A Critique of Dr. Soroush's Theory of Prophetic Dreams: Inconsistencies (4), Hassan Ansari

Here I will raise a few further explanatory points to show that Dr. Soroush's theory suffers from internal contradictions: 1- Even if we accept Dr. Soroush's theory, the text of the Quran, as a literary text in a historical Arabic language, requires criticism and an understanding based on the text, not dream interpretation, even if we consider the origin of revelation to be rooted in dreams. Even if we seek the foundations of the formation of revelation in dreams, the Quran has ultimately become determinate as text and speech. Thought becomes determinate in language, and the element of imagination is naturally intended in language, not when it is still in the realm of the mind. Literary criticism, of course, has its own philosophical foundations. Literary criticism can and must rely on philosophical theory, but the mechanism of language with all its capacities must be examined through literary criticism, and beyond that, there is no need for philosophical theory. Dr. Soroush can say that spoken language with imaginative elements must be based on dreams, but this argument should be raised and judged within literary criticism. However, when it comes to a specific text, one must only apply what has previously been examined and accepted in literary criticism, and there is no longer any need for philosophizing, especially of the theological-kalāmī variety. In the foundations of literary criticism, one can consider dreams as a factor in the processing of the imaginative element, but this point must be raised in the theoretical discussions of literary criticism. In the case of a specific text, language cannot be reduced to dreams unless we are committed to its implications everywhere and say, for example, that wherever there is an element of imagination, a dream has been involved. Naturally, this becomes a literary theory. Otherwise, if what is said after the dream is expressed through linguistic tools, one must turn to the literary criticism of that speech, regardless of whether what was said relied on a dream; that is, it took its facts from the dream. Unless Mr. Soroush believes that the Prophet spoke in a dreamlike state, meaning he spoke while not yet awake; and that is impossible.

2- Even if the Prophet took the facts from dreams, according to his theory, the Prophet ultimately, in the position of expression, made use of the language of his people. Moreover, can a person's dream be independent of the culture and cultural language of the dreamer? Therefore, not only did he dream with the language and culture of his people, but according to the assumption, he must also have expressed his visions in their language. This is where, in any case, if there is talk of the Quran's composition by the Prophet, one must rely on that same literary criticism, and there is no need for dream interpretation. Because we are left with a literary text in his tongue, which is also the tongue of his people. Why, then, does Dr. Soroush highlight the element of dreams? Dr. Soroush can ultimately say that the Prophet recounted his conceptions, conceptions that were partly rooted in his dreams. As long as the Quran, as the text or speech of the Prophet, is in the language of his people, dream interpretation is unnecessary, because according to the assumption of his theory, those conceptions and understandings have exited the text of the dream and its mechanisms and have been articulated in a historical language. Someone who was in a dream, then awoke and delivered a discourse—a literary text in a literary and historical language—his speech must be assessed within the same linguistic framework he employed; that is, the language of his people.

3- Dreams are also governed by culture. Therefore, if someone like Dr. Soroush reduces revelation to a dream, there is no reason to reduce the text of the Quran, as a literary text, to a text suitable for dream interpretation. Moreover, sometimes you see something in a dream that is indescribable, but upon waking, you liken it to what exists in your language and cultural language. According to the hypothesis, the Prophet saw something in a dream, but in the act of interpretation, if he used the Throne, it does not necessarily mean he saw that thing in the form of the Throne in the dream. In fact, the linguistic equivalent of what he saw in the dream, within the culture of the people, was the Throne. This is where history and historical literary criticism come into play, not dream interpretation. In fact, dream interpretation is unnecessary. We are faced with a text and a discourse, and what we have is the literary criticism of this text. Furthermore, even if the Prophet saw the signified of his own verbal expression of the Throne in a dream, he saw his people's conceptions of God, His greatness, and His exalted station in the dream, and thus, the dream has no role in the phenomenon of revelation. The Prophet could have cultivated these conceptions in his spiritual reflections while awake and in his mind, without needing a dream. If the Quran is the Prophet's composition, and he was governed by his social and environmental conceptions in its formulation, and the dream did not provide him a connection to noumenal truths (as the traditional theory of revelation explains it, even in the form of a righteous vision), and in reality, the dream was merely an opportunity to observe imaginary elements crafted by his mind, then what need is there to introduce the element of the dream? Creative poets and writers who achieve such a creative depiction of existence while awake naturally accomplish something more significant.

4- Another point, which we will address further later, is that in Dr. Soroush's theory, the connection between dreams and revelation has not been explained. Why should one suppose that connection with the Unseen or God is only possible in a dream? And fundamentally, does his theory foresee a way to explain this connection through dreams? A dream that is directly related to the chemical processes of the human brain; and, in theological terms, a person in sleep is captive to the material world, why should it be considered the only path to communication with God? Why should intuition be reduced to a dream? In fact, the problem with Mr. Soroush's theory is that it reduces intuition to a dream in which, in his view, the connection with the Unseen has not been explained. From his view, I understand that the Prophet, in a dream, with the conceptions of his waking world, saw things that may have no noumenal truth at all and are merely conceptions arising from the culture and cultural language of his people. That is, the noumenon must be reduced to the conceptions of the dream world. If this dream is intuition and mysticism, it must be said it is a mysticism and intuition in which God's share as the World of the Unseen is not seen. In truth, according to this view, the Prophet intuited himself in the station of God. Incidentally, this point has precedents in some Islamic Sufi and mystical schools, where, in fact, humanity or nature takes the place of God. We have divine mysticisms and closed mysticisms turned towards human egoism. In this type of mysticism, the human becomes the center of existence, and the mystical experience becomes the intuition of the human self and its dialogue with itself as the center of gravity of existence. In another writing, I will critique Mr. Dr. Soroush's view on the nature of revelation from this perspective.

.

---

.

The Fourth Critique of Dr. Abdolkarim Soroush by Dr. Hassan Ansari

A Critique of Dr. Soroush's Theory of Prophetic Dreams: Inconsistencies (4)

Hassan Ansari | Thursday, 26 May 2016

Source: Hassan Ansari's Personal Website

.

---

.

Related Content:

The First Critique of Dr. Abdolkarim Soroush by Dr. Hassan Ansari

The Second Critique of Dr. Abdolkarim Soroush by Dr. Hassan Ansari

The Third Critique of Dr. Abdolkarim Soroush by Dr. Hassan Ansari

.

---

.