A Narrative of the Iranian Green Movement
The Green Call
The Green Call
A Narrative of the Iranian Green Movement
Volume I: Papers, Letters and Declarations (2009-2014)
Rawayati as Jonbesh-e Sabz-e Mardom-e Iran
Jeld-e Awwal: Neweshtarha (1388-93)
Mohsen Kadivar (1959- )
E-book: November 2014
Publisher: Mohsen Kadivar Official website
The Green Movement has been the most important populist dissident movement in the history of the Islamic Republic of Iran. This movement, which was initiated by the spontaneous protests of millions of people of Tehran against the June 2009 presidential election results, chanting the slogan “where is my vote?” continued for several months. There were further protests in the weeks that followed, and dozens of innocent youths perished in these otherwise peaceful demonstrations at the hands of the Revolutionary Guard and the Basij militia. Thousands were arrested and detained, and hundreds of these were convicted and given medium to long-term prison sentences, or faced other forms of social exclusion. By all appearances, the Green Movement has been suppressed—as indicated by the unlawful house arrest of two prominent figures of the movement, Mir-Hossein Mousavi and Mahdi Karroubi, along with their wives Zahra Rahnavard and Fatemeh Karroubi, a situation that has endured up until the present (though the fourth person was released after a few months). The conditions of their house arrest include the absolute cessation of their communication with the outside world (since February of 2011). However, according to the confessions of the political, security and military leaders of the regime, this movement—that they have dubbed “The Green Sedition”—remains the single greatest internal threat for the regime of the Islamic Republic. Civilians who had any prior roles in the movement continue to be deprived of their rights and privileges, both politically and socially, due to the regime’s concerns.
Although the movement was triggered by the people’s objection to the fraudulent presidential election results, and the subsequent reelection of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the trajectory of the movement rapidly shifted to challenge the policies of the Supreme Leader, Seyyed Ali Khamenei, whom the protestors began to call “the dictator of Iran.” This was the first open confrontation by middle-class citizens, a wide range of youth, students, women, journalists, and educated people against the restrictive policies of the Islamic Republic. These policies included the restriction of legal freedom by the Guardian Council, the Judiciary, Revolutionary Guard, and Basij Militia—all of whom work under the direct supervision of the Supreme Leader. In other words, a significant part of the society was dissatisfied by the country’s governance, and wanted to express their lack of faith in a regime that had appointed their own president instead of the candidate elected by the people.
Other countries are not immune to disagreements between state and citizen. The resolution of these disputes should follow the processes as defined within the respective country’s constitution. Presumably, institutions such as the Guardian Council, the Judiciary, and the Supreme Leader, being impartial institutions and thus superior to national challenges, should investigate the election protests. However, the problem is that there are no impartial institutions left in Islamic Republic. In particular, in the incidents of 2009 and afterwards, all three aforementioned institutions has been part and parcel of the disputes. The Supreme Leader—instead of acting like the leader of the entire nation, regardless of their preferences—announced hastily and illegally that the election was transparent. He deemed objections to it to be unjustified at the Tehran Friday Prayers of June 19th 2009, though this was prior to the legal deadline for complaints was complete, and prior to the verification of the election’s validity by other legal institutions—moves that resembled those of the leader of the Fundamentalist party. The jurists of the Guardian Council endorsed the desired candidate explicitly, and took the further step of sentencing the leaders of the opposition to death at the Tehran Friday Prayers. The judiciary, which is expected to enforce justice and law overtly, instead announced the execution of the Supreme Leader’s commands as its responsibility. They held Stalinist-style show trials for the Green Movements’ accused, broadcasting them on state television for all to see. These indictments and sentences provide the most crucial documentary evidence of the fundamental corruption of the judiciary of the Islamic Republic. The revolutionary guard and the Basij Militia turned into suppressive forces towards the mass protests based on the illusion that the regime and the revolution were in danger, and thus revived memories of the Imperial Guard of the Shah.
Yet the election’s Monitoring Committee of the two opposition candidates (Mousavi and Karrubi) subsequently announced its evidence, including documents indicating fraud in the election. These documents were not accepted by the other side, which was the judge too!
