It is nearly 50 years since
Abolhassn Banisadr began to develop his revolutionary interpretation of Islam,
releasing it from the various discourses of power that have made despotism the
lot of Islamic countries and re-reading it through a discourse of freedom which
provides a theological and philosophical framework for the democratisation of
Islamic societies. The centrepiece of this revolutionary work is the concept of
Tawhid - but not as it is ordinarily understood. Banisadr argues that the
concept had "been emptied of its original meaning through a series of
historical, theological and philosophical processes" which reduced its
meaning to a "oneness of a God that represents absolute power over
everything he creates". This definition, in turn, created "a
master-slave relationship, or a uni-polar dichotomy, between God and human
beings". But this, he says, stands in complete contrast with the original
meaning of Tawhid as introduced in Koran, which is "a condition of the
absence of all power between God and humans, people with each other, and people
with the environment". At a deeper level, he descibes Tawhid as "a
journey from polytheism to monotheism, in which an individual becomes liberated
from any relationships that limit and confine humans (such as the relationship
to a multiplicity of gods) and through which a person can be freed in
relationships with limitless and infinite intelligent life". For him,
Tawhid means "being liberated from the faith in determinism, and
rediscovering one’s own inner (fetri) freedom".
Some years ago, Gold Mercury International conducted an in-depth interview with
Banisadr about the concept of Tawhid, its theological meaning and its
philosophical, political, economical, social and cultural ramifications.
In the hope that it will create a lively and dynamic debate, I decided to
publish it:
Interview of Gold Mercury With
Abol-Hassan Banisadr
08.11.2009
Is Tawhid a repressed tradition of
Islamic thought? If so, how can this be proven? Who or what is repressing it?
I should begin by pointing out
that the concept of ‘negative equilibrium’ is not specific to Islam or Islamic
thought. It has precedent in an ancient worldview
that was present in Iran prior to the birth of Islam. This worldview assumed
that all intelligent life relations should be, and can be, free of both
limitation and constraint. From this
perspective, when ‘force‘ is removed from a relationship (of people, but also
between people and their environment, and between ideas), then the relationship
will become limitless and without constraint. That is the meaning of Tawhid.
The concept was in fact one of five principles circulating before Islam, which
were later illuminated in the Koran: Tawhid, Nobovat (prophecy), Ma’ad
(resurrection day), Emamat (leadership) and Adl (justice) – I will define these
in what follows.
It can be argued, however, that
the concept of Tawhid has been emptied of its original meaning through a series
of historical, theological and philosophical processes. It is even possible to
argue that the prevailing definition of Tawhid as the oneness of a God that
represents absolute power over everything creates a master-slave relationship,
or a uni-polar dichotomy, between God and human beings. But this stands in total
opposition to the original meaning of Tawhid, which is at its essence a
condition of the absence of all power between God and humans, people with each
other, and people with the environment.
Historically speaking, soon after
the Prophet’s death in 632, despotic dynasties became the lot of Islamic countries. Even today, these countries are most
resistant to democratisation and to recognising people’s right to participate
in leadership. Iran is a good example of
this, as one ’supreme leader’ considers himself to own people’s lives, property
and honour and demands absolute obedience in return. And yet, this is in complete contradiction to
the Prophet’s government of the city of Medina.
This is not to say, as is sometimes suggested, that this constitutes a perfect
example of a society organized around the principle of Tawhid. But the extensive political and social
freedoms and high levels of tolerance and cooperation between Muslims that were
recorded in that society stand in sharp contrast to the despotism that has
dominated in Islamic societies ever since.
This meaning of Tawhid is clearly
defined in the Koran, which explicitly states that God has given his/her
guidance to everyone irrespective of their status as a believer (Momen) or non-believer (Kafir).
It also thus explicitly states that no one can guide anyone but
oneself. This principle, which is the
precise interpretation or translation of Tawhid, is neither accepted nor
practised in any Islamic or non-Islamic country. In dictatorships people have no vote
whatsoever and are infantilized as
children who should submit to the will of the leader, while in democracies
elites are elected by non-elites to make decisions on behalf of the people, rather
than decisions being made by the people themselves.
Even in theological circles, the
interpretation of the Tawhid concept in both Shia and Sunni schools of Islamic
scholarship is different from, and sometimes even in opposition to, the actual
meaning as expressed in the Koran. This discrepancy is due largely to the fact
that Islamic education has been philosophically grounded in the very different
intellectual traditions of Greek philosophy. During the Omavid dynasty, the Platonic
and Aristotelian schools of Greek thought gradually began to inform and then to
dominate Islamic teaching. In
particular, these traditions emphasized the importance of syllogistic logic, a
method of logical reasoning that is based on a uni-polar dichotomy, which in
itself is a negation of the holistic logic of Tawhid. Students of Islamic
theology continue to be trained mainly in this form of logic, and thus in
effect are educated in philosophical principles and methods that are
antithetical to Tawhid, and that preclude even the development of an
understanding of its original meaning.
How
can Tawhid, the Oneness of God, implying the absence of power relations and
exclusiveness, be put into practice in a Muslim’s daily life?
I have answered this question to
some extent in my first response. However, it presents a good opportunity for
introducing fuller definitions of Tawhid, Justice and Imamat (or leadership).
At a deeper level, Tawhid may be understood as a journey from
polytheism to monotheism, in which an individual becomes liberated from any
relationships that limit and confine humans (such as the relationship to a multiplicity
of gods) and through which a person can be freed in relationships with limitless
and infinite intelligent life. Tawhid
means being liberated from the faith in determinism, and rediscovering one’s
own inner (fetri) freedom. For whenever relationships are forged within
limits, they are established as relations of power, and serve to trap people in
power relations in belief, thought, word and action. If, on the other hand, people
develop relationships with each other and all life based on the principles of Tawhid,
then these relationships are in fact established as if relations with God, and
are thus free of all forms of power and force. There is only relationship which
need not be, and cannot be, a power relation:
Human ↔ God ↔ Human + other phenomena
This also applies to the free
development of knowledge. We can assume that in the absence of power relations,
a multiplicity of ideas that can be related to one another through the free
flow of knowledge will reach a state of Tawhid.
Not only does Tawhid not negate the multiplicity of
ideas; on the contrary, it necessitates
it. The constant passage through and movement
in multiplicity therefore requires a guiding principle that enables us to
develop a discourse of freedom in which ideas are judged on the basis of their
relationship to justice. In other words, it requires a guiding principle that
is compatible with independence and human rights. And this in turn requires
the universal development of the talent of leadership, as both a method for
thinking as well as its goal, so that people can make sense out of this great
multiplicity of ideas. Any progress must therefore begin with a multiplicity of
ideas and proceed through a process of de-violentization as it moves in a Tawhidi
direction.
When this can be done without
limitation, and when it is oriented towards the realization of justice, it
becomes possible to develop relations of friendship and freedom. What does
“justice” mean in this context? What does it mean to say that justice can be
used as an indicator for Tawhidi ideas, relationships and individuals? In
Koranic terms, the term justice is defined as “indicator” (mizan); an indicator that distinguishes right from non-right. Justice is understood in this context to be a
“straight path”; the path to right. It is understood to be straightforward
because right is beautiful in its clarity; it is unambiguous, not convoluted.
From this perspective, justice and freedom are not contradictory, as has often
been assumed, but are mutually constitutive. And because of this, an ideal – we might even say a utopian – measure of
justice may be held up to gauge the extent to which we achieve freedom from
limitation and freedom to become one with life through creativity.
This itself requires leadership (Imamat).
Imamat is possible when people are liberated from the need to own or
possess each other, and to either make decisions for others or to have others
make decisions for them, and thus can reflect upon their own thoughts and deeds
in order to bring their society closer to its utopian possibility. If we are
freed from such limit-making and confinement, we can become the authors of our
own words, thoughts and deeds. Imamat in this context means that each
person should have the rights, independence and freedom of all people in mind (as
in the narrative of Abraham in the Koran). From this perspective, the moment of
thinking is thus a moment of unification with intelligent life, as the thoughts
of a single individual – present and past, ‘here’ and elsewhere.
Free, independent leadership
becomes possible when one is anchored at the point of eternity, as the time of
freedom is infinite. We may think and act in the present, but can also move
beyond the frontiers of the possible and open new intellectual horizons. A free
person can also locate herself/himself in the future while being in the
present, thus freeing his/her intellect from the limits of that which only
presently exists. And when people become
imams/leader of one another in order to create a society in which none possess
or have power over any of the others, they have reached a state of Tawhid. It goes without saying that one cannot enter,
let alone follow this path without developing a genuine discourse of freedom.
As the guiding principle of a discourse
of freedom, therefore, the concept of Tawhid unites a whole set of principles
that together make freedom possible: individual autonomy and leadership enable
people to engage one another in the free exchange of a multiplicity of ideas,
and to use the ideal of justice as a criterion for evaluating the validity and
value of these ideas in order to inform the future development of their
thoughts and deeds. In this way, thinking and action become devoid of force and
be filled with rights. As people become increasingly
freed from limit-makers (both those who seek to limit and the limitations of
condition), they become less dependent on any source of power. This is what I
mean by the term ‘negative equilibrium’, a state of peace accomplished by
rejecting all external sources of power and limitation rather than seeking
comfort in those which seem the most powerful or beneficial at a particular
moment in time, and by learning to trust one’s independent judgement and
ability to form free relationships with other autonomous individuals.
In addition to the principles of Mizan, fetri and Imamat, two further principles can be included
in this theory of Tawhid: “prophecy” (nobovat),
meaning the practice of communicating the discourse of freedom, and
“resurrection” (ma’aad), or the moment
at which nobody owns anything or anybody else. It often goes unnoticed, or is denied, that in
the Koran these guiding principles affirm and clarify each other; there are no
contradictions between the verses in this sense. However, as no discourse of
power can accommodate these principles, the many interpretations of the Koran
that are based on various discourses of power find it filled with contradictions.
And as many of these developed historically without reference to the Koran
itself – In most cases being based on an Aristotelian philosophy of power –
these interpretations contradict the Koran itself. Indeed, they have succeeded in turning the
Koran into a collection of contradictory verses, and subsequently have imposed
Islamic societies to centuries of despotism.
The Koran thus provides us with a
system for living that is based on principles which are mutually constitutive
and free of contradiction. It is
regretful that Islamic, and indeed most societies are neglectful of these
principles. For when they work to guide
our thinking, speech and action, they remind us of our freedom, dignity and
rights and in everyday life, and it is the consciousness of these rights that
in turn work to regulate our actions in relation to ourselves, others and
worldly phenomena.
Does
Tawhid imply that all worshipping of religious leaders is wrong? Is any
religious leadership a sin (Shirk)?
It is obvious that any
religious authority that which assigns absolute authority to itself is
form of Shirk (false God-making). Even Ayatollah Montazeri, once Khomeini’s
would-be successor, has accepted this
and argues the velayat motlageh faqih (absolute
rule of the jurist) is a form of shirk.
Nevertheless, it is not correct to say that all clergy in all
religions who ascribe to themselves any such authority are committing shirk. That is because most do not realize
that they suffer from a form of alienation.
Rather than condemning this, it is therefore preferable to simply introduce Islam as a discourse of freedom.
How
can Islam be freed of its multitude of interpretations that cause conflict?
In fact there are only two main
discourses of Islam: one of power, and one of freedom. All the variations on
the discourse of power are essentially the same; in fact, the multitude of
differences that we appear to see are a result of this grounding in power. Power
emerges from discord and contradiction. Different groups have developed
different interpretations of Islam in order to preserve their social and
political positions, and the intensity of the conflict between them is an
indicator (rather than a cause) of the intensity of the power struggle
underlying. Because power is accompanied by and is the production of power relations, it needs to seek discursive
forms of power that suit its interests and creates animosities. And when it is
established, because it cannot exist without power relations, it cannot not produce violent and bloody
confrontations.
Discourses of power without
contradiction do not exist. Even “democratic”
forms of discourses of power suffer from contradictions. The difference is that while totalitarian discourses
are uni-polar in nature (in other words, in a position of dominance in
opposition to all other possible discourses), democratic discourses of power
are bi-polar or multi-polar (set up in competition against one another). In either case, both systems are dichotomous,
based on the assumption that there are inherent contrasts between opposing
positions. In such a system, these positions must then be pitted against one
another, often in order to negate the other, in order to survive, be recognized
or be regarded as legitimate. In this case, the relationships between positions
(whether this be between people or between interpretations of Islam) assume
various forms of power relations. This suggests a zero-sum relationship between
competing positions: one’s loss (or subordination) is the other’s gain (or
dominance), and vice versa. For example,
the dichotomy of “elite and common” people presupposes that an “elite” person
has certain abilities that the “common” person lacks; there cannot be one
without the other, and there can be no equality between them.
It is obvious on these
grounds that it is impossible to develop any form of the discourse of power which
is free of contradiction. So the solution we are left with, is the suggestion that
the discourse of freedom is the only one consistent with open and
transformative societies. In such
societies, economy, education, art, politics and social relations are formed
not on the basis of mutual contradiction, but on Tawhid, as Tawhid signifies
freedom from contrast, contradiction and conflict.
Could
and should Tawhid become the centrepiece of Islamic worldview?
Tawhid can become the guiding principle for Muslims, if and only if
they are liberated from the enslavements of power. Why should it not become a guiding principle
of free intellects? But it is also clear that this is not an easy task; decades
of censorship indicate how difficult it really is. The concept of Tawhid is
censored because it challenges the belief that power is an authentic and primary
value in Islam and in everyday life. Had this not been the case, and if the
principles of Tawhid had been accommodated to the centrality of power, then it
would not have suffered from such censorship.
When the discourse of freedom is offered as a solution, since it does
not acknowledge even the existence of power in the abstract (power being
regarded instead as the subjective product of unnecessary power relations), then
all those who believe in and rely on the reality or necessity of power are
compelled to censor the discourse of freedom.
The same censorship that has prevented Western governments and societies
from seeing the looming economic crisis has censored nearly all suggestions for
resolving the problems, whenever these were incompatible with the defence of capitalist
hegemony.
Tawhid can help to guide Muslims by offering an alternative framework
within which to understand themselves, others and life. If they develop such a perspective, then they
may begin to see all people and all worldly phenomena as being inherently
dignified, rightful, independent and free.
They will also thus be in a position to call the world to peace and
development, a new kind of development unlike the one we know today, in which
it is not power that develops, but life itself.
According
to the principle of Tawhid, ‘leadership is intrinsic in all humans’. Then is
there no authority at all needed? What about the rule of law or the allocation
of resources?
The principle of Ma’ad (Resurrection)
can serve as a model to regulate relations in such a way that we approach both freedom
and our ideal society, or utopia.
On the straight path of right,
coordinating one’s ability of leadership with God’s leadership will lead to a point
— we might call it “resurrection” – in
which nobody owns anything over anybody else.
In this sense, Tawhid is the movement undertaken by any individual who
is free in mind and action, and who not only becomes free from the domineering practices of others and thus from
being dominated, but who also strives to share with others the ideal that no
one should own anything over anyone else. The principle here, again, is justice.
If we imagine a society in
which no one owns anything over anybody else, we would imagine a democracy (a
society in which the affairs of state are run through friendly participation). Our goal should be to establish a participant
democracy that is based on Tawhid, rather than on dichotomy and the impossible ‘balances of power’. ..and we must
be aware that this goal is not within our immediate reach.
This is because presently
the separation of decision making from its execution is a necessity. So while society should rediscover its role in
decision making, the elected executioners of political decisions should realize
that their only mission is to strive to implement those decisions in the best
possible way. Therefore, whenever people
are the decision makers and democratically elected officers are chosen to
implement decisions, two authorities will emerge. In this way, an open society,
evaluating its progress with indicators of justice and principles of
leadership/Imamat, will gradually
transform itself toward its utopia.
Finally, in relation to law,
we can argue that laws should be reflections of human dignity, human rights,
the collective rights of society, the collective rights of global society and
the rights of all living things. From
this perspective, at the global level laws can become “Tawhidi”, and the
democratic management of global society through the development of an
alternative global politics becomes possible.
How can politics achieve and expand
freedoms instead of gain and manage power?
I should mention
that I have conducted some research about democracy, part of which is discussed
in my book about leadership. In that
book I have answered this question in detail, and make a number of
suggestions. Here are few.
Although among Marxists,
anti-Marxists and liberals the goal of political activity is to gain, manage
and exercise power, the prime goal of politics should be to expand and enhance
the freedom and independence of people. Within a dichotomist worldview, politics
can only be oriented towards the acquisition and management of power precisely
because power relations are so central to political process. Human freedom and independence either cannot
be part of this equation or are subordinated to the demands of power. In this situation, however, leadership belongs
not to dominant or dominated individuals and groups, but to power. The best indicator of this in contemporary
society is that leadership is being shifted further and further away from people
themselves. It is easy to see this happening
amongst the dominated, since on the surface we can see decisions are made for
them by the dominant. However, those in
positions of dominance lose their autonomy as well, as in order to fulfil the
demands of power they must submit themselves to the logics of concentration,
multiplication and accumulation.
Therefore, political
activity should aim at decreasing the role of force in social groups, as well
as in relations between individuals and societies. We might undertake what I have called
‘deviolentizing’ activities, which are the tasks of a critical and discerning
society. In addition, and particularly at this point in history, the idea of
“national interest” should be replaced with a concept of national rights, rights of international society
and rights of nature, and within nation-states the main concern should be not
the protection of national interest but the realization of human dignity and
rights.
In order to do this,
democracy needs to be revolutionized; we must transform the basic relationships
between people and social institutions.
At present, most of our social institutions are based on power and
individuals submit themselves to these institutions. The reconstruction of these institutions
based on the principle of Tawhid can motivate individuals to reverse the
equation, so that the institutions which determine the life of individuals will
be put into the service of life itself.
When put as the centrepiece of Islamic
worldview, can Tawhid end violence, war and domination within Islam and from
Islam to the outside world?
From the perspective of Tawhid, peace is a basic
condition for the human rights of every human being and society. Every person should enjoy the right to
peace. Furthermore, while every
individual has a right to peace, she or he should defend this right anytime and
anywhere it is endangered. The establishment of global peace necessitates that
we recognize spiritual rights. The
United Nations Declaration of Human Rights in fact does not include rights such
as the right to peace and the right to friendship. Peace at social, national and international
level swill become realizable only when political activity becomes oriented
towards expanding freedom, independence and the human rights of all, including spiritual
rights.
Tawhid…an Islamic Renaissance of Positive Islam?
If by ‘Positive Islam’ you
mean an interpretation that is based on positivism, that Islam will once again become
a discourse of power. As I have argued already, such discourses already exist. Defining
the guiding principles of Islam as they are defined in the Koran enables us to
rediscover Islam as a discourse of freedom, as there are no contradictions in
its guiding principles or practices. Furthermore,
when derivative interpretations of this discourse are reflections or
translations of rights, then applying them can help an individual to rediscover
his/her freedom and independence and become conscious of her/his intrinsic
dignity and rights, as well as those of all living beings and nature. Hence, life and living becomes an exercise of
right in itself, and offers the possibility of experiencing a completeness that
every human being deserves.
I thank you for providing me with an opportunity to share my ideas.
