“Islam versus the West” and the Political Thought of AbdolKarim Soroush
Introduction [ West-toxication : Soroush : Coming to Terms with Western Culture [Truth Versus Identity
While briefly referring to Samuel Huntington’s “clash of civilizations” argument, Soroush maintains that there are two kinds of Islam : the Islam of identity and the Islam of truth. In the former, Islam is a guise for cultural identity and a response to what is considered a “crisis of identity.” The latter refers to Islam as a repository of truths that direct believers toward the path of worldly and outwardly salvation. The Prophet of Islam, he argues, was recognized as a messenger of those truths, and his intention was not merely to build a new civilization. Soroush interestingly maintains that “the term civilization is a construct of the historians,” and expresses his concern that Muslims in “their confrontation with the Western civilization wish to turn to Islam as an identity.” [Early Encounters
Soroush believes that the initial encounter between Islam and the West—and between Islam and classical Greek thought—during Islam’s early years of expansion represented a dynamic and fruitful interaction. This was the case because Islam possessed ample power to absorb and entice, while “[Islam’s] attitudes about foreign ideas was that of a victor dealing with the vanquished.” [Iranian Reactions : West-toxication and Westernization
Soroush further expands the above thesis by arguing that that during this “second encounter,” Muslims in Iran had two different kinds of reactions. One reaction was to lament Muslims who had been captured by gharb zadegi (Westtoxication). [gharb zadegi) was that Islamic and native cultures were long past their prime and, having been superseded by the west, were incapable of revival or cultural renewal. For this group gharb zadegi meant sharing in the historical destiny of the West. Soroush concludes that the former interpretation of the events and its proposed reaction (i.e. that Western influences must be carefully examined but vigorously resisted) was flexible because it was based on a critical approach to Western culture. By contrast, the later version was passive and smacked of defeatism. Soroush infers that the Westernizing bent became the more popular version in Iran and maintains that “Western customs, rites, worldviews and philosophies wafted through us and were enthusiastically received” with the consequence that “walls crumbled as exchanges intensified.” [Prescriptions
Finally, Soroush argues that Islamic civilizations should engage in a constructive cultural exchange with the West instead of adopting Western culture uncritically as a means to develop and progress. Soroush distinguishes between servile and dignified varieties of exchange, while lamenting the shortsightedness of Muslims who view every encounter through the prism of “us versus them.” Soroush offers the examples of Muslims who feel that, to justify embracing Western science and technology, they must attempt to trace the roots of these sciences back to Muslims. Such Muslims claim that Europeans borrowed such disciplines as mechanics, medicine, pharmacology, philosophy, and astronomy from Muslims and then developed these to their present form. Soroush is not challenging this assertion per se but instead exposing the mentality of those who argue that science and technology are only deserving of Muslim attention and acceptance because they were originally “ours.” The underlying logic is that if something has not sprouted in our midst, it is necessarily alien to us and somehow unworthy.
The crux of Soroush’s argument is that there is no shame in choosing to maintain or abandon certain elements of one’s culture on the basis of investigation, insight, and critical inquiry. Here, he aggressively makes a case for rational choice in the world of ideas. He proposes that in this process, “blind imitation is forever condemned, whereas the rational search for truth is eternally noble.” [ Iranian Context of Soroush’s Philosophy
In the aftermath of Iran’s 1905 constitutional revolution, the debate between traditional Shi’a clergy and secular intelligentsia about the role of religion in governance gained momentum and became more public. Despite their disagreements, both groups had favored a constitutional path for Iran with the aim to “limit the power of uncontrolled autocrats who were selling Iran to the Western powers.” [velayat-i-faqihi, or the rule of the jurist. This doctrine effectively delivered autocratic executive powers to Iran’s clerics, and particularly to the Ayatollah deemed wisest by his peers–in this case, Khomeini himself. Soroush was appointed by Ayatollah Khomeini as a member of the Cultural Revolution Committee (CRC), though he quit over differences with committee members about the religious content of school curricula. His lectures in Tehran, which were routinely covered by state electronic media, were discontinued. Soroush’s caution and concern that Iran’s humane Islamic values could come under threat from religious despotism had gotten him into trouble with the religious establishment.
Soroush’s disagreements with the clergy intensified when he started directly attacking the clergy’s growing role in politics. Soon, the religious establishment made life difficult for him and he was forced into exile. Soroush was not alone in this struggle. Other scholars like Hasan Yosufi Eshkevari, Mohammad Mojtahed Shabestari, and Mohsen Kadivar have also been at the forefront of debates about religion, reform, and politics. This discourse gained increasing popularity in the 1990s, especially among the urban middle class, and proved to be more than a
mere philosophical debate. The reformist discourse began to have a significant impact on the formulation of public policy in Iran, on the larger Iranian polity, and even on Iran’s relations with the outside world. [Hawzeh (seminary) decides to clean house, we shall see that many of these views are open to revision. But this airing out can proceed only in an open atmosphere cleansed of pseudo sacredness.” [ayatollahs and mujtahids (accomplished religious scholars), and not God or the Prophet, reside in seminaries, whatever they produce is not sacred knowledge and thus should be open to criticism and questioning [revayat (traditions) passed on by religious authorities. This indeed is one of the central questions in the “Islam versus the West” debate because the status of women in Islam is often questioned in the West. He maintains that controversial religious commentaries on women’s issues must be critiqued and “if religion is not to become a historical relic or a curiosity in a museum.” [ Conclusion
The internal crisis in the Muslim world today, both in Muslim-majority states and in the Muslim communities in the West, is grave and complex. In this context, AbdolKarim Soroush’s views and analysis are cogent, logical, and highly relevant. Extremist forces in the Muslim world can only be defeated if progressive forces both in the West and in the Islamic world cooperate to tackle the issue through dialogue and constructive engagement. A partnership is required. A unilateral campaign by the West to win the hearts and minds of Muslims without listening to their concerns or enlisting their aid will not succeed. Moreover, America should keep in mind that democracy can be promoted, supported, and nurtured, but not enforced or imposed. That is the only way to overpower mutual mistrust, which sadly seems to be on the ascendant these days. In this sphere, AbdolKarim Soroush provides a valuable framework for progressive forces in the Muslim world.
The Fletcher School Online Journal for issues related to Southwest Asia and Islamic Civilization Spring 2006
Al Nakhlah
[1] The research paper was originally written in late 2004 as a requirement for Prof. Ayesha Jalal’s course “Islam and the West” at the Fletcher School, Tufts University. This is a shorter, revised and updated version of the paper that benefits from Prof. Jalal’s comments on the paper.
[2] The views of AbdolKarim Soroush about the interaction between the West and Islam are summarized from his articles that appeared in his collection of essays (Reason, Freedom and Democracy in Islam), and various websites that are dedicated to his works such as :
http://www.drsoroush.com/English.htm, http://www.seraj.org/, http://www.iranchamber.com, http://www.islamdemocracy.org/Sorou…, and from notes that I took during his various lectures while he
was a visiting scholar at the Harvard Law School during 2002.
[3] Mahmood Sadri and Ahmed Sadri, eds., Reason, Freedom and Democracy in Islam : Essential Writings of AbdolKarim Soroush (New York : Oxford University Press, 2000) 24.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Ibid., 159.
[6] Ibid., 160.
[7] This phrase was first used by Iranian scholar Al-e Ahmed.
[8] AbdolKarim Soroush, Reason, Freedom and Democracy in Islam, 161.
[9] Ibid. 169.
[10] Nikki R. Keddie, Roots of Revolution : An Interpretive History of Modern Iran (New Heaven : Yale University Press, 1981), 194.
[11] Ibid., 186.
[12] For details of the episode, see Stephen Kinzer, All the Shah’s Men : An American coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror (New Jersey : Jon Wiley and Sons, 2003).
[13] Mahmoud Sadri and Ahmed Sadri, eds., Reason, Freedom and Democracy in Islam, 21.
[14] The comment is based on a comparative reading of Soroush’s book under discussion and Ali Shariati’s On the Sociology of Islam.
[15] Laura Secor, “The Democrat : Iran’s leading reformist intellectual tries to reconcile religious duties and human rights”, Boston Globe, March 14, 2004.
[16] Mehran Kamrava, “Iranian Shiism under Debate”, Middle East Policy Council Journal, Volume X, No. 2, Summer 2003.
[17] Afshin Molavi, “Buying Time in Tehran”, Foreign Affairs, November/December 2004.
[18] Jahangir Amuzegar, “Iran’s Crumbling Revolution”, Foreign Affairs, January/February, 2003.
[19] AbdolKarim Soroush, Reason, Freedom and Democracy in Islam, 176.
[20] Ibid., 177.
[21] Ibid., 182.
Loading ...
Except where otherwise noted, content on this site is
licensed under a 