Interview with Abdulkarim Soroush<\/p>\n
By: Bizhan Mumivand and Hossein Sokhanvar<\/p>\n
\n
Q.<\/strong>\u00a0 <\/strong>To begin with, could you please tell us a bit about what you\u2019ve been doing in terms of research and academic activities while you\u2019ve been away from <\/strong>Iran<\/strong>?<\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n A.\u00a0 I\u2019ve been away from Iran for two and a half years.\u00a0 During the first year, I was working at an institute in the Netherlands by the name of ISIM (International Institute for the Study of Islam in the Modern World).\u00a0 The ISIM was operating in the Netherlands for a number of years.\u00a0 Unfortunately, in January 2009, it was closed for financial reasons.\u00a0 In the course of the ISIM\u2019s 10- or 12-year lifetime, it was engaged both in research and in higher education.\u00a0 And I heard that, after I left, Ms Fatemeh Sadeqi, Ayatollah Khalkhali\u2019s daughter, was working there.\u00a0 There were students there from throughout the world of Islam and they used to carry out research and write their theses there.\u00a0 In view of the historical-colonial relationship between the Netherlands and Indonesia, there were many Indonesian students at the ISIM.\u00a0 But there were also Turkish students, Arab students and, occasionally, Iranian students.\u00a0 In addition to the students, the ISIM used to invite Muslim researchers to carry out their research work there or, on occasion, to present public lectures or lectures at universities.\u00a0 I was at the ISIM for 10 months.\u00a0 In fact, I was both at the ISIM, which was in Leiden, and at the University of Amsterdam.\u00a0 At the University of Amsterdam, I was teaching Islamic political philosophy and, at the ISIM, in Leiden, I was engaged in research for my own books.\u00a0 I was also in touch with a group of Afghan intellectuals and a group of Iranian students, and I was doing a regular series of talks for them.\u00a0 There were also a number of conferences and I also had the pleasure of the company of Mr Nasr Hamed Abu Zayd on a regular basis.\u00a0 Abu Zayd is the well-known Egyptian expert on the Qur\u2019an. Because of political pressures, he had to leave Egypt and he took up residence in the Netherlands.<\/p>\n Fortunately, the head of the ISIM was an Iranian, by the name of Dr Asef Bayat.\u00a0 He, too, was interested in the question of democracy in Islamic countries and, while I was at the ISIM, an important book by him on this subject was published.\u00a0 While I was there, I signed the contract with Brill – which is one of the oldest publishers in the Netherlands and possibly in the world – for the publication of the English-language version of The Expansion of Prophetic Experience<\/em>.\u00a0 I\u2019m happy to say that the book was published in January 2009.\u00a0 After the Netherlands, I went to the United States.\u00a0 I had invitations from two universities.\u00a0 One was Columbia University in New York.\u00a0 I spent a few months there. I was not lecturing there;\u00a0 I was doing research work.\u00a0 Then, I went to Georgetown University in Washington, where I was lecturing.\u00a0 And I\u2019m still based in the United States.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Q.<\/strong>\u00a0 <\/strong>What was the upshot of your meetings and discussions with Nasr Hamed Abu Zayd?<\/strong>\u00a0 <\/strong>What affinities and\/or differences are there between your research project and Abu Zayd\u2019s research project?<\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n A.\u00a0 The affinities are many, but the difference is that I\u2019m much more familiar with Mr Abu Zayd\u2019s views than he is with mine.\u00a0 And the reason for this is simple:\u00a0 his writings are in Arabic, which I can easily read.\u00a0 But my writings are mainly in Persian – except the bits that have been published in English – and he doesn\u2019t read Persian.\u00a0 But many points can and did become clear in the course of our discussions.\u00a0 For example, in Germany, in the discussions between Messrs Abu Zayd and Muhammad Arkoun and I, Mr Abu Zayd vehemently rejected the idea that the Arabic language is an accidental aspect of the Qur\u2019an;\u00a0 he believes that it is essential and he\u2019d said as much in one of his interviews.\u00a0 But, based on the definition that I\u2019ve set out in an article entitled \u201cEssentials and Accidentals in Religions\u201d, I\u2019m of the view that Arabic is one of Islam\u2019s accidentals, like many of its other accidentals.<\/p>\n Both Mr Abu Zayd and I are pluralists.\u00a0 So, from this perspective, there isn\u2019t a great deal of difference between the way we approach religion.\u00a0 But there are also differences between us.\u00a0 In any case, he is a Sunni and I was raised as a Shi\u2019i.\u00a0 Inevitably, there are differences between the way we view religion.<\/p>\n Both Mr Abu Zayd and I believe that, at least in the first century after the Prophet, there was no clear-cut delineation between Shi\u2019is and Sunnis.\u00a0 In 2004, when I\u2019d gone to Amsterdam to receive the Erasmus prize, a seminar was held at which Messrs Abu Zayd and Sadiq al-Azam and I were in the panel.\u00a0 Mr Sadiq al-Azam concluded his talk with a strange point.\u00a0 He said:\u00a0 \u201cI\u2019d like to put forward a proposal aimed at establishing peace in the world of Islam and resolving the Sunni-Shi\u2019i dispute.\u00a0 I propose that Sunnis apologize to Shi\u2019is for killing Imam Hussein.\u201d\u00a0 Abu Zayd was sitting next to me.\u00a0 He turned towards me and, half jokingly, half seriously, said to me:\u00a0 \u201cI didn\u2019t kill Imam Hussein and Sunnis didn\u2019t kill him either;\u00a0 so no there\u2019s no call for an apology.\u201d\u00a0 Then, in the comments he made on Mr Sadiq al-Azam\u2019s talk, he said that, when the events of Ashura unfolded, the clear-cut distinction that we have today between Shi\u2019is and Sunnis did not exist.\u00a0 In much the same way, it has become clearer now\u00a0 than it was in the past that the Mu\u2019tazilites fell somewhere halfway between Shi\u2019is and Sunnis.\u00a0 The Mu\u2019tazilites had some of the rationalist views of Shi\u2019is or the Shi\u2019is had some of the rationalist views of the Mu\u2019tazilites.\u00a0 And on the question of the caliphate, they believed that Ali was the most righteous, although, in practice and in terms of the historical sequence of events, he was not the first caliph.\u00a0 They also had a great respect for the Ahl al-Bayt [reference to the Prophet\u2019s descendents, the Shi\u2019i Imams].\u00a0 All this to say that we must avoid anachronisms.\u00a0 We mustn\u2019t view historical events out of context.<\/p>\n By way of a footnote, let me say that, in April, when I\u2019m back in the US, I will attend a conference that has the general title \u201cThe Qur\u2019an in its Historical Context\u201d.\u00a0 Abu Zayd and I are the conference\u2019s first two speakers.\u00a0 And I have to sum things up at the end of the conference.