Religious intellectualism in Iran () is a process that involves philosophers, sociologists, political scientists and cultural theorists.
Summary The unifying traits of these intellectuals include their recognition of reform in the Islamic thought, democracy, civil society and religious pluralism and their opposition to the absolute supremacy of the Faqih. The rise of religious intellectuals can be followed through the writings of Abdolkarim Soroush. Soroush’s main idea is that there are perennial unchanging religious truths, but our understanding of them remains contingent on our knowledge in the fields of science and philosophy.
Influenced by Persian mysticism, religious intellectuals advocated a type of reformist Islam that went beyond most liberal Muslim thinkers of the 20th century and argued that the search for reconciliation of Islam and democracy was not a matter of simply finding appropriate phrases in the Qur'an that were in agreement with modern science, democracy, or human rights. Drawing on the works of Molana Jalaleddin Balkhi, Immanuel Kant, G.W.F. Hegel, Karl Popper, and Erich Fromm, Iranian intellectuals called for a reexamination of all tenets of Islam, insisting on the need to maintain the religion's original spirit of social justice and its emphasis on caring for other people.Iran :: Internal reform – Britannica Online Encyclopedia
Iranian religious intellectuals criticize both tradition and modernity. They believe that modernity has an essential hardcore (that includes e.g. critical wisdom) and some non-essential associates. Therefore, it is possible to define what they call "Iranian modernity" which is not necessarily incompatible with religion.BBCPersian.comBBC Persian
E'tezalieh movement
The glorious period of religious intellectual achievements was due to a well-known early school of thought known as "Mo'tazeleh". This school of thought flourished during the early Abbasid era. They adopted the method of applying rationality in the process of making interpretations of code of religion.
Two centuries after the death of the Prophet there were two distinct schools of Islamic speculative theology, the Motazelites who in the 8th century were the first Muslims to apply Greek philosophy to Islamic doctrine, and the Asharites, the "nominalists of Islam", followers of the 10th century orthodox theologian al-Ashari. Acknowledging the absolute oneness of God, the Motazelites reasoned therefore that the Koran could not legitimately be thought the co-eternal word of God, which was the orthodox view, but was rather created. There was place therefore for a realm of truth and morality not derived from religion, a rationality or secularity not simply given in the Kuran.Abdolkarim Soroush :: عبدالکريم سروش
Iranian religious intellectuals, in the tradition of the Motazelites, proceed from a rationality not confined to religion, a free and independent thought which is thoroughly modern in its assertions as distinct from its presuppositions.
History of religious intellectualism in Iran
The history of Iranian religious intellectualism dates back to 19th century. Contrary to widespread opinion, Mohammad Kazem Khorasani (1839–1911) reasoned that absolute guardianship belongs to God, and absolute human authority (including the prophet) should be rejected. Khorasani categorizes people's affairs into two areas: Public domain, matters which people refer to their chiefs or governments, as political issues or public domain or uncertain issues. Private issues, i.e. particular issues relating to individuals. In this area some religious Judgments (Ahkam) such as ownership, marriage and inheritance have been laid down by the religion. To Khorasani, observing these canonical judgments is obligatory on all, even the Prophet or the Imams.
Khorasani's ideas differed from the foremost theologians of his time, for example Mirza Hossein Na'eeni who was also very influential in the course of Persian Constitutional Revolution.
In brief, Khorasani firstly considers judgment as a specific right for jurisprudents; secondly, he does not regard legislation as an obligation for jurisprudents, but their supervision over legislation as necessary, so that no law enters a religious society against the religion; and thirdly, he denies specific right for jurisprudents to manage the public domain. Absolute rejection of jurisprudents' specific right to manage the public domain makes it possible for all people to participate. On this basis, Khorasani announces his historical saying: "In Imam Mahdi's occultation, government belongs to the public". This statement is seen by Iranian scholars as the foundation of democracy in an Islamic society.
The history of Iranian religious intellectualism in the 20th century can be divided into two stages, as follows.
Phase I: The ideological discourse
Prototype of scholars: Ali Shariati (1933–1977) Shariati thought that modernization might be consistent with traditional religious values. He also disassociated religion from the monopoly of the clerics. Not surprisingly, once in power, the Islamic Republic tried to counter his teachings. Nevertheless, his ideas have continued to have strong resonance within Iranian society.Patterns of Discontent: Will History Repeat in Iran? Michael Rubin and Patrick Clawson, March 2006. The Middle East Forum. Retrieved 2 Mar 2007.
