Comparative Theology (Dec 2022)
Typology of Religiosity from the Perspective of Seyyed Heidar Amoli and Abdolkarim Soroush
Abstract
The typology of religiosity is one of the topics that has been considered by theologians. Seyyed Heidar Amoli and Abdolkarim Soroush are among the thinkers who have made such efforts. Our purpose in the present fundamental-theoretical study is to compare their viewpoints on this issue. Seyyed Heidar enumerates three levels of ‘Sharia (the Way)’, ‘Tariqah (the Procedure)’, and ‘Haghighah (the Truth)’ for religiosity. Soroush also suggests a typical typology of religiosity that has distinctions and interferences with the mentioned divisions. The three types of religiosity are: ‘thoughtful to expediency’, ‘thoughtful to knowledge’, and ‘thoughtful to experience’. Although Seyyed Heidar and Soroush have a common policy in many religious, intellectual, and cultural characteristics, their intellectual atmosphere and time have caused their principles and approach to become different. Seyyed Heidar deals with the typology of religiosity in accordance with the traditional and mystical approach while Soroush focuses on a social approach based on the modern world. The most important result, which distinguishes these two approaches, is Soroush’s attention to epistemology as one of the components of modern thought, and Seyyed Heidar’s attention to traditional ontology. Introduction One of the mystical issues discussed by Abdulkarim Soroush under the influence of Seyyed Haidar Amoli is the typology of kinds (types) of religiosity. According to the hadith ‘Al-Shari'a Aqawali wa Tariqah Aqwali Wal Haqiqah Ahwali’, Seyyed Haidar believes that there are three levels for religion and religiosity, which are: Shariat (religion), Tariqat (method), and Haqiqat (truth). His definition of these three terms is as follows: What is meant by Shariat is the heartfelt acknowledgment of the words of the prophets and doing (executing) them. The meaning of tariqat is to investigate the deeds and ethics of prophets and to attribute them to their traits. The truth is the intuition of the states and positions of prophets through detection.Soroush also believes in three types of religiosity under the issues of expediency thinking, epistemological thinking, and experiential thinking. According to his definition, dealing with the emotional face of religion will bring about expedient religiosity. Epistemological thinking religiosity will be created as a result of the reflections of theoretical intellect in the field of religion, and experiential thinking religiosity will come to fruition through the heart, conscience, and the power of intuition. In this regard, the aim of this study is to compare and conform the typology of religiosity based on the viewpoints of Seyyed Haider Amoli and Abdulkarim Soroush to determine the thoughts differentiation raised on a subject for several centuries, and to clarify the effect of the periods on the way of thinking of thinkers. Materials and MethodsThis paper is the result of a comparative study of one of the theological-mystic subjects between the two thinkers of the Islamic world, in which we have compared their opinions with an analytical approach and we have used the documentation method in collecting the materials. The research approach in this paper is fundamental and theoretical in that it deals with the subject of thought and epistemology and uses the rational analysis and reasoning method. Research FindingsTypes of religiosity in the viewpoint of Seyyed Haidar and Soroush are similar to each other in some cases while different in some aspects. The commonalities of Seyyed Haidar and Soroush's viewpoints include the following:They have paid attention to the types of religiosity in a macro way and have dealt with its sub-divisions.They have spoken on the levels of religiosity. According to Seyyed Haidar’s criteria, this level is related to the talents and capabilities of religious people, and according to Soroush, it is related to the perceptive capacity of people and the sincerity of the right word.According to them, religious people are divided into common and special people. According to Seyyed Haidar, the levels of religious people have a one-to-one correspondence with the levels of religion, but Soroush has not established such a correspondence.Seyyed Haidar and Soroush have taken help from some religious issues in raising this discussion. Seyyed Haidar uses the issues of religious principles and five branches (corollaries) of the religion branches (minutiae), and Soroush also presents his discussions about the issues of God and the Prophet, worship in general, disbelief and faith, happiness and misery, heaven and hell.Seyyed Haider and Soroush have taken help from some religious categories in this discussion. Seyyed Haidar uses the topics of the principles of religion and the five branches of religion, and Soroush also presents his topics around the topics of God and the Prophet, worship in general, disbelief and faith, happiness and misery, heaven and hell.Each of them divides the first type, i.e. Shariat and expedient approach, into two types, i.e. popular and scholarly.They divide the position of religious scholars into three categories: jurists, sages and theologians, and mystics.They attach a special status and dignity to the third level, that is, the people of truth-seeking and experiential religiosity, and consider this level to deserve the certitude position.Seyyed Haidar and Soroush believe in an equivocal relationship between the levels of religiosity and believe that all the three levels are valid (right), the higher levels are complementary to the lower ones, and commitment to following the Prophet (PBUH) and implementation of Shariat are among the conditions of all the levels.The differences between Seyyed Haidar’s and Soroush’s viewpoints include the following:They belong to two completely-distinct intellectual eras. Seyyed Haidar is a traditional mystic and Soroush is a modern theologian.The priorities are different in the division submitted by these two thinkers. Seyyed Haidar forms his division based on the levels of religion, while Soroush makes religious people the center of his division.They have different goals of typology of religion and religiosity. Seyyed Haidar’s goal is to create harmony between jurisprudential, theological, and mystical thoughts, but Soroush’s goal is to pay attention to spiritual issues and modern wisdom.While Seyyed Haider and Soroush believe in the intellect (wisdom), each of them values it differently. According to Seyyed Haidar, intellect is one of the sources of knowledge (cognition) after narration and heart, but in Soroush's viewpoint, the intellect takes the first place in knowledge (cognition). Discussion of Results and Conclusions Considering the commonalities and differences existing between the thought of these two thinkers, in this study, we have concluded that although the viewpoints of Seyyed Haider and Soroush have the same religious, cultural, and intellectual support, and even the mystical spirit is a prominent common point between them, what has caused their thoughts on this particular issue, i.e. the typology of religion and religiosity, to differ from each other, is their lifetime, scientific and epistemological atmosphere, and their tastes. These issues have caused them to adopt different foundations in their own thought and to think about issues with two different traditional and modern approaches. Although the triple types they believe in have more similarities than differences, they have created a great distinction in their thoughts. In the comparison of the divisions submitted by Seyyed Haider and Soroush, the first two types overlap with expedient religiosity in Seyyed Haider's opinion. The third type is also compatible with experiential religiosity. What is missing in Seyyed Haider's thought and Soroush’s great efforts to stabilize it is the epistemological religiosity that was formed under the influence of modern epistemology. This has caused the biggest difference between them. Seyyed Haider's thought belongs to the ontological paradigm, and he thinks based on traditional ontological foundations. Soroush’s thought is indebted to the epistemological paradigm, and modern ontological components guide his thought.
Keywords
