Five Schelduled Executions in Iran

Appeal to U.N. for Stopping Execution of Political Prisoners in Iran
To Mr. Ban Ki-Moon, the General Secretary of the United Nations
(Also to all freedom-loving people and all governments of the Free World)

Five prisoners are scheduled to be executed in Iran on charges of taking part in protests following the fraudulent presidential election in June. All freedom-loving people, free-world governments, and particularly the U.N. must intervene in this gross violation of human rights by the Iranian Islamic regime.

Following the fraudulent presidential election in Iranian, Tehran's Revolutionary Court has recently sentenced five political activists to death, and their execution has been scheduled. With all due respect, we all freedom-loving Iranians expect you, the people and authorities of the free world, to call on the Iranian authorities to halt these death sentences.

Among those five activists, Mohammad Ali Zamani was sentenced to death on October 18. He is among the hundreds of detainees, who were brought before Tehran's Revolutionary Court on June 12. In reality, Zamani was arrested before the presidential election for his membership to a monarchist circle. He was, thus, in prison during the election, as well as, during the post-election revolution in Iran. However, he has been sentenced to death on the charge of taking part in the post-election protests.

Three other prisoners waiting for their execution, namely Arash Rahmanpour, Hamed Rouhaninejad and Davoud Faricheh Mirardebili, were convicted of being members of a monarchist circle. The fifth prisoner, Nasser Abdolhosseini, awaiting execution, is sentenced to death for his connection with the People's Mojahedin Organization. The accused, deprived of their right to defence, were forced to confess against themselves by repeating a fabricated readout of the judicial authorities.

Reports say that these scheduled executions can be a prelude to wide-ranging executions of political prisoners in the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI). The IRI has frequently committed such crimes, the 1988 massacre of political prisoners being a notorious example. It has been charged with genocide for killing several thousand political prisoners between June and September 1988, when all factions of the regime worked side by side.

Human rights violation has a long history in Iran. It has now turned critical after the sham June election. The Iranian regime uses various methods of torture (including psychological torture), torture of persons close to prisoners, rape, and drugging in order to crush their resistance. Human rights violation in Iran is widely documented; there are many pictorial evidences and video films showing violent actions of the IRI security forces toward peaceful demonstrators. Other reports refer to many cases of torture and mistreatment of political prisoners.

Given the biased and atrocious character of the Iranian judiciary, we solicit you for an immediate intervention by pressuring the Iranian regime to stop these scheduled executions. There is no way that the Iranian people can go to court and use lawful ways to contest these death sentences, because the Iranian judiciary is a tool of repression of Islamic regime. Mr. Secretary General, please express your concern about these planned executions by reminding the Iranian authorities that Iran is a signatory to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).

We also believe that the ongoing Iranian nuclear issue should not overshadow your concern about the human rights catastrophes in Iran. It is expected that your esteemed institution would send a human rights panel to scrutinize and control the violation of human rights in Iran.

Green Catalysts

Let us acknowledge that to form a unified Iranian opposition is not an easy job. While commitment to democratic principles or norms is an uphill task, incorporating Iranian opposition groups from the orthodox leftists to the right-wing monarchists into one single political opposition means, at least for the moment, a far-fetched utopia.

Such a unity, "La Resistance", happened when France was occupied by Nazi Germany, but we are not yet at this point. Dictatorial regimes do not allow an effective societal commitment to civic education for political consciousness. Therefore, political opposition within such regimes does not have the same concept as in western democracies, which are inspired from Greek philosophy.

Aristotle and Plato consider politics as a concern with general issues touching the whole problems of community. This must search and satisfy the direct interests of community. This is the moral task of state to achieve ideas and action with "perfect goodness".

This concept is unlikely to be adapted by an ideological or religious state whose tangible concern remains its ideological / religious doctrine. For a regime like the IRI and its factions, a social change is defined as a "sinful" alteration of social structures and thus not to envisage. This concept of politics is not new. It is long a part of our political unconsciousness.

It does not mean that we are doomed to such concepts; a unity of Iranian opposition may be achieved through conscious and cooperative efforts. In long-term, there is no other solution to get rid of the plague of the IRI, otherwise new generations will not forgive our fatalistic and egoistic attitudes. We hope to achieve unity, but let us suppose that an immediate modification of our political attitudes remains for the time being an ideal, rather than a reality.

No true Iranian can wait this ideal unity. People are now in the streets of Iran. They need solidarity and support. With or without leadership, they have chosen to struggle for survival. Their strong voices implicitly call for an end of the murderous IRI. Their political conscience has been long inhibited, but now is on the increase. They are combative and so cautious that nobody can highjack their forthcoming freedom. As seen, the end of communist and right-wing regimes has normally started with spontaneous and sporadic protest actions and finally ended up with popular movements. Leadership was gradually formed during the process when political conscience grew and claimed it. This is also true for our people. Their struggles will create their leadership.

