A Momentous Milestone in Islamic Intellectual History: A remarkable Journey, Professor Seyyed Hossein Nasr, 70 years of Service to Scholarship and Teaching, Jack Morton Auditorium, George Washington University, DC, Friday, November 14th, 2025, Presentation in the first Panel: “Professor Nasr: A Tribute and a Reflection”
Professor Nasr: A Tribute and a Reflection
Ladies and Gentlemen,
It is a great honor to speak at this distinguished gathering held in tribute to Professor Seyyed Hossein Nasr, on his retirement after seventy years of academic service in Iran and the United States. I extend my gratitude to the Department of Religion at George Washington University and especially to Professor Mohammad Faghfoory for organizing this event and inviting me.
1. I first met Professor Nasr in November 2008, during the first months of my stay in the United States—a meeting that was repeated several times thereafter. Through these interactions, my admiration for his devout religiosity and mystical faith deepened. Unlike some apologetic Muslims or self-proclaimed “neo-Muʿtazilites,” Nasr takes pride in his Islamic faith, Shiʿi identity, and Iranian heritage, while showing genuine respect for other religions and cultures.
Nasr stands among the foremost specialists in the history of Islamic philosophy and the history of science among Muslims. From my youth, I have learned much from his works and have always considered myself one of his distant students. I vividly recall the joy of reading An Introduction to Islamic Cosmological Doctrines and Three Muslim Sages during my early university years. For my generation, Nasr was a herald of the harmony between reason and revelation and a guide to the intellectual heritage of Islam. His writings sometimes appear among the required readings in my courses.
Following Henry Corbin, Nasr played a pivotal role in introducing Islamic wisdom—including philosophy, Sufism, and theology—to the modern world, particularly the philosophical schools of Isfahan, Shiraz, and Tehran, both during his years in Iran and afterward. I still cherish his critical edition of Suhrawardi’s Persian works, published as the third volume of The Collected Works of Shaykh al-Ishrāq. Later, his co-editing of History of Islamic Philosophy and An Anthology of Philosophy in Persia further advanced this field. I have long benefited from such works and sought, in my own modest way, to continue this path.
2. Professor Nasr is among the most influential interpreters of Islam in the Western academy. Through dozens of books and hundreds of scholarly articles and lectures, he has conveyed a compelling, compassionate, and intellectually vibrant vision of Islam and Shiʿism. He also served as the editor-in-chief of the landmark volume The Study Qur’an, which has become a major reference for both scholars and students of Islam.
In Ideals and Realities of Islam, Nasr challenges a common bias in modern Islamic scholarship, which, being largely Sunni-based, often portrays Sunnism as orthodoxy and Shiʿism as heterodoxy. Nasr writes:
“Sunnism and Shi’ism are both orthodox interpretations of the Islamic revelation contained providentially within Islam… Both belong to the total orthodoxy of Islam and do not destroy its unity. The unity of a tradition is not destroyed by different applications of it but by the loss of its principles and forms.”
This insight reveals Nasr’s inclusive vision of orthodoxy, which transcends sectarian boundaries and underscores Islam’s inner unity in diversity.
3. I regard Professor Nasr as one of the foremost exponents of what I have called “Rahmani Islam”—the Islam of Compassion. Allow me to summarize this idea from an article I presented in 2010.
“Rahmani Islam” stands in contrast to fascist, Taliban-style, Umayyad, or rigidly literalist Islam, as well as to political fundamentalism. In this understanding, none of Islam’s authentic teachings are denied; rather, certain rulings that were once valid but later misunderstood outside their original context—detached from the temporal and spatial conditions of revelation—are reinterpreted and corrected. Likewise, rational and humane principles compatible with Islam are affirmed.
At the time of revelation, Islam was nothing but Rahmani Islam—it needed no qualifying adjective. Yet, as the community drifted from the Qur’anic spirit and absorbed harsh pre-Islamic customs, its compassionate core was obscured.
Rahmani Islam rests on ten principles: Divine satisfaction, Justice, Rationality, Compassion, Ethics, Human dignity and rights, Freedom and free will, Knowledge and expertise, Democracy as a form of governance, and Objective secularism.
Compassion (rahma) is one of the divine laws (sunan ilahiyya) that governs all theological, legal, and ethical reasoning. A religion whose God is al-Rahman al-Rahim and whose Prophet is a mercy to the worlds must, by its very nature, be a religion of mercy, not of cruelty or vengeance.
The term Rahmani Islam thus emphasizes both the centrality of mercy in faith and a boundary against interpretations that glorify violence and repression. In recent decades, this merciless reading—especially in Iran—has harmed Islam’s image and essence, ruling in the name of Islam but against Islam itself.
It seems to me that Professor Nasr would agree with the first nine principles of Rahmani Islam, though he might differ on the tenth—objective secularism. Yet, like many masters of Islamic wisdom, Nasr is among the most eloquent advocates of a compassionate, spiritual, and rational Islam, and the term Rahmani Islam aptly describes his intellectual and moral legacy.
4. Professor Nasr is also the most distinguished representative of Traditionalism in our time. One may disagree with him yet cannot ignore his profound influence. A fair critique of his thought is an act of respect and acknowledgment.
Nasr maintains that the traditional world was a coherent and defensible order, while modernity has brought the greatest calamity upon humankind. For him, Tradition is a comprehensive paradigm in which all dimensions of existence find meaning through their relation to the sacred and transcendent. Revelation serves as the bridge between the infinite and the finite. Traditionalists believe modernity severed this bond, enthroning human reason as self-sufficient and marginalizing the sacred.
In Traditional Islam in the Modern World, Nasr classifies Muslim responses to modernity into four groups: Modernists, Messianists, Fundamentalists, and Traditionalists. He powerfully defends the last, criticizing the other three for their extremes.
Yet one might ask: Do all Muslims fit neatly into these four categories? Nasr does not fully distinguish between traditional (conservative) Muslims and philosophical Traditionalists in the Guénon–Schuon sense. In his writings, “traditional Islam” is sometimes appropriated by the Traditionalist project.
Furthermore, Nasr’s portrayal of modernist Muslims, while valid for some imitators who reject their heritage, does not fit all. Many contemporary Muslim thinkers have critically embraced aspects of modern science and social thought, not out of Western imitation, but because they found them rationally and ethically superior to older forms. This selective and reasoned acceptance cannot be dismissed as uncritical modernism.
5. I would like to raise two key questions concerning Tradition and modernity, which I also addressed in my earlier critique of Nasr.
First, can Tradition—in its absolute form—be defended? Is everything traditional inherently true? Must we not evaluate inherited traditions through rational and ethical criteria? The mere presence of something within a sacred tradition does not ensure its truth. Some elements of our heritage—such as astrology, slavery, the subordination of women, or autocratic rule—though once accepted, are now ethically and intellectually untenable. Rejecting such elements is not impiety; it is fidelity to the moral spirit of revelation.
Second, is modernity wholly corrupt? Must every phenomenon associated with secular civilization be rejected for its supposed detachment from God? Modernity is not a single metaphysical essence but a complex and evolving construct. It should be evaluated element by element. What accords with reason and moral conscience may be accepted; what conflicts with them must be rejected. Being modern is neither a mark of depravity nor a proof of truth—just as being traditional is not automatically virtuous.
The dialogue between faith and modernity can, in fact, enrich both sides. Through engagement with modern philosophy, hermeneutics, social sciences, and comparative theology, Muslim thinkers have rediscovered neglected dimensions of revelation and recognized errors in earlier interpretations. This is what modern Muslim reformers mean by the renewal of religious understanding (islāh al-maʿrifa al-dīniyya).
While divine religion itself—as preserved in the Guarded Tablet—is perfect, human understanding of revelation is not. It is susceptible to superstition, local custom, and intellectual limitation. Hence, the disciplined reform of religious knowledge and law is not only legitimate but necessary.
We must thank Traditionalists for their insightful critique of modernity, yet also recognize the difference between critique and absolute rejection. My defense of reform remains faithful to the non-negotiable principles of Islam, distinct from the relativism of some Muslim revisionist intellectuals.
6. Beyond philosophical concerns, one must ask: Can Traditionalism solve the concrete problems of today’s Muslims? Muslim societies suffer from authoritarianism, underdevelopment, and intellectual stagnation. What is the Traditionalists’ response to these crises? The realms of politics, economics, and science cannot be governed by metaphysics or mysticism alone. The wisdom of the perennial philosophy may guide our values, but cannot substitute for practical reason and institutional reform.
Ultimately, I believe one can be both a faithful Muslim—believing in God, prophecy, and the hereafter—and at the same time a modern, enlightened individual, capable of critical engagement with one’s time. This balanced approach reflects the prophetic spirit: fidelity without rigidity, openness without surrender.
Given this perspective, one cannot defend the divine origin of monarchy, theocratic rule, the denial of political freedoms, or the rejection of democracy on the grounds of Western influence. Nor can revolutions be condemned merely for being “non-traditional.” These reflections come from someone who has struggled against both authoritarian regimes in Iran, has been imprisoned by both before and after the revolution, and yet regards liberal democracy as only one among the many imperfect human responses to the quest for justice and freedom.
Professor Seyyed Hossein Nasr is a source of pride for Iran, Islam, and Shiʿism in the contemporary world. His many virtues far outweigh his few shortcomings—and who among us is free from error? May God forgive us and him alike. May his life be long and his contributions ever greater.