RADIO FREE EUROPE/RADIO LIBERTY, PRAGUE, CZECH REPUBLIC
_________________________________________ ____________________
RFE/RL Iran Report
Vol. 9, No. 11, 29 March 2006

A Review of Developments in Iran Prepared by the Regional Specialists
of RFE/RL’s Newsline Team

******************************************** ****************
HEADLINES
* ‘YEAR OF THE PROPHET’ BEGINS IN IRAN
* IRANIAN, SYRIAN OFFICIALS DISCUSS IRAQ
* IRAN-U.S. TALKS TO FOCUS ON IRAQ…
* …NOT AL-QAEDA…
* …OR NUKES
* MIXED REACTIONS IN IRAQ TO POSSIBLE IRAN-U.S. TALKS
* GANJI RELEASED FROM JAIL
* NO LEAVE FOR POLITICAL PRISONERS IN IRAN
* IRANIAN GOVERNMENT ALLEGEDLY COLLECTS DATA ON BAHA’IS
* SUSPECTS ARRESTED IN IRANIAN ASSASSINATION PLOT
* BALUCHIS CLAIM RESPONSIBILITY FOR SOUTHEASTERN SHOOT-OUT
* IRAN PROTESTS AZERBAIJANI ACTIVIST’S STATEMENT
* REINTERPRETING ASHURA
******************************************* *****************

‘YEAR OF THE PROPHET’ BEGINS IN IRAN. Supreme Leader
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei announced on March 20 in Tehran, as his
compatriots celebrated the Iranian new year, that the coming year
will be called the “Year of [the] Prophet Muhammad,” the Islamic
Republic News Agency (IRNA) reported. Khamenei said the Islamic
community and the Iranian nation need the Prophet’s guidance now
more than ever. Among the Prophet’s lessons, he said, are ethics,
dignity, and resistance. Reviewing the past year, Khamenei hailed the
presidential election. He also referred to the forthcoming
Arba’in commemoration, which marks the 40th day after the
martyrdom of Imam Hussein.
President Mahmud Ahmadinejad said in his new year’s
message on March 20 that the Iranian nation will stand firm in
pursuit of its nuclear rights, IRNA reported. This self-developed
knowledge cannot be taken away, he said, and it is needed for
electrical-power generation and other purposes. Ahmadinejad
complained that Iran’s enemies are engaged in a psychological war
against it. Ahmadinejad said Iran should be compensated for the
damage caused by 2 1/2 years of suspended nuclear activities.
Ahmadinejad said his administration is committed to serving the
people, and he urged the public to monitor the performance of the
government. (Bill Samii)

IRANIAN, SYRIAN OFFICIALS DISCUSS IRAQ. Iranian Minister of
Intelligence and Security Gholam Hussein Mohseni-Ejei discussed
regional developments during a March 20 meeting with Syrian Vice
President Faruq Shara in Damascus, SANA reported. Iraq reportedly was
a focus of the talks, and the officials also stressed the importance
of continuing contacts. Also in attendance was Iran’s ambassador
to Damascus, Hassan Akhtari. (Bill Samii)

IRAN-U.S. TALKS TO FOCUS ON IRAQ… Supreme National Security Council
Secretary Ali Larijani told reporters in Tehran on March 16 that Iran
is willing to hold talks with the U.S. on Iraq, and this development
has caused great controversy in Iran. Top state officials have been
at pains to assuage concerns of hardline opponents to such talks.
The Iranian government’s desire to forestall such
controversy was demonstrated by the fact that Foreign Minister
Manuchehr Mottaki gave the presermon speech at the March 17 Tehran
Friday prayers. Mottaki stressed that Iran is calling for the
withdrawal of foreign forces from Iraq, state radio reported, because
their presence is being exploited by combatants in the country.
Mottaki went on to say that Iran will have a dynamic foreign policy
in the coming year, and Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s
guidance calls for mass participation in Iran’s international
relations. Mottaki emphasized the need for unity. “We must speak with
one voice and remain united at this juncture,” he said. “Our
officials, scholars, scientists, academics, students, political
parties, and people, more than anytime before, must remain united on
the nuclear policy which has been carefully thought through.”
In a speech in Mashhad on March 21, Supreme Leader Ayatollah
Ali Khamenei stated that he does not object to bilateral talks
between Iran and the United States, Radio Farda and Iranian state
television reported. He said the U.S. repeatedly requested such
talks, but “Our officials just ignored them in the beginning.”
Khamenei said his subordinates will offer the Iranian view on Iraq to
the Americans. That view, he said, is “aimed at making Americans
understand that they should leave Iraq alone and let Iraqis run their
own country. They should stop provoking various sects, so Iraq could
experience security.”
Khamenei went on to level accusations against the U.S. and
other countries, saying, “There is overwhelming evidence implicating
espionage organizations in instabilities in Iraq – British, American
or Israeli espionage operations.” He accused the U.S. of saying that
Iran wants to discuss topics other than Iraq, but this is
“inaccurate” and the Americans are “deceptive.” Khamenei repeated
that Iran does not object to holding talks, but “we do not support
the talks if they provide a venue for the bullying, aggressive and
deceptive side to impose its own views.”
Also in his speech Khamenei said Iran’s enemies are
trying to hinder the country’s progress, state television
reported. “America is at the forefront of these attempts,” he said.
What does the U.S. want, he asked rhetorically? “They demand that the
Iranian nation should return to them what the revolution took away.”
Washington seems to be similarly eager to confine the talks
to just one subject. President George W. Bush at a March 21 news
conference at the White House described the circumstances under which
direct U.S.-Iran contacts will occur, Radio Farda reported. “I gave
[Zalmay Khalilzad], our ambassador in Iraq, permission to explain to
the Iranians what we didn’t like about their involvement in
Iraq,” Bush said. “I thought it was important for them to hear
firsthand, other than through press accounts. He asked whether or not
it made sense for him to be able to talk to a [Iranian]
representative in Baghdad. I said: ‘Absolutely. You make it clear
to them that attempts to spread sectarian violence or to maybe move
parts that could be used for [improvised explosive devices] is
unacceptable to the United States.'” (Bill Samii)

…NOT AL-QAEDA… Iraqi Interior Minister Bayan Jabr said on March
21 that Al-Qaeda will be the subject of the pending Iran-U.S. talks,
KUNA news agency reported. Jabr said he was involved in organizing
these talks, and added that the son of Osama bin Laden and 25
Al-Qaeda commanders are imprisoned in Iran. Some U.S. intelligence
officials believe Tehran is hosting senior Al-Qaeda personnel and
allowing them to communicate and plan operations, the “Los Angeles
Times” reported on March 21 (see “RFE/RL Iraq Report,” March 14,
2006). These officials fear that President Mahmud Ahmadinejad is
either creating an alliance with the Al-Qaeda members or at least
turning a blind eye to their activities. Other intelligence officers
and analysts cited by the “Los Angeles Times” doubt this and cite
Shi’ite-Sunni tensions as a reason for Tehran to restrict
Al-Qaeda activities.
But this is all guesswork, because, an unidentified “U.S.
counterterrorism official” admitted: “We don’t have any
intelligence going on in Iran. No people on the ground.” He
continued, “It blows me away the lack of intelligence that’s out
there.”
Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Assefi said on March 22
that allegations of the presence in Iran of Al Qaeda personnel are
“unfounded and false,” IRNA reported. Assefi added, “Dissemination of
such reports aims to cover up failure of the occupying forces in
guaranteeing security of Iraq.” Assefi said Iran has followed through
on all its international counter-terrorism commitments. (Bill Samii)

…OR NUKES. The Iranians hope to address the nuclear issue in the
meeting with U.S. Ambassador Khalilzad, according to Eurasia View on
March 20, but U.S. Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns said the
United States will not negotiate directly with Iran on this topic,
“The Washington Post” reported on March 21. National security adviser
Stephen Hadley said Tehran might be using the talks as a distraction
from the nuclear controversy and to drive a wedge between the United
States and other countries, the “Los Angeles Times” reported on March
18.
At his March 21 White House news conference, President Bush
also expressed concern about the possibility of Iran having a nuclear
weapon, Radio Farda reported. “If the Iranians were to have a nuclear
weapon, they could blackmail the world,” he said. “If the Iranians
were to have a nuclear weapon, they could proliferate. This is a
country that is walking away from international accords.” Unnamed
Western diplomats said the same day that Iran is about to run a
164-centrifuge cascade of machines that enrich uranium, AFP reported.
This development could have an impact on the UN Security Council
meeting scheduled for March 27.
Great Britain is suggesting that Iran be offered more
incentives to abandon its nuclear pursuits, the international edition
of “The Wall Street Journal” reported on March 21, because two
permanent members of the Security Council — Russia and China — will
reject the imposition of sanctions against Iran. The British proposal
adds that Moscow and Beijing would accept “more serious measures”
against Iran if it rejects the incentives. U.S. Undersecretary of
State Burns said Washington is not interested in offering incentives
to Iran or reducing pressure, “The Wall Street Journal” reported. He
said Washington is working toward a statement and, if necessary, a
resolution demanding greater Iranian cooperation with international
inspectors and an end to enrichment. “The Washington Post” reported
on March 21 that the five permanent members of the Security Council
have failed to agree on how to deal with the Iranian nuclear crisis.
Foreign ministers from the U.S., U.K, and France have turned
to telephone diplomacy with counterparts from Russia and China in an
effort to overcome the impasse in the Security Council, Reuters
reported on March 23. U.S. Ambassador John Bolton said, “We’re
waiting for the outcome of the conversations at higher pay grades.”
White House spokesman Scott McClellan described this as “diplomacy at
work” rather than a deadlock.
There is no consensus on imposing sanctions, Foreign Minister
Manuchehr Mottaki said on March 23, Al Alam television reported. He
said the Iranian nuclear issue should not be politicized when the UN
Security Council discusses it, nor should the council serve as a
court in which Iran is tried. Mottaki dismissed the possibility of
Iran resuming its suspension of uranium enrichment activities.
Referring to the stances of Russia and China, which have opposed a
critical British and French statement on the Iranian program, Mottaki
said, “Some countries have suggested that the opportunity should be
given to talks on the Iranian nuclear issue, and there is a
possibility that the talks will continue until a comprehensive
agreement is reached.” (Bill Samii)

MIXED REACTIONS IN IRAQ TO POSSIBLE IRAN-U.S. TALKS. Several Iraqi
politicians have expressed concern over proposed talks between the
United States and Iran on the issue of Iraq’s security. Some
detractors have speculated that the issue of Iranian involvement in
Iraq might become intertwined with the U.S.-Iran nuclear dispute,
opening up the potential for Iraq to be sacrificed in any forthcoming
agreement between the two.
Shi’ite leader Abd al-Aziz al-Hakim, who proposed the
talks last week, said they would aim to dispel mounting accusations
of Iranian interference in Iraq. Some Iraqi lawmakers say that the
call for talks amounts to an admission by al-Hakim of the Iranian
presence in the country.
Not surprisingly, Sunni Arab leaders have been the most
vehemently opposed to the proposal. Saddam Hussein’s Sunni
Arab-dominated administration fought a bitter eight-year war with
Iran in the 1980s. During this time and after, Hussein cultivated a
fear among Sunni Arabs that Iran would undertake any means to bring
down his regime and establish an Iranian-style government in Iraq —
all with the support of Iraq’s Shi’a.
“This [call by al-Hakim] is a clear signal of the Iranian
presence in Iraq…. When this initiative came, it was only to
uncover this situation rather than to introduce a new one. It is an
explicit demonstration of what is really happening,” Sunni Arab
parliamentarian Husayn al-Falluji said in a March 20 interview with
RFE/RL’s Radio Free Iraq (RFI).
The influential Muslim Scholars Association, which remains
outside the government, called on “neighboring states” to stop
harming Iraq in a March 18 statement posted to its website. “The
Iranian interference in Iraqi affairs is not new and its harm has
reached its peak. What is new, however, is [attempts by some Iraqis]
to legitimize this interference and grant [Iran] an international
cover based on a full disregard of Iraq’s sovereignty and will,”
said the association, referring to al-Hakim.
In some cases, objection to the proposed talks is based on
the supposition that the talks would be held without the presence of
Iraqi political forces, and more specifically Sunni Arabs.
The Iraqi Accordance Front, the most powerful Sunni Arab
grouping in parliament, has also condemned the proposed talks, saying
they amount to a flagrant interference in Iraq’s internal
affairs. Front member Nasir al-Ani told “The New York Times” that it
is the Iraqi government’s responsibility to hold talks with Iran.
“It’s not up to the American ambassador to talk to Iran about
Iraq,” said al-Ani, the newspaper’s website reported on March 18.

Former Sunni parliamentarian Mish’an al-Juburi, who is
currently wanted in Baghdad on charges of corruption, told RFE/RL
that allowing any of Iraq’s neighbors to become involved in Iraqi
affairs would be a dangerous development. “If we allow a country like
Iran to interfere in Iraqi affairs and take it as a discussion
partner on the future situation of Iraq, it can mean that all other
neighboring countries — Kuwait, Turkey, Syria, Jordan, and Saudi
Arabia — may be party to these type of discussions” in the future,
he said.
Calling Iran’s interference in Iraq “expansionism,”
al-Juburi added, “We need to stop the Iranian role by supporting and
boosting Shi’ite patriots who do not accept Iranian influence in
Iraq.” Al-Juburi blamed outgoing Prime Minister Ibrahim
al-Ja’fari for the growing Iranian influence in Iraq, saying
al-Ja’fari “has surrendered Iraq to Iran. This man is the origin
of the mistake. He proved unable to do anything to prohibit Iran, its
intelligence and institutions, from taking hold on the whole of
Iraq’s executive bodies: economic, intelligence, and security”
organs, al-Juburi said.
For some Kurds, the issue of Iran-U.S. talks is of special
concern. Kurds claim they were betrayed by Iran and the United States
after Iran concluded the 1975 Algiers Accord with Saddam Hussein. The
accord, demarcating the Iran-Iraq border, led the Shah of Iran to
withdraw his support for Iraq’s Kurds. The United States followed
suit, leaving the Kurds to fend for themselves against Hussein.
Nevertheless, Iran’s borders were open to fleeing Iraqi
Kurds — and Shi’a — during crucial periods in the 1980s and
1990s and many would argue that countless Iraqi lives were saved as a
result.
Iraqi President Jalal Talabani, for one, has backed the
talks. “I am one of those who support this and worked for this
purpose. When I visited Tehran, I met with Iranian officials and
raised this issue with them, since I believe that the Iraqi problem
has become an international problem…. If this action serves Iraq
and its sovereignty and independence — provided there is no
interference in its domestic affairs — and if it serves security and
stability, prevents infiltrations, and ends terrorism…then this is
welcome,” Talabani said at a March 19 press briefing in Baghdad.
Meanwhile, Fu’ad Husayn, spokesman for Kurdistan Regional
President Mas’ud Barzani, told RFI in a March 20 interview that
he believes the Kurdistan Coalition has no official position on the
talks. “We must be realistic, as the borders of Iraq are open and
every [neighboring] country has some influence in this country. It
may be better, and maybe in the Iraqi interest, that these countries
arrive at concluding agreements amongst themselves,” Husayn said. “If
the agreements are in the interest of Iraq, then why not?” He did
caution, however, that the talks should not be held at the expense of
the Kurdish issue.
Independent Kurdish politician Mahmud Uthman said that Iraq
must be represented at any talks. “The dialogue between Iran and the
United States alone will be at the expense of Iraq’s interests,”
Uthman told London-based “Al-Hayat,” the daily reported on March 18.
Shi’ite leaders currently at odds with al-Hakim’s
Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) over other
issues related to the formation of the incoming government, such as
cleric Muqtada al-Sadr’s bloc in parliament and
al-Ja’fari’s Islamic Al-Da’wah Party, are vehemently
opposed to the proposal.
Al-Sadr supporters in parliament — like their Sunni Arab
counterparts — have claimed the very proposal itself amounts to
tacit recognition of Iran’s interference in Iraqi affairs.
Nadim al-Jabiri’s Islamic Virtue Party, which is part of
the United Iraqi Alliance (UIA) along with SCIRI and the Islamic
Al-Da’wah Party, is also opposed to the talks, Al-Sharqiyah
television reported on March 18.
SCIRI member Rida al-Taqiy defended the proposal, however,
telling “Al-Hayat” that the talks were necessary because they are
obstructing talks over the formation of the next cabinet. “The U.S.
Ambassador [Zalmay Khalilzad] has frequently accused the [UIA] of
establishing relations with Iran in order to remain in power and
control [Iraq’s] resources and security. These accusations have a
negative effect on the formation of the government because the [UIA]
won a majority in parliament, which cannot be ignored in the
government formation.”
Former Shi’ite parliamentarian Ali al-Dabbagh told
Paris-based “Le Monde” that while al-Ja’fari is very much aware
of Iranian infiltration in the Interior Ministry, he is reluctant to
do anything about it, the daily reported on March 17. Al-Dabbagh
withdrew from the UIA in October to protest the alliance’s
monopolization of power in the transitional government.
If al-Ja’fari is indeed hesitating to publicly confront
Iran’s growing role in Iraq, it may be because of his diminishing
influence in the government and the fact that any infiltration —
though it may have occurred without his knowledge — came under his
administration. Al-Ja’fari has also clashed with SCIRI after
al-Ja’fari beat out SCIRI’s nominee to the premiership, Adil
Abd al-Mahdi, by one vote in February.
Former Prime Minister Iyad Allawi told Reuters in a March 21
interview that he supports the talks, but only if Iraqi officials,
and regional Arab states like Egypt and Saudi Arabia, were
represented at the talks. “It would be inappropriate for two
countries to discuss the affairs of the people of a third country,”
Allawi said. “The Iraqi political blocs, as well as the region,
should be a major part of these discussions.” (Kathleen Ridolfo)

GANJI RELEASED FROM JAIL. Akbar Ganji, an Iranian journalist who was
imprisoned in 2000 after writing about the connection between top
state officials and the murders of dissidents, was released on prison
leave on March 17 and has gone home, Radio Farda reported. He was
given leave for the Iranian new-year holiday, which lasts until April
3, and his sentence ends on March 30, so he is not expected to return
to jail. In an interview with Radio Farda, Ganji’s wife, Masumeh
Shafii, said her husband’s homecoming was unexpected because
prison officials had added time to his sentence for unauthorized
absences. Ganji went on a lengthy hunger strike, and Shafii said her
spouse has lost a lot of weight and he now weighs only 49 kilograms.
(Bill Samii)

NO LEAVE FOR POLITICAL PRISONERS IN IRAN. The Students Committee for
the Defense of Political Prisoners has requested the release of all
such detainees in Iran as the country celebrates the new year, Radio
Farda reported on March 20. Group spokesman Hassan Zarehzadeh
Ardeshir told Radio Farda that many of the prisoners’ families
have gone to the places of detention to collect their relatives for
the traditional New Year’s leave, but have not yet been able to
do so. A number of political prisoners at Evin prison have warned
that if they are not granted their New Year’s leave they will
begin a hunger strike. Leave for some 20 Evin prisoners has been
approved by the prison authorities, Radio Farda reported, but the
Tehran prosecutor and other officials blocked it. (Bill Samii)

IRANIAN GOVERNMENT ALLEGEDLY COLLECTS DATA ON BAHA’IS. Asma
Jahangir, the UN’s Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion, has
expressed serious concern about allegations that the Iranian
government will secretly monitor members of the Baha’i faith,
Radio Farda reported on 23 March. Diane Alai, the United Nations
representative of the Baha’i International Community, told Radio
Farda that a letter dated October 29 instructs the Islamic Revolution
Guards Corps, the Ministry of Intelligence and Security, the police,
and all security forces to collect the names of all Baha’is. The
letter is from the commander of the armed forces, she said, but she
suggested that it is not coincidental that anti-Baha’i articles
have appeared in the hardline “Kayhan” newspaper lately. The
information that has appeared in “Kayhan” is inaccurate, she
continued, but the Baha’i have not been given the right to
respond. Baha’i have no rights in Iran, Alai said, and are denied
university access. They are arrested and released only after paying
very large fines or posting high bails, she said, and retirees do not
receive their pensions. (Bill Samii)

SUSPECTS ARRESTED IN IRANIAN ASSASSINATION PLOT. Iran’s
Arabic-language Al-Alam satellite television reported on March 20
that Iranian security personnel have arrested an unspecified number
of people suspected of planning assassinations in the southwestern
city of Ahvaz. The suspects reportedly were carrying “advanced
weapons equipped with silencers and laser equipment normally used in
assassinations, some of which are made in Britain.” Unrest in
southwestern Iran has been continuing for about a year, and Iranian
officials have repeatedly claimed that Great Britain is involved with
such incidents.
Ayatollah Mohammad Ali Musavi-Jazayeri, the Friday-prayer
leader in Ahvaz, said in his March 17 sermon that the United States
is behind efforts to cause ethnic unrest and political divisions in
Iran, Khuzestan Province television reported on March 18. “Admitting
that it has failed in confronting the Islamic system, the arrogance,
including America, has begun a policy of creating division among the
political elite and inciting ethnic groups.” These U.S. efforts, he
continued, will fail because “all ethnic groups in Iran enjoy
equality and fraternity and there is no division among them.”
Referring to the U.S. allocation of funding for democracy promotion
in Iran, he said, “The policies of America, which are designed by the
Zionists, have always failed, because of our nation’s iron will.”
(Bill Samii)

BALUCHIS CLAIM RESPONSIBILITY FOR SOUTHEASTERN SHOOT-OUT. More than
20 people were killed and another seven were injured when a motorcade
traveling between the Sistan va Baluchistan Province cities of
Zahedan and Zabol was ambushed late on March 16, Iranian news
agencies reported on March 17. Another 12 people are missing.
Zahedan parliamentary representative Peyman Foruzesh said the
attackers were Afghan “bandits,” and he added that they were trained
by U.S. and other foreign forces, Mehr News Agency reported.
National police chief Brigadier General Ismail
Ahmadi-Moqaddam connected the attackers with the United States and
Britain and said they are trying to cause Shi’ite-Sunni strife,
state television reported. “The armed bandits filmed the scene of the
killings…using a full video camera kit and this film will probably
be broadcast by the foreign media in the next few days,” Fars News
Agency quoted Ahmadi-Moqaddam as saying the next day. He added that
the attackers stopped the motorcade and separated the ethnic Baluchis
from the ethnic “Fars” (Persians) before killing the Persians.
Deputy Interior Minister Mohammad Baqer Zolqadr said the
attackers have escaped to Pakistan and Afghanistan, IRNA reported on
March 18.
Interior Minister Mustafa Pur-Mohammadi said on March 18 that
the people behind this attack are also behind unrest in southwestern
Khuzestan Province, Mehr reported.
Iranian government spokesman Gholam Hussein Elham said on
March 18 that such incidents “have always been sponsored by
foreigners,” IRNA reported.
Jundullah, an Iranian Baluchi group that held a number of
Iranian security personnel hostage earlier this year, released on
March 21 a video in which it claimed responsibility for the ambush,
Al-Jazeera satellite television reported. Jundullah said it is
holding seven people, whom it accuses of serving in the Iranian
military and intelligence forces and with the country’s Red
Crescent Society. The captors are demanding the release of five of
their comrades.
Police chief Ahmadi-Moqaddam said on March 22 that the
individuals responsible for ambushing the motorcade have been
identified, Fars News Agency reported. Ahmadi-Moqaddam said the
attackers are hiding out in an area between Pakistan and Afghanistan,
and information on the attackers has been conveyed to Kabul and
Islamabad through Interpol. However, there is little central
government control in the region, and the two governments have
informed Tehran that they cannot apprehend the suspects. (Bill Samii)

IRAN PROTESTS AZERBAIJANI ACTIVIST’S STATEMENT. Iranian
Ambassador to Azerbaijan Afshar Suleimani handed a protest note on
March 17 to the Azerbaijani Foreign Ministry in connection with a
statement made the previous day at the Second World Congress of
Azerbaijanis in Baku by the chairman of that body, Djavad Derekhti,
day.az and RFE/RL’s Azerbaijani Service reported. Derekhti
condemned Iran’s policy toward its sizeable Azeri minority and
said the Azerbaijan Republic and so-called Southern Azerbaijan,
meaning predominantly Azeri-populated regions of Iran, constitute a
single country with a population of 50 million. Suleimani said it was
inappropriate to make such a statement at a gathering attended by
Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev. The protest note further made the
point that Derekhti’s statement violated Azerbaijan’s
obligations stemming from the bilateral Treaty on Friendly Relations
and Cooperation signed in May 2002. On March 18, the conservative
wing of the divided Azerbaijan Popular Front Party convened a
demonstration outside the Iranian Embassy in Baku to demand that
Suleimani be declared persona non grata and that Iran provide its
Azerbaijani minority with education at all levels in the Azeri
language, day.az reported. (Liz Fuller)

REINTERPRETING ASHURA. The West may not have noticed — and nor,
perhaps, may many Muslims — but a range of Islamic thinkers are
currently trying to raise awareness and understanding of the Islamic
tradition of pacifism, tolerance, and rationality. Among them is Emad
Baghi, an Iranian scholar of Islam, previously himself imprisoned for
his writings about the killing of critics of the regime in the 1990s
and now the head of the Tehran-based Organization for the Defense of
Prisoners’ Rights. Fatemeh Aman of RFE/RL’s Radio Farda spoke
with him about some of the roots of militant Islam, but particularly
about his new and provocative interpretation of Ashura, one of the
key moments in the history of Islam and a date of particular
significance to Shi’ites. Here, he suggests that the martyrdom of
Imam Hussein, a descendent of the Prophet Muhammad and one of
Islam’s first leaders, should be seen as a symbol of pacifism and
rationality rather than as a symbol of tragedy, resistance, and
revolution.
RFE/RL: In recent years, tensions between the Islamic world
and Western civilization have been rising. Many analysts reluctantly
admit that the prediction by the U.S. academic Samuel Huntington of a
pending clash of civilizations may be on the verge of coming true.
How did we get here, and who is to blame? Other aspects of Ashura
were forgotten and a violent and revolutionary picture of Islam was
painted, a revolutionary Islam that advocates martyrdom as offering
the key to heaven.
Baghi: Toward the end of the 20th century philosophers and
social scientists suggested that, with the advent of the third
millennium, the whole world would be moving toward greater harmony
and mutual understanding. Concepts such as the global village raised
an expectation that peace and tolerance would prevail. But the events
of September 11 altered this trend. The terrorist attacks of
September 11 were not only a human tragedy, but also a catastrophe
that deflected the course of history in the third millennium. After
September 11, Bin Laden-ism and Talibanism became the dominant face
of Islam. As a result, anti-Islamic sentiment rose in the West. The
Western public was told that the West was now in a war against Islam.
The term “crusade” was commonly used in the media and even by George
Bush, although he later distanced himself from that statement.
But the truth is that Bin Laden-ism and Talibanism, long
before declaring war to the Western civilization, had started a
massive offensive against a large portion of Muslims, modern Muslims,
those who want to show the peaceful nature of Islam. Examples are the
conflicts between different Islamic groups in Afghanistan and the
Taliban’s cruel violence against Iranians and other Muslim
nationalities. The horrible crime that these people committed on
September 11 completely eclipsed the peaceful face of Islam.
RFE/RL: But don’t we also see elements of violence in the
Shi’ite interpretation of Islam?
Baghi: Well, there has been a long tradition of a
revolutionary and militant interpretation of the Shi’ism,
although this interpretation has always been very different from Bin
Laden-ism. The concept of Alavi Shi’ism or “red Shi’ism” [a
concept propounded by the Iranian intellectual Ali Shariati that
contrasts Alavite Shi’ism or Red Shi’ism — the religion of
martyrdom — with Safavid Shi’ism or Black Shi’ism, the religion
of mourning] was in fact a response to totalitarian regimes and was
primarily represented by freedom fighters. Religious intellectuals
wanted to use this instrument to mobilize the masses against tyranny.
They therefore exaggerated the militant and revolutionary aspect of
the Ashura, the movement of Imam Hussein [the grandson of the Prophet
Muhammad and the third of the Muslim leaders — imams — who, as
descendents of the Prophet, are the key interpreters of God’s
will]. Other aspects of Ashura were forgotten and a violent and
revolutionary picture of Islam was painted, a revolutionary Islam
that advocates martyrdom as offering the key to heaven. Martyrdom and
jihad [the concept of holy war] became limited to violent struggle
against one’s enemies. This picture was in sharp contrast with
the spirit of religion. The spirit of all religions is the protection
of human dignity. All prophets came to undo injustice against humans.
All Islamic texts start with the phrase “in the name of God, the
merciful.” In Islamic teaching, jihad is not limited to fighting the
enemy with violent means. According to Islam, even if you are
struggling to put food on your family’s table, or if you are
writing to spread knowledge and awareness, you are engaged in the
jihad.
I think the growing anti-Islamic sentiment is rooted
primarily in the reaction to this violent picture depicted by Islam.
Even the recent caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad that led to a
major crisis were not, in essence, an insult to the real prophet, but
rather to the Muhammad that Bin Laden-ism had pictured for us. This
was aimed at a fake Muhammad forged by violent and extremist groups,
and not the prophet known for centuries by Muslims as the symbol of
peace and compassion.
RFE/RL: You mentioned that the militant interpretation of
Ashura, Imam Hussein’s uprising [in 680 AD, which ended with his
death in battle with the ruling caliph at Al-Karbala], was an
exaggeration by Islamic intellectuals. You recently made a speech
entitled “Imam Hussein’s Peace”, a term normally applied to Imam
Hassan [the second imam and the brother of Imam Hussein], who made
peace with his rivals. This is a very new and provocative concept.
Could you elaborate on that?
Baghi: There has been two approaches to Ashura, an emotional
approach and a political one. In the emotional approach, which
dominated for centuries, the tragic element of Ashura became
prominent. Ashura was simplified as a tragedy. In the political
approach, Imam Hussein became the symbol of resistance and
revolution. In the emotional approach, Ashura is about tears and
sympathy; in the political approach it is about the struggle for
freedom. The emotional approach to Ashura and to Islam as a whole is
misinterpreted. This gave rise to rituals in which people beat
themselves to the point of fainting. In this interpretation, mourning
— and extreme expressions of that — become virtues. The political
approach has introduced other misinterpretations of its own — to the
extent that Imam Hussein is turned into a symbol of war and
revolution while Imam Hassan represents pacifism and compromise. The
political interpretation has so deeply engraved these concepts upon
our psyche that my title, “Imam Hussein’s Peace,” sounds strange
even to many of my friends.
Instead of providing unintended propaganda for Bin
Laden’s thoughts, let the world hear the voice of Islamic
thinkers who show the peaceful face of Islam. We have no shortage of
such scholars and political activists in the Islamic world.
I am advocating a different view of Ashura, a view that is
free of emotionally and politically tainted interpretations. In my
view of Ashura, two elements — rationality and pacifism —
characterize Imam Hussein. If we study history free from emotional or
political agendas, we realize that Imam Hussein was more of a
pacifist than a militant. The Imam had repeatedly offered ceasefires
and peace negotiations to the enemy that had surrounded him. The Imam
was a true believer in human dignity and knew that wars destroy human
dignity. It was only when all his efforts remained unfruitful that he
chose death with dignity over capitulation. That is the real heroism
of Ashura.
In this alternative [third] view, Imam Hussein becomes an
ordinary, but intelligent, man whose actions are based on reason. He
tries to avoid war because he knows the consequences.
RFE/RL: Are you trying to raise an academic point or do you
feel that this new view has an immediate implication for the
realities of today?
Baghi: Today, in our modern world, the West is advocating a
fight against terrorism. I want to raise the point that, 1,350 years
ago [at a time when both Imam Hassan and Imam Hussein were alive],
when killing was common practice and often praised, Imam Hussein rose
up against both war and terror. This may surprise many in the West.
Imam Hussein’s representative in Kufa [a city in modern Iraq
whose population invited Imam Hussein to lead it], when faced with
conditions unfavorable for victory over the enemy, suggests to Muslim
ibn Aqil, Imam’s deputy, that he assassinate Obaidollah Ibn-e
Ziad [the provincial governor of Kufa]. That assassination would have
changed the course of history and Imam’s supporters, who had
infiltrated the enemy, were fully capable of executing it. However,
Muslim ibn Aqil, who knew Imam Hussein’s philosophy very well,
vehemently rejected the idea, arguing that “in Islam terror is
illegal.”
RFE/RL: Do you think the rise of extremism is an irreversible
process? How can we stop this?
Baghi: I think the West has made a big mistake by falling
into the trap of Bin Laden-ism since the tragedy of September 11. In
fact, this policy played perfectly into the hands of those who want
to destroy Western civilization. By polarizing the world between the
civilized camp and the Islamic camp, a Bin Laden-ist definition of
Islam, policymakers in the West paved the way for the extremists to
gain ground. All Western media have unintentionally been serving the
cause of these extremist groups. This type of blind conflict is
exactly what the Bin Laden-ists want. I believe some politicians may
have pushed this for political gains. Because their approach was not
one based on human rights but rather a political approach, they
thought they could use this situation to promote a plan for a new
political geography in the Middle East. Some may have seen this as a
golden opportunity to gain access to the enormous wealth that is
lying underground in this region. But I don’t think that the
entire Western world thinks like this group of politicians. But,
unfortunately, most Western media resources are directly or
indirectly serving this approach.
RFE/RL: And the solution?
Baghi: The simple solution is that these resources be used to
introduce and promote the other interpretation of Islam. Instead of
providing unintended propaganda for Bin Laden’s thoughts, let the
world hear the voice of Islamic thinkers who show the peaceful face
of Islam. We have no shortage of such scholars and political
activists in the Islamic world.
These people are largely unknown to the Western public. The
reason is that, unfortunately, we have a one-sided flow of
translations. If you go to bookstores in Tehran you will be
overwhelmed by the number of books on Western philosophy and ideas
that have been translated into Farsi. But this is not a mutual
relationship. The West does not know much about the evolution of
thought and philosophy in the Islamic world. There are very few who
would reflect these thought products in the West.
RFE/RL: I want to go back to your provocative new
interpretation of Ashura. Can we expand this new approach to other
religious issues and texts and come up with novel interpretations?
Baghi: Yes. In the new discourse that is under way in Iran,
we are witnessing many novel interpretations of religious principles
by prominent religious leaders. For example, Ayatollah Montazeri has
challenged one principle that has been conserved for centuries in
Islamic jurisprudence: he has criticized Islamic jurisprudence for
being based on a recognition of believers’ rights rather than on
human rights. Mr. Montazeri [under whom Baghi studied for 10 years in
Iran’s clerical capital, Qom] puts very strong evidence on the
table — and from the Koran itself — that supports the notion that
human rights are a central principle in Islam. In fact, he shows
that, in this regard, we have deviated from the true teachings of
Islam.

*************************************** ******************
Copyright (c) 2006. RFE/RL, Inc. All rights reserved.

The “RFE/RL Iran Report” is a weekly prepared by A. William Samii on
the basis of materials from RFE/RL broadcast services, RFE/RL
Newsline, and other news services. It is distributed every Monday.

Direct comments to A. William Samii at samiia@rferl.org.
For information on reprints, see:
p
Back issues are online at