A Critique of Dr. Soroush's Theory of Revelation (1), Hassan Ansari

In a series of articles, we will discuss Dr. Soroush's theory regarding the nature of revelation and the dream-like character of prophetic revelation. The points that will be discussed in detail throughout these articles are as follows:

1- The gist of my argument is that the ultimate effort of Dr. Soroush in this theory is a discussion of the language of the Quran, and not the truth of revelation as the point of connection between the Prophet and the Unseen realm. His theory does not provide an explanation of the nature of revelation; it only discusses how the Prophet enters into the process of revelation. This, at least, is what I have understood from his theory. Well, one might consider the Prophet's mode of encountering revelation to be through dreams, but this does not necessarily mean presenting an interpretation of the truth of revelation itself. What Muslim scholars have emphasized is, in fact, the divine nature of the source of revelation, and this has been a consensus among them. However, as will be explained, they have held multiple interpretations of the truth of revelation, which have sometimes been very different and involved fundamental disagreements. If Dr. Soroush's view is that the source of revelation (I do not mean the words of revelation) is the Prophet and not God, then he must propose a new meaning of revelation.

2- Dr. Soroush does not clarify the relationship between his view and historical research on the Qur'an and its language, nor does he take such discussions into account. In my opinion, his judgment about the language of the Qur'an suffers from a poverty of historical perspective. In fact, in the formulation of the aforementioned theory by Dr. Soroush, no effort has been made to draw upon historical discussions in interpreting the nature of revelation. In other words, Dr. Soroush understands the Qur'an as a contemporary Arabic text and seemingly does not pay attention to the crucial point that the language of the Qur'an must be understood within the literary framework belonging to its historical context. Indeed, in this way, not only does Dr. Soroush show no regard for the findings of historians concerning the Qur'an, Qur'anic language, and its literary structures, but he also disregards the achievements of Muslim scholars who have discussed the literary language of the Qur'an and its syntactic and figurative structures, and who have produced a very rich literature over the centuries (especially the Mu'tazilites). Arabic literature has a history, and Qur'anic vocabulary, in relation to the history of the Arabic language contemporary with the era of the Qur'an up to the present, has been the subject of study in dozens of books and hundreds of articles and investigations. One cannot simply reduce the text of the Qur'an to the narration of prophetic dreams in a literary linguistic form without considering the historical and linguistic foundations of the literary genre that necessitates the language of "narration," just as one cannot reduce a text to a "symbolic" language without engaging with the particulars of the language of symbolic texts within their historical and literary context. Without precise, historically-oriented attention to the words of the Qur'anic text, one cannot speak about the linguistic nature of the Qur'an relying solely on a theological or philosophical theory. Hermeneutics is the science of understanding the text, and a text, whatever text it may be, has historical determinacy. Language is fundamentally a historical and human phenomenon. The Mu'tazilites understood this point very well, and indeed early on. Their emphasis on the figurative language of the Qur'an and its literary interpretation as Arabic language, as we know, was directly related to their belief in the createdness of the Qur'an. Although the Mu'tazilites, and under their influence many exegetes, understood Qur'anic language in light of Arabic syntax, which itself was developed under the influence of familiarity with Greek philosophy and logic on the one hand, and the deductive logic of the theologians on the other—and the entire history of Qur'anic exegesis has been influenced by this matter—it must nevertheless be said that exegetes did not neglect the point that the Arabic language of the Qur'an must be understood within its auditory and historical framework. The history of Qur'anic exegesis is clear testimony to this point. Thus, if we consider the language of the Qur'an to be the language of narrating prophetic dreams, we cannot present our discussion in neglect of the historical examination of the literary structures of the Qur'an. This is akin to trying to understand a book on mathematics through symbolic language, or a philosophical book through the language of poetry. Everything mentioned has its own history in Arabic literature, and one cannot determine the language of a text or discourse without paying attention to such issues. Merely as an example, I must point to research conducted on the literary structure of the Qur'an in relation to Semitic languages, including Syriac and Aramaic, and how the textual structure of those languages, from an expressive point of view, differs from the Arabic language in its later, evolved classical form. This discussion is directly related to the discussion of the language of the Qur'an and the expressive and rhetorical structures employed within it. Dr. Soroush, in his discussion of the expressive structure of the Qur'an, does not pay attention to these matters (for instance, what he expresses regarding the position of the speaker and the addressee in the Qur'an; whereas this could merely be a specific type of expressive formulation. The same applies to his discussion of the meaning and concept of the Book in the Qur'an).

3- Furthermore, it must be emphasized that Dr. Soroush can, in the form of a theological theory, present a theory about revelation. In this sense, he can state, as a religious theologian, what his theory of revelation is and what its nature is. However, the problem with Dr. Soroush's theory is that his theory does not address the reality of revelation. The utmost extent of his effort is an understanding of the nature of the language of the Qur'an, regarding which, as we have said, he has presented an ahistorical theory. Regardless of whether the language of the Qur'an is the language of recounting prophetic dreams or not, the issue is: from a religious perspective, what is the source of this language? In other words, in what sense can this text or speech be considered revelation? Here, if one speaks of revelation, it is because this speech or text must, from a religious point of view, establish a relationship with the realm of the Unseen or with God; that is, a transcendent reality through which prophethood is realized. One of the issues that has been raised in this context is the problem of revelation as a theological problem in relation to the doctrine of divine transcendence (tanzih). It is here that theologians have encountered difficulty concerning the nature of God's speech and His speaking to humankind, or in other words, God's intervention in history and the relationship between the contingent and the eternal, or between the attributes and the divine essence. Therefore, one aspect of the discussion of revelation has, in fact, been a purely theological aspect, without any connection to the knowledge of understanding and hermeneutics. It is here that the discussion of revelation—which, of course, pertains to the discussion of the nature of the divine Word—has been an arena of conflicting opinions among the Mu'tazilites, Ash'arites, and others. While the Mu'tazilites, in this discussion, by not distinguishing between the Speech of God and the Qur'an and by declaring both to be created—which, for them, is essentially one and the same thing—practically confined the discussion solely within a theological framework (and, of course, elsewhere, in the discussion of the figurative language of the Qur'an, they used the presupposition of the Qur'an's createdness in discussing the literary language of the Qur'an as a created language and as a language with the usual Arabic syntactic structures of human speech), the Ash'arites, albeit unintentionally, took a more important path, which, as I have explained elsewhere before, is far more significant from the perspective of the hermeneutical nature of the discussion of revelation. Their effort was, in fact, to build a bridge from the theological discussion concerning the nature of God's Speech to the discussion of the nature of Qur'anic revelation (they considered the Qur'an to be an account of the eternal Speech). In discussing the nature of Qur'anic revelation, they not only explained the nature of revelation from a theological perspective but also discussed it with a hermeneutical approach and the understanding of the text, and thus analyzed the Qur'anic language. Dr. Soroush's theory ultimately seeks to show that the Qur'anic text must be understood as an account of prophetic dreams. In fact, from his perspective, the language of the Qur'an is the language of recounting the Messenger's dreams, but it does not clarify what the reality of revelation is. For someone might, in a dream, become a hearer of God's Speech or a recipient of it in some way; just as Muslim theologians have repeatedly emphasized this type of revelation, and there are important indications of it in the Qur'an itself. Moreover, is revelation not precisely that the Prophet becomes the recipient of God's Speech and utters what is the Speech of God? Well, we might assume that what he heard in his dream is directly the Speech of God. Dr. Soroush, of course, states that the Qur'an is also the Prophet's visions. But it might be conceivable that the Prophet's visions in the world of dreams, which form the text or speech of the Qur'an, constitute revelation through God's recounting of them; in other words, God becomes the tongue of the Prophet and his visions. Incidentally, there are many verses in the Qur'an that show God speaks through the tongue of His servants. Thus, why could the theory of prophetic dreams not be seen in its inverse form? Indeed, Muslim scholars have written extensively about this before. In discussing the reality of revelation and the Speech of God, against the backdrop of a metaphysical discussion about the divine Word, they have examined the nature of revelation. On the one hand, we have the school of Ibn Arabi (and in a different form, Shaykh al-Ishraq) which, by linking revelation with the world of discontiguous imagination, has explained the connection of the Prophet's rational and immaterial soul with the world of angelic and imaginal forms and his intuitive unveiling. On the other hand, we have philosophers like Farabi and Ibn Sina who have utilized the Active Intellect and connection to it in explaining the phenomenon of prophethood. In both cases, the Prophet becomes the tongue of God. And is revelation anything other than this? Incidentally, in this way, one can better interpret how the absolutely formless and transcendent reality takes shape in a human and, of course, historical language and, in fact,

Dr. Soroush proceeds solely by way of the notion that the Prophet is situated in a dream-state and that his language must be regarded as dream-language, but in fact the past Muslim scholars we have named paid far more precise attention to the point that the understanding and interpretation of Quranic language must be comprehended and discussed with the backing of a discussion of the nature of revelation. If Quranic language requires esoteric interpretation, one must see upon what world the reality of revelation rests, a realm that can first be reached only through the “unveiling of the hidden,” after which others, too, must understand, on that basis, the linguistic domain that expresses that existential domain. In this discussion, Dr. Soroush’s sole emphasis at present (contrary to his earlier articles on the Quran) is on the linguistic nature of the Quran, but this discussion does not necessarily have a direct connection to the nature of revelation from the standpoint of an existential inquiry, nor does it explain the manner and quality of the divine or human origin of revelation. The Ismailis, in the midst of this, with a metaphysical and philosophical approach (relying on their Neoplatonic philosophy), have perhaps articulated the most important views for understanding the relation of God’s speech as revelation to the Prophet with the transcendent reality of the divine essence. Their problem, of course, is fundamentally the safeguarding of apophatic monotheism based on the negative theology in which they believed. Both what they arrived at and even what the Ashʿarites believed concerning the Quran’s signification of the internal speech (and which I addressed in that earlier writing) find meaning, in a sense, within the framework of the problem of the relation of the originated to the eternal. In both interpretations, a way is found to regard the language of the Quran as a historical and originated language (human and/or temporal) while at the same time attributing it to God. The theologians and legal theorists, where they discussed God’s knowledge and its relation to internal speech and the discussion of request and will, certainly had all these discussions in view. Those who emphasized two kinds of “descent of the Quran,” including the instantaneous descent of the Quran, in fact the core of their theory, as we shall explain in the future, was precisely that the Quran possesses a collective and summary station and a station of detailed disclosure. The station of detailed disclosure is, in truth, the intervention of God’s speech as revelation in history. In the collective and summary station, or the instantaneous descent of the Quran, their intent was that the Prophet has an intuitive encounter with the world of God’s knowledge. The locus and station of this encounter is the heart of the Prophet.

4- Only in this way is it possible to account for the various types of Quranic verses. This is, of course, an intra-religious discussion, quite apart from the historical one. My emphasis here, however, is that in reality, contrary to Dr. Soroush's claim and wish, his theory can only explain the condition of a portion of the Quranic verses, and that too from the perspective of the language of the Quran. But when it comes to verses concerning legal rulings and the Sharia, or historical events contemporary with the time of the Prophet whose echo is seen in the Quran, his argument is incapable of providing an explanation. The distinctions within the Quran can be better explained through the method employed by the aforementioned Muslim philosophers, theologians, and scholars in discussing the nature of revelation. This, incidentally, is a point alluded to in certain hadiths, as we shall discuss.

.

---

.

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

A Critique of Dr. Soroush's Theory of Revelation (1)

Hassan Ansari | Thursday, 23 Ordibehesht 1395

Source: Hassan Ansari's Personal Website

.

---

.