When Corruption Suspects Prescribe Participation to the People

Panahian speaks of participation and accountability while he himself is questioned in corruption cases and the ownership of luxury properties.

Hojjatoleslam “Alireza Panahian” in a speech before the Friday prayer sermons on Friday, 14 Shahrivar, in Sari, once again criticized Western civilization and claimed: “Western civilization has turned people into passive spectators and has deprived them of real participation.” Emphasizing the difference between Islamic and Western societies, he said that in Islamic society, people are responsible and active participants, but in the West, the majority are merely spectators.

Panahian, referring to the differences in cultural symbols of the two civilizations, regarded the amphitheater architecture as a symbol of “spectator-like living” in the West and, in contrast, introduced the mosque as a “symbol of participation and social responsibility.” He also emphasized the necessity of strengthening mosques in social, economic, and cultural spheres, and suggested that these places be transformed into corruption reporting centers and administrative oversight bodies—an apparent contradiction between moral lessons and reality.

These remarks come at a time when Alireza Panahian’s name has been seriously mentioned in cases of economic corruption in recent years. Initial questions about his assets arose when documents and reports of his ownership of expensive properties in Lavasan were published; an area known as one of the most expensive locations in the country. The billion-dollar value of these properties bore no proportion to his official income as a cleric, creating an obvious contradiction between his slogans of “defending the oppressed” and his personal lifestyle.

Panahian’s supporters have described these revelations as a “project to defame revolutionary figures,” but critics believe that such justifications not only fail to convince public opinion but also increase people’s distrust in governmental structures. Panahian’s closeness to Ali Khamenei has also made his case not simply a financial matter, but rather part of political and factional struggles within the power structure.

Panahian’s case has now become a symbol of a larger crisis: the lack of financial transparency in government institutions and the absence of an independent mechanism to investigate allegations against influential figures. This contradiction—where those facing corruption charges themselves teach the people about participation and fighting corruption from official platforms—is one of the points that has further damaged public trust.