Identical words often misinform
Believer and unbeliever seem identical
in form
Take words alone and many a feud
follows
Once meaning enters, calm follows
Errors of
judgement often arise from the fact that a single term can carry
multiple meanings or a single meaning can go under different names.
Reaching uniform judgements about those
multiple meanings or making multiple judgements
about that single meaning is nothing other than
misjudgement and error. And disentangling entangled terms is the
duty of all seekers of knowledge. Religiosity is one such term. When we
ask ourselves: « Was Iranian society more religious under the
Qajar Dynasty or is it more religious today?
Are modern western societies more religious than societies during the
Middle Ages? », a bit of thought and reflection brings us to the
realisation that, unless we clarify and
disentangle the different layers of religiosity, we will never discover
the answers to our questions. It may well be that society is more
religious today in one sense and less so in another. Hence, distinguishing
the different types and layers of religiosity is a prerequisite of
religious theory and knowledge and a precondition of reform. If we take
the volume of mourning ceremonies
and
fasts and tears and supplications and candles and pilgrimages and bows
before the clergy, then the Qajar period will
seem to be in the lead. If we take the volume of critical studies and
opinions and debates about religion, we are quite likely to find today’s
society more religious and more religion-minded. When we probe the matter
further and see that, every type of religiosity, offers different
interpretations of God and the Prophet and sin and obedience and joy and
wretchedness, then we will see even more clearly the gravity and
sensitivity of the matter.
Distinguishing different types of
religiosity is certainly not a new or innovative idea.
When the Holy Koran speaks of the
yamiyn
(the ones on the right) and
the
sabiqun
(the vanguards), it is
offering a way of distinguishing different types of religiosity. And
religious 2 scholars, who speak of legalistic,
methodistic and idealistic religion or of the religion of
initiation, the median and culmination, are touching on this same truth.
This article, too, will present, in
brief, a categorisation of different types of
religiosity which has differences and similarities with the
above-mentioned divisions.
We will call these three types of
religiosity, respectively: 1. Pragmatic (or utilitarian) religiosity; 2.
Gnostic religiosity; and 3. Experiential religiosity.
First: Pragmatic (utilitarian)
religiosity
In this type of religiosity, a view or
an action’s ultimate purpose, utility and outcome (this worldly or other
worldly) are of paramount importance to the believer. It is a religion for
life (not synonymous with life or higher than life).
In its purely other-worldly forms, it
wears the garb of asceticism and Sufism (Khajeh
Abdollah Nesari)
and, in its this-worldly forms, the garb of
politics and statesmanship (Seyyed Jamal
Afghani, etc.). Its central axis is emotion and practical rationality.
Among the general masses, the emotional aspect gains the upper hand and,
among learned people, the practical rationality (that is to say the
capacity to match means to ends).
Pragmatic religiosity is mundane,
causal (not reasoned), hereditary, deterministic (not arising from choice
or free will), emotional, dogmatic, ritualistic, ideological,
identity-bound, external, collective, legalistic-juristic, mythic,
imitative, obedient, traditional and habitual.
Here, the volume of deeds is the
measure of the intensity or otherwise of conviction: performing the hajj
numerous times, visiting shrines, praying frequently and so on. Through
these actions, the religious person feels more successful and closer to
God. Mass rituals
and
rites nourish this religiosity more than anything else. The frequency of
collective prayers, mourning ceremonies, Koranic
recitations, retreats, Friday prayers, gatherings and preaching sessions,
crowds of believers at shrines and mosques, hordes of fighters in the
arenas
of jihad amount to the glorification and splendour
of this type of religiosity and serve as a source of pride to it. It both
stirs up emotions and draws strength from them. Since this type of
religiosity is hereditary and not based on reasoning, since emulation and
obedience play the biggest role in perpetuating it, since it devotes
itself to deeds rather than thought and reflection, and since it is
constructed upon emotion and excitation rather than rational
endeavour and inquiry, it gradually becomes
tainted by dogmatism and prejudice and loses the capacity to tolerate
dissent. It defends set habits and traditions dogmatically and sees people
who tend to raise questions and reflect upon things as crooks and
heretics. Hence, slowly but surely it goes down the path of casting out
and excommunicating people.
This is the religiosity of the clergy,
and clerics like to emphasise the importance
of submission and emulation and religious passion and the performance of
rites and rituals to believers. In this way, a believer’s religion becomes
their identity and they defend it in the way they would defend their
homeland or property or life, not in the way a scientist would defend a
truth. In other words, they want religion so that they can feel like
somebody and distinguish themselves from others, not because they want to
arrive at some truth.
