Pont Interview Iran

Monks in Dialogue with Iranian Shi'a Muslims
An Interview with Brother Daniel Pont

[The following interview was conducted by Sister Marie Pinlou, coordinator of the French sub-commission of DIMMID, and translated by Father William Skudlarek.]

You took part in a conference that was held in Iran in May 2016. What kind of reception did you receive?

In stark contrast to the “scary Iran” of the mass media, we received a very warm and generous welcome, not only from our hosts, but also from the people we met on the street or in the shrines we visited. We wore our monastic habits wherever we went and were always greeted with smiles, expressions of welcome, and even requests for selfies. Coming from France, it was impressive to see so few unarmed and easygoing police and soldiers in a country we Westerners think is suffering from an identity complex.

Was this the first such meeting?

No, it was already the seventh. It all began twelve years ago when an Iranian doctoral student at the University of Manchester expressed an interest in meeting Benedictines. His friendship with Timothy Wright, who was at that time abbot of Ampleforth, led to three conferences, which were held at Ampleforth and at Heythrop College, London University. Meetings then continued under the aegis of DIMMID and were held in Rome, Qom, Assisi, and now for the second time in Qom. The proceedings of these meetings are available in books,[1] and reports of the meetings can be found online in past issues of Dilatato Corde.

Where was this last conference held, and who were the participants?

As I mentioned, it was held in Qom, a holy city containing important shrines and religious educational institutions that is about 120 km from Tehran, the notoriously secular capital. Among the over one million inhabitants of Qom are the 85,000 students and faculty (75,000 Iranian; 10,000 international) at the 300 or so educational institutions that comprise the Qom Seminary, whose program of study for Shi’ite clergy lasts more than ten years. The host institution for our conference was the “International Institute of Islamic Studies.” At the end of the conference we made a pilgrimage to the Imam Reza shrine in the eastern Iranian city of Mashhad.

The Catholic delegation was composed of six monks, including the Abbot Primate, one nun, and a journalist for Bavarian Radio who is stationed in Rome. They came from four continents: Africa (Kenya), Australia, North America (USA), and Europe (England, France, and Germany). Two other nuns had been invited and were planning to come, but were unable to. The Muslim participants were imams and men and women students connected with the Institute, where all the courses are taught in English. Its director, Dr. Mohamed Ali Shomali, is also the head of a similar institute in London.

How was the conference organized?

The plan was to devote three full days to presentations, each one followed by small group and plenary discussions. However, the schedule was changed, and only the mornings were devoted presentations and discussions. In the afternoons we were taken to visit shrines and to meet various religious, political or academic figures, all of them clerics, which for a Westerner is—to say the least—quite unusual.

What was the topic of this conference and how was it dealt with?

The topic was “The Dignity of Being Human” and there were six presentations devoted to the social, spiritual, and mystical dimensions of this topic. What struck me most was the difference in methodology between Christians and Shi’ites. We Christians make use of theological reasoning to interpret the biblical scriptures and other sacred texts of our tradition, doing so in order to come to a deeper understanding of our subject. Our hosts had quite a different and—to me, at least—quite unusual approach. I have to remember that their teaching—with which I was unfamiliar—is very complex. Furthermore, they were using English—which most of them spoke very well—to express very subtle concepts. Nonetheless, I was surprised that their presentations were confined to the citation of Qur’anic verses, passages from the hadiths, and writings of the Twelve Shi’a Imams. No one expressed a personal opinion. I suspect the reason for this was their respect for the sacred texts, which could only be interpreted by authorized commentaries.

Are you saying that they had no personal stake in what they were saying?

No. I think they were engaged with their whole being and were completely convinced of what they were saying. However, I thought I recognized in these presentations what the author Henry Corbin has to say about ijtihād.This term refers to the application of principles and rational criteria that are extrinsic to the content of the tradition. Corbin writes,

Ijtihād, definitively proscribed in Sunnism, continued to be permitted in Shi’ism. It implies hard work for many years, and when one arrives at the summit of knowledge of the law, one may state a theological opinion which is authoritative. The few people who succeed have the rank of ‘mojtaheds.’ Their intellectual effort and rational approach are held to be equivalent to divine inspiration. This ability is seen as very rare. Therefore, most of the faithful do not allow themselves to engage in theological reflection but rather endorse a particular mojtahed and abide by his opinion.”[2]

I do not know if our hosts were operating under this ban or if it still holds sway in academic institutions. It may be that those who were giving presentations destined for publication by an institute turned to the West, but one that was still concerned about being regarded as orthodox by other theological institutions in Qom, felt they needed to be restrained in what they said.

If that was the case, Catholics would be reminded that there was a time, not all that long ago, when their theology was hampered by a climate of suspicion and accusation.

Did you attend presentations outside the institute that corroborated your impression?

Yes, in another institute entirely dedicated to jurisprudence, the Global Center for Jurisprudence of Pure Imams.[3] Its Director, Ayatollah J. F. Lankarani, son of the founder, gave us a one-hour conference on Shi’ite jurisprudence. He himself was authorized by his late father to engage in ijtihād, as certified by a document published in a brochure describing the institute. The fact that this distinction has to be granted even to a great scholar shows how rare it is. Nonetheless, in the topics raised by him, or in his answers to our questions, I wasn’t able to determine his own contribution to the interpretation of a law. Ijtihād is probably subject to strict rules.

Jurisprudence covers “all aspects of life, from a year before birth until death.” It includes all the interdictions of earlier religions (Judaism, Christianity). Some comments of his that I jotted down:

We have very specific rules, on everything!

Many precepts are intended to preserve human dignity. One minute after conception, abortion is prohibited. Artificial insemination with donated sperm affects the genealogy of the one born.

We must honor the poor by sharing with them. The Prophet said, “You are all ayatollahs for your brothers.” “You should not poison the source of water of your enemy.”
As for the death penalty, the Quran repeats eye for eye tooth for tooth. . . . Whoever kills an innocent person is subject to the same penalty; but the Quran recommends forgiveness and/or reparation.
Abolishing the death penalty would lead to more crime.
Shi’a promotes what is reasonable.

The brochure lists other themes that are treated: Usury, credit cards, apostasy, the possibility of organ transplantation from non-Muslims, sex change.

We were given a book on artificial insemination published by Ayatollah Fazil Lankarani.[4] It provides a good example of the lengthy and complex chain of guidelines and commentaries that go back to the beginning of Islam. The sometimes amusing examples are reminiscent of the Catholic Church’s Canon Law.

Do you think that jurisprudence was the right way to approach Shi’ism? In this branch of Islam there is an impressive heritage of mysticism, religious philosophy, outstanding poetry, and rich hagiography. Why focus on jurisprudence?

Shi’ism is certainly more than jurisprudence, but an hour devoted to this discipline, which is seen as important if one is to be in conformity with the Qur’an, is not excessive! We followed a carefully developed program that, over the course of three days, allowed us to meet an impressive number of personalities in this city and also in Tehran, where we spent an afternoon at a book fair. We realized that we were being received as an official delegation by these high officials! It was not what we had expected, but we agreed to go with the program to honor our guests in the same way they honored us by having us meet those who are most representative of their tradition and their country today.

I was especially impressed by our meeting with Abulhasen Navad, founder of the University of Religions and Denominations. It is the first institution in Iran dedicated to the study of and dialogue with other traditions. Under his leadership such works as the Catechism of the Catholic Church and The City of God of St. Augustine have been translated into Persian. He himself lived with Jews and Christians in Isfahan, and always found that to be quite normal. He even included in his talk an anecdote about Pope Francis, whom he admires.

Did you also meet with politicians?

Yes, but they were also clerics, as was the case with Seyed Jawad Shahrestani, the official representative in Iran of Ayatollah Sistani, who lives in Iraq. Sistani was all but unknown to me, apart from a few news items. He is the spiritual leader—I’m not sure of the proper title—of some fifteen million Shi’ites in Iraq, and because of his position has had an influence on political events in the country. Shahrestani, his representative, assured us that “it is important to talk, otherwise incomprehension and contempt creep into the relationship” and that it is also important to “say what you have seen and heard, when you are denounced because of the so-called double standards of Muslims, who according to the Qur’an must win the hearts by remaining silent.” He noted how much it pained them to see Islam identified with ISIS. That is something we heard quite often. As we know, Iran is radically committed to oppose ISIS. On more than one occasion we heard about “conspiracies,” that is, that Western secret services worked hand-in-hand with Sunni Muslim countries to create ISIS. Even if one does not accept this position, it has to be admitted that the West is much to blame for the geopolitical situation of the Eastern half of the world. For decades, its appetite for oil drove it to engage in political intrigues that are the source of almost all the wars that have plagued the Middle East. The West can take no pride in the role it has played, given the fact that people in the Middle East are still suffering from policies dictated by foreign powers. When Khomeini announced himself saying, “Islam is the solution” (against the then current state of affairs in Iran), he roused the enthusiasm of the majority of Iranians.

Was calling this to your attention the reason they took you to visit to the house of Khomeini in Qom?

I'm sure that was not their intention! For a Westerner, Khomeini is like the Grand Inquisitor. We remember his fatwa against Salman Rushdie, his being credited with taking hostages from the US Embassy, and the imposition of a dress code from another age on Iranian society (especially women). His intransigence led to the isolation of his country on the international scene. For our hosts, the success of Khomeini “was not due to his political acumen, but to his asceticism and simplicity of life.” He said, “You must always remember that God is present in this world, and always act in conformity with that.” The house he occupied in Qom during his years as an important spiritual leader is very modest. We were told that the house he occupied in a small village near Tehran after the revolution, when he was the supreme leader of the country was just as simple. His teachings in the fields of Islamic philosophy, jurisprudence, ethics, mysticism, and theology, made him a great charismatic leader. His opposition to the regime of the hated Shah and his forced exile did the rest. But the iconic figure he became for a whole people, especially during the terrible war against Iraq, is increasingly being reevaluated by his religious and political heirs.

Reports and observation of what is actually taking place in Iran indicate that a good part of the population is distancing itself from this Islamic revolution.

Indeed, that is the great paradox of this country. Its population is very young, and many of them are attracted not only to Western technologies, but to Western mores as well. The liberal way of thinking that is more and more common among many young people in Iran today must certainly pose a challenge to the leaders of the country. But it is also true that Iranians—including many of the young—are proud of the differences of their culture and their faith, and may well prefer the present system, even though they may not be happy with all of it, to a Westernization run amok.

I am sure there are people who think that the ideology of contemporary Iran is flawed and wonder why you would want to enter into dialogue with Iranian Shi’a Muslims. How do you respond?

I believe it is always a mistake to think that the citizens of every country or the members of every organization think exactly the same way. Dialogue demands that we work to build up trust and to become friends with those whose religious traditions and ways of thinking are different from ours. We need to listen to what they are actually saying rather than presume we already know what they believe and think. Our hosts gave evidence of their desire to be open with us, and their sincere friendship did anything but arouse suspicion. To be with them at their times of prayer was moving. There could be no doubt of the depth of their conviction, of their commitment to God and to us.

Since entering into close contact with other traditions and cultures requires us to revisit our own, I cannot forget that Saint Teresa of Avila and Saint John of the Cross, among others, were members of a church sponsored the inquisition! The aroma of their teaching still fills the church, while the inquisition is remembered as a blatant example of a failed Christianity.

As a Westerner, I am in no position to make predictions or give advice about the future of Iran and the role that Shi’a Islam will play in that future. But I do believe that what has happened and is happening in Iran should prompt us to look seriously and critically at the role religion has played and is playing in our Western culture, and specifically at the way Christians can contribute to the wholesome development of the culture they are a part of.

[1]Monks and Muslims: Monastic and Shi’a Spirituality in Dialogue. Ed. Mohamad Ali Shomali and William Skudlarek. Collegeville MN: Liturgical Press, 2012.

Monks and Muslims II: Creating Communities of Friendship. Ed. Mohamad Ali Shomali and William Skudlarek. Collegeville MN: Liturgical Press, 2014

Monks and Muslims III: Towards a Global Abrahamic Community. Ed. Mohamad Ali Shomali and William Skudlarek. London: Islamic Centre of England, 2015.

[2] En Islam Iranien – Aspects spirituels et philosophiques, Vol IV – nrf Ed. Gallimard 1972 p. 249.

[3] It is responsible for 300 seminaries and their seminarians in Iran, Syria, Afghanistan, and other countries.

[4]Artificial Insemination: A Shi’ah Demonstrative Jurisprudence Approach. Translated into English and published by the Islamic Jurisprudence Centre of Aïmad Attlar London.

Brother Daniel Pont has been a monk of En Calcat (France) since 1988, where he now serves as guestmaster He was prior from 1998 to 2005 and 2010 to 2016. From 2005 to 2015 he was the coordinator of the European sub-commissions of DIMMID.