SACRED DEMOCRACY

SACRED DEMOCRACY
By: Ali Akbar Rashad
TRANSLATED BY: MANUCHEHR TORABI

PROLOGUE 9
CHAPTER 1: CAUSES OF EMERGENCE AND CONTINUANCE OF SECULARISM 11
CHAPTER 2: EPISTEMOLOGICAL FOUNDATIONS OF SECULARISM 33
CHAPTER 3: MODERN RATIONALITY 62
CHPATER 4: THE ROLE PLAYED BY RELIGION IN THE MODERN WORLD 81
CHAPTER 5: SACRED DEMOCRACY 90
CHAPTER 6: THE THEORY OF ELECTION OF LEADER BY PEOPLE AND LOGIC OF INFERENCE 113
CHAPTER 7: TOLERATION AND VIOLENCE 155
CHAPTER 8: STATUS OF JUSTICE AND ITS OBSTACLES 206
CHAPTER 9: FREEDOM 234
CHAPTER 10: THE ROLE PLAYED BY RELIGIOUS THOUGHT AND CULTURE IN DEVELOPMENT 267
CHAPTER 11: IMPACT OF ISLAMIC PICTURE OF MAN ON ORGANIZATION OF POLITICAL LIFE 294
CHAPTER 12: SINCERE ANTHROPOLOGIST 315
CHAPTER 13: GEOMETRY OF RELATIONS BETWEEN RELIGION, GOVERNMENT AND SOCIETY IN THE CONTEMPORARY IRAN 334
CHAPTER 14: RELATION BETWEEN RELIGION AND IDEOLOGY 345

Prologue
What you are reading consists of the papers (and in some cases, lectures) mostly presented in various conferences and scientific seminars in Iran or abroad. The geographical focus of this collection is on theoretical topics in politics and in particular on its philosophical-theological infrastructures.
In such collections one cannot expect structural consistency and exact order usually seen in an essay, but the author, through proper selection and arrangement of the points, has tried to achieve a relative harmony in this collection. The reader will see that the initial articles will explain and criticize the backgrounds and philosophical-theological infrastructures of the secularism; the middle and final articles will explain the relationship between religion and some political, human, and temporal categories (such as democracy, government, liberty, Toleration, rationality, and ideology) and present Islamic patterns in these fields.
Since the main addressees of these articles and lectures had been scholars and thinkers and because of the nature of such conferences I had a limited time to speak, some sort of brevity has been imposed on the concepts (though because of a little talent given to me by God I have sometimes lost control of the pen; so I apologize for prolixity more than brevity).
The fifth article, in spite of its brevity, contains my desired and chosen depiction of the structure and organization of politics and government. That is why I have given the title of “Sacred Democracy” to this book.
If my engagements allow me, I plan to compile two other collections of articles and lectures (in the fields of theology and study of religion- philosophy and epistemology) and seek help from the Creator to succeed in both cases.
Ali Akbar Rashad
Tasu’a, 1421/1379

Chapter 1: Causes of Emergence and Continuance of Secularism
Is it a judgment of the time of (pagan) ignorance that they are seeking? Who is better than Allah for judgment about a people who have certainty? (The Holy Quran; 5: 50)
Before beginning our discussion, I think it is necessary to clarify some important points:
1- Influenced by social developments as well as emergence of various meanings, the term “secularism” has found various usages. Without seeking to go into unnecessary semantic details, in order to attain a general agreement about the meanings and usages of this term, we mention two usages of the term “secularism” in this article:
A- Sometimes, secularism is used as a synonym for materialism and atheism and as an ideology to oppose religion. In this sense, footprints of secularism may be found in all spheres of knowledge, life, and in all scientific fields even in ontology and study of the nature.
B- Sometimes, secularism means to make something worldly and secularization is used in the sense of making relations and life (moralities, politics, laws, and the like) conventional. The process of making something conventional may sometimes get even religion entangled; i.e. sometimes attempts may be made to make religious teachings temporal and conventional; this process appears under the names or forms such as:
1- Embellishing religion (such as scienticizeing religion and trying to equate religion with science: scientism)
2- Contaminating religion (for example combining the religious teachings with achievements of human knowledge: eclecticism)
3- Trimming religion (for example, retaining some foundations and parts of religion, religious teachings and values and discarding those parts of religion which are presently desirable: discrimination in religiosity)
Today the most common sense of the term “secularization” is to make political aspects this-worldly and to prevent religion from entering the sphere of government.
Relationships between secularism, humanism, rationalism, …
2- There is a strong relationship between the ideology of secularism and some accepted principles and values in the culture of the West such as: humanism, rationalism, scientism, atheism and materialism, liberalism and Toleration, and it is not possible to correctly understand this ideology without considering their definitions, some of which are roots and foundations of this school and some others appear as its manifestation.
Typology of the Causes of Emergence of Secularism
3- Causes of emergence of secularism may be, in terms of various aspects, divided into various types; and in terms of the types and the strength of the role played by them, they can be divided into three groups:
One group consists of auxiliaries which paved the way for this school to emerge; these causes go back to the intrinsic characteristics of the Christianity and the Western culture.
The other group consists of causes of its emergence which may be mainly referred back to the policy and functions of the people of Church in the Medieval Age.
The third group consists of the reasons behind the emergence and continuance of secularism which are mainly based on the development of epistemic geometry in Europe.
Debate between Monotheists and Atheists without There Being an Agreement
4- In emergence and continuance of the Western secularism and propagation for secularization of religion and government, atheists and monotheists have engaged in debates without there being an agreement; and this is a strange and unrivalled conspiracy, and not a consensus, happened in the West, and resulted in detrimental consequences for civilization and spirituality.
Because of their evil intentions and “in order to make themselves free from religion”, atheists designed and propagated the school of secularism; and because of their good intentions and “in order to save religion”, monotheists accepted secularization. The former group advocated secularization from the point of view of priority of reason to the revelation and exclusive authority of reason, and to drive religion out of the scene of social life, and establish liberal and humanist ideas; and the latter group advocated secularization in politics because of their concern to protect religion and its sacredness! And it should be noted that the very difference in intentions to advocate secularism stems from different origins in providing definition for this ideology and explanation for its roots and appearance. Historical developments and changes made in the conditions of the secular societies have been of great influences in the emergence of various views concerning secularism and various understandings of it (these conditions should be discussed in another lecture)
5- In this lecture, I am not to mention all causes and auxiliaries of the emergence and continuance of secularism; and to do so, one needs much time, and it is out of the scope of this lecture.
Causes of Emergence and Continuance of Secularism
We think that from among the causes and auxiliaries of emergence and continuance of European secularism, the following have played more important roles:
1- Christianity Has no Access to the Revelatory Text
Two Testaments consist of narrations of Moses (a) and Jesus (a) conducts and sayings and events of their times or their precedents; the existing Torah and Evangel are not revelatory texts; the existing Evangels have been written at least 300 years after Jesus (a).
Absence of a sound revelatory text led to the emergence of false beliefs and dissemination of irrational ideas such as Trinity and three hypostasses; and as a result, led probably to induction of opposition between reason and religion, and caused religious creeds to appear irrational. Emergence of theories suggesting impossibility or redundancy of rational explanation of religious beliefs is one of the results of such a problem.
2- Absence of Sufficient Concepts for Systematization in the Christian Texts
Presence of such a weakness in the intellectual body and religious sources of the Church, in spite of the claims of its Fathers for governance, justified the project of secularization; for a religion deprived of social systems which are based on the Revelation has to leave politics to other than the Revelation; if in this case, the religious ones go to establish a government, they have to administer the affairs of the society only according to reason and scientific plans.
In addition, attribution to religion of human understandings and functions of the leaders of the Church who are subject to mistakes led to nothing other than people’s pessimism and looseness of their religion; and this was what happened; and that was why the wise religious men, unanimous to the irreligious rationalists, decided to separate religion and the politics!
3- The Idea of Opposition between religion and the World
The Christianity understood from the present Scriptures with all its anti-worldly teachings can lead to nothing other than realization of secularization; the Christianity’s understanding of religion, willingly or unwillingly, leads to separation of religion and the world. The historical culture of negative attitude towards the world, and the tradition of seclusion which had originated from the world-escaping religion governing the West, was a suitable environment to induce separation of religion and politics; attempts made by Aquinas and Augustine in various ages were not so successful in making a reconciliation between the two.
4- Scientific Interpretation of the Scriptures and Religionizing the Scientific Hypotheses
The Medieval Church tried to impose changeable human theories on the religious texts, or take their confused texts or more confused understandings as a measure of truth or falsity of sciences and theories; and in this way, they tried to give a religious and sacred color to all things!
On the one hand, this approach led to scientific declination in the Christian West (in spite of the fascinating scientific progress in the Islamic East), since religion gradually changed into an obstacle to reason and skills gradually; and on other hand, insistence of the people of the Church on authority of their own confused understandings against the rushing progress of science, led to induction of opposition between science and religion; and the Western man found no option other than isolation of religion and separation between religion and sciences.
5- Religious Tyranny of the Church
During the ten centuries of the full domination of the Fathers of Church, all rival religions and even Christian attitudes which were inconsistent with Pope’s inclinations were limited and threatened; each and every thinker was worried about his life; and each and every scholar was in fear of Inquisition. This led to induction of opposition between religion and legitimate human freedoms; and the Western man found the solution that was isolating religion and separating religion from knowledge.
6- Competition of Emperors on the One Hand and Scholars on the Other with the People of Church
The secularization project of politics was just to disarm Pope and ascend to power by the modernist movement in the Europe; on the other hand, acceptance of secularism by the leaders of Christianity and adoption of a modest position towards rationality and scientism in the recent centuries is considered as a retreat of Christianity to more defendable positions which are consistent with the new conditions to retain at least the existence of religion (i.e. individual religiosity which is consistent with a secular society).
Anyway; the above-mentioned factors are some of the main causes for looseness of the essence of religion and its being isolated, and as a result birth and realization of secularization in the West; and some of them are still playing their roles to continue the ideology of secularism and process of secularization in the Europe.
Religious-Cultural Differences of the East and the West
Here it is worth to mention the relation between secularism and the culture of East and Islamic world in brief. We think that there are important differences between “Islam” and “Christianity” preventing emergence and presence of the pure native secularism and national secular currents in the Islamic world; in what follows, we mention some of these differences in brief:
Sacred Richness of Islam
The Holy Quran (as the Book of Revelation), the Holy Prophet’s tradition’ as well as authentic hadiths from the religious leaders are causes of the sacred richness of Islam, secure soundness of Muslims’ creeds, and prevention of superstitions from entering religious beliefs. More than one-third of the Holy Quranic verses (2200 verses) are considered as the verses of ordinances of this Scripture, which may be referred to directly to infer social and individual ordinances; and these are other than those verses which may be referred to in the fields of philosophy of politics, laws, and economy as well as explanation of the Islamic political conducts. An Iranian programmer has recorded about one million hadiths found in 1,200 interpretive, narrative, historical, moral, mystical, … books. Even if each hadith has been repeated 10 times, then Shi‘is have at least 100,000 theological, ordinative and moral hadiths; in addition, there are tens of thousands hadiths available in the Sunni collections which have not been probably mentioned in the Shi‘i sources.
Preservation of the Holy Quran
That the Holy Quran has remained immune to alteration, length of the period of mission and presence of the Holy Prophet’s successors (from ten years before Hegira to 250 AH Lunar) have provided a long period for Muslims to grasp their Islamic creeds and ordinances from the pure source of Revelation and heavenly interpreters.
Priority of Religious Jurisprudence in Understanding Religion
The necessity of religious jurisprudence concerning principles of religion and priority of the religious jurisprudence concerning minor principles of religion is the other privilege of the Islamic culture. Belief in the necessity of juridical understanding of religion encourages Muslims to knowingly accept Islamic creeds and prevents propagation of unfounded ones and reliance on undocumented beliefs as well as stagnation of religious thinking. The logic of religious jurisprudence as a heart-changing factor has been built in the context of the organization of Islamic thinking, and places the epistemic leaders of the Islamic society in the flowing context of a continuous mission, and forces them to review religion, find its depth, and propagate understanding of it.
Reason is the Essence of Revelation
In ideological terminology of Muslims, reason is the essence of Revelation (transmitted text) and called “inner prophet”. Serious recommendation to thinking and reflection by the Holy Quran and belief in the authority of reason in Islam have led to the emergence of very rich philosophical and theological schools, which have become, in turn, demonstrative unbreakable supports for religious beliefs; and at the same time, removed the illusion of opposition between reason and religion in the Islamic culture, and led to emergence of ideas and rules such as “rational beauty and ugliness” in theology, “correspondence between what is said by reason and what is said by religion”, “rational independent ordinances” in the philosophy of jurisprudence, science of jurisprudence, and principles of jurisprudence. The place given to reason and rationality in the religious culture of Muslims, and functions performed by reason in the Islamic theology, jurisprudence, and ethics are never lower than those of revelation. It is worth thinking about that at a time when opposition between reason and religion had become a serious problem in the West, Mulla Sadra founded the school of Transcendent Philosophy in the East, and the main characteristic of this school was combination of the Holy Quran, reasoning, and mysticism.
Place of Science and Knowledge
Islam’s attitude towards the lofty place of knowledge is among the superiorities of this religion over the other ones; attention paid by Islam and Muslims to the value of knowledge and science and scholars and scientists does not allow the suspicion of opposition between reason and religion to occur in the mind. The experience of interaction between science and knowledge on the one hand and theology on the other in Islam is an unrivalled masterwork which led to foundation of a great civilization, and the present Western civilization as well is in debt of that great spiritual civilization.
According to the Islamic Revelation, “Forbidden Tree” is not the tree of knowledge; but rather it is man’s superiority in knowledge which has made man superior to all creatures so that all beings have to prostrate themselves before him; and even angels who were, before the creation of man, the most superior beings had to bow to him; and that man is like God is a result of his knowledge.
The first verses revealed to the Holy Prophet on the dark mountain of the old Ignorance speak of “scientific explanation of the creation, and in particular creation of man and his greatness as well as teaching him writing and what he did not know”.
According to the Holy Quran, “The most erudite fear Allah most” (35: 28), and according to the Holy Prophet it is necessary for Muslim to learn knowledge from the cradle to the grave.
Capability for Systematization of the Islamic Teachings
The other characteristic of the school of Islam is its capability of systematization in all social fields; with the establishment of a religious government in Medina, the Holy Prophet provided a clear pattern of the religious government; having explained, interpreted, and matched religious teachings to man’s social needs in various ages and places, his successors and reformers of the Islamic society have created successful instances of the vital Islamic systems.
Thanks to the accessibility of the Islamic Revelatory Text and the great heritage of the religious leaders as well as Islamic rationality and the efficient methodology of religious jurisprudence, our jurists have inferred 40,000 juridical minor principles and offer them to Islamic ummah. Rich, deep, and extensive Islamic jurisprudence is like a light in the way in which members of the ummah are going, and clarifies their obligations, rights and the way they have to interact socially and individually.
It should be noted that all the seventy chapters of jurisprudence- except for a few- concern Islamic systems and laws in political, legal, and economic relations as well as education. Deep juridical sciences and in particular “principles of jurisprudence” as well as the thousand accurate juridical rules, have given a fascinating richness in the Shi‘i laws to fulfill the contemporary man’s needs in the field of legislation in accord with human changing conditions.
Man’s Greatness and Freedom
In Islamic culture, to safeguard man’s greatness and respect to the human’s defined freedoms is the spirit of the most fundamental slogan of Islam; the history attests to Muslim’s Toleration even with the rival religions and opposing intellectual movements. Verses such as the following are the basis of intellectual relations in the Islamic society:
“Lo! We have shown him the way, whether he be grateful or disbelieving” (76: 3).
“There is no compulsion in religion. The right direction is henceforth distinct from error. And he who rejecteth false deities and believeth in Allah hath grasped a firm handhold which will never break. Allah is Hearer, Knower” (2: 256)
The Holy Quran criticizes Jews and Christians for inflexibility in their intellectual relations.
“And the Jews will not be pleased with thee, nor will the Christians, till thou follow their creed. Say: Lo! The guidance of Allah (Himself) is Guidance” (2: 120).
Eastern Illuminationism
It should be noted that in addition to the religious differences between the two parts of the world, there are deep cultural differences such as Illuminationism in the East and rationalism in the West which (according to the Allamah Iqbal) play an important role in preventing the emergence and acceptance of secularism and secularist values in the East
“For the people of West, reason is the instrument of life;
“For the people of East, love is the mystery of the universe
“Through love, reason knows the Truth;
“Because of reason, love becomes firm-founded ;
“When love is companioned by reason
“It has the power to design another world.
“Then rise and draw design of a new world,
“Mingle love with reason
Fire of the People of West is damp
Their eyes are seeing, their hearts are dead
They were wounded by their own swords
They were killed like their own prey
Do not seek for drunkenness from their wine
They have no other time in their fortune
Life is breathing because of your fire
Creating a new world is your job
Secularism is not a universal ideology
Anyway; taking into account religious and cultural differences between the Christian West and the Islamic East, secularism is neither a universal ideology nor an inevitable passage through which all the history, humanity, and religious are forced to go. Secularism is an ideology born in the West, emerged in the context of the European culture and Western Christianity. Secularization of religion and making politics this-worldly is a relative and Western thing; it is not the problem of the Islamic world and the East.
“Let the People of the Gospel judge by that which Allah hath revealed therein. Whoso judgeth not by that which Allah hath revealed: such are evil-doers” (the Holy Quran; 5: 47).
As a good conclusion, I present some more of Iqbal’s poems:
The West has put mankind in grievous pain,
and, through it, life has lost all charm.
What should then be done, O people of the East?-
that the life of the East may once again brighten up.
A revolution has occurred in the East’s heart,
night has passed away, and the sun has risen.
Europe has fallen prey to its own sword ;
it has laid the foundation of secularism in the world ;
it is a wolf in the garb of a lamb,
every moment in ambush for a prey.
The difficulties of mankind are due to
it, it is the source of all the hidden anguish of man.
In its eyes man is nothing but water and clay,
and the caravan of Life has no goal.
Whatever you see is the manifestation of God’s light;
the knowledge of things is a part of God’s -secrets.
He who sees God’s signs is a free man,
the basis of this wisdom is God’s order: “Look.”
Through it the believer is more successful in life than the non-believer
and more sympathetic towards others.
When knowledge illumines his mind,
his heart grows more and more God-oriented.
Knowledge of things is like elixir to our dust,
alas! its effect in the West is different.
Its (the West’s) reason and thought have no standards of right and wrong,
its eyes know no tear, its heart is hard as stone.
Knowledge, through it, has become a disgrace for all,
Gabriel, in its society, has become Iblis.
The wisdom of the Franks is an unsheathed sword,
ever ready to destroy the human species.
In this world of good and evil, intoxication of knowledge
does not suit mean natures.
May God protect us from the West and its ways,
and from its secular thinking;

Chapter 2: Epistemological Foundations of Secularism
Pathology of Truth and Knowledge
Preface
Among the characteristics of the Renaissance are the following three situations:
– Priority of “cause” to “reason” in the restudy and representation of seen things and phenomena;
– Emergence of extreme disconnection, separation, and break, in epistemic and livelihood, subjective and objective fields;
– Decadence of modesty and wave of extremism
A- Modernity, causation instead of reason-seeking
Three points described: the age of modernity is the age of causation and not that of reason-seeking, contemporary man’s positions and perspectives are based on causes and not on reasons; in our time, “justification” has replaced “argument”. That is why to explain phenomena and ideas, one has to look for in cause(s) and not to seek reason(s). Man’s desire to seek factual truths has weakened to the extent that philosophy seems to have changed its nature and sit at the place of fallacy; while philosophy of emergence of philosophy was to challenge sophism.
Epistemological study of social ideas and theories is much harder than their ontological study; and ontological study seems to be much harder than sociological, historical, and empirical study of phenomena. Epistemological and ontological studies are reason-explaining in nature; while sociological and historical studies are cause- analyzing in nature. The secrets behind this complexity are at least two following points:
A) difference between abstractiveness of the methodologies one and two (respectively) from each other, and those of the two from the three recent ones;
B) that epistemological and ontological studies need objective and extensional evidence to explain and to be explained, which are given to the researcher of methodologies one and then two by three (or four) recent methodologies.
Taking what was said above into account, phenomenological and socio-historical study of the emergence and subsistence of secularism is much more possible and favorable than metaphysical-epistemological study.
B) Divergence and disconnected-preferring
In the new age, it is as if all things and all men are thought, and wanted, to be disconnected from each other; in various fields, divergence is much more observable than convergence: in outlook and ontology, in epistemology, philosophy of science, study of religion, ethics, laws, politics, natural sciences as well as in human and international relations, all things are thought, and wanted, to be disconnected from all things: “ought to” from “is”; “knowledge” from “value”; “life” from “knowledge”; “action” from “behavior”; “praxis” from “theory”; “understanding of religion” from “context of religion”; “surface of religion” from “the core of religion”; “reality” from “truth”; “materiality” from “spirituality”; “religion” from “world”; “world” from “the world to come”; “religiosity” from “commitment to canon law”; and “commitment to canon of law” from “nature”!
Denial of wholeness. Through a secular interpretation of being and world, taking its parts disconnected from each other, denial of wholeness and “sacred nature” of the world, rejection of ethical system governing life and being, discarding hierarchy of beings, parts of being have been disconnected from each other (man from God, God and man from nature).
Insan (man) is no more derived from ins; nor does universe mean cosmos (order and beauty); man is not God’s Caliph but His enemy; he is no more reclaiming and being captured by the nature and universe, but destroying them. And instead of, like other parts of being, worshipping God and thirsting for connection to the point of perfection and beauty, like other parts of being, he wants all being as his own slave and worshipper; and even he prefers God to be commanded by him!
Enmity between man and nature. Having encouraged man to intervene precipitously in nature and natural resources, modern literature and relations have destroyed his relation to the whole being and disconnected him (which was part of nature) from his mother. Modern man has no relation to the old world other than the relation between plunderer and plundered. Today, man is not God-like nor does God say “blessed be Allah, the Best of creators” because of creating man; man is neither microcosm nor cosmos is macro Anthropo!
Priority of Right to Obligation. Granting priority to “right” instead of “obligation”, modern culture and political laws have turned all human individuals and societies into pretentious complainants who go to the judge in person and return, naturally, acquiescent. They have changed the scene of life to a “court without judge, laws, and culprit”.
Individuality and Nationality. Encouraging individuality, calling individuals of society “citizen”, providing a particular definition for the concept “state-government”, and global polarizations, the contemporary political and legal literature have promoted conflicts between nations and governments, individuals of the society with each other, nations with each other, East and West, North and South in a horrible way. Having introduced and induced notions such as “modern man” and “traditional man” (as if the two are two different species of animal kingdom), and having developed urbanism and artificial occupancy of people in cities, and having induced ideas of “self-sufficiency” and “humanism”, social literature of modernity has separated human beings from their “history”, “ancestry”, and “fellow-men”. Useless and even detrimental feminist mottos have destroyed the institution of family; and finally, prevalence of technocracy, bureaucracy, relativitism, and crisis of knowledge and spirituality, have made man alien to himself, God, being, and truth.
Denial of unity of science.
In the field of knowledge and sciences, when empiricism was made popular, unity of sciences was denied, need of science to metaphysical view was rejected, traditional and modern sciences were deemed as alien to each other, scientific guesses became ever-changing, then man’s concepts and judgments were destructed and man became deprived of holism and thinking in large scales. Today, science’ aim is not to find “truth” and that of politics is not to attract “happiness”; both of them are aimed to gain power, and this means: war of men with men, and man’s enmity towards the nature.
Information technology: Alienation of Human beings or their kinship?
Technology (and in particular information technology), though some think that it has made the world a small place, has made human beings alien to each other, instead of bringing them closer to each other. It is as if no man feels a need to other man; machine (as a substitute for one’s fellow men), fulfills all his needs; each and every man is a companion of a sender (if he is a messenger) or is continuously engaging a receiver (if he is a receiver of messages); thus, it is these machines which have been associated and brought closer to each other (and not men)!
It should be noted that what was said concerning the process of separation and its result in the age of modernism will happen in much larger scales in the age of postmodernism (as situation shows); alias for man’s conditions in the age of postmodernism!
The Plague of Extremism
Always, the greatest danger in the way to perceive the truth is extremism and one-dimensional approach in thinking, theorizing, and making hypotheses; traces of this plague, unfortunately, may be seen more than ever and much clearly and abundantly in the philosophical and scientific fields of the modern age. Emergence of many contradict hypotheses, expedite decline of philosophical and scientific theories, that science has become unreliable, relativity and buoyancy of the truth (which is the most sorrowful suffering of the contemporary learned man) are among side effects of this plague. A long list (including thousands known example) may be provided of one-dimensional attitudes and extremism in man’s (and in particular contemporary man’s) knowledge and life. Only to mention some of them, we speak of some cases in some epistemic realms:
For example in the realm of anthropology: someone like Hobbes thinks of man as wolf of man; the other regards him as a perfect angle enjoying amiability and mercy and as a criterion for truth!
Concerning the status of woman: someone (like some ancient philosophers) think of her as a long-haired human-like animal which has been created only be at the service of men; or want her to be a mannequin and a tool to juice up the market (for example in the contemporary Western culture of market); and still others (like radical proponents of feminism) brings her at a level higher than men and regard her as the super human being!
Also, concerning man’s free will: one thinks of man as a mere prisoner of four chains: “history”, “environment”, “nature”, and “soul”; the other (like existentialists) regards him as being absolutely free from all constraints even his godly nature!
Concerning relations between individual and society: one regards individual as being absolutely independent and original; and thinks of society’s identity as being mentally-posited. The other thinks that individual is melt within the society; deems it as being original, and considers for it a unity (and even true unity)!
Practical and theoretical fields of politics have been always a realm of extremism: today, some scholars of politics still promote totalitarian views concerning the limits of government’s responsibilities and authorities; and others speak of “small government” and “end of government”.
And, finally, concerning relation between religion and politics, some people considered no value for reason and democracy; and demanded all political things, even those of daily life, from religion; now politicians have pushed religion to margins; and expelled God from the scene of society!
Subject and Content of the Present Writings
The main theme and claim of the article is “Explanation of Impacts of Modern Epistemology on Dynamism and Survival of Secularism”. Without being heedless to other reasons and causes, we claim that: if not always and in everywhere, development in aspects of man’s life (including social developments) are in debt of and caused by development in his “epistemic geometry”. Establishment and repair of the palace of “life” is done by engineers of “knowledge”; this claim will be more acceptable if we pay attention to the secret and open roles played by epistemology and its mediated or immediate impacts on coming to existence and survival of other causes. Ontological and sociological developments are, of course, clearer.
In this article, we will discuss only three bases of epistemic bases of secularism, and we admit that causes of emergence of this school are not restricted to epistemological origins; and nor are epistemic origins restricted to these three cases, and emphasize that: these three factors are not only reasons and causes of “emergence” of secularization, strengthening of these factors also has led to “establishment and persistence” of secularism. The classical form of these views has been origins of emergence; modern and extensive aspects of these features, together with other newly-emerged views, have led to continuance and strengthening.
All three bases discussed in the present article, i.e. “the view that reason and religion are inconsistent and reason is prior”, “the view that science and religion are inconsistent and science is preferred”; “declination of dogmatism and promotion of relativitism” have the same root: all three, secretly and openly, refer to humanism; and the third factor is the origin of epistemic pluralism and other types of pluralism.
1- Rationalism and “the Idea of Inconsistency of Reason and Religion
Some have mistakenly thought that the process of secularization has originated from the Greek Sophia and secularism is a product of rational-metaphysical philosophy. “When philosophers and before every one else Greek philosophers proceeded to philosophization of the order of world (in other words tried to understand it in the frame of metaphysical concepts), they opened a window to keep God away from the world, and interpret and explain the world free from Providence and God’s destiny”. We think that this idea is not true. It is not true since the Greek philosophy co-existed with Christianity (which is a God-centered and sacred school)for more than 16 centuries; and now it is more than 11 centuries that it is accompanied by the Mohammadan religion. Secularism did not appear when belief in the “essence and nature” for things appeared; but rather secular thinking emerged when some improvident ones thought that essentiality of things is consistent with their being (or becoming) Divine and religious; and causal and rational explanation of being inconsistent with the all-inclusive presence of God in the world .
Philosophical reason and rational philosophy are not inconsistent with intellectual religion and religious thought; otherwise, all rationalist religious ones had to fall for the idea of separation of religion and world, and oppose the idea of “sacred” and “Divine”.
To deny the nature of things is the same as to deny causation; and to deny the latter is to deny God’s wisdom; and to deny God’s wisdom is the same as to prevent God from intervening in both the nature and politics.
When reason was thought to be inconsistent with the revelation and the scopes of religion and reason were separated, and man was regarded as being self-established and self-subsistent, and it was thought that man’s reason was sufficient for him to explain nature and administrate his daily life affairs, secularism was born.
Modern epistemology is based on humanism and individualism; and these two schools are accompanied by rationalism and anti-religionism.
Cartesian Doubt: Individualist and Humanist Rationality
Apart from valuable consequences of knowing and systematic Cartesian doubt for human knowledge as well as many philosophical objections to it, Cartesian doubt was the mere emergence of “individualist and humanist” rationality. That “personal experience” is taken as a criterion was begun by Descartes. He says that work a single man is more perfect than what appears through gathering works of various scholars… what we learn from books is far removed from the truth than arguments offered by an ordinary man who faces things through his own reason . Descartes’ philosophy is of a rationalist form and an empiricist content.
Bacon: Inconsistency of Reason and Religion
Francis Bacon (1561-1626) said clearly that reason and religion are inconsistent. He said that the more useless and unbelievable are Divine mysteries, the greater is faith’s victory… sacred theology should be extracted from God’s utterance or inspiration, and not from nature or rational statements .
William Blake is right in saying that “Bacon put an end to the age of faith” and mentioned his articles correctly as “favorable recommendations for Satan’s kingdom” .
After Descartes, Thomas Hobbs (1558-1679) tried to limit the scope of morality.
Kant and Reduction of Religion to Morality
Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) prohibited reason from entering the field of theology and metaphysics; and actually reduced religion to morality, and then to a morality in which man himself is a criterion to distinguish good and evil!
To deny rational aspect of religion and rationality of religious propositions, promote fideism, negate knowledge-bringing nature of religion, and to regard agreement between faith and doubt as something possible, reduce religion to some sort of Sufi school, and turn inclusive nature of religion to a personal and internal thing are among preliminaries of the above-mentioned approach to religion; and it is so clear that such an idea about religion will result in priority of rationalism and banishment of religion from administration of the society.
2- Scientism and the Idea of Inconsistency between Science and Religion
Mechanistic view toward the nature, opposition to metaphysical approach toward life and being, denial of sciences’ need to philosophical-metaphysical presuppositions, and in short, the idea of “evolution” are epistemological and ontological foundations of secular interpretation of the world; when methodologies and rules suitable for study of the nature and natural sciences were generalized to the field of life and humanities, social secularism was born as well.
Modern science is experience-centered and empiricist, and finds nothing but the material surface of being, and never tolerates the sacred dimension of the world and man. According to the famous Iranian poet, Hafiz:
“Neither veil nor screen hath the beauty of the true Beloved. But,
“Lay aside the dust of the path (of thy existence) so that glance (at the true Beloved) thou canst make.
“Thou that goest not forth from the house of nature (the body),
“How passage to the street of Hakikat, (is it that) thou canst make.
Non-sacred world-view leads to non-sacred politics; otherwise, Divine explanation and analysis of the world and man will be inconsistent with materialist administration of the society and politics.
Theology, an Uninvited guest for Humanities
After the emergence of secular natural sciences as well as the appearance of non-sacred humanities, and such sciences’ laying hands on the field of religious teachings and propositions, religion was viewed as an object; the “realized religion” replaced the “revealed religion”; and religion was studied as a “dumb subject” like other subjects studied by sciences; and raw and mortal hypotheses of humanities were imposed on religion to the extent that sometimes religion and morality found a secular identity!
Disadvantages of Generalization of Uses of the Logic of Experience
Generalization of uses of the logic of experience and observation from the field of nature into the fields of life, religiosity, and even philosophy was a result of the contemporary man’s being enamored by the achievements of the modern science as well as his extreme confidence in sense and experience; achievements of the modern science made man “proud” and more interested in the idea of “self-centeredness “. Knowledge resulted in power, and power added to his obstinacy; and in this way, modern despotism (despotism in a global-human scale, and even in the field of being) appeared; and gradually man felt he did not need God; and finally found God as a hindering factor in nature and politics.
In nature, the contemporary man proceeded to establish his domination and apply his own “ought”s, and in politics, he set to agree with the “is”s ordered by the carnal soul in order to find social natures from a phenomenologist and functionalist point of view.
After Renaissance
After the Renaissance, the concept of God changed; the idea of being was transformed; the role and look of science was upset; religion found a new meaning; concept and status of morality changed; politics changed its nature; medieval immature theology and empiricist and shirt-sighted science of the modern centuries, instead of regarding God as the Cause of causes and pre-eternal and eternal Lord, called God the first cause, temporary substitute of natural causes and god of gaps, then retired architect and dismissed politician; and inevitable result of denial of existential Lordship is denial of legislative Lordship; instead of discovering truth, science aimed to gain power; and mission of knowledge which was “certainty and faith” turned into “doubt”. Function of religion which was interpretation of being, presentation a definition for man and administration of his life reduced to adjustment of man’s (quantitatively, qualitatively, temporal, and spatial) limited relation of man with God (if he wishes so and arbitrarily); and morality (which was able to disturb the carnal soul-ordered politics) changed into justification of desires and purification of conventional norms; the nature of politics which was “administration of the society” changed into “alteration of the society”.
Empiricism, Poor Knowledge
From the beginning it was clear that empiricism would make knowledge use a single source, cause man to be short-sighted and sluggish, and destroy nature and life. That is because empiricism is some sort of epistemological laziness. Though brought about superficial and formal achievements for man, the modern science has made him (like a simple-minded child who is content with the appearance of things), content with the appearance of life and being, and ignorant of the essence of life; and prevented him from reflecting on the depth of life and being. Now man has been left with an intolerable and flowing, floating and ever-changing, doubting science, with many contradicting ideas, a science which is unsacred and spiritless, particularist, superficial, of a narrow scope, impatient, but bold and with many claims; and of course, beneficial for fleeting desires of man.
Though some people like Karl Popper (1902-1994) are unhappy that scientists are accused of scientism, and have maintained that scientists’ doubting approach to the scientific hypotheses is an evidence of their distrust in the science , it is not undeniable that after Renaissance many people thought that the miracle of science was able to overcome all problems and attain all goals, they thought that science is the only remedy for all pains and sufferings; and that was why they replaced God with this shattering idol, and took its mortal statements with eternal Divine statements.
Decline of Dogmatism and Growth of Relativitism
Though there have appeared various understandings of “doubt” and “relativitism” in the course of historical development, there lays some degree of ignorance behind any kind of relativitism and philosophical skepticism. Doubt is a passage to come to certainty, and any certainty is preceded by some “seen” or “hidden” doubt”. Doubt is some moments younger than man and some moments older than “research”. Written and unwritten history of thought attests to this point.
Ancient Skepticism
Historians of science and philosophy have mentioned the Greek philosopher, Heraclitus (BC 500) as the first skeptic. After him, nihilists or skeptics such as Protagoras, Prodicus (b. approx. BC 481), Hippias, Gorgias (approx. BC 483-375) and others founded sophism; and almost three centuries before the Christian Era, there emerged Academic skepticism such as Arcesilaus, and Pyrhonian skepticism among some followers of Socrates and Plato. At the same time, there were in India some skeptic currents and scholars who had been, most likely, influenced by Pyrhon .
Two centuries after the beginning of the Christian age, Pyrhonian skepticism was revived by Sextus Empiricus. In the Medieval Age (which lasted for ten centuries from downfall of the Western Rome till conquest of Constantinopole by Sultan Muhammad, the Conqueror), skepticism was suppressed and the age of naïve fideism began.
Methodological, insightful, and anti-rationalist doubt of Ghazali (1058/450-1111/505; see al-Munqidh min al-dalal (Deliverance from Error)) (five hundred years before Descartes (1596-1650) and even empiricism polemics of Abu Rayhan Biruni (d. 1048/440) with Ibn Sina (d. 1037/428) as well as anti-philosohiocal doubts produced by those like Imam al-Mushakkakin Fakhr al-Din Razi (1029/606) should not be regarded as skepticism of the usual kind. Fakhr al-Din was a doubting one and not a skeptic.
Revival of Skepticism
Skepticism was revived in the recent centuries in the context of Western Renaissance. Modern skepticism begins with the French Montaigne in the 15th Century. His work was a reaction against Reformism, the latter being a struggle against exclusive interpretation of the Bible by the Church. Unlike Calvin who, relying on authority human reason, regarded each and every human being as allowed to interpret the Scripture, and questioned Church’s Father’s exclusivism, he judged human understanding as being bewildered. Nor were attempts made by Descartes to remove Montaigne’s ideas of influence successful; and even, since Descartes did not regarded senses as representing the reality, and since innate concepts are very less than sensible ones, he fell unwillingly in skepticism concerning sensible concepts which are the main parts of concepts available for man.
Hume and the Trap of Relativitism
In the process of escaping from rationalism to empiricism, Hume was entrapped by relativitism; his discussions about metaphysics as well as his doubts in the “uniformity of nature” did not only make the “principle of causation” confused, but also put under question “empirical propositions” and made the possibility of knowledge of future doubtful. The essence of Hume’s thinking was reflected in philosophies of Kant, Hegel, Marxism, and logical positivism. And in this way, flames of contemporary skepticism were kindled from the shrubs of modern skepticism, and burned the remnants of knowledge.
Kant, Destruction of the Palace of Reason
Kant’s teaching, which was posed to solve problems, also stemmed from Hume’s extremist empiricism and led to a complicated idealism or estimated realism and destruction of the palace of reason’s authority, and introduced a priori concepts as well as insistence on the interaction between subjective and objective made access to the reality totally impossible, and actually consolidated the foundations of relativitism and skepticism. Following him, Popper (under the pretext of selective conduct of the theoretician in observation) destroyed authority of induction totally. He said that “verification and confirmation” cannot be done by experience; experience only may falsify.
Downfall of fronts of Knowledge
This is how fronts of knowledge were conquered one after the other: first, rational knowledge (justified true belief), then reasonable knowledge (justified belief), and now belief in the absolute sense of the word! Now, in some regions and in particular in the West, the proud commander of relativitism and skepticism have conquered all realms such as philosophy, science, religion, ethics, laws, politics and the like.
Kant says: ” Enlightenment is man’s emergence from his self-imposed immaturity. Immaturity is the inability to use one’s understanding without guidance from another. This immaturity is self-imposed when its cause lies not in lack of understanding, but in lack of resolve and courage to use it without guidance from another. Sapere Aude! [dare to know] “Have courage to use your own understanding!”–that is the motto of enlightenment.”
But the philosopher of Modernity does not know that the hero of epic for whom he makes a motto has long been killed by him.
Dogmatic Skepticism
Here I am not to defend absolute dogmatism, but rather I criticize “absolute Relativitism” which is itself some sort of dogmatism. I never recommend scientific stagnancy and absolute reliance on epistemic heritage of ancient past; I never oppose scientific activity and criticism; but rather I blame whimsy of science and philosophy, and instability of hypothesis and theories in the field of philosophy and knowledge. It is as if human beings have become so disappointed by domination of “certainty” and “truth” that they are insistently trying to make obstacles in the way of certainty and seeking truth, and overthrow domination of truth and certainty!
In the introduction to this writing, some mentions were made to pathology of the threats for modern knowledge and life; we think that one of the most common threats is the replacement of “universal propositions” by the “particular ones”! These propositions are sometimes offered based on completely exceptional cases, but such propositions and their results are generalized to all (or most) cases to come to a universal conclusion. Sometimes, in order to explain phenomena nd claims, some true (but particular) propositions (instead of being regarded as one of some “factor” of a phenomenon, are employed as a “color glass” or adequate cause!
Emergence of theories such as philosophy of history and Marxian logic to analyze historical developments as well as Freudian psychoanalyst views and even schools of sociology of religion (of religious ones) and psychology of religion (of religious ones) are consequences of such a threat. Replacement of “certainty” by “conjecture” and “probability” as well is one of the other threats for knowledge and scholars.
Pathology of knowledge should be left to another time and another article. Here, we say in brief but expressly that when fallacy of “replacement of cause and glass” and “generalization of exception and probability” entered the realm of study of religion and theology, religion became subject to thousands of threats.
Reduction of the Status of Religion
Reduction of the “comprehensive complex of religion” to some “propositions about the Origin and the End”, reduction of “religiosity” to “knowledge of religion” (and that as a human knowledge), separation of “understanding of religion” from “the essence of religion”, and the “shell” of religion from its “pearl” (which are themselves some sort of secularization of religion), reduction of “firm religious faith” to a “faith” which may be in harmony with doubt and is consistent with wonder, reduction of religiosity to moral conducts, reduction of “religious revelation” to a mystical “inner experience” and Sufi “personal intuitions” which are as various as human beings are and, as a result, cannot be judged, reduction of religious propositions to some useful, but meaningless and unreasonable, quasi-propositions, and to make religion imprisoned in the labyrinth of linguistic analyses and thus to make religious concepts brief and unknown, and finally to regard revealed teachings, under the pretext that they cannot be verified, as lacking the acceptability of truth and falsity, insistence on achievements of extremist hermeneutics and announcement of “anarchism in interpretation”, and extreme insistence on religious pluralism and pluralism of truths of religious knowledge (which destroyed truth), promotion of idealist theology and rejection of religious realism had no result but making religion meaningless.
Now, with so many attacks made on the truth of religion and authority of religious knowledge, is there any room for belief in religious propositions and commitment to value Divine commands and obedience of religious normative teachings? When there are doubtful ideas, confused morality, and disvalued commands, faith and acting in the way of that faith will have no room.