Widespread arrests of political reformists and activists within hours after announcing the result of the election, and before any kind of protests, are indubitable signs of the regime’s coup d’état against those rightfully elected by the people. The regime had already made its decision, and was not willing to submit to the public vote at any price. The subsequent disclosure of the speeches of General Moshfegh and General Jafari (the Chief Commander of the Revolutionary Guard) has confirmed that it was, in fact, a coup d’état against the election.
The Green Movement thus resembled the sad side in a soccer game in which the referee and assistant referees are also the rival side’s coach and assistants. The referee gave all the members of the opposite team red and yellow cards; then neglected to remember that he was the referee, and instead played and scored for the rival team, instead of acting on behalf of all the players. From the very beginning, Mr. Khamenei called the mass peaceful protests “sedition” and thought them part of a conspiracy coordinated by foreign enemies against the regime. The Revolutionary Guard has directed the crackdown on protesters and the consolidation of the regime’s religious tyranny at all stages. The Islamic Republic has not recognized the right of peaceful and civil protest and instead has favored a solution by means of prisons, torture, repression and pressure. Every notable protester in the country has been arrested. State prisons have been filled with protesters. Independent journals have been banned and absolute censorship has dominated the media’s airwaves.
What are the demands of the Green Movement? There is a diverse range of protesters within the Green Movement. However, not every protester is a member of the Green Movement. The regime attempted to portray the movement as being comprised of various groups. These include Monarchists, the people of Mujahedin (MEK), anti-religious secularists, and other subversive groups (relying on the west and Arab states) as members of the “Green Sedition”. These aforementioned groups welcomed the opportunity. However, the range of adherents to the Green Movement, from the reformists and conservatives inside the regime to the democratic and progressive seculars inside and outside Iran, is easily recognizable. The main sources for the positions of the Green Movement can be found within the seventeen declarations of Mir-Hossein Mousavi (the elected president whose actual number of votes was never announced the regime), the declarations of Mahdi Karrubi (the other opposition candidate who was convinced of the vote’s manipulation), and within the official charter of the Green Movement. These contain the minimum demands of the Green Movement, and form its common denominator. The framework of Mousavi’s campaign is nothing less than the “absolute Implementation of the Constitution.”
The innocent prisoners who sporadically share their views from behind bars have been the most sincere members of the Green Movement. These prisoners function as the Green Movement’s spokespeople, and include Seyyed Mustafa Tajzadeh, Mohammad Amin Hadavi, Abulfadl Qadyani, and Emad Bahavar—all of whom have published their declarations with bravery. Further, ‘Issa Saharkhiz has continued to write faithfully, even after release. One should also heed the demands of the Green Movement that come from the lips of the mother of Suhrab ‘Arabi, who was martyred to the cause. The Green Movement has now become a national campaign against the deviations of the Islamic Republic, a campaign led by some who were among the regime’s insiders in the first generations of the revolution. They have become more mature after experiencing more than three decades of the Islamic Republic. They are now demanding the implementation of the constitution and the fulfillment of its promises of independence, freedom and justice.
The Green Call: A Narrative of the Iranian Green Movement is comprised of two volumes. The first volume is entitled Papers, Letters and Declarations; the second volume is entitled Presentations and Interviews. The first volume has six sections:
Articles, Short Papers, Letters, Condolences and Congratulations, Collective Declarations, and Collective Letters. In this volume, seventy subjects, ranging in length, have been gathered that were associated with the Green Movement. These were all composed between 2009 and 2014. The volume also includes forty-four individual writings, along with twenty-six letters and collective declarations. There are also four appendices, and a photo album. All the contents of this book were originally published on the author’s website and the Jonbesh-e Rah-e Sabz Jaras (Green Path Movement) website. Aside from some editing of typographical mistakes, these writings are now being published in their original form in this collection. The book begins with the author’s own election declaration instead of an introduction:
“Mousavi has non-negotiable principles; he is taciturn; he is a pragmatist; he gives credit to scientific expertise; he endures the decisions of the experts. He does not withdraw from the Jurisdiction. His promises are within the framework that is made possible by the constitution.”
