A Rendering of the “Quran and Three Fundamental Questions” Sessions; Part 4 of 4

A Rendering by Mehdi Iranmanesh of Farhad Shafti's View Presented in the Series of Sessions on “The Quran and Three Fundamental Questions”; Part Four: “Questions and Answers”

For the PDF file, please refer to the end of the page.

Part Four: Questions and Answers

A Note from Farhad Shafti:

“Through the efforts of my esteemed friend Mehdi Iranmanesh and friends at Sedanet, the question-and-answer portion of the series of discussions on ‘The Quran and Three Fundamental Questions’ has also been prepared in written form. In reviewing this text, some similar questions and their answers were merged, and while preserving the conversational nature, I tried to enhance the coherence and clarity of this text, which was originally speech and dialogue, with some editing. Also, since time for answers was short during the session, I have added further explanations in this text as appropriate to complete some responses. The basis for the perspective of these answers and the elaboration of certain concepts raised are found in the main parts of this report, which is the response to the three fundamental questions.”

Q. If the basis is pluralism, then why did the Prophet fight the polytheists?

Pluralism is different from tolerance. Pluralism is not absolute and has a ceiling. I have explained the boundary of pluralism from the Quran's perspective. The polytheists addressed by the Prophet were outside this boundary.

Q. Among the ancients, abrogation (naskh) encompassed both beliefs and rulings. Could it not be said that the salvation of the People of the Book was mentioned in the early stages of revelation in the Quran but was abrogated in the later stages of the Prophet's mission?

I will answer in three parts:

First, in my opinion, this is not a very precise statement. The ancient scholars understood a broad concept from abrogation. When they spoke of abrogation, it also included the Quran's specifications and clarifications. However, even among those same ancient scholars, for instance, Sheikh Tusi in *Uddat al-Usul* considers abrogation in its specific sense to be only in rulings. Allameh Tabatabai says abrogation also exists in existential matters, but he means *bada'*. This is different from our discussion.

Second, the Quran says a group of the People of the Book will attain salvation. If you say this has been abrogated, there are two possibilities:

Either that group of the People of the Book changed their behavior. So, if a verse says they will go to heaven and elsewhere says they will go to hell, it is because the People of the Book changed their conduct. If this is the case, we have no dispute. But if the meaning is that they are the same group and did not change, yet God initially intended to send them to heaven and then changed His mind, this raises a theological problem unless we hold a strongly Ash'arite view. Even the Ash'arites do not say this. This calls God's justice and insight into question.

Third, many of the verses I brought up in the discussion of pluralism, especially those that are explicit, appear in Surah Al-Ma'idah, and according to narrations, Surah Al-Ma'idah is either the last surah of the Quran or the penultimate one.

On the other hand, we do not have a reliable narration for the abrogating and the abrogated. We refer to these two when we see a contradiction. I tried to show that there is fundamentally no contradiction regarding these verses. If you do not accept my argument, first demonstrate the contradiction, then bring up the discussion of abrogation.

Q: What is the reason for the Quran being a miracle?

The Quran itself has not said that it is a miracle. Muslims say this, but the Quran has issued a challenge (tahaddi). I am not concerned with the entire course of history, but what we do know is that at that time and during that period of revelation, there was no Arab who could answer this challenge of the Quran. The Quran has an eloquent and remarkable language. The Arabs of that time used to hang their best poems on the roof of the Kaaba and called them the Mu'allaqat. One of them was Labid. It is said that Farazdaq, who was himself a master poet, would prostrate to one of Labid's couplets. It is reported that this same Labid, after Islam, no longer composed poetry. It is reported that the second Caliph asked him, 'Why do you no longer compose poetry?' and he replied, 'Ever since I heard Al-Baqarah and Al-Imran, I have set aside composing poetry.' The point is their eloquence. The inimitability of the Quran is from this perspective. I suppose that the stronger and more valuable the spiritual experience behind the creation of a text, the stronger, more beautiful, deeper, and richer that text will be.

Q: Is the challenge (tahaddi) for the local audience, or can it also be for future generations?

The challenge can also be for future generations, but it was originally for the direct audience and was meaningful to them because it was entirely in their language, and that audience, as I explained, was the Quran's primary intended addressee.

