Spirituality without Spirituality
Ali Akbar Rashad
Say: Is there of your partners (whom ye ascribe unto Allah) one that leadeth to the Truth? Say: Allah leadeth to the Truth. Is He Who leadeth to the Truth more deserving that He should be followed, or he who findeth not the way unless he (himself) be guided. What aileth you? How judge ye? Most of them follow not but conjecture. Assuredly conjecture can by no means take the place of truth. Lo! Allah is Aware of what they do. (the Holy Quran, 10: 35-36)
Abstract:
In our time, here and there, there are those who are dreaming of replacement of the religion by spirituality. They claim: spirituality is the common message and essence of all religions; and if we take the core and essence of the religion from its shell, we may not need the religion. Having introduced a project called “rationality and spirituality”, Mr. Mostafa Malakian has taken the religion and spirituality as being different, emphasized irrationality of the religion and its inconsistency with modernity on the one hand, and rationality, consistency, and efficiency of spirituality on the other, and announced expiration of the age of traditional religiosity.
Having assessed claims made by Mr. Malakian, the esteemed author of the present article reveals incoherence of his claims through mentioning defects and immaturities of his project. According to the esteemed author of the article, having instructed that belief in the Origin and the End is unnecessary, and commitment to the morality and religious commands in the process of spirituality, the project of rationality and spirituality invites its audience to “spirituality without spirituality”. According to the esteemed author, thought and act of the founder of the project may be explained and analyzed in the frame of domination of virtual.
The author has announced his readiness to have a critical dialogue with the founder of the project of rationality and spirituality. Qabasat as well welcomes affirmative and negative views concerning claims made by Mr. Malakian. If such articles fulfill scientific-research requirements, they may be published in the Journal.
Virtual Spirituality
Once upon a time, prophets of secularization expelled God and religion from man’s worldly life and secularism overcame human beings’ collective life; and presence of religion and spirituality was confined to a special field and limited to the world to come. Now, there are prophets who wish to eliminate God and religion from spirituality and to secularize what concerns the world to come, and invite human beings to regard this world as being self-sufficient !! Then, they emptied worldly life of meaning and de-sanctified social-political relations and aspects of the religion; and now, they are to de-sanctify spirituality, de-religionize the world to come and, turn the heaven to the earth, eliminate not only obligatory commands (jurisprudence) but also religious dogmas and moralities from the religious geometry of religion!
These gentlemen who do not even avoid from using contradicting phrases and statements such as “secular religion”, “religious secularism”, “spirituality without God”, “spirituality without religiosity”, and “irreligious spiritualists”, then were speaking of separation of politics from the religion, and the religion from governance, and now they are speaking of separation of spirituality from the religion, and the religion from religiosity! In the past, they reduced man’s life to an animal one, and asked man to try to satisfy his hunger and lust, now they reduce spirituality and religiosity to psychological emotions and internal states, far from the Origin and End, and free from the Innovator and Meaning-Giver of the world and society; and seek for spirituality without spirituality! And having posed some inconsistent, unreasonable, and confused claims, they are clearly and boldly to replace Divine religions by quasi-religions, and prefer spirituality to religiosity! This phenomenon is one of the manifestations and tokens of waning of truth and domination of virtual- which is the distinct character of our time.
Our time is a time of domination of virtual and even “domination of multiple virtuals” on the realms of human knowledge and life. To name “sophism” as “philosophy”, to take ” delusion ” as “knowledge”, to regard “ignorance” as “science”, to create multi-surfaced and multi-layered “virtual I’s” in one’s self, and to live a life within the prison of creational, historical, cultural, and sexual self-estrangement; to lead one’s life within the prison of religious, national, … absorption in others, to name “irreligiosity” as “religiosity”, and “religiosity” as “secularism”, to ask for “spirituality without spirituality”, to call forged and unknown illusions and reflections “spirituality”, to prefer the latter to the religion, and to seat it on the position of religiosity are among tokens of domination of virtual on the contemporary man’s upset life. Thus, to introduce discourses such as the religion without canon law (shari’ah), spirituality without religion, religiosity without jurisprudence and morality and dogmas- in particular when it is introduced in the East and by the Easterners and more particularly when it is introduced by the Muslim born ones- may be analyzed and explained within the frame of the theory of “domination of virtual”.
Project of Rationality and Spirituality
The founder of the project of rationality and spirituality has said: “spirituality means to feel peace, happiness, hope, satisfaction, and to not skirmish against one’s self !! Also, he has said: “for me, spirituality is a way to face the world of being in which one lives his life altogether with satisfaction” .
Also, he has said: religion and spirituality are two distinct and different phenomena; spirituality does not mean to believe in some particular religion; spirituality does not require believing in some particular religion and is not dependent on such a belief . A man may be religious, but not spiritual; or he may be spiritual but not religious ; and naturally and inevitably one may be at the climax of spirituality but irreligious! And one may be fully irreligious but spiritual!
To describe differences between religion and spirituality, the esteemed founder of the project mentions some aspects including the following six ones:
One) The religion is historical; the religion relies always on a series of particular historical events and truths; and if such historical events are ignored, the religion is no more religion. For example, one may not be a Christian unless he admits and believes in Mary’s virginity, the last dinner, crucifixion of Jesus, and his ascent after three days. Spirituality, however, has no reliance on historical events; and instead it is relied on religious experiences! In other words, instead of saying “whose are these words and when and where are they told?”, I say: now, I will experience it so that I may find whether it is successful or not !
Two) The religion is not rational, but relied on devotion and imitation; spirituality is, however, rational and testable; without devotion, the religion is meaningless; but you can be spiritual but not devoted! We experience spiritual instructions and then we accept them ; to put importance on the reason is the characteristic of spirituality; spirituality is more rational than all institutionalized historical religions .
