Following the suppression of the June 15 movement, the revolutionary clerics emphasized the necessity of producing an ideology of struggle in addition to believing in the existence of a vacuum in terms of the issue of organization. In the meantime, the intellectuals began to teach people the religious-political issues by setting up commentary circles and also by writing or translating books in this regard they tried to reinforce this aspect of the movement. The first work that Ayatollah Khamenei chose in this regard, was the book written by the Egyptian Islamist Sayyid Qutb entitled The Future in the Realm of Islam. Then he translated the book. It is written on the first page of the Persian edition of this book that, “in this book, you will be introduced to the Islam which brings life, light and prosperity for humanity, through an unprecedented, analytical and detailed discussion.”
In fact, Ayatollah Khamenei translated this book and made comments about its content for many reasons all of which are mentioned in the introduction of the book. First of all, this book tried to show the compatibility of Islam with contemporary rationality. For Ayatollah Khamenei, this was an important issue that, the book while adhering to religious principles and foundations, provided a picture of religion that was compatible with the requirements of the time. The compatibility of Islam with contemporary rationality was so important to him that in the introduction of the book he speaks of a new understanding of Islam and states that Islam still has not been understood as it should be. In fact, the religious functions were increasing in this new understanding of religion, and, contrary to the view of some traditionalists, who reduced religion to certain customs and rituals, it considered religion to be encompassing social and historical responsibilities which should be dealt with in today’s world. One of the implications of the rationalist view of religion was that religion cannot be confined to certain meaningless rituals and practices. Religious practices are interconnected and there is a philosophy that lies behind every rites and ritual that must be understood. Religious behaviour and practices shape a body that should not be considered without the soul, which is the intellectual foundations.
On this basis, Ayatollah Khamenei believed that Islam had not yet been properly understood and that many had reduced Islam to some traditions and practices. Ayatollah Khamenei here highlights the role of foreign colonial governments believing that this situation is related to the activities of those states. Because they do not want the spirit of Islam to be understood by the Islamic community. If so, their illegitimate interests would be endangered in these societies, and Islam would act as a saviour. The colonial governments favour more attention of people to externals of religion; provided that this approach does not lead to understanding the essence of religion. Ayatollah Khamenei, while agreeing with the author on the view that the future belongs to Islam, also believes that the elite has the responsibility to make reforms in the status quo. He evaluates the translation of the book to serve such a purpose and states that the advantage of the book is introducing the nature of religion as it is. Ayatollah Khamenei wrote this introduction in March 1966.
As the book shows, Ayatollah Khamenei’s conception in the mid-1960s was that the general trend regarding Islam, especially among the youth, is on the rise, and this is a promise of future developments in the country.
One of the significant points in his translation and introduction is the existence of positive approaches and hope for the future that is rooted in the mental and religious environment of the author, which reinforces the tendency towards religious revolution. The hope for the future generates activities and active conduct and would prevent isolation and inaction. Another important point is that Ayatollah Khamenei speaks of a concept called the “instinct of the tendency toward religion”; it means he believes that humans are inherently in need of religion and cannot live without it. Therefore, if they do not become acquainted with true religion, they will inevitably turn to a distorted religion which is a model of religion that only likens the real one in terms of appearance and externals. While believing that Iranians and Muslims were afflicted with this social disease in the 1960s, Ayatollah Khamenei emphasizes the role of the “enemy” in these developments. The enemy could not act without the weakness or companionship of the puppet governments. In a time when there were no global media like what we have today, these activities either were rooted in the weakness of the established regime, that is to say, the Pahlavi regime, or were supported by the government. Therefore, the translation of this book, especially its introduction and its footnotes provided by the translator, did not appeal to the Pahlavi regime and hence it was banned.
The notable ideological points in the book Future in the Realm of Islam, of which the Pahlavi Security Organization was also aware, were that when the translator criticized colonialism and its actions in the book, he would challenge and criticize the Pahlavi regime as well. Some parts of the book The World in the Realm of Islam which were recognized by the government as harmful or in other words the ideology of struggle include:
1) “After the emergence of the revolution and making huge factories and producing new things in Europe, the Westerners turned their greedy eyes towards the oil and other resources that existed in Asian and African countries.”
2) “Since that time, the West’s seizures and invasions of the Eastern countries in various forms have begun, and the country was provided with religious missionaries, commercial companies, long-term loans, ex gratia financial supports from military advisers, etc.
“With its special teachings based on which Muslims are seen as superior to all nations and populations, Islam calls them the Party of God which is the only Party that gains succession and felicity... and that is why the agents of colonial powers through different means try to put obstacles in the way of spreading the correct religious teachings and acquainting the masses with the facts of Islamic doctrines. Likewise, it becomes clear why they do not prevent people from or probably support practicing religious rites and ceremonies.”
4) We witnessed an example of such acts when the British, French and Israeli governments invaded the Islamic state of Egypt, which ended with the defeat of the colonialist states. Eventually, it became clear that the trilateral declaration issued by the great Western American, British, and French governments in the name of guarding the Arab-Israel peace process had been only a legal excuse for protecting the Israeli borders.”
5) “If their plan of life is divine, that is, it is derived from heavenly belief and thoughts, people would follow the religion of God and worship Him. But if this program is designed and influenced by the environment or the desires of the nation or it is favoured by a king and in sum, it is rooted in human thought and philosophy, those people would not be considered as believers and monotheists. Rather, they should be called people who worship the environment, the nation, the king or the master. “
6) “This revolution is the sharp reaction of the French middle class against the cruelties and oppressors of the king and the royal class of that country.”
7) “Imperfect implementation of the law of land reforms, although it initially pleased farmers and villagers, provokes the anger and dissatisfaction of this class.”
8) “People like Dulles exist in any time and place; that is, they are interested in religion as long as it serves their political ambitions and protects them against their enemies, otherwise, they are the main enemy of religion and its supporters.”
9) “We saw that the colonialist and authoritarian powers not only do not oppose some so-called religious rites and practices but also support them to the extent that they attract the public attention. For example, they even send horses for food, help people in organizing and holding religious ceremonies, attend mourning and celebrating events, or hold such gatherings.”
10) “The epic spirit of Shi’ism, with its innate dynamism, has rarely allowed Shi’ah scholars to, like the scholars of other religious, come to serve the government or monarchies, fulfilling their worldly desires at the expense of losing their religion... and make the divine decrees a tool for tyrannical rulers and policymakers to take advantage of.”
11) “In today’s world which faces crisis and heresies, the Shi’ah clergies following their righteous predecessors have not remained silent and inactive with respect to the teachings and innovations of the infidel rulers, and the rightful leader of the Shi’ahs accepted the imprisonment and exile, and other religious scholars also joined him and accompanied him in this honourable act.”
In fact, in decoding these contents, which were the translator’s additions to the text, the SAVAK objectified the examples of these concepts and so concluded that: These combatant and dissatisfied clerics are trying to portray the Shah and the Pahlavi regime as the “servant of colonialism.” They see the Shah and the Pahlavi government as partners of the Western companies and Christian missionaries. In their view, the Shah has undermined the principle of “al-Islamu Ya’lu Yu’la Wa La ’Alayh (Islam will always be superior or victorious; It will never be surpassed or defeat)” and has caused the Muslims of Iran, who should not take a weak position in the face of non-Muslim foreigners, to be in practice placed in such a position. In fact, speaking of the Egyptian state as the “servants of colonialism” as it was criticized by Sayyid Qutb could also be applied to the Pahlavi government.
In other words, in the paradigm of the “Islamic world” and as it has become common in the literature of political forces since the time of Sayyid Jamal al-Din Asadabadi, the corrupt rulers by being weak and dependent have served the expansion of colonialism in Islamic countries. For Western colonial governments, maintaining the security of Israel is a high priority in foreign policy, while the Pahlavi regime also seeks to expand and deepen its relations with it. One of the major criticisms of the Pahlavi regime is also that it has distanced itself from the Islamic laws and has confronted monotheism by adopting non-Islamic laws and policies.
Also, in addition to the above-mentioned cases, the Pahlavi regime is an aristocracy, which has been associated with injustice and oppression. But this situation will not last long, as in France, too, when the French middle class (in 1789) was confronted with the cruelty and oppression of the king and the royal classes, it showed a revolutionary reaction. However, the Shah and the Pahlavi regime tried to prevent popular uprisings by taking measures such as “land reforms,” pretending to observe religious teachings, and even acting upon them. However, this act of observing the external aspects of religion aims to remove religion from society and prevent the prevalence of the influence of religious nature in society and government. But as Shi’ah history has shown, the Shi’ah scholars will not be deceived by such acts and will not serve the “worldly masters and government.” Just as the pious predecessor, Imam Khomeini, stood up against the policies of the Pahlavi regime and even was imprisoned and then exiled and the future belongs to Islam and Muslims.
After the book “Future in the Realm of Islam” was published, Ayatollah Khamenei has translated and authored a book titled “Muslims in the Indian Liberation Movement.” The book was originally written by Abdul-Munim al-Nahr with the title of “Kifah al-Muslimin fi Tahrir al-Hind.” Due to much research and additions and some changes to the content, he preferred not to publish the work as a mere translation. The book, which was published in 1968, highlighted the role of religion in the struggle against colonialism and in serving the interests of the Indian nation. This work, while explaining Gandhi’s peaceful movement, highlighted its weaknesses and illustrated its differences with Lal Nehru and Abul-Kalam Azad.
Ayatollah Khamenei begins with this point that Muslims organized most of the movements in India against the British and hence “there was no doubt that Muslims are the most ardent and dangerous enemies of colonialism.” Accordingly, the British invaders provoked the Hindu hatred of Muslims by writing history books for schools and the general public, and, on the other hand, they began to pursue the policy of ‘divide and rule’ by spreading sectarianism.
According to the book “Muslims in the Indian Liberation Movement,” what led to the disagreement between the Muslims and the Gandhi movement was, in addition to the above-mentioned point, Gandhi’s method of struggle. According to Ayatollah Khamenei, Gandhi’s peaceful campaigns were only seemed to be functional whereas in practice they were ineffective and unsuccessful. In fact, Ayatollah Khamenei’s view was that using such methods in the real struggles is just a fantasy and is rooted in the idealistic thoughts and “if one sacrifices the facts of his life for these deceptive fantasies and establishes his life on the basis of ideal and impractical thoughts,” he has made a big mistake about himself, and when a nation, especially the one who is at war with an oppressive and inhuman enemy, adheres to such endless fantasies it will be a mistake which is far greater and much more dangerous.”
Ayatollah Khamenei writes that despite Muslims were among the first groups to join the Gandhi movement, but they gradually became discouraged because he had such a fantasy concerning the methods of his struggle. Because Gandhi sought to halt the struggle when it led to violence. In Ayatollah Khamenei’s view, the fundamental criticism was that Gandhi with that mystical morale could not lead such a movement. He was “serving his mystical and priestly morale rather than India and its independence.”
The main theme of the book “Muslims in the Indian Liberation Movement” was that in combating colonialism there are two different ways which are rooted in two different religions and ideologies. The first one which is idealistic and puts an unrealistic emphasis on the peaceful struggle belonged to Gandhi who followed Jainism. The second method, which was realistic, belonged to Muslims. Although basically, they did not oppose the peaceful struggles and even used to pursue such a method before Gandhi, they realized realistically that using violence is needed in some cases. It was because of this disagreement in methods that Gandhi’s concern in the implementation of his program was Muslims, because “he knew that because of their religious upbringing and teachings they cannot remain indifferent and silent in the face of oppression.”
Quoting a statement of Abul-Kalam Azad one of the Muslim leaders of India at the time, and opposing the methods adopted by Gandhi, Ayatollah Khamenei writes: “Islam has defined two ways for Muslims who are oppressed: one to oppose the dictatorship of the Muslim rulers and the other for confronting the foreign governments... for confronting the Muslim dictators the Muslims have to implement the principle of Enjoining good and Forbidding evil…but in the face of the foreign enemy a Muslim should use weapons and fight to the last breath and kill or be killed.”
In 1970, Ayatollah Khamenei translates another book of Sayyid Qutb titled An Assertion against Western Civilization and a Perspective of the Mission of Islam. In this work, which criticizes the Western civilization, Ayatollah Khamenei’s statement in the introduction part and the footnotes was that despite these disadvantages and crises, the Iranian society has moved towards losing its “self-esteem” in the face of Western civilization. Therefore, by translating and publishing this book he sought to raise awareness about returning to self through showing the crisis of this civilization. Ayatollah Khamenei writes: After this group was brainwashed, the nobilities were declined and instead the imitations and simulations emerged. Changing and altering the traditions was carried out by a mass of unaware people, who, like the hypnotized people, destroyed everything.”
Ayatollah Khamenei believed that colonialism is nourished and expanded its influence in the country through westernization. He considered the danger of Western civilization to be serious believing that: “The giant of Western civilization that now stands before us is a fact... which is increasing in size and is occupying more spaces.”
Of course, he did not consider Western civilization as a general concept of which acknowledging some components would require the acceptance of others. By dividing Western civilization into different parts, he considers its industry, technology, and science to be worthy of use and writes: “What makes industrial civilization unbearable is the incompatibility of this civilization with humanity.” In his view, the crisis of spirituality is the most crisis in the West which has separated it from humanness. Because of this crisis, those who live in that civilization have lost the meaning and tranquillity of life. Moreover, this crisis caused people to turn to irrational mystical schools of thought which will not be fruitful in the end.
