Intellectuals in every underdeveloped country have attempted to identify the causes and replicate the advancements and progress achieved in the Western world. Their goal is to bring prosperity and strength to their own countries and overcome the widespread and burdensome backwardness. The initial step taken in this endeavor was for governments to imitate schools and universities from the West, working together with the educated class. They aimed to educate the younger generations in experimental, natural, and social sciences through these institutions.
Since the early days when the desire for modernization became prevalent in our societies, traditional segments of society have been pessimistic towards institutions such as schools and universities. They have attempted to discredit these institutions and reduce the desire of teenagers and young people for education and training in them, or even eliminate them completely. In other third-world countries, skepticism towards schools and universities has been somewhat resolved, as people have realized that progress is not possible without modern education. However, in some third-world societies, including our own, there are still influential individuals and institutions that condemn schools and universities, or at least try to belittle and marginalize them. The truth is that some religious scholars have been the main opponents of schools and universities in our country in the last century. They have tirelessly and persistently opposed schools and universities, launching extensive propaganda against these institutions.
The question that needs to be answered is why certain groups in our society have become suspicious of schools and universities and want to dismantle or exploit them to promote their own thoughts and ideas. Different people may have different perspectives on the hostile behavior of these traditional groups towards educational institutions. To answer this question, I will focus on one aspect of this issue that, if presented correctly, can help us find appropriate and reasonable solutions.
The main issue at hand is that the strong presence of schools and universities in society restricts the qualifications and actions of religious scholars, preventing them from expressing their opinions and being seen as authorities in any field. To address this problem, I will provide a practical example. When modern medicine becomes established in society and patients seek treatment from doctors, fewer sick individuals will turn to religious scholars for amulets or herbal remedies as a means of making money. Furthermore, the scientific and humanistic disciplines taught in schools and universities are based on secular assumptions, allowing them to operate independently from religion and religious beliefs. Naturally, individuals who acquire this knowledge, both in theory and practice, do not prioritize the authority of religious scholars and may even marginalize them. The opposition of some religious scholars towards schools, universities, and the sciences they offer does not solely stem from religious or spiritual motives, but rather from personal ambitions and interests. They are well aware that as modern perspectives become more widespread in society, their authority will gradually diminish and people will no longer view them as infallible individuals.
Some conservative figures have clearly mentioned this point, leaving no room for doubt. In his memoirs, Hassan al-Banna, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, writes about meeting prominent religious scholars from Al-Azhar during his “inviting activities.” He asked them to oppose the prevailing trend. One of the ways he suggested convincing them to join him was by pointing out that if they didn’t stand up for God, they should at least consider that if these movements succeeded, they would lose their means of livelihood. This argument seemed to influence the mullahs in villages and cities, leading them to agree with him. Hassan al-Banna, with a sense of pride, mentions a religious scholar from Al-Azhar University in his memories who was visited by doctors and engineers. He intends to highlight that this religious scholar was highly respected in his field, even attracting visits from professionals like doctors and engineers. It is clear that with the emergence of new knowledge, some religious scholars felt humiliated and insulted, viewing such incidents as dangerous and harmful.
Many of those who outwardly express concern about religion and the religiousness of people actually prioritize their personal ambitions. They believe that if more moderate interpretations of religion become widespread, their businesses will suffer, and they will lose their power and influence over the people. They understand that they can only control people’s destiny in an environment characterized by ignorance, bias, and hostility. However, if a tolerant, open-minded, and inclusive atmosphere prevails, where everyone has the freedom to express their thoughts and opinions, it is likely that their regressive ideology will diminish.
Conservatives and traditionalists often handle new knowledge by asserting that they do not oppose medical technology and doctors. However, they view technology as distinct from Western civilization and culture. This perspective disregards the fact that scientific advancements, discoveries, and achievements in various fields are rooted in a philosophy that serves as their foundation. If we were to embrace technology while disregarding its associated philosophy and culture, it raises the question of why we have not been able to contribute anything substantial to these fields without relying on the West.
Conservatives are often hostile towards the humanities and view its presence as a threat to their position. The most important aspect of the humanities is its ability to recognize and critique authorities and dogmas. Without questioning traditional and historical references, the humanities in Arab countries hold no value and do not contribute to progress. Conservatives tend to disregard human knowledge and attempt to hinder its growth by proposing unconventional solutions. This renders human knowledge ineffective, akin to a lion without its mane, tail, and the essence of a spiritual story. The experiences of certain Islamic countries in this field demonstrate that these efforts lead nowhere, and the consequences are detrimental. They deplete a country’s material and spiritual resources for many years, hindering progress. Additionally, they entangle society in superstitions and myths disguised as human knowledge.
In many societies, conservatives resort to violence and rudeness to suppress and eliminate thinkers and critics. Václav Havel, in his famous book “The Power of the Powerless,” explains that the Soviet Union did not expel Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, the renowned Russian writer and Nobel Prize winner for Literature, because he desired a ministerial position or any other role of power. According to Havel, Solzhenitsyn was a powerless individual with no connection to the center of power. The Soviet regime expelled him from their territory due to their fear of the facts that Solzhenitsyn possessed. Soviet officials believed that if these facts were revealed to the public, it could potentially transform social consciousness and lead to unpredictable consequences.
Conservatives are afraid of schools, universities, modern sciences, and the logic and philosophy that these sciences are based on. They fear that these institutions and ideas will change the social consciousness of the people and disrupt social stability. They believe that the popularization of modern knowledge and ideas will destroy collective unity, making it difficult or impossible to fix the resulting problems. They see modern knowledge as dangerous and destructive because it challenges and revises old beliefs.
Read this article in Farsi here.
