Constitutional clash

The constitution has placed a ban on all reforms deemed to be “un-Islamic”


Constitutional clash
by Jahanshah Rashidian

The trigger of violence was officially pulled in Iran when it became clear that the founder of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Ayatollah Khomeini’s vision of an Islamic society was to take precedence over all other visions and interpretations after the revolution of 1979. There was disagreement from the start among the various political forces over the definition of the revolution itself.

The left and secularists wanted the term „Democratic Republic”, while a spectrum of Muslims preferred “Islamic Democratic”, but Khomeini opted for “Islamic Republic”. The referendum of March, 1979 overwhelmingly demonstrated the meaning of the term “Islamic Republic”, and produced the first isolation of all who believed in adding the word ”Democratic” to Iran and did not believe in “Islam above all”.

The referendum proposed only two options to the voters, Islamic Republic or Monarchy, and was thus boycotted by The National Democratic Front, a broad coalition of forces with different political tendencies (from Left to centrist and moderates). Apart from the Tudeh Party, a pro-USSR party who unconditionally supported the IRI in the first years after the revolution, all other leftist groups and a majority of Kurds boycotted the referendum.

A critical fragmentation occurred over the creation of a body of Constitutional Experts, which was to prepare the new constitution, and over the text of the Constitution itself, which was to be voted on in October, 1979. By then it had become clear that Ayatollah Khomeini’s idea of an Islamic society and government was to prevail and that other ideas as to the nature of the new Islamic Republic were not to be tolerated.

The most controversial aspect of the Constitution is the central role it grants to the religious leadership. IRI’s Constitution of 1979, revised in 1989 to entrust ultimate power into the hands of the clergy, is dominated by the "Supreme Leader," who is chosen for life by a body of Shiite clerics. According to the Constitution, in absence of the Hidden Imam (Mahdi), his representative on earth, the Supreme Leader, possesses a vast array of powers, including command of the armed forces and the Revolutionary Guards Corps, the power to declare war and peace, the power to appoint the Head of the Judicial Power and the head of the Iranian Broadcasting Corporation, and the power to dismiss the president.

According to Article 161 of the Constitution, the Supreme Judicial Council determines the laws under which the Supreme Court operates. The Supreme Court, in turn, is responsible for supervising the proper application of laws in lower courts and for creating unity and uniformity in the judicial policies of the country. The head of the Supreme Court is appointed by the Supreme Leader and is answerable only to him. This is in fact the legal arm of repression and attrocity based on the medievel Shari’a. (Islamic law). Typical to the constitution’s numerous internal contradictions, the judicial body cotradicts Article 2 which rejects any kind of oppression.

According to Article 1 of the Constitution, the form of government in Iran is that of an Islamic Republic due to the current referendum. Not only is Islam omnipresent in the rule and administration of the country, but also in its absolute and unchecked exercise of power through the institution of the Velayate Faghih (absolute power of the Supreme Leader).

According to the Constitution, all candidates of the Iranian Islamic “Majlis” (Iranian parliament) and all presidential candidates must be approved by the Guardian Council, which vets them for "strict allegiance to the ruling theocracy and adherence to Islamic principles”. Under the surface, however, the president and parliament operate at the whim of the Supreme Leader. Every election in Iran is constitutionally controlled by Mullahs and engineered and manipulated by their institutions. No President or Parliamentarian has been elected through a fair and democratic process.

The Constitution actually named Khomeini as the Faghih, (Supreme Leader), investing him with extensive authority over the judiciary and all branches of government. The Constitution reflected the efforts of Khomeini and his supporters to translate his notions of the ideal Islamic state into practice. Not only was this a clear departure from secular and democratic concepts of politics, it also went against the views of certain religious authorities.

The clash of opinions right after the revolution over this issue between Ayatollah Shari’at Madari and Ayatollah Khomeini brought out into the open internal political differences among the Ulama (clergy) and intensified the power struggle. The Constitution, which declared that the Twelver-Shi’ite sect of Iran superseded other creeds and denominations in the country, also antagonised the Sunni minorities, notably the Kurds and Turkamen, who already felt threatened by the intransigence of the Centre towards their aspirations for minimal self-rule or local autonomy.

As dissension within society intensified, the reaction by Islamists became fiercer. Until the summer of 1979, the attacks had been against the Left as a whole. The next attacks came on those who had been toeing the Islamic line but considered outlook. These included “Mojahedin” (MOK members) and other lay supporters of the Islamic Republic, and eventually factions from within the religious establishment itself, especially those associated with the Muslim People’s Republic Party, close to Ayatollah Shari’at Madari.

