religion out of government

Correct me if I'm wrong

But history is proving/has proven Bakhtiar to have been right, hasn't it?

یا قربون صدقه گفتن ، یا مرگ بر گفتن..

 The fact remains that only the people who do nothing make no mistakes.

Baazargaan, Sanjaabi and bakhtiaar, foroohar and for that matter Mossadegh himself, all belonged to the same ideology of what some consider to be a "centre right" in a western democracy. They all aspired for  a "constitutional monarchy", some under shah, some under sheikh. History proved them all to be tragically wrong. That does not make them either villans or heroes. It only proves the very harsh reality that in a country like Iran, until the democratic foundations are laid and nourished and strenghtened, we will have to fight dictatorships. Dictatorships which are fundementally un reformable and would answer your polite demands for rule of constitution by bullet and gallow and torture and rape. Dictatorships which must be overthrown by force. Dictators who must be punished in such way that no one would ever dare to threathen our post dictatorship democratic society in any way , for generations to come....

"Personal business must yield to collective interest."

یک مقاله عالی در مقوله بحث ما

از مقاله های عالی. کمتر نوشته ای دیدم که انقدر خوب جریانات آن دوره را از دو دیدگاه توصیف کرده باشه.

//www.bbc.co.uk/persian/iran/2011/08/110802_l...

I pretty much agree with

VPK and Siavash on this issue. Spot on both you guys.

Bakhtiyar was indeed a brave, learned and an intelligent vatanparast who knew the history of Khomeini and had the foresight to see the disaster Iran would head towards if it went down the route of the Islamic Republic.

To even compare him to sell-outs like Sanjabi is an insult to the great man's memory and legacy.

Siavash

Thanks for that, now I know what you're talking about when you say "Sanjabi's tape".

Sanjabi's tape for Parham

Dear Parham.  

Please scroll down the comment you will reach ROOG comment as "Shah's offer to Sanjabi". you can click on that video and listen what Sanjabi says about J.M agenda is exactly what Khomainie is saying. NO difference. He continues to say Iranian didn't know what a great man is Khomainie. These are his words. So what happened to "Shah mujst reig, NOT rule" or keep talking about constitutional monorch ? What happened to all J.M agenda.? what happened all the sudden J.M policy became similar to Mullah's policy? Is that mean khomainie also believe in constitution monarch and wanted the shah obey those laws and not walk over it as you mentioned once? If that is the case why new establishment by the name of Islamic Republic?

Yes, Bakhtiar was a great man. He was brave who put his life for Iran in the most difficult time of our country.  Great Patriatic man. He will never be forgotten. No comparison between him and these khaenins.

Siavash  

The legend

ROOG I agree with all my heart. We must keep the legend of Bakhtiyar alive. Now and forever. It serve as a rallying call to wake up the Iranian people. His death not be in vain. One day his vision for Iran will become reality.

ROOG

I only asked because of Siavash's claim in his message... : )

Suggestion

I strongly believe we need a single website to keep the legend of Bakhtiar alive. A place his ideas and vision are available and discussed. A modern webite were we keep all tapes, videos, articles, books etc. There would also be articles and discussions. I know exactly how to do this. The problem is I don't have the time. You also need to remain anonomous so they don't send another Vakili Rod after you!

Sanjabi Tapes

Parham, 

There are 33 tapes at harvard Iranian Oral History Project. You can also get the Farsi transcripts of these tapes.

To get the tapes calick on this link (or paste in your browser) then search for "sanjabi" as a narrator. Then click on "full record display" then digital audio.

//ted.lib.harvard.edu/ted/deliver/advancedsea...

For transcripts the better way to get them and download the pdf files to your own computer if to use this link: 

//www.fas.harvard.edu/~iohp/sanjabi.html 

ROOG

Did you post any Sanjabi tapes anywhere??

Siavash

Is for most part right. I do not know all JM members. But those in power in 1979 were traitors except of course for Shapur Bakhtiyar. The great man who could and would have saved Iran from so much pain was betrayed by JM.

