If You Read the Quran in This Manner… (2)

If You Read the Quran in This Manner… (2)

A Look at the Works of Abdolhossein Khosropanah in the Philosophy of Religion and Modern Theology

Amirhossein Khodaparast[1]

Note: This is the second part of an article whose Sedanet first part was published on April 5th. As explained at the beginning of that part, a section of this article was previously published under the title “Can a Plagiarist Be Caught by a Trick?” on Wednesday, February 27, 2018. Given the interval between the publication of that note and the publication of the full article, and the responses it received, some phrases have been omitted here, and responses to the objections of Mr. Khosropanah’s defenders have been included in the text and in two lengthy footnotes. The article concludes with an appendix titled “A Prelude to Another Tale.”

B. In Form

Some of the problems in Khosropanah’s works on the philosophy of religion and modern theology are formal. Below, I will point to several of them:

1_ Some of Khosropanah’s works in the philosophy of religion and modern theology constitute instances of two types of scientific misconduct: 1. self-plagiarism[2] and 2. plagiarism. To explain, self-plagiarism means using one’s own previous works in a new context without indicating their prior publication. Plagiarism is also the use of substantial portions of others’ texts in a way that suggests originality. Even if there are citations in the new text, if the expression of the material is not significantly changed or the quoted material is not placed within quotation marks, the new text constitutes an instance of plagiarism and scientific fraud. Although the executive bylaw of the Law on Prevention and Combating Fraud in the Preparation of Scientific Works has not yet been promulgated, these two cases have already been considered scientific misconduct in some of the country’s scientific journals. In these journals, one of the ethical standards is the prohibition of “copying or repeating substantial parts of another article,” “even if the copied article belongs to one of the authors of the new article” (one of the journals that has explicitly stated these phrases in its guide for authors is the journal Javidan Kherad, belonging to the Iranian Institute of Philosophy, of which Abdolhossein Khosropanah is currently the director).

On this basis, the chapters and sections of Khosropanah's works that have been republished with minor changes in his different books are instances of academic misconduct. These works have, of course, been published by different publishers, but the manner of expressing the subject and its content, compared to the manner of expression and content of the same subject in other works, despite some rearrangements and changes of words, is so similar and, in many cases, identical that it reinforces the suspicion of book-making and academic fraud, especially since the author does not mention his previous writings in this regard and does not even refer to the completion of his earlier works on this topic, as if all these subjects are being presented for the first time. For example, the first and second chapters of New Theological Issues and the Philosophy of Religion are very similar, and in places identical, to the first chapter of New Theology and parts of the first and seventh discourses of Modern Islamic Theology and the third chapter of Humanity's Expectations of Religion. The same point holds true for the eighth and ninth chapters of New Theological Issues and the Philosophy of Religion and the second chapter of New Theology; the tenth and eleventh chapters of New Theological Issues and the Philosophy of Religion and the twelfth chapter of New Theology; large parts of the fourth chapter of New Theological Issues and the Philosophy of Religion and the third discourse of Modern Islamic Theology; almost all of the sixth and seventh chapters of New Theological Issues and the Philosophy of Religion and a large part of the sixth discourse of Modern Islamic Theology; almost the entirety of the eleventh discourse of Modern Islamic Theology and a large part of the eleventh chapter of New Theology; parts of the twelfth discourse of Modern Islamic Theology and the eighth chapter of New Theology; parts of the twenty-first discourse of Modern Islamic Theology and the thirteenth chapter of New Theology; parts of the twenty-second discourse of Modern Islamic Theology and the fifth chapter of New Theology; parts of the twenty-third discourse of Modern Islamic Theology and the ninth chapter of New Theology; considerable parts of the twenty-ninth discourse of Modern Islamic Theology and the fourteenth and sixteenth chapters of New Theology; and parts of the thirty-seventh discourse of Modern Islamic Theology and the sixteenth chapter of New Theological Issues and the Philosophy of Religion. Furthermore, Khosropanah has a book titled Moderate Expectations of Religion, which is, in fact, the same as the seventh, ninth, tenth, eleventh, and twelfth chapters of Modern Islamic Theology. Khosropanah might say that the Basij Organization of University Professors published this book as a selection from Modern Islamic Theology, but, firstly, no such note is given anywhere in the book, and the book has an entirely new form, and, secondly, this book is listed as an independent book on Khosropanah's website, and it is likely that it was also considered independently in his academic promotion.

