O Lord, save us from vain discourse and lies (the audience cries Amen). O Lord, illuminate our hearts with the light of Islam and spirituality (the audience cries Amen). Grant a listening ear to the university heads of Muslim governments; to the Presidents of Muslim governments; to the representatives of Muslim governments; to the ministers of Muslim governments; to the prime ministers of Muslim governments; and to the managers and workers of Muslim governments. O Lord grant them . . .

I have to say that in one sense this was an extremely bad year for the clergy, yet in another it was a good year. It was bad because Iran, instead of being presented to the world as a just country which enjoys a good and honest judiciary and which has judicial courts, a judicial tribunal and an administration of justice, or as a country whose economy is healthy and whose agriculture is thriving, or again as a country which is known for its equity and integrity - instead of these, she has been introduced to the world as a center of corruption and even worse still.

Were we to say that the present resembles the time of the Mongols, it would be wrong to insult the Mongols so. They were a people who perhaps believed it acceptable to spill our blood which they regarded as heathen. They entered the country (Iran) as a part of their crusade to seize foreign states and even then it was a country which didn't hold the same beliefs as they did. The crimes they then went on to commit here are well-known. Those here today however, claim to be Muslims. They claim to have a faith and to be Shi`a; and whilst making these assertions time passes by and they continue to live their everyday lives unchallenged. Theirs are the deeds that one would expect to see from the Mongols, or from Genghis Khan. They storm the centers of learning; they spill the blood of sixteen- and seventeen-year-old youngsters; they destroy the centers of learning; they affront the `ulama and vilify their honour; they imprison, persecute, wound, kill and commit atrocities, yet at the same time they deliver speeches, feign Islamism and Shi`ism and pretend to have realized greatness. The Mongols (at least) never professed to be Shi`a. They were our enemies, having entered our country by invasion. These here however, committed crimes and still continue to commit crimes while at the same time they avouch friendship and profess to be Shi`a or even a station higher still.

 

 

It must be said that this is not a recent matter relating to the past few months only, but rather it is one which has a long history, having first developed several years ago. If not forty-odd years, then it was at least twenty years ago that it was decided that Qum must be wiped out. It was during the lifetime of the late Ayatullah Burujirdi (May he rest in paradise) that they in fact decided to do away with both the Ayatullah as a religious authority and Qum as a religious center. They believe Qum is against their interests. Qum is the center of Truth. Satan's followers believe that their aims are opposed by the followers of Truth. Hence, at the time of the late Ayatullah Burujirdi, the latter was seen by some in a certain light; but this is not the place to elaborate upon this. It was at this time that foreigners were also against the continued existence of Qum, because without it they would be free to do as they wished without anyone objecting, criticizing or protesting.

Therefore, it is safe to say that if not forty-odd years ago then at least twenty years ago, from the time of the late Ayatullah Burujirdi this intention was harboured by them; yet they realized that trouble would arise if they took action whilst he was alive. Once he had ascended to the abode of the blessed, they immediately began to attack this religious center of Qum under the pretext of respecting another religious center, in Najaf. This they did, not because they felt any affection for that center since these people feel no affection for any religious center, and again, not because they were fond of Najaf, but rather these attacks were made because they wanted Qum not to exist. Qum was a thorn in their flesh; being close to them (in geographical proximity) it was able to quickly discover their corrupt dealings. Hence, they were against Qum, but because they couldn't openly say "no" to Qum, they instead said "yes" to Najaf and "yes" to Mashhad. At first they imagined that nothing important ever really happened in Qum, but then they realized that certain things indeed were happening; certain things were seen, said and heard. Thus, they came to realize that things weren't as they initially believed them to be. Thenceforth they made plans to destroy the clergy and then to destroy Islam and afterwards to realize the interests of Israel and her agents.

This was the case from the beginning but it was concealed, their plans not being publicized. To a certain extent they had in fact informed the public of their intentions, but they spoke of their infidel programme in very mild, diluted terms. Following the demise of Ayatullah Burujirdi, they initially devised an evil scheme which involved Iran as a whole. From what I was told, they wanted people to promise to send telegrams to other theological centers, and especially to one other city in particular, not because they were actually fond of that center but because they weren't fond of this one. However, the people disregarded them. Subsequently other schemes were devised and there was in fact a change in government. Who knows, perhaps the proposals were presented to these governments and were dismissed by them because they found such indecency to be beyond even them. Perhaps they were indeed virtuous, learned intellectuals who could not bring themselves to oppose all of the centers of learning. However, the conclusion eventually reached was that the government should be an ignorant, unlearned one; one which does not realize or appreciate the value of learning and one whose members have not received education above that offered in the fifth grade - even then having acquired their qualification certificates fraudulently.

 

These members of the government are not to know the meaning of learning nor of religiousness and honesty. They are not to know of the preservative role played by the clergy in this country. They are not to be aware of what is happening. They are to be dictated to as if blind and are not to really understand what is being said; and they are to be given orders, but must act without being fully aware of what they are doing.

We saw that the target of this illiterate and dishonourable government from the very onset of its involvement was Islam. In the press they wrote in bold print that ladies have been given the right to participate in elections. In fact this was part of an evil plan to distract the public's attention away from the main issue; that being the elimination of Islam and the Qur'an. For this reason as soon as they became aware of the situation, people banded together and the `ulama formed a united front in order for appropriate steps to be taken. Initially our attention too had been drawn to the issue of the female vote, but on closer inspection we realized it was not just a matter concerning women for this was only a minor concern (by comparison). The real issue was about opposition to Islam. Thus it was not necessary for either the voter or the candidate to be Muslim; nor was belief in the Qur'an a prerequisite - what was the Qur'an needed for anyway?! However, when dealt a slap in the face from the Muslim nation they changed their tune, maintaining that by "Holy Book" they had meant the Qur'an; and according to our religious law we of course had no choice but to accept their assertion. Once again however, as soon as they saw a group of ignorant people gathered around them shouting "long live this" and "long live that" they resumed their fiendish campaign, restating all that which they had previously revoked. They yet again espoused full and identical rights of the sexes which in fact is to deny several of the most unequivocal and imperative Qur'anic injunctions. Afterwards, they again saw that this was the cause of certain resentment, objection and difficulties and so once more they denied the issue; it was disclaimed by the minister in one place and by the commanding official in another.

