Christian Encounters with Iran: Engaging Muslim Thinkers After the Revolution

Sasan Tavassoli received his PhD in Islamic Studies from the University of Birmingham. He was born and raised in a Shi‘i...

Author: Sasan Tavassoli

35 downloads 1020 Views 2MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

Sasan Tavassoli received his PhD in Islamic Studies from the University of Birmingham. He was born and raised in a Shi‘i Sufi home in Iran and is now a minister in the Presbyterian Church of Iran living in the United States.

Tavassoli_Prelims.indd i

3/22/2011 1:13:19 PM

Tavassoli_Prelims.indd ii

3/22/2011 1:13:19 PM

CHRISTIAN ENCOUNTERS WITH IRAN Engaging Muslim Thinkers after the Revolution

Sasan Tavassoli

Tavassoli_Prelims.indd iii

3/22/2011 1:13:20 PM

Published in 2011 by I.B.Tauris & Co Ltd 6 Salem Road, London W2 4BU 175 Fifth Avenue, New York NY 10010 www.ibtauris.com Distributed in the United States and Canada Exclusively by Palgrave Macmillan 175 Fifth Avenue, New York NY 10010 Copyright © 2011 Sasan Tavassoli The right of Sasan Tavassoli to be identified as the author of this work has been asserted by the author in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patent Act 1988. All rights reserved. Except for brief quotations in a review, this book, or any part thereof, may not be reproduced, stored in or introduced into a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the publisher. International Library of Iranian Studies 19 ISBN: 978 1 84511 761 0 A full CIP record for this book is available from the British Library A full CIP record for this book is available from the Library of Congress Library of Congress catalog card: available Typeset by Newgen Publishers, Chennai Printed and bound in Great Britain by CPI Antony Rowe, Chippenham

Tavassoli_Prelims.indd iv

3/22/2011 1:13:20 PM

CONTENTS

Preface Acknowledgments 1 2 3 4 5 6

Iranian Shi’i Thinkers and the Christian Faith: A Theological Perspective Factors in Muslim–Christian Intellectual Encounters and Dialogue in Contemporary Iranian Society Iranian Shi’as and the Christian Faith: A Survey of Iranian Publications on Christianity Muslim–Christian Dialogue: Some Organizational Encounters Iranian Shi’as and Christian Thought: Three Liberal Religious Intellectuals Iranian Shi’as and the Christian Faith: Where Have They Come From and Where Are They Heading?

Notes Bibliography Index

Tavassoli_Prelims.indd v

vi ix

1 10 48 86 129 176 200 281 304

3/22/2011 1:13:20 PM

PREFACE

Iran is a country in constant flux and filled with many paradoxes and contradictions. The book you are about to read offers a window into some of the positive and unprecedented changes taking place in Iran in the beginning of the twenty-first century in regard to Shi’i Muslim attitudes and interactions with Christian faith. The images and headlines that dominate the Western media’s coverage of Iran do not convey the deep complexities and the full range of intellectual religious currents there. It is true that the Iranian regime has an abhorrent record of human rights abuses. The government’s ill treatment of religious minorities (including the persecution of Protestant Christians), censorship of the press and the lack of freedom of expression are wellknown facts. These trends have worsened significantly under the current Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. But there are also other realities in Iran that do not receive much attention in the West. The fact that Iranian Shi’i thinkers, some with the full support of the Iranian government or even from the highest levels of that government, have been eagerly engaged in inter-faith dialogue with Christian theologians; the fact that Shi’i clerics in Qum have been actively involved in research and publication on Christianity; the fact that some of the most prominent Iranian religious intellectuals have been deeply influenced by Christian thought in their own understanding of Islam; or even the fact that for the first time in history the New Testament was translated and published in Iran by an accomplished Muslim translator are not well known in the West. This book is an attempt to document some of these changes that present a different side of the story regarding contemporary Iranian Shi’i

Tavassoli_Prelims.indd vi

3/22/2011 1:13:20 PM

Preface

vii

intellectual trends. The work before you stems from the author’s doctoral research at the University of Birmingham (UK). The research took place during the presidency of Mohammad Khatami who was an active promoter and participant in inter-faith and inter-cultural dialogues and founded the International Center for Dialogue Among Civilizations. Those years were the height of Iranian engagement in Muslim–Christian dialogue. Unfortunately, there have been many changes for the worse since the arrival of president Ahmadinejad in 2006. Some of the people and organizations that you will encounter in this book are no longer active in inter-faith dialogue due to the pressures from the current Iranian administration. Khatami’s own International Center for Dialogue Among Civilizations has been closed. He has since established an NGO promoting dialogue, but has been severely limited in his activities. The former Iranian vice-president Mohammad Ali Abtahi, who founded the Institute for Inter-faith Dialogue, was arrested on trumped up political charges in the widely publicized brutal crackdown that followed the 2009 Iranian presidential election. His NGO, which is active in dialogue and journal publication, has also come to a halt. Iranian religious thinkers like Mohammad Mojtahed Shabestari were purged from the University of Tehran while others like Abdolkarim Soroush continue to live in forced exile. Also, publication of works on Christianity has slowed down significantly, since it is harder to receive permits from the Ministry of Islamic Culture and Guidance for such books. On the other hand, there are also signs of progress. The Center for the Study of Religions in Qum is now more than a research center. With the full support of the Iranian government, the center offers accredited university degrees in Christian theology for interested students and clerics studying there. Also with the support or the explicit blessing of the government, Muslim–Christian dialogues with Western or Middle-Eastern Protestants and Catholics are continuing, though less frequently than before. And, as mentioned earlier, it was also during the presidency of Ahmadinejad that an Iranian Muslim published his own translation of the New Testament from the French New Jerusalem Bible. One cannot predict the future of Muslim–Christian encounters in Iran. The positive changes that were taking place under Khatami’s vision have been dealt a severe blow by the policies of president Ahmadinejad. However, based on all the available evidence that you will see in this book, one can cautiously hope that in the long term despite the current

Tavassoli_Prelims.indd vii

3/22/2011 1:13:20 PM

viii

Christian Encounters with Iran

setbacks, Iranian Shi’i thinkers will continue to move forward in establishing a better and more accurate understanding of Christian thought, and will more positively engage Christian theologians and philosophers in order to confront the common challenges that face all human communities and religious traditions in the twenty-first century.

Tavassoli_Prelims.indd viii

3/22/2011 1:13:20 PM

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

It is an impossible task to acknowledge and thank all those who have helped me along this “journey” of mine. But I must attempt to do this impossible task for certainly my work has been nothing short of a “community” effort. I want to thank all the churches and individuals for financially supporting my family and I during our stay in the U.K. None of what I have produced could have been accomplished without the encouragement and support of such friends and churches in the U.S. I also want to thank a number of Iranian Muslim friends for helping me to access resources and information for my work and hosting me during my travels to Iran. Dr. Seyyed Amir Akrami, formerly of the Organization of Culture and Islamic Relations, opened many “doors” for me in my first trip to Tehran in February of 2003 and continued to be a friend and mentor. Other valued friends who introduced me to many wonderful clergies and researches in Qum were Hojjatoleslams Bagher Talebi and Behrooz Haddadi. I also appreciated the friendship and warm support of Hojjatoleslam Saied Edalatnejad, formerly of the International Center for Dialogue Among Civilizations. Mrs. Mousavinejad, the director of the Institute for Interreligious Dialogue, and her generous colleagues in that center were another source of amazing hospitality and information. My advisor, Dr. David Thomas, deserves a special place of thanks. I will always cherish his guidance and friendship. Last, and most importantly, I must express my deepest gratitude to my loving family who patiently put up with me through it all. Without the sacrifice of my wife and two beautiful children I would not be around to offer this book as a fruit of my labor.

Tavassoli_Prelims.indd ix

3/22/2011 1:13:20 PM

Tavassoli_Prelims.indd x

3/22/2011 1:13:20 PM

CHAPTER 1 IRANIAN SHI’I THINKERS AND THE CHRISTIAN FAITH: A THEOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE

This book is an exploration into Iranian Shi’i theological engagement with Christian thought, an encounter that has been forming and developing since the Iranian revolution of 1979. Contrary to the popular stereotyped images of Iran as a militant and fanatical society in Western imaginations,1 Iranian society has become one of the most intellectually dynamic societies in the Muslim world today. The focus here will be on those aspects of religious and theological developments in post-revolutionary Iran that bear directly on the experience of Muslim–Christian encounters among Iranian Shi’i thinkers. This subject provides many challenges. As Seyyed Hossein Nasr, the renowned Iranian Shi’i scholar, points out: One of the unfortunate shortcomings of modern Western scholarships concerning the Islamic world is that while serious studies are often made of the intellectual and spiritual life of what is usually called the “medieval” period, when it comes to the contemporary era most of the studies are limited to the social, economic and political fields. A picture of the contemporary Islamic world is usually drawn depicting it as if it contained nothing of intellectual interest.2 Nasr’s judgment about contemporary Western scholarship on Islam is further confirmed when considering recent studies on Iran or Iranian Islam. For the most part, all such studies concentrate on the socio-political

Tavassoli_Ch01.indd 1

3/22/2011 12:47:33 PM

2


dimension of Iran or Islam without sufficient attention to the multidimensional theological aspects of Shi’i Islam in Iran.3 Furthermore, in the ever-growing literature on Muslim–Christian dialogue,4 the treatment of Iranian Muslims is in general conspicuously absent. Isabel Stumpel-Hatami notes that most studies that focus on Muslim attitudes toward Christianity, “concentrate mainly on Arabic texts, whereas little research has been conducted on Persian sources dealing with other religions, let alone contemporary Persian publications.”5 Even when an author does engage in a study of contemporary Iranian Muslim attitude toward Christianity, it can be based on older materials that do not bear much relevance for a genuinely contemporary understanding of the Iranian intellectual scene. For example, Anthony O’Mahony’s 2003 article “The Image of Jesus and Christianity in Shī’i Islam and Modern Iranian Thought” provides a fine analysis of certain aspects of Shi’i thought in regard to Christianity, but bases parts of its analysis on outdated writings of Ali Shari’ati and the obscure figure of Parto, who published his work on Christ more than half a century ago.6 Among other writers, any references to the current intellectual religious climate in Iran are no more than a passing remark of a short sentence or paragraph.7 Needless to say, these writers do not provide an adequate basis for understanding the dynamics of Shi’a–Christian encounter in Iran today. In the face of these shortcomings of Western scholarship in paying sufficient attention to the theological vibrancy among contemporary Iranians, it may seem surprising that Iranian scholars have been involved in a great number of Muslim–Christian dialogues (often sponsored by the Iranian government), that for about the last fifteen years several centers of interfaith studies and dialogues (again, some supported or with close ties to the Iranian government) have been established in Iran and that an increasing number of books and journal articles are being published in Iran every year about the Christian faith. Never before in the history of Islam in Iran have there been such multi-faceted theological engagements with Christian thought on the part of Iranian Shi’i thinkers. Due to a variety of factors in Iranian society—some intended by the Iranian government and some a result of unintended consequences—there is a positive and noticeable shift in attitude among numerous Iranian Muslim thinkers toward the Christian faith.8 It is hoped that this book will make some contribution toward a better and deeper understanding of contemporary Iranian religious thought, especially in the field of Muslim–Christian relations.9 In some ways, this book complements earlier research done by Ataullah Siddiqui entitled


3/22/2011 12:47:33 PM

Iranian Shi’i Thinkers and the Christian Faith

3

Christian-Muslim Dialogue in the Twentieth Century in which he focuses for the most part on Sunni Muslims and institutions involved in dialogue. Siddiqui called for further research in regard to Shi’i institutions of dialogue and the assessment of regional organizations and activities in the Middle East.10 The aim of this book is therefore to provide much new and needed information in the English language that will hopefully encourage other researchers to move further into this developing field of study.

Some Parameters and Definitions Some of the basic questions that will be considered are quite straightforward: Given the fact that over 99 percent of the Iranian population is Muslim, why have Iranians become so interested and active in Muslim– Christian dialogues? What are Iranians writing and publishing about the Christian faith? How widespread are these interactions between Iranian Shi’as and Christians? What impact if any have these engagements had on the viewpoint of Iranians, especially among some of the most prominent Iranian religious intellectuals, toward Christianity? It should be noted that this research is concerned only in developments within Iran, from the time of the Iranian revolution of 1979 (and more specifically from the early 1990s) till the present. Although there will be some reference to the history of Shi’a–Christian experience in Iran, the main focus will relate to the contemporary post-revolutionary period of Iran. This also means that various Iranian authors who live and write outside of Iran will not be considered.11 Another important criterion is that the Iranians included in this book are for the most part those who self-consciously identify themselves as Shi’as or at least write from a perspective that is rooted in Islamic convictions. However, a growing number of Iranian writers in the West are writing about Christianity or even Islam from a total secularist or antireligious perspective.12 Furthermore, this book is not about the general relationships between Muslims and Christians in Iran and is not a socio-political study of the interaction between Muslims and various Christian communities. The focus is on the intellectual climate of Iranian Islam as it relates to the Christian faith. The main interest is on how individual thinkers or institutions are engaged with Christianity and not whether this has any impact on the way the Iranian government for example might view or relate to the Christian churches inside Iran.


3/22/2011 12:47:33 PM

4


The more generic term “thinkers” rather than intellectuals has been purposefully used here. Many of the individuals included in this book cannot be properly defined as “intellectuals” in the way that designation is understood in the West.13 For example, many of the Iranian “writers” are simply translators who make no claim to making an original contribution of their own. Daryush Shayegan, himself a prominent Iranian intellectual, makes an important observation in this regard. He writes: For the great mass of our co-religionists, an intellectual is probably anyone who knows how to read and write, anyone who works with his mind, whether he’d be a doctor, writer, translator, engineer, teacher or manager. The intellectual as society’s “uneasy awareness,” as a member of a separate group whose epistemological function is criticism, does not yet exist in our countries. Shayegan goes on to say: Of the various jobs which fall to our intellectuals, one of the most important must be translations . . . Because they have access to modern sources of knowledge, translators enjoy almost the same prestige as the thinkers whose work they interpret . . . In published works the name of the translator is given prominence at least as great as that of the author.14 Thereforethis book includes a variety of publications whose authors or translators cannot be viewed as intellectuals or scholars, but can be safely categorized, at least in the Iranian society, as “thinkers.” And finally, the phrase “Christian Thought” is used in a general sense to mean a variety of topics that can be viewed under the umbrella of Christianity. Any publications or discussions by Iranian Muslim thinkers that touch on Jesus (even from a Qur’anic or Islamic perspective), Christian theology, and doctrines, church history or Christian philosophy or Christian–Muslim relations are considered relevant.

The Methodology The research was conducted over a period of three years from 2002 to 2005. During a number of trips to the country of Iran approximately four hundred volumes of books and journals on various themes and topics


3/22/2011 12:47:34 PM


5

relating to this study were purchased.15 These publications provide the major source for this study. Furthermore, the author was able to visit and be closely acquainted with most of the academic institutions in Tehran and Qum that are devoted to inter-faith research and dialogue. A significant portion of this research was based on personal conversations and interviews with a number of Iranians who are deeply involved in studying or writing about Christianity or are actively involved within the Muslim–Christian dialogue movements in Iran. These organizations and individuals are all at the forefront of the intellectual encounter among Iranian Shi’as and Christian thought. Thus, they provided an obvious and natural starting point for this research.16 The author also participated as a translator or attendant at three inter-faith dialogues between Iranians and European Protestants and Catholics, and organized a dialogue for the first time ever between a group of American reformed evangelicals and a group of Shi’i thinkers at the Iranian State Department in Tehran.17 Finally, many secondary English sources have been used to put this research in a broader context. This is especially true in discussing the historical background and the contemporary context of Muslim–Christian experience in Iran in chapters two and five. This study is not based on any explicit philosophical or sociological framework. The basic method of this work is descriptive and interpretive. It is an empirical research into some aspects of contemporary Shi’i thought in Iran.18 However, it is clear that no one can lay claim to a completely neutral and absolutely objective and exhaustive point of view.19 As Clinton Bennett points out, although “personal bias is inevitable, . . . its worst excesses, misrepresentation and false attribution, can be avoided.”20 Commenting on the methodological problems of a research of this kind, Daniel Brown writes: In the study of modern Muslim intellectual history—indeed all intellectual history—the attention of scholars is quite naturally drawn to the currents of thought that would seem to be new, innovative, holding promise for change. Our attention is riveted especially on ideas that may seem to be the peculiar product of modernity and seem to arise form a struggle to reconcile tradition with the pressures of the modern world. But this tendency is both a product of our own cultural biases and a vestige of the Enlightenment idea of progress. Too


3/22/2011 12:47:34 PM

6

Christian Encounters with Iran often such an approach projects the wishful thinking of the scholar onto his subject; we tend to focus upon ideas and figures that meet with our approval, neglecting broader, but less attractive, currents of thought. Change is not always unidirectional, nor does it always come in packages that seem attractive to academics.21

Furthermore: The danger of emphasizing the attractive, the new, or the progressive correlates closely with certain difficult methodological choices faced by anyone engaged in tracing the history of ideas. Among the most important of these is the choice between emphasizing outstanding individuals and emphasizing general trends or “schools of thought.” Albert Hourani astutely identified the dangers in both approaches. If we stress the impact of outstanding individuals, we must be certain that the figures chosen are truly influential and truly representative of significant trends in thought. Perhaps the greatest danger inherent in such an approach is of focusing on thinkers whose ideas meet with our approval; we judge someone significant because his or her ideas are attractive. Yet the second method, emphasizing schools of thought rather than individuals, risks a blurring of distinctions between individuals and the false imposition of unity on diverse ideas.22 The warnings of Daniel Brown should be heeded. Two points are in order here. First, it is clear from the outset that this work intends to focus mainly (though not exclusively) on the positive aspects of Muslim–Christian encounters in Iran. Also, this work is not stating that the majority of Iranian thinkers have become more open toward Christian thought, or that these limited but positive trends among some Iranian Muslim thinkers in their approach toward the Christian faith are making a widespread impact on Iranian society in general. Second, even as the book focuses on the positive movements that are happening in the field of Muslim–Christian relations and dialogue among a limited but significant number of individual thinkers or a small number of institutions, it offers numerous critiques of the weaknesses of these movements and will try to highlight the diversity that exists in such movements. To use and paraphrase some of the remarks from Hugh Goddard, “all change has to begin somewhere, and from its beginnings, wherever and whenever they might be, it may or may not grow and gain wider


3/22/2011 12:47:34 PM


7

acceptance.” It is hoped that this study can “illustrate that at least in some parts of [Iran] and in the minds of some Muslim thinkers, we may see both considerable variety and significant change in Muslim perceptions of Christianity.”23

The Outline and Plan Using the metaphor of windows, the contemporary Iranian Shi’i thinking on Christianity can be looked at through three different windows. Each window into this aspect of Iranian religious thought provides its own unique insights, perspectives, and challenges. This book will be viewed from the three angles of publications, institutions, and individuals. But before looking into these windows, the whole intellectual house will be considered in order to gain a better understanding of what is going on inside the house. Based on this plan, the outline of this book will be as follows. Chapter 2 will be an exploration of all the factors that impact contemporary Iranian religious thought. What is going on in Iran that is making the Iranian society, or at least certain elements in the Iranian society, more open to a better understanding of Christianity? What influences can possibly be shaping a present-day Iranian Shi’i thinker living in Iran that is making him or her more open toward dialogue with Christians? To answer these questions the religious/theological, cultural, historical and socio-political factors that have shaped and continue to shape the Iranian intellectual climate will be considered. After looking at the “big picture” of Iranian society, the focus will be on three aspects of that society. Or to go back to the previous metaphor, the three windows will be looked through to get a better sense of the concrete realities in Iranian attitudes toward Christianity. Chapter 3 will survey a wide range of publications such as books and journals to examine the attitudes that are displayed in the broad spectrum of writings. After highlighting the wide range of spectrum in the literature on the Christian faith available in Iran, which will be categorized into traditional/polemic, objective/descriptive, and dialogical/ constructive, there will be a demonstration of how the older traditional and polemical books are giving way to a range of publications that show more objectivity, sensitivity, and even appreciation for the strengths and truths of Christian thought. Chapter 4 is devoted to the organizational inter-faith encounters between Iranian Muslims and the global Christian communities. Hugh


3/22/2011 12:47:34 PM

8


Goddard writes, “One of the results of the fresh thinking which Christians and Muslims have been doing about each other in the twentieth century has been the emergence of a significant move toward dialogue between the two communities.”24 Although he does not mention any organizations in Iran, Goddard goes on to point out, “As a result of this activity, a series of institutions have emerged across the world which are interested and involved in dialogue between Christians and Muslims, and their publications provide an invaluable source of information for developments, . . . around the world.”25 Thus the purpose of this chapter is to point out the Iranian contribution to this worldwide movement of Muslim–Christian dialogue. There are currently two government-sponsored and two non-governmental organizations that have been established in Iran for the expressed purpose of inter-faith dialogue and research. Most of the activities of these centers are related to engagement with Christian thought whether in the form of Muslim–Christian dialogue with various Catholic, Protestant, and Eastern Orthodox institutions around the world or in the form of written research and publications. Again it will be seen that there are some interesting and significant developments in the way Muslim thinkers and theologians are interacting with their Christian counterparts. These new encounters are far from the traditional debates that can be remembered from the history of Muslim–Christian interactions. Some of the more prominent themes that have emerged in these engagements will be explored and their strengths and weaknesses evaluated. Chapter 5 focuses on some of the key Iranian intellectuals who have been and continue to be, in various ways, at the forefront of the interaction between Iranian Shi’i thinkers and Christian thought. These men are Abdol Karim Soroush, Mostafa Malekian, and Mojtahed Shabestari. Through personal interviews with these thinkers along with analysis of their relevant writings, it will be shown how each one of them has been deeply influence by his own interaction with Christianity and in turn how each one is making a significant impact on the way Iranian Shi’as can and do relate to the Christian faith. Chapter 6 will contain a summary and conclusion of observations. The concrete religious, cultural, and socio-political realities of contemporary Iran that are shaping and creating distinctive patterns, themes, and emphasis in this latest phase of encounter between Shi’i Islam and the Christian faith will be discussed. The chapter will end with an evaluation of the activities and accomplishments of contemporary Iranian Shi’as in


3/22/2011 12:47:34 PM


9

the broader context of the writings of Iranian Muslims prior to the revolution and some of the trends in the world of Sunni Islam. The first objective in this book is to inform English-speaking readers about the intellectual dynamics and changes among contemporary Iranian Shi’i thinkers as they relate to the Christian faith.26 The second is to evaluate the accomplishments, along with the weaknesses and strengths, of the Iranian Muslims active in inter-faith research or dialogue with Christians. The final, and most important, objective is to demonstrate that far from descending into radical fanaticism, Shi’i Muslims in Iran are opening significant new possibilities in Muslim–Christian dialogue and relationship in general. The aim here is to draw attention to the fact that despite the current geo-political tensions between Iran and the West, one can hope for a more positive future in the religious and theological engagement between at least many prominent Iranian Shi’i Muslims and Christians around the world.27 It is also hoped, therefore, that the study of the contemporary situation in Iran will also produce fresh insights into contemporary Islam and the encounter between Islam and Modernity.


3/22/2011 12:47:34 PM

CHAPTER 2 FACTORS IN MUSLIM– CHRISTIAN INTELLECTUAL ENCOUNTERS AND DIALOGUE IN CONTEMPORARY IRANIAN SOCIETY

“Iran is experiencing one of the most dynamic periods of its recent history. Change is occurring in all spheres of life.”1 So begins Behzad Yaghmaian, an Iranian professor of economics in the United States, in his recent analysis of Iranian society. His observation is echoed by almost every student of contemporary Iran. However, as already noted in the introduction, most of the scholarly attention to the changes that are taking place in Iran is viewed from a socio-political perspective. This book will focus on the observation and analysis of changes that are taking place among Iranian Shi’i intellectuals in regard to their attitude toward the Christian faith. As already stated, the Islamic Republic of Iran, despite its many democratic shortcomings, can be viewed as helping to foster a more open attitude toward Christianity than previously, even among many of its Shi’i clergy. This statement will be qualified later in this chapter. The focus of this chapter is to provide the intellectual and social context for the growing encounter between contemporary Iranian thinkers and Christian thought. The aim is to answer one basic question: What are the positive factors that significantly impact the encounter between Iranian Shi’as and the Christian faith? In other words, what are the general influences that have gone into making a person into a contemporary


3/22/2011 12:48:09 PM

Muslim–Christian Encounters and Dialogue

11

Iranian thinker and how have those influences formed a distinctive Iranian Islamic response to the Christian faith? Although the focus of this chapter, and this book as a whole, primarily lies in the positive influences that are at work in making Iran’s intellectual climate more open to inter-faith dialogue with Christians and a deeper understanding of Christian faith, these varied influences also present their own particular limitations that pose as obstacles for deeper mutual understanding between the two faiths. It is not possible to completely ignore the obstacles that continue to exist and exert much ongoing influence in the works of Iranian authors and intellectuals. For example, the fact that the Iranian government is deeply rooted in an Islamic vision of life helps the promotion of government sponsored Muslim–Christian dialogues on a national and international level. At the same time, the religious government of Iran limits the freedom of people to explore the Christian faith without any fears of punishment by the Islamic government.2 Therefore, at the end of each section in this chapter, after the survey of the positive factors that have been shaping the contemporary Iranian attitude toward the Christian faith, there will be a brief discussion of how each of these factors also contains negative implications which continue to limit the understanding and engagement of Iranians with Christian thought. This shows that the forces that are shaping the contemporary attitude among Iranian intellectuals toward Christianity are quite complex and they interact with each other in ways that are sometimes in tension or contradiction with each other.3 Despite these limitations, it is still possible to discover a tremendous growth and development in the way Iranians have been encountering Christianity since the revolution of 1979.

A History of the Encounter Between Iranian Shi’as and Christians4 The establishment of Shi’i Islam as the official religion of Iran goes back to the Safavid dynasty (1501–1736).5 The key royal figure in that dynasty is Shah Abbas (1588–1629). The shah’s great ambition was to restore Iran to the splendors of the time of Cyrus the Great. “The era of Shah Abbas . . . , was an era of great sovereigns throughout the world: this was the time of Charles V, Elizabeth I of England, Suleiman the Magnificent in Turkey and Akbar Shah in India. The splendor of the court of the Grand Sophy, as the Safavid king was called in Europe, had become proverbial even in the West.”6


3/22/2011 12:48:10 PM

12


The significant presence of Christians in Shi’i Iran is the result of Shah Abbas’s policy of forcibly transporting thousands of Armenian Christians from their homeland and resettling them in different parts of Iran, but mainly around his capital city of Isfahan between 1604 and 1617.7 Other Christian communities also came to be present in seventeenth-century Iran.8 As Ometto points out, “The first and least influential group consisted of Christians from Georgia, who were in Iran, for the most part, as hostages, prisoners or the like.” The second group, as already noted, “was made up of Armenian Orthodox whom the Shah had brought (or rather deported) from Armenia, both to save them from Ottoman oppression and to provide himself with an intelligent and industrious mercantile class.” The Armenians “formed an ethnically and linguistically insular community which restricted contact with the Islamic world to a minimum and did not engage in religious debate.” “The third group, which was composed of clergy, European merchants, diplomats, soldiers and travelers who had found their way to the capital, was the one with most interest in religious questions and in the theological debates with Muslims that took place before the Shah or dignitaries of his court.”9 The political or economic background of this third group should also be noted. As Armajani points out, For political or economic reasons the Christian states of Europe were eager to form alliances with the Shi’i rulers of Persia against the Ottoman Empire, which was predominantly Sunnite. In the reign of Shah Abbas I, who actively sought political alliance with European powers, several diplomatic missions were sent from Europe to Persia. Their members included Roman Catholic monks from several orders, some of whom were allowed to establish religious centers for European Christians who were coming to Persia in increasing numbers.10 Ometto also writes: The European missionaries who were more or less continuously in Isfahan were in the suite or at times at the head of diplomatic delegations, the purpose of which was to establish alliances of a political and economic nature. The diplomatic interests on the part of the clergy were a cover for missionary activity, hence the presence in these delegations of priests, who insisted on religious concessions, which were not always altogether separate from colonial interests.11


3/22/2011 12:48:10 PM


13

In addition to these complex motivations for the presence of European Christians in Iran was the desire to convert Iranian Muslims, including the very shah of Iran himself. Due to his own ulterior political motives of wanting to establish close alliances with European powers, Shah Abbas participated in Christian “religious ceremonies, showed respect for the cross and kissed it with rapture, gave financial aid to religious communities and appeared to admire Christian doctrine.”12 Against such a background it is not hard to see that Shi’i clergy would become suspicious and hostile toward the presence and activities of European Christians. “Many works written in Persian during the 16th and 17th centuries in Iran bear witness to animated polemics between Christians and Muslims.”13 A number of prominent Iranian Shi’i clerics wrote numerous polemical attacks against the Christian faith mainly as a response to the polemics of Christian missionaries against Islam.14 The main themes of these works included refutation of the doctrine of the Trinity, the divine sonship of Christ and the authenticity of the Christian scriptures. At the same time these works tried to prove the superiority of Islam and the prophethood of Muhammad.15 Some times Shi’i responses would go far beyond writing refutations, as for example the famous Shi’i scholar ‘Allāmah Majlisī’s call to kill any Christian that was engaged in evangelizing Muslims.16 As other kings and dynasties came and went in Iran, the basic contours of Muslim–Christian encounter were very much set from this time onward. Some kings would be more open to the West than others and some would be more or less tolerant of the presence and activities of Christian communities.17 But Christianity was basically seen as closely tied to the West, as an instrument of colonial interests and as fundamentally hostile to Islam.18 The ever-growing presence of European and American missionaries in the Qājār and Pahlavī dynasties—first from starting their work among the Christian minority communities and then expanding their ministry to evangelize the Muslim population of Iran—(from early nineteenth century and throughout most of the twentieth century) only caused more concern among Shi’i religious leaders about the intention and scope of the Christian mission.19 Even looking at Iran just prior to the Islamic revolution, Isabel Stumpel-Hatami in her survey of Iranian Shi’i encounter with Christianity writes, “If we look for contemporary Persian texts on non-Muslim religions we will first come across publications on Christianity.” The reason for this focus is that “On the one


3/22/2011 12:48:10 PM

14


hand, since the last two centuries, the impact on Persian economy and politics by Westerners who are Christians by definition is most important. On the other hand, in terms of religion, the Christians are viewed as the major rival, mainly because of their missionary expansionism.”20 Furthermore, Due to Western colonialists and missionary activities Christianity is thus identified with the Occident. . . . The manifold activities deployed by occidental missionaries through educational and medical assistance in schools, hospitals, summer camps, youth clubs, and bookstores and through the modern mass media did not prosper without provoking the deep concern and the protest of the religious class. The more the Christian mission was organized, the more it appeared to them like an ever-growing network of conspiracy. . . . The missionaries were viewed as the servants of colonialism. . . . Thus, circumstances were such as to provoke rather defensive refutations of the Christian message than scholarly study.21 Of course, the above summary is not meant to suggest that there were not exceptions to the general negative encounters between Shi’i religious thinkers and Christianity. There are a number of instances ranging from the Safavid period to shortly before the revolution where Muslim intellectuals in Iran had cordial and friendly dialogue with Christian missionaries or scholars,22 established long-term relationships of mutual learning,23 and even showed admiration for certain aspects of the Christian faith.24 Even when Muslim thinkers were explicitly hostile toward the Christian faith it is still possible to recognize a variety of nuances in their attitudes and approaches which would reflect various degrees of openness to Christianity.25 Despite the above qualifications, it is still accurate to portray the general picture of pre-revolutionary Iran as one dominated by polemics and hostility in the relationship between Iranian Muslim thinkers and Christian thought.

Iranian Thinkers and the Christian Faith in Post-Revolutionary Iran The contemporary period of post-revolutionary Iran, especially the last decade of the twentieth century and the first few years of the


3/22/2011 12:48:10 PM


15

twenty-first century, shows a significant and noticeable change of attitude and approach toward the Christian faith among some Iranian Shi’i thinkers. What has happened in Iranian society that has promoted a spirit of inter-religious dialogue rather than continuing confrontation between Islam and Christianity? Why are there now numerous books and journals published in Iran about the Christian faith without any hint of polemics in them? Why are there several government-sponsored organizations involved in Muslim–Christian dialogue? And how is it that the former president and vice president of Iran are among the most active Shi’i clergy in the fields of inter-religious dialogue? An analysis of the writings of the Iranians engaged in inter-faith dialogue or showing significant openness toward a better understanding of Christianity reveals four distinct factors in the outlook of many contemporary Iranians. These four influences can be categorized as theological– religious, cultural, historical, and socio-political. Although these categories are not meant to be clearly defined or mutually exclusive of each other (for example, some of what is included under cultural influences could also fit under the theological themes), they can provide helpful lenses through which to gain a better insight into the contemporary Iranian intellectual situation.26 Before considering these influences, two important qualifications should be noted. First, not all these influences are equally reflected in every Iranian thinker and their attitudes toward Christianity. For many, the historical or socio-political considerations can be given more weight in forming their attitudes than the theological. For many average Iranians, the cultural influences can be a more significant factor in forming their perspective on Christianity. Second, there will be no judgment on the historical accuracy of any of the following influences. For instance, the issue is not whether prophet Muhammad or any of the Shi’i Imams had any actual dialogue (in any modern understanding of the word) with Christians, but to see that Iranians can point to the example of the prophet and the Imams and see in them a role model for dialogue with Christians today.

Theological/Religious Influences Iranian thinkers encounter the Christian faith first and foremost as Shi’i Muslims. Like other Muslims, Iranians would naturally look to the Qur’an and the examples of the Prophet Muhammad in finding principles and attitudes toward dialogue with Christians.


3/22/2011 12:48:11 PM

16


The Qur’an Q. 3:64 plays a key role in shaping the Islamic approach toward interfaith dialogue. One Iranian author writes, “The Qur’an conducts dialogues with the people of the Book in many of its verses. . . . But as to the Islamic attitude it is still as stated in the Qur’an: ‘O people of the Book, come to a word common between us’ (3:64).”27 Ayatollah Seyyed Mohammad Khamenei, chairman of the Scientific Board of Inter-Religious Dialogue and elder brother of Ayatollah Khamenei, supreme leader of Iran, also refers to the same verse in justification for an open attitude toward dialogue. He writes, From the very first days after Be’that [the divine appointment to prophethood] of the holy Prophet (S.A.W.A.), it was pronounced that Islam accepts all Abrahamic religions and was therefore congenial toward them and invited them to cooperation and peace and confrontation with idolatry. In the Holy Qur’an (Sura Al-e Imran, Verse 64), we find a call to all followers of divine religions to gather and based on common beliefs, or according to the words of the Holy Qur’an “O People of the Book! Come to common terms as between us and you”, to come to the agreement to be the servants of one and only Almighty God and serve none but Him.28 In addition to the above verse, the editor of the Iranian journal Dialogue uses two further Qur’anic passages in support for this endeavor. He writes, In the Islamic texts, and especially in the Holy Qur’an, the most authoritative Islamic document, it is said: “Invite (all) to the Way of thy Lord with wisdom and beautiful preaching, and engage in dialogue with them in ways that are best” (16:125). In this verse, emphasis is laid upon good dialogue. On the other hand, it is said: “So announce the Good News to my servants, those who listen to the Word, and follow the best of it” (39:17–18). This verse exhorts us to choose the best. . . . Islam is searching for the best path toward human happiness. Islam believes that the best, too, can be selected through dialogue.29 Going far beyond the above Qur’anic justification for dialogue, Dr. Seyyed Amir Akrami, former director of the office of inter-faith


3/22/2011 12:48:11 PM


17

dialogue in the Organization for Islamic Culture and Relations, goes so far as to say that “the Qur’an seems quite explicit in its acceptance of religious pluralism.”30 In order to prove this thesis, Akrami first points out that the Qur’an “regards Muhammad as one of a galaxy of prophets.”31 Furthermore, “the Qur’an unequivocally denounces the religious exclusivism, which sometimes characterized the Jewish and Christian communities of Hijaz at the time of Muhammad.”32 Thus, having denounced the attempts of Jews and Christians to appropriate God, it seems inconceivable that the Qur’an should itself engage in this. . . . The Qur’an makes it a condition of faith to believe in genuineness of all revealed religions: “Affirm, we believe in God and in that which was sent down to Abraham and Ishmael and Isaac and Jacob and his children and that which was given to Moses and Jesus, and that which was given to all other prophets from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them and to him do we wholly submit ourselves.”33 After this background on the Qur’anic ethos regarding other faith communities, Akrami brings more textual evidence as “indications in the Qur’an of the essential legitimacy of other religions.”34 Upon consideration of certain Qur’anic passages such as Q. 23:52, 5:48, and 22:40, Akrami concludes that according to the Qur’an, “Firstly, the people of the book, as recipients of divine revelation, were recognized as part of the community. . . . Secondly, in the area of religious law, the norms and regulations of the Jews and of the Christians were upheld. . . . Thirdly, the sanctity of the religious life of the adherents of other revealed religions is underlined.”35 Therefore one must conclude, The Qur’anic acceptance of religious pluralism is thus not only confined to the recognition and acceptance of other religious communities as legitimate but also extends to the worship, spirituality and salvation of others through their otherness. The preservation of the sanctity of places of worship, as we saw in the above verse, was thus not merely in order to preserve the integrity of a multi-religious society, but it was because God who represented the ultimate reality for these religions, and who is acknowledged to be above diverse outward expressions of that service, was being really and sincerely worshiped in them.36


3/22/2011 12:48:11 PM

18


And finally, “in an inspiring and insightful verse the Qur’an stresses that the phenomenon of religious diversity is God’s will and nobody can and should wish to eradicate it and bring about a new situation in which people adhere to only one religious tradition: ‘had the Lord willed, He would surely have made mankind one people, as it is, they will not cease to differ’ [Q. 11:19].”37 Akrami thus lays the scriptural foundation for not only an openness to inter-religious dialogue, but also a very strong call for a celebration of diversity and religious pluralism. He ends his article by stating, These Qur’anic insights give us a clear and unmistakable picture about the diversity of mankind’s religiosity and emphasize the validity, efficacy and legitimacy of other religious paths which is the core of religious pluralism. It is on this firm basis that the fruitful and meaningful inter-religious dialogue can take place and partners of such a dialogue can see each other on an equal footing and thus they can be prepared to learn from each other and grow together.38 In addition to the Qur’anic passages that relate more or less directly to the issues of dialogue, the broader Qur’anic justification for understanding the Christian faith is that Jesus is an important and highly honored prophet in the Qur’an and Islamic tradition. Homayoun Hemmati, another well-known participant in Muslim–Christian dialogues, claims that a “scientific and correct understanding” the Christian faith is a “religious duty” since the Qur’an commands Muslims a deep respect for Jesus.39 The literature on Jesus as a prophet that belongs to Islam as much as he does to Christianity seems to be growing in Iranian scholarship.40

The Hadith and Islamic Traditions What many Western readers might not know is that in addition to the multitudes of Qur’anic references to Jesus,41 “The Arabic Islamic literary tradition of the pre-modern period contains several hundred sayings and stories ascribed to Jesus. . . . As a whole, they form the largest body of texts relating to Jesus in any non-Christian literature.”42 Furthermore, this tradition is not found as a complete corpus in any one Arabic Islamic source. Rather, it is scattered in works of ethics and popular devotion, works of Adab (belles-lettres), works of Sufism or Muslim


3/22/2011 12:48:11 PM


19

mysticism, anthologies of wisdom, and histories of prophets and saints. The sources range in time from the second/eighth century to the twelfth/eighteenth century. As regards the sayings and stories, these vary in size from a single sentence to a story of several hundred words. They circulated in Arabic Islamic literature and lore all the way from Spain to China, and some of them remain familiar to educated Muslims today.43 Mahmoud Ayoub, a Shi’i intellectual from Lebanon, correctly points out, “the Qur’an alone is not a sufficient source for the understanding of Christ in Islam. Hence, it may be more profitable to study the Christ of Islamic piety with the Qur’anic background in mind, but without taking the Qur’anic view as the one and only static view of Christ.”44 According to Ayoub, “the Christ of Muslim piety has continued to be a living personality, humble and pious, forever thundering against the wrongs of society, and full of wisdom and the Holy Spirit.”45 Besides these general Islamic portraits of Jesus, there were also distinctive Shi’i collections of the sayings of Jesus.46 At least “some ninety-six sayings of Jesus [were] preserved in twelve classical Shi’i works of literature, ethics and Hadith.”47 After presenting two collections of sayings of Jesus in classical Shi’i traditions dating back to the fourth century AH, Ayoub provides the following conclusion, Thus we see that like the Christ of Christian faith and hope, the Jesus of the Qur’an and later Muslim piety is much more than a mere human being, or even simply the messenger of a Book. While the Jesus of Islam is not the Christ of Christianity, the Christ of the Gospel often speaks through the austere, human Jesus of Muslim piety. Indeed, the free spirits of Islamic mysticism found in the man Jesus not only the example of piety, love and asceticism which they sought to emulate, but also the Christ who exemplifies fulfilled humanity, a humanity illuminated by the light of God. This reflection of the divine light in the human heart and soul is known in the language of Islamic mysticism as tajalli, the manifestation of divine beauty and majesty in and through man.48 Iranian authors under consideration also look to the prophet of Islam as a role model in dialogue. “There are many authoritative accounts that show the Prophet of Islam, Muhammad (S.A.W.A.), in


3/22/2011 12:48:11 PM

20


many instances had recommended tolerance toward the People of the Book. Hence, these dialogues date back to the time of the Prophet Muhammad (S.A.W.A.).”49 Also, in response to the question of whether there are any evidences in “the Prophet’s tradition proving the legality of dialogue,” Ayatollah Muhammad Ali Taskhiri, former president of the Organization of Islamic Culture and Relations simply states, “The Prophet had dialogues with the Christians and the Jews. They asked him and he answered them.”50 Concerning the more specific Shi’i themes in the Iranian encounter with Christianity, there are several significant elements. In addition to looking at the life of prophet Muhammad, Shi’as can look for inspiration to the life and words of the Imams following the prophet. Dr. Mohaqqeq Damad, in an article entitled “Cultural Relations between Christianity and Shi’i Islam,” notes that “The history of Shi’ism indicates a relatively old relation with Christianity, one form of which was the religious and verbal dialogues in a peaceful environment mentioned precisely in Shi’i texts.”51 He continues, “Probably, the first dialogue occurred between Catholicos and Imam Ali (A.S.) about 657 CE. But these dialogues reached its [sic] peak in the second Hegira century . . . during the life of Imam Sadeq (A.S.) and Imam Redha (A.S.), the sixth and eighth Imam of the Shi’as.”52 The author also mentions how Shi’i texts, including lectures given by Imam Ali and Imam Sadeq, include frequent references to the life and teachings of Jesus whereas “in the Sehah of the Sunnis, one can not find anything about the speeches of Jesus.”53 The point of these discussions seems fairly obvious. If the Qur’an, the Prophet Muhammad, and the Imams engaged in rational dialogue with people of other faiths, a faithful Muslim should do no less than continue to follow in the same tradition.

Similarities in Shi’i Islam and Christianity More important than these traditions of rational discussions are the apparent similarities in certain religious themes that many observers have detected between Shi’i Islam and Christian faith.54 As James Bill and John Williams have discussed in their book, Roman Catholics and Shi’i Muslims, there are many common themes between the two faiths.55 These include the role of sacred personalities and intercessors (e.g. Jesus and Mary; Imam Husayn and Fatima), redemptive suffering, Christian


3/22/2011 12:48:12 PM


21

mystics and Muslim Sufis, and issues with regard to social justice. For example, on the significance of Husayn’s martyrdom and its comparison to the sacrifice of Christ in Christian theology, the authors quote Hamid Enayat’s insightful analysis, The lamentations for Husayn enable the mourners not only to gain an assurance of divine forgiveness, but also contribute to the triumph of the Shi‘i cause. Accordingly, Husayn’s martyrdom makes sense on two levels: first, in terms of soteriology not dissimilar from the one invoked in the case of Christ’s crucifixion: just as Christ sacrificed himself on the altar of the cross to redeem humanity, so did Husayn allow himself to be killed on the plains of Karbala to purify the Muslim community of sins; and second, as an active factor vindicating the Shi’i cause, contributing to its ultimate triumph.56 To demonstrate more broadly the themes that connect Shi’i Islam and Roman Catholicism, Bill and Williams summarize their findings in the following eight similarities: 1. An emphasis on the significance of the passion of innocent victims who in free acts of moral solidarity offered their lives for their followers and are seen as atoning for them. 2. The belief that God’s grace and gifts are mediated through sacred personages (Imams and saints) who act as intercessors. 3. The centrality of a sorrowful mother figure at the heart of a holy family that represents the social foundation of the faith system. 4. The influence of Platonic and Aristotelian thought on theologians who have debated the relationship between revelation and reason. 5. The importance of mystical movements. 6. The role of martyrdom and redemptive suffering. 7. The recognition of legal systems based on the premise that all power derives from God. 8. The drive for the establishment of social and political systems that will provide justice, liberty and security.57 Based on such themes, Anthony O’Mahony writes, “the specific theological emphases in Shi’i Islam seems, at least implicitly, to allow for a


3/22/2011 12:48:12 PM

22


broader appreciation of Jesus than in Sunni ‘orthodoxy.’ ”58 This observation can be confirmed by turning again to Mahmoud Ayoub, Shi’i Islam . . . has developed its own quasi-soteriological Christology in the doctrine and role of the Imams, the spiritual heads of the community. It is noteworthy that Ali, the first Imam of Shi’i Muslims, is often compared to Jesus. In a highly interesting statement attributed to Ali, he had the following to say about himself and his descendants, the remaining eleven Imams. Beginning by declaring that God is One and unique in His unity, he goes on: “He uttered a Word which became a light. From that light He . . . created me and my progeny. Then God uttered another Word which became a spirit, and that spirit He made to dwell in the light. The light, moreover, He made to dwell in our bodies. Thus, we are the Spirit of God and His Words.”59 Furthermore, The Imams, for the Shi’i community, are the true mediators between God and man. They were with God from the beginning as His first act of creation. With them, the primordial history of all creation began, and through them it will be finally judged and consummated. They are a source of salvation on the Day of Reckoning for those who accept their status as the friends (awliya) of God, and true heirs of the prophets . . . The twelfth and the last of the Imams will return at the end of time as the awaited Messiah (Mahdi) to establish divine rule over the earth. Jesus, son of Mary, will also descend from heaven to aid him in this task, thus playing some part in the Imam’s final act of redemption and judgment.60 Thus it can be seen how this possibility for “broader appreciation of Jesus” in Shi’i Islam can also translate into a more open attitude toward dialogue with Christians. It is also interesting how some Christians see the apparent similarities between Shi’i Islam and the Christian faith as a “cultural bridge” to use in evangelizing Shi’i Muslims.61

Shi’i Emphasis on Rationalism One final aspect of Shi’i identity in Iran that bears directly on the theme of this book is the role accorded to rationality and philosophy in this tradition.


3/22/2011 12:48:12 PM


23

Among various branches in Islam, the Shi’i tradition (and more accurately certain streams within the Usūlī tradition of Shi’ism) is the one that has prided itself in keeping and maintaining “rationalism” which started with the Mu’tazila intellectual movement in the early centuries of Islam.62 In his book on the distinctive aspects of Shi’i Islam, ’Allamah Tabatabai after discussing the Qur’anic basis for rational thought—in the two forms of demonstration (burhān) and dialectic (jadal)—goes on to show the “Shi’i initiative in Islamic philosophy and kalam.” He then writes, In the same way that from the beginning Shi’ism played an effective role in the formation of Islamic philosophical thought, it was also a principle factor in the further development and propagation of philosophy and the Islamic sciences. Although after Ibn Rushd philosophy disappeared in the Sunni world, it continued to live in Shi’ism. . . . All the sciences, particularly metaphysics or theosophy (falsafah-i ilahi or hikmat-i ilahi), made major advances thanks to the indefatigable endeavor of Shi’i scholars.63 Seyyed Hossein Nasr, agrees with the above judgment. Commenting on the importance of philosophy and theosophy in Shi’i Islam, Nasr writes, The Twelver attitude toward the so-called intellectual sciences (al‘ulum al-‘aqliyah) was from the beginning more positive than that of the school of theology (kalam) which came to dominate Sunni Islam from the fourth century AH (tenth century CE) . . . .As a result, philosophy or theosophy (al-hikmah al-ilahiyah) also constituted an important aspect of Twelver religious thought and is far from being only Greek philosophy in Arabic or Persian dress. While many of the early Islamic philosophers, such as al-Farabi and Ibn Sina (Avicenna), were either Twelvers or had Twelver tendencies, from the Mongol invasion and the advent of Nasir al-Din Tusi onward, Islamic philosophy took refuge for the most part in the Shi’i world, and some of the greatest of the later Islamic philosophers . . . were also Twelver thinkers.64 Bill and Williams also agree with the above evaluation. They point out that although the study of Greek philosophy and science, which had


3/22/2011 12:48:12 PM

24


entered mainstream Islamic culture between the eighth and tenth centuries, came under severe attack among Sunnis because of the tensions between reason and revelation, “Shi’as continued to use philosophy and to study it because it helped them understand a world that did not seem to proceed at all according to God’s plan. They felt they had sufficient demonstration that the majority of the Muslim community had been in error since the night the Prophet died, and both the Qur’an and the Imams ordered them to observe the world and use their minds.”65 This emphasis on rational thought seems to be so strong that “It is a Twelver principle of law that ‘all that is ordered by reason is also ordered by religion.’ ”66 One example that demonstrates the popularity of philosophy and the importance attached to it among contemporary prominent Shi’i clergy is the comment by Sayyid Mohammad Khamenei. In his introduction to his book Development of Wisdom in Iran and in the World, he writes: It is true that philosophy is the mother of sciences, . . . it is practically proved that if there were no philosophy, there was no human knowledge . . . . The last point, which should be made, is that the history of philosophy is the best mental food for the common people, even if they are not philosophers in the real sense of the word. . . . [study of philosophy] is useful for the masses of people, since they will grasp the importance of thought, which is man’s best possession, and they can employ it to recognize themselves, world, and the philosophy of life, to find a better way of life.67 It is no surprise, therefore, to find that the study of philosophy continues to be an important aspect of Shi’i intellectual tradition in Iran. Both in the periods prior to the Islamic revolution and afterwards, there have been numerous well-know Shi’i clerics and thinkers in Iran who have been involved with either traditional Islamic philosophy or modern Western philosophy, or both.68 Mehdi Aminrazavi accurately describes the contemporary situation in Iran when he writes, Islamic philosophy, which traditionally was taught exclusively at the madrasahs and private circles, became an important part of the educational curriculum of modern universities in addition to research centers and foundations in Iran. Islamic philosophy and


3/22/2011 12:48:12 PM


25

‘irfan continue to flourish and remain an active and integral part of the intellectual life of Iran today.69 As mentioned earlier, the important point is not to pass judgment on the historical accuracy of Nasr or Tabatabai and many others like them about the inherent superiority of Shi’i Islam to Sunni Islam in its openness toward philosophical or intellectual development.70 Rather, it is interesting to see how these two contemporary and very prominent Iranian Shi’i thinkers, along with many other Iranians, view themselves as heirs to a very rich and open-minded religious and intellectual tradition, a tradition that is very confident about itself and open to dialogue with others. Mohammad Ali Shomali’s article entitled “Mary, Jesus and Christianity: an Islamic perspective” provides a useful summary of the contemporary Iranian Shi’i thinkers’ attitude toward engaging with Christian faith and the rationale for this openness. The article was part of a presentation in the context of an actual dialogue that took place in the UK in the summer of 2003 between a group of Shi’i scholars from Qum and Catholic theologians. Shomali articulated the following points as his reasons for why as a Muslim he is “very comfortable and pleased with dialogue and solidarity between Muslims and Christians.”71 According to Shomali, as Christians and Muslims: We both believe in and worship the same God.. . . . We both believe in human free will, responsibility and accountability before God and share the same understanding of basic major moral values. We both believe in the Resurrection and in God’s treatment of human beings with justice and mercy on the Day of Judgment. We both have a high esteem of the gifts of reason and conscience and at the same time recognize our need for divine revelation in our path toward happiness in this world and hereafter. We both believe that all humans come from the same father and mother. . . . We believe in the dignity of man. . . . We appreciate the value of human life as a great divine gift. We both believe in the Prophets. . . . We both have great respect for the Prophet Abraham. . . . We both have a great reverence and love for Mary and her son, Jesus, upon them be peace. We believe in his virgin birth and await his second coming.


3/22/2011 12:48:12 PM

26

Christian Encounters with Iran We both share great concerns about the challenges of living a life of faith today, caused by the contemporary culture of materialism and secularism. I believe in a complete harmony between all divine revelations and prophecies. . . . As a Muslim I have no need to deny Jesus or his mission. . . . For me, there is no need to deny or cover up the gifts of Jesus or the valuable qualities of Christianity. These are all signs of greatness of the same God. These are all divine blessings that increase my richness, for which I must be very thankful. I have no need to compromise my faith in order to enter into a genuine, sustainable and fertile dialogue with the Christians. Indeed, it is the Qur’an itself that calls for such dialogue with all adherents of the Abrahamic faiths. Thus, for me entering into such a dialogue and building upon commonalities is rooted in the Qur’an, and is not just a fashion or formality. The Qur’an shows great affection for the Christians because of their humility, their search for truth and their sympathy with Muslims. . . . Through my close and intimate relations with many Christians I have come to the conclusion that the Qur’anic description and praise of the Christians of the time of the Prophet Muhammad can be witness among Christians today.72

After highlighting the positive changes in the attitude of the Roman Catholic Church toward Islam, Shomali concludes by saying, “I think it is now clear that Christians and Muslims are very close to each other; they share a lot and there is no reason why there cannot be a strong sense of unity between them. Indeed, as we saw above, there are many reasons that call on them to come together and to work together for the betterment of mankind.”73 Despite such positive trends in Shi’i Islam, it should not be forgotten that for most of their history, Muslims have viewed the finality of Islam as a sign of its superiority and thus have not had a great deal of interest in entering into genuine dialogue with people of other faiths and traditions. Daryush Shayegan, a prominent Iranian intellectual and a well-known specialist on Indian religions, pinpoints this issue when he writes, “The Muslim’s messianic conviction that his religion was the last revelation and his Prophet Muhammad the Seal of Prophecy meant that he saw


3/22/2011 12:48:13 PM


27

Christianity as a backward, not to say obsolete, religion, and consequently believed Muslims to be superior to Christians in every way.”74 In response to Muslims who argue for religious pluralism based on the Qur’anic text itself, the observations of Jane McAuliffe should be recalled. In her scholarly analysis of the conflicting images of Christians in the Qur’an and the history of interpretation among key Muslim commentators in the last one thousand years, McAuliffe concludes, “In no way, then does Biblical Christianity remain a fully valid ‘way of salvation’ after the advent of Muhammad. It is inconceivable under the Qur’anic definition of authentic Christianity . . . that a ‘true’ Christian who had been exposed to the Prophet’s message would refuse to become a Muslim.”75 She continues, “To use the verses [of the Qur’an] herein analyzed as proof-texts to demonstrate unrestricted Muslim toleration of Christians would be to ignore the decisive religious impact of both classical and modern tafsir.”76 Roger Savory adds further light into the complex Qur’anic and historical situation between Muslims and Christians. He writes, The quar’anic proof texts on relations between Muslims and adherents of other faiths send a mixed message. On the one hand, we have Q. 2:256: “there is no compulsion in religion,” which has been interpreted to mean that Muslims should be tolerant of other faiths; and 109:6: . . . “to you your religion and to me my religion,” which appears to indicate acceptance of religious pluralism. On the other hand, we have 5:54: “take not the Jews and Christians for friends . . . He among you who taketh them for friends is one of them,” which does not seem to augur well for inter-faith dialogue.77 In addition to the Qur’anic reasons against a harmonious relationship between Muslims and people of other faiths, Savory goes on to point to other important factors in Islamic law and, in particular, Shi’i Islam that historically proved to be major obstacles in interfaith relations. The Islamic attitude toward religious minorities as dhimmis, which treated those groups as second-class citizens, along with the peculiar Iranian Shi’i doctrine of najā sat or ritual impurity and Shi’i messianism have caused an overwhelming negative approach toward Christians and adherents of other religions in Iranian Islam.78 Even the Shi’i emphasis on rationality in religious faith has sometimes been used as an obstacle toward engaging with the challenges of the modern world. Masoud Pedram, in his book Religious Intellectuals and Modernity


3/22/2011 12:48:13 PM

28


in Post Revolutionary Iran,79 argues that the first reason why Iranian intellectuals were slower to respond to modernity than their counterparts in Egypt or Turkey in the beginning of the twentieth century was due to the Shi’i emphasis on rationalism (‘aqlānīyat) which created a false sense of security and superiority over the rest of the world among Iranian Muslim thinkers.80 Finally, although many contemporary Iranian thinkers might not be so explicit in their view of the relationship between Islam and Christianity, the tendency to view Christian teachings through Islamic or Qur’anic theological categories remains very strong and continues to be an obstacle to a more sympathetic and empathetic appreciation for Christian theology on the part of most Muslim thinkers.

Cultural Influences Obviously, Iranians not only encounter the Christian faith as Shi’i Muslims, but also, just as importantly, as Iranians, as a people with great accomplishments in their civilization and culture.

The Spirit of Tolerance in Iranian Civilization Abdolmajid Mirdamadi, director of the Office for Inter-Religious Dialogue in Iran, writing on the status of religious minorities in Iran in the first issue of the journal Dialogue, starts his discussion by covering the “ancient civilization of Iran” and praising the openness and tolerance of Iranians toward people of other faiths.81 The same theme is continued in other issues of the journal Dialogue. For example, Nourullah Kasai writes, “Regardless of a chain of conquests and political-military conflicts, . . . when it comes to humane behavior and deed and the traditions of coexistence and tolerance, the Iranians since times immemorial have had a bright record of tolerance of the beliefs and ideas of the followers of other religions and cultures.” The author goes on to highlight former president Khatami’s call to a “Dialogue Among Civilizations,” which shows the “conviction in this reality and underlines trust in this desirable method of the Iranians since ancient times till date.”82 The former vice-president of Iran and the director of the Institute for Interreligious Dialogue in Tehran, Seyyed Mohammad Ali Abtahi, cites “the tolerant spirit of Iranians in contrast to the Arabs” as a key factor to the openness of Iranian Shi’as toward dialogue with Christians.83


3/22/2011 12:48:13 PM


29

Even more than just a passive tolerance, Iranian culture and civilization are often credited with active participation and transformation of major world religions. Richard Foltz writes, “throughout the country’s [Iran] long history its peoples and cultures have played an unexcelled role in influencing, transforming, and propagating all the world’s universal traditions.”84 For instance as Foltz points out, “For well over a millennium it was the Iranian variant of Christianity that Asians knew and perceived as normative,” or that “the role of Iranians in shaping Islam and Muslim civilization [is] comparable perhaps to that of Hellenism in the formation of Christianity.”85 This cultural history provides a strong confidence for Iranian Muslims venturing into the contemporary world of interfaith relations.

History of Christianity in Iran In another article, entitled “Christianity in Iran,” Mirdamadi traces the involvement of Iranians with Christianity from the visit of the wise men of the East (assumed to be Zoroastrians from Iran) to baby Jesus as recorded in the Gospel of Matthew. He goes on to say, However, the acquaintance of the Iranians with Christianity has an old history and the Iranians have played a crucial role in welcoming this divine religion. Though the historical presence of this religion has had its ups and downs, it has had the vivacity of a divine religion in our country to the extent that it can be said that Christianity has been present in Iran from the very beginning of the advent of this religion.86 Mirdamadi describes a very positive picture of the presence and activity of Christians in Iran, both before the advent of Islam and especially afterwards. He points out that “The Safavid era can be called the period of the revival of Christianity in Iran, for the cordial relations of the Safavid government with the Christian governments of the time prepared a ground for the Christians in Iran to enjoy better conditions.”87 The article ends with a summary of the various Christian denominations in Iran and their legal and social rights and activities under the present Islamic government. Anthony O’Mahony also generally agrees with the above observations regarding the history of Christian presence in Iran. He writes, Christianity in Persia has a very ancient history, and as early as the second century AD, the religion was well established there.


3/22/2011 12:48:14 PM

30

Christian Encounters with Iran About twenty bishoprics were established by about the third century, and the Persian Church even sent missionaries of its own from Iran to distant countries of the Far East and China. References to Christianity can be found in Persian literature from the earliest period. Christian beliefs and institutions are frequently mentioned in various genres, and many works contain allusions to legends of Christian saints, martyrs and ascetics.88

In order to briefly unpack the above observations, let us turn once again to Foltz who writes, “Iran was surely one of the earliest places to hear the Christian gospel. The Book of the Acts of the Apostles (2:9) lists Jews from various regions of Iran among witnesses to the miracles of the Pentecost, and it can be guessed that they did not hesitate to tell of this experience once they returned home.”89 Foltz continues, For the first three centuries after the life of Jesus of Nazareth, Christians in Iran could practice and preach their faith far more easily than could their counterparts in the Roman world. . . . Iran, meanwhile, was under the rule of the Parthians, whose religious policy was one of tolerance. . . . The favorable circumstances of Parthian rule allowed Christianity to spread and grow throughout Iran. . . . By the late third century Christians in Iran were so numerous that the zealot Zoroastrian priest Kerdir . . . felt threatened enough to call for their elimination. Even so, conversions to Christianity appear to have continued steadily over the following centuries.90 In later centuries, despite sporadic persecutions by the opposing authorities Christianity continued to grow in the empire. Foltz writes, Not until after the elevation of Zoroastrianism by the Sasanian government in the late third century would Christianity be treated in Iran as a suspect faith. But even the Sasanians recognized Christianity as a legitimate religion well before Emperor Constantine legalized it in the Roman Empire in 313 CE. . . . It has been suggested that by the late Sasanian period Christianity had become the most powerful challenge to state Zoroastrianism, even though it was on the verge of becoming Iran’s majority religion. . . . Whatever the actual numbers of Christians in Iran, their


3/22/2011 12:48:14 PM


31

importance was disproportionately high especially in the realm of higher learning.91 Iranian Christians even took their message to China. “Iran was the springboard from which Christianity spread throughout Asia. The first Christian missionaries who brought their faith to China in the seventh century were from Iran, and for the next hundred years, Chinese sources continued to refer to Christianity as ‘the Persian religion.’ ”92 It should also be noted that “Armenia was under the rule of Iranian dynasties for much of its history. . . . Following their adoption of Christianity as state religion in the early fourth century, Armenians became a major Christian presence on the northwestern fringes of the Iranian world.”93 Although after the advent of Islam in Iran, Christians began to feel many restrictions and harassments, nevertheless, they continued to play significant roles in Muslim courts and academic institutions during the Ummayad and the Abbasid dynasties and even throughout most of the Mongol period until the fourteenth century.94 One can conclude that the historic presence of Christian churches in Iran has been a positive factor for the Muslim–Christian encounter today. Abtahi also points out that two of the key distinctives that shape the Muslim–Christian dialogue in Iran are “the history of Iran and the existence of several religions in the country” as well as “the gentleness and the kindness of Armenian Christians in Iranian history.”95 A number of Farsi books have been published or reprinted recently in Iran that testify to the apparent fact that Iranians are becoming more aware of the presence of the Christian faith in their history.96

Persian Poetry and Sufism97 As O’Mahony points out, “The long historical, religious and cultural relationship of Persia and Christianity has created a strong presence of Christian imagery in Persian poetry, particularly in Persian Sufi literature.”98 In a three-volume study of Christianity in Iran, the former Iranian bishop of the Anglican Church of Iran, Hassan Dehqani-Tafti, has ably demonstrated how profoundly the images of Christ and Christian themes are intertwined with Iranian art and literature from the beginning to the present time.99 For example, in volume two of his work concerning the classical period of Persian poetry, Dehqani-Tafti cites from thirty of the most prominent poets in Iranian history who have written,


3/22/2011 12:48:14 PM

32


sometimes quite extensively, about Jesus or Christian themes. And in volume three which covers the period of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries of Iran, the author cites more than two dozen Iranian poets and prose writers who have continued the same tradition in Persian literature. Of course, Dehqani-Tafti acknowledges that these are only samples from a “vast sea of Persian poetry and literature that refer to Jesus, his teachings and his life.”100 It might not be easy for a Westerner to appreciate the importance of poetry in the Iranian culture. Iranians are taught classical poetry from the earliest time in their education. Thus poetry is a powerful medium of communication in the Iranian society. One example among many is the writings of prominent Iranian thinker Abdolkarim Soroush, who often quotes Persian poetry in order to communicate his thoughts.101 It is important to note that Persian and especially Sufi poetry have traditionally played an extremely powerful role to provide a deeper encounter between Iranian Muslims and Christian doctrines. Unlike orthodox Islamic thought, Persian Sufi poetry abounds with references to the love of God and also the suffering nature of that love, the intimacy of believers with God, and the divine-human union in the bond of love. There are also many positive references to the uniqueness of Jesus and his relationship with God. These positive attitudes toward Christian faith in Sufism can and do impact Iranian Shi’i thought even to this very day. The overall influence of Sufism goes far beyond the limits of poetry. Sufism or Islamic mysticism has had and continues to have greater openness and appreciation toward other faiths and especially Christianity. As Muhammad Este’lami writes, “many great masters of Persian Sufism have been very open-minded and friendly toward other religious traditions.”102 Este’lami particularly focuses on Rumi, the master of Persian Sufism and poetry and writes, “There are many more examples in Rumi’s Divan-i Shams and the Mathnawi demonstrating that Rumi, though a sincere Muslim, believed in a type of universal faith, belonging to all religions.”103 Thus, Sufism has played and continues to play the most prominent role in creating an open attitude in Islam toward other faith traditions.104 And as Bill and Williams point out, “from the very beginning, Shi’ism has contained elements conducive to the promotion of Sufism.”105 Or in the words of Yann Richard, “Several common theological characteristics unite Sufism and Shi’ism.”106


3/22/2011 12:48:14 PM


33

The downside of the above factors is that in spite of the long history of Christianity in Iran, Christian communities in Iran have often been assigned a marginal role in society and out of contact with the intellectual climate of the country as a whole. Iranian Christians and Muslims may have lived together for a long time, but that has not guaranteed a mutual communication and understanding between the two groups in contemporary Iran. As Anthony O’Mahony observes, “the image of Christianity in recent Persian thought has been more determined by the Iranian encounter with Western Christianity, than by Shi’a Islam’s relationship with the indigenous Oriental Christian communities of Assyrians and Armenians. Persian publications on Christianity discuss mainly its development in the West, and contain only brief remarks on the Eastern Churches.”107 Furthermore, the persecution and the oppression that Christian communities have experienced in post-revolutionary Iran have also become significant factors in inhibiting Iranians, both Muslims and Christians, from encountering each other in a genuine spirit of dialogue. It is therefore much easier for contemporary Iranian Muslim thinkers to discuss issues of faith with Christians of a different nationality than an Iranian Christian who speaks the same language and lives in the same context.108

Historical Influences In addition to the positive heritage in the religious and cultural traditions of Iran, there are powerful historical forces that have made a profound impact on shaping the Iranian encounter with Christianity. Among various Iranian intellectuals, these forces have been variously named as “The West,” “Secularism,” “Globalization,” or “Modernity.”

Challenges of Modernity Mehrzad Boroujerdi insightfully points out the wider social context of intellectual activity in Iran, Irrespective of their position on the ideological spectrum, twentieth-century Iranian intellectuals accepted, for the most part, Western civilization109


3/22/2011 12:48:14 PM

34


Another Iranian scholar Farzin Vahdat, sees this preoccupation with modernity as an issue facing the whole Islamic world, including Iran. He writes, Nothing so bedevils the peoples of the Islamic world at the beginning of the twenty-first century as the specter of modernity . . . It would hardly be an exaggeration to claim that the question of modernity—its appropriation, its rejection, or its transformation along more acceptable lines—currently constitutes the central issue in many Islamic societies at both the theoretical and the practical level.110 A simple glance at a few of the titles of books published in contemporary Iran confirms Vahdat’s thesis that the “question of modernity” seems to be the key issue in Iranian intellectual climate.111 Ali Mirsepassi argues contrary to the many analysts of contemporary Iran that “the Islamic Revolution was not a simple clash between modernity and tradition but an attempt to accommodate modernity within a sense of authentic Islamic identity, culture and historical experience.”112 In order to refute the idea that Iranian Shi’i clerics are by nature reactionary or against the modern world or engaged in a “clash of civilization” with the West, Mirsepassi quotes a comment by Hassan Taromi, director of the history of Islamic sciences at the Encyclopedia Islamica Foundation. Taromi, who has been deeply involved in the Islamic revolution, comments, I feel now that we cannot separate ourselves from what is going on in the world. The wheel that turns the world, and the philosophical traditions and assumptions which move that wheel, may have quite unacceptable results in practice, but we have to face that philosophy and appreciate it even though we may have reservations and doubts. The base of contemporary social life is modern rationality and I feel that religion should have only a corrective mission at best. That is why, as a religious community, [the Ulama establishment] should not try to confront modernity. They should try to come to terms with it.113 Writing about the developments in intellectual life in contemporary Iran, Ali Ansari comments “Another development which broadened the intellectual horizons of society as a whole, and those of the intellectual


3/22/2011 12:48:14 PM


35

elites in particular, was the impact of globalization and the information revolution it had brought with it.”114 Furthermore, “one of the most interesting developments in the seminaries has been the development of the study of Western philosophy, in the belief that in order to defeat your opponents you must first know and understand them; accordingly, in order to confront the West one must appreciate the challenge and provide intellectual alternatives.”115 It is now possible to detect in the intellectual atmosphere of Shi’i seminaries in Qum and beyond, the growing familiarization with the broader sweep of Western philosophy . . . . The curriculum . . . runs the gamut from the ancient Greeks to Heidegger and including Kant, Hegel and Marx. Indeed, if Western philosophy was considered impure by many ulema prior to the revolution, the opposite was increasingly true afterwards. . . . Outside the seminaries and in the universities, the range of works studied was of course even broader. While there remained a broad affinity with the hermeneutic scholars in the West, there continued to be an avid interest in the writings of Marx, as well as those of Foucault and Habermas. All three, in addition to those mentioned above [i.e. Hegel, Kant, Nietzsche, Heidegger and Ricoeur], have been pivotal in shaping Iranian attitudes to the outside world. Khatami’s “dialogue of civilizations,” for example, is replete with a Habermasian subtext.116 Regardless of the different definitions and connotations that terms such as “the West” or “modernity” contain, most Iranian writers employ these to describe the same complex reality of life in the modern world with its increasing expansion of secular or non-religious attitudes and its accompanying disregard for tradition and religion. Each issue of the journal Dialogue contains numerous articles and references to the challenges of the encounter between religion and modernity.117 Ali Paya highlights the central issue when he writes, Whatever patterns are going to emerge in the belief ecosystems of the next century, there is no doubt that the Abrahamic religions cannot isolate themselves from the changing climate which is now encompassing all intellectual ambience in all corners of the world. The main question now facing Islam, Christianity, and Judaism


3/22/2011 12:48:14 PM

36

Christian Encounters with Iran is, no doubt, the question of survival: how can each of these major monotheistic religions weather the incoming storm and come out of it with the least possible damages? Or better still, how can they turn the storm into their own advantage and get the most out of it? . . . However, it does not appear to be too far-fetched to suggest that a collective approach toward these problems stands a better chance of success than individual initiatives. It seems that a constructive relation and close cooperation between the three Abrahamic traditions could only be to their mutual benefit and therefore extremely desirable.118

One of the acute challenges facing the modern Iranian society is the youth population of Iran. Many observers of Iran acknowledge that there is a deep anxiety in the leadership of Iranian society over the loss of genuine religiosity and spirituality among the population, especially the youth.119 Ramin Jahanbegloo, head of the department for Contemporary Studies at the Cultural Research Bureau in Iran, credits the “decline of revolutionary romanticism among the Iranian youth” as having a direct influence on the “rise of a democratic intellectual discourse in the Iranian civil society.”120 Thus, it seems quite plausible that some of the Iranian Muslim thinkers are interested in learning from the experiences of the Church in the secular Western societies in order to see what lessons they can have for the future of Islam in the Iranian society. In a dialogue between a group of Iranian Shi’i scholars from Qum and Roman Catholic theologians, Ayatollah Misbah Yazdi concluded his speech entitled, “Reflections on the Role of Muslim and Christian Scholars in the Face of Contemporary Challenges,” with the following words: The common intellectual and doctrinal grounds as well as the shared moral principles of all the Abrahamic religions can very well pave the way for co-operation in the efforts to strengthen the faith in the hearts of the young generation and to reform their moral and value standards . . . . In view of the above mentioned points, the necessity of co-operation by Muslim and Christian scholars, especially the Shi’a and Catholics, for the establishment of a global movement against atheism, faithlessness, moral indulgence and any other sort of evil act


3/22/2011 12:48:15 PM


37

becomes more urgent. The key to this great task is dialogue and mutual understanding. A proper dialogue should play a significant role in the clarification of common ground and principles and provide the young generation with a rational and tenable doctrinal system as well as a proportionate value system. . . . Furthermore, . . . [my experiences] have confirmed the existence of appropriate and prepared grounds for dialogue and co-operation in the battle against doctrinal deviations, behavioral corruption and for guiding the younger generation toward happiness in this world and hereafter.121 The repeated references to the themes of “common ground,” “co-operation,” “dialogue and mutual understanding,” and the “younger generation” give a clear clue about the main lines of interest on the part of many Iranian Muslim thinkers in approaching Muslim–Christian dialogue.122 The above quotation with its reconciliatory approach toward Christianity becomes even more significant when it is realized that Ayatollah Misbah Yazdi is probably the most well-known radical, arch-conservative and high-ranking Shi’i intellectual and cleric in Iran today. He is a member of the Council of Experts (Majlis-i Khubrigān) and as the president of an Islamic university in Qum (Imam Khomeini Education and Research Institute) he has been quite active in Muslim–Christian dialogue and research.123

Appreciation for Aspects of the West It should not be assumed that all Iranian thinkers are looking at the issues of modernity and the West only from a negative perspective. Indeed, many Iranian Muslims have a deep appreciation of not only the technical and scientific progress of the West, but also some of the ideals and values of Western societies. Although Mehdi Bazargan belonged to a previous generation of intellectual Muslims, his comments can still provide a window into the thinking of many contemporary Iranians. In one of his books written in 1964, Bazargan wrote, In addition to my professional activities I considered it my most important task to make my compatriots understand that the civilized, developed, real Europe was the Europe of the novels and


3/22/2011 12:48:15 PM

38

Christian Encounters with Iran cinema. Europe had not become Europe because of the men’s ties and the women’s lipstick. Europe had spirituality, religion, and ideals. Europe was full of activity and sacrifice. It had righteousness and social spirit.124

Mohammad Khatami, the former president of Iran, in his interview with CNN in 1998, had this to say about his view of the American people: The American civilization is worthy of respect. When we appreciate the roots of this civilization, its significance becomes even more apparent . . . . The American civilization is founded upon the vision, thinking, and manners of the Puritans. . . . The Puritans constituted a religious sect whose vision and characteristics, in addition to worshipping God, was in harmony with republicanism, democracy, and freedom. . . . In my opinion, one of the biggest tragedies in human history is this confrontation between religion and liberty which is to the detriment of religion, liberty, and the human beings who deserve to have both. The Puritans desired a system which combined the worship of God and human dignity and freedom. . . . This civilization is best described by the renowned French sociologist Alexi de Toqueville. . . . In his view, the significance of this civilization is in the fact that liberty found religion as a cradle for its growth, and religion found protection of liberty as its divine calling. Therefore, liberty and faith never clashed. And as we see, even today Americans are a religious people. Therefore, the AngloAmerican approach to religion relies on the principle that religion and liberty are consistent and compatible. I believe that if humanity is looking for happiness, it should combine religious spirituality with the virtues of liberty.125 This quote reveals a number of key attitudes among many Iranian Muslims that are often not known or acknowledged among people in the West. Many religious intellectuals in Iran have had a high regard for freedom, democracy and the compatibility of religion with scientific and technological progress as they appear in the West and would like to argue that Islam and Christianity can both have similar attitudes


3/22/2011 12:48:15 PM


39

of openness in regard to such issues.126 Commenting on the modern intellectual landscape in contemporary Iran in relation to modernity, Jahanbegloo writes, Today, the new generation of Iranian intellectuals is well aware of the fact that as an antidote to the “monolithic” and “one-view” formulas of the previous generations the political and intellectual urgency of Iran’s encounter with the globalized modernity acquires a “dialogical exchange.” This dialogue is an exposure of the “Iranian self” to the “otherness” of the modern West. It requires from the Iranian self a willingness to risk its political and cultural values and intellectual attitudes and to plunge headlong into a transformative process instead of being in a full position of imitation or rejection of modernity. Today, a democratic notion of identity, emphasizing the formation of a pluralistic civil society in Iran, is welcomed among the new generation of Iranian elites. . . . Perhaps for the first time since Iran’s encounter with the West, modernity is being considered as a process that could provide us with lessons for the affirmation and development of our own identity without having fears recognizing the heritage of modern times as ours. In helping to maintain this dialogical exchange with modernity from within the Iranian identity, Iranians could finally free themselves once and forever from the intellectual blackmail of “being for or against the West” or “having to choose between tradition and modernity.”127 A specific and highly significant example of an Iranian’s appreciation for the new trends in Western philosophy and its impact for MuslimChristian dialogue is provided by Ali Paya, professor of philosophy at the University of Tehran. He writes, The cognitive landscape of the modern man has changed drastically since the medieval times and especially in the course of the twentieth century. Great minds from among the human race have argued against dogmatic attitudes and have shown that there are no secure foundations for our . . . knowledge. It has become clear that each of us view reality from a particular standpoint and therefore, . . . each of us can (at most) claim a limited and partial understanding of reality.128


3/22/2011 12:48:15 PM

40


Paya goes on to say how this multi-perspectival view of truth “has had a humbling effect” on our “epistemological quest.” The need of our day, according to Paya, is to take a “critical, non-dogmatic attitude” since we have come to a “recognition that any claim to knowledge or truth is fallible, limited and not final.”129 This kind of change in attitude is a remarkable example of how far some Iranian thinkers have moved from the more traditional understanding of Islam and how such a move can open up many new windows of opportunities for a more sympathetic dialogue and encounter between Muslims and Christians. At the very least, even among those Shi’i intellectuals who are still strongly opposed to the “corrupting influences” of the West and modernity, there is a strong tendency to favor a better and more objective understanding of Christian thought as an important component of Western civilization.130 However, one also needs to be aware that the issues that arise out of the Iranian encounter with the West and modernity can create a one-dimensional or heavily ideological approach to the Christian faith that does not do justice to the complexity of Christianity, or any faith for that matter. Many critics of Shari’ati, for example, have pointed out the weakness of his instrumentalist view of religion and his use of Shi’i Islam as a tool for political ideology. Soroush has also written eloquently about the danger of treating religion simply in terms of ideology.131 For example, many Iranian writers refer to the Protestant Reformation or Martin Luther in various contexts but without almost any understanding of some of the most significant theological issues that Luther was dealing with.132 The main interest of Iranian thinkers in Luther seems to be in Luther’s impact in combating Medieval Catholicism or creating modern, Western capitalist societies.133 The interest often seems to be in lessons that Muslims can learn from such Christian thinkers in order to deal with the modern world (and thus the rise in the famous phrase, “Islamic Protestantism”), rather than understanding Christian theology as Christians have learned to articulate their theology in attempting to express the truths of the Christian faith.

Socio-Political Influences The most obvious factor under this consideration is the Islamic revolution of 1979 and the establishment of the Islamic Republic as a theocratic form of government.


