Speech [Introduction of three basic principles of the Revolution]

I seek refuge in God from the accursed Satan

In the Name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful

We proposed three principles «1» and, now, we want to examine which one of these is disagreeable to those who may oppose them.

One principle points to the fact that the nation of Iran, as confirmed by their demonstrations and slogans during all this time, does not want the Pahlavi dynasty rule. This, in itself, was a referendum in which people nation-wide voted; with their cries they voted that they do not want the Pahlavi dynasty.

If anybody opposes us in this regard and openly expresses before the Iranian nation that they want the Pahlavi dynasty to remain as it was before, he should come forward and declare once and for all that he attests to the reality of what the Shah has done, and that what he has done is good! He should admit that the Shah gave our oil to America in exchange for which he has purchased some quantities of scrap metal (arms) which are useless to us; that he has kept our education in a state of backwardness, massacred all these youths, ordered their imprisonment, caused all these sufferings and suppressions; he must state that all these, all these acts perpetrated by the regime, are good. If anyone says these things, it will also be good if he announces them publicly and affixes his signature to his statement stating" I am the person who attests to the propriety of his deeds." But I do not think that such a person can be found anywhere in Iran to attest to such.

Or, they can deny these and say he has not done such things and that somebody else did them. Because there are some individuals claiming that" His Imperial Majesty" was unaware of such matters! That every single event that has transpired in this country, whatever oppression, or treason, has been committed has been committed by somebody else and the Shah never had any knowledge of it whatsoever! Every Iranian citizen knew about these things except the Shah! Wasn't the Shah one among the citizenry? Wasn't he one among the people? He who always says in all his commands and decrees that everything in this country passes through his hands. Others also confirm the fact that everything is implemented through him. Regarding what happened at (Qum's) Faydiyyah Theology School and how his agents attacked it. When we asked anyone, they all answered that it was done on His Majesty's order. They (the Shah's agents) said they had no other choice. On that very day, we wrote in one of the communiques «2» that whoever we asked they all pointed to His Imperial Majesty as having ordered it. His Majesty had ordered soldiers to barge into the Faydiyyah Theology School and turn it upside down. What they said was true. No one could have ever consented to such acts (except the Shah). No one could order such without his knowledge, and the Shah, who is at the helm of the system ruling over Iran- which he himself admits- says that in this system neither the police chief, nor the general of the army, can order the murder of an individual, the looting of a place or the massacre of one whole area. Nobody else can ever decree such. All these exploits are executed through his orders or consent; the final say is always his!

Can we ever say that he did not have any knowledge of all the bills drafted, ratified and passed in Parliament? Has he been unconscious all throughout his rule?! If one is conscious and aware and is the king of the country whom everybody knows controls and dictates all these tyrannical acts, should these advocates of his and of America exonerate him from guilt? Was he ignorant of all these evil deeds? Should the guilt of a king who delivered that infamous speech before a great multitude in Qum and vilified the clergy of Islam and people of all walks of life be passed on to somebody else? Did he not have any knowledge of what he did or said? Was the king, who defamed the clergy on the radio calling them names, branding them reactionaries, and ordering the people to oppose these `impure beasts, ' as he put it, not aware of what offence he had committed? Had anybody else committed it? Was the Shah not aware and had somebody else dictated it to him and he read the text without understanding, just like a child who had been given a note to read without understanding its contents! Was the Shah like a child who did not understand the context of what he read (on the radio).

And the issue of what they called the" Land Reform" Program and the circumstances that entailed it, or even the campaign drive that he himself called" the Revolution of the Shah and the People" or the" White Revolution." He named it" the Revolution of the Shah and the People" but it was neither his revolution nor the people's, because neither knew anything about it! Was the Shah unaware of this matter? What he was referring to as the" Revolution of the Shah and the People" was but a piece of paper on which there was something written that he had to read. And he was so sense bereft that he did not understand that the phrase" The Revolution of the Shah and the People" meant he had a role in it! He read it but did not comprehend what was written on it! According to the logic of the man who claims that the Shah is innocent, he was ignorant of all the affairs (in the country).

