Although I have nothing against people’s religious convictions, I don’t want religious discussion to replace political and social discussion once more. Every once in a while, I read Zoroaster’s Gathas, the sonnets from the Song of Solomon, the “Book of Job” from the Torah, the Meccan chapters of the Qur’an, the Vedic Upanishads, Buddhist sutras, and other religious books as “literary” and not “holy” works. After reading it, I discovered that in addition to their beauty, they also contained wise concepts. They also showed respect for those who viewed these texts as “sacred” and having come from “revelation,” to the point where I no longer felt limited by religion’s emphasis on “personal salvation” and “sympathy.” But because I come from a country where a violent religious dictatorship has ruled for a few decades, I worry when religion gets involved in politics.

The failure of Christian “liberation theology” in Latin American nations and the “People’s Mujahideen” in Iran, on the one hand, and the experience of Islamic governments in Iran, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, and the threat of Orthodox Jews overthrowing the Israeli government, on the other hand, show that mixing politics and religion is harmful in both its fundamentalist and progressive forms and is harmful to both politics and religion. Perhaps there is no place to worry about religion interfering in politics in a nation like Turkey, which has a long history of secularism (along with the anti-democratic policy of religious discrimination in favour of the Hanafi state religion) and where clerics cannot even appear in public wearing Malay clothing.

This is because the party of Islamic liberals in this nation apparently does not want to create an ideal paradise on earth like fundamentalist and progressive r But in a nation where clerics are in charge, one should be wary of religious discourses dominating social movements. Naturally, “religious thinkers” like Abdul Karim Soroush, Mohsen Kadivar, Mohammad Mojtahed Shabestri, Hassan Yousefi Ashkuri, and other religious individuals who appear to believe in secularism, can draw inspiration from their myths and religious texts, but when they enter the debate scene, their myths and religious texts aren’t as helpful. When they appear in public, it is preferable to use vocabulary and catchphrases that are not religious. Slogans and terms with a religious connotation, including “Adl-e-Ali,” “Tawheed Society,” “Return to Islam,” “Bait Al-Mal,” “Qaraz al-Hasna,” and even “Ijma” and “Shura,” should be changed. Give notions, demands, and slogans that are measurable and tangible.

Technical shortcomings in the work

Perhaps Shirindokht Dakhian was hurried and careless in his translation and explanation of the “Guide of the Lost” due to this confusion between his roles as a scientific “researcher” and a “ideal striver”. The contrast between the layout, the fine paper, and the beautiful book cover in this environment, in contrast to the mistakes and improper pagination of the content, is what stands out the most. Additionally, despite the fact that the author claims to have read through all four volumes 14 times in the prologue to his “explanation,” he still committed a few inaccuracies. For instance, Ma’mun only refers to the Abbasid caliph as being from the Umayyads on page 46 of the first volume, and in the English portion, he believes Saint Augustine (430–354) to be from the 12th century AD. He mentioned “a dry-minded sect of Mu’tazila” on page 68 without elaborating on how these two disparate concepts, “dry-minded” and “Mu’tazila,” came to be combined. The term “dry thinking” is applied to a sect of Mu’tazila, who were the most important rationalists at the commencement of the Abbasid caliphate who attempted to bring Greek philosophy and Islam closer together. Finally, despite the author correctly referring to the crusades as the conflicts between Muslims and Christians to protect or conquer Jerusalem during the middle ages in one section of his “description,” he incorrectly expanded the term “Crusader” to include conflicts between Christians and Muslims to protect or occupy Andalusia in other pages.

The author’s technical work has a major flaw in that he occasionally offered names of persons and dynasties that are mistakenly referred to in Persian literature Hebrew pronunciation, and other times English pronunciation, instead of adopting the same Arabic pronunciation and spelling. For instance, the author frequently spelled the name “Moshe ben Maimon” in Hebrew even though the Jewish philosopher himself wrote his name “Moses ben Maimon” eight hundred years ago. Additionally, he frequently pronounced the names of the Murabatun and Mohadoon dynasties as “Al-Morwarid” and “Al-Mohad,” respectively. Imagine the uproar that would result from using the English word “Sasanid” instead of “Sasanian” in Farsi or from calling all the names recorded in the Torah and the Bible by their Hebrew or Latin pronunciations rather than their Arabic pronunciations.

I’m hoping the author will address these errors in the subsequent edition of this book, depending on his position as a scholar and abstaining from the lure of instant gratification. I am confident that the rationality found in Ibn Maimon’s “Guide for the Wanderer,” which was published in a scholarly, independent journal, can assist advance rationalism and the defence of individual liberties, particularly religious and nonreligious freedom.

“The category of interpretation of the holy scriptures has attracted special sensitivity in the current century due to the advent of classist and violent interpretations of religions that have endangered world peace and coexistence and have made states trapped by religious fundamentalist administrations. Any fresh explanation of “Dilalat al-Haareen,” which in the majority of its sections deals with the interpretation of the holy books, must therefore take into account these sensibilities. (Page 40 of Volume 1,) “The category of interpretation of the holy scriptures has got a special sensitivity in the current day due to the advent of classist and violent interpretations of religions that have jeopardised world peace and coexistence and made nations imprisoned in religious fundamentalist administrations. Any fresh explanation of “Dilalat al-Haareen,” which in the majority of its sections deals with the interpretation of the holy books, must therefore take into account these sensibilities. (Page 40 of Volume 1,)

Mrs. Dakhiyan, refuse! It suffices to say “new interpretations of ancient scriptures.” To combat violent fundamentalist movements and governments, we must consider and insist upon the new text of the “Human Rights” Charter; we must declare illegal all judicial decisions that violate an individual’s freedoms; we must stop religious ideology from influencing social discourse; and we must ensure that religion and the state are completely separate. The experience of the past 50 years in Iran has taught us that while the employment of myths, ideas from literature, organisations, and religious tools can help in the short term to inspire the populace to believe in religion, it will seriously harm the democratic movement over the long term. delivers