A Refutation of Dr. Soroush's Theory of 'The Qur'an: The Prophet's Dreams', by Nima Haghpour

Previously, in the article “Time, God’s Knowledge, and the Relation between Divine and Human Wills,” I addressed the incorrectness of one of the key presuppositions of Dr. Soroush’s theory of “The Qur’an: Muhammad’s Word,” and now I intend to offer some explanations in refutation of his arguments in the debate with Mr. Abdolali Bazargan regarding the theory of “The Qur’an: The Prophet’s Dreams”(1).

Let me state briefly at the outset that Dr. Soroush’s arguments seek to prove that the Qur’an cannot be the literal Word of God, merely recounted by the Prophet, because no mechanism for such a thing exists in the universe. Rather, the Qur’an is the product of “the Prophet’s dreams” and had an auditory, visual, and even gustatory, olfactory, and tactile origin, and it is for this reason that discrepancies and contradictions are found in it, for such a mechanism entails the fallibility of the phenomenon of revelation, and consequently, one should not expect the Qur’an to be a coherent, error-free whole. Now, in refutation of his theory, I enumerate the following points:

1—Assuming the validity of the theory of “the Prophet’s dreams,” we must accept that those dreams were truthful (1), for if the Prophet’s dreams are not truthful and contain degrees of untruthfulness, then the prophethood of the Prophet loses its validity, because no distinction would be found between him and others by virtue of which we could call Muhammad ibn Abdullah a prophet, since anyone’s dreams can contain degrees of truth. Obviously, the multitude of dreams also cannot indicate the truth of the claim to prophethood.

2—On the other hand, when something is inspired to a person or he sees a truthful dream, the agency is not his own; rather, it is instilled in him from outside himself. For if the source of inspiration or the truthful dream were the person himself, then such categories would have no relevance. Now the question arises: what is the source of these instillations, and what is its mechanism?! It is evident that their source must be possessed of knowledge; otherwise, neither inspiration would be correct nor the dream truthful. But that source which is possessed of knowledge and has the ability to instill things inwardly in a human being is none other than God. This being the case, when the source of inward instillations is God, it no longer makes any difference whether the Prophet sees a truthful dream or hears a call with the ear of his heart and its texts are imprinted on his consciousness. Therefore, Dr. Soroush’s objection concerning the mechanism of revelation, if the Qur’an is the Word of God, if it is valid, is also valid against the theory of “The Qur’an: The Prophet’s Dreams” and undermines it, for both alternatives require divine agency.

3—But this objection is not valid, because if we hold, regarding revelation and the Qur’an, that its agent cannot be God, why do we hold, regarding the rest of creation, that God is the Creator?! Whereas, if we generalize Dr. Soroush’s argument, the result would be that God is not the creator of any material phenomenon, because He does not possess a material dimension and cannot create material phenomena through material mechanisms!

4—Every phenomenon in existence either has only a spiritual dimension or possesses both spiritual and material dimensions, in which case its spiritual dimension necessarily has existential priority in essence over the material dimension; in other words, until a phenomenon is brought into being in terms of its spiritual dimension, its materiality does not take shape. For example, until the concept of a human being, an animal, a plant, or an inanimate object steps into the realm of existence, the creation of their materiality is without a locus and is impossible. Until a building is designed, it is not built. Therefore, the phenomenon of revelation does not necessarily require a material dimension and can take place solely through the so-called psycho-spiritual capacities of the Prophet and with divine agency.

5—Dr. Soroush himself, according to the testimony of history, accepts that at the time of the occurrence of the phenomenon of revelation, particular states would overcome the Prophet of Islam, and this itself is evidence that the agency of revelation was not his own, for he did not determine the time of its occurrence himself.

6 — Elsewhere in his remarks, he maintains that revelation was a formless phenomenon and that it is the Prophet who gives it form and consequently renders it historical. Well, if revelation descended upon the Prophet through the mechanism of dreams, in an auditory, visual, etc. manner, and lacked the text of the Qur'an, the question arises: how did a person like Muhammad ibn Abdullah, who was neither a man of letters nor a poet, transform those dreams into such speech and convey it to his audience?! How did he become capable of this?! Apart from this, does Mr. Soroush not accept that revelation, in addition to its visual aspect, also possessed an auditory aspect? That being the case, what objection is there to saying that the Prophet heard the text of the verses word for word and they were imprinted on his consciousness?! This matter in no way conflicts with the visual aspect of the phenomenon of revelation, and its scope of inclusion could even encompass the entire Qur'an, whereas the visual aspect of revelation cannot be generalized to all verses, since some of them cannot be contained in imagination, such as the verses dealing with the divine attributes and names.

