Article Sidebar

Religious Autonomy and the Existential Process of Agency: A Comparative Analysis of the Foundations of Women’s Moral Agency in Kant’s Philosophy and Shi’i Islam
Submitted
September 9, 2025
Accepted
February 25, 2026
Published
February 26, 2026
Download
PDF Review Reports Originality Report
Statistic
Read Counter : 246 Download : 21

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Main Article Content

Abstract

This study conducts a comparative analysis of women’s moral agency within two intellectual frameworks: Kant’s practical philosophy and Shi’i Islam. The central research question is: How is the structure of women’s moral agency formulated in these systems, and how does each address the gap between inner subjectivity and the external actualization of agency? In the Kantian section, employing conceptual analysis, the contradiction between the transcendental autonomous subject and the empirical subject of woman characterized by deficient rationality is analyzed as the primary obstacle to the objective realization of women’s agency. In the Shi’i Islamic section, drawing on Quranic foundations such as fiṭrah (primordial nature) and khilāfah (vicegerency), and mediated by the views of Mullā Ṣadrā on substantial motion, Ṭabāṭabāʾī on credal perceptions, and Muṭahharī on psycho-emotional differences, a model of “situated agency” is presented. In this model, women’s psycho-physical differences are regarded not as deficiencies, but as existential gradations and a basis for the wise distribution of responsibilities. The legal institutions of Shi’i Islam, including mahr, nafaqah, and independent property rights, function as structural supports for agency, facilitating the transition from inner subjectivity to external actualization. The novelty of this research lies in its formulation of “religious autonomy” in contrast to Kantian autonomy.

Keywords

Kant's Philosophy Moral Agency Religious Autonomy Shi'i Islam Substantial Motion Women's Rights Women's Moral Agency

Article Details

License

Copyright (c) 2026 Mohsen Shiravand

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY-SA) 4.0 License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work’s authorship and initial publication in this journal.

How to Cite
Shiravand, M. (2026). Religious Autonomy and the Existential Process of Agency: A Comparative Analysis of the Foundations of Women’s Moral Agency in Kant’s Philosophy and Shi’i Islam . Millah: Journal of Religious Studies, 25(1), 573–614. https://doi.org/10.20885/millah.vol25.iss1.art15
Download Citation
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)
BibTeX
Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

References

  1. Alsuhaymi, A. O., & Atallah, F. A. (2025). Reason and revelation in Ibn Taymiyyah’s critique of philosophical theology: A contribution to contemporary Islamic philosophy of religion. Religions, 16(7), 809. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel16070809

    DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/rel16070809

  2. Amoli, A. J. (2007). Woman in the mirror of divine glory. Isra Publications.

  3. Anderson, P. S. (2003). Autonomy, vulnerability and gender. Feminist Theory, 4(2), 149–164. https://doi.org/10.1177/14647001030042004

    DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/14647001030042004

  4. Bacin, S. (2022). The fate of autonomy in Kant’s Metaphysics of Morals. British Journal for the History of Philosophy, 30(1), 90–108. https://doi.org/10.1080/09608788.2021.1995323

    DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09608788.2021.1995323

  5. Barlas, A. (2002). “Believing women” in Islam: Unreading patriarchal interpretations of the Qur’an. University of Texas Press.

  6. Baron, M. (1997). Kantian ethics and claims of detachment. In R. M. Schott (Ed.), Feminist interpretations of Immanuel Kant (pp. 145–170). Pennsylvania State University Press.

  7. Bremner, S. V. (2023). Practical judgment as reflective judgment: On moral salience and Kantian particularist universalism. European Journal of Philosophy, 31(3), 600–621. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejop.12811

    DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/ejop.12811

  8. Brown, É. (2022). Moral judgement: An introduction through Anglo-American, German and French philosophy. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

    DOI: https://doi.org/10.5771/9781786615176

  9. Caniago, S., Firdaus, Azwar, Z., Pertiwi, D., & Nainin, D. M. (2024). Gender integration in Islamic politics: Fiqh siyasah on women’s political rights since classical to contemporary interpretations. MILRev: Metro Islamic Law Review, 3(2), 411–431. https://doi.org/10.32332/milrev.v3i2.9962

    DOI: https://doi.org/10.32332/milrev.v3i2.9962

  10. Cekić, N. (2025). On purity of moral knowledge: Ross’s objection to Kant. Journal of Social Sciences, 17(2), 43–52. https://doi.org/10.46793/GlasnikDN17.2.043C

    DOI: https://doi.org/10.46793/GlasnikDN17.2.043C

  11. Crossouard, B., Dunne, M., & Durrani, N. (2020). Understanding agency differently: Female youth’s Muslim identities. Social Identities, 26(3), 361–375. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504630.2020.1765764

    DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13504630.2020.1765764

  12. Damad, S. M. M. (2016). Juridical study of family law. Markaz-i Nashr-i Ulum-i Islami.

  13. Ezedike, E. U. (2020). Morality within the limits of practical reason: A critique of Kant’s concept of moral virtue. International Journal of Ethics and Systems, 36(2), 205–216. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOES-11-2018-0171

    DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOES-11-2018-0171

  14. Fasihi, H., & Fazeli, S. A. (2024). Credibility and ethical principles in Allameh Tabatabai’s perspective: Foundations for recognizing and determining values. Iranian Journal of Medical Ethics and History of Medicine, 16(9), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.18502/ijme.v16i9.15945

    DOI: https://doi.org/10.18502/ijme.v16i9.15945

  15. Ferdynus, M. P. (2024). Is dignity still necessary in health care? From definition to recognition of human dignity. Journal of Religion and Health, 63(2), 1154–1177. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10943-023-01995-1

    DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10943-023-01995-1

  16. Ghalib, H. M., Mujahid, A., & Suarni, S. (2022). The concept of fitrah as a paradigm of Islamic education: Perspective of the Quran. IQRO: Journal of Islamic Education, 5(1), 65–82. https://doi.org/10.24256/iqro.v5i1.2880

    DOI: https://doi.org/10.24256/iqro.v5i1.2880

  17. Ghosh, J. (2025). Linking knowledge with ethics: A Kantian perspective. Philosophy and the Life-World, 27, 116–123. https://doi.org/10.62424/JPLW.2025.27.00.12

    DOI: https://doi.org/10.62424/JPLW.2025.27.00.12

  18. Guspita, D. R., Ma’mun, M., Hilmi, A., Ghozali, M., & Hastowohadi. (2025). Moral agency under legal precarity: Islamic ethical resilience among Indonesian Muslim women migrant workers in Taiwan. JURIS (Jurnal Ilmiah Syariah), 24(2), 369–380. https://doi.org/10.31958/juris.v24i2.16348

    DOI: https://doi.org/10.31958/juris.v24i2.16348

  19. Herman, B. (1997). A cosmopolitan kingdom of ends. In A. Reath, B. Herman, & C. M. Korsgaard (Eds.), Reclaiming the history of ethics (pp. 187–213). Cambridge University Press. https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/CBO9780511527258A015/type/book_part

    DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511527258.008

  20. Izza, F. N., Jamilah, J., & Sa’diyah, Z. (2025). Righteous women and submission: Between Islamic texts and Muslim women’s perspectives. Ulul Albab: Jurnal Studi Islam, 26(1), 121–142. https://doi.org/10.18860/ua.v26i1.28932

  21. Jouili, J. S. (2011). Beyond emancipation: Subjectivities and ethics among women in Europe’s Islamic revival communities. Feminist Review, 98(1), 47–64. https://doi.org/10.1057/fr.2011.4

    DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/fr.2011.4

  22. Kant, I. (1996a). Groundwork of the metaphysics of morals (M. J. Gregor, Trans.). In Practical Philosophy (pp. 37–108). Cambridge University Press.

    DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511813306.007

  23. Kant, I. (1996b). The metaphysics of morals (M. J. Gregor, Trans.). In Practical Philosophy (pp. 353–603). Cambridge University Press.

    DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511813306.013

  24. Kant, I. (1997). Critique of practical reason (M. J. Gregor, Trans.). Cambridge University Press.

    DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511809576

  25. Kant, I. (2006). Anthropology from a pragmatic point of view (R. B. Louden, Ed.). Cambridge University Press.

  26. Kayalı, Y. (2025). Traditions and transformations: Marriage and family institutions among modern Indian Muslims. Şırnak Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi, (37), 41–57. https://doi.org/10.35415/sirnakifd.1707826

    DOI: https://doi.org/10.35415/sirnakifd.1707826

  27. Khawar, M. (2023). Economic agency of women in Islamic economic philosophy: Going beyond economic man and Islamic man. International Journal of Social Economics, 51(3), 364–376. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSE-05-2023-0366

    DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSE-05-2023-0366

  28. Korsgaard, C. M. (1986). Skepticism about practical reason. The Journal of Philosophy, 83(1), 5–25. https://doi.org/10.2307/2026464

    DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2026464

  29. Mahmood, S. (2006). Feminist theory, agency, and the liberatory subject: Some reflections on the Islamic revival in Egypt. Temenos - Nordic Journal for the Study of Religion, 42(1), 31–71. https://doi.org/10.33356/temenos.4633

    DOI: https://doi.org/10.33356/temenos.4633

  30. Mahmood, S. (2009). Agency, performativity, and the feminist subject. In H. R. Christensen, Pieties and gender (pp. 11–45). BRILL. https://doi.org/10.1163/ej.9789004178267.i-236.5

    DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/ej.9789004178267.i-236.5

  31. Mattingly, C., & Throop, J. (2018). The anthropology of ethics and morality. Annual Review of Anthropology, 47, 475–492. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-anthro-102317-050129

    DOI: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-anthro-102317-050129

  32. Mikkola, M. (2011). Kant on moral agency and women’s nature. Kantian Review, 16(1), 89–111. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1369415410000014

    DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1369415410000014

  33. Mir-Hosseini, Z. (2000). Islam and gender: The religious debate in contemporary Iran. Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400843596

    DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400843596

  34. Mosser, K. (1999). Kant and feminism. Kant-Studien, 90(3), 322–353. https://doi.org/10.1515/kant.1999.90.3.322

    DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/kant.1999.90.3.322

  35. Muṭahharī, M. (2017). The system of women’s rights in Islam. Sadra.

  36. Nurdiyanto, N., Taufiqurrohman, O., & Habibi, H. (2025). Reframing harmony in Islamic philosophy: An epistemological inquiry into balance, ethics, and moral agency in contemporary Muslim societies. Harmony Philosophy: International Journal of Islamic Religious Studies and Sharia, 2(4), 26–36. https://doi.org/10.70062/harmonyphilosophy.v2i4.332

  37. Nussbaum, M. (1993). Onora O’neill: Justice, gender, and international boundaries. In M. Nussbaum & A. Sen (Eds.), The quality of life (pp. 324–336). Oxford University Press. https://academic.oup.com/book/9949/chapter/157311131

    DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/0198287976.003.0024

  38. Olamaiekopaie, M., & Arzroomchilar, E. (2022). Tabātabā’i: Theory of Iʿtibāriyyāt and his political philosophy. Acta Fakulty Filozofické, 14(1), 21–36. https://doi.org/10.24132/actaff.2022.14.1.2

    DOI: https://doi.org/10.24132/actaff.2022.14.1.2

  39. Pape, C. (2023). Kant on sex and gender. Or: Is femininity only education? SHS Web of Conferences, 161, 06009. https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/202316106009

    DOI: https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/202316106009

  40. Rakhmat, A. (2023). Religion and reason in contemporary Islamic ethics: A comparative study of Syed Muhammad Naquib al-Attas and Taha Abderrahmane thought. Journal of Islamic Thought and Civilization, 13(2), 134–151. https://doi.org/10.32350/jitc.132.09

    DOI: https://doi.org/10.32350/jitc.132.09

  41. Reath, A. (2006). Agency and universal law. In A. Reath, Agency and autonomy in Kant’s moral theory: Selected essays (pp. 196–230). Oxford University Press. https://academic.oup.com/book/6528/chapter/150445822

    DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/0199288836.003.0008

  42. Ridwan, R., & Ismail, H. (2025). Reformulation of livelihood in Islamic family law: Qur’anic basis and women’s dual roles. Jurnal El-Thawalib, 6(5), 647–660. https://doi.org/10.24952/el-thawalib.v6i5.17651

    DOI: https://doi.org/10.24952/el-thawalib.v6i5.17651

  43. Ṣadrā, M. (1981). Al-Hikmat al-muta’aliyah fi al-asfar al-’aqliyyat al-arba’ah (Vols. 8–9). Dar Ihya’ al-Turath al-’Arabi.

  44. Ṣadrā, M. (1983). Al-Hikmat al-’arshiyyah. Mawlawi.

  45. Sahar, Dr. N. (2025). Feminist exegesis and muslim women’s agency: A critical analysis of Fatima Mernissi and Saba Mahmood’s perspectives for contemporary times. Middle East Journal of Islamic Studies and Culture, 5(02), 172–184. https://doi.org/10.36348/mejisc.2025.v05i02.007

    DOI: https://doi.org/10.36348/mejisc.2025.v05i02.007

  46. Schott, R. M. (1997). Introduction. In R. M. Schott (Ed.), Feminist interpretations of Immanuel Kant (pp. 1–18). Pennsylvania State University Press.

  47. Seer, V. A. B., Fuadi, M. A., & Azhari, S. (2024). Fitrah: Becoming a proportional human (Comparative study: Indonesian tafsir perspectives). International Journal of Sociology of Religion, 2(2), 454–466. https://doi.org/10.70687/ijsr.v2i2.48

    DOI: https://doi.org/10.70687/ijsr.v2i2.48

  48. Sehlikoglu, S. (2018). Revisited: Muslim women’s agency and feminist anthropology of the Middle East. Contemporary Islam, 12(1), 73–92. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11562-017-0404-8

    DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11562-017-0404-8

  49. Ṭabāṭabā’ī, S. M. H. (1984). Al-Mizan fi Tafsir al-Qur’an (Vols. 4, 12, 16, 19). Daftar-i Intisharat-i Islami.

  50. Ṭabāṭabā’ī, S. M. H. (2010). The principles of philosophy and the method of realism (Vol. 2). Bustan-i Kitab.

  51. Taheri, J. (2019). I’tibariat: A new possible theoretical basis for interreligious dialogue. Edinost in Dialog, 74(2), 99–108. https://doi.org/10.34291/Edinost/74/02/Taheri

    DOI: https://doi.org/10.34291/Edinost/74/02/Taheri

  52. Tanjung, Z. S. Y., Hanafiah, M. A., & Fadhilah, M. N. (2025). Konsep fitrah dalam perspektif Islam dan komparasinya dengan konsep Tabula Rasa [The concept of fitrah from an Islamic perspective and its comparison with the concept of Tabula Rasa]. AUD Cendekia: Journal of Islamic Early Childhood Education, 5(3), 205–221. https://doi.org/10.53802/audcendekia.v5i3.580

    DOI: https://doi.org/10.53802/audcendekia.v5i3.580

  53. Topkara, U. (2025). On responsibility: Islamic ethical thought engages with Jewish ethical thought. Religions, 16(3), 274. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel16030274

    DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/rel16030274

  54. Varden, H. (2017). Kant and women. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 98(4), 653–694. https://doi.org/10.1111/papq.12103

    DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/papq.12103

  55. Vidūnaitė, M. (2023). The agency in Islam or (and) human rights? The case of pious Baltic Muslim women. Religions, 14(7), 937. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel14070937

    DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/rel14070937

  56. Wadud, A. (1999). Qur’an and woman: Rereading the sacred text from a woman’s perspective. Oxford University Press.

  57. Wahyuningsih, F., Novita, Y., Arief, A., & Zalnur, M. (2026). Study of human being in Islamic philosophy of education: Study of the concept of fitrah and its comparison with nativism, empirism, convergence and its implications on the Islamic education process. Journal of Higher Education and Academic Advancement, 3(1), 11–24. https://doi.org/10.61796/jheaa.v3i1.1592

    DOI: https://doi.org/10.61796/jheaa.v3i1.1592
No Related Submission Found