5. Ali Shariati and Abdolkarim Soroush, both reject the “secularization thesis” which is the understanding that history progressives with a goal to have modern ideas replace religious ones over time (Ghamari). However, this does not mean that these scholars deny modernity. These two intellectuals present a different understanding of religion in the modern world that does not rely on theocratic ideologies. They both view religion having a participatory role, equal to forces of modernity, in a progressive society. Also, they both do not advocate for a privatized religion. Soroush sees an ideal religious society that allows for debate amongst themselves what religious truths mean and to reach a better understanding. Soroush did not advocate for firm conclusions about what those truths actually were, especially in the context of government policy. For Shari’ati, religion should be a tool of engagement a nation should use to promote social change and resist oppression. …show more content…
By confining religion the establishment, it effectively privatised Islam, preventing it from interacting with society as a force for social change. Islam is meant to function within society and drive towards social development, instead of a stagnant religion locked away from society. Shari’ati argues that Muslim societies must reclaim the “original progressive core” of Islam and an active part of social and political discourse engaging both the individuals and the society they lived