Iesha Javed

 THE JUST WAR DOCTRINE AND AYATOLLAH KHOMENI’S ISLAMIC GOVERNMENT Question No. 1 Compare the relationship of religious authority and government legitimacy in Just War doctrine and in the Ayatollah Khomeni’s description of Islamic government. Where are they alike? Where do they differ? How does religion inform each theory’s prescription for political action? Political ideologies when based on religion, tend to be built upon the debate about religious authority and government legitimacy. In theories like the Just War doctrine and Ayatollah Khomeni’s theory of the Islamic state, the legitimacy of the government depends a great deal on religious authority. While there are both similarities and dissimilarities between the two theories, both are influenced by religion. Clearly, both these political ideologies are concerned with the legitimacy of war as much as with the legitimacy of the state’s authority. Both discuss the justification for war (jus ad bellum) as well as conduct before (jus in bello) and after war (jus post bellum). Further, the argument from righteousness, idea of proportionate damage as well as the moral duty to fight oppression is common to both. Considering the Iranian revolution as an asymmetric war, Khomeni’s call to overthrow the regime can be seen to resonate with Just War advocates who require the political authority to be illegitimate and oppressive for this war to be just (Lacewing, p3)1. The differences between the just war doctrine and the theory of the Islamic government by Khomeni mostly arise in the aspects of what grants legitimacy to the government, how it can lose this legitimacy especially when engaging in a war and the notion of war itself being virtuous or sinful. According to St Augustine, whose thought greatly influences the Just War doctrine and who was perhaps the first to use the term “just war” in his City of God, a government’s engaging in an unjust war doesn’t compromise political and religious legitimacy (Mattox, 2016)2. He instructs Christians to maintain their loyalty to their rulers even if they are tyrants (Deane, 1973, p 422)3. However, in Ayatollah Khomeni’s Islamic government, such an unjust government puts itself in danger of losing its legitimacy to rule over its subjects and does not deserve to be obeyed. Further, several centuries after St Augustine, Thomas Aquinas had a very cynical view of war itself. This was despite the fact, that, he laid down detailed conditions which were necessary for the government to wage a just war. Nevertheless, he still considered all war to be sinful since to him war is contrary to peace, which is a virtue and anything that is contrary to virtue is a sin (Aquinas, Q40: A1)4. This stems perhaps from Christian theology itself which considers all history as redemptive history. However, in Ayatollah Khomeni’s theory of the Islamic government instead of being morally despised, war is regarded as the religious duty of the government, to an extent that Islam is seen as the noble warrior’s religion (Kelidar, p 79)5. Interestingly, Khomeni’s concept of Islamic government or his theory of guardianship of the jurist, which he explained in his monumental work Vilayat-e-Faqih6, bases the legitimacy of a state on the fact that its functioning be subjected to the guardianship and advisory powers of a jurist (faqih). Thus, according to Khomeni, it is the jurists who command authority in a legitimate Islamic state. This is because they are the truly knowledgeable about God’s injunctions, obedience to which is a necessary condition for the legitimacy of a government. Though early Just War Theorists like Augustine and Aquinas might have been influenced by a Christian theocracy, modern theorists like Michael Walzer see the doctrine in light of secular nation states. Undoubtedly, both theories rely on religion for their advocacy of political activist. That Khomeni’s theory of government calls for propagation of its ideology is seen as a direct extension of the Quranic injunction to arise and instruct the people (Khomeni, p 73)7 and the call to overthrow secular regimes is also rooted in religion. This is because non-Islamic governments are systems of disbelief (kufr) and it is the duty of Muslims to remove all traces of disbelief (Khomeni, p 34)8. The Just War Theory, influenced by the Catholic Church’s conception of just war serving the divine precept of peace (Palmer, 2016, p 23)9 similarly supports the use of force against an oppressive state when war becomes a necessary evil and opposition becomes a moral obligation. THE NATION IN HITLER’S NAZISM AND MUSSOLINI’S FASCISM How does the Nazi position on race distinguish it from Mussolini’s Fascism? In your answer, refer to both Hitler’s and