Accusations Against Mir-Hossein Mousavi
From Freemason to Beheshti’s Killer
Mir-Hossein Mousavi’s latest statement has so enraged the radical and revolutionary conservative faction that we are witnessing their harshest attacks since the beginning of the Green Movement. The level of attacks has moved beyond calling him a seditionist and deceived by American and Israeli intelligence services, reaching much more bizarre claims.
It seems their resources are so depleted and previous accusations so worn out and repetitive that they have lost their impact. For this reason, they have resorted to bizarre slanders, to the extent that even some of their own rational members have spoken out.
Freemason According to a Regime Opponent
Initially, Kayhan called him an old man and the leader of the ’88 faction, but perhaps later felt that these labels only served to vent anger and not to construct a new case. Thus, they invented the claim that Mousavi is a Freemason. Another has accused him of being Beheshti’s killer, and some have even called for his execution.
Even Hossein Roozitalab expressed disbelief that this individual was the head of the executive branch in the 1980s. His statement was met with reminders from others that the head of the executive branch is the President, and the Prime Minister, according to all accounts and documents, was beloved by Ayatollah Khomeini. Yasser Jaberi claimed that if the events of ’88 had occurred in the 1980s, Ayatollah Khomeini would never have tolerated Mousavi, and the reason for the current leadership’s tolerance is that the elites abandoned him.
He was criticized again for his statement, which was seen as self-defeating, and for implying that Ayatollah Khomeini’s ability to build consensus was greater than the current leadership’s. The situation has become so contentious that some have protested that if these revolutionaries continue in this manner, they will have to question the entire leadership of Imam in the 1980s. Hassan Zaidabadi wrote on his Telegram channel that Hossein Shariatmadari claimed two prominent security experts stated in the early 2000s that Engineer Mousavi was a Mason.
If it was determined in the early 2000s that Engineer Mousavi was a Mason, then why was he later appointed as a member of the Expediency Discernment Council and his candidacy for the 2009 presidential election approved by the Guardian Council?
A system in which a Mason served as Prime Minister during the critical eight years of war and was privy to all security matters cannot have the slightest credibility or competence. Until now, I have responded to some of Kayhan’s writings with humor, but with the pace set by the editor of this newspaper, humor is no longer sufficient.
Beheshti’s Killer Without Evidence
A media activist associated with the revolutionary faction claimed that since all of Mousavi’s critics were assassinated early in the revolution, the assassinations must have been his doing. The claim of Mousavi’s involvement in the assassination of Ayat, a serious opponent of his, has been raised in some conservative circles and media since 2009, but not before. Ironically, now they are trying to blame Mousavi for the Hafte Tir bombing as well.
This conservative media activist has placed Beheshti, the Secretary-General of the Islamic Republican Party, on the same level as Ayat among Mousavi’s critics and attributed his assassination to the then Prime Minister. However, historically, not only is there no evidence of such a disagreement, but on the contrary, Mousavi and Beheshti were aligned and united. A Twitter user, highlighting the absurdity of this claim, responded by saying Mousavi probably threatened Beheshti’s two sons in 2009 that if they didn’t accept his advisory position, he would kill them. Alireza Beheshti, Beheshti’s son, was one of Mousavi’s advisors who was arrested in 2009 and spent some time in prison.
Again the Issue of Slander
A few years ago, Hossein Bastani made a documentary on BBC Persian titled ‘Slander to Preserve the System,’ concluding that the slanders and accusations against critics and political-religious opponents of the system have a jurisprudential basis attributed to Ayatollah Khomeini.
Fars News Agency used extensive writings from the memories and statements of various political figures to refute the claim made in this documentary, arguing that neither in belief nor in fatwa, nor even beyond that in Imam’s conduct, was there such a thing. They concluded that now the question arises: if Imam deemed lies, accusations, and slander permissible, he should have considered it permissible against his number one enemy, the Shah and his regime, and used it in propaganda. But do we have any evidence of this? The definitive answer is no.
Now, this writing should be placed like a mirror in front of these media outlets, asking if you believe Ayatollah Khomeini did not even slander his number one enemy, the Shah and the previous regime, how can you do the same to his Prime Minister and still consider yourselves supporters and followers of Ayatollah Khomeini? The radical revolutionary faction has long been caught in a double standard.
Because their politics are solely and purely pursued based on current and immediate interests, but to prove their righteousness, they are forced to refer to the ethics of religion and their own leaders. This approach has led them to a contradiction, resulting in this double standard in their ethics and politics.
Regarding the discussion of slander and its jurisprudential roots, Soroush Mahallati once said in an interview that this theory, at the level of a fatwa, has had serious advocates in recent centuries and, interestingly, has consistently had supporters in non-political spaces, such as the late Ayatollah Mirza Javad Agha Tabrizi, a revered recent cleric who accepted this theory in his book ‘Irshad al-Talib.’ Some clerics critical of the revolution also hold this belief.
For example, Ayatollah Seyyed Taqi Qomi in his book ‘Mabani Minahaj al-Salihin’ holds the same view and even extends the permissibility of slander to all religious opponents whom he considers suspicious and heretical. Ayatollah Seyyed Sadegh Rouhani also holds this belief in his book ‘Fiqh al-Sadiq.’ In any case, these gentlemen have discussed and expressed their views openly, and the issue goes beyond a mere political disagreement. Of course, this fatwa provides a significant capacity to justify unethical behavior, especially in the world of politics.