Khomeini and Persian Literature - Essay Example

Khomeini often backed his claims to speak for and represent the people on the basis of various hadith of the Prophet. 'The scholars are rulers over the people', he would cite. His political writing and commentary - and he had a lifetime's scholarship behind him - thus had a powerful logic, since they were derived from early Islamic thought and history. His books and lectures on Islamic government had already passed the greatest test of all, the respect of his fellow scholars in Qum1, which was the final hurdle before a man was respected as an ayatollah (Baqer 1999, p. 110). No formal title could confer this on a scholar. At the same time he had in no way compromised with the Shah's regime. Because of this unimpeachable position Khomeini occupied and held the high moral ground. The Shah did not have a chance once his army and secret police began to unravel. No one understood better than Khomeini himself the importance of mobilizing the masses through traditional religious symbolism. He used the tazyah processions which commemorate Karbala, the seminal historical occasion when Hussain was martyred, to mobilizing the people (p. 119). In 1978 he sent messages from abroad to Iranians asking them to prepare for the massive marches of the month of Muharram (p. 120). These would break the spirit of the military, who had no will to kills their own people. By converting the traditional mourning for Hussain during Ashurah into a challenge to the Shah, Khomeini again touched a deep chord in people (p. 121). Hussain's martyrdom was in the cause of justice and his fight against tyranny. Modern Iranians understood the message. The Muharram of 1978 was used to agitate for the abolition of the monarchy and the establishment of an Islamic state and to further challenge the USA (Baqer 1999, p. 245). In the next Muharram Khomeini directed people to return to their own neighborhood, in an attempt to calm things down. All this is not to suggest that Khomeini was manipulating people. He had deep convictions. Unlike many other Iranian clergy he always spoke of Islam - not the sect of Shiism. His greatest contribution to global Islam was his belief that there are no divisions between Shia and Sunni, that both are Muslims (p. 248). For his Islam was a universal system, knowing no borders (p. 250). Indeed it took considerable argument to persuade him to speak only of Iran in order to mobilize the Iranian people. It required further discussion to convince him that the President of Iran must be an Iranian, not just a Muslim. It must be recalled that the first foreign dignitary he received after the revolution was Yasser Arafat (p. 252). Though an Arab, Arafat symbolized an Islamic cause, that of liberating the holy placed of Palestine. Islam for Khomeini meant Ithna Ashari or twelve Imam Shiism (Fereydoun 2003, p. 65). While providing the Shias with an immense reservoir of religious passion, this inevitably acted as a barrier between Shia and the Sunni areas and thereby created obstacles for Khomeini on the larger Muslim world stage (p. 67). Yet Khomeini did move Shia and Sunni towards each other by declaring they were one. Throughout the Muslim world, he had earned the respect of the people. His challenging the USA, his reputation for integrity and public espousal of the Islamic cause were widely supported (p. 92). He had come to embody the moods of Islamic revivalism. As the USA became the focus of both cultural and political opposition, and because it was the age of the Western media, Khomeini's image, in turn, became the symbol of all that was wrong with Iran in the USA. Khomeini was depicted as a humourless, cruel and medieval monk (p. 110). Bearded clergy in flowing black robes, women covered in dark sheets, rituals centred around martyrs long dead, national hatred concentrated on the USA as the Great Satan - where does Iranian society related to the USA How do we make sense of the close relationships between the two up to the 1970s and then almost obsessive mutual hatred from the 1980s The answers are as complex as any pattern on an Iranian carpet; let us try to separate the strands (James 1984, p. 10). In the 1980s two more different societies than the USA and Iran would have been difficult to imagine. It is well to remember that between the great events that inspire Iranian society and those that inspire the American there is a thousand years of history (p. 112). The massacre at Karbala took place in the seventh century; the founding fathers landed in Plymouth a thousand years later. So one society was already old when the other was just beginning to be born (p. 115). The most important strand to identify is Shiism. Shia ideology in society encourage people to respond in terms of good versus evil, of immense sacrifices, of martyrdom in the cause, and to accept the leadership of religious figures who reflected the authority of the Imams (p. 118). The Safavid dynasty ensured the close working relationship between Shia ideology and the Imam (p. 120). The second strand reflects the oscillation in society between the dynastic principle of powerful kings and that of pious religious figures. The oscillation has been in evidence in the politics of Iran over the last few centuries. For example, how Majlisi, one of the leaders of the clergy in the late seventeenth century, actually led a revolution, not unlike that of Khomeini's, to impose the will of the clergy on the Safavid ruler. The dilemma was difficult for the Iranians to resolve. According to one principle, power came from God, and humanity was to submit; according to the other, power came from the imperial dynasty, and genealogy decided their rich cultural heritage, the more they underlined the importance of royalty in their tradition, the further they moved away from the Islamic principle. So those who were against the Islamic principle would oppose it implicitly by talking of the glories of Persian culture, poetry and art. It was a subtext that announced their real political and religious positions (Fereydoun 2003, p. 31-63). During the struggles against the Shah in the 1960s and 1970s thousands of men were mowed down by troops and Khomeini's own son was suspected of being poisoned by the Shah's regime. Khomeini himself was exiled from 1964 to February 1979. It was a land dominated by materialism, by the secret service, Savak, and by the corruption of the Shah and his family. But underneath it all the well-springs of Islam remained, waiting to be tapped (Fereydoun 2003, p. 1-31). Modernity for planners and economists in Iran meant dams, roads, and schools. But for people in the bazaars and the villages it also meant discos, jeans, strip-clubs, bars and cinemas - all of which antagonized ordinary people and infuriated the clergy. The moral and financial corruption of the Westernized elite, taking their inspiration from Shah and his family, further added fuel to the fire (Fereydoun 2003, p. 91). It was not hard to imagine the outraged feelings of ordinary Iranians about the Americans during the Shah's rule; and there were about 50,000 here - soldiers, advisers, technicians. Iran was an important bastion against the Soviet Union, and this was the time of the Cold War. Bazaar rumors claimed that Americans had their strip-clubs, brothels and bars even in Isfahan. Iranians, passionately proud of their culture and history, were seething. Iran was a powder-keg and all that was needed was a match to blow everything sky high. This was only provided by the Ayatollah Khomeini (Baqer 1999, p. 107-128). The sociologist Dr Ali Shariati condemned the obsession with the West as gharbzadegi (being 'struck' - i.e. seduced - by the West) a phrase full of resonance coined by the writer Jalal Ale-Ahmad. He remained popular, even somewhat of a cult figure; 100,000 copies of his lectures were published and thousands flocked to hear him speak. For them Shariati demonstrated the relevance of Shia Islam to contemporary life2. A Sorobonne-educated intellectual, Shariati quoted Emile Durkheim, Max Weber, Frantz Fanon, and Che Guevara. In his work he synthesized Shia Islam and Western thought (Omar 2000). Yet Khomeini's writing represents a rich tradition in Persian literature. Apart from his serious work on religion and politics Khomeini tried his hand at poetry. Khomeini's poetry is seen as the superficial love lyrics and dismissed by those unacquainted with the Persian tradition. What is not fully understood is that the imagery of such poetry is specific to Persian Islamic culture. The images and content represent a mystical tradition; wine is the metaphor of the intoxication that comes from divine wisdom and devotion; the pious believers who simply believe in outward ritual are seen as empty hypocrites, the drunkards who have human feelings are the real worshippers as they drink wine/wisdom, and so on. It is with this in mind that we need to approach Khomeini's poetry: I've become possessed by the beauty spot above your lip, oh friend I saw your fevered eye, and fell ill Open the wine house door to me day and night For I am fed up with mosque and seminary I sought help from the breath of the wine besotted drunkard Permit me to recall the temple of idols I was awakened by the hand of the idol of the wine house3 (Fischer and Abedi 1990, pg. 452) References: Moin, Baqer, 1999, Khomeini: life of the Ayatollah, I.B.Tauris, Islam and Politics, pg. 110-252 Hoveyda, Fereydoun, 2003. The Shah and The Ayatollah: Iranian Mythology and Islamic Revolution, Greenwood publishing group, pp 1-110. James Lee, 1984. The Final word!: An American refutes and the sayings of Ayatollah Khomeini, University of Michigan, Philosophical library, pg. 10-120 Dr. Mohammad Omar Farooq, 2000, Humanity and People Power: A tribute to Dr. Ali Shariarti, Accessed April 24, 2008 http://www.globalwebpost.com/farooqm/writings/islamic/ali_shariati.html Read More