Wasatiyya Discourse in Shi’i Islam: Ayatollah Montazeri and Human Rights Jurisprudence
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The article is generally well written and well organized. The author shows deep and authoritative familiarity with relevant sources, with the history of the Islamic Republic, with the landscape of Shii religious thinkers in the Islamic Republic of Iran and their positions on various political questions.
The article presents the political thought of Ayatollah Montazeri in some detail and is generally an addition to the relevant literature.
I think the author needs to revise with regard to the following issues:
At the core of the article stand two assertions, which render the main argument questionable.
The first is that the ruling ideology of the Islamic Republic of Iran, what the author calls ‘governmental Shiism’, could also be referred to as 'Salafism' – a Sunni movement (p.3, line 127), because the two share the key features of being a “radical, extremist, violent, and hostile” and intolerant interpretation of religion. "Incidentally, they have also both they given rise to new religious discourses that offer moderate readings of religion."
Salafism advocates a return to the traditions of the companions of the prophet – but as the author outlines in depth and accurately, governmental Shiism as developed by Khomeini and his three main representatives on the constitutional drafting committee in 1979 is based on a very novel and unorthodox reading of the Shii corpus of political and jurisprudential thought. Whereas Salafism reject religious innovation, governmental Shiism amounted to a revolution in Shii thought – it was Innovation itself, even if not normatively progressive by the standards of its time.
I am happy to be persuaded, but at present the author’s justification given for his suggestion to refer to ‘governmental Shiism’ as a form of ‘Salafism’ is weak and unpersuasive. I would propose that she/he consult the definition of Salafism from the Princeton Encyclopedia of Islamic Political Thought (rather than the Oxford Encyclopedia cited, which on this entry is not as thorough) and then talk the reader through the ways in which this might lend itself also as a descriptor for ‘governmental Shiism’.
The second argument of the author is that what is usually described as the reformist discourse in Iran, that is, the political and jurisprudential thought produced by clerical and religious scholars aiming to replace governmental Shiism with a more human-rights oriented interpretation of Shiism, could also be called “shīʿī Wasatiyyah”.
Both Salafism and Wasatiyyah are usually used to refer to Sunni movements only, and the author is certainly opening him/herself to the accusation of attempting to “Sunnitize” Shii movements. I have no stake in the matter, but the author must ask her-/himself whether these two labels add to the analytical strength of the article, and if so, how - or whether they will distract from the many other useful and insightful observations made.
What would the article lose if references to Salafism and Wasatiyyah were dropped? The author might with to note that Khaled Abu el Fadl, whom he cites on Wasatiyyah, has not suggested that Iranian reformist thought in general, or Montazeri’s in particular, should or could be referred to as instantiations of Wasatiyyah.
A separate consideration is that those inside Iran who oppose reformist thought will certainly descend on this argument and take it as an opportunity to further undermine Montazeri, for in their view it helps them present him as not a true Shii scholar (along the lines “his writings are wasatiyyah! He has hidden sympathies for the Sunnis...”). In other words, the author must also be cognizant of how this argument could be politically instrumentalized.
Another major point for revision concerns the presentation of Montazeri’s thought. I agree with the author’s point that Montazeri broke new ground by writing that human beings are bestowed with inherent dignity and rights purely due to their humanity. I also agree that this is an important point.
But the author does not add to existing scholarship regarding the exegesis of Montazeri’s thought on human rights. Apart from his favorable fatwa for the Bahais, for example, it is not clear that Montazeri believes other Muslim minorities should have equal rights (Sunnis? Ahmadis?), and equally importantly, it is not clear whether he believes non-Muslims should have equal rights. Should Jews and Christians be completely equal to Muslims in Iran? Should they be allowed to run for president, or the highest judicial offices? The author might wish to consult Katie Manbachis MA dissertation at Princeton University (Near Eastern Studies), which probes some of Montazeri’s writings on the issue of minority rights.
Similarly, even though Montazeri has written that human beings are endowed with dignity and rights, it is not clear that women have equal rights. The author does note that Montazeri has not written on women’s rights but he does not subject this position to greater scrutiny. If women are not equal, is it because they have less dignity than men, or a different kind of dignity?
On a minor point, the author writes “in religious sources, for example, he identified strong legal foundations for the right to a retirement pension, the right to education, the right to employment, and the right to housing.” These are no doubt extraordinary, especially in the Iranian context, and it would be appropriate to refer to these as social rights. A strength of Montazeri’s and Kadivar’s is that they broaden the discussion of human rights in Iran to encompass social rights, too.
On a very minor point, one wonders whether Shii and Sunni should not be capitalized.
Author Response
I would like to thank the reviewers for their careful and thorough reading of the draft and for their thoughtful and constructive comments which have improved the quality of the article immensely. I have applied almost all the comments of both reviewers in making major revisions to the draft.
The most significant point raised by the first reviewer is related to the use of the two concepts of Salafism and Wasatiyyah. As suggested, I have set the concept of Salafism aside. I have also added further explanation about my use of the concept Wasatiyyah (page 3). As I have stated in the article, the English translation of Wasatiyyah, moderation, as well as its adjective form, moderate, has been employed to describe religious reformism in the Shīʿī-Iranian world. The use of this concept highlights the similarity of reformist ideas in the Shīʿī and Sunnī worlds, as well as offering a rationale for the publication of this article in the special issue of Religions focusing on the Wasatiyyah school of thought. More importantly, the word Wasatiyyah also means middle ground. Therefore, by using this term, I am emphasizing that Shīʿī reformists occupy the middle ground between Islamic radicalism and militant secularism. I have added these explanations to the body of the article.
Regarding the reviewer’s concern about the possibility of the article being subject to political instrumentalization by opponents of reform in Iran, I would like to clarify that the word Wasatiyyah has very positive connotations among the Shīʿī. For example, the ḥadīth of Khayr al-āmūr al-wasaṭha (the best path is the middle one) is referred to extensively, including by supporters of governmental-Shīʿism. For this reason, the potential for this concept to be used in a negative sense against reformist thinkers is minute. Rather, its use to describe religious reformists could help shed positive light on the reformist faction.
In addition, I have added further detail on Montazeri’s thought on women’s rights and the rights of minorities in the revised version (pages 12 and 13). I thank the reviewer for suggesting Katie Manbachi’s thesis, which was very beneficial and which I was able to make good use of in the relevant section. Finally, I am grateful for the reviewer’s suggestions to address the concept of social rights, as well as to capitalize the words Shīʿī and Sunnī, both of which I applied in the revised version of the article.
Reviewer 2 Report
The application of Wasatiyyah is initially very strange for the scholar in Iranian studies, but the author understands this and argues convincingly that the principles behind Salafism and Shi-i-government are the same. However, there is a tendency to essentialise Shi-i governmentalism, whereas it has been more authoritarian since 2009. Also the article needs more contextualisation. (1). Compare Montazeri with other New Religious Thinkers. To what extent is he original/different/an inspiration. (2). No mention of the context of the Khatami period. Were the religious reformers at the forefront, or were they struggling to keep up? The non-Iranian specialist will not probably be aware of these dynamics. (3). To what extent was Montazeri aware of the ideas of Soroush and Shabestari?
I realise there are words limits for articles in special issues, but it seems that this article demands greater contextulistion.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
I would like to thank the reviewers for their careful and thorough reading of the draft and for their thoughtful and constructive comments which have improved the quality of the article immensely. I have applied almost all the comments of both reviewers in making major revisions to the draft.
The most significant point raised by the first reviewer is related to the use of the two concepts of Salafism and Wasatiyyah. As suggested, I have set the concept of Salafism aside. I have also added further explanation about my use of the concept Wasatiyyah (page 3). As I have stated in the article, the English translation of Wasatiyyah, moderation, as well as its adjective form, moderate, has been employed to describe religious reformism in the Shīʿī-Iranian world. The use of this concept highlights the similarity of reformist ideas in the Shīʿī and Sunnī worlds, as well as offering a rationale for the publication of this article in the special issue of Religions focusing on the Wasatiyyah school of thought. More importantly, the word Wasatiyyah also means middle ground. Therefore, by using this term, I am emphasizing that Shīʿī reformists occupy the middle ground between Islamic radicalism and militant secularism. I have added these explanations to the body of the article.
Regarding the reviewer’s concern about the possibility of the article being subject to political instrumentalization by opponents of reform in Iran, I would like to clarify that the word Wasatiyyah has very positive connotations among the Shīʿī. For example, the ḥadīth of Khayr al-āmūr al-wasaṭha (the best path is the middle one) is referred to extensively, including by supporters of governmental-Shīʿism. For this reason, the potential for this concept to be used in a negative sense against reformist thinkers is minute. Rather, its use to describe religious reformists could help shed positive light on the reformist faction.
In addition, I have added further detail on Montazeri’s thought on women’s rights and the rights of minorities in the revised version (pages 12 and 13). I thank the reviewer for suggesting Katie Manbachi’s thesis, which was very beneficial and which I was able to make good use of in the relevant section. Finally, I am grateful for the reviewer’s suggestions to address the concept of social rights, as well as to capitalize the words Shīʿī and Sunnī, both of which I applied in the revised version of the article.
The second reviewer made two key points. The reviewer’s criticism of a tendency to essentialize governmental-Shīʿism was valid, and I have added a footnote (footnote 4) to address this issue. The reviewer’s second observation, that the article needed further contextualization, was also insightful. I have added further detail about the context of the Khatami era, the ties between religious reformists and the seminary, and the influence of intellectuals such as Soroush on Montazeri’s thought in this regard.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The revised version presents a significantly improved manuscript and the author has addressed all the comments of this reviewer. The analytical usefulness of referring to reformist thought in Iran as part of Wasatiyyah discourse remains questionable and this reviewer is not convinced that Wasatiyyah is particularly meaningful in approaching Iranian and more generally Shii Islamic political thought. Nevertheless, the analysis of Montazeri's thought is useful and the article is very well written and well structured.
