A Reasoned Response Is Better Than Calling a Critic an 'IRGC Bulletin Writer'

In response to my request for Professor Abdolkarim Soroush to answer the critiques of Arash Naraghi and Akbar Ganji directed at him, his son Soroush Dabbagh has raised some points in an audio file on his Telegram channel.

I will not repeat the points I mentioned in that short note, which I still consider defensible, and once again, out of respect for the school of religious intellectualism, I will offer a few brief supplementary clarifications.

The essence of Mr. Dabbagh's argument is that the critiques of Akbar Ganji and Arash Naraghi are not worth answering. My claim is that they are.

As I mentioned in the previous note, I personally have criticisms of both Arash Naraghi's and Akbar Ganji's critiques, but I consider both to contain important points and claims that, even assuming they are erroneous, are worth answering.

Soroush Dabbagh has called Akbar Ganji's writing an instance of bulletin writing and labeled him an IRGC bulletin writer, and in this audio file, he has again defended this attribution. Regarding this claim, I will make a few brief points:

1- The six installments of Ganji's detailed critique, which contain no personal attacks on Professor Soroush, do not constitute bulletin writing.

2- Even if we assume it is an instance of bulletin writing, not all bulletin writing is worthless; only the Kayhan-style, false, and erroneous type of bulletin writing is unacceptable. Even writing bulletins for the IRGC is not objectionable in principle. It is the abusive letter that is bad, not bulletin writing. Consider the following example; where is the abusive letter in it?

For instance, in one example, Ganji has presented six arguments (with direct quotations) regarding how Professor Soroush's new views could serve as a basis for believing in his own prophethood or that of others. For example, one of them is that according to the Professor's explicit statement, someone who directly experiences the formless God is a prophet and should not follow the narratives of previous prophets about the forms of God. On the other hand, the Professor himself has explicitly stated elsewhere that he has experienced the formless God and has spiritual dreams. Ganji concludes that on this basis, Professor Soroush, just as he does not consider Rumi's prophetic status lower than that of Muhammad ibn Abdullah, could also consider himself a prophet. If the premises and conclusion of Ganji's argument are wrong, it requires that Professor Soroush either correct his previous explicit statements or use this opportunity for clarification and a more precise explanation of his meaning; labeling Ganji's critique as biased and political is not the solution.

Or, for example, Ganji claims that if, according to Professor Soroush's explicit statements, we are truly to use psychoanalysis, dream psychologists, and today's empirical science to interpret the Prophet's dreams, revelation becomes more a reflection of the Prophet's frustrations, desires, and life, rather than, as the Professor says, the result of a spiritual and prophetic experience and a defensible religious basis. Or, for example, Ganji says the precise meaning of dream, prophethood, and mission in this theory is unclear, and different meanings have been intended in different places.

Or, for example, he has asked how the impersonal and formless God that Professor Soroush defends, whose speech is meaningless, can, according to Dr. Soroush's belief, be smelled or create? Does not God's creation require personal attributes such as knowledge and will? Such critiques and questions are worth answering.

3- Many of Akbar Ganji's previous critiques are instances of investigative journalism, the good kind of which we also need, but this detailed critique happens to go beyond a journalistic work. His critiques claim to point out certain errors and inconsistencies in the theory of prophetic dreams and some of its theoretical and practical consequences, and in support of them, he has quoted verbatim from dozens of hours of Professor Soroush's recent lectures and writings. These claims deserve a response.

Personally, I have had considerable disagreements both with the tenor and content of Akbar Ganji's political critiques during the reform era and afterward, and with his theological views, and I have raised these in the public sphere; however, this disagreement does not prevent me from taking his criticisms seriously. Ganji has leveled similarly sharp and forthright critiques at the theological views of Mohsen Kadivar, Arash Naraghi, Abolghasem Fanaei, and Mahmoud Sadri, and all of these scholars have engaged in dialogue with him, responding to his criticisms with reasoned arguments in several illuminating series of notes, without accusing Ganji's critique of being biased and political.

Soroush Dabbagh also says in this file that only a critique raised by trained academic specialists has value. This statement is also indefensible, and the tradition of critical rationality teaches us that raising a critique or opinion has no prerequisites, and as long as it relies on reasoning, evidence, and corroborating indications, it can be instructive and foster a fruitful dialogue. As it happens, Dr. Soroush himself is someone who, although his doctorate is in a field outside the humanities (pharmacy), has been an influential and weighty theorist in theology and Rumi studies, and his views in these areas are worth taking seriously and engaging with. Many scholars interested in the tradition of religious intellectualism (from Mahmoud Sadri to figures of this movement in Iran) have similar questions for Dr. Soroush and expect him to provide a reasoned response to Ganji's serious points and questions for the sake of clarification. Welcoming such dialogues is a sign of epistemic humility and is illuminating for the audience.

I also had criticisms regarding the use of the term sectarianism and the analysis of motives in the critique of Arash Naraghi. He, too, in his second critique, has explained the precise meaning of this term, devoid of negative connotation, and in my view, calling his critique biased is unjust, and a non-personal, reasoned response to him is appropriate.

Dr. Soroush has the right not to respond to some criticisms, but calling the critiques of his closest former companions and allies biased and political is indefensible.

Whatever criticisms may be leveled at Akbar Ganji and his political and intellectual positions (and I personally have many), the charge of being biased against Dr. Soroush does not stick to him. The best years of Ganji's youth were spent in service to compiling and disseminating Dr. Soroush's views at the Serat Institute, and reducing his critiques to bulletin writing and personal attack is contrary to fairness. Calling others' critiques biased, personal, and political can itself be an instance of unjustly reading intentions.

.

---

.

A Reasoned Response Is Better Than Calling a Critic an 'IRGC Bulletin Writer'

Author: Dr. Hamidreza Jalaeipour (Sociologist)

.

---

.