Economic Corruption of Tehran’s Friday Prayer Leader
The Spiritual Fruit of the Cherry Orchard for Sedighi
Although we have addressed the economic corruption of Tehran’s Friday prayer leader in the past, the story goes as follows: a 4,200 square meter orchard belonging to the seminary under Mr. Sedighi’s supervision was transferred to an institution owned by him and his family. Initially, it was claimed that his signature was forged, but it later became clear that he was present as both the seller and buyer at the notary office, and his fingerprint was verified. Even a document was published showing that payment was made in cash.
In a subsequent statement, it was said that they had not read the charter and had trusted others, and this trust was exploited. However, no news of a complaint against the forger was published, and instead of apologizing to the public, they asked for prayers and sought forgiveness, although they attributed it to enemy conspiracies and foreign media. Amidst these discussions, it was announced that Mr. Sedighi would be one of the speakers during the Night of Decree at Imam Sadiq University, but the reactions on social media were so negative that the event was reportedly canceled, likely due to fears of protests and overshadowing religious aspects.
This writing is indeed a note, and the events are detailed in the report. The introduction serves only as an entry into the lessons of this story, which encompasses various and diverse points.
The first point is that what an investigative journalist managed to do might not have been achievable by official institutions with large budgets. The claim that the whistleblower has special connections or receives information from certain places, even if true, does not affect the core issue, which is that the more opportunities for information dissemination and independent investigative journalism, the less corruption there will be. One cannot claim to fight corruption while simultaneously restricting the media.
Secondly, the issue was questionable from the beginning. From the time the cherry orchard was destroyed and the change of use was approved, the seeds of misconduct were sown. If there had been such sensitivities 20 years ago, subsequent events might not have occurred. In similar cases, such foresight should be considered from the start; that a cherry orchard is repurposed under the guise of establishing a seminary and later, part of that property is transferred to an institution or private individual.
The explicit support from Tehran’s municipal newspaper, calling for a faithful approach, and the recent comments from the head of Channel Three confirm that disclosing this misconduct wouldn’t have been possible with media monopoly. This is the third lesson: one cannot expect sensitivity to such matters from promotional and official media. As Dr. Shariati put it, to understand how someone thinks, you must know where their funding comes from.
The fourth lesson is that just as scholars take a stance against usury, they should express sensitivity towards hypocrisy. Although not all of Mr. Sedighi’s actions can be deemed hypocritical, the public feels a disconnect between his words and tears and what has transpired.
The fifth lesson from this story is how limiting the promotion of virtue and prevention of vice to women’s and girls’ clothing is far from public perception. What has happened is that what the head of the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice did is seen by society as a vice itself, as he explicitly admitted to negligence and sought forgiveness.
The true promotion of virtue is what the media and critics did in exposing this story, without receiving a cent in budget, unlike the committee under Mr. Sedighi’s leadership, which claimed to do so with substantial funds, resulting in heavy political and social costs. With existing anti-corruption laws, this deserves praise, not criticism.
The sixth lesson is that scholars should be more vigilant about their children, as not much time has passed since the former judiciary deputy’s case involving his children. In Mr. Sedighi’s case, it’s likely his children were concerned about their future after him and not receiving their share, leading them to establish a seemingly cultural institution with commercial goals, possibly eyeing the sale of the property in the future and planning to migrate.
Usually, someone approaches these children, takes control, and advances the project. Given this experience, it’s better to prevent their children from revolving around their father and encourage them towards real education or business.
Let’s recall that in his first interview with TV journalist Yousef Salami, Mr. Sedighi recited a Quran verse referring to Jacob’s lament about his children, verse 86 of Surah Yusuf: ‘I only complain of my grief and sorrow to Allah, and I know from Allah that which you do not know.’ This incident was a test for radical Iranian conservatism, which claimed to fight corruption and discrimination during the reform and moderation eras, and by supporting or trying to justify Mr. Sedighi’s actions, they showed how genuine those claims were. This is the seventh lesson.
From another perspective, one might note that the clearer and stronger a person’s background and history, the less likely they are to commit such errors, as they value their brand and don’t want to damage it. However, Mr. Sedighi does not have a significant background in the 1979 revolution, and despite being 27 at the time, an age when young people aged 18 to 30 were prominent, he wasn’t known as a revolutionary cleric. This lack or deficiency might have led him to overlook certain points, which is the eighth lesson, to entrust significant tasks to those with a solid background.
Mr. Sedighi’s potential separation from Tehran’s Friday prayers could relieve worshippers who attend solely for religious purposes, as the sermons are considered equivalent to two units of prayer, and the temporary Friday prayer leader, by admitting ignorance and negligence, might have disqualified himself from the condition of justice.
With this perspective, the Friday prayer committee should reduce political intensity and consider the interests of purely religious and less governmental and political groups, as they have been hurt by the recent incident. The ninth lesson might be just that, although from the positions of other Friday prayer leaders and their avoidance of this issue, it can be concluded that this lesson hasn’t been fully learned.
Regarding the incident and the alleged crime or misconduct, there is no consensus. Accusations range from land grabbing to acquiring illicit wealth and breach of trust, each carrying its own legal implications. The writer is not insisting on any of these but suggests asking judicial authorities what exactly this action can be called, especially if they consider it criminal, and if not, why the perpetrator seeks forgiveness.
In the West, which we often criticize, particularly the UK, which is more custom-based, when such incidents occur, they enrich their legal framework. However, apart from lawyers’ comments, we haven’t witnessed a judicial stance, as if the memory of the five or six years Mr. Sedighi served as the head of the disciplinary court for judges, with their decisions under his influence, hasn’t faded. Although this could be an opportunity to question the cases he might have recommended.
Although this revelation resulted from a media activist’s efforts, considering the registration of national ID numbers, notaries and other offices can also share information in similar cases. This isn’t reprehensible but commendable because the information isn’t classified or secret. According to Mr. Foroughi from Channel Three or others, this information likely leaked from within Mr. Sedighi’s seminary. In fact, one could argue that while we mention their faults, we should also highlight their virtues, which include having individuals among the students and trainees who were sensitive to public property and valued their doubts more than Mr. Sedighi’s tears.
Finally, aside from these points, which are not without some jabs to reduce the political burden, one can turn to the most serious lesson and teaching, as the damage the Shia clergy might have sustained or accepted from this incident is unmatched by any other blow.
While it’s true that the Shia clergy have long interacted with the market and business and dealt with land and property, nothing new has happened so far. However, the fact that part of public property belonging to a seminary was transferred by its custodian to a family institution is incompatible with this background and has no reason other than the merging of religion, power, and politics. This is just one of the consequences and pitfalls of this issue that has emerged.
In Iranian culture, the disgrace of encroaching on property or assets belonging to religious and public places is such that we are all familiar with this proverb:
He who steals the breeze is a thief, he who steals the carpet from the Kaaba is a thief.
God forbid, we do not intend to accuse Mr. Sedighi personally, and we take his claim of negligence and ignorance at face value. However, this action, regardless of the actor’s knowledge or ignorance, transferring the seminary’s orchard to himself or another in one or two stages, can be a clear example of stealing the carpet from the Kaaba.
Both those who advanced this project and Mr. Sedighi himself were aware of this, as the former acted under the guise of pre-seminary and cultural work, even though it wasn’t mentioned in the charter. The respected custodian, who played both seller and buyer roles, assured that the seminary’s assets were not at risk of transfer with the establishment of the institution.
However, a witty person asked if the property wasn’t at risk of transfer, then what was or what was transferred, and how can the incident be explained? One can only hope the carpet returns to the Kaaba, although in this case, even the analogy to the Kaaba is inappropriate, as there are many stories about the original tale.
