The concept of free-thinking in the scientific and academic circles of Iran goes back to the early 2000s, when the Leader of the Revolution, Ayatollah Khamenei, addressed this issue in a speech and also on other various occasions. For instance, he states: “To awaken the collective wisdom, there is no other option but doing consultation and debate, and without a healthy critical atmosphere and freedom of expression and dialogue supported by the ‘Islamic government’ and inspired from the ‘guidance of scholars and experts,’ the production of religious science and thought and, as a result, civilization would either be impossible or very difficult. The best way to deal with disorders and curb cultural chaos is to support and institutionalize freedom of speech within the framework of law and produce theories within the framework of Islam.”
The occurrence of the “cultural revolution” in the early 1980s, of which the university was at the centre, and issues such as the “Islamization of universities” being highlighted in the 1990s and 2000s, on the one hand, show the determining importance of the position of the university, and on the other hand, reveal the attempt to present a model of the university that is placed in the framework of the discourse of the Islamic Revolution.
Articulating the Discourse of the Islamic Revolution and Modernity
The Signifier of Politics
While focusing on “Islamic governance,” “religious governance” or “religious democracy,” the discourse of the Islamic Revolution seeks to attach this meaning to the signifier of politics that religion and politics or religion and governance have an unbreakable bond. Based on this view of politics and governance, Islam is considered a political religion, and breaking this link means negating Islam’s intrinsic nature thereby making the implementation of the principles and rules of shari’ah impossible. “The advocators of political Islam consider this religion as an ideology that covers both this world and the hereafter and has clear orders and rulings for all areas of life. In this way, this discourse opposes all modern and traditional ones that reject the integration of religion and politics. From the point of view of Shi’ah scholars, the basic function of the Islamic political system is to help people get closer to God, and all the decisions and programs in this system are aimed at realizing this noble goal, while the other ones such as the implementation of Islamic rules serve as intermediate objectives.”
Democracy as a Signifier
Employing the concept of “religious democracy,” the discourse of the Islamic Revolution indicates that “religious democracy is a new model of governance that was born with the establishment of the Islamic Republic of Iran. This term, which is a combination of the two words “democracy” and “religious,” refers to the people’s sovereignty over their destiny through religion. Religion determines the framework of governance in terms of the intellectual foundation, basic principles, and the spirit governing the regulations and laws, and people would determine their destiny within a religious framework. The same signified are also evident in the words of the founder of the Islamic Republic, who said: “We want to implement Islam, at least its governance, in a way that is similar to its governance during the early days of Islam, so that you understand the true meaning of democracy and also people would realize that the democracy which is used in Islam is totally different from the one government, presidents and the kings claim.”
Freedom as a Signifier
Freedom as a signifier is one of the most contested and highly controversial concepts in the conflicts of the discourses of the Islamic Revolution and modernity. Over the past two centuries, when this concept, with the specific foundations and meanings of its intellectual and socio-political background in the West, entered the system of signs and meanings of Islamic discourse it received a lot of attention and became a field of and a centre for alienating, breaking the foundation, ascribing meanings and finding a place in the discourse articulation. While the modernists and intellectuals sought to change and explain this signifier with the signified of the discourse of modernity in the West, the Islamists attributed Islamic foundations to it in an attempt to articulate this signifier in accordance with the discourse of political Islam. In fact, the discourse of modernity with its ontological, anthropological and legal-ethical foundations, defines freedom based on individualism, human autonomy, the principle of usefulness and originality of benefit, truthfulness of freedom and equality. In this way, freedom as a signifier with an essential right is articulated within the discourse of modernity.
The divine-political will of Imam Khomeini (ra) is indicative of these conflicting meanings: “We must all know that Western-style freedom degenerates the youth and is therefore condemned in Islam’s view and by the intellect. Propaganda literature, articles, speeches, books and magazines that oppose Islam, public morality and the interests of the country are forbidden and their suppression is incumbent on us and all other Muslims. Harmful liberties must be restrained.”
