soroush on shari'ati - interview.pdf

8/14/2019 Soroush on Shari'ati - interview.pdf

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/soroush-on-shariati-interviewpdf 1/14

11/11/13 Dr. Soroush

webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=c ache:lsY_Lo5YaXoJ:www.drsoroush.com/English/Interviews/E-INT-Shariati_June2008.html+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=…

Text-only version

This is Google's cache of http://www.drsoroush.com/English/Interviews/E-INT-Shariati_June2008.html . It is asnapshot of the page as it appeared on Oct 29, 2013 22:30:46 GMT. The current page could have changed inthe meantime. Learn more

Tip: To quickly find your search term on this page, press Ctrl+F or⌘-F (Mac) and use the find bar.

.drsoroush.com

و

Back to Main Page

June 2008

We Should Pursue Shariati’s Path but We

Shouldn’t be Mere Followers

An interview with Abdulkarim Soroush By Reza Khojasteh-Rahimi

http://www.drsoroush.com/English.htm

http://www.drsoroush.com/English.htm

http://www.drsoroush.com/Persian.htm

http://support.google.com/websearch/bin/answer.py?hl=en&p=cached&answer=1687222

http://www.drsoroush.com/English/Interviews/E-INT-Shariati_June2008.html

http://www.drsoroush.com/English/Interviews/E-INT-Shariati_June2008.html

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:lsY_Lo5YaXoJ:www.drsoroush.com/English/Interviews/E-INT-Shariati_June2008.html&hl=en&gl=us&strip=1




webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=c ache:lsY_Lo5YaXoJ:www.drsoroush.com/English/Interviews/E-INT-Shariati_June2008.html+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=… 2

Q. You were one of the first people, after Dr Shariati’s death, to arrive atthe house where he was staying and to see his lifeless face before he wasultimately laid to rest. It seems that you’d had an appointment to see him

a day later but his death prevented it. I’d like to ask you to begin bytelling 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 toBritain 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, thatShariati had arrived and was staying at a friend’s house. We knew for certainthen and, along with Mr Minachi and another friend, we made plans to go andvisit him. My intention was just to see him and to introduce myself. I had it inmind 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 didn’t allow it to take place.

Q. Had you never met Dr Shariati before? Did you not know himpersonally?

A. I didn’t know him personally and I don’t think Dr Shariati knew me or myname. I used to go to his talks and read his works. When I was in Iran, I usedto go to the sessions at the Hosseinieh Ershad religious-cultural centre, but I’dnever 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 toBritain, 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, atthese sessions, Shariati’s books used to be discussed. His works had becomelike text books and they were constantly being discussed. I used to attendthese sessions and, in all truth, despite the great enthusiasm for Dr Shariati’sviews and the many positive points in his works, I also had some criticalviews about them. All this made me very eager to see him. But, as I said, ourmeeting was deferred to the hereafter.

Q. What was the basis of your critical views about Dr Shariati at the





time? Didn’t your closeness to the Hojjatieh Society and Mr Halabihimself have a serious impact on your critical views regarding Shariati?Were your criticisms of him at the time based on a traditionalistperspective? And were you, for example, of like mind with AyatollahMotahhari, who felt that Shariati’s views were open to criticism from theperspective 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 didn’t know about the late Motahhari’s criticisms of Shariati. Those parts of Motahhari’s criticisms that are available in writingwere published after the revolution and they weren’t available to us or toanyone at the time that we’re speaking about. As for the Hojjatieh, it wassome years since I’d left it and I didn’t see anything in Dr Shariati’s views thatwas open to criticism from the perspective of the Hojjatieh anyway; or, atleast, I didn’t 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, I’d carried out some studies into Islamicphilosophy and I had acquainted myself, as much as possible, with the viewsof Ibn Sina (Avicenna) and, especially, Mulla Sadra. And, in Britain, I wasbusy reading analytical philosophy and the philosophy of science. If I saw anyweakness in the works of Dr Shariati, it was from this perspective; from theperspective of Islamic philosophy and analytical philosophy. I believed that, inhis judgments, he sometimes extended and applied ideas in ways that couldn’tbe justified philosophically. Of course, I had the exact same criticism of someof the views of the Mojahedin-e Khalq. Don’t judge the Mojahedin then onthe basis of today’s Mojahedin; the Mojahedin then were like an untested

substance that bore an enticing whiff, and they had many supporters amongreligious people and Muslims, as well as among the non-religious and non-Muslims. They were seen as a very respectable militant group. SomeMojahedin sympathizers were even of the view that Dr Shariati wasfavourably disposed towards them and liked their line, and that some of histalks were delivered with a view to praising the martyrdom of someMojahedin members. At the meetings of student associations in Britain and theEuropean Association of Students, too, the Mojahedin’s views were beingraised and discussed. I had a critical view of their Epistemology. And a bookof mine, entitled Dialectical Opposition, which was published in Iran, was acollection of several talks that I’d given in Britain in which I’d levelled some

criticism, directly, at the Mojahedin’s viewpoint and, indirectly, at DrShariati’s views.

This was because Shariati, too, believed in the dialectics of dialecticalopposition in his analyses of social and historical events, and he’d said soexplicitly in his works. Hence, if you look at that book, you’ll see that, in mycriticism of the theory of “dialectical opposition”, I’d absolutely not followedthe path that Ayatollah Motahhari had taken. My approach was very differentand based on ideas that I’d taken from the philosophy of science andanalytical epistemology.





Q. Did your entire criticism of Shariati rest on this basis?

A. My criticisms of Dr Shariati were two-pronged: one, from a philosophicalperspective, and the other, from an exegetic perspective. I could see that, in DrShariati’s 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 consideredthis to be a serious weakness and shortcoming in his work, and the polaropposite of the late Mehdi Bazargan, whose works were full of Koranic

references and verses. Today, I can say that what Dr Shariati did was toproduce a revolutionary Islam. But, at the time, I didn’t have thisinterpretation. At the time, what I could see was that, first, the role of theKoran 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 verystrong in Shariati’s 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 tomake Islam revolutionary. I understood this point more vaguely at the timeand more clearly now.

Q. Can you give us an example?

A. Yes, for example, Shariati’s master stroke was to bring to life the tale of Ashura and Imam Hussain, Zainab’s captivity and the captivity of ImamHussain’s kith and kin, and the events of Karbala as a whole. He was, in allfairness, an expert - with a magical touch - when it came to cultivating this

story and bringing Shi’is’ blood to the boil; no one has been able to surpasshim in this. But the point that I think is open to criticism in all this is that ImamHussain’s way was an exception, not the rule, among Shi’i Imams andShariati turned this exception into the rule and a principle. If you look at ImamAli’s way - and, according to Shi’i belief, Imam Ali was the direct inheritor of the noble Prophet of Islam’s mantle - he had a different approach to the eventsthat occurred. In the Nahj al-Balaghah, we can see that even after the thirdcaliph was killed and the people went to see Imam Ali, he said: “Go and findsomeone else for the job; it’s better if I’m a minister or an adviser than if I’mthe emir or ruler.” This was Imam Ali’s way. As to Imam Hassan’s way, asyou know it ultimately led to peace with Mu’awiyah. And you can see the

other Imams’ ways - none of them opted for war and fighting. And evenImam Reza, for whatever reason, agreed to become Ma’mun’s heir apparent.Perhaps from the ranks of the Shi’i Imams, it was the seventh Imam who hada similar approach to Imam Hussain to some extent and he spent most of hislife in Haroun al-Rashid’s prison and he ultimately died in that prison. So,from the eleven Imams on hand - we can’t speak about the Hidden Imam inthis context - Imam Hussain’s way was an exceptional way in the history of the Shi’i Imams. But Shariati made a blatant selection and he wrote the historyof Shi’ism in a way that no neutral historian can possibly endorse. The historyof Shi’ism mustn’t be written from the perspective of Imam Hussain’smovement alone; his movement was an exception in the history of Shi’ism,





not the rule. Of course, Shariati knew what he was doing. In order to constructa revolutionary Islam or to reconcile Islam with revolution, he had the utmostneed 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 heliked Imam Hussain. Of course, he also had great respect for Imam Ali and heused 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. Thisapproach in Dr Shariati’s thinking made me critical of him.

Q. You mean to say that you had these criticisms at the time, when youwere in Britain, and you were aware of this aspect of Dr Shariati’sthinking?

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 thedifferent sets of people who were taking critical stances towards Shariatiat the time. Ayatollah Motahhari had this same criticism; i.e., selectivityand 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 Shariati’s perspective onreligious matters as contrary to Shi’i beliefs. And these criticisms of hishad stirred up some quarrels at Haqqani School. Then there wassomeone like Mehdi Bazargan, who, although he had a different outlookon religion from Motahhari and Mesbah-Yazdi, was not very optimisticabout the authenticity of Shariati’s religious views. And the fact that heand Motahhari issued a critical statement about Shariati testified to thisdissatisfaction. Which of these factions did you feel closer to at the time inyour criticism of Shariati? To Mr Mesbah-Yazdi’s faction? Mr

Motahhari’s? Mr Bazargan’s?

A. At the time, I was hearing some things about what Mesbah-Yazdi andMotahhari were saying, although the reports may not always have beenreliable. I heard that Mehdi Bazargan’s criticism of Shariati was that he’dfallen under the spell of left-wing ideas. But I think that Dr Shariati had takenBazargan’s course to its ultimate conclusion. But it seems that Bazargan’scourse had some difficulties, which Shariati tried to solve to some extent bymaking Islam revolutionary. But the things that Mesbah-Yazdi was reportedlysaying - 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 hisviews to amount, more or less, to blasphemy. As for Ayatollah Motahhari’scriticisms, as we later saw plainly and explicitly, they were based on thecontention that Shariati was not knowledgeable enough about Islamicteachings. But Motahhari later said some things in London that went furtherthan a scholarly stance against Shariati. He said that Shariati was openlycooperating with SAVAK and that even his decision to go abroad wascoordinated and endorsed by SAVAK. And that Shariati was weaving someplots 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 thatMotahhari had written a letter to Mr Khomeini - quite some time before





Shariati’s 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 Shariati’s deathand said that it was a kind of blessing from God. It goes without saying that Ididn’t agree with this kind of criticism of Shariati, which was being made byMotahhari and Mesbah-Yazdi. But, at the opposite end, Dr Shariati hadfriends and supporters who did not allow the slightest criticism of him andindulged in all manner of exaggerations about him; exaggerations that Shariatihimself didn’t like. And, in the midst of all this devotion and enmity, Shariati’s

position and ideas were not safeguarded and understood as well as theyshould have been. Of course, we’re still in the throes of this predicament, untila time when all the dust has settled and Dr Shariati’s personality and workscan 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 thesignatures that they collected against Shariati among the ulema - which sadlyalso included the late Allameh Tabataba’i’s signature - was inappropriate andimproper.

Q. Did you not speak about this to the late Tabataba’i?

A. The impression that Allameh Tabataba’i had of Dr Shariati’s works wasvery strange. When I saw Tabataba’i’s signature among the other signatures, Ibecame very keen to learn exactly what his view of this whole affair was andwhy he was rejecting and denouncing Shariati. Tabataba’i had written that, inthe book entitled Kavir, Shariati had used phrases that suggested that he wastrying 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 thateverything he’s saying has a metaphorical, figurative and poetic aspect. Howcould those writing be used to accuse Shariati of staking a false claim toprophethood?

In those heated, seditious times, any impression and any occurrence waspossible. 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 himis a sign of his stature.

Q. At about the time when Dr Shariati passed away, AyatollahMotahhari was apparently visiting London. Did he attend theceremonies and services that were held there for Shariati?

A. Ayatollah Motahhari didn’t take part in those ceremonies and services.

Allameh Tabataba’i had come to London for medical treatment about a monthbefore Shariati died and I was acting as his interpreter. I used to take him tothe doctor and to hospital and back. And, of course, it was a very happy timefor me because it gave me the chance to discuss some things with himprivately and to raise some questions that I had. Motahhari came to Londontowards the end of Allameh Tabataba’i’s stay, which coincided with the daysafter Shariati’s 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 bya huge crowd of young people, who had come from all over Europe and theUnited States. It was a truly exceptional and memorable image. At any rate,when Ayatollah Motahhari arrived in London and was staying at a friend’s





house, I spoke to him on the phone. He told me - using precisely this phrase -“I don’t intend to surface.” And he truly didn’t surface until all the ceremonieswere over. And Shaykh Shams-al-Din, the head of Lebanese Shi’is’ SupremeCouncil, was in London about that time. He took a message, from some of theIranian friends who were there, to Hafiz al-Assad and, in this way, Shariati’sbody was taken to Syria for burial and the commotion died down a bit. It wasafter that that Motahhari “surfaced”, as he put it.

Q. How did the young people and the students there receive AyatollahMotahhari?

A. Even before he’d surfaced, so to speak, the atmosphere in London andEurope was so turbulent that it didn’t really allow people to benefit fromAyatollah Motahhari’s presence much. Far from receiving himenthusiastically, young people were even disrespectful to him on occasion.And I think that when Motahhari returned to Iran from that visit, he was moreoffended 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 anyway?

A. No, I didn’t argue with him because there was no room for argument and itwas clear why he didn’t want to “surface”. Of course, in London, AyatollahMotahhari had taken part in a gathering that was not looked on favourably byIslamic and revolutionary students. After he’d attended that gathering, I said afew words to him on the phone and I criticized his decision a bit. I complainedto him in a friendly way although it seems that even this friendly complaintupset him, since, after returning from London, he, in turn, complained about

me to Mr Haddad-Adel. When Mr Haddad-Adel told me, I responded withthe following verse: Tell the tavern master, if our words have caused offence: /Bring out the goblets and we’ll be there anon to offer our apologies

Q. Can you tell us about the nature of the gathering that AyatollahMotahhari had attended which had upset the students and led tocriticism from them and from you?

A. The late Ayatollah Golpayegani had bought a venue in London which stillexists. And he’d put someone in charge of it who was neither a religiousscholar nor a revolutionary. I won’t 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 Golpayegani’s officeand to let him know what was going on there. I even recall that one of Ayatollah Golpayegani’s children came to London to look into things but itdidn’t solve anything. So, the members of the Islamic associations of studentswere against that venue and didn’t take part in the sessions that were beingheld there. The people who did take part were mostly - for example - retiredarmy personnel from the Shah’s regime or people for whom religiosity was

just a kind of pastime. The revolutionary youngsters of the time didn’t likesessions of this kind at all and couldn’t stand them. They saw them as an insultto religion and religiosity. Bear in mind that those youngsters were mainly





students or even disciples of Shariati. Their view of religion meant that theyconsidered those sessions to be positively fraudulent and dangerous. AyatollahMotahhari’s participation in one of those sessions was intolerable to them. Icriticized him gently and conveyed the students’ message to him. I told himthat they had not liked his approach. Over the phone, Motahhari replied: “Iknow. The youngsters are radical and make extremist judgments. In Iran, too,if I hold a meeting with Ayatollah Seyyed Ahmad Khansari, they objectbecause they don’t consider him revolutionary, whereas every figure and

every venue has its own place.” At any rate, I conveyed Motahhari’s responseto the students, although they didn’t 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 theIslamic revolution, to the 1980s, when speaking about Shariati andpraising him were not all that easy and trouble free, you used to praisehim and keep his memory alive in your talks on various occasions, on theanniversary of his death and his departure from Iran. But, later, yourtalks and views about Shariati took on a critical flavour and you startedcriticizing Shariati in his capacity as an ideological thinker. This was in

circumstances in which earlier - for example, in your book entitledSatanic Ideology - you’d spoken about Islamic ideology in your rejectionof Marxism and you’d set out to defend and explain Islamic ideology. Iwanted to ask you how this change came about? How did it come aboutthat you distanced yourself from ideological thinking and also startedcriticizing Shariati?

A. It would take quite some time to explain it all. I’ve always had and do havegreat respect for Shariati. In my first public talk about Dr Shariati - which, asyou 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, andthat these qualities had been the key to his success. I stand by that verdict tothis day and my view hasn’t changed at all. But Dr Shariati, like any otherhuman being, can be criticized and should be criticized. We always have aduty to break idols. As to why I became critical later on, there were tworeasons for this. First, I arrived at this later stance through a gradual processand anyone who is a thinker has periods and stages of development in theirthinking. So, in one of the stages of my thinking, I gradually came across thequestion of ideology. I want to say, here and now, that, at the time, I wasabsolutely not aware of the things that had been written in the world againstideology; 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 fellow’sremarks 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 andpublished it, some people said: That fellow’s theories are like Gadamer’stheories or were derived from him. Whereas, I didn’t know about Gadamer’sviews at the time.

Q. Along the same lines, there are of course people who say that, afterthe revolution, it was first Mr Dariush Shayegan who wrote a book inFrench, which hasn’t been translated into Persian of course, criticizing





the ideological perspective and he devoted a part of his book to criticizingShariati and his ideological perspective. These people suggest that youmay 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 thesedays and Mr Shayegan’s book isn’t well known among Persian-speakingacademics, even though it was the first of its kind.

A. I don’t see much point in discussing this issue at all. I’m not trying to prove

that I was the first person or the last person to make this criticism. I have nosuch claims to being the first or the last. You can assume that dozens of peoplehad raised this notion before me. What difference does it make whether I wasthe first or the second? But, in order to clarify things, let me say that, in allearnest, 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 inEurope and was aware of those views. Secondly, I absolutely didn’t knowabout Mr Shayegan’s views at the time. Most importantly, Mr Shayegan uses“ideology” in one sense and I use it in another sense. I’ve explained in mybook what I mean by ideology. There may well be common points, but, at anyrate, I wasn’t following the thesis of “the end of ideology” and was setting out

my own views. My tale isn’t a tale of trying to prove that I’m superior or that Iwas the first. In the course of my thinking, I arrived at the view that what DrShariati was talking about was a bid to make religion ideological. And Ibelieve that the main point, when you’re making religion ideological, is not tosearch for truth, but to instigate movement. And I said that, if Shariatibypasses 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. Itwas at this point that both my philosophical understanding and my practicalexperience were telling me that making religion ideological is not a good thingto do. My practical experience consisted of what I had learnt, since the Islamic

revolution, about the track record of an ideological religion in society. Twoelements have had a direct impact on my thinking and approach, especiallyafter the revolution: one is the track record of a revolutionary religion inIranian society and, the second, my philosophical reserves, including Islamicphilosophy and Western and analytical philosophy. In my treatment of Shariati, too, these two elements - practical experience and my theoreticalreserves - helped me see the fissure and crack in the castle of his thinking.

Q. A while back, in a talk entitled “The Tradition of ReligiousIntellectualism”, you enumerated some of the characteristics of religiousintellectuals which suggested a specific, structured view of a concept

known as “religious intellectual”. For example, you said that religiousintellectuals must not place too big a burden on religion’s shoulders, thatthey have to take into account that there are numerous readings of religion, that they no longer seek to extract modern ideas from religioustexts today. I was wondering whether, in view of the definition that youpresented in that talk, you still consider Shariati to be a religiousintellectual or not?

A. Why shouldn’t 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 doesn’t




webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=c ache:lsY_Lo5YaXoJ:www.drsoroush.com/English/Interviews/E-INT-Shariati_June2008.html+&cd=1&hl=en&ct… 10

mean that they no longer fall under the umbrella and banner of religiousintellectualism. Shariati cared about religion and he had an understanding of religion. He wanted to live as a Muslim in the contemporary world. And hehad courage. He was not only an intellectual [rowshanfekr] but also anenlightener [rowshangar]. He was, without a doubt, a religious intellectual.But, in his day, a religious intellectual sought to reconcile Islam withrevolution, and, in our day, a religious intellectual seeks to reconcile Islamwith democracy. And reconciling Islam with democracy means showing how

one can live as a Muslim in a democratic state and explaining the theoreticalfoundations for this.

Dr Shariati did not spend much time on explaining theoretical foundations. AsI said, he was more interested in creating movement. Of course, you mustn’tforget that, when we criticize Dr Shariati, we don’t mean to undermine ordisparage him. He was, after all, only 44 when he passed away and he didmost of his work when he was under 40. It would be utterly unfair if we wereto disparage his efforts. But, if we’re to find our own way, we have to have agood understanding of the routes that people were taking before us and alsorecognize their wrong turnings.

Q. You referred to Shariati’s age and his youth. Some of Shariati’ssupporters say that his critics do not take into account the changes in hisideas over time and that they fail to consider, for example, to what stagein 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., theperiod after he was last released from prison, Shariati’s ideas hadundergone some changes, which are rarely taken into account. They say, for example, that, at this stage, Shariati was against intellectualsbecoming involved in guerrilla activities, described revolution as

premature and seriously dissociated himself from the Mojahedin-e Khalqand groups that believed in armed struggle. Whereas, Shariati’s criticsignore this change and continue to base their criticism on Shariati’s ideasbefore the time he spent in prison and even on his ideas when he wasvery young.

A. I’ve never criticized Shariati in this way myself and I have taken thesethings into account. The things that I’ve said have never been related to himmoving closer to or further away from the Mojahedin-e Khalq anyway. It isn’tvery difficult to find the main headings of Shariati’s ideas. Even if there wassome opportunity for changes in his ideas, he didn’t have much success to this

end, because he didn’t live very long. He was young when he died and he hadlittle opportunity for change. In his youth, he became acquainted with oursociety’s ills. Then, he went to France, where, in view of the openness there,he became acquainted with Algerian militants and was influenced by Sartre’sexistentialist ideas and left-wing views. Moreover, he had also beeninfluenced as a child by his father and his family’s religious views and hadbecome acquainted with Islam and the history of Islam. These were his mentalreserves and experiences, and the changes in his ideas can be assessed withinthis framework. He didn’t go beyond this framework. Yes, of course, Shariati,like others - and he was much more intelligent than others - knew hisenvironment well and learnt lessons from his experiences. It goes without





saying that he did not hold fast to a particular stance in a reactionary way. Butmy criticism of Shariati was unrelated to these changes. Shariati’s selectivityand, for example, his treatment of Ashura and the Karbala uprising was anunchanging element of his thinking and his work. Shariati never changed hisview about making religion ideological and never withdrew it. I’ve said beforeand will say it again: We should pursue Shariati’s path, but we shouldn’t bemere followers. We have to understand the logic of what he was doing; bothits weakness and its strength. Pursuing distinguished people’s path doesn’t

mean following their weaknesses.

Q. If you wanted to enumerate your differences with Shariati, whatgeneral points would you list?

A. This is a long story. I’ve said plainly and briefly somewhere that DrShariati was making religion corpulent, whereas I’m making it slim. Makingreligion corpulent was to make it ideological and raise people’s expectationsof religion. But I truly try to lower people’s expectations of religion. DrShariati was making religion very this-worldly. He used to say that if religiondoesn’t serve any purpose in this world, it won’t serve any purpose in the

other world either. But I’m of the view that religion is, basically andfundamentally, for ameliorating our hereafter. If human beings faced noafterlife, they wouldn’t have a religion and God wouldn’t send them prophets.Religion’s main teachings prepare people for the afterlife. Dr Shariati wantedto put religion in the position of a constituent assembly or founding father; inother words, to extract a new ruling system out of religion. Dr Shariati, likeSayyid Qutb, equated the entire world with the system of the age of ignoranceand he wanted to extract a counter-system out of Islam. I truly don’t hold sucha view. I believe that we can live with religion but that we can’t use religion asa source and a reservoir for life. We can simply obtain an outlook from

religion and lend life “a spirit” with the outlook; I don’t think we can lend life“a shape” with the outlook. Of course, there are other differences too. DrShariati didn’t care about religion’s theological and philosophical foundations;he even mocked philosophy. Of course, this may have been related to theearly stages of his thought. Shariati wasn’t even particularly acquainted withIslamic mysticism, as we can see from his works. I know that he liked Rumiand he even said once: Had it not been for Rumi, there were several occasionswhen I would have committed suicide. He seems to have been fond of Rumiand held him in high esteem, but I can’t see Rumi’s traces in Shariati’s work.Conversely, I’m 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 lifeallowed him to be heedful of these things.

Q. Can we not add to these differences Shariati’s socialist perspectiveand your liberal one?

A. Yes, you can. Of course, I don’t consider liberalism and socialism to beopposites. And this isn’t the place to discuss this issue. Liberalism is a kind of negative freedom and socialism is a kind of positive freedom. And, as youknow, negative freedom isn’t at odds with positive freedom in any way.Liberalism wants to leave us free and to remove obstacles. But socialism says:





Southampton and the house at which Shariati had been staying. We saw thelate Shariati’s daughters, who were dressed in black and had their backspressed to the wall like frightened sparrows. The owner of the house was a MrFakouhi. I think he is related to the sociologist by the same name who lives inIran. We went to the hospital with Mr Fakouhi. Mr Minachi and I entered thecold room and I saw Dr Shariati’s body lying in one of the many drawers thatthey had there. He looked very serene and there weren’t any signs of injury onhis 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 butMr Minachi was unable to hold back his tears. We left the cold room togetherand went back to London. Dr Shariati’s body was brought to London after theautopsy. Mr Mojtahed-Shabestari, who was the congregational prayer leaderof the mosque in Hamburg, had come to London, unaware of Shariati’sdemise. Once he learnt about it in London, it was decided that we would washthe late Shariati’s body together. They had laid out his body in one of London’s mosques. Mr Shabestari and I went there. Messrs Yazdi andQotbzadeh joined us. All four of us washed the body and wrapped it in ashroud. It was placed in a coffin and we joined the crowd of mourners at theKanoon-e Towhid.

Q. You didn’t see any suspicious markings on Shariati’s body?

A. There was no sign of a suspicious death whatsoever. Of course, our viewcan’t serve as evidence. They had carried out a full autopsy and it wasdeclared in the hospital’s report that there were no signs of anythingsuspicious. Of course, heart attacks usually don’t leave any marks. Therehadn’t been anything suspicious during the short time that Shariati had spentin Southampton either; no suspicious phone calls, no suspicious visitors, noincident 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 Shariati’s death, like that of Samad Behrangi and Jalal Al-e Ahmadand Mr Mostafa Khomeini, rumours abounded which were a product of therevolutionary climate before the Islamic revolution. Everyone wished to blameany big or small mistake on the Shah’s regime and what could be better andmore auspicious than blaming Shariati’s death or Mostafa Khomeini’s deathon SAVAK. As I recall, Ayatollah Khomeini himself said at the time that hehadn’t heard anything that would make him doubt that Mostafa had died anatural death. I imagine that Dr Shariati, too, died a natural death. He’dsuffered a great deal and he smoked a lot. His secret departure from Iran wasaccompanied 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 ahistorical individual was closed and, in the words of Iqbal of Lahore: There’smany a poet who after death / closes their eyes and opens ours

Translated from the Persian by Nilou Mobasser




Back to Interviews with Dr. Soroush

http://www.drsoroush.com/Interviews-E.htm

soroush on shari'ati - interview.pdf

Documents