Abdulkarim Soroush is one of the intellectuals who represent the religious revival movement. He is one of the people who can rightly be called modern thinkers, philosophers and public figures of Iran. Despite the fact that Soroush is not currently engaged in socio-political and teaching activities in his country, he still remains a bright figure and a carrier of innovative ideas that do not cease to excite the public, and especially the youth of Iran.

This thinker is interesting because the general direction of his ideas was not formed immediately, it was formed over the course of twenty years since the establishment of Islamic rule in Iran. As a high-ranking ideologue in his country, Soroush, like many of his colleagues, participated in the creation of the ideological basis of Islamic democracy. However, later his ideological views began to diverge from the main ideology that prevailed in society. Soroush recognized the need to reform the religious system, and with it the concept of Islamic rule. He put forward his concept of a special way of developing the socio-political and religious spheres in Iran.

First of all, the thinker was concerned with the development of Islamic doctrine in the modern era. Even in his university years, he was interested in the question of the relationship between religion and philosophy. Soroush examines the work of Western and Islamic thinkers and comes to the conclusion that Islam is philosophically measurable, that its religious principles and traditions contain special rational premises. Later, Soroush reflects on the relationship between religion and politics. He refers to the popular Marxist thought in Iran, which was very attractive to the Iranian society at that time. But he is more interested in the essence of religion. During his student years, he studied Persian literature, poetry, and mysticism in depth, especially the works of Rumi. At the same time, Soroush is attracted to the work of Islamic ideologists, in particular Motakhhari's work on the interpretation of Tabatabai's work "Principles of Philosophy and the Method of Realism". This book makes a deep impression on Soroush, and he is once again convinced that Islamic philosophy is a special link in world philosophy. Later, Sorush will reflect on the question of why there are different interpretations of the same religious texts. A special sensitivity to such philosophical problems will allow him to create a theory of "reduction and expansion of religious knowledge" in the future.

After graduating from university, Soroush attends lectures by Ali Shariati, and then goes to England, where he enters graduate school. After a year spent abroad, he becomes interested in questions related to the philosophy of science. Thus, the thinker finds parallels between the philosophy of science and the philosophy of history, socialism, etc.-

page 108
On the basis of the accumulated material, he writes a number of books: "What is science, what is philosophy?", "Philosophy of History", "The Dynamic Nature of the Universe".

The next period in Soroush's scientific activity is determined by the Islamic Revolution in Iran that took place in February 1979. He analyzes the connection between revolution and religion. In September 1979, Soroush returned to his homeland, was appointed head of the Department of Islamic Culture at the Tehran Teachers ' College, and then a member of the Advisory Council on the Cultural Revolution. Sorush later relinquishes his first post in favor of membership in the Academy of Sciences, and then in the Research Center for the Humanities and Social Sciences.

After the Islamic Revolution, Soroush tries to explain his attitude to religion and faith, to the problem of the relationship between religion and social institutions, which is the subject of constant ideological disputes in society. All this determines his appeal to theology. At this time, he formulated "twenty theses" that resulted in the concept of reforming religious knowledge - evidence of how Soroush gradually began to change his philosophical orientation. Now he is increasingly concerned with the pressing problems associated with the new political system, with the possibility of reforming theocratic government and its ideological basis. The monthly magazine" Kiyan", founded by Abdulkarim Soroush, became a field of free discussion, which was opposed by religious authorities. This journal published topical articles on religious pluralism, interpretation of religion, tolerance and clericalism. The magazine was banned in 1998 on the direct instructions of the spiritual leader of Iran. However, thousands of audio recordings of Soroush's speeches on social, political, religious and literary topics continued to be distributed around the world, mainly in Iran.

Due to sharp criticism of the philosophical, religious and political foundations of the new regime, Abdulkarim Soroush is declared an opponent of the government. He is suspended from teaching and social activities, and certain extremist groups threaten to kill him. Despite this, Soroush gives public lectures in Iran, which are accompanied by a series of riots and a series of responses of discontent from officials. Everything showed that the overwhelming majority of society rejected his views.