Three) All historical religions emerged in the pre-modern age; their metaphysics, philosophy, and epistemological and ethical presuppositions are sometimes incomprehensible and unacceptable for the modern man; and we have to try to eliminate such presuppositions which are incomprehensible and unacceptable for the outlook of modern man, or to interpret them in such a way that they may become comprehensible and acceptable for the modern attitude! Spirituality, however, is a newly-emerged and modern phenomenon which is acceptable for the modern man .
Four) In each and every religion, there are some national and non-global aspects, and if that religion emerged in another historical and geographical situation, there would be no such aspects; we have to eliminate such national and historical aspects ! But, and inevitably, spiritualities are free from geographical and historical aspects!
Five) All religions have, on the one hand, some dissimilarities and, on the other, some similarities; spirituality is the common message of all religions which may be spoken of as “the essence of religion” .
Six) The other distinction between the religion and spirituality is that spirituality is process-based while religion is result-centered; in other words, what is of importance in spiritual attempts is “how are you attempting” and not “what is you attempting for?” or “where are you going?” and “to which will you attain?”; in the religion, however, what is of importance is “where are you going?” and “to which will you attain?”! From a spiritual point of view, processes, and not results, are of importance!
Because of the importance of this point, here I quote the exact words of the founder of the project of rationality and rationality concerning this difference. He says:
“The other distinction is that in spirituality all that is of importance is “truthfulness” and “seriousness”, in other words, all that is spoken of in spirituality is “be serious and truthful in your life”. If you have attempted truthfully, it is not of importance that what result is attained. The process of your attempt should be a process accompanied by seriousness and truthfulness! But in spirituality, it is not of importance that which result will be attained at the end of this process. To put it more simply, consider that the proposition “God exists” is a proposition corresponding the reality, in other words, really God exists in the real world. In the instutionalized and historical religion, if we say “God exists”, all people will accept us as believing in this proposition, since the religion itself promotes the idea of “God exists”. But for a spiritual man, one of those believing in “God exists” may be right and two others, while they are saying “God exists” may be not right. For, according to a spiritual man, it is not the result of “God exists” which is of importance, what is of importance is that how we have come to this proposition. If I have tried truthfully and seriously and come to belief in the proposition “God exists”, this is a valuable belief. But if I believe untruthfully, or unseriously, or untruthfully and unseriously that “God exists”, for spiritual man, such a belief is not valuable at all. For [though] the result is an interesting one, the process through which I have come to such a result has not been an acceptable one. From a spiritual point of view, processes are of importance not results. If you try truthfully and seriously and come to the conclusion that “God does not exist”, according to the institutionalized religion, you will be condemned, hated, disbeliever, and atheist; but for a spiritual man, since the process has been a fully acceptable one, there is no problem” .
Qualities and States of Spiritual Man
Having employed some idealistic, arbitrary, and favorable claims, in order to describe “spiritual man”, the prophet of modern spirituality mentions the following qualities as being specified to such a distinct being:
1- He is altruistic. He suffers for others’ suffering, and tries to alleviate their pains.
2- He is selfish. The spiritualists of the world are the most selfish ones from among human beings; even their altruism is at the service of their selfishness; they do good to others for the sake of themselves.
3- He is not satisfied by, and does not suffice to, his existing situation. Thus, a spiritual man is never devoid of internal attempts.
4- No pains or suffering created in the outer world for him count as pain and suffering, or they are tolerable for him.
5- He takes himself as being responsible for his own fate; and even if there is some failure, he takes himself as responsible.
6- He does not suffer superiority complex. The spiritual man says: For the world I am nothing; for me, however, I am everything.
7- In his surrounding world, he has the lowest rate of consumption and the highest rate of production. He lives his life in such a way that results in the lowest cost and the highest efficiency for the world of being.
He likens the followers of religions to those mountaineers who set to go to the peak from the feet of mountain. And he says as they go further, their separation decreases. Then he insists:
The followers of religions, as long as they are in the field of jurisprudence, are at the greatest separation from each other; when they enter the field of morality, however, their separation decreases; when they enter the field of dogmas, their separation decreases again; and when they come to the field of experience, their separation vanishes. Finally, he says: I think that the greatest service we can now do for ourselves and our society is to further the “project of rationality and spirituality” simultaneously .
In other place, while saying that it is difficult to enlist qualities of the spiritual man, he mentions the following seven qualities:
One: The first quality of the spiritual man is “What should I do?”
Two: The life of the spiritual man is an original life; it is not an imitated one. He lives according to his own understanding.
Three: He is content with all things which are contained in the world of being, including pains, evils, and sufferings of this world.
Four: He makes a distinction between “changeable” and “unchangeable”, so that he may work on changeable things and not to deal with unchangeable ones.
Five: He has absorbed differences, and accepted that he is different from all other human beings.
Six: He competes with no one but himself; and this competition is in a particular direction. He asks himself always: Can I be better than what I am?
Seven: In theory, the spiritual man has decided to seek for truth, in practice for justice, and in emotion and feeling for love .
Here, the esteemed founder of the project of rationality and spirituality adds “there may be some other qualities as well” , lest some other perfections would be ignored (his supposed or existing superman should have what all good human beings have).
Previously, in another place, he has enlisted two advantages (which are in a relation of generality and peculiarity in some respects to fourteen perfections in two previous lists). These twelve advantages are:
1- The rational religious one asks a “comprehensive philosophy of life” from religion;
2- Rational religiosity means to “seek for truth” and not “to own the truth”.
3- Rational religion is a religion accompanied by “critical thinking”.
4- Rational religious man regards the order of world as a moral one; consequently he feels security.
5- Rational religious man is a religious man who fully believes in self-discipline.
6- Rational religious man gradually reaches to the stage of self-commanding;
7- Rational religious man lives with uncertainty and distrust and at the same time in peace.
8- Rational religious man is at the service of his fellow-creatures since they are his fellow-creatures.