3/22/2011 12:48:15 PM


41

The Interest of the Iranian Government in Religious Issues Whereas under the secular rule of the former Shah of Iran, religion and issues surrounding religion were not a significant part of the social and intellectual discourse, in the Islamic Republic discussion of religion and its role in society has gained a central significance. As Mohammad Khamenei, the chairman of the Scientific Board of Inter-Religious Dialogue, points out: The past governing systems in Iran distanced themselves from Islam . . . but after the Islamic Revolution . . . these governments chosen by the people, find it their duty to act according to the teachings of Islam and the Qur’an, including the implementation of opening the path of discourse and dialogue with other religions, therefore many discussions have taken place between scholars and clergies and various sects of Christianity such as the Orthodox, Catholics, Protestants, etc. . . . and important social and scientific issues have been put to debate, some misunderstanding clarified and many negative views have given place to optimism.134 Chris Hewer, a British scholar of Islam, also sees this radical change in the Iranian government and society since the revolution as an important factor in the promotion of Muslim–Christian encounter. He points out that “since the revolution, Iranians feel very secure about their identity, i.e. their Shi’i Islam.” Furthermore, there is a “concentration of funds within the Qum system and government funds to send Iranians overseas to study. Numerous Iranian intellectuals have a command of a European language or a European doctorate.”135

The Crisis of the Iranian Revolution Another significant social reality in Iran is the desire for some kind of change from the status quo. Regardless of where one stands on the political spectrum in Iran, it is generally agreed that many of the promises and ideals of the revolution have not been fulfilled. This basic feeling of frustration with the Islamic Republic among various social groups and classes has created a new openness on the part of many Iranians to listen to other ideas and systems of thought. Farhad


3/22/2011 12:48:15 PM

42


Khosrokhavar, an Iranian sociologist, summarizes the current atmosphere in Iran as follows: the generation that “made the revolution”—a phrase that came to have a significant meaning during the first years after the revolution—has become indifferent to and even cynical about the belief system that gave birth to the revolution . . . .Two decades after the revolution, those who took part in it have become alienated from it, and the new generation—including the children of those who made the 1979 revolution—is completely immune to idealism that characterized the mind of the revolutionaries in the late 1970s and early 1980s.136 This erosion in revolutionary idealism has had dramatic influence among Iranian Muslim intellectuals. “In the wake of the revolution, the vast majority of Iranian intellectuals and artists were either Islamic in the radical sense of the word or leftist. . . . Within two decades following the revolution, many of these same intellectuals became reformers, either in the name of Islam or in a nonreligious way.”137 According to Khosrokhavar, “two new types of post-Islamist intellectuals have emerged out of the crisis of radical Islam. The first group maintains the validity of Islam as a spiritual force related to the inner life of the believer but also says that Islam has no claim on organizing the social life and laws of society.”138 This group is deeply rooted in Sufism and some key “religious intellectuals such as Mohammad Mojtahed Shabestari and Soroush . . . defend this view of Islam.”139 As will be seen in Chapter Five, these two highly prominent Iranian intellectuals are also deeply engaged with Christian thought. Such intellectuals have “developed an interpretation of Islam that puts into question its politicization, dissociates religion from politics with regard to power being held by virtue of competency in Islam, and above all, secularizes religion in a new sense.”140 One key result of such significant shift in the thinking of many Iranian intellectuals is the very appearance of the word tolerance and the ideals attached to it in contemporary Iranian society. Khosrokhavar points out, The word tolerance itself was used less and less in literature and political culture . . . .The appearance, or reappearance after a long eclipse, of words denoting tolerance is the result of the new turn of mind. Words such as tasamoh, tasahol, modara, and some others indicate direct or indirect opposition to political and cultural


3/22/2011 12:48:16 PM


43

violence and refer to intellectuals’ ability to engage in dialogue, to discuss and exchange ideas, and to understand each other without demonizing those with whom they are in disagreement. . . . To counter political violence, the new intellectuals propose critical dialogue and appeal to society to mobilize peacefully in favor of the rule of law. This attitude culminated in the election of President Khatami in 1997, and his presence in the political scene has encouraged this turn of mind.141

President Khatami and the Dialogue Among Civilizations The latest factor that seems to be contributing significantly to the promotion of Muslim–Christian dialogue in Iran are the new socio-political realities confronting Iranian society. In response to the ever-growing tensions between the West and the rest of the world and the new buzz word, Samuel Huntington’s now famous “clash of civilizations,” the former president of Iran, Muhammad Khatami coined the phrase “dialogue among civilizations.” Khatami’s emphasis on “dialogue among civilizations” as a response to the global challenges and the role of “civil society” as a response to the internal challenges facing Iran has provided fresh impetus in creating a more open intellectual climate in Iran that among other things has created a deeper engagement of Iranian Muslims with Christian thought.142 As Khosrokhavar points out, The scope and the extent of change [in Iranian society] are very large and cannot be reduced to the reformist will of a single person such as President Khatami or a specific group. . . . These social movements, which existed before Khatami’s election, helped Khatami to win the 1997 presidential election and have contributed to political change in Iran. In return, his election gave a boost to these movements and produced a positive effect on their capacity to mobilize themselves . . . in a more explicit way for the political and cultural opening of Iranian society.143 In his address to the General Assembly of the United Nations on September 21, 1998, Khatami issued the following call: I would like to propose, in the name of the Islamic Republic of Iran, that the United Nations, as a first step, designate the year


3/22/2011 12:48:16 PM

44

Christian Encounters with Iran 2001 as the “Year of Dialogue Among Civilizations,” with the earnest hope that through such a dialogue, the realization of universal justice and liberty be initiated. Among the worthiest achievements of this century is the acceptance of the necessity and significance of dialogue and rejection of force, promotion of understanding in cultural, economic and political fields, and strengthening of the foundations of liberty, justice and human rights . . . .If humanity, at the threshold of the new century and millennium, devotes all efforts to institutionalize dialogue, replacing hostility and confrontation with discourse and understanding, it would leave an invaluable legacy for the benefit of the future generation.144

Khatami’s call for such a dialogue was consistent throughout his presidency. In fact, Khatami’s involvement in Muslim–Christian dialogue predates his coming into office as the president of Iran. It was during his years as the director of the Ministry of Islamic Culture and Guidance in early 1990s that he organized and participated in the first Muslim– Christian dialogue between Iranian Shi’as and Greek Orthodox Church in Athens.145 There are now numerous publications containing Khatami’s speeches in Iran and around the world on the theme of dialogue among civilizations.146 And Khatami himself has written quite knowledgably on certain aspects of the encounter between East and West.147 There is also extensive discussion and analysis of Khatami’s call for dialogue among various Iranian intellectuals.148 One concrete outcome of Khatami’s new initiatives was the founding of the International Center for Dialogue Among Civilizations (ICDAC) in 1999.149 Its Theology and Religions department has been an active and prolific center in Iran with many publications, translations and lecture series by international scholars to its credit. Despite such tremendous forward strides in interfaith dialogue, the fact that in Iran all such dialogues are sponsored or controlled by the Iranian government does create its own limitations on who can participate, what topics can be discussed and how much one can say or write that would deviate from official or government-sanctioned positions.150 More importantly, the socio-political realities of post-revolutionary Iran have been deeply intertwined with limitations on the freedom of expression and oppression of religious minorities, including the Christians. The following excerpts from the 2004 reports on the situation of human rights in Iran by the U.S. State Department can give some


3/22/2011 12:48:16 PM


45

glimpse of the social realities in Iran that bear directly on the issue of Muslim–Christian encounter in that country. Although the following assessment does rely on U.S. State Department research, it is in basic agreement with the reports of other reputable international organizations such as Human Rights Watch,151 Amnesty International,152 and Reporters Without Borders.153 Concerning the limits on the freedom of the press and expression, the report claims: The Constitution provides for freedom of the press, except when published ideas are “contrary to Islamic principles, or are detrimental to public rights;” however, the Government restricted freedom of speech and of the press in practice. Since 2000, approximately 100 newspapers and magazines have been closed for varying lengths of time. Dozens of individual editors and journalists have been charged and tried by the Press Court in recent years, and several prominent journalists were jailed for long periods without trial. Others have been sentenced to prison terms or exorbitant fines. The Government restricted academic freedom. Government informers were common on university campuses . . . .To obtain tenure, professors had to refrain from criticism of the authorities.154 The report on the religious situation in Iran claims: Non-Muslim communities, some of which predate Islam, are present; however, government actions create a threatening atmosphere for some religious minorities, especially Baha’is, Jews, and evangelical Christians. The Government restricts freedom of religion. The Constitution declares the “official religion of Iran is Islam and the doctrine followed is that of Ja’fari (Twelver) Shi’ism.” All laws and regulations must be consistent with Islamic law (Shari’a). The Ministry of Islamic Culture and Guidance (“Ershad”) and the Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS) monitor religious activity closely. Restrictions on Religious Freedom The Government does not guarantee the right of citizens to change or renounce their religious faith. Apostasy, specifically conversion from Islam, can be punishable by death.


3/22/2011 12:48:16 PM

46

Christian Encounters with Iran The Government vigilantly enforces its prohibition on proselytizing activities by evangelical Christians by closing evangelical churches and arresting converts . . . and church officials have been ordered to inform the Ministry of Information and Islamic Guidance before admitting new members to their congregations. Conversion of a Muslim to a non-Muslim religion is considered apostasy under Shari’a law as enforced in the country, and nonMuslims may not proselytize Muslims without putting their own lives at risk. The continuous presence of the country’s pre-Islamic, non-Muslim communities, such as Zoroastrians, Jews, and Christians, has accustomed the population to the participation of non-Muslims in society. However, government actions create a threatening atmosphere for some religious minorities.155

The above assessment on the lack of basic freedoms in contemporary Iranian society highlights the fact that no intellectual activity takes place in a social or political vacuum. For example, many authors or translators who might want to have a deeper engagement with Christian thought might be concerned for their own safety if they translate or publish a certain book in Iran. As a result, published resources on Christianity or even other religions are much more limited than other fields of studies such as philosophy, sociology, or political science. It is easy to understand how the restrictions on the Christian churches that are being enforced in Iran today prevent the promotion of a genuine spirit of mutual dialogue between Christian and Muslim communities.

Conclusion This chapter has highlighted the contemporary intellectual context out of which some Iranian Muslim thinkers are attempting to understand the Christian faith and engaging Christians in inter-religious dialogue. It has drawn attention to a number of factors that have brought about certain significant and positive changes in attitude on the part of contemporary Iranian Shi’as. There are theological/religious reasons based on the teachings of the Qur’an and Shi’i tradition which Muslims are now using to justify the primacy of dialogue in interfaith relations. There are also cultural reasons rooted in the characteristics of Iranian identity and the existence of Christian communities throughout the national history of the


3/22/2011 12:48:16 PM


47

country which contribute to a more tolerant and positive approach to the Christian faith. Furthermore, the encounter between the Iranian society and Western modernity that has characterized much of the intellectual thinking in twentieth-century Iran and also more recent socio-political changes in the third decade of the Iranian revolution have made significant impacts and will continue to shape the interaction between Islam and Christianity among Iranian thinkers. The above factors discussed in this chapter were also shown to have, at times, negative or undesirable consequences for a more genuine understanding of Christianity. The wide-spread attitude of the superiority and perfection of Islam, the dominance of Islamic categories for understanding Christianity, the overwhelming preoccupation with challenges surrounding Western modernity and secularism (and thus viewing Christianity either simply as part of the broader problems of the modern world or as an ally in finding practical solutions for those problems), and the authoritarian and religiously repressive structure of the Iranian government also profoundly impact the ways Muslim thinkers reflect on Christian theology. The remainder of this book will be an attempt to illustrate and document how these factors are at work (sometimes in harmony and sometimes in tension with each other) in Iran today and how they are influencing and forming much of the contemporary Iranian Shi’i perspectives on the Christian faith. If the above forces in Iranian society provide the broad context of religious thinking in Iran today, the next step is to look from various angles and to discern the concrete results of these forces at work. The following chapters will look more closely and in further detail at the publications on Christianity available in Iran today, specific organizations and institutes that are involved with research in Christian thought and active in Muslim–Christian dialogue, and a number of prominent Shi’i intellectuals who have been deeply engaged with Christian faith.


3/22/2011 12:48:16 PM

CHAPTER 3 IRANIAN SHI’AS AND THE CHRISTIAN FAITH: A SURVEY OF IRANIAN PUBLICATIONS ON CHRISTIANITY

Chapter 2 reviewed the various factors operative in the Iranian intellectual climate today that impact on the Iranian attitudes toward Christianity and Muslim–Christian dialogue. This chapter will focus on one particular aspect of Muslim–Christian encounter in Iran: materials published since the Islamic revolution and the range of attitudes displayed in these publications.1 What are Iranian Muslims writing about Christianity? How are Iranians being introduced to the Christian faith? How deeply are Iranian thinkers engaged with different themes in Christian theology? What are the positive and the negative aspects of Christianity from the point of view of Iranian Muslims? To help find answers to the above questions, this chapter will examine a variety of books and journal articles published in Iran. As the number of books and especially popular articles relating to Christianity published in Iran since the Islamic revolution are too numerous to be catalogued or analyzed here,2 a selection of published materials across the span of approximately twenty years will be used to demonstrate what seems like an emerging trend among Iranian Muslim thinkers. It is possible to make distinctions among three trends—although tentative and not with clearly marked borders—in the way that Iranian Muslim thinkers are writing about and interacting with Christian thought. The first trend can be called “Traditional/Polemic” literature. This is obviously


3/22/2011 12:46:19 PM

Iranian Publications on Christianity

49

a well-known category in the history of Muslim–Christian encounters. A good portion of this chapter will be dedicated to analyzing some of the books and articles that are important representatives of this category in contemporary Iranian literature, although even this well-established trend has distinct variations. It is important to note that this polemical dimension in Iranian Muslim literature, although still alive and active, is clearly in decline in the current intellectual climate of the country.3 The second intellectual trend gaining momentum in Iran can be labeled “Objective/Descriptive.” Although neither completely objective nor descriptive (at times a good deal of polemics continue in this trend as well), this is at least how Iranian thinkers view these works. More and more Iranians who are engaged in a study of Christianity are claiming that in order to understand what Christianity is, Muslims need to let Christians speak for themselves and explain to Muslims what Christians believe. This new thinking has so far resulted not so much in Iranian Muslims writing a great deal about Christian theology, but in Iranians becoming more interested in translating books on Christianity mostly written by North American or Western European Christian writers. The third and latest emerging trend that seems to be in its beginning stages in Iran can be termed “Comparative/Dialogical.” A new group among Iranian intellectuals appear more than ready to move beyond the traditional conflicts of the past and to focus on a constructive dialogue with various Christian bodies in order to find common ways of tackling contemporary intellectual, moral and socio-political issues that face both Christians and Muslims. Although this is a trend of quite recent origins (and in part encouraged by the initiatives of Khatami and his call for a dialogue among civilizations), it is a movement on the rise and without doubt a potent intellectual force in the current and future intellectual climate of Iran. Again, it should be pointed out that these distinctions ought to be viewed as a heuristic device rather than hard-and-fast categories. The above summary gives a broad map of where many of the contemporary Iranian Muslim thinkers and writers can be located in their complex attitudes toward Christianity. Next follows details of this outline and various samples from each of the above categories.

Traditional/Polemic Literature The literature under review in this section can be divided into two distinct (although overlapping) subcategories. It is not uncommon to find


3/22/2011 12:46:19 PM

50


Muslims writing about Christ or Christianity, not with an explicit agenda of refuting the New Testament or Christian theology, but simply to present the Islamic account of Jesus and the rise of Christianity. For the purposes of this argument, this approach has been termed “traditional.” Since Jesus is an honored prophet of Islam, it is natural for Muslims to view Jesus “as one of their own” and thus write about him from the perspective of the Qur’an and Islamic tradition, without feeling the need to rely exclusively on the New Testament as a source for understanding Jesus. The polemic literature, on the other hand, is primarily concerned with a refutation of traditional Christian doctrines, although in that process it can present a great deal of traditional Islamic accounts of Christianity. Three books that could be considered representative of this traditional approach are History of the Prophets,4 A Survey of the History of Religions in the Qur’an,5 and Jesus in the Holy Qur’an.6 These books are united by a relative lack of emphasis on polemics and a presentation of Jesus from an Islamic perspective. In the History of Prophets, the story of prophet Jesus is the last chapter of this 796-page book , which surveys the stories of all Qur’anic prophets from Adam and to Jesus. The book is a useful source of Shi’i traditions on the various prophets. The final chapter begins with the story of Mary and her unique and exalted place in Islam and the Qur’an7 and then describes various conflicting traditions in Islam surrounding the events of the virgin birth. With regard to the life and ministry of Jesus, the chapter points out that there is little clear and reliable evidence and it is often mixed and confused with the reports of the gospels. One interesting example is the age of Jesus at the time of his prophetic mission. Although many historians have claimed that Jesus started his ministry around the age of thirty, a number of traditions from the fifth and eighth Shi’i Imams claim that Jesus was about seven when he received his prophetic mission.8 Typical of Islamic accounts of Jesus are the stories of Jesus’ miracles that start in his childhood and continue throughout his ministry. Most of these stories are not found in the gospels; many do not seem to have even come from the first centuries of the Christian era (such as Jesus raising John the Baptist and Shem the son of Noah from the dead and asking them if they want to come back to life and live on earth again). In addition to his miracles, there are numerous stories of Jesus’ actions and teaching in Islamic tradition. Themes such as humility, mercy, and lack of any worldly attachments are quite prominent in the teachings of the Jesus of Islam.


3/22/2011 12:46:19 PM


51

This chapter also addresses the issue of Jesus’ disciples, such as their number, their identity, and their mission. The reason that disciples are called “havvārīyūn” is because the word is derived from “hūr,” which means perfect white. According to the eighth Shi’i Imam, people believed that Jesus’ disciples washed clothes and that is why they were called “havvārīyūn”, but they were called white because they had clean hearts and taught the people how to be cleansed from sin.9 Because of the success of Jesus’ mission, the Jewish leaders, in cooperation with Roman authorities, planned to kill Jesus. But as the Qur’an makes it clear, the enemies of Jesus failed in their evil plot and God rescued Jesus from crucifixion. The author proposes some of the popular theories among Muslim commentators about the identity of the person who was mistakenly crucified in place of Jesus (possibly Judas, or a Roman soldier or one of Jesus’ disciples who volunteered to take Jesus’ place). The reliability of the present gospels is only briefly addressed and it is concluded that they are not the same as the Injil referred to in the Qur’an since the present gospels contradict the Qur’an and each other and have no prediction of the coming of prophet Muhammad. Among the followers of Jesus many gospels and books were written to the point that by the fourth century, over 160 gospels were in circulation. But after the conversion of Constantine to Christianity, the Roman emperor forced a church council to select only a few of the gospels and epistles that supported the position of the emperor and reject the rest. Only four gospels and fourteen letters of Paul were accepted and the rest, including the gospel of Barnabas, were rejected.10 After highlighting a few distinctive features of the gospel of Barnabas and a brief history of its discovery and translation into Persian, the chapter ends on Jesus with a few summaries of Jesus’ teachings and sermons as found mostly in Islamic tradition.11 The second book to be considered in this category, A Survey of the History of Religions in the Qur’an, is a comprehensive catalogue of all the Qur’anic verses with brief comments on what the Qur’an says about other religions. The chapter on Christianity is divided into nine sections, starting from a brief treatment of Mary and the virgin birth of Christ. Some of its other headings include the life and ministry of Jesus, the Injil, Jesus’ disciples, unfounded or exaggerated Christian claims, Christianity and Judaism, Christianity and Islam and the future of Christians.


3/22/2011 12:46:19 PM

52


The chapter is a brief but excellent introduction to the traditional attitude of Muslims to Christian faith. All references to Jesus, the Injil and the disciples are positive and respectful. For example, the only comments about the Injil is that the Qur’an calls Injil the book of light and guidance and that the Injil came in confirmation of the Taurat.12 Surprisingly, there is no mention of any scriptural corruption in discussion of the Injil, and Jesus’ disciples are called “true Muslims” and “receivers of divine revelation.”13 There is, however, a negative assessment of Christians in their exaggerated and unfounded claims in regard to Jesus, the Christian priesthood, and the exclusivity and superiority of Christian faith. Christians also come under criticism for forsaking their covenant with God, their rejections of Jews, and their blasphemy and rebellion against God.14 Interestingly, despite the claims that Christians who believe in the divinity of Christ are “kafar” from the perspective of God and the Qur’an, they are still called “our Christian brothers in faith,”15 which connotes a friendly and courteous attitude on the part of the traditional Muslim author. He also seems to suggest that the majority of Christians are believing and God-fearing people who will receive salvation and, based on sura 4:159, concludes that all Christians (and people of the book in general) will see Jesus before their death and will believe in him.16 The last book under consideration in this subcategory is Jesus in the Holy Qur’an. This book is a succinct summary of Qur’anic material on the life and ministry of Jesus. However, the first section of the book is a brief introduction to an Islamic understanding of religion in general. It affirms the Islamic belief in prophethood and the essential unity of all divine religions, but follows this by quite adamantly stating that Islam is the final and superior religion and it perfects (but at the same time cancels) all previous religions and it is the only faith that will one day rule the world!17 Somewhat surprisingly, it then proceeds to emphasize the importance of interfaith dialogue and mutual understanding between Muslims and Christians for the sake of peaceful co-existence.18 After this introduction, there is a discussion of Mary and the virgin birth, the ministry of Jesus, and the story of Jesus’ disciples. All the discussions are quite traditional in their exposition of Qur’anic passages. The only feature to note is that a good deal of space is devoted to a denial of Jesus’ deity according to the Qur’an, but only one and a half pages to the denial of the crucifixion and no mention of the corruption of Injil.


3/22/2011 12:46:20 PM


53

Following the brief analysis of these representative publications, some tentative observations can be made about the traditional category of Islamic literature about Christ and Christianity in contemporary Iranian society. These judgments are not meant to be taken as absolute positions, but more in terms of different points of emphasis on a continuum. The first observation about this genre is its “tone.” As mentioned before, the emphasis is not so much on refuting Christianity as on giving a positive Islamic account of Christ and the origins of Christian faith (of course, an Islamic account of Christ includes many denials of historic Christian doctrines). One possible result of this approach seems to be a less explicit attack on the Gospels and a more favorable opinion toward Christians in general. Second, the authors confine themselves mostly to Qur’anic or Shi’i sources on Christianity without feeling any need to interact with the Bible, or other Christian sources or any kind of Western scholarship. There is the impression that Islamic sources are viewed to be completely adequate to construct their own story of Jesus without any need to consult or harmonize with the Christian sources of knowledge about Jesus.19 Kenneth Cragg’s famous comments seem appropriate here: “the immediate impression on the general reader from what the Qur’an has to tell him about Jesus is that of its brevity . . . It has often been observed that the New Testament Gospels are really passion narratives with extended introduction. It could well be said that the Jesus cycle in the Qur’an is nativity narratives with attenuated sequel.”20 However, no such anxiety about lack of information about Jesus’ life and ministry seems to be present in the Islamic literature considered so far. In fact, considering the amount of stories about Jesus’ ministry (especially his miracles and teachings) that come from Shi’i sources, a Muslim can feel quite content with the Islamic portrait of Jesus as an adequate alternative to the portrait of Jesus found in the New Testament. The next subcategory extends far beyond the traditional approach and into a more confrontational attack on Christianity. This is the rich field of Islamic polemics, which has a long history in the encounter between Islam and Christianity. The literature in this section has a great deal more variety in its approaches to Christianity than the traditional literature. The authors of these polemics not only rely on the Qur’an and other Islamic sources in their refutation of Christianity, but also interact more heavily with the Bible, Christian sources and critical scholarship. In this section, the focus will be on works written by Iranian authors and not those that have been translated from other languages and are now


3/22/2011 12:46:20 PM

54


available in the Iranian market.21 The themes and approaches of four different types of books will be considered that will give a broad picture of contemporary Iranian polemics against the Christian faith. The four works will be looked at in order of their publication from the earliest to the latest since the Islamic revolution. These are, The Truth of Christianity,22 Christianity,23 An Investigation in Christ’s Religion,24 and The Gospel of Barnabas.25 Not only will the common themes in these works be shown, but also how the distinctive elements of each work and how each book contributes to the overall picture of the polemics published over the last twenty-five years since the revolution. These four titles have been chosen because (with the exception of the first one, which has been the most circulated book of its kind) they seemed to be the most scholarly works available in the market in this category during the author’s first visits to Iran. One of the oldest and probably the most widely distributed polemic in post-revolutionary Iran is The Truth of Christianity.26 Although written on a popular level and is now quite dated and out of print, this book is still a quoted reference in the more recent polemics written in Iran. The work is a compilation of articles written prior to the revolution; mostly in response to the challenges of Iranian Protestant churches and the publications of Western missionaries in Iran.27 Because of the ad hoc nature of the articles, there is no systematic outline to the book. Instead, the book contains dozens of short chapters covering almost every imaginable attack against Christianity. The themes are fairly typical of this genre and include refutations of the doctrine of the Trinity, the corruption and contradictions of the Bible and its general unreliability, the refutation of Christ’s deity and other Christian doctrines such as original sin or the doctrine of atonement, the atrocities committed by Christians throughout their history and the immorality of Christians in general, and the biblical predictions about the coming of Prophet Muhammad. The distinctive feature of this work, compared with the other examples, is its lack of any pretension to objectivity or scholarship. This is a popular and mostly rhetorical attack on the Christian faith. Chapter 1 is a good illustration of the above point and sets the tone for the rest of the book. The following are excerpts from the first page of Chapter 1: Dear Reader! In a world in which every day curtains of ignorance are pulled aside from the path of humanity . . .


3/22/2011 12:46:20 PM


55

In a day in which the light of sciences is drawing us to the oneness and unity of our creator . . . In a world that the black days of colonialism have ended . . . In such a day, the Evangelical (Presbyterian) church of Tehran has thought about colonialism with the suggestion of the doctrine of the Trinity (three gods), and wants to drag people to the darkness of the medieval days.28 Chapter 1 then briefly discusses the doctrine of the Trinity. “After 20 centuries, Christianity still has not been able to solve the problem of the Trinity, a belief based on superstition and blasphemy, and an axiom and foundation of the religion of Paul (not the religion of Jesus).”29 It further states that “even children laugh at this doctrine,”30 and this doctrine is so much without any rational foundation that the only Christian answer is that this doctrine is a “mystery of the church.” By this answer, “Christianity shows its true face to us that this is a religion based on no understanding and ignorance.”31 The chapter concludes with this warning, O Muslim brother! Do not imagine that the amazing progress of Europe is based on the religion of the Trinity. In fact, as long as people followed these childish thoughts, they lived in darkness and ignorance, but when people removed from themselves the web of the church and received help from the light of Islamic sciences, they were able to take impressive steps for the benefit of humanity.32 The overwhelming emphasis of the book is to point out that Christian theology is filled with superstitions (such as the doctrine of transubstantiation or the purchase of heaven in medieval times) and irrationality (the Trinity); the Christian Bible is full of contradictions (such as the genealogy in Matthew), corruption (the authentic manuscripts of the Bible were destroyed by Constantine), immoral and ridiculous stories (attributing sin to various OT prophets or the story of Jacob wrestling with God); and that the Christian church has been and continues to be a major source of evil in society and an obstacle against science and progress.33 A very different style and approach is portrayed in the next three works of polemic. Although they are still quite hostile in their tone, they depict a much greater degree of scholarship and a more detailed engagement with the Bible.


3/22/2011 12:46:20 PM

56


Khueini’s book, Christianity, is probably one of the most impressive scholarly polemics written by a prominent clergy from Qum.34 This work is over 700 pages and divides under four major headings: “The beliefs of Christians,” “Gospel and History,” “Gospel and Corruption,” and “A Comparison of the Gospels.” Khueini claims to have consulted over 600 titles for his research and seems to have undertaken one of the most detailed studies of the gospels available in Persian. This work makes several distinct contributions to Persian polemic literature. In the first 300 pages, Khueini constantly attempts to prove the thesis that Christianity has been thoroughly corrupted by various other religions. He provides numerous lists of comparisons about the stories and sayings of Jesus in the gospels and Christian beliefs about Christ with other sources such as Greek philosophy, the stories of Krishna, the Buddha, Mithraism, Babylonian Baal worship and the worship of Osiris in Egypt in order to demonstrate that Christian beliefs have been borrowed and copied wholesale from a host of pagan religions and schools of thought. Most chapters in this section are concluded by this or similar statements (many of them attributed to Will Durant) that “Christianity is the final and the greatest achievement that the ancient pagan world produced.”35 In the last one hundred pages of this section, Khueini then claims that Christianity was essentially corrupted by Paul (and to a lesser extent by Peter) and thus what is found in Christianity is no longer the authentic religion preached by Jesus. Khueini’s approach through the rest of the book is basically an attack against the authenticity and authority of the New Testament. Khueini explicitly assumes that the real Injil has been lost since, according to the Qur’an, the Injil was the revelation given to Jesus by God and not what was written about Jesus by his disciples.36 The lack of certainty as to who wrote the gospels, other numerous gospels in circulation during the first few centuries of the Christian era, the political and manipulative influence of the Council of Nicea, and the very human and questionable process of canonization are all evidences that are deemed to prove the total lack of present-day New Testament as the authentic gospel of Christ. After a chapter discussing the gospel of Barnabas and its agreement with the Qur’an, is the most unique aspect of Khueini’s work, which is his attempt at writing “The True Gospel.” In a truly original and daring move, Khueini claims that for the first time in the history of publishing, he is presenting the true gospel of Jesus based on Islamic hadith and other sources.37 In about 24 pages, the author presents 24 chapters (and verses)


3/22/2011 12:46:21 PM


57

of his gospel. The first 12 chapters are God’s revelation to Jesus and the last 12 chapters consist of Jesus’ teachings to his disciples and the Jewish people. What emerges out of this gospel is a thorough portrait of Jesus as a Muslim prophet and a plausible Islamic alternative to the Christian version of Christ. Khueini devotes the rest of the book to the various forms of the corruption of the gospels,38 and its many internal and logical contradictions as further proofs for the unreliability of the gospels. The book ends with a detailed chart, comparing chapter by chapter the gospel of Matthew with the other three gospels and indicating how each variation among the gospels fits one of the author’s categories of corruption. Without doubt, Khueini’s work is by far one of the most comprehensive and detailed studies of the text of the gospels published by a high-ranking Muslim clergy in contemporary Iran. Another significant polemic published in post-revolutionary Iran is the work of Ashtiyani, An Investigation in Christ’s Religion.39 First published in 1368 (1989), it has gone through a second edition in 1379 (2000) and is recognized by many as the most scholarly critique of Christianity now widely available in Iran. Unlike many other authors in the examples, Ashtiyani is well conversant with European languages such as German and English and makes extensive use of liberal or critical Western scholarship on the Bible. In fact, Ashtiyani opens the second edition of the book with a newspaper article in English40 conveying the latest conclusions of the Jesus Seminar claiming that “Jesus Christ never promised to return and usher in a new age.” After a brief description of the content of the New Testament and a basic outline of Christian doctrines, Ashtiyani devotes the bulk of his work to an attack on the Bible (the process of its writing and canonization), the historicity of Jesus and his miracles, the corrupting influence of Paul on the Christian faith, Christian doctrines (such as the beliefs about the end of the world, heaven and hell, the Trinity), contradictions in the Bible, and institutionalized church and clergy. The most unique aspect of Ashtiyani’s approach is that he does not write from the perspective of a Muslim looking at Christianity, but from that of Western Enlightenment. He does not use any Islamic sources, but relies almost exclusively on European theologians or critics of Christianity.41 In raising doubts about the historicity of much of what Christians believe about the life of Jesus or his miracles, Ashtiyani is also implicitly raising doubts about the validity of the Qur’anic view of Christ.42


3/22/2011 12:46:21 PM

58


Despite his strong opposition to much of orthodox or ecclesiastical Christianity, it is clear from Ashtiyani’s concluding remarks that he is in fact very supportive of what he calls, Gnostic or mystical Christianity. Although, because of the censorship that has existed in Iran since the revolution, Ashtiyani cannot explicitly write anything against Islam, it is not hard to miss the point that in attacking Christianity, Ashtiyani is making claims against any form of institutionalized religion or clergy (including Islam). But he is supportive of the importance of private, individual faith, spirituality, and ethics. He approvingly summarizes the “essence” of the Christian faith as Jesus’ proclamation of the kingdom of God and the internal and ethical changes that are required to enter the kingdom. According to Ashtiyani, the three teachings that emerge out of Jesus’ message are: 1. “God is the ground of love and mercy. Believers in such a God must reach for these ideals in order to become the children of this loving God. Believers must have love and goodness as the source of all their actions.” 2. “No human being is superior to others. Jews and Christians and Muslims, Romans and Greeks and Palestinians . . . are all equal before God. Brotherhood and equality are the foundational principles of Christianity. The true leader of a society should be the servant of the people.” 3. “The worship of God does not depend on any doctrines, law or rituals. The prayer of the heart and goodness are the best way of worshipping God.”43 For those familiar with the dynamics of contemporary Iranian society, Ashtiyani is a good representative for many Muslim thinkers in Iran, who are abandoning traditional and institutionalized religion in favor of a personal, heartfelt faith and spirituality. The last example in this sub-category of polemics is the Gospel of Barnabas, one of the latest and most widely available books in Iran today concerning Christianity. As mentioned earlier, interest here is not in the text of the Gospel itself, but in the introduction written by Jamshid Gholami-Nahad covering the first 200 plus pages of the book. The introduction is entitled “Christianity, History and Truth” and is divided into six sections. Prior to section one is a brief summary of the life and some of the teachings of Jesus as found in the four canonical


3/22/2011 12:46:21 PM


59

gospels.44 Surprisingly, this part is one of the most accurate and descriptive summaries of the origins of Christian faith in all of Persian polemic literature. Compared to all the other examples considered so far, GholamiNahad is very positive about the historical value of the canonical gospels, especially in terms of much of the ethical teachings of Jesus that are still found in them.45 The apparent air of objectivity is quickly lost upon entering section one and the rest of the introduction. Section one is a broad survey of the history of Christian thought, doctrines, and denominations. The two themes emphasized in this section are how Christianity was derailed from its Jewish roots and was corrupted by Paul and pagan philosophies,46 and the complexity and irrationality of much of the Christian doctrines. Section two deals with the content and the historicity of the gospels. A good portion of this section covers the contradictions found in various gospel accounts. The next section introduces the person of Barnabas, the Gospel of Barnabas, the differences between the Gospel of Barnabas and the canonical gospels and the problematic nature of Christian doctrines such as the deity of Christ and the Trinity. The purpose of this section is to demonstrate that the Gospel of Barnabas, in denying the deity of Christ and the doctrine of the Trinity, does not necessarily disagree with the rest of the canonical gospels since these doctrines are not found in the gospels but in the writings of Paul and later developments of Christian theology. Also, these doctrines have been found to be quite irrational by vast numbers of Western intellectuals and even Christian theologians.47 Section four is an attack on Paul. By frequent references to Harnack and Nietzsche, the author finds Paul the main culprit in corrupting the Christian faith and removing it from the original message of Jesus. The last two sections provide a defense of the authenticity of the Gospel of Barnabas and a review of the features of the Persian translation of this work by Sardār-i Kābuly. After this lengthy introduction, Gholami-Nahad adds one hundred more pages to the introduction by including four articles about the Gospel of Barnabas itself. Three of those articles are in defense of the Gospel (the first is by Ayatullāh Ṭāliqānī, a prominent and well-beloved cleric in the early days of the revolution) and one article, written by the Arab Christian translator of the Gospel into Arabic, raises doubts about the authenticity of the work.48


3/22/2011 12:46:21 PM

60

Christian Encounters with Iran Some of the distinctive features of Gholami-Nahad’s work are:

1. Its “tone” is not nearly as hostile as many of the previously cited works. For the most part, Gholami-Nahad writes very courteously and objectively. 2. This work has the most comprehensive use of all available sources on Christianity in the Persian language. Many of the sources are the works of former American missionaries in Iran, or books published or translated by the Protestant churches of Iran. However, there are no original sources in European languages. 3. Gholami-Nahad is much less hostile to the historicity or value of much of the canonical gospels than the previous authors. His main areas of contention are the Pauline epistles and later developments in church history. In an interesting concluding remark, he claims that the purpose for publishing the Gospel of Barnabas is not to prove its authenticity over and against the canonical gospels. Since Christians believe that the canonical gospels are four complementary portraits of Jesus, this Gospel can then be viewed as a fifth complementary portrait that sheds more light on the historical Jesus.49 4. By writing his attack on Christianity in the context of an introduction to the Gospel of Barnabas, Gholami-Nahad manages not only to undermine the understanding of historic Christianity about Christ, but he also provides an Islamic alternative to the portrait of Jesus found in the canonical gospels. This brief survey of the traditional/polemic category of books published in Iran since the revolution has not only considered the common themes, but also the distinctive approaches of various authors found especially in the polemical category. It seems clear that even the polemical writings are moving away from simple denunciations of Christianity and are demonstrating more nuanced approaches toward the Christian faith. Their use of Christian sources printed in Farsi, engagement with critical Western biblical scholarship, and even acknowledging certain positive aspects of the Gospels and Christian ethics can all be viewed as indications of recent trends among Iranian writers. As previously mentioned, the vast majority of the older polemics written after the revolution are no longer in print or easily available. From many corners of Iranian society there is now a shift in public and scholarly demand for a more objective understanding of Christianity, which is covered in the next category.


3/22/2011 12:46:21 PM


61

Objective/Descriptive Publications As the title of this category suggests, there is a new momentum in Iranian society for a more objective and unbiased treatment of the teachings of the Christian faith.50 This shift in attitude has resulted in three developments that will be covered in this section. The first development is in the increasing number of books on Christianity translated from European languages into Farsi. This is a direct development stemming from the desire of many Iranians to let Christians describe their faith and express their convictions in their own terms. The second trend (which is considerably smaller) is writing more balanced accounts of the Christian faith or aspects of Christian thought or philosophy by Iranian authors themselves. Finally, the appearance of new academic and religious journals is beginning to make significant contributions to the promotion of a more balanced and accurate knowledge about Christianity in Iranian society.

Translated Books The largest number of books now available in the Iranian society on Christianity are those translated mostly from English and, to a lesser extent, from French sources. These books reflect various degrees of scholarship and approaches to the Christian faith. Although it is beyond the limit of this section to deal exhaustively with all the translated books in detail, it can identify the general and broad features of what has become available in Iran in recent years. A few of these works still reflect explicit polemical attitudes toward Christianity such as books on the history of the Crusades or the Inquisition.51 Others are concerned with the social implications of Christianity,52 or the socio-political activities of churches in other societies.53 Some have been devoted to Christian classics such as the writings of St. Augustine or Thomas à Kempis,54 or Christian saint figures or mystics.55 There are also popular introductions to Jesus or Christian history,56 issues surrounding the rise of Christianity,57 and a number of works which deal directly with Christian theology58 or even the more recent trend of translating books on Christian philosophy.59 When considering what has been translated in the field of theology or Christian faith in general, the bulk of the titles seem to be concerned with: issues surrounding Christianity and modernity, such as modern Christian theology,60 a number of classical and contemporary Christian


3/22/2011 12:46:21 PM

62


theologians, such as Augustine,61 Aquinas,62 Kierkegaard,63 Tillich,64 Bultmann,65 and Pannenberg,66 religious experience,67 faith in the modern or post-modern world,68 truth and mythology,69 religious pluralism,70 and themes relating to Christian existentialism.71 There are also three new translations that seem to be marketed for a college-level audience in Iran. For many years the most definitive collegelevel textbook on Christianity was an older work by John Noss entitled Man’s Religions,72 but there are now more options that students can access, such as Norwegian Einar Molland’s Christendom: The Christian Churches, Their Doctrines, Constitutional Forms and Ways of Worship,73 the American Mary J. Weaver’s Introduction to Christianity,74 and the British Tony Lane’s History of Christian Thought.75 In light of the prevalent censorship and myriad of obstacles in the Iranian publishing industry, the fact that these books have entered the market is significant in and of itself. Furthermore, considering that the vast majority of these translated works have appeared only in the last few years, this is a clear sign of a noticeable trend among Iranian Shi’as toward a more objective understanding of the Christian faith. Based on this emerging trend, what observations can be made about the current state of available literature on Christianity in the Iranian Muslim society?76 There must be some caution about the limits of broad generalizations, but some tentative observations are possible. First, it is easy to detect that many Iranians have become quite dissatisfied with the former level of knowledge and scholarship on Christianity. Hossein Tofiqi, a senior cleric and an acknowledged authority on Christianity in the Shi’i seminaries of Qum, speaks on behalf of many when he complains about the woeful lack of knowledge about Christianity, the next-door neighbor religion to Islam, and criticizes Muslims for looking at Christianity from their own Islamic viewpoint and so, for example, still thinking that Christians believe Jesus has brought down a revelation in the form of a book.77 Hommayoun Hemmati also severely criticizes Iranian Muslims for having focused more on writing biased polemics than scientific and objective works for the purpose of better understanding the Christian faith.78 From a Christian perspective, this is indeed a commendable change of attitude on the part of many in the Iranian society who are involved in writing or translating. This is a significant move forward in coming to a more accurate understanding of the Christian faith when compared to the previous category of traditional/polemic literature. Also, the new


3/22/2011 12:46:21 PM


63

appreciation for certain aspects of Christian spirituality and philosophy are wonderful signs that Iranian Muslims can be prepared to have more meaningful engagement with Christian thought in the coming years. However, there are also certain matters of concern in this emerging field. First, there seems to be very little systematic or coherent strategy in any academic centers or publishing houses in the choice of the books that are translated and published. Several prefaces to these books point out the ad hoc nature of the selection. As a result, some works have just been published which are already quite outdated in their original language.79 Some academics claim that books that were written forty years ago can often be translated and published with books that have just been written in the West on a particular subject and thus create a great deal of confusion and inaccuracy about the current state of scholarship in regard to that subject.80 Second, and more importantly, the majority of books translated about the Christian faith tend to be from the highly critical spectrum of Christian scholarship in the West. Many of these works contain much justification for the charges that the New Testament is not a reliable historical record about the life and ministry of Jesus, the canonization of the New Testament was done in a haphazard and politically motivated fashion, Christian theology is ridden with mythology, Christianity as we know it is a result of the influence of Apostle Paul and not Jesus, and a host of other issues that confirm the traditional Muslim attack against Christianity. In this way, Muslims can continue to hold the traditional polemical positions but under a more sophisticated (albeit one sided) Western scholarship. Even some of the works that are mostly descriptive accounts of Christianity do not make much of an attempt to portray an empathetic, “insider” account of Christianity. Doctrines or denominational differences are explained, but without much effort to clarify the logic or the experience behind certain doctrines or movements in Christian history.81 Of course, there are some happy exceptions. A small but significant book in this regard is the translation of Thomas Michel’s Christian Theology. This is a book written by a Catholic scholar of Islam and is intended to give an “insider” perspective of the Christian faith specifically for a Muslim audience. Interestingly this work was translated by Hossein Tofiqi, a well-known cleric in Qum and published by the Center for the Study and Research of Religions also located in Qum.82 This is certainly a praiseworthy translation that promotes a deeper, sympathetic


3/22/2011 12:46:22 PM

64


understanding of the Christian faith.83 More recent publications of Christian classics and some of the writings of evangelical theologians and philosophers (some of them also translated by Shi’i clerics in Qum) are further examples of books that present a more sympathetic and positive description of historic Christian thought.

Iranian Muslim Writers on Christianity Moving beyond the category of what has simply been translated in postrevolutionary Iran, this section will now consider the books written by Iranian Muslims about Christianity. What distinguishes these books from the polemic/traditional category surveyed earlier is the expressed purpose of the authors to let Christians speak for themselves. Compared to the previous authors, these writers seem more concerned in presenting a balanced and fair picture of the Christian faith. However, as mentioned at the beginning of this chapter, there are no hard and fast categories. Some of these books, despite the authors’ stated purpose for objectivity, can be considered as part of the polemic genre. The growing interest in this category becomes evident when in the three years between 2000 and 2003, no less than eight books were written about Christianity.84 This section will take a closer look at five of the books that have been published in Iran in recent years and will try to assess their strengths and weaknesses. These works, in order of their publication dates, are An Introduction to Christian History and Theology,85 A Companion to Great Religions,86 Culture and Christianity in the West,87 Getting to Know the Religion of Christ,88 and Christianity.89 An Introduction to Christian History and Theology seems to be one of the first books of its kind. Written by a Shi’i clergy as an introductory-level college textbook, the book emphasizes the importance of interfaith dialogue and relationship as a way to encounter the challenges of modernity and secularism. The introduction concludes with the hope that the work will contribute to the scientific dialogue between Muslim and Christian theologians.90 The book is divided between two main sections of Christian history and Christian theology. The tone is cordial and the author allows Christian sources to speak for themselves about the meaning of Christian doctrines such as the Trinity, incarnation, atonement and Jesus’ death and resurrection as the basis of the Christian faith. In many instances the author compares Christian claims with those from the Qu’ran and Shi’i sources


3/22/2011 12:46:22 PM


65

and thus tries to demonstrate the corruption of the Bible, the logical contradictions of the doctrine of the Trinity, and the claim that Christian theology was for the most part an invention of Paul. In certain respects, this book could be viewed as a borderline between the polemical and the descriptive category. However, its emphasis on describing the Christian faith as Christians have historically understood it for themselves, signals a new direction for many books published since then. Tofiqi’s chapter on Christianity in his A Companion to Great Religions is also unique since its author is a prominent clergy and it is written not with the primary purpose of refutation but as an attempt to set forth a descriptive account of Christianity (and other religions) in order to promote mutual understanding and better relations between the adherents of various religions.91 This book is designed as a general introduction for the use of Shi’i seminary students. The chapter on Christianity, although a summary survey, is still the longest chapter in the book. It covers the life and ministry of Jesus, the writing of the New Testament, Christian doctrines and various branches and denominations within Christianity. It includes the same typical charges such as the corrupting influence of Paul on Christian theology and the influence of pagan mystery religions, and especially Mithraism, on the formulations of Christian doctrines.92 Despite some of its polemic undertones, this chapter has certain significant features. One interesting but somewhat curious feature of Tofiqi’s discussion of Christ’s ministry is to present him as a socio-political revolutionary. Out of thirteen pages devoted to the life and ministry of Jesus, eight are devoted to the heading “Revolutionary Jesus” with ten subheadings to prove the author’s thesis that Jesus was a revolutionary leader who struggled for the victory of the oppressed against their oppressors.93 The reflections of some of the themes of the Iranian revolution can be seen in Tofiqi’s portrait of Jesus. More importantly, Tofiqi makes some notable contributions and clarifications to Muslim–Christian discussions. For example, he notes that many “neutral” scholars of religion only view the Bible as an ancient human document. But he goes on to explain the reason for such a view is because of the anti-supernatural assumptions of these scholars that deny the possibility of divine–human communication and the actual occurrence of miracles in history.94 In discussing the issue of tahrif, he concludes quite emphatically that the Qur’an makes no reference to the corruption of the text or even the meaning of Jewish and Christian


3/22/2011 12:46:22 PM

66


scriptures and thus the Qur’an can have no bearing on the issue of tahrif.95 Tofiqi also makes the incredible statement that “Christianity has nothing to do with shirk” and whenever Christians come across a description about God in their holy book that is not befitting of God’s holy majesty, they do not interpret it literally but according to its spiritual meaning.96 Thus later in the chapter, in discussing the issue of Jesus’ divine sonship, Tofiqi claims that “in calling Jesus the son of God, Christians do not understand it to mean a physical birth, since the idea of God having a (physical) son is equally forbidden in Islam and Christianity.”97 Tofiqi also praises certain aspects of Christian theology and mysticism, the “most beautiful” aspect of which is apophatic theology. He writes, “We Muslims must be happy about these efforts to purify the transcendence of God and this should be one of the conditions for our cooperation with people of the Book.”98 Kashefi’s Culture and Christianity in the West is another example of a recent book on Christianity by an Iranian clergy from Qum. This work is designed for the purpose of promoting objective knowledge of modern Western culture and especially the foundational role that Christianity has played in shaping and being shaped by that culture. Kashefi’s work is a fine and rare example of an Iranian author giving a broader historical and social context to the development of Christian theology. This is by far the most comprehensive work produced by an Iranian author on the history of Christian thought and its interaction with various historical and intellectual forces, especially modernism and postmodernism. One of the main objectives of Kashefi’s work is to draw attention to the factors that have impacted the Christian faith and have changed and continue to change it from the original teachings of Jesus. Kashefi argues that from the earliest times, Christianity went through a process of change because of internal and external causes. He identifies the internal causes as the differences between the teachings of Peter and Paul (Peter and the rest of the apostles taught that Jesus was a human being and a Jewish prophet, whereas Paul changed Jesus into a divine figure), the Christian view of inspiration and revelation which incorporate the influence of human elements in its process and the change in the understanding of the church from a dynamic body of believers to a hierarchical organizational structure. The external causes were social–political changes, new scientific theories (such as evolution) and the use of various systems of philosophy (i.e., any system from Aristotelian to existential philosophies).99


3/22/2011 12:46:22 PM


67

Kashefi also examines a host of movements associated with modernism, such as humanism, liberalism, rationalism, secularism, individualism, relativism, and pluralism. He tries to show how the church has responded to these challenges by either accommodating and thus compromising its convictions or using them for the benefit of presenting the Christian message within a new social and intellectual context. He concludes with a survey of the distinctive responses of the Roman Catholic Church to modernity and the way Protestant theologians (such as Barth, Bultmann, and Tillich) have responded to modernity. Although, on the surface, Kashefi’s tone can be quite critical, more fundamentally this book can be seen in a more positive light. This issue will be returned to later in this chapter, but many of the concerns that Kashefi raises about the modern world are the same concerns that Muslim thinkers are faced with, such as the relationship between science and religion, religion and culture, the rise of secularism, pluralism and modern hermeneutics. Many Muslims believe that in studying how Christians have dealt with these changes and challenges, there are beneficial lessons to be learned for Muslim societies. The next book for consideration, Izadpanah’s Getting to Know the Religion of Christ, is a new book in the Iranian market intended for a popular audience. Of all the books in this category, Izadpanah is the only Iranian author who is not a clergy. In terms of its scholarship, this is a very poor book,100 nevertheless, this work does reflect certain aspects of the contemporary Iranian society. The author uses a speech by a Hindu scholar Radha Krishnan given at Oxford University as the “introduction” for the book. The emphasis of the speech is on the importance of spirituality over institutionalized forms of religion and the superiority of love for God and neighbor over orthodox beliefs and rituals. The book is divided into three sections. First, the author surveys the New Testament and the personality and teachings of Christ according to the Gospels. He then devotes a section to Christian theology (Trinity, atonement, and salvation) and ethics. And finally, the book concludes with a brief survey of various Christian branches. What stands out in this book is that the author seems to favor the historical reliability of Jesus’ crucifixion over the Qur’anic denial of it.101 He also briefly discusses the doctrines of incarnation and the Trinity without denouncing them to be incompatible with monotheism.102 Absent also are the charges against Paul and the corrupting influence of pagan mystery religions. And finally, despite heavy criticisms against the Church and certain doctrines such as


3/22/2011 12:46:22 PM

68


original sin, the author concludes the book by stating, “In general, the religion of Christ in view of its ethics of the heart, can create a humanitarian, peace seeking and peaceful society that can promote equality, brotherhood and justice in the world.”103 The last book in this category, Ardestani’s Christianity, also makes its own important contribution to this aspect of Muslim–Christian encounter in contemporary Iran. Another clergy from Qum, Ardestani is not only becoming a well-known translator of Christian literature in Iran, but he also heads the research department on Christianity in the Center for the Study of Religions in Qum. This is Ardestani’s first book, and the first book written by an Iranian Shi’i clergy that deals exclusively with Christian theology from a non-polemical position. The book is written as a survey of the history of Christian thought. It follows a chronological pattern from the beginning of Christ’s ministry to the rise of Christianity during the time of the apostles and the early church, followed by the medieval church, the Reformation and the church in modern times. As stated in the introduction, this is mostly a descriptive book based on Christian sources. Furthermore, Ardestani has purposefully tried to refrain from passing any judgment for the most part.104 He shows his commitment to this approach by quoting extensive passages from the New Testament and also from available literature on Christianity in the Farsi language. Overall, Ardestani does a commendable job in portraying the development in the history of Christian theology and his objective, descriptive style is his most significant contribution to this field.105 One area, however, where Ardestani echoes the almost single constant charge among all Iranian authors is the corrupting role of Paul on Christian theology. This is where it seems Ardestani is heavily involved in making judgments rather than simply reporting what Paul and the rest of the New Testament documents claim about his role in shaping Christian doctrines. According to Ardestani, there are two completely separate and irreconcilable systems of theology in the New Testament.106 One system is based on the belief in the deity of Christ. This system is rooted in the writings of Paul (and to a lesser extent the Gospel of John and Johannine epistles).107 The second theological system is based on the belief that Jesus is only a servant of God and has no divine nature. Jesus is only a prophet like others who confirms the Jewish law. Although, Jesus is called the Son of God even in this system, this does not mean that Jesus is of the same


3/22/2011 12:46:23 PM


69

essence as God, but only that he is a servant close to God. This system is based on the synoptic Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, and the epistles of James, Peter, Jude, and the book of Revelation.108 Ardestani believes that Pauline theology eventually won the day for two reasons. First, Paul did away with the Jewish law and thus made it easier for the new converts to join the Christian movement. Second, Paul’s theological system was more compatible with the already existing pagan worldview (such as belief in the dying and rising gods and saviors).109 This survey of books published about the Christian faith in Iran written by Shi’i authors since the Islamic revolution reveals several factors. These works are quite rudimentary in their scholarship and research. There is very little interaction with contemporary Christian theology or biblical scholarship. And although they claim to be aiming at objectively describing the Christian faith, they engage in a good deal of polemics. However, it should also be noted that despite the continuing polemics (especially against Pauline theology in the New Testament), some of the books discussed in this section revealed a tendency toward moving beyond many of the traditional polemical categories (such as Tofiqi’s denial that the Qur’an charges Christian scriptures with tahrif or clearing Christians of the sin of shirk). One could also notice a certain amount of appreciation for Christian ethics and spirituality and a greater attempt at trying to understand the Christian faith by bringing into discussion Christian sources. The final class of publications to be examined in this category is the academic journals that have begun to appear in Iran. The next section will consider what impact they are making in shaping the discussions and perceptions about Christianity in the Iranian society.

Academic/Religious Journals The rise of academic/religious journals that address issues in Christian thought and Muslim–Christian dialogue is a new and significant development among Iranian thinkers. Currently, there are seven such journals being published in Iran.110 The oldest of these seven is Naqd va Naẓar [Critique and Opinion].111 Published in Qum and sponsored by the Center for Islamic Propagation, this was the first social and theological journal of its kind (in academic vigor and respectability by Iranian intellectuals) that started to tackle a broad spectrum of issues relating to religious faith and modernity. Although its first issue started with traditional topics of Islamic fiqh, it


3/22/2011 12:46:23 PM

70


soon evolved into the most sophisticated journal in Qum in dealing with contemporary Western philosophical and theological developments. Through panel discussions, translations and original articles, Naqd va Naẓar became a pioneer in introducing Iranian readers to Christian thought and philosophy of religion in general. Article after article in successive issues deals with such topics as religious faith and rationality, hermeneutics and religious texts, religious experience, religious epistemology, tradition and modernity, modern theology, and spirituality and science. The Iranian writers in this journal (Mostafa Malekian and Mojtahed Shabestari are two of its prominent contributors) regularly interact with philosophers and theologians such as Kierkegaard, Heidegger, Ricoeur, Alston, Plantinga, Swinburne, Wolterstorff, Hick, and Keith Ward among many others. The second journal in this category is Organon: A Quarterly Journal of Philosophy, Literature and the Humanities. This journal was established in 1373 (1994) with the aim of providing “a more adequate understanding of western thought.”112 Although the journal is not devoted specifically to issues of theology and religion, it does touch occasionally on such themes. For instance, the whole issue of vol. 2 (no. 5–6) is devoted to the topic of modern theology with most articles being translations from Christian philosophers or theologians such as Etienne Gilson, Kierkeggard, Butlmann, Tillich, Barth, Pannenberg, David Tracy, and Immanuel Kant.113 One original article to note in this volume is on the theology of Paul by Mohammad Ilkhani.114 In all the literature surveyed so far, this article is by far the most comprehensive and detailed analysis of the writings and theology of Paul. Although Ilkhani is quick to attribute Paul’s foundational thinking to Gnostic currents of the time and makes a sharp and superficial contrast between Paul (who believed in the deity of Christ) and the rest of the apostles and Jewish-Christians (who did not believe in any divine attributes in Christ),115 he does a commendable job in presenting Pauline thoughts on God and his relationship with human beings, sin, salvation, and the union of believers and Christ. The Iranian journal of philosophy, Nāmah-i Falsafah [The Letter of Philosophy], has been established since 1377 (1998). This is one of the most academically sophisticated journals published in Iran and, as the title implies, it is devoted to a wide range of philosophical issues. So far, there has been very little direct discussion and interaction with Christian philosophy but a handful of translated articles have appeared in it throughout the years that have related to Christian thought.116


3/22/2011 12:46:23 PM


71

Two recent journals, directly related to the Center for Dialogue Among Civilizations, are Pol-e Firuzeh [Turquoise Bridge] and Guzārish-i Guftugū [Report on Dialogue], established respectively in 1380 (2001) and 1381 (2002). The focus of these journals is broader issues of culture and dialogue among various societies.117 The significance of these journals from the perspective of Muslim–Christian encounter in Iran is not so much in what they say, but more importantly in how the materials are being presented and the kind of discourse that is being encouraged.118 Generally there is very little suggestion of the superiority of Islam over Christianity (or any other religion). Almost no attempt has been made in any articles to refute or focus on the shortcomings of any religion. The articles present a positive spirit of mutual respect and tolerance and the need for a deeper and sympathetic understanding and cooperation among civilizations and religions in order to deal with the challenges of the modern world and to prevent the so-called clash of civilizations. Special note should be taken of one short article that can be viewed as possibly a highly significant signal in the change of direction for the future of Muslim–Christian encounter in Iran. In an article entitled “The profile of Christianity in text-books of Islamic world: A report of a research,”119 the (unnamed) author presents a report of two German researchers who are promoting a more accurate portrayal of Christian faith in Turkish textbooks (the same way that Islam is being more accurately portrayed in German textbooks under the supervision of Muslim scholars). The author approves of the criticisms in this report about the inaccurate and biased coverage of Christianity in religious textbooks of Muslim countries such as Turkey. Interestingly the author then gives several proposals for change in the Iranian educational system in regard to the teaching of Christianity as a living faith. According to this article, steps should be taken to ensure that Christianity is not just being taught from the traditional Islamic perspective, but should be an accurate reflection of what Christians believe themselves. Jesus’ teachings and life, including his crucifixion and resurrection should be taught as axiomatic for the Christian faith. The meaning of doctrines such as the divine sonship of Christ and the Trinity should be taught, in higher grades, within their Christian theological context. The students should know the rich heritage, culture and history of Christianity in Iran and know that Christianity is a living religion that deeply shapes the beliefs, piety, and ethics of its adherents. Finally, the teaching should not be done in a dry and academic way, but should include elements


3/22/2011 12:46:23 PM

72


such as having a Christian student or a pastor coming to the class and sharing their faith or visiting a church or a Christian institution (such as a Christian hospital). It is also suggested that all the contents of these textbooks should be done under the supervision of Christian theologians or specialists in Christian education (like the way Islam is being taught in Germany). Needless to say, these suggestions are far from being realized in the current reality of the Iranian educational system. Nevertheless, the very fact that these comments are being made in publications officially sanctioned by the Iranian government is a significant step forward in deepening mutual understanding between Islam and Christianity in Iranian society.120 The next journal, also published in Qum, is the only one of its kind that deals exclusively with studies in the field of comparative religions. Established since 1378 (1999), Haft Asman [Seven Heavens] is presented as “a humble attempt toward bringing together lives, thoughts and hearts of the seekers of truth.” Furthermore, the editors state “we have tried to look at other religions from a scientific and objective perspective. We seek to experience being and talking together and would like to replace confrontation and objections with dialogue and cooperation.”121 The very existence of this journal is one of the surest signs of the growing trend in this category of literature on Christianity in Iranian society. From 1999 until the summer of 2005, twenty-six issues of this journal have been published. There have been numerous articles (mostly translated from English) which relate directly to the Christian faith.122 Occasionally there are articles with polemical attitudes. For example, in “The God of the Old Testament,” an original work written by Mehrab Sadeghnia, Yahweh is portrayed merely as a national God of Israel who is a lawgiving, fearsome, and distant ruler, expecting slave-like obedience and not love.123 But it is beyond doubt that the overall content, tone and style of the articles distinguish this journal as the most dramatic example of the interest among Iranian thinkers to have a more positive and descriptive approach to the study of Christian theology. One example in this regard is the translation of two articles in the summer 2002 issue (vol. 4, no. 14). One article entitled “The impact of Reformation upon History” is the translation of the last chapter of Reformation Thought by the British evangelical theologian Alister McGrath.124 The article is an analysis of the central role of religious thought in Reformation history and its positive impact on Western intellectual and social traditions. The second


3/22/2011 12:46:23 PM


73

article is a translation of Robert Wilken’s “The Triune God of the Bible and the Emergence of Orthodoxy,” published originally in the Companion Encyclopedia of Theology.125 As the Iranian translator points out in the introduction , the author gives us “a reasonable and orderly presentation” of the doctrine of the Trinity and “refutes the Muslim charge that Christians have committed shirk against God” by their orthodox articulation of this doctrine.126 There appears to be no published material in Farsi language (written or translated by an Iranian Muslim) that comes close to the theological depth and quality of this article in its presentation of the doctrine of the Trinity. Also to be welcomed is the translation of Hans Kung’s article on Paul and his role in the development of Christian theology (vol. 4, no. 16, Winter 2003) in which Kung argues against the common charge that Paul was the “founder” of Christian theology as it is known today. The last and the most recent journal in this field is Akhbār-i Adyān [Religious News[ by the Institute for Interreligious Dialogue in Tehran directed by former vice president Ali Abtahi and his wife, Mrs. Mousavinejad.127 Religious News started as a small news pamphlet about religious events around the world but since spring 2003 it has changed into a major popular publication on inter-religious themes. It not only covers notable news from world religions, but each issue devotes a significant portion to articles, interviews, and book reviews on dialogue, world religions, prayers from various religious traditions and spirituality. Every aspect of the journal is clearly dedicated to the promotion of peaceful coexistence, and a positive understanding and appreciation for all major religious traditions. This is also the only journal that regularly monitors and covers various social, cultural, and religious aspects of religious minorities (with the exception of the Bahai’s) living in Iran. Some of the Christian thinkers introduced in this journal include Leonard Swidler, Wilfred Cantwell Smith, Huston Smith, Hans Kung and John Hick. There have also been brief descriptive articles written by young Iranian researchers on the Baptist denomination (vol. 1, no. 2, June–July 2003); on the Trinity, and the concept of love in the New Testament (vol. 2, no. 9, Aug.–Sept. 2004); on St. Paul (vol. 2, no. 4, Nov.–Dec. 2004); on Christian Fundamentalism and Modernity, and Christmas traditions (vol. 2, no. 5, Dec. 2004–Jan 2005). This survey of the second category of literature about Christianity now available in Iranian society has shown that, despite some of its polemic undercurrents in the kind of books that are being translated from European languages or the often-repeated negative judgments


3/22/2011 12:46:23 PM

74


concerning the role of apostle Paul in distorting Christian doctrines, the overall direction of much of this literature can be viewed quite positively from a Christian perspective interested in Muslim–Christian dialogue. This is especially true if this category is compared with the earlier traditional–polemic genre which was much more popular in the early years of the revolution. For example, the recent number of books translated in the fields of Christian theology, philosophy, and spiritual classics should be considered a significant development in Iranian publishing. It is also clear from the discussion of the new religious journals that a number of Iranian thinkers are beginning to engage with Christian theology and philosophy in very new and sympathetic ways in order to better understand various aspects of Christian thought in the modern world.

Comparative/Dialogical Works Another highly significant trend that seems to be just emerging in Iranian society is the sense among some Iranian thinkers that there needs to be a move beyond simply a better understanding of Christian theology. This new intellectual movement is calling for a dialogical engagement with Christianity in order to help people of faith in general to deal with contemporary issues such as modernity and secularism. Although, this trend is just in its beginning stages and has not produced much literature, there are a few published books and articles that point to this new direction. Before looking at some of the titles that have been published in the last few years, it must again be emphasized that none of these trends can be neatly divided from each other. Thus, a great deal of polemics is promoted under the rubric of a comparative study. In fact, most of the books published in the style of a comparative study have been written to demonstrate the superiority of Islam to Christianity! Nevertheless, new features are emerging in these writings that warrant examination not as traditional/polemic but as a new approach that will be referred to as comparative/dialogical. An insightful article that helps clarify the main reason for this more recent development is by Muhammad Legenhausen.128 In a chapter entitled “Contemporary problems of Christian theology in Islamic thought,” Legenhausen passionately argues that Iranian Muslims must take seriously the issues and challenges of the modern world and can learn important lessons from the way Christian theologians and philosophers have dealt with these issues. After acknowledging, “Muslims cannot avoid


3/22/2011 12:46:23 PM


75

listening to the Western discussions with which the entire world seems to reverberate,” Legenhausen issues this call: The West must be understood not only as a cultural invader, but as itself tormented by the twists of modern and postmodern thought . . . In order for Muslims to orient themselves in the contemporary world, religion must be seen not as something to be merely defended, but as offering a way forward with valuable guidance for all humanity . . . and before we can offer anything, we need to understand the differences in our cultural and intellectual climates as well as the common problems they face.129 After providing a brief landscape of the intellectual developments in the West, Legenhausen issues another passionate invitation to his Muslim readers: If we are to accomplish this task of constructing a normative Islamic theology through which the world may be invited to salvation, even though the world is largely intoxicated with modern or postmodern secular Western culture, a good place for us to begin work is by looking at the problems of Christian theology. Christian theology has been attempting to respond to modern currents of Western thought for a long time. We should be willing to learn from its success and failures. At the same time, many of the problems of Christian theology are familiar to Muslims . . . It is of no use to come to the problems of Christian theology with the smug confidence that they can all be solved by means of the resources of the Islamic traditions of kalam, falsafah and ‘irfan . . . Once we come to understand what is novel in modern Christian treatments of traditional problems of theology, and why these novel elements have been adopted, our own Islamic theology will be enriched, even if only to the extent of incorporating a sufficient amount of new vocabulary to refute the modern ideas we find unacceptable.130 Legenhausen concludes his chapter by summarizing his programmatic scheme to equip the future generations of Muslim intellectuals: So, the first step is to find common problems. This is easy. Next, we are to read contemporary Christian responses to these problems


3/22/2011 12:46:24 PM

76

Christian Encounters with Iran in order to gain fluency in the language of the modern religious thought in the Western world. This is difficult. After that (or simultaneously), we can try to begin to understand new topics and problems and approaches to them to be found among contemporary Christian thinkers: environmental ethics, the social gospel, feminism, various topics of pastoral theology, process theology, reformed epistemology, anti-realist theology and much more. No matter how difficult this is, it is absolutely necessary for Muslims to begin exploring these issues. We need to begin the task of trying to formulate answers to the questions our children will soon be asking.131

The apologetic, or even the evangelistic, tone of these passages is clearly self-evident. Although Legenhausen is an American and has written his book in English, his ideas reflect exactly the kind of trends that are developing in Iran.132 Therefore, it is not surprising to discover that not only do more and more books (mostly translations) in the Iranian market aim to introduce the Christian faith, but now there is also a tendency to translate books written by Christian philosophers or theologians that are dealing with contemporary challenges of the modern world. Several books in this category that have been translated quite recently are worthy of mention. Some insight into the development of Iranian intellectual religious climate can be gained by looking at some of the newer titles such as Science and Religion: From Conflict to Conversation by John Haught,133 Christianity Among the Religions of the World by Arnold Toynbee,134 God and Religion in the Postmodern World by David Griffin,135 Faith and Rationality by Alvin Plantinga and Nicholas Wolterstorff,136 Is There a God? by Richard Swinburne,137 and God, Freedom and Evil also by Plantinga.138 Except for the last title by Plantinga, all the other works were published in 2002–2003. It should be noted that five out of these six titles were published in Qum. It is clear that there is a strong apologetic theme that unites all these works. Each work attempts to demonstrate the rationality of faith in God, or faith in the face of the challenges of religious pluralism or postmodernism or a scientific worldview from a particular Christian point of view. This is a clear move beyond providing translations of Christian authors who basically present an overview of Christianity. These are examples of how Christians are engaged with various topics that have either been or are becoming controversial topics of great interest among


3/22/2011 12:46:24 PM


77

many Iranians. For example, the tension between faith and the modern world of science has been a prominent theme in Iran and the rest of the Muslim world for at least one hundred years, whereas the challenges associated with religious pluralism are fairly recent in Iranian intellectual discourse. One interesting book to note in this context, although neither a translation nor an original contribution, is by the former vice President of Iran Seyyed Mohammad Ali Abtahi, entitled Dialogue with Christian Thinkers: Religion in the Contemporary World.139 It is an interview between Mr. Abtahi and six Arab Christian theologians from Lebanon. Its relevance to this discussion comes not necessarily from the answers provided by the Christian respondents, but from the questions that Abtahi puts forth. Unfortunately, this book does not give any Muslim perspective on the issues raised and there is no interaction between Abtahi and the Christian thinkers he interviews. Nevertheless, as Abtahi states in the four-page introduction, all his questions arise out of the contemporary challenges that confront all religions and how Iranian Muslims are grappling with the same issues that Christians have been facing for quite a long time. Some of the foundational questions that have shaped and colored the specific questions that Abtahi asks later in his interviews are: What is the essence of religion? Where is the place and what is the role of religion in today’s world? What aspects of religion are absolute and unchanging and what aspects can be open to change? How much is religion shaped by the historical context of its original revelation? How does the rise of modern science impact our understanding of religion? Have the religions been able to accomplish their goals or ideals in history? Have religious leaders or institutions played a role in the failure of their religions? What is the relationship between religion and politics? How are different religions related to each other? What are the theoretical and practical challenges and obstacles for inter-religious dialogue?140 This book is a great example of a thoughtful and reflective Iranian Muslim thinker who is trying to learn various Christian responses to similar challenges. Similar to the previous categories, Iranian thinkers are doing more than just providing new translations.141 A new trend is emerging that aims at a comparative analysis of certain aspects of Islam and Christianity. A number of these books are beginning to appear in Iran with titles that explicitly reveal the aim of the authors in comparing Islam and Christianity.142 The five books focused on in this section are: An Analysis of Revelation from the Perspective of Islam and Christianity,143


3/22/2011 12:46:24 PM

78


Revelation in Heavenly Religions,144 Secularism in Christianity and Islam,145 Secularization in Christianity and Islamic Experience,146 and An Introduction to a Comparative Theology of Islam and Christianity.147 Some of these books are more academic than others and almost all of them, with various levels of polemics, attempt to show the superiority of Islam to Christianity. Roshan’s An Analysis of Revelation and Amini’s Revelation in Heavenly Religions are very similar to each other in their style and approach.148 Both authors start with a Qur’anic concept of revelation, followed by a review of the development of the doctrine of revelation in Islamic philosophy and theology (with almost an exclusive emphasis on Shi’i theology), before analyzing certain definitions of revelation by a number of Christian theologians. Quite understandably, the authors find the Christian concept of revelation very problematic and inadequate compared to the impression that they have offered of the concept of revelation in Islam. Despite the many shortcomings of the books, these works can be viewed as a fairly recent example of two Muslim authors at least trying to come to terms with various Christian self-understandings of revelation. Instead of an imposition of Islamic categories on Christian theology, the authors allow different Christian sources to expound their own views of revelation. Amini and Roshan both express the opinion that there are two very different understandings of revelation in Christianity.149 One perspective is to understand revelation as prepositional (associated mostly with traditional Roman Catholicism and conservative Protestants) and the other is to see revelation as an event or encounter (mostly dominant among liberal or neo-orthodox Protestants).150 Amini calls the first perspective the “linguistic theory” of revelation (naẓarīyi-i zabānī) and the second view the “non-linguistic theory” of revelation (naẓarīyi-i ghayr-i zabānī).151 Although a good deal of confusion and misunderstandings exist in both authors,152 they demonstrate the beginning of an attempt to let Christian theology reflect its own self-understanding (Amini more so than Roshan). So, for example, Amini concludes his discussion of the non-linguistic view of revelation with the following three points: 1. Jesus: Jesus Christ is the word of God. He reveals the essence of God and the mystery of God’s life because he is the incarnation of the word of God. He has always been with God and has been the same as God and has been involved in the creation of


3/22/2011 12:46:24 PM


79

the world . . . The Father and the Son are one truth. He who has seen the Son has seen God. 2. Revelation: Revelation does not mean the message of God or that Jesus is the messenger of God, but it means the manifestation and the incarnation of God’s holy essence in Jesus and the sending of Jesus for human beings. In Christian revelation, God himself has come down to the people in the person of Jesus . . . Christ is the incarnation of God’s revelation, his acts and words are the acts and words of God, not that he is the means of carrying the word of God. 3. Two purposes of Christ’s revelation: The first purpose was to reveal the mystery of God and manifest God’s holy essence in the being of Christ. The second purpose was the salvation and the forgiveness of humanity through the sacrifice of Christ and his death on the cross.153 Interestingly the author does not follow the above summary with a refutation of these statements, even though he ends this section with a brief note that the above view is based on the Christian doctrine of the Trinity which has proved to be intellectually impossible for Christians to defend.154 Roshan, on the other hand, is very critical of his understanding of the dominant Christian view of revelation. He sees no difference between this understanding of divine revelation and a mystic’s experience of God. He finds the lack of Christian emphasis on the virtuous character of a prophet quite problematic. The Christian understanding of revelation as an incarnational event in a human being is said to be “absolutely meaningless.” Furthermore, he criticizes the belief that God’s message is necessarily influenced by the character and the personality of its human recipients and sharply dismisses the existentialist trend in Christian theology that does away with the importance of human reason and rationality.155 He concludes, “Unfortunately, there does not seem to be a significant area of common ground on the subject of revelation between Islam and Christianity.”156 Despite Roshan’s negative conclusion, this is a step in the right direction. In the context of a dialogue or encounter, an informed and honest disagreement is preferable to a muddled and superficial desire to find similarity. Again this suggests that a new (and highly mixed) trend seems to be rising in Iran that is not attempting to silence Christian


3/22/2011 12:46:24 PM

80


theology by imposing Islamic categories on it but is allowing various Christian perspectives to express their own thoughts. These authors are making an attempt to come to terms with Christian theology as Muslim thinkers while they are also totally committed to their own Islamic position. The next two books in this category provide a sociological perspective on the encounter between Islam and Christianity. Qaramaleki’s Secularism in Christianity and Islam is an example of a popular work coming out of Qum, whereas Shojaeezand’s Secularization in Christianity and Islamic Experience is one of the most scholarly books produced in Iran that bears on the topic of Christian thought. Although, Shojaeezand’s work is a doctoral dissertation in the field of sociology, he devotes nearly 200 pages to the development of Christian thought in two chapters entitled “Catholic Christianity and Secularization” and “Protestant Christianity and Secularization.”157 Initially both authors seem intent to prove the thesis that the process of secularization is an inherent Western and Christian experience that does not fit with the proper Islamic understanding of the world. Christianity as a result of its own inbuilt weaknesses and limitations has been defeated by secularism. These weaknesses include the dichotomies between “natural/supernatural” or, in other words, “this worldly/otherworldly,” “sinful man/holy God,” and “faith/reason.”158 Added to these are the historical limitations of Christian beginnings so that, for example, compared with Islam, the original Christian movement had no political program and no comprehensive plan for implementing its ideals in the surrounding society.159 Islam, on the other hand, is portrayed as a world-affirming and comprehensive religion that cannot withdraw itself from its dominant position in the society and thus cannot be jeopardized by secularism.160 However, the clear underlying motivation in these texts is not just a debunking of Christianity as a viable religion for today’s society, but an indirect response to other Muslim thinkers who seem to advocate a compatibility between Islam and secularism.161 Shojaeezand, for instance, explicitly mentions the names of Bazargan (in his later years), Soroush, and Malekian as proponents of a privatized, individualistic faith in Islam and in separation from politics that is the result of being influenced by “Protestantism and Liberal theology in the West.”162 In a way, this is indirect evidence that the encounter between Iranian Muslim thinkers and Christianity is somewhat complex and that Christian thought seems to have impacted certain Iranian thinkers in unexpected ways.


3/22/2011 12:46:24 PM


81

The most noteworthy book to consider in this subcategory is Ardestani’s An Introduction to Comparative Theology of Islam and Christianity. This is the most comprehensive comparative theological analysis of Islam and Christianity published in Iran to date. Ardestani divides his work into ten chapters in the style of a brief systematic theology: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

The problem of authority. The concept of God in the two traditions. The being of God in the holy texts of the two religions. Proof for the existence of God. The names and attributes of God. Monotheism and the Trinity. Christology in the Old and New Testaments and the Qur’an. Revelation. Man and salvation. Eschatology.

In each chapter the author set forth a Christian understanding of the topic at hand, followed by an Islamic position of the same topic which is then followed by a brief conclusion highlighting the points of similarity or difference between Islam and Christianity. The tone is extremely respectful of the Christian position and the book, in describing the Christian point of view, is filled with phrases such as “it seems” or “it appears,” thus making it appear to be very non-dogmatic and nonpolemical in its approach. Although the author is clear on some of the main differences between the two faiths, he tries to find genuine common ground in the two religious traditions to the extent that he thinks it is possible to do so without compromising the distinctive convictions of each tradition. For instance, Ardestani finds a good deal of common ground between Islam and Christianity on the centrality of scriptural authority,163 the personal characteristics of God,164 proofs for the existence of God,165 divine attributes,166 emphasis on monotheism,167 and the eschatological judgment and the consequent rewards and punishment.168 On the other hand, traditional Christian doctrines such as the Trinity, the divinity of Christ, and the fallen nature of humanity, along with some of the contemporary Christian understandings of revelation, the absolute emphasis on grace against meritorious works and the tendency to overemphasize faith over


3/22/2011 12:46:24 PM

82


reason in Christian thought, constitute for Ardestani an irreconcilable difference between the two traditions. In an interesting conclusion to his work, Ardestani comes to view the most fundamental difference between Islam and Christian theology rooted in the radically conflicting views concerning the nature of human beings.169 It is out of this particular Christian understanding of the Fall and Original Sin that all other Christian doctrines concerning salvation, Christ, the Trinity, the Holy Spirit and revelation are shaped in distinction from Islam. In the very last paragraph of the book, Ardestani writes, In conclusion it can be said that the two theological systems of Christianity and Islam—except on the two important issues of the origin and end [of creation] in which there does not seem to be significant differences between the two—have more or less differences from each other on several issues, and the root and foundation of all these differences, is the different perspectives in the two traditions concerning human beings.”170 Almost no attempt is being made by the author to refute Christian doctrines, discredit Christian theology or force it into acceptable Islamic categories.171 Not only does Ardestani describe Christian doctrines in fairly objective ways (and make use of the latest translations of Christian materials into Farsi) and let it stand in tension with Islamic theology, but he also shows some hints of appreciating certain insights of Christian thought such as the emphasis in Christianity on the personal aspect of God or newer proofs for the existence of God, helpful insights that have not been part of traditional Islamic vocabulary. Finally, the very last sub-category of books in this chapter shows the most potential for a more positive dialogical encounter between Muslims and Christians is philosophical theology. In recent years, Iranian authors (a number of them clerics from Qum) have produced numerous original works focusing on comparing and contrasting particular Muslim– Christian thinkers or specific themes. Examples are: The Oneness of Being According to Ibn Arabi and Meister Eckhart,172 The Theoretical Foundations of Religious Experience: A Critical Comparative Study of Ibn Arabi and Rudolph Otto,173 God from the Point of View of Mulla Sadra and Paul Tillich,174 Becoming in the Philosophy of Mulla Sadra and Hegel,175 God and Religion in Humanistic Approach,176 God, Language and Meaning,177 God and the Problem of Evil,178 The Rationality of Religious Belief in Alvin Plantinga’s View,179


3/22/2011 12:46:25 PM


83

Revelation and Speech Acts,180 Immortality,181 and Theology and Verification.182 Two other works that illustrate the developments in this trend are Essays on New Theology183 and An Introduction to New Theology,184 although only Essays will be discussed here.185 Essays on New Theology is an editorial work by ten Shi’i thinkers, who have each written one chapter in the book. Chapter one is entitled “The logic of design” and is a discussion of the teleological argument mostly as it is developed from the writings of Christian philosopher William Alston.186 Chapter two discusses the validity of cumulative arguments and is heavily indebted to Basil Mitchell’s book The Justification of Religious Belief.187 God’s foreknowledge and human freedom is the subject for Chapter three. It is one of the most technical chapters in the book and the author uses the works of Plantinga and Swinburne, among others, in developing his arguments.188 The fourth chapter is a discussion of miracles. Along with such distinguished Muslim thinkers as Ibn Sina and Ghazali, the writer benefits from the insights of Thomas Aquinas, Richard Purtill, and Swinburne.189 Chapter five is devoted to the relationship between faith and rationality. As can be expected, Plantinga’s works are used quite prominently in this chapter, along with other Christian philosophers such as Paul Helm, Douglas Gievett, and Dewey Hoitenga.190 Chapter six is a discussion of religious experience. In addition to Swinburne, the author uses works by Don Cuppit, William James, Rudolf Otto, and Schleiermacher.191 The origin and function of religion is the topic of Chapter seven with frequent references to Otto, Jung, and Mircea Eliade.192 Chapter eight covers religious language and includes the Christian philosophers Alston, Basil Mitchell, Vincent Brummer, and John Hick (his early work on the philosophy of religion).193 Chapter nine explores the relation between science and religion. Ian Barbour’s Religion in An Age of Science, John Houghton’s The Search for God: Can Science Help?, and Roger Trigg’s Rationality and Religion are the major sources used.194 The final chapter is on the theme of life after death. The author frequently refers to the works of Christian philosopher Stephen T. Davis.195 This work is a telling example of some of the latest trends in certain circles of Iranian Shi’i thought. Along with some of the previously cited books, this work can be viewed as a fascinating example of dialogical encounter between Iranian thinkers and Christian thought. These Iranian authors are engaged in of the most important contemporary philosophical and theological issues being raised in the West today and they are trying to encounter and respond to these issues not only with the help of their


3/22/2011 12:46:25 PM

84


own Islamic resources but, more importantly, also with resources coming directly from Christian thought. In many of these works there are negligible hints of the classical theological divisions between Islam and Christianity. The implicit assumption is that Muslims can greatly benefit from Christian thought in responding to certain challenges to the Islamic faith in the modern world (these challenges are not simply against Islam, but against theistic religious faith in general).196 Interestingly, this new trend of engaging with Christian thought and Western philosophy has picked up so much momentum in recent years among Iranian Shi’as (and especially among many seminary students in Qum) that some of the more traditional Iranian thinkers are sounding a warning. Gholam Hossein Ebrahimi Dinani, a professor of philosophy at the University of Tehran, expresses the following concern: The religious intellectual climate today, even in our seminaries, has become Westoxicated [Gharbzadih]. More than others, even some clerics who oppose the Western culture and thought, have become Westoxicated. Some, consider our own [Muslim] theologians heretics, but respect Western theologians and consider them believers. Why don’t we study the works of Suhrivardī and Qutbaddīn Shīrāzī, but we are always reading the writings of Plantinga. The seminaries in Qum are not familiar with the works of Suhrivardī. And we only pay attention to our own native works when Westerners start paying attention to them.197 Although, the above warning can seem exaggerated, it nevertheless confirms the general observation made in this chapter regarding the development of a new interest for many Iranian Shi’as to have a more dialogical engagement with Christian thought.

Conclusion Putting aside the “Traditional/Polemical” category of Iranian publications, there is a rise and growth in the two newer trends of “Objective/ Descriptive” and “Comparative/Dialogical” literature on Christianity among Iranian Shi’i authors and translators. These trends which are becoming well established in the Iranian book market are a welcome sign that among certain Shi’i thinkers and clerics there is a noticeable and more positive shift in attitude toward approaching the Christian faith. In


3/22/2011 12:46:25 PM


85

spite of the presence of polemical treatments of Christianity in all the categories surveyed in this chapter, there are also significant signs of increasing interest in a more objective understanding of Christian thought and greater appreciation for certain dimensions of Christian thought such as classical works on Christian spirituality and mysticism, contemporary Christian philosophy, and modern Christian theologians. This is not to deny that there are significant gaps and shortcomings in the current Iranian literature on Christianity. For example, vast portions of the history and development of Christian thought (beginning from the New Testament), along with the key writings of numerous Christian theologians of past and present, are not available in Farsi and are practically unknown by even the most educated Iranians. And many of the works that have been recently translated into Farsi are sometimes quite outdated or generally tend to fall into the category of liberal Christian theology. However, as mentioned earlier, the fact that so many books and journals (in such variety and number) have appeared only in the past few years despite the reigning censorship in the Islamic Republic of Iran is in itself a significant phenomenon. Hopefully, in the coming years, Iranian thinkers can see more and more the possibilities for common grounds that could exist between Islamic and Christian traditions as they both try to articulate responses against certain aspects of secularist thinking. This possibility for common ground might finally provide encouragement (for at least some Shi’i thinkers) to end the traditional polemics between Islam and Christianity and to begin the dawn of a new and more fruitful and constructive phase in the encounter between Iranian Muslims and Christian thought.