In the late 1990s. Sorush, under pressure from officials, is forced to go abroad. Since 2000, he has taught courses at Harvard University on "Islam and Democracy", "Quranic Teachings"and" Philosophy of Islamic Law". In 2002 and 2003, he taught the course "Islamic Political Philosophy" at Princeton University, and gave lectures in Germany. Sorush is currently engaged in research activities in the United States. Its official website is available on the Internet. In it and other foreign publications, Abdulkarim Soroush discusses the shortcomings of the current Islamic rule in the country and suggests ways to transform it. A certain part of today's Iranian youth shows a certain commitment to his views, seeing in him the exponent of the thoughts of many of his predecessors and contemporaries who are eager to create a truly democratic Islamic state.

Sorush considers it his main task to create a philosophical justification for the new political concept. Thus, in his work" Reason, Freedom and Democracy in Islam", he addresses the topic of religious revival. Moreover, Sorush does not connect it with a return to the early Islamic ideal, as required by the revivalists of the protective sense, but proves the need for "purification" of religious knowledge. The reformist orientation of his thought is combined with moderation in revising religious provisions and generally consists in adapting the religious system to modern conditions, without affecting the foundations of Islamic doctrine. In the chapter on Islamic law

page 109
Soroush notes that over the past five centuries, the colossal "ebb and flow of Islam," in the figurative words of Muhammad Iqbal's predecessor (1877-1938), the Indian educator Altaf Hussein Khali (1837-1914), had a huge impact on the life and faith of Muslims. According to Sorush, understanding and preserving the eternal values of religion in the midst of such a rapid flow of changes constitute the essence of the struggle and sacrifice of our time. "If all the efforts of previous reformers were aimed at saving religion from destruction under the pressure of other religions and ideologies, in our time all efforts are devoted to adapting the religious system to the modern era and establishing its true purpose in an ever-changing world" [Soroush, 2000, p. 28].

Abdulkarim Soroush believes that absolute submission to change leaves no way for a religion to preserve its identity and at the same time be worthy of its purpose. But the demand for immutability and stubborn resistance to change create obstacles to religious life in the modern world. Thus, finding a compromise for these opposing tendencies is an important task for theologians of our day. There are some Muslim theologians who are unable to understand the rhythm and values of the modern world. These people are ignorant of natural science, geography and other natural and exact sciences, as well as in the history of religion and culture, in the polemic of religious thought with philosophical and scientific ideas. Such thinkers assume that religion can be revived by external changes. They try to find the roots of new scientific achievements in ancient texts, referring to religious prophecies. In reality," they hope to erase the rust of centuries from the outer shell of religion through old tricks " (Soroush, 2000, p. 28).

According to Soroush, thinkers "knocked at the gates of ijtihad (making a legal opinion on any issue - A. F.) in search of solutions" to certain problems [Soroush, 2000, p. 28]. After all, Shiites claim that they are the only ones who possess this treasure, while others (Sunnis) do not have access to it. However, if you have such a wonderful source of life, then why are there so many thirsty people?! And why are both Shiites and non-Shiites facing identical problems, and why are they equally unable to solve them?! Imam Khomeini himself said: "Ijtihad, as it was understood and practiced by the Hawz (Islamic Theological Seminary - A. F.), is insufficient "[Soroush, 2000, p. 29]. It follows that the presence of ijtihad in itself does not solve anything.

Soroush recognizes the need to develop modern scientific disciplines, such as Islamic psychology and Islamic sociology. They should be based on religious knowledge and help solve the problems that society faces. However, the most serious undertaking is to try to distinguish between the fixed and variable components of religion so that it is clear where the Islamic system is susceptible to change and where it will not change. Against the background of the general mass of Islamic reformers, according to Sorush, Ali Shariati stands out, who was able to rise above the generalized understanding of religion and identify what exactly in the religious system requires detailed consideration and further transformations.

