Sunday, February 07, 2016

Press TV or PressForSex TV?


Press TV, as most people by now know, is the English speaking arm of the Islamic Republic's state TV broadcasting. On the surface therefore, it has to display all the pious religious credentials the Iranian state claims to safeguard. Male presenters don't wear Western ties that "resemble a Christian cross" and female presenters of course have to adhere to the strict Islamic dress code.

Press TV, as with the rest of the Islamic Republic media and institutions, is also fiercely obsessed with accusing all others of loose morals and having rampant sexual orgies behind the scenes. Such is the obsession by the Islamic Republic's media that they have even stooped as low as creating fake web sites to implicate presenters of other TV presenters and journalists of raping children, and even making blatant lies that a female exiled journalist was raped in front of her child in the streets of London!

The sudden resignation by a Press TV female news anchor, Sheena Shirani, before the weekend and her revelations of how she was under constant harassment by her news director and other male bosses in Press TV, is a manifestation of the old proverb, "The pot calling the kettle black" or to be more PC, "the skunk calling the rose stinky".

Former Press TV news anchor, Sheena Shirani's revelations prove that the underlying reason for the Iranian state media's obsession with accusing all others of having illicit sexual relations behind the scenes, is in fact a deep rooted frustration within the sexually repressed mentality of the Islamic Republic media's own senior male managers.

Sheena Shirani's revelations about the widespread sexual harassment in Press TV, started with her bombshell Facebook status when she announced she had left Press TV:


Soon after the above Facebook status, she posted a 10 minute recorded telephone conversation with her news director, Hamid Reza Emadi, when he demanded from her to ejaculate him in return for all the 'favours' he had done for her in the past.

In the recoded conversation, Emadi tells his news anchor that her breasts drive him crazy. Then he begs her to do him a favour several times. The favour he was asking for turns out to be that she should make him feel better by helping him ejaculate. Emadi then carries on saying his balls have been aching for her since the previous night and despite Sheena's objections that she doesn't want to know about such things, Emadi, the Press TV news director, persists that she is indebted to him and so she should help him ejaculate. Despite Sheena's objections that she can not do such things, Emadi presses on saying "You can do a lot more for me, you can have sex with me... " Sheena tells Emadi he should ask his wife to do these things for him, but Emadi replies "If my wife could please me, why would I come after you?".

The conversation then briefly turns into English. Emadi asks her in English "Why do you hate me so much?" and Sheena answers back in English saying "Why do I hate you so much? You make me hate you! What you are doing is hurting me". Then they revert to talking in Persian again and Sheena says "He is sexually harassing her", Emadi however has a different interpretation of sexual harassment and says "I don't harass you, its just that sometimes I feel frustrated and I call you because you are my friend".

Sheena sounding totally stressed replies "Just because I am polite to you it doesn't mean you should expect such things from me. I don't want to have a relationship with you other than a working relationship".
Emadi again ignores her and insists how much he has stuck up for her in the past and its now her turn to help him. Sheena's answer once again is "It doesn't mean I should sexually please you, I can not do it".
Emadi then refers to another colleague at Press TV, "You know how much I stood up for you against that beastly man, Afshar" Sheena snaps back "Afshar is another lech like you. You know all about him. I really don't want to talk anymore".

Emadi again ignores Sheena and seems to have the delusion that he can turn her on by saying "I am lying completely naked in bed now, you have a very sexy body, you don't realise it yourself. That husband of yours who left you must have been a complete idiot. You are super sexy. I am not the only one saying this. You are just unaware of the treasure you possess. Even despite those awful clothes they make you wear, even when you are wearing those clothes, you drive me crazy. Your body drives me crazy. I do my best to stop myself from the way I feel about you, everyone else feels the same about you. Even when you walk its as if you are offering sex, you don't realise yourself, you are super hot! Will you help me ejaculate?"
Sheena again protests and Emadi clutching at the last straws makes the 'shocking' admission that he is sexually hyperactive and needs help!
Sheena asks him "Is that my fault?" and Emadi quickly replies "Yes it is your fault, because you have such beautiful tits and such sexy lips. You have destroyed me with your breasts. Just give me 2 minutes of your time and make me ejaculate!"
Sheena's last words are "I can't. Bye" before she puts the phone down.

Sheena has also posted the unwanted flirtatious text messages her news director used to send her:


There is also a 30 minute video of Sheena speaking on camera, which reveals the extent of sexual harassment faced by female employees working at Press TV.

