 |
|
 |
Date:November
1, 1977 (AD) (
498)
/Aban 10,1356 (AHS) / Dhu al- Qa’dah 18,1397 (AH)
Place:Shaykh
Ansari Mosque, Najaf, Iraq .
Theme:The power of the
clergy and the political, intellectual and religious services rendered by the
Shi’i ‘ulama
Occasion:
The martyrdom of Mr. Mustafa Khomeini (may he rest in peace)
Those present:Religious students, clergymen and Iranians resident in Iraq .
On the morning of Sunday, October 23, 1977 (Aban 1,1356 AHS), the noble city of Najaf sank into a state of confusion and disbelief, the people, and in particular the religious students and the students of Islamic sciences, wearing a look of utter astonishment - their solemn faces telling of the occurrence of a great tragedy. This was in fact how news spread about the martyrdom of Ayatullah Mustafa Khomeini - that honorable, God- fearing scholar; that brave crusader who yearned for martyrdom, who was prepared to make any sacrifice for the sake of Islam, and whose death plunged the Muslim community into a chronic state of bereavement.
Ayatullah Hall Mustafa Khomeini was one of the closest friends and most devout followers of the Leader of the Revolution; and because of his political insight, sound mind and brilliant intellect, he served as a staff on which Imam’s followers leaned. He was endowed with extraordinary intelligence and astounding genius, and as a distinguished scholar of the theological centre in Qum, he stood by and aided Imam throughout each stage of the struggle until Imam was eventually exiled to Turkey.
Following Imam’s arrest on Khordad 15,1342 (June 5, 1963), the day when the cry “We either want death or Khomeini” shook dozens of cities including Qum, Tehran, Varamin, Shiraz, and Mashhad, Mustafa Khomeini led demonstrators as they marched through the streets of Eram, around Astaneh Square and into the holy courtyard of Hazrat Ma’ suma (pbuh) in Qum. At 9 am on November 4, 1964 (Aban 13,1343 AHS), as Imam was being sent into exile, Mustafa Khomeini went to the home of Ayatullah Najafi Mar’ ashi to talk there with the inaraji’ and to hold discussions concerning how the movement was to be continued in Imam’s absence. Half an hour into the talks however, agents of the regime who had stormed the house in question arrested him. That afternoon Mustafa Khomeini was sent to Qazil Qal’ a prison in Tehran from where he was subsequently released 57 days later on December 29, 1964 (Dey 8,1343 AHS). Five days following his release, at 2 pm on January 3, 1965, Mustafa Khomeini was again arrested when Imam’s home in Qum was stormed by Colonel Badi’ i, (the head of SAVAK in Qum) and other agents of the regime. This time Mr. Khomeini was firstly sent to Tehran and then deported to Turkey where he joined his father in exile.
In the holy city of Najaf, his second place of exile, Mustafa Khomeini took a fighting stand both against the reactionary climate which prevailed in the theological centre there and against the plots hatched by the Iranian and Iraqi regimes. He remained a dauntless combatant right up until the moment of his martyrdom. The lectures delivered in kharij, ( 499) fiqh and dogmatic theology by this outstanding martyr who had in fact attained the level of ijtihad while still in his youth, were amongst the most popular lectures given in Najaf and he was regarded by everyone there as a truly hopeful prospect for the religious teaching centers. The Shah’s regime saw Ayatullah Sayyid Mustala as his father’s right-hand man and it believed that by killing him it could firstly rob Imam of this trustworthy aide, and secondly, cause Imam’s resolve to waver, thereby preventing him from continuing or stepping up the struggle.
When one reads what Imam’s honorable son, Hujjat al-Islam wal Muslim Sayyid Ahmad Khomeini and others have to say about events on the day of Mustafa Khomeini’s demise, and about the way Imam reacted to the martyrdom of his dearest loved one, the frivolous nature of the convictions held by the regime’s veteran politicians and strategists really come to light. With regard to the events of that day Hujjat al-Islam Ahmad Khomeini writes:
“It was early morning, at about 5 am, when I stirred from my sleep having felt someone shaking my legs. I opened my eyes to see that Imam was standing there saying: ‘Get up and go to Mustafa’s house they have asked for you to go there. I think there must be something the matter with Ma’suma (Mustafa Khomeini’s wife).’ My sister-in-law had recently been ill and the doctor had been brought to see her on the previous evening, therefore I immediately rushed to her home. I saw a taxi parked outside the house in question, and on entering the building, I saw that three people were present:
Mr. Du’ ayi; an Afghani Muslim brother who was staying at my brother’s house to study; and another man. I went upstairs and saw my brother being held by the arms and legs in order to be carried downstairs. I placed the palm of my hand on his forehead and saw that it was still warm so we put him into the taxi; but it was as if right at that moment someone had told me that my brother Mustafa had passed away. I held him in my arms until we reached the hospital. After performing a medical examination, the doctor said: ‘I am afraid he is dead’.
I returned home not knowing what to tell Imam but realising that I had no choice but to somehow tell him of what had happened. I went to the outer-quarters of Imam’s home, the place where members of the public would come to seek Imam’s advice. I sent two people to tell Imam that Mustafa had been taken ill and had been sent to hospital; and accordingly my message was relayed to Imam. On receiving my message Imam said: ‘Tell Ahmad to come here’; and so I went to him. He told me: ‘I want to visit Mustafa in hospital’. I became truly disturbed and after leaving Imam told Mr. Rezvani about the whole affair, adding that in order to delay Imam’s discovery of what had actually happened, it was best to tell him that the doctor had prohibited any visits to the hospital. Thus, it was decided that Mr. Rezvani should go to Imam and approach him in this way. We both dreaded what might happen next. Imam saw me through a window of the room in which I was standing which lay on the upper floor of the house. He called out my name and I again went to him. Imam asked: ‘Is Mustafa dead?’ I became deeply upset, broke down in tears and said nothing. As Imam sat there with his hands placed upon his knees, he three times repeated the words: ‘Surely we are God’s and to Him we shall surely return’ (Qur’an: Sura 2, verse 156). ( 500)
The wife of Sayyid Mustafa Khomeini, Mrs. Ma’suma Ha’ en Yazdi, describes what happened as follows:
On the night of Mustafa’s death, some guests were due to arrive at our home at midnight. I was very ill and Mr. Du’ ayi, our neighbour, brought a doctor to see me. Because of my condition and since my husband usually studied late at night anyway, Mustafa told me to go to sleep and said that he would open the door and welcome our guests himself when they arrived. I never actually found out either what time our guests arrived, when they left, or what happened during their visit.