Believing that Islam encompasses all these elements, Ayatollah Khamenei seeks to present a solution to this great disease and writes: “In my opinion, this miracle belongs to Islam. Other ways will lead to nothing but wander... since this divine school is the birthplace of science, power and wisdom it can guide man towards science, power and wisdom.”
In fact, at this stage, by producing these contents and ideas - which were aimed at consolidating the ideology of the struggle as well as the ideology of religious forces - he saw the strengthening of his ideology in challenging the rival ideology that belonged to secular and “Westernized” intellectuals so that by criticizing it, he could show the construct and strength of Islamic ideology. He also dealt with the Pahlavi regime, which was a symbol of following this civilization and ideology, in the same way. He made it clear that Western elites themselves are challenging their civilization today, and that the Pahlavi regime and Westerners, without paying attention to the flaws of the West, are moving towards it with their ignorance.
This ideology outlined the ideal past the future utopia emphasizing that this is where the discussion lies. Because the Westerners were only focused on Westernization without believing in that past and bright future. Therefore, by portraying a glorious past and the ideal future of “self,” he suggests a way to return to self. In this way, this “assertion against the Western civilization” while providing a “perspective of Islam” sought to reject the claims of rival ideology regarding three issues (past, present and future). To further confirm this, he refers the readers to the critique of Western thinkers after World War II.
On the other hand, Ayatollah Khamenei, in order to show the preference of Islamic ideology over Western ideology refers to true Islam, not the real Islam because he knew that the Muslim community of that day in all Islamic civilization could not make such a claim due to various weaknesses. Therefore, in the article that completes his discussion, he implicitly states that such an ideology is not yet available and is not provided for everyone. The point was that such talent exists and people should seek it and produce it. In this way, criticizing the type of Islam which people observe he writes: “It is nothing but a shadow of what was revealed to Prophet (s) who fulfilled the mission of creating a great human revolution... we should find out the causes of this distortion and fight against it, show the true face of him and renew his mission.”
In 1967, Ayatollah Khamenei translated a book entitled Peace of Imam al-Hasan; the Most Glorious Heroic Flexibility in History and described its publication as “one of his long-standing aspirations.” In fact, what made this matter so important to him was the interpretation that was popular in the Shi’ah society for centuries regarding the character of Imam al-Hasan and his peace. This peace not only made the second Shi’ah Imam to be regarded as a figure who does not favour fighting but also throughout history created disagreements between some Shi’ah groups who had two different and conflicting views of Imam al-Hasan and Imam al-Husayn. However, Ayatollah Khamenei considered this interpretation incorrect and believed that the two methods were not fundamentally different. Through that approach, Imam al-Hasan pursued the goals which, if not fulfilled, the grounds would not be prepared for Imam al-Husayn’s uprising in the years to come. In this sense, Imam al-Hasan’s peace was a “revolution” and a prelude to a “greater revolution.”
Imam al-Sadiq was another Imam of whom, according to Ayatollah Khamenei, there is a false image among the Shi’ahs. This view should be changed. At the beginning of the revolution, and at a time when “leadership was the most important issue of the movement,” he tried to correct this historically constructed image. Illustrating the false image of Imam al-Sadiq, Ayatollah Khamenei refers to narrations that have ignored the dignity of Imam al-Sadiq’s leadership. He writes that although the “believers” and “prejudiced” have two different opinions of Imam al-Sadiq, yet both agree that Imam al-Sadiq did not take the leadership position. Apart from the “prejudiced” ones, who were expected to have such a view, the main difference between Ayatollah Khamenei and such approaches was a tradition that its narrators would believe that religious leaders should not engage in struggle, politics and government, introducing them, for example, Imam al-Sadiq, as merely a Jurist who is teaching people some lessons.
However, according to Ayatollah Khamenei, the lives of Shi’ah Imams cannot be reported without “Islamic ideology.” Not only Imam al-Sadiq but also the behaviour of all Imams had been based on the “ideology” of Islam. Therefore, this method and criterion of analysis should be used regarding all of them, although while observing that “different times have different requirements and hence tactics and special methods must be compatible with the requirements of any time.”
He views all the infallible Shi’ah Imams as a human being who has lived for about 250 years. Therefore, the difference in their behaviours is due to the changing of the environmental conditions that have been varied in that period, not the result of the difference in their personalities.
Archive of Ayatollah Khamenei
leave your comments