In any case, due to these repetitions, some of the content flaws enumerated in the section above have appeared in more than one work. Of course, here I have found the repetitions only in a specific field and in some works within this specific field. If the scope of the work were broader and all of Khosropanah's works were examined, the number and volume of these repetitions would probably increase. The fundamental question is: why should so many books be written with repetitive issues and verbatim repetitive content, instead of revising and rewriting? Why does the author not pursue a specific issue and delve deeper into it, instead of transferring his writings sentence by sentence from one book to another?[3]

More regrettable than copying from one’s own works is copying and plagiarizing from the works of others. This has occurred in at least one instance in Khosropanah’s writings related to the philosophy of religion. A significant portion of the fourteenth chapter of New Theological Issues and the Philosophy of Religion is, in fact, a summary and transcription of the fourth chapter of the book Immortality, written by Dr. Reza Akbari, a professor at Imam Sadiq University. In this chapter and the next, Khosropanah refers to Akbari’s book in many places, but the difference between the two chapters is that in the fifteenth chapter, a part of the discussions from the second chapter of Immortality is summarized, whereas in the fourteenth chapter, this summarization is accompanied by transcription. Khosropanah might say that he has also cited Akbari’s writing in this chapter. But the issue is that, firstly, with such a volume of summarization, merely citing at the end of a sentence or paragraph is insufficient, and the author must explicitly state that the material is fundamentally based on a particular source. Moreover, if we take one citation of Akbari’s book as the criterion for Khosropanah’s integrity in summarizing and transcribing from that book, what do we do with the occasional citations to other works that Khosropanah places beneath material actually written by Akbari? Secondly, some citations to Akbari’s book lack page numbers or have incorrect page numbers (for example, the citation on page 252). Thirdly, as it happens, in instances where the material has been transcribed completely or with very minor alterations, there is no citation at all.

Bearing in mind that the instances of transcription are more extensive than those I have provided, and to avoid making the article too long, I am compelled to truncate even these excerpts with an ellipsis ‘...’ in places, consider these examples:

Mediums are one of the subjects researched in the contemporary era within the field of parapsychology. They are individuals who claim to be able to communicate with spirits and convey their messages to the living. Mediums are divided into mental mediums (trance mediums) and physical mediums. If mental mediums wish to establish communication with spirits, they sit calmly in a chair and close their eyes. After a while, the medium begins to breathe deeply, snore softly, and struggle, taking on the state of a person who has fallen into a deep but restless sleep and is suffering from a nightmare. After a few minutes, they assume a calmer state, and a kind of whispering can be heard, such that the impression is created that the medium is talking to themselves. After some time, the medium begins speaking aloud. In this state, the medium’s voice and demeanor change, and sometimes their speech uses words completely different from their ordinary manner of speaking... (Akbari, pp. 312-313).

“Mediums” are individuals who claim to be able to communicate with spirits and convey their messages to the living. Mediums are divided into “mental mediums” and “trance mediums”: a mental medium sits calmly in a chair and closes their eyes. After a while, the medium begins to breathe deeply and snore. In this state, the medium takes on the state of a person who has fallen into a deep but restless sleep and is suffering from a nightmare. They calm down after a few minutes. In this state, a kind of whispering can be heard. Then the medium begins to speak aloud. In this state, the condition of the voice and the medium’s demeanor changes, to the point where sometimes their speech uses words completely different from ordinary speech...” (Khosropanah, p. 250).

The amusing point in this transcription is that Khosropanah, through carelessness, mistakes the mental and trance mediums—which Akbari presents as two different terms for one type of medium—for two distinct categories, thereby ruining Akbari’s classification. A little later, he mentions “physical mediums,” whereas, due to this blunder, the “physical medium” as the second category of mediums is never actually introduced to the reader. As I mentioned earlier, this material is also repeated in the third volume of Modern Islamic Theology. For this reason, this error is repeated in that book as well (pp. 430-431). The next instance:

Another phenomenon that parapsychology investigates is the phenomenon of near-death perceptual experiences. In some cases, individuals who are medically apparently dead—meaning their heart and brain show no activity—are revived. Some of these individuals have reported that after death, they perceived realities completely different from material realities... If we disregard the minor differences in the perceptions of such individuals, the general characteristics are as follows: a sensation of leaving the body and floating above it, hearing a loud sound at the beginning of the subsequent perceptions, a feeling of being drawn into a dark tunnel, entering a luminous and bright realm, meeting deceased friends and relatives, encountering a luminous being of immense attractiveness..., approaching a boundary that is the border between worldly and otherworldly life, returning to the world and the worldly body, and the reactivation of bodily functions such as heartbeat and brain waves. Usually, those who have such experiences develop a different conception of death and have no fear of it... (Akbari, p. 324).

