level of "Hojjatoleslam" and that of "marja'iyat" (highest religious authority, or source of imitation) and that in order to attain the level of marja'iyat many years of learning and research are necessary in the one side and on the other, because of sensitive, important and great preoccupations, Your Excellency could not have had the opportunity to achieved such a [religious] status. Second, those who have sponsored you, namely the Militant Clergy Association and the Association of the Lecturers of Qomís Religious Seminaries, are often members of the same grouping, and their connection with the centres of power, including Your Excellency, has created the image that they have done this because of special political considerations. I would appreciate an explanation by you in order to remove any doubts that may exist in this respect. It would also be helpful if you could name few of the great scholars, the privilege of their studentship you had after 1989. Supposing that your answer and guidance in respect to the two above-mentioned questions would be convincing, I wish to be permitted to ask you about your conduct in the two general spheres of foreign policy and domestic policy. A-Foreign Policy You yourself had declared honor (ezzat), wisdom (hekmat) and interest (maslahat) to be the three principles for setting foreign policy, and surely a suitable combination of these above-mentioned principles could be effective in directing the foreign policy. Couldn't their combination be effective in respect to the USA? Many personalities of the regime have pointed out to you different issues, especially those referring to international questions and the USA. For example, in a letter, which he gave to you in my presence, Dr. Raja'i Khorasani had raised few issues, in one of which he stated that you can set the conditions for talks and resuming relations with the USA. He added that if you fail to take advantage of this opportunity, then the USA would be the one to set the conditions [for resuming relations with Iran]. My question is as follows: nine years after that date and after the positions taken by Mr. Bill Clinton and Ms. Allbright, in which they had criticized American past behavior in Iran, how have you used these opportunities in order to secure the national interests [of Iran]? Those who are familiar with the alphabet of politics, call politics a game, the statemen, leaders and governments ó players, and their work ó playing. If these definitions are correct, then playing with the enemy for securing national interests would be the duty and art of rulers and governments. Thus, for the execution of these duty and art one needs skill. So, isn't it better, that as far as defending national interests in relation to the USA, instead of "parking" the issue and refraining from talks (which might be due to the weakness of the diplomatic system and lack of skill of the diplomats and players of the Islamic Republic of Iran or because of the fear of the voluminous issues and claims by the USA) one should endeavor to raise the level of the diplomatic skills and the ability of the players? Has it been agreed that players should play only with friends?!! And should be incompetent in playing with enemies? And if that's the case, then have governments, such as that of Britain, became friendly first and then relation with them was established? Are the three principles of honor, wisdom and interest applicable only in cases of 'friends' and irrelevant in cases of 'enemies'? Isn't the cause of all these insults towards a large part of the Iranian people and many dissidents (degar-andish or those who think differently), whose only crime is that they don't regard your policy vis-à-vis the USA as serving Iranian national interests, result of the conspiracy fear? And isn't the use of terms, such as 'coward' (bi-gheirat) and 'terrified stupid' (ahmaq-e mar'oub) weakening the political literature of the Iranian nation, who has been enjoying a highest place in the history of world culture and civilization? And doesn't it harm your own character? You have rightly protested against the President of the USA's stand, who has stated that "countries should be either with us or with the terrorists" and you've correctly said, "Iran is not with you nor with the terrorists". So there might be a third alternative for a country not to side with the USA or with the terrorists. How is it, then, that you don't accept this very reasoning of yourself, and state that those who defend talking with the USA either don't know the alphabet of politics or the alphabet of honor! Isn't there a place for a third alternative even in your mind? And isn't it possible for a person to know the alphabet of politics and to be with honor, while at the same time to be completely opposed to your policy towards the USA and not to view it as serving Iran's national interests? As far as I am concerned, in addition to more than 30 years of political life and work, I have the highest scholastic degrees in politics, and this would suffice for knowing the alphabet of politics. As far as my honor is concerned, then my entire existence, from head to toe, is filled with honor, and of a Hosseini kind [i.e., like Hossein, the 3rd Shi'ite Emam, who went to a war in order to secure his right and honor]. It is exactly because of this reason that contrary to the expected great dangers - originating from your possible dislike of these lines, which could result in the cutting of my head by obstinate sources ó my honor did not permit me to stay silent to your insult, and therefore, in spite of these dangers, I declare that I know the political alphabet as well as the alphabet and not only have I toured the seven cities of honor but also the seven cities of love ['seven' represents 'the