from Memri… I have emboldened phrases below to highlight the difference in tone between the fatwa the old Ayatollah laid on Rushdie, and the fatwa that this particular Ayatollah has laid on Ahmadinejad (newly ‘elected’ leader of Iran) and his regime, army, appointees and cronies.
See below, how the wording of this fatwa uses language very different for Ahmadinejad, than was and continues to be impelled forward relentlessly on Rushdie. The ‘now’ fatwa may bode well.
On July 11, 2009, the liberal Iranian website www.khandaniha.eu
published a fatwa by Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri, the most senior
contemporary Shi’ite cleric. The fatwa was issued in response to a
series of queries submitted to him by Iranian intellectual and cleric
Mohsen Kadivar, pertaining to the legitimacy of the current Iranian
government.The following are excerpts from the fatwa:(1)
Query: “What is the ruling regarding holders of government positions,
whom shari’a law requires to act justly, honestly, and wisely… if
they [do not fulfill] these requirements to any degree, but behave in
a manner diametrically opposed to them?”Reply: “If none of the requirements mentioned in this query are met,
this automatically, and without any need for impeachment, brings about
the de facto collapse of the velayat [the ‘jurisprudent,’ meaning
Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei] and of the government that is in
charge of administering social affairs [i.e. the government of Iranian
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad] – and renders null and void all decrees
issued by those who hold government positions...“In the event of a breach of any article of the contract between the
two sides – namely [the contract] between the position holder and the
people, who appointed him – the people may remove the position holder
from his post.”Query: “What is the religious duty of the people if these position
holders insist on acting in ways that contravene the religious
directive of ‘commanding good and prohibiting evil?'”Reply: “As I said, both religious law and common sense [dictate that]
position holders who have lost the right to administer social affairs
automatically lose their posts, and their rule is no longer legitimate
in any way. If they remain in their position by means of force, fraud,
or forgery, then the people must express their opinion regarding the
illegitimacy and unpopularity [of these position holders], and remove
them from their posts in the least harmful way…
“Obviously, this is a duty incumbent upon all [and not only upon
specific individuals]… and none may evade it under any pretext. The
elite [i.e. the clerics] have a special obligation [to carry out this
task], since they are knowledgeable in religiousand
civil law, and
have greater ability than [the rest of the people].Their statements have greater influence and carry greater force; therefore,
they bear a greater responsibility. They must present [the people]… with an
alternative [option], while [preserving the people’s] unity and
ideological harmony, and establishing parties as well as public and
private organizations.”Query: “Do the great sins listed below, and the [position holders’]
insistence on committing them, contravene the ‘principle of justice’
and lead to the implementation of the ‘principle of tyranny?’“1. Ordering innocent people killed and causing their death;
“2. Ordering and being involved in an armed [campaign] of threats and
intimidation, and of beating and wounding innocent people in the
streets;“3. The de facto prevention of senior ayatollahs from fulfilling their
religious duty of ‘commanding good and prohibiting evil,’ by
obstructing all reasonable and legal means of non-violent protest;“4. Denying freedom and imprisoning anyone who acts or advises
[others] to act [according to the religious precept of] ‘commanding
good and prohibiting evil,’ and extorting false confessions through
pressure;“5. Censoring media and information…;
“6. Smearing all those who protested [following the elections]… and
all those who opposed the position holders, [by calling them]
‘mercenaries’ and ‘spies of foreign [forces]’;“7. [Spreading] lies, false testimony, and false reports on all
matters concerning the rights of the public;“8. Betraying the people’s trust;
“9. [Practicing] tyranny, ignoring [the people’s] opinion, and
disregarding the clerics’ counsel and warnings;“10. Preventing rightful owners [i.e. the people] from taking
possession of the common property – [that is,] the nation’s destiny;“11. Insulting Islam and demeaning religion by presenting Islam and
the Shi’ia to the world as crude, illogical, aggressive,
superstitious, and despotic.”Reply: “Committing the above sins, or insisting on [committing] some
of them, is incontrovertible and clear proof of the absence of
justice, and is [in fact] an essential characteristic of oppression
and injustice… It is obvious that any sin committed in the name of
religion, justice, or the law – and especially the [sins] mentioned
above – [makes] evil increase, and also causes further distancing from
the religion.[These offenses entail] the most severe punishment, in
this world and in the world to come, since in addition to the evil
sins of fraud and of distancing [people] from the religion, they also
corrupt [the very principles of] justice and law.“In cases where according to the position holders, the acts were just
and within the law, while the majority of the people maintains that
they were illegal… and [that they constituted] offenses against [the
people’s] rights, then there is a need to act according to a ruling by
honest and impartial arbitrators agreed upon by both sides.”Query: “Does clinging to principles such as ‘the supreme duty of
preserving the regime’ justify aggression against the legitimate
rights of the people and the trampling of most of the moral directives
and religious commandments, such as [the commandment to be] truthful
and trustworthy? Can implementing justice be suspended… under the
pretext of preserving the regime’s interests? What is the believers’
religious duty if some position holders confuse the regime’s interests
with their own, and insist on enforcing their mistake?”Reply: “…Clearly, it is not possible to preserve or strengthen the
Islamic regime via oppression – which contravenes [the precepts of]
Islam. This is because the need for a regime stems [in the first place
from the need] to dispense justice and to protect [the people’s]
rights – that is, to implement the directives of Islam. So how can
injustice, oppression and [other] contraventions of Islam possibly
[serve to] strengthen or preserve a just Islamic regime?“A regime that uses clubs, oppression, aggression against [the
people’s] rights, injustice, rigged elections, murder, arrests, and
medieval or Stalin-era torture, [a regime that] gags and censors the
press, obstructs the media, imprisons intellectuals and elected
leaders on false allegations or forced confessions… – [such a
regime]is despicable and has no religious merit
…
“The proud people of Iran know very well exactly how authentic [the
detainees’] confessions are; they are like [confessions obtained] by
fascist and communist regimes. The nation knows that the false
confessions and televised interviews were obtained from its imprisoned
sons with threats and torture, and that their aim is to cover up the
oppression and injustice, and to [present a] distorted [image] of the
people’s peaceful and legal protest…
“The state belongs to the people. It is neither my property nor
yours… When the Shah heard the voice of the people’s revolution, it
was already too late [for him]. It is to be hoped that the people in
charge [today] will not let [themselves] reach the same situation, but
will become more amenable to the nation’s demands, and as soon as
possible…
You can read more here… Website of Ayatollah Montazeri, (Iran), July 10, 2009;
www.khandaniha.eu, July 11, 2009.