\u00a0 Then, the articles presented there will be published in the form of a book.\u00a0 I should also add that Mr Abu Zayd has drawn up plans for a Qur\u2019anic studies institute, of which I am a member of the academic advisory board.\u00a0 All of this shows that there is a great deal of like-mindedness between Abu Zayd and I, and that this drives us to work together.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Q.<\/strong>\u00a0 <\/strong>In circumstances in which you are experiencing problems in working in Iran and having your books published here, it seems as if you\u2019re directing your efforts towards gaining an international audience and the translation of <\/strong>The Expansion of Prophetic Experience <\/strong><\/em>has to be seen in this light.<\/strong>\u00a0 <\/strong>Could you tell us a bit more in this connection.<\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n A.\u00a0 Fortunately, The Expansion of Prophetic Experience<\/em> was published in Iran 10 years ago.\u00a0 And, at the time, they didn\u2019t impede its publication.\u00a0 They did criticize some aspects of it but they didn\u2019t prevent its publication or distribution in any way.\u00a0 An interview that I gave to a Dutch newspaper in 2008 – and its translation by one of the foreign-based Persian radios – elicited extensive reaction in Iran.\u00a0 A number of senior clerics, especially Ayatollah Sobhani and Ayatollah Montazeri, stepped into the debate; a debate that caused quite a stir among Iranians at home and abroad.\u00a0 There was also an article in The New York Times that gave a rundown of the debate and this article, too, drew a great deal of attention.\u00a0 In Iran, my recent articles ran into some impediments and they were not disseminated in the way that they should have been.\u00a0 What I did in the English version of The Expansion of Prophetic Experience <\/em>was to include parts of another book, Straight Paths<\/em>, as well as my exchange of letters with Mr Sobhani.\u00a0 I\u2019d signed the contract for it some time ago, but Brill had some problems that delayed the publication of the book.\u00a0 The additional material included in the book was the blessing that resulted from the delay.\u00a0 The English version of The Expansion of Prophetic Experience<\/em> includes the letters that were exchanged between Mr Sobhani and I, whereas the Persian version does not.\u00a0 The Culture Ministry has now compounded its unkindness towards us and raised some new obstacles.\u00a0 For example, it sent us a message recently, saying that The Expansion of Prophetic Experience <\/em>can no longer be published in Iran even in the original form of 10 years ago. I don\u2019t know what information their new decision is based on.\u00a0 Has someone told them something to make them tremble with redoubled zeal, so that they feel compelled to prevent the republication of the book?\u00a0 Of course, this isn\u2019t the only act of unkindness directed at us by the Culture Ministry\u2019s current officials.\u00a0 Another one of my books entitled Tales and Plaints <\/em>has been at the ministry for more than a year and they\u2019ve yet to tell us whether they will authorize its publication or not. There\u2019s no answer from them one way or the other.\u00a0 Their silence is effectively their answer.\u00a0 The book is a compilation of my political letters and some interviews.\u00a0 It is, in effect, the third volume of my political works.\u00a0 I\u2019m currently preparing a new book entitled God as Love<\/em>, which will be sent to the ministry soon.\u00a0 May God induce the officials at the ministry not to impede its publication and to peddle honey instead of vinegar this time.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Q.<\/strong>\u00a0 <\/strong>Although your recent theory about revelation can be seen as a logical extension of <\/strong>The Expansion of Prophetic Experience<\/strong><\/em>, does the fact that you\u2019ve expressed the theory so plainly now result from your association and discussions with Mr Abu Zayd or is it because you just decided that the time was right?<\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n A.\u00a0 As you said yourself, my recent theory is the natural and logical extension of my theories and statements in The Expansion of Prophetic Experience<\/em>.\u00a0 In a sense, I\u2019d already expressed my recent views in the book, but in a very condensed way.\u00a0 I\u2019ve now fleshed them out.\u00a0 As you may remember, I\u2019d said briefly in the book, in a few sentences, that the Prophet was the bearer of revelation and prophetic experience as an active agent;\u00a0 so, revelation was subject to the Prophet, not the other way around.\u00a0 I also said that the best way of explaining how God speaks is to say that the Prophet speaks for Him.\u00a0 This is the nub of the views that I subsequently fleshed out, and I also provided the philosophical and mystical corroboration for it.\u00a0 So, in fact, I can say that, in my recent interviews and writings, I haven\u2019t added much to The Expansion of Prophetic Experience<\/em>.\u00a0 As to why some people reacted in such a strong, occasionally, unscholarly way to it now – it was just political and nothing else.\u00a0 I\u2019m not talking about the senior clerics in Qom;\u00a0 I\u2019m talking about people lower down who would have best refrained from making weak and disjointed comments once learned people had entered the debate.\u00a0 When I look at all the reactions, I scold neither myself nor the others.\u00a0 Social action evokes social reaction, and the reaction cannot be meticulously controlled and recorded.\u00a0 There are different reasons and causes for people\u2019s reactions.\u00a0 Sometimes, it is just their religious zeal that makes them speak out. And sometimes there are political considerations or personal motives involved.\u00a0 I could see all these factors in the responses, taken as a whole, that my views elicited.\u00a0 For my own part, I did my best not to react sharply or fiercely to the responses.\u00a0 And, so far, I think that the debate has flowed down a good course.\u00a0 If we remove the specks and scraps that are floating on the surface, there\u2019s clean water underneath.\u00a0 It can be cleansed even further to produce a refreshing drink for anyone who is interested.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Q. <\/strong>\u00a0<\/strong>During your years abroad, how have you followed <\/strong>Iran<\/strong>\u2019s social and theoretical developments, and how have you participated in them so as not to be a mere spectator?<\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n A.\u00a0 Whether in Iran or abroad, my position is somewhere between an actor and a spectator. \u00a0I\u2019m neither an absolute spectator, nor an absolute actor.\u00a0 I try to do what I can under the banner of justice, which is the fountainhead of both morality and politics.\u00a0 This has also been the case in my years abroad.\u00a0 I\u2019ve watched developments from afar and fretted about the country and the people.\u00a0 I\u2019ve tried to follow the news and to keep myself informed about what people have been living through in Iran.\u00a0 And if ever there\u2019s been something that I could say to help in some way, I haven\u2019t hesitated from doing so.\u00a0 But, since I want to be sure that I\u2019m aware of all the different aspects of an issue before I speak and, God forbid, don\u2019t make an ill-informed comment, it may be that I\u2019m silent more often than not.\u00a0\u00a0 And I don\u2019t consider this reprehensible in any way.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Q.<\/strong>\u00a0 <\/strong>Over the past decade, there have been various debates about the relationship between religious intellectuals and the reform movement.<\/strong>\u00a0 <\/strong>Various views have been expressed in this connection.<\/strong>\u00a0 <\/strong>As the most prominent religious intellectual, you\u2019ve so far preferred not to express a clear-cut view on this subject.<\/strong>\u00a0\u00a0 <\/strong>If you consider it appropriate now, could you tell us your view on the relationship between the reform movement and religious intellectuals?<\/strong>\u00a0 <\/strong>Do you think that the reform movement was the offspring of religious intellectualism or do you have a different view of the relationship between the two?<\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n A.\u00a0 First, let me say that the argument among Iranians about whether religious intellectualism is a coherent term or not is futile.\u00a0 It makes no difference – at least as far as I\u2019m concerned – whether we say \u201creligious intellectuals\u201d or \u201cmodern religious thinkers\u201d.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Q.<\/strong>\u00a0 <\/strong>Why do you think it\u2019s a futile argument?<\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n A.\u00a0 Because it deflects attention from the real debate and the real issues to a futile argument about terminology.\u00a0 It makes no different whether you call it \u201creligious intellectualism\u201d or \u201cmodern religious thinking\u201d or whatever else.\u00a0 There is a group of people in Iran who view religion in a scholarly and thoughtful way.\u00a0 I call this religious intellectualism or religious modernism.\u00a0 When you look at the arguments of those who oppose religious intellectuals, you\u2019ll see that they\u2019re of the view that thinking and reasoning cannot be combined with religion at all.\u00a0 So, from this perspective, it makes no difference whether you use the term \u201cintellectuals\u201d or \u201cneo-thinkers\u201d or \u201cmodern thinkers\u201d.\u00a0 What I find amazing is that our distinguished friend, Mr Mostafa Malekian, is of the opinion that reasoning and worship – hence, thinking and religion – cannot be combined.\u00a0 If, today, he is a critic of religious intellectualism, it won\u2019t make any difference to his argument if we change its name to \u201cneo-religious thinkers\u201d or \u201cmodern religious thinkers\u201d.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Q.<\/strong>\u00a0 <\/strong>But Mr Malekian considers himself to be a religious neo-thinker and is of the opinion that you can combine rationality with spirituality, which isn\u2019t that different from your project.<\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n A.\u00a0 I was talking about where the logic of his argument leads to.\u00a0 In his recent interview, he said that reasoning and worship cannot be combined.\u00a0 He means that thinking and religion cannot be combined.\u00a0 If religion is set aside and replaced with spirituality, then that\u2019s a different matter.\u00a0 Mr Malekian himself is of the view that spirituality is a different matter and is not bound by religion\u2019s perimeters.\u00a0 At any rate, he is not a religious intellectual because he is not a critic of politics and the state, and criticism is one of the main elements of intellectualism.\u00a0 I don\u2019t want to discuss this issue at length.\u00a0 I\u2019m of the view that we mustn\u2019t spend a lot of time on debates about terminology.\u00a0 There is a group of people in our country who have a project.\u00a0 For example, they want to rid religion of the superstitious beliefs that people have attached to it.\u00a0 They want to make religion minimal.\u00a0 They want to harmonize religion with justice.\u00a0 They want to view religion historically.\u00a0 And so on.\u00a0 All of this, taken as a whole, becomes the project of religious intellectuals (religious modernists).\u00a0 People like this, with this project and these ideas, actually exist in society and they have had an impact.\u00a0 The project has followers. Many people have gathered around it and are nourished by it.\u00a0 It predates the revolution.\u00a0 But it has undergone changes.\u00a0 There have been new insights.\u00a0 Some of its shortcomings have been redressed and some new elements and components have been added to it.\u00a0 It is like a flowing river and it gradually rids itself of any grime or specks and scraps.<\/p>\n If we agree to set the starting point of religious intellectualism at Mehdi Bazargan and Ayatollah Mahmoud Taleqani\u2019s movement, then, it has had a relationship with politics from the start.\u00a0 This is because there is an undeniable relationship between politics and religion in Iran;\u00a0 sometimes politics is allied with religion and sometimes it\u2019s opposed to it.\u00a0 And everyone who has entered this current has highlighted this relationship.\u00a0 As it happens, religious intellectualism (religious modernism) has always highlighted the need for freedom, and this has been and continues to be the notable difference between the supporters of religious intellectualism and the supporters of traditional religion.\u00a0 I don\u2019t know when this issue will be resolved.\u00a0 Of course, freedom is one of the components of human rights; today, the tale of human rights is broader and deeper than this.\u00a0 So, religious intellectuals\u2019 project also includes human rights.<\/p>\n Since religious intellectualism has some kind of relationship with politics, it inevitably comes up against power holders.\u00a0 And the project of religious intellectualism on occasion generates political consequences and corollaries.\u00a0 These political consequences and corollaries are extremely important.\u00a0 One of them is that it officially takes stances on some issues that relate to the state and it criticizes – from a religious perspective – some of the state\u2019s actions.\u00a0 Secondly, it gives religious people the courage to put behind them some of traditional religion\u2019s stances without any harm to their faith.\u00a0 So, those who formulate reasoned opinions on religious matters [ijtihad<\/em>] have an open hand within the project of religious intellectualism.\u00a0 And when it teaches believers that they do not have a duty to be obedient emulators in politics and so on and so forth, these stances give learned believers the courage to criticize religion and undertake political actions from a position of religiosity and faith.<\/p>\n Criticism is something that has sadly been neglected in our society.\u00a0 Both from the perspective of religion and from the perspective of intellectualism, religious intellectualism firmly highlights the importance of criticism.\u00a0 In a talk entitled \u201cMinimal Democracy\u201d that I delivered once at the University of Tehran, I said that it is the duty and the right of all Muslims to enjoin the good and proscribe the bad.\u00a0 And enjoining the good and proscribing the bad in modern-day parlance means criticizing.\u00a0 And the highest criticism is criticism of rulers, because rulers have more power and are, therefore, more likely to err.\u00a0 On this basis, they need to be criticized more firmly and this firmer criticism is both the right and the duty of believers.\u00a0 And this right and duty emerges both from the heart of intellectualism and from the heart of religion.\u00a0 All this drives religious intellectualism to grapple with the state and power and politics now and then;\u00a0 sometimes in a positive way and sometimes negatively.\u00a0 On this basis, if you\u2019re suggesting that the reform movement emerged out of religious intellectualism, I would phrase it in the following way:\u00a0 religious intellectualism gave some believers the courage to criticize and this courage to criticize gradually led to a serious development in society whereby, far from believing that criticism of the state conflicts with their religiosity, religious people felt that it was demanded by their religiosity and tantamount to worship.\u00a0 Heidegger has been quoted as saying:\u00a0 \u201cQuestioning is the piety of thought.\u201d\u00a0 What I’m saying is:\u00a0 “Criticizing is the piety of politics.\u201d\u00a0 In other words, if politicians want to be pious and observe piety in their capacity as politicians, they must allow criticism and open themselves up to criticism.\u00a0 One way of opening up to criticism is to have a free press.\u00a0 In modern society, criticism is not whispered, it is public, because governing is public too.\u00a0 Even the theoretical bases of the state have to be publicly criticized because everyone is exposed to the harms and benefits of power.<\/p>\n So, the reform movement fed off religious intellectualism and it did so in an auspicious way.\u00a0 But the reform movement was just one of the products of religious intellectualism.\u00a0 So, we can\u2019t say that, if the reform movement ran into problems along its way, then, religious intellectualism has come to a halt.\u00a0 We also can\u2019t say that the reform movement was a test for religious intellectualism and that, in the light of this test, religious intellectualism has failed.<\/p>\n Religious intellectualism is fundamentally a theoretical current but, like any other theoretical current, it can have social and political consequences, especially in our society, where we claim that religiosity is politics and politics is religiosity.\u00a0 In other words, these two things are inextricably intertwined, like the body and the soul.\u00a0 So, if one of them is gladdened or saddened by something, the other one will be too.\u00a0 Hence, religious intellectualism will drive on and modern religious thinking will not come to a halt – as you can see.\u00a0 And more blessings will result from it.<\/p>\n The people who are unkind to religious intellectualism, first, do not know religious intellectualism well and haven\u2019t defined it well for themselves.\u00a0 Secondly, they have inappropriate expectations.\u00a0 Thirdly, they have failed to take a good look at our country\u2019s recent history and they assume that they can determine how things are in the external world with a series of conceptual additions and subtractions in their minds.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Q.<\/strong>\u00a0 <\/strong>As you said, the reform movement fed off religious intellectualism and its theoretical foundations were based on the teachings of religious intellectualism.<\/strong>\u00a0 <\/strong>So, the expectation was that, after its victory, religious intellectualism would try to do even more to strengthen the foundations of the reform movement and that the movement would, in turn, be further nourished by religious intellectualism.<\/strong>\u00a0 <\/strong>But, in practice, the relationship became more distant.<\/strong>\u00a0 <\/strong>Religious intellectuals were even treated unkindly in a way.<\/strong>\u00a0 <\/strong>Why did this happen and why did the reform movement forget religious intellectualism?<\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n A.\u00a0 No, the reform movement can\u2019t ignore religious intellectualism and treat it unkindly and forget about it. The reform movement has no other foundation and it will undoubtedly return to its mother (religious intellectualism).\u00a0 We don\u2019t expect everyone to have a uniform view of religious intellectuals.\u00a0 The intellectual current can\u2019t be cohesive, uniform and homogeneous anyway.\u00a0 By its very nature, intellectual work is varied and heterogeneous, because intellectuals don\u2019t take orders from anyone and don\u2019t adjust their thinking to any uniform criterion.\u00a0 They follow reasons and argumentation.\u00a0 So, they can think differently and come to different conclusions, which is not to say that all the different conclusions are necessarily right. In other words, religious intellectualism is not a party, with a leader whom everyone obeys.\u00a0 Religious intellectuals are not a congregation of parrots;\u00a0 they\u2019re a congregation of bees, in both senses:\u00a0 they produce honey and they sting.\u00a0 And they don\u2019t have a queen.\u00a0 So, you hear and see a variety of views from religious intellectuals.\u00a0 But this congregation of bees constitutes society\u2019s honey peddlers and they will rein in the vinegar peddlers.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Q.<\/strong>\u00a0 <\/strong>You said earlier that one of the most important achievements of religious intellectualism has been to give religious people the courage to criticize.<\/strong>\u00a0 <\/strong>But religious people had the courage to criticize even before the emergence of religious intellectuals.<\/strong>\u00a0 <\/strong>In other words, the traditional reading of religion, too, has had the ability to criticize; especially, to criticize the state.<\/strong>\u00a0 <\/strong>Both in the past, before the birth of religious intellectualism, and at present, there are traditionalists who are very brave in criticizing the government and the state.<\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n A.\u00a0 It depends on what the criticism is based on;\u00a0 religious intellectualism\u2019s criticism is based on modernity.\u00a0 We can have reactionary criticism too.\u00a0 As one of our clerics put it, some people criticize the current state for not beheading offenders.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Q.<\/strong>\u00a0 <\/strong>What we mean to say is, apart from the courage to criticize, has religious intellectualism had other functions?<\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n A.\u00a0 Of course it has.\u00a0 I\u2019ve enumerated them before.\u00a0 They include combating superstitions and harmonizing religiosity with modern life.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Q.<\/strong>\u00a0 <\/strong>Let\u2019s go back to our previous topic.<\/strong>\u00a0 <\/strong>Why was it that, during the reform period, religious intellectuals didn\u2019t become more active and dynamic?<\/strong>\u00a0 <\/strong>And why did the reformists take little advantage of religious intellectuals\u2019 ideas?<\/strong>\u00a0 <\/strong>Was it political pragmatism that reduced the link between the two groups or were there other reasons?<\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n A. Religious intellectualism doesn\u2019t wait for anyone\u2019s endorsement.\u00a0 Others may come and pick a fruit from its tree or they may not.\u00a0 Religious intellectualism does not produce anything to order.\u00a0 So, it’s not as if it was waiting to see whether the reformists would be pleased with it or not.\u00a0 Not at all.\u00a0 Sometimes others may sit in the shade under its branches and sometimes they may not.\u00a0 Reformism isn\u2019t a homogeneous current either.\u00a0 It isn\u2019t as if they think alike from start to finish.\u00a0 The reformists, too, have experienced and will experience upheavals.\u00a0 Change and development is imperative for them too.\u00a0 This is why these two lines (religious intellectualism and the reform movement) sometimes run parallel and sometimes perpendicular, and sometimes they may head in two opposite directions.\u00a0 All these things may happen in our society.\u00a0 But one thing is clear to me:\u00a0 reform in our society will come about through religious reform.\u00a0 In other words, the thinking of our religious people must change and develop.\u00a0 I think that, if we look at religious intellectualism closely, we\u2019ll see that it has really had important effects.\u00a0 Once, people used to speak about the need for ijtihad <\/em>in fiqh [formulating reasoned opinions on matters relating to Islamic jurisprudence], but, today, you hear it being said in the Qom seminary itself that, unless developments come about in the fields that precede fiqh (i.e., theology, philosophy, exegesis, etc.), there will be no development in fiqh either.\u00a0 And this idea has trickled down to young seminary students too.\u00a0 They believe that if a faqih [Islamic jurist] is not skilled in the field of theology, he cannot be a good faqih.\u00a0 I believe that these are very important points and they are gradually becoming axiomatic.\u00a0 Our seminaries had been functioning for years but these ideas had no takers.\u00a0 But, today, they are gradually taking these ideas on board.<\/p>\n I believe that religious intellectualism before the revolution – and, especially, its two prominent figures, i.e., Mehdi Bazargan and Ali Shariati – tried to acquaint believers with their political duties.\u00a0 You might say that these issues were always discussed and politics was always mentioned and believers had written about it in their books.\u00a0 But, first, these issues had been neglected in the realm of practice.\u00a0 And, secondly, in the realm of theory, too, the criticism was non-modern.\u00a0 Bazargan and Shariati tried to explain to believers that religiosity and revolution are not two conflicting things;\u00a0 on the contrary, they may coincide.\u00a0 They said that political action is part of a believer\u2019s duties.\u00a0 Mr Bazargan used to work very hard to drive this point home to believers:\u00a0 even if you leave politics alone, politics won\u2019t leave you alone.\u00a0 So, opting for seclusion doesn\u2019t solve anything.\u00a0 Of course, Bazargan and Shariati succeeded in their aim.\u00a0 After the revolution, the situation was reversed.\u00a0 In other words, a series of religious intellectualism\u2019s ideas materialized in practice and Shariati achieved his dream.\u00a0 Revolution and religion coincided and were reconciled, and revolutionary Islam came to power.<\/p>\n The only thing that revolutionary Islam had in its rucksack was traditional fiqh and it believed that its duty was to implement fiqh throughout society.\u00a0 Criticizing this fiqh was one of religious intellectualism\u2019s visible accomplishments.\u00a0 And not just negative criticism in the sense of criticizing what it is, but also positive criticism in the sense of saying what it ought to become.\u00a0 It not only spoke of its shortcomings, but also pointed out the way forward.<\/p>\n In this way, after the revolution, religious intellectualism tried to bring about serious reforms and it will continue to do so.\u00a0 Religious intellectualism will drive on and its work will gradually bear fruit.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Q.<\/strong>\u00a0 <\/strong>Let\u2019s speak in more concrete terms if you don\u2019t mind.<\/strong>\u00a0 <\/strong>Were you consulted by the reformists?<\/strong>\u00a0 <\/strong>For example, did Mr Khatami hold specific meetings and consultations with you while he was president?<\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n A.\u00a0 Absolutely not.\u00a0 The first time I saw Mr Khatami after his election in 1997 was in Germany.\u00a0 And it was after the end of his second term as president.\u00a0 During his presidency, there were no meetings whatsoever between us.<\/p>\n As for any of my friends who were in power, I only had a distant link with them, because I was abroad most of that time, apart from some short visits to Iran.<\/p>\n My situation did not improve in any way during the reform years;\u00a0 I was still unable to work, teach or give public talks in Iran, and insecurity continued to hang over me.\u00a0 Nor did I expect anyone to do anything for my benefit.\u00a0 I was hoping, instead, that the general climate would improve.\u00a0 On the whole, I have to underline that the way that religious intellectualism helps the state does not consist of intellectuals coming to power or having close links to power holders.\u00a0 Religious intellectuals\u2019 main task is to generate and distribute ideas.\u00a0 And others can use these ideas or not, as they wish.\u00a0 Moreover, political decisions do not arise directly out of the views of religious intellectuals and there isn\u2019t any logical or deductive link between the two.\u00a0 Religious intellectualism produces the general climate, which assists dialogue between civilizations and the concepts of magnanimity and tolerance.\u00a0 It can raise a series of general slogans and ideas in society which may gradually attract people\u2019s attention.\u00a0 Once, a friend spoke to me about the possibility of Mr Khatami entering the presidential race.\u00a0 I said that it would be a good idea for him to adopt the following verse by Hafez as one of his slogans: \u201cWith friends, magnanimity; with enemies, tolerance.\u201d\u00a0 In fact, this is the crux of justice.\u00a0 Whoever adopts this slogan is to be lauded, whether it is Mr Khatami or Mr Musavi or Mr Karrubi or even Mr Ahmadinejad.\u00a0 The important thing is to act on the slogan afterwards.\u00a0 This proposition, put forward by religious intellectuals, is more sincere and more agreeable than the actions of those who have always shown that they care neither for magnanimity or tolerance.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Q.<\/strong>\u00a0 <\/strong>In your book, entitled <\/strong>Knowledge, Intellectualism and Religiosity<\/strong><\/em>, you said that intellectuals have power without position.<\/strong>\u00a0 <\/strong>But, after Mr Khatami\u2019s victory, the expectation was that intellectuals would move a bit closer to power and take more care of their offspring (the reform movement).<\/strong>\u00a0 <\/strong>Did religious intellectuals strive to resolve the obstacles that the reformists encountered during that period?<\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n A. Everyone acted on their own judgement.\u00a0 For example, I wrote several letters to Mr Khatami.\u00a0 Apart from this, I expressed my views about things now and then, in the hope that things might improve.\u00a0 I don\u2019t know whether it had any impact or not.\u00a0 I\u2019m sure other individuals did this too;\u00a0 it was no more than this.\u00a0 If this is what you mean by taking care of and protecting, we did this much.\u00a0 But if you mean direct intervention in affairs of state, then, that wasn\u2019t the case; nor should it be.\u00a0 I continue to believe that intellectuals have power without position.\u00a0 Their power consists of their intellectual work and it is from this position that they can have a powerful impact on things.\u00a0 Intellectuals address people\u2019s minds and advise them on how to think and how not to think.\u00a0 Politicians address people\u2019s limbs and tell them what to do and what not to do.<\/p>\n Of course, thinking ultimately translates into action, because people\u2019s limbs are at the disposal of their minds.\u00a0 What intellectuals say can have an impact on legislation and legislators\u2019 thinking.\u00a0 And in this way, they can guide society in a particular direction.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Q.<\/strong>\u00a0 <\/strong>If the reform movement was the offspring of intellectualism, religious intellectualism should have rushed to its assistance at sensitive and difficult junctures, because it was following a course that religious intellectuals had set out.<\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n A.\u00a0 What difficulties do you mean?<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Q.<\/strong>\u00a0 <\/strong>For example, on the subject of religious democracy, which ran into problems in practice. The expectation was that religious intellectuals would try to resolve these problems.<\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n A.\u00a0 As it happens, this is a subject that I have spoken about a great deal in recent years – even to the point of tedium.\u00a0 Actually, the other side – whether traditional believers or people who fall outside the framework of religious thought – directed most of their fire at the tale of democracy and religion.\u00a0 So, I think that religious intellectualism did its utmost to speak about this subject and to do what it could.\u00a0 Many of the broad brush strokes of the relationship between democracy and religion have now become clear, and we\u2019ve moved on a great deal from what we were saying about the relationship between democracy and Islam in the early days after the revolution.\u00a0 First, the term \u201creligious democracy\u201d should not lead people astray.\u00a0 It doesn\u2019t mean deriving democracy from religion.\u00a0 No one has suggested such a thing.\u00a0 This is another one of the mistakes in Mr Malekian\u2019s interview.\u00a0 As an initial categorization, governments are divided into the democratic and the non-democratic.\u00a0 Then, democratic governments can be religious or non-religious.\u00a0 In other words, they may find favour with and appeal to religious people or not.\u00a0 In other words, it means a democratic government that is established in a society of believers.\u00a0 It doesn\u2019t mean that the bases of democracy are derived from religion.\u00a0 Governance needs to be made compatible with religion and, in order to do this, we must have theories about fiqh, parliament, law-making, voting and so on.\u00a0 And, in fact, these are issues that religious intellectualism has focused on.\u00a0 It has not tried, naively, to derive democracy from the Qur\u2019an or from our religious narratives.\u00a0 Of course, a few people have suggested that the pledge of allegiance to the ruler roughly corresponds to a consultative assembly, i.e.,\u00a0 to parliament.\u00a0 But, first, they are a minority.\u00a0 And, secondly, they are traditionalists.\u00a0 I have explicitly explained this point.\u00a0 Pledging allegiance is based on duty, whereas elections are based on right.\u00a0 And there is a difference between these two things.\u00a0 Moreover, parliament plays the role of legislator and legislation must be binding.\u00a0 If, in a Muslim society, parliament only acts as the ruler\u2019s helper or adviser, the meaning of legislation will not really have been fulfilled.\u00a0 So, all these concepts need to undergo change and development, so that impediments can be removed.<\/p>\n A religious government or a democratic government in a religious society is a thesis which I still stand by.\u00a0 Bringing it about needs theoretical and practical work.\u00a0 We haven\u2019t reduced our commitment to this idea.\u00a0 Things have moved on to the point where even the government that doesn\u2019t accept us raises the slogan of religious rule by the people.\u00a0 This is no mean achievement.\u00a0 As to whether they act on this slogan or not, that\u2019s a different issue.\u00a0 But at least they show some respect for this concept and tend to buy it.\u00a0 We hope that they will one day start selling it too.\u00a0 When that happens, we hope that they won\u2019t short-change people and that real rule by the people will materialize.\u00a0 Setting all this aside, the relationship between religion and the state has been reassessed in modern political literature and the thick barrier that liberalism used to erect between the two has crumbled.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Q.<\/strong>\u00a0 <\/strong>Some time ago, you gave a talk in <\/strong>London<\/strong> about the relationship between Shi\u2019ism and democracy.<\/strong>\u00a0 <\/strong>Some critics interpreted it to mean that you think Shi\u2019ism is essentially incompatible with democracy.<\/strong>\u00a0 <\/strong>It seems that those critics misunderstood what you were saying and you\u2019re still of the view that Shi\u2019ism can be interpreted in a way that is compatible with democracy.<\/strong>\u00a0 <\/strong>Could you elaborate?<\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n A.\u00a0 Yes, it is as you say.\u00a0 In the response that I wrote at the time, I underlined the point that the one who maintains that religion and democracy are not compatible is Mr Mesbah-Yazdi, not I.\u00a0 All the same, I believe that Shi\u2019ism or one interpretation of it can be incompatible with democracy, but that there can be an alternative reading, which is both cohesive and compatible with the history of Shi\u2019ism and compatible with democracy.\u00a0 In fact, we can replace the term \u201cgovernance\u201d with \u201cmanagement\u201d because governance means managing the country as a whole.\u00a0 And this management can be both democratic and compatible with the people\u2019s beliefs.\u00a0 And people can welcome it not only as fair and just management, but also as a matter of religious duty.\u00a0 This is what Muslims did after the Prophet. They did not expect their rulers to act as prophets.\u00a0 After the 12th Imam disappeared, Shi\u2019is, too, should live as if they don\u2019t expect another Imam and, so, they can organize their worldly affairs in a democratic way.<\/p>\n I view as harmful to our country the kind of traditionalist thinking that has emerged in the form of Mr Ahmadinejad\u2019s government.\u00a0 That money should be extracted from oil wells and poured into wells of Jamkaran – I consider this kind of superstitious behaviour to be incompatible with civil society and a just government.<\/p>\n At least religious intellectualism criticizes religious superstitions.\u00a0 Religious superstitions are amazingly current in our society and even the top clerics do not speak out against this.\u00a0 Even if they say a word or two here and there, it is very weak;\u00a0 it doesn\u2019t stop believers in their tracks.\u00a0 It is the responsibility of the top clerics, more than anyone else, to react against these deviations;\u00a0 whereas, in fact, religious intellectuals are having to shoulder this responsibility too.<\/p>\n Now, if a government comes to power which has half an eye on religious intellectualism – not in the sense that it brings religious intellectuals to power and gives them more rights, but in the sense that it pays attention to and acts on their ideas – people will benefit from its blessings.\u00a0 It will make our country\u2019s future brighter.\u00a0 It will save young people from going astray and not knowing what to do.\u00a0 And it will return morality to our society.\u00a0 I believe that religious rule by the people is the guarantor of morality in our country and that tyranny is the guarantor of immorality and duplicity.\u00a0 Even if religious intellectualism had no virtue other than this – that it underlines religious democracy with the aim of establishing morality and virtue -, it would deserve praise and respect for this one reason alone.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Q.<\/strong>\u00a0 <\/strong>Some critics of religious intellectualism try to equate the failure of the reform movement with the end of the religious intellectualism project.<\/strong>\u00a0 <\/strong>And they are of the view that the ineffectiveness of the theory of \u201creligious democracy\u201d became clear with the failure of the reform movement.<\/strong>\u00a0 <\/strong>So, they consider the era of religious intellectualism to have come to an end.<\/strong>\u00a0 <\/strong>As a defender of religious intellectualism, how would you rebut this argument?<\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n A.\u00a0 Why do you say that the reform movement failed?\u00a0 Mr Khatami was president for eight years.\u00a0 He did many positive things.\u00a0 There were also things that he failed to do.\u00a0 And he made some management mistakes.\u00a0 Can we describe this as the failure of the reform movement?\u00a0 For example, if they arrest a group of strugglers and jail them, does this mean the struggle has failed?<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Q.<\/strong>\u00a0 <\/strong>Can we describe it as a setback?<\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n A.\u00a0 A setback is very different from failure.\u00a0 Setback is like having a two-litre bottle and expecting it to carry four litres.\u00a0 But failure means the bottle is totally broken.\u00a0 Both you and I agree that the reform movement had some shortcomings and did not achieve all its aims.\u00a0 But where will you find a government that has no shortcomings and achieves all its aims?\u00a0 But we must not overlook the fact that the reform movement indigenized some ideas in this country and made them take root.\u00a0 It opened windows for the people that – now that they\u2019ve been closed – people still hope will be reopened one day.\u00a0 Reforms have become a lasting tradition in our society and the people want democracy;\u00a0 a democracy that they no longer see as alien to their religiosity.\u00a0 This is why I believe that the reform movement rendered us many services.\u00a0 And it also made mistakes, which should be spoken about and criticized.\u00a0 But describing it as failure is an exaggeration.<\/p>\n Let me return to your question and ask you in turn, was religious democracy established in our country during Mr Khatami\u2019s reformist presidency for us to be able to blame it for the setback to the reforms?<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Q.<\/strong>\u00a0 <\/strong>Wasn\u2019t religious democracy the theoretical basis of the reform movement?<\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n A.\u00a0 The assumptions you\u2019re making are incorrect.\u00a0 Religious democracy was not established and it is very strange to suggest that we had religious democracy during the reformist period.\u00a0 Mr Khatami came to power within the existing system.\u00a0 All the state bodies functioned as before.\u00a0 Newspapers were banned.\u00a0 And so on so forth.<\/p>\n The minimal prerequisite for democracy (whether religious or non-religious) is the circulation of free criticism and the bearer of this criticism has to be a free press.\u00a0 Newspapers are society\u2019s lungs and society can only breathe through them.\u00a0 We had press freedom only at the start of Mr Khatami\u2019s first term as president.\u00a0 Immediately thereafter, newspapers were banned one after the other. The reform movement\u2019s lungs were blocked and it was pushed to the point of asphyxiation.\u00a0 In view of the fact that the prerequisites didn\u2019t exist, how can it be said that we had religious democracy during that period?\u00a0 There was no religious democracy, so it isn\u2019t possible to say whether it succeeded or not.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Q.<\/strong>\u00a0 <\/strong>Some people who have a more cultural interpretation of intellectualism are of the view that, during the reform period, religious intellectualism tended to focus on its political functions rather than its cultural functions.<\/strong>\u00a0 <\/strong>People like Mostafa Malekian maintain that, in the political interpretation of intellectualism, the three concepts of failure, victory and pragmatism are recurring themes.<\/strong>\u00a0 <\/strong>But that, in the cultural interpretation, it is more a question of truth and falsehood and striving for truth, and there is a preference for cultural judgements rather than political judgements.<\/strong>\u00a0 <\/strong>In your view, over the past decade, has religious intellectualism been addressing the people and or power?<\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n A.\u00a0 I think it\u2019s been a combination of the two.\u00a0 And even if it has only done one of these things, it is still no mean feat.\u00a0 Intellectualism is not a movement that has come about only for the sake of uttering truths.\u00a0 If it were just a question of uttering truths, then, philosophers, mathematicians, physicists, traditional ulema, etc., too, utter truths.\u00a0 Everyone, in every field, is trying to utter truths.\u00a0 But not everyone is considered to be an intellectual.\u00a0 This is by no means an adequate definition of intellectualism and intellectuals\u2019 duties.\u00a0 Everyone knows this and we mustn\u2019t spend time on it again.\u00a0 Uttering truths is a necessary condition of intellectualism; it is, by no means, a sufficient condition.\u00a0 Intellectuals are interested in truths that help advance and improve society.\u00a0 One of these truths, for example, is the presence or absence of freedoms in society.\u00a0 The responsible intellectual considers himself committed to this issue.\u00a0 And it is this presence or absence of freedoms that brings the intellectual directly up against power or the state.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Q.<\/strong>\u00a0 <\/strong>Dealing with power is more a politician\u2019s duty, not an intellectuals.<\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n A.\u00a0 No, a politician is an executor, not a thinker.\u00a0 Always remember the example that Popper gave:\u00a0 \u201cLenin is Marx\u2019s executor.\u201d\u00a0 I think that this statement is very correct. Marx was a thinker. He was never a power holder.\u00a0 But when Lenin came to power, it was Marx\u2019s brain that dictated his actions.\u00a0 Democracy in the West was the product of philosophers, not politicians.\u00a0 First, they made society liberal; then, a liberal state came into being.\u00a0 So, you mustn\u2019t overlook the indirect role that thinkers play in society and in politics.\u00a0 This is what defines intellectuals.\u00a0 Intellectuals tackle these issues and these issues are very sensitive; so, intellectuals pay the cost and, inevitably, grapple with the state.<\/p>\n As to whether intellectuals have addressed the people as much as they\u2019ve addressed the state, it depends on the society that you\u2019re talking about.\u00a0 In a society where the state is all-pervasive and casts its shadow over everything, you\u2019ll see its shadow wherever you go.\u00a0 And even if you want to address the people, you\u2019ll come up against the state.\u00a0 But if you\u2019re in a relatively democratic society, where the state has handed over many affairs to the people, then, sometimes you\u2019ll address the state and sometimes you\u2019ll address the people.\u00a0 First, we have to see how pervasive the state has made itself.\u00a0 In fact, this is one of the demands of intellectuals:\u00a0 that the state should become less pervasive and that it should become minimal, not maximal.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Q.<\/strong>\u00a0 <\/strong>Why do you think the reform movement suffered a setback?<\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n A.\u00a0 I don\u2019t really want to go into this now, because the concepts of democracy and human rights themselves have shortcomings that need to be redressed.\u00a0 These are issues that are being discussed by philosophers of law, ethicists and so on.\u00a0 But let me begin by reminding you that not every fault can be attributed to the state;\u00a0 this is not at all the case.\u00a0 We, the people, have shortcomings that we must acknowledge.\u00a0 For example, the disregard for rules and laws that drivers display on our streets cannot be blamed on our rulers.\u00a0 There are problems in our conduct for which we are to blame and we only attribute them to others to exonerate ourselves.\u00a0 Unfortunately, a kind of selfishness has become pervasive among us which is the source of many ills.\u00a0 One of the causes for the setback that the reform movement suffered consisted of the big obstacles that they placed in its way.\u00a0 Another cause consisted of a series of factors that exist among the people, making it difficult for them to act upon some ideas.\u00a0 Another cause was the reformists\u2019 practical and theoretical weaknesses.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Q.<\/strong>\u00a0 <\/strong>What kind of reassessment do you think is needed in order to revive the political reform movement and how must the reformists use the eight years that they had in power and the four years that they have spent on the sidelines?<\/strong>\u00a0 <\/strong>Another question is:<\/strong>\u00a0 <\/strong>how can religious intellectuals help revive the reform movement?<\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n A.\u00a0 I\u2019d still prefer it, for now, if the reformists turn towards civil society under a relatively moderate government, adopt the patience of gardeners and sow seeds for the future.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Q.<\/strong>\u00a0 <\/strong>In the last few days before the last presidential election, you said that you thought Mr Karrubi was the best choice for president.<\/strong>\u00a0 <\/strong>Who do you think is the best choice now and what do you think the consensus is among the reformists?<\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n A.\u00a0 I really haven\u2019t come to a particular conclusion in this respect yet.\u00a0 So, I\u2019ll opt for silence now.\u00a0 If I come to a decision, I\u2019ll make it known.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Translated from the Persian by Nilou Mobasser<\/em><\/p>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Interview with Abdulkarim Soroush By: Bizhan Mumivand and Hossein Sokhanvar Q.\u00a0 To begin with, could you please tell us a bit about what you\u2019ve been doing in terms of research and academic activities while you\u2019ve been away from Iran? A.\u00a0 I\u2019ve been away from Iran for two and a half years.\u00a0 During the first […]<\/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\/164"}],"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=164"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/drsoroush.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/164\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/drsoroush.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=164"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/drsoroush.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=164"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/drsoroush.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=164"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}