Believers, in this type of religiosity,
are the slaves and God is the master and the sultan (not the God of
wisdom, nor the Alluring Beloved). And the Prophet wears the cloak of a
commander, issuing orders about what a believer may and may not do, and
speaking of glad tidings and ominous portents (not an insightful man of
knowledge with exalted experiences, nor a wise
and brilliant thinker). And sin amounts to disobeying his orders rather
than being something that causes a contraction of the heart. And obedience
is part of a deal aimed at accruing some gain or benefit, not something
that causes an expansion of the heart, nor yet a participation in a
spiritual experience. And following the Prophet means carrying out his
commands. Morality is always relegated to second place in this religiosity
and is considered to be decorative at best, entailing no religious burdens
or duties in itself. Since imitative believers
do not have the courage and strength to look at the Exalted for themselves
or to tackle difficult concepts, they look for mediators and they find
what they are seeking in the form of religious personalities past and
present, such that they spend more time visiting shrines than going to
mosques.
In this type of religiosity,
personalities are transformed into myths and lose touch with human history
and geography. Our fathers and mothers wept for centuries for a Hussein
who was assisted on Ashura by mysterious
spirits and, under every stone they turned over on the day he was
martyred, they discovered fresh blood. Not once did they ask about the
rational or historical significance of his uprising and, centuries after
the fall of the Umayyads and Abbasids, their
pilgrimage invocations still called for vengeance against the culprits who
murdered him.
Dogmatic distinctions drawn between us
and them and believers and infidels, the firm and unyielding
categorisation of people, the simplification
of the world and the refusal to see the complexities, subtleties and
variations of human existence, and, subsequently, engaging in unsubtle
behaviour inappropriate to the elaborate and
mysterious nature of life, creating strict ideological divisions, seeing
people as either heavenly or hellish, viewing God as an impatient avenger,
imagining God as one’s own God and the Protector of one’s own sect who is
uncaring about everyone else, narrowing the definition of truth and
broadening the definition of falsehood, highlighting the differences
between sects and seeing one’s own sect as the axis and measure of truth
and falsehood and the creator of the true human identity, ignoring the
common attributes of human beings and emphasising
every small difference in belief, and
compartmentalising humanity into so many different sects are some
of the characteristics and defining features of this kind of religiosity.
But learned, pragmatic religiosity is itself of two types: this worldly
and other worldly; and, of course, it has important differences with the
pragmatic religiosity of the general masses. Here, the central axis is
practical rationality, not emotion. And practical reason engages in
planning and measures means against ends. But, whatever it does, it is
practical and it wants religion for its utility. Since this-worldly,
learned, pragmatic religiosity acts rationally, it has no affinity with
myths, it does not blow the horn of emulation, it does not rouse blind
emotion, it does not spare tradition the rod of criticism, it has no
particular fondness for the clergy; nonetheless, and most importantly, it
seeks movement
rather than
truth,
which is precisely the main attribute of ideologies. It sees religion as
the servant of politics or revolution or democracy, etc. And,
concentrating on the ultimate goal or purpose, it tries to pick out what
it finds useful in religion and to set aside anything in it that is of no
use. The God of this kind of religiosity is an observing, supervising God
who expects people to act responsibly. His servants are hardworking,
shrewd, reward-minded and responsible employees. His Prophet is a prudent
politician and a methodical planner. The other-worldly joy or wretchedness
of his followers depend on their this-worldly
joy or wretchedness. Its religious personalities are historical and
non-mythical, and as subject to criticism and analysis as anyone else.
There is no element of wonder or
secrets or the inner world in this type of religiosity. Seeing human
beings, the world and history in simple, ideological terms remains the
order of the day. The collective and demonstrative aspect of religion
(apart from its ritualistic dimension) is firmly in place. Political,
social, revolutionary or democratic religions are products of this kind of
religiosity. Sin is like breaking the law and reward is synonymous with
achieving the goal or reaching the desired destination. And obedience to
the Prophet is like the shrewd obedience of an employee to a superior, not
of a devoted follower to a master, nor of a lover to the beloved. The
element of practical endeavour is still
prominent, but here it is purposeful endeavour
directed towards a this-worldly goal. Religious law and jurisprudence [fiqh]
are justified in rationalistic terms. Morality, too, takes on a
revolutionary or democratic sense and, ultimately, neither morality nor
fiqh
are seen as possessing any
mysterious qualities or secret and hidden aims. Most modern religious
intellectuals and reformers fall into this category and distinguished
personalities such as Seyyed Jamal,
Shariati,
Seyyed Qutb and
Ubdah are its prominent representatives in
this century. Most clerics in all religions throughout history have fallen
into the opposite category: other-worldly, learned,
pragmatic believers. And their only difference with the pragmatic general
masses is that what the masses obtain second hand, they obtain from the
source.
