The Protest Movement and Religious Seminaries: Green or Black?

The supporters of the Green Movement should know that the actions and views of a few biased fundamentalist clerics do not reflect the views of all clerics and maraje-e taqlid [sources of religious emulation]. Our genuine clergy never addresses people with vile and coarse words; it never advocates bloodshed, murder, or the imprisonment of innocent people. Our true clergy knows that Islam regards false accusation, torture, and defamation of others as a grave sin. Our true clerics separate Islamic and national interests from factional gain. At a time when the regime uses every possible method to accuse the Green Movement of irreligiosity and dependence on foreigners, the presence of the clergy in the movement is vital.

“…In the movement’s body there are many committed, combatant and progressive clerics. The supporters of the Green Movement should know that the actions and views of a few biased fundamentalist clerics do not reflect the views of all clerics and maraje-e taqlid [sources of religious emulation]. Our genuine clergy never addresses people with vile and coarse words; it never advocates bloodshed, murder, or the imprisonment of innocent people. Our true clergy knows that Islam regards false accusation, torture, and defamation of others as a grave sin. Our true clerics separate Islamic and national interests from factional gain. This clergy stands united with the university and knows the importance of this alliance. We consider the active clerics in the Green Movement as a significant source of support. At a time when the regime uses every possible method to accuse the Green Movement of irreligiosity and dependence on foreigners, the presence of the clergy in the movement is vital.”

These are Mir Hossein Mousavi’s words about the relationship between the clergy and the Green Movement in his final interview last year.

Mousavi divides the clerics into two camps: one group includes “the biased fundamentalist” clergy and the other group clusters together the clerics who are “genuine.” Mousavi also differentiates between “Islamic and national interests” and “factional gains.”

Is Mousavi’s analysis realistic?

The Seminaries Conceal Their Real Views

Hojatoleslam Mir Kazemi is a fifty-year old cleric who was a student of the late Ayatollah Montazeri. In addition to teaching Islamic jurisdiction at the Ayatollah Golpayegani School in Qom, Hojatoleslam Mir Kazemi also teaches Islamic philosophy and theology. He believes that many clerics and traditional jurists accept the general principles on which the Green Movement is based.

From his viewpoint, these principles are the following: “1) the people’s satisfaction with the regime; and 2) the institutional separation of religion and politics. Respect for these two principles will ensure reverence for religion.”

Of course, he describes this period as a time of “taqiyya” (concealing one’s true belief for self-preservation) for religious seminaries and asserts: “When a person’s life, properties, and sometimes reputation, are endangered, taqiyya is one possible option; it is a tactic that is rooted in the Shiite tradition. Some who think their words can sway people speak out. They may pay for it, but they are satisfied that their statements have influenced others.”

He adds: “Many of these gentlemen imagine that power is monopolized by the Supreme Leader and the Revolutionary Guards, who swiftly silence every dissenting voice. They are convinced that their words will not be heard by anyone, and if they express their protests, they will endanger themselves in vain.”

When Mr. Mir Kazemi refers to the Revolutionary Guards, I ask him about the nature of this institution’s influence on religious seminaries. He responds: “The dominant regimes in Iran have always been sensitive to the independence of seminaries and their pursuit of justice. The seminaries have always been monitored in one way or another, even during the era of Ayatollah Boroujerdi, who held an incomparable religious authority and stature. The SAVAK’s dossiers also show evidence that the Shah’s regime kept an eye on the seminaries, but this never amounted to a direct and visible supervision. The present period is the worst in this respect. There is a department in the Center for the Administration of Qom’s Seminaries which, under the pretense of collecting statistics, acts as an organ of the Intelligence Ministry by summoning and warning nonconformist clerics. If these clerics refuse to heed  these warnings, this center discontinues their funding or refers them to the Special Court for Clerics, where they will face punishment. These centers are controlled by the Revolutionary Guards, which carries out military and intelligence activities in Qom through the independent brigade of Imam Sadeq.”

Mr. Mir Kazemi reports that since 1992, this military and intelligence center “has trapped many people by keeping the office of Ayatollah Montazeri under constant surveillance. Even those who have sought this office’s opinion about sharia-related affairs or have visited Ayatollah Montazeri to receive lessons and participate in religious debates have been persecuted. The same situation, though in a less severe manner, describes the condition of other silent or critical maraje-e taqlid.”

When Ayatollah Montazeri’s name is mentioned, I remember his clear and transparent comments about the Green Movement last December:

“…this movement, which is supported by the majority of Iranians, embodies the rightful demands that have been accumulated for years. Although the regime’s fundamentalist faction has resorted to extreme violence to repress the Green Movement, the achievements of this movement inside and outside the country are undeniable. This movement has succeeded in institutionalizing a nonviolent culture that defends the rights of vast segments of society that were violated during the election and the events that followed it. On the other hand, this movement has succeeded in exposing the violent identity of the fundamentalist and repressive faction. Of course, the people’s defense of their rights has been costly. This phenomenon shows that people will not be satisfied until their demands are met. People’s determination will not be affected by killings, intimidation, imprisonment, illegal trials that violate the principles of sharia, unjust and heavy sentences for political activists and freedom-seeking individuals, or the propagation of lies. Besides, the movement has drawn the attention of the world, especially progressive societies and organizations that defend human rights, to its oppressed state and rightful demands. In terms of political evaluation, the movement has shown the true power of this nation to the world.”

I ask Hojatoleslam Mir Kazemi if Ayatollah Montazeri’s view of Green Movement sums up the outlook of many people in religious seminaries. Does the Ayatollah’s approach endure and flourish in the seminaries or was he only an exception?

He responds: “Undoubtedly, the courage of Ayatollah Montazeri was exceptional; that is why the tradition of taqiyya (concealing one’s beliefs) dominates in the seminaries. The economic factor also plays a crucial role here...”

I interrupt him and ask: “What kind of impact did Ayatollah Montazeri’s words generate? Well! The rest should also speak out to see what impact their words make.” He answers immediately: “Did Ayatollah Shariatmadari not speak out in the early days of the revolution? They destroyed him and his voice was muffled right away. But the personality and stature of Ayatollah Montazeri was unique—and hardly repeatable.”

I reemphasize my critical question and ask: the period in which Ayatollah Shariatmadari protested against the system cannot be compared to the current conditions; the broadening power of media and the awakening of people after thirty-years under an Islamic regime have eased the ways of influencing them. He responds: “To the same degree, the regime has become smarter and more calculating.”

We return to the topic of economic factors. Mir Kazemi explains: “Today, the majority of economic outlets in Qom Elmiye Seminary, from the highest sources of funding to medical insurance and research centers, are controlled by the Office of the Supreme Leader. Although the office of Ayatollah Sistani in Qom tries intelligently to keep the seminaries independent of the regime, these measures are not adequate. The Islamic regime has labored and planned for twenty years to make the seminaries dependent on the Velayat-e Faqih (Guardianship of the Jursit) and, relatively speaking, they have succeeded in accomplishing this task. As long as the seminaries rely on the regime (and the person of Ayatollah Khamenei) for their financial affairs, we cannot expect them to act freely.”

After these preliminary remarks, Mir Kazemi concludes: “The tradition of taqiyya has priority over the virtue of courage. That is why we may have the impression that the seminarians do not support the Green Movement. But the innermost beliefs of the majority of seminarians are at odds with their silent or masked appearance. Al-Farazdaq (the Arab poet) has described the sentiments of the residents of Kufa toward Imam Hossein in this way: “Their hearts are with you, but their swords serve the rulers.”

Mir Kazemi considers his use of a fictitious name for this interview as an instance of taqiyya and says: “The fact that I introduce myself as Mir Kazemi in this interview is an example of the priority of taqiyya over courage. This way I can evade persecution.”

The Seminaries Cannot be Duped

Unlike Mr. Mir Kazemi, Hojatoleslam Qasem Ravanbakhsh uses his real name for this interview and, without any reservations, tells the reporter: “The “Green Plot” was the product of an alliance that joined Mousavi, Karrubi and Khatami with Reza Pahlavi and the CIA. The Elmiye Seminary is not duped by the deceptive appearance that this movement assumed.”

Qasem Ravanbakhsh is a student of Mesbah Yazdi and the editor-in-chief of Parto-e Sokhan Weekly. He regards what he calls “the Green Plot” as a conspiracy that was hatched on May 27th 1997 and claims that he, along with his teacher and other like-minded clerics, expressed the necessary warnings at that time: “Ayatollah Mesbah Yazdi had repeatedly asked the reformists to define their reforms in a transparent way, but they refused to offer any clear definition for the reforms. Even when Khatami reached the end of his second term of Presidency, it was not clear what they meant by reforms; they knew that a precise formulation of reforms would doom them.”

Ravanbakhsh says: “We repeatedly tried in our debates and articles to prove to people that Khatami and his supporters intended to topple the Islamic system by means of reforms and through a soft coup. In addition to exposing the theoretical bases of the reformists’ plot, Ayatollah Mesbah Yazdi spoke about the suitcases full of dollars that had been sent to them. But they did not correct their behavior until “the Green Plot” was carried out after the 2009 election. 

Mr. Ravanbakhsh regards Ayatollah Mesbah Yazdi and the Society of Seminary Teachers of Qom as the authentic voice of seminaries. The reporter asks: if this is the legitimate voice of seminaries, how do you classify the outlooks of a marja-e taqlid such as Ayatollah Sanei or an institution such as the Society of Seminary Researchers and Teachers of Qom?

Mr. Ravanbakhsh responds: “After stripping Mr. Sanei of his authority as a marja-e taqlid, his status has been reduced to that of an ordinary cleric. In the same vein, the institution that you mentioned has no credibility. It was set up during the Presidency of Mr. Khatami to act against the Society of Seminary Teachers of Qom.”

In response to the reporter’s next question, Ravanbakhsh thunders angrily: “The Elmiye Seminary has no illusions about the Green Movement, whose appeal has dwindled rapidly among people. It reached its climax a few days after the election when five hundred thousand people with green wristbands and rolled up sleeves took to the streets to force the Supreme Leader to annul the election.”

Mr. Ravanbakhsh ends the interview with this sentence: “The election ended a long time ago and the Iranian nation has defeated “the Green Plot” and their supporters in the U.S. But they challenged the Islamic Republic with demonstrations and turmoil on the streets as Mousavi and Karrubi tried to undermine the system with harsh and violent statements. With the arrest of the Green Movement’s leaders, this conspiracy was thwarted and, with their confessions, this plot was exposed to the Iranian people.”

***   

Perhaps only time can prove the truth of Mr. Mir Kazemi’s remarks, but all evidence shows that Mr. Ravanbakhsh’s claims are unfounded. The majority of residents of Qom voted for Seyed Mohammad Khatami in the Presidential elections of 1997 and 2001 (even in the ballot boxes that were set up at Qom Feyziye Seminary). Many other events indicate that the assessment of Mr. Ravanbakhsh is unrealistic: the silence of all maraje-e taqlid (except Ayatollah Nouri Hamedani) in expressing support for the system in recent years, the refusal of maraje-e taqlid to receive Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in the past year, the refusal of Ayatollahs Javadi Amoli and Ostadi to lead Friday Prayers in Iran’s most religious city after the election and the birth of Green Movement, and finally the unparalleled funeral of Ayatollah Montazeri in Qom. The truth is that even if Qom’s seminarians do not join ranks with the Green Movement, they would not see all things, in the manner of Mesbah Yazdi and his disciple, as black, especially since they do not advocate bloodshed, killing or imprisonment of innocent people. This is the point that Mir Hussein Mousavi has made in his analysis of the relationship between the clergy and the Green Movement.