Speech number twenty-six
I seek refuge in God from the accursed Satan
In the Name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful
I am at a loss as to whom I should offer my condolences on this tragedy, this great tragedy. Should I offer them to the Most Noble Messenger, peace be upon him and his family, to the Ma'sumin, peace be upon them, to Hazrat Hujjat (the Twelfth Imam) peace be upon him, or to the Islamic umma, to the Muslims, to the oppressed in all countries of the world, or should I offer them to the oppressed nation of Iran or the respected people
of Qum. Should I condole with the bereaved, with the fathers and mothers who have borne so much suffering, or with the theological schools and the `ulama? To whom should I offer my condolences and whom should I thank for these events that have come about for Islam.
The awakened nation of Iran is plundered and dishonoured, it suffers many tragedies and yet it stands firm in the face of these and it sacrifices lives. They have opened up fire on the people with machine-guns without right or reason, and so far, according to the information that we have received, they have killed seventy people. However, we have been given varying reports and some news agencies report that a hundred people have been killed; the most oft-repeated figure is one hundred or two hundred and fifty dead, but some telegrams that have arrived here from European countries or America speak of three hundred dead, so it is still not clear how many have actually been killed.
The number of injured is also not yet known. The correct figure will probably come to light later, if that is possible, if the regime has not thrown the bodies of the people into the Hoz-i Sultan lake, as they did on Khurdad 15 (June 5, 1964). I wonder if the true figure will ever be discovered? We have received confirmed reports that some people went to the hospitals to donate their blood, but they were arrested and hence some of those in need of blood died. The regime's agents didn't give the bodies of those killed to their relatives, and if the latter persisted, they made them pay five hundred tumans before they handed the bodies over to them. Whom should we thank for this and with whom should we condole? We should be thankful to the Iranian nation. It is an awakened nation, it is a vigilant, renitent nation in the face of oppression. The Iranian people witness so much injustice, they sacrifice so many lives yet still they resist, still they persevere, and this perseverance will bear fruit. There is no doubt that when a nation awakes, when even its women rise up against the government and against these oppressors, it will be victorious, God willing.
I have heard that at the time of Riza Khan, the father of this Khan, the late Mudarris told him that he believed Shaykh al-Rais had once said that he feared a bull with horns for it had a weapon but no intellect or wisdom (`aql). Even if this does not prove to be a saying of Shaykh al-Rais, it is still a wise adage, for what heinous acts are perpetrated when weapons fall into the hands of the impious and the unworthy. From the very beginning, man has suffered because weapons have been in the hands of impious, unsuitable people. From the very time that man became civilised, as he believed, weapons have been in the hands of the impious and all the problems which mankind has had to suffer stem from this. So long as these unworthy weapon-bearers remain armed, mankind will not find its ultimate destiny. One of the missions of the prophets was to disarm the unworthy, injudicious weapon-bearers, but they could not, for these people held power and authority. Worthy people too in every age tried to wrest the arms from the hands of the unworthy, but they were also unsuccessful. So it has been the unworthy, injudicious and ungodly people who have always been armed and this is the cause of all the problems that you witness (in the world). From the very beginning, when man first came to this earth and the door of struggle between the just and the unjust was opened, and throughout all ages, arms have been in the hands of the unjust - very rarely has it been otherwise. We don't need to delve far back into history to see what crimes have been committed because of this, we only need to look at the wars which have occurred over the past hundred years. The First World War, the Second World War, the Vietnamese War of recent history and the killings that accompanied them, these all came about because the arms were in the hands of the unworthy, they were the ones who had the weapons.
I myself can remember and have witnessed the bloodshed that has occurred over the past fifty years in Iran because of the unlawful rule of these criminals. Such sorrow and bitterness it has caused us. Perhaps some of you too share this sorrow or perhaps you are too young to know of everything that has happened, but I am old, I have witnessed the people's misfortunes and the crimes and killings perpetrated by these unjust weapon-bearers from the time that the first coup d'etat was carried out. I was in Arak then, and the English criminals, the unjust British who possessed arms, armed an unworthy, ignoble Riza Khan and imposed him on the people. After World War Two began, and the British had kicked him out of Iran for disobeying them, they admitted in a broadcast over Radio Delhi that they had engineered the rise to power of this blackguard. At the time, the people suspected this to be the case, but they didn't know all the facts because the evil propaganda of the time did not allow it. I have witnessed the indescribable crimes that he committed during his stay in power. I cannot describe for you the sorrows of those days. I'm sure his heinous deeds have been recorded in the annals of history and God willing, after the overthrow of this evil monarchy, the historical facts will be disclosed and the records will be made available for you or for future generations to read. Then you may be able to understand a little better, that is if these accounts can describe what bloodshed he caused, how many of the `ulama he incarcerated, how much pressure he brought to bear on this poor nation in order to impose uniform dress, how he hit the oppressed, how he humiliated the `ulama and how many turbans he removed from the heads of the religious scholars.
It is said that when this ungodly man went to Turkey and saw what misdeeds Ataturk had done there, he sent a telegram to his agents in Iran telling them to make the people wear uniform dress. At the time, he used the excuse that the farmers who worked out in the sun should wear a peaked cap so that they wouldn't be troubled by the sun - however, it was obvious that this was not the real reason for imposing this law. When he returned from his trip, then the pressures began in earnest.
A series of intense pressures and outrageous atrocities followed the issuance of this Uniform Dress Law. The `ulama were tormented greatly because of this law, many of them were sent into exile and some of them were killed because of their objections to it. The second excuse used to bring pressure on the people came when he called for the unveiling of women, which again he did in imitation of the ungodly Ataturk, the unjust, armed Ataturk. What a shameful act this was. God only knows how this nation of Iran suffered when he forced the women to remove their veils. The veil of humanity was rent asunder. God knows which women he dishonoured in this way, which people he humiliated. He forced the `ulama at bayonet-point to attend celebratory parties with their wives, which they did with heavy hearts and which ended with the people crying. Other people as well, different groups in turn, were invited and obliged to attend parties with their wives. This was the freedom for women which Riza Shah enforced. He used bayonets and the police to compel the respected people, the merchants and the `ulama, to attend these parties on the excuse that he himself had organised them. At some of these celebrations - as the regime called them - the people cried so much that those agents with a sense of shame regretted having forced them to attend. This was just one way he used to put pressure on the people, and God only knows what repercussions this measure had.
Another way was he stopped the clergymen from going to the pulpits and delivering sermons of any kind. He also prevented them from holding rauzas - indeed at one time in Iran no rauza assemblies were held at all during `Ashura. Some fearless people did however dare to hold assemblies, but these had to be held late at night or in the early hours of the morning and they had to end before the call to morning prayer was sounded. In this way, he kept everybody in Iran from this divine bounty, from commemorating the sufferings of Imam Husayn and reciting narrations (of the martyrdom of the Imams).
This came about because the weapons were in the hands of the injudicious. Arms should be borne by those who are worthy of bearing them. When weapons are in the hands of the unjust, then iniquities ensue. The crimes that have occurred! The mass murder that took place in the Gauhar Shad mosque and the subsequent arrest of the `ulama of Khurasan and their incarceration in Tehran, the trial, imprisonment and murder of some of the great `ulama; these events came about because the weapons were in the hands of the injudicious. The `ulama of Isfahan and the `ulama of Azerbayjan were arrested and banished merely for uttering a word or standing up to Riza Shah. Apparently the `ulama of Azerbayjan were forced to stay in Sunqor and the late Aqa Mirza Sadiq (may God grant him mercy) never returned to Tabriz. This was another way through which that evil man repressed the people.
The atrocities that he committed cannot be spoken of in one or two meetings. And now, during your own lifetime, you too are afflicted with misfortunes inflicted upon you by another injudicious horned beast. For do not be mistaken in thinking that even one bullet is fired without the Shah's permission. Do not suppose that the head of Qum's police or the head of Qum's SAVAK, or any of Qum's policemen have the nerve to open fire on the people and kill them without his permission. No wise person should suppose that this could be so. All these incidents are reported to him and clearly this evil man has to give the orders to shoot. It is said that on Khurdad 15, he circled above the demonstrators in a helicopter and gave the command to open fire, as if he were giving the command to open fire on foreign armies! On armies that were attacking Iran! This useless lot are so humble and meek before the kings and presidents of other countries, especially the American President, they flatter them and align themselves with them, but in their dealings with their own people, because of the authority they exercise over them, they harass them and cause them suffering. When they go abroad they spend their time grovelling and eulogising, but when they return to their own country, they begin their wickedness.
Previously, when it was said that the Shah had granted some freedom in Iran, I told the gentlemen here that if this man reaches an agreement with this evil Carter and strengthens his servile position, he will hit the people harder than ever before. But I didn't think he would do it as soon as this. Almost immediately after he had finished his talks with Carter and had confirmed his servitude, he created a pretext for showing some muscle. He created a pretext for attacking the people in Qum. Pay no attention to what is written in the regime's press, those who were there say that the people were marching peacefully to give their requests to the `ulama when one of the regime's own men threw a stone smashing something, the regime's agents then attacked and began shooting at the people. This is what happened on Khurdad 15 too. Of course the people had themselves risen up to call for the injustices to be redressed, but the demonstrations were peaceful until a group of the regime's own agents in Tehran set a library on fire and looted a shop. This created the pretext for the regime to open fire on the people with machine-guns. They created the pretext then just as they did for this most recent outrage, otherwise the people did not want to do battle with the regime. Someone who is unarmed cannot fight an armed bull. The people had no intention of doing battle with the regime. But he had to make us see that he is no longer the man he was before he met Carter, that now that he has met with Carter and smoothed out any differences, now that he has consolidated his servile position, the people should no longer suppose that he has lost his support, no, he still has it, and thus he will carry on killing! These vociferations and these threats are made in order to show the people that he has not lost his might. But he has made a mistake, he doesn't realise what ignominy he has brought upon himself with these killings.
The people have now risen up against him, against the man who once said that the whole nation was in agreement with him, that everyone voted in support of his bloody White Revolution. The uprising began in Qum then spread to Tehran, to Khurasan, Azerbayjan, Kerman, Ahwaz, Abadan until now the whole of Iran is in revolt. The whole of the nation has risen up against this man who claims that everyone is in agreement with him, that the nation wants him, that the people support him. But if one day the bayonets of America were to be removed, then the courtiers themselves would skin this man alive. Carter should put this to the test one day, were he to leave this weak nation alone, leave these people alone, then he would soon see what would happen. These organisations that we hear about are nothing more than a ploy to deceive the people. They are not bothered about security, so why do they send a representative of the Security Council here? It is just a show to beguile the people.
They want to deceive the people, just as the Communists do......communism is the opiate of the people, it cannot solve their problems. Is it possible that someone who himself is not a human being would serve mankind? Would an unjust armed person ever work for the sake of the oppressed? I know that this is not possible. During World War Two, when the heads of the Allied governments were to meet in Tehran, the American and British leaders arrived in a conventional manner and went to their embassies, but it was said, and God knows that this is true, that Stalin, who at the time was the Russian leader - the same Stalin whose pictures we still see here and there although in recent years his reputation has been sullied somewhat - who was supposed to be equal with everyone else and whom everyone called brother, brought his own milch cow along on the plane so he would not have to drink the milk from Iranian cows! They were both injudicious, armed creatures, but God knows he was worse than his cow!
I myself witnessed the state of his troops in Iran. While he entered Iran with his cow, his troops, who controlled the Khurasan region - for at that time Iran was divided into a few regions of control and that particular region was in the hands of the Russians - were begging along the roadside. I myself saw this, we were travelling by bus to Mashhad to make a pilgrimage and on the road to Mashhad just outside Shahrud, Russian soldiers were begging in front of cars; it made them so happy if someone gave them just one cigarette that they went away whistling! Communism is a means of beguiling the people, nothing else. Is it possible for someone who does not believe in the unseen to think about the people and about remedying their affairs. No, it is a deceit.
On certain occasions, these armed people deliver blows, and on others, they deliver both the blows and the propaganda. The propaganda machinery is in their hands. Now you see that in addition to beating up the people and killing them, in addition to all these crimes, they propagate that all the blame for these acts lies on the shoulders of the people, that only six people died in this incident and a few of them, including a thirteen-year-old child, were trampled to death by the people, and that the regime itself had committed no crime! On the one hand they create such propaganda and on the other they commit mass murder.
All these heinous acts stem from the unjust being armed; it is the just who should be armed. The God of Islam is just, the Prophet of Islam was just and free from sin, the Imams of Islam were just and free from sin. The judges of Islam should be just, its fuqaha should be just, the person who witnesses a divorce should be just, Islam's prayer leaders should be just, its Friday prayer leaders should be just, its leaders should be just, its provincial governors, those who were sent to this place and that in the early days of Islam and who also acted as the prayer leaders, had to be just. They are only valid when they are just. If there is no justice and if those who exercise authority are not righteous, then such malicious acts as those we are now witnessing are perpetrated.
The arms are in the hands of the unworthy, the unjust. On the one hand they massacre the people, and on the other they shout about "social justice". On the one hand they force the women to remove their veils and on the other they shout about the "freedom of women!" It's ridiculous. This kind of freedom is ludicrous, it can't be called freedom. On the one hand they carry out "land reforms", and on the other they create a market for America! This has been the result of the land reforms. At one time just one of our country's provinces met the needs of the whole of the country, and what remained was exported. But now whatever you want has to come from abroad! And the regime is proud of this and boasts: "We import our wheat from abroad, we import our barley, our oranges, our eggs from abroad!" This should be lamented. The regime has no shame. This is what its land reforms entailed - all this destruction. Yet the Shah and his regime claim that all the `ulama agree with the reforms and the White Revolution. If you can find just one `alim anywhere in Iran who is in agreement with your bloody revolution, then you have the right to say all the `ulama are in agreement with you. Try to find one prayer leader from amongst the prayer leaders of Tehran who is in agreement with you and will say that he concurs with you, aside from those whose turbans you yourselves have placed on their heads, whom you yourselves have created, and who dance to whatever tune you play, for they are not true religious scholars, but of course one or two of them can be found everywhere in the country. Try to find one from amongst the provincial prayer leaders who will say he is in agreement with you. Try to find a mullah in Qum who will say he is in agreement with you. The Shah and his regime have no shame. They carry out all kinds of heinous acts, all kinds of wrongdoings and then in order to deceive the people they say: "All the `ulama are in agreement with us, only one who is not from this country disagrees with us."
The arms are in the hands of the unjust and the ignoble. Consider all weapons, the pen itself is a kind of weapon, which must be in the hands of the just and worthy people, for when it is in the hands of the depraved, corruption and scandalous deeds will increase. At the present time, and in some societies and certain aspects, the pen is in the hands of the depraved who gloss over whatever the head of these profligates does and who palliate his crimes by means of their literary eloquence. This is a crime which is perpetrated against this nation by dint of the pen. These unworthy writers sit at home with this weapon in hand and with their eloquent style they whitewash the corruption, the crimes and the massacres and present everything to the contrary, they turn everything round. So the pen too should be in the hands of the just people.
Culture is the source of a nation's happiness or misfortune. If the culture is not sound then the youth who are trained in this unsound culture will, in the future, create corruption. The imperialist culture produces imperialist youth for the country. A culture which is created by the designs of others - and it is the foreigners who lay their plans for us then hand them over to our society in the form of culture - is an imperialist and parasitic culture. Such a culture is a weapon more lethal than anything else, it is even worse than the arms of these ruffians, for their weapons eventually fall to pieces, as they have done now. But when the culture is corrupt, our youth, who form the foundations of our society, are lost to us, they are trained to become parasites, to become infatuated with the West. They are trained in this way from the very first day that they enter school and this continues into higher education. If the culture is a correct culture, then our youths will be trained correctly. If the culture is a culture of truth, a divine culture, a culture which is of use to the nation, which is advantageous for the Muslims, then it does not produce such people as those who now exercise authority over us. But our culture is an imperialist culture, our culture does not lie in the hands of suitable people, the just do not administer it.
If our universities were correct, independent universities and those who taught there were just and were free to do as they saw fit and what was right to do, then our country would not have got into the state it is in today nor would it reach a potentially worse stage tomorrow, God forbid. Some people have seized control of our universities who are themselves parasites, who are themselves supporters of the imperialists and possess a servile attitude. All this is because of one person, for if a lecturer or a professor at the university wishes to speak out, he is not able to, because the security organisation, acting on the orders of "His Imperial Majesty" does not allow him to do so. If our universities were proper universities then when the students there try to speak a word of truth, the police would not suppress them so. The things they do to them! They beat the girls, they beat the boys, they beat our youth and imprison them. This is because our universities are not independent. We don't have universities. Universities which are controlled by one person cannot be called universities. The learning environment should be a free environment.
If this Parliament were a proper, just Parliament, and were a tool in the hands of the just, would the members have allowed such laws as have passed already through Parliament to have been ratified? Would they have allowed the Capitulation Bill granting immunity to the American military advisers, a bill which caused great humiliation for Iran, to have been ratified? We don't have a Parliament. The members of Parliament are appointed, they are just a group of agents, functionaries of the security organisation who call themselves a "Parliament." All of them are agents. If they were independent and if they had been selected by the people, if the Parliament were a national Parliament, then they would never let the regime buy all these arms as it does, they would never give away our oil and buy weaponry in return - weaponry which we ourselves don't know how to operate. This weaponry baffles us so they have to bring in American advisers and experts to show us what to do with it. But these experts won't show us how to operate it. They are such animals, they will not be satisfied with this. They come here and are paid such exorbitant wages. We do not know how much they are paid every month, and cannot even begin to imagine, we only know that there are very many of them in the country. Their number, including their relatives, probably runs into the hundreds or thousands. It used to be said that there were sixty thousand of them in Iran getting huge salaries from this nation. The regime takes the money from the pockets of this poor, wretched nation and pours it into the pockets of these wealthy people. And even then they don't train our military properly! They want our armed forces to remain in their present state, so that they can do whatever they want with them. If we had an independent army instead of a parasitic one, it would not allow these advisers to come into the country and give the orders; the army officers would not simply be puppets in their hands. But our army is not a true army. All the armed forces are controlled by one man, one corrupt man who has corrupted everything. As it is said, one bad apple can spoil the whole barrel.
The corruption in Iran stems from him, but no one can say this because of the suppression which exists. Instead they keep saying the agents, the agents! Who gives these agents the order to kill the people? Who gives them the order to attack the Hujjatiya Madrasa and kill the religious students there? Who gives them the orders to position their machine-guns at the crossroads and open fire on the people? Can anybody, other than this vile man, order such things? All the corruption stems from him. Does the Parliament have the right to say a word without the permission of this vile man? Does the army have the right to say anything without his permission? Do our judges have freedom? Do we have an independent judicial system? Our judges have the weapon of judgement in their hands, but they do not have the justice. They say they cannot dispense justice, so we have to ask them then why did you become a judge? You made a mistake in becoming a judge so leave this profession. Now everywhere in our country the weapons are in the hands of the unjust and all this corruption goes back to the court and to that man. He should be removed.
I don't know why this army is asleep. Why do they allow themselves to be humiliated so? Only a few days after that abominable Carter left, the regime carried out such actions. And this is only the beginning, if the people let him, the Shah will carry on, unless he is made aware of the consequences of his actions. The people are creating a clamour which is being heard across the world, the radios everywhere are speaking about it. The regime's own radio can say whatever it likes, the people will no longer be deceived by their words. The nation has awakened. Sir, the people have awakened, if they had not then the bazaars would not have closed down as they have done. It has been said and officially confirmed by the regime, that Tehran bazaar closed down on Thursday in a show of protest. The closure of Tehran's bazaar is not a common practice, it is a very uncommon event, no one can just close down the bazaar. It has been achieved because of the feelings and vigilance of the people. This gentleman who used to say "all concur with me" should look around him, the bazaars in Tehran, Ahwaz, Isfahan and Shiraz are actively protesting against him, and this has become our way of life now.
I hope that all classes, whether the `ulama and mujtahids, the religious students or the merchants of the bazaar, the traders, army personnel or civil servants, who are sorely grieved by this wicked man will unite together and that our political groups will not work alone but they will co-operate with others just as in this most recent incident when this expression of antipathy was supported not only by some political groups, but the `ulama, the merchants of the bazaar, students...all classes came together. Telegrams were even sent by foreigners, from America and Europe, expressing their antipathy towards the regime and telling us that three hundred people were killed in this recent event.
I hope that all the fronts will join hands together. If the nation unites in all aspects then these unjust people will be disarmed and the horns of this bull will be broken. They should not disagree with one another or purposely seek reasons for dissent. They should not start fighting one another over insignificant and childish matters. Differences are created by those who want to keep the people busy, and it is they who benefit from disunion amongst the people. The people should wake up to these things and, God willing, they have already done so. They should unite together, all of them. They should join hands together and, God willing, by the power and strength of God and through your unity, the root of all this corruption will soon be eradicated.
I ask for everyone's well-being from God the Most High. I express my thanks to all classes of people for standing by the `ulama of Islam. I thank all fronts, especially the great `ulama and the noble merchants of the bazaar. I thank them all and call upon them to pray for Islam, to strengthen and unify their fronts, and to come together for one aim which should be the severance of the hands of the oppressors and foreigners so that this country may prosper. The hands of the foreigners should be foreshortened, the resources which exist in our country should be used for the weak and for the good of the country, and all the country's affairs should be rectified and put in order. This will not happen unless this regime is disarmed, and I hope, God willing, that it will be.
And peace be upon you and also God's mercy.
1- Reference to the killings of January 9 (Dey 19) which took place following the printing of the defamatory article entitled: "The Red and Black Reaction in Iran" which appeared in the Ittila`at newspaper of January 7, 1978 (Dey 17, 1356 AHS). The said article which openly insulted both Imam Khomeini and the other maraji`, carried the fictitious author's name "Ahmad Rashidi Mutlaq"; and after its publication, the people were so enraged that they immediately collected all of the newspapers in question, set them ablaze, and then began to shout out anti-Shah slogans in the streets. Two days later, on January 9, the theological teaching centres closed down and the general public, including those from the bazaar, headed for the homes of the maraji` to demonstrate their support for the clergy. On their way however, they were suddenly attacked by armed troops who immediately opened fire on them. 2- The Hoz-i Sultan (Qum Lake) is situated on the lowest stretches of the plain which lies between the cities of Tehran, Qum and Saveh; and it is a well-known fact that the corpses of the victims of Khurdad 15 were deposited into this lake by government agents. 3- Those who came to claim the corpses of either the people killed during the demonstration or those who had been executed following a predetermined trial, were asked by the Shah's agents to make a payment which would cover what they termed "bullet costs". 4- Avicenna. 5- World War One, which broke out in 1914 and came to an end in 1918, was initially sparked off by an Austrian attack against Serbia, other countries, including the Soviet Union, Germany, France, Belgium, Britain, Japan, America, Finland, Bulgaria, Italy and Hungary also later becoming involved in the battle. This war left almost 13,500,000 people dead and numerous cities razed to the ground. 6- World War Two broke out in 1939 with a German attack on Poland; and in support of the latter, the French and British governments subsequently declared war on Germany. Italy, Somalia, India, Libya, Yugoslavia, Greece, the Soviet Union, Iran, America, Japan, Algeria, Morocco, Rumania and several other countries were all involved in this war. On August 6, 1945 (Murdad 15, 1324 AHS), America dropped the first atomic bomb on the Japanese city of Hiroshima, and this, together with a second attack on Nagasaki three days later, led directly to Japan's surrender and to the end of the Second World War - a war which claimed the lives of 39,000,000 people. 7- Vietnam was occupied by the French in 1880, but in 1940, following the defeat of France in Europe, the reins of the government in this country were seized by the Japanese. In 1945, the year of Japan's surrender to the Allies, France yet again set its sights on Vietnam but this time it experienced a defeat at the hands of the latter. In 1954, as a result of the agreements concluded at the Geneva Conference, the temporary partition of Vietnam into two areas of North Vietnam and South Vietnam came about. An American-backed government was installed in South Vietnam which, in its attempts to consolidate the regime's position, came down hard on all dissidents who were thus sent to labour camps. Between the years 1956 and 1960, as much as one billion dollars was given by America to the South Vietnamese government by way of military and economic aid, in addition to military equipment which was also dispatched by the U.S. to support the regime there. In 1960 a guerrilla campaign was launched against the Vietnamese regime by South Vietnamese guerrilla forces known as the "Vietcong". Thousands of Vietcong members were either arrested or killed by both government and American forces throughout the following four years, until in 1964, America officially waged war with both North Vietnam and the Vietcong of South Vietnam. During the period which stretched from 1962 until 1968, more than 400,000 Vietcong members and North Vietnamese combatants were killed in war and conflict. From February 1965 until January 1968 alone, 2,582,000 bombs were dropped on the defenceless people of this country during 107,700 air raids which were carried out by U.S. aircraft on North Vietnam; and in 1969, hundreds of the inhabitants of Mylai, a small village situated in South Vietnam, were killed in a general massacre which was carried out by American troops there. On August 10, 1969, approximately 500,000 young people from North Vietnam were reported to have been killed in the war. From 1971 until 1973 the Vietcong managed to fell the South Vietnamese regime with several severe blows; and eventually in 1975, a defeated America was forced to withdraw from Vietnam. This withdrawal was concurrent with an all-out attack on South Vietnam which was staged by both the Vietcong and the North Vietnamese forces, and which resulted in the collapse of the South Vietnamese regime, the liberation of South Vietnam, and the latter's unification with North Vietnam. According to Western sources, the killing of each Vietcong member cost America as much as 350,000 dollars, let alone the moral, social and psychological damages inflicted upon the American nation - damages which were in fact far greater than any economic losses it sustained. 8- Riza Khan Mirpanj, who held military command over a cossack unit in Qazvin, occupied Tehran in 1920 (1299 AHS) in accordance with a plan devised by the British government, and by carrying out a coup d'etat he forced Ahmad Shah to appoint Sayyid Ziya`uddin Tabatabai as the Prime Minister. Riza Khan gradually consolidated his position and took steps to establish a unified national army. In 1923, Ahmad Shah appointed Riza Khan to act as Ministerial Chairman after which he then left Iran to visit Europe. Eventually, in 1925 (1304 AHS), parliamentary representatives were pressurised by Riza Khan into presenting a single article to the Majlis by virtue of which Ahmad Shah was ousted from the throne and Riza Khan became elected as monarch. This article was ratified by the Majlis in spite of opposition voiced by the clergy and certain crusaders such as Mudarris. 9- In 1920 (1299 AHS - the year of Riza Khan's coup d'etat), having received an education in Khomein, Imam Khomeini went to the theological centre of Arak where he continued his studies. 10- On November 5 1941 (Aban 14, 1320 AHS), two months after Riza Khan had fled Iran, British Radio, in one of its political commentaries, openly spoke of Britain's tendentious friendship with Iran and of having brought Riza Khan to power. In this regard it stated: "British political policy in Iran is one based upon friendship : both a friendship with an underlying purpose and a friendship without an underlying purpose. As for the friendship which has no underlying purpose, this is enjoyed by the learned men only, for other than this the friendship held between the British government and Iran or any other country for that matter is not and cannot be void of personal motives . . . Once we saw how suspicious the Iranian nation was towards the treaty concluded in 1919, believing it to be based upon ulterior motives, we annulled the treaty and instead gave the Iranian government help and encouragement to establish order in its own country. The underlying reason why we gave help and encouragement to Riza Khan was that . . . our opponents used to accuse us of controlling Riza Shah's actions and claim that whatever he did was in compliance with our instructions. But this was not in fact the case! When we realised however that Germany's evil designs and the Shah's negligence were endangering our interests, then we were forced to reluctantly take this course of action (i.e. the sending of Riza Khan into exile)". Refer also to Tarikh-i Siyasi-yi Mu`asir-i Iran, Vol.1, pp.127 & 128. 11- When Riza Khan returned to Iran having visited Turkey and talking with Ataturk, he began to speak of modernisation. Ataturk had taught him that the greatest barrier preventing the Westernisation of a nation was the `ulama and the clergy, and that only by foreshortening the arms of the latter was he himself able to persuade the men to wear a neck- or bow-tie and a hat and to prohibit the women from wearing the Islamic covering! Hence, in following Ataturk's example, and after consulting with Britain, Riza Khan also embarked upon a new programme of "reforms". In a personally-issued writ, Riza Khan banned the donning of religious dress for all clergymen save a few who had been made an exception. Other steps taken by him in bringing about uniformity of social dress included the compulsory wearing of the Pahlavi hat (semi-brimmed), and later the Chapeau hat (full-brimmed), frock-coat and jacket. Regulations concerning the compulsory wearing of a hat, and the colour and type of shoes and clothing which were to be worn, were conveyed via the governers of the various provinces in the form of official notices which were handed down to the latter from the Ministry of the Interior! But even this did not satisfy Riza Khan, who then began to consider further measures which could be taken to crush Islam and the Muslims in Iran. However, having been discharged from this mission, he did not actually get the chance to implement these measures but instead left his son to carry out the rest of his proposed plans. 12- In 1935 (1314 AHS), Riza Khan forced the people of Iran to abandon the national and traditional form of dress for a foreign one. The writ which was issued in this regard was called the "Uniformity of Appearance Writ" and it applied to everyone including even the clergy. The people, who were truly angered by these measures, turned to the clergy for guidance and the latter thus commanded them to rise up in opposition. In the struggle which ensued, Ayatullah Husayn Qummi was sent into exile in Iraq (the home of the holy shrines of some of the noblest figures of Islam); and Yunes Ardebili, Muhaqiq Khurasani and the latter's son were tried in court and sentenced to imprisonment, AyatullahKhurasani's son actually dying shortly after having been forcibly divested of his religious garb. Furthermore, about one hundred of the country's most distinguished clergymen and preachers were also arrested and imprisoned during the course of this protest.
13- On December 2, 1935 (Aban 11, 1314 AHS), Mahmud Jam who had been appointed by Riza Khan to form a Cabinet, was asked by the latter: "How can we get rid of this chadur (a full-length veil worn by women)? Ever since I went to Turkey and saw how the women there have discarded the black veil and the Islamic form of covering, I have come to despise any woman who wears the chadur. Indeed, the chadur is the enemy of progress and development. It has assumed the exact properties of a boil in that it must be lanced with great care". On January 7, 1936 (Dey 17, 1314 AHS), after having consulted with Jam, Riza Khan escorted his wife (Taj al-Moluk) and daughters (Shams and Ashraf) to a Teachers' Training College ceremony, the latter having discarded their Islamic covering; and so too, the wives of both ministers and certain figures of high national standing also attended this official function alongside their husbands, whilst lacking any form of Islamic covering. Once the occasion had drawn to a close, Riza Khan ordered Jam (the Prime Minister) to arrange for other such gatherings so that the women of Iran could get used to the new state of things in the country and could become accustomed to associating with men! Hence, from that time onwards, many such social functions were organised to this end, and government officials received strict orders to treat those women who appeared in public wearing Islamic dress with the utmost harshness. 14- The law which was established to bring about uniformity of social dress applied to everyone except those muftis who were Sunni and a limited number of clergymen who, prior to this law, hadobtained government permission to don the religious dress. Other than these exceptions, no one had the right to wear religious garb unless they possessed a certain certificate which was issued by the Ministry of Education. Subsequent to the announcement of this law, disciplinary officers and gendarmes would interrogate any clergyman on sight, and should the latter not possess the aforementioned certificate, then they would remove his turban from his head in full view of the public and summon him to the police station. Moreover, the officers at police headquarters would sometimes disregard the certificate in question and would take those wearing turbans into custody anyway and force them to shave off their beards. These measures became so strict that the clergy could rarely be seen in the streets, only venturing out from their homes after nightfall and only using those alleyways which were less crowded and busy; and following the quelling of the popular and clerical uprising in the Gauhar Shad Mosque in Mashhad, even more pressure was brought to bear by Riza Khan on those who belonged to society's clerical class.
15- Sunqor is situated 97 kilometres north-east of Bakhtaran and lies 58 kilometres away from the historical monuments of Bistun. 16- In 1934 (1313 AHS), Riza Shah's Minister of Education, `Ali Asghar Hikmat, was at a ceremony in Shiraz when, to the surprise of most of those present, a group of girls began to dance before the audience. As a consequence, those guests who had not expected to witness such a spectacle left the ceremony and since the public had also become aware of what had taken place, they arranged for aprotest demonstration to be held. Sayyid Hesameddin Fali, an influential cleric and `alim of Shiraz, voiced strong objection to the Iranian government concerning the behaviour witnessed at the ceremony, and he was then arrested and sent to prison. The news of events in Shiraz and the arrest of Sayyid Hesameddin reached the `ulama in the theological centres of Qum, Mashhad and Tabriz. In Tabriz two distinguished `ulama, their eminences Sayyid Abulhasan Angaji and Aqa Mirza Sadiq Aqa, remonstrated with the government and as a result were also arrested and banished, firstly to Kurdistan (Sanandaj) and several days later to Qum. After a while Ayatullah Angaji eventually returned to Tabriz, but Ayatullah Aqa Mirza Sadiq Aqa actually passed away whilst still in exile in Qum.
17- For further information concerning the revolt staged by the `ulama of Isfahan, Khurasan and Azerbayjan, refer to footnotes 36, 37 and 40 of Speech 25. 18- The Shah. 19- Imam sarcastically calls those people of Iran who had risen up to demand justice "an army of foreigners" in scoffing at the government's claims. 20- It is said that on Khurdad 15 and 16, 1342 (June 5 and 6, 1963), the Shah had given his military commanders the permission to "shoot as they saw fit", and he had stressed that soldiers were not to waste their bullets, nor to fire into the air, but instead, they were ordered to target the upper-part of the body when firing. Furthermore, it is also said that on Khurdad 15 the Shah actually flew above the city of Tehran in a helicopter from where he personally took it upon himself to command the operations in progress. In his memoirs (p.51), General Fardust writes: "On the morning of Khurdad 15, 1342 . . . (Pakravan) spoke with Muhammad Riza (Shah) over the telephone, and the latter gave orders for Oveissi to assume responsibility for the operation to exterminate and suppress the people who had risen up in revolt and for him to maintain direct and frequent contact with the Shah in this regard . . . At twelve noon on that same day, Oveissi telephoned me and said: `I have been put in a helpless situation! I don't even have one military company fully under my command; and should a group of demonstrators attack me or my company, then they will all be destroyed outright! . . .' I must add that up until midday of Khurdad 15, both Muhammad Riza, the Americans and the British, had perceived the demonstrations as a grandiose, well-thought-out plan to topple the Shah and thus they were extremely nervous about the whole affair. It is also interesting to note that at that time there was an American adviser who worked in Headquarters No. 3, as a member of SAVAK, and who was the most intelligent and pre-eminent person within America's advisory body there". 21- James Earl ("Jimmy") Carter was the thirty-ninth President of the United States. He won his way into the White House (1977) by advocating "the defence of human rights"! His diplomatic record tells of many ventures undertaken by him including his role in the establishment of political relations with China; his efforts towards the drawing up of the scandalous Camp David Agreement between Egypt and Israel; his role in concluding the Nuclear Arms Reduction Pact with the Soviet Union; his hardline stance in opposition to the Islamic Revolution; and his involvement in the failed military attack on Tabas. 