And, in the words of
Mowlana Jalaleddin
Rumi they are « well versed in the traditional
sciences »1
and brimming with historical
accounts and narratives. Apart from this, their religiosity is no
different from that of the masses in terms of its being causal,
hereditary, dogmatic, ritualistic, collective, juristic, mythic and
obedient. Their God and Prophet and devotion and sinfulness are also of
the same variety. In fact, they are the ones who teach the masses their
utilitarian religiosity.
Their morality is a religious (not
rational) morality. And, in terms of knowledge, they are single-sourced.
And their world is a world filled with hidden powers and mysterious acts
of assistance and invisible hands. Among these believers, the performance
of duty gains the upper hand over the pursuit of purposeful designs and
shrewd policies. Most jurists and, in
our
times, such distinguished personalities as Ayatollahs
Kho’i, Mar’ashi,
Golpayegani and Borujerdi, and their
followers, belong to this category.
Second: Gnostic religiosity
Describing the difference between the
lover’s approach to God as opposed to the
scholar’s, Hussein Bin Mansur
Hallaj would say: « The Beloved is laden with
allures, not secrets ». And with his unerring grace,
Mowlana attributed both these qualities to the Benevolent
reator and said:
The tongue speaks of its secrets and
allures Or depicts the sky as its heavenly robes Robe? Every thread and
fibre is made of gold
The more you cover it, the more it
glows In gnostic
religiosity, there is no talk of the allures of God and his
prophets; that is the business of the experiential believer. Here, it is
all a question of His secrets; not secrets
in
the sense of myths, but secrets as rational problems and puzzles that one
must grapple with like a mental wrestler. Here one finds a theoretical
rationality which is sensitive to the appropriateness of a reason to a
claim, not just a practical rationality that is concerned about the
appropriateness of a means to an end. If we identify pragmatic religiosity
by its dogmatism,
gnostic religiosity can be identified by a
sense of rational wonder
and, by the same token,
experiential religiosity by
certainty.
Hence, on entering the realm of gnosticism,
dogma is exchanged for doubt and wonder, and, as dogmatism is left behind,
the road is paved for entering the realm of ertainty.
Rationality always brings along two sturdy companions: one is the tireless
raising of whys and wherefores and maybe sos
and maybe nots,
and the other is a relentless individuality. No rational thinker ever
stops posing questions and destroying and rebuilding ceaselessly. And no
two rational thinkers are ever the same. It is emotion that drowns people
en masse and formlessly in a sea of excitation. This is not the domain of
rationality. Rationality both allows its followers independence and
individuality and endorses these qualities; it deems these attributes to
belong to rational thinkers by right. In the pragmatic religiosity of the
general masses, all believers practice their religiosity in the same
manner, and their beliefs and actions are very similar. But, on stepping
into the realm of gnosticism, individual
religiosity and religious individualism enter
in.
Every rational thinker has their own conception of religion, that is,
their own understanding of God, the Prophet, revelation, joy,
wretchedness, sin and obedience; an understanding that belongs to that
believer alone, results from their own reflections and is subjected to
constant questioning and revision. This is why
gnostic religiosity is unstable and in a state of flux. The
religiosity of the masses has the stability of paralysis. This same kind
of constancy and uniformity cannot be expected from
gnostic religiosity. Rational storms will inevitably stir and rouse
the ocean of religious belief and knowledge; swimming in these tempestuous
waters represents the skill
and
excellence of and even life itself to the gnostic
believer. All this examining, reexamining, rediscovering, doubting and
pondering is the essence of worship to the gnostic,
while sin would amount to submitting uncritically to beliefs, succumbing
to popular vulgarities, following superstitions and famous personalities,
and refusing to engage in doubt
and
reflection. And the believer’s joy lies in the excellence of his
theoretical skills.
Theologians and
exegisists are two of the prominent representatives of this
category. This religiosity is reasoned (as opposed to causal),
investigative, reflective, based on choice and free will, wondrous,
theological, non-mythical, non-clerical, individualistic, critical,
fluctuating and non-imitative.