The PM Dr. Bakhtiyar was Iran's best hope for a real democracy. But driven by hate and stupidity the other JM top rulers kicked him out and picked Khiomeini. Sanjabi was a real piece of work.

Now undeterred by their past stupidity some of them side with MEK. As long as people like MK remain I will oppose JM. If JM wants to be of importance the first thing is to denounce MEK. Then kick out MK and other MEK supporters.

Thanks religionoutofgovernment for posting Sanjabi tape

Sanjabi's tape clearly shows all J.M (except Dr. Bakhtiar)  were Khaen. Bakhtiar was really patriatic man. God bless his soul. He stood by shah and tried to save Iran from the hands of stinky mullahs. He said " I hear the sound of Nalayn distatorship". He was right. Way more progress than these Khaens who voted "yes" to barbaric republic and helped mullahs stablized on power. These Khaenin kicked Baklhtiar out of J.M because he wanted to save Iran from the hands of mullahs. Later when things turned against them, they appreciated Bakhtiar.  This group were hungery for government position. They were looking for opportunity. First they were saying "Shah should reig, not to rule". Then they voted to mullahs. So what happened to shah must reig ? Why did you change your slogan after shah left the country ?  huh, I got it, mullahs have better positions in government for you guys.  They never wanted to turn against mullahs. Mullahs kicked their rear end once they were stablized on power and didn't need these people anymore. . First mullahs called Pahlavi street as Dr. Mosaddeq street and once they stablized on power,  they changed the street's name from mosaddeq to Vali Asar. Even right now, if mullahs offer them position in government they will jump on it like a frag. The reason that they are upset with mullahs not because they care about iran or iranians, they are upset because mullahs kicked them out their cycle and dismissed them completely. "Meli garaye is against Islam" said the Khomainie.   

MM

Point well taken, but I'm still not sure if I got what I wanted to say through regarding the greens.
That doesn't matter though. I think the same way it has gone in the past thirty-something years, we have to let history (and thereby experience) condition us for that instead of just applying theory. We still have some way to go...

Cheers.

ROOG

The Shah concentrated his efforts in limiting their activities as opposed to his support of the Mullahs. Khomeini was able to form a strong network of underground activists in mosques paid for by the Shah.

I think that's a very important point (in fact, crucial in understanding recent history) that not many spend time on in their writings. Thanks for bringing that up. That's very true! The only thing I'd add to that would be "... mosques paid for by the Shah AND the bazaris" as they were the main contributors, but then the Shah was, too.

Parham

I think we have said enough about the Greens and while I am not a Green, I respect them as one of the largest groups (besides the students) on the street against IRI.  And, in the last 2 years, they have come a long way from supporting the Khomerini's golden days to writing a secular constitution.

I did not take the tapes as a JM bashing session.  I took 4 pages of notes and only listed a few line concerning Sanjabi.  The reason I listed them was to show the elitist nature of some JM members and the fact that many try to make "untouchables" out of these figues.  But, I submit to you that many of these folks are just hanging to the coat-tails of Mosaddegh as validation of their sincerity, whereas in reality, even their JM fellow members think of them as weak and ridable as donks.

As to why the events of 28 mordad turned against Mosadegh, even Bakhtiar lists a few (tape 2, 10:xx min) and on top of the list was the lack of organization within people the same way that Tudeh party had.

Thanks to the other link.  I will come back Sunday night and read it.

Parham

Dr. Bakhtiar occupies a very unique place in our history. I believe time will show he had a vision ahead of everyone in our 20th century history. Yes, probably even ahead of Dr. Mossadegh in my books. He was an elite and rightly so. I was using "elite" in the literal sense of the word with no negative connotation. My point however, is that the "elite culture" of the past persisted in JM, and made them an exclusive club.

 Before Masoud tells us, let me tell you that there was another reason for the lack of support for JM in the young and educated populace. The Shah concentrated his efforts in limiting their activities as opposed to his support of the Mullahs. Khomeini was able to form a strong network of underground activists in mosques paid for by the Shah. In the meantime, any democratic expression in the Universities were being suppressed. 

 About Mossadegh, I respect him tremendously, but I have fears anytime I sense someone is regarded as infallible. This however may not be his fault, but a testament to our "hero worshipping" culture.

