Religious Submission (Ta’abbud): A Requirement of Rationality or Contrary to It?
By Mohammad Fanaei Eshkevari
Question:
One of the criticisms repeatedly raised by Professor Mostafa Malekian against religiosity is that it is incompatible with rationality. He argues that rationality is based on reasoning and evidence, whereas religiosity relies on *ta’abbud* (religious submission), which he considers irrational. What is your response to this?
Answer:
Yes, I have also observed that he has frequently claimed that combining religiosity and rationality is impossible, and thus considers the concept of “religious intellectualism” to be contradictory. His argument is that an intellectual adheres to rationality, while a religious person submits to authority (*ta’abbud*), and these two cannot coexist. But is this view correct? By examining the concepts of *ta’abbud* and rationality, we will demonstrate that not only is religious submission not in conflict with rationality, but that rationality actually necessitates its acceptance.
What is Ta’abbud (Religious Submission)?
Critics define *ta’abbud* as the blind acceptance of a proposition without any reasoning or evidence. For example, they claim that *ta’abbud* means believing “A is B” solely because someone said so, rather than due to any logical justification. This definition portrays *ta’abbud* as irrational, suggesting that religious people accept beliefs without any rational basis, merely on the authority of others.
However, this definition is incorrect and unfairly presented. The critic is well aware that religious people do not define *ta’abbud* in this way. If they were to accurately explain the religious understanding of *ta’abbud* and the reasoning behind it, their audience would recognize its rationality and reject their claim. Thus, they deliberately distort the meaning of *ta’abbud*, presenting it as foolish to sway their audience.
The Correct Definition of Ta’abbud
In its undistorted form, *ta’abbud* means accepting a statement from a source whose authority and reliability have been rationally and validly established. In other words, religious submission is based on a series of rational arguments that first prove the necessity of prophethood, the truthfulness of the Prophet, and his connection to God. Once this is established, certain religious teachings from the Prophet are accepted without demanding separate evidence for each one.
For example, when the Prophet says, “Prayer is obligatory,” this statement is accepted because his authority and divine connection have already been rationally proven. This acceptance is neither blind nor irrational; rather, it is the result of a reasoned process.
What is Rationality?
Rationality means accepting a proposition based on reasoning and evidence. For instance, rationality states: “A is C because A is B, and B is C.” This logical process is based on evidence and argumentation.
But does religious submission conflict with this definition of rationality? No. Religious submission itself is rooted in rational reasoning. For example, once we prove through rational arguments that the Prophet speaks on behalf of God, and that God is all-knowing and truthful, we logically conclude that what the Prophet says is true. Thus, when the Prophet declares, “Pilgrimage is obligatory,” accepting this statement is the outcome of a rational process that has already confirmed his authority.
Critics, by presenting a distorted definition of *ta’abbud*, portray it as irrational and even fallacious. They claim that religious believers accept something merely because someone said so. This portrayal is not only logically flawed but also ethically unfair, as no religious person defines *ta’abbud* in this way. Reducing *ta’abbud* to “blind acceptance” is an example of the *straw man fallacy*—misrepresenting an opponent’s position to make it easier to attack. Religious scholars, including Muslim theologians, first use rational arguments to prove the foundations of religion (such as monotheism and
erfan, [Jun 3, 2025 at 11:17:22 AM]:
prophethood) and only then turn to *ta’abbud* in matters of secondary rulings (*furu’*). This submission is the result of a chain of logical reasoning, not blind acceptance.
If critics were fair, they would say that they disagree with the reasoning of religious thinkers, rather than claiming that religious people behave irrationally and believe things merely because someone said them. Just as we may consider some of their arguments fallacious—such as their claim that *ta’abbud* is unreasonable—they should engage with the actual reasoning of religious scholars.
Conclusion
Rejecting religious submission is itself contrary to rationality, because rationality leads us to accept *ta’abbud*. Through logical reasoning, we can prove that the Prophet speaks on behalf of God, and since God is all-knowing and truthful, and the Prophet is truthful, his teachings must be true. Therefore, accepting the Prophet’s teachings is the result of a rational process. Whoever rejects this logical conclusion is, in fact, acting against the demands of rationality.