complete number of' (such as days of the weeks, main colors, etc.), therefore 'touring the seven cities of honor and love' actually means 'the entirety of honor and love', implying here mainly to the personal honor and the love for country]. I am completely against your policy towards the USA and I don't see it compatible with the framework of the Iranian national interests. You really don't know that according to article 39 of the constitution any violation of honour and respect of persons who are arrested with legal warrant and jailed or exiled according to laws is strictly forbidden and punishable, let alone those who love their nation and have no other goal but defending national interests of this land. How do you dare so much to insult people who don't support your views?! Doesn't Your Excellency regard the start of a new war as contrary to the ends and plans of the regime? Of course, if the national interests of Iran would require us to enter into a total war against any country including the USA, then I'm declaring now my readiness to be present in the fronts of jehad (holy war against infidels) and shehadat (dying in defense of Islam), but an unpleasant memory from the period of the imposed war against Iraq and the defa'-e moqaddas ('holy defense', i.e. the Iran-Iraq war) troubles me. This memory is as follows: while thousands of my co-religionist and co-homeland brothers sang the loud song of jehad and shehadat, together with my martyred brother, shahid Asghar Sho'leh-Sa'di , in the war fronts, Your Excellency's respectful sister found refuge with the Ba'athist and Zionist Iraqi enemy, thus regretfully harming your status and position. I don't wish that in the event of a new war, the repetition of such issues would, God forbid; hurt Your Excellency's prestige. You surely know that the great Iranian nation is a snake-beaten nation, and is [therefore] fearful of a black and white rope [which resembles a snake]; it has then the right to be worrisome of the start of a new war. Don't you think that you should give them some assurances in few matters so that they stop worrying? For example, that the nation be confident that during a war the regime would not only be "duty responsible" but also "outcome responsible", meaning that the regime would also take the responsibility for the outcome of the war [and not only the fighting in the war]. Another matter concerns the historical memory of the [Iranian] nation, harmed by changes in the position [of the regime]. There are tens of such memories, in which changes in the position of the regime have offended the memory of our nations. For example, it used to be said that if Saddam [Hussein] would touch the sea, then the sea would become impure, and if we would make peace with Saddam, then what would we say to the Great Prophet? What answer would we give to the Koran? And if this [Iran-Iraq] war would last even 20 years, then we would still fight itÖ[but] finally we made peace with Saddam. Or on the occasion of the Mecca incident, we said that even if we would forgive Saddam, we would never forgive the Al-Sa'ud, but later Saudi Arabia became "the wing of Islam". Or in matter of the seizure of the American embassy in Iran and the taking of its diplomats and personnel as hostages; we used to threaten them with putting them on trial, but after loosing golden opportunities and with the beginning of the Reagan administration, we accepted the shameful Declaration of Algiers. Of course, I don't expect that in the matter of war you should have similar views to mine, because I only know the alphabet of politics but Your Excellency is an 'alameh (great scholar). I don't regard any war as a blessing, even not the war imposed by Iraq on Iran, a war which according to Mr. Rafsanjani "caused 1000 billion dollars of materialistic damages", the non-materialistic damages of which are beyond estimation, as a result of which we have been discovering, escorting [in a funeral procession] and burying thousands over thousands over thousands of valuable martyrs. If today Israel commits such crimes in the occupied territories it is partly because of the downfall of the two Middle Eastern powers [Iran and Iraq] and the damages inflicted on these two great armies of the Islamic world [by each other]. If today millions of our men and women live in decay, poverty and loss, it is, partly at least, due to the war and its repercussions. I, therefore, don't regard war a blessing at all. It is not a necessity to regard participating in a war as a blessing, and in many cases, and especially in the case of political players, they are forced to choose war and take [military] actions against their will. Anyway, since Your Highness has a different view about war, then I respect it, and if you think that such a [new] war would absolutely not occur, so we also hope so. But it is noteworthy that even during the Cold War and the existence of a bi-polar system, the rivalry of the super-powers did not prevent the 8-years imposed war. Recently, rulers like Mollah Mohammad Omar, Milosevic and Saddam not only have caused themselves to be entangled in complicated issues and to face international prosecution, but they have, even more importantly, exposed their nation and country to the danger of destructive wars. I, of course, praise your insight in preventing another imposed war during the US attack on Iraq in 1991, especially when friends, such as Mr. Khatami and Mr. Mohtashamipour, did not bear the neutrality of Iran at that time and supported the involvement of Iran against the USA and on the side of Iraq. If it is possible then you should be prudent that the national interests of Iran should not contradict the ideological interests, since if they contradict then the national interests would be harmed. For