The most significant section of the book is found in the article section, which contains ten articles. Excerpts of these ten articles provide an overview of the evolution of the Green Movement:
“With the clumsily engineered election results of 12 June 2009, the coup de grâce was fired on the half-dead body of the Islamic Republic and its last throws of legitimacy– that indeed was found in the relative honesty and integrity of its elections, which were sacrificed at the altar of the regime’s interests. The regime preferred not to repeat what, in their eyes, were the bitter experiences of the era of reform. Instead, they sought to revive the so-called ‘glories’ of recent years by dictating what is now understood as a multilayered engineering of the election through governmental decree. Glories, that according to their sympathetic critics proved to be nothing but lawlessness, misinterpretation, adventurism, superficiality, and mendaciousness.”
“In contrast to the characterizations made by Ayatollah Khamenei, the Iranian Green Movement is not in fact an “erroneous duplication of 1979’s revolution” but instead consciously conforms to that revolution, which has been deviating from its original path by means of his erroneous leadership. What has been erroneous is his administration and governance. These have led Iran to a national crisis, damaging the nation’s credibility in addition to other sociopolitical and financial damages. He has sarcastically called the Iranian Green Movement a “caricature of the Islamic Revolution.” Despite his statements, we are not a caricature of the revolution. We are the logical continuation of the revolution, seeking to fulfill the objectives of the revolution—but utilizing a reformist approach and turning away from violence. We would like to purge our country’s political arena of tyrants, arrogant dictators, and claimants to divinity.”
“The demonstrations of November 4th 2009 were a milestone in the Iranian Green Movement. The period from July 12th of that year up to November 4th could be called the first phase of the Green Movement. This phase’s main purposes were to protest against the stealing of the votes and the usurper presidency, and to criticize the dictatorship of the Supreme Leader. After November 4th, the second phase of the movement began. The second phase ushered the Green Movement into a full-scale anti-authoritarian position, elevating it from protests against the sham election results into protests primarily directed against the Supreme Leader himself. Considering that the movement has not yet been granted the stolen votes and the usurping president is shamefully still on the job, the strong appetite on the part of the young protesters to challenge the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic demands further study.”
“What Mir-Hossein Mousavi has published in his seventeen declarations are the demands of the first phase of the Iranian Green Movement…. He aimed to hold authority accountable at all levels. Lifelong, unbridled, extralegal, and unaccountable authority is risible even within the current constitution. I consider the guardianship section of the constitution wrong in terms of religious values, both ethically and legally. But the capabilities of the first phase of the movement should be sufficient to cleanse the Islamic Republic of an authoritarian reading of the Constitution, and instead use a rational, realistic and achievable approach.”
“The Islamic Republic is now encountering the greatest crisis in its history. Of course, Mr. Khamenei has, up until this moment, not accepted that there is any crisis. If there was no crisis, indicative of a major political issue, what then was the necessity for a military alert for the Revolutionary Guard, the Basij, the police, and intelligence agencies that lasted nine months? If there was no crisis, why are the common people being browbeaten for not supporting the regime? If there was no crisis, why did the Investigatory Commission of the Assembly of Experts—which, in accordance with Article 111 of the Constitution, is in charge of the monumental task of supervising the performance of the Supreme Leader— issue a public declaration in support of Supreme Leader for the first time in the history of the Islamic Republic?”
“The Iranian Green Movement, according to its popularly-supported promulgators and representatives, has minimum demands and maximum resistance. These demands are summarized in the implementation of the forgotten articles of the country’s constitution and in the legal and democratic interpretation of the rest of its articles. This movement (other than in holding a referendum) has neither any intentions to change the regime, nor any demands beyond the proper implementation of the constitution of the Islamic Republic. Maximal democracy, or even secularism, is not included in the Green Movement’s demands. The movement is limited in capacity, and circumscribed in potency. Wisdom requires that the movement’s members articulate demands based on the movement’s capabilities.”
“Justice is the most significant indicator of wholesome governance. Judicial justice depends on the elimination of illegal detentions, including the house arrests of critics without any trials or criminal procedures. Authoritarianism will depart from the country when no one is deprived of his or her rights by the personal command of the ruler for the sole ‘crime’ of criticizing and opposing his commands and actions. Oppression and tyranny are further indicated by the prison guards who have beaten prisoners’ families—teaching the prisoners a lesson in mayhem in front of their children’s anxious eyes. Putting people unlawfully under house arrest, subjecting them to the connivances and intrigues of those agents who would violate human rights, and using vindictive violence with critics and lawful opposition are all indicative of a tyrannical leader.”
“The best evidence of the backwardness and incompetence of the rulers of the Islamic Republic’s administration can be found in the Supreme Leader’s speeches and those of his lackeys, such as Ahmad Janati, in regards to peaceful critics and lawful opposition. These speeches might play well in front of the uninformed people attending Friday Prayers, but for the majority of the people of Iran they are disgraceful. At one time, S.M. Taleghani and H.A. Montazari, speaking from the same tribunal, shared the mercy of Islam with the people. Now that tribunal has ended up issuing death sentences and fallacious libels through current speakers like Ahmad Janati. Despite these acts and speeches, the Iranian Green Movement will continue in its path until the tyrannical leader’s reign is eliminated, national sovereignty is established, and the forgotten articles of the Constitution are enforced.” 
“Mr. Khamenei, in putting 11 critics under house arrest for a term of more than 60 years, has set a record in the recorded history of Iran in the number of critics under house arrest… The Islamic Republic fears Moussavi and Karrubi. They are not repenting and they do not demand amnesty, and are instead faithful to the treaty they made with the Iranian people. The current leaders of the Islamic Republic should make their apologies to the noble nation of Iran due to the fraud of the 2009 election and the imposition of a person like Ahmadinejad. The nation’s top demands are the lifting of the house arrest of Moussavi, Karrubi, and Rahnavard, and releasing the political prisoners …. If the Islamic Republic insists on criminalizing legal critiques and objections, it digs its grave with its own hands. No regime lasts without honoring the citizens’ right of critique, without accepting the right of protesting and peaceful demonstrations, without an independent press, while limiting the free activities of political parties, and without offering the opportunity to peacefully object to its leader’s actions.” 
“ Indeed, what difference does the attitude of the Shah toward Mosadegh and Ayatollah Khomeini on one side, or the attitude of Ayatollah Khomeini towards Ayatollah Shariatmadary on the other side, or the attitude of Hojatol-Islam S.A. Khamenei towards Ayatollah Montazeri and Mir-Hossein Moussavi make? Could the detention and arrest of Mosadegh, or the detention and deportation of Ayatollah Khomeini, eliminate them from history? The Islamic Republic never dares to put on trial those rivals who would criticize its rulers. The retributive actions toward Ayatollah Shariatmadari, Ayatollah Montazari, Mir-Hossein Moussavi and Mahdi Karrubi are all against the law, against Islamic values, and against standards of human rights. Retribution without a righteous trial, without the right to offer a defense, and only based on the caprices of the ruler has no meaning but to demonstrate tyranny and dictatorship.
The rule of law means banning illegal punishment. Iran’s tyranny would cease when no one can be imprisoned, confined, or exiled for objecting to the intentions of the Royal Majesty or the Supreme Leader. Nothing changes solely through altering the name of the regime from Imperial Iran to the Islamic Republic. It is important that the personal decisions of the Shah or the Lifetime Supreme Leader be replaced by the decisions of periodically accountable and detectable legal institutions. In any case, implementing restrictions for the confinement of critics not only violates law and humanity, but also are also extreme forms of inequity and lack of clemency. Iran remembers the great names of her prime ministers such as Amir Kabir, Mossadegh, and Bazargan, and is grateful for Mir-Hossein Mousavi’s sacrifices. History meticulously records the behavior of the rulers in regards to these prime ministers. The rulers of Iran should learn that as long as they treat their peaceful critics illegally and falsify personal malice in accordance with interests of the regime, they would be numbered among the ranks of other dictators and tyrants. Freedom is defined by acting in accordance with the law in regards to critics and rivals of the leadership.”
The second part includes twelve pieces of the author about the Green Movement. Excerpts of some of the pieces are as follows:
“The only way to revive the on-the-verge-of-dying republic of this regime, and to eliminate the loneliness of Ali (Khamenei), is through embracing the referendum under the oversight of honest and reliable supervisors… Ali (Khamenei) should embrace “the scale is the people’s vote” to obviate his loneliness.”
“The last member of the Revolutionary Council was expelled from the narrow boat of the regime. Now Seyyed Ali (Khamenei) remained, with his admirers and obedient servants at his doorstep. A. Hashemi Rafsanjani stated in his last speech at the Assembly of Experts that his advice is found in his memoir. I doubt that this recent memoir will be allowed to be published. The concept of recording and writing history is laudable. I hope that Hashemi answers this key question in his reflections on the period of his separation from power: why did Islamic Republic become corrupted?”
“Mir-Esmael Mousavi passed away in a house that a few decades ago sheltered the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution from the insults of the officers of the tyrant prior to the revolution. Now his beloved son has been put under house arrest by the same person who is himself a new tyrant…. Mousavi and Karrubi, according to their declarations, charters, and interviews, did not have any demands beyond the constitution of the Islamic Republic. The key question is whether the Islamic Republic tolerates its lawful critics and peaceful opposition.”
“In the Green Movement after Ayatollah Montazari, Ayatollah Taheri was the most prominent supporter of Mir-Hossein Mousavi and the righteous demands of Iranians. Ayatollah Taheri explicitly accused authorities of treachery in regards to the integrity of the people’s vote. He writes vehemently against the exploitation of religion and sanctities by those who would purify themselves in sacred halls and in opposition to the injustices of the Guardian Council: ‘I, as a negligible clerical in agreement with the majority of people who lost their votes, recognize this election to be distorted and invalid, and identify the re-election of this president for the next term as illegitimate and usurpatory’.”
Part III is comprised of letters. Excerpts of the key letters are as follows:
“Question 1: Since, according to binding law – namely, conditions implicit in the employment contracts of public servants – occupying certain positions is contingent upon such necessary qualities as justice, honesty, competence and popular electoral support, what shall be the ruling for those who continue to occupy such public offices after they have repeatedly failed to uphold the conditions of their employment, and displayed qualities contrary to those necessary for their office, leading to the conclusion (with near certainty) that they have forfeited the right to occupy those public offices?
Answer: Voiding any of the stated conditions (for the occupation of public office) mentioned in the above question, conditions that according to both reason and religious law are essential to the aptness and legitimacy of the principles of management and the administration of public affairs, shall necessarily constitute the automatic dismissal (of the occupying individual) without the need to take further action (by the people) for such dismissal. Under such conditions the directives of such (holders of public office) will not be authoritative.
But in the absence of conditions that, according to reason and religious law, are not essential to discharging managerial and administrative duties, but which nevertheless have been agreed upon by the parties involved, will yield the choice of whether to dismiss the managers and administrators to the people. In these cases, people can, if they wish, dismiss the occupant(s) from public office as a result of the violations of agreed-upon conditions.
However, the absence of just conditions—as well as the absence of honesty or obtaining/maintaining popular electoral support—are among the (former) conditions that are essential to the proper management and administration of public affairs. The lack of these (essential) conditions therefore will lead to the suspension of the principles of “Assuming the Best” (al-haml-u ‘ala al-sehhah) and “Innocent until Proven Guilty” (asalat-ol bara’at) in cases that relate to the discharge of public duties.
The burden of presenting reliable and reasonable proof that religious or civil laws have not been violated in discharging public duties, that the rights of people have not been violated and that the occupier still deserves the public trust rests on the occupier (of the office). People need not prove his misdeeds; rather, it is his duty to persuade the people that he has not violated the conditions of his employment. If there is a disagreement in such a case, the occupier ought to defend himself in front of a free, fair and impartial judge. According to reason and religious law, the judgment of an organization that is dependent on him shall not be considered authoritative.”
“The repression that, upon criticism of the Supreme Leader, caused supervisors and authorities to be dismissed from universities and seminaries, and allowed a bunch of thugs and mobs—in the name of defending the Supreme Leader—hinder their discussions is more dangerous than demolishing and looting the offices of the legal authorities.”
“If the ruler practices dictatorship, even though he is supposedly restricted by the law, if he suppresses people by force and silences the Assembly of Experts by means of threats or bribes, and resorts to military and security forces to survive in power, what should be done? By which rational or religious arguments does the lifelong ruler not turn into a dictator? (In so far as the conditions of the previous question are taken into consideration.) Finally, the ultimate question is, considering the last two decades of practical experience of Iran, does acknowledging the absolute guardianship of the jurist-ruler result in the invalidation of it?”
“As a virtuous jurist, you do not just belong to your family, friends and fellow citizens. Now, a nation is influenced with your words, scientific authority, and the requirements of your religious mission. Oppressed families of innocent prisoners, whose family members are imprisoned contrary to their rights, the law and religion, have expected for months that you and other religious authorities intervene and release these innocent prisoners.”
“In the school of the Master of Martyrs (Imam Hossein b. Ali), Zainab the Great, and Abu al-Fadl al-Abbas, is compliance with justice, compassion, mercy and freedom more important or is it more important to be satisfied with the display of rituals and rites? Zealous youth who are devoted to Imam Hussein and his brave brother are being held in long-term imprisonment, and being tortured in each corner of Iranian prisons, and being given prolonged sentences. In the dungeons of Islamic Republic of Iran, heartless interrogators play the role of God. They torture and whip in the sacred name of Zahra, then you complain about the broadcast of Abu al-Fadl al-Abbas acting out his role in a TV show?”
“I ask you, as a brother, to end this melancholic self-immolation. The Movement is a criticism of the deception, lies, and oppression of the Islamic Republic, which is fundamentally corrupted. We can help each other to burn the roots of oppression so our children will not have to listen to the falsities of an impostor in the name of religion anymore, and will not have to taste cruelty and violence in the name of Islamic ‘mercy’, and will not have to watch as ignorance and misinterpretation speaks in the name of insight and jurisprudence, and will not follow the path of Abu-Jahl, Mu’awiah and Yazid in the names of Prophet Muhammad, Imam Ali and Imam Hossein, and will not bring the people to the ruins of Sham in the name of Badr and Kheibar.”
“I do not wish to conclude that the only red line within the Islamic Republic is the “criticism of the supreme leader”—which is against the law, and against the manners and methods of Imam Ali. If an author writes a book or an article critical of the administration of the Supreme Leader, even if it is in conformity with ethical, religious and legal standards, he will be banned not only from writing, publishing books, reprinting the previous books, and publishing articles in journals, but also from publishing any type of any type of piece in the national press.” 
Fifteen collective declarations constitute part V. Excerpts of some of the most important ones are as follows:
“We, as a small part of the national Iranian Green Movement, believe that at the present stage the most important demands of the movement can be stated in the following manner, and based on these demands we will set in motion the future of the movement and its relations with the government. Part of these demands has been mentioned in the seventeenth declaration of Mr. Mir-Hossein Mousavi, which, due to the restraints of domestic politics, is minimal in aspect. We fully support the positions of the Movement in Iran (Mousavi, Karroubi, and Khatami), and believe that the optimal demands of the Green Movement of the Iranian people at this point are as follows: the resignation of Mr. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad [as the president] and the holding of a new presidential election under the supervision of neutral entities; the abolition the vetting process of candidates [by the Guardian Council] and the formation of an independent election commission that includes the representatives of the opposition and the protestors, in order to draft the rules and regulations for holding free and fair elections…”
“Signatories of this declaration would urge judiciary and the Supreme Leader to be cautious in regards to the blood and lives of Iranian citizens, and not to accelerate implementing the death penalty, which has mainly been done by judges who lack the minimum religious and legal conditions to do so. Failure to adhere to the Code of Criminal Procedure, defendants having no access to a lawyer, the lack of a jury in the judgment, and relying on confessions extracted under torture and pressure (which are common currency in the courts of the Islamic Republic) are all against the clear text of the constitution of the Islamic Republic, Islamic standards, the universal declaration of human rights, and civil and political covenants. Iran is a signatory to these international agreements, and thus the Islamic Republic is officially obligated to comply with them. Being ranked first in the world in executions per capita is absolutely shameful.”
“The bitter experience of our nation is now in front of you like an open book. Do not take the path that has already been taken. In drafting the new constitution, you have placed the grand sheikh of Al-Azhar and his clerical staff in a position similar to that which the Iranian constitution placed the jurisprudents (Fuquha) of the “Guardian Council” who are selected by the Supreme Leader. This provision has established a material link between the institution of religion and the institution of the state, which has yielded disastrous results for Iran.
In the Islamic Republic of Iran, the alliance of these two institutions has reached such extremes that the two, if not actively colluding in committing flagrant acts of injustice, are both complicit in them. The religious institutions have no other resort but to be silent or to offer cover for the injustices of powerful politicians. Even more unfortunate is the fact that the constitution itself sanctifies the primacy of a retrograde and narrow-minded interpretation of Islam, and recognizes it as the only possible reading of Islam’s holy texts. Based on this false claim, every voice of opposition is cast as a voice against Islam itself and brutally silenced.”
Finally, eleven collective letters form Part VI. An excerpt of the last letter is as follows:
“Your excellency, placing Mir-Hussein Mousavi, Mehdi Karroubi, and Zahra Rahnavard under house arrest has openly violated at least seven principals of the constitution…. The ruler, who is beyond the law and punishes his opponents with his personal orders and not by rule of law, is the most manifest form of absolute despotism and autocracy…. The second option is to revise past errors and return to the implementation of the constitution, and to attain people’s rights. Our recommendation, like those of other sympathetic patriots, is that you select the second option. In our view, and due to the current critical conditions of country and region, and also national appeal to the people of Iran (which is possible by a simple referendum), the best solution is to release unconditionally and immediately those figures who are under house arrest.” 
“The Green Call: A Narrative of the Iranian Green Movement” is the author’s own narrative about the Green Movement. At the time of this major event, he was outside of Iran, and did not have the chance to participate in the ranks of the protesters. But his heart pulsed for Iran, and, for his part, he tried to take steps to aid in the success of this national protest. The author does not generally consider himself a political activist, nor is he interested in politics. But at a certain point he had no choice but to offer political critique, in order to live wholesomely, in emancipation and liberation. The written opinions in this book—true or false—belong to the author and do not represent anyone else, and no one else should be held accountable or reprimanded for them.
This book reports on the events of one of the stages of Iran’s contemporary history. Studying each of these documents, which were written with the intention of influencing the growth of the movement, now compiled together (after a few years’ time) provides an excellent opportunity to evaluate them for both the author and for the audience. This will determine where we were radical, slow-footed or came up short, and in what places we might take a better position.
This two-volume collection is not exhaustive of all the writings of the author in regards to the Green Movement. Other works, including Sugname-ye Faqih-e Pak-Baz Ustad Ayatollah Montazeri (The Lamentations of the Sacrificed Jurist Master Ayatollah Montazeri) (2013) and Estizah-e Maqam-e Rahbari (The Impeachment of the Supreme Leader) (2014), are replete with materials that are also in direct contact with the Green Movement.
The key points of the author in this book have been: the implementation of the forgotten articles of the Constitution in regards to citizen’s rights, the necessity of holding the government accountable, and the criticism of tyrannical leader and religious despotism. The second volume of the book will be a collection of presentations and interviews about the Green Movement.
As a result of writing these papers and presentations on the Green Movement, the author was expelled from his tenured position (associate professor) at the Iranian Institute of Wisdom and Philosophy by the Ministry of Higher Education. He was permanently expelled from state services, and his case was sent to the Judiciary in violation of the law.
This collection is being published as an E-Book. The author has been banned from publishing new books and from republishing previous books within Iran since 2009. All this has happened while several books and dozens of articles have been published against him in Iran. This is what is called freedom of speech, Islamic Republic style! The government of “moderation and hope” also has not changed the atmosphere of oppression and censorship.
The author is still optimistic about the future and will hopefully continue his struggle for the implementation of lawful governance and the end of the absolute, individualistic tyranny. Reviewing and critiquing this book is a service that readers do for the author and for the contemporary history of Iran. I sincerely thank all those who have been assisting me in compiling this collection. For security reasons, their names are not mentioned.
. A Candidate from the Muslim Reformists’ School in the Arduous Conditions of Distressful Times, May 19, 2009
. In the grief of the lost legitimacy, reconstruction of legal justification of engineering of the election from an official perspective, June 14, 2009
. Enforcement of the presidential decree in Zerar Mosque, August 8, 2009; Critique on the Supreme leaders’ remarks in presidential implementation ceremony of Mahmud Ahmadinejad in Imam Khomeini Hosseinie, Pasteur Street, Tehran.
. The Green Movement: Lessons and Hopes, November 14, 2009.
. The Green Movement in the Jomhuri (Republic) Intersection, January 18, 2009.
. Islamic Republic at a crossroad: Referendum or Continuing Crackdown? March 27, 2010
. The Green Movement and the Constitution: What should be done with “the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran”? April 27, 2010.
. Heroic Flexibility or Vindictive Violence? October 25, 2013. This article was written after the aggressive attitudes of prison guards towards the children of Moussavi and Rhnavard.
. Not Freedom but Tyranny is the source of Embarrassment and Disgrace: In response to Ahmad Janati’s remarks at Tehran’s Friday Prayer. November 22, 2013.
. We Still Want a House of Justice (Critique of Minister of Justice’s remarks on the sieged leaders of the Green movement) January 20. 2014.
. Rulers’ action in regard their rival critics, May 13, 2014. This article was written during Moussavi’s restrictions for visiting a hospital for his heart disease
. Why Ali is lonely? June 19, 2009
. Removing the Last Obstacle: The Exclusion of Hashemi Rafsanjani from the Presidency of the Assembly of Experts, March 8, 2011.
. Unanswered Questions: The death of the father of Mir-Hussein Mousavi, March 30, 2011
. In memory of the preeminent critic of the Ruthless Ruler: Ayatollah Seyyed Jalaleddin Taheri Esfehani, June 12, 2013.
. “Standards of Illegitimacy of the regime and Signs of the Ruthless Ruler”, response of Late Maestro Ayatollah Montazari to the questions of the author on June 10, 2009
. A letter to Ayatollah Sane’i in Condemning the Attack on His Office, June 15, 2010
. A letter to Ayatollah Khomeini’s Grandson, June 16, 2010
. A letter to Ayatollah Shobeiri Zanjani: Request for Mediation for Releasing of Innocent Prisoners, November 16, 2010
. A letter to Ayatollah Wahid Khorasani: On the sidelines of Public Protest to a fallacy, December 7, 2010
. Removing Duplicity Instead of Self-Immolation: A letter to Mohammad Nourizad, March 4, 2012
. A letter from an Author who is banned from publishing to Minister of Culture, July 23, 2014
. Optimal demands of the Green Movement, January 3, 2010
. “Strong objection to the executions of political opponents under charges of belligerence”, September 9, 2012
. Message to the leaders of the Egyptian people: Take a lesson from the bitter experiences of the Islamic Republic of Iran, December 21, 2012.
. An open letter to the Supreme Leader: The illegal siege of opponents is dissolution of the constitution, July 7, 2014.
. The original letter and its ilk are available in the appendices. In the official letter “Notification of charges” on April 4, 2010, the sentence is documented as follows: “Publishing defamatory articles to senior officials of country called as Enforcement of the presidential decree in Zirar Mosque [on August 4, 2009] and declaration of January 3, 2010 against the foundations of the sacred regime of Islamic republic [Optimal demands of the Green Movement, January 3. 2012]”. Found in: “Sentence of expulsion from Iranian research institute of Wisdom and Philosophy and permanent expulsion from state services,” signed by Dr. Abdul-Hossein Izadpanah on August 30, 2011
 Since 2009 these books have been published against the author:
– Ali Zu-Elm, Naqd-e Qal: Ta’amoli Enteqadi bar Yek Nameh (Cement Critique: A critical reflection on a letter) [Impeachment of the Supreme Leader: Kadivar’s letter to Hashemi Rafsanjani President of the Assembly of Experts], Tehran: Kanoon-e Andishey-e Javan, 2010.
– Masoud Mohammadi, Morur Ara” va Mavaze’ Mohsen Kadivar (Browsing the opinions and stances of Mohsen Kadivar, Collecting and Setting: group of authors, Browsing opinions and stances of people of Sedition, a report of roots and trend of deviations and infidelity of intrigues, People of Sedition; 2) Tehran: Shenaseh, 2012.
– Masoud Rezaei Sharif-Abadi and Abbas Salimi Namin, Waraye Nemudha wa Nemadha (beyond appearances and symbols: The Tenth Election of the perspective of three letters and three responses) [Critique of Hashemi Rafsanjani’s letter to the supreme leader on May 31, 2009, Critique of Mir-Hussein Mousavi’s letter to judiciary on June 20, 2009, and Critique of Mohsen Kadivar’s presentation on “Al-Fatiha! to the Republicanism of the Regime” On June 28, 2009 in Toronto], Tehran; The office of Studies and Codification of the History of Iran, 2009.
– Masoud Rezaei Sharif-Abadi, Siyasat-Nameh (the book of politics: political and historical letters), Publication Office of Education and Office of Studies of Cultural front of the Islamic Revolution, Tehran, 2014, Section VIII [Critique of “Impeachment of the Supreme Leader”].