According to Ali Rahnema: "Shariati was a man of his times. He reflected the mood, conditions, problems, pains and conceivable solutions of his times . . . He does not fit into any classical stereotype. Those who try to portray him as such, simply deform the man."The forgotten revolutionary, Lawrence Reza Ershaghi, February 24, 2003. The Iranian.
Shariati was a critic of both tradition and modernity.bbc.co.uk (in Persian) After several decades of his death, he is still the most influential Iranian religious intellectual inside and outside of Iran.
Phase II: Epistemologial/Democratic discourse
Prototype of scholars: Abdolkarim Soroush
Regarding the socio-political role of religion, the epistemological discourse has "minimalist" expectations. "Rationalism", Soroush states, "is one of the most sturdy elements of epistemological discourse," especially as it promotes democratic methods of governance. Further, the collective intellect of society should decide its administration, not a preplanned religious platform that is, in reality, the cumulative understanding of the fuqaha. The rhetoric of this democratic discourse is noncombative and emphasizes the personal "rights" of "citizens" and calls for the institutionalization of civil liberties. Therefore, people’s participation in politics should be based on their political rights and free will as citizens of the state, and not on the basis of their ideological/religious duties as subjects. The philosophy of Abdolkarim Soroush can be summarized as follows: Dr. Soroush Distinction between "religion" and our "understanding of religion". Distinction between "essential" and "accidental" aspects of religion. Distinction between "minimalist" and "maximalist" interpretation of Islam. Distinction between values and morals that are considered internal in respect to Islam and those that are external. Distinction between Religious "belief" and Religious "Iman". Distinction between religion as an ideology/identity and religion of truth.
Here is a sketchy comparison of several newly developed Iranian theologies:
Soroush theology: Variable nature of religious knowledge Kadivar theology: Plural nature of religious knowledge Shabestari theology: Limited nature of religious knowledge
It is also helpful to compare these modern theologies with the theology developed by Mehdi Bazargan several years earlier: Bazargan theology:
Bazargan's main contribution to modern Iranian theology is the following: The main mission of prophets was to inform people about God and the next life. It was not the prophets’ mission to teach people how to manage society, or what kind of government to have. That is to say, it is not necessary for Muslims to refer to the Quran in order to discover laws for politics, economics and society, or theories of mathematics or natural sciences, and so on. To discover these laws, Muslims, like non-Muslims, must refer to collective reason; that is, to rely on achievements in the fields of science and philosophy. Dr. Soroush
Iranian intellectual Islam and modernity
Characteristics of "Intellectual Islam" as defined by Iranian scholars or "the principles of compatibility of Islam and Modernity" can be mentioned as follows:
First Principle: Comparing with the Official Islam which had been "Formalist", the Intellectual Islam is "Teleological", and believes that all religious precepts, holy rites and propositions are in the service of a lofty goal. Second principle: In intellectual Islam this statement “The goal of no religious precept could not be understood by human reason” is not right. Third principle: The intellectual Moslems say that without respecting the individuality and freedom of choice human dignity cannot be respected. Fourth principle: The intellectual religious are distinguished from La’ic (non-religious) intellectuals at least in three cases: First, religious people including religious intellectuals (Moslem, Christian or Jewish) are living faithfully in their private lives, believe in God and in the other world, and follow religious styles in their moralities and are people of prayer, following God and religious rites. Secondly, the religious intellectuals are bound to religious morality in public domain and in interaction with the others. What is more important, is their practical adherence to religious criteria. Thirdly, the religious people and the believers try to observe human dignity, justice and morality in public policy making.
Secularization of religion
Abdolkarim Soroush believed that secularism is not fundamental to modernity and it is the Western case of modernity that is secular. According to Soroush secularism can be in two domains: in the mind and in social institutions. A secular mind cannot possibly be religious. However, it is possible to reconcile secular institutions with a religious society. He also put forward the idea of "minimal secularization".
Saeed Hajjarian allegedly showed the supremacy of politics as such over any religious norm when he said that the survival of the Islamic Republic was paramount and that no religious ritual should stand in its way. This kind of decision, he states, means that politics are more important than religion and that this acknowledges the secularization of religion. In this context, he argues, it is possible to reassess velayat faqih and to reject its supremacy within the political field in Iran.Social Compass – Sign-in page
In brief, Iranian religious intellectuals distinguish various kinds of secularism: political secularism philosophical secularism social secularism
They only accept "political secularism" and reject the two others. According to Iranian scholars, political secularism has two major pillars. One pillar is the question of legitimacy and the other consists of the political system’s neutrality towards religious and theoretical schools. They have argued that the system’s legitimacy hinges on justice, not on any particular type of religion, and the acceptance of the system comes from the people. Dr. Soroush
Religious pluralism and Rumi philosophy