The following morning, when Mustafa’s breakfast was taken to him, he was found to be in a sitting position but with his head drooped down. On being informed of this, I immediately went upstairs. I saw something crimson in colour both on Mustafa’s hands and on his chest. We took him to the hospital without delay, where we were told that he had actually died two hours earlier from poisoning. When the doctors wanted to perform an autopsy, Imam refused them permission and said: ‘Were you to do this, certain innocent people would be arrested, but their arrest would not bring Mustafa back to us’. As expected, the Iraqi authorities prevented the doctors’ medical reports concerning the death from being announced, whilst the doctors themselves were also prevented from making any statements about the matter. There was absolutely no doubt that the cause of death had been poisoning and that even the doctors had been intimidated into keeping silent.” ( 501)
Against the regime’s expectations, on November 1, 1 977 , ten days after his son’s martyrdom, Imam delivered a fiery, monumental speech in which he expressed how he regarded the loss of his dearest loved one as “a divine blessing in disguise” and said: “ . . . If only we were aware of that hidden beneficence which God, the Blessed, the Most High, shows towards his servants - And surely He is Benignant towards His servants - and if only we had a true understanding of these occurrences, then we would not show such a lack of intolerance in the face of such affairs ; affairs which are indeed trivial and unimportant. We would realize that some kind of divine grace is involved in all this; that this is some form of guidance.”
Even after hearing of his son’s martyrdom Imam Khomeini never allowed his daily routine to be altered in any way. Hence, as his son’s corpse was being taken to be buried at Karbala (in Najaf), Imam, in accordance with his daily programmer, attended both the noon and evening congregational prayer gatherings, after which he went to the home of his deceased son to console those there. Here, he enjoined everyone present to be strong and in addressing Sayyid Mustafa’s grieving mother, he said: “The Lord Almighty had once given us something in trust and now He has taken it back from us. I shall be patient and you are to do the same, your patience being for the sake of God”.
On his first visit to his son’s grave, whilst encircled by a large crowd of people, Imam simply sat on the ground, placed his hands upon the grave, and with a particular stoicism recited a funerary prayer (the Qur’anic Sura entitled “Fatehah” (“The Opening”)). He then turned to those present and suggested that they recite a funerary prayer for the other ‘ulama who were buried nearby.
The ‘ulama of the theological centre of Najaf had intended to hold a forty-day-long memorial ceremony for Imam’s deceased son, but Imam told them: “Lectures must not be suspended. The honorable gentlemen of the clergy must resume work as normal”. Then, in addressing the students and the devoted followers of his deceased son, he advised: “You are to edify those who are still living and are not to show a lack of tolerance at such times as these. Attend to your lectures and your religious studies and concern yourselves with self-edification and with the purifying of your souls.”
The first lecture to be given by Imam following the tragedy of his son’s death, took the form of a wide-ranging address which covered issues and problems facing both Iran and other Islamic societies. Under the circumstances, this address proved to be most beneficial and instructive. It must be noted that at that time the works of Dr. ‘All Shari’ ati and the book entitled Shahid-i Javid ( 502) were the subject of much discussion and debate in society and especially in the universities and the theological teaching centers; and by exploiting the flaws found in these literary works the regime tried to sow the seeds of dissension and discontent. The rift which existed between the university and the clergy was the one which for many years Imam Khomeini had made particular efforts to bridge in order to bring these two groups closer together; and to this end Imam had sent numerous messages in the past both to the clergy and to the Muslim University Students’ Associations at home and abroad.
In the present speech (25), having discussed the gravity of the mission assigned to humankind in the great scheme of creation, Imam recounts the vital and historic role played by the clergy in former Islamic movements. He cites examples of the clergy’s involvement in popular movements of the past by looking at events in history, and he regards these clerical figures as the forerunners of present events. Imam then criticises those Muslim intellectuals and authors who had ignored the role played by the clergy throughout the history of the struggles of Islamic nations and he argues that the ‘ulama’s relationships with the ruling authorities of the day, be they amicable or hostile, and both the active and passive forms of resistance in which the ‘ulama engaged, were but different ways of ensuring the survival of Islam, fiqh, and Shi’ ism. Imam again narrates certain examples of the former struggles in which the Shi’ i ‘ulama were involved, after which he warns against the artificial distinctions made by some between those in the clergy and those in the universities; and in addressing intellectuals and academics he says: “If you want to engage in struggle alone, without assistance from the akhund, then you will remain oppressed by others till doomsday. You are to come together, to unite, to be brothers together. Do not spurn those in the clergy. The latter constitute an imperishable force; they constitute the power of the nation”.
On the other hand, whilst addressing the ‘ulama and the clergy Imam says: “Every so often some kind of trouble crops up in Iran; and at such times, instead of the honorable preachers, the learned ‘ulama, concerning themselves with the political matters found in Islam, with the economic matters found in Islam, they spend their time talking about ‘this person’ being a heathen, ‘that person’ being an apostate , and ‘so-and-so’ being a Wahabi. They accused the scholar who has toiled hard for fifty years and whose knowledge of fiqh is more thorough than that of the majority of themselves, of being a Wahabi. However, it is wrong of them to say such things. You are not to create a rift between yourselves . . . If some patent error or other is found in the work of those who are currently striving for the sake of Islam and are writing material to this end, and then you are to rectify it. As ones who are learned, you are to rectify this error, and not to ostracise the person concerned
Do not spurn those in the universities . . . do not continue to ascend the pulpit and to find fault with them. Ascend the pulpit and admonish them”.
Contrary to the expectations of the Shah’s regime , the martyrdom of Imam’s son, Mustafa Khomeini, served to kindle the flames of the revolution rather than extinguish them - flames which were indeed further kindled because of the momentous event which occurred later, on January 9, 1978 (Dey 1 7,1356 AHS - protests against the defamatory articles about Imam in the Ittila ‘at newspaper).
