Imam Khomeini, Ethics and Politics
Man in the State of Nature
One of the questions that preoccupy the thinkers’ mind is this: In essence, what is man—angelic or devilish? Assuming that there had been no powerful institution to administer and control human beings, in such a case what would have been the people’s behaviour toward one another? Would they have mutually respected and observed their rights, or would they, like wolves, have fallen on and torn one another apart?
Any sort of answer to this question necessitates the existence of a specific political and educational system. If we say that the human being is intrinsically wicked, in that case we will inevitably need to perpetually control individuals. If we declare that man is innately angelic, it follows that we have to remove all restrictions and limitations, and set him free.
In this context, in order to comprehend the Imām’s viewpoint well, we cannot help but embark on the subject by touching on the views of other thinkers as well, and to study their historical circumstances. Hence, we will deal initially on the viewpoint of Thomas Hobbes[56] on this issue as well as his famous statement, “Man is the wolf of other man.” Subsequently, we will explore the view of Jean-Jacques Rousseau,[57] and then examine the Imām’s point of view. As such, we will approach the discussion from the following three (3) angles:
• Hobbes’ view;
• Rousseau’s view; and
• Imām Khomeinī’s view.
Hobbes’ view
Thomas Hobbes was one the greatest English political thinkers. He was a
skeptic philosopher. As he failed to present exact and fixed foundations
for ethics, he resorted to cynicism and accepted relativism in ethics.
With the denial of the exact foundations of ethics, he had no
alternative but to present a principle for it in society.
It is owing to this that he arrived at the conclusion that for the appearance of morality in society, we are in need of a centralized and resolute authority that would maintain and promote public morality. In the political realm, he was anti-democracy and a partisan of absolute monarchy. He believed that only in the presence of a centralized authority could the morals of society be preserved. His beliefs were greatly influenced by the events of those days in England as well as the civil wars there.
One of the key concepts of Hobbes is the expression, ‘man in the state of nature’. What is meant by ‘the state of nature’ is a hypothetical state wherein there is no political institution and administrative organization existing in the society, the people being left to their own business and to do whatever they like.
Since the instinct of love and defence of one’s self is very strong in everybody, the people would be at each other’s throats and would destroy one another: “In the state of nature in which everybody is his own master, one is at odds with the others concerning the nomenclature of things, and it is these differences that give rise to disputes and conflicts.”[58]
Life in such a society is very difficult, laborious and perilous; in the words of Hobbes it is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.”[59] According to Hobbes, in no way is this kind of living to one’s benefit and advantage. Therefore, members of society themselves come to the conclusion that they have to choose a person or persons and give them enough and complete prerogatives to maintain security and so prevent individuals from assailing one another. ‘Civil society’, ‘commonwealth’, ‘civitas’ and ‘country’ are all born of this.
According to Hobbes’ view, civil society is the opposite of the state of nature, the latter being nothing but life in the jungle and even worse, for it is possible for the animals to have rules and regulations for themselves and to respect one another’s domain; yet human beings in the state of nature are not like that.
Such an approach to human beings draws Hobbes toward absolute monarchical rule, totally centralized authority and the creation of powerful and commanding supervisory organizations, drags him totally away from populism, and makes him conclude, thus: “It is, therefore, clear that so long as there is no government over the people to compel them to obey, they will exist in a state, which they have named ‘a state of war’, this war pitting every individual against another.”[60]
Hobbes’ views on ethics, human beings and politics are highly
controversial. Many are those who have repudiated or endorsed them, have
uncovered their inner contradictions and shown his contradictory
statements one by one. In the words of Richard Tock: Even during his
life time Hobbes was reputed to have conflicting thoughts. He was
regarded as a stubborn debater and an irascible dogmatist; yet, he would
vigorously assail any kind of dogmatism. He was strongly against the
notion of the authority of the Church as was, for example, exerted over
the universities; yet, he wanted his philosophical works to be adopted
as textbooks in them. While extolling and commending liberalism, he used
to support absolute rule that exercises complete authority over
intellectual activities.[61]
The most important criticism levelled against his pessimistic view on
man is that if human beings, as what he says, are so bloodthirsty, how
did they arrive at the conclusion that they themselves should create an
establishment that would prevent them from transgressing against others?
Hobbes replies that they had come to this conclusion through their sound
reasoning. In that case, it is the same sound reasoning, which is
superior to their instincts and directs them toward a life devoid of
want and hostility; this, however, is not meant to be a critique of
Hobbes’ outlook.
Rather, we are after articulating this perspective on man. It was an
outlook that deeply influenced later thinkers who showed each of these
influences in one way or another. The interesting point on the works of
Hobbes is that he gave the title, Leviathan, to his most important
political writing; what he meant by Leviathan was the same centralized
ruling authority. Leviathan means a legendary sea-monster that devours
everything. It is this oddity and irony that the government’s position
can possibly annihilate its citizens and, at the same time, its
existence is necessary.
Anyhow, Hobbes’ standpoint on the human being has its roots in the
older tradition of Judeo-Christian faith. In fact, according to both the
Old and the New Testaments, man is sinful and innately impure. It is
this legacy that reaches Hobbes and which he theorizes, and on the basis
of which he lays the foundation of his ideal political system. According
to the Book of Genesis,[62] Adam and Eve ignored the commandment of God
not to go near the forbidden tree, and due to the temptation of the
serpent, they ate the fruit of the tree. As a consequence, they earned
the wrath of God; they were expelled from heaven and were sent down to
the accursed world.[63]
The sin that was committed by Adam and Eve, according to the Judeo-Christian tradition, did not embroil only them; rather, this sin passes down from generation to generation of humankind, and is deemed as being part of man’s nature. Accordingly, man is inherently sinful and, by nature, evil. This sinfulness is not only restricted to human beings for “even the heavens are not pure.”[64] According to the ancient Psalms of David, “Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.”[65]
Paul, the greatest official exponent of the Christian Church and the
promoter of Christianity, in his epistle to the Roman Christians thus
claims,
“What shall we conclude then? Are we any better? Not at all! We have
already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin.
As it is written: ‘There is no-one righteous, not even one; there is
no-one who understands, no one who seeks God’.”[66]
Elsewhere, he concludes that “the whole world is a prisoner of
sin.”[67]
At any rate, sin is among the rudimentary concepts in the
Judeo-Christian tradition. The human being is said to be inherently
imprisoned in its clutches; he will be born with it and it has a place
in his natural disposition [fitrah]. Only through faith is it possible
for him to absolve himself. Such an approach to the nature of mankind,
regarding sin to be at one with man’s nature, provided fertile ground
for the emergence of pessimistic and anti-democratic notions of persons
such as Hobbes. As a result, we come up against a theory that reckons
man as wolf unto another, regards him as innately evil, and believes
that there must always be an authority to control him by forcible
means.
Rousseau’s view
Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s (1712-1778) view is diametrically in opposition
to that of Hobbes. His thoughts had a positive influence on the Great
Revolution of France. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, on
which his famous statement has left its imprint, owes him too much. In
the beginning of his celebrated book, The Social Contract, Rousseau
writes, “Man is born free; but he lives everywhere in slavery.”[68]
Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights thus also states:
“All human beings are born free and equal in…rights.”[69]
In contrast to Hobbes’ view and the traditional notion of the Church
based on the sinful nature of man, Rousseau believed that man in the
state of nature is decent, well-mannered, free-minded, and peace-loving,
and that it is the society which corrupts him. In his opinion the
debasement of man commences when he joins the civil society and
relinquishes his own freedom. A human being left to himself would never
resort to attacking others and waging war against anybody:
Man is by nature amiable and timid; he runs away from the least danger.
He acquires a pugnacious temperament by virtue of habits and experience.
Pride, interest, prejudgments, vengeance, and all yearnings that can
draw man to welcome the risk of death do not exist in nature. It is only
when man enters human society that the thought of assaulting others
enters his mind. After becoming a citizen he changes into a soldier.
