The reformistoriented thought stream is often defined as a response to moderniza
tion and globalization. Though, it should be noted that several of the core issues men
tioned by reformists have a longer history. For instance, “the debate on the relation
ship of revelation and reason did not begin in the Muslim world with the rise of modern science and the impact of Enlightenment thinking from the West” (Clarke 2006: 165). The thought pattern of reformist discourse can be traced back to Islam’s early history and the Mu’tazili. They were influenced by classical Greek philosophy that recognized reason as the capacity to understand the goodness of justice and the evil of injustice independent from revelation. They also recognized that justice is de
fined by sources outside of religion based on rational thought. Hence, whatever rea
son finds just should also be religiously obligatory, and whatever reason finds unjust should be religiously prohibited. Therefore, whatever reason rules, the Sharia will also uphold. Mu’tazili did not gain the same support as the Ash’ari school, which was based on the fallibility of reason in assessing a human being’s true rights as well as the incapability of reason to define justice (Robinson 1998). According to this school, the notion of justice must be shaped based on what the Lawgiver, i.e. God, identifies as just and unjust as found in the religious texts and this is not open to ques
tion. This rational approach is not reflected in fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence) because in defining fiqh, human reason is considered incompetent in comprehending all hid
den harms and benefits of matters; therefore, human reason is a futile and unreliable source in discovering true human rights (Kadivar 2011b: 50).
This discourse found special importance in the midnineteenth century with Muslims’ encounters with modernity, which often began through external threats such as European military expansion into Muslim lands. These encounters re
sulted in moral and spiritual decline, as well as a downturn in science and tech
nology and military strength in Muslim societies. Sayyid Jamal alDin Asadaba
di (1838–1897) and Muhammad Abduh (1849–1905) are known as the ‘fathers of reformism’ in Islam. Asadabadi considered reform as the only way for Mus
lims to counter European domination. Abduh also recognized how changes were necessary to preserve ‘society’s moral fabric’; therefore changes “were not only permitted by Islam, but were, indeed, its necessary implications” (Hunter 2009:
15), in order to bridge the modern world and the traditional world of classical Islam. As such, the fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence) belongs to the traditional worl
dview which must be revised. Fiqh is not only based on revealed message, but
consists of a commingling of revelation and the customs and conventions of the society during the Prophet’s time. Therefore, reformists recognize that an incon
sistency between religion and modernity is derived from the customary aspect of Islam, rather than the sacred message of religion. Hence, as Kadivar47 says, the main duty of religious experts and scholars is “to extract the sacred message again and to push aside the sediment of timebound customs” (Kadivar 2011b:
65). For instance, Abduh emphasized the responsibility of fiqh for downgrading women’s status from the high level it has in the Quran (Abu Zayd 2013: 154).
In their efforts to find the causes and solutions for their issues, the reform
ists emphasized the restoration of Islam’s rationalist and scientific spirit and re
interpretation of the religious teachings to suit current conditions and needs of Muslim societies. In reference to their location on the spectrum, the reformist perspective recognizes reason as capable of understanding justice and a human being’s true rights as independent of revelation. Therefore, reformist schools of thought diverge in terms of philosophical outlook, concepts of the authenticity of human reason, methodology of analyzing Islamic scripture and legal sources as well as their view of the allowable scope for interpretation (Hunter 2009: 3).
7 1 Individual Agency and Rationality in the Reformist View
Human reason
In contrast with Sunni Islam, where Ash’ari traditionalism gained more promi
nence over Mu’tazili rationalism, Shi’a Islam adapted Mu’tazili rationalism and thus maintained the important role of reason in Shi’a jurisprudence. Therefore,
47 Mohsen Kadivar (born 1959) is a philosopher and theologian. After abandoning his studies in electrical engineering at Shiraz University in 1978 he graduated with the equivalent of a bach
elor‘s degree in Theology and Islamic Studies from Qom University in 1989. He earned the certificate of Ijtihad – the highest degree in Islamic religious tradition – from the theological seminary of Qom in 1997 under the supervision of Grand Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri Na
jaf Abadi. He finished his Ph.D. in Islamic Philosophy and Theology from Tarbiyat Modarres University in Tehran in 1999. During 1992–1998 he taught as a visiting instructor for graduate students on Islamic philosophy and theology at Imam Sadegh, Mofid, Shahid Beheshti, and Tarbiat Modarres Universities. He also acted as Chair of the Islamic Thought office at the Stra
tegic Research Center in Tehran for seven years until 1998.
Because of his critical analyses on the theory of “absolute rule of the appointed jurisconsult”
(wila¯yat-i intisa¯bı¯-yi mutlaqah-yi faqı¯h) by Ayatolloh Khomeini, he served a prison term of eighteen months until 2000. Since 2009 Mohsen Kadivar has been a visiting research profes
sor of Islamic studies at the Department of Religion at Duke University (Durham, North Car
olina, United States). He has published numerous works on: human rights and democracy in Islam, classical and modern Shi’a theology and legal theories, Shi’a political thought, classi
cal Islamic philosophy, and modern Quran studies [Kadivar, Mohsen. Biography.Official Web
site of Mohsen Kadivar.Available at: http://en.kadivar.com/samplepage2/ (29 June 2015)].
reformists following the Mu’tazili school do not believe that human reason is only for understanding the revelation and that it exists in the shadow of divine law, as fundamentalists do. Instead they consider human reason as God’s gift, which should be applied to manage the political, economic, and social affairs of society.
However, they do not believe in ‘the selfsufficiency of reason’ but rather still ac
knowledge the need of human reason for revelation. This fallibility of human rea
son, as Yousefi Eshkevari48 explains, does not prevent human beings from rely
ing on it (Yousefi Eshkevari 2010b: 20). In fact, from a reformist point of view, reason and revelation are never in conflict, but rather they complement each oth
er (Kadivar cited in Hunter 2009: 65–66). However, the perspective closer to sec
ularism considers a more critical role for human reason, as Soroush49 points out:
48 Hasan Yousefi Eshkevari (born 1950) is a cleric and researcher in Islamic theology and histo
ry. He is also a journalist, and a former member of parliament. He studied for 13 years in the theological seminary of Qom. After the revolution he was elected as representative in the first Iranian parliament, though only serving one term, deciding to focus on cultural and research activities after the end of his term. He was a lecturer on the history of Islam at the Allameh Ta
batabaii University for four years, before being barred from teaching at the University when he spoke for Dr. Kazem Sami, an Iranian dissident, during his funeral.
Eshkevari wrote for different journals and magazines which were banned by the government.
He founded the Ali Shariati Research Centre in cooperation with other researchers in 1997 and has since served as its director. He was also contributor to the Great Encyclopedia of Islam, and an editor of the Encyclopedia of the Shi’a.
In December 2000, he was condemned to death for ‘apostasy’ and ‘war against Islam’ by the Special Court for the Clergy because of his speeches at the Conference on ‘Iran After the Elec
tions’ held in Berlin on April 7–9, 2000, sponsored by the Heinrich Böll Foundation. The sen
tence was later commuted to five years in prison.
In the course of the protests over the 2009 presidential elections in Iran, Eshkevari came to Ger
many and has continued his research on Islam and Quran there [Yousefi Eshkevari, Hasan. Bi
ography.Official Website of Hasan Yousefi Eshkevari.Available at: http://yousefieshkevari.
com/?page_id=2 (29 June 2015)].
49 Abdolkarim Soroush (born 1945) earned his degree in Pharmacology from Tehran University.
He later moved to London to pursue further studies in analytical chemistry, and after graduat
ing in this subject from graduate school at London he studied the history and philosophy of sci
ence for five and a half years at Chelsea College.
Soroush returned to Iran after the Revolution and was appointed as the Director of the newly established Islamic Culture Group. He was also a member of the Cultural Revolution Council which was responsible for reopening the universities and restructuring the syllabi of universi
ties, which were shut down after the revolution.
