Cooperative Liberation Theology: Outline of a Humanist Two-World Theology

In the first chapter and the series of writings on "Socio-Political Tawhid," the two-dimensional monotheistic worldview (mental-philosophical tawhid in the personal world and socio-political tawhid in the surrounding world) was discussed, and in the second chapter and the series of writings on "Social Mysticism," the two-dimensional spiritual wayfaring (individual wayfaring in the personal world and social mysticism in the surrounding world) based on that worldview was addressed. It was subsequently stated that this worldview and the path based on it also require their own theological framework, which can be called Cooperative Liberation Theology, a theology that, in addition to the mystical and liberating teachings of Shariati and Iqbal, is also based on the community-oriented and institution-oriented teachings of Engineer Bazargan, Imam Musa Sadr, and Ayatollah Taleghani. In the first chapter, a two-dimensional tawhid was discussed, and in the second chapter, a two-dimensional mysticism; in this chapter and the series of writings on Cooperative Liberation Theology, a two-dimensional theology will be addressed. Two-dimensional here means a balanced engagement with both the personal world and the surrounding world in religiosity and the dual-focus teachings of religion. This article will present a model for Cooperative Liberation Theology, a theology whose worldview, as stated in the previous series of articles, is not based on one-dimensional tawhid, nor is its spiritual wayfaring based on one-dimensional wayfaring.

1

Stephen Hawking, the eminent British physicist and cosmologist, in his latest book of sayings titled "Brief Answers to the Big Questions," continuing theories based on Darwinian struggle for survival, has predicted the future of humanity:

"...According to this prominent cosmologist, within the next 1000 years, an event such as a nuclear war or environmental catastrophe will 'cripple the Earth.' But the intelligent human race will be able to leave Earth before the catastrophe, and the remaining creatures will likely perish. However, the humans who leave Earth will not be ordinary people. They will be superhumans who have utilized gene-editing technology to surpass their fellow humans. Stephen Hawking believed that these superhumans, by bypassing the rules of genetic engineering, will enhance their memory, disease resistance, and life expectancy. He writes: 'There is no time to wait for Darwinian evolution to make us more intelligent and better natured... Once such superhumans appear, there will be significant political problems with the unimproved humans, who won't be able to compete. Presumably, they will die out, or become unimportant. Instead, there will be a race of self-designing beings who are improving at an ever-increasing rate. Their numbers will probably increase, and they will settle on other planets.'

In the face of this secularist-materialist prediction of the future, presented within the framework of Darwin's theory of the struggle for survival, what alternative theory for the future of humanity can religious new thinkers propose? Ayatollah Taleghani, in opposition to social Darwinism and the struggle for survival in the social sphere, had coined the phrase "cooperation for survival." Mohammad Bastenegar has said of Ayatollah Taleghani's idea of cooperative survival and the critique of social Darwinism by the first generation of religious new thinkers:

« ..The late Taleghani criticizes Darwinist thought and Darwin's theory of evolution in several places in his works; besides him, Engineer Bazargan and Dr. Sahabi also critique it.. They have criticized not only biological Darwinism but also social Darwinism. From the heart of Darwinism emerge Nazism, Stalinism, the evolved party, and the evolved individual. However, while criticizing the idea of the struggle for survival, Taleghani elaborates on the idea of cooperation for survival. As stated in the book *Qur'anic Lessons*, page 248, he says: "The basis of life and the basis of creation is cooperation for survival," and he believes that any corruption in nature, such as tyranny, murder, and environmental destruction, is contrary to the flow of nature. He considers any corruption of the generation (which now manifests in the form of addiction, etc.) to be the product of the struggle for survival. Hence, Taleghani's "cooperation for survival" can serve as a theoretical and practical basis for strengthening collective work and the growth of civil institutions fighting addiction and defending the sanctity of nature and the environment. If Taleghani were alive today, he would, as always, formulate his theory and practice in accordance with the problems of the day. In my belief, although he would speak out against tyranny and its various forms and declare its result to be corruption in society, in addition to the issue of criticizing power, he would also call for building community around the idea of "cooperation for survival," so that creation and genesis might replace the ominous place of addiction and other corruptions, as well as environmental destruction. Thought based on cooperation for survival can be a practical strategy for confronting the objective problems of society.. ».

Cooperation, in its lexical and terminological sense, means «.. "mutual aid and accompaniment." This word derives from "ʿawn," meaning to assist, and in the *tafāʿul* form, it conveys the meaning of helping one another and mutual assistance. In other words, voluntary, systematic group work is called cooperation...». «Cooperation, in its general sense, means collaboration, assistance, mutual aid, and regard for collective interests». «The word "cooperation" is used in these senses: collaboration; aiding one another and participating to satisfy a common need; continuous, reciprocal action carried out in a single direction; self-help and not waiting for the help of others; mutual aid; considering one's own success dependent on the success of others; helping another..». In the Qur'an, cooperation is also mentioned in verse 2 of Surah Al-Ma'idah, where it states: ..وَتَعَاوَنُواْ عَلَى الْبرِّ وَالتَّقْوَى وَلاَ تَعَاوَنُواْ عَلَى الإِثْمِ وَالْعُدْوَانِ..And cooperate in righteousness and piety, but do not cooperate in sin and aggression.