Nothing is wrong to use the conflicts within the factions of a dying regime. In critical conditions any totalitarian regime will be divided into many factions. Some of them join people for any reason, while the rest continue their loyalty to the establishment because their bloody hands cannot be washed out anymore. Those who join people are welcome, as catalysts, not leaders. In exchange, they will profit from a general amnesty after the fall of the IRI. We should learn from opportunistic defectors of ex-communist countries. A number of them could become new state leaders after the end of communism and some went on to set up new mafia states in their newly unchained capitalist countries.

Normally, after a period of a revolutionary euphoria, people switch to apathy, especially new generations who are ignorant of their own political institutions and what they mean to them. This shortcoming can be used for regime's "useful" opposition or factions to divert the movement.

In a free society, opposition performs various activities, but in a corrupted and unelected totalitarian regime like the IRI, the true opposition is uprooted. Therefore, the rule of revolution remains one of the ultimate solutions when nothing is effectively left. Obviously, the prerequisites of leadership abroad could be important, but not predetermined for the initial revolutionary acts. Furthermore all leaders are not endowed with the best qualities and experiences. People can be themselves better avant-gardes.

In a certain level of political awareness, people show their personality of a leadership. This means that among them, the best can be transformed into leading pioneers. Such pioneers are not pre-elected by opposition groups, but directly chosen by activists and militants of the movement. They will understand the problems that their co-fighters face and will find the best solutions on the spot. They will work with others in finding paths to practical goals. They know how to react anytime at their best interests within a framework of fixed duties.

What really contributes to their performance is not where their siege is. This may clandestinely move from one area to another, it can be in or out of the country; the aim is that it can affect its duties. For this aim, it must survive and be safe from destabilisation or an eventual forced confession before the totalitarian regime's court.

This precaution is necessary because contrary to a "useful" opposition like Green Movement, an opposition leadership uses power and influence primarily in the pursuit of a regime change in Iran. By contrast, a useful opposition is normally formed by ex-cohorts of regime. They are primarily an instrumental obstacle to halt a regime change and secondly an office to bargain on personal objectives. Leaders of such an opposition may call themselves "servants" of people, but in practice more considerations are given to self, to own ideology or religion, over the interests of people. Such leaders because of lacking in social commitments are tolerated or not the targets of extreme brutalities of a totalitarian regime.

If the opposition cannot form an immediate unified opposition to lead a regime change in Iran, let's use Green Movement as a catalyst. This movement is the last organ of this dying regime. Any faction of the regime is inevitably in a process of agony before the definitive dead of the whole body. On the ruin of this petrified body, a body of democratic and secular regime will come to life. Many people in Iran know and will collectively be aware of this end. So, they know that beyond Green Movement, there is an Islamic alternative to save the whole regime from the death.

The opposition must remind our people of this inevitable death. Then people will be on the right path to use IRI factions despite of absence of a secular and democratic leadership. People's attitudes, slogans, perseverance show their will to bring an end to the whole Islamic regime. With the beginning of universities, students will further spread these views of secular and democratic values in the society and the thus will hasten the dying process.

No matter the angle from which Green Movement opposes the regime, its leadership is not viewed as one that exerts unlimited influence on people. This is not the movement which makes protest occur that would not happen otherwise. It follows the protests to prevent them from uncontrolled radicalism. It does not intend the changes that people look for, but exercises its power to divert them. It does not look for Iran's future, but attempt to further regress to the black era of murderous Khomeini.

In conclusion, with a black dossier on the shoulder, fanatics like Mousavi and Co. are not event-making heroes to re-deter-mines the course of our history. They are the last dying organ of the same Islamic regime and in the same time can be used as "green" catalysts.

As catalysts, the "green" leaders make chemical reaction happen without being a part of the new substance. A newborn body of democratic and secular regime in Iran substantially has no elements of the rotten IRI.

Ahmadinejad’s Faux Pas

Among the high ranking authorities of the Islamic Republic of Iran, president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is notorious for his fierce rhetoric and, personal immaturity or even abnormality. His nonesensical paroles, absurd comments, lack of rationality, revolting habits, and odd poises suggest a personal immaturity or even abnormality.

In his speeches, he usually sinks himself into a hectic and incoherent stance in which his words go so beyond the limits of decorum that even some of his companions feel embarrassed about him.--even the most inexperienced and insecure politicians rarely engage in spontaneous outbursts like he does, while he displays a skilful ability to deceive, manipulate, and con the unwary, while seeming perfectly sincere.

The self-proclaimed "street cleaner of the people" can raise a bogus enthusiasm among his followers. However, his words echo hatred, threats and terror against others. His words have made the entire world to raise its eyebrows. Even his supporters in the regime are shaking their heads in embarrassment. And yet, as loony as he may seem, it would be a grave mistake not to take him dangerously.

Ahamadinejad's gaffes are well known. Some of his verbal blunders or odd phrases are more than just simple mistakes. At Columbia University of New York, last September, he claimed that there are no homosexuals living in Iran. For the word "homosexual", he spewed a vulgar word, "hamjensbaz", in Persian that brought his Iranian audience to a mocking laughter.

Then, in front of people who did not speak Arabic, Ahamadinejad began reciting verses from the Koran in Arabic, and continued on with a sermon of cheap sentiments, still in Arabic, for 20 embarrassing minutes that could make even an Arabic speaking audience question this man’s sanity.

While boasting his perspective as "an academic", he proclaimed that the role of science is to serve Islam, and that any science not in the service of Islamic goals is corrupt. As he described it, "Science is the light, and scientists are to be pure and pious. Even if humanity achieves the highest level of physical and spiritual knowledge, as long as its scholars and scientists are not pure, then this knowledge cannot serve the interests of humanity." Elaborating on this notion, he argued that a great majority of scientists are corrupt because they are serving corrupt governments that reject the pure and pious path of Islam.

He went so far as to claim, "The world powers' rejection of Islam is a cause for the world's woes". As he put it, the second and more important factor is the disregard the world’s powers have towards morals, divine values, the teachings of prophets and the instructions of the Almighty God... Unfortunately, they have put themselves in the level and position of that very same God!"

Since the hard-line president cannot accept criticism, he mocks and proudly feels that everything is owed to him, and that he is entitled to publicly call his own internal critics "goats or traitors", including those within his own conservative party in the government. In a speech on 12 November 2007 at Tehran's Science and Technology University, he denounced those critics as "traitors" to Iran's nuclear programme. He went so far as to even threaten to name and to shame these internal critics unless they end their pressures for a change in IRI’s] nuclear policy.

Prior to a "Holocaust denial conference" in December 2007, Ahamadinejad had initially denied in October 2005 that the Holocaust ever happened. His repeated comments suggesting that Israel be "wiped off the map" is stirring international ire, and they even caused some Iranian officials to play down his remarks, saying that Ahmadinejad did not mean to speak in such sharp terms.

Ahmadinejad's bellicose and provocative remarks, at a moment when Iran is under increasing international pressure for its nuclear ambitions, suggest that the man does not care about military attack on iran. His threatening words mirror the similar methods of the unpopular IRI by creating the shadow of an external threat in order to keep control over its own people. Ahmadinejad serves the survival of the regime, no matter how weird he is, and no matter how he has failed to rally the majority of people. In the absence of democracy, he gains more blind adherents, more Islamist followers in the world, and more apologists for the regime.

Ahmadinejad is putting forward IRI's vision for global Islamist domination. The vision of such a domination cannot coexist in any manner with peaceful rhetoric. Ahmadinejad's words are the direct consequences of the regime’s world view, and as such, he is supported by the Leader of the IRI, ayatollah Ali Khameneh’i, the Hojattyeh-sect and some international Islamists, despite his weird attitudes and uncontrolled speeches.

The IRI cannot satisfy its people; therefore, it applies the policy of carrot and stick. The regime is reaching deep into a dusty bag of tricks to rally a part of people while frightening the rest. Ahmadinejad's crying "wolf" simply threatens and terrorizes the frustrated people of Iran, not the armies of foreign powers. The IRI, which cannot offer the possibility of a decent and democratic life for the majority of its angry people, despite record high oil prices and almost 29 years of promises, needs to keep this hazardous man, at least, until the end of his first term in office.

Ahamdinejad not only serves the IRI‘s goals, he also speaks menacing words that could be served as an excuse for the Key powers to militarise the region, and for the Israeli government to play down its aggressive policy in the region. Ahmadinejad's provocations serve one or both of them to stoke the argument and prepare the context for military conflict with Iran.

Mr. Ahmadinejad's language is a symptom of his personality disorder, suggesting how deep he is preoccupied with his own fantasies. Normal politicians may correct their words, but an abnormal politician like Ahmadinejad would give an explanation that is devoid of intellectual or moral justification because it is enough for them that their words help them do what they want to do. Ahmadinejad has often argued that a great majority of scientists are corrupt because they are serving corrupt governments that reject the pure and pious path of Islam because he needs to seek refuge in his unreal world. He views himself the direct vassal of the Twelfth Imam, the Mahdi, of Shi’ites, for whom he prepares the reappearance after more than a thousand years of occultation. He propagates the idea that he is in permanent contact with him and receives advice from him.