Q: Could the idea that the truth is shared but the paths are different lead to the conclusion that, for example, one can reach the goal more easily through a certain religion?

My conception is that for every person, there is a suitable path. We usually follow the religion that aligns with our culture. Let us not say this is Arab culture; our culture has become mixed with this religion. Compare an Arab, an Iranian, and a Chinese Muslim, and you will see. The religion is the same religion, but the Arab thinks in an Arab way, the Iranian in an Iranian way, and the Chinese in a Chinese way. You see this difference even among the various Arab nationalities. But, of course, yes, in principle, there is no objection to the idea that a particular religion might be more beneficial for a particular person.

Q: Were the penal laws of the Quran meant to be for all time?

Penal laws, such as cutting off hands and feet from opposite sides mentioned in the Quran, or, for instance, crucifixion, if they were to be implemented today, are not compatible with contemporary ethics. Some jurists say that implementing these laws today brings the religion into disrepute (wahn al-din) and that we should not do such things. The main problem lies elsewhere, and that is the refusal to accept the proportionality of the Quran's laws with the behaviors, norms, and culture of the time and place of revelation. One must note that in that time and place, when you went outside, seeing someone being killed, having their hand cut off, or someone drawing a sword and beheading another was normal, just as today seeing two people arguing is normal. This goes back to the fact that the laws of the Sharia in the Quran were based on the laws of that time and place, which is why jurists say that most of the Quran's social rulings were confirmatory (imdha'i) and not foundational (ta'sisi). These rulings were based on the ethics of the time and place of revelation.

I understand it this way: moral foundations are not relative, but moral instances are relative. For example, the Quran says, 'Eat and drink, but do not be excessive.' If at that time someone had said, 'Well, separate this trash for recycling,' no one would have understood what was meant; perhaps there was no need for it either. Today, you can say that one instance of not being excessive is, for example, recycling. I can imagine that if the Prophet came today, he would count recycling among the recommended acts (mustahabbat). The foundation is the same foundation, but the instance is different. Ethics is the upstream of the laws of the Sharia. The laws of the Sharia follow ethics, and the laws of the Sharia have always been one step (and not more than one step) ahead of the ethics of the society for which they were revealed. The rest is up to the followers of that Sharia to advance this Sharia dynamically. Khaled Abou El Fadl, in his book 'Reasoning with God,' says that the Quran demands a moral reader who does not stop where the text ends, but rather strives to understand and continue the moral trajectory that the text has established. In other words, from his perspective, the laws of the Sharia are the beginning of a process, not its end.

Q: Do you consider the emergence of a new prophet possible?

In my view, when we speak of a new prophet, we mean that definition of a prophet which accords with the Abrahamic religions. Therefore, this question and its answer are meaningful within the framework of the Abrahamic religions. Regarding the Prophet of Islam, we know that the verse of the Seal of the Prophets has been revealed. Of course, the understanding of this verse is based on interpretation, and it is difficult to say that the verse is explicit. Regardless of what the interpretation of this verse might be, I believe that we should no longer expect a new prophet, a prophet in the sense found in the Abrahamic religions. The Children of Israel and the Ummiyyun are two communities of the Abrahamic religions. The Children of Israel had numerous prophets, and based on the Quran, it can be understood that Jesus was the last of them. Regarding the Ummiyyun, we also know based on the Quranic narrative that Abraham prayed for a Muslim community to be established from the lineage of Ishmael, and for a prophet from among them to arise for this task. This was also accomplished. In this way, I believe the case of sending prophets for these two communities—that is, the Children of Israel, the Ummiyyun, and those who joined them in their religious path—has been closed.

I would also like to say that I imagine humanity today lives in an era where it does not welcome a new prophet as it did in the past. That is, even if someone were to claim prophethood, I doubt they would find many followers or a community like Muhammad (PBUH) or Jesus (PBUH) did. We can discuss and exchange views on the reasons for this perception and the causes that can be enumerated for it on another occasion.

Q:  How do you justify the ruling on apostasy?

It requires no justification at all, because in the Quran we do not have a ruling for killing an apostate; rather, the verse of the Quran that refers to apostasy speaks of the apostate's natural death (وَمَنْ يَرْتَدِدْ مِنْكُمْ عَنْ دِينِهِ فَيَمُتْ وَهُوَ كَافِرٌ فَأُولَئِكَ حَبِطَتْ أَعْمَالُهُمْ فِي الدُّنْيَا وَالْآخِرَة – 2:217). In the Quran, the promise of Hell is given for apostates, but we must note that the intended audience of these verses were the direct addressees of the Quran, for whom the ultimatum had been completed. This relates to that specific meaning of arrogance which leads to the denial of truth, which I discussed in response to the first question, and which is specific to the direct addressees of the Prophet. As we discussed, based on the Quranic narrative, for this group of addressees, who in Quranic terminology are disbelievers, there will be punishment in the Hereafter, not because they abandoned their religion, but because, out of the arrogance they possessed, they denied the truth. As was discussed, for the direct addressees of the Prophet who, after the completion of the ultimatum, stubbornly opposed out of arrogance, the Quran also promises worldly punishment. This could have included some of the apostates at that time as well, but like the rest of the rulings arising from the process of completing the ultimatum, it is a ruling pertaining to the direct addressees of the Prophet.

The Quran, at the end of Surah Al-Ma'idah, shows the importance of sincerity in belief. In verses 116 to 119, where God says to Jesus, "Did you tell them to worship you and your mother?" and Jesus says, "I did not say that." Then Jesus says, "If You forgive them, indeed You are the Exalted in Might, the Wise, and if You punish them, indeed they are Your servants." In a way, Jesus seeks intercession. Then the verse says, "This is the Day when the truthful will benefit from their truthfulness." Today, the truthfulness of the truthful will benefit them. This is no small benefit; the continuation of the verse says they will attain the great attainment. If, based on truthfulness, someone chooses or abandons a religion and joins another, based on this Quranic narrative I mentioned, they will have no problem. When we say that the direct addressees denied out of arrogance, we mean precisely that they lacked truthfulness in their choice. Let us also consider that the narrative of this conversation does not necessarily mean that such a conversation between God and Jesus will take place in some manner. The purpose of these verses is to convey a message, and I think the emphasis on truthfulness is part of this message.

Q: So, in practice, are apostasy and pluralism compatible?

The answer I gave is not limited to the domain of pluralism. It is the same in exclusivism. Among our contemporary scholars, you see scholars who do not accept apostasy at all, and all of them are, of course, exclusivists.

Q: By what indicator can we distinguish which matter was based on the exigencies of that time and which is based on today?

Those verses that speak of how the Prophet interacted with his companions are always specific to them unless a contextual indicator proves otherwise. The indicator could be a few words in the verse itself or the content within which the verse is situated. As I understand it, all the verses of warning pertain to the process of delivering the ultimatum and, in this respect, are specific to the direct addressees of the Quran, although their general message—that is, being mindful of the consequences of one's actions—can be universal.

The matter of Sharia is also different. We have Sharia in individual matters, in social matters and dealings with others, and in relation to God. Each of these requires a separate discussion:

- Regarding the relationship with God, which is worship, since we are situated within the Islamic tradition, it is necessary to maintain the Sharia of relating to God based on Islam. In this way, everyone will act in worship as a single Ummah, in harmony and uniformity. Social changes generally do not affect this relationship. In all the spiritual traditions I know of, there is a harmonious and uniform method for connecting with the transcendent, and this is one of the attractions and strengths of these spiritual traditions.

- In a person's relationship with themselves, many matters are recommendations and not definitive commands. Many of these recommendations are for cultivating a harmonious religious culture, such as saying Bismillah before eating and drinking, and some are trans-religious, like being clean and grooming the body. Those matters that are commands are few, and I do not think they are disproportionate to our modern life or cause any problems—for instance, the prohibition of pork. Indeed, some of them are considered moral virtues even from the perspective of non-religious societies, such as avoiding adultery. I believe that the transformation of societies and civilizations usually does not affect the applicability of these laws, and for this reason, I see acting upon them as rational and in harmony with ethics for a Muslim.

- But that social part, the relationship with others, is precisely where I believe the late Ahmad Qabel's discussions about the realm of reason's discretion (mantaqat al-faragh) find their greatest application. The point is that when this Sharia first came, it was not its intention to bring something entirely new to its addressees. About seventy percent of Islamic Sharia is confirmatory (imdha'i), meaning it takes the very practices of the people of that time and, if necessary, adjusts and refines them to align with justice, human dignity, and purification (tazkiyah). (My mentioning justice, dignity, and purification together is not a random listing of certain moral virtues. Fundamentally, the basis is purification. This very purification has manifestations in a social context, and I believe its two most important manifestations are justice and human dignity. So, my mentioning these two is my emphasis on the social aspect of purification.) This part of Sharia, like the other parts, is suited to the conditions of the time and place of the revelation, for example, many verses concerning women and penal verses. The difference, however, is that in this part of Sharia, social and economic changes—in short, the evolution of civilizations—affect the function and appropriateness of the rulings. In my view, Sharia law in this part is a dynamic law. On this basis, I believe that the social laws of any potentially ethics-oriented society can be an acceptable form of those social Sharia laws (pertaining to relationships with others) for that society, provided that the same ethical criteria overseeing justice, human dignity, and purification are operative within the fabric of these laws.

There is another point regarding the verses of rulings. Regardless of whether all these verses were meant for all time or were local in terms of time and place, and before we even ponder that, an important concern is whether we have correctly understood the verses of rulings in the Quran themselves—for instance, usury (riba) or hijab. Can we, before turning to hadith or other sources, first understand what the Quran says about such rulings and use other sources only in light of that Quranic understanding? I think there is much work to be done in this area.

Q: How can someone who does not believe in the Hereafter but whose lifestyle is close to spirituality be reconciled with the Quran's pluralism?

Before answering, I emphasize again that we do not have absolute pluralism. That is, pluralism has limits, boundaries, and a ceiling. Its ceiling is that the ethics you have within these three dimensions must not be reprehensible ethics.

My answer to this particular question is also based on the same foundation. Yes, you can say that even verses like verse 62 of Surah Al-Baqarah, which I referred to regarding pluralism, have made belief in the Hereafter a condition for salvation. This is correct. It seems to me that most spiritual paths believe in a world after death, but based on the same discussion of the pragmatic God I raised in response to the “Second Fundamental Question,” I say that as long as an individual is on a moral path in relation to themselves, others, and that Origin we call God, in my view, they are still on the path of spirituality. The head of the chain of pluralistic verses is the verse in Surah Ash-Shams, which says that whoever purifies their soul is saved. Imagine one who believes in the Hereafter but does not strive on the path of purification, and another who sincerely does not believe in the Hereafter but is engaged in purifying the soul. Based on the Quran, which one is closer to salvation in the Hereafter? The Quran’s insistence on belief in the Hereafter is from its practical aspect, meaning the positive effect such a belief has on a person, and especially regarding its direct audience, the role such a belief played in warning them. Belief in the Hereafter is a means for purification and is not an end in itself.

Let us also keep in mind that Heaven, Hell, and the Day of Judgment are merely an image of the Hereafter. The Hereafter is depicted this way in the Quran because it was suited to the mental and cultural structure of the Prophet and his audience in Arabia, who were themselves influenced by the Abrahamic religions, and particularly the minority of the People of the Book also believed in it. Let us not confuse the image with the principle. Belief in the Hereafter means believing that what we are today determines our tomorrow after death. How and in what manner is beyond the realm of our perception. It is stated in the Quran to believe in the Hereafter; it does not say to believe in Heaven and Hell.

Q: Why did the Quran choose the language of warning? A language that can be repulsive? And why does it not have direct references to so many of the concerns of today’s Muslims? Why did the Quran not engage in dialogue with atheists? One of our learned friends, a physician, pointed out that the Quran’s references to embryonic development do not agree much with science. Why?

I do not believe at all in softening the warnings. My point was that this was for the direct audience, it worked for them, it did not repel them but rather attracted them. The Quran also promised heavenly punishments like thunderbolts and smoke, but none of them materialized; almost everyone came to faith. Moreover, the language of warning is the common language of the Abrahamic religions. You see this in the Torah as well. Of course, you see it with more coherence in the Quran. In the Gospel, you see more glad tidings because the Gospel came to reform the path of the Jews.

Another point is that if our conception is that the mechanism of revelation to the Prophet was such that, for instance, a text was suddenly placed before him or Gabriel engraved these verses in his mind or heart, then all your questions will become serious critiques that can question the very foundation of the Quran and the original concept of God and prophethood. With such a presupposition, I will have no answer for your question.

But if we see it such that the essence of revelation was a truth that settled upon the Prophet's heart, and then the Prophet expressed this truth in words, and this process of that truth becoming words passed through the Prophet's being and was influenced by him, then we will have a different story. The Prophet, while being a great man, was a man of the Arabs who lived about 1400 years ago with the knowledge and information of that time, under the influence of the culture and mental structure of that time and place, with his own conception of the surrounding world and his own hearsay about astronomy and how the embryo comes into being, if we accept that his concerns were within the scope of the mission he had for his direct audience and that he also had no knowledge of the future. That truth which was revealed to the Prophet passed through the cultural filter and his knowledge, ignorance, and concerns and was transformed into words. The meaning of this statement is not that after the descent of the truth, the Prophet would sit and think about how to render it into words. The process of words emerging from that truth was influenced by the Prophet but was still under the sway of that spiritual experience. It was the power resulting from the indirect encounter with God that made the words of the Quran different from the narrations transmitted from the Prophet in terms of weight, style, and eloquence. The first person in the contemporary era to speak of the influence of the Prophet's person in revelation was Fazlur Rahman. In his words, revelation has a divine aspect and a human aspect. If we explain revelation in this way, then the answer becomes a little clearer. What I said is not specific to the Prophet of Islam, and in my belief, this same divine-human aspect in revelation holds true for other prophets, and indeed for other wayfarers of spiritual paths who have attained or attain experiences similar or close to revelation in the Abrahamic religions.

Q: Does the Quran contain offensive jihad?

Some believe that all wars and jihad in the sense of war mentioned in the Quran were all for defense. In my view, it is difficult to defend such a claim. I believe that there was also offensive jihad. Based on the opinion of some traditional scholars, the purpose of this jihad was forced conversion to Islam. On this basis, the scholars who hold this view believe that the verse "There is no compulsion in religion" has been abrogated or is irrelevant to this matter. On the other hand, for example, based on Dr. Soroush's view, the purpose of offensive jihad was the establishment of religion. I do not agree with either of these two views, although I maintain that offensive jihad exists in the Quran. I consider offensive jihad to be a continuation of the process of itmam al-hujjah (completing the proof). This is also the view of Amin Ahsan Islahi, a contemporary Indian/Pakistani exegete who, like Allameh Tabatabai, employed the method of interpreting the Quran by the Quran and, like him, held an exclusivist view of the Islamic religion. I raised this discussion using Quranic verses, stating that according to the Quran's account, after the completion of the proof, the direct audience of the prophets who arrogantly rejected his call, i.e., the kuffar (disbelievers), were afflicted with worldly punishment, and this punishment was either in the form of worldly chastisement or at the hands of the prophets' followers in the form of jihad. Based on the discussion of itmam al-hujjah, the reason for offensive jihad was neither forced conversion to Islam nor the establishment of religion, but rather the infliction of divine punishment upon this specific group of the Prophet's direct audience, i.e., the disbelievers, "Fight them; God will punish them by your hands – 9:14". Therefore, just as we do not have definitive completion of the proof after the Prophet's era, just as we cannot call anyone a kafir (disbeliever) in this time, we will also not have offensive jihad after him. I explained this in detail in response to the "Second Fundamental Question." All of this is based on an exclusivist view. From a pluralistic view, it must also be added that it was never intended for other nations, apart from the Ummiyyin, to become Muslims. Not that they should not become Muslims; the majority of Muslims today are not descendants of the Ummiyyin, and the great scholars of Islam in history have almost all been from a nation other than them, and this is very good. But the point is that, based on a pluralistic view, the divine legislative will was not for this.

Q: Is there any benefit in reading the Quran in Arabic?

Yes and no. No, in the sense that the Quran is meant to be understood. If we do not understand Arabic at all, we should definitely try to look at a translation. But yes, in the sense that using a book like the Quran involves different aspects and different levels. The Arabic of the Quran is beautