{"id":166,"date":"2009-04-01T19:53:41","date_gmt":"2009-04-02T02:53:41","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/doctorsoroush.com\/english\/?p=166"},"modified":"2012-09-24T19:55:55","modified_gmt":"2012-09-25T02:55:55","slug":"some-of-our-clerics-are-no-better-than-the-taliban","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/drsoroush.com\/en\/some-of-our-clerics-are-no-better-than-the-taliban\/","title":{"rendered":"Some of our Clerics are no Better than the Taliban"},"content":{"rendered":"

Interview with Abdulkarim Soroush<\/em><\/p>\n

By Nooshabeh Amiri<\/em><\/p>\n

Paris, April 2009<\/em><\/p>\n

\n

Q.<\/strong>\u00a0 <\/strong>It seems that, these days, the West is very interested in the movement that you call \u201creligious modernism\u201d.<\/strong>\u00a0 <\/strong>Is that right?<\/strong>\u00a0 <\/strong>And why?<\/strong><\/p>\n

A.\u00a0 Yes, that\u2019s right.\u00a0 But, unfortunately, the West\u2019s interest in the question of Islam and religious modernism doesn\u2019t have a very good origin.\u00a0 Its starting place is one that we don\u2019t like: the Taliban\u2019s movement.\u00a0 What I mean to say is that the West\u2019s identity came up against a new identity, which consists of the Taliban\u2019s militant identity.<\/p>\n

Today, the world of Islam is going through a strange period.\u00a0 And, any way you look at it, the Iranian revolution played a role and is still playing a role in the situation that has come about.\u00a0 I\u2019m not saying that we should blame the revolution for everything that\u2019s bad and ruinous;\u00a0 what I\u2019m saying is that, without a doubt, the Iranian revolution gave Muslims a sense of identity and the courage to express their identity.\u00a0 In fact, any revolution is a revolution in identity.\u00a0 That is to say, a people discards its former identity and acquires a new one.\u00a0 But the regrettable part is that the expression of identity is done via militancy.\u00a0 It is like someone who wants to display his personality to others, but he doesn\u2019t display his erudition, because he has no erudition.\u00a0 He doesn\u2019t display his wealth, because he has no wealth.\u00a0 He doesn\u2019t display his virtue, because he has none.\u00a0 He just shows his brute force, because that\u2019s all he has.\u00a0 I\u2019m not saying that the world of Islam has no erudition;\u00a0 that it has no virtue.\u00a0 But what the world saw in the Taliban movement was just this brute force; i.e., what we call violence.\u00a0 Unfortunately, this brute force has drawn attention to the world of Islam today.\u00a0 Be that as it may, we have to use this opportunity to show the Western world that Islam is not just an identity; it is also erudition.\u00a0 Islam doesn\u2019t just have violence, it has a history, a history in which virtue, too, has been cultivated.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Q.<\/strong>\u00a0 <\/strong>You mean it has both sides –<\/strong><\/p>\n

A.\u00a0 Yes, it has both sides.\u00a0 All religions have had both these sides.\u00a0 You read in the Qur\u2019an that when water descends from the skies and flows in rivers, a great deal of froth sits on the surface.\u00a0 All civilizations have pure water flowing underneath, with a great deal of froth on the surface.\u00a0 Seeing the froth alone is not wisdom;\u00a0 you have to see the water too.\u00a0 And the froth has to be removed as much as possible so that people can swim in translucent water.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Q.<\/strong>\u00a0 <\/strong>Your situation is complicated and difficult.<\/strong>\u00a0 <\/strong>On the one hand, you have to tell Westerners that Islam is not just froth;<\/strong>\u00a0 <\/strong>it is water too.<\/strong>\u00a0 <\/strong>On the other hand, you have to speak about water to people who are \u201cfroth\u201d themselves. And there\u2019s quite a few of them.<\/strong><\/p>\n

A.\u00a0 It is exactly as you say.\u00a0 That is to say, it is more difficult explaining this point to Muslims who disagree with me, because they think that they know everything.\u00a0 The think that this is their own terrain and that others are trying to rob them of this terrain.\u00a0 So they show more resistance.\u00a0 Be that as it may, we have to do something.\u00a0 And I believe that religious intellectualism can be a new voice in the midst of all this.\u00a0 This new voice has become strong now and is attracting the world\u2019s attention.\u00a0 And fair-minded people have accepted that there\u2019s another kind of Muslim too.\u00a0 This is enough to spread an atmosphere of understanding and engagement, and, in Mr Khatami\u2019s words, a dialogue of civilizations.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Q.<\/strong>\u00a0 <\/strong>What do people like you want to achieve by presenting this kind of thinking?<\/strong>\u00a0 <\/strong>What\u2019s your aim in depicting this image of religion?<\/strong><\/p>\n