Chapter 3: Modern Rationality

And of mankind there is he whoso conversation on the life of this world pleaseth thee (Muhammad), and he calleth Allah to witness as to that which is in his heart; yet he is the most rigid of opponents; And when he turneth away (from thee) his effort in the land is to make mischief therein and to destroy the crops and the cattle; and Allah loveth not mischief. (The Holy Quran, 2: 204-5)

In our time, it is not philosophers or religious scholars who interpret being, define man, and explain the goal of life; but rather sociologists, economists, and politicians have usurped the seats of philosophers and prophets and their missions; the origin of misunderstandings and deviations of Westerners and those influenced by them is this very point.
Philosophers and prophets call to truth; sociologists, politicians, and economists justify “reality” (what has happened); that is why the latter’s “ought to”s and “ought not to”s lead to realization of what is required by the carnal soul’s desires and acquisition of the extreme sensuality.
Though, epistemology is the most serious intellectual challenge of the modern age, and the main characteristic of modernity is humanism and all attempts made by modern rationality are based on administration of man’s material life, surprisingly the deepest crisis of the modern world is “the crisis of knowledge”; and alas! Modernism is not able to provide a true and remarkable meaning for being, life, and man!
Function of Modern Reason
Modern rationality is based on a one-dimensional life; and according to rationalist, there is no goal for being, no heaven for life; there is no transcendent being in the context of being; life is deprived of sacredness and spirit! And since there is no ruler for the world and man, then no heavenly predetermined fate may be imagined for him; and since there is no predetermined fate, then there is no goal for the world and man; and since there is no goal, then there is no obligation; and that is why man is unobliged and doubtful in the context of being! And now that there is no sacred fate to be found by man to make himself committed to it, then there should be a sensual thought to forge and use such a “fate”. Since he forges and he uses it, he goes to the judge by himself and comes back, inevitably, happy. Thus, instead of “feeling of obligation” he “counts his rights”.
Modern Man
In the modern view, man is a being intertwined with matter, a part of nature, an object. Man is not idea, he is not value or worship; he has cut his relations with God. Principally, he has no relation with God; he is an offspring of earth; he is a leave fallen from the tree and has been captured by the tornado of technology; he is a self-centered entity and not a self-making one. He sees only himself and not God. His actions are passive acceptance of what is imposed by spiritless technocracy and cruel bureaucracy. In the hands of “technical rationality”, man is captured by everyday life, and prefers the present lower world to the absent higher world to come; the air of the iron cage of rationality has lowered his aspiration; eliminated proximity [to God], perfection, and happiness from his life, and summarized all his expectations in his benefit, and all his benefits in pleasure, and all his pleasures in power. Alas! In this natural life, no pleasure will be gained without suffering! Then, the process of man’s life is: “to remove suffering by enduring suffering!” and “to endure pains in order to eliminate happiness”.
“If you know pleasure of abandonment of pleasure;
“No more you will call the pleasure of carnal soul “pleasure”
Meaningless Organization
Evidently a civil organization originated from the above-mentioned interpretations and definitions provided for being, life, and man in the context of technological rationalism is a meaningless organization imprisoning individuals of the society; and the current civilization is, in this structure, a mean whirlpool wherein society is imprisoned; the goal of such a civilization is freedom of instincts and development of man’s natural forces and not liberation of his capabilities or his innate nature; and since there is no heavenly fate and obligation, then no order of truth may be imagined; and then, humanism shall be taken as basis and secularism as being legitimate, and the liberal democracy as the most favored and even highest human ideal.
Also, in the context of such understandings and definitions, the goal of “development” is to extend and accumulate what man may have, and not to develop his being or transcend his life; and more than dealing with man himself, his interests and his belongings are dealt with; instead of knowledge of the self and domination on carnal soul, they insist on knowledge of nature and domination on horizons (nature); and all attempts made by man are aimed at, instead of controlling the world, the world itself; and what results is manifest not in man’s development but in changes made in nature.
The famous sociologist Max Weber (1864-1920), who has defined modern rationality, thinks that overcoming of instrumental rationality on other kinds of rationality is the cause of emergence and spread of modern capitalism and civilization. According to Weber, the main rival of technological rationalism is value rationality.
Value rationality is to employ rational measure to attain future infinite goals and values; the technological rationality, however, is purposeful calculation of job’s instruments to attain the goal (to acquire the highest benefit) through a regular and measurable action.
According to Weber, action is rational when it is aimed at certain personal goals; and its goal, tools, and consequences have been taken into account and measured.
Though “measurability”, “predictability” and “controllability” are natural elements of technological rationality, what was not predicted by the founders of modernity and prophets of rationalism which are now uncontrollable by those interested in it are consequences of this school.
Rejection of God’s Dominion Leads to Captivity and Double Despotism
Rationalism is epistemically based on humanism and rejection of God’s dominion; and liberalism is the main context of the modern, regular life organization. For the fear of emergence of dictatorship, the Western liberal democracy has forbidden guidance of people even by the government elected by the majority, and considers for this government no duties but to provide security! The first victim of the formal rationality is, however, individual identities of human beings; the first right suppressed is his freedom, the first quality negated of him is his nobility; for, here, individual is a nut in the automatic machine of society and the latter is imprisoned by the giant of technology; that was in this way that rejection of God’s dominion under the pretext of humanism and acceptance of human beings’ collective dominion led to captivity by system and unanimated things; and in the complicated process of , man himself became an object; and this is the double dictatorship, and man becoming a tool for tools; and as a result not only did the modern man become alien to God but he has also become alien to himself.
“He who escapes from Shah’s taxes
“Will become a porter for the giant of deserts
So “For in reality, neither the utilization of administrative rather than physical controls (hunger, personal dependence, force), nor the change in the character of heavy work, nor the assimilation of occupational classes, nor the equalization in the sphere of consumption compensate for the fact that the decisions over life and death, over personal and national security are made at places over which the individuals have no control. The slaves of developed industrial civilization are sublimated slaves, but they are slaves, for industrial slavery is defined as:
“pas par l’obeissance. ni par la rudesse des labeurs, mais par le statu d’instrument et la reduction de l’homme a l’etat de chose,”
“Neither by obedience, nor by hardness of work, but by tools, and reduction of human being into things”
This is the pure form of servitude: to exist as an instrument, as a thing, and this mode of existence is not abrogated if the thing is animated and chooses its material and intellectual food, if it does not feel its being-a-thing. A vicious circle seems indeed the proper image of a society which is self-expanding and self-perpetuating in its own preestablished direction – driven by the growing needs which it generates and, at the same time, contains”.
Yes, technology for man, man a prisoner of the society, and the latter a prisoner of technology: this is a concealed vicious circle.
Quantitative Civilization
The French Rene Guenon has correctly called the present civilization a “quantitative civilization”; domination of quantity is one of the greatest dangers threatening the contemporary man.
In the modern rational life and its statistical culture, again as said by Gnon, because of “the insanity of statistics” all things are counted and registered, human beings as well are regarded as mere numeral individuals! The scene of society is the chess board, and all people are taken into account, but they have to play without wishing for it, otherwise they will be thrown out of the cycle of life.
Today, in the temple of her iron school, the goddess of rationality has made all people worship her; and the Pharaoh of rationality has crucified all things in the battlefield of pleasure.
In spite of Weber’s definition for status of actor and the process of action in the instrumental rationality, since his identity has been absorbed in the Western modern society, the actor is not able to calculate, predict, and determine his goal; since his understanding like his will has been swallowed by the giants of technocracy and beaurocracy, his could not or should not think, since others are thinking, understanding, and selecting; as in artificial conception, the producers of public ideas are inducing their own need and want and choice in the womb of his brain; and the baby is born apparently naturally; all his desires and choices are, however, borrowed.
That is why today one has not cried for lack of freedom of speech and writing, and occupation of human beings; more than this and before this, one has to morn for determinism imposed on him, for his not thinking, and for his being deprived of thinking.
Modern Determinism
Historical determinism, mental determinism, governmental determinism, sensual determinism, instincts determinism, and thousands of other kinds of determinism taken all together are not equal to the modern determinism, i.e. domination of technology and rule of functional individualism which has occupied and suppressed being of modern man part by part so that it has taken away both his thinking power and selecting power.
In this critical age, if man wishes or is able to live based on values or religion, his movement is a forced one; and the essence of formal rationality is inconsistent with the essential rationality; and living based on values is against the logic of modern rationality, and religiosity is against the logic of modern sensuality.
Rationality has covered all fields of the life of Western society such as economy, laws, arts, and even religion; religion as well has lost its originality; the man of modernity sees all things from an instrumentalist point of view.
The man of modern world is a man without an ideology, he is wondering. Without there being an ideal, he feels disappointment and vengeance.
Having denied value rationality and overthrown religion in the first step as instructed by the instrumentalist rationality, the rationalist Western man always feels guilty because of denial of religion and suffers a spiritual void.
Though the technological rationality emerged to destroy myths and values, now it has become an unrivalled myth instead; it has taken the place of religion of modern man, and become a super-value above all other values; today it has found the highest sacredness in the minds of Western people.
The Triangle of Benefit, Power, and Pleasure
In the narrow scope of the triangle of benefit, power, and pleasure, the science’s goal is reduced to acquiring power through discovering of truth, and provide the maximum benefit and pleasure.
They have said that in the Middle Ages, philosophy was a servant of religion, and philosopher a companion of Pope; now in the age of bureaucracy’s rule, science is a servant of power, and scientist an agent of money and power.
Among the results of bureaucracy are decrease of research in the scientific enterprises and the main aim of such enterprises in the private sector. And if a scientist goes another way, he will be condemned to solitude. Today, scientific and philosophical processes are firmly related to social processes; Theoretical reason has entered into the service of practical reason. In this situation, the society will condemn any opposing understanding and any action stemmed from such an understanding.
Concerning the goal and function of philosophy and “the higher knowledge” and even “the absolute knowledge”, it has been said:
“It is knowing becoming of man as the objective universe”.
“He who has a share of knowledge
“Is a world sitting in a corner
Modern “Science”: to split the particle, and not to see the Sun
Among consequences of the modern civilization is science becoming deprived of universality, spirituality, and heavenly emanations; a particularist, empiricist science which admires nature is never able to provide an outlook for man, to create trust and faith in man’s heart, and to breathe spirit of life into man’s body, produce happiness in his life. That is why relativitism, i.e. skepticism of the modern age became so wonderfully popular.
Specialization of sciences, though made man able to split particles, prevented him from seeing a sun in the heart of the particle. According to Rene Guenon, in its primary and literal sense, physics has no meaning other than knowledge of nature without any limitation; and thus it is a science concerning the most general and universal logics of becoming … thus, deviation imposed by he who renewed religion on the term “physics” to use it to exclusively designate a particular science among other sciences which are all equally sciences of nature is very meaningful. … this is a remainder of previously mentioned dispersion and it is one of the characteristics of the modern science related to specialization of sciences which is in turn a product of the spirit of composition and decomposition; and it has so fathered that presence of a science concerning the whole nature has been made an unimaginable fact for those who are influenced by this spirit.
And then, achievements of these narrow-sighted sciences are floating and unreliable. In addition, we know that in our age how fast these hypotheses become obsolete and replaced by other ones. And these very continuous changes suffice to show that how loose and unstable are such hypotheses and one cannot ascribe the value of true knowledge for them.
Heavy Burden of Modern World on the Shoulders of Pre-Modern World
Today the scope of influence of rationality and its popularity goes beyond the borders of industrial countries; and in spite of scientific stinginess of the developed world and the deep scientific and technological gap between the West and East and North and South, the burden of consequences of modernism and even heavy costs of sensuality of powerful countries is on the weak shoulders of weak nations. Today, human beings are unpaid slaves of the colonialist lords. Influenced by propagandas and unconsciously, the poor nations are consumers of the destructive technology and worthless products of the great capitalists and powerful countries.
Today, work force, properties, and products of all nations and peoples of the world are, by force, a bankroll for America’s money. The United States produces paper dollars without any fear; and having increased the volume of her cash flow in the global markets, she divides her inflation and deficit among peoples of the world!
Designers of views such as the project of new global order and a global village… try to attain no goal but elimination of sub-cultures, reign of a culture based on modern rationality, and establishment of undisputed domination of the West.
Another Overview of Shortages and Falsities
Once more time, we review the host of shortages, falsities, and crises of the modern world as well as achievements of the rationality and modernity- from among what already said and what that should be said but cannot be mentioned in this short article:
Wrong interpretation of, and definition for, life and man (insistence of the natural sciences to find an animal progenitors for human being, insistence of biology to find an animal present and future for human being), crisis of identity, machinism, objetificationism, alienation, and man’s becoming one-dimensional, lack of idea and ideal, reduction of man’s dignity, prohibition of thinking and selecting for man, decline of family, paradox of animalism and humanism!, individualism and elimination of the identity of individual from the society, international imperialism, technological gap between north/south, influence of propagandas, useless products, wrong needs, greed, consumeranism and false welfare, reign of quantity, rule of bureaucracy, influence of statistics, instrumentalist approach to science and religion and economy and laws and arts … crisis of spirituality, demystification, enmity to revelation and values, originality of power, pragmatism, pleasure-centeredness, unwilling loves and enmities, wraths without a philosophy, undeclared wars and peace, false values and valuations, nihilism, disappointment of the young generation, reign of modern determinisms, totalitarianism and dictatorship of things to take man’s will, unlimited despotism and intervention of powerful countries in other countries’ affairs; unwanted and hidden patronages, amoralism and false liberties, modern slavery, wrong relations between individual and society, destruction of environment, scientism, agency of science in the palace of rationality, changes made in the goal of knowledge and research, the problem of specialization of sciences, the problem of fast changes in scientific hypotheses and instability of human knowledge, explosion of information, and stinginess of the developed world, crisis of knowledge, wonder and skepticism, relativitism, extreme positivism, naturalism, man’s failure to provide answers for the main questions concerning life and being…
What Should Be Done?
All of these and dozens and even hundreds small and great, parallel, and consequential phenomena are gifts of instrumentalist rationality for the poor but bold contemporary man. All of these afflict man in the industrial (the so-called developed) world; and people in other parts of the world- which is divided in such contexts into developing (and to put it more precisely “quasi-modern”) and underdeveloped (non-modern) world- are suffering from consequences of modernism more than enjoying its advantages.
Though after the Middle Age, technological rationality was a reply provided for the question “what should be done?” of that time, now for a while, the above-mentioned consequences have made intellectual elite of societies faced by the question “what should be done?” or “what will happen?”. The two above-mentioned questions, in spite of difference in their origin, concern both the modern and quasi-modern worlds, and in some respect they concern the underdeveloped world as well.
In the modern world, some thinkers believe in the truth of what that happened, and think that the present Western civilization and in particular its American version will survive, and insist on necessity of its survival. In spite of their objections to the contemporary civilization, some critical thinkers think that its decline is not possible, since it is too complicated and employs preventing tricks; but despite this disappointment, they think that attempts made by critics will slow down its destructive flow.
A host of Eastern and Western thinkers think that a lot of evidence attests to the beginning of decline of the West and the dark contemporary civilization and emergence of another civilization; and it is up to elite and those who seek good for humanity to try to expedite its collapse. This insight has various kinds and each one of them provides its own solution or prediction.
To analyze and explain the solutions or prediction proposed by the learned people and intellectual elite should be left for a suitable time.

Chapter 4: The Role Played by Religion in the Modern World
Explanation of the role of religion in the modern world will become possible by providing a “definition for religion” as well as “knowledge of the modern world”. We have to find what religion is. Of which kind is the modern world? Then, we will be able to explain what the role played by religion in the modern world is or should be.
For us, religion is “a report of creational and legislative Divine will”, in other words, understanding of monotheism is the basis of God-centered administration of man’s life. In more simple words: religion is a set of representative propositions as well as normative and value instructions revealed through prophets of God or found by the sound reason.
Religion has provided a clear interpretation of being and of man, God-the Exalted- is the Creator of being and man, thus He has knowledge of the essence of man and truth of being; religion is manifestation of God’s school concerning being and relations between the best one from among beings (i.e. man) and God. Naturally, it provides true answers for main questions about the universe and man. That is why reason admits that in his relations to the universe and other human beings, man has to believe in propositions revealed by God; also, since what has been revealed as the framework of human relations by God consists of the most precise commands and teachings, man has to make himself committed to them; and since these sciences and laws originate from truth, whole-hearted belief in these propositions and commitment by one to these commands and teachings will provide man’s happiness and perfection.
If there would be no obstacle or force, the life style chosen by each and every man is certainly based on some sort of ontology; as a rule, that is not the case that man may find the universe in some way, and conducts in some other way; otherwise he will suffer the crisis of dual personality.
To administer his worldly life, man needs more than moralities. Nor is religion a mere set of moral recommendations. According to His own descriptive outlook, God has instructed to adopt certain prescriptive politics; a religion which does not concern the worldly matter is not a religion but a mystical school. A religion which lacks a worldly plan for man cannot punish or reward him in the world to come. To be sure, the Creator of man wishes a life higher than an animal or vegetative one for him. And without “command and enjoinment” from the Creator’s side and “abandonment of an action or adoption of an action” by the creature, other-worldly punishment and reward are meaningless.
But about the modern world (here, as required by my discussion, I speak only of “shortages and fallacies of the modern world”): today, the modern world faces many crises: crisis of knowledge, crisis of spirituality, crisis of psychological security, crisis of identity, crisis of legal and physical security, crisis of ecosystem… The main crisis of the contemporary world is an epistemological one stemmed from relativitism. The present prevalent civilization is not able to provide a sound interpretation of being; accepted and valid contemporary sciences have no accurate interpretation of man. Instability of scientific hypotheses does not allow man to make a sound and stable interpretation of being, man, and goal of life. Because of particularism, the natural science which is the queen of all sciences of our time is unable to provide a universal view towards the universe. Absence of a universal science concerning the whole being and providing an accurate definition for being is the main problem of contemporary man.
Today, man’s peace of mind has been eliminated; his future seems to be dark, seeking for happiness and perfection has been forgotten; hedonism, cursory and corrupting bodily pleasures have created unavoidable moral crisis for man; collapse of values and the institution of family is an insoluble problem for the modern man.
The crises of spirituality and identity are among the most important crises of the modern age. Modern determinisms and man’s captivity by technology and bureaucracy have made him alienated. Today, each and every man who is an enemy of these two modern giants will be eliminated. And if not eliminated, his movement is regarded as a forced one against the general direction of human life; and his attempts will not lead to his goal. The caravan of today’s life is like a train which takes its passenger to some point; and even if one is running against the general direction of the train, he will finally reach the same point.
Relations based on “legality” of power have destroyed legal security; weak nations in presence of superpowers, nations in presence of governments, and the Weak in presence of the Powerful have lost their security and peace. Man’s greed for lucre and his self-centered exploitation of natural sources have led to incurable environmental crisis.
Religion provides clear and trustworthy answers to man’s main questions. These replies are definitive, stable, and true. According to religion, being is purposeful. According to religion, a moral order governs the universe. Religion reveals for man that who he is, why he has come, what he has to do, and where he will go.
Religion’s answers to man’s main questions
Religion considers a higher status for man in the world of creation. Though under the motto of humanism man is only thinking of his self, he has brought down God to a status lower than that of man instead of bringing man to a Godly status. Religion considers man as a being higher than unanimated things, animals, and vegetables, and even higher than angels.
Religion provides meaning for life, hope for man, frees him from his internal restraints; when freed, he will, of course, become free from the external restraints. A man free from sensuality will not become a captive of technology and other external factors. Bureaucracy will not capture him. Religion corrects social relations at national and international levels. Peace and justice will be provided only if man’s dignity is understood and the sense of obligation before God and belief on the Resurrection Day are guaranteed.
He who believes in the world to come will never oppress human beings; he who regards human beings as God’s Caliphs and considers an essential respect for them, and regards himself as the successor and exemplar of the Truth, will conduct in a Godly way; and as a result neither in the international scene does he trample others’ rights nor in the national scene does he oppress his compatriots; neither the believer nor the disbeliever are afflicted by him.
According to religion, nature and environment belong, firstly and essentially, to God, for being is created by God and thus it is His own; man has, accidentally, control on nature. He is a trustee, and is entitled to exploit it as much as it is necessary; and since all human beings are God’s servants, all of them are entitled to exploit God’s possession equally and in a just manner.
According to religion, nature is God’s act and as a result it is a sacred thing. Religion considers environment as a public human possession. Nobody and no power is, according to religion, the absolute owner of being; that is why the religious rules are able to save environment from destruction. Religion’s messages are deep, accurate, true, and trustworthy.
Anyway, because of narrowness of time, I suffice to these very points. Anyway:
Mission of the Religious Ones
Taking into account, today man’s complicated problems in all places of the world as well as crises facing man and requirements of the circumstances wherein under the man is under attacks of disappointments, he is seeking for perfection and happiness tired of material things and materialist life hoping for a window of light. For the same reason, the wave of spirituality has attracted attentions of all people and in particular the young generation. This makes the mission of religious ones more serious; and believers in the true religions (that is Abrahamic religions) have a heavy burden of mission on their shoulders. To avoid useless sectarian disputes and to hold fast to the Abrahamic cable (a cable that is that of he who is the father of all true and monotheistic religions), to have sympathy and to come dialogue, to be united against atheism are duties of all religious people. The greatest mission of the followers of Abrahamic religions is to know today’s world as well as today man’s circumstances, needs, and problems. Also they have to correctly introduce religion, religious teachings which are in harmony with today’s conditions and understanding of the today’s generation. They should remove superstitions from the scope of religion and to take advantage of the young generation’s needs.
Throughout the world thirsty hearts are seeking for the source of spirituality; and this climax of seeking for spirituality and religiosity which is seen in the world is a trace of a historical development; if the history in the recent centuries were going towards the darkness of infidelity, now the situation has changed and the history is going towards religiosity and spirituality; and the theists have to take the greatest advantage of this situation.

Chapter 5: Sacred Democracy
Islamic government is a government based on justice and democracy, relying on Islamic rules and laws
(Imam Khomeini, Sahifah Nur, vol. 3, p. 286)
Introduction
1- That one thinks religion and democracy are consistent or thinks that they are inconsistent is fully dependent on: definitions provided for “religion” and “democracy” on the one hand, and our look at being on the other. An internalist religion lacking social organizations has no relation (whether positive or negative) with democracy.
2- Islam is a rational, comprehensive, and sociable religion. Thus, within its propositions and teachings, one may design and provide some sort of democratic social systems. We call this model of democracy a “sacred democracy”.
This article is to explain theoretical foundations, characteristics, and outcomes of this theory.
Seven elements of politics:
3- The elements consisting of the theoretical and practical fields of politics and governance are as follows:
A) Philosophy of Politics: epistemological, ideological, and anthropological foundations of a political school and theoretical organization;
B) Goals of Politics: material and spiritual, first and last goals concerning coming to power and administration of society. Goals of governance and politics may be explained in three levels:
1) “Fundamental Goals: the final and sublime goals (goals which are per se important) which are: to assure worldly and otherworldly happiness for man;
2) “Strategic Goal”: middle goal (a goal which should be attained to attain fundamental goals) which is establishment of justice;
3) “Functional Goal”: periodical and instrumental goals (actions which pave the path to middle goals) such as cultural, political, and economical proper development.
Each one these three levels serves to realize the goal(s) mentioned in its above level.
C) Rules: Constitutional, civil, punishment, and international laws; ought’s and ought not’s in fields such as politics, economy, and laws, to which a country should be committed to be able to attain its goals;
D) Morality: Proper political, economic, and legal conducts (in order to attain developmental motion of individuals of society towards perfection and happiness) to which agents (of government) and citizens should be committed, such as ruler’s modesty before people, citizens’ well-wishing critiques about functions of agents such as necessity of avoidance of rulers and governors from luxury, and avoidance of people from lavishly conducts;
E) Program: models of structure of the government and institutions forming the government;
F) Practices: ways to realize laws, moralities, and program and organization such as quality of assessment of citizens’ opinion about election of government’s agents.
Chapter One: Infrastructures and Presuppositions of Sacred Democracy
Sacred democracy is based on the following epistemological, ideological, anthropological, and religious principles:
1- Both reason as “internal revelation” and revelation as “external reason” have authority and together they are a window to find “Divine intentions” and “human interests”; violation of the commands of reason, like violation of the commands of revelation, is violation of Divine commands.
2- Beings (including human beings) are acts of God; thus
– On the one hand, God is more aware of what is and what is not in the interest of creatures and ways to attract and repel them than any other being; both in scientific aspect and practical aspect, man is in need of Divine guidance; for, man’s reason is not by itself able to fulfill all his needs; and carnal soul does not allow man to administer all his affairs as it should be administered. Thus, because of the Truth’s- the Exalted- mercy, it is necessary to specify and explain instructions for human beings’ collective and individual life.
– On the other hand, since God is the Creator of all beings, then He is their Owner, and since He is the Owner, then He is the King; and intervention in man’s legislative affairs- like his creational ones- is originally God’s right. No one (save God) is higher than other one; and the right to intervene man’s affairs to other may be delegated to other than him only in a framework which is confirmed by Him.
3. Creation is purposeful and all phenomena- including man- are continuously in motion from imperfection towards their favored perfection. This world and the world to come as well are consequential stations of this motion; and like links of a chain they are interconnected and consequently they are not inconsistent.
4. Man is the noblest creature; he is both God’s Caliph and His servant; and his innate consists of two dimensions (fitrah and nature). Thus, he enjoys by essence some nobility; and at the same time, in the process of solving double attractions stemmed from these two aspects of his nature, he is able to attain more perfections and nobilities; and since he is rational, he is free, and since he is free, he is obliged and responsible; because of his being God’s Caliph, he is free and decision-making; and because of his being God’s servant, he is obliged before God.
5. Though society is formed by human individuals, it is by nature governed by particular rules and laws- above these individuals-; thus, in relation to the society, the individual has social rights and obligations (in addition to individual ones). If interest of the individual and that of the society are inconsistent, sometimes collective right is regarded as being prior and some other times, individual right may be prior. In any case, relations between individuals of the society may be explained within the framework of mutual “right” and “obligation” between one’s self and others.
6- Religion is a report made of God’s realized will in creation, and His expected providence in legislation. In other words, religion is God’s idea about knowledge and providence; thus (in accordance to the capacity of its audience, i.e. human beings), religion is perfect and comprehensive; and it may not to address one field of man’s life and leave other fields; for, this is not in accordance to Divine “wisdom”, “justice” and “mercy”. To issue imperfect propositions and teachings as well is inconsistent with His perfect wisdom. Then, religion should be comprehensive and perfect, and its parts should be organized and consistent as it is.
Chapter Two: Geometry of Relation between Transmitted Sources, Reason, and Opinion
Taking into account the above six presuppositions, the content and geometry of social foundations and relations should be organized through employment of “revealed teachings and values” and reliance on “rational and experimental capacity” of human beings while observing “citizens public vote”.
A brief explanation of the consistent roles played by transmitted sources, reason, and opinion in organizing the seven elements is as follows:
A) Since, human beings are created rational, free, obliged, and responsible, they are able (and have) to search for and find the school of truth; and when they accept, with the help of their reasons, Islam as a religion (insight, method, and conduct) governing their lives, then they have chosen “philosophy of politics” and “goals” of the government by will. Since religion (Islam) have certain explanations for philosophy and goals (of course fundamental and strategic ones) of government and politics, then belief in religion is equal and co-extensive to belief in that philosophy and those goals. But since, according to Islam, reason is a support and argument for the religious knowledge, what is found by people of reason- as long as it is not against revealed teachings- is an argument and true. That is why identification of instances of “middle and strategic goals” as well as “functional ones” has been left to the people of reason and people.
Three Kinds of Rules
B- Rules are divided into three kinds:
1) Explicit: Contained in the religious books (revelation, sayings and conducts of the infallible ones);
2) Implicit: Inferable from religious generalities and rational principles and rules;
3) Left Unsaid: Left to human beings’ reason and experience, and people’s vote.
The first and second kinds i.e. explicit and implicit laws and rules are inferred and explained, based on reason and transmitted sources, through a defined scientific process and specific rules- which are called ijtihad (logic of understanding religion)- by Muslim specialists of religion and in accord with the changing and various temporal and regional requirements; the third kind of laws and rules which are called in the religious terminology “mubahat” in the religious terminology have been left to votes of people of reason and mass of people.
C) Like laws and rules, “political social morality” of Islam is divided into three groups with logic of inference similar to them.
D) Three other elements, i.e. “organization”, “program”, and “practice” which are objective and hardware mechanism of governance and government are determined through employment of human and social sciences based on rational methods by direct or indirect votes of people.
According to the above analysis, religious written sources (revelation and tradition), reason and science, and people’s votes are not regarded as being inconsistent; but rather all of them play their roles in an organic framework through a balanced process, in a periodical manner and in the context of the seven elements of politics and governance. These three sources do not play equal and parallel roles in all places; but rather their roles may become unimportant or important in the context of each one of the above seven elements; but none of them is absent.
Details of “geometry of governance” adopted from the model of sacred democracy and roles played by the above three sources as well as “logic of inference e of theory and argumentation for it” should be left to a suitable time. To provide a clarifying table of relation and roles played by these three sources in the context of seven elements, I would like to draw your attention to the following:
Table of Relation and Roles Played by Three Sources in Government
Seven elements Three sources How plays their roles
One Philosophy of politics Religious transmission -explanation of ideological, anthropological, and … principles of politics
Sound Reason -explanation of ideological and anthropological principles which are consistent with the religious principles of politics
People’s vote -Selection and Acceptance of religion
Two Goals of politics Transmitted sources -Explanation of strategic goals
Reason – Inference and confirmation of final and middle religious goals of politics
– Identification of instances of strategic and functional gaols
Opinion – Selection and acceptance of religion and political goals explained by reason and transmitted sources
Three Political rules Transmitted sources – Issuance of rules (explicit and implicit)
Reason -Inference of implicit rules and acceptance of explicit ones
-Determination of left unsaid rules and mubahat
Opinion -Acceptance of explicit and implicit rules and identification of instances
– Enaction of rules in the field of mubahat
Four Political Morality Transmitted sources – Issuance of moral teachings (explicit and implicit)
Reason Inference of implicit moralities and confirmation of explicit rules
– Enaction of morality of mubahat and identification of instances of implicit rules
Opinion – Acceptance of explicit and implicit moralities
– Enaction of moralities of mubahat
Five Organization of Governance Transmitted sources – Determination of ideological principles and some patterns for organization
– confirmation of the instruction of reason and what results from people’s votes
Reason – Inference and confirmation of ideological principles of organization
– Presentation of rational foundations of organization
– Determination of efficient mechanism to realize a desired governance
Opinion – Acceptance of rational and ideological principles
– Selection of efficient mechanisms
Six Government’s programs Transmitted sources – Determination of principles, values, and presentation of some plans
– Confirmation what reason says and what results from people’s vote
Reason – Inference and confirmation of principles and plans of canon law (shari’ah)
– Presentation of proper political plans
Opinion – Acceptance of principles and plans of canon law and reason
– Enaction and selection of proper plans
Seven Practice of Governance Transmitted sources – Determination of principles and presentation of some instances
– Confirmation of rational and religious practices
Reason – Inference and confirmation of religious principles and instances
– Discovering and presenting various changing practices
Opinion – Acceptance of religious principles and instances
– Selection and acceptance of rational practices

Some notes
1- Rational decision concerning the last three elements cannot be inconsistent with the first and second ones (philosophy and goals) and “normative and value teachings” (rules and moralities explicit in, or inferred from, religious sources).
2- Since the Infallible ones are more aware of God’s creational will than any other one, and the most suitable ones to realize God’s legislative will (philosophy and goals, rules and moralities) and guide human beings towards true happiness and perfection, leadership of the society in their lives have been delegated to them. Also, taking into account philosophy, goals, and legal and moral characteristics of the religious government, when the Infallible ones are absent, the one who is in the highest station of power and leadership of the society should have internal and external competencies; from among of such competencies are: ability to infer principles, rules, and moralities of the government and other teachings implicit in canon law; justice and fear of God, ability to make policies and govern in large scale; knowledge of the time, and acceptability.
3- The just non-Infallible leader has to consult with the elite and experts concerning main decisions and identification of conventional and scientific issues. When assuring the society’s interests is possible only through employment of experts’ opinions, the leader has to be committed to such opinions. In extraordinary circumstances and if required to assure important interests, the leader is entitled to issue temporary secondary rules both in the scope of revelatory legislation and in the field of people’s vote (mubahat). The leader is never entitled to impose his own opinions on people and government’s foundations.
Whenever he loses one of the conditions mentioned in the note two, the leader is automatically deposed from leadership. People are also responsible to identify the above-mentioned qualities and conditions; if they do not care and elect one who is not competent for this position, they will be responsible before God.
Chapter Three- Qualities of a Political System Organized based on Sacred Democracy
1- Essential legitimacy of governance in a system which is based on “sacred democracy” stems from Divine will; in terms of its structure and conducts, however, the governance is democratic and relied on people’s acceptance. Because of these two characteristics, this theory has been called “sacred democracy”.
2- In such a governance, principles like the following are realizable and even should be realized:
Separation of powers, participation of people in decision making about mechanism of governance and election of the agents of system, people’s direct and indirect intervention and supervision on authorities in all steps of decision-making and implementation; rule of laws and equality of all individuals and even the leader and heads of powers before law; assurance of rights of minorities and opposing groups; committed free economy; responsible and accountable government…
3- In a government based on “theory of sacred democracy”, three elements of “fear of God”, “expertise” and “acceptance” are intertwined; and the society may enjoy advantages of all three values.
4- Common belief (in philosophy, goals, rules, and political moralities) as well as creedal and ideological link between people and the higher authorities and agents of the government, which is flowing like blood in the tissues and structure of the government, leads to more sympathy between the government and nation.
5- The rule of “mutual right and obligation” between people and rulers and between individuals of the nation which are creedal brothers makes all parts of the government and society committed to each other.
Conclusion- Last Notes
1- Taking into account the above mentioned “six infrastructures and presuppositions” as well as “five qualities”, many differences between a governance based on “sacred democracy” and other kinds of governance such as governments based on “liberal democracy” and “ideological democracy” and the like, may be found.
2- All claims introduced in this plan may be referred back to many rational and religious evidence as well as traditions of Islam’s heavenly leaders- which are an argument for Muslims. This short article and the short time devoted to it in this conference does not allow me to explain differences between this pattern and other ones- secular democracy- and introduce Islamic evidence.

Chapter 6: The Theory of Election of Leader by People and Logic of Inference
Introduction
Two Responses to the Question of Origin of Legitimacy
To the question of the “origin of legitimacy” of the religious government as well as the “origin of permission or legality of the rule of ruler” in absence of the Infallible leader, people of opinion and politics of our time provide two responses:
1- Some people think that “legitimacy and legality” stemmed from Divine will and appointment by the Infallible Imam. This view is as follows: God is the Creator of all beings, including man, then He is the Owner of man and the universe; thus, He is the true King and Ruler of being and human society. And, heavenly men are the Creator’s Caliphs and rulers of beings, and they are entitled to administer social affairs and implement Divine rules. When the heavenly (Infallible) leaders are absent, the just, God-fearing, and competent scholars of religion, as their (appointed or elected) successors, administer social affairs. Having identified the instance of the appointed jurist and supported him, people make governance and implementation of God’s rules possible.
2- Some others think that “legitimacy and legality” is merely stemmed from the will of nation and their election. The (or a) version of this view is as follows: God is the Creator, then He is the Owner, and thus the King. When the Infallible one is present, he is the ruler; but when absent, only qualities and conditions of well-doers (jurists fulfilling all condition) have been specified by the heavenly leaders; election of an individual from among the competent ones has been left to people’s votes; thus, the competent one acquires legitimacy and legality through election made by the mass of people. This view is known as “the theory of people election.
Confusion of Ideas concerning Legitimacy
The main part of essays authored to explain the theory of governance as viewed from the above two points of view are confused; so that sometimes in works of proponents of the same view ideas “inconsistent” and even “conflicting” with the claim may be found; and this has caused many problems for he who wants to assess these views.
Darasat fi wilayat al-faqih wa fiqh al-dawlat al-islamiah
One of the most voluminous works written to explain the “governance of jurist and jurisprudence of the government” is a three volumes collection called “Darasat fi wilayat al-faqih wa fiqh al-dawlat al-islamiah” (hereafter Darasat) by Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri Najafabadi.
Since in this voluminous collection, the author has supported the “theory of election” and in more accurate words “appointment by people” and the idea of “election of the leader by mass of people”- while we are not to reject or accept a certain view in this essay-, here we assess transiently the arguments provided by the author to prove the “idea of “election of the leader by mass of people” in terms of the author’s commitment to the logic of inference, quality of argumentation, and that how these arguments support his claim.
In the fifth section which consists of six detailed chapters, the author of Darasat has discussed the way to elect the leader and that how one is appointed Imam. In the first chapter, he quotes from philosophers and jurists concerning “the origin of legitimacy of governance”. In the second chapter criticizing the theory of Divine appointment, he has spoken from an affirmative point of view. In the third chapter, he has studied reasons for general appointment of jurists; in the fourth chapter, arguments which may be provided to prove one’s being Imam through election by ummah have been appealed; the fifth chapter contains hadiths about bay’ah (swearing allegiance); and in the sixth chapter, he mentions 16 important points concerning the religious governance and governance of the jurist.
Claims and contents of this section may be criticized in various aspects.
1- Commitment of the author to logic of inference and methodology of ijtihad;
2- Commitment of the author to rules of logic, and fallacies used to explain arguments;
3- The totality of arguments provided to prove the author’s claim;
4- Confusion of the text, internal inconsistency of the claim and conflicting claims provided
As said, in this essay we criticize the essay transiently and concerning the points 1 and 3; and leave a detailed critique to a suitable time.
Juridical sciences consist of various sciences such as “philosophy of the science of jurisprudence”, “rules of jurisprudence”, “philosophy of basic jurisprudence”, “principles to draw rules”, and “science of jurisprudence”. “Principles to draw rules” explains “logic of inference” and methodology of ijtihad. Truth or authority of each and every juridical statements is completely dependent on the jurist’s care to apply the process of ijtihad; though to infer each “kind” or ‘branch” or “case” of juridical statements, certain processes are involved- or at least, there are certain differences involved- to make the readers familiar with the issue, here we mention to the process of inference of a statement.

Process of Inference of Statements
1- Definition of the issue, explanation of claim, or the subject of dispute
2- Explanation of possible assumptions to reply the problem
3- Study of the affirmative alternative;
4- Description of historical background and ideas of the past and contemporary jurists (opponent, proponent, detailed, expansion, and contraction) as well as assessment of arguments provided by each one of them;
5- Explanation of the selected idea and an affirmative assessment of the selected idea. In affirmative assessment, though there is no order agreed on by jurists, at first rational argument(s), then verses, then hadiths, and finally consensus are discussed.
To refer to each one of the above sources (Book, tradition, reason, and consensus) many points should be taken into account now it is not time to describe them. But since the author of Darasat has appealed to a host of hadiths to prove his own claim, here we mentioned main points which should be taken into account when one appeals to hadiths.
Points which should be observed when one appeals to hadiths
In argumentation based on hadiths, the following points should be observed:
1- Introduction and assessment of hadiths, in order of their clarity, perfection of issuance and authorities, and their limitation.
2- Seeking for the text and authorities of each and every hadith in narrative and transmitters encyclopedias, to be assured about the totality of text and that it is not partial as well as finding other versions and identification of the narrators of hadith.
3- Assessment of authorities of hadith in terms of their validity
4- Assessment of situation of and reason behind of issuance of hadith.
5- Assessment of parts of the text.
6- Corresponding the beginning and end of hadith and identification of its referents.
7- Seeking for generalities and particularities.
8- Seeking for absolute and restrained
9- Seeking for opponent hadith; and if there is a rival hadith, making a comparison between the two to find the former’s resistance against its opponent (to apply rules of balance and preferences)
10- Identification of authority and referent of the hadith
Objections to the Quality of Reference to Hadiths
Taking into account the above process, many objections may be leved at the way the author of Darasat makes reference to hadiths, below we enlist some of them:
A- The referred hadiths have been broken into parts and reported without taking into account their beginnings and ends- which are of paramount importance in the referent of hadith-; and sometimes, elimination of the beginning and end has changed the referent of hadith!
B- Though hadiths referred to are confused, the author has avoided mentioning and assessing the hadiths referred to under the pretext that from their totality some sort of “thematic sequence” may be inferred.
People of opinion are aware that from numerous weakly substantiated hadiths, some sort of thematic sequence is inferred only when a single referent may be acquired from them, and that referent is the same as the claim. As we will see, hadith mentioned in this section has no common referent and even if one finds some common point, the referent is not the same as the claim.
C- Conditions of issuance of no hadith have been studied and as we know, taking into account the conditions of issuance of some hadiths such as those concerning swearing allegiance will make their exact referents clarified.
D- The book, in terms of other six points, is very weak and deprived of deep-sightedness. The author has fallen in various fallacies, so that some arguments are more universal than the claim and some others are more particular; and some of them never refer to the claim, and even some of them reject the claims made by the author. Some of them are of kind of begging question. In other words, argument is the same as the claim, and for some claims there is no argument or arguments are not true.
6- If the first argument (rational argument) or the second one (traditions of the rational ones) are true, most arguments are only confirming these two arguments or leading to them; and as a result, the volume of arguments (about 40 pages) has no striking scientific consequence.
Here we discard some objections and suffice to finding that how 26 arguments mentioned in the book refer to the claims and how they correspond to each other.
Claims Made by the Author
Claims made by the author may be described as follows:
1- Concerning “the origin of legitimacy”- in the political and juridical senses of the term- only one of the two assumptions is true:
1-1- The origin of hegemony and governance is God- the Exalted- and people have no contribution or role in appointment of Imam.
1-2- Ummah is the only origin of hegemony and governance, and one is elected Imam only by people’s votes; and the competent jurist never has the right or is entitled to govern before being elected by people.
2- To prove the first assumption for the Holy Prophet (s) and the Infallible Imams (a) there are sufficient arguments; but to affirm direct and indirect appointment of jurists by God, there are no clear instructions. To prove the same, arguments posed for appointment of jurists are not sufficient.
3- Of course, if arguments for “Divine appointment of jurists’ were sufficient, the correct way would be the way mentioned in the first assumption. But this is not the case; then the only correct assumption is that mass of people, as the origin of hegemony and governance, elect one of the competent jurists and delegate governance to him. People’s vote is the origin of permission or entitlement of the jurist to govern.
The author of Darasat has mentioned 26 arguments for his claim in chapters 4 and 5 of the section 4

Assessment of 26 Arguments
One- Some of the arguments posed are more general than the claim made by the author (such as argument 8 p. 503, argument 9 p. 504, argument 11, p. 505, argument 12, p. 505, argument 13, p. 506, argument 14, p. 507, and argument 24, p. 510).
From among the above cases is appeal to Imam Ali’s (a) sayings when people came to him to swear allegiance after the killing of Uthman:
“Leave me and seek someone else… If you leave me then I am the same as you are. It is possible I would listen to and obey whomever you make in charge of your affairs. I am better for you as a counselor than as chief.” (Nahj al-Balaghah, sermon 91).
First: If Imam Ali (a) means that only people’s vote is the origin of “government’s legitimacy and they are entitled to appoint the leader” and that “people’s consent is the origin of Imamate”, then not even Imam Ali (a) had the permission or right to govern; he had to be elected and appointed by people (and so was the case); then this hadiths mention beyond the claims made by the author, i.e., the “necessity of election and appointment of the jurist” and according to such reports even the Infallible ones have no right to govern people unless they are elected by the masses of people!
In reply to the objection that Imam Ali’s denial may be a trace of “debate”, the author insists that even if Imam’s saying is a trace of debate, this debate is based on a true and correct position (necessity of appointment of Imam by people).
Second: Given the firm arguments for appointment of the Infallible Imams (a) for worldly and other-worldly leadership of people, Imam’s denial had been undoubtedly a trace of debate, and it is not clear that why the author has claimed that debate should be based on true saying. Debate should be based on the other party’s belief, even if that belief is false. It is true for the place of debate as well; people who had accepted, before Imam, three other Caliphs, were believing in non-appointment of Imam and possibility of election of Imam by people; for example, in reply to references made by the usurpers of Caliphate to their own closeness to the Holy Prophet, Imam was saying that “I am the closest one to the Prophet”. May one conclude that by this Imam meant that closeness to the Holy Prophet is a criterion for Caliphate in Islam?
“If they argue based on their kinship for Caliphate;
“There are those who are closer to the Holy Prophet. (Nahj al-Balaghah, wisdom 190).
And to object to the disobedience of some people, Imam insisted on their “insistence and swearing allegiance” and “his own refusal”. The contents of some letters of Imam Ali (a) to Mu’awiah are definitely of this kind.
Surprising! The author, to prove his own claims, has mentioned some letters which were written to debate with Mu’awiyah and Imam’s other saying (argument 12) which is explicitly for debate.
But no mention is made of hundreds of reports and works reported of Imam Ali(a) and other Imams concerning inheritance and appointment.
If hadiths like the above one has not been broken into parts, the reader would find the mystery behind Imam’s refusal which is a trace of debate and “ultimatum”. For the eliminated parts of the same letter speak of deviation and alteration which occurred to prevent realization and success of Alawi government and predicts non-commitment of those who swear allegiance to what is required by this allegiance and consequences of the government of justice; and appeals to these realities as excuses.
The contents of some arguments are against the claim
Two: Contents of some other arguments of the author of “Darasat” are more particular than his claim:
1- The fourth argument (p. 464): He says election of the leader and delegation of governance to him by people and his acceptance is some sort of “contract and treaty”; and “the methodology of rational people” as well as generalities and “necessity of following contracts and their conditions” is an argument for correctness and coming into force of this contract and treaty.
First: This claim is begging the question! For the subject of contract should be owned by he who concludes the contract so that he has right to conclude a contract, and then its requirements may be appealed to. In other words, first it should be proved that governance is people’s right, and people have, in parallel to Divine governance, governance on themselves, or God has delegated “right of governance” to them, then one may speak of people’s ability to conclude contracts for this right; people’s right of governance may not be proved by this argument, and if the right of governance is proved, there will be no need to appeal to generalities and necessity of commitment to contracts.
Second: if some affairs are delegated to people and people delegate those to the Governor, those affairs are not all “affairs of government” and administration of society; and because of the nature of government or permission issued by the Legislator, the jurist enjoys many rights and authorities of most of which people are deprived. For example, all jurists including the author agree that judges should be appointed by the jurist.
An essence which has no share of being
How is it able to give being?
Third: even if we assume there is no limitation for people’s intervention in governmental affairs, if a part of Ummah which have won the election (for example 51% vs. 49%, and if there is a partial election perhaps with 30% of votes vs. rival parties) and come to power, according to which juridical and legal permission they are able to elect a person and delegate all affairs of Ummah to him and impose him on all rights, lives, and properties of opponents or those who have not participated in the election or those who have not born yet?
Fourth: If all individuals participate in the election of a leader and elect someone as leader, he will be their representative, and not their legal guardian; he is appointed by people to serve them and not to rule over them; that is why to apply the term “guardianship”- in its sense in the religious terminology- to a position emerged based on people’s election and appointment is not accurate and correct.
To Appeal to arguments of consultancy for the origin of legitimacy
The author of Darasat regards verses and hadiths which encourage consultancy and emphasize on its importance in the Islamic tradition as his fifth argument; verses and hadhith such as “And those who answer the call of their Lord and establish worship, and whose affairs are a matter of counsel, and who spend of what We have bestowed on them” (The Holy Quran; 42: 38); “If your leaders are the best of you, the wealthy are the kindest of you, and your affairs are subject to consultation, then the surface of the earth is better for you than its interior” (Tuhaf al-uqul). He refers to the above phrases in this manner:
1- The term “affair” in verses and hadiths concerns “government” or most likely concerns “government”;
2- Verses and hadiths as well encourage Ummah to counsel; and the majority of Muslims since the advent of Islam has selected counsel as the basis of Caliphate after the Holy Prophet (s);
3- Then, the leader should be elected by Ummah.
First: If the contents of these verses and hadiths show that the supreme leadership of government should be elected by counseling, then the Holy Prophet (s) (we take refuge to God) had not understood the meaning of the verses and his own words, or understood but having appointed some leaders for Ummah violated the contents of the verses and his own words for long centuries or even forever! But Caliphs and followers of their school and in the author’s words “majority of Muslims” have understood the contents of God’s verses and Holy Prophet’s words better than the Holy Prophet (s) and realized their recommendations! And Caliphs were right, and Imam’s of the Holy Prophet’s Household have committed a historical mistake for centuries!
Second: because of the phrase “and whose affairs are a matter of counsel” which is addressed to the Holy Prophet himself, the greatest commentator of the Holy Quran and true and actual leader, and based on his tradition as well as the phrase “… your affairs are subject to consultation” in the above hadith wherein the plural term “affairs” has been used, and since the latter phrase follows the phrase “If your leaders are the best of you”, by consultation in affairs, consultation in current affairs of the society and issues left to people are meant, affairs and issues such as organization of government, planning, enactment of everyday rules, legislation on cases which have no explicit or implicit rules in the religious texts (mubahat) as well as selection from among various cases, occasional decision-making, regulations, identification of referents and subjects of rules…
And perhaps arguments such as those of consultation mention necessity of the leader’s consultation with experts in vital affairs of government and even necessity of his commitment to the results of consultation but not “appointment of the leader” through consultation.
1. Third: as said- against the procedure of scientific research and logic of inference- some hadiths have been broken into parts, and this has led to wrong interpretation. From among cases which have been intentionally or unintentionally broken into parts is the above hadith. Hadith continues as follows: “But if your leaders are the evilest of you, the wealthy are the most niggardly of you, and your affairs fall in the hands of your women, then the interior of the earth is better for you than its surface”. As seen, against the phrase “… your affairs are subject to consultation” is the phrase “and your affairs fall in the hands of your women” which is not a phrase showing that the leader is not an elective one! At that time, it was not conventional to leave political affairs of the society in the hands of women. There is another hadith saying that he who, because of his evil intention, has proceeded to make schism, and without any competence has come to apply his legal guardianship, he should be killed; and it does not mention some other points (such as appointment of the leader by people).
Arguments against Claim
Three- There are other arguments which have nothing to do with the claim such as arguments 1 p. 493, 3, p. 495, 6, p. 499, 12, p. 505, 18, p. 508, 20, p. 508, 24, p. 25, 26, p. 511.
For example, the author’s first argument is common sense which has been described as follows:
A- Reason speaks of
1- Ugliness of anarchy
2- Necessity of establishment of order and assurance of collective interests, development of what is normative and prevention what is not
3- These all cannot be attained except under the leadership of a competent, just, efficient, and powerful government
4- Government cannot be established unless people are willing to obey of it
B- Government’s emergence is not possible except through one of the following ways: 1- Appointment by God Who is the Ruler of being and people; 2- domination on people by force; 3- Election by people.
C- Appointment by God- if possible and provable- is the best way; domination by force is oppression and thus ugly; then, only the third way (election by masses of people) is possible and justified.
First: If we make slightest changes in the author’s argument, the conclusion will fully change:
“The leader should be selected through one of the three ways: domination by force, election by people, appointment by God; domination by force is ugly, for election by people (i.e. appointment of the leader by people) there is no argument, then the best way is appointment by God.
Originality of Divine Appointment
Second: Even if there are not sufficient transmitted arguments for Divine appointment, still this view cannot be discarded; for, religious ideological presuppositions- which are based on hundreds verses and firm hadiths- emphasize authority and originality of this way, as follows:
1- God is the Creator of beings including man; then He is the Owner of being and man; then, He should be the King and Ruler;
2- Prophets and their successors (a) are perfect and Godly men; and according to rational and transmitted arguments, they are caliphs of the Creator on the earth and the best from among creatures to apply Divine guardianship on nature and man.
3- When Divine men are absent, knowledgeable, God-fearing, just scholars who are able to administer affairs of human society are the most similar ones to them; then, they are competent to continue to apply Divine guardianship. For, when the heavenly men are absent:
1- Either Divine legislative guardianship on human beings should be abandoned;
2- Or, Execution of Divine laws in the societies and God’s guardianship should be continued.
The first option is against the goal of mission of prophets and revelation of Books, will lead human beings to perversion, and prevents him from attaining perfection; and if it is necessary to apply and realize Divine laws- which is the same as realization of Divine legislative guardianship-, then:
1- Either, there are some ones appointed or described as narrators and executors for all times and all places.
2- Or no narrator and executor has been specified.
The second option is not reasonable; for absence of the executor or negligence in appointment of him will lead to suspension of Divine laws; and if it has been factually specified that a narrator and executor is needed, he is one of the following three kinds: an ignorant one who does not believe in Divine laws; or an ignorant one who believes, or a knowledgeable believing one. If Divine laws are left in the hands of a disbelieving or even believing ignorant one to be executed, there is no guarantee that these laws will be correctly executed or even executed, and this will again lead to suspension of Divine laws. Then, when the Infallible guardian or heavenly leader is absent, “just competent scholar” is appointed. And if there is a role to be played by people- that we think there is- it is identification of the instance of just competent scholar and cooperation with him in execution of Divine laws and realization of Divine guardianship. And even “the leader’s being accepted by people”- having qualities such as “ability to manage affairs”, “bodily and spiritual power”, “knowledge of time”- is a requirement for him to be successful in administering affairs of people. Then, people’s acceptance is a requirement for acquisition of competence to be Divinely appointed.
In brief: “exclusive and absolute originality” of people’s vote concerning governance and leadership has been based on humanist ideology and anthropology; and humanism cannot be adopted as an infrastructure for religious political thought which is characterized by God-centeredness.
Third: If creation were decided to bring the author in the world before “Renaissance” and emergence of the idea of “social contract” and liberal democracy, would the assumption of “originality of majority’s will for political legitimacy” ever occur to him? And even if so, did he so insist to impose this idea on religious texts? And if the idea of Divine appointment was impossible and arguments for it were not sufficient, would not he unknowingly- following the conventions of his own time- bring close and match infrastructure and structure of religious government to systems such as “polis”, “tribal”, “plutocrat”, “monarchic”, “oligarchic” ones? In the same way that- because of his unawareness (or negligence) of the political history of the world as well as history of political sciences and ideas- he has claimed that “Continuous tradition of rational ones in the course of history has been based on election of the supreme political leadership, and the Legislator has not denied this tradition!”
The Content of the Rule of Domination
His third argument for his claim is “the content of the rule of domination”. He says:
1- Common sense says that each and every one controls his properties; and the rational ones admit and make themselves committed to this.
2- Religion has confirmed this rational statement and procedure; and now this is one of the admitted opinions of Islamic jurisprudence.
3- Since control on one’s self is prior to, and even a criterion for, domination on properties, then, of course people are dominating their selves, and they can and even should- because of common sense concerning necessity of order and laws, elect a competent one to be their leader!
First: This is a comparison between two fully different things, in other words, “properties” has no Divine essence, and their values cannot be compared with man’s self. Properties are man’s achievements, and even if they are wasted, they may be compensated; thus their administration has been left to human beings; but the essence of life is a Divine creature and too valuable to be left to human beings; and only God and he who is appointed or described by Him is allowed, because of necessity of appointing successors, to dominate selves, even man himself is not dominating his self. And if the self were of less value than properties, this rule might be appealed to.
Second: if non-Infallible domination on selves and properties is not allowed except by one elected by the owners of selves and properties, will even one of jurists- including the author himself- be committed to consequences of such a claim? As a rule, if a competent jurist (non-elected by people) orders something which requires domination on lives and properties, will not such a command come into force?
Address to Collective Identity as an Argument for Appointment of the Leader by People
He has explained his sixth argument as follows:
1- Though collective identity enjoys no true union, experts of social sciences consider conventional reality and unity for it, and think that it is subject to some rights, obligations, laws, and rules.
2- In the same way that Islam has enacted some individual obligations for individuals, it has enacted some obligations as social ones. For example: “Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities” (The Holy Quran, 2: 190), “Make ready for them all thou canst of (armed) force and of horses tethered, that thereby ye may dismay the enemy of Allah and your enemy” (8: 60), “And there may spring from you a nation who invite to goodness, and enjoin right conduct and forbid indecency” (3: 104), and “As for the thief, both male and female, cut off their hands. It is the reward of their own deeds, an exemplary punishment from Allah” (5: 38).
3- Social current depends on establishment of government.
4- It is not reasonable that when collective identity is addressed and obedience of obligations is necessary, in spite of necessity of establishment of government, there will be no obligation for Ummah. Then, since the preliminaries of a necessary thing are necessary, Ummah is obliged to establish the government.
First: Quranic addresses are of the kind of rational and conventional ones typically aiming at announce obligations and rules; and the mere announcement of a rule as if it is addressed to the society does not mean necessity of its collective implementation. These addresses are only to announce rules governing social relations, and not to explain the way to implement them. And at least it is certain that they did not address people in an apocryphal general way so that each and every one or group may be permitted to implement Divine laws! For, if this is the case, there will be anarchy.
Second: to fulfill obligations stemmed from social addresses, it is not necessary to appoint the leader by people; for even if the leader is [Divinely] appointed, this role will be played to implement Divine laws; and people may play their role when the leader is [Divinely] appointed as well. For example, all these addresses are revealed when the Islamic government was actualized under the Holy Prophet’s leadership.
Third: to implement some addresses such as legal ones, particular competencies (like ijtihad and justice) are required of which most people are deprived. And from these addresses, one may not infer people’s competency for legal positions and necessity of judge’s being people’s successors.
Fourth: if the author’s understanding is true, establishment of right and obligation for people concerns explicit rules; and they can (or should) only appoint some ones to implement the same particular cases. So, what happens for obligations not addressed collectively?
The beginning of the 12th argument concerns explicitly to particular appointment of Imam Ali (a) and its last part is devoted to the Holy Prophet’s (s) recommendation to Imam to observe a higher interest in the case of people’s disobedience; and no mention is made to people’s election or appointment. Even if the author’s understanding is correct, this shows something beyond his claim; and thus it is classified under the first group of arguments assessed in the beginning of the article.
Also, his 18th argument “No nation will be saved if they leave their affairs to a female”, even if the “hadith” is authenticated, and if we do not take into account the cause of issuance of it, and if we assume that it aim to prohibit a nation from leaving their affairs to an incompetent one (like many other hadiths like that of Amr ibn Hanzalah which forbids one from going to Taghut in governmental affairs including legal ones, can one infer from such hadiths originality of people’s vote in judgment and that judges should be elected by people?
The 20th argument as well is alien to the claim. The story goes as follows. In the invalid invitation of the disloyal Kufis sent for Imam Husayn (a) there is a phrase that shows Yazid the Oppressor have found domination on the Ummah, usurps their properties, and governs them without their consent. Appealing to Imam’s reply to that group guilty of perjury, the author tries to prove originality of people’s vote for legitimacy of Islamic governance, and even for the Divinely appointed Imam. Imam’s reply is as follows: “as an examination of the truth of your claim, I send Muslim, if he confirms loyalty of the people and learned ones of your town, I will come to your town. Neither Imam Husayn (a) is in need of people’s vote, nor will votes of majority of masses of people lend legitimacy to Yazid’s government.
The Surprising Story of Proof of Preference of Mass Appointment
How surprising is the story of argumentation based on hadiths suggesting “even if you are three persons in a trip, then elect one as your leader” and that quoting those like Abu Hurayrah (23rd argument) to prove originality of national will for legitimacy of the ruler and preference of mass appointment to Divinely appointment.
The 24th argument of the author of Darasat refers to a clause in the Holy Prophet’s treaty with the people of Muqna. This clause says that at the time of establishment of Islamic government under the leadership of the Holy Prophet, it was agreed that: “the ruler is either one from among them or one from among friends and companions of the Holy Prophet”. How can an appeal to a trans-national treaty with a nation out of the scope of Islamic governance be regarded as an argument for originality of election? One has to reflect seriously; we leave the matter to readers to be judged by them. It is most likely that appointment of ruler either from among them or from among friends and companions of the Holy Prophet is done by the Holy Prophet himself! And confinement of the phrase to “either from among them or from among friends and companions of the Holy Prophet” is an argument for this probability.
The author’s 25th argument is to appeal to the contents of some verdicts issues by some jurists suggesting permission for reference to the Mufti, or judge, or permission of agreement concerning “a person to judge” by the parties of disputes!
Surprising! How may permission in the above cases lead to priority or necessity of election of the supreme leader of the system by people? And then, as admitted by the author, such permissions may be given when Divine permission or general appointment is realized and such positions are legitimized by it.
Swearing Allegiance and Appointment of the Leader
The author’s 26th and last argument is based on the tradition of “swearing allegiance”. Having mentioned some verses and hadiths about swearing allegiance and verbally discussed the term “bay’ah” (swearing allegiance), he concludes: anyway, swearing allegiance is one of the ways in which guardianship emerges- in brief- and if there were no consequence for swearing allegiance in terms of establishment and realization of Imamate, then why did the Holy Prophet seek wearing allegiance by people and why did Imam Ali many times ask people to swear allegiance and why did he insist upon this? And why did the hidden Imam (a), when appeared and dominated by arms and authority, asks people to swear allegiance?”
It should be noted that with the advent of Islam and in the first centuries, swearing allegiance had never been regarded as a way to “appoint the leader” and prove legitimacy of the governance. We know that swearing allegiance is of various kinds: sometimes it is of the kind of “asking for information”, sometimes of the kind of “contract” for certain matters, and sometimes it is of the kind of advocacy. Those very verses quoted in Darasat confirm our claim. The Holy Prophet (s) and Imam Ali (a) were appointed by God; their leadership was not based on swearing allegiance. All swearing allegiance was after appointment by God. As said, Imam Ali’s insistence on swearing allegiance was due to argumentation.
Is any Swearing Allegiance a Necessary Contract?
To identify bay’ (contract for sale) and bay’at (swearing allegiance) and to regard any kind of the latter of the kind of former through imperfect argumentations (vol. 1, pp. 571-575) will not be beneficial for the claim. Bay’at is not the same as election someone as the other’s agent. No one from among the jurists has said or understood the point in this way. “Agency for permission” is a meaningless term and permission is other than agency. Agency is delegation (of powers) and not to seek domination nor is hiring someone the same as agency or domination. If one is slightly familiar with the juridical terminology he knows that guardianship is other than agency, and agency other than succession.
Arguments without Arguments
Four- Some arguments are without argument. Most transmitted arguments mentioned by the author have no authenticated document and consequently are regarded as arguments without argument; here we discuss only two arguments:
He has said: “Continuous tradition of all rational men in all times, all places and conditions have been election of the ruler and delegation of people’s affair to him, and assisting him to attain goals; and the Legislator has confirmed this tradition”.
Yes, if “all times” are confined to the short period after the Renaissance, and “all places” to a small part of the world i.e. the West, and all conditions to “democratic revolutions of the West” and if the Legislator has predicted newly-emerged ways ten centuries after the advent of Islam- and even after it-, then the great jurist is right. But in the Time of Ignorance and in Arabia, there were no parliamentarism and democratic policy in the governmental affairs nor a way to elect the leader so that the Legislator might not refuse it, and even might confirm it!
There was no electoral system conventional in the monarchy-afflicted tribal system of Iran, leadership of nation had never elected by the nation.
In the medieval Europe, there was no democracy. In the Arab world and in Africa, nothing but “government-tribe” wherein leadership was determined by race and positions were given based on people’s wealth. In such a world, was anything else tradition of the rational men?
Religion of Muhammad (s) emerged and rejected this standard, and called people to equality; and determined justice as a companion to “God-fearing” and God-fearing as a criterion for greatness; knowledge as criterion for insight and humbleness, and awareness as causing “preference” and “authority”; and jihad as the cause of virtue and being rewarded, and overtaking each other in embracing Islam as closeness to Divine, and instructed people to obey the Prophet, Imams, and jurists.
Now that various theories and systems were introduced and realized in the course of history, and all various models and policies in the scene of politics declined, which continuous tradition is meant by the author of Darasat? And views of which rational men? Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, Confucius, Hamurabi, Farabi, Bozorgmehr, Ghazali, Ibn Khaldun, Nizam al-Mulk, Augustine, Aquinas, Machiavelli, Bodin, Hobbs, Locke, Montesquieu, Rousseau, Berg, Bantam, Kant, Hegel, Marx, Mao Tse Tung, Gandhi, August Comte, Neitche, Stuart Mill, …? Which of them confirms the author’s claim?
Some arguments are against the claim
Five- Some arguments mentioned by the author are against his claim. The seventh argument appeals to verses which speak of caliphate of Adam or some human beings or well-doers and oppressed ones on the earth. And it has been claimed that “seeking for succession”, “seeking for flourishing” and “inheritance” in these verses have been used in the absolute senses of the terms and then they permit creational intervention, rule, and legislative intervention, and thus all people can or are entitled to rule or appoint a ruler.
Apart from the fact that some of the nine verses referred to by him have nothing to do with the claim and may be classified with the author’s third group of arguments, some of verses are explicitly against the understanding and goal of the author. For example, the verse “And when thy Lord said unto the angels: Lo! I am about to place a viceroy in the earth” (2: 30) which suggests either particular appointment of Adam (a)- if by “viceroy”, which is a singular term, Adam is meant- or- according to the author’s understanding- it is an evidence of general appointment of human beings as viceroys, but with very difficult conditions. To come to this position, according to the Holy Quran, one has to acquire many competencies which make man even more acknowledgeable than and preferred to Divine angels, so that these angels have to prostrate themselves in his presence.
This is true for the verse “O David! Lo! We have set thee as a viceroy in the earth; therefore judge aright between mankind ” (38: 26) as well. This verse speaks explicitly of particular appointment of David and regards the right to rule people as being stemmed from this appointment. Surprising that the author himself has inferred from this verse the originality of Divine “appointment”:
“If there was not appointment of the viceroy, he would not be entitled to rule on the earth”. These positions are Divine conventions and cannot be generalized to all human beings or their offspring: “My covenant includeth not wrong-doers” (2: 124). And the noble verse “And verily we have written in the Scripture, after the Reminder: My righteous slaves will inherit the earth” (21: 105) like the noble verse “And We desired to show favour unto those who were oppressed in the earth, and to make them examples and to make them the inheritors” refers to the rule of the Imam of Time and rule of well-doers and oppressed ones on the earth, and not rule of all people. The appearance of these verses is closer to realization of inheritance and rule through Divine appointment than any other assumption.
The 21st argument of the author as well suggests appointment of “people of justice” for guardianship!
In the 22nd argument, the following story has been appealed to. According to this story when the Holy Prophet (s) sent an army for Mutah war, he said: “the commander of army is Zayd ibn Harithah; if killed, then Ja’far ib Abi Talib will be the commander, and if killed, tyhen ‘Abdullah ibn Rawahah will be the commander; and if killed, people may appoint whoever they want”.
Appeal to Arguments for Divine Appointment to Prove Appointment by People
First: according to Salim ibn Qays’ book, Imam Ali (a) appeals to the same story to prove “necessity of [Divine] appointment”. Imam says: “O Mu’awiah! DO not you know that when the Holy Prophet (s) sent an army to Mutah, he appointed Jafar ibn Abi Talib their commander, and said: If Jafar is killed Zayd ibn Harithat will be the commander, and if Zayd is killed, Abdullah Ibn Rawahah will be the commander”. The Holy Prophet (s) did not accept that people of an army might elect a commander for themselves. Now, is it possible that he leaves Ummah while he has not appointed his successor? By God, he has not left them blind, but people committed what they committed…”.
Second: The Holy Prophet (s) appointed three persons to take commandership successively, and it is not so natural to enlist all people of the army for commandership.
Then (and thirdly), whenever the supreme leader decides to leave an affair to people, he will go in this way; and this is not establishment of a principle. And one cannot infer permission or necessity of “appointment of the supreme leader by people” based on particular appointments mentioned in this story.

Chapter 7: Toleration and Violence
Danger of the Contemporary Social Literature
Many newly-emerged social terms in the present society suffer certain dangers; and to make the society immune to detrimental consequences, pathology of social terms and necessary actions taken to remove such dangers is fully necessary; for, such dangers have caused these terms to lose their communicative mission. And instead of clarification, they add to ambiguities! And in this way, social literature is threatened. By social literature, I mean “intellectual-social discourse and tradition”.
In addition to its literal meaning, each and every word enjoys a meaning resulting gradually from the context of culture and discourses of an intellectual tradition. There is a complicated link between the “word” and “meaning”, “sentence” and “message” part of which is explained by newly-emerged sciences such as philosophy of language and linguistics and to a less extent by semantics and hermeneutics and in our scientific culture by sciences such as rhetoric and the branch of “words” in “principles of jurisprudence”.
Today the relation between word and sense is taken so serious that linguistics and linguistic studies have been intertwined with study of mind and epistemology. And mind and language are regarded as two extremes of the spectrum of understanding. Some people say: “to think is to internally talk”. In other words, when you are thinking, you are thinking by words; whenever, you are internally speaking, you are using words free of sounds! From olden times, philosophy have been concerned with ontology and seeking for reality; but in recent centuries, and in particular after Kant, philosophy went from ontology towards epistemology; and today, it is going from the latter to the philosophy of mind and linguistics.
Anyway, there is an extensive and deep relation between mind and language, word and sense. We are not to accept some extremist claims posed about this issue. But, it goes without saying that interaction between word and sense is very strong; that is why sometimes literal dangers may change to intellectual or discourse dangers. My point, though it can be formally regarded as a literal discussion, is, by its nature, some sort of pathology of contents of intellectual and social concepts.
Popular Dangers
Misunderstanding, imposition of arbitrary senses on words, application of words in unsuitable positions, as well as ambiguity, using ambiguous words, using words as arms, coining words without a certain procedure, absolute rejection and acceptance of the words and ideas, being threatened by politics, playing with words .., are among dangers which are popular in today social-political writings.
Consequences of Dangers
Linguistic dangers and ambiguities are origin of many negative intellectual, social consequences.
To use common words and not so transparent senses of words lead to confusion in senses and as a result, to wonder or deception of the addressee, this causes and spreads useless disputes, confusion of truth and falsity, and leads astray those seeking for truth, and finally damages the truth.

Consequences of Combination of Truth and Falsehood
Imam of wisdom and rhetoric, Imam Ali (a) says:
“If wrong had been pure and unmixed [with right] it would not be hidden from those who are in search of it”.
When falsehood combined with truth, if is confused with truth, and falsehood may be accepted and usurp the position of truth in people’s hearts.
“And if right had been pure without admixture of wrong those who bear hatred towards it would have been silenced”
“What is, however, done is that something is taken from here and something from there and the two are mixed! At this stage Satan overpowers his friends and they alone escape for whom virtue has been apportioned by Allah from before”
“Similarity in words leads one astray
“Gabr and believer are similar in their bodies
“Difference between people stems from words
“When they go to meanings, there will be peace
According to Rumi, employment of similar words for “different meanings” leads one astray; for example this is the case when one call both “Gabr” and “believer” religious ones; for the two are similar only in their bodies and not in the essence of their beings!
Sometimes, employment of different words for a single reality causes difference; and if meaning is clarified, there will be no dispute. This is like the story of an Arab, a Persian, and a Turk who were in dispute concerning the referent of “angur”, “‘inab” and “uzum” (all three words are of the same meaning, i.e. grape). There was no true dispute; and once they saw the referent, they found that they had been involved in a futile verbal dispute.
Here, we discuss only three cases of dangers which are popular in the society.

1- Misunderstanding of Terms
One of the dangers which threatens present social literature is misunderstanding of terms which are of a particular sense. We may mention the term “the absolute governance of the jurist” coined by Imam, and for years there have been disputes concerning this term:
Some have thought that “the absolute governance of the jurist” means that the jursis’s verdict is above that of canon law! The jurist is allowed to instruct whatever he wishes and all people have to obey him! Then they come to the conclusion that morality of “the governance of the jurist” will lead to secularization of religion and religious governance!
Others have thought that “the absolute governance of the jurist” means the jurist’s personal opinion is above laws; and the jurist is in a place above the laws. Having confused a juridical term with the similar tern which is spoken of in political sciences, they have identified “the absolute governance of the jurist” and “absolutism”. And then, they say that one may be absolutely free in his decisions and acts concerning governance and people’s rights is the same as despotism!
Some others have said that the theory of “the absolute governance of the jurist” is against the theory of “the limited and restrained governance of the jurist” which considers some limitation for the scope of the governance of jurists. For example, they regard it as being limited to benevolent actions or judgment. But according to the Imam’s theory, scopes of the governance of the jurist are extensive, and in addition to benevolent actions, the jurist has governance in all affairs.
As seen, each person has his own understanding of Imam’s term (and all of such understandings may be wrong), and in accord with his understanding, he rejects, accepts, and adopt a position!
“Their fame and shame stems from a delusion;
“Their peace and war originates from a delusion.
We think that Imam had none of these interpretations and other ones in his mind; for if “canon law” is the origin of “governance”, the latter cannot be above the former; also, governance of jurist is a Divine and not a human one; it is governance of jurisprudence not a person; and religion does not accept humanism and despotism; then the governance of the jurist may not be a despotical one; and such hypotheses are inconsistent with Imam’s own political thought and function.
The Term “”the absolute governance of the jurist” is not equivalent to “Absolutism”
Nor does “the absolute governance of the jurist” mean that the jurist is above the canon law, neither this terms is equal to the political term ‘absolutism” so that it may result in secularization or despotism of religious government; nor did Imam mean to employ this term against the theory of “limited and restrained governance” so that it may extend the scopes of the governance of the jurist; and jurists call general governance “general governance”, and not “absolute governance”.
Imam’s claim is not an extraordinary or new claim in the world of politics and in the world of ijtihad, so that we may say that he has innovated and announced this claim. That great Imam believed in [Divine] appointment of the jurist, and acquisition of governance by the jurist, since the jurist is a successor of the Infallible ones. From the beginning he believed in absoluteness of the governance of the jurist; and this Imam’s claim is a rational, humanistic, Islamic, ijtihadi, and conventional one described by this term.
In the canon law, there are some secondary and governmental rules which are announced and executed by the government based on necessity and the society’s interests. Such rules are issued by “the ruling, fully qualified jurist”; and since these rules are not personal rules of the jurist but rather are issued based on a particular scientific, religious logic (ijtihad) and with the permission of the Legislator, they are religious rules, and not rules above the canon law.
“The absolute governance of the jurist” and the Contemporary Political Culture
Particular permission for decision-making under extraordinary conditions is accepted today in the political culture of the world. In all political systems (Empire, Constitutional kingdom, Parliamentarian, …) according to the interests of the society and in accord with laws, some extraordinary permissions are given to a particular authority of the system to be used under certain circumstances. There is no system wherein such a case cannot be found. For example, in many countries, the President is permitted to disband the parliament under certain circumstances. Or president, or Sultan, or Parliament, or the Legal Power are permitted to suspend the constitution under certain circumstances, and make extraordinary decisions. For example, concerning war and peace, a particular authority or power is permitted to make decisions in accord with the interests of the society.
Authorities, which are regarded by some people intentionally or unintentionally or mistakenly as “authorities above laws”, are never so, but rather they are the same as laws; for such authorities are created and permitted by laws and they have legal origin. In our Constitution, nobody has been regarded as being above canon law or ordinary laws. Having accepted religion and voted the “Constitution” and “the leader”, people have announced their commitment to this matter; these authorities are particular ones for particular circumstances and, in the Constitutions of other countries as well such authorities have been considered for one or more authorities. And if there are not such authorities, no society may be administered in a correct way; and circumstances are not always the same so that decisions may be taken in an ordinary way.
If we produce a table with some columns to compare particular authorities of the “head of power pyramid” in various political systems (presidency, constitutional kingdom, parliamentarian, …) with the “head of power pyramid” in the political system of Islam i.e. the governing jurist, we will find that the authority of the latter is much less than that of the former group.
Political System of Islam, a Double Constitutional System
No system is more restrained and constitutional than the Islamic system; for, in addition to the above-mentioned restraints and conditions for the head of power pyramid in other systems, there are in the religious system other restraints and conditions which have never been as a whole considered in non-religious systems.
First of all, the leader should have particular competencies and fulfill particular conditions which are not in other systems necessary to be fulfilled as a whole.
Secondly, the leader should be accepted and elected by people (and that happens step by step which is naturally more reasonable and trustworthy).
Thirdly, the Council of Experts is always supervising the leader’s functions and assessing his competencies.
Fourthly (and above all other conditions), the leader should make his decisions and take actions within the framework of Islamic canon law; thus, canon law is always limiting the scope of the leader’s opinions and decisions.
Fifthly (and above and beyond the fourth condition), the leader finds himself as being controlled by God and in the Divine presence; and even slightest deviation from “justice” and “God-fearing” will lead automatically to his deposition. And here, it is not necessary that people or an organization of the system intervene.
2- Misapplication of Words
The other danger threatening the Iranian contemporary social literature is misapplication of words. Sometimes this danger may stem from misunderstanding of the words. For example, in its native cultural context, a word has a particular meaning and definition, and merely because of closeness and similarity between the concepts and ideas used by a person or a group on the one hand and the native meaning of a “word” on the other hand, that word is used to speak of those concepts (by that person or group, or by their opponents or proponents). And this concept and that word’s native meaning have particular philosophical, epistemological bases and their own in which the claimant (person or group) does not believe and the opponents who attribute that word to that person or group do not pay attention to such differences! Such imported words cause many intellectual-social problems.
In principle, when some terms are transferred from a culture and language to another culture and language, not all spiritual and cultural contents of those terms in the original culture and language may be transferred to the foreign and host culture and language. And for the same reason, if a word is transferred from one culture to another one to be used in the latter, this should be done while taking into account the above point. Thus, if a concept or idea is to be transferred from a culture to another one, it is better to be transferred while all necessary points are taken into account, or an equivalent term with a conceptual content suitable for the host culture’s climatic conditions be coined and used (of course, if this is theoretically and practically possible).
Repeated Changes in the Terms “Left” and “Right”.
There are many referents for the danger of misapplication of words in our present social works. One may mention misapplications of the terms “left” and “right” in the present Iranian political currents. In the today’s Iran, the two terms are used in no one of their popular historical meanings! Since their birth in their original cultural birth place till the present time, concepts and usages of these terms have changed four times in Iran;
1- At the beginning the terms “left” and “right” were used in the French Parliament; then the minority radical representatives who were critiques of the government were placed in the left side of the parliament; thus they were called “left”; the conservative majority who were advocates of the government were places in the right side, and hence they were called “right”. At the beginning the two words were used to specify two places (left and right representatives); and they were used in this simple literal, non-political sense without any particular content.
2- Later, when extremist currents such as Marxists emerged gradually and entered the scene of political activities in various countries, since they were mostly critiques of the government, they were called “left”, and thus their opponents were called “right”!
3- Left groups, even when they came to power and established their own governments, were still called “left”. Thus, gradually Marxists and socialists were called generally “left”. Since 1940’s, adopting international political terms and literature, we called Marxists and non-Muslim Left groups such as Tudeh Party and Fadaian Organization and the like “left”.
4- Then, some revolutionary Muslims who had probably more radical views than others (or since come of them were captured by some eclectic thoughts, or called themselves socialists, such as Dr. Sahriati, Dr. Sami, Peyman and some of their followers who called themselves “theist socialists”; though they were influenced by the Left wing of that time, definitively they were not Marxist. Nevertheless they were called left. They never believed in and committed to communism and denial of private ownership. After the victory of the Islamic Revolution,, some revolutionary and Muslim persons as well were called left! But, did they believe that all private properties should be confiscated and given to the government or others? This was never the case; most of them were committed Muslims and nothing more.
Anyway, the term was gradually emptied of their conventional international concepts and applied to these revolutionary groups! Consequently, their opposing groups were called right!
5- Recently, another alteration has been made in usage and concept of the two terms in Iran. Now, in the power play, roles have been exchanged. In other words, those who are called right speak of justice and the oppressed class! And those who are called left speak of open economy and economy of market! This is the fourth alteration made in the concept and usage of the two terms; the third and fourth changes have been made by Iranians. As you see, today the two terms are used to describe concepts and refers to referents which have no relation and similarity with their primary and secondary concepts and referents! This is the case as for many popular terms such as liberalism, pluralism, populism, reformism, conservatism and the like in the contemporary Iran.
3- To Use Terms as Arms
To mention at least three dangers, I speak of another case. One of the other dangers is that terms are influenced by politics; and in more accurate words, “to use terms as arms” in the current social, political dialogues, is the other danger which has become popular in our country.
To use words as arms in favor or against a person or a group is one of the popular dangers in our society. That the two rival groups (both within the camp of Revolution) call each other “left” and “right” since the beginning of the Revolution is a trace of this danger! In other words, in order to charge their rivals, the so-called right wing calls them “quasi-Marxists”; and the so-called left wings, again in order to charge their rivals, call them Bourgeoisie. And to apply the terms such as “conservative”, “reformist”, “pluralist”, “exclusivist”, “liberal”, and “violentist” is most likely of the same kind. Today, to apply some of these terms to some external referents may be correct; but in most cases these terms are used as accusations or misinformation! Do we think what the bases of liberalism are? And do some important persons and groups really believe in philosophical-epistemological bases of liberalism? This is never the case; liberalism is inconsistent with Islam. Liberalism claims that whatever the majority of people wishes, even if it is an explicit violation of Divine commands, is right and allowed; and the government has to accept it!
Religion, Justice, Freedom
Sometimes, it is said that: in the “West”, religion fought against freedom, and defeated; in the East, justice fought against freedom, and defeated. This is very trivial! Which religion? Which justice? Which freedom? Is the altered Christianity a religion comparable with Islam? Is Marxism seeking for justice? And, is liberalism really “seeking for freedom”? Can in reality the Iranian referent of religion which is Islam be against freedom in the true sense of the word? And if by freedom permission to violate canon law is meant, have we- under the pretext of avoidance of defeat- to abandon Islam?
Pluralism
Of this kind is the term pluralism which is typically used by some people as an equivalent to Toleration! But, pluralism has its own basis and concept; if someone is pluralist, he gives originality to pluralism and says: “while my ideas different from yours and probably against your ideas; whatever you say is right and you are right; and whatever I say is right and I am right!”
This is a self-contradicting view; no reasonable man may speak so; not mention a Muslim! In writing and in the world of mottos, of course, such claims may be made; but not in reality. I think that no one is able to really be a pluralist.
Even if you challenge theoreticians of pluralism (for example, John Hick whose model for religious pluralism is promoted in Iran, and those Iranians who promote this idea are inspired by him), you will find that he is not really pluralist and does not accept its rational consequences; for, he defends his own positions and ideas fervently. Why does he defend his positions? Why does he debate with opponents of his ideas (including pluralism) and oppose them? In principle, once you defend pluralism, pluralism becomes a school like other ones; and when you proceed to reject or accept rival schools, you will actually violate pluralism. Anyway, some people are using this term without paying attention to its bases and consequences; and they use this term, probably, as an equivalent for Toleration and “toleration of opponent ideas”.
Concepts of Violence and Toleration
Because of the abundant usage of the two terms “Toleration” and “violence” in the global society and many debates and disputes concerning these two concepts in our today society, here I will discuss them in more details. The two terms have many concepts and referents; and not all their concepts and referents are disputed, rejected, or accepted by the parties of debate; and of course some of their concepts and referents are disputed. But no one (from among opponents and proponents) have defined the two terms accurately, and specified that he/she is opposing which concept and referent, and which ones he/she accepts.
Concepts of Violence
There are many literal, verbal, social, and legal concepts for violence. In Arabic “khushunat” (violence) means coarseness and it is an antonym for smoothness. Concerning Jesus (s), Imam Ali (a) says:
“He used a stone for his pillow, put on coarse clothes and ate rough food.”
The term has been used as antonym to welfare as well.
It has been used to refer to severity and toughness. In his famous sermon (Shigshighiyah), he says:
“… and he (Abu Bakr) certainly knew that my position in relation to it was the same as the position of the axis in relation to the hand-mill, … I watched the plundering of my inheritance till the first one went his way but handed over the Caliphate to Ibn al-Khattáb after himself.”; then he adds:
“This one put the Caliphate in a tough enclosure where the utterance was haughty and the touch was rough.” In this phrase, “khushunat” has been used to refer haughty utterance and rough touch.
In its social usage, sometimes it means physical combats; for example, we may hear that “people’s peaceful protest in some country suffered police’s violence”; in other words, it changed to physical conflicts.
Sometimes, it is used to refer to non-negligence of criminals’ crimes. Here, it is an antonym for tolerating conducts of the executors of laws which lessen respect for laws. In this sense, it is used in the realm of laws and legislation.
The other usage of the term is to refer to “religious inToleration”, “non-acceptance of others’ ideas” and “inToleration with political rivals”. In this sense, it is used in the realm of social conducts and relations, as an antonym to religious or political Toleration. This is sense is not the same as decisiveness. For, one may be decisive in his ideas, but tolerate others’ as well. It is other than dogmatism as well; for, one may be so dogmatic in his ideas and regard other’s ideas as being absolutely false; but at the same time, he may tolerate others’ ideas. This term, if used to refer to decisiveness of ideas, is not inconsistent with Toleration. No one was more decisive in his faith than the Holy Prophet(s), but the Holy Quran says:
“It was by the mercy of Allah that thou wast lenient with them (O Muhammad), for if thou hadst been stern and fierce of heart they would have dispersed from round about thee.” (3: 159).
Toleration means “to allow the existence or occurrence of (something that one dislikes or disagrees with) without interference; to endure (someone or something unpleasant) with forbearance.
Violence or Kindness, which is Prior?
The day’s question is “which of them is prior; Toleration or violence; force or kindness; patience or impatience; attraction or repulsion? We think that none of them is per se good or evil. And no one may say: “In whatever sense, by whomever, and concerning whoever, for whatever reason or motivation, in any time and place, Toleration or violence is absolutely good or evil”. Factors such as “sense”, “agent”, “subject”, “motivation”, “goal”, “means”, “extent” and “conditions” are certainly involved when one wants to determine ugliness or beauty of violence or Toleration. Without taking into account these eight factors, Toleration and violence are neither analyzable nor realizable. For example, physical violence of a compassionate father towards his faulty son, in a reasonable extent, and aiming to educate him (not to revenge) through a conventional means and under its suitable and influential social and psychological conditions, is never negative and rejected. But, any change in any one of the above eight factors may change violence to a prohibited and rejected action. Thus, if one asks “is violence ugly or evil?” he should be asked “which violence?”.
Which Violence?
Violence in the sense of decisiveness? Or in the sense of “killerness”? if violence means firmness in execution of laws, severity in realization of justice, strictness to defend the right, we accept it. Some people went to the Holy Prophet (s) and criticized Imam Ali (a) because of his severity concerning public treasure. The Holy Prophet (s) said:
“Concerning God, he is severe”.
His severity was for God and Divine laws. All of us have heard the story of Ali (a) and Aqil and the hot iron. He punished his brother, Aqil, by hot iron because of the latter’s greed. But if violence means to suppress citizens, rivals, and opponents, it has never been permitted by Islam:
“Do not behave towards them as if you are a voracious and ravenous beast and as if your success lies in devouring them [people].” (Imam Ali, Letter 52).
Transparent or Complicated Violence
2- Physical Violence? Or Non-physical Violence? By physical violence, I mean beating which is transparent, simple, and traditional violence; by non-physical violence, I mean psychological limitation and threats of the rivals and opponents; which is complicated, hidden violence, white and modern violence.
Simple violence is to fight against rivals and opponents by sword and whip (assassination of the person); complicated violence is to fight against opponents by insult (assassination of personality) by methods and styles of psychological war.
Modern violence is a violence done through changing democratic tools into arms against intellectual and political rivals! To take rival’s freedom by the motto of “freedom”; to create intellectual limitations and to imprison the rival in unseen prisons through accusation! Hidden violence is to impose white and insensible despotism on the society so that the opponents will have to censor their ideas because of their fear of their rivals’ accusation and insult. Which is uglier, the former or the latter? Certainly both of them are ugly and unjust; but the latter is uglier and more unjust;
” … persecution is worse than slaughter” (2: 191)
“… persecution is worse than killing” (2: 217)
Legal Violence, Illegal Violence
3- Legal violence or stubborn violence? Violence and strictness in accord with the laws is other than stubborn and arbitrary violence; if there is not the former kind, there will be no order; rights of individuals and human societies will be violated; the latter will change the society into a jungle; the main civil characteristic of the human society as compared with an animal and primitive community is acceptance of laws; it is much evident that arbitrary and stubborn violence is neither permitted nor legal.
“whoso transgresseth Allah’s limits: such are wrong-doers” (2: 229).
4- Violence by those in charge or by anarchists and irresponsible ones? Here “beauty of act” is not sufficient, but rather there should be “beauty of agent” as well; the legitimate act is done by the responsible agent. It should be found that who the agent of violence is. Judge or some irresponsible persons- though with a good intention? Unacceptable involvement of some irresponsible elements will threaten public order and security. In a society with a responsible and legitimate government, obligations of individuals and groups have been defined; if a Muslim wants to promote the good and prevent the evil- though this is a self-motivated supervision and guidance-, he should do so under supervision and in accord with laws. People’s duty is to promote the good and prevent the good by their sayings and conducts; executive action to promote the good and prevent the evil is the government’s obligation.
5- Violence of Kindness; Violence of Anger. Divine violence or sensual violence? Violence of the Merciful Creator or that of an oppressing ruler? Violence aimed to educate and give perfection which is evidently violence because of kindness is other than violence to rule, revenge, and satisfy one’s insolence and sensuality. The reason behind some stringent Divine instructions is their educational influence. Though no supra-human obligation is in the tolerating Islamic canon law. This is the very meaning of the phrase “Mohammedan tolerating canon law”. This means easiness of commands and obligations not permission to commit unlawful acts.
“Allah tasketh not a soul beyond its scope. For it (is only) that which it hath earned, and against it (only) that which it hath deserved. Our Lord! Condemn us not if we forget, or miss the mark! Our Lord! Lay not on us such a burden as thou didst lay on those before us! Our Lord! Impose not on us that which we have not the strength to bear!” (2: 286).
Attraction, Repulsion
6- Violence against enemies and those who fight against truth and encroach people’s rights, or violence against friends and those who accept truth, and citizens? The Holy Quran describes the Islamic society as a society enjoying attraction and repulsion:
“Muhammad is the messenger of Allah. And those with him are hard against the disbelievers and merciful among themselves” (48: 29).
A modest man or a modest society is a man or society which has concrete ideals, faith, and values as well as certain foundations and positions according to which he or it adjusts geometry of his relations with others. His or its “closeness and relation” or “distance and strangeness” to each man or society depends on the latter’s amity or enmity to those foundations and values. Principally, a man or society without attraction and repulsion, foundation and position, is not a modest, natural, and reasonable man or society. Even beasts enjoy the power of attraction and repulsion; neither in the realm of creation nor in that of legislation, God- the Exalted- has wanted man as a one-sided and one-dimensional creature.
“Thus We have appointed you a middle nation, that ye may be witnesses against mankind, and that the messenger may be a witness against you.” (2: 143).
7- Violence against oppressors or against the oppressed? The last will of the Commander of wisdom and freedom to his sons, Imam Hasan (a) and Imam Husayn (a) is as follows:
“Be an enemy of tyrants and oppressors and be a friend and helper of those who are oppressed and tyrannized.” (Imam Ali, Letter 47)
According to the religion, violence is a legitimate obstacle
“And if two parties of believers fall to fighting, then make peace between them. And if one party of them doeth wrong to the other, fight ye that which doeth wrong till it return unto the ordinance of Allah” (49: 9).
8- Violence against plotters or against ignorant ones? Each time the Holy Prophet (s) passed a street, there was a Jew who threw dust on the Holy Prophet’s (s) head; once the Holy Prophet (s) passed that street, but that action was not repeated; he asked his companions where his friend was. They replied “which friend?” He said: “The same one who …”. They were surprised and said: “he was a Jew and insulted you”. The Holy Prophet (s) said: “OK, but where is he?” They said he fell sick. The Holy Prophet said: “let’s go to see him!”. When they entered the Jew’s house, he stood with surprise; and at the moment he read two declarations of Faith and believed in Islam. But when Jews of Bani Qurayzah- who had signed a treaty with Muslims for co-existence- violated the treaty while parties were attacking Medina in the Khandaq war, and cooperated with the enemies in order to overthrow the Islamic government and brought the newly-emerged religion of Islam at the brink of destruction, when the enemies were pushed away, the same prophet of kindness and justice, hero of mercy and compassion commanded to kill all of them because of their violation of the treaty. The verses 26 and 27 of the Chapter Ahzab have been revealed to refer this event and decision; for treaty is sacred and should be observed and the Holy Quran puts much importance on it:
“They long that ye should disbelieve even as they disbelieve, that ye may be upon a level (with them). So choose not friends from them till they forsake their homes in the way of Allah; if they turn back (to enmity) then take them and kill them wherever ye find them, and choose no friend nor helper from among them, Except those who seek refuge with a people between whom and you there is a covenant, or (those who) come unto you because their hearts forbid them to make war on you or make war on their own folk.” (4: 89-90)
9- Violence against traitors or Those who Make Errors? Kharijites stood against Imam Ali(a); and while thousands of believers were following him, they were campaigning against him, saying: “O Ali, though you have fought for Islam; since you accepted arbitration, all your acts were destroyed, and you became disbeliever (though arbitration was imposed on Ali by these very fanatic ones). But Imam did not let any action against them, and did not cut their salaries; and when they proceed to treason and violence, and took actual steps to fight against Imam Ali (a) in Nahrawan; Imam killed all of them; and the only place where, after defeating the enemy, Imam praised himself publicly was here:
“So now, praise and eulogy be to Alláh, O’ people, I have put out the eye of revolt” (Nahj al-Balaghah, Sermon 92).
In spite of their conducts, Imam commanded to not kill Kharijites after him (Imam’s murdered was a Kharijite). To justify this, Imam says:
“Do not fight the Kharijites after me, because one who seeks right but does not find it, is not like one who seeks wrong and finds it.” (Sermon 60).
10- Violence against Superior Ones and Leaders of Disbelief and Violence or against Inferior and Deceived Ones? To annihilate oppression and darkness as well as treason and violence, leaders and plotters should be punished and not those who, like tools, are working for the former ones:
“… then fight the heads of disbelief – Lo! they have no binding oaths – in order that they may desist.” (9: 12)

Violence for What?
11- Violence for human lofty goals or for inferior animal instincts? To establish right and justice, for freedom and democracy or to suppress the right, deny justice, negate people’s freedom, and oppress people? God blames those who are not fighting in His way and the oppressed:
“How should ye not fight for the cause of Allah and of the feeble among men and of the women and the children who are crying: Our Lord! Bring us forth from out this town of which the people are oppressors!” (4: 75).
To be violent and angry in order to take the oppressed one’s right back and to punish the oppressor is admired and desired. No violence is stronger than beheading; but if it is to retaliate, according to the Holy Quran, it is a source of life:
“And there is life for you in retaliation, O men of understanding, that ye may ward off (evil)” (2: 179).
12- Violence for Religion or for “I”
Both violence to defend religion and violence to suppress human beings in order to satisfy one’s sensuality and “Iness” and arrogance are violence; but there is a great difference between the two. God- the Exalted- tells the Holy Prophet (s) as follows:
“O Prophet! Strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites! Be harsh with them.” (9: 73).
All of us have heard the story of Imam Ali’s striving against ‘Abd Wudd in Khandaq war:
“Learn how to act sincerely from Ali,
God’s lion, free from all impurity:
During a battle, he subdued a foe
Then drew his sword to deal the final blow.
That man spat in Ali’s pure face, the pride
Of every saint and prophet far and wide
Ali put down his sabre straight away
And, though he was on top, he stopped the fray.
The fighter was astonished by this act,
That he showed mercy though he’d been attacked
He said, ‘I use my sword the way God’s planned,
Not for my body but by God’s command;
I am God’s lion, not the one of passion––
My actions testify to my religion” (Rumi, Mathnavi, Book 1)
Violence to Defend Nation and Nationality or Person …
13- Violence to defend national interests and to protect humanity interests or to serve personal and partial interests? One of the reasons behind different reactions shown by our leaders (like the Holy Prophet’s different reactions towards Jews and those of Imam Ali(a)’s towards Kharijities) is this point; as long as the issue concerned themselves, they showed Toleration as much as possible; and where it concerned Ummah and people’s interests, Divine punishments, and borders of religion, they had no Toleration.
“And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah” (2: 193) and “and religion is all for Allah” (8: 38).
Violence against Violence or against Reason
14- Violence against violence or against reason? The history of Islam is both full of wars and at the same time full of debates and discussions between our leaders and opponents. This is the logic of Islam: “Violence against violence, reason against reason”.
“And one who attacketh you, attack him in like manner as he attacked you” (2: 194).
“Is the reward of goodness anything save goodness ?” (55: 60)
For, sometimes, violence cannot be removed except by violence. Imam Ali has been quoted that:
“Return to the enemy’s side, for evil cannot be removed except by evil” (Imam Ali (a), Maxims, 314)
Violence the Last Remedy
15- Violence as the last remedy against catastrophes or violence as the easiest way to face the weak and citizens? Those in rush, short-sighted ones, and fools choose the latter; but patients, rational men, and theists prefer the former. There is a lot of evidence for this point in conducts of the Holy Prophet (s) and Imams of the Household (a). When facing catastrophes, firstly, they chose to be patient, and secondly, they tolerated and became angry only when they had to. Concerning all Imams it has been reported that there were some people who, when they saw Imams, began to call them by ill-names, but Imam proceeded to fulfill their needs with patience, and their conducts were so kind, that the reviling one became ashamed.
Danger of Extremes
Alas! More than everything else, truth has been (is, and will be) damaged by extremes. Religion which is a great truth has been always damaged by understandings and beliefs which are influenced by personal interests or stemmed from partial positions, periodical or regional sensitivities; so that sometimes religion has been altered, or decomposed and became a one-dimensional thing.
Once, because of their ignorance or intentionally, some Orientalists claimed that Islam is religion of sword and has been spread by the sword and relies on violence. To reply to this meaningless accusation, some writers went so far that they denied even certain rules of jihad and Islamic defense. And in this way, they were entrapped by another extreme. At the climax of Revolution and to explain and introduce epic aspect of Islam, some other people were entrapped by another extreme and even they did not mention “God, the Merciful, the Compassionate” except by coarse attributes. Now, some other people, again one-sidedly, speak of love, Toleration, and friendship; and even question some religious teachings! The truth of Islam is other than such periodical, and one-dimensional understandings so that its criterion may be others’ preference or indifference. Islam is not like Judaism a religion of pure violence; nor is it like the Christianity (as claimed) a religion of pure love. It is neither the former nor the latter; but rather both the former and the latter. Islam is a school of moderation. It is a multi-dimensional religion; both the school of love and that of violence. One of the perfections of Islam is that it has tied love and mysticism with epic and jihad. Why are we insisting, each time only on one of its dimensions, aggrandizing that dimension? For in this way, we destroy Islam’s totality and moderation, and introduce it as a one-dimensional religion. Next time, we will have to insist on another dimension and reject the former one. Islam is both religion of violence and that of Toleration; but because of its maturity and wisdom and as required by reason and rationality as well as taking into account eight factors mentioned at the beginning, one of its two faces appears.
If there is not Toleration, the society will turn into a jungle; and if- for whatever reason- there is no spirit of resistance and epic in people, security and independence, order and law will deteriorate. As Imam Ali (a) says:
“He who bears a grudge unreasonably is sinful; and he who fails to bear a grudge when it is required will become oppressed; he who bears a grudge unreasonably cannot be God-fearing” (Imam Ali, Wisdom 290).

Which Toleration?
Having studied kinds of violence, to complete our discussion, let us return to “Toleration”. If it is asked that “according to Islam, is Toleration ugly or beautiful?”, one has to ask “Toleration in which sense?” “by whom?” “with whom?”, “for what?”, “how?”, “when?”, “where?”, “how much?”; in other words, the same eight factors should be taken into account.
1- Toleration in the sense of tolerating rival ideas while believing in and committing to one’s own ideas or in the sense of submitting to “ideological anarchism”? Toleration in the sense of scientific patience and opening a window for exchange of ideas or in the sense of creating religious doubts and suspicions as well as immorality and intellectual instability? The history of Islam is full of evidence testifying to the Toleration of the first kind;
“Revile not those unto whom they pray beside Allah lest they wrongfully revile Allah through ignorance” (6: 108);
“Therefor give good tidings (O Muhammad) to My bondmen who hear advice and follow the best thereof. Such are those whom Allah guideth, and such are men of understanding” (39: 17-18)
If logical and scientific introduction and explanation of ideas and thoughts are not permitted; there will be no selection; this process is one of Divine ways; and such an approach to ideas and thoughts is a trace of rationality.
But where, under the name of freedom and explanation, intellectual anarchy emerges, Islam keeps Muslim away from it. According to Kafirun Chapter, when Meccan disbelievers proposed to worship God and their idols periodically, the Holy Prophet (s) was instructed to reject their proposal strongly (at this time, the Holy Prophet was still in a weak position).
Where a competent one introduces scientific ideas, even though such ideas are clearly against ideas of the religious scholars, if he is not to destroy people’s creeds, he should be tolerated. But when, without any reason or logic and in order to destroy people’s faith, one proceeds to promote suspicions, Toleration will be the same as to expose the believers to devastating intellectual poisons. Such Toleration is treason to religion and oppression towards the nation. And here procedure of the leaders and mass of believers is clear “Toleration for reason and reasonable points, yes; permission of incorrect points, never”. There is a lot of evidence in the history of Imams and Shi’i scientific seminaries testifying to this point.
Toleration as a Procedure or Toleration as a Basis
2- Toleration as a “tool” and “procedure” for leaders to administer human social relations, or believers’ Toleration as a philosophical, intellectual “basis” in the sense of relativitism in religious ideas and values, and permission for immoral things?
It is so clear that without Toleration, the society cannot be administered and the government’s activities cannot be adjusted. There are various tastes and interests in the society; and society cannot be organized by despotism.
“He who is a despot concerning his own idea, will be annihilated; he who consults with others will have shares of their reasons” (Imam Ali (a), Wisdom 161).
To teach others, the Holy Prophet (s) (who was perfect reason) was instructed to consult; and actually he consulted with others: “and consult with them upon the conduct of affairs” (3: 159)
But skepticism can never be consistent with faith which is a spiritual state and based on certainty.
Toleration to Hear Truth or to Violate Truth
3- Toleration to hear truth or Toleration to violate truth? The Holy Quran says: “And if anyone of the idolaters seeketh thy protection (O Muhammad), then protect him so that he may hear the Word of Allah, and afterward convey him to his place of safety. That is because they are a folk who know not.” (9: 6).
Some jurists are of the opinion that even if a soldier gives protection to an idolater who seeks protection, the soldier’s promise should be respected. There is no more progressive law in other schools and nations. Those who claim for human rights and free-thinking should learn Toleration from the Holy Quran.
Toleration, Strategy or Tactic?
4- Toleration as a continuous, unexceptionable strategy or as a “temporary” and discriminating tactic? Toleration, always and with all people, or only with those who are speaking in our favor? And as long as we need Toleration? The Holy Prophet (s) says:
“I do not want to be harsh with people so that they say: “as long as Muhammad (s) was in need, he asked help from people, and now that he is needless, he instructs to behead”.
Toleration within a Framework or Toleration concerning the Framework
5- Toleration within the framework of canon law and in the light of moralities and laws or Toleration concerning canon law, laws, and moralities? It is so clear that the former will lead to strengthening of canon law, uplifting the society, and promoting laws. And such Toleration is much valuable. But Toleration concerning canon law, laws, values, and moralities will result in nothing but atheism and corruption.

Toleration with Friends or Toleration with Enemies
6- Toleration with friends and believers or Toleration with enemies and hypocrites? According to the noble verse: “Muhammad is the messenger of Allah. And those with him are hard against the disbelievers and merciful among themselves” (48: 29), the two cases should be judged in different ways. Reason as well judges this way. He who claims that for him there is no difference between friend and enemy is either a hypocrite or a fool. All windows for enemy to penetrate through should be closed by insisting on separation between our own borders and those of the enemies.
Unreasonable Toleration with enemies has no benefit the same way that reasonable harshness with friends cannot be detrimental. Imam Ali (a) says:
“Even if I beat the believer with this sword he will not become my enemy; and if I give the entire world to a hypocrite so that he may become my friend, he will not” (Imam Ali, Wisdom 42).
Toleration with the Oppressed or with the Oppressors?
7- Toleration with the oppressed or with the oppressors? Toleration with powerful ones is the same as cruelty towards the oppressed.
Toleration with the Plunderers or with the Plundered?
8- Toleration with the plundered or with the plunderers? In Saffayn, which was a war against plunderers and usurpers, 100,000 persons were killed during a period of 13 months. If we notice that then wars were waged individually, we would find how horrible this war was.
Were all the people killed from Ali’s army only or from Mu’awiyah’s army as well; and if so, were they not killed by Shi’is and followers of Imam and Imam himself?
Toleration with Opponents or to Pay Tribute to Enemies?
9- Toleration with opponents and dissidents or to pay tribute to enemies and plotters? The Holy Prophet (s) says:
“If someone belittles a non-Muslim citizen and lowers him, I will be his enemy; and if I am an enemy of him, I will be his enemy on the Resurrection Day”.
A non-Muslim citizen is an intellectual opponent thinking in a way other than that of Muslim society; not only should he be tolerated, but also he may not be taken as an enemy.
“When you overcome your enemy, put his exemption as praise for the gift of victory.”
10- Toleration with those who have Committed some Mistakes or Toleration with Traitors?
“Keep to forgiveness (O Muhammad), and enjoin kindness, and turn away from the ignorant” (7: 199)
“So, if they hold aloof from you and wage not war against you and offer you peace, Allah alloweth you no way against them” (4: 90).
Toleration to Educate or to Promote Plots?
11- Toleration to educate or to promote plots? The verse “And if anyone of the idolaters seeketh thy protection (O Muhammad), then protect him so that he may hear the Word of Allah, and afterward convey him to his place of safety. That is because they are a folk who know not” is confirming Toleration of the first kind; but the noble verse “And a party of the People of the Scripture say: Believe in that which hath been revealed unto those who believe at the opening of the day, and disbelieve at the end thereof, so that they may return” (3: 72) refers to the second kind.
A party of the people of Scripture plotted to weaken Muslims’ spirits and their faith by pretending that they believed in Islam in the morning and discard Islam at the evening. The command concerning apostasy refers to such plotters. May psychological war and plotting to create and induce doubts in people’s hearts be allowed?
Personal Forgiveness or Negligence of Interests?
12- Toleration concerning personal and individual interests or negligence of human and national interests? Toleration requires the Muslim to be generous concerning his own personal interests:
“Toleration is a tool of management” (Imam Ali, Wisdom 167).
But no one is allowed to be indifferent when national interests or human rights are endangered.
Toleration concerning Tastes or Toleration about Truths?
13- Toleration concerning tastes or Toleration about truths? To be sure, the two are different.

True Toleration or treacherous Toleration?
14- Toleration based on truth and purity or Toleration to sell truth? The former is valuable and has a trace of reasonableness and the latter is a deception.
“Toleration and kindness is a half of reason” (Imam Ali, Wisdom 135)
“Heart of people are wild; he who is kind with them will take their hearts” (Imam Ali, Wisdom 47)
Toleration with Power or Toleration from a Weak Position?
Toleration even when one is in power or only when he is in a weak position? According to various verses as well as the Kafirun Chapter, the Holy Prophet (s) was harsher when he was in a weak position but showed more Toleration when he was in power, in spite of all those oppressions committed by Meccan people which are so rare in the memory of history. Even the Holy Prophet (s) says:
“No prophet was prosecuted as much as I was”,
When he conquered Mecca, he forgave all of them.
Violence, a Necessary Evil; Violence because of Kindness
In the conclusion, I emphasize: the prevalent spirit in the religion of Islam and tradition of Divine leaders is Toleration; and according to Islam, violence is a necessary evil, and even violence stems from kindness. In Islamic outlook, God’s mercy precedes His wrath. Creation is a manifestation of Divine mercifulness.
I put an end to my discussion by a phrase of the Commander of Firmness and the first one in kindness, Imam Ali (a). He says:
“Anger is a kind of insanity; for the angry man will feel sorry for his deed; and if he does not, to be sure his insanity is permanent” (Imam Ali, Wisdom 246).
There are many points to say about pathology of social terms and today this topic is of paramount importance. But in a lecture no more than this may be said; and to describe all points a suitable time is needed so that a suitable explanation may be presented.

Chapter 8: Status of Justice and Its Obstacles
“[God] established equity in creation and realized justice in His commandments [religion] for mankind.” Imam Ali (AS)
There is complete relationship between analysis of justice regarding being and evolution and explanation of justice regarding the ought’s and legislation, for putting everything and everybody in their proper positions is granting their rights to them and also granting the right of every entitled person to him is putting the entitled person in his deserving position. These two acts will inevitably lead to “avoidance of going to the extremes and establishment of justice” and this is the very truth which permeates all examples and instances of justice. Imam Ali (AS) too maintains that the function of justice is implementation of the said two points, he says: “Justice places the things on their proper places.”5 Due to its comprehensiveness and universality, justice can be divided and classified into various kinds and grades; justice in terms of “sphere of application”, “kind of application”, absolute or subject”, or, on the basis of other criteria and standards, justice can be divided into various kinds and grades; justice in terms of its general meaning, in terms of the sphere of evolution (arena of creation and deliberation of life and existence), and justice in terms of the realm of legislation (arena of human relations). Also legislative justice is divided into legal justice, political justice, economic justice, etc.
Status of Justice
In Islamic thinking, justice is the most original evolutionary/legislative principle and the most widespread Divine/human value, for in the sphere of ontology and Islamic worldview, it dominates the being and life just like structure and soul. The holy Prophet (PBUH) of Islam has been quoted as saying: “The heavens and earth stand on pillars of justice”6 Imam Ali (AS) has been quoted as saying: “Justice is a foundation on which the entire universe rests”7. In the arena of religious commandments and ordainments and in the field of ethics and values, justice is considered a basis and a criterion. Imam Ali (AS) has defined this truth as such: “Verily monotheism and justice are the foundations of religion”8. Also the Imam has said: “Indeed, justice is a scale created by Allah who established it for the creatures and installed it for the establishment of right among the people; hence do not oppose this scale and do not violate His sovereign rule.”9 Justice enjoys an expressive and outstanding status any other sublime, sacred categories and values, such as the truth, religions, monotheism, prophethood, Resurrection, faith, virtue, reason, perfection, right, law, order, security, holy war, peace, freedom, equality, civility, ethic, felicity, etc. Explanation and elaboration of the relationship between justice and other sublime values and categories requires another opportunity. However, in order to demonstrate the comprehensiveness and universality of justice and its status and magnificence here, a cursory look is cast on the relationship between justice and some other important concepts10. (Attempts will be made to rely on Quranic verses and traditions in each of these arguments).
1 – Justice and Truth
Justice is not a hypothetical issue; it is a real element which is materialized in outside world and universe. In the Islamic thinking, next to the truth of the existence of God, there is not any other truth as comprehensive and universal as justice. The holy Quran juxtaposes the existence of God, His justice, and the justness of universal system when emphasizing on these categories: “Allah bears witness that there is no god but He. And [so do] the angels and those possessed of knowledge, maintaining his creation with justice; there is no god but He, the Mighty, the Wise.”11 It can be inferred from this verse that in the similar way that Godly-orientation and monotheistic nature of the universe and life is a great truth, it is also a great truth that the creation and the universe are justice-based and just.
2 – Justice and the Origin
God is just and has not ordained expect just for the creatures: “…and Allah does not desire any injustice to the creatures.”12 Also another Quranic verse states: “Surely Allah does not do injustice to the weight of an atom, and if it is a good deed He multiplies it and gives from Himself a great reward.”13
3 – Justice and Right
Inequity and falsehood occur due to diversion from the moderation or just limits and the fall into the whirlpool of extremism.
Imam Ali (AS) terms the left and the right (diversion from moderation or just limits) misguidance and considers treading the moderate and just path as the righteous path: “Surely Allah does not do any injustice to men, but men are unjust to themselves.”14
4 – Justice and Universe
Justice permeates through the body of the universe just like soul and also permeates through the life and being just like a comprehensive, universal structure and system. No point or grade of existence and no phenomenon and creature in the world is devoid of the element of justice. God has established the world on the pillars of justice and firmness of the universe depends on justice. “Justice is a foundation on which the entire universe rests”.15
5 – Justice and Religion
Religion “is a report of the evolutionary and legislative providence of God.”16 Since evolution – which is the manifestation of the practical Divine Will – is just, legislation too, which is an indication of the scientific providence of God, is just and justice-oriented. As justice is the pillar and consolidator of evolution, it is the basis of legislation as well.17 Religion is divided into two parts: statements and doctrines. Some parts of religion (that is, the beliefs) consist of realistic statements which inform us of the truths and beings. Therefore this part of religion is description of manifestation of Divine justice in evolution; and the other part of religion is an invitation and instruction to man to observe justice (ethic and manners) and act on the basis of justice (action and commandments). Hence, a major chunk of religion consists of the doctrines that encourage man to observe justice within himself (Divine ethics) and establish justice outside his being (social commandments). Belief in monotheism, which is the essence of religion, is justice and infidelity is a big inequity.18
6 – Justice and Prophethood
God’s prophets were the most just human beings, to the extent that they enjoyed the blessing of infallibility – which is the highest degree justice like beauty is a single truth that permeates in all its diverse and widespread examples and instances – despite their diversity and differences of understanding the right and believing in the right (scientific justice), following the righteousness and turning back to falsehood (practical justice). They never declined justice and moderation or the rightful and truthful criteria in the realm of insight, behavior and action. Sent by God, the prophets invited the entire mankind to justice19 and they themselves too endeavored throughout their lives to establish justice and most of them finally lost their lives for the sake of justice.
7 – Justice and Resurrection
The raison d’être of Resurrection is establishment of justice. The Day of Judgment is a scene of manifestation of Divine mercy as well as that of the materialization of ultimate justice. According to His mercy and justice, God on the Day of Judgment will reward those who had good deeds and were just and will also punish those who were oppressors and committed bad deeds.20
8 – Justice and Appointment of Prophets
The objective of the appointment of prophets and revelation of scriptures is establishment of justice in human societies. The holy Quran states: “Certainly We sent Our apostles with clear arguments, and sent down with them the Book and the balance that men may conduct themselves with equity; and We have made the iron, wherein is great violence and advantages to men, and that Allah may know who helps Him and His apostles in the secret; surely Allah is Strong, Mighty.”21
9 – Justice and Expectation
Justice is the ultimate ideal of man and the ideal society is a just one.22 The international society will achieve perfection and felicity with the materialization of expectation (the elimination of inequity across the world and permeation of justice in it). The establishment of universal justice is the definite destiny of the world. If inequity permeates through the entire world, and only one day is left to the end of this world, God will prolong that day so that a man will emerge from the heavens to fill the world with equity and justice.23
10 – Justice and Religious Commandments
Justice is among the causes of commandments and the source and objective of Divine commandments is realization of justice24; hence, an unjust law or decree is not a religious one and wherever there is injustice, there is as much distance between the society and religion.25 Wherever and whenever there is realization of justice (although not in the name of religion), in fact some part of religion has been realized. If there is relative justice in a society, absolute infidelity evaporates and when absolute justice is established, infidelity too goes away26 for the objective of religion is establishment of justice and justice is at the top of faith, encompassing good and benevolence.27
11 – Justice and Law
The objective of law is establishment of justice. Also law is followed and is considered desirable because it guarantees the establishment of justice. Therefore, justice is the source, the criterion and the objective of law. Some thinkers define justice as “acting in accordance with the law”28
12 – Justice and Rights
There is also a strong relationship between rights and justice. Enjoying justice is a prime right of the people. Realization of justice is possible only through restoration and realization of people’s rights and realization of their rights is possible only in the light of just rules and in a just society.29
13 – Justice and Security
Order and security can be established only through justice and the society and state cannot continue to exist except on the basis of justice.30 The law and order that cannot not protect justice provide a tranquility, which smells of death on the one hand and has a doomsday on the other and sooner or later there will be revolution against injustice in a cemeterial society. True, security is the one in which all strata of the society are able to realize their rights. The kind of security that only protects the rights of the power-wielders and is the guard of the wealth of the rich and on the other limits and threatens the dignity and freedom of the destitute and the poor is not indeed security.31
14 – Justice and Freedom
A number of sublime values such as religion, law and others’ freedom may put some limitations on the freedom. Justice too limits freedom. No one is allowed to trample upon justice in the name of freedom. Freedom is among the greatest rights of human beings; hence justice requires the protection of the rights of all individuals, including their freedom.32
15 – Justice and Equality
There is a clear relationship between justice and equality to the extent that some thinkers maintain that justice means absolute equality among human beings. Although the word justice in Arabic (adl) literarily is related to equality and equity33, such an interpretation of justice is not a precise interpretation, for equalization of the different itself is a capital inequity. Of course, observation of the equality of the equal individuals and strata is justice itself – there is no problem to link justice to equality in this sense.
16 – Justice and Holy War (Jihad)
Justice is the ultimate objective of jihad. In Islamic viewpoint, holy war for the elimination of inequity and humanitarian interventions for protection of the rights of the oppressed are among the duties of the believers.34
17 – Justice and Ethic
The oldest theory of philosophy of ethic considers moderation in attributes a virtue and maintains that the objective of ethic is acquisition of inner justice.35
18 – Justice and Peace
The connection between peace and justice is unbreakable. Inequity has always been a source of war and a threat to peace. Perpetual, comprehensive peace is not possible to establish except through justice. Hence, the holy Quran emphasizes that peace and compromise between adversaries should be based on justice and equity.36
19 – Justice and Felicity
The individual and social felicity is not possible to achieve except through the realization of subjective (personal/inner) justice in all individuals and commitment to objective (social-political) justice. Justice and establishment of justice are the signs of civility and the realization of justice prepares the grounds for the emergence and blossoming of the civilizations, while inequity and oppression are the signs of savagery which cause the decline and fall of the civilizations.37
20 – Justice and Reason
The interdependence of justice and reason is so clear that it does not require to be dwelt upon. The realization of good justice, its examples, and judgment of its decline is possible with the help of reason. Therefore, in Islam the two schools of thought of Mu’tazilite and Shiism are called both rational and just.
Obstacles to Justice
In this short article, attempts have been made to only allude to some obstacles and impediments of legislative justice. By obstacles and impediments of justice we mean the problems and factors that somehow function as a deterrent to realization of justice and practically deprive the citizens (nationally or internationally) of this Divine blessing. Most of the obstacles and implements of justice stem from the acts and thoughts of human beings (kings and citizens). “Surely Allah does not do any injustice to men, but men are unjust to themselves.”38 Some of the obstacles and impediments of justice are enumerated below.
1 – Ignorance of the rulers or administrators of the concept of justice or inequity. Ignorance of the nature of justice always causes a confusion in the examples of inequity and justice to the extent that sometimes inequity takes the place of justice and vice versa; and the just person is projected as an oppressor and vice versa!39 Imam Ali (AS), states: “Many people who look just are indeed oppressors.”40 Man’s conscience has not still recovered from injuries inflicted on it due to Karl Marx and his followers’ wrong interpretations of justice.
Two truth-destroying blunders took place in Marxism regarding justice:
First, the status of justice was reduced to the level of fulfilling man’s hunger and his sexual needs! That is, it was perceived that justice is confined to economic justice; and second, justice was taken as “equality of all human beings”!
The first blunder denies man’s God-given, inherent virtue and reduces him to the level of animals; while the second blunder undermines virtues and acquired, man-made potentials of individuals. Human beings have different talents. The neglect of their differences and capabilities is the worst kind of exploitation and injustice against man’s status and rights. The main cause of defeat of Marxism was these very blunders. No trend or event in the history of mankind undermined justice as much as Marxism nor did any trend or event squander human and cultural assets in the name of justice as it did.41 Today too some thinkers like John Rawls who (1921-2002) maintain that justice is based on contract42 commit a blunder, for this is an attempt to solve the inherent contradiction between liberalism and justice through partial intervention on one side of the contradiction, that is, the basis and foundation of justice. It means falsification of justice in the interest of liberalism not a solution of the contradiction between them! A question that rises here is: if justice draws its justifiability from contract and agreement, what is the source of credibility of the contract? Is the credibility of contract based on the contract itself? Does it have any other source such as the necessity of commitment to promise, or the justness of the preference of the vote and consent of the majority? What is the source of credibility and reliability of these bases? Is it the contract? In our opinion, the principle of the necessity of commitment to promise or justness of the priority of viewpoint of majority to minority cannot be based on contract, rather the credibility and necessity of these two bases are founded on specific ethical, anthropological principles. Basically the worst kind of oppression against the status of truth and justice is reliance on the preference of the vote of majority to consider the most sublime ideas equal to the most lowly ones, and the nastiest behaviors and deeds with the most sublime and virtuous ones, and preferring the nastiest, lowliest thoughts and deeds to the most sublime ones only on the pretext that they are the viewpoints of the majority, considering them just on the basis of a contract theory.
If justice is relative and hypothetical and the justice and the principle of preference of the vote of majority lack any basis or constant meaning, one act may be considered just in one occasion and unjust in another. In this case the theory of justice based on contract will be self-contradictory. As a result, it is not clear as to why such theories should be considered authentic and correct and preferred to rival theories? Basically, one of the reasons for the lack of commitment to the principles of justice and ethics and the increase in the number of offenses in our time is lack of belief in the Divine backing of these principles and their truthfulness.
2 – The justification of oppressive practices on the vain pretexts is another impediment of justice as a result of which justice has always been victimized! For instance, on the pretext that ends justifies the means, man has been victim of numerous inequities. Or on the pretexts of exigency and conservatism numerous rights have been trampled upon.
3 – Another obstacle to justice is the difficulty of its establishment by the rulers and toleration of its realization by the ruled. Commitment to the requirements of justice is very difficult for the rulers and its Toleration very cumbersome and vexatious for the ruled – when it is not directly in their interests. However, in Imam Ali’s (AS) viewpoint, justice is vast and widespread and it will be more difficult to bear oppression for a person who feels that justice is difficult to tolerate.43
4 – Another impediment of justice is separating it from other sublime values. As mentioned above, justice is intertwined with a number of categories and values. Hence, its deserving status must always be preserved in the network of sublime values so that other values are not sacrificed in the name of justice and on the pretext of commitment to other values it is not trampled upon. Also true justice is just like a charter and is multidimensional. Emphasizing on one dimension of justice like its economic aspect Man’s conscience has not still recovered from injuries inflicted on it due to Karl Marx and his followers’ wrong interpretations of justice and negligence of its other aspects will impede the realization of true justice.
5 – As external (social) freedom is dependent on inner (ethical-spiritual) freedom43, external (regarding others) justice is dependent on inner (regarding self) justice. One who is not fair to himself cannot be believed to be just to others. One who has not cut off from material, selfish interests and has not yet joined the stream of freedom is in fact a captive of his own self and commits inequity against himself. How can we accept that one who denies the existence of God and does not believe in Resurrection is just and seeks the realization of justice? Moreover, what is the incentive of such a person to be committed to justice?44
6 – Another obstacle and impediment of justice is the friendships and animosities and liking and disliking. This is one of the greatest obstacles to the realization of justice. The holy Quran encourages the believers not to oppress even their enemies45; likewise it asks them not to compromise the principles of justice even if it is to the detriment of their friends and relatives.46
7 – Another impediment of justice is discrimination. We have already mentioned that there is no principle or rule superior and more comprehensive than justice in the sphere of life and existence. Exclusion of any individual or stratum from its inclusion will endanger justice.
8 – Unnecessary lenience and mercy is another impediment to realization of justice. Failure to establish justice on the pretext of being lenient to an offender who has cruelly trampled upon others’ rights will encourage the spread of oppression and corruption.47
9 – Disparity between the words and actions of the advocates of justice undermine the confidence of the masses in their claims, leading to some sort of social hypocrisy. Such claimants can never be the administrators of justice. The people too, due to the lack of confidence in such administrators, do not cooperate with them and violate what they claim to be justice. As a result, justice does not find any opportunity to be realized.
10 – The source of commitment of oppression always lies in the weakness and overt or covert need of the oppressor. God does not commit oppression, for He does not need to commit oppression and His Divinity is purified from any weakness. But, human beings sometimes for the sake of repulsion of a danger or loss and sometimes for the sake of an exigency or interest commit oppression. Hence, weakness and need are other impediments to justice.48 The obstacles and impediments mentioned above unfortunately permeate man’s life today and most of the nations of the world and the entire mankind are afflicted with them. Of course each of these impediments has its own solutions and we believe that the religious teachings contain the most comprehensive solutions to these problems. Indeed, it is only through return of contemporary man to Divine teachings that the realization of justice is possible and its obstacles can be removed.
Endnotes
1. It refers to the following question: what is beauty? In fact it is represented in many diverse and varied examples such as in a flower, the starry sky, a good handwriting, and an eloquent speech. A similar question can be asked about the truth of justice and diverse answers can be provided for it. In this article we are confined to a loose definition of justice.
2 Aristotle, Politics, Hamid Enayat, Tehran, Nil.
3 The renowned contemporary Iranian philosopher in his valuable work, Al-Mizan, Vol. 1, P. 371, gives the same definitions. Many other Muslims thinkers have approved of the same definition. Moulavi in his Mathnavi, Sixth Book, verse 2560, offers a similar definition.
4 Nahj al-Balaghah, Saying 437.
5 Ghawali al-Lali, Vol. 4, P. 103.
6 Allama Majlesi, Bahar al Anwar, Vol. 78, P. 83.
7 Ibid., Vol. 20, P. 17.
8 Ghurar al-hikam, Tradition 3464.
9 Determination of the relationship between justice and other related subjects is possible.
Although other subjects are diverse, justice too is multidimensional.
10 The Holy Quran 3:18.
11 The Holy Quran 3: 108.
12 The Holy Quran 4: 40.
13 The Holy Quran 10: 44.
14 Allama Majlesi, Bahar al Anwar, Vol. 78, P. 83.
15 This is my definition of religion, but it should be mentioned that the ways of report are not limited to the Holy Scriptures rather reason and man’s nature too are considered as some channels for receiving some statements of religion.
16 “Surely the foundations of religion are monotheism and justice,” Bihar al-anwar, Vol. 20, P. 17; Imam Ali (AS), Nahj al-Balaghah, Sermon 185 “[God] established equity in creation and realized justice in His commandments [religion] for mankind.”
17 “…Luqman said to his son while he admonished him: O my son! Do not associate aught-to with Allah; most surely polytheism is a grievous inequity.” The Holy Quran 31: 13.
18 For instance see the following verses: “O you who believe! Be maintainers of justice…”[4: 135]; “… Can he be held equal with him who enjoins what is just, and he (himself) is on the right path?” [16: 76]; “…act equitably, that is nearer to piety…” [5: 8]; “…when you judge between people you judge with justice…” [4: 58]. It is noteworthy that the verse 135 of Chapter 4 and verse 8 of Chapter 8 have similar contents and by juxtaposing them one may conclude that rising for maintenance of equity is similar with that for the sake of Allah.
19 “And We will set up a just balance on the day of resurrection, so no soul shall be dealt with unjustly in the least and though there be the weight of a grain of mustard seed, (yet) will We bring it, and sufficient are We to take account.” [21: 47]; “… I will not waste the work of a worker among you, whether male or female…” [3: 195] “… Nor shall they enter the garden until the camel pass through the eye of the needle; and thus do We reward the guilty.” [7: 40]
20 The Holy Quran 57: 25.
21 “And thus we have made you a medium (just) nation that you may be the bearers of witness to the people and that the Apostle may be a bearer of witness to you…” 2: 143;
In Al-Jame’ ul Ahkam ul Quran, Vol. 1, P. 14, Qartabi Ansari has interpreted the medium nation as the just nation.
22 There are numerous traditions on this issue and the traditions are so frequent that there is no doubt about it. For instance see: Shaikh Tusi, Man la yahdarah al-faqih, Vol. 4, P. 17, tradition 2:54.
23 The verse considering realization of equity and justice as the main objective and aim of the appointment of the prophets very clearly refer to the justice as the objective of Sharia; see 57: 24 (Chapter Hadid); Also see 8: 24 and 2:179.
24 Poverty which is clear example of injustice is next to infidelity and will lead to disbelief.
25 According to a Quranic verse whoever does not judge by what has been revealed by God is unjust: “Whoever did not judge by what Allah revealed, those are they that are the unjust.” [5: 45]. Therefore, in our opinion the statement attributed to Prophet Mohammad (PBUH), that is, “The state survives with infidelity, but not with inequity,” is not authentic, for given the close proximity of justice with religion and religiousity, justice cannot be associated with infidelity.
26 “Justice is at the top of faith and collector of benevolence,” Imam Ali (AS), Ghoror al Hikam, tradition 1704.
27 The renowned thinker, the late Mohammad Taqi Ja’fari, has considered this definition the best one for justice, Translation and Interpretation of Nahj al-Balaghah, Vol. 3, P. 254.
28 “And appointed him to establish justice.” Imam Ali (AS), Ghurar al-hikam, Tradition 3464.
29 See Traditions 4789, 4215, 8722, 4789, 774 and 4948 in Ghurar al-hikam.
30 See the following statement of Imam Ali (AS): “A weak whose rights have not been vindicated by me is superior unless I vindicate his rights and the strong is weak unless I have not vindicated the weak against him.” Nahj al-Balaghah, Letter 37.
31 Some of the jurisprudential rules determine such freedoms; they are rational in nature.
32 See, Ragheb Isfahani, Al-Mofradat fi Gharib al-Quran, article on Justice.
33 “And what reason have you that you should not fight in the way of Allah and of the weak among the men and the women and the children, (of) those who say: Our Lord! Cause us to go forth from this town, whose people are oppressors, and give us from Thee a guardian and a give us from Thee a helper.” 4: 75.
34 See: Mula Mahdi Naraqi, Jame’ ul-Sa’adaat, Vol. 1, P. 91, and Mulla Ahmad Naraqi, Mi’raj ul-Sa’adah, P. 32.
35 “… make peace between them with justice and act equitably; surely Allah loves those who act equitably.” 49: 9.
36 Imam Ali (AS) has said: One who develops the cities as if he is establishing justice., Ghurar al-hikam, Tradition 9543.
37 The Holy Quran 10: 44.
38 See Koleini, Al-Kafi, Vol. 1, 242.
39 Ghurar al-hikam, Tradition 5274.
40 Today, through its wrong interpretation of freedom, liberalism has inflicted irreparable damage on freedom and other sublime human values, but very soon man will come out of the cocoon of this blind dogmatism and rectify his path. Let’s hope that this will not take time.
41 John Rawls, Justice, Fairness and Rational Decision-making, tr. by Mostafa Malekian, Naqd va Nazar, Vol. 3, No. 3, Spring and Summer 1997.
42 See: Nahj al-Balaghah, Book 126.
43 See Rashad Ali Akbar, Sacred Democracy, Maqaleh Azadi, Research Institute of Culture and Islamic Thought.
44 “And whoever goes beyond the limits of Allah, has indeed does injustice to his own soul,” 65 [Al-Talaq]:1 Also Imam Ali (AS) has said: “How can a person who does injustice his soul, be just?” Ghurar al-hikam.
45 “…and let not hatred of a people incite you not to act equitably; act equitably, that is nearer to piety…” 5: 8.
46 See: The Holy Quran 6: 15.
47 The Holy Quran warns the Muslims lest pity and mercy prevent them from implementation of the Divine limits: “… and let not pity for them detain you in the matter of obedience to Allah…” 24: 1.
48 See: Sahifeh Sajadiyah, Supplication 48.

Chapter 9: Freedom
One- Divisions of Freedom:
Freedom, loosely considering its meaning and functions, may be divided in the following manner:
A- Creational Freedom, Legislative Freedom
Creational freedom is the “ability to perform or abandon a mental or bodily act by the agent, free from binding influence of physical or sputa-physical factors or obstacles”. Creational freedom is the same as philosophical free will. Though performed because of involvement of other’s will through preference one option from among some possible ones, forced act is a referent of this kind as well; though criminologically speaking, the forced agent is not the same as an agent who is not forced.
By legislative freedom, “one’s ability to enjoy his own natural rights without external, unauthorized, forceful will’s involvement” is meant. The legislative freedom is the same as one’s ability to enjoy consequences of philosophical free will in a reasonable manner.
B- Internal Freedom, External Freedom
Internal freedom means “man’s lofty freedom from internal (of course natural and not innate) factors and obstacles in performing or abandoning a physical or non-physical act.
Beneath the azure vault, I am that slave of resolution, who
Is free from whatever taketh colour of attachment. (Hafiz)
External freedom as compared with the internal one is “freedom of the agent from impacts if apparent and extra-personal causes and obstacles”. If in the above favorite odd we replace “attachment” with “command”- in the universal sense of the term- the odd will speak of external freedom.
C- Unanimated Things Freedom, Vegetative Freedom, Animal Freedom, Human Freedom
By the above four kinds, we mean that kinds of freedom which are actualized in accord with essential, quiddal capacity of each of unanimated things, vegetables, animals, and human beings.
Freedom for unanimated things will be realized, if there is no obstacle to movement of unanimated thing.
Freedom for vegetables is “the lack of obstacle to such a growth and movement which is in accord with the vegetables’ nature”.
By animal freedom, “nonexistence of threats and limitations for the will of a living spirited thing- including man- in performing or abandoning an act, and selection” is meant. This kind of freedom differs from the above two only in terms of involvement of will in performing and abandoning an act; and by itself, it has no value content; for, to perform or abandon an act is not a lofty selection; and perhaps, one wills an option other than the preferred one.
Since the one who enjoys such a freedom feels the ability to employ his own will- because there is no obstacle-, he feels some sort of soulish happiness.
By human freedom, we mean “possibility of selecting the good by man’s will without any external force”. In this kind of freedom, which is man’s loftiest attribute, in addition to involvement of will in performing or abandoning or selecting an act, intention, tool, and goal of the agent should be of value as well. In other words, in this kind of freedom, restraints such as “From what?”, “In what?”, “How?”, “To what?” and “For what” should accord human dignity of human beings.
The above kind, which may be called “lofty freedom” as well, leads to self-flourishing, evolutionary becoming, spiritual happiness, and rational enjoyment.
D- Existential Freedom, Walayi Freedom
By existential freedom i.e. a freedom which concerns man’s existence, we mean “ability to perform or abandon a voluntary act by the agent, free from binding influence of the external factors”.
“That you say I will do this or that,
“Is an argument for free-will, O beloved.
The highest level of existential freedom is acquisition of “creational walayat” which we call “walayi freedom” and it is “Man’s freedom from influences made by physical and supra-physical factors in performing or abandoning an act and intervening in the nature”. And this is acquired by man through particular austerities and upgradation of one’s existential level.
This is the fruit of the tree of a lofty will and a reward awarded to the one who keeps the first trust.
This is an Eastern wine which is not poured out except from the pot of “They said: Yea, verily” (the Holy Quran: 7: 172) and it is a wine of catastrophe which adds to nothing except thirst. And it is a glory which cannot be acquired except through an exciting gambling of the heart and being, by one’s recognition and excitement, enthusiast for the Beloved.
Angels who lack the polity of servitude and are happy with “we hymn Thy praise and sanctify Thee” (the Holy Quran, 2: 30) and have not attended the class of “And He taught Adam all the names” (2: 31) and have not tasted the poison of fall and disunion, are even unable to imagine and perceive it much less acquire and feel it! Even their worship is due to their fear and not a result of their freedom, “The thunder hymneth His praise and (so do) the angels for awe of Him” (13: 13); and worship of free ones is human beings’ certain destiny.
Iblis as well is captured by arrogance of “I am better than him” (7: 12) and a prisoner of conceit and vainglory: “Thou createdst me of fire while him Thou didst create of mud.” (7: 12) and he will never smell and taste such a freedom.
There is a great distance between angels and devils, jins and animals, vegetative and unanimated things on the one hand and enthusiasm and recognition on the other.
E- Moral Freedom, Legal Freedom
Two terms “moral freedom” and “legal freedom” may be considered as being descriptive or additive combinations. In the former, moral freedom will be acquired if one is free because of his own human attributes and spiritual virtues; in this sense, moral freedom is coextensive with internal freedom. This will be acquired if reason overcomes lust and anger. Legal freedom is “man’s ability to enjoy his own innate natural rights”.
But if the two are considered as additive combinations, they may be, respectively, considered as indifference towards moral restraints and legal limitations which is the same as unconditioned capriciousness and fearless immorality.
F- Freedom of Thought, Freedom of Idea, Freedom of Speech and Writing, and Freedom of Conducts
These four kinds are among legal freedoms and they need no explanation as they are widely known.
Two- Definitions for Freedom
In section one, we only described the concept of freedom as viewed by us, and did not define it. To provide a single, accurate definition which cover all kinds of freedom and which is accepted by all seems to be difficult; for each and every school and sometimes each and every one takes its/his own understanding of freedom as its definition. That is why many people have proceeded to provide a definition for freedom but no one has provided a definition acceptable for all people. There are many wars in the history of human beings wherein both parties had claimed that they were defending freedom. According to Isaiah Berlin, historians have registered more than two hundred definitions for freedom .
Having presented a linguistic analysis of freedom and quoted various and contradicting understandings of this concept in the first chapter of his Freedom: A New Analysis, Cranston, in the third section of this chapter, has quoted the following definitions from the famous Western philosophers:
Liberty is a perfection of the will – Duna Scotus.
Liberty of freedom signifieth properly the absence of opposition — Hobbes.
Liberty … is the power of man to do or forbear doing any particular action – Locke.
By liberty we can only mean a power of acting according to the determination of the will – Hume.
Freedom is independent from anything other than the moral law – Kant.
Freedom is spontaneity of the intelligence – Leibniz.
Freedom is necessity transfigured [idealized or glorified]- Hegel.
Freedom is the power of will ¬- Kuhn
Freedom for man is the rule of spirit – Paulsen
Freedom is a faculty through which the mind executes its own will –
Freedom is participation in disclosing- Dasign
Freedom is to have supervision on one’s own self and the external nature which is based on knowledge of natural necessity- Engels
A free man is one who lives according to the dictates of reason alone – Spinoza.
Definitions provided here by Cranston and in other places of his book as well as the definitions provided by others are in fact not definitions by limitation but definition through opposites or description or based on subject or through referents or by synonyms.
And sometimes, to define some sort of freedom, another kind has been defined. For example, social and legal freedoms have been confused with free will, and internal freedom with the external one; some definitions are not exclusive and some others are not comprehensive .
In the definitions provided, elements such as man, reason, perfection, nature, self, alien, obstacle, faculty, will, free will, internal and external and their synonyms have been used, and because of the diversity of definitions for these elements, ambiguities have increased.
For the same reason, we think that, instead of trying to attain a comprehensive, inclusive, and universally acceptable definition, one should to find a brief mutual understanding concerning this term with his audience through describing points such as origin, kinds, limits and obstacles of freedom, and its being prior or subsequent to other values. Of course, a definition for freedom- if attainable- may be attained only within the scope of a particular kind and as understood by a particular school.
Three- Origin of Freedom
In the beginning of his Social Contract, Book one, Jean Jacques Rousseau says: “MAN has been born free; yet everywhere he is in chains.” In spite of its greatness, this sentence is an imperfect description of a lofty truth; and that truth is that “the Origin of man’s freedom is a creational one”.
Freedom According to Imam Ali (a)
Imam Ali (a), the first one in the rank of free men and eloquent ones, in his will to his son Imam Hasan (a) provides a deep and subtle description which is much more useful to explain the above truth:
“So, do not lower your self-respect, do not be mean and submissive and do not subjugate yourself through these vile and base traits even though they may appear to make it possible for you to secure your heart’s desires because nothing in this world can compensate for the loss of self-respect, nobility and honour. Take care, my son! Be warned that you do not make yourself a slave of anybody. Allah has created you a freeman.
Among points explicitly or implicitly mentioned by him in his letter- in spite of its shortness- one may mention the following:
1- The origin of man’s freedom is a creational one; that is why man’s innate nature tries to free him from restraints and obstacles:
“But man would try to rid himself from what is before him” (75: 5)
2- Freedom is a Divine gift granted to man through creational making of the Truth- the Exalted- Who is the Giver of Life.
3- Based on creational making and as required by “making”, man is legislatively and religiously free; for, the Truth- the Exalted- is the Owner, thus the King, and Lord of man by Essence; and He is the most suitable one to legislatively make his freedom.
4- Here servitude to other than God has been absolutely disallowed; the Creator of man and the Maker of freedom may not be considered as a referent by the above statement, since He is not “other”, and to worship Him is the loftiest rank of freedom. “Servitude is a substance whose depth is Lordship”, “when the wife of ‘Imran said: My Lord! I have vowed unto Thee that which is in my belly as a consecrated (offering)” (3: 35).
5- Man should protect the jewel of his freedom from those who are lurking to take his freedom.
6- Unlike many rights, the right of freedom cannot be waived or assigned to others; man is not free to, under the pretext of freedom, suppress his own freedom and accept abjectness .
7- Man’s self is more valuable than anything else and nothing can be equal to this Divine gift. The Holy Quran speaks of the same truth as well:
“For that cause We decreed for the Children of Israel that whosoever killeth a human being for other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind, and whoso saveth the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind. Our messengers came unto them of old with clear proofs (of Allah’s Sovereignty), but afterwards lo! Many of them became prodigals in the earth” (5: 32).
According to religion, each and every man’s value is equal to “one” by “infinite”, and “one” is equal to “all”! And there is nothing equal to the “self” other than the “self”.
No school [other than Islam] has put considered such a value for man’s life and freedom; and this is so only because this school has revealed by the Creator of man Who is more aware of the value of His creature than everyone else, and has admired this creature: “Surely We created man of the best stature” (95: 4) and “So blessed be Allah, the Best of creators!” (23: 14).
8- To be free and to live freely is both a right and an obligation; it is a sacred right given by the Creator of being; and it is an obligation, since if one does not enjoy it and does not protect it, he will go out of the scope of servitude and violated a religious command. Thus to make attempts to acquire freedom or to defend it is a great benevolence and if one is killed in this path, his death is a sacred one equal to overcoming the enemy, and it can be regarded as continuance of life. “Say: Can ye await for us aught save one of two good things (death or victory in Allah’s way)?” (9: 52)
9- As a Divine gift, freedom is a Divine, sacred and supra-natural thing; and this is the mystery of its loftiness and exchangeability. And to violate is not only to violate a human right and a heavenly thing but also it is to make a change in creation, tradition, and to violate Divine Providence.
10- Religion and freedom are intertwined and support each other; and no one is right to negate freedom under the name of religion or to negate religion under the name of freedom; for, both of them are innate natural and Divine gifts.
Four- Basis of Man’s Freedom
Man has two existential aspects: 1- Nature; and 2- Innate nature.
“Lo! We created man from a drop of thickened fluid in order to test him; so We made him hearing, knowing. Lo! We have shown him the way, whether he be grateful or disbelieving” (76: 2-3).
Man is a zero who is able to ascend or descend infinitely: descent down to the dark depth of the well of nature or ascent up to the bright climax of innate nature.
Two ends of the circle of being,
You have tied to each other.
The mystery behind the dual Quranic interpretation of man is the same point.
Sometimes the Holy Quran calls man “weak” (4: 28), “wrong-doer, an ingrate” (14: 34), “an open opponent” (16: 4), “hasty” (17: 11), “thankless” (17: 67), “grudging” (17: 100), “contentious” (18: 54), “tyrant and a fool” (33: 72), “despairing, thankless” (11: 9), “disheartened, desperate” (41: 49), “Fretful; grudging” (70: 20-21), “anxious” (70: 19), “fretful” (70: 20), “careless” (82: 6), “rebellious” (96: 6), “ingrate” (100: 6), “a state of loss” (100: 2) and the like.
Sometimes other the Holy Quran appoints him “the best stature” and calls him the best of creatures, “hearing, knowing”, and describes him as “created with a marked preferment” (17: 70), and seats him on a throne to be prostrated by angels (2: 34).
Angels do not know names;
Some of them they have learnt from me;
They have me drink a cup of wine
Then all drunken ones surrendered to me
Man who is created out of a handful of mud
Passed by his heart from heavens and stars
No “Verily we honoured” heard this heaven
But this sorrowful man heard .
The basis for the fact that man has been created free is his existential duality; and if this were not the case, freedom would be for him, like for angels and beasts, meaningless and valueless.
Having given creational and legislative freedom to man, God has enabled man to remove his defects and be immune from damage which may be caused by his natural aspect, and to acquire the rank of God’s vicegerency by freely recognizing his innate natural aspect.
In general, religion looks at man positively and optimistically. The philosophy behind giving freedom to man is such a look; but that one who regards man as “man’s wolf” cannot tolerate and permit freedom.
For man, religion considers a lofty rank and regards him as having lofty capabilities and abilities which makes him apt to enjoy freedom.
Religion considers man as a self-conscious, good-willing, truth-seeking, justice-wishing, law-centered, responsible, perfection-seeking and in brief “free with a marked preferment”. Thus, religion believes that he “can” and “should” be free. In other words, man’s good-willing, truth-seeking, justice-wishing, law-centered, responsible, perfection-seeking are manifestations of his free will, and his free will is crystallization of his particular and lofty rank, and such a rank is caused by his reason, and if there were no reason, existence and nonexistence of freedom would make no difference for man; for, in this case, man was not indeed man, “reason is the basis of humanity” .
Five- Limits of and Obstacles to Freedom
Among theoretical fallacies and scientific dangers which have throughout the course of history threatened freedom is confusion between “limits of” and “obstacles to” freedom. There are many who have regarded “limits” as “obstacles” and thus gone to permit immorality. And there are many others who, in the name of “limits”, have attacked freedom and killed freedom-seekers. For the same reason it is absolutely necessary to distinguish “limit” from “obstacle”.
In spite of what that some thinkers like Aristotle think that human beings are created either “slave” or “free”, freedom is a gift for all human beings; for all human beings enjoy gifts which are creational origins of freedom; freedom is a right which has its roots in the “right of life”, and to take it from one is not less than taking his life. “Persecution is worse than slaughter” (2: 191). In spite of this all, however, freedom cannot negate the origins of freedom.
Is freedom a subject or a way? Is it a means or an end? Destiny or passage? If the first options are true, freedom will result in nothing other than anarchy and violation of true freedoms; since rebellion is not by itself a value. To speak of freedom while one does not take into account questions such as “from what?”, in what?”, “how?” or “by what?” and “for what?” is meaningless.
In our age, freedom itself is the first and greatest victim of abusing freedom. Thus, today, the heart-attracting word “freedom” may be applied from the “lowest act” to the “loftiest value”; and its value depends on the contents and subjects of the five above-mentioned restraints.
May freedom “from what is stated by reason” “in committing a crime” in an inhuman “manner” and “by inhuman means” “to satisfy” carnal soul be admired and desired by human beings?
Differences between “Limits” of Freedom and “Obstacles” to Freedom
In this article, we cannot discuss referents and differences between “limits” and “obstacles” as it should be done. Nevertheless, we mention some differences and provide a brief discussion about limits of freedom. The following points are among the differences:
1- “Limit” is a border to separate freedom from things other than it; “obstacle” negates existence of freedom;
2- “Limit” leads to inclusiveness of freedom, while “obstacle” destroys its foundation.
3- “Limit” prevents abusing of freedom, while “obstacle” prevents making uses of it in a good manner.
4- “Limit” specifies a scope for freedom, while “obstacle” destroys its scope.
That philosophers and legalists’ attempt undertake to define freedom is, as a matter of fact, determination of its limits. Standards such as “reason”, “natural laws”, “laws”, “moral law”, and the like have been mentioned in the following definitions:
Kant says: “Freedom is independent from anything except the moral law”.
Spinoza said: “A free man is one who lives according to the dictates of reason alone”.
Schelling said: “Freedom is nothing but the absolute determination of the indeterminate through the bare natural laws of being”.
Pawlzen said: “Freedom for man is the rule of spirit”.
Montesquieu says: “It is true that in democracies the people seem to act as they please; but political liberty does not consist of an unlimited freedom. In governments, that is, in societies directed by laws, liberty can consist only of the power of doing what we ought to will, and in not being constrained to do what we ought not to will. We must continually have in our minds the difference between independence and liberty. Liberty is the right of doing whatever the laws permit, and if a citizen could do what these laws forbid, there would no longer be any liberty” (The Spirits of Laws, Charles de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu, Translated by Thomas Nugent, revised by J. V. Prichard).
Rousseau says: “…the mere impulse of appetite is slavery, while obedience to a law which we prescribe ourselves is liberty” (The Social Contract, Book I).
As is well-known, Voltaire has been quoted as saying freedom is so dear for me that I am ready to give my life so that my opponent may oppose me. And this is regarded as his philosophical masterpiece. But, this is more similar to a political motto than a philosophical statement. It is not clear that whether Voltaire will be ready to give his life even if his opponent is seeking to violate others’ rights and destroy human lofty values. If yes, then he is ready to give his life for the lowest things. And if no, then there are some limits for freedom.
Extreme liberalism is neither possible nor favorable
Liberalism in the sense of absolute permission to do whatever one wishes is, firstly, unattainable; since man is living in the labyrinth of nature. Secondly, it is self-destroying and self-contradicting; since it will lead to anarchy and limitation of human beings’ essential rights and threatens legitimate freedoms. Thirdly, if one takes a means as an end, he will not be able to attain his aim.
Fourthly, freedom for the sake of freedom will lead to nihilism.
Fifthly, those people and those societies that are theoretically speaking of extreme liberalism are never (and will never be) committed to all its objective consequences.
Six- Limits of Freedom
Anyway, it is certain that each and every one’s freedom is limited by others’ freedom; and no one is allowed to violate others’ freedom in the name of freedom; since for the same reason that he is free, others are free as well, and as Montesquieu says the highest degree of freedom is that freedom which does not reach to the highest degree. “Thinketh man that he is to be left aimless?” (75: 36).
The rule of “no injury or malicious damage” which is a product of the tradition of the Holy Prophet (s) and one of the most inclusive legal rule of Islam as well as the rule of sovereignty confirm this claim.
Also, no one is allowed to negate freedom of his own self in the name of freedom. Man is created free (creational aspect) and legislatively he has to live freely. That one who makes his own self deprived of freedom has discarded his own humanity.
“O cunning one, if you behold not your keepers, behold your choice (and perceive that it is) involuntary.
You are making a choice, and your hands and feet are loose: why (then) are you imprisoned, why?
You have betaken yourself to denying (the action of) the keeper: you have called it ‘threats of the fleshly soul.”
Reason, another Limit
The other limit for freedom is reason. Man’s rationality has made him worthy to enjoy the gift of freedom; since it is because of reason’s respect that he has been made worthy to live freely; and it is in a free environment that reason may flourish and fruit. Reason is not a treasure of truths but rather a criterion for rights and truths. As said by Firdawsi:
“Reason is the eye of spirit, if you see
You can not live in the world without such an eye
Always, take reason into account
By which, keep your spirit away from evil.
If we doubt in reason’s being a criterion, what criterion will there remain for man? “Reason improves procedure” . That the other limits are in fact limits is proved by reason. “All good is grasped only by reason” . To accept reason’s judgment that freedom is good one has to accept its judgment that permission of evil is evil.
“Reason is the contrary of sensuality: O brave man, do not call (by the name of) reason that which is attached to sensuality.
True democracy- which some people have called “the highest human achievement”- is a coalition of reasons and not competition between desires; nor are democracy and liberalism equal.
Religion and law, truth and justice are other limits of freedom; of course, the revealed religion, the just law, the certain truth, and reasonable justice; and not all kinds of these four may be regarded as limits of freedom.
Religion and Freedom
It is assumed that religion is a set of true propositions concerning creational truths and a collection of liberating legislative teachings and rules; illusive superstitions have nothing to do with religion; there is no relation between altered religions and quasi-religions on the one hand and what is revealed by God on the other.
If one doubts in the fact that religion is a limit, he is better to doubt that religion is true; and if one accepts religion’s truth, then he has to accept that it is a limit as well.
The final goal of religion is realization of external and internal freedom for human beings; “and he will relieve them of their burden and the fetters that they used to wear” (7: 157); and if creational and legislative freedoms are absent, it will be meaningless to call people to religion and religiosity. And religiosity without legal freedom is impossible and sometimes false. Liberalism is a particular understanding of freedom which is not consistent with religion at all.
Criticism of the Idea of Inconsistency between Religion and Freedom
Some have thought that religion and freedom are inconsistent and taken freedom prior to religion; and then to prevent religion from being an obstacle to freedom, they have proceeded to limit the scope of religion- for the sake of freedom- and restricted the scope of religious judgments.
They say: religion has provided generalities and minimums, and has nothing to do with details; administration of the society, politics, management and the like are rational things; if they are not inconsistent with the goals of religion, this will suffice. Concerning this idea many points may be mentioned, for example:
1- Based on which rational or transmitted argument, have the above categories been regarded merely rational?
2- Which are rational and extra-religious arguments or transmitted and intra-religious arguments for the claim that religion’s position is a minimalist one?
3- If the claim is accepted, then what are the criteria for “general” and “particular”?
4- Are “generalities” impartial and do not they have any impacts on “particulars”? And what are scopes of the two independent parts?
5- If there is any interaction between the two, then are generalities influenced by particulars or vice versa? In any case: either religion is influenced by desires, or religion will intervene in freedom!
6- If the presumed “generalities” are of the kind of eternal ones such as “justice is good”, “injustice is evil” and the like, then it makes no difference that whether one attributes them to religion or to the other source. And in the latter case, religion will be only a guide.
7- What should one do with the explicit, significant, and interpretive transmitted arguments for inclusiveness of religious judgments concerning writing and speech?
8- What about the uncountable arguments mentioned in the religious sources?
9- Is religion the only danger for freedom so that we have to find a way to eliminate it? What should we do with reason, convention, society and law, and many internal and external obstacles and causes dispersed in nature? Do not they limit freedom?
This very proposal means that religion and freedom are inconsistent; and this idea is based on the opposition between reason and revelation! And if presuppositions of this idea are true and if limits of religion are so loose, then why we do not prescribe laicism and secularism to make freedom entirely free from the chains of religion and canon law.
Law and Freedom
As said briefly, to live one’s life according to laws is both in the nature of man and basis of human society. The value and stability of a society depend on acceptance of laws. To eliminate laws from man’s life- even though in the name of freedom- means to change the society into a jungle; and a society deprived of laws is a dark jungle. “But begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors” (2: 190)
Truth and Freedom
Freedom is valuable for it is a context wherein one is able to find truth and reality; to attain truths- as they are- is not possible unless through freedom; the essence of truth is always grasped through unrestrained research in the shadows resulted from confusion of truth and falsehood. But each and every truth may be found in the light of the other one; the new truth blossoms on the tree of the old truth. Then, in a society wherein the previous truths are suppressed by the insanity, one cannot expect the new truths to blossom.
In a land where truth is suppressed or concealed, no truth-hearing one will flourish; is this not the case that truth is born from truth and not from falsehood? And to promote clear falsehood is other than promotion of methodological falsehood; and freedom is for finding truth and not to deny it; it should be aimed to disclose falsehood and not promote it. Who is that rational man who denies an actual truth in the hope that he will attain a potential one? And if one denies truth in the name of freedom, what will result instead of this valuable jewel? “After the Truth what is there saving error? How then are ye turned away?” (10: 32).
Freedom is not an enemy for truth; it takes into account, and truth is caring for freedom; but falsehood is killer of freedom and breeds slavery; freedom is both among the most important rights and among the most important truths; but a truth should not be suppressed in the name of another one, nor should a right be eliminated in the name of another right.
Each and every truth is a basis (and not a terminator) of other truths; and if it were not the case, one has to doubt that whether it is a truth; since truth is not self-destroying; freedom- if it is freedom- is a truth and unanimous with other truths; and if it is not unanimous, then it is false, therefore it is not freedom but permission of evil.
Justice and Freedom
But justice! Concerning justice they have said: “justice is to place things in their proper places”; to place justice on the climax of greatness is the essence of justice; and to give freedom to all those who enjoy a creational origin is one of the most perfect referents of “give a right to he who has right”.
Though freedom is one of the greatest rights, justice contains all rights. In justice all rights are fulfilled and all truths- including the place of freedom- are emphasized. If freedom is denied, justice will die in an environment of despotism, “And guard yourselves against a chastisement which cannot fall exclusively on those of you who are wrong-doers” (8: 25). And if justice is violated, freedom will be violated as well; freedom is a part and particular of justice; and if an action limits justice- the whole and universal-, to be sure it is not freedom; since part and particular are never inconsistent with whole and universal.
He who does not like justice- comparable to which the Creator of being has created nothing-, to be sure he will dislike injustice much more. “In justice there is an extent and he who dislike justice, will dislike injustice much more” (Imam Ali, Bihar al-anwar, vol. 41, p. 116). He who feels darkness within the dominion of justice is an enemy of justice; and it goes without saying that the first oppressed truth and condemned right for him is the very freedom.
Conclusion
Reason and religion, justice and right, freedom and law, all and all, have an unbreakable relation with each other: judgment of reason and that of religion are accompanied by each other; and the two are sources to find right and bases of laws; justice is the aim of reason, religion, and law; and freedom is indebted to reason and justice; it is a referent of right and content of truth; it is secured by law and sought by religion.
“As for that Abode of the Hereafter We assign it unto those who seek not oppression in the earth, nor yet corruption. The sequel is for those who ward off (evil)” (28: 83)

Chapter 10: The Role Played by Religious Thought and Culture in Development

Some Points at the Beginning
Before discussing the claim posed in the present article, I think that some points should be mentioned at the beginning:
Influence of the Religion on Culture
First: the role played by the culture in orientation of man’s conducts and behavior as well as organization of human relations cannot be denied. Like a spirit, culture dominates the body of human beings’ individual and social conducts and behaviors, and continuously forces man to do or avoid something; and in the same way that absence of spirit is the same as man’s nonexistence, absence of culture is the same as absence of human society. Gathering of human individuals in a land will inevitably lead to emergence of culture.
Culture is a combination of various elements and religion is the most important component of it, and even the main component and sometimes creator of the culture. Religious doctrines and teachings will, in any case, secretly or openly, deeply influence conducts and behaviors of all human beings even atheists. In their works, philosophers and historians of civilizations as well as philosophers of history have at times admitted the role played by the religions in creation of civilizations and great historical developments .
Not All Religions Are Consistent with Development and not All Patterns of Development Are Consistent with the Religion
Second: no doubt that not all kinds of religion are consistent with development; and not all patterns of development are in line with religion. A religion according to which this world and the world to come are inconsistent, science and religion are incoherent, revelation and reason are conflicting, cannot agree with any kind of development.
A religion which calls human kind to superstitions and enmity towards science, love for myths and irrationality, asceticism, isolation, indolence and avoidance of responsibility, despotism and acceptance of oppression, is an obstacle to development and an enemy of civilization. Likewise, a development which calls man to disobey Divine teachings cannot agree with and be consistent with no religion.
A development which denies and rejects justice, equality and charity, and, in a Machiavellian manner, allows all things to access “the greatest pleasure”, and “supply of lust”, and leads man to alienation and reduces him to an animal, will and can never be in agreement with religion- which insists upon man’s essential greatness and acquired perfection.
In the present writing, by religion we mean the religion of Islam which is a moderate, rationalist, comprehensive, and social religion. Nor do we mean by development the mere “economic growth”, “transition from tradition to modernity”, and even “renovation and change of social institutions”; but rather by development, we mean “sustainable and increasing enjoyment of human individuals of legitimate wealth and honest life, and establishment of free and sincere relations stemming from human wills and motivations and based on Divine rules and laws; a development in which man is not regarded as a tool and his welfare is not sacrificed for his love of welfare, and a group’s pleasure is at the expense of another group’s suffering and pain. We wish an inclusive and balanced development.
Evidently, we do not claim that the religion is the only cause of development, and development is possible only through the religion, or even the religion is to provide development. But we believe that Islam is able to motivate development and establish civilization. On the other hand, Max Weber said that he believed “The impulse to acquisition, pursuit of gain [and add to this “the greatest pleasure”], of money, of the greatest possible amount of money, has in itself nothing to do with capitalism [read: development]. This impulse exists and has existed among waiters, physicians, coachmen, artists, prostitutes, dishonest officials, soldiers, nobles, crusaders, gamblers, and beggars…. Unlimited greed for gain [and pleasure] is not in the least identical with capitalism [as we said, “development”] “.
Third: to solve contemporary challenges concerning religion of development and employ religious propositions and teachings to produce and present a pattern for balanced development which may be consistent with the religion, we have to inevitably and seriously recognize scientific and theoretical dangers in two fields:
1- The field of religious literature
2- The field of contemporary social, political literature
But, what may be said transitorily concerning religious literature is as follows:
1- Evil will of the people of power, misunderstanding and misinterpretation of people of religion as well as misunderstanding and miscommunication of masses of people concerning some religious propositions, teachings, and values have led to confusion some personal and national interests and tastes with religious knowledge. The contemporary studies of religion should examine old effects of such alterations and changes, re-study religion concepts, and make a distinction between religion and what is other than religion.
2- The claim for “revival of religious thought” in the recent centuries in the world and in Iran has seriously gone to “extremes”. Though we do not want to disvalue religious reform movements and neglect the strong points of revivalism, we cannot neglect dangers and deviations caused by movements which are claiming for religious reform. Religious reform movements and those pushing for revivalism have typically faced dangers such as those which will be mentioned here:
2-1- Updating the Religion: to show a “beautiful” appearance of religion which may be favored by the people of time and to present a favorable temporal interpretation of it, some claimants of the revival of religious thought have proceeded to update or confuse religion with other than it, and injected irreligious contents into the body of religion. This has led to alteration, and innovation; and has left the category of religion up in the air.
2-2- Refining the Religion: sometimes, claiming reformism and religious reformism has been presented in the name of refining the religion from superstitions and additions and elimination and rejection of some religious commands and values which may be unfavorable for the contemporary culture. This has actually led to discrepancy between parts of faith and decomposition of religion, and torn the cannon law (shari’ah) into pieces.
2-3- Elimination of Religion: some of those who maintain that the religion and the world are conflictory have proceeded to limit and restrict the religion in favor of the world, regard religious teachings as non-inclusive, and make the convention superior to the cannon law. This has inevitably led to isolation of religion and marginalization of cannon law. Emergence of secularism is the unavoidable consequence of this.
We think that to acquire true knowledge of religion, one has to refer to the religious texts; to impose extra-religious (extra-textual) interests and tastes on the religion is the greatest danger of the studies of religion in our time.
Dangers Should Be Removed from the Field of Contemporary Political-Social Literature:
Now, what should be reflected upon in the pathology of the field of contemporary social literature: today, political-social literature faces many dangers, dangers which hinder communication and understanding, impede explicit acceptance or rejection of new discourse;
among them are:
1- Modern political and social terms have not been clearly defined; and there are many ambiguities in presentation of desired and possible patterns: from among contemporary political and social concepts and categories those such as “development”, “freedom”, “democracy”, “civil society” are completely ambiguous; it is not clear that which pattern of development or democracy or civil society should be doubted and which one should be accepted and promoted; which pattern of development and democracy is consistent with the national culture and religious thought, and which one is inconsistent.
2- Ideological elements (such as those of liberalism) have been confused with methodological elements of modern social theories and systems (such as those of democracy); and consequently all modern thoughts and all possible patterns and examples of them are simply rejected!
3- History and background of challenges between religion and politics, religion and science, and reason and revelation in the West are neglected; and thought and culture of all religions and nations are taken as being identical; and consequently, concerning relation between concepts and achievements of modernity on the one hand and various religions and cultures on the other, the same judgment is issued!
Consistency and Inconsistency of Religion and Development Should Be Inclusively Studied:
4- Modern social and political schools and theories are regarded as being beyond any doubt, and no one dares to modify them.
Fourth: religious propositions and teachings are in contact with the category of “development” in various fields; thus, consistency or inconsistency between the two should be studied in all those fields; fields such as epistemology, ontology, anthropology, ethics, laws, politics, economy, management, education and the like, all and all, are fields which may be regarded as fields of extensive and serious study in terms of “relation between religion and development”; but here is not suitable to make a detailed study in these fields. In this writing and as much as time allows to present a short lecture, we will only throw a brief glance on the impact of religious propositions and teachings- and that to present some examples based on a particular instance of religion i.e. Islam. Also, only the economic development resulting from cultural conducts of the individuals of society will be focused on in this writing; and this discussion may be classified under “intra-religious study of religion” and “study of functions of religiosity”. Thus, to explain the claim introduced in this article we will only refer to the Quranic verses and narrations of heavenly leaders. And I emphasize: to increase Islam’s functionality in the process of balanced development, there is no need to “religious reform”; but rather only “reform in religiosity” through re-reading of religious texts and re-studying Islamic teachings as well as making the conducts of believers consistent with the essence of religion is necessary and sufficient.
Islam, in total, consists of three parts:
1- Epistemological, ontological propositions and those concerning knowledge of beings;
2- Operational teachings and commands;
3- Behavioral values and commands.
In all three parts of Islamic thought, there are many elements which, if one believes in them and makes himself committed to them, will lead to emergence of a rationality which is, in turn, able to guide man to improve his worldly life. In this writing, we will suffice to present only three examples of such propositions and teachings:
A) Relation between Reason, Knowledge, and Religion
1- Imam Ali (a) whose sayings are revelation-like and authoritative for Muslims thinks that prophets have been sent to motivate and make the potential of human beings’ reason flourish. There are more than three hundred verses in the Holy Quran calling man to think and intelligize . According to Islam, man’s reason has to know generalities of the principles of religion. Revelation is authoritative if confirmed by the reason; all religious claims should be supported by suitable rational reasoning. The Holy Quran says “O mankind! Now hath a proof from your Lord come unto you, and We have sent down unto you a clear light” (4: 174); and “And who forsaketh the religion of Abraham save him who befooleth himself?” (2: 130).
The Holy Quran admires those who hear advice and follow the best thereof and regards them as those whom Allah guideth (39: 18). To prove monotheism, the Holy Quran has at times posed rational arguments. In a place in the Holy Quran, it has been said “If there were therein gods besides Allah, then verily both (the heavens and the earth) had been [because of conflicts between wills of two gods] disordered” (21: 22). This means that now that neither of them is disordered then there is only one God. Also, the Holy Quran asks for arguments from those who are speaking of other god: “Say: Bring your proof” (2: 111, 21: 24, 27: 64).
Even mandatory teachings are presented together with arguments and criteria for such teachings by the Holy Quran. For example, in the verse 45 of the Chapter Scorpion, it has been said “Lo! worship preserveth from lewdness and iniquity” (29: 45), or in the verse 183 of the Chapter 2, it has been said “O ye who believe! Fasting is prescribed for you, even as it was prescribed for those before you, that ye may ward off (evil)”.
In Islam nothing is blamed as much as irrationality and blind imitation. In the verse 170 of the Chapter 2, it has been said “And when it is said unto them: Follow that which Allah hath revealed, they say: We follow that wherein we found our fathers. What! Even though their fathers were wholly unintelligent and had no guidance?” In the verses 66 and 67 of the Chapter 21, Abraham has been quoted saying: “Worship ye then instead of Allah that which cannot profit you at all, nor harm you? Fie on you and all that ye worship instead of Allah! Have ye then no sense?” Having mentioned religious propositions and teachings, the Holy Quran has at times said: “Lo! We have revealed it, a Lecture in Arabic that ye may understand” (2: 12). In the verse 108 of the Chapter 12, it has been said “Say: This is my Way: I call on Allah with sure knowledge”.
2- In the Islamic culture, reason is not a rival of transmitted sources (revelation); reason has also a prophetic mission; the Book and the reason are along each other; revelation and reason are two parallel sources to receive the religion. The Seventh heavenly Imam of Shi’is, Imam Sadiq (a) has said: “Allah has placed two kinds of authority over man: the apparent and manifest authority and the internal and hidden authority. The prophets and messengers are the apparent and manifest authorities and intelligence is the hidden and internal authority” . What is acquired by sound reason is regarded as a part of the religion; according to the Holy Quran he who is wont to listen or have reason will not be among the dwellers in flames (67: 10). Reason is in the religious culture of Islam so prophetically authoritative that a principle has been enacted in Islamic legal system to the effect that “what is commanded by the reason is commanded by the religion as well; and what is commanded by the religion is commanded by the reason as well”. This principle is called “principle of mutuality”.
3- Existence is an act of God; revelation is His utterance suggesting His providence; and (true) knowledge is a suggestion of His act; then revelation and knowledge may not be inconsistent; since otherwise they will not be “revelation” and “knowledge”. In the Islamic texts, nothing has been admired as much as knowledge. Like reason, knowledge has been regarded at the same level with revelation. In His Quran, God says to His prophet “Say (unto them, O Muhammad): Have ye thought on all that ye invoke beside Allah? Show me what they have created of the earth. Or have they any portion in the heavens? Bring me a scripture before this (Scripture), or some vestige of knowledge (in support of what ye say), if ye are truthful” (46: 4). And the main difference between man and other animate things is reason and knowledge; and if these two are absent or are not employed, man will be reduced to the level of beasts; such quasi-men are entitled to dwell in the Hell. In the Chapter 7, verse 179, He says “Already have We urged unto hell many of the jinn and humankind, having hearts wherewith they understand not, and having eyes wherewith they see not, and having ears wherewith they hear not. These are as the cattle – nay, but they are worse! These are the neglectful”. In the beginning of creation, God made mankind superior to all creatures even angels, through granting knowledge to mankind. According to the Holy Quran, there is an inseparable link between knowledge and faith: “The erudite among His bondmen fear Allah alone” (35: 28), and “And those who are of sound instruction say: We believe therein; the whole is from our Lord; but only men of understanding really heed” (3: 7).
The Holy Quran has blamed those who follow their suspicions and base their causes on such suspicions “(O man), follow not that whereof thou hast no knowledge” (17: 36), and “They follow but a guess, and lo! a guess can never take the place of the truth” (17: 28). In many verses, the Divine Book calls human beings to trust their senses, study nature empirically, and employ observation even in historical, social, educational, and social studies. Examples may be given from the verses 22: 46, 29: 20, 12: 109, 30: 9, 47: 10, 6: 11.
It is evident that reason and knowledge are the most important tools for progress and development; and as we saw: Islamic thought and culture believes in an inseparable link between reason, revelation, and knowledge. And no doubt that man is able to organize his worldly life and make this life increasingly better, if he employs reason and acquires knowledge.
B) Man’s Status and Mission
1- Man’s being consists of two aspects: nature and innate nature. Lofty attributes such as truth-seeking and perfection-seeking result from his innate nature, and material and animalic attractions and conducts are produced by his nature. The perfect man is he who, making a balance between two aspects of his being and enjoying Divine gifts, has understood truths and acquired perfections.
Unlike Existentialists, Islam does not regard man as being deprived of essence, nor like pessimistic essentialists does Islam believe that “man is a wolf of man”. For man, Islam considers greatness by essence, and regards him as being able to elevate and apt for perfection so that he may become like God. Freedom is man’s right, and knowledge is his dignity; to employ the world- and not secularism- through knowledge of nature and employment of the natural forces is his mission.
Because of his greatness by essence, man is superior to unanimated things, plants, and animals; and if he acquires perfection, he will become superior to angels. He enjoys “reason”, “knowledge”, and “will”; thus he is “responsible” and “free”. He is able to and should free and elevate himself, and make the world better. While in our time development has been a product of “selfishness”, “utilitarianism”, and “hedonism” of man, and a result of the idea according to which man is regarded as a negligible thing, Islam is able to extend and change man’s identity and attitude from “individualism”, “selfishness”, and feeling of “difference” from other human beings to “philanthropy”, “altruism”, and “cooperation” with humanity and nature, and in this way Islam is able to give man a more influential motivation than the present so that he may change his knowledge and life, and elevate his worldly life.
Here we mention some Quranic arguments and evidence for the above-mentioned claims:
“And when thy Lord said unto the angels: Lo! I am about to place a viceroy in the earth, they said: Wilt thou place therein one who will do harm therein and will shed blood, while we, we hymn Thy praise and sanctify Thee? He said: Surely I know that which ye know not. And He taught Adam all the names, then showed them to the angels, saying: Inform Me of the names of these, if ye are truthful. They said: Be glorified! We have no knowledge saving that which Thou hast taught us. Lo! Thou, only Thou, art the Knower, the Wise. He said: O Adam! Inform them of their names, and when he had informed them of their names, He said: Did I not tell you that I know the secret of the heavens and the earth?” (2: 30-33).
“And Allah brought you forth from the wombs of your mothers knowing nothing, and gave you hearing and sight and hearts that haply ye might give thanks” (16: 78)
“Hath there come upon man (ever) any period of time in which he was a thing unremembered? Lo! We create man from a drop of thickened fluid to test him; so We make him hearing, knowing. Lo! We have shown him the way, whether he be grateful or disbelieving” (76: 1-3).
“But man would fain deny what is before him” (75: 5).
“Lo! Allah changeth not the condition of a folk until they (first) change that which is in their hearts” (13: 11).
“… help ye one another unto righteousness and pious duty. Help not one another unto sin and transgression” (5: 2).
“Every man is a pledge for that which he hath earned” (52: 21).
“That no laden one shall bear another’s load, and that man hath only that for which he maketh effort” (53: 38-39).
“And unto (the tribe of) Thamud (We sent) their brother Salih. He said: O my people! Serve Allah, Ye have no other God save Him. He brought you forth from the earth and hath made you husband it” (11: 61).

C) Relation between Matter and Spirit, the World and the World to Come

Relation between Matter and Spirit
Elsewhere I have said: “extremism” is the greatest danger for life and knowledge. And the way to remove epistemic, scientific, and moral crises of the contemporary man is to return to “moderation”.
Extreme rationalism, extreme empiricism, extreme intuition, and even extreme adherence to revelation (i.e. extreme adherence to transmitted sources) are dangers of science and knowledge. Man has to take into account roles played by each one of reason, observation, intuition, and revelation in epistemology and to acquire knowledge.
To take matter and spirit as conflictory things, to regard the world and the world to come as being opposites and to make one of them superior to the other are dangers of life; for without spirit, matter will not come into being; and without matter spirit will not be resulted. Without the world to come, this world is void of spirit, and without the world, the world to come will not be completed: “If one leaves his worldly life for religion or his religion for his worldly life, he is not among our folk”.
As said: according to Islamic thought man enjoys nature and innate nature. Instincts are the result of his nature, and his attempts to achieve truth and perfection are produced by his innate nature. A system which is more able to meet the needs of both aspects of man’s being in a balanced manner is more entitled to manage man’s life.
In the Islamic thought, not only are not “the world and the world to come” separate but they are in sequence; and the way to final perfection and eternal happiness of man passes through the worldly life. Man and nature are always in evolving; and the world and the world to come are two stages of this becoming; and man’s essence should be tried, perfected, purified in the fields of material and spiritual lives. Though matter is a premise for spirit, but it is a necessary one without which result will not be produced. “The world maintains the world to come” and life in this world and life in the world to come are intertwined “The one who is not attempting for his worldly life will not be saved in the world to come”. And poverty is a close friend of disbelief “there is a thin line between poverty and disbelief”.
One day, the Holy Prophet (s) said: “O God! I seek refuge in Thee from poverty and disbelief”. A man asked astonishingly: “Are the two the same?” The Holy Prophet (s) said: Yes. The Holy Quran says “The devil promiseth you destitution and enjoineth on you lewdness. But Allah promiseth you forgiveness from Himself with bounty. Allah is All-Embracing, All-knowing” (2: 168).
Honest worldly life is a sign of the dignified life in the world to come. The believer should lead an honest and dignified life. Listen to this saying of Imam Ali (a): “O my son! The poor is regarded negligible. His dignity is not respected, nobody will listen to him; and the poor, even if he is truthful, will be thought as liar; if he is scholar he will be regarded as ignorant. O my son! He who is poor will suffer four characteristics: looseness in certainty; reduction in reason; weakness in the religion; and shortage in shame. I seek refuge in God from poverty”.
Even between faith and abandonment, the Holy Quran sees a cause-and-effect relation; “And if the people of the townships had believed and kept from evil, surely We should have opened for them blessings from the sky and from the earth” (7: 96).
Those who do not make use of Divine blessings are utterly blamed by the Holy Quran, and the Holy Quran says that enjoyment of worldly blessings are intertwined with richness in the world to come “Say: Who hath forbidden the adornment of Allah which He hath brought forth for His bondmen, and the good things of His providing ? Say: Such, on the Day of Resurrection, will be only for those who believed during the life of the world. Thus do we detail Our revelations for people who have knowledge” (7: 32).
According to the Holy Quran, mystery of creation of beasts lies in human beings’ enjoyment of their products; in the Holy Quran beautiful and attractive scenes of man’s domination on beasts are mentioned “And the cattle hath He created, whence ye have warm clothing and uses, and whereof ye eat; and wherein is beauty for you, when ye bring them home, and when ye take them out to pasture” (16: 6-7).
According to many verses like the verses 14: 32-33, 16: 12; 22: 36-37-35, 31: 2, 45: 12-13, spheres of the heavens, seas, and what is in the earth and heavens are created to be used by human beings.
Piety is of two kinds: positive and negative; abstinence from production is negative piety and thus blamed. Greatness and economy in making uses of sources and products is positive and thus admired. According to the Holy Prophet (s) there is no monasticism in Islam; monasticism of the Islam ummah is to fight for Allah’s cause. In Islam neither “monasticism” nor love for worldly things are desired; man of Islam should go to the world and make his surroundings better. Wealth is a firm basis of man’s life “Give not unto the foolish (what is in) your (keeping of their) wealth, which Allah hath given you to maintain” (4: 5).
Idleness and vanity are sins which are blamed. To make attempts and work to provide one’s sustenance is, however, sacred and admired “He who works to provide sustenance of his family is like the fighter in the way of God”. Each and every material worldly act, if combined with “good intention”, will become “paradisiacal spiritual act”. “Verily acts are valuable because of intentions”.
In addition if low claims such as “selfishness”, “hedonism”, “acquisition of transient worldly interests” are replaced by lofty and high claims such as “philanthropy”, “acquisition of God’s consent”, “acquisition of good for the world to come” and stronger and more effective motivations will be provided to even make the world flourish and the worldly life prosper. Emergence of the great Islamic civilization in its early centuries is a product of such claims and factors.
In conclusion, I emphasize if occupation by the worldly matters leads to negligence of the world to come and Divine lofty values, if richness and welfare of a group are acquired at the expense of other group’s poverty and misery, if economic growth deepens class gap, and if development is made by destruction of human ecosystem and plundering of weak nations’ resources, and if exclusivism and greed of a generation leads to plundering of the share of next generations of natural interests and resources, such a development is never desired by Islam. Beware! Underdevelopment is much better than anti-human development.

Chapter 11: Impact of Islamic Picture of Man on Organization of Political Life
“Lo! we are Allah’s and lo! unto Him we are returning” (the Holy Quran, 2: 156)
Anthropology is attempts made to know “essence” and “position” of man as well as unveiling and expressing attributes of his essence and states resulting from that essence.
The way “to define man” is the main distinction between religions and schools, social and political schools of thought. Anthropology is the basis of humanities and social sciences and at the same time one of the main origins of religion and theology as well as one of the important foundations of epistemology and cosmology.
Without providing a clear definition for man, no religion and quasi-religion is justified and no school and view may be demonstrated.
Anthropological Schools: Anthropological schools may be divided, in terms of various aspects, into different groups and tendencies. For example, anthropological schools may be divided into two great groups: “essentialists” and “non-essentialists”, and essentialism is divided into two great “optimist” and “pessimist” tendencies, each of which are divided into smaller tendencies. In the same way, non-essentialism is divided into smaller approaches and tendencies.
Islamic Anthropology
Islam regards man as An “essential”, “two-dimensional”, “good-natured”, “well-created” and a “valuable” creature other than other phenomena, “rational” and “free”, in continuous “becoming”, “guided and supervised” by the Creator and Lord, “well wishing”, “seeking for perfection and perfectible”, and deems his creation as something “purposeful” and considers a “good end” for his life. And because of permanence of the soul, Islam regards the world and the world to come as two interconnected period of his life one of which followed naturally and inevitably by the other.
According to Mohammedan religion, since man is “knowing and wise” he is “free”, and since he is free, he has “right” and since he has right he is “obliged” and since he is “obliged” he is “responsible”.
The Holy Quran is the main and the most authenticated document of religion of Islam. From among points to which much attention has been paid by this Holy Book is anthropology. A glance at the Chapters of this valuable Book proves that at least a quarter of its versed have been devoted to anthropology. And a main part of such verses proceeds to explain his nature and attributes, and analyzes states resulting from his dual essence as well as mechanism of regulation of relations between such attributes and states and discusses employment of them to perfect man.
According to the Holy Quran, when man is created, he is neither “deprived of the essence and necessity” and inevitably nor “unilateral” with a single approach. The firm verdicts issued by the Holy Quran concerning man shows his having essence; the verses discussing his deviation and alteration of his identity testify the same claim. Various verses such as the verse 30: 30 and 17: 51 speak explicitly of his natural and created essence.
Man: two-dimensional essence
Man enjoys a dual essence and two dimensional existence: the nature of man consists of two substances: “spirit” and “body”; and this has become a basis for his worldly and other-worldly two dimensional identity. His otherworldly aspect has appeared as his “innate nature” and his worldly aspect has been shown as his “nature”. Resultant of each of man’s two bases is divided into various parts and kinds. Parts and kinds resulted from “characters” and “instincts”, “or consisting” innate nature and nature, while they are not of the same kind but rather of different kinds, are not mutually exclusive. Man’s identity is a result of requirements of his innate nature and nature. Personality of a man, of course, is influenced by two factors: 1- his own “will”, and 2- situation and conditions influencing his growth. Thus, depending of correspondence and non-correspondence of will and conditions with man’s innate nature and nature, personality of human individual may be the perfected and established form of man’s identity, or it may appear, in a fully opposite form, as his “creational identity”.

The Secret behind the Holy Quran’s Apparently Conflicting Interpretations of Man

Sometimes, the Holy Quran admires man through extremely lofty attributes and qualities and at other times, blames him with very low attributes. The secret behind the Holy Quran’s dual and apparently interpretations of man’s “position”, “nature”, and “attributes and states” is duality of his essence. The Holy Quran calls man a being God chosen as His “viceroy in the earth” (2: 30), “breathed into him of His Spirit” (15: 29, 32: 9, 38: 72), created “of the best stature” (95: 4), taught him “all the names” (2: 31), “preferred him above all His creatures” (17: 70), even “prostrated” by His angels (2: 34), (7: 11), (17: 61), (18: 50), (20: 116), (15: 29), (15: 31), (38: 72), deserving to fly to “the uppermost horizon” (53: 9). And some other times, the Holy Quran mentions him as “weak” (4: 28), “a wrong-doer, an ingrate” (14: 34), “an open opponent” (16: 4), “hasty” (17: 11), “thankless” (17: 67), “grudging” (17: 100), “contentious” (18: 54), “a tyrant and a fool” (33: 72), “despairing, thankless” (11: 9), “disheartened, desperate” (41: 49), “anxious” (70: 19), “Fretful” (70: 20), “grudging” (70: 21), “careless” (82: 6), “rebellious” (96: 6), “ingrate” (100: 6), “a state of loss” (103: 2).
Whenever man’s Divinely nature, angelic essence, and essential greatness as well as his perfectional aspect are spoken of, he is admired by lofty titles; and when his earthly instincts and characters are spoken of he is blamed by unfavorable attributes and states resulted from those instincts and characters.
Two ends of the ring of existence,
You have, indeed, tied to each other.

According to Islam, human beings have neither a sinful fate nor should they necessarily suffer a sinful destiny. No one of the children of Adam has been naturally or accidentally created miserable or prosperous. All of them have been created and are apt to become prosperous. Of course, since human beings are “free” and “willing”, he is able to lead his life sinfully, and pass away miserably and sinfully. But no one is forced, created, and convicted to be sinful and wandering.
In the verses, 29-34 of the second chapter which are the first verses of the Holy Quran discussing creation and lofty position of man in life and being, we read:
“He it is Who created for you all that is in the earth. Then turned He to the heaven, and fashioned it as seven heavens. And He is knower of all things. And when thy Lord said unto the angels: Lo! I am about to place a viceroy in the earth, they said: Wilt thou place therein one who will do harm therein and will shed blood, while we, we hymn Thy praise and sanctify Thee? He said: Surely I know that which ye know not. And He taught Adam all the names, then showed them to the angels, saying: Inform Me of the names of these, if ye are truthful. They said: Be glorified! We have no knowledge saving that which Thou hast taught us. Lo! Thou, only Thou, art the Knower, the Wise. He said: O Adam! Inform them of their names, and when he had informed them of their names, He said: Did I not tell you that I know the secret of the heavens and the earth? And I know that which ye disclose and which ye hide. And when We said unto the angels: Prostrate yourselves before Adam, they fell prostrate, all save Iblis. He demurred through pride, and so became a disbeliever”.
Now we mention some points which may be understood explicitly or implicitly from the above verses and which relate to the claim posed in this article:
1- Earthy graces are created to be used by man and man is central to creation.
2- Because of paramount importance or special relation of man’s creation and vicegerency to angles, before creating and appointing him [as His viceroy], God spoke of this point with angels.
3- Man is worthy to be appointed “Divine viceroy” on earth, and the secret behind his creation is this very point; and for the same reason, he is the superior one among God’s creatures on earth; and for this, Divine attributes, though in their lower levels, may be attributed to him.
4- Because of “information” provided by God or conducts made by human beings or quasi-humans before Adam, or because of man’s being earthy which results inevitably in his material instincts and interests which will lead to conflict with other human beings and phenomena, angels foresaw man’s cruel behavior towards their own fellow-human beings as well as their corrupt approach to the nature.
5- Because of angels’ protest to man’s creation and vicegerency, since [they said] will do harm and will shed blood, [we may conclude that] Divine vicegerency is not specified to Adam (since Adam was infallible and never harmed and never shed blood. Vicegerency belongs to all deserving (knowing and just) human beings. Based on the verses such as 2: 124, 39: 9, 6: 50, and 38: 28, noble men and mean ones are not equal and ignorant and oppressing ones are deprived of Divine vicegerency.
6- Despite angels’ short-sighted illusion and hasty judgment, praise and sanctification (and conventional worship) is not the only goal of creation and the single criterion of beings’ superiority. Many secrets are written in man’s creation and many values are hidden in his personality, all which are inaccessible for angels’ knowledge and reason; and existence of such values and appearance of these secrets in some human beings compensate cruelty of some other ones.
7- Because of his creation, man is God’s viceroy on earth; and according to religion he is permitted and entitled to intervene in the nature and enjoy graces of creation; but he is never entitled to shed bloods of other human beings and destroy environment to attain this goal.
8- Knowledge is the highest value and the greatest Divine grace; and God has given to man capacity to learn all truths of the universe; angels’ knowledge is much lower than that of man; criterion of superiority of children of Adam to other creatures in their knowledge and reason which are greater than those of other creatures; and inevitably, knowledge and reason should be regarded as criteria of entitlement and superiority between human individuals.
9- After a comparison between man and angel, angels admitted their own ignorance of the basis of creation of man, standard of his superiority as well as their own inferiority and man’s superiority, and that selection of man for vicegerency is a wise selection.
10- Being consists of two hidden and apparent parts, the source of wisdom and knowledge is God- the All-Knowing-, He is the true Teacher of man; through the power of reason as “internal prophet” and power of revelation as “external reason”, God teaches the people knowledge.
11- Since man is more knowing and as a token of his vicegerency, God commanded angels (and probably other phenomena as well, since Iblis who was commanded to do so was not an angel) to fall prostrate before him; and all of them obeyed, save Iblis who was jealous and refused to do so. According to the verse 11 of the Chapter 7 “And We created you, then fashioned you, then told the angels: Fall ye prostrate before Adam! And they fell prostrate”, Adam and his children were adulated by angels.
12- From the verses 34-39 of the same Chapter, it may be clearly understood that since the beginning of creation of man to the present time to the Resurrection Day, man has been, and will be, obliged.
Of course, there are many other points in these verses, and to cut a long story short, we avoid mentioning such points.
Because of acquisition of reason and free will, man enjoys “greatness by essence” and because of this “greatness by essence”, he has fundamental rights; and since, through creation and legislation, the Creator of being and man has given these rights to him, nobody is allowed to negate any one of such rights.
The Principle of “One Is Equal to Infinity”
To explain the value of “right of life” which results from man’s greatness by essence, the Holy Quran has established a principle according to which “one” is equal to “infinity”. Today, human beings who claim for humanism and endear human rights should put this progressive, revealed principle at the top of contemporary thinking and legislation. In the verse 32 of the Chapter 5, after the attractive and at the same time sorrowful story of Cain and Abel, we read “whosoever killeth a human being for other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind, and whoso saveth the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind”.
Free Man
Man is free, since he is wise and knowing; he has been created knowing and free so that he may be tried; and if based on his will, he does not enjoy his knowledge and freedom and shuns Divine guidance and obligations, he shall be responsible. There are many verses in the Holy Quran testifying to these claims: at the beginning of the Chapter 76 which is well-known as the Chapter “Man”, it has been said: Hath there come upon man (ever) any period of time in which he was a thing unremembered? Lo! We create man from a drop of thickened fluid to test him; so We make him hearing, knowing. Lo! We have shown him the way, whether he be grateful or disbelieving. Lo! We have prepared for disbelievers manacles and carcans and a raging fire”.
In the verse 29 of the Chapter 18, it has been said: “Say: (It is) the truth from the Lord of you (all). Then whosoever will, let him believe, and whosoever will, let him disbelieve”. And in the verse 10 of the Chapter 90, we read: “And guide him to the parting of the mountain ways?” In the verses 7 and 8 of the Chapter 91, it has been said “And a soul and Him Who perfected it, and inspired it (with conscience of) what is wrong for it and (what is) right for it. He is indeed successful who causeth it to grow, and he is indeed a failure who stunteth it”.
Sense and reason are tools of knowledge; and since man enjoys them, he is obliged and responsible. In reply to a question concerning their being punished, people of Hell say “Had we been wont to listen or have sense, we had not been among the dwellers in the flames”.
In the verse 72 of the Chapter 33, that man accepts responsibility freely is described astonishingly: “Lo! We offered the trust unto the heavens and the earth and the hills, but they shrank from bearing it and were afraid of it. And man assumed it. Lo! he hath proved a tyrant and a fool”.
The Theory of “Intermediate Position”
Of course, any free act is restrained and conditioned by thousands of preceding, simultaneous, and ensuing rules; and this is not to say that it is not a free act; for the same reason, instead of determinism and indeterminism which is advocated by some Islamic schools, Shi’i Imams have introduced the theory of “intermediate position”, which should be interpreted in a suitable time in details.
Man: Continuous Becoming
Like all beings, man is continuously evolving, and no state of “sojourn” may be imagined for him. “Sojourn is equal to retreat”; in each and every moment man is either in ascent or in descent. If he is not flying, then he is landing. The lofty message of the short Chapter “Time” is description of this great Divine law: “By the declining day, Lo! man is a state of loss, Save those who believe and do good works, and exhort one another to truth and exhort one another to endurance”.
Cycle of man’s perfection and its way should be explained in a suitable time; here, however, we suffice to note that “resolution of conflict” and “balanced guidance” of man’s two dimensions is equal to realization of his “perfection” and attainment to “happiness”.
Violation of internal quasi-compulsion (biological inheritance and human nature) as well as external ones (environmental and human factors, i.e. history and society) and even employment of such quasi-causes in the way to perfection, and changing “obstacles” to perfection into “causes” of transcendence (in the light of two Divine torches of “reason” and “transmitted knowledge) will provide man’s happiness; and elimination of each of two human aspects in favor of the other is to deprive man of his identity, and causes his alienation.
Man: Becoming from Zero to Infinity
From the “ground zero” of his being, man is able to go infinitely towards two ends of becoming: up to the climax of honor or to the lowest point of dishonor; the way to perfection goes up to the climax of being like God and deserving His vicegerency. The way to dishonor goes down to the well of being like beasts and living in absolute wandering. Man’s life, of course, is generally moving towards a good end.
Man a part of the Whole Being
Effects and fruits of man’s nature appear clearly in various aspects of his worldly and social life. Now, and in brief, we mention the result of Islamic definition of man in the objectivity of society and regulation of social relations:
A) Man’s of Islam is a part of the whole “being” and integration of “society”. He is in active and clear relation to “God”, “being and universe”, “nature and environment”, “society and his fellow-human beings”. Common life together with the opposite sex in the “warm context of family” is a natural need for him.
Man: Responsible for Knowledge and Reckoning
B) Islam’s man is responsible for his knowledge and reckoning; and he is subject to the fundamental questions such as “What have I been?”, “What am I?”, What will I become?”, “Wherefrom I have come?”, “Why have I to go?”, “What have I done?”, and “What should I do?”. And all this is of influence in his worldly and social life.
System of Life Should Be Suitable for Man’s Essence
C) Since man has an essence as well as a two-dimensional nature, then he should be subjected to a life and educational system which is consistent with his essence, recognizes his innate natural- natural and spiritual- bodily needs and fulfills such needs simultaneously; otherwise he cannot attain his desired perfection and in addition he will suffer alienation and crisis of identity. A system which tries to fulfill only material needs or only spiritual ones cannot be suitable for a two-dimensional man.
Desired System, Basement on Greatness by Essence
D) A life system which is desired for Islamic man is a system which is based on his “greatness by essence”, and able to be taken as a basis for him to acquire “acquired greatness and perfections”.
Assuring Islamic rights such as “right to live”, right to think”, “freedom of speech and writing” is necessary if we take into account man’s greatness by essence; commitment to Divine commands which are legislated based on a deep and accurate knowledge of man, strengthening informed and free relation of individuals of the society with the Lord and Creator of being, and assuring possibility of “ascending becoming” and flourishing of uncountable and never-ending capacities of man are necessary for him to attain more acquired perfections.
Necessity of Balanced Employment of Reason and Revelation
E) That man deserves to be God’s viceroy on the one hand and his enjoyment of reason and free will on the other require man to employ two sources of “reason” and “revelation” in planning for his individual and social life. According to Islam, abandonment of reason is as devastating and detrimental as “abandonment of revelation” and vice versa. Abandonment of reason is denial of man, and abandonment of revelation is denial of God.
What Is Required by Man’s Natural Aspects?
F) Since man is good-natured, of a noble disposition, well-wishing, benevolent, “perfection seeking”, and perfectible, then he is “justice-seeking”, “truth-seeking”, “seeking for laws”, and educable. By his nature, man does not accept injustice and inferiority; and then he has, and is able, to live under rules and laws which are suitable for such attributes and states; and other than this is neither possible nor desired.
The aforesaid qualities are of definitive influence in man’s legal, political, and economic approach, cultural conducts, and his morals. Islam’s man is not a self-centered and sadist one; he cannot be utilitarian and materialist. He will not sacrifice “others’ happiness” and “environment” for his own “well-being and pleasure”.
Man and War against Eight quasi-Compulsions
G) Man is continuously in war against eight quasi-compulsions:
1) “Metaphysical statements” and religious commands as well as deposited and old philosophical-cultural beliefs in man’s spirit;
2) Inheritance;
3) History;
4) “Social Frames” such as rules and laws (as written rules), convention and customs (as unwritten rules);
5) Self-control aimed at self protection (each and every man has defined a realized or desired or in other words expected or imagined culture for himself and observes its boundaries knowingly or unknowingly as aspects which should be necessarily observed so that “he” will not be discredited for others and even for himself.
6) Surrounding “physical restraints”
7) Internal “physical restraints”
8) His innate natural self and attempts made to attain perfection
No one is able or should deny “hindering” and “forcing” influences of such factors; and at the same time, no one should neglect positive educational-perfectional influences of these factors on man’s life and being. Because of his reason and will, man is free and can depict a new system to correct and employ quasi-compulsions in his way to perfection.
World and the World to Come, Two Chapters of Man’s Life
H) Since man’s lives in the world and the world to come are regarded as two connected chapters of the same life, and the world to come is natural and inevitable continuation of man’s life in this world; Islam’s man does not pay attention only to the this world; nor will he neglect his worldly dignity and peace for rewards in the world to come.
Each and every one who leads an honorable life in this world will be resurrected honorable in the other world; and each and every one who makes oppressions in this world or accepts oppressions, will be punished in the other world. Foundation of happiness in the world to come will be established in this very world. To make an agreement between requirements of material, worldly life of man and his happiness in the world to come is one of the most important points which should be seriously paid attention to in a life system which is suitable for lofty position of Islamic man.

Chapter 12: Sincere Anthropologist
It was very hard for me to speak in a session held to morn a thinker, wise man, an erudite scholar and teacher, a true token of the Truth, Muhammad Taqi ja’fari. Speaking in such a session was very hard for me, but since this is the tradition of time, what is one able to do? And the lofty spirits of the great men, when they hear the call from the heavens, fly to the heavens involuntarily and we earthy people will remain to morn; not for their absence but for our own loss.
This great session is respectable and valuable in various aspects. It is respectable since it is held to commemorate that great erudite scholar; and since it is held by the Leader of nation, guide of Ummah, and the great and dear authority of Shi’i Marja’, which makes it more valuable. Presence of heads of three powers as well as officials and army Generals, great scholars and thinkers, university professors and dear learned people, people of pen and thought has given much more value to this gathering.
Aspects of Professor Ja’fari’s Personality
At such a gathering, which aspect of Professor’s personality shall I speak of? Professor Ja’fari was of opinion in various fields. Theology, pure philosophy, ontology, epistemology, anthropology, philosophy of law, ethics, philosophy of politics, philosophy of arts, aesthetics, theoretical mysticism, education, all and all, are fields that bear the traces of the firm steps taken by the Professor. But I was thinking if, after long years of familiarity and friendship with that great man, I were to be asked “In which fields are the best thoughts and sayings of Professor are represented?” what should I say? I reflected on this point and felt that I have to say: “Professor Ja’fari was a great anthropologist, not to mention that he was a great man himself with a great spirit”.
Some anthropological thoughts of Professor Ja’fari are indeed innovative. Most books, essays, and articles written by this great teacher begin with anthropological introductions or contain points and aspects concerning anthropology.
For me, Professor Ja’fari’s greatest and most valuable work is the translation of and commentary on Nahj al-Balaghah (alas! Only one-third of Nahj al-Balaghah has been commented on in these 27 volumes and alas his valuable collection remained incomplete. In recent years Professor was concerned to complete this collection, and whenever a proposal was introduced, he used to say: “Let me complete Nahj al-Balaghah first”. Of course, recently he had finished the translation of Nahj al-Balaghah). The first volume of Nahj al-Balaghah begins in a very beautiful way. In this volume, he began an extensive and deep discussion on anthropology. The best views of that great man in anthropology have been introduced in this collection. He regards Nahj al-Balaghah as a book of anthropology. He has devoted the first volume of Nahj al-Balaghah (as an introduction to the collection) totally to anthropology.
Whenever he mentions Commander of the Faithful, Imam Ali (a), he calls him a “great anthropologist”. At the beginning of my lecture, I mentioned Professor in the same way, since he mirrored Commander of the Faithful, Imam Ali (a).
Anthropological Inclinations
It is well-known for scholars that anthropology is one of the extensive and at the same time deep disciplines of our time. Today many schools and views have appeared in this field. And this discipline has become a field of many intellectual challenges and scientific questions.
In a general classification, thinkers who have discussed in the field of anthropology may be divided into two great groups. I mention this classification as an introduction so that I may be able to describe Professor Ja’fari ‘s anthropological theory in an expressive way.
A group of thinkers are “non-essentialist”: they believe that man lacks a priori nature and realized essence, man is pure capacity; he is able to become everything, but he is nothing. They deny any pre-defined nature for man. Existentialists typically think so, and they form the main group of this movement. Based on a correct claim (“man should not be captivated by a “self” created by the other; and he should escape from the “prison of environment”, break “chains of history”, “castle of induced I’s and selves”, otherwise he is “forced”), they deny even man’s innate natural self and say that “he should make a “self” for himself”.
Four Directions of Man’s Life
Something like this has been attributed to some Muslim great figures. In his Asfar, the late Mulla Sadra quotes from Ibn Arabi that man is born at a point where there are four directions; and each one of these directions leads to a nature other than other ones: one of them leads to “full beastliness”, one of them to “full angelhood”, one to “evilness”, and the other to “humanity”. And man is free to choose each one of them, and when he chooses one of them, he will attain perfection in that direction. If he chooses beastliness, he will become wilder that a “beast by essence”; and if he chooses the direction of evilness, he will become teacher of Iblis. And if he chooses to become an angel, though he will become a perfect angel, he will not become man; and man’s perfection is to find and go in a human path; and it is then when he will transcend angels.
Difference between Islamic and Existentialist Anthropologies
This sounds like existentialists’ statements; but a fine difference makes a distinction between Islamic idea and existentialist one which should be paid attention to. Though Islamic thought regards man as being able to become anything and a ground zero which is open to all four directions, it does not regard this ground zero as some worthless thing. Islamic thought deems man as having two dimensions: “dimension of innate nature” and “dimension of nature”. And though man’s natural dimension pushes him to a direction consistent with matter and nature; his innate nature, however, calls him to the other direction. Also Islam considers man as a good-natured being with a happy destiny.
The other great group of anthropologists are “essentialists”. They believe that man enjoys an a priori essence. As is well-known, these two great groups are divided into too many branches. Some essentialists are pessimists. They say that man is of an evil essence. We have heard Hobbs’ famous sentence “Man is a wolf for man”. The second group of essentialists are optimistic towards man. This latter group is divided into two branches. Some of them say that what is done by man is right. This is an extremist view, which inevitably leads to other extremist view i.e. non-essentialism.
Islam, which is a school of moderation, is of the opinion that: man enjoys a pure innate nature and a heavenly nature, but he is free and has conflicting inclinations which are guided and supervised by a Supra-Natural Being, and his perfection depends on his freedom and the fact that he may be guided. The great learned scholar, Professor Muhammad Taqi Ja’fari, who is certainly one of the leading anthropologists of our time, is one of the thinkers believing in this view.
Professor Ja’fari ‘s Anthropological View
Following Islamic system of thought, Allamah Ja’fari thinks that man enjoys an established essence as well as a lofty nature and, by his will, he is able to acquire a self-wished, self-made identity. His position by essence is a Divine one, and thus he seeks for perfection. He is the same one who has been nominated as God’s viceroy, honored and preferred by God; and he is the one to whom being and life have been forced to bow.
Quranic statements concerning man’s attributes seems to be of dual nature. On the one hand, the Holy Quran speaks of him with lofty expressions, and on the other, it attributes to him about twenty negative attributes.
In the one hand, the Holy Quran calls him “weak”, “wrong-doer, an ingrate”, “an open opponent”, “hasty”, “thankless”, “grudging”, “contentious”, “tyrant and a fool”, “despairing, thankless”, “disheartened, desperate”, “Fretful; grudging”, “anxious” (70: 19), “careless”, “rebellious”, “ingrate”, “a state of loss”, and on the other it has admired him. How can one make an agreement between such seemingly conflicting statements of the Holy Quran.
Human beings’ identities are of double-faced in the external world as well: some human beings are at lofty positions, dear and great, they look like God; and some others fall to extreme wretchedness. Even the same one may sometimes have a double-faced personality: sometimes he is good and some other times he is bad. Then, what is required by human essence? And how does the Holy Quran look at man? What is the source of this duality? And how may this duality be justified?
Professor Ja’fari ‘s Reply to the Holy Quran’s Seemingly Conflicting Statements concerning Man
To this questions, Professor provides two answers:
1- Good and evil, ascent and descent are never committed simultaneously by man. These opposite attributes appear in different times and different places; and agreement between them in the same place and same time is, of course, impossible.
2- Man enjoys both innate nature and nature: in the challenge between innate nature and nature and in motion and becoming between the beginning and end points, man finds three “I”s:
1- Natural I, 2- human I, and 3- human Divine I.
And sometimes, Professor Ja’fari takes the two last one as the same, and consequently he believes in two “selves”: 1- natural I, and 2- human I.
Natural I is an I captivated by various compulsions; as long as man is captivated by “natural I”, he is a captive; and when he becomes free from the prison of natural I and transfers to human I (when he creates his human I), he will become relatively free from laws of nature; and as man challenges natural desires and wants, he distances himslef form materiality and transcends to “human Divine I”. and here he becomes absolutely free from domination of laws of nature and obstacles of the material world; time and place have no more influence on him; thus he becomes like God.
Nine Hundred and Fifty Characteristics of Man
In reply to some anthropological theories which regard man as “perfected machine”, Professor Ja’fari says: man enjoys perfections, attributes, and characteristics none of which may be realized and actualized in a machine. Then he enlists 230 characteristics for man; and for some characteristics he mentions minor attributes and adds that some of these characteristics have more than 100 minor attributes; and consequently man has about 950 characteristics and attributes. Here, and in brief, I mention some of such characteristics noted in the first volume of the Professor’s commentary upon Nahj al-Balaghah. For example, the Professor mentions the following characteristics which man enjoys and machine is deprived of:
1- Man enjoys I (self) and is aware of his “I”;
2- He enjoys character which is an expression of his personality;
3- He tries to perfect himself;
4- He strengthens his will;
5- He thinks about the philosophy and goal of being; also he thinks of philosophy and goal of his own being;
6- He enjoys conscious, semi-conscious, and unconscious conscience;
7- He enjoys moral conscience (with about 50 activities);
8- He enjoys characteristics such as honor, dishonor, love for fame, and capability to understand good and evil;
9- He may suffer spiritual complexes and psychological disorders and enjoys many (more than 100 kinds of) internal emotions and sentiments;
10- He has internalist and externalist states;
11- He has the power to think analytically and synthetically;
12- He has an entity called “heart” with more than hundreds activities [such activities and their combinations are assumed to be about 200 cases];
13- He has flourishing and stagnant intellectual states;
14- He makes and has nationality, customs and traditions, and creates legal system as well as policies;
15- He has power to make decisions, will, and enjoys sense of freedom, and he is able to regulate and coordinate various situations;
16- He is able to understand motion and rest, become unhappy of working conditions, to be hopeful or pessimistic, to have expectations, and the like.
17- He enjoys sense of forgiveness, self-sacrifice, and greedy of gain.
18- He is able to wish for thousands various things;
19- He seeks for “never-ending”, is idealist, and able to perfect;
20- He is able to intervene and make changes in causes and conditions that created man;
21- He makes dialogue with himself;
22- Bravery and cowardice are among his other states;
23- Ability to make propositions is specific to him;
24- He worships, loves
25- He enjoys senses of grudge, jealousy, blame, derision, and opportunism
26- He seeks for pleasure [kinds of pleasure are as many as pleasing issues which are, in a respect, uncountable; but he assumes that there are hundreds of such kinds of pleasure];
27- He suffers pain [kinds of pains and sufferings are, like kinds of pleasures, uncountable; but he assumes that there are hundreds kinds of pains];
28- He is able to make a distinction between means and goal, and feel that goal is the main thing and means is a function of goal;
29- He enjoys a state of awe concerning great things;
30- He distinguishes origin, path, and destiny of motion;
31- He is able to substantiate (in other words, he is able to regard existent as non-existent and non-existent as existent);
32- He enjoys happiness and dullness;
33- He is able to employ signs and symbols knowing that each sign or symbol is a conventional form for its own content;
34- He enjoys states of peace and anger;
35- He feels happiness and unhappiness;
36- Purity and sincerity, hypocrisy, to deceive and to be deceived are among his other states;
37- He feels good and evil;
38- He enjoys feelings such as anger and quarrel, shame, and remorse;
39- He is able to understand, discover, and invent infinitely;
40- He is able to make conjectures, and correspond universals to particulars.
Of course, characteristics mentioned by the Professor may be principally and logically classified which should be done in a suitable time. According to the Professor, and if we take into account diversity of some characteristics, such characteristics amount to 950 kinds; and it goes without saying that because of various combinations of them, human characteristics amount to thousands kinds off all which machine is deprived.
A man who has created his own “Divine-human I and attained to the position of his own Divine-human I, will control all thousands kinds of characteristics and employ them in his way to perfection.
Professor Ja’fari says that man looks like God; human soul has many similarities to God- the Exalted (we think that if we take into account the Holy Quran’s view concerning man’s position in creation, this is evidently true, for man is God’s viceroy; then he is the second one in being, and he has to have some similarities (though in lower levels) to the Origin so that he may deserve to be appointed viceroy).
Comparison between Soul and Truth
To make a comparison between the Truth and the soul, the Professor says: the Truth- the Exalted- is immaterial; the soul is immaterial as well; the Truth- the Exalted- is One and has unity, all being is His act and manifestation; human soul is one as well; and while it is one it administers all faculties; all faculties are branches and manifestations of that one soul. the Truth- the Exalted- is supra-spatial and supra-temporal; this is the case with human soul as well. God- the Exalted- has one Essence, and though He has various attributes He will never become numerous; and man’s soul while he has various attributes, will never become numerous. God- the Exalted- is Creator and Innovator, human soul is creator and innovator as well; it creates concepts and judgments, inventions and innovations. The Truth- the Exalted- is superior to and controls all being, but He is not a part of being, nor is He the same as being; the soul is superior to and controls faculties and limbs, but it is not the same as limbs of its body. the Truth’s- the Exalted- knowledge is fixed (though subjects of the Truth’s- the Exalted- knowledge and the soul’s knowledge are fixed and changeable things, universals and particulars, but this does not cause change in them). The soul’s knowledge is fixed as well. God is beautiful and likes beauty; this is the case with human soul as well. Whatever is created by the Truth- the Exalted- does not reduce Him; innovation and creation are not separation, they are not seepage, in this no part is separated from God to make other phenomena appear; He creates but nothing is lost from Him, nothing is separated from Him. The Truth- the Exalted- is present in all being, but he is not in them; human soul is present in its body as well, but it is not a part of its body.
Greatness by Essence and Acquired Greatness
Sometimes we refer to Divine verses and the Infallibles’ statements and find points and teachings which are hard to understand. For example, if “man qua man” enjoys a great essence then all human beings should be respected; then what is this discrimination, this difference between believer and disbeliever, between pious and impious?
The Professor says man, as long as he is man, enjoys greatness by essence; all human beings are great; but if from the ground zero (and to put it more accurately, the departure point toward descent or ascent) man chooses to go in the way to ascent, he will elevate and in addition to human essential levels, he will grasp special acquired perfections and greatness; piety is a greatness higher than man’s greatness by essence; thus it requires a higher respect. Impious man has only greatness by essence but pious man finds something in addition. All human beings follow either the same religion or do not- as put by the Commander of the Faithful, Imam Ali (a), they are either equal or brother, believer and disbeliever are respected; for, all of them enjoy given Divine attributes: all of them enjoy reason, then they are free; reason gives perfection and greatness to man. Man does not lose his own greatness by essence without any reason, but if chooses to go from the ground zero (or as we say departure point) in the path to descent he will become lower than beasts. In this case he is not of the same race of other human beings, then he is not equal to them. Sometimes Professor Ja’fari said: “Is one able to swear that Nero is a brother of the people of the West and Chengiz is a brother of the people of the East?”
Nero says “I wish all human beings were only one and I would behead that one”. Such a being is not a man. Please do not say that he is a man and has right to live. A man who has changed to one that is against life is not allowed to live. His life causes death for others. When one changes to the one who is against life, he should be killed to protect others’ right to live (others who truly have the right to live). This is the meaning of the lofty verse “And there is life for you in retaliation, O men of understanding”. If the one who has changed to the one that is against life is killed, life will be protected.
But if man’s dignity is protected, his position will be protected as well. “… whosoever killeth a human being for other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind”, “one is equal to infinity”; true man’s true rights justify this verse, and this verse is the basis of system and theory of human beings’ rights in Islam.
Philosopher of Wisdom
Alas! Islamic Ummah and Iranian nation lost a great philosopher and thinker. Elsewhere I have said and here I repeat in conclusion: people of philosophy are of four groups: 1- some of them know philosophers such as historians, teachers, and commentators of philosophy; 2- some others are philosophers who are of some opinion in philosophy and only in philosophy; 3- some still others are “wise”, and they are those who have knowledge higher and more extensive than philosophy. Conventional philosophers, though they look at phenomena, sciences, and knowledge in a philosophical and wise way, they do not go out of the scope of philosophy; sometimes, however, very few philosophers appear who approach philosophy as well in a philosophical and wise way. Our Professor, ‘Allamah Muhammat Taqi Ja’fari was of the fourth group; in other words, in addition to be a philosopher, he was a philosopher of wisdom; he approaches philosophy critically; may God bless him, elevate his station, and increase his followers in number.

Chapter 13: Geometry of Relations between Religion, Government and Society in the Contemporary Iran
Religion, Government, and Society
By religion in this essay, I mean the religion popular in Iran, i.e. Islam. By religion I do not mean religious institutions such as religious scientific and theological seminaries, mosques, religious authorities and societies. But I mean religion as a school which guides man’s thoughts and acts. Taking into account its particular instance- i.e. Islam-, I define religion as follows:
Religion is a collection of true and truth-representing propositions concerning man and world as well as a collection of values and normative teachings revealed by God through prophets, or confirmed by revelation, received by man’s common sense to regulate his relations to the world and other human beings.
By government, I mean the three executive, judicial, and legislative powers.
I take the society as a crystallization of individuals of people; I am neither absolute socialist nor pure individualist. Unity of the society is a quasi-real one, and the nature of the society is subject to laws and rules; and I believe that when there is a conflict between interests of an individual and that of a society, depending on the case and after studying what is important and what is more important, sometimes individual right should be preferred to the social one, and some other times, social right should be preferred.
Pathology of Knowledge of “Truth”
The greatest danger threatening understanding of truth is “extremism”, and “one-dimensional inclination” in theorization and hypothetication. Unfortunately, traces of this danger may be found more than ever in all philosophical and scientific fields and disciplines and in particular in humanities and social sciences. Emergence of many conflicting hypotheses, quick decline of philosophical and scientific theories, that science cannot be trusted in, crisis of wander and relativitism, and that truth is suspended- which is the most excruciating pain of the contemporary learned man-, are among effects of this danger.
One may provide a long list containing thousands of known cases of one-dimensional attitudes, and man’s extremism in the field of theorization. Here, for example, I mention only a few instances in some epistemic fields:
In the Field of Anthropology: One regards man as a wolf for other man; the other thinks of him as an angel who is a manifestation of mercy and forgiveness, and regards him as a measure for truth.
Concerning Woman’s Position: One thinks of woman as a long-haired animal created only to be in man’s service; and the other, like radical advocates of feminism, regards her as being superior to man and deems her as a superman!
Concerning Man’s Free Will and Destiny: One thinks of him as being imprisoned and chained by “history”, “nature”, “environment”, and “self”; and others such as existentialists regard him as being absolutely free from any restraints even Divine innate nature and earthly nature!
Concerning Relation between Individual and Society: one thinks that man is the absolute and true measure, while society is a mentally-created one; the other takes the society as being an absolute measure and considers a true unity for it.
The field of politics has been always a scene of extremisms. Concerning authorities of government, today, some scholars of politics promote totalitarian views; some others speak of small government, that it is a necessary evil, and even “end of government”. Concerning relations between religion and politics in the medieval Europe some people disvalued reason and democracy, and sought all political things and even details of daily affairs in religion. Now, politicians have marginalized religion, and made God a retired being in the scene of society!
Causes of Emergence of Secularism in the West
We think that secularism is one of the extreme instances and manifestations of the contemporary “humanism”. Humanism, in turn, is a reaction to the extremist view of the medieval times according to which the Scripture was sufficient.
I think that ten factors have played their roles [as causes or reasons] in emergence of secularism and secularization of the society in the West:
1- Christianity had no access to original revealed texts;
2- Social systems taken from Christian religion texts were poor in terms of their contents;
3- In the Western religion teachings, religion and world were taken as being inconsistent;
4- Religious views and understandings were imposed on science
5- Religion inTolerations and Church despotism;
6- Competition for power between Church, emperors, and scientists;
7- Church’s religious system was old;
8- Authority of Christianity has been expired;
9- Emergence of Development in the epistemic geometry in the West;
10- Induction of relativity of understanding of religion and promotion of religious pluralism.
Of course neither secularism a universal ideology nor secularization is an inevitable path through which all history of human kind and religions is forced to go. But rather, secularism is a school born in the West and emerged in particular historical and social conditions and in the context of the culture of Europe. Secularization of religion and administration of the society is a relative and Western thing.
Geometry of Relations between Religion, Government, and Society in the Contemporary Iran
In the Chapter 2, verse 143, the Holy Quran calls Islam “a religion of moderation” and Islamic ummah “a middle nation”:
“Thus We have appointed you a middle nation, that ye may be witnesses against mankind, and that the messenger may be a witness against you”.
In the verses 65 and 66 of the Chapter 5, followers of Moses (a) and Jesus (a) are divided into two groups; and a group is admired because of moderation and avoidance from extremes:
“If only the People of the Scripture would believe and ward off (evil), surely We should remit their sins from them and surely We should bring them into Gardens of Delight. If they had observed the Torah and the Gospel and that which was revealed unto them from their Lord, they would surely have been nourished from above them and from beneath their feet. Among them there are people who are moderate, but many of them are of evil conduct”.
In the political theory of Imam Khomeini which has been designed according to Islamic teachings and executed for more than two decades in Iran, relations between religion, government, and society have been defined in a very reasonable and moderate way.
The Iranian Constitution which has been prepared based on this theory and confirmed by people’s votes is the national convention of Iranian and a Charter explaining relations between “religion, government, and society” in the Contemporary Iran.
The Concept of Islamic Republic
After collapse of anti-religious monarchy, which was an enemy of people, as a result of historical and extensive rise of people led by religious and academic scholars, the title of political system selected by people is “Islamic Republic”; this title consisted only of two words is an expressive token of relations between religion, government, and people in the contemporary Iran.
That the government is a Republic one speaks of the nature of government, and evidently government should be selected by people; being Islamic is a sign of the identity of this Republic; as a result, religion is the origin of legitimacy; and people’s vote and selection are bases of decisions made by the Government.
Constitution and People’s Share in the Structure of Power
According to the Constitution, the representatives of the Assembly of Experts who are in charge of electing the Leader, supervising his performance and continuity of his competence, President who is in charge of the Executive Power, and members of parliament [as the Legislative Power] who are in charge of formulation and approval of laws, rules, and plans needed by the country are elected by people. Ministers will be appointed by the President and will be presented to the Parliament for a vote of confidence. If the Leader loses his scientific and practical competence, he will be dismissed automatically; though this is declared by the Assembly of Experts, and his successor is elected by this Assembly.
With the vote of representatives of people testifying to incompetence of the President who should be confirmed by the Leader, the President will be dismissed; ministers may be dismissed with the vote of no-confidence by the representatives of the people.
The head of Judiciary Power is elected by the Leader. According to the article 110 of the Constitution, the Leader is equal with the rest of the people of the country in the eyes of law. Three legislative, judiciary, and executive powers are independent of each other.
According to the Law, to acquire the position of Leadership, the Leader should enjoy great competencies and attributes. These attributes are: suitability with respect to learning and piety, as required for the functions of mufti and marja’, political and social perspicacity, courage, strength, and the necessary administrative abilities for leadership.
According to the articles 18, 29, 30, and 31 of the Constitution, the government should provide job opportunities, equal opportunities to acquire jobs, social security, and free education from primary school to university as well as housing for all people.
According to the article 26 of the Constitution, formation of political and professional parties, associations, and societies, as well as religious societies, … is freely permitted … No one may be prevented from participating in the aforementioned groups, or be compelled to participate in them.
Spiritual Closeness, a Link to Make the Government Functional
In conclusion, it should be noted that spiritual closeness between people and the Leader, and Government’s reliance on two bases of the Heaven and democracy leads to a firm and functional link between the society and government.
As is well-known, parties and active approach of individuals of society are indexes of the role played by people in administration of the country and of the Government’s enjoyment of people’s support. Within the last twenty years, Iranian people have participated in 19 elections; and now, the government is to arrange for the 20th election, i.e. election of provinces, cities, towns, and villages councils in which 200,000 persons should be elected as members of these councils; and these councils will administer the affairs of the above-mentioned regions.
Also, it should be noted that in the referendum to change the system of Government from monarchy to Islamic Republic held on 12/01/1358, 98.2% of people voted in affirmative to Islamic Republic; and people’s participation in the field of determination of their own destiny through elections has been typically increasing. For example, votes given during the last (fifth) election of Islamic parliament has increased 31% as compared to the previous one. The votes given during the last and seventh presidency election shows that people have participated 73% more than the previous election. Votes given in the last and third election of Assembly of Experts suggest an increase of 54% as compared to the previous one.

Chapter 14: Relation between Religion and Ideology
Following our discussions concerning “philosophy of religion” with venerable and erudite scholars, now it is time to speak about religion and ideology and ask Hujjat al-Islam Rashad some questions in this regard.
Q: As we know in the 18th Century, the term “ideology” was used as “knowledge of ideas”. Some thinkers believed that ideas might be discussed like other subjects empirically and with the same methodology. They thought that in the same way that there were a series of empirical sciences such as physics, chemistry, and biology, there might be “ideology [knowledge of ideas]”. Napoleon called intellectuals “ideologs”, and this was somehow ridiculous. He meant that intellectuals were heedless to social realities and had no knowledge of social problems; they were sitting in their ivory towers (for examples in the privacy of their libraries) saying: “why are things so and so and why are they another way?” Both in his Poverty of Philosophy and German Ideology Karl Marx has discussed ideology. He looked at ideology very disdainfully. In other words, he believed that in the society a class which is in control of production tools is the owner of such tools; and to secure its own interests, this class creates ideologies, and ideology is some sort of false conception. Marx always thought of ideology as something opposite to science. He said that science is the true knowledge and ideology is the false knowledge. And since ideology is false knowledge, it leads man to alienation. And among sorts of false knowledge which were discussed by him within the scope of ideology were concepts of “state” and “religion”. As we know, Marx regards religion as a phenomenon resulting from dreams of alienated men who seek to justify and explain their defeats in this way. Anyway: we know that in the West various definitions have been provided for ideology. In the beginning, I ask you to speak about definitions provided for ideology so that later we may ask about the definition of religion and its relation to ideology.
A: as you said, the term “ideology” was coined in the later years of the 18th Century; and at the beginning by this term a progressive and intellectual concept was meant. Even those who were interested in empiricism sought to justify ideas- which are mostly regarded as being metaphysical and supra-natural- based on empiricist principles and methodologies. They believed that sensed things are origin, basis, and channel of emergence of ideologies! They called this methodology which is some sort of philosophical attitude towards ideas “ideology”. In this way, “ideology” was regarded as a term like “sociology”, “psychology”, “anthropology” and the like. At the beginning they interpreted this term positively and even they were honored because of such attitude. But in various schools this term has undergone different stages and has been interpreted in conflicting ways; so that we may say that rarely origin of a term has been employed so negatively and positively. Though this term was coined by philosophical and political literature of French Revolution, those like Marx and other German philosophers and later Napoleon as well as some politicians used this term in a negative and disdaining way. Later even Marxists changed the concept of ideology and used it in a positive way and even called their own school an ideology, “Marxist ideology”. Later great social-political views and schools such as Fascism and Nazism were called ideology as well. Lately in the 1950’s when liberalism became more popular, it lost its place gradually under the title of “end of the age of ideology”, and found a negative taint. So rapid and conflicting changes and repeated ascents and descents are specific to this term; such changes are in fact changes in the definition of the term; thus ideology became subject of various definitions; for the same reason it is not so easy to gather such definitions and explain a concept and characteristics common between them; when ideology is regarded as a positive thing, definition will find positive characteristics; when it is time to look at ideology negatively, evidently a negative definition and negative characteristics are presented for it. For example, if we ask Mark to define what ideology is, he will say that ideology is a collection of insights and methodologies which provide and secure interests of a particular social class, for example Bourgeoisies. Bourgeois ideology, for example, is that kind of view to social life and relations seeking to explain and protect a situation which is desired by capitalists, and continue oppression of Proletariat class and workers. Marxists even went so far that, when ideology found a positive interpretation, they said without a revolutionary ideology life could not be led; without an ideology, working class is not able to defend its life; only by revolutionary ideology, the oppressive and dominating class, capitalist system, and imperialism may be defeated. Positive view is followed by positive definition.
Q: Mr. Rashad, here, I will quote some definitions for ideology from Western thinkers. Some believe that ideology is an abstract thought and organization of ideal theories; some others apply ideology to a system of ideas concerning phenomena and in particular those who are in relation with social life, and a thought specific to an individual or a class. In other words, on the one hand, ideology is applied to a system of ideas about phenomena and on the other it may concern social phenomena. That is, it concerns man’s social life and at the same time, it may be regarded as a particular way of thinking of a class or a group. Parrito speaks of something called derivations similar to ideology; theories or a school resulted from a systemic collection of thoughts of a nation and secure their interests, guide them, defend them. Or, Sorrel speaks, instead of ideology or derivations, of “myth”, and that a myth believed by masses of people organizes them, strengthens their wills, reflects their lofty expectations, and plays its role like a gun to protect their identity or to create a unity between them.
A: it may be said that we have a series of classical definitions for ideology; early definitions provided by Marx, Parrito, and Sorrel may be classified under this group; and we have a series of more modern definitions which became popular later and in which many negative aspects seen in the old and classical definitions of ideology are not observed (though lately in the 20th Century, a negative interpretation of it re-emerged). Marxists said that ideology is something which interprets being, then it is real, it is not a day-dream, it is not idealist, though literally it is of the same root with idealism, it is completely realistic, since we are able to explain being and nature with it; dialectical principles formed principles of Marxism; thus, in an extremist manner, Marxists went so far that they said: principles of dialectic govern the history, and at the same time they may be used in the society, and there are applied in nature; and in natural sciences, they [Marxists] sought to replace traditions and rules governing nature with them, and took them as an inclusive framework for thinking and nature. Anyway, it seems that definitions provided have mostly resulted from positions of those who have provided them, a definition which is supported by a consensus or a cursory acceptance cannot be found. I think that we have to discuss the contents and characteristics provided to find which ideology is positive and which one is negative.
Q: you have mentioned a good point, that when we face a particular phenomenon or reality, we are able to seek for a correct and reasonable definition; concerning ideology, however, problem is that we are not faced with a concrete and particular thing; in other words, thinkers who discussed ideology took into account various systems, ideas, and thoughts; and since they did not manage to find exact common points among such things [and as said by you], definitions provided by them reflect their own views or positions. But, please explain characteristics mentioned for ideology, if possible.
A: ideologies are like religions. Like religions which are sometimes so different that the only relation among them is some sort of equivocation, ideologies are sometimes so different that the term should be applied to them only as an equivocation and not as content participation. When the term “ideology” is applied to both Marxism and Fascism and probably to a particular religion or all religions (while there are so many differences among schools and religions, there will remain no similarity other than equivocation. So are the above-mentioned characteristics; for concerning characteristics everyone has talked in his own way; some people have taken into account a particular ideology and for it they have enlisted a series of characteristics; some others have considered another ideology, and mentioned its characteristics; and both groups have attributed their own desired characteristics to the ideology in the absolute sense of the term. For example, we may mention the phrase “ideology justifies the world rationally”. Some ideologies may be able to do so while some others may not have such an ability or attitude. Consequently this is not the case for the latter group. Even some people have mentioned the opposite as a characteristic for ideology and said that essentially “ideology suspends the reason”, ideology provides a form and promotes dogmatism; and consequently it does not allow you to think; i.e. you are not able to independently think and speak about the world; or they say ideology takes into account social relations, actions, interests; the one who has surrendered his heart to an ideology is not able to think freely and even he does not essentially think about the infra-structural intellectual points; are all ideologies so? Or they have said: “Ideologies are to interpret past, present, and future all at once, they have plans for future, since some people have said ideology is a structured collection of ideas which explains past, present, and future as well as intellectual infra-structures of social systems, and has plans for future; now how does this definition for ideology relate to that one which says ideology belongs to the age of establishment, struggle and activity, revolution? As you see one says that to have a plan for future is a part of ideology, ideology is a general and large scale project for explanation of being and human relations; and the other says that one of the characteristics of ideology is that it belongs to the age of establishment and not that of settlement. Some people say ideology is a means to deviate from moral principles; while an ideology like Islamic ideology may promote morals. One may say that none of the characteristics enlisted is universal and inclusive; thus, instead of asking for an absolute definition for ideology we have to ask for example “what is Islamic ideology?” and “what are its characteristics?” The late Dr. Beheshti wrote a book called Characteristics of the Ideology of Islam, he did not speak of “characteristics of ideology” or “characteristics of religious ideology”, he said “characteristics of the ideology of Islam”; and it seems that he was aware of the point that each and every ideology may have its own characteristics and one should mention them. As far as I remember, in this book Shahid Beheshti explained both worldview and social systems of Islam. Of course, this is not to say that ideologies are absolutely inconsistent; but rather one may enlist some brief and common aspects for them; for example perhaps it may be said that all ideologies are providing “ideals”, creating “hope” and they are motivating; all ideologies are “mobilizing”; in other words, they make a distinction between friend and enemy, and insist upon attempts to know enemies and fight against them; ideologies depict a front of enemies and followers of the ideology should hate that front; since ideologies are creating “ideals” and “hopes” they cause the followers of ideology to make some sacrifices which are not possible in ordinary situations for human beings. And only a motivation and faith which is based on an ideology is able to give such a power to a man; or, ideologies make unity, they create an indescribable integration among their adherents; such aspects may be enlisted among typical characteristics of ideologies; and at the same time even this common aspects should be cautiously attributed to all ideologies.
Q: Mr. Rashad, please let us speak of some points concerning some of our own thinkers’ views about ideology and find how they have spoken about ideology and what definition they have provided. As you know the late Dr. Shariati was of a particular opinion about ideology; he took ideology as “knowledge of ideas” and believed that ideology describes man’s view towards things with which he is in relation, even man’s interpretation of a society in which he lives. Elsewhere he provides another definition according to which ideology is man’s particular view and knowledge of his self, his class position, his social status, his national place, his global and historical destiny; in other words, ideology relates to man’s social status, social position and even his social group and depends upon them, justify them, and according to explanation and justification it provides for man’s class and social position and his social group, it shows man’s responsibilities, describes solutions, orientations, and man’s social position. Consequently, it gives a particular morality and value system. The late Shariati regards ideology as a continuation of man’s instincts. Please speak about views of the late Professor Mutahhari and the late Dr/ Shariati, if possible.
A: as you said, Professor Mutahhari and Dr. Shariati are among the first thinkers who have introduced some discussions concerning ideology in our country. Dr. Shariati thinks of ideology as man’s conception and knowledge of all things which relate to him: his own self, his class, his society, his history, his country, his nationality.
In spite of similarity between forms of Dr. Shariati’s definition and the latter definition provided by Marxists for ideology, in some parts there are some consistencies between views of the late Professor Mutahhari and those of the late Dr. Shariati concerning this issue. Dr. Shariati believes that without an ideology man is not able to struggle; ideology is an arm of struggle; and without struggle man is not able to attain his self and his humanity, he will remain alienated; a man who seeks to find his own self has to have ideology; and the one who seeks to keep his identity has to know his own identity, and this knowledge of identity is the same as ideology. When one knows his identity, in other words, when he find an ideology, then he will struggle for that ideology. On this basis, Dr. Shariati says we are Muslims, Islam is the basis of our thinking and we have to design a school based on Islam which contains four elements: cosmology, anthropology, historiology, philosophy of history and sociology; and whenever we adopt a cosmological basis which contains discussions concerning the Origin and Resurrection, then we will evidently provide a knowledge of man, of history, of our own society and cultural climate, and we will insist upon concrete and defined positions, and we will draw a sharp border between ourselves and other intellectual movements. This is when an ideology is born. When we provide a concrete sociology, the ideal, superior man a model man to whom all people should match themselves, will be defined; and in this way, struggle will become possible for man, since he knows for which type of society he seeks, and where his destination is. Perfect and ideal man is the pattern of man’s perfection; and the ideal society is a context for man’s happiness. When ideology gives us these two elements, evidently we will not be able to pause. Then man becomes automatically a struggling one to realize a society which he regards as a good one, to realize man as a perfect one. This is the characteristic of ideology. Then, according to the late Dr. Shariati, ideology is the sort of man’s view, knowledge, and conception of his own self and all things which relate to him.
Q: Mr, Rashad, in a summation it seems that concerning aspects of ideology and in particular Islamic ideology in which he is interested, the late Shariati believes that ideology determines social orientations, determines man’s “way of change”, in other words, it does not go merely to describe a series of the facts of the world of being; at the same time it determines social system and the form of individuals’ lives. Among other aspects of ideology is that it looks at the existing situation critically. Another important point on which the late Shariati insisted is that ideology creates commitment and responsibility; and the difference between ideology and science, he thinks, is that an empirical scientist or a philosopher is not seeking to make some facts accepted by people so that people may commit themselves to those facts; but rather it is, at best, to think. A thought of which no responsibility is stemmed is not regarded an ideology. Shariati mentions the plan of geometry of school. Today this is, particularly, of paramount importance for our young generation; since we live in an age when various ideologies and schools are accessible for human beings; and there are many questions about the world, human being, society, history and the like and we have to specify and present our views and intellectual positions in such matters.
A: that Dr. Sahariati says that religion should be presented in an organized, structured, and transparent way of importance in two respects: one is that the young generation is faced with a series of basic questions for which they should have clear answers; and we should, in the light of religion, make such answers accessible for the young generation so that the young generation may be able to choose; in other words, he should be able, based on a transparent understanding of Islam and other schools and ideas, to make an informed choice; and the other aspect of this necessity is that in an age when such ideologies exist under various names to create movement and specify fronts and when there are ideologies behind each and every act, activity, product, and creature, and though our age is the age of technology but there is an ideology behind each and every technology, if we do not present our thought, principles, foundations and elements of our school transparently, according to a concrete geometry, and organically, confusion and eclecticism will occur for the today’s generation, and they will not be able to make a distinction between friends and enemies. In addition to these two points, since Shariati lived in the age of struggle against the monarchy and organization and emergence of Islamic Revolution, he believed- and he believed correctly- that we should present epic and revolutionary aspect of Islam; and if Islam is not presented as an ideology and if “school” is not defined accurately, then on which is our generation, in the course of struggles, able to rely, and by which arms, is this generation able to struggle? Since there is an undoubted principle that we have to struggle since there is a despotic system called monarchy in our country and a more inclusive bipolar system in a global scale called Imperialism which has divided the world in two parts: Marxist and non-Marxist both of which are of the same nature and bases of the same edifice. As the late Mutahhari says Left and Right, East and West, Socialism and Capitalism are two blades of the same scissors; opposite but together with each other! Today’s generation should fight against these two systems which are manifestation of the modern colonialism and despotism, and to fight, they need arms. Dr. Shariati believes that to arm this generation, a clear geometry of Islam should be depicted for the school and within we should specify: what we should say about the world, about human being, and what we think about the history, and historical developments. For when we have no definition for the society and no knowledge of the laws governing the society, when we do not provide a definition for the history and an interpretation of the causes governing development of the history, when we do not present a definition of man and when we do not portray the ideal man, when we do not know the world, being, life, the Origin and the Resurrection, how and for what should we fight? For the same reason, he insists that we should present the plan of geometry of school; and here according to Dr. Shariati, of course, ideology is a part of the plan of geometry of school; ideology is not identical with the whole geometry of school. The late Professor Mutahhari and the late Dr. Shariati provide a couple of interpretations for ideology, sometimes they take it identical with the whole school, and some other times as a part of it; and the late Dr. Shariati has sometimes taken it as something stemming from the school. Thus, where the plan of geometry of school is taken into account, for Dr. Shariati ideology is regarded as a part of the school or something separate from the school. But elsewhere he uses the term “ideology” to mention the large scale Islamic views which are the same as Islamic intellectual infra-structures including cosmology and anthropology. The late Murahhari used the term sometimes as a synonym for religion, and some other times he used the term as a part of the school. He uses “ideology” to mention the school’s “ought to”s and “ought not to”s which are other than worldview which relates to the category of “is”s. This way, according to Mutahhari, school is a combination of worldview and ideology, and ideology, in its turn, is a collection of “ought to”s and “ought not to”s to transend and perfect man.
That the late Professor Mutahhari is regarded as the founder of Modern kalam in Iran or the one who has introduced modern kalami points in our age is a result of his discussions concerning such matters. And the collection called “An Introduction to the Worldview” is the first work in Iran which has discussed modern kalami topics. And the collection has been put in writing based on the same idea that religious worldview is one thing and Islamic ideology is another thing. Just in the same way that that great figure managed to provide a new picture in the field of “theology” through by this collection, I wish he had managed to gather a consistent collection called Islamic “ideology” in which he might provide a new structure in this field.
Q: The term “Islamic ideology” may be taken in two senses: one as an ideology taken from Islam which is not the same as Islam, and instead of principles taken from Marx to form an ideology, we have made an ideology of Islam or some other religion. This point should be approached somehow cautiously, and I do not dare to attribute it to Professor Mutahhari, since according to him ideology is at the same level with worldview and combination of them is regarded as school. I think he deemed ideology as a part of religion and not something taken from religion. How do you think about his view concerning principles of Islamic ideology?
A: He takes into account particular principles for ideology which are discussed in the school which I mention in brief here.
The first one is “innate nature” (fitrah). As we know he believed strongly in innate nature, and thought that the issue of innate nature is the root of Islamic issues. The second is the division made by him concerning man’s activities; he divides man’s activities into two groups: 1- activities which are aimed at pleasures under the influence of man’s instincts and habits, and 2- activities which are of administrative direction and by which those activities which are done by man according to what is commanded by his own reason and will, activities which are not done only to repel pain and suffering and to attract pleasure; but rather in such administrative activities man aims to acquire perfection.
The third is the issue of reason. For reason and rationality he maintains paramount importance. He believed that man’s reason may play its role as a source to explain and administrate matters relating to individual and social lives of persons, and adopt an overview of life from religion. Though reason is able to make plans for minor matters, it is not able to solve all man’s problem by its own. It is religion which is able to provide a large scale look and general plans being and life and human relations, and plans which we make should be within the framework of religion’s principles and rules.
Q: Mr. Rashad, if you allow us we want to discuss the following point: is it essentially possible to make religion ideological or not? And if we speak of making religion ideological, what do we mean? And what conceptions may be introduced in this regard? And which picture is the correct one?
Some people think that to make religion ideological is to take a “geometrical” plan of the “school”- as said by the late Dr. Shariati-; that is, if we give the school some geometry we will make religion ideological. In other words, if we describe worldview, anthropology, sociology of a school, and if we provide a philosophy of history for a school and say that how ideal man and ideal society are described in a school, we will make religion ideological. This is a concept. As said, the late Shariati, when he was discussing the geometry of school, took into account seven points in order to explain the geometry of school, one of which was ideology.
Sometimes it is seen that some people think that imposition and solidification of religion is the same as making it ideological; in other words if we separate religion from its content, take the apparent form of religion and pay no attention to its content we have made religion ideological. This is another interpretation some have adopted for making a religion ideological.
The third interpretation some other people have adopted for making a religion ideological is that to make a religion ideological we have to change it into a secular school; in other words, we have to deduce social systems from religion: if we provide legal, economic, political, cultural systems, we will make religion ideological. Now, I beg you to discuss the concept(s) of making a religion ideological, and please explain that when we speak of relation between religion and ideology, which concept from among above-mentioned ones is mostly meant.
A: Clear explanation of the answer to the question posed by you depends, on the one hand, on the fact that we have to know what ideology is; on the other hand on the fact that we have to clarify what religion is. When we discuss the relation between the two, various aspects and things may be introduced:
1- If we take ideology in its sense in the 18th Century (ideology in the sense of knowledge of ideas), religion cannot be made ideological; and in this sense, religion and ideology are not of the same kind; essentially religion is not knowledge of ideas; it is an idea or a collection of ideas.
2- Sometimes, to make religion ideological may mean that we have to regard religion as the ideology of a particular class, tribe, nation, group (like some Westerners who, sophistically and intentionally, and some Arabs who, ignorantly, call Islam “Eastern and Arabic religion”). Islam is not an intellectual system specified to a class, a nation, or a race so that it may be made ideological in this way.
As said by the late Mutahhari, since Islam calls to “innate nature”, addresses “innate nature”, takes innate things as its own matter, it may not belong to a particular class, party, nationality, or race. It deals with humanity, consequently its laws are not (and cannot be) regional, geographical, climatic, national, racial. And the only thing we may do to make religion ideological may be (with a slight carelessness) corresponding those laws with situation, we never say that situations are parts of religion; we say that laws are parts of religion, parts of religious teachings; and what we do is corresponding universals with particulars by the help of reason, by the help of ijtihad; and the main part of what is done by scholars of religion is essentially this. As put by the late Mutahhari, what is expected from the prophets in the age of missions is expected from scholars in the age of movements (in administration of societies). Scholars should correspond to the permanent perfect laws on the temporal current circumstances; and this correspondence does not mean to make religion temporal and superficial. Religion has its own depth; religion is multi-layered, multi-leveled and of many aspects. Each aspect has its uses in a situation, and in this situation, that aspect is used. This is neither misusing religion, nor making it superficial, nor making it temporal.
3- Sometimes by making a religion ideological we may mean to create a organization, a (named or unnamed) party and reduce Islam or another religion to put it in the limited and narrow form of that party or organization, and take religion as the Constitution of that party, like some organizations created in the recent centuries in Iran and some other Islamic countries and in particular Arabic ones that compressed Islam to put it in the Constitutions of their associations or parties or like some other countries of the world and in particular European ones that did the same with Christianity; perhaps titles such as “Christian socialist”, “Christian democratic” and the like are applied to such a function. This is a kind of making religion ideological; and the almost popular sense of the term is something near to this. This is compression of religion and perhaps breaking it into pieces which is consequently undesired.
4- Sometimes, by making a religion ideological one may mean “to take religion identical with ideology”. In the previous interpretations, religion was made limited and narrowed so that it may be contained in the container of ideology. In this interpretation, ideology is extended so that it may become identical with religion; in other words, religion becomes a guide for man’s insight, personality, and actions. [Here] we define religion as an inclusive system containing epistemological, ontological, anthropological systems as well as legal, political, economic, and cultural ones, and individual, social functional teachings; the late Professor Mutahhari sometimes had such a concept in mind. And the late Dr. Shariati, if sometimes he called religion “ideology”, meant the same concept. They took ideology in an extensive sense; and perhaps this is not a false interpretation; and this is called religious or Islamic ideology as well. As said, one of the late Shahid Beheshti’s books is Characteristics of Islamic Ideology. I think none of these three interpretations are fully correct. In other words, religion cannot be regarded as “knowledge of ideas”, “intellectual system of a class or a nation or a race” or as “Constitution of a party or an organization”. Religion cannot provide a philosophical, epistemological system against other intellectual systems. It can guide nations, and be accepted by races, provide guidelines for an organization. A society may adopt its own Constitution from a religion but that Constitution and ideology is adopted from, and not identical with, the whole religion. Religion in its totality cannot become a Constitution for a party. Religion is beyond parties and wings. But religion and in particular Islam is able to be regarded as an ideology in the fourth sense of the term. Religion is an inclusive system of insights, personality, and actions, and a guide for thinking and acting. And not only social systems may be taken from it, but also this is necessary; religion has not been revealed to be kissed and put aside and consequently forgotten. To bring religion and in particular Islam to the scene from the isolation is not to make it superficial. Also one may use the term “ideology” in the sense of a part of religion’s social systems. This is at least coining a “term”. In other words, if man is in need of worldview, ethics, and social systems as well as a collection of teachings and guidelines to struggle, to find his identity, to defend himself, to make attempts for his own happiness and prosperity, if we take ideology in this sense, one may adopt ideology from religion. Though to call religion “ideology” in the fourth sense of the term as well as to use the term in social topics of Islam, and to adopt ideology from the context of religion is scientifically and in terms of creeds possible, because of various and typically negative and dying interpretations provided for “ideology”, and since each and every word which becomes a term has many senses and bases and characteristics in its own native context that cannot be conveyed (may be understood but cannot be described), it is better not to make uses of the term “ideology” to explain Islamic concepts. Since no matter how hard we try, we may not be able to release ourselves from its suspicions and negative characteristics; and negative interpretations of ideology may be generalized to religion. Religion has its own ideological uses- in the right sense of the term-, but religion is not limited to ideology; since an ocean cannot be poured in a pot; and we should not accept discrimination between foundations and aspects of religion. In a moderate and inclusive religiosity, religion is automatically of an ideological aspect. In other words, while it is higher than ideology but plays the positive role of a sound ideology, and makes man needless of loose and unstable ideologies. To function as an ideology does not mean that religion should have characteristics of an ideology; that religion contains ideology means that religion is able to play the role of an ideology and functions as an ideology. Whatever positive qualities we may expect from a constructive ideology we may expect from religion as well. If ideology creates faith, so does religion. If ideology causes motion, so does religion, if ideology produces hopes, so does religion. If ideology provides an ideal for man, so does religion. If ideology makes things transparent and release man from wonder, so does religion. If ideology pushes man towards his goals, depicts his future, so does religion. If ideology designs and presents a series of values and ideals for which man should make sacrifices, and they are so valuable that man should sacrifice for them, there are such characteristics in religion as well. Then, if we mean that we should expect positive, human, constructive, and perfecting effects and characteristics of ideology from religion and find such functions in religion as well, and this is religion’s becoming- and even being- ideological, I think there is no problem. Religion has some ideological function, and this is a truth, and we cannot present the point in other way. And the history testifies that religion has always played constructive functional roles in the history of man’s life; and this is not a fault of religion and ideology, but a merit for both of them. And this is never inconsistent with depth, extent, inclusiveness, and eternity of religion. Religion may have various aspects and according to circumstances, certain aspects and functions are taken into account. In jihad, religion plays its role as an arm, and in defense, religion becomes a shelter to defend national identity and culture; and this happened in the course of history; and this is not religion’s fault, but its merit.
Q: Mr. Rashad! then, the important points is that essentially how should define religion? What is, according to us, the main goal of religion? How do we define ideology? And most importantly, for ideology, which characteristics may we consider? Then, we are able to judge the relation between ideology and religion; otherwise, we are not able to discuss the relation between ideology and religion in an accurate way. At first, we have to clarify that in what sense we consider ideology or which instance of ideology is meant by us, so that we may be able to say what the relation between ideology and religion is.
A: It is so. At the beginning of our dialogue, we said that many characteristics have been mentioned for ideology. For example, some people have said that ideology plays its role as a guide and framework; in other words, it determines what one ought to do, what he ought not to do. Ideology specifies man’s social orientations and conducts to the extent that sometimes it forces man to rebel against a particular class.
The other characteristic of ideologies is their transparency. We do not find philosophical discussion and scientific questions in ideologies, since when individuals have to conduct in accord with a party Constitution, and then there will be no room for philosophical questions and intellectual doubts. The other characteristic of ideologies is that they work selectively. In other words, they pay attention to some points and no attention to some other ones. Existence of enemy and enmity is the other characteristic of ideologies. Ideologies produce enemy and struggle against enemies. Essentially, struggle against enemy is regarded as a main principle in ideologies. The fifth characteristic mentioned is that ideologies do not seek for truth, they try to produce movement. To make movements is regarded as a principle. The other characteristic mentioned is that ideologies concern the age of establishment and not the age of settlement. By the help of ideology a nation may make a revolution, but when we made a revolution, we are not able to maintain the society in the state of revolution. As put by Shariati, in the age of establishment, movement becomes an institution, and people’s revolutionary fever will lower. People want to live their own lives. Then, as put by some people “blood becomes opium”. Here ideology loses its constructive characteristics. The other characteristic of ideologies is that they need official interpreters; since ideologies are aimed to show the way and be a guide for acts. And there should be some people to specify goals and show the way.
The point mentioned on which we insist again (since it is very important) is that from where and how the characteristics we mentioned in this conversation and the other points mentioned by others have come. May we say that these are among essential concomitants of each and every ideology? Or have thinkers, sociologists, politicians who have mentioned one or more of such characteristics, considered a particular ideology? For example when Hanna Arendt, in her book, writes concerning characteristics of ideology, does she speak of ideology absolutely or a particular one according to which she describes such characteristics? For me:
First: sometimes they are speaking about one, two, or three particular ideologies; they extract their characteristics and generalize them to other ideologies.
Second: some characteristics mentioned are in conflict with the others, and they can never be from the same origin; and this shows that such characteristics are those of different ideologies. Various characteristics of “different ideologies” have been gathered, and as totality of characteristics they are attributed to “ideology” in the absolute sense of the term! But only equivocatingly it is possible to apply the term “ideology” to some schools; for not only ideologies are not identical but also they are not of the same family; and judgment concerning this requires knowledge of ideologies and classification of ideologies.
Third: those who have spoken of such characteristics have ignored the point that anti-ideological schools have them as well, then they are some sort of ideologies! For example, we may mention liberalism which is a rival of thinking based on ideologies. Secularism which is not consistent with religion and ideological conducts is much more dogmatic, closed to rivals, avoiding others, and narrow-thinking than ideologies.
Fourth: misusing religion has been popular in the course of history and which sacred concept may we find that has not been misused? If misusing and altering religion they make religion superficial, one-dimensional, impose negative characteristics of ideology on it, may we say that it should not be made ideological, or ideological functions cannot be expected from it. Or for this reason, can we take positive ideological characteristics of ideology from religion? Or if someone tells me that he is to make religion ideological or to present a religious ideology, does this mean that he seeks to make religion superficial? And if the late Dr. Shariati, the late Shahid Beheshti, and the late Professor Mutahhari discussed the religious ideology, can we say that they sought to make religion superficial, to make religion void of its content?
Fifth: it should be noted that there are some mechanisms hidden in Islam which hinder automatically realizing of some negative ideological characteristics unless in the case that “Islam” is not the true Islam and its nature has changed; for the context of Islam is inconsistent with some characteristics; for example we may mention that ideology creates determinism, since when man is placed within the framework of an ideology he has no more freedom, and consequently, ideology moves man in whatever direction it wants; this is not true for Islam. The context of Islam is intertwined with acceptance of responsibility, free-thinking, and moderation. If there remains Islamicity, there will remain acceptance of responsibility and obligations. To live a deterministic life is far from the essence of Islam.
Sixth: it is not just to attribute to ideology objections which may be raised about man, his instincts, his nature, about the world of politics, government, and the nature of power. That man may misuse ideology is not a good reason to question the essence of ideology; and that when man comes to power by making uses of ideology and struggle, he will try to justify his actions to protect his own power so that ideology may become a tool to justify anti-values and anomalies, this is not a fault of ideology; and an individual’s functions cannot be attributed to an ideology (or at least to all ideologies). This is a fault of man; this is the characteristic of power. That some people have said that ideology “makes tools allowed” in ideology goal justifies the tool used, and this has been mentioned by Marxists as a rule, cannot be a characteristic of all ideologies. If we take into account essentials of religion or essentials of Islam, a large part of the hated and negative characteristics and consequences cannot appear. Religion is based on spirituality; and in religion, fear of God is a standard. In religion, seeking for justice is regarded as a lofty ideal, thus religious ideology and an ideologized religion cannot justify injustice, or make oppressions in the name of justice. And it is man who does so. In other words, a Muslim who follows religious ideology or an activitist who has come to power (and power brings about arrogance and arrogance leads to selfishness) may violate others’ rights, man’s selfishness and his power-seeking instinct cause him to justify his own evil deeds, evil deeds of his own gang, these have their roots in man’s attributes and characters, they have nothing to do with religion; even if a man is not committed to ideology he may do so; and most likely, when man’s commitment to religion is reduced he does so.
Anyway: negative characteristics which relate to some ideologies and we have selected all of them, gathered, and enlisted them amount to about 20 cases. And then we say whatever thing, if it becomes ideological, will certainly suffer such characteristics. And this is not right. These may be characteristics of some ideologies. Each characteristic or some characteristics may be that (those) of an ideology (or some ideologies); and if we regard ideological function for religion, this will not cause those characteristics which are those of other ideologies to be realized in Islam.
Finally, neither may a man free of ideology exist, nor may a religion be void of ideological function; otherwise religion will become only a collection of dreams and poems which are good for one’s heart! It will become the same thing which is presented by some modern Western theologians and some contemporary Iranian authors claim: “belief in the sacred!” which is an elusive, unknowable, undetermined which may correspond to everything. This is not religion.
Anyway, we provide a bad definition for religion, a bad definition for ideology, and then combine the two and make them still worse, and then we say: religion should not be ideological!
Q: You have emphasized that if religion has no ideological function, it will become isolated and be marginalized so that it will be pushed far from the context of the society. And not only is this not useful for religion but also it will be followed by detrimental consequences for human society. Some people raise questions and objections in this regard. Can we provide answers for such questions and objections or not? Some have insisted that if we wish to make religion ideological, we have to notice that this is possible when we refer to God’s Book, find a organized intellectual system in it; while when we refer to the Holy Quran we see that this is not the case. Please speak about this point, if possible.
A: the Holy Quran is not a human book written in a human manner. The way that the Holy Quran has been organized is one of its miraculous aspects. If they seek for an order similar to simple and apparent order of human writings, such an order cannot be found in the Holy Quran. The Holy Quran has a complicate but accessible, and firm organization. And this very style of the Holy Quran’s order is one of the reasons for its astonishing capacity and its unfathomable depth which allows man, in the course of the history, to find so many new points in it. Chapters of the Holy Quran are interconnected, its verses are interdependent to each other, and its meanings are intertwined with each other. I think that the source of such objections is ignorance or denial. When they say religion is unorganized, there are some presuppositions in their minds for example “religion has come to create wonder!”, “religion is mysterious!”, “the essence of religion is inaccessible!”, “however we try we cannot attain an understanding of the essence of religion!” If such presuppositions are taken for granted, it is evident that no ideology may be adopted from the context of religion, and religion is not able to have an ideological function. It is not clear that why we are saying that religion increases wonder. The function of religion is guidance. It has not come to make man wondered. It has come to warn man; and since function of religion is guidance, it will automatically find an ideological function. From among the positive characteristics of ideology is that it gives the society some orientation. It is the case with religion as well. It is against clear Quranic verses that we say that religion creates wonder. Islam is a religion and religion itself says that I am explanation, I am exposition (tibyan), I am light. Religion itself says that I have come to guide. The Holy Quran guides man to the clearest and the best way. It is explanation, it is exposition. It is a wrong characteristic that we attribute to the Holy Quran, we interpret religion in a wrong way, and then we have to inevitably say that religion creates wonder. Then we say: ideology is clear and transparent and gives orientation. Thus religion is not able to have an ideological function, or we say that religion is unorganized. In which sense and for what is formulation considered by us?
Should the Holy Quran have chapter one, two, three, … like human writings? Should it have chapters titled “Worldview”, “Laws and Rights”, “Morals” and the like? If this is expected, yes! Religion is unorganized! What is common today as a human methodology and will change some other days cannot be taken as a standard, principle, and as something stable and permanent, and then go to compare the Holy Quran with it, and say that the Holy Quran is organized or unorganized. Furthermore, that a religious text is unorganized as compared by human styles does not mean that religion is not refined. That a religious text is not organized and classified does not mean that religion itself us ambiguous. We may have a collection of clear instructions but not in a familiar order. The familiar classification to which we have been accustomed is not permanent. One should not think this was, is, and will be the case. Religion is refined. And the evidence for this is that according to the history since the advent of Islam to the present day, religion has been an arm for people’s struggles. Sheltered by religion, people have defended themselves. By the help of religion, people have established government. In the context of religion, perfect men and women has been educated according to the religious teachings. And this will be the case in future as well. And that religion has played its role as an arm for struggle and as guidance, has introduced clear instructions, is the best for argument for its correctness. Dr. Shariati said concerning the geometry of school that we should introduce clear points in the fields of worldview, sociology, philosophy of history, anthropology. Today, if you ask, the masses of Muslims have clear points in these fields to say. Of course, there are some differences between sayings of masses of people and those of scholars of religion. The religious scholars are able to introduce more transparent, refined, perfect, and deep points in such fields. Nor do masses of people introduce unrefined points. From where have scholars and masses of people so many points to introduce? From religion. Then accusing religion of creating wonder is, as a matter of fact, changing religion into “irreligion”. Religion is discussed according to wrong principles, presuppositions, and hypotheses; and then they conclude wrongly. [They say that] religion is oriented towards the world to come. It is based on the world to come! And consequently, it is not consistent with the secular ideology! This is principally wrong. There is no difference between the world and the world to come in the Islamic culture. Religion is oriented towards both the world and the world to come. Of course religion is not secular; it makes uses of the world. And a religion which does not a plan for the world, does not provide “ouhgt to”s and “ought not to”s, will not be (and should not be) able to judge me in the world to come and punish or reward me.
A: As said by you, if we accept that the Holy Quran has its own worldview, its own rules and laws, has introduced particular values, this shows that religion has a particular form. The other point is that that religion has its own form does not mean that it is superficial. In other words it is wrong to say that if religion has its own form then it is superficial. Since religion has teachings and its propositions are deep and multi-layered, that it has its own form does not cause it to become superficial. Some people think that if we specify a form for religion it will be no more deep and multi-layered. The other point is that if we claim that in the Holy Quran we have really deep concepts, we have clear and equivocal verses, if we discuss concepts such as determinism and free will, Origin and Resurrection, we will make religion ideological. Please explain in this regard, if possible.
Q: These are vulgar points introduced in a scholarly form. I think that more than scientific causes, such points are caused by social, political, personal, and psychological facts. For example someone may have some problems with religion government or religious rulers, and then he puts the governance of religion under question. Sometimes they say that if we make religion ideological it will become superficial! The main reason is their opposition to the alive and constructive functions of religion, but they pose other reasons. They have to somehow advance their points! It should be said, of course, that sometimes such concerns are positive but understandings are wrong. If you agree, we will go to summarizing and concluding our discussion. That some people maintain that there is some inconsistency between ideology and religion and it is not correct to make religion ideological, may, I think, be traced back to one of the five following mistakes:
1- We provide a wrong meaning for religion, and then we find that such a religion cannot be expected to have ideological functions.
2- We have a particular expectation or understanding of ideology such as the familiar classical senses of ideology, regarding ideology as a class Constitution or party regulations. It is evident that ideological functions from religion cannot be expected in such senses; since in this way, religion becomes temporal and superficial.
3- We generalize accidental and perhaps essential characteristics of some ideologies or negative characteristics of some of them to all ideologies, and then we conclude that religion should not be made ideological.
4- Sometimes, we may generalize human characters or effects of politics and power to ideology or religion. It is man who is one day activitist, seeking for freedom and justice, and some other day he may become oppressor, enemy of freedom and justice. It is man’s carnal soul and the nature of power, and not religion and ideology, which are sources of changes. Man’s carnal and greedy soul causes the one, who was some day struggling for freedom, to stand against people’s freedoms. This is not a fault of ideology, a fault of struggle, this cannot be traced back to the revolution; it traces back to the individual. It is man’s character that causes such a situation, or it is required by the power, by politics, and not by ideology or religion.
5- Some characteristics which are as a matter fact values, we may regard as anti-values, and then say: if religion finds ideological functions, such effects will follow. And this is not right. For example, ideology produces motion, gives hope, creates peace of mind, fights against enemy, and makes arrangements, grants ideals. These are positive characteristics of ideology. And- if religion does not possess them, there is no problem that it possesses them through making it ideological!
• with many thanks for your participation in this series of discussion and your replies to questions of our program.