Therefore, man, by nature, has no inclination to wage war against his
fellow human beings.[70]
So long as man lives in the lap of nature and is not a captive of
society, he is in harmony and intimacy with all the constituent parts of
nature. His needs are limited and can easily be met. Neither is there
any sign of avarice and covetousness, nor envy and the killing of one
another:
We see him eat his fill under the oak, drink water from the first
spring that is within reach and quenches his thirst. He spreads out his
bedding under the same tree that provided him with food. In this manner;
all his needs are satisfied. The earth is absorbed in its natural
productive processes, and a substantial part of it is covered with vast
expanses of forest.[71]
It is regrettable that this state of affairs does not last long. It is
not clear why man abandons this comfort and serenity, and decides to
establish a human society. This act is tantamount to forfeiting one’s
own natural freedom and destroying one’s own pure nature and natural
disposition; for “it is the society that corrupts and defiles human
beings… the more human beings gather together, to the same extent will
they be further corrupted.”[72]
The source of human wars and conflicts is the desire to own, which in
turn is an offshoot of society. It is this longing for possession that
drives human beings to kill one another, and causes so much bloodshed:
The first person who erected a wall around a plot of land and said,
‘This is mine,’ thinking the people to be so naïve as to believe him,
was the actual founder of civil society. If someone had pulled out the
wooden stakes around the above-mentioned land… and had shouted to his
fellowmen, ‘Do not listen to this swindler; land belongs to everybody,’
the world might have possibly been safe from crimes, wars, homicide,
rancour, vengeance, and suffering.[73]
In short, Rousseau’s views which are mainly found in The Social
Contract and Desire and Discourse on the origin of the lack of
equality, gave rise to different and conflicting reactions and his
naturalist understanding became highly controversial. One of the
fiercest oppositions was expressed by Voltaire,[74] another one of the
enlightened philosophers. Rousseau, who had much attachment to him, sent
him in 1755, a copy of the book, Discourse, on the origin of the lack
of equality. While expressing gratitude to him, Voltaire replied,
thus:
I have received the book that you have written against the human race,
and wish to thank you for it. Such intelligence had never been applied
to fool us people. By reading your book, people would like to walk on
their two hands and two feet. But for me, since I abandoned such a habit
sixty years ago, I feel, with all regret, that to begin it again is
beyond me. To search for the savage people of Canada is also not
possible. The ailments with which I am afflicted have put me in need of
European surgeons. Moreover, there is a war going on in those regions,
and copying our actions has also made the savages corrupt like
ourselves.[75]
As such, contrary to Hobbes, Rousseau puts emphasis on the pure nature
of man and regards the civil society as its demolisher. In view of the
fact that there is no possibility of perpetuating the state of nature
and, in effect, such a state has never existed, being more hypothetical
than real, Rousseau’s solution is the acceptance of civil society
provided that it is based on the social contract and guarantees
individual liberties. Yet, in practice, Rousseau’s idea stems from
either the negation of government and attacking society or results in a
self-centered government. It is this point that thinkers have seriously
dealt with but is beyond the ambit of our discussion.
However, what is interesting for us here is his outlook on the nature of man. He holds it immune from any kind of blemishes and has reckoned even training and education as corrupting this wholesome natural disposition [fitrah]. In the book, Emile,[76] he suggests that we should completely leave the child to himself to grow in whatever way he likes as in the case of wild pennyroyal, and be one with nature.
If Hobbes used to view the nature of man so pessimistically and regarded
the existence of a powerful government to be indispensable for deterring
human beings from aggression against one another, Rousseau stands on the
proposition that in reality it is the society and government that
tarnish the clear nature of man, the best state of man being that very
state of nature.
Imām Khomeinī’s view
These two traditions and perspectives have both advocates and antagonists. They have been put to the test time and again and have shown their shortcomings. Doubtlessly, each of these two outlooks possesses a part of the truth.
If human beings are left to themselves and no law or moral principle controls them, certainly egoism would sway them to compete with and, finally, obliterate one another.
Apparently, the cynical outlook of Hobbes is more in consonance with reality than the positive view of Rousseau. In Islamic anthropology, strong threads [of the reality] can be seen from Hobbes vantage point.
According to Qur’anic narration, since God announced to the angels His intention of creating man and appointing him as His vicegerent on earth, they asked all together in protest: “Wilt Thou place therein one who will do harm therein and will shed blood, while we, we hymn Thy praise and sanctify Thee?”[77]
In this objection of the angels, they indicated two points: one, this human creature would be a blood-shedding being; the other, they (the angels) were more deserving than man to be the vice-regents of God. What is important for us is the first point. The angels, for certain reasons, used to point to the shedding of blood and cruelties of this creature, perceiving the big and disastrous wars written on his face.
Interestingly enough, God neither rebuffed their views, nor said to them that man will not be murderous. Instead, in various instances, including this one, He put the stamp of approval, and described man as iniquitous and imprudent.[78] God answered them with only a single sentence: “Surely I know that which ye know not.”[79]
This general statement conveyed to the angels the fact that God also
knows the other side of the coin of man’s existence while they see only
his murderous aspect. In such a way, He told them that though man is
murderous and cruel, there is a more important feature in him that
justifies his creation and appointment as God’s representative on earth.
In this manner, murder and bloodshed have been moulded in the existence
of man and he has an inborn inclination to transgress his bounds and
perpetrate tyranny.[80]
Of course, this point should be mentioned that this trait has no
relation whatsoever to the Christian notion of Original Sin. According
to the Glorious Qur’an, both Adam and Eve, too, were recalcitrant and
disobeyed God’s commandment; as a consequence, they were expelled from
paradise and sent down to earth.
Nevertheless, after realizing their error, they repented and God, in turn, accepted their repentance, and the spiritual taint of that recalcitrance was wiped out. God, the Most High, states that Adam was beguiled by Satan: “And Adam disobeyed his Lord, so went astray. Then his Lord chose him, and relented toward him, and guided him.”[81]
Thus, this point has no bearing at all on the Christian belief on the original sin of man. Such is the nature of man, egoist and self-centered.
This is the truth of the matter. Man possesses a predatory and destructive makeup. This is what Freud[82] called, ‘instinct of annihilation’ and considers it one of the two fundamental instincts of man. It is the same instinct that has been the cause of the ruinous and widespread wars throughout human history, has spawned great tragedies, and been responsible for father killing son, and son killing father. Of course, this instinct is vital in the life of man. If human beings were not egoistic, they would not have been able to contend with other animals and natural disasters, and would have been exterminated.
From this perspective, man is not different from predatory animals and
is subject to the law of ‘kill or be killed’. He destroys others in
order to provide for himself, and gives priority to himself over others.
The Imām describes this aspect of man in the following terms:
It is evident that at the time of his birth, after passing through
certain stages, man is no better than a weak animal and has no
distinction over other animals, except for his potentiality of becoming
a human being. That is, his humanness is potential, not present.
Therefore, man is an animal in actuality in the initial stages of his
life in this world. No power but the law of animal nature, which governs
through the faculties of Desire [shahwah] and Anger [ghadab], rules
over him.[83]
Historical observations and reflections of thinkers corroborate and
uphold this view and perspective; yet, this is not the end of the story.
Man is murderous; yet, his pursuit is not only bloodshed. He is an
animal; yet, he does not remain within the bounds of being animal
[hayawāniyyah]. It is true that since the moment of his entering the
world of existence, man is subject to the logic of animal life and in
the words of the Imām:
Though it is not directly relevant to our topic, it is essential to
know that the human soul is by nature and instinct inclined to believe
not only in the principle of tawhīd [monotheism], but to follow all
truthful doctrines also. Yet, since the moment of birth and stepping
into this universe, man starts growing and developing along with his
natural urges and animal desires.[84]
In spite of this, man can let his other aspect prevail over this
aspect. This other aspect of man is evident to God though hidden and
concealed to the angels. This aspect of man’s existence is the very
fitrah [natural disposition], which has been given remarkable emphasis
in our religious texts. The key solution to this concern is the
fitrah, which have recently been given much attention by Islamic
thinkers such as the late ‘Allāmah Tabātabā’ī[85] and Mutahharī,[86] and
on the basis of which they have proved and established a great deal of
knowledge and learning.
Fitrah means natural disposition and origination. In reply to the
question concerning the noble āyah [verse], which states: “The nature
(framed) of Allah, in which He hath created man,”[87] Imām as-Sādiq
(‘a) stated that it meant that God created all the people with a
monotheistic instinct.[88]
According to the Imām, fitrah does not exclusively mean tawhīd
[monotheism], as “it includes all the true teachings which God Almighty
has ingrained in the nature of His slaves”[89] and these have been
moulded in their being and personality.
The Imām elaborates on the role and place of fitrah in the human
instinct, as well as some of its manifestations, in the exposition of
the eleventh hadīth in his Sharh-e Chehel Hadīth. The most important
principle of man’s fitrah is his being monotheist; second, belief in
the hereafter; and third, acceptance of the principle of prophethood
[nubuwwah]. Another decree on man’s fitrah is:
The natural inclination to seek perfection [that] is so universal [in]
that if all the eras of human existence are probed and each of human
individuals, no matter to what group or nation he may belong, is
questioned, a love of perfection will be found to be part of his nature
and his heart will be found to be pulled toward it.[90]
It is possible that owing to the influence of some circumstances or
type of upbringing, individuals may have diverse opinions on the meaning
and connotation of perfection. In essence, however, nobody holds a
dissenting view. Everyone is looking for something which he thinks is
better [and] similar is the case of men of science and craft and that of
the entire human species. Whatever the activity and field of their
concern, their eagerness grows with achievement and is directed toward
the higher degrees of perfection. The more they progress and advance,
the more their eagerness grows for the higher degrees of perfection; its
fire is never extinguished and becomes more intense every day.[91]
It is the same inclination to perfection and excellence that drives
forward the caravan of human civilization and learning, and turned the
early humans, who were afraid of the fierce and dreadful animals, into
masters and rulers of the planets. It is the same penchant for
perfection that eclipses man’s murderous nature and makes him determined
to overcome his defects and display the excellences in him. It is the
same essence of fitrah that renders possible the founding of
communities and civil society. It is the very quintessence that brings
to the fore the murderous man’s merit to be the Vicegerent of God and
the epitome of divine attributes.
Had it not been for this essence, no social contract—whether in the world of imagination or in that of reality—would have been concluded; human beings would never be willing to give up some of his interests and tolerate others. So, Hobbes in saying that man is the wolf of another man and Rousseau in opining that man is, by nature, pure and peace-loving, are both right. Each of them has seen one facet of man’s being. But if man were only wolf, the establishment of a civil society would not have been possible. On the other hand, if he were only angelic and peaceful in nature, do all these crimes and murders then make sense?
Hence, man is both this and that, but at the same time, is [purely] neither this nor that. In this context, the view of the Imām is both realistic and optimistic. He propounds that when man is born, he possesses abundant potentialities for deriving excellences as well as instincts for his security and survival. In fact, since the time he sets foot on earth, man is in need of attributes that could keep him away from dangers.
In this aspect, he is not significantly different from the other animals. Self-love, the need for food and drink, and the need to ward off danger and to reproduce are all attributes common to human beings and other animals. But, man does not remain in that stage as he possesses the capability to go beyond it and attain spiritual perfections while the other animals are devoid of that potentiality and only revolve in the vicious cycle of their instincts.
In view of this, this monotheistic and perfection-seeking disposition is the demarcation line between human being and animal. Nonetheless, it does not necessarily mean that as he enjoys a truth-seeking disposition man is no longer in need of training and education, and that every human being actually possesses all excellences. Man is de facto no less than an animal. It is only through self-edification that he can elevate himself from that position, leave behind him the degrees of existential perfection, and finally reach a station that is beyond imagination.
In short, from the viewpoint of Imām Khomeinī, man in the state of nature is a ruthless and self-centered creature possessing strong egoism, and in the words of the Imām, an adherent of the logic and “law of animal nature.”[92]
However, his monotheistic and perfection-seeking disposition—provided
that it constitutes the basis for growth and development—compels him to
overcome his self and his animalistic logic, and to tread the path of
perfection, and go beyond the stages of Divine Proximity, becoming the
vicegerent of God and all-encompassing embodiment of His Attributes.
But, this proximity to the Divine Presence is commensurate to the exit
from the door of selfishness and self-worship as “the gnostic journey
toward God and the spiritual migration does not take place without
leaving the dark house of the self and the disappearance of its
traces.”[93]