Biography of the late
Ayatullah Murtadha Mutahhari
Ayatullāh Murťadhā Muťahharī, one of the principle architects of the
new Islāmic consciousness in Iran, was born on February 2nd,
1920,
in Farīmān, then a village and now a township about sixty kilometres
from Mashhad, the great centre of Shī`a pilgrimage and learning in
Eastern Iran.
His father was Muhammad Ĥusaīn
Muťahharī, a renown scholar who studied in Najaf and spent several
years in Egypt and the Hijāz before returning to Farīmān. The elder
Muťahharī was of a different caste of mind then his son, who in any
event came to outshine him. The father was devoted to the works of
the celebrated traditionalist, Mullāh Muhammad Bāqir Majlisī;
whereas the son’s great hero among the Shī`a scholars of the past
was the theosophist Mullā Sadrā.
Nonetheless, Āyatullāh Muťahharī always retained great respect and
affection for his father, who was also his first teacher, and he
dedicated to him one of his most popular books, Dastān-e-Rastān
(“The Epic of the Righteous”),
first
published in 1960,
and which was later chosen as book of the year by the Iranian
National Commission for UNESCO in 1965.
At the exceptionally early age of twelve, Muťahharī began his formal
religious studies at the teaching institution in Mashhad, which was
then in a state of decline, partly because of internal reasons and
partly because of the repressive measures directed by Ridhā Khān, the
first Pahlavī autocrat, against all Islāmic institutions. But in
Mashhad, Muťahharī discovered his great love for philosophy,
theology, and mysticism, a love that remained with him throughout
his life and came to shape his entire outlook on religion:
“I can remember that when I began my studies in Mashhad and was
still engaged in learning elementary Arabic, the philosophers,
mystics, and theologians impressed me far more than other scholars
and scientists, such as inventors and explorers. Naturally I was
not yet acquainted with their ideas, but I regarded them as heroes
on the stage of thought.”
Accordingly, the figure in Mashhad who aroused the greatest devotion
in Muťahharī was Mīrzā Mahdī Shahīdī Razavī, a teacher of
philosophy. But Razavī died in 1936,
before Muťahharī was old enough to participate in his classes, and
partly because of this reason he left Mashhad the following year to
join the growing number of students congregating in the teaching
institution in Qum.
Thanks to the skillful stewardship of Shaykh `Abdul Karīm Hā’irī,
Qum was on its way to becoming the spiritual and intellectual
capital of Islāmic Iran, and Muťahharī was able to benefit there
from the instruction of a wide range of scholars. He studied Fiqh
and Uŝūl - the core subjects of the traditional curriculum - with
Āyatullāh Ĥujjat Kuhkamarī, Āyatullāh Sayyid Muhammad Dāmād,
Āyatullāh Sayyid Muhammad Ridhā Gulpāyagānī, and Ĥajj Sayyid Ŝadr
al-Dīn as-Ŝadr. But more important than all these was Āyatullāh
Burujerdī, the successor of Ĥā’irī as director of the teaching
establishment in Qum. Muťahharī attended his lectures from his
arrival in Qum in 1944 until his departure for Tehran in 1952, and
he nourished a deep respect for him.
Fervent devotion and close affinity characterized Muťahharī’s
relationship with his prime mentor in Qum, Āyatullāh Rūhullāh
Khumaynī. When Muťahharī arrived in Qum, Āyatullāh Khumaynī was a
young lecturer, but he was already marked out from his
contemporaries by the profoundness and comprehensiveness of his
Islāmic vision and his ability to convey it to others. These
qualities were manifested in the celebrated lectures on ethics that
he began giving in Qum in the early 1930s. The lectures attracted a
wide audience from outside as well as inside the religious teaching
institution and had a profound impact on all those who attended
them. Muťahharī made his first acquaintance with Āyatullah Khumaynī
at these lectures:
“When I migrated to Qum, I found the object of my desire in a
personality who possessed all the attributes of Mīrzā Mahdī
(Shahīdī Razavī) in addition to others that were peculiarly his
own. I realized that the thirst of my spirit would be quenched at
the pure spring of that personality. Although I had still not
completed the preliminary stages of my studies and was not yet
qualified to embark on the study of the rational sciences
(ma`qulāt), the lectures on ethics given by that beloved personality
every Thursday and Friday were not restricted to ethics in the dry,
academic sense but dealt with gnosis and spiritual wayfaring, and
thus, they intoxicated me. I can say without exaggeration that
those lectures aroused in me such ecstasy that their effect remained
with me until the following Monday or Tuesday. An important part of
my intellectual and spiritual personality took shape under the
influence of those lectures and the other classes I took over a
period of twelve years with that spiritual master (ustād-i ilahī)
[meaning Āyatullāh Khumaynī].”
In about 1946,
Āyatullāh Khumaynī began lecturing to a small group of students that
included both Muťahharī and his roommate at the Fayziya Madressah,
Āyatullāh Muntazarī, on two key philosophical texts, the Asfar
al-Arba`a of Mullā Ŝadra and the Sharh-e-Manzuma of Mullā Hādī
Sabzwārī. Muťahharī’s participation in this group, which continued
to meet until about 1951,
enabled him to establish more intimate links with his teacher.
Also in 1946,
at the urging of Muťahharī and Muntazarī, the Āyatullāh Khumaynī
taught his first formal course on Fiqh and Uŝūl,
taking the chapter on rational proofs from the second volume of
Akhund Khurāsānī’s Kifāyatal Uŝūl
as his teaching text. Muťahharī followed his course assiduously,
while still pursuing his studies of Fiqh with Āyatullāh Burūjerdī.
In the first two post-war decades, Āyatullāh Khumaynī trained
numerous students in Qum who became leaders of the Islāmic
Revolution and the Islāmic Republic, such that through them (as well
as directly), the imprint of his personality was visible on all the
key developments of the past decade. But none among his students
bore to Āyatullāh Khumaynī the same relationship of affinity as
Muťahharī, an affinity to which the Āyatullāh Khumaynī himself has
borne witness to. The pupil and master shared a profound attachment
to all aspects of traditional scholarship, without in any way being
its captive; a comprehensive vision of Islām as a total system of
life and belief, with particular importance ascribed to its
philosophical and mystical aspects; an absolute loyalty to the
religious institution, tempered by an awareness of the necessity of
reform; a desire for comprehensive social and political change,
accompanied by a great sense of strategy and timing; and an ability
to reach out beyond the circle of the traditionally religious, and
gain the attention and loyalty of the secularly educated.
Among the other teachers whose influence Muťahharī was exposed in
Qum, was the great exegete of the Qur’ān and philosopher, Āyatullāh
Sayyid Muhammad Ĥusain Ťabā’ťabā’ī. Muťahharī participated in both
Ťabāťabā’ī’s classes on the Shifā` of Abū `Alī Sīnā from 1950 to
1953, and the Thursday evening meetings that took place under his
direction. The subject of these meetings was materialist
philosophy, a remarkable choice for a group of traditional
scholars. Muťahharī himself had first conceived a critical interest
in materialist philosophy, especially Marxism, soon after embarking
on the formal study of the rational sciences.
According to his own recollections, in about 1946 he began to study
the Persian translations of Marxist literature published by the
Tudeh party, the major Marxist organization in Iran and at that time
an important force in the political scene. In addition, he read the
writings of Taqī Arānī, the main theoretician of the Tudeh party, as
well as Marxist publications in `Arabic emanating from Egypt. At
first he had some difficulty understanding these texts because he
was not acquainted with modern philosophical terminology, but with
continued exertion (which included the drawing up of a synopsis of
Georges Pulitzer’s Elementary Principles of Philosophy), he came to
master the whole subject of materialist philosophy. This mastery
made him an important contributor to Ťabā’ťabāī’s circle and later,
after his move to Tehran, an effective combatant in the ideological
war against Marxism and Marxist-influenced interpretations of Islām.
Numerous refutations of Marxism have been essayed in the Islāmic
world, both in Iran and elsewhere, but almost all of them fail to go
beyond the obvious incompatibilities of Marxism with religious
belief and the political failures and inconsistencies of Marxist
political parties. Muťahharī, by contrast, went to the
philosophical roots of the matter and demonstrated with rigorous
logic the contradictory and arbitrarily hypothetic nature of key
principles of Marxism. His polemical writings are characterized
more by intellectual than rhetorical or emotional force.
However, for Muťahharī, philosophy was far more than a polemical
tool or intellectual discipline; it was a particular style of
religiosity, a way of understanding and formulating Islām.
Muťahharī belongs, in fact, to the tradition of Shī`a philosophical
concern that goes back at least as far as Nasīr ad-Dīn Ťuŝī, one of
Muťahharī’s personal heroes. To say that Muťahharī’s view of Islām
was philosophical is not to imply that he lacked spirituality or
was determined to subordinate revealed dogma to philosophical
interpretation and to impose philosophical terminology on all
domains of religious concern; rather it means that he viewed the
attainment of knowledge and understanding as the prime goal and
benefit of religion and for that reason assigned to philosophy a
certain primacy among the disciplines cultivated in the religious
institution. In this he was at variance with those numerous
scholars for whom Fiqh was the be-all and end-all of the curriculum,
with modernists for whom philosophy represented a Hellenistic
intrusion into the world of Islām, and with all those whom
revolutionary ardour had made impatient with careful philosophical
thought.
