Democracy Is Not Extractable from Islam

Rooz spoke with prominent thinker Dr. Abdolkarim Soroush about the separation of church and state, disagreements between seculars and religious reformists and the green movement’s future.  Noting that, “With political, trans-religious secularism, a person who is pious is assured that his religion and faith will remain safe, and the state will not interfere with his beliefs and acts,” Dr. Soroush says, “Democracy is not extractable from Islam.”  He adds, “The pious must know that in the present era, the administration of justice, which is required by religious law, is achievable only through a democratic process, not through individualistic preferences, i.e. the supreme leader’s way.”  Read on for the details.

Rooz: Dr. Soroush. You said you are politically secular.  The main issue seems to be about the separation of church and state anyway.  So what is the disagreement among our intellectuals about?

Abdolkarim Soroush (Soroush):  In reality there is no disagreement.  Perhaps some want to create one.  I introduced the concept of “political and philosophical secularism” for this very reason, to resolve any apparent disagreement and to demonstrate in what sense we are secular, and in agreement with others, and in what sense we are not secular.  But the issue that has emerged, especially outside the country, is that a lot of people who claim to be seculars, are secular in belief too; meaning they have no belief in religion or faith.  Of course, they are free to have such beliefs, but when only those people become the defenders of secularism, secularism takes on a dangerous meaning for the Iranian society.  There is the impression that secularism means denouncing religion and faith.  This delusion and error must be corrected.

Rooz: You want to correct this delusion?

Soroush: Yes, I have done that.  I said we have two kinds of secularism: political secularism and belief-based secularism.  We are not against belief-based secularism, although we disagree with it.  People are free to have their own beliefs, but what we can agree on is political secularism, or in my words, “trans-religious governance.”  

Rooz: Why is this assurance necessary?  Do democratic systems have such a distinction in law?  In those countries church and state are separate and the beliefs of believers have remained safe.

Soroush:  The assurance is given because our religious people may be fearful of democracy and secularism because they wrongly believe that the later deny religion.  Therefore, it must be explained to them that the establishment of a political secularism and religious democracy does not damage anyone’s beliefs.  This is, in my opinion, an extremely important and necessary message.  In effect, I sent messages to two camps with this distinction.  On the one hand, I assured the pious that their religion and religious beliefs would be safe in a democratic, politically secular regime.  On the other hand, I assured the non-religious community that your political system would be safe under the rule of pious democrats.  

Rooz:  Where do these assurances come from: Religion or general democratic norms?

Soroush: I have repeatedly stated in my writings that democracy is not extractable from Islam….  Look, democracy is a method of governance aiming to “reduce management error” based on the principle of “popular sovereignty.”   Now you ask where these principles come from.  We say that they are not extractable from principles of religion, although they are not inconsistent with it either.

Rooz: What is the source of democracy in the French constitution?

Soroush: France is not a good example because its secularism has become combative, which is not appealing. Furthermore when someone told me some years ago that my religious government was not much different from other systems in other countries, I  agreed and said that we are not much different from others and that we must learn from them. Lastly there is figh (i.e. Islamic law). In figh there is a body of laws that we Muslims must follow, until they are in contradiction with human rights which is what Iqbal [a Muslim thinker and poet] said. Figh has been the protector of Muslim identity. What we have in figh regarding business issues etc also exists in French laws, British laws, etc but in their own ways. But we are under no compulsion to copy from the French or the British so long as these laws do not contradict or negate human rights or are detrimental to the public. But there is a series of laws that do contradict human rights and this is where ijtihad must be used to make these rules compatible. Islam is not just figh alone; it also has philosophy, ethics, and these must be used as well.

Rooz: Why are we raising issues that provide uncertainty and skepticism?

Soroush: There is no uncertainty. My whole point is that there must be a democratic process in place. This does not mean that with that there will be no problems.

Rooz: And you believe that all the issues can be foreseen and included in law?

Soroush: All of them cannot be foreseen but what I mean is that democracy is complex by itself and that when it is instituted, then issues can be dealt with and negotiated based on the sensitivities of society and its people. Religious people should know that today, justice, which is the goal of religious, can only be achieved through democracy and not individual force, and not through a religious leader.

Rooz: Should not society move towards a system where all thoughts are present and represented?

Soroush: Absolutely. We must distinguish between political leaders and thinkers. In our society the two have become mixed so that Velayat Faghih is now a jumble of the two. In the Velayat Faghih theory, the leader becomes the political head, not its thinker. A society must be guided by  thinkers and cultural people.

Rooz: Does someone like Mr. Khamenei know that there is no freedom in Iran and so lies about its existence, or does he really believe that there is?

Soroush: That is difficult to say, but his comments about the social issues are from his ignorance. But regarding political issues, he does not believe in freedom. He believes that the freedoms that people want are in fact inhuman and that an Islamic society cannot and should not give those kinds of freedoms to them.

Rooz: So Mr. Khamenei is against freedom?

Soroush: Yes, he is against freedom. He is really against freedom. He believes that freedom equates to chaos, sexual mayhem, Westernization, etc. So he sees himself righteous to oppose and fight it and anyone who believes otherwise.

It is a feature of dictatorial regimes to encircle themselves with people who only tell them what they want to hear. I wrote an article during president Khatami’s days and told the leader to let freedom reign so that he would remain aware of what was going on. People will tell him what they want in many ways. Then it won’t be necessary to have spies in society to gather information and tell him. So if he is misinformed, it is because of the system that he himself has created.

Rooz: If the leaders of this regime expect obedience, like Mr. Khamenei has said, then why is the green movement after it?

Soroush: The foundations are not negotiable. But the leaders of the green movement must first resolve some practical issues. They must resolve the issue of elections, prisoners, the judiciary. I think the green movement must now pursue an independent judiciary.

Rooz: But Mr. Khamenei’s power rests on these very institutions.

Soroush: Everything depends on the power of the green movement. Politics is the act of negotiations between authority and power. If the green movement gains more power - which I think it will - then it can pursue talks through its force.

Rooz: So they will be forced to come and talk with the greens?

Soroush: Absolutely. I have said before that this is the only way. We do not want bloodshed. So things must move in the direction that they end up in talks.