9- Rational religious man views himself realistically.
10- Rational religious man loves all human beings in face of all their imperfections.
11- In spite of all possible oppositions to his principles, rational religious man keeps his own principles.
12- Rational religious man avoids all kinds of paganism, and has no paganist look at the world .
Critique and Assessment of the Project
The founder of the project of “rationality and spirituality” has not considered his claims as a theory, and this may be a consequence of the fact that his goal is other than introduction of a theory. And even if it is a theory, he is not its founder; but rather he seeks to induce and implement his own project, and considers a particular mission for himself, i.e. to replace the “traditional religion” by “modern spirituality”. Anyway, each and every essential view or claim is based and relied on some “concepts”, “logic”, “principles”, and “evidence”. Also, necessarily it claims for a series of “disproofs and proofs” as well “efficiencies” and “functions”. His claims are not an exception to this rule.
The author of the present article thinks that the claims introduced by the esteemed claimants may be criticized and rejected in some respects, including the following ones:
One) In terms of conceptual clarity and transparency;
Two) In terms of methodological construction and organization;
Three) In terms of its philosophical and rational principles and arguments
Four) In terms of epistemological principles and arguments
Five) In terms of religious-philosophical (extra-religious) principles and arguments
Six) In terms of religious (theological) principles and arguments
Seven) In terms of historical evidence (affirmative and negative)
Eight) In terms of morality and deontological principles
Nine) In terms of its power to falsify competitive views and theories
Ten) In terms of inclusion and generalizability
Eleven) In terms of its efficiency and success to meet the expectations
Twelve) In terms of the motivation of the claimant or cause(s) of its emergence.
I do not have enough time to discuss all points mentioned, and nor will there be enough time to discuss all aspects of the project in future; thus full-fledged critique should be left to another suitable time (here, I announce my readiness to have a critical dialogue with the esteemed designer and promoter of the project of spirituality and rationality, without any a priori and a posteriori conditions).
According to the rule “If you can not find all of it, do not leave what you can”, I suffice to introduce some critiques and rejections at a necessary and possible level (of course not so ordered as mentioned in the above list; but in order of quotations made from the esteemed founder of the project).
Conceptual Ambiguity, Confusion, and Inconsistency
I have reviewed more or less points published by the messenger of the project of rationality and spirituality in various occasions. Fairly speaking, I do not remember to read a collection of material readings so inconsistent, incoherent, and sometimes contradicting throughout my life. “If it (the Holy Quran) had been from other than Allah they would have found therein much incongruity” (the Holy Quran, 82). Though he is a man of accuracy and reading and- as he confesses- methodologically he is an advocate of the analytic philosophy, and for years he has tried hard to explain and realize his own claims; here his statements and expressions are full of divagation, inconsistencies, and incoherencies; he fails even to explain the most important terms of his project.
In terminology of the project of rationality and spirituality, the religion criticized is sometimes mentioned as the institutionalized religion (rigid and formulated religion).
Sometimes other, such a religion has been called historical (dependent on historical ages) religion.
Sometime, it has been mentioned as vulgar religion (religion of mass of people, who perhaps follow such a religion blindly).
Sometime, it has been called imitative (unoriginal and un-thought) religion.
Sometime, it has been labeled as devotional (anti-rational, indemonstrable) religion.
And sometime, it has been called the religion “two” and “three” (understanding and action of the religious ones).
Though some of these labels may be consistent, relation between all these labels and views is not a relation of equivalence, and even they are in contradiction. For example, the religion of masses of people is not the same as the religion and “Islam two” which is the religious knowledge provided by the scholars.
In the same way, the esteemed herald of neo-religiosity has provided various expressions to explain spirituality and spiritual man:
Sometime, he has regarded spirituality as having components of peace, happiness, and hope ; sometimes other, he has called spirituality “rational religion” and to describe qualities of the followers of such a religion, he has enlisted twelve qualities . Sometimes, he has taken spirituality as the old core and essence of religions, and enlisted its parts in forms of seven propositions , and regarded all such propositions as being found in religions. In some other place, however, he says that part of it [spirituality] has been taken from religions, and some other parts have been made by spiritualists. Sometime, he takes the field of spirituality as being very limited and regards it as a fragmented state of religions, and asks from it only peace and internal and psychological satisfaction which prevents fear, despair, sorrow… . Sometime, he announces that its scope is much more extensive than that of institutionalized religions, and asks a “comprehensive philosophy of life” from it . To define spirituality, he has employed such terms as feeling of “internal satisfaction”, “approach” to the world and the like, which are not so accurate terms, and even they may be interpreted in various ways. The case for other terms such as “reason”, “rationality”, “tradition”, and “modernity” employed in the terminology of the project is not better than that of terms like religion and spirituality. He admits that he has no clear understanding of rational insight , and never provides a clear idea of the relation between two essential components of his project, i.e. spirituality and rationality.
A Reflection on Difference between Religion and Spirituality
The messenger of spirituality and rationality may insist upon differences between the religion and spirituality; and expect different functions because of such differences- and of course, he claims so-; thus, we throw a glance at the hypothesis of difference between the religion and spirituality, and differences claimed between the two. Before proceeding to study the claimed differences, the following three points should be mentioned:
1- Why is it claimed: “spirituality is the essence of religions”? Why tawhid-centeredness of being, or belief in supra-nature, or… is not regarded as the essence of religion?
2- If spirituality is the essence of religion, and the common message of all religions is the very spirituality, then the spiritual man- if he is spiritual- has grasped the core of religion; then how can or may he be an atheist (irreligious man)? And, how can a religious man be un-spiritual? Had not the jewel of spirituality been laid like a spirit in the body of religion? Is not the lack of spirituality a sign of the fact that one- even though he is religious- has not attained the heart of religion, or he is not by heart religious? And if so, is not it better to, instead of accusing the religion, blame the religious claimant for his incorrect understanding or action; and instead of promoting the discovered/forged claimed spirituality, to truly explain the divine religion and correct people’s religious understanding and action? This is both possible and desired, and even it is an obligation for intellectual elite.