In the press it was quite explicitly reported that women's conscription was in the process of being legislated. Nevertheless, when they saw that the matter gave rise to opprobrium and that the people and even the regime's henchmen were truly perturbed, again they said that it was a lie. Indeed, they wanted to open a lawsuit because of it - a most foolish, ludicrous intention.

This was a bad year because Islam and the Qur'an too came under increasing attack. They ravaged the centers of learning mistakenly believing that they are destructible; they beat and broke the limbs and necks of our children and loved ones, killing some by flinging them from the roof. If the perpetrators of these crimes were peasants as you claim, then why were members of the armed forces helping them? This was something plain for all

 

to see. A hundred thousand people from the streets and from within the court-yard and madrasa clearly witnessed the police force's direct support of the peasants. If, as you claim, it really was the peasants who did all this, then why did the police attempt to intimidate those in the hospitals where our injured had been taken, saying: "How dare you have taken His Majesty's enemies to hospital? We will make you pay for this. They must be discharged at once"? If it was the peasants who were to blame then where does His Majesty come into all this? If however, it was in fact paratroopers and those who work for him (the Shah) and are a part of his regime who committed the assault, then was it his doing? Did he give the command for this action or did it take place without his knowledge and without his having given the order? If he was aware of the affair, then inform us so we know where we stand with him; so we may know if we are confronting one person or more than one. If it is more than one person, then tell us so that we may realize that these paratroopers came of their own volition without any reason whatsoever; or maybe the security forces sent them, or the police force, or perhaps the Prime Minister gave the orders, or a certain minister or commanding official. Come on, tell us who is responsible for these crimes.

 

 

Why do they deny it? Whoever is approached for an answer lays the blame on someone else. Whoever we voice objections to denies involvement and implicates another. The police force accuses the security forces and vice versa; and both of them claim that it was His Majesty who ordered for the attack to be made. Is it really true that His Majesty gave instructions for such a thing? Does His Majesty oppose the religion of Islam? Is His Majesty truly hostile to the Qur'an as their claims would suggest? If this is so , then what were those things you said before in favour of Islam? What were those revelations and miracles of which you spoke? If His Majesty is not hostile then why doesn't he prevent such savagery? Why doesn't he chastise these policemen, organizations and prime ministers? He who is in supreme command enjoys absolute authority to do as he will. He should scourge those who firstly commit misdeeds and act against religion and Islam, and then lay the blame on him. He should exonerate himself. How can the sultan of Islam be opposed to Islam? Surely this is not feasible. Then if he does not oppose Islam let him show it; let him show his regret and sorrow that a reprobate has gone and demolished the Fayziya Madrasa. I myself have not yet seen the graves of our dear youngsters, but I intend to do so once this session is over. I shall go and recite a chapter of the Qur'an (Fatiha) for the repose of the souls of those they killed (the audience weeps); and I shall publicly demonstrate my grief for them. We are not even allowed to hold a mourning ceremony for them (the audience weeps); but why is this so, if, as you say, it was the peasants who committed this atrocity (the audience weeps)? Why do you disrupt the mourning ceremonies held in Tehran (the audience weeps)?

Yes indeed, it was a bad year because the rulers of the day were disgraced and the tyrannical system shamed; and this is not what we wanted. We don't want our country to be introduced abroad as a country ruled by evil elements; this is not what we wanted. We would like everyone in our country without exception to behave and live in such a way as to be a source of pride and honour; to proudly boast such scholars as Amir Kabir. In fact, in the past

 

it was the `ulama such as `Ali ibn Yaghtin and at times even the Immaculate Imams, who were the ministers and advisers to the Muslim rulers. But who are the advisers now? Israel! Our counsellors are Jews! In the Dunya newspaper they themselves acknowledged the donation of five hundred

 

dollars to each of two thousand Baha'is (the wretch hadn't better deny this since it was actually in the press); that's five hundred dollars from the wealth of this Muslim nation - in addition to offering a one-thousand-and-twenty tumans discount on each of their air fares. And what was this for? It was for their journey to London to participate in an anti-Islamic meeting. They were thus afforded the highest respect. On the contrary, our pilgrims have to bear the most severe hardships and sometimes even have to offer bribes just to obtain permission for their journey; and even then only a few are actually successful. What intimidation they are subjected to on the outward journey and how many difficulties they have to face during their return journey! Moreover, whilst there at Mina and Mecca, they have to tolerate the objections and protests of a contemptible official who demands the apprehension of someone for truthfully stating that Islam is threatened by the Jews. My God man, are you indeed a Jew? And our country, is that Jewish too?

Woe to this country and to the regime in power! Woe unto us and to the rest of the world! Woe to those mute `ulama and to the silent cities of Najaf, Qum, Tehran and Mashhad. This deadly silence will cause our country and

 

our honour and dignity to be trampled beneath the boots of the Israelis by means of these very Baha'is. Then woe to us; woe to this Islam; woe to these Muslims. O you `ulama, do not remain silent; don't claim to be following in the Shaykh's path (may he rest in paradise). I swear by God that if the Shaykh was now among us he too would adopt this stance.

