The first conversation with Mohammad Taqi Akbarnejad after removing the turban / From the details of the verdict to frank talk with the regime

From Detention to Trial: The Challenging Path of a Critical Cleric

Abdi Media: In our time, truth no longer needs torture; it suffocates under labels. Boundaries have shifted. In a world where lies wear the garb of piety and faith is accused, who should defend religion: the clergy or the people? The rulers or the protesters? Does religion still have a space to defend itself? When critical clergy are removed not through debate but by being stripped of their clerical robes, what remains but a lifeless garment on a soulless structure?

In this program, my guest is someone once addressed by the title Hojjat al-Islam wal-Muslimin and today simply as Mohammad Taghi Akbarnejad—a name not just a name but a critical and active thought. His voice is that of a cleric who contemplates prophetic ethics rather than rote jurisprudence. He is not merely a cleric but a questioning soul who came to the seminary to become a devout believer but is now accused of doubt, deviation, and disturbance—perhaps for asking why?

Now, no longer a traditional cleric but a thinker before us, his political statements have gained attention alongside his scholarly works in jurisprudence, principles, ethics, and recently published jurisprudential ethical rulings. This is his first interview after being stripped of his clerical robe.

Akbarnejad: My situation reflects the verdict given. About a year and a half ago, I was arrested after the protest during Qom's Friday prayers. Security forces detained me, and the public recognized me from that event. I was released after three weeks but with a heavy bail. My trial was supposed to start soon, but nothing happened. I personally pursued it, believing my stance was right—the defense of an oppressed people's rights who suffered injustices in religion’s name. I pressed on. In a debate with Dr. Borhani, I emphasized civil resistance and election boycott to send a clear "no" to regime policies. Afterward, I was told trial would be at the month’s end, but it was delayed due to a judge’s problem. These debates and positions continued, leading to my trial. I attended four sessions and submitted statements. The original judge died, replaced by Mr. Mozaffari, deputy of Ejei. I attended six more sessions and finally was sentenced. Early March last year, my sentence included: 1- eight months for weakening the regime; 2- fifteen months for insulting leaders of the Islamic Revolution (Khomeini and Khamenei); 3- three years of stripping of clerical garb.

Following friends' advice, on March 11, I appealed. They noticed my persistence and I continued my line. Despite the initial verdict, my movement persisted. The appeals court upheld the two prison sentences but changed the clothing removal sentence to a five-year suspended sentence, conditional on no new offenses and no media appearances for five years. I told the enforcement judge if the ruling means no media presence in clerical attire, I accept. But if it means I can wear the apparel freely on the street but must avoid media, I reject it and want the original ruling.

Abdi Media: The problem is your statements.

Akbarnejad: I officially submitted my objection, preferring the original clothing removal ruling but want media presence and public dialogue. The prison sentence applies.

Charges: From weakening the regime to insult allegations

Abdi Media: What were the instances of insulting the Islamic Republic founder and Khamenei?

Akbarnejad: The second charge was not insult. My prosecutor admitted I didn’t insult Khamenei. In court, the charge was weakening the regime and spreading lies. I detailed my evidence. The judge removed the lying charge but replaced it with insulting the Revolution leaders. I do not believe dissent should lack ethics; without ethics, we become dangerous. If an unethical person gains power, matters worsen.

From an ethical perspective, no sentence or word from me insulted Khomeini or Khamenei’s personalities; I criticized their decisions and acts respectfully. We say in seminaries we critique "good actions," not "good persons." Many were upset by my respectful approach yet critical debates. I challenged Khomeini’s views on the Guardianship of the Jurist (Velayat-e Faqih). I praised Khomeini as a great jurist and sage but said I wouldn’t publish his book on the Guardianship doctrine, as it leaves the leadership weak. This was considered insult. No direct judge accusations of disrespect were made.

Abdi Media: Any specific examples?

Akbarnejad: Nothing but this issue in ten sessions. Interestingly, I read their own direct speeches in court, even Khamenei’s remarks welcoming criticism on social media but warning against misuse. They saw my critiques as harmful to the leaders’ dignity in society’s mind, thus rejected my defense.

