Islam, Dialogue and Civil Society
Reason and Religion
Matters such as the place of religion in our age, the role of people in shaping their destiny, the relationship between religion and modernity and religious government to liberalism, as well as the relationship between religion and democracy, are central issues for us today. If we do not attend to them, it will only be we who are absent from the scene.
A person truly living in his own time is one who understands today's
world and tries to offer more innovative solutions to current problems.
If we are present physically in time but absent in thought, we cannot
claim to be present in our own time. Today, friends of our revolution
wish to know what models and plans this revolution offers for life, and
foes hope that this revolution fails and fades from the scene. Thus,
these are pressing issues present in our time that must be addressed.
Three great historical figures-Imam Khomeini, and martyrs Motahhari and
Baqir as-Sadr-have played an important role in our recent history and in
shaping the thinking of the current age, especially among new
generations of Muslims. Their greatest achievement was their ability to
transform the Muslim world culturally, especially Shiism. Imam Khomeini,
who was the harbinger of new thinking and a new culture, became the
source of a great historical transformation.
These three were exceptional in their knowledge and experience, and no
thinker and scholar can ignore or circumvent their insights. For those
without formal religious training, heeding the prescriptions of the
clergy is necessary in practical matters, but in the realm of thought,
no thinker can blindly follow the clergy, however outstanding they
are-unless religious leaders are among the Infallibles. That is why I do
not believe that great figures such as Motahhari and Sadr had the last
word in religious and intellectual matters.
The point to focus on is that these were pioneers who took the first
steps with confidence, and in this sense represent models for us to
emulate. They are indeed worthy of tremendous respect. But their ideas
must be subjected to critique. Did Motahhari and Sadr bring a new
discourse to our society? I believe that the new discourse had already
begun to permeate our society before the involvement of these figures,
arising from our encounter with the West.
Some rigidly traditional parts of our society completely rejected the West, while some Westernized intellectuals sought to dissolve themselves in the West. And there were reformers of religious thought in the Sunni and Shiite sects of Islam such as Seyyed Jamal-uddin Assadabadi, Sheikh Muhammad Abdeh, Iqbal Lahouri, Allameh Naeeni, and great figures such as Motahhari, Shariati and Sadr who wanted neither to dissolve into the West, nor to completely reject it, hoping instead to chart a healthy middle ground. A book by Assadabadi, for example, put forth a critique of materialism that generated lengthy discourse in this tradition.
Before the time of martyrs Motahhari and Sadr, Allameh Tabatabai in Iran
and many thinkers elsewhere in the Muslim world had tried to find new
answers to these types of questions. What makes Mottahari and Sadr
exceptional is their attempt to defend Islamic thought from Marxist and
materialist thought so as to be able to usher in a new discourse based
on a deep understanding of issues. This discourse must be the focus of
all clerics and intellectuals who believe in religion and
enlightenment.
The question of the West's deficiencies needs more precise scrutiny.
Major differences exist between our religious thought and Western
values. Our thinking is based on the existence of an omnipotent,
all-knowing God, while the West rejects such ,a being, at least in the
sphere of running social affairs. This A great difference between us
which implies that in spiritual matters the West has less power than we
do.
At present the West possesses economic, technological and scientific power, while we Muslims lag behind in this area. The Qur’an prescribes,
'Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power' (Holy Qur’an, 9.60),
in effect counseling us to attain the material sources of power as well, such that we can demand our rights on the basis of this power. It is here that I want to distinguish foundations from guidelines, for I see civilization as a foundation, not a guiding light. Civilization is built upon the specific beliefs, needs, and concerns of people. As such, a people's beliefs may change and so may civilization.
After the Prophet Muhammad, in the third and fourth Muslim centuries
(eighth and ninth centuries C.E.), Muslims created a new civilization on
the basis of the teachings of Islam, the Qur’an, and what they had
learned from Persian and Greek civilizations. But the fact that the
golden age of Islamic civilization has passed does not mean that the
Qur’an and Islam have withered too. We Muslims believe that we must
maintain our faith in the Qur’an and authentic Islam while searching
for new answers to today's questions on the basis of religion. The
products of Western civilization are everywhere; but I believe that this
civilization, too, is not ultimate because it is a human construct.
All human achievements must be utilized by new generations, j just as
Western civilization borrowed heavily from the Islamic world, which in
turn had been enriched in its golden age by Persian and Greek culture.
My main question is, what should we Muslims do now that Western
civilization is dominant and we have lost our previous civilization? If
we want to be instrumental in today's world, should we return to the
West's past-which would be regressive-or do we want to transcend Western
civilization, or do we merely want to dissolve into the West?
The rigidly traditional want us to return to the past. The Westernized
prescribe that we melt into the West, but those who really care about
the well-being of their national and religious culture believe that we
must incorporate the West to be able to transcend it, remaining aware of
our own religious sources, as well as the questions and puzzles of
today's world. We must adopt all of the positive achievements of the
West, but see them in relation to our own heritage so we can fill in its
deficiencies. That is why we must place greater focus on the future of
the West than on its past.