Well, nobody can believe this. Now, assuming that someone says so, can we believe it? The Shah, himself, says that everything should be carried out as he wills and that" it is me who carries out all affairs," and who until recently counted on nobody else, no one, not a minister nor a (Parliament) representative- nobody had the right to say anything. Whatever he said was law and no one could utter a word! So, we cannot say that all these things have all been good and that the Shah who has done these has done something good.

We cannot say that these issues were wrong but that he was unaware of such or that others had perpetrated them and then later put the blame on him! Now, they have arrested a group of his cronies who were his accomplices in the crimes he committed. I do not know how they arrested them. Is it really true or are they just playing a trick on the people? Of course their friendship remains; we do not really know whether they have arrested them or not, perhaps they are just tentatively hiding them in a secret place somewhere, perhaps they have made them a comfortable hideout somewhere, we do not know. Assuming that he has betrayed their friendship and has really arrested his accomplices- of course, they purposefully want it this way- he wants such measures to be carried out to find credibility among the people, to show them that because he has now understood that his cronies committed treason, he is arresting them! It now becomes obvious that they are traitors, and because of this he now arrests his own minister «3» who has served him for twelve or fourteen years and who was his own accomplice in committing all these crimes, and now that the people have risen and have created this commotion, he suddenly realizes that what his officials had done was wrong! They have now arrested them so that the people will think that" His Majesty" really means to reform! In the same way that he contrived the" Land Reform Program" and the" White Revolution", he now wants to stage a revolution, solve the problems and arrest the incumbent ministers, this and that minister, and so on and so forth! What else can the people say?! No one can ever believe that such things took place without his knowledge.

Well, someone may also say that what had been done was wrong and he was the one who did it, but now he has repented. He has repented before the people and his repentance is acceptable to the people and we must accept the repentance of anyone who has done something wrong. Another solution is to say that because the Shah has repented for the wrongdoings he has committed, we should let him reign as king but not rule, and because he has repented everything he has committed will be a thing of the past! And now, that he has repented, he should be pardoned! Well as far as repentances go, assuming that he has repented, one point has to be considered! God will not accept it unless he gives back what rightfully belongs to the people. If one kills another and then repents, this repentance is not acceptable unless the victim is compensated. Only then will his repentance be acceptable to God. They (the Shah's cronies) think that because he is the first person of the country, God will consider his case a special one, even though he has not expiated his sins and crimes. They think that because this man is the first person in the country, God will overlook the fact that he has committed numerous crimes, absconded with the people's property, wasted many lives, ordered the commission of wrongdoings, and committed so many acts of treason and crimes. Will God ever condone his crimes of these past twenty odd years simply because he is the king?! Obviously, as they believe, God discriminates between a king and other people! His allies believe that because he is the Shah, he can repent at will! From their point of view people who have lost their youths can just disappear too as they are nobody before the Shah and such matters should not even be brought up before him! How could we say his repentance is accepted if the conditions for his repentance have not been met? If anyone runs off with the people's money and later claims to have repented, he should return their money before his repentance is accepted. Otherwise, the repentance of one who does not attempt to amend one's wrongdoings is just like the wolf's repentance. Now, if the Shah has really repented, let him come forward and disclose his foreign bank accounts and return to the nation the assets held therein. This is one way to compensate the material loss inflicted on the people. We will deal with the killings later on. First, let us take up the material compensation. He has squandered so much of the people's wealth. He has given oil to the foreigners in exchange for something which is useless to the people and is actually harmful to their interests. Let him atone for all such acts of his first and announce that he wants to compensate for them.

It is said that he has announced his wish to make amends and all his family members too will be investigated to determine whether they have committed illegal acts and if proven so, they will be prosecuted. He still doubts whether his family has committed any misdemeanor or not! Obviously, even an issue such as this is unclear to him and he is not aware of it! It is just now that he wants to determine whether they (Pahlavi family) have trampled upon the rights of anyone or have committed any crime. If they are guilty, he is now saying that they have repented. He faces the nation and admits:" Well, I've committed certain" mistakes" and I promise not to do so anymore. I now feel duty bound not to commit any more wrongdoings. I guarantee this." He keeps on repeating his plea. Now, the people, the whole nation, are opposing him. They say:" Well, you have to compensate for what you have done. When you have done so, then you can say that you can guarantee." The issue is a question of legal rights. It is not as if the issue is one between him and God. God may forgive him for his offences. But we are not God's public lawyers! God will not accept his repentance before the legal issues (arising from his misdeeds) are resolved. You are responsible for the people's rights, for the rights of the nation. You have wasted the wealth of this nation; for decades you have so despicably tortured our youth in prison and ordered such tortures to be carried out on them. You should first compensate for these acts then you may ask for God's forgiveness. You have not atoned for your sins and you are already asking for forgiveness! How could we believe in our right mind that you are repentant?! Do you think the nation has not known you well enough? When you began your rule, you gave all these assurances which by law you were duty bound to and now you, in your own words, are admitting you committed these mistakes? Are you not going to make mistakes again? Or, is it that you are saying so to make the people negligent you so you can resume committing the same misdeeds that you call mistakes?!