Interestingly also, Hamid Reza Emadi, is none other than the man who directed the forced confessions of the former jailed Newsweek correspondent in Iran, Maziar Bahari , which Press TV then aired as if it was a normal interview made without duress and Ofcom repeatedly tried to ignore as a gross violation of its rules, so as not to upset the ruling regime in Iran.

So there you have it, despite all the veneers of piety and reverence for Islamic morals, and all the false accusations against others, once again it seems as the famous Iranian poet, Hafiz, so pertinently put it seven centuries ago:

On the pulpit, preachers, pour out their pious display
Yet in private, they behave in a different way
I have a question to ask of the learned in our midst
Why Confession-Priests, make their own repentance delay.




Sunday, December 06, 2015

You Are Giving Islam a Bad Name!

Have you ever wondered what Islamists think when a non-Muslim, who has never read the Koran or the Sira [biography] of the prophet, tells them what they are doing is not Islamic?!

Well below is one example. The video below shows Ayatollah Khomeini amongst some of his disciples, reacting to the former US president, Jimmy Carter, who had claimed what Khomeini was doing, was not Islamic!

video

Translation:
Khomeini: "Becoming an Islamic expert seems to be on the rise, Saddam thinks he is an Islam expert, Sadat seems to be amongst these Islam experts too who think they can tell what is Islamic and what is not and recently Mr. Carter has joined the ranks of these Islam experts too [Laughter] during a meeting on one of his trips, [Carter] has claimed 'these things that are happening in Iran have nothing to do with Islam' [Laughter]
So it looks like Islamic experts are on the increase, may be [Menachim] Begin will also soon claim to be an Islamic expert [Laughter] These people keep going on about what Islam is or isn't and they don't even know how to spell Islam"

So the short answer to the original question on this post: "They laugh"

Thursday, November 26, 2015

"It Could Never Happen Over Here"

There was a time in Iran, when the state didn't tell you what you could wear, what religion you could follow, what music you could listen to, whose hands you could hold, who you could shake hands with or how you should piss, etc. 

During one of those days in Tehran, when Iranians still had their civil liberties, I was walking with my friends, after school had finished, towards the bus terminals in 24 Esfand Square along the wide pavements of the Shahreza Avenue that later become the scene of major protests against the Shah and is now called Revolution Avenue. On that day, our daily fun filled fifteen minutes walk was suddenly interrupted by a loud noise of glass shattering and chants of Allah Akbar. 

I saw some bearded young men hurriedly run into the side streets and some women wearing black chadors hurl some leaflets in the air before they too disappeared into the side streets. The bearded men had smashed the bank's front glass panel by throwing bricks at it, leaving the people inside the bank looking dazed and shocked.

The entire incident took a few seconds, like a temporary visual abberation. Once it was over, I asked my friends "what the hell was all that about?". One of my friends replied "They must have been Khomeini's supporters" and I asked again "who the hell is Khomeini?" 

Until then, I had never heard of Khomeini. When my friend explained Khomeini to be this cleric who had been exiled and wanted to turn Iran into an Islamic Republic forcing women to wear the veil and rule the country according to the Islamic Sharia, I laughed and said "Well that would never happen here!", what a fool I was!

Every time I hear the phrase "it could never happen here", I am reminded of that childhood incidence, but whereas I could be forgiven for being no more than a naive school kid, the politicians, statesmen and those responsible for the security of their citizens should not be forgiven for burying their heads in the sand and neglecting their responsibilities to safeguard their citizens.

Such manifestations of naivety amongst officials who should have known better was best demonstrated during the Carter administration years. 

Andrew Young, Carter's ambassador to UN at the time of Iranian revolution, described Khomeini as a “saint”.
Carter's national security adviser, Brezhinsky, thought “we can get along with Khomeini”.
Carter's ambassador in Iran, William Sullivan, referred to Khomeini as Iran's Mehatma Gandhi.

Those who had actually bothered to read Khomeini's books and had dared to tell the truth, were silenced and accused of being scaremongers. When three American newspapers published extensive accounts of Khomeini's writings, that revealed him to be as anti-Western and extremely reactionary, Henry Precht, the Head of US State Department's Iran Desk, said those newspaper accounts were severely misleading and likened the newspaper articles that revealed the true nature of Khomeini, as “at best a collection of school student notes and at worst a forgery”!