Whatever one may think of Ahmadinejad, any perceived insanity or instability can be best explained by his unshakeable belief in the ethos of the Shiite sect-- with a messianic idea of world catastrophe leading to the coming of the Twelfth Imam and Islamic rule over the world. If one analyses this religious belief, his words make perfect sense but only within the strict context of this belief system. When he believes the Mahdi protects him with a "halo of light", then his words must mirror this belief.

The belief in the imminent return of the Mahdi has not only influenced Ahmadinejad's words and attitudes, but also driven his foreign policy brinksmanship. According to him, "a historic war between the oppressor, non-Muslims, and the world of Islam" is under way, and the IRI is on the front lines. Thus, as Ahmadinejad told a closed-door session of the "Majles"(Iranian parliament) foreign policy and national security committee in January 2006, Iran must abandon its decade-and-a-haft-old policy of "detente" with the West in favour of confrontation.

Ahmadiniejad's constantly deteriorating behaviour can be threatening even for his colleagues who can witness more signs of abnormality in his attitudes, language lapses, and ridiculous gestures. It is said that the way he behaves his colleagues leads to the repeated change of his ministers and staff. It is believe that Mr. Ahamsdinejad follows a psychiatric treatment, but he acts as if he were not aware of his personality disorder

Psychopaths are social predators who may charm, manipulate, and ruthlessly plough their way through life. They have traits such as glibness, grandiosity, lack of guilt, and shallow emotions, as well as social deviance traits such as impulsiveness, lack of responsibility, and antisocial behaviour. Completely lacking in conscience and in feelings for others, Psychopaths are found in every segment of society, including in fields of religion and politics. Throughout history there have been many psychopaths, even with the norms of generally accepted behaviour, who brought obscurantism, wars and catastrophes for their people.

Institutional psychopaths, Stalin, Pol Pot, and Hitler imposed restraints on progress and evolution of their societies. Each considerably set back democracy, civil right, and free thoughts in their totalitarian states. And of course, they killed millions of people. Ahmadinejad seems to be in the same psychopathological stance to commit the same degree of harm against humanity if he were politically in their situation.

Real or Myth

Nabuwat or the prophecy of Muhammad is one of the pillars, indeed, the foundation, of Islam. It is a requisite for every Muslim to believe in the prophecy of Muhammad, namely Muhammad-al-Rassul Allah (i.e. Muhammad is the messenger of Allah).

Information on Muhammad’s life are deduced from the Koran, the "Sirah" (biography of the Prophet), and some parts of the “Hadiths” (prophetic sayings and deeds), which are considered as "Sahih" (reliable). However, these give us sufficient information to pass a general judgment on the prophet of Islam and his alleged prophecy.

Nothing will be wrong if we suppose that Muhammad was a person with all social and cultural norms of his time. However, almost 100 "surahs" (chapters) of the Koran attempt to confirm the claim of Nabuwat; and as if all these surahs were not enough, Islamic scholars have additionally narrated different sayings over different periods and circumstances to endorse the belief on Nabuwat, but his prophecy has never been proven or unquestionably accepted by some famous scholars like Ibn Sina, Farabi, and Razi.

Before the alleged Nabuwat, according to many resources, Muhammad was a reliable caravan-businessman (Muhammad al-Amin), working for his elderly wealthy wife, Khadijah, as her caravan leader. Later on, as a self-appointed prophet in Mecca, he showed a messiah attitude sage, a poetic man with peculiar but harmless personality traits. After 10 years of prophetic career, he was forced to leave his hometown, Mecca. And his migration, known as "Hijrat", to Medina in 622 had a far-reaching impact upon Islamic as well as world history. Like several alleged prophets of his time, his claim and fame of prophecy could've faded out right after his death in Mecca in the desert sands of Arabia; even the subcontinent of Arabia, let alone the whole world, would not know anything about him. But that was not the case—thanks to the Hijrat.

In Medina, he declared that God had sent him to guide mankind till the Day of Judgment, and turned Medina into his military enclave for realizing his so-called prophetic ambition through the force of arms. As a ‘prophet of swords’ of Allah, he suddenly turned to realizing his very personal ambitions; and he misused the alleged divine commands, supposedly from Allah, and the existing traditional norms of society to that end. He even went so far to violate ethical norms of his own religion to achieve his whims. As such, he had the privilege of having more wives than was permitted under his own Islamic law. He even had the controversial right to marry his daughter-in-law, Zainab, deemed as incest in Arab social ethics; and he forced his adopted son, Zaid, to divorce her so that he could marry her. As a husband, he had the advantage to arbitrarily treat his wives as he liked.