3- Though religions are claiming for fulfilling all human needs in the fields of thought and practice, body and spirit, and all that is mentioned concerning spirituality, and though according to him spirituality has been the essence of religion and taken from religion, and inevitably the religion should be more comprehensive than spirituality, now that religion is inclusive and naturally it should be preferred, he has not explained why one should discard the religion and suffice to spirituality. And principally, it is clear that if one has to be both spiritual and religious, when he is religious (while his other needs are fulfilled), he will be inevitably spiritual.
Also he has not made clear that if those believing in, and committing themselves to, spirituality demand a comprehensive philosophy of life from spirituality, why do they not demand the same from the religion?
Is it not true that if we decompose a whole (such as religion) and suffice to one of its parts (such as spirituality), consequences and functions of the whole will inevitably, reduce to those of that part and even less than it; and even sometimes decomposition of a coherent whole will lead to its inefficiency, and most likely will turn it to its opposition; since each and every part of a whole- if it keeps to be a part, and if in the context of the whole- may be useful. And it may lose its characteristic resulted from its particularity, or may become detrimental, if separated from the whole. Such objections will become more important if we know that the herald of replacement of the religion by spirituality defines the religion in a way which suggests the religion’s wholeness, coherence, and comprehensively:
“The religion is a system of thought which:
Firstly) provides an interpretation of the world of being and man’s status in the world of being;
Secondly) recommends a special mode of life based on this interpretation;
Thirdly) shows that interpretation and this recommendation in the form of a series of rituals in a symbolic way .
4) If (according to you, advocates of nowhere), for some reason, it is not possible to correctly explain understandings and actions, no school or view (including the project of “spirituality and rationality”) is immune from such a defect. Spirituality as well may suffer misunderstanding and it may be implemented in a wrong way. For example, just now, there are thousands contradicting claims and schools in the world and in Iran, and all of which call themselves true and super spirituality, and there are thousands disabuses done under the name of spirituality.
5- By enlisting differences, religion-escaping spiritualists aim to prove superiority of spirituality to the religion, spiritualism to religiosity, and encourage their audience to spirituality instead of religion; otherwise, there would not be such insistence on these differences.
Now, one may ask him:
First: How and through which logic, do you prove the absence of the advantages claimed in the religion and presence of them in spirituality? Perhaps, your claimed spirituality and religion are identical (and not different) in many respects which you have regarded them as being different.
Second) Why should such differences be regarded as advantages for spirituality and defect for the religion?
But, Differences:
One) Historicality of the Religion:
The esteemed founder of the project mentioned “Historicality of the religion” as the first difference . It may be, however, asked:
1/1. Can one prove such a characteristic for all religions through some examples taken from a religion (such as what you have noted concerning Christianity)?
1/2. Who has said “If we ignore some historical realities (and events), religion would be no more religion”? We find no historical event- at least in the history of some religions like Islam- that its denial may lead to disbelief and apostasy. Even, in Christianity, there are many Christians who deny Mary’s virginity, Jesus crucifixion and ascent, but they are known as Christians.
1/3. When historical events are proved definitively, if they become subject of religious faith, or if they are regarded as evidence for religious claims, what will be wrong with this?
1/4. Why do you say: personal and conjectural “religious experience”- to which, instead of religion and foundations of the religion, you invite- is more trustworthy than successive historical events- upon which sometimes some religions have relied? Why is reliance on religious experience justified, but reliance on confirmed events is not? Are such historical events less reliable than rational, conjectural, and relative (and in your words “skeptical and assuring”) argument you regard spirituality as being relied on it?
1/5. As claimed, teachings of spirituality and spiritualism are a newly-emerged phenomenon, and they have not yet become historical; but will not such a plague- if it is a plague- affect spirituality in the course of time?
Two) Rationality of Spirituality and Irrationality of Religion
The esteemed messenger of spirituality has regarded rationality of spirituality and irrationality of religion as the second difference between the religion and spirituality . We think that introduction of this hypothesis is a result of heedlessness to many points, including the following ones:
2/1. That “religious call” is directed to man depends on his rationality; for since man is rational, he is free, and since he is free, he is responsible, and since he is responsible, he may be asked, and then religious call is directed to him. And that the Wise calls his rational addressee is rational.
2/2. “Need to the religion” and necessity of mission (to prove general prophecy) may be proved only by the reason.
2/3. Prior discovering of the “foundations” of religious “dogmas”, before encountering the Revelation, is done by employing the reason; and all of them are supported by the reason.
2/4. One has to employ the reason to prove the particular mission and accept the claim made for prophecy by each prophet; the reason takes miracle as a premise of syllogism, and then admits to the prophecy of the prophet (If one who claims for prophecy performs a miracle, he is a prophet; this man performs a miracle, then he is a prophet).
2/5. The reason is interpreting religious texts; and acquisition of religious knowledge through an understanding of the Scripture is made only by the help of reason. An understanding of the religion is, in principle, not possible unless through religious jurisprudence, and religious jurisprudence is not possible without employing the reason.
2/6. Canon law cannot be executed without a rational devise. There are many other functions which make religiosity, acceptance of the religion, understanding of the religion, and religious assessment of knowledge as being dependent on the reason and employment of the reason. Here, however, there is no room to introduce and explain them .
In addition to the above-mentioned points, the following points are noteworthy as well:
2/7. There is no essential contradiction between devotion and rationality. Whatever accepted devotionally may be rational as well. This is what is required by the rule of “consequence”. On the other, spirituality and rationality are two different facts as well; since if they were identical, there would be no need to so attempts made to synthesize and promote the two.
Now, it may be again asked: Why is spirituality rational and the religion not rational? Because of which difference, do we judge so differently?
2/8. Which religion is irrational? Islam or myth? Mohammedanism or Christianity? Alavism or Ash’arism? Surprising! How can those born Shi’i (who are familiar with the rational verses of the holy Quran and cogent words of Nahj al-Balaghah- accuse the Glorified of irrationality (and even enmity to the reason)? And why should Mohammedan school and Alavi rational teachings pay costs for forged and deviated quasi-religions’ irrationality and enmity to the reason?
2/9. And how is possible that “spirituality” which is the “essence” and core of religion to be rational; but the religion which is the spring of spirituality to be irrational?
2/10. As said in the endnote 20, the esteemed messenger has mentioned the most important components of the spirituality which are the common message of religions as well in the form of seven propositions, and believes:
No one of these propositions is, in reality, in opposition or contradiction to the modern man’s view and all of them are consistent with all universal values . Now, we are right to ask him, “that you say “the world of being is not confined to the nature”, “life is a meaningful thing”, “the world is not devoid of some sort of awareness”, “to good and evil, being shows suitable reactions”, “each and every one is responsible for his fate”, “behave toward others in the same way that you like they behave toward you”, “we have to be content with the whole world of being and even its evils and catastrophes” , are all of these propositions deducible by the reason? Have you found them through your own reason or have you taken them from the religion? If man did not find these propositions through religions, did his reason by itself lead to such facts? But, you the founder of the project of spirituality and rationality, have admitted that you have taken all of them from the religion, and they are the common message of religions! And, you believe that the religion is irrational and indemonstrable! Then all of these propositions are irrational.
2/11. You say: “Spiritual teachings are testable, religious teachings, however, are never so”. Belief in supra-natural worlds are according to you a part of spiritual worldview and “other than “what is studied in sciences such as physics, chemistry” ; how such worlds may be tested? And how can one test the sixth and seventh propositions- which are of the kind of recommendation, and not description?
2/12. have you, the founder of the project of spirituality and rationality who issues a global call to invite humanity to this project (and if there should be a spiritual man throughout the world, he is certainly you), have you tested these propositions to prove them by experience or the reason to believe in them? And are you, as a result of belief in and commitment to them, living now in the paradise of “peace”, “happiness” and “hope”? If you have not managed to test them, then how do you invite others to them?
2/13. You say: religious teachings are not testable; and religious ones accept authority. But you quote from the founders of religions such as Buddha- since you regard Buddhism as a religion- to confirm this claim: “[Buddha] said: I am not free from errors, experience what I say; if it is fruitful, then accept it; otherwise, do not accept it” . (Perhaps “two thousands years old” Buddhism is the same as modern spirituality claimed by you). And finally, what about tested propositions and teachings of the religions- which are numerous- and many advises handed down to us by the religious leaders concerning the value of experience, and relation between experience and such teachings?
2/14. How do you, who believe in nowhere and hypothesis of equivalence of arguments, speak of the reason and argumentation? For you, argumentation should not be regarded as a value. You who are a devotee of Rumi and think of him, in truth, as a mystic, and naturally as a spiritual man, are better to pay attention to his words to blame the reason and weaken the status of the reason. He said:
“The legs of people of argumentation is made of wood
“The wooden leg is so weak!
Thus, you should not so insist upon argumentation and rationality and regard it as a factor distinguishing spirituality from the religion.
If you think that- in accordance to the rule of equivalence of arguments- for each and every argument for a claim, an argument may be given against it (or for the opposing claim), then one may give an argument against your spiritual claims and in favor of our religious claims to prove rationality of the religion and truth of religiosity.
Three) The End of the Age of Religion and Religiosity
According to the esteemed messenger of the neo-religiosity, the third characteristic of spirituality and its difference from the religion is that spirituality is modern and newly-emerged; the religion is, however, old and expired; according to him, all religions belong to the pre-modern ages; and their metaphysics, philosophy, and epistemic and ethical presuppositions are not understandable and acceptable for the modern man, and thus they should be deleted or eliminated!
3/1. He has not clarified to which metaphysics, philosophy, and presuppositions the religion is committed, and spirituality to which so that it may be clarified that what are difference(s) between principles and metaphysics of the two, and it may be found that whether such differences may lead to different outputs called “religion” and “spirituality”.
3/2. Is not spirituality a product of the religion? Then, how may the two be different and even contradicting in principles and metaphysics?
3/3. For he who is somehow familiar with great and ancient philosophical and religious traditions, it is so clear that all eight propositions (taken by him from religions and called “spirituality”) are among the most ancient and ever-lasting human ideals; and all of them are either of the kind of traditional metaphysics or built on epistemology and metaphysics of the past millennia. If such propositions are modern, then what is traditional?
3/4. “I have a problem; ask the scholar of session
“Why those who invite other to repent do not repent!
It is not clear that why the messengers of modernity and post-modernity do not follow what they prescribe for humanity! He recommends: “We have to try to eliminate those presuppositions of the religion which are incomprehensible and unacceptable for the modern man, or to interpret them in such a way that they may become understandable and acceptable”! Firstly, he does not make clear which these presuppositions are. Secondly, why these presuppositions are not understandable and acceptable for the modern man? Thirdly, through which process and mechanism should they be interpreted so that they may become understandable and acceptable for the modern man? Fourthly, what is that new interpretation? Fifthly, why have not been they eliminated or arbitrarily interpreted? Sixthly, why has he taken the most ancient metaphysical and ethical teachings to the full extent to give them under the name of new spirituality to the new generation?
3/5. From among many metaphysical propositions mentioned by him as well as numerous ethical teachings enlisted in three lists of virtues of the spiritual man- who is inevitably modern as well-, which one is brought and produced by the modern man and modern world? And how can these old sayings and ancient rational and religious propositions be accepted and understood by the modern and postmodern metaphysics-avoiding empiricist and philosophy-escaping positivist man?
Four) “Nativeness” of the Religion
The founder of the religious reformation regards “presence of a series of native and non-global things” as one of the characteristics and defects of religions; but he does not explain:
4/1. Are all religions afflicted by such a defect? And why does he attribute such a thing to the religions of global call such as Islam?
4/2. What are native and non-global things?
4/3. What is the criterion to make a distinction between native and trans-native things?
4/4. Are such things substantial for the religion? If yes, then once they are eliminated, the essence of religion will be destroyed as well; and once a religion is decomposed, then that religion will change its nature and thus it will be no more competent; and inevitably, spirituality which is a fragmented form of the religion will not benefit from the characteristics of the religions which have lost their nature and characteristics.
4/5. If these things are not substantial elements of religion, what will result through their survival or destruction for humanity? In both cases (whether they are substantial or not), that they are eliminated is not necessary or legitimate.
4/6. If ancient religions belong to the ancient world and have no use for the modern world, you are now claiming for neo-religiosity; why do you associate spirituality with the religion, and insist to keep ancient things, and even found new on old, which is in principle some kind of employment of the thing against itself? Is not such a conduct a remnant of “ideological paganism” and “traditional ideologism” of which you avoid hard, and regard rational religious ones and spiritual ones as being free from it?
Five) Spirituality, the Common Message of Religions
The esteemed narrator of spirituality thinks that there are similarities and dissimilarities between religions is the fifth difference between spirituality and the religion. Spirituality is the common message of all religions; then the relation between all religions and spirituality is a relation of “absolute generality and peculiarity”, and then relation between a religion and other religions is “general in some respects”.
But he has not clarified:
5/1. What are those dissimilarities? Are dissimilarities between religions the same as native and non-global elements? If so, this difference will reduce to the fourth one.
5/2. What are dissimilarities and similarities between religions? Are they maximal or minimal? Are dissimilarities and similarities between a religion and another one of the same value? Are they of the same kind or are they different?
5/3. Are dissimilarities and similarities between a religion and another one substantial or formal? Quantitative or qualitative?
5/4. If religions have been (and still are) useful, is this a result of their dissimilarities or similarities? Or both of them? If the former is true, why are religions contaminated by unuseful dissimilarities? Is the origin of religions one or many? If it is one, why has such an origin added unuseful things to them? If there are many origins, what are those origins- save God? And have various origins built such similarities in religions accidentally or by an agreement? And was (were) not the origin(s) aware of this unuseful unwise action? If the origin(s) of religions has (have) not understood this point, how did you understand so that you have proceeded to refine religions? Are spiritualists superior to the origin(s) of religions?
Perhaps all (or parts) of religions’ characteristics may be referred to their dissimilarities. If so, to eliminate them will make religions of no (or little) use; and spirituality will not so benefit from the remnants of religions; then to eliminate them from religions is not rational and desired!
5.5. Are all dissimilarities of religion those of historical, irrational, incoherent with modernity, non-global, and result-based parts of them? Or all of them are non-historical, rational, modern, global, and process-based? Or a combination of the two?
5/6. Then, taking into account the wide spectrum of the true religions- as you think-, and given the fact that they are even in the principles of their teachings in unsolvable conflicts, how one can expect for the same substance in them and take common message from them?
5/7. One fears that: Is the project of spirituality and rationality, under the pretext of removing differences through fragmentation of religions, seeking for a neutral thing which is consistent with every idle talk and wickedness? One should not forget that the messenger of neo-religiosity has in one place said that the main problems of the followers of religions are jurisprudence, morality, and dogmas of various religions ! It seems that all problems are caused by revelatory faith and normative and moral religious requirements! If jurisprudence, morality, and dogmas are, under the pretext of sufficiency of religious experience, discarded (which actually leads to elimination of the religion and religiosity), all problems will be solved! Then, each and every body will remain with his own personal, psychological, and conjectural religious experience with no observer and critique! And then no one knows how these plural, diverse, and individual personal experiences will lead to unification of all diverse humanity. And then, is there a result other than one of the kind of dogmas, morality, and norms for religious experience? Is religious experience of the same epistemic kind with three above-mentioned ones?
Six) Process-Basedness of Spirituality and Result-Centeredness of Religion
Description of the sixth difference between the newly-emerged spirituality and institutionalized religion is the masterpiece of the esteemed narrator of spirituality. He says: the other difference between religion and spirituality is that spirituality is process-based while religion is result-centered! What is of importance in spirituality is truthfulness and seriousness in attempts made during the process and not the subject of truthfulness and goal of seriousness! Truth is not of importance; but rather, it is seriousness and truthful search which is important. For religions, however, result acquired in this way is of importance.
6/1. Surprising! Once upon a time, there were those who were saying “goal justifies means” (way for goal); now, there have emerged those who say extremistly: “way justifies goal”, and even “way justifies way” (goal for way). “How are you going” is of importance, not “where are you going” and “to which will you reach”! It is not of importance concerning “which subject” you are truthful; be truthful [inevitably and] even in debauchery and corruption!! Be serious, even in committing crimes! According to the esteemed claimant, Kharijites who went to oppose the essence of truth seriously and truthfully, have gone in the path of spirituality! Though they have committed the greatest crime of the history of humanity and spitted the head of Ali (a) who was the criterion to make distinction between true and false, by a sword of silliness. But since they did so seriously and for coming close to God, then they did not commit a crime and thus they should not be blamed; and even they have made a masterpiece and thus should be admired! Today, al-Qaede’s deceitful executioners and Taliban juntas who kill everyday some innocent people should be rewarded!!! If such words were said by another person- other than him-, there would be a tumult raised in every corner that “Ah! Where is toleration?” and “Oh! People of the world! Violence has been theorized”!!!
6/2. Is there no difference between superstitions and theism, atheism and monotheism for you spiritualists? They say clearly: never! And even if, after a not so serious research, they come to the proposition “God exists”, it will be of no value; but if, through a serious and truthful research, they come to the proposition “God does not exist”, then what a great success!
“Truth-seeking”, “justice-searching”, and “loving” spiritualists should be asked: “Then what about the value of truth and justice, and what should love do?”. And, if because of some happy event (and not because of truthfulness and seriousness), one grasps truth, he has to discard it!
6/3. If truth is not, by itself, of value (and inevitably falsity is not per se an anti-value) and even a false gained through truthfulness and seriousness is preferred to a truth acquired without any attempts made, then why do you so insist to prefer and promote spirituality? And why you mention that “It is both true and beneficial”? And why do you promise a paradise made by spirituality? Then, leave people to themselves, and only invite them to truthfulness and seriousness. Then what a need to “In theory, the spiritual man has decided to seek for truth, in practice for justice, and in emotion and feeling for love”.
But, Perfections and Charismatic Acts of People of Spirituality
Speech was lengthened. Concerning perfections and charismatic acts enlisted by the esteemed founder of the project there are many things to say. To avoid from lengthening the speech, however, we leave these points to another time- of course, if there will be such a time. Now, taking into account three lists quoted from him concerning advantages of a spiritual man, we suffice to mention some points in brief:
1- If a spiritual man is altruist, but his altruism is in the service of his selfishness, is there any value for his altruism?
2- If “he is not content with the existing situation”, then why does not he regard his pains and sufferings as pains and sufferings (to not be content with them) and why does he, instead of struggling against evils and sufferings, tolerate them? And this is against selfishness! Perhaps, because of seeking for peace and happiness, he thinks it is better to tolerate and be indifferent!
3- If spiritual man is the most selfish man, how does he consume less than and produce more than every one else? As a rule, less consumption and more production lead to one’s deprivation and elimination of his peace. Because of selfishness and seeking for peace, spiritualists should be the most prosperous, inexperienced, and sluggish people!
4- If a spiritual man lives his life only based on his own understanding, and according to your relativist and pluralist epistemological view, each and every spiritual man, because of his different situation of life, has his own understanding, then there will be in spiritualists’ worlds of theory and practice many opposing and contradicting views. Then what will happen for them? And how can they be put under the same title “spiritualists”? And how will an intellectual-cultural unity govern the world?
5- While the factor making a distinction between spirituality and religion is process-basedness of spirituality and result-basedness of the religion, how may a spiritual man, in theory, seek for truth? In spirituality the subject of seeking is not of importance, the way to seek is important; then what have people of spirituality to do with truth? They have to suffice to, and be happy with, “truthful and serious seeking”, and not “correct approach to truth”!
According to the ideology of spirituality, there is no value for seeking for justice; but rather, “truthful injustice” and “serious oppression” to the oppressed is better than not so serious and truthful justice! To be violent and angry truthfully and seriously is better than to not so truthful and serious love.
6- It is not clear that why three lists (two of them each with seven items, and one of which with twelve items) are not in so agreement; and even, as noted, in some cases they are different and even contradicting.
7- Though the esteemed founder of the project is trying to describe spirituality, then why has not he managed to provide a single list containing all perfections and charismatic acts of the people of spirituality? And finally, it is not clear that how many qualities of the people of spirituality are. Seven? Fourteen or twenty four? Or still more?
In conclusion, I turn to “religious-human conscience” of Mr. M. M. (as a “Muslim” believing in “Islam one”, a “rational” religious man, and modern spiritualist), and ask some questions:
1- Be fair! Have you ever thought (even for a second) about the rational, scientific, religious, and normative consequences of your ideas and views? Do not you think that there will be some persons in the present time and future who will assess your words and judge your personality according to these words? What will be, you think, results from such an assessment? Do not you think it is better for you to assess yourself and refine your words and ideas before others do so?
2- Is it possible to provide a creedal and spiritual system after elimination of “God” and neglect the pivotal place of the Truth- the Exalted- in the world of being as well as in the field of knowledge and life? Is the category of “God” a hypothetical and mentally-posited one so that you and everybody else may instruct to eliminate it from the realm of life and being?
3- If such an instruction is issued by some person or group, will it be followed? Which theist will accept such a call?
4- If your call is accepted by a group, will your ideal of religious or spiritual unity be attained in a global scale? Or, your claims- if successful- will lead to appearance of another sect in addition to the existing ones?
5- We think what you invite other to it is neither spirituality nor religion, nor rationality, nor modernity.
It is not spirituality, since once the Origin and the End are eliminated, there will remain no spirituality in the world and for the world, and no one can think of it, or hope for it.
It is not religion, for because of discrimination between religious teachings (and in particular when dogmas, morality, and jurisprudence are eliminated from the religion) or after replacement of the religions by the self-appointed spirituality, there will remain no religion so that spirituality may be called religion! And then, I wonder whether you and I are allowed to make a religion so that whenever we will we may do so.
It is not rationality, since (as a rule, and according to the critical realism and the hypothesis of equivalence of arguments), neither philosophical and religious certainty nor presentation an argument is possible. And the relative rationality mentioned by you- if theoretically such a thing is possible- is not other than a relativity facing the challenge of standard; and relativity will, actually, destroy rationality and argumentation. You have never provided an argument for your claims. All your sayings are great claims without any reason and argument- this is clear for each and every one who has reviewed your sayings; you have never experienced even one of your teachings; and even, as you admit, you have taken all of them imitatively from ancient religions and quasi-religions; and propositions taken from the (revealed) religion do not, because of untestability and irrationality of the religion, lead to, and accept, the reason. And if you have made some of these propositions; firstly, some of them are not testable in the short-term and during man’s life; and some of others cannot be tested in this world; secondly, you claim that you assess your forged spiritual propositions by your reason; and because of the “original life” and self-thought and self-sought life of the people of spirituality, each and every one is thinking and finding by herself/himself, and behave accordingly. Spiritual man cannot and should not accept anything because of his confidence to others; otherwise he will fall into devotion and imitation! Thirdly, taking into account- as a rule and according to existentialist principles in which you are interested- that human beings lack innate nature and any a priori unifying element; each and every body’s understandings and beliefs are formed under the influence of his historical, cultural, environmental situation as well as his will; and neither inter-mental agreed upon concepts are possible nor one’s instruction is of value for the other so that it may be obeyed! In principle, no rationality may be formed in human societies.
It is not modern, since- as you are well aware- no one of descriptions and recommendations forming your project is brought by the modern man; nor are they products of the modern world; all of them are traditional, and belong to pre-modern age.
Now please say: What will find he who obeys your spiritual instruction?
And if a large group of people accept your words and actualize your teachings, do you know what anarchy will result in the world of spirituality and religion, in the realms of rationality and modernity?
6- How do you believe in your project’s richness, consistency, systematicity and coherence, inclusiveness and certitude, reason-basedness and wisdom, testability and experiencedness, novelty and ability to solve problems, and victory? How will you insist upon truth, firmness, and authority of your claims? And how long will you be loyal to this school? Or, in the same way that you left M. M. one and M. M. two you will leave M. M. three as well? And should we expect for M. M. four? How long will you last in M. M. four?
7- If once upon a time, there will be some people who, obeying your instructions, discard the Origin and the End as well as religion and imitation, and then you reject your current talks, and if there will be a day after today, what will you say to your own conscience and in Divine court about deviation and corruption of them? Will there not be any punishment? Are you not responsible at all? Does not some sort of intelligence, some kind of rule, govern this world? Will not human beings’ various acts and styles be responded in a suitable way?
8. Are you thinking of yourself and other spiritualists as supermen or God-like beings who are able to bring a “new comprehensive and eternal religion” which is needless to revelation and results in a rationality which is free from defects of the traditional religions handed down by the Truth and brought by prophets, so that your religion may solve unsolvable problems of the modern man? When this is not possible for God- we ask forgiveness from God-, is it possible for those modern men “who think of themselves as God”?
9- Do you think that through discrimination in the religion (elimination of the canon law) or decomposition and composition of divine and atheist religions and quasi-religions, a saving prescription may be made for incurable pains of the contemporary man? You instruct to eliminate jurisprudence, morality, and dogmas of religions, and to suffice to internal religious experience of man so that the followers of religions may attain unity and spirituality, and salvation. Have not you, in this way, made some kind of canon law? But an imperfect and immature, idle and shattering, changing and plural canon law!
10- Are your claims consistent with faith in the sealness of the Quranic revelation, inclusive truth of Islam, comprehensiveness and eternity of the last religion…? And if you say that your expressions are made “from an extra-religious and not intra-religious view”, will the problem be solved? For he who has a concern for truth and falsity, it makes no difference that from where he is speaking.
11- Are the religion of Islam, prophetic and Alavi teachings perfect and efficient, spiritual and rational, or claims made by Zen, Buddhism, and Hinduism, Shintoism and other ancient man-made rituals, yoga, Ahsoism, teachings of Sasai Baba and Dalai Lama and other newly-emerged quasi-mysticism? Are you truly thinking that Muhammad (s) and Ali (a) have invited humanity to the historicity, irrationality, and pure imitation? Do not traditional quasi-religions and newly-emerged mysticism invite man to devotion and submission? Having portrayed three images of Islam (one, two, and three) and exculpated “Islam one” (which is according to you unattainable), are you able to avoid horrible epistemic and moral results of your claims?
12- Does not the reason play a role to produce, correct, interpret, and implement the religion and religious knowledge? Is not ijtihad a rational, critical scientific method for Shi’i religiosity and understanding of the religion? And does not imitation (ignorant referring to the expert scholar) count as a rational method? And is there any other option to administrate most affairs of the inexpert majority of people?
13. Does not order to decompose religions (including Islam) mean a permission to alter God’s religion and make discrimination in it? Is speaking of expiration of the age of religions’ efficiency and replacement of the religions (including Islam and Shi’ism) by spirituality (or anything else) consistent with the religion, religiosity, and commitment to prophecy and sanctity?
14- If we assume that you still believe in Islam and committed to it, when there will be a theoretical contradiction and perhaps actual opposition between religious teachings and commands on the one hand and the supposed self-made and newly-emerged school, which one of them will you prefer?
14- Whichever you take as prior, you will shatter the pillars of truth, authority, efficiency, and fruitfulness of the other. And theoretical contradiction between Islam and spiritual claims made by you, people of spirituality, is, if not in a full and “affirmation-negation” manner at least in a relative and “affirmation-affirmation” manner, unavoidable. And if there were no contradiction between religiosity and spirituality, you would not instruct for replacement and elimination!
Conclusion:
Our time is a time of domination of virtual on the various realms of human knowledge and life, including spirituality. Elimination of the Origin and End from the nature and principles of spirituality and deletion of religious teachings from the process of spiritualism as well as separation made between spirituality and religion which is the same as to consider “spirituality without spirituality” are among signs of domination of virtual on the realm of spirituality.
Claims made by the project of rationality and spirituality which is an example of native virtual spiritualism faces many critiques and objections; in the same way that many objections have been raised against the hypothesis of duality of the religion and spirituality.
Since all propositions forming the claimed spirituality are taken from the ancient religions, objections introduced against the religion, including irrationality and its being inconsistent with modernity are either unacceptable or against both the religion and spirituality.
وفّقنا اللّهم لما تحبّ و ترضي و لاتجعلنا من الذين يحسبون انهم يحسنون صنعاً ، و اهدنا الي السّداد و الرشاد، فانّک خير موفق وهاد.