Speech [The objectives of an Islamic state; the enemies' antagonism toward on Islamic sovereignty]

In the Name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful

You know that the government systems have been non-divine and non-monotheistic both in the previous regime and other regimes in other territories had been monarchial in nature during man's entire history. The principles and laws on which these regimes, whether monarchial or otherwise, were based on human laws, which were the conconctions of the human brain. Those systems mainly aimed at the domination of people. At times, some of them implemented their laws; their goals were executing these laws establishing which were limited to order in the society, granting freedom to the people and others of this nature. But a monotheistic regime, which is divine in nature, is the Islamic order which we are ready to establish here. Perhaps prior to Islam, had been such regimes, which were governmental and which implemented divine laws, or may be there had been few or no government based on the divine rules. Scarcely were there regimes which were monoththeistic. The divine governments were non-existent. In a divine order only the divine rule controls the behavior of man. Prior to Islam there were governments based purely on man made rules. Those governments were mostly limited and weak. But in the Islamic governments the only prevailing power has been the commands of Allah. Only God rules in these governments. Neither the prophets nor the caliphs did add anything of their own. In the minor issues, the governor could interpret the situation. But in principles and in main issues the divine rules prevailed. The Great Prophet (s) of Islam, who ruled over al affairs, never presented any law or principle of his own. He only carried out God's orders.

The big difference between world or human regimes, in whatever form they may be, and a regime which is divine and which adheres to divine laws is that the former do not concern themselves in the purification of one's self.

Their main concern was the rule of law and the establishment of order in society. Anybody is free to carry out anything inside his home. However, he is not allowed to come out of his home yelling and screaming; thus, he is not allowed to disturb the general peace of the community. Only a divine government which counts the rectification of man the way he must be as its main objective. First of all, man is an anarchical and, at times worse than animals. If he is left to grow unbridled, he will surpass any other creature in the terms of lust, fierceness and mischief. No animal can be likened to man. The extent of animals' mischievousness is limited, indeed. So is the range of their lusts and fierceness. Since man is superior over others in the scale of creation, he could easily surpass the ordinary limits in his lusts, anger and haughtiness. He could go to the infinite limit. Now to verify this proposition, look at the state of a man's attitude when he owns house. He still desires a second one. Even if a country is his, he still looks for a second one. If he could own the whole earth, he would still go after the conquest of the moon or Mars. Neither his lusts nor his greed could be limited. The Prophets came to set a limit t man's desires or greed. However, man does not know any boundary if he is left unbridled: he then wants everything for himself and desires to sacrifice everything for himself and desires to sacrifice everything for his own interests. The prophets were missioned to control this unbridled one and to bring his actions under control. They tried to educate him in such a way that he could achieve prosperity. For the prophets this world is only a means, nothing more. Man does not know where he is heading for, but the prophets do. They know he would reach the sublime degrees of humanity if his desires and wishes are bridled.

What is regarded as the destination for these governments is considered as a way or approach by the prophets. In the prophets' view even the whole world is not an end or destination by itself. It is not an altar or end point. The world as such is just a means to arrive at the sublime nature of humanity. If he ever reaches such a degree, his prosperity is limitless. Man is prosperous in this world, but his prosperity is not non-infinite. It is because this world is not an end by itself: there is still another world beyond this one. The prophets have seen this beyond. However, it is a hidden world to all of us. The prophets had realized that if man were set free, he would indulge in merry making, in rage and in craftiness and devilishness. If these are curbed, then he could be driven in the right path towards the sublime destination. This could be done only by the prophets. Unfortunately, the prophets were not very successful in this objective of theirs. There were numerous obstacles on their way. One reason was man's limitless border of lust, rage and haughtiness. The prophets were well-wishers and were determined to help man overcome these obstacles. However, they would be met with little or no success at all. Nevertheless, whatever, welfare and blessings which exist in our world are due to these prophets' efforts to educate man. They could retrain man to certain extent and to do this was absolutely difficult for the prophets, who were meagerly successful. If you subtract the prophets from the ordinary man's life, you would see what kind of turmoil would reign in this world. It was the prophets who curbed man's desires to a certain degree and we owe them the blessings that exist in our world today.