In 1983, Soroush abandoned his governmental post and dedicated himself to teaching and re
search. He gradually became more critical of the political role played by the Iranian clergy, pub
lished his controversial articles on religious pluralism, hermeneutics, tolerance, clericalism etc.
in the monthly magazine Kiyan, which was clamped down on in 1998 by the Islamic Republic government. Soon after, he lost his job and his security in Iran. Since 2000, Soroush has been a Visiting Professor at Harvard, Princeton, Colombia, Chicago and Yale Universities, the Wissen
schaftskolleg in Berlin, and the Berkley Center for Religion, Peace, and World Affairs. His ar
eas of expertise include the writings and philosophy of Rumi, Islamic and Democracy, Quranic Studies and Philosophy of Islamic Law, Islamic Political Philosophy, Intellectual and Religious History of Modern Iran [Soroush, Abdolkarim. Biography.Official Website of Abdolkarim So
roush.Available at: http://www.drsoroush.com/BiographyE.htm (29 June 2015)].
The role of rationality in the arena of religion has, thus far, been that of a timid and dis
creet servant of understanding and defense of religion. However, defense and affirmation cannot be complete without a critique and analysis. The enterprise of rationality is an all
ornothing project. One may not employ reason to attest to the truth of one’s opinion, without leaving the doors open to its faultfinding critique. The attempt to enjoy the sweet affirmation of reason without tasting its bitter approach is pure selfdelusion (Soroush 2002: 154).
In the reformist perspective, the Islamic legal system is divided into nonworld
ly and worldly aspects (Naraghi 2005). The sacred aspect of the Islamic legal system refers to the nonworldly and eternal factor, which is congruent with the worldly aspect rather than parallel to it. This aspect refers to essential precepts concerning matters of faith, ethics and devotion such as praying, fasting, belief in the afterworld and prophecy, which are immutable and fixed. In the reform
ist view, these are beyond the perception of human reason and reasoning in the realm of rationality. The second group of precepts – nonessential – deals with the worldly aspects presented in human interactions and sociopolitical affairs which are time and spacebounded. This realm is allocated for the appraisal of reason; thus, the collective reason of humanity is the yardstick of such precepts in Islam (Yousefi Eshkevari 2013). As Naraghi (2005) explains, Muslims should follow collective reasoning to identify the social and worldly benefits of socio
political affairs in their worldly lives. Only if these worldly benefits of society are met, their nonworldly and eternal benefits will be satisfied. In other words, reasonable and worldly benefits in sociopolitical life precede eternal and nonworldly benefits. One must first recognize and identify the reasonable and worldly benefits of a legal and social system, and only then identify its eternal aspects (Naraghi 2005: 2). Accordingly, religion in this perspective should be reasonably demandresponsive for the exigencies of the time.
All reformists believe in the authority of human reason and profess that ev
ery reasonable action in modern times are verifiable by religion. This is justifi
cation for accepting the new concepts and events brought about by modernity under the condition that there is no evident rejection of those new concepts found in clear and strong wording, or are explicitly against ethical rules in the Quran – i.e. essential law. Depending on the extent of deviation, essential law can pre
cede human reason in some reformist views, depending on their location on the spectrum. To decide which verses contain essential laws and which verses refer to rules that were only relevant in certain situations, they emphasize the impor
tance of analyzing the historical context of revelation and religious sources (Abu Zayd, cited in Amirpour 2013: 69). Therefore, they accept the authority of hu
man reason conditionally but the range of acceptance is related to their position on the spectrum.
Reformists, like the other two groups, recognize the main aim of religion to be the fulfillment of justice. They believe that in the Quran and the Tradition, Muslims are ordered to seek and serve justice. Yet determining the meaning of
justice and the sociopolitical system providing the circumstances to fulfill jus
tice has been left to humans and human reason. Thus, fulfilling justice in the present society is the duty of humans and human reason of the present time.
They allocate an essential role to justice in the interpretation of Islamic rules, and their application to contemporary conditions (Hunter 2009: 66). Therefore, human reasoning is of crucial importance because of its role in defining justice as the main aim of religion.
The role of human reason in the relationship of the human being with God and society
Reformists distinguish two realms of cognition. One is cognition of God and some metaphysical concepts like the afterworld, which they believe is beyond human reason. Though human reason is necessary to conceive this realm, in fact, the decision to accept religion is a choice undertaken by human reason; without the guidance of revelation, and reason has no access to this realm. The second realm consists of all worldly affairs, which deals with human interactions and social transaction and is the scope of authority of reason. However, there is not any consensus among reformists as to what extent reason in this area has author
ity or is independent from revelation.
The absolute role for human reason in relationships between human beings and God and nature is not definable (Interview D March 2011). Instead, human rea
son should be accompanied by revelation, for reason alone is not sufficient to comprehend all of God’s characteristics and features as mentioned in the Qu
ran. Human reason is limited and it must be guided by revelation to be able to understand such features. In debating reason, three distinct concepts should be noticed. The first concept is rationality, which is being able to differentiate right from wrong. The second idea is irrationality, which is contrary to reason. The third is nonrationality, which is not contrary to reason but is beyond it. Through rationalizing religion, some essential parts of religion which are beyond reason will be lost. Therefore, in the relationship between God and human beings, hu
man reason plays a minimal role, even though in relationships between human beings it has a prominent role, as it does in the conduct of all human affairs, though still accompanied by revelation (Interview D March 2011).
The idea that science can guide human affairs and religion only has a second
ary role is rejected (Interview D March 2011). As an example, the first inter
viewed representative of reformism refers to sexual relationships among human beings, saying that as a believer, he cannot accept homosexuality, even if his rea
son would not be able to reject it rationally, because revelation has a clear per
spective on this subject and defines it as a ‘perverted’ relationship (Interview D March 2011).
In this regard, the second representative (Interview E February 2011) points out that in the history of human beings, reason has always played an important role, albeit the domain of authority of human reason is changeable. He believes in selfjustifying critical reason as a proper means for managing today’s human
issues. He considers no other sources which could limit autonomous reason – autonomous reason can recognize its own limitations. He refers to reason as a precedent criterion for believing in a religion. In his opinion the prophets were sent in one respect to arouse and apply human reason. While he emphasizes the important role of reason, he also stresses that sometimes it alone is not able to perceive all truths in the world. For example, in the relationship between God and human beings, though reason is of crucial importance, he believes that know
ing God requires faith in the first stage. It means that believing in God’s exis
tence needs faith more than rational arguments. Even in relations between hu
man beings, human reason cannot explain everything, such as love or hate.
In this regard, the third reformist representative who stands closer to secular
ism (Interview F May 2011) explains that rationality has a determining role in the relationship between human beings and God. Sometimes human beings ar
bitrarily make reason follow revelation. This means following revelation is also a choice undertaken by human reason. Sometimes, reason decides not to follow revelation, since it recognizes that it alone is adequate to regulate the relation
ship between human beings and God, and there is no need for the prophets and revelation. Similar to this is the relationship between human beings and society.
He distinguishes various rationalities such as scientific, religious, artistic and philosophical rationalism, but considers a stable and essential concept of ratio
nality leads to a dictatorship of rationality. He also explains that rationality is an outcome of collective reasoning instead of individual. He also speaks of a ‘col
lective’ rationalism rather than an individual rationalism. It is also rationality’s task to figure out its limitations, and to determine if there is another source for cognition outside rationality (Interview F May 2011).
Equality of man and woman in religious doctrine
Similar to fundamentalists, reformists believe that men and women are created equal in humanity and human dignity, though reformists also recognize the dif
ferent physical and psychological features between men and women, which in no way privilege either one of them and do not influence human dignity. “In the Islamic view the criterion for closeness to God is virtue and Godconsciousness regardless of gender” (Interview D March 2011). The values mentioned in the Quran for closeness to God are not distinguished between genders. Also, human dignity in this view is based on the essence of humanity, which is not dependent on gender. Women and men are, of course, different in physiological, psycho
logical and biological aspects, although these differences are complementary to each other and they do not influence human dignity. Therefore, in the Islamic perspective, men and women are equal in creation and neither one is superior over another because of gender (Interview D March 2011).
Similarly, representative E (Interview February 2011) explains that based on the Quran, all creatures are created in pairs, including human beings. They are
Similarly, representative E (Interview February 2011) explains that based on the Quran, all creatures are created in pairs, including human beings. They are