Islam and Government in Iran
Your content...
Many Muslims in the Middle East see their governments as corrupt, ineffective, and repressive. They dream that a proper Islamic government would solve all their problems and Islamic radicals encourage this belief. In Iran, though, Muslims know what it is like to live under an Islamic government - and not all of them are entirely happy about it.
This is not to say that they are critics of Islam itself as a religion nor are they necessarily die-hard secularists.
They are, however, convinced that the the moral or social authority of religion shouldn't be combined with the political authority of the government. Unlike secularists who complain that religion undermines good government, these religious leaders complain that government and politics undermines proper religion - an argument that was made by early Christian advocates of strict church/state separation.
In Legacy of the Prophet: Despots, Democrats, and the New Politics of Islam, Anthony Shadid writes about a conversation he had with Hasan Ysufi Eshkevari, an Iranian mullah:
Eshkevari, it should be noted, has impeccable revolutionary credentials. - he is in no way a dissident. He went to jail twice while the Shah still ruled Iran and was an active participant in the Islamic revolution of 1979. He was elected to the Islamic Republic's first parliament and has continued to promote Islam as a force for justice — but not necessarily while fused with the power of the state. Like some Christians in the West, Eshkevari recognizes that when religion and government become too entangled, both lose out.
Hasan Ysufi Eshkevari naturally cares more about the loss to religion — no longer able to act as an independent "watchdog" that can criticize the state's ethical lapses, it becomes complicit in all the government's failings and failures. Obviously religion doesn't always function as a watchdog — even when independent, sometimes it is a cheerleader for government actions, both good and bad. However, only when it is independent does it have any chance at serving this role.
This is one reason why devout religious believers should favor a strict separation of church and state: when church and state aren't separated, many of the social functions of religion end up being undermined. There are also secular reasons for supporting the separation of church and state because, as Eshkevari has learned, the proper functions of government are harmed as well. When the state is enlisted in religious disputes, its massive coercive power suppresses religious liberty.
This is, perhaps, one failure of secular nonbelievers when arguing for church/state separation. For secularists, the primary concern entangling church an state is the effect on the state and, by extension, the impact on individual people who don't adhere to whatever religion is being integrated with the government. Devout believers, however, naturally focus at least as much on their own religious institutions. Unless they are made aware of the negative impact on their religion, they may not recognize the problems.
Unfortunately, it's harder for a nonbeliever to make a convincing argument that religion or religious institutions need church/state separation in order to be protected from the government. It's not impossible, but it is harder and even a good argument will be treated with a great deal of justified skepticism.
Many Muslims in the Middle East see their governments as corrupt, ineffective, and repressive. They dream that a proper Islamic government would solve all their problems and Islamic radicals encourage this belief. In Iran, though, Muslims know what it is like to live under an Islamic government - and not all of them are entirely happy about it.
This is not to say that they are critics of Islam itself as a religion nor are they necessarily die-hard secularists.
They are, however, convinced that the the moral or social authority of religion shouldn't be combined with the political authority of the government. Unlike secularists who complain that religion undermines good government, these religious leaders complain that government and politics undermines proper religion - an argument that was made by early Christian advocates of strict church/state separation.
Islamic Faith vs. Islamic Government
In Legacy of the Prophet: Despots, Democrats, and the New Politics of Islam, Anthony Shadid writes about a conversation he had with Hasan Ysufi Eshkevari, an Iranian mullah:
"I'm one of the critics of the way of religious thinking in the Islamic Republic," he said to me, with not a hint of irony.
Islam in itself was not meant to rule a country, he said, and it tenets cannot alone solve the economic, social and political problems of a modern society. Like other clergy, he said he feared what the growing disenchantment with the Islamic government would mean for the clergy, who for centuries as guardians of the faith had built a reservoir of support, respect and goodwill among Iranians of all backgrounds, often raising the black banner of rebellion in the face of arbitrary oppression and reckless autocracy.
Again and again, he told me that — in words similar to a phrase made memorable by former Iranian prime ministers Mehdi Bazargan — the main threat in Iran today to Islam as a faith is the experience of people under the Islamic government.
"We say under the banner of religion that there will be equality, under the banner of religion, there will be development, under the banner of religion, there will be a successful economy. But if there is not, this failure of the religious state will be a failure of religion," Eshkevari said, leaning back on red pillows against the Spartan wall. "The failure of the government, therefore, becomes a failure of faith." [emphasis added]
Eshkevari, it should be noted, has impeccable revolutionary credentials. - he is in no way a dissident. He went to jail twice while the Shah still ruled Iran and was an active participant in the Islamic revolution of 1979. He was elected to the Islamic Republic's first parliament and has continued to promote Islam as a force for justice — but not necessarily while fused with the power of the state. Like some Christians in the West, Eshkevari recognizes that when religion and government become too entangled, both lose out.
Entangling Religion and Government
Hasan Ysufi Eshkevari naturally cares more about the loss to religion — no longer able to act as an independent "watchdog" that can criticize the state's ethical lapses, it becomes complicit in all the government's failings and failures. Obviously religion doesn't always function as a watchdog — even when independent, sometimes it is a cheerleader for government actions, both good and bad. However, only when it is independent does it have any chance at serving this role.
This is one reason why devout religious believers should favor a strict separation of church and state: when church and state aren't separated, many of the social functions of religion end up being undermined. There are also secular reasons for supporting the separation of church and state because, as Eshkevari has learned, the proper functions of government are harmed as well. When the state is enlisted in religious disputes, its massive coercive power suppresses religious liberty.
This is, perhaps, one failure of secular nonbelievers when arguing for church/state separation. For secularists, the primary concern entangling church an state is the effect on the state and, by extension, the impact on individual people who don't adhere to whatever religion is being integrated with the government. Devout believers, however, naturally focus at least as much on their own religious institutions. Unless they are made aware of the negative impact on their religion, they may not recognize the problems.
Unfortunately, it's harder for a nonbeliever to make a convincing argument that religion or religious institutions need church/state separation in order to be protected from the government. It's not impossible, but it is harder and even a good argument will be treated with a great deal of justified skepticism.
Source...