INTRODUCTION TO SPEECH NUMBER FOURTEEN

In a direct attack against the Shah who had previously said in one of his shameless speeches: “We condemn traditionalism and reactionary ideas, ^{( 217)} Imam stated: “This man does not desist in uttering these absurdities and he still relates Islamic thinking to traditionalism and reactionism.”

Elsewhere in this epic address, Imam responded to the false allegations which had been made by the government of the day, and he rejected the claim made by the ittila ‘at regarding the clergy’s approval of the so-called White Revolution. He maintained that the Islamic movement and struggle of the Muslim people had reached the stage where it was no longer dependent upon any particular individual, but rather it was an everlasting movement which would charge ahead until it eventually achieved victory. The Leader of the Revolution also disclosed the regime’s scheme to establish an “Islamic university”, which in fact was a dangerous plan directed against Islam and the ‘ulama. With this disclosure however, Imam succeeded in nipping the conspiracy in the bud.

The central issue addressed in the speech however, concerned the great need for unity among the clergy. Imam Khomeini urged the entire clergy to act in unison, and to guard against individual action and digression; to this end he stated: “Today I kiss the hands of the maraji’.” Indeed it was unprecedented in Shi’ i history for a marja’ of such calibre, who was so adored and respected by the people, to behave with such humility for the sake of Islam, the Islamic society and the movement.

The clandestine relationship between the Shah and Israel, the disclosure of which the regime feared greatly, did yet Imam highlights another important and sensitive issue in his speech. With regard to this relationship, a key agent of the Shah’s regime writes in his memoirs as follows: “These ties had strengthened to such an extent that Muhammad Riza (Shah) gave several of Iran’s overseas military bases in the Arab regions to Israel who came to have an intelligence service in Iran which, after that of the superpowers, was the most active in the country. Since Israel relied upon Muhammad Riza as its only ally in the region, the instruction and training, which it gave to the personnel of SAVAK, was first-class. Muhammad Reza however, did not dare to reveal his close ties with Israel or make them official, because of the deep-held Islamic beliefs and sentiments of the Iranian people and the sensitivity of people in the Arab region towards Israel; besides which, America and Britain thought it unwise to make such a disclosure anyway. ⁽²¹⁸⁾ The matter concerning Israel and the need to struggle against Zionism constituted another major topic in Imam’s speech which awakened Iran’s Muslims more than ever before to the close ties which existed between Iran and the usurp Tory Zionist government.

This momentous and invigorating speech of Imam Khomeini, which generated fresh passion and fervor among the people, was swiftly translated and sent to different parts of the world. Everywhere, there was talk of his farsightedness, his guidance and his profound all-embracing speeches. Once again, subsequent to the quelling of the Khordad 15 uprising, Islamic and national forces were prepared and ready for the impending struggle against the regime, whilst the unrelenting and organised struggle against Israel and the global danger which Zionism posed for the country’s economy and its other affairs became the issue of the day and the subject of serious discussions.

The Shah’s regime, sensing danger from the unyielding attacks of Imam Khomeini, tried its hand at a new tactic. It endeavored to aggravate the nationalistic tendencies of the Iranian people in order to divert their attention from the dangers posed by Israel and her agents. To this end, it concocted a story about the Arab threat to Iran in the person of Jamal ‘Abdul Nasser, who, is suggested, was conspiring to occupy the Khuzistan region of Iran. ⁽²¹⁹⁾

I take refuge in God from the accursed SatanWe belong to God and to Him we shall return (The audience weeps bitterly) I have never felt SO weak and e in speech before; I feel quite incompetent today. I am unable to the sadness I feel for the general state of Islam and in particular he state of Iran, as well as for the events which took place during the e of this ill-fated year ⁽²²⁰⁾ such as the storming of the centers of learning into detention that the outside news reached me and I became a ware of what had occurred on Khordad 15. ⁽²²¹⁾ God knows how devastated I was on learning of this incident (the audience weeps bitterly). Now that I have returned from my detention in Qaytariya, I see young children without fathers (the audience weeps), mothers who have lost their children, women who have lost their brothers and people with missing limbs (the weeping continues). Much despondency prevails. Indeed, this is the imprint of their “civilization” and our “reaction”. It is a pity our voice does not reach the outside world. It is a pity that the sound of weeping of these bereaved mothers does not reach the outside world (the audience weeps intensely).They introduce us as traditionalists, as reactionist; they regard the ‘ulama of Islam as “black reaction”. Those heavily- subsidized foreign newspapers which have set out to ruin us ⁽²²²⁾ , introduce us abroad as anti- those opposed to modernization. ⁽²²³⁾ Akhunds are presented as those who travel on donkeys and who argue that they do not want electricity; need aeroplane. It is said that they want to return to the Dark Ages, that they are reactionaries.