The attacks during late 1979 and throughout 1980 extended to those within the administration itself, especially the “liberals”, (a term used by the left to describe those within the leadership with ties to the bourgeois class, including President Bani Sadr and Prime Minister Bazargan). In this process freedom of speech and expression greatly diminished. Individual liberty has been further repressed by the enforcement of the Shari’a through the establishment of Revolutionary and Islamic tribunals which were set up immediately after the Revolution.

In August 1979 the Islamic Prosecutor General extended the jurisdiction of the Islamic courts to cover all “counter-revolutionary activities”; as well as commercial and industrial disputes. Criminal offences were dealt with by the Revolutionary courts. Victims have to conduct their own defence since the functions of a defence lawyer are combined in the person of the Islamic Judge (Hakem Shar’) in each city (a Mullah usually from Qom and usually appointed by Khomeini), who hold powers of arbitration and final sentencing in all cases.

The demand for political liberty had been at the heart of the protests of 1978-79. Ayatollah Khomeini himself, before coming to power, repeatedly promised freedom of expression under the new regime. He knew how hungry people were for freedom, which especially after the US-led coup of 1953 against the Prime Minister, Dr. Mossadegh, became people’s greatest dream.

The suppression of the right to form political parties began under the Shah. After the coup, the Shah accepted a two party system; in which both parties were the only sources to form government, parliamentarians and other key positions. In 1975, the Shah merged these two parties into the Rastakhiz, or Renewal Party. A one-system party were imposed on Iran.

In the short period of democracy following the uprising of February 1979, hundreds of organisations were formed and the underground opposition forces were able to work openly for the first time.

Once in power, the Shiite clergy formed the Islamic Republic Party (IRP) and organised their supporters into a paid professional militia, including the Revolutionary Guards (Pasdaran), the Islamic Revolutionary Mojahedin (not to be confused with the MOK) and the Hezbollah or the Party of God. This consolidation paved the way for a crackdown on the independent organisations.

On December 1, 1979, the Constitution of the Islamic Republic was proclaimed by the Assembly of Experts. Principal 26 guarantees the right to establish societies and organisations. Like any constitution of totalitarian regimes, the IRI’s constitution is also based on ideology, its ideology is Islam: Article 2 defined an Islamic Republic as a system based on belief.

The Constitution limited the rights of people and their political activities to within the framework of Islam. Parties, associations or political and professional societies, Islamic societies and societies for the recognised religious minorities can be formed if they do not negate the principals of independence, freedom and national unity or the principles of Islam and the Islamic Republic. No one can prevent anyone from participating in any particular organisation.

However, despite this remark at the end of the paragraph, not one day passes when a group, individual, idea or political entity that is not pro IRI is not attacked.

In fall of 1979, the small office of the newly founded Democratic Front was attacked and its members were forced into hiding. Shokrollah Paknejad, a leader of the Front, who had been imprisoned under the Shah for a decade, was arrested and executed in prison in January, 1982. In fall, 1979, the office of the Iranian Writers Centre, a democratic publishing group, was confiscated and its literature banned. The director, Said Soltanpour, a famous poet and playwright,, was arrested at his wedding and executed on June 21, 1981. Other members of the Writers Centre were forced underground or into exile.

On January 26, 1980, the offices of the MOK throughout the country were assaulted by agents of the regime. The Iranian constitution creates a façade of democracy and a semblance of a separation of powers. In reality, it institutionalises Islam by establishing the most repressive and parasitic organs by which totalitarian power can be prolonged. Like any totalitarian regime, the constitution bestows upon the dominant class unlimited power divided among mullahs who rule according to Shari'a.

Seen in this light, the Constitution is incompatible with the fundamental principles of democracy. So, the core problem of Iranian society is not the interpretation or reform of this Constitution but its very existence. It is an obstacle to any progress toward democracy and modernisation. While the ideological focus of the constitutions of other totalitarian regimes has been on race-- that of Nazi Germany highlighted the superiority of the “Aryan Race”, that of Apartheid South Africa ensured the supremacy of the whites-- the IRI constitution’s focus is on Islam. The IRI has imposed an Islamic model of a totalitarian system, in which the main characteristic is gender segregation. Hand in Hand with the Constitution, the regime attempts to impose a patriarchal system of society inspired from an Islamo-arab culture.

