I just read Mohammad Quchani's "Why one should not be a laic?". Though containing some useful analysis, it was incoherent and inconsistent, attributing wrong facts and unfair and irrelevant criticisms towards Iranian intellectuals, both religious and secular.
For example Quchani at one of the last paragraphs writes:
"Both Bazargan and Sroush had degrees in natural sciences, and Shariati apparently was either graduated in social sciences or at least been attracted to them. But political theory was an abandoned field of study by religious intellectuals. Very few number of religious intellectuals had studied law or political philosophy. Long times ago Morteza Motahhari used to criticize Shariati and Bazargan because of their ignorance about Islamic philosophy. This shortage was compensated in Soroush's work. [since he knew much about Islamic philosophy] However, the greatest defect [by religious intellectuals] was their analysis on politics without being expertise on the subject."
For example Quchani at one of the last paragraphs writes:
"Both Bazargan and Sroush had degrees in natural sciences, and Shariati apparently was either graduated in social sciences or at least been attracted to them. But political theory was an abandoned field of study by religious intellectuals. Very few number of religious intellectuals had studied law or political philosophy. Long times ago Morteza Motahhari used to criticize Shariati and Bazargan because of their ignorance about Islamic philosophy. This shortage was compensated in Soroush's work. [since he knew much about Islamic philosophy] However, the greatest defect [by religious intellectuals] was their analysis on politics without being expertise on the subject."
Quchani makes this objection to religious intellectuals on condition that, as far as I know, he is also not an expertise or graduate in the field of political philosophy.
I do not know whether Quchani has written the aforementioned essay under any kind of external pressure - raised out of his post-election detainment - or quite consciously.
I do not know whether Quchani has written the aforementioned essay under any kind of external pressure - raised out of his post-election detainment - or quite consciously.
By the way I hope the first case comes true.
PS: While I just finished this note, an open letter by Abdolkarim Soroush to Shia authorities was highly spread on the Iranian websites. Soroush and people like him are more or less accused of being laic and neglecting the Islam's role in public sphere through Quchani's essay. However in this letter Soroush suggests to the religious authorities to openly criticize the systematic acts of injustice by the Islamic state, or if they feel insecure in doing so, to migrate to another country like Iraq as a Quranic and civil way of protest to oppression.
One might ask Quchani that which kind of pro-Laicite would be a religious intellectual like Soroush who writes open letters, with lots of quotations from Quran, to religious authorities in order to persuade them for a more democratic regime? Have Quchani built a new definition for laicite which does not exist in books of political science?!
هیچ نظری موجود نیست:
ارسال یک نظر