As far as the semantic differences between the concept of freedom in Islam and the West are concerned, the current Supreme Leader of the Revolution states: “In the school of liberalism, human freedom is devoid of the truth i.e., religion and God, whereas, in Islam, freedom has a divine origin. Another difference is that because truth and moral values in Western liberalism are relative, therefore freedom is unlimited. On the contrary, Islam does not accept such freedom and there are definite and fixed values. Taking steps and moving towards that truth is valuable and contributes to the perfection of man.”
The Discourse of the Islamic Revolution; University and Free-Thinking
The establishment of a university in Iran, which dates back to the early 19th century, was an imported phenomenon necessitated by the lack of development and scientific backwardness. This university, which, like its Western example, claimed to acquire integrated knowledge about the world in competition with the clerical establishment, claims to pursue an all-inclusive rationality thereby rejecting what is against its rationality, presents a worldly and unholy image of the world more or less against the charismatic clerical narrative, propagates an atmosphere of doubt in contrast to the one relies on the faith and certainty of seminaries, in a way that it revolves around the theoretical and practical autonomy, introduces itself as the efficient institution for organizing social, cultural and political affairs, serves as the origin of the idea aimed at progress, necessarily acts a non-religious institution, claims to address the moral values of securing the public benefits, and in this context, does not recognize any other institution to engage in, considers itself free from power relations and pretends to be the only institution giving importance to education and the intellect. Therefore, the emergence of the university and new science with such claims and characteristics has been an important issue in establishing interaction with traditional institutions and ancient sciences, and the new science with such a claim and the establishment of the university with such a purpose, while creating epistemic inconsistencies, acted as a rival to traditional and religious institutions.
Following the growth and development of universities and the teaching of new sciences in Iran, the authority of universities gained general acceptance. Thus, the academics in Iran’s social environment, as one of the main reference groups of the people, can play a fundamental role as the main foundations of the arena of politics not only in the field of governance but also in that of thought, knowledge and ethics. Because, the values, knowledge and principles that the university spreads could influence the mental formation of society and determine the model of obedience and the current values on which obedience and the political imperatives are based. In this way, the demands and expectations, evaluation criteria and current culture in an important part of society will be influenced by the attitudes and tendencies arising from the university. This is the root of the inherently political nature of the university institution in all modern societies, especially Iran.
After the victory of the Islamic Revolution in 1979, despite the hegemonic position of the Islamic discourse, the left-wing, national and religious liberal discourses were trying to marginalize their rival, and one of the most important centres of this conflict of the discourses was the universities. In this way, “the university system became to a large extent the arena of conflict between Islamic and non-Islamic forces, which was the result of the upbringing of some people who had been educated in the West. In this situation, the mission of the university and its atmosphere were neither scientific nor cultural, rather they attained a revolutionary, passionate and tense political function among the Muslim forces and the opposing ones.” Thus, the universities of the country had become one of the most political centres of activity in the society, and in the worst case, a centre for directing armed conflicts. The continuation of this process, which meant leaving the mere conflicts of the discourses and resorting to non-discursive actions with the aim of marginalizing the rival discourse and intense antagonism of discourses, finally caused the same reaction from the other side, that is, resorting to non-discursive actions instead of engaging in the conflicts of the discourses. In his Norouz message of 1979, Imam Khomeini (ra) emphasized the need to create a fundamental change in the university which was followed by Muslim students insisting on the temporary suspension of educational activities so that this chaotic cultural, political and educational situation could be ended with fundamental reforms. Therefore, on June 5, 1980, by the decision of the Cultural Revolution Headquarters, the universities were closed. This closure lasted for 3 years and the universities gradually started to reopen in 1983.
