Introduction
In the contemporary world, the relationship between religion, tolerance, and violence has become one of the fundamental challenges in the fields of political thought and the philosophy of religion. On the one hand, the spread of identity-based violence and sectarian conflicts in Muslim societies has raised serious questions about Islam’s internal capacity for coexistence, toleration, and acceptance of others. On the other hand, diverse interpretations of religious texts have opened new possibilities for rethinking key concepts such as justice, mercy, and human dignity. In this context, Ayatollah Abdullah Javadi-Amoli, one of the most prominent contemporary Islamic thinkers, has offered distinctive views about rethinking the relationship between Islam and concepts such as tolerance and violence.
This research employed Quentin Skinner’s method of linguistic contextualism to analyze Ayatollah Javadi-Amoli’s views on tolerance and violence as manifested in his political theology. It sought to address the following research question: What is Ayatollah Javadi-Amoli’s position on tolerance and violence in the context of political theology? The study is based on the hypothesis that Ayatollah Javadi-Amoli draws on objective and subjective grounds as well as Islamic norms to emphasize the ease and compatibility of religion with human nature, while rejecting tolerance in matters of doctrinal and theological principles. At the same time, he justifies legitimate forms of violence, such as the prohibition of wrongdoing and the implementation of divinely prescribed punishments, as means of preventing and eliminating corruption.
Literature Review
A considerable body of scholarship has examined the concepts of tolerance and forbearance in Islam. Among the relevant studies are: “Tolerance and Forbearance From the Perspective of Imam Ali” (Aghajani Qanad, 2001), “Tolerance and Forbearance From the Perspective of the Qur’an and the Ahl al-Bayt” (Abdolmohammadi, 2002), “A Reflection on Semantics of Tasāhul and Tasāmuḥ and Their Comparison With Tolerance” (Azimi-Garekani, 2013), “Design and Validation of an Educational Model of Tolerance and Forbearance Based on the Qu’ran and Nahj al-Balāgha” (Jafari et al., 2025), and “The Place of Tolerance in the Political Thought of Ayatollah Khamenei” (Soltani-Vash & Zarei, 2019).
However, relatively few studies have directly examined the relationship between tolerance and violence in the thought of Ayatollah Javadi-Amoli. Among the most relevant works is the thesis titled Tolerance and Forbearance in the Qur’an and Sunnah Based on the Thought of Martyr Motahhari and Ayatollah Javadi-Amoli (Ahmadi, 2014). The significance and originality of the present study lie particularly in its direct and systematic analysis of Javadi-Amoli’s views on tolerance and violence through Skinner’s method of linguistic contextualism. In addition, the study sought to contribute to the development of political theology within the broader framework of Islamic political thought.
Materials and Methods
The present study employed Quentin Skinner’s interpretive approach (known as linguistic contextualism) to analyze Ayatollah Javadi-Amoli’s views on tolerance and violence in political theology. By providing a balanced approach between textual and contextual interpretation, Skinner’s method could enable a deeper understanding of Ayatollah Javadi-Amoli’s political thought by focusing both on his intentions and on the social, cultural, and intellectual contexts that shaped his ideas. Skinner’s method emphasizes the analysis of political theology within its historical and intellectual context. It therefore enables researchers to identify the intentions and meanings underlying a thinker’s arguments by examining both the texts themselves and the contexts in which those ideas were formulated and articulated.
Results and Discussion
Quentin Skinner’s method of linguistic contextualism emphasizes both objective contexts (i.e., historical and social conditions) and subjective contexts (i.e., intellectual presuppositions and engagement with contemporary intellectual currents). Within this framework, the analysis focused on Ayatollah Javadi-Amoli’s views on tolerance (or tasāhul, understood as reprehensible negligence toward doctrinal principles and acquiescence to falsehood), forbearance (or tasāmuḥ, meaning conditional toleration in social relations, including a form of commendable pluralism), and violence (i.e., legitimate action aimed at preventing corruption and upholding justice) within political theology.
According to the findings, Ayatollah Javadi-Amoli’s political theology is remarkably comprehensive and profound. He is one of the leading contemporary theorists in the Islamic humanities, and his thought reflects a synthesis of an extensive scholarly background—from Qur’anic exegesis to transcendent theosophy (ḥikmat al-mutaʿāliya)—a dynamic sociocultural environment experienced from Amol to Qom and by the developments of the Islamic Revolution, and sustained engagement with a range of intellectual currents—including both those compatible with Islamic thought (e.g., Islamic jurisprudence or fiqh) and those that challenge it (e.g., secularism and epistemological pluralism).
His political theology represents a balanced approach that presents Islam as a religion grounded in mercy and justice. Within this framework, tolerance (or tasāhul, understood as negligence or compromise concerning doctrinal principles) is rejected as incompatible with monotheism and human nature (fiṭra). By contrast, forbearance (or tasāmuḥ, understood as conditional tolerance within the framework of Islamic law or Sharīʿa) is endorsed as a means of facilitating peaceful coexistence and managing social plurality. Violence, meanwhile, is regarded as legitimate only in a defensive and reformative capacity, particularly in preventing wrongdoing and enforcing divinely prescribed limits, with the ultimate aim of preserving the unity of the Umma and the principle of the guardianship of the jurist (wilāyat al-faqīh). This reading not only provides a response to two opposing tendencies—extremism, particularly unrestricted excommunication (takfir), and secular conceptions of tolerance based on doctrinal relativism—but also offers a practical model for Islamic governance in the era of global pluralism.
Ayatollah Javadi-Amoli’s political theology—grounded in both objective dimensions (e.g., revolutionary struggles and the responsibilities of government) and subjective dimensions (e.g., transcendent theosophy and the critique of liberalism)—presents a balanced approach between divine mercy and religious firmness. On the one hand, he emphasizes divine mercy as encompassing all creation, with a particular emphasis on believers; on the other, he affirms religious firmness in the form of conditional wrath toward unbelievers and hypocrites. He characterizes Islam as a tolerant and easy law, one that is compatible with human nature (or fiṭra). However, he distinguishes this ease from tolerance or tasāhul (i.e., laxity or negligence in observing religious rules), which he regards as reprehensible because it can lead to compromise with falsehood and deviation from Islamic monotheism (tawḥīd). At the same time, he considers forbearance (tasāmuḥ) permissible and even desirable insofar as it preserves the fundamental principles of faith—for example, maintaining good relations with others without obeying them in matters that entail polytheism. In this sense, social pluralism can be accommodated within the Islamic law, allowing peaceful coexistence with both co-religionists and non-Muslims. Nevertheless, he rejects epistemological pluralism, understood as doctrinal relativism, because he considers it incompatible with the principles of tawḥīd and Sharīʿa.
Likewise, violence is not presented as an inherently aggressive principle. Rather, it is understood as a conditional instrument, exercised with the authorization of the religious guardian (walī al-amr), to prevent and eliminate corruption. This includes the preventive prohibition of evil as well as punitive measures such as fixed legal penalties (ḥudūd) and retributive justice (qiṣāṣ). The ultimate purpose of such measures is to preserve social justice and maintain the unity of the Umma. Ayatollah Javadi-Amoli accepts this model as an analytical framework but modifies it in light of divine principles, particularly tawḥīd and fiṭra. Accordingly, engagement with the Other must be characterized by both mercy—such as the call to peace (al-Baqarah 2:208)—and justice, including the obligation to enjoin what is right (Āl ʿImrān 3:104), rather than by relativism. He therefore emphasizes the rejection of extremism, which may manifest as structural violence, as well as secular forms of tolerance grounded in moral pluralism. Instead, he advocates active forbearance in the service of the unity of the Umma, including empathy for the excused non-Muslims, while maintaining fundamental religious principles, such as the rejection of polytheism (al-Mumtaḥana 60:4).
Conclusion
For Ayatollah Javadi-Amoli, tolerance and forbearance are not forms of relativism but a mode of moral rationality in response to plurality. Within the spectrum that ranges from absolute exclusivism to moral pluralism, he has a relative agreement with the intermediate positions, particularly axiological tolerance and active forbearance. However, he rejects the initial, violence-oriented positions as incompatible with universal divine mercy, while also rejecting the final positions of moral pluralism, which he regards as reprehensible.
He accepts social pluralism to a certain extent but rejects epistemological pluralism on the grounds that it conflicts with the principles of tawḥīd. Through interpretive and philosophical analysis, he understands tolerance not as submission to falsehood or the abandonment of truth, but as an expression of moral rationality and practical wisdom in responding to human plurality. By contrast, violence, in his view, is legitimate only within the framework of rational defense of truth and resistance to oppression. Accordingly, he rejects all forms of arbitrary, undisciplined, or unjustified violence.