Abdi Media: What was their response?

Akbarnejad: Surprisingly, despite my clear documented defense and quoting Khomeini and Khamenei verbatim, no clear response was given. Judges seemed to believe Khamenei is a deeply wronged figure, second only to the Imam Mahdi, unable to defend himself, and constantly criticized unfairly. Especially the first judge expressed this sympathy openly.

From Solitary Confinement to Interrogation: Accounts from Prison

Abdi Media: What happened to you from the moment of arrest until your release? How did the interrogators behave? Which question surprised you? How was the treatment?

Akbarnejad: I believe we should greatly value our fellow countrymen, even if they act against us or speak against us. We must have tolerance and patience. Even if someone opposes or harms me once, I should harbor no hatred. I deeply believe in maintaining respect and ethics towards everyone. Some who protested had infants in their arms and lit fires near the court in February. I was saddened. The next day when I was arrested in Qom, in a video, I raised my hand and smiled from the heart. These people didn’t realize they cry for empty hearts, that their sacred ideals are fantasies. They don’t see that the Islamic Republic has become a platform where some benefit while others are distracted with trivial issues. I felt pity for their ignorance. A woman stood cold for three or four days with a child, and when I smiled sincerely, it was from my heart.

Interrogators treated me respectfully. One that arrested me in the street told me in court he realized I was sincere, respectful, and had no intention to stir trouble. I spent two weeks in solitary confinement, a very harsh condition. A camera watches you constantly; even bathroom visits are difficult. Only on the last day was I given a book. In that small two-three meter cell, I had to pace repeatedly. Interestingly, I fasted during those 14 days, eating Suhoor and Iftar. Guards there often showed kindness and empathy, sometimes secretly giving me water, fruit, and cake.

Abdi Media: Don’t reveal the address if they were very kind.

Akbarnejad: My days in prison were bitter, but I felt I had done a useful job for my society, voicing the heavy thoughts many carried silently. Psychologically, I felt calm and not anxious in solitary. I believed I was expressing what many wanted to say about the regime’s policies.

A worker once called me, which lifted my spirits. He had two disabled daughters and said he never made his family cry before. He burst into tears telling me how seeing my arrest and trial moved him to tears. That was enough for me. People felt an honest cleric voiced what they couldn’t against overarching policies, making imprisonment—and even death—a worthy price.

Prison Sentence and Removal of the Clerical Garb: End or Beginning?

Abdi Media: Is the ruling only about removal of clerical garb, or are other rulings coming?

Akbarnejad: There are two prison sentences and one clothing removal sentence. The prison term must be executed. I requested a delay to care for a family member with health needs. Officially, I should report for prison mid next month.

Abdi Media: Any other topics?

Akbarnejad: I have stated both in writing and orally that since I posted bail, I am not a fugitive. Given the war conditions and ongoing insecure atmosphere, people like me who supported the war—what message does this send to society? Couldn't you execute the sentence two or three months later when things were calmer? I felt officials did not take this seriously, dismissing me personally as insignificant. I emphasized this is not about me but about people like me whom society notices and evaluates. Ultimately, is the system receiving the message? This delay is unbecoming. Who are we that the sentence cannot be deferred four months?

Abdi Media: Aren't you upset about being stripped of your clerical robe?

Akbarnejad: Thank God I was never attached to the robe. From the day I donned it, my intention was service to the people and religion, and the robe is just a symbol without substance. Even the Prophet did not wear distinctive clothing. For me, it mattered to tell people through this robe that the Islamic Republic's way has no connection to religion. I wanted to say to the Islamic Republic that your actions have nothing to do with religion; you oppress people in the name of Mohammed's pure Islam. If maintaining the robe means flattering someone or abandoning my duty to defend the oppressed, then that has no value. I do not feel bad about losing the robe; the important thing is the person. Some gain status from robe, place, tribe, or caste but have nothing themselves. Luckily, I am not like that. My identity and personality were never tied to the robe. My studies, my character, and my voice with which I spoke truth and defended people remain. Only a piece of clothing is taken from me, so I do not feel bad. Important is that within this robe, I continue my activities.

[Dates contextualized for clarity.]In an age where truth no longer needs torture but is suffocated by labels, boundaries have shifted; lies don the cloak of piety and faith is seated in the chair of accusation. In such a world, the question arises: who should defend religion—clergy or the people, rulers or protesters?

Iran after the Islamic Republic: Hope or Repetition of Despotism?

Abdi Media: In an interview on the Simorgh program, you were asked about your view of Iran's future. You said you are worried. What is the root of your concern?

Akbarnejad: What comes from the heart sits on the heart. I was truly burning inside when I expressed my concern. Looking back at Iran's history, I see many bitter events. The Mongol invasion destroyed our country under horses’ hooves, humiliating and slaughtering the people. After World War I, according to some experts, 40 percent of the population died of hunger— a heavy disaster.

At a point, people pushed for constitutionalism, but due to poor execution, a harsher and more rigid despotism emerged. The people wanted to build constitutionalism to limit authoritarianism and monarchy, but missteps created even tougher dictatorship.

Nationalization of oil had good initiatives but again failed due to poor follow-up. In 1979, people turned to religious authority. The youth today lack full understanding. In that traditional society, the religious leader, Ayatollah Khomeini, had charismatic overwhelming popularity. His words were like Quranic verses. People gained hope, feeling they had a trump card securing both worldly and spiritual prosperity, thus they embraced religious authority.

We witnessed assassinations, an eight-year war, cold war, sanctions, water and electricity shortages, and more. Looking at the past, we see many wrong choices. This is painful. We made mistakes with heavy consequences, and seeing this trend, I am afraid.

My duty is to speak honestly when I sense danger and issue necessary warnings. Speaking frivolously is a grave mistake. A jurist and scholar must give both hope and warnings. My criticism of Ayatollah Khamenei is that he tries to downplay the dangers. Corruption has overtaken the country; you consider some minds corrupt. By minimizing and sheltering corruption, this virus and microbe grow.

My duty is to warn that this trend is not good; we are moving downward, not in a favorable position. My concern is that the Islamic Republic, continuing on this path, will surely collapse unless it changes direction. Even all the empires combined cannot stand against God's laws and traditions. God’s rules apply universally; even Solomon’s kingdom vanished after him.

Imam Ali said when you see these signs, it indicates a government's decline — such as weak people ruling while great ones are sidelined. The Prophet said governments persist with disbelief but not with oppression. The Islamic Republic oppresses its people, values figures like Sedighi but drives away the capable due to their intellect, awareness, and honesty. The Prophet said to throw dust on flatterers' faces.

Everyone knows the Islamic Republic demands flattery for advancement. Undoubtedly, the Islamic Republic will fall unless it turns toward its people. China turned toward its people.

This is based on recent statements by Mohammad Taghi Akbarnejad, expressing deep concerns about Iran's future under the current regime

Signs of Returning to Reason and Referring Back to the People?

Akbarnejad: The Islamic Republic, with its current policies, is destined to fall; whether in ten years, five years, or one year, its departure is certain. My worry is about the period after the Islamic Republic. We are the same people as in 1979; why do we think people were ignorant then? They were oppressed. No one faces gunfire on a full stomach. They revolted but were driven by emotions—hatred or love. Sometimes, even elites think with naive optimism that after the devil's reign, an angel will come.

Review documents and statements: how many teams and planners did Ayatollah Khomeini have before the revolution? The slogan "Neither East nor West"—what did it really have? Economy, culture, media, politics—were these transparently explained? Back then, even intellectuals hadn’t studied Khomeini’s "Guardianship of the Jurist."

People had no clear concern. When decisions are driven by hatred and love, the outcome is as such. Hatred and love blind minds and hearts. We need to be captivated by truth; truth saves us.

In youth, lovers are sweet, but post-marriage, many file for divorce. Responding with anger and hatred is flawed; some opportunists exploit this to legitimize opposition to the Islamic Republic. The logic grows that opposition itself grants legitimacy. We overlook if the opposition lacks wisdom or may be worse than the Islamic Republic. Similarly, support for opposing America and Israel is legitimized, while ignoring that the Islamic Republic oppresses its own people—road accidents, deaths due to system failures are frequent. This flawed logic breeds reactionary moves.

We are a nation scarred by centuries of despotic rulers—always under tyrants’ dominance, voiceless. A society oppressed continuously over ages internalizes despotism as software in its mind, like birds released from cages that fly back because the cage is imprinted in their minds. They cannot imagine freedom or comprehend the outside world. Despotism ingrained in the collective unconscious is extremely dangerous.

This insight is drawn from sociological and psychological analyses of Iran’s political and social status, reflecting on historical cycles of authoritarianism and societal impact

About 1400 years ago, Ali ibn Abi Talib (peace be upon him) visited the Mada'in region. People chased after his mount. He asked them, "What are you doing?" They replied, "We used to follow kings." The Imam warned them to abandon these acts, as no good would come from them and that they were fostering delusions. He cautioned that Iranians have the potential to turn a mere local figure like Reza Sadat of Savadkuh or Reza Mirpanj into a Reza Shah; similarly, they could transform a cleric like Ruhollah before the revolution into an idol.

Where in religion do we build domes over shrines? This is an Iranian custom unrelated to religion. In villages, there's a need to define a "great one" for themselves. We have become like birds.

At a gathering in Munich, a young Iranian said he did not accept religion but had a "Kaaba"—Reza Pahlavi—whom he prostrated before. I did not hate that young man but my heart ached. This man, with no intrinsic merit beyond his lineage, lacks real power today; yet see how Iranians can build him as a "Kaaba." Imagine if someone like him became king—what would happen?

In our blood lies the paradox of one person bowing before Imam Reza's shrine and another before Cyrus's tomb. This makes me fear the mental cage we inhabit, believing a superhuman figure must command and solve all problems, demanding servitude whether a sheikh or a king. Today we elevate learned individuals into unparalleled superhumans.

When the first draft of the constitution was presented to Khomeini and a referendum held, was there the guardianship of the jurist (Velayat-e Faqih)? No mention was made of it. Later, when the Assembly of Experts formed the constitution, Velayat-e Faqih was introduced. Did they bring it themselves, or was the society's demand? Society in 1979 praised the notion that a divine person, with absolute guardianship modeled on the Prophet's leadership, should hold power.

This summary is based on historical and religious narratives and reflecting Iranian cultural reflections on authority and governance.

From Guardianship of the Jurist to the Potential of Creating Superhumans

Abdi Media: Some in society approve of Sheikh Sadegh Khalkhali's actions.

Akbarnejad: The same people protested his dismissal in the streets. Those who incorporated the Guardianship of the Jurist (Velayat-e Faqih) into the constitution did so representing society's desire. Had I been part of the Assembly of Experts drafting the constitution, and argued against Velayat-e Faqih, I might have been beaten in the streets. This Iranian talent to deify individuals is intense. We always want to be under the guardianship of one person. We cannot take responsibility and say "we the people will stand together and bear our burden" without needing a superhuman.

My concern is this pattern. In our blood is the capacity to elevate even an ordinary person into a godlike figure. We fear that hatred of the Islamic Republic blinds us to our own actions. Today, many miss the Pahlavi era and even the government of Mr. Raisi, only looking back with regret despite cursing these times previously.

I fear reactive movements, where opposition to the Islamic Republic becomes an end in itself. Removing the Islamic Republic at any cost leaves a fractured country isolated worldwide with security issues inviting foreign intervention and internal strife. Simply claiming "this cannot happen" offers no guarantee against fragmentation of the country.

Main Issue: Despotism and Corruption, Not Pahlavi

Abdi Media: Is your criticism of Reza Pahlavi's monarchy rooted in conflict between clergy and Pahlavi?

Akbarnejad: I have no personal problem with monarchy or any specific person. My worry is about reactive moves. Had I been present in 1979, I would have opposed revolution, favoring reform and transformation within the governing structure. Reducing the debate to personal disputes with Pahlavi is misleading.

My concern is despotism and corruption—the real reasons society revolted. I began my argument historically since Mongol times, not about any one person. I have a problem with trying to create superhumans out of individuals.

Clergy: Part of the Solution or the Crisis?

Abdi Media: In your words, you hinted at collapse. How do you see the role of religious seminaries and clergy in this collapse? Are they part of the crisis?

Akbarnejad: Not just clergy, but any social group claiming excessive power beyond capacity faces issues. For example, Dr. Pezeshkian made promises to people but did not even lift filtering.

People must accept themselves as they are to find peace. Clergy should accept their reality and limitations.

When I was stripped of my clerical robe for harming the clergy’s dignity, it was because I said clergy lacked capacity for revolution and sound governance. If seminaries are strong, they should first regulate themselves. The systems of religious authority, seminarian recruitment, and endowments face serious challenges.

The clergy's biggest mistake was exaggerated claims. Khomeini said the worldly life is insignificant but danger arose when no plan created stability. Post-revolution, seminaries grew abnormally. Many entered seminary sincerely but worldly interests led to unqualified persons heading institutions with clerical robes, causing a rise in religion avoidance and hostility, accelerating societal hatred today.

Regarding the recent publication of "Jurisprudential Ethical Views" before your clerical robe was removed, what motivated you? Is there a difference between the perspectives in this work and traditional seminary theses?

Akbarnejad: Recently, I published my jurisprudential ethical views on a website. Many recognize me in political and social spheres, but I also have a seminary background. In 2010 (1389), I pursued reform in the seminary, believing that the existing interpretative logic and structure do not serve society well because religion is not understood according to societal needs.

I established an institute in Qom engaging deeply in methodology of jurisprudential inference, publishing many specialized books. Two volumes titled "Methodology of Jurisprudence" were pioneering in discussing jurisprudential methodology comprehensively. My preferred method, developed in five volumes under "Jurisprudential Theology," first examined the concept of evidential knowledge from the perspectives of nature and reason. I introduced interpretive logic, religious literature studies, and more—a methodological package expanding jurisprudential rules and strengthening reason in interpretation.

At that time, I was asked—sometimes as a critique—to publish my jurisprudential views to assess whether these new foundations lead to different verdicts or outcomes. I succeeded in publishing the first part a couple of weeks ago, with subsequent parts planned. Here, I showed how differences in interpretive rationality manifest in jurisprudential rulings, making them more objective. While insisting on tradition and authenticity, this approach differs from prior works without posing as a modernist.

Regarding defending your jurisprudential opinions, even at the risk of being deemed a heretic in thought, would you still stand by them?

Akbarnejad: We are unaware of the future. I pray God keeps us on the path of truth. My verdict became final after a year and a half. During this period, I had several opportunities to stop but did not, leading to the final sentence.

In closing, I entrust the situation to God. If I speak truly from my heart, I think less of my own interest and more for Iran's people. Even privately, I pray that whatever benefits the people happens, whether that means prison or freedom, so long as I continue advocating people’s rights.

I believe no nation attains happiness without accepting risk. If fear of prison, lashes, or death controls us, we’ll always bear humiliation. I sincerely love the people and am ready for any sacrifice for their welfare.

To my case prosecutor, I said even if they want to shoot me behind the wall of the Special Clergy Court, I wouldn’t flinch, as I believe in this path and trust in God. I feel at peace, moving in the prayers I have held for years, seeking martyrdom on His way. I was prepared since day one for harsher rulings, considering it a blessing to serve the people. I urge people to distance themselves from emotions. Truth does not depend on our feelings but on observation of reality. We must seek truth even if bitter. Truth is our only remedy, lest feelings distract, lead us to illusions and wishes, causing us to fall from a pit into a worse one.

I hope no restrictions are placed on you, and you can freely express your views.

This summary is drawn from his recent interviews and writings about his jurisprudential ethical views and his personal stance.If there is any more text to translate or topics to explore, please send it

Full file of Abdi Media's conversation with Mohammad Taqi Akbarnejad, a lecturer at Qom Seminary