Rectitude is one of the pillars of all religions, especially Islam, and
we need a specific interpretation of the term. Unfortunately the idea of
rectitude in the history of Islam has been limited to the realm of the
individual, because the truly pious of the Shiite faith have never
governed society.
This has also been true of the Sunnis; the only people who were allowed
to govern were the powerful, while the people were kept away from the
reins of power. Social rectitude has no precedent in our history. The
same Muslims who believed in rectitude committed many social injustices
in the Muslim world, and individual rectitude has not been able to
overturn these inequities.
Thus if we say that we possess rectitude and the West does not, we have
to know exactly what we mean by rectitude. To religious believers, the
relationship between God and humans is clear, but the relationship of
subjects to their rulers, individuals to their society, and various
constituents of society to one another have not been scrutinized deeply
enough to enable us to know the requirements of this-worldly
rectitude.
Westerners believe that their culture is based on liberty. Before the
advent of modern civilization, the issues of social, political, and
civil liberties did not exist in the West because pre-modern Muslims and
Westerners of the Middle Ages believed in salvation. Today, salvation is
conceived as living free of restrictions, but in the Old World it meant
freedom from internal restrictions and deficiencies such as worldly
lust.
Some sects in the Islamic world went so far as saying that salvation
can only come from self-denial and shunning all material objects,
including even society. Farabi viewed Sufis, who prescribed such denial,
as ignorant. He believed in salvation, too, but he felt that salvation
can only come through immersion in a civil society guided by freedom
from internal restraints and defects.
But liberty, as conceived in the West, is the exact opposite of this because it rests on freedom from external intrusions into one's life, such that one's life is governed by no one other than one's self. The Western idea of individualism gives primacy to human understanding and desires, and a free person is one whose search for the fulfillment of needs is not hindered by anything. Of course, liberty has limits, and that is the liberty of others.
This liberty has also had positive effects as people have taken their
destiny into their own hands, and government has become a servant of the
people and accountable to them, not their master. In contrast, in
previous autocratic regimes, rulers were above the people and thought of
them as mere pawns at the complete mercy of their rulers. But when
people were freed from the shackles of this domination, they
collectively gained power over their rulers.
Liberty is freedom from external bonds. In contrast, the premodern
idea of salvation rested on freedom from inner bonds oblivious to social
and political liberties and rights. Both of these visions are
incomplete. Modern liberalism ignores internal freedom, and while it is
not concerned with whether or not humans are slaves to their passions,
it requires that humans not be subjugated to the whims of their rulers.
We, on the contrary, have tried to prevent people from falling prey to
their desires, even though tyrants governed and enchained Muslim
society. My prescription is that we try to attain both kinds of freedom,
as we refer to the Qur’an and our society. We may reject many aspects
of Western liberalism, but we cannot deny its many achievements. As we
discern the faults and strong points of the West, we must also direct
this form of critical thinking at ourselves.
Reason can be defined in various ways, and we must specify what kind of
reason we mean: Platonic, Aristotelian, neo-Platonic, the reason
envisioned by Muslims and the Sufis, the reason of Ibn-Roshd, or that of
Descartes, Kant, or Hegel.
In my view, reason is the common bond of all humans, a means of
connecting to the world and to others, the same reason through which
Plato and Aristotle communicated their views. Reason and intellect
represent the only way of understanding this world, even though this
understanding is too relative to guide us to ultimate truths. Our great
thinkers, while aware of the indispensability of reason, knew that
reason alone could not discover all of reality. Our religious tradition
claims that it is ultimately faith of the heart, not the intellect that
comprehends the whole of reality.
If we think of reason and faith as contradictory and opposed to one
another, because reason achieves more instrumental impact in this world,
faith will be sidelined. It is important to note that the faith I am
talking about exists alongside and parallel to reason, not in opposition
to it.
Reason can merely take us to. the gates of the afterlife. Even though
it is aware that the world is not limited to the material, it cannot go
farther than this world. It is here that faith must step in. Humans
cannot do without reason in their lives as they encounter practical
matters, and if they have to choose between faith and reason, they will
choose the latter. Interpretations of the world based on reason are
relative, a relativity that also permeates our perceptions of religion.
But if our understanding of religious tradition and the Qur’an gets
moribund and in need of transformation, this does not mean that
tradition and the Qur’an have aged them. Our intellect is capable of
adapting to the current world while also remaining attuned to tradition
and the Qur’an, such that the solid essence of religion is not harmed.
Our religious thinking is bound to evolve.
Humans instinctively seek God, a reality present in the direct
experiential contact with the divine. Unfortunately, many of our
anachronistic interpretations of religion have assumed the veneer of
sanctity and are viewed as being immutable.
It is certain that humans will take further steps toward spiritual
fulfillment, for a narrow and materialistic existence will inevitably
torment them. We believe that religion does not oppose material well
being, but invites all humans to a grander, more exalted place than the
material world.
As a believer I am certain that the future belongs to religion; as an
advocate of reason, I can already see the signs of the eager reception
awaiting religion in today's world.