Silence! Do not choose to remain silent since to do so today is to support the tyrannical system. I was informed that Sabet Pasal was given a discount in a deal made between himself and the Oil Company, in which he made a profit of twenty-five million tumans; or in truth it was those who were sent to the anti-Islamic meeting in London who actually profited. That is the current state of our oil industry, our foreign currency, our national airline and our ministers; and that is how things are for all of us. Then are we still to say nothing?! Ought we really remain silent and not complain? They destroy our homes, yet we are

 

not to make a murmur?! That good-for-nothing sends the chief of police, the head of that rotten institution, to the homes of the `ulama to threaten that if they, the `ulama, should so much as breathe a word about certain matters, then the police have been ordered by His Majesty to ransack their homes, assault their families and to kill the `ulama themselves. Unfortunately on that day when they came to my home I turned them away. I now wish I had allowed them to enter so that I could have punched them in the mouth. This is what we have to tolerate from His Imperial Majesty; that is of course if what they say is true. If they are lying however, then let him state that this is the case. Let him declare that the governors of Qum have told lies so that I can give those governors what for! Let him tell us that the chief of police has told lies, so that I can send some religious students to teach him a lesson. The problem is of course that he makes no such claim.

There again, this year was a good year because the clergy let the world know of its value and significance. It made the world realize that it is the clergy alone which speaks out against and confronts both oppression and the oppressor and injustice and the unjust. It is the clergy and the theological centers which take the beatings, cry out, sacrifice their lives and make protests. They destroy the clergy's Fayziya Madrasa but the clergy continue relentlessly. The clergy say what they believe must be said regardless of what happens to them. The clergy have made the entire world aware of their existence. Therefore, it could be said that this year was a bad year since Iran became an object of ridicule throughout the world because of the regime in power; or again, it could be said to have been a good year because the propriety of the clergy was proven to the world. The clergy let the world know that we (too) are human; we are spiritual leaders. We don't just concern ourselves with preaching and praying, but we also make our voices heard. We serve to admonish and advise you, the people.

 

I gave the Shah some advice; I sent someone to see him. In the days before the referendum I sent messages to him via Behbudi and Pakravan advising him not to hold a referendum nor to attempt to alter the law since it was not in his interests to do so. I warned him that if today Arsanjani can bring a group of peasants and make them do as he tells them so that they cry "long live so and so", then tomorrow another group can be brought to cry "death to so and so"! So again I advised him not to go ahead with this since it was not in his interests. However, he didn't listen and we all saw what happened. They didn't even manage to win two thousand votes; and those they did obtain were obtained by force. It is common knowledge that the bazaars of Tehran and Qum closed down in order to avoid having to vote and that in other cities too the turnout was extremely poor. They couldn't even attract two thousand votes without the need for force.

 

We didn't want you to suffer such humiliation in this way; neither did we wish for the nation's repudiation of you. We wanted you to be the kind of person who, when he cries out to his nation, receives a wholehearted response from all of the people. This is how we would like our Shah to be. We would also like our minister to be a person in whose opinions the entire nation had confidence, rather than one who insists that six million votes were cast whereas I guarantee you they failed to amount to even a few thousand - the ballot boxes having been filled by the regime itself. Perhaps the Shah didn't actually hear the truth of the matter. Maybe he was told that an "overwhelming majority" vote of six million had been achieved. Since the Shah doesn't tell lies then this must be the case, otherwise why should he make claim to an "overwhelming majority" throughout the entire country of Iran? What about the bazaars of Tehran? Aren't they a part of the country? The streets of Tehran, the city of Qum, other provinces, the clergy, are these not all parts of Iran? Where is this Iran that you refer to? Where did all those votes that you lay claim to actually come from?

It was unfortunate that such events should have occurred this year. Yet it was fortunate that you, the respected clergy, by confronting oppression gave new life to Islam. Had you not shown resistance, God knows that by now they would have fully executed all of their evil schemes. It was your resistance which caused them to deny their former intentions, whereby they said : "Of course divorce is a man's prerogative, when did we ever say otherwise?" Whilst one voice from the "People's Party" can be heard advocating full and

 

 

equal rights, another voice from the other Party asks: "When did we say that divorce is a woman's prerogative?" Hence, on one occasion they espouse equality in all spheres of life, but on another they advocate something quite different. Again they speak in similar terms with regard to inheritance and women's conscription, advocating one thing one minute and denying it the next. As for women's conscription, we read about it in your (the Shah's) very own newspapers which write whatever the security forces dictate to them.

The editor-in-chief of Kayhan is said to have remarked that the paper's journalists now have no problems to contend with, because in the past they were the ones who did the writing and certain persons would make "comments" of approval or disapproval, but now these persons actually do the writing themselves, thus easing the task of the journalist. Here however, I feel an objection must be voiced asking this person where his self-respect is if he allows others to dictate to him whilst he merely writes. Why should our press be so abject?

So why don't you (the `ulama) speak out and say what they are actually doing? Now that Islam is threatened by Judaism and the Jewish Party, which in fact constitutes the Baha'i Party, it is time for all of the `ulama of Islam to speak with one voice; and for the orators, speakers and religious students to unitedly declare unequivocally that they don't want Judaism to determine the destiny of their country; nor do they want their country to align itself with the Jews in opposition to an Islamic alliance. Whilst elsewhere the Muslims are uniting, those here are making pacts with Judaism! What state of affairs is this? If you must be a lackey to others, then why must you be such a dedicated one?! I shall end here so that I can go to the Fayziya Madrasa to recite a sura of the Qur'an (Fatiha) for the repose of the souls of those who died in the assault.

 

May God grant you good health both now and in the future (the audience cries Amen) and may He grant victory to Islam (the audience cries Amen).

---

1-  Mahduruddam - meaning someone whose murder is regarded as permissible

2-  Genghiz Khan, the Mongol commander, in the year 1197 AD invaded Iran's inhabited cities of that time whilst shouting the slogan "I am the torment of God". He firstly slayed the inhabitants of densely populated cities such as Marv, Bukhara, Neyshabur, Ray, Qum, Azerbayjan and Khiva, and then killed all else that lived. He set fire to the trees and demolished any signs of civilization such as libraries, schools, mosques, ancient buildings, houses, gardens and shops. He then cultivated the remaining land and grew crops there. Refer to: Iran va Jihan az Mughul ta Qajariya.

3-  The Shah and his agents.

4-  A reference to the regime's assault on Fayziya Madrasa on the afternoon of March 22, 1963 (Farvardin 2, 1342 AHS); the attack on the same madrasa on March 23 of that same year; and other similar raids on Islamic centres such as the Talibiya Madrasa in Tabriz.

5-  A reference to the young religious students of Fayziya Madrasa.

6-  The Shah on January 16, 1963 (Dey 26, 1341 AHS), at the National Congress of Iranian Farmers said : "No one can claim to be nearer to the Imams or to God than I with regard to performing deeds, since I have done all I possibly could. I have ordered for the repair and maintenance of all those shrines in need of such attention. Every night before I sleep I talk to my God in prayer. I believe that what I am now doing for the country is favoured by God and the Imams more than any other possible deed . . ."!!

7-  In the year 1962 (1341 AHS) the Shah, in a speech addressing the Iranian Muslim farmers, stated : "I must have been six or seven years old when I became ill with typhoid and my condition was critical. Most of the doctors who were treating me had lost all hope. One night I dreamt that I was sitting before `Ali (Imam `Ali (pbuh)) on whose lap lay a sword. On the other side of the room there was a jug and he told me : `Drink from this jug and you will be cured tomorrow'. That very same night my fever cleared and I gradually recovered. My other experience occurred maybe six months or a year later as I was walking down a steep pebble-stoned alleyway with my nanny. I suddenly saw a holy- looking man approaching me from around whose head a halo of light seemed to emanate. I asked my nanny : `Did you also see the Imam of the Age?' She said : `No, I never saw anyone'; but I had seen him. A child aged six or seven years old doesn't normally invent such things and especially not in a lonely alleyway accompanied by a nanny". The Shah in the book entitled Mission for my Country) pp. 66-72, claims to have met the Imam of the Age (may God hasten his renewed manifestation) and Hazrat Abulfazl (pbuh).

8-  Refer to note 33 of speech number 4.

9-  Following the uprising of the Isfahan `ulama and the tragedy at the Gauhar Shad Mosque, the theological center of Qum benefiting from such religious scholars as Ayatullah al-`Uzma Burujirdi and Ayatullah al-`Uzma Ha'iri became the largest Shi`i center of its kind and brought honour and repute to other such centers in Iran. Muhammad Riza at the onset of his reign tried to forge a closer relationship with Ayatullah Burujirdi in order to benefit from the influence he held, but he was often deterred and discouraged by his eminence. After the eminent scholar's demise, the Shah, who regarded the rank of marja`iyat as an obstruction to imperialist rule, took steps to prevent the re- establishment of this office in Qum and hence made every effort to transfer the clergy to the noble city of Najaf. It was for this reason that he sent a telegram expressing his condolences on the demise of Ayatullah Burujirdi to Ayatullah Hakim, the great marja` in Najaf. The Iranian clergy considered this an act of disrespect to the maraji` of Qum, the aim of which was to weaken the position of the clergy there. On another occasion, following the discovery of oil in Qum, the prospect of transferring the theological center of Qum to the holy city of Mashhad was discussed. Due to the high salt density of the soil in Qum however, the government decided not to go ahead with the oil-drilling project and consequently the subject of the transference of the theological center was also buried. Refer to Inqilab-i Islami va Risheha-yi an, pp. 484-485.

10-  This remark of Imam's refers to a comment made by the Shah that: "There doesn't seem to be anyone in Qum who can bear the responsibility of the office of marja`iyat."

11-  Subsequent to the demise of Ayatullah Burujirdi, the Shah's regime tried to persuade the Iranian people to forward their messages of condolence to Ayatullah Hakim in Najaf rather than to the maraji` of Qum. This it did with the intention of weakening the position of the theological centers of Iran and strengthening that of the `ulama in Najaf.

12-  Within the period stretching from the beginning of the Shah's reign until the time when `Alam was appointed as Prime Minister, twenty-five different governments actually took office! These prime ministers, whose terms of office in some cases lasted no longer than a week, are as follows: Muhammad `Ali Furuqi (Zaka' al-Mulk), 1941 (1320 AHS); `Ali Soheili, 1941-42; Ahmad Qavam (Qavam al-Saltana), 1942; `Ali Soheili, 1942-43; Muhammad Sa'ed, 1943-44; Murtaza Qulibayyat (Saham al-Saltana),1944-45; Ibrahim Hakimi (Hakim ul-Mulk),1945; Sayyid Mohsin Sadrulashraf, 1945; Ibrahim Hakimi, 1945; Ahmad Qavam, 1945-47; Ibrahim Hakimi, 1947-48; Abdulhusayn Hajir, 1948-50; Husayn `Ala, 1950-51; Muhammad Mussadiq (Mussadiq al-Saltana),1951-52; Ahmad Qavam, 1952; Muhammad Mussadiq, 1952-53; Fazlullah Zahedi, 1953-55; Husayn `Ala, 1955-57; Manuchehr Iqbal, 1957-60; Ja'far Sharif Imami, 1960-61; `Ali Amini, 1961-62; Amir Asadullah `Alam, 1962 onwards. Refer to Az Sayyid Zia ta Bakhtiar.

13-  It has been reported that Asadullah `Alam, the head of the government at that time, had only actually received a few years education, eventually "graduating" from a school in Karaj! Of course he later succeeded in obtaining his National Diploma in Agriculture from the Karaj Education Authority, but he did so by fraudulent means. Refer to Az Sayyid Zia ta Bakhtiar.

14-  On October 8, 1962 (Mehr 16, 1341 AHS), at the beginning of Asadullah `Alam's term of office, a report headed "Women's Right To Vote" appeared in bold print in the press. The right for women to vote was legislated by the Provincial and District Councils. The regime used the women's voting issue as a cover behind which to pursue its other ambitions. Imam on several occasions during that period emphatically proclaimed that not even men enjoyed the right to vote let alone women. It is clear that his objection to this issue in fact constituted opposition to the regime's sinister objectives, because since the triumph of the Islamic Revolution of Iran, women actually do enjoy the right to vote, as do men, and they also may be elected to the Majlis.

15-  When the announcement of the Provincial and District Councils Bill appeared in the Tehran evening press, it was noted that the word "Islam" had been omitted from the conditions pertaining to the voter and candidate, and that the oath sworn had been sworn on the "Holy Book" rather than on the "Holy Qur'an". On reading this announcement Imam Khomeini immediately called for a meeting with the high-ranking `ulama of Qum to discuss this matter. Ayatullah Murtaza Ha'iri, Ayatullah Gulpaygani and Mr. Shari`atmadari participated in this meeting. Refer to Barrasi va Tahlili az Nihzat-i Imam Khomeini, Vol. 1, pp. 148-149.

16-  Imam Khomeini, in his New Year declaration of 1963 (1342 AHS) entitled "The Clergy of Islam Does Not Hold New Year Celebrations This Year", objected very strongly to the legislation calling for the compulsory conscription of eighteen- year-old girls for military service. As a result of this objection, despite the fact that this news had already been published and that speeches and interviews had already been given on the radio, the Shah and his government were forced to deny what they had formerly said. In fact the Shah denied the validity of the news reports on two different occasions before the end of that month. In an interview he gave, Jahangir Tafazzuli, Minister of State in charge of publications and broadcasting, described the news concerning women's conscription as totally unfounded. Refer to the speeches delivered by the Shah on April 1, 1963 (Farvardin 12, 1342 AHS) in Mashhad and April 2, 1963 in Birjand; also refer to the 11,056th issue of the Ittila`at newspaper dated March 31, 1963 (Farvardin 11, 1342 AHS).

17-  Tehran evening press, April 1, 1963 (Farvardin 12 1342 AHS), the Shah: ". . . A publisher has recently reported that they are trying to conscript eighteen-year-old girls for military service - how ridiculous! We are in no way short of military personnel. Such falsities are a sign of the weakness of those who are responsible for fabricating this news. Our girls must continue their education and pursue their female responsibilities. We have enough people to safeguard the security of this land."

18-  The publication of Imam Khomeini's declaration and the determined stance taken by him in opposition to the conscription of young girls, left the Shah with no alternative but to request that the judiciary make the necessary enquiries and prosecute those responsible for circulating such news. In turn, the judicial system filed a lawsuit against the movement's leadership and proceeded to arrange for its arrest, although this never actually amounted to anything. It is worth mentioning that the official who actually delivered the summons to Imam's house, entered the building with tearful eyes saying: "They have ordered me to obtain Imam's signature for this letter and I feel that as a follower of Imam I must apologise for this." He left the house however, without having obtained a signature. (Quoted from the memoirs of Hujjat al-Islam wal Muslimin Hajj Sayyid Ahmad Khomeini).

19-  For further information regarding the bloody tragedy of Fayziya Madrasa, refer to the introduction to speech number 9 and the books : Barrasi va Tahlili az Nihzat-i Imam Khomeini, Vol. 1. pp. 337-370; Nihzat-i Ruhaniyun-i Iran, Vol. 3, pp. 260-358; Zendeginama-yi Siasi-yi Imam Khomeini, pp. 205-211.

20-  During the incident at the Fayziya Madrasa a blind theological student who had been hiding in a residential chamber was thrown down from the balcony to the yard by the Shah's commandos; whilst another religious student aged fifteen or sixteen years old was flung from the rooftop.

21-  On March 22, 1963 (Farvardin 2, 1342 AHS), the Shah's regime dispatched officers dressed as peasants to the Fayziya Madrasa in order to quash the Islamic movement. The hair of the members

of the armed forces however, was styled like that of German soldiers, which gave away their true identity! These undercover servicemen continually recited salawat during the delivery of a speech until they succeeded in totally disrupting the meeting and fighting broke out. At this moment, other servicemen who were lying in wait nearby also joined in. The Prime Minister, Amir Asadullah `Alam in a subsequent interview maintained that the skirmish was in fact between those clergymen who opposed "land reform" and some peasants who were visiting Qum on a pilgrimage and that during this encounter a peasant had been killed by the religious students! Refer to Nihzat-i Ruhaniyun-i Iran, Vol. 3, p. 265; and see the Ittila`at newspaper of March 26, 1963 (Farvardin 6, 1342 AHS).

22-  The bill for the formation of SAVAK, The State Security and Intelligence Organisation, was passed by parliament in 1956 (1335 AHS) and the organization was subsequently officially established in 1957 (1336 AHS). SAVAK's mission was to quash and confront any Islamic struggles or opposition to the regime. SAVAK was closely linked to the intelligence agencies of both America and Israel (CIA and MOSSAD) and gradually it turned into a terrorist organisation. This institution which in fact served as the CIA's headquarters, possessed several investigative and detective teams. In order to obtain information from those they had arrested, SAVAK would firstly send the latter to torture chambers, after which it would hand its captives over to rubber-stamp courts where, after the passing of a predetermined court verdict, the accused would be convicted and taken to horrendous prisons. The cruelty and callousness of SAVAK was so great that the Secretary General of Amnesty International, in a report made in 1975 stated : "No country in the world has a worse record in human rights than Iran . . . In order to obtain confessions the torturers of SAVAK subjected its captives to beatings and electric shocks. It employed all kinds of horrendous and inhumane methods to achieve its ends; the inflicting of agonizing pain on the sexual organs and the sexual assault of the wives and daughters of the captives before the latter's very eyes, are but two of such atrocities perpetrated." The Shah was fully aware of SAVAK's practices. This organization was abolished by Iranian Muslims in 1978 (1357 AHS) and its torturers were prosecuted in revolutionary courts. For further information refer to Ayandigan newspaper April 7, 1979 (Farvardin 18, 1358 AHS); Inqilab-i Islami va Risheha-yi an, p. 491; and The Rise and Fall of the Pahlavi Dynasty, Vol. 1, p.379.

23-  Colonel Moulavi, the deputy-director of SAVAK in Tehran and the commander-in-chief of the Fayziya operation, was later killed in an air crash.

24-  Imam in referring to the "session" actually means his lesson.

25-  A mourning ceremony was arranged by Ayatullah al-`Uzma Hakim on May 11, 1963 (Urdibihisht 21, 1342 AHS) at Ark Mosque in Tehran in commemoration of those who had been martyred at Fayziya. SAVAK prevented the holding of this ceremony and police surrounded the building allowing no one to enter the mosque. People became angered and fighting broke out with the police. Refer to Nihzat-i Ruhaniyun-i Iran, Vol. 3, p. 358.

26-  Mirza Taqikhan Farahani (1803-1848) was referred to as Amir Nizam and Atabak A'zam, later becoming famous as Amir Kabir. During his youth he served Nasir al-Din Mirza. After the death of Mohammad Shah Qajar he took the successor to the throne from Tabriz to Tehran and arranged for his coronation, after which he served him as his prime minister. At a time when Iran was in a deteriorating state due to the incompetence of the Qajar administration, Amir Kabir took effective

measures to implement reforms for its development. This he managed to achieve despite the close presence of influential enemies. He succeeded in many areas such as in suppressing rebellions and in particular those of the Baha'is; and in strengthening national security; in reforming the system of taxation; in combating bribery; in reorganizing both the national budget and the civil and military administrations; in establishing the Dar al-Fonon School; and in developing science, industry, agriculture and health care. These were but some of the reforms achieved by this most competent of ministers. Eventually, both the conspiracy of those servants of imperialism within the country and the repeated slanderous statements uttered by Nasir al-Din Shah's mother, led the Shah to issue the order for his dismissal, exile and eventual murder. Sharh-i Hal-i Rejal, Vol. 1, p. 209.

27-  `Ali ibn Yaqtin and his father were particularly close to the Bani `Abbas caliphs (Saffa, Mahdi and Mansur) and hence could take effective measures for strengthening the Shi`i position. Following his father's death, the influence of `Ali ibn Yaqtin in no way diminished and he was appointed as a minister by Harun al-Rashid. He succeeded in promoting the affairs of the Shi`a by holding secret meetings with the seventh Imam (Musa Kazim (pbuh)), during which he received guidance and enlightenment. On several occasions he requested permission from the Imam to resign from the `Abbasid government, but this permission was not granted since his resignation was not considered to be in the interests of the Shi`a.

28-  `Umar, the second caliph, often called on Hazrat `Ali (pbuh) for important consultations and he had said many times that had it not been for `Ali he would have perished. The Immaculate Imams (pbuh) were always highly respected and their advice was often sought by the `Abbasid caliphate, so much so that the caliph appointed Imam Riza (the eighth Imam (pbuh)) as his successor to the throne and in fact gave his own daughter's hand (Ummul Fazl) in marriage to Hazrat Javad (the ninth Imam (pbuh)) from whose great knowledge and insight he benefited immensely. During the caliphates of Mu'tasim, Motawakkil, Muntasir, Musta'in and Al-Mu'taz, Imam Hadi (the tenth Imam (pbuh)) enjoyed the support and following of many important and influential members of the government. Imam Hasan Askari (the eleventh Imam (pbuh)) was particularly honoured by the `Abbasid caliph Muhtadi and his standing was higher than that of all other dignitaries of the Quraysh, including even that of the ministers and army commanders. Of course the prime reason for the respect paid to these Immaculate Imam's by the caliphs (which was often superficial only) was because the latter were well aware of the spiritual influence held by the Imams amongst the people. Refer to Da'erel Mo'aref-i Tashi, pp. 364-373.

29-  Abu `Ali Muskuviya, the outstanding eleventh century Islamic philosopher and physician has several works of philosophy and ethics to his credit. He was the special intimate friend and confidant of Amir `Azidudowla Daylami and also held the office of chancellor to the Muslim treasury. In the tenth century Abu `Ali Sina was the personal consultant to Nuh ibn Mansur Samani, a minister of Shamsudowla Daylami and the doctor and consultant of Sultan `Ala'udowla. Khaja Nizam al-Mulk Tusi, the great thinker and intellectual of the eleventh century and the founder of "Nizamiya" (madrasa) in Baghdad, Isfahan and Neyshabur, was the minister to Alp Arslan and Malik Shah Saljuqi. Khaja Nasser al- Din Tusi, the illustrious thinker and intellectual of the thirteenth century and the founder of Maraghah observatory, has many books to his credit in various scientific fields, whilst also having been a consultant for Hulagu Il-Khan. In addition, one could name `Allama Helli, Mohaqiq Karaki, `Allama Majlesi and many other prominent `ulama. Imam Khomeini, in reply to the question "Why do the `ulama cooperate with the systems of tyrannical kings?", writes in his book Kashf al-Asrar : "We believe that it is not only permissible but on occasion essential that we involve ourselves in the affairs of dictatorial regimes, in order to prevent corruption and alleviate people's suffering."

30-  In the year 1840, a man named `Ali Muhammad Bab introduced himself as the people's leader and as the intercessor between the people and the Imam of the Age. He then claimed to be the awaited saviour (Mahdi) and promised that in the near future a prophet would arise from amongst the followers of Bab who would introduce a new religion. Under the instruction of Nasir al-Din Shah and Amir Kabir, many of the followers of Bab were arrested and executed, whilst the rest were exiled to Iraq. The Bab himself was also killed (1850). Two brothers from amongst his devotees later professed to be his successors, but differences broke out between the two. Those who followed the first brother became known as Babis (Sobh Azal) and those who followed the second brother became known as Baha'is (Baha'ullah). A serious conflict arose between the two groups and as a result many lives were lost from both sides. The Ottoman State sent them all into exile in Adarna (Asia Minor) where fighting between the two sides continued. This left the Ottoman State no alternative but to send the Baha'is to `Akka (occupied Palestine) and the other group to Cyprus. The later activities of the Baha'is in `Akka attracted the following of most of the Babis and especially those who were Iranian. According to the Baha'i belief marriage to any woman (mother, sister, niece, cousin) was considered permissible other than to the step-mother. The Russians played a particularly significant role in the formation of this religion. The British however, propagated Baha'ism throughout the Islamic countries and especially in Iran. Therefore, Baha'ism from its conception until the present has managed to serve the "superpowers" under the guise of a religious belief, whereas it in fact constitutes a political party. The United States of America and Zionist Israel are currently strong supporters of this school. The Baha'is held particularly high positions during the reign of Muhammad Riza and despite the clergy's conflict with this party, the Shah always benefited from his relationship with them. Their most prominent members were always present in the Royal Court and were active in political decision-making, operating in favour of world Zionism. Refer to Baha'igari, pp. 181-238, and Az Sayyid Zia ta Bakhtiar, p.530. For further information regarding the role and influence of the Baha'is in the Pahlavi regime read the disturbing statements made by the Shah's closest associate Husayn Fardust, in the book : The Rise and Fall of the Pahlavi Dynasty, Vol. 1, p. 372.

31-  The Shah.

32-  Passport.

33-  Here, reference is made to Shaykh `Abdulkarim Ha'iri Yazdi, the founder of the theological center in Qum. He held moderate political views and refrained from interfering in politics. The late Ayatullah Burujirdi (may he receive God's mercy) adopted a very similar stance. Imam here is trying to make the clergy aware of the fact that such a stance ought not be adopted under the prevailing circumstances. Refer to Kashf al-Asrar (Imam Khomeini) and Barrasi va Tahlili az Nihzat-i Imam Khomeini.

34-  The late Ayatullah al-`Uzma Hajj Shaykh `Abdulkarim Ha'iri Yazdi (1856-1935) is considered to be one of the most outstanding maraji` of the Shi`a. Initially he began his studies in Yazd and then in the holy cities of Baghdad, Karbala and Najaf (`Atabat `Aliyat). Studying alongside such eminent scholars as Sayyid Muhammad Faysharaki, Mirza Muhammad Taqi Shirazi, Mirzayi Bozurg Shirazi and Akhund Khurasani, he achieved the noble rank of ijtihad and successfully initiated religious classes in Karbala. In 1912 he travelled to Araq and brought high repute to the theological center there. In 1920 he visited the holy city of Qum with the intention of making a pilgrimage. Whilst there, local `ulama insisted on his remaining in order to establish a religious learning center. Many distinguished jurisprudents have received training and education from his classes, they include Ayatullah al-`Uzma Sayyid Muhammad Taqi Khansari, Ayatullah al- `Uzma Sayyid Ahmad Khansari, Ayatullah al-`Uzma Sayyid Sadruddin Sadr, Ayatullah al-`Uzma Shaykh Muhammad `Ali Araki and Ayatullah al-`Uzma Sayyid Muhammad Riza Gulpaygani. Among his students was the founder of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Ayatullah al-`Uzma Imam Khomeini. His eminence Ayatullah Ha'iri was able to retain his extremely modest way of life even when he was recognized as the marja`-i taqlid and much has been related with regard to his moral and ethical virtues. The grave of this magnanimous and honourable scholar is situated by the holy shrine of Hazrat Ma'suma (pbuh).

35-  Here, Imam means that if the late Hajj Shaykh `Abdulkarim Ha'iri were alive, his duty would be to struggle against the government in power.

36-  Sabet Pasal, a renowned capitalist of Iran, was a follower of a misled sect of Baha'ism. He was amongst those who played a major role in the administration of both political and economic institutes during the Shah's reign. Like many relatives of the Pahlavi family such as Farmanfarmaian, Khiyamin, Rizayi and Akhavan, Sabet Pasal held shares in most banks, firms and companies, whilst being seen as one of the main shareholders of foreign investment in Iran. The Anglo-Iranian Bank and the banks of Iran and the Middle-East, Iranian industry, Iranian mines and industrial development as well as commercial enterprises such as Pepsi Cola, Volks-Waggon, Mashhad Cement, Plasco Kar, General Tyres and Rubber, Iran Farwag, Siycup and France Payk were but some of the areas in which this Zionist agent was active. Dowlat va Hukumat dar Iran, pp. 263-267.

37-  Here reference is made to Colonel Partow, the chief of police in Qum and Colonel Badi', the head of SAVAK in Qum, both of whom went to the homes of the maraji` (March, 1963) under the Shah's instructions.

38-  A reference to Mr. Shari`atmadari. The Shah's envoy, achieving nothing by going to the home of Imam, then visits Mr. Shari`atmadari's place of residence.

39-  Reference here is made to Ayatullah al-`Uzma Hakim, who had sent a telegram to the entire `ulama of Iran inviting them to emigrate to the holy cities of Baghdad, Karbala and Najaf. Once informed of this telegram, the Shah sends both the chief of police and the head of SAVAK to Imam's home, where they are not received. These envoys then go to the home of Mr. Shari`atmadari to deliver the Shah's ultimatum. In this message, the Shah had said that the migration of `ulama to Najaf would only be acceptable on condition that no political activities would be undertaken; otherwise the `ulama would encounter severe reprisals from the government.

40-  The chief of police (Colonel Partow) and the head of SAVAK (Colonel Badi').

41-  Once the intention to hold a referendum on the "White Revolution" was announced, Imam, in a meeting with high-ranking `ulama and maraji` of Qum, comprehensively elaborated upon the real objectives of the Shah and America with regard to the "six points" of the "revolution". Subsequently, Imam along with other maraji`, asked the government to send a representative to Qum to hold negotiations on the "six points" and in turn convey the opinion of the clergy to the government. The envoy sent by the government was in fact a person named Behbudi with whom negotiations turned out to be unproductive. Following this, the Leader of the Revolution, having received approval from other maraji`, called on Ayatullah Ruhullah Kamalvand, the influential religious scholar of Lorestan and revered teacher of the theological center in Qum, to go to the Shah to deter him from opposing Islam and to inform him of the views of the `ulama in Qum with regard to the state of the country. However, neither Imam's warning nor the meeting held between the late Kamalvand and the Shah were to any avail, other than to provide an opportunity to voice objection to the referendum and to point out its illegality due to the fact that it was not accounted for in the constitutional law. Refer to Inqilab-i Islami va Risheha-yi an, pp. 448-449.

42-  See the previous note.

43-  During the terms of office of Dr. `Ali Amini and `Alam, Hasan Pakravan served as an army commander-in-chief, the deputy Prime Minister and the head of SAVAK. As a close friend and confidante of the Shah, he negotiated with Imam on the Shah's behalf on several occasions during the early days of the Revolution.

44-  The constitutional law and its amendments. According to the articles of this law, the safeguarding of the religion of Islam and Shi`ism as well as the clergy's continual supervision of the legislative procedure have been emphatically stipulated.

45-  Sayyid Hasan Arsanjani (1922-1969), a law graduate who made great financial profits from the "land reform" programme. He held several positions including publisher of the Dariya newspaper, Member of Parliament during the Majlis's fifteenth assembly, political deputy of Qavam al-Saltana and Agricultural Minister in the cabinets of both `Ali Amini and `Alam.

46-  On January 9, 1963 (Dey 19, 1341 AHS) Arsanjani, the Minister of Agriculture, assembled in a park gymnasium several thousands of those peasants who had ostensibly been given land through the land reform programme. A number of high-ranking governmental officials, army commanders, officials of the Royal Court and both Iranian and foreign journalists were present at this assembly. As the peasants were busy cheering and applauding, the Shah, who was surrounded by security officers, entered the gathering to announce the "six points" of his "White Revolution". The newspapers of January 9 and 10, 1963 (Dey 19 and 20, 1341 AHS).

47-  The Shah in all of his speeches and interviews most unashamedly insisted that the number of votes cast in the referendum of January 1963 (Bahman 1341 AHS) was in the "millions". In Kerman on May 27, 1963 (Khurdad 6, 1342 AHS) he made claim to 5,600,000 votes; on June 9, 1963 (Khurdad 19, 1342 AHS), whilst addressing students who were about to go to America, he cited six million votes; and on July 27, 1963 (Murdad 7, 1342 AHS), in an article which appeared in the American journal Life, he maintained that ninety-five percent of the population took part in the referendum. See the Kayhan and Ittila`at newspapers of the aforementioned dates.

48-  By adopting the blanket phrase "full and equal rights" the ground was laid for the elimination of Islam and the propagation of Western culture. The granting of women's divorce rights was initially denied by the Shah, his Prime Minister and other officials. However, several years later during Hoveyda's premiership a law was ratified in Parliament entitled "The Family Protection Law" according to which women were permitted to divorce their husbands on the approval of the law courts. The authority of the judges of these courts was not recognized by Islamic law according to which a husband is able to endorse a women's right to divorce on condition that this stipulation has been included in the marriage vows. Needless to say, this legal ruling which is currently in operation in the Islamic Republic of Iran bears no relation whatsoever to the aforementioned "Family Protection Law" which was approved by the Shah's Parliament.

49-  In the year 1960 (1339 AHS), a time of international political upheaval, the Shah was compelled to reconsider his style of government and his domestic policies. He therefore called on his Prime Minister, Dr. Iqbal and his Royal Court adviser `Alam to form two political parties called "The National Party" (Hizb-i Melliyun) and "The People's Party" (Hizb-i Mardom) both of which were to give

the appearance of being mutual rivals. In 1974 however, when the "National Resurgence Party" (Hizb-i Rastakhiz) was founded by the Shah himself, the two aforementioned parties were abolished. Refer to I'tirafat-i Shah-i Makhlu', p. 66.

50-  Kayhan, the socio-political newspaper, which was launched in 1942 (1321 AHS) in Tehran with the publication of a twelve-page edition of the paper. Its proprietor was Mustafa Mesbahzada and its editor-in-chief from its birth until 1974 (1353 AHS) was Mahdi Semsar. For information concerning Mesbahzada's thirst for power, his dedication to the Pahlavi regime and the biography of a man who, for years propagated the plans, aims and ambitions of the Shah's regime through one of the largest publishing institutes, refer to The Rise and Fall of the Pahlavi Dynasty, pp. 131-133.

51-  The press board of censors.

52-  Imam is addressing those clergymen who chose to remain silent, arguing that struggle would result in nothing but torture and imprisonment.

53-  In this treaty the countries of Iraq, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Lebanon and Jordan had united against Zionism; whereas the Shah, under America's instructions, gave direct support to Israel and was thereby an ally of Zionism. He indirectly lent support to certain treaties which served the interests of American policies; and not only did he not represent the slightest threat to Israel, but on the contrary he served to safeguard the territory of the Zionist regime.