Modern Traditionalist!

1
As I mentioned in my previous post, it seems that the verbal confrontation between two shi’a theologians (Dr. Soroush and Dr. Nasr) is more than a scholar argument and going to become a serious conflict between two different Islamic schools of thought. I have always been under the impression that the main opponents of Soroush are Islamic fundamentalists who are actively involved in the regime of terror in Iran. I have been wondering why Soroush consider a traditionalist scholar such as Nasr as his main challenge. In this post I am trying to answer this question.

2
AbdolKarim Soroush, the intellectual godfather of Iranian Muslim reformists, talks about the reviving of Islamic rationalist theology (See Mu'tazilah) these days. In fact, with all his intellectual ups and downs, Soroush has always been a proponent of religious rationalism which has embodied itself in his famous “doctrine of temporal interpretation of Islam”. Soroush is loyal to Islam (as a text) as well as analytical reason (and its historical achievements). According to Soroush, the synthesis of religious scripts and reason, gives a timely-fashioned version of Islam.

3
Seyyed Housein Nasr is an active figure among Perennialist scholars (See Nasr and Perennialism). Perennialists seek truth (nomenon) rather than incidents (phe-nomenon), through intellect (knowledge by revelation) rather than reason (knowledge by attainment). This type of Perennial wisdom has been historically practiced and claimed by mystics. According to mystics, the truth either reveals itself directly to a master or is revealed indirectly to a follower. In both cases, Perennialists claim that they see some portions of the truth and are capable of witnessing more.

4
I assume there are two characteristics which is inherent consequence of Perennialism: “self-righteous ideology” and “hermitic lifestyle” (both in a static mode).
Prennialists are self-righteous since they claim that the truth, the absolute truth, won’t be revealed to anyone but them. They are also hermitic, since the kind of approach they are putting forward is not easy (if possible at all) to teach or convey; I guess that is why classic mystics have mostly abstained social life.
Although Nasr has inherited the self-righteous ideology of his fellow mystics, he is far from a hermit. He has repeatedly emphasized that there is no separation of church and state in Islam since Islam is a social religion as well as an individual one. (See Bill Moyor’s interview). His involvement in Iran’ politics before 1979 revolution and his willingness to reconcile the Ayatollah and the Monarch suggest that Nasr has a political agenda.

5
Now I can put two and two together: Nasr is a “modern traditionalist”. We are dealing with an ancient alchemist who wants to patent his drugs with the help of his pupils in the FDA! And, you know, Nasr is under the impression that he has discovered the elixir of life, and the rest of the market is just a sham! I am wondering what is going to be the next?

The elastic world of Shi'a

A couple of days ago an editorial column in an Iranian newspaper grabbed my attention. The author is talking about a dispute between two important Iranian theologians: Dr. Nasr and Dr Soroush. Although these two scholars are both Muslim and Shi’a, their ideas about Islam and religion differ dramatically in theory and practice. Studying the contrasting theologies of these two full-fledged Shi’a scholars, makes me think about the real nature of Islam; is Islam such an elastic concept that can be manipulated by two scholars in completely two different ways? If that is the case, I am really interested to discover the logic of Islam’s elastisity. I am sure you know why I want to discover that!
I will give a repot of the editorial in my next post. Until then, go to the website of these two scholars ( click on Nasr and Soroush) and have fun with the elastic world of Shi’a !

On regime change; a priori conditions and a posteriori problems

1
In my last post, I was trying to show some "a priori" conditions which make a democracy possible; conditions which are not necessarily democratic. If we accept these a priories, we won't be bashful about enforcing them.

2
I want to get back to the last question of my previous post: “…Can we use force to convert Iranians to liberalism without their consent? If we manage to convert them, don't you agree everyone would be better off…?" Here comes the challenge: how confident are we about this "if"? Defiantly it is not an easy question; but how difficult is that? Is it possible to answer this question at all? Proponents of regime change normally will be positive about this “if”. However, it is not enough to be optimist. If we claim that something is achievable, we should be able to show how we go about achieving it.

3
“ Iraq the model ” is a very interesting and successful blog from inside Iraq. I frequently read the blog since it gives a first account information about the development of enforced democracy in Iraq. I am also planning to read an in depth analysis of democracy development in West Germany and Japan after the World War II. We have to figure out how iffy this “if” gets!

Converting Iranians to liberalism; paradox or contradiction?

“The liberty of the individual must thus far be limited; he must not make himself a nuisance to other people”
John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

The first premise of this statement—my freedom—is easy to accept. But what about other people’s freedom; why should we care about other people’s freedom and worry about turning to a “nuisance” to them? If I exclude absolute altruism, I can think of two approaches in support of Mill’s thesis:

1) Utilitarianism: Based on utilitarian approach, we religiously defend other’s freedom since: a) it creates a more diverse network of people, which in turn provides us with better/more resources, b) By preventing our self to breach other people’s freedom, we prevent others to breach our freedom.
Question: Could we think of any possible scenario that lack of consent serves our freedom? What if we enforce a democratic system without asking people if they like it or not in the first place? After all, even under the auspicious of our liberal democratic system, elementary education is mandatory!

2) Relativism: Based on relativism, we don’t posses the truth. Since nobody knows who is right and who is wrong, nobody has any right to force others toward any specific direction.
Question: how far are we loyal to this relativism? What if it jeopardizes our life? Are we going to stand still when our life is being threatened since we are not quit sure about our existence? What about jeopardizing our freedom?

Let me be honest; I am bringing up all these doubts about the universality of Mill’s theses to raise this question: Can we use force to convert Iranians to liberalism without their consent? If we manage to convert them, don’t you agree everyone would be better off?

The worst political system apart from all the others!

Regime change; form or content?

(1)
"The read we get on the people of Iraq is there is no question but they want to get rid of Saddam Hussein, and they will welcome as liberators the United States when we come to do that."--Vice President Dick Cheney, on NBC's "Meet the Press," March 16 2003

(2)
I was reading Ayatollah Sistani’s treaty on Islamic law the other day.The main body of his work is almost identical to the work of other Ayatollahs: an obsessive/detailed Shia jurisprudence with medieval solutions. Sistani’s work can be viewed as an obsolete and even comic piece for our time. However, it is neither obsolete nor comic when we learn that sixty percent of Iraqis are his followers; people who cast ballot since his majesty endorsed the election! (just imagine if Sistani— like Khomeini— believed that the political power inherently belongs to Shia clergies. Well, we are lucky that he doesn’t believe so; just lucky)

Question
We have liberated Iraqis from Saddam Hussein; is this freedom going to liberate them from their medieval culture as well? We have managed to change the form of Iraq’s political regime; will Iraqis manage to change its content?

Akbar Ganji and financing democracy

Akbar Ganji-Iranian famous dissident-wrote an article (NYTIMES) opposing the US financial helps to Iranian dissidents. There are two different questions involved in this debate: First one is if the US dollars are helpful for Iran’s democratic movement at all; and the Second one is if the Americans’ decision in funding dissidents is prudent at this time. The good news is that Ganji seems to be concerned with the second question and criticizes Americans from a tactical point of view rather than an ideological one. However, Ganji and other Iranian dissidents should put forward a practical alternative for anything that they go against; after all, republicans love to stay in power and democrats yearn to gain it back.