Condemning Al Jazeera’s Distortions of Truth

Share/Save/Bookmark

Masoud Kazemzadeh
by Masoud Kazemzadeh
04-Sep-2010
 

Condemning Al Jazeera’s Distortions of Truth

The report suffers from various problems.

Mossadegh was Prime Minister, not President. What kind of a moron makes this kind of mistake!!!!!!!!

The report interviews two great sources, but why the hell the report does not show what these great sources had to say about the role of the Shia clerics in the CIA coup in 1953???? This report is FISHY. It stinks. It is disgusting to hide the truth and engage in shameful propaganda.

Abrahamain on the role of Ayatollah Kashani:

In Nov. 1951, the British Embassy reported that Kashani was so disgruntled with Mosaddeq that he had put out "feelers" in many directions, including the royal court and the U.S. Embassy. "The Americans," reported the British Embassy, "have told us in the strictest confidence that he [ Kashani] has been in touch with them. His main thesis is the danger of communism and the need for immediate American aid."

//www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/tehranbureau/2009/08/history-used-and-abused.html

Two weeks after the coup in an interview Kashani said that Musaddiq was guilty of high treason and had to be punished by death.

Khomeini and the coup

And this is the reactionary Khomeini on Mossadegh. Khomeini was happy that the CIA overthrew Mossadegh because if Mossadegh was not overthrown by the CIA, then Mossadegh would have undermined Islam.

Among those who closely worked with the CIA and the Shah during or after the coup are: Ayatollah Abolqassem Kashani, Kashani’s son, Ayatollah Mohammad Behbahani, Hojatolislam Mohammad Taqi Falsafi, Grand Ayatollah Brujerdi, and Fadaian Islam.

The CIA mobilized the Fadaian Islam, the main Islamic fundamentalist group in Iran at the time, infamous for numerous assassinations, including an assassination attempt on Dr. Hossein Fatemi, who was Mossadegh’s foreign minister, as well as a foiled plan to assassinate then prime minister Mossadegh himself. The day after the coup, Fadaian Islam’s newspaper described the coup as "an Islamic revolution,"1 and stated:

"Yesterday Tehran was shaking under the manly feet of the soldiers of the Muslim and anti-foreign army. Musaddiq, the old blood-sucking ghoul, resigned... under the annihilating blows of the Muslims... All governmental centers were captured by the Muslims and the Islamic army"

Grand Ayatollah Brujerdi

After the coup, Brujerdi publically supported the Shah, who badly needed support in the immediate aftermath of the coup. In his public cable, Brujerdi expresses "joy" to have received the Shah’s message and writes:

"To His Royal Majesty, may God protect his kingship... It is hoped that Your Majesty’s return to Iran is blessed [by God] and will be the cause of the improvement of religious objectives, the glory of Islam and the tranquility of the Muslims"

Hassan Ayat is one of the fundamentalists in the Majles Khobregan that wrote the fundamentalist constitution. Ayat wrote a book attacking Mossadegh. The Islamic Republican Party (IRP), the fundamentalist party wrote a preface to Ayat’s book.

The IRP provided a preface to Ayat’s book attacking Mossadegh in the following words:

"Many political parties and groups whose roots are linked with the obvious and not so obvious agents of Britain and America (e.g., the National Front)... and ten other groups had one thing in common which was their praise for Musaddiq... The martyred Ayat never walked the misguided path of the nationalists. Since his early youth, because of his correct identification of this satanic path and his familiarity with the real character of Musaddiq, Ayat launched a staunch struggle against Musaddiq and his followers"

In conclusion, this report is misleading. I condemn it. An HONEST report on the CIA coup should tell the TRUTH that the Shia clerics strongly and closely cooperated with the CIA in the 1953 coup against Dr. Mossadegh.

The question is WHY is this report refusing to tell the truth???????????????

Shame on charlatans.

Share/Save/Bookmark

more from Masoud Kazemzadeh
 
Masoud Kazemzadeh

Fariba and Mammad

by Masoud Kazemzadeh on

Dear Fariba,

Thanks for your contributions.

On the $10,000, the CIA officers interviewed by Gasiorowki state that they gave the money to Ahmad Aramesh. Aramesh was the main contact person between Kashani and the CIA. The money is given to Aramesh. Either Aramesh gave the $10,000 to Kashani. Or stole it himself. Or provided it for the purchase of the crowd. Ayatollah Kashani had chosen Aramesh for this role (contact between Kashani and CIA). Therefore, he must have trusted him greatly for this particular role.

The reason that there is no mention of the CIA money to Kashani in your father’s memoir may be that there is no reason for Kashani to tell your dad that he got money from the CIA.

Have you published your father’s memoir yet?

Best,

Masoud

 

==============================

 

Dear Professor Mammad,

1. I did not claim Dr. Shariati for JM. I stated the fact that Shariati was a member of JM in Europe and that he was the editor of our organ. He was not a kid at that time. He already had his MA from Iran and was then in Europe (France) to get his Ph.D. This is in the early 1960s. If you read the few pages of the two books I provided the links to, it would become obvious. These are basic facts.

2. This came about because you mentioned Shariati’s name in order to provide counter example to my assertion that the Shia clerics supported the 1953 coup.

3. I provided two TOP scholars on this subject, whose conclusions I quoted directly.

 

 

Mammad: I am happy that you, as a member of the JM, claim Dr. Shariati for your political organization and thinking. Does that mean that you also believe in Dr.'s thinking that, as far as I know, is not what the JM has espoused for decades? I know a member of the central committee of the JM outside Iran who lives in this area and does not say what you say, precisely because of what I say about Dr.'s revolutionary ideology.

 

 

 

1. Dr. Shariati left the JM and became part of Nehzat Azadi.

2. I do NOT believe in Dr. Shariati’s thinking. I actually oppose it. I have been close to the Niroym Sevvom (when I was younger) and then to Hezb Iran.

3. JM has been a coalition of many parties, groups, and individuals. Some like Niroyeh Sevvom (led by Khalil Maleki) had Marxian social democratic ideology. Some others like Hezb Iran are moderate secular social democratic or liberal democratic ideology. Some like Hezb Mellat Iran are nationalist. Some like Hezb Mardom Iran are Islamist. In our history, we have had groups and individuals as our members who were atheist (Khalil Maleki), agnostic, believers (Mossadegh, Sanjabi), and ayatollahs (e.g., Abolfazl Zanjani, Reza Zanjani, Taleghani, etc).

Each group may have its own ideology (their maximum demands). But in order to be part of the Jebhe, they have to accept the JM charter. Each may call this (JM’s charter) their minimum demands.

 

In JM as an organization, we do NOT believe that Dr. Shariati’s transformation of Islam into political ideology was good. A few in Hezb Mardom Iran like Shariati. But their view is a very small minority. In other words, the overwhelming majority of JM officials believe that Islam should be a PRIVATE matter and NOT a political ideology. JM’s platform is a secular platform, which means that we want a separation of religion and state institutions. Moreover, JM includes diverse ideologies and the majority of us oppose mixing Islam and politics as political ideology.

 

Nehzat Azadi and Melli-Mazhabi mix religion and politics as their ideology. That is one of the main differences between them and JM. In other words, NA and MM are Islamist parties. JM is not an Islamist organization. Well, MM is perhaps more a collection of individuals than a party.

 

 

 

Mammad: But, as usual, you mix things up, and are silent about the most important aspects of what I say - such as the contradiction between Dr. Shariati's revolutionary ideology and what the JM, or its remnant in the 1960s and 1970s, believed in - and declare all the anti-clerics people as members of the JM.

 

 

MK: I am not sure what you are referring to. Perhaps, my answers above clarified this for you. If you are still mixed up about my views, please let me know and I will be happy to further explain.

 

 

 

Mammad: By early 1960s, most separated from the JM. The Freedom Movement of Bazargan/Sahabi/Taleghani was one. The original leaders of Mojahedin were also active in the JM and then FM, but then separated their ways.

 

 

MK: Yes, until 1961 those who later became Nehzat Azadi were part of Jebhe Melli Dovvum. In 1961, Bazargan, Taleghani left the JM and established Nezat Azadi. The five original members of the PMOI were all members of JM until 1961. All five of them left JM in 1961 and were part of the Nehzat Azadi. In 1965, the five left Nehzat Azadi and created the PMOI. The only original leader of PMOI that was never a member of JM is Masoud Rajavi. He began with joining Nehzat Azadi.

 

 

Mammad: Let me give you another example. Behzad Nabavi, the leading reformist of these days, was also active in the JM in the late 1950s and early 1960s. Together with Bijan Jazani - the leading Marxist ideologue - he published a student publication (read my bio of his). But, neither Jazani's followers nor Nabavi ever claimed to belong to the same organization in their years in the 1960s and 1970s, even though they had worked together. You mix everything together just to make your point.

 

 

MK: I am not sure what you are referring to. I do not know about Nabavi’s relationship with JM. As far as I am ware, he was a nobody in JM. In 1961 Bijan Jazani joined the student JM group. The actual JM organization was not happy. Dr. Sanjabi explicitly told him, you are a Marxist-Leninist, you should not be in JM. When Jazani did not leave, JM officially expelled him and his other friends who were Leninists and supporters of the Soviet Union.

 

 

 

Mammad: The FM always includes Dr. as one of its founders, and always has his pictures along those of the trio.The Nationalist-Religious Coalition does the same. Why was it that the JM, when it was revived around 1977, never did that? Or after the Revolution? Dr. Shariati was highly popular at that time, and the JM was not a significant group in the revolutionary zeal of that era, so it should have been natural for the JM to do that. Yet, it did not. Why? Because the Dr. Shariati, as he was known throughout most of the 1960s and 1970s up to his untimely death in 1977, was not the same as the young Dr. in the 1950s that was active in the JM.

 

 

MK: We never put up Dr. Shariati’ photo, because we did not regard his views as reflecting the majority view of JM. He was just one among many members of the JM.

Nehzat Azadi and Melli-Mazhabis ideology (transforming Islam into their political ideology) is consistent with that of Shariati’s views. Nehzat Azadi and Melli-Mazhabi are Islamists organizations. They mix Islam and politics.

JM is a secular organization. JM is not an Islamist organization. For us, religion is a private matter. Government, for us, should not be mixed with religious institutions. Some people are religious with different interpretations of their religion, and others are non-religious. Mixing religion and government, in our view, is wrong.

On the dates, please take about 2 to 4 minutes and read the 4 or 5 pages in the two books I included the links. Shariati was a member of JM in the 1960s, while he was in France working on his Ph.D.

 

 

I hope this is helpful.

Masoud

 

 

 


marhoum Kharmagas

Kazemzadeh

by marhoum Kharmagas on

I am not the only one who sees through you .....

qEd (*)

(*) ask an engineer or math major  what it means


Mammad

I am happy Dr. Kazemzadeh

by Mammad on

I am happy that you, as a member of the JM, claim Dr. Shariati for your political organization and thinking. Does that mean that you also believe in Dr.'s thinking that, as far as I know, is not what the JM has espoused for decades? I know a member of the central committee of the JM outside Iran who lives in this area and does not say what you say, precisely because of what I say about Dr.'s revolutionary ideology.

But, as usual, you mix things up, and are silent about the most important aspects of what I say - such as the contradiction between Dr. Shariati's revolutionary ideology and what the JM, or its remnant in the 1960s and 1970s, believed in - and declare all the anti-clerics people as members of the JM.

Yes, 50 years ago, most political activists inside and outside Iran were active under the umbrella of the JM and Jebheh Nejaat Melli, due to their respect for Dr. Mosaddegh, opposition to the Shah and the coup, and the fact that the JM was the most political organization of that era. I acknowledged that Dr. was one of them. But, as usual, you ignore part of what I say, in order to make your point. I also said:

By early 1960s, most separated from the JM. The Freedom Movement of Bazargan/Sahabi/Taleghani was one. The original leaders of Mojahedin were also active in the JM and then FM, but then separated their ways.

Let me give you another example. Behzad Nabavi, the leading reformist of these days, was also active in the JM in the late 1950s and early 1960s. Together with Bijan Jazani - the leading Marxist ideologue - he published a student publication (read my bio of his). But, neither Jazani's followers nor Nabavi ever claimed to belong to the same organization in their years in the 1960s and 1970s, even though they had worked together. You mix everything together just to make your point.

The FM always includes Dr. as one of its founders, and always has his pictures along those of the trio.The Nationalist-Religious Coalition does the same. Why was it that the JM, when it was revived around 1977, never did that? Or after the Revolution? Dr. Shariati was highly popular at that time, and the JM was not a significant group in the revolutionary zeal of that era, so it should have been natural for the JM to do that. Yet, it did not. Why? Because the Dr. Shariati, as he was known throughout most of the 1960s and 1970s up to his untimely death in 1977, was not the same as the young Dr. in the 1950s that was active in the JM.

I also disagree with practically everything you said about Ayatollah Shariatmadari. There are just too many documented facts about where he stood, which contradict what you say. But, I do not want to begin a debate on it because at this point it has no significance. But, I have written about him and where he stood in 1977-1978 when the revolution was going on, and they are all well documented.

Mammad

 


Farah Rusta

در باب احترام مصدق به مجلس منتخب ملت

Farah Rusta


نقل از مجله ایام به تاریخ ۲۸  مرداد ۱۳۸۹ شماره ۵۹ صفحه ۱۳

صورت مذاكرات مجلس شوراي ملي حاكي از آن
است كه گرچه پيشا ز 30 تير 1331 ن يزا ختلافاتي
بين مصدق و يارانش ظاهر شدهب ود ولي در 30 تير،
همه يكدل و متفق مصدق را تاييد كردند. اما همين كه
موضوعا ختيارات مطرح شد، يارانش يكي پسا ز
ديگري از وي جدا شدند و در مساله رفراندوم انحلال
مجلس نيز چند تن ديگر گرچه با وي همكاري
م يكردند، با رفراندوم مخالف بودند. ولي مصدق بدون
توجهب ه مخالفت هاي يارانشا ز جمله دكتر صديقي،
دكتر شايگان، خليل ملكي، دكتر سنجابي، حسيبي،
معظمي، پارسا و... رفراندوم را برگزار و مجلس هفدهم
را منحل كرد. عد هايا ز جمله دكتر صديقي و دكتر
سنجابي به وي گوشزد كرده بودند كه شاه در غياب
مجلس، شما را از نخست وزيري عزل م يكند اما مصدق
پاسخ داده بود كه شاه جراتش را ندارد.
اظهارنظرا فرادي كه خطر عزلن خست وزير را
گوشزد كردند مبتنيب ر سابقه تاريخيب ود.ا حمد شاه
در فاصله فترتب ين مجلس سوم و چهارم، 12 ن فر را
يكي پس از ديگري، شخصاً به نخس توزيري منصوب و
سپس عزل كرده بود. خليل ملكي از ياران مصدق نيز
درباره عوامل و علل شكستن هضت ملي 5 عنوان را
ذكر م يكند كه يكي از آنها انحلال مجلس شوراي ملي
توسط مصدق است. ملكي وقتي نتوانسته بود مصدق را
متقاعد كند تا از انحلال مجلس چشم پوشي كند، اين
اين راهي كه » : كلمات پي شگويانه راب ر زبان راندهب ود
شما مي رويد به جهنم است، ولي ما تا جهنم به دنبال
.« شما خواهيم آمد

 

//www.jamejamonline.ir/Media/pdfs/1389/05/28/100883514453.pdf

 

FR


Fariba Amini

Kashani-coup

by Fariba Amini on

- Dear compatriots, I consider it my duty, with the help of the almighty
God, to continue my work on behalf of the dispossessed people of Iran
and I will never stop nor will I hesitate now to risk my life to
safeguard the interests of the nation. It is for this reason that I find
myself obliged once again today to share certain truths with you in the
pursuit of your final objectives. The rupture of relations with Great
Britain was a bad idea and it was due to prolong the power of Dr.
Mossadegh. The question of our Muslim people is rested upon the
traditions of the law, national and religion. At the moment you should
abstain from any form of manifestations which do not serve the interest
of our nation and may hinder on our security... at the end I would like
to bring to the attention of his Excellency the Prime Minister [Zahedi]
who has addressed these issues... Seyed Abol Qasem Kashani, Message to the Iranian people, December 3rd, 1953

 

The 10,000 dollars to Kashani is not substantiated. This bribe is said to have been given to one of Kashani's sons.  In my father's memoirs,  there is ample reference to Kashani and how he wanted his incompetent and corrupt sons to be appointed by Mosaddeq to the Majils which mosaddeq refuses.  My father was the liaison between Mosaddeq, Kashani and Boroujerdi.   

"Go tell Mosaddeq that if my sons (by name) are not appointed I will bring him down." " Khestakesh ra payeen mikesham" (his own very words) !!!!   Kashani to Nosratollah Amini - 

In response Mosaddeq tells Kashani via my father that I cannot appoint members of the Majlis, it is the people who should choose their representatives. 

 

 


Masoud Kazemzadeh

Mammad, you are wrong

by Masoud Kazemzadeh on

Dear Professor Mammad,

 

You are 100% wrong on facts.

 

Mammad:  I am a deep believer in Dr. Shariati. I did not say that he was a cleric (anyone knows that!) - in fact he was against them - but a pious Muslim, and a supporter of Dr. Mosaddegh. Claiming that he was a supporter of the JM is absurd. May be he was, when he was very young. But, his best works were published and he gained fame when the JM did not practically exist after the Shah's crackdown on all the parties in early 1960s. Indeed, Dr. espoused a revolutionary ideology, totally opposed to what the JM of that era stood for.

 

 

MK: I am a member of JM and I am stating that Dr. Shariati was the editor of our official publication or organ in Europe called "Iran Azad." This is basic knowledge. I googled and in a second (or less) I got Ali Rahnama’s book: p. 223.

//books.google.com/books?id=Bmz9y2osH1YC&pg=PA223&lpg=PA223&dq=shariati+National+front&source=bl&ots=dcSzuhO-vh&sig=99NjGQ4KikE7X_LbUxaCgdYhScQ&hl=en&ei=h-aFTLKdOoGBlAfp1pnTDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=shariati%20National%20front&f=false

 

read the rest of the paragraph and it shows Dr. Shariati's other writings for JM publications.

 

 

Best,

MK

 

 

 


Mammad

One last time Dr. Kazemzadeh

by Mammad on

You are mixing unrelated things, and then say I am not a scholar of the subject. I never claimed I was (although your choice of scholars seems to depend on whether they agree with your view). I just warned you about reading too much into the sudden fever about the role of the clerics in the 1953 coup, even if you have been warning about it since a long time ago. I only pointed out - and Ms. Amini seems to agree - that there is an agenda here. I must also say that you views of the clerics and their role in 1953 is coloured by your view of the IRI.

I did not say that the clerics did not play a role in opposing Dr. Mosaddegh. This is a well-documented fact, and it would be ridiculous of me to claim otherwise. What I said was, the clerics themselves were divided, and exaggerating their role now is part of an agenda to blame the old patriot and Iranians more than the CIA and MI6 for the coup.

I am a deep believer in Dr. Shariati. I did not say that he was a cleric (anyone knows that!) - in fact he was against them - but a pious Muslim, and a supporter of Dr. Mosaddegh. Claiming that he was a supporter of the JM is absurd. May be he was, when he was very young. But, his best works were published and he gained fame when the JM did not practically exist after the Shah's crackdown on all the parties in early 1960s. Indeed, Dr. espoused a revolutionary ideology, totally opposed to what the JM of that era stood for.

I meant BBC, yes.

We were not talking about whether Ayatollah Khomeini was a reactionary or not. I did not say he was or he was not. So, I do not understand why you comment, "Why do you have a problem..." All I said was, I do not believe that he worked directly or indirectly with the CIA. Yes, the Ayatollah opposed land reform and voting rights for women (this is well known and I have mentioned it several times in my articles), but also opposed the capitulation law, and when right after the revolution the reactionary clerics - or those who were more reactionary than him - wanted to deny voting rights to women, he said that they had earned it and prevented it (this is well-documented).

Mammad


Masoud Kazemzadeh

responses

by Masoud Kazemzadeh on

Dear Fariba,

Al Jazeera lacks intellectual honesty. It is perfectly fine to have a point of view, but one has to be honest and provide the whole truth. To censor those aspects of reality that are not convenient for one’s propaganda is what propaganda outlets do. One expects such garbage from Press TV and IRNA.

 

my piece on Kashani comes from Katouzian.

 

Two weeks after the coup in an interview Kashani said that Musaddiq was guilty of high treason and had to be punished by death. [source: The wording and the translation are by Katouzian, Musaddiq and the Struggle for Power. Original report is in Keyhan, September 14, 1953, see Katouzian, pp. 174, 286, fn. 42].

 

I will read your interview with Dr. Matin-Daftari shortly. Thanks for the interview.

Best,

Masoud

 

============================

 

Aynak jaan,

here is my piece on CIA, the $10,000 and Kashani

According to one of the foremost experts on the coup, Mark Gasiorowski, who has interviewed the main CIA operatives who conducted the coup: "Two CIA officers involved in the coup told me they delivered ten thousand dollars to Aramesh on the morning of August 19. Neither could confirm that Kashani received this money and used it to organize demonstrations, but both believed he did. One of these officers told me about Jafari’s role. Another CIA officer told me one of Kashani’s sons visited him after the coup to remind him of the role his father had played. Roosevelt confirmed this in my interview with him."1 Ahmad Aramesh was the main contact between Ayatollah Kashani and the CIA.

1.Mark J. Gasiorowski, "The 1953 Coup d’Etat Against Mosaddeq," in Mark J. Gasiorowski and Malcolm Byrne, eds., Mohammad Mosaddeq and the 1953 Coup in Iran (Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 2004), p. 338, fn. 61.

 

========================================

 

Dear Professor Mammad,

 

I wrote what is the consensus of the top scholars on the field. The top scholars of the field, the real historians and political scientists who have been publishing scholarly work on this, say what is opposed to your assertion. In other words, my view is the view of scholars. Your assertion is not. Katouzian and Akhavi are the TOP scholars on this issue.

 

 

Katouzian’s excellent study concludes: "The religious establishment, Kashani and the Fada’iyan-i Islam were thus all united in the support for the coup and Zahedi’s government, although that unity was not to last long."1

 

In another superb analysis of the period, Shahrough Akhavi concludes: "The clerics finally opposed Musaddiq because they feared republicanism, communism, anticlerical policies, neglect of the clergy and religion in public life... In consequence, the ulama – with some exceptions – supported monarchy, conservative economic values, and respect for Islamic norms, law and institutions in social relations."2

 

1. Homa Katouzian, Musaddiq and the Struggle for Power in Iran (London: I.B. Tauris, 1990), p. 174.

2. Akhavi, "The Role of the Clergy in Iranian Politics," in Musaddiq, Iranian Nationalism, and Oil, eds., James A. Bill and Wm. Roger Louis (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1988), p. 92.

 

 

On Grand Ayatollah Shariatmadari. I disagree with you as using the term "pro-monarchy" for Shariatmadari. He supported the movement against the Shah. He called for many of the marches in 1978 for the commemoration of chelom of those who were killed by the shah’s troops. In late 1978, he quietly supported Bakhtiar, because he was worried about the dictatorial possibilities of Khomeini. After the revolution, Shariatmadari closely cooperated with Jebhe Melli. His Hezb Jomhurikhan Khalq Mosalman was very close to JM. I was told that in 1951-53 period, Shariatmadari did not take any position. And in 1963, he opposed the land reform.

 

 

Dr. Ali Shariati was NOT a cleric. He was a member of JM. In Europe, Shariati was the editor of JM’s paper. Later on, Shariati joined the Nehzat Azadi. Dr. Shariati always supported Dr. Mossadegh. Many clerics did not like him. His family (including his father) after the revolution supported Dr. Bani Sadr during his fight against Khomeini and the fundamentalists in 1981.

 

 

What is BBS? Do you mean BBC? They have published a lot in the past month or two. Some of the publications are actually very good. And they are very critical of the Shah.

As far as I am aware, I do not think that any credible historian or scholar takes Mirfetros seriously. Monarchists like his stuff because he attacks Dr. Mossadegh.  I have not seen any of his works published in peer reviewed scholarly journals.  I have not seen a single footnote to his stuff in any scholarly book or journal by any serious historian or political scientist. If anyone is aware of citations to Mirfetros works by serious scholars, please provide them here and I will change my position.

Yes, people have been attacking Dr. Mossadegh (e.g., Hekmat, Mirfetros, etc). But what does this got anything to do with a publishing the actual role of clerics in the 1953 coup? We should blame the CIA, MI6, the Shah, Shaban Bi-Mokh, and the Shia clerics (e.g., Brujerdi, Kashani, Behbahani, Falsafi) and fundamentalist Islamist group Fadaian Islam.   

It is hypocracy to blame the CIA and Shaban Bi-Mokh and be silent on the role of Ayatollah Kashani, Ayatollah Behbahani, Grand Ayatollah Brujerdi, Hojatolislam Falsafi, and Fadaian Islam.  We have to be consistent and honest and blame all of them.  

I posted the video and the words of Khomeini attacking Dr. Mossadegh and praising Kashani for their actions in 1953. Khomeini did not attack and criticize Kashani. Khomeini attacked and criticized Mossadegh and called him non-Moslem and stated that he wanted to slap Islam.

I did not say that Khomeini got money from the CIA. I did write that (quoting Abrahamian) that Khomeini was a clerk for Brujerdi and on crucial times brought Brujerdi’s secret messages to the Shah. Khomeini opposed the Shah for the land reform and female franchise. Khomeini was a reactionary. Why do you have a problem accepting this fact that Khomeini is a reactionary who opposed the Shah in 1963 due to land reform and female franchise. I directly quoted Khomeini’s OWN words and fatwa and telegram.

 

Masoud

 


Fariba Amini

Al Jazeera

by Fariba Amini on

Dear Masoud,

Acutally Al Jazeera interviewed me on this very subject two years ago along with Dr. Abrahamian and Stephen Kinzer.  This time they did not include me!  Last time I mentioned the role of the media in the coup but I also mentioned the role of the clergy which they conveniently skipped!   I guess Al Jazeera is no different from other media outlets. When they want, they skip part of history.

As for Kashani saying that Mosaddeq should be condemned, I doubt very much that he said that .  It was the Shah who said it.  I have looked at the British and French archives very carefuly and they do not mention Kashani ever saying that.  Although his role and the role of Fedayeen-e islam should never be underestimated.  FI did everything possible to undermine his government ; Kashani was their spiritual leader.  

There is a trend these days to put the blame on Mosaddeq and not those responsible for the coup-  it is a deliberate attempt and there is an agenda behind it.  Just read between the lines.  Also if you look at my interview with Dr. Matin Daftari from a few weeks ago you can stroll down and see the documents from the French archives that I have translated.  

Thanks for this post.

FA


marhoum Kharmagas

agreed Mammad

by marhoum Kharmagas on

Could not agree with you more on your points regarding this crowd. As you may know, long time ago (way before last year's election), I said I am embarrassed to say that ideologically I am in their camp.


Mammad

Marhoum jaan

by Mammad on

Thanks for your as-always good post.

I am well-aware of Dr. Kazemzadeh's positions regarding important issues, and fiercely oppose most of them, including his call for tough sanctions against Iran and other things. But, in my view - and I could be wrong - his views and what he advocates are motivated differently than the usual suspects in this website who advocate the same things.

I also believe Dr. Kazemzadeh's praise for one of these suspects was totally uncalled for. But, hay, that is his opinion.  Unlike most in this site whose claims for love of democracy are defeaning, but do not know the first word about it, I respect other people's right to have their opinion different from mine, while at the same time reserve my right for criticizing it as well, if it is aired. 

Mammad


Mammad

Dr. Kazemzadeh

by Mammad on

As I said, the clerics were divided into three groups. There is no way for you to know or claim that the majority were in the Dr. Mosaddegh opposition camp. A lot of politically-inclined clerics were opposed to Boroujerdi (this is well documented), but out of respect for his marja'eeyat did not say anything. I do not believe even for a microsecond that Ayatollah Khomeini worked with the CIA, directly or indirectly.

You represent Fadaaeeyan-e eslam as more important than they were. Yes, they carried out some assassinations. But, how popular were they? How much support did they have among the clerics? All indications are, not much.

The support for Dr. Mosaddegh was not restricted to the two clerics that I mentioned. Ayatollah Milani, an important cleric, remained loyal to Dr. Mosaddegh to the end. So did Ayatollah Angaji. Hassan Shariatmadari, son of the late Ayatollah Shariatmadari, says that even his father supported Dr. Mosaddegh - this from an ayatollah who was pro-monarchy. The second National Front that was formed toward the end of 1330s included many clerics. When the Freedom Movement of Bazargan/Sahabi/Taleghani separated from the National Front, a lot of clerics went with it. These are all well-documented. Dr. Ali Shariati, whom the pro-monarchy, anti-1979 revolution camp loves to hate, praised Dr. Mosaddegh. I can go on with this for many many pages. In fact, the extremes and imbeciles in that camp use Dr.'s praise to attack Dr. Mosaddegh.

The point, as I mentioned in my last post, is that the clerics were divided among themselves just like the rest of the society and, on top of that, did not have a well-lubed political organization.

In addition to Ray Takyeh's piece in NY Times, BBS also had a documentary about the role of the Ayatollahs in the 1953 coup. In addition, many history revisionists, such as Mirfetros and Hekmat, have been attacking the old patriot. Hekmat even praises Ahmad Ghavam and vastly exaggerates what he has done, just to put down the old patriot.

These are all meant to achieve two things: One, to wash off - i.e., to make it less important - the crimes of the CIA/MI6 and, two, give a "ghosl-e ta'meed" to Shah and his cronies, who were directly responsible for the present mess.

The article of the NY Times in 2000 was about what the CIA had done. That part is undeniable. Besides, it was published because the US wanted to have a rapproachment with the Khatami administration.There is no relation between that and what I am talking about.

Mammad


marhoum Kharmagas

Mammad

by marhoum Kharmagas on

"With all due respect - and I do respect you and your nationalist stance.."

Mammad is this guy nationalist:

//iranian.com/main/blog/masoud-kazemzadeh...

Is this arrogant crowd any less zealot than Temzahe Yazdi?

//iranian.com/main/blog/shazde-asdola-mir...

Is this crowd any less fascist than Temsahe Yazdi:

//iranian.com/main/blog/shazde-asdola-mir...

Mammad, 'ghourbaagheh ab geeresh naimedess va ella shenageri khobiess', don't let yourself be fooled by them. They will sell Iran in a blink of an eye if they get a chance, despite their contentious beating of the dead horses (Todeheis, and reactionary Mollas) and wearing a thick green makeup.

 


aynak

Bottom line

by aynak on

almost 60 years to the coup, there are still CIA documents regarding the event with names that are crossed out.   Why?   This is without precedence.

Also, that CIA sent $10,000 to Kashani is not under dispute.   What happened to that money (i.e he got it?   he did not) is under dispute.   Also CIA could not account for this money post sending it to Kashani.

This inspite the fact that they admitted allocating more money than needed and getting some of the money back (returned).  So if someone from

CIA wanted to steal money they would not have returned the bigger chunk which was to some account more than 1 million dollars.

Personally, I have not heard that Khomanee was an agent or worked for CIA.   But what we do know, particulary during hostage crisis, is that like a good Molla, he said one thing and did the opposite.

The plane carrying Israeli weapon was brought down  by the then Soviet Union.   Khomanee was getting weapons from Israel to defeat Saddam.   Khomanee also did not allow for the release of U.S hostages, until the last minute of Carter administration?!

There were plenty of reports of meeting between then CIA director George Bush (SR) and top Iranian officials in France as a part of Iran Contra affair.  (which funneled Iran's military income to fund anti Sandanista operation against Nicaragu).

Looking back, one could easily get the impression that Khomanee and Republican party had a thing going.   Of course like any good fishy event, people with great inight to this were eliminated, like Ghotbzadeh or even Mehdi Hashemi.

Bottom line,  29th of Esfand, the day of nationalization of Iranian oil was a torn in the eyes of Islamic Regime from day one.   5th Majless tried to overturn this holdiay in fuitile attempt to make people forget this greatest day of pride in our history.   Of course to no avail.   Now again, from what I heard they send a motion to eliminate this day as a holiday and instead add one day to Ayde Fetr celebration.

Does any have doubt about the true alligence of the clerics?  But put all of that aside:

THe surest sign of a traitor, is how they try to make the best and brightest flee Iran.   They simply don't want to be challenged and they know the danger of well informed daneshjous.   Ultimately if they have their way, they will turn Iran to another Afghanestan, as long as their own interests are protected.


Roozbeh_Gilani

The enemy is internal mot external

by Roozbeh_Gilani on

It was commented about this fine blog that Mullahs are not all bad, and blaming them for the coup ousting the democratically elected government of Mr Mossadegh is some sort of a plan to shift the blame from CIA and MI5.

What utter nonsense!

True, mullahs are not a distinct social class and as such have different class loyalties, but there is ample evidence that clergy as a whole were instrumental in carrying out this shameful coup from which Iran is still suffering. Wasnt Mr Shaban jafari, better known as shaban bi mokh a devout shite muslim? Just look at the islamist thugs attacking the home of Mr. Karoubi this week. Shaban Bi Mokh would have been proud of them. They will sell Iran to the highest bidders, be it US/Britain in 1950s, or China/Russia in 2010s.

The biggest traitors and threats to Iran and Iranians have been and will remain the fifth columnist islamists and Islamist fundmentalists.


Masoud Kazemzadeh

Mammad

by Masoud Kazemzadeh on

Dear Professor Mammad,

 

1.

Obviously, you did not read my post. Let me re-post it again:

 

 

It is imperative to add that only a handful of clerics supported Mossadegh and opposed the coup. They were Ayatollah Abol Fazl Zanjani, his younger brother, Ayatollah Reza Zanjani, and then-hojatolislam Mahmoud Taleghani. After the coup, Taleghani was instrumental in organizing resistence to the coup. After the revolution, Ayatollah Taleghani criticized Kashani for abandoning Mossadegh and supporting the Shah and Gen. Zahedi.7 Taleghani also opposed Khomeini’s notion of velayat faghi during the constitutional assembly

 

 

 

2. Grand ayatollah Brujerdi was the number 1 cleric in Iran. Kashani was the 2nd cleric in Iran. Behbahani was also quite high. Falsafi and Khomeini at the time were small potatoes at that time. Brujerdi was supposedly the apolitical cleric.

 

 

3. Fadaian Islam was one of the main Islamist entity, and it was mobilized by the coup. The Fadaian Islam in their own publication claim their victory, which I cited.

 

4. Many of us have been publishing on the role of high ranking clerics since 1979. The reason I have been engaging in publishing the role of clerics is to counter the propaganda by the fundamentalist regime. Other scholars probably do it purely for scholarly purposes; a phenomenon that has been badly neglected and actually hidden.  Both Kinzer and Abrahamian have published on the role of Shia clerics in the coup.  The two groups that oppose the publication of the role of shia clerics are the monarchists and the supporters of the fundamentalist regime.

You can see one of my article dated in 2004 and re-published at Iranian.com in January 2005:

//iranian.com/History/2005/January/Kinzer/index.html

 

I have had other publications earlier on this very subject.

 

 

5. All I have seen about the mass media publishing on the role of clerics was one op-ed by Ray Takyeh in the New York Times. I would be grateful if you would provide links or information on other publications. When the New York Times published the CIA role in 2000, was the NYT trying to engage in some sort of conspiracy to make the CIA look bad?

 

Best,

Masoud

 


Mehman

a video

by Mehman on

Dear friends,

I just found a video by Mohammad Amini on Mossadegh in this link:

thought you might want to see it.


Mammad

Dr. Kazemzadeh

by Mammad on

With all due respect - and I do respect you and your nationalist stance, and I love and adore Dr. Mohammad Mosaddegh - you seem to miss the main point and goal of the propaganda that have begun to appear lately about the role of Shiite ayatollahs in the 1953 coup.

First of all, the clerics were divided into three groups, unlike you lumping them all into one. A group, the majority, led by Ayatollahs Zanjani, Taleghani, etc., supported the old patriot. A second group was silent, including the most important marja' of the era, Ayatollah Boroujerdi, and a group actively supported the anti-Dr. Mosaddegh forces, led by Kashani and Falsafi (who lived in my childhood neighbohood in Tehran), as you pointed out.

So, the clerics were just like all other groups in Iran and elsewhere. Some supported the old patriot, some were silent, and some opposed him. That is why the Shah himself never boasted about the "great" support that he received from them, because he understood that the clerics had acted like any other grouip. There was not much surprise or difference there.And, that is why whenever an important ayatollah passed away, he would send a telegram of condolences to Najaf, not Qom or Mashhad, because he understood that the majority of the clerics opposed him.

But, the point that you and people like you miss is this: The idea behind all of this sudden emergence of talk about the role of clerics in the 1953 coup is not to make a bad name for the clerics. They have done that to themselves by all the crimes that they have committed, thank you very much. The goal is to wash off the crimes that the CIA and the British MI6 committed in Iran. That is the hidden agenda, and at least nationalists like you, regardless of your views of the clerics, should understand this and do not fall in the trap by acting as if it was their fault, not the CIA and MI6.

Mammad


Masoud Kazemzadeh

Ahura and Amir: sepaas gozaram

by Masoud Kazemzadeh on

Ahura jaan besiyar gerami,

Thank you my friend for your kind words. They mean a great deal coming from you.

Ba sepaas-e faravan,

Masoud

P.S. Please call me "Masoud."

 

=====================================

 

Amir jaan,

Good point. Thanks for your contribution.

 

Best,

Masoud


AMIR1973

Dear Masoud,

by AMIR1973 on

It's also worth noting that Navvab Safavi, the Islamist terrorist founder of the Fadaiyan-e Eslam, was a major influence on both Khomeini and Khamenei. Regards.


Mehman

MM

by Mehman on

Thank you for the links and quotations. I think we are both saying the same thing.


Ahura

Dr. Masoud Kazemzadeh

by Ahura on

Thank you for your tireless efforts in providing facts and documents on Iran’s recent historical events for IC readers. Based on my observation the Hezbolahi and Shaholahi crowd with their special agendas remain beyond the reach of logic, and their repetitive comments need be ignored.

You do have a grateful audience here at Ic who benefit from your writings.  Keep up the good work.


MM

Mehman

by MM on

The fact is that CIA started the coup, staged it and manged it throughout, but the coup was failing due to incompetent players 

1st try and apparent failure: //www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB28/7-Orig.pdf),

and that is when a coalition of men from Sha'ban, army and clergy (influence baazzar and people?) were dispatched (via the influence of Zahedi and Rashidian brothers) to gave the coup a push to succeed.

Shah is victorous: //www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB28/8-Orig.pdf 

..............................

Analysis of coup by By Professor Mark Gasiorowski
19 April 2000 From the CIA archives and NYT article (//www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB28/):

"Perhaps the most general conclusion that can be drawn from these documents is that the CIA extensively stage-managed the entire coup, not only carrying it out but also preparing the groundwork for it by subordinating various important Iranian political actors and using propaganda and other instruments to influence public opinion against Mossadeq." 

"The most interesting new tidbit here is that the CIA’s agents harassed religious leaders and bombed one’s home in order to turn them against Mossadeq."

"Most interestingly, they indicate that various clerical leaders and organizations—whose names are blanked out—were to play a major role in the coup."

"The NYT article does not say anything about a couple of matters that remain controversial about the coup, including whether Ayatollah Kashani played a role in organizing the crowds and whether the CIA team organized “fake” Tudeh Party crowds as part of the effort.  There may be something on these issues in the 200-page history itself."

 


Masoud Kazemzadeh

responses

by Masoud Kazemzadeh on

Dear Mehman,

Thank you for your kind words.

With all the best wishes,

Masoud

 

=====================================

 

anon 8,

the following are from my forthcoming book:

 

 

 

In the words of Gasiorowski, "Several days after the coup the British received a report from the Iraqi ambassador in Tehran that the Shah and Zahedi together had visited Kashani, kissed his hands, and thanked him for his help in restoring the monarchy." [source: Mark J. Gasiorowski, "The 1953 Coup d’Etat in Iran," in International Journal of Middle East Studies, vol. 19, no. 3 (August 1987), p. 285, fn. 67. The British document is: "An Account of Conversation," 1 September 1953, FO/371/104571.]

 

Although we do not have any documentary evidence on what then-Hojatolislam Ruhollah Khomeini actually did, we do know that in a speech after the revolution Khomeini recounts his words in 1953 during the confrontation between Mossadegh and Kashani in the following incendiary words:

"He [Mossadegh] was not a Muslim. On that day, I was in the home of one of the clerics in Tehran when I heard the news that they had put on glasses on a dog and called it ‘Ayatollah’ and walked the dog around Tehran. I told the said cleric that this is not only an opposition to one person. He [Mossadegh] will be slapped in the face. Shortly afterward, that he [Mossadegh] was slapped. And if he [Mossadegh] remained, he would have slapped Islam."1

 

It is imperative to emphasize that before the revolution, it was not known that Khomeini opposed Mossadegh and was delighted to see him being overthrown. What Khomeini officially acknowledged words after the revolution clearly indicate is that in 1953, Khomeini clearly opposed Mossadegh and wanted him to be overthrown because if he remained in power he would have harmed Islam in Khomeini’s view.

We also know that Khomeini was a top clerk for Grand Ayatollah Brujerdi. We also know that after the coup Khomeini took secret messages from Brujerdi to the Shah.2 According to Ervand Abrahamian, Khomeini "served as Borujerdi’s teaching assistant and personal secretary, at crucial times conveying confidential messages to the shah."3 According to Iranian historian, Nasser Pakdaman, in Persian calender Dey 1331 (January 1953), after Mossadegh cabinet submitted a bill to the parliament which granted women the vote in local elections, Ayatollah Kashani opposed it. Ruhollah Khomeini gave a sermon in a Qom mosque and called upon the people to go out and protest against Mossadegh’s government and the bill.

The Rooznameh Jomuri Islami, the paper published by the Supreme Leader’s associates, uses Khomeini’s words to attack liberal democrat. The term they use is "melli-garayan" which refers to Mossadegh supporters in the National Front. The term melli-garayan may be translated as nationalists or democrats. The following is from the March 14, 2009 edition of Rooznameh Jomhuri Islami:

The esteemed Imam [Khomeini] emphasized this reality that ... melli-garayan of today [1981] are same as melli-garayan of yesterday [1951-53] and are a mysterious [or suspicious] pro-Western movement that yesterday and today by appointing itself to the people and popular government has confronted the sacred face of Islam, and with foreign imperialism is confronting the true religion and confronting God’s laws and is struggling to prevent the implementation of Islamic government in Iran has a unified line with the imperialists.4

 

 

Katouzian’s excellent study concludes: "The religious establishment, Kashani and the Fada’iyan-i Islam were thus all united in the support for the coup and Zahedi’s government, although that unity was not to last long."5 In another superb analysis of the period, Shahrough Akhavi concludes: "The clerics finally opposed Musaddiq because they feared republicanism, communism, anticlerical policies, neglect of the clergy and religion in public life... In consequence, the ulama – with some exceptions – supported monarchy, conservative economic values, and respect for Islamic norms, law and institutions in social relations."6

It is imperative to add that only a handful of clerics supported Mossadegh and opposed the coup. They were Ayatollah Abol Fazl Zanjani, his younger brother, Ayatollah Reza Zanjani, and then-hojatolislam Mahmoud Taleghani. After the coup, Taleghani was instrumental in organizing resistence to the coup. After the revolution, Ayatollah Taleghani criticized Kashani for abandoning Mossadegh and supporting the Shah and Gen. Zahedi.7 Taleghani also opposed Khomeini’s notion of velayat faghi during the constitutional assembly.

 

 

On September 8, 1962, the government of Asadollah Alam published the six-point imperial decree which included land reform and female franchise. Ruhollah Khomeini sends cables to the Shah and to Prime Minister Alam. In his cable to Alam, Khomeini writes:

"Pursuant to my previous cable I beg you to inform you that you pay no heed to the advice of the ulama and that you think you are able to act against the Holy Quran, the constitution, and the general feeling of the population. The ulama advised you that your illegal bill is contrary to Islamic law, the constitution, and the laws of the Majlis. The ulama made it public that women’s franchise and the abrogation of the condition to be a Muslim to be allowed to elect or to be elected is contrary to Islam and the constitution. If you think that you can replace the Holy Quran by the Zoroastrians’ Avesta, the Bible, and by some misguided books, you are mistaken. If you think that may weaken the constitution, which is the security of the country’s sovereignty and independence, with your illegal bill, you are wrong."8

In the words of Willem Floor, "It was with the regard to the introduction of this bill that Ayatollah Khomeini made his first appearance on the national political scene. Khomeini, like his colleagues, was against women’s franchise, and he therefore encouraged public opposition to this bill."9 Due to pressure from clerics, Alam first postpones and then withdraws the bill on December 16, 1962.10

 

 

Although paying lip service to rights of the poor, Khomeini explicitly condemns the land reform as against Islam. In his fatwa, Khomeini declares:

"That which is being contemplated for implementation under the label of land reform law is contrary to reason, religion, and the interests of the country and in conflict with Islamic justice and jurisprudence. Although the practice of many large landowners who do not obey the laws of Islam concerning the rights of the poor is contrary to reason, religion, and the interests of the country and in conflict with Islamic justice and jurisprudence, Islam respects the principle of private ownership, and no authority has the right to confiscate someone’s property, or transfer the property to another, without the consent and free will of the owner. Confiscation of property contrary to the desire of the owner is sinful, and no prayer on property confiscated in such a manner is valid or permitted."11

 

In conclusion, we do NOT have evidence that Khomeini directly worked with the CIA. I did not say that Khomeini worked for the CIA. We do know that Brujerdi, Kashani, Behbahani, and Falsafi worked against Mossadegh and with the Shah and those in close contact with CIA and MI6. In his own words, both in video and in print, I show that Khomeini does not condemn Kashani and Brujerdi and Falsafi and Behbahani. Instead, Khomeini condemned Mossadegh as being against Islam.

I also provided the link to Bani Sadr where he states that he has ravayat (sayings) that Brujerdi told others that Khomeini had asked him to issue a fatwa supporting the coup.

We know for fact that after the coup, Khomeini brought Brujerdi’s secret messages to the Shah. After the revolution, Khomeini not only does not condemn the coup elements (Kashani, Falsafi, Behbahani), but supports these clerics that were major elements of the coup. Khomeini did NOT oppose the Shah in 1953.  Khomeini opposed the Shah in 1963 because of the female vote and land reform. I stated what the available evidence shows and what other scholars have written. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

MK

 

=========================================

Divaneh jaan,

Thank you my friend.

Best,

Masoud

=============================== 

 

Red Wine besiyar gerami,

Thank you for your kind and generous comments. They mean a lot coming from such a wonderful person like you.

I agree with you that this regime is pursuing policies that will probably end up in war and bloodshed. These bellicose extremists will do another disaster like the 1826-1828 war with Russia that Shia clerics forced upon Iran by their fatwas.

 

Best,

Masoud

 

====================================== 

 

Shazdeh jaan,

You have fantastic sense of humor. Thank you.

Best,

Masoud

 

========================================= 

MM,

Thanks.

MK

 


Mehman

MM

by Mehman on

cia blaming the clerics for the coup is like Zahedi blaming Kashani for the coup!


MM

Clerics responsible for Iran's failed attempts at democracy

by MM on

Clerics responsible for Iran's failed attempts at democracy

//www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/17/AR2010081704944.html

Khomeini was a lecturer in Qum and Najaf and became an Ayatollah in 50's and a marja in 1961-2 following Boroujerdi/Kashani's deaths.  So, Khomeini was around Kashani and a lectuerer in Qum, but there is no evidence out there to tie Khomeini to the 1953 coup, although not all of 200 pages of the CIA report on the 1953 coup have been published and many names in the report have been blackened out (//www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB28/).


Shazde Asdola Mirza

Anonymous8 may be right, as there is a big distance in between

by Shazde Asdola Mirza on

 

God

Angels

Saints

...

Good presidents

Great kings

Loved prime ministers

...

Honest civil servants

Kind teachers

...

Army personnel

Police

...

CIA

MI5

Mosad

...

Rabid dogs

Venemous snakes

Eboli virus

...

Islamist terrorists

Khomeini

Devil


Mehman

Anonymouse8

by Mehman on

why did Kashani withdrew his support from Mossadegh and JB ?


Anonymous8

Mehman,

by Anonymous8 on

 

sorry. if mr. kazemzadeh say he has no proof of khomeini working with coup, I will apologize to him, but it sound like that is what he sayd, and he showed a video to proove it but that vid. didn't say anything. mr. kazemzadeh should not be beating around bush, if he thinks khomeini cooperated with cia.

i know kashani was very against communists, so i believe he could be against mossadeg, but was he cooporating with coup? where is  proof? cia records don't have it.

to divaneh; borujerdi, kashani and khomeini are different people. ayatolah borujerdi, for example was pro shah from start. borujerdi did not believe in religis mullahs talking about politics. khomeini did. so khomeini did not listen to borujerdi. is not very intelligent to mix everyone.