Here God appears in the form of a great
rational secret and, awed by His Splendour,
His servants seek to unravel the secret. And the Prophet is like a great
teacher and philosopher who has conveyed his lessons in the most intense
form, while believers are like his students and novices who strive for a
rational understanding of his words, and nonbelievers are like ungrateful
pupils or like ignorant people who are incapable of even
recognising their own ignorance. Thus the
Prophet’s target is also perceived differently. Here, his target is
believers’ minds, not their emotions. And believers become followers of
his school to the extent that they can find rational
fulfilment. The Prophet’s task is to teach and to pledge their
betterment, not to demand and compel, and the believer’s task is rational-
not physical or emotional - acceptance and submission.
There is no role for the clergy in this
religiosity, since it is not founded on myths and rituals, and it has no
place for emulation. It is on good terms with religious pluralism, because
individual religiosity and religious individualism are synonymous with a
plurality of conceptions and interpretations. It cannot be turned into an
ideology because it has no time
for
dogmatism and official interpretations, or for simplistic views of the
world, human beings and history. It is basically inclined towards the
truth, not towards movement or an identity. Its particular form of worship
is thought and one can enter into dialogue with its religious
personalities without having to praise and revere them unquestioningly. It
conceives of moral virtues as things that help the individual arrive at a
better and more advanced understanding of error. It considers the worst
forms of villainy to be dishonesty and duplicity and deception and pride
and arrogance and mischievous cunning and pretentiousness and
irrationality.
Gnostic believers are per force
multi-sourced and their religious understanding
recedes and advances in keeping with the contractions and expansions of
their minds. This type of religiosity has been scorned by both pragmatic
and experiential believers. When Shariati
spoke of « philosophers as history’s fatheads », he revealed the nature of
his own religiosity. Mowlana
Jalaleddin Rumi,
for his part, likened the cunning displayed by theologians and
gnostics to a diver’s derring-do under the sea
that proves more dangerous than beneficial:
A cunning diver swims under the sea
He’ll not last long and will drown
eventually
Love is like a ship for the fortunate
few
Salvation is likely and the dangers are
few
Ghazzali,
too, scorned the science of theology and said that it led to pride,
prevented people from struggling against their baser instincts, created
the illusion of certainty while engendering doubt, and represented a
contrived development that had not existed during the time of the Prophet
(Revival of the
Religious Sciences, first
quarter, chapter on science).
The first two moral points must be
resolved rigorously and diligently. The third point must be conceded and
accepted, but it must not be seen as an ill or a vice because the oar of
logic and reasoning cannot steer the mind to the shore of peace. There,
waves and turbulence are the rule and calm the exception.
As to the fourth point, it calls for an
explanation: the science of theology belongs to the age of consolidation,
not to the time when religion was being founded and the age of the Prophet
when the furnace of revelation was ablaze and when the presence of the
Prophet’s glowing personality meant that there was no need for any
theological mind to try to shed light on things or to grapple with
problems. The age of the Prophet cannot be compared with other ages, nor
can uniform rulings be made about the two. Theologians came on the scene
in order to study the words of the Prophet with reverence for knowledge
(rather than with servile reverence for any person), and to lay the
foundations for exploring other-worldly teachings from a great distance,
compelled by the separation in time and the needs and questions of a later
age, proceeding on the basis of the reasoning and culture of their own
time. They thus succeeded in nurturing the science of theology like an
embryo in the womb and then entrusted it to future generations as the
legitimate child of religious history. This has been the historical
destiny of and the course taken by every religion; it is not the
brainchild
of heretics and deviationist. In gnostic
religiosity, the more robust is the rope of criticism, the
more narrow is the thread of servile reverence,
and it is this very robustness and narrowness that provokes the sneers of
the scornful. The main characteristic of this type of religiosity is that
the personality of the leader is in abeyance and it is his teaching
instead of his person that serves as the candle brightening the lives of
believers. And, since the emphasis is on approaching that teaching through
rationality and logic, the independence of the words from the speaker and
the teaching from the teacher becomes clearer and more prominent. Here,
reason assists the leader rather than the leader assisting reason. This is
precisely something that neither pragmatic nor experiential believers like
or tolerate, since they both lay rationality, humanity’s greatest
blessing, like a sacrificial offering before the feet of the master and
beloved: How can anyone speak of rationality while the Prophet is in the
world?
Bow down and place rationality at the
Prophet’s feet Say: God, I’m at Your Orders, Your Order is all I need
Surrender rationality like an offering to a friend You’ll find endless
rationality if you just gaze at heaven Gnostic religiosity, which is like
a rational form of existence to the believer who has
no
motive or aim in discovering other than discovery, opens the way for the
mind to discover independent, non-religious concepts. Hence, theologians
must be seen as the first harbingers of the modern world among believers.