Well, hindsight now tells us who the "school students" were and which was a "forgery". If this bitter experience of Carter administration callowness and gullibility had taught the politicians and their advisors a useful lesson, it wouldn't be so bad, but unfortunately history keeps repeating itself and I keep hearing  "it will never happen here"  optimist rebuttals over and over again.

I remember in year 2000, I was describing a scene to a colleague that I had witnessed in the Speakers Corner, London, involving the Islamists there and expressing my concern over the rise of Islamic fanatics in the UK. My colleague's response was to shrug his shoulders and to reassure himself by saying the famous words "It will never happen over here"! 

It is probably unnecessary for me to list all the things that have happened here in UK since that casual conversation 15 years ago, perhaps its best to talk about why they happened here and why they will continue to happen and the only way that it can be stopped.

Extremism is not hard to define. Extremism is when a group of people become totally absorbed by an ideology to the extent that everything becomes justifiable for them to serve their ideology. They perceive their ideology as so great, so superior and so impeccable that any crime in the service of the ideology becomes justifiable for them. They will kill innocent civilians, they will kill women and children, because human life compared to their perceived sanctity and superiority of their ideology becomes totally insignificant, no matter how innocent. 

Extremism requires foot soldiers however. Extremists are not after winning the hearts and minds of the mainstream public, they are after brainwashing and recruiting foot soldiers as canon fodder. They are after brainwashing receptive minds of disgruntled individuals and recruiting  them to deliver violence, by turning ordinary individuals into zealot thugs, who misguidedly think their violence is for a good cause, they have an impact far greater than their numbers. Extremists want to seize power by whatever means available to them and not necessarily by a majority vote.

To do the above they need institutions, infrastructure and umbrella organisations and this is where the Western politicians have failed their citizens. In order to reach the highest common denominator for votes and attract as many votes from any quarter, they have preferred to ignore or simply not recognise how these building blocks function for breeding extremism.

For example it may surprise most readers that the Supreme Leader of Iran, who encourages his followers to chant death to England and burn the British flag, has a representative office here in London. Even when the Iranian embassy was closed in the aftermath of the attack on the British embassy in Tehran, the Supreme Leader's office in Maida Vale continued to thrive and carry on with its activities which include a Muslim school network that teaches its pupils loyalty to the Supreme Leader of Iran. The British Council in Iran however still remains closed. 

It may also surprise the readers, that a reactionary Ayatollah in Iran, Ayatollah Makarem Shirazi, a holocaust denier and someone who has issued a death fatwa against an Iranian rap singer in Germany has a registered charity in UK and also has a representative office in Harrow Road. Whats more, he has received financial aid and grant from Brent Council for "promoting religious freedom and tolerance"! The mind boggles at such stupidity and ignorance.

Throughout Western democracies and by using the loopholes in democracies, Mosques, Madressehs, book shops, charities, TV stations etc. are being set up by extremists as the breeding grounds they require to thrive. The existing laws often suffice in closing them down, but what is lacking however is the courage to apply the existing laws.

Extremism doesn't grow overnight, it needs to spread its seeds and then nurture them over the years through institutions and build an infrastructure that can thrive and spread. Until our politically correct politicians are reluctant to pluck the courage and dismantle these institutions and our voters don't push them into doing so, arresting and killing the perpetrators of terror acts, only creates martyrs who can easily be replaced by new more experienced and more hardened terrorists, as we have witnessed since the last decade.

Friday, November 06, 2015

An Ardent Follower of Imam "Romeyni" in Iran

This is a scene from Wednesday's annual organised nationwide rallies across Iran that marks the 36th anniversary of the takeover of the US embassy. They have found some disgruntled black man and shipped him to Iran to speak to the crowds outside the former US embassy in Tehran - ["The den of spies"].

As you can see from the video, he tells the crowds that if they remain united; then they will be able to "destroy America".  

The black man claims he is a follower of Imam "Romeyni" and that this mysterious Imam "Romeyni" was "one of the greatest leaders of the last time"!

video

Please note when he asks to "Destroy America" and chants "God Damn America", he probably means the 'policies of the US government' and it should not tarnish the Islamic Republic's sincerity in implementing the JCPOA.

Tuesday, October 27, 2015

Western Media Coverage of Gen. Hamedani, Copy/Paste of Official Iranian News

My main reason for starting this blog,  ten years ago, was my frustration at the way Iran related news was reported in the Western mass media. I felt the Tehran based correspondents  gave an unrealistic rosy picture of Iran so as not to upset the Iranian authorities and risk getting deported and I felt someone needed to tell the other side of the story.