Another phenomenon that "parapsychologists" investigate is near-death perceptual experiences. In some cases, individuals who are medically truly dead, with no heart or brain activity, are revived. Some of these individuals have reported that after death, they perceived realities completely different from material realities. If we disregard the minor differences in these reports, we can enumerate their general characteristics as follows: a sensation of leaving the body and floating above it, hearing a loud sound, a feeling of being drawn into a dark tunnel, entering a luminous and bright realm, meeting deceased friends and relatives, and in some cases encountering a luminous being of immense attractiveness, and after passing through these stages, approaching worldly life again, returning to the body, and finally the reactivation of bodily organs, such as the heart and brain. These individuals usually develop a different interpretation of death and no longer fear it (Khosropanah, pp. 252-253).

Interestingly, at the end of this paragraph, Khosropanah, on his own account, refers to John Hick's book Philosophy of Religion! The next case:

Moral arguments concerning immortality begin in earnest with Kant. Kant was a philosopher in the Wolffian tradition, and Wolff is among the Cartesian philosophers; therefore, we must characterize him as an extreme rationalist. Kant grew up in such a tradition, that is, extreme rationalism. But, in his own words, through studying Hume's works, he was awakened from the dogmatic slumber of extreme rationalism. Hume is an empiricist philosopher who casts doubt on many of the prominent philosophical issues of his time... The issues raised by Hume had a tremendous impact on Kant. In the Critique of Pure Reason, Kant, like Hume, adopted the view that reason is incapable of proving the existence of God, human free will, and the immortality of the soul. He came to believe that reason issues antinomies in the aforementioned domains, but unlike Hume, who had adopted a skeptical stance, he stated that by moving beyond the domain of theoretical reason and entering the realm of practical reason, one can find grounds for belief in the existence of God, the existence of free will in humans, and the existence and immortality of the soul... (Akbari, pp. 340-341).

Moral arguments concerning "immortality" begin in earnest with Kant. He was initially attached to the Wolffian tradition, which was considered a Cartesian rationalism. Kant grew up in such a tradition. But, in his own words, through studying Hume's works, he was awakened from the dogmatic slumber of extreme rationalism. Hume is an empiricist philosopher who casts doubt on many prominent philosophical issues. From the position of a skeptic, the issues raised by Hume had a tremendous impact on Kant. In the Critique of Pure Reason, Kant, like Hume, holds the view that reason is incapable of proving the existence of God, human free will, and immortality. He came to believe that reason issues antinomies in the aforementioned domains, but unlike Hume, who had fallen into skepticism, he concluded that by moving beyond the domain of theoretical reason and entering the realm of practical reason, one can find grounds for belief in the existence of God, the existence of free will in humans, and the existence and immortality of the soul... (Khosropanah, pp. 254-255).

These lines and the ones that follow are merely Akbari’s introduction to his own discussion and some simple points from the history of philosophy, yet Khosropanah has copied even these. The next instance:

Fideism – Fideism is a view that considers the presentation of rational arguments concerning religious propositions to be futile, even harmful. We will first explain two types of fideism that have had greater prevalence in the history of human thought, so as to prepare the ground for the discussion of immortality in this domain. 1. Kierkegaardian Fideism – Kierkegaard is a philosopher who today falls within the school of existentialist philosophers. In his thought, faith occupies a lofty position… Kierkegaard believes that truth is subjective and that seeking it through objective arguments is an inappropriate and even harmful affair. From “truth is subjectivity” three reasons can be found for the non-objectivity of truth, arguments that Robert Merrihew Adams refers to by the titles the Approximation Argument, the Postponement Argument, and the Passion Argument… (Akbari, pp. 350-351).

Fideism – Fideism is a view in which the presentation of rational arguments concerning religious propositions is considered futile or even harmful. Fideism in the history of thought is mainly expressed through two approaches, which we will briefly explain here: 1. Kierkegaardian Fideism – Kierkegaard is an existentialist philosopher in whose thought faith enjoys a lofty position. He believes that “truth” is subjective and that seeking it through objective arguments is an inappropriate and even harmful affair. He deems the use of reason in the domain of religion inappropriate for three reasons… (Khosropanah, p. 257).

In what follows, Khosropanah summarizes and copies from Akbari’s book all three of Kierkegaard’s reasons (whose name he has, of course, altered the pronunciation of to Kierkegaard) and Wittgensteinian fideism. It is interesting that Akbari mentions the names Adams gave to Kierkegaard’s reasons and provides references both to Kierkegaard and to Adams (both texts were translated into Persian years ago by Mostafa Malekian), but Khosropanah sees no need to reproduce or cite those references.

Unfortunately, scientific misconduct has become so entrenched in the country’s academic environment that discussion of it has crossed the boundaries of the scientific community and spilled over into the public sphere, and has even moved beyond domestic reactions, eliciting international responses. Nevertheless, the misconduct referred to here is not merely one more instance added to prior frauds and violations. This time, the perpetration of such unscientific, unethical, and illegal behavior is being exposed on the part of someone who, aside from his clerical status, holds highly influential positions in the country’s academic and seminary institutions, including: Secretary and Vice-Chair of the Board of Support for Theory-Creation, Critique, and Debate Chairs; a full member of the Council for the Transformation and Promotion of the Humanities in Iran; a member of the Council for the Islamization of Universities; and the President of the Iranian Institute of Philosophy. My question is this: Does what is set forth in the Law on the Prevention of and Combating Fraud in the Preparation of Scientific Works, to use the parlance of politicians, also apply to the big fish?[4]

2_ The structure of Khosropanah's works often appears chaotic and peculiar. For example, in the second part of Human Expectations of Religion, the aim is to examine

It seems that in these cases, and most likely in the few instances where the work's details are correctly written, Khosropanah has converted all indirect citations into direct ones. An indirect citation is when the author quotes a point or a passage through another source and has not seen the original source themselves. In such circumstances, meaning when the author has not seen the original source, they are obliged, after mentioning the details of the original source, to also cite the details of the intermediary source with the phrase

And now three concluding points: First, I suspect that Iran’s philosophical community, by ignoring the works of Khosropanah and their ilk and by not criticizing them, opens up a space conducive to their growth, the harms of which affect the entire scientific community of the country. Examining and criticizing these works, although it takes up a portion of people’s mental energy and useful time and certainly entails difficulties and bitter, unpleasant consequences, is a price that can, and must, be paid courageously with the intention of reforming Iran’s scientific and cultural situation, with the intention of helping Iran’s knowledge-seeking youth to distinguish the genuine from the spurious and philosophy from pseudo-philosophy. Second, it would be good for the country’s high-ranking officials and those in charge of the university system to pay attention to how a person with such a record can swiftly climb the ranks of this system and not only attain the academic rank of “professor” but also assume highly influential positions. I have no business with Mr. Khosropanah personally or his character; nor do I have any business with the very dire consequences and effects of his mismanagement at the Iranian Institute of Philosophy; although I consider it unlikely, I hope his reaction to this piece will not be anger, malice, and vengefulness, but rather fair-minded, critical, courageous, and honorable self-reflection, and that in this respect he becomes an ethical and scholarly model. My question is for the policymakers and officials of higher education: why have procedures become current in the university system that have yielded such results, and why, upon observing these results, do the influential and decision-making bodies in scientific policy not only fail to take serious action to reform the procedures, but also place the products of this crooked system in important and key positions? Third, and perhaps most importantly, the works I have named in this piece were apparently written to defend religious teachings, to instruct them, and to promote them. If even a corner, and only a corner, of the criticisms I have brought in this note is correct, it is better, out of faith-based concern and to defend religious teachings, to instruct them, and to promote them, at least until the effects of self-reflection become manifest in Mr. Khosropanah, to say to him: “For God’s sake, do not read,” lest you “diminish the splendor of Islam.”

Appendix: The Opening of Another Tale

I know I have taken a great deal of the reader’s time. But when I was looking over the list of Abdolhossein Khosropanah’s works, I noticed an interesting point which, although unrelated to the subject of this article, I would regret not expressing. That interesting point is that some of the individuals who have been co-authors with Khosropanah in works, or whom he has thanked in the introduction of his book for their help, or who have written works about him, have attained positions at the Iranian Institute of Philosophy during the years of his presidency there. Among them, the co-author with Khosropanah of the book Shariati, Religion and Society and some scientific-research articles, and one of the authors of the book Islamic Anthropology (compiled under Khosropanah’s supervision), has become a faculty member and the head of the Institute’s branch in Qom, which Khosropanah established upon his arrival at the Institute. Another of the authors of the book Islamic Anthropology is also the compiler of a book titled An Introduction to Soft War, one of whose interviews is with Khosropanah. He has also been a co-author with Khosropanah in some scientific-research articles and is now a faculty member of the Institute.[6]

There are also more recent examples of such occurrences: the co-author with Khosropanah of the books Epistemic Realism, Analysis of Knowledge, and the forthcoming The Nature of the Human Affair: Applying Neo-Sadrian Anthropology in the Social Sciences; the editor of Khosropanah's lectures in the form of the books The Production and Formation of Islamic Humanities and Methodology of the Social Sciences, the forthcoming Social Ideologies, and the compiler of the book The Philosophical and Jurisprudential Thoughts of Martyr Ayatollah Seyyed Mohammad Baqir al-Sadr—who entered the Iranian Institute of Philosophy along with Khosropanah, was appointed director of the president's office, and then became a doctoral student at the Institute in the philosophy of science program—was fortunate enough that, on the very morning of the day he was to defend his doctoral dissertation in the afternoon, he took the Institute's faculty recruitment exam and was selected for membership on the faculty of the Institute's Department of Science Studies. He, who by his own account is "a research assistant to Professor Khosropanah," has, after joining the faculty, established a course at the Institute on "Research Article Writing Skills."[7] Last month as well, faculty members suddenly found another person as their colleague who, as it happens, had Khosropanah as his doctoral dissertation supervisor. An internet search shows he is Khosropanah's co-author on two scientific-research articles. One of these articles was also published in the journal Epistemological Studies at the Islamic University, of which Khosropanah is a member of the editorial board! In addition to these, one of the Institute's doctoral students in Islamic Philosophy, who wrote an article in the thirtieth issue of Javidan Kherad (Fall and Winter 2016) titled "A New Explanation of the Principality of 'Existence and Quiddity' from the Perspective of Professor Khosropanah," and in a note beneath the article considered it "the fruit of the lectures of Professor Abdolhossein Khosropanah [i.e., the Institute's president and the journal's managing director] for doctoral students of Transcendent Philosophy at the Iranian Institute of Philosophy,"[8] is currently, while completing his studies, working as the executive officer of the Institute's national research project on the critical edition and publication of Avicenna's works. Given the precedents, one must now wait and see when and how his fortune will bloom.

It is, in itself, very interesting and worthy of reflection that most of these individuals are the very ones who apparently fulfill the duties of friendship and collaboration, and in the face of scholarly and managerial criticisms of Abdolhossein Khosropanah, shield him, dismissing the criticisms as irrelevant, politicized, accusatory, and insulting. May God reward them well and multiply their likes! One can certainly be very, very optimistic and, in a climate where a multitude of philosophy graduates with master's and doctoral degrees are helpless in securing a proper livelihood through the discipline they studied, their hopes pinned on the occasional calls for philosophy positions in scholarship or faculty recruitment announcements by the Ministry of Science, consider the points of connection among all the aforementioned events (as well as the scholarships of the Iranian Institute of Philosophy, awarded while most faculty members were unaware) to be coincidental and a matter of fate and destiny. Yet, the expectation remains that they should at least provide an explanation and demonstrate that the procedures related to these coincidences were transparent, fair, lawful, and science-oriented, and not, for instance, the dispensing of the country's higher education system's academic posts to supporters, devotees, and "helpers."

At any rate, one of those described above has published a piece in which he says that Khosropanah is a “line-breaker” in knowledge and has shown “the utmost courage and endured the greatest bitterness” on this path, and that he is someone who, when “many people” did not understand “many issues,” “wrote the scholarly book New Kalām and in it ‘thoroughly analyzed many of the intellectual problems and difficulties of the seventies and eighties [decades].’” Thus, Khosropanah’s works “each filled a gap and the caravan of knowledge advanced a step.” The author says, “but these days I have a grievance against” Khosropanah because he has “heard” that a “defamatory screed” containing “insults, abuse, and barbed remarks” has been compiled and “those who claim affiliation with the discipline of ethics insulted [him] with an intellectual pose,” while “if an opponent of this group does not write a book, he is accused of illiteracy, and if he does write a book, he is condemned for book-fabrication.” In short, the grievance “against the master is: why did you pay attention to these voices?”; you whose interlocutors were “Dr. Seyyed Hossein Nasr and Dr. Soroush… and Dr. Shabestari and Dr. Paya and Master Mostafa Malekian” and “every moment of your life… is precious,” “do not waste your time on individuals who have published a few articles in several years…” because when I [presumably based on those same “hearsay” accounts], “asked master’s students to write a scholarly rebuttal, even they refused.”

Another person from the same circle has inverted his colleague’s honor of Khosropanah’s association with Malekian (for reasons that will become apparent, as you well know!) and his one-sided (!) address to Soroush, calling the critics “the handy tools of the Dabbaghs” and saying they are “extremely illiterate” individuals “who spent their foundational periods of study in technical fields and suddenly take up philosophy [sic]”; as if studying basic sciences or electrical engineering at the best universities in Iran and the world indicates low intelligence and lack of aptitude for philosophy, while studying jurisprudence indicates intelligence and philosophical talent. The same person, in response to a different critique and insinuation regarding Mr. Khosropanah, has written: “Nowadays, sneering at philosophers such as Khosropanah… is considered the common currency of intellectualism; yet what has thought to do with these journalistic expressions?!”.

Here I do not wish to respond to the insulting remarks of those whose first encounter with a few short scholarly articles has been to call them insulting (as if, when someone states something based on facts, saying that another has been careless, or has not understood a certain issue, or that their writings are chaotic and confused in terms of composition and editing, or has substituted names, terms, and tables of contents for report, analysis, and critique, or has written something that would not be accepted even from an undergraduate student, or has engaged in book-making, or has committed plagiarism, constitutes an insult to them): "And those who do not bear false witness, and when they pass by vain talk, pass by with dignity." I also set aside the deep regret that we are living through a time in which the words "philosopher," "professor," and "sage" are bought and sold for a paltry price. My purpose in quoting the above statements is to say that I know Mr. Khosropanah's defenders will probably once again say such things about this writing and its author as well, and will consider it the product of a dangerous conspiracy and a political mission on the part of the counter-revolutionary opposition, pseudo-intellectuals, the impious, the undiscerning, seditionists, and infiltrators (even within the families of martyrs!), which it is the duty of the responsible authorities to confront (my faculty membership at the Iranian Institute of Philosophy will presumably make such confrontation easier!).[9] Also, I know that they will probably drag the discussion toward the tone of the writing, the manner of expression, and the time and place of the publication of the material, and instead of addressing the criticisms and responding to them, they will try to erase the issue by fabricating an oppressor and feigning victimhood, drawing on political and cultural sensitivities, and, of course, mobilizing guardians in the virtual space. No matter! Impartial, informed, and interested readers can themselves read the works in question and judge their scholarly dignity and credibility. The value and permanence of scholarly works are ultimately determined as a result of these very judgments, not by gold, force, and exorbitant rents: "He sends down water from the sky, and the valleys flow according to their measure, and the torrent carries a rising foam. And from that which they heat in the fire, desiring ornaments or utensils, is a foam like it. Thus does God present truth and falsehood. As for the foam, it vanishes as scum; but as for that which benefits the people, it remains on the earth. Thus does God present examples."

* The bibliographic details of the works by Abdolhossein Khosropanah mentioned in this writing are as follows:

Khosropanah, Abdolhossein (2000), New Theology, Qom: Center for Cultural Studies and Research of the Seminary, First Edition.

Khosropanah, Abdolhossein (2007), Human Expectations of Religion, Tehran: Research Institute for Islamic Culture and Thought, Second Edition.

Khosropanah, Abdolhossein (2009), New Theological Issues and Philosophy of Religion, Qom: Al-Mustafa International Publications, First Edition.

Khosropanah, Abdolhossein (2011), Moderate Expectations of Religion, Tehran: Organization for the Mobilization of University and Higher Education Center Professors, First Edition.

Khosropanah, Abdolhossein (2015), Modern Islamic Theology, Qom: Islamic Education and Training, Second Edition (3 volumes).

.

---

.

[1] Faculty member of the Iranian Institute of Philosophy

[2] self-plagiarism

[3]  In response to my claim, someone wrote a piece titled “Self-Plagiarism: Unethical or Inaccurate,” stating that after consulting with legal experts, they concluded that “no law in the country prohibits a researcher from quoting their own material.” Another person, in an overly dramatic piece titled “Revenge in the Dark,” repeated the same point. Both are correct. However, I also did not refer to a law in the country concerning self-plagiarism. What I said was that we have a law whose bylaw is being drafted. It is clear that Khosropanah’s self-plagiarism is not currently covered by this law, but his plagiarism of others does fall within the scope of the law, a point we will return to later. Nevertheless, I once again draw the attention of these defenders of Khosropanah to the fact that the journal he himself directs, along with many other academic-research journals, has recognized self-plagiarism and stated that they will not accept articles from authors who engage in such practices. Many of Khosropanah’s self-copyings happen to date from the period when he was the director of Javidan Kherad, not “Khosropanah’s books over the past twenty years,” as the esteemed defender has claimed. In short, what I referred to as the phenomenon of “self-plagiarism” is condemned in all reputable academic centers worldwide and is considered an instance of scientific misconduct. Moreover, the problem seems to lie elsewhere: I seriously doubt how Khosropanah’s defenders conveyed the matter to those “legal experts and authorities in the field of intellectual property,” and I draw their attention to the fact that Khosropanah did not “quote” his previous material—in which case there would be no issue; Khosropanah “copied” his previous material. More amusingly, and more regrettably for those who claim academic standing, is the act of Khosropanah’s defenders in comparing his copying to “a collection of articles that have been turned into a book.” The aforementioned writings by Khosropanah are not a collection of his articles or lectures that were published once in a journal and then again, with the original source cited, as part of a book or one of the book’s articles. Khosropanah’s defenders have presumably seen, as I have, that authors mention the time and place of a lecture or the initial publication of a work in the introduction or in a footnote. But the indicated works by Khosropanah are independent works in which the author has copied his previously used material from one or more places, without citing the original sources, verbatim into another place or places. This is not called “republication”; this is called “book-making.” In addition to all this, it is unclear what kind of ethical justification it is to say “others have done such things too”! “Book-making” is unethical and illegal, even if another thinker, Iranian or Western, has committed it. One of the defenders turned the issue back on me and asked: “Has Mr. Khodaparast ever presented an article whose phrases are exactly the same as the content of his other works?” Unlike their master, I do not have many works. But if they can extract and demonstrate a copying similar to Khosropanah’s self-copyings from my few writings, I will, while apologizing to the academic community, return any benefit I may have received from that copying to the Muslim public treasury or wherever they deem appropriate, though I will not relinquish the truth of my words about Khosropanah’s scientific self-plagiarism; naturally, because that has nothing to do with this!

[4] In response to this criticism, one of Khosropanah’s defenders took a photo of the last page of the book’s introduction, posted it in Telegram groups, and after citing “Bismillah al-Rahman al-Rahim,” wrote, “I wish the author of this text, before seeking to accuse others, would pay more attention to the identity and particulars of the books he himself cites,” and concluded that the photo “reveals the truth or falsehood of my accusations.” First, I would amicably advise this esteemed colleague to utter the blessed phrase “Bismillah al-Rahman al-Rahim” in his heart and not expend it on such occasions, for this invocation neither makes his words more correct nor mine more false. Second, I saw nothing significant on the identity page or the book cover except that the author’s name is Abdolhossein Khosropanah! On the page he refers to, Khosropanah thanks several people, including the author of the article “Revenge in the Dark,” who “assisted me in preparing and compiling this collection.” Another person has made a remark similar to this defender’s: “The writer, in order not to be left behind the caravan of slander, did not have the time to study the book properly and realize that Dr. Khosropanah, who is accused of summarizing, copying, and plagiarism, is not the author of the mentioned section. Rather, someone else wrote that section. They probably expect that in works such as collections of articles or collaborative research, the person whose name is on the book should check all the citations of other researchers!!” First, from the totality of Khosropanah’s defenders’ arguments, it remains unclear whether the copying is a wrongful act committed by others (the claim of that colleague and this defender) or a proper act with sufficient citations (the claim of the author of “Revenge in the Dark,” who assisted Khosropanah and presumably must also accept responsibility for the manner of his assistance by writing an article in his defense and settling his own affair). This confusion itself sufficiently speaks to the truth. Second, that colleague and this defender apparently do not know the difference between “authorship” and “assisting,” or are so mesmerized by the “master’s” writings that they have forgotten the difference. If they are so keen to emphasize this point, I must say, yes, I too guessed that perhaps those individuals “assisted” in a different way, but does this absolve Khosropanah of responsibility? Does it change the responsible author of the book? Did Khosropanah not claim this book as his own in his so-called academic promotion? Did he not benefit from the advantages of its publication? Is it unclear on the official bibliographic record on the National Library website (http://opac.nlai.ir/opac-prod/bibliographic/3472961) who the author of the book is? Moreover, it is clear that I expect someone whose name appears on a book to at least take the trouble to read the text and rectify any possible academic misconduct. One defender has stated, “Mr. Khodaparast... has pointed to the citations, but this amount of citation did not satisfy him!! Those involved in scholarly research know that citation methods do not have a fixed ruler. Citing in every line is considered undesirable by many researchers, especially in works selected for teaching, where the principle is to reduce citations.” I do not know why he was so astonished by reading my text, but his statement that citation has no fixed ruler is a clear instance of weakening my claim, as if I am saying a citation must be given in every line. This manner of response sufficiently shows that he himself is not “involved in scholarly research.” It would have been good for him to ask himself, even assuming the citations to Akbari’s book are sufficient, what the fabrication of an extra citation for a text actually written by Akbari, or changing “Kierkegaard” to “Kierkegaard” or “parapsychology” to “parapsychologists,” was truly meant to cover up. But unfortunately, in his defense of the “master,” he is so hasty, frantic, and furious that in a four-paragraph text, besides launching an irrelevant attack on the faculty members of the Iranian Institute of Philosophy, he has twice threatened me with legal action. To him, to Khosropanah’s other defenders, and to Khosropanah himself—who, at the slightest criticism, are constantly on the phone and pen in hand, threatening people with dismissal, disrupting their work, cutting off their livelihoods during Ramadan, and revoking their Citizen store vouchers (!)—I recommend that they frighten those who are frightened by such threats! Rest assured, I am not one of them, and I would be very happy for this matter to be raised before the Faculty Members’ Violations Board or any other tribunal to determine who is speaking sincerely.

[5] It should be noted that none of Khosropanah's books have been published by private publishers. All of his works, without exception, have been published by state publishers or those reliant on state support.

[6] As a reminder, it is worth knowing that issue number 19 of the Institute's scientific-research journal, Javidan Kherad, published articles by both of these individuals, and by another person, all of whom became faculty members of the Institute just before defending their doctoral dissertations, right before their faculty membership. This issue bears the date Summer 2011 on its cover but was published in Autumn 2012. The publication of these articles, considering their dates of receipt and acceptance at the end of 2011 and the beginning of 2012, was highly unexpected because it apparently indicated that the journal had no articles from before February 2011 that it finally wanted to publish in Autumn 2012. This, of course, is somewhat strange for a journal like Javidan Kherad, with the reputation it had at that time. Kaveh Lajevardi pointed this out at the time.

[7] In Telegram discussions, he has called Khosropanah's transcription from himself and others a "slip," the "exploitation of whose occurrence" "in years when such regulations were not at all in question" he does not consider "an ethical method for defamation," and says that even he himself might "inadvertently have some problems in" his writings "when using his notes 'sixteen, seventeen years ago'" [meaning 'occur']. I leave it to the reader to judge whether that volume of transcription is a "slip in using notes" or "academic fraud" and "book-making," and whether such phenomena are related to the regulations of recent years or not. Regarding the accusation of "exploitation for defamation" that he has leveled against me, I say nothing and only wish for him conscientiousness and fairness, and for the participants in his classes, ethical integrity in academic research.

[8] This, too, is presumably a new model of scientific-research articles! Right here, I suggest that researchers in research ethics choose the situation of the scientific-research quarterly Javidan Kherad as a subject for a case study. Now that there is apparently no hope for oversight by official authorities in these areas, my suggestion might at least have some scientific and ethical benefit.

[9] I see no need to mention the pressures that have been exerted in recent months, not only on me for certain administrative criticisms but, under the pretext of confronting me, on a significant portion of the Institute's staff. Nevertheless, it is appropriate to point to the dawn of a new phase of confrontations that Abdolhossein Khosropanah, after the publication of part of this article, has disseminated in the public sphere in the form of tweets, seizing upon the fact that my father was martyred during the imposed war: "In our society, there are families of martyrs and veterans who do not flaunt their self-sacrifice before others and grow through their own abilities without taking advantage of any privilege, although some may obtain degrees through privileges and speak against the system"; "Moral health is a divine blessing, not an inherited matter. I know a child of a martyr who, with the appearance of an educated person but in reality illiterate, tries to lie, destroy, and most importantly, does not even observe family honor"; "The criterion for any individual's religiosity and morality must be sought in their own behavior. Being a privileged offspring or the child of a martyr or veteran is not the standard. Sometimes the child of a martyr, whose father was martyred with sincerity and in defense of the homeland, is filled with moral vices." If you place these phrases alongside the phrases that Khosropanah and some of his defenders have used about other critical friends who have borne the hardship and risk of reading and critiquing writings by Khosropanah, then the caliber of their claims in science and ethics will become clear. Let me say here that I will soon publish an account of my experiences and observations from the Iranian Institute of Philosophy in a piece titled "What I Have Seen at the Society for Wisdom and Philosophy," covering my time as a student (2010-2014) and as a faculty member (2015 to the present).