Interviewer: Kirk Croft (?) (A professor of Rutkerz (?) University, US)
Question: [How is the progress of the current movement in Iran in your opinion?]
Answer: The struggle of the Iranian nation has reached its climax, and I hope that in the near future we will throw the Shah out of Iran. Today, the Iranian people are well aware of their struggle and know that they have a gigantic task ahead, but relying on their faith in God, they will surely achieve victory.
Q: [What do you think about a coalition government? What would be the first measure of the Islamic government?]
A: I have said many times that neither I nor the Iranian nation will accept a government in which the Shah is present. Any government, that comes to power in the country, if comes to terms with the Shah, has betrayed the people, the country and Islam. We are determined to eliminate the root of all these miseries, that is, to expel the Shah from Iran.
Q: [Does the Islamic government recognize private property? Does the Islamic government respect the ownership of the people and the management of the farmlands and industries by the people? What would be the role of government in the above-mentioned issues? Will the Islamic government issue the order to nationalize the mentioned cases? What would be the government's relations to the people's ownership? How will these relations be managed?]
A: Ownership in the manner that is usual in the United States does not exist in Islam. Islam recognizes and accepts private property, but there are some rules in Islam to regulate it. If these Islamic rules are observed, no one will have great land properties. Ownership in Islam is in a manner that all the people will be at the same level and if it is so, why should we involve the government in these affairs and why shouldn't we let the people be in charge of lands and industries? About the nationalization, the situation in Iran has been such that great capitalists and proprietors have always seized the rights and shares of the laborers and peasants and they are still doing so. For the same reason they are not the owners of their lands and factories. We will fairly try all those capitalists and proprietors, investigate their properties, and then we will return to the deprived people the rights that had been seized by the capitalists for years. In this manner, neither we have deprived them of their rights nor is any one able to seize the rights of others any longer and no one will face financial problems in his life.
Q: [How would the Islamic government treat religious minorities, including the Sunnis, Sufis, Assyrians, Christians, Armenians, Jews and the Baha'i? Is it possible for a non-Muslim Marxist- for instance a member of the Toudeh Party- or a woman to hold a military or a non-military position?]
A: First of all the Sunni brothers are not at all religious minorities. And then we have said several times that we will treat the religious minorities properly. Islam respects them. We will grant them all their rights. They have the right to have a representative in the Parliament and perform their politico-religious activities and practice their religious rites and rituals freely. They are Iranians and will live under the shadow of the Islamic government in security. In military affairs, like other affairs, women can hold positions. At the beginning of the advent of Islam women were in the war fronts to take care of those injured in battles.
Q: [If Islam is against corruption and the ever-increasing price of the goods and disproportionate profit, and if it deems taking advantages from the products of worker's labor, how would the Islamic government treat the merchants of the bazaar?]
A: I have always said that in the Islamic government, there will be no such merchants as they are currently in the bazaar. The current Iranian merchants have become capitalists due to their non-Islamic economic relations, otherwise in an Islamic government all will live in almost the same level and there will be no class gap.
Q: [We all know that there are some traditions within the scope of Islamic laws. Many of these traditions are progressive and cause development in the framework of the current modern society. But there are also some traditions that are no longer of any use in the society and should be omitted, because they will add to the problems of the people, like having more than one wife. What is your opinion in this regard?]
A: Some issues that are spread in the West and East under the name of Islam are actually fabricated by the colonizers and reactionaries in order to divert the public opinion and do whatever they want. The Islamic laws are always adjustable to the conditions of time and space. It is not true to say that an Islamic law is useful in a specific period of time and harmful during another. Of course, some of the Islamic laws may have no opportunity to be implemented and therefore are abandoned.
Q: [It is said that the former head of Iran's Society of Female Lawyers, Mahvash Safiniya has said that the religious movement in Iran has obliged the Parliament to ratify bills, which limit the women's rights. For example, reducing the marriage age to 15 years, prohibiting women from joining the army and announcing abortion as a crime (Quoted in the New York Times, December 17). Do you acknowledge such laws?]
A: With regards to marriage, Islam has granted the women the right to choose their husbands. Women can choose their favored husbands, of course in the framework of the Islamic laws. Islam is against abortion and considers it an unlawful act and prohibits it. As I said before, women can join the army. What Islam is against, and prohibits, is corruption, no matter if this corruption is on woman's part or the man's. The people whom you are introducing as lawyers have always misled our women. Today, the prisons are filled with our noble women and these lawyers have always undersigned and confirmed the Shah's crimes. Which one of these two groups is free and noble?