It can be said that Soroush holds a similar point of view to A. Shariati. The latter, developing his methodological approach to solving the problem, justifies the theory of" two religions", according to which there is a constant struggle within any religion between the" true "religion (touhid - monotheism) and the" distorted "one (shirk - "giving partners to God"). The revival and renewal of Islam does not mean a change in its traditional dogmas. It is only necessary to separate the true content of religion from the changing form that has been imposed on it despotically-

page 110
It is also known that there are many different regimes, cultures, mores of the ruling elite, ignorant ulemas, and all sorts of superstitions [Doroshenko, 1998, p.170].

Thus, Shariati considered it necessary to return to the Islamic ideology, since modern Islam seemed to him nothing more than a culture. The transformation of Islam into an ideological system required the conformity of religion to the interests of the masses and the ability to be accessible to their perception. Shariati urged his followers to learn to speak the language of religion with the people, since the multifaceted, abstract nature of religious symbols is understandable to every Iranian, regardless of his social affiliation. Each Muslim understands religious symbolism in his own way, putting his own meaning into it [The Iranian Revolution..., 1989, p. 87]. This statement of his about a certain sphere of the religious, where everyone is the creator of their own faith, was perceived by Sorush and formed the basis of the theory of "reduction and expansion of religious knowledge".

A. Sorush begins by defining "reduction and expansion of religious knowledge" as an epistemological theory. He believes that there is a gap in the research of revivalists and reformers of Islam in the past: they ignored the differences between religion and religious knowledge, and did not consider religious knowledge to be a kind of human knowledge. And this often led to serious inconsistencies in their reasoning and did not allow them to come to the necessary decisions. The truth is that unless a person can distinguish between religion and religious knowledge, he will not be able to find adequate answers to the questions that interest him.

It is true that there are contradictions in the sacred texts, but it is also true that the understanding of religion by the human mind is incomplete. Religion is sacred and divine, and its understanding is human and earthly. That which remains always the same is religion, and that which is subject to change is religious knowledge. Religion does not need reconstruction, but religious knowledge, which is human and incomplete, requires constant revision.

As already mentioned, Shariati recognized that today religion is similar in its characteristics to culture, and therefore it is necessary to transform it into an ideological system. However, Soroush goes further and explains that religion itself is free from culture and "not tainted by the artifacts of the human mind," but religious knowledge is, without a shadow of a doubt, a subject for such influences. Thus, the thinker argues, those who want to revive religion cannot claim the right to legislative activity in the religious sphere, they are only able to interpret certain provisions of it in their own way. Although religious precepts will thus remain unchanged, it is impossible not to take into account the fact that many inaccuracies will arise in the process of their interpretation. The reason for this, according to Sorush, is that " the human mind is characterized by inattention. He struggles to improve his understanding of religion. The "sacred" can never run parallel to human opinion, so there is no possibility of consistency or disagreement between the sacred and the opinion. It is only a human understanding of religion that can be compatible or incompatible with different attitudes of his worldview "(Soroush, 2000, p. 32).

Sorush once again emphasizes that God is the only one who creates certain religious laws and regulations, and the task of a person is to understand and implement them. Thus, only humanity is the producer of special religious knowledge, which in the religious system itself is characterized as "constant" and "changing". The establishment and application of these categories belongs to the second stage of the development of the Islamic religious system. Before thinkers

page 111
The new era is faced with the task of substantiating a new understanding of religion and implementing religious knowledge that corresponds to the spirit of modernity.

Currently, religious knowledge, being one of the types of human knowledge, is characterized by incompleteness and cultural limitations. In this regard, there is a need for religious reforms. Humanity is on the path of religious revival and is not far from recognizing that the temporal nature of religious knowledge is aimed at synchronizing and adapting to scientific knowledge and the achievements of the new era. It can be concluded that "transformation is a form of vital activity of knowledge, and the life of humanity is a remote cause of the transformation of religious knowledge" [Soroush, 2000, p. 32].

A. Sorush in his book answers the questions that he had earlier. Why is religion, which is supposed to be independent of culture, its servant? Why do revivalists call for purification and revision of religion? Why is religious revival and reform necessary right now? Soroush claims that the theory of "reduction and expansion of religious knowledge" reveals the answers to all these questions. This concept separates religion and religious knowledge, considering the latter as a kind of human knowledge, and our understanding of religion as evolving along with other branches of human knowledge. The demands of the modern era pose new challenges for religious interpreters and, in the figurative words of Abdulkarim Soroush, "ignite the spirit of Greek sensitivity in the body of religious understanding" (Soroush, 2000, p. 33).

It becomes obvious that it is religious knowledge, and not the Sacred Text, that bears the imprints and trends of culture, subjects them to revision and requires purification. Under these conditions, religion remains constant, and religious knowledge changes. Thus, " eternity and temporality are reconciled, heaven and earth are reunited, and a permanent eternal religion generates a change and evolution of religious knowledge. In this regard, the mystery of the inexhaustible nature of interpretations of divine revelation, the mechanism of this interpretation, and the relationship between reason, human knowledge, and religion are resolved" [Soroush, 2000, p.33].

The Muslim religion is eternal. The Prophet of Islam is the last prophet and his religion is the last of all religions. However, the interpreter is not the last of the interpreters. We can observe the last religion, but the last understanding of religion has not yet been achieved. At present, religion has reached its completion, but it is not known when the understanding of religion will reach its zenith. Obviously, this will happen when religious knowledge, like all other types of human knowledge, reaches the peak of its development.

The theory of "reduction and expansion of religious knowledge", created by Abdulkarim Sorush, is, first, a theological theory, and secondly, an interpretive, legal and philosophical theory. It helps to find answers to questions for all those who are moving along the path of reforming religious knowledge in the hope of understanding the true essence of religion. It is necessary for those who recognize the inevitability of reforms in the sphere of relations between society and power in the Islamic world, where the established type of religious knowledge allows influencing the masses through external transformations, by maneuvering various interpretations, passing them off as the immutable truth. Sorush, recognizing religious knowledge as impermanent, fundamentally disagrees with the position of imposing a certain religious understanding on the people. He offers a new perspective on the relationship between Islamic principles, social values, and power in Iran (Soroush, 2000, p.33).

An important feature of Sorush's ideological research is the connection of his religious ideas with the political concept of power. Sorush begins his political arguments with the concepts of justice, human rights and the provision on the restriction of power-

page 112
ste. Justice is a requirement of religion. The essence of this requirement is aimed at protecting human rights, eliminating discrimination and inequality. Human rights, in turn, deal with power, with the relationship of ruler and subordinate. And the attempt to restrain and limit power is closely linked to the assertion of justice and human rights. All these postulates have a primarily logical and rational origin. Religion itself and religious understanding are based on these rational principles. Only a reasonably and soberly created religious practice is a sign of a religious society. This is precisely the society from which the religious government will emerge. The religiosity of this society will also guarantee the religious and democratic character of the government.

However, democracy needs not only rationality, but also freedom and participation. In general, rational sensitivity involves the transformation and modification of religious understanding. The recognition of these variations creates flexibility and tolerance of the ruling and governed, confirms the rights of subjects and helps in curbing excessive activity of the authorities. As a result, society becomes more democratic, humane, reasonable and fair. The "reduction and expansion of knowledge", its revision, the perception of truth as a complex and intricate path, the recognition of man as an imperfect and error-prone being, but at the same time possessing a set of natural rights - all this created the necessary prerequisites for the epistemological and anthropological foundations of democracy. And if these principles are incorporated into religious knowledge and people adhere to them, then as a result, there will be prerequisites for religious democracy as a certain synthesis [Soroush, 2000, p.132-133].

In his book Reason, Freedom and Democracy in Islam, Soroush expresses his opposition to those who deny the possibility of religion and democracy co-existing. Their disadvantage, according to the thinker, is that they take Western democracy as a model. In this case, Soroush considers the concept of democracy, freed from cultural layers. The necessary foundations of such a democracy are agnosticism and indecision, which give rise to a gradual revision, criticism and reassessment of ideas and attitudes related to political decisions. True democracy is, in fact, a democracy whose main characteristic is an endless process of choice and verification. The basic idea of a religious society considered by Sorush is consistent with these characteristics of democracy and consists in the fact that in the bosom of this association of people, a decisive choice is constantly made in favor of one or another paradigm of development. Such a society, transforming religious knowledge, goes through a difficult path of reduction, expansion, change and balance, which allows you to find the answer to each question posed. Accepting the faith in its original form, not burdened by cultural layers, this society will strive for ideological equality between its members. As a result, the main advantage of such an association will be the freedom of choice of its participants [Soroush, 2000, p.135].

The comparability of religion and democracy can be considered from a philosophical point of view. Faith is a matter of personal experience. People accept faith individually, just as they accept death. They have common rituals, but not a common perception of faith. The expression of faith is a social mission, but the inner essence of faith is purely individual. Faith is the work of each individual, so no ruler can instill religiosity in everyone if he acts through government regulations, special external attributes. The prophets themselves spoke to the hearts and souls of the people, not to ritual and commitment. The whole religious society is thus free to make its own choices.

page 113
it can change its point of view and reach new horizons. In general, such a society can represent the basis for democracy, its core. Moreover, a religious society becomes more religious as its freedom increases, as internal pluralism rises above external mechanistic unity. "Such a spirit of religiosity can break the rule of religious despotism and breathe free faith into the body of power" (Soroush, 2000, p.145).

Sorush argues that in a religious society, it is not religion itself that acts as an arbiter, but a certain understanding of religion that alternately changes, rationalizes, and harmonizes. This society is the source of religious democratic government and, in general, the necessary foundation of the State body.

The establishment of a religious democracy in a State requires compliance with certain religious principles. Among the most important decrees, Soroush highlights the protection of the individual, the expansion of legal discipline, the weakening of tyranny, the equalization of the rights of noble and ordinary people, the preference of the public good to individual interests, the guarantee of moral criticism regarding the rights, duties, justice and equality of citizens, as well as the need to increase the level of civil responsibility of society [Soroush, 2000, p. 147 - 148].

In general, democracy as interpreted by Soroush is a method of rationalizing the activity of rulers, which consists in the transfer of power, separation of powers, approval of parliament, public education, freedom of expression, multiparty system, approval of free media, public elections, consultative assemblies at each level of decision-making. The philosopher notes that in a democratic religious government, it is not predetermined in advance who will be the ruler. Rulers should be appointed through rational methods. At the same time, religious societies are required to choose their rulers through fair methods and limit the power of their leaders so that their mistakes in politics are minimized and their misdeeds are democratically compensated. In general, the right of people is the right to manage their society rationally, to lead it along the path of reducing mistakes in the field of politics. And since no mistake should be repeated or justified in divine law, it follows that the earthly government is suitable only for the people themselves, and not for God. It is created and destroyed only at the will of people. And this desire itself is ultimately inspired by religion and higher intelligence [Soroush, 2000, p. 152].

It is also worth mentioning another advantage of religion. As you know, religion is a bulwark of morality, which is sometimes lacking in a democratic society. This morality is solid, it has been created for centuries and should serve as a source of ideologization. Democracy itself, without special moral principles, without a solid foundation of religious faith in society, will be just a facade, a decoration.

Abdulkarim Soroush's concept of democratic governance, clearly outlined in his work "Reason, Freedom and Democracy", opens up broad horizons for the development of the individual in the Islamic world, his participation in the creation of a truly religious community and in the management of the state, through which a person can freely implement his religious knowledge in the establishment of the power system.

It is noteworthy that the development of the concept of "religious government" has its continuation in the work of the Iranian philosopher. Currently, Soroush focuses on the political situation in Iran that developed after the 2005 elections, when Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was elected President of the republic. Like many social and political forces that criticize the existing regime in the country, Soroush seeks to make his own definition of politics, osu, etc.-

page 114
in the Islamic state, and put forward ideas on ways to overcome the radical conservatism that has emerged in Iran.

Comparing the 1997 election victory of former Iranian President Khatami with that of the current president, Soroush says that Khatami's victory is a victory for a special kind of" Gnostic religiosity " that has several characteristics. The most important characteristic is the desire of religiosity to recognize truth and falsehood. It appeals to people's minds, does not require the help of clergymen, and is generally scientifically oriented. This type of religiosity highlights criticism and doubt, and even puts criticism above subordination (Soroush, 2005). However, the current era, according to the philosopher, is the era of the victory of "pragmatic religiosity", or "utilitarian religiosity", which is more focused on temporary prosperity in this world, combined with well-being in the future. It concerns first of all rituals, ceremonies, the elevation of the clergy above the entire political structure, the departure from research work, the emphasis on imitation, and the elevation of subordination above criticism. This type of religiosity appeals to people's feelings and emotions, not to reason. Thus, the new system of government in Iran, according to Soroush, also forms its own religious worldview, aimed not at educating free individuals who have their own rights and ideals, but at encouraging people to thoughtlessly imitate.

Despite the traditional worldview, adherents of the new system use modern models of political participation, they own modern political technologies. There is a contradiction that is easily resolved in Sorush's concept. The philosopher divides modern people into four groups: the first use modern concepts and modern tools, others use traditional concepts, but modern tools, and the third are aimed at modern concepts, but at traditional tools. Finally, the last group consists of those who use both traditional concepts and traditional tools. The first and last groups are not infected with internal contradictions and conflicts. However, the second and third groups of people have them.

Those people who have traditional thinking, but who use modern tools in politics, are currently pursuing their own line of government in Iran. The concepts that they use to create a certain ideology are incredibly old and not fully formed as complete theoretical constructions. As a confirmation of his idea, Sorush cites the statement of the famous thinker of the XX century Yu. Habermas: "Violence is taking on a new form in the modern world, and this is because some people with a traditional worldview use modern tools" (Soroush, 2005).

This is a situation that really shocks the world. Violence has existed in the past, but the mentality of our ancestors did not go beyond the skills and tools acquired through the transmission of accumulated experience from generation to generation. Currently, groups of people with traditional thinking use modern technological advances as a means of violence. This goes against the true order of things and ultimately leads to the self-destruction of the radical groups themselves. We are talking about the fundamentalist movement, the destructive influence of which Soroush repeatedly speaks in his writings [Soroush, 2005].

Fundamentalism, according to the philosopher, is infected with internal contradictions, which in the near future will cause its disintegration. But until that happens, these groups of people are creating a lot of problems for the entire Islamic community. "A mind that sees swords and daggers as effective tools.-

page 115
strum is at war, will never be reconciled to peace, but can use modern tools to forge these daggers" (Soroush, 2005).

Therefore, we must strive for peace without contradictions. Although even in such an ideal policy, which Khatami pursued, according to Sorush, there may be shortcomings. Thus, inconsistencies between its actions and slogans and between its material and conceptual tools have led to some setbacks. However, there are even more contradictions in the actions carried out by the current government in Iran. Of course, there is a high probability that these shortcomings will be gradually corrected in the future, but in general, there is a risk that the results of the policy will be irreparable. The least harm that can be done to the country is stagnation in the state administration of Iran. However, the situation may develop in such a way that the state will have to pay for its radical policy with its important achievements in the economic and other spheres of life (Soroush, 2005).

One of the most important characteristics of the fundamentalist movement is its representatives ' complete lack of understanding of the historicity of the entire process of human community development. The followers of the movement have no historical sense of social existence, either in relation to the domain of religion or to the domain of religious texts. Fundamentalism prohibits the interpretation of religious texts, and it undermines all attempts to move towards pluralism. However, individuals cannot exist without doubt and differences of opinion. These feelings are inherent in the personal and social existence of a human being. The idea that all people can be mentally shaped according to a single template and aimed at believing in the same entities is absurd. Humanity has long been familiar with the idea of historicity, and it is changing in connection with the arrival of a new era, a new worldview. And religious knowledge should develop in the modern era. The people we call fundamentalists do not accept this, even though they live at the same time as us and enjoy the achievements of civilization. By their unwillingness to listen to the voice of modernity, they cause irreparable damage to the entire world community (Soroush, 2005).

Fundamentalism appears when people begin to identify with religion. This is precisely the antagonism of Muslims towards the West. They no longer perceive Islam as a truth and a special knowledge, but see it as a bulwark of identity. The reason for this is the one-sided perception of the religious system and the lack of changes in the ideological and religious spheres. Muslims still tend to adopt everything new, and not create" their own " in the field of religion. Their thinking remains traditional (Soroush, 2006).

An important feature of Sorush's ideological concept is the focus on exploring and elevating the modern era of modernism, which is alien to any waste in the era of traditionalism. This ideological construction has its origins in the American pragmatic tradition, and especially in the works of K. Popper. The critical mindset, the rationalization of religion, and, of course, the critique of radical conservatism in Iran are all references to Popper's " critical rationalism "and his"open society" theory. Sorush, like the American philosophers, rejects Hegel's ideas about the implementation of projects, in which more importance is attached to abstract entities than to practical actions. The only exceptions are such concepts as" law "and" democracy", which should receive a detailed development at the theoretical level and become the main ideological constructs of the modern democratic system in Iran (Soroush, 2005).

When analyzing and summarizing the ideological views of Abdulkarim Sorush, it is necessary to note the main feature. Despite the somewhat simplified concept of religion-

page 116
The philosopher's consideration of democracy from a liberal perspective, some of the principles of which were borrowed by him from American pragmatist philosophers, his concept of democratic government, clearly outlined in the work "Reason, Freedom and Democracy", opens up broad horizons for the development of the individual in the Islamic world. It recognizes the right of every individual in an Islamic State to participate in the creation of a truly religious community and in the administration of the country, through which a person can freely exercise his religious knowledge in the establishment of a system of government.

Following the philosopher, it is worth noting that the current situation in Iran requires constant changes in favor of the development of the individual and his rights, as well as gradual improvement in the field of religious knowledge. At this stage of the development of Islamic governance, it is necessary to attach great importance to fostering a sense of responsibility, justice and initiative in people, which is impossible without a serious review of ideological attitudes. Today, the republic's leadership needs an impulse to develop democratic ideals in the state. On the basis of ideological consolidation, the population could achieve serious success in transforming the public sphere, in the field of culture and in general in the life of the country.

list of literature

Doroshenko E. A. Shiite clergy in two revolutions. 1905-1911 and 1978-1979 Moscow: IV RAS, 1998.

The Iranian Revolution of 1978-1979 Prichiny i uroki [Reasons and Lessons], Moscow: IV RAS, 1989.

Soroush Abdolkarim. Reason, Freedom and Democracy in Islam. Oxford university press, 2000.

Soroush Abdolkarim. Democracy, Justice, Fundamentalism and Religious Intellectualism // http://www.drsoroush.com/11.2005.

Soroush Abdolkarim. The Muddled Dream of Returning to Tradition // http://www.drsoroush.eom/11. 2006.

Permanent link to this publication: