Sie sind auf Seite 1von 14

11/11/13 Dr.

Soroush
webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:lsY_Lo5YaXoJ:www.drsoroush.com/English/Interviews/E-INT-Shariati_June2008.html+&cd=1&hl=en&ct= 1/14
Textonlyversion
ThisisGoogle'scacheofhttp://www.drsoroush.com/English/Interviews/EINTShariati_June2008.html.Itisa
snapshotofthepageasitappearedonOct29,201322:30:46GMT.Thecurrentpagecouldhavechangedin
themeantime.Learnmore
Tip:Toquicklyfindyoursearchtermonthispage,pressCtrl+ForF(Mac)andusethefindbar.

www.drsoroush.com

= ,,>1u,


BacktoMainPage
June2008



WeShouldPursueShariatisPathbutWe
ShouldntbeMereFollowers

AninterviewwithAbdulkarimSoroush

By
RezaKhojastehRahimi


11/11/13 Dr. Soroush
webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:lsY_Lo5YaXoJ:www.drsoroush.com/English/Interviews/E-INT-Shariati_June2008.html+&cd=1&hl=en&ct= 2/14


Q. You were one of the first people, after Dr Shariatis death, to arrive at
the house where he was staying and to see his lifeless face before he was
ultimately laid to rest. It seems that youd had an appointment to see him
a day later but his death prevented it. Id like to ask you to begin by
telling us about your plans for the appointment that never took place.
A. Dr Shariati left Iran for France and we heard that he intended to travel to
Britain although it was still a secret. After a while, we heard from Mr Minachi,
who was a close friend of Dr Shariati and who was in Britain at the time, that
Shariati had arrived and was staying at a friends house. We knew for certain
then and, along with Mr Minachi and another friend, we made plans to go and
visit him. My intention was just to see him and to introduce myself. I had it in
mind to arrange further, longer meetings after that, to discuss some of the key,
revolutionary issues of the time, and to benefit from his presence in Britain.
Unfortunately, the appointment was deferred to the hereafter and the angel of
death didnt allow it to take place.
Q. Had you never met Dr Shariati before? Did you not know him
personally?
A. I didnt know him personally and I dont think Dr Shariati knew me or my
name. I used to go to his talks and read his works. When I was in Iran, I used
to go to the sessions at the Hosseinieh Ershad religious-cultural centre, but Id
never had the opportunity to discuss things with Dr Shariati face-to-face. This
is what made me very eager and enthusiastic at the thought of him coming to
Britain, because it would give me a rare chance to meet him and to talk to him.
In Britain, Muslim and non-Muslim students used to meet regularly and, at
these sessions, Shariatis books used to be discussed. His works had become
like text books and they were constantly being discussed. I used to attend
these sessions and, in all truth, despite the great enthusiasm for Dr Shariatis
views and the many positive points in his works, I also had some critical
views about them. All this made me very eager to see him. But, as I said, our
meeting was deferred to the hereafter.
Q. What was the basis of your critical views about Dr Shariati at the
11/11/13 Dr. Soroush
webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:lsY_Lo5YaXoJ:www.drsoroush.com/English/Interviews/E-INT-Shariati_June2008.html+&cd=1&hl=en&ct= 3/14
time? Didnt your closeness to the Hojjatieh Society and Mr Halabi
himself have a serious impact on your critical views regarding Shariati?
Were your criticisms of him at the time based on a traditionalist
perspective? And were you, for example, of like mind with Ayatollah
Motahhari, who felt that Shariatis views were open to criticism from the
perspective of religious authenticity and religious tradition?
A. To answer your question, I have to go back in my mind to about thirty
years ago. At the time, I didnt know about the late Motahharis criticisms of
Shariati. Those parts of Motahharis criticisms that are available in writing
were published after the revolution and they werent available to us or to
anyone at the time that were speaking about. As for the Hojjatieh, it was
some years since Id left it and I didnt see anything in Dr Shariatis views that
was open to criticism from the perspective of the Hojjatieh anyway; or, at
least, I didnt have any such criticism.
Q. So, what was the basis of your criticism?
A. At the time, when I was in Britain, my mind was full of Islamic philosophy
and Western philosophy. In Iran, Id carried out some studies into Islamic
philosophy and I had acquainted myself, as much as possible, with the views
of Ibn Sina (Avicenna) and, especially, Mulla Sadra. And, in Britain, I was
busy reading analytical philosophy and the philosophy of science. If I saw any
weakness in the works of Dr Shariati, it was from this perspective; from the
perspective of Islamic philosophy and analytical philosophy. I believed that, in
his judgments, he sometimes extended and applied ideas in ways that couldnt
be justified philosophically. Of course, I had the exact same criticism of some
of the views of the Mojahedin-e Khalq. Dont judge the Mojahedin then on
the basis of todays Mojahedin; the Mojahedin then were like an untested
substance that bore an enticing whiff, and they had many supporters among
religious people and Muslims, as well as among the non-religious and non-
Muslims. They were seen as a very respectable militant group. Some
Mojahedin sympathizers were even of the view that Dr Shariati was
favourably disposed towards them and liked their line, and that some of his
talks were delivered with a view to praising the martyrdom of some
Mojahedin members. At the meetings of student associations in Britain and the
European Association of Students, too, the Mojahedins views were being
raised and discussed. I had a critical view of their Epistemology. And a book
of mine, entitled Dialectical Opposition, which was published in Iran, was a
collection of several talks that Id given in Britain in which Id levelled some
criticism, directly, at the Mojahedins viewpoint and, indirectly, at Dr
Shariatis views.
This was because Shariati, too, believed in the dialectics of dialectical
opposition in his analyses of social and historical events, and hed said so
explicitly in his works. Hence, if you look at that book, youll see that, in my
criticism of the theory of dialectical opposition, Id absolutely not followed
the path that Ayatollah Motahhari had taken. My approach was very different
and based on ideas that Id taken from the philosophy of science and
analytical epistemology.
11/11/13 Dr. Soroush
webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:lsY_Lo5YaXoJ:www.drsoroush.com/English/Interviews/E-INT-Shariati_June2008.html+&cd=1&hl=en&ct= 4/14
Q. Did your entire criticism of Shariati rest on this basis?
A. My criticisms of Dr Shariati were two-pronged: one, from a philosophical
perspective, and the other, from an exegetic perspective. I could see that, in Dr
Shariatis works, there were very few references to the Koran and the Nahj al-
Balaghah, and to the ideas of Islamic thinkers as a whole. And I considered
this to be a serious weakness and shortcoming in his work, and the polar
opposite of the late Mehdi Bazargan, whose works were full of Koranic
references and verses. Today, I can say that what Dr Shariati did was to
produce a revolutionary Islam. But, at the time, I didnt have this
interpretation. At the time, what I could see was that, first, the role of the
Koran and sacred Islamic texts was weak and faint in his works. And,
secondly, that, philosophically speaking, too, his arguments were not sturdy.
And, thirdly, even at the time, I felt that the element of selectivity was very
strong in Shariatis works; a ruinous selectivity.
Q. In what sense?
A. Dr Shariati would choose and adopt those elements from the history of
Islam and Islamic thought that were in keeping with his aim, which was to
make Islam revolutionary. I understood this point more vaguely at the time
and more clearly now.
Q. Can you give us an example?
A. Yes, for example, Shariatis master stroke was to bring to life the tale of
Ashura and Imam Hussain, Zainabs captivity and the captivity of Imam
Hussains kith and kin, and the events of Karbala as a whole. He was, in all
fairness, an expert - with a magical touch - when it came to cultivating this
story and bringing Shiis blood to the boil; no one has been able to surpass
him in this. But the point that I think is open to criticism in all this is that Imam
Hussains way was an exception, not the rule, among Shii Imams and
Shariati turned this exception into the rule and a principle. If you look at Imam
Alis way - and, according to Shii belief, Imam Ali was the direct inheritor of
the noble Prophet of Islams mantle - he had a different approach to the events
that occurred. In the Nahj al-Balaghah, we can see that even after the third
caliph was killed and the people went to see Imam Ali, he said: Go and find
someone else for the job; its better if Im a minister or an adviser than if Im
the emir or ruler. This was Imam Alis way. As to Imam Hassans way, as
you know it ultimately led to peace with Muawiyah. And you can see the
other Imams ways - none of them opted for war and fighting. And even
Imam Reza, for whatever reason, agreed to become Mamuns heir apparent.
Perhaps from the ranks of the Shii Imams, it was the seventh Imam who had
a similar approach to Imam Hussain to some extent and he spent most of his
life in Haroun al-Rashids prison and he ultimately died in that prison. So,
from the eleven Imams on hand - we cant speak about the Hidden Imam in
this context - Imam Hussains way was an exceptional way in the history of
the Shii Imams. But Shariati made a blatant selection and he wrote the history
of Shiism in a way that no neutral historian can possibly endorse. The history
of Shiism mustnt be written from the perspective of Imam Hussains
movement alone; his movement was an exception in the history of Shiism,
11/11/13 Dr. Soroush
webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:lsY_Lo5YaXoJ:www.drsoroush.com/English/Interviews/E-INT-Shariati_June2008.html+&cd=1&hl=en&ct= 5/14
not the rule. Of course, Shariati knew what he was doing. In order to construct
a revolutionary Islam or to reconcile Islam with revolution, he had the utmost
need for the events of Karbala; just as he had a similar need for the figure of
Abu-Zarr. From the entire history of Islam, Shariati liked Abu-Zarr and he
liked Imam Hussain. Of course, he also had great respect for Imam Ali and he
used to weep for his aloneness. Perhaps, in Ali, with whom he shared a name,
he saw a father figure who personified and embodied his feelings. This
approach in Dr Shariatis thinking made me critical of him.
Q. You mean to say that you had these criticisms at the time, when you
were in Britain, and you were aware of this aspect of Dr Shariatis
thinking?
A. Yes, I had this criticism, even at the time, of his selectivity.
Q. In order to go into this in more detail, we can remind ourselves of the
different sets of people who were taking critical stances towards Shariati
at the time. Ayatollah Motahhari had this same criticism; i.e., selectivity
and not being correctly based on our religious narratives. Then there
was the Haqqani School, where Ayatollah Mesbah-Yazdi - of course,
often much more bluntly - was describing Shariatis perspective on
religious matters as contrary to Shii beliefs. And these criticisms of his
had stirred up some quarrels at Haqqani School. Then there was
someone like Mehdi Bazargan, who, although he had a different outlook
on religion from Motahhari and Mesbah-Yazdi, was not very optimistic
about the authenticity of Shariatis religious views. And the fact that he
and Motahhari issued a critical statement about Shariati testified to this
dissatisfaction. Which of these factions did you feel closer to at the time in
your criticism of Shariati? To Mr Mesbah-Yazdis faction? Mr
Motahharis? Mr Bazargans?
A. At the time, I was hearing some things about what Mesbah-Yazdi and
Motahhari were saying, although the reports may not always have been
reliable. I heard that Mehdi Bazargans criticism of Shariati was that hed
fallen under the spell of left-wing ideas. But I think that Dr Shariati had taken
Bazargans course to its ultimate conclusion. But it seems that Bazargans
course had some difficulties, which Shariati tried to solve to some extent by
making Islam revolutionary. But the things that Mesbah-Yazdi was reportedly
saying - and I also saw him for a brief period in London - were very different.
Mesbah-Yazdi was very mistrustful and suspicious of Shariati. And he used to
make angry, unsubstantiated allegations against Shariati, and considered his
views to amount, more or less, to blasphemy. As for Ayatollah Motahharis
criticisms, as we later saw plainly and explicitly, they were based on the
contention that Shariati was not knowledgeable enough about Islamic
teachings. But Motahhari later said some things in London that went further
than a scholarly stance against Shariati. He said that Shariati was openly
cooperating with SAVAK and that even his decision to go abroad was
coordinated and endorsed by SAVAK. And that Shariati was weaving some
plots and that, to this end, he intended to travel to other Islamic countries.
These were points that I heard directly from Motahhari. Later on, I saw that
Motahhari had written a letter to Mr Khomeini - quite some time before
11/11/13 Dr. Soroush
webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:lsY_Lo5YaXoJ:www.drsoroush.com/English/Interviews/E-INT-Shariati_June2008.html+&cd=1&hl=en&ct= 6/14
Shariatis death - in which he said more or less the same thing, i.e., warning of
a plot by Shariati. And he even expressed pleasure over Dr Shariatis death
and said that it was a kind of blessing from God. It goes without saying that I
didnt agree with this kind of criticism of Shariati, which was being made by
Motahhari and Mesbah-Yazdi. But, at the opposite end, Dr Shariati had
friends and supporters who did not allow the slightest criticism of him and
indulged in all manner of exaggerations about him; exaggerations that Shariati
himself didnt like. And, in the midst of all this devotion and enmity, Shariatis
position and ideas were not safeguarded and understood as well as they
should have been. Of course, were still in the throes of this predicament, until
a time when all the dust has settled and Dr Shariatis personality and works
can be seen in a new light. I was and am certain that Motahhari and Mesbah-
Yazdi were going too far in their assessments of Shariati, and that the
signatures that they collected against Shariati among the ulema - which sadly
also included the late Allameh Tabatabais signature - was inappropriate and
improper.