Thus, although this type of investigative, probing, critical, learned,
theological, non-sanctified, anti-mythical, pensive, argumentative,
non-emulative,
gnostic religiosity is not in keeping with the
unwavering faith of the masses and the loving certainty of the few, it
can, nonetheless, be seen as a respectable and independent kind of creed
in its own right, for no type of religiosity is a measure of the truth or
falsity of any other. This religiosity is a sapling that grows in a
tremor-prone land. Those who are born in this terrain choose to make their
homes here while others choose other, different ways.
Fakhreddin Razi and Mohammad
Hossein Tabataba’i
can be identified as two of the distinguished champions of this realm.
Third: Experiential religiosity
When we come to experiential
religiosity, we step from the domain of separation into the domain of
union. The previous types of religiosity can be described as religiosities
of distance, for the first was physical and practical and the second
mental and reflective. The first was based on instrumental rationality and
the second on theoretical rationality. One was
after
utility and the other after knowledge. But experiential religiosity is
neither physical nor mental, neither instrumental nor theoretical; it
seeks the evident and the manifest, and if gnostic
religiosity is concerned with hearing, the experiential believer is
concerned with seeing:
I’ve heard the inebriating melody of
faith What I long for now is to see its face Experiential religiosity is
passionate, revelatory, certain, individualistic, deterministic,
quintessential, reconciliatory, ecstatic, intimate, visual, saintly,
mystical and mysterious. Here, God is a graceful and alluring beloved. The
Prophet is an ideal, a serene man and a model of successful religious
experience. To follow him is to share his passions, to extend and repeat
his experiences, and to be drawn into the magnetic force field of his
personality. Sin is that which muddies, weakens or destroys the devotional
link, the power of discovery and the state of union,
and worship is that which feeds the flames of ecstasy. Heaven is the
experience of union and hell the bitterness of separation. When the
preacher spoke of the fear felt on Judgement
Day He was depicting the terror the possibility of separation conveys The
certainty that is unattainable in gnostic
religiosity is picked like a fruit from the tree of experience here and
the freewill that was seen as a virtue there now gives way to the
passionate compulsion of love:
The ever-impatient lover, I intone my
Destiny
And he who knows not love is trapped by
destiny
And the teacher
who was eclipsed by his teaching there, re-enters the scene here, casting
light like a gleaming moon. In this religiosity, the plurality of
experience and positive religious pluralism are matters of principle.
Encountering the Exalted is a normal experience and religious
individualism unavoidable. Here, instead of being the cause of the
believer’s religious experience and excellence, rites and rituals are the
effect of that excellence, that is, they follow and flow from the
believer’s passionate devotion to God, instead of being an instrument for
achieving it. Hence, ritualism and dedication to religious practices are
not the central axis of this religiosity. In the words of
Mowlana:
So many nights spent standing at the
feet of the Prophet
Cloak shredded, hair
dishevelled, feet distended
A quest for the absolution of sins past
and present?
‘Tis the
passion of love, not hope or fear, he retorted
Here, everything is personal: my
religion, my experience, my beloved, my morality.
The link with the leader is what makes
the religion. Whoever inflames and enlightens the believer
is his leader and prophet. And the leader
addresses the believer’s heart, not his mind or his emotions. The
experiential believer’s morality, too, is the morality of love; it
can, herefore, give
way to disregard for good manners and correct
behaviour, for the behaviour of love is
the behaviour of the ill-mannered. This
abandonment of good manners can go as far the abandonment of all
formality and end up in « the audacities of the recluse », and the
inebriety of devotion alters all sense and dignity:
The drunkenness felt in the presence of
the King
You’ll not find in one hundred barrels,
vats or casks
How can I behave dutifully then?
The steed has fallen, unable to perform
the simplest tasks
The awesome mystery of the Truth enters
the very being of the experiential believer like a mighty guest and
renders him so stunned and silent that even his intonations and prayers
take on a different form and content. And, although he gives the
appearance of mingling with people, inside, he is enthralled by his own
experiences, and, although he seems to use the same words as others do, he
fills these vessels with different meanings.
The fruit of love is union and ecstasy,
and the etiquette of love is secrecy, for God understands every language:
Of this, in truth, there’s many a tale
to relate
But when the pen arrives here, it
stops, it breaks
1 This interpretation
was directed by Mowlana
Jalaleddin Rumi to Noah’s son who
disobeyed his father, relied on his own swimming skills and knowledge, and
subsequently drowned in the relentless storms and floods: « Would that
he’d never acquired learning/ so that he’d have been driven onto Noah’s
ship/or that he’d been less well versed in the traditional sciences/ and
more enamoured by revelation instead »