Truth and Religion: a brief look at Abdolkarim Soroush (and some other thoughts)

Before I begin, I just want to mention a great post I read recently over at Tazaqqa's blog - a favorite of mine - called "Revealed scriptures vs divine inspiration"... a must-read! I reach different conclusions than she, but I still found the post very moving.

************

Now, to my post. I've just started reading some of Abdolkarim Soroush's work. He is an Iranian religious intellectual and I must admit that I enjoy reading his thoughts. If you peruse the links on this blog you'll find one leading to his website, where you can find a number of his lectures and essays in both English and Persian. Today I just wanted to share a few quotes from a book I'm reading, "Reason, Freedom, and Democracy in Islam: Essential Writings of Abdolkarim Soroush".

Religion vs Religious Thought

This is a concept I found most refreshing when it comes to Islamic thought. Basically, it means that in endeavors to understand religion, or the reform/revival of religion, one must first understand that their is a difference between the religion itself and our understanding of religion.

"The truth is that as long as one has not distinguished between religion and people's understanding of it, one will be incapable of finding an adequate answer to these intriguing questions. Yes, it is true that sacred scriptures are (in the judgment of followers) flawless; however, it is just as true that human beings' understanding of religion is flawed. Religion is sacred and heavenly, but the understanding of religion is human and earthly... Religion has not faltered in articulating its objectives and its explanations of good and evil; the defect is in human beings' understanding of religion's intents. Religion is in no need of reconstruction and completion. Religious knowledge and insight that is human and incomplete, however, is in constant need of reconstruction. Religion is free from cultures and unblemished by the artifacts of human minds, but religious knowledge is, without a shadow of a doubt, subject to such influences... It is up to God to reveal a religion, but up to us to understand and realize it. It is at this point that religious knowledge is born, entirely human and subject to all the dictates of human knowledge."

A Motto to Live By

The beginning of the book included and interview with Soroush, in which he discusses some of his personal ethics. I found the following deeply inspiring:

"... I always follow a single motto. It is rather easy to state but hard to practice. I believe that truths everywhere are compatible; no truth clashes with any other truth. They are all the inhabitants of the same mansion and stars in the same constellation. One truth in one corner of the world has to be harmonious and compatible with all truths elsewhere, or else it is not truth. That is why I have never tired of my search for truth in other arenas of intellect and opinion. This truthfulness of the world is a blessing indeed, because it instigates constant search and engenders a healthy pluralism."

This defines perfectly my (intended) method of understanding Islam. I hold certain truths in my heart that I couldn't escape if I wanted to. So far these truths seem compatible with those of Islam, but I continue to search and question in order to discover if it is so.

************

And now, some other thoughts:

Its funny... I remember crying when I first began reading the Quran. It was a beautiful yet painful moment, as if my heart was breaking. And I do feel as if the Quran broke open my heart; emotions seem stronger than they did before, with moments of great comfort and great confusion coming one after the other. I feel more awake. It reminds me of falling in love.

I don't know what all this means yet, just something I've been reflecting on lately.

On the Matter of My Nom de Plume

I chose the name Sophia when I was reading about people taking "Muslim" names when they convert. There's a lot of debate on whether such a thing is necessary, on whether it has to be an Arab name or not, etc. My opinion is that it's not needed, but it might be beneficial. I also don't think it has to be from any particular nationality. I decided that IF I converted and IF I wanted a name to reflect that, it would be Sophia - thus the name of the blog. I read the Bible a long time ago because I was curious, and Proverbs chapter 8 caught my eye. It refers to a personification of wisdom, but some translations simply use the Greek word for wisdom: Sophia. Thus the title of this blog, Theosophia, literally means "god-wisdom".

I'm reading a fascinating book right now; No God but God: The Origins, Evolution, and Future of Islam by Reza Aslan. I hope to write more on this book, but there was a section I read recently that just about made my heart skip a beat:

"Others have suggested that Sufi is a corruption of the Greek word sophia: "wisdom". This is also unlikely, though there is a tempting symbolic connection between the two words. For if sophia is to be understood in its Aristotelian sense as "knowledge of ultimate things," then it is very much related to the term Sufi, just not linguistically."

How 'bout that! I definitely want to study more about Sufism, but I have been trying to ground myself in "the basics" of Islam first. I feel kinda bad... I have read half a dozen books about Islam in the past two months, and I still haven't finished the Quran! Part of the problem is I just bounced around reading whatever section caught my attention, then researching the meaning and history behind certain difficult verses, taking some notes, and bouncing around some more. I decided a few weeks ago to start over from the beginning to make sure I don't miss anything... and I'm only 1/4 of the way through! Oh well, after I finish the book I'm on I'll pick up where I left off... at least now I'm keeping track.

Reason, Intellect, and Faith: A look at the Mu'tazili

This is actually a pretty complex topic, perhaps a little over my head, but I found it too interesting to avoid delving in. I will try to be as accurate as possible, but understand that this is the result of my limited research and I encourage those interested to study further. I did use wikipedia for this because it spelled things out in a clear way, but there are other resources out there.

Mu'tazilah is an Islamic school of speculative theology that flourished primarily in Basra and Baghdad in the 8th-10th centuries. Although the school of thought itself declined sharply in popularity - it is only adopted today by a minority of Muslim intellectuals - many of its doctrines and methodologies were effectively cannibalized by other schools of thought which did survive.

History:

Like many schools, it developed over centuries and had many different evolutions and interpretations, as well as multiple subgroups that held different political priorities. Caliph al-Ma'mun espoused certain beliefs shared by Mu'tazilah school (and several others) that the Quran is the created word of God. But he instituted the Mihna - an Inquisition - against religious opponents of that belief in an attempt to gain full control over the religious sphere as well as the secular. The Mu'tazilis were seen as instigators of this persecution campaign and lost popularity.

The Mu'tazilis held the truths of Islam as their starting point and primary reference, but also relied on logic, as well as various philosophies (early Islamic, Greek, and Hellenistic). Issues they sought to address: "whether the Qur'an was created or eternal, whether evil was created by God, the issue of predestination versus free will, whether God's attributes in the Qur'an were to be interpreted allegorically or literally, etc." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mu'tazili)

The Nature of God, and the Importance of Reason AND Revelation:

Their view on Divine Unity is quite interesting. At its core, its the same as the majority of Muslims - there is no God but God. What is different is how they view God's attributes. According to Seyyed Hossein Nasr, in his book Islam, "where the Quran asserts that God is the Hearer and the Seer, the Mu'tazilites claimed that hearing and seeing in this case had nothing to do with what we understand by these Attributes; otherwise we would have an anthropomorphic image of God." Basically, if we take a literal view that God sees in the way that humans see (with actual eyes), we are limiting his definition to human terms and God is far beyond human limitations. Also, they deny that God's attributes are separate from God's essence. Some Mu'tazilis took a metaphorical interpretation of the Quran in this regard, others simply chose to affirm the Attributes while believing they were beyond our understanding, and others avoided judgement on this issue altogether.

Curiously, they believed all humans with full mental faculties - even those without access to scripture or revelation - are obligated to seek knowledge of God's existence and attributes. They also believed that humans were capable of being moral without revelation, at least on a basic level. In other words, God gave us the capacity to know right and wrong in general, and he gave us revelations to elaborate on the details from that point. Thus, reason and revelation are complimentary, not contradictory.

This was just a brief look at the Mu'tazilah school of thought, and there is a lot more to study and say about it. I bring it up simply because I find some of their views compelling, although some others (which I didn't get into here) I don't really agree with. Still, it gives me hope that there are so many ideas out there, and maybe one day the propagation of ideas won't be equated with blasphemy, but rather as a noble quest for better understanding of the divine.