I have the impression that
Morad Farhadpour doesn’t attach
as much importance to “thoughts”
as to peripheral issues. Let me
put it more plainly: He doesn’t
have the courage to take on
thoughts or the competence for
learned criticism. And he wraps
this lack of courage and
competence in a veneer of
tirades about motives,
digressions into politics and
digressions into digressions,
sneers and jeers, intimations
and insinuations, reprimands and
reproaches, and discourtesy and
slurs. In this way, he stirs up
so much dust as to even blind
himself.
By way of a preamble
It was 1975. I’d returned to
Iran from Britain to see my
friends and relatives. I also
visited northeast Iran. In those
days, Valian was the deputy
custodian of the Imam Reza
Shrine in Mashhad and, in order
to create open spaces, he’d
decided to destroy the buildings
and markets around the shrine.
My host was a well-travelled,
well-spoken man who explained to
me that, in this way, the people
of Mashhad had found a new
leisure activity. They would
gather around in groups and wait
to see the destruction of the
walls and ceilings. And as soon
as a wrecker’s crane or a
bulldozer smashed into a ceiling
or swept down a wall, they would
sigh and chant with glee.
This story had remained in the
back of my mind until
post-modernism and its beloved
offspring, deconstruction
(dismantling, demolishing,
sowing confusion, wrecking and
dismembering) - and in an
outdated form at that - awakened
it again. I couldn’t help but
recall what I’d been told about
the pleasure that some people
derive from violent destruction
and the hatred they harbour
towards orderliness and growth.
Morad Farhadpour
I’m not just talking about Morad
Farhadpour here, but I have to
start with him because, for some
time now, he has been “having a
go at me”, as young people would
put it. He assails me, the lowly
dervish. He lobs pebbles at me
and throws dust in my face. He
strikes at my face with his
blade. The way he works (or
criticizes) has blemishes and
flaws that - if they become
pervasive - will cause grievous
decline and harm. Hence, I’m
writing this out of compassion
for him (and his fans) and in
order to explain and defend
myself, and also as a kind of
cultural therapy.
If I wanted to “have a go at”
him and to criticize his work
using his own method, it would
be the easiest thing for me to
do: I could attribute to him a
place in the “relations of
power” and seek the assistance
of the currently existing
conflicts and contradictions.
Relying on the principle that
“everything is political”, I
could cook up a case for him and
accuse him of falling into step
with the authoritarian power
holders and acting as their
lackey. Or I could speak of his
psychological and behavioural
shortcomings, and his political
fears and ambitions, and predict
that, sooner or later, he’ll be
receiving his “comeuppance”.
But this is precisely the method
that I’ve chosen to reject and
eradicate; so, I cannot stomach
it. Hence, it’s best if I pursue
my aim directly and frankly [the
Persian word for aim/intent is “morad”].
I have the impression that Morad
Farhadpour doesn’t attach as
much importance to “thoughts” as
to peripheral issues. Let me put
it more plainly: He doesn’t have
the courage to take on thoughts
or the competence for learned
criticism. And he wraps this
lack of courage and competence
in a veneer of tirades about
motives, digressions into
politics and digressions into
digressions, sneers and jeers,
intimations and insinuations,
reprimands and reproaches, and
discourtesy and slurs. In this
way, he stirs up so much dust as
to even blind himself.
Try as you might, you’ll find no
trace in his writings of the
clement silence of
thoughtfulness, but you’ll be
deafened by the discourteous din
of mockery. Taking pleasure in
destroying, hating to provide
argumentation, a painful absence
of the capacity for analysis and
the merciless presence of the
blade of vilification are the
four main characteristics of his
works.
In November 2006, I read out an
article, entitled “On Reason”,
at a seminar in Rome. There, I
spoke briefly of three of
reason’s rivals which I had
experienced personally; viz.,
revelation, love and revolution.
And I said about revolutions:
“In revolutions, love and
emotion are invariably given
their due, but reason is not so
well served… Revolutionaries are
fiery idealists who are deluded
about what they can achieve.
They imagine that they can
change traditions and human
beings quickly and to replace
them with new traditions and new
human beings… In revolutions,
there is just one single measure
for good and bad: the revolution
itself. And this is tantamount
to abandoning all measures… The
task of rational people in the
middle of revolutions is not to
turn back the revolutionary
tide; this is beyond their
capabilities. Their task is to
reduce the destruction and to
guide energies away from chaos
and destruction and towards
rebuilding. Having experienced a
revolution myself and having
been charged with
responsibilities within it, I
have seen this truth firsthand…
Of these three-fold rivals of
reason – revelation, love and
revolution – it is the third
that is the most merciless and
the most destructive of reason.”
Reacting abruptly (in time and
in tone), Morad Farhadpour spoke
about “the regression of
religious intellectuals” and
wrote: “The depiction of
revolutions as irrational, by
someone who was trying to learn
some physics and chemistry
abroad and was only transformed
into the main ideologue of the
ruling current thanks to the
revolution - and only by means
of presenting a half-baked
version of the ideas of people
like Popper and Heidegger and
repeating Popper’s views about
Marxism and psychoanalysis being
unscientific, which, as it
happens, have no takers in
today’s philosophical
discussions - is cause for much
surprise.”
In other words, he’s telling me
simply and sweetly that I’m out
of my depth. I lack the
education and competence. At
best, I was regurgitating the
words of Popper (and Heidegger?)
without really understanding
them. Then, one thing led to
another and suddenly, overnight,
I turned into “the main
ideologue” of the ruling
current. And now I’m being an
ungrateful wretch and sending
reason out to tussle with
revolution.
I’ll refrain from replying to
him in the same coin of course.
Instead of answering all these
jeers and taunts, I’ll assume
that they’re all correct. But it
still remains for me to ask: Why
so much discourtesy and
disrespect? What do these
remarks have to do with the
subject? The task is a much
easier one. I have made a claim
(that revolutions don’t pay
reason its due); you, for your
part, can make a counterclaim
and argue that, quite the
reverse, revolutions pay reason
more than its due. Smash my
claim; why do you smash my head?
Even if the things you say are
true, they are irrelevant; that
is to say, they have nothing to
do with the truth or falsehood
of my claim.
Now, the interesting irony in
all this is that the bricks that
he’s throwing at me are just
helping to raise the wall of my
claim. When an ill-educated,
incompetent person, whose only
capital is his idiocy, turns
into the revolution’s main
ideologue overnight, is this not
the clearest proof that
revolutions are irrational? What
more powerful argument than this
could there be?
They say that people who
disparage others suffer from an
inferiority complex. This isn’t
what I’m saying. What I’m saying
is: Don’t use the bullet of
disparagement; use the bullet of
analysis. And fire it at the
utterances, not at the speaker.
Take no notice of the peripheral
issues; go for the substance.
You don’t want to climb up the
dilapidated ladder of the anti-Popperians,
after all, and win high office
and rewards like that quarreller
in the early years after the
revolution (who, incidentally,
is the one you should be calling
“the main ideologue of the
revolution” since he was trying
to use Plato to justify the
notion of rule by a cleric).
Whatever you want to call this
kind of attack, you can’t call
it fair and learned criticism.
It is vilification, unfairness
and defamation. It is a bad
lesson to teach to young people
who gaze at the destructiveness
and are influenced by it.
I don’t know for how long our
writers are going to try to
outdo each other in attacking
Popper. The one who started the
hysterical attacks is now
remorseful and distraught. He
shamefully acknowledges that his
quarrels were venomous and
unscholarly, and is writing
books and articles in a bid to
repair the damage done to his
name. Does such a man need
disciples and emulators?
Others
The curtain rises and Scene II
of the play begins: Mohammad
Reza Nikfar writes by way of a
critique of Expansion of
Prophetic Experience that it
is “an unimportant endeavour”.
Morad Farhadpour catches the
pass, seizes the chance and
steps unto the stage. He says to
Nikfar: How charmingly you spoke
and what a pleasing turn of
phrase! All these religious
intellectuals are “translators”,
one and all. They don’t have
anything important to say and “a
clear example of this kind of
love of theorizing and
hypothesizing - especially, of
the prefabricated variety (which
has led today to the
socio-political dead-end,
futility and barrenness of the
debate about religious and
non-religious hermeneutics, and
the endless repetition of these
tiresome debates) - is the
theory of the expansion of
Prophetic experience.” Everyone
has been saying and repeating
these hermeneutic-type things
for a thousand years anyway.
Even “the Wahhabis have done
this and are doing it… For
example, the payment of alms
with money instead of camels is
based on these same methods. But
this is the sort of thing that
Islamic jurists can do much
better, without needing any
Gadamerian hermeneutics”.
The phrase “prefabricated
theories and the futility and
barrenness of religious and
non-religious hermeneutics” jars
with Ra’uf Taheri, who, while
offering a favourable assessment
of Farhadpour’s views, asks him
to reconsider his thoughts and
utterances and not to denigrate
in this way a group of people
who have selflessly and humbly
stepped into the arena of
religious intellectualism.
Taheri tells him that he
shouldn’t dismiss these people’s
statements, belittle their
struggles and efforts with such
trite descriptions, pay ransom
to the enemy and provide grist
to the enemy’s mill, run
roughshod over thinkers in the
desert of thoughtlessness, treat
with harshness non-violent
superstition-combating theorists
of religion and beat them with
the cane of abuse. Taheri asks
him to abandon his “mocking
attacks” and not to risk
snuffing out a lamp that God has
lit, scorching his beard in the
process and plunging himself
into darkness.
Back to Farhadpour
Farhadpour initially offers a
remorseful and half-hearted
defence of the fact that he
invited people to vote for a
particular candidate (Hashemi-Rafsanjani)
in the presidential elections.
His defence is summed in “a
telephone call and the binds and
constraints of friendship” which
pushed him into the jaws of a
“political mistake”. Then, he
comes to the subject of the
“prefabricated theorizing”.
Here, the remorse and humility
melts away. If he’d sounded a
bit muffled up to this point,
now, his voice recovers its full
sheen and he goes on the attack.
He reaffirms what he’d said
earlier, but with redoubled
conviction.
Farhadpour says that
Mojtahed-Shabestari admitted
from the start that his work was
“the translation and application
of a Western theoretical
tradition”. As for that other
one, with all his big claims and
titles, such as “Islam’s
Luther”, his Contraction and
Expansion is “very similar
to the views of Barth, Bultman
and Schweitzer,” and the
discovery of this similarity is
nothing new. And “far from
adding any new idea or concept
to Bultman’s work, this group of
thinkers falls very much short
of Bultman in terms of powers of
analysis, critical research and
a radical view of history”. And
the reason for this is the
hegemony of analytical
philosophy, which is “directly
related to the spread of
cultural-moral decline,
mercantilism and rentierism, and
populistic de-politicization”.
And, of course, this is only the
beginning. Farhadpour is just
warming up to his subject. Next
comes the hegemony of
neo-liberalism, the logic of the
age of cavemen, Islamic mystics
and jurists’ institutional link
with Oriental despotism, and,
then, Hart, Zizek, Agamben,
Badiou, Derrida, Hegel, etc. We
can only rub our eyes and watch
in wonder.
Of course, there’s are things to
be grateful for; at least he
doesn’t hang Contraction and
Expansion straight onto
Popper’s coattail from the word
go. Instead, he turns to Barth
and Bultman and only then does
he push analytical philosophers’
heads into the trough of
mercantalists and rentiers. And
he temporarily sets aside the
link between Islamic jurists and
Oriental despotism, and decides
to butter them up a bit by
saying that even Wahhabi jurists
are one thousand years ahead of
religious intellectuals and are
better able to solve the
question of camel alms with
legal tender. Of course, it
makes no difference to him that
the problem of “Wahhabi jurists”
is not camel alms but the
payment of blood money using
legal tender instead of camels.
It is with this degree of care
and diligence that he wants to
hop onto a camel’s back and run
right over religious
intellectualism, leaving it
lifeless and flattened in the
sand. (Before, they were putting
religious intellectualism at the
same table as Salman Rushdie.