Nasrollah Lashani writes about the role of humans in the survival and evolution of society from Taleghani's perspective:

« ..It is based on the role of man as the goal and driving force of history in its multiple and different dimensions that Taleghani considers balance and equilibrium in society and the relevant components of survival and evolution to be the balance and cooperation of man in the material-spiritual orbit. He believes that “the way of survival and continuous evolution is that a balance and equilibrium be created among the human principles originating from self-sacrifice and the motives of passions (causes of self-attachment) which are aroused by sensory pleasures and needs, so that one does not dominate the other, and it is from the collision of these two opposing human poles that spiritual and material evolution does not cease and individual and social forces advance.” According to this thought, and belief in the role of man, individuality finds a special place in Taleghani’s social and economic vision. In the sense that each and every human being has a role and is an agent in social outcomes and outputs, whether good or bad. Man is also an agent and actor in passivity. It is for this reason that Ali ibn Abi Talib (AS) considers human passivity and acceptance of oppression a great sin. The oppressor and the one who accepts oppression are both sinners, though not to the same extent. Therefore, human insight and thought play a serious role in his behavior. So, to achieve economic goals for the purpose of social survival and evolution, it is necessary and essential that the individuals who make up society possess such insight and belief. To reach the belief that they are responsible for the survival and evolution of human society and must be diligent and hardworking and begin change from themselves, because a society changes and evolves when its individual members change and are placed on the path of material and spiritual growth and transcendence. To transform the horizon of their limited desires into lofty ideals, to change self-centered utilitarianism into an individuality that serves society and social advancement, and to prefer long-term collective interests over short-term and narrow-minded individual interests, and to find their own survival and perfection in the survival and perfection of society. “Let everyone, according to their power, engage in production and appropriation of nature’s capitals and consume according to need and with justice. With this broad-mindedness, material wealth and the production and distribution resulting from it are not the threads and bonds of limiting and halting human capitals, intellect, and thought, but rather a means and a ladder for passage and ascent. It is this change of image and attention from limited, discord-stirring desires towards sublime human ideals that can create a relative unity in goal and effort so that wayfarers become helpers to one another, and together take provisions, and free each other’s hands and feet, and transform unfamiliarities and differences into familiarity, and fears into intimacy, and wars into peace. It is with this change that cooperation in survival, which is among human desires, can replace the struggle for survival, which is among the legacies of animals and the jungle, and wealth, which is a means, is not mistaken for the goal and does not take its place.»

He considers the idea of cooperation for survival to be influenced by the monotheistic worldview:

« ..Here, Taleghani expresses one of his most subtle and innovative theories. Cooperation for survival and perfection. A theory which, when expanded and explained, we see that many of today’s human and social movements in various and different societies are rooted in its visionary foundation. In this vision (the monotheistic vision), man needs cooperation and the preservation of his vital necessities for survival and evolution. Movements such as environmental protection, animal rights advocacy, the fight against pollution, and so on – all, knowingly or unknowingly – are rooted in the monotheistic vision. In this vision, man establishes a relationship of mutual perfection with the environment and, for his own survival and perfection, strives to preserve and perfect the environment. Man needs cooperation for survival and perfection. Cooperation with other humans, cooperation with nature and the environment, and … in general, cooperation with existence. If man reaches this degree of understanding and insight and transcends individual interests in favor of group interests, he is placed on the path of evolution and becomes the dynamic element of existence and the agent of human elevation in the material-spiritual orbit.. ».

۲

In previous articles, the importance of praxis in the view of pre-revolution religious intellectuals was discussed. The idea of cooperation for survival is also an idea based on praxis. Mojtahed Shabestari considers Ayatollah Taleghani to be influenced by Latin American liberation theology:

« ..سخنان طالقانی شبیه نظریه پراکسیس بود که در الهیات رهایی‌بخش مسیحی وجود دارد.. او معتقد بود که معرفت دینی از طریق عمل مبارزه در انسان بروز می‌یابد نه از طریق تفکر. البته این فکر قبل از انقلاب بر خیلی‌ها حاکم بود. مرحوم شریعتی و آقای طالقانی مطمئناً اینطور بودند. حتی مدت کوتاهی قبل از انقلاب اقای بهشتی هم همین‌ طور فکر می‌کرد و نزد خود من تعبیر مجاهدین پارسا را به کار می‌برد. در استفاده از لفظ مجاهدین هم ایشان نظر خاص داشت. پراتیک به ایشان هم سرایت کرده بود... ».

