{"id":126,"date":"2006-08-20T17:31:02","date_gmt":"2006-08-21T00:31:02","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/doctorsoroush.com\/english\/?p=126"},"modified":"2012-09-24T17:32:47","modified_gmt":"2012-09-25T00:32:47","slug":"i-am-not-the-reformists-godfather","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/drsoroush.com\/en\/i-am-not-the-reformists-godfather\/","title":{"rendered":"I am not the Reformists\u2019 Godfather"},"content":{"rendered":"

Interview with Dr. Abdulkarim Soroush<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n

By Reza Khojasteh Rahimi <\/span><\/em><\/p>\n

\n
\n

\u00a0<\/em>Published in \u2018Shargh\u2019 newspaper on 20 August 2006<\/em>.<\/span><\/p>\n

Q.\u00a0 If I may, I\u2019d like to begin by asking you about the talk that you didn\u2019t give at the Ershad religious centre.\u00a0 For some reason you were absent from the seminar that was held last Thursday [17 August] at the Ershad religious centre.\u00a0 Could you tell us in your own words why you decided not to attend despite the fact that the seminar and your talk were arranged in advance. <\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0A.\u00a0 It wasn\u2019t a new and unprecedented occurrence.\u00a0 I\u2019m used to this sort of thing and I believe that you\u2019ve directly witnessed incidents of this kind yourself.\u00a0 Over the past 12 years, I\u2019ve experienced many such incidents.\u00a0 The first time was in Isfahan and the second was in October 1995.\u00a0 At the time, I was due to have delivered a series of lectures on Shams-e Tabrizi and Mowlana Jalal-al-Din Rumi\u2019s school of thought.\u00a0 On the day when I was to have given the first lecture, I was confronted by the Ansar-e Hezbollah vigilante group for the first time.\u00a0 I emerged in one piece from the incident, albeit with some injuries, and I escaped from the University of Tehran and went home with the assistance of Intelligence Ministry personnel.\u00a0 But I was attacked repeatedly thereafter in Tehran and the provinces.\u00a0 One of the worst incidents was in Mashhad, which was a truly bitter experience for me and the vigilante group\u2019s attack almost led to serious injuries.\u00a0 But, thanks be to God, I escaped from the fray with the assistance of some friends. Another one of the worst incidents occurred in Khorramabad.\u00a0 Mr. Kadivar and I had been invited to a seminar organized by students.\u00a0 We\u2019d barely arrived at the airport when the attacks started.\u00a0 We were trapped for about seven hours at Khorramabad Airport, which consists of just a few rooms.\u00a0 And stones and bricks were being hurled from all sides at the building as if the attackers were trying to capture an enemy fortress.\u00a0 Even the police chief who was on the spot told us that he couldn\u2019t guarantee our security and he insisted quite frankly that it wasn\u2019t his business to protect us.\u00a0 He asked us to change our clothes and to put on soldiers uniforms to leave the airport. We resisted.\u00a0 Finally, we managed to leave the airport and to go to a garrison and they brought us back to Tehran from there.\u00a0 We arrived home at night time.<\/span><\/p>\n

The next incident was in Mashhad again.\u00a0 I was in Germany when I received an invitation to attend a seminar in Mashhad.\u00a0 Iranian and non-Iranian professors had been invited, but the moment it became known that I was to attend, some groups issued statements, declaring that they were opposed to my presence at the seminar. Ultimately, the seminar didn\u2019t go ahead, despite the presence of some of the guests, and some disjointed sessions were held instead in Mashhad and Tehran.\u00a0 Then, there was the incident in Qom in 2004, when I was beaten again in an attack by vigilante groups.\u00a0 My offence then was to have attended a private meeting at a friend\u2019s house.\u00a0 And, then, this year \u2013 this year, I was in Berlin when I received an invitation to the seminar on religion and modernity.\u00a0 The seminar\u2019s organizer was the Institute for Dialogue between Religions, headed by Mr. Abtahi.\u00a0 I even suggested that a number of non-Iranian professors should also take part and the suggestion was accepted, but, unfortunately, they weren\u2019t able to obtain visas.\u00a0 At any rate, when I arrived in Iran, I learnt that the venue was the Ershad religious centre.\u00a0 There didn\u2019t seem to be any problem until the day before the seminar.\u00a0 On Wednesday night, Mr. Abtahi telephoned me. He said that he\u2019d been contacted from a ministry and that he\u2019d been warned and cautioned.\u00a0 And when Mr. Abtahi told them, You\u2019re responsible for protecting people, they\u2019d said, We can\u2019t guarantee anything and we strongly warn you against Soroush\u2019s presence at the seminar and very unpleasant events may occur.\u00a0 And it hadn\u2019t been just one telephone call.\u00a0 Mr. Abtahi conveyed this information to me and he was very anxious and apprehensive himself.\u00a0 At one point he more or less openly asked me not to attend.\u00a0 Despite my own enthusiasm and the enthusiasm of the many eager people who went to the Ershad religious centre \u2013 and I heard that there were more than 1,500 people there \u2013 and despite the insistence of some of my friends, I decided that I would prefer not to attend, so that, God forbid, the occasion would not be tarnished with a fracas and also so that it would serve as a signal that I was not interested in a fight and wanted to see things proceed calmly and peacefully.\u00a0 I thought to myself that, after the seminar was over, I\u2019d begin a dialogue with some of the country\u2019s senior figures.<\/span><\/p>\n

Q.\u00a0 What will the aim of this dialogue be?<\/span><\/p>\n

A.\u00a0 First of all, I expect the government, parliament and the judiciary to spare a thought and show some concern for the security of this country\u2019s citizens.\u00a0 Secondly, it shouldn\u2019t be so easy to strip a citizen of his rights.\u00a0 I don\u2019t see any difference between this and, for example, being told that I\u2019m not allowed to vote.\u00a0 These are our rights, after all, and ministries, such as the Intelligence Ministry, the police and others should create an atmosphere in which we can exercise these rights.\u00a0 They mustn\u2019t allow decent, academic gatherings, like the one at the Ershad religious centre, to be scorched by the fire of a group of unlearned people to the dismay of lovers of learning.\u00a0 Can judicious steps be taken to put people like these in their place, ensure citizens\u2019 security, make justice prevail and allow us to carry out our research, teaching and lecturing?\u00a0 Even if I\u2019m to be stripped of my rights, this has to be done through competent courts.\u00a0 If I\u2019ve committed an offence and must pay the price for my offence, it\u2019s up to competent judges to decide and to inform me of their decision, so that everyone can see for themselves how things stand and so that there\u2019s no ambiguity.<\/span><\/p>\n

Q.\u00a0 Who are your interlocutors going to be in this dialogue or exchange of letters?<\/span><\/p>\n

A.\u00a0 The people who are responsible in this country: the president, the relevant ministers, Majlis deputies and so on.\u00a0 I want to familiarize them with the inauspicious, anti-learning incidents that take place here.\u00a0 I also intend to take things beyond the personal level and not only to ask for lawful freedom for myself but to ask for this freedom for everyone.\u00a0 I hope that there are still some listening ears and justice-seeking hearts that are prepared to accept well-intentioned words and to reconsider things.\u00a0 Let me say again that, if anyone deserves to be stripped of a right, this must be entrusted to competent courts, not to irresponsible people.\u00a0 This is my aim and I hope that I\u2019ll receive a suitable response.<\/span><\/p>\n

Q.\u00a0 But one question still arises here:\u00a0 what sort of problem is this as to have remained impervious to a solution before the era of reforms, during the era of reforms and, now, after the era of reforms?\u00a0 And this is in circumstances in which many secular intellectuals do not run into any problems in terms of giving public lectures.\u00a0 How are we to analyse this uncontrollable urge to prevent public lectures by Abdulkarim Soroush, who, moreover, considers himself to be a religious intellectual?<\/span><\/p>\n

A.\u00a0 I\u2019m baffled by this phenomenon myself. I think it would be better if you put your question to the organizers and perpetrators of these ugly incidents.\u00a0 For some years now, I\u2019ve recognized and seen that some people disagree with and are opposed to me, but some people have gone beyond opposition and are acting as my enemies.\u00a0 No matter how numerous the people who disagree with me are, they need not be feared, but enemies are not concerned with ideas and learning, they only think about physical confrontations. <\/span><\/p>\n

Q.\u00a0 But these people also mention the idea of a debate in their physical confrontations and dealings with you.<\/span><\/p>\n

A.\u00a0 Yes, this is a source of surprise and wonder to me.\u00a0 While they\u2019ve opted for the path of physical confrontation, they also keep harping on the idea of a debate as if they fail to see any contradiction between their words and deeds;\u00a0 they don\u2019t seem to see the contradiction between beating people up and holding debates with them.\u00a0 But our society is full of contradictions.<\/span><\/p>\n

Let me also say in response to your previous question that I sometimes think that some people are not at all afraid of our secular intellectuals and believe that, regardless of what they say and do, they will not have a lasting impact on our religious society.\u00a0 Although they, too, are sometimes harassed and tormented.\u00a0 But they are not confronted much theoretically.\u00a0 But, if they think that someone\u2019s words can have an impact on society, their opposition grows.<\/span><\/p>\n

Q.\u00a0 Is this why, instead of going abroad now and then, you\u2019re now in a situation where you only visit Iran now and then?<\/span><\/p>\n

A.\u00a0 Of course, there were many reasons why I went abroad.\u00a0 One of them was that, as we\u2019ve been discussing, I felt that I couldn\u2019t be of any benefit in Iran. Every living human being wants to be of some benefit, to pass their days in a productive way, to formulate ideas and to bring them to fruition.\u00a0 But if this isn\u2019t possible and if someone feels that they can serve no purpose, then they\u2019ll go elsewhere, where they can lead a more useful and satisfactory life.\u00a0 For some years now, I wasn\u2019t being allowed to teach or to speak in public; I was unable to establish a direct link with my students and my audience.\u00a0 Added to which my own personal security was also seriously at risk.\u00a0 So, when I received invitations from Harvard and other universities, I didn\u2019t hesitate to accept.\u00a0 Of course, throughout my time abroad, I followed the news about what was happening in Iran and, especially, the news about cultural activities and developments here.\u00a0 But I also knew that some people were happy that I was absent from the country.\u00a0 At any rate, I didn\u2019t leave on anyone\u2019s orders or on anyone\u2019s encouragement.<\/span><\/p>\n

Q.\u00a0 But why weren\u2019t you able to solve this problem during the eight years when the reformists were in power?\u00a0 They controlled both the parliament and the government.\u00a0 Did your dialogue not bear fruit during those reformist years either?<\/span><\/p>\n

A.\u00a0 Maybe it was my fault.\u00a0 Maybe there were things I could have done.\u00a0 Of course, I wasn\u2019t in Iran for five of those eight reformist years, so I had very little contact with them.\u00a0 I know that some of my reformist friends did try to solve my problems here and even achieved a measure of success, but, it would seem, not to the point of changing the situation completely whereby I could fully enjoy my rights.\u00a0 For nearly 12 years now, I\u2019ve felt deeply that I lead a peculiar life in this country and that what I\u2019m allowed to do is a very small fraction of what might otherwise be possible.\u00a0 But I\u2019m grateful for even this small fraction and I\u2019m constantly worried that even this will be taken away from me.\u00a0 So, I try to use this small bit, which is my allotted portion.<\/span><\/p>\n

Q. \u00a0The reason I asked was because, according to many analyses, you\u2019re considered to be the \u2018godfather of Iran\u2019s reformists\u2019.\u00a0 This is why I was wondering why, if you were their godfather, things transpired as they did and you were absent from the scene and the circumstances were not brought about for you to work in Iran.\u00a0 But, first, you must tell us whether you accept this role, because some people have said that the reformists\u2019 failure was also the failure of religious intellectuals and of Soroush\u2019s project.<\/span><\/p>\n

A.\u00a0 No, first of all, I don\u2019t by any means accept that I was their father or their godfather.\u00a0 Of course, they, too, don\u2019t accept that they were my children or my godchildren.\u00a0 Neither side accepts this or has this sense, and it truly wasn\u2019t the case.\u00a0 I was doing my own work in this country, disseminating some ideas, and there were people who liked these ideas and were interested in them.\u00a0 When the reformists came to power, there were quite a few of the people who liked my ideas amongst them.\u00a0 But it was not as if my ideas served as the model for their actions or that they were conscious of such a link or acknowledged it.\u00a0 No, not at all.\u00a0 And I absolutely didn\u2019t expect anything from them, for my own part.\u00a0 I didn\u2019t expect to be given any post, nor did I expect them to solve my problems.\u00a0 And I truly wanted the reformists to be successful in the overall running of the country.\u00a0 As to how much they did succeed and, if they had little success, why this was the case, this is something that needs to be discussed on some other occasion.<\/span><\/p>\n

Q.\u00a0 So, what were you and the reformists\u2019 modelling yourselves on?\u00a0 Was it not based on anything?<\/span><\/p>\n

A.\u00a0\u00a0 I was a passenger on the ship of reform (laughs).\u00a0 I was neither the captain, nor the helmsman, nor the assistant helmsman.<\/span><\/p>\n

Q.\u00a0 But it seemed as if you separated your way from the ship\u2019s masters and sailors.\u00a0 There was the letter that you wrote to Khatami in which you spoke of an end and, then, there was the fact that you remained silent in the last presidential elections; or, if you did support anyone, it was Mehdi Karrubi and, of course, even that support was based on your own particular analyses.\u00a0 All these things suggested that you\u2019d disembarked from the ship.<\/span><\/p>\n

A.\u00a0 It\u2019s a long story and it has some painful parts.\u00a0 It may be that I don\u2019t wish to repeat things that I said in the past in this respect.\u00a0 Mr. Khatami was and is a close friend of mine.\u00a0 But this did not mean that I was wholly pleased with everything that he did.\u00a0 I totally agreed with Mr. Sa\u2019id Hajjarian, who said that Mr. Khatami squandered some opportunities. In the end, I noticed that Mr. Khatami, too, said that he\u2019d wasted some opportunities.\u00a0 The reformists around Mr. Khatami, too, each had their own analyses of their conduct and the big excuse they gave for their failures was that the opposite camp had completely tied their hands and was not allowing them to do anything.\u00a0 Of course, I don\u2019t see this as an unacceptable excuse and I think that there\u2019s a measure of truth in it.\u00a0 Be that as it may, the reformists\u2019 mistakes can\u2019t be forgotten, especially the theoretical weaknesses, which were noticeable in their work and which continue to exist.\u00a0 But, again, I don\u2019t blame anyone for this and I hope that, with the passage of time, we will achieve greater clarity.<\/span><\/p>\n

Q.\u00a0 What kind of clarity?<\/span><\/p>\n

A.\u00a0 At a recent meeting with a number of reformists, there was talk of political secularism.\u00a0 I explained to them that religious intellectuals have absolutely spelt out the position of political secularism and, although they haven\u2019t used this name, they\u2019ve correctly set out and justified its contents.<\/span><\/p>\n

Of course, I\u2019m talking about political secularism, not philosophical and social secularism.<\/span><\/p>\n

Political secularism has two major pillars.\u00a0 One pillar consists of the question of legitimacy and the other consists of the political system\u2019s neutrality towards religious and theoretical schools.\u00a0 I believe that religious intellectuals have so far argued well that the system\u2019s legitimacy hinges on justice, not on any particular type of religion, and the acceptance of the system comes from the people.\u00a0 As to the state\u2019s neutrality towards different religions and creeds, when Mr. Khatami used to speak of \u2018an Iran for all Iranians\u2019, I\u2019m not really sure what he meant, but it can be interpreted to mean that all Iranians have equal rights to their religion.\u00a0 So, we can more or less say that the reformists have reached the same point now, even if they don\u2019t use this expression.\u00a0 I\u2019m confident that if, at some future date, the reformists come to power again, they\u2019ll proceed on the basis of much greater clarity, at least theoretically, than before and they\u2019ll act with greater transparency.\u00a0 You\u2019re familiar with the phrase that I use and that I\u2019ve mentioned repeatedly in my writings: courage in action is the offspring of theoretical vision.\u00a0 When someone\u2019s theories contain ambiguities, then they\u2019ll vacillate in their actions too.\u00a0 I considered this to be one of the reformists\u2019 biggest problems, but I don\u2019t believe that this weakness is irresolvable or that anyone is to blame.\u00a0 The components of these political theories have to be clarified over time and, then, they have to be put into practice.<\/span><\/p>\n

Q.\u00a0 In saying this, have you gone one step beyond the things you\u2019ve said in the past about \u2018a religious democratic state\u2019?\u00a0 In the past, you\u2019ve said that, if believers are in the majority in a society, then the state will take on a religious hue, but now you\u2019re speaking about the state\u2019s neutrality towards different religions.<\/span><\/p>\n

A.\u00a0 It\u2019s for you to judge.\u00a0 But I don\u2019t see any contradiction between these views and the things that I\u2019ve said in the past.\u00a0 The second is a continuation of the first.\u00a0 I explained this at length in one of my interviews with \u2018Jameah\u2019 newspaper. I\u2019ve always maintained that \u2018a religious democratic state\u2019 means that the first differentiation that is made between states is the differentiation between democratic and non-democratic states.\u00a0 This is a fundamental and essential division.\u00a0 Then, states, whether democratic or non-democratic, can \u2013 as a secondary and incidental qualification \u2013 be described as religious or non-religious.\u00a0 Religiosity is not an essential characteristic of a state and it plays no part in the preliminary differentiation of states.\u00a0 The reason why they become religious is because the society is religious.\u00a0 If you\u2019ve read my discussion of a religious democratic state, which I\u2019m sure you have, you\u2019ll see that I\u2019ve absolutely not suggested there that a religious democratic state derives its legitimacy from religion.<\/span><\/p>\n

Q.\u00a0 But you have said that, if the majority of the people are religious, then the state will take on a religious hue; whereas, now, you\u2019re speaking about the state\u2019s neutrality.<\/span><\/p>\n

A.\u00a0 I\u2019ll repeat the point here, too, that, in a religious society, the state has to respect the values of the people and, especially, the majority of the people;\u00a0 in this sense, the state takes on a religious hue.\u00a0 Sociologists, too, have spoken about the separation of religion, as an institution, from the state, not the separation of religion from politics.\u00a0 Religion doesn\u2019t become separated from politics and, in some instances, religion can serve as a source of inspiration to policy-makers.\u00a0 But the state is a different matter.\u00a0 I believe that legitimacy is based on justice.\u00a0 It makes no sense whatsoever for a group of people to grant themselves a special right to rule simply because they are Shi\u2019is or Sunnis or Wahhabis.\u00a0 If they are just, their state will be just \u2013 and they will thereby have a right to rule \u2013 otherwise not.\u00a0 This is why the Prophet said that an infidel state can last but an unjust state cannot last.<\/span><\/p>\n

Q.\u00a0 At a talk that you gave in Paris last year, you spoke about religion and democracy again.\u00a0 You said, there, that, at one stage, religious intellectuals had sought to extract democracy from religion and that, at a later stage, they\u2019d tried to reconcile religion and democracy and to establish that there was no conflict between the two.\u00a0 You said that religious intellectuals had now put these two stages behind them and no longer felt a need to harmonize religion and democracy, and considered them independent of one another instead.\u00a0 I had the impression that, in saying this, you were entering new theoretical terrain and had gone beyond some of your previous views.\u00a0 But your own judgment in this respect seems to be different.<\/span><\/p>\n

A.\u00a0 I\u2019m still of the view and have always been of the view that it is impossible to extract many modern concepts, including democracy, from religion or at least from Islam, the religion with which I\u2019m most familiar.\u00a0 I believe that the people who have struggled to this end have struggled in vain.\u00a0 I arrived at this view quite some time ago on the basis of various arguments and I\u2019ve also explained my view to others.\u00a0 Be that as it may, I respect their unsuccessful struggle and can understand its cause.\u00a0 The cause of it is that Muslims and Muslim thinkers all favour justice.\u00a0 They recognize that justice is one of the most important religious ideas and that there must, therefore, be a bridge between Islam and justice and democracy, because democracy is the best way of bringing about justice in our times.\u00a0 So, as far as I\u2019m concerned, all the discussions that take place on the subject of religion and democracy are rooted in and originate from the concept of justice.\u00a0 Justice is a top concern in both politics and ethics.\u00a0 Hence, I believe that there is a definite, logical link between ethics and politics.\u00a0 Muslims have a duty to try to achieve justice.\u00a0 But this having a duty is different from having a theory of justice.\u00a0 They have a duty to try to achieve justice, so they also have a duty to seek a modern-day theory of justice;\u00a0 that is to say, they must seek a form of justice that can be realized in modern societies.\u00a0 In this sense and to this extent \u2013 and no more than this \u2013 I establish a relationship between religion, justice and democracy.<\/span><\/p>\n

Q.\u00a0 You spoke of political secularism and associated it with the reformists\u2019 future.\u00a0 Let me ask you a more specific question.\u00a0 When Mr. Khatami became president in 1997, some people said that the reformists\u2019 coming to power and their theories were a product of the discussions that had taken place in the Kiyan <\/em>circle.\u00a0 They spoke of an influence and a theoretical link of this kind between Kiyan <\/em>and the reformists. After the reformists\u2019 departure from power, some people are saying that there is a need for a new theory.\u00a0 Do you think that we\u2019re in need of a new theoretical front and a new theory in the post-reformist setting or do you think that it\u2019s enough to pursue the idea of political secularism?<\/span><\/p>\n

A.\u00a0 This is one of the notions that the reformists\u2019 need.\u00a0 But there are many other issues on which we must achieve clarity.\u00a0 Of course, ideas neither arrive nor depart on anyone\u2019s orders; social conditions generate problems and thinkers and people who care about things try to solve the problems.\u00a0 Now, too, after the reform era and after Mr. Khatami, there are many problems to consider in our country\u2019s political sphere.\u00a0 For example, in the new era, religious myths have come onto the stage and, as I would put it, interests-oriented (utilitarian) religiosity has gained the absolute upper hand over knowledge-oriented (gnostic) religiosity.\u00a0 This will create new social, political and religious problems for us.\u00a0 Religious intellectuals, who always strive to perform their epistemic duty, have a duty to combat superstitions in the realm of religiosity.\u00a0 In this sense, religious intellectuals have a redoubled duty today.<\/span><\/p>\n

Q.\u00a0 In relation to this same idea of strengthening gnostic religiosity, you have on occasion brought Ahmad Fardid into the discussion and spoken of the position of Fardid\u2019s ideas and his followers in today\u2019s setting.\u00a0 In this context, you\u2019ve also spoken about Heidegger\u2019s ideas and the Iranian interpretation of Heidegger.\u00a0 This argument of yours has met with much comment, criticism and approval.\u00a0 But now I\u2019d like to know what you think of the criticisms.\u00a0 For example, you referred to a film by an Iranian director in which there was a shot showing a photograph of Heidegger in the house of a violent vigilante.\u00a0 You said that, in showing that photograph, the director had put his finger on the button.\u00a0 But some people were saying that Dr. Soroush shouldn\u2019t blame Heidegger for the problems that stem from an Iranian interpretation of Heidegger.\u00a0 Now, I\u2019d like to hear what you think of these criticisms.<\/span><\/p>\n

A.\u00a0 The truth of the matter is that what I said about Heidegger and Fardid, and Fardid\u2019s interpretation of Heidegger was not an emotional outpouring;\u00a0 it was the product of much reflection on my part since the revolution.\u00a0 From the beginning of the revolution, I could see Fardid and his students.\u00a0 Of course, his ideas were not very influential at that time but their influence grew as they infiltrated state bodies and cultural institutions and started disseminating their secret newsletters among officials.\u00a0 Their ideas took hold in some people\u2019s minds. The worst aspect of it all was the interpretation that they presented of the idea of religious guardianship [velayat <\/em>\/ wilayat<\/em>].\u00a0 To my mind, it was at this point that their ideas took on a dangerous form.\u00a0 In my view, Fardid wasn\u2019t a person who cared about things.\u00a0 His heart never beat for Islam or for Iranian society; nor did he make any effort to tackle theoretical, social and political problems. He didn\u2019t suffer for the sake of anything and he never had to pay a price for anything.\u00a0 After the revolution, he went to some powerful figures in the hope that he\u2019d at least be given a seat in the Majlis.\u00a0 But he didn\u2019t even succeed in this.\u00a0 But, unfortunately, he did succeed in putting poisonous viruses into the minds of some of his students.<\/span><\/p>\n

Of course I distinguish between Fardid and the Iranian interpretation of Heidegger and Heidegger himself.\u00a0 But this distinction doesn\u2019t mean that Heidegger is fully absolved of the taint of fascism.\u00a0 Heidegger\u2019s European and American critics have written a great deal about his philosophy.\u00a0 Heidegger never expressed regret about joining the Nazi party.\u00a0 He betrayed a number of his Jewish students, thus helping the fascist government in Germany to arrest them.\u00a0 His anti-Semitism has been confirmed by some of the students who were close to him.\u00a0 Even some philosophers, like Adorno, have described Heidegger\u2019s philosophy as fascist through and through.\u00a0 This is a story that has very deep roots.\u00a0 So, the story of the fascism in Heidegger\u2019s ideas is not just a fairy tale;\u00a0 it is at least a possibility and a view that has been put forward by some opinion holders.<\/span><\/p>\n

Q.\u00a0 Is it not possible, then, to be a Heideggerian and not to be a fascist?<\/span><\/p>\n

A.\u00a0 You can say this about any thinker.\u00a0 There may be people today who knowingly avoid Heideggerian fascism.\u00a0 That is to say, people who try not to fall into this trap.\u00a0 But no one today doubts that Heidegger himself didn\u2019t view his philosophy like this; his view of it was, rather, in line with Nazism and fascism.\u00a0 But, despite all of this, I believe that Heidegger\u2019s philosophy should be discussed with exactitude and criticized like any other philosophy, and that the sacred tint its been given should be examined.\u00a0 Some staunch devotees and enthusiasts have gathered round him and they suggest and insist that Heidegger\u2019s philosophy is the highest and most important philosophy since Plato.\u00a0 And that it was Heidegger who introduced a new conception and made it incumbent on all thinkers to follow him. These kinds of suggestions are lethal poison to thought and produce nothing but unthinking devotees and a kind of theoretical fundamentalism.\u00a0 This is why we witnessed a kind of verbal violence in Fardid and some of his students. To my mind, this violence is not unconnected to the truth of this philosophy. But, as you say, this is an Iranian interpretation of Heidegger\u2019s ideas and there are other interpretations, in which we see a kind of fair-mindedness and moderation;\u00a0 they don\u2019t by any means try to hide the fascist aspect of Heidegger\u2019s thinking or refuse to criticize him.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 In his book What is Philosophy?<\/em>, Mr. Davari has described Heidegger as the wise man of the age and said that, since Heidegger hasn\u2019t said anything about his link to fascism and Nazism, we shouldn\u2019t say anything about it either.\u00a0 This is to put a \u2018lid\u2019 on criticism and to call for unquestioning devotion to a philosopher.\u00a0 But the one thing that we don\u2019t have in the realm of philosophy is unquestioning devotion.\u00a0 This sort of thing must be left to Sufi retreats and the world of mystics and dervishes.\u00a0 Here, there must be criticism.\u00a0 Hence, a different reading of Heidegger in Iran \u2013 accompanied by criticism of his philosophy \u2013 would be welcomed by everyone. In the realm of philosophy, we believe in neither enmity nor unquestioning devotion;\u00a0 instead, we opt for reviews and criticism and we respect all great philosophers.<\/span><\/p>\n

Q.\u00a0 So, what you object to is the interpretation of Heidegger that replaces criticism with unquestioning devotion; not just any interpretation of Heidegger.<\/span><\/p>\n

A.\u00a0 Yes.\u00a0 But Fardid also left his students the legacy of a very inappropriate and defective method, which consists of punching holes in words in order to understand the truths of being.\u00a0 In fact, it\u2019s hard to think of a more injudicious method than this.\u00a0 In order to understand being, you must seek out being.\u00a0 Moreover, the semantic method that Fardid adopted was erroneous from top to bottom, a complete \u2018hotchpotch\u2019 and lacking in any criteria. I personally witnessed the way he used to apply his unholy method.\u00a0 He\u2019d manufacture links between totally unrelated Arabic and Persian words in the most absurd fashion.\u00a0 He used to cook up the most meaningless and implausible stew, serve it up to a bunch of bewitched devotees and completely waste the mental energy of this land\u2019s young people.<\/span><\/p>\n

Q.\u00a0 I\u2019ll also ask a peripheral question here if I may.\u00a0 I\u2019ve heard that you went to Fardid\u2019s house to see him once after the revolution.\u00a0 There are various stories about the meeting, but you\u2019re the best narrator yourself.\u00a0 Could you tell us what actually happened?<\/span><\/p>\n

A.\u00a0 It was soon after the revolution.\u00a0 A friend came to me and said, Let\u2019s go to see Mr. Fardid.\u00a0 We went to his house, which has now been turned into the \u2018Fardid Institute\u2019. My visit was very brief of course; maybe half an hour at most.\u00a0 We spoke about the current affairs of the day, about Mr. Bazargan, the tale of Bakhtiar\u2019s flight from Iran, matters concerning the running of a state and the relevant ideology, and so on.\u00a0 Our conversation ended and we left.\u00a0 Two, three days later, one of Fardid\u2019s students came to me and said, Did you go to his house?\u00a0 I confirmed that I had.\u00a0 He said, Mr. Fardid is telling everyone that Soroush is a Bakhtiar supporter.\u00a0 I\u2019d really not realized before then that he could be such a liar.\u00a0 I was very surprised.\u00a0 At first, I tried to deny that Fardid could be saying such a thing. But his student insisted that he\u2019d heard him say repeatedly: I brought that fellow over and tested him and discovered that he supports social democracy;\u00a0 so, Soroush is a disciple of Bakhtiar.\u00a0 This is when I recognized the sort of person he was.\u00a0 And then he\u2019d gone on to say that I was a Freemason and made many other remarks of this kind.\u00a0 Once, when it became evident that he was saying these things repeatedly, I got the message to him that I intended to take him to court for all his slanderous remarks.\u00a0 He became very anxious and fretful, to the point where Dr. Davari telephoned me at the Philosophy Society and told the officials there:\u00a0 Please tell Soroush to reconsider his decision to go to court.\u00a0 And then he\u2019d used the following expression:\u00a0 \u2018I\u2019ll sort him out myself.\u2019\u00a0 And it seems that he did sort Fardid out himself; I never heard him repeat those remarks again.<\/span><\/p>\n

Q.\u00a0 And you never took him to court, did you?<\/span><\/p>\n

A.\u00a0 No,\u00a0 I didn\u2019t.\u00a0 But I knew him well enough to know that merely suggesting it would be enough to frighten him.<\/span><\/p>\n

Q.\u00a0 Another question:\u00a0 I\u2019ve noticed that, while accusing some of your critics of being followers of Heidegger and fascism, you\u2019ve also spoken of them having links to the Tudeh Party;\u00a0 whereas fascists and communists are in opposite camps.\u00a0 What\u2019s the story on this?<\/span><\/p>\n

A.\u00a0 I don\u2019t want to delve too deeply into this can of worms but, since you mentioned it, I\u2019ll speak about it briefly.\u00a0 I didn\u2019t mean to suggest that Tudeh Party members were followers of Heidegger\u2019s ideas; I meant that some of the people who\u2019ve attacked Popper and others from the position of Heidegger\u2019s philosophy, first, had associations with the Tudeh Party when they were young and, secondly, have learnt the Tudeh Party\u2019s methods, which consisted of insulting thinkers instead of criticizing their thinking;\u00a0 that is to say, ad hominem <\/em>attacks.\u00a0 Don\u2019t forget that the first person who raised the battle cry of opposition to Popper in Iran was not this or that university lecturer but Mr. Ehsan Tabari.\u00a0 I read what he wrote in one of the Tudeh Party\u2019s journals and, once this signal had been given, I saw that a former member of the Tudeh Party followed it up and managed to attract a circle of people around himself.\u00a0 The communists\u2019 opposition to Popper was nothing new.\u00a0 I\u2019d noticed it already when I\u2019d been in Britain and was familiar with it.\u00a0 I\u2019d read some of the very harsh and bitter things that had been written against Popper.\u00a0 So, that attack on Popper after the revolution did not seem strange or extraordinary to me.\u00a0 In fact, there were similarities between the individuals who did this sort of thing.\u00a0\u00a0 They were all Stalinist left-wingers who used similar methods.\u00a0 I noticed that in their criticisms, both in Iran and in Britain, they ridiculed Popper for having been given the title of \u2018Sir\u2019 by the British Queen.\u00a0 However, a Muslim should be a little more sensitive and intelligent over this issue because Sir Iqbal, too, was awarded this title by the British King.\u00a0 <\/span><\/p>\n

In fact, it\u2019s good that you asked this question because it gives me the chance to explain another point.\u00a0 In the writings of some sympathetic people, like Mr. Babak Ahmadi, and in their kind criticisms or their critical kindnesses, I\u2019ve noticed that they suggest that there was a kind of war between the supporters of Popper and the supporters of Heidegger after the revolution.<\/span><\/p>\n

Q.\u00a0 I\u2019ve also heard Mr. Ashouri say this.<\/span><\/p>\n

A.\u00a0 Yes, I want to correct this historical mistake and to say that there was no such occurrence.\u00a0 What it was was that a group of Heidegger devotees made some venomous attacks on Popper.\u00a0 There was no one on the other side who took up Popper\u2019s banner and responded to the attacks.\u00a0 So, there was no war between Popper and Heidegger\u2019s supporters.\u00a0 Rather, one individual, who was well-known for his unquestioning devotion to Heidegger, said some things against Popper and the relevant remarks were so unphilosophical and so unacademic that the person who said them is still writing articles and books to this day, trying to explain why he said the things he said at that time.\u00a0 But he\u2019s still not been able to rid himself of the opprobrium.\u00a0 And the best indication of this is that the relevant critical articles that he published soon after the revolution have never been republished by him or by anyone else.<\/span><\/p>\n

Q.\u00a0 You said that some of Heidegger\u2019s Iranian supporters say that Heidegger is the top philosopher and so on.\u00a0 But I noticed in a book by Dr. Davari-Ardakani that, alongside saying this, he\u2019d said that Popper was not an important or great philosopher at all and he expressed surprise about the propagation of his ideas in Iran.\u00a0 Don\u2019t you accept this remark about Popper being a second or third rate philosopher?<\/span><\/p>\n

A.\u00a0 It would be difficult to find a weaker and more unsuccessful way than this of covering up one\u2019s own lack of success.\u00a0 Who\u2019s ever said anything in this country about Popper being a first rate philosopher?\u00a0 Secondly, supposing that Popper is not a first rate philosopher, that critic still had no right to utter this remark because he knows absolutely nothing about Popper\u2019s philosophy.\u00a0 Popper is, in the first instance, a philosopher of science and, in order for someone to know Popper, they must be familiar with the philosophy of science.\u00a0 Let me tell you that these gentlemen who\u2019ve written these criticisms of Popper hadn\u2019t even heard the term \u2018philosophy of science\u2019 until a few years ago, let alone know anything about any philosophers of science.\u00a0 Even today, when they\u2019ve written their criticisms of Popper, they haven\u2019t studied the philosophy of science properly.\u00a0 All that they know about the subject has been gleaned from a book that was used in secondary schools in France 80 years ago and was taught to philosophy students here. The book had turned into the holy bible of their philosophy department.\u00a0 Thirdly, is Popper the only philosopher who isn\u2019t first rate?\u00a0 All the philosophers who are discussed and studied here in Iran are philosophers who aren\u2019t first rate.\u00a0 Are the views of Mirdamad, Jalal Davani and Sabzevari the views of first rate philosophers?\u00a0 Have Bertrand Russell, Carnap and Sartre not been studied here?\u00a0 Were they first rate philosophers?\u00a0 And the fourth point is that, when you look at the initial criticisms of these gentlemen, you\u2019ll see that they weren\u2019t saying this sort of thing then.\u00a0 Instead, they claimed that they were attacking Popper on behalf of Islam and that Popper\u2019s philosophy was anti-Islamic.\u00a0 Mr. Fardid himself used to say that he was presenting an Islamic interpretation of Heidegger.<\/span><\/p>\n

