Religious
intellectualism is "the way" for
religious intellectuals. It is a
school of thought that strives
to benefit from both human
experience and Prophetic
experience; and it does not
sacrifice either one of these
for the other. It believes that,
in the modern age, the old
revelation still has many things
to say and to teach, and that
the riches in its stores are by
no means exhausted. It would be
an injustice to reduce religious
intellectualism to a religious
sect or a political party,
although it can bring about vast
changes in both political and
religious spheres.
Religious intellectuals are
intellectuals because they
believe in a reason that is
independent of revelation and
are nourished by it. And, lamp
of reason in hand, they strive
to shed light on truth and to
sear injustice. And they are
religious because their truthful
faith is constructed neither on
imitation, nor on blind
obedience, nor on lineage, nor
on coercion, nor on whim, nor on
custom, nor on fear, nor on
greed, but on a heart led by
reason or on spiritual
experience; and it is constantly
being purified and perfected.
Religious intellectualism is a
fluid identity because
exercising reason, seeking truth
and combating superstition can
only go hand-in-hand with
fluidity. It is a creed with no
clerics in which everyone is
their own cleric; it is a
retreat with no elder inhabited
by elders without a retreat.
Concepts such as apostasy,
heresy, blasphemy, piety, etc.
have no place in it, because
these are concepts that are
subject to the prevailing
political and religious powers,
and they belong to the
collective identity of
utilitarian believers whose
religiosity is determined,
caused, inherited, pragmatic,
identity-based, obedient and
imitative. Hundreds of Noah's
floods and spiritual storms tear
through the school of religious
intellectualism on a daily basis
and it is the regular stamping
ground of incisive thoughts. So,
how could it possibly shut the
door to fluidity in the name of
blasphemy and heresy, or fear
devastation?
But religious intellectualism
does not believe in and is not
committed to spirituality
without religion either. Rituals
have always been a husk for
protecting meaning, and what
could be better than taking this
protective husk from prophets,
who are the teachers of
illumination, the birds of the
garden of paradise, the most
experienced horsemen in the
showground of true conduct and
the conquerors of the furthest
horizons of solitude. Religious
intellectuals are followers of
religion, not religion-makers,
and their love of experience and
their apprenticeship in the
school of revelation is not out
of self-interest but out of
devotion and for the sake of
truth. The cherished and great
personality of the holy Prophet
is the entire blessing
bequeathed to Muslims by God, so
let us benefit fully and to the
utmost from the experiences and
teachings of this great,
cherished bequest.
By virtue of the fact that it
revolves around knowledge and
experience, religious
intellectualism is not an
ideology either; i.e., an
ideology that picks and chooses,
that rouses and stirs, that
chisels and forges weapons.
Ideologies, which think about
rising and rousing and about
fighting and throttling a
current enemy, are unkind to
truth. And their battleground is
so restricted that, once they
have succeeded in breaking the
enemy, they, too, break and
crumple. And weapons that have
been forged temporarily, on a
selective and eliminatory basis,
become inappropriate and totally
ineffective.
Imam Hussain and his martyrdom,
which was an exception in the
line of the Shi'i Imams, was
turned into a rule by the
selective hands of Ali Shariati,
and Abu-Ali Sina (Avicenna), the
pride of Iranian culture, was
humiliated and sacrificed to
Abu-Zar so that the necessary
ideological weapons could be
forged for toppling the
monarchy, allowing revolutionary
Islam to triumph over
monarchical secularism. The
least flaw of joining good ends
to bad means is that it does not
last.
Religious intellectualism is not
interested in refashioning fiqh
(Islamic jurisprudence) with
temporary shariah-based ploys
either. Today, some faqihs
(Islamic jurists) are being
described as intellectuals and
renovators because they have
tried, for example, to do away
with sentences of stoning and
gouging out eyes and the like by
appealing to the absence of the
12th Imam or the need to avoid
bringing Islam into disrepute.
With the utmost respect to
faqihs, it has to be said that,
whatever these efforts might be,
they are neither intellectualism
nor renewal, because they are
not ijtihad (formulation of
reasoned verdicts) on first
principles. Religious
intellectualism believes in
ijtihad on first principles;
i.e., ijtihad on theology and
morality, and renewing our
understanding of the
Prophethood, revelation, the
afterlife, God and so on.
The sentences for apostasy and
heresy can only be reconsidered
when we renew our understanding
of human beings, knowledge,
history and society. Otherwise,
leaving everything as they were
before and merely suspending a
precept of fiqh in response to
the chastisements of chastisers
requires no exertion or ijtihad;
it is pragmatism, pure and
simple.
And when Ayatollah Motahhari,
the theologian, arrived at the
tale of Islam's finality, he
imagined that the modern world's
only conflict with a sealed
Islam was a conflict with fiqh.
So, he tried to brush the dust
of backwardness off fiqh's robes
and to display fiqh's ability to
tackle modern problems by
reminding us of principles such
as "no hardship" and "no harm"
(i.e., Islam demands no hardship
or harm). It seems as if it had
completely escaped Motahhari's
able mind that fiqh is not
something that stands on its own
feet, so it cannot strengthen or
defend itself of its own accord.
And unless it is irrigated by
theology, ethics, etc., it will
be reduced to scorched earth. If
fiqh is to be renewed, faqih's
God, faqih's Prophet, etc. must
also be renewed. And this is
exactly what religious
intellectualism wants to see,
but it cannot even find this in
the mind of a Mu'tazilite
theologian like Ayatollah
Motahhari.
The school of religious
intellectualism is not
traditional or traditionalist
either, although it esteems
religious tradition and believes
that knowledge of it is a firm
pillar of intellectualism, and
that this is why the knowledge
and actions of secular
intellectuals are weak and
defective. Be that as it may, it
is not of the view that the
resurrection of tradition is
possible nor that a revival of
tradition is a solution to
today's problems. Today's world
has the same right to be and to
live as yesterday's world, and
no claim is as unfounded and
unjustified as the idea that
tradition is superior to
modernity or that modernity is
superior to tradition. "That was
a nation that has passed away.
Theirs is what they earned and
yours is what you have earned."
(Baqarah, 134)
Religious intellectualism
rightly maintains that the
religious understanding of
people in the past was as
influenced by their times and as
much in line with their
presuppositions as our religious
understanding today is
influenced by our times and is
in line with our
presuppositions. It believes
that they were great and we are
great. Is it not sheer folly and
muddle-headedness to sanctify
the past simply because it is
old?
Modernity is not the entryway to
heaven, nor did tradition have
heaven hidden in its sleeve, and
the Satan who cast our father
Adam out of heaven is still
seriously intent on deceiving us
today. Religious intellectualism
is of the view that religion's
greatest service is to morality,
not to politics, nor to
commerce, nor to knowledge. We
must have moral expectations of
religion and we must assess it
on the basis of morality. Fiqh,
too, must not be immune to moral
criticism, for it is in great
need of it today.
It is precisely this moral
criticism that will make fiqh
more capable and more refined,
and it will resolve fiqh's
problems not on the basis of the
12th Imam's absence but on the
basis of right and justice.
Religious intellectualism, by
virtue of being intellectual,
contains an element of protest
and criticism too; both
criticism of the world's
political order and protest at
Iran's political order,
especially so because Iran's
current ruling system was
established on the basis of
religion and it has a modern
visage with a traditional
religious substance. And
religious intellectuals may well
not find its visage and
substance pleasing. This is why,
under the present ruling system,
religious intellectuals are
neither valued nor elevated.
They enjoy neither the good
fortunes of the politically
acquiescent, nor the charmed
life of traditionalist
believers. Not just their words
but their very existence is
equated with sin. But let our
rulers know that if Muslim
mystics once succeeded in
rejuvenating the face of Islamic
culture, ridding it of its angry
frown, and lending it eternal
poise and magnetism, today, too,
it is only religious
intellectuals who can build an
abode that is worthy of faith.
And, in these times, when
knowledge of causes has robbed
the world of mysteries, it is
they who can found a reason that
is on good terms with both
causes and mysteries.
So, it becomes clear that
religious intellectualism has
both a long brow and a long
tale, stretching from the
Mu'tazilites who propagated
revelation-independent reason to
Mulla Sadra, who was able to
place mystical experience,
rational thought and the
teachings of revelation side by
side and to debunk the false
assumption that religiosity and
thoughtfulness are incompatible.
It behoves religious
intellectuals to know and
respect themselves and their
"way". Let them not fear the
derision and scorn of the
deriders and scorners. What
shame can there be in devotion
to the Prophet, conformity with
philosophers, fellowship with
mystics and camaraderie with
strugglers?
The only scourge and bane that
religious intellectualism needs
to fear is, first, not taking
itself seriously, and, secondly,
donning garments that are
unsuited to it. This "way" is
neither ideological, nor
fiqh-based, nor traditionalist,
nor a religious sect, nor a
political party. It is a
Muhammadan lamp with a
Mu'tazilite flame!
Abdulkarim Soroush
Leiden, the Netherlands, 6
September 2007
Translated from the Persian by
Nilou Mobasser
|