Imam Khomeini, Ethics and Politics
Politics as indispensable for the realization of Islam
Imām lived at a time when, owing to the influence of extensive
propaganda of the antagonists, and the ineffectual actions of the
protagonists, serious doubts on Islam and its functioning has arisen in
people’s minds. One of these doubts concerned the relationship between
Islam and politics, and the duty of the religious scholars vis-à-vis
politics.
The outcome of these doubts was the preponderance of the notion of separation of religion and politics, which the Imām used to attack severely, viewing it as an offshoot of the imperialist designs. At various places, he used to speak of the role of Islam in politics and also about the duty of all Muslims to be involved in politics and that the two were inseparable.
On various occasions he would point to the episode of Pākravān, the Head of the State Organization for Security and Information (SAVAK) of the Shāh’s regime, and his (Pākravān’s) views on the nature of politics and on the clergy keeping away from this chicanery [pedar-sūkhtegīh][472] saying that it was an imperialist design which a number of religious people believed.[473] And ‘politically-minded’ clergyman [ākhūnd-e siyāsī] in our religious culture was more a fault-finding [term], and even a term of vilification. “Once they find a fault with a particular cleric [ākhūnd], they say that he is a politically-inclined clergyman.”[474]
This is while if we do not take the social precepts of Islam into
account, nothing will be left of this pure religion except a spiritless
skeleton. The principal part of Islam is concerned with its social
aspect; giving effect to this depends on having power and being the
ruler. As such, Islam cannot be regarded as merely a personal religion
and the private matter of an individual. This notion that politics can
be separated from religion is either the outcome of the misconception of
the principle of religion, or the effect of the propaganda of the
ill-wishers. If man is a social and political being, and if we accept
that Islam is all-embracing and has a plan for every dimension of man,
the logical implication of these premises is that religion is not
separate from politics. So, all this talk about religion and politics
being separate is suspicious.
This slogan of the separation of religion from politics and the demand
that Islamic scholars should not intervene in social and political
affairs have been formulated and propagated by the imperialists; it is
only the irreligious who repeat them. Were religion and politics
separate in the time of the Prophet (s)? Did there exist, on one side,
a group of clerics, and opposite it, a group of politicians and leaders?
Were religion and politics separate in the time of the caliphs—even if
they were not legitimate—or in the time of the Commander of the Faithful
(‘a)? Did two separate authorities exist? These slogans and claims
have been advanced by the imperialists and their political agents in
order to prevent religion from ordering the affairs of this world and
shaping Muslim society.[475]
According to the Imām, [Islam] is a school of thought which, contrary
to non-monotheist schools of thought, has function and jurisdiction in
all aspects of the individual and society, material and spiritual,
culture and politics, military and economy. It has not neglected any
point including the most trivial one, which has a role in the
nourishment of man and the society as well as in the material and
spiritual advancement.[476]
With such an approach, basically, one who speaks about the separation
of the two categories has indeed not understood the function and nature
of neither of the two. “The meaning of ‘What have we to do with
politics?’ is that we should totally put Islam aside; Islam ought to be
set aside; Islam must be buried in our chambers; Islam must be buried in
our books.”[477]
In the view of the Imām, “Basically, the foundation of Islam is in politics.”[478] “The Messenger of God (s) has laid the edifice of politics in piety.”[479] “From the time of the Messenger of God (s) up to the period when there was not yet any deviation, politics and piety were in tandem.”[480]
These topics have been repeated time and again, and are more understandable and acceptable particularly in light of the definition of politics that he gives. As stated in the previous discussion, in his view, “Politics is meant to guide the society and take it forward. It should take into account all the interests of the society; it should consider all the dimensions of man and society and lead them to whatever is to their good, the good of the nation and of the individuals. This is specific to the prophets (‘a).”[481]
With this perspective, all the decrees and laws of Islam have a
political facet and “The religion of Islam is a political religion; it
is a religion in which everything is politics, including its acts of
devotion and worship.”[482] In this view too, “The moral precepts of
Islam are political as well.”[483]
Oneness of ethics and politics in Islam
The Imām believes that if man is left to himself he will fall under the
sway of his carnal desires and material needs and any type of
educational and political system, even the correct one, will be
incapable of nourishing his spiritual dimensions, whereas the foundation
of everything is spiritual and by reforming and nourishing this
dimension in man, all other problems will be solved.
In his opinion, the enigma of today’s world is a moral one and if it is not solved, the world will head downhill toward destruction. “The things that are threatening the world are not arms, bayonets, missiles, and the like… What is leading these people and these countries to perdition and decadence is the degenerations among the heads of countries and in the actions of the governments, which is emerging from the moral decadence.”[484]
According to the Imām, “The school of thought of Islam is not a materialist school; it is a material-spiritual school… Islam has come for the edification of man. The mission of Islam and the goal of all the prophets (‘a) is this—to nurture man.”[485]
Therefore, the source of every political approach should be ethics. Attention to spirituality is inevitable because “the foundation is spiritualities.”[486] Basically, without ethics, politics is incapable of guiding the people and securing their true interests and if we assume that there is a person who implements a correct policy… this policy is just one dimension of the politics which had been for the prophets (‘a), the saints [awliyā’], and now for the scholars [‘ulamā’] of Islam. Man is not one-dimensional.
The society too is not one-dimensional. Man is not a mere animal whose
affairs only concern food and eating. If there were both satanic
policies and correct policies, they would guide and lead the community
in one dimension and that is the animal dimension and material-social
dimension. Such is of politics which in Islam is fixed for the prophets
(‘a) and for the saints. They want to guide the nation, the nations,
the society, and the individuals, and to pave the way for all the
conceivable interests of man and the society.[487]
This point is the kernel of Imām Khomeinī’s moral-political thought. As
such, we are not dealing with two independent types of knowledge and
realms. Politics is the extension of ethics while ethics is the
underpinning of politics. By reflecting on the above-mentioned pivots,
this point becomes very clear. Since its goal is the growth of man’s
material and spiritual dimensions and as these dimensions are supposed
to be nourished concordantly and harmoniously, Islam has enacted laws
for mankind.
These laws, although concern the individual, while some others concern the society, and some have educational aspects while some others have political ones, all are in pursuit of a single goal. So, these laws ought to have various features. First of all, they should cover all the dimensions and aspects of man’s existence. The other is that they should be comprehensive in scope. Finally, they should not be defective. Instead, they should complement one another. In reality, such are the laws of Islam.
From the viewpoint of the Imām, “Islam has rules and regulations
covering the entire life of man, from the day he is born up to the
moment he enters his grave.”[488] Similarly, these laws are
comprehensive and versatile. “Islam is everything for this man; that is,
it has facts from nature to beyond nature to the celestial world; Islam
has a thesis; Islam has a program.”[489] And finally, all the laws of
Islam have a single framework.
The religion of Islam is not only a devotional religion… Neither is it
a mere political sect and religion. It is both devotional and political.
Its politics is identical with its devotion. Its devotion is
indistinguishable from its politics. That is, its very devotional aspect
has also a political facet.[490]
The Imām even goes to the extent of explicitly considering religious
ethics and politics as one. Anchored to the notion of unity of the two,
he emphatically says:
Islam’s ethical precepts are also political. That precept in the Qur’an
that all believers are brothers is an ethical precept, a social precept,
and a political precept as well. If the believers of the different
schools of thought existing in Islam, and who are faithful to God and
the Prophet of Islam (s), be as brothers to one another, just as one
has love for his own brother, and that all segments have love for one
another, apart from being a great Islamic morality with far-reaching
moral effects, it is a great social precept with great social
effects.[491]
To sum up, the core of the Imām’s view and the quintessence of his
thought on ethics and politics is the unity of the two, and its being
obvious and needless of argumentation. Now that ethics and politics are
interwoven, and that lying, oppression, injustice, mischief, etc., both
in the individual and social spheres are bad, the Islamic ruler should
try to always abide by the principles of ethics and not overstep its
limits. Although this task is difficult, it is possible. The only way of
preserving political authority and guaranteeing the real interests of
the Islamic system in the long term is to abide by the principles of
ethics and keep aloof from any form of deception at all costs. Not a
single Muslim statesman can overlook this principle. The last statement
of the Imām on the preservation of political authority and his emphasis
on ethics should always be our motto:
Through Islamic behaviour; preservation of the movement; advancement of
the movement; paying heed to the fact that God, the Sublime and Exalted,
approves of us; and Islamic conduct and morality, you can preserve this
power which has taken you to victory.”[492]
In conclusion, not only politics could, but should be, ethical. Through
these moral standards, politics should be cultivated since the basis and
essence of the Islamic teachings is such. History bears witness to the
prominence of this tenet. If this tenet has failed elsewhere, it cannot
be concluded that it will always fail and that it is an impossible
venture.
Nowadays, most of the political thinkers have arrived at the conclusion that it is only through ethical politics that the chance for survival exists. Even Machiavelli, who would stress so strongly on the independence of politics from ethics, believed that this immorality is more dependent on the type of government, not on the principle of politics. He used to say that the possibility of ethical politics is more in the republican form of government than in absolute and dictatorial governments.
Then, in order to substantiate his view he used to narrate an
interesting story. While discussing the drawing up of a contract, he
poses this question: “Which pact of alliance is more reliable—alliance
with a republican government or with an absolute monarchy?” Then, he
stresses the fact that there are various reasons for violation of
contracts, one of which is the state’s expedience.
But even in this case, republican governments remain faithful to their
contracts and promises for a longer period of time than the monarchies
do. There are abundant instances wherein a very minute gain has induced
a monarch to violate a treaty while profuse interests have failed to
compel a republican government to infringe an accord.
Themistocles said before the national assembly of Athens, “I have a
suggestion, which entails a great gain for Athens… The assembly
appointed Aristides to hear his suggestion on the basis of his
recommendation and decide. Themistocles said to Aristides, “All the
warships of Greek cities which have trust in their pacts of alliance
with Athens, have all collected in a certain place where they could all
be easily destroyed, and by destroying them, the Athenians could gain
control over the whole of Greece. After listening to this suggestion
made to the assembly, Aristides said, “The suggestion of Themistocles is
extraordinarily beneficial and extraordinary contrary to dignity. The
assembly voted against the suggestion.[493]
Thus, immorality and informality is not a political necessity; it is,
rather, a function of the form of rule and government, its goals and
officials.