3/22/2011 12:46:25 PM

CHAPTER 4 MUSLIM–CHRISTIAN DIALOGUE: SOME ORGANIZATIONAL ENCOUNTERS

Whereas Chapter 3 surveyed a wide spectrum of publications in order to better understand the range of responses to Christian faith among various Iranian writers, this chapter will focus on what will be referred to as “organizational encounters.” These are encounters that have taken place not just by individuals but also by certain institutions that have been officially formed for the expressed purpose of inter-religious dialogue or inter-religious research. The aim of this chapter is to answer some of the following questions: What are the organizations directly involved in researching about the Christian faith or sponsoring Muslim–Christian dialogues? What are the aims and goals of such organizations? What has been accomplished so far by these centers? And what prominent themes have emerged so far in dialogue between Iranian Muslims and various Christian thinkers around the world? To better understand the contemporary situation in Iran, it will be useful to briefly look at the first instance of Muslim–Christian dialogue in post-revolutionary Iran. The interest among Iranians to officially engage with Christian theologians can be traced back to a few years after the revolution. From the available evidence, it seems that Hans Kung (along with Joseph van Ess of Tubingen) was the first Western theologian to be invited to Iran in March of 1985.1 Kung viewed his time in Iran quite positively. His observations provide a good introduction and context to


3/22/2011 12:49:42 PM

Muslim–Christian Dialogue

87

what has been happening in Iran since his first visit almost two decades ago. Kung writes: Concerning Iran: “Instead of dispute, dialogue.” This is the astounding phrase that I heard in Tehran right at the beginning of a seminar at the Institute for Philosophy, in which a number of ayatollahs, leading members of the Revolutionary Council of Culture, of the Ministry of Islamic Affairs . . . took part. The counsel to carry on dialogue is indeed a new insight after all of Iran’s aggressive revolutionary slogans. The new mood might be partially motivated by a political concern to break out of isolation; nevertheless, I am convinced after the very personal conversations I had that is primarily religiously motivated, that it will persist after the present time of [Iran–Iraq] war and that it will bear fruit in the not distant future.2 Kung also provides further reasons and justifications for such dialogue: Does an inter-religious dialogue, however, have any meaning whatsoever for believing, conservative Muslims, who no less than traditional Roman Catholics hold fast to the conviction that they possess the true doctrine, indeed, the whole truth, and are convinced that their religion is a da‘wat, an “invitation” to all humankind to become Muslim? . . . What could Muslims get from such a dialogue? Three points of view were expressed in Tehran: First, such a dialogue would enable Muslims to understand Christianity better, for there is taking place within Christianity a very significant transformation, concerning which most Muslims are scarcely aware, though it is extraordinarily important even for them. Second, in the process of secularization, modern Christianity has had negative as well as positive experiences which Islam in its unavoidable modernization quite possibly might also have lying before it . . . Third, numberless theological misunderstandings . . . and also the religious wars . . . have poisoned the relationship between Muslims and Christians throughout centuries. Such misunderstandings, indeed hostilities, could be clarified only through encounters and


3/22/2011 12:49:42 PM

88

Christian Encounters with Iran scholarly solutions . . . Without broad mutual information, without human contact, without dialogue in its various forms this cannot happen. Therefore contacts with Western scholars should be multiplied and deepened.3

Kung concludes his report by describing the attitude of the dialogue meetings as “a genuine willingness on both sides to learn, search for new solutions, a clear will to understanding. If only political conferences now and again could take place in such a spirit!”4 It seems that this dialogue did not simply end as a theoretical discussion but that it called for some practical results. What are the immediate results of this first theological contact after the Islamic revolution? One, the dismantling of a mutual mistrust and the creation of a good trust as a basis for a further exchange of thoughts between Muslims and Christians. Two, the publication of all presentations in the Persian language. Three, the continuation of contacts with German scholars and consideration given to establishing a dialogue center in Qum, the “holy city” of Islam in Iran.5 Looking back at what has transpired in Iran in the twenty years since that first dialogue with Kung, a number of Iranian institutions have been established to pursue the agenda that was first articulated in 1985. This has now created a good position, after two decades, from which to evaluate how much has happened in Muslim–Christian dialogue in Iran and what results, if any, these encounters have had in the thinking of Iranian Shi’i intellectuals.

Organizations and Research Centers: Their History and Objectives There are currently four centers in Iran—three organizations in Tehran and one in Qum—that have been founded for the expressed purpose of inter-faith research and dialogue. Although these centers have been established for an academic interaction with all major world religions, so far the vast majority of their contacts have been with Christians. Out of the above four institutions, two of them are government sponsored and there are two non-governmental organizations.6


3/22/2011 12:49:42 PM


89

The Organization of Culture and Islamic Relations (OCIR) The first governmental organization that was founded for this purpose was the Organization of Culture and Islamic Relations (OCIR),7 established in 1374/1995.8 This organization was formed by merging under one structure a number of government agencies and departments such as the Department of International Affairs of the Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance, the Department of International Affairs of the Islamic Propagation Organization, the Secretariat of the World Ahl alBayt Assembly, the Secretariat of the World Forum for the Proximity of Islamic Schools of Thought, and the Council for the Dissemination of the Persian Language and Literature.9 According to its official publication, the OCIR is “affiliated to the Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance and carries out its activities under the guidance of the Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran.”10 Interestingly, in its official publication OCIR defines itself in terms of its Iranian cultural identity before its appeal to its Islamic mandate. Under the heading “Iran—The Cradle of Global Culture” it states, “the present world culture and civilization—since the dawn of history down to the present times—are considerably indebted to Iran and Iranians.” Furthermore, “A nation with 7000 years of culture and civilization, Iran was among the pioneers of dialogue and peaceful co-existence throughout history and continues to stay true to its glorious past even in the present times.”11 The aims and objectives of this organization are said to be the following: 1. Revival and dissemination of Islamic tenets and thoughts with a view to reaching the true message of Islam to the people of the world. 2. Creating awareness among the people of the world as regards the principles, the objectives, and the stance of the Islamic Republic of Iran as well as the role it plays in the international arena. 3. Expansion of cultural relations with various nations and communities in general, and the Muslims and the oppressed in particular. 4. Strengthening and regulating the existing cultural relations between the Islamic Republic of Iran and other countries of the world as well as global cultural organizations.


3/22/2011 12:49:43 PM

90

Christian Encounters with Iran 5. Appropriate presentation of the Iranian culture and civilization as well as its cultural, geographical, and historical characteristics. 6. Preparation of the necessary grounds for the unity among Muslims and the establishment of a unified front among world Muslims on the basis of the indisputable principles of Islam. 7. Scholarly debates and confrontations with anti-religion, anti-Islam, and anti-Revolutionary cultures with a view to awakening the Muslims of the world regarding the divisive conspiracies of the enemies as well as protecting the rights of Muslims. 8. Growth, development, and the improvement of the cultural, political, economic, and social conditions of the Muslims.12

It is within the above objectives that OCIR has included in its vast structure the Section for Dialogue Among Religions. The main responsibility of this department is “the establishment of communication with competent and important religious centers and figures throughout the world in order to organize sessions for inter-religious dialogues and to promote the spirit of mutual understanding and cooperation among the scholars of various religions.”13 According to another recent publication which aims to introduce the center and its activities, the main objectives of the center are listed as the following: 1. Creating a forum for mutual understanding between different religions, 2. Cooperating with thinkers and leaders of other religions around the world, 3. Doing research on the common views between religions, 4. Introducing the principles of Islamic thought, and removing misunderstandings.14 The first official dialogue between Iran and an ecclesiastical body goes back to December 1990 when Iran had its first meeting with the Greek Orthodox Church in Athens (prior to 1994, official dialogues were held under the sponsorship of Ministry of Islamic Culture and Guidance). From its beginning through the end of 2004, this organization has directly sponsored or co-sponsored approximately thirty official dialogues with representatives of the Vatican, other Roman Catholic centers


3/22/2011 12:49:43 PM


91

in Europe, World Council of Churches (WCC), Middle East Council of Churches, Greek and Russian Orthodox churches and also the University of Birmingham.15 The following is a complete list of its activities (through 2004) along with other relevant information:16 The Vatican: The Center for Interreligious Dialogue and Vatican have already performed four rounds of dialogues as follows:

Dialogue

Date

Place

Theme

First

1995

Tehran

Second Third Fourth

1998 2001 2003

Rome Tehran Rome

Modernity from the Viewpoint of Muslim and Roman Catholic Scholars Islam and Christianity Facing Pluralism Youth, identity and Religious Education Pillars of Peace: Justice, Truth, Love and Freedom

Saint Gabriel Institute (Austria): The Center for Interreligious Dialogue and Saint Gabriel Institute performed four rounds of dialogues as follows:

Dialogue

Date

Place

Theme

Preliminary

1995

Tehran

First

1996

Tehran

Second

1999

Vienna

Third

2003

Tehran

Peace and Justice in Islam and Christianity Justice in International Relations and between Religions from the Viewpoint of Muslim and Christian Scholars Fundamental Values, Rights and Duties in a Just System of Co-existence from the Viewpoint of Muslim and Christian Thinkers Peace, Justice, and their Menaces in Today’s World

Giovanni Agnelli Foundation: The first dialogue entitled “Religion, Society and State in Iran and Italy” was held in Turin in 1999. Dialogue with Protestant and Orthodox Churches and Centers.


3/22/2011 12:49:43 PM

92


World Council of Churches: The Center for Interreligious Dialogue and World Council of Churches already performed four rounds of dialogues as follows:

Dialogue

Date

Place

Theme

Preliminary

1995

First Second Third

1996 1999 2002

Geneva Peace and Justice in Islam and Christianity Tehran Religion and the Contemporary World Geneva The Role of Religion in the Future Tehran Religions and Globalization

Greek Orthodox Church: The Center for Interreligious Dialogue and Greek Orthodox Church already performed five rounds of dialogues as follows:

Dialogue

Date

First Second Third

1982* Athens Man, Faith and Environment 1984* Athens Faithful Man in the Changing World of Today 1987* Tehran This World and the Next World in Islam and Christianity 1998 Athens Family and Its Value in Islam and Christianity 2000 Tehran Peaceful Co-existence in Islam and Christianity

Forth Fifth

Place

Theme

* Although, these are the dates printed in the first draft of the official publication, they are not accurate. Please see the endnote.

Russian Orthodox Church: The Center for Interreligious Dialogue and Russian Orthodox Church already performed four rounds of dialogues as follows: Dialogue

Date

Place

Theme

First Second

1997 1999

Moscow Moscow

Third

2000

Tehran

Fourth

2004

Moscow

Religion and Peace Peace and Justice from the Viewpoint of Muslim and Orthodox Scholars The Role of Interreligious Dialogue in International Relations Religions and Globalization


3/22/2011 12:49:43 PM


93

Dialogue with the Anglican Church: The Center for Interreligious Dialogue and the Anglican Church (University of Birmingham (England)) already performed four rounds of dialogues as follows:

Dialogue Date

Place

Theme

First Second

1990 1997

Third

2002

Fourth

2002

Birmingham Interpretation of the Scriptures Tehran Interpretation of the Scriptures on Social Justice and Poverty Tehran The Analysis of the Concept of Dialogue, Religion and Globalization, Religion, Civilization and Religious Diversity Birmingham Religion in Political Arena

Dialogue with Armenians: The Center for Interreligious Dialogue and the Armenian Church performed one round of dialogue as follows: Dialogue Date

Place

Theme

First

Tehran

Peaceful Co-existence from the Viewpoint of Muslim and Armenian Scholars

2000

In addition to participation in the above dialogues with various Christian bodies, the center is also involved in other activities such as research and translation and publications. According to its brochure, One of the activities performed in this center is theoretic and applied researches in the field of religious studies. The main areas in which these researches are done are bibliography, religious minorities in Iran, doing research about similarities of religions, performing research about effective methods for interreigious dialogue, identifying centers and individuals working in the field of religions and interreligious dialogues, and mysticism of different religions as a firm basis for interreligious dialogue.17 The Organization for Islamic Culture and Relations has also started the publication of the academic journal of Dialogue along with the texts of a number of the dialogues that they have held over the years.18


3/22/2011 12:49:43 PM

94


The International Center for Dialogue Among Civilizations (ICDAC) The second organization funded by the Iranian government is the International Center for Dialogue Among Civilizations started in 1999. This center was the direct result of the call of President Khatami for a dialogue among civilizations at the 53rd General Assembly of the United Nations in September of 1998.19 The center intends to promote, among other things, “the culture of dialogue at the national level,” “the culture of peace,” and the strengthening of “spiritual, moral and religious culture.” According to its official website: ICDAC is primarily an organization to promote the concept of a global structure based on mutual understanding and tolerance. To achieve that goal, the Centre sets forth its mission statement as: •

• • • • •

To promote dialogue among civilizations and cultures on an international scale as a means of advancing the interpretation of the UN Charter and of improving human well-being. To promote and expand the culture of dialogue at the national level. To promote the culture of peace in order to foster peaceful coexistence and prevent human rights violations. To help establish and broaden the international civil society through cultural interaction among nations. To strengthen spiritual, moral and religious culture. To conduct research on the significance and possible interpretations of Dialogue Among Civilizations and to release the findings nationally and internationally.20

The Theology and Religions department of this center (established in 2001) is among the most active and prolific centers in Iran with many publications, translations, and lecture series by international scholars to its credit in its young history.21 The objectives of the department are stated as the following: • •

Conducting research on the major existing religious resources and texts and translating them into Farsi. Establishing relations with the thinkers of other religions.


3/22/2011 12:49:43 PM

Muslim–Christian Dialogue •

•

95

Introducing the reciprocal influence of Western and Islamic thinkers’ thoughts and methods on one another’s ways of study, especially from the modern era onward. Reviewing the results of different contemporary methods, concepts, and values of Theology in the world today and examining their relation with the Islamic teachings.

As pointed out in the last chapter, the center also publishes two important journals Pol-e Firuzeh [Turquoise Bridge] and Guzārish-i Guftugū [Report on Dialogue] that set a great standard among Iranian publications as models of dialogue and inter-cultural and inter-faith relations. Furthermore, the center not only hosts prominent Iranian thinkers for regular presentations (many relating to Christian theology) but it has also hosted a number of internationally well-known Christian intellectuals such as Vincent Brummer, Tarek Mitri, and Alvin Plantinga for series of lectures and seminars.22 In order to better understand the ethos of ICDAC, the following are some of the relevant frequently asked questions and answers from its website. What is Dialogue Among Civilizations? Dialogue Among Civilizations can be defined from two different aspects in relation to the subject: 1) Dialogue, and 2) Civilization . . . A definition more applied to the International Centre for dialogue Among Civilizations would be: Any deliberate effort based on ethics, reason and nonviolence to understand the others in the cultural and civilizational areas. How is Dialogue Among Civilizations and its presentation at this point of time related to the international peace? The issues of Dialogue Among Civilizations and Peace are related in three stages: 1) the introduction, 2) the realization, 3) the outcome. Dialogue requires peaceful relations. You cannot encourage dialogue and understanding with treachery and jealousy and hatred, so to introduce dialogue we must have peaceful intentions. As the dialogue is moving ahead, each side should try to understand and not negate the other, so again we need a peaceful relationship, both in individual and social psychological areas. Naturally the outcome of such dialogue will be a peaceful one.


3/22/2011 12:49:44 PM

96

Christian Encounters with Iran What has been the originating factor for Dialogue Among Civilizations? Dialogue Among Civilizations in its new form was President Khatami’s response to Mr. Huntington’s theory of Clash of Civilizations. Mr. Huntington’s theory and the social-political reasons behind it are more or less known to everyone. Considering this theory and the necessity of a rebuttal as the sole reason for the proposal of Dialogue Among Civilizations will be a kind of degradation for President Khatami’s theory, for Mr. Khatami’s theory is much more exhaustive. Of course it was conceived as a response to Huntington’s theory, but the way it acquired a global significance, makes the fact that it was originally a rebuttal to Huntington’s theory a marginal one now. How is it possible to actually perform dialogue among people and the key participants? There is a kind of intellectual understanding of the subject, which is of course popular with intellectuals. But there is also the public to be considered. The public, if not incited by politicians, are naturally inclined to tolerate and learn from others. Apparently one of the main reasons for wars is alienation, i.e. the alienating process usually precedes the actual fighting. Where there is a brotherly bond, it’s impossible to provoke a fighting mood. To prevent this from happening, any factor spreading the concept of alienation in the society should be opposed. There should be instead the attempt to teach people to acquaint themselves with others, for conciliation follows acquaintance.

The Institute for Interreligious Dialogue (IID) Of the two NGOs that are active in this field, one is founded and directed by a former vice president of Iran, Mr. Ali Abtahi.23 The Institute for Interreligious Dialogue started its activities in 2001. In a brochure entitled “A glance at Institute for Inter Religious Dialogue,” the basic philosophy and goals of the institute are set forth. The brochure states: The current breathtaking pace of ever-changing transformation in communication technology has wielded swift progress in the


3/22/2011 12:49:44 PM


97

world today. This phenomenon, in reality, has caused a convergence of human societies resulting in their future intermingling [more] than ever before. Under such circumstances, inter religious dialogue would assume an effective role toward fostering mutual understanding among believers of various religions. Only through putting emphasis on their commonly shared views, are the different religious faiths made capable of providing convincing answers to satiate the growing spiritual needs of mankind. Iran as [a] proponent of inter-religious discussions would constructively and efficiently contribute toward the attainment of this goal. In this connection, Iran has much to offer at the international level, taking into account Iran’s ancient civilization, its rich heritage and the trove of healthy experience in the issues of peaceful coexistence among its different religions, being a consequence of religious tolerance as practiced in Islam.24 Further elaborations of the above themes are highlighted on the institute’s website. For example, the goal of the organization is stated as follows: Our goal is to provide a mutually respectful atmosphere for dialogue so that beliefs and convictions can be freely expressed in order to reach a higher spirituality. In this way, we would like to introduce unknown aspects of Islam and gain a sympathetic understanding of other divine religions.25 The institute offers four distinct reasons for its activities. The fast pace of changes in the modern world is creating many challenges for all the people of faith. Therefore, dialogue is the most appropriate action at this time for religious believers in order to better understand each other and the current situation that they all face. Also, dialogue is the path in approaching the truth and it also promotes peaceful co-existence. Furthermore, inter-religious dialogue is the precondition for success in dialogue among civilizations. Finally, the institute defines itself as an Islamic organization, because of the conviction that Islam invites its followers to search for truth, and also as an Iranian organization, because of the belief that Iran has been the home of many cultures and religions and the Iranian civilization has showed great tolerance throughout its history.26 In order to promote an intellectual atmosphere for dialogue


3/22/2011 12:49:44 PM

98

Christian Encounters with Iran in the Iranian society, the institute has taken or intends to take the following practical steps: 1. Publication of a specialized multilingual journal. 2. Publication of a newsletter or a bulletin. 3. Publication and translation of books in the various fields of religion. 4. Publication of annotated bibliographies in the field of religions. 5. Holding of meetings between Muslim scholars and religious minorities in Iran. 6. Arrangement of scholarly meetings for the people interested in the inter-religious dialogue. 7. Holding of international conferences and publication of their proceedings as a book. 8. Establishment of specialized exhibitions. 9. Creation of specialized libraries and archives.27

The institute publishes a monthly magazine of international religious news, sponsors lecture series, provides dialogue with various religious bodies and has a growing library and research facility devoted to the study of world religions. The institute claims to be the first organization that sponsored a series of dialogues with Christian minorities within Iran (i.e., Armenians and Assyrians).28 Also, as a result of this book’s research and based on the author’s network of relationships in the U.S., the institute hosted, for the first time, a Muslim–Christian dialogue between some prominent Iranian Shi’i thinkers and a group of American evangelical Christians in June of 2004.29

The Center for Religious Studies (CRS) The Center for Religious Studies, also called The Center for the Study of World Religions,30 was established in 1996 in the city of Qum. This center has close ties to the Shi’i seminaries of Qum and was started as a specialized library but has now developed into the most active research and publication center in Iran. There are separate research tracks in this center that study and publish on Protestantism, Roman Catholicism, and Eastern Orthodoxy. The center is now seeking accreditation from the Ministry of Education to offer advanced graduate degrees in the study of various religions, including Christianity. This is the very first such


3/22/2011 12:49:44 PM


99

attempt in the history of higher education in Iran.31 The goals of the center are: 1. To conduct basic and comparative research on world religions and Islamic denominations. 2. To prepare the groundwork necessary for the seminary scholars and others involved in cultural and intellectual activities to come together to explore the faiths and spiritualities of other peoples. 3. To establish scholarly relations and a climate conducive to intellectuals discourse and dialogue between this seminary and other seminaries of religious knowledge and spirituality. The center’s brochure concludes with this statement, “Our aim is to make the means available for research in a completely scholarly atmosphere and free from dogmatism.”32 In 1999, the center started the publication of the journal Seven Heavens, the only journal of its kind in Iran with articles covering all major world religions. From its beginning days through 2003, the center has produced, by way of original writing or translation, over a dozen titles in Christian theology.33

Organizations and Research Centers: Evaluation and Analysis An evaluation of the accomplishments of the above organizations and centers is not without its problems. First, as a Christian, the author’s own biases and subjective judgments will be brought into this evaluation. There is no claim to absolute objectivity in this section. Second, an organization or research center is made up of many individuals and a variety of perspectives and voices.34 The organization can also go through many changes in the process of time. Thus, no evaluation of an organization can account for all the perspectives and all the changes that take place in such a context. Third, not everything that has been accomplished by an organization has been recorded and preserved for later analysis and evaluation. For example, the vast majority of the organizational dialogues have not been published and are not available for further reflection. And, finally, it is not possible to judge the significance of the accomplishments of these centers without taking into account their impact in a wider context of relationships. Often it is almost impossible to know how a


3/22/2011 12:49:44 PM

100


dialogue influences the participants or what importance can be attached to the publishing of a journal in shaping the attitudes of its readers. Because of such limitations on perspective, it becomes impossible to offer an exhaustive and totally objective evaluation. However, some meaningful analysis can still be provided, albeit limited and incomplete. The fundamental question that will be considered for the rest of this chapter is: To what extent are these organizations being “open” in their dialogue and interaction with Christian faith? In other words, are these organizations active in multitudes of inter-religious activities and research because of a genuine desire for dialogue and better understanding or are there other motivations (e.g., to use international conferences and seminars to score a political point or use those opportunities for a simple propagation of Islam) that shape and influence the extent and the level of the Iranian participants in such activities? At the very least, it should be discovered what kind of theological or intellectual “space” is being opened for interfaith engagements and discussions. At this point it will be useful to define some basic terminology. The terminology of “dialogue” has become quite popular in Muslim–Christian relations but it is difficult to find any definition of this term in available Farsi texts under consideration. Therefore the meaning used for this chapter will be Leonard Swidler’s working definition. He writes: Dialogue is conversation between two or more persons with differing views, the primary purpose of which is for each participant to learn from the other so that he or she can change and grow—of course, both partners will also want to share their understanding with their partners . . . We enter into dialogue, therefore, primarily so that we can learn, change and grow, not so that we can force change on the other.35 Swidler goes on to say, “In dialogue each partner must listen to the other as openly and sympathetically as possible in an attempt to understand the other’s position as precisely and as much from within as possible.”36 Swidler is also well-known for his famous,”The Dialogue Decalogue.” In this Swidler proposes the following “ten commandments” concerning the role of a proper dialogue: 1. The primary purpose of dialogue is to change and grow in perception and understanding of reality and then to act accordingly.


3/22/2011 12:49:44 PM


101

2. Interreligious dialogue must be a two-sided project—within each religious community and between religious communities. 3. Each participant must come to dialogue with complete honesty and sincerity. 4. Each participant must assume a similar complete honesty and sincerity in the other partners. 5. Each participant must define himself, conversely, the one interpreted must be able to recognize himself in the interpretation. 6. Each participant must come to dialogue with no hard-and-fast assumptions as to where the points of disagreement are. 7. Dialogue can take place only between equals. 8. Dialogue can take place only on the basis of mutual trust. 9. Persons entering into interreligious dialogue must be at least minimally self-critical of both themselves and their own religious traditions. 10. Each participant must attempt to experience the partner’s religion “from within.”37 With the above definitions and principles in mind, the dialogues and journals published by each center can now be examined to determine how much has been achieved so far in regard to Muslim–Christian dialogue in contemporary Iranian society. The most basic question used for this purpose is the one posed by Jean-Claude Basset: “What results are there in terms of changes in attitude and mentality at the level of our respective communities?”38

OCIR and Dialogue The first organization to undergo consideration is the Organization of Culture and Islamic Relations. This organization has the most extensive history in Muslim–Christian dialogue in Iran. Of all the dialogues that OCIR has hosted and has participated in, there are very few that have been published as of the end of 2004. As already mentioned, only published texts will be examined.39 The proceedings that have been published so far are the first three dialogues with the Greek Orthodox Church,40 the first two dialogues with St. Gabriel Institute,41 and the first dialogue with World Council of Churches.42 Not published publicly yet in Iran and still in the process of being edited are texts of the first three dialogues with


3/22/2011 12:49:44 PM

102


the Russian Orthodox Church,43 the fourth and fifth dialogues with the Greek Orthodox Church,44 and finally one dialogue with the Armenian Church of Iran.45 These texts will not be looked at in detail but rather surveyed for any emerging themes. More importantly, it is essential to ascertain to what extent the Iranian Muslims engaged in these dialogues are allowing these encounters with various Christian thinkers to inform and change them in the process of these dialogues in their perspectives toward the Christian faith.46 The texts of the OCIR dialogues reveal three inter-related themes, trends, or emphasis.47 The most prominent theme is the emphasis on socio-political issues facing the participants. A simple survey of the titles of these dialogues confirms that issues such as peace and peaceful coexistence, justice, and the role of religion in the modern world make up the vast majority of the dialogues that have taken place so far.48 A second emphasis of these encounters is on finding the ethical common ground between Muslims and Christians. The third emphasis is on the necessity of active co-operation between Muslims and Christians against the forces of globalization and Western secularism.49

Emphasis on the Socio-Political From the very first official dialogue between Iranian Muslims and Christians (the Greek Orthodox Church) the desire of Iranians to focus on practical social and political issues facing contemporary societies was quite clear. In the opening speech of Seyyed Mohammad Khatami, who at the time was the minister of Islamic Culture and Guidance of Iran, it is emphatically stated, “If Christianity and Islam want to help the lost humanity in today’s world they have no solution except to focus on the critical social, political and economic problems. A religion that is focusing on theological discussions cannot contribute to the success of contemporary human beings.”50 This point is repeated quite often by many Iranians in the dialogue movement that the main focus of dialogue should not be theological but social and practical. Abdol Majid Mirdamadi, the director of the office of interfaith dialogue at OCIR, also claimed in his opening speech at the first dialogue with St. Gabriel Institute that “the main goal of these dialogues, especially at this point, is not simply a theoretical dialogue in regard to each other’s belief system . . . Our main goal for dialogue is to obtain certain practical principles through which religious


3/22/2011 12:49:44 PM


103

believers can live with tolerance near each other and help achieve peace and reconciliation among nations of the world.”51 Hadi Khosroshahi, an Iranian participant in the first dialogue with the Russian Orthodox Church said, “I believe that our discussions should be mainly about the problems facing human societies today. The biggest problem in the world is the crisis of identity for human beings today. The Christian West has become intensely involved with corruption and unfortunately this corruption has recently spread to the East and Russia as well.” Therefore, “if we keep our discussions based on these issues in our dialogues, I believe we will achieve good results. But if we focus on theological issues we will not achieve good results.”52 Of course, this is not to say that the Christian participants in these dialogues do not have the same desire to focus almost exclusively on social or political issues.53 In the first dialogue with the Greek Orthodox Church, one Christian speaker expressed the same sentiment as the Iranian speakers by claiming: The Islamic-Christian dialogue proves itself to be more hopeful when Christians and Muslims, respectful of their differences, sit together to face new issues and challenges of our technological age and the new emergent world community . . . Such issues are secularization in a changing world, the new electronic age, depersonalization of community, the devastation of our natural environment, human rights, world justice and peace, etc.54 Interestingly, sometimes the presentations and discussions have become so exclusively socio-economic or political that some Iranian participants have wondered in what sense they can be viewed as having an interreligious dialogue.55 To restrict the dialogues mainly to social or political topics seems to serve several purposes for the Iranian participants. First, it can calm the fears and anxiety of those who are suspicious about dialogue that such dialogues can lead to a religious compromise or a watering down of theological convictions.56 Second, these dialogues can be used to the political advantage of Iran by giving a very positive presentation of Iranian government and society to the Western world. In a speech entitled “The Claims of Religious Truth and Socio-Political Pluralism” given at a Muslim–Christian gathering in Austria, Seyyed Mohammad Khamenei, the elder brother of the Supreme


3/22/2011 12:49:45 PM

104


Leader of Iran and also a very active participant in Muslim–Christian dialogues, speaks in glowing terms about the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran in guaranteeing human dignity and freedom.57 He then goes on to defend pluralism from the point of view of Islam and especially Islamic mysticism. Khamenei states, Thus Islamic mysticism leads to the love of fellow men and of one’s own kind. In this state, for the mystic, nation, race, religion imply no difference any more. For him mosques and churches are one and the same. He sees God in the mosque and in the church alike. For him there is no difference any more between Muslim and Christian . . . In one of the legal sources of Islam, the Hadith, all human beings—regardless of their race and religion—belong to the members of the “family of God.”. . . Hence, for Islam the theory of a worldwide pluralism is no problem. Among Muslims, the problem of pluralism . . . has not only been solved, pluralism has even developed to be an integrating element of Islamic culture.58 In an interview with the Iranian journal, Dialogue, Khamenei comments: If delegations that visit Iran or act as hosts, indirectly incite good relations between the governments or the trend of international peace and manage to create conditions for diminishing controversies or try to voice positive and true aspects of the Islamic Republic of Iran against the flood of accusations and negative propaganda aimed at hurting the Islamic government and the Muslim nation of Iran in the Christian community, we will see more growth and advancement in the area of dialogue.59 No one has more explicitly stated the political motivation behind these dialogues than Mohammad Masjid Jame’ie, the former Iranian ambassador to the Vatican who served in that role from 1991 to 1996.60 Masjid Jame’ie, also an active participant in Muslim–Christian dialogues, repeatedly states that Iran must pursue an active policy of interreligious dialogues and meetings with other religious authorities in order to strengthen its political role in the region and in the international


3/22/2011 12:49:45 PM


105

community.61 According to Masjid Jame’ie, the most appropriate way to get close to another nation and its government is through connection with its religious leaders and representatives, even more so than its political party leaders.62 Another advantage to focusing almost exclusively on socio-political dialogues is that it provides a friendly and sympathetic forum for Iranians to express their position against an ill-defined “West” or the Western domination in the process of secularization or globalization. Sometimes it seems that the Christian partners in these dialogues, especially the Greek and Russian Orthodox, are more adamant in their rejection and denunciation of the “West.” One speech by an Orthodox participant in the first dialogue with Iranians in Athens captures the point quite well. Dimitri Kisikis in a speech entitled “The Spreading of Western Satanism in Islamic and Orthodox Societies” is a very clear (though quite radical and extreme) example of such diatribes against the West. He writes: In Iran, up to the 1979 Revolution and in Greece today, Satanism is imported from the West in our life every day. All political parties, without any exception, consider automatically good what is Western . . . Our conference today in Athens between Iranian Muslims and Christian Greek Orthodox has a very important symbolic meaning. It is a first step toward the organization of all great religions of the non-Western world . . . Western society is sinking into systematic Satanism and cry for help. It is not we that need the West; it is they who need us . . . The danger for the survival of our religion never came from Islam but from the Catholic and Protestant West and we Greeks owe to Islam the fact that we are still Christian Orthodox today.63 Although explicit anti-Western pronouncements like this are not common in Muslim–Christian dialogues, it is certainly a theme that runs through many of these gatherings. One final comment in regard to the reason for the primacy of the sociopolitical issues in these dialogues is the desire of the Iranian Muslims to discover what they can learn from the experience of Christian churches in confronting issues arising out of struggles with Modernity. Dialogues that have focused on the issues of religion and environment, family and


3/22/2011 12:49:45 PM

106


its values, pluralism, youth and education, and religion in the contemporary world64 all testify to the openness of Iranian Muslims in learning practical lessons from various Christian communities and in turn sharing their own accomplishments with Churches in other countries.

Emphasis on Finding the Common Ground (especially in the ethical realm) By far the most often repeated Qur’anic justification for dialogue is Q. 3:64, “Say, O people of the Book, come to common terms as between us and you, that we worship none but God.” Throughout numerous dialogues, the Iranian participants have insisted on the essential unity of all divine religions based on the Qur’anic conviction that God has sent many prophets throughout history and all prophets have delivered the same essential message from their one divine source. Seyyed Mohammad Khatami, in a gathering of Muslims and Christians in Vienna in 1993, even went so far as to say that the first key in achieving success in dialogue is to acknowledge that the same “substance of piety can be recognized, despite the multiplicity of manifestations and forms, which religions in the course of time have adopted in accordance with the needs of restricted subjectivity and the particular local and temporal conditions.”65 This constant call for finding the common ground can be emphasized by focusing on just one example of dialogue between Iranian Muslims and the World Council of Churches. This gathering took place in Tehran in 1996 and the theme of the dialogue was Religion and the Contemporary World. Almost every speaker in one way or the other calls for this invitation to either find this common ground or acknowledge it and move on from it into practical areas facing the world today. In his opening address, Ayatollah Taskhiri, at the time the director of OCIR and a frequent senior participant in Muslim–Christian dialogue, starts with reference to Q. 3:64 and presents a brief Islamic justification for dialogue. He then issues a call to all participants by saying, “You gentlemen who believe in divine monotheism and divine Abrahamic religions must form a united front. If you do not form a united front, then they [the forces against religion] will be victorious and corruption will spread on the earth.”66 Furthermore, “all prophets have voiced the same truth, ‘Serve God and flee from false deities.’ ”67 In another address by Mohammad Taghi Ja’fari, the speaker invites all the Muslim and Christian participants to unite as believers in religion


3/22/2011 12:49:45 PM


107

against the forces that try to separate religion from science, philosophy, art, and culture.68 Seyyed Mohammad Khamenei in another opening address states that all divine religions have come to bring the hearts close to each other and are based on the fact that all human beings are brothers and are part of a united global family.69 Ali Akbar Rashad, another regular participant in many dialogues, also begins his lecture with the essential unity of all religions. In fact, Rashad never uses the plural word “religions” but only refers to “religion.” For Rashad religion provides a host of answers that can provide humanity with everything from spirituality and meaning in life to social and international relations.70 Khamenei in his lecture also claims, “all divine religions have had the same source. In our opinion, they have all had the same message from God.” The essence of this message, according to Khamenei is that all religions and not just Christianity have thought of God in some ways as a Father, a God who loves humanity as a whole and considers it as part of his family. Furthermore, God has created human beings with the highest dignity in all creation as his representative on earth.71 In the question and answers session following this presentation, Mohammad Ebrahim Jannati confirms “all prophets have had one mission, meaning, all prophets have had one religion.” However, because of the different condition in time and society, certain commandments were changed, but these changes are not in conflict with the “main principles of religion.”72 Later on in his lecture, Jannati says, “It is not right for people who believe in one origin [creation] and the day of resurrection and have divine religion and their only difference is in areas not related to origin and resurrection to be in conflict with each other.” Therefore, “followers of religions based on the principles of origin and resurrection and common ethical principles and for the sake of the supremacy of the religion of God, should maintain their harmony before the enemies of God and those who want to create divisions.”73 Later in the discussions Jannati makes a stronger case by saying, “In the main principles or doctrines of origin and resurrection and ethical principles there is absolutely no difference between Christianity and Islam.”74 Another Iranian participant, Tobi Kermani, also claims, “one of the main pillars of divine religions is the message of peace.”75 In the last lecture of this gathering, Ayatollah Taskhiri attempts at finding more specific common grounds among all religions. According to Taskhiri, “Islam and Christianity believe that the whole world exists in a state of justice and balance.”76 Also, “Another point [of commonality] in Islamic and Christian understanding is trust in God.”77 Furthermore, “all religious


3/22/2011 12:49:45 PM

108


believers must acknowledge the equality of all human beings,”78 and all religions believe in innate human nature (fiṭrat) which means “human beings have in their very nature and being divine capacities and these capacities guide them toward perfection.”79 Also, “all divine religions have fought in different ways against poverty.”80

Emphasis on Active Co-operation Against “Secularism” As it can be seen from the very beginning of the dialogue movement among Iranian Muslim thinkers, the emphasis has not been on the theological or the theoretical but on practical socio-political and ethical activism. The desire of the Iranians for active co-operation with Christians against what is considered hostile forces of atheism (ilhād), secularism, globalization, and the West—which seems to summarize for many of the Iranian participants in dialogue everything that is wrong with the modern world and the source of all the forces of anti-religion—is evident in almost every dialogue. The point is well illustrated by the message of greetings sent by Ayatollah Khamenei, the Leader of Iran, to the second and third gatherings of Iranians and Greek Orthodox Church. Khamenei writes: In recent years the deadlock of materialistic thought—which does not consider any root and destiny for humanity and universe—has never appeared so clearly. . . . . But unfortunately the banner of futile and devastating battle of spiritual and divine values, which up to yesterday had been in the hands of Marxism, today in the so-called free world still rises high. Also we witness that in the name of democracy and liberalism and frank and bold fight is held against any divine thought . . . We must be aware that we are responsible toward humanity. God has bestowed us with his grace through his Prophets. We must not act as an observer before the present oppression against millions of poor people. We must stand up to rescue humanity and to build up societies, governments, and social and individual life on the basis of divine thought.81 On another occasion he writes: Holding dialogue between thinkers and scholars of two religions, Islam and Christianity, is a praiseworthy action and it will be very


3/22/2011 12:49:45 PM


109

abundant and fruitful if it results in taking common stances in solving the most crucial problems of mankind . . . . So all those who are partial to religious faith and spirituality of religions are apt to fight against materialistic powers of the world.82 In his opening address to the first dialogue with the Russian Orthodox Church, Ayatollah Taskhiri cites “seeking practical results” as the final condition for a fruitful dialogue. According to Taskhiri, “theoretical, intellectual discussions without practical results will not be very beneficial. We must seek practical results and common ground that can be of benefit to both sides of the dialogue.”83 The fruit of this activism and desire for practical co-operation is developing slowly but gradually. As an example, joint declarations or agreements are becoming a feature at the end of some of the dialogue gatherings. At the end of the first meeting with WCC, the joint declaration stated nine points of agreements and calls for co-operation between Muslims and Christians. The issues addressed by the joint statements included the necessity for the two religions to join hands against the forces of secularism, modernism, and postmodernism and respond to the spiritual crisis of humanity, the need to promote peaceful co-existence and social justice and to prevent the manipulation of religions for political gain, the necessity to fight against the trend of globalization, the importance of fighting against poverty, providing shelter for refugees, protecting families and family values, emphasizing the importance of women’s rights, and accepting the legitimacy of the UN charter of human rights.84 Another example and one that is referred to several times by Ayatollah Taskhiri in various dialogues is the co-operation between Iran and the Roman Catholic Church in standing united in several international UN-sponsored conferences—such as the 1994 International Conference on Population and Development in Cairo and the 1995 Women’s Conference in Beijing—against those nations that wanted to pass a more liberal social agenda in regard to women’s rights, human sexuality, family planning, and abortion rights. This co-operation is viewed as a result of Iranian openness toward Muslim–Christian dialogue.85

Some Theological Reflections Although not an emphasis in these dialogues, occasionally there are interesting inter-religious theological engagements in the presentations of


3/22/2011 12:49:45 PM

110


various Muslim and Christian participants. One very fine example of this is the essay by Narollah Purjavady in the first symposium on Orthodoxy and Islam in Athens entitled “Historical background of the development of imago dei in Persian mystical poetry.”86 After a historical and theological survey of the connection between the Byzantine controversy over iconoclasm and the Islamic prohibition of the making of images (and the influence of Christian tradition on Islam on this issue), Purjavady makes the case that Persian mystical poetry came to provide the same function as icons in the Christian tradition. He writes: “Iconography did, in fact, develop in Muslim art, particularly and initially in the hands of Iranians, not, however, in pictorial art and statuary, but in another artistic domain, namely poetry.”87 According to Purjavady, in the poetry of Islamic mysticism, “the beloved, who was also depicted in human form, was not simply a human being, but a manifestation of God. Thus, the Divinity was ‘incarnated’ and took the form of man in the newly developed trend in Persian poetry.”88 Thus, “The image of Divinity, represented in human figure in Persian mystical poetry, may very well be considered as an ‘icon’, in fact a sacred icon, and this kind of poetry as an iconographic art. This, of course, is not pictorial, but rather verbal iconography.”89 Purjavady concludes: The attitude of the Sufis who listen to mystical love poetry is also somewhat similar to that of the Christian toward icons. Just as the meditation of icons in Christianity was one way for the adoration of the Deity, by meditating on the Image of the Beloved, a Sufi seeks to adore the Beloved Himself.”90 There are other such suggestive examples that can provide a fruitful context for a deeper theological interaction between Muslims and Christians. Shabestari, in the first dialogue with the university of Birmingham, presented a paper entitled “The meaning of revelatory words to Muslim theologians.” After a brief discussion of various Muslim positions on the issue of revelation, Shabestari elucidated and defended the theory of revelation proposed by Ibn Arabi. Chris Hewer, summarizes Shabestari’s point in this way: For Ibn Arabi, certain statements can be a divine revelation for one person but not for another. The revelatory nature of a statement is proved only by its being of a different order from other


3/22/2011 12:49:45 PM


111

statements. Only when someone accepts the Qur’an, for example, as being of a different order from all other statements does it become revelation for them; therefore, a degree of subjective receptivity is necessary . . . . This esoteric interpretation of the Qur’an is itself a revelation; thus revelation is a continuous process, not something which is restricted to prophets.91 Shabestari concludes his presentation by claiming, “This theory of Ibn Arabi, which has been accepted by many Muslim mystics, corresponds utterly with the theories of recent scholars among the Protestant theologians like Karl Barth and Paul Tillich.” He goes on to say, “When we read the discussion about reason and revelation in Tillich’s book ‘Systematic Theology’, we are surprised at the great similarities between his theory on the revelation and that of Ibn Arabi on the same subject. It looks as if those who research in quest of the truth in all religions and sects and in all the times and places, will eventually meet one another in the same stage.”92

An Evaluation of Muslim–Christian Dialogue in Iran It will be useful at this point to consider some of the significant developments so far. For example, the very fact that Iranian Shi’i thinkers, even those at the highest level of Iranian government, are becoming so engaged in Muslim–Christian dialogue is itself a momentous positive accomplishment. Also, the emphasis on using these dialogues as a means of promoting peace and justice and other social issues can be viewed as quite encouraging. More specifically, the positive encounter between the Muslim and Christian participants in dialogue is another significant aspect of these gatherings. In the Muslim–Christian gathering in Vienna in 1993, one Christian participant puts the aim of dialogue this way: What then is the encounter of religions aiming at? I think it is friendship . . . Friendship would have to become a category in the field of theology of religions. Friends respect each other’s special features, their fundamentally existential decisions. They do not have to agree on everything. Yet, in remaining different, they may in many individual points still achieve agreements, allowing them to act together.93


3/22/2011 12:49:46 PM

112


Many Iranian participants have also made the point that they have greatly appreciated getting to know various Christian participants personally and face to face. These encounters have helped to ease the tensions between Muslims and Christians and have clarified many mutual suspicions and misunderstandings.94 According to Taskhiri, “creating trust” among members of various religions is one of “the most beautiful and most fundamental goals of dialogue.”95 One area of clarification worth noting is the classical theological tensions between Islam and Christianity. According to Ayatolloah Mohaqqeq Damad, who has been a constant presence from the very first dialogue with the Greek Orthodox Church, many Iranian Muslim theologians have changed their view about the Christian understanding of the Trinity or the phrase “son of God.” Mohaqqeq Damad believes that most Iranian Shi’i thinkers no longer look at the Trinity as polytheism but have come to understand that Christians look at this doctrine in a “mystical” (‘irfanī) way to express their belief in one God (very similar to the view of many Muslim mystics toward God) or that Iranians have come to understand that Christians do not think of Jesus as having a physical relationship to God but that he is believed to be the son of God in a “spiritual” (ma’navī) way (similar to the Islamic tradition in talking about “the light of Muhammad” or the Islamic phrase “al-khalq ayal al-Allah” literally meaning “the people are the spouse of God” but with the connotation that “people are dependent on God for their livelihood”).96 Finally, and most importantly, for at least a limited number of participants, these dialogues seemed to have opened up a new space for a deeper appreciation of the truths of the Christian faith. Ataullah Mohajerani, at the time the minister of Islamic Culture and Guidance, in his opening message at the first dialogue with Armenian Christians of Iran, made an emphatic point that religious believers can no longer view themselves as standards of truth and others as outside of the realm of truth. He went on to say, “Since divine religions are the manifestations of the essence of truth and are rooted in that truth, they thus share in that truth with each other.”97 In the dialogue with WCC, Mohammad Ebrahim Jennati criticized all religious believers who think they are completely right and others are all wrong.98 In the same gathering, Ali Akbar Rashad even went so far as to say that people have to realize that “both sides are equally related to truth and this is very valuable.” For Rashad, it is also better to be or become a Christian and thus a monotheist and be on the side of Islam against the forces of atheism.99


3/22/2011 12:49:46 PM


113

To assess what has been accomplished through such dialogues, certain objectives or goals need to be considered in order to evaluate the strengths or the shortcomings of these dialogues. Although, there are no such absolute objective standards against which to make any judgments, the suggestions of internationally renowned Shi’i scholar Mahmoud Ayoub will be used here as a starting point.100 According to Ayoub, himself a veteran of Muslim–Christian dialogues, “the most urgent goal toward which both communities ought to strive is therefore the mutual acceptance of the legitimacy and authenticity of the religious tradition of the other as a divinely inspired faith.”101 Ayoub points out that this “mutual acceptance must not stop at recognizing, and even accepting, the existence of the other as a fellow human being and a good neighbor. Rather, Muslims and Christians must accept each other as friends and partners in the quest for social and political justice, theological harmony and spiritual progress on the way to God, who is their ultimate goal.”102 The second goal of Muslim–Christian dialogue must be “the genuine and sincere respect of the faith of the other, including their beliefs, ethical principles, social values and political aspirations.”103 “A third goal is the acceptance of both Christians and Muslims of the other as an equal partner—and not an opponent—in dialogue . . . This implies the admission by the faithful of both communities that both Christianity and Islam have in themselves the moral and spiritual resources to guide their followers to the way of salvation.”104 “Another important goal is to let the two traditions speak for themselves, that is to represent themselves in dialogue. This means for Christians and Muslims not to engage in dialogical activities on the basis of what they think they know or understand of what the religion of the other is all about.”105 Furthermore, “Muslims must not seek to explain Christianity solely on the basis of what the Qur’an and subsequent Islamic tradition have said about it, but should seek to understand Christianity from its own sources and on its own terms.”106 “A final goal is to strive for absolute fairness and objectivity in drawing any comparisons between the two traditions.”107 Using the above criteria, stated by a Shi’i Muslim, as the ideal goals of Muslim–Christian dialogue, it can be seen that the Iranian experiments in these dialogues have actually had numerous strengths. Based on a close reading of the texts of dialogues published so far, it is easy to note the Iranian participants for the most part accept the legitimacy of the divine foundation of the Christian faith, look to Christians as friends and partners in pursuing justice in the socio-political realms and


3/22/2011 12:49:46 PM

114


show sincere respect for the faith of their Christian counterparts. We can also observe many of the same strengths using Swidler’s “Decalogue of Dialogue” referred to earlier. In the process of these dialogues can be seen a good deal of change and growth among the Iranian participants in their approach toward the Christian faith. Other elements such as honesty, sincerity, mutual trust and friendship, and equality can also be witnessed in these encounters. Not wanting to minimize the positive accomplishments of these dialogues, there should still be some honesty about the major weaknesses and shortcomings of these dialogues. The fundamental problem seems to be a lack of well-formulated theological and theoretical foundation for dialogue. Leonard Swidler’s work After the Absolute can be used to elaborate this point. Reflecting on the dramatic changes in the Christian world’s attitude toward dialogue, Swidler highlights the metaphysical, epistemological, psychological, and ethical shifts in the thinking of many Christian theologians which have profoundly influenced the very nature and process of dialogue for many Christians in the world today.108 Commenting on the epistemological shift in the Western notion of truth which “was largely absolute, static, and exclusive up to the past century, it has since become deabsolutized, dynamic and inclusive—in a word relational”,109 Swidler highlights six significant factors that contributed to this shift. These factors are: 1. Historicism. Truth is deabsolutized by the perception that reality is always described in terms of circumstances in which it is expressed. 2. Intentionality. Seeking the truth with the intention of acting accordingly deabsolutizes the truth statement. 3. Sociology of knowledge. Truth is deabsolutized in terms of geography, culture and social setting. 4. Limits of language. Truth as the meaning of something and especially as talk about the transcendent is deabsolutized by the very nature of human language. 5. Hermeneutics. All truth and knowledge are seen as interpreted truth and knowledge, and hence are deabsolutized by the observer who is always also an interpreter. 6. Dialogue. The knower engages reality in a dialogue in a language the knower provides, thereby deabsolutizing all statements about reality.110


3/22/2011 12:49:46 PM


115

The above shift in perspective makes a profound impact on the approach and the openness of entering into dialogue. However, as already seen, none of these epistemological factors seems to play any considerable or at least explicit role (except for a small emerging minority noted above), for the Iranian participants in dialogue since the key factors in shaping the Iranians’ approach toward dialogue are socio-political and practical concerns and not any philosophical or theological paradigm shift.111 This critique was also voiced by Dr. Beheshti, the son of the late Ayatollah Beheshti (one of the intellectual minds behind the Islamic revolution), at a lecture entitled “Inter-religious dialogue: Its opportunities and hindrances.”112 Focusing more on the shortcomings of Iranian dialogues than its opportunities, Beheshti pointed out that before entering dialogue “We need to rethink our view of truth or absolute truth in dialogue. Most dialogues are monologues. Dialogue requires searching and searching means one does not have all the truth or all the answers.”113 Closely related to the above point is the failure of the Iranian participants to take seriously the particularity of the Christian faith. As Mahmoud Ayoub puts it generally in regard to the obstacles confronting Muslim–Christian dialogue, “the problem lies in our inability to accept each other’s faiths on their own terms. Muslims have acknowledged an Islamicized Christianity . . . Thus, with all good intentions, both communities have often sought to negate, or at least neutralize the individuality and integrity of the faith of the other in order to find room for it in their own tradition and worldview.”114 This appears to be the reason why there is so little theological discussion in these dialogues115 and the overwhelming emphasis for the Iranian participants is on finding an ill-defined common ground.116 Even when some Muslim theologians have come to adjust their understanding toward the Christian doctrine of the Trinity or the Christian reference to Christ as the “son” of God, it has been done through Islamic categories of thought.117 To go back to Swidler’s final rule of dialogue, there has not been an attempt on the part of the Muslim participants to understand or experience the Christian faith from “within.” In addition to these philosophical and theological weaknesses of the dialogues, there are numerous logistical problems that were pointed out quite articulately by Dr. Beheshti. Issues such as lack of a common language, weaknesses in translation, and lack of continuity and progression in the themes of the conferences have also added many problems to the dialogue movement in Iran.118


3/22/2011 12:49:46 PM

116


An Evaluation of The International Center for Dialogue Among Civilizations (ICDC) ICDC and its various departments are very much permeated by the ethos of President Khatami’s call for a dialogue among civilizations. Since the main concentration of the center is to find bridges of understanding and cooperation among world religions, traditions, cultures, and philosophical viewpoints, it becomes obvious that there is a non-polemical and quite irenic approach in the multi-faceted activities of ICDC. From the books that ICDC has commissioned or published on Christianity to the philosophical, sociological, or theological lecture series by Iranian intellectuals, or inviting and hosting prominent international Christian theologians and philosophers,119 it is clear this government organization has made significant advances in promoting tolerance, openness, and interfaith dialogue in the Islamic Republic of Iran.120 The two ICDC journals contain a number of common themes in many issues. There are numerous articles on dialogue, its nature and dynamics, along with religious and philosophical justifications for dialogue.121 This point alone makes these publications very different than everything else covered in this section. For the most part, all the other available texts (texts of the dialogues themselves or other journals) surveyed in this chapter show a lack of interest in developing any theoretical foundations for dialogue, whereas these journals devote a number of pages to the very discussions of the nature and purpose of dialogue. It is, in fact, only in the pages of these journals that a number of highly sophisticated philosophical articles appear which argue along the same lines as Leonard Swidler for a more perspectival approach to dialogue and religious truth.122 Of course, the main emphasis of these journals is not theological or religious, but philosophical or social and cultural. There are other important issues that emerge out of these publications. These journals show a great deal of concern with the themes of globalization and some of the challenges that seem to be inherent in this process, such as the well-known theory of Huntington’s clash of civilization. Therefore, there is a concerted effort to demonstrate that Islam is not a hostile force in the contemporary world but that it can be viewed as a significant source for harmony and peace in the modern world and it can be perfectly compatible with democracy and human rights. It is also interesting to note that more than other journals considered in this section, there is a good deal of prominence given to the


3/22/2011 12:49:46 PM


117

pre-Islamic Iranian civilization and the character of Iranian culture as a whole as models for tolerance and intercultural harmony. In the introduction to the first issue of Turquoise Bridge, the editors make the following comments: We offer the first edition of Pol-e Firuzeh to our readers so that it would serve as a bridge between cultures and civilizations, and a bridge for generosity among humankind regardless of color, race, ethnicity, and nationality. The introduction concludes by stating: In view of this, we have included the valuable works of Iranian thinkers on the necessity of dialogue among civilizations, the essence of culture, the Shi’i approach to dialogue among religions, world discourse and peace and the features of Persian culture and civilization in our first edition. We must remind our readers that Pol-e Firuzeh will reach you in the midst of the heated discussions about globalization. It is of grave concern that the inherent homogenizing quality of globalization might culminate in the destruction of many languages and cultures. A globalization that strides forward with no regard to the necessity of inter-cultural dialogue can lead to war among civilizations.123 Although, as stated previously, the focus of the journal is not theological, it does occasionally touch on Muslim–Christian themes that are unique to these journals. In addition to some of the points touched on in the previous chapter (such as the call for a fair and sympathetic teaching of Christianity in the Iranian school system), these journals also make some strong statements in favor of religious pluralism (sometimes more and sometimes less directly) which are quite significant. For example in the first issue of Report on Dialogue, the editor opens and ends his article with John Hick’s famous statement and the title of one of his books, God has many names.124 The editor argues for a dialogical approach to religion in which one does not deny the truth of one’s own faith but attempts at the same time to sympathetically understand the other in order to avoid violence, promote religious tolerance, and search for common solutions to


3/22/2011 12:49:47 PM

118


contemporary challenges to all faiths. Furthermore, the editor encourages attention to the “spiritual dimension of each religion” which can take us beyond the plurality and differences of religions and into the real essence of all religions. He closes his article by pointing out “that different religions and ethics are a result of different life forms.” And: such a pluralistic understanding can be of benefit in the growth and balance of world civilizations and help us to understand this important point that different world religions complement and perfect each other in order to enrich our understanding and increase our spiritual experience of divine transcendence. Thus it is true that the divine mystery in relation to the world, takes on different aspects, because God has many names.125 After this editorial, the journal presents an incredible interview with Professor Malekian as the first article of the first issue.126 This interview has some of the most explicit pronouncements in any Iranian publication in which any superiority or uniqueness of Islam is denied and all authentic religions are viewed as equally valid revelations from God without any inadequacy or inferiority in any of these religious systems.127 Malekian also claims that all Abrahamic religions, including Islam, are not compatible with modernity and in order for them to become modern they all have to give up many of their traditional beliefs.128 He is also a strong advocate of the opinion that the future of human religious spirit is not going to be found in traditional institutionalized religions but in modern forms of spirituality. According to Malekian the best religion that can meet the most fundamental needs of modern people is Buddhism.129

An Evaluation of the Institute for Interreligious Dialogue (IID) One dominant theme emerging in the activities and publications of this institute (albeit not very directly) is religious pluralism as a basis for peaceful co-existence among the world’s religions. As previously mentioned, the Institute is the first of its kind to hold dialogues with Armenian Christians of Iran, as well as with the Jewish and Zoroastrian communities of Iran.


3/22/2011 12:49:47 PM


119

The most prominent activity of the center is the publication of its magazine, Akhbār-i Dīn [Religious News]. Since its first issue published in the summer of 2001, the magazine has had several revisions to its content and style. Akhbār-i Dīn is now the most high-quality professional news and commentary religious journal available in Iran. However, the basic structure of the magazine remains unchanged. A large portion of each issue is devoted to religious news from around the world.130 There are reports about the activities of the center (mostly its regular lecture series) and about Iranian minorities. Another large section introduces important individuals, international organizations and institutions, and books on the subject of interfaith dialogue, world religions, or human spirituality. There are also articles that cover a particular religious movement or an original piece written by an Iranian contributor. Some of the more recent issues translate prayers from various religious traditions. Some of the individuals that the journal has introduced to its Iranian readership include Leonard Swidler, Wilfred Cantwell Smith, Huston Smith, Raimon Panikkar, Hans Kung, John Hick,131 and Tushihiko Izutsu. The emphasis in this publication can be gauged by the choice of the thinkers being introduced and promoted in its pages. In addition to these individuals, the type of books and institutions also introduced which focus on dialogue, mutual respect, inter-religious unity and cooperation, human spirituality, and world religions reinforce the basic ideas of the founders of the Institute. The last section of each journal is devoted to devotional literature such as prayers, poetry, and spiritual meditations from various religious traditions. There have been numerous passages and sometimes whole articles translated from the Bible, St. Augustine, St. Anselm, St. Francis of Assisi, and Armenian Orthodox tradition (in addition to texts from the Qur’an, Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism and other Eastern religions). The openness and genuine appreciation that the Institute has demonstrated toward the teachings of other religious traditions, including Christianity must be welcomed. In all of Iran, no other Islamic organization or institution seems to come close to the ethos of IID in its respect and enthusiasm for inter-religious dialogue and mutual appreciation and cooperation with other religious communities. It is highly significant that this openness and appreciation toward other faiths is a direct result of the positive encounters that Mrs. Mousavinejad and her husband, Ali Abtahi, had with Christians in Lebanon during their stay in that country in early 1990s.132


3/22/2011 12:49:47 PM

120


However, it should also be pointed out that so far in its publications, IID has not in any systematic way defined, defended, or elaborated its position on religious pluralism. It seems that by “pluralism” IID has not moved very far from the position of many other Muslims that there is one definable essence in all religions and that essence, which is best crystallized in Islam, can form the basis for common ground among all religious believers against the forces of modernity and anti-religion. In its first editorial, Akhbār-i Dīn called on all religious believers to unite against the enemies of religion and worship of God by emphasizing the “common principles” and “the religious essence that has been given by one God” and thus help humanity in its path toward spirituality.133 In a dialogue between IID and a group of theologians from the Presbyterian Church of America in June 2004, Mrs. Mousavinejad made her position clear that God has sent Moses, Jesus, and Mohammad to teach humanity the same message. She writes: The heavenly messenger descended on earth three times to convey God’s message to Moses, Jesus and Mohammad. Whereby he asked them to be a testimony to the existence of God . . . and demanded them to follow God’s teachings themselves and explain them to others so that they can find the straight path and be saved. . . . And this is the message Moses, Jesus and Muhammad conveyed under different titles as Judaism, Christianity and Islam. When it is a matter of the teachings of God and human salvation, these prophets, claim no name or identity and it is only the divine creed which is of paramount importance, and they are chosen to deliver to man. How well they have fulfilled this mission! We should all be thankful to their names and creeds. Thus we say, “The hail of Allah upon our prophet, Mohammad and all prophets and messengers especially Moses son of Omran and Jesus son of Mary.” In the Institute for Interreligious Dialogue, if any effort is made, it is made with this understanding and the souls of these great men of God will definitely assist us in our way.134 So although in many practical ways, IID is expressing a sincere appreciation of other religious traditions, theoretically at least it can be argued that they have not moved far beyond a more traditional Muslim perspective in which the distinctives and differences of other religions are


3/22/2011 12:49:47 PM


121

downplayed or ignored in favor of a view that sees all religions as essentially one because of the Qur’anic understanding of God and his activities in human history and prophethood.

An Evaluation of the Center for Religious Studies As indicated earlier, this center has not only become significant in the field of publishing books on the Christian faith, but is also in its early stages of developing a graduate studies program on Christian theology, the first of its kind in Iran. However, the focus here will be on its academic journal Haft Asman (Seven Heavens)135 and what impact, if any, the engagement with Christian thought has had on Muslim thinkers and certain traditional Islamic positions. Two emerging themes occur that are of direct relevance to traditional issues in Muslim–Christian encounters throughout history. Whether done in the format of interviews with prominent Shi’i intellectuals (clergy and non-clergy) or in the form of original pieces of writing by various contributors, the journal seems to be cautiously promoting a broader understanding of salvation for Christians (and adherents of other religions). It also seems to be promoting (again directly and indirectly) a broader appreciation for the value and significance of Christian (and other religious) scriptures.

Christians and Salvation From the very first page in the first issue of Haft Asman, a number of highly interesting statements are presented in the editorial. One line of poetry states, “Everyone seeks a helper, whether conscious or drunk; everywhere is a house of love, whether a mosque or a [Zoroastrian] temple (kinisht).” Furthermore, the editors point out, “Every religion is a language through which human beings speak the one truth and different religions have been sincere efforts to get close to that heavenly essence.”136 The first article in the same issue is an interview with Mahmoud Bina, professor of mathematics and philosophy of science at the University of Isfahan. The interview is entitled “The transcendent unity of religions”137 and is a robust defense of the validity of religious pluralism.138 According to Professor Bina, “every divine religion is a path for getting near to God.”139 Bina denounces the kind of religious pluralism that claims each religion has one aspect of the truth. For Bina claims “since all these paths


3/22/2011 12:49:47 PM

122


have come from God, they are full and perfect [in themselves] and can take their adherents to the highest possible spiritual level . . . Every one of these paths has come from God and will end in God. And this is the correct understanding of pluralism.”140 Focusing more specifically on Christianity, Bina quotes extensively from the Iranian poet Hatef Isfahani and his famous poem on the doctrine of the Trinity to conclude that “religions are equal manifestations; there are no shortcomings in Islam or Christianity. It is not like Christianity has something that we don’t have and we have something that Christianity does not have.”141 Bina consistently refuses to acknowledge that Islam has any superiority to other religions (although he is very critical of the “modernization” of Christianity and its having moved away from its “spiritual” roots142), and throughout the article he repeats the claim that God has spoken in different languages (i.e., religions) and we should learn and appreciate these languages in order to know God better.143 Bina also denies that any religion can annul or abrogate a previous religion. For him, each religion is a new way from God and a new possibility to reach God without it having to cancel the previous divine religions.144 In the second issue of the journal145 similar themes appear again. An interview with Mostafa Malekian,146 who is also credited with being a major contributor to the founding of the Center in Qum, presents the claim that it is wrong to believe in only one form of religion as being true and all others as false.147 According to Malekian, different religions provide good matches for different psychological or personality traits and also different human conditions.148 He states, “we should not deprive ourselves from the spiritual benefits of all the other religions.”149 Malekian is also very critical of religious people who think that only their religion is true and only those true believers will earn salvation.150 In issue five, the interview with Daryush Shayegan once again presents a defense of the essential unity and spiritual experience of religious traditions. Although highly critical of the secularization of Christianity, Shayegan is a strong defender of mysticism (‘irfān) and spirituality (ma‘navīyat) which can be found in all religions. He is also quite critical of anyone who converts to another faith (he calls conversion the most stupid act in the world!) since he believes each tradition can provide an adequate spiritual home for its adherents.151 Issue six, opens with an interview with Shahram Pazuki, a professor at the University of Tehran and a translator of two books by Etien Gilson


3/22/2011 12:49:47 PM


123

on Christian philosophy. Although Pazuki believes in the finality and superiority of Islam over other religions (mainly due to the fact that in Islam, law and mysticism, shariat and tariqat are perfectly combined and balanced), he still considers other religions, especially Christianity, to be valid paths (ṣirā ṭ) to God. According to Pazuki, one cannot say that after the coming of Islam, Christianity is no longer legitimate.152 Two further articles of interest are by Hossein Tofiqi, another prominent figure in the establishment of the Center for Religious Studies. In an article entitled “Imam Khomeini’s view on the followers of religions,” Tofiqi discusses some of the relevant passages concerning the salvation of believers in other religions in the writings of Ayatollah Khomeini and Ayatollah Motahhari.153 Although Tofiqi argues for the position of exclusivism in salvation “as the position of divine prophets and scriptures,” he opens the door to a more inclusive perspective on the salvation of non-Muslims. Following the lead of Khomeini and Motahhari, Tofiqi divides the followers of each religion into the common mass and religious scholars. The average person who believes in his religion not because of personal research or reflection but in imitation of his surrounding culture might receive salvation despite his false beliefs. But God holds the religious leaders and scholars accountable for not acknowledging the true faith. The first group is viewed as qā sir (holding minor guilt) and the latter are viewed as muqqasir (holding great guilt).154 In another article, “An introduction to a comparison of monotheistic religions,” Tofiqi again touches on this theme.155 This is a somewhat more negative perspective from what has been surveyed so far. Tofiqi goes so far as to deny any value in inter-religious dialogue, denies the universality of many key religious doctrines in each religion, and admits that each believer already believes he has the ultimate truth.156 He writes, “Each religion with rational and textual evidence claims that salvation belongs exclusively to itself and sometimes because of necessity and for attracting the hearts of other people, tries to distance itself from this exclusivism.” He then goes on to refer to the Christian claim that “there is no salvation outside the Church” and Peter’s statement in Acts 4:12. He concludes, “So we Muslims must be certain that eternal salvation is exclusive to the religion of Islam” and ends by quoting Q. 3:85.157 As can be seen from the selection of articles from Haft Asman in this section, this journal is promoting a broader understanding of salvation than the traditional exclusivism which was a prominent aspect of religious traditions in the past.


3/22/2011 12:49:48 PM

124


Christians and the Bible Although not as prominent as the previous theme, another interesting theme that emerges from the various articles in Haft Asman concerns the view toward the Christian scriptures. Once again, in a variety of contexts, such as interviews, translations, and research articles there are repeated hints and claims that have moved far away from the traditional view on the Bible as being a corrupt or religiously worthless or abrogated text. As stated in the previous chapter, there are numerous articles specifically introducing the Old and the New Testaments which to a great extent have moved away from the traditional or polemical refutations of these scriptures and attempt to describe these texts in an objective and scholarly manner.158 There are also a number of stories from apocryphal and pseudepigraphical texts which have been translated for the first time into Farsi (mostly by Ayatollah Hossein Tofiqi).159 Of course, Tofiqi rejects any legitimacy to the religious authorities of these texts, from both Jewish/Christian and Islamic perspectives. However, in all of his introductions to these translations, Tofiqi expresses appreciation for the lessons and insights that they can provide the reader. For example, in his introduction to the Book of the Secrets of Enoch, he claims that this text, along with other apocalyptic or mystical stories, are some of the “most beautiful examples of world literature” which can take “a person on wings of angels . . . and fill the human heart and soul with the knowledge of God.”160 And although he raises some of the theological objections from an Islamic viewpoint to the expressions used in this story (such as crass anthropomorphisms or reference to fallen angels), he responds to those objections by showing these expressions are quite similar to many Islamic traditions and hadiths.161 There are also two articles by Tofiqi that are of interest here: “Ta’wil in Religions”162 and the previously mentioned “An introduction to the comparison of monotheistic religions.”163 In both articles (especially the latter), Tofiqi is critical of the Bible such as its process of writing and canonization, its apparent immoral stories and crass anthropomorphisms.164 He also repeats a traditional Islamic claim that the Qur’anic references to the Torah and the Injil must refer to other books not in existence today.165 However, in the former article, Tofiqi does attempt to make a fair comparison between the Bible and the Qur’an when he writes on Islamic and Christian exegesis. There is a clear acknowledgment throughout the article that both the Qur’anic and biblical texts are problematic in many


3/22/2011 12:49:48 PM


125

ways, whether ambiguous in meaning, contrary to the assumptions and expectations of believers, or filled with apparent contradictions. Tofiqi concludes by praising people such as Maimonides, Aquinas, and Ghazali for their genius and contribution to the interpretation of scared scriptures and proving the richness and relevance of these divine religions to the needs of each era.166 A significant article on this theme is an interview with Ayatollah Ma’rifat—a senior Shi’i cleric in Qum, born in Iraq and a student of Ayatollahs Khomeini and Khoei—entitled “Religions in the Qur’an.” It presents some very positive evaluations of the Bible.167 Ma’rifat is asked about the position of the Qur’an regarding other heavenly scriptures and whether the Qur’an confirms (ta‘īd) the other scriptures or views them as being corrupted (tahrif). He distinguishes various kinds of tahrif or corruption according to Muslim theologians (i.e., corruption or distortion of the actual words of the text, distortion of the meaning of the words, adding, deleting, or replacing the position of the words, etc.) and emphatically adds that the Qur’an has not charged other scriptures with textual corruption but only with a change in the meaning of the words.168 He continues, “the corruption of the Old and New Testaments is only in the translations.” He gives an example of an updated translation and then makes the incredible claim, “This is the corruption of meaning in the new printings [of the Bible] in which, meanings are updated based on the times, but is there any manipulation of the original text in Greek language? Until now, no one has even claimed such a thing to say nothing of proving it.”169 According to Ma’rifat, the Qur’an itself assumes that the people of the Book had their original scriptures with them, otherwise the Qur’an would not demand that the people of the Book refer to those texts.170 Interestingly, Ma’rifat also points out that Jesus never had a book by the name of Injil. Injil is the good news that Jesus preached to give hope to people. Jesus’ teachings were written down by his disciples, and it is the collection of these wise teachings which is referred to in the Qu’ran as kitāb (book). And again, “This saying that Jesus has said something and other people have changed them, no one has claimed such a thing or proven it. Whatever that has happened, has happened in the translation, like the term paraclete.”171 Despite the very open view toward the Christian scriptures, the repeated claim that all divine religions speak the truth and have no difference with each other in the fundamentals,172 and that followers of all religions are seeking the truth (including the Jews, Christians, Buddhists,


3/22/2011 12:49:48 PM

126


Zoroastrians, and even idolaters),173 Ma’rifat believes that the fullness and finality of truth and revelation is only found in Islam and salvation can not be achieved outside of faith in Islam.174 One final article of interest is “Qur’an and Annunciation of the prophets” by Abdol Rahim Soleimani Ardestani.175 The author’s main thesis in this original piece is to show that the Old and New Testaments do prophesy the coming of Muhammad (as the Qur’an claims) but do not point to him by name but describe him in his character and attributes. There are a number of interesting claims that Ardestani makes to prove his point. He first dismisses the idea that the Qur’an refers to the textual corruption of the Bible. Since there are biblical manuscripts that predate Islam by a few centuries, Muslims cannot charge Christians with corrupting their texts after the advent of Islam.176 Most importantly, Ardestani provides a number of reasons why Muslims should no longer refer to paraclete in the Gospel of John as a reference to prophet Muhammad. He encourages Muslims to accept the Christian understanding of paraclete as the Holy Spirit.177 Ardestani believes that either Jesus prophesied the coming of Muhammad but it was never recorded in the Bible or the Bible (i.e., Deut. 18: 18–19) provides us with references to the character and role of the prophet of Islam without naming him.

Conclusion The fact that Muslim–Christian dialogues have become a common feature in the Shi’i intellectual scene in post-revolutionary Iran is itself a noteworthy point that ought to be acknowledged. In less than fifteen years (beginning in 1990), Iranian Shi’as went from almost having no contact with Christian thinkers to establishing four prominent organizations focused exclusively on inter-faith dialogue and research, sponsoring and participating in dozens of international and national Muslim–Christian conferences and publishing numerous ground-breaking publications.178 On the other hand, there are still some the weaknesses that need to be addressed in the activities of these organizations. First, none of the centers mentioned in this chapter has so far produced and published any systematic justification or a coherent set of guidelines for inter-religious dialogue. Unlike many Christian bodies that have done so from the very early stages of their involvement in dialogue,179 the lack of such reflections by the Iranian organizations have contributed to a general ignorance about the importance or extent of Muslim–Christian dialogues in the


3/22/2011 12:49:48 PM


127

population as a whole.180 Furthermore, many Iranian Shi’i thinkers have also expressed frustration with the failure of these organizations to promote any systematic progression and deeper intellectual engagements in these dialogues.181 Second, despite some very positive changes in the attitudes of many Iranian Shi’i thinkers toward certain Christian beliefs such as the Trinity or the Christian understanding about Injil (Gospel) as noted above, there does not seem to be any significant or fundamental change in any aspect of traditional Islamic theology for most of the Muslim participants in these dialogues or research projects. For example, there is no questioning about the traditional Islamic view of Jesus as only a prophet, or the apparent Qur’anic denial of the crucifixion in the available literature even after so many years of activities in Muslim–Christian dialogue.182 Third, this regards the issue of “pluralism,” which seems to be one of the most popular (and also controversial) issues in modern Shi’i intellectual discourse. Although the emerging and cautious consensus among Iranian religious thinkers that views Christianity as a way of salvation should be welcomed, it seems that in most cases the Iranian defendants of “pluralism”183 are promoting this notion under the very traditional understanding of the Qur’anic claim that all the prophets have essentially brought the same divine message to humanity throughout history. This emphasis on the essential unity of all religions has rightly been criticized as very problematic in inter-faith dialogue, a problem that has never been acknowledge by the Iranians considered in this chapter. As the Yale theologian Kathryn Tanner has pointed out: Pluralist generalizations about what all religions have in common conflict with genuine dialogue, in that they prejudge its results. Commonalities, which should be established in and through a process of dialogue, are constructed ahead of time by pluralists to serve as presuppositions of dialogue. Pluralists therefore close themselves to what people of other religions might have to say about their account of these commonalities. Moreover, . . . a pluralist focus on commonalities slights differences among the religions of the world. The pluralists’ insistence on commonalities as a condition of dialogue shows an unwillingness to recognize the depth and degree of diversity among religions, or the positive importance of them.184


3/22/2011 12:49:48 PM

128


Douglas Pratt also highlights this problem very perceptively. He writes: According to John V. Taylor, dialogue involves a “sustained conversation between parties who are not saying the same thing and who recognize and respect the differences, the contradictions, and the mutual exclusions, between their various ways of thinking.” . . . Dialogue is demanding in terms of effort and integrity. It takes a high degree of maturity to let the opposites co-exist without pretending that they can be made compatible.185 Thus it seems that the more the Iranian Muslims emphasize religious pluralism or the essential unity between Islam and Christianity, the less they are inclined to take the distinctive aspects of Christian faith seriously. These are some of the shortcomings of the organizational encounters between Iranian Shi’as and Christian faith which it can only be hoped might improve as more channels of contact and communication are developed in the coming years.


3/22/2011 12:49:49 PM

CHAPTER 5 IRANIAN SHI’AS AND CHRISTIAN THOUGHT: THREE LIBERAL RELIGIOUS INTELLECTUALS

Introduction This chapter will focus on three of the most prominent Iranian Muslim intellectuals—Abdolkarim Soroush, Mohammad Mojtahed Shabestari, and Mostafa Malekian—and analyze the extent of their personal contact with Christian theology. At this level a more meaningful interaction and deeper engagement can be observed between Iranian Shi’i thinkers and certain strands of the Christian theology (especially themes in liberal and existentialist Christian writers). Some comments are in order at this point on the use of two important words in the heading of this chapter. First, the word “intellectual” is used to indicate that the three individuals under consideration properly belong to the category of intellectuals as that term has been traditionally understood in the West.1 These men are not simply “thinkers” or “translators” in the Iranian society similar to many of the authors or dialogue participants discussed in previous chapters. Soroush, Shabestari and Malekian are viewed by the majority of Iranians as being among the most prominent religious intellectuals.2 “Liberal” is also significant in this chapter. The whole spectrum of Iranian Shi’i intellectuals’ interaction with Christian thought will not be covered here, but rather a small but significant minority of religious intellectuals who can be viewed as “liberal”. This term is used in line with


3/22/2011 12:51:00 PM

130


Charles Kurzman’s explanation of the term in his book Liberal Islam.3 As Kurzman points out, “In historical terms, Islam has consisted of countless varied interpretations, among these a tradition that voices concerns parallel to those of Western liberalism.” Kurzman highlights the characteristics of this tradition by concerns such as “opposition to theocracy, support for democracy, guarantees of the rights of women and non-Muslims in Islamic countries, defense of freedom of thought, and belief in the potential for human progress.”4 The individuals considered in this chapter can also be viewed as theologically liberal in the sense that they are “concerned with the reconstruction of belief in response to contemporary culture.”5 Although, all these Muslim intellectuals fit within the above definition of liberal, it is their interaction with Christian thought which is the main concern here and not necessarily all the multi-faceted philosophical or political aspects of their understanding of Islam and its relation to the modern world. Soroush, Shabestari, and Malekian were chosen for this study not only because they are recognized as three of the most prominent Iranian Shi’i intellectuals, but also because they have been in many ways at the forefront of progressive religious thought in Iran. All three have been either very active in Muslim–Christian dialogue from the beginning of its movement in Iran (Soroush and Shabestari),6 or have been articulate defendants of such dialogue (Malekian).7 They have all been prolific in their writing and publishing activity. Two of them have lived overseas for significant periods of time (Soroush in the U.K. and U.S., Shabestari in Germany) and thus became more familiar with Christian thought. Although Malekian has not lived outside of Iran, he is fluent in English (with a reading knowledge of French and German) and has been very active in translating Christian books from English into Farsi. They have all taught courses in modern theology (Soroush, Shabestari) or specifically Christian theology (Malekian) at the University of Tehran.8 And even though Shabestari is the only clergy in this group, all three have spent considerable time developing expertise in traditional Shi’i seminary curriculum in Qum. They are therefore, highly qualified as deeply rooted Muslim thinkers who have been actively engaged in promoting dialogue in Iranian society, have extensively participated in Muslim–Christian dialogues or at least (as is the case with Malekian) have contributed significantly to the publication of Christian literature in Iran. In the course of their own research, all these individuals have developed a considerable knowledge of Christian theology. More importantly, all these individuals have been profoundly influenced by what Leonard Swidler calls “the revolutionary changes in our


3/22/2011 12:51:00 PM

Three Liberal Religious Intellectuals

131

epistemology that have occurred in the West since the Enlightenment.”9 These Iranian intellectuals, unlike many of the participants in official Muslim–Christian dialogues surveyed in the previous chapter, have accepted and are working within a framework of a deabsolutized view of truth and reality. Looking again at Swidler’s six categories that have converged to promote this new paradigm about truth as being “historical, intentional, perspectival, partial, interpretive and dialogical,” these Muslim thinkers are just as aware of these new developments as any other philosopher in the West.10 Sometimes this awareness of the relative aspects of human knowledge has come mainly as a result of going back into Islamic theological and mystical traditions and sometimes it has been a direct result of interacting with Western philosophers such as Gadamar and Ricoeur.11 This emerging fundamental philosophical paradigm shift among Iranian religious intellectuals provides a significant development and new potentials in Muslim–Christian encounters. It must be acknowledged that none of these scholars make any claim to expertise in Christian theology. They have all approached Christian writings only as these writings have related to their own intellectual or personal interests as Muslims. And in many ways, these personal interests have in turn been greatly shaped by the current socio-political climate of the Iranian society.

Post-Revolutionary Religious Intellectuals The importance of the broader social and intellectual context in which contemporary Iranian thinkers are operating cannot be ignored. Forough Jahanbakhsh correctly points out: The post-revolutionary religious intellectualism of Iran features certain unique characteristics as it evolves in a context which is socially and politically different from the pre-revolutionary era, though having its roots in it. This context has little precedent in Islamic history, where seldom has religious and political authority been united in one and the same institution.12 What are these unique characteristics of contemporary Iranian religious intellectuals? Jahanbakhsh highlights three primary inter-related features of the contemporary intellectual trend.


3/22/2011 12:51:00 PM

132


The first feature concerns the relationship of this new trend to modernity: While the previous trend of religious thought grew in response and reaction to the prevailing ideologies of the time, most notably to Marxism, emerging in the end as an Islamic ideology, the present Islamic intellectual movement has surprisingly developed as a counter trend to the prevailing mode of Islamic ideology. The emerging trend [as put by John Voll and quoted by Robin Wright] is “making it possible to be Islamic without being fundamentalist,” this by “creating a comprehensive, late 20th-century worldview that is, at the same time, authentically Islamic and authentically modern.13 It seems according to the observation of many analysts that the new religious intellectual trend in Iran wants to make peace with modernity and thus it is no longer seeing itself in terms of a reactionary response to any particular Western ideology. The second feature of this movement is: its growing constituency and its leading figure, Soroush, have experienced at first hand the failure of the mythologized ability of “Islamic ideology” to provide a viable and effective leadership for a religious society in the modern era.14 This suggests a very determined attempt on the part of contemporary Muslim intellectuals against turning any understanding of Islam into a comprehensive ideology. In one way or the other, all three thinkers being considered in this chapter propose to limit an absolutist approach to religious understanding or religious interpretation. The third feature is that: while the previous generation of religious intellectuals experienced and fought against political despotism and in this process benefited from the support of some notable members of the clergy, the present one has experienced and struggled against both political and religious absolutism at the same time. The post-revolutionary religious modernists have found themselves challenging religious despotism.15


3/22/2011 12:51:00 PM


133

Thus, as mentioned in Chapter 2, the failure in achieving the many aspirations of the Islamic revolution, such as greater freedoms, accounts for the key feature of much of current intellectual thought in Iran. Jahanbakhsh’s analysis of the intellectual landscape in Iran is confirmed by other observers. For example, Nikki Keddie, summarizes the contemporary Iranian scene in the following way: Serious intellectual writings and discussions involving secularists, religious liberals, and reformist clerics have grown since early 1990 . . . Thinkers who have written since 1990 are generally more sophisticated and more knowledgeable about a variety of Western and Islamic sources than were their intellectual predecessors . . . They broke with ideologies that implied that ideological correctness could bring about an ideal society. They also considered Western ideas to be complex and varied, not a solution to all problems, not simple extensions of ideas already present in Islam or Iran, and not alternatively, simply dangerous aspects of imperialism . . . There has been a new stress on freedom of thought, including of religion, which earlier thinkers had tended to subordinate to anti-imperialism or other values, and also on the importance of democracy, greater gender equality, and new and fair laws. There have also been a variety of strong criticisms of clerical rule.16 Another scholar of contemporary Iran, Farhad Khosrokhavar, provides the following survey of the social context of emerging Iranian religious intellectuals: In the 1990s, new tendencies emerged in Islamic ideology in Iran, which called into question the revolutionary tenets of the 1970s and 1980s. Since then, the main intellectual trend in Iran has been religious reformism . . . The new generation of Iranians who did not take part in the revolutionary movement but who resent its consequences in terms of moral restrictions, economic strain and political intransigence show no fascination with religious radicalism. In reaction against the revolutionary Islam which combined Marxist categories and chiliastic Shi’i notions, this generation is giving expression to new tendencies through the second- and


3/22/2011 12:51:01 PM

134


third-generation intellectuals who no longer highlight martyrdom, a glorious death for a religious ideal, the struggle against imperialism and the longing for a moral community. Instead, they stress the need for individual freedom, sexual autonomy, cultural openness and peaceful coexistence with the West (the reformist President Khatami refers to this as the “dialogue between civilizations”).17 One key element in this new intellectual trend is the separation of religion from political rule or, as it is popularly referred to in the West, as the separation of church and state. Khosrokhavar continues: Abdolkarim Soroush, Mojtahed Shabestari, Mostafa Malekian, Mohsen Kadivar and Yousefi Eshkavari are the most notable intellectuals who reject this identity of politics and religion. In this matter, there is no gulf between the clergy and the laity. The line of tension cuts across the clergy as well as laymen: some members of the laity, as well as clergy, defend revolutionary ideas, whereas other members of both groups support the reformist idea of separating religion from politics. The reformists, whether they are laymen (like Soroush or Malekian) or clergymen (like Kadivar, Eshkavari or Shabestari), all share one idea in common: the refusal to justify the intervention of religion into politics on the basis of any kind of Islamic argument and the aspiration to assert the independence of society from the powers that be.18 To understand this social and intellectual context is extremely important for understanding the intellectual framework through which these Muslim thinkers are interacting with Christian thought. Many Iranian thinkers view their current cultural and religious climate in terms that are very similar to many of the themes that came to prominence in the West starting from the Protestant Reformation and later to the period of Enlightenment and on to modernity.19 Summarizing the insights of Kurzman, Browers, and Savyon on contemporary Iranian religious intellectuals, Sukidi writes: The sociologist of Islam, Charles Kurzman, argues that the 1979 Iranian revolution “has had the effect of transforming Shi’i religious scholars into a hierarchal institution with administrative


3/22/2011 12:51:01 PM


135

authorities that even many Iranians regularly compare to the ‘church’ and ‘clergy’ in Catholic Christianity.” Just as the Protestant Reformation “wanted to rescue Christianity from the clergy and the church hierarchy,” . . . the call for Islamic Protestantism wanted to liberate Islam and Iranian Muslims from the political and religious cooperation of the Iranian ruling clerics.20 For example, in a lecture entitled “Shari’ati and Protestantism,” Soroush highlights the significance of Protestant Reformation by observing, “This religious experience in Christianity [the Protestant movement] has many lessons for us Muslims. The spirit of these events, not their outward shape or appearance, is repeated many times. There are many good and important lessons for us to learn from Protestantism.”21 More than just a passing comment, there are in fact many pervasive themes in the writings of Soroush, Shabestari, and Malekian that help us confirm the above observation such as rejection of a tyrannical religious authoritarianism, rejection of a dogmatic approach to the issues of faith, autonomy and centrality of human reason, the absolute value of freedom, the defense of a secular government,22 and the importance of making religious truth claims compatible with a modern understanding of the world. It is within this socio-political and intellectual framework that these Muslim intellectuals are engaged in various degrees with different aspects of Christian thought. What seems important to them in their encounter with Christianity is the extent that particular insights or strands within the Christian faith can be seen as useful or relevant to their own intellectual context and their struggle for social reform.23

Abdolkarim Soroush—The Mystic Philosopher Gaining an ever-growing international reputation,24 Abdolkarim Soroush is by far the most influential religious thinker in contemporary Iran.25 Soroush is the penname of Husayn Haj Farajullah Dabbagh, born in Tehran in 1945 to a highly traditional and religious family.26 He received his secondary education at the famous ‘Alavī school—a private school originally established by a group of religious merchants and run by a number of well-respected teachers who were both well-grounded in the modern sciences and possessed religious conviction. ‘Alavī aimed at educating individuals in both modern and religious sciences. The school’s


3/22/2011 12:51:01 PM

136


emphasis on combining religious and scientific studies established a trend that would preoccupy Soroush throughout his studies and writings to this day. Two years after earning his first university degree in pharmacology, he left Iran to continue his studies in England (mid-to-late 1970s). Soroush began his graduate studies in London in analytical chemistry (M.Sc., University of London), followed by several years of research in the philosophy of science (Chelsea College, London). Throughout these years, he paralleled his studies with a deep interest in Persian poetry and Qur’anic exegesis. Having become politically active during his stay in England, Soroush returned to Iran a few months after the revolution and engaged in a variety of intellectual activities. He was appointed the chair of the department of Islamic culture in Tehran’s Teachers’ College. He also delivered numerous public lectures broadcast on Iranian national television ranging from commentary on Rumi’s Sufi poetry to refutation of Marxist ideology.27 Approximately one year after the revolution, in the spring of 1980, the universities were forced to shut down by the Iranian government. Soroush was appointed directly by Ayatollah Khomeini to be part of the Advisory Committee on Cultural Revolution with the task of Islamicizing the university curriculum.28 Soroush resigned from this post (his only official appointment within the ruling class of the Iranian government) in 1983 and started a plethora of activities such as writing books and articles, teaching at various universities in Tehran and seminaries in Qum, giving public lectures in mosques, and translating a number of Western philosophical texts. As Jahanbakhsh points out, “Soroush is a very prolific thinker whose published works as well as the audio and video cassette recordings of his numerous lectures have found an increasing audience among young, educated Iranians.”29 As a result of his fall out with the Islamic regime, he came under severe attack by radical vigilante groups. After years of facing harassment, death threats, censorship and restrictions on public speaking and traveling, he was eventually banned from his university teaching post in 1995.30 The following year Soroush left Iran for Europe and North America and has lived in semi-exile since then. From 2000 to 2004 Soroush was a visiting professor in Islamic studies first at Harvard and later at Princeton University. He later became a visiting scholar in Berlin. Soroush travels regularly within the US and Europe for lectures relating to Islam and the modern world.


3/22/2011 12:51:01 PM


137

Main Intellectual Focus Soroush’s “sprawling intellectual project, aimed at reconciling reason and faith, spiritual authority and political liberty, ranges authoritatively over comparative religion, social science, and theology.”31 However, his most famous work by far is his Theoretical Contraction and Expansion of Religion.32 Soroush himself summarizes his position in the following six points: 1. Religion, or revelation for that matter, is silent. 2. The science of religion is relative, that is, relative to presuppositions. 3. The science of religion is age-bound, because presuppositions are. 4. Revealed religion itself may be true and free from contradictions, but the science of religion is not necessarily so. 5. Religion may be perfect or comprehensive, but not so for the science of religion. 6. Religion is divine, but its interpretation is thoroughly human and this-worldly.33 For Soroush, while religion itself does not change, people’s understanding and knowledge of religion changes. Like other branches of knowledge, religious knowledge and interpretation is deeply interconnected with other aspects of social and intellectual developments. Since human understanding of the natural world—with all its accompanying and changing methodologies, presuppositions, philosophical, theological, historical, and sociological perspectives—is in constant flux and it significantly impacts our understanding of religion at any given time, “religious knowledge, like other branches of knowledge, is mundane, theory-loaded and thus relative, time-bound and changing.”34

Soroush and the Christian Faith It has become popular, especially in the West, to think of Soroush as the Martin Luther of Islam.35 Others compare him more to a figure such as Erasmus.36 It is also said “his writings are replete with explicit borrowings from European theology and philosophy from Schleiermacher and Kierkegaard to Locke and Popper.”37 Moving beyond these historical comparisons, it is useful to ask: In what ways has Soroush interacted with the Christian faith? To find the answer to this question, some insights


3/22/2011 12:51:01 PM

138


from a personal interview with Soroush38 by the author will be considered. According to Soroush’s own admission he “encountered Christianity from many angles.” The first angle of this encounter for Soroush was with the figure of Jesus as seen through Islamic traditions and the Qur’an. Soroush points out that “early Shi’i literature and hadith have more stories about Christ than Sunni literature.” “Ethical commands” provided a second angle to become more familiar with Jesus. Soroush had great interest in ethics from a young age and, as he admits, he found “Christian ethics interesting and very attractive.” Interestingly, some of the ethical commands that sparked his interest were not from the Christian scriptures or sources but from the sayings of Jesus in Islamic traditions (one example that Soroush mentioned in the interview was the saying of Jesus “don’t make your stomach a graveyard for animals”). A third angle of approach for Soroush was through the works of Rumi and Ghazali. Rumi and his fondness for Christianity (especially the Christian ideals of modesty and humility) played a significant role in Soroush’s positive posture toward the Christian faith. According to Soroush, Ghazali had also pointed out in his writings that he had read the whole Bible, had learned from it, and had made remarks linking Islamic Sufism with Christianity. This admission by Ghazali made another significant impression on Soroush. Furthermore, there were other Iranian poets who, according to Soroush, were under the influence of Christianity and refer a good deal to Christian ideas and imageries in their works, such as Nezami (whom Soroush believes is the greatest Iranian poet) and Khaghani (one of whose parents was a Christian). Soroush’s first introduction to Christian literature took place when he was studying in London. Sometime about 1973 or 1974 Soroush first became interested in the philosophy of religion. The first book he read in Christian literature to improve his English was Augustine’s Confessions. He knew nothing about Augustine before that. He was impressed with his humility and similarity of Christian mysticism and Islamic mysticism. Soroush found amazing resemblance between Augustine’s Confessions and certain Islamic prayers (especially Ṣahīf-i Sajjādīah a collection of prayers attributed to the fourth Shi’i Imam). For Soroush the philosophical sections of Confessions were not as impressive as the prayers and devotional sections.39


3/22/2011 12:51:02 PM


139

About a year later, another book he came across by pure chance in a Cambridge dorm room was the Cloud of Unknowing (Soroush has translated the book into Farsi but has not published it yet). “This was a very important book for me” Soroush remarked. Its “poetical and archaic” language and its allegorical interpretation of biblical stories made a great impression on him. Soroush’s original openness toward Christianity and his attraction to devotional and mystical Christian literature is a good illustration of some of the key factors shaping the outlook of contemporary Iranian Muslims discussed in Chapter 2. The Shi’i traditions about Jesus, Sufi literature, and Persian poetry all played important roles in forming Soroush’s attitude and approach toward the Christian faith. Because of Soroush’s own lifelong interest in the fields of ethics and Sufism, he has found himself drawn only to Christian ethics and mysticism. As Soroush himself frankly acknowledges, “I have never taken Christian theology very seriously, like the doctrine of the Trinity.” For Soroush the doctrines of the Trinity, deity of Christ and atonement (Christian doctrines in general) are weaknesses of Christianity.40 However, he finds the strengths of the Christian faith in its emphasis on mercy, brotherhood, and love. Thus Christian theology is the weakness and Christian ethics is the strength of Christian faith. According to him, “ethics that have been influenced by Sufism are very close to Christian ethics.” Despite Soroush’s prolific writing, there is very little that he has written that deals directly with Christianity. His most explicit engagement with Christian faith is his lecture delivered on Christmas Eve of 2000 in the U.S., entitled “Christ in Islam.”41 Soroush begins this lecture by greeting Christians and acknowledging that true followers of Christ are also guided by God and will receive salvation.42 According to Soroush this is despite the fact that the Qur’an and Prophet Muhammad categorically deny the Christian doctrine of the divine sonship of Christ. Soroush also reminds his listeners that some Qur’anic charges against Christians (such as including Mary in the Godhead according to S. 5:119–120) were directed to small Christian sects present in Arabia at the time of the prophet and are not applicable to mainstream Christian teaching.43 Starting on the Qur’anic treatment of Jesus, Soroush points out that Jesus was a “totally exceptional person from every perspective and had no similarity to other prophets.” Jesus was “totally different and unique even in the chain of the prophets.”44 Jesus’ unique birth caused people


3/22/2011 12:51:02 PM

140


to have strange beliefs about him. Even, according to Soroush, “Among Muslim mystics and intellectuals, there were some who believed that Jesus, whatever he was, was not a normal human being.” Soroush brings up the example of Rumi who, because he was a Muslim, did not believe that Jesus was God; he believed that “Jesus was an angel among humans, an angel who took the form of a man, descended to earth, was manifested and eventually ascended and went into heaven.”45 The above discussion suggests a close affinity between Soroush’ view of Jesus and classical Gnosticism. Gnosticism was a movement in early Christian history that, among other aberrations, believed that Jesus was not truly human. They had a dualistic theology in which the man Jesus of Nazareth was nothing more than the instrument of the heavenly redeemer “Christ” who came down from heaven to teach gnosis or wisdom. It seems that the mystical elements in Soroush’s thinking have made him very open to a Gnostic interpretation of Jesus in the Christian tradition. After a discussion on the Qur’anic account of Jesus’ birth, Soroush focuses on the death of Christ and acknowledges that despite the Qur’anic denial of the crucifixion, the cross of Christ is part of undeniable history for Christians. (It is significant to note that in the personal interview, Soroush confessed the account of crucifixion cannot be easily dismissed historically by Muslims and agreed that there are simply too many evidences and eyewitnesses to deny the fact of the cross.)46 After briefly recounting Muslim theories of the end of Jesus’ life on earth, he goes on to talk about the ascension of Christ, comparing it to the mi‘rāj of Prophet Muhammad and highlighting not the importance of a physical ascension (although for Soroush quite probable) but a spiritual ascension of the heart. Soroush then moves on to a discussion of the Qur’anic ascriptions of Jesus as “word of God” and “spirit of God.” It is especially at this point that some of Soroush’s interesting insights are revealed as both a Muslim thinker and one who has to some degree interacted with Christian thought. Soroush starts his explanation with a reference to the Gospel of John and that Gospel’s use of Greek philosophical categories. He then quotes from John 1:1 and admonishes the listeners to enter deeply into what this verse is trying to communicate. He asks: “What does it mean to say Jesus is the word of God or the spirit of God?” Soroush begins his answer by first referring to some important contemporary trends in Christian theology that believes Jesus himself was God’s revelation and not that he was a person who received God’s revelation. Jesus’ own being


3/22/2011 12:51:02 PM


141

was God’s revelation in the original and authentic sense of the word. The written records were only God’s word in a secondary and derivative sense of the term revelation.47 Soroush then explores the Qur’anic understanding of the “word of God” and after rejecting a univocal or simplistic understanding of “human words” and “divine words” seems to side with the exposition of certain Muslim philosophers who have said, “every creature in God’s creation is in reality a ‘word’ of God.”48 Tapping into a very neo-Platonic exposition of God and God’s relationship with the world Soroush goes on to say: It is as if God has recited a poem or a speech in this world, from the beginning to the end of history, a long poem in which all creatures are letters and words which have come from the lips and mouth of God. With God there are no definite shapes, that is a world of absolute formlessness; but when it comes down it finds a particular form. Coming down in fact means to find a form not that there is really any ups or downs. Everything that does not have form is above, and as soon as its finds a form it comes down.49 Furthermore, “Every one of us is like a reed50 put upon the lips of God and he blows in it. His breath is without any forms, but when it is blown through the reed it takes on a particular form.”51 Soroush points out that in Islamic mystical literature things such as light, water, sea, breath, spirit, and wind are all images and symbols of divine being since they do not have any particular shape or form until they take a shape or form upon themselves.52 He then relates his discussion up to this point to his view of Jesus. He says: The word of God is in reality the essence of God. It does not have a particular form, but when it becomes external and takes on a form, it is as if each creature is a word that has been written by God. These words are sometimes written by an intermediary and sometimes without an intermediary. Jesus was a word that God wrote without an intermediary . . . Because Jesus was born in an uncommon way, it is as if God wrote this word by his own hands . . . Jesus was not only a word that God had written it directly, but he was also directly readable [understandable]. He was not just a word but the very exact meaning which appeared in this world.53


3/22/2011 12:51:02 PM

142


Once again, the influence of Islamic mysticism and Rumi in particular are evident in Soroush’s exposition of the Qur’anic titles for Jesus such as “the word of God” or the “spirit of God.” This is a creative attempt at reconciling, to a certain extent, the Christian and the Muslim understandings of Jesus as the divine word. For Soroush, Jesus is not merely a prophet proclaiming the will of God but shares in the divine essence and is an exact representation of God’s meaning in this world. Soroush’s language can easily bring to mind similar expressions of biblical writers in the New Testament such as those found in Heb. 1:3, “The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being,” and Col. 1:15, “He [Jesus] is the image of the invisible God.” Of course, Soroush is not thinking in terms of orthodox Christian theology. Ultimately though, Jesus is not essentially different from any other creature according to this view since each creature partakes of the essence of God, because “each creature is a word written by God” and “the word of God is in reality the essence of God.” After the above comments on the person of Jesus, Soroush moves on to a brief reference to the doctrine of the Trinity as the most important difference between Islam and Christianity. “Although Christians claim to be monotheists and believe that beyond the Trinity they are still acknowledging one God, the truth is this one God has become relatively obscure . . . The Trinity has become a complicated problem for Christians.”54 Soroush concludes his lecture by two observations on the gospels. The first point that draws Soroush’s attention is that Christianity (with its ethical teachings) is like a pearl without a shell. Whereas in Islam, sharia and fiqh are protective outer layers that maintain and keep the Islamic teachings on ethics and spiritual experiences, Christianity just presents plain ethical principles. This is why Christianity has been interpreted in so many different ways and has had many negative and positive dimensions.55 Soroush then focuses on the Sermon on the Mount as the essence of Jesus’ teachings and praises its ethical demands. He finds Jesus’ admonition against divorce as the only thing resembling sharia and claims that the heart of Jesus’ teaching is abandoning the world and worldly concerns and forgiving one’s enemies.56 Soroush then defines the foundational teachings of Jesus to be humility, love, and forgiveness.57 In addition to these principles, Jesus’ teachings were intensely humane and against dry laws and rituals. For Soroush, Jesus’ comment that “the Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath” provides the


3/22/2011 12:51:02 PM


143

key to Jesus’ prophetic mission and shows the approach that Jesus had toward Judaism.58 Soroush’s second observation is about the crucifixion and Jesus’ cry on the cross, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” He acknowledges that Muslims do not believe the historicity of the cross but asks his listeners to put that aside for the moment and look at the deeper truth expressed in this account. The deepest truth of this cry is to demonstrate that no human being, no matter how high on the spiritual ladder and perfection, is exempt from doubt and crisis of faith. Soroush tries to find a similar motif in certain passages of the Qur’an that testify that even the prophets could struggle with doubt, temptation, depression, and uncertainty in their relationship with God and in their mission.59 For Soroush, this passage of the gospel has the most admonitory value and seems more humane than any other part. This aspect of the story of the cross is in harmony with “all mystical literature, Qur’anic thoughts and existential experiences of humanity.”60 He concludes his lecture by encouraging his audience to read the Sermon on the Mount and also the accounts of the crucifixion in order to become more familiar with the personality of Christ and his teachings, and to gain valuable and deep wisdom.61 The above observations neatly summarize Soroush’s approach to Christian theology. For Soroush, at the heart of Christian faith is a highly ethical religion which values the worth and dignity of the individual and truly reflects the existential ambiguities of the life of faith. Going beyond the above account of Soroush’ direct exposition of some of the central doctrines of the Christian faith, attention should be drawn to three other areas in Soroush’s thought that have been informed in various degrees as a result of his interaction with Christian tradition: religious pluralism, religious faith, and human nature.

Religious Pluralism Being a trail-blazing intellectual, in late 1990s Soroush began another storm of controversy in Iranian religious circles by the publication of his article, later expanded into a book, entitled Straight Paths in which he presented a robust defense of religious pluralism.62 This is one reason, as noted in previous chapters, why the issue of religious pluralism has become such a lively topic among Iranian religious intellectuals.63 In this work, Soroush presents ten lines of evidence based on his epistemology such as the differences in the interpretations of texts and


3/22/2011 12:51:03 PM

144


interpretations of religious experience due to the depth and complexity of these texts and experiences, certain Qur’anic texts which seem to hint at plurality of ways to God, theological reasoning (if God is a God of guidance, how could he let the vast majority of mankind go astray?), Persian Sufi poetry (mostly references to Rumi but also verses from Sa’di and Hafez) and even the writings of John Hick and Hick’s use of a Kantian distinction between the noumena and the phenomenon in his discussion of the ultimate Real.64 Becoming familiar with the Christian faith played an important role in shaping Soroush’s intellectual journey toward pluralism, as he frankly admits “Since I studied Christianity, I concluded this is also a way to God and facilitated my understanding of pluralism. Becoming more deeply familiar with other religions, leads us to believe there are many similarities and there are other ways to God.”65

Religious Faith Another aspect of Soroush’s discussion on religion is linked with the centrality of religious experience and the faith that accompanies it. Far more important than religious doctrines and formulations is the believers’ experience of God. “The essence of religion is for man to put down his own self and arrogance, and bow in worship to God. I love worship and I love to see that in church or mosque.”66 Nowhere is Soroush more explicit in his rejection of understanding Islam as an eternal theological system of doctrines and truths than in his article “On the Essential and the Accidental in Religions.”67 Soroush goes so far as to say that every aspect of Islam and the Qur’an is accidental, historically and culturally contingent, and thus not absolute and normative. There are only three exceptions, which include: 1. Man is not God, but a servant of God (belief). 2. Salvation in afterlife is the most important purpose of human life and the most important goal of religious behavior (ethics). 3. The protection of religion, reason, offspring, property and life are the most important goals of the law-giver for living in this world (fiqh).68 For Soroush, to be a Muslim is to be committed to the essentials of Islam and not to the accidentals of Islam’s historical origins and developments. Muslims must make a distinction between the essentials and


3/22/2011 12:51:03 PM


145

the accidentals of their faith and should be engaged in “culturally translating” these accidentals in facing the realities confronting them in the modern world.69 With this understanding concerning the essence of religion, which shows deep affinities with the main thrust of liberal Protestant theology, Soroush discusses the nature of religious faith. He defines religious faith as “believing, giving one’s heart to someone along with trust and reliance to that one and to know that one as good and to love that one.”70 This kind of faith is not just a mental assent or a dogmatic belief but it brings about an existential transformation in the life of the believer. This kind of faith also can increase and decrease just like love can also increase and decrease.71 Soroush claims that he purposefully avoids inserting certainty as an element of faith. Certainty cannot increase or decrease but faith can. Certainty is higher than faith; while faith is fallible and includes a risk on the part of the believer.72 Soroush then goes into a brief discussion of the Christian views toward faith and certainty “In the history of Christianity the role of certainty is so negative that the great scholar such as Thomas Aquinas claims that lack of certainty is the foundation for faith” since if one is absolutely certain of something there can no longer be any room for active faith. “Among Protestants and Luther reliance and trust have a bigger share in faith than certainty and belief.” “The research of Cantwell Smith, the contemporary Canadian scholar of religion, also demonstrates that among early Christians, faith meant more a reliance and trust rather than absolute certainty. What I have said so far is that faith does not start with certainty and does not necessarily end with certainty . . . these are two separate paths.”73

Human Nature One of the long-standing areas of conflict between Christianity and Islam is linked to historic Christian understanding of the doctrine of original sin and thus the “different diagnosis of the human condition.”74 Contrary to the Christian view of the Fall and its consequences on human nature and disposition, Muslim theology has for the most part presented a positive view of the human condition. Badru Kateregga speaks for mainstream Islamic theology when he states, “Muslims believe that man is fundamentally a good and dignified creature. He is not a fallen being.”75 Soroush, on the other hand, has reached conclusions that seem to be much closer to a Christian view of human nature than a traditional Islamic point of view. In his essay “Let us learn from history,” he feels compelled


3/22/2011 12:51:03 PM

146


by looking at human history to revise certain aspects of Islamic anthropology.76 He writes: Thus the whole of humankind has moved in a direction akin to its nature . . . So human beings have existed and lived in the flow of history according to the requirements of their nature; what has happened in history has been natural, not artificial . . . Contention is a natural feature of human societies . . . Discord originates only in the structure of human beings and nowhere else . . . Humanity has nowhere expressed itself as well as it has in history. There is a clear answer to the question, Why have human societies engendered war, inequity, apostasy, and sin, as well as science, worship, art and competition? The progenitor of all these goods and evils is the nature of human life in society.77 Soroush continues, “In short, the countenance of humanity does not appear in the mirror of history as fair or flawless. Our definitions of humanity need to be soberly and somberly examined in view of the amount of greed, cruelty, wickedness, and ingratitude that humans have caused—all of which they have done willingly and in accordance with their nature.”78 Furthermore, “It is true that we do not relish seeing humans as tyrannical, unappreciative, unjust, and foolish and that we hope they will not be so. Yet we must recognize these defects as part of human nature. Inequity must be recognized as a natural and permanent part of human nature and not an erasable or incidental facet of it.”79 For Soroush, arriving at this understanding was a significant discovery, “When I got my idea of problems with human nature, it was an exciting discovery for me. I came to this conclusion by my study of history. I also think Hafez agrees with me.”80 Soroush believes that the first lesson for political leaders and social managers from this realistic view of humanity is tolerance.81 In addition to tolerance, this view of human nature produces steadfastness, benevolence, humility, resolve, and courage.82 Soroush is emphatic that his understanding of human nature has not been in any way influenced by his study of the Christian doctrine of the fall. The purpose in bringing attention to this issue in Soroush’s thoughts is to highlight areas where Soroush’s ideas seem to be converging with crucial Christian insights and thus the potential that it creates for deeper mutual understanding between Muslims and Christians on a central doctrine that has historically divided the two traditions from each other.


3/22/2011 12:51:03 PM


147

Evaluation Soroush is an outstanding example of a contemporary Iranian religious intellect who is informed about the Christian faith. He has shown a great deal of appreciation and fondness for the ethical and mystical elements of the Christian faith. With the exception of his brief comments about the rational problems with the doctrine of the Trinity, no negative criticisms can be found about Christianity in Soroush’s prolific published career. His sensitive approach to the significance of Christ as the “word of God,” his openness to acknowledge the historical reality of the crucifixion, and his sympathetic treatment of the existential realities of a life of faith in the midst of mystery and doubt (especially as exemplified in Jesus’ cry on the cross) ought to be warmly welcomed by all Christians. However, it should also be pointed out that Soroush’s overall intellectual approach is dominated by Islamic mysticism. For example, the Jesus that Soroush presents us with is one who is cut off from any real human history. He is still very much a Jesus of Islamic stories and traditions, a teacher who abandons the world and dispenses ethical wisdom about love, forgiveness, and humility. N.T. Wright stated that there are certain historical questions we must ask if we want to come to grips with a proper understanding of Jesus, such as: How does Jesus fit into the Judaism of his day? What were his aims? Why did he die? How did the early church come into being? And why are the Gospels what they are?83 For Soroush, the answer to many of these questions seems to be one that is also familiar in many Christian circles, namely that Judaism was a religion of legalism and formal rituals and that Jesus came to present an interior and spiritual religion of love and brotherly kindness. Wright points out the untenableness of this understanding of Jesus’ mission: This is clearly no good. If it were true, Jesus would have been simply incomprehensible, a teacher of abstract and interior truths to a people hungry for God to act within history. The people were asking for bread and freedom, not thin air. Nor did he simply come to found the church, giving the Sermon on the Mount as its charter.84 A mere ethical or mystical understanding of the Christian faith is a very reductionistic approach that simply ignores all Christian truth claims


3/22/2011 12:51:03 PM

148


and dismisses any relevance or significance that might be attributed to Christian theology and history. Although the extent of Soroush’s personal involvement with Christian theology has been minimal, it can still be acknowledged that Soroush has contributed significantly to the opening up of the religious intellectual climate in Iran and has thus advanced the possibility for deeper Muslim–Christian dialogue and engagement. Soroush’s epistemological discussions on religious truth claims, which have resulted in an awareness among many religious thinkers in Iran of the contextual and deabsolutized nature of religious knowledge, was an important step in opening up the space for dialogue.85 Furthermore, Soroush’s advocacy for religious pluralism86 along with his multi-faceted writings on the nature of faith as a relationship of love and wonder rather than dogmatic certainty, the importance of freedom and tolerance in human society especially in the realm of thought, and various limitations inherent in human existence can be cited as other important factors in the promotion of the movement toward inter-faith dialogue or at least greater openness toward discovering truths in other religions.87

Mojtahed Shabestari—An Existentialist Theologian Mohammad Mojtahed Shabestari was born in Shabestar, near Tabrīz in 1936.88 He received a traditional seminary education in Qum from 1950 to 1968: “Studies at the theological seminaries consisted back then, as they still do today, primarily of the subjects of Islamic law, Islamic theology, mysticism, and philosophy, usually with a focus on jurisprudence.” However, “Shabestari was among those young students who found a onesided concentration on the dry legal compendia inadequate, and who more eagerly devoted their attention to the subjects of philosophy and mysticism, which have been marginalized by most Islamic legal scholars.”89 During his stay in Qum, he began to develop an interest in modern fields of studies and Western thought. In 1970, he became the director of the Shi’i Islamic Center in the Imam Ali Mosque in Hamburg, West Germany and remained in Germany in his post until the revolution of 1979 (prior to Shabestari, Ayatollah Beheshti, an intellectual pillar of the Islamic revolution, served as the director of the center, and after Shabestari the post was occupied by the former Iranian President Mohammad Khatami).


3/22/2011 12:51:04 PM


149

During the period he spent in Hamburg, “Shabestari strongly supported the Christian–Islamic dialogue and extended the mosque’s scope of influence by opening it up to all Muslims.”90 He also became fluent in German and read extensively in the German theological and philosophical tradition of scholarship. Thus he was able to pursue his interest, already evident in Qum, in Western philosophy and Christian, especially Protestant, theology: “He studied the writings of theologians such as Paul Tillich, Karl Barth, and Karl Rahner, as well as the thinking of philosophers such as Immanuel Kant, Wilhelm Dilthey, and Hans-Georg Gadamer.”91 As a supporter of Khomeini and the Islamic Revolution, Shabestari returned to Iran in 1979 and the following year was elected as representative of the province of Azerbaijan to the first Islamic Consultative Assembly of the Islamic Republic of Iran. However, after serving his first term he retired from politics and started to take a more critical view of the revolutionary ideology and practices of the Islamic Republic. He began to devote his time to teaching and writing. He also developed a reputation in Iran as a progressive cleric by writing numerous articles in religious journals and even publishing his own journal Andīshi-yi Islāmī [Islamic Thought] for a while, addressing the social and political challenges that Muslims faced in the modern world. Shabestari was a professor of Islamic philosophy at the University of Tehran since 1985, where he also taught comparative religion and theology (he was forced into retirement during the first year of the presidency of Ahmadinejad). He regularly participates in international conferences on the theme of Christian–Muslim dialogue. “Currently, Shabestari enjoys a large reception among the youth in Iran, especially the college students, many of whom come from religious backgrounds and seek a new interpretation of religion that is compatible with the exigencies of the modern society.”92

Main Intellectual Focus Whereas Soroush’s main work has been in epistemology, Shabestari has focused on hermeneutics:93 “As early as 1979, and possibly before, Shabestari had insisted that our understanding of revelation must be viewed in terms of a hermeneutic exercise, and that this understanding is not a fixed category.”94 Shabestari is quite clear that there can be no direct access to the text and the meanings contained in it without


3/22/2011 12:51:04 PM

150


interpretation: “Every text is a hidden reality that has to be revealed through interpretation. The meaning of the text is produced in the act of interpretation. In reality, the text comes to speak by means of interpretation, and pours out what it contains inside.”95 This introduction of the subjective element in human interpretation extends even to the understanding of the Qur’anic text. As Shabestari puts it: Verses do not speak by themselves. It is the interpreter (mufasser) who raises a question first, and then seeks its meaning by interpreting different verses. Wherefrom does the interpreter derive his basic assumptions? His questions contain basic assumptions that are not derived from the Qur’an itself, but from various [human] sources of knowledge.96 One significant implication of Shabestari’s position is the necessity of learning and interacting with new bodies of human knowledge for religious scholars as they go about in their task of interpreting and applying ancient texts of the Qur’an and traditions. In the late 1980s he publicly voiced his harsh criticism of the outdated traditional Shi’i seminary curriculum and challenged the seminaries to reconcile themselves with modern social sciences and the overall developments in Western thought. He wrote: The fact that our seminaries have separated their path from that of the social sciences and are minding their own business without any awareness of the developments in these disciplines has brought us to the present condition in which we have no philosophy of civil rights or philosophy of ethics. [Furthermore] we have neither a political nor an economic philosophy. Without having a set of solid and defendable theories in these fields, how can we talk of universal or permanent laws and values? How can we even gain admission to international scientific communities?97 Shabestari has thus become a strong advocate of modern learning and interacting with contemporary Western thought (in his case focusing on hermeneutics).98 He has so far published four books, all of them being collections of his previously published journal articles, lectures or interviews. In order of publication they are: Hermeneutic, the Scripture and


3/22/2011 12:51:04 PM


151

the Tradition,99 Faith and Freedom,100 A Critique of the Official Reading of Religion,101 and Reflections on a Humane Reading of Religion.102

Shabestari and the Christian Faith Like Soroush, Shabestari is also a veteran of Muslim–Christian dialogue in Iran. But unlike Soroush, he has deep interest in Christian theology and in engaging with that theology in his own intellectual developments as a Muslim theologian. Shabestari’s books demonstrate a deep affinity with the liberal theologies of Schleiermacher and Tillich and the neo-orthodox theology of Barth. He refers to these and other theologians repeatedly as his conversation partners in his religious and intellectual journey.103 In Faith and Freedom Shabestari devotes two appendices specifically to the topic of “Muslims and Christians in the Contemporary World” and “Christian Theology.”104 He presents his most extensive discussion of contemporary Christian theology in a chapter entitled “Three Interpretations of Religious Tradition in Modern Times” in his work Reflections on a Humane Reading of Religion.105 Shabestari’s main lines of thinking in regard to Christian faith become clear in these chapters. In “Muslims and Christians in the Contemporary World” Shabestari argues that Christians and Muslims must be united in a world in which religious faith and ethics are in jeopardy. However, this united front must be based on common beliefs and not just political expediency. According to Shabestari what constitutes a common ground in the belief structure of Islam and Christianity from a Qur’anic perspective are: belief in God who is the creator of all, belief in the exclusive divinity and lordship of God, belief in the nobility of human beings as God’s highest creation and the belief that spiritual perfection constitutes human beings’ greatest excellency, belief that acts of righteousness are not just restricted to religious worship but also in helping others, belief in the phenomenon of revelation as another form of guidance alongside human intellect, and finally belief in the importance of spreading the divine message to all people (which explains why Islam and Christianity are missionary religions).106 After this review of the commonalities between Islam and Christianity Shabestari makes a brief comment hinting at the traditional Islamic charge of tahrif or corruption when he points out that the Qur’an repeatedly reminds its readers that “in the course of the growth of Christianity, various understandings and interpretations had developed that were different from the message and the mission of Christ.”107 Of course, Shabestari


3/22/2011 12:51:04 PM

152


tries to soften the polemical tone of this charge by going on to say that Muslims also cannot deny the reality that in the course of their 1400 years of history various aspects of the original message of Islam have been altered. He then outlines the most important areas for active cooperation between Muslims and Christians. The first area is to join hands in providing intellectual answers to the new philosophical and scientific challenges posed against theism. Shabestari believes there are serious and very real challenges that undermine traditional religious beliefs in today’s world and many religious scholars are still not adequately addressing these issues. The second area is to engage in “cultural exchange” so that the two communities could not only better learn and benefit from each other’s rich philosophical and theological heritage but also “form a common theology.” He also warns against the rising number of religious scholars without proper personal ethics and character. Religious scholars themselves should be ethical role models in their societies and should not be content with just intellectual information. A third area is to fight against “international oppression” of the rich countries against the poor countries. Muslims and Christians can neither accept liberalism or totalitarianism. They should instead strive for a social system that is democratic and based on the rule of law but also promotes faith in God, ethical behavior, and social justice. Finally, religious scholars and organizations should take the side of the oppressed in their own society against the rich: “Mosques and churches should be a refuge for the oppressed and not the powerful.” He concludes by calling for the establishment of Muslim–Christian humanitarian international non-governmental organizations.108 Shabestari’s next article, “Christian Theology,” is in the form of a brief interview with an Iranian newspaper. The first topic of discussion is about the changes in the Catholic Church since Vatican II in regard to the change in attitude toward Muslims. He then writes very positively of the desire of the Catholic Church and Christian theologians in general who want to harmonize their faith with the developments of modernity and present their thoughts in an intellectually relevant way in the modern world.109 Shabestari then briefly explains about Liberation Theology in Latin America and concludes with why it is important for Muslim and Christian thinkers to be engaged with each other. First, he argues that Muslims need to be in conversation with Christians in order to better understand and clarify what it is that Muslims themselves believe. He also adds that reading books is not enough, Muslims must immerse


3/22/2011 12:51:04 PM


153

themselves in the spiritual life of Christians and try to understand that experience from within. Second, he reiterates that spiritual life is under threat in the modern world and Muslims and Christians should join hands to create a unified front in the face of this threat. Finally, since the world is becoming smaller through the process of globalization, for the sake of peace and tolerance Muslims need to learn other’s beliefs and learn to respect each other. Shabestari, however, warns against syncretism and does not believe that true dialogue leads to a mixing of various elements into each other’s religious system.110 From the above discussions it is evident that Shabestari’s engagement with Christian thought has occurred in the context of contemporary practical and theoretical challenges to faith traditions. Unlike Soroush, who has approached Christianity mostly from the perspective of personal Sufi leanings, Shabestari’s main concerns in approaching Christianity relate to socio-political and spiritual crisis of the modern world. This crisis of the modern world confronts Christians and Muslims alike and the two communities need not only to learn from each other but also to join hands in practical co-operation in finding solutions to these new problems. Shabestari’s most sophisticated treatment of Christian thought is his article “Three Interpretations of Religious Tradition in Modern Times,” which is devoted exclusively to a survey of how Christian theologians have approached the issue of tradition and modernity. It is an important article in contemporary Iranian literature since Shabestari is presenting some of his own understanding about Christian theology in a novel way.111 The article starts with a definition of the concept of “Christian faith.” Shabestari remarks: The essence of Christian faith is that God at a particular point in history has proclaimed himself through Jesus Christ, appeared to human beings, has judged them, has forgiven and saved them from death. This historical event, although it happened at a particular point in history, has in reality taken place for all times, meaning the effect of this event is for all times.112 This news of the acts of God in history was then transmitted by the disciples of Jesus through their reports of faith to later generations. Each generation must gain its own understanding of these events and transmit it to others since the goal is the salvation of humankind for all times.113


3/22/2011 12:51:05 PM

154


Shabestari claims that this Christian understanding which views God entering into human history has given Christianity a perception of history that divides it into sacred and profane. This has resulted in seeing tradition as something sacred and divine: “Thus it is God who by entering into history creates the tradition.”114 Islam, on the other hand, according to Shabestari, has never had any sacred history or any sacred tradition in the sense that the West has understood those terms under Christian influence.115 Shabestari then enters into a discussion on modernity and finds its most distinctive element the fact that there are no longer any authoritative structures that limit or define for modern human beings their place in the world: “Today the modern human being is a person who has been thrown into an infinite desert. He has to find himself and with his own responsibility determine how to live—this is what existentialism has said.”116 Next Shabestari turns to three different Christian approaches to the issue of tradition and modernity. In the first approach he identifies neo-orthodoxy and its representative Karl Barth. Barth, ignoring the challenges of modernity, once again calls people to be confronted with the word of God. The second approach is a reductionist or secular theology best exemplified in Bultmann. In this approach, religious tradition submits itself to modernity. The third approach, that of liberal theology, is the one proposed by Schleiermacher in which the focus is on religious experience. In this approach, religious experience is the bridge that can bring together the tensions between tradition and modernity. Whereas Barth tried to revise the concept of revelation, Schleiermacher tries to revise the concept of religious experience in a given tradition. Schleiermacher started with human experience but he did not end with human beings and their experience (like Bultmann) since the experience points to a reality beyond itself. The task of theology, as Shabestari understands Schleiermacher’s position, is to reconstruct our understanding of that religious experience in a particular religious tradition and in accordance with the contemporary scientific and critical knowledge. What has the controlling authority is neither modernity nor tradition but religious experience.117 Shabestari concludes by emphasizing that the most pressing issue for contemporary Iranian theology is to address the issues raised by the tensions between religious tradition and modernity. And although he acknowledges that Iranians cannot simply take over the models developed


3/22/2011 12:51:05 PM


155

in the West, he still finds a responsible application of Schleiermacher’s approach to the Islamic context to be very fruitful.118 At the end of the article is a question and answer session. First, Shabestari tries to make the case that Islam can be more at home with modernity than Christianity since Islam has no immutable or sacred understanding of its tradition and history and it is essentially more compatible with rational thought than Christianity.119 But quite interestingly, Shabestari denies making any comparison between Islam and Christianity to show the superiority of Islam. He claims every religion has to be evaluated based on its impact on a particular nation or culture. If a religion can bring about a rich religious heritage for a particular people, then that religion is perfect for those people.120 A religion might be limited in the number of its commandments or rituals and yet it can produce deep and fruitful religious experiences, religious knowledge, and beliefs. He concludes his question and answer time by again emphatically denying any interest in religious debates or making any claim to the superiority of one religion over another to show Islam has more value than Christianity.121 Simply looking at the above articles does not do justice to the extent of Shabestari’s engagement with Christian thought. Going beyond his direct treatment of Christian faith some significant areas of overlap can be seen between the theological formulations of Shabestari and certain strands of Christian theology. Two areas in particular which deserve attention are Shabestari’s discussions concerning the nature of faith and divine revelation.

Faith and Religious Experience One common theme that runs through much of Shabestari’s writings is the role of faith in the religious life of the believer. Of course, Shabestari’s more fundamental concern is to establish the absolute necessity of freedom as a precondition for the proper and free exercise of faith. Regardless of how faith is understood, without freedom it becomes meaningless and just a tool of manipulation for authoritarian rule. In his work Faith and Freedom, Shabestari delves into an extensive discussion on the nature of faith. He first reviews various Islamic views (those of Ash’arites, Mu’tazilites, philosophers, and mystics) about the nature of faith.122 He then adds three more perspectives to a definition of faith which he seems to personally favor. He defines faith as the “experience of the absolute limitless essence through the experience of the


3/22/2011 12:51:05 PM

156


limited” or “the experience of divine address,” or “an enchanted encounter with God.”123 He talks the relationship between humans and God as an I–Thou relationship.124 Although human beings find themselves being addressed by God, they are also partners in a conversation with God.125 Shabestari repeatedly articulates faith as a living and life-transforming personal relationship with God rather than dogmatic doctrinal beliefs, confessions or acts of obedience to divine commands. Consider some of the following comments: Faith is to find oneself addressed by God. The one who hears is the one who has faith.126 Faith, according to my definition is not credence. Like belief that this world has a creator. Faith is not certainty. It is neither science nor philosophy. What is faith? Faith is a kind of “acting.” The essence of this action is that when man by being drawn to God loses his limited self and finds his real self in that encounter. Faith is accompanied by such elements as trust, love, feeling of security, and hope.127 Faith is to fall in love and turn toward God. Faith is to lose oneself before God and not a dogmatic belief in the truth of a series of reports . . . Faith is an existential relationship between a human being and God.128 Religious faith is formed where there is an “address” or what is called divine address . . . The main essence of faith is to be drawn, to be influenced, to be engaged by the one who addresses so that this belonging becomes the person’s ultimate concern.129 For Shabestari it is this faith that is the essence of religious experience and that in turn is what constitutes true religiosity and the truth of religion. He finds himself in agreement with “a number of thinkers and mystics who have claimed that religious truth is existential.” Religious truth has three characteristics. First, “In religious truth there must be seeking and searching.” “I confront ultimate reality in my religious experience only when that reality transforms me, gives me a new life, a new birth and gives my life a deeper meaning.” Second, “religious truth is personal and dialogical.” There is an I–Thou relationship. One finds oneself addressed by the other on a personal basis. Third, “this truth is hidden, evasive and untamed. This truth is not like a math problem that I can control anytime I desire . . . This is a paradoxical situation and it means


3/22/2011 12:51:05 PM


157

that I am truly myself when I am not in myself. This famous sentence is very important, ‘He who keeps himself will lose himself but he who loses himself finds himself.’ ”130 For anyone familiar with the basic outline of modern Christian theology it is easy to detect the influence of various aspects of liberal and neo-orthodox theologies in Shabestari’s understanding of faith. Shabestari’s identification of faith as a religious experience reminds us of Schleiermacher locating the essence of religion in “feeling” of the transcendent. Shabestari’s position on the primacy of religious experience is similar to Schleiermacher’s proposal that “not some body of divinely revealed information but the experience of the believers is the subject matter and criterion for theology.”131 More importantly, defining faith as an I–Thou encounter or as finding oneself being the subject of divine address echoes major themes of existential theologies prevalent in almost all contemporary neo-orthodox Christian theologians.

Revelation and the Word of God Shabestari’s incorporation of existential themes in his Islamic theology become even more pronounced when considering his discussions on the meaning of revelation (vahy) or the ways that the word of God can be talked about today. In his earlier book, Hermeneutic, the Scripture and Tradition, Shabestari voices for the first time his exploration into the meaning of revelation according to the views of various Muslim theologians.132 Later in the context of his discussion on faith and prophethood, he repeats the same points.133 In attempting to answer the question “How can one know the authenticity of a prophet’s words as being from God?,” Shabestari distances himself from the classical apologetic move of appealing to the miracles of a prophet as proofs of his prophetic mission. Instead he appeals to thinkers such as Ghazali and Ibn Arabi who claim that only those who already believe in seeing the unique phenomena as divine signs can accept those signs as miracles. Ibn Arabi extends this reasoning to also cover the question of the revelatory nature of the Qur’an.134 According to Ibn Arabi (a view also shared by Shabestari) “the revelatory nature of the word is related to its influence on the person who hears that word.” “It is possible that a single word is revelation for one person and not revelation for another person.” “The issue is not whether revelation contradicts the laws of nature or not. The issue is to consider what effect it brings about on its listeners.” A word is revealed when it becomes “wholly other.” “Based on this view, the Holy Qur’an was revelation for


3/22/2011 12:51:05 PM

158


the prophet of Islam but it becomes revelation that it also becomes a word that is ‘totally other.’ There is no such thing as ‘revelation in and of itself for all people and all times.’ ”135 Shabestari expands his thoughts on this subject in his later book, A Critique of the Official Reading of Religion. In a chapter entitled “The beauty of the word of God and the opening of human horizon” he further distances himself from the classical Islamic position about the person of the prophet being a passive channel of communication between the divine realm and the human audience. Shabestari also rejects any apologetic move that makes divine revelation dependent on the legitimacy of the prophet.136 He concludes that “we have no options left but to conceptualize differently our understanding of the word of God.” And “the word of God is a word that draws man’s attention toward God in a way that man finds himself addressed by God.”137 Furthermore: The word of God is a word that opens up and broadens the internal horizon of the individual. Thus we can say a word becomes the word of God based on its effect on the listener. If the effect of a word on a listener is to draw the listener’s attention toward God and opens up the horizon of the listener, that word is the word of God, whether it comes from the mouth of a prophet or another human being. It is not important from whom one hears this wordm . . . In religious traditions the prophets are the ones who began and founded the experience of hearing the divine word . . . The word for example that the prophet of Islam heard and opened up his horizon was revelation. Revelation is God’s sign to the prophet. With the sign of God to the prophet the horizon of the prophet was opened up. His ordinary horizon was changed to a revelatory and prophetic horizon. Of course, that word was the word of God for the prophet. But what about others? That word becomes the word of God when it also opens up their horizon. If it does not have the effect of opening up their horizon, those words, regardless of how beautiful they are, are not the words of God.138 Shabestari goes on to say: “This word of address is a word that comes from beyond . . . and is wholly other.”139 “This opening up of the horizon is a kind of wonder.”140 “In this situation of wonder, words that are heard coming from any mouth, are the words of God.” The prophets are the first ones that were addressed in each religious tradition but “just because a prophet has said the word, it does not become the word of God. There


3/22/2011 12:51:05 PM


159

must be the effect of opening of the horizon.”141 “I want to conclude that if the words are not horizon-opening and wonder producing words, regardless of the content of the words—commands or prohibitions or promises—they are not the words of God.”142 Shabesatri’s indebtedness to Barth’s ideas concerning divine revelation is beyond dispute. His explicit use of the phrase “wholly other” in reference to both God’s being and God’s revelation or the idea that scriptures “become” revelation for those who encounter God through the texts reveal the extent of Barth’s influence on Shabestari.

Evaluation Although for the most part Shabestari has been quite silent on traditional doctrinal issues that have divided Islam and Christianity,143 Shabestari is a Muslim theologian who has reformed certain aspects of his theology as a result of his engagement with Christian thought. It is clear that he has significantly revised his understanding of Qur’anic hermeneutics, the nature of faith and the dynamics of divine revelation as a result of his readings in Christian theology. Shabestari’s re-interpretation of these points becomes clearer if we compare them with a more traditional explanation of these issues by other contemporary Shi’i thinkers. For example, in the recent dialogue between Iranian Shi’as and Catholic theologians in England, Mohammad Ja’far Elmi presents the classical Islamic position concerning the Qur’an as revelation by defining revelation as “the verbatim transmission of the Qur’an to the Prophet Muhammad,” through which the “meaning and wording are directly revealed to the Prophet Muhammad and he has merely transmitted the message without making any changes to it.”144 In regard to the task of interpreting the text of the Qur’an, he advocates the possibility of gaining an objective meaning of the text by putting aside all preconceived notions and presuppositions: “The interpreter has to put all his or her own ideas and views aside, and make an effort to understand and to interpret the verses of the Qur’an in the light of the other verses of this book.”145 In the same gathering between Shi’as and Catholics, Muhsin Javadi understands faith along very traditional lines in Islamic theology. He writes: Faith is based on knowledge . . . We can conclude that faith has a twofold character that includes knowledge and the wholehearted


3/22/2011 12:51:06 PM

160


commitment to the truth which is known . . . Indeed, faith implies both reason and knowledge. Imam Sadiq says: “Whoever will be rational will be religious too.” . . . Faith cannot be alive without certainty and as soon as doubt begins to grow, faith will decrease . . . It is evident that doubt cannot coexist with faith; faith and doubt are mutually exclusive.146 In contrast with the traditional approach to revelation as absolutely fixed prepositional divine communication or faith as completely rational and certain, it is easy to appreciate how Shabestari’s articulation of these topics open up a more conducive space for inter-religious dialogue. However, his positions on faith and revelation can be open to two major challenges by his critics. First, his move to an essentially experiential understanding of religion and doctrine is open to the criticism that he has not given any consideration to the cultural and linguistic factors that shape the experience.147 Second, critics can point out that his explanation about the nature of revelation seriously undermines the uniqueness of the Qur’an as the word of God, sacrifices the objectivity of the revelation to the subjective response and interpretation of the individual, and creates a highly fideistic approach to religion that cuts away any rational basis for the truthfulness of a particular faith.148 So far it does not appear that Shabestari has made any serious attempts to respond to any of these criticisms. Nevertheless, it seems that he is opening a new chapter in contemporary Shi’i writings in Iran as a result of spending many years in dialogue with Christian theology.

Mostafa Malekian—Scholar of World Spiritualities Mostafa Malekian was born in 1956 near Isfahan in a family well known for its religious and literary scholarship.149 He started his university studies in mechanical engineering at the University of Tehran in 1972 but because of his own personal leanings later changed his course of studies to philosophy and earned his graduate and post-graduate degrees in Islamic philosophy (with his thesis on the philosophy of Mullā Ṣadrā) at the School of Theology at the University of Tehran. In 1980 Malekian entered the Shi’i seminaries of Qum and finished the traditional religious curriculum of the seminaries after several years of study. In addition to being a highly sought after lecturer at various universities in Tehran and research centers in Qum, including the Center for


3/22/2011 12:51:06 PM


161

Islamic Propagation and the Center for Religious Studies, Malekian (who is often referred to as Ustād or Teacher) is also quite active in writing, translating, and publishing. He is the general editor of a series entitled A Collection of Spiritual Insights in which more than a dozen books on various religious traditions and spiritualities have already been translated and more are in the process of being published.150 The first book of the series is a collection of Malekian’s own articles and interviews under the title of A Path to Redemption: Explorations About Rationality and Spirituality.151 Although, a number of the books in this series are on Eastern religions such as Buddhism, Shintoism, Hinduism, and Chinese traditions, the major portion of the titles are devoted to Christianity. So far in the series there are two books by or about Simone Weil, one work about Gabriel Marcel (translated by Malekian himself), Thomas Aquinas’s On Being and Essence, Augustine’s Confessions, and an introduction to Protestantism.152 Books on the Orthodox Church and Roman Catholicism are also in the process of publication. In addition to this series, Malekian has also translated a number of books on Wittgenstein, Alasdair MacIntyre, and Fredrick Coplestone and overseen the translation of the classic Christian devotional work The Imitation of Christ.153

Main Intellectual Focus Similar to Soroush, Malekian’s range of intellectual interests seems encyclopedic. He has read extensively in the fields of epistemology, philosophy of mind, philosophy of religion, Islamic theology and mysticism, psychology, and comparative religions. However, since 1996 Malekian has come to define his primary interest in the relationship between modern rationality and spirituality.154 If we consider Soroush’s main focus to be in epistemology and Shabestari’s focus on hermeneutics, Malekian can be said to be concerned about modern anthropology. For Malekian, something fundamentally has changed with modern human beings that separate them from traditional humanity.155 The unavoidable features of modernity that have effected this profound change in modern human beings are autonomous human rationality, lack of trust in the certainty of historical knowledge, its focus on the here and now or in other words its concern for the temporal and this world as opposed to the eternal and the next world, its rejection of metaphysics, its egalitarianism and desacralization, and its contextual understanding of religion.156 These features all contradict the traditional approach to religion in which people were expected to obey religious authority, fully trusted


3/22/2011 12:51:06 PM

162


in the historicity of the founding of their religion, lived their life for the sake of life in the hereafter, accepted a very comprehensive metaphysical system, believed in the sacredness of certain entities, and viewed their own religion in an absolutist fashion. As a result of this fundamental paradigm shift, Malekian thinks modern human beings can no longer accept the idea of religion with the same traditional approach. What modern humanity needs is Ma‘navīat or spirituality. He defines spirituality as “a religion that has become rational.”157 Malekian distinguishes and highlights three characteristics of spirituality that make it suitable for modern human beings. First, it is not textually based. Thus, modern spirituality does not feel itself obligated to any of the scriptures of world religions. It can accept everything that is profitable from every religion. This new orientation brings a new openness to all sacred texts and does not sense a need to defend one particular religion. Second, it brings to a minimum the metaphysical presuppositions and speculations. One important result of this approach to life is that “it has psychological testability in this world.” Third, this spirituality emphasizes the practical and the ethical over the theoretical. This is similar to what Socrates used to say, “What is the use that a person understands the world but does not understand himself?” The focus is now on anthropology and deontology.158 For Malekian, spirituality has always been the true purpose and goal of each religious tradition. But since modern humans can no longer live in the framework of traditional religions, we need to get back to the essence of each religion, which is spirituality. According to Malekian, the main function of religion in the traditional world was to show the deepest causes of human suffering and reveal ways to more effectively cope with that suffering and thus help toward the path of inner satisfaction. The goal of each person is to have “inner satisfaction” and the three main features of this satisfaction are peace, joy, and hope.159 Reaching this inner satisfaction does not depend on any particular religion, scientific knowledge, or social system. Since people in different religious communities and historical periods have achieved this state of inner satisfaction, it can be concluded that the common element in these people is spirituality. It is this spirituality that can help people to live authentic lives. Authentic spirituality in turn is in harmony with rationality and is concerned with the here and now, and its attention is on experiencing the truth for oneself.160 This is not simply a description of humanity in general in today’s world, but


3/22/2011 12:51:06 PM


163

a description of where Malekian has come to find himself in his own search for spiritual truths.

Malekian and the Christian Faith Malekian’s engagement with Christian thought happened through personal and academic interests. As he himself puts it: There were two reasons for becoming acquainted with Christianity. First, from my youth I always felt myself to be a seeker of truth (haqīqat΄ ṭalab) and used to say “my religion is the religion of truth.” I never felt I did not need other religions although I grew up in a religious family. So I tried to become familiar with all religions and not just Christianity and thus I started to do a general study of Christianity, Buddhism and Hinduism. Second, between 1367– 1374 (1988–1995) I was working in the field of philosophy of religion and taught at the university level. Most of the works in this area were written in a Christian context (even if the writer was an atheist or agnostic) and there were many words and concepts related to Christian theology. That is why I had to become familiar with Christian theology.161 If the key factors that characterized the beginning of Soroush’s approach to Christianity were Shi’i traditions about Jesus and Islamic mysticism, and Shabestari found himself drawn to the study of Christianity because of the practical challenges of modernity, it seems that Malekian’s interests were mostly due to the Iranian Shi’i characteristic of rationalism and openness to philosophy. Thus, Malekian’s first introduction to Christian theology was through the writings of Thomas Aquinas when he was 23 years old. He enjoyed reading Aquinas since he found Aquinas’s style of writing to be systematic and clear, almost mathematical (and quite unlike the style of Augustine) and also because Aquinas sounded like other Muslim theologians such as Ibn Sina and Ibn Rushd whom Malekian had studied. Entering the world of Aquinas was not like entering a totally new world of thought. Malekian went on to become the first person in Iran to translate one of Aquinas’s works into Farsi. Sometime after that Malekian entered into a different intellectual atmosphere by reading other Christian thinkers such as Tillich, Bonhoffer, Simon Weil, and Gabriel Marcel. He comments, “I liked them because of their existentialist philosophies. I did not care who was a Catholic or


3/22/2011 12:51:06 PM

164


Protestant. But most were Protestants. What was valuable and significant for me was an existentialist interpretation of sacred text.”162 Malekian views his intellectual journey in terms of his own psychological make up and philosophical leanings. I have had two tendencies from my youth. First, I have always been interested in existentialist themes like hope, love, anxiety, peace, faith, loneliness, individuality and authenticity. Second, methodologically I am interested in analytic philosophy. Usually, these two interests do not go together. I think to pay attention to existentialist themes with analytic philosophical methods is part of my own psychological make up.163 He goes on to emphasize the importance of love in his own thinking: “I am very interested in the topic of love and it is something that has not been emphasized in Islamic theology. In Islam and Judaism the emphasis has been on justice. Law overcomes morality. Justice sometimes is compatible with violence but Love cannot be compatible with violence.”164 How has Malekian been influenced by his encounter with Christian themes? Malekian points to several results in this encounter. First, some misunderstandings have been clarified. He claims: Many misunderstandings have been clarified for me. For example, we thought a Christian is not concerned with this world and that Christianity is only focused on the hereafter. Then I realized this is not the case at all. Christianity is in fact quite concerned with this world. It is true that Christianity is not concerned about a particular political system in society and in this sense is secular. People used to say, Judaism only thinks about this world, Christianity only thinks about the next world, but Islam pays attention to both worlds, and this is not true at all. I also realized that the Christian understanding of Jesus as son of God or the Trinity is not at all like what Muslims would think. We also thought that Islamic theology is completely independent of Christianity. But after reading Wolfson I realized that Islam has borrowed a great deal from Christian theology. The issues like the relation between God’s attributes and essence or life in the hereafter are greatly influenced by Christianity and not the Qur’an. Or


3/22/2011 12:51:07 PM


165

for example, none of the Islamic answers to the problem of evil are new or unique to Islam. More than mere clarifications, Malekian’s encounter with Christian faith has profoundly changed his own understanding of religion. He says: There is no doubt that encounter with Christianity has influenced me. For example, the verses and traditions in Islam that refer to Love have come into greater significance for me. However, I realized that focusing on certain verses in the Qur’an (which focus on the love of God) creates an imbalance in the intellectual system of Islamic theology and that is what drove me to arrive at my position of spirituality beyond religion (ma‘navīat-i farā dīnī).165 In my youth I wanted to perfect my Islamic worldview by the use of other religions but not any more. In my youth my concern was religion but my concern is no longer religion. I would like to see the situation of humanity improve and not the situation of a religion. I am OK with syncretism as long as it has rational consistency. Christianity has had a major influence—the key influence—in my intellectual approach to this. No religion can address all the needs of human beings. Every religion takes care of a particular number of human needs. For example, Hinduism does a good job in addressing the “psychological typology” of persons, but not Christianity. I have reached this conclusion since 1372 (1993). Based on the above admission, one can safely conclude that Malekian is a Muslim thinker who has found his intellectual system transformed as a result of encountering Christian thought. His position of a “spirituality beyond religion” that is no longer exclusively committed to Islam or any other religion in particular is directly an outcome of his study of Christian faith. One instance of Malekian’s deep appreciation for certain elements of the Christian faith is found in his introduction to the Farsi translation of Letter to a Priest by Simone Weil. After a description of the content of the book (which in many ways is highly critical of traditional Christian orthodoxy) and a brief critical analysis of Weil, Malekian finds himself profoundly grateful to the author for the essence of her message which include, among other things, truths such as “The most important characteristic of God is his benevolence,” “God loves the righteous and the sinners the same,”


3/22/2011 12:51:07 PM

166


“Every image of God which is not compatible with his unconditional love is not right,” “Faith and love of God are inseparable from the love of neighbor,” “Many irreligious people are closer to God than experts in theology,” “In this world many innocent people suffer,” and “In reality, it is God who is seeking man and not man who is seeking God.”166 Malekian summarizes the particular strengths of Christianity under three points: Christianity has three great strengths. The first is Love. Second, Christian theology has little shari’at (religious law). Christianity does not have a large body of fiqh, and unlike Islam has few rituals. Every work in Islam falls into the five moral categories. This aspect in Christianity destroys formalism and pretension. It also empties us of self-righteousness and pride. Third, Christianity encourages us to look more closely to ourselves rather than focusing on the shortcomings of other people. In Christianity there is no “commanding the good and forbidding the evil” which is a good thing. We need to be hard on ourselves and give others the benefit of the doubt.167 Although, Malekian like Soroush finds ethics as the primary strength of the Christian faith, he does appear to have a broader appreciation for the teachings of Christianity that go beyond the ethical realm. And unlike Soroush, he views the lack of shari‘a and other outward rituals in Christianity as something positive. But similar to Soroush, he also finds certain aspects of Christian doctrine very problematic on rational grounds: The emphasis on the Trinity and emphasis on an exclusive love for Jesus as a basis for loving other people are, in my opinion, weaknesses of the Christian faith. The theory of Trinity is not comprehensible for me. Overall, I agree that the rational system in Christianity is weak.168 Most interestingly, he believes that Christian theology and Islam can be brought closer to each other than in the past, if each side tones down some of its doctrinal formulations: In the future, Christianity and Islam can come closer to each other if each side weakens (raqīqtar) some of its claims. From the


3/22/2011 12:51:07 PM


167

perspective of historical research, it can be said that Christ was really crucified. But we can interpret the Qur’an in a way that does not deny the crucifixion. The Qur’an says that they thought they had killed the Christ, but in reality they did not kill the Christ. The Qur’an says “Christ” and not “Jesus.”169 We must accept the historical reality of the cross. Also incarnation can be close to hūlūl in Islam. Human beings have three dimensions of body (badan), mind (Zihn) and soul (nafs). Some mystics believe there is another dimension which we call spirit (rūh). It is in the realm of spirit that one be united with God and one can no longer say “my spirit” or “your spirit.” I can accept that Jesus is God because he has come to realize that fourth dimension. Similar to other people like Meister Eckhart, Hallaj or Bāyazīd Bastāmī. All of us human beings are from that same spirit.170 It seems beyond doubt that among religious intellectuals Malekian has made the most radical departure from Islamic orthodoxy in articulating his position vis-à-vis Christianity. His articulation of spirituality beyond religion, his criticism of the most fundamental aspect of Islamic shari’a and implying the superiority of Christian ethics over traditional Islamic piety, acceptance of Christ’s crucifixion on historical grounds and allowing some possibility of understanding Christ as divine (albeit in typical and somewhat common Iranian Sufi categories) make Malekian a unique figure in contemporary Iranian society. It should also be mentioned that the above comments were all made to the author in private and have never been published as of this date. It is quite understandable that a person holding such positions must exercise extreme caution in sharing these views in public in a country such as the Islamic Republic of Iran. However, this does not mean that what Malekian has said in public is any less controversial than the convictions he shared in his personal interview. There are two particular areas in Malekian’s views that have particular relevance to his interaction with Christian thought: faith and reason, and Islam and other world religions.

Faith and Reason One of the key features of Malekian’s developing thoughts concerns the dynamics of faith and also its relationship with reason. Malekian has come to move radically away from the rational certainties of traditional


3/22/2011 12:51:07 PM

168


Shi’i theology and acknowledges the limits of rational proofs and certainties and the role that faith must play in one’s religious beliefs. In a lecture in Qum before an audience of clerics,171 Malekian indicated in very strong and clear terms his dislike of religious apologetics by saying, “I have no interest in apologetics in any religion, either in Islam or Christianity. Many of our beliefs cannot be defended by reason or logic.” He advised his audience: Do not go after something that is impossible. Apologetics is pursuing something impossible. There are realms about which the human reason (‘aql-i bashar) cannot speak about. It is very ethical if you acknowledge this from the beginning. It is like some Muslims’ claim to prove rationally the mi‘rāj of prophet Muhammad or Christians trying to prove the Trinity . . . One has to violate many boundaries in order to engage in apologetics. One has to confuse (or mix) philosophy with science with history and logic, etc, in order to prove a theological point. This is a confusion in methodology. Although, Malekian started his lecture by criticizing apologetics as a distinct discipline of theology, he gradually went on to apply his criticisms to the realm of theology as a whole. He strongly rejected the popular Shi’i rhythmic cliché that identifies the Qur’an with logic and mysticism (Qur’an, burhān, ‘irfān) and confessed “If we are honest we have to admit that religion is beyond rationality and reasoning (‘aql va burhān).”172 So that for example, “the meaning of mu’ād [life in the hereafter] is to say that ‘goodness is not lost and badness is not lost.’ The point is not to get into all kinds of theological discussions about whether we will have a physical resurrection or spiritual resurrection or a thousand other details and debates in Islamic theology.” Not only is Malekian frank in acknowledging the limits of rational knowledge and certainty in matters of religious belief, but he is also very concerned that faith should be viewed as a life-transforming reality in the life of the believer. He went on to praise St. Anthony and the Desert Fathers as people who “were not interested in theology but in practicing some of the living truths and putting into practice and living those precious truths that worked in their life.” He concluded his lecture by emphasizing: We must pursue spirituality and see what difference our questions have for our life. To raise issues that make no difference for how I


3/22/2011 12:51:07 PM


169

live my daily life is totally pointless. Even debating the existence of God or proofs for miracles are useless . . . Peace, joy, hope, meaning of life. Our religion should give us these things. It is useless to claim that we have the best religion but it does not work in my own life. Malekian’s understanding of faith and reason echoes similar themes that seen earlier in Shabetari. Although Soroush seems to be somewhat more positive about the role of human reason in arriving at religious truths, all three thinkers see reason as playing a very limited role in religious faith. All three have moved drastically away from the dogmatic and rational certainties prevalent in much of the traditional Islamic theology.

Islam and World Religions Another important feature of Malekian is his evaluation of Islam in relation to other world religions. For Malekian, all religions, including Islam, are a mixture of truth and falsehood.173 No religious believer should view his own positions or beliefs as absolute truth and those of others as absolute falsehood.174 It is only this attitude that can provide a foundation for genuine inter-faith dialogue. Having claimed that all religions stand in the same relationship to truth, Malekian goes on to deny any superiority of Islam to other world religions. When asked if Islam, being the final religion, has the most final and comprehensive truths compared to other world religions, Malekian categorically denies this possibility: If we focus this question on the religious and sacred text of Islam, I must confess that if our religious and sacred text is from God and other religious-sacred texts are also from God, then we must conclude that it is impossible for God to send an imperfect message in one place and a perfect message in a different place . . . Whatever comes from God is perfect. And since there are many common presuppositions in religions such as God is a personal being who is omnipotent, omniscient and all good; with these characteristics God cannot send imperfect messages. All his messages must have been perfect.175 Malekian is also critical of the idea that Islam having arrived later on the scene of human history must therefore be more complete. Malekian


3/22/2011 12:51:08 PM

170


claims that is hard for him to accept that any one can believe that the Arabian peninsula at the time of the prophet in seventh century AD (which only had seventeen literate people according to Islamic tradition) was more advanced in human culture or capacity for understanding than the Athens of one thousand years prior to the advent of Prophet Muhammad which produced philosophers such as Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Parminedies, Pythagoras, and Heraclitus.176 And once again when asked, “So Sir, do you not essentially believe that at least in comparison to other monotheistic Abrahamic religions, the religion of Islam contains the most truths and that there are relatively less truths in Christianity and Judaism?” Malekian responds with an emphatic, “No!” and goes on to repeat, “Unless we believe that religions other than Islam have not come from God at all, in that case that becomes a different story. But if we believe that essentially religious-sacred texts are the messages of God, as I explained, then they cannot contain imperfect messages.”177 Having established the equality of all religious-sacred texts, Malekian goes on to make some additional qualifications. He comments, “Among western religions, Christianity is more prepared for tolerance than the other two religions (Judaism and Islam).”178 But he believes that modernity is most compatible with Eastern religions, especially Buddhism. Based on his belief that traditional religions which at the core demand submission from the believer are incompatible with modernity’s insistence on individual autonomy and rationality, Malekian thinks that the future of humanity is most compatible with spirituality and in this regard Buddhism seems to have the most potential to provide answers to the modern search for spirituality (since Buddha is the only religious founder that does not demand obedience but ask the person to confirm the truth in his own life, Buddhism does not focus on the externals but the inner person, and that Buddhism has essentially focused on the issue of human suffering, the core issue behind all the questions faced by contemporary people).179

Evaluation Malekian is a Muslim intellectual who has been transformed in certain profound ways by his encounter with Christian thought. This does not mean, of course, that in his intellectual development Malekian is being drawn toward Christian theology or any other systems of theology


3/22/2011 12:51:08 PM


171

(including any variety of Islamic theology). However, his position of spirituality beyond any particular religion is a move which, according to his own admission, was propelled by his study of the Christian faith and especially Christian existential writing. Malekian’s criticisms of traditional religiosity in the modern world, his openness to all world religions and the paths they provide toward greater spirituality, his insistence on the limits of rationality in matters of faith and his denial of any form of superiority of Islam over other religions have provided great impetus among many Iranians to approach the study of other faiths in a more empathetic and objective way. In fact, one concrete result of Malekian’s influence can be found in the research activities of the Center for Religious Studies in Qum. Not only has Malekian been a key figure in the establishment of the center, but he has also been the major source of encouragement and guidance for research in the fields of Christianity and the New Religious Movements. Malekian’s openness toward other faiths and his many positive evaluations of Christianity are welcome signs among Iranian religious intellectuals; however, there are still certain shortcomings in Malekian’s approach (which to a great extent is also shared by Soroush and Shabestari) that can create new types of obstacles in the path of genuine inter-faith dialogue. Two comments in particular seem pertinent at this point. First, Malekian’s locating of “spirituality” as the essence or goal of all religions seems to suffer from the same ambiguities that are involved in Shabestari’s view of religious experience. This approach radically dismisses any significance to the particularities of all religious traditions. As Lindbeck points out: The datum that all religions recommend something which can be called “love” toward that which is taken to be most important (“God”) is a banality as uninteresting as the fact that all languages are (or were) spoken. The significant things are the distinctive patterns of story, belief, ritual, and behavior that give “love” and “God” their specific and sometimes contradictory meanings.180 S. Mark Heim has also argued powerfully against this seemingly pluralistic approach of unifying all religions under a particular category and demonstrated that it ultimately leads to a new form of exclusivism which closes the door to a deeper understanding of each religious tradition.


3/22/2011 12:51:08 PM

172


What Heim writes concerning Western pluralists equally applies to the positions of Malekian, Shabestari, and Soroush: Many today maintain that all the empirical and phenomenal elements of a faith tradition are extrinsic to its true core or meaning. This belief comes in several versions. It may claim some transhistorical knowledge of the religious ultimate, which can be used to relativize all the actual religious traditions. It may stress exactly the opposite: that our categories are entirely conditioned and limited and therefore the empirical faiths must be seen as each alike inadequate attempts to grasp what cannot actually be known at all . . . Whatever its form, the cost of this conviction is extremely high. It means that the painstaking attempt to become acquainted with and in some measure to understand the distinctive features of other people’s faiths—precisely what makes them other—has, literally, no religious meaning . . . For those with a meta-theory of religion, pluralism is real but superficial. The cultural and historical means are different but the actual religious end—transcending self, or relating to the ultimate—is the same . . . The specific details of the faiths seem to become irrelevant.181 It is this attitude on the part of these liberal Muslim intellectuals that accounts for their lack of interest in Christian theology. For all the thinkers surveyed in this chapter, what is of interest in Christianity is not the distinctives of the Christian faith but the insights that Christian thought could provide either as an example for general ethical behavior or an existentialist interpretation of faith. The second shortcoming in Malekian’s overall approach (and the same applies to Soroush) toward Christianity is the radical dichotomy it creates between theology and ethics. Among most liberal thinkers (Christians and Muslims), it is common to hear applause and praises for the ethical ideals of Christianity while dismissing its confusing and particularistic theology. However, it can be legitimately argued that New Testament ethics cannot be separated from its theological foundation. Richard Hays has successfully demonstrated in the case of the apostle Paul, for example, how “his ethical teachings are rooted in his theological thought.” Hays writes: Only if we back off some distance from the actual content of the Pauline letters can we posit a dichotomy between Paul’s theology and


3/22/2011 12:51:08 PM


173

his ethics—or between kerygma (the proclamation of the gospel) and didache (the teachings of standards of conduct), or between indicative (what God has done in Christ) and imperative (what human beings are called upon to do). The more closely we read Paul’s letters, the more fragile these familiar dichotomies appear.182 This failure on the part of Iranian thinkers such as Malekian and Soroush to see the connection between the core of Christian theology and ethics explains to a great extent these intellectuals’ perplexity with Christians’ “over-emphasis” on the love of Jesus or the cross as a basis for Christian life. But despite these significant reservations with Malekian’s overall approach to Christianity or other world religions, no other intellectual in contemporary Iranian society is making as broad an impact as Malekian (especially among the Shi’i clerics in Qum) in preparing the ground for Iranian Muslims to study the Christian faith with greater appreciation and sensitivity.

Conclusion After this survey of three of the most prominent Shi’i intellectuals in Iran, the observation of James Dunn seems applicable that Christian theology after the Enlightenment can be divided into two trends of “the flight from dogma” and “the flight from history.”183 A similar tendency seems to be appearing among these Muslim thinkers as a result of the factors operating in the contemporary Iranian intellectual climate. On the one hand, these intellectuals are battling the oppressive Iranian theocracy by challenging the certainties of traditional dogma. On the other hand, being fully aware of the philosophical challenges of modernity (beginning with Hume and Kant) against religious claims to knowledge, these intellectuals have tried to locate the “essence” of all religions, including Islam, in mysticism and ethics (Soroush), or in religious experience (Shabestari), or spirituality (Malekian). So regardless of the difference in perspective—whether it is epistemology, hermeneutics or anthropology—all these intellectuals are primarily engaged in the task of trying to reconcile Islamic faith with modern rationality. It is in this context that they have approached their study of the Christian faith and have appropriated to various degrees certain aspects of Christian theology that they have found useful for their intellectual project.


3/22/2011 12:51:08 PM

174


Viewed from this perspective, Soroush can be seen as a Muslim intellectual who is informed about Christianity and feels himself drawn to the mystical, devotional, and ethical elements of the Christian faith. It is also the legitimacy of the religious experience in Christianity that has helped him to become a strong advocate for religious pluralism. Shabestari is a Muslim intellectual who has gone significantly farther theologically in his encounter with Christian thought. He can be viewed as an example of a Muslim who has reformed or reformulated a number of traditional Islamic doctrines as a result of incorporating certain aspects of liberal and neo-orthodox theology. His understanding of faith as being fundamentally a religious experience, his articulation of divine–human relationship in terms of an existential encounter between human beings and a wholly other God and the subjectivity of divine revelation all point to the profound influence of modern Christian theology on this Shi’i theologian. Malekian, who seems to be moving away from any traditional form of Islam into a position of openness toward all spirituality, is an example of a religious scholar who has been transformed, by his own admission, as a result of his encounter with Christian thought. Even more radically than Soroush or Shabestari, Malekian has turned away from metaphysics and systems of theology and has limited the role that reason can play in discovering or defending religious truth claims. He has come to fully accept the existential interpretation of religious truth as a result of reading Christian existential writers and more than any other religious thinker in Iran has denied any superiority or comprehensive finality to Islam. Despite their difference in perspective or emphasis, all the individuals discussed in this chapter share a great deal in common. In one form or the other they all view faith as an existential experience of divine mystery which cannot be simply defended by reason or rational evidence; they have all abandoned apologetic defense of many traditional and central Islamic doctrines; they have advocated religious pluralism; they have expressed a significant openness and appreciation for a number of Christian insights about human beings, faith, and revelation, and there is practically no attempt at refuting any of the Christian doctrines that have classically divided Islam and Christianity. Even if there are fundamental weaknesses in their own individual approach to the Christian faith, these intellectuals have certainly set the stage for a much more fruitful Muslim–Christian encounter for the next


3/22/2011 12:51:09 PM


175

generation of Iranian Muslim thinkers. Moreover, if certain observers are correct to contend that “at both a theoretical and a practical level, Iranian Shi’ism is undergoing a fundamental process of reformation,”184 it can be safely assumed that at least for many religious intellectuals, Christian theology is playing an important role in this new reformation taking place at the heart of Shi’i Islam.


3/22/2011 12:51:09 PM

CHAPTER 6 IRANIAN SHI’AS AND THE CHRISTIAN FAITH: WHERE HAVE THEY COME FROM AND WHERE ARE THEY HEADING?

In his popular book A Young Muslim’s Guide to the Modern World, Seyyed Hossein Nasr exhorts his readers with the following remarks: There is, however, no aspect of Western civilization that is more important for Muslims to understand than religion both in its living reality and also in its long battle against secularism and antireligious forces which have waged war against it since the Middle Ages. Muslims can learn a great deal from this long battle because today Islam also has to wage the battle against secularization and secularist ideologies which have come from the West. Islam can learn from how Christianity, and also Judaism, have encountered such forces and can also come to know the soul of the Western people better by understanding the role that Christianity has had . . . in the West.1 Christian Encounters with Iran has been a documentation of how contemporary Shi’i thinkers in Iran have responded to the need articulated by Nasr and many others that Muslims must take new initiatives in a better understanding of the Christian faith and should also become more pro-active in finding new ways to constructively engage with Christians in withstanding the challenges of the modern world. In addition to a


3/22/2011 12:50:31 PM

Iranian Shi’as and the Christian Faith

177

summary this chapter will also provide some reflections and analysis of the range, depth, and direction of the complex set of encounters between Iranian thinkers and Christianity. The current Shi’i intellectual dynamics in the Islamic Republic of Iran has been studied and analyzed from many socio-political, historical or cultural perspectives. This book has aimed to shed light on the impact of the religious intellectual developments in Iran on the Shi’i approaches to Christianity and Shi’i involvement in Muslim–Christian dialogues. Chapter 1 made the claim that Iran can be viewed as a country fostering a more open attitude toward Christianity and positive Muslim–Christian engagements. Never before in the history of Islam in Iran have there been such multi-faceted theological engagements with Christian thought on the part of Iranian Shi’i thinkers. Of course, since no intellectual activity happens in a social vacuum, Chapter 2 highlighted the significant religious, cultural, historical, and socio-political factors shaping the Iranian Shi’i approach to the Christian faith since the Islamic revolution and the establishment of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Looking at current developments from a religious perspective, it was noticed that many Iranian participants in inter-faith dialogue find theological justification for their actions based on their readings of the Qur’an and the Qur’anic call to dialogue and reasoning, especially with “people of the book.” For some thinkers the Qur’an is even believed to be endorsing certain versions of religious pluralism. Shi’i hadith and traditions which touch on issues of dialogue or the significance of the person of Jesus in Islam offer another source of encouragement for many Iranians involved in positive inter-faith relations. Certain similarities in theological themes or emphasis between Shi’i Islam and Christianity (especially Roman Catholicism) and the Shi’i openness to rationality and philosophical inquiry are further distinctives of Iranian Islam that provide some Iranian thinkers with the positive religious frame work from which to approach Christianity. Particular cultural aspects of Iranian society also a play considerable role on the nature and form of Muslim–Christian encounters in contemporary Iran. The history of Iranian civilization characterized in the minds of many with a spirit of tolerance, the long presence of Christianity in Iran which predates Islam and has exerted noticeable influence on Persian literature and the positive inter-community relations that go back about five centuries with Christian minorities living in Iranian society continue to be in the background of some of the current writings and discussions in


3/22/2011 12:50:32 PM

178


inter-faith dialogue. However, by far the most important cultural influence on Iranian thinkers is Sufism with its deep and profound impact not only on literature and poetry but also on the general religious outlook and orientation of many Shi’i intellectuals today. The above religious and cultural factors in contemporary Muslim– Christian encounters in Iran provide, for the most part, the traditional background that shapes what is happening in Iran today. They give the potential for a better understanding between the two religious traditions. But a major impetus for the new activities and initiatives in the fields of inter-faith research and dialogue lies mostly with the historical realities that are confronting much of the developing world, namely the issues surrounding modernity. Regardless of all the ambiguous categories and terms such as “Westernization,” “Secularization,” or “Globalization” that are used to draw attention to the problems and difficulties of living in the modern world, Iranian religious thinkers are deeply concerned to find appropriate and authentic Islamic responses to these new and ever-growing challenges. It is because of this developing context that one can hear a chorus of voices from the whole Iranian theological spectrum (liberal to ultra-conservative) that are calling for dialogue and mutual understanding, common ground and co-operation between Muslims and Christians in order to deal effectively with the complex realities of modernity. Finally, the socio-political dimension of current trends in Muslim– Christian encounter in Iran must also be pointed out. The very religious nature and structure of the Iranian government and the active interest and involvement under the presidency of Khatami and his call for the “Dialogue Among Civilizations” have brought forth a great deal of financial backing and public awareness to the importance of Muslim– Christian dialogue. None of the many international Muslim–Christian dialogues that Iranians have either participated in or hosted over the past fifteen years or the centers that have been involved in research and publication on the Christian faith could have taken place without explicit and enthusiastic support from the highest levels of the government. Although it should be pointed out that from a socio-political perspective, the growing disenchantment with the original ideals and promises of the Iranian revolution and a rejection of the totalitarian regime of the Islamic Republic by the top religious intellectuals (and the majority of the younger Iranians) have provided significant motivation for most of the fresh thinking and writing on Christianity that have been undertaken by these intellectuals.


