Replies

continuation:

The editorial went on to claim that both groups accept all sorts of sin and social corruption. "The only difference is that association members say we should not fight vice so that it spreads and the Mahdi will emerge, while certain reformers say that the democratic principle demands that the people be left alone to do as they please, even if it means loose morals and social corruption." The Hojjatieh Society, mainly because it opposes Marxism, is pro-Western, according to the editorial, as is the 2nd of Khordad grouping.

The Hojjatieh Society was also mentioned occasionally in 2003. Government spokesman Abdullah Ramezanzadeh said on 8 January that Hojjatieh Society members who infiltrate the government would be dealt with in the same way as other citizens, "Iran Daily" reported the next day. Assembly of Experts member Hojatoleslam Hashem Hashemzadeh-Harisi said in the same newspaper that the infiltration of the government by such "radicals" threatens the Islamic system and undermines national solidarity. On the sidelines of the 9 March legislative session, Tehran representative Ali Shakuri-Rad allegedly said that the Hojjatieh Society should be licensed as a political party, "Resalat" reported on 10 March ("Towseh" put this into context on 10 March, when it reported that Shakuri-Rad was comparing his political opponents to the Hojjatieh Society).

"Aftab-i Yazd" on 7 October 2003 criticized an unnamed cleric for defending the Hojjatieh Society. This cleric reportedly claimed that Ayatollah Khomeini was deceived into criticizing the Hojjatieh Society. Sectarian conflicts reemerged in spring 2004 (see "RFE/RL Iran Report," 6 September 2004), which some sources linked to the Hojjatieh Society. Rasul Montajabnia wrote in a commentary for "Nasim-i Saba" on 4 May that members or supporters of the society have stopped their fight against the Baha'i faith and have turned their attention to creating divisions between Shi'a and Sunni Muslims. Montajabnia repeated this concern in the 12 May "Hambastegi."

Hussein Shariatmadari, director of the "Kayhan" newspaper, said, "The Hojjatieh Society has always been active as a creeping current," "Aftab-i Yazd" reported on 31 May 2004. Turning to its renewed activism, Shariatmadari warned, "In these days all the currents that suggest a secular establishment are the supporters of this society."

Ayatollah Abolqasem Khazali, who served on the Guardians Council, defended the Hojjatieh Society in the 18 May 2004 "Aftab-i Yazd." He said that stories of its renewed activism are "completely a lie." "I know these people [society members] very well. They are not working. They would have worked if they had known it was good for Islam. Therefore it is a complete lie when they say they have become active again." It is difficult to verify if the Hojjatieh Society really has become more active as an organization or if recent warnings about it relate to something completely different and this is another case of governmental scapegoating.

Members of the Hojjatieh Society, according to Radio Farda, are followers of the Iranian-born but Al-Najaf-based Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani http://www.radiofarda.com/en_news.aspx?mm=7&dd=11&yy=2004#top. Such a claim has not been reported elsewhere, but it is not impossible and goes some way in explaining official Iranian concern. The Iranian regime bases much of its legitimacy on its religious credentials and connection with Qom. The Qom howzeh would fear the transfer of prominence to the Al-Najaf howzeh. As suggested by an editorial in the 8 June "Farhang-i Ashti," Al-Najaf is the "new Islamic Vatican" and it rivals Qom. Mashhad -- birthplace of the Hojjatieh Society -- also rivals Qom, especially because, according to the editorial, it views Islamic rule with "deep suspicion." The editorial explains: "Qom looks to merge religion and politics, while Mashhad thinks of separating the two."

A potential link to the Hojjatieh Society is not the only cause of concern on the part of the Iranian government about Ayatollah al-Sistani. Like the Hojjatieh Society, al-Sistani does not advocate Vilayat-i Faqih. The government's concern about a religio-political organization that questions the basis of its theocratic system is therefore understandable. The society's anti-Baha'i message may not find much of an audience in modern Iran, and the right-wing tendencies of prominent members may not jibe with overall public sentiment. Its opposition to the system, however, may very well strike a chord with an unhappy public. (Bill Samii)