The particular school of philosophy to which Muťahharī adhered was
that of Mullā Ŝadra, the “sublime philosophy” (hikmat-i muta`āliya)
that seeks to combine the methods of spiritual insight with those of
philosophical deduction. Muťahharī was a man of tranquil and serene
disposition, both in his general comportment and in his writings.
Even when engaged in polemics, he was invariably courteous and
usually refrained from emotive and ironical wording. But such was
his devotion to Mullā Ŝadrā that he would passionately defend him
even against slight or incidental criticism, and he chose for his
first grandchild - as well as for the publishing house in Qum that
put out his books - the name Ŝadrā.
Insofar as Ŝadrā’s school of philosophy attempts to merge the
methods of inward illumination and intellectual reflection, it is
not surprising that it has been subject to varying interpretations
on the part of those more inclined to one method than the other. To
judge from his writings, Muťahharī belonged to those for whom the
intellectual dimension of Ŝadrā’s school was predominant; there is
little of the mystical or markedly spiritual tone found in other
exponents of Ŝadrā’s thought, perhaps because Muťahharī viewed his
own inward experiences as irrelevant to the task of instruction in
which he was engaged or even as an intimate secret he should
conceal. More likely, however, this predilection for the strictly
philosophical dimension of the “sublime philosophy” was an
expression of Muťahharī’s own temperament and genius. In this
respect, he differed profoundly from his great mentor, Āyatullāh
Khumaynī, many of whose political pronouncements continue to be
suffused with the language and concerns of mysticism and
spirituality.
In 1952, Muťahharī left Qum for Tehran, where he married the
daughter of Āyatullāh Rūhānī and began teaching philosophy at the
Madressah Marwi, one of the principal institutions of religious
learning in the capital. This was not the beginning of his teaching
career, for already in Qum he had begun to teach certain subjects -
logic, philosophy, theology, and Fiqh - while still a student
himself. But Muťahharī seems to have become progressively impatient
with the somewhat restricted atmosphere of Qum, with the
factionalism prevailing among some of the students and their
teachers, and with their remoteness from the concerns of society.
His own future prospects in Qum were also uncertain.
In Tehran, Muťahharī found a broader and more satisfying field of
religious, educational, and ultimately political activity. In 1954,
he was invited to teach philosophy at the Faculty of Theology and
Islāmic Sciences of Tehran University, where he taught for
twenty-two years. First the regularization of his appointment and
then his promotion to professor was delayed by the jealousy of
mediocre colleagues and by political considerations (for Muťahharī’s
closeness to Āyatullāh Khumaynī was well known).
But the presence of a figure such as Muťahharī in the secular
university was significant and effective. Many men of Madressah
background had come to teach in the universities, and they were
often of great erudition. However, almost without exception they
had discarded an Islāmic worldview, together with their turbans and
cloaks. Muťahharī, by contrast, came to the university as an
articulate and convinced exponent of Islāmic science and wisdom,
almost as an envoy of the religious institution to the secularly
educated. Numerous people responded to him, as the pedagogical
powers he had first displayed in Qum now fully unfolded.
In addition to building his reputation as a popular and effective
university lecturer, Muťahharī participated in the activities of the
numerous professional Islāmic associations (anjumanhā) that had come
into being under the supervision of Mahdī Bāzārgān and Āyatullāh
Taleqānī, lecturing to their doctors, engineers, teachers and
helping to coordinate their work. A number of Muťahharī’s books in
fact consist of the revised transcripts of series of lectures
delivered to the Islāmic associations.
Muťahharī’s wishes for a wider diffusion of religious knowledge in
society and a more effective engagement of religious scholars in
social affairs led him in 1960 to assume the leadership of a group
of Tehran `Ulamā known as the Anjuman-e-Mahāna-yi Dīnī (“The Monthly
Religious Society”). The members of this group, which included the
late Āyatullāh Beheshtī, a fellow-student of Muťahharī in
Qum, organized monthly public lectures designed simultaneously to
demonstrate the relevance of Islām to contemporary concerns, and to
stimulate reformist thinking among the `Ulamā. The lectures were
printed under the title of Guftār-e-Māh (“Discourse of the Month”)
and proved very popular, but the government banned them in March
1963 when Āyatullāh Khumaynī began his public denunciation of the
Pahlavī regime.