Q. Did you not speak about this to the late Tabatabai?
A. The impression that Allameh Tabatabai had of Dr Shariatis works was
very strange. When I saw Tabatabais signature among the other signatures, I
became very keen to learn exactly what his view of this whole affair was and
why he was rejecting and denouncing Shariati. Tabatabai had written that, in
the book entitled Kavir, Shariati had used phrases that suggested that he was
trying to stake a claim to prophethood. I was very surprised by this view.
Shariati had written a poetic book and anyone who reads it understands that
everything hes saying has a metaphorical, figurative and poetic aspect. How
could those writing be used to accuse Shariati of staking a false claim to
prophethood?
In those heated, seditious times, any impression and any occurrence was
possible. Let me add that we should weep over the living, not over the dead.
The late Shariati performed his work and left this world, and criticism of him
is a sign of his stature.
Q. At about the time when Dr Shariati passed away, Ayatollah
Motahhari was apparently visiting London. Did he attend the
ceremonies and services that were held there for Shariati?
A. Ayatollah Motahhari didnt take part in those ceremonies and services.
Allameh Tabatabai had come to London for medical treatment about a month
before Shariati died and I was acting as his interpreter. I used to take him to
the doctor and to hospital and back. And, of course, it was a very happy time
for me because it gave me the chance to discuss some things with him
privately and to raise some questions that I had. Motahhari came to London
towards the end of Allameh Tabatabais stay, which coincided with the days
after Shariatis demise when a big march was held in London as a sign of
respect. And an empty coffin was carried aloft through the streets followed by
a huge crowd of young people, who had come from all over Europe and the
United States. It was a truly exceptional and memorable image. At any rate,
when Ayatollah Motahhari arrived in London and was staying at a friends
11/11/13 Dr. Soroush
webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:lsY_Lo5YaXoJ:www.drsoroush.com/English/Interviews/E-INT-Shariati_June2008.html+&cd=1&hl=en&ct= 7/14
house, I spoke to him on the phone. He told me - using precisely this phrase -
I dont intend to surface. And he truly didnt surface until all the ceremonies
were over. And Shaykh Shams-al-Din, the head of Lebanese Shiis Supreme
Council, was in London about that time. He took a message, from some of the
Iranian friends who were there, to Hafiz al-Assad and, in this way, Shariatis
body was taken to Syria for burial and the commotion died down a bit. It was
after that that Motahhari surfaced, as he put it.
Q. How did the young people and the students there receive Ayatollah
Motahhari?
A. Even before hed surfaced, so to speak, the atmosphere in London and
Europe was so turbulent that it didnt really allow people to benefit from
Ayatollah Motahharis presence much. Far from receiving him
enthusiastically, young people were even disrespectful to him on occasion.
And I think that when Motahhari returned to Iran from that visit, he was more
offended than happy.
Q. At the time - for example, when you spoke to him on the phone as you
said - did you have an argument of any kind? Did you attack him in any
way?
A. No, I didnt argue with him because there was no room for argument and it
was clear why he didnt want to surface. Of course, in London, Ayatollah
Motahhari had taken part in a gathering that was not looked on favourably by
Islamic and revolutionary students. After hed attended that gathering, I said a
few words to him on the phone and I criticized his decision a bit. I complained
to him in a friendly way although it seems that even this friendly complaint
upset him, since, after returning from London, he, in turn, complained about
me to Mr Haddad-Adel. When Mr Haddad-Adel told me, I responded with
the following verse: Tell the tavern master, if our words have caused offence: /
Bring out the goblets and well be there anon to offer our apologies
Q. Can you tell us about the nature of the gathering that Ayatollah
Motahhari had attended which had upset the students and led to
criticism from them and from you?
A. The late Ayatollah Golpayegani had bought a venue in London which still
exists. And hed put someone in charge of it who was neither a religious
scholar nor a revolutionary. I wont mention his name now. And, of course,
this venue was operating as an alternative to the Islamic association of
students. Some of the students tried to inform Ayatollah Golpayeganis office
and to let him know what was going on there. I even recall that one of
Ayatollah Golpayeganis children came to London to look into things but it
didnt solve anything. So, the members of the Islamic associations of students
were against that venue and didnt take part in the sessions that were being
held there. The people who did take part were mostly - for example - retired
army personnel from the Shahs regime or people for whom religiosity was
just a kind of pastime. The revolutionary youngsters of the time didnt like
sessions of this kind at all and couldnt stand them. They saw them as an insult
to religion and religiosity. Bear in mind that those youngsters were mainly
11/11/13 Dr. Soroush
webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:lsY_Lo5YaXoJ:www.drsoroush.com/English/Interviews/E-INT-Shariati_June2008.html+&cd=1&hl=en&ct= 8/14
students or even disciples of Shariati. Their view of religion meant that they
considered those sessions to be positively fraudulent and dangerous. Ayatollah
Motahharis participation in one of those sessions was intolerable to them. I
criticized him gently and conveyed the students message to him. I told him
that they had not liked his approach. Over the phone, Motahhari replied: I
know. The youngsters are radical and make extremist judgments. In Iran, too,
if I hold a meeting with Ayatollah Seyyed Ahmad Khansari, they object
because they dont consider him revolutionary, whereas every figure and
every venue has its own place. At any rate, I conveyed Motahharis response
to the students, although they didnt find it convincing. And, as I said,
Ayatollah Motahhari was, in turn, upset by my friendly complaint.
Q. Moving on to the time after Shariati had passed away and after the
Islamic revolution, to the 1980s, when speaking about Shariati and
praising him were not all that easy and trouble free, you used to praise
him and keep his memory alive in your talks on various occasions, on the
anniversary of his death and his departure from Iran. But, later, your
talks and views about Shariati took on a critical flavour and you started
criticizing Shariati in his capacity as an ideological thinker. This was in
circumstances in which earlier - for example, in your book entitled
Satanic Ideology - youd spoken about Islamic ideology in your rejection
of Marxism and youd set out to defend and explain Islamic ideology. I
wanted to ask you how this change came about? How did it come about
that you distanced yourself from ideological thinking and also started
criticizing Shariati?
A. It would take quite some time to explain it all. Ive always had and do have
great respect for Shariati. In my first public talk about Dr Shariati - which, as
you said, went against the grain at the time - I said at Mashhad University that
he had possessed the three qualities of courage, compassion and artistry, and
that these qualities had been the key to his success. I stand by that verdict to
this day and my view hasnt changed at all. But Dr Shariati, like any other
human being, can be criticized and should be criticized. We always have a
duty to break idols. As to why I became critical later on, there were two
reasons for this. First, I arrived at this later stance through a gradual process
and anyone who is a thinker has periods and stages of development in their
thinking. So, in one of the stages of my thinking, I gradually came across the
question of ideology. I want to say, here and now, that, at the time, I was
absolutely not aware of the things that had been written in the world against
ideology; I mean the things that had been said in the world specifically under
the banner of the end of ideology. Later on, some people said: That fellows
remarks coincided with the thesis of the end of ideology in the world.
Maybe so, but I was absolutely not aware of that stuff. In much the same way,
immediately after I wrote my theory of contraction and expansion and
published it, some people said: That fellows theories are like Gadamers
theories or were derived from him. Whereas, I didnt know about Gadamers
views at the time.
Q. Along the same lines, there are of course people who say that, after
the revolution, it was first Mr Dariush Shayegan who wrote a book in
French, which hasnt been translated into Persian of course, criticizing
11/11/13 Dr. Soroush
webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:lsY_Lo5YaXoJ:www.drsoroush.com/English/Interviews/E-INT-Shariati_June2008.html+&cd=1&hl=en&ct= 9/14
the ideological perspective and he devoted a part of his book to criticizing
Shariati and his ideological perspective. These people suggest that you
may well have been influenced by that book in your criticism of Shariati.
Although it has to be said that that book is hardly ever mentioned these
days and Mr Shayegans book isnt well known among Persian-speaking
academics, even though it was the first of its kind.
A. I dont see much point in discussing this issue at all. Im not trying to prove
that I was the first person or the last person to make this criticism. I have no
such claims to being the first or the last. You can assume that dozens of people
had raised this notion before me. What difference does it make whether I was
the first or the second? But, in order to clarify things, let me say that, in all
earnest, if anyone was influenced by the global discussion about the end of
ideology, it was likely to have been Mr Shayegan who wrote his book in
Europe and was aware of those views. Secondly, I absolutely didnt know
about Mr Shayegans views at the time. Most importantly, Mr Shayegan uses
ideology in one sense and I use it in another sense. Ive explained in my
book what I mean by ideology. There may well be common points, but, at any
rate, I wasnt following the thesis of the end of ideology and was setting out
my own views. My tale isnt a tale of trying to prove that Im superior or that I
was the first. In the course of my thinking, I arrived at the view that what Dr
Shariati was talking about was a bid to make religion ideological. And I
believe that the main point, when youre making religion ideological, is not to
search for truth, but to instigate movement. And I said that, if Shariati
bypasses Ibn Sina and turns his back on him and chooses to turn to Abu-Zarr,
this is precisely a turning away from truth and a turning towards movement. It
was at this point that both my philosophical understanding and my practical
experience were telling me that making religion ideological is not a good thing
to do. My practical experience consisted of what I had learnt, since the Islamic
revolution, about the track record of an ideological religion in society. Two
elements have had a direct impact on my thinking and approach, especially
after the revolution: one is the track record of a revolutionary religion in
Iranian society and, the second, my philosophical reserves, including Islamic
philosophy and Western and analytical philosophy. In my treatment of
Shariati, too, these two elements - practical experience and my theoretical
reserves - helped me see the fissure and crack in the castle of his thinking.
Q. A while back, in a talk entitled The Tradition of Religious
Intellectualism, you enumerated some of the characteristics of religious
intellectuals which suggested a specific, structured view of a concept
known as religious intellectual. For example, you said that religious
intellectuals must not place too big a burden on religions shoulders, that
they have to take into account that there are numerous readings of
religion, that they no longer seek to extract modern ideas from religious
texts today. I was wondering whether, in view of the definition that you
presented in that talk, you still consider Shariati to be a religious
intellectual or not?
A. Why shouldnt we consider Shariati a religious intellectual? Of course,
religious intellectuals may have different projects or opt for different routes.
They may present different answers to a single question. But this doesnt
11/11/13 Dr. Soroush
webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:lsY_Lo5YaXoJ:www.drsoroush.com/English/Interviews/E-INT-Shariati_June2008.html+&cd=1&hl=en&ct 10/14
mean that they no longer fall under the umbrella and banner of religious
intellectualism. Shariati cared about religion and he had an understanding of
religion. He wanted to live as a Muslim in the contemporary world. And he
had courage. He was not only an intellectual [rowshanfekr] but also an
enlightener [rowshangar]. He was, without a doubt, a religious intellectual.
But, in his day, a religious intellectual sought to reconcile Islam with
revolution, and, in our day, a religious intellectual seeks to reconcile Islam
with democracy. And reconciling Islam with democracy means showing how
one can live as a Muslim in a democratic state and explaining the theoretical
foundations for this.
Dr Shariati did not spend much time on explaining theoretical foundations. As
I said, he was more interested in creating movement. Of course, you mustnt
forget that, when we criticize Dr Shariati, we dont mean to undermine or
disparage him. He was, after all, only 44 when he passed away and he did
most of his work when he was under 40. It would be utterly unfair if we were
to disparage his efforts. But, if were to find our own way, we have to have a
good understanding of the routes that people were taking before us and also
recognize their wrong turnings.
Q. You referred to Shariatis age and his youth. Some of Shariatis
supporters say that his critics do not take into account the changes in his
ideas over time and that they fail to consider, for example, to what stage
in this process of development a particular remark by Shariati belongs.
Based on this view, in the final stage of his life, for example, i.e., the
period after he was last released from prison, Shariatis ideas had
undergone some changes, which are rarely taken into account. They say,
for example, that, at this stage, Shariati was against intellectuals
becoming involved in guerrilla activities, described revolution as
premature and seriously dissociated himself from the Mojahedin-e Khalq
and groups that believed in armed struggle. Whereas, Shariatis critics
ignore this change and continue to base their criticism on Shariatis ideas
before the time he spent in prison and even on his ideas when he was
very young.
A. Ive never criticized Shariati in this way myself and I have taken these
things into account. The things that Ive said have never been related to him
moving closer to or further away from the Mojahedin-e Khalq anyway. It isnt
very difficult to find the main headings of Shariatis ideas. Even if there was
some opportunity for changes in his ideas, he didnt have much success to this
end, because he didnt live very long. He was young when he died and he had
little opportunity for change. In his youth, he became acquainted with our
societys ills. Then, he went to France, where, in view of the openness there,
he became acquainted with Algerian militants and was influenced by Sartres
existentialist ideas and left-wing views. Moreover, he had also been
influenced as a child by his father and his familys religious views and had
become acquainted with Islam and the history of Islam. These were his mental
reserves and experiences, and the changes in his ideas can be assessed within
this framework. He didnt go beyond this framework. Yes, of course, Shariati,
like others - and he was much more intelligent than others - knew his
environment well and learnt lessons from his experiences. It goes without
11/11/13 Dr. Soroush
webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:lsY_Lo5YaXoJ:www.drsoroush.com/English/Interviews/E-INT-Shariati_June2008.html+&cd=1&hl=en&ct 11/14
saying that he did not hold fast to a particular stance in a reactionary way. But
my criticism of Shariati was unrelated to these changes. Shariatis selectivity
and, for example, his treatment of Ashura and the Karbala uprising was an
unchanging element of his thinking and his work. Shariati never changed his
view about making religion ideological and never withdrew it. Ive said before
and will say it again: We should pursue Shariatis path, but we shouldnt be
mere followers. We have to understand the logic of what he was doing; both
its weakness and its strength. Pursuing distinguished peoples path doesnt
mean following their weaknesses.
Q. If you wanted to enumerate your differences with Shariati, what
general points would you list?
A. This is a long story. Ive said plainly and briefly somewhere that Dr
Shariati was making religion corpulent, whereas Im making it slim. Making
religion corpulent was to make it ideological and raise peoples expectations
of religion. But I truly try to lower peoples expectations of religion. Dr
Shariati was making religion very this-worldly. He used to say that if religion
doesnt serve any purpose in this world, it wont serve any purpose in the
other world either. But Im of the view that religion is, basically and
fundamentally, for ameliorating our hereafter. If human beings faced no
afterlife, they wouldnt have a religion and God wouldnt send them prophets.
Religions main teachings prepare people for the afterlife. Dr Shariati wanted
to put religion in the position of a constituent assembly or founding father; in
other words, to extract a new ruling system out of religion. Dr Shariati, like
Sayyid Qutb, equated the entire world with the system of the age of ignorance
and he wanted to extract a counter-system out of Islam. I truly dont hold such
a view. I believe that we can live with religion but that we cant use religion as
a source and a reservoir for life. We can simply obtain an outlook from
religion and lend life a spirit with the outlook; I dont think we can lend life
a shape with the outlook. Of course, there are other differences too. Dr
Shariati didnt care about religions theological and philosophical foundations;
he even mocked philosophy. Of course, this may have been related to the
early stages of his thought. Shariati wasnt even particularly acquainted with
Islamic mysticism, as we can see from his works. I know that he liked Rumi
and he even said once: Had it not been for Rumi, there were several occasions
when I would have committed suicide. He seems to have been fond of Rumi
and held him in high esteem, but I cant see Rumis traces in Shariatis work.
Conversely, Im very heedful of these foundations and very sensitive to them.
Let me underline again that no blame or reprimand attaches to Shariati.
Neither his theoretical reserves, nor the ills of his time nor his short life
allowed him to be heedful of these things.
Q. Can we not add to these differences Shariatis socialist perspective
and your liberal one?
A. Yes, you can. Of course, I dont consider liberalism and socialism to be
opposites. And this isnt the place to discuss this issue. Liberalism is a kind of
negative freedom and socialism is a kind of positive freedom. And, as you
know, negative freedom isnt at odds with positive freedom in any way.
Liberalism wants to leave us free and to remove obstacles. But socialism says:
11/11/13 Dr. Soroush
webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:lsY_Lo5YaXoJ:www.drsoroush.com/English/Interviews/E-INT-Shariati_June2008.html+&cd=1&hl=en&ct 12/14
Now that youve left us free and removed the obstacles, we want to use our
freedom to build a socialist society. In a way, socialism means using negative
freedom to build a system which is a kind of embodiment of positive freedom.
I dont want to offer any good advice now on whether socialism is a good
system or not. Both capitalism and socialism have more or less shown what
they are made of. Socialism has shown that it leads to a heartless and criminal
centralism. And combining socialism with democracy is so difficult that, not
just me, but almost no one knows how to achieve it. Once, when I was taking
part in a seminar on democracy in Czechoslovakia about 15 years ago, I met
Ernest Gellner, the famous British anthropologist. He is acquainted with Islam
to some extent, as well as with analytical philosophy and sociology. We spoke
together about socialism and democracy. He said some good things. First, he
said: I like Mr Khomeini a great deal and I like his personality and courage,
although I may not necessarily like his theories. Secondly, about socialism and
democracy, he said: I like both of them but I absolutely dont know how they
can be combined and theres no such theory yet.
I, too, have been unable to find any clear way of combining the two.
Although, as an ideal, many people prefer social democracy to capitalist
systems. Of course, you mustnt forget that Dr Shariatis writings really gave a
sense of disparaging democracy. I know that some of his students dont like it
when I say this. But let me say that what we really need today, especially in
Iran, is an unqualified democracy. The moment you add a qualification to it,
regardless of your reason and consideration, youll ultimately make it
ineffective. So, I absolutely dont approve of Dr Shariatis unkindness to
democracy and I believe that we have to replace it with a serious commitment
to democracy. We must defend it and we must not in any way qualify it or
make it conditional. We should recognize that, with democracy, human rights
and justice will also follow.
Q. But, a few years ago, you spoke about minimal democracy and
maximal democracy, and you defended minimal democracy for Iran in
the current circumstances. Do you mean to say that youve now come to
the conclusion that this distinction wasnt useful?
A. No, this distinction was something else. What I said was that, at the present
time, in our society, we can talk about minimal democracy; that is to say, a
democracy that isnt accompanied by all the aspects of liberalism, but at least
contains the possibility of installing and removing officials, and which allows
opposition to tyranny, satisfies human rights and is even very compatible with
Islamic ideas, so that it neednt frighten any religious people. I said that we
should begin with this in terms of a practical tactic and, of course, we could
then take further steps.
Q. Id like to conclude by returning to the subject we started with: Dr Ali
Shariatis death. Id be grateful if you could tell us about your
observations on that day when you saw his body.
A. Ive spoken about this elsewhere and Ill explain it briefly now: On the
morning when we headed from London to Southampton to see Shariati, we
were accompanied by Mr Minachi and another friend. We arrived in
11/11/13 Dr. Soroush
webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:lsY_Lo5YaXoJ:www.drsoroush.com/English/Interviews/E-INT-Shariati_June2008.html+&cd=1&hl=en&ct 13/14
Southampton and the house at which Shariati had been staying. We saw the
late Shariatis daughters, who were dressed in black and had their backs
pressed to the wall like frightened sparrows. The owner of the house was a Mr
Fakouhi. I think he is related to the sociologist by the same name who lives in
Iran. We went to the hospital with Mr Fakouhi. Mr Minachi and I entered the
cold room and I saw Dr Shariatis body lying in one of the many drawers that
they had there. He looked very serene and there werent any signs of injury on
his face or body. He had long hair, down to his shoulders. I had never seen
Shariati looking so imposing. He looked very serene. I controlled myself but
Mr Minachi was unable to hold back his tears. We left the cold room together
and went back to London. Dr Shariatis body was brought to London after the
autopsy. Mr Mojtahed-Shabestari, who was the congregational prayer leader
of the mosque in Hamburg, had come to London, unaware of Shariatis
demise. Once he learnt about it in London, it was decided that we would wash
the late Shariatis body together. They had laid out his body in one of
Londons mosques. Mr Shabestari and I went there. Messrs Yazdi and
Qotbzadeh joined us. All four of us washed the body and wrapped it in a
shroud. It was placed in a coffin and we joined the crowd of mourners at the
Kanoon-e Towhid.
Q. You didnt see any suspicious markings on Shariatis body?
A. There was no sign of a suspicious death whatsoever. Of course, our view
cant serve as evidence. They had carried out a full autopsy and it was
declared in the hospitals report that there were no signs of anything
suspicious. Of course, heart attacks usually dont leave any marks. There
hadnt been anything suspicious during the short time that Shariati had spent
in Southampton either; no suspicious phone calls, no suspicious visitors, no
incident that would suggest that someone had identified the house he was
staying at and had some evil intention. This was why I said later that,
regarding Shariatis death, like that of Samad Behrangi and Jalal Al-e Ahmad
and Mr Mostafa Khomeini, rumours abounded which were a product of the
revolutionary climate before the Islamic revolution. Everyone wished to blame
any big or small mistake on the Shahs regime and what could be better and
more auspicious than blaming Shariatis death or Mostafa Khomeinis death
on SAVAK. As I recall, Ayatollah Khomeini himself said at the time that he
hadnt heard anything that would make him doubt that Mostafa had died a
natural death. I imagine that Dr Shariati, too, died a natural death. Hed
suffered a great deal and he smoked a lot. His secret departure from Iran was
accompanied by a great deal of stress. All of this combined may well have led
to him having a heart attack. God knows. At any rate, the this-worldly file of a
historical individual was closed and, in the words of Iqbal of Lahore: Theres
many a poet who after death / closes their eyes and opens ours
Translated from the Persian by Nilou Mobasser

11/11/13 Dr. Soroush
webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:lsY_Lo5YaXoJ:www.drsoroush.com/English/Interviews/E-INT-Shariati_June2008.html+&cd=1&hl=en&ct 14/14



BacktoInterviewswithDr.Soroush

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen