TEHRAN -- Following the publication of an interview with Ahmad Montazeri in the weekly Hajar, issue No. 274, July 14, 1999, regarding currents leading to the disqualification of Mr. Montazeri as the successor to the leader, Hojjatoleslam Mahdavi Karrubi sent a response to the weekly. He stated that in order to prevent the distortion of history and to enlighten public opinion, it is necessary to elaborate on some points in the interview.

What follows is the full text of the answer provided by Hojjatoleslam Karrubi. Mr. Ahmad Montazeri : Never did I, and never do I, plan to officially say or write anything about events leading to the disqualification of Hazrat Ayatollah Montazeri. With great regret, you have raised trumped-up and twisted matters in an interview with the weekly Hajar, thus compelling me to recall some points.

I circumvent the painful events during that span of the history of the Islamic Revolution and the country. In so doing, I have tried to prevent the Imam's rights from being spoiled. Before proceeding with the issue, I condemn the violent, unjust and immoral treatments meted out to you since the death of the late Imam Khomeini. I announce outright that most of the treatments toward Mr. Montazeri go beyond what the late Imam Khomeini had in mind.

Unfortunately, you don't have correct information on the issues of the time, nor do you know what happened in those days with regard to your father. The first point of interest in this interview is that the issue has been presented in such a way to give the impression that the Imam's treatment of Mr. Montazeri began at a time when he repeatedly scolded treatments in prisons, torture of prisoners, courts, judicial organizations and their shortcomings.

Your understanding greatly astounds me. Regrettably, this understanding may stem from the fact that you did not have a fellowship with those in charge of your father's house. You had serious differences with them and thus remained isolated. Most of the administrators of the house did not recognize you; basically, you had no role in directing the affairs of the house.

Of course, after withdrawal of His Excellency and his return to Qom, you undertook the responsibility of his office and were actively and seriously involved in the house. Hence, you do not have correct understanding of the root-cause of the events in the house at that time. You do not know what happened around your father in those days, nor are you aware of that which was in progress in the house and which distressed the late Imam Khomeini. I should state unreservedly that the Imam's annoyance with Ayatollah Montazeri began on the day when the gentlemen, Seyed Mahdi and Seyed Hadi Hashemi, took control of the Ayatollah's house and office, thus gaining access to abundant resources at a national level in order to push forward their goals.

These programs not only drove the Imam to reflection on the matter, but annoyed many of the friends of Ayatollah Montazeri, especially the sympathizers who were in one prison with him for long years. They reminded him of the dangers, orally and in writing, voicing their concern with the presence of the two persons in his house, but no one was there in the house to listen.

Regarding Hojjatoleslam Seyed Hadi Hashemi, it is necessary to recall that one of the sympathizers of Mr. Montazeri at a gathering gave a humble warning to Mr. Montazeri, saying, "We wish to be sacrificed in your cause, but Mr. Hadi will sacrifice you for his brother (Seyed Mahdi)." It is worth recalling the prison term of Seyed Hadi, followed by the renunciations of the ideology of the so-called Mujahedeen, which disclosed its true nature in 1975. Some Muslims like Sharif Waqefi were murdered on account of loyalty to their faith.

The organizational relationship of those who were not ready to abjure their ideology were cut and they were surrendered to SAVAK, the Shah's notorious secret police. Sincere militant Muslim forces as well as upright and combatant ulema and clerics, in and out of the prison, separated their rank with them (Mahdi Hashemi's gang), insisting that Muslims in prison should not sit at one table with Marxists. In fact, the imprisoned Muslims, while leading a common life with the Communist prisoners, kept away from the Communists as an integral article of faith.

In this line, a number of imprisoned ulema pronounced a fatwa (religious decree) to the effect that Muslim prisoners are obligated to abstain from living a mixed life with Marxists. Present among these ulema were Ayatollah Montazeri, Ayatollah Taleqani and Ayatollah Rabbani Shirazi. Some of the prisoners acted according to the fatwa while others did not. Among the latter group was Seyed Hadi Hashemi who was opposed to the fatwa.

Some individuals living with him in the same cell have narrated the abrasive insults to Ayatollah Montazeri and flouted the fatwa. The narrators communicated all the materials to Ayatollah Monazeri, complaining of Seyed Hadi who insisted on hosting the fast-breakers, such as the Marxists, while he was fasting himself. Seyed Mahdi Hashemi's aberrations and deviation from the normal course are beyond explanation.

The late Imam had a negative mentality towards him. In the holy city of Najaf, when the Imam had heard that a number of clerical militants planned to go to Paris and sit in for the release of political prisoners of the Shah, he found the name of Seyed Mahdi Hashemi on the list of strikers. The Imam said that Seyed Mahdi Hashemi had killed a cleric, and why had they included his name among a list of prisoners.

Accordingly, some of the activists did not participate in the strike on account of the Imam's words. From the very first years of the victory of the revolution, the late Imam Khomeini endeavored to persuade Ayatollah Montazeri to purge the incompetent individuals from his office, but unfortunately he could not. Yes, dear Ahmad! If you want to find the causes for the position taken by the Imam in the face of Ayatollah Montazeri correctly, you should investigate the events happening in the house and the office, remote from sentiments and feelings, impressed by the atmosphere prevailing the house, evaluating the factors precisely.

Then you may be able to perceive some of the pain suffered by the Imam in those days. Many a warning and advice the Imam gave Ayatollah Montazeri for successive years so as to make him aware of the dangers lurking around him. Alas, it did not become possible. I will now outline some of the currents happening in the house of Ayatollah Montazeri and highlight the Imam's source of concern and discomfort.

1. Assigning Seyed Mahdi Hashemi to undertake responsibility for liberation movements. Vesting the responsibility with Mahdi Hashemi was against the Imam's view. As pointed out earlier, the Imam had a negative mentality towards him and considered him the murderer of an old conservative alim and another cleric by the name of Sheikh Qanbar Ali. At a period of time when Seyed Mahdi Hashemi was a member of the Council of Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC), the Imam ordered the post to be taken away from him.

The Imam has been quoted as saying, "This person will deal an irreparable blow to Islam in the future." 2. Fomenting differences among Afghan Shia groups. Ayatollah Montazeri handed over the responsibility of Afghan clerics, which was formerly vested in Hojjatoleslam Haj Sheikh Hassan Ebrahimi, to an individual who had been introduced by Seyed Mahdi and Seyed Hadi. This resulted in the said person to pit a number of Shia brothers against Afghan Mujahedeen by incendiary acts, thus giving rise to bloody events, differences and enmity (kodoorat). Consequently, efficient forces of Afghan Mujahedeen were thus wasted, and in other countries his plans victimized a number of Shia brothers, the description of which is beyond the scope of this paper.

3. Suspicious and disastrous murders. As you know, suspicious murders were launched by the gang of Mahdi Hashemi in the pre-revolution period by killing Ayatollah Shams Abadi and Sheikh Qanbar Ali, continuing after the revolution by the killing of a person named Heshmat and two of his sons. The complaints lodged against him in Isfahan by the family members of the murdered (Saheban-e-Dam) were ignored by the house of Ayatollah Montazeri. In contrast, the Imam insisted that the case be investigated and that the murderers be identified and subjected to legal prosecution.

However, Ayatollah Montazeri was severely opposed to this. What was in progress in this case is not advisable to be disclosed at this juncture. 4. Forging documents against persons. One of the propitious acts in the house of Ayatollah Montazeri was document-forging against those with whom the members of the house found differences and clashes, or those who had been alleged to have voiced opposition to the line of succession to go to Ayatollah Montazeri. For instance, forging documents against Ayatollah Seyed Sadeq Rowhani on the charge of voicing opposition to Ayatollah Montazeri's succession; forging a document against one of the brothers who had fallen out with the members of the house.

5. Presence of some individuals affiliated with devious groups and anti-clerical groups, and their frequenting the house. 6. Interference in the executive, judicial, and political affairs of the country in many cases of which managerial problems were created for the related officials. 7. He gave full support to some people close to Seyed Mehdi Hashemi or the staffers in his office.

When the judicial system was suing Hashemi who was accused of involvement in the suspicious serial killings, Ayatollah Montazeri opposed his arrest. It is worth knowing that the issues stated above were only some of the activities and performances of your father which worried the Imam. Your father also carried out other activities that were painful which I do not intend to mention.

But on other issues stated in the interview of Engineer Ahmad Montazeri, it will take a long time if go through them deeply and reply to all of them. So I would like to skip them and bring my words to an end pointing out only to some of the points. We read in the interview: "The close relationship that should have existed between the would-be successor to the Imam and Imam himself was not witnessed.

