What Does Religious Intellectualism Stand For?

Seddiqeh Qotbi: It seems to me that among religious intellectuals, despite all the differences of opinion and diversity of interpretations, one can find common threads and unique core themes. Here, I will articulate my own understanding of the characteristics of religious intellectualism:

▪One.

Religions are, more or less, the offspring of their founders' connection with the spiritual dimension of the world, and what we possess under the name of a religious text is the product of the contact that the founder of the religion had with the transcendent or the sacred reality. Therefore, religion does not take the place of science, nor of philosophy, nor of art. Science, philosophy, and art each access certain frontiers of the world through their own special methods and then, with their own language and logic, allow us to share in their approaches. The different nature of religions from other human ways is such that it leaves no ground for conflict. What we know as the conflict between science and religion or the conflict between philosophy (rational approaches) and religion is, in truth, the conflict of the historical and accidental dimensions of religion with science and philosophy. The truth of religion, which is the offspring of contact with the spiritual dimension of the world, does not crowd out other ways of looking at the world.

▪Two.

The primary mission of religion is to draw our attention and turn our gaze toward the sacred truth and the transcendent reality of existence. It is a call and a summons that seeks to remedy our spiritual slumber. It is an invitation to transcend material and self-centered calculations and the lower orders of existence toward realms that are brighter, more transcendent, and more meaning-generating. The main mission of religions is to turn our attention from the cocoon of the self and self-interested, materialistic relations to a higher existence, and in a word, to call us to "faith." The soul of religions is the invitation to the transcendent realm, and the core of religion is the cure for our spiritual slumber. The rest are husks, metaphors, forms, coverings, and historical molds that were meant to serve that precious soul. Hence, most of the stories, metaphors, belief systems, and social instructions are, by nature, outside the mission of religions. The fruit of this view is religious intellectualism's significant attention to faith, spiritual transcendence-seeking, and the meaning-giving and soul-nourishing property of religion, rather than to "theology" or "jurisprudence." Thus, the ethical and mystical dimensions of religions are placed at the center of religious intellectualism's concern.

▪Three.

Since the mission of religion is to create a "relationship" with the spiritual dimension of the world, and a deep and authentic relationship is a natural, free, and spontaneous outpouring arising from the totality of an individual's being, one cannot and should not seek to expand or deepen religion in people's consciences through coercive mechanisms and the application of external pressures. Religion is the conquest of souls and is not achieved by overpowering bodies. Thus, religious intellectualism considers the truth of religiosity to be an individual matter, arising from the individual's awareness and choice, and opposes any use of force and pressure to support religion. In the understanding of religious intellectualism, the establishment of religion is not realized through religious government. The establishment of religion is the glorious presence of God within human beings, not symbolic and identity-forming ornaments and appearances in the public sphere. Thus, religious intellectualism inclines toward individualism, individual freedoms, and social and political relations appropriate to the nature of faith, and one can loosely call religious intellectualism a liberal religiosity. The nature of religious intellectualism's view of the truth of religion, faith, and spiritual transcendence necessitates that it be a supporter and advocate of democratic mechanisms and faithful to freedom.

▪Four.

Since religious intellectualism views religions as valuable sources alongside other sources of knowledge, it is not single-sourced and does not consider itself independent of humanity's epistemic endeavors in various fields. Yes, other religious people also refer to other sources of knowledge, but they measure and judge everything under and in the shadow of their religious perspective. Religion sits in the highest seat of judgment and has an indisputable decree over other realms. In the understanding of religious intellectualism, the various fields of thought and culture must be in dialogue and exchange with one another. One is not seated at the head and the other subordinate. Thus, religious intellectualism pays special attention to philosophy and world literature and strives to see and accept religion as one window alongside other existing windows. Rationalism, parallel to religious meaning-seeking, is among the attributes of religious intellectualism.

▪Five.

Any contact with the transcendent, when reported to us, takes on the hue of the experiencing individual’s subjectivity, historical elements, culture, and language. What we possess under the name of religious texts is the joint product of the colorless, sacred realm and various historical colors. The era in which the founder of a religion lived, the language they spoke, the cultural myths and metaphors they inhabited, their individual characteristics and psychological type, the scientific achievements of that day, and many other things have left their mark and role in the account and narrative of the text’s author. That said, religious intellectualism pays special attention to tracing the historical elements of religions. Religious intellectualism strives to distinguish the fundamental message of religions from its historical coverings and linings. Religious intellectualism holds that what most believers consider the requisites and necessities of religion are, in truth, the historical exigencies of religion and cannot be efficacious for all times. Much of what, in the view of the general faithful and the custodians of religions, is regarded as the indisputable requisites of religion is, from the perspective of religious intellectualism, discardable.

▪ Six.

Ethics precedes religion and is independent of it. Before turning to religion, we possess valid ethical perceptions, and it is by referring to them that we can accept the testimony of the founders of religion and give our hearts to it. God is a moral being, and divine and religious teachings cannot be at odds with the prevailing understanding of humanity regarding justice and ethics. Ethics is the arbiter of religion and the arbiter of religious understandings and inferences. Wherever an understanding or inference from religion clashes with the general public’s perception of the requirements of justice and ethics, it is a sign that that religious teaching or belief belongs to historical accidentals and not to the fundamental themes. Religious scholars must align their understanding with the evolving and developing human understanding of justice and ethics. Ethics and justice are not only the sole measure for verifying the truth and validity of religious claims, but they are also the arbiter and overseer in understanding and inference. Believers must reconcile their religious understanding with the more or less shared perception of their age regarding the meaning of justice and the requisites of ethics. That said, the ethical rereading of religious inferences is among the characteristics of religious intellectuals. Ethics is independent of religion and the touchstone for the validity of our understanding of religious themes.

▪ Seven.

We must reconsider our expectations and demands of religion. Religious intellectualism does not expect religion to provide answers to all the dilemmas and knots of individual and collective human life. Religious intellectualism lightens the burden of religion. Religions are endeavors to respond to the divine thirst and certain existential needs of human beings, and one should not expect them to offer instructions and laws for all spheres of life. Religion is not law, and one should not expect legislation from it. Social laws and institutions possess a fluid and renewing nature, changing in parallel with the evolution of human life. Religion, of course, proposes grand perspectives and transcendent values and urges believers, in the light of that spiritual outlook, to organize their social institutions and enact laws for themselves based on trial and error and with regard to historical experiences. Religion has not promised an earthly paradise and is not a guarantor of material well-being in this world. That said, attention to the category of human expectations of religion—which is pre-religious in nature—and the reduction of the scope of demands historically placed upon religion can be considered among the characteristics of religious intellectualism.

▪ Eight.

Since religious intellectualism is more concerned with the inner quality of religions and sees the mission of religion not as the presentation of a doctrinal system but as the inner cultivation of human beings to transcend selfishness and experience transcendent realms, it holds a pluralistic view of religions. Although the theological, doctrinal, and metaphysical claims of religions are not identical, and although they possess different linguistic metaphors and ritual practices, they pursue a single truth. The conflicts and differences we see among religions are the product of a network of differing historical contexts, cultural fabrics, and the temperaments and characteristics of the founders of religions, and should not prevent us from seeing that common essence. A common essence that can be called the invitation to faith or connection with a higher realm. That said, religious intellectualism holds a pluralistic view and strives, aside from the theological alignments that have halted at the level of beliefs and metaphors, to behold the single blood that flows in the veins of all religious and spiritual traditions.

▪Nine.

Religious intellectualism believes in the interpretability of religion and pluralism in exegesis. No one can or should consider their own understanding and reading sacred, or regard what they understand as the very will of God. There is no approved, divinely endorsed reading, and all believers must humbly subject their understandings to critique, examination, and dialogue. Not all understandings and interpretations are correct, but neither is there a certificate of approval in favor of any particular reading; therefore, excommunication is a self-serving act. Believers can, and ought to, bring their different understandings into confrontation on an equal footing, refining and correcting them, but since human understanding is fallible, they must not make their own understanding the measure and criterion of disbelief and faith. Thus, the avoidance of excommunication, the shunning of violence, and the recognition of different readings of religion—which entails tolerance and mutual acceptance—can be counted among the characteristics of religious intellectualism.

▪Ten.

Religious intellectualism adopts a meaning-selective and teleological approach to religious sources. It seeks to distinguish eternal values from time-bound methods. It does not accord primacy or intrinsic value to methods, but sees them as historical strategies in support of grand, universal values.

Critics and opponents of religious intellectualism say that their way of engaging with religious sources is selective and an instance of "believing in some and disbelieving in some." The verse from which the above expression is taken should be seen in full:

"Indeed, those who disbelieve in Allah and His messengers and wish to discriminate between Allah and His messengers and say, 'We believe in some and disbelieve in some,' and wish to adopt a way in between" (An-Nisa: 150)

As we see, the verse refers to those who do not believe in all the divine messages. Following their own whims and desires, they accept some prophets and deny others. The Quran says one cannot act in a divisive manner. The core message of all prophets is one, and discrimination and division are not possible.

The content of the verse concerns those who, out of identity-seeking and vainglory, deny and reject other religious traditions, and it does not apply to those who, through a purpose-oriented and teleological method, seek to set aside the historicity of the religious text.

If religious intellectualism sets aside parts of historical religion, it is out of loyalty to the core and spirit of the religious message, not belief in some and denial of some. The engagement of religious intellectualism is not selective and arbitrary but arises from a prior perspective regarding the language of religion, the mission of religion, and humanity's expectations of religion. Disbelief in parts of religion becomes applicable when the person consulting the religious text deliberately denies some religious truths. That is, despite knowing it is God's true will, they turn away from it. Religious intellectualism fundamentally does not have such an engagement. Religious intellectualism seeks to penetrate to the essence of meaning and find a truth that, free from historical impositions, can still be acceptable and applicable for contemporary humanity. The engagement of religious intellectualism with sacred texts is a meaning-oriented, teleological engagement, mindful of historical exigencies, and not an arbitrary one. It examines to what extent what is in the holy book was influenced by its historical context and time, and where it contains an eternal, radiant message.

Can one believe in the meaning-giving capacity of religions and also in democracy, freedom, human rights, the modern understanding of justice and ethics? Can one be faithful to the essence of religion and also remain open to philosophy and art? Can one have faith and simultaneously reason boldly? The answer of religious intellectualism is yes.