Now, the one who supports him and rejects our first principle which calls for the Shah and this dynasty to relinquish power should state:" No, everything he has done is good and you do not understand. People do not understand that suppression is something good! It is a good thing to suppress people and the Shah has committed many good acts. All suppressive measures and similar acts are also good!" Such supporters of the Shah may also come up with:" No, the Shah has not committed any blunders, or, he has not been aware of the misdeeds, or, he has repented"! Now, if all roads are closed he had better not be there (on the throne) anymore.

Another solution (proposed by his advocates) is that:" Well, let him make an exit and allow his Crown Prince and respectable wife to step forward and set up a Regency Council to administer the affairs. The Crown Prince and the Queen have not done any wrongdoing! They are good and righteous." But the Iranian nation cannot accept this. A nation which has suffered so much under this man and his father and has witnessed so many treacheries regards this son (Crown Prince) to be a chip off the old block, as the Shah himself was a true replica of his father (Rida Shah)! This was indeed a grave mistake of our nation to allow this son (Muhammad Rida) to rule after the rule of such a father! And it was quite easy for the nation at that time to tell the Allied Forces (which forced Rida Shah into exile), and stand firm on their demand that" We do not want him (to be the king)." It was so easy at that time to bar his way to the throne by reasoning out that he was the son of such a father. I have heard that he (the Shah) had said:" My father is keeping the prisoners in vain; they just incur extra expenses. He should kill them all and let them perish!" It is said that he had made such statements that rather than throw money away on prisoners they should all be killed! It is such a grave matter the possibility of which should be considered by the nation. Man should act very cautiously if he considers an important matter probable. If you consider the probability of an animal, a beast, attacking you and killing you once you leave this room, you will never leave this room. Consider it as a probability. But, of course, we do not view such a thing as possible. I believe in the possibility that if a wild, man-eating beast lurked outside this room, you would act prudently and not go out. Now, we consider the probability that this family is savage and will destroy this nation as they have demonstrated so far and will do the same in the future; furthermore, they are lackeys of foreign powers. But the issue is real and not a mere probability though we are now talking of a possibility. For a fact, he is a tool, as his father had been in the hands of foreigners. Now, they (foreign powers) intend to use his son and manipulate him for their own ends. And how can the nation accept that they stay in power and lord over the nation after all the treacheries they have committed. As such, I do not believe anyone can refute our first principle which says that this (monarchical) base should be destroyed.

