Four characteristics of the concept of ‘Return to the self’ in Shi'ism

TEHRAN, Jan. 10 (MNA) – Islamic fundamentalism is a kind of revivalism (Salafism) which has turned into one of the most significant regional and international threats; even though, the fundamentalists talk about expanding the Islamic territory and guiding humankind toward redemption.

Flagrant violence against ordinary people – as one of the most prevalent tactics used by the fundamentalist groups - is justified within the theoretical framework of certain contemporary Islamic ideas. These ideas are redefined in fundamentalist-revivalist thought and have lost their original meaning. The superannuated and prominent concept of ‘return to the self’ is among the most significant concepts in this line of thought. The Salafists have introduced this idea as a means to justify returning to an imagined past. They are inspired by the history of the idea of recovering the ideal ‘self’ in Islamic thought; however, they have exploited this idea to their personal advantage.

Seyyed Javad Miri, is a professor at The Humanities and Cultural studies Research Center who works on the idea of ‘return to the self’ in Islamic thought. He stated that this idea has been shaped contemporaneously with, and influenced by the colonial era and influenced by a sense of identity crisis in Islamic societies. As Seyyed Fakhorddin Shademan has mentioned, the alienation was the result of the Muslim subject being subjugated by the western civilization; a subjugation by the western Other that resulted in Us losing ourselves. In other words, the Muslim world was subjugated by its Other and we lost our own subjectivity and became the object for the West, a cultural subject. He added that under these circumstances the Islamic thought was confronted with such questions as "who we really are?" And consequent attempts to answer these question ensued in searching for the ‘the self’ – as Muhammad Iqbal explained. The reformist movement started with Al-Afghani and the idea of ‘return to the self’ gained momentum in this line of thought. The ‘self’ and the ‘return to the self’ are ideas discussed not only by Iqbal and Shariati, but also by thinkers such as Malik-ibn-Nabi and Hussain Alatas.

Discussing genuine theoretical backgrounds for the concept of ‘return to the self’, Miri stated that there is a movement, among others, that tries to westernize all Islamic societies, that wants Islamic societies abandon their identity and embrace modernization. There is another line of thought that wants to ignore modernity and stay isolated, or wants to reverse what we have now to a previous state. However, what prepared the ground for the ‘return to the self,’ is the third way that wants to interact with tradition and modernity and recover the contemporary Muslim ‘self’ in relation to tradition and modernity.

He added that return to ‘the self’ with a revivalist approach is a reminder of human ambition to travel in time. Time is one of the elements that humans have never been able to rule over and has been among the long-desired human wishes. Rashid Reza and other Salafist thinkers' interpretation of the concept of ‘return to the self’ is a reductionist one. In this sense, ‘return to the self’ is a return to a past life-style. Instead of having an active encounter with the western civilization and trying to impose our life-style on it; they ignore all the progress and want to return to a previous era.

This member of The Humanities and Cultural Studies Research Center maintained that revivalist interpretation of the concept of ‘return to the self’ is an aberration and added that return to the self has never been a call to go back to the past, nor an invitation to retreat. ‘Return to the self’, is in fact recovering and exploring ‘the self’ in relation to tradition and modernity. What Iqbal meant by ‘return to the self’ was in fact revitalizing religious thought in modern times and not an invitation for going back to the past. The Salafist thought abandons ‘the self’ that must be revived for the contemporary world; therefore, in this line of thought, the ‘return to the self’ project is nipped in the bud. It is because, ‘the self’ that the Salafists are talking about is not a contemporary self, but a 1400-year-old self

Obstruction of rationality in Salafism

Seyyed Javad Miri added that the main issue that results in the deviation of the concept of ‘return to the self’ in Salafist thought is the relationship that this line of thought established between the competency of human mind and using the Islamic reference texts (naghl). In Islamic religious terminology, there are two prophets: internal and external. The discussion on the role that rationality can play in relation to reference texts or naghl has experienced extreme ebb and flows and have been through different stages. These changes became so extreme in the Sunni Islam that resulted in the cessation of Ijtihad (a jurist’s (faghih’s) independent reasoning). In a sense, the Sunni jurists can only refer to their quadruple Imams and search for the rules based on their works. However, on a more significant note, it closes the door to mo’aserat. Mo’aserat means that one considers contemporaneity and identifies contemporary trends as legitimate.

