Akbar Ganji on the Pahlavis & Islam

by maghshoosh

Akbar Ganji's take on the Pahlavis' support of Islamic institutions and Islamist figures.  Previously, part 1 of this series was posted (in 4 segments).  Here are all 3 parts.



more from maghshoosh

I respect Akbar Ganji for leaving IR, not too much though

by amirparvizforsecularmonarchy on

because the act was an obvious move to leave the IR under the circumstances, to leave rapists like IR is not such a great act, truthfully. 

His Life being threatened doesn't make him any more special in my view than all the people on IC that risk their lives openly speaking in opposition to IR and partcipating in groups opposed to them.

That said, my respect for Ganji, it doesn't mean I need to repect his views or his beliefs, I'm not attacking him, i am attacking his views.

The late shah did not write the previous constitution of Iran, he followed the laws as were set out from the qajar era.  I remind you the constitution had given automatically 5 seats to ayatollahs in the parliament and the shia religion was the official religion of Iran. 

Under the circumstaces the late shah did a great job with respect to following the constitution and moving iranians towards creating a secular government, with peace, progress and human rights all at the forefront.  Iran was never close to being like europe socially, but had the late shah passed the monarchy to his son lawfully, iran today would be far more democratic in practice and by now not so far behind Europe.

Arash Kamangir

Akbar Ganji should be respected

by Arash Kamangir on

I don't care what sort of political views Ganji has. One thing is for sure that he stood to the system he could not accept and he fled the country because his life was threatened ( he is a true political asylum seeker ). Therefore he deserves to be respected and should bot be attacked because he has some islamic views.


Oon Yaroo you speak like the relative of officers

by amirparvizforsecularmonarchy on

Your view sounds rational but practically it is not true and its a pity you can't see it with hind site. 

The Reality is that leaving Iran and not allowing a shot to be fired on his orders was his greatest act, he acted like a king, as the west did its deadly deceit on iranian intellectuals.  After all most people at the time were opposing the shah and this removed any legitimacy to act as you say being a law abiding king all of his life.  So what you suggest was never an option not in a million years.

However, Practically if the late shah wanted to stop the Wests 1979 Set UP he could have acted to order savak to imprison all the leaders earlier when savak had reported what to do to put an end to it and lastly sent the military to kill and capture the militia's he knew about in libya being trained with US Money paid to mullahs and from them to the PLO.  At least this would be a legtimate action, unlike your suggestion.

What you forget is that he knew what was going on and he knew he was dying and he knew it was not natural, he knew a plan had been created at a time to make it impossible for him to pass on the monarchy to his son.  He knew Irans enemies were united to stop iran from progressing and they had manipulated and decieved Iranians through their propaganda. 

Had he even taken the real option he had, the lawful one, in his health situation then iranians would have faced the fate that the free world delivered for afghanistan and iraq.  At least he intimately understood their agenda and saw the wests total unity at thwarting Iranians from becoming a democratic society over the next generaton.  By Acting peacefully the late shah revealed the hand of those who had openly opposed Irans progress since 1965, the mullahs, on the orders of the brits.  Enough of The people now know the mullahs and the west.

So I don't see it as if my uncle had breasts he would be my aunt.  After the shah had left Iran, yes the country would have suffered a less severe fate had the military intervened against khomeini and mullahs. 

And the military acting independently would have been entirely appropriate because it would have happened not based not on a dictatorial order of a king defending his own position unlawfully, but by a military that was bound by the constitution to defend the constitution of Iran (with a king that was never to come back due to his cancer).  Do these distinctions make sense to you?  They are hugely important. 

The truth is the military were told that they must uphold the constitution of Iran, however huyser had gharabaghi the traitor in his back pocket and gharabaghi concealed this info from the top generals and deceived them.

1979 was a USA/UK/France Set Up from A to Z, not a revolution, and most can't even figure out today that the USA/UK/France love the IRI for Iran For the backwardness, poverty, brutality, inhumanity they bring to Iran.


Oon Yaroo

If there is one blame attributable to the late Shah is that he

by Oon Yaroo on

did not unleash his military might led by Generals Oveisi, Khosrowdad, Badrei, et al on the Islamists, subversives, commies, and the rest of the thugs and hooligans....!

Had the Iranian Army conducted a mass eradication of Akhoonds & company, Qom, Mashah, and many other centers of Amamaeh Iran would have been a different place today...!

Of course, this is one of those cases of if my uncle had breasts he would be my aunt!?


Not true Ganji, the late Aryamehr was pro-secular.

by amirparvizforsecularmonarchy on

Legally speaking, the late shahs action moved the mullahs out of government, court, schools etc compared with the qajars before the pahlavii's.

The Late Shah gave the mullahs nothing in contrast to what he took from them.  This approach of lying by politicians, not new, about the late Shah kowtowing to mullahs is a non starter,
especially if you look after 1965, before 1965 he tried to work with
them on reforming themselves which got nowhere, after 1965 and taking
their land and large sources of income away he tried forcing them to
focus on spirituality only.

Politically speaking being in a position to Claim to have been saved by
Abbas was a result of the power of Mullahs in Iran at the time, as a result of the practices of a different royal families harmful practices and disfuctional policies, namely the
qajars weakness allowed iran to be enslaved to mullahs, pahlavis and their secular approach corrected this. 

Shah had practically liberated Iranians from mullahs before 79, when mullahs reasserted themselves with help from the same powers that ganji and the MeK must be wishing will help them.


Ah please

by MRX1 on

now we have to listen to chert o pert from former sar pasdar whose hands is soaked in blod of Iranian people. some body should take this cock roach to hague and have him tried for crime against humanity.