ROOG

One point I would like to make regarding your comments on Bakhtiar's "elitism":

I don't think he means what he says in the sense to bash anyone as much as he wants to show a difference between those who were sent outside to bring some of that culture back with them as opposed to those who remained and represented the traditional culture. The word "elite" in French can be used in many ways -- right now, the current bunch of akhunds and members of the Sepah are considered the "elite" of the country according to that definition, without that making them any better in any shape or form.

Back in those days, the people he mentions were, justly or unjustly, highly regarded. The fact that they occupied high posts though is justifiable, because that was the same reason they were sent outside the country -- to bring some of that advancement that Iran was so lacking back with them. So, I mean, it's no surprise that they occupied those posts in the government!

As to Mossadegh being more populist (not in the negative connotation that the word has taken these days) as opposed to others being elitist, imagine for a second that Bakhtiar had actually taken a populist stance during the revolution period. He would then have to side with the majority of people who were only taken by the emotions brought by the events rather than their rationale (a bit like Sanjabi did - would you call him elitist too, then?) So then which one is good, according to you? I just don't think that's where the lines can be drawn correctly in an analysis. And then also keep in mind: Mossadegh was not always right either! But then I won't get too much in that discussion...

My 2 cents.

MM

I don't think you understood me correctly. There was no talk of "circle of trust" as far as I know. What I said was if you're laying down a strategy, to count the green/reformist camp in your plan as facilitators of democracy would --strategically-- be a mistake, as they've actually shown to be barriers to democracy in the turn of events -- that, perhaps despite themselves. If you look closely, they serve to dampen the pressure off the hardline camp (again --strategically/in effect).

What I also said was they might appear as good guys or they might even talk about democracy (which they don't, if you've noticed), but again, STRATEGICALLY (and paradoxically!) they serve the exact opposite current of what they're supposed to stand for; no matter what the leaders say or do, etc. In fact, their "leaders" are probably just using them in that regard without them realizing that in the case of many.

Another thing I said was that the IR is a signatory of the UN chart for Human Rights as well -- meaning it doesn't matter who says what, you have to look at what they actually do, or what purpose they serve -- strategically.
Again, in my opinion, the "greens"/reformists are the current equivalent of those who made a Gandhi out of Khomeyni back in 1978/79 and facilitated the transition from one dictator to a worse one.

This is what I said. I hope it's clearer now!

As to the Bakhtiar tapes, my purpose from posting them here was not to get into an exercise of JM-bashing. I think history is clear enough, up to anyone to accept the facts or not. Of course, if they accept the facts, we'll get ahead faster! But anyway, my main purpose by posting them here was to reflect on the state of mind that was current at the time, and of course, to give a hint as to what Bakhtiar thought about it all in his own words.

As to your point about you wishing he reflected more on the events of the revolution years, he has actually done it in his books (available for free download here on this link). I think in the beginning of the tape, they make it clear that since he has spoken about those events at length already, they'll just talk about other periods of his political life that haven't been covered enough.

But then as you see, interesting points come out of that. One is the fact that he thought --just as he thought about 28 Mordad-- that the main culprits of the revolution are the people themselves ("gofta ze che nalim ke az mast ke bar mast"), not the Americans, not as much the leaders, etc. The other is Mossadegh's own opinion of how Jebhe Melli went on, which was not very favorable, as he himself also mentions that (or hints to it) in his "khaterat va ta'allomat".

Otherwise, it's also interesting to see how institutions were formed and how they were managed and how politics affected them -- or even how politics were actually played, in contrast to other countries.

Anyway, those were the main reasons why I posted the tapes.

Regards.

JM & Elitism

Iranian people in general seem to be into elitism. If you have a doctor or mohandes or better doctormohandes titile you are great! This was specially big in the previous generation.

Now we have too many thanks to being exiled we all became doctor or mohandes. By the way this is not just Iran. There was this Israeli guy who liked to call me by one of those titles. He told me they do the exact same thing in Israel. Anyway I do not see JM getting any better. Specially after reading posts by Prof MK. If anyone disagrees with him they are "irrational" or whatever. Thanks to my "degrees" I am not intimidated. By the average Iranian is. 

JM's Elitist Culture

In follow up to MM's post, I want to make a comment about the JM's elitist culture. This elitist pride is evident in many of the JM members including bakhtiar. He actually identifies Hezbe Iran members as the elites of the country who were educated in France and Kharej. When he makes a judgment about Farah Diba, it is based on her knowledge of French literature. This elitis attetude was present in almost all JB members and is also the answer to an earlier comment about why JM was unpopular amongst the young people around the time of revolution. JM was an exclusive club.

 When you look back at the political power players of the first half of 20th century in Iran, they all belonged to a limited number of families. You see the same last names over and over. Bakhtiar was of course one of them. These families were the privileged few who were able to send their children to Europe for education. These children came back and became power players in the country. Most, joined the Shah's system and became ministers and judges. Others with more democratic views formed JM. Mosaddegh seemed to be an exception to this elitist culture. It is interesting how the populism of Mosaddegh was in complete contrast to the Elitist culture of JM. If you have recently read any of JM statements, you have seen the long list of Doctors and Mohandeses titles. This is a remnant of the elitist attitude and culture. They seem to be oblivious to the fact that these titles are no longer signs of privilege as nearly every Iranian holds at least one! You are correct that they need a cultural revolution.

Parham

Sorry about answering late, but, I wanted to listen to the tapes first.

But very briefly - we have a difference of opinion as to who should be in the circle of trust.  Based on the recent past behaviors, I definitely would be against IRI and MEK irregardless of whether they are signatory to the UN human rights charter or that both say that they believe in fair and free elections.  The Greens, meanwhile, who paid dearly since 2009 (not talking about the heads) and the ones who have come around with the secular principles that I outlined below, would be.  With your line of thought, even JM should not be trusted since they collaborated with the IRI and they also had many mazhabi folks who contributed to Khomeini against the Shah.  Anyways!!  Moving on...

With regards to the Bakhtiar"s Harvard oral history tapes that you listed in your comment, I wish Bakhtiar talked more about the more recent history (1974-80), although the interviewer did said "goodbye - see you tomorrow" in the forth tape, but no more tapes could be found.  If you find more tapes about the more recent history, I would definitely listen to them.  Nonetheless, it was clear that Bakhtiar did not agree with Sanjabi, did not like Sanjabi, thought of him as weak and as a donk who gives rides, e.g.

tape 3, 26:xx - folks have had a chance to see who I am and who Sanjabi really is.

tape 4, 1 min - Sanjabi's and Hejazi's incompetences (bi-orzeh-gi) were reported in the first Amini report after the student strikes.

tape 4, 2-3 min - a leader who is weak and scums to pressure is worse than being a thief (regarding Sanjabi who signed the 3-point JM proclamation, despite being told about Mullah's possible intentions, and kissed Mullah a$$).

tape 4, 11 min - despite Sanjabi's kesaafatkaaris, I did not quite JM

tape 4, 16-17 min - Khonji (!) and Hejazi used to ride (savari) Sanjabi and they probably still do.

tape 4, 18 min - In one of his last JM meeting, Bakhtiar said: I put up with your incompetence for 18 years, but no more.  When you come up with more competent people, let me know to come back.

It is also interesting to note that Mosaddegh objected to the way JM was an elitist group who got together based on self-invitations rather than being part of people's representation, e.g., labor unions (tape 4, 19-20 min, interviewer describes Mosaddegh letters).  Bakhtiar himself described one of the reasons that JM failed in 1953 as the lack of organization amongst the people (tape 2, 10-11 min, reasons Mosaddegh lost). 

I hope that JM changes her ways and become more accessible from here on out.  And, in addition, reaches out to the many secular organizations that have popped out in the more recent history and gone as far writing interim secular constitutions.

Religion and politics

There are two issues:

1) Religion sanctioned by the state. That is wrong and discriminatory. I don't care if Ebadi or Mousavi is alright with it; it is wrong. Nobel prize does not make it right. There should never be a state backed or banned religion.

2) Religion in personal politics. This is perfectly fine because people's religion does affect their voting. Some people even in USA will not vote for an atheist. We man not force them to vote a particular way. It is a personal matter. 

Many Islamists fear secularism means banning religion. It does not! It just means you have no preferred religion in law. All religions or lack of are treated the same. They also need to obey the law the same way.

I hope this clarifies it.

VPK

This is also interesting

These are the Bakhtiar tapes from the Harvard Iranian Oral History Project.

He says a few interesting things about the events and the people we've been discussing here.

Reel 1a
Reel 1b
Reel 2a
Reel 2b

Enjoy.

Deleted

due to bug in system.

ROOG

I don't think monarchy and democracy don't go together. I think they could. If, via democratic referendum, the people of my country chose a democratic monarchy, then I'd go with it. What I said is I would choose a republic if offered a choice for Iran, because of the reasons I mentioned previously. Again, I think power, in our country, should be broken down to its lowest denominator (the individual) and distributed as evenly as possible to be able to prevent abuse.

Divaneh

Agreed. Just keep in mind that the 10% and the 20% that were mentioned were only wild guesses. Actually, Masoud forgot to count the under-age population and other groups who wouldn't fall in the decision-maker/voter category in that calculation.

It would actually be nice to know that percentage exactly, and I know for a fact that "daftare rahbari" paid a group of top sociologists for a study some 10-12 years ago to find just that out. The fact that the study (and the numbers that went with it) were never released tells me that in all likelihood, the percentage representing that "hard-core" category shouldn't be very high, which is good news.

Democracy and Secularism

Parham, I apologize for not being more clear in my analogy. I can reading my post again I can see how it was confusing.

What I said originally was that we should find common ground and that common ground should be Secular Democracy. I then suggested that this common ground will bring many groups together which was previously unthinkable. SECULARISM AND DEMOCRACY WOULD BE OUR FOUNDING PRINCIPLES. I mentioned monarchists, JM, MKO etc. I said that in a society based on SECULAR DEMOCRACY, every group will be able to democratically campaign in the political system. And if the monarchists want to promote the idea of ceremonial monarchy they should be allowed to do this democratically.

You then wrote that you saw a threat to democracy from a "shah", trying to expand his powers from only a ceremonial/historic one to actual dictatorship.

I completely agree with you on this threat. My point is that it is always easier to DEFEND COMMONALITIES than to OFFEND DIFFERENCES. If we agree on democracy, by definition it means our system of government will never allow any monarch to rule. To defend democracy would be easier than to offend all monarchist, many of whom want a "shah" to reign and not rule.

I brought up Muslims as an example. I was talking about 98% people identifying themselves as muslims. THEORETICALLY, each one of them could decide to start reading the Koran and trying to change our system based on that. This would be a violation of SECULARISM which is one of our 2 founding principles. This would be the same as a monarch trying to violate the principle of DEMOCRACY. I see a parallel between the 2 threats, don't you? My contention is that if you expand our FOUNDING PRINCIPLES from 2 to 3 and add REPUBLIC to it, you might as well also add ATHEISM! 

From your personal point of view, monarchy may not be good and may pose a threat to democracy. You may be a republican and the country may agree with you and vote for a republic which would be great. BUT, I am suggesting that a republic should not be a FOUNDING PRINCIPLE, because firstly, it would narrow our common ground and the coalition, secondly, I see a conflict between the FOUNDING principle of DEMOCRACY and imposing a REPUBLIC without approval of the majority.

NAMIR's statement from today

به مناسبت بیستمین سال قتل دکتر شاپور بختیار

از متن:

”بختیار در بخشی از خاطرات خود که به صورت مصاحبه بیان شده است در باره ی اعلامیه ی زنده یاد دکترکریم سنجابی میگوید: ... نکته ی قابل توجه و تأمل این است که برای اولین دفعه زیر قلم یک جانشین مصدق، در یک متن سیاسی، حکومت بر اساس موازین اسلامی پیدا شد. در حالیکه هیچ وقت و مطلقاً چنین چیزی به فکر کسی نمی رسید. ما در مکتب مصدق هیچ وقت در باب سیاست صحبت از اسلام نمی کردیم. اسلام دین ما است. مسلمانی مربوط به خود من است. مربوط به سیاست و اداره کردن مملکت نیست. اگر دیگری نظر دیگری دارد، من مفتخرم که همیشه و بخصوص از سه سال پیش بی پرده وبا کمال صراحت در تمام مصاحبه ها گفتم که من یک لائیک هستم. این را تعبیر کردند که من ملحدم، در حالیکه ملحد و لائیک فرسنگ ها اختلاف دارند. ملحد همان طور که می دانید کسی است که معتقد به هیچ چیز نیست. لائیک کسی است که اداره ی مملکت را دست آخوند نمی دهد.

بختیار آن جا که می گوید: "... سنگر قانون اساسی را در هیچ صورت خالی نخواهم کرد. ..." (دوشنبه ۲ بهمن ۱۳۵۷) و یا: "... هیچکس نمی داند جمهوری اسلامی وی چیست، و اگر کسی به متون گذشته مراجعه کند پشتش به لرزه در می آید. او نه تعدد گروه های سیاسی را می پذیرد نه دموکراسی را. می خواهد روحانیت قانون الهی را اجرا کند. همه چیز این جا شروع می شود و این جا تمام می شود."(یکشنبه، ۱۵ بهمن ۱۳۵۷)، به دوستان خود که از سال های بعد از کودتا در نهضت مقاومت و زندان و محرومیت ها با آنان هم سرنوشت بود هشدار می دهد.

روشنفکران جامعه صلاحیت تشخیص داشتند. و اگر از«متون گذشته» بی اطلاع بودند و یا از سلسله درس های آقای خمینی تحت عنوان حکومت اسلامی و ولایت فقیه، که از بهمن ۱۳۴۸ در نجف شروع کرد، خبری نداشتند دانش سیاسی و اندوخته های علمی حقوق سیاسی آن ها ایجاب می کرد که برای بیعت به مقر او نروند و باب صدور احکام شرعی را به رویش باز نکنند.”

روحش شاد

When 98% is not 98%

I have been following this thread and have to thank you guys for this informative debate.

When we talk about 98% Muslims we have to bear in mind that the threat to democracy will only be from the devout Shia. The belief that god selects the ruler goes back to the 6th Imam (Jafar Sadegh). The reign is the right of the Imam Zaman and in his absence the right is transferred to the clergy. This is not a new invention and exists in old Shia books.

Shias are however not the only Muslims in Iran and I think Sunis would not have any such beliefs to stands against democracy. Also if I go back to an earlier comment by MK there are 20% supporting the existing regime altogether including the supporters of the reformists. Even if that statistics is not inflated, we only have 20% devout Shia of which 10% is hardcore. If there are only 10% hardcore despite the whole machinery of the government bombarding an ill educated society with misinformation and misguidance, then this is indeed very good news.

Now, no democracy can please everyone. These small undemocratic factions such as hard core shias and absolute monarchist need to be forced into submission as their demands infringe on the rights of the rest of the society. Just like the fascist and hard core Catholics that are forced into submission in the Western democracies. Having said that if a person like Reza Pahlavi wants to take part as a presidential candidate in free elections and in a country where power is divided between houses and president and where there is a true independent justice system and court service then that is completely acceptable.

Re: Monarchists

ROOG

"According to this position, the way to eliminate this future threat is also to ban every Muslim and Muslim group from participating in any coalition, regardless of their commitment to separation of religion and politics."

Not so -- not every Muslim. Perhaps no political Muslim groups, but Muslims (98% of our country as you state), would have an individual right to do whatever they wish, yes. Now if they start mixing their religion with the affairs of the state (e.g. trying to apply Sharia), then that would be unconstitutional. A democracy has to protect the rights of the minority first, no matter how small that minority is.

You know, the main purpose of the democracy is actually to oversee that people's freedoms and rights are not trampled. It's not up to the government to say what they should or what they should not do, it's just there to see that they CAN do what they WANT, as long as they're not undermining other people's rights and freedoms to do what they want.

Isn't that the way you see it?