22- In order to check the escalation of the Iranian nation's struggle, an escalation which in fact began in 1962 (1341 AHS), the Shah's regime intended to create an atmosphere of terror and to kill the people en masse; and hence, it was in accordance with this plan that the dreadful crime which took place on Khurdad 15 (June 5) was actually perpetrated by the regime. In a speech delivered on June 8, 1963 (Khurdad 18, 1342 AHS) in Hamadan, the Shah invents lies and makes false accusations in a bid to gain the people's support, whereby he explains: "When I spelt out the six tenets of our very own national revolution to the peasants and the people of Iran, I pointed out that there were two forces which would not remain silent: the Black Reaction and the Red Reaction. That which we witnessed in Tehran on Wednesday, Khurdad 15, was a manifestation of one of these two forces - the Black Reaction. On that day, the Black Reaction . . . set fire to the library in city Park as well as a sports arena, various vehicles of transport and bus-ticket kiosks. Members of this Black Reaction attacked buses carrying school girls and it assaulted defenceless women in the streets of Tehran . . . It argues that you peasants who have been given freedom must once more become bondsmen. The reason why the Black Reaction attacked the power station was to halt production in Iran."! 23- Reference to the tragedy which occurred on Dey 19 (January 9) which has been discussed earlier in the book. See footnote 1 of this speech (26). 24- In 1976 (1355 AHS) the Shah spent enormous sums of money to support the Republican Party candidate in the run-up to the American elections. However, the Democratic Party actually won the election and the newly-elected President, Jimmy Carter, entered the White House from where he announced: "We do not supply arms to just anybody irrespective of who they may be, nor do we offer our support to just anybody". The Shah, who could not maintain his rule even for one day without American support, repeatedly sent congratulatory messages to Carter and voiced his support for Carter's ideas and policies for fear of what might happen otherwise. But in spite of this, Carter paid no attention to the Shah until the time when, on the advice of Kissinger, America's Foreign Minister at that time, Farah (the Shah's wife) made a trip to America. Following a sixteen-day stay in Washington, during which Farah held talks with Carter, differences were settled, and the latter even extended an invitation to the Shah to visit the US. Subsequently, in the hope of gaining Carter's support, the Shah signed various agreements worth billions of dollars with America; and with the same end in mind, he also guaranteed a price freeze on oil in O.P.E.C. and granted large concessions to American companies. Eventually these "gestures" made by the Shah paid off whereby Carter consented to visit Iran and to declare his support for the Iranian monarch! 25- With regard to the "patriotism" shown by the Iranian people during the events of September, 1941, the Shah had said: "The Iranian people's patriotism was plain to see when I attended the Majlis to take the oath of sovereignty. On that day, the people carried their young sovereign on their shoulders both to and from the Majlis. This was the greatest reassurance that I have ever been given". Furthermore, with relation to events which occurred in 1953 (1332 AHS) concerning his return to Iran, the Shah said: "The people once again asked for their Shah, the affection and support they showed to me being so great that I again felt that I shouldered an added responsibility - a responsibility other than that stipulated in the Constitution and other than that of a constitutional monarch. I was made to feel that I am a monarch which the people had again asked for to determine the country's fate and to safeguard its interests". Concerning the "White Revolution" he said: "In order to unfold the secret which lies behind the revolution and the harmonic relationship which exists between the Shah and the people, one needs to examine the ancient history of Iran, its royal history, and the sense of attachment felt by the Iranian people towards the monarchy in this country"; and in another speech he claimed: "No matter which part of this country I visit, I receive a warm welcome from the people and I encounter the enthusiastic support of the nation. The people feel attached to me and this gives me a sense of pride". This was said however, at a time when the Shah was afraid to go amongst the people without protection from the most highly-trained security guards! During the last days of his reign, when the country of Iran resounded with the slogan "Death to the Shah", a correspondant for Der Spiegel asks Farah (the Shah's wife): "Did you expect to see such hatred from the people?", to which she replies: "Not at all; I am absolutely astonished". And when the Shah is asked by a correspondant what he felt about the situation, he says: "I feel a great sense of sorrow". See Bistopanj Sal Hakimiyat-i Amrica dar Iran, pp. 103-106; and Nutqha va Payamha-yi Shah, p. 3233. 26- On January 9, 1978 (Dey 19, 1356 AHS), the day of the tragedy in Qum, Kurt Waldheim, the then Secretary-General of the United Nations, visited Iran, supposedly to examine the situation there with regard to human rights. After attending several receptions and holding talks with the Shah, Farah and Ashraf (the Shah's wife and sister) however, Waldheim concluded his "investigation" and left Iran! See the press from January 9-20, 1978 (Dey 19-30, 1356 AHS). 27- Refer to footnote 6 of the present speech (26). 28- Whilst World War Two was still being fought, Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin, the leaders of America, Britain and the Soviet Union, gathered in Tehran to hold a conference. This conference lasted from September 2 until September 7, 1943, and once it had ended two declarations were issued. The first declaration announced the unanimous agreement reached by the three governments concerning the future strategy to be adopted in the war; and the other declaration announced the promise of economic aid to Iran both during and after the war. At the time, northern Iran was under Soviet occupation, southern Iran was under British control, and Iran's communication routes were controlled by American forces. 29- Joseph Vissarionovich (1879-1953), known as Stalin (the Iron Man), became the leader of the Soviet union following Lenin. 30- The Shah constantly played with the words "justice" and "social justice" as can be seen in the following example: "Despite the urgency of military matters and the pressing nature of issues relating to the war, I began to discuss the need to establish social justice in my country . . . How can one accept a situation where some become ill from overeating whilst others fall into such a sorry state due to a lack of food . . . I have not relaxed my efforts for even one moment in achieving my aim, that being, the establishment of social justice in my country. Each and every one of the proposals that I have made concerning the establishment of social justice, has, thanks be to God, been put into operation"! The kind of justice which had been put into operation however, was one whereby desperate poverty had forced a certain section of the population to send their children to work in carpet-weaving factories where they earned less than 15 rials per day for their efforts; or again one where an entire family had to survive from one year to the next on the produce obtained from a single walnut tree or from a goat. Indeed, justice had been put into operation to such an extent that those in both the north and the south and in the east and west of Iran, were suffering from poverty and destitution, from pain and sickness. There was neither water nor any signs of development; neither electricity nor health care. Meanwhile however, the Shah and his loyal followers owned 50% of the shares in private banks! On one occasion alone (according to a petition made by the government of the Islamic Republic), Muhammad Riza and his wife stole 35 billion dollars of the people's money! Iran's foreign trade (according to statements made by the provisional government's Trade Minister) more or less lay in the hands of only 60 people; major company shares were held by a mere 50 families; and tens or perhaps hundreds of cheques, each worth so many millions of dollars, were cashed daily for members of the royal family and for the shah's courtiers and attendants, from a joint account numbered: 214895-20 (the account number of the Pahlavi Foundation) in a Swiss bank in Geneva! Refer to Nutqha va Payamha-yi Shah, pp. 2793-2966; Raz-i Biliyun Dular, p. 7; Dowlat va Hukumat dar Iran, pp. 251, 266 and 281. 31- The Kayhan newspaper of June 5, 1963 (Khurdad 15, 1342 AHS) read: "Only two members of the `ulama of Qum and Mashhad have voiced opposition, the rest of the `ulama are in complete agreement with the government" - the two members in fact having been Imam Khomeini and Ayatullah Hasan Qummi. 32- The Capitulation Bill. Refer to both the introduction and footnote 1 of Speech 16. 33- The bilateral agreement signed in 1959 (1338 AHS) between Iran and the U.S. left Iran lying firmly in America's clutches. Following this agreement, America gained a free hand to interfere in all of Iran's affairs and an influx of foreign specialists flooded into the country. Moreover, the country's system of defence, the organisation of its armed forces, and in short, all of the army's administrative and executive affairs were supervised by American military advisers. In addition, the army's supreme commanders were in a subordinate position to that of the American advisers; and the opportunity for America to make inroads into the country became so great that in 1976 and '77 (1355 and 1356 AHS) weapons purchased by Iran from America amounted to 12 billion dollars compared to a former figure of 4 billion dollars! Refer to: Bistopanj Sal Hakimiyat-i Amrica dar Iran, p. 63. 34- Prior to the Islamic Revolution approximately 30,000 American military advisers were working in Iran and the U.S. Senate had announced in a report that by the year 1980, there would be 50-60,000 American residents there. Those foreign residents who already resided in Iran lived in modern appartments and grand, luxurious villas in the north of Tehran, and the salaries and fringe benefits they received were many times greater than those received by their Iranian counterparts, amounting to more than 1,000,000 rials per month. The consumer items they required were supplied to them via stores which were exclusively for their use. In Tehran there was a large American school, a hospital, a psychiatric clinic and a general support centre in addition to special clubs for American citizens only. One of Iran's radio stations and at certain times one of its television channels were given over to the broadcasting of certain programmes in English for foreigners and especially for Americans. America's overwhelming presence in Iran can be explained not only by military issues and Iran's employment of American arms and equipment in her army, but also by the development of mutual ties between the CIA and SAVAK; the installation of surveillance equipment to procure Russian intelligence in various places throughout Iran; and the industrial and commercial activities undertaken by American companies and individuals there. See Dowlat va Hukumat dar Iran, p.231; Mission to Iran, pp.15-42; E'terafat-i Shah, p.78; Siyohaft Ruz Pas Az Siyohaft Sal, p.110. 35- Refrence to the event which occured in Qum on dey 19, 1357 (January 9, 1978), when agents of the regime attacked the religious students and the people killing and wounding many of them. 36- On January 17, 1978 (Dey 27, 1356 AHS), merchants and tradesmen of the bazaar in Tehran issued a statement in which they declared Thursday, January 19, 1978 to be a day of a general shutdown and called on all of those in the bazaar to refrain from opening up their shops and stalls for business on this day. This statement was made in protest to and condemnation of the regime's killing of defenceless people, and in support of the popular and clerical uprising in Qum; and the proposed day for a general shutdown coincided both with the final day of a week-long period of mourning and protest by the clergy and with the day when memorial ceremonies were to be held for the martyrs of Qum. Refer to: Nihzat-i Ruhaniyun-i Iran, Vol. 7, p. 38. 37- The statement made by the Iranian Labourers' Party on January 18, 1978 (Dey 28, 1356 AHS), serves as an example of the revulsion which was expressed by certain political parties against the regime's activities. This statement, which was addressed to the country's Attorney-General, accused the government's executive body of felony and stressed the party's support for the people of Iran and the faith it had both in the Shi`i maraji` and the religious and clerical orders in Iran. Another such example was the statement issued on January 30, 1978 (Bahman 10, 1356 AHS) by Ittihad-i Niruha-yi Jibhe-yi Melli-yi Iran, which again underlined this party's support for the various popular fronts and endorsed the action taken by those in the bazaar. This statement also spoke of the shutdown proposed for Thursday, January 19, 1978 (Dey 29, 1356 AHS) which was to be observed by the merchants and tradesmen in the bazaar of Tehran - a shutdown which, it stated, was to be a demonstration of the disgust felt towards the killing of a defenceless group of people in Qum, and was to be a show of support for the country's progressive clergy. In addition to the aforementioned parties, other groups also issued statements which expressed support for the proposed shutdown - groups such as the `ulama and preachers of Tehran and its suburbs; the natives of Shiraz in the bazaar of Tehran; the merchants and tradesmen who were natives of Isfahan but who resided in the country's capital; the natives of Azerbayjan in the bazaar of Tehran; the lecturers and scholars from the theological centre of Qum; and the Muslim Movement both at home and abroad. Refer to: Nihzat-i Ruhaniyun-i Iran, Vol. 7, p. 55 onwards; and Do Sal-i Akhar, the section concerning Dey and Bahman, 1356 AHS.
