Here is your essay on the issue of fundamentalism in Iran !
The history of fundamentalist Islam in Iran (or History of Principle- ism) covers the history of Islamic revivalism and the rise of political Islam in modern Iran. Today, there are basically three types of Islam in Iran: traditionalism, modernism, and a variety of forms of revivalism usually brought together as fundamentalism.
Neo-fundamentalists in Iran are a subgroup of fundamentalists who have also borrowed from Western countercurrents of populism, fascism, anarchism, Jacobism, and Marxism. The term Principles or Osoulgarayan is an umbrella term commonly used in Iranian politics to refer to varieties of conservative circles and parties. The term contrasts with reformists or Eslaah-Talabaan who seek religious and constitutional reforms in Iran.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
The Monarchy in Iran:
The history of Iran’s Monarchy dates back 2,500 years. It came to an end with the overthrow of the Pahlavi dynasty on 17th February, 1979.
We will speak of three dynasties because of their relevance to the political context.
i) The Acheminds dynasty ruled pre-Islamic Iran. Two of its rulers, Cyrus (553-521 B.C.) and Darius (521-496 B.C.) had dreamed of extending their empire from North India to Greece. The dream was shattered when Alexander destroyed the Persian Empire in 321 B.C. The Pahlavi kings were deeply inspired by the glories of pre-Islamic Persian civilization.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
ii) The Safavid dynasty (550-1779) ruled medieval Iran. Islam had come into prominence. The Safavids made Shiism the state religion and purged the leadership of Sunnis who were identified with the Ottoman Empire. The Shia- Sunni tensions were exploited by both, Safavids and Ottomans to enhance their political power, creating hatred between the two peoples.
To control the Islamic religious establishment, the Safavids claimed descent from Prophet Muhammad’s family, and tried to take over both, religious as well as political leadership. The Pahlavis were to continue the Safavid play of keeping Islam as the state religion, yet curtailing its power.
iii) The Qajar dynasty (1795-1924) comprised incompetent leaders, who murdered their political rivals at will. They were heavily dependent upon foreign powers who gave them loans at exorbitant interests rates and consolidated their own interests in Iran.
iv) The Pahlavi dynasty had no aristocratic roots. Its founder, Reza Khan, an army colonel, deposed the government in 1923 and then, the Qajar Shah, and established himself as the new monarch of Iran in 1925.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
Inspired by the Acheminds, he named his dynasty ‘Pahlavi’, an ancient Persian name. In line with the Safavids, he retained Islam as the state religion, and tried at the same time to check its powers. Following the Qajars, the Pahlavis made Iran more dependent on foreign powers than it had ever been before.
The Impact of the West:
The discovery of oil in Iran, as in the rest of West Asia attracted the economic interests of foreign powers. Russia and England were the main powers that struggled for economic and political supremacy in Iran.
It was during World War I that the British Navy switched from using coal to oil and the British began to look for strategies to exploit the Iranian resource.
Even though Iran’s oil production increased at a considerable pace, Iranis themselves could not benefit from it. Despite mass unemployment, oil workers were not hired from Iran but indentured labor was imported from India by Britain. British staffs were appointed in all key posts in the oil industry, and all their requirement (clothing, food, fruit, cement etc.) was imported from Britain rather than purchased from Iranian merchants. This lead to considerable resentment towards foreigners in Iran.
The British, to protect their interests, backed Colonial Reza Khan and helped install him as monarch. After World War II, the Americans gained a foothold in Iran. Their need for oil was even greater than that of Britain. Together, England, America, the oil companies and the Pahlavis cooperated and struck up an agreement which on paper, gave ownership of the oil industry to Iran, but in practice, gave full control of the industry to foreign powers. Production, pricing and marketing were all in foreign hands.
Iran, as a whole, suffered, both politically and economically. A consequence of the interference of foreign powers was that feelings of nationalism developed in all segments of society. Iranians had experienced nothing but exploitation and loss of autonomy at the hands of foreign powers.
Interaction with Western countries also ushered in ideas of secularisation or separation of religion from politics, leading to the establishment of various institutes of learning, like the Institute of Arts and Science (Dar-al-Fanun) in 1851. English and French classics were translated into Persian and its ideals were preached by leading intellectuals.
Pahlavi rule made strenous attempts at westernisation and modernisation of the country. Western dress, the use of French and English, Western education were stressed. Reza Khan attempted to delink the political system from religious influence by means of educational and legal reforms. The ‘maktab’ (mosque school) and ‘madrassa’ (religious school) were brought under the centralised control of the state. This was a drastic break down from Islamic tradition. The ‘Shariat’ or religious laws were replaced by a new code of laws based on the French Civil Code.
During Muhammad Ram’s reign, an American firm was employed to review the existing educational system.
The net result of the Pahlavi rule, however, was the creation of two diametrically opposed classes; the educated, secularized elite, on the one hand, and the mass of impoverished faithful Muslims, who had more faith in the village mullah than in the western-educated young men.
Its indigenous genius, traditions and life-style had been side-lined. Muhammad Shah Pahlavi, in particular, tried to force the process of modernisation from the top downwards. These policies and were elite-oriented. He had succeeded in alienating the majority of the population, who were ripe for an alternative system which was closer to their heritage and values. The Islamic revival provided this alternative.
The Resurgence of Islam in Iran:
According to Bernard Lewis, if we are to understand anything at all about what happened and what is happening in the Muslim world, we must grasp two basic points. The first is the universality of religion as factor in the lives of the Muslim peoples, and the second is the centrality of their religion.
Lewis points out that unlike Judiasm and Christianity which eventually became separate from the state, Islam, from the lifetime of Prophet Muhammad, was synonymous with the state. The history, experience and sacred writings of Islam bring out this point. Muhammad was not just a Prophet; he was a soldier and a statesman, and his followers were sustained by the belief that they could win God’s approval by establishing his divine law all over the world.
For the Muslim’s religion was not only universal but also central, in “the sense that it formed the basis and focus of identity and loyalty. In Iran, as we have seen, the monarchy tried to subvert Islam because of its importance in the lives of its people, and because the clergy would always resist any measure which they felt would violate the divine laws.
It is against this background that we can comprehend the overthrow of Muhammad Reza Shah in 1979. The Shah had succeeded in completely alienating the masses. During his reign, the mosque had remained the only refuge of political dissent, and the religious network was the only organization of the people could turn to. The closeness of the ‘mullahs’ to the common people had made them well aware of the anger and frustration building up against the Shah. It was at this critical juncture that leadership was provided by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini (1900-1989). Khomeini had over the years spoken out against the policies and activities of the Shah. Here is an extract from a speech in 1964:
“How do you expect to modernize Iran when you imprison and kill the intelligents? You want to turn Iranians into docile and passive instrument in the service of the state and your foreign masters.”
A Return to Islamic Roots:
Strongly embedded in Islam is the notion of social justice (adalah). The vast disparities of wealth that existed in Shah’s Iran were totally contradictory to the Islamic maxim of communal sharing of basic resources.
When we take into account the corrupt poetical leadership and distorted economic development that characterised, Iran, we can understand why Islam came to be viewed as an alternative that could bring about socio-economic justice.
To dismiss Islamic fundamentalism as an escape from modernism would be too simplistic. On the contrary, some Muslims see Islam as a means of bringing meaningful socio-political change based on social justice. On the other hand, some Muslims also invoke Islam to block changes. The challenge for Iran and other Muslim nations lies in achieving a balance; to return to those fundamental religious values conducive to the welfare of society rather than those that obstruct it.