According to the public relations office of the Research Institute for Islamic Culture and Thought, as reported by the Iranian Book News Agency (IBNA), the unveiling and review session for the book “Political Theology in Judaism” was held on Sunday, 18 Azar 1403. The event featured Mehdi Fadaei Mehrabani, the book’s author and a faculty member of the University of Tehran; Shervin Moghimi, a faculty member of the Institute for Humanities and Cultural Studies; and Zaniar Ebrahimi, a translator and researcher of political philosophy. It was organized by the Institute for Culture and Islamic Thought, the Center for Advanced International Studies, the Political Science Association of the University of Tehran, and the House of Books and Literature of Iran at the Book House venue of the House of Books and Literature of Iran.
At the beginning of the session, Shervin Moghimi, a faculty member of the Institute for Humanities and Cultural Studies, stated:
“The author’s position in this book is a critique of the ideological approach to religion, specifically the ethnocentric exclusivism in Judaism, which has paved the way for its manifestation in Zionism.”
He continued:
“On the other hand, the book adopts Schmitt’s approach to political theology as its theoretical framework. According to this Schmittian perspective, Jewish political theology, due to its embedded exclusivism, exemplifies the distinction between friend and foe in the best possible way. Thus, with this Schmittian characterization, Judaism is the most political religion among the Abrahamic faiths.”
In response to the question of whether Schmitt views the political concept in a hierarchical or gradational manner, Moghimi replied:
“No, this is not the case. My issue with the book lies in the fact that Dr. Fadaei highlights the exclusivism embedded in Jewish theology. On one hand, he claims to adopt a Schmittian approach, but from a Schmittian perspective, this exclusivism is not explained. Islam, too, is a political religion, but this exclusivism is not observed within it. Therefore, while exclusivism is emphasized in the book, its explanatory role is not clarified. According to Schmitt, any doctrine that establishes an existential distinction between friend and foe can manifest the political. From a Schmittian standpoint, the issue is not ethnocentrism.”
The faculty member continued:
“My other issue is that, despite all the efforts Dr. Fadaei has made, he has not succeeded in avoiding an ideological perception of Jewish theology or in distinguishing between the religion of Prophet Moses and the fundamentalist interpretation of Judaism.”
He concluded:
“My perspective is that phenomena like Zionism, ISIS, and others are not inherently linked to the sacred texts where we try to trace their roots. When secularism dominates, one can derive immanent interpretations from any sacred text, one of which could be Zionism. Zionists anchor themselves to the text, but their roots are not in the sacred texts. First, secularism must dominate; only then can we ideologically interpret the Jewish sacred text.”
Zaniar Ebrahimi, a translator and researcher of political philosophy, was the second speaker of the session. He began his discussion by stating:
“My first point pertains to the research literature. For example, in the third chapter of the book, which deals with mythology, the research literature has deficiencies. References to Hans Blumenberg should have been included. Rudolf Bultmann,the Christian theologian, is also absent. Another shortcoming is that the book should have made a comparative study with Christianity, which has also been neglected, thereby weakening the book.”
He continued:
“Another point is that the book, in addition to its Schmittian framework, also carries a Straussian undertone. I do not fully agree with the separation of reason and faith. On page 239 of the book, Strauss is mentioned as opposing philosophers who sought to reconcile reason and revelation or to establish a link between the two. It is as though reason and revelation are entirely separate and opposed to each other. Karl Löwith holds a similar stance. However, I disagree. My approach is historicist. In fact, I believe reason and faith have historical relations and interactions with each other.”
The researcher added:
“Regarding the claim that Judaism is inherently political, I must say that if we hold this view, we are obliged to provide definitive textual evidence from Judaism. There is a difference between ‘inherent’ and ‘historical,’ and my approach is historical. In the book, the eschatological element is underemphasized. If the term ‘inherent’ is to be used, Judaism is more of an eschatological religion than a political one. Not every eschatological religion necessarily becomes political. Historical conditions must exist for a religion to become political. According to Schmitt’s framework, even Christianity is more political.”
Following this, Mehdi Fadaei Mehrabani, the book’s author, as the final speaker of the session, stated:
“In response to Mr. Ebrahimi’s comment that the work should have been comparative, I would say that I intended for the book to have a second volume that would address Christian theology.”
He added:
“Discussing Jewish theology without moving beyond the ideological realm is a challenge I have consciously attempted to address in this work.”
Fadaei Mehrabani elaborated:
“I had to draw distinctions between the religion of Moses (peace be upon him) and the political literature of Judaism between the lines. If I had ventured into explaining what the religion of Prophet Moses entails or does not entail, I would have entered theological debates.”
The faculty member of the University of Tehran continued:
“In my opinion, separating the transcendental sphere from the political and ideological realm is possible in the Christian tradition but not in Judaism. The transcendental sphere in Judaism is entirely political. Unlike Christianity and Islam, which are based on the concept of faith, Judaism is based on blood. In Jewish theology, there is a discourse on who is considered Jewish, and consequently, who is considered Israeli. A Jew is not someone who simply believes in Judaism. Therefore, I believe that in the Jewish tradition, even transcendental themes are not devoid of political and ideological aspects. I consciously understood why I used the term ‘inherent.'”
The author concluded his remarks by stating:
“We have both political Zionism and religious Zionism. Political Zionism is more recent, but religious Zionism is not. The idea of returning to Zion and the dream of returning to the Holy Land are present throughout Jewish theological texts. Dr. Moghimi’s references are mostly to the Torah, whereas from a contemporary Jewish perspective, the Torah holds a secondary status. The most important Jewish texts are, in order of priority, the Talmud, the Torah, and the Zohar. The Talmud is far more significant than the Torah. The Talmud is the oral book of the Jews and reflects their tradition. If we tell a Jew that they are Jewish because of their adherence to the Jewish religion, it would be considered demeaning, because Judaism is primarily a culture. I can exist within Jewish society without adhering to the religion of Moses (peace be upon him), just as some atheistic Jews still consider themselves Jewish.”