Miri pointed out that throughout the history, among different Muslim sects, rationality has paled in comparison to other quadruple sources of Islamic thought including the book (Quran), tradition, Ijma (consensus among jurists) and rationality. Although among the Shia, rationality was still acknowledged. However, it was a rationality justified within naghl. In other words, even in Shia Islam, rationality is not an independent source and it is used as a tool for Ijtihad. It should also be noted that neither Sunnis, nor Shia consider naghl as having divine or revelatory origin.

He continued to say that in fact, Quran is one part of naghl and naghl, per se, has a cultural history. Naghl emerged among the Bedouin Arabs and it was practiced during the short periods of prophet’s and Imam Ali’s rule in early years of Islam; however, later during the long Umayyad Caliphate it was established as the foremost source in Islamic thought.  I have said before that naghl in Islamic thought is more cultural than divine or based on revelation; one can even claim that it is an Umayyad product and it has an Arabic hue. We have inherited such a naghl.

Anti-Intellectualism for ‘Return to the Self’

The writer of the book Cultural Iran: Iran’s Opportunities and Challenges in Tatarestan (The Arab World) mentioned an intellectual tradition within the Sunni and Shia Islam that has gained a historical identity. This tradition has tried to ignore rationality as a source of knowledge. He added that the tendency to use reason among the Middle Ages scholars was based on the influence of Shia thought.

Miri pointed out that a contesting tradition was the existing philosophical tradition throughout the Islamic history; a philosophical line that was exclusive to cultural Iran and influenced by Shia rationalism. He clarified that when one talks about being Shia in this context, one is not referring to Shia Sharia. For instance, Al-Biruni had a teacher called Abdol-Samad Hakim who was executed as he was found guilty of being a Shia Muslim. Al-Biruni was also accused of being a Shia. However, I do not think that Al-Biruni followed Shia jurisprudence. At that time, whenever someone had rationalist tendencies and made use of rationality in his religious beliefs, he was called Shia. In this sense, Al-Biruni’s idea in particular and the philosophical tradition in Islamic history in general, have Shia roots. This prevailed as far as the Safavid Dynasty.

Seyyed Javad Miri went on to say that in contemporary Islamic thought, the sects that have more affinities with rationalism and independent reasoning are located further from revivalism and fundamentalism – whether they are Shia or Sunni. This intellectual movement gives a more genuine account of the self.

He concluded that there have sometimes been convergences between Shia rationality and Sunni rationality. For instance, the Sunni Scholar, Hamid Abuzeid believes that we must reconstruct Shia or Mu’tazila rationalism. The same idea can be traced in Shahid Motahhari’s thought that regrets Mu’tazila’s disappearance. It seems that there is a growing tendency among the Sunni Muslims and Shia Muslims to use reason in understanding religion; a rationality similar to the one that Al-Farabi talks about it. This kind of rationality gradually degraded in Sunni and Islam after Al-Farabi; when it was metamorphosed into Salafist response to modernity.

Different “Selves” that “Really” exist

Ghasem Pourhasan, a professor of the Department of Philosophy at the Allameh Tabataba'i University said that there are different views on ‘the self’ in the Islamic thought. Salafist and fundamentalist interpretations stem from the Sunni Islam; meanwhile, the traditional rationalism in Shia Islam prevents from emergence of Salafists tendencies. 

Pourhasan pointed out that a correct understanding of the concept of return to the self requires a look at the different renditions of this concept throughout the history of the Islamic thought and examining the modern interpretations in the contemporary era. As an idea, ‘return to the self’, have been used by Muslim scholars in five different meanings. Historically, it can be traced back to the ideas of theologians such as Al-Ghazali, who posed this idea against Greek rationality; which is different from what for instance, Iqbal ascribes as ‘the self’. In Al-Ghazali’s time, ‘return to the self’ implied a cleansing of the heresies brought on by the rationalist and philosophical traditions of the fifth and sixth century and a return to the early Islamic era or the original Islam.

Pourhasan stated that the first phase of “return to the self” was concurrent with the dominance of Ash’ari theology. He pointed out that the second phase began with Ibn Taymiyyah, which was distinct from the first phase. During the Ibn Taymiyyah’s time, the main discussion was around anti-rationality and an opposition to rational arguments. Although, some like Al-Ghazali supported logic and used it to prove their ideas. Back then, ‘return to the self’ found a Salafist form and was a summons to anti-intellectualism. The third meaning of ‘return to the self’ is synonymous with what Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab said. He wanted to remove the manifestations of polytheism from the Islamic beliefs, a wish more important to him even compared to his Salafist concerns. What Wahhabism implies by ‘return to the self’ is a return to monotheism; not a return to the era of Salaf-e Salih (the good past). Abd al-Wahhab followed this line in his book, The Book of the Oneness of God, however, he started to believe in a form of determinism and became concerned with the extreme forms of monotheism and polytheism.