Q: [Which changes, in your opinion, are necessary to be made in the current status of women in the Iranian society? How do you think the Islamic government will change the status and situation of women? For example, the employment of women in governmental jobs or in different occupations such as medical practices, engineering, etc. and also some occasions including divorce, abortion, the right to travel and the compulsory observance of veil (chador).]
A: The disinformation campaign of the Shah and those who are employed by him have distorted the issue of freedom of women in a way that people think that Islam has come to merely confine the women to the four walls of their houses. Why should we be against women's education? Why should we be against women's employment? Why shouldn't women hold governmental positions? Why should we be against women's traveling? Women are free in all these affairs as men are. There is no difference between men and women.
That is right, women should have hijab[ Islamic dress code ], but their hijab should not necessarily be a veil [chador]. They can choose any kind of clothes that covers them. We cannot and Islam does not want us to make dolls of women. Islam intends to preserve the dignity of the women and make them efficient and serious human beings. We will never let the men to use women as a doll for their caprices and whims. Islam prohibits abortion and women can procure the right to take divorce in their marriage contract. No law or school has given as much freedom and respect to women as Islam has.
Q: [What would be the programs of the Islamic government to industrialize and reconstruct Iran? How would the Islamic government procure its required technology? How would it train its experts and scientists?]
A: In our programs for industrializing Iran we will no longer turn to assembly lines. We will create mother industries and reconstruct Iran in the best possible manner. Of course, one should not expect us to do all these as soon as the Shah has left Iran. Because the Shah has thoroughly ruined Iran and Iran has turned it into a war-stricken country, in order to repair all these and create industries we need more time. We will procure our technological needs from whatever sources that is better for our country. We are not short of professional specialists. Thousands of Iranian specialists in different fields of science are now living in foreign countries. They have left Iran due to the Shah's atrocities and oppressions and also due to the lack of scientific-industria programs and are working for foreign institutes. As soon as the Shah has left Iran, most of them will come back to Iran.
Q: [If the Islamic government of Iran severs its relations with Israel as a country that oppresses the people, don't you think that you should be then obliged to end your relations with some Arab countries for the same reason?]
A: We are against any country that oppresses the people, no matter if this country is in the East or in the West. Israel has seized the people's rights and we are against it. Moreover, Israel is the greatest supporter of the Shah and is in charge of the SAVAK propaganda. So, Israel is an accomplice of the Shah and SAVAK in their crimes.
Q: [What is your opinion about the armed guerrilla groups such as Mujahidin Organization or other organizations such as the Organization of the People's Devotee Guerrillas [Fada'i-e Khalq]? Is the time ripe to wage an armed struggle against the Shah, SAVAK and the Army?]
A: We hope that we would defeat the Shah without using weapons. But if the Shah continues his crimes, we will consider an armed struggle against him.
Q: [You have threatened to stop the sale of oil to the countries that continue their support for the Shah. Is this threat limited to the time that Shah holds power in Iran?]
A: The referendum of Tasou`a and `Ashoura proved once again that the Shah is virtually dethroned. The Islamic government will stop the sale of oil to any country that has supported the Shah from that day onwards and will abrogate all other contracts that have been signed after the Shah's departure. But regarding the contracts that are signed with the regime before the Shah's departure, we will study them and if they were not detrimental to the interests of our country, we will accept them, otherwise they will be rejected.
Q: [It is said that the Shah's land reforms have caused a loss to the clerics who are the second greatest landowners (quoted by the New York Times, December 11). And this is one of the reasons of your opposition to the Shah. Do you confirm this? Before 1963, what percentage of farmlands was owned by the clergymen? Will the clergymen take charge of these lands after the Shah's departure? What system of governmental agriculture do you confirm? Will mechanized agriculture take the place of manual farming? If it is so, how would you procure your required farming machines?]
A: Overall, none of the clerics who were against Shah were among the great landlords to have been affected by the land reforms. And I have announced that since the great landlords have not paid their Islamic taxes, we will not take back the lands that have been given to the farmers. Other clerics and I are not against the Shah for this reason. This is also propaganda of the Shah that has lost its effect. We will mechanize our farming and agriculture and the Islamic government should provide the farmers with whatever they need in its best quality. If a proper cultivation system is created in Iran, in the near future we will become one of the exporters of foodstuff. We were one of the exporters of foodstuff before the US-sponsored land reforms, which brought Iran under the control of the United States. If proper principles of farming are implemented in Iran, one or two provinces of Iran can provide the required foodstuff of all the country and the rest can be exported. But, today Iran imports most of its foodstuff. In order to mechanize our farming, we will import the farming machines from those countries whose farming machines are cheaper and better in quality and durability. In the Islamic government, Iran will maintain its economic independence.
Q: [Is the United States at war with Iran? Do you expect the military forces of the US and Soviet Union to interfere in Iran's affairs?]
A: We are almost fighting with the US in Iran. The United States does not want to understand the fact that a nation has risen and does not want the Shah any longer. Why does the United States increase the venom of the Iranians against itself by trying to preserve the Shah? We never agree with the interference of US and Soviet forces. Just as the United States, the Soviet Union too has always supported the Shah and we never let it interfere. The military interference of foreign countries in Iranian affairs is almost impossible.
Q: [Both the US and French governments have warned you not to talk about the domestic affairs of Iran and have accused you of calling Iran to violence. And have threatened you that they will banish you from their country, if you continue your activities. How would you assess these threats?]
A: The United States and France have no right to warn us or to interfere in the domestic affairs of Iran. I intend to fight the Shah's dictatorship to my last gasp, and I will not stop to do so even for a moment.
Q: [You and Mr. Carter made harsh and biting statements against each other. You have called him the most sinful and violator of human rights (Le Monde, October 13,1978), and he has accused you of making uncontrolled remarks from a foreign country and encouraging violence and bloodshed in Iran. This very matter requires pondering and he hopes that you will stop making such remarks after the month of Muharram (Carter's press conference, December 13,1978). How would you assess your relations with President Carter? How would you assess your relations with the American nation?]
A: Is the US really a supporter of human rights? Or, the issue is capitalized upon as a slogan so that he is elected as the US president? Or, it is a slogan against a few Soviet Union's prisoners? Is Carter a supporter of human rights, while the Shah, his traitor quisling in Iran, is causing bloodbath in Iran and the US supports him? Does he not know or see the Shah's unlimited massacre in Iran? Probably, Mr. Carter considers the defense of these criminals who acquit the criminals throughout history a defense of human rights. Prior to this too Carter had said that the US interests have priority to human rights. Now are we- who say that these massacres should be stopped and the Shah must leave Iran so that the Iranians can take charge of their own fate- shedding blood? The world should judge. Has not the time come for Carter to give up supporting the Shah and staining his hands with the blood of the innocent, defenseless people of Iran? I have no relations with Mr. Carter and in fact I have no relations with any president or head of state. I want the American nation to take measures in support of the oppressed Iranian people as soon as possible and to ask Mr. Carter and the US administration to cease supporting the Shah which provokes the world public opinion against the American nation. The US support for the Shah's regime is not in the interest of the American nation.
Q: [Have you had any kind of experience in your life, on whose basis you have accepted the leadership and undertaken an active role in the political arena? Do you not think that being the symbol of the Iranian people is a heavy load on your shoulders?]
A: Since you consider religion and politics two separate issues, you think that when a cleric gets involved in politics, he has quitted his previous job and has undertaken a new occupation, while Islam contains both political and devotional issues and its political issues are even more than the devotional ones. I have been following the Shah's crimes during his reign until the time came to rise and fight against him. I started my campaign against the Shah over 15 years ago and always reflected the will of the people that is to overthrow the Pahlavi dynasty, the monarchical system of the Shah and definitely to establish an Islamic government. And that is natural, for when the people saw that I was reflecting their will, they turned to me.
Q: [What is your opinion about the National Front?]
A: We have no positive opinion toward it, but at the same time I have not rejected it.
Q: [What is your opinion about Bakhtiyar's endeavors to form a cabinet?]
A: I think that he will not succeed.
Q: [Won't you acknowledge his cabinet, even if it is a provisional cabinet?]
A: No.
Q: [Do you think it probable that an alliance will be formed between the clerics and the army to overthrow the Shah?]
A: It is probable, but I don't know whether it has been formed or not. But the army will join us at last.
Q: [Are those who are to be elected in an Islamic government all religious leaders? Or others, regardless of their political and religious affiliations, will be elected as well?]
A: These people should be religious and honest, or national figures who are religious at the same time. But about the non-Muslims or religious minorities, they have their own votes and will elect their representatives on the basis of these votes.
Q: [Will the future government grant religious and political freedoms to the Baha'is?]
A: Freedom will not be granted to those who are harmful to the country's interests.
Q: [Won't they be granted religious freedom?]
A: No.