Sovereignty of the Capitalistic Clique

By:
Hojjat al-Islam Hashmi Rafsanjani
Former President of Islamic Republic of Iran
Friday Prayer Sermon 16: (March 1, 1985)
In the Name of Allah, the Beneficent the Merciful
All praise is due to Allah, the Lord of the Worlds, and Allah's peace and blessings be upon the Messenger of Allah and upon his descendants, the infallible Imams. I take refuge with Allah (SWT) from the accursed Shaytan. The Almighty Allah says in His Book:
"...Surely the most honourable of you with Allah is the most pious, God fearing; (49:13)."
In the discussion on Islam's social justice in relation to the human races we have mentioned some details of the oppression, during the past five centuries, caused by the white race which is centred in Europe and now in America. In each part of the discussion, we made a reference to the social justice of Islam. In this khutbah, (sermon), I will discuss another part of this subject, a part which I personally deem very important and which has been used as a root and basis for the policy of continued oppressions of the colonialist white race against other races. At present too, the tyrants make use of this weapon.
In previous discussions, we have mentioned about the cultural, spiritual, technical, and scientific invasions of the white race through various means; benefiting from privileges, engaging in military expeditions, drawing up contracts, and plundering the wealth, national resources, and artistic relics and honours of other nations. I have a particular concern about this part of my discussion in this khutbah. I request our honourable, Muslim, and revolutionary people to pay utmost attention so long as this subject is discussed in various khutab (khutbahs) and inform me by letters or over telephone, if they have any suggestions or criticism in regard to the matters discussed.
I particularly request the `Ulama' and the learned to ponder over this matter which I am elaborating.

Colonialistic Sabotage against the Policy and Management of Non-European Nations
Of the very dark-spotted pages of human history during these five centuries of Western history and international relations are the pages recording the oppression which I will now mention, and it is: "Sabotage against the policy and management of non-European nations and non-white races." This has been carried out by the white-race coloniآ­alists during the past five centuries. In order to reach their goal of pillage and planned robberies, they needed, both as a means and an end, to wield control over the track of management of countries under their domination and to, directly or indirectly, administer the affairs of these countries so as to implement their evil plans and objectives.
To reach this end, they made use of whatever means were available to them. And it must be admitted that in this endeavour they had been successful and unfortunately still continue to be successful. Presently, this policy of the superpowers has been fully implemented in the Third World, and against the majority of the oppressed people of the world. And this policy has been triumphant for them. Diligence in this matter would be very useful for our nation, for our revolutionary people, and for our listeners all over the world. It can also be very illuminating especially after this discussion, when we put our reliance on the Islamic knowledge and background. In fact, this is a revelation of a dark spot in the history of Western - and, of late, Eastern - colonization.
It was obvious to the colonizers that domination over a people, a country, and a region would not be possible without infiltration into the management and affairs of the managers, rulers, and kings of that region. If their political domination was not warranted, their cultural. economic, and other forms of colonial dominations would be destroyed. Of course, all forms of domination are mutually related. That is to say. cultural domination strengthens political domination. Economic domination also strengthens political domination.
But if one wants to consider the basic formula, it is the inauspicious presence of the competent and incompetent managers of the societies, because under the inauspicious aegis of these managers, such dominations could be guaranteed. This issue is not something vague. I believe that in the human nature the first thing that social beings could understand is the fact that nothing serious or warranted could be achieved so long as the management, supervision, authority, and government of a society is not taken under control. Everyone will understand this matter. Consequently, we see that all the power-seeking movements, groups, and individuals are after getting hold of the political power.
Naturally, Islam has also paid attention to this aspect, Islam which has identified and made plans for even the subtleties of life and the most intricate psychological issues, could not remain indifferent towards such a clear and obvious matter.
To this effect, Islam has made special recommendations which I will point out in the course of next few khutab.
Islam pays attention to this subject. For example, there are ahadith such as:
The first hadith regards the welfare of the society dependent on the soundness of its rulers and leaders. And the second hadith deems the welfare of the society dependent on the soundness of both the `ulama' and the rulers. The first hadith clarifies for the people the fact that there is even a close and direct relationship between the thoughts of the people and the religion and thoughts of the statesmen. There is also a hadith narrated by the Holy Prophet (S):
When your rulers are the pious ones and your rich ones are generous and magnanimous rather than greedy and avaricious, and when you run your affairs by counsel and consultation, and when consultation becomes prevalent in your society, then the surface of the earth is better for you than its inside. Under these circumstances, you are competent to live on it. That is, life is more deserving than death for you; otherwise, you should die. Contrary to this is the following hadith:
If your rulers are impious, and your rich people are greedy and money-loving, and if the principal decision-makers are women in your country, then you are more fitting to be inside the earth. That is, it is better for you to die rather than to live. And such a society is not moving towards wellbeing.
