Alireza Raeisi's Article 'Methodological Reflections on Dr. Soroush's Theory of Religion and Power'

Methodological Reflections on Dr. Soroush's Theory of Religion and Power

Alireza Raeisi

The esteemed scholar, Dr. Abdolkarim Soroush, has recently introduced his new perspective on religion and power in two lectures (the first and second). This topic, which he had previously examined in several sessions, has been presented in a new formulation in these two recent lectures. His view has so far been criticized in cyberspace, and it can be predicted that other critiques will be published. This writing does not seek to critique the components of this view and only examines some of the methodological problems of Dr. Soroush's recent theories through a case study of this perspective.

Dr. Soroush has published numerous works in the fields of philosophy and religious studies concurrent with the years of the revolution. However, his major influence in Iran's intellectual sphere traces back to the theory of the Theoretical Contraction and Expansion of the Sharia. In this theory, Soroush, using his learnings in the philosophy of science and epistemology, presented a theory on the evolution of religious knowledge. This theory also had important implications for the critique of an ideological view of religion, which Soroush elaborated on in his other works. After the Contraction and Expansion theory, Soroush has made multiple attempts to present new theories in the field of religious intellectualism. The distinction between rights-centered and duty-centered man, the revival of the Mu'tazila experience, armed liberalism, prophetic dreams, and finally religion and power are examples of these unsuccessful attempts at theorizing. In addition to these, Soroush has, in numerous lectures, mainly endeavored to dispel superstitions and present an image of religion that is compatible with the new world. Most of these recent theories have been unsuccessful in influencing the cultural and intellectual sphere. In this note, I will try to examine some of the methodological reasons for this lack of success, and finally, I will apply these methodological critiques to the example of the religion and power lecture.

Starting the Discussion from a Vacuum:

One of the major methodological problems of Soroush is ignoring the existing discussions on the subject under study. Methodical research and study today begins with the body of articles and books existing on the subject, in order to clarify the position of the discussion within the geography of existing theories and its innovation. However, Soroush largely ignores, intentionally or inadvertently, the extensive discussions that have recently formed on the topics in question. For example, the issue of rights and duties has been discussed in various fields such as human rights, under the title of universality or relativity of human rights, but these ongoing discussions are usually absent from his writings. In rare cases—which usually include a few Arab intellectuals—Soroush makes references to ongoing discussions but has no affinity for citing sources, which is reminiscent of the books of the ancients. In some instances, Soroush fundamentally makes no reference to the ongoing discussions in the field, as if he has no knowledge of these discussions and has not even made an effort to examine them. For instance, in his lecture "Armed Neoliberalism," Soroush raises numerous issues in the field of international relations without even glancing at the existing theories in this domain. This lecture, which can be seen as a kind of U-turn from his past theories, such as his discussions with Reza Davari in Keyhan-e Farhangi, resembles the statements of political-cultural activists of the 1960s and 70s more than the views that intellectuals and humanities professors present in their lectures today. In the following, I will try to examine this methodological problem more precisely regarding his recent views on religion and power.

As Soroush notes in his recent lecture, the most important spark for this idea came from his interests in Islamic mysticism and the difference between the concept of khashyah (awe/fear) and mystical love in the relationship between the Creator and the created. He considers the relationship between the Creator and the created in the Qur'an to be based on khashyah, and views the amorous relationship between humanity and God in the discourse of Islamic mystics as the result of the mystics' innovations aimed at softening this relationship. Regarding the roots of Islamic mysticism and the developments and exchanges between the Islamic mystical tradition and Eastern and Western mysticisms over the last half-century, hundreds of articles and books have been published by Islamic and Western thinkers, some of which—such as Izutsu's enduring work comparing Islamic and Eastern mysticism—have even been translated into Persian. Reputable encyclopedias have published entries on this subject. Soroush is familiar with these discussions. Yet, except in rare instances, he ignores them entirely. Soroush never clarifies the relationship between his views and existing opinions. It is fundamentally unclear whether his views are scholarly theories or sermons for disciples and the general public. Some thinkers have even explained these topics more systematically for a general audience; for example, Professor Zarrinkub elucidated the Qur'anic roots of Islamic mysticism for the public and considered mysticism an extension of Qur'anic teachings such as the verse "And remember the name of your Lord and devote yourself to Him with complete devotion"[1]. But it is unclear what Soroush's recent theories offer for a general audience.

Furthermore, Orientalists have theorized for many years about the relationship between violence and the spread of Islam. But it is unclear what the relationship is between Soroush's religion and power thesis and the views of Orientalists. In secular intellectual discussions as well, views similar to Soroush's recent remarks have previously been articulated by intellectuals[2]. Yet Dr. Soroush ignores them entirely. To more precisely explain the consequences of failing to reference ongoing discussions, it is worth examining Soroush's most important piece of evidence regarding Islam's authoritarianism in his recent talks. In his second lecture on the religion of power, Soroush considers the frequent use of the pronoun "We" for God in the Qur'an as evidence of God's sultanic nature in the Qur'anic text. Apart from the fact that Arabic speakers consider the use of the pronoun "We" for an individual to indicate glorification (which has been used for God in all religions and differs from authoritarianism), Soroush, as usual, completely ignores the ongoing discussions in Qur'anic studies on this matter. For example, regarding the use of pronouns for God in the Qur'an, the classic and useful book by Neal Robinson[3] provides a detailed analysis. In the eleventh chapter of this book, which is entirely devoted to this subject, Neal Robinson considers the use of different pronouns for God to correspond to the descriptive (where the speaker plays a central role), persuasive (where the addressee plays a central role), and cognitive (where the message and text play a central role) functions in linguistic theories—an interpretation fundamentally different from Soroush's anomalous sultanic interpretation of God's pronouns in the Qur'an. Robinson's analysis concludes that the use of the first-person singular pronoun for God, although rare, is employed for intimacy in the relationship between God and His servants, which contradicts Soroush's idea on this matter. As usual, Dr. Soroush has ignored Robinson's analysis, which constitutes a fundamental weakness for his views on religion and power.

Selective Treatment of Evidence:

Another problem with Soroush's theories is his selective treatment of evidence. He generally seeks to prove an idea and highlights whatever aligns with that idea while ignoring other evidence. In this vein, he predominantly emphasizes historical narratives and evidence that align with his intellectual project and sets aside other accounts. This problem has manifested in his various theories, an example of which can be seen in his lecture on religion and power. He attempts to define khashyah in the Qur'anic text and the discourse of early Islamic leaders as entirely distinct from love in the discourse of later mystics. In his previous lecture, and especially in the religion and power lecture, he describes the Qur'an as a book of khashyah, the words of Imam Ali as a book of piety, and khashyah as a central concept in the discourse of Shiite Imams, such as in the Arafah Supplication and the Sahifa al-Sajjadiyya. However, the Shiite Imams did not consider khashyah to be incompatible with mystical love and longing. For instance, in the Supplication of Abu Hamza al-Thumali, Imam al-Sajjad places love, khashyah, faith, and longing for the Lord together in a complementary manner[4].

Moreover, Soroush overlooks the importance of context in this proposition. For in that era, the opposition between love and fear was fundamentally not at issue. Had it been, perhaps more precise statements from the Imams and leaders regarding the relationship between the two would have survived. But Soroush ignores evidence that does not align with this theory. This is regardless of the fact that some contemporary research attempts to scrutinize the practical meaning of words for the Arabs of that day in order to gain a more accurate understanding of the Qur'an and the Prophet's words. In the same vein, Dr. Soroush completely ignores the widespread use of the third-person pronoun for the Lord in the Qur'an. As was examined, the use of the pronoun "We" is a key piece of evidence in his theory for the authoritarianism of religion. Yet in his second lecture on Religion and Power, he makes no mention whatsoever of the use of the third-person pronoun. This is irrespective of the fact that a shift in pronoun usage within a discourse can fall under the literary device of iltifāt, which is fundamentally different from his royal discourse. In addition to these, Soroush ignores the very austere mystical teachings on renouncing the world (which the Qur'an explicitly emphasizes[5] are not from the Lord) and unilaterally emphasizes gentle, tender mystical love.

This methodological objection also applies to the narration of traditions in Dr. Soroush's lecture, for some of the traditions he cites are weak traditions or isolated reports (khabar al-wāḥid), the use of which has been challenged for many years by the theological traditions of both Shia and Sunni Islam. For example, Sayyid Murtadha and his teacher Sheikh Mufid in the fourth century AH would set aside any isolated report that was incompatible with their theological principles. In this domain, it seems the approach of thinkers over a thousand years toward weak traditions was more methodical than that of our modern intellectuals, and consequently, they had less bias in confronting historical events. It appears that the effort toward the eradication of superstition (which has been increasingly emphasized by Soroush in recent years) is more in line with the intellectual tradition of the 1940s in Iran, which had a significant impact on the religious intellectualism of later years in Iran. In this tradition, instead of paying attention to context and utilizing developments in the humanities in linguistics and hermeneutics, intellectuals have sought to purge and sanitize religion. This has led to a rupture from the rationalist current within the religious tradition.

Effective Theory and Failed Theory:

Dr. Soroush's theory of the Theoretical Contraction and Expansion of the Sharia was influential in the intellectual climate of Iran and the region for several decades. The reasons for this influence can be summarized as the need for a paradigm shift in the intellectual atmosphere of the 1980s, the trust placed in Soroush by a segment of the ruling elite in the realms of culture and politics, structural transformations in Iranian society, and most importantly, Soroush's knowledge and ability to conceptualize in epistemological discussions. As a graduate of the philosophy of science, Soroush had studied in this field for years, possessed mastery over epistemological debates, and in practice, through his critique of Marxist views, had acquired the ability to conceptualize in this area. However, Dr. Soroush's later theories have not been met with much success and have had no impact on the dominant intellectual discourse. One reason for this failure is a lack of expertise in other fields such as politics, Qur'anic studies, and sociology. Another reason for this failure is the lack of a methodical explanation of the theories, which fundamentally makes evaluating Soroush's views difficult. Numerous theories have been presented to date regarding the politics of the Prophet of Islam. It is fundamentally unclear what relation Soroush's Religion and Power has to these theories and what it is supposed to add to them. Consequently, it can be predicted that these recent statements, like Soroush's theory of Prophetic Dreams, will, after a period of discussion and examination without any particular achievement, be consigned to the archives.

[1] Zarrinkoub, Abdolhossein (2005), Step by Step to the Meeting with God, Elmi Publications

The Value of the Heritage of Sufism, 2015 edition, Amirkabir Publications Institute

[2] As a recent example of these views, the article "The Theology of Torture," Mohammad Reza Nikfar, September 2, 2009, published on the Zamaneh website

[3] Neal Robinson, Discovering the Qur'an: A Contemporary Approach to a Veiled Text, Georgetown University Press, 1999

[4] In this supplication, we read

O God, I ask You to fill my heart with love for You, awe of You, belief in You, faith in You, fear of You, and longing for You.