SAEDNEWS: In an interview with Entekhab News, Bijan Abdolkarimi responded to experts while defending his remarks that democracy is not the top priority in the Middle East.
In an interview with Bijan Abdolkarimi by Ensaaf News, he was asked: Who assigned the Islamic Republic the mission of confronting the global hegemony? How did Imam Khomeini speak in Paris about the compatibility of Islam and democracy, yet now you claim democracy is not a priority? Why has the path of struggle been chosen over the path of ordinary life? Dr. Abdolkarimi responds to these questions explicitly, within the framework of his intellectual paradigm.
Reporter: Who has tasked your national system and sovereignty to become the champion of the oppressed masses worldwide, the sole standard-bearer of justice, and a leading opponent of global hegemony, standing alongside Dr. Abdolkarimi who insists that this sovereignty must not be undermined?
Abdolkarimi: Mr. Zibakalam raised a similar question, and I responded in several ways: Who gave you the right to ask me such a question? My answer is not confrontational; I aim to open your eyes to a reality. This reality concerns the path of life and the course of history. It is the natural course of life that grants you, as a journalist, the right to ask questions. Many matters are not defined by contractual relationships. Who gave America permission to travel 12,000 kilometers and enter the Persian Gulf?
Reporter: The logic of power.
Abdolkarimi: Exactly. The logic of power—or more precisely, the logic of a nation defending itself against colonialism—dictates that we have a duty to defend ourselves.
This is what pains me: we see things in reverse. It is not as if we defined a mission for the Islamic Republic to fight the West, so that today someone could say, “Stop hostility” or “Why have you held the nation hostage?” This is our geopolitical and historical reality, and we are defending ourselves. No one has imposed this self-defense mission upon us. Furthermore, we experienced a revolution—a massive historical event. In this historical event, who assigned an elderly man named Khomeini to lead the revolution? Why did an elderly man named Mehdi Bazargan not become the leader? Why did an elderly man named Yadollah Sahabi not lead? These are historical contingencies. Khomeini’s authority came from his historical tradition; he was a jurist rooted in Islam, historical continuity, and Shi’a thought.
The question you asked me is like asking who assigned Khomeini to lead the revolution. The real question is: who decided that the Iranian nation would become Muslim? Who decided that among the diverse Islamic sects, the Twelver Shi’a would prevail? This is a historical contingency. Your question is what we call an “Aristotelian” approach—treating historical events as objects. Asking “who gave you permission?” reflects a lack of understanding of historical contingency.
Reporter: My question is reasoned: that historical contingency emerged within the clear context of political and social demands in Iran during the 1970s. Imam Khomeini, in Neauphle-le-Château, leaned against an apple tree and spoke of religious life in the modern era, addressing the compatibility of Islam and democracy.
Abdolkarimi: He expressed his aspirations honestly—he did not lie. But love is easy at first, yet problems follow. The reason is that the revolution’s leaders lacked clear theoretical frameworks. We were living in a period devoid of political thought. After the translation movement in the second half of the second Islamic century, we became acquainted with Greek philosophy, natural sciences, psychology, and theology—but not political philosophy. Farabi was the first Islamic political philosopher; after him, there was none. Meanwhile, Shi’a jurisprudence, never being in power, remained weak. There is a void in political philosophy. We still do not know what to do if the masses confront the Supreme Leader. Our intellectuals also face this theoretical void; translating Montesquieu, Rousseau, or de Tocqueville does not fill it. We do not know what to do if the people rise against their own interests.
Another point: we must separate the realm of action from political philosophy. We are in the middle of a war; it is foolish to suddenly prioritize democracy amid warfare. Show me a Western government, one of those you idolize, that speaks of democracy in the battlefield. America’s presence in the Middle East today—its attacks on us—are not based on democracy. Which power bases its foreign policy on public opinion? This abstract thinking among intellectuals and some reformists paralyzes society’s mind.
Reporter: When you were not in the battlefield, was democracy and public opinion welcomed?
Abdolkarimi: I stated that due to the lack of social-political philosophy—a historical problem—we face serious questions. But what I consider unforgivable is the interpretation intellectuals have imposed on democracy: a concept borrowed from NATO and Mossad think tanks, translated into our intellectual and popular language. Like chewing gum or popcorn, it has no real connection to reality—it is just an empty catchphrase in Eastern intellectual circles.
We have seen the reality of democracy in Gaza, Libya, and Syria. Democracy in the Middle East is a discourse, and woe to the intellectual who does not recognize this discourse and believes he is having a theoretical debate with me. Democracy discourse in the Middle East exists to weaken national power; it is a linguistic tool to advance CIA and Mossad projects in the region.
Reporter: How, in the absence of political thought, can democracy be archived as an aspirational ideal, life be set aside, and the flag of Shi’a justice activism raised—if all of this occurs without philosophical or political reasoning?
Abdolkarimi: Mr. Nili, you speak of life as if it can be paused. Wait and think carefully! That is the most thoughtless statement one could make. Does the flow of social life or historical processes allow such hesitation? Does history offer such a pause?
Reporter: No, clearly not. That’s exactly why you have made choices and taken this path.
Abdolkarimi: No, it’s not about choice. Everything does not follow opinion. Let’s slow down a bit. Prometheus says: the stronger the knowledge, the stronger the inevitability and necessity.
My critique of people like Mr. Nili—who may be expressing his own opinions or merely repeating others—is that they think with abstract, non-historical, non-contextual reason.
When we constantly speak of reason, it must be historical and contextual. I accuse the vast majority of our country’s intellectuals of lacking historical rationality; hence they ask questions and provide answers in a delusional way. This is why they remain marginalized, depressed, sometimes suicidal, and continuously emphasize the state-society divide without producing any impact.