الهیات رهایی‌بخش نوعی واکنش به بی‌توجهی به توحید اجتماعی-سیاسی در جهان مسیحی بود. محمد باقر تاج‌الدین درباره الهیات رهایی‌بخش آمریکای لاتین می‌گوید:

« .. الهیات رهایی‌بخش از جدید‌ترین نظریات الهیات مسیحی است که در آمریکای لاتین شکل گرفته و سپس به آفریقا و آسیا گسترش یافته است. در این الهیات وظیفه کلیسا مقابله با ظلم و همراهی با مستضعفان و فقراست و بر ضرورت فقرزدایی از طریق مبارزه و آموزش پافشاری می‌کند. از نظر الهیات رهایی‌بخش نجات از طریق عدالت اجتماعی و حضور اجتماعی دین میسر است.. مشکلاتی از جمله استعمار خارجی و استبداد داخلی در آمریکا لاتین راه رهایی را برای مردم دشوار کرده بود. الهیات رهایی‌بخش در ابتدای به ساکن وجه سلبی داشته است تا وجه ایجابی. از سوی دیگر الهیات رهایی‌بخش پاسخی دینی برای شرایط نامناسب موجود اقتصادی و اجتماعی بود. کشیشان و متالهانی به وجود آمدند که پا به پای مبارزان سیاسی دست به نظریه‌پردازی دینی در مبارزه زدند. آن‌ها کوشیدند ایمان مسیحی و عشق به هم‌نوع را موتور محرک رهایی از ظلم و ستم سازند.. مولفه‌های این الهیات عبارت است از نجات‌دهندگی دین در همه ابعاد، نفی تقدیرگرایی و ارزش فقر به عنوان آزمون الهی، توسعه عدالت توسط کلیسا، آزادسازی جامعه از استعمار خارجی و استبداد داخلی، مخالفت کردن با این اصل که کار مسیح به مسیح و کار قیصر بر عهده قیصر است، آرمان‌های مشترکی مانند عدالت با جنبش‌های دست چپی و مبارزه با سکولاریسم مذهبی و جدایی نهاد دین و دولت... ».

در مقالات پیشین به انتقاد از خصوصی شدن و نادیده گرفتن جنبه‌های رهایی‌بخش دین توسط نواندیشان دینی پس از انقلاب پرداخته شد. سارا شورتال استادیار تاریخ در دانشگاه نوتردام در آمریکا در معرفی کتاب مدرنِ کاتولیک: چالش تمامیت‌خواهی و بازسازی کلیسا، نوشته جیمز چپل درباره انتقادات از خصوصی کردن دین توسط ایدئولوژی لیبرال سکولار می‌نویسد:

« ..بسیاری از پیشروترین منادیان تغییر و مدرن‌سازی کلیسا خصوصی بودن دین را به کلی انکار می‌کنند. مثلاً به هنری دولوباک توجه کنید. به نظر او قدرت گرفتن تمامیت‌خواهان به این دلیل اتفاق افتاد که زندگی عمومی از قرن شانزدهم به تدریج از دین خالی شد. او مدعی است که خصوصی‌سازیِ دین با ایجاد خلأیی معنوی، راه را برای اعتلای «ادیان جایگزین» مانند نازیسم و کمونیسم گشوده است. این برداشتی بود که در دهه‌های ۱۹۶۰ و ۱۹۷۰ کاتولیک‌هایی مثل یوهان باپتیست متز و گوستاوو گوتیه‌رِز، پدر الهیات آزادی‌بخش آمریکای لاتین، آن را تکرار می‌کردند. از دیدگاه متز این واقعیت که بسیاری از کاتولیک‌ها ایمان خود را امری خصوصی می‌شمردند شاهدی بر شدت نفوذ ایدئولوژی بورژوازی در بطن آیین کاتولیک بود. به نظر او نتیجه‌ی این موضوع ترویج «مصالحه‌ی غیرانتقادی» با نظام سیاسی و اقتصادی موجود بود، در حالی که جان‌مایه‌ی پیام رستگاریِ [مسیحیت] دقیقاً انتقاد از چنین شکل‌هایی از قدرت بود.. ».

امروزه در پی واکنش به دو دین تحمیلی رسمی و دین خصوصی تبلیغ شده توسط نواندیشان دینی پس از انقلاب، در ایران با نسلی مواجهیم که از اجتماع و سیاست غافل یا بی‌تفاوت است، "ادیان جایگزین" او عرفان‌های شرقی و آمریکای لاتین، آتئیسم، پیروی از پدیده‌هایی مبتذل نظیر مریدی برخی سلبریتی‌ها و اینفلوئنسرها بوده و اگر هم در پی دین‌ورزی باشد، در پی دین مسکن‌گون، تخدیری و نه رهایی‌بخش است. نوع دیگر گرایشات مخرب موجود، گرایش به بنیادگرایی دینی است. سارا شریعتی درباره غیبت روشنفکران و یارگیری بنیادگرایی دینی در اجتماع می‌گوید:

« ..Islam in the 21st century has become tied to the social phenomenon, and the most important issue now is the social issue, so what is the solution? The solution is the reconstruction of the system of attachments and bonds. The problem of Islamic countries is a social problem, and many sociologists have also spoken of the return of the social question. In my view, if we read the problems of Islamic countries through the lens of the social question, we can understand why fundamentalism constantly reproduces itself. The trump card of religious fundamentalism is its connection to social issues and the texture of society, not its connection to populism; whereas populism is the people's reaction to the excessive elitism of intellectuals... The language of past intellectuals was social and more comprehensible; they transmitted awareness into the fabric of society and played the role of articulation. But contemporary intellectuals, due to democratization and proliferation, do not have such a position. Therefore, they have built a separate community for themselves and have become independent of society. As a result, it was religious fundamentalism that filled this void and played this role; after the revolution, we witnessed the emergence of various paradigms..».

In the article on social mysticism, it was also quoted from Sara Shariati that she considers religious intellectualism absent in social projects and believes that religious new-thinking has abandoned the people. She further warned about the secularization of the social sphere:

« ...It seems that in the projects of religious intellectualism, the people have been abandoned, and as a result, charitable associations and "NGO"s are addressing our social issues. We hear in some regions that if these organizations did not exist, society could not continue its life... Consequently, under these conditions, it can be said that in Iran, religion is accused in the case of poverty in all its forms, and today, these social activities are actually increasingly inclined toward secularization, moving away from forms like waqf and zakat... in religious literature and shifting toward non-religious literature such as philanthropy and charity. Simultaneously, we are faced with very serious critiques of these activities. We belong to a generation that criticized good and righteous deeds and said we are not minimalists but maximalists. In response to the question of whether one should fight poverty or help the poor, our generation would say that we must fight poverty, and consequently, we considered this style of benevolent and charitable social activities as belonging to past generations. We fought against unjust infrastructures and against the inequalities that justified poverty. To our generation, such activities seemed to accept poverty and only sought to alleviate it. But today we witness that most of yesterday's fighters have turned into today's aid workers. What is the reason? When I hear the critiques leveled at this style of activity and yet still defend it, what is the cause? It is because I see that maximalist critique practically leads to this situation. We continue the maximalist struggle, but today we witness that militant activity has retreated, and charitable work is also criticized under the labels of boasting, showing off, and superstructural work. The result is nothing but passivity, and its outcome is that we do nothing so as not to be criticized.. ».

But a state can also be imagined for finding meaning among proponents of secular humanism in society. Mostafa Mehraeen writes about social cooperation in the modern world and the secular age:

« ..The French philosopher Luc Ferry believed that modernity and the emergence of secular humanism did not eliminate the search for meaning and the sacred, but rather transformed both through a dual process: the humanization of the divine and the divinization of the human. In his account of how the human is divinized, Luc Ferry places the greatest emphasis on the phenomenon of “social solidarity,” and in contrast to traditional modes of social sacrifice, he speaks of a transitional era from the “logic of other-oriented sacrifice” to “self-oriented sacrifice.” According to Luc Ferry, modernity, rather than rejecting transcendence, has rearranged it. Perhaps today we no longer speak of sacrifice for gods or the homeland, but we are faced with a new type of humanitarian action that demonstrates our need for solidarity with all of humanity. Accordingly, this solidarity is no longer bound by ancient social ties, whether racial, national, or familial. This new humanitarian ideal and action signifies a movement from vertical transcendence to horizontal transcendence—a transcendence in which it is the human being, in the strict sense of the word, that creates an immediate need for “my responsibility,” and on this basis, this entirely modern foundation is attention to the “other” in general, and not just someone to whom I am already linked by virtue of tradition. Hence, the sacred, which previously preceded ethics and was considered its foundation, now comes after it, and we are confronted with a human being who, by adopting a “life based on feeling,” seeks to experience the sacred within their ethical actions such as “social solidarity” and “humanitarianism.”.. ».

Sara Shariati, however, believes that given the absence of religion in the social sphere, religion can still attain a claimant’s position provided a new reading of religion is offered: « ..Although religion has been passive, I think it can also be a claimant. Religion can become a claimant when that dialectic of religion against religion is activated and a more intimate and sincere narrative of religion is presented, one that takes up the dossier of poverty and fights against all forms of poverty as a social priority. Today we mostly hear the voice of the religion that legitimizes the existing order, and unfortunately, we do not hear much of the voice of the religion that criticizes the status quo...» and she sees the solution in a return to liberation theology:

« ..Apart from political power, one can use liberating methods to organize a strong civil society and social groupings.. But if we want to enter the domain of religion; Catholicism is a good example that addressed the issue of poverty both as an institution, an anti-institution, and in practical and theoretical forms. The Catholic Church, in competition with Marxism, organized what are called social teachings, and on a practical level, because it had been sidelined from the political sphere, it organized centers to address society’s problems, and today we witness that the institutions supporting the hungry are the very institutions created by the Catholic Church. .. The idea is that the fight against poverty is carried out by the poor themselves, and the poor take their destiny into their own hands, and it is they who advance the fight against poverty; the poor are responsible for their own liberation, the poor person is a product of the system in which we live and for which we are responsible, consequently, it uses all the religious teachings of Christianity to mobilize the poor community in Latin America and creates the liberation theology movement. .. In Islam, can we name a liberating current in the name of religion for fighting poverty? In the Islamic sphere, the story has taken a different shape. Twentieth-century Islam is entangled with foreign colonialism and domestic despotism. Therefore, its problem is political, and if at the beginning of this century, Islam addresses the social issue and poverty, in many socio-political currents we quickly witness a shift of the dossier from the social to the political issue. The Islamic world increasingly finds a political problem... In the Islamic sphere, if we want and are able to use these prominent, unformulated social teachings, I must defend civil activities; because if we name political power, this power today is both responsible for and accused of producing poverty; consequently, apart from political power, one can think of liberation through organizing a strong civil society and social groupings as this possibility.. ».

در این وضعیت است که بازگشت نواندیشی دینی به آموزه‌های اجتماعی دین و الاهیات رهایی‌بخش ضرورت می‌یابد. در جریان چپ نواندیشی دینی علاوه بر طالقانی، نخشب و شریعتی، مجاهدین بنیانگذار و نئوشریعتی‌ها نیز از مدافعان الهیات رهایی‌بخش بوده‌اند، محمود نکوروح درباره الهیات رهایی‌بخش خداپرستان سوسیالیست می‌نویسد:

« ..در ایران نوگرایی قرائتی جدید متعلق به دهه بیست در عصر ایدئولوژی‌هاست که ایدئولوژی اخلاقی را «فربه تر از همه‌ی آنها» بر مبنای جهان‌بینی توحیدی می‌دید، که به آینده نظر داشت...خداپرستان سوسیالیست به الهیات رهایی‌بخش نظر داشتند که با الهیات تنزیهی از هر پدیده تقدس‌زدایی کرده، تا انسان خودرا یافته، باور کرده، و در توسعه با حقوقش حرف اول را در جامعه بزند، و در برابر توده‌های عوام که گرفتار خرافات‌ها بودند به پالایش دین متوجه بودند تا عوام از سنت‌زدگی تفریطی رها شوند، به‌علاوه روشنفکرانی از غربزدگی افراطی که ما گرفتار همه این‌ها بودیم... جهان‌بینی اینها جهان‌بینی توحیدی در برابر جهان‌بینی مبتنی بر «تضاد» که از سوی مارکسیست‌ها در دهه بیست مطرح می‌شد بود، همراه با نوعی گفتمان و نگاه تازه که در آن انسان محور قرار می‌گرفت، امری که شاید بر شانه‌های کهنه گذشته به جهان نو می‌نگریست، زیرا که عوامل تمدنی و نهادینه در فرهنگ مردم ایران دارای نکاتی مثبت بود که با هویت بخشی به مردم ایران بارها حافظ استقلال ما به‌هر صورت بوده است. ناسیونالیسمی که علیرغم ناسیونالیسم غرب به فاشیسم منجر نمی‌شد.. ».

تاج‌الدین، شریعتی را که از اعضا و علاقه مندان نهضت خداپرستان سوسیالیست بود را منادی‌گر الهیات رهایی‌بخش در ایران می‌داند:

« ..برخی معتقدند در کشورهایی مانند ایران تلاش شده است تا از الهیات‌ رهایی‌بخش استفاده بکنند که دکترشریعتی از این دست است، گفت: فردی به نام هدین در کتابی با عنوان الهیات‌رهایی بخش علی شریعتی مفاهیم غربی در اسلام انقلابی شیعه به این مسئله پرداخته است. هدین توضیح داده است: علی شریعتی به عنوان پیشروترین نماینده الهیات‌رهایی‌بخش در جهان اسلام است. جنگ رهایی‌بخش الجزیره در جریان بود، چه‌گوارا برای حقوق فقرا مبارزه می‌کرد. ماسینیون در خصوص عرفان ایرانی می‌نوشت، شریعتی یک سنتز بین‌رهایی بخشی اسلام، آزادی اگزیستانسیالیستی و عدالت سوسیالیسم را شکل داد...دیدگاه شریعتی در خصوص انسان الهیات رهایی‌بخش او را بیان می‌کند. شریعتی انسان را آزاد، آگاه و آفریننده می‌داند و معتقد است انسان نباید در زیر یوغ استمعار استحمار و استبداد باشد. این کار به بهترین صورت در کتاب «تشیع صفوی و تشیع علوی» انجام شده است.. ».

۳

در سال‌های اخیر نقدهای بسیار تند و بعضا نامنصفانه‌ای از سوی اکبر گنجی بر آرای نواندیشان دینی صورت گرفته است. اما یکی از انتقادات منصفانه گنجی عدم توجه نواندیشی دینی پس از انقلاب به مساله نابرابری بوده است. او در مقایسه نواندیشان پیش و پس از انقلاب در مواجهه با فقر و نابرابری می‌نویسد:

« ..First—Religious New-Thinking before the Revolution: The theological project of religious new-thinkers before the revolution was thoroughly engaged with economic issues and poverty. Ayatollah Taleghani wrote the book Islam and Ownership, one of his works in this area. The sermons of Nahj al-Balagha on this subject drew his close attention, and he constantly—including in the Friday prayers at the beginning of the revolution—expounded upon them. Mehdi Bazargan also attended to economic questions—labor, banking, classes, almsgiving, and leftist leanings—and theorized in this field. A portion of Morteza Motahhari's writings on this topic is collected in the books Theoretical Perspectives on the Islamic Economic System and The Problem of Usury. He also devoted a chapter of the book A Journey through Nahj al-Balagha to the value of justice and invoked the tradition of Ali ibn Abi Talib...He would say that Imam Ali had no interest in government, that Islam does not permit society to be divided into two classes: "the overstuffed, distressed by overeating" and "the hungry, distressed by hunger"...But Ali Shariati is a different story. None of the religious new-thinkers engaged with economics to the extent that he did. Not only was his Islam the Islam of the poor, it was an enemy of poverty, and he constantly cited hadiths saying that when poverty arrives, religion departs. The Class Orientation of Islam and Abu Dharr are two of his writings in this area...He held the belief that: "Economic poverty creates political poverty, and then creates colonialism and economic dependency. Which society in the world today is at a low economic level yet not dependent?"

...Second—Religious New-Thinking after the Revolution: Poverty and destitution have no place in the theology of religious new-thinkers after the revolution. The works of Mostafa Malekian, Abdolkarim Soroush, and Mujtahid Shabestari are devoid of economic issues and poverty. It is as though neither the sacred text (the Book and authentic Tradition) contains any word on this matter requiring interpretation and exegesis, nor is Iranian society afflicted by the problem of poverty and indigence. Arash Naraghi, in his article "Does Bread and Security Take Precedence over Freedom?", has defended the priority of freedom over bread and claims that the problem of poverty can be solved through the expansion of freedom, but the rest of the religious new-thinkers have ignored the problem of poverty. The project of religious new-thinking cannot be indifferent to the problem of structural inequalities. Mostafa Malekian is an advocate of Maslow's hierarchy of needs theory. He defends the priority of satisfying lower needs over higher ones. He has also translated parts of John Rawls's theory of justice into Persian and defends Rawlsian equality. He has also delivered a lecture entitled "Justice and Its Meanings." He has a lecture on the practical conduct of Ali ibn Abi Talib. In it, he explains that Imam Ali sought to eliminate poverty from society through objective methods, but was not entirely successful. For this reason, he also pursued the subjective elimination of poverty. That is, he lived a life of poverty to make the pain and suffering caused by poverty bearable for the poor...Abdolkarim Soroush also attends to various meanings of justice, but his discussion pertains to political justice—that is, freedom and democracy—not social justice.. ».

Although it was said that the inattention of post-revolution religious new-thinkers to the social sphere was due to their greater focus on politics and society, it must be acknowledged that the attention of some religious new-thinkers, following the economic crises of recent years inside the country and life under the shadow of the capitalist system outside Iran, has turned their focus toward the social sphere.

Years of living in the West have recently caused a shift in some of Abdolkarim Soroush's intellectual foundations, drawing him into a reaction against neoliberalism, the capitalist system, and militant secularism, and a turn from the sphere of epistemology to the social sphere. In his lecture Armed Neoliberalism, he has unveiled his doubts about liberalism and his critiques of the capitalist system:

« ..The capitalist system is in fact based on greed, so that you want more and buy more and consume more and waste more and produce more garbage. This system is built in such a way that nothing else comes out of it, and we are all somehow afflicted by this greed, this lust for consumption… This greedy, contentment-killing, false-need-creating system has brought us to the point where we are destroying nature... Liberalism had a presupposition (the innate goodness of man); I have truly been doubting this presupposition for a long time now... Liberalism has not kept its promises... For at least four centuries, since Machiavelli, politics in the West has followed this same path. That is, it is Machiavellianism, without any doubt or reservation! Except this Machiavellianism has become armed; as I said, arms manufacturing and arms dealing have become among its pillars. Pillars that both strengthen the capitalism of this era and bestow a particular order upon the world, and make the powerful more powerful and the needy needier, and for this reason create a vicious cycle from which it is unclear how we can leap out... What capitalism has wanted, what the capitalist system has wanted, is profit-seeking greed. This has happened, and it has happened abundantly, and now that it has happened and taken place and settled in its place and become the requisite of liberalism, morality is also a carriage that has been attached behind this and follows this event, which itself has been subject to the profit-seeking greed of capitalism, and places a seal of approval upon them and says it is permissible! I do not know what future generations will say about us!.. ».

Ultimately, he has declared the solution to lie in collective work, a contented life, and thinking about an alternative to the capitalist system:

« .. But before we arrive at the answers to these very large-scale discussions and issues, which, God willing, we must work on and arrive at collectively because it is the necessity of our time, we must also attend to ourselves a little, and attending to ourselves is that very contented life; this life will at least tell us that we are not one hundred percent satisfied with the status quo, and that this armed Machiavellianism has not been able to fulfill our desires or the desires of the world's people, and it may have greater and more monstrous evils up its sleeve. At least through this way, we can provide a more humane, even more comfortable, more easeful, less sorrowful life... for ourselves, and also teach it to our children and future generations, and then think about how we can pass through these very terrifying mountain passes, and perhaps even propose an alternative to the current order full of evils... ».

Dr. Soroush Dabbagh also speaks of unbridled capitalism and believes that in this situation, one must turn to Shariati: «..Highlighting social democracy and 'social justice' is another of the fine parts of Shariati's legacy, especially considering that we live in a time when we are faced with unbridled capitalism and have palpably felt its negative consequences worldwide.. ».

Recently, too, the neo-Shariatis, in the wake of the economic crisis of the 2010s and social inequalities, have spoken of a return to Shariati, a return to justice. Shariati is, in fact, the bridge between the pre-revolution and post-revolution generations of religious intellectuals. In his personal world, he has his desert-poetry, and for the world around him, his social thought and Islamic thought. He is the connecting point between private religion, which emphasizes personal, inner experiences and individual faith (Soroush–Shabestari–Malekian), and social religion, which emphasizes religious motivation for social movements and changes (Nakhshab–Taleqani–Bazargan). Chamran is the product of the convergence of these two types of insight and the embodiment of Shariati's thoughts. He has both mystical and existential experiences, and had religious motivation in his justice-seeking social activities and freedom-seeking struggles—a Chamran whom Abdolkarim Soroush called a saint of God. But the third dimension influencing Chamran is Imam Musa Sadr, an influence he received from Sadr's empowering and institution-oriented activities, peace-seeking concerns, pluralistic acceptance, human-centered outlook, forbearance, and tolerance—some of these characteristics can also be observed in the disposition of Ayatollah Taleqani. In previous articles, the influence of Shariati–Iqbal's mysticism on Chamran was discussed; the society-oriented and institutionalist teachings of other influential figures in his life should not be forgotten alongside the liberating teachings of Shariati–Iqbal. Chamran considered Bazargan his master and guide, and Taleqani his spiritual father; he also wrote about the influence of Imam Musa Sadr on his growth and development in his will, addressing him:

"...You, my beloved, opened a new world to me so that the great God might test me better and more. You gave me the opportunity to become a moth, to burn, to bring light, to love, to manifest my unique human powers, to traverse Lebanon from east to west and from north to south and offer divine values to all, to show a new, strong, and divine way, to become a manifestation, to become love, to become light, to detach from my own being and dissolve into society, so that I no longer see myself and no longer want myself, to see no one but the Beloved, to choose no path but love and sacrifice, to become acquainted and friendly with death and be freed from all material bonds and shackles…".

To be a multi-dimensional monotheist, one must have a balanced attention to the personal world and the surrounding world. Post-revolution religious intellectuals have advanced the projects of pre-revolution intellectuals in the realm of knowledge and conduct in the personal world; the neo-Shariatis have warned about the neglect of social dimensions and have conducted research on social crises. On the whole, however, later religious intellectualism has focused its main attention on political reform and has neglected social reform. The model of cooperative liberation theology seeks to explain the importance of the social matter alongside political reform and religious reform.

4

The human world has been divided into two parts: the individual world (personal world) and the social world (surrounding world). The individual part of the human world relates to the personal and private lives of human beings and encompasses the moral, mental, psychological, intellectual, etc. dimensions of the individual. The social part of the human world relates to the individual's social life and includes interpersonal relationships and his interaction with other human beings in society. In this series of articles, the individual part of the human world was called the personal world, and its social part the surrounding world, and it was emphasized that ignoring and neglecting either of these worlds leads to a one-dimensional God, one-dimensional monotheism, and one-dimensional conduct. In contrast to the one-dimensional monotheist wayfarer, the multi-dimensional monotheist wayfarer, or in Shariati's terms, the total Muslim, was discussed. Now, the question will be addressed: in this triangle, how should the relationship of its apex—the self (the monotheist wayfarer)—with the apex of God and the apex of creation be in cooperative liberation theology?

Regarding the relationship between the self and God, in the personal world one can be a monotheist in mind and existence and not associate the self or others as partners with God; yet when we are present in the surrounding world, for the sake of socio-political tawhid we must negate domination and the deification of other human beings. In the personal world we have our own spiritual wayfaring and exercises, but when we are present in the surrounding world we pursue our wayfaring through agency, assistance, cooperation, collaboration, and aiding the people. Look at the example of Chamran: his God in the personal world is a transcendent God, but in the surrounding world, God is the companion who opens the way and provides aid; in his mind he is a monotheist, and in the surrounding world, while struggling against wealth, force, and deceit, he has his individual wayfaring, yet social mysticism was equally important to him and he pursued it. In his religious practice, he attended to both dimensions of his human world.

In previous articles describing the multidimensional monotheist, it was said that the multidimensional monotheist (the complete Muslim) has become an active member of existence, is the human axis of change, is in a strategic, universal, and participatory relationship with God, is an agent and a participating member of existence, has a project, is principled and a bearer of character, and is an enabler. Their approach is praxis-oriented and pragmatic. In their worldview, tawhid is not one-dimensional, nor is the mysticism in their wayfaring. Within the environment of the trinity of God, the people, and the self, in their social mysticism—which is a humanist mysticism, existential tawhid, based on a maximal God and God as the companion who opens the way—they move. They seek God's address from the city of the people, and with their God-centered humanism, to the extent of their capacity, like a candle, like a glowworm, they shed light, and in a participatory, project-oriented relationship with God, they engage in empowerment and alleviating the sufferings of the people, and through this they undergo becoming and are placed on the path of Godlikeness and sharing the pain of the realm of existence. Figure 1 shows the theological model of cooperative liberation theology. The model depicts the environment of the multidimensional monotheist's movement within the triangle of God, the people, and the self, and their path of wayfaring from worldview, to conduct based on that worldview, until reaching falāḥ/perfection, which is Godlikeness and sharing the pain of the realm of existence.

Worldview forms the cornerstone of this model. In the words of Shariati in his book Islamshenasi: "...every doctrinal school must have a fundamental base and a cornerstone, a central pillar of the tent upon which all beliefs rest, and that is the doctrinal foundation which every school without exception—whether a divine school or a material school, whether naturalism and materialism, whether idealism, whether fascism, whether Marxism—must have a foundation or 'cornerstone,' and the cornerstone of every school is 'worldview'..."

The spiritual wayfaring that rests upon this tawhidi worldview (encompassing mental-philosophical tawhid in the personal world and socio-political tawhid in the surrounding world) includes individual wayfaring in the personal world and social mysticism in the surrounding world, during which the human being, in becoming, transformation, and inner migration, moves from what is to what ought to be. The ceiling of this wayfaring is reaching falāḥ/perfection, which is Godlikeness and sharing the pain of the realm of existence. In Shariati's words: "...in Islam, the ideal is falāḥ. Of course, with the same measure of semantic difference that exists between liberté and falāḥ. Liberté is merely liberation from a bond, but falāḥ encompasses an existential, evolutionary freedom, not the freeing of an individual from inside a prison. It is not the removal of an obstacle, but a kind of growth, a blossoming... Falāḥ means: 'the existential salvation of the human being.'" Therefore, the roadmap in this model is: spiritual wayfaring based on a tawhidi worldview and cooperation for survival until reaching Godlikeness and falāḥ, by moving within the environment of the triangle of God, the people, and the self.

As stated in the introduction, cooperative liberation theology is a humanist two-world theology. The unity of existence in this theology is a humanist monotheism, which stands in contrast to the unity of being of traditional mystics and the monotheism of fundamentalists, which is God-centered. Humanist mysticism in this theology also stands in contrast to the God-centered mysticism of traditional mystics and the jihadist conduct of fundamentalists. Cooperative liberation theology is a theology with a special emphasis on the role of the human being—a human being who, in the conduct of traditional seekers and jihadist fundamentalists, is effaced, negated, and dissolved before God. On the other hand, in this theology, the human being, unlike in secular humanism, is situated along the path of God, and by emphasizing cooperation, social mutual aid, empowerment, and helping creation, seeks to prevent the operationalization of the idea of the "struggle for existence" in an unequal world under the rule of secular humanism, armed neoliberalism, and unbridled capitalism.

In this article, Ayatollah Taleghani's community-centered doctrine of cooperation for survival was discussed, and a new theological model based on the system of religious new-thinking was presented. In subsequent articles of this series, we will address the doctrines of servant religion and institutionalism of Imam Musa Sadr and Engineer Bazargan, the Shariati-Iqbal doctrine of liberating consciousness, and in the final article, we will examine the capacities and prospects within the school of religious new-thinking for the birth of multi-dimensional monotheists based on cooperative liberation theology.

.

---

.

First Article in the Series on Cooperative Liberation Theology

Cooperative Liberation Theology: Outline of a Humanist Two-World Theology

Author: Mohammad Qotbi

.

---

.