Ten years on, with the advent of citizen journalism, social media and more news websites in English by other Iranians fluent in both English and Persian, we do not have to only rely on reading the news from media correspondents,  nevertheless it is still the mass media that has the largest readership and reading the mass media coverage of Iran news is still very frustrating at times.

One such recent sloppy news coverage was that of Brigadier General Hossein Hamedani, killed in Syria earlier this month.
Here is this ridiculous tweet by the Guardian's "Iran expert" who is responsible for making up and disseminating many current media myths and falsehoods about what is going on in Iran:

It is clearly obvious from the above, Saeed Kamali Dehghan had no idea who Brig. General Hamedani was and had never heard of him before!

The most important information that was not reported in the mass media's coverage of Brig. General Hamedani was that he was a commander of the Qods Force, the elite IRGC unit for overseas operations led by General Qassem Soleimani. In fact at times it seems the mass media in the West thinks the Qods Force is just made up of one person, Qassem Soleimani.

Also missing from the mass media coverage was Hamedani's prolific role in the crackdown on Iranian protesters in 2009, particularly on the Ashura uprising as the head of Tehran's 'Mohamad Rasool Allah Corps.'.
In his last media interview, Hamedani described how he had re-trained thugs and hoodlum who had been imprisoned before, for non-political offences, and had let them loose on the protesters. A crackdown method that has always proved very effective with the Islamic Republic ever since its inception.

Hamedani despised the leaders of the Green Movement. After Moussavi, Rahnavard and Karroubi, the leaders of the Green Movement, were imprisoned, Hamedani claimed "Even if they repent, they will not be forgiven".

In Syria he set up the National Defence Force, modelled on the Iranian ‘Basij’ militia". The NDF soon became another Islamic Republic engineered disaster in Syria. The indiscipline and lawlessness of the NDF not only led to much resentment by the regular Syrian military officers and the population but on 30th April this year, fighting broke out between the Syrian government security forces and the NDF outside Homs, resulting in several deaths.

Hamedani was blamed for much of Iran's failure  to bring the situation under control in Syria. He was recalled to Iran and demoted to be in charge of 'integrating the logistic equipments for Syria'.

News of his death was first announced by pro-regime journalists and websites, who said Hamedani was injured in a motor vehicle accident in Syria and died in the ambulance on his way to hospital:



The IRGC official statement that came out hours later said Brig. Gen. Hamedani was martyred while fighting IS forces. Of course to be killed by the 'Takfiri' infidels in battle is a whole lot more appealing than being killed in a road accident, but again the mass media bought the official Iranian line.

What we got in the Western mass media regarding Gen. Hamedani's death, was a more or less copy/paste of the official Iranian news, an Iranian IRGC "advisor" was killed by ISIS in Syria!










Tuesday, August 25, 2015

David Shariatmadari’s links with Iranian regime and the Guardian’s credibility gap

David Shariatmadari, the Guardian editor who recently authored a much-derided hatchet-job on the leading British Muslim liberal Maajid Nawaz, has long been something of an enigma. Homosexual and a self-described “sort of pan-theist”, he has nonetheless regularly painted a rosy picture of Iran’s theocratic government and has also, according to a variety of Muslim liberals, blocked reformist voices and those who are critical of the Islamic Republic of Iran from writing for Guardian's "Comment Is Free". 

Born in London to an English mother and an Iranian Muslim father, educated at the exclusive Christ’s Hospital School in Lincoln, Shariatmadari attained a degree in Arabic, Persian and Linguistics at Kings College, Cambridge, and subsequently a Linguistics MA at SOAS in London. On the way, he flirted with the right, including penning a sub-Rod Liddle diatribe against ‘diversity’ and civil service waste for the Spectator (“You can hardly move for diversity action plans and diversity monitoring grids”) and for the corporate world, writing for BP’s in-house magazine Horizon.

