The Islamic Revolution in history and history in the Islamic Revolution

By Abu Dharr

(August 28, New Delhi, Sri Lanka Guardian) One of the outstanding features of the Islamic Revolution in Iran is its ability to demonstrate the human potential or the human factor in matters of governance. We have all read our Islamic history and assign it to academic circles of opinion and even judgment. Seldom do we find hard working and active Muslims who demonstrate the ability to learn from their own mistakes and common experiences. Currently there is a sincere divergence of opinion within the Islamic government in Iran. As the dust begins to settle we can get the picture of two Islamic trends: both of them sincere. One trend represents the sincerity of the middle and upper classes of society and the other the sincerity of the middle and lower classes.

There are exceptions to this generalization but the overall gist stands. The sincere Muslims in the highborn and blue-blooded urban centers of Islamic Iran as well as their rivals in the working classes are shy to explain their major differences in public. But when we listen closely to their opposing points of view we sense there is a strong but silent undercurrent that centers round “economic priorities” or “budgetary allocations.” The upper-class sincere Muslims feel that the Islamic State in Iran is overextending itself into areas that should not be of urgent concern — such as the liberation of Palestine, the support for Hizbullah, and the assistance to Hamas and other Palestinian freedom-fighters. Their argument extends itself into the Islamic State’s relationship with European powers as well as the United States. They feel the nuclear issue should not deplete Iran’s diplomatic relations with Britain, France, and other European nation-states, as well as what is shaping up to be a historic opportunity of normalizing relations with Washington.

In this camp of sincere Muslims there is nothing wrong with an Iranian ‘asabiyah (clannish-cum-nationalist policy) that functions under the phraseology and oratory of the Qur’an and the Sunnah. In their worldview, there is nothing wrong with emphasizing the national interest, provided no one dispenses with the necessary ayat and hadiths that serve as an Islamic gloss for a “national” Islamic state! The problem with these sincere Muslims is that they have either not read or perhaps not understood their history well. Let us go back to our early Islamic generations. During the time of the third successor to the Prophet (s), there also was a segment of Islamic society that was sincere and believed in a “national” Islamic State. They never parted with citations from the Qur’an and the Prophet (s) to justify their ‘asabiyah. They, too, saw to it that the state would serve to open up commercial and money-making opportunities for the entrepreneurs and business-minded people. Opposed to this ‘asabiyah state were committed Muslims who disagreed with this political orientation. Among these committed Muslims who sincerely disagreed with ‘Uthman and his closest political advisers’ sincerity were Abu Dharr, ‘Ammar ibn Yasir, ‘Abdullah ibn Mas‘ud, al-Miqdad ibn al-Aswad, Bilal ibn Rabah, Salman al-Farisi, and others.

There, too, we observe economic ranks of Muslims. And the result of this standoff in our early Islamic history was that the “lower classes” of Muslims lost in this sincerity “tug-of-war.” And it was not long after that that the Muslims lost their khilafah model of ruling. In the Islamic Republic of Iran today we have this dynamic reasserting itself. You would think that “Shi‘is” would be the last ones to go through these motions again. The fact of the matter is that a traditional form of Shi‘ism is not enough to avoid the mistakes of the past. Another adjoining fact is that the Islamic Republic and society in Iran are at a point in their political maturity as to be presented with this “historical crossroad.”

The elections that took place in Islamic Iran almost two months ago are truly historic, pivotal, and exceptional. If Muslims could just part from their traditional labels of “Sunni” and “Shi‘i” they would be able to see how the Islamic Revolution in Iran is capable of generating its own “Sunnis” who abide by Shi‘i rituals and will argue until the end of time that they are uncompromised and even die-hard Shi‘is. We do not say this in a negative sense. This election is truly a revolution within a revolution. It offers the people in Iran and the global Islamic movement the opportunity to correct their common history. Of course we will always have Muslims who think that nothing went wrong in history — our Islamic history is impeccable! We hope to have a separate discussion with these types of people later.

What is required of all Muslims, those that live geographically within Islamic Iran and others that are ideologically with Islamic Iran, is to take a hard look at the facts. And the facts are that even an Islamic society has a propensity to give rise to its “upper classes” who were in Islamic history and who are today in their own selves and in their own world sincere. The problem with their sincerity is that they cannot tolerate lower classes becoming the decision-making “class.”

For any seasoned Muslim a refresher on the lifetime of the “opposition sahabah” suffices. The Islamic government in Iran is way ahead of all other Muslims — even the global Islamic movement. The events of the past couple of months since these time-defining elections demonstrate how advanced the Islamic Revolution and the Islamic leadership is in breaking new political ground. One of the uneasy and punishing lessons of scripture and Sunnah is the incompatibility of combining the moneyed class with the ruling class. We did this once and we are still trying to reverse its political ramifications throughout history. We cannot afford to do this again. An Islamic rule of thumb is: wealth disqualifies a sincere Muslim from higher positions of power in an Islamic State. The Islamic State in Iran and its honest and honorable citizens are at a social occasion, a critical point, and a point in time when a critical decision has to be made. Either they draw back into an Islamic “nation-state” that rationalizes and justifies accumulation of wealth, an emergence of a permanent upper-class and the combination of wealth and power as did our early Muslims with the eventual emergence of dynasties, nation-states, and ‘asabiyah. Or they discover who they are in history and who they are today and pick up where the “opposition sahabah” left off. This would mean that the Islamic rank and file in Iran part with both Safavi tashayu‘ and “American Islam”.

The question that goes directly to the matter is: are the Muslims in Iran capable of identifying today’s elitist, mainstream, and power-hungry but sincere Muslims? It is easy to speak out and criticize elitist, mainstream, and power-centered Muslims almost 14 centuries ago, but can they identify these same attitudes and traits among today’s Muslims?

It is reassuring and a relief to hear Imam Seyyed Khamenei speak about differences within the Islamic family. He speaks with the heart and vision of a leader who is carrying the weight of history and the hope for tomorrow.

pull quotes:

…when we listen closely to their opposing points of view we sense there is a strong but silent undercurrent that centers round “economic priorities” or “budgetary allocations.” The upper-class sincere Muslims feel that the Islamic State in Iran is overextending itself into areas that should not be of urgent concern — such as the liberation of Palestine, the support for Hizbullah, and the assistance to Hamas and other Palestinian freedom-fighters. Their argument extends itself into the Islamic State’s relationship with European powers as well as the United States.

The Islamic State in Iran and its honest and honorable citizens are at a social occasion, a critical point, and a point in time when a critical decision has to be made. Either they draw back into an Islamic

“nation-state” that rationalizes and justifies accumulation of wealth, an emergence of a permanent upper-class and the combination of wealth and power as did our early Muslims with the eventual emergence of dynasties, nation-states, and ‘asabiyah. Or they discover who they are in history and who they are today and pick up where the “opposition sahabah” left off.

-Sri Lanka Guardian