example, in the case of Afghanistan, we have been financing and supporting, out of ideological interests and sensitivities, Islamic fundamentalist (jehadi) groups against the Red Army and the hellish eastern super-power. We provided whatever assistance we could to Mr. Rabbani, Hekmatyar,Öand we paid for them through the SAMs [missiles] and the MIGs [combat aircrafts] of the ex-Soviet Union in the battles of the Iraqi war imposed on Iran. And finally we could also see the result of our endeavor in the establishment of the interim government of Afghanistan, although some of Your Excellency's friends had a great desire to the lack of security [in Afghanistan] under the Taleban. But, anyway, the Taleban fell from power and you have received Mr. Karzai in attendance yourself. In the matter of Palestine, it is of course an Islamic land and it is more than half a century that its Muslim nation lives in vagrancy and hardship; [now] is it wise that it should be so much tied to the fate of our nation? Is there a difference between the Chechen and Indian Muslims and the Palestinian ones? Didnít the Russian Red Army suppress the Muslims of Chechnya? Why didn't the ideological interests require us to rise in their support diligently? Implicitly, what is being deducted through the alphabet of politics is that there is not much contradiction between the policies of the USA, Israel and the Islamic Republic concerning the [political] elimination of Mr. Yaser Arafat. If this deduction is correct, then why should be such bondage, or at least, lack of rivalry exist among the three governments [contrary to the declared anti-Israeli and anti-American policies of the Islamic Republic]? Isn't it the time that we should re-consider our selection of strategic allies? As far as we know (in the limits of political alphabet, of course), the governments of Syria, Russia, Lebanon and Sudan are considered to be our strategic allies. For the time being, I will not discuss Lebanon and also not Sudan, who owes Iran some 400 million dollars and seemingly is not going to pay. I wish to ask only in matter of Syria and Russia. From the beginning of the [Islamic] revolution till now Syria has been enjoying the generous support of Iran, material as well as spiritual and political support. [In spite of this], in international assemblies it generally takes an anti-Iranian position. In its recent position [vis-à-vis Iran] in the Beirut Meeting, it not only supported United Arab Emirates' claim concerning the three Iranian islands in the Persian Gulf, but by opposing a US attack against an Arab (!), and not Muslim, state it implicitly supported an American attack on Iran instead of IraqÖ.And also Russia, which is not finalizing its commitments concerning the Bushehr [nuclear] reactor and in this way it earns a living and gets concessions from both the West [for not completing the reactor] and Iran [for promising to complete it]. In the Caspian Sea, it [Russia] even disclosed the signing of bilateral agreements, the end result of which was the diminishing of Iran's share in the Sea of Mazandaran [i.e., Caspian Sea], and through the declaration of a military maneuver it actually showed that in this area Russia speaks the last word. With such strategic allies do we need enemies? Isn't the passage of part of Central Asia's energy through the Oxus [Amudarya] and Azerbaijan, and another part by way of Turkmenistan, Afghanistan and Pakistan, and the flanking of Iran and the depriving of the Islamic Republic of Iran (through which passes the shortest, economically cheapest and the main route) [from huge transit income] ó all the result of our own policies? Who is to answer [i.e., accountable] for so much damage and loss of profit? Doesn't the lack of international support of Iran face us with difficulty in the matter of sovereignty over the three islands in the Persian Gulf? B-Domestic Policy: Have you studied article no. 159 of the constitution, which rules that the establishment of legal courts and the determination of their authority are by the rule of law? Have you looked into article no. 110 of the constitution, which specifies the responsibilities of the Leader? If you have, then by which legal permit have you established an extensive and large system by name of the Special Public Prosecutor's Office and Court of Justice for the Clergy (Dadsara va Dadgah-e Vizhe-ye Rouhaniyyat)? And do you know the ready-to-obey-[your]-orders' [i.e., attentive] Ministry of Justice even regards your views as law, and not just law but a penal law, while regards those who disagree with your view as guilty and threatens them with prosecution? For example, the Ministry of Justice's announcement dated May 25th, 2002 regards those who would speak about talks with the USA as accused, liable to penal prosecution and applicable to article 500 of the Islamic Penal Law, while according to the footnote of article 107 of the constitution you must have an equal legal standing with other people of the country, meaning that not only aren't you above the Constitution, and not only you are even not above the regular law, but you are subordinate to the law like the rest of the people of this country. So why aren't you fighting against these dictatorial-nourishing forms? Haven't you stated that the weakening of the Majles (Parliament) should not be allowed? Aren't your official interventions in matters of legislation the principal cause of weakening the Majles? According to the advice of which article of the constitution did you write to them (i.e., members of the Majles) and prevented them from legislating in matters of the press? Do you know that the Shouraye Negahban (Council of Guardians) regards Your Highness as the standard of the canon law and later cancels the ratified laws of the