Pourhasan, as a philosophy professor believes that the idea of ‘return to the self’ is the most important groundwork for the development of the fundamentalist thought. Fundamentalist sects consider art and artistic work polytheistic and as a result, for instance, ISIS, has shown a destructive approach to historical monuments and artworks.

In Pourhasan ’s opinion, the fourth meaning of ‘return to the self’ is the popular perception among the Shia thinkers who did not believe in Salaf-e Salih. He elaborated that such a movement is associated with Al-Afghani in the Islamic World. In this movement, a short period in the Islamic era known as the Golden Age of Islamic Thought is proposed as an antithesis to Salafism. This Golden Age refers to the time span during which scholars like Avicenna and Al-Farabi disseminated rationalist ideas; the first ‘return to the self’ phase was in fact a reaction to them.

He also mentioned a fifth meaning that can be found in Tabataba’i and Motahhari’s ideas, which is, in fact, a summons to return to Quran. In this sense of return to the self, our contemporary lives have distanced itthe self from Quran to such an extent that the escape route is a return to Quranic teachings. This approach values rational awakening.

Shia rationality against Akhbarism

Pourhasan , the writer of Comparative Hermeneutics: A Study of the Similarities in Islamic and Western Philosophies of Interpretation, mentioned that there is considerable difference between the ‘the self’ in Sunni Islam and Shia Islam. He said that in Shia Islam’s ‘return to the self,’ Akhbarism [which reject the use of reasoning in deriving verdicts, and believed Quran and hadith (sayings of Prophet Muhammad and Twelve Shia Imams) as the only source of law] is considered a aberration which leads to an aborted project of recovering ‘the self.’ What is called Salafism and Akhbarism in Shia Islam, is in fact traditionalism; it is not an endeavor to return to a certain era in the past. ‘The return’ proposed by the Shia is supposedly an intellectual one. This means that Shia Islam acknowledges the modernity, however, it wants to embed Islamic inheritance (ideas) in this era and tries to modernize the Islamic ideas. Traditionalists like Hossein Nasr have emphasized on this point. The Shia Islam contemplates a way out of this present state of decadence, however, it does not negate the contemporary world; it tries to find a solution for the degeneration of the era.

The four characteristics of the concept of ‘Return to The self’ in Shia thought

Pourhasan finds four excellent characteristics in Shia thought in regards to the concept of ‘return to the self’:

1. ‘Return to the self’ in Shia thought is related to proposing a discussion of the Golden Age of Islam or the era that philosophical thought was prospering. This Golden Age in the Sunni thought refers to the early Islamic era and Salaf-e Salih (the good past).

2. The revivalist Shia thought is a revolutionary one and wants to change the existing conditions. This revolutionary thought does not exist in the Sunni Islam. As Tabataba’i pointed out, in the early Islamic era and the prophet’s time, there was no intellectual improvements; in fact, the Islamic thought was immature and trivial. In other words, Shia thought is a critique of the Salafist thought.

3. Shia Islam’s concept of ‘return to the self’ is rationalist. The Shia scholars’ criterion for recovering ‘the self’ is reasoning and wisdom. Meanwhile, in Sunni thought the main role belongs to fideism.

4. The Shia concept of ‘return to the self’ does not prescribe revivalism; it wants to recover past traditions in accordance to the contemporary world. It wants to find its ‘self’ now by rereading Tarath and Badaye’a. In contrast, traditional Salafism demands a rupture from contemporary era and modernity.

In the end, Pourhasan pointed out that rationality in Shia thought is not synonymous with Greek rationality and autonomous reason. It is a rationality shaped by religion and within Islam. The anti-intellectualism of Akhbarism and Salafism target Greek rationality. Pourhasan maintained that Shia rationality is a religious one; it is not autonomous and independent. This type of rationality that is used by the dynamic Shia jurisprudence has prevented from the development of Salafist and fundamentalist tendencies in Shia scholars.

By Yousef Seifi & Somaye Rezaei

Why Muharram commemorations haven’t lost their significance

By: Syed Zafar Mehdi

TEHRAN - Muharram, contrary to the popular perception, is not merely a poignant chapter in history, orbiting around a grief-centric ritual. It is a profoundly illuminating philosophy that defines the relationship between truth and falsehood, between righteousness and impiousness, between dignity and ignominy.