Islam has plans for all the dimensions of man; it is systematic and rule governed. It does not emphasize only the unknown world to the exclusion of the present one; it does not stress only martyrdom. Since man has got different dimensions, so does Islam. It tries to correct all dimensions of man. It does not consider one dimensions of man only. For instance, both the spiritual and natural aspects of man are considered by Islam. Islam was treated with cruelty at the outset by Bani Umayah and Bani `Abbas caliphates. Later, it developed and found its way into the hands of the Iranian kings who treated it in an incorrect way. They transformed Islam altogether. The Bani Umayah Caliphs changed Islam, which had a divine aspect, into a worldly government: an Arabic government which was to make propaganda for the pre-Islamic `Arab customs as opposed to those of other nations. This was in contrast to the Islamic ideology which put aside the idea of nationalities and looked at man as forming a united, single nation. Islam had no preference for any skin color; it practiced no discrimination against races whatsoever. The Bani Umayah Caliphs were going to revive their pre-Islamic traditional Arabic ignorance in the name of Islamic principles. Even today some of the Arab leaders are after the revival of the pre-Islamic Arabic cultures of the Bani Umayah era. These Arab fanatics did not let Islam develop in the right manner, however. Thus, Islam remained unknown for nations up the present time.

Perhaps most of your will not remember the historic events of the last fifty years. But I have witnessed the coup d' etat of Rida Kha in 1299 AH. «1» Rida Khan grabbed the reins of the government with the assistance of the British. Later, the Britons confessed to the fact that they had put Rida Khan in position of power and that due to his disobedience they exiled him where he had to be taken. From the time he came to power, he was antagonistic to Islam. He waged war against Islam by using itself. He stated by carrying to Islam. He destroyed Islamic rituals which were loved by the Muslims. Since in Iran the issue of Imam Husayn (`a) and his martyrdom is of utmost significance, he tried his utmost to show his affiliation to the Imam. He used to hold some commemorative mourning ceremonies for Imam Husayn (`a). He used to attend the" takiye" barefoot. He, in this way, could attract people's hearts. When his government was consolidated, however, he changed his tactics. In his actions, his model was the Turkish leader, Ata Turk. He started effacing the traces of Islam. The first thing he did was to abandon the commemoration ceremonies for Imam Husayn (`a).

He banned all commemorative gathering in which recitation of the sufferings of holy martyrs were recited in threnodies. Nobody in Iran was allowed to hold such sessions even with a limited number of participants. There was no such sessions held in Qum which has always been a center for spiritual ceremonies. If they wanted to have such a session, they had to finish it by dawn. The government has special spies and inspectors to see to it that such sessions remain banned. It was Rida Khan's objective to do away with Islam altogether. He banned the use of turbans by the clerics. They used to say only six persons were allowed to wear turbans in Iran! This was, of course, a big lie. They did not want the clerics to use it.

The point is that the British had seen the strength of the clerics. During the past century they had observed that the Muslim clerics had stood up to any threat which was done against the Iranian nation by any foreign power. They had seen that when they captured Iraq, a great Muslim cleric, called Aqa Mirza Muhammad-Taqi, «2» stood up firm against the invader. He sustained the independence of Iraq. The Britons has also seen that that Mirza Shirazi «3» had saved Iran against the Britons through the issue of an Islamic verdict (fatwa). Thus, in the eyes of the Britons it was the clerics who were the real menace. In order for them to plunder our mineral reserves and make us their permanent customers, they had to get rid of the clerics. Therefore, they started suppressing this layer of the society. This seminary of yours, which used to have fourteen hundred religious students, was reduced to four hundred suppressed, defeated and weakened students who did not dare to express their opinions. In short, they closed down the clergy system in Iran. Every religious scholar was suppressed. Of course, at the time of Rida Khan, the clerics rose up once or twice. But such uprisings were defeated because the population did not dare to support the clerics. Once such uprising took place in Azarbayjan; another time it took place in Khorasan. And once it occurred in Qum. But each time such uprisings got suppressed using force. The British diplomacy realized that if they wished to rob us of our reserves and assets they have to eliminate the clergy so that the nation would not be able to gain power, get consolidated and find somebody to lead them from among the clergy. The Muslim clergy has always defended Islam and its rules. Sometimes they would succeed in advancing their cause as in the case of Mirza-yi Shirazi who was adhered to all over Iran. More after than not they tasted defeat, however.

When Muhammad-Rida came to power, he did whatever his father had done in his early years in power. For instance, he had a new edition of the Holy Qur'an published in his name. He used to go to the Holy Shrine of Imam Rida (`a) in Mashhad once or twice a year. He used to pray and tried to deceive people. Later, he decided to use force. He took away freedoms of all sorts from people. He used the mass media against his nation and in his own interests. The intellectuals were put in prison and people were suppressed. People's reserves were plundered by the foreigners. He wrote a book called" Mission for my country," in which he referred to the imaginary progress that we had made. But people observed and felt the contrary of what they were told. You would see poverty in every corner of Iran. Everybody was in dire misery. People lacked proper shelter. People lacked everything. The very same people were living on oil fields sat on them and starved. They were bare footed and barely had anything to wear. I used to cross the villages of Ahwaz when I was traveling by train. The bare footed Ahwazi children used to run beside the train to receive something from the train passengers. They were in deplorable conditions. They were running on a terrain beneath which there were oil reserves, which were being plundered by the foreigners. First the British robbed us of our reserves. Later, it was the United States, which plundered us. The Americans had outdone the Britons in robbing our nation. In place of our reserves, the Americans built military strongholds inside Iran to defend their own interests. Besides, they took away from us both our oil and our money we gained through the sale of our oil. Thus, our nation suffered such a catastrophic fate. On the other hand, they imposed heavy contracts on us which made us more dependable on them. People became restive, perturbed and agitated; their life would be spent in prison or exile. Even if one was out of prison it was still like being in prison. Everybody was being watched by the police agents to make sure that nobody uttered a word (of protest) - not you or anybody.

The people had become agitated. They were waiting for somebody to shout. On the fifteenth of Khordad such a chance came about. It began in Qum. The religious scholars in Qum let their protests be heard. On the fifteenth of Khordad, a great uprising took place in which great massacres were carried out by the government agents. At that time I was in prison. When I was released I was still under house arrest. There I was told more than fifteen thousand people had been killed. And God knows how many dissidents had been taken into custody by the police. People had become hopeless. They had to tolerate the rascals. A father watched his son in great misery; so did a son see his father in great pain. A wife saw her husband in great misery. Thus, life had become intolerable. People were waiting for a spark to be ignited. And the 15 th of Khordad was this spark, which had previously been lit; and the people staged the 15 th of Khordad rebellion but it was snuffed out. However, the nation was not one who would tolerate till the end. The nation was intending to do something. The nation had not entirely surrendered. They waited for the events which took place two years ago and up to now their fervor has endured in a chain of events.

The people were prone to uprising. They were dissidents; they were antagonistic towards the government. Besides, a great change had occurred in their mind; they had spiritually changed. They had become like the people of the outset of Islam: they wished for martyrdom. Now we are witnessing the same morale in you who are ready to die for this revolution, in those women who tell me they have lost their sons, but ask me to beg God to let their other sons get martyred, or in those young women and men who ask me to beg God for their martyrdom. People have drastically changed. The king had not been able to even keep one layer of the society satisfied with the government. Only the upper layers of the armed forces and police were considered significant; the rest went unnoticed. They did not count on the lower ranks of the society such as the people in bazaars, in mosques, in seminary schools, and in universities. Their biggest error was in not considering the ordinary people, however. When everybody chanted for the Islamic republic, nobody dared to oppose. They chanted:" we do not want a monarchial regime". Both Britain and the United States supported the regime of the Shah; so did some of the leaders of the Islamic countries. However, the number of such leaders was small.

Upon the people's victory over these obstacles, the differences surfaced themselves. Some of these might be instigated by some hands behind the scene. We have seen many such traces at the previous atrocities against us. they have attempted to take away from us two things, which have been the main factors for our victory: one is our unity; the other one is the people's demand for an Islamic republic. Our adversaries opposed the prefix" Islamic" at the start of the Islamic Republic. They preferred the term" democratic" in place of" Islamic." Some of the kind ones used the term" the democratic Islamic Republic." However, these terms did not appeal to our nation. They said they understood the term" Islamic"; they added they also comprehended the term" republics," but were not aware of the term" democratic." They said the latter term has continuously changed its content in the past. It had one sense in the east; quite another sense in the west. Plato used to define it in one way; Aristotle defined it in still another way. People said they could not vote in favor of something they could not understand. They said they had a full grasp of term" Islamic," however. They said they knew that Islam was a regime of justice. They said they realized the content of justice in Imam `Ali's government. People refused to use the ambiguous term" democratic" next to the term" Islamic." People contended that the use of the word" democratic" is an insult to" Islam" because the concept of justice is intrinsically incorporated in Islam. They said that by using" democratic" next to" Islamic," is like saying a just Islamic republic and this is tantamount to an effrontery to Islam because Islam is justice in itself.

The intellectuals and writers preferred the omission of the word" Islamic." We understood that the reason for their hatred lay in the fact that Islam has inflicted blows on them. Now, the superpowers have understood that the oil reserves of Iran are not theirs any more. Who has deprived them of this asset? The answer is: the people who are chanting for Islam. They thought if this word were deleted from the Islamic Republic, then the republic would lose its national support. Our adversaries tried to take away from us this national support. The nation is the supporter of any government. Now we see the reason behind the intellectuals' insistence on the omission of this term. Still they are insisting on such a deletion. They declare" the constitution is not a national law; it has serious defects." The constitution was drafted by the people's delegates; then it was put to public vote. Now a minor group, whose leaders we know well, oppose the votes of the majority. What this boils down to is the fact that they prefer a government like the previous regime. They have suffered severe blows from Islam. They do not want it to get established.

In all stages of the revolutionary activities and movements the role of the clergy was supreme. Then academicians, intellectuals[ not al of them though ]the university students, nearly all of them, and the businessmen who also played a significant role. However, it was the clergy who mobilized people for combat. In each district there are between one and four mosques. The clerics in these mosques are trusted by people. This is what I have always preached people on: do not abandon this steady stronghold. I have also advised the young intellectuals, who demand the independence of their country, not to leave the clerics. If the clerics had not been on the scene during this movement, nothing could have been done since people would listen to nobody else. People do not pay heed to the intellectuals, who are about ten or a hundred or. I do not know if they have a political party. Nevertheless, one thousand people would listen to the Islamic party only. These intellectuals are [constantly] shouting slogans, but whatever they utter is nonsense. It is only this gathering of yours which could mobilize others and take them to the brink of martyrdom. We are aware of the degree of the enthusiasm people have for the clergy. However, each clergy's radius of influence on people varies from one another. But no mater how wide their perimeter of influence is, the people within it listen to what they say and even if people get killed, it is prosperity for them since they know that the clergy are their well-wishers.

It was the orators, preachers, mosque-goers and the clergy in general who brought about this revolution. Then they were followed by the people; all the layers of our community took part in this movement. However, the impetus came from the clergy. I will ask our people, who are nationalistic, to be with the clergy at all times. Do not leave them. Now, you are aware of the plots against this group. The agitators are the losers both here and in the next world. I do not want to claim that anybody who wears a turban on his head is sacred. Nobody can make such a claim. But what I want to say is that those who oppose the clergy do not oppose the bad clerics; rather, they oppose the good clerics who exert influence on the people. If those who are scheming have a sound reason to oppose this group, what they do can be justified, and they say that it will be a carrot move to purge (the clergy ranks). I agree to this and a purging will be effected at the appropriate time. But not when the nation is experiencing turmoil; perhaps at a later time after the revolution ad when the country has advanced a little forward and conditions have settled back to normal. Revolutions everywhere in the world have been accompanied by some turmoils. As soon as the present turmoils are removed, we would carry out purges. Today, is not the time to break the support of and that which can mobilize the nation, which is now facing a superpower; we cannot remove those whose who can easily mobilize our nation, albeit we might not be happy with some of them.

The agitators have their special plan to get rid of us one by one. I do not know whether you are familiar with this tale or not. They say one day the owner went to his orchard and saw that a Sayyid, clergy and an ordinary man were stealing some fruits. The owner of the garden said:" This one is a Sayyid and an offspring of the prophet; this one is from among the religious scholars and he is to be reserved; but you, wretched guy, what do you have to say?" In this way the gardener made friends with these two and captured and chained the third thief. Now that one of the three was captured, the gardener addressed the clergy, saying well," The Sayyid is the prophet's offspring and therefore we could not reproach him. But you al-Shaykh (addressing the clergy), why, with your turban and beard, why did you come for stealing?" He united with the Sayyid and captured and fastened the clergy. Then it was the Sayyid's turn. The gardener said," Has your grand father told you to steal?" He jumped at the Sayyid and bound him up. These agitators have a similar plan. They have plotted to get rid of us one by one. They claim," What does akhoundism (dominance of clergy) mean? They should not rule over our country." They are under the false assumption that akhounds (the clergy) want to seize the country and give it to another person and then do what they wish to do. But this is far from the truth. The plot is to separate the nation from the clergy. They want to separate the impetus and the mover from the nation. This was also the plan at Rida Shah's time. The plot was to get rid of the clerics from bottom to the upper echelons.

That Islam paradigms which can improve the world, be expressed and spread in the world is the reason the enemies want to take it away from the people. They want to carry out this plan step by step. The target is Islam. The enmity is aimed at Islam.

You have asked me if the religious scholars would have a political role to perform in the future. The role of the clergy is to lead people towards the right path. The agitators are frantically trying to separate religion from politics. Islam is a religion of politics. You have done some research in Islam. The religious decrees and commands are political in nature. The Friday prayer, the Friday sermons, religious feasts and sermons in these feasts, congregational prayers, religious gatherings, pilgrimage to Meca Mash`ar, Mina, the `Arafat rituals are all political in nature. In Islam, the prayers are politically-oriented. Islamic politics is religious. The agitators want to separate politics from Islam. They claim the emperor should govern the empire and the cleric should reside in the mosque. It is not the clergy's duty to say anything when Rida Khan hurts people or plunder them. Let the clergy attend to his prayers. It is not up to the clergy to protest if the nation is robbed of its oil. The clergy should be silent when devastating contracts are imposed on the nation. Let the clergy be wrapped in his cloak. Let him pray in the mosque as much as he likes. Who will oppose him?

He can say prayers as much as he wants and nobody stop him do it. I do not think Jesus Christ (`a) was ever the way he had been presented. Had Jesus Christ given instructions to people to accept injustice? Has he ever taught people if they are slapped on one side of their face, they should be ready to receive another blow on the other side of their face? This is not God's command. This is not the instruction of Jesus Christ (`a), either. He is exonerated from such accusations. He is against injustice. He was appointed by God to offset cruelties and injustices. Unfortunately, he has been misrepresented. Islam, too, was inflicted with the same calamity at one time. However, there are some scholars in Islam who do not let it be distorted. We are facing fewer troubles today concerning the misinterpretations made on Islam. Time had changed; so have people's thinking.

You asked about the role of the clergy in the politics. My answer is positive. They have their role in the government as well. They do not want to be the governors, but they want to have roles. At the time of the elections of the president we were told even by the university people that it was better for the president to be a cleric, since clerics were trustworthy. The clergy should have a significant role but not as president; but he will be involved in the presidency could control the actions of a president; as if he himself controls the nation or the country. The clergy will control the activities of the president. If he tries to go astray, he will be stopped by the clergy. In Islam the clergy have a lot of prerogatives. However, at the time of the drafting of the constitution, the planners had to compromise with the intellectuals in taking away some of these prerogatives. The jurist has to meet certain qualifications and conditions prescribed by Islam which cannot hurt anybody. This implies that with the mandate that God has prescribed for the jurists, he can never step beyond the limits of righteousness. A jurist has to meet to hold such a position. If he told one word of lie or take one minor illegal step, he would be divested of lie, that position.

We are determined to stop despotism. The article in the constitution which created the office of the jurist was adopted to stop tyranny and despotism. The opponents of the Islamic Republic expressed the view that the position of the jurist would endanger injustice. What would injustice generate? It does not generate that which the constitution has determined. Yes, there is the possibility of the appearance of a despot. But a jurist cannot be a despot. A jurist with the qualities [that God has prescribed] is just. A jurist who will be divested of his office if he acted against the social justice or who will be considered unjust if he tells a word of lie or looks at someone unlawful to him cannot commit any wrongdoing. The jurist will stop others from getting involved in wrongdoings. The president is not required to posses all the qualities prescribed for a jurist. If he does anything unjust, however, he will be stopped by the jurist. If the chief of the army does anything wrong, the jurist has a legal right has to dismiss him. The best article in the constitution is the position of the jurisprudent. But some of our opponents are either ignorant or have malicious intent.

You say that the clergy may later get engaged in the affairs of the government but they may not become a prime minister or a president; and it ill behaves them to be so. However, they should play the role of supervision. The clergy is not the government. From the very start it had been one of the clerics' prerogatives to have such roles. However, they have been deprived of this right in the past. Now God had given them a chance. People demonstrated for this right of the clerics to be restored. The clerics could control the affairs but they are not the experts. How is it possible for a cleric to become the chief of the army? He does not have the expertise. If a cleric accepts a position for which he does not have the expertise he is making a mistake. However, since the clerics are conversant with Islamic laws, they are given the authority to control the affairs of the government and of the officials. And we have, therefore, to obey the jurist. He may stop the prime minister and the president from getting involved in wrong-doings. He will stop the tyrants and the despots from carrying out their malicious acts. If anybody tried to violate the people's freedom, the jurist would stop him. If the government wanted to convene an accord with foreigners through which Iran would become dominated by those foreigners, he would oppose such contracts. This[ constitutional ]article is one that will rectify the foundation of a country. It is a noble principle which if, God willing, materialized all affairs of the nation will be ameliorated.

You have asked me whether the clergy would join the government or not. I would not say they would not join the government, but they are not outside the scope of the government. They would not occupy the position of the prime minister and perform his job. They are in the government in that they would control the activities of the prime minister. If he is doing anything wrong he would be stopped by the jurist. Therefore, the jurist does not have (an active) role but he has a role to play. I do not have time left now. May God keep you in good health.