The Sociology of Islam and Allama Shariati

This paper discusses the work of Dr. Ali Shariati a committed Islamic revolutionary trained as a sociologist at the University of Paris during the early 1960s, Shariati applied sociological theories – specially based on the works of Marx, Fanon, Toynbee, Uzgan and the authors of the French analytical and critical school of sociology – to Islamic themes. He conceives of Islam as “a median school” intermediate between capitalism and socialism (Algar 1978 p19).

Shariati was also deeply influenced by his father. Aqai Taqi Shariati who sought to develop a “scientific and progressive” approach to theological questions and wrote a modern tafseer (Tafsir Naveen) challenging the interpretations of the traditionalist ulema. Ali Shariati inherited this approach and developed it into a third wordlist quasi Marxist interpretation of Islamic social thought and practice. It is this insistence on Marxist themes which has enabled the Mujahideen-I-khalq to accept Shariati as their most important theoretician.

Shariati rejects Islamic history, consensus (ijmah) and theology as a source of Islamic social thought and practice. Shariati writes “we still do not know our religion … we have not written a single worthwhile book concerning Ali and his companions … after fourteen centuries Ali has been made known to us by a Christian. Georges Jourdaq” (1979 p3). Shariati advocates a rejection of the entire corpus of Islamic knowledge accumulated through the centuries “we must begin by knowing our religion (through a new interpretation of the Quran) which (enabled me) to extract from the Qura’an a whole series of new…..themes relating to …. sociology and the new sciences. A philosophical theory and a theory of sociology and history opened themselves before me and when I checked them against sociology and history I found them to be fully correct” (1979-p6) – the Qura’an, according to Shariati, fully endorses modern sociological methodologies. “Though applying the special terms of the Quran it is possible to discover several new topics …. in sociology” (1979 p7) for the Quran endorses doxological methodology.

Reflection on the Quran leads Shariati to the conclusion that “the Prophet (Sallal Allah o alaihe was salam) is not recognized as the active cause of fundamental change in human history and development. He is depicted (merely) as the bearer of a message” (1979 p13). Shariati identifies “the masses as constitute(ing) the fundamental effective factor of social change” (1979 p14). Shariati defines “al nass as the whole people” (1979 p14).

Reflection on the Quran also leads Shariati to accept the quasi Spensserian / quasi Lamarkian idea that “a society is like a living being… it has scientifically demonstratable and immutable laws…. society is answerable for its deeds before the Creator” (1979 p16-17).

Shariati describes “Islam as a scientific school of sociology (which recognizes) man as equivalent to will and society as equivalent to norm, the combination of these two represent the median position …. Man is free but obliged to follow the laws of nature to realize this freedom” (1979 p19). Prophets do not create; they merely recognize pre existing social norms and “make use of their freedom to advance their aim” (1979 p20).

Shariati is contemptuous of the Middle Ages which failed to recognize that “Spirit had to develop in freedom” (1979 p21). He is full of praise for the “multifaceted and revolutionary European awakening in science, art, literature and all areas of human and social concern (which) … resulted in the birth of the civilization and culture of today’s world” (1979 p22). Understanding why this “revolution in thought” took place is according to Shariati “the most important question that science must answer” (1979 p22). According to Shariati there were two fundamental causes underlying this revolution, (a) the replacement of Aristotelian method of analogical reasoning by mechanistic / empiricist methodology and (b) the transition from feudalism to capitalism (1979 p22). Both of these transitions were a product of Islam’s contact with Europe (1979 p23). Therefore we must follow in the footsteps of Europe and adopt the scientific method “Today is no time for the worship of what we do not know… belief is no virtue. We must learn the scientific methods of Europe. In the investigation of religion new paths must be followed and a new method chosen, the method of sociology must be used” (1977 p4).

Shariati laments that “the study of the Quran and the study of Islamic history are very weak as they now exist in our corpus of Islamic studies” (1979 p26). He applauds the efforts of the revisionist Muhammad Abduh in pioneering Islamic modernism (1979 p26).

According to Shariati the application of the sociological method (he calls it typology) shows that the “Prophet of Islam, (Sallal Allah alaihe wa salam) struggle(ed) against the aristocracy, slave owners and merchants” (1979 p280) and that Imam Hussain stood for “life and liberty, thought and learning, power and liberty” (1979 p32). This role of the Prophet (Sallal Allah alaihe wa salam) and of Imam Hussain “was not clearly understood at the time of their appearance (but) has …… become comprehensible with the development of human thought and science (Shariati 1978 p72)”. “Islam is true humanism” (Shariati 1978 p75) for “man is not merely the viceregent of God upon earth but also His relative… The spirits of God and man both possess an excellence deriving from the possession of will. Man can act like God…. to a certain degree” (1978 p77). The “names” that Adam learnt are “the truths of science” inherent in the world “(1978 p78)”. “In Islam man is not humbled before God. He is the partner of God” (1978 p80-81).

