لطفا منتظر باشید ...
Where Shall we Begin?
In the tradition of Abudhar, who is my mentor, whose thought, whose
understanding of Islam and Shi'ism, and whose ideals, wants, and rage I
emulate, I begin my talk with the name of the God of the oppressed (mustad'afan).
My topic is very specific.
Often people who do not approach issues with scientific method and language
criticize me for not including certain issues which they think have direct
bearing on the topic of my speech. But you are well aware that once a speaker
or an author chooses a particular topic, his sole responsibility lies in
his staying within the scope of his topic, and doing his best to provide
an accurate analysis or substantiation of the thesis he has put forward.
For example, when the topic is Islam with special concentration on the
charges brought against it by its enemies or those who are not familiar
with it, a speaker or an author who wants to respond to those charges logically
and scientifically must limit himself to the subject matter at hand, i.e.,
those specific issues to which he has raised objections. Such a discussion
logically should not be concerned with providing an introduction to Islam
in which every conceivable Islamic topic comes within the scope of the
discussion. Our imaginary author claims only that, in some specific instances,
Islam has been misunderstood, and he sets as his goal to correct those
mistakes. Should he succeed in his endeavors, he has performed his responsibility.
With that in mind, the subject of my talk is a very specific subject
and aims to answer an explicit and narrow question, one which is ever present
in the minds of the masses in general, and the "enlightened souls" (roshan^fekran)
in particular. That question is: Where Shall We Begin? This is a universal,
pertinent, and fundamental question. It is not a question that I have put
forward based on my own understanding or as a result of my own contemplation;
rather it is the question of our time, to which I have tried to provide
an answer. When one looks at the history of social development in the world,
one encounters certain historical epochs during which numerous works were
published entitled "Where Shall we Begin?" or "What Is To Be Done?" At
least five such works immediately come to mind. Most of them have been
published at the times when the societies of their origin were in a particular
state of social transformation. For example, no book with similar titles
appeared during the Middle Ages. Such questions are raised when a society
is in the process of evolving from one state to another. The social conscience
warrants that certain steps be taken to free the society from the domineering
effects of the existing social order and the status quo on the actual,
intellectual and religious life of its members, and to replace that order
with another. The question of where to begin, than, is a matter of 'social
strategy' and not of 'ideology.' Therefore, I do not need to talk about
the nature of a doctrine a religion or a particular scientific theory.
Rather, I want to draw attention to where one should begin in terms of
strategy in our society in a given period of time in order to achieve our
shared objectives and to protect our values which are at present subject
to cultural, intellectual and social onslaughts.
The gravest tragedy in traditional societies in general, and in the
Muslim societies in particular, is that there is a lack of communication
and a difference of outlook between the masses and the educated class.
Due to the broad extension of the mass media, literacy, and education in
the industrial countries of the West, the masses and the intellectuals
understand each other rather well and share a relatively similar outlook.
In Europe, a university professor can easily communicate with the 'uneducated'
masses. Neither does the professor see himself as of higher stature nor
do the masses treat him as an untouchable person wrapped in a piece of
cellophane.
Even in the early history of Islamic societies, the present large gap
between the intellectuals and the masses did not exist. The great Muslim
traditional intelligentsia, the 'O^lama-including the jurist- consults
(fuqaha), the dialectical theologians (mutakallimun), the interpreters
of the Qur'an (mufassirun), the philosophers, and the literalists ('O^daba)-had
close bonds with the general public through religion. Despite teaching
and studying in their seemingly isolated seminaries (hawzah), they successfully
avoided losing touch with the people. Such rapport between the 'O^lama
and the people exists even today. The majority of our uneducated masses,
who have never even heard of a night class or an adult course, can sit
next to the 'O^lama, who have achieved prominent scholarly stature, and
discuss their problems. They feel comfortable enough with the 'O^lama to
discuss their needs, complaints, their personal or family problems, and
to settle religious taxes or to ask for bibliomancy or legal opinion.
Unfortunately, under the modern culture and educational system, our
young people are educated and trained inside invincible and fortified fortresses.
Once they reenter the society, they are placed in certain occupational
and social positions completely isolated from the masses. In effect the
new intelligentsia lives and moves alongside the people, but in a closed
"golden cage" of exclusive circles. As a result, on the one hand, the intelligentsia
pursue life in an ivory tower without having any understanding of their
own society, and, on the other hand, the uneducated masses are deprived
of the wisdom and knowledge of the very same intellectuals whom the masses
have sponsored (albeit indirectly) and for whose flourishing they have
provided.
The greatest responsibility of those who wish to rebuild their society
and bring together the unintegrated, and at times, antagonistic elements
of the society into a harmonious whole is to bridge the gap between these
two poles-the pole of theory and the pole of practice-and to fill this
great abyss of alienation between the masses and the intellectuals. For
any responsible enlightened soul who wants to achieve something, regardless
of his ideological conviction, it is a duty to build a bridge between the
beautiful, valuable, and the mysterious (in the mind of the masses) island
of the intellectuals and the land of the masses; a bridge across which
both the intellectuals and the masses can interact. Regardless of any answer
to the question "Where shall we begin?" and regardless of your agreement
with my answer, we cannot help but accept and agree with this fundamental
principle: the first step is to build such a bridge.
Implicit in the question "Where shall we begin?" there is an understanding
on the part of the audience and the person who poses such a question that
two prior questions namely, "Who should begin?" and "For what purpose?"
have already been answered. Obviously, the question of where to begin is
asked by those who have a sense of responsibility with regard to their
time and society and wish to do something about it. Undoubtedly, they are
the enlightened souls, for only such individuals feel a social responsibility
and have a sense of social mission. One who is not enlightened is not responsible
either.
Note that I stress enlightened souls and not those who have obtained
degrees. Enlightened does not mean "intellectual". The latter, which has
incorrectly been translated into Persian as enlightened (roshan^fekr),
refers to a person who does mental (as opposed to manual) work. Such an
individual may or may not be an enlightened soul. Conversely, a person
may not be an intellectual if he works in a factory for example-but he
may nevertheless be an enlightened soul. The relation between the two is
not that of two interrelated concepts. Not every intellectual is enlightened
but some are and vice versa. Very few are both. For example, Sattar Khan
was an enlightened man but was not an intellectual, while Allamah Muhammad
Qazvini was an intellectual but not enlightened: (Ali Akbar) Dehkhoda was
both. Many are neither and among these are the "honorable and great politicians!"
Who is an enlightened soul? In a nutshell, the enlightened soul is a
person who is self-conscious of his "human condition" in his time and historical
and social setting, and whose awareness inevitably and necessarily gives
him a sense of social responsibility. And if he happens to be educated
he may be more effective and if not perhaps less so. But this is not a
general rule, for sometimes an uneducated individual may play a much more
important role. A study of the societies that have leaped forward from
the oppressive colonial state to a very progressive, aware and dynamic
state demonstrates that their leaders and those who assumed leadership
in the revolution and the scientific and social movements have often been
unintellectual. The social movements in Africa, Latin America and Asia
easily prove this principle, which has very few exceptions. One can safely
conclude that revolutionary leaders have rarely belonged to the educated
classes.
In the modern time, when man has reached a dead end in his evolving
society, and when the underdeveloped countries are struggling with numerous
difficulties and shortcomings, an enlightened soul is one who can generate
responsibility and awareness and give intellectual and social direction
to the masses. Accordingly) an enlightened person is not necessarily one
who has inherited and continues the works of Galileo, Copernicus, Socrates,
Aristotle, and Ibn-Sina (Avicenna). Modern scientists such as Einstein
and Von Braun complement and continue their achievements. In principle,
the responsibility and the rule of contemporary enlightened souls of the
world resembles that of the prophets and the founders of the great religions-revolutionary
leaders who promoted fundamental structural changes in the past. Prophets
are not in the same category as philosophers, scientists, technicians or
artists. The prophets often emerged from among the masses and were able
to communicate with the masses to introduce new mottoes, project new vision,
start new movements, and beget new energies in the conscience of the peoples
of their time and places. The great revolutionary, uprooting and yet constructive
movements of the prophets caused frozen, static and stagnant societies
to change their directions, life-styles, outlooks, cultures and destinies.
These prophets, therefore, are neither in the category of the past scientists
or philosophers, nor are they in the category of unaware common people.
Rather, they belong to a category of their own. They neither belong to
the commoners, who are usually the products and also captives of ancient
traditions and social molds or structures, nor do they belong to the community
of the scientists, philosophers, artists, mystics, monks or clergymen,
who are captives of abstract concepts and are overwhelmed with their own
scientific or inner explorations and discoveries. Similar to the prophets,
the enlightened souls also neither belongs to the community or scientists
nor to the camp of unaware and stagnant masses. They are aware and responsible
individuals whose most important objective and responsibility is to bestow
the great God-given gift of "self- awareness" (khod-agahi) to the general
public. Only self-awareness transforms static and corrupt masses into a
dynamic and creative cantor, which fosters great genius and gives rise
to great leaps, which in turn become the springboard for the emergence
of civilization, culture and great heroes.