3/22/2011 12:50:32 PM


179

The above factors form the set of positive forces at work in shaping and influencing contemporary attitudes and approaches to Christianity in Iran today. As pointed out in Chapter 2, there are also many negative forces at work that have profound impact on the nature and quality of Muslim–Christian encounters in Iran. The traditional belief in the finality and superiority of Islam, lack of interest in understanding and dialogue with religious minorities living in Iran, approaching Christianity as simply a means to understand the West or combat secularism, and lack of genuine freedom of religion and expression under the authoritarian Iranian government are among some of the obstacles that prevent more progress being made in the way of genuine dialogue and mutual understanding between Iranian Shi’as and their Christian counter-parts. However, the emphasis in this book is to highlight all the important and positive changes that have taken place in the areas of inter-faith dialogue and research in post-revolutionary Iran. Some of the reasons or motivations (such as Qur’anic and prophetic justifications for dialogue, co-operation with Christians because of the challenges of modernity or promoting a spirit of dialogue in order to prevent a clash of civilizations) are held in common with many Sunni Muslims around the world who are involved in Muslim–Christian dialogue. And some of the reasons (such as similarities in Shi’i Islam and Christianity, Shi’i rationalism, history of Christianity in Iran, Persian literature and Sufism, and the explicit religious nature of the Iranian government) are more directly related to the characteristics of Iranian society or Shi’i Islam. This book also included a number of concrete instances in which Iranian Shi’i thinkers are engaging with Christianity. Chapter 3 specifically looked at the range of books and journals being published in Iran today that intend to introduce Iranian readers to the Christian faith or various Christian authors. The focus in Chapter 4 was on a number of Islamic organizations specifically established as centers of research and/or dialogue with world religions (but with a high concentration of activities on Christianity). And Chapter 5 considered three of the most prominent liberal Shi’i intellectuals in Iran and evaluated the extent of their interaction with Christian theology. The range and number of Iranian publications on Christianity are noteworthy in themselves given that 98 percent of the population is Muslim and there are significant government restrictions on all publishing activities. And yet as seen in Chapter 3, there are ever-increasing numbers of


3/22/2011 12:50:32 PM

180


books and journal articles printed in Iran in this field, especially in the last five years. But the numbers alone do not give an accurate picture of Iranian works on Christianity. As stated in Chapter 3, what is most interesting is the noticeable trend in the kind of books that are becoming available in Iran. While Iranian books on Christianity can be roughly divided along three categories of traditional/polemic, objective/descriptive, and comparative/dialogical (with many books falling in more than one category), it is unmistakable that the tendency of the most recent publications in Iran is to move away from the more traditional and polemical approach to Christianity to a more objective and comparative study of Islam and the Christian faith. This is not to deny there are not serious shortcomings or gaps in what Iranians are writing or translating on the Christian faith. For instance, almost all treatments of the apostle Paul portray him as the villain in the story of the development of the theology of the New Testament. In many works, orthodox and classical Christian doctrines are often refuted, ignored, or viewed as irrelevant. There is also very little by way of sympathetic understanding of the history of the church and the Christian thought. However, the significant changes that have also taken place in Iranian works should not be dismissed. The move away from a polemical and judgmental tone to one of more objective description and a more nuanced evaluation in the writings of the majority of the Muslim authors is a welcome sign. But, more importantly, the increasing appreciation for certain aspects of Christian thought such as existentialist themes espoused by various Christian thinkers, classical works on Christian spirituality and mysticism, and the contribution of contemporary Christian philosophers and theologians in responding to the challenges of modern thought mark a dramatic shift in the approach and attitude of Iranian Muslims toward Christianity. It is clear that despite the real and perennial differences between Islam and Christianity, some Iranian Shi’i thinkers today are approaching the Christian faith not as a rival religion to be refuted but as an intellectual and spiritual partner that can benefit Muslims as they try to formulate their own responses to modernity and secularism.2 This historic shift among many of the contemporary Iranian Shi’i thinkers became even more evident when considering the organizations devoted to inter-religious dialogue and research in Chapter 4. Much has developed among Iranian Shi’as since 1985 when post-revolutionary


3/22/2011 12:50:32 PM


181

religious thinkers had their first exploratory dialogue with Western Christian theologians in Tehran (in meeting with Hans Kung). Today, there are four major well-funded organizations with extensive participation in Muslim–Christian dialogue on an international level with Roman Catholics, Orthodox and Protestant churches, and academic institutions. These organizations are also involved in substantial projects of research and publishing on Christianity. In addition to these centers, there are a number of university departments or individual scholars in Iran that regularly participate in inter-faith dialogue events around the world. As was noted, certain themes and emphasis have emerged in the encounters and the publications of Iranian Muslims. The majority of the Muslim–Christian dialogues that Iranians have participated in have revolved around the issues of faith and modernity or the role of religion in the contemporary world, peaceful co-existence and justice, and secularism/globalization. Generally speaking, these dialogues have tended to shy away from traditional and theologically contentious issues between Islam and Christianity and instead have focused on the socio-political and ethical dimensions in Muslim–Christian relations. They have thus focused on finding the common ground and practical areas in which the two faith communities can cooperate with each other in facing the challenges of secularism. In addition to these well-established trends in the inter-faith dialogues, there can also be detected certain tendencies emerging in the journals of these centers. Although there is a broad range of viewpoints expressed in these publications, many of the articles display a significant degree of openness to Christianity. In addition to promoting a spirit of dialogue, respect, and objective and mutual understanding, in one way or another (through interviews, books reviews, translations of classical or contemporary Christian writings or original contributions of Iranian researchers) the articles promote the acceptance of religious pluralism and the validity of salvation in other religions, appreciation for Christian spirituality, and a limited but clear recognition of the legitimacy and the contemporary relevance of the Christian scriptures. These changes in attitude and approach to a more sympathetic understanding and appreciation of Christianity and the desire for mutual co-operation between the two faith communities is nothing short of a revolutionary paradigm shift among Iranian Shi’i Muslim thinkers and institutions. To realize that these changes have taken place, for the most part in less than fifteen years, should be recognized as truly a ground-breaking


3/22/2011 12:50:32 PM

182


moment in the history of Iranian Shi’ism and its encounter with other world religions. One’s genuine enthusiasm at these recent developments in Iran does not mean that one cannot recognize a number of important weaknesses that need to be addressed in the collective work of these organizations. As of this date and after years of involvement in inter-faith dialogue and publications, no Iranian institution has produced any coherent set of guidelines or principles to justify and promote dialogue. Thus the activities of these centers have had very limited impact on the awareness of the Iranian population as a whole. The tendency to not engage in in-depth theological or philosophical reflections and discussions but instead to focus primarily on practical issues of the day in general and vague terms has resulted in a lack of direction and progress in the substance of these dialogues. Furthermore, for many of the dialogue participants very little of substance has changed in regard to some of the traditional Islamic position toward Christianity. No fresh rethinking on the Islamic portrayal of Christ or the Qur’anic denial of the cross has been put forward to help bridge the vast gap that separates Islam and Christianity on these fundamental points of theological tension. And although an appeal to “pluralism” seems to have become quite fashionable among many Iranian thinkers, the idea is often understood in the context of the traditional Islamic claim that all prophets have essentially brought the same message to humanity—a message which was finally confirmed and authenticated by Muhammad as the seal of prophets—and thus there are no significant differences between world religions in the first place. It can of course be hoped that as these organizations gain more experience and expertise in dialogue and research and develop more trust with their Christian counterparts around the world these shortcomings will eventually be addressed. In moving from the Iranian organizations involved in Muslim– Christian dialogue to some of the most prominent and prolific individual religious intellectuals in Iran in Chapter 5, a definite change in the extent and depth of the interaction between Shi’i Muslims and Christian thought could be detected. As liberal and yet devout Muslims, these figures have all engaged with and have been impacted by Christian thought to varying degrees. Also, they are making a profound impact on contemporary social and theological conversations among many Iranian Shi’i thinkers, clergy, and the educated population.


3/22/2011 12:50:33 PM


183

The individuals in Chapter 5—Soroush, Shabestari, and Malekian— have much in common in their intellectual development. In addition to their mastery of traditional Shi’i scholarship and their deep affinity with Sufism, they are highly conversant with Western philosophy and are fluent in some of the Western languages. Most importantly, they have adopted and are operating within the context of current Western epistemology of a deabsolutized view of truth and reality. Furthermore, their attitudes have been fundamentally shaped by the socio-political context of post-revolutionary intellectuals in general. Thus they are all united in their rejection of religious authoritarianism and dictatorship which they believe is manifested in the government of the Islamic Republic, rejection of a dogmatic approach to faith and theological doctrines, autonomy, and centrality of reason, respect for freedom of thought and conscience, and respect for the absolute necessity of making religious truth claims compatible within the intellectual and cultural framework of modernity. Regardless of their particular perspectives from which these thinkers approach Christianity (so that whether it is through Soroush’s interest in mysticism and philosophy, Shabestari’s draw on existentialist theology or Malekian’s concern for spirituality), there are a number of common themes and emphases that have emerged in their writings that relate directly to the issue of Muslim–Christian encounters. These Shi’i scholars have, as a matter of philosophical principle, repudiated all forms of inter-religious polemics or even apologetics. It is almost impossible to detect any trace of attack on Christianity or a defense of Islam as the one true and final religion in their published works. Also because of their commitment to both modern historical scholarship and many aspects of Sufi thought, some of them have taken significant steps in trying to resolve some of the thorny issues in the debates between Islam and Christianity. So that, for example, Malekian and Soroush have come to accept, or at least be open to the historicity of, the crucifixion of Christ and also new ways of looking and considering the doctrine of incarnation. At least partly as a result of their engagement with Christians, they have also rigorously moved away from any kind of exclusivism in regard to salvation or religious doctrines and instead have become ardent defenders and promoters of religious pluralism. More than doctrines or theological/metaphysical formulations, they see the essence of religion in terms of ethics or religious experience. And thus they feel themselves drawn to many of the devotional or ethical elements of the Christian faith.


3/22/2011 12:50:33 PM

184


Furthermore, they all share a close affinity with some of the major themes in existentialist Christian writings especially concerning the nature of faith as a religious experience and the very limited role of reason or evidence in matters of faith and the understanding of divine–human relationship in terms of an existential and ongoing I–Thou encounter. In the case of Shabestari, this existential encounter between human beings and God even defines the very concept of prophetic revelation to the point that (similar to the position of some Christian neo-orthodox theologians toward the Bible) the Islamic scripture is no longer viewed as an absolute revelation of the eternal divine word to the Prophet Muhammad but only as a medium through which we can find ourselves addressed by the word of God. The ideas of these scholars toward issues about religious faith in the modern world in general and their specific engagement with Christian thought in particular are truly unprecedented in Iranian society. Whether it is through the controversial writings of Soroush or the more quiet weekly lectures of Malekian to the clerics in Qum and his ongoing work of translating Christian works, these men are creating a new intellectual space among religious thinkers as more and more people continue their involvement in Muslim–Christian dialogue and further research and publication on the Christian faith.

Some Observations and Assessments of Recent Iranian Trends When considering all the evidences of change in the interaction between Iranian Shi’as and Christian faith presented in this book through the examination and analysis of the trends in Persian publications on Christianity, organizations involved in Muslim–Christian dialogue and research, and prominent intellectuals’ engagement with Christian thought, it can only be concluded that Iranian religious thinkers today are embracing a fairly positive attitude toward Christianity and constructive Muslim–Christian dialogue and co-operation. Although there is no way of knowing the number of Iranians associated with these changes in attitude and approach to Christianity, very important observations can still be made. The Iranians involved in these encounters come from the whole spectrum of the society. Some are at the highest level of the Iranian government (the former president Khatami and vice-president Abtahi), while


3/22/2011 12:50:33 PM


185

others are ordinary citizens (many of the translators of Christian books). Some are arch-conservatives theologically (Ayatollah Misbah Yazdi and many of the well-known participants of dialogues), and others can easily be defined as theologically liberal (Malekian). Many of the public figures in this movement are closely connected and warmly supportive of the Iranian regime and the office of the Supreme Leader (many of the official dialogue participants), while others are highly critical of the whole structure of the Iranian government and advocate a secular separation between religion and politics (Soroush). Some are well-known intellectuals and closely familiar with Western scholarship (Soroush and Shabestari), and others are only versed in traditional Shi’i learning with little awareness of modern tools and outlook of Western scholarship (some of the dialogue participants). But despite these significant social, theological, political, and intellectual differences all these individuals are in their own unique way contributing to a better and more fruitful mutual understanding between Muslims and Christians. Because of this widespread support for and involvement in Muslim– Christian dialogue, it can be cautiously hoped that no particular change in the specifics of the Iranian government will put an end to this pervasive movement among Iranian thinkers in the long term. For example, the Iranian president, Mr. Ahmadinejad, clearly does not show any signs of interest in continuing or supporting Khatami’s call for inter-religious and inter-civilizational dialogue. Recently the new and conservative Iranian parliament even went so far as to cut any new governmental funding for Khatami’s International Center for Dialogue Among Civilizations (ICDAC). Also under President Ahmadinejad, the newly assigned and highly conservative director for the Ministry of Islamic Guidance who is in charge of overseeing and permitting all publications in Iran has announced his intention to withdraw the permit for many of the books that were earlier allowed to be published under the more liberal guidelines within the government of Khatami. Thus, it is possible that at least for the near future, it might be more difficult for some of the authors and translators of non-polemical or non-traditional books on Christianity to publish their works.3 Despite these regressive set backs, the move toward more inter-faith dialogue is continuing. Khatami has announced his intention to devote much of his energy and resources to developing and expanding the work of ICDAC as a non-governmental organization. He seems more determined than ever to present and defend a peaceful and tolerant understanding


3/22/2011 12:50:33 PM

186


of Islam to the world. According to Khatami, plans are underway to establish a European office for this center and begin a close work of cooperation and dialogue with Muslim and Christian scholars around the world.4 Also, it should be noted that institutions such as the Organization of Culture and Islamic Relations or the Center for Religious Studies are backed and supported by well-established conservative elements within the Iranian government and thus they are not greatly impacted by the changes in the office of the country’s president.5 Finally, in order to present a general estimation and assessment of inter-faith projects that contemporary Iranian Shi’i thinkers are involved in, it will be useful to consider the context of broader Iranian Shi’a and Sunni Muslim attitudes and approaches to Christianity. It does not seem fair or appropriate to make value judgments on the merits of Iranian thinkers’ approaches toward a better understanding of Christianity by comparing and contrasting what is happening in Iran today with the quality of the works produced on Islam by Western scholars of Islam operating out of academic institutions that have developed centuries-long traditions of modern scholarship. The gaps and shortcomings in Iran on the academic study of Christianity are many and obvious. There are no university departments in Iran that specialize on any other world religion except Islam. Besides a handful of sporadic courses, no educational institution has so far offered a systematic degree program on Christian thought.6 No Iranian Shi’i thinker has devoted himself exclusively to a scholarly study of Christian theology. The original works on Christianity written by Iranians are few and quite rudimentary and the translations of Christian writings into Farsi are extremely limited in their quality and range. Important works and ideas of vast numbers of prominent and influential Christian thinkers of past and present are practically unknown to most Iranian authors, translators, and dialogue participants. And even when some Iranian intellectuals are conversant with some of the Christian writings in Western languages, their interactions with Christian thought are limited to their own personal areas of interests such as ethics, mysticism, or existentialist themes. However, these shortcomings do not take away from the significance of the positive changes and progress that have taken place in Iran especially in the past fifteen years in regard to a better understanding of the Christian faith and better relations with large segments of the worldwide church. To put these changes in a better perspective, it is useful to consider the Iranian Shi’i interaction with Christian thought prior to


3/22/2011 12:50:34 PM


187

the revolution and also some of the general themes and tendencies in Muslim–Christian encounters in the broader world of Sunni Islam.

Shi’i Thinkers prior to the Revolution As mentioned in Chapter 2, the general attitude of Iranian Shi’i thinkers toward Christianity could be basically summarized —with some limited exceptions—as defensive and polemical prior to the Islamic revolution.7 Of course, as Isabel Stumpel-Hatami correctly points out, it is necessary to understand that the Iranian reaction is “born in the context of the Western impact on Persian economy and politics and in the context of Western Christian missionary activities.”8 In order to contrast the older Iranian approach toward Christian thought with what is presented in this book, it will be useful to look at some examples of publications, and organizational and intellectual encounters. When surveying the works that were written and published before (or very shortly after) the revolution and were commonly available in Iran, a certain tendency becomes fairly clear. Examining the books published in this period, Stumpel-Hatami notes the existence of three types of texts: 1. Mere refutations of Christianity or Judaism—often recognizable from the very titles, for example, “Two religions, a religion of backwardness and imperialism [i.e. Christianity] and another religion in favor of the people and nations [i.e. Islam].” 2. Critical accounts of other religions, intended to furnish comparative knowledge which shall (according to the authors’ expressed intention) finally lead the reader to a deliberate choice of Islam as the best religion. 3. Descriptive texts which claim to rely exclusively on the sources of the respective religion and to refrain deliberately from rendering the Islamic point of view.9 Stumpel-Hatami’s research demonstrates that the vast majority of the publications produced by Iranian Shi’as on the Christian faith at the time tended to fall into the categories of simple refutations of Christianity or the proof for Islam as the final and true religion. Even the rare descriptive texts (which Stumpel-Hatami does not make any explicit reference to in her article) are not free from the “polemical undertone.”


3/22/2011 12:50:34 PM

188


In terms of organizational encounters, as a reaction to the presence of Christian missionary societies and publications “Shi’i clergy circles tried from the 1960s onward to train some sort of Muslim missionaries. At the same time, efforts were made to provide their coreligionists and notably the Muslim youth with fundamental knowledge of the ‘enemy’s’ religion and ideology, in order to immunize them from Christian propaganda.”10 One example of these activities was the establishment of the research and publication center Dar al-tabliq-i Islami in the city of Qum by the prominent Shi’i cleric Ayatullah Shari’atmadari. The two main goals of the center were defined as “the unveiling of Christianity and the propagation of Islam.”11 Even when we consider a prominent pre-revolutionary Iranian intellectual such as Shari’ati who was conversant with Christian thinkers and writings, we notice the negative approach of an Iranian Muslim toward the Christian faith typical of the time. Anthony O’Mahony, in assessing the works of Shari’ati not only notes that “Shari’ati did not practice interreligious dialogue,” but also writes: One cannot, however, fail to be surprised, when looking through his work, to see how little he knows about Christianity, . . . the study of Christianity as such never seemed to have interested him.12 In his writings, the Church and what it has made of the teachings of Jesus always appears with negative connotations . . . . This is not to deny all continuity between Iranian Shi’i thinkers today and those of the previous era. Polemical or apologetic Muslim publications, centers committed to the propagation of Islam, and intellectuals not involved in inter-religious dialogue are still very much part of the religious landscape of Iran. However, as shown throughout this book, significant positive changes are occurring among contemporary Iranian Muslims in their interaction with Christian thought, so that the trend in publications is clearly moving toward a more descriptive, irenic, and dialogical approach to Christianity. A number of centers with the support of the Iranian government or conservative Shi’i establishments are committed to dialogue and co-operation with Christian churches. And prominent intellectuals not only express their deep appreciation for many aspects of the Christian faith but are also being deeply influenced in their own theological outlook through their engagement with Christian theology.


3/22/2011 12:50:34 PM


189

Sunni Islam and the Christian Faith Another way to put the Iranian activities in a broader context is to consider some examples of Muslim–Christian interaction among Sunni thinkers and institutions of dialogue. Needless to say, the vastness of the topic only permits some of the most basic and general observations to be made here, which will inevitably result in omitting many important individuals and encounters. Nevertheless, it is important by way of conclusion to reflect on many of the similarities and some of the differences between the Iranian Shi’as and other Muslim thinkers around the world in their engagement with Christian thought.13 As mentioned in Chapter 1, the dialogue activities in Iran are part of a context of a worldwide shift that is taking place in Muslim–Christian encounters. In many ways, the positive changes that are happening in Iran are similar to the intellectual dynamics of many other Muslim communities around the world. Many observers of Islam today will probably agree with Colin Chapman that there are “reasons for believing that in spite of all the inequalities that affect the relations between Muslims and non-Muslims in different parts of the world, the meeting between Islam and the West at the present time creates unique opportunities for engagement which may never have existed before in the same form.” Chapman goes on to highlight seven specific factors as to why it is possible to find potential for a more positive encounter between Muslims and Christians today. According to Chapman, the first reason is that: We are not dealing with a straightforward dialogue between two parties, but between three or more. If in the past the major parties confronting each other were Christendom and Islam, we now have three major parties—Christianity, Islam and (if we can continue to use the word as a kind of shorthand) secularism. Other factors include, pressing “human issues that arise out of the social contexts in which we live,” “the power of media” in the context of globalization, more frequent engagements in dialogue with Muslims in European host societies, greater openness to dialogue among Muslims, the freedom of thought and expression in the West and finally the “growing awareness that the alternatives to dialogue are too frightening to contemplate.”14 We can easily recognize that most of these factors are also at work in shaping the social and intellectual context of Iranian thinkers.


3/22/2011 12:50:34 PM

190


Given the commonality in the above factors and the great deal of overlap in the theology of Sunnis and Shi’as, there are many expected areas of similarity between the two communities in their approach toward Christianity. It is also possible to detect certain distinctives and emphasis that distinguish some of the Iranians from many of their Sunni counterparts. Both groups have become active in inter-faith dialogue, although Sunnis’ participations date back to the late 1960s and early 1970s whereas the Iranians became involved in this enterprise in the early 1990s. Sunni and Shi’i participants in official or organizational dialogues have generally tended to shy away from theological engagements between Islam and Christianity and instead have focused on practical and sociopolitical topics. In summarizing the themes of the dialogues between WCC and Muslim representatives, Jutta Sperber, under the heading “Theology—to a Large Extent a Futile Subject for Dialogue,” writes, “In practice, no dialogue meeting was consistently theological and one cannot claim that there was ever any real progress on the difficult questions related to revelation, monotheism, the Trinity or Christology.”15 Furthermore: Whereas the Christians also tended to demand a theological dialogue, the Muslims did not really want to talk about purely theological questions; they insisted more on the link with practical and especially political questions, which were obviously more important for them . . . On a number of occasions the opinion was also voiced that everyone believed in the same God and therefore more or less the same things, so one could move straight on to practical matters.”16 The influence of Sufism is also very evident on many Muslim intellectuals interacting with Christian thought. Kate Zebiri writes: The Muslims who advocate some form of religious pluralism, whether they draw their inspiration from the Sufi tradition or from contemporary philosophies or epistemologies, seem to stand apart from the others. For the most part they are either participants in Muslim–Christian dialogue, or strongly influenced by Sufism, or both . . . Like Christian pluralists, they emphasize “subjective” spiritual or religious experience rather than “objective” propositional


3/22/2011 12:50:35 PM


191

truth. It is probably not accidental that the most sympathetic Muslim scholars of Christianity have not embarked on any indepth or systematic study, which would inevitably raise the type of confrontational theological issues which they desire to avoid.17 In his study of three prominent Islamic intellectuals in Muslim– Christian dialogue (Hasan Askari, Hassan Saab, and Muhammad Talbi), Charles Kimball also notes the impact of Sufi thought in the approach of these individuals. Kimball concluded his study with this observation: One fascinating and quite unexpected discovery in this study relates to the Sufi tradition. In a day when there is very little visible evidence of the Sufis, it is surprising to find that each of these three scholars has a significant and self-conscious connection with the mystical tradition in Islam. It this a clue to the ongoing life and vitality of the Sufi tradition?18 In terms of publications and scholarly studies of other religions, there are certainly more recent trends that are common to Sunnis and Iranian Shi’as. Besides typical refutations and literature which emphasize the superiority of Islam or more recent references to Western scholarship critical of Christianity, Waardenburg points out that “other kinds of publications about Christianity have appeared especially since the ‘dialogue years’ of the 1960s and 1970s.”19 This newer literature is moving beyond the classical debates and relationship of opposition between Islam and Christianity and is taking small steps to provide a more positive approach to the Gospels (so that for example, the passion of Jesus can be viewed as a symbol for the suffering of the innocent), the significance of Jesus for all humanity, and new explorations in regard to Qur’anic exegesis and hermeneutics.20 Waardenburg also writes: Fifty years ago (1948) the first chair of the history of religions was established in Ankara, and there are now seven of them in Turkey. In a number of countries scholars of religion have familiarized themselves with the tradition of the discipline and carry on teaching and research under such different names as history of religions, comparative religion, and philosophy of religion—or simply as anthropology, sociology, or psychology of religion. Before World War II


3/22/2011 12:50:35 PM

192


such activities were virtually unknown in Muslim countries . . . In countries like Turkey and Indonesia studies of religion already have their own identity, while Iran and Egypt have cultural traditions in which such studies fit perfectly. Interestingly, new initiatives have been taken in Tunisia and Morocco but also by Muslim researchers in countries like South Africa and Lebanon where they are directly exposed to the fact of religious plurarlity.21 Given the shared context and the many recent trends in Muslim– Christian encounters around the world, it can be concluded that much of what has been happening among Iranian Shi’i thinkers in their interaction with Christian thought falls within the same range of attitudes and approaches evident in many other parts of the Muslim world. What Iranians are doing and achieving through their inter-faith dialogues and research is not fundamentally different from what can be seen among many Sunni intellectuals. However, there does seem to be some differences or distinctives between Iranians and other Muslim groups.22 Although these apparent Iranian characteristics are for the most part differences in degrees or emphasis rather than in kind, they can be considered significant and noteworthy.23 The impression received when comparing the general trends in the Iranian thinkers’ attitude toward Christianity with that of many Sunni Muslims is the extent to which Iranians are more open to dialogue and positive engagements with Christians. On many levels, Iranians have explicitly denounced religious polemics and have expressed their determination to pursue and promote dialogue, mutual learning, and constructive co-operation with churches, Christian institutions, and scholars worldwide. For example, when considering Ataullah Siddiqui’s survey of the main international Sunni organizations involved in Muslim–Christian dialogue such as World Muslim Congress, the Muslim World League, and The World Islamic Call Society, there is much more of a commitment on the part of these institutions to Islamic Da’wah and promoting social and political causes of Muslim communities rather than any contemporary understanding of genuine inter-faith dialogue.24 Even their very limited gatherings for dialogue prompted generally critical or lukewarm reactions among many Sunni religious leaders.25 Examining the evidence from Arabic Muslim periodicals in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Lebanon, and Tunisia between 1970 and 1991, Ekkehard Rudolph concludes that


3/22/2011 12:50:35 PM


193

there are three main approaches to be found toward Christianity and dialogue:. 1. The Qur’anic approach. Christians are considered as “People of the Book”, but their revelation has been superseded by the message of the Qur’an. Dialogue is only possible if Christians accept the truth of Islamic revelation and the temporality of their own Scriptures. 2. The ideological approach. Christianity insists on its missionary (“Christianizing”) efforts and supports the political interests of the West concerning Islam. Like Zionism on the Jewish side, their representatives’ aim is to destroy Islam. Dialogue is impossible or can only be understood as a competition about truth and falsehood in the fundamentals of faith. 3. The irenic approach. Christianity and Judaism are monotheistic religions. They are linked to Islam by common bases and interests. Dialogue is both possible and necessary.26 The evidence from Iran strongly indicates that the “irenic approach” toward the possibility and necessity of dialogue is the dominant and mainstream approach of the religious organizations, publications, and intellectuals.27 From the religiously conservative Iranians’ call to practical co-operation between Muslims and Christians and appreciation for Christian spirituality to the moderate or liberal voices promoting and defending religious pluralism, Iranian thinkers from all theological backgrounds are united in their desire for dialogue. Active research and publishing centers committed to dialogue among civilizations and religions find support from the highest level of the Iranian government and religious establishments.28 With the possible exception of some of the older and more polemical books considered in Chapter 3, there is no evidence in support of Rudolph’s first two categories in the current Shi’i intellectual climate of Iran. The predominance of the same irenic approach is very much present when comparing the prominent Iranian religious intellectuals with many Sunni intellectuals or writers in general. This is not to deny the significance of numerous Sunni thinkers and scholars with long personal and positive histories of involvement in Muslim–Christian dialogues and deep affinities with the Christian faith.29 However, again, based on some of the available evidence in the literature previously examined, there can


3/22/2011 12:50:35 PM

194


be detected a broader tendency to take a more hostile and critical stance toward Christianity among prominent non-Iranian Muslim authors and thinkers. The picture of some of the general themes and trends in Muslim perceptions of Christianity—as presented in the studies of Hugh Goddard and Kate Zebiri—despite their many varieties and nuances, still portrays many negative characteristics that are either not as prominent or pronounced in Iranian writings or they are almost absent all together.30 In her chapter entitled “The Study of Christianity by Muslim Intellectuals,” Zebiri reviews the works (among others) of prominent Sunni intellectuals such as Isma’il al-Faruqi (Palestine/U.S.), Shabbir Akhtar (Pakistan/U.K.) and Syed Naquib al-Attas (Malaysia). Despite these authors’ stated intention to approach their study of Christianity with empathy, their one-sided polemics against Christian doctrines, church history, and much of the traditions of Western cultures, and their defense of the superiority of Islam is a central feature of these works.31 When surveying Muslim thinkers who write on a more popular level, Zebiri again detects very pronounced anti-Christian themes which portray Christianity as an inherently Western, imperialistic, and secularizing religion. She concludes her survey by observing: Interestingly, as regards the ideas expressed there seem to be no clear lines of demarcation between those living in the West and those living in the Muslim countries, between converts and born Muslims, Arab and South Asian, Sufi and non-Sufi, the non-specialist and the academically qualified. Jameelah, a convert, and Abd al-Qadir, a Sufi, were among those who produced the most outspoken polemic. It is also striking that there is no necessary dilution of polemic in the works of some of the most eminent, respected and high-profile religious scholars in Muslim countries, including a former Shaykh al-Azhar. One could therefore speak of a universal and pervasive Muslim discourse on Christianity and the West. Inevitably there are occasions when local factors come into play, but on the whole this is surprisingly rare.32 Although Hugh Goddard sounds a more positive note in his evaluation of contemporary Muslim–Christian encounters in terms of Muslim studies of Jesus or attitude toward Christians and inter-faith dialogue, he still finds not “much significantly new and creative Muslim thinking” on Christianity or Christian theology.33


3/22/2011 12:50:36 PM


195

If these studies are correct in their general conclusions on Muslim approaches to Christianity, they give a better perspective from which to evaluate the works of many contemporary Iranian intellectuals and writers who are engaging with Christian thought. It is safe to assume that for the most part Iranian Shi’as are interacting with Christianity on a significantly more positive basis. From clerics in Qum who are translating and utilizing the works by British and American evangelical theologians and philosophers and others who are translating works of classical Christian spirituality to prominent Shi’i intellectuals who are reformulating traditional Islamic positions on the nature of faith, divine revelation, and religious pluralism, contemporary Iranians are involved in an unprecedented enterprise in the history of Muslim–Christian encounters in their own country, and, to a large extent, in much of the Muslim world. This is not to deny that some prominent Sunni intellectuals have not gone further in the level of their engagement with Christian faith mostly as a result of living and teaching in the West or living in pluralistic societies or living in countries with close cultural ties with the Western world.34 But what makes the Iranian works so significant is that Iranian thinkers are not living in a religiously pluralistic society and have had very limited cultural contacts with the West (especially since the revolution of 1979). Furthermore, unlike some of the older and more prominent Shi’a and Sunni Muslim names in inter-faith dialogue, the Iranian intellectuals and authors surveyed here are not marginal voices writing only for an intellectual elite. These Iranians all live in Iran (except Soroush who has been forced to live outside of Iran for the past five years) and write in Farsi, and their ideas are highly popular and influential in Iranian society.

Conclusion This book is an account of certain significant developments and changes among numerous influential Iranian thinkers and it provides a window into the contemporary Iranian Shi’i encounters with Christian faith. There are momentous positive changes that have taken place—especially since the early 1990s—in regard to the attitudes and approaches of many Iranian religious intellectuals and thinkers toward Christianity and interfaith dialogue. The book confirms Richard Foltz’s recent observation that “Iran’s Islamic revolution has brought about many paradoxes . . . the interest of many


3/22/2011 12:50:36 PM

196


Iranians in religions other than Shi’i Islam has seen an increase . . . Even among the younger generation of seminary students one can see a marked fascination with the study of other religions.”35 Foltz goes on to conclude with this hopeful note about the future of this encounter in Iran: Such trends would seem to indicate that the intellectual climate in Iran today is becoming more open to learning about religions other than the official one. While an explicitly Islamic state cannot allow Muslims to convert to other religions, it may be hoped that in the coming years Iranians will have more opportunities to pursue their curiosity about the world’s various faiths in a spirit of objectivity and respect.36 What has been portrayed here is the extent of this trend toward a more objective and sympathetic understanding of Christianity by Iranian Shi’as. Despite recent political changes in Iran under the government of Mr. Ahmadinejad, the support for these new approaches is widespread and well-established among thinkers with high political or intellectual influence. William Shepard also concludes his study of the diversity of Islamic thought with a positive note about the potential contributions of Iranian Muslims to the future of Islam in the modern world. He writes: Alternatively, having mounted a successful revolution, it may be the Iranians who have the needed self-confidence. Moreover, as mentioned above, the effort to live out a radical form of Islam in an uncongenial world may stimulate creativity. Necessity could be the mother of invention. Iran, especially if President Khatami and his followers can moderate Khumayni’s heritage and make good on his call for a “dialogue of civilizations,” may be the place to look for significant innovations.37 Significant innovations are currently taking place in Iran, including in the area of Muslim–Christian relations. And although in a sense Iranians have just started on the path of inter-faith dialogue and research, they have made dramatic progress in the quantity and quality of their works. Based on the evidence of what Iranians have done so far and the direction and the pace in which they are moving, there is hope and encouragment about the future of the encounters between Iranian Shi’i thinkers and Christian thought.


3/22/2011 12:50:36 PM


197

But these “significant innovations,” as William Shepard calls them, are not limited to simply how some Iranian Shi’as are currently engaging with Christian thought. This book has touched on emerging themes and topics in the writings of Iranian Muslims that bear directly on traditional Shi’i (and to some extent Sunni) theology. Mehran Kamrava’s observation (quoted at the end of Chapter 5) that “at both a theoretical and a practical level, Iranian Shi’ism is undergoing a fundamental process of reformation” is an accurate reading of contemporary Iranian intellectual climate. For example, the seeming widespread acceptance of some form of religious pluralism or at least inclusivism in regard to people of other faiths is a significant move beyond the traditional and exclusivistic understanding of salvation adhered to by former Muslim theologians. The move away from a total rejection of the Christian scriptures as either corrupted or superseded and a new openness on the part of many Iranian thinkers toward an appreciation of other scriptures can be viewed as another important example of changes within traditional Islamic categories. In addition to these explicit doctrinal or theological topics, one can also point to the new and sophisticated discussions on the part of at least some key figures among Iranian intellectuals on epistemology, the structure and limits of human language, hermeneutics, sociology of knowledge, and the very nature and role of dialogue which all contribute to a deabsolutized view of ultimate truth and reality. These developments can have crucial ramifications for traditional Shi’i (and Sunni) categories. For instance, when considering the writings of Soroush, Shabestari, and Malekian, it can be noticed that the manner in which these authors present their understanding of divine–human relationship is radically different from the more mainstream historical Shi’i understanding. They do not envision human relationship to God within the framework of shari’a and fiqh and their appeal to traditional authorities such as the Sunna and Ijma’. There is no reference in their writings to the necessity of having a Marja’at-taqlīd or even the necessity of having infallible Imams. Faith is viewed not as doctrinal certainty and submitting to a set of metaphysical claims, but as an existential and experiential encounter between man and God that can take place in a number of religious traditions. They demand that the Qur’an must be understood within its original historical context and it is open to an ongoing process of interpretation. No one understanding of the Qur’an can claim to be absolute and fixed. They emphasize the autonomy and centrality of


3/22/2011 12:50:36 PM

198


human reason and at the same time acknowledge its limits in dealing with divine transcendence. They view Shi’a Islam as only one legitimate tradition within the larger body of Islamic traditions and insist that all religions must make space for freedom of thought and conscience and religious claims must be compatible with intellectual and cultural framework of modernity. They do not aim at proving or defending Islam or refuting other religions (thus their disregard for apologetics or polemics). Their interest lies in making sense of religious faith in the twenty-first century and showing the compatibility between spirituality and rationality. These changes of orientation are nothing short of a fundamental paradigm shift taking place within contemporary Iranian Shi’ism. What can be predicted about the future of this movement and its impact on the wider Shi’i and Sunni Muslim world? It is still too early to make firm predictions about the future significance of these trends. Daniel Brown’s warnings about the dangers inherent in the study of modern Muslim intellectual history (cited in the introduction) should be taken seriously. It is easy to exaggerate the importance and prominence of new, innovative thinking that promises change and ignores the less attractive currents of thought. However, this is not to deny that these changes—both within the Iranian Shi’i tradition and its encounter with Christian thought—are real and significant and thus they have the potential for influencing currents of thought outside of the boundaries of Iranian Islam. One can be hopeful that the growth and impact of these trends inside Iran continue. And since Iran has a unique place of prominence in the Shi’i world, one can also be very cautiously optimistic about the possible long-tem potential that Iranian Shi’i intellectuals can have on the development of Shi’i thought worldwide.38 The potential for the influence of Iranian Shi’i thinkers on Sunni intellectuals (and vice versa) is a more complex issue. Besides the longstanding theological hostilities between the two traditions, there are also significant cultural, linguistic, historical, and political differences that separate Iranian Shi’as from much of the worldwide Muslim community. Therefore, it seems that there is very little possibility of interaction and influence between Iranian Shi’as and Sunni Muslims on the issues discussed in this book. However, there do appear to be small new signs of intellectual interaction taking place between the two communities. Some of the writings of a few Sunni intellectuals are being translated and published in Iran that relate to the theme of Islamic tradition and modernity.39 Also, some of the writings of Mostafa Malekian and Soroush are being


3/22/2011 12:50:36 PM


199

translated into Arabic and English and thus making the ideas of these Iranian thinkers more accessible to non-Persian speaking Muslims.40 Given the contemporary context of the encounter between Islam and Christianity, and certain developments in Iranian Shi’i intellectual thought (such as the emergence of the concept of religious pluralism or inclusivism, the contextual understanding of religious knowledge, the legitimacy of a variety of Qur’anic interpretations), it seems likely that as we move into the future, more and more Sunni and Shi’i intellectuals will find each other reliable partners and friends in engaging with people of other religious traditions and dealing with the challenges of modernity. Just as one day Iranian Shi’ism was identified with fanaticism, violence and militancy, one can hope that at some point in the not too distant future, Iranian Shi’i thinkers could set an example for the rest of the Muslim world in demonstrating the compatibility between a certain vision of authentic Islam and the modern world’s quest for peace, democracy, freedom, justice, tolerance, and plurality.


3/22/2011 12:50:36 PM

NOTES

1 Iranian Shi’i Thinkers and the Christian Faith: A Theological Perspective 1. Sandra Mackey well illustrates the popular attitude in the US towards Iran when she writes, “Regardless of the range of grievances and geography of militant Islamic groups, the American mind sees the Islamic Republic of Iran as the font of Islamic extremism.” The Iranians: Persia, Islam and the Soul of a Nation, New York: Penguin Books, 1996, p. 384. Heinz Halm in his Shi‘a Islam: From Religion to Revolution writes, “The image of the Shi‘ites and Shi‘ism in the Western media is thus—as could only be expected—essentially influenced by the events of the Iranian revolution and political developments of the Islamic Republic of Iran, which immediately upon its founding, sought conflict with the West . . . . Shi‘ism appeared to be an especially threatening form of Islam, which had the notorious label of fanatic in any case,” pp. vi-vii. Richard Frye observes, “So Persia in the mind of the West today is conceived as the center of arch-villains who support and finance terrorism against the West. Persia in the mind of the West is probably at its lowest ebb, and Westerners are repelled by the religious fanaticism which dominates the scene in Persia today.” “Persia in the Mind of the West,” in Islam and Christian-Muslim Relations, vol. 14, no. 4, Oct 2003, p. 406. 2. S.H.Nasr, “Continuity and Change in the Intellectual Heritage,” in Shi‘ism: Doctrines, Thought, and Spirituality, Nasr, Dabashi, Nasr, eds., New York: State University of New York Press, 1988, p. 347. 3. For a fairly comprehensive bibliography of works in English language on Iran see Nikki Keddie, Modern Iran: Roots and Results of Revolution, New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003, pp. 355–366. 4. See the excellent bibliographies in Jacques Waardenburg, ed., MuslimChristian Perceptions of Dialogue Today: Experiences and Expectations, Leuven: Peeters, 2000; Muslim Perceptions of Other Religions, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999; and Muslims and Others: Relations in Context, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2003.

Tavassoli_Notes.indd 200

3/22/2011 1:17:03 PM

Notes to Pages 2–3

201

5. Isabel Stumpel-Hatami, “Christianity as Described by Persian Muslims,” in Muslim Perceptions of Other Religions, p. 227, 1999. The author herself is one significant exception to this rule since she did her doctoral dissertation on the image of Christ in the twentieth century Persian literature under the title, Das Christentum aus der Sicht zeitgesnossischer iranischer Autoren: Eine Untersuchung religionskunklicher Publikationen in persischer Sprache, Berlin, 1996. 6. Anthony O’Mahony, “The Image of Jesus and Christianity in Shī‘a Islam and Modern Iranian Thought,” in A Faithful Presence: Essays for Kenneth Cragg, David Thomas and Clare Amos, eds., London: Melisende, 2003, pp. 256–273. 7. Writing about various initiatives in Muslim-Christian dialogue in the Islamic world, Jorgen Nielsen only writes this about Iran, “and most recently, the Iranians have become exceedingly active.” Nielsen, “Is there an escape from history of Christian-Muslim relations?” in A Faithful Presence, p. 359. Also in another recent work on Christians in the Middles East, we only read the following about Muslim-Christian encounter in the chapter on Iran, “The Middle East Council of Churches has participated in an ongoing dialogue in Iran, organized jointly by the World Council of Churches and the Organization for Islamic Culture and Communication. In 1996 the conference agreed to explore ways in which Muslims and Christians can collaborate on human rights issues. The government that was elected in 1998 appears open to dialogue. At the grassroots level, however, interfaith encounters are rare.” Bailey and Bailey, Who are the Christians in the Middle East, Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2003, p. 161. Of course, it should be pointed out that the Iranian initiatives and engagements in interfaith dialogues are recent developments compared to Arab or Sunni participations. 8. The claim here which might seem quite paradoxical to many readers can be seen as part of the larger shifts in the intellectual climate of the Iranian society. As Mehrzad Boroujerdi notes, “The Iranian revolution of 1979 represented the first mass revolutionary movement in the modern age that led to the establishment of a theocracy . . . . The revolution presented Iranian intellectuals with serious theoretical challenges . . . I contend that despite the many obstacles and restrictions put forward by the present regime in Tehran the 1980s and the 1990s indeed witnessed the prospering of political philosophy and jurisprudence in Iran . . . .Far from engaging in esoteric and trivial polemics, the discussions now taking place in Iran are philosophically sophisticated, intellectually sound, socially relevant, and politically modern.” Mehrzad Boroujerdi, Iranian Intellectuals and the West, Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1996, pp. 156–157.


3/22/2011 1:17:03 PM

202


9. This book explores the particular Iranian context and contributions in a world wide shift that is taking place in Muslim–Christian encounters. In many ways, the changes that are happening in Iran in Muslim approach towards Christianity are similar to what is happening in many other Muslim communities around the world. Colin Chapman concludes his book Islam and the West with a chapter entitled, “Hopes for the Future: Dialogue on a More Level Playing Field?” Chapman believes that there are “reasons for believing that in spite of all the inequalities that affect the relations between Muslims and nonMuslims in different parts of the world, the meeting between Islam and the West at the present time creates unique opportunities for engagement which may never have existed before in the same form.” Colin Chapman, Islam and the West, Carlisle: Paternoster Press, 1998, pp. 188–192. 10. Ataullah Siddiqui, Christian-Muslim Dialogue in the Twentieth Century, London: Macmillan Press Ltd, 1997, pp. xvii, 200. 11. This includes authors such as Seyyed Hossein Nasr, various Iranian Sufi leaders who live in the West and other secularist Iranian writers who publish their works in the West. Although Nasr is probably the most well-known Iranian Shi‘i intellectual in the West, I agree with the observation of Watt that due to Nasr’s close association with the school of “perennial philosophy” In the last resort, however, it seems unlikely that the views of Seyyid Hossein Nasr and his friends will have much influence on mainstream Sunnite Islam or even on Shi‘i Islam.” W. Montgomery Watt, Muslim Christian Encounters: Perceptions and Misperceptions, London: Routledge, 1991, p. 129. For a brief overview of Nasr’s position towards the Christian faith see the excellent article by Hugh Goddard, “Christianity from the Muslim Perspective: Varieties and Changes,” in Jacques Waardenburg, ed., Islam and Christianity: mutual perceptions since the mid 20th century, Leuven: Peeters, 1998, pp. 213–255 (the section on Nasr is found on pages 244–246 of this article). The only exception to this rule is Ashtiyani. Although, the author currently lives in Germany, he has been a prominent intellectual inside Iran and writes in Farsi (unlike Nasr). Ashtiyani’s works are also published inside Iran and widely available. 12. One well-known example is Shojaeddin Shafa’s Tavaludī Dīgar [Another Birth], Paris: Farzād, nd. Key portions of this book can be found on Dr. Shafa’s website www.sh-shafa.com. He vehemently attacks Judaism, Christianity and Islam and advocates secularism as the only solution for the problems of Iranian society. This work has been a best seller in the Iranian communities of Europe and North America but it cannot be published inside Iran. 13. See chapter five for further elaboration of this issue. 14. Daryush Shayegan, Cultural Schizophrenia: Islamic Societies Confronting the West, London: Saqi Books, 1992. Also see Mehrzad Boroujerdi, Iranian Intellectuals and the West, Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1996, p. 23.


3/22/2011 1:17:03 PM


203

15. In addition to published materials, in the case of the research on Dr. Soroush the author also was able to collect over 100 hours of his audio lectures on tapes and CDs. 16. See chapters four and five for further information on these organizations and individuals (such as Soroush and Malekian) and the extent of their engagement with Christian thought. 17. Of the four dialogues the author witnessed between Iranians and Western Christians, two were held in Birmingham, UK with the faculty of the University of Birmingham; and two were held in Tehran with a group of Catholic scholars from Austria associated with St. Gabriel Institute and a group of US evangelicals from the Presbyterian Church of America. 18. This is not a claim to absolute objectivity. Undoubtedly the author brings his own perspectives into this study. But there is simply no overarching philosophical or sociological paradigms that are providing a particular angle to this research. 19. According to the categorization proposed by Patrice Brodeur, this study falls into the category of confessional (in distinction from the other two categories of national and historical). This is a study in which “authors who research how Muslims describe their religion—that is, the religion of the researcher. This category includes especially Christian and Jewish scholars who write from their own confessional horizons as believing Jews or Christians (p. 246).” Brodeur is especially critical of this approach for its “lack of self-critical awareness” and biased, hidden and undefined Christian assumptions. One can grant many of the criticisms of Brodeur although he does not present any objective solutions to this problem. For a brief but eloquent defense of the necessity and legitimacy of a “confessional” point of view in inter-religious encounter see Lesslie Newbigin, The Open Secret, Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1995, pp. 160–189. Patrice Brodeur, “Arabic Muslim Writings on Contemporary Religions Other Than Islam,” in Muslim Perceptions of Other Religions, pp. 240–249. 20. Clinton Bennett, Muslims and Modernity, London: Continuum, 2005, p. xvii. 21. Daniel Brown, Rethinking Tradition in Modern Islamic Thought, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996, p. 4. 22. Ibid, p. 4. 23. Hugh Goddard, “Christianity from the Muslim perspective: Varieties and Changes,” p. 252. 24. Hugh Goddard, A History of Christian-Muslim Relations, Chicago: Ivan R. Dee, Publisher, 2000, p. 177. Goddard, along with many others, views the Muslim–Christian dialogue movement as the latest stage in the long and tumultuous history of Muslim–Christian relations.


3/22/2011 1:17:03 PM

204


25. Ibid, p. 184. 26. In the current socio-political discussions on Iran that are prevalent in the West, which often tend to be one-sided and quite negative, this is a worthy goal. One is reminded at this point of Carl Ernst’s observations concerning the goals of Islamic studies in the educational institutions in the US. Ernst writes, “the task of Islamic studies could also be described as minimal. In 1992 I participated in a workshop discussing images of Islam in America. The educational goal that we finally settled on in the workshop was very basic: to convince Americans that Muslims are human beings. This might sound like an absurdly simple point, but the Islamic religion is perhaps the one remaining subject about which educated people are content to demonstrate outright prejudice and bias. Ten years later a workshop on critical issues in Islamic studies came to the same conclusion, but more forcefully: the real issue is to humanize Muslims in the eyes of non-Muslims.” Carl Ernst, Following Muhammad: Rethinking Islam in the Contemporary World, Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 2003, p. xvii. 27. All of the research and most of the writing of this book was done during the presidency of Mohammad Khatami. Since June of 2005 when Mr. Ahmadinejad was elected as the current president of Iran, the political rhetoric between Iran and the West has taken a significant turn for the worse. The turn towards a more radical revolutionary ethos of the current Iranian government could negatively impact some of the progress and openness towards dialogue with Christians achieved under the presidency of Khatami. However, based on this research it is still believe that the support for Muslim–Christian dialogue is widespread among different groups of Iranian thinkers (both those who are theologically conservative and closely aligned with the Iranian theocracy and those who are liberal theologically and politically oppose the current Iranian form of government). One can hope that in the long term the trends that will be highlight in this study will continue to develop and mature and bear fruitful results in Muslim–Christian relations.

2 Factors in Muslim–Christian Intellectual Encounters and Dialogue in Contemporary Iranian Society 1. Behzad Yaghmaian, Social Change in Iran: An Eyewitness Account of Dissent, Defiance and New Movements for Rights, Albany: State University of New York Press, 2002, p. 7. 2. The well-known Islamic laws of apostasy can be one source of such fears. 3. As Yann Richard points out, like other religions “Shi‘ism has contradictory faces: we know now that there is an oppressive Shi‘ism and a liberating


3/22/2011 1:17:04 PM


4. 5.

6.

7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12.

13. 14.

15.

205

Shi‘ism; one conservative and one anti-establishment; one theocratic and one ‘democratic;’ one ‘integrist’ and one progressive; one inflexible and one open.” Richard, Shi‘ite Islam: Polity, Ideology and Creed, Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1995, p. 214. For the history of Christianity in Iran prior to the Safavid period see below. For a brief introduction to this topic see Moojan Momen, An Introduction to Shi’i Islam, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1985, pp. 61–146. Also see Yann Richard, Shi’ite Islam: Polity, Ideology and Creed, Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1995; and Heinz Halm, Shi‘ism, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1991. A. Bausani, I Persiani, Florence: Sansoni, 1962, p. 191. Quoted by Franco Ometto, “Khatun Abadi: The Ayatollah who translated the Gospels,” Islamochristiana, 28, 2000, p. 57. Yahya Armajani, “Christian Mission in Persia,” in Encyclopedia Iranica, Ehsan Yarshater, ed. vol. 5, New York: Columbia University Press, p. 544. For a classic work on Christians in Iran see Robin Waterfield, Christians in Persia, London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd., 1973. Ometto, p. 58. Armajani, p. 544. Ometto, p. 59. Ometto, p. 58. Ometto goes on to say, “On one occasion, to demonstrate the possibility of the Trinity, the Shah divided a squad of soldiers into three groups, then ordered them to intermingle and declared, ‘Behold, the three are one!’.” Ometto, p. 59. According to Ometto, Christian attacks on Islam were mostly produced in India “where some Christian priests . . . devoted themselves to writing apologetic works which could be useful in the debates that were frequently held at court”, p. 59. It is beyond the scope of this chapter to enter into a detailed analysis of these works. For some reviews of these Shi’i responses see Rasul Ja‘farian’s lengthy introduction in Tarjumah-yi Anājīl-i‘rba‘ah [Translation of the Four Gospels], Qum: Nuqtah Press, 1374 (1995), pp. 11–60; Mohammad Hasan Rajabi, “ ‘Ulamā-yi Shi‘a va Guftugūy-i Bayn-i Adyān va Farhanghā dar Sadihā-yi Akhīr” [Shi’ite Scholars and the Dialogue Among Religions and Cultures in the Past Few Centuries], Pol-e Firouzeh (Turquoise Bridge), vol. 1, no.1, Autumn 2001, pp. 146–164; Abol Hasan Moghaddam (trans.), “Masīḥīyat va Islam dar Qarn-i Hifdahum” [Christianity and Islam in the Seventeenth Century], Mashkūh, vols. 54–55, pp. 64–86; Maghsood Ali Sadeghi, “Zamīnihā-yi Fa‘ālīyat΄ hā-yi Muballighān-i Masīḥī dar Īrān” [The Contexts of the Activities of Christian Missionaries in Iran], Kitāb-i Māh-i Dīn, vol. 34,


3/22/2011 1:17:04 PM

206

16.

17.

18.

19. 20.

Christian Encounters with Iran pp. 80–85; Karim Mojtahedi, Ashnāyī-yi Īrānīān bā Falsafahā-yi Jadīd-i Gharb [The Acquaintance of Iranians with Modern Western Philosophy], Tehran: Pazhūhishgāh-i Farhang va Andīshi-yi Islāmī, 1379 (2000), pp. 21–59. Sadeghi, p. 83. For a discussion of Majlisī see Colin Turner, Islam Without Allah? The Rise of Religious Externalism in Safavid Iran, Richmond: Curzon Press, 2000, pp. 148–186. Of course the same king, in different periods of his reign could also show different levels of tolerance to the presence of Christian communities. Shah Abbas who claimed to have “a profound sympathy and friendship” toward the kings of Europe and the Pope and declared that “all Christian people may have free access to this country [Iran]” later forced, under severe persecution, the conversion of 43 Armenian villages to Islam and later issued a law “in which he established that a Christian who renounced his faith and embraced Islam could demand the property of all of his relatives up to the seventh generation; a decree that for centuries hung—and still hangs—over the Christian community like a sword of Damocles.” Ometto, pp. 57, 59. For a more recent Iranian publication that views Christianity as hostile to Islam and as a tool for Western imperialism, see Morteza Nazari, Bar΄rasī-yi Shīvihāy-i Tablīghātī-yi Masī ḥīyat ‘Alayhi Islā m [Analysis of the Varieties of Christian Propaganda Against Islam], Tehran: Markaz-i Chāp va Nashr-i Sāzmān-i Tablīghāt-i Islāmī, 1371 (1992). According to the back cover of the book, “This book analyzes and studies the historical, political and psychological reasons of the Christian hostility toward Islam. It presents a detailed record of the Christian propagandistic means and mass media through poisonous culture against Islam.” Of course, there are voices of moderation in analyzing the presence of Christian missionaries in Iran. Safoora Boroumand is an Iranian author who presents a more balanced assessment of missionary activities in Iran from a Muslim perspective. See Pazhūhishī bar Fa‘ālīyat-i Anjuman-i Tablīghī-yi Kilīsā dar Durah-yi Qājā rīyah [A Study of the Activities of Church Missionary Society in the Qajar Period], Tehran: Nashr-i Nazar, 1380 (2001). Although the author is critical of the many activities of the Western missionaries, she is quite positive on the significant contributions that the missionaries made to the development of Iranian society during the Qājār period especially in the areas of education and medicine. For a discussion of the contributions of Anglican and Presbyterian women missionaries in Iranian society see, Sarah Ansari and Vanessa Martin, Women, Religion and Culture in Iran, Richmond: Curzon Press, 2002, chps. 3–4. For a history of Roman Catholic and Protestant missionary work in Iran, see Waterfield, pp. 57–176. Isabel Stumpel-Hatami, “Christianity as Described by Persian Muslims,” p. 227.


3/22/2011 1:17:04 PM

Notes to Page 14

207

21. Stumpel-Hatami, pp. 227–228. The author goes on to quote from a book published in Qum about ten years prior to the Iranian revolution that illustrates the mood in certain religious circles. “Alarm bells! Our religion and our independence are threatened. Do you know that the project of Christianizing Iran was already hatched by Knox d’Arcy at the time of Nasiruddin Shah? Are you informed about the attacks launched by the American Dr. John Elder, member of the American Mission to Iran, who has published several books? Are you informed about the Christian propaganda in schools and hospitals? . . . Do you know that recently the rumor runs that a radio canal diffusing Christian propaganda has been uncovered in Tehran?” p. 228. For some examples of negative reviews of Protestant mission in Iran see Ali Mojtahed Shabestari (trans.), “Mīsīyunir΄ hā-yi Kilīsā-yi Injīlī va Rābiṭah-i Amrīkā bā Īrān dar Durah-yi Pahlāvī” [Presbyterian Missionaries and the U.S. Relationship with Iran During the Pahlavi Era], The Journal of Foreign Policy, vol. 2, Oct. 1988–March 1989, no. 4, pp. 491–507; and also Ali Rahmani (trans.), “Muballighān-i Almānī dar Īrān” [German Missionaries in Iran], The Journal of Foreign Policy, Vol. 4, winter 1990–1991, pp. 627–647. 22. See Rajabi’s article for a number of such encounters in Safavid and Qajar periods. 23. The gatherings and the relationships that developed between ‘Allamah Ṭabāṭabā’ī and Seyyed Hossein Nasr with Christian scholars such as Henry Corbin and others is a case in point. See Rajabi, p. 159. The encounters and correspondence between Corbin and Ṭabāṭabā’ī have been collected and published several times in Iran. The latest edition is entitled Shi‘ah, Tehran: Mu’assisi-yi Pazhūhishī-yi Ḥikmat va Falsafah-i Īrān, 1382 (2003). 24. Such as the example of Ali Shari‘ati (1933–1975) and his admiration for the Catholic Orientalist, Louis Massignon and certain aspects of Catholicism. See Anthony O’Mahony, “The Image of Jesus and Christianity in Shī‘a Islam and Modern Iranian Thought,” pp. 267–273. In another insightful article which touches on Shari‘ati, O’Mahony writes, “One cannot, however, fail to be surprised, when looking through his work, to see how little he knows about Christianity, despite his five years spent in Paris and his friendship with Massignon. . . . the study of Christianity as such never seems to have interested him.” “Mysticism, Politics, Dialogue: Catholic Encounters with Shi‘a Islam in the Life and Work of Louis Massignon,” in Catholics and Shi‘a in Dialogue: Studies in Theology and Spirituality, London: Melisende, 2004, pp. 180–181. 25. For an example of a Shi’i scholar in the seventeenth century who translated the Christian scriptures into Farsi see Ometto. For various polemical attitudes toward Christianity in Iran from the middle of the twentieth century see Isabel Stumpel-Hatami.


3/22/2011 1:17:04 PM

208


26. The categories are in line with Soroush’s analysis of Iranian culture. In his essay, “The Three Cultures,” Soroush writes, “We Iranian Moslems are the inheritors and the carriers of three cultures at once. . . . The three cultures that form our common heritage are of national, religious, and Western origins.” See Reason, Freedom, and Democracy in Islam, Mahmoud and Ahmad Sadri, eds., Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000, p. 156. 27. “The Islamic-Christian Dialogue” in Dialogue, vol. 2, autumn 2000, p. 3. Emphasis in the original. The journal Dialogue is a publication of the Organization for Islamic Culture and Relations and is published in English. For more on this organization and its activities see Chapter Four. 28. “A Discussion on Dialogue Between Religions” in Dialogue, spring 2000, vol. 1, p. 22. 29. “Introduction” in Dialogue, vol. 1, p. 2. These passages seem to provide more support for an Islamic understanding of Da‘wah than dialogue. What is important for our purpose here is how Iranians are looking at these texts to find Qur’anic justification for dialogue. The most comprehensive book in Farsi on this topic is the translation of an Arabic work by Muhammad Husayn Fadlallah, a Shi’i theologian in Lebanon. See Seyyed Hossein Mirdamadi, Guftugū va Tafāhum dar Qur’an-i Karīm [Dialogue and Understanding in the Holy Qur’an], Tehran: International Center for Dialogue Among Civilizations, 1380 (2001). 30. Seyyed Amir Akrami, “The Qur’an and Inter-religious dialogue,” in Motivations and Obstacles to Interreligious Dialogue, Tehran: Luḥ-i Fikr, 1383 (2004), p. 41. (Original article in English.) Similar arguments are being offered by other Muslim thinkers. See Tariq Ramadan, Western Muslims and the Future of Islam, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004, pp. 200–213; Khaled Abou El Fadl, The Great Theft: Wrestling Islam from the Extremists, San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2005, pp. 203–219; Amir Hussain, “Muslims, pluralism, and interfaith dialogue,” in Omid Safi, ed., Progressive Muslims: On Justice, Gender, and Pluralism, Oxford: Oneworld Publications, 2003, pp. 251–269. 31. Akrami, p. 41. Some of the passages referred to in this regard are Q 40:78, 13:8, 16:36, 35:24. Akrami goes on to say, “The fact that the Qur’an incorporates accounts of the lives of these predecessors of Muhammad and makes it part of its own history is perhaps the most significant reflection of its emphasis on the unity of faith.” Ibid., p. 42. 32. Ibid., p. 42. See Q. 62:6, 2:112–114. 33. Ibid., p. 44. Also see Q. 2:285, 3:84. 34. Ibid., p. 44. 35. Ibid., pp. 44–45. 36. Ibid., p. 45. Akrami uses a variety of Qur’anic passage in defense of this conclusion. See Q. 3:113, 116, 200; 2:62.


3/22/2011 1:17:04 PM


209

37. Ibid., p. 47. Akrami also refers to or quotes Q. 42:9, 5:48, 22:67. 38. Ibid., p. 48. 39. Homayoun Hemmati, Muqaddamah-yī bar Shinākht-i Masī ḥīyat [Introduction to Understanding Christianity], Tehran: Intishārāt-i Naqsh-i Jahān, 1379 (2000), p. 11. 40. See Ahmad Beheshti, Isā dar Qur’an [Jesus in the Qur’an], Tehran: Intishārāt-i Iṭillā‘āt, 1375 (1996); Vali Allah Rastegar Jouibari, Masī ḥ dar Qur’an [Christ in the Qur’an], Tehran: Intishārāt-i ‘Aqīdatī Sīyasī-i Nirū-yi Havāyī-i Artish, 1377 (1998). For a bibliography of Farsi works on Christ see Zahra Mirza Khani, Kitāb΄shenā sī-yi Ḥaz̤rat-i Masī ḥ [Bibliography on Christ], Tehran: Sāzmān-i Chāp va Intishārāt-i Vizārat-i Farhang va Irshād-i Islāmī, 1378 (1999). 41. For works in English concerning the Qur’anic and Islamic portraits of Jesus, see Geoffrey Parrinder, Jesus in the Qur’an, New York: Oxford University Press, 1977 and Neal Robinson, Christ in Islam and Christianity, Albany: State University of New York Press, 1991. 42. Tarif Khalidi, The Muslim Jesus, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2001, p. 3. 43. Ibid., p. 3. 44. Mahmoud Ayoub, “Towards an Islamic Christology: an image of Jesus in early Shi‘i Muslim literature,” in the Muslim World, 66 (1976), p. 163. 45. Ibid., p. 163. 46. Khalidi, pp. 39–40. 47. Ibid., p. 222. These sayings have now been translated into English and published in Iran. See Mahdi Muntazir Qa’im and Muhammad Legenhausen, “Jesus Christ Speaks through Shi’i Traditions,” Al-Tawhid, 13, no. 3, fall 1996, pp. 21–40; and idem, “Jesus Christ in the Mirror of Shi’i Narrations,” Al-Tawhid, 13, no. 4, winter 1996, pp. 45–56. A comprehensive compilation of Shi’i traditions about Jesus has been published in Iran in the English language. See Muhammad Legenhausen, trans., Jesus through Shi’ite Narrations, Qum: Ansariyan Publications, 1383 (2004). 48. Ayoub, p. 187. 49. Dialogue, vol. 1, p. 2. There is a famous encounter between Christians from Najran and the Prophet Muhammad in 628 CE or 7 AH. Prophet Muhammad received a delegation from the town of Najran, an important center of Monophysite Christianity in South Arabia. See Hugh Goddard, A History of Christian-Muslim Relations, Chicago: Ivan R. Dee, Publisher, 2000, p. 22. 50. Dialogue, vol. 2, p. 8. For a concise summary of the Qur’anic and early Islamic attitude toward other religions, including Christianity see Jacques Waardenburg, “Muslim Studies of Other Religions,” in Muslim Perceptions of


3/22/2011 1:17:04 PM

210

51.

52.

53. 54.

Christian Encounters with Iran Other Religions, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999, pp. 1–102. Arguing about the importance of interfaith dialogue from an Islamic perspective, Amir Hussain, an Islamic scholar from Pakistan writes, “As with any new religious tradition, Islam would not have developed had it not been for interfaith dialogue. After Muhammad received his revelations, he began to speak about them publicly, first to his own family and then to other people. Slowly, people began to convert from other faiths to the religion of the one true God that Muhammad was preaching. Muhammad, then, from the beginning of his first revelations to the end of his life was actively engaged in interfaith dialogue.” Amir Hussain, “Muslims, Pluralism, and Interfaith Dialogue,” in Omid Safi, ed., Progressive Muslims: On Justice, Gender, Pluralism, Oxford: Oneworld Publications, 2003, pp. 252–254. Seyyed Mostafa Mohaqqeq Damad, “Cultural Relations between Christianity and Shi’ite Islam,” in Dialogue, vol. 1, p. 50. A slightly expanded version of the same article was published in Al-Tawhid: A Quarterly Journal of Islamic Thought and Culture, vol. 18, no. 1, winter 2004, pp. 34–51. Mohaqqeq Damad is a prominent clergy who is one of the most active participants from the very beginning of Iranians’ involvement in Muslim–Christian dialogue. He is a professor of law, theology and Islamic philosophy at Shahid Beheshti University in Tehran and also the head of the department of Islamic Studies at the Academy of Sciences in Iran. Ibid., p. 50. An important collection of the conversations and correspondence of Shi’i Imams is the classical work of Ṭabarsi, Al-Ihtijāj, Ibrahim Bahadori and Mohammad Hadi, eds., Tehran: Intishārāt-i Asvah, 2002. This collection is in Arabic and has not been translated into Farsi. Mohaqqeq Damad, p. 51. Although the focus here is on the distinctives of Shi’i Islam as providing religious justification for the Iranian involvement in the Muslim–Christian dialogue movement, it should be noted that there are some significant structural similarities between the Judeo-Christian traditions and Islam as a whole (and not just Shi’i Islam). For example, as Leonard Swidler points out, “these three Semitic or Abrahamic religions” have many things in common. “They all come from the same Hebraic roots and claim Abraham as their originating ancestor, . . . all three traditions are religions of ethical monotheism, . . . the three traditions are all historical religions; that is, they believe that God acts through human history and communicates through historical events and particular human persons, . . . Judaism, Christianity and Islam are all religions of revelation.” Furthermore, “For these three faiths God’s special revelation is also communicated in The Book of the Bible. . . . The three Abrahamic faiths have many more things in common, such as the importance of covenant, of law and faith, and of


3/22/2011 1:17:04 PM


55.

56. 57. 58.

59. 60. 61.

62.

211

the community. . . . Just looking at the list of commonalities already briefly spelled out will provide us with an initial set of fundamental reasons why it is imperative for both Jews and Christians to engage in serious, ongoing dialogue with Muslims.” Leonard Swidler, After the Absolute, Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990, pp. 122–123. James Bill and John Williams, Roman Catholics and Shi’i Muslims: Prayer, Passion and Politics, Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2002. For a brief review and critique of this book see Journal of Iranian Research and Analysis, vol. 18, no. 2, Nov. 2002, pp. 97–98. Ibid., p. 74. Taken from Hamid Enayat, Modern Islamic Political Thought, Austin: University of Texas Press, 1982, pp. 182–183. Ibid., p. 143. Anthony O’Mahony, “The Image of Christ and Christianity in Shī‘a Islam and Modern Iranian Thought,” p. 10. O’Mahony develops similar observations in his article, “Interreligious Dialogue, Muslim-Christian Relations and Catholic-Shī‘a Engagement,” in Catholics and Shi‘a in Dialogue, pp. 70–103. Ayoub, p. 167. Ayoub, pp. 167–168. See Tom Hawksley, “Why Are So Many Iranians Turning to Christ?” in Faith For Life, vol. 17, April–May 2004, pp. 20–21. Toby Howarth sounds an appropriate note of caution. He writes, “For Christians who would seek to ‘use’ ideas in Shi’i Islam to convince Muslims of the truth of Christianity, Kenneth Cragg sounds a note of warning: ‘In segments of Islam there are far-reaching ideas of sacrifice, notably among the Shi‘as the sense that suffering innocently borne marks a place of divine favor and power. Thus the remembrance of Ali, Hasan and Husayn may help to illuminate in some measure the Christian awareness of the Cross . . . But to mention these aids to interpretation is to realize that in truth the Cross has no parallel. It may be best to wait for those who are strangers to its meaning to see it by its own light.’ ” Howarth, however, goes on to reach a more balanced appreciation of the connection between Shi’i Islam and the Christian faith. “Even if Shi’ite ideas may not be as close to Christian ideas as might initially appear, they may lead to Shi’ite Muslims and Christians being able to understand each other in ways that are harder for Christians and Sunni Muslims . . .” Toby Howarth, “Karbala and Cross: Christian-Muslim relations from the perspective of Indian Shi’ite preaching,” in A Faithful Presence Essays for Kenneth Cragg, London: Melisende, 2000, pp. 316–318. See Richard Martin, Defenders of Reason in Islam, Oxford: Oneworld Publications, 1997, p. 10. On the relationship between Shi’i theology and the Mu’tazili


3/22/2011 1:17:04 PM

212

63. 64.

65.

66.

67.

Christian Encounters with Iran rational thought see Wilfred Madelung, Religious Trends in Early Islamic Iran, Albany: Persian Heritage Foundation, 1988 and Abdulaziz Abdulhussein Sachedina, Islamic Messianism, Albany: SUNY Press, 1981. For the decline of philosophy and theological rationalism in Sunni Islam see Majid Fakhry, A History of Islamic Philosophy, New York: Columbia University Press, 1983, pp. 203–233; and W. Montgomery Watt, Islamic Philosophy and Theology, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1985, pp. 133–141. It is not relevant here whether Mu’tazili rationalism “influenced” the Shi’i tradition or vice versa. The point is that in certain Shi’i communities, rational and philosophical inquires have remained highly important to this very day. For an attempt to demonstrate that Shi’i interest in rationalism influenced Mu‘tazili thinkers (and not the other way around), see Ghasem Javadi, Ta‘sīr-i Andīshihāy-i Kalāmī-i Shi‘a bar Mu‘tazili [The Influence of Shi’ite Theological Thought on Mu‘tazili], in Haft Asman [Seven Heavens], vol. 1, no. 1, spring 1999, pp. 137–166. Allamah Sayyid Muhammad Husayn Tabatabai, Shi‘a, Iran: Ansariyan Publications, 1989, pp. 108–109. Nasr, “Shi‘ism: Ithna ‘Ashariyah,” in The Encyclopedia of Religion, Mircea Eliade, ed., New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, vol. 13, 1987, p. 268. Nasr is very critical of Westerners who think that Islamic philosophy ended with Ibn Rushd and do not see the continuous and independent existence of Islamic philosophy until present day, especially among Iranian Shi’as. See his Traditional Islam in the Modern World, London: Kegan Paul International, 1987, pp. 273–289. Bill and Williams, p. 18. Oliver Leaman observes, “It is often argued that the Shi‘a has a much more committed attitude to philosophy than do Sunni Muslims. It is certainly true that Islamic philosophy has continued to flourish in the Shi’i world as compared with many centuries of neglect in the Sunni world, and the Persian speaking world has played a highly significant role in continuing the tradition initiated in the classical period.” Oliver Leaman, An Introduction to Classical Islamic Philosophy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002, p. 3. Ibid., p. 19. A book on Shi’i theology written by an Iranian scholar also seems to emphasize the importance of reason and rational thought in Shi’i Islam. The author begins his treatment of Islamic theology with these words, “Islam makes use of three principal means of acquiring knowledge of the world and of the truths of religion. . . . These three means are: (a) the senses . . . (b) intellect and reason . . . (c) revelation.” Ayatollah Ja‘far Sobhani, Doctrines of Sh‘i Islam: A Compendium of Imami Beliefs and Practices, London: I.B.Tauris Publishers, 2001, p. 1. S. M. Khamenei, Development of Wisdom in Iran and in the World, Tehran: Sadra Islamic Philosophy and Research Institute Publications, 2000, p. 8.


3/22/2011 1:17:05 PM


213

68. For an excellent article on the contemporary philosophical scene in Iran see, Mehdi Aminrazavi, “Persia,” in S. H. Nasr and Oliver Leaman, eds., History of Islamic Philosophy, pp. 1037–1050. 69. Ibid., pp. 1046–1047. 70. W. Montgomery Watt is somewhat critical of these claims. He writes, “Iranian scholars, supported by enthusiasts like Henry Corbin, have tried to convince the world of the importance of Iranian national contribution to world philosophy, but the world has not yet been convinced, and has seen the Iranian achievement not as philosophy and metaphysics in an Aristotelian sense but as a kind of late-classical sapientia or ‘theosophy’ . . . This has deterred general philosophers from studying it.” Islamic Philosophy and Theology, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1985, p. 153. 71. Mohammad Ali Shomali, “Mary, Jesus and Christianity: an Islamic perspective,” in Catholics and Shi‘a in Dialogue, p. 113. 72. Ibid., pp. 113–116. 73. Ibid., p. 120. 74. Daryush Shayegan, Cultural Schizophrenia: Islamic Societies Confronting the West, London: Saqi Books, 1992, pp. 18–19. 75. Jane Dammen McAuliffe, Qur’anic Christians: An Analysis of Classical and Modern Exegesis, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991, p. 290. 76. Ibid., p. 290. McAuliffe’s insightful warning should be heeded carefully. “Ultimately, therefore, Christian self-definition and Muslim comprehension of praiseworthy Christians must diverge. Biblical Christians as both a sociological and theological category can no longer recognize themselves in the exegetical elaboration of these verses. . . . In a generation that has witnessed an extraordinary increase in the number and intensity of exchanges intended to promote mutual understanding between Muslims and Christians the practical implications of such mistaken perception should be apparent. Christians involved in these collaborations cannot expect that Muslims deeply schooled in their tradition will understand the Qur’anic passages of praise to apply indiscriminately to the individuals sitting across the table. Christians may wish for such an interpretation, welcoming it as a textual entrée to greater interreligious appreciation. Muslim participants may even choose to venture such an interpretation. Those who do so, however, will be compelled by the exegetical history of their tradition to acknowledge that they are creating new interpretive strategies.” Ibid., pp. 290–291. 77. Roger Savory, “Relations between the Safavid State and its Non-Muslim Minorities,” in Islam and Christian-Muslim Relations, vol. 14, no. 4, October 2003, p. 435. 78. Commenting on the dhimmi status in the Muslim world, Savory quotes Bernard Lewis noting that “discrimination was always there . . . inherent in


3/22/2011 1:17:05 PM

214

79. 80. 81.

82.

83. 84.

Christian Encounters with Iran the system and institutionalized in law and practice.” Ibid. p. 436. Concerning najāsat or ritual and physical impurity of non-Muslim people that Savory calls the Shi’ite “added touch,” Savory claims, “If one religion, in this case Islam, considers the adherents of other faiths to be unclean (najis), it is hard to argue that relations between the two can be based on goodwill and mutual respect. Bernard Lewis argues that ‘obsessive concern with the dangers of ritual pollution by unclean persons of another group is virtually limited to Iranian Shi‘ism and . . . is unknown to mainstream Islam.’ ” Savory goes on to say, “More recently, of course, Ayatullah Khomeini restated the Ithna ’Ashari position on impurity with uncompromising harshness; among the eleven things he listed as impure are non-Muslim men and women.” p. 441. And finally, in regard to the Shi’i messianic doctrine, Savory believes that the Shi’i view of the mujtahids, the most eminent jurists and theologians of the time, who according to some should be regarded as the only legitimate authority, can produce an adverse effect on religious minorities in the society. “Because their authority could not in theory be questioned, it would have necessarily a significant impact not only on their Muslim subjects but also on their non-Muslim minorities. Such proved to be the case after the establishment of the Islamic Republic of Iran in 1979.” p. 442. Masoud Pedram, Rushanfikrān-i Dīniī va Mudirnītah dar Īrān-i pas az Inqilāb, Tehran: Gām-i Nu, 1382 (2003). Ibid., p. 59. Seyyed Abdolmajid Mirdamadi, “Religious Minority Groups in Iran,” in Dialogue, vol. 1, spring 2000, pp. 122–134. Given the fact that praising the Iranian royal dynasties has not been very “politically correct” since the Islamic revolution, Mirdamadi’s praise of pre-Islamic royal dynasties of Iran is quite significant. In fact, the expression of pride and appreciation for pre-Islamic Iranian civilization has recently become a prominent theme in many of the journals produced by various organizations active in interfaith dialogue. Nourullah Kasai, “A Historical Study of Iranian Approach to Religions, Denominational Pluralism,” in Dialogue, vol. 1, no. 1, summer 2004, p. 39. Also, like Mirdamadi, Kasai expresses a profound appreciation for PreIslamic Iranian royal dynasties and their spirit of tolerance and pluralism. Seyyed Mohammad Ali Abtahi in an interview with the author, February 22, 2003. Richard Foltz, Spirituality in the Land of the Noble: How Iran Shaped the World’s Religions, Oxford: Oneworld Publications, 2004, p. x. In an insightful comment about the Iranian mind, Foltz writes, “Yet for much of human history over the past three millennia. . . . Iran was a culture, often the culture, to be reckoned with. Consequently Iranians, ever mindful that they are heirs to


3/22/2011 1:17:05 PM


85. 86. 87. 88.

89. 90. 91. 92. 93. 94. 95.

96.

97.

215

one of the world’s oldest and most influential civilizations, often strike others as possessing a sense of cultural superiority that even the French would be hard to match.” p. 3. Chris Hewer, an Anglican scholar of Islam, cites “Iran’s lack of a post colonial inferiority complex” also as an important key to understanding contemporary attitudes among Iranians toward dialogue. Interview with the author, March 4, 2004. Foltz, p. xi. Mirdamadi, “Christianity in Iran,” in Dialogue, vol. 2, aitumn 2000, p. 122. Ibid., p. 128. Anthony O’Mahony, “The Image of Christ and Christianity in Shī‘a Islam and Modern Iranian Thought,” in D. Thomas and C. Amos (eds), A Faithful Presence. London: Melisende, 2003, p. 256. For further information about the history of Christianity in Iran, see the works cited in the article. Foltz, p. 80. Ibid., pp. 80–81. Ibid., pp. 80, 83. Ibid., p. 79. Ibid., p. 93. See ibid., pp. 89–92. Interview with Abtahi, February 22, 2003. Abtahi went on to say that unlike the negative attitudes toward the Jews in Iranian folklore, Iranians have been very positive about Armenian communities. For two recent books on Christians in Iran see Mitra Ma‘soumi (trans.), Nūr΄ā varān [Bringers of Light], Tehran: ‘Ilm Publications, 1382 (2003), and Andranik Hovian, Armanīyān-i Īrān [Armenians of Iran], Tehran: International Center for Dialogue Among Civilizations, 1380 (2001). For other books that treat the subject of Christians in ancient Iran see Morteza Saghebfar (trans.), Az Īrān-i Zardushtī tā Islā m [From Zoroastrian Iran to Islam], Tehran: Gāqnūs Publications, 1381 (2002); Rashid Yasemi (trans.), Īrān dar Zamān-i Sā sānīān [Iran During the Sasanian], Tehran: Ṣidā-yi Mu‘ā ṣir, 1378 (1999). Interestingly, even an old book by a former American Presbyterian missionary to Iran, Dr. William Miller, originally published in 1931 has been reprinted recently. Ali Nokhostin (trans.), Tā rīkh-i Kilīsā-yi Qadīm dar Impirā ṭūrī-yi Rum va Īrān [The History of the Ancient Church in the Roman and Persian empires], Tehran: Asaṭīr Publications, 1382 (2003). For a classic work in Farsi on the history of Christianity in Iran written by a prominent Iranian intellectual see Saied Nafisi, Masī ḥīyat dar Īrān [Christianity in Iran], Tehran: Light of the World Co., 1964. This work has also been reprinted recently in Iran by Intishārāt-i Asāṭīr, 1383 (2004). Not all Persian poetry is connected to Sufism and not all Sufi influence on Iranian attitude toward Christianity is confined to poetry. However,


3/22/2011 1:17:05 PM

216

98. 99.

100. 101. 102. 103.

Christian Encounters with Iran for the purpose of this chapter the two distinct influences are combined under one heading. As Marshall Hodgson points out, “Despite the popularity of metaphysics, the most popular and most frequent literary expression of the Sufi vision took the form of actual poetry.” He adds, “Persian poetry and even Persian prose became increasingly influenced by the imagery of Sufism . . . from the twelfth century on, increasingly Sufism was the inspiration of more and more of the important poets.” The Venture of Islam, vol. 2, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1974, pp. 244, 304. William Chittick writes, “As for the relationship between Sufism and Persian poetry, we should first recall that over the past 1000 years, the Persian language has witnessed a host of major and minor poets. . . . Many if not most of these poets were either explicit representatives of the Sufi tradition, or implicit exponents of Sufi teachings. The simple reason for this is that the Sufi tradition was instrumental in molding the imagery, symbolism, metaphors, tropes, and indeed the worldview, that inform all but the earliest Persian poetry.” “The Pluralistic Vision of Persian Sufi Poetry,” Islam and Christian-Muslim Relations, vol. 14, no. 4, October 2003, p. 424. For further elaboration of some of these issues, see Leonard Lewisohn, ed., Classical Persian Sufism: from its Origins to Rumi, London: Khaniqahi Nimatullahi Publications, 1993. O’Mahony, “The Image of Christ . . . .” p. 257. H. B. Dehqani-Tafti, Masī ḥ va Masī ḥīyat Nazd-i Īrānīyān [Christ and Christianity Amongst Iranians], vol. 1 A Short Historical Survey, vol. 2 In the Classical Period of Persian Poetry, vol. 3 In Contemporary Poetry, Prose and Art, London: Sohrab Books, 1992–1994. Ibid., vol. 2, p. 7. See his Reason, Freedom, and Democracy in Islam, especially the notes, for the sheer number of references to Persian poems. Mohammad Este‘lami, “Rumi and the Universality of his message,” Islam and Christian-Muslim Relations, vol. 14, no. 4, October 2003, p. 430. Ibid., p. 432. However, this is not to deny that Rumi was quite critical of many of the doctrines and practices in orthodox traditional Christianity. See Lloyd Ridgeon, Crescents on the Cross: Islamic Visions of Christianity, Oxford University Press, 1999, pp. 32–64. Also in the same work, Ridgeon, concludes his chapter entitled, “Christianity as portrayed by Jalal Al-Din Rumi,” by pointing out, “Rumi also considered that the Islamic form of religion was superior to others because its comprehensive nature extends into all spheres of life. . . . In this respect Rumi is an ‘orthodox’ Muslim, convinced that the form of religion was perfected with God’s revelation that was sent to Muhammad.” Ibid., p. 60. For further elaborations of Rumi’s position also see Lloyd Ridgeon’s article, “Christianity as Portrayed by Jalal al-Din Rumi,” in Lloyd Ridgeon, ed., Islamic Interpretations of


3/22/2011 1:17:05 PM


104.

105.

106.

107. 108.

109. 110. 111.

217

Christianity, New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2001, pp. 99–126. For two masterful treatments of an overall summary of Rumi’s “teachings” and “theology” see Franklin Lewis, Rumi: Past and Present, East and West, Oxford: Oneworld Publications, 2000, pp. 394–419; and Annemarie Schimmel, The Triumphal Sun: A Study of the Works of Jalaloddin Rumi, Albany: State University of New York Press, 1993, pp. 223–366. Scholarly judgments on the extent of the “openness” of Sufis to other religions is a matter of some debate. For an example of a highly nuanced and yet positive evaluation of Sufism toward Christianity see Leonard Lewisohn, “The Estoric Christianity of Islam,” in Lloyd Ridgeon, ed., Islamic Interpretations of Christianity, pp. 127–156. For a more negative assessment of the inclusivity of Sufism see Carl-A. Keller, “Perceptions of Other Religions in Sufism,” in Waardenburg, ed., Muslim Perceptions of Other Religions, Leuven: Peeters, 2000, pp. 181–194. Bill and Williams, p. 80. The authors support their statement by the following argument: “In Sufism, the central guiding role of the shaykh or pir is generally similar to the position of the Imam or mujtahid in Shi‘ism. . . . Shi‘i believers seek the path to God through the Imams just as the Sufis seek union with God through following the path of the saints. . . . According to Henri Corbin, Shi‘ism is the ‘sanctuary of Islamic esoterism.’ ” p. 80. Yann Richard, Shi’ite Islam, Polity, Ideology and Creed, Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1995, p. 55. For the tensions between Sufism and other varieties of Shi‘ism see Richard, pp. 58-ff. O’Mahony, “The Image of Christ . . .” pp. 5–6. For a discussion on the persecution of minorities and dissidents in Iran see Reza Afshari, Human Rights in Iran: The Abuse of Cultural Relativism, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2001. These challenges will be returned to later in the chapter. Mehrzad Boroujerdi, Iranian Intellectuals and the West, Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1996, p. 177. Farzin Vahdat, God and Juggernaut: Iran’s Intellectual Encounter with Modernity, New York: Syracuse University Press, 2002, p. xi. For a representative sample of books on the topic of “modernity” see Masoud Pedram, Rushanfikrān-i Dīnī va Mudirnītah dar Īrān-i pas az Inqilāb [Religious Intellectuals and Modernity in Post Revolutionary Iran], Tehran: Gām-i Nu, 1382 (2003); Abdollah Nasri, Guftimān-i Mudirnītah [Discourse of Modernity: A survey of Iran’s contemporary current of Thoughts], Tehran: Daftar-i Nashr-i Farhang-i Islāmī, 1382 (2003); Morteza Asadi, Īṛ ān, Islā m, Tajaddud [Iran, Islam, Modernity], Tehran: Ṭarḥ-i Nu, 1377 (1998); Jamshid Behnam, Īrānīān va Andīshi-yi Tajaddud [Iranians and Modern Thought], Tehran: Nashr-i Farzān Rūz, 1383 (2004); Masoud Koohestani


3/22/2011 1:17:05 PM

218

112.

113. 114.

115. 116. 117.

118. 119.

Christian Encounters with Iran Nejad, Chālish-i Mazhab va Mudirnīzm [The Challenge of Religion and Modernism], Tehran: Nashr-i Nay, 1381 (2002); Ramin Jahanbegloo, Īrān va Mudirnītah [Iran and Modernity], Tehran: Nashr-i Guftār, 1380 (2001); Daryush Ashoori, Mā va Mudirnīyat [We and Modernity], Tehran: Ṣirāṭ, 1376 (1997); Abbas Milani, Tajaddud va Tajaddud ΄sitīzī darĪrān [Modernity and anti-Modernity in Iran], Tehran: Akhtarān, 1380 (2001); Babak Ahmadi, Mu‘ammā-yi Mudirnītah [The Puzzle of Modernity], Tehran: Nashr-i Markaz, 1377 (1998); Taghi Azad Armaki, Mudirnītah-yi Īrānī [Iranian Modernity], Tehran: Ijtimā’, 1380 (2001); Hossein Ali Nozari, (trans.), Mudirnītah va Mudirnīzm [Modernity and Modernism], Tehran: Naqsh-i Jahān, 1379 (2000). Ali Mirsepassi, Intellectual Discourse and the Politics of Modernization: Negotiating Modernity in Iran, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000. The quote is from the inside cover of the book. Ibid., p. 182. Ali Ansari, Iran, Islam and Democracy: The Politics of Managing Change, London: Royal Institute of International Affairs, 2000, p. 64. For a recent article on the spread of internet and information technology among clerics in Qum see www.bbc.co.uk/persian/iran/story/2005/08/050802_mj-mkhalajiinternet-qom.shtml (accessed December 8, 2005). For the profound impact of globalization on socio-political, cultural and economic aspects of Iranian society, see Ali Mohammadi, ed., Iran Encountering Globalization: Problems and Prospects, London: RoutledgeCurzon, 2003. Ansari, p. 67. Ansari, pp. 68–69. Some of the titles include “Modernity and Modernization: Sociological Implications for Religion,” “A Theological Evaluation of Modernity: An Asian Point of View,” “The Relation between Philosophy and Theology in a Postmodern Age,” “The Second Vatican Council: Encounter with Modernity,” “The Influence of Modernity in Non-Western Countries,” “Islam and Pluralism.” Ali Paya, “Islam, Christianity, and Judaism: Can they live peacefully together?” Dialogue, vol. 3, spring 2001, pp. 3, 8. The reports about the social and cultural unrest in Iran, especially among the youth, are now regularly cited in Western media. For example, according to an article published in the Economist (December 9, 2004), “Sociologists and educators report that religious belief and observance, especially among the young, have slumped since the mullahs took power a quarter of a century ago. Instead of fortifying the people’s devotion, the system seems to have switched many people off the spiritual side of life, inspiring a shallow materialism instead.” Another report on CNN.com (dated February 28,


3/22/2011 1:17:05 PM


120. 121. 122. 123.

124. 125.

126. 127.

219

2005) under the title “Flirting youths outrage Iranian hard-liners”, states, “Religious figures in Iran, including President Mohammad Khatami, a reformist cleric, have noted with dismay that Iran’s disproportionately youthful population, around two-thirds of whom were born after the 1979 Islamic revolution, are increasingly turning away from religion. Mohsen Kadivar, a mid-ranking cleric and philosophy lecturer whose views have landed him in prison, told Reuters in an interview earlier this month that young people in secular Turkey were more interested in religion than those in Iran. “This shows that religion is voluntary. Forcing it on society has the opposite effect,” he said. For an academic treatment of the discontent of the youth with the religious establishment of Iran, see Behzad Yaghmaian, Social Change in Iran, pp. 47–115; Eric Hooglund, ed., Twenty Years of Islamic Revolution, Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, pp. 3–73. Ramin Jahanbegloo, Iran: Between Tradition and Modernity, Lanham: Lexington Books, 2004, p. xxii. Catholics and Shi‘a in Dialogue, pp. 60–61. See Chapter Four for further elaboration of these themes. Due to his extremist political positions, Ayatollah Misbah Yazdi is a deeply feared and disliked person, not only among the general population, but also by many Muslim thinkers and clergy. Former vice-president Abtahi has gone on record saying that the “consequence of his [Yazdi’s] perspective is the spread of anti-religious feelings [in Iranian society].” Seyyed Mohammad Ali Abtahi, Tadbīr va Tahammul [Thoughts and Tolerance], Tehran: Luḥ-i Fikr, 1383 (2004), p. 160. For some discussions of Yazdi’s call for violence against opponents of the Iranian government, see Navid Kermani, “The Fear of the Guardians. 24 Army Officers Write a Letter to President Khatami,” in Rainer Brunner and Werner Ende, eds., The Twelver Shi‘a in Modern Times: Religious Culture and Political History, Leiden: Brill, 2001, pp. 354–364. Taken from Forough Jahanbakhsh, Islam, Democracy and Religious Modernism in Iran, 1953–2000: From Bazargan to Soroush, Leiden: Brill, 2001 p. 85. www.cnn.com/WORLD/9801/07/iran/interview.html (accessed January 15, 2003). About the political and cultural significance of this interview and its broad exposure inside Iran, see Ali Ansari, Iran, Islam and Democracy, pp. 133–140. For a text of the interview along with responses from a number of American intellectuals see Anthony Dennis, ed., Letters to Khatami: A Reply to the Iranian President’s Call for a Dialogue Among Civilizations, Bristol: Wyndham Hall Press, 2001. See the treatment of these themes in Soroush’s Reason, Freedom, and Democracy in Islam. Jahanbegloo, p. xxii.


3/22/2011 1:17:06 PM

220


128. Ali Paya, Dialogue, vol. 3, p. 10. 129. Ibid. p. 11. This openness toward the issues of religious truth is very similar to what is advocated by, among many others, Leonard Swidler, “The Age of Dialogue” in Islam and Christianity: Mutual Perceptions since the Mid-20th Century, Jacques Waardenburg, ed., Leuven: Peeters, 1998 pp. 271–292. 130. A good example of such intellectuals is Reza Davari Ardekani. See his Tamaddun va Tafakkur-i Gharbī [Western Thought and Civilization], Tehran: Nashr-i Ṣāqī, 1380 (2001). Ardekani devotes a sizeable portion of this book on the philosophical foundations of Christian thought, including chapters on Thomas Aquinas and Kierkegaard. For Jahanbegloo, who is not personally a very religious figure, Ardekani is “one of the most virulent antidemocratic and antimodernist thinkers of the postrevolutionary period.” Jahanbegloo, p. xv. 131. Soroush, Farbah΄ tar az Īdi’uluzhī [More Than an Ideology], Tehran: Ṣirāṭ, 1381 (2002). 132. An example of this fascination with Protestant Reformation and its applicability to the Reformist movement in Iran is the lecture by Hashim Aghajari which caused a national uproar and landed the speaker in jail facing a death sentence for allegedly disrespecting the sacred fundamentals of Islam. For a text of the lecture and its ensuing events see Dīn, Qudrat va Sirvat [Religion, Power and Wealth: Trial and Defenses of Sayyid Hashim Aghajari], Tehran: Mu’assisi-yi Nashr va Tahqīqāt-i Zikr, 1382 (2003). Also see Sukidi, “The Traveling Idea of Islamic Protestantism: A Study of Iranian Luthers,” Islam and Christian-Muslim Relations, vol. 16, no. 4, October 2005, pp. 401–412. 133. A classical example of this approach can be found in ‘Ali Shari‘ati, Tā rīkh va Shinākht-i Adyān [History and Knowledge of Religions], 2 vols., Tehran: Shirkat-i Sahāmī-i Intishār, 1362 (1983). 134. “A Discussion on Dialogue Between Religions,” Dialogue, vol. 1, p. 24. 135. Interview with Chris Hewer, March 4, 2004. 136. Farhad Khosrokhavar, “Postrevolutionary Iran and the new social movements,” in Eric Hooglund, ed., Twenty Years of Islamic Revolution: Political and Social Transition in Iran since 1979, Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 2002, p. 7. 137. Ibid., p. 10. 138. Ibid., pp. 10–11. 139. Ibid., p. 11. The second group, according to the author, includes those Muslim thinkers who believe the role of the clergy in Iran should not be direct intervention in the affairs of the government, but “the scrutiny


3/22/2011 1:17:06 PM


140. 141. 142.

143. 144. 145. 146.

147.

148.

149.

221

of laws to ensure their conformity with Islamic principles.” Ayatollah Montazeri and Mohsen Kadivar are the famous proponents of this view. “Both groups . . . question, in the very name of Islam, the legitimacy of velayat-e faqih.” p. 11. Ibid., p. 12. Ibid., pp. 13–14. See Mohammad Khatami, Islam, Dialogue and Civil Society, Canberra: The Australian National University, 2000. This book was also later published in 2003 by The Jawaharlal Nehru University in New Delhi, India. Khosrokhavar, p. 18. Official Documents, Speeches and Discussions on Dialogue Among Civilizations, Tehran: International Center for Dialogue Among Civilizations, n.d., pp. 226–227. See Chapter Four for further details. In addition to various speeches by President Khatami printed in the collection of documents referred to in the previous footnote, also see Hizā rah-yi Guftugū va Tafāhum [The Millennium of Dialogue and Understanding], Tehran: Risānah, 1378 (1999); Khātamī va Dānishgāh [Khatami and the University], Tehran: Daftar-i Nashr-i Ma‘ārif, 1381 (2002); Khatami, Guftugū-yi Tammadunhā [Dialogue of Civilizations], Tehran: Ṭarḥ-i Nu, 1380 (2001). For samples of Khatami’s speeches in English see his contributions in Akbar Ahmad and Brian Forst, eds., After Terror, Cambridge: Polity Press, 2005; Achim Koddermann, ed., Dialogue Among Civilizations, vols. I, II, New York: Global Scholarly Publications, 2005. Seyyed Mohammad Khatami, Az Dunyā-yi Shahr tā Shahr-i Dunyā [From the World of the City to the City of the World], Tehran: Nashr-i Nay, 1373 (1994). For two works in English see Mohammad Khatami, Hope and Challenge: The Iranian President Speaks, New York: Binghamton University, 1997 and Islam, Liberty and Development, NY: Global Academic Publishing, 1998. See especially Mohammad Mansour Nejad, Guftugū-yi Tammadunhā: Az Manẓar-i Andīshmandān-i Īrānī [Dialogue of Civilizations: From the Perspective of Iranian Intellectuals], Tehran: Jahād-i Dānishgāhī, 1381 (2002); Mohammad Mansour Nejad, Rūykard΄ ha-yi Naẓarī dar Guftugūy-i Tammadunhā [Theoretical Perspectives on the Dialogue of Civilizations], Tehran: Jahād-i Danishgāhī, 1381 (2002). For a more simple and somewhat shallow analysis of Khatami’s proposal see Ahmad Same‘ie, Duktirīn-i Khātamī dar Guftugū-yi Tammadunhā va Farhanghā [Khatami’s Doctrine in the Dialogue of Civilizations and Cultures], Tehran: Intishārāt-i Chikad, 1380 (2001). See Chapter Four for further information and discussion on this organization and its activities.


3/22/2011 1:17:06 PM

222


150. In a private conversation with a well-known Iranian involved in Muslim– Christian dialogue, the author was told that there are many highly qualified Iranians that could participate in interfaith dialogue but choose not to do so because of the close connection between such dialogues and the Iranian government. 151. See the reports on Iran at www.hrw.org. 152. See the reports on Iran at www.amnesty.org. 153. See the reports on Iran at www.rsf.org. 154. “Country Reports on Human Rights Practices 2003,” released by the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, February 25, 2004. See www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2003/27927.htm (accessed March 1, 2004). 155. “International Religious Freedom Report 2003,” released by the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. See www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/ irf/2003/24449.htm (accessed March 1, 2004). For the harsh treatment of Protestant Christians in Iran and other religious minorities also see Reza Afshari, Human Rights in Iran, pp. 119–145. For violations of the right to freedom of expression and the press, see Afshari, pp. 217–232.

3 Iranian Shi’as and the Christian Faith: A Survey of Iranian Publications on Christianity 1. Major portions of an earlier version of this chapter first appeared in the journal Transformation, vol. 22, no. 1, Jan–March, 2005 under the title “Shi’i Muslim Encounter with Christian Thought.” 2. Although there is no center in Iran that is known to possess a complete catalogue of published books and articles in the country (with the possible exception of the quite inaccessible National Library of Iran, www.nlai.ir), a site that provides good access to many published works in Iran is www.ketab.ir. Also a valuable resource since 1998 is the publication of the monthly journal Kitāb-i Māh: Dīn [Book of the Month: Religion] which not only documents and reviews all published Farsi materials and many of the more significant books in Arabic and Western languages in religious studies, but also presents many original articles on related fields. Another center that can be consulted in this regard is the Islamic Data Bank in Qum, www.islamicdatabank.com. 3. This statement is not only based on interviews with many leading Iranian Muslim thinkers that are in active dialogue with Christians, but also based on the author’s observations during trips to Iran and numerous visits to bookstores across Tehran and Qum. With the exception of a handful of books, all the other traditional polemical books on Christianity are out of print and cannot be easily accessed by anyone.


3/22/2011 1:17:06 PM


223

4. Seyyed Hashem Rasuli Mahallati, Qiṣā ṣ-i Qur’an yā Tā rīkh-i Anbiyā: Az Adam tā Khātamul Nabīyīn (SA), [Stories of the Qur’an or History of the Prophets: From Adam to the Seal of Prophets], Tehran: Farhang-i Islāmī, 15th ed, 1380 (2001). This book seems to be by far the most popular book in this genre since it has gone through fifteen printings since its publication. 5. Abdol Rahim Govahi, Dar΄ā madī bar Tā rīkh-i Adyān dar Qur’an, [A Survey of the History of Religions in the Qur’an], Tehran: Farhang-i Islāmī, 1376 (1997). 6. Valiollah Rastgar Joubari, Masī ḥ dar Qur’an, [Jesus in Holy Qur’an], Tehran: Intishārāt-i ‘Aqīdatī Sīyāsī-yi Nīrū-yi Havā’ī-yi Artish, 1377 (1998). 7. Mahallati points out that according to various traditions, the four most exalted women in history were the wife of Pharaoh, Mary, Khadijah and Fatima, p. 722. 8. Mahallati, pp. 731–732. 9. Mahallati, p. 749. 10. Mahallati, pp. 762–766. 11. Interestingly, the most prominent biblical source for Jesus’ teachings found in Islamic tradition seems to be the Sermon on the Mount. 12. Govahi, p. 295. 13. Govahi, p. 295. 14. Govahi, pp. 296–299. 15. Govahi, p. 294. 16. Govahi, pp. 304–305. 17. Joubari, pp. pp. 24–29. 18. One gets the impression that despite the call for a mutual understanding, the author is more interested in Christians to better understand the true teachings of Islam. Joubari, p. 32. 19. Joubari claims that the Qur’an is the most reliable source of information about Jesus and that Christians in fact need to consult the Qur’an as the most important document for true knowledge about Christ. pp. 126–127. 20. Kenneth Cragg, Jesus and the Muslim, London: George Allen and Unwin, 1985, pp. 25–26. 21. Two well known polemics that have been translated into Persian are the works of Maurice Bucaille, The Bible, the Qur’an and Science, translated by Zabi-ollah Dabir, Tehran: Daftar-i Nashr-i Farhang-ī Islāmī, 1364 (1985); and ‘Ata ur-Rahim’s Jesus: Prophet of Islam, translated by Ahmad Beheshti, Tehran: Intishārāt-i Iṭṭilā‘āt, 1373 (1994). An English translation of an Arabic polemic has also been published in Iran. It is by Muhammad Jawad al-Balaghi, al-Rihlah al-Madrasiyyah, translated by Abbas Jawad Safi as The Bible: A forged truth or a true forgery?, Tehran: Islamic Culture and Relations Organization, 1997.


3/22/2011 1:17:06 PM

224


22. Ḥaqīqat-i Masī ḥīyat [The Truth of Christianity], Qum: Mu’assisiyi dar Rāh-i Ḥaqq, 1361 (1982). 23. Ali al-Ishaq Khueini, Masīhīyat [Christianity], Qum: Daftar-i Tablīghāt-i Islami-i Qum, 1364 (1985). 24. Jalaleddin Ashtiyani, Taḥqīqī dar Dīn-i Masī ḥ [An Investigation in Christ’s Religion], Tehran: Nashr-i Nigārish, 1368 (1989). 25. Injīl-i Bā rnābā [The Gospel of Barnabas], edited by Jamshid GholamiNahad, Tehran: Nīyāyish, 1379 (2000). The concern here is not the text of the Gospel of Barnabas itself, but with the first 200 pages of the “introduction” which Gholami-Nahad provides. 26. Ḥaqīqat-i Masīḥīyat. This book and other similar titles from the same publisher such as Chahār Maqāl-i dar Bārah-yi Masīḥīyat va ‘Ahdāyn [Four Articles about Christianity and the Covenants], although published four years after the revolution of 1979, were collection of articles published in Iran prior to the revolution. These books went through several printings and each time 15000 copies were printed (far beyond the typical two or three thousand copies common in Iranian publishing) and were often distributed freely. 27. According to the book, the purpose of this publication is to respond to the “glossy publications of Christian missionary propagandas” which try to shake the beliefs of Iranian youth. 28. The Truth of Christianity, pp. 10–11. 29. Ibid., pp. 11–12. 30. Ibid., p. 12. 31. Ibid., p. 14. 32. Ibid., pp. 15–16. 33. In chapter 13, the book addresses the immorality of New Years’ Eve parties in which Christians spend the night in nightclubs and are engaged in every form of debauchery such as dancing, drinking and lustful activities! 34. Like many other older polemics written since 1979, this book is also currently out of print and not commonly available. 35. Khueini, p. 227. Based on so many references to the work of Will Durant by various Iranian authors, it seems safe to say that Durant’s work continues to be the standard definitive account of Western history for most Iranians to this day. 36. Khueini, p. 341. 37. Khueini, p. 646. “The other sources” are mostly the canonical gospels. 38. The author provides six categories of tahrif or corruption such as reversing the order of a statement, using different wording for the same topic, changing the context of a story and repeating a story more than once. Interestingly, he makes no mention of the textual corruption of the Gospels in his discussion of tahrif. 39. This is part of Ashtiyani’s trilogy so far; the first two volumes deal with Zoroastrianism and Judaism. Although, Ashtiyani is the only one of our


3/22/2011 1:17:06 PM


40. 41.

42. 43.

44. 45.

46. 47. 48. 49. 50.

51.

225

Iranian authors under consideration who does not live in Iran, nevertheless, his works are all published and widely available in Iran. An Associated Press article dated March 10, 1989. Ashtiyani’s bibliography of English and German titles is an impressive bibliography in a work by an Iranian author. There are numerous titles by critical biblical scholars such as Bornkamm, Bultmann, Conzelmann, Dibelius, Grant, Knox, Marxen and Robertson among many others. According to Yann Richard, Ashtiyani who was a former pupil of Ayatollah Khomeini, was called by Corbin as “Molla Sadra redivivus due to his philosophical learnings.” Richard, Shi‘ite Islam, p. 66. See his chapter on Jesus’ miracles, pp. 211–225. Ashtiyani seems to attribute all of the miracles of Jesus to the realm of mythology or parapsychology. Ashytiani, p. 493. He concludes his book by saying, “The power of faith is a strong force and if combined with love and gnosis, can take a constructive role in the purification and reform of society.” p. 496. Gholami-Nahad, pp. 13–31. The author emphasizes the point that Jesus did not come to destroy the Mosaic Law, but to give it a deeper spiritual meaning and to criticize the ritualism of the Pharisees. Once again, frequent references to Will Durant are cited as proof of these charges. pp. 36–37. See Gholami-Nahad, pp. 158–172. Gohalmi-Nahad, pp. 227–313. Ghomalmi-Nahad, p. 206. In a personal interview with Abdol-Rahim Soleimani Ardestani, a Shi’i clergy and an emerging authority on Christianity in Qum, the author was told that polemical works against Christianity are greatly decreasing in number. More interestingly, Mr. Ardestani claimed that the Gospel of Barnabas is no longer accepted as an authentic work among academic circles in Qum. He further noted that any acceptable academic work in Iran about Christianity can no longer refer to Muslim sources on Christianity, but should reflect only Christian sources and must accurately portray what Christians themselves say about the Christian faith. According to Mr. Ardestani these changes have taken place because the “Islamic revolution has opened up new horizons for people and the educational level in society has improved tremendously. People no longer accept something on blind faith or by force; they need evidence and reason for what they believe.” Interview with the author, March 2, 2003, Qum, Iran. Abdollah Nasseri Taheri (trans.), Tā rīkh-i Janghā-yi Ṣalībī [History of the Crusades], Tehran: Vizārat-i Farhang va Irshād-i Islāmī, 1369 (1990); Ebrahim Sadaqiani (trans.), Tā rīkh-i Taftīsh-i ΄Aqāyid [History of the


3/22/2011 1:17:06 PM

226

52.

53.

54.

55.

56.

57.

Christian Encounters with Iran Inquisition], Tehran: Jahān-i Rāyāni, 1378 (1999); Gholam Reza Afshar Naderi (trans.) Tā rīkh-i Taftīsh-i ΄Aqāyid [History of the Inquisition], Tehran: Jāmi‘yi Īrānīān, 1379 (2000). Another recent translation similar to this category is Mehdi Samenieh (trans.), Fā shīzm va Kilīsā [Fascism and the Church], Mashhad: Bahār, 1380 (2001). Max Weber’ famous The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism has been translated by Abdol Karim Rashidian and Parisa Manouchehr Kashani, Akhlāq-i Prutistānī va Rūh-i Sarmāyahdā rī, Tehran: Intishārāt-i ‘Ilmi va Farhangī, 1373 (1994). Mohammad Baqa‘ie (trans.), Khudā dar Amrīkā [God in America], Tehran: Intishārāt-i Ḥikmat, 1371 (1992); Mir Masoud Hoseinian, Lubnān: Tā rīkhchah va Ahzāb-i Masī ḥī [Lebanon: A Short History and Christian Parties], Tehran: Kitāb-i Nīstān, 1380 (2001); Ali Jannati, (trans.), Masī ḥīyat-i Ṣahyunīst va Bunyā d ΄garā-yi Amrīkā [Zionist and Fundamentalist Christianity in America], Qum: Nashr-i Adyān, 1383 (2004). Currently there are two different translations of Augustine’s Confessions and two translations of Thomas á Kempis’s The Imitation of Christ. Confessions has been translated by Saye Maysami, I‘tirāfāt, Tehran: Daftar-i Pazhūhish va Nashr-i Suhrivardī, 1380 (2001); and Afsaneh Nejati, I‘tirāfāt-i Agustīn-i Quddūs, Tehran: Payām-i Imrūz, 1382 (2003). The Imitation of Christ has been translated by Saied Edalatnejad, Iqtidā bi Masī ḥ, Tehran: Ṭarḥ-i Nu, 1382 (2003); and Saye Maysami, Tashabbuh bi Masī ḥ, Tehran: Intishārāt-i Hirmis, 1383 (2004). The two translations of Ms. Maysami are done under the general editorship of Mostafa Malekian. A book on Mother Teresa has been translated by Keyvan Ahmadzadeh, Mā dar Tirizā, Zāhidān: Intishārāt-i Qadīr-i Khum, 1379 (2000); and Pirouz Sayyar has translated a work on St. Francis of Assissi called Rafīq-i A‘lā, Tehran: Ṭarḥ-i Nu, 1376 (1997). Evelyn Underhill’s The Mystics of the Church has been translated by Ahmad Reza Movidi and Hamid Mahmoudian, ‘Arifān-i Masī ḥī, Qum: Markaz-i Muṭ āli‘āt va Tahqīqāt-i Adyān va Mazāhib, 1384 (2005). Jesus by Humphrey Carpenter published in the Past Masters series by Oxford, and Brian Wilson’s Christianity are two examples of a more recent Farsi translations of this category. The first book is translated by Hasan Kamshad, Tehran: Ṭarḥ-i Nu, 1374 (1995); and the latter book is translated by Hasan Afshar, Tehran: Nashr-i Markaz, 1381 (2002). The Center for Religious Studies in Qum has published three books in this category which cover such topics as early Christian heresies, the Dead Sea scrolls and its connection to the origins of Christianity and the idea of the Messiah in Jewish history. Abdol Rahim Soleimani Ardestani (trans.), Masīhīyat va Bid‘athā [Christianity and Heresies], Qum: Ṭāhā, 1377 (1998);


3/22/2011 1:17:07 PM

Notes to Page 61

227

Hossein Tofiqi (trans.), Intizā r-i Masī ḥā dar Ayīn-i Yahū d [Expectation for the Messiah in Judaism], Qum: Markaz-i Muṭ āli‘āt va Tahqīqāt-i Adyān va Mazāhib, 1377 (1998); Ali Mehdizadeh (trans.), Rīshi΄ ha-yi Masī ḥīyat dar Asnā d-i Bahrulmayt [The Roots of Christianity in the Documents of the Dead Sea], Qum: Nashr-i Adyān, 1383 (2004). 58. Abdol Rahim Soleimani Ardestani (trans.), Ayīn-i Prutistān [Protestant Doctrines], Qum: Mu’assisi-yi Amūzishī va Pazhūhishī-i Imām Khumaynī, 1381 (2002); Hasan Ghanbari (trans.), Ayīn-i Kātulīk [Catholic Doctrines], Qum: Markaz-i Muṭ āli‘āt va Tahqīqāt-i Adyān va Mazāhib, 1381 (2002); Fariborz Majidi (trans.), Rūh-i Ayīn-i Prutistān [The Spirit of Protestantism], Tehran: Nashr-i Nigāh-i Mu‘ā ṣir, 1381 (2002); Behrooz Haddadi (trans.), Muqadamah-yī bar Tafakkur-i Nihẓat-i Iṣlāh-i Dīnī [Introduction to Reformation Thought], Qum: Markaz-i Muṭ āli‘āt va Tahqīqāt-i Adyān va Mazāhib, 1382 (2003). This last volume is a translation of Alister McGrath’s book on Reformation Thought. Behrooz Haddadi has now published a translation of McGrath’s book Christian Theology: An Introduction. Although not published as of this writing, the Center for Religious Studies in Qum has also finished the translation of the latest Catechism of the Catholic Church. 59. In addition to five of the volumes of Frederick Copleston’s history of philosophy, other translations of works by Christian philosophers include Christopher’s Stead’s Philosophy in Christian Antiquity, trans. by Abdol Rahim Soleimani Ardestani, Qum: Markaz-i Muṭ ā li‘āt va Tahqīqāt-i Adyā n va Mazā hib, 1380 (2001); Richard Swinburne’s Is There a God, trans. by Mohammad Javdan, Qum: Mufīd University, 1381 (2002); Etienne Gilson’s Reason and Revelation in the Middle Ages, trans. by Shahram Pazouki, Tehran: Intishā rāt-i Girrus, 1378 (1999); and American evangelical philosopher Norman Geisler’s Philosophy of Religion, trans. by Hamid Reza Ayatollahi, Tehran: Intishā rāt-i Ḥikmat, 1384 (2005). Several collections of essays and articles by other American evangelical philosophers such as Alvin Plantinga, Eleanor Stump and William Alston have also been translated and published. Gholam Hossein Tavakkoli (trans.), Dī n va Chishm΄and ā zhay-i Nu [Religion and New Perspectives], Qum: Center for Islamic Propagation, 1376 (1997); Morteza Fathizadeh (trans.), Justā r΄ hā -yī dar Falsafah-yi Dī n [Explorations in Philosophy of Religion], Qum: Intishā rāt-i Ishrāq, 1380 (2001); Malek Hosseini, etc. (trans.), Darbā ri-yi Dī n [On Religion], Tehran: Intishā rāt-i Hirmis, 1383 (2004). 60. For some examples, see Homayoun Hemmati’s Muqaddamah-yī bar Shinākht-i Masīẓīyat [Introduction to Understanding Christianity], Tehran: Intishārāt-i Naqsh-i Jahān, 1379 (2000), and Muqaddamah-yi bar Ilāhīyat-i Mu‘āṣir


3/22/2011 1:17:07 PM

228

61.

62.

63.

64.

65.

Christian Encounters with Iran [Introduction to Contemporary Theology], Tehran: Intishārāt-i Naqsh-i Jahān, 1379 (2000). Most chapters of these two books are translation of articles from the Dictionary of the Ecumenical Movement, Geneva: World Council of Churches, 1991; Majid Mohammadi, Dīn: Injā, Aknūn [Religion: Here, Now], Tehran: Nashr-i Qaṭrah, 1377 (1998); Abdol Rahim Soleimani Ardestani, Masīḥīyat [Christianity], Qum: I’timād, 1378 (1999). Ardestani’s work is a translation of a chapter on Christianity originally written by Harvey Cox. Shahram Hamzeie (trans.), Ashnāyī bā Agustīn-i Qaddīs [Getting Acquainted with St. Augustine], Tehran: Nashr-i Markaz, 1378 (1999). Reza Alizadeh has also translated a book about the Confessions and life of Augustine under the title I‘tirāfāt-i Agustīn, Tehran: Nashr-i Markaz, 1379 (2000). Mohammad Baqaie (trans.), Aquinas, Tehran: Vā zhi Arā, 1376 (1997); Shahabeddin Abbasi (trans.), Ilā hīyā t-i Falsafah-yi Tomā s Akuī nā s [Philosophical Theology of Thomas Aquinas], Tehran: Ministry of Islamic Culture and Guidance, 1381 (2002); and Seyyed Zia‘oddin Dehshiri (trans.), Tumī sm, Tehran: Intishā rāt-i Ḥikmat, 1384 (2005). This last book is a 700 page translation of Etienne Gilson’s book on Thomism. Aquinas’s On Being and Essence has also been translated by Forouzan Rasekhi under the editorship of Mostafa Malekain, Tehran: Nashr-i Nigā h-i Mu‘ā ṣir, 1382 (2003). Roya Monjam has translated Kierkegaard’s Sickness unto Death, Tehran: Nashr-i Pursish, 1377 (1998); and Abdolkarim Rashidian is the translator of Kierkegaard’s Fear and Trembling, Tehran: Nashr-i Nay, 1378 (1999); Ali Javadzadeh (trans.), Ashnāyī bā Kīyrkigur [Getting Acquainted with Kierkegaard], Tehran: Nashr-i Markaz, 1378 (1999). A number of books on and by Tillich have been translated in recent years. See Foroozan Rasekhi (trans.), Pul Tīlīsh [Paul Tillich], Tehran: Nashr-i Nigāh-i Mu‘ā ṣir, 1382 (2003). This book is a brief biography of Tillich by J. Heywood Thomas, John Knox Press. Tillich’s Courage to Be was translated by Morad Farhadpoor, Tehran: Intishārāt-i ‘Ilmī va Farhangī, 1366 (1987); Theology of Culture has also been translated by Morad Farhadpoor, Tehran: Ṭarḥ-i Nu, 1376 (1997); Future of Religions has been translated by Ahmad Reza Jalili, Qum: Markaz-i Muṭ āli‘āt va Tahqīqāt-i Adyān va Mazāhib, 1378 (1999). Tillich’s three-volume systematic theology is also now available in Farsi; thus making it the only significant work of a Christian systematic theology available in Iran today. It was translated by Hossein Noroozi, Tehran: Intishārāt-i Ḥikmat, 1381 (2002). Enshallah Rahmati (trans.), Rudulf Bultmān, Tehran: Gām-i Nu, 1382 (2003); Mohammad Saied Hanaie Kashani (trans.), Rudulf Bultmān, Tehran: Intishārāt-i Girus, 1377 (1998). The first book was originally written by David Ferguson and the second book by Ian Henderson. Bultmann’s Jesus


3/22/2011 1:17:07 PM

Notes to Page 62

66. 67.

68.

69.

70.

71.

72.

73. 74. 75.

229

Christ and Mythology has also been translated by Masoud Olia, Tehran: Nashr-i Markaz, 1380 (2001). Morad Farhadpour (trans.), Pāninbirg: Ilāhīyāt-i Tā rīkhī [Pannenberg: Historical Theology], Tehran: Ṣirāṭ, n.d. Jaber Akbari (trans.), Tajrubi-yi Dīnī [Religious Experience], Tehran: Nashr-i Suhrivardī, 1380 (2001); and Abbas Yazdani (trans.), Tajrubi-yi Dīnī [Religious Experience], Qum: Ṭāhā, 1383 (2004). The first work is a translation of T. R. Miles and the second is a translation of Wayne Proudfoot. David Griffin’s God and Religion in the Post-Modern World has been translated by Hamid Reza Ayatollahi, Tehran: Aftāb-i Ṭus‘ah, 1381 (2002); and Walter Stace’s Religion and the Modern Mind has been translated by Ahmad Reza Jalili, Tehran: Intishārāt-i Ḥikmat, 1381 (2002). Two works that have recently been translated from Shi’i centers in Qum are William Montgomery Watt’s Religious Truth for our Time and Archibald Robertson’s Jesus: Myth or History? Also books such as Honest to God and The Myth of God Incarnate had been translated quite some time ago. Glyn Richards, Toward a Theology of Religions is the latest addition in the topic of religious pluralism coming out of the Center for Religious Studies in Qum. Reza Gandomi Nasr-Abadi and Ahmad Reza Moftah (trans.), Bi΄sūyi Ilāhīyāt-i Nāz̤ir bi Hamah-yi Adyān, Qum: Markaz-i Muṭ āli‘āt va Tahqīqāt-i Adyān va Mazāhib, 1380 (2001). Also see Hossein Tofiqi’s translation of Arnold Toynbee’s Christianity Among the Religions of the World, Qum: Markaz-i Muṭ āli‘āt va Tahqīqāt-i Adyān va Mazāhib, 1382 (2003). Mehdi Dasht-Bozorgy (trans.), Ilāhīāt-i Igzīstānsīālīstī [Existentialist Theology], Qum: Būstān-i Kitāb-i Qum, 1382 (2003); Mohsen Hakimi (trans.), Shish Mutifakkir-i Igzīstānsīālīst [Six Existentialist Thinkers], Tehran: Nashr-i Markaz, 1368 (1989). There are also two books on Gabriel Marcel (written originally by Sam Kin) and Simone Weil (written by Stephen Plant) and two works by these authors (Marcel’s Philosophy of Existentialism and Weil’s Letter to a Priest) that were translated under the general editorship of Mostafa Malekian and published by Nashr-i Nigāh-i Mu‘ā ṣir in 1382 (2003). Ali Asghar Hekmat, Tā rīkh-i Jā mi‘i Adyān [Comprehensive History of Religions], Tehran: Intishārāt-i ‘Ilmī va Farhangī, 8th printing, 1375 (1996). Mohammad Baqer Ansari and Masih Mohajeri, (trans.), Jahān-i Masī ḥīyat, Tehran: Intishārāt-i Amīr Kabīr, 2nd edition, 1381 (2002). Hasan Ghanbari, (trans.), Dar΄ā madī Bi Masī ḥīyat, Qum: Markaz-i Muṭ āli‘āt va Tahqīqāt-i Adyān va Mazāhib, 1381 (2002). Robert Aseriyan, (trans.), Tā rīkh-i Tafakkur-i Masī ḥī, Tehran: Nashr va Pazhūhish-i Forūzān, 1380 (2001). This work is translated by an evangelical


3/22/2011 1:17:07 PM

230

76.

77.

78. 79.

80.

81. 82. 83. 84.

Christian Encounters with Iran Christian in Iran and the author is on the faculty of London Bible College. This book, along with the recent translation of McGrath, are some of the very few Christian theology books in Iran that have been written from an evangelical perspective and have been officially allowed to be published by the Iranian government since the Islamic revolution. One clarification is in order here. Certain Protestant churches and at least one Roman Catholic publishing company have been quite active in Iran in translating and publishing a wide variety of popular and scholarly materials on the Christian faith (the Catholic publisher was ordered to shut down in the fall of 2003 under government threats). However, most of these activities happen somewhat underneath the “radar” of official government authorization. Therefore, most of these works are only used within the small Christian congregations and are not available for the population at large, even though Muslim authors occasionally make references to these works. Hossein Tofiqi, (trans.), Kalā m-i Masī ḥī [Christian Theology], Qum: Markaz-i Muṭ āli‘āt va Tahqīqāt-i Adyān va Mazāhib, 1377 (1998), p. 11. This is book written by Thomas Michel. Hemmati, Introduction to Understanding Christianity, p. 8. A good example of this case is the recent publication of Abdol-Rahim Soleimani Ardestani, Ayīn-i Prutistān [Protestant Doctrines], Qum: Intishārāt-i Mu’assisi-yi Amūzishī va Pazhūhishī-i Imām Khumaynī, 1381 (2002). This book was originally written by J. Leslie Dunstan in 1961. From personal conversations with the author. Many also complain about the very inconsistent and often poor quality of translated materials in Farsi. Einar Molland’s Christendom is a good example of this category. See chapter four for a discussion of this research center in Qum. It is only somewhat unfortunate that the translator has occasionally inserted his refutations of the author’s claims in the footnotes of this work. The choice of these books was based for the most part, on their common availability in bookstores in Tehran and Qum. In addition to the books surveyed in this section, there are four other volumes that should be noted in this category. Mohammad Ilkhani, a professor of philosophy in Tehran has written a scholarly four- hundred page book entitled Mitāfīzīk-i Butīū s [The Metaphysics of Boethius], Tehran: Ilhā m Publishers, 1380 (2001); and Mohammad Madadpour has written a two-volume work (over 800 pages) on Christian Art and Culture, Sayr-i Ḥikmat va Hunar-i Masī ḥī [The Progress of Christian Wisdom and Art], Tehran: Sūrah-i Mihr, 1381(2002). Since these works do not touch directly on the themes of Christian theology under discussion in this chapter, they will not included in this survey.


3/22/2011 1:17:07 PM


85.

86.

87. 88. 89. 90. 91. 92. 93.

94. 95. 96. 97.

231

Another book that will not be reviewed in this survey is a brief introduction to the Bible by Abdol Rahim Soleimani Ardestani, Kitā b-i Muqaddas [The Holy Bible], Qum: Ayāt-i Ishq, 1382 (2003). Since the author repeats the central themes of this work in his earlier book on Christianity, the focus will be on the eariler volume (see below). One more book that should be noted at this point is Lili Mostafavi Kashani’s Shurā -yi Vā tīkā n-i Du [The Second Vatican Council: Encounter with Modernity], Tehran: Al-Hoda International Publications, 1378 (1999). This was a research funded by the Organization for Islamic Culture and Communications. The author who was herself an active participant in Muslim–Christian dialogues (she has now moved to the U.S.) expresses her aim in this work as showing “the basic points of encounter between Catholicism and modernity. I hope the reader will realize that this book is not presented as a work of polemic but of understanding, as I believe that in the long run understanding produces more practical result. This work is not only intended to promote the spirit of dialogue but also, above that, to promote mutual understanding between Islam and Christianity at global level in these critical moments of history.” Ibid., pp. 12–13. Mohammad Reza Zibaie Nejad, Dar΄ā madī bar Tā rīkh va Kalā m-i Masī ḥīyat, Qum: Mu‘āvinat-i Umūr-i Asātīd va Durūs-i Mu‘ā rif-i Islā mī, 1376 (1997). Hossein Tofiqi, Ashnāyī ba Adyān-i Buzurg, Qum: Mu’assisi-yi Farhangī-i Ṭā hā, 1379 (2000). Although this book only has a chapter on Christianity, it is included in this section because of the significance of its author among Iranian Muslim writers. Mohammad Reza Kashefi, Farhang va Masī ḥīyat dar Gharb, Tehran: Mu’assisi-yi Farhangī-i Dānish va Andīshi-yi Mu‘ā ṣir, 1380 (2001). Mehrdad Izadpanah, Ashnāyī bā Dīn-i Masī ḥ, Tehran: Intishārāt-i Mihvar, 1381 (2002). Abdol Rahim Soleimani Ardestani, Masī ḥīyat, Qum: Zulāl-i Kusar, 1381 (2002). Zibaie Nejad, pp. 5–8. Tofiqi, p. 11. Tofiqi, pp. 141–148. Tofiqi, pp. 114–123. The author also criticizes the spiritualizing interpretation of Jesus’ teachings and actions by apostle Paul and other early Christians. Tofiqi, p. 136. Tofiqi, pp. 137–140. Tofiqi, p. 140. Tofiqi, p. 149.


3/22/2011 1:17:07 PM

232


98. Tofiqi, p. 141. 99. Kashefi, pp. 61–88. 100. Although this book is published in 2002, the sources used for this book are French books written from 1862 (Ernest Renan’s Les Origines du Christianisme) to the latest source being published in 1937. 101. Izadpanah, pp. 63, 75. 102. Izadpanah, pp. pp. 69, 80–84. 103. Izadpanah, p. 122. 104. Ardestani, p. 12. 105. For example, Ardestani never makes any reference to the Qur’an or any Islamic sources as a counterclaim to Christian positions. Of course, some of his references can be questionable from an academic perspective in the field of Christian theology (like his frequent references to Will Durant), and some of his focus on the corruption of the church or the anti-rational movements in Christian history seem to be one-sided; nevertheless, he does a more balanced job than many other Iranian authors in letting Christians speak for their own position. 106. Ardestani, p. 86. 107. Ardestani, pp. 86–88. 108. Ardestani, pp. 88–94. 109. Ardestani, pp. 19, 92–93. 110. Many journals in Iran are not published as regularly as advertised. Sometimes a couple of years can pass between two issues of a quarterly journal. 111. For a brief history of this journal and its significant impact in its beginning days on social thought in Iran in the mid 90’s see http://www.bbc. co.uk/persian/iran/story/2005/08/050803_mj-mkhalaji-qom-press.shtml (accessed on Dec. 8, 2005). This journal was not published for about two years before it began its works again in 2003. 112. The description of this journal in its editorial note (written in English) reads: Organon is a quarterly journal of philosophy, literature and the humanities. The body and the spirit of the journal are both constituted by an act of translation in the widest possible meaning of the term, namely, introducing some aspects of western thought and tradition. This act is aimed at a more adequate understanding of the western thought. This understanding, we believe, has greatly suffered through a lack of reliable translations from original and first-hand sources, though more often the problem is the absence of any translation whatsoever. Such an understanding is not only the necessary condition for the realization of a fruitful dialogue, it is also the logical starting-point for any truthful and thoughtful criticism. As Hegel once said, there is no point in hitting the opponent where he is


3/22/2011 1:17:08 PM


113. 114. 115. 116. 117.

118.

119. 120.

121. 122.

233

not . . . . By identifying, translating and introducing the valuable works of western thought, Organon, we hope, would further our abilities to preserve, promote and enrich our culture. Organon, vol. 2, no. 5–6, spring, summer 1995. This volume was recently reprinted a second time in 2005. Mohammad Ilkhani, “Paul,” ibid., pp. 393–409. Ilkhani, pp. 394–395. A few articles on Aquinas, Descartes, Kierkeggard, John Hick and Alvin Plantinga have been translated so far in this journal. Each issue of the journal Report on Dialogue is devoted to one general theme. So far the journal has addressed the following issues: religion and dialogue among civilizations, a political introduction to dialogue among civilizations, human rights and dialogue among civilizations, ecology and dialogue among civilizations, orientalism and globalization. The journal Turquoise Bridge is usually not devoted to one particular topic but covers a wide variety of articles in cultural studies or issues related to dialogue in general. There are times however, this journal has focused only on one issue, so that for example, volume 4 of this quarterly journal was on Japan. In each of the above journals, there are articles that touch directly on issues of Muslim–Christian encounter. The articles in the Turquoise Bridge are, Marzieyeh Pasvisheh’s “A study on the overlapping stories in the three Holy Books: The Qur’an, Bible, Old Testament”, pp. 108–122, vol. 1, no. 2, Winter 2002; and Mostafa Zakeri’s “The indigent in the Holy Qur’an and the Bible,” pp. 145–158, vol. 2, no. 5, Autumn 2002. The articles in the Report on Dialogue are Ahmad Ali Heydari’s “Coexistence between Islam and Christianity (German experience),” pp. 44–47, vol. 1, no. 1, Sept. 2002; and “The profile of Christianity in text-books of Islamic world: A report of a research,” p. 82, vol. 1, no. 2, Oct. 2002. See the previous note for full bibliographical information. There are small but encouraging signs that these suggestions are being taken into consideration. In one college level introductory textbook in Islamic studies, there is a brief discussion on God in Christian theology. The book quotes approvingly the Westminster Confession of faith as the best summary definition of the Christian understanding of God and then goes on to state, “Christians believe in one true and living God who is omnipresent and sovereign and who exists in the Holy Trinity, as Father, Son and Holy Spirit.” Ma‘ā rif-i Islā mī [Islamic Knowledge], Qum: Daftar-i Nashr va Pakhsh-i Ma‘ārif, 18th printing, 1381 (2002). Vol. 1, no. 1, p. 6. The articles that are directly related to aspects of Christian thought or written by a Christian thinker and translated into Farsi are, “An outline of the


3/22/2011 1:17:08 PM

234

123. 124.

125. 126. 127. 128.

129.

Christian Encounters with Iran main features of the Bible,” “The Gospel of Thomas among the discoveries of Nag Hammadi,” “The New Testament: Its history and writers,” “The Orthodox tradition,” “Contemporary problems of Christian theology in Islamic thought,” “Charles Hartshorne and Thomas Aquinas,” “Jesus and world religions,” “A review of the Oxford encyclopedia of the Reformation,” “The role of faith and doubt in Paul Tillich’s view,” “The Reformed tradition,” “Biblical criticism,” “The secularization of Christianity,” “Spirituality and Theology,” “Tradition, change and identity,” “The impact of Reformation upon History,” “The Triune God,” “Religion and philosophy in Western Christianity,” “Transition to modernity,” “Theology and scientific understanding,” and “God in Old Testament,” “Spirituality and Worship,” “Paul and the Spread of Christianity,” “The Figure of Jesus Christ in Contemporary Christianity,” “Myth in Theology,” “Women in Christianity,” “Iranian Armenians,” “The Relation between Church and State in Western Christianity,” “Bultmann and Barth,” “Christianity and Modernity according to Hans Kung,” “Eastern Christianity,” “Plantinga and the Rationality of Religious Belief,” “Christian Philosophy,” “IslamicChristian Dialogue,” “The Character and Possibility of Christian Theology Today,” “Contemporary Theology,” “Roman Catholicism,” “Spirituality and Management,” “The Bible and Religious Pluralism,” “Christmas: Birthday of Love,” “The Medieval Christian Philosophy,” “Jesus in the Qur’an, the Historical Jesus and the Myth of the Incarnation,” “Mariology,” “Paul and the Law,” “Natural Theology” and “Eastern Christianity.” Mehrab Sadeghnia, “Khudā-yi ‘Ahd-i ‘Atīq,” vol. 4, no. 15, pp. 217–226. Behrooz Haddadi, (trans.), “Ta’sīr-i Nihẓat-i Iṣlāh-i Dīnī bar Tā rīkh,” in Haft Asman, vol. 4, no. 14, pp. 63–87. As mentioned earlier, McGrath’s whole book has now been published by Haddadi. Elias Arefzadeh, (trans.), “Khudā-yi Si΄gānih dar kitāb-i Muqaddas va Ẓuhūr-i Rā st΄ kīshī,” in Haft Asman, vol. 4, no. 14, pp. 89–116. Arefzadeh, p. 89. See chapter four for further discussions on this journal and the institute. Muhammad Legenhausen, Contemporary Topics of Islamic Thought, Tehran: Al-Hoda International Publishers, 2000. Mr. Legenhausen is a former American Catholic philosopher who has converted to Shi’i Islam and has been living in Iran and teaching in Qum since mid 1990’s. He is becoming a significant voice in giving direction to the research that is taking place in the seminaries of Qum in regard to the study of Western philosophy and Christian theology. For an account of Mr. Legenhausen’s conversion and eventual move to Iran, see Christiane Bird, Neither East Nor West, New York: Pocket Books, 2001, pp. 260–272. Legenhausen, pp. 23–24.


3/22/2011 1:17:08 PM


235

130. Legenhausen, pp. 31–32. 131. Legenhausen, pp. 33–34. Not everyone is as enthusiastic as Legenhausen about the new directions that Muslims ought to take. Ali Akbar Rashad, a prominent clergy in the field of interfaith dialogue, in fact severely criticizes such an approach. Rashad complains about the new “wave of translations” of western books and thoughts as a source of religious alienation within Islam. According to Rashad, there are many problems that are only relevant to the Christian faith, especially Western Christianity, such as religious pluralism, the tension between the secular and the spiritual, science and religion or faith and reason. These problems “have not been and are not” problems for Muslims. To introduce these problems into the world of Islam is “unfair, unwise and irresponsible!” Ali Akbar Rashad, Dī n Pazhū hī-i Mu‘ā sir [Contemporary Religious Research: An Understanding of Traditional, Modern and Revivalist Religious Discourse], Tehran: Mu‘assisi-yi Farhangī-i Dā nish va Andīshah-yi Mu’ā sir, 1382 (2003), p. 62. 132. This chapter was actually translated into Farsi and published by the Center for Religious Studies in Qum in their journal Haft Asman, vol. 2, no. 5, Spring 2000. 133. Batul Najafi, trans., ‘Ilm va Dīn: Az Ta‘ā ruz tā Guftugū, Qum: Ṭāhā, 1382 (2003). One of the earliest and most well-known books in this field that was translated into Farsi is Ian Barbour’s Issues in Science and Religion [‘Ilm va Dīn], by Baha‘odin Khoramshahi, Tehran: Markaz-i Nashr-i Dānishgāhī, 1362 (1983). 134. Hossein Tofii, trans., Masī ḥīyat va Adyā n-i Jahā n, Qum: Markaz-i Muṭ ā li‘āt va Tahqīqāt-i Adyān va Mazā hib, 1382 (2003). In the translator’s introduction, Tofiqi thanks Mr. Legenhausen for introducing the book to him. 135. Hamidreza Ayatollahy, trans., Khudā va Dīn dar Jahān-i Pasā΄mudirn, Tehran: Aftāb-i Tusi‘i, 1381 (2002). 136. Behnaz Safari, trans., ‘Aql va Imān, Qum: Intishārāt-i ‘Ishrāq, 1381 (2002). 137. Mohammad Javdan, trans., Ayā Khudāyī Hast?, Qum: Intishārāt-i Mufīd, 1381 (2002). 138. Mohammad Saiedee Mehr, Falsafah-yi Dīn, Qum: Mu’assisi-yi Farhangī-i Ṭā hā, 1376 (1997). 139. Ali Abtahi, Dīālug bā Andīshmandān-i Masī ḥī: Dīn dar Jahān-i Mu‘ā ṣir, Tehran: Ṭarḥ-i Nu, 1379 (2000). 140. Abtahi, p. 7. 141. Even in two of the translations mentioned above, the works of Swinburne and Plantinga, the translators add between 35 to 70 pages of their own


3/22/2011 1:17:08 PM

236

142.

143. 144.

145.

146.

147. 148.

Christian Encounters with Iran notes to the end of these books, thus providing some deeper dialogical engagement with Christian thought. There are more books in this category than the ones surveyed in this section. Mohammad Taqi Rashed Mohassel has written a book comparing the doctrine of salvation in Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Christianity and Shi’i Islam. Nijā t΄ bakhshī dar Adyā n [Salvation in Religions], Tehran: Institute for Humanities and Cultural Studies, 1381(2002). Ismaiel Zare’poor has published a work on the idea of original sin in the Old and New Testaments, the Qur’an and Islamic mysticism. Gunā h-i Nukhustī n [The First Sin], Mashhad: Bih Nashr, 1378 (1999). A recent book which claims to be a comparative study of Christianity and Islam but in fact must surely be labeled as a polemic is Mohammad Reza Zibaienejad, Masī ḥīyat΄shinā sī -yi Muqā yisi’ī [A Comparative Study of Christianity], Tehran: Surū sh, 1382 (2003). This book is a valuable source of documenting traditional Shi’i positions on a broad range of issues relating to Christianity. A recent and very irenic small book that should also be noted in this category, written in English and published in the UK, is Mahnaz Heydarpoor, Love in Christianity and Islam, London: New City, 2002. The latest book in this category is Davood Kamijani, Pazhū hishī Tuṣīfī dar Kutub-i Muqaddas [A Descriptive of Sacred Scriptures], Tehran: Islamic Ministry of Culture and Guidance, 1384 (2005). Mohammad Baqer Sa‘iedie Roshan, Tahlīl-i Vahy az Dīdgāh-i Islā m va Masī ḥīyat, Tehran: Mu’assisi-yi Farhangī-i Andīshah, 1375 (1996). Ebrahim Amini, Vahy dar Adyān-i Asimānī, Qum: The Center of Publication of the Office of Islamic Propagation of the Islamic Seminary of Qum, 1377 (1998). Mohammad Hasan Qadrdan Qaramaleki, Sikūlā rīzm dar Masī ḥīyat va Islā m, Qum: The Center of Publication of the Office of Islamic Propagation of the Islamic Seminary in Qum, 1379 (2000). Alireza Shojaeezand, ‘Urfī΄shudan dar Tajrubi-yi Masī ḥī va Islā mī, Tehran: Intishārāt-i Bāz, 1381 (2002). This is the author’s doctoral dissertation. A very similar work was published by the same author under the title of Dīn, Jā mi‘ah va ‘Urfī΄shudan [Religion, Society and Secularization], Tehran: Nashr-i Markaz, 1380 (2001). Abdolrahim Soleimani Ardestani, Dar΄ā madī bar Ilāhīyāt-i taṭbīqī-i Islā m va Masī ḥīyat, Qum: Ṭāhā Books, 1382 (2003). One difference is that Amini has a brief section of 25 pages on revelation in the OT and Judaism, and most of the book is focused on the Shi’i view of revelation. Roshan, on the other hand devotes half of the book to expounding and critiquing some Christian views of revelation.


3/22/2011 1:17:08 PM


237

149. Amini, p. 157; Roshan, pp. 117–118. 150. There are many other understandings of revelation in Christian theology, but the Iranian authors seem to be only aware of these two perspectives probably due to the limited amount of translated Christian materials that have been available in Iran. 151. Amini, pp. 157–163. Roshan has basically the same category. 152. Amini for example attributes the prepositional understanding of revelation to a view of Jesus as only a human being who was a servant and prophet of God, communicating the word of God and promoting the Jewish Law. He believes that only in the second view of revelation is Jesus viewed as God incarnate. Amini, pp. 158–160. Roshan, on the other hand combines a number of conflicting Christian theologies under one umbrella of revelation as event. Roshan sees Schleiermacher, Albert Ritschel, Barth, Brunner and Tillich all having the same understanding about revelation. Roshan, pp. 118–125. 153. Amini, pp. 171–172. 154. Amini, p. 172. 155. Roshan, pp. 190–202. 156. Roshan, p. 190. 157. Shojaeezand, pp. 185–363. 158. Shojaeezand, pp. 203–229. 159. Shojaeezand, pp. 457–480. 160. Shojaeezand, p. 506. 161. This is very similar, though somewhat reversed, to what many have pointed out that about the Enlightenment, “often when Muslim cultures were being portrayed positively [by European writers], it was a device to criticize parts of one’s own civilization.” See Jorgen Nielsen, “Is there an escape from the history of Christian-Muslim relations?” in A Faithful Presence: Essays for Kenneth Cragg, David Thomas and Clare Amos, eds., London: Melisende, 2003, p. 351. 162. Shojaeezand, p. 453. Shojaeezand also includes other Muslim thinkers in this category such as Taha, Fazlur Rahman and Arkoun. p. 483. Qramaleki also mentions and critiques Soroush, Bazargan and Yazdi as thinkers who advocate a separation between religion and government. See pp. 173–196. 163. Despite the centrality of the scriptures, Ardestani points out some differences between Islam and Christianity. According to Ardestani the Catholic position on the need for an official interpreter of the sacred text is not accepted by Islam. Also, the word “tradition” is used differently between Catholics and Muslims. Christians do not have an equivalent concept for Ijma. And most importantly, Christians put faith above


3/22/2011 1:17:08 PM

238

164.

165.

166.

167.

168. 169. 170. 171.

172.

Christian Encounters with Iran reason, whereas for Muslims reason takes priority over faith. Ardestani, pp. 36–38. Ardestani devotes a good portion of his second chapter to a discussion of God as a personal being. Interestingly, he acknowledges that this way of talking about God is a positive development that has become a prominent feature in Christian theology but is lacking among traditional Muslim scholars. Of course, he is quick to point out that though the Qur’an does not talk about God in this way, the Qur’anic portrayal of God is very much in accord with speaking of God as having personal characteristics. Ardestani, pp. 56–62. Ardestani sees the same basic approaches to proving the existence of God in classical Islam and Christianity. However, he points out that the West has developed some new approaches such as arguments based on the “design” of the natural world, the moral argument for God’s existence and also arguments based on religious experience. Ardestani, pp. 90–91. According to Ardestani, in regard to the names and attributes of God, the only difference between Islam and Christianity is the attribute of the fatherhood of God. Of course, if this is viewed metaphorically to mean that God loves his creatures and is close to them and cares for them, he sees no problem between this use of the term and Islamic theology. But if fatherhood is used to mean that God is essentially the same as Jesus, then this becomes a blasphemy in Islam. Ardestani, pp. 115–118. In conclusion to chapter six, Ardestani writes, “Both traditions of Islam and Christianity emphasize monotheism. However, it seems that the Christian doctrine of Trinity is not compatible with monotheism and this has caused Christian theologians to try hard to reconcile monotheism with the Trinity.” Ardestani, p. 144. In this chapter, Ardestani also refutes the charge that the Qur’an rejection of the Trinity is based on certain misunderstandings on the part of the prophet of Islam. See pp. 134–140. See pp. 197–216. See pp. 217–221. P. 221. As mentioned earlier in this chapter, Ardestani’s other writings dismiss the mainstream Christian theology as solely a result of the writings of Paul and the gospel of John. It was especially Paul that turned a human Jesus into a divine Christ and Lord and forced other views of Jesus out of the mainstream of the Christian church. See Ardestani, pp. 13–18. Ghasem Kakaie, Vaḥdat-i Vujū d: Bi Ravāyāt-i Ibn ‘Arabī va Māystir Ikhā rt, Tehran: Intishārāt-i Hirmis, 1381 (2002).


3/22/2011 1:17:08 PM


239

173. Ali Shirvani, Mabānī-yi Naẓarī-yi Tajrubi-yi Dīnī, Qum: Būstān-i Kitāb, 1381 (2002). 174. A‘la Tourani, Khudā az Dīdgāh-i Ṣadr al-Mut‘alihīn va Pul Tīlīsh, Tehran: Dānish va Andīshi-yi Mu‘ā ṣir, 1383 (2004). 175. Mohammad Mansour Hashemi, Sīrūrat dar Falsafah-yi Mulla Ṣadra va Hegel, Tehran: Intishārāt-i Kavīr, 1383 (2004). 176. Maryam San‘epoor, Khudā va Dīn dar Rūykardī Umānīstī, Tehran: Dānish va Andīshi-yi Mu‘ā ṣir, 1381 (2002). 177. Amir Abbas Alizamani, Khudā, Zabān va Ma‘nā, Qum: Ayāt-i ‘Ishq, 1381 (2002). 178. Mohammad Hassan Ghadrdan Gharamaleki, Khudā va Mas’ali-yi Sharr, Qum: Islamic Propagation Center, 1377 (1998). Among all the books cited in this section, this work has the least interaction with Christian theology or Western philosophy. 179. Mohammad Ali Mobeyni, ‘Aqlānīat-i Bā var-i Dīnī az Dīdgāh-i Alvīn Plantinga, Qum: Mu’assisi-yi Amūzishī va Pazhūhishī Imām Khumaynī, 1382 (2003). 180. Ali Reza Gha‘eminia, Vahy va Af‘āl-i Guftā rī, Qum: Ẓulāl-i Kusar, 1381 (2002). 181. Reza Akbari, Jā vā anigī, Qum: Bustān-i Kitāb, 1382 (2003). 182. Hadi Sadeghi, Ilāhīyat va Tahaquq΄ pazīrī, Tehran: Pazhūhishgāh-i Farhang va Andīshi-yi Islāmī, 1378 (1999). There are numerous other books written by Iranian Shi’as that although do not specifically intend to engage with Christian theology or philosophy, they nevertheless address topics that show familiarity with contemporary issues and challenges in philosophical theology. For some examples see Mansour Shams, Pursish΄ ha-yi’Abadī [The Perennial Questions: A Philosophical Account of a Number of Basic Questions], Tehran: Anjuman-i Ma‘ārif-i Islāmī, 1379 (2000); Mohammad Javad Sahebi, Sar΄chishmihā-yi Nu΄andīshī-yi Dīnī [Origins of Modern Religious Thinking], Qum: Ihyāgarān, 1381 (2002); Mohammad Reza Izadpoor, Fahm-i Dīnī darBastar-i Agāhīha-yi Jadīd [Religious Understanding in the Context of Modern Knowledge], Tehran: Hastī Namā, 1382 (2003); Mohsen Javadi, Dar΄āmadī bar Khudā΄ shināsī-yi Falsafī [Introduction to Philosophical Theology], Qum: Ma‘ārif-i Islāmī, 1375 (1996); Mohammad Hossein Zadeh, Dīn΄shināsī [Understanding Religion], Qum: Markaz-i Intishārāt-i Mu’assisi-yi Amūzishī va Pazhūhishī Imīm Khumaynī, 1383 (2004); Abdol Hossein Khosropanah, Kalām-i Jadīd [Modern Theology], Qum: Markaz-i Muṭāli‘āt va Pazhūhish΄ ha-yi Farhangī, 1379 (2000); and Iniẓārāt-i Bashar az Dīn [Man’s Expectations of Religion], Tehran: Andīshi-yi Mu‘āsir, 1381 (2002); Mohammad Hossein Zadeh, Falsafah-i Dīn [Philosophy of Religion], Qum: Center for Islamic Propagation, 1380 (2001).


3/22/2011 1:17:08 PM

240


183. Mohammad Mohammad Rezaie, et al eds., Justā r΄ hā-yī dar Kalā m-i Jadīd, Qum: Intishārāt-i Dānishgāh-i Qum, 1381 (2002). 184. Hadi Sadeghi, Dar΄ā madī bar Kalā m-i Jadīd, Qum: Ṭāhā 1382 (2003). 185. In many ways, Sadeghi’s Introduction is very different than Essays on New Theology. Sadeghi is much less engaged with Christian thought or other Western writings. His work is a conservative apologetic manifesto on Shi’i Islam and the Iranian form of government of velāyat-i faqīh. However, the way that the author articulates the issues such as his discussions on religious epistemology, meaningfulness of religious propositions, religious experience, secular ethics, religious pluralism, etc. makes this work unique and different from earlier treatments of theology published in Iran. Sadeghi also does on occasions use in the defense of his positions writings of Swinburne, Plantinga, and Leibniz. 186. Mohammad Mohammad Rezaie, “Burhān-i Naẓm” [Logic of Design], in Essays, pp. 1–27. 187. Mohammad Reza Bayat, “Dalīl Anbā shtī ” [Cumulative Argument], pp. 29–40. 188. Mohammad Saidi Mehr, “ ‘Ilm-i Ilāhī va Ikhtīā r-i Adamī ” [Divine Knowledge and Human Authority], pp. 41–79. 189. Mohammad Amin Ahmadi, “Mu‘jizi” [Miracle], pp. 81–128. 190. Mohsen Javadi, “Imā n va ‘Aqlā nī at” [Faith and Rationality], pp. 129–154. 191. Ali Shirvani, “Tajrubi-yi Dīnī ” [Religious Experience], pp. 155–184. 192. Abulfazl Mahmoudi, “Khā stigāh-i Dīn” [The Origin of Religion], pp. 185–244. 193. Ami Abbas Ali Zamani, “Zabān-i Dīni” [Religious Language], pp. 245–298. 194. Mohammad Ali Abdollahi, “ ‘Ilm va Dīn” [Science and Religion], pp. 299–336. 195. Ami Divani, “Zindigī pas az Marg” [Life after Death], pp. 337–388. 196. A small book which also confirms these observations is Dīn Pazhūhī dar Jahān-i Mu‘ā ṣir [Religious Studies in the Contemporary World], Qum: Ihyāgarān, 1381 (2002). This book is a collection of the presentations made at the Second Congress of Religious Researchers in Iran. It provides a fascinating window into some of the contemporary discussions among Iranian religious thinkers and their engagement with modern philosophical, scientific and social challenges to traditional religious faith. 197. Gholam Hossein Ebrahimi Dinani, “Rationality and Spirituality in Islam,” interview with the journal Haft Asman, vol. 5, no. 2, Winter 2004, pp. 29–30. The editors of Haft Asman issue the same sort of warning against too much fascination with Western Christian theologians in the same issue of the journal (p. 8).


3/22/2011 1:17:09 PM


4

241

Muslim–Christian Dialogue: Some Organizational Encounters

1. See “A Christian Scholar’s Dialogue with Muslims” in The Christian Century, Oct. 9, 85, pp. 890–894. The introduction to the article reads, “Dr. Kung was invited by the Goethe Institute in collaboration with the Ministry for Islamic Affairs to travel to Tehran last March to speak on ‘Islam and Christianity.’ As the first Western theologian to be invited to Iran after the Islamic revolution, he had the opportunity to engage in theological discussion with leading ayatollahs and Muslim scholars concerning the relationship between Christianity and Islam.” 2. Ibid., p. 892. 3. Ibid., pp. 892–893. For some elaboration of Kung’s insights concerning Muslim–Christian dialogue, see his article “Christianity and World Religions: Dialogue with Islam,” in Leonard Swidler, ed., Muslims in Dialogue: the Evolution of a Dialogue, Lewiston: The Edwin Mellen Press, 1992, pp. 249–272. In that article Kung also writes (pp. 252–253), “Dialogue with Muslims? Who is ready in Islam to have dialogue? Perhaps Khomeini? I have met Muslims all over the world who find recent developments in Iran catastrophic; such developments, they feel, are blocking mutual understanding and are propagating prejudice against Islam. I believe, however, that it is precisely at this time that we need to talk about our relationship to Islam, and not simply to think about the terrible things that have happened in Iran. Such events should not deter us. I am convinced—without going into detail here—that the present situation in Iran is ultimately an episode (as was the “reign of terror” within the French revolution), after which a process of normalization will begin. But it is important that we now actively prepare for that process and not just wait for it to happen.” 4. Ibid., p. 894. 5. Ibid., p. 894. It is important to note that the Iranian side of this dialogue, unlike Kung himself, does not show any interest in reformulating any theoretical or theological aspect of its tradition. As will be seen later in this chapter the Iranian tendency to shy away from assessing certain of its theological history as it relates to Muslim–Christian encounter (for the most part) continues to this day. 6. The focus in this chapter is only on Iranian organizations that are formed exclusively for inter-faith dialogue and research. There are a number of university departments in Iran that are also involved in Muslim–Christian dialogue and research. For example, for the past two years faculty members from the University of Shahid Beheshti in Tehran have conducted dialogues with Christian scholars in Selly Oak, Birmingham on ethical issues. Also, a Shi’i


3/22/2011 1:17:09 PM

242


university in Qum, Imam Khomeini Education and Research Institute has been offering courses on Christianity for many years and has been active in dialogue with various Christian bodies. For the proceedings of their first dialogue in 2003 with a group of Catholic theologians in Britain see Catholics and Shi‘a in Dialogue: Studies in Theology and Spirituality. A brief report of the second gathering of these two groups in the UK in 2005 can be found at http://monasticdialog.com/a.php?id=722 (accessed on Dec. 8, 2005). For a brief evaluation of the first dialogue from an evangelical perspective see Peter Riddell, Christians and Muslims: Pressures and Potential in a post-9/11 World, Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 2004, pp. 158–159. There are also two Iranian individuals who have started the Centre for World Dialogue in Cyprus. For a list of their many conferences and publications (many of them directly related to the themes of Muslim–Christian dialogue) see their website at www. worlddialogue.org. The logo of the center reads, “People talking face to face are no longer enemies but other human beings with problems to solve.” 7. Due to a somewhat fluid way of translating Farsi terminology, the name of this organization can appear differently in various places. For example in volume one of their journal Dialogue the organization is referred to as Islamic Culture and Communication Organization, whereas in volume three of the same journal it is referred to as Organization for Islamic Culture and Communications and Relations. In the fourth issue the center is called Islamic Culture and Relations Organization. 8. The information about the history of the organization and its aims and objectives are taken from an official booklet published by the Organization. The Organization of Culture and Islamic Relations, Tehran: Al-Hoda International, 2002. 9. According to its brochure, “The Ahl al-Bayt World Assembly was formed in 1990 by a group of Shi’i cultural personalities with a view to promoting relations and stronger bonds between the followers and lovers of Ahl al-Bayt.” Also, “One of the most important objectives of the Islamic Republic of Iran is to actualize the Divine ideal of unity among the world Muslims. In order to fulfill upon this sacred objective, the World Forum for the Proximity of Islamic Schools of Thought was established in the year 1990 with the assistance and participation of a number of prominent personalities and scholars from the world of Islam.” For a critical analysis of this organization and its agenda see Wilfred Buchta, “Tehran’s Ecumenical Society (majma‘ al-taqrib): A Veritable Ecumenical Revival or a Trojan Horse of Iran?”, in Rainer Brunner and Werner Ende, eds., The Twelver Shi‘a in Modern Times: Religious Culture and Political History, Leiden: Brill, 2001, pp. 333–353. This article is relevant to this study since many of the key individuals in this Shi’i ecumenical organization also are the key participants in Muslim–Christian dialogue. In the conclusion


3/22/2011 1:17:09 PM


10. 11.

12. 13. 14. 15.

16.

243

of this article, the author notes, “The establishment of Tehran’s Ecumenical Society, its activities and objectives, provide illuminating insights into the complex mechanisms and constraints of Iran’s domestic and foreign policy and the decision-making procedures behind it. First, it shows the degree to which political expediency dominates theology in the Islamic Republic of Iran. Whether this will eventually help Iran to escape from the ‘Shi‘a ghetto’ in which it finds itself in the Islamic world cannot be answered.” Ibid, p. 352. Emphasis mine. Ibid., no page number. The conservative theological and political character of this organization is quite evident in the very history of its foundation. Ibid., no page number. According to the booklet, Iran has impacted global culture in three basic historical periods. “Firstly, the era of the ancient Iranians during which handwriting and religious teachings were introduced and widely employed . . . . After the advent of Islam, the services of the Iranians to world culture and civilization touched new dimensions . . . . the Iranian culture of dialogue clearly made Iran the connecting link between oriental mysticism and occidental philosophy . . . . The third historical era of contribution of the Iranians to world culture began with the Islamic Revolution in 1979 . . . .” Ibid. Ibid. Forthcoming publication. Dialogues can fall under several categories. For example, as Douglas Pratt points out (p. 404), “Interreligious dialogue occurs in at least four modalities: the dialogue of life, the dialogue of action, the dialogue of experience, and the intellectual level of dialogue—the dialogue of discourse.” It should be noted that all the dialogues that have taken place so far fall in the last category in the above classification, the intellectual dialogue that happens among religious leaders and scholars. See Douglas Pratt, “Pluralism and Interreligious Engagement: The Contexts of Dialogue,” in David Thomas, ed., A Faithful Presence, pp. 404–418. The following information is based on the forthcoming publication from the center. This was kindly provided to the author by one of the staff members of the center, Mrs. Rashīdbaygī. At this time, this publication has not been officially released and it is still in its first stage of rough draft. There are numerous significant mistakes in the dates that are given in the following charts. For example, as already mentioned the first official organizational dialogue that took place was with the Greek Orthodox Church in Athens in December of 1990, and not in 1982 as the chart claims. A similar but less comprehensive listing of these activities can be found in Dialogue, vol. 1, no. 1, 1998, pp. 7–20. In addition to these dialogues, this center has also had two dialogues with Buddhists from Thailand and one with Zoroastrians of


3/22/2011 1:17:09 PM

244

17. 18.

19.

20. 21. 22.

23.

24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29.

30.

31. 32. 33.

Christian Encounters with Iran Iran. Needless to say, the overwhelming emphasis of this center is to engage with Christian theologians. Forthcoming publication. Although the journal Dialogue was supposed to be published quarterly, due to organizational problems common in Iran, the journal was only published only three times from the summer of 1998 till the end of 2003. The fourth issue of the journal (which was once again identified as vol. 1, no. 1) was released in the summer of 2004. According to its official web site, “In response to the proposal made by the president of the Islamic Republic of Iran, the United Nations’ General Assembly declared 2001 as the year of Dialogue Among Civilizations. The Iranian government subsequently founded the International Center for Dialogue Among Civilizations (ICDAC) in February 1999.” www.dialoguecentre.org. See the list of the center’s publications in the above website for further information. For a list of the lectures sponsored by ICDAC along with other activities of its Department of Religion see Pol-e Firuzeh, vol. 2, no. 8, summer 2003, pp. 152–159. Mr. Abtahi resigned his post as vice president in the fall of 2004 due to the political conflict between the reformist and non-reformist factions in the Iranian government. “A Glance at Institute for Inter Religious Dialogue,” Tehran, 2001. A brochure published by the Institute. www.iid.org.ir (see the introduction under hadaf. This is the author’s translation of the Farsi text). Ibid. “A Glance at Institute for Inter Religious Dialogue”, Tehran, 2001. For a report of the activities of this center, see their website at www.ifird.org. For a report on this dialogue see www.missionstudies.org/conference/1papers/ Nelson_Jennings.htm. The presentations in this dialogue has recently been published in Iran under the title Motivations and Obstacles to Interreligious Dialogue, Tehran: Luḥ-i Fikr, 1383 (2004). In Farsi, the organization is called Markaz-i Muṭ āli‘āt va Tahqīqāt-i Adyān va Mazāhib. The exact translation of the name of this center in Farsi would be The Center for Studies and Research of Religions and Sects. See the center’s website www.adyan.org for further information. The information was taken from a published brochure by the center. A summary of it is also provided in their website www.adyan.org. Most of the relevant publications have been cited in the previous chapter. See the book section of the above website for further information.


3/22/2011 1:17:09 PM


245

34. For example, it is very interesting that in a theologically and politically conservative organization like OCIR, Dr. Amir Akrami, a staunch defendant of religious pluralism, was asked to head its Center for Inter-Religious Dialogue for several years. For Akrami’s position, see chapter two and also his article, “Nardibānhāyi Asmān” [Heavenly Ladders], in Abdol Karim Soroush, ed., Ṣirāt΄ hā-yi Mustaqīm [Straight Paths], Tehran: Ṣirāṭ, 1378 (1999), pp. 197–232. 35. Leonard Swidler, After the Absolute: The dialogical future of religious reflection, Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990, p. 3. Martin Forward, in attempting a loose definition of the term “dialogue” starts with an etymological discussion of the word. He writes, “What, however, of the first part of the word ‘dialogue’? It is ‘dia-,’ not ‘di-’ as many people wrongly infer. In Greek, ‘di,’ indicates ‘two’ rather than the ‘one’ that is signified by ‘mono-‘. But ‘dia-‘ is a preposition that means ‘through’. ‘Di-logue’ could mean two people conversing about a worldview; maybe amicably, maybe not; maybe with results, maybe not. But ‘dia-logue’ signifies worldviews being argued through to significant and potentially transformative conclusions, for one or more participants. It involves much more consequential encounter . . . . This interpretation of dialogue allows it to be challenging and open ended. Participants are risk takers because they themselves learn and change; dialogue does not allow them just to inform and hope to transform others.” Martin Forward, A Short Introduction to Inter-religious Dialogue, Oxford: Oneworld Publications, 2001, pp. 12–13. 36. Ibid, p. 3. 37. Leonard Swidler, “The Dialogue Decalogue: Ground Rules for Interreligious Dialogue,” in Journal of Ecumenical Studies, vol. 20, no. 1, 1983, pp. 1–4. 38. Jean-Claude Basset, “Has Christian-Muslim Dialogue Already Begun,” in Jacques Waardenburg, ed., Muslim-Christian Perceptions of Dialogue Today, Leuven: Peeters, 2000, p. 277. 39. Brief summaries of some of the dialogues can be found in various journals. For example, the journal Islamochristiana does provide documentation of the many meetings between the Roman Catholic Church and Iranian delegates. Also the journal Islam and Christian-Muslim Relations has documented and summarized the first dialogue between Iranians and the Christian theologians at Selly Oak Colleges held in July of 1992. See Christopher Hewer, “Iranian Islam in dialogue with European Christianity,’ ICMR, vol. 3, no. 2, Dec. 1992, pp. 304–311. The author was also present in two of the dialogues of OCIR, one at the University of Birmingham in December of 2002 and one in Tehran in February of 2003 between OCIR and the St. Gabriel Institute in Austria. 40. The First International Symposium on Orthodoxy and Islam, Tehran: Center for International and Cultural Studies, 1994; Second International Symposium on


3/22/2011 1:17:09 PM

246

41.

42. 43.

44.

45.

46.

Christian Encounters with Iran Orthodoxy and Islam; Third International Symposium on Orthodoxy and Islam, Tehran: Center for International and Cultural Studies, 1995. Andreas Bsteh, Seyed Mirdamadi, eds., Guftugū: ‘Idālat dar Ravābịt-i Baynulmilal va Bayni Adyān az Dīdgāh-i Andīshmandān-i Musalmān va Masīḥī [Dialogue: Justice in International Relations and Among Religions from the Perspective of Muslim and Christian Thinkers], Tehran: Al-hoda international publishers, nd; Andreas Bsteh, Akbar Ghanbari, Amir Akrami, eds., Guftugū: Arzish΄ ha, Huqūq, Vazāyif, Masā‘il-i Asāsī-yi Neẓam-i Hamzīstī-yi Adilānah az Dīdgāhi Andīshmandān-i Musalmān va Masīhī [Dialogue: Values, Rights, Responsibilities and Principles of Just Order of Co-existence from the Perspective of Muslim and Christian Thinkers], Tehran: Al-Hoda international publishers, 1380 (2001). St. Gabriel Institute has also published two books in English on Muslim–Christian dialogue which include prominent Iranian representatives, Andreas Bsteh, ed., Peace for Humanity: Principles, Problems and Perspectives of the Future as seen by Muslims and Christians, New Delhi: Vikas Publishing House, 1996; Andreas Bsteh, ed., One World for All: Foundations of a Socio-Political and Cultural Pluralism from Christian and Muslim Perspectives, New Delhi: Vikas Publishing House, 1999. Amir Akrami, ed., Dīn va Dunya-yi Mu‘ā ṣir [Religion and Contemporary World], Tehran: Al-Hoda International publishers, 1380 (2001). Amir Akrami, ed., Majmū‘ah-yi Maqālāt-i Guftugū ba Kilīsāyi Urtuduks-i Rūsī [The Collection of the Articles of Dialogue with the Russian Orthodox Church], Tehran: 1381(2002). Amir Akrami, ed., Khānivā dih va Nahā d΄ hā-yi Arzishī ān az dīdgāhi Islā m va Masīhīat-i Urtuduks va Hamzīstī-yi Musālimat΄ amīz az Naẓar-i Islā m va Masīhīyat-i Urtuduks [Family and its Institutional Value from the Perspective of Islam and Orthodox Christianity and Peaceful Co-existence from the Perspective of Islam and Christianity], Qum: Center for Religious Studies, 1382 (2003). No bibliographical information was available on this text. All these unpublished texts were kindly provided to the author by Dr. Amir Akrami, the former director of the center for interfaith dialogue of OICR. Also in December of 2005, Dr. Parvez Morewedge of Rutgers University and the director of Global Scholarly Publications kindly provided the author with two recently published volumes of the dialogues between participants from OCIR and American Catholic scholars which took place in the US. See Mehdi Faridzadeh, ed., Philosophies of Peace and Just War, New York: Global Scholarly Publications, 2004; and George McLean & Ahmad Iravani, eds. Islam and the Political Order, New York: Global Scholarly Publications, 2005. Although the focus of this chapter is on the Iranian side of these dialogues, brief comments on the Christian participants of these dialogues


3/22/2011 1:17:10 PM

Notes to Page 102

47.

48.

49.

50.

247

will also be made to evaluate the extent of their openness coming into these dialogues. These themes can be amply documented from all the published dialogues so far. Due to the limitations of space only a few examples will be highlighted in each case. These themes are not unique to the Iranian participation in Muslim– Christian dialogue. David Kerr points out, “The course of Christian-Muslim dialogue through the 1980s has been strongly marked by the social agenda, as intended by a joint planning meeting of Muslims and Christians in Geneva in 1979 that gave priority to issues of human rights, economic development, and technology. Cooperation between WCC and the Vatican Secretariat resulted in five regional meetings of Christian–Muslim dialogue (Benin, Bali, Crete[with Arabs and Europeans], USA, and Tanzania), each of which addressed issues of religion and state, religion and education, religion and family.” David Kerr, “Christian-Muslim Relations,” in James Phillips and Robert Coote, Toward the 21st Century in Christian Mission, Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1993, p. 356. These are themes that are also part of the worldwide Muslim interest in dialogue. Ovey Mohammed, a Jesuit scholar of Islam writing about a key Muslim motivation for inter-religious dialogue, notes Mohamed Talbi’s comments, “The dividing lines between different faiths no longer run in the same direction as before. The opposition is not so much between different concepts of God and of the way in which to serve him. A far deeper division has taken place between those who are striving to attain man’s destiny without God, and those who can conceive of man’s future in and through God.” Ovey Mohammed continues, “The threat of secularism has led Muslim and Christian scholars to think that the joint development of a God-centered ethic is the most fertile ground for Christian-Muslim collaboration.” Ovey Mohammed, Muslim-Christian Relations: Past, Present, Future, Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1999, p. 73. The First International Symposium on Orthodoxy and Islam, p. 2. Despite this apparent disdain for theological discussions, Khatami’s brief speech is in fact quite theological in nature and makes some fascinating comparisons between Islam and Christianity. Khatami quotes from the first epistle of John and says, God is love and goes on to say that religion according to Islam is also essentially love. Khatami’s mystical bent is also evident when he says, “It is possible for human beings to understand aspects of truth through reason, but it is only through love that one can arrive at truth.” He also finds similarities in Islam and Christianity in the image of lover and beloved in the divine-human relationship and quotes from Matt. 22: 37 where Jesus indicates that the greatest commandment is to love the lord our


3/22/2011 1:17:10 PM

248

51. 52. 53.

54. 55.

Christian Encounters with Iran God with all our heart, soul and mind. Most interestingly Khatami refers to Paul’s reference in Romans 1:20 that God’s power and divine nature can be recognized and understood from an observation of nature and points out its similarity to the Qur’anic emphasis on rational reflection as a means to lead us to the truth of God. He also commends the tradition of Natural Theology developed in Christian history as a result of this Pauline teaching. Guftugū: ‘Idālat . . . , p. 3. Majmū’ah-yi Maqālāt-i Guftugū bā Kilīsāyi Urtuduks-i Rūsī [The Collection of the articles of dialogue with the Russian Orthodox Church], p. 9. It can often be seen in the text of such dialogues that the overriding concerns of Catholic participants are rights of religious minorities, human rights and peaceful co-existence between Muslim and Christian communities both in Europe and in the Muslim world. A prime example of this is the Muslim-Christian gathering in Vienna in 1993 (in which Khatami was a participant) which paved the way for a series of dialogues between Iran and St. Gabriel Institute and also contributed to the dialogues with the Vatican. The opening address of the conference by the Austrian Foreign minister emphasized that “the cooperation between Christians and Muslims for peace is one of the biggest challenges for foreign policy of our time.” Peace for Humanity, pp. 16–18. The conference ended with a joint declaration calling for Muslims and Christians to mutual respect, understanding, and cooperation in order to protect human dignity and human rights, challenge discrimination against minorities, promote peace and stop the exploitation of natural and human resources. Ibid, pp. 278–279. The key underlying concern of many Orthodox participants (Greek or Russian) is somewhat different. The Orthodox churches are fearful of the effect of the dominance of Western secular culture and the effects of globalization on their countries and churches. Thus they believe they have found a natural ally against such Western influences in their Iranian dialogue partners. For some examples see the joint declaration by the Iranians and the Russian Orthodox Church after their second round of dialogue. First International Symposium on Orthodoxy and Islam, p. 69. In the first dialogue with St. Gabriel Institute, after two presentations by the Christian participants on economic development and human rights in international relations, Ayatollah Khamenei went on to make the observation that the speeches were simply lectures on international law and one has to make a great effort to find any relationship to a religious theme in these presentations. Guftugū: ‘Idālat . . . , p. 181. Occasionally, there have also been frank debates about secularism and secularization. In the second dialogue with St. Gabriel Institute there were a number of heated discussions about the role of government in which Christians defend a secular view of the


3/22/2011 1:17:10 PM


56.

57. 58.

59. 60.

249

government and Iranians vehemently rejected the compatibility of Islam with any form of secular thought. Guftugū: Arzīsh΄ hā . . . , pp. 265–306. One is reminded at this point about the reflections of Tarek Mitri about this aspect of Muslim–Christian dialogue. He writes, “The way in which Christians and Muslims perceive each other’s understanding of the relation between religion and state, society and state recurs significantly as a thorny issue in various forms of dialogue. With varying measure of subtlety, many Christians depict Islam, and not just Islamism, as a call to theocracy. Parallel to that, many Muslims regard Christianity as a spiritual religion preoccupied with afterlife . . . . To be sure, many more Christians prefer to choose as Muslim dialogue partners those who are inclined to distance themselves from the traditional Islamic understanding of religion, society and state. This preference, unsurprisingly, raises among Muslims the suspicion that these Christians instrumentalize dialogue to convince Muslims of the secular way and, short of being able to convert them to Christianity, attempt at de-Islamicizing them.” Tarek Mitri, “Reflections on Mutual Perceptions and Dialogue,” in Muslim-Christian Perception of Dialogue Today, pp. 77–79. In the introduction to the collection of the first dialogue with the Greek Orthodox Church, this is the very first issue the editors address. The introduction refers to a “wave of misunderstanding among the clergy in the seminaries and universities” about the purpose and usefulness of such dialogues between two missionary religions with a history of hostile encounters. The editorial goes on to answer this suspicion by pointing out that world religions need to unite today against the common enemy of atheism. One World for All, pp. 113–114. Ibid, pp. 114–115. Khamenei’s presentation generated many questions and critical remarks among the dialogue participants. Farid Esack, a prominent Muslim intellectual responded by saying, Khamenei’s “statements were very controversial and tried to convey a friendly picture of a system which I essentially take for a totalitarian system . . . .It does not help if we quote one Qur’anic verse after the other and one Hadith after the other in order to demonstrate how friendly the Qur’an speaks about non-Muslims . . . .Thus the point is not what the Qur’an says about the liberation of women, but how Islamic society treats women. Similarly, the point is not what the Qur’an says about how to treat non-Muslims, but how we treat the Baha’is in Iran and the Christians in Pakistan.” Ibid, pp. 134–135. Dialogue, vol. 1, no. 1, summer 1998, p. 25. Mohammad Masjid Jame‘ie, Guftugūyi Dīnī, Guftugūyi Tamaddunī: Islā m va Masīhīyat dar Durān-i Jadīd [Religious Dialogue, Civilizational Dialogue: Islam and Christianity in Modern Era], Tehran: Ministry of Islamic Culture and Gudiance, 1379 (2000), p. 4.


3/22/2011 1:17:10 PM

250


61. Ibid., pp. 8–9, 301–303, 304–305, 402–403. 62. Ibid, pp. 301–302. One direct political result of dialogues between Iran and St. Gabriel Institute in Austria was the significant improvement in the relationship between the Iranian and Austrian governments. The President of Austria traveled to Iran in September of 1999, during the second round of dialogues between St. Gabriel and Iran. This was the first time that the head of a European state had traveled to Iran after the Islamic revolution. According to the Austrian Foreign Ministry this trip was made possible to a significant extent by the relationship developed between the two countries as a result of these dialogues. See the opening address of Gerhard Riner from the Foreign Ministry of Austria in Guftugū: Arzish΄ ha,, p. 22. 63. First International Symposium on Orthodoxy and Islam, pp. 34–35. 64. See the list of the dialogues in the first part of the chapter. 65. Peace for Humanity, p. 30. 66. Dīn va Dunyā-yi Mu‘ā sir, p. 2. 67. Ibid, p. 3. 68. Ibid, pp. 14–15. 69. Ibid, p. 18. 70. Ibid, pp. 25, 27–28. 71. Ibid, p. 49. 72. Ibid, p. 53. 73. Ibid, p. 87. 74. Ibid, pp. 96–97. In light of such positive statements by Jannati, it is both sad and surprising to hear the controversial comments (made in November of 2005 in a public speech) of this senior cleric in which he declared all nonMuslims to be “sinful animals who roam the earth and engage in corruption”! This comment stirred a great deal of controversy among both Iranian Muslims and religious minorities. See http://www.iranian.ws/iran_news/ publish/article_11167.shtml (accessed on Dec. 9, 2005); and http://www. entekhab.ir/display/?ID=9151&PHPSESSID=8d1b071992e8373709de0b17b e941263 (accessed on Dec. 9, 2005). 75. Ibid, p. 93. 76. Ibid., p. 146. 77. Ibid., p. 147. 78. Ibid., p. 149. 79. Ibid., p. 150. 80. Ibid., p. 150. 81. Second International Symposium on Orthodoxy and Islam, pp. 10–11. 82. Third International Symposium on Orthodoxy and Islam, pp. 1–2. 83. Majmū’ah-yi Maqālāt-i Guftugū bā Kilīsāyi Urtuduks-i Rūsī [The Collection of the articles of dialogue with the Russian Orthodox Church], p. 3.


3/22/2011 1:17:10 PM


251

84. Dīn va Dunyā-yi Mu‘ā sir, pp. 158–160. Another joint declaration was issued at the end of the second dialogue with the Russian Orthodox Church in June of 1999. The main focus of that declaration was on justice and peace in international relations, the rights and sovereignty of each nation and opposition to one world order dominated by one superpower. See the second dialogue with the Russian Orthodox Church, pp. 104–105. 85. See the comments of Taskhiri in Dīn va Dunyā-yi Mu‘ā sir, p. 2. 86. First International Symposium on Orthodoxy and Islam, pp. 73–87. The lecture is presented in English. 87. Ibid, p. 80. 88. Ibid, p. 82. 89. Ibid, p. 82. 90. Ibid, p. 84. 91. Chris Hewer, p. 307. 92. Shabestari’s lecture notes, p. 7. The notes were provided to the author by Chris Hewer. 93. One World for All, p. 127. 94. See the comments of Ali Akbar Rashad at the end of the first dialogue with St. Gabriel, pp. 473–476. For the impressions of Iranian hospitality on Christian participants see the comments of the Russian participant at the second dialogue between Iran and Russian Orthodox Church, p. 46. 95. Majmū‘ah-yi Maqālāt-i Guftugū bā Kilīsāyi Urtuduks-i Rūsī [The Collection of the articles of dialogue with the Russian Orthodox Church], p. 4. 96. Personal conversation with Ayatollah Mohaqqeq Damad, Feb. 2, 2005, Selly Oak. According to Mohaqqeq Damad, Iranians have come a long way in these years of becoming active in dialogue. He makes some revealing comments about the situation in Iran. Among other things, Mohaqqeq Damad pointed out, “In the beginning [of the dialogue movement in Iran] it was not at all clear what the purpose of dialogue was . . . . After our conference in Athens, one of the highest religious authorities in Iran said to us, ‘Are these Greeks going to convert to Shi‘ism now or not?’. . . And after Hans Kung’s visit to Iran, one Iranian clergy asked, ‘Do Christians have any theology or theologians?’. . . Although many people in dialogue are still interested in using it for propagation, but overall, most people have come to understand that dialogue is not about dispute and propagation. The purpose of dialogue is mutual understanding. Dialogue is a new way of seeking information . . . . These dialogues have also helped to change the perception of the world toward Shi‘ite Islam and Iran for the better.” 97. The dialogue with the Armenian Church, p. 1. 98. Dīn va Dunyā-yi Mu‘ā ṣir, p. 91. 99. Ibid, p. 95.


3/22/2011 1:17:10 PM

252


100. Needless to say, different expectations or understandings of dialogue will produce very different evaluations about much that takes place under the name of dialogue. For example, Tinu Ruparell defines “real dialogue” as “discussions which each participant is willing to expose his or her beliefs and practices to the full glare of the other’s interrogation and investigation. Nothing is held back in such ideal and lamentably rare conversations: one exposes—perhaps to defend, perhaps to learn—all of one’s commitments, doubts, strengths, and weaknesses to the other in the faith that she or he will do the same.” Based on this understanding of how a “real dialogue” should function, the author takes a dim view of the genuineness of many inter-religious dialogues. The author points out, many “actually sit down at the table of dialogue but fail to truly engage in open conversations which are the hallmark of real dialogue. These are the ersatz ‘dialogians’ who do attend the congresses, who speak to their heathen neighbors, who are willing to share their own faiths and (at least) seem interested in learning about other traditions. But they are also the people who will never allow the other to really influence their own religious beliefs and practices.” Tinu Ruparell, “The Dialogue Party: Dialogue, Hybridity, and the Reluctant Other,” in Viggo Mortensen, ed., Theology and the Religions: A Dialogue, Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2003, p. 240. 101. Ayoub, “Christian-Muslim Dialogue: Goals and Obstacles,” in The Muslim World, vol. 94, July 2004, p. 315. 102. Ayoub, p. 315. 103. Ayoub, p. 315. 104. Ayoub, p. 315. 105. Ayoub, p. 316. 106. Ayoub, p. 316. 107. Ayoub, p. 316. 108. Swidler points out that in metaphysics there has been a shift from a static to a dynamic view of reality, in epistemology there has been a move toward deabsolutizing truth, in psychology the developmental and relational aspect of human beings is now more clearly understood, and finally in ethics there is a new focus on mutuality and relationality. After the Absolute, pp. 5–21. 109. Ibid, p. 7. 110. Ibid., p. 8. 111. Many Iranian Shi’i intellectuals have expressed serious doubts about the political agenda of OIRC in these dialogues and its effect on the genuineness or depth of such dialogues. However, as Mohaqqeq Damad claimed in personal conversation with the author, “the Iranian organizers of these dialogues have their own political agendas, but we scholars who participate


3/22/2011 1:17:10 PM

Notes to Page 115

112.

113.

114. 115.

116.

117.

253

in these dialogues ignore those agendas and pursue our own research.” Of course, there are some individual participants in these dialogues that do take seriously the epistemological shift in the modern world and its impact on Islam and Muslim–Christian dialogue. For one such example by a prominent person in OIRC, see Seyyed Amir Akrami’s speech, “Islamic Responses to Change” in Michael Ipgrave, ed., The Road Ahead: A Christian-Muslim Dialogue, London: Church House Publishing, 2002, pp. 81–88. This lecture was given at the Institute for Inter-religious Dialogue in Tehran on March 5, 2003. Dr. Beheshti spent many years in Germany, earning a doctorate in philosophy from the University of Hamburg. He has also participated in numerous dialogues. Beheshti’s other points are also instructive about the issues and problems facing the dialogue movement in Iran. Among other things, Beheshti claimed “our educational culture in Iran does not produce a conducive atmosphere for dialogue.” Furthermore, “our dialogues are being repeated without going into any details and reaching any new levels of understanding.” Moreover, “often we do not know the people of other religions in our dialogue. They know us better than we know them. This results in poor quality in our dialogues.” And lastly, “our lack of knowledge in Western languages (especially English) is another big hindrance.” Mahmoud Ayoub, “Christian-Muslim Dialogue: Goals and Obstacles,” in The Muslim World, vol. 94, July 2004, p. 318. The tendency to move away from theological reflections seems to be part of most Muslim participations in dialogue. Ataullah Siddiqui writes, “Muslims have seen dialogue, in some respects, as a plea to explain their faith, but more than that they have viewed dialogue as an opportunity to face the growing challenge presented by atheism and materialism. Therefore, the theological dialogue for Muslims has received little attention.” Ataullah Siddiqui, “The Presence of ‘Secular’ in Christian-Muslim Relations: Reflections on the Da’wah, ‘Mission’ and ‘Dialogue’ ”, in Anthony O’Mahony and Ataullah Siddiqui, eds., Christians and Muslims in the Commonwealth, London: Altajir World of Islam Trust, 2001, p. 88. During the discussion period in the first dialogue with WCC, Jean-Claude Basset gently raised the issue with the Muslim participants. He said, “In our discussions we refer to the similarities between Muslims and Christians which is a good thing. But don’t you think we should also look at the differences? The differences that exist. I will leave this question unanswered but I believe if we learn to respect and appreciate others due to their differences and uniqueness, then dialogue can move forward significantly.” Din va Donya . . . , p. 104. In the interview with the author Mohaqqeq Damad made the dubious claim that the perspective of many Christians toward the Trinity has been


3/22/2011 1:17:11 PM

254

118.

119. 120.

121.

122.

Christian Encounters with Iran deeply influenced by Islamic mysticism. He also claimed that many of the Christians during the time of the prophet Muhammad believed in a physical understanding of Jesus’ divine sonship because that is what the Qur’an claims. But most of the “progressive” churches of today now view Jesus as “spiritually” or metaphorically the son of God. For instance, in the three dialogues with the Russian Orthodox Church and the five dialogues with the Greek Orthodox Church, it is hard to see any progression or development in the presentations of both Christian and Muslim participants. For a list of all the lectures sponsored by the department of religion in ICDC see Turquoise Bridge, vol. 2, no. 8, summer 2003, pp. 155–157. There are, however, many voices in Iran who criticize ICDC for failing to maintain a momentum on dialogue among the Iranian intellectuals or failing to promote its ideals in a grass root fashion in the society as a whole. For example, in just the first three issues of Turquoise Bridge published between the fall of 2001 and the spring of 2002, the readers can notice the following articles with the word “dialogue” in them: “Dialogue among civilizations: A luxury or a cultural necessity,” “Dialogue: elevation toward peace and absolute truth,” “Dialogue in the real world: Quixotic pursuit or sine qua non?,” “Clash or dialogue among civilizations,” “An applied definition of dialogue among civilizations,” “The Shi‘ite Ulema and the dialogue among religions and cultures over the recent centuries,” “Why Egypt supports the dialogue among civilizations?” “The status of dialogue among civilizations in the paradigm of state and democracy,” “The role of intercultural philosophy in dialogue among civilizations,” “dialogue among civilizations,” “Phenomenology of dialogue among civilizations,” “Dialogue among civilizations, globalization and Iran’s foreign policy,” “Dialogue and urbanism: Buber, Naess, Spinoza and the question of diversity,” “Oriental literature and dialogue among cultures,” “Dialogue with the ‘self’ and dialogue with the ‘other’: implications and weltanschung,” “Encyclopedia: an eternal resource for civilizational dialogue.” Looking at the other journal of the center, Report on Dialogue, in which each issue is devoted to one theme, we find the following themes (among others not related directly to dialogue) discussed so far, “Religion and dialogue among civilizations,” “A political introduction to dialogue among civilizations,” “Human rights and dialogue among civilizations,” “Philosophical nature of dialogue,” “An introduction to dialogue in the social sciences,” “Ecology and dialogue among civilizations,” “Globalization and dialogue among civilizations.” For one example of a sophisticated philosophical approach see Ali Paya, “Dialogue in the Real World: Quixotic pursuit or sine qua non?”, in Pol-e Firuzeh, vol. 1, no. 1, autumn 2001, pp. 43–68.


3/22/2011 1:17:11 PM

Notes to Pages 117–122 123. 124. 125. 126.

127. 128. 129. 130.

131. 132. 133. 134. 135. 136. 137. 138.

139. 140. 141. 142. 143. 144.

145.

255

Vol. 1, no. 1, autumn of 2001, pp. 227, 229. English original. Vol. 1, no. 1, Sept. 2002, pp. 4–5. Ibid. Vol. 1, no. 1, Sept. 2002, pp. 8–19. It is interesting to note that Turquoise Bridge also opens its first issue with an interview with Malekian with the title, “Dialogue among civilizations: A luxury or a necessity.” Ibid, pp. 11–13. Ibid, p. 16. Ibid, p. 18. It seems, at least to many Christian readers, that many of the news articles have a slant toward reporting negative news about the worldwide church with its many problems and scandals, and the news on Muslims around the world tend to highlight their victimization by various local authorities. Hick was actually invited and hosted by IID for his first trip to Iran in February of 2005. This point was relayed to the author by Mrs. Mousavinejad in the interview with her in March of 2003. Akhbā r-i Dīn, no. 1, p. 5. Mrs. Mousavinejad’s concluding speech in the Muslim–Christian dialogue held in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Tehran, June of 2004. From the spring of 1999 to the summer of 2005, 26 issues of the journal were published. Haft Asman, vol. 1, no. 1, p. 5. Vahdat-i Muta‘ālīyi Adyān. The two main Qur’anic references which professor Bina bases his arguments on religious pluralism are Q. 2:148 and 5:51. In the latter verse the Qur’an states, “If God had so willed he would have made you a single people, but (his plan is) to test you in what he has given you; so strive as in a race in all virtues. The goal of you all is to God.” Ibid, p. 10. Ibid, p. 13. Ibid, p. 14. Ibid, pp. 19–22. Ibid, pp. 16, 27. Ibid. p. 26. This interview and the viewpoints expressed by Professor Bina were heavily criticized by an article submitted to the journal and published in its second issue. In the first issue of the journal (and other issues as well), there are many other “signs” and indirect evidences that signal a shift in the thinking of the contributors to the journal. For example, in the first issue, there is a translated article from a book by Robert May, entitled, Physicians of the


3/22/2011 1:17:11 PM

256

146. 147. 148. 149. 150.

151. 152.

153. 154.

155. 156. 157.

158. 159.

Christian Encounters with Iran Soul: The Psychologies of the World’s Great Spiritual Teachers. The article is also a defense of the essential truth and unity of all religions. Another article in the same issue is a translation of a portion of a book written in Arabic on a Pre-Islamic Iranian Christian theologian, Ephraim the Syriac. In the introduction to the article, the Iranian translator speaks in very lofty terms of the significance of this Iranian Christian intellectual. Malekian will be treated in more detail in the next chapter. Vol. 1, no. 2, p. 11. Ibid, pp. 11–12. Ibid, p. 17. Ibid, p. 18. In the editorial comments of issues 3–4 (published in one volume together), the editors point out the heated controversy in Iranian religious circles caused by their previous issues. But they also defend their position as a step toward improving the relations among various religions. The journal also published an interview with a prominent conservative Shi’i clergy, Sadegh Larijani in which Mr. Larijani attacked the position of those who advocate religious pluralism and deny the superiority of Islam as the final religion. Vol. 2, no. 5, pp. 17, 19–20, 24, 31, 36–37. Vol. no. 6. Pazuki, like many other thinkers surveyed in this section, refers to Meister Eckhart as a great model of a Christian mystic which challenges the idea that after the advent of Islam, Christians cannot arrive at highest spiritual experiences. Vol. 4, no. 15, pp. 29–36. Interestingly Tofiqi, with apparent approval, quotes from a famous passage by Motahhari in which Motahhari praises the spirituality and piety of Christian clergy and states that seventy to eighty percent of these Christian leaders (but not corrupt Christian rulers and the Popes) along with the Christian population will enter heaven. Ibid, p. 35. Vol. 6, no. 22, pp. 67–112. Ibid, p. 72. Ibid, pp. 73–74. Q. 3:85 states, “If anyone desires a religion other than Islam, never will it be accepted of him; and in the hereafter he will be in the ranks of those who have lost.” But once again, Tofiqi quotes Motahhari’s famous passage about the possibility of the salvation for the vast majority of Christians. See the discussion of these articles in chapter 3. The following are Tofiqi’s translations that have appeared in the journal so far, “The Book of the Secrets of Enoch” (vol. 1, nos. 3–4), “The First Book of Adam and Eve” (vol. 2, no. 6), “The Second Book of Adam and Eve” (vol. 2, no. 7), “The Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs” (vol. 2, no. 8), “The


3/22/2011 1:17:11 PM


160. 161. 162. 163. 164. 165. 166. 167. 168. 169. 170.

171. 172. 173. 174.

175. 176.

177. 178.

257

Letters of Aristeas” (vols. 3–4, nos. 12–13). All the stories are translated from The Forgotten Books of Eden. Vol. 1, nos. 3–4, p. 21. Tofiqi considers the Book of Revelation in the NT in this category of literature. Ibid, pp. 23–25. Vol. 5, no. 17, pp. 135–158. The closest English term for Ta‘wil in this context is “exegesis.” Vol. 6, no. 22, pp. 67–112. Vol. 6, no. 22, pp. 81–84. Ibid, p. 83. Vol. 5, no. 17, p. 158. Vols. 3–4, nos. 12–13, pp. 13–28. Ibid, pp. 21–22. Ibid, p. 22. Ma‘rifat makes numerous dubious claims. For example, he claims that God sent down to Moses ten portions of revelation but only seven of them are currently in the Torah. He also says that there is a seventy year gap between the events in Jewish history and the writing of the Torah. Ibid, pp. 23, 24. Ibid, p. 23. Ibid, p.25. Ibid, pp. 26–27. In the last paragraph of the article, Ma‘rifat says, “If a Jew acts only based on what is in the current Torah, will he be saved? The prophet of Islam says no.” Ibid, p. 28. Vol. 4, no. 16, pp. 47–62. Ibid, p. 50. Ardestani criticizes Muslims for thinking that Christians attribute the Gospel as a book brought by Jesus. He also proposes that either the current Gospels are totally different than what is referred to by the Qur’an or the Qur’anic term simply means the teachings of Jesus. Ibid, pp. 51–54. Also it is interesting to note that the idea of inter-religious dialogue is becoming a feature of some of the other fields of academic activities in Iran. In the Spring of 2001, Iran hosted an international conference on “Environment, Religion and Culture” which included Christian, Jewish and Zoroastrian participants. See Hamāyish-i Baynulmilalī-i Muhīt-i Zīst, Dīn va Farhang [International Conference on Environment, Religion and Culture], Tehran: Sāzmān-i Hifā ẓat-i Muhīṭ-i Zīst, 1380. And in May of 2005, National Research Center for Medical Sciences in Tehran hosted “The International Congress on Dialogue between Religion and Science: Defining Life and the Person,” which also included a number of Christian


3/22/2011 1:17:12 PM

258

179.

180. 181.

182.

183. 184.

185.

Christian Encounters with Iran participants. See http://www.nrcms.ir/english/pages.asp?category=science_ religion&code=conference01. According to their website this organization aims to carry further research in cooperation with Christian scholars on issues relating to science and religion. For brief summaries of Catholic and Protestant approaches toward dialogue, along with an extensive bibliography of the relevant literature see Christian Troll, “Changing Catholic Views of Islam” and Jean-Claude Basset, “New Wine in Old Wineskins: Changing Protestant Views of Islam”, in Waardenburg, ed., Islam and Christianity, pp. 19–77, 79–96. Also see Christian Troll, “Catholic Teachings on Interreligious Dialogue: Analysis of some recent official documents, with special reference to Christian-Muslim relations,” in Waardenburg, Muslim-Christian Perceptions of Dialogue Today, pp. 233–275. For a thorough discussion and analysis of WCC’s dialogues with Muslims see Jutta Sperber, Christians and Muslims: The Dialogue Activities of the World Council of Churches and Their Theological Foundation, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2000. It should be noted that most of the publications cited in this chapter receive a very limited exposure in the Iranian society. See the comments of Dr. Beheshti quoted earlier in this chapter. The directors of IID are also very explicit in expressing their opinion that “interreligious dialogue in the Islamic Republic of Iran . . . has not received adequate attention and it seems that this movement can be better pursued by non-governmental organizations.” Hamid Reza Shariatmadari, trans., Az Barkhud tā Guftugū [From Confrontation to Dialogue], Tehran: Nashr-i Luḥ-i Fikr, 1383 (2004), p. 9. Hans Kung calls on Muslims for even a more radical rethinking of traditional Islamic doctrines in light of the new shifts in epistemology and hermeneutics. See Kung’s “Christianity and World Religions: Dialogue with Islam”, in Swidler, ed., Muslims in Dialogue, pp. 260–262. Like many other terms and phrases, “religious pluralism” has become a catch phrase for a number of different ideas among many Iranians. Kathryn Tanner, “Respect for Other Religion: A Christian Antidote to Colonialist Discourse,” in Modern Theology 9, (January 1993), p. 2, quoted in Alister McGrath, “A Particularist View: A Post-Enlightenment Approach,” in More Than One Way? Four Views on Salvation in a Pluralistic World, Dennis Okholm and Timothy Phillips, eds., Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995, p. 160. McGrath goes on to say this view of pluralism “can all too easily lead to the deliberate suppression of differences in the interests of harmony.” Ibid, p. 162. Douglas Pratt, “Pluralism and Interreligious Engagement . . .”, pp. 404–405. Writing further about this problematic aspect of certain kinds of pluralism,


3/22/2011 1:17:12 PM

Notes to Page 129

259

Pratt notes, “The notion of dialogue being based on a context of a preconceived common ground Reality, or a common salvific goal, seems now to be somewhat presumptuous as well as cognitively constraining . . . . In the end, these two seem increasingly to be variants of the inclusivist paradigm, which, as with exclusivism, tends more to curtail genuine dialogue than facilitate it.” Ibid., p. 418. For a thorough critique of pluralism (of theologians like John Hick and his fellow travelers) from a variety of theological and philosophical perspectives, see Gavin D’Costa, ed., Christian Uniqueness Reconsidered: The Myth of a Pluralistic Theology of Religions, Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1990.

5

Iranian Shi’as and Christian Thought: Three Liberal Religious Intellectuals

1. For a brief but very helpful account of the understanding of “intellectuals” in the West and its rise in modern Islamic history see John Esposito and John Voll, eds., Makers of Contemporary Islam, New York: Oxford University Press, 2001, pp. 3–22. Iranian intellectuals also have strong political and social involvement. See Negin Nabavi, Intellectuals and the State in Iran: Politics, Discourse, and the Dilemma of Authenticity, Gainesville: University Press of Florida, 2003; and Negin Nabavi, ed., Intellectual Trends in Twentieth-Century Iran: A Critical Survey, Gainesville: University Press of Florida, 2003. 2. See Farhad Khosrokhavar’s “The New Intellectuals in Iran” in Social Compass, 51 (2), 2004, pp. 191–202. According to Khosrokhavar, these men belong to the category of “Grand Intellectuals” in the Iranian society. This article is also available on www.drsoroush.com. All three can also be considered as “iconic intellectuals” in the sense that Mahmoud and Ahmad Sadri use the phrase in their book Reason, Freedom, and Democracy in Islam: Essential Writings of Abdolkarim Soroush. According to Sadris, “The iconic intellectuals are the producers as well as the embodiments of ideas and ideals, and as such they are held in semireligious veneration.” This type of Iranian intellectual is modeled after the Russian “intelligentsia” and the French “engaged” intellectuals. “The intellectual leaders of modern Iran demand of themselves nothing less than an unswerving missionary activism aimed at national progress and an exemplary j’accuse—heroism in proclaiming socially relevant truths against entrenched authoritarian regimes.” pp. ix-x. It should also note here that Malekian is quite adamant that one cannot be an intellectual or roshanfekr in the proper sense of the word and be religious at the same time (at least in the traditional sense of the word religious). He grants that one can either be a “progressive religious thinker” or a “spiritual intellectual” but not a religious intellectual. See his interview in Report on Dialogue., vol. 1, no. 1, Sept. 2002, pp. 8–19.


3/22/2011 1:17:12 PM

260


3. Charles Kurzman, ed., Liberal Islam: A Source Book, New York: Oxford University Press, 1998. 4. Ibid, p. 4. Kurzman makes a number of important and helpful qualifications for the use of this term. 5. This is a brief and broad definition of liberal theology that Alister McGrath proposes. See Historical Theology: An Introduction to the History of Christian Thought, Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1998, p. 234. McGrath points out that the term “liberal” is “widely regarded as imprecise and confusing.” 6. In a lecture entitled “Dialogue Among Religions and Cultures”, Soroush claims that he and Shabestari were the first two individuals who actually proposed the whole idea of inter-religious dialogue in Iran that resulted in the coming of German theologians to Tehran and beginning the dialogue movement. In the same lecture Soroush also noted that in the beginning these dialogues were conducted freely but gradually the Iranian government got involved in it and it lost many of its original blessings. 7. In addition to being one of the first Iranian religious intellectuals writing in defense of dialogue as a necessity in today’s world, Malekian has also been significantly involved in the establishment of the Center for Religious Studies in Qum. He has also been a consultant for the International Organization for Dialogue Among Civilizations and the Institute for Interfaith Dialogue. Of course, Malekian is highly critical of the organizational dialogues that have taken place in Iran. He comments, “For three reasons our dialogues have not been very good. 1. The greatest motivation for these dialogues is political. The goal of a true dialogue is to try to understand the other. But here in Iran we want to impress the others that we have an open political system and we do not persecute our religious minorities. 2. A genuine dialogue takes place when the participants do not censor themselves. It is not right if for fear or other considerations we say certain things and omit certain things. 3. In dialogue we must be very knowledgeable about our field and about what we are talking about. I do not accept the Islamic expertise of most of the people who represent the Iranian side in these dialogues. I have not seen truth-seeking dialogues in Iran yet. All our dialogues have political dimensions.” Interview with Malekian, Tehran, May 29, 2004. 8. Soroush’s son, Dr. Soroush Dabbagh, kindly provided the author with the class notes of Soroush on modern theology taught in the mid 1980’s at Tehran University. Also Hojjatoleslam Behrooz Haddadi graciously mailed the author a copy of the class notes of Malekian on Christian theology taught in 1995 at Tehran University. 9. Leonard Swidler, After the Absolute, p. 7. 10. Ibid, p. 8.


3/22/2011 1:17:12 PM


261

11. For example, Soroush seems to indicate that he arrived at his epistemological position concerning the variable nature of religious knowledge independently of certain key figures of the field in Western philosophy. He states, “To tell you the truth, up to the time that I composed the thesis of contraction and expansion I had not studied the hermeneutical theories of scholars such as Hans-Georg Gadamer. Indeed, I was struck by the affinity of my positions and those of Gadamer.” Sadri and Sadri, p. 7. Shabestari on the other hand, is quite explicit in giving credit to Western philosophical traditions in his hermeneutical outlook. For a brief but helpful analysis of the influences on Shabestari see Mahmoud Alinejad, “Coming to Terms with Modernity: Iranian Intellectuals and the Emerging Public Sphere,” cited on www.iranchamber.com/podium/society/050526_coming_to_terms_with_ modernity2.php (accessed on May 10, 2005). 12. Forough Jahanbakhsh, Islam, Democracy and Religious Modernism in Iran (1953–2000), Leiden: Brill, 2001, p. 140. 13. Ibid, p. 140. 14. Ibid, pp. 140–141. 15. Ibid, p. 141. 16. Nikki R. Keddie, Modern Iran: Roots and Results of Revolution, New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003, pp. 304–305. 17. Khosrokhavar, p. 193. 18. Khosrokhavar, p. 196. 19. Mehrzad Boroujerdi, in his brief description of Shabestari writes, “In another essay Mojtahed Shabstari drew parallels between the way Christianity and Islam each encountered modernism . . . . The tacit implication of this analogy leads this author to believe that Mojtahed Shabestari called for nothing short of a philosophically informed Islamic Protestantism.” Iranian Intellectuals and the West, p. 169. Sadri and Sadri write, “ Thus, the upheavals in Islamic politics in Iran and elsewhere should seem less like exotic spectacles and more like familiar scenes from Western civilization’s recent history. If, as the Christian West has shown, the establishment of, and disenchantment with, a visible ‘City of God’ leads the way toward the ‘Secular City,’ then Islamic civilization is on the verge of a decisive and familiar breakthrough.” Reason, Freedom and Democracy in Islam, p. xv. 20. Sukidi, “The Traveling Idea of Islamic Protestantism: A Study of Iranian Luthers,” in Islam and Christian-Muslim Relations, vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 407–408. 21. Soroush, “Shariati and Protestantism,” Tehran, 1377/1998. 22. As Mamoud Sadri observes Iranian religious reformists and intellectuals are advocating “objective secularism” which denotes the idea of “institutional and functional separation of religion from politics.” This should


3/22/2011 1:17:12 PM

262


be distinguished from “subjective secularism” which “entails eradication of religion from culture and mind of the people.” Sadri, “Attack from Within: Dissident Political Theology in Contemporary Iran,” The Iranian, Feb. 13, 2002, cited on www.kadivar.com/Htm/English/Reviews/ reform.htm (accessed April 30, 2005). Also see Sadri, “Sacral Defense of Secularism: The Political Theologies of Soroush, Shabestari, and Kadivar” in International Journal of Culture, Politics and Society vol. 15, no. 2, Winter 2001 pp. 257–270. A very similar version of this essay under the title, “Sacral Defense of Secularism: Dissident Political Thought in Iran” is also available in Negin Nabavi, ed., Intellectual Trends in Twentieth Century Iran: A Critical Survey, Gainesville: University of Florida Press, 2003, pp. 180–192. 23. Needless to say, this approach to the study of Christian faith can result in producing a simplistic and distorted picture of Christianity. For instance, for Soroush the “essence” of Protestantism was nothing more than a movement to “make Christianity this worldly” or in other words to “use religion for the benefit of life in this world.” Soroush, “Shari’ati and Protestantism,” lecture delivered in Tehran, 1998. For an accessible and comprehensive introduction to Reformation and its impact see Alister McGrath, Reformation Thought: An Introduction, Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1988. 24. In April of 2005 TIME magazine chose Soroush as one of the 100 most influential people of the year. These are people, according to TIME, whose power, talent or moral example is transforming the world. 25. Soroush’s own website, www.drsoroush.com is an excellent source for becoming familiar with Soroush’s ideas in English. Mahmoud and Ahmad Sadri have translated a number of Soroush’s important articles into English, edited in their volume, Reason, Freedom, and Democracy in Islam: Essential Writings of Abdolkarim Soroush, New York: Oxford University Press, 2000. For some analysis and critique of Soroush see John Cooper, “The Limits of the Sacred: The Epistemology of ‘Abd al-Karim Soroosh,” in Cooper, Nettler and Mahmoud, eds., Islam and Modernity: Muslim Intellectuals Respond, London: I.B.Tauris, 1998, pp. 38–56; Afshin Matin-Asgari, “Abdolkarim Soroosh and the Secularization of Islamic Thought in Iran,” Iranian Studies 30, 1–2 (1997): 97; Valla Vakili, “Abdolkarim Soroosh and Critical Discourse in Iran,” in John Esposito and John Voll, Makers of Contemporary Islam, New York: Oxford University Press, 2001, pp. 150–176; Hamid Dabashi, “Blindness and Insight: The Predicament of a Muslim Intellectual,” in Ramin Jahanbegloo, ed., Iran: Between Tradition and Modernity, Lanham: Lexington Books, 2004, pp. 95–116; Ashk Dahlen, Deciphering the Meaning of Revealed Law: The Surushian Paradigm in Shi‘i Epistemology, Stockholm: Elanders Gotab, 2001.


3/22/2011 1:17:12 PM


263

26. For a more personal perspective on Soroush’s family background and upbringing see Robin Wright, The Last Great Revolution, New York: Vintage Books, 2000, pp. 43–51. 27. As Valla Vakili points out, “Soroush’s anti-Marxist writings earned him a privileged position as what is often referred to as the Islamic Republic’s ‘premiere ideologue.’ ” Vakili, pp. 152–153. 28. Forough Jahanbakhsh sheds some light on this controversial period of Soroush’s life. See Jahanbakhsh, p. 145. 29. Jahanbakhsh, p. 146. 30. For an account of some of the national uproar caused by Soroush’s writings in Iran see Robin Wright, The Last Great Revolution, pp. 51–63. 31. Sadri and Sadri, p. ix. 32. Abdolkarim Soroush, Qabz va Basṭ-i Ti‘urīk-i Sharī ‘at, Tehran: Ṣirāṭ, 1370 (1991). The summary of Soroush’s thesis can be found in his chapter “The Evolution and Devolution of Religious Knowledge” in Charles Kurzam, ed., Liberal Islam, New York: Oxford University Press, 1988, pp. 244–251. Soroush’s theory of religious knowledge first appeared in the journal Kayhān-i Farhangī as a series of articles between the years 1988 to 1990. They were later collected, revised and published in what is now considered by many in Iran as his magnum opus. Also it should be noted, as Jahanbakhsh points out, “the word ‘shari‘at’ is often used in Persian as meaning ‘din’ (religion) and is therefore not necessarily equivalent to the ‘shariah’ as the body of Islamic law. However, what Soroush means by ‘shari‘at,’ according to the context of this theory, corresponds to religious knowledge or understanding of religion.” Jahanbakhsh, p. 148. 33. Soroush, in Liberal Islam, pp. 245–246. Jahanbakhsh summarizes Soroush’s position in the following way: “1. From an epistemological and historical point of view, religion is different from the understanding of religion. 2. Religion per se is divine, eternal, immutable and sacred. 3. The understanding of religion is a human endeavor like any other, such as, for instance, the attempt to understand nature. Thus religious knowledge is not sacred. 4. Similarly, inasmuch as it is a human endeavor, the understanding of religion and religious knowledge are certainly affected by and in constant exchange with all other fields of human knowledge. 5. This being the case, religious knowledge is in flux, relative, and time-bound.” Jahanbakhsh, p. 148. 34. Jahanbakhsh, p. 149. The political ramification of Soroush’s position in contemporary Iran has been explosive. As Jahanbakhsh points out, “The upshot of this [Soroush’s thesis] is that no understanding of religion is ever sacred, absolute or final. Nor can any individual or specific group claim privileges on the basis of holding the true and final interpretation of religion. This applies especially to the Shi‘ite clergy who, claiming to be the successors of


3/22/2011 1:17:12 PM

264

35.

36.

37.

38.

Christian Encounters with Iran the hidden Imam, consider themselves as the custodians of the true Islam, which allows them to judge the correctness of all other interpretations . . . . This brings Soroush into a face to face confrontation with the fuqaha and the advocates of wilayat-i faqih.” Jahanbakhsh, pp. 149–150. According to Sadri and Sadri, this comparison between Soroush and Luther was first popularized by American journalist Robin Wright in January of 1995 in Los Angeles Times. The authors point out, “Whatever the aptness of such analogies, they are notable not so much for their historical accuracy as for their power of historical imagination and intercultural understanding.” Sadri and Sadri, p. xv. According to one interview with Soroush, Wright herself draws attention to the fact that “Soroush preferred to avoid parallels with Martin Luther. ‘This comparison is an exaggeration. I am not thinking of doing things like Luther did,’ he mused in that even-toned voice. Then he added with a coy smile, ‘Though perhaps Luther himself didn’t know what he was doing at that time.’ ” Wright, p. 42. Mahmoud Sadri, “Attack from Within.” In November of 2004, when Soroush received the prestigious Erasmus award from the government of the Netherlands he remarked “Erasmus Foundation awarded me not only a prize but also an honorific title, namely, ‘the Erasmus of Islam’. A few years ago a correspondent of Los Angeles Times gave me the title ‘the Luther of Islam’. I am, of course, innocent of all this but if I were to chose one of the two I would definitely opt for Erasmus. The humanism, tolerance and more importantly the anti-sectarian tendency of Erasmus attracts me more toward him than Luther, who was, no doubt, also a great man of European history.” Cited on www.drsoroush.com. Sadri and Sadri, p. xv. In reality however, Soroush, unlike Shabestari for example, has very little explicit interaction with Christian themes or Christian thinkers of past and present. In a recently published 700-page collection of Soroush’s key writings on the subject of religion for the past thirty years edited by his son, there are no more than a handful of passing references to Christ. Soroush also refers in passing once to Augustine and Aquinas, six times to Luther, a footnote reference to Richard Niebhur one reference to Karl Rahner and three times to John Hick. See Soroush Dabbagh, Ayī n dar Ayī ni [Religion in the Mirror], Tehran: Ṣirā ṭ, 1383 (2004). Interview with Dr. Soroush, Princeton University, April 14, 2004. The questions to Soroush and Malekian consisted of the following: How much have you been involved in a study of Christian theology? How much contact have you had with Christian thinkers? Do you have any particular Christian theologians or particular themes in Christian theology that are of special interest to you and why? Has your interaction with Christian thought impacted


3/22/2011 1:17:13 PM


39.

40.

41.

42. 43.

44.

265

you in any way as a Muslim thinker? Has that interaction influenced the way you see the Qur’an or Islam? Did you have any (mis)understanding of Christian theology which was later on changed as a result of your dialogue with or reading of Christian theologians? How do you think the Christians might have changed as a result of their encounter with Iranian Muslims? What do think are some of the strengths of Christian theology? What are some of the weaknesses? As a Muslim thinker, how do you view and account for such problematic Christian doctrines such as the Trinity, the deity of Christ and the crucifixion? Is there any hope that Christians and Muslims would come closer together on such doctrines that have traditionally kept the two communities apart from each other? What is your view of the Muslim–Christian dialogues that Iranians have participated in? What have been some of the weaknesses and strengths of such dialogues so far? In 2000 Soroush delivered a public lecture, entitled “Being born again in Molavi, Ghazali and St. Augstine.” In that lecture Soroush compared the conversion experience in these three intellectual giants of Christianity and Islam. He indicated that among all Christian thinkers, Augustine was his most favorite and the prayers of Augustine in Confessions made deep impressions on him because of their heartfelt warmth and sincerity. However, Soroush indicated that as a result of the Muslim–Christian dialogue held in Birmingham in 1992, he began to refine some of his understanding about the Christian view of the Trinity. Soroush began to get a sense that the Christian claims of “Jesus being the ‘son of God’ or the doctrine of the ‘Trinity’ are figurative ways of talking about God.” Also Hans Kung in Iran talked about Jesus being a Jewish monotheist himself and the orthodox doctrines developing later in history. “Trinity has never made sense to me. It can make some sense to me if we understand the Trinity in terms of Ṣifāt [attributes] of God that does not confuse his unity.” For a discussion on the classical debates between Muslims and Christians in regard to the doctrine of the Trinity and its relationship to the attributes of God in Islamic theology see Harry Wolfson, The Philosophy of Kalam, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1976, pp. 112-ff. The lecture Masīh dar Islā m is also published in the journal Abān, no. 2, August 2001, pp. 6–17. This essay is filled with Qur’anic references and poetry of Rumi and other mystical Iranian poets. Ibid, p. 6. As will be seen shortly Soroush has become a strong advocate of religious pluralism. Ibid, p.7. Soroush hints here at another important element in his teaching, namely a great deal of the Qur’anic materials are historically conditioned and thus should not be viewed as valid and applicable for all times. Ibid, p. 7.


3/22/2011 1:17:13 PM

266


45. Ibid, pp. 7–8. In the question and answer period that follows the lecture, a questioner asks how is it possible for Rumi to introduce Jesus as an angel while the Qur’an states that all prophets are human beings? Soroush responds by saying that nowhere in the Qur’an is it stated that all prophets are human beings, but that all prophets were men (male). He concludes his response by saying, “I don’t say that Rumi’s opinion is correct. This was his opinion. But this opinion could also be correct and it is not incompatible with the humanity of prophets. In this world the prophets had the form of human beings and Rumi does not deny that Jesus lived in this world in the shape of a human being. Rumi says that Jesus’ essence and nature was angel-like.” Ibid, p. 17. 46. Soroush also went on to say in the interview “I have put this [the crucifixion] in bracket. The Qur’an is not clear for me on this point.” However, he continued, “but as Muslims it is problematic for us why Christians emphasize Jesus’ death more than his life and teachings.” 47. Ibid., p. 10. 48. Ibid, p. 11. 49. Ibid, p. 11. Soroush’s son has confirmed to the author in personal conversations that Soroush does subscribe to a neo-Platonic belief of distinguishing between God as God exists in himself (ineffable and beyond any anthropomorphic categories of understanding) and God as manifested in different forms to human beings. 50. Soroush refers to Rumi’s first line from Masnavī. 51. ibid, p. 11. 52. Soroush repeatedly asserts that the world above is without any shapes or forms. The best symbols for talking about that world are things that do not have a particular shape or form but have the capacity to take on different shapes. We must use these symbolic terms as pointers to another spiritual reality to establish a relationship between the material world and the world above. The best symbols for this purpose are wind, water and light. Ibid, pp. 11–13. 53. Ibid, p. 11. Unfortunately, Soroush does not elaborate on this last statement as to what he is trying to express in identifying the “word” with “meaning” in the person of Jesus. 54. Soroush considers the unity of God (tawhid) as one of the precious gifts that the prophet of Islam shared for free with humanity. He also tries to draw out the socio-political implications from monotheism by saying that the unity of God excludes worship and servitude to any other human authority or institution since all people are merely servants of God and no one has a unique relationship with God. Ibid, p. 13. 55. Ibid, pp. 14–15. For Soroush, whereas Christianity is like a pearl without a shell, Judaism is a dry shell without a pearl. Soroush seems very negative toward Judaism and finds it empty of spirituality. Ibid, p. 14.


3/22/2011 1:17:13 PM


267

56. Ibid, p. 14. 57. Ibid, p. 15. 58. Ibid, p. 15. This verse about the Sabbath is one of the most popular verses among the more reformist Iranian religious thinkers. The point that is often made is that God has given religion for use by human beings for their benefit, not that human beings should suffer because of the commands of religion. 59. Ibid, pp. 15–16. 60. Ibid., p. 16. 61. Ibid, p. 16. 62. Abdolkarim Soroush, Ṣirāt΄ hāyi Mustaqīm [Straight Paths], Tehran: Ṣirāṭ Publications, 1378 (1999). In addition to Soroush’s original article and response to his critics, the book also includes the text of Soroush’s debate with Mohsen Kadivar (an inclusivist and reformist Shi’i theologian), a chapter contributed by Seyyed Amir Akrami in defense of religious pluralism, two chapters by Alvin Plantinga and one chapter by David Basinger in defense of religious exclusivism from the perspective of Reformed epistemology and one chapter by John Hick translated by Soroush himself. 63. This observation was made to the author by Dr. Akrami. According to Akrami, because of Soroush’s unique position in Iranian society, any proposal made by Soroush generates a great deal of controversy especially among Iranian religious thinkers. For some critical responses to Soroush’s theory of religious pluralism see Seyyed Hassan Hosseini, Plūrālīzm-i Dīnī yā Plūrālīzm dar Dīn [Religious Pluralism or Pluralism in Religion], Tehran: Surūsh, 1382 (2003); Abdolhossein Khosropanah, Plūrālīzm-i Dīnī va Sīyāsī [Political and Religious Pluralsim], Tehran: Dānish va Andīshi-yi Mu‘āṣir, 1381 (2002); Ali Tourani, Plūrālīzm-i Dīnī va Chālish΄ hā [Religious Pluralism and Challenges], Tehran: Murshid Publications, 1381 (2002); Ayatollah Ja‘far Sobhani, Plūrālīzm-i Dīnī yā Kisrat΄garāyī [Religious Pluralism or Pluralism], Qum: Mu‘assisi-yi Imām Ṣādiq, 1381 (2002); Seyyed Mahmoud Nabavian, Plūrālīzm-i Dīnī [Religious Pluralsim], Tehran: Dānish va Andīshah-yi Mu‘āsir, 1381 (2002); Mohammad Hassan Qadr-dan Qaramaleki, Kund΄u΄ kāvī dar Sūyihā-yi Plūrālīzm [Research into Aspects of Pluralism], Tehran: Dānish va Andīshi-yi Mu‘āsir, 1379 (2000); Ali Rabbani Golpaygani, Tahlīl va Naqd-i Plūrālīzm-i Dīnī [Critique and Analysis of Religious Pluralism], Tehran: Dānish va Andīshi-yi Mu‘āṣir, 1378 (1999); Muhammad Legenhausen, Islam and Religious Pluralism, Tehran: Center for International and Cultural Studies, 1999. This last book was translated into Farsi by Narjes Javandel under the title Islām va Kisrat΄ garāyī-i Dīnī, Qum: Ṭāhā Publications, 1379 (2000). 64. Soroush, Ṣirā ṭ΄ hāyi Mustaqīm, pp. 1–50. Soroush considers his lines of evidence to fall into two broad categories of “positive” and “negative” pluralism.


3/22/2011 1:17:13 PM

268

65. 66.

67.

68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74.

75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80.

81. 82.

Christian Encounters with Iran Positive pluralism is the belief that it is the depth in the being of God and the richness in the multi-dimensionality of religious experience that give rise to a pluralist understanding of religion. Negative pluralism puts the emphasis on the limits of our epistemological capability in comprehending the divine realities. Personal interview with Soroush. Personal interview with Soroush. Soroush also indicated that when he was living in UK or in the US, he had a habit of going into churches to visit and to pray. Soroush, “Zātī va ‘Araẓī dar Adyān” in Baṣt-i Tajrubi-yi Nabavī [Expansion of Prophetic Experience], Tehran: Ṣirāṭ, 1378 (1999), pp. 29–82. Soroush considers the following to be part of the contingent aspects of Islam: Arabic language of the Qur’an, the Arab culture in which Islam appeared, all the concepts in the Qu’ranic texts (all of which were part of the Arab worldview and assumptions at the time of the prophet), historical events recorded in the Qur’an and traditions, the questions posed to the prophet and the answers which the Qur’an gives to these questions, Islamic legal rulings, misunderstandings and corruptions that have taken place in Islamic history (including possible corruption of Qur’anic texts as some Shi’as have charged the Sunnis throughout their history). Ibid, p. 80. Ibid, p. 82. Ayīn dar Ayīni, p. 124. Ibid, pp. 124–125. Ibid, p. 125. Ibid, p. 126. See J. Dudley Woodberry, “Different Diagnosis of Human Condition,” in Woodberry, ed., Muslims and Christians on the Emmaus Road, Monrovia: MARC publications, 1989, pp. 149–169. Badru Kateregga and David Shenk, Islam and Christianity, Nairobi: Uzima Perss, 1980, p. 109. Reason, Freedom and Democracy in Islam, pp. 184–197. Ayīn dar Ayīni, p. 190. Ibid, p. 191. Ibid, pp. 191–192. Interview with Soroush. When pointed out that his discussion of human nature is very similar to what many Christians believe about original sin, Soroush indicated that he has no problem if that is how Christians understand original sin. Ibid, p. 193. Ibid, p. 196.


3/22/2011 1:17:13 PM


269

83. N.T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996, p. 90. 84. Ibid, p. 92. 85. For a critique of Soroush on this idealist understanding of Islam see Hamid Dabashi, “Blindness and Insight: The Predicament of a Muslim Intellectual,” in Ramin Jahanbegloo, ed., Iran: Between Tradition and Modernity, Lanham: Lexington Books, 2004, pp. 95–116. 86. For a critique of Soroush’s theory of religious pluralism from an informed, inclusivist Muslim perspective see the debate between Soroush and Kadivar in Straight Paths, pp. 69–135. An English version of this debate is also available on www.drsoroush.com. 87. Soroush has been a key promoter of dialogue among the university students. In a lecture before an audience of university students in Iran entitled “Dialogue Among Religions and Cultures,” Soroush encouraged the younger generation of Iranians to actively pursue interreligious dialogue. Soroush pointed out the purpose of dialogue is not to persuade the dialogue partner to change his religion. “The first purpose in dialogue is to better understand ourselves as we can encounter the other. We have to really listen to the other’s understanding of us and in this way we can better understand ourselves . . . . Furthermore, dialogue is a never-ending process. You don’t get into a dialogue and say we ended the dialogue and found out we have the truth . . . . Scientific humility dictates that we should be willing to dialogue with others . . . . Another important aspect in dialogue is not having the same perspective but having common concerns . . . . We need to know not only what distinguishes us from others but also what we have in common with others.” 88. Shabestari’s brief biography is based on the information in Farzin Vahdat, “Postrevolutionary Islamic modernity in Iran: The intersubjective hermeneutics of Mohammad Mojtahed Shabestari,” in Suha Taji-Farouki, ed., Modern Muslim Intellectuals and the Qur’an, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004, pp. 193– 224; and the article on Shabestari by Roman Seidel on www.qantara.de/webcom/show_article.php/_c-575/_nr-3/_p-1/i.html (accessed on April 30, 2005). 89. Seidel, www.qantar.de. 90. Ibid. 91. Ibid. 92. Farzin Vahdat, “Post-revolutionary Islamic modernity in Iran” p. 199. Jurgen Habermas, who visited Iran at the request of International Center for Dialogue Among Civilizations, considers Shabestari as having become highly influential among the critics of the Iranian authoritarian structure of government. He comments, “Shabestari has assumed the role of the prominent critic played in the 1990’s by a philosopher like Soroush.” “The Unrest is Growing,” cited on http://iona.ghandchi.com/Habermas/iran.htm.


3/22/2011 1:17:13 PM

270


93. Of course, this distinction is just for the purpose of simplifying the outline of intellectual works of these prolific authors. There is a significant overlap in both the epistemology and the hermeneutics of Soroush and Shabestari. 94. Vahdat, p. 201. 95. Vahdat, p. 201. 96. Vahdat, p. 201. 97. Cited in Boroujerdi, p. 168. 98. Mahmoud Alinejad draws attention to the socio-political ramifications of this turn to hermeneutics among Iranian religious intellectuals. He writes, “I should also stress the hermeneutic nature of the new intellectual movement in Iran. This is clearly a natural consequence of the quest (since the 1970s) to define the modern Islamic polity on the basis of new interpretations of sacred texts. The main concern of the religious intellectuals in this regard is to find acceptance for religious and subsequently political pluralism in the context of Islamic politics. Indeed, over the last four years concern for political pluralism has been the main force behind the inception of politico-religious disputes based on multiple interpretations of sacred texts, considered a time-honored Islamic tradition by the reformists, and heretical innovation by the conservatives . . . . The theologian Mohammad Mojtahed-Shabestari, for example, has used the concept of ‘hermeneutic understanding’ of the Islamic sacred texts to highlight the limited nature of previous interpretations of such texts by scholastic Muslim jurists-interpretations that, he claims, are rooted in the traditionalist juridical understanding of society, politics, justice, ethics and human rights. He argues that such an understanding has historically limited the practice of the jurists in forming independent authoritative opinions on doctrinal and legal matters (ijtihad), and in issuing religious rulings (fatva) that are fit to address the modern political, social and economic problems of Muslims. This historical limitation, he stresses, questions the claims that certain interpretations of the sacred texts have eternal value.” Alinejad, “Coming to Terms with Modernity.” 99. Hirminūtīk, Kitāb va Sunnat, Tehran: Ṭarḥ-i Nu, 1375 (1996). 100. Imān va Azā dī, Tehran: Ṭarḥ-i Nu, 1376 (1997). 101. Naqdī bar Qarā ‘at-i Rasmī az Dīn, Tehran: Ṭarḥ-i Nu, 1379 (2000). 102. Ta’ammulātī dar Qarā ‘at-i Insānī az Dīn, Tehran: Ṭarḥ-i Nu, 1383 (2004). 103. A look at the indices of Shabestari’s books mentioned above reveal the following statistics about the number of times he refers to various Christian themes or authors in his writings: Augustine (6x), Aquinas (3x), Luther (8x), Calvin (2x), Kierkegaard (3x), Schleiermacher (12x), Barth (20x), Tillich (12x), Bultmann (8x), Brunner (4x), Rahner (6x), Pannenberg (5x), Ebeling (1x), Boff (1x). He also refers to Jesus or Christ a total of 29 times,


3/22/2011 1:17:13 PM


104. 105. 106. 107. 108. 109. 110. 111. 112. 113. 114. 115.

116. 117. 118. 119. 120. 121. 122.

271

Christians or Christianity a total of 132 times, Bible or N.T 17 times and Church 12 times. Although most of these references are just made incidentally or in passing, it shows how Shabestari is constantly engaged in a theological conversation with Christian thinkers as absent partners in his writings. Imān va Azā dī, pp. 139–148, 157–162. Ta’ammulātī dar . . . , pp. 28–59. Imān va Azā dī, pp. 140–141. Ibid, pp. 141–142. Ibid, pp. 142–148. Ibid, pp. 158–159. Ibid, pp. 159–162. Shabestari does acknowledge that the framework of his discussion is taken from Peter Berger’s book The Heretical Imperative. Ta’ammulātī dar . . . , p. 29. Ibid, p. 29. Ibid, p. 30. Ibid, p. 30. This is a key and recurring thought in Shabestari in which he tries to claim that from the beginning Islam accepted the local culture and customs and only infused them with a religious meaning in certain cases. This is then used as a basis for the claim that the vast majority of Islamic laws are not sacred or immutable. Just as prophet Muhammad used the common views of his own day and infused them with religious values and principles, Muslims today should also feel free to accept the common views prevalent in the modern world and make them compatible with general Islamic values. Also see Shabestari’s Faith and Freedom, pp. 100–107. Shabestari’s characterization about the Christian understanding of “tradition” as sacred and divine seem to have been derived from his reading of certain Catholic theologies or even a misunderstanding about the German term heilgeschichte or salvation history. One cannot think of any Protestant theologian who adheres to Shabestari’s view of Christian understanding of tradition. Ibid, p. 33. Ibid, pp. 37–47. Ibid, pp. 48–50. Ibid, pp. 50–55. Ibid, p. 57. Ibid, pp. 58–59. According to Shabestari, faith for Ash‘arites consists of testifying to the existence of God and the prophets and acknowledging the divine commands brought forth by the prophets. Mu‘tazilites viewed faith as action based on responsibility and duty. Philosophers thought of faith as philosophical


3/22/2011 1:17:14 PM

272

123. 124. 125.

126.

127.

128. 129. 130. 131. 132.

133. 134. 135.

136. 137. 138. 139. 140. 141.

Christian Encounters with Iran knowledge of the realities of existence. And finally the mystics considered faith as a turning toward God and turning away from everything else. See Imān va Azā dī, pp. 11–22. For a brief description of these discussions in English see Vahdat, pp. 209–211. Imān va Azā dī, p. 23, 32. Ibid, p. 27. Shabestari is quite reminiscent of Martin Buber on this point. Shabestari even writes, “God has spoken. This is very important and thus in a number of divine religions it has been said that in the beginning was the word.” Ibid, p. 28. Ibid, p. 29. At the end of one of his discussions on faith Shabestari writes, “Among Christian theologians, Karl Barth and his followers, have written the most beautiful literature on the experience of divine address.” Ibid, p. 31. Ibid, p. 37. Shabestari goes on to quote Matt. 10:39 as support for the idea that in losing oneself one can find one’s true self. He also cites Karl Rahner, Paul Tillich and Brunner as thinkers who have expounded on the idea of God as limitless personal being and faith as an enchanted encounter with God. Ibid, p. 38, 42. Hirminūtīk . . . , p. 295. Ta’ammulātī . . . , p. 103. Naqdī . . . , pp. 403–404. Stanley Grenz and Roger Olson, 20th Century Theology, Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1992, p. 46. Himinūtīk, . . . , pp. 134–144. This chapter was also delivered as a lecture by Shabestari in the first Muslim–Christian dialogue held in Birmingham in 1992. Imān va Azā dī, pp. 43–63 Ibid, pp. 43–53. Ibid, p. 54. Shabestari goes on to praise Christian theologians such as Tillich and Barth as having arrived at the same conclusion about the nature of divine revelation. He also finds Vatican II and Catholic theologian Karl Rahner supporting his understanding of revelation as a category of religious experience and not simply a series of cognitive information about the supernatural. Ibid, p. 62. Naqdī . . . , pp. 321–323. Ibid, p. 323. Ibid, pp. 323–324. Ibid, pp. 324–325. Ibid, p. 325. Ibid, p. 327.


3/22/2011 1:17:14 PM


273

142. Ibid, p. 328. 143. In one passage Shabestari encourages his Muslim readers to become familiar with the changes in modern Christian theology in order to facilitate better mutual understanding between Muslims and Christians. He refers to the changes in the Christian doctrines of the verbal inspiration of scriptures and the Trinity as developments that bring the current Christian positions closer to the traditional Islamic stance on these doctrines. But quite strangely, he also refers to “some contemporary Christian theologians” who have come close to the Qur’anic position in denying that Jesus was ever crucified. It is claimed that for these theologians what is important is not the historicity of the cross but the message or the meaning that is entailed in the story of the crucifixion. Obviously this is a very misinformed comment on the part of Shabestari. It seems that Shabestari is confusing here the current debates about the historicity of Jesus’ resurrection among Christian theologians with the thinking that some apparently are doubting the reality of Jesus’ crucifixion. See Hirminūtīk, . . . , pp. 171–172. 144. Mohammad Ja‘far Elmi, “Word of God and Revelation: A Shi‘a Perspective,” in Catholics and Shi‘a in Dialogue, pp. 281–282. 145. Ibid, p. 287. 146. Muhsin Javadi, “Threats to Certainty: A Shi‘a Perspective on External Challenges of the Contemporary Age,” in Catholics and Shi‘a in Dialogue, pp. 370–372. 147. In Christian theology, George Lindbeck in his masterful analysis in The Nature of Doctrine argues persuasively against the “experiential-expressive” approach to theology and doctrine. See The Nature of Doctrine: Religion and Theology in a Postliberal Age, Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1984. 148. These are basically the same types of criticisms brought against the neoorthodox theology of Barth by other Christian theologians. 149. The information for Malekian’s biography is taken from Haft Asman (Seven Heavens), no. 1, vol. 2, summer 1999, p. 7. Some additional information was also provided to the author by Mr. Massoud Zanjani, one of Malekian’s former graduate students. 150. The series is named Majmū‘ah-yi Bīnish-i Ma‘navī and is being published by Nashr-i Nigāh-i Mu‘āsir. 151. Mostafa Malekian, Rāhī bi Rahāyī: Justā r΄ hā-yi dar Bābi ‘Aqlānīat va Ma‘navīat, Tehran: Nashr-i Nigāh-i Mu‘ā ṣir, 1381 (2002). 152. For full bibliographical information on these works see chapter 3. 153. See Haft Asman, in the previous note. 154. See his article, “Ma‘navīat: Guhar-i Adyān” [Spirituality: The Essence of Religions], in Soroush, ed., Sunnat va Sikūlā rīzm [Tradition and Secularism], Tehran: Ṣirāṭ, 1381 (2002), p. 267.


3/22/2011 1:17:14 PM

274


155. Soroush also believes in this fundamental change between traditional and modern human beings (see Reason, Freedom, . . . , p. 56). But it seems that Malekian does not simply acknowledge this paradigm shift but makes it the central focus and the starting point of his intellectual project. 156. Ibid, pp. 270–286. 157. Ibid, p. 273. 158. Interview with Malekian. 159. “Ma‘navīat . . .”, p. 307. 160. Ibid, pp. 322–335. 161. Interview with Malekian. 162. Interview with Malekain. 163. Interview with Malekian. 164. Interview with Malekian. 165. Interview with Malekian. 166. Malekian, Letter to a Priest, pp. 47–48. 167. Interview with Malekian. 168. Interview with Malekian. 169. Malekian is here implying that Jesus is only the human aspect and Christ is the spiritual reality of that individual. 170. Interview with Malekian. 171. May 25, 2004 at the Center for Religious Studies. 172. Malekian went on to say, “Of course, there are differences. Christians have more problems with the Trinity than Muslims with tawhid. Or if a Christian claims that Jesus is the son of God, he has to clarify the metaphorical meaning of this phrase. If one wants to accept such a claim that is fine. But this cannot be proved by rational reasoning.” 173. Of course, it is important to introduce at this point Malekian’s distinction between three different aspects of any religion which he names religion 1, religion 2 and religion 3. Religion 1 is the founding sacred texts of a religion. Religion 2 is the theological tradition developing in a particular religion. Religion 3 is the history of the followers of each religion. Malekian’s reference to truth and falsehood relate to the second aspect of each religion which is its theological tradition. 174. Malekian offers several lines of evidence in support of his advice. First, religious scholars should readily acknowledge that even in one religion there are disagreements among its scholars about various doctrines. Second, many teachings are in common among all religions. Furthermore, all religions have produced spiritual giants. Also all religions have produced many corrupt people. Finally, all religions have provided peace, joy, hope and meaning for vast portions of humanity. This all shows that all religions have aspects of the truth and can produce humility in


3/22/2011 1:17:14 PM


175. 176. 177. 178. 179. 180. 181.

182.

183. 184.

275

us as we approach other religions. Report on Dialogue, vol. 1, no. 1, 2002, p. 12. Ibid, p. 12. Ibid, pp. 12–13. Ibid, p. 13. Ibid, p. 15. Ibid, p. 18. The Nature of Doctrine, p. 42. S. Mark Heim, Salvations: Truth and Difference in Religion, Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1995, pp. 6–7. Heim develops his earlier arguments in his more recent work The Depth of the Riches: A Trinitarian Theology of Religious Ends, Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2001. Richard B. Hays, The Moral Vision of the New Testament, San Francisco: HarperCollins Publishers, 1996, p. 18. Hays goes on to show how intricately Pauline ethics is connected to the three interlocking theological motifs of eschatology, the cross and the new community in Christ. James Dunn, Jesus Remembered, Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2003. Mehran Kamrava, “Iranian Shi‘ism Under Debate,” Middle East Policy, vol. X, no. 2, summer 2003. Cited on www.mepc.org/public_asp/journal_ vol10/0306_kamrava.asp (accessed on May 20, 2005).

6 Iranian Shi’as and the Christian Faith: Where Have They Come From and Where Are They Heading? 1. Seyyed Hossein Nasr, A Young Muslim’s Guide to the Modern World, Chicago: KAZI publications, 2003, p. 148. 2. This is most evident in the approaches of the liberal intellectuals surveyed in chapter five. But it can also be detected in some of the publications that were surveyed in chapter three. 3. See Mehdi Khalaji’s article, “Tehran’s Renewed War on Culture” at http:// www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC05.php?CID=2405, (accessed on Dec. 8, 2005). According to Khalaji, “After a period of some tolerance under former president Mohammad Khatami, Iran is now experiencing a cultural clampdown. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is implementing the hardest of hardline ideological tendencies in the cultural arena . . . To this end, Ahmadinejad has taken a host of provocative steps regarding: The Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance. The new minister, Mohammad Hossein Saffar Harandi, was a member of the Revolutionary Guard and was one of the closest men to Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. In his position as deputy editor of the hardline Kayhan newspaper, Harandi wrote


3/22/2011 1:17:14 PM

276

4.

5.

6.

7. 8.


many articles condemning democracy as a Western model for governing, pluralism as an “effective weapon of the West to achieve their cultural invasion into Islamic world,” and freedom of speech as a way to destroy people’s religious beliefs. His background of attacks on liberal journalists and political activists strongly suggests that Ahmadinejad wants to suppress cultural freedom and to limit the freedom of information . . . .Book publishing. The process of issuing permission to publish books of literature and the human sciences has practically ground to a halt. All books, even Qur’ans, must receive official permission for publication from the culture ministry. Writers and publishers say that the censorship regulations have become stricter since Harandi took over the ministry.” Shortly after the end of his second term as president, Khatami traveled to Spain and Lebanon where he was involved in meetings with high level government leaders in Europe and the Middle East to promote his call for dialogue. Khatami’s trip to Spain was to participate in the series of meetings called by UN under the heading of “Alliance of Civilizations.” He also announced his plans to establish a European office for ICDAC in the next few months. For a report of his own summation of his trip and his goals for the center see the online Iranian newspaper at www.emrouz.info/archives/2005/12/00879.php (accessed on Dec. 5, 2005). Another sign that many activities relating to inter-faith dialogue will probably continue even under the current Iranian president and into the future is the fact that Ayatollah Misbah Yazdi, who reportedly exerts great influence on the thinking of President Ahmadinejad, is himself an ardent supporter and an active participant in Muslim–Christian dialogues. See his comments in chapter two. These gaps become more obvious when we compare the significant limitations in Iran in religious studies with other fields such as history, economics, sociology, political science, psychology, philosophy and even English literature. There are numerous well-established university departments and degree programs devoted to these subjects. Translated works in many of these fields are also more up-to-date and extensive compared to books on Christian theology. Of course, it should be pointed out that the Center for Religious Studies in Qum has recently received approval from the Ministry of Education to be the first academic institution in Iran to offer degrees in Christian Studies. See the discussions in chapter 2. Isabel Stumpel-Hatami, “Christianity as described by Persian Muslims,” p. 235. According to Hatami, “The manifold activities deployed by occidental missionaries [in Iran] through educational and medical assistance in schools, hospitals, summer camps, youth clubs, and bookstores through the modern mass media did not prosper without provoking the deep concern and the protest of the religious class.” Ibid, p. 228.


3/22/2011 1:17:15 PM


277

9. Ibid, p. 229. The author adds that clearly “these are ideal types. In fact, a polemical undertone may occasionally be noticed in descriptive texts, whereas even refutations contain descriptive passages.” 10. Ibid, p. 228. 11. Ibid, pp. 228, 236. 12. Anthony O’Mahony, “Mysticism, politics, dialogue . . .”, pp. 183, 180–181. 13. The observations here are based on the following research: Hugh Goddard, “Perceptions of Christians and Christianity” in Suha Taji-Farouki and Basheer Nafi, eds., Islamic Thought in the Twentieth Century, New York: I.B.Tauris, 2004, pp. 296–317; and “Christianity from the Muslim Perspective: Varieties and Changes,” in Jacques Waardenburg, ed., Islam and Christianity: Mutual Perceptions since the Mid-20th Century, Leuven: Peeters, 1998, pp. 213–255; Kate Zebiri, Muslims and Christians Face to Face, Oxford: Oneworld Publications, 1997; and “Muslim Perceptions of Christianity and the West” in Llody Ridgeon, ed., Islamic Interpretations of Christianity, New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2001, pp. 179–203; Ekkehard Rudolph, “The Debate on Muslim-Christian Dialogue as Reflected in Muslim Periodicals in Arabic (1970–1991)” in Jacques Waardenburg, ed., Muslim Perceptions of Other Religions, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999, pp. 297–307; Charles Anthony Kimball, Striving Together in the Way of God: Muslim Participation in Christian-Muslim Dialogue, Th. D. Dissertation, Harvard University, 1987; Ataullah Siddiqui, Christian-Muslim Dialogue in the Twentieth Century, New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1997; Jutta Sperber, Christians and Muslims: The Dialogue Activities of the World Council of Churches and their Theological Foundation, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2000; Jacques Waardenburg, “Muslim Studies of Other Religions—The Contemporary Period: 1950–1995” in Muslim Perceptions of Other Religions, pp. 85–101; Yvonne Y. Haddad and Wadi Z. Haddad, eds., Christian-Muslim Encounters, Gainesville: University Press of Florida, 1995. 14. Colin Chapman, Islam and the West, Carlisle: Paternoster Press, 1998, pp. 188–192. Commenting on the impact of Huntington’s thesis of the “clash of civilizations” and the potential for making Islam the “new enemy” of the West on Muslim–Christian dialogue, Jorgen Nielsen writes, “Within six months of Huntington’s paper appearing, the first conference on this subject took place, and they have been taking place almost without break since . . . . The dialogue between Islam and Christianity acquired a breadth of content and participation which had been unimaginable only a few years earlier . . . . Most remarkable has been the way in which the Muslim side has taken up the initiative—it is certainly no longer possible to say that dialogue is mainly a Christian initiative.” Nielsen, “Is there an escape from the history of Christian-Muslim relations?” in A Faithful Presence, pp. 358–359.


3/22/2011 1:17:15 PM

278 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22.

23.

24. 25.

26.

Christian Encounters with Iran Sperber, p. 99. Ibid, p. 99 Zebiri, Muslims and Christians Face to Face, p.175. Kimball, pp. 435–436. Jacques Waardenburg, “Muslim Studies of Other Religions—The Contemporary Period: 1950–1995,” p. 88. Ibid., p. 89. Ibid, p. 94. The differences are mostly due to historical and regional contexts that greatly influence the shape of any particular Muslim-Christian encounter. There are significant differences between the experiences of Iranian Muslims at the turn of the century and many Arab intellectuals in the 1960’s and 70’s. In various conversations between the author and a number of well-known scholars of Islam and Christian–Muslim relations (people such as Colin Chapman, Jorgen Nielsen and Abdulaziz Sachedina) there seemed to be a general agreement that Iranian Shi’as have made significant advances in Muslim–Christian dialogues and studies of Christianity compared to many Arab Sunnis who have been much longer involved in such activities. Granted that this observation is quite subjective and anecdotal but it is still significant due to the intimate knowledge that these scholars have of the Middle East and Muslim–Christian encounters. Siddiqui, pp. 175–193. According to Ekkehard Rudolph, in January of 1984, the Sheikh of al-Azhar “vigorously refused any dialogue between Muslims and Christians on matters of faith because for him there is no room for discussion . . . .In June of 1991, he emphasized . . . that interreligious dialogue, if it takes place, should remain within the circle of academics and specialists and should, in no case, become a topic for the general public.” Concerning the development of dialogue in Saudi Arabia, Rudoph notes, “Generally speaking, the main concern for the new ‘advocates’ of dialogue with the Muslim World League is not to open up a new chapter in the Muslim-Christian relationships but to look for appropriate partners in strengthening their own position.” The author concludes his section on Saudi Arabia by many examples of writings which show “the harsh ideological pattern in regard to Muslim-Christian relations still applied and distributed by Muslim intellectuals in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states.” Ekkehard Rudolph, “The Debate in MuslimChristian Dialogue . . . ,” pp. 299–301. Rudolph, p. 304. Rudolph’s third approach is said to be “the approach of an elite” and it is mostly evident in places like Lebanon (due to the plurality of its society) and Tunisia (due to its ties with the European continent).


3/22/2011 1:17:15 PM


279

27. For factors that promote this more “irenic approach” to Muslim-Christian relations in Iranian society see the discussion in chapter two. 28. It can be granted that some of the activities by these Iranian organizations could have other motivations besides the purely academic ones. R. K. Ramazani, prominent Iranian professor of government and foreign affairs at the University of Virginia, writes “The dialogue concept has been interpreted variously: as part and parcel of the Iranian regime’s ‘charm offensive’ to continue exporting ‘Islamic fundamentalism’ despite the election of the popular reformist, President Khatami; as a tactical device used by reformers to garner international legitimacy in their political struggle with conservative factions; or as a clever move by the regime to break out of its decades-old international isolation and thereby attract foreign capital investment and technology to treat the country’s ‘sick economy.’ ” Although Ramazani dismisses these explanations as “reductionist, superficial, and empirically indefensible interpretations,” it can be argued that for some of the Iranians active in the organizational dialogue movements these explanations could very well describe their justification for inter-faith dialogue. See R. K. Ramazani, “Dialogue: The Need for Theory,” in Achim Koddermann, ed., Dialogue Among Civilizations: A Collection of Presentations from the General Assembly of the United Nations and Invited Essays, vol. II, New York: Global Scholarly Publications, 2005, pp. 381–396. 29. Examples include such prominent names as Hassan Saab, Muhammad Talbi, Mohammed Arkoun, Ali Merad, Syed Vahiduddin. Some of the wellknown Shi’as in this field are Seyyed Hossein Nasr, Mahmoud Ayoub and Hasan Askari. For further information on these thinkers and their sympathetic interactions with Christian themes see Kimball, Striving Together in the Way of God, Ataullah Siddiqui, Christian-Muslim Dialogue in the Twentieth Century, Kate Zebiri, Muslims and Christians Face to Face and Hugh Goddard’s “Christianity from the Muslim Perspective: Varieties and Changes.” 30. See Hugh Goddard, “Perceptions of Christians and Christianity,” and Kate Zebiri, “Muslim Perceptions of Christianity and the West” and Muslims and Christians Face to Face. 31. Zebiri, Muslims and Christians, pp. 137–161. 32. Kate Zebiri, “Muslim Perceptions . . .”, p. 199. 33. Goddard, “Perceptions of Christians . . .”, p. 303. 34. Like almost all the examples surveyed by Goddard in “Christianity from the Muslim Perspective . . .”, pp. 213–255. For examples of more positive Muslim–Christian encounters in similar contexts such as Muslims in India, Indonesia, Europe, the US and North Africa see the chapters in part two of Haddad and Haddad, eds., Christian-Muslim Encounters. For a fine recent example of dialogue between Christians and Turkish Muslims see


3/22/2011 1:17:15 PM

280

35. 36. 37. 38.