The leader of challengers Imam Husain’s (as) uprising on the desert plains of Karbala 1400 years ago was not a struggle for paltry political gains or one-upmanship. It was the beginning of a movement for Islamic awakening and social reformation. The movement about the eternal struggle of right versus might, just versus unjust, truth versus falsehood.

The movement, which has gripped the hearts and minds of people throughout history, continues even today – in Palestine, in Syria, in Afghanistan, in Yemen, in Nigeria, in Myanmar, in Iraq, in Kashmir. This movement will be relevant and significant as long as tyrants and aggressors exist.

Understanding the essence of Imam’s uprising is essential to understand the profound philosophy of Karbala and the significance of these annual commemorations.

Muharram and Karbala are in a way symbolic and their appeal cuts across the frontiers of time and space. Imam Khomeini (ra) often used this phrase in his speeches – ‘Kullu yaumin Ashura, kullu arzin Karbala’ (every day is Ashura and every place is Karbala).

Despots, crooks and scoundrels have existed in every age and every time. They have tried to disrupt social order, ban peaceful religious practices, create civil disturbance, and target innocents on flimsy grounds. They exist even today, in various forms and shapes and manifestations, across the world. Karbala teaches us the importance of defiance and resistance against these forces.

In Maqtal al-Hussain by Al-Khwarizmi Hanafi, it is mentioned that when Waleed ibn Uqbah, the governor of Medina, summoned Imam Hussain (as) to pay allegiance to Yazid, he categorically refused. “We are the household of the Holy Prophet, the core of His message, the place where angels descend to, and the place of mercy. Allah brought victory through us and will conclude by us, while Yazid is a corrupt man who consumes alcohol, kills the innocent, and openly disobeys God. A person like me cannot give the pledge of allegiance to a person like him,” Hussain (as) said.  

Despite all overt and covert pressure tactics; the beloved grandson of the Holy Prophet (pbuh) refused to yield, thus obliging the command of his Creator, who says in Surah Munafiqun that “the might belongs only to Allah and to His Apostle and to the believers”.

Hussain (as) did not seek confrontation or conflict. He was forced out of Madina and Mecca simply because he refused to recognize an alcoholic ruler as the ‘leader of the faithful’. He asked his noble companions like Burayr ibn Khudayr, Habib ibn Muzahir, Zuhair ibn Qain and Muslim ibn Awsaja to liberate people from their self-inflicted misery. He even addressed his opponents and reminded them of their religion and the position of their Prophet (pbuh). He then raised a call, an immortal call. “Is there anyone to come to our rescue? Is there any helper to help us?”

It is a universal call that resonates even today. In Ziyarat e Imam Hussain (as), we say: “wish we were with you (O Hussain) so we would have won the greatest victory”. Kufans played deaf to Hussain’s (as) call, but will we also snub him? Are our hearts beating for Hussain (as)? That’s a question we need to ask ourselves.

The epic battle of Karbala, contrary to what you hear from some over-zealous ecclesiastics, was not decided in the battlefield. It was decided in the hearts of those who draw inspiration from Karbala and single-mindedly resist the forces that terrorize, intimidate, humiliate and kill.

These forces have existed since the time of Prophet Adam, as noted by the celebrated Iranian scholar Dr. Ali Shariati. “Our history, starting from Habil and Ghabil, is the manifestation of the eternal conflict between the two poles of God and Satan, though in each period of time these two poles have disguised differently.” And the evil forces have always faced disgraceful defeat, as emphasized in the Holy Quran. “And Allah will by no means give the unbelievers a way against the believers.” (Surah Nisa)

In the month of Muharram, Muslims around the world collectively remember the martyrs of Karbala and reaffirm their pledge to carry forward the mission of Husain (as). Muharram commemorations were first held by Imam Husain’s sister Sayyeda Zainab (sa) and his son Imam Zainul Abideen (as). Zainab (SA) – who came to be known as Fasihah (skillfully fluent) and Balighah (intensely eloquent) – played a significant role in the aftermath of Karbala.

Dr. Ali Shariati pays her a beautiful tribute. “She accomplished her mission thoroughly, perfectly and fairly. She expressed with words the truth that Hussein expressed with blood… It was Zainab (sa) who stood against and confronted the ruling oppressive power and overcame all resistance.”