In a factory if the manager and his assistant do not share some time a day to review the current affairs and problems, it would stop running and discrepancies would surface among them, ..." In the first place, under the circumstances that the Imam and a number of the former close friends of Ayatollah Montazeri warned him against the danger of Seyed Mehadi Hashemi and other elements in his office, how could there be any close relations between them? Secondly, the Imam had delegated parts of his legal responsibilities to him and had directed the cabinet meetings to be held in Qom once a month in his presence.

The government was also obliged to submit a report of its performance to him and seek his viewpoints as much as possible. But such a meeting was held only once because as one of the then ministers of the cabinet says he entered at the meeting handing over a leaflet including 12 articles and started addressing the cabinet members without paying attention to the head of the cabinet, who constantly was trying to hold the floor to submit a comprehensive report to him.

In the third place, in the Constitution, the responsibilities of the leader as well as the three Legislative, Judicial, and Executive organs have been defined while nothing has been stated in the Constitution concerning the would-be successor to the leader. In the interview, administrative and legal violations have been talked about and it has been pretended in a way as if the Imam was not aware of such violations or was indifferent towards them and it was Mr. Montazeri who pursued the issues with great sensitivity.

But the fact is that the Imam more than anybody else had full information about the issues. The Imam knew well since the beginning months of the revolution that a number of those who had taken hold of power were committing wrongdoings in parts of the country. He issued orders to strip the violators of their power and that the related officials pursue the issues.

He also kept an eye on whatever went on around the country, especially in prisons and announced his guidelines as far as possible. As an example, I recall in 1982 that in spite of the fact that the terrorist grouplets carried out terrorist activities in Tehran and other cities including bombing and murdering high-ranking officials and civilians because of carrying Imam's photo with them, Imam ordered a delegation including Seyed Hadi Khamenei and Seyed Mahmoud Doaei to investigate the situation of prisons because he had been informed that the inmates did not enjoy human rights.

He ordered them to present a report of their investigation to him. I also remember Hojjatoleslam Khoeiniha and I were received by the Imam as the representatives of the political committee of the Majma' Rouhanioun Mobarez for a political issue. At the end of the meeting, the Imam told Hojjatoleslam Khoeiniha that he had been told that a number of inmates were in prisons for a long time in suspension.

Hojjatoleslam Khoeiniha said it was not possible, but, the Imam insisted decisively he was exactly informed there were such cases in prisons. After pursuing the issue, Mr. Mousavi found out that there was only one person imprisoned for a long time in suspense. When the late Imam Khomeini was informed of the case he notified the officials in charge. This shows that the Imam had never considered his words as revelation.

Once one of the relatives of the late Imam made a mistake. Although he was endeared by him, the Imam ordered to treat him the same as others according to the law. The late Imam was very sensitive about the violation of law and also the prisons. However, the main element behind such violations is the culture of the society. A society which had been under the yoke of monarchy's despotism for 2,500 years and was accustomed to force, would certainly do the same when it gain power.

The only solution to the plight is a deep cultural change and a change of monarchial culture to Islamic one. However, it will certainly take time. Dear, Ahmad! What you have said in your interview about the imprisoned MKO members who were punished for their terrorist acts is surprising. You called the punishment as unjustifiable killing! I ask you whether the suffocating of a virtuous cleric aging over 70, killing two children of a man in front of him and then killing of the father, and also the killing of forces of the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) are unjustified or the punishment of those terrorist elements? You have also said in your interview that at that time anyone who wanted to inform the Imam about anything was treated in a certain way.

I tell you that it is not true, because different people used to talk to the late Imam about their viewpoints and made criticism and the Imam used to listen to them carefully. Even the Imam insisted the officials to deliver to him any letter even if it includes insulting words. In conclusion, I expect you to take a lesson from the history and do not believe whatever you hear, like the late Imam who was not influenced by anyone.

The Imam was so foresighted that when some people complained about Martyr Mohammad Montazeri (the son of Ayatollah Montazeri) who had revolutionary record, he was not influenced by them and did not take any stance. But at the same time Ayatollah Montazeri wrote a letter against his son, which was exploited by his opponents. I advise you to talk about the issues with patience and foresightedness.