Social Mysticism on the Foundation of Socio-Political Tawhid

The four-part series of articles on The Necessity of Reviving Socio-Political Tawhid, previously published on the Sedanet cultural website, and the new four-part series of articles, which will be published gradually on this same website as a spin-off and subsidiary articles to the previous series under the title Social Mysticism on the Foundation of Socio-Political Tawhid, will serve as preliminaries toward the explication of a theological theory based on the works, vision, character, and method of the great figures of the religious intellectualism school, under the title "Cooperative Liberation Theology," which will be addressed after the completion of this series of articles.

In the first article of the Socio-Political Tawhid series, the dust was cleared from socio-political tawhid, and in the three subsequent articles, the views of the first generation of religious intellectuals (Bazargan, Taleghani, and Shariati) on this subject were discussed. In these articles, tawhid was divided into two parts: mental-philosophical tawhid and socio-political tawhid, and it was stated that the goal of the prophets' mission was not only liberation in the realm of mind and thought but also liberation from social bonds (and not a struggle to form a government or to derive economic, political, etc., programs from the heart of religion).

The multi-dimensional monotheist is not only a monotheist in their personal world and in the realm of thought and beliefs, having purified their mind and existence from mental-philosophical shirk (polytheism) and from associating partners with God in "lordship" (other humans, deities, etc.) as well as from "self-deification" (ancient egotism and modern secular humanism); in the realm of the surrounding world and society, they also seek liberation from the factors that bind them (despotism, colonialism, exploitation, stupefaction, and political, cultural, economic, social, and religious domination) so that by accepting the dominion and servitude of the masters of wealth, power, and deceit, they do not fall into socio-political shirk. Hence, the multi-dimensional monotheist, with their tawhidi worldview and liberating consciousness, opposes inequality, discrimination, injustice, and any form of human domination over other humans.

As historical and contemporary examples show, the one-dimensional monotheist, in their spiritual wayfaring, is also focused on personal conduct within the confines of their personal world, and their wayfaring, like their tawhid, is detached from the social, economic, political, and other realms of their surrounding world, remaining neutral and uncommitted toward it. This article will answer the question: what will the spiritual wayfaring of a person who believes in tawhid in both their personal and surrounding worlds be like? Since the multi-dimensional monotheist's tawhid is not one-dimensional, their spiritual wayfaring is also not confined to the individual dimension and is a wayfaring based on social mysticism.

1

In the contemporary era, Iranian society has oscillated between two extremes in the matter of spiritual wayfaring: from the asceticism and Sufism of the pre-revolutionary era to the focus on social reform during the period of revolutionary struggle, which emerged in reaction to the previous state, and the increasing inclination toward new-age mysticisms, Eastern mysticisms, and secular spiritualities after the revolution, which occurred in reaction to the revolutionary period.

Due to the Sufis' disregard for social responsibility and commitment to other human beings, Shariati called their mysticism a mysticism of escapism and proposed a constructive mysticism in contrast to it; hints of such criticisms can also be seen in his supplications:

"... O God!

Heal my society from the disease of Sufism and spiritual intoxication, so that it may return to life and reality, and save me from the vulgarity of life and the disease of reality-intoxication, so that I may attain mystical freedom and spiritual perfection..."

.. O God!

Deprive me of all virtues that are of no use to the people! And do not afflict me with the savage ignorance of subtle knowledge, so that, in the ecstasy of lofty emotions, and the peak of transcendent ascensions, I might be unable to see the flash of hunger in the depth of an eye, and the blue line of the whip upon a back!..."

(Collected Works 8 / Supplication)

During the revolutionary struggles, in reaction to the prior state of social reformism, personal spiritual wayfaring—which was deemed conciliatory, passive, and non-revolutionary—gained the upper hand. Mostafa Malekian, criticizing the subjugation of the epistemic and ethical dimensions of wayfaring and the condemnation of personal spiritual wayfaring during the revolutionary struggles, says:

“…essentially, at a juncture in our country’s history and for a significant portion of our country’s young generation, I believe, following what was happening in the West, political struggle or even, in a more general sense, social reform held an exceedingly high value, a value incomparable to the value of other aspects of a person’s character and disposition. That is, they absolutely did not value a thinker’s psychological health as much as how much of a political activist they were and how much of a social reformer they were. They did not value an intellectual’s moral virtues as much as how anti-tyranny they were and how much of an advocate for the poor and the masses they were!…”

After the revolution and in reaction to the revolutionary era, the official reading of religion, official religious propaganda, and pressure to enforce jurisprudential laws—termed Islamic Sharia—led to an increase in Sharia-aversion and inclinations toward Eastern mysticisms and secular spiritualities indifferent to social and political commitment. Religious new-thinking was also influenced by this pendular movement of society, and just as with the topic of Tawhid and shirk, in the discussion of mysticism and spiritual wayfaring, post-revolution religious new-thinkers emphasized individual, existential wayfaring and private religion. Although Dr. Soroush Dabbagh, in advancing his project of modern mysticism, has criticized traditional wayfarers’ disregard for socio-political commitment, with the existing trend and the disregard in the dominant view of post-revolution religious new-thinkers toward social crises, there is a fear that spiritual wayfaring, like Tawhid, will be transmuted into an individual-personal and subjective-existential dimension. Sara Shariati, criticizing the absence of religious new-thinking in social projects, says:

“…religious intellectuals have also been absent from the dossier of poverty. Our religious intellectualism has tended toward theoretical, intellectual, theological, epistemological, philosophical, etc., discussions, but it has not been present in social dossiers and has not taken up the dossier of poverty. It seems that in the projects of religious intellectualism, the people have been abandoned, and as a result, charitable associations and ‘NGOs’ are addressing our social issues…”

In the preceding collection of articles, the necessity of reviving socio-political Tawhid for the rebirth of multi-dimensional monotheists was discussed, and Dr. Chamran and Hoda Saber were named as exemplars of this type of monotheist. The spiritual wayfaring of these children of the school of religious new-thinking was a kind of social mysticism emanating from socio-political Tawhid, which was shaped under the influence of the mystical teachings of Shariati-Iqbal and the community-oriented teachings of Taleghani, Bazargan, and Imam Musa Sadr. Therefore, a multi-dimensional wayfaring monotheist, just as with the topic of Tawhid, also maintains a balance between the individual and social spheres in spiritual wayfaring, and during spiritual wayfaring, in addition to their personal world, is also obliged to consider the surrounding world and strive to improve the social condition of society, such that, in the words of Ayatollah Taleghani:

“With an individual life and seclusion, in the name of wayfaring and ethics; burying one’s head in one’s own woven fantasies and spinning vain imaginings for oneself—neither is the path of wayfaring toward God opened, nor does ethics find meaning, for such self-centeredness is wayfaring toward the self, not God.”

                     3

Ali Tahmasebi has provided a new formulation of Shariati’s duality of mysticism-averse and constructive mysticism. He divides the mysticism present in Islamic history into two types: God-centered mysticism and humanist mysticism, and in an interview with Cheshmandaz-e Iran magazine, he expressed his view as follows:

“In many surahs… the responsibility of the people, the pain of the people, and the rights of the people are discussed; social and political issues are pointed to. But after the death of the Prophet and the formation of the Arab empire, the conquerors placed their feet exactly in the footsteps of the Sassanid and Roman empires. At this time, the people of the conquered lands all had to either submit and be under the dominion of this empire or be killed. So, what were the cultured individuals and those who wished to preserve their faith to do? It is from here that a kind of seclusionist mysticism, and in Shariati’s terms, a mysticism fleeing from social responsibilities, is created… They were compelled to set aside social responsibility and think only of preserving themselves; ascetic mysticism takes shape from this very point. The first mystical schools that emerged, especially in Basra—from the end of the first century AH onwards—were ascetic or renunciatory mysticism, and the fear of the reckoning of the Hereafter had become so intense and exaggerated among them that they even sacrificed their natural lives at the foot of that fear. Later, another type of mysticism also took shape, which replaced the fear of God with love for God. It is related that with the arrival of someone like Rabi’a and her relationship with Hasan al-Basri, love also entered this mysticism, but this love was directed only toward God and had nothing to do with the people or society… What I mean by ‘God-centered’ mysticism is precisely this mysticism, in which, even if a flood were to sweep all the people away, they would still, without attaching any importance to it, sing love songs for God, gaze at God’s sky, and take pleasure, while the people are of no importance. This type of mysticism posed no danger to governments, and still does not. In fact, governments also encouraged this type of mysticism. Many of the Abbasid caliphs would go to visit this group of mystics and greet them, so that perhaps the people would be encouraged toward this path. It was said that the Caliph of God went to visit a certain mystic and attained the honor of kissing his hand. These were very harmless mystics, and in Shariati’s terms, the ‘hollow saints’… In contrast to this mysticism, another type of mysticism gradually took shape in Khorasan, which I call ‘humanist mysticism.’ God-centered mysticism considers only God, but humanist mysticism has two aspects: first, the connection with God, and second, the connection with other human beings. This mysticism is sensitive to the connection with people and their sufferings; it takes people and social issues into account without considering itself the guardian, savior, and ruler of the people; that is, without having prepared the robe of governance for itself. This mysticism is alongside the people, not ruling over them. In my opinion, the first sparks of this humanist mysticism were struck from the middle of the second century AH onwards; at a time when Baghdad, as the capital of the Arab empire, had been titled ‘Dar al-Salam’ (the Abode of Peace), and the agents and governors of the caliphate apparatus in the conquered lands were busy collecting tribute, gifts, and slaves for themselves and the caliph… Abu’l-Hasan says: ‘If a thorn pricks someone’s foot from Bukhara to Damascus, its sorrow is mine.’ The sentence is very vibrant. In God-centered, romantic mysticism, where they are only lovers of God, we do not see such themes. When I speak of humanist mysticism in contrast to God-centered mysticism, I mean to point to such differences. What I mean by humanist mysticism are these very instances I mentioned, where one side of this mysticism is God, and the other side is the people. This mysticism has its heart bound to the people, and of course, it differs from the mysticism that Ibn Arabi later introduced, which considered itself the guardian of guiding creation.”

In the first chapter of the Persian Dari articles and Humanist Wisdom and Mysticism, Tahmasebi considers this classification of his to be, to some extent, an adaptation from Professor Shafi’i Kadkani, who wrote in the introduction to the book Written on the Sea about Khorasani mysticism:

“In the Sufism of Khorasan, humanism and contemplating the calamities of human life, the pains of the people, and even of other animals is a striking matter, and if a comparison is made between the characteristic of Khorasani Sufism and what is in the Sufism of Ibn Arabi, a clear contrast in this regard between these two styles of Sufism will become apparent. In the Sufism of Ibn Arabi, one can be a Sufi and a mystic and view the calamities and even the destruction of thousands of humans as if nothing has happened; but in the Sufism of Khorasan, empathy with humanity and even with animals is an unavoidable matter. Among the mystics of Khorasan, Abu’l-Hasan Kharaqani holds his special place from this perspective.”

But Dr. Soroush Dabbagh believes that although Khorasani mysticism and, to some extent, the Shiraz school have had social recommendations regarding attention to other human beings, in these schools this matter is not considered a necessary condition of the spiritual wayfaring:

"... in traditional Islamic mysticism, although categories such as loyalty, benevolence, and compassion towards creation have been discussed, and great emphasis has been placed on the rites of chivalry and magnanimity, it seems that attending to the pain and suffering of others and suffering alongside the afflicted and pained, suffering human beings, has not been considered a necessary condition of the spiritual wayfaring. In other words, moral and spiritual salvation is, in principle, conceivable and attainable without attending to other human beings around one and looking into the eyes of suffering human beings; in fact, attending to the other and being concerned for them is not an indispensable, necessary condition for the realization of spiritual wayfaring and undergoing inner experiences... It seems that to the extent that attending to flesh-and-blood human beings around one, loving them, sharing in their suffering and sorrow, and suffering alongside them is central and plays a role in the Christian existentialist tradition and contemporary phenomenology (such as the works of Dostoevsky, Kazantzakis, Levinas, and Marcel), it has not been highlighted in our classical mystical tradition, nor has systematic and coherent investment been made in it, although indications and sparks can be found in this regard..."

Although Dr. Dabbagh, in his project of modern mysticism, criticizes traditional wayfarers on the issue of socio-political non-commitment and speaks of the attention given to this matter by the Christian existentialist tradition and contemporary phenomenology, as well as Shariati's and Iqbal's views on mysticism, his neglect of figures from the religious intellectualism movement, such as Chamran and Hedi Saber—to which Dr. Dabbagh himself belongs—causes him to name characters from Dostoevsky's novels, etc., as the desired wayfarers and to overlook the real, co-factional models available. Furthermore, wayfarers such as Mujtahid Shabestari, Mostafa Malekian, and the like, whom he refers to as modern wayfarers, although they have paid a price for their stances not only in the realm of knowledge but also in the realm of politics and have had a great impact on raising awareness, one can pose this question: what epistemic or civil achievements have these wayfarers had in the social arena for empowering society in the areas of poverty, addiction, prostitution, deprivation, etc.? And if they have had teachings, where can the emergence and manifestation of these teachings be observed? The project of religious reform and political reform, pursued in parallel by religious intellectuals over the past hundred years, what has been its achievement for the deprived, the oppressed, and those afflicted by social sufferings, except for a minority of the middle and modern class? Has the pursuit of these projects by Muslim intellectuals reduced the pains and sufferings of the marginalized and social delinquencies? Due to excessive attention to the issue of religious knowledge and politics, in the words of Sara Shariati, religious intellectualism has been absent in social projects and has abandoned the people.

The pioneers of religious intellectualism in Iran, unlike the second generation, placed great emphasis on society. Ayatollah Taleghani, as one of the first generation of religious intellectuals, considered the path of God to be the path of human salvation:

«The path of God is the path of the salvation of peoples. It is the path of human liberation. The path of God is not toward the heavens, nor east nor west, nor south nor north; the path of God is this very thing. In all the verses that have come down concerning jihad, migration, and struggle, the stipulation is 'in the path of God' (fi sabil Allah). First, so that struggles and efforts are not for selfishness, deception, and enslavement, but only for the salvation of human beings, for the salvation of all people, for the opening of bonds. For the liberation of human beings. For the removal of barriers, barriers that have separated people from one another and blocked the path of God and the path of transcendence. The path of God is this very path of the people's salvation. Otherwise, for a person to sit in a corner, absorbed in their own thoughts, ideas, and fantasies, and merely utter glorifications; this, from a human perspective, is not a source of nearness to God. How often does someone outwardly say 'Glory be to God' with their tongue, while within their thoughts are satanic designs. How often does a person utter 'God is the Greatest' with a rosary, yet possesses greed for wealth, power, and lusts in everything. How often does a person, in the corner of a monastery or mosque, say 'There is no god but God' with their tongue, while in their mind they carve out hundreds of idols for themselves. How often does a person say 'Praise be to God' in solitude, yet within they are contaminated with all kinds of moral vices and base thoughts. That which is the path of God is struggle in the path of God. The path of the people is the path of God.»

The school of religious new-thinking, in addition to re-reading the socio-political tawhid of the first generation of religious new-thinkers, also needs to re-read the social mysticism of Shariati and Iqbal, and the social teachings of Taleghani, Bazargan, and Imam Musa Sadr, so that once again from within this school, offspring like the Chamrans and Hoda Sabers may be born, who dedicated their entire lives to struggle and effort to alleviate the pains, suffering, and afflictions of humanity, and to educate and empower them for liberation from deprivation and social ills, and to the extent of their capacity, both articulated the truth and reduced suffering. The social mysticism of Shariati and Iqbal, although critical of traditional mysticism and God-centered mysticism, and influenced by Khorasani mysticism and humanist mysticism, goes beyond Khorasani mysticism in its humanist dimension. In the next article, in order to elucidate social mysticism within the thought-system of religious new-thinking, we will examine social mysticism in the thought of Shariati and Iqbal, and in the two final articles, we will examine this social mysticism in the vision, method, and character of Mostafa Chamran and Hoda Saber.

.

---

.

Social Mysticism on the Foundation of Socio-Political Tawhid

Author: Mohammad Qotbi

.

---

.