می بخور، منبر بسوزان - مردم آزاری نکن

Massoud Jaan Thank you for proving my point ...

You and Your Likeminds refuse and have Always refused Accountability ...

pictory: Bakhtiar Denounces Bazargan's Provisionary Government in exile (1979)

For YOUR Own Poor Choice:

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPpB-r5mMCI

But see no contradiction in demanding that from others ...

The sacrifice

Mosadegh and the liberal Iran was the lamb that was sacrificed for the wedding of the Monarchy and Clergy. It is not surprising that the IRI and current advocates of dictatorship monarchy are brandishing their treacherous knives for the same victim again. IRI and dictator monarchist are the two sides of the same coin.

Indeed he was a great human being, Thanks for reminding us

"از ایشان صادق تر، درستکار تر، انسان دوست تر و نجیب تر، در تمام ایران نبود. صفاتی که هر کدام به تنهایی‌ می‌توانست و میتواند باعث "رّد صلاحیت" هر نماینده‌ای در دستگاه سیاسی ایران شود"

"دکتر مصدق انسان دوست بود؛ نه فقط برای ایرانی‌، بلکه برای همه انسان‌های جهان. ایشان مخالف ترور، آدمکشی، شکنجه و تجاوز بود"

Shazdeh Jaan Keep on writing Aziz! There is a very small yet vocal group out there that is zealously keen on re writing the History of Iran especially on Dr. Mossadegh's era and denial of his great contributions to the Iranian nation. This consorted effort is coming from the lovers of the past Estebdaad as well as the current ones, and I wonder why they are so afraid of the old man of Ahmadabaad even more than 45 years after his death?!!

on Accountability

Dariush jaan,

Now I get what you meant by "accountability."

1. I do not think that one could place what Bazargan, Taleghani, Shariati, has done with the crimes against humanity that Khomeini and his gang committed. I did not place Ebrahim Yazdi in the category of others. There is a huge difference between someone like Khomeini and others. Khomeini ordered the mass slaughter of thousands upon thousands of human beings, ordered to closure of independent media, ordered the mass torture and mass rape of thousands upon thousands of dissidents.

Dr. Shariati died in 1977. We do NOT know what he would have done in 1978-1980. Many of his close followers created Forqan and assassinated clerics in 1979. One might criticize Shariati’s ideas as wrong, but he did NOT commit ANY crimes whatsoever.

Ayatollah Taleghani opposed the notion of velayat faghih when he was in the majles khobregan. He even had to go into hiding because there was the concern that the IRGC would arrest him just like they had arrested his one or two of his sons. In his last public speech on namaz jomeh at Univ of Tehran, he warned against religious dictatorship. If Khomeini had died in 1979 and Taleghani had survived, then Iran might have been a totally different country today. Khomeini was a blood thirsty extremist right-wing reactionary fascist. Taleghani was a decent moderate human being. Taleghani publically forgave his SAVAK torturer. He talked about forgiveness and reconciliation. He publically stated that there should not be any compulsory hijab. He was against velayat faghih position. He had publically criticized Ayatollah Kashani for his role against Mossadegh.

Mehdi Bazargan was instrumental in presenting a constitution in 1979 that did not have vf, did not have shoray negahban, did not have khobregan. Bazargan opposed summary executions, and other violent acts by Khomeini and his fascist henchmen. In 1989, Bazargan PUBLICALLY opposed Khomeini’s fatwa on Salman Rushdie. Bazargan made his argument based on the notion of freedom of expression.

If one demands a particular person of group to apologize for their crimes, then he or she should state what exactly those crimes or actions are.

We know what are crimes of Khomeini (e.g., mass murder, mass torture). We know what are the crimes of Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi (e.g., killings, torture, closing of newspapers, dictatorship such as repression of freedom of the parties and free election).

Did Bazargan support Khomeini in torture? Did Bazargan support Khomeini in executions? Did Bazargan support Khomeini in closure of papers?

We could criticize Bazargan for not knowing Khomeini was a tyrant before Feb 1979. The poor soul did not have a crystal ball. The 1977-1979 revolution was a broad based movement that opposed the Shah. The people believed that the Shah was puppet of foreign powers, was dictator, and was repressive. Thus the demand for esteghlal, independence. Thus the demand for azadi. At the later stages the slogan "jomhuri Islami" was added. That was a problem. But it was not clear what that meant. Pakistan was an Islamic Republic since 1947 or so. After the Americans invaded and overthrew the Taliban, the official name of Afghanistan is Islamic Republic of Afghanistan.

Dr. Ebrahim Yazdi is a self-serving power-hungry thug. He is a disgusting person. He played a nasty and ugly role during the revolution.

There are many similarities between Dr. Bakhtiar and Bazargan. Both were decent moderate democrats. Bakhtiar was secular and Bazargan was religious. Both respected the rights of others to hold their own views without being oppressed and repressed.

Today, we KNOW how oppressive, repressive, and reactionary the system that Khomeini created is. But we do NOT know what would have happened if Dr. Bakhtiar succeeded in Feb 1979. The Shah did not abdicate and merely went on a vacation. If the situation was stabilized, the Shah would have returned to Iran. Could he dismiss Bakhtiar and appoint one of his nasty supporters (e.g., Gen. Nasiri) as Prime Minister? Would he order the mass slaughter of thousands upon thousands of dissidents?

The problems in Iran has been the lack of democracy, freedom, human rights. Another problems has been the extremist dictatorial perspective that represses the right of others to exist and express their opinions. The Shah repressed all those who thought differently than him. Khomeini did the exact same thing. What we NEED is allowing pluralism. We NEED to recognize the rights of others to hold their own views and perspectives. Politics should NOT be a life and death affair. Politics should be a non-violent struggle.

Now on my personal politics. I have always oppose the notion of monarchy. It does not make sense to me. In my opinion, the best form of government is one in which the people can choose in open and free elections the person they like. And change that if they realize they were wrong in the following election.

The reason I oppose Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi was that he was not serving Iran’s national interest. He did what foreign powers told him to do. Also he was very repressive and dictatorial.

You keep making this false dichotomy of monarchy on one side and all other kinds as republicans on the other. The form of political system I support is like the United States. Is Khomeini’s velayat faghih system like the United States???????? To say that all the systems that do not have a leader called king as the same is like saying all economic systems that have social classes and property are the same; thus the social democratic Sweden and slavery are the same.

vf Khomeini and vf Khamenei were not freely elected Presidents. That is why the people use slogans such as "Khamenei haya kon, saltanato raha kon" [Khamenei have shame, leave the kingship]. Or "marg bar shah, marg bar shah; kodom shah, Akbar Shah" [Death to the King, Death to the Kings, Which king, Akbar {Rafsanjani} King].

Reza Pahlavi has made some minor admissions on torture during his father’s rule. This is good. In my opinion, he should go further.

You and other monarchists say that all those who opposed the Shah, helped Khomeini come to power. Thus they are all responsible for the crimes of Khomeini. I think this is a very weak point. First, at the time, it could not be foreseen. Second, Khomeini lied. Three, Khomeini’s consolidation of power was not inevitable. Fourth, we do not know how horrible the alternative under a restored Shah might have been.

Everyone makes decisions based on available information. Everyone makes mistakes. One is not responsible for the crimes of those that one opposes. If one wants to say that the actions of JM or Bazargan led to Khomeini’s rise to power, then one has to admit that the actions of the Shah was a zillion times more responsible for the revolution and the rise of Khomeini. If the Shah even as late as 1977 freed political prisoners and allowed freedom of the press and parties and allowed free elections, there is no way that there would have been a revolution and Khomeini would have come to power. The Shah was more responsible for the revolution and how it turned our more than any other person.

I hope this is helpful.

Best,

Masoud

شراب سرخ عزیز - شازده بزرگوار

ای نسیم سحر آرامگه یار کجاست

منزل آن مه عاشق کش عیار کجاست

شب تار است و ره وادی ایمن در پیش

آتش طور کجا، موعد دیدار کجاست؟

هر که آمد به جهان، نقش خرابی دارد

در خرابات مگویید که هشیار کجاست!

ساقی و مطرب و می جمله مهیاست ولی

عیش بی یار مهیا نشود، یار کجاست؟

حافظ از باد خزان در چمن دهر مرنج

فکر معقول بفرما، گل بی خار کجاست!

...

اگر این محّمد و آن محمّد رضا سَر از گورِشان بیرونْ آرند . . .

شازده جان،دلِمان نیامد در اینجا کامِنت از خودمان نگذاریم ، ماشا الله ،خلق الله فرمایشاتی کردند که اغلب در قوطیِ هیچ عطاّری پیدا نمی‌شود،اما باز خوب است که دوستان ریشه در مطلب بِدَوانَند و ساقه و برگشْ دهند..حالْ اگر آن یکی‌ خارِ مطلب بود و یکی‌ دیگر گُلْ ... خدایَش ببَخشَدَشْ که ما را جز این لیاقتی دیگر نیستْ .

ایران سلامَت باشد و دشمَنَش برْ خاک !

همیشه سبز باشیدْ .

Dear friends: thanks for your kind notes

Your meaningful discussions and contributions are much appreciated.

Masoud Jaan Nope You did Not Answer the Question

I did not ask you about the history of the Jebheyeh Melli for which I thank you nevertheless ( and which is not entirely unrelated to our discussion) or that of the LMI for which I am sure anyone here can do their homework and look for their background, ideas and history. 

I was speaking about ACCOUNTABILITY !

ROYAL ACCOUNTABILITY: Crown Prince Reza on Torture During His Father's Rule

VIRTUE IN TERROR: Maximilien Robespierre and the Reign of Terror (BBC)

You seem to Reject the  Royal Institution's Legitimacy in our country despite the fact that it strongly shaped our identity as a nation for centuries on grounds that it failed to implement a Truly Democratic and Secular State ( albeit accepting a Constitution which could have reformed it very much like in Great Britain) and therefore it should be Abolished alltogether in favor of a Secular Republic.

Given the Failure of Your Republic in doing the same in the past 30 years to disastrous proportions notably in humiliating our national Identity and Yek Parcheghi as No Dynasty in Iran has done in 25 centuries .... what makes your Republican ideals anymore legitimate than that of Constitutionalists ?

HISTORY FORUM: Nader Naderpour on Iran's Constitutional Revolution and European Rennaissance (1996)

HISTORY OF IDEAS: Ian Davidson on Voltaire's "English Exile"

To my knowledge "Republicanism" is Not the Only form of Democratic practice that exists in the world ...

Great Britain:

HISTORY FORUM: How Truly Democratic is The British Monarchy ?

RESTORATION: Britain's 'Glorious Revolution' of 1688 and the 'Bill of Rights'

Spain:

Viva España, Viva El Rey !!

Belgium ( whose constitution served to inspire the Persian One):

RESTORATION: Belgium King Baudouin takes Oath Amidst Republican Animosity (31st July ,1950)

Netherlands ( which as a matter of fact used to be a Republic before establishing a Monarchy):

ROYALTY: Shah of Iran state visit to the Netherlands 1959 (6 Parts)

ROYAL CURTSY: Shah of Iran kisses Queen Juliana's Hand - La Hague-Netherlands (1959)

All of which have been run by Prime Ministers belonging to all political sensitivities be them right wing or left wing in perfectly democratic manners and achieved the Separation of Powers Legislative and executive as well as Secularism in the practice of power to which this gentleman also refers to:

//iranian.com/main/blog/tapesh/dr-mohammad-amini

While also missing the entire point very much like him:

HISTORY FORUM: Bahram Moshiri's Take on The French Revolution and Why He Misses The Point ;0)

Since Amini draws a ridiculous parrallel on moral political grounds between Bazargan's Provisional Government ( which was the Result of a Revolution against the establishment ) as a continuation of Bakhtiar's ( which was a Result of Political Compromise with the establishment which is by definiton what Constitutionalism is per se) which is ridiculous ... 

pictory: Bakhtiar Denounces Bazargan's Provisionary Government in exile (1979)

As Such in my humble opinion Even After all this Time ( 30 years) Your Claims that "Republicanism" is More Virtuous or Legitimate in Iran than a Constitutional Monarchy Falls Short ! ... 

BOOK: EVEN AFTER ALL THIS TIME By Afschineh Latifi ( A Memoir )

Related Blogs:

ROYAL RHINOPLASTY: Stephen Fry On The Imperfections of the Monarchy and Why It Should Be Preserved

David Starkey's "Last Word" With Maryam Namazie about Iran and the Monarchy (More4 TV April 19th, 2006)

GOOD READ: All You Need to Know About The Enlightment Philosophers

HISTORY FORUM: The Age of Enlightment in France and Europe.

PS: The Contents of the Links are Provided Only as Food For Thought but I refer to them because they are precisely at the very core of my argumentation since Republicanism is at Historical Crossroads in Iran today in terms of legitimacy given it's poor record of the past 30 years. That prevails whether you are a Secularist or Not ( which was the case of most of you guys back in 79 since you chose to vote for this current Constitution as opposed to the existing one) 

Dariush jaan

Dariush jaan,

As you know, our 1906 constitution and its amendments had many problems regarding mixing Shia Islam and politics.

In my opinion (and that of JM), in the post-fundamentalist Iran, we would like to see a secular democratic republic. This means that all the top positions in the executive and all legislature will have to be fully and periodically elected. There will be no vf, no shoray negahban, no religious state entity. Period. No special privileges for the clergy. We want a 100% secular system of separation of religion from state institutions.

At the same time, the rights and freedoms of ALL religions (Shia, Sunni, Bahai, Jewish, Christian, Zoroasterian) and none belief (atheism, agnosticism, etc) has to be respected.

In our view, political parties can have their ideologies be whatever they want. For example, a party could be an Islamic party, such as the Nehzat Azadi. They have Christian Democratic parties in Germany, Italy, and many Latin American countries. In India the BJP is a Hindu party.

In the U.S., a member of the clergy such as Rev. Jesse Jackson or Rev. Pat Robertson could and in fact did run for the Presidency.

Secularism and democracy means that no special privileges for clerics. But it also means that the clerics can run for various offices and religious parties can exist. If they won, they can serve for the duration.

I do not know about the rules in France. Perhaps you could elaborate the rules in France. I think the French laicite (sp?) is somewhat different. In Turkey they had a system (perhaps) more like that of France, which has been changing. I think if AKP messes things up, it could seriously harm the possibility of the argument that one could have Islamist parties in secular democracies. The AKP support for the extremist terrorist HAMAS (which has also killed Fatah members in Qaza and refused to hold another election) has been very harmful.

So in response to your question. Bazargan and Taleghani were members of JM until 1961. In 1961 they left JM and established their party, Nehzat Azadi Iran. They turned Islam into their political ideology. NAI wanted to work within the 1906 constitution. Under the 1906 constitution, there was no problem with NAI winning Majles elections and becoming cabinet.

After the revolution, some in NAI had problems with velayat faghih. Some (e.g., Ebrahim Yazdi) did not.

Am I answering your question? Exactly what did you mean by me situating NAI?

Best,

Masoud

Masoud Jaan and Where do you situate Bazargan's Accountability ?

Democracyeh Eslami ... 

Mehdi Bazargan and the controversial legacy of Iran's Islamic intellectual movement

pictory: Bakhtiar Denounces Bazargan's Provisionary Government in exile (1979)

HISTORY FORUM: Mashallah Ajoudani on Intellectuals and the Revolution

BBC Hard Talk with Sadegh Tabatabai Spokesperson For Mehdi Bazargan's Government

To my knowledge Bazargan served as the first Iranian head of the National Iranian Oil Company under the administration of Prime Minister Mossadegh and later founded Freedom Movement of Iran in 1961 with such members as Mahmoud Taleghani, Yadollah Sahabi, Mostafa Chamran, Ali Shariati, Sadegh Ghotbzadeh . Ebrahim Yazdi and some other political or religious figures ...

LMI is one of the major parties in The Alliance of Nationalist-Religious Activists of Iran ("Etelaf-e Nirouhaye Melli Mazhabi-e Iran"). Musa al-Sadr was also a close associate of the movement and of its founding members.

The Shah mixing Islam and Politics and Attacking Secular Forces

Majid jaan,

Here is Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi on the 12th Imam communicating with him.

//iranian.com/main/blog/masoud-kazemzadeh/oriana-fallaci-interview-mohammad-reza-shah-religion

also see my comments in that blog on the use of violence against secular forces by the shah.

Majid, now you are fooling

Majid, now you are fooling yourself. The issue was never fighting Islam, nor individual beliefs, including the Shah, which was blown out of proportion BTW. Short of staunch atheists, anybody would have contemplated a source of miracle for a near death experience. His was in Islamic terms.

He did Haj, for satisfying his allies in fighting communism during cold war (and we all know), or maybe also for his own belief (which I couldn't care less and is completely irrelevant). For the rest, you lived during the Shah like most of us, can you remember anything Islamic forced upon you? The issue is promoting secularism, in every aspects, including politics. The political side was a failure and directly because of Mossadegh filth, kept alive by Toodé.

National Front-Abroad, you are deluding yourself. The issue is populist heritage of Mossadegh. It is not uncommon among populists to call each-other 'dog'.

did he try to ally himself with the monarchy to promote WHAT?

secularism?

Are we talking about same Haji MRP? in Mecca with ehraam? and his dreams about "Abolfazl saving him"?

I would agree with you in a blink if we were talking about his father but C'mon my friend! 

Wish I could attach some pictures to my comment, but you've seen them I'm sure!

American dog has more decency than Khomeini Khamenei Ahmadinejad

As a member of Iran National Front-Abroad,

//www.jebhemelli.net/news/2004/03_March/Covention%20&%20Seminar.htm

//www.jebhemelli.net/INF_UN.htm

let me state that in my assessment:

an American dog (or to be more precise ANY dog) has more decency than Khomeini, Khamenei, and Ahmadinejad. No dog has murdered sooooooo many Iranians, no dog has raped and sodomized sooooooooo many Iranians.   The fundamentalist regime is a reactionary oppressive regime that has brought so much misery to our people. It has to be send to the garbage can of history.

MK

Majid, Shazde

Sounds like Hugo Chávez, but of upper class. Don't you think? Populist is what populist do. The lower class version of same populism can easily be what Ahmadinejad did in U.N.

Don't underestimate his impact in Islamic revolution. 

But I too, don't know him very much Shazde. I came to know him through his supporters in the wake of Islamic revolution and until now. I understand Gandhi was his hero. Unlike Mossadegh, he was a good politician too. But I'm not in buying in divinity of any person. I once quoted a close supporter of Gandhi, Sarojini Naidu who once told him: ‘Bapu, it costs us a fortune to keep you poor.’

The real question is not nationalization. The real question is did he try to keep Toodé handy for the opportune time to topple the monarchy, or did he try to ally himself with the monarchy to promote secularism?

All the filth we are enduring is because of his choice.

Shazdeh jaan

Shazdeh jaan,

I hope this is helpful.

//iranian.com/main/blog/masoud-kazemzadeh/condemning-al-jazeera-s-distortions-truth

شازده و مجید

ممنون از این بلاگ و خاطره.

From an e-mail

زماني که قرار بود دادگاه لاهه براي رسيدگي به دعاوي انگليس در
ماجراي ملي شدن صنعت نفت تشکيل شود ، دکتر مصدق با هيات همراه زودتر از
موقع به محل رفت . در حالي که پيشاپيش جاي نشستن همه ي شرکت کنندگان
تعيين شده بود ، دکتر مصدق رفت و به نمايندگي هيات ايران روي صندلي
نماينده انگلستان نشست .

قبل از شروع جلسه ، يکي دو بار به دکتر مصدق گفتند که اينجا براي نماينده
هيات انگليسي در نظر گرفته شده و جاي شما آن جاست ، اما پيرمرد توجهي
نكرد و روي همان صندلي نشست ..

جلسه داشت شروع مي شد و نماينده هيات انگليس روبروي دکتر مصدق منتظر
ايستاده بود تا بلکه بلند شود و روي صندلي خويش بنشيند ، اما پيرمرد
اصلاً نگاهش هم نمي کرد .

جلسه شروع شد و قاضي رسيدگي کننده به مصدق رو کرد و گفت که شما جاي
نماينده انگلستان نشسته ايد ، جاي شما آن جاست .

کم کم ماجرا داشت پيچيده مي شد و بيخ پيدا ميكرد که مصدق بالاخره به صدا
در آمد و گفت :

شما فكر مي کنيد نمي دانيم صندلي ما کجاست و صندلي نماينده هيات انگليس
کدام است ؟

نه جناب رييس ، خوب مي دانيم جايمان کدام است ..

اما علت اينكه چند دقيقه اي روي صندلي دوستان نشستم به خاطر اين بود تا
دوستان بدانند برجاي ديگران نشستن يعني چه ؟

او اضافه کرد که سال هاي سال است دولت انگلستان در سرزمين ما خيمه زده و
کم کم يادشان رفته که جايشان اين جا نيست و ايران سرزمين آبا و اجدادي
ماست نه سرزمين آنان ...

سكوتي عميق فضاي دادگاه را احاطه كرده بود و دكتر مصدق بعد از پايان
سخنانش كمي سكوت كرد و آرام بلند شد و به روي صندلي خويش قرار گرفت.

با همين ابتکار و حرکت ، عجيب بود که تا انتهاي نشست ، فضاي جلسه تحت
تاثير مستقيم اين رفتار پيرمرد قرار گرفته بود و در نهايت نيز انگلستان
محکوم شد .