Document Type : علمی - پژوهشی
Authors
1
Associate Professor, Department of Social Sciences, Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz, Ahvaz, Iran.
2
PhD in Sociology, Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz, Ahvaz, Iran.
Abstract
Introduction: Ali Shariati (1933–1977), as one of the most prolific contemporary Muslim thinkers, has made significant contributions to the field of religious studies. Analyzing Shariati’s ideas from a sociological perspective is essential because his approach is often included in sociology curricula in Iranian universities, particularly in courses such as Social Theories of Muslim Thinkers, Historical Sociology, and Sociology of Religion. However, debates persist regarding whether his views can be classified as genuinely sociological—given his academic background and doctoral degree—or whether they should be considered social theories that operate outside formal sociological methodology.
The distinction between sociological theory and social theory lies in the former’s development within academic sociology, grounded in scientific research methods, whereas the latter emerges from broader intellectual discourse, often as normative or ideological positions. Considering this distinction, the primary research question is: Did Shariati employ scientific sociological methods in his religious studies, thus producing sociological theory, or did he merely offer a social critique of Iranian and Islamic issues (particularly religious ones)? A secondary question follows: If his approach is indeed sociological, does it belong to the sociology of religion or historical sociology? This study aims to critically analyze Shariati’s key religious texts, assess the theoretical and methodological foundations of his approach, and identify its strengths and practical applications.
Methodology: Using a documentary research method, this study systematically examines Shariati’s major religious works—such as Islamology, Ideology and Civilization, and others—where he explicitly discusses his methodological approach to studying religion. Through targeted theoretical sampling, the study extracts key concepts and themes, comparing them with foundational principles of the sociology of religion and historical sociology to evaluate the methodological rigor of his approach.
Results: Shariati’s engagement with classical sociological theories (e.g., Durkheim, Weber, Marx)—despite occasional misinterpretations—demonstrates his familiarity with sociological frameworks. He frequently integrates, critiques, and reinterprets these theories, particularly Marx’s base/superstructure model. His primary focus, however, is a historical analysis of Islam, aimed at constructing his central thesis: "Return to the Self." To achieve this, he develops a unique "conical model" to methodically compare the historical evolution of Christianity in Europe and Islam in West Asia. Given his systematic comparative analysis, his findings can be considered sociological in nature.
Discussion and Conclusion: A crucial distinction exists between the sociology of religion (studying religion as a social phenomenon) and religious sociology (using metaphysical religious principles to analyze society). Shariati’s approach aligns more closely with the latter—specifically, a "theological sociology"—as he employs Islamic concepts (e.g., ummah, imamate, martyrdom, awaiting the Messiah) to interpret contemporary issues like democracy and populism. While he claims to practice a "sociology of religion" (e.g., framing tawhid [monotheism] as a historical and social construct rather than a theological absolute), his methodology is not methodologically atheistic. Instead, his dialectical framework (e.g., the "God-Clay" duality) underpins his entire theory, culminating in an ideal vision of "divine humanity."
In analyzing primitive religions, Shariati adopts Durkheim’s view of religion as a collective consciousness—yet only to support his thesis that "monotheism is the origin of religious insight." He does not deny God’s existence but uses sociological analysis to affirm his theological stance, much like qualitative researchers ground their theories in existing frameworks.
From a historical sociology perspective, Shariati not only employs historical data but also innovates a comparative method to analyze social transformations. His conical model identifies key elements of historical periods, enabling cross-cultural comparisons. For instance, he argues that Iran’s 20th-century condition parallels Europe’s 13th–14th centuries (the transition from feudalism to bourgeois modernity). This methodological contribution allows researchers to systematically compare historical processes, making his approach valuable for comparative historical sociology.
Figure 1. Shariati’s conical model (adapted from Ideology and Civilization)
Conflict of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Keywords
)