A far more important venture in 1965 of the same kind was the
foundation of the Ĥusayniya-e-Irshād, an institution in north
Tehran, designed to gain the allegiance of the secularly educated
young to Islām. Muťahharī was among the members of the directing
board; he also lectured at the Ĥusayniya-e-Irshād and edited and
contributed to several of its publications. The institution was
able to draw huge crowds to its functions, but this success - which
without doubt exceeded the hopes of the founders, was overshadowed
by a number of internal problems. One such problem was the
political context of the institution’s activities, which gave rise
to differing opinions on the opportuneness of going beyond reformist
lecturing to political confrontation.
The spoken word plays in general a more effective and immediate role
in promoting revolutionary change than the written word, and it
would be possible to compose an anthology of key sermons, addresses,
and lectures that have carried the Islāmic Revolution of
Iran forward. But the clarification of the ideological content of
the revolution and its demarcation from opposing or competing
schools of thought have necessarily depended on the written word, on
the composition of works that expound Islāmic doctrine in systematic
form, with particular attention to contemporary problems and
concerns. In this area, Muťahharī’s contribution was unique in its
volume and scope. Muťahharī wrote assiduously and continuously,
from his student days in Qum up to 1979 the year of his martyrdom.
Much of his output was marked by the same philosophical tone and
emphasis already noted, and he probably regarded as his most
important work Uŝūl-e-Falsafa wa Ravish-e-Ri’ālism (“The Principles
of Philosophy and the Method of Realism”), the record of Ťabāťabāī’s
discourses to the Thursday evening circle in Qum, supplemented with
Muťahharī’s comments. But he did not choose the topics of his books
in accordance with personal interest or predilection, but with his
perception of need; wherever a book was lacking on some vital topic
of contemporary Islāmic interest, Muťahharī sought to supply it.
Single handily, he set about constructing the main elements of a
contemporary Islāmic library. Books such as `Adl-e-Ilāhī (“Divine
Justice”), Nizām-e-Ĥuquq-e-Zan dar Islām (“The System of Women’s
Rights in Islām”), Mas’ala-yi Ĥijāb (“The Question of the Veil”),
Ashnā’i ba `Ulūm-e-Islāmī (“An Introduction to the Islāmic
Sciences”), and Muqaddima bar Jahānbīnī-yi Islāmi (“An Introduction
to the Worldview of Islām”) were all intended to fill a need, to
contribute to an accurate and systematic understanding of Islām and
the problems in the Islāmic society.
These books may well come to be regarded as Muťahharī’s most lasting
and important contribution to the rebirth of Islāmic Iran, but his
activity also had a political dimension that admittedly
subordinate, should not be overlooked. While a student and
fledgling teacher in Qum, he had sought to instill political
consciousness in his contemporaries and was particularly close to
those among them who were members of the Fida’iyan-i Islām, the
Militant Organization founded in 1945 by Nawwab Safawī.
The Qum headquarters of the Fida’iyan was the Madrasa-yi Fayziya,
where Muťahharī himself resided, and he sought in vain to prevent
them from being removed from the Madressah by Āyatullāh Burūjerdī,
who was resolutely set against all political confrontation with the
Shah’s regime.
During the struggle for the nationalization of the Iranian Oil
Industry, Muťahharī sympathized with the efforts of Āyatullāh
Kāshānī and Dr. Muhammad Musaddiq, although he criticized the latter
for his adherence to secular nationalism. After his move to
Tehran, Muťahharī collaborated with the Freedom Movement of
Bāzārgān and Taleqānī, but never became one of the leading figures
in the group.
His first serious confrontation with the Shah’s regime came during
the uprising of Khurdad 15th, 1342/June 6th,
1963, when he showed himself to be politically, as well as
intellectually, a follower of Āyatullāh Khumaynī by distributing his
declarations and urging support for him in the sermons he gave.
He was accordingly arrested and held for forty-three days. After
his release, he participated actively in the various organizations
that came into being to maintain the momentum that had been created
by the uprising, most importantly the Association of Militant
Religious Scholars (Jami`a yi Ruhāniyāt-e-Mubāriz). In November
1964, Āyatullāh Khumaynī entered on his fourteen years of exile,
spent first in Turkey and then in Najaf, and throughout this period
Muťahharī remained in touch with Āyatullāh Khumaynī, both directly -
by visits to Najaf - and indirectly.
When the Islāmic Revolution approached its triumphant climax in the
winter of 1978 and Āyatullāh Khumaynī left Najaf for Paris,
Muťahharī was among those who travelled to Paris to meet and consult
with him. His closeness to Āyatullāh Khumaynī was confirmed by his
appointment to the Council of the Islāmic Revolution, the existence
of which Āyatullāh Khumaynī announced on January 12th,
1979.
