National Movement
In order to understand the Imam Khomeyni’s viewpoint and position regarding the National Movement and elaborate on his participation or absence in the political events of this period one should study his viewpoints concerning two fundamental issues:
1) The nature and purpose of the National Movement.
2) the leadership of the National Movement (Ayatollah Kashani and Dr. Mosaddeq).
1) The nature and purpose of the National Movement
The National Movement had two aspects: the political form and meaning or material nature. Comparing the National Movement and the Islamic Revolution, one may find this point in Imam Khomeyni’s words: “In my opinion, today’s movement (Islamic Revolution) is deeper than the movement that occurred during the time of Dr. Mosaddeq governance. The movement was merely political at that time, but today it is heavily skewed to its religious aspects... today, our movement is political and religious... it moves towards victory with a greater hope… unlike the past, people’s voice and endeavours are rooted in and inspired by Islam. There is a big difference between one who fights for religion and one who fights for worldly desires. The movement was materialistic in the past, but today’s movement is occurred for the sake of the Muslim man, much like what happened in the early days of Islam. Therefore, we hope for its victory.”
The National Movement was a political movement with no clear ideological origin and purpose. It aimed at gaining political independence which manifested in the Nationalization of the Oil Industry. Therefore, both the National Movement and its leaders opposed only the political-economic dimension of British colonialism, and by no means south to counter and combat other forms of colonialism. As a prominent political leader of the National Movement, Dr. Mosaddeq not only used to “praise Western cultural values but was very sensitive to the accusation of having anti-Western sentiment and always sought to win the respect and support of public opinion in the world.” Such perception resulted in the National Movement lacking an ideological basis. In the opinion of Imam Khomeyni, “because they did not assume a place for Islam in the issue of oil and made it only a national matter, therefore, they could not do anything. The few efforts they made were made in vain and eventually, Mosaddeq was overthrown.”
2) The Leadership of the National Movement
There were two prominent figures at the forefront of the National Movement: Dr. Mosaddeq and Ayatollah Kashani. All the speeches of Imam Khomeyni regarding Dr. Mosaddeq were made during the second half of 1979, when he was in Paris, until late 1982. In one of his extensive and important speeches made in Paris, Imam Khomeyni pointed to the “negligence” of the “politicians and scholars.” Among them was Dr. Mosaddeq whose negligence was worse than Qavam al-Saltanah’s.
“Although he (Dr. Mosaddeq) wanted to serve the country, he made mistakes of which is that when he came to power, he didn’t kill Mohammad Reza Shah. Doing this was so easy for Mosaddeq since the army was serving him and he had power. Also, Shah was not such an important person at the time yet Mosaddeq neglected to kill Shah.
Another neglect was that Mosaddeq dissolved the parliament and forced its members to resign one by one. When they resigned, a legal solution was found for the Shah since when there is no parliament choosing and appointing the prime minister should be done by the Shah. Mosaddeq made this mistake which resulted in the return of Shah to Iran. as some say, “Mohammad Reza Shah left Iran and Reza Shah came to power.”
Imam Khomeyni’s criticism is directed to Dr. Mosaddeq’s two political measures: first, why he did not overthrow the weak Shah or destroy the monarchy when he had enough political and military power? (after July 21, 1952). Even some of the authors who are the proponents of Mosaddeq believe that three decades after the fall of his government, “If Mosaddeq or his followers were able to overcome the essential obstructions of the existing royal constitutional system, they might have succeeded in establishing a more effective parliamentary system.” But the fact is that he believed in the institution of the monarchy as one of the most important pillars of constitutionalism and “that instead of governing the country Shah should hold sovereign authority based on the concept of constitutionalism.”
After all, because of his beliefs - often being optimistic about democratic methods as well as his weakness in running the executive affairs – Mosaddeq even refused to capture and arrest the elements who were involved in the conspiracy and worked with the United Kingdom. This was one of the main reasons for his fall. The second criticism is that why Dr. Mosaddeq dissolved the 17th Majles. Because in the final days of Dr. Mosaddeq’s government, where the Royal Court had control over all the sections and institutions of the country and Mosaddeq did not have the power to observe their activities, Majles was the only formal and legal body that despite significant objections, kept supporting his government.
Nonetheless, apparently for no justified reason, Mosaddeq dissolved the parliament by holding a referendum which was only a façade and deprived his government of the only legal backing whereas if the parliament had not been dissolved he might have been able to invite people to confront the coup d’état and make it fail from the 16th-19th August 1953.
This possibility remained strong, and some believe that Dr. Mosaddeq’s policy of appeasement regarding the waves of rumours and slanders spread by the National Front of Iran and pro-Mosaddeq journals against Ayatollah Kashani has clearly added to their boldness and gradually led to the isolation of Ayatollah Kashani and the defeat of the National Movement.
In the view of Imam Khomeyni, discrediting Ayatollah Kashani was done because he adhered to the Islamic aspects of the National Movement which he demanded the Mosaddeq government officially and legally observe. In other words, their disagreement was rooted in ideological issues. Therefore, isolating and discrediting Ayatollah Kashani mean completely abandoning Islam and showing that he is dissociated from Islam.
Some writers also argue that “Mosaddeq demanded that Kashani should follow the policy of giving up on politics as it was suggested by Ayatollah Boroujerdi; Kashani repeatedly stated that from the Islamic perspective, there is no separation between politics and religion. There is no church in Islam and the clergies participate in politics to manage the Muslims’ affairs, which is a specific religious duty.”
Imam Khomeyni’s opinion about Ayatollah Kashani
The history of Imam Khomeyni’s acquaintance with Ayatollah Kashani dates back to 1929 the first days of his studies in seminary. The friendship of the Imam Khomeyni and Ayatollah Kashani was probably strengthened because of Ayatollah Sayyed Mohammad-Taqi Khansari, who was regarded as one of Imam Khomeyni’s teachers who was so respected by Imam. The photograph of Imam Khomeyni, Ayatollah Kashani, and Ayatollah Khansari during the National Movement, shows such close ties.
After the return of Ayatollah Kashani from exile (in Lebanon) and during the National Movement, close relations between Imam Khomeyni and Ayatollah Kashani were established, which continued even after the political activities of Kashani were limited.
“We also visited Ayatollah Kashani in the past. Kashani was living in Najaf since his adulthood and he was active in fighting against colonialism. At that time, colonialism was the United Kingdom and had to be confronted. When he came to Iran, he put all his efforts into achieving this goal. I knew him very well. The situation was such that when he wanted to leave the house, for example, to perform prayer at the mosque, it was announced so that people would come and welcome him.”
Unfortunately, no record remains of such a relationship except a few brief references that Imam Khomeyni made and a brief personal letter that he wrote to Ayatollah Kashani. Imam Khomeyni talked about Ayatollah Kashani when the issue of the Nationalist National Movement and the Nationalists were posed, and we also would use such remarks as the basis of our analysis.
In Imam Khomeyni’s view “Ayatollah Kashani has worked for Islam…they believe that Islam should be implemented in Iran.” It is certain that all the scholars who stood up against colonialism and despotism and defended the independence and integrity of the country in the last two centuries, needed religious authorization for their actions and considered interfering in political affairs as their religious duty.
Also, another group of scholars use religious reasons to justify their political silence and passivity. The motivations behind the interference or non-interference of scholars in political affairs were religious justifications which each one of them would make on the basis of his opinion and ijtihad. In some cases, especially in the face of foreign intervention, there was often an agreement and, in some cases, most of which were related to fighting against internal despotism and ways of dealing with it, there was disagreement among the scholars.
Therefore, one cannot argue that the motivations behind the involvement of Ayatollah Kashani in politics and Nationalization of the Oil Industry as well as other authorities and scholars who issued a fatwa on the Nationalization of the Oil Industry are similar to those of the National Front and other nationalist and non-Islamic groups and individuals.
But that does not mean that all scholars who were involved in politics, including Ayatollah Kashani, did so for the sake of establishing a government; yet, as it was mentioned, Ayatollah Kashani believed in politics as an integral part of religion and therefore considered involving in political and Muslims’ affairs as his duty. In his remarks, there are rare cases in which he considered the Islamic state to be the best type of governance in the world “or regarded a democracy that conforms to the foundations of the religion of Islam the best type of governance for Iran.”
Moreover, in November 1952 Ayatollah Kashani, while addressing the scope of the authority of an Islamic state, said: “…for the sake of protecting the country and observing the public interest of the Islamic nation, the government can confiscate people’s property and prevent people from getting money or property that had been earned in a way contrary to the principles of social justice.”