A.\u00a0 Look, we can\u2019t take religion away from our society;\u00a0 nor do we wish to do so.\u00a0 It is our identity.\u00a0 It is our culture.\u00a0 It is our belief, our aspiration.\u00a0 Of course, when the majority of people in a society come to the conclusion that they want to set religion aside, that\u2019s another matter.\u00a0 But we\u2019re not talking in that kind of environment now.\u00a0 We\u2019re talking in an environment in which a revolution has occurred in the name of religion.\u00a0 And people have shown that, despite their differences, they are deeply attached to this creed.\u00a0 But this creed is that same frothy water that must be purified.\u00a0 And this purification is a difficult task, which we must undertake.\u00a0 And there\u2019s a great deal of froth sitting on the water.\u00a0 It\u2019s not something that one can hope to sweep away in one day or in one year.\u00a0 This is froth that is, on occasion, considered to be the same as water.\u00a0\u00a0 Some people say that the truth is nothing but this froth.\u00a0 Separating the two things and distinguishing between them is very difficult.\u00a0 We want to do this.\u00a0 So, religious modernism or religious intellectualism is trying to explain that peoples, in each historical era, have constructed forms or depictions of religion.\u00a0 Religion is never standing nearby for people to go and discover it.\u00a0 In fact, we\u2019ve been constantly reconstructing it.\u00a0 Today, too, we have to reconstruct it.\u00a0 Just as we constructed philosophy.\u00a0 Just as we constructed mysticism. Religion, too, has to be reconstructed.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Q.<\/strong>\u00a0 <\/strong>Why?<\/strong><\/p>\n

A.\u00a0 Because it has blessings and benefits.\u00a0 If it didn\u2019t have blessings and benefits, we wouldn\u2019t do this.\u00a0 At least that\u2019s how it seems to a religious person like myself.\u00a0 If I didn\u2019t believe that the good aspects of religion outweigh the bad aspects, I wouldn\u2019t be a follower.\u00a0 I\u2019m not saying that religion is blight-free;\u00a0 it isn\u2019t.\u00a0 There\u2019s nothing in this world that\u2019s blight-free.\u00a0 Not science.\u00a0 Not philosophy.\u00a0 Not art.\u00a0 And not human beings.\u00a0 Have human beings not caused untold misery and misfortune in the world?\u00a0 But we still haven\u2019t lost hope in humanity.\u00a0 We still believe that, on the whole, what\u2019s good about human beings outweighs what\u2019s bad about them.\u00a0 But, if we\u2019ve really lost hope, then, we have to hope that a couple of atom bombs will sort everything and everyone out.<\/p>\n

A good phrase by Rabindranath Tagore, the great Indian poet, comes to mind here.\u00a0 He said:\u00a0 So long as a child is born, it shows that God hasn\u2019t lost hope in humanity.\u00a0 Now, if I were to view the world from God\u2019s perspective, I\u2019d say that we still haven\u2019t lost hope in humanity.\u00a0 Nor have we lost hope in religiosity.\u00a0 I still believe that religious people are behind many endearing manifestations of humanity.\u00a0 If you look at all the charity work that is done in the name of religion, you\u2019ll see that there\u2019s still no shortage of this kind of thing.\u00a0 I\u2019m living in the United States where there are very many religious people who do good works.\u00a0 The women who work as nurses in leper colonies are still Christian nuns and they do what they do because of their religious beliefs.\u00a0 There are still good and pious souls in the world.\u00a0 You can find hundreds of examples of this kind of moral conduct.\u00a0 Of course very dangerous things have also been done and are being done in the name of religion.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Q.<\/strong>\u00a0 <\/strong>I have a friend who says that religion is like a personal psychiatrist for her.<\/strong>\u00a0 <\/strong>Others go to see a psychiatrist, I seek refuge in my religion, she says.<\/strong>\u00a0 <\/strong>In fact, it\u2019s impossible to live without believing in something.<\/strong>\u00a0 <\/strong>But there\u2019s a difference between religion as blessings and good deeds, which form the bases of an individual\u2019s life, and religion as a political term which some people exploit – <\/strong><\/p>\n

A.\u00a0 Look, I\u2019m totally aware of the fact that religion isn\u2019t blight-free.\u00a0 But I believe that all the potential and actual dangers that exist in religion also exist in all other political systems, but in their own way.\u00a0 What I mean to say is that secularism has caused its own share of ruin.\u00a0 See for yourself: World War I and World War II were instigated by secular, not religious, people.\u00a0 And the number of people killed in these two wars equalled the number of people killed in all the other wars throughout history.\u00a0 Many of the world\u2019s dictatorships have been non-religious.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Q.<\/strong>\u00a0 <\/strong>The difference is that when people speak from the position of God it is very dangerous.<\/strong>\u00a0 <\/strong>Here, they say:<\/strong>\u00a0 <\/strong>You\u2019re a communist, you\u2019re subversive.<\/strong>\u00a0 <\/strong>But they don\u2019t incite the masses against you by saying that God has authorized the shedding of your blood.<\/strong>\u00a0 <\/strong>Speaking from a secular position is not frightening.<\/strong>\u00a0 <\/strong>But when they say,<\/strong>\u00a0 <\/strong>You\u2019ve acted against God, then, you really tremble in your boots because they\u2019re setting both the masses and the state against you.<\/strong><\/p>\n

A.\u00a0 No.\u00a0 In Stalinist Russia, too, if they said that you were anti-communist or anti-the people, then, you\u2019d be given a one-way ticket to Siberia.\u00a0 What I\u2019m saying is that the human beings come first in all these situations.\u00a0 Unamuno, the famous Spanish philosopher, said in his very tender and profound book entitled The Tragic Sense of Life<\/em>:\u00a0 \u201cGod doesn\u2019t seek out virtuous human beings; virtuous human beings seek out God.\u201d\u00a0 In other words, the goodness starts on this side.\u00a0 But, since they see God as the epitome and creator of all goodness, they are drawn to Him.\u00a0 What I\u2019m trying to say is that virtue in human beings precedes religiosity.\u00a0 Wickedness, too, precedes religiosity.\u00a0 But religion increases a good human being\u2019s goodness and it increases a bad human being\u2019s badness.\u00a0\u00a0 This is an important point.\u00a0 It is like wine.\u00a0 I have sometimes used this analogy.\u00a0 Religion is like wine.\u00a0 Rumi said that wine makes wise people wiser and ignorant people, more ignorant.\u00a0 In other words, wine strips a human being bare.\u00a0 If he\u2019s wise, his wisdom becomes more visible.\u00a0 And if he\u2019s wicked, his wickedness becomes more visible.\u00a0 This is an important idea that is corroborated by science too.\u00a0 Nowadays, we know more or less what alcohol does to the brain.\u00a0 It tears away the cover that we draw over our nakedness in society and it reveals our true self.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Q.<\/strong>\u00a0 <\/strong>In vino veritas<\/strong><\/em>?<\/strong><\/p>\n

A.\u00a0 Exactly.\u00a0 The arts do this too to some extent.\u00a0 Now, let me also tell you this: Some sages are of the view that a woman does this to a man.\u00a0 She strips him bare; makes him be himself.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Q.<\/strong>\u00a0 <\/strong>Power seems to do this too.<\/strong><\/p>\n

A.\u00a0 Power does this too, but I think that power tends to expose vices more than virtues.\u00a0 Now, what I\u2019m saying is that religion is the same.\u00a0 It makes a good person better and a bad person worse.\u00a0 A bad person finds the most vicious weapon in religion in order to commit the worst vices in the name of religion; to kill, to torture, to tyrannize, in the name of God.\u00a0 And a good person does all that\u2019s good and beautiful for the sake of God.\u00a0 The most beautiful works of art over the course of history have appeared in places of worship.\u00a0 That is to say, an unending love has been bestowed on God.\u00a0 Every brick that they\u2019ve laid, they\u2019ve laid with love.\u00a0 They\u2019ve built the places of worship to the tune of religious music and songs.\u00a0 The same goes for Indian temples.\u00a0 The same goes for mosques.\u00a0 In other words, human beings love to bestow their best on their object of worship.\u00a0 So, religion, too, strips us bare;\u00a0 like wine, like a woman.\u00a0 Of course, I\u2019m using these analogies in the hope that believers won\u2019t be offended.\u00a0 There\u2019s wine in heaven after all.\u00a0 That is to say, in the appropriate place, wine plays a good role.\u00a0 I explained this point once.\u00a0 Someone asked me why there\u2019s wine in heaven, whereas it\u2019s forbidden here.\u00a0 I said, the answer lies in what you said.\u00a0 It is because there are only good people in heaven (by definition), so, wine will expose their goodness.\u00a0 But since this world contains both good and bad people, wine has been forbidden by God.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Q.<\/strong>\u00a0 <\/strong>So the good ones have to suffer because of a handful of bad ones!<\/strong><\/p>\n

A.\u00a0 Yes, the good have always suffered because of the bad.\u00a0 You\u2019ll never find an instance of a good person torturing a bad person.\u00a0 It is always bad people who torture good people.\u00a0 At any rate, the point is that, in the hands of good people, religiosity can be the best means for bringing to fruition all the goodness that they know.<\/p>\n

We wash ourselves with water, but water has to be kept clean too.\u00a0 We wash ourselves with religion, but we have to keep religion clean too.\u00a0 Religion can become soiled and, once it does, it can soil an entire world.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Q.<\/strong>\u00a0 <\/strong>Even if good people come to power, in view of power\u2019s effects and exigencies, they, too, can become bad people after a while.<\/strong>\u00a0 <\/strong>They can turn into power-hungry people who can – in the name of religion – rob society of the possibility of cleansing religion.<\/strong>\u00a0 <\/strong>So, the question is this:<\/strong>\u00a0 <\/strong>Can the arena of power be a place for truly religious people?<\/strong><\/p>\n

A.\u00a0 Look, the point you\u2019re making raises the following question:\u00a0 Can we deprive religious people of the right to enter the arena of power and politics?\u00a0 Take me, as a religious person.\u00a0 Does anyone have the right to tell me that I don\u2019t have the right to come power in a democratic system or in a struggle against a dictatorial system?\u00a0 The important thing is to judge me by my actions.\u00a0\u00a0 Believing in any creed or religion shouldn\u2019t bar anyone from coming to power.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Q.<\/strong>\u00a0 <\/strong>No, but you\u2019re talking about a democratic system.<\/strong><\/p>\n

A.\u00a0 That\u2019s right, power shouldn\u2019t be dictatorial.\u00a0 No one should derive the legitimacy of their power from their creed.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Q.<\/strong>\u00a0 <\/strong>What should they derive it from?<\/strong><\/p>\n

A.\u00a0 From the people and from policies that are based on justice.\u00a0 But no one should be deprived of a right simply because they believe in something.\u00a0 At any rate, people\u2019s power should be delimited by the law.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Q.<\/strong>\u00a0 <\/strong>Should this law be intertwined with religion, as it is in <\/strong>Iran<\/strong>?<\/strong><\/p>\n

A.\u00a0 The law must be a law that fulfils two conditions:\u00a0 First, it must be acceptable to and respected by the people.\u00a0 Secondly, it must not violate human rights.\u00a0 Of course, we don\u2019t say that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is cast in stone.\u00a0 It is a human construct, after all, and it can be amended.\u00a0 Some things may be subtracted from it or added to it.\u00a0 But I believe that if, on the whole, these two conditions are fulfilled, whoever comes to power can have a humane and people-pleasing government.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Q.<\/strong>\u00a0 <\/strong>But then it would just be a democratic government.<\/strong><\/p>\n

A.\u00a0 It would be scientific and moral management.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Q.<\/strong>\u00a0 <\/strong>How do you feel today when you hear the expression \u201cIslamic state\u201d?<\/strong><\/p>\n

A.\u00a0 If what is meant by an Islamic state is that faqihs [Islamic jurists\/clerics] should rule, then I think that it would be the most immoral form of government in the world, because a government of faqihs would consider it not only a right to be dictatorial, but a duty.\u00a0 And this is the most dangerous and brutal form of dictatorship.\u00a0 Ibn Khaldun, too, was opposed to a government of faqihs.\u00a0 But if what is meant by an Islamic state is a government of people who respect Islamic values, I think there\u2019s nothing wrong with this. I would call it management.<\/p>\n

Unfortunately, we\u2019ve put things the wrong way round in Iran.\u00a0 The misfortune in our country was that they viewed Islam through the porthole of fiqh [Islamic jurisprudence] and they viewed fiqh through the porthole of penal laws.\u00a0 In other words, two upside down notions came to rule over us.\u00a0 Whereas, first, Islam isn\u2019t limited to fiqh.\u00a0 And, secondly, fiqh isn\u2019t limited to penal laws.\u00a0 You can\u2019t find a better example of putting things the wrong way round than this:\u00a0 We say we want to have an Islamic state; then, we make fiqh rule over us; and, then, we start cutting off people\u2019s hands and legs, stoning people and so on.\u00a0 This is what happened in Iran.\u00a0 This is how the Taliban interpreted an Islamic state too.\u00a0 And this is the impression that the world has been left with.<\/p>\n

But if what we mean by a religious state is that people should be left free to have their religious experiences, i.e., that there should be a pleasing environment in which I can have religious experiences and establish a free and pleasing link with God and lead an autonomous, moral life, I consider this to be the best environment.\u00a0 And I believe that a religious state must, in the first instance, bring about an environment of this kind for believers, not to cut off hands and legs and gouge people\u2019s eyes out and to view this as the state\u2019s purpose.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Q.<\/strong>\u00a0 <\/strong>Now, there are some people who say that, as it happens, the Taliban were more sincere in what they did.<\/strong>\u00a0 <\/strong>They believed in something and they tried to implement it.<\/strong>\u00a0 <\/strong>Whereas the Islamic Republic of Iran has not insisted on what it professes to believe in.<\/strong>\u00a0 <\/strong>What sort of belief in an Islamic state is it that goes up and down with various political waves?<\/strong>\u00a0 <\/strong>And how is it that some things that are prohibited to enemies are not-prohibited to insiders?<\/strong>\u00a0 <\/strong>Is it possible to have conflicting rulings on a single issue relating to faith?<\/strong>\u00a0 <\/strong>Can faqihs who are themselves embroiled in economic and political wheeling and dealing, speak of a state run by faqihs?<\/strong><\/p>\n

A.\u00a0 Look, let me say very frankly that some of our faqihs are no better than the Taliban.\u00a0 But the service that religious modernism or religious intellectualism rendered to Iran was that it made these faqihs ashamed of expressing and implementing their views openly.\u00a0 In other words, it didn\u2019t allow them to practise their harsh, Taliban-like version of fiqh.\u00a0 I think that what is absent among the Taliban is religious intellectualism.\u00a0 That is to say, they don\u2019t have religious intellectuals in their society.\u00a0 Hence, the Taliban distribute and impose the only ideology that exists there.\u00a0 But, in Iran, it wasn\u2019t that the faqihs – of course, I don\u2019t mean all the faqihs – didn\u2019t want to impose a similar situation on our society; but they couldn\u2019t.\u00a0 A big segment of society rose up against them and robbed them of the courage to do so.\u00a0 They didn\u2019t manage to impose their narrow-minded thinking.\u00a0 Otherwise, you can be certain that we would see more examples of Talibanism in Iran.\u00a0 You saw how, in his Friday prayer sermons, a faqih, who was the Speaker of the Assembly of Experts, issued a death sentence on Mr Aghajari because of what he\u2019d said at the University of Hamadan.\u00a0 Even if the sentence had been issued by a court, we would have found it lamentable; so much the more so when it occurs in Friday prayer sermons. What else can you call this but Talibanism?\u00a0 But this Talibanism didn\u2019t succeed because there were people who stood up against it.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Q.<\/strong>\u00a0 <\/strong>For the Taliban, it makes no different whether you\u2019re one of them or not.<\/strong>\u00a0 <\/strong>If you do something that\u2019s forbidden by religion, they\u2019ll sentence you to death or to having your hand cut off.<\/strong>\u00a0 <\/strong>But in the Islamic Republic of Iran, if you say something, you get the death sentence, but if Mr Hossein Shariatmadari says the exact same thing, no one can look askance at him.<\/strong>\u00a0 <\/strong>Is this what a government of faqihs means?<\/strong><\/p>\n

A.\u00a0 Look, here we have to go back to the identity of clerics as a profession.\u00a0 When I wrote my article entitled \u201cLiberty and the Clergy\u201d, one of the senior clerics in Qom, whom I will not name now, told me very openly and frankly:\u00a0 Don\u2019t say things like that in public; come and tell us in private.\u00a0 He told me this just as clearly as I\u2019m telling you.\u00a0 So, let\u2019s now analyse what this statement means.\u00a0 It means that a profession (the clergy) wants to remain closed and mysterious.\u00a0 The people must not be privy to its secrets.\u00a0 The people must not begin to feel that they can criticize them.\u00a0 Let me tell you a very revealing story.\u00a0 There was a woman, in the time of Mu\u2019awiya, who boldly stood up to him and said what she wanted to say.\u00a0 Mu\u2019awiya, who was a clever man, realized that there was nothing to be gained from punishing the woman and killing her.\u00a0 So, he let her speak, but he was seething inside.\u00a0 Then, he said in an insulting way:\u00a0 Curses upon Ali for making people like you feel that you can criticize the state.<\/p>\n

Now, our rulers don\u2019t want the people to feel that they can criticize clerics.\u00a0 Of course, despite their efforts, the people have started criticizing them.\u00a0 This is what they don\u2019t want.\u00a0 They ban newspapers.\u00a0 They ban public talks.\u00a0 They can\u2019t tolerate the slightest criticism.\u00a0 This is the politics of Mu\u2019awiya and we must recognize this.\u00a0 Now, let me return to what I was saying, which is that, one of the things that religious intellectuals did was to make the people feel that they can criticize the state.\u00a0 And this is a cardinal sin that cannot be forgiven.\u00a0 But, in Rumi\u2019s words, \u201cthis is a fault that\u2019s better than a thousand good deeds\u201d.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Q.<\/strong>\u00a0 <\/strong>And it seems that only religious modernists, i.e., people who are rooted in religion themselves and know the state\u2019s language, could have made the people feel that they can criticize the Islamic state.<\/strong><\/p>\n

A.\u00a0 Yes.\u00a0 The state knows this too.\u00a0 If there is a group of people who can make the people feel that they can criticize the state, it is religious modernists, and they also paid they price for it.\u00a0 Of course, it\u2019s a matter of religious pride too.\u00a0 When I see that some people have set up an unjust state in the name of religion, I can\u2019t help but speak out.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Q.<\/strong>\u00a0 <\/strong>Now, let\u2019s turn to the election, which can be an instance of Alis standing up to Mu\u2019awiyas.<\/strong>\u00a0 <\/strong>What\u2019s your view on the forthcoming presidential election?<\/strong><\/p>\n

A.\u00a0 Look, in Iran, I was faced with friends who believe that people shouldn\u2019t take part in the election.\u00a0 I really wasn\u2019t convinced by their arguments.\u00a0 I know what they\u2019re saying and from what perspective they\u2019re looking at things.\u00a0 Their perspective is that elections are, at any rate, something that\u2019s organized by the state and taking part in the game ultimately benefits the ruling system.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Q.<\/strong>\u00a0 <\/strong>It legitimizes the ruling system.<\/strong><\/p>\n

A.\u00a0 Yes, but when I asked them, what should we do instead, they had no answer.\u00a0\u00a0 I guess there would have to be a revolution. What other option would there be? Subversive activities. At this point, I told them the story of the man who had dug a well and didn\u2019t know where to put the dug-up soil.\u00a0 The village headman told him:\u00a0 Dig another well and put this soil into it.\u00a0 Well, the rest of the story is obvious.\u00a0 He would be digging wells for the rest of his life; throwing the soil from the first into the second, throwing the soil from the second into the third, etc.\u00a0 I told my friends:\u00a0 We already had a revolution and we dug up a lot of soil from society\u2019s well.\u00a0 Now, we\u2019re wondering where to put the soil.\u00a0 You\u2019re saying:\u00a0 Dig another well.\u00a0 But, then, the same question would come up again.\u00a0\u00a0 Where would we throw the soil from the second well?\u00a0 We can\u2019t spend our lives digging wells.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Q.<\/strong>\u00a0 <\/strong>Of course they say that this business of digging wells may not quench the people’s thirst, but it may line some individuals’ pockets.<\/strong><\/p>\n

A.\u00a0 But there is a worse scenario too.\u00a0 It may happen that no one’s thirst is quenched and no one’s pocket is lined, but everyone is destroyed in the well.\u00a0 We can\u2019t keep digging wells.\u00a0 The fact of the matter is that we must enter the existing game and we must keep strengthening it until it produces real results.\u00a0 At first, it may produce mediocre results, but, God willing, it will gradually improve.\u00a0 That is to say, the results will eventually become relatively satisfactory.\u00a0 Ideal results don\u2019t exist anywhere.\u00a0 The ideal form of democracy doesn\u2019t exist anywhere.\u00a0 We mustn\u2019t look for totally pure and unadulterated things in this world.\u00a0 This is why, while I was in Iran and also among Iranians abroad, I noticed that calls for a boycott have become less frequent or have disappeared altogether.\u00a0 Even many of the individuals who were the biggest proponents of a boycott were beginning to say that they wouldn\u2019t be voting themselves but that they would be calling on other people not to vote.\u00a0 This is one step forward at any rate.\u00a0 Be that as it may, people are free to vote for whoever they like.\u00a0 But I believe that the election game is the game of democracy.\u00a0 And democracy is always weak at first and gradually becomes stronger.\u00a0 And people mustn\u2019t expect full democracy from the word go.\u00a0 This is why I respect the people who are active in this arena now and I believe that what they\u2019re doing is laudable;\u00a0 whether the candidates themselves or the people who are campaigning for them and are hoping that their candidate will win.<\/p>\n

Of course I\u2019m not suggesting that all candidates are equal.\u00a0 No, they\u2019re not.\u00a0 I hope, from the bottom of my heart, that Mr Ahmadinejad will not be president for another term.\u00a0 A year and a half ago, when I was taking part in a seminar at George Washington University, I answered a question by saying:\u00a0 Mr Ahmadinejad cannot be and must not be president again.\u00a0 Many other people have come to this conclusion too.\u00a0 And I hope that this is how things turn out.\u00a0 He has shamed Iran enough.\u00a0 He has told the people enough lies.\u00a0 He has fostered enough superstitious and inane ideas.\u00a0 He has dug up enough money from the oil wells and thrown it into the wells of Jamkaran.\u00a0 He has caused enough grief.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Q.<\/strong>\u00a0 <\/strong>In order to bring this about, tell us which candidate you favour.<\/strong><\/p>\n

A.\u00a0 I told you something in the last presidential election;\u00a0 I\u2019m more or less of the same view now.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Q.<\/strong>\u00a0 <\/strong>You mean Mr Karrubi?<\/strong><\/p>\n

A.\u00a0 Yes, especially so because I don\u2019t find anything new in the things that Mr Musavi is saying.\u00a0 And I don\u2019t find anything attractive in his record either.\u00a0 I believe that he hasn\u2019t bid farewell to his former ideas.\u00a0 And although he sometimes raises some new points in his speeches, his views are fundamentally what they were before.\u00a0 And there are worrying intimations in his speeches.\u00a0 In practice, too, he sat back over the past 20 years, watched the injustice and didn\u2019t say anything.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Q.<\/strong>\u00a0 <\/strong>So, why did Mr Khatami back him?<\/strong><\/p>\n

A.\u00a0 This is what\u2019s baffling about Mr Khatami\u2019s stance in my view.\u00a0 And I really don\u2019t understand why some of my friends are backing Musavi.\u00a0 I mean, when I look at it from the perspective of politics, I find it really inexplicable.\u00a0 Let me put it frankly, I really don\u2019t like to see someone claim, for a second time, from a political position, that he has an intellectual mission.\u00a0 We need a man of action.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Q.<\/strong>\u00a0 <\/strong>But the problem is that some people believe that it won\u2019t make any difference even if it is Mr Karrubi who wins.<\/strong><\/p>\n

A.\u00a0 It depends on what you expect from the president in Iran.\u00a0 What I expect is that we should have a somewhat freer atmosphere so that thinkers and reformers can do some work at the level of civil society.\u00a0 Somewhat more press freedom.\u00a0 Somewhat more freedom for the people, so that the shadow of fear isn\u2019t hanging over them.\u00a0 A cleaner judiciary.\u00a0 For example, I haven\u2019t heard Mr Musavi display any sensitivity in his slogans on the question of the judiciary.\u00a0 Whereas the beating heart of democracy and justice – even if we don\u2019t mention democracy, we can speak of justice – is the judiciary. We have a judiciary which, as we all know, is tainted with various types of corruption.\u00a0 If the courage and the will to bring about a cleaner judiciary doesn\u2019t exist, the other bodies can\u2019t do anything.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Q.<\/strong>\u00a0 <\/strong>But appointing the head of the judiciary is not in the president\u2019s powers.<\/strong><\/p>\n

A.\u00a0 But the president must have the courage to talk about it.\u00a0 I want to use this opportunity to say to Mr Karrubi – or even Mr Musavi, it makes no difference: If you come to power, bear this suggestion in mind.\u00a0 We have three branches of power in the Constitution.\u00a0 The legislature, the executive and the judiciary.\u00a0 The executive is elected by the people.\u00a0 The people elect the president.\u00a0 And the members of parliament are elected by the people too.\u00a0 But the head of the judiciary is appointed.\u00a0 My suggestion is that [the head of] this branch of power too should be elected.\u00a0 I believe that this would solve many of the problems of our judiciary and it would break absolutist rule in our country.<\/p>\n

The judiciary must be truly independent of the other powers.\u00a0 If the top, ruling cleric appoints the president, if he appoints parliament, it won\u2019t be a major problem. But if the judiciary isn\u2019t independent, we will truly not have justice and everything will be destroyed.<\/p>\n

Mr Karrubi has said that he wants to bring about changes in the Constitution.\u00a0 I am suggesting to him that he should have this change in mind.\u00a0 Mr Musavi has said that he wants to bring about some reforms.\u00a0 My suggestion to him is that he should carry out this particular reform.\u00a0 This is also my proposal to all intellectuals.\u00a0 I hope that in this way, we will have a Constitution that\u2019s different from all the other Constitutions in the world.\u00a0 And, in a way, we\u2019ll show the world what justice means.<\/p>\n

I\u2019m certain that, by reforming the judiciary, we\u2019ll be able to have a true democracy or true rule by the people. \u00a0I really hope that whoever comes to power fosters justice; whether it is Mr Musavi or Mr Karrubi or Mr Ahmadinejad.\u00a0 And I advise Mr Ahmadinejad to implement the promise of justice that he made at the start of his presidency.\u00a0 And he should consult others too so that he can learn what justice means in the modern world.\u00a0 Let him also bear in mind the words attributed to the Prophet:\u00a0 A single day of governing over Muslims equals 60 years of worship, but only if it is a government of justice.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Q.<\/strong>\u00a0 <\/strong>And, finally, let me ask you a question about something that you\u2019d said to me before.<\/strong>\u00a0 <\/strong>You said that the form of government that you favour is a liberal democracy.<\/strong>\u00a0 <\/strong>Are you still of the same view?<\/strong>\u00a0 <\/strong>And, if so, what would religion\u2019s place be within it?<\/strong><\/p>\n

A.\u00a0 Look, liberalism means a system in which rights take precedence over duties.\u00a0 Liberalism mustn\u2019t be interpreted as libertinism.\u00a0 Liberalism means the paradigm of rights as opposed to the paradigm of duties.\u00a0 Liberal democracy means a system that is based on people\u2019s rights, and democracy has been chosen as the method of governing.\u00a0 One of the people\u2019s rights is religiosity.\u00a0 So, in a liberal democracy, the right to religiosity is fully respected.\u00a0 I\u2019m opposed to militant secularism, which extends secularism to the point where it makes life difficult for religiosity and religious people.\u00a0 Two years ago, I gave a talk here, in Paris, in which I said that secularism has become intolerant and it is starting to develop the fault that it attributes to religion.\u00a0 This has to be amended.\u00a0 Religiosity as a right is totally respected in a liberal system.\u00a0 Religious people have to be able to practise their values.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

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

Interview with Abdulkarim Soroush By Nooshabeh Amiri Paris, April 2009 Q.\u00a0 It seems that, these days, the West is very interested in the movement that you call \u201creligious modernism\u201d.\u00a0 Is that right?\u00a0 And why? A.\u00a0 Yes, that\u2019s right.\u00a0 But, unfortunately, the West\u2019s interest in the question of Islam and religious modernism doesn\u2019t have a very […]<\/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\/166"}],"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=166"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/drsoroush.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/166\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/drsoroush.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=166"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/drsoroush.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=166"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/drsoroush.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=166"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}