Our second principle holds that the very concept of" monarchy" is baseless. The monarchical regime is an old reactionary one. It was baseless right at its inception. When we speak of reactionarism, we refer to a thing that was, in its own time, acceptable but which has now become obsolete. Even if the monarchy was of some substance at the beginning, it is now an antiquated phenomenon. The monarchy is a reactionary issue nowadays. Right from its institution, it has been an absurd practice in which a king gains dominance over a people who do not exercise any choice in choosing him! The founder (of a monarchy), the first king, has always come to power through coercion and has been imposed on the people. There has not been any time in which the people have had any discretion in the determination of a king. Kings have always bullied and coerced people and imposed their will on them, subjecting them to their tyranny and whatever they wanted to do to them. These dynasties have all been founded by usurpers who committed all kinds of evil A monarchy, however, is now viewed as an object of ridicule among the world's regimes! First, someone revolts against a regime. During the uprising, the move is considered as wrong and the dissenter is looked upon as a criminal who has revolted against a regime. Later, when he vanquishes and kills his enemy, commits all sorts of evil acts and prevails, then everybody begins to recognize him; he then becomes" His Imperial Majesty." Up until that time he was a thief, a bandit who came and attacked wanting to overthrow, say, the Qajar dynasty. Up until that time he was a rebel who rose against the monarch; he was referred to as a brigand, a traitor. But as soon as he gained power and toppled the regime, the US recognized him, on the one hand, and Britain, on the other! He is now" His Imperial Majesty!" Now, anyone who rises against him is a criminal! He has been a criminal up until now, but because he has now prevailed and has dominated the people and toppled the former strongman, this very hooligan becomes" His Imperial Majesty." This is the cornerstone of such governments. This very same thief, a thief up to now, and one who, if caught, would be executed with the approval of all, now that he has prevailed and vanquished all, is now recognized by all, one by one. This scenario unraveled in Afghanistan just the other day. At first, they (anti-government elements) rebelled «4» against the Afghan regime and became the target of all sorts of accusations. But after they prevailed over the regime, global powers recognized them from everywhere! That is how after the titles changed and this bandit became" His Imperial Majesty," anybody who criticizes him and his imperial regime, or insults him, will be imprisoned for several years!

The principle of the monarchical regime has been wrong from its very inception. What sense is there in making a man who is no different from us, who is usually inferior to all individuals in the populace and who is of lower intelligence, the first person and king after which no one can touch him anymore? Of course, these individuals (who ascended to power) were bullies; they were very powerful but the intellect of many of them fell below an average person. We all witnessed that Rida Shah set up a Parliament with the force of a bayonet. It was not a national assembly. But let us assume that he came to power as the consequence of the people's decision to do away with the Qajar dynasty because of their wrongdoings. But after he came to power, he became untouchable although he ascended the throne through the people's choice. He then did whatever he wanted and never listened to the people no matter how many times they cried out:" You became king upon our vote and our choice, but we don't want you anymore. Step down and go about your own business." To this demand of the people, he turned a deaf ear; he responded with bayonets? This is what is happening (in Iran) at the moment. Our fathers, those before us, chose someone, placing him upon the throne. Those before us chose him (Rida Khan), but we are now paying the price for the crimes of his son (as king). Did we choose him?! Is it logical that fifty years ago, another generation, another populace, elected someone as the king and then that person's son too, without the people choosing him and actually against their will, remains as king over the people!? That is, he not only can do whatever he pleases, but he also becomes the constitutional king! Why should he be in power without the people's vote? What sense does it make? It is the prime right of any person, populace or society to choose anything that concerns their country's fate. If you search all over Iran now, you will not find anyone who admits to having been involved in selecting Muhammad Rida Khan to be enthroned. No one was involved in his selection (as king). In his own words," it is a divine gift", people have no role to play in it.

In our wrong constitutional law it is stated that" Kingship is a divine gift granted a person by the nation." «5» When did the nation ever confer on him the kingship? When did the nation ever have any discretion in such matters? He (Rida Khan) launched a coup d'etat, moved to Tehran from Qazvin, occupied Tehran and arrested and imprisoned a group of individuals, and gradually stayed on. At the beginning he was an army general, became a war minister and eventually the prime minister. He later set up a Parliament at bayonet point forcing the deputies of the Parliament to depose the Qajar dynasty and install him as the monarch. It was the bayonet that forced all those developments. Assuming that the monarchy is a" divine gift" conferred upon an individual by the people, when did the people confer it on him? When? As I have mentioned earlier, supposing that the people conferred the kingship upon his father, then what? The people who were living then deputized someone as their ruler, but my father was not my representative (to vote on my behalf). None of you remember that time; you could not vote at that time. You were non-existent to cast your vote. None of you were living then. Those of us who were around in that period could not vote at that time and the people had not voted for him, either. But still let us assume that the population then gave their votes to him. Now, we are alive and we wish to choose someone to determine our country's fate and administer its affairs, can that someone interfere in the country's affairs without us having any knowledge or approval of what is going on and does anything he pleases?

Therefore, the very principle of monarchy is wrong. What is a" monarchical" regime?! First, the people should appoint someone. For instance, the people should choose someone as their deputy to work for them. They should choose someone to administer their affairs, but later, they should be able to tell him to step down whenever they do not want him anymore. But in a regime which comes to power, like Iran's present regime, if the ruler learns that for whatever he does the people cannot touch him or depose him, then naturally he can stay in power forever. This is how monarchy is; people will be stuck with anyone who becomes the king. Such a person has a free hand to enact whatever unlawful act he pleases. He has no worry of being deposed. There is no overthrowing him. He will rule eternally. All the people, too, will have to be king-lovers! But if someone is elected, for instance, to head a country as president, say, for five or ten or eight years and is asked to run the affairs of the nation and if people are free in choosing someone for the task, then that person, no matter how bad he might be, will think of his own vested interests but at least he will tell himself that" Well, I'll be out of office after five years and I'll be taken to task by the people then. If I've done injustice to someone then the people will skin me alive. I hold the reins of power now but after five years, I'll be an ordinary citizen like the others." Such a thought will surely keep him at bay. So, the monarchical regime has always been something wrong and imposed on the people.

Our second principle concerns the baselessness of the principle of a monarchical regime. People should have the discretion to choose. This is a logical issue and any sane man agrees that each individual should have the authority to decide his own fate. It is up to the people to whom the country belongs to determine that all the wealth and resources of the land should be spent in such a way as to serve the people's interest. Everything in a country should be directed to the best interest of that country. Now, how can people entrust their fate to the hands of a person who is estranged from the people and believes that the latter have no say (in the national affairs) and says that he has the absolute power and he should be able to do anything he wants with no popular intervention? This runs counter to a situation in which people gather and declare to choose a certain person as their president for five years. Assuming that that person is a scoundrel, still the wisdom of this cunning man will not allow him to do whatever he pleases and do injustice as he wills. Assuming that the people do not have any rights, but in a republic, rights exist So you (the Shah) are wrong and should mind your own business! If the republic is Islamic, everything is then quite clear because Islam has set forth certain qualifications for the one who is to lead people and has a patriarchal role to perform toward the people. If any one of those qualifications is not met, his leadership is subject to automatic dissolution. It is no longer necessary for the people to gather to depose him; he becomes nothing. If the president of an Islamic republic commits an act of oppression or slaps somebody with no good reason, he will be deposed and his rule ended. A misdemeanor such as this will terminate his tenure of office. And for slapping a person, he should compensate it in kind, that is, he should also be slapped on the face. This is the kind of regime we want.

Therefore, our first principle is that we do not want this dynasty and it is crystal-clear that this is the way it should be. People are in agreement with us in this. This is a popular demand; an issue which concerns the people's right, is a popular one. All people have shouted this in street demonstrations. They are presently shouting it. Just today, it has been relayed that some fifty thousand people have revolted against the regime, launching a movement and staging demonstrations in Isfahan. They too are saying the same thing. The second principle of ours holds that a monarchy, a royal regime, is false from its very origin and this will be attested to by any sane person who deliberates on it that such a regime is not an upright one at all. The authority to decide the fate of the country should rest with the people. If someone is appointed to be the king by another power and if this king appoints another person as his successor, the fate of the nation will be in their hands (and this is wrong)! Everybody must exercise the right to decide their own fate. This present generation should decide its own fate and its fate must not be decided by someone who lived, for instance, 700 years ago, and who has now gone about his own business.

[Electing a] president means the people must decide their fate. People now wish to elect someone as their president whose term of office will end in five years after which they will elect another and then another. This is better than that. That was a mistake; this is better. It is possible that it is better. But the republic we are referring to does not mean electing just anybody to the post of a president. This criterion applies everywhere, that is, the head of state, in order to preside over the people, should possess certain qualifications. A ruler has to meet the requirements specified by Islam in order for the country to enjoy a just government.

Our third principle pronounces the fact that we want an Islamic government; an Islamic republic in which popular votes will be sought and qualifications (for the head of state) will be announced. Islam delineates such qualifications. You can select anyone who meets these requirements. Requirement should not be such that thief can be chosen to run the government. No sane person will accept it if we appoint a thief to this office and we will never do so. This is our third principle.

That is the third principle. I now feel exhausted and will continue this discussion later. Some statements have been made and" His Imperial Majesty" has also made a speech today. Let me have a look at what he has said and consider how we should respond to that.