“(Theological and Institutional Soul-searching Aside) Will Re-problematizing Iran’s Islamic State a la ‘Religious Secularity’ Require Another Islamic State?”
“(Theological and Institutional Soul-searching Aside) Will Re-problematizing Iran’s Islamic State a la ‘Religious Secularity’ Require Another Islamic State?”
复制标题
“（抛开神学和制度上的自我反省）将伊朗伊斯兰国重新问题化为‘宗教世俗’是否需要另一个伊斯兰国？”
DOI：
10.1080/20566093.2017.1292173
复制
发表时间：
2017
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Yasuyuki
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Matsunaga;Yasuyuki
在欧洲和其他地方现代国家的形成和实践的历史和理论背景下，“宗教世俗性”范式意味着什么样的国家？在回答这个问题时，“宗教世俗性”的哪一个构成属性可能是最关键的？诚然，这些问题并不完全是澳大利亚政治理论家Naser Ghobadzadeh在他的《宗教世俗性》一书中提出的问题。然而，我认为，这只是本书引导读者提出的一些问题。Ghobadzadeh将他这本书的主题框定为革命后伊朗出现的宗教反话语，强调“伊斯兰国家理想中固有的悖论”（2），并为他称之为“世俗民主”国家的替代方案提供宗教理由（6）。这一反话语的倡导者和本书作者的前提是，我们在1979年伊朗革命后见证的宗教和国家的强大意识形态和制度联系-或者用作者的话来说是“宗教和国家的统一”（4）-对宗教本身有害。因此，人们认为有必要“将宗教从国家中解放出来”（2）。正如本书的副标题所示，作者带领读者参观了1979年革命后在伊朗成立的什叶派伊斯兰教-审慎国家的教义起源和随后的创新，然后是一个基于宗教的案例，以拆除以它为中心的制度化的“神职人员霸权”。基于广泛的英语，波斯语和阿拉伯语来源，这本有据可查和充满激情的书将作为一个极好的介绍什么作者的特点是“复杂和非正统的特点，政治层面的当前宗教改革在伊朗”（4）。然而，可以说，这本书的主要价值在于作者提出的长达一本书的论点的发人深省的性质。这部分源于作者在构建其主题时所采取的清晰立场，但也源于他在西方学术框架内这样做的事实。伊朗著名宗教改革思想家的许多著作都被翻译成英语。在阅读波斯文原文的基础上编写的许多分析性著作也以英文出版。但我们很少看到伊朗改革派思想家自己，在伊朗境外用英语写作，通过将他们的论点置于西方学术界现有的争论中，直接参与西方学术。显然，这样做会使他们的思想和论点受到一种不同于他们在当地方言中辩论的审查。我在Ghobadzadeh的书中发现的发人深省的人物来自于他完成了罕见的壮举。
What sort of state does the “religious secularity” paradigm entail in the context of the history and theory of the formation and practice of the modern state in Europe and elsewhere? Which constitutive property of “religious secularity” may turn out to be the most crucial in answering this question? Admittedly, these are not exactly the kind of questions that Naser Ghobadzadeh, an Australian-based political theorist, poses in his well-argued book titled Religious Secularity. Yet they are but some of the questions, I submit, that this book does lead its reader to ask. Ghobadzadeh frames the subject matter of his book as the emergent religious counter-discourse in postrevolutionary Iran that highlights “the paradoxes inherent in the Islamic state ideal”(2) and that provides religious justification for an alternative that he calls the “secular democratic” state (6). The premise of both the advocates of this counter-discourse as well as the book’s author is that the strong ideological and institutional association of religion and the state which we came to witness in the wake of the 1979 revolution in Iran—or the “unification of religion and state”(4) in the author’s words—is detrimental to religion itself. Hence the perceived need for “the emancipation of religion from the state”(2).As the book’s subtitle signals, the author takes the reader on a tour of the doctrinal origins of and subsequent innovations for the Shi ‘ite Islamic-jurisprudential state that came into existence in Iran following its 1979 revolution, and then of a religiously grounded case for dismantling the institutionalized “clerical hegemony” centered around it. Based on wide-ranging English, Persian, and Arabic-language sources, this well documented and passionately argued book will serve as an excellent introduction to what the author characterizes as “the complex and unorthodox characteristics of the political dimensions of the current religious reformation in Iran”(4). Arguably, however, the primary value of this book lies in the thought-provoking nature of the book-length argument that the author lays out. This stems partly from the lucidness of the stance the author takes in framing his subject matter, but also from the fact that he has done this within the framework of Western scholarship. Many works written by Iran’s prominent religious reformist thinkers have been translated into English. Numerous analytical works based on the reading of their original texts in Persian have also been published in English. But we rarely see Iranian reformist thinkers themselves, writing outside Iran and in English, directly engage Western scholarship by positioning their arguments amongst the existing debates within that scholarship. Obviously, doing so would expose their thought and arguments to a different kind of scrutiny than they face debating in their local vernacular. The thought-provoking character I find in Ghobadzadeh’s book results from the fact that he has accomplished the rare feat.