Now, they’re putting it below
Wahhabis. Who knows where the
next position will be. One aim
and so many aspirants!)
I’m not quarrelling with him
over substance; I’m quarrelling
with his method and approach.
I’m saying: What sort of method
of criticism is this? Isn’t
there the slightest need to
explain what the direct link is
between rentierism and
mercantilism and analytical
philosophy? And assuming there
is a link, in what way does this
undermine analytical philosophy?
Mercantalists and rentiers also
drink water and use mathematics
and literature. Must we also
curse food and water and
mathematics in view of their
link to mercantalists and
question their usefulness? As it
happens, historians of science
say that the field of statistics
was linked to the spread of
gambling; but does any link
whatsoever constitute
disparagement and falsification?
Just because rentierism is bad
(on the basis of what philosophy
of morality? What definition of
bad? This too requires
analytical explication), can we
baselessly link anything that we
don’t like to it and boldly dump
it in the dustbin of our
revulsion? Of course, even the
points that I’m making now are
of the character of analytical
philosophy and, presumably, only
suited to mercantalists and
rentiers!
Yes, Jalaleddin Rumi, too,
disliked and took issue with the
points and arguments that
theologians offered with their
“analytical philosophy”, but not
in this weak and sloppy way.
Moreover, we mustn’t accept
unsubstantiated criticism even
from Rumi - even with all his
magnificence and religiosity -
so much the less so from anyone
else.
As for the suggestion that “The
Expansion of Prophetic
Experience is not
important”, not important for
whom and in relation to what? Is
it unimportant because you don’t
like it? Certainly, for people
who don’t fast during Ramadan,
it is unimportant how the new
moon is sighted, but is it also
unimportant for people who do
fast? May God preserve us from
all this self-centredness.
As to the business about
translated and prefabricated
theories, assuming that The
Expansion of Prophetic
Experience is translated and
prefabricated through and
through, and that its analytical
power is less than that of Barth
and Bultman, what does this have
to do with its correctness and
logic?
The mind boggles at all the
irrelevant meanderings. He
wanders round countless
alleyways and byways about
translation, prefabricated
theories, mercantilism,
rentierism, etc., in order to
avoid going down the direct
route of responding to the
substance of the ideas and
arguments.
It goes without saying that the
terms “translated” and
“prefabricated” require no
analysis. They’re clearly aimed
at denigrating and undermining
the theorist and avoiding the
need to respond to the theories.
It’s so much easier just to
string together a list of names,
link everything to everything
else, extract everything from
everything and, finally, to play
a funeral march for logic and
analysis, mock analytical
philosophers and link them to
mercantilists and rentiers. Of
course I can understand the
pleasure that is to be had in
this destructiveness and this
jeering belittlement: One gives
the impression that one is doing
something rather than just being
idle. And one impresses upon
intellectuals that one has read
a thing or two and that one has
not only heard of Adorno,
Horkheimer, Pannenberg, Zizek,
Agamben and Badiou but also
sussed out Bultman, Barth and
Schweitzer.
Let me also say a few words
about the legitimacy and
validity of the splendid claim
that Contraction and
Expansion is a translation
of Barth and Bultman’s
utterances; or, rather, that it
is a weak and feeble version of
them. Self-aggrandizement and
laying claims to innovativeness
have never been part of the
repertoire of the author of
Contraction and Expansion,
and all my works testify to this
fact. I’ve left it to historians
to look for and reveal the
degree of innovation in or
external influence on my works.
But let me tell Farhadpour that
his dismissiveness has caused
problems for him here. He’s made
it patently clear to me that
he’s read neither Contraction
and Expansion properly nor
Barth and Bultman.
Unfortunately, although lining
up a list of theologians’ names
may be satisfyingly pretentious,
it doesn’t actually mean
anything or serve any purpose.
It reminds me of the tale of the
man who kept talking about
whales. Someone asked him: Do
you know anything about whales?
He said: Whales have two horns,
like camels. The other fellow
replied: I could tell that you
didn’t know anything about
whales, now I can see that you
don’t know anything about camels
either (Shams-e Tabrizi’s
articles)!
As it happens, in the realm of
research, there’s nothing as
misleading as superficial
similarities. If Morad
Farhadpour has glanced at
Contraction and Expansion
and if he’s had a cursory look
at Barth and Bultman and then
come to the splendid conclusion
that one is the weak and feeble
translation of the others, let
him give himself a medal for his
sloppiness and unmethodical
approach; otherwise, such a
blatant gaffe doesn’t merit any
smugness and self-satisfaction.
Does he really imagine that all
the efforts made by Iranian
religious intellectuals in
talking about accidentals and
essentials, minimalism and
maximalism, identity and truth,
contraction and expansion, the
imamate and the last Prophet,
forms and formlessness, the
parrot and the bee, differing
readings of religion, religious
hermeneutics, human rights, etc.
can be summed up in how “camel
alms” can be modernized and
brought up to date? What
delusions! What fantasies! What
hot air! And what knowledge!
What fairness! What learned
assessments! It goes without
saying that the grass is always
greener on the other side of the
world and no matter what
Contraction and Expansion
has to offer, it can never
measure up to what Bultman had
to say. Its crime is that it is
home-grown and having your
daughter marry the boy next door
never impresses any friends or
relatives. All we can do is to
wait for a Hafez to come along
and say: “The wine I’m offering
is next to none but the Sufi
just grumbles / I pray that God
will protect all good people
from being disgruntled!”
Suffice it to say that when I
was thinking about and writing
Contraction and Expansion
I had read neither Bultman nor
Gadamer nor Hersch nor Arkoun
nor Abu-Zeid. Now, too, when I
look at myself and look at them,
I can see many differences
between us. There are first
principles and secondary
principles in Contraction and
Expansion that are absent
from the works of those
thinkers. Be that as it may, I
make no claims to being ahead of
them or offering more than them.
And, of course, I have neither
translated nor borrowed their
ideas. I’ve had my own ideas and
offered my own wares and
products. “I’ve not uttered a
borrowed phrase / I only said
what my heart told me to say”
In the realm of creativity and
ideas, there have always been
instances when various thinkers
have come up with similar views
and solutions. These
similarities are always
accompanied by differences,
which are just as important, and
ignoring them leads to crude
assessments. Thomas Kuhn
recounted a very interesting
story about the simultaneous
discovery, in Germany, Britain
and France, of the principle of
the conservation of energy; it
is well worth reading and
digesting.
Moreover, all my works testify
to the fact that I have never
been shy or embarrassed about
explaining all the debts that I
owe to great thinkers and giants
of the past. Now, if someone
wants to belittle me and expose
me as a “translator” and dismiss
my sincere efforts and
endeavours, all this does is to
present my detractor as someone
who derives endless pleasure
from putting others down and
blowing his own trumpet. All
that remains for me to tell him
is: The tune you’re playing is
very much in the wrong key;
you’d have fared a bit better if
you’d mentioned Wittgenstein,
Quine, Hegel (yes, Hegel) and
Rumi.
Luther’s sudden appearance on
the scene is also well worth
noting. Farhadpour is not alone;
there’s someone else who’s also
allergic to “Islam’s Luther”. He
too is afflicted with rigidity
and “the refusal to think”. He
seems to have been stuck
knee-deep in the mud of Hegel
his whole life. I’ve suggested
that he be given the title
“Machiavelli” to pacify him.
I’ve yet to find a suitable
title for Farhadpour, but I’m
bound to find one eventually
since our literature is a
treasure trove on the subject of
deluded men.
I saw Luther in a dream. He
asked: “When are your enemies
going to let me rest in peace?”
I told him: “Pray that they
themselves will find some
solace.”
I have gone on for far too long,
and my aim was not just to speak
about and rebuke Farhadpour. The
time has come for me to wrap
things up and to thank God for
both the friends and the enemies
that He has given me.
Abdulkarim Soroush
Maryland, USA, October 2008
Translated from the Persian
by Nilou Mobasser
|