On learning of the martyrdom of Ayatullah Mustafa Khomeini, the people of Iran, as aware as ever of the true state of affairs, held memorial services for the deceased combatant. During the first of these ceremonies to be held, disturbances broke out in the city of Qum following which people in other cities also rose up in protest in order to reveal the true nature of the regime. During the clashes which ensued, the people’s adversaries entered the arena with weapons, using the bayonet for protection, whereas the Iranian people entered the arena protected by a shield which not only prevented their adversaries from putting their weapons into use, but which in fact rendered them powerless - that shield being the slogan “Allahu akbar” (God is Great). Finding inspiration from this slogan, the people cried out as one, putting the enemy to flight and thus causing the regime to crumble. Hence, the martyrdom of Mustafa Khomeini in fact led to the rebirth of Islam and the Muslims, the eternal message of this blessed martyr being: “In our efforts to achieve freedom we shall lose many lives, but ultimately victory will stem from our ability to stand firm”.
|
|
I must firstly thank all the different strata of society; I must thank the various orders of the religious ministry in whichever country they may he - be they in Iraq, in Iran or elsewhere - for showing such concern. I must thank everyone including the maraji’ of Islam (may God grant them further blessings); the learned ulama both in Iran, here in Iraq, or elsewhere (may God grant them further esteem); the accomplished orators; the students, both from within the universities and from elsewhere; and those who have shown concern from various countries abroad - countries such as America, Europe and India for example . I thank them all and pray for their success and good health. I thank all of those who have shown their concern and have organised gatherings and I ask them to forgive me if. Because of my old age. I have been unable to visit them or to participate in all of these gatherings. I hope that they will accept my apologies.
These kinds of affairs ( 503) are of no real importance; these things happen. Everyone experiences this kind of thing at some time. God the Blessed, the Most High shows His mercy in ways both manifest and hidden. He has a hidden beneficence of which we have no knowledge; a beneficence about which we are uninformed. It is because we are deficient with regard to knowledge, with regard to our deeds, and indeed in every respect that we grieve and make a fuss when these kinds of matters arise. We show no tolerance at such times. This is due to a lack of understanding on our part with regard to God the Exalted. If only we were aware of that hidden beneficence which God the Blessed, the Most High shows towards his servants - And surely He is Gracious to His servants ( 504) - and if only we had a true understanding of these occurrences, then we would not show such a lack of tolerance in the face of such affairs which are indeed trivial and unimportant. We would realize that some kind of divine grace is involved in all this; that this is some form of guidance.
This world is one through which we must pass. It is not a world in which to abide forever; it is a path. If we are able to tread this path correctly, as did God’s prophets -“Juzna WA hiya khameda ( 505) - and we are able to travel this path safe and sound, then we shall attain salvation. But God forbid, should we slip and stumble along the path of this world, then the same will occur when we cross over the Sirat ( 506) in the Hereafter; there too we will stumble and run into problems. I pray that God the Blessed and Exalted may awaken us; that he may make us aware of those hidden blessings of which we are now unaware, so that God willing, we may succeed in attaining the stage of awareness attained by those who have grasped both the heights of divinity and the various stages of mankind -those who do not overestimate the world; who do not view the world as an independent entity; who do not regard their worldly ambitions as ends in themselves but instead regard this world as a means of reaching other places, of attaining other, higher forms of bliss and felicity. May God allow us to reach such higher stages?
Indeed, we cannot perceive these higher stages. Whilst here in this world we cannot fully comprehend the various stages which exist, the various worlds, which exist, or the true magnitude of this world. How deceptive this world is - this world, which is the only world we have ever been able to see; a world which according to a tradition: Ma
Nadharallahu ilayhi mundhu khalqeh” ( 507) a world of matter which God the Blessed, the Exalted held in contempt after having created it, even though the little that they have so far been able to discover and to grasp shows this universe to be so stupendous that it lies beyond the powers of the human intellect.
So far, they have reached a stage where they have now realized the overwhelming and inexplicable nature of this world of matter, yet this is a realization, which will indeed grow in intensity as time goes by. They have so far been able to conclude that there are certain stars whose light takes six milliard years, yes, six milliard years to reach the earth. Such a figure is beyond our imagination. Some have written that if certain stars were to be split open, 500 million suns could be accommodated inside them; and there are some stars, which are so big that were they to be placed at the sun’s centre, they would extend as far as the earth. This vastness which is beyond human comprehension and which is inaccessable to human investigation, constitutes the cosmos of the “world”; it constitutes the meanest of worlds. Indeed, some of those who were acquainted with these matters used to say that this world has been designated as the “Earth” to reflect God’s disdain towards the essential nature of this world. This world which is so vast and so immense is yet but the “Earth”; and the heavens, along with all that has so far been discovered to lie therein, are but the “nearest of heavens” according to the Qur’an which states: Surely We have adorned the nearest heaven with an adornment, the stars ( 508)
Thus the Qur’an speaks of the skies and all that lies within them as the “nearest” heaven; nothing yet having been discovered by man about the more distant heavens. Even so, despite such magnitude the tradition tells of how God the Blessed, the Exalted, “held the world in contempt” after He had created it; whilst the Qur’an speaks of the life of this world as but “a provision” (for a time). Indeed, life in the Hereafter is true life. That is where everything is really alive. We are not really in a state of life here; we are in a state of death. True life is to be found in the Hereafter - the next abode that most surely is the life. ( 509) But we are not now able to grasp this fact.
Whilst we are here in this world, God the Blessed, the Most High has given us certain missions to accomplish. Whilst here in this worldly existence, we have certain duties to fulfill - duties assigned to us by God the Blessed and Exalted, to which we must attend. We must not neglect our religious duties. All religious duties are in fact blessings from God, blessings that we mistakenly regard as duties. They constitute blessings, whether they are individual duties assigned to train the individual and to enable him to mature - there being no other means of attaining maturity or of improving the self, and there being certain stages of human development which are unattainable other than by following this path - or whether they are social duties which we are obliged to fulfill, duties to which we must attend in order to regulate society.
Both the prophets and the Qur’an have spoken of those things, which concern the spirit, things which concern the different stages of understanding and which relate to the realms of the unseen. The traditions and the Holy Qur’an have spoken both of issues which concern individual duties and which play a part in man’s development and maturation, and of political issues, economic issues; issues which concern society and are to do with the regulation and moral teaching of society. We, and all of mankind, have a duty to pay due attention to all of these stages, to all of these different levels of human development and we are not to concentrate solely on one aspect alone.
Let me now discuss the sense of attachment that I feel towards all of the various fronts which serve Islam, be they those clerical fronts which have always served Islam from the beginning, or other fronts which are also now actively serving Islam; fronts which are composed of intellectuals and of those who are involved in politics. I am fond of all these fronts, but at the same time, I have a grievance to voice against them all. Indeed, when any Muslim, any human being, sees how these people
Are serving humanity and the human cause, and therefore how they are serving Islam - the school of thought which has come to develop true human beings - he cannot help but feel a sense of attachment towards these people or groups; groups which are serving Islam either by their use of the pen or by taking certain actions. There is nothing wrong with him feeling this sense of attachment. Nevertheless, there is a grievance which must be voiced against these various groups; a well-intentioned grievance. I have a complaint to make against those intellectual and academic groups and those students who are striving in the path of Islam - may God grant them all His support; and this complaint concerns their having overstepped the mark in some of the things they have written about the faqih, about flqh, and about the ‘ulama of Islam - a complaint about them having said things on occasion which were uncalled for. ( 510)
The people who have said these things do not mean ill. I know that on the whole it is not that those who want to serve Islam are spiteful and therefore say something out of bad faith, but rather they do so because they are insufficiently informed. Simlarly, my knowledge of history is lacking. I am now eighty years old. I have been amongst academic circles for almost sixty years and have taken an active interest in current affairs for almost thirty years. I have also probed into the history of the last one hundred and odd years, but my knowledge of history prior to this time is slight. My knowledge of foregone eras, of bygone ages, of the period, which stretches from the beginning of the Islamic era down to the recent past, is rather superficial.
Nevertheless, even a cursory glance at past history reveals how the clergy have been the ones who have preserved this Islam in all of its dimensions. That is to say, the clergy has preserved the Gnosticism of Islam; the philosophy of Islam has been preserved by the clergy; the ethics of Islam have been preserved by the clergy; the fiqh of Islam has been preserved by the clergy; the political precepts of Islam have been preserved by the clergy. All of these fields of knowledge have been preserved due to the painstaking efforts of those in the clergy. This rich science of flqh that we now enjoy - the fiqh of Shi’ism being truly the most comprehensive in the world - is a set of religious laws, the exposition and analysis of which has been due to the efforts of the Shi’i ‘ulama. ( 511)
The fiqh of Shi’i Islam is the most comprehensive of all the religious jurisprudence. There is not another set of religious laws in the world, which is so comprehensive. Those religious laws outside Shi”i Islam which were initially divine laws and which, like the fiqh of Shi’ Islam, were also comprehensive at one time, have not survived. They have been substituted by terrestrial laws, laws which have been devised by the earth’s inhabitants, by people whose understanding is so little that traditions relate how the human brain would not even satisfy the appetite of a sparrow ( 512) . Yes, these terrestrial laws have sprung from such brains, or more precisely from those brains which function correctly, for those which do not function correctly are indeed void of knowledge, period.
All of these fabricated laws are defective. These laws are defective regardless of where they may have been devised; and they are laws, which have been devised to suit a particular environment, or a particular situation. They have been devised to regulate the affairs of a particular country for example, or to regulate the political relations between one country and another; but apart from this, their laws serve no other purpose. The place where other laws can be found, laws to suit all purposes, is in Islam; and the most comprehensive of Islamic fiqh, is that which is found in Shi”i islam. The fiqh of Shi”i Islam is unique in the world - it is not to be found amongst other Muslim sects, may God increase them in number, nor is it to be found elsewhere, amongst the non-Muslims. In addition, this fiqh has developed because of the painstaking efforts made by the Shi ‘ i ‘ulama. From the advent of Islam, that is, throughout the Prophet’s lifetime and after that, during the time of the Immaculate Imams, peace be upon them, it was these Shi’ i ‘ulama who would gather around the latter and would record the Islamic precepts narrated to them. Subsequently, the ‘ulama compiled four hundred different works from these recorded utterances; works which became known as the Usul (the Principles) ( 5 13) Later still, various compendiums were made from these Usul, such as Al- Kutub al-A rba’a. ( 514)
These have all been the results of efforts made by the Shi’ ‘ulama. All of the different dimensions of Islam and the Qur’an, those dimensions which can be grasped by man’s narrow understanding that is, have been preserved and expounded by the ‘ulama, by these ‘bearded men who wear turbans’, to quote the words of these intellectuals and academics. It is the ‘ulama who have managed to keep Islam alive until the present. It is they who have written books on any topic you care to mention; on the subject of theology; on the science of Islam; on Islamic sciences; and it is they who have taken great pains to this end thus enabling the fruits of their labour to now be passed on to this present-day clerical order.
With regard to political affairs, as I mentioned before, my knowledge of history is slight and I can no longer remember everything that I may have read or seen in the past; but even so, the history of the past one hundred years or so is something which is known to us all. If we were to go back a little further in time however, we would see how a certain section of the ‘ulama had made self-sacrifices and had had connections with certain kings. Although these ‘ulama could see that the people disapproved of this situation, they still had connections with the
Kings of the time; but they did this in order to propagate faith, to propagate Shi’ i Islam, and to propagate the religion of Truth, for whether they liked it or not, the kings were obliged by these ‘ulaina to go along with the propagation of faith, of religious faith, of the faith of Shi’ ism.
Thus, these were not akhunds of the Royal Court, as some of our writers mistakenly claim. On the contrary, it was the kings who followed and paid allegiance to the ‘ulma. The sanctum of Shah Sultan Husayn’ ( 515) can still be seen in the Chahar Bagh Madrasa in Isfahan ( 516) even today; and it was they, the ‘ulama who led him to use such a chamber. It wasn’t a case of him holding sway over the ‘ulama. There were political motives behind the ‘ulama’s behaviour; there were religious motives. Thus, when one hears for example that Majlisi, ( 517) Muhaqqiq Thani, ( 518) or Shaykh Baha’i, ( 519) - may God be well pleased with them - held ties with the kings of their time, that they cooperated with them and accompanied them, one must not assume that the ‘ulama’s continued attachment to the court was for the sake of obtaining position and status and that they were in need of some favour or other to be bestowed upon them by Shah Sultan Husayn and Shah Abbas! This was not at all the case. These ‘ulama made self-sacrifices; they both sacrificed and struggled against the self so that they could propagate this religion of Islam by means of the kings themselves.
These ‘ulama even managed to continue their crusade to preserve Islam and the Shi’ i faith within an environment where cursing the Lord of the Faithful (Imam ‘Ali (pbuh)) was a common occurrence and at a time when there was no mention or sign of Shi’ism. I even heard somewhere that once, when the authorities had decided to desist from making such curses against the Imam, people from an Iranian city requested permission to continue with this practice for a further six months. Yet in spite of such difficult circumstances and such a hostile environment, the ‘ulama continued with their struggle. They humbled themselves before the people and continued with their mission although the latter at that time were hostile towards them - a hostility which probably stemmed from the people’s ignorance.
Simlarly, today, if anyone objects to and criticises the ‘ulama it is because they are not aware of the facts. It is not that they cherish a grudge against the ‘ulama, but rather it is a case of them not understanding the situation. At the time of the Immaculate Imams, the case was the same. People were unaware of what was really going on and wrongly accused the ‘ulama - ‘ulama such as ‘Ali ibn Yaqtin who served as a minister of the Royal Court; ( 520) or even the Lord of the Faithful (pbuh), he too can be cited as such an example. For twenty-odd years, the Lord of the Faithful joined in with the rulers of the land when they performed their prayers and he paid them his allegiance. ( 521) But he did these things for the good of Islam, because there were certain benefits to be gained for Islam which overrode these side issues. The other Immaculate Imams (pbut) also fraternised with the sultan of the day at times; but when this was impossibility then they behaved otherwise.
The interests of Islam are of far more importance than we imagine. They override any other concern that we may consider important. The reason that you now criticise these ‘ulama who put their lives in danger for a certain cause and who were forced in the past to behave in a certain manner to this end, is because you are unaware of the truth of the matter. It is not that you bear malice or have bad intentions; it is that you are unaware of the actual facts. If I thought I could guide an unjust sultan to the straight path, then I too would fraternise with the king. You too would have a duty to do the same if; as a result, YOU could reform an unjust, cruel sultan. It is not a question of being attached to the court; it is a question of reforming individuals. These ‘ulama did not join the Royal Court as such, instead their intention was to reform individuals; and I therefore have a grievance to voice against those who state otherwise.
So far I have discussed the ‘ulama with regard to fiqh and concerning their association with the authorities of the day, and I have done so to the best of my knowledge. Now, I shall turn to political history; and again I shall discuss this matter to the best of my knowledge. One of the movements that occurred during the past one hundred years or so in opposition to certain things which were detrimental to Islam, was the movement concerning the tobacco issue ( 522) - an issue with which you are all familiar. The great Mirza Shirazi, ( 523) may God rest his soul, issued a decree of prohibition and, led by Mirza Ashtiyani ( 524) in Tehran, the ‘ulama
Of Iran, the ‘ulama from all over Iran, May God rest their souls, embarked on their crusade, rescuing the fallen Iranian government as a result. The government had collapsed because of a certain few who had sought revelry and pleasure and who had wanted to peddle the wares of the country. These people had sold Iran to the foreigners. Hence, Mirza Shirazi, may God rest his soul, issued a decree and the other ‘ulama of Iran, in obeying this decree, laid their lives on the line. They endured hardships, went to great lengths, rose up in opposition and persuaded the rest of the people to rise up, until eventually the tobacco, concession was annulled.
So much for the movement, which fought against despotic rule. As for the fight for constitutionalism, this involved a movement which in fact sprung from Najaf and which once more was pioneered by the ‘ulama. ( 525) Here again, the ‘ulama in Iran rose up against despotic rule, against ruthless despots who did as they pleased and killed as they pleased
On one occasion, a group of poor soldiers who were not even given bread to eat had assembled in the street to protest. At the same time, His Majesty was passing by in the royal carriage on his way to pay a visit to the shrine of Hazrat Abdul ‘Azim. At this point, one of the aforesaid soldiers threw a stone. According to historical accounts, these soldiers were brought before the king as a result, and the latter ordered for their execution! ( 526) A great number of soldiers were therefore executed, until
Someone known as mustoufi al-mamlik ( 527) interceded and spoke out against these measures by the king.
These are the kind of despotic people, the kind of despotic kings they were. Muhammad ‘Ali Mirza ( 528) was yet another of these despots, and indeed everyone is aware of the kind of person, the kind of beast he was. Other kings have also been the same. In addition, it was this kind of despotism that the ‘ulama rose up against at the time when they formed a movement in the struggle for constitutionalism. They were the ones who, more than anyone else, wanted to achieve constitutional rule; but they did not succeed in this. No, they were unsuccessful. Had they succeeded, all would have been well, but they were unable to do so. This was through no fault of their own however. Indeed, they tried their best, and because of their efforts the resultant situation was at least an improvement on the former state of affairs when those in authority were unaccountable for their
Deeds. Things did not turn out as the ‘ulama had wanted though, because even though the ‘ulama’s efforts had brought about the drafting of the Supplementary Constitutional Laws, these were not in fact adhered to.
This present-day government of Iran is unsanctioned; it is illegal. These parliamentary deputies in Iran are illegal; they are not sanctioned. According to the laws of the Constitution, this present-day Majlis is not sanctioned. The Constitution states that the Majlis of Iran must lie under the supervision of five fuqaha; but can even one such person now be found to occupy such a role? Indeed, can any kind of supervision of the Majlis be seen to exist at all? Is there any kind of true popular representation there at all? Alternatively, is it a Majlis, which has been set up without popular approval? Yes, it is a case of it having been forcibly installed. Therefore, we see that although the ‘ulama tried their utmost to achieve constitutionalism; they were prevented from doing so. Having said that however, it was nevertheless the clergy who, as always, were the vanguards of the movement and who brought about changes, albeit ones, which fell short of there, initial objectives. Once again, it was the clergy’s endeavours, which were paramount, other forces playing a supportive role only. Needless to say, others did in fact play a part in this movement, but as ever, it was the clergy who were in the forefront.
Again, what would have happened had the ‘ulama not engaged in combat in Iraq? ( 529) on this occasion, the son of the Sayyid ( 530) was killed in the war; the son of the late Sayyid Muhammad Kazim ( 531) was killed in the war. Yes, the ‘ulama there, in Iraq, shouldered arms and went into combat. The late Mr. Sayyid Muhammad Taqi Khansari, ( 532) may God rest his soul, was imprisoned; that is, he was taken captive along with a number of others and was sent abroad. He himself told of how they were counted one by one as they were handed over by the foreigners into the custody of others, and of how the latter explained to him that this was a precaution which had to he taken for his own safety since it was believed that cannibalism was practised by the inhabitants of that region.
During this period, it was the second Mirza Shirazi, ( 533) that outstanding personality, that great man who shone both in learning and in deeds, who rescued the country of Iraq. He issued the order for jihad (holy war) and called on the people to paticipate in this crusade. People therefore responded to this call, for at that time, unlike today, people used to take their lead from the ‘ulama. Hence, in answering the call to war made by Mirza Shirazi, the people fought; they gave lives and battled on throughout the traumas of the crusade until they eventually won hack Iraq’s independence. Had it not been for their efforts we would now be captives; we would now be a British colony; but yet again, the vigorous efforts of the ‘ulama saved the day.
The reason why certain ‘ulama in Iraq were sent into exile in Iran, was because of their opposition to foreign forces. The late Messrs Sayyid Abulhasan, ( 534) Na’ini, ( 535) Shahrestani, ( 536) and Khalesi ( 537) were all sent into exile in Iraq because they spoke out against these forces and their Agents; and I can vouch for this. Again, at the time of that operate from Siyahkuh, that abhorrent ruffian Reza khan, the ‘ulama once more rose up and this time they did so in the city of Isfahan. ( 538) I was present on this occasion. Both the ‘ulama from Isfahan and those from other Iranian cities, converged on Qum where they assembled and rebelled against the regime. However, the regime resorted to trickery and the movement was crushed. Whether defeat in fact resulted from the regime’s trickery or whether it was due to other factors, the point is that it was indeed defeated.
Yet another movement was embarked upon by the ‘ulama of Khurasan. ( 539) the late Messrs Aqa Zadeh ( 540) and Sayyid Yunes ( 541) along with they were imprisoned. I myself saw how the late Aqa Zadeh, may God rest his soul, was seated on the ground with his turban removed, and how no one was allowed to go near him. He was led through the streets in this state, with his turban removed, and was taken to a court of law where he was tried. Throughout the whole of this time however, there was no sign of these political parties. These parties were not at all in evidence during these uprisings which were staged by the ‘ulama. Yes, they existed, but they were inert.
Azerbayjan ( 542) was the springboard of yet another movement during which the late Messrs Mirza Sadiq Aqa ( 543) and Angaji ( 544) were arrested and exiled for their participation in this campaign. Following a long period in exile, the late Mirza Sadiq Aqa never actually returned to Azerbayjan although the people there held him in high regard. Instead, however, he came to Qum where I would occasionally pay him a visit and where he in fact remained until the end of his life.
Someone else with whom I was acquainted, was the late Mudarris, ( 545) may he rest in peace. He was yet another ‘aiim who stood in confrontation against oppression, against of the oppression of that man from Siyahkuh, that ruffian Reza khan. He stood up in opposition in the Majlis . . . Other ‘ulama had sent him to Tehran as a leading representative of theirs, yet he travelled to Tehran in a horse-drawn carriage. According to a reliable source, Mudarris had bought this carriage in Qum, and had personally ridden the horse several times during his journey to Tehran. Having reached the capital, he bought a modest house in which to live, where I would often go to visit him. I visited Mudarris, may God rest his soul, regularly. He was the most popular Member of Parliament in Tehran. He used to stand-alone and fearlessly speak out against oppression; and he enjoyed a following which included people like Malik al-Shu’ Ara. ( 546) But in spite of this following, it was he who stood up and spoke out against oppression and against the injustices committed by that man (Reza khan).
This all happened during the time when the Russian government had sent an ultimatum to Iran and when its soldiers had entered Iran, advancing as far as Qazvin. I can’t remember exactly what it was that Russia wanted from Iran, but it is documented in history, and it concerns a matter which would have more or less reduced Iran to servitude; a matter which the Russians insisted on being ratified in the Iranian Majlis. The matter was taken to the Majlis and everyone there was at a loss as to what course of action they should take; hence, they remained silent in their stupor. A foreign journal recounts how a clergyman came and stood at the back of the speaker’s platform, his hands trembling from age and infirmity; and the journal quotes him as saying something along the lines of: “It may be the will of Allah that our liberty and sovereignty shall be taken away from us by force, but let us not sign them away with our own hands”. He then cast a negative vote, and others, finding courage, followed suit, thus dimissing the ultimatum. As for the Russians, there was not a damned thing they could do about it. ( 547)
This is the policy politicians usually follow. Firstly, they play the bogeyman to see how their opponent reacts. Should their opponent stand up and confront them, then they beat a retreat; but should the poor opponent step back, then they close in. Animals also behave in this way. An animal also has this property, whereby it comes forward at first to suss out its opponent. If the latter takes the offensive, then the animal runs away; but if its opponent flees, then the animal chases after it. This is normal practice for an animal. Therefore, we see what a fearless opponent this clergyman, Mudarris, was. He was someone who would stand up to a great power, who confronted a power as great as Russia. He was someone who, to quote the aforementioned journal, stood up with trembling hands and said: “It may well be the will of Allah that our liberty and sovereignty shall be taken away from us by force, but let us not sign them away with our own hands”. He then cast a negative vote; and others, finding courage, did the same.
Now, wouldn’t you say that this clergyman is worthy of appreciation? In addition, what about these past movements . . . and this recent movement which led to the event of Khordad 15 ( 548) and again, all of those lives given by the people? During the movement of Khordad 15, it was the religious scholars who were at the forefront; it was the ‘ulama; and this has continued to be the case right down to the present. Even now, the religious scholars create uproar and make their voices heard more than anyone else. Of course, some of those from the university are also now involved in this struggle; they too are playing a part in the movement as are the rest of the people. But it is the ‘ulama that they follow and not anyone else. A great number of the ‘ulama from Tehran have been imprisoned by the regime; many of the preachers and the ‘ulama have been arrested and sent to prison where they have been kept for several days and where they have undergone persecution. ( 549)
My good men, you are mistaken in believing that you want Islam but not the mullah. How can you have Islam without the mullah? Again, it is these very mullahs who step forward and who get things done. It is they who sacrifice their lives. Even now some of our mullahs are in prison; some of our ‘ulama, our self-sacrificing ‘ulama, are in prison as we speak, refusing to give in to these acts of oppression. Agents of the regime who ask them to express regret for their actions approach them, but they do not comply.
The things I have so far discussed are just some of the things that I have personally witnessed during my lifetime, many other such things having by now escaped my memory; and as for incidents from an earlier period in history, since I am no historian I am not really in a position to discuss them.
However, with regard to the grievance I wish to voice against these intellectuals, I would ask them not to brush aside this powerful force which has the support of the nation; and not to dismiss the ‘ulama arguing that: ‘We want Islam, but we do not want the mullah’. This is against reason; it does not make political sense. You must welcome the ‘ulama with open arms; and should they be found wanting in their knowledge of political affairs, then come together and give them the political instruction they need. The relationship they have with the people is much better than yours. They command a greater influence over the people than you do, indeed, you have no such influence. They are influential among the people. Each mullah carries weight within his own parish. Those of you who are concerned about Islam and who say that you want Islam, are not
To say that you want Islam but that you do not want the akhund. You should say that you want Islam and that you want the akhund too.
If an akhund is unaware of certain political issues for example, then you are to make a joint effort to help him. You are to teach him about these political issues so that he may then practise what he has learnt, and as a result, is able to retain the nation’s support thus enabling you to administer the country. If you want to engage in struggle alone, without assistance from the akhund, then you will remain oppressed by others until doomsday. You are to come together, to unite, to be brothers together. Do not spurn those within the clergy. The latter constitute an imperishable force; they constitute the power of the nation.
Therefore, do not brush the power of the nation aside by saying that you do not want to have anything to do with the clergy. No matter how much you may say this, the fact remains that the people certainly do want the clergy to be involved. You are but an isolated group compared to the rest of the people, people who indeed want the ‘ulama to be involved in things. People such as those in the bazaar or the ordinary man in the street, they all want the ‘ulama to be involved.
Therefore, whilst I feel a sense of attachment and fondness towards certain intellectuals - intellectuals who serve Islam, and in particular those who are abroad, those in America, Europe and India for example, with whom I correspond and who are at the service of Islam, who want to serve Islam, who have a love of Islam, and who want to elinnate oppression, on occasion having firmly resolved certain difficulties which have arisen abroad in the past - at the same time, I believe that they should not disregard those services rendered by the ‘ulama of Islam and the akhunds, arguing that ‘We want Islam minus the akhund’. Do not you see that this is not possible? Islam and the akhund are inseparable entities. To say ‘We want Islam minus the akhund’, is like saying ‘We want Islam, but an Islam which does not concern itself with politics’. Indeed, this is the extent to which Islam and the akhund are intertwined . There is no way that you could have Islam without the akhund. The Holy Prophet (phuh) was also an akhund; he was one of the greatest akhunds of all time. The Prophet was the akhund above all akhunds. And Hazrat Ja’far as-Sadiq (pbuh) , he too was an alim of Islam. These men were the fuqaha of Islam; they stand supreme amongst the fuqaha of Islam. So how can you now say ‘I do not want the akhund’? Indeed, this is why I nurse a grievance against these intellectuals.
However, I also have a complaint to make aginst the honorable men of the clergy. They too are guilty of overlooking many factors. They too, because of their purity of heart, are influenced by the malicious propaganda, which is put out by the regime. The latter dreams up some machination or other daily. It continually makes an issue out of nothing SO that the prime cause of our suffering will be overlooked and the ‘ulama will become inattentive. That is to say, there are certain elements, which often purposely create a sensation, thus causing some predicament or other to arise. Every so often some kind of trouble crops up in Iran; and at such times, instead of the honorable preachers , the learned ‘ulama, concerning themselves with the political matters found in Islam, with the economic matters found in Islam, they spend their time talking about ‘this person’ being a heathen, ‘that person’ being an apostate, and ‘so-and-so’ being a Wahabi. They accuse the scholar who has toiled hard for fifty years, and whose knowledge of, fiqh is more thorough than that of the majority of themselves, of being a Wahabi. ( 550) But it is wrong of them to say such things. You are not to create a rift between yourselves. If you continually reject people one by one by saying that this person is a Wahabi, that person is an unbeliever, and so-and-so is whatever, then at the end of the day that will remain?
I mentioned earlier that I am no expert as far as history is concerned, but nevertheless there are certain things which I have seen or heard in the past and have committed to memory. One such thing concerns something which the Noble Prophet, may peace and blessings he upon him and his family, did following his capture of 1-lunayn; something from which two lessons can he learned for those who are keen to understand. On the occasion in question, the Noble Prophet did two things:
Firstly, according to historical accounts, when he heard that one of the leaders of these unbelievers had got away and fled to Jeddah and that he handed his aba to someone, ordering for it to he taken to the escapee and for the latter to be brought back for he had been spared; ( 551) and secondly, he again behaved in a sinlar manner with Abu Sufyan ( 552) (and later with Abu Sufyan’s offspring), a person who throughout his whole life continually refused to accept the faith of Islam. Thus, when the spoils which had been won during the battle of Hunayn were brought forward for distribution, in spite of all that this Abu Sufyan and those pagans of the Quraysh had done in the past, the Prophet gave generously to them all, giving as many as a hundred camels to one, three hundred camels to another, and goodness knows how many camels and other things to the rest. In addition, he did this even though he knew that they were pagans; even though he was well aware of them being polytheists. As a result, however, the devotees protested that their own share of the spoils had been inadequate and that these unbelievers had been too greedy. In reply to the protests the Prophet said: ‘They (the unhelievers) have taken camels Away with them whereas you have me with you. Wouldn’t you prefer to have the Prophet of God with you rather than some camels? ( 553)
Hence, we see what a noble person this man was. Irrespective of his prophetic role, we can see what an exalted mind he had. And at the same time we see how the beneficence shown by the Prophet towards the pagans of the Quraysh led the latter, who were probably impure at heart, to at least make an outward appearance of being Muslim, and to therefore join the fold of Islam. Furthermore, we see how admirably, how marvellously, the Prophet replied to those who voiced protest, thus making them content.
Returning to the present-day situation, if some patent error is to be found in the work of those who are currently striving for the sake of Islam, and who are writing material to this end, then you are to rectify this error. As ones who are learned, you are to rectify this error and are not to ostracise the persons concerned. Do not drive them away. Indeed, today we need the support of as many people as possible. Right now, we are to make the most of every single person. At times like this, when whatever the regime writes is against us; when all its measures and propaganda are aimed against us; when neither the press nor the radio are free to convey our message or to broadcast even one word of our argument; at a time when our hands our bound and we have been placed in a strait-jacket whereby we cannot get our message across and have no means of propagation at our disposal; indeed, we need every single person we can get.
