Introduction

In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful, the Lord of the Worlds, the Owner of the Day of Judgment.

The outcome is for the pious and there is no transgression except against the oppressors. I bear witness that there is no god but Allah, alone, without partner, and I bear witness that Muhammad salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam is His servant, messenger, confidant, and trustee over His revelation. He sent him with guidance and the true religion to make it prevail over all religions.

After praise and salutations, the followers of Khomeini and his clique have—since the inception of their rule over Iran up until the writing of these lines—clashed with Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala, and all His creation from the offspring of Adam ‘alayh al Salam, whether they be disbelievers or Muslims.

Inside Iran, they clashed with the Mojahedin-e-Khalq^[1], the communists of the Tudeh^[2], the Baha’is, the supporters of the Shah, and the nationalists in Kurdistan and elsewhere. Then their treachery and oppression extended to those men upon whose shoulders the revolution was built, men who had done a great service to Khomeini—something no honourable person would forget. Among those with whom they clashed were:

The former foreign minister, Sadegh Ghotbzadeh, who was sentenced to death and executed.
The former president, Abolhassan Banisadr, who managed to escape and sought refuge in France.
The former prime minister, Mehdi Bazargan.
And the conflict reached scholars and religious authorities such as Shariatmadari, Montazeri, and many others.

Externally, they clashed with the following countries:

All Arab countries, except Syria, Libya, and South Yemen.
All Western countries.
The United States of America, which had helped oust the Shah, neutralised the army, supported the revolutionaries, and stood by them, only for friendship to turn into enmity.
Relations between them and the Soviets fluctuated between cooperation and tension.
Turkey.
They waged a fierce war with Iraq that lasted approximately eight years, resulting in more than a million dead and wounded, along with the destruction of both nations’ economies.

Iran’s enemies exploited its internal and external problems, including:

Forming alliances between these countries and the Iranian opposition. For example, Iraq embraced the Mojahedin-e-Khalq and non-Mujahidin groups, providing them with money, weapons, and media support.
The United States, Britain, and France provided significant aid to pro-Shah organisations and former allies of Khomeini who had fallen out with him, maintaining secret channels of communication with Iran when needed.
They published hundreds of books, hundreds of thousands of articles, research papers, and analyses condemning the regime of the clerics.
They exposed secrets that embarrassed Iran, such as the ongoing Jewish-Iranian cooperation during the Iran-Iraq War, and what became known as the “Iran-Contra Affair”.^[3]

Given my interest in Iran’s Revolution, I monitored and documented these successive events and had the opportunity to review much of what was published, whether in Arabic or other languages. What astonished me was that one matter was ignored by the enemies of the clerics inside and outside Iran, despite it being among the strongest evidence of the barbarism of the regime and its abhorrent sectarian bias.

I never heard Iraq dedicate even a single hour on its radio or television to explain the plight of the Ahlus Sunnah in Iran, clarifying the persecution, restrictions, and suppression they face. If Iraq feared accusations of bias towards one group of citizens against another—despite the latter group’s total allegiance to Iran—then what about the countries that claim to be havens of freedom and liberty? What about the United States, Britain, and France?

Moreover, what about Amnesty International and human rights organisations? These entities spoke about injustices inflicted on all parties, ethnicities, and individuals, defending even drug dealers and criminals who were subjected to Islamic legal punishments. Do not a third of Iran’s population deserve any help or support from them?

Let us leave these people to their affairs. They are unaffected by our calamities and are not trustworthy in addressing our issues. This is what we have come to expect from them; and perhaps some of them have never even heard of the circumstances of the Ahlus Sunnah in Iran. Let us leave them and focus on the role played by Islamic newspapers and magazines. What we do know is that letters and bulletins from the Ahlus Sunnah in Iran reached the editors of these newspapers and magazines, who read them, yet their responses varied, though none were at the required level:

Some did not mention them in their publications, not even in passing, as if the matter had nothing to do with them.
Others merely published the following comment, “We have received letters and bulletins from the Ahlus Sunnah in Iran discussing injustices they have faced. We, in turn, call on the Iranian authorities to clarify their perspective and inform us of the accuracy of the information we received. Otherwise, we will find ourselves compelled to publish the letters we have received.” We do not know if they received a response or not, but what we do know is that the injustices increased and diversified.
Another group kept the letters of the Ahlus Sunnah in their drawers without mentioning them. Later, due to new political circumstances, they became outraged, remembered the letters, took them out of their drawers, and published some of them before stopping again.
Had this issue been among their top priorities, they would have written about it with greater fervour and passion.
A fourth category still trusts Iran’s Islamic Revolution and accuses anyone who criticises it, without verifying the truth. Praise be to Allah, these are a few in number.

In summary, Islamic groups and newspapers have not fulfilled their required duty and no Islamic conference has been held by these groups to discuss the issue of the Ahlus Sunnah wa al Jama’ah in Iran.

When we sit with our brothers—excluding the fourth category—in closed rooms, we hear good words from them and we find no disagreement between us regarding the Shia and the Iranian Revolution. Yet, we then hear or read in their newspapers’ statements completely contrary to what we heard in private!

We ask them: Why this contradiction? Why did you perform the funeral prayer for Khomeini and recite al Fatihah for his soul in masjids? Why did you send condolence telegrams to the clerics upon the death of the leader of the Revolution?

Here, we hear contradictory and flimsy answers from them, such as, “No matter how much we differ with the Shia, Khomeini was a Muslim,” or, without shame, “We fear for ourselves and our offices from them, so we may be forced to flatter them.” Such feelings have dominated preachers everywhere. Just days ago, I received a letter from Pakistan, summarising that people there are afraid of the Shia and most of those who used to speak about the corruption of their beliefs and warn people of their danger have fallen silent after the assassination of Zia-ul-Haq and several Sunni scholars.

Shame! What a disappointment! Ninety-eight percent are in fear of two percent! Are we in the era of the Mongol invasion of the Islamic world, or are we in the era when a handful of Ismaili Assassins terrified tens of millions of Muslims, who were like the scum of the flood?

A loved-one once asked me, “Isn’t it time you stopped writing about the Shia and their Revolution? Why don’t you write about other matters?”

I replied, “You know that my studies and research are not limited to the Shia and your knowledge of this answers your question. As for what I write about the Shia, tell me, by Allah, if you have read it, is it true or false?”

He said: “I have read it and it is true, Allah willing. However, I fear for you from them. They are criminals thirsty for bloodshed and nothing bothers them as much as what you write about them. And Allah does not burden a soul beyond its capacity.”

I replied, “If someone else had taken on this heavy responsibility, I would have thanked him for it and turned to defending another front. But since I have not found anyone fulfilling this duty, writing about them has become an obligation upon me, similar to others in my position. I am aware that they are lying in wait for me and I know what has happened to others. Nevertheless, I will not retreat regardless of the consequences. I ask Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala to grant me martyrdom in His path and to record this effort in the scrolls of my deeds on the Day when no person will benefit except by their actions. If I fall, it will suffice me, Allah willing, that I lived defending the methodology and principles of the Ahlus Sunnah wa al Jama’ah and I was not writing to please one side or the other.”

My will and testament to my children, brothers, and others among the scholars and thinkers is to give this imminent danger threatening our Ummah its due right. Do not assume that the death of Khomeini will change the nature of his followers’ conspiracy. They were like this before his birth and this is their condition after his death.

Let them know that life and death are in Allah’s control, not in the hands of the Shia. Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala says:

ﮰ ¢ £ ¤ ¥ ¦ ¨ ©

And when their time arrives, they cannot delay it for a moment, nor can they advance it.^[4]

And the poet said:

أيها المشتهي فناء قريش بيد الله عمرها والفناء

O you who desire the destruction of Quraysh! Allah is in control of their life and their end.

The Shia are cowards. When they find someone who confronts them with firmness, strength, and knowledge, they take their Taqiyyah^[5] with them and retreat into one of their secretive hideouts. History is full of evidence of this.

Here, I will face a flood of questions from the readers:

Who among the editors of the Islamic newspapers and magazines do you mean… and why this anger?

Let me rephrase this question for the readers in another form:

Review the Islamic newspapers and magazines from the beginning of the Revolution of the Shia until this date and gather what has been written about the clique of Khomeini and the defence of the Ahlus Sunnah in Iran. Then compare these writings to the methodology and principles of the Ahlus Sunnah wa al Jama’ah and examine the extent to which they conform or deviate from this methodology.

There is an important question I hope you will seek an answer to: How do these individuals determine their positions and are there fixed criteria by which they weigh matters, or is their opinion simply what the tribal sheikh decides? Does this sheikh forget what he had written a year or several years ago—resulting in contradictory stances, while the members of the tribe remain impressed and convinced, finding justifications for every contradiction?

If you carry out this task properly, you will come to know whom I am referring to. After that, it should not be permissible for you to ignore this problem, its causes, and its underlying factors. The least that must be done is to advise those responsible for these newspapers and magazines, whether verbally or in writing. These individuals will change their approach when readers confront them with evidence and proofs.

And know, after all this, that I do not have a specific person or particular newspaper in mind, nor do I write out of enmity towards anyone. As I have said earlier in this series: I love them for the sake of Allah and I hope for their guidance and steadfastness, but the truth is dearer to me than them.

In the absence of wise leadership for the Ahlus Sunnah in Iran—leadership that would unite their scattered communities, facilitate their connection with the Islamic world, devise successful plans for them, and amplify their voice to the world. In the absence of the constructive role that Islamic groups were obligated to play, without fear of the terrorism of the clerical regime. In the absence of all these things, Khomeini’s faction claimed that the unity of Shia and Sunnis in Iran is a model for all Muslims around the world. This is what the Prime Minister, Muhandis Hussain Musawi stated.^[6] Thus, finding the field empty, they twisted the truth, misled the masses, and propagated lies. From among these numerous lies, I will select the following:

1. The Week of Islamic Unity: It extends from the 12th to the 17th of Rabi’ al Awwal every year. During this week, Shia scholars and hypocrites who call themselves Sunni scholars gather at one place, exchange speeches and sermons, and affirm at the end of these celebrations their commitment to obeying the Iranian leadership and their complete loyalty to it. This event is surrounded by superior media propaganda and its news is disseminated by their newspapers and those of their collaborators inside and outside Iran.

The Week of Islamic Unity is an overt invitation to Shi’ism, because Shia scholars speak about their doctrines during it, while the hypocrites from among the Sunnis do not address Sunni beliefs, nor are they qualified to do so. Consequently, these celebrations take place only in Sunni areas; the result is blind obedience to the Ayat^[7]. None among the attendees is able to raise the grievances of the Ahlus Sunnah or demand the release of their detained members.

2. The Kayhan newspaper published the following news in its issue dated October 6, 1986:

استقبل حجة الإسلام هاشمي الرفسنجاني رئيس مجلس الشورى الإسلامي في ٩/٣٠ مدرسي ومسؤولي المدارس الدينية للإخوة السنة في محافظة هرمز وقد تحدث الشيخ محمد صالح ضيائي إمام الجمعة للإخوة السنة في مدينة بندر عباس في البداية وأعرب عن شكره للدعم الذي تقدمه الجمهورية الإسلامية للعلماء السنة والمدارس الدينية وبعد ذلك قدم الشيخ ضيائي شيكا بمبلغ مليوني ريال لرئيس المجلس هدية الإخوة السنة إلى أبطال الإسلام وأعرب حجة الإسلام هاشمي الرفسنجاني عن شكره للدعم الذي قدمه الإخوة السنة إلى أبطال الإسلام وأكد أنها قيمة جدا وأنها وثيقة جدا للتعاون والوحدة بين الشيعة والسنة ووصف سماحته جهود الشباب السنة الذين يتولون التدريس في المدارس الدينية الخاصة بهم بأنه يبعث على الأمل والتفاؤل

Hujjat al Islam^[8] Hashimi al Rafsanjani, the President of the Islamic Consultative Assembly, received on September 30^th a group of teachers and administrators of the religious schools of the Sunni brothers. In the province of Hormoz, Sheikh Muhammad Salih Diya’i, the Jumu’ah Imam for the Sunni brothers in the city of Bandar Abbas, spoke at the beginning of the meeting and expressed his gratitude for the support that the Islamic Republic provides to Sunni scholars and religious schools. Afterward, Sheikh Diya’i presented a check worth two million riyals to the head of the council as a gift from the Sunni brothers to the heroes of Islam. Hujjat al Islam Hashimi al Rafsanjani expressed his thanks for the support offered by the Sunni brothers to the heroes of Islam, affirming that it was highly valuable and indicative of close cooperation and unity between the Shia and Sunnis. His Eminence described the efforts of the Sunni youth who are responsible for teaching in their own religious schools as inspiring hope and optimism.

The esteemed reader will find in this book an interview with Sheikh Diya’i conducted by al Mujtama’ magazine that contradicts in general the news reported by Kayhan. In the interview, Sheikh Diya’i affirms that there is no real meeting between the Shia and Sunnis. Consequently, Sheikh Diya’i is currently imprisoned by the Ayatollahs. The reasons for his arrest have not been disclosed, nor has he been brought to trial. When this news was published, there was a war between them and Iraq and they were fearful of the Arab Sunnis in southern Iran. Hence, they sought to arrange this meeting. We do not know how accurate what Kayhan published is.

3. The newspapers of Iran’s regime welcomed a conference held by Sunni scholars in the city of Khash on 2/07/1401 AH. A reader who comes across this news in their newspapers would conclude that the Sunnis are free in their country and are conducting their activities without any pressure or coercion. This would be the conclusion if the reader were unaware of the strategies and tactics of the Shia.

However, their practical stance toward this conference contradicts their theoretical position. Khomeini himself took the lead in the campaign against the Khash Conference, accusing the honourable scholars who participated in it of being agents of the United States. The regime proceeded to arrest some of them, while others were placed under house arrest.

Despite the ugliness and baseness of this approach, people in the Islamic world read the news published by the newspapers because there were large media institutions that widely disseminated it. However, they did not read about the persecution and arrests that Sunni scholars and their supporters faced due to holding this conference.

These examples are among the many news stories that the regime’s newspapers have consistently published. And I did not stop at these examples, despite their clear implications. I found it useful to explore the opinions of different types of Shia. I undertook this challenging task, meeting with Arabs and Persians, intellectuals and common people, and discussing with them or having others pose specific questions to some of them. Below is an example of the usual results we would arrive at:

Q: What are the conditions of the Ahlus Sunnah in Iran?

A: There is no difference in Iran between Sunni and Shia; they are all united around the leadership of the Revolution.

Q: There are letters and bulletins speaking about the injustices inflicted upon them. How much truth is there in these claims?

A: Do not believe that; these are false propaganda spread by agents of America and Israel inside and outside Iran.

Q: But they mention the names of well-known scholars, stating that some of them were killed while others are alive but in prison. Among these names are Bahman Shakuri, Ahmed Moftizadeh, and Sheikh Muhammad Salih Diya’i.

A: I have never heard of these names at all and I advise you not to listen to such news. Have you not heard about the Week of Islamic Unity between the Shia and Sunnis? Have you not heard about their representatives in the Consultative Assembly? Have you not read news about Sunni scholars supporting Iran, mentioning many names from Arab countries and others? Of course, among them was the name of Sa’id Sha’ban.

Q: If they do not differentiate between Sunnis and Shia, then why has not a single Sunni name emerged in the leadership of the army or in successive governments?

A: Among them are ministers and leaders in the army and they are trusted by the leadership of the Islamic Revolution.

Q: Can you mention one name for us?

A: [He insisted on his stance but was unable to mention a single name.]

It is not surprising that those who claim that Ibn Saba’ is a mythical figure with no existence in reality would also say that the persecution of the Ahlus Sunnah in Iran is a lie and a myth, or that Ahmed Moftizadeh is one of the myths propagated by agents of Israel and the United States. Then they stubbornly cling to their positions no matter what evidence and proofs are presented to them. Not one of them admitted that Sunnis in Iran have faced any form of persecution.

I am overcome with shame, and sadness does not separate from me when I find that the answers of the Shia—despite differences in their languages, cultures, and nationalities—are identical and their stances and goals are also the same. On the other hand, the stances and goals of Sunni scholars and preachers are neither unified nor even close. Had they adhered to what the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and the Sahabah stood for, these vast differences in their stances and goals would not exist.

Do the Sunnis realise that the future of their brothers in Iran foretells a disaster? They are third-class citizens, since first-class citizenship is reserved for the Shia and the Jews and Christians occupy second-class citizen status, while the Ahlus Sunnah are third-class citizens and their condition is worse than that of Muslims in the Soviet Union and Communist China!

Do they realise that the constitution and laws of Iran are not worth the ink they were written with? Therefore, all the measures taken against the Ahlus Sunnah violate both the law of the land and the rulings of the clerics.

O Allah, You are the One Who said:

يا عبادي إني حرمت الظلم على نفسي وجعلته بينكم محرماً فلا تظالموا

O My servants, I have forbidden injustice for Myself and I have forbidden it among you, so do not oppress one another.^[9]

And these oppressors in Iran have permitted what You have forbidden. And You, O Lord, know that the supplication of the oppressed has no barrier between it and You. O Allah, restrain the hands of the oppressors from our brothers in Iran, O Most Merciful of those who show mercy. Place enmity and discord among the Shia and grant victory to the oppressed. And may Allah’s peace and blessings be upon our Prophet Muhammad, his family, and his Companions.

‘Abdullah Muhammad al Gharib

30 Ramadan 1410 AH

Notes

1. The translation of the letters written by the Ahlus Sunnah in Iran was not of good quality. I made an effort to correct it while preserving the meaning intended by the brothers. Nevertheless, there are undoubtedly still errors remaining, but it suffices that their intent is understood.

2. The First Letter: The Issue of the Ahlus Sunnah in Iran was written by a group—Maktab Qur’an—before many of them were imprisoned. It contained a discussion about the conditions of the Ahlus Sunnah in Iran and about the Majlis al Shura al Markazi li al Sunnah (Central Consultative Assembly of the Sunnis), but most of it focused on the position of the group in Kurdistan.

The comments in the margins of the letter are mine and not those of the translator or the brothers from Maktab Qur’an.

3. The statements issued by Maktab Qur’an were released from the beginning of their arrest, specifically from 28/10/1402 AH until 13/02/1403 AH, and I did not transfer all the statements that they issued, but I only included some of them and assigned them a sequential numbering system different from the numbering in their original letters.

The tone of the statements was harsher than that of the previous letter. In summary, the positions of the brothers went through the following stages:

The First Stage: Their support for Khomeini and his clique was absolute and they believed that the tension between Sunnism and Shi’ism is not reflective of the essence of the Qur’an.

The Second Stage: They began to criticise some of the leaders of the Revolution because they believed these leaders were behind its sectarian direction. Nevertheless, they maintained their support for Khomeini and his regime.

The Third Stage: A large number of them were arrested and imprisoned during this stage. Their criticism of Khomeini and those around him intensified. However, some of them remained loyal to him and his Revolution. Moftizadeh belonged to this latter group.

The Fourth Stage: The truth became clear from falsehood. The group from Maktab Qur’an realised that Sunnism is neither a sect nor a faction, but rather a commitment to what the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and his Sahabah stood for. They also realised that Khomeini is the most sinister of the Shia on the face of the earth and his Revolution is no different from him. The matter extends beyond the deviations of some of the leaders of the Revolution.

Had our brothers based their understanding of this Revolution and their stance toward it on the methodology and principles upheld by the Salaf of this Ummah, they would not have fallen into the errors they did. Such matters should not be subject to experimentation.

4. In some of these letters, it was mentioned that the percentage of Sunnis in Iran is 25%, while in others it was mentioned as 30%, and in yet another place 35%. The reason for this discrepancy lies in the media blackout that was, and still is, enforced by successive governments, starting with the governments of Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi and ending with the governments of Ayatollah Khomeini. Therefore, these figures are estimates.

5. After presenting two letters from the group Maktab Qur’an, we found ourselves compelled to mention some comments necessitated by historical integrity. The brothers—the Ahlus Sunnah in Iran—have, alhamdu lillah, moved beyond this stage. Their ideas have matured and their current positions have superseded the previous negative stances.

NEXT⇒ The Ahlus Sunnah in Iran – A Study in Religious Discrimination and State Repression – Introduction

^[1] An armed, leftist dissident organisation from Iran who opposed the Shia theocratic government. Their headquarters are currently in Albania.

^[2] The communist party in Iran that was deposed by an American-financed and coordinated military coup in the 1950s which saw the reinstatement of the Shah.

^[3] The Iran-Contra scandal involved the secret sale of arms to Iran by the Reagan administration to fund Nicaraguan Contra rebels, despite a congressional ban on such support, leading to political fallout and investigations.

^[4] Surah al Nahl: 61.

^[5] Practice of religious dissimulation (pretending to believe something other than what one truly does). According to some Shia sources, this practice accounts for nine tenths of the Shia religion.

^[6] See Kayhan issue dated 06/10/1986.

^[7] Shia clerical title.

^[8] Shia clerical title.

^[9] Sahih Muslim, Hadith: 2577.

BACK⇒ Return to Table of contents

Introduction

In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful, the Lord of the Worlds, the Owner of the Day of Judgment.

The outcome is for the pious and there is no transgression except against the oppressors. I bear witness that there is no god but Allah, alone, without partner, and I bear witness that Muhammad salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam is His servant, messenger, confidant, and trustee over His revelation. He sent him with guidance and the true religion to make it prevail over all religions.

After praise and salutations, the followers of Khomeini and his clique have—since the inception of their rule over Iran up until the writing of these lines—clashed with Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala, and all His creation from the offspring of Adam ‘alayh al Salam, whether they be disbelievers or Muslims.

Inside Iran, they clashed with the Mojahedin-e-Khalq^[1], the communists of the Tudeh^[2], the Baha’is, the supporters of the Shah, and the nationalists in Kurdistan and elsewhere. Then their treachery and oppression extended to those men upon whose shoulders the revolution was built, men who had done a great service to Khomeini—something no honourable person would forget. Among those with whom they clashed were:

The former foreign minister, Sadegh Ghotbzadeh, who was sentenced to death and executed.
The former president, Abolhassan Banisadr, who managed to escape and sought refuge in France.
The former prime minister, Mehdi Bazargan.
And the conflict reached scholars and religious authorities such as Shariatmadari, Montazeri, and many others.

Externally, they clashed with the following countries:

All Arab countries, except Syria, Libya, and South Yemen.
All Western countries.
The United States of America, which had helped oust the Shah, neutralised the army, supported the revolutionaries, and stood by them, only for friendship to turn into enmity.
Relations between them and the Soviets fluctuated between cooperation and tension.
Turkey.
They waged a fierce war with Iraq that lasted approximately eight years, resulting in more than a million dead and wounded, along with the destruction of both nations’ economies.

Iran’s enemies exploited its internal and external problems, including:

Forming alliances between these countries and the Iranian opposition. For example, Iraq embraced the Mojahedin-e-Khalq and non-Mujahidin groups, providing them with money, weapons, and media support.
The United States, Britain, and France provided significant aid to pro-Shah organisations and former allies of Khomeini who had fallen out with him, maintaining secret channels of communication with Iran when needed.
They published hundreds of books, hundreds of thousands of articles, research papers, and analyses condemning the regime of the clerics.
They exposed secrets that embarrassed Iran, such as the ongoing Jewish-Iranian cooperation during the Iran-Iraq War, and what became known as the “Iran-Contra Affair”.^[3]

Given my interest in Iran’s Revolution, I monitored and documented these successive events and had the opportunity to review much of what was published, whether in Arabic or other languages. What astonished me was that one matter was ignored by the enemies of the clerics inside and outside Iran, despite it being among the strongest evidence of the barbarism of the regime and its abhorrent sectarian bias.

I never heard Iraq dedicate even a single hour on its radio or television to explain the plight of the Ahlus Sunnah in Iran, clarifying the persecution, restrictions, and suppression they face. If Iraq feared accusations of bias towards one group of citizens against another—despite the latter group’s total allegiance to Iran—then what about the countries that claim to be havens of freedom and liberty? What about the United States, Britain, and France?

Moreover, what about Amnesty International and human rights organisations? These entities spoke about injustices inflicted on all parties, ethnicities, and individuals, defending even drug dealers and criminals who were subjected to Islamic legal punishments. Do not a third of Iran’s population deserve any help or support from them?

Let us leave these people to their affairs. They are unaffected by our calamities and are not trustworthy in addressing our issues. This is what we have come to expect from them; and perhaps some of them have never even heard of the circumstances of the Ahlus Sunnah in Iran. Let us leave them and focus on the role played by Islamic newspapers and magazines. What we do know is that letters and bulletins from the Ahlus Sunnah in Iran reached the editors of these newspapers and magazines, who read them, yet their responses varied, though none were at the required level:

Some did not mention them in their publications, not even in passing, as if the matter had nothing to do with them.
Others merely published the following comment, “We have received letters and bulletins from the Ahlus Sunnah in Iran discussing injustices they have faced. We, in turn, call on the Iranian authorities to clarify their perspective and inform us of the accuracy of the information we received. Otherwise, we will find ourselves compelled to publish the letters we have received.” We do not know if they received a response or not, but what we do know is that the injustices increased and diversified.
Another group kept the letters of the Ahlus Sunnah in their drawers without mentioning them. Later, due to new political circumstances, they became outraged, remembered the letters, took them out of their drawers, and published some of them before stopping again.
Had this issue been among their top priorities, they would have written about it with greater fervour and passion.
A fourth category still trusts Iran’s Islamic Revolution and accuses anyone who criticises it, without verifying the truth. Praise be to Allah, these are a few in number.