Dogmalogy!
1
We can think of the external world with deterministic rules and yet we don't need to be determinists. As long as we have a skeptical view of our understanding, we stay relativists. I think this relativistic approach is quite relevant in history; we can talk about possible histories and most possible histories without emphasizing on a definite rout for the future. This is relevent for all deciplines but makes more sense in history since we are not aware of most of the playing factors in shaping the future.
We can understand this approach from top to bottom as well. If we identify a target for a society (for instance secularization of Iran's society as in my previous post), we can talk about different routs to reach that target instead of talking about the only possible rout.
2
One of the main threads in my posts is the idea of modernization (I know that it is not a clear concept!) for Iran's society. Since Iran is not a modern society (at cultural level), this idea becomes a target that might be achieved in future. Accordingly, we can talk about possible routs for the secularization of Iran. With our limited knowledge of internal and external factors affecting the process, it is impossible to talk about the only rout to secularization.
In my previous post, I mentioned that "the deactivation of the aggressive aspects of religion is a grave task which should be done by clergies". Well, there are lots of possible strategies to switch off the aggressive parts of Islam. Why am I saying that it should be done through religion and clergies? I think it is just a probable scenario that can happen; at most I can explain why it is more probable than alternative routs.
3
My argument is based on two statements:
1) If we want to have a modern society in Iran, we have to modernize Islam.
2) If we want to modernize Islam, we have to work with clergies.
Lots of people through different postulates would disagree with the first statement.
The first group are those who don't consider Islam as an important player in Iran. I have noticed that lots of secular Iranians claim that their compatriots are not religious.These people mostly refer to Iranian's way of religion which appears to be less rigid than other Muslims such as Pakistanis and Arabs. Naturally, these people don't agree with my statement. Well, I strongly disagree with these people and assume that religious believes among Iranians are deep enough to shape their destiny.
Another presumption in my first statement is the possibility of reform in Islam; and normally those who regard Islam (or religion in general) impossible to go through reforms, would disagree with the statement. According to these people we have to get rid of Islam in order to achieve a modern society. Well, if some one can show that Islam has a rigid "nature" which defies modern achievements and modern way of life, then we secular should look for a way to weaken Islam. Since I don't care about religion, I don't have any problem with this approach. However, I don't think that Islam is impossible to go through reforms and since I am fearing the backlash of weakening Islam, I prefer to go for reform.
4
As for the second statement, again I don't think of it as the only possible rout. As a matter of fact, during these two weeks I was questioning this statement myself. If we are looking for reforms, why not using religious intellectuals? Haven't religious intellectuals in contemporary Iran (eg. Shariati and Soroosh) been influential enough to trust them for future reforms? and haven't clergies always impeded any progress in religion since their existence is based on the traditional version of religion? Well, we still can keep the clergies to act as the last chain of the reform process ( since they are those who are in touch with the mass); however, they would play a passive role in this scenario. Due to different external forces, clergies would be forced to go through reforms and convey that to the public, but they wouldn't be doing it willingly and creatively.
I am not sure about these answers though; for some reason, Islam has not been as open to denomination as Christianity. If Islam opens up to denomination, probably there would be clergies who are actively involved in reform. The examples in Iran are extreme: some revolutionaries like Bab (Seyed Ali Mohamad Bab) that started by Islam, ended up creating a new religion; on the other hand, religious intellectuals (looking for renovation/reform) either avoid or don't have the necessary apparatus to institutionalize their version of Islam. I think that is the kind of background that turns me pessimistic about the clergies role in religious reforms. But don't we need to resolve the problem of denomination in Islam in order to embark on any serious reform? and if we couldn't resolve that , wouldn't Islam be impossible to go through reforms?
We can think of the external world with deterministic rules and yet we don't need to be determinists. As long as we have a skeptical view of our understanding, we stay relativists. I think this relativistic approach is quite relevant in history; we can talk about possible histories and most possible histories without emphasizing on a definite rout for the future. This is relevent for all deciplines but makes more sense in history since we are not aware of most of the playing factors in shaping the future.
We can understand this approach from top to bottom as well. If we identify a target for a society (for instance secularization of Iran's society as in my previous post), we can talk about different routs to reach that target instead of talking about the only possible rout.
2
One of the main threads in my posts is the idea of modernization (I know that it is not a clear concept!) for Iran's society. Since Iran is not a modern society (at cultural level), this idea becomes a target that might be achieved in future. Accordingly, we can talk about possible routs for the secularization of Iran. With our limited knowledge of internal and external factors affecting the process, it is impossible to talk about the only rout to secularization.
In my previous post, I mentioned that "the deactivation of the aggressive aspects of religion is a grave task which should be done by clergies". Well, there are lots of possible strategies to switch off the aggressive parts of Islam. Why am I saying that it should be done through religion and clergies? I think it is just a probable scenario that can happen; at most I can explain why it is more probable than alternative routs.
3
My argument is based on two statements:
1) If we want to have a modern society in Iran, we have to modernize Islam.
2) If we want to modernize Islam, we have to work with clergies.
Lots of people through different postulates would disagree with the first statement.
The first group are those who don't consider Islam as an important player in Iran. I have noticed that lots of secular Iranians claim that their compatriots are not religious.These people mostly refer to Iranian's way of religion which appears to be less rigid than other Muslims such as Pakistanis and Arabs. Naturally, these people don't agree with my statement. Well, I strongly disagree with these people and assume that religious believes among Iranians are deep enough to shape their destiny.
Another presumption in my first statement is the possibility of reform in Islam; and normally those who regard Islam (or religion in general) impossible to go through reforms, would disagree with the statement. According to these people we have to get rid of Islam in order to achieve a modern society. Well, if some one can show that Islam has a rigid "nature" which defies modern achievements and modern way of life, then we secular should look for a way to weaken Islam. Since I don't care about religion, I don't have any problem with this approach. However, I don't think that Islam is impossible to go through reforms and since I am fearing the backlash of weakening Islam, I prefer to go for reform.
4
As for the second statement, again I don't think of it as the only possible rout. As a matter of fact, during these two weeks I was questioning this statement myself. If we are looking for reforms, why not using religious intellectuals? Haven't religious intellectuals in contemporary Iran (eg. Shariati and Soroosh) been influential enough to trust them for future reforms? and haven't clergies always impeded any progress in religion since their existence is based on the traditional version of religion? Well, we still can keep the clergies to act as the last chain of the reform process ( since they are those who are in touch with the mass); however, they would play a passive role in this scenario. Due to different external forces, clergies would be forced to go through reforms and convey that to the public, but they wouldn't be doing it willingly and creatively.
I am not sure about these answers though; for some reason, Islam has not been as open to denomination as Christianity. If Islam opens up to denomination, probably there would be clergies who are actively involved in reform. The examples in Iran are extreme: some revolutionaries like Bab (Seyed Ali Mohamad Bab) that started by Islam, ended up creating a new religion; on the other hand, religious intellectuals (looking for renovation/reform) either avoid or don't have the necessary apparatus to institutionalize their version of Islam. I think that is the kind of background that turns me pessimistic about the clergies role in religious reforms. But don't we need to resolve the problem of denomination in Islam in order to embark on any serious reform? and if we couldn't resolve that , wouldn't Islam be impossible to go through reforms?
posted by Homonomos at 3:14 PM
<< Home