Free-Thinking, University and the Discourse of the Islamic Revolution
The concept of free-thinking can only be understood within the discourse of the Islamic Revolution and the meaning that it gives to the university. As mentioned earlier, the discourse of political Islam, which finally reached a hegemonic position with the occurrence of the Islamic Revolution, has opposed the discourse of modernity in contemporary Iran. In this situation, the discourse of the Islamic Revolution, which was the objectified form of political, Shiite, and jurisprudential Islam in the form of governance, attempted to remove the established discursive signifiers and also provided the signified based on its values and norms for many discursive signifiers such as freedom, knowledge, identity, justice, human rights, democracy, university, etc. Since this discourse, like the other ones: 1. is subject to breaking the foundation of the rival discourse, 2. needs reconstruction, stabilization and dynamism, therefore, naturally, it has tried to employ the most important potentials, centres and tools that can be useful in this regard. In many ways, the university has capabilities that can, on the one hand, facilitate the continuation of its dominance and, on the other hand, prevent the utilization of its capacities by other competing discourses. In addition, the university could produce knowledge appropriate to power and facilitate the acceptance of the discourse by public opinion. Therefore, the discourse that took over with the victory of the Islamic Revolution from the very beginning has placed the university at the centre of attention, and it has tried to articulate it in its discourse by linking to the discursive signified of the Islamic Revolution. The symbol and manifestation of this effort have been the concept or signifier of “Islamic university, Islamization of the university,” “independent university,” and the concepts alike. In other words, since the discourses have always been vulnerable and are subjected to changes, a situation arises for the political subjectivity to review the meanings and signified of the discourse and try to prevent its decline or bring it to a hegemonic position. This is where the emergence of signifiers such as free-thinking, Islamization of the universities, software movement, science production, etc., become understandable.
The Islamic University
“The main goal of the political system in Islamizing the university is ‘nurturing humans.’” A person who believes in God, and is “committed,” “trustworthy” and “faithful.” In fact, an ideal person is a student who has moved in line with the goals of the system, and affiliates with the Revolution, religion and political system.
Addressing the sensitivity of the position of the university, Imam Khomeini (ra) emphasized: “If the university is reformed, the society will be reformed,” or “If the university is really a university and it is an Islamic one, which means in addition to education, there would be self-purification and commitment, then the country will move towards prosperity.” Also, he stated: “Islamization of the university means it should gain independence and separate itself from the West and East. We should have an independent country and university.” The Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution also emphasizes the Islamic nature of the university: “What should be done has not yet happened; it means that the university has not become Islamic. You should make the university of this country Islamic. This is a fundamental transformation which will not be realized with partial and secondary decisions or actions. Rather, it requires large-scale and practical decisions.” Moreover, he notes: “Of course, what is important is the method governing the university, which must be totally Islamic. As long as the university and experts are not Muslim and committed, the ideal of the Islamic Revolution will not be achieved, and this is not possible unless the basis and the methods used in universities be Islamic.”
Free-Thinking and the Movement of Producing Knowledge and Science
The movement of producing knowledge and science in the sub-discourse of the Islamic university is based on several basic components and indicators, which mainly revolve around the main special work of the university i.e., the production of science and knowledge, promoting and teaching the knowledge, and making it practical. Emphasizing this issue is indicative of the fact that the production of science is the most important thing one expects from the university.
Therefore, “scientific progress and growth should be the main priority for realizing the prosperity of the country.” The problems of this country will not be resolved except with the development of science and its generalization and deepening in the country. And the most important infrastructure of the country is the human infrastructure which is achieved through science and knowledge. The movement for producing knowledge and science within the framework of the political discourse and the Islamic university becomes politically important since “Westerners used the scientific superiority for domineering political and economic purposes.” In this way, in addition to responding to scientific needs, the movement of producing science attains an independent-seeking aspect and it is a possibility that in the light of achieving it, the dominance of the West will be challenged and it will lose its superiority. On the other hand, the movement of producing knowledge and science has another characteristic, which aims to challenge the West by emphasizing “independence” and denying superiority. As this aspect can be found in the remarks of the Supreme Leader: “Progress is neither promoting imitation nor making the economy dependent, imitating the science instead of producing it and merely relying on translations in the university... we do not consider progress as altering the language, denying the national Islamic identity and following the methods instead of creating them. We believe progress does not mean becoming dependent and westernized.”