Although Article 3 talks about “the elimination of imperialism and foreign influence”, it implicitly accepts the influence of Islamo-arabism by saying: “Since the language of the Koran and Islamic texts and teachings is Arabic, and since Persian literature is thoroughly permeated by this language, it must be taught after elementary level, in all classes of secondary school and in all areas of study.” Therefore, Arabic language lessons and reading of the Koran become more compulsory despite their being abhorred by an increasing majority of students.

The tendency of such a constitution is to pave the way for unleashing an Arabo-islamisation of Iranian society. This is not only a thorn in the eye of any Iranian nationalist, but more practically, it is an obstacle to democratisation and modernisation of Iranian society. It stipulates a process in which any non-Islamic components, including those of pre-Islamic Persian ones, must be ignored.

Thus on April 19, 1980, the Islamic Republic launched The Cultural Revolution in Iran. The universities were purged of secular and democratic professors and students. Then, campuses were dominated by IRI-oriented gangs of thugs and whatever was left of the early democratic student movements was confined to Islamic student groups. It was the beginning of official state violence to force islamisation of universities--and in the following years of all Iranian culture.

Any aspiration for democracy and modernisation in Iran must begin with the negation of the IRI’s constitution. The constitution itself legitimises the means of repression and backwardness. In any form and reform, this constitution creates a model of state in which all institutions are orientated in the direction of backward despotism.

The constitution is full of contradictions and has placed a ban on all reforms deemed to be “un- Islamic” by judicial and Islamic authorities--Article 4 is immutable and the Council of Guardians ensures that all articles of the Constitution as well as other laws are based on Islamic criteria.

The IRI’s constitution favours the medieval norms of ruling Mullahs. Since it restricts individual and political rights, ensuring that the Iranian people cannot challenge the clerical regime's supremacy, it stands firmly against any democratisation, gender equality, social justice and modernisation of society.


Recently by Jahanshah RashidianCommentsDate
Journée Internationale des Femmes
Mar 08, 2010
Stop Indian Gasoline for Mullahs’ Repressive Machinery
Feb 04, 2010
Iran Fails United Opposition
Jan 20, 2010
more from Jahanshah Rashidian
Jahanshah Rashidian

God's will

by Jahanshah Rashidian on

Rosie, you force me to abandon the constitutional debate to enter another big discussion. Of course, God or whatever he may be understood is an interesting topic. Thus, I suggest you to post an article about it.


Shortly, the term “conscious” and “consciousness” will be the central discussion. Usually we use them to indicate a simple sensory awareness, a sensitive but scientifically unknown energy, which according to Freud could be resulted from a neuronal substance. This hypothetical substance leads our awareness of our bodies, thoughts, emotions, and sensory perceptions. Freud died before further explanation.


 Yes, meditation can help us to be more aware and improves our cognitive field that forms the ever-present background of all awareness.

Zen is one of the important topics of David Bhom, the late legend of modern physiques, who tried to link some aspects of physiques ( Quantum Mechanics, General Relativity) with Buddhism and other oriental moral philosophies.


I am  personally very interested in Quantum physiques and the idea of collective conciousness of  Gusatv Young's Psychology. These can be scientifical sources of what we may find a platonic source of Good (panthic God).

 Please write an article to collectively discuss.


Mullahs are Imposters!

by Naazokbin (not verified) on

Dear Rosie T.:

Please read about what Khatami has done since the birth of the IRI and then talk about him. He is as good as the rest of the mullahs. That means he is no good for Iran.

Those in the West who are trying to portary him as a the kinder face of Shi'ite Islam are trying to protect their own interests. They don't give a damn about Iranian.

As presidents, Khatami and Rafsanjani had a total of sixteen years to do something for Iranians and did nothing. They are trying to keep the IRI rule intact.

If these mullahs are serious about joining the people they must renounce their religion first and then be allowed to join.

They must be stripped of their titles and live like ordinary Iranians.

Iran does not need imposters.

Jahanshah Rashidian


by Jahanshah Rashidian on

The IRI and its propaganda organs mobilise mozdoors abroad to support the regime from different perspectives. However, the backward regime makes many mistakes, including to hire the wrong mozdoors.

Doc FariborS is one of these odd propagandist, who is actually an additional  disgraces for the regime.

Rosie T.

"God's will"...JR

by Rosie T. on

It's not something I "see" in the sense of "believing" or "understanding."  It's something I experienced...I really experienced it, and it was really real.  IT doesn't have a will exactly and I personally wouldn't call IT God...I would simply call it the Power.  I wasn't pursuing it, it came due to an unusual confluence of events in my life along with a certain meditation practice I was exposed to thinking it was just going to be a yoga exercise retreat. It was...ineffable...but the wisdom traditions of the adepts of Sufism, Buddhism, Hinduism and Taoism were incontrovertibly corroborated for me. Those thousands of years of honing the practice--they knew what they were up to, those adepts.  What I experienced I was told later by an advanced Zen meditator was really not supposed to happen to someone at my "level" of "spiritual" development, but it did.  It was exactly what the Tibetan Buddhists describe as Universal Mind of Compassion.  They are right.

 And it isn't at all in another dimension, it's right here latent within everything...but it IS good...surprisingly this ultimate experience of reality IS good...why should it be so? But the pure energy, the Source, is loving and benevolent. Even a dualist belief system like Mazdaism has the insight that it is ultimately the Light that prevails...the wisdom traditions are true. Fanaa and Eshgh are the same.

It is ineffable...but as I told you previously, I will try to convey it to you one of these days.  I was thinking about an article called "Nothing is Sacred", juxtaposing the more standard interpretationof that phrase by the secular enlightenment with the Buddhist concept of Nothing as Emptiness which receives Universal Mind.  Who knows when/how I'll get it to it.  It's a tough one to write about... for thought... :)

Jahanshah Rashidian


by Jahanshah Rashidian on

When Nazi took power in Germany in 1933, they promised 1000 years of Nazi-Empire. The Nazi-Empire fell in 1945.


The October Revolution of 1917 in Russia was another “sacred” destiny of all humanity to reach justice and “classless society. It fell when the reality was different.

The IRI is a failure of human evolution. It cannot survive by ignoring all rules of evolution.

Jahanshah Rashidian

R: Naazokbin

by Jahanshah Rashidian on

In reality, whether the parliament, government and all key positions are controlled by reformists or by conservatives may make little difference.

Any legislation passed by the parliament must be approved by the Guardian Council, realm of Rafsanjani, which can reject legislation if it is incompatible with Islam. The IRI’s parasitic various institutions are to guarantee the continuation of Mullah’s rule. The Constitution only safeguard the corrupt and criminal regime.

 About God’s will, once, I come back across with a new discussion also interesting for Rosie and some people who see God or a source of goodness in another dimensional reality.

Jahanshah Rashidian

Dear Rosie

by Jahanshah Rashidian on

"This is in fact the legal arm of repression and attrocity based on the medievel Shari’a. (Islamic law)."

The sentence is mein. I think , the word"Shari'a" has not been literally mentioned in the Constituion or Judiciary. I am not so sure, but I think.

Rosie T.

Mifahmam JR vali...

by Rosie T. on

what I'm simply trying to figure out is whether the IRI Constitution actually STATES the words SHARIA LAW.  I'm reading and re-reading these sentences:

 "The head of the Supreme Court is appointed by the Supreme Leader and is answerable only to him. This is in fact the legal arm of repression and attrocity based on the medievel Shari’a. (Islamic law)."

The problem is the ambiguity in the words "in fact" which can mean either "in actual concrete reality" or "implitly" or "by extension"...and so I realized I'm not really sure what it means after all...just a simple question. Now you say the Consitution cannot IGNORE that means it's not stated explicitly...?

Jahanshah Rashidian

R: Jamshid

by Jahanshah Rashidian on

"Exposing the Islamic "constitution" provides us with insights into how the clergy had "legalized" their oppressive and fascistic methods against the people of Iran. Any constitution that is not based on secularism will become a license for oppression."

I agree with you. The constitution is the springboard of legitimacy for the whole IRI, including its different factions. Only its negation is the precondition for democracy and secularism in Iran.

Jahanshah Rashidian


by Jahanshah Rashidian on

"Notwithstanding, JR:  does the IRI constitution only declare a Supreme Leader and an Islamic Republic or does it SPECIFICALLY state the imposition of Shariah law?"

Khatami’s attempts to establish a relatively moderate and reformist government resulted into a complete defeat. We saw the Hardliners’ backlash which was based on the Constitution itself. Today, even some IRI’s deserters like Ganji are disappointed with this unmodified Constitution.

The Constitution cannot ignore Shai'a.


In summary...

by Setiz (not verified) on

Khomeini screwed iran and iranians and they approved of his act and submitted to him.