By quoting this hadith, I wanted you to see that, in its routine and ordinary teachings, Islam has considered that if the main lever of the movement of society, i.e., the rulers, are impious, the society could not approach soundness. Among the Shi`ah, this matter has been accorded a special status. Those familiar with the Shi`ah teachings know that the Shi`ah regards the government as a Divine issue. In other words, according to Shi`ah beliefs, the same wilayah (guardianship) Allah (SWT) granted to the Holy Prophet (S) to run the affairs of the people is transferred to the Imams (A) after the demise of the Prophet (S). Even wilayatul faqih (the guardianship of the Islamic jurispruآ­dent) which has received so much importance in our constitution and in our life is a reflection of the same Shi`ah belief which holds that there is principally a Divine basis behind wilayah and government. That is, it attaches so much importance to the issue of rulers, government, wilayah, and management of people's lives that it deems it a Divine matter. Other Islamic sects have also surely put stress on the piety and competence of the ruler, the caliph, and the manager of a society's affairs. Keep this matter in mind so that in the future we could continue this discussion.
To reach their goals, the Westerners need to wield control over the government and management of people in countries under their own domination.
An important issue is how do the British islanders or the Americans from the other side of the Atlantic Ocean intend to have a control over China, India, Arab countries, or Africa considering the remoteness and the differences existing among races, languages, cultures, and customs, and how do they want to run the affairs of these countries? The case was easier for them in the areas under their official colonization such as Palestine, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, India, Vietnam, etc., because they installed the rulers and managers. Many of the people who ruled over such countries should have, for instance, received orders for their authority from the British queen, and should have had the signatures of the British queen on their document of sovereignty. Domination over such areas was not difficult, but they wanted to have control of affairs in independent countries such as Iran, where they faced difficulties. In future discussions, I will point out how they resolved these difficulties.
We do not intend to engage in a great deal of discussion about the Eastern governments, especially about the Eastern Superpower and the Marxists, because firstly they are newly established and are still facing problems. Secondly, because their ideology is based on materialism and negation of all spiritual values, one who reaches power through Marxism does not believe in Allah (SWT), spirituality, and morality but believes that everything revolves round the axis of `matter'. Such a person is of the view that all existing things are the signs of matter. He regards history as materialistic and historical movement going by duress and materialistic force. It is obvious that when such a person is brought to power; through the campaigns of a party or a coup, he can have no virtue. As a consequence, always they bring to power the people who have reached the height of success through the ladder of materialآ­ism. Their crystallization is like the type of people ruling over Afghaniآ­stan, who allowed the killing of their own people by the Russian soldiers, and who feel that they have come to power to administer justice. Such a contradictory interpretation is derived from this ideolآ­ogy. We do not intend to devote so much of the discussion to them, because the white race we are now talking about applies more to the Westerners. (Of course their white race has also carried out similar acts of oppression in certain parts of the world.).
The Westerners have ample elbowroom when they install rulers in their own colonies. But in the areas under influence such as our own
Iran and in `apparently independent' countries such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, or Sudan as vivid examples of the day, how could they establish control over its management? If they wanted pious and competent people to run the affairs of such countries - at times they needed seemingly pious people - the problem was that a pious person or several pious managers in a country are by no means ready to place at the disposal of the alien foreigners the interests of their country and people. And this is a very vivid fact. That is to say, a person possessing a little soundness is by no means ready to place the interests of his people, relatives, nation, and co-religionists at the disposal of the United States, Britain, Soviet Union, or another power.
As a result, those who pursue this trend, and are under the influence of these powers are by themselves people who have strong inclinations towards the foreigners (due to their own ambitions and profit-seeking natures) and are prepared to make sacrifices for them. They sacrifice the interests of their own people for the benefit of the foreigners to secure their own rule and pursue their own ambitions. It is a very natural process that rulers of countries under domination be people who typically act against the benefits of their own nation, and who commit gruesome crimes for petty causes and are ready to attain the welfare of themselves, their own relatives, and their own clique by making the nation miserable.
Such type of people fall under the control of colonialists for such activities. Unfortunately, there are numerous filthy pages of this kind in the black history of the last 400 or 500 years of the Third World and of the non-white races. The quisling governments have created such a black record by their treatment in regard to their own people, the foreigners, and their hirelings. This is a very disgraceful history. And this is not a history that has been lost. Rather it is a compiled history. Many books, newspapers, and the memories of generations, as well as scenes of encounter have preserved these matters. Our history is rich with these scenes and perhaps these scenes might forever remain alive in human history and might never be wiped off from the minds of people.

Lack of Familiarity of the Rulers of Colonized Countries with the Interests of Their Own Peoples
Thus, one can analytically reach the conclusion that those who come to power in countries under the control of colonialism and arrogance, are typically the people, who are not much familiar with the interests of their own nation. They are rather more familiar with the interests of the foreigners. Of course, this does not mean that all people in various strata of government are corrupt in such a regime. Many partake in it in the hope of serving (the people). Later on, they either render service or not. Perhaps many engage in it as an occupation and do not embark on treachery. They render some service as far as possible.
However, the nature of work in governments under domination is that their rulers are not so loyal to the interests of their people. If now you see that, for instance, the rulers of Egypt, Iraq, and Jordan sit and drag the Palestinian Liberation Organization behind and act in that way against the Arab interests. Or, if you see that in Lebanon, the Phalanges and those ruling over Lebanon are more in favour of Israel's presence in their country than the presence of Muslims and the oppressed Lebanese people. Or, if you see that countries such as Sudan in Africa now become a bridge or means for the victory of Western arrogance. Or, 'if you see governments such as that of Afghanistan subject their people to massacre by Russian Cossacks; these are all rooted in what I stated.
That is, a ruling class is found that ties itself, its clique, and its fate to the interests of such and such an arrogant movement in the world. To safeguard these limited interests, it tramples upon the benefits of its people and nation. These examples in the last five hundred years are more or less the pattern of the trend which pervaded the human history. The main responsibility for this rests with the so-called white race whose real nature is darker than coal and whose principal centre is the White House whose interior is more black than any darkness and which is a house of gloom, ironically called the White House. They have applied the famous proverb. Reversely a negro is called as white as camphor. I do not know why that house was made white from the very beginning, and why it was not incidentally constructed black so as to match with its ugly interior nature. This is their way of life in the world. But the formula is what I will mention. It is a formula which must serve more as a lesson for our own people. Who would cooperate with arrogant movements in interfering in local and internal affairs of a country? Who are the ones who do so? It is difficult to discover this relationship. There is a sound analysis which prevents one from falling into deviation and which enables one to discover that trend which has this potential danger, so as to be careful that such a movement does not evolve anywhere.

Sovereignty of the Capitalistic Clique in the Countries under the Western Domination
What I have so far read in history and studied about the fate of captivated countries, can be almost formulated as a rule, even though such things do not turn out as absolute rules like mathematical formulae. However, these take the shape of a social law. This law is that the capitalistic clique, the lovers of capitalism, and those infatuated by worldly wealth can follow this ugly arrogant policy and continue it in such countries. If you go through the history of these countries (The issue of the government of one thousand families, famous in the history, elucidates this very matter), you will notice that those who intend to plunder their nation and to amass wealth by exploiting the workers and the deprived, are the people having such background and existential basis. And this existential basis is abused by the Western exploiters.
In the history, wherever a government ruled for long and was put under the control of the Westerners and remained in power for long, we see that a capitalistic clique cooperated with that government. Of course, at first, it is not necessary that a capitalist comes to power. They might find an ambitious military officer to set up a rule in a country through a coup-like movement. Then those who join this rule and glorify it are the capitalists. Even if they are not capitalists from the beginning, they gradually turn into capitalists after reaching power and pillaging the people's resources. Then they become attached to houses, cars, farms, bank accounts, carnal desires, night parties, travels, pleasures, deآ­bauchery, and relationships. Consequently, a framework is set up, a movement which takes under control all facilities, and which becomes the best means for and sworn friend of foreign domination and internal arrogant movements. And the world history proves this.
The families in Arab countries, such as Iraq (before the present government), Jordan, countries in the southern part of the Persian Gulf and elsewhere which one can observe are those upon whose shoulders the arrogance is operating and making the people miserable. In our country, the Pahlavi family is the best example of this movement. The capitalistic clique of the past 50 or 60 years which we can mention is the best example of this movement. Without them, such a traditional device for pursuing the policies of global arrogance could be hardly and The working class, the average tradesmen (I am not talking about big merchants), the soldiers, the non-commissioned officers, the ordinary officer's, and average people have sentimental ties with the people. Their interests and lives are linked with those of the masses. It is difficult to use them as a clique at the service of the enemies of the people. Of course, some individuals could be used for such a purpose. One can find an individual everywhere, hire him, and use him for one's own ends. But it is not so easy to find out a movement of this kind having stability and solidity.

As a result, we can conclude that what we call the "social law" (of course, there are and there might be exceptions to social laws) is at all times, and in all places normally under the control of a particular group in countries which are under the domination of the West and are among Western satellites. This group has implemented their policies as a movement rooted in the society. They have embarked on all kinds of corruption. The most important trend which one can name is the capitalistic movement. This does not mean that all capitalists are the hirelings of the United States or the West. It is not so, because with our Islamic insight we cannot have a fatalistic judgment about human beings. It is the communists who set up classes and consider one class as corrupt and another as sound. They consider it totally impossible for the class of capitalists, which they deem corrupt, to include a good person. If they see a good person in it, they say that he has been isolated from the class.
We do not analyze the issue in this way. It is normal for wealthy people to be good too, for example, we have Hadrat Khadijah, the first Muslim woman in the history of Islam, who was the wife of the Holy Prophet (S). The matter is, therefore, clear to us and we cannot say such things. Good people might be wealthy and might have halal money, and might use their money correctly or even use their money for economic activities. They might not fall into such dirty trends. Such a thing is possible. But if the totality of the matter is not correct, we can generally judge that the history of the past half a century in the world has been especially like this.
When we recall the past we see that whenever the worst persons among them, in previous eras, entered an area, they normally sought the heads of tribes; the khans, headmen, and big owners, and became friendly with them. Just consider the history of our own country. See the Parliament set up after constitutionalism. See what kinds of people gathered in the parliaments of apparently independent and free countries. See who obtained the majority of votes in elections conducted among the tribes and in villages. When there were people such as the khan's son and head of the tribe, the people would not vote for the worker and farmer. The latter were not even considered. No one would register their names for elections. They gathered in the Parliament but nothing happened there; yet they assembled and carried such titles. The case of those appointed for the Senate was obvious.
The same policy continued to the end whenever a minister, deputy, director general, head of a department or a factory was to be appointed anywhere. It was a continuous and deep-rooted movement that made them control everything. The force of the gendarmes was also at their disposal. They had influence even deep inside the forests, under the ground, and inside mines. The weapons of gendarmeries always worked according to the will of the khan. Such a movement governed the country, having along the power of the United States, imperialistic policies, Europe, or elsewhere. See, can a community move towards the progress under such conditions?
I want to say that the main responsibility for the adversity of the world, and the misfortune of the people rests with this inauspicious policy which is rooted in the houses, seemingly white, in the West. They are responsible for all the adversity befalling the world. Nevertheless, with regard to Iran, on the surface, there was Muhammad Rida Shah who ruled, and there was a Parliament passing laws, and there were some resources and devices at his service. But, in fact, this system was run by ruffian heads of tribes, the khans, the rich, the importers and exporters, and the factory owners who comprised a linked group. It was only the people who were treated as strangers. They used the masses like an animal, which carries loads and is fed. This is how they conceived of the people.
Consequently, if we are to approach the matter vigilantly, negation of the sovereignty of capital should be a decisive standpoint of the revolution (having capital is different from the sovereignty of capital). We can be rich but can give the people the chance to engage in economic activities. We can allocate to the private sector the main affairs of the country, such as distribution and production (of goods). And it is correct also to do. This is beneficial and useful and we must engage in it; yet it requires a system devoid of the sovereignty of capital.
There may be a capitalist, but the capitalist is not at the helm of power. The decisions taken by the Parliament should not be under the influence of capitalistic ideas. The executive decisions of the country, of the cabinet, and of the managers should not serve the interests of capitalism. If this is the case, the United States, Europe, and the Soviet Union could nowhere find a group to influence and to bring into their own service. Surely, when conditions change, they use the heads of grouplets as the khans. But at any rate, that grouplet is then transformed into a movement which I will discuss later. What I mentioned applies to Europe and America as well. Allah (SWT) willing, in future I will devote a part of my discussion to them, so that you could see whether now the people of the United States are truly the rulers or the clique that I have mentioned.