Shariati’s humanism is presented in detail in his most well known book Islamshinasi (1984). The central theoretical concept elaborated here is tauhid defined as a “world view regarding the universe as a unity (combining) this world and the hereafter (possessing) a single form, a single living mechanism, will, intelligence, feeling and purpose. (The universe) is like a vast and absolute man. Take a man endowed with awareness, creativity and purpose….. enlarge Him to the utmost degree and we will have before us the world “(1987 p46-47). “God is the light of which the lamp is the world” God, nature and man, the origin of all three is the same. All have the same direction, the same will, the same spirit “(1978 p46-47). Knowledge of the world its signs and ‘norms’ is revealed by phenomenology, by physics, chemistry and psychology (1978 p47-48). “The manner of regarding the “signs” or phenomena of the world is closer to the approach of modern science than to that of mysticism …. i.e. tawhid-i-wujud…. Tawhid is to be interpreted as a unity of God with the world and with Man. Tawhid depicts a total harmonious living and self aware system (which) bestows upon Man independence and dignity” (1984 p52-53, p56). It is obvious that this understanding of tauhid is entirely alien to orthodox Islamic ontology and cosmology as developed by the Sunni and Shia ulema and muhadthiseen. It is a complete denial of man’s abdiyat and of Allah’s sovereignty.

Shariati follows Pascal in his interpretation of human nature (1984 p57) and Hegel in describing man “as dialectic reality” (1984 p57). Man enjoys freedom because “he is aware of all the secrets of nature” (p58) Shariati’s convoluted description of the struggle between good and evil is littered with Hegeian terminology – thesis, anti thesis, synthesis, opposites etc. He rejects the notion of “fixed standards of morality” for “Man is a choice, a struggle, a constant becoming …. religion is a path, a means not an aim or an end. All the misfortunes that have appeared in religious society anse from the fact that religion has become an end” (1984 p65). Prayer also is a means not an end (p65). That is why “non Muslims are better situated in today’s world than Muslims ….. Worshippers of cows have outpaced worshippers of God and our pious believers are not even aware of this” (1984 p66). These quasi Heideggerian, quais Sartrean formulations graphically illustrate the unbridgeable gap between Shariati’s thought and orthodox Islam.

The greatest influence on Shariati is that of Marx Shariati accepts historical materialism as a scientific fact. Shartiati finds room for this in his absurd reconstruction of the story of Cain and Abel “History like man consists of a dialectical process” (1984 p69). The struggle between Cain and Abel is a history of the clash of two modes of production, pastoral and agrarian, the later characterized by private property. Private property alone produced “a new man, an evil and powerful man” (1984 p71). Private property has been created exclusively by force. Private property destroyed the unity of the tribe and nurtured greed and acquisitiveness. It transformed society into warring camps – the possessors who “needed the labour of others” (1984 p73) and the dispossessed deprived of all access to means of production and subsistence.

Because of the carrion of private property the ties of kinship were replaced by the bonds of servitude” (1984 p76).

The only thing which separates Cain from Abel is the difference in the mode of production. (1984 p76-79). The mode of production is the infrastructure of society according to both Shariati and Marx. The orthodox understanding of the Quranic verses relating the Cain – Abel conflict are “superficial and over simplified. The story concerns the end of primitive communism the disappearance of man’s original system of equality and brotherhood …. It confirms the scientific fact that life, society and history are based on contradiction and struggle and that contrary to the belief of the idealists the fundamental factors in all three are economics and sexuality which dominate religious faith” (1984 p80-81). At this point Shariati cites Marcuse in support of his argument.

According to Shariati abolishing private property will usher in the ideal society “In a society where all possess in common the bounties of life all will necessarily be equal and brothers and the spirit of kindness and solidarity and goodness will be cultivated” (1984 p83) “what makes Cain evil is an anti human social system a class society, a system of private ownership” (1984 p85).

Class struggle is the motor of history according to both Shariati and Marx. It is “the permanent war of history… the banner of Cain has always been held high by the ruling classes and the desire to avenge the blood of Abel has been inherited by succeeding generations of subjected people … the weapon of Cain has been religion and the weapon of Abel has also been religion” (Shariati 1984 p85).

“We believe in the freedom of the individual” writes Shariati. “History advances on the bases of a universal and scientifically demonstrable process … “I” as an individual must choose whether to move forward with history and accelerate its determined course …. Or to stand with ignorance, egoism, opportunism in the face of history” (1984 p87). Could any orthodox. Marxist object to this formulation of the essence of historical materialism?

In Shariati’s view there can exist only two social structures, one characterized by common ownership and the other by private property (1984 p86). The system of private property is defended by the rulers (Pharoah) the rich (Qaran) ‘and the long bearded’ priests. The three classes are constantly engaged in dominating, exploiting and deceiving the people” (1984 p90).

Shariati equates God and the people – Allah and al Nass, “whenever in the Quran social matters are mentioned Allah and Al-nass are virtually synonymous, interchangeable and yield the same meaning. The word Al nass and Allah belong together. When it is said that “Rule belongs to God” the meaning is that rule belongs to the people, not to those who present themselves as representative of God. When it is said that “property belongs to God” it means that capital belongs to that people as a whole. When it is said “Religion belongs to God the meaning is that the entire structure and content of religion belongs to the people” (1984 p94-96). The whole people can make of religion what they will for Shariati clearly rejects the idea of fixed standards. Religion in Shariati’s conception is merely an expression of Rousseau’s “general will”.

The people must abolish private property and re-establish communism (the system of Abel). The ideal man who will accomplish this task is “one who understands the beauty of science and the beauty of God. He listens to the words of Pascal and Descartes” (1984 p97). He is like Buddha, Lao Tze, Confucius, Spartcus, Jesus and Moses (p97). He “endures hardship for the sake of liberty and well being.. He is free of the compulsion of nature and history, the compulsion of society. Guided by science and technology he has freed himself from these prisons (i.e. nature, history and society). His character is liberated from the norms and conventions of his society” (1984 p98). For all intents and purposes this liberated, scientific modern man is God for Shariati can write:

“The path that leads to God is the path that leads to Him by becoming Him” (1984 p98).
Sharieati was a sincere and committed Islamic revolutionary. He sacrifised his life for Islam. Yet Islam survives in his thought merely as polemic and terminology. He has nothing but contempt for the glorious intellectual traditions of Islamic Iran and of Shiaism. His call for a “return to the Quran” is in practise a complete rejection of the traditions and the history of Islam. It is the history of modern Europe which he regards as authentic. He authenticates European cosmology, ontology and epistemology. His presuppositions, concepts, modes of analysis, policy prescriptions and ideals – all are derived from Enlightenment thought. They have literally nothing to do with Islam. His interpretation of Quranic teachings and of the character of Syedna Ali, and Imam Hussain are entirely alien to orthodox. Islam – both Shia and Sunni – that is why he cannot cite the Ulema in support of his bizzaire misinterpretations. His application of sociological methodologies for the analysis of Islamic concepts distorts these concepts beyond recognition. His acceptance of the presuppositions and value neutrality claims of socio logical methodologies signals his acceptance of the need for an absorbtion of Islamic civilization into the Western way of life – i.e. into capitalism.

Shariati misunderstands capitalism. Capitalism’s ontological presuppositions are Kantian / Humean. It seeks transcendence in this world through freedom, Shariati’s conception of tauheed ultimately denies the possibility of the finititude of this world by postulating the “unity” of this world and the hereafter and the similarity of the nature of man and God. Shariati denies man’s servitude and thus necessarily endorses freedom / capital Shariati’s is a this worldly spirituality which sees religion as merely a means for the achievement of freedom.

Shariati fails to understand that accumulation of capital requires the abolishing of private property. Liberalism accomplish this through the financial markets and socialism through the dictatorship of the proletariat. Citizens of communist states are as free and equal as stakeholders (shareholders and bank depositors) in a market economy. Both these forms of capitalist organization prioritize freedom / accumulation of capital, Shariati’s revolution is merely the substitution of one form of capitalist organization (despotism of the market) by another (democratic proletarian dictatorship). By promoting freedom in both these forms capitalism necessarily seeks the destruction of Islamic individuality and order, an individuality and on order explicitly rejecting freedom / capital and celebrating, servitude (abdiyat) to Allah under the authority and guidance (hidayat) of the ulema, the guardians of Islamic tradition (Sunnah) and consensus (ijma).

It is no wonder that Shariati’s most devoted followers – the Mujahideen-I-Khaliq – have always been the bitterest opponents of the ulema and the Islamic state. They – and the communist parties of Iran, Iraq, Syria, Sudan and the Central Asian Republics – are enthusiastic agents of American imperialism, for America is their natural ally. America and the communists stand together for the universalization of freedom and for the destruction of Islamic individuality and Islamic order (abdiyat and hidayat).

It is acceptance of the value neutrality claims of sociological, methodology and theory which led a sincere Islamic revolutionary to commit such serious errors of analysis. We must reject the presuppositions, methodologies and policies of the social sciences and attempt to address contemporary issues on the basis of orthodox Islamic traditions authenticated by ijmah and silsilah.

We pray to Allah to forgive and overlook Allama Shariati’s errors and mistakes. These errors were made with all sincerity by a scholar from a pious and noble family. Allama Shariati sacrificed his life for Islam. He had great love for the Prophet (Sallal Allah-o-alahai wa salam) his companions and the holy Ahl-i-Bait. He sought to promote unity between Shias and Sunnis. May Allah reward him and assign to him a high station in heaven.