Fariborz M.D.: You are not allowed to speak of uncivilized IRI and civilized pre-islamic iran in the same article. That is an insult to all iranians to speak of the devilish IRI and sacred ancient iran in proximate sentences.

No pro-IRI is allowed to talk about and thus to "najes" iran's glorious past before islam, arabs, and arab-parasts destroyed it.

Pre-islamic iran is extremely sacred to many iranians, if not all iranians, and should not be mentioned, corrupted, and insulted by any treasonous pro-iRI who is slave to islamic and arab culture.


Hey Doc Maleknasri M.D....

by Another Anonymous (not verified) on

Ziyaad Part o Pela Migi Haji.

You need to see a doctor to have your mind examined.

If IRI is so good, what are you doing here? Even hardcore pro-IRI persons like yourself prefer to live outside iran if they can. Yet they do not have the courage to want the same style of living for the people inside iran, and want them to continue to be oppressed by mullas. How come? Why so much hypocrisy?

We have about 4,000,000 iranians living outside iran. This is about 100 times more than the number who lived outside iran during shah's alleged dictatorial regime. How come if IRI is so much better than what it replaced?

Iranians today line up in front of western embassies and beg for visas, how come they did not do that during shah's alleged dictatorial regime?

Iranians will be thrilled to be able to move to an arab dictatorship like dubai or Qatar to escape oppressions of IRI. How come they did not do that during shah's alleged dictatorial regime? How come those arab sheikdoms were so behind iran in 1979 and so prosperous today?

People who were passing through turkey in 70's were told not to stop there lest being robbed. Yet today turkey is safe and full of iranian immigrants escaping IRI. How come?

We even have iranians moving to unstable south american countries like panama and Colombia, south east asian countries, and africa countries to run away from IRI; how come?

Who are you trying to fool doc? Only fools buy into your none-sense after 29 years of first-hand experience with mullas; and their number have been dwindling every day now for 29 years.

You need professional help doc, to wise up and turn into a truthful and fair human being with some level of empathy for those oppressed inside iran. To have the courage to relieve yourself of blind pan-islamic fanaticism. To allow iranians inside iran to have the same level of freedom and prosperity that you exercise in the west in their homeland.


Jelousy, sadness, and anger

by Another Anonymous (not verified) on

Tonight as I watched democracy in action and witnessed an african american winning iowa caucus to become the next president of u.s. in an environment of total freedom, I felt jealous, sad, angry, and puzzled as to why people of iran should be denied of something so simple, so civil, and so straight-forward, to allow them to collectively decide on their future in an atmosphere of total freedom to choose. Alas that iranians are denied more basic rights by a gang of thugs, representing a cruel and coward god who needs to delegate his atrocities and acts of oppression to a bunch of self-selected mullas. What is so difficult to understand that sooner or later we need to walk into 21st century or accept defeat and humiliation, the defeat by our own leaders and humiliation of continuing to be a third-world consumer country, speeding backward in history as the rest of the world moves forward faster and faster. I am really jealous, sad, and angry tonight, at my people who made the wrong choice so persistently and at those who have occupied and ruled iran for 29 years now with no plan and no goal for any betterment of iran and iranians in sight...


Exposing IRI's constitution

by jamshid on

Great article. The IRI's constitution is the greatest document attesting to the backwarded and barbaric nature of its ideology, leaders and supporters.

Exposing the Islamic "constitution" provides us with insights into how the clergy had "legalized" their oppressive and fascistic methods against the people of Iran.

Any constitution that is not based on secularism will become a license for oppression.


Rosie T.


by Rosie T. on

No, I'm sorry. I don't agree they're all the same.  That's like saying all rabbis, or priests, or ministers, or any other ordained mebers of any religion are all the same. They're not.  There are mullahs under house arrest for years because they detest Velayate-faqih as much as you must. Khatami was a great poet of the information age and the dialogue of civlizations.    I saw him speak at a university here after his term ended and he was asked if he thought homosexuality should be punished by death.  He was very clear that in his opinon Islam only allows the death penalty for the MOST extreme cases. I believe he meant people like Hitler and Pol Pot. I am against the death penalty in all cases, but it is a far cry from Khatami's view of it within Islam to the murder of Atafeh.  He tnen grappled seriously with the question of homosexuality being a crime in Islam.  He said it was a crime so it had to be punished in some way, but it was clear that he was torn and grappling with this question.  He was also embarrassed, which is much more than you can say for Ahmadinejad's (who by the way is NOT a Mullah) statements at Columbia University recently. For a man of his background he is very liberal and open. I understand from this website that he failed us when he did not come out for the  student protests and that no one really understands why. But that doesn't mean he's Khamenei or anyone like him.

 Any given religion is a word.  It's a word that's like a box, a container  with a certain form according to the scriptural precepts of that religion. but within it there are many contents. Each box is somewhat different but when you scrutinise the contents of each they are similar.  A Shia Khatami is more similar to a Biship Paul Moore of Christianity or a Rabbi Michael Lerner of Judaism than he is to a Khameni.  A Khomeini (not Khameini) is more similar to a Torquemada of the Spanish Inquisition or a Rabbi Meier Khanana.

I'm sorry but I absolutely do not agree that all Mullahs are the same. And again, Ahmadinejad is not a mullah. You're generalizing.  We are all human, we're individuals. We're as varied as the spectrum of a rainbow.  It's very dangerous to generalize about ANY group of people who happen to share a label.


Western Hypocrisy - Dutch university bans Iranian students

by Constitutional Hypocrisy (not verified) on

meanwhile Israel is allowed Megaton Nuclear bombs ...

Iran is denied Knowledge the basic/Fundamental human right by the west !



Dear Naazokbin,do not worry their time is coming to an end!

by Tahirih (not verified) on

Clergy,are as the last trace of sunlight upon the mountain top.Soon will it fade away as decreed by God,the all-possessing,the most high.The glory and the glory of such as are like them have been taken away...


To: Rosie T

by navid20 (not verified) on

Mullah is mullah
khatami, khamenei, ahmadinejad are all THE SAME.

saghe zard baradareh shoghaleh!!!!!!

Rosie T.

No, Alborzi, I got it...

by Rosie T. on

you see, if a Constitution guarantees RIGHTS that it does not always live up to the society must be changed but the constitution should remain.  If the Constitution guarantees OPPRESIONS (that it does not always live up to), it is both the Constitution and the society that should be changed.

We don't live in a perfect world and we never will, but our Constitutions should be as nearly perfect as possible.  They must embody as best as possible the ideal we should strive for. 

I have said MANY times that I would MUCH rather live under the IRI led by Khatamis and Ebadis than in the US led by Bushes and Cheneys if they could fulfill their complete agenda...but you see, Khatami and Ebadi are people who would be willing to CHANGE the Constitution.  Let's not forget that Atafeh was hanged at 16 with no due process for the crime of being raped in jby a jail warden, under Khatami.  And I'm SURE he wasn't happy about it.

I know all about the violations of the Constitution under Bush..AND before him....but Constitutions represent ideals and strivings that need to be firmly articulated.  Only then can we EVER hope to avoid Atafehs AND Guantanamos.  One MUST take the long view..Constitutions embody our POTENTIAL..


Whose God?

by Naazokbin (not verified) on

The end of the bloody IRI rule is approaching fast.

The mullahs are so scared that even the supreme leader wants to deal with the U.S. or the Great Satan.

But this is another trick. They are only buying time. Mullahs cannot be trusted. They must go.

Their brand of Islam is the most dangerous one for the world peace. They are against democracy and freedom. They are dreaming of world supremacy.

They use God to enrich themselves. There's nothing sacred or religious about stealing a country's wealth.

Every mullah has embezzeled tens of millions of dollars in the name of God. What has God to do with having secret bank accounts.

Mullahs' reference to God's will is their way of covering up their heinous crimes. They use God's name to oppress people.

Back to the thirteenth century, is their most revered motto.

Large amounts of Iranian oil revenues (one estimate puts the figure at twenty billion U.S. dollars) have disappeared without a trace. Where is the money, if it's not being used for the mullahs' terrorist activities or sent to their secret bank accounts.

Mullahs see themselves as God's representatives on earth, but in fact they are the devils incarnate with the mission to destroy world peace!

The longer they stay in power, the more dangerous they get!

They don't believe in a peaceful world. They believe their Messiah, Mehdi, will not come unless there is chaos in the world.

Chaos to them means more wars and more bloodshed.

They must be stopped!


you do not get it

by Alborzi (not verified) on

Well Rosie the point was it did not matter.


Excellent review Mr. Rashidian!

by Anonymous4now (not verified) on

Iranians were conditioned to believe they were running away form Frankenstein and into the open arms of Saint Imam. Little did they know that they were really running into the arms of Diveh varooneh kar. They had been manipulated to the point that they thought if they did not vote for the IRI, the Shah and his American Allies would occupy the streets of Tehran. In any case, in 1979 Iran had a population of 36 million and today it has a population of over 70 million. 60% of today's population is under the age of 30, which means they had no say in the selection of the IRI. Even if we accept the premise that the IRI was legitimately voted on in 1979, it would be prudent to let the new generation vote on it, would you not agree? I do not think it would stand a chance now as students raised and educated under the Islamic doctrine proved in 1999 and continue to do so, today.

Rosie T.

Alborzi / Faribors / JR

by Rosie T. on

Alborzi, your argument is somewhat spurious.  It is one thing for a Constitution to guarantee FREEDOMS which may or may not be completely granted; it is another to guarantee OPPRESSIONS which may or may not be completely implemented.  See?

Notwithstanding, JR:  does the IRI constitution only declare a Supreme Leader and an Islamic Republic or does it SPECIFICALLY state the imposition of Shariah law?

Faribors:  yes, yes, JR went into that.  98%, 99, whatever per cent, voted for an Islamic Republic as AGAINST the Shah's monarchy.  There were no other choices on the table.  It was a very LITTLE table....

My views should be well-known by now.   Cheneykhameini, Siamese twins separated at birth, now happily reunited.  Please if replying to me do not attempt to pigeonhole me on ideological grounds. It will be a tedious waste of time and energy.

Best regards.



by Faribors Maleknasri M.D. (not verified) on

Imam Khomeini opted for the ISLAMIC REPUBLIC of IRAN and 99,9% voted for the ISLAMUIC REPUBLIC of IRAN. The honorable Iranian Nation, those Iranians who founded thier ISLAMIC REPUBLIC of IRAN, are living there and are willing to share what they have achieved in the last 30 years with Friends and Naighbores - including NUC-Knowhow and defences Science have allready known before 7000 to 9000 years ago that the real Heal of Human being can only be achieved if man is powered in daily Life by Religion. the other day I have read the following. Please acknowledge this:
Iran's Sialk, the starting point of religious thought
Thu, 03 Jan 2008 19:54:27
By Hedieh Ghavidel, Press TV, Tehran
Sialk Mound, Kashan, Iran
When a Paris auction house sold three ancient earthen vessels to the Louvre museum in the 1930s, attention was first drawn to the Sialk Mound (Teppeh Sialk) in the city of Kashan in Iran's Isfahan Province.

Soon afterwards, a French archeological team partially funded by the Louvre headed for the historic Sialk site.

After three phases of excavations, the head of the team Roman Ghirshman published a book that amazed the academic society of the time.

According to Ghirshman, Sialk was the place where man first used a form of mortar in construction. It is also the first place where cloth-weaving, spooling and casting were invented.

Sialk painted pottery
Evidence suggests that the site was not only the starting point of Persian civilization but also the first place where religious thought took form.

Further studies by Iran's Cultural Heritage Organization revealed that Sialk was as old as 7000 to 9000 years.

Settlers first inhabited the region somewhere around 5500 BC - 6000 BC., drawn to the region due to the abundant water supply provided by what is known today as Cheshmeh ye Soleiman (or 'Solomon's Spring').

The two mounds in Sialk are located about 600 meters apart, the southern one being the largest.

Excavations have revealed numerous clay and stone vessels and human remains from the fourth millennium BC.

The earliest archeological remains of the northern mound date back to the middle of the sixth millennium BC, i.e. about 7500 years ago. This mound also houses the world's oldest ziggurat.

The ziggurat in Sialk built in 2900 BC is one of the four Elamite religious structures constructed in
Choqa Zanbil ziggurat (1250 BC), Khuzestan Province, Iran
Mesopotamia. The other three are Susa ziggurat (1800 BC), Haft Teppeh (1375 BC) and Choqa Zanbil (1250 BC), all in Khuzestan province.

The Ziggurats were mud brick stepped structures rising from the ground with a platform whereupon stood a temple believed to have been the city of god.

Ziggurats or celestial ladders are believed to have ascended toward heaven bringing man closer to the gods and facilitating his worship.

Evidence shows that they were not used as a public place for worship or religious rites and rituals, but rather as the house of god.

Ziggurats were built and used from around 2200 BCE until 500 BCE and today about 25 remain.

A model image of a ziggurat
The artifacts and potsherds found at the site portray the diversity in the ethnicities that lived in the region and also the powers which ruled the region.

The inhabitants of Sialk eventually moved to the southern mound and for unknown reasons deserted the area at the end of the Iron Age.

They used a script form known as proto-Elamite which is a combination of pictograms and numerals and buried their dead in two cemeteries near the structures unearthed during the French excavations.

Archeologists believe that continuing excavations in a 10-kilometer radius will bring to light more remnants from the ancient civilization.

Many of the artifacts from Sialk have turned up in the British, the Louvre and the Metropolitan Museums.

The site, which according to archeological evidence is the origin of human technology, industry and religious thought has yet to be registered as a UNESCO World Heritage site.
You see Iranians have been allways eager to find the right way. They seem to have founf it in 1979. and No body and nothing can bring them away out of thier way.Not even the not any more soo great satan. Moreover it lays allready in it`s death bed. Greeting


Most of it is nationalism

by Alborzi (not verified) on

First , you guys get into a tizzy over details, in fact from Hitler, Pol Pot and now Bush, we see that the constitution is always subject to interpretation, its not a panacea. In fact
there is a big change from Khatami to Ahmadinejad and they
both had the same constitution. Soviet constitution guarantees
freedom of press, now they are mostly censored.
But the second part is both all of the "grouhaks" including
MKO are foreign controlled and are tools for causing chaos inside Iran and its not a wonder that IRI reacts so.

Rosie T.

You see, Jahanshah...Tahirih...

by Rosie T. on

is what I meant in my article "Mozdoor" when I wrote:

"And I understand the sovereign agency of nations to be based on this same individual agency. An agency whose coming has long been announced in the timeless works of the two great Eniightenments, the secular and the spiritual ones. And yet whose fruition remains a dream, as long as these Enlightenments remain severed from each other. But their union is whispered in every human breath, and also by the wind "

 That is what I meant.  I meant "Tahirirh".

Of course you seemed to be the only poster who fully grasped that that was the whole central point of my article. Although you weren't quite sure you understood it, you knew it was my central point. 

God is another word for Divine Power, the power of an intelligent cosmos, the power of Mind.  The Mind of Compassion as it is called in Buddhism.  God is within US.WE are this power. Energy constantly recycling itself into consciousness ithrough matter in us. Our language does not have a proper vocabulary for it yet.  In the secular Enlightenment the vocabulary is skewed toward politics and economics, or to the language of physics, and in the Spiritual Enlgihtenment it is skewed toward mythology, anthropomorphism and/or vagueness, depending on where and when.  In all cases the vocabulary is still delineated by patriarchy.

Nevertheless Tahirih is what I meant. As are your own writings. It's all one.  It's all good. Don't worry, be happy. Each truthseeker walks their own path. . The language will evolve as consciousness evolves. Be patient,  All roads eventually will lead to Rum.

Your Rosie


Where are IRI's followers to

by Anonymous 4 (not verified) on

Where are IRI's followers to defend their constitution?


Thank you Mr Rashidian for the great article

by Tahirih (not verified) on

"Leaders of religion, in every age ,have hindered their people from attaining the shores of eternal salvation,inasmuch as they held the reins of authority in their mighty grasp. Some for the lust of leadership,others through want of knowledge and understanding,have been the cause of deprivation of people".

Religious fanaticism and hatred are a world devouring fire ,whose violence none can quench .Only hand of Divine Power can ,alone ,deliver mankind from this desolating affliction.

God will hold responsible religious leaders for the tragedies against humanity.They have presumed to speak for HIM(God) throughout history.Their attempts to make the Word Of God a private preserve,and its axposition a means for personal aggrandizement,have been the greatest single handicap against which the advancement of civilization has struggled.


Correction: 130 years of Qajars

by KavehV (not verified) on

200 years of Qajars is incorrect. Qajars lasted 130 years, fortunately.


Unprecedented in recent history

by KavehV (not verified) on

What is more disturbing is that there is no precedence in the recent Iranian history in having state laws and a constitution that so closely parallels Islamic Shari'a repression (or barbarism to many). Certainly not during Pahlavis, nor the Shia-infested 1906 constitution. So far as I know, there is no written civil laws from 200 years of Qajars that resembles anything like IRI's constitution. One probably has to go all the way back to Shah Ismail's time to find the invading Shia repression the way articulated by Islamic republic today. These barbaro-Islamic laws were never written most of the time and people have been slaughtered at the whims of Mullahs since then.