How does Mr. Naraghi, in regards to opinions and other schools of thought, take a stance on the Qur’an? In other words, is the tone of this book pluralistic, centrist, or confrontational and aggressive?

In my opinion, religious books are mostly exclusivist rather than pluralistic – meaning they want to convey a new perspective of truth from their own point of view to the audience. Even when the Quran invites us to consider different opinions, it ultimately considers its own opinion and perspective as the correct one. This suggests that religions have an exclusivist approach based on their own nature. However, the Quran also combines this exclusivist approach with a sense of tolerance and compassion in many cases. For example, the Quran has a broad and tolerant view towards the People of the Book, recognizing their rights and dignity to a great extent. It sees diversity as an inevitable and essential aspect of human life and considers it a sign of God’s wisdom. Islamic history also testifies that non-Muslims had more rights and dignity in Islamic society. For example, after the defeat of Muslims in Andalusia, many Jews willingly migrated with Muslims because they preferred living under Muslim rule rather than Christian rule. Overall, compared to other

How exactly is this system? According to your interpretation, is it based on recognizing the right of the wronged or is it based on the relationship between the superior and the inferior, as mentioned in verse 29 of Surah Tawbah regarding paying tribute in a state of humiliation?

“Moderation” means recognizing the unjust right in a specific territory and is ethically permissible. In the discussion of moderation, we are faced with several important questions: firstly, is the concept of “moderation” as the concept of “unjust right” possible and internally compatible or not? Secondly, what are the justifications for this moderation as the unjust right? Thirdly, what is the extent of unjust actions and beliefs that are worthy of moderation, and how and on what basis should this limit be determined? And fourthly, how should this moderation be promoted as a virtue in the character of citizens and protected as a right in the legal and political system of society? In my opinion, in Islamic culture, a certain level of moderation (which was very worthy of attention and resolution in its time) was recognized. Especially in Islamic society, compared to other contemporary religious societies, there was more tolerance towards religious minorities (at least the People of the Book) and provided them with the possibility

How do you see the relationship between Shiism and violence? Specifically, Shiism has a long history of promoting violence alongside themes of oppression, revenge, jihad, and peace.

Is it possible or is there an obstacle?

Until the issue of violence is concerned, I do not see a significant difference between the historical reality of Shiism and other Islamic sects. Imam Ali, who was the leader of the Shiites, showed patience towards his political and ideological opponents (as long as they did not draw their swords). He was one of the most trusted advisors of Abu Bakr and Omar, and he himself says that he was so cautious in defending the third caliph that he was afraid he might have gone too far, as is well-known in his story with the Kharijites. As for the uprising of Imam Hussein, which is the source of revolutionary inspiration for Shiites, historical accounts do not necessarily align with the ideological narrative that was later developed. Some historical evidence suggests that he tried his best to avoid conflict and bloodshed, but it was the soldiers of Yazid who prevented his return and escalated the situation into a bloody battle. Imam Jafar Sadiq was the first to introduce a kind

Mr. Naraghi, some violence has been committed by the Green Movement on Ashura day, which is attributed to the historical memory of Shia Muslims. What is your opinion on this?

I am not sure if establishing a direct relationship between current political and social events and the historical, religious, and cultural memory of a nation is an accurate approach. First, it must be determined who and under what circumstances resorted to what type and degree of violence, and then the motivations behind their violent actions must be examined, including their cultural influences, such as their religious beliefs. As far as I can judge, the people who took to the streets during those days had peaceful and civil protests and were subjected to the most extreme, heinous, and violent forms of attack, yet they nobly refrained from resorting to violence themselves. However, if some of them were forced to resort to violence in self-defense, provided that they had no other means of protecting themselves, we cannot condemn their actions from a moral standpoint.

You mentioned the impact of political and social conditions on violence or peacefulness of religions or their followers. Different individuals and groups in today’s world use Islam to justify violent actions. Why is Islam so vulnerable to these conditions and easily manipulated by those in power? Where does this ability to justify violence come from?

Islam has been the foundation of peaceful and flourishing life for Muslims and their good relationship with followers of other religions for centuries. As I mentioned before, the level of tolerance that Muslim societies have shown towards non-Muslims throughout the centuries (compared to Christian empires) has been remarkable. Even today, the majority of Muslims in the world, especially in countries like Indonesia and Malaysia, are peaceful and peace-loving people. In my opinion, there is not a significant difference between Islam and other religions in this regard. Violent tendencies are not exclusive to Islamic societies. For example, many Jewish fundamentalists in Israel try to justify the crimes committed against the people of Palestine in Gaza based on the teachings of Judaism, and many Christian fundamentalists in America are the most heinous perpetrators of violence against Muslims (and sometimes Jews). We have not forgotten the violence of Hindu fundamentalists against Muslims in Kashmir and other regions. This is true. However, in all of these religions, the majority of people are disgusted