The Conduct of Rulers and Society's Acceptance of Poverty

The Conduct of Rulers and Society's Acceptance of Poverty

A critique of the critique by Mr. Mohammad Mehdi Mojahedi of Master Malekian's 1993 lecture¹

Author: Hamed Farnaghizad

Master Mostafa Malekian delivered a lecture in 1993 on the anniversary of the passing of the late Ayatollah Khomeini, a portion of the audio of which, accompanied by his choked voice and tears, has recently been recirculated in the virtual space. After hearing a short segment of his lecture in an audio clip regarding the governance method of Imam Ali (AS), I set out to find the original source of one of the narrations he referenced; although I was unsuccessful in that pursuit, I came across Mr. Mojahedi's critique of this lecture, which prompted me to write a few lines regarding his critique².

Before beginning, it is worth noting that the present piece and the critique I wish to make of Mr. Mojahedi's views do not constitute a defense of Master Malekian's opinion; although I am not opposed to it either, my aim is to critique the foundations and method of Mr. Mojahedi's criticism. Therefore, the affirmation of Master Malekian's opinion and the correctness of his speech must be addressed in another article.

In the published audio file, Master Malekian cites two narrations. First, he refers to a narration—for which he does not, however, mention a source—in which the Imam explains to his wife the reason for their children being barefoot; and second, to a portion of Imam Ali's (AS) letter to Uthman ibn Hunayf³, which is mentioned in Nahj al-Balagha. The first point raised in Mr. Mojahedi's critique concerns the first narration cited by Master Malekian, which he correctly deems imprecise or incorrect, but he does not refer to Master Malekian's second citation. The first narration is imprecise or incorrect from the perspective that Master Malekian states that Imam Ali, during his caliphate, gave such a response to Lady Zahra's words regarding Hasan and Husayn being barefoot. It is clear that, firstly, Lady Zahra was not alive during Imam Ali's caliphate, and secondly, Hasan and Husayn were young men of nearly thirty years of age during Imam Ali's caliphate. Of course, this verbal mistake, considering the other narration that Master Malekian mentions and other sound historical accounts of Imam Ali's practical conduct, does not negatively affect the foundations of Master Malekian's reasoning. Apart from this part of Mr. Mojahedi's critique, the remainder of his criticism faces serious problems, which will be addressed below.

In his critique, Mr. Mojahedi uses rhetorical questions instead of presenting arguments, as when he writes, “It is as if, in his [Professor Malekian’s] view, the form and mold of political and religious behaviors and actions in communities prior to the formation of modern society and the modern state can be repeated exactly in the modern era and within the modern state and modern society.” And further on, again as if pointing to something self-evident, he writes, “As if, for example, the governance models of early Islamic society can be repeated within the framework of modern nation-states.” He also goes on to refer to a presupposition that he considers incorrect, namely that “for many of us, society, politics, government, and their affairs are still, even now in the second decade of the twenty-first century, an unbroken extension of the same society, politics, government, and their affairs in the pre-modern era.” This is the first part of his critique of Professor Malekian’s remarks. But instead of presenting a rational argument, he has engaged in polemics through rhetorical questions. He has taken the differences between the political affairs of the modern and pre-modern state as self-evident, whereas the burden of proving this claim rests with him. Why should the governance models and values of early Islamic society not be repeatable in the modern era? Why should we assume that the roots of pre-modern society, politics, and government are entirely different from those of the modern era? Does a change in form entail a change in content? And do human needs change as well? Fundamentally, in the epistemological domain, does the passage of time (the mere passage of time) invalidate something, or is an argument required for its invalidation? Mr. Mojahedi offers no argument in this section and merely contents himself with these rhetorical questions, and one might not dare to ask oneself why such a thing should be the case. The publication date of his critique is for Farvardin of the year ninety-six [March–April 2017], and I suspect that if he had reflected a little more in his writing and observed the events of Dey of that same year [December 2017–January 2018] in Iran, he would have been more circumspect in what he wrote.

Another part of his critique is that, in his view, Professor Malekian, through an analytical error, “equates the difference in the standard of living among members of society (which is neither eradicable nor necessarily reprehensible) with discrimination (which is both eradicable and reprehensible).” I do not know from which part of Professor Malekian’s remarks this inference has been drawn. As it happens, Professor Malekian speaks of Imam Ali not as an ordinary individual but as the ruler of the Muslims, and the discussion is not about the difference in the standard of living between one part of the people and another, but rather about the difference between the standard of living of the community’s leader and that of other strata of society.

He further considers this prescription for governance to be effective for a primitive social community with primitive relations, “especially with the understanding they had of justice as meaning equality.” Proving that the tribal society, as he puts it, equated justice and equality rests with him, but it seems his view on this matter is mistaken, for we have, from Imam Ali himself, in addition to his practical conduct based on historical evidence, a statement defining justice that bears no trace of equality. Imam Ali says somewhere, “Justice puts things in their proper places⁴.” This definition shows that, at least within the thought system of Imam Ali and consequently the society of that era, justice was not viewed as meaning equality. Mr. Mojahedi, continuing his definition of pre-modern society, states that with the separation of powers, fundamentally “the form, style, manner, and standard of the private lives of rulers has become a highly marginal, secondary, and insignificant matter.” This proposition is also among his unproven assertions, and its proof depends on a global survey or logical demonstration, not on personal observations and impressions.

In his critique, Mr. Mojahedi repeatedly refers to the reasonableness of differences in the living standards of various groups of people, whereas the fundamental point of discussion is the difference in standards between rulers and the people. He also considers the continuation of this trend to pave the way for demagogic abuses, such as “corrupt governments like that of Chavez and his counterparts in various parts of the world, who ate bread and cheese and slept on straw mats while simultaneously reducing the people to ashes.” He knows very well that, firstly, rulers who have reduced the people to ashes have not been particularly inclined to eat bread and cheese, and secondly, a demagogic approach that results in harm and loss to the people does not indicate that the path of simple living is wrong. It is demagoguery that is bad, not simple living. When he uses the term demagoguery, he certainly knows that it means demagogues are not in fact what they appear to be; therefore, if someone is genuinely a simple-living person, no fault attaches to him, and this does not mean that simple living should be abandoned so that no one can abuse it. If we accept his reasoning, we could essentially abandon elections in the political sphere as well, because of the abuses and demagoguery that occur within them.

At the end of his critique, he raises the issue of feigned poverty. That “the feigned poverty of the rich in modern societies not only absolutely lacks such a function, but can easily be classified under pretense, which is a vice against transparency, and transparency is one of the most central values of modern politics.” His carelessness in using phrases is truly astonishing. Firstly, I emphasize once again that the discussion is not about the rich, but about rulers, and certainly not about feigned poverty, and I do not know where he got such an idea. Imam Ali, in his letter to Uthman ibn Hunayf, explicitly points out that if he wished, he could have the best life, but because he is the ruler of the Muslims and does not want his carnal desires to overcome him, he refrains from it. This is, in fact, the exact opposite of feigned poverty. Feigned poverty means that a wealthy and affluent individual presents himself as destitute, not that he explicitly states he is wealthy but lives simply for certain reasons. Imam Ali never claimed to be destitute or poor; essentially, all his contemporaries knew that, due to his tribal inheritance as well as his own efforts and struggles, he had no financial dependence or deficiency, and this is precisely the beautiful point of the matter. That Imam Ali is not poor, but rather financially self-sufficient, and this has absolutely nothing to do with feigned poverty. Moreover, the Imam prescribes this course solely for himself and his appointed rulers, and makes no mention that everyone must do likewise, as it is a matter within the realm of personal decisions. It is truly very strange to me that Mr. Mojahedi has used words so recklessly and carelessly.

Referring to the shift in Professor Malekian’s discussion from the acceptance of poverty to the acceptance of discrimination, he points out that “discrimination must be eradicated, it should not be tolerated or made tolerable. Making discrimination tolerable is the greatest injustice.” The essence of his statement is correct, but the issue is that Professor Malekian never made such a claim. In fact, Professor Malekian points out that “poverty cannot be easily eradicated” but “discrimination must be eradicated... meaning that I, the governor of this city, I, the representative of this city, I, the Friday prayer leader of this city, should not have a life different from yours [ordinary people].”⁵ In his speech, Professor Malekian places great emphasis on eliminating discrimination, not making it tolerable, and fundamentally, Imam Ali was also very strict with himself and his rulers in order to eliminate discrimination. Professor Malekian’s speech addresses the pursuit of luxury, not being wealthy, and this shows that Mr. Mojahedi has neither paid close attention to his speech nor carefully examined the conduct of Imam Ali (AS).

In conclusion, I emphasize once again that in this article I have merely challenged the foundations of Mr. Mojahedi’s critique and only sought to demonstrate the weakness of his method of criticizing Professor Malekian’s words. I hope that in the future, a discussion on the method of governance will be opened, because it is both in the interest of the people for this subject to be opened and for their understanding of these issues to increase, and for the reform of the country.

.

---

.

Notes:

1) The audio file of Professor Malekian's lecture and the text of Mr. Mojahedi's critique are available on the Sedanet website.

2) I have placed the sentences I have quoted verbatim from his text in parentheses, but due to the brevity of his text, I have refrained from precise referencing.

3) Letter 45 of Nahj al-Balagha; وَ لَوْ شِئْتُ لَاهْتَدَیتُ الطَّرِیقَ إِلَی مُصَفَّی هَذَا الْعَسَلِ وَ لُبَابِ هَذَا الْقَمْحِ وَ نَسَائِجِ هَذَا الْقَزِّ وَ لَكِنْ هَیهَاتَ أَنْ یغْلِبَنِی هَوَای وَ یقُودَنِی جَشَعِی إِلَی تَخَیرِ الْأَطْعِمَةِ وَ لَعَلَّ بِالْحِجَازِ أَوْ الْیمَامَةِ مَنْ لاطَمَعَ لَهُ فِی الْقُرْصِ وَ لاعَهْدَ لَهُ بِالشِّبَعِ.

4) Nahj al-Balagha, Saying 437

5) The fourteen-minute audio file of Professor Malekian's lecture on the Sedanet website, minutes 9 to 12.

.

---

.