Islam, Dialogue and Civil Society
Fears and Hopes
Even those opposed to our revolution's goals and ideals concede its
greatness. Unprecedented conspiracies and planning against us offer
ample proof that this revolution has been taken seriously, its greatness
indisputable even to its enemies. The Islamic revolution has spread its
momentum across the Muslim world and beyond. It has given new hope to
Muslims and downtrodden peoples who seek freedom and justice, hence
affecting the world's intellectual and political climate.
This sort of transformation cannot help but create friction and anxiety
in the society that originated it. Thus, our society's
post-revolutionary anxiety comes from the flux we are going through as
we enter a new phase in our history. But this should be no cause for
worry.
At the same time, proportional to its extent and seriousness, the fears
and hopes that this transformation have given rise to are great as well:
fear of all that threatens the revolution and hope for the bright,
fulfilling future of revolutionary society.
Thus, we expect thinkers to know not only the pillars of the revolution
but also the problems that it encounters. Thinkers must focus on the
relationship of the revolution to current realities in the world. Only
in this way can we preserve all that is true and just, changing what is
not.
In my mind, the primary challenge confronting our revolution is the
fundamental opposition or schism of its pillars with what is prevalent
in today's world. The intellectual foundations and goals of our
revolution are at odds with most globally dominant values, sometimes
negating them altogether. This is only natural because every revolution
opposes the current order, having arisen precisely for this purpose in
the first place. But in our case, this opposition is particularly
intense because of the power our opponent wields in the world of
ideas.
The world opposed to our revolution possesses a mature, well
thought-out intellectual and political system that has been centuries in
the making, fine-tuned by generations of seminal scientists and
thinkers. A centuries-long tradition of invention and innovation has
developed into a solid socio-political system whose main ammunition is
the title it has to a deeply entrenched value system. Its political and
philosophical vision commands a large, global audience and capable
scientists and experts back its system.
Our opponent also commands an awesome economic, political, and military
power, more diverse and complex than anything we have seen in the past.
But this should not intimidate us because great revolutions have come
face to face with powerful intellectual and political systems in the
past and succeeded in transforming them. We who claim that our
revolution is great cannot be overwhelmed by the power of the
revolution's opponents.
What makes our predicament more challenging, however, is that the
West's 'intellectual, moral, and political system, as portrayed and
propagated today, is attuned and adaptive to basic human nature. People
are naturally drawn to it.
The champions of modern thought and civilization claim that their
vision rests on 'freedom', a claim that we must take seriously
especially now that socialist thought has withered with the demise of
Soviet communism. This has been taken to mean that a system based on
Western notions of freedom is the only one that can endure.
The opponent of the Islamic revolution relies on the principle of
'freedom' and derives much of its power from this because freedom
represents a central, instinctive human goal. When freedom is depicted
as allowing people to do whatever they desire, this depiction matches
the strong human urge to live free of limitations. But in practice,
limitless freedom is not possible, and 'freedom', the way the West
defines it, is reducible to license or being free of the encroachment of
others.
Thus, the yardstick here is the thought and will of humans, Champions
of modern values believe that no obstacles should be placed in the way
of people that would prevent them from doing whatever they desire-unless
these wishes conflict with the wishes of others.
Although it must incorporate a series of human-designed restrictions, the system is in general agreeable with instinctive and basic human needs and desires, which do not have to be learned. In other words, all of the physical, worldly inclinations that the current Western order satisfies are strong motivations in every human's life. No work or education is necessary to find these inclinations compelling, and a system that satisfies them seems highly attractive.
Our revolution, on the contrary, has called people to values whose
attainment requires much will, effort, and labor. We base our system on
abstinence, honesty, and rectitude, which are not inborn in human
nature. And although humans have the talent to attain them, to achieve
them they must labor over many difficulties and accept that paying moral
dues requires much work.
Thus the opponent of our revolution, while possessing much economic,
political, military, scientific, and technological power, puts forth a
set of values that are agreeable with basic human needs and
inclinations. This makes its system look as though it has amoral and
utopian vision, too.
The West claims that it not only allows humans to be free of
restrictions on their behavior and instinctive wishes, but that such a
life is morally superior to all other systems because the main goal of
human life the will to freedom-is fulfilled.
True, humans are attracted to nothing the way they are attracted to
freedom, and they have arguably never sacrificed as much for the
attainment of any goal as they have for freedom. Today, humans are
offered a system that invites them to eat and drink as they like, dress
and speak as they wish, and to think freely.
Simultaneously, the goal of life in such a system is prosperity and
power, both viewed as serving the greatest, holiest goal of humanity,
namely freedom. The West uses the most basic and hence powerful human
instincts to solidify its position. This is misleading because despite
what it claims, the West is far from achieving true freedom.
We want a system based on abstinence and high morality that only comes through relentless endeavor and the courage to embark upon moral and spiritual growth. This is true freedom, but people need to be taught to see it this way. What further fans the flames of antagonism between our opponent and us today is the power and reach of global electronic communications.
In our era each person is effortlessly in contact with others in all corners of the world. The borders that separated societies in the past have vanished at the hands of new communication technologies that allow instantaneous transfer of information and news across continents.
Our opponent also controls this vital resource, possessing the complex
technical knowledge to mass-disseminate images and sound waves to the
world community: an uncanny skill for public relations and manufacturing
consent through sights and sounds using the most refined, complex, and
effective methods of science and technology to win others over to its
thoughts and lifestyle.
Ours is a time when no one can blind the individual mind to what goes
on in the world. Everyone everywhere is defenselessly bombarded by a
barrage of information on world events, guided by views that world
powers want disseminated.
Our opponent does not tolerate societies that differ from it, seeking
to nip all independent movements in the bud. The West thinks of nothing
but its own interests, and if a people turn away from its values or
refuse to serve its interests, it focuses all of its vast capabilities
to force them to surrender or risk annihilation. And this is precisely
why our revolution has encountered waves of conspiracies and pressures
from the moment it was born.
We must clarify the relationship of our revolution to the difficulties
it meets abroad. But this should not make us ignore our own internal
problems.
One of the most important difficulties we face is the separation of
Islam from the practical demands of the social and, political sphere.
Now that our Islamic revolution wishes to institutionalize a new mode of
individual. and social life as we encounter the world and its realities,
we suffer from a void in our ability to regulate society and human
relations through Islamic ideas that work.
For centuries Islamic thought has been artificially relegated to the
sidelines. Islam has not been allowed to govern and regulate social
relations. Instead, society's reins have either been in the hands of
anti-Islamic forces or controlled by groups who have merely used Islam
for self-aggrandizement, propagating it solely to legitimize their power
and rule.
Real Islam, during this long hiatus, turned into a force of opposition
against corrupt and obsolete systems, which ruled in its name. Today,
our revolution yearns to build a system based on real Islam. Still, even
our vision of real Islam encounters inadequacies when it attempts to
address today's practical problems.
We are fortunate that the relentless effort and struggle of courageous
thinkers and clergy saved real Islam from falling prey to political
vicissitudes by transferring knowledge of such an Islam to new
generations, never letting it perish.
Islamic thought delves with unrivaled richness into matters that
transcend time, space and material reality, shedding a profound light on
issues above and beyond the workaday world. Islamic mysticism or ‘Irfan
is unique in the history of human thought.
Compared to other systems of transcendental knowledge, ‘Irfan is the
best equipped to address supernatural phenomena. But today, as we wish
to put Islam into practice and apply its teachings to the material,
social and political world, we encounter an intellectual void that can
only be remedied if we rely on authentic Islamic sources, principles,
and rules of conduct.
Our Islamic revolution's utopian visions were clearly articulated in
the slogans that came to define our ideology in the early days of the
revolution. These slogans either flowed directly from the minds of the
people or were articulated by the aware, enlightened leadership and
subsequently embraced by the masses.
Our goals may seem beyond reach at the moment. A value system is only
as strong and durable as the realistic and practical affirmation of its
tenets. It cannot exist in the realm of thought and imagination alone.
To get to our ideal in an 'un-ideal' world, we must achieve an
appropriate balance among order, welfare, and pace in our society.
If the rhythms of our society do not meet the demands of the times we
live in, it is only natural that we encounter puzzles and difficulties.
It is precisely here that we need a mental breakthrough. Arriving at a
practical, workable system attuned also to the demands of the revolution
must be given the highest priority.
Our society's fabric is strained by vice; economic and political
difficulties loom large, and we still suffer from the diluted identity
of 'Westoxication'-neither ourselves, nor Western. But if the root of
the problem is to be found elsewhere, and we can solve. the problem at
its root, we will succeed in overcoming other difficulties more quickly,
with greater confidence and effect.
In practical matters, as we have depended on theology to give order to
the individual and social world, we face serious inadequacies. This can
mean only that our theology must evolve to meet the demands of the
revolution and also the practical needs we have today. Here we can turn
to the grand leader of the revolution, Imam Khomeini, who was a
visionary Muslim leader, philosopher, theologian, and mystic.
We turn to him to uncover the void and inadequacies we must overcome to achieve our goals: We must bring about the realization of the practical laws of Islam, undeterred by the deceitful West, the invasive East and their globally dominant modes of diplomacy. For as long as theology is trapped in the books and in the clergy's chests, there is no harm done to world devourers.
And until the clergy are active in every sphere, they will not realize
that religious authority and knowledge is not enough. Centers of
religious education and the clergy must be abreast of the times and have
the pulse of the present in their hands and know the needs of the
future. Always a few steps ahead of events, they must come up with
effective responses. Our current methods of running our society are
likely to change in the years ahead. And human society may come to
utilize the issues facing Islam.[^1]
We all agree that the Imam soared at the peak of religious mystical
awareness. The yearning of the revolution for truth and justice
blossomed under his leadership. Based on the Imam's thinking, a cleric
who is unaware of the demands of his time, and lives with ideas that are
hundreds of years old, will not be able to relieve society from today's
strains, however noble his intentions might be. As well as understanding
today's demands he must have the pulse, thoughts, and needs of the
future in his hands, so he can shape events instead of being at their
mercy.
The Imam says in another place: In Islamic government there should
always be room for revision. Our revolutionary system demands that
various, even opposing, viewpoints be allowed to surface. No one has the
right to restrict this. It is crucial to understand the demands of
society and governance such that Islamic government can make policies
that benefit Muslims. Unity in method and practice is essential. It is
here that traditional religious leadership prevalent in our seminaries
will not suffice.[^2]
And,
one of the greatest problems of religious leadership is the role of
time and place in decision making. Government specifies a practical
philosophy for dealing with sacrilege and internal and external
difficulties. But these problems cannot only not be solved by a purely
theoretical view of religion but will lead us to dead ends and the
appearance that constitutional laws have been breached. While you must
ensure that religious infractions do not happen-and I hope God doesn't
bring that day-you must focus all your effort on ensuring that when
encountering military, social and political issues, Islam does not seem
to lack practical utility. [^3]
And on another occasion,
But on the question of the educational methods and research in
religious schools, I believe in traditional theology and deem straying
from it to be inappropriate. Religious leadership is proper and correct
only in this way. But this does not mean that Islamic theology is not
dynamic. Time and place are two determining elements.[^4]
We should not doubt that many of the views that have guided us thus far
are not sufficient for managing social affairs. We must achieve a new
vision and understanding. Relying on current religious leadership is
necessary but not sufficient.
If this central concern is overshadowed by peripheral matters, society
will be held back from achieving a desirable solution' to problems.
Serious as these problems are, however, we cannot lose our hope in the
future. Most important, our young intellectuals must maintain an active
and hopeful presence on the social stage.
The late Imam was an irreplaceable blessing for our revolution and the
establishment of the Islamic Republic. His legacy remains a great
reviver of God's religion in our time. His main difference from other
religious revivers is the central leadership role he played in the
establishment of Islamic government. He was aware that if religious
leaders, thinkers, and intellectuals are not confronted with practical
problems, they will not think of solutions. But when Islam came to the
political scene, established a government, and took power into its own
hands, it confronted the necessity of fulfilling the rational
expectations of all people who had put their hopes in the revolution.
This encounter was a great step toward the establishment of a new system
of thoughts, values, and skills appropriate for our time and place,
capable of addressing human needs within an Islamic framework.
The Imam's greatest legacy is indeed the establishment of Islamic
government, which has managed to stand despite many pressures and
conspiracies against it. The enemies may have hoped that after the
Imam's passing away, the system's pillars would unravel. But with the
grace of God this did not happen. The institutionalization of leadership
after the Imam and our continuing in his path of revolutionary struggle
are a source of great hope to us all.
Another source of hope is the current condition of humankind in our
era. Our Islamic revolution has raised a storm across the Islamic world
and among all of the worlds downtrodden. Thus the utopian yearnings and
explosive power latent in the hearts of the world's dispossessed greatly
buttress our revolution. If we understand this force and use it
effectively, we will be able to confront the opponent despite its
economic, military, and political predominance. If we rely on the
utopian visions that our revolution has awakened throughout the Islamic
world and beyond, and believe that backers of our revolution are ready
to sacrifice for it, victory is within our reach. What adds further hope
to our future is that our opponent-despite all its apparent might-has
become old and is approaching the end of its line. The existence of
crisis in the thought and civilization of the West betrays its
senility.
Again, our main problem is the fundamental opposition of the values of
our revolution to what is dominant in the world on the one hand, and our
lack of practical experience in installing a real religious government
on the other. What must we do to solve this problem so that with the
help of God we can ensure that this revolution remains immune to serious
threats?
The unsophisticated among us may opt for the simplistic option of
censorship and preventing the values and thoughts of our opponent from
reaching and subverting our people. But is this a viable solution?
The low capacity and truncated vision of some may lead them to attack
all that does not fit into their closed minds and match their tastes as
being against Islam, the revolution, and the legacy of the revolution's
martyrs. Unfortunately, there are camps in our society, which although
bereft of proper logic, think of themselves as the pillars of the
revolution and Islam, and accuse their opponents of being against Islam
and the revolution, as they try to oust their opponents from the
political ring at any cost.
But what exactly is the yardstick for judging what is acceptable and
what is not? In opposing difficulties and the enemy, what strategy
should we adopt? Will our cultural policy be one of censorship and
restricting access to all sources we disagree with? Can a policy of
isolation from the international community succeed in today's world?
Throughout its glorious history, Islam has never accepted isolation and
restricting access as a viable policy. In certain periods this has been
imposed on people in the name of Islam, causing irreparable damage, but
it has not lasted. Islam has embraced opposing views with open arms.
Seminal Muslim thinkers have actively sought the encounter of other
views. This openness has imbued Islamic civilization with much
intellectual weight.
At the same time restriction is not practical in today's world.
Information channels accessible to our people are not limited to
government-run sources. Let us assume that we prevent all faulty prose
from being published, stop all newspapers or magazines from printing the
smallest bit that offends our tastes, or disallow the production of any
films that we find defective. Will these thoughts and views that have
been officially banned find no other channel for reaching our people?
In judging what is good and bad in the world of ideas, rigid fixations
and dogma may replace strong logic and realistic appraisals -much to our
detriment. ft is naive to think that government-run channels are
people's only source of access to international and inter-societal
communication.
Today, the global broadcast of mass-communicated electronic images is
under no government's control.
How can we prevent dynamic and curious minds from accessing what they
desire? How can we build a wall between such minds and the outside
world? With the rapid advance of communication technology that is
becoming accessible to ever-larger segments of our population,
controlling the spread of images will only be more unrealistic and
impractical in the future.
Of course this does not mean that our Islamic system should impose no
limitations and restrictions on people's access to information. That
would be unrealistic as well. No form of governance can exist without
imposing some restrictions, and even the most developed liberal
democracies are not exempt from this rule.
But there is a difference between a system that relies on restriction as
its main strategy and a system that uses restriction occasionally to
deal tactically with sensitive and vital matters. Any system is bound to
impose some form of restriction when its whole existence and the
fundamentals of its rule are endangered. However, on the whole Islam
historically has not based its system on restriction and censorship.
The cultural strategy of a dynamic and vibrant Islamic society cannot
be isolation. As a progressive religion, Islam shuns building fences
around people's consciousness. Instead, our strategy must focus on
making our people immune, raising and educating them to resist the
cultural onslaught of the West on their own. Only a strategy of
immunization represents a viable solution for today and tomorrow.
This requires us to allow various disparate views to engage one another in our society. How is it possible to make the body immune without injecting it with a controlled and weakened virus, so that it can resist the more extensive and threatening invasion of that virus? The way to make the body resistant to viruses is certainly not by preventing any viruses from coming near it. Instead we must see to it that the living organism has the apparatus to resist the virus itself. In society, too, it cannot be any other way.
An active, evolving society must be in contact and communication with
different, sometimes opposing, views to be able to equip itself with a
more powerful, attractive, and effective thought than that of the
opponent. And if the sources of revolutionary and religious thought
really wish to preserve the revolutionary system, they have no other
choice but to offer society sophisticated and adaptive thinking.
At the outset of the revolution, the Imam (Khomeini) counseled against
shutting out what we found undesirable. And we are proud that our
revolution took its first steps on the basis of liberty. This was not an
unintended consequence of the revolution, out of our leaders' hands. The
principle from the beginning was that others can speak their minds,
unless they are engaging in conspiracy. If there were groups who did not
want to use this freedom wisely and fairly, abusing and subverting it
instead, they were the ones at fault, not the revolution.
Society suffered great harm as a result of their unseemly actions. It
was the abusers of liberty who did not uphold the supremacy of thought
and rationality as they tried to pollute the atmosphere of openness and
use it to impose their autocratic wishes. They did not realize that a
government held up by the will and belief of a people and watered by the
blood of martyrs and the effort of millions of selfless devotees will
stand firm against conspiracy. The limit of legal opposition was
conspiracy then and it must be the same today.
The idea of what exactly constitutes conspiracy must be clarified as
well. We must look at social problems with a comprehensive and open
view. Otherwise any closed-minded and dogmatic person can use the excuse
of conspiracy to oust her opponents from the political stage. Our system
needs accountability and discipline.
Reckless and superficial but politically charged ideas of certain
groups can neither determine society's best interests nor understand
conspiracy and its limits. Otherwise, anyone can mount an attack on
thoughts different from his own limited tastes with the excuse of
defending the interests of the country, the revolution, and religion
against conspiracy.
Thus, to solve our fundamental problems, we should build and offer
superior thinking and logic, as well as more attractive solutions to
society's woes. Only in this way can we give hope to the revolution's
devotees, adding to their material and spiritual well being. We must
endeavor to build a system so solidly grounded that it can not only
resist unraveling at the encounter of other systems, but can display its
vigor and superiority. This impetus to self-affirmation has protected
and enriched Islamic thought and the essence of religious belief over
the ages.
A system like ours, based as it is on Islamic utopian ideology, is
bound to restrict some individual liberties. A revolutionary religious
system will naturally forbid much that is accessible to
people-particularly the youth-in the West. The overflowing urges of the
youth are better satisfied in the West, and hedonistic instincts are
fulfilled to a greater degree; whereas in an Islamic system, a multitude
of religious rules stand in the way. To make our society stable and
strong, we must teach the young a more worthy path than hedonism, such
that they gain pleasure out of abstinence.
Utopian visions can keep people, especially the youth, confident and
lively. Muslim youths must believe that alongside the limitations and
restrictions that our system has imposed, it has given them character,
imbuing their lives with a direction in whose shadow they feel pride,
greatness and tranquility. Emotional and mental needs must be addressed
for people to feel content. If the Islam we offer fails to accomplish
this, the foundations of our society will be unstable.
Fulfilling the utopian vision of the revolution's devotees inside and
outside Iran is a pressing necessity to ensure our survival. To assert
our identity it is necessary to be present in all world forums and to
defend Islam and Iran effectively in all international tribunals and
conventions. But we cannot ultimately flourish and make our weight felt
in the international scene whose rules are set by our opponents-unless
we maintain our unique idealism.
Why was it that we had less pressing cultural problems during the eight-year war with Iraq? Because a massive wave of revolutionary youths was at the front lines and people saw themselves as, defenders of the revolution and the country. This active presence filled people with deep pride,. Our youth felt that their lives had assumed new meaning, and that they had achieved spiritual growth with which they could stand against oppressors and tyrants.
Now that the war is over, what must replace it? The only effective
solution is preparing the ground for the active involvement of the young
generation in all areas where their talents can develop and be put to
productive use. If the young generation does not feel active and
instrumental in society, it is natural that they feel dejected.
To make society vigorous, thinkers must see in Islam a system of
superior logic and ingenious solutions. At the same time, all social
forces must be active in the social and political process. Here the
greatest mission of intellectuals is to understand the real Islam, the
kind that our revolution drew from to succeed.
We live in a world that in many ways is at odds with our Islamic
revolution's orientation, and we want to organize our lives on the basis
of Islam. It is necessary to find out exactly what sort of Islam we want
to base our lives on: Here it is incumbent upon our seminaries and
universities to answer this question. It is not as though there is no
divergence of opinion on what Islam is. Over the past century, if not
all of Islamic history, three separate Islam. To decide what sort of
Islam we want, we must stay clear of factional squabbles such that we
can chart our future path on the basis of the right sort of Islam.
Traditionally, we have encountered a regressive, a diluted, and a real
Islam. Which of these three was our revolution based on, and which one
can save our society and bring honor and pride to it? We believe that
the basis of our revolution is the real Islam, the same Islam that has
its roots in revelation and solid monotheistic perspectives-an Islam
that believes in the inherent dignity of humans and wants enlightened
happiness for humanity, a constantly evolving Islam that can find
solutions to new puzzles as they emerge. All throughout history, this
interpretation of Islam has defended itself against sacrilege and
corruption, but it has never been given the opportunity to assert itself
in the socio-political sphere.
It is imprudent to assume that since our revolution has succeeded and
an Islamic Republic established, the victory of real Islam will be
assured automatically. No, we face serious difficulties and dangers. But
in the first instance, the devotees of real Islam must equip themselves
with rationality, thought, and logic more than ever before. The battle
of ideas is far more fateful and determining than political and military
conflict. First, we have to see which Islam we have accepted and why.
Only then will we muster sufficient moral and intellectual weight to
confront our opponents. The experience of our revolution has taught us
invaluable lessons that we cannot forget.
From the first days that the Imam (Khomeini) took center stage, he
began his religiously inspired struggle against tyranny, dependency,
corruption, cultural degradation, and American imperialism. Within the
ranks of the educated and senior clergy, there were those who opposed
the Imam's method of struggle and his interpretation of Islam. Some were
sympathizers of the monarchy; others were driven by profit-seeking and
self-serving motives.
Most such people were not traitors but had an interpretation of Islam that did not suit the revolution. There were others who supported the Imam in the initial steps but backed away from supporting him when matters got more serious.
Many of those devoted to the Imam had endured imprisonment and exile to
see the revolution through. These were and are good, dedicated people,
but subsequently, when the time came to institutionalize the revolution;
their view of Islam strayed from the Imam's.
In many cases after the revolution, when the issue of social justice
and combating inequality was voiced, some screamed that Islam was in
danger. I am not saying that all those who used the slogans of social
justice and the fight against inequality were on the right path.
The issue here is the principle of social justice itself, and that there were those who did not even want to bring it up, resisting all practical steps that we wanted to take to ameliorate the problem. Such people could not tolerate the fact that the Imam's Islam wanted social justice, and thus subverted all efforts in this direction. The Imam was compelled to confront this thinking bluntly, stating that on the basis of the Islam he had introduced, achieving social justice was among the primary goals of the revolution.
There were those who felt that the place of women was in the home, arguing that the presence of women in the workplace leads to corruption and moral decay. They were against higher education for women, and opposed women's involvement in social affairs, This was another view that was introduced under the guise of Islam. At the end of the first elected Majles (Parliament) after the revolution, a few influential circles tried to convince the Imam that women should not be allowed to run for seats in the Majles.
The Imam confronted this thinking resolutely and` defended women's
right to take part in the elections. There were those who claimed that
no one other than the clergy should be allowed to take part in politics.
They were especially suspicious of university students and academics,
labeling them 'deviant' just because they carried intellectual weight.
They forbade a large part of society from being involved in their own
political destiny. They would try to justify all this in the name of
Islam. Once again, the Imam responded swiftly, scolding their
regressive, prescriptions.
Some criticized all social and cultural programs to the point of
forcing the Imam to outline explicitly the benefits of cultural
activities to dispel any doubts. Others were opposed to all music, film,
and theater. They were not against only some forms of art, but all
artistic expression in general. Some even opposed broadcasting sporting
events on television and thought it sinful. The Imam confronted all
these restrictive and regressive religious views head-on, claiming that
much of what they objected to was actually beneficial to society. In the
last years of his prolific life, the Imam put forth the most penetrating
critique of religious dogma:
We must endeavor to break the chains of ignorance and superstition to
reach the prophet's fresh fountain. Today the most puzzling thing to
people is this Islam, and its rescue requires sacrifice; pray that I am
myself one of these sacrifices.[^5]
All who truly believe in the revolution and wish to dignify Islam will
choose the Islam articulated by the Imam. This should not be taken to
mean that others do not have the right to publicly express their views.
Everyone is entitled to voice his opinion within the law and the bounds
of rationality. However, we must know which interpretation of Islam our
revolution is based on. Do the groups that our Imam numerously scolded
have the right to impose their extreme views on the people and to
portray their opponents as being against Islam and the revolution?
Regressive and dogmatic clerics, those whom the Imam singled out as the
greatest danger to the revolution, are not sitting idly by. The
enlightened and truly devoted must be mindful of the danger they pose
and guard against it.
Alongside the regressive version of Islam, we have the camp that
believes in a diluted Islam, a fabricated, inauthentic form of the faith
that merely goes through the motions of piety without any real knowledge
of Islam or real belief in its teachings. Their Islam has so many
foreign, imported elements that it cannot be called Islam at all.
Diluted Islam represents one of the most dangerous pores for the West's
cultural onslaught. Un-Islamic or anti-Islamic political currents have
never enjoyed a popular base and they have never been viewed as the main
danger. But those who have had the appearance of piety and have been
active in society with ideas borrowed from the West or others have been
able to propagate their views in parts of society.
Opposed to these regressive and diluted views of Islam, we must
recognize the real Islam, and the secret of our survival and success is
the understanding and implementation of this kind of Islam, in whose
shadow we can pass safely through dangers that threaten the existence
and health of the revolution and our society. This is the same Islam
that the late Imam epitomized, and for which a great mind like
Motahhari[^6] was martyred. We must discover the target of the Imam's
pronouncements, particularly in the last years of his life. A bit of
focus will show that the Imam's criticism was directed at those views of
Islam that hinder progress and development, paralyzing the search for
solutions to difficulties that face our society.
If diluted Islam martyred Motahhari, then regressive Islam has tried to
negate the substance of his thought.
The confrontations that have been directed at the likes of Motahhari
and Beheshti[^7] in our society are alarming and serious. And we even
witnessed how unseemly this current was to Hashemi-Rafsanjani[^8] when
he brought up the issue of social justice.
To know the real Islam and to base our society upon it, our greatest
source of inspiration is the religious and devoted youth in our
seminaries and universities. Aided by the knowledge and piety of eminent
clergy, we must breed a new cadre of religious intellectuals who are
up-to-date and enlightened, and we must tirelessly march toward
understanding the specific vision of Islam that is the basis of our
revolution. It is understanding and explaining this Islam that will make
us immune to other schools of thought.
[^1]: Ruhollah Khomeini, Sahifey-e Noor (The Book of Light), (Tehran: Markaz-e Madarek Anghlab-e Islami, 1990), vol. 21, p. 100.
[^2]: ibid., p. 47.
[^3]: ibid., p. 61.
[^4]: ibid., p. 98.
[^5]: ibid., p. 41.
[^6]: Translator's Note: Murtaďa Motahhari (1919-1979). Iranian thinker and cleric who was instrumental in reconciling traditional seminaries with universities. His writings made traditional Islamic concepts and the relationship between Iran and Islam accessible to his contemporaries. He was assassinated by armed opponents of the Islamic Republic a few months after the revolution.
[^7]: Translator's Note: Muhammad Hosseini-Beheshti (1921-1980). A cleric and leading ideologue of Iran's Islamic revolution who was' assassinated along with scores of other political figures when a bomb exploded in the headquarters of the Islamic Republican Party.
[^8]: Translator's Note: Ali-Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani (b.1933). A cleric and political leader in the Islamic Republic of who has served in a number of senior posts culminating to his tenure as President of the Islamic Republic of Iran from 1989 to 1997.