Fact it is this dark period brought about by you (the Shah) in this to which the akhunds are opposed. Is this traditionalism? The ‘ulama oppose these beatings and murders, and this autocracy, dictatorship and despotism. Do you call this traditionalism? It was the ii who, at the dawn of constitutionalism ^{( 224)} , fought against the despotism and procured freedom for the nation. They ordained were in the interest of Islam and benefited the nation and d the country’s independence, for they were Islamic laws. Ordained these laws with the blood that they sacrificed, the burdens bore and the trials that they endured. Are these akhunds reactionist?

Today also, the clergy is rising up in revolt; it is embarking upon a movement and in following the clergy the nation too is rising up in revolt. Now, the Islamic nations are awakened, they are engaged in revolution, the clergy wants the laws of Islam to be implemented. Is this reactionary! ^{( 225)} Inviting others to abide by the holy laws of Islam, these divine laws for which we undergo so much hardship and bear so many insults; is this in fact reaction? Is God the Blessed, the Most High a reactionist? The virtuous (archangel) Gabriel, the mediator of divine revelation, is he a reactionist’!! Is the Holy Prophet a reactionist? Is the exemplary Imams reactionist? From the advent of Islam it has been the sole function of the ‘ulama, those who themselves possess nothing, to convey the laws of Islam - the divinely revealed laws - to the people. Is it reactionary to convey these holy laws?

If you truly believe in the precepts of Islam then this is what you should believe in: Islam has afforded man freedom and made him the master of his possessions, his family and his own self. In fact, Islam demands man’s freedom and self-determination. In Islam, man is free to choose where he lives, what he eats and drinks and how he conducts his everyday life, as long as the holy laws are not breached. It is the law of Islam, which affords one whose home has been attacked, the right to kill the attacker. This is the extent to which Islam values freedom. So, can Islam be described as “black reaction”? The ‘ulama do not speak fur themselves, but merely quote God’s Prophet, who in turn quotes the Almighty Lord. Thus, if we are reactionist then the Holy Prophet must he a reactionist too. If you regard us, who merely repeat the words of God and His Prophet, as traditionalists - as that foolish man persistently insists on calling us - then you consider the Holy Prophet a traditionalist too! The Devil take this “civilized” thinking!

If however, you have faith in Islam and its laws - Islam which is the f all freedom, dignity, glory, self-determination and independence if we are the followers of Islam, then you have to accept that these -precepts of Islam. In what way can they be said to he reactionist? Exactly what is it about the precepts of Islam that these men regard lack reaction? Why not come and discuss this issue with us? It really is not tight for you ^{( 226)} to make speeches here and there saying “we condemn Traditionalism” and so on and to persist in your swaggering. Why not come forward and say that you believe what the Prophet has said to constitute black reaction, so that we may examine the validity of your claim and may prove that to the contrary it is not reaction?

We say: “Do not be the slave of others”. We want you to be honorable and dignified. We suggest sir, that as a Muslim government s’ the so-called ruling body of the Muslims, you should be reverent, and great. You are to safeguard independence and to be your own at whichever meeting you attend you request more financial assistance. ^{( 227)} do not degrade yourself for the sake of begging for a few dollars. These are in fact the things that we oppose. If this is reaction . Yes, we are reactionist; and if that is what being civilized is, then you undoubtedly civilized. If you believe in the laws of Islam then they are have explained and you are fully aware of them. And if you say you prefer rely on the constitutional law instead, then that too has given the of freedom to people, be it with regard to their abode, their occupation, their wealth or their souls; and it in fact prohibits coercion. It is not. That you do not accept the constitutional law because you do; although even then some time ago you murmured something about it being fifty years-old and so on. What nonsense! How can a Constitution which for the freedom of the people and the press he criticized for being fifty-years-old”?