Mussolini’s understanding of “the nation.” Although Fascism and Nazism are both ultra-nationalistic ideologies, Hitler’s idea of the primacy of race differentiates it from Fascism. While the myth of fascism is the nation and the greatness of the nation the myth of Nazism is the myth of race and greatness of race. Firstly, Hitler advocated for an ethic nationalism determined by blood. The concept of Volk ( people united by a common race) is the basis of Hitler’s nationalism (Weaver, 2011)10. The Volk is above the state, which serves the preservation of race. Hitler sought the unification of German Volk through the slogan Ein Volk Ein Reich Ein Fuhrer thus giving rise to Nazi Germany or the Third Reich, which sought the purification of the German Volk into a Volksgemeinschaft (Wildt, Heise p 28)11. Contrary to this, race in fascism is a merely a secondary characteristic of the people of a nation and multiple races can live together in a single nation. Mussolini advocated a civic nationalism where the nation is to foster unity between the various economic classes that exist in a society. The state is primary and gives rise to the nation by making people conscious of their collective will and morality such that no human values can exit outside of the state. (Mussolini, Geovanni, 1932)12 Secondly, while Mussolini’s nation is the product the individual’s selfless struggle to cultivate higher morality and spirituality for the collective good of the totalitarian state, Hitler’s nation is based on an external racial struggle for domination, that is essential to preserving a volk. That without such a struggle the German race would soon become extinct is a pivotal concept in Hitler’s call to the preservation and purification of German blood. Further, the struggle for territorial control is essential to preservation of race per Hitler, who sought to secure Lebensraum (living space)13 for the German Volk. However, Mussolini being averse to materialism does not hold territorial expansion or military aggression as central to the success of a nation. It appealed to him more if a nation could exercise its superiority over others without having to conquer territory. That would be a sign of its moral vitality and spiritual vigor. FREEDOM OF RELIGION AND THE US BAN ON THE SHINTO RELIGION IN 1945 How did the American occupation forces rationalize their ban on the Shinto religion in Japan in 1945? Was that consistent with the American ideology that promotes freedom of religion? The US justified the 1945 MacArthur ban on Shinto in Japan through a seemingly rational explanation that it was not a religion but form of ultra-nationalism that fueled Japan’s militarist agenda and imperialist policy. Thus, supposedly it aimed at curbing a dangerous ideology that threatened world peace, not encroaching upon religious freedom in Japan. Also, the US presented the Shinto directive as consistent with the idea of the separation of Church and State. Authorities were selective to only oppose14 ‘State Shinto’, which was a tool to propagate state ideology. Any support for this form of Shinto was forcibly suspended. However, the traditional form of Shinto religion continued and shrines were allowed to receive voluntary private donations. Thereby the US tried to distinguish religion from a cultist control mechanism. Further, several subsequent measures were regarded as an ideological onslaught against Japanese culture such as US interference in the education ministry’s policy and the suspension of Cardinal principles of Kokutai and Way of the Subject (Nishi, 2004, p 171)15. This censure of information was seen as undemocratic and contrary to the freedom of thought and conscience. Analyzing this in the light of religious freedom may lead one to two dissimilar conclusions. First, apparently, the ban seems to limit the freedom of religious expression of several individuals. The emperor for instance could no longer carry out his ancestral rituals at shrines and state officials could only worship in private, thus limiting public expression of religion. This censoring of people’s beliefs seems contrary to the freedom of conscience and religion espoused by the US. Secondly, however, it can also be argued that the US helped foster religious freedom by curbing Shinto-Buddhist syncretism or emperor worship that had been created as a tool for social control (Sumimoto, Religious Ambivalence)16. In fact, the 1945 directive greatly influenced Japan’s post war constitution of 1947 which guaranteed freedom of religion (Hardacre, p4)17. KARL MARX’S HISTORICAL MATERIALISM AND POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC PROGRESS How does Karl Marx’s “historical materialism” explain political and economic progress? Karl Marx’s theory of historical materialism is based on Hegel’s dialectical philosophy which sees history as a product of dialectic forces. Despite being mainly concerned with sociology (Bukharin, 2011, p7)18 historical materialism has its own unique perspective on economic and political progress of human society. Karl Marx advocates that a society’s trajectory of progress is determined by the interaction of the forces of production and relations of production. To him ancient society, feudal society and bourgeois society are manifestations of the relations of production at certain stages of development in human history (Marx, 1891)19. The socio-political landscape of human society being governed by a dialectic struggle, started out as a classless society (the thesis)20. It gradually developed into a class based society (antithesis) and is destined to progress towards a new classless society under communism (the synthesis). Thus, communism represents the climax of social, political as well as economic development of mankind. Marx saw that the two conflicting forces which operate in a capitalist society are the forces of production and the relations of production. Thus, technology and innovation determine productivity, and are competing against economic institutions existent in capitalism. The predicted outcome of this dialectic struggle per historical materialism is a revolution. According to the theory, Communism replaces the capitalist system and would usher in such an era of progress and surplus (Marx, 1954)21 that economic inequality and exploitation would end. Free of capitalist control the forces of production (technology) would create such high productivity that private ownership would be abolished and in its stead a centralized ownership and control of the economy would allow the greatest productivity and hence progress in human history.  Bibliography Khomeni, Ayatollah. Governance of the Jurist. Institute of the Compilation and Publication of Imam Khomeni’s Work. Accessed 21 November 2016. http://www.iranchamber.com/history/rkhomeini/books/velayat_faqeeh.pdf Kelidar, Abbas. "Ayatollah Khomeini’s Concept of Islamic Government". Islam and Power (1981): 75-92. http://media.library.ku.edu.tr/reserve/resspring12/intl448_WHale/week2.pdf Lacewing, Michael. Just War Theory. Routledge. http://documents.routledge-interactive.s3.amazonaws.com/-/A2/Political/JustWarTheory.pdf Palmer, Harold. Christian Pacifism and Just War Theory: Discipleship and the Ethics of War, Violence and the Use of Force. Vol. 2. TellerBooks, 2016. Mattox, Mark. “Augustine: Political and Social Philosophy”. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. http://www.iep.utm.edu/aug-poso/#SH3c Accessed on: 20/11/2016 Deane, Herbert A. "Classical and Christian political thought." Political Theory1, no. 4 (1973): 415-425. Aquinas, Thomas. Summa Theologica. Bezinger Bros, 1947. Question 40: Article 1. http://dhspriory.org/thomas/summa/SS/SS040.html#SSQ40OUTP1 Nishi, T. Unconditional democracy: Education and politics in occupied Japan,-. Hoover Press, 2013. Nakano, Tsuyoshi. "The American Occupation and Reform of Japan’s Religious System: A Few Notes on the Secularization Process in Postwar Japan." The Journal of Oriental Studies 26, no. 1 (1987): 124-138. Sumimoto, Tokihisa. "Religious freedom problems in Japan: background and current prospects". International Journal of Peace Studies (2000): 77-86. Hardacre, Helen. "Religion and civil society in contemporary Japan." Japanese Journal of Religious Studies (2004): 389-415 Weaver, Benjamin. “Adolf Hitler’s account of the Nation and Nationalism”. E-International Relations. 2011. http://www.e-ir.info/2011/05/16/adolf-hitlers-account-of-the-%E2%80%98nation%E2%80%99-and-%E2%80%98nationalism%E2%80%99/ Wildt, Michael and Hierse. Hitler's Volksgemeinschaft and the Dynamics of Racial Exclusion: Violence Against Jews in Provincial Germany,-. Berghahn Books, 2012. Binion, Rudolph. "Hitler's Concept of" Lebensraum:" The Psychological Basis." The Journal of Psychohistory 1, no. 2 (1973): 187. Mussolini, Benito and Gentile, Geovanni. The Doctrine Of Fascism. 1932. http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/Germany/mussolini.htm Bukharin, Nikolai. Historical materialism: A system of sociology. Routledge, 2013. Marx, Karl. "Wage Labour and Capital, the first English translation of the pamphlet, first published (in German)". Neue Rheinische Zeitung 264-267 (1891): 5-8. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/wage-labour/ Marx, Karl, George Alan Bonner, and Emile Burns. "Theories of surplus value." (1954). Rytina, Joan Huber, and Charles P. Loomis. "Marxist dialectic and pragmatism: power as knowledge." American Sociological Review (1970): 308-318.