Therefore, even supposing that there are a few mistakes to be found in the work of those who are writing to promote Shi’ ism, you are to rectify these mistakes. Do not ostracise these people; do not drive them away. Do not reject those from the university. These are the people in whose hands this country’s destiny will lie in the future. It is not you who will become a government minister in the future. You and I are not the country’s future ministers. We are in a different profession. Tomorrow, this country’s destiny will lie in the hands of these people from the university. It is they who will become Members of Parliament, government ministers or whatever. Therefore, you are to be on friendly terms with these people. Do not persist in your rejection of them. Do not continue to mount the pulpit and denounce them. Mount the pulpit and advise them instead of reviling them. Where will reviling people get you’? Advise them. Welcome these credit-worthy fronts, which are currently active.
Like yourselves, their members have also suffered imprisonment and persecution; they too have suffered exile; they too have been forced to live abroad and are afraid to return to their own country. If you ostracise those who are currently writing and publishing material abroad on Islamic and religious issues, then tomorrow, should the country’s destiny fall into the hands of some of these people, what will they do with the future generation of akhunds having been tormented so by akhunds in the past? Everyone must join hands together, for both the country of Iran and the Islamic countries as a whole, of which Iran is but a member, are hovering on the brink of a disaster.
God knows how distressed and worried I sometimes become when I think of how many days Iran would be able to survive on its own supplies, if, God forbid, it should become involved in a war. Experts say that were these ‘supplier countries’ to cut their supplies to Iran, then the latter would only be able to sustain itself for a thirty-three-day period. Yet what kind of a country are we talking about here? We are in fact talking of an Iran whose province of Khurasan alone was capable of supplying the country’s needs all year round, in addition to producing a surplus for export to others. Yes, just one of its provinces - the province of Khurasan. However, what did they do? - They went and implemented land reforms! They implemented those damned land reforms, and as a result all the land has been taken from the people and we have now reached a stage where Iran’s total agricultural produce is enough to suffice for a mere thirty-three-day period - if the published figures are accurate that is, otherwise the period could in fact be even shorter still.
What would happen if, for just one day, these ships and those people ( 554) who have built a market here in which to sell their goods did not come to Iran? Yes indeed, that is what ‘land reforms’ actually means: the opening up of a market here for use by foreign countries. These countries have been known to pour wheat into the sea in the past; they have had a wheat surplus and so they have poured it into the sea. ( 555) But why should they do this when instead they can implement ‘land reforms’ in Iran and export this wheat surplus to her, receiving cash payment in return? They have left our agriculture in a paralysed state, everything now coming to us from there, from abroad. Just take a look at the various journals. In them you can sometimes see with what swelling pride the government boastfully brags about how much wheat it has imported, how much barley it has imported and so on. However, you bungling idiots, do not you see this is in fact something of which you should be ashamed! You are the ones who should be exporting wheat. You are the ones whose province of Azerbayjan alone was once enough to supply you with all of your agricultural needs as well as producing a surplus for you to export.
Yet, now you sit and boast about being the ones who have to import goods! Yes indeed, you should be ashamed of these ‘land reforms’ of yours and of whatever other ‘reforms’ you have brought about.
To return to my grievance against the honorable men of the clergy, I ask them not to divorce these other fronts from themselves, but instead to bring all the different fronts together. Moreover, those in the clergy must value this group of people who are striving in the path of Islam and who are writing material to this end. They (the clergy) must make use of these people. My good men of the clergy extend the right hand of fellowship. Do not talk of a deprave, libertine university and.
Do not continually divorce other fronts from yourselves. In addition, the same goes for the members of other fronts; they too must not divorce the clergy from themselves by saying, for example, that they are reactionaries and old-fashioned. In what way can the akhund he said to be reactionary? How can the akhund be said to be reactionary when he stands as a forerunner of progress?
Thus, we have a situation where one front accuses the clergy of reactionism and so on, whilst another front makes defamatory statements about those in the university saying so-and-so is an athiest and so on. However, this is very wrong. Both fronts are to extend a brotherly hand to each other, so go ahead and do this and set out a joint course of action, which you can both follow. Today we have been presented with an opportunity. Iran would not he in the terrible state it is now if this were not the case. This is an opportunity, which has been granted which, and us if capitalised upon, presents us with an ideal opportunity. The gentlemen must avail themselves of this opportunity. They must protest in writing. Some writers from certain parties are already busy making such written protests to which they are also adding their signatures. Such people write, air their views and sign their work. ( 556) you are to do the same, and you are to get a you must come out with the problems which are facing Iran. Now is the time to say these things; and if you do so then you will achieve results.
However, my concern is that should this opportunity be wasted and should this man’s ( 557) position be strengthened, then the regime will come down on the people so hard that they won’t know what hit them; and it is you clergymen who will bear the brunt of this attack. This is what is worrying me. Therefore, do not waste this opportunity. All fronts must unite and write about the problems facing Iran. Announce them to the world. If it is not possible to do so in Iran, then send what you have written abroad; they will publish it there for you. Somehow send your work here (abroad) and we will send it to be published. Get your criticisms down on paper; protest against the regime itself as others have
We ourselves have seen how several people have already criticised the regime in writing; we have seen how they have got away with saying many things to which they have given their signature. This is an opportunity not to be missed so do not let it slip by ( 558)
The regime in Iran is now doing its best to straighten things out with the imperialist powers. It is seeking to fully establish its puppet status with these powers once and for all, for it has not yet been given their full assurance on this. It is therefore busy making plans either to bring the representatives of these powers over here or for its own representatives to go there or whatever in order to straighten things out for good. ( 559) And my worry is that, God forbid, should this opportunity be lost, and should this regime receive the assurance it is seeking from the imperialist powers, then unlike former times, untold damage will be inflicted upon Islam.
I beseech Almighty God to grant success to you all; and to grant glory to Islam. 0 God, in the name of the Immaculate Imams, exalt Islam; bestow dignity and greatness upon it; awaken us from the slumber of ignorance; bring together all of our different fronts; and enable us to speak with one voice. In addition, peace is upon you, and the mercy and blessings of God.