Muťahharī’s services to the Islāmic Revolution were brutally
curtailed by his assassination on May 1st, 1979. The
murder was carried out by a group known as Furqān, which claimed to
be the protagonists of a “progressive Islām,” one freed from the
allegedly distorting influence of the religious scholars. Although
Muťahharī appears to have been chairman of the Council of the
Islāmic Revolution at the time of his assassination, it was as a
thinker and a writer that he was martyred.
In 1972, Muťahharī published a book entitled `Illal-i Girayish ba
Maddigarī (“Reasons for the Turn to Materialism”), an important
work analyzing the historical background of materialism in Europe
and Iran. During the revolution, he wrote an introduction to the
eighth edition of this book, attacking distortions of the thought of
Ĥafiz and Hallaj that had become fashionable in some segments of
Irānian society and refuting certain materialistic interpretations
of the Qur’ān. The source of the interpretations was the Furqān
group, which sought to deny fundamental Qur’ānic concepts such as
the divine transcendence and the reality of the hereafter. As
always in such cases, Muťahharī’s tone was persuasive and
solicitous, not angry or condemnatory, and he even invited a
response from Furqān and other interested parties to comment on what
he had written. Their only response was the gun.
The threat to assassinate all who opposed them was already
contained in the publications of Furqān, and after the publication
of the new edition of `Illal-e-Girayish ba Maddigarī, Muťahharī
apparently had some premonition of his martyrdom. According to the
testimony of his son, Mujtabā, a kind of detachment from worldly
concerns became visible in him; he augmented his nightly prayers and
readings of the Qur’ān, and he once dreamed that he was in the
presence of the Prophet (S), together with Āyatullāh Khumaynī .
On Tuesday, May 1st, 1979 Muťahharī went to the house of
Dr. Yadullāh Sahābī, in the company of other members of the Council
of the Islāmic Revolution. At about 10:30 at night, he and another
participant in the meeting, Engineer Katira`i, left Sahābī’s house.
Walking by himself to an adjacent alley where the car that was to
take him home was parked, Muťahharī suddenly heard an unknown voice
call out to him. He looked around to see where the voice was coming
from, and as he did, a bullet struck him in the head, entering
beneath the right earlobe and exiting above the left eyebrow. He
died almost instantly, and although he was rushed to a nearby
hospital, there was nothing that could be done but mourn for him.
The body was left in the hospital the following day, and then on
Thursday, amid widespread mourning, it was taken for funeral
prayers first to Tehran University and then to Qum for burial, next
to the grave of Shaykh `Abdul Karīm Hā’irī .
Āyatullāh Khumaynī wept openly when Muťahharī was buried in Qum,
and he described him as his “dear son,” and as “the fruit of my
life,” and as “a part of my flesh.” But in his eulogy Āyatullāh
Khumaynī also pointed out that with the murder of Muťahharī neither
his personality was diminished, nor was the course of the revolution
interrupted:
“Let the evil-wishers know that with the departure of Muťahharī -
his Islāmic personality, his philosophy and learning, have not left
us. Assassinations cannot destroy the Islāmic personality of the
great men of Islām…Islām grows through sacrifice and martyrdom of
its cherished ones. From the time of its revelation up to the
present time, Islām has always been accompanied by martyrdom and
heroism.”
The personage and legacy of Āyatullāh Muťahharī have certainly
remained unforgotten in the Islāmic Republic, to such a degree that
his posthumous presence has been almost as impressive as the
attainments of his life. The anniversary of his martyrdom is
regularly commemorated, and his portrait is ubiquitous throughout
Iran. Many of his unpublished writings are being printed for the
first time, and the whole corpus of his work is now being
distributed and studied on a massive scale. In the words of
Āyatullāh Khamene’ī, President of the Republic, the works of
Muťahharī have come to constitute “the intellectual infrastructure
of the Islāmic Republic.”
Efforts are accordingly under way to promote a knowledge of
Muťahharī’s writings outside the Persian-speaking world as well, and
the Ministry of Islāmic Guidance has sponsored translations of his
works into languages as diverse as Spanish and Malay.
In a sense, however, it will be the most fitting memorial to
Muťahharī if revolutionary Iran proves able to construct a polity,
society, economy and culture that are authentically and integrally
Islāmic. For Muťahharī’s life was oriented to a goal that
transcended individual motivation, and his martyrdom was the final
expression of that effacement of self. Notes:
|