|
The past week’s symposium entitled “Humanism and Theo-centrism
in Islamic and Western Thought,” on 19th death anniversary of Imam
Khomeini, the grand leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran,
sponsored by the Iranian Office of the Cultural Counselor Embassy in
Manila, held at the University of the Philippines, Diliman, brought
to light the need for dialogue, communication and cooperation to
guide worldwide, political affairs.
This initiative by the Islamic Embassy was
greatly welcomed by the University of the Philippines and it is
hoped that more symposia of this sort be held to foster more
amicable relations between the Philippines and Iran and between the
Christian and Islamic nations.
No doubt, Christianity and Islam are the two
most influential and powerful political religions in the world
today. Their doctrines, however, have also been misused by their
very own adherents to bring about great misery, destruction, and
suffering, so as to detract from the religions’ message of peace,
tolerance and enlightened understanding between nations and peoples.
Consequently, they have managed to leave behind a disturbing record
and legacy of hate, divisiveness, conflict and war.
The emergence of the Imam Khomeini, as the
leader of the Iranian Republic to succeed the deposed Shah Pahlava,
reinstated theo-centrism as a viable political theory of governance.
It counteracted the excesses of Western science and materialism, to
re-inculcate the reformist values of tolerance, peace and compassion
in Iran.
The dominant political theory of governance
today, as exemplified in First World nations, is that of democratic
liberalism, which espouses the contrary tenet of the separation of
church and state. This is not to disparage the role of religion in
society, but only to emphasize its essentially private character.
Under this theory, the state exists not to
promote one religion over others, but to guarantee a believer’s
right to practice his religion free from interference by others. For
religion is not only a social phenomenon but is, in essence, a
personal and intimate matter between man and his maker nurtured in
the confines of solitude, away from public demands or expectations.
The resurgence of theo-centrism betrays the
failures of the dominant theory, as there then arose the need to
counter-act the moral decadence resulting from the life-style
associated with that theory, which belittled spiritual values at the
expense of materialistic ones. The focus on man directed attention
to the temptations of pleasure, and not to the pursuit of his total
development and fulfillment as a human being, composed of matter and
spirit.
Indeed this interplay between matter and spirit,
between humanism and theo-centrism are essential ingredients in any
society if it is to thrive. Both exist to complement and not to
suffocate the other. Both need to be realized so that man can be
fulfilled both in his humanity and divinity.
Each of the various humanistic and theo-centric
theories of governance highlights these human and divine aspects of
man. Khomeini stressed theo-centrism and he was justified in doing
so by the preoccupation of Islamic adherents with the deviations of
pleasurable preoccupations.
My own version of the balance and interplay
between humanism and theo-centrism in government was encapsulated in
my paper entitled: “The Earthly Significance of the Church’s
Divine Mission,” delivered in that symposium. I warned against the
deviation of the Church from its pure mission of salvation to an
earthly and political intrusion and interference in political
affairs.
In the end, the difference between the Imam
Khomeini’s reformist message and mine, is one of method, not of
substance. We agree basically in the need for the reformer to
inculcate in himself the inward self-realizing virtues of solitude,
contemplation, purification, surrender, and peace as well as the
outward social and political virtues of wisdom, humility, honesty,
justice, and compassion, in order to be effective.
Both the Imam Khomeini and Jesus Christ
possessed these virtues in the requisite degree so as to occasion
positive influences in society. The momentum they generated should
be carried out by reformists today to render their efforts and
sacrifices insignificant.
I am partial to Christ’s method of reform.
Indeed I encourage it. It would do well for the Church to heed it,
if only to minimize the grave political harm their naïve incursions
and interferences with purely political Philippine affairs have
already caused.
I have communicated that same message in a
series of Manila Times Opinion page articles, culminating in “The
Harmful, Corruptive Influence of the Church,” dated May 31. I
reiterate here some of the conclusions made then.
For genuine reform to be realized, the reformist
must so prepare himself in his mission to embody totally in his
humanity the inward and outward virtues earlier referred to. Fully
prepared, he would then be able to communicate unequivocally the
message of salvation and preach the importance of (i.) inner
spiritual reform; (ii.) of the beneficial effects on society of
individual reform; and (iii.) of the realization of an earthly
paradise, characterized by tolerance, peace, justice, understanding
and compassion, in the event that the inner reform manages to
inspire his followers to lasting self-realization, generating that
ethically and spiritually transforming effect on the rest of
society.
eqfernando@hotmail.com
|