Probably Imam Khomeyni advised and encouraged Ayatollah Kashani to make the recent remarks, but it should not be assumed that Ayatollah Kashani sought to establish the Islamic Republic, rather he called for the total implication of constitutionalism that has no conflict with Islamic beliefs and establishes strong ties with other Muslims in the world. Although Mosaddeq’s government was spiritually and physically supported by Ayatollah Kashani, he did not necessarily find himself subject to his views, and even occasionally opposed them as was the case with the referendum. For this reason, the National Movement of that time, for which the Nationalization of the Oil Industry had become a motto and goal, was believed by Imam Khomeyni to be a political movement with no Islamic ideals and motives, and hence doomed to failure. Perhaps it was for this reason that Imam Khomeyni, despite his close relations with Ayatollah Kashani and Ayatollah Khansari, never issued a fatwa on the necessity of nationalization of the oil industry; even he stated later that the reason for the failure of such National Movement lies with its lack of Islamic spirit. It is also possible that Ayatollah Boroujerdi’s silence regarding the Nationalization of the Oil Industry may have influenced Imam Khomeyni.
The silence of Imam Khomeyni in this event caused those who are not aware of the relations between Imam Khomeyni and Ayatollah Kashani and who are not familiar with the methods of his political thinking, to consider his absence in political scenes being the result of his withdrawal from or unwillingness to involve in socio-political activities.
“Because of his objection to the principles of the National Movement, Imam Khomeyni, at least once, informed Ayatollah Kashani about his ideas in this regard through sending letters. During the movement led by Kashani and Mosaddeq, while the political aspect of the National Movement was more highlighted, I wrote a letter to Kashani stating that he should focus on the religious aspect of the National Movement. Instead of reinforcing the religious aspect of the National Movement, he acted otherwise such that he became the chairman of the National Assembly which was a mistake. I asked him to work for religion, not to become a politician.”
Unfortunately, there is no trace of this important historical letter. Perhaps if we had access to the letter, we could have examined the details of Imam Khomeyni’s criticism. But as far as the content of the letter is concerned, one can briefly understand the subject of Imam Khomeyni’s criticism.
By entering the parliament and especially accepting its presidency, Ayatollah Kashani gradually was caught up in a political game in which on the one hand he had to adhere to the rules and regulations and on the other hand, he should face disagreements and aggressive behaviours from the representatives which resulted in his political and even personal prestige being damaged and his credibility and influence was lost.
The outcome of such a mistake that provided a pretext for the opposition of Islam and the agents of the United Kingdom to undermine Ayatollah Kashani’s political and personal dignity was very bitter for Imam Khomeyni. After describing Ayatollah Kashani’s dignity for people, Imam Khomeyni elaborated further on his status and position and stated that:
“... At first, when he wanted to leave the house, for example, to go to the mosque, people would come to see him. Then they realized that if a clergyman involves in politics, he would implement Islam. This is certain, and it was. Therefore, they started to run a propaganda campaign against him such that they put glasses on a dog and brought it to the National Assembly naming it “Ayatollah.” I was attending a meeting in which Mr. Kashani entered but no one stood up to respect him. one of the scholars of Tehran and I got up and asked him to sit beside us. They had created this atmosphere for Mr. Kashani who could no longer come out of his house. he was locked in a room in his house and couldn’t get out.
Although Imam Khomeyni criticized Ayatollah Kashani’s political policy, he believed that Kashani seeks to serve Islam, and thus Imam continued his friendship with him. After more than thirty years of friendship with Imam, Ayatollah Kashani fully acknowledged his scientific and ethical virtues as well as his courage. When Ayatollah Kashani was in the last days of his life Imam Khomeyni used to go to the hospital to visit him. In these meetings, once in the presence of others, he said to Imam Khomeyni that, “I believe that certainly, you are the hope of the nation and the best person whose opinions should be observed and followed by people, and this is my belief.”
Ayatollah Kashani bid farewell to life due to the illness and Imam Khomeyni held a funeral ceremony for two days in Qom in both of which he was attending to make prayers for Ayatollah Kashani.
Movement a change of position that does not entail a change of location More (Definitions, Synonyms, Translation)
leave your comments