Dr Abdul Karim Soroush is a Muslim, an Iranian academic
lawyer. Through Peter Lumsden and the Internet, a rare lecture of his, on
Religious Knowledge, has come to RENEW. The gist of it follows.
IN SCIENTIFIC study of nature, we know now that
observation does not stand alone – it is theory-laden, mixed with
presuppositions. Even instruments, like microscopes and nuclear magnetic
resonance devices, which seem to give objective measurements, are only
complex theoretical assumptions, objectified, so that we can ask nature
questions.
In the same way, texts – including religious texts – do not stand alone.
They do not carry their meaning on their shoulders. They have to be
interpreted, in their context, with allowance made for their
presuppositions (philosophical, historical, linguistic, sociological,
etc.) which are time-bound and have to be revised. Religious knowledge is
subject to continuous change, since ‘revelation’ is heard only through
interpreters with their presuppositions – some judged in the course of
time to be more right, others more wrong.
Religion may in itself be divine and true, but interpretation of it is
human through and through. The evolution of human understanding forces
religion to be comprehended differently (as well as with some constancy)
over time. The text of the Quran contains an essential main message, and
many incidental references to the cultural environment of the time –
allusions to economics, social custom, law, war – which have no permanent
validity. Without reinterpretation, stagnation ensues.
To speak in this way is to risk accusations of betraying the sacred text
and undermining the certitude of faith. Soroush was asked a threatening
question: “Perhaps you opt for a scientisation of Islam, rather than for
the Islamisation of knowledge?” He replied, “Neither. I opt for the
humanization of religion”. Revelation may be divine, but all the
interpretation of it is human. We can look at revelation only through the
eyes of interpreters. “To capture the true intention of the ‘Revealer’ is
an ideal to which all of us approach collectively, but at the end we may
discover that the true intention of the ‘Revealer’ was nothing but the
collective endeavor of mankind itself. Here, the action and its telios
coincide. This is not to desacralise the sacred or to secularize the
religion, it is the simple and at the same time the subtle instance of
naturalization of the supernatural, or if you like it better, the
manifestation of the supernatural as and in the natural.”
Faith is taking the word of God seriously, interpreting it sincerely, and
being guided by it in life. As Rumi says, our lot is to hope.
Commenting on this lecture, Don Cupitt says: educated Muslims debate about
Islam and scientific knowledge. Conservatives argue for the Islamisation
of knowledge – for ‘western’ science and technology to be revised and
harmonized with Islamic Principles. Liberals argue for the Scientisation
of Islam – for teaching to be revised in the light of modern critical
thinking. Soroush here seeks a third way – the humanization of religion.
Disarming criticism, he concedes that God and Revelation may in themselves
be eternal, absolute, unchanging. But they are silent until religion
exists among human beings, and when that happens religion is relativised,
questioned, and reformulated, There is no text with only one
interpretation, no musical score played in exactly the same way by all
musicians. “It is brave of Soroush to put forward such ideas in an Islamic
setting. Can Islam become a developing and ‘humanised’ religion of hope
and aspiration, rather than a religion of dogmatic certainties? The answer
to that question will matter a lot to us all. And the same question can be
asked of Christianity, as well.”