39.

40.

Christian Encounters with Iran Woodberry, Zumrut and Koylu, eds., Muslim and Christian Reflections on Peace: Divine and Human Dimensions, Lanham: Unveristy Press of America, 2005. Richard Foltz, Spirituality in the Land of the Noble, pp. 173–174. Ibid, p. 174. William Shepard, “The Diversity of Islamic Thought: Toward a Typology,” in Islamic Thought in the Twentieth Century, p. 87. There are many powerful obstacles against the development and spread of these innovative ideas, especially for the near future. The ascendancy of Shi’i radicalism within the Iranian government (with its suppression of Iranian intellectuals and its support and promotion of very conservative and traditional Shi’i thought) and the highly politicized and militarized situation in the Middle East, are among some of the factors that mitigate against an understanding of Islam that is open to inter-faith dialogue and positive inter-faith relations. Soon after the election of President Ahmadinejad, many conservative Iranian politicians began to openly criticize Khatami’s call for a Dialogue Among Civilizations as a totally failed project and began to call for a more confrontational approach with the West. Two recent Farsi translations in this category are the Egyptian author, Nasr Hamid Abu Zeid’s A Critique of Religious Discourse, and the Tunisian Abdul Majid Sharafi’s The Modernization of Religious Thought. Malekian recently traveled to Saudi Arabia at the invitation of a group of Saudi intellectuals and gave a number of lectures there. Some of his writings were also translated and published in Saudi Arabia. Soroush has received great recognition in the West. He has become acknowledged as one of the “makers of contemporary Islam.”


3/22/2011 1:17:15 PM

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bibliography of Works in English A Glance at Institute for Inter Religious Dialogue. Brochure published by the Institute for Inter Religious Dialogue. Tehran, 2001. Abou El Fadl, Khaled, The Great Theft: Wrestling Islam from the Extremists. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2005. Afshari, Reza, Human Rights in Iran: The Abuse of Cultural Relativism. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2001. Alinejad, Mahmoud, “Coming to Terms with Modernity: Iranian Intellectuals and the Emerging Public Sphere.” Online: www.iranchamber.com/podium/ society/050526_coming_to_terms_with_modernity2.php. (accessed May 10, 2005). Aminrazavi, Mehdi, “Persia,” in Nasr and Leaman (eds.), History of Islamic Philosophy. London: Routledge, 1996, pp. 1037–1050. Ansari, Ali, Iran, Islam and Democracy: The Politics of Managing Change. London: Royal Institute of International Affairs, 2000. Ansari, Sarah and Vanessa Martin (eds.), Women, Religion and Culture in Iran. Richmond: Curzon Press, 2002. Armajani, Yahya, “Christian Mission in Persia,” in Ehsan Yarshater (ed.), Encyclopedia Iranica. Vol. 5. New York: Columbia University Press, pp. 544–547. Ayoub, Mahmoud, “Towards an Islamic Christology: an image of Jesus in early Shi’I Muslim literature,” The Muslim World, 66 (1976), pp. 163–168. Ayoub, Mahmoud, Redemptive Suffering in Islam. New York: Mouton Publishers, 1978. Ayoub, Mahmoud, “Christian-Muslim Dialogue: Goals and Obstacles,” The Muslim World, 94 (July 2004), pp. 313–319. Basset, Jean-Claude, “Has Christian-Muslim Dialogue Already Begun,” in Waardenburg (ed.), Muslim-Christian Perceptions of Dialogue Today: Experiences and Expectations. Leuven: Peeters, 2004, pp. 277–291.

Tavassoli_Bibliography.indd 281

3/22/2011 1:07:59 PM

282


Basset, Jean-Claude, “New Wine in Old Wineskins: Changing Protestant Views of Islam”, in Waardenburg (ed.), Islam and Christianity: Mutual Perceptions Since the Mid 20th Century. Leuven: Peeters, 1998, pp. 79–96. Bennett, Clinton, Muslims and Modernity. London: Continuum, 2005. Bill, James and John Williams, Roman Catholics and Shi’i Muslims: Prayer, Passion and Politics. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2002. Bird, Christiane, Neither East Nor West. New York: Pocket Books, 2001. Boroujerdi, Mehrzad, Iranian Intellectuals and the West. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1996. Brodeur, Patrice, “Arabic Muslim Writings on Contemporary Religions Other than Islam,” in Waardenburg (ed.), Muslim Perceptions of Other Religions. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 240–249. Brown, Daniel, Rethinking Tradition in Modern Islamic Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996. Bsteh, Andreas (ed.), Peace for Humanity: Principles, Problems and Perspectives of the Future as seen by Muslims and Christians. New Delhi: Vikas Publishing House, 1996. Bsteh, Andreas (ed.), One World for All: Foundations of a Socio-Political and Cultural Pluralism from Christian and Muslim Perspectives. New Delhi: Vikas Publishing House, 1999. Buchta, Wilfred, “Tehran’s Ecumenical Society (majma‘ al-taqrib): A Veritable Ecumenical Revival or a Trojan Horse of Iran?” in Brunner and Ende (eds.), The Twelver Shi’a in Modern Times: Religious Culture and Political History. Leiden: Brill, 2001. Chapman, Colin. Islam and the West. Carlisle: Paternoster Press, 1998. Chittick, William, “The Pluralistic Vision of Persian Sufi Poetry,” Islam and Christian-Muslim Relations, 14, 4 (Oct. 2003), pp. 423–428. Cooper, John, “The Limits of the Sacred: The Epistemology of ‘Abd al-Karim Soroosh,” in Cooper, Nettler and Mahmoud (eds.), Islam and Modernity: Muslim Intellectuals Respond. London: I.B.Tauris, 1998, pp. 38–56. “Country Reports on Human Rights Practices 2003.” Released by the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. Online: www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/ hrrpt/2003/27927.htm (accessed March 1, 2004). Cragg, Kenneth, Jesus and the Muslim. London: George Allen and Unwin, 1985. Dabashi, Hamid, “Blindness and Insight: The Predicament of a Muslim Intellectual,” in Ramin Jahanbegloo (ed.), Iran: Between Tradition and Modernity. Lanham: Lexington Books, 2004, pp. 95–116. Dahlen, Ashk, Deciphering the Meaning of Revealed Law: The Surushian Paradigm in Shi’i Epistemology. Stockholm: Elanders Gotab, 2001. D’Costa, Gavin (ed.), Christian Uniqueness Reconsidered: The Myth of a Pluralistic Theology of Religions. Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1990.


3/22/2011 1:07:59 PM

Bibliography

283

Dennis, Anthony (ed.), Letters to Khatami: A Reply to the Iranian President’s Call for a Dialogue Among Civilizations. Bristol: Wyndham Hall Press, 2001. Dunn, James, Jesus Remembered. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2003. Elmi, Mohammd Jaffar, “Word of God and Revelation: A Shi’a Perspective,” in O’Mahony, Peterburs and Shomail (eds.), Catholics and Shi’a in Dialogue. London: Melisende, 2004, pp. 278–289. Enayat, Hamid, Modern Islamic Political Thought. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1982. Ernst, Carl, Following Muhammad: Rethinking Islam in the Contemporary World. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 2003. Esposito, John and John Voll (eds.), Makers of Contemporary Islam. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001. Este’lami, Mohammad, “Rumi and the Universality of his message,” Islam and Christian-Muslim Relations, 14, 4 (Oct. 2003), pp. 429–434. Fakhry, Majid, A History of Islamic Philosophy. New York: Columbia University Press, 1983. Faridzadeh, Mehdi (ed.), Philosophy of Peace and Just War. New York: Global Scholarly Publications, 2004. Fischer, Michael and Mehdi Abedi, Debating Muslims: Cultural Dialogues in Postmodernity and Tradition. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1990. Foltz, Richard, Spirituality in the Land of the Noble: How Iran Shaped the World’s Religions. Oxford: Oneworld Publications, 2004. Forward, Martin, A Short Introduction to Inter-religious Dialogue. Oxford: Oneworld Publications, 2001. Frye, Richard, “Persia in the Mind of the West,” Islam and Christian-Muslim Relations, 14, 4 (Oct 2003), pp. 403–406. Goddard, Hugh, “Christianity from the Muslim Perspective: Varieties and Changes,” in Waardenburg (ed.), Islam and Christianity: Mutual Perceptions since the mid 20th Century. Leuven: Peeters, 1998, pp. 213–255. Goddard, Hugh, A History of Christian-Muslim Relations. Chicago: Ivan R. Dee, Publisher, 2000. Goddard, Hugh, “Perceptions of Christians and Christianity,” in Taji-Farouki and Nafi (eds.), Islamic Thought in the Twentieth Century. London: I.B.Tauris, 2004, pp. 296–317. Grenz, Stanley and Roger Olson, 20th Century Theology. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1992. Haddad, Yvonne and Wadi Haddad (eds.), Christian-Muslim Encounters. Gainesville: University Press of Florida, 1995. Halm, Heinz, Shi’ism. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1991.


3/22/2011 1:08:00 PM

284


Halm, Heinz, Shi’a Islam: From Religion to Revolution. Princeton: Markus Wiener Publishers, 1996. Hawksley, Tom, “Why Are So Many Iranians Turning to Christ?” Faith For Life, 17 (April–May 2004), pp. 20–21. Hays, Richard, The Moral Vision of the New Testament. San Francisco: HarperCollins Publishers, 1996. Heim, S. Mark, Salvations: Truth and Difference in Religion. Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1995. Heim, S. Mark, The Depth of the Riches: A Trinitarian Theology of Religious Ends. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2001. Hewer, Christopher, “Iranian Islam in dialogue with European Christianity,” Islam and Christian Muslim Relations, 3, 2 (Dec.1992), pp. 304–311. Heydarpoor, Mahnaz, Love in Christianity and Islam. London: New City, 2002. Hodgson, Marshall, The Venture of Islam. Vol. 2. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1974. Hooglund, Eric (ed.), Twenty Years of Islamic Revolution: Political and Social Transition in Iran. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 2002, pp. 3–73. Howarth, Toby, “Karbala and Cross: Christian-Muslim relations from the perspective of Indian Shi’ite preaching,” in D. Thomas and C. Amos (eds.), A Faithful Presence: Essays for Kenneth Cragg. London: Melisende, 2003, pp. 307–318. Hussain, Amir, “Muslims, Pluralism, and Interfaith Dialogue,” in Safi (ed.), Progressive Muslims: On Justice, Gender, Pluralism. Oxford: Oneworld Publications, 2003, pp. 251–269. “International Religious Freedom Report 2003.” Released by the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. Online: www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/ irf/2003/24449.htm (accessed March 1, 2004). Ipgrave, Michael (ed.), The Road Ahead: A Christian-Muslim Dialogue. London: Church House Publishing, 2002. Jahanbakhsh, Forough, Islam, Democracy and Religious Modernism in Iran, 1953– 2000: From Bazargan to Soroush. Leiden: Brill, 2001. Jahanbegloo, Ramin, Iran: Between Tradition and Modernity. Lanham: Lexington Books, 2004. Javadi, Muhsin, “Threats to Certainty: A Shi’a Perspective on External Challenges of the Contemporary Age,” in O’Mahony, Peterburs and Shomali (eds.), Catholics and Shi’a in Dialogue. London: Melisende, 2004, pp. 368–377. Kamrava, Mehran, “Iranian Shi’ism Under Debate,” Middles East Policy, X, 2 (summer 2003). Online: www.mepc.org/public_asp/journal_vol10/0306_ kamrava.asp (accessed May 20, 2005). Kasai, Nourullah, “A Historical Study of Iranian Approach to Religions and Denominational Pluralism,” Dialogue, 1, 1 (summer 2004), pp. 39–55.


3/22/2011 1:08:00 PM

Bibliography

285

Kateregga, Badru and David Shenk, Islam and Christianity. Nairobi: Uzima Perss, 1980. Keddie, Nikki, Modern Iran: Roots and Results of Revolution. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003. Keller, Carl, “Perceptions of Other Religions in Sufism,” in Waardenburg (ed.), Muslim Perceptions of Other Religions. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999, pp. 181–194. Kermani, Navid, “The Fear of the Guardians. 24 Army Officers Write a Letter to President Khatami,” in Brunner and Ende (eds.), The Twelver Shi’a in Modern Times: Religious Culture and Political History. Leiden: Brill, 2001, pp. 354–364. Kerr, David, “Christian-Muslim Relations,” in Phillips and Coote (eds.), Toward the 21st Century in Christian Mission. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1993, pp. 348–362. Khalidi, Tarif, The Muslim Jesus. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2001. Khamenei, S. M, Development of Wisdom in Iran and in the World. Tehran: Sadra Islamic Philosophy and Research Institute Publications, 2000. Khatami, Mohammad, Hope and Challenge: The Iranian President Speaks. Binghampton: Institute of Global Cultural Studies, 1997. Khatami, Mohammad, Islam, Liberty and Development. Binghampton: Global Academic Publishing, 1998. Khatami, Mohammad, Islam, Dialogue and Civil Society. Canberra: The Australian National University, 2000. Khosrokhavar, Farhad, “Postrevolutionary Iran and the new social movements,” in Hoogland (ed.), Twenty Years of Islamic Revolution: Political and Social Transition in Iran since 1979. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 2002, pp. 3–18. Khosrokhavar, Farhad, “The New Intellectuals in Iran,” Social Compass, 51, 2 (2004), pp. 191–202. Koddermann, Achim (ed.), Dialogue Among Civilizations. Vol. 1. New York: Global Scholarly Publications, 2005. Koddermann, Achim (ed.), Dialogue Among Civilizations. Vol. 2. New York: Global Scholarly Publications, 2005. Kung, Hans, “A Christian Scholar’s Dialogue with Muslims,” The Christian Century, (Oct. 9, 1986), pp. 890–894. Kung, Hans, “Christianity and World Religions: Dialogue with Islam,” in Swidler (ed.), Muslims in Dialogue: the Evolution of a Dialogue. Lewiston: The Edwin Mellen Press, pp. 161–175. Kurzman, Charles (ed.), Liberal Islam: A Source Book. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998. Leaman, Oliver, An Introduction to Classical Islamic Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002.


3/22/2011 1:08:00 PM

286


Legenhausen, Mohammad, Islam and Religious Pluralism. Tehran: Center for International and Cultural Studies, 1999. Legenhausen, Mohammad, Contemporary Topics of Islamic Thought. Tehran: AlHoda International Publishers, 2000. Legenhausen, Mohmmad (trans.), Jesus: Through Shi’ite Narrations. Qum: Ansariyan Publications, 2004. Lewis, Franklin, Rumi: Past and Present, East and West. Oxford: Oneworld Publications, 2000. Lewisohn, Leonard (ed.), Classical Persian Sufism: from its Origins to Rumi. London: Khaniqahi Nimatullahi Publications, 1993. Lewisohn, Leonard, “The Esoteric Christianity of Islam,” in Lloyd Ridgeon (ed.), Islamic Interpretations of Christianity. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2001, pp. 127–156. Lindbeck, George, The Nature of Doctrine: Religion and Theology in a Postliberal Age. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1984. McAuliffe, Jane Dammen, Qur’anic Christians: An Analysis of Classical and Modern Exegesis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991. McGrath, Alister, “A Particularist View: A Post-Enlightenment Approach,” in Okholm and Phillips (eds.), More Than One Way? Four Views on Salvation in a Pluralistic World. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995. McGrath, Alister, Historical Theology: An Introduction to the History of Christian Thought. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1998. McLean, George and Ahmad Iravani (eds.), Islam and the Political Order. New York: Global Scholarly Publications, 2005. Mackey, Sandra, The Iranians: Persia, Islam and the Soul of a Nation. New York: Penguin Books, 1996. Martin, Richard, Defenders of Reason in Islam. Oxford: Oneworld Publications, 1997. Matin-Asgari, Afshin, “Aboklarim Soroosh and the Secularization of Islamic Thought in Iran,” Iranian Studies 30, 1–2 (1997), p. 97. Mirdamadi, S. Abdolmajid, “Religious Minority Groups in Iran,” Dialogue, 1 (spring 2000), pp. 122–134. Mirdamadi, S. Abdolmajid, “Christianity in Iran,”Dialogue, 2 (autumn 2000), pp. 120–140. Mirsepassi, Ali, Intellectual Discourse and the Politics of Modernization: Negotiating Modernity in Iran. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000. Mitri, Tarek, “Reflections on Mutual Perceptions and Dialogue,” in Waardenburg (ed.), Muslim-Christian Perception of Dialogue Today. Leuven: Peeters, 2000, pp. 71–79. Mohammadi, Ali (ed.), Iran Encountering Globalization: Problems and Prospects. London: RoutledgeCurzon, 2003. Mohammed, Ovey, Muslim-Christian Relations: Past, Present, Future. Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1999.


3/22/2011 1:08:00 PM

Bibliography

287

Mohaqqeq Damad, Seyyed Mostafa, “Cultural Relations between Christianity and Shi‘’ite Islam,” Dialogue, 1 (spring 2000), p. 50. Mohaqqeq Damad, Seyyed Mostafa, “Cultural Relations between Christianity and Shi’ite Islam,” Al-Tawhid: A Quarterly Journal of Islamic Thought and Culture, 18, 1 (winter 2004), pp. 34–51. Momen, Moojan, An Introduction to Shi’i Islam. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1985. Muntazir Qa’im, Mahdi and Mohammad Legenhausen, “Jesus Christ Speaks through Shi’i Traditions,” Al-Tawhid, 13, 3 (autumn 1996), pp. 21–40. Muntazir Qa’im, Mahdi and Mohammad Legenhausen, “Jesus Christ in the Mirror of Shi’i Narrations,” Al-Tawhid, 13, 4 (winter 1996), pp. 45–56. Nabavi, Negin (ed.), Intellectual Trends in Twentieth-Century Iran: A Critical Survey. Gainesville: University Press of Florida, 2003. Nabavi, Negin, Intellectuals and the State in Iran: Politics, Discourse, and the Dilemma of Authenticity. Gainesville: University Press of Florida, 2003. Naim, C. M, “Getting Real About Christian-Muslim Dialogue,” Word and World, xvi, 2 (spring 1996), pp. 179–183. Nasr, Seyyed Hossein, “Shi’ism: Ithna ‘Ashariyah,” in Mircea Eliade (ed.), The Encyclopedia of Religion. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, vol. 13, 1987, pp. 260–270. Nasr, Seyyed Hossein, Traditional Islam in the Modern World. London: Kegan Paul International, 1987. Nasr, Seyyed Hossein, “Continuity and Change in the Intellectual Heritage,” in Nasr, Dabashi, Nasr (eds.), Shi’ism: Doctrines, Thought, and Spirituality. New York: State University of New York Press, 1988. Nasr, Seyyed Hossein, A Young Muslim’s Guide to the Modern World. Chicago: KAZI Publications, 2003. Newbigin, Lesslie, The Open Secret. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1995. Nielsen, Jorgen, “Is there an escape from the history of Christian-Muslim relations?” in Thomas and Amos (eds.), A Faithful Presence. London: Melisende, 2003, pp. 350–361. Official Documents, Speeches and Discussions on Dialogue Among Civilizations. Tehran: International Center for Dialogue Among Civilizations, n.d. O’Mahony, Anthonny, “The Image of Jesus and Christianity in Shi’a Islam and Modern Iranian Thought,” in Thomas and Amos (eds.), A Faithful Presence. London: Melisende, 2003, pp. 256–273. O’Mahony, Anthony, “Mysticism, Politics, Dialogue: Catholic Encounters with Shi’a Islam in the Life and Work of Louis Massignon,” in O’Mahony, Peterburs and Shomali (eds.), Catholics and Shi’a in Dialogue: Studies in Theology and Spirituality. London: Melisende, 2004, pp. 134–184.


3/22/2011 1:08:00 PM

288


O’Mahony, Anthony, “Interreligious Dialogue, Muslim-Christian Relations and Catholic-Shi’a Engagement,” in O’Mahony, Peterburs and Shomali (eds.), Catholics and Shi’a in Dialogue. London: Melisende, 2004, pp. 70–103. Ometto, Franco, “Khatun Abadi: The Ayatollah who translated the Gospels,” Islamochristiana, 28 (2000), pp. 55–72. Parrinder, Geoffrey, Jesus in the Qur’an. New York: Oxford University Press, 1977. Paya, Ali, “Islam, Christianity, and Judaism: Can they live peacefully together?” Dialogue, 3 (spring 2001), pp. 3–8. Pratt, Douglas, “Pluralism and Interreligious Engagement: The Contexts of Dialogue,” in Thomas and Amos (eds.), A Faithful Presence. London: Melisende, 2003, pp. 404–418. Ramadan, Tariq, Western Muslims and the Future of Islam. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004. Ramazani, R. K, “Dialogue: The Need for Theory,” in Achim Koddermann (ed.), Dialogue Among Civilizations: A Collection of Presentations from the General Assembly of the United Nations and Invited Essays. Vol. II. New York: Global Scholarly Publications, 2005, pp. 381–396. Richard, Yann, Shi’ite Islam: Polity, Ideology and Creed. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1995. Riddell, Peter, Christians and Muslims: Pressures and Potential in a post-9/11 World. Leicester: InterVarsity Press, 2004. Ridgeon, Lloyd, Crescents on the Cross: Islamic Visions of Christianity. Oxford University Press, 1999. Ridgeon, Lloyd (ed.), Islamic Interpretations of Christianity. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2001. Ridgeon, Lloyd, “Christianity as Portrayed by Jalal al-Din Rumi,” in L. Ridgeon (ed.), Islamic Interpretations of Christianity. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2001, pp. 99–126. Robinson, Neal, Christ in Islam and Christianity. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1991. Rudolph, Ekkehard, “The Debate on Muslim-Christian Dialogue as Reflected in Muslim Periodicals in Arabic (1970–1991),” in Waardenburg (ed.), Muslim Perceptions of Other Religions. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999, pp. 297–307. Sadri, Mahmoud, “Attack from Within: Dissident Political Theology in Contemporary Iran,” The Iranian, Feb. 13, 2002. Online: www.kadivar.com/ Htm/English/Reviews/reform.htm (accessed April 30, 2005). Sadri, Mahmoud, “Sacral Defense of Secularism: The Political Theologies of Soroush, Shabestari, and Kadivar,” International Journal of Culture, Politics and Society, 15, 2 (winter 2001), pp. 257–270.


3/22/2011 1:08:01 PM

Bibliography

289

Sadri, Mahmoud and Ahmad Sadri (eds.), Reason, Freedom, and Democracy in Islam: Essential Writings of Abdolkarim Soroush. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. Savory, Roger, “Relations between the Safavid State and its Non-Muslim Minorities,” Islam and Christian-Muslim Relations, 14, 4 (Oct. 2003), pp. 435–458. Schimmel, Annemarie, The Triumphal Sun: A Study of the Works of Jalaloddin Rumi. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1993. Seidel, Roman, online: www.qantara.de/webcom/show_article.php/_c-575/_ nr-3/_p-1/i.html (accessed April 30, 2005). Shayegan, Daryush, Cultural Schizophrenia: Islamic Societies Confronting the West. London: Saqi Books, 1992. Shepard, William, “The Diversity of Islamic Thought: Towards a Typology,” in Taji-Farouki and Nafi (eds.), Islamic Thought in the Twentieth Century. London: I.B.Tauris, 2004, pp. 61–103. Shomali, Mohammad Ali, “Mary, Jesus and Christianity: an Islamic perspective,” in O’Mahony, Peterburs and Shomali (eds.), Catholics and Shi’a in Dialogue. London: Melisende, 2004, pp. 104–120. Siddiqui, Ataullah, Christian-Muslim Dialogue in the Twentieth Century. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1997. Siddiqui, Ataullah, “The Presence of ‘Secular’ in Christian-Muslim Relations: Reflections on the Da’wah, ‘Mission’ and ‘Dialogue’,” in O’Mahony and. Siddiqui (eds.), Christians and Muslims in the Commonwealth. London: Altajir World of Islam Trust, 2001, pp. 67–89. Sobhani, Ja’far, Doctrines of Shi’i Islam. London: I.B.Tauris Publishers, 2001. Soroush, Abdolkarim, “The Evolution and Devolution of Religious Knowledge,” in Kurzman (ed.), Liberal Islam. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998, pp. 244–251. Sperber, Jutta, Christians and Muslims: The Dialogue Activities of the World Council of Churches and Their Theological Foundation. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2000. Stumpel-Hatami, Isabel, “Christianity as Described by Persian Muslims,” in Waardenburg (ed.), Muslim Perceptions of Other Religions. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999, pp. 227–239. Sukidi, “The Traveling Idea of Islamic Protestantism: A Study of Iranian Luthers,” Islam and Christian-Muslim Relations, 16, 4 (Oct. 2005), pp. 401–412. Swidler, Lenoard, “The Dialogue Decalogue: Ground Rules for Interreligious Dialogue,” Journal of Ecumenical Studies, 20, 1 (1983), pp. 1–4. Swidler, Leonard, After the Absolute: The Dialogical Future of Religious Reflection. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990. Swidler, Leonard (ed.), Muslims in Dialogue: The Evolution of a Dialogue. Lewiston: The Edwin Mellen Press, 1992.


3/22/2011 1:08:01 PM

290


Swidler, Leonard, “The Age of Dialogue,” in Waardenburg (ed.), Islam and Christianity: Mutual Perceptions since the mid-20th Century. Leuven: Peeters, 1998, pp. 271–292. Taji-Farouki, Suha and Basheer Nafi (eds.), Islamic Thought in the Twentieth Century. London: I.B.Tauris, 2004. Taskhiri, Muhammad Ali, “The Islamic-Christian Dialogue” Dialogue, 2 (autumn 2000), p. 3. The First International Symposium on Orthodoxy and Islam. Tehran: Center for International and Cultural Studies, 1994. The Organization of Culture and Islamic Relations. Tehran: Al-Hoda International, 2002. The Second International Symposium on Orthodoxy and Islam; Third International Symposium on Orthodoxy and Islam. Tehran: Center for International and Cultural Studies, 1995. Tinu Ruparell, “The Dialogue Party: Dialogue, Hybridity, and the Reluctant Other,” in Mortensen (ed.), Theology and the Religions: A Dialogue. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2003, pp. 235–248. Troll, Christian, “Changing Catholic Views of Islam,” in Waardenburg (ed.), Islam and Christianity. Leuven: Peeters, 1998, pp. 19–77. Troll, Christian, “Catholic Teachings on Interreligious Dialogue: Analysis of some recent official documents, with special reference to Christian-Muslim relations,” in Wardenburg (ed.), Muslim-Christian Perceptions of Dialogue Today. Leuven: Peeters, 2000, pp. 233–275. Turner, Colin, Islam Without Allah? The Rise of Religious Externalism in Safavid Iran. Richmond: Curzon Press, 2000. Vahdat, Farzin, God and Juggernaut: Iran’s Intellectual Encounter with Modernity. New York: Syracuse University Press, 2002. Vahdat, Farzin, “Post-revolutionary Islamic modernity in Iran: The intersubjective hermeneutics of Mohammad Mojtahed Shabestari,” in Suha Taji-Farouki (ed.), Modern Muslim Intellectuals and the Qur’an. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004, pp. 193–224. Vakili, Valla, “Abdolkarim Soroosh and Critical Discourse in Iran,” in Esposito and Voll (eds.), Makers of Contemporary Islam. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001, pp. 150–176. Waardenburg, Jacques (ed.), Islam and Christianity: Mutual Perceptions Since the mid-20th Century. Leuven: Peeters, 1998. Waardenburg, Jacques (ed.), Muslim Perceptions of Other Religions, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999. Waardenburg, Jacques, “Muslim Studies of Other Religions—The Contemporary Period: 1950–1995,” in Waardenburg (ed.), Muslim Perceptions of Other Religions. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999, pp. 85–101.


3/22/2011 1:08:01 PM

Bibliography

291

Waardenburg, Jacques, Muslim-Christian Perceptions of Dialogue Today: Experiences and Expectations. Leuven: Peeters, 2000. Waardenburg, Jacques, Muslims and Others: Relations in Context. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2003. Waterfield, Robin, Christians in Persia. London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd., 1973. Watt, W. Montgomery, Islamic Philosophy and Theology. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1985. Watt, W. Montgomery, Muslim Christian Encounters: Perceptions and Misperceptions. London: Routledge, 1991. Wolfson, Harry, The Philosophy of Kalam. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1976. Woodberry, J. Dudley, “Different Diagnosis of Human Condition,” in Woodberry (ed.), Muslims and Christians on the Emmaus Road. Monrovia: MARC publications, 1989, pp. 149–169. Woodberry, J. Dudley, Osman Zumrut and Mustafa Koylu (eds.), Muslim and Christian Reflections on Peace: Divine and Human Dimensions, Lanham: University Press of America, 2005. Wright, N. T, Jesus and the Victory of God. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996. Wright, Robin, The Last Great Revolution. New York: Vintage Books, 2000. Yaghmaian, Behzad, Social Change in Iran: An Eyewitness Account of Dissent, Defiance and New Movements for Rights. Albany: State University of New York Press, 2002. Zebiri, Kate, Muslims and Christians Face to Face. Oxford: Oneworld Publications, 1997. Zebiri, Kate, “Muslim Perceptions of Christianity and the West,” in Ridgeon (ed.), Islamic Interpretations of Christianity. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2001, pp. 179–203.

Bibliography of Works in Farsi Abbasi, Shahabeddin, (trans), Ilāhīyāt-i Falsafī-yi Tumā s Akuīnā s [Philosophical Theology of Thomas Aquinas]. Tehran: Ministry of Islamic Culture and Guidance, 1381 (2002). Abtahi, Seyyed Mohammad Ali, Dīālug bā Andīshmandān-i Masī ḥī: Dīn dar Jahān-i Mu‘ā ṣir [Dialogue with Christian Thinkers: Religion in the Contemporary World]. Tehran: Ṭarḥ-i Nu, 1379 (2000). Abtahi, Seyyed Mohammad Ali, Tadbīr va Taḥ ammul [Thoughts and Tolerance]. Tehran: Luḥ-i Fikr, 1383 (2004). Afshar, Hasan, (trans), Dīn-i Masī ḥ [The Religion of Christ]. Tehran: Nashr-i Markaz, 1381 (2002).


3/22/2011 1:08:01 PM

292


Aghajari, Hashim, Dīn, Qudrat va Sirvat [Religion, Power and Wealth: Trial and Defenses of Sayyid Hashim Aghajari]. Tehran: Mu’assisi-yi Nashr va Tahqīqāt-i Zikr, 1382 (2003). Ahmadi, Babak, Mu‘ammāyi Mudirnītah [The Puzzle of Modernity]. Tehran: Nashr-i Markaz, 1377 (1998). Ahmadzadeh, Keyvan, (trans), Mā dar Tirizā [Mother Teresa]. Zāhidān: Intishārāt-i Qadīr-i Khum, 1379 (2000). Akbari, Jaber, (trans), Tajrubi-yi Dīnī [Religious Experience]. Tehran: Nashr-i Suhrivardī, 1380 (2001). Akbari, Reza, Jā vdānigī [Immortality]. Qum: Būstān-ī Kitāb, 1382 (2003). Akrami, Amir, “Nardibānhā-yi Asmān” [Heavenly Ladders], in Soroush (ed), Ṣirāṭ’hāyi Mustaqīm [Straight Paths]. Tehran: Ṣirāṭ, 1378 (1999), pp. 197–232. Akrami, Amir, (ed), Dīn va Dunyā-yi Mu‘ā sir [Religion and the Contemporary World]. Tehran: Al-Hoda International Publishers, 1380 (2001). Akrami, Amir, (ed), Majmū‘ah-yi Maqālāt-i Guftugū ba Kilīsāyi Urtuduks-i Rūsī [The Collection of the articles of Dialogue with the Russian Orthodox Church]. Tehran: 1381 (2002). Akrami, Amir, (ed), Khānivā dih va Nahā d ΄ hā-yi Arzishī ān az dīdgāhi Islā m va Masī ḥīyat-i Urtuduks va Hamzīstī-yi Musālimat’ amīz az Naẓar-i Islā m va Masī ḥīyat-i Urtuduks [Family and its Institutional Value From the Perspective of Islam and Orthodox Christianity and Peaceful Co-existence From the Perspective of Islam and Christianity]. Qum: Center for Religious Studies, 1382 (2003). Alizadeh, Reza, (trans), I‘tirāfāt-i Agustīn [The Confessions of Augustine]. Tehran: Nashr-i Markaz, 1379 (2000). Alizamani, Amir Abbas, Khudā, Zabān va Ma‘nā [God, Language and Meaning]. Qum: Ayāt-i ‘Ishq, 1381 (2002). Amini, Ebrahim, Vaḥy dar Adyān-i Asimānī [Revelation in Divine Religions]. Qum: The Center of Publication of the Office of Islamic Propagation of the Islamic Seminary of Qum, 1377 [1998]. Ansari, Mohammad Baqer and Masih Mohajeri, (trans), Jahān-i Masīḥīyat [The Christian World]. Tehran: Intishārāt-i Amīr Kabīr, 2nd edition, 1381 (2002). Arefzadeh, Elias, (trans), “Khudā-yi Si’gānih dar Kitāb-i Muqaddas va Zuhūr-i Rāst’kīshī,” [The Trinitarian God in the Bible and the Rise of Orthodoxy] Haft Asman, vol. 4, no. 14, pp. 89–116. Asadi, Morteza, Īrān, Islā m, Tajaddud [Iran, Islam, Modernity]. Tehran: Ṭarḥ-i Nu, 1377 (1998). Aseriyan, Robert, (trans), Tā rīkh-i Tafakkur-i Masī ḥī [History of Christian Thought]. Tehran: Nashr va Pazhūhish-i Furūzān, 1380 (2001). Ashoori, Daryush, Mā va Mudirnīat [We and Modernity]. Tehran: Ṣirāṭ, 1376 (1997).


3/22/2011 1:08:02 PM

Bibliography

293

Ashtiyani, Jalaleddin, Taḥqīqī dar Dīn-i Masī ḥ [An Investigation in Christ’s Religion]. Tehran: Nashr-i Nigārish, 1368 (1989). Ayatollahy, Hamid Reza, (trans), Khudā va Dīn dar Jahān-i Pasā΄mudirn [God and Religion in the Post-Modern World]. Tehran: Aftāb-i Tus‘ah-i, 1381 (2002). Ayatollahi, Hamid Reza, (trans), Falsafah-yi Dīn [Philosophy of Religion]. Tehran: Intishārāt-i Ḥikmat, 1384 (2005). Azad Armaki, Taghi, Mudirnītah-yi Īrānī [Iranian Modernity]. Tehran: Ijtima‘, 1380 (2001). Baqa‘ie, Mohammad, (trans), Khudā dar Amrīkā [God in America]. Tehran: Intishārāt-i Ḥikmat, 1371 (1992). Baqa‘ie, Mohammad, (trans), Akuīnā s [Aquinas]. Tehran: Vāzhi Arā, 1376 (1997). Behnam, Jamshid, Īrānīān va Andīshi-yi Tajaddud [Iranians and Modern Thought]. Tehran: Nashr-i Farzān Rūz, 1383 (2004). Beheshti, Ahmad, ‘Isa dar Qur’an [Jesus in the Qur’an]. Tehran: Intishārāt-i Iṭilā‘at, 1375 (1996). Beheshti, Ahmad, (trans), ‘Isa: Payā m΄ā var-i Islā m [Jesus: Prophet of Islam]. Tehran: Intishārāt-i Iṭilā‘āt, 1373 (1994). Boroumand, Safoora, Pazhūhishī bar Fa‘ālīyāt-i Anjuman-i Tablīghī-yi Kilīsā dar Durah-yi Qājā rīyah [A Study of the Activities of Church Missionary Society in the Qajar Period]. Tehran: Nashr-i Naẓar, 1380 (2001). Bsteh, Andreas and S. Mirdamadi, (eds), Guftugū: ‘Idālat dar Ravābiṭ-i Baynulmilal va Bayni Adyān az Dīdgāh-i Andīshmandān-i Musalmān va Masī ḥī [Dialogue: Justice in International Relations and Among Religions from the Perspective of Muslim and Christian Thinkers]. Tehran: Al-Hoda International Publishers, nd. Bsteh, Andreas, Akbar Ghanbari, and Amir Akrami, (eds), Guftugū: Arzish΄ ha, Huqūq, Vazāyif, Masā ‘il-i Asā sī-yi Neẓam-i Hamzīstī-yi Adilānah az Dīdgāhi Andīshmandān-i Musalmān va Masī ḥī [Dialogue: Values, rights, responsibilities and principles of just order of co-existence from the perspective of Muslim and Christian thinkers], Tehran: Al-Hoda international publishers, 1380 [2001]. Dabir, Zabi-ollah, (trans), Muqāyisi-yī Mīān-i Turāt, Injīl, Qur’an va ‘Ilm [A Comparison among the Torah, the Injil, the Qur’an and Science]. Tehran: Daftar-i Nashr-i Farhang-i Islāmī, 1364 (1985). Dabbagh, Soroush, Ayīn dar Ayīni [Religion in the Mirror]. Tehran: Ṣirāṭ, 1383 (2004). Dasht-Bozorgy, Mehdi, (trans), Ilāhīyāt-i Igzīstānsīālīstī [Existentialist Theology]. Qum: Būstān-i Kitāb-i Qum, 1382 (2003). Davari Ardekani, Reza, Tamaddun va Tafakkur-i Gharbī [Western Thought and Civilization]. Tehran: Nashr-i Ṣāqī, 1380 (2001).


3/22/2011 1:08:02 PM

294


Dehqani-Tafti, H. B., Masī ḥ va Masī ḥīyat nazd-i Irānīān [Christ and Christianity Amongst Iranians: vol. 1. A Short Historical Survey; vol. 2. In the Classical Period of Persian Poetry; vol. 3. In Contemporary Poetry, Prose and Art]. London: Sohrab Books, 1992–1994. Dehshiri, Seyyed Zia‘oddin, (trans), Tumīzm [Thomism]. Tehran: Intishārāt-i Ḥikmat, 1384 (2005). Dīn Pazhūhī dar Jahān-i Mu‘ā ṣīr [Religious Studies in the Contemporary World]. Qum: Iḥyāgarān, 1381 (2002). Edalatnejad, Saied, (trans), Iqtidā bi Masī ḥ [Imitation of Christ] Tehran: Ṭarḥ-i Nu, 1382 (2003). Farhadpoor, Morad, (trans.), Shujā ‘at-i Bū dan [The Courage to Be]. Tehran: Intishārāt-i ‘Ilmi va Farhangī, 1366 (1987). Farhadpoor, Morad, (trans), Ilāhīyāt-i Farhang [Theology of Culture]. Tehran: Ṭarḥ-i Nu, 1376 (1997). Farhadpoor, Morad, (trans), Paninbirg: Ilāhīyāt-i Tā rīkhī [Pannenberg: Historical Theology]. Tehran: Ṣirāṭ, n.d. Fathizadeh, Morteza, (trans), Justar’hāyī dar Falsafah-yi Dīn [Explorations in Philosophy of Religion]. Qum: Intishārāt-i Ishrāq, 1380 (2001). Gandomi Nasr-Abadi, Reza and Ahmad Reza Moftah., (trans), Bi’sūyi Ilāhīyāt-i Nā ẓir bi Hami-yi Adyān [Towards a Theology Overseeing All Religions]. Qum: Markaz-i Muṭ āli‘āt va Taḥqīqāt-i Adyān va Mazāhib, 1380 (2001). Ghadrdan Gharamaleki, Mohammad Hassan, Khudā va Mas’aliyi Sharr [God and the Problem of Evil]. Qum: Islamic Propagation Center, 1377 (1998). Gha’eminia, Ali Reza, Vaḥy va Af‘āl-i Guftā rī [Revelation and Speech Acts]. Qum: Zụalāl-i Kusar, 1381 (2002). Ghanbari, Hasan, (trans), Dar’ā madī bi Masī ḥīyat [Introduction to Christianity]. Qum: Markaz-i Muṭ āli‘āt va Taḥqīqāt-i Adyān va Mazāhib, 1381 (2002). Ghanbari, Hasan, (trans), Ayīn-i Kātulīk [Catholic Doctrines]. Qum: Markaz-i Muṭ āli‘āt va Taḥqīqāt-i Adyān va Mazāhib, 1381 (2002). Gholami-Nahad, Jamshid, (ed), Injīl-i Bā rnābā [The Gospel of Barnabas]. Tehran: Niyāyish, 1379 (2000). Govahi, Abdol Rahim, Dar΄ā madī bar Tā rīkh-i Adyā n dar Qur’an, [A Survey of the History of Religions in the Qur’an]. Tehran: Farhang-i Islā mī, 1376 (1997). Haddadi, Behrooz, (trans), Muqaddamahyī bar Tafakkur-i Nihz̤at-i Iṣlā ḥāt-i Dīnī [Introduction to Reformation Thought]. Qum: Markaz-i Muṭ āli‘āt va Taḥqīqāt-i Adyān va Mazāhib, 1382 (2003). Ḥaqīqat-i Masī ḥīyat [The Truth of Christianity]. Qum: Mu’assisi-yi Dar Rā h-i Haqq, 1361 (1982). Hakimi, Mohsen, (trans), Shish Mutifakkir-i Igzīstānsīālīst [Six Existentialist Thinkers]. Tehran: Nashr-i Markaz, 1368 (1989).


3/22/2011 1:08:02 PM

Bibliography

295

Hamzeie, Shahram, (trans), Ashnāyī bā Agust īn-i Qaddīs [Getting Acquainted with St. Augustine]. Tehran: Nashr-i Markaz, 1378 (1999). Hanaie Kashani, Mohammad Saied, (trans), Rū dulf Bultman [Rudolf Butlmann]. Tehran: Intishārāt-i Girrus, 1377 (1998). Hashemi, Mohammad Mansour, Sīrūrat dar Falsafah-yi Mulla Ṣadrā va Hegel [Becoming in the Philosophy of Hegel and Mulla Sadra]. Tehran: Intishārāt-i Kavīr, 1383 (2004). Hekmat, Ali Asghar, Tārīkh-i Jāmi΄-i Adyān [Comprehensive History of Religions]. Tehran: Intishārāt-i ‘Ilmī va Farhangī, 8th printing, 1375 (1996). Hemmati, Homayoun, Muqaddamah-yī bar Shinākht-i Masī ḥīyat [Introduction to Understanding Christianity]. Tehran: Intishārāt-i Naqsh-i Jahān, 1379 (2000). Hemmati, Homayoun, (trans), Muqaddamahyī bar Ilāhīyāt-i Mu‘ā sir [Introduction to Contemporary Theology]. Tehran: Intishārāt-i Naqsh-i Jahān, 1379 (2000). Heydari, Ahmad Ali, “Hamzīistī-i Islām va Masī ḥ īyat (tajrubah-yi Almān” [Coexistence between Islam and Christianity (German Experience)], Report on Dialogue, vol. 1, no. 1, Sept. 2002, pp. 44–47. Heydari, Ahmad Ali, “Chihrah-yi Masī ḥ īyat dar Kitābhāyi darsi-i Jahān-i Islām” [The profile of Christianity in text-books of Islamic world: A report of a research], Report on Dialogue, vol. 1, no. 2, Oct. 2002, p. 82. Hosseini, Seyyed Hassan, Plūrālīzm-i Dīnī yā Plūrālīzm dar Dīn [Religious Pluralism or Pluralism in Religion]. Tehran: Surūsh, 1382 (2003). Hoseinian, Mir Masoud, Lubnān: Tā rīkhchah va Ahzāb-i Masī ḥī [Lebanon: A Short History and Christian Parties]. Tehran: Kitāb-i Nīstān, 1380 (2001). Hossein-Zadeh, Mohammad, Falsafah-yi Dīn [Philosophy of Religion]. Qum: Center for Islamic Propagation, 1380 (2001). Hossein-Zadeh, Mohammad, Dīn’shinā sī [Understanding Religion]. Qum: Markaz-i Intishārāt-i Mu’assisi-yi Amūzishī va Pazhūhishī-i Imām Khumaynī, 1383 (2004). Hovian, Andranik, Armanīān-i Īrān [Armenians of Iran]. Tehran: International Center for Dialogue Among Civilizations, 1380 (2001). Ilkhani, Mohammad, Mitāfīzīk-i Butīus [The Metaphysics of Boethius]. Tehran: Ilhām Publishers, 1380 (2001). Izadpanah, Mehrdad, Ashnāyī bā Dīn-i Masī ḥ [Understanding the Religion of Christ]. Tehran: Intishārāt-i Mihvar, 1381 (2002). Izadpoor, Mohammad Reza, Fahm-i Dinī dar Bastar-i Agāhīhā-yi Jadīd [Religious Understanding in the Context of Modern Knowledge]. Tehran: Hastī Namā, 1382 (2003). Jafarian, Rasul, Tarjumah-yi Anājīl-i ‘Arba‘ah [Translation of the Four Gospels]. Qum: Nuqtah Press, 1374 (1995).


3/22/2011 1:08:03 PM

296


Jahanbegloo, Ramin, Īrān va Mudirnītah [Iran and Modernity]. Tehran: Nashr-i Guftār, 1380 (2001). Jalili, Ahmad Reza, (trans), Ayandah-yi Adyān [The Future of Religions]. Qum: Markaz-i Muṭ āli‘āt va Taḥqīqāt-i Adyān va Mazāhib, 1378 (1999). Jannati, Ali, (trans), Masīḥīyat-i Ṣahyūnīst va Bunyād’garā-yi Amrīkā [Zionist and Fundamentalist Christianity in America]. Qum: Nashr-i Adyān, 1383 (2004). Javadi, Ghasem, Ta’sīr-i Andīshihāyi Kalā mī-i Shi‘a bar Mu‘tazili [The Influence of Shi‘ite Theological Thought on Mu‘tazili], in Haft Asman, vol. 1, no. 1, spring 1999, pp. 137–166. Javadi, Mohsen, Dar΄ā madī bar Khudā΄shinā sī-yi Falsafī [Introduction to Philosophical Theology]. Qum: Ma‘ārif-i Islāmī, 1375 (1996). Javandel, Narges, (trans), Islā m va Kisrat’garāyī-i Dīnī [Islam and Religious Pluralism]. Qum: Ṭāhā Publications, 1379 (2000). Javdan, Mohammad, (trans), Ayā Khudāyīe Hast? [Is There a God?]. Qum: Intishārāt-I Mufīd, 1381 (2002). Kakaie, Ghasem, Vaḥdat-i Vujū d: Bi Ravāyāt-i Ibn Arabi va Māystir Ikhā rt [The Oneness of Being According to Ibn Arabi and Miester Eckhart]. Tehran: Intishārāt-i Hirmis, 1381 (2002). Kamijani, Davood, Pazhūhishī Tuṣīfī dar Kutub-i Muqaddas [A Descriptive of Sacred Scriptures], Tehran: Islamic Ministry of Culture and Guidance, 1384 (2005). Kamshad, Hassan, (trans), ‘Isa [Jesus]. Tehran: Ṭarḥ-i Nu, 1374 (1995). Kashefi, Mohammad Reza, Farhang va Masī ḥīyat dar Gharb [Culture and Christianity in the West]. Tehran: Mu’assisi-yi Farhangī-i Dānish va Andīshah-yi Mu‘āsir, 1380 (2001). Khalaji, Mehdi, “Qum: Pāytakht-i Kā mpīūtiry-i Īrān,” [Qum: The Computer Capital of Iran]. Cited on www.bbc.co.uk/persian/iran/ story/2005/08/050802_mj-mkhalaji-internet-qom.shtml. (accessed on Dec. 8, 2005). Khalaji, Mehdi, “Nashrīyāt-i Hawzih” [The Publications of Qum Seminaries]. Cited on http://www.bbc.co.uk/persian/iran/story/2005/08/050803_mjmkhalaji-qom-press.shtml (accessed on Dec. 8, 2005). Khatami, Seyyed Mohammad, Hizā rah-yi Guftugū va Tafāhum [The Millennium of Dialogue and Understanding]. Tehran: Risānah, 1378 (1999). Khatami, Seyyed Mohammad, Guftugūyi Tammadunhā [Dialogue of Civilizations]. Tehran: Ṭarḥ-i Nu, 1380 (2001). Khatami, Seyyed Mohammad, Az Dunyā-yi Shahr tā Shahr-i Dunyā [From the World of the City to the City of the World]. Tehran: Nashr-i Nay, 1373 (1994). Khatami va Dānishgāh [Khatami and the University]. Tehran: Daftar-i Nashr-i Ma‘ārif, 1381 (2002).


3/22/2011 1:08:03 PM

Bibliography

297

Khoramshahi, Baha’odin, (trans), ‘Ilm va Din [Science and Religion]. Tehran: Markaz-i Nashr-i Dānishgāhī, 1362 (1983). Khosropanah, Abdol Hossein, Plūrālīzm-i Dīnī va Sīyā sī [Political and Religious Pluralsim]. Tehran: Danish va Andīshiah-yi Mu‘ā ṣir, 1381 (2002). Khosropanah, Abdol Hossein, Kalā m-i Jadīd [Modern Theology]. Qum: Markaz-i Muṭ āli‘āt va Pazhūhish΄ hā-yi Farhangī, 1379 (2000). Khosropanah, Abdol Hossein, Intiẓā rāt-i Bashar az Dīn [Man’s Expectations of Religion]. Tehran: Andīshah-yi Mu‘ā ṣir, 1381 (2002). Khueinie, Ali al-Ishaq, Masī ḥīyat [Christianity]. Qum: Daftar-i Tablīqāt-i Islāmī-i Qum, 1364 (1985). Kooheztani Nejad, Masoud, Chālish-i Mazhab va Mudirnīzm [The Challenge of Religion and Modernism]. Tehran: Nashr-i Nay, 1381 (2002). Madadpour, Mohammad, Sayr-i Ḥikmat va Hunar-i Masīhī [The Progress of Christian Wisdom and Art]. Tehran: Sūrah-i Mihr, 1381(2002). Majidi, Fariborz, (trans), Rūḥ-i Ayīn-i Prutistān [The Spirit of Protestantism]. Tehran: Nashr-i Nigāh-i Mu‘ā ṣir, 1381 (2002). Malek Hosseini, (trans), Dar΄ bā rah-yi Dīn [On Religion]. Tehran: Intishārāt-i Hirmis, 1383 (2004). Malekian, Mostafa, Rāhī bi Rahāyī: Justar’hāyī dar bāb-i ‘Aqlānīyat va Ma‘naviat [A Way to Redemption: Explorations in Rationality and Spirituality]. Tehran: Nashr-i Nigāh-i Mu‘ā ṣir, 1381 (2002). Malekian, Mostafa, “Ma‘navīyat: Guhar-i Adyān” [Spirituality: The Essence of Religions], in Soroush (ed), Sunnat va Sikūlā rīzm [Tradition and Secularism]. Tehran: Ṣirāṭ, 1381 (2002), pp. 267–343. Mansour Nejad, Mohammad, Rūykard ΄ hāyi Naz̤arī dar Guftugūyi Tammadunhā [Theoretical Perspectives on the Dialogue of Civilizations]. Tehran: Jahād-i Dānishgāhī, 1381 (2002). Mansour Nejad, Mohammad, Guftugūyi Tammadunhā: Az Manz̤ar-i Andīshmandān-i Irānī [Dialogue of Civilizations: From the Perspective of Iranian Intellectuals]. Tehran: Jahād-i Dānishgāhī, 1381 (2002). Ma‘ā rif-i Islā mī [Islamic Knowledge]. Qum: Daftar-i Nashr va Pakhsh-i Ma‘ārif, 18th printing, 1381 (2002). Masjid Jame‘ie, Mohammad, Guftugūyi Dīnī, Guftugūyi Tamaddunī: Islā m va Masī ḥīyyat dar Durān-i Jadīd [Religious Dialogue, Civilizational Dialogue: Islam and Christianity in Modern Era]. Tehran: Ministry of Islamic Culture and Guidance, 1379 (2000). Ma‘soumi, Mitra, (trans), Nū΄ā varān [Bringers of Light]. Tehran: ‘Ilm Publications, 1382 (2003). Mehdizadeh, Ali, (trans), Rīshihāyi Masī ḥīyat dar Asnā d-i Baḥrulmayt [The Roots of Christianity in the Documents of the Dead Sea]. Qum: Nashr-i Adyān, 1383 (2004).


3/22/2011 1:08:04 PM

298


Milani, Abbas, Tajaddud va Tajaddud Sitīzī dar Irān [Modernity and anti-Modernity in Iran]. Tehran: Akhtarān, 1380 (2001). Mirdamadi, Seyyed Hossein, (trans), Guftugū va Tafāhum dar Qur’an-i Karīm [Dialogue and Understanding in the Holy Qur’an]. Tehran: International Center for Dialogue Among Civilizations, 1380 (2001). Misami, Saye, (trans), I‘tirāfāt [Confessions]. Tehran: Daftar-i Pazhūhish va Nashr-i Suhrivardī, 1380 (2001). Misami, Saye, (trans), Tashabuh bi Masī ḥ [Imitation of Christ]. Tehran: Intishārāt-i Hirmis, 1383 (2004). Mobeyni, Mohammad Ali, ‘Aqlānīyat-i Bā var-i Dīnī az Dīdgāh-i Alvīn Plāntīngā [The Rationality of Religious Belief from the View Point of Alvin Plantinga]. Qum: Mu’assisi-yi Amūzishī va Pazhūhishī Imām Khumaynī, 1382 (2003). Moghaddam, Abdol Hasan, (trans), “Masī ḥ īyat va Islām dar Qarn-i Hifdahum” [Christianity and Islam in the 17th Century] Mashkooh, vols. 54–55, pp. 64–86. Mohammadi, Majid, (trans), Dīn: Injā, Aknūn [Religion: Here, Now]. Tehran: Nashr-i Qaṭrah, 1377 (1998). Mohammad Rezaie, Mohammad, (ed), Justā rhāyī dar Kalā m-i Jadīd [Explorations in Modern Theology]. Qum: Intishārāt-i Dānishgā h-i Qum, 1381 (2002). Mojtahedi, Karim, Ashnāyī-yi Irānīān bā Falsafahā-yi Jadīd-i Gharb [The Acquaintance of Iranians with Modern Western Philosophy]. Tehran: Pazhūhishgāh-i Farhang va Andīshi-yi Islāmī, 1379 (2000). Monjam, Roya, (trans), Bīmā rī Bi Sūyi Marg [Sickness unto Death]. Tehran: Nashr-i Pursish, 1377 (1998). Mostafavi Kashani, Lily, Shurāyi Vātīkān-i Du [The Second Vatican Council: Encounter with Modernity]. Tehran: Al-Hoda International Publications, 1378 (1999). Movidi, Ahmad Reza and Hamid Mahmoudian, (trans), ‘Arifān-i Masī ḥī [The Mystics of the Church]. Qum: Markaz-i Muṭ āli‘āt va Taḥqīqāt-i Adyān va Mazāhib, 1384 (2005). Mirza Khani, Zahra, Kitāb’shinā sī-yi Ḥaz̤rat-i Masī ḥ [Bibliography on Christ]. Tehran: Sāzmān-i Chāp va Intishārāt-i Vizārat-i Farhang va Irshād-i Islāmī, 1378 (1999). Nabavian, Seyyed Mahmoud, Plūrālīzm-i Dīnī [Religious Pluralsim]. Tehran: Dānish va Andīshi-yi Mu‘ā ṣir, 1381 (2002). Naderi, Gholam Reza Afshar, (trans), Tā rīkh-i Taftīsh-i ‘Aqāyid [History of the Inquisition]. Tehran: Jāmi‘ah-yi Īrānīān, 1379 (2000). Nafisi, Saied, Masī ḥīyat dar Īrān [Christianity in Iran]. Tehran: Light of the World Co., 1964. Najafi, Batul, (trans), ‘Ilm va Dīn: Az Ta‘ā ruz̤ tā Guftugū [Religion and Science: From Confrontation to Dialogue]. Qum: Ṭāhā, 1382 (2003).


3/22/2011 1:08:04 PM

Bibliography

299

Nasri, Abdollah, Guftimān-i Mudirnītah [Discourse of Modernity: A survey of Iran’s Contemporary Currents of Thought]. Tehran: Daftar-i Nashr-i Farhang-i Islāmī, 1382 (2003). Nasseri Taheri, Abdollah, (trans), Tarīkh-i Janghāyi Ṣalībī [History of the Crusades]. Tehran: Vizārat-i Farhang va Irshād-i Islāmī, 1369 (1990). Nazari, Morteza, Bar΄rasī-yi Shīvihāy-i Tablīghātī-i Masīz̤īyat ‘Alayhi Islā m [Analysis of the Varieties of Christian Propaganda Against Islam]. Tehran: Markaz-i Chāp va Nashr-i Sāzmān-i Tablīghāt-i Islāmī, 1371 (1992). Nejati, Afsaneh, (trans), I‘tirāfāt-i Agustīn-i Quddūs [Confessions of St. Augustine]. Tehran: Payām-i Imrūz, 1382 (2003). Nokhostin, Ali, (trans), Tā rīkh-i Kilīsāyi Qadīm dar Impirā ṭūrī-i Rum va Irān [The History of the Ancient Church in the Roman and Persian Empires]. Tehran: Asāṭīr Publications, 1382 (2003). Noroozi, Hossein, (trans), Ilāhīyāt-i Sīstimātīk [Systematic Theology]. Tehran: Intishārāt-i Ḥikmat, 1381 (2002). Nozari, Hossein Ali, (trans), Mudirnītah va Mudirnīzm [Modernity and Modernism]. Tehran: Naqsh-i Jahān, 1379 (2000). O’lia, Masoud, (trans), Masī ḥ va Asā ṭīr [Christ and Myths]. Tehran: Nashr-i Markaz, 1380 (2001). Pasvish, Marzieyeh, “Bar΄risī-i Mīzān-i Hampūshānī-yi Dāstān΄ hāy-i Mushtarik dar Si Kitāb-i Asmāni-i Qur’an-i Majīd, Injīl, va Turat” [A study on the overlapping stories in the three Holy Books: The Qur’an, the Bible and the Old Testament” Pol-e Firuzeh (Turquoise Bridge), vol. 1, no. 2, winter 2002, pp. 108–122. Paya, Ali, “Guftugū dar Jahān-i Vāqi‘ī: Kūshishī Vāhī yā Ẓarūratī Ijtināb΄nāpazīr” [Dialogue in the Real World: Quixotic pursuit or sine qua non?], Pol-e Firuzeh (Turquoise Bridge), vol. 1, no. 1, autumn 2001, pp. 43–68. Pazouki, Shahram, (trans), ‘Aql va Vaḥy dar Qurūn-i Vusṭā [Faith and Revelation in the Middle Ages]. Tehran: Intishārāt-i Girrus, 1378 (1999). Pedram, Masoud, Rushanfikrān-i Dīnī va Mudirnītah dar Īrān-i pas az Inqilāb [Religious Intellectuals and Modernity in Post Revolutionary Iran]. Tehran: Gām-i Nu, 1382 (2003). Qadrdan Qaramaleki, Mohammad Hasan, Sikīlārīzm dar Masīḥīyat va Islām [Secularism in Christianity and Islam]. Qum: The Center of Publication of the Office of Islamic Propagation of the Islamic Seminary in Qum, 1379 (2000). Qadrdan Qaramaleki, Mohammad Hassan, Kund ΄u Kā vī dar Sūyi΄ hāyi Plīrālīzm [Research into Aspects of Pluralism]. Tehran: Dānish va Andīshah-yi Mu‘ā ṣir, 1379 (2000). Rabbani Golpaygani, Ali, Taḥlīl va Naqd-i Plūrālīzm-i Dīnī [Critique and Analysis of Religious Pluralism]. Tehran: Dānish va Andīshah-yi Mu‘ā ṣir, 1378 (1999).


3/22/2011 1:08:04 PM

300


Rahmani, Ali, (trans), “Muballighān-i Almānī dar Īrān” [German Missionaries in Iran], The Journal of Foreign Policy, vol. 4, winter 1990–1991, pp. 627–647. Rahmati, Enshallah, (trans), Rū dulf Bultman [Rudolf Bultmann]. Tehran: Gām-i Nu, 1382 (2003). Rajabi, Mohammad Hasan, “ ‘Ulamāyi Shi‘a va Guftugūy-i Bayn-i Adyān va Farhanghā dar Ṣadihā-yi Akhīr” [Shi‘ite Scholars and the Dialogue Among Religions and Cultures in the Past Few centuries], Pol-e Firouzeh (Turquoise Bridge), vol. 1, no.1, Autumn 2001, pp. 146–164. Rasekhi, Foroozan, (trans), Pul Tīlīsh [Paul Tillich]. Tehran: Nashr-i Nigāh-i Mu‘ā ṣir, 1382 (2003). Rashad, Ali Akbar, Dīn Pazhūhī-i Mu‘ā ṣir [Contemporary Religious Research: An Understanding of Traditional, Modern and Revivalist Religious Discourse]. Tehran: Mu’assisi-yi Farhangī-i Dānish va Andīshah-yi Mu‘ā ṣir, 1382 (2003). Rashed Mohassel, Mohammad Taqi, Nijāt΄ bakhshī dar Adyān [Salvation in Religions]. Tehran: Institute for Humanities and Cultural Studies, 1381(2002). Rashidian, Abdol Karim and Parisa Manouchehr Kashani, (trans), Akhlāq-i Prutistānī va Rūḥ-i Sarmāyidā rī [The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism]. Tehran: Intishārāt-i ‘Ilmī va Farhangī, 1373 (1994). Rashidian, Abdol Karim, (trans), Tars va Larz [Fear and Trembling]. Tehran: Nashr-i Nay, 1378 (1999). Rastegar Jouibari, Vali Allah, Masī ḥ dar Qur’an [Christ in the Qur’an]. Tehran: Intishārāt-i ‘Aqīdatī Sīyāsī-i Nīrū-yi Hava’ī-i Artish, 1377 (1999). Rasuli Mahallati, Seyyed Hashem, Qiṣā .s-i Qur’an yā Tā rīkh-i Anbīyā: Az Adam tā Khatamul Nabi’īn (SA), [Stories of the Qur’an or History of the Prophets: From Adam to the Seal of Prophets]. Tehran: Farhang-i Islāmī, 15th ed, 1380 (2001). Sadaqiani, Ebrahim, (trans), Tā rīkh-i Taftīsh-i ‘Aqāyid [History of the Inquisition]. Tehran: Jahān-i Rāyāni, 1378 (1999). Sadeghi, Maghsood Ali, “Zamīnihā-yi Fa‘ālīyat΄ hā-yi Muballighān-i Masī ḥ ī dar Irān” [The Contexts of the Activities of Christian Missionaries in Iran] Kitāb-i Māh-i Dīn, vol. 34, pp. 80–85. Sadeghi, Hadi, Ilāhīyāt va Taḥ aqquq΄ pazīrī [Theology and Verification]. Tehran: Pazhūhishgāh-i Farhang va Andīshah-yi Islāmī, 1378 (1999). Sadeghi, Hadi, Dar΄ā madī bar Kalā m-i Jadīd [Introduction to Modern Theology]. Qum: Ṭāhā, 1382 (2003). Sadeghnia, Mehrab, “Khudā-yi ‘Ahd-i ‘Atīq” [God of the Old Testament], Haft Asman, vol. 4, no. 15, pp. 217–226. Safari, Behnaz, (trans), ‘Aql va Īmān [Reason and Faith]. Qum: Intishārāt-i Ishrāq, 1381 (2002). Saghebfar, Morteza, (trans), Az Īrān-i Zardushtī tā Islā m [From Zoroastrian Iran to Islam]. Tehran: Gāqnūs Publications, 1381 (2002).


3/22/2011 1:08:04 PM

Bibliography

301

Sahebi, Mohammad Javad, Sar΄chishmihā-yi Nu΄andīshah-yi Dīnī [Origins of Modern Religious Thinking]. Qum: Ihyāgarān, 1381 (2002). Saiedee Mehr, Mohammad, Falsafah-yi Dīn [Philosophy of Religion]. Qum: Mu’assisi-yi Farhangī-i Ṭāhā, 1376 (1997). Sa’iedie Roshan, Mohammad Baqer, Taḥlīl-i Vaḥy az Dīdgāh-i Islā m va Masī ḥīyat [The Analysis of Revelation from the Perspective of Islam and Christianity]. Tehran: Mo’assisi-yi Farhangī-i Andīshah, 1375 (1996). Same‘ie, Ahmad, Duktirīn-i Khātamī dar Guftugū-yi Tammadunhā va Farhanghā [Khatami’s Doctrine in the Dialogue of Civilizations and Cultures]. Tehran: Intishārāt-i Chikād, 1380 (2001). Samenieh, Mehdi, (trans), Fā shīzm va Kilīsā [Fascism and the Church]. Mashhad: Bahār, 1380 (2001). San’epoor, Maryam, Khudā va Dīn dar Rūykardī Umānīstī [God and Religion in a Humanistic Approach]. Tehran: Dānish va Andīshi-yi Mu‘ā ṣir, 1381 (2002). Sayyar, Pirouz, (trans), Rafīq-i A‘lā [Superior Friend]. Tehran: Ṭarḥ-i Nu, 1376 (1997). Shabestari, Ali Mojtahed, (trans), “Mīsīyunir΄ hā-yi Kilīsā-yi Injīlī va Rābitah-yi Amrīkā bā Īrān dar Durah-yi Pahlavī” [Presbyterian Missionaries and the US Relationship with Iran during the Pahlavi Era] The Journal of Foreign Policy, vol. 2, Oct. 1988-March 1989, No. 4, pp. 491–507. Shabestari, Mohammad Mojtahed, Hirminūtīk, Kitāb va Sunnat [Hermeneutic, the Book and the Tradition]. Tehran: Ṭarḥ-i Nu, 1375 (1996). Shabestari, Mohammad Mojtahed, Īmān va Azā dī [Faith and Freedom]. Tehran: Ṭarḥ-i Nu, 1376 (1997). Shabestari, Mohammad Mojtahed, Naqdī bar Qarā ‘at-i Rasmī az Dīn [A Critique of the Official Reading of Religion]. Tehran: Ṭarḥ-i Nu, 1379 (2000). Shabestari, Mohammad Mojtahed, Ta’ammulātī dar Qarā‘at-i Insānī az Dīn [Reflections on a Humane Reading of Religion]. Tehran: Ṭarḥ-i Nu, 1383 (2004). Shafa, Shojaeddin, Tavalludī Dīgar [Another Birth]. Paris: Farzād, n.d. Shams, Mansour, Pursishhā-yi Abadī [The Perennial Questions: A Philosophical Account of a Number of Basic Questions]. Tehran: Anjuman-i Ma‘ārif-i Islāmī, 1379 (2000). Shari‘ati, Ali, Tarīkh va Shinākht-i Adyān [History and Knowledge of Religions]. Tehran: Shirkat-i Sahāmī-i Intishār, 1362 (1983). Shariatmadari, Hamid Reza, (trans), Az Barkhud tā Guftugū [From Confrontation to Dialogue]. Tehran: Nashr-i Luḥ-i Fekr, 1383 (2004). Shirvani, Ali. Mabānī-yi Naz̤arī-yi Tajrubi-yi Dīnī [Theoretical Foundations of Religious Experience]. Qum: Būstān-i Kitāb, 1381 (2002). Shojaeezand, Ali Reza, Urfī Shudan dar Tajrubah-yi Masī ḥī va Islā mī [Secularization in the Experience of Christianity and Islam]. Tehran: Intishārāt-i Bāz, 1381 (2002).


3/22/2011 1:08:05 PM

302


Shojaeezand, Ali Reza, Dīn, Jā mi‘ah va Urfī Shudan [Religion, Society and Secularization]. Tehran: Nashr-i Markaz, 1380 (2001). Sobhani, Ayatollah Ja‘far, Plūrālīzm-i Dīnī yā Kisrat΄garāyī [Religious Pluralism or Pluralism]. Qum: Mu’assisi-yi Imām Ṣādiq, 1381 (2002). Soleimani Ardestani, Abdol Rahim, (trans), Masī ḥīyat va Bid‘athā [Christianity and Heresis]. Qum: Ṭāhā, 1377 (1998). Soleimani Ardestani, Abdol Rahim, (trans), Masī ḥīyat [Christianity]. Qum: I‘timād, 1378 (1999). Soleimani Ardestani, Abdol Rahim, (trans), Falsafah dar Masī ḥīyat-i Bā stān [Philosophy in Christian Antiquity]. Qum: Markaz-i Muṭ āli‘āt va Taḥqīqāt-i Adyān va Mazāhib, 1380 (2001). Soleimani Ardestani, Abdol Rahim, (trans), Ayīn-i Prutistān [Protestant Doctrines]. Qum: Intishārāt-i Mu’assisi-yi Amūzishī va Pazhūhishī-i Imām Khumaynī, 1381 (2002). Soleimani Ardestani, Abdol Rahim, Masī ḥīyat [Christianity]. Qum: Zulāl-i Kusar, 1381 (2002). Soleimani Ardestani, Abdol Rahim, Dar΄ā madī bar Ilāhīyat-i Taṭbīqī-i Islā m va Masī ḥīyat [Introduction to Comparative Theology of Islam and Christianity]. Qum: Ṭāhā Books, 1382 (2003). Soleimani Ardestani, Abdol Rahim, Kitāb-i Muqaddas [The Holy Bible]. Qum: Ayāt-i ‘Ishq, 1382 (2003). Soroush, Abdolkarim, Qabz̤ va Basṭ-i Ti’urīik-i Sharī ‘at [Theoretical Contraction and Expansion of the Law]. Tehran:Ṣirāṭ, 1370 (1991). Soroush, Abdolkarim, Farbah΄tar az Īdi’uluzhī [More than Ideology]. Tehran: Ṣirāṭ, 1381 (2002). Soroush, Abdolkarim, (ed), Sirāt΄ hāy-i Mustaqīm [Straight Paths]. Tehran: Ṣirāṭ, 1378 (1999). Soroush, Abdolkarim, Basṭ-i Tajrubah-yi Nabavī [Expansion of Prophetic Experience]. Tehran: Ṣirāṭ, 1378 (1999). Soroush, Abdolkarim, “Tavallud-i Dubārah dar Mulavī, Ghazalī, va Agustīn” [Being Born Again in Rumi, Ghazali and Augstine]. Public lecture, 2000. Soroush, Abdolkarim, “Masī ḥ dar Islām” [Christ in Islam], Abān, no. 2, August 2001, pp. 6–17. Tabataba’ie, Allamah Seyyed Muhammad Hossein, Shi‘ah. Tehran: Mu’assisi-yi Pazhūhishī-yi Ḥikmat va Falsafah-i Īrān, 1382 (2003). Tavakkoli, Gholam Hossein, (trans), Dī n va Chishm΄and ā zhā -yi Nu [Religion and New Perspectives]. Qum: Center for Islamic Propagation, 1376 (1997). Tofiqi, Hossein, (trans), Kalā m-i Masī ḥī [Christian Theology]. Qum: Markaz-i Muṭ āli‘āt va Taḥqīqāt-i Adyān va Mazāhib, 1377 (1998).


3/22/2011 1:08:05 PM

Bibliography

303

Tofiqi, Hossein, (trans), Intiẓā r-i Masī ḥā dar Ayīn-i Yahū d [Expectation for the Messiah in Judaism]. Qum: Markaz-i Muṭ āli‘āt va Taḥqīqāt-i Adyān va Mazāhib, 1377 (1998). Tofiqi, Hossein, Ashnāyī bā Adyān-i Buzurg [Understanding Major Religions]. Qum: Mo’assisi-yi Farhangī-i Ṭāhā, 1379 (2000). Tofiqi, Hossein, (trans), Masī ḥīyat va Adyān-i Jahān [Christianity and World Religions]. Qum: Markaz-i Muṭ āli‘āt va Taḥqīqāt-i Adyān va Mazāhib, 1382 (2003). Tourani, Ali, Plūrālīzm-i Dīnī va Chālishhā [Religious Pluralism and Challenges]. Tehran: Murshid Publications, 1381(2002). Tourani, Ali, Khudā az Dīdgāh-i Ṣadr al-Mut’alihīn va Pul Tīlīsh [God from the View Point of Mulla Sadra and Paul Tillich]. Tehran: Dānish va Andīshi-yi Mu‘ā ṣir, 1383 (2004). Yasemi, Rashid, (trans), Īrān dar Zamān-i Sā sānīān [Iran During the Sasanian]. Tehran: Ṣidāyi Mu‘ā ṣir, 1378 (1999). Yazdani, Abbas, (trans), Tajrubah-yi Dīnī [Religious Experience]. Qum: Ṭāhā, 1383 (2004). Zakeri, Mostafa, “Faqīr dar Qur’an va Injīl” [The indigent in the Holy Qur’an and the Bible], Pol-e Firuzeh (Turquoise Bridge), vol. 2, no. 5, autumn 2002, pp. 145–158. Zare‘poor, Ismaiel, Gunāh-i Nukhustīn [The First Sin]. Mashhad: Bih Nashr, 1378 (1999). Zibaie Nejad, Mohammad Reza, Dar΄ā madī bar Tā rīkh va Kalā m-i Masī ḥīyat [Introdcution to Christian History and Theology]. Qum: Mu‘āvinat-i Umūr-i Asātīd va Durūs-i Mu‘ārif-i Islāmī, 1376 (1997). Zibaie Nejad, Mohamad Reza, Masī ḥīyat΄shinā sī-yi Muqāyisah’ī [A Comparative Study of Christianity]. Tehran: Surūsh, 1382 (2003).


3/22/2011 1:08:05 PM

INDEX

Abtahi, Mohammad Ali; 28, 31, 73, 77, 96, 119, 184, 215, 219 Akrami, Amir; 16–18, 208, 245, 246, 253, 267 Allamah Majlesi; 13 Allamah Tabatabaie; 23 Alston, William; 70, 83, 227 Ansari, Ali; 34 Aquinas; 62, 83, 125, 145, 161, 163, 220, 264, 270 Ardestani; 68–69, 81–82, 126, 225, 232, 237, 238, 257 Ashtiyani; 57–58, 202, 224, 225 Augustine; 61, 62, 119, 138, 161, 163, 226, 228, 264, 265, 270 Ayoub, Mohammad; 19, 22, 113, 115 Barth; 67, 70, 111, 149, 151, 154, 159, 237, 270, 272 Bazargan, Mehdi; 37, 80 Beheshti; 115, 253 Bennet, Clinton; 5 Bill, James; 20–21, 23–24, 32 Boroujerdi, Mehrzad; 33, 201 Brown, Daniel; 5, 6, 198 Center for Religious Studies; 98, 121, 186, 226, 227, 276 Chapman, Colin; 189 Dehqani-Tafti, Hassan; 31–32

Tavassoli_Index.indd 304

Foltz, Richard; 29, 30, 195–196, 214 Gholami-Nahad, Jamshid; 58–60 Goddard, Hugh; 6, 8, 194 Greek Orthodox Church; 44, 90, 92, 101, 102, 103, 108, 112, 243, 249, 254 Hemmati, Homayoun; 18, 62 Hick, John; 70, 73, 83, 117, 119, 144, 233, 255, 264, 267 Huntington, Samuel; 43, 96, 116, 277 Institute for Interreligious Dialogue; 73, 96–98, 118–121 International Center for Dialogue Among Civilizations; 44, 71, 94–96, 116–118, 185, 224 Jahanbakhsh, Forough; 131–133, 136, 263 Jahanbegloo, Ramin; 36, 39 Jannati, Mohammad Ebrahim; 107, 112, 250 Khamenei, Ali; 108–109 Khamenei, Mohammad; 16, 24, 41, 103, 104, 107, 248, 249 Khatami, Mohammad; 38, 43, 44, 94, 96, 102, 106, 178, 184, 185, 186, 196

3/22/2011 1:13:54 PM

Index Khosrokhavar, Farhad; 42–43, 133–134 Khueini; 56–57 Kierkegaard; 62, 70, 137, 220, 228, 270 Kimball, Charles; 191 Kung, Hans; 73, 86–88, 119, 241, 251, 258, 265 Kurzman, Charles; 130, 134–135 Legenhausen, Muhammad; 74–76, 234 Luther; 40, 137, 145, 264, 270 McAuliffe, Jane; 27, 213 Malekian, Mostafa; 70, 80, 118, 122, 129–130, 134–135, 160–174, 183–185, 197–198, 259–260, 274 Masjid Jame’ie, Mohammad; 104, 105 Mirdamadi, Abdolmajid; 28, 29, 102 Misbah Yazdi; 36–37, 185, 219, 276 Mohajerani, Ataullah; 112 Mohaqqeq Damad; 20, 112, 210, 251–253 Mousavinejad; 73, 119, 120, 255 Nasr, Seyyed Hossein; 1, 23, 176, 202, 207, 212 O’Mahony, Anthony; 2, 21–22, 29–30, 31, 33, 188, 207 Organization of Culture and Islamic Relations; 89–93, 101, 186 Paya, Ali; 35–36, 39–40 Plantinga, Alvin; 70, 76, 82, 83, 84, 95, 227, 233, 235, 240, 267 Purjavady, Norollah; 110 Rashad, Ali Akbar; 107, 112, 235 Russian Orthodox Church; 91, 92, 102, 105, 248, 251


305

Schleiermacher; 83, 137, 151, 154, 155, 157, 237, 270 Shabestari, Mojtahed; 42, 70, 110–111, 129–130, 134–135, 148–160, 183–185, 197, 260, 261, 269–273 Shah Abbas; 11–13, 206 Shari’ati, Ali; 2, 40, 188 Shayegan, Daryush; 4, 26, 122 Shomali, Mohammad Ali; 25–26 Soroush, Abdolkarim; 32, 40, 42, 80, 129–130, 132, 134, 135–148, 183–185, 197, 198, 260–262 Stumpel-Hatami, Isabel; 2, 13–14, 187, 207, 276 Swidler, Leonard; 100, 114, 116, 130, 131, 210, 252 Swinburne, Richard; 70, 76, 83, 227, 235, 240 Taskhiri, Muhammad Ali; 20, 106, 107, 109, 112 Tillich; 62, 67, 70, 82, 111, 149, 151, 163, 228, 237, 270, 272 Tofiqi, Hossein; 62–63, 65–66, 123, 124, 125 Vahdat, Farzin; 34 Vatican; 90, 91, 152, 247, 248 Waardenburg; 191, 200 Weil, Simon; 161, 163, 165 Williams, John; 20–21, 23–24, 32 Wolterstorff, Nicholas; 70, 76 World Council of Churches; 91, 92, 101, 106, 109, 190, 201 Yaghmaian, Behzad; 10 Yann, Richard; 32, 204 Zebiri, Kate; 190, 194

3/22/2011 1:13:55 PM


3/22/2011 1:13:55 PM

Christian Encounters with Iran: Engaging Muslim Thinkers After the Revolution

Engaging the Muslim World

Calvin (Outstanding Christian Thinkers)

Fifty Key Christian Thinkers

Bonhoeffer (Outstanding Christian Thinkers)

Muslim-Christian Encounters in Africa (Islam in Africa, 6)

Denys the Areopagite (Outstanding Christian Thinkers)

Modern Iran, Roots and Revolution

Iran: Between Tradition and Modernity (Global Encounters)

Encounters with Chinese Writers

Brief Encounters with Gurdjieff

The Muslim World After 9 11

The Muslim World After 9 11

The Muslim World After 9 11

Organizational Encounters with Risk

Encounters With Nationalism

Fifty Key Christian Thinkers (Routledge Key Guides)

Christian Doctrines in Islamic Theology (History of Christian-Muslim Relations)

After Suicide (Christian Care Books)

Justice and Rights: Christian and Muslim Perspectives

A Muslim and a Christian in dialogue

Christian-Muslim Relations. A Bibliographical History. Volume 1 (600-900) (History of Christian-Muslim Relations)

Human Conscience and Muslim-Christian Relations: Modern Egyptian Thinkers of Al-Damir (Islamic Studies Series)

Shi'i Jurisprudence and Constitution: Revolution in Iran

Iran: From Religious Dispute to Revolution

Brief Encounters with Che Guevara

Encounters with American ethnic cultures

After Khomeini: Iran Under His Successors

The Weeping Willow: Encounters With Grief

Crows: Encounters with the Wise Guys

Christian Encounters with Iran: Engaging Muslim Thinkers After the Revolution

Engaging the Muslim World

Calvin (Outstanding Christian Thinkers)

Fifty Key Christian Thinkers

Bonhoeffer (Outstanding Christian Thinkers)

Muslim-Christian Encounters in Africa (Islam in Africa, 6)

Denys the Areopagite (Outstanding Christian Thinkers)

Modern Iran, Roots and Revolution

Iran: Between Tradition and Modernity (Global Encounters)

Encounters with Chinese Writers

Brief Encounters with Gurdjieff

The Muslim World After 9 11

The Muslim World After 9 11

The Muslim World After 9 11

Organizational Encounters with Risk

Encounters With Nationalism

Fifty Key Christian Thinkers (Routledge Key Guides)

Christian Doctrines in Islamic Theology (History of Christian-Muslim Relations)

After Suicide (Christian Care Books)

Justice and Rights: Christian and Muslim Perspectives

A Muslim and a Christian in dialogue

Christian-Muslim Relations. A Bibliographical History. Volume 1 (600-900) (History of Christian-Muslim Relations)

Human Conscience and Muslim-Christian Relations: Modern Egyptian Thinkers of Al-Damir (Islamic Studies Series)

Shi'i Jurisprudence and Constitution: Revolution in Iran

Iran: From Religious Dispute to Revolution

Brief Encounters with Che Guevara

Encounters with American ethnic cultures

After Khomeini: Iran Under His Successors

The Weeping Willow: Encounters With Grief

Crows: Encounters with the Wise Guys

Recommend Documents