In his financial exploits, he allowed himself the right to rob caravans (for which other robbers would have been beheaded), or to impose humiliating "Jizya" (taxes) on "Dhimmis" (subjugated Christian and Jewish minorities living in Islam-ruled lands). He ordered the confiscation of lands and properties from "Dhimmis", his enemies, as he wished. He openly claimed that, "the spoils of war, including the widows of killed enemies, were made lawful unto me". He gave orders to murder many “infidels”.

According to Ali Dashti, who wanted to be an Islamic scholar but apostatised after reading about Muhammad’s life, while Muhammad surrounded Mecca in 630, a compromise of capitulation was achieved: Muhammad accepted a peaceful capitulation of Mecca in exchange for a general amnesty for the population, though excluding certain individuals like Ibn Abdullah, who was one of Muhammad's early companions and wrote down manuscripts of the Koran for him. He apostatised and fled Medina as Muhammad tried to kill him for having divulged the man-made origin of the Koran. Upon the capitulation of Mecca, he was ordered to be executed, but was saved by the lobbying of his foster brother Uthman, the prophet’s son-in-law.

Although Muhammad accepted the peace treaty, on his return from Mecca to Medina, he attacked a group of Bedouins en route and so the treaty was voided. Apologetic historians claim that people of Mecca received Muhammad with opened arms, as did the Persians to escape tyranny of the “despotic” Sassanids. Many similar sayings by scholars like those of Ali Dashti leave us evidences at hand to raise a simple but taboo question to how such a person could have divine communication, let alone receive Nabuwat from God.

Two dynasties of Islamic Golden Age, namely the Umayyads and Abbasids, established an Islamic empire containing a vast part of the-then known world, thanks to their jihadi swordsmen. Iran was one of their first preys, fallen during Caliph Omar, and it continued to be occupied under Othman, Ali, and several more caliphs. Massacred, enslaved, and long humiliated, Iran continued to be officially occupied by Muslims for two centuries, before falling into the hands of Iranian Muslim dynasties.

Today, thanks to political Islam, Iranians are living under the rule of an Islamic regime. After the current acts of stoning, misogynistic crimes, amputation, religious persecution and many other barbaric acts, all committed by the name of Islam, the people of Iran are becoming increasingly curious to find out the real version of Islam, and especially the historical process that turned Iran Islamic. The people of Iran, as the 14-century-long victims of Islam, have now right to cast serious doubts on anything related to Islam, including its core pillar, the Nabuwat of Muhammad. Today an increasing section of Iranians cast doubt, or do not believe, in Muhammad’s Nabuwat.

Was Muhammad’s “alleged” first rendezvous with Gabriel, the God's angel, at Mount Hira near Mecca all about a fictitious tale? Iranians are in a situation to ask themselves such timely questions.

Viol dans les Prisons des Mollahs

Après la réélection frauduleuse du président Ahmadinejad du 12 juin 2009, la répression a été particulièrement violente contre le soulèvement du peuple iranien à travers le pays. Selon le gouvernement, plusieurs dizaines des manifestants anti-gouvernementaux ont été tués, des centaines blessées, et plusieurs centaines arrêtées par les forces gouvernementales. Sources de l’opposition estiment la perte de plusieurs centaines de morts durant les manifestations ou sous la torture après leurs arrestation depuis l'annonce du résultat des élections contesté d'Ahmadinejad.

Le régime islamique a sans ambages recours à des interrogations prolongées et douloureuses pour extirper de fausses confessions aux figures d’opposition « réformatrice », des militants politiques, des journalistes, et plusieurs centaines de manifestants. Selon des témoignages recueillis par l'organisation de défense des droits de l'Homme Human Rights Watch (HRW), "Les autorités iraniennes pratiquent des interrogatoires prolongés et violents, avec coups, privations de sommeil et menaces de torture, pour obtenir de fausses confessions", affirme dans un communiqué l'organisation basée à New York, qui a recueilli les témoignages de plusieurs détenus.

Selon la HRW, ces aveux sont destinés à soutenir les accusations du régime affirmant que les manifestations sont appuyées par des puissances étrangères et visent à renverser le régime par une révolution veloutée -- ce qui a été fait dans certains pays du bloc de l’Est. Les procès des opposants, forçant à faire de faux aveux sous la contrainte et la torture, visent aussi à sacrifier certains politiciens consommés--anciens ministres, vice-présidents, théoriciens -- pour limiter les dégâts pour le régime. Il est évident que ces procès, semblables a ceux sous Staline, sont dérisoirement tramés.

Une prison des mollahs qui était peu connue jusqu'à il y a peu de temps s’appelle Kahrizak. Selon les journaux, elle fut en effet un entrepôt de fruits et de légume au sud de Téhéran et puis transformé en prison de fortune. Les cellules sont des containers métalliques avec un petit orifice pour aération qu’il faut se partager l’accès pour pouvoir prendre la respiration. Kahrizak a servie de camp de détention et frappe par la cruauté de ses geôliers. Les manifestants sont détenus par groupes de 40 à 60 personnes dans des cellules 30 mètres cubes. Les quelques rescapés ont fait état des supplices endurés par les prisonniers. Constamment roués de coups avec des bars de fer et des fouets métalliques sur les parties sensibles du corps, ils sont brûlés avec de l’eau bouillante qu’on déverse sur eux. Au moins une vingtaine de prisonniers ont péri sous la torture et viol dans cette prison où la barbarie a atteint son comble.

Parmi de nombreux témoins, un jeune manifestant a rapporté son témoignage à magazine Paris Match sur Kahrizak: " On s'est retrouvés debout, serrés comme des sardines, dans des sortes de conteneurs par plus de 40 degrés, pendant deux jours, sans toilettes, sans eau ni nourriture, avec des rats. Quand nos gardiens Bassidji (la milice du régime) nous ont fait couler de l'eau à travers la porte, nous avons été obligés de laper le liquide comme des chiens. C'était dégueulasse: des saletés et surtout du sang. Car nous étions sanguinolents, battus avec des gourdins, le visage démoli. On a toutes les dents cassées. Moi je n'entends plus d'une oreille. Mais je suis mieux loti que des camarades qui sont morts."

Selon Reza Yavari, un autre prisonnier libéré après la fermeture de Kahrizak: " Dans notre cellule, des gens tombaient dans le coma. Quand l'un d'entre eux est mort, on a protesté, nos geôliers, des voyous du régime en civil (Lebas shakhsi) sont revenus, ont cassé les ampoules électriques, brandi le cadavre, braqué des torches sur nos visages: " On va vous enculer, vous tuer, c'est les ordres!" Ils ont attrapé un jeune de 16-17 ans, l'ont cogné comme des fous, certains ont protesté, ils leur ont infligé le même traitement. Le lendemain matin, quatre d'entre nous avaient succombé. “

Jeunes personnes, hommes / femmes, ont subi des viols sexuels dans ce camp de détention, elles se comptaient plusieurs dont les témoignages ont été recueilles par l’organisation des droits de l’homme. Les conditions de torture et viol étaient tellement scandaleuses que le régime était obligé de fermer cette prison sous la pression de responsables du régime dont les enfants y ont péri après avoir été arrêtés dans les manifestations post-électorales.

Tout le monde en Iran est encore sous le choc. Le régime islamique qui a fait campagne contre des humiliations sexuelles subies par nombre d’Irakiens dans la désormais célèbre prison de Abou Gharib, utilise lui-même viol sexuel comme une méthode routine contre ses prisonniers politiques.

Depuis l’installation du régime islamique, viol est pratiqué non seulement pour humilier et torturer les prisonniers politiques mais aussi avant exécuter une jeune fille. Ce viol date des années 1980, lors des grandes purges des prisonniers politiques. À l’époque, sous le " Fatwa " (degré religieux) de Ayatollah Khomeiny, les geôliers du régime systématiquement violaient les jeunes prisonnières avant leur exécution. Le viol est justifié par une l’idée qu’il est interdit d'exécuter une jeune femme si elle est vierge. Par conséquent une cérémonie de " mariage "est menée la nuit précédant l'exécution: la jeune fille est forcée d'avoir des rapports sexuels avec un gardien de prison, en clair elle est violée par son " mari. "

Le viol des hommes par les geôliers est pourtant pour démoraliser, humilier et torturer afin de les forcer à la soumission. Dans la guerre que le régime islamique mène depuis 30 années à toutes les voix discordantes, les prisonniers d’opinion sont toujours les premières victimes du régime. Dans les trente dernières années, la somme totale des prisonniers politiques se compte par centaines des milliers dont quelques dizaines exécutés jusqu' aujourd’hui.

À peine la colère des iraniens au sujet des élections frauduleuses atténuée, voilà qu’une affaire humiliante de viol et d’agression sexuelle vient à nouveau les secouer et rappeler à ceux qui doutent encore la triste réalité du peuple iranien sous le joug des mollahs.

Bien que les agressions sexuelles soient des pratiques courantes dans les prisons politiques et depuis l’installation de la république islamique en Iran, elles ont toujours été cachées par l’ensemble de la classe dirigeante, y compris les " réformateurs ". Le viol des manifestants devient soudainement une arme politique dans les mains des "réformateurs " contre le gouvernement " illégitime " de président Ahmadinejad. Il est clair que les candidats soi-disant réformateurs, Mr. Mousavi, le premier ministre des années 80 et mollah Karrubi, l’ancien président du parlement, ont étaient eux-mêmes impliqués dans tous les crimes du régime, y compris le viol systématiquement pratiqué dans ces années sanglantes.

Pourtant, comme une fuite en avant, Ahmadinejad, ce président " illégitime " qui ne représente qu’une poignée de mollahs corrompus, va se rendre le 23 Septembre prochain à l’ONU pour défendre la légitimité de son régime totalitaire. L’ONU, baptisée par le Général De Gaule, pour ses incompétences dans les années 60, " le machin ", continue ses incompétences en hésitant à prendre des mesures adéquates contre le régime islamique qui a perdu toute légitimité à la maison, alors que le peuple iranien résiste au prix des viols, torture, et leurs vies.

Rape in Mullahs’ Prisons

Since the inception of the Islamic regime in Iran in 1979, rapes of political prisoners have increasingly been committed, although rarely reported. Many courageous victims have recently revealed their subjection to rapes. Surprisingly, however, after the controversial June 2009 election, the losing candidate Mehdi Karrubi revealed that both male and female, detained during the post-election protests, have been systematically subjected to vicious rapes.

After the conquest of ancient Persia by the Arab Muslims in 644, tens of thousands, probably, millions of Iranian female were raped, enslaved, and transported away as war-booty to be sold in slave-markets of Arab-Islamic territories. The Persian word 'Tajovoz' does not only mean 'rape' by which a man seized or stole a wife, but also means destruction and occupation of one’s environment by invaders. In a belief system that a passive nine-year-old girl can be raped by her ‘husband’, rape, as an extension of such a patriarchal societal control over females, was introduced by the Arab Muslims as the most hideous, shameful, and submissive element in the culture of occupied Iran. Since the occupation by Arab Muslims, Iranian women, who once equated with their male compatriots, have been since viewed as male-possessions, first of their fathers, then of their husbands. In case of rape in Islamised Persia, they were subjected to blame and shame more than their rapists.

Rape of Female Prisoners
Shortly after the 1979 revolution, many intellectuals, political activists, and sympathisers of the leftist opposition were arrested, and many of them were summarily executed. Virgin prisoners were generally raped before being executed. The reason is that according to the Islamic regime’s interpretation of Islamic laws, killing of a virgin woman is prohibited, because a virgin’s soul goes to Heaven, not to Hell, after death. To solve the dilemma, the night before the execution, the virgin is married by one of the guards, and the marriage is consummated overnight, before carrying out the execution. Apart from such rape, the interrogators of the Mullah regime routinely use rape as a tool of torture to obtain information, confession, or, simply, to humiliate the prisoner.

Rape of Male prisoners
The rape of a male victim typically consists of forced penetration of the anus by a penis or other object as has been reported by some Iranian rape-victims. Because of traditional self-censor, male-rape has until recently remained unreported in Iran. It is believed that a man in a patriarchal culture should be masculine, strong and able to protect himself. Therefore, nothing can be worse, more shameful, for a proud man than being forcibly raped. Young men, who have survived the post-election rapes, are now suffering from rigorous psychological injuries. Rape of male prisoners in the Mullahs’ jails has caused serious damage to inner organs of the victims and depression to them. Since male victims feel shame to identify themselves, they avoid medical treatment unless the victim is seriously injured.

It is believed that religious permission of rape, including male-rape, of ‘opponents of the Islamic regime’ has been recently given by Ayatollah Mesbah Yazdi, the monitor and spiritual guru of president Ahmadinejad. Islamic authorities usually deny that rape is being committed in their prisons, fearing strong reaction from the public, both inside and outside.

In an interview at the Jamkaran gathering after the revelation of rape in the Mullah’s prisons, Mesbah Yazdi was asked: "Can an interrogator rape the prisoner in order to obtain a confession?" He answered: "The necessary precaution is for the interrogator to perform a ritual washing first and say prayers while raping the prisoner. If the prisoner is female, it is permissible to rape through the vagina or anus. It is better not to have a witness present. If it is a male prisoner, then it’s acceptable for someone else to watch while the rape is committed.

Zahra Bani Yaghoub, Azar Al Cana’an, and Roya Toloui are among the female prisoners, who were raped and murdered in past years under the same Islamic regime. Additionally, at least two recent teen female victims of the post-election oppression in Iran, Taraneh Mousavi and Saeedeh Pour Agha’i, were documented by the media as being burnt in an attempt to cover up the hideous crime.

To shed light on Mesbakh Yazdi’s permission of rape, it is believed that in numerous offensive raids, called ‘Ghazawat’, early Muslims, under the Prophet, attacked ‘infidel’ tribes; they killed men, robbed their properties, and took whichever females they wanted, raped them, and then brought them to their tribe as their slave-possession. Tolerance of such brutalities in Islam may not be universally believed by Muslims and might be regarded as myth. However, these are the mindsets of the brutal Islamic regime that rules Iran and commits such horrendous crimes.

In an ultimate psychological analysis of rape, rapists seem to come from a subculture of violence, whose values may be different from those of the mainstream. A rapist is often a poorly educated man from the lower socioeconomic strata, who had criminal records. Therefore such a man may be demonstrating his toughness and masculinity in a more violent and antisocial manner, but in the case of a rapist of the Mullahs’ prisons, this is not the dominant factor.

Rapists of the Mullahs' prisons are not necessarily the psychopathic and antisocial torturers, but most likely 'pious' Muslims, married men, and even can be kind fathers. They just follow the 'divine' guidance of the Islamic regime, and do not consider those rapes as crimes, and do not feel remorse after the assault. These sexual 'offenders' are not accountable for their sexual assaults, because rape is allowed or tolerated by Islamic clerics of the regime.

Rape in the Mullahs’ prisons is not an individual decision of an interrogator, as one may commonly believe; it is a systematic process based on a belief system, and for promoting a political agenda. In the Mullahs’ prisons, rapes are often planned. The primary motive for rape is not sexual. They regard and believe in rape as a routine duty, due to its prescription by Islamic clerics of high stature like Ayatollah Mesbakh Yazdi, and its acceptance by the entire Mullah regime. With that in mind, their act of rape is not merely a question of psycho-criminality, but a justified crime.

نماز جمعه

نماز جمعه فردا نقطه عطف حیاتی برای دو جناح رژیم جمهوری اسلامی است. جناح"اصلاح طلب" موسوی و کروبی از یک جهت و بیت رهبری از طرف دیگر نماز گذاران پر دغده فردایند که با نمایش قدرت در برای هم خط و نشان خواهند کشید. هاشمی یکی از فاسد ترین مهره های رژیم فردا احتمالا مدافع سازش این دو جناح است و انان را به سازش دعوت میکند. کماکان دعوا و یا سازش دو جناح تفاوتی مهمی در روند مبارزه مردم ندارد. اکثریت مردم کل رژیم را نفی میکنند. و از تضادهای جناح های رژیم صرفا برای ارتقا مبارزه خود استفاده میکنند، تضادهائی که با مبارزات جامعه مدنی پیوسته حدت میابند و فرصت های بیشتری را مرغوب میکنند.

فردا در نماز جمعه سه گروه متمایز حضور خواهند داشت: گروه اول دست اندرکاران بیت رهبری، دولت حاکم, اوباش و مزدوران رژیم هستند که در چنین مراسمی جمع اوری و سازمان دهی میشوند. گروه دوم طرفداران جناح "اصلاح طلب" موسوی و کروبی هستند که هنوز به مشروعیت این رژیم اعتقاد دارند. اینان در نماز جمعه فردا خواستار پائین کشیدن فتیله اتش نزاع "خانوادگی" هستند و امیدوارند که هاشمی از کاندیدشان حمایت کند. این دو حامیان نظام و تافته جدا بافنده ای از یکدیگر نیستند. هر دو جناح خود را مقلد امام"ره" میدانند. اختلافات انان نحوه اداره " امت اسلامی ایران" است. اکثریت فعالان, روزنامه نگاران و مطبوعات صادراتی رژیم در خارج از حامیان جناح های "اصلاح طلب" ج.ا. هستند. خیل مدافعان این جناح در غرب در صددند ماهیت ضد انسانی اسلام سیاسی را استتارد و با بهانه "رشد دمکراسی از درون رژیم اسلامی" مشروعیت کل رژیم را در غرب تبلیغ کنند

گروه سوم مردم ازادی خواهی هستند که طالب یک رژیم دموکراتیک و جدائی دین از سیاستند. اینان نسل جوان, تحصیل کردهای جامعه و اکثر زنان کشورهستند. مبارزین این گروه در تهران فردا در خیابان های اطراف دانشگاه تهران جمع میشوند تا از این فرصت استفاده کرده و مطالبات خود را بیان کنند. این گروه یا رای"اعتراض" خود را به یکی از کاندید های "اصلاح طلب" داده اند و یا انتخابات را تحریم کرده اند. انان با کل نظام مشکل دارند و از موقعیت انتخابا تی و کودتای جناح دیگر استفاده میکنند تا کل رژیم را به چالش کشند. اینان سرنوشت سازان این جنبشند. شکست یا پیروزی این جنبش به توان مبارزاتی و سازماندهی مستقل انان بستگی دارد. پیروزی انان به معنای ازادی ایران از کل جمهوری جهل و جنایت اسلامی است و بهمین دلیل نماز جمعه فردا تلاشیست در جهت وحدت دو جناح رژیم در مقابل خطر سیل مردم ازادیخواه ایران.