Majles because of their contradiction with your views? Are you and your views really the standards of the canon law? By the advice of which law did Your Highness interfere in the election of the jurists of the Guardian Council's? Was this issue [election of the jurists] a real problem for the regime, and even if it was regarded as such [then] isn't the incitement of the opposition of two-thirds of the popularly elected representatives in the Majles questioning your tact? Is this the way to solve problems? Wasn't the negative vote of more than two-thirds of the [Majles] representatives in fact a negative vote to your view and order? You probably know that the Council of Experts ó because of the lack of a totally democratic and free elections, based on a complete competition [between the candidates], and because of the monopolistic supervision by the jurisconsults of the Council of Guardians, who have been appointed by you, and because the Friday Sermon preachers and Your Highness' representatives are usually [posted] in different centers [of power] and are therefore considered as paid by Your Highness ó can not execute true supervision over you, your qualifications and the continuation of your [un-constitutional] rule. Unfortunately, Your Highness has also prevented them from supervising over political issues and matters concerning the armed forces, and if these facts are true, doesn't this harm your own position? You have expressed your commiserations to Mr. Ahmad Jibril on the martyrdom of his son; is it too much to expect your commiserations to the families of the martyrs of the serial murders, which have been committed by rogue groups, which are, in any case, the agents of the official institutions of the Islamic Republic, who are, finally, under Your Highness' responsibility? Would not this condolence have put an end to rumors concerning your personal ordering of these disgusting murders? You have been stubbornly opposed the reform-seeking movement in Iran from its inception. You have labeled the independent press as enemies' base and the attentive Ministry of Justice saw its duty only to support your position and embarked on a bundle-closure of the press. In regard of the student movement, you have stated that "I will act like Hossein" (acting with determination), and it happened to the students and the student movement the fate you know, with no one daring to ask were our innocent students, who form 40 per cent of Islam soldiers and a high per centage of the families of the martyrs yazidid, needing a Hoseeini action? (against them). You have also turned the reformist parliament (majles-e eslahat) into its most ineffective form, plus the obstacles on the path of legislation and negating parliamentarian immunity, impeachment and condemnation and imprisonment of some of the lawmakers, you even menaced recently that you would stand to the President and the representatives of the Iranian people. Are not the President and lawmakers elected with the direct vote of the majority of Iranians? Do they not represent the Iranian nation? And confronting them is not equal to confronting the great Iranian nation? Will you stant to the great Iranian people? Is this the reward of a people that has never left the trenches of jihad and tolerance? Is this the meaning of religious democracy? Is this the meaning of freedom in the central slogan of independence, liberty, Islamic Republic? In your speeches Your Highness emphasizes the struggle against economic corruption, but don't you know that this corruption is the result of a system created by yourself? Donít you know who among the people close to yourself as ell as members of your own office are accused in this respect? Don't you know that the aqazadeh, based on the position of their fathers (Haji-aqas), who occupy important posts in the Council of Guardians, Council of Experts, the Judiciary, Council for the Discernment of the Regime's Interests, etc. what have done to the economy of this country? And don't you know that some of the Haji-aqas are not less [corrupt] than their Aqazadehs? Don't you know that the protraction of the position of Mr. Rafiq-Doust by your Excellency in the middle of the court examination of the 123-billion toman embezzlement case, and while his term had not ended, was translated as your support to him, and as a green light to such practices? And yourself are spending each year billions of the general revenues for institutions like the Executive Quarter of the Imamís Firman (order), the Bonyad Mostazíafan (Deprived Foundation)Öwithout the slightest control from the Majles or the government and informing the people, and is not the ordinance you wrote in your answer to Ayatollah Taheri saying that every one should undertake fighting corruption starting from himself and his closest family, applicable to yourself? And it is not better that your Excellency provide a full report about revenues and expenses for the information of the proud Iranian people? A nation that has the possibilities of a continent but a great majority of its people are living under the poverty line, its youngsters who form the important capital of intelligence of the nation escape in large numbers to the land of kofr (apostasy), and while doing so, defy thousands of dangers, drowns in rivers or freeze in containers and in the best of suppositions, their wealth are offered to Syria, Sudan, HAMAS, Seyyed Hasan Nasrallah, Hekmatyar..Frankly speaking, who is responsible for the flight of these invaluable brains? And letís forget about the flight of capitals, that is another sad story. Wouldn't you verify that His Holiness [Imam] Ali PBUH, although being the worthiest person in the history of mankind and contrary to heavenly appointment [as successor to Prophet Muhammad], when deprived from majority vote, and no matter the reason, he obeyed this vote (and even if the people were unaware of it), dropped the reins of leadership and accepted [on himself] the bitterness of life which was like a thorn in his throat and like a dust in his eyes for the sweetness of establishing the good tradition (of giving priority to people's vote over his own right) in order that the banner of democracy (mardom-salari) and freedom (azadi) be hoisted at all times and for all generations; and he did accept to govern only when the people persistently urged him to do so, and during this short period of ruling he never kept himself from making mistake and in spite of (divine) chastity ('esmat), consistently urged people to remind and warn him (on his mistakes)? And donít you confirm the fact that the vote given to Mr. Khatami on the 2nd of Khordad 1376 (/23 May 1997), more than being a "yes" vote to him was actually a "no" to Your Excellency? Because contrary to your view, according to which three-quarters of the Iranian people are considered to be either cowards (bi-gheirat) or tactless (bi-siyasat), the intelligent nation of Iran chose Mr. Khatami in spite of being aware of Your Excellency's view in support of another candidate, and has repeated this vote in some other occasions and in a very obvious and meaningful way; although Mr. Khatami feigned ignorance as to the true meaning of this vote, which demanded hard commitments of him, since the fulfilment of those commitments required a struggle against the hardliners, a struggle which Mr. Khatami was basically not fit to undertake it and for this reason, accepting a responsibility which he lacked the ability to fulfil, he would be answerable to the oppressed and glorious nation of Iran. Even if we suppose that the filling of the post of running this country by you in 1368 (1989) was in accordance with the law, the people of Iran have, at least from the 2nd Khordad onwards, been giving a vote of non-confidence to your and your protected faction's policy at every occasion requiring taking a stand, the latest being that last opinion-poll concerning the United States, not mentioning another opinion-poll, according to which you and the system of your government gained only six percent of support of the people while the other 94 percent demand radical changes. Thus, if the claim, that at least from the 2nd of Khordad 1376 onwards Your Excellency has lost the vote of confidence of the Iranian nation, is correct, then isn't the continuation of your rule contrary to Ali's behavior (sireh-ye Alavi)? And if you deny such a reality, then isn't running a referendum and turning to the public's opinion concerning the continuation of Your Excellency's administration an acceptable solution? Your Excellency has said many times that the path of the Emam [Khomeini] is your path and that the aim of the Emam is your aim? Didn't the Emam use to say that the peaople constitute the scale (mizan)? Didn't he use to say that the center of all power and all laws is the Majles? And didn't he use to emphasize that the Majles is at the head of all affairs? Is this the way that you continue the path of the Emam and safeguard the aims of the Emam? Is the Assembly for the Discernment of the State's Interest (Majma'-e Tashkhis-eMaslahat), which upon your signal, wishes to approve a series of regulations for systematically controlling the ratified laws of the Majles, thus actually firing a mortal shot at the Majles and totally expropriating it, in concert with the path, the desire and the aim of the Emam? Didn't the Emam use to say that he would prefer to be called servant (khedmat-gozar) rather than leader (rahbar), but when referring to yourself, Your Excellency repeatedly use the term of leadership (rahbari) in a joyful way and during Your Excellency's directorship (modiriyat) an un-defendable image of Islam and guardianship (velayat) (of the jurisconsult) has been painted, which in this respect means a disloyalty to religion and guardianship, and this twisted image of religion and guardianship is one of the reasons for the fleeing of the youth from religion. It is due to this great disaster that I complain to the holy Emam-e Zaman ('Lord of the Age') and ask isn't part of your behavior that, more than reflecting your management of the country, shows your ownership over this nation?" Especially, aren't your insults to the people reminds one of the behavior of the landlords in the period of feudalism towards the farmers, and even the behavior of the slave traders towards the slaves? Although the period of slavery and feudalism has already passed, I doubt that the slave traders had used terms like coward towards the slaves. In any case, the natural and logical result of such a behavior and such a harsh image of the religious rule, and finally, the certain outcome of the failed experience of your religious rule would be the appearance of a renaissance, the downfall of the religious rule and eventually ó the establishment of a secular regime in the shape of a genuine republic. In the end, I'm desirous of Your Highness that instead of any kind of reaction, caused out of imaginary conspiracy (which, by itself, would form a justification for action by obstinate groups or for the prosecution of a gheir-e khodi ['not one of us', i.e., not part of the radical faction of the regime]), please look fairly into these words [of mine] and please accept any part of which you would consider just. I have written these lines for the satisfaction of God, the defense of justice, your notification, 'permit the right and prohibit the evil', (amr beh ma'rouf va nehi az monker) and for the defense of the oppressed nation of Iran. See Persian text
 |
|
|
|
Web design by Bcubed
Internet server Global Publishing Group