7 — In refuting that the Qur'an is the Word of God, he cites the supplications in the Qur'an as an example. It is interesting that when Mr. Soroush comes to the "Say" [qul] passages of the Qur'an, he attributes them to the Prophet and compares them with the poetry of Hafez and other poets, yet he does not accept this mode of speech for God—that He might have revealed these supplications to His Prophet from the tongue of His servants for the purpose of instruction or expressing truths!

8 — He cites verses where, for example, the Qur'an says the seas will catch fire, considers this a contradiction, and takes it as proof for the validity of the dream theory, whereas such imagery has been and continues to be used abundantly in literature and poetry, without the author or poet having seen those images in a dream. Therefore, there is no objection to God also employing literary devices to express His verses. (3)

9 — Another piece of evidence Dr. Soroush offers for the validity of his theory is that the Qur'an calls itself a "Book" [Kitab], even though it was not a book at the time the revelation was occurring, and it was therefore called a book because the Prophet saw it in book form in his dream. Apart from the fact that the semantic load of the word "book" is not confined to a number of bound pages, "book" can be applied to anything that is written on a tablet, whether it is written on paper pages or imprinted on the tablet of a person's consciousness. For "book" in reality contains the concept of a "letter." Every book is a letter from the author to the reader. Therefore, "Book" in the Qur'an is in reality a letter from the Lord of the Worlds to humankind. Apart from all this, when any author undertakes to write a book, the book is not before them at the outset; rather, they envision the product of their writing as a book, and this is a self-evident matter. The Qur'an, too, calls itself a book from the very beginning to make clear to its believing audience, who accept its truthfulness, their duty regarding its compilation, inscription, and preservation, and this has nothing to do with whether the Qur'an is the speech of Muhammad, or his dream, or the divine Word that descended upon him.

The discussion of whether the Qur'an is a text or speech is posterior to whether we consider it the divine Word or not. If we consider it the divine Word, even if it is speech in nature, because it is divine speech and arises from the absolute divine attributes, it is no different from a divine text in terms of precision and coherence (4); and if it is the speech of the Prophet himself, whether text or speech, it will not possess absolute precision and coherence, because his attributes are not absolute.

In conclusion, I will also state my own view regarding the pre-eternity [qidam] or createdness [huduth] of the Qur'an. The Qur'an is pre-eternal in terms of content and meaning, for it expresses the immutable laws governing existence, but its verbal form is a divine creation and is created, having been brought into being with regard to the context of its revelation, and in some verses it has an apparent historical dimension. However, because it arises from the divine attributes and names, its signification is not confined to a single period of history; rather, it is omnitemporal and omnipresent, and one must always strive for a more transcendent understanding and the identification of its contemporary instantiations. One of the effective methods for this important task, in the author's view, is "Understanding the Qur'an through the Puzzle Method," which I have addressed in four articles to date. (5)

.

---

.

Nima Haghpour — 6 Ordibehesht 1395

[email protected]

.

---

.

Notes:

1— BBC Persian Television's Pargar program, dated 3 May 2016

2— Dr. Soroush himself says that he has told his critics: if you consider the Prophet's revelation as authoritative, consider his dream as authoritative as well.

3— Refer to the book "Adam from the Perspective of the Qur'an," Volume One, authored by Seyyed Mohammad Javad Gharavi.

4— Refer to the article "The Qur'an and the Attributes of God" by the author.

5 — Part One: "The Concept of Waging War Against God and Understanding the Reason for Its Punishment in the Qur'an", Part Two: "The Permissibility of Relaxing Dress and Comfort for Women in the Presence of Certain Non-Mahrams", Part Three: "The Concept of Striking Disobedient Wives in the Qur'an", and Part Four: "The Permissibility of Non-Accountability Regarding Certain Widowed Women".

.

---

.