Even 1400 years on, these annual commemorations have not lost their significance or relevance, but have become more popular and powerful.

Massive processions are taken out across the world in this month to send out a clear and strong message that injustice vanishes and truth shines bright. The soul-stirring elegies and hymns recited in Muharram gatherings remind us of the cruelty of Yazid and patience of Husain (as). They speak of the unyielding stand taken by Husain (as) and give a sense of hope and purpose to those who believe in the righteousness of their cause.

These commemorations help us reorganize our life around the principles exemplified by Husain (as) and his followers in Karbala. That is precisely why these processions, which are completely peaceful in nature, come under attack in places like Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan. The attackers belong to the cult of Yazid and they see these annual commemorations as defiance to their cruelty and aggression.

Every revolution, Dr. Ali Shariati says, has two visages: blood and the message. Husain (as) and his companions undertook the mission of blood. The second and equally important mission is to carry the message of this blood to future generations. We, the campaigners of truth and justice, have been entrusted with the task that was first carried out by Zainab (sa) after the battle of Karbala.

The 20 million people who marched by foot from Najaf to Karbala on Arbaeen (the fortieth day after Ashura) last year, beating the heat and ISIS threats, bore testimony to the fact that the mission of Zainab (sa) is alive. This year, on Arbaeen, the number of pilgrims is likely to swell even further.

The exemplary sacrifices rendered by Husain (as) and his companions will never be forgotten. As long as there is injustice, oppression and corruption in the world, Karbala will remain relevant and the message of Hussain (as) will reverberate across the world.

Shariati was intellectually open to all religious and ideological horizons

By Sara Faraji & Somaye Rezaei

The late Dr. Ali Shariati is one of the most significant and influential intellectuals of the contemporary era in Iran. Even though many summits and conferences are still being held on Ali Shariati, nowadays it seems that his legacy is not used to its fullest in the scientific and intellectual assemblies and only some of his quotes and sayings are mentioned in social contexts. Ali Shariati’s children have all followed his example and turned to philosophy. His eldest son, Ehsan Shariati (born: Shahrivar 12 1338/September 3 1959 in Mashhad) has studied philosophy at Paris-Sorbonne University in France. He has worked as a guest professor at the University of Tehran and Islamic Azad University’s Science and Research Branch in Tehran. His books include Heidegger’s Philosophy and an Iranian Reading of it, Religion and Government and The Philosophy of Self in Muhammad Iqbal’s Thought.

We sat with him to talk about a range of issues including Ali Shariati’s relationship with philosophy and ideology and power, his intellectual methodology, his role and place in contemporary thought, the traditions that he belonged to as well as the reason behind the occasional attacks against him. Here is the full text of the interview: Q: Before starting our discussion about Dr. Ali Shariati and his relation with philosophy and ideology, I would like to know your opinion on the philosophy/ideology dichotomy and their respective tasks. A: Ideology, similar to religion is a general, ambiguous, elusive and ambivalent term. The word ‘idea’ (form) has a history in philosophy. Its initial meaning from the Greek root of eïdomaï was “aspect, appearance and to be seen” (the Latin counterpart ‘species’ meant shape-aspect and typical form) which later acquired the metaphysical meaning of “eidos” (the essence or nature of things). Plato turned this word into the key concept and symbol of his philosophy; e.g. the world of ideas and the ideas (forms). Therefore, ‘idea’ has an ancient history and one can even say that the history of philosophy is the history of ‘idea.’ Shariati was a scholar of comparative studies. Namely, by ideology, he is not referring to constructing a dogmatic system in which explanation manuals (risalas) are written and all questions are answered; what he does is drawing a table, where all these schools can be compared to one another.In the technical sense, after Pythagoras coined the word philosophia, Plato is the first person who has done philosophy. He is the head of philosophers and Idealism – in its realist concept. In contrast, our modern ideology, influenced by Condillac and Locke, is a criticism of Idealism through learning ideas and recognizing the sensory origin of the development of ideas. Let us not discuss the way the word ‘idea’ is translated into Farsi. For instance, the late Ahmad Fardid translated it as ‘didar shenasi’ [knowledge of what is seen].

Since the beginning of the 19th century, after the French Revolution, some revolutionary liberal theoreticians like Destutt, Comte de Tracy, and his fellow thinkers introduced “ideology” as a branch of epistemology. A branch that was dealing with ideas, and the origin of ideas and knowledge (in fact the subtitle of Destutt’s book Elements of Ideology is for use in the central schools of the French Republic). Thus, in this sense, ideology is the discipline of the development of ideas or the origin of the ideas and sensory knowledge. In contrast to Idealism and metaphysics, these theoreticians claimed that the origin and development of ideas are more important than the ideas themselves. However, Napoleon fell out with them and called them ‘ideologues,’ namely theoreticians and people who makes doctrines. Thus, for the first time, ideology was used with a negative connotation, in the sense that ideologues are theoreticians who sit in their ivory tower and criticize the circumstances without having paid attention to pragmatic aspects and the real politics and power. Later in the survey of changes in the definition of ideology, this Napoleonic meaning was favored. The reason is that in 1845, Marx and Engels wrote a book named The German Ideology, which was not published at the time. It was published before the WWII in 1932. In this book, ideology and Idealism were considered synonymous. There Marx attacks “German Idealism,” because the left-wing Hegelians thought that the ideas are moving the history forward and one can only reform the society by criticizing the religious ideas and beliefs; however, it is the life and the lifestyles that realize ideas. Therefore, Idealism is a kind of “reverse thinking,” like in a photography dark room, where photo negatives show reality inverse. After Marx, Karl Manheim in his book called Ideology and Utopia, discussed ideology as “false consciousness” in the Marxist sense. Therefore, the first person to present a negative scientific definition of ideology is Marx. It is a paradox that the biggest and most comprehensive ideology in history is named after Marx. Thus, today we literally are talking about Marxism when we talk about ideology. After WWII, when fascist, right-wing authoritarian and left-wing communist ideologies gave rise to ideological regimes, ideology was redefined and criticized. In short, ideology has been defined differently in different eras.

Q: What is the history of the concept of ideology in Iran? A: In Iran, before Dr. Ali Shariati, the late Mr. Bazargan published two books called The First Revelation and Ideology and Islam, the Contester and Productive Being open to all the horizons of all religions and ideologies is among his characteristics, but it does not mean that he is positively eclectic or syncretic or a negative mixer of incongruous elements. If Shariati were present now, he would have remained a teacher and a researcher. He did not like running for the office, or working in the government as a minister or getting a position School. At the time, the Muslim intellectuals were trying to come up with an ideological criticism with regard to the religious tradition. Their goal was to transform religion from its superstitious, hereditary, and unconscious state –which was deterrent to social changes that could result in a better, more developed, freer and more just world- into the moral and spiritual backing of progress. It is in this critical sense that Shariati says that he has changed religion from a hereditary and unconscious superstitious tradition into an ideology. Nowadays, by religion we refer to the theist worldview, a school of thought instructing social action, and all the philosophical, ethical, and mystical meanings and bases. My point is that the concept of ideology similar to the concept of religion has constantly changed. Usually we consider positive connotations for the word religion. However, in Quran, God calls on the pagans saying that you have your religion and I have my religion. It means that paganism is a religion. Similarly, we think that imamah (religious leadership) is a positive concept; however, it is not the case and there are Imams of paganism [in Quran]. Therefore, religion is a general term with positive and negative connotations. The case of ideology in history is the same. The day I arrived in Iran, I proposed that we should start “a battle of definitions,” namely; we should not accept the predominant definitions of terms at their face value without criticism. Some think that ideology has a fixed and determined definition; however, it is absolutely not the case.

Q: What about the philosophy/ideology dichotomy then? Please talk about the relation between these two words. A: In the history of philosophy, ideological criticism is the equivalent of metaphysical criticism. Metaphysics is also an ambivalent concept. Namely, metaphysics has always been discussed throughout the history of philosophy, from Kant until now, either in analytical or phenomenological branch. Therefore, what we call ideology in sociology or politics is called metaphysics and Idealism in philosophy. Q: Some categorize philosophy as logocentric or anti-logocentric. For instance, Dr. Mohaddethi believes that Shariati’a thought was anti-logocentric and non-Idealist. What do you think? A: Essentially, western thought is logocentric or linguistic. In Derrida, logos has priority over writing. Socrates believed that one should live by philosophy. Therefore, one should express it in words. In the eastern tradition, there are people of the Book (Ahle-ketab) and Quran starts with [the words] ‘God of pen, and writing and education.’ Shariati was a scholar of comparative studies. Namely, by ideology, he is not referring to constructing a dogmatic system in which explanation manuals (risalas) are written and all questions are answered; what he does is drawing a table, where all these schools can be compared to one another. His lectures on geometrical Islamology in Hosseiynieh Ershad is such a comparative study. Inspired by the suggestion of the French epistemologist Bachelard, he draws a geometrical shape where all intellectual and religious systems are compared to each other and their characteristics are exposed.

Q: Therefore, one cannot put Dr. Shariati under a certain –ism. However, some are of the opinion that this approach risks calling him eclectic. A: That is correct. Being open to all the horizons of all religions and ideologies is among his characteristics, but it does not mean that he is positively eclectic or syncretic or a negative mixer of incongruous elements. Syncretism is the amalgamation of non-related elements, which is the bad type of eclecticism. However, the positive sense of eclecticism refers to combining congruous elements; which is a constituent of all great ideologies and religions. In Shariati’s opinion, what is meant by religion is not religious forms but the religious, spiritual, mystical or ethical human being, or the human being who is a transcendental and superior manifestation of humanity’s encounter with the divinity. Shariati uses an open and dialogic method; for instance, he teaches history of religions with an interpretive-hermeneutic approach. He states that in order to understand Buddhism, one should learn about Buddha’s personality. Again, this is a methodology; he is not trying to convert anyone into Buddhism. In other words, it is a hermeneutic approach for sympathetic interpretation and search for meaning. Overall, he was neither a Marxist, nor Buddhist, nor existentialist, nor Christian or Protestant. He criticizes Marxism, stating that Marxist ethics is more bourgeois than the bourgeois ethics. His attacks on Marxism and modernism is unparalleled to any critic in the ethical and spiritual sense. Contrary to the popular belief, he was neither against modernism, nor against the west. In contrast, he believed that east and west are two aspects of human beings. Thus, he has the same relationship with western thinkers as with the eastern scholars; he says that he loves both Abu Dhar and Charlie Chaplin. Among the characteristics that makes him attractive to the young people is that all these aspects are not paradoxical in him. That is to say, many question the compatibility of being religious and being open to other issues and realms! Although, this also leads to some misunderstanding and misconceptions. Q: Shariati has harshly attacked some philosophers as well. Why has he done this and what is his goal? A: He attacks and defends certain kinds of philosophy (and mysticism). He says, “only philosophy and mysticism satisfy my soul’s thirst.” True philosophy is questioning and the freedom of thought; when he attacks philosophers, he is attacking the theoreticians who justify power, because a requirement of philosophy is criticizing power and being independent from it. Plato’s idea of philosopher-king as evidenced by his own fate, is an illusion because being a king and being a philosopher are two separate things. Q: So must a philosopher always be outside power? A: Yes, but not in the sense that the intellectual is indifferent to power or does not participate in reform. In contrast, she or he always tries to help the better people gain power; however, an intellectual is considered a true intellectual when she or he keeps his critical distance from power –even the best kind- in order to see the deficiencies. Q: In my opinion, the philosophy/ideology dichotomy does not make any sense, because they are not parallel; philosophy is a top-down macro-process while ideology deals with actions. Therefore, it could be that comparing them is an insult to philosophy, lowering its status. I believe that philosophy can control ideology not reject it. Basically, what is the function of philosophy? A: Right, as I said ideology both had negative and neutral or scientific connotations. In the latter sense, in the modern democratic society, classes, parties and different ideologies compete with each other. A democratic society is a society in which a collection of ideologies competes and contests based on their politics and beliefs, in a free and organized way. Q: Has ideology always something to do with classes? A: A society is made of classes with distinct ideologies. In Marx’s sociology, ideology is a superstructure that consists of cognitions, rights, politics, culture, knowledge and information. In the neoliberal modern times, power is invisible; for instance, we all think that we are looking at the internet, while it is the internet that is looking at us and controlling us. That is why this kind of ideology is far more totalitarian and dangerous, because in the fascist and communist totalitarian regimes, one could see the leader and be afraid of the government is controlling everything; but in this software ideology, one can see no one. Well, if we are to talk in scientific and not argumentative terms, having an ideology, similar to the existence of classes in the society, is an inherent and natural part of all classes, so that every class has its own distinct ideology and every government has its own ideology as well. Q: Thus, can we say that concurrent competition and dialogue between ideologies is natural, but exclusive ideologies are dangerous? A: Exactly. Exclusivity is dangerous, like the implementation of inquisition in the Middle Ages. In my opinion, ideology is the sum total of all its positive and negative connotations in history, I look at it as a scientific and neutral term referring to a systems of ideas that can be positive or negative. Therefore, there is no paradox between philosophy and worldview except that they have different functions and subject matters. In the modern era, in Heidegger’s words, the world has changed into the pictures of the worldviews. Namely, imagined pictures of the world make the basis of the new ideologies. In the modern era, Idealism has turned into an ideology; new ideologies are the new religions. In Jaspers’s opinion, in a certain historical epoch, great religions emerged and now that epoch is over. In religious terms, it is called “finality [of the prophethood].” The Middle Ages in the West or Europe were entirely religious times; however, the modern era is non-religious, common or secular. Generally, the secularity of spirit rules and ideologies emerge. Sometimes ideologies play the same role that religion used to play. For instance, in our country when religious youth turned to Marxism, they were still to some extent ‘religious,’ but they believed in Marxism-Leninism. Nowadays, the reigning religion is neoliberalism, which is not the original revolutionary anti Middle Ages democratic liberalism, but a nonchalant democracy, without any firm commitment to any value or belief. Q: In the survey of the current thought movements, where does Dr. Ali Shariati stand? What role did he play in our contemporary thought? A: We had a comprehensive debate on this in Rokhdad Institute entitled “The genealogy of the contemporary thought in Iran.” Since the Constitutional Revolution in Iran, there are two “thought groups” in the country, the traditionalist and the progressive. Clergies also follow one of these two tendencies. In the middle, there are people like Sayyid Jamal in Iran and Muhammad Iqbal in India who started Islamic Modernism. There were also people like Kasravi, Sanglaji among others from other thought movements, and later Bazargan, Sahabi, Taleghani, etc. and especially in Mashhad there was Mohammad Taghi Shariati who founded “The Center for Publication of Islamic Truths.” In fact, when Shariati is talking about national and religious reforms, he is following the path and the direction of these movements from 1320s to 1350s/1940s to 1970s.

Q: From political and intellectual perspectives, to which traditions does Dr. Shariati belong? A: From a political perspective, he belongs to the national-popular movement originated during the Constitutional Revolution and continued by Dr. Mosaddegh; and from a religious perspective, he belongs to Islamic Modernism that Sayyid Jamal and Muhammad Iqbal set in motion. It is evidenced by the posters published in early years of the Islamic Revolution in which Sayyid Jamal, Iqbal and Shariati are depicted. Such depictions were not unique to Iran, it happened all over the Muslim World. Nowadays, there is a fallacy that states that since Sayyid Jamal was a proponent of revisiting the original true Islam and talked about Salaf-e-Salih (the virtuous predecessor), he belongs to the same Salafism that ISIS and Al-Qaeda are now part of. The word Salaf (predecessor) has confused these people to consider opposite tendencies the same, tendencies that are not related at all. Sayyid Jamal and his associates were intellectuals supporting Islamic Modernism; in contrast, ISIS wants to return to Sharia and re-establish caliphate. The revisiting that Shariati talked about is not ‘returning.’ It is revisiting, namely, starting over, ‘a new beginning, and a different start.’ Q: As a concluding remark, in your opinion if Dr. Shariati were present in the decades after the Islamic Revolution, especially during 1390s/2010s, what could have his stand been? A: If he were present now, he would have remained a teacher and a researcher. He did not like running for the office, or working in the government as a minister or getting a position. Although he would have remained politically active and committed, he would certainly have been critical of the existing circumstances and part of the popular and national opposition and would remain a committed and independent person. He would criticize the foreign powers and domestic problems. He was not and would not be solely critical of the current circumstances in Iran, but the entire world. However, such criticism and reformism would have not been an invitation to violence, because he had drawn his line regarding violence and was against all kinds of it. Although, he is been called “the Teacher of the Revolution” and is famous for his teachings, but in fact, he rejected all kids of “premature revolutions,” as he believed that a real revolution would entail a long-term process and that changing governments would not result in epistemological, moral and ideological break that a real revolution would bring about. His though was revolutionary in its truest form, not like the current shallow and political trends of revolutionary thought. Nowadays, some are blaming the revolutionaries because of their participation in the occurrence of the Islamic Revolution. However, it is better to say that one of our problems is that the revolution is not completed yet. Our Islamic Revolution happened extremely fast; the government and the rulers changed, but it seems that there has been no revolution in culture, structures and habits. That is to say, that change is not that simple; habits formed over 2500 years cannot be reversed overnight. If Dr. Shariati were present now, he would still have had a historically pro-change and revolutionary vision.