So far so typical of the Guardian’s upper-middle class commentariat. However, Shariatmadari also seems to harbour a dark family secret that he has never revealed publicly. His father’s brother, who he has described fondly in the Guardian itself, is directly implicated in some of the 20th century’s worst human rights abuses in the name of Islam, a fact never unacknowledged publicly by Shariatmadari. In one 2009 reminiscence for the Guardian on the 1979 Iranian revolution, Shariatmadari wrote lightheartedly of his childhood encounters with his unnamed Iranian uncle:

"My uncle, who sent us boxes of 'gaz' - a Persian delicacy from Isfahan - and pistachios every so often and had been put in prison by the Shah (three months solitary confinement for attending a protest against French actions in Algeria), started working for the new government. He came to see us when I was about three, with "protection" in tow. This man appears sheepishly in some of our photo albums. He was a student and assistant really, but in family myth he became a bodyguard with a gun"

In another article, he again casually references meeting this, still unnamed, uncle on a visit to Iran, writing of his “a simple trip to see my uncle and aunts, the town my dad grew up in, my grandfather's grave”.


Who was this mysterious, un-named but clearly powerful uncle, who arrived escorted by a bodyguard, who David so coyly describes as “working for the new government” of post-revolutionary Iran?


It can now be said with a high probability of certainty that Dr Ali Shariatmadari, one of Ayatollah Khomeini’s closest political lieutenants and the man entrusted with purging the country’s universities of suspected secular and ‘un-Islamic’ intellectuals, and particularly Leftists, is his mysterious uncle.


A former school teacher, university lecturer and a committed Khomeini zealot, who was indeed jailed briefly under the Shah, Ali Shariatmadari was initially appointed as Minister of Science in Iran’s relatively moderate and inclusive post-revolutiona interim government in 1979. 


However, once Khomeini’s Islamists took full control of the government later in 1980 and launched their assault on their erstwhile Left-wing allies, Shariatmadari was appointed Minister for Higher Education. Soon afterwards, in June 1980, Khomeini personally appointed him to co-establish the country’s Supreme Council of the Cultural Revolution, the unelected body which to the present day imposes draconian restrictions on Iran’s cultural, educational and intellectual life in the name of revolution and Islam. 


Khomeini’s statement announcing this on 12 June, reads in part:

"Hence, their Excellency Mr. Mohammad Javad Bahonar, Mr. Mehdi Rabbani Amleshi, Mr. Hassan Habibi, Mr. Abdulkarim Soroush, Mr. Shams Al-e Ahmad, Mr. Jalaleddin Farsi and Mr. Ali Shariatmadari are made responsible to establish a headquarter and invite committed experts among Muslim professors, committed employees and other educated, committed and faithful layers of the society to form a council being charged to take measures in planning for various courses and for the cultural policy of the universities in future on the basis of Islamic culture and through selection of efficient, committed and vigilant professors and for other issues relevant to the Islamic academic revolution.”

In this dual role on the Supreme Council and as Minister for Higher Education, acting under Khomeini’s personal orders, Ali Shariatmadari led the Islamist regime’s purge of Iran’s intellectuals; universities were closed in 1980 for two years to facilitate the purges, over 800 lecturers and academics were dismissed, many into lives of poverty or exile, and others – including intellectuals, academics and poets – were jailed or executed after often cursory show-trials. An estimated 8,000 people, men, women, old and even teenagers were executed by the regime during the eighties.


While others on the Council grew uneasy and resigned, some such as Abdol Karim Soroush even later becoming opposition, David Shariatmadari’s gift-bearing “Uncle Ali” remained steadfastly loyal to the most conservative elements of the regime, being reappointed to the Supreme Council by Ayatollah Ali Khameini in 2007. Indeed, he 

continues to sit on the council today, a fact which David Shariatmadari has strangely never acknowledged in his numerous articles for the Guardian on Iran – even ones that directly reference his uncle!

No-one should be held guilty of the crimes of others. However, it is legitimate to ask to what extent David Shariatmadari’s family ties to the senior Iranian government officials impact his reporting on Iran in the Guardian? In one of his articles on the subject of Iran’s government, David Shariatmadari has made some lukewarm criticisms of the regime, referencing ‘the executions’ in passing, before issuing this spectacular cop-out:


"But who am I to talk with any authority? I experienced the Iranian revolution at one remove and was in no position to make sense of it. Even now it's impossible to give a judgment; there were millions of revolutions, experienced in millions of different ways." !!

Has moral equivocation ever been so immoral? The Iranian ‘Islamic’ revolution, partly thanks to the actions of David’s own ‘Uncle Ali”, has led to judicial stonings, the execution of adulterers, the public hanging from cranes of those guilty of ‘apostacy’, the discriminations against homosexuals, the systematic restriction of women’s rights, the casual routine execution of political prisoners (5,000 in 1988 alone) but who is David Shariatmadari, the nephew of Dr Ali Shariatmadari, to judge? How much do his family ties prevent him from reporting on the true nature of Iran’s government?


In other instances, David Shariatmadari has gone further than sitting on the fence and has actively defended the regime, perhaps out of misplaced familial loyalty. For instance, in one 2009 piece on Iran’s presidential elections, he said had voted for the more moderate candidate, Hossein Mousavi, and then concluded with a woefully inaccurate rose-tinted analysis of the situation in Iran:


"Iranian democracy is far more than the regime-orchestrated sham many westerners assume it must be. It falls short on two crucial measures: all parliamentary and presidential candidates are vetted by the conservative Guardian Council, and the supreme leader of the nation is, of course, unelected. But there is no denying that in 2009 we have had a real contest; the candidates have been exposed to scrutiny, there is significant difference between the policies on offer and the results are, as yet, anyone's guess."


Within days, however, Iran’s conservative faction had effectively rigged and stolen the election, arrested the winning candidates, and then cracked down violently on the resulting protests. As “many Westerners” – and many better informed Iranians – had correctly surmised, “Iranian democracy” was indeed a “regime-orchestrated sham”. Undeterred, rather than apologising for his woeful analysis, he soon after published a lengthy denunciation of Mujahideen-e Khalq (MEK) the Leftist Islamist opposition/rival group to the mullahs who helped the mullahs come to power in 1979 but then fell out with them when they received no share of the power. 


Now, if David Shariatmadari wishes to defend elements of the Iranian regime and to attack Muslim liberals and to block them from writing for his employers at the Guardian, this is his personal choice. However, it seems only fair for Guardian readers, and would-be liberal Muslim contributors, to know of his links to the regime and of his uncle’s role in the systematic persecution of Iran’s intellectuals. Indeed, given David Shariatmadari’s close family ties to Iran’s brutal theocratic and massively corrupt rulers’, his recent snipes at Maajid Nawaz for his “closeness to the law-making elite” can also now been seen as exposing jaw-dropping level of hypocrisy.


In his recent article on Nawaz, Shariatmadari took aim at what he calls Quilliam’s “credibility gap”. Maybe his next article should ponder his own deliberate silence over his uncle Ali’s role in the bloody persecution and the silencing of Iran’s leftwing and liberal intelligentsia, and then consider why The Guardian, like so much of the British Left, has its own “credibility gap” with Muslim and secular Iranians.

Before writing this post, I emailed, messaged and phoned David Shariatmadari to give him an opportunity to deny Ali Shariatmadari is his uncle, but he refused.



Thursday, August 20, 2015

Khomeini's Damnation of Mossadegh

What happens when the management of a company choose bad advisors? Well usually bad advise leads to undesirable consequences and the company suffers, but when the management is the US administration that appoints bad foreign advisors, then the undesirable consequences become global catastrophic calamities!

I am still so infuriated about Obama apologising to the mullahs in Iran for the toppling of Mossadegh in 1953. It shows that none of the things we talked about or wrote about after Madeline Albright made the same mistake,  including articles written by the likes of Ray Takeyh, are reaching the US administration which is more hell bent on listening to advice on Iran from their NIAC advisors, considered by many as a lobby group for the Islamic Republic. 

So it is with little hope that I am writing this post, except that this is not my opinion or that of a learned person's accurate recount of what really happened in 1953. This is Khomeini's damnation of Mossadegh in his own words. Perhaps by watching this, the future US administrations will learn that they need not apologise to the mullahs for the events of 1953 in Iran or consider it a reason to justify the actions by the mullahs today!

Perhaps Ayatollah Khomeini's damnation of Mossadegh will make the US administration realise that they really are listening to very bad advise!


"right from the beginning when Ayatollah Kashani saw that they [Mossadegh supporters] are misbehaving and spoke against them, what they [Mossadegh supporters] did was to put a pair of glasses on a dog and named it Ayatollah [audience cries]..this was at a time when his [Mossadegh] supporters speak so proudly of him, Mossadegh was not a Muslim either. That day I was in the house of one of Tehran's high ranking clerics, when I heard the news that they have put a pair of glasses on a dog and are walking him in the streets calling the dog, Ayatollah. I told that high ranking cleric that I was with at that time, this is now no longer a matter of personal animosity with Mossadegh, he will be slapped for this, and it wasn't long before he was slapped, and had he [Mossadegh]  remained in power, he would have slapped Islam"