From Contentment with a Tin-Shack Slum to the Slogan of Civilization-Building

I am grateful to Mr. Mohammad-Taqi Akbarnejad for deeming the note “Contemporary Ancients” worthy of critique. The gist of his argument is that Western civilization has had some successes in improving human life, but its destination is false and hellish.

Dear Mr. Akbarnejad, such responses rest on the presupposition that our confrontation with the world is a confrontation between faith and unbelief or atheism; that we are on the front of truth and faith, and the opposing group is on the front of unbelief and falsehood. Thus, all their virtues are worthless, and all our flaws and failures are not so significant as to make us doubt our path and righteousness for a moment. I will say in passing that if the mere claim of religiosity and acting upon outward religious forms were sufficient, you would be right; but if the criterion for commitment to God’s religion also includes wisdom, the pursuit of justice, fairness, and altruism, then perhaps it is we who need to be guided and return to the path of the prophets, not others.

I fear it will be of no avail on the Day of Reckoning— The Sheikh’s lawful bread, from our unlawful water.

Even if we accept that the front opposing us is unbelief and falsehood, how do we know that we are the truth? Are wars only between truth and falsehood? If two groups array themselves against each other, is one necessarily truth and the other falsehood? No! Many wars are between two falsehoods. You have written: “The majority of people follow this mount; just as throughout history, they rejected the prophets (peace be upon them).” This judgment of yours means that modern human civilization stands in opposition to the path of the prophets, and that gravitating toward this civilization is a rejection of the prophets. Tell me precisely which part of this civilization opposes the prophets, and which part of our record is the pride of the prophets? I know that on such occasions, you recall the recognition of homosexual rights in some Western countries, but it would be good if, besides this, you would write a list of the contradictions between modern human civilization and the path of the prophets so that we might discuss each one. However, the issue of homosexuality, which has become the refrain of such discussions, is not so complicated. The foundation of this civilization is refraining from interfering in the personal affairs of human beings, without passing judgment on them. Civilizations are not meant to do the work of religions. That which must stand against such behaviors is religion and ethics; the task of civilization is to create a platform for the individual and social flourishing of talents. Does the activity of mosques and churches in a civilized country signify that country’s inclination toward Islam or Christianity, for the activity of other groups to carry the same meaning?

As for your likening civilization to a mount or a terminal bus—although there is no disputing metaphors—know that it is precisely this view of civilization that has caused us, with such meager means, to fancy ourselves civilization-builders. Dear brother, civilization is in one of two states: it is either alive or dead. A dead and static civilization has no external existence, and a living, dynamic civilization has no fixed destination or pre-written itinerary that we might liken it to terminal buses. If civilization is alive, it is constantly making choices and is perpetually in a state of self-correction and repair. Civilization is not an object for which one can write a program and steer it in a particular direction. Civilization is the innermost civic identity of a civilized nation.

Friends like you usually say that we wish to emulate the Prophet. Very well! Now, why have you begun with the Prophet in Medina? The noble Prophet of Islam first spent thirteen years in Mecca speaking of God, monotheism, and worship, and when he was compelled to migrate to Medina, he also assumed the leadership of the city there. Why have we begun with leadership, civilization-building, and taking charge? You would probably say that there was no possibility of governance in Mecca. I would say, why not say that in Medina he was compelled to place himself at the head of the establishment? Why should we consider Medina the principle and Mecca the subsidiary?

You have written that God has not left humankind without a plan. Yes, He has not left them without one, but this does not mean that He has entrusted the destiny of humanity to you and your understanding of ancient texts. But as for what plan God has for humankind, that is the very crux of the dispute between people like me and people like you, which must be discussed separately.

A final word: you have said that we are not after this world, that we do not envy Western civilization. We are content with our own religious tin-shack slum... Firstly, if you are content with a tin-shack slum, what is this slogan of civilization-building that you have raised? Secondly, if that is the case, why did you not say this to the people from the beginning? Why did you promise the people a better world, and why, whenever you need the people's support, do you still speak of wanting to build a better world for them? Moreover, if you are not after this world, that is your prerogative, but there may be those who wish to have a good and comfortable world. Just as they have nothing to do with you, are you willing to not emerge from your cave of asceticism and austerity and leave the people to themselves?

.

---

.

From Contentment with a Tin-Shack Slum to the Slogan of Civilization-Building

Reza Babaei's Response to the Critique of Mohammad-Taqi Akbarnejad

.

---

.