Dr Shapour Bakhtiar


Dr Shapour Bakhtiar
by IRANdokht

Tomorrow is the anniversary of the brutal assassination of a true patriot.

Dr Shapour Bakhtiar was our last hope during the chaos of 1979. After 25 years of being a member of the opposition to Shah's regime, a firm opponent of all totalitarian rulers, Dr Bakhtiar courageously accepted the prime minister position at the very end of the Persian monarchy, fighting to save his beloved country from the bloody claws of the islamic theocracy. His voice was only brave one, resisting the impeding catastrophe that eventually fell upon our Iran.

Dr Bakhtiar foresaw what other intellectuals of the times were too blind to see: He called for a peaceful transition to a democratic government instead of an islamic republic.

Dr Bakhtiar endured accusations, harrassments and protests every day of the short time he was in office, and faced with all the emotionally charged riots, he offered Iranians the only time in the history when freedom of speech was enjoyed by all, the newspapers and newsletters were distributed without any censorship. The TV and the radio, although run by goverment, covered all the news without bias or any cover-ups and most importantly he disbanded SAVAK.

How did the people of Iran respond to such a great man? I don't even want to remember the insulting slogans, the false accusations and the ignorance that had creeped over our people...

I am sure some of you remember those days better than I do. But does any of you still cry when you think back and wonder why nobody supported this great man's fight to save Iran?

Dr. Bakhtiar was brutally assassinated by the agents of IRI in 1991 at his home in Paris.

May this lone hero of our times rest in eternal peace.

Part 1

Part 2


Recently by IRANdokhtCommentsDate
Iran's Oscar Victory Over Israel?
Mar 02, 2012
Abadani Mouse
Feb 10, 2011
Ambassador of Death
Aug 24, 2010
more from IRANdokht


by IRANdokht on

This is a remarkably concise and well documented clarification for all those who needed this information, including me. Thank you for making the effort to provide clear answers. Especially the much sought-after reasoning behind the overwhelming majority of "yes" votes.

Best regards,



A refresher on the "referendum"

by Anonymous4now on

Khomeini had said that anyone who wanted a republic or a democratic republic without Islam was the enemy of Islam and God.    

The Ballots were green for YES and red for NO.  People overwhelmingly voted for the so called YES – NO referendum, for choosing the type of government in 1979, because no one dared put in a red ballot in the ballot boxes because of the fervor and the fever of the revolutionary days. People’s identification cards which were being used for receiving rations at the time were marked to indicate voting and were left blank for abstaining.  Those who abstained from voting could not get their rations and had to buy their daily necessities on the black market.


Robert Graham has a foot note about the referendum, in his book “Iran: The Illusion of Power”:

“The vote was 20.1 million in favor and 140,966 against.  The voting and count were hastily arranged and frequent abuses were reported.”  International Herald Tribune, 5 April 1979.


From: //www.iranchamber.com/history/islamic_revolution/revolution_and_iran_after1979_2.php

 The New Constitution
Ayatollah Khomeini had charged the provisional government with the task of drawing up a draft constitution. A step in this direction was taken on March 30 and 31, 1979, when a national referendum was held to determine the kind of political system to be established. Ayatollah Khomeini rejected demands by various political groups and by Ayatollah Shariatmadari that voters be given a wide choice. The only form of government to appear on the ballot was an Islamic republic, and voting was not by secret ballot. The government reported an overwhelming majority of over 98 percent in favor of an Islamic republic. Ayatollah Khomeini proclaimed the establishment of the Islamic Republic of Iran on April 1, 1979.

The Ayatollah Khomeini regime unveiled a draft constitution on June 18. Aside from substituting a strong president, on the Gaullist model, for the monarchy, the constitution did not differ markedly from the 1906 constitution and did not give the clerics an important role in the new state structure. Ayatollah Khomeini was prepared to submit this draft, virtually unmodified, to a national referendum or, barring that, to an appointed council of forty representatives who could advise on, but not revise, the document. Ironically, as it turned out, it was the parties of the left who most vehemently rejected this procedure and demanded that the constitution be submitted for full-scale review by a constituent assembly. Ayatollah Shariatmadari supported these demands.

A newly created seventy-three-member Assembly of Experts convened on August 18, 1979, to consider the draft constitution. Clerics, and members and supporters of the IRP dominated the assembly, which revamped the constitution to establish the basis for a state dominated by the Shia clergy. The Assembly of Experts completed its work on November 15, and the new Constitution of the Islamic Republic was approved in a national referendum on December 2 and 3, 1979, once again, according to government figures, by over 98 percent of the vote. 




by Anonymousaaa (not verified) on

If the Shah had slaughtered his opposition in the routine manner of the Islamic Republic, he would have still been in power. If the Shah had mass graves and thousands of secret prisons, he would have still been in power. The Islamic Republic is particularly brutal and ruthless and the sha was not.

The Islamic Republic's oppression apparatus is multi-layered and much more sophisticated. The subsidized Basiji and Sepah and other intelligent officers in Iran are like the SS of the communist Russia and Gestapos of the Nazis.

The Shah did not spend nearly as much as the IRI does on its spy and informants network domestically and abroad. I don't think the Shah even had a budget for that kind of activity outside of SAVAK.

The irony here is that when Khomeini, a former Muslim exile in Paris, overthrew the shah in February 1979, many of the 3,000 were executed by the ayatollah's firing squads along with 20,000 pro-Western Iranians. (Khomeini also sacrificed hundreds of thousands of its own people in extending that war for six years after an Iraqi cease-fire offer, in a bid to spread the Islamic revolution to Iraq, and it sent tens of thousands of its own youngsters to their deaths in that war, clutching plastic keys to paradise, charging artillery units or clearing minefields.What are the cost in terms of blood and treasure for Khomeini's delusional ambitions?

A golden opportunity to end the war as victors was denied to our nation and 8 years later, after so many Iranians were maimed and martyred, the poison chalice had to be drunk.)