All we are saying is that you should act according to the law. Let us take a good look at the constitutional law; you send your representative and we shall send ours.  You, who lay claim to being law-abiding democratic, reformist and progressive, let us examine the Constitutional law. You will see that if you act according to this law then we will not say anything more. Abide by the supplementary constitutional laws which were achieved through the ‘ulama sacrificing lives and delivering nations from captivity. The constitutional law grants freedom of the press; hut is you prepared to free it! Is it we, the ones who say allow the constitutional law to he implemented, grant the press freedom and permit the press to enjoy freedom of expression, who are the reactionist? The press may well he corrupt, hut in spite of all their malice, they still would prefer not to poison people’s minds to the extent to which you force them.

Now you, gentlemen and people of Iran, you must have seen the editorial of the Ittila’at on Tuesday April 7 (Farvardin 18). You read about the plans they had intended to carry out and the one, which they now have in mind. ^{( 228)} they saw that whatever move they made backfired. They used force, intimidation and threats; they brought about the episode of Khordad 15; they destroyed the Fayziya and Talibiya madrasas; ^{( 229)} they affronted the ‘ulama; they banished, deported, imprisoned and much more. Not only did things go wrong, hut they went SO very wrong that even he ^{( 230)} came to know about them. Indeed everyone knew about them. Moreover, objections raised by the outside world put the regime in a very Embarrass ion g position ^{( 231)} the events of Khordad 15 had truly disgraced they government. We had not wished them to be so disgraced, but the shame brought about by the events of that day was so deep that it y stained this country. This affair will be recorded in history Even some members of the regime have themselves admitted what a disgrace khurdad 15 was and I too say this. But they failed to say why, so I will now do so: it was a disgrace because they had actually purchased the machine guns, tanks and bullets that they fired at the poor Iranian people with the wealth the wealth of this very same nation. They trampled this poor nation underfoot. Could anything be more disgraceful than this’! Tell us exactly what these poor victims had done to deserve this’! What could they possibly have done?

We. Only gave you a piece of advice; surely it did not warrant such a reaction. Our argument is quite logical. We merely say that we have laws and that they should be implemented. Is it that you do not recognize the low? If so, then get your governmental employee ^{( 232)} to go to and announce that this is the case so that you can then return to primitive times if that’s what you really want. Are we, the ones who ask lementation of the constitutional law, reactionist, or you, who people and order for their exile? Your prison cells are packed with prisoners, with people of distinction, religious people, ‘ulama, and places such as Bandar ‘Abbas are full of exiles whose only crime was to have said “We do not want to he slaves; we do not want to he the captives of imperialism”.

You no doubt read in the Ittila ‘at newspaper of Tuesday April 18 (Farvardin 29): “What welcome news it is that the clerical dignitaries have reached an agreement with the government concerning the Shah People Revolution” - of course the same was written in other papers but this particular newspaper has a wider readership. Following this, some people who went to Tehran to voice objection requested that this clergyman be identified ^{( 233)} , saying: “Is the person in question Khomeini? Please tell us so that we might execrate him; or is it perhaps another ‘aiim of Islam? Come now, indicate who it is!” Some of our high-ranking ‘ulama are with us here today, may God preserve them (the audience cries Amen). Others are to be found in Tehran, Mashhad, and Najaf and in other Muslim lands. May God praise them all (the audience cries Amen)? Now then, these ‘ulama of whom you speak, do they exist out in space? Well if not, why do you not name those who have secretly made a deal with you? Name them if you dare. Tell us, was it Khomeini who made concessions whilst in prison? He had no right whatsoever to do something so contrary to Islam. How can Khomeini compromise with the cause of oppression? It would be damned wrong of him to do so. Could he do other than to preserve the dignity of Islam whilst he was in prison? - Which is in fact what he did. Could Khomeini and others like him possibly bring themselves to say something which was to the detriment of Islam: this Islam for which the Holy Prophet and’ the Immaculate Imams (phut) labored so hard and for which the ‘Ulama have exerted so much effort? Indeed if Khomeini actually did do such a thing, then he would be cast out from the society.