The basis of the movement of producing science is criticism and accepting it, scientific courage, scientific debates based on the atmosphere of conflict of opinions, and research etc., which is placed in the concept of free-thinking and its objective manifestation i.e., “free debates.” On another occasion, while reemphasizing this concept, the Leader of the Revolution states: “If we want to effectively work in the field of expansion and development of culture, thought and science, we need to use divine gifts and blessings primarily the free-thinking. The concept of free-thinking is an oppressed slogan in our society, and as soon as it is raised, some people imagine that all the original foundations are going to be broken, and because they are attached to those foundations, they are afraid that some others will think the same way. Both groups deal with free-thinking inappropriately, a concept which is a necessary condition for the development of culture and science. We need free-thinking, yet unfortunately, the past of our country’s culture has imposed limitations on free thinking.”
Free-Thinking and the Software Movement
The Supreme Leader proposed this concept and explained it as follows: “Software movement refers to a huge movement that should be created in the field of science, production of knowledge and breaking the boundaries of science,” and “Software movement refers to the idea that one should not wait for others to work and then he gets the results.” “Today we need a software movement and a general effort.”
Free-thinking is actually placed at the centre of mobility and dynamism of the scientific movement, creating a wide and huge national presence for such a movement, the maximum and effective presence of people, and efforts to deal with the stagnation of universities and scientific and research centres. Emphasizing the concept of free-thinking, especially organizing free debates, means its real realization and putting it into practice. In fact, free debates provide a context that, along with the educational system, covers the gaps or shortcomings of this system and realizes scientific freedom within the framework of Islamic academic discourse. In addition, it would contribute to strengthening the capacity of the higher education system via taking an innovative step by the use of which innovative scientific movements would be reinforced and the realization of scientific development be facilitated.
Free-Thinking and Islamic Culture
In fact, Islamic culture and thought in an Islamic university emphasize the Islamic factor implying the orientation of the university’s movement as well as its cultural and identity frameworks. “The issue of the cultural aspect is very important. We consider culture to be the main platform of human life, not just the main platform for studying and learning science. The culture of any country shaped the basis of its general movement. Political and scientific movements of the country also occur within the cultural framework. Culture refers to the idea that the features and essence of a society and a nation, its thoughts, faith, and ideals would create the foundations of a country’s culture… all the cultural manifestations you may see in your society or any part of the world, without a doubt, have been established due to one’s efforts.” Islamic culture, as a part of the sub-discourse of the Islamic university, like its other components and elements, is based on a fundamental element, and the requirement for its dynamism, continuity, and self-awareness is free-thinking. As the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution emphasizes: “Another measure that has to be taken in the case of different social, political, and scientific issues is to provide our students with the opportunity to express their views. There is no reason to be afraid of our students’ views. The free debates which I touched on should be held in universities. If these important technical debates about political, social, intellectual, and religious issues are held among experts in appropriate places, the problems that may be caused by discussing these issues in public will undoubtedly be prevented. If these technical, intellectual, and controversial issues are discussed in free debates, they will certainly cause fewer problems.”
The perception of being a distinct way and an alternative discourse compared to the modern one is well visible in the remarks of the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution. Ayatollah Khamenei states: “I am deeply sorry that some people could not realize a third way between ‘silence and stagnation’ and ‘obscenity and blasphemy’ thinking that one has no choice but to accept one of these two categories in order to avoid the other. However, the Islamic Revolution sought to criticize and reform both the “culture of suffocation and stagnation” and the “culture of unrestrained and selfish Western freedom.” In the meantime. It tried to create an environment in which the “freedom of expression” which is constrained only by “logic and ethics as well as the spiritual and material rights of others” would become a social and governmental culture and on the other hand, freedom, fairness, and rationality will be promoted so that all thoughts become active and the elites and thinkers will get used to “cultural production” which, according to the teachings of the Holy Prophet (s) and the Ahl al-Bayt (a), is the product of the “conflict of opinions.” Islamic culture and civilization have always flourished in the face of new problems and challenges with other schools and civilizations, and it is impossible to answer a doubt without recognizing its various aspects.
Reference: Pazhūheshnāmeh-ye Enqelāb-e Eslāmi. [A Quarterly Academic-Research Journal on Islamic Revolution] Vol 2, No 6, Spring 2013, Pp 91-120.
Archive of The Thought of the Islamic Revolution
leave your comments