According to "The Real Jimmy Carter," a book by Steven Hayward Institute: "Kho-meini's regime executed more people in its first year in power than the Shah's Savak had allegedly killed in the previous 25 years." (SEE: Emad Baghi's Report; He is rehabilitated former collaborator of the regime)

The fundamentalist clergy ruling elite and their subjects hated the shah not because he was an oppressive dictator. They hated him because he was a secular, pro-Western leader who, in addition to other initiatives, was expanding the rights and roles of women in Iran society. Under Khomeini, women returned to their second-class role, and citizens were arrested for merely owning satellite dishes that could pick up Western television.

The Islamic Republic still in power because it is unusually ruthless.


Not my English

by Souri on

Thanks God.

I have been in Amsterdam many times, since I was
young. I know what it looks like. Not only this, I have been dealing
with the police over there for a rubbery of all our baggage (the whole
family) in our car just for a few minuets we got in a hotel reception !
And I can tell you, their police and justice is, nothing you could
really hope for your own country !

I had understand the term " socially" in your comment, but it's too long to explain how they got to this "socially free land" through their history and their " constitutional monarchy"...while one had studied all this and the interaction and the synergy of all, one can not express themselves like you did.

Because this would comes in contradiction with your previous comment where you added insult to injury to the monarchist, the shah and Bakhtiar and you
assumed to know all that has been reclaimed by the Iranian population. I am not accusing you neither offense you here, but just observe everything and try to understand everyone's position.

you live in Amsterdam (which I have a doubt about) you would know
better what happens there to not wanting this for your own country. If
you have had only a pleasurable short trip there and have been amazed by
the degree of freedom you could enjoy in all domain of drug and
prostitution, it's understandable. But again I wish you would not
accept that degree of indecency for your beloved country. We cherish a
good culture and civilization that can not tolerate this kind of "
ebtezaal"...This is exactly what we regret to see starting in our
beloved country.

I can go and go on this subject, but I think there's no need to continue now as it's clear that we have a fundamental
difference of view.


Javaab man be Souri Khanoom Gol

by John Carpenter III (not verified) on

Dear Ms. Souri Khanoom:

It is not your english. There is a misunderstanding.

Amsterdam has a lot of social freedoms. Everything is legal there. In Amsterdam Prostitution and drugs are legal. That is the most social freedom existing in the world. Now if Iran as a country had the social freedom of Amsterdam in the country form only killers would be in jail.

We are not talking about the Netherlands monarchy. Monarchy in any form is wrong.

We just want for Iran as a country what Amsterdam has as a city.

And why not?

There will be lesser jails and prisons.

Now for the form of government for a future Iran...

A democratic republic like the USA.

An Executive branch, legislative branch and a judicial branch.


What ??

by Souri on

" and socially this new country should have the freedoms like that of Amsterdam, Holland. Anything less would be unfair......"


OMG, help me !! Do someone understand what this guy is talking about ? Amsterdam is a city, Netherland is the country which is governed by a decmocratic parliementary and a constitutional MONARCHY !!

Is this again my English ? Or someone is trying to hijak the conversation again?

and Socially Nethrland (Holland in French) ?? please go educate yourself before Speaking.




Irandokht: The Yes/No Ballet

by John Carpenter III (not verified) on

At this present time the YES/NO ballet can be seen in this way: No one wanted a monarchy. The Shah accepted the Revolution and fled. Bakhtiar fled. The country was handed over to the IRI. Almost 30 years have passed since. The Pahlavis were never in power for 30 consecutive years.
Reza Khan (Pahlavi): 1925-1941...That's 16 years
Mohammad Reza Pahlavi: 1941-1953 (In 1953 the Shah fled to Rome)...That's 12 years
Mohammad Reza Pahlavi: 1953-1979...That's 26 years.

The IRI has been in power for close to 30 years. They have more support internally and externally than the Pahlavis ever did.

If there will ever be change it will come from within the IRI. One thing is for sure, the monarchy is gone forever in Iran. Hopefully, the next phase will lead to a democratic republic in Iran, a democratic republic similar politically to the US, and socially this new country should have the freedoms like that of Amsterdam, Holland. Anything less would be unfair.


I would have...

by IRANdokht on

Dear Killjoy, believe me when I say I would have if I could, but those actions require moderator privileges which I don't have. I even flagged some comments but they were not removed by the moderators. All I can do is to ignore the ones I find unrelated and/or insulting.

There are plenty of worthy comments on this blog and I can only hope that whoever is interested would skip the nonsense and read all the significant contributions.

I am grateful for all your posts on this blog and glad to see you're back.



Dear Irandokht,

by Killjoy (not verified) on

You wrote:

"my dear Not-A: if only people had free access to this information, they would have seen him for the monster he was and believed Dr Bakhtiar. Damn SAVAK!
I hope that your valuable inputs stay on the first page of comments so more people can read them. That's why I am keeping this entry short. Thank you so much!!!"

If that's what you really want, then you could simply put a freeze on the incoming posts, especially, those which are devoid of any historical validity and are only meant as insults.

Enough's enough!!!


Irandokht, agree completely

by Q on

there is no contradiction with what I said. Yes, there was one Yes/No choice. I know this. Even this was rare and unprecidented.

However that one option could be anything because there was a chance for people to write what it means to be IR (constitution) democratically. In reality the referendum could have easily said "new government: yes or no". I wish it did say that, but they had to call the new government something.

As a side point, I'm not sure it's possible to reflect all possible choices in any referendum.


Re: Q

by IRANdokht on

I am not going to even speak of the generalizations and unnecessary accusations that are being thrown around, because I honestly find them offensive and not worth replying to. People should be able to present facts without having to attack other people's character.

One thing I just wanted to mention was about what you said: " A specific referendum on what kind of government one wants is very rare anwywhere in the world "  The referendum was not about what kind of government people wanted, because there was only one option! It'll be interesting to know who was behind that monoplization of the ballots, and what people would have wanted if the choices were there. Many of the people who signed or better yet put a finger print on their ballots didn't know what an Islamic Republic really meant.




I admit, I made a mistake

by Q on

factfinder: "falsifying" is a definition you don't meet. I admit I misspoke, or rather mis wrote. It was on a peripheral line that had nothing to do with my point.

What I wanted to say was that for the first time there was a nation-wide referendum on the type of government for Iran. A specific referendum on what kind of government one wants is very rare anywhere in the world.

To call this falsifying and playing semantic games is really to lose the moral ground for you. It makes you sound like an attack dog rather than anyone interested in "facts" which really devalues your contribution to this discussion.

Interestingly the two referendums you refer to had major problems you did not mention. But since historians call these referendum, I don't have a problem acknowledging that's they were.

But the facts, for those interested, are that the '53 referendum did not meet ballot secrecy requirements. There were two separate polling boxes one for yes, and one for no. If you wanted to vote no, it would be known. And the Shah's referendum was really just corrupt, taking advantage of people's lack of information. It was announced that it would take place only like a week or so before the actual vote. People had no time to study it or form an organized opposition to it. All the advertising for it was one sided state propaganda. In addition, Shah himself had dismissed the '53 referendum because he said nation-wide referenda are not constitutional. But here, he reversed himself and held one anyway.

so maybe I should have said this was the first real referendum and would have been more correct.

In your replies you also claim a number of inaccurate statements about me (should I call them lies or falsifications?)

You say that what I was referring to was "an election", no, I believe the word I used was "a vote" in the title of my comment. I NEVER SAID THERE WAS A THIRD OPTION on the ballot.

- You also clearly allege that I suggested these votes were held at the same time which actually makes no sense. But I never made this suggestion but you said it anyway.

I have no problem admitting my mistakes. But I wonder do you apply the same rules to yourself?

Furthermore, Anonymousddd (whoever that is) generalizes that my facts are "always subjective" based on the grand total of one case which is ridiculous to the max. But not more so than than claim "most Iranians know this about him"!!!

Now that we have established this, perhaps we can finally get to the main point of my original comment to Rosie which has been derailed.

This was that Iranians over a span of an entire year, had multiple opportunities to affirm the Islamic Republic in various forums and they did in all of them. "Passions", "chaos" and other explanations are inadequate. There must have been a deep desire and willingness to approve of the Islamic Republic.


The Shah and the SAVAK were the same entity

by John Carpenter III (not verified) on

Let us not forget that it was the Shah that endorsed the creation of the SAVAK. It was the Shah that shot down his Generals idea of shooting down the airplane of Ayat'Allah Ruh'Allah Mossavi Khomayni. All the roads to the revolution lead to the house of Pahlavi. The Pahlavi dynasty paved the way to give the country to the theocracy. The theocracy was opposed to communism. Communism is opposed to religion. Which movement can once and for all eradicate communism in Iran? A religious movement.

Even the Shah agreed with the Iranian revolution:
"Promise to the nation: You, the people of Iran, rose against injustice and corruption... I too, have heard the voice of your revolution. As the Shah of Iran, and as an Iranian, I will support the revolution of my people. I promise that the previous mistakes, unlawful acts and injustice will not be repeated."

And what did the Shah do in January 1979? He left the country and handed it over to Ayat'Allah Ruh'Allah Moosavi Khomayni.

And what did Bakhtiar do?
Bakhtiar left Iran again for France in April of the same year.

The Revolution had already taken place on February 11, 1979.

What happend after January 16,1979?

The shah left the government in the hands of a regency council and Prime Minister Shahpur Bakhtiar, a member of a loose coalition of nationalists and republicans called the National Front, which had been outlawed for more than a decade.

Bakhtiar's premiership lasted little more than a month. During that time, Bakhtiar made conciliatory gestures toward the shah's religious, leftist, and liberal opponents by promising to negotiate with the exiled Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, to disband SAVAK (the shah's secret police), and to shut off oil exports to Israel and South Africa.

From his Paris exile, Khomeini refused to meet with Bakhtiar so long as he remained prime minister. Bakhtiar ordered Tehran's airport closed to prevent the ayatollah's return and issued shoot-to-kill orders to troops facing more than 100,000 pro-Khomeini demonstrators. Rebellions within the military and continued civilian demonstrations, however, forced Bakhtiar to back down, and on February 1, Khomeini returned to Tehran and a tumultuous welcome. Ten days later the government announced that the army was withdrawing its units from the streets. A provisional Islamic revolutionary government took office, under the premiership of Mehdi Bazargan. Crowds once again filled the streets hailing the end of the monarchy.

On March 30-31, the establishment of an Islamic republic was overwhelmingly approved by voters in a nationwide referendum. Overly zealous local revolutionary committees, or komitehs, were accused of manipulating the elections despite the widespread popular support that the regime enjoyed.

Shapur Bakhtiar was a useless leader trying to prop up the Shah's sinking boat.

What could he have offered Iran?

A constitutional monarchy?
Would it succede? No.
The Pahlavis and the Qajars prevented the institution of a constitutional monarchy in Iran.

A republic?
Isn't that what Ayat'Allah Khomayni was promising.

Anyhow, we would be in the present state if Bakhtiar was successful.

We must not stress what Bakhtiar could have done. He would have probably agreed with Khomayni if the Ayat'Allah gave him a position in government.


Irandokht jan: I should

by Not Anonymous (not verified) on

Irandokht jan: I should thank you for providing this forum for us to discuss significant historical events.

I will try to find a translation for you if time permits.


Dear Ashkan and Not-A

by IRANdokht on

Thank you for taking the time to write your informative and sound comments. Dear Ashkan: your wonderfully written account of the time is much appreciated. I loved reading it and learned so much.

my dear Not-A: if only people had free access to this information, they would have seen him for the monster he was and believed Dr Bakhtiar.  Damn SAVAK!

I hope that your valuable inputs stay on the first page of comments so more people can read them. That's why I am keeping this entry short.  Thank you so much!!!



Let's discuss a new referandum for 2009

by Why? (not verified) on

Why doesn't the Islamic Republic listen to the calls of millions of Iranians for a new referandum??? Why is it that the mere mention of a new referandum gets you killed and imprisoned in the Islamic Republic of Oppression?


See the facts for yourself

by factfinder (not verified) on


Some of the contributors to this site find it amusing to feed your querying appetite for learning more about Iran, with what they present to you and to the rest of readers, as "facts."

Well, with respect, I don't share their enthusiasm in spreading "a made-up version of history" in the name of public education. But I can't see falsity to be present as fact.

You seem to be in a bit of rush today and so you have misread both Q's post as well as mine.

Here are some links that may help you get a better understanding of the way the the Islamic Republic was created through two referenda and one election between the two. The first referendum took place om 29 and 30 March 1979 with a Yes/No ballot on whether the nation wanted to have an Islamic republic as their ruling system. Later in summer of 1979 (and not at the same time as Q suggested) an election was held to elect the members of the assembly of Experts (some 70of them) who drew up the new constitution on the basis of the draft proposed by the provisional government. Then in December 1979, another referendum decided on the national approval of the written constitution.

This makes TWO (not THREE) referenda in 1979 with ONE election in between.

The main falsehood in Q's post was saying that Iranians had never had a nationwide referendum before 1979. This, as I have written and the evidence is abundant on the Net, is not true. There were two major referenda in the 25 years prior to the Islamic one: one in 1953 and the next in 1963. Q needs to educate himself on the contemporary history of Iran before feeding others with falsehood.

On the Constitution:


On Assembly of Experts:



Rosie, no apology is needed

by Souri on

There's no contradiction between what Q said and the anonymous factfindr's reclamation here.

It's all about the interpretation of the phrases. The title is very
confusing for the readers, while the anonymous factfinder is only trying to
condemn what Q had said about, the referendum of 1979 being the
first time in the Iran's recent history.

The rest, is all about the details which don' t change anything in the context and again are brought there in a demagogical manner.


Q's interpretation of events/facts are always highly subjective!

by Anonymousddd (not verified) on

Q confabulates and manages to see realties on his own terms. He has an overactive imagination and most of his accounts are resultant of his ideological versions of a purely subjective process of information (i.e. his interpretation)

I'm sorry but Q is the least credible source of info.I think most Iranians already know that about him.

Rosie T.

Factfinder, Q

by Rosie T. on

Q wrote to me below and told me there were THREE referendums in 1979. I never heard this before in my entire almost year on the website.  Is he lying about this?  Then yes, Factfinder, an apology is in order.

Is he not lying? Then a lot of other people owe an apology for suppressing and/or ignoring this vital information.

Or is it possible that NO ONE owes anybody an apology right now, just further dialog and CLARIFICATION?

As I said below I will comment more on the comments to me and also to some other things tomorrow but can't do it today.


Q: Falsifying Historic Facts is Unethical

by factfinder (not verified) on

Rewriting history is not new. Every regime or government do their share of tampering with history. What you have written here is a classic example of such attempts. Fortunately the evidence is there to be seen.

Here is what you wrote:

"The first ballot was "IR Yes or No", which I admit was problematic but still an important step for a country that had never had a nationwide referendum before."

"...an important step for a country that had never had a nationwide referendum before."

Really? The please read on:

There were two (significant) national referendums during the 25-year period prior to the Islamic Republic referendum. The first referendum was held by Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh in 1953 (another YES/NO ballot) to dissolve the parliament. The second referendum was held through a royal decree issued by Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi in 1963that enabled him to proceeed with his land reform plans (which angered the mullahs).

Also the referendum held by the provisional government of Mehdi Bazargan in March/April 1979 was a YES/NO ballot ONLY. What you are refering to was a an "election" (not a referendum) to elect the authors of the new (Islamci) constitutiona. Therefore, THERE WAS NOT THIRD OPTION IN THE ISLAMIC REFERENDUM.

The constiution of the Islamic Republic was put to the national vote through a second referendum later in the same year and was a totally separate event.

It may not be one of your traits but a public apology is in order.


Khomeini solidified his base

by Not Anonymous (not verified) on

Khomeini solidified his base by pandering to their partriachal sensibilties. He started this campaign in the late 1950's. I think he was mostly pissed off because of the 'Kashfe Hejab" (women's emancipation) He was a hard core misogynist.

"به صدق کوش که خورشید زاید از نفست"

"ما وسیله نداریم. مطبوعات دست ما نیست. علما را بد معرفی کرده اند. شماببینید بیست و چند سال از این کشف حجاب مفتضح گذشته است. حساب کنید چه کرده اید؟ زنها را وارد کرده اید در ادارات. ببینید در هر اداره ای که وارد شدند آن اداره فلج شد. فعلاً محدود است. علما می گویند توسعه ندهید. به استانها نفرستید. زن اگر وارد دستگاهی شد اوضاع را به هم می زند، می خواهید استقلالتان را زنها تأمین کنند؟ کسانی که شما از آنها تقلید می کنید دارند به آسمان می پرند. شما به زنها ور می روید؟"

آیت الله روح الله موسوی خمینی – 11/9/1341

از سال 1341 صدای مذهبی مخالف با رژیم شاه تفاوتی بنیادی و محسوس کرده بود. رهبری جنبش اسلامی ایران از دست آیت الله کاشانی و جناح او به کلی خارج شده بود و مردی که حالا پرچمدار مخالفت با نظام حاکم بود بر یکی از حساس ترین معضلات فرهنگی جامعه ایران انگشت گذاشته بود و ازآن بهره برداری تبلیغاتی و سیاسی می کرد. خمینی به فراست دو گانگی عمیق فرهنگی جامعه ایران را در رویارویی با حقوق زن دریافته و آنرا پایه و اساس مخالفت خود با نظام شاهی قرار داده بود. او درست می گفت. در سال 1341 بیش از بیست سال از کشف حجاب گذشته و موقعیت اجتماعی و فرهنگی ایران تغییر اساسی کرده بود. زنان در سطوح مختلف جامعه وارد بازار کار شده بودند و مسئله تغییر قوانین به منظور تأمین برابری زن و مرد در برابر قانون، برخورداری زنان از حق رأی، حق طلاق و مساوات در همه سطوح قانونی، مسئله روز شده بود. در این باره اما جامعه ما یکپارچه نبود. از آغاز، کشف حجاب بر جامعه تحمیل شده بود و با وجود تغییر قوانین فرهنگ زن ستیز جامعه ایرانی تغییر اساسی نکرده بود. این امر چندان عجیب نبود و ارتباطی با دیکتاتور بودن نظام شاهی نداشت. مشابه این موقعیت اجتماعی را درنظامهای غربی نیز می توان سراغ کرد. در آمریکا بعد از این که زنان صاحب حق رأی شدند و یا سیاهان از نظر قانونی به عنوان شهروند و دارای حق رأی شناخته شدند، جامعه همچنان به تبعیض و روابط نابرابر ادامه داد. تغییر فرهنگ جامعه بر خلاف تغییر قوانین یک شبه امکان پذیر نبود. اما در ایران عقب بودن فرهنگی جامعه ایران از قوانین اصلاحی و ریشه دار بودن زن ستیزی در فرهنگ پدر سالار جامعه، اسباب سیاستی موثر را برای ابراز مخالفت در دست رهبری مذهبی قرار می داد. خمینی از اولین سخنرانی ها و اعلامیه های خود در سال 1341 مخالفت با حقوق زن را یکی از سرلوحه های خود قرار داد. در این دوره به ندرت به سخنرانی و یا نوشته ای بر می خوریم که این عنصر را بر جسته نساخته باشد. نگاهی نزدیک به گفتمان ضد زن خمینی عناصر فرهنگی آنرا به آسانی نشان می دهد.

از نگاه خمینی تلاش برای تساوی حقوق زن و مرد مخالفت با اسلام است. مردم نسبت به اسلام تعصب دارند و با تساوی حقوق مخالفند و بنابراین دولت هربار که با مخالفت مردم روبرو می شود ناچار عقب نشینی می کند. می گوید:

"در روزنامه ها با قلم درشت نوشتند که بانوان را حق دخالت در انتخابات داده اند لکن شیطنت بود. برای انعکاس نظر عامه مردم به آن موضوع بود که نظرشان به القا اسلام و القا قرآن درست نیافتد ... دیدید آقا قضیه، قضیه بانوان نیست. این یک امر کوچکی است. قضیه معارضه با اسلام است ... باز همان مسائل خبیثشان را از سر گرفتند. همان مطالبی را که ابطال کرده بودند دوباره از سر گرفتند. درباره «تساوی حقوق من جمیع الجهات»، تساوی حقوق من جمیع الجهات پایمال کردن چند حکم ضروری اسلام است. نفی کردن چند تا حکم صریح قرآن است. بعدش باز دیدند که مصادف شد با یک ناراحتی ها ... حاشا کردند ... در روزنامه ها به صراحت لهجه نوشتند که بردن بانوان به سربازی، تصویبش در دست تنظیم است، لکن بعد از این که دیدند خیلی فضاحت بار آمد، مردم ناراحت شدند ... گفتند اکاذیب است." (خمینی- 10/1/1341)

نظام حاکم در مقابل مقاومت فرهنگی جامعه و ایستادگی بخشی از روحانیت مجبور به عقب نشینی های موقت می شود. خمینی از این عقب نشینی ها بعنوان پیروزی علما یاد می کند تا به جنبش خود روحیه بدهد:

"بد شد امسال برای اینکه این مطالب واقع شد و خوب شد برای اینکه شما آقایان زنده کردید اسلام را، ایستادید،در مقابل ظلم ایستادید. اگر نایستاده بودید خدا می داند که حالا رفته بودند تا آن آخر. ایستادگی شما اسباب این شد که حاشا کردند مطالبشان را، گفتند: خیر، طلاق به دست مرد است. کی ماگفتیم؟ ... از این طرف می گویند، از آن طرف می گویند کی ما گفتیم طلاق به دست زن باشد؟ نخیر، طلاق به دست مرد است. از آن طرف می گویند نخیر کی ما راجع به ارث گفتیم؟ نخیر ارث هم همانطوری که خدا گفته است. از آن طرف هم می گویند کی ما گفتیم زنان بروند به نظام وظیفه؟ تو روزنامه هایتان است آقا." (10/1/1341)

خمینی مخالفت با تساوی حقوق زن و مرد را وظیفه شرعی خود می داند. عدم تساوی حقوق را نیز به طور مبهم و کلی بیان نمی کند. بطور مشخص با حق طلاق، ارث برابر، شرکت زنان در ادارات و نظام وظیفه دشمنی خاص دارد. به عبارت دیگر تساوی حقوق را در عرصه خانوادگی، اقتصادی و اجتماعی نمی پذیرد. زیرکی و مهارت سیاسی او در مساوی نشان دادن عدم تساوی حقوق و اسلام است و تکیه بر احساسات سنتی و «تعصب ناموسی» فرهنگ پدر سالار. سرلوحه پیام او به ملت ایران در سال 1341، اولین جمله های اعلامیه،چنین نوشته می شود:

"انا لله و انا الیه راجعون. دستگاه حاکمه ایران به احکام مقدسه اسلام تجاوز کرد و به احکام مسلمه قرآن قصد تجاوز دارد. نوامیس مسلمین در شرف هتک است و دستگاه جابره با تصویب نامه های خلاف شرع و قانون اساسی می خواهد زنهای عفیف را ننگین و ملت ایران را سرافکنده کند. دستگاه جابره در نظر دارد تساوی حقوق زن و مرد را تصویب و اجرا کند. یعنی احکام ضروری اسلام و قرآن کریم را زیر پا بگذارد. یعنی دخترهای 18 ساله را به نظام اجباری ببرد و به سربازخانه ها بکشد. یعنی با زور سرنیزه دخترهای جوان عفیف مسلمان را به مراکز فحشا ببرد." (1341)

تا پایان سال 1341 (اسفند ماه) دیگر مراجع تقلید و آیات عظام حوزه علمیه قم با او هم سخن شدند و اعلامیه ای مشترک خطاب به دولت در مخالفت با حقوق زن نوشتند. از جمله آیت الله شریعتمداری و مرتضی حائری نیز آنرا امضاء کردند. این اعلامیه استدلال می کند که از نظر تاریخی زنان حق شرکت در انتخابات را نداشته اند و شرکت آنها مخالف قانون اساسی و نیز مخالف شرع و اسلام است. با صراحت می گویند: "تصویبنامه اخیر دولت راجع به شرکت نسوان در انتخابات از نظر شرع بی اعتبار و از نظر قانون اساسی لغو است." و نیز تذکر می دهند که "دخالت زنان در انتخابات یا اعطای حق زنها یا وارد نمودن نیمی از جمعیت ایران در جامعه ... جز بدبختی و فساد و فحشا چیز دیگری همراه ندارد."

خمینی فرهنگ زن ستیزی ایران را دستمایه جنبش سیاسی خود در مخالفت با نظام حاکم قرار داد و در این راه در جلب حمایت طبقات سنتی جامعه موفق بود. از شهرستانها موج نامه و تلگراف های حمایتی خرده مالکان و بازاریان آغاز شد. در جواب به تلگراف اصناف همدان نوشت:

"کراراً در نطقهای مبتذلشان تصریح به تساوی حقوق زن و مرد در تمام جهات سیاسی و اجتماعی کرده اند که لازمه اش تغییر احکامی از قرآن مجید است و چون با عکس العملی از طرف مسلمین مواجه شدند، مزورانه انکار نمودند و عذر بدتر از گناه خواسته اند ... دخترها را به سپاه دانش دعوت یا تشویق می کنند و خودشان تصریح می کنند که باید قبلاً به سربازی بروند و چون مواجه با نفرت عمومی می شوند به انکار بر می خیزند ... دستگاه جبار گمان کرده با زمزمه تساوی حقوق می تواند راهی برای پیشرفت مقاصد شوم خود که آن ضربه نهایی به اسلام است باز کند ... " (12/2/1342)

خمینی اما برای کارزاری (کمپین) که علیه تساوی حقوق زنان با مردان براه انداخته بود به مشارکت فعال همه وعاظ و گویندگان دینی احتیاج داشت. همه جا مراکز مذهبی می بایست تبدیل به تریبونی برای ابراز مخالفت با تساوی حقوق زن و مرد می شد. در همان سال در پیامی خطاب به وعاظ نوشت:
"از تساوی حقوق اظهار تنفر کنید و از دخالت زنها در اجتماع که مستلزم مفاسد بیشمار است، ابراز انزجار و دین خدا را یاری کنید و بدانید "ان تنصر و الله ینصرکم و یثبت اقدامکم."

از پانزدهم پانزدهم خرداد 1342 تا سیزدهم آبان 1342 که به ترکیه تبعید شد، تکیه اصلی بیانیه ها و سخنرانی های خمینی بر دشمنی با تساوی حقوق است. اما در آخرین ماههای قبل از تبعید کم کم تم اصلی جای خود را به حمله به آمریکا و اسرائیل می دهد. با لایحه کاپیتولاسیون، خمینی کارزاری تازه می یابد. از سوی دیگر با فراست دریافته که مسئله حقوق زنان رفته رفته در جامعه ایران جا باز کرده است. در این دوران اشاره به مبارزه با تساوی حقوق را ادامه می دهد اما آن را بیشتر در بحث های جانبی و بصورت «کاری از کار گذشته» مطرح می کند:

"هیئت حاکمه به جای اینکه برای اقتصاد ایران، برای جلوگیری از ورشکستگی های بازرگانان محترم، ... فکری بکند، به کارهای مخرب مثل آنچه گفته شد [می پردازد] از قبیل استخدام زن برای دبیرستانهای پسرانه و مرد برای دبیرستانهای دخترانه که فساد آن بر همه روشن و اصرار به آنکه زنها در دستگاههای دولتی وارد شوند که فساد و بیهوده بودنش بر همه واضح است. " (4/8/1342

جنبش سیاسی خمینی در آستانه تبعید او به ترکیه ریشه دار شده بود. بازرگانان محترم از صرف سرمایه و کمک مالی دریغ نکرده بودند. تبلیغات وعاظ او را به عنوان رهبر بلامنازع مذهب سیاسی مطرح کرده بود. در چنین حالی او نوک پیکان حمله را متوجه آمریکا، اسرائیل، یهودیان و بهاییان کرد و سالها به انتظار نشست تا با کسب قدرت سیاسی دوباره به سراغ زنان ایران بیاید.

امروز هم «جمهوری اسلامی» در دشمنی با زنان و اصرار بر عدم تساوی حقوق تنها ادامه دهندۀ خواسته و نیت بنیانگذار خویش است که اندرین صندوق جز لعنت نبود. یکی از پایه های اصلی نهضت خمینی ستیزه با حقوق زنان بود و این عنصر، ستون اصلی جمهوری اسلامی نیز هست. جمهوری برادران بر پایه تبعیض ایستاده است و بر این پایه به حیات خود ادامه می دهد.



The confusing days of the Revolution

by Ashkan on

Dr. Bakhtiar was an Iranian patriot who understood what was at stake at the time and willingly and knowingly bet his life on it. He joined many others who, before him, gave their lives for the worthy country of Iran in order to save it form harm.

With all due respect to a number of well intentioned and articulate contributors, the choices back then, as I remember it, were not as clear cut as they seem today.

The very first widespread demonstration that I remember happened on the"Eid-e-fetre" and Sanjabie was at the front and center of it (I was 25years old at the time.) He and other leaders of Jebhe-y-e-Mellie (JM),including Forouhar who tragically lost his life to the Islamist terrorists, ended up denouncing Bakhtiar. I don't know why, but, just as the leftists and the mojahedeen, may be they thought that this Khomeini guy is going to go away once the revolution succeeds. Khomeini and those who advised him outfoxed all of them.

At the time of the revolution, I was a recent graduate of a college of Engineering, where most of the student uprisings took place and I though I had read a few books. Yet I did not know that Khomeini was "pissed of" by the majority of the items that Ali P. correctly enumerates. Why? because as another contributor correctly pointed out, only the religious entities had the "ability" and the means (through the Mosques) to "inform" their followers. No other opposition group had a forum to air their opinion easily and publicly as the religious groups did; some of the opposition had much to say against the Islamists including why Khomeini is pissed off.

A very telling example is Jalal-e-Ale-Ahmad's "Gharb Zadegie" (Westernization.) Int hat book, among other claims, Al-e-Ahmad said that by hanging Shaikh Fazlollah e Noori during the constitutional revolution (Mashrootiat), they effectively "hang" the Shiitism. Many scholars disagreed with that argument and many other claims that Al-e-Ahmad made in that book. But, were they able to voice their opinion? No! Why? I suppose because talking about Mashrootiat meant taking about the principles of Mashrootiat that were all but ignored by the the late Shah. Although the revolution started long after Al-e-Ahmad had died, he (and of course, Sharee-ati) was credited for inspiring many who vehemently supported Khomeini. The government's repression was a double ended sword. 

Ali P. who is clearly insightful, refers to the "Velaayat-e-fegheeh", one of the books written by Khomeini, in which he sets forth the notion of the rule by "fagheeh". As I remember it from the reading ofthe book in those days, he divides the population into two categories, "foghahah" (marja-e-taghleed; religious leaders such as Khomeini, Sharee-at-madari, etc.) and "sofahas" (those who are the followers of the marja-e-taghleeds. That is, the rest of the population!). His thesis was that sofahah are not intellectually capable of making decisions on their own and should simply follow the decision of the fagheeh and that the fagheehs should be in charge of the governance. Ferdosi, a progressive magazine at the time wrote an article, in theform of a letter, based on the premises of that book, toSharee-at--madari asking for clarifications about Khomeini'sintentions. I do not know of any answers to that letter. Of course the mass media at the time were so distrusted by the general public thatit did not matter what they said.

When Dr. Bakhtiar accepted to become the Prime Minister, Hell had already broken loose. Not only the rule of law, as it related to the anti-Shah demonstrations, were not taken seriously by the demonstrators, when Shah left, it made the opposition much bolder. However, even though the majority of people did not know who Bakhtiar really was, they knew he was associated with JM and for a short period of time, they"paused". They just did not know what to make of it. I beg to differ with those who suggest that all the demonstrators were committed to Khomeini's cause. Some were. But, many disliked the government for different reasons and did not know as much as we like to believe about the Shah, Khomeini, or Bakhtiar (they probably knew Bakhtiar the least.) What they did know is that Shah was not an independent ruler, was repressive, and was out of touch. They did not feel that they mattered. Khomeini had been exiled because he opposed the Shah, and Dr. Bakhtiar was a member of JM who was once led by Dr. Mossadegh. The association of Dr. Bakhtiar with Dr. Mossadegh was enough to give people a pause. The Islamists regrouped very quickly and started their disinformation campaign against Bakhtiar. Tragically, right then, when Dr. Bakhtiar needed the support of JM the most, they denounced him. So, I, like many others who were suspicious of the Mullahs, was just confused as to what to think. Islamists had the benefit of the Mosques and their leaders, through their network, made sure the followers knew what to do. Inaddition, they had BBC to tell them when and where to gather for demonstrations (this was not always true.) But, there was no network of those who did not like the Shah's rule and were willing to support Bakhtiar or anybody else for that matter. I knew of a few rallies in Tehran in favor of Bakhtiar. But that was not widespread at all. In addition, when Dr. Bakhtiar become the Prime Minister, there was an air of inevitability that you could not miss. Khomeini and his people made many false promises and the people were willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. Khomeini said that he did not have any intention to be in the government. He said our place is in the mosque and our role is simply an advisory one. The nationalists (melli-yoon) will govern the country. Bazargan went around and promised people gas and electricity... They had something for everyone.

I just wonder why the leader of JM, who in their precious lifetime had experienced the mischievous Ayatollah Kashani, would not think twice about following another Ayatollah.

Do we know what lessons have we learned from this tragedy? 

May we never forget those who lost their lives to save Iran.

P.S. I apologize for a lengthly post. Thank you, IRANdokht for theoriginal and the subsequent posts.


Actually, thank YOU...

by Fair on

..Irandokht, for posting this to begin with, and all your nice discussion and comments.


Indeed we need to unite the Iranians in and outside of Iran. No matter what they tell anybody, we are ALL Iranians. The mullahs know this is dangerous, so they divide and rule. And we play right into it.

Think about it, the Khomeini-ists had no chance of pulling their revolution off until they could connect up Iranians inside and outside of the country. It should be no different for us.


And re: S. Korea, I used to think the same thing you stated. But then I talked to my young S. Korean friends and got the inside picture:)

Not to mention, they have all that stuff, but they did not (and still do not) have oil and lots of natural resources. The standard of living of an uneducated urban migrant in Iran in 1979 was not that different than their equivalent in S. Korea. Same goes for an educated urban dweller, etc.


But this is all irrelevant now. Let us stay focussed on the main thing- a modern democratic Iran. Let us EACH ask ourselves: "What can I do to help?"


Thanks again,




khejalatam midin

by IRANdokht on

Thank you so much for the support and for all the information you provided and so beautifully answered so many questions my not-anonymous friend. 

I tried to explain before (and somewhere in the blog itself) that by no means do I think I know enough about this subject which happens to be very near and dear to my heart. I only wanted to pay a tribute to someone I believed in. I am not a blogger, I can't even write to save my life. But Dr Bakhtiar's memory is dear to me and I became emotional in one reply...  I did try to apologize for it personally.

Iranians can and should discuss issues in a civil manner, we're all united by our love for Iran, we only disagree on how to deal with the dire situation we have been living in. We're all homesick and hurt. A beautiful friend of mine once said "we all live in a state of schitzophrenia marked by feelings of nostalgia"...  we have a lot more in common than we think and we should be able to count on one another for support.

It's unfortunate that we're witnessing such behaviour unbecoming of the gentle, warm people that we are.

I am grateful for all the nice comments that were addressed to me personally and the informative ones that I find very important, also for the great inputs from so many...  and I thank YOU again from the bottom of my heart.



A big round of applause for

by Not Anonymous (not verified) on

A big round of applause for our gracious blogger, Irandokht. Thank you Irandokht jan. I'm glad you decided to come back. Your clarity/objectivity is unrivaled on this site, and that is precisely why this blog has been the most civil, unifying, healing, and fruitful blog ever.

Congratulations to you khanoom-e gol. Khasteh Nabshi!


Well Said Fair!!

by IRANdokht on

Thank you! I couldn't agree with you more!  Your idea of the right approach is exactly what's missing!

We're not acting responsibly. We're too busy arguing with each other, in the meanwhile the people in Iran are suffering and the gap between us is getting larger. None of the conversations I have seen here interests any of my friends in Iran. When I send them copies and ask their opinion, I hear we're out-of-touch. I hear we've side-tracked and gone so far that we don't understand the real issues anymore. I hear they laugh at issues that have some of us grabbing at each other's throats here.

You are right about this: We are the ones who have to take action. No other country or power will come to our rescue for free, and the key is uniting with the people in Iran who have proven to be more active in civil resistance and the fight than we could ever be from afar. We're too quick to dismiss some of these fighters because they had at some points worked with the IRI etc... We're so against-IRI that we are dismissing real possibilities. For example when we're speaking against reformists as a whole and dismissing people when labeled a "reformist", in action we're helping the right wing to keep all the power.

I am going to repeat what you just said because I believe it to be our only salvation.

Now I ask all Iranians, let's look forward. Let's look in the rear view mirror to understand what happenned, but let's take a hard look in the mirror at ourselves, and ask, "where do we go from here?" And let's take a look around at each other as well. And especially, those of us who are educated and enjoy good lives in free countries have a special responsibility. We should be asking Iranians at home, "how can we help you move our country forward?" (instead of lecturing to them what we think they should do)

Thanks again!


PS: On the subject of South Korea, I don't think their situation can be compared to Iran of 1979. Their automobile industry is strong, their LG products are being imported internationally, Their industrial growth cannot be compared to the jobs that our villagers had to do in the cities... 


Dear Irandokht,

by Fair on

..Thank you for your response, and the reference to Ayandegan newspaper.

I hope you are right, that the vast majority of Iranians did not want Khomeini but were silent. Since there are no reliable statistics and polls from the era, we may never know this objectively.

But once again, I ask, if there was a slient majority that believed in reason and not in religious government, why were there so few public figures that aligned themselves with them? (Bakhtiar was the only one that I can identify- all the mellis and melli-mazhabis publicly aligned themselves with the "unsilent majority".)

Regarding the dissatisfaction because of growth of cities, etc., South Korea should be exploding right about now, since in a country of about 49 million, 23 million live in the metro area of the capital Seoul. And despite the impressive economic growth, youth and working class still have to compete a lot for opportunities and survival.


And most importantly, I agree that most Iranians were not familiar with politics (the results of their actions confirms this). That is why the educated leaders who were exposed to the modern world and its ideals had extra responsibility to lead by proper example. In my opinion they failed miserably. Their failure was of greater magnitude of any of Shah's failures (which were not few).


Now I ask all Iranians, let's look forward. Let's look in the rear view mirror to understand what happenned, but let's take a hard look in the mirror at ourselves, and ask, "where do we go from here?" And let's take a look around at each other as well. And especially, those of us who are educated and enjoy good lives in free countries have a special responsibility. We should be asking Iranians at home, "how can we help you move our country forward?" (instead of lecturing to them what we think they should do)

Then, and only then, do we have a chance. It will not be easy, and I am not sure we are ready today either. But we should keep trying.


Thanks again,



Rosie T.

Thank you all for helping me with my questions and / Ali P.

by Rosie T. on

for keeping up the discussion. I am happy to see the posts are so serious and detailed but that means I won't be able to read them carefully til Monday because I am still in pay by minute I'net and can't afford it. Please keep up the discussion as long as you feel is necessary.

Meantime I just wrote something short for Ali P. inspired by this blog. I will post it shortly.



The silent majority

by IRANdokht on

Dear Fair

That's true, Shah didn't want a bloodshed and ironically that was considered yet another weak point! The army didn't shoot because it was made clear that such actions were not to be taken. Shah said that he didn't want anyone to even have a bloody nose... The last day when Dr Bakhtiar had made the decision to stop violent riots, Gharabaaghi had already decided to announce the army's surrender. Please see this interview clip

I was referring to the term "Aksariyateh khamoosh" that was mentioned back then, I remember reading it first in Ayandegan which was one of the best news publications of the time. The crowds in the streets, at least around my school, were mostly kids following a few, dodging school and joining the boys from the schools nearby. At least that's what I saw in the demonstrations late 78/early 79.

The majority of the people in Iran were not familiar with politics, there were very few who had joined underground organizations (mostly left). The majority of the people were just dissatisfied with the growth of the cities and some of the economical changes that had left them no choice but to migrate to those cities especially Tehran to find jobs for survival. That's why the promises made by Khomeini were so well received, but their motivation was not political nor religious and they didn't care less about JM or Toodeh or the other political groups. 

I wish I had followed all the IRTV broadcasted segments on JM including all the interviews. I will search for any clips I can find online, or maybe Dr Kazemzadeh could help us with a straight and easy answer.

There are a lot of information about those days in the archive of IRTV, but I doubt that they have all the clips available there. As I mentioned before, I am not qualified to answer questions, I am still trying to learn about the actual events of the time.

All I know is that there was a lot of propaganda, too many foreign hands at work, and in a very short time an unbelievable organization was put in place to get rid of Shah and throne Khomeini. As for the people, they were mostly just emotional and politically unaware. Some of us were still completely in shock for the first few years. Another saying back then was: 2 maah digeh miran!  Even Khomeini responded: koja berim! magar ma gharaara berim?

Best regards,