These same people visited the editor-in-chief of the Ittila ‘at ^{( 234)} and asked him “Who actually told you of this matter concerning the alleged concessions made by a clergyman’! Let us know who this treacherous ^{( 235)} spy is who has accepted your terms and has compromised against the Of Islam.” Initially the poor wretch said in embarrassment that he had not been there at the time. Then, after giving a detailed account to absolve himself from the matter, an account that is far too lengthy to recount here today, he added: “This is the article which I had prepared for that day.” He then showed it ‘to those present and continued: “But some officials brought several attached sheets to me and told me that I must print those instead. It was an order; what could I do?” I will tell him what he can do. If the editor-in-chief of Ittila ‘at is someone who truly regrets such obtrusions, then luckily, being financially comfortable as such, he can quit journalism and become a minister. It is the done thing here (the audience laughs); so you too a minister or a Member of Parliament or something. Of course you won’t get the people’s vote, but you can still be appointed to the office .it ‘s not necessary for people to favours this appointment, since they have no mandatory rights anyway. No, there is no doubt that they will appoint you as a Member of Parliament, or they will nominate you as senator. ^{( 236)} so if you genuinely deplore these obtrusions, then why not quit and find a better occupation’! It must also he said however, ‘that I actually sent a message to this editor-in-chief telling him to repudiate the article in question and from what I was told last night, he had said that he could no longer show his face to the nation or the clergy and that he would come up with an article which would refute the former one. Now, is it you or we who are reactionary’!

You are mistaken to lay such a lie at our door as if we are deceased. Indeed, praise be to God, we have a large number of ‘ulama. We have both distinguished and pre-eminent maraji’; we have many great philosophers and scholars of the religious sciences in theological centers and throughout the land. They will not just sit by whilst someone writes such a great lie in one of the popular newspapers stating “Thank goodness they have compromised”. However, even if we scream and cry out, they will ensure that our voices are not heard. Now you ^{( 237)} , the one who either yesterday or last night declared that you will curb traditionalism, is not your censoring of and obtruding upon the press in itself a form of traditionalism? In addition, do not claim that we are falsely accusing you because we have evidence of your actions. This is no lie. The very article which you ordered to be printed and which you later refused to allow to be refuted, now lies in the editor-in-chiefs office of the Itti/a ‘at newspaper.

All we are asking is that you abide by the constitutional law. If you have a faith then act according to its ordinances; and if you regard religion as reaction then at least act according to the constitutional law instead. Allow freedom of the pen. This poor editor-in-chief was truly in a wretched state. I sent word to him that I am not one of those who make empty demands. No indeed, I follow my demands up. God forbid, hut if I ever feel that I have to say something to defend the interests of Islam, then I shall surely say it and follow it through without fear. I swear by God that I have never experienced fear (an outburst of emotion from the crowd). Even on that day when they were taking me away, it was they who were frightened, whereby I comforted them by telling them not to he afraid (the audience laughs).

Do not you see that if we fear whilst striving for the goals of Islam then we in fact have no faith? These are the goals for which the prophets made unrelenting efforts and for which great men of Islam gave their lives, In striving for these goals the noble ‘ulama of Islam have been set on fire; they have lost their lives, been imprisoned and exiled and have served long Sentences Hence, if we fear for ourselves more than we are concerned e interests of Islam then we cannot he said to have faith. Would with faith be afraid to leave this world? In fact, if we really believe Afterlife then we should pray to be killed in the path of God and SO IC martyrs. One who has no faith in the afterlife should fear, not us. We have been assured a good place (in the next life) by our Lord, the Exalted the Merciful, as long as we live according to His religion; and we and believe that this is in fact what we are doing. Of what should we ‘? Why should we fear you’! The most you could possibly do be to execute us, in which case our life of ease would then commence. We would leave all these iniquities behind us; we would be relieved of all the pains and anguish of this life. Our beloved master (Imam Ali) has said: “I swear by God that Abu Talib’s son (Imam ‘Ali himself) is as fond of death as a suckling baby is fond of its mother’s breast. ^{( 238)} Of course we cannot make such a claim, but we are his followers. To fear death is to have no faith in the Hereafter.

Are we, who say the press must he free, traditionalists, whilst those who use force to demand that certain things be reported are progressivisms’! Unfortunately, however, whereas our voice does not go beyond these four walls their voice reaches as far as America as well as the other countries from whence they obtain their dollars. They spend the wealth of this nation on the foreign press - a press which writes articles disparaging our by;’ Islam, our nation, our everything. I used to read these Stories when I was in captivity. What a blunder they made in releasing me. They certainly made a grave mistake. In fact I told them whilst I was there that if they intended to continue with their scheming then it was best for them We remained imprisoned, for my release would only create further rest. Now I am telling them again, we are not reactionaries in the sense that you mean. Islam does not disapprove of the fruits of civilization and do we.

Islam would like nothing more than for you to he in command over all of the world powers. For after all it was Islam that drew its sword and conquered half or even more than half of the globe. Can the Islam he called reactionary’! Islam once governed all of the countries that you are now governed by. ^{( 239)} The sheer fact that those countries which implemented the commandments of Islam (of course this only applies to one or two Muslim governments, the rest never having really implemented Islamic precepts) considered themselves to be carrying the banner of Islam and to be identified with it; and the very fact that they implemented Islamic principles, even if only in appearance, meant that they were able to achieve such power and might that an army of a mere twenty-odd thousand Arabs succeeded in trampling such a vast country as Iran underfoot. This it did in order to make human beings out of its inhabitants and to bring civilization to the country, which indeed it succeeded in doing. The lofty thoughts held by the ‘ulama and marqji’ in our country are all due to the light of Islam. They all come from Islam. The rotten and traditionalistic minds of this regime however, are the cause of the nation’s servitude to all; offering this country lock, stock and barrel to foreigners and thus giving the country’s entire wealth to others. This is true reaction. Shame on it!

The Prime Minister sent someone to me yesterday who said: “We ask for your forgiveness, there has been a mistake. Please do your utmost to ensure no further unrest breaks out and we shall do as you ask”, thereby uttering the usual rhetoric. In reply I said: “The Ittila ‘at newspaper maintains that it is not to blame for the article, but that it is in fact your fault; and you claim that you regret your past behavior. Therefore, you must promise that such things won’t reoccur, because if they do then the consequences will be far worse next time. Do not persist in calling us reactionist, for if you do we have no choice but to expand on the issue in order to determine who the real reactionist are, the dear ‘ulama of Islam who ask that you do not oppress the people so, or yourselves.”

We were deeply distressed by the winter just passed, when lethally cold weather struck Isfahan, Hamden, Tehran, Qum and elsewhere; hut Did you show any consideration or make any arrangements for those poor in this our “developed” society’! I was told that in Hamadan more than two thousand people died due to cold weather which reached forty­ degrees below zero. 0 you who have caused our country to “develop ”, did you do anything for these people? We are not against development, in fact, we truly want you to be modern, but please do something for these poor wretches. Must they suffer both from the pain of starvationand the pain of humiliation? Must they both walk barefoot and be struck on the head too’! All we say is do not do this. Is it reactionary to say do not suppress people so; do not beat or insult them so; or to ask that you act according to either Islamic law or the constitutional law? You however, the agents of despotism, who use force, intimidation, banditry I whatever other practices you choose against these people; you who violate the constitutional law and totally disregard Islamic ordinances, are you the progressivists?

It is preposterous I know, but they have decided to establish a university. ^{( 240)} Apparently they have allocated a budget of a few million tumans for this purpose. Well, those of you responsible for this scheme, if you really are sympathetic towards Islam then why do you our university; yes look, the one standing over there? If you have genuinely reached the conclusion that Islam, Islamic precepts and the of Islam must remain, then although it is true we do not expect any from you, at least do not subject us to your malevolence. Just a chance to render you a service. Fortunately, we do not receive a Tom the national budget. Instead we have to endure poverty and your mean treatment of us. Whoever so wishes is free to witness self the living conditions of these students of the religious sciences.

 See how they have lived both before and after their rooms were plundered what did these agents of the regime want to plunder; an old rug maybe or perhaps a broken samovar? Are these what they were after’!