Q.\u00a0 But nowadays I don\u2019t find Popper\u2019s critics suggesting that there is a clash between his ideas and Islam and criticizing Popper from this angle.<\/span><\/p>\n

A.\u00a0 Of course, because such remarks have no takers now and bring no rewards.<\/span><\/p>\n

Q.\u00a0 Let\u2019s move on from this subject.\u00a0 I noticed that you\u2019re still using the term \u2018religious intellectuals\u2019 in this interview.\u00a0 This is in circumstances in which, in your talk in Paris, you said that it was useless and pointless to link religion and democracy and so on. So why speak of \u2018religious intellectuals\u2019?\u00a0 Wouldn\u2019t it be more appropriate to use terms like \u2018religious reformists\u2019 instead?<\/span><\/p>\n

A.\u00a0 I didn\u2019t say that religion and democracy can\u2019t be linked;\u00a0 I said that you can\u2019t extract one from the other.\u00a0 However, believers can link the two by practical means. <\/span><\/p>\n

Q.\u00a0 But you don\u2019t find the term \u2018religious democracy\u2019 very compelling.<\/span><\/p>\n

A.\u00a0 From the start, I\u2019ve always spoken of a believers\u2019 democracy;\u00a0 a democracy for believers who want to breathe a democratic air.\u00a0 As to \u2018religious intellectuals\u2019, following Popper, I\u2019m not very finicky about words.\u00a0 People don\u2019t have to use this term if they don\u2019t like it.\u00a0 But, to my mind, there\u2019s no reason at present for not using this term.\u00a0 A term is used to point to a fact and religious intellectuals actually exist in our society today.\u00a0 So, you can use the term to point to the fact and no one has the right to ban us from using it. Apart from this, if we accept that there\u2019s no conflict or contradiction between thinking and religiosity, why do we have to avoid speaking of religious intellectuals?\u00a0 Haven\u2019t we had pious philosophers and pious poets and scholars?\u00a0 So, it\u2019s perfectly possible to combine thought with religiosity and there\u2019s nothing wrong with this.\u00a0 And intellectual work is a kind of thinking;\u00a0 so, it\u2019s also possible to combine being an intellectual with being religious.\u00a0 Unless someone claims from the start that thinking and religion basically don\u2019t go together, like the gentleman in Germany who keeps beating the drum of this mistaken idea.\u00a0 I really think it\u2019s difficult to find a more misguided idea than this.\u00a0 Both historical experience and rational reflection testify to the fact that this term or notion is perfectly valid and plausible.\u00a0 These people have made a mistake and the Iranian followers of this idea have made the same mistake.\u00a0 They\u2019ve read about \u2018the refusal to think\u2019 in some books on modern epistemology, especially in the works of a number of French thinkers, but they\u2019ve mistakenly assumed that this \u2018refusal to think\u2019 only applies to religion and religiosity.\u00a0 They haven\u2019t understood that any theoretical system considers some things unthinkable and unchallengeable.\u00a0 Even the freest theoretical paradigm \u2013 because it is a system \u2013 generates some questions and pushes some questions to the back of the mind and makes them un-askable.\u00a0 This isn\u2019t confined to religious thought.\u00a0 Today, no physicist either thinks about or asks about the movement of a pendulum in Aristotelian terms;\u00a0 nor do questions of this kind form in modern physicists\u2019 minds.<\/span><\/p>\n

In a magazine I read years ago, I noticed that a reader had written to the magazine\u2019s doctor to say:\u00a0 I\u2019ve eaten this or that food or fruit and it\u2019s given me cold dyspepsia;\u00a0 what\u2019s the treatment for cold dyspepsia?\u00a0 The doctor\u2019s difficulty in comprehending the question was palpable.\u00a0 He\u2019d replied:\u00a0 I absolutely don\u2019t understand your question because cold dyspepsia is an expression that was used in ancient medical science. It is the same with these people who\u2019ve heard the expression \u2018refusal to think\u2019 without realizing that it wasn\u2019t invented for the rejection of religious knowledge systems;\u00a0 any epistemic, philosophical or theoretical system automatically makes some questions un-askable.\u00a0 Then, they\u2019ve cried out that the basis of religious thought is \u2018the refusal to think\u2019 and thoroughly muddied the water in this way.\u00a0 But let me tell you that this is absolutely not true.\u00a0 Hence, intellectual work and religiosity can be combined.\u00a0 In other words, religious thought creates no barrier to stepping into the realm of thinking.<\/span><\/p>\n

Q.\u00a0 But, setting aside these criticisms by non-religious intellectuals, some of your erstwhile colleagues and some erstwhile fellow religious intellectuals have abandoned you on this issue.\u00a0 Mr. Malekian and even Mr. Mojtahed-Shabestari have started criticizing the concept of religious intellectuals. Some of your students, too, have made similar criticisms of the use of the term \u2018religious intellectuals\u2019.\u00a0 Aren\u2019t you worried about being more alone on this issue?<\/span><\/p>\n

A.\u00a0 The realm of thought is the realm of ebbs and flows; not the realm of sameness. Thought is a fluid, collective business and no theoretical system is the product of one single individual.\u00a0 Everyone presents their products and the market of knowledge flourishes.\u00a0 The fact that some distinguished people are opting for a different course or preferring to give themselves some other label is their right and their decision and choice.\u00a0 But, in my opinion, you shouldn\u2019t base your judgment on any particular individual, because they won\u2019t be the one who determines the course of knowledge;\u00a0 allow history to be the judge.<\/span><\/p>\n

Q.\u00a0 But isn\u2019t it difficult for a religious intellectual \u2013 following your remarks – to want to oppose social and epistemic secularism, while promoting political secularism?\u00a0 Won\u2019t it be problematic to pursue such a dual role?<\/span><\/p>\n

A.\u00a0 If these two tasks were contradictory, pursuing them jointly would be very difficult, but they aren\u2019t by any means contradictory.\u00a0 To my mind, political secularism has clear pillars and is totally defensible.\u00a0 And it also has weaknesses that have surfaced in other countries and people in those countries are trying to tackle them.\u00a0 But let me also say that epistemic secularism is very prevalent in Islamic philosophy.\u00a0 I\u2019ve made this point repeatedly and defended it.\u00a0 I believe that our philosophers have been totally secular in philosophy, in the sense that they haven\u2019t based their explanations of natural phenomena on God\u2019s will and on particularly religious thinking;\u00a0 they resorted to the law of causality, the nature\/essence of things and the like.\u00a0 So, although Islamic philosophy is styled \u2018Islamic\u2019, it is based on a totally secular epistemic system.\u00a0 In fact, this was the cause of our mystics and theologians\u2019 quarrels with our philosophers.\u00a0 Even the Mu\u2019tazilities, about whom I often speak, formulated their judgments independently of religion when it came to morality and understanding nature, as well as when it came to proving the existence of God.\u00a0 Hence, there\u2019s no conflict between epistemic secularism and political secularism either.\u00a0 Of course, in one sense, we\u2019re not philosophical secularists or metaphysical secularists;\u00a0 in the sense that we don\u2019t see the world as being outside God\u2019s will.\u00a0 This differentiates us from materialists.<\/span><\/p>\n

Q.\u00a0 But what about social secularism?\u00a0 A secular system may well generate products that make motives non-religious.\u00a0 You once spoke of the harmful effects of technology on this same basis.\u00a0 Wouldn\u2019t it be problematic if a religious intellectual harped on political secularism only to bring about a situation in which, as you put it, a monster emerges that gobbles up religion?<\/span><\/p>\n

A.\u00a0 If religion is strong internally, it will survive and, if it isn\u2019t, it won\u2019t survive of course;\u00a0 they may forcibly keep it standing but it will ultimately collapse.\u00a0 Social secularism means that religion is weak and its strength is declining in the social sphere.\u00a0 It\u2019s really the responsibility of religious guides, teachers and preachers to prevent this.\u00a0 And if it does occur, it inevitably means that there\u2019s a weakness in the institution of religion and its propagators.\u00a0 Of course, our ulema think that, if the people act on religious precepts, religion is present in society.\u00a0 But I\u2019m of the opinion that this is neither a necessary condition nor a sufficient condition.\u00a0 The necessary and sufficient condition for religion\u2019s survival in society is religious faith, which must be present in hearts and minds;\u00a0 otherwise, the mere performance of rites doesn\u2019t prove anything to my mind.<\/span><\/p>\n

At any rate, individuals carry out their religious and epistemic duties; what the overall outcome of these actions will be is something that we cannot predict.\u00a0 But let me also say that, as far as I\u2019m concerned, far from harming religion, political secularism will \u2013 as sociologists of religion have said \u2013 actually help religion by distilling its kernel, because political secularism will deprive religion of political support.\u00a0 Political secularism says to religion:\u00a0 Demonstrate your capability, if capable you are, and face up to the rivalries and prove that you can win.\u00a0 I\u2019ve said repeatedly that people mustn\u2019t try to darn holes in their reasoning with the needle of power because this kind of darning is not very lasting and it will be spotted by vigilant observers.\u00a0 <\/span><\/p>\n

As long as religion is supported by political power and darns its epistemic holes with the needle of power, it isn\u2019t possible to be certain of religion\u2019s true capabilities.\u00a0 But, as soon as this support is removed and a champion by the name of religion is asked to step into the ring by itself, its destiny will hinge on its own essential capabilities.\u00a0 It is in these circumstances that religion will appear in its true guise and will either capture or repel hearts;\u00a0 will either expand or contract.\u00a0 I\u2019m not saying the Islam will necessarily follow the same course as Christianity, but I always have Christianity\u2019s experience before my eyes and my guess is that Islam will follow the same course.<\/span><\/p>\n

Q.\u00a0 Like in Turkey –<\/span><\/p>\n

A.\u00a0 Yes, in Turkey, too, I\u2019ve seen that Muslims there \u2013 because they live in a secular setting – never used political power to push their ideas.\u00a0 So they always tried to be strong in terms of theory and to demonstrate their theoretical superiority over their rivals.<\/span><\/p>\n

Q.\u00a0 By way of a final question:\u00a0 where do you think the ship of politics is headed?\u00a0 How do you picture the future?<\/span><\/p>\n

A.\u00a0 We are Third Worlders and politicians have said that the Third World goes through pendulum swings;\u00a0 sometimes it swings to the left and sometimes it swings to the right.\u00a0 I think that we\u2019re now experiencing the reaction to Mr. Khatami\u2019s era and are going too far to the right.\u00a0 After this, we might return to the previous situation or something like it.\u00a0 But this doesn\u2019t detract anything from our duties and we must persist with our own work.<\/span><\/p>\n

Translated from the Persian by Nilou Mobasser<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Interview with Dr. Abdulkarim Soroush By Reza Khojasteh Rahimi \u00a0Published in \u2018Shargh\u2019 newspaper on 20 August 2006. Q.\u00a0 If I may, I\u2019d like to begin by asking you about the talk that you didn\u2019t give at the Ershad religious centre.\u00a0 For some reason you were absent from the seminar that was held last Thursday [17 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"ngg_post_thumbnail":0},"categories":[3],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/drsoroush.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/126"}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/drsoroush.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/drsoroush.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/drsoroush.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/drsoroush.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=126"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/drsoroush.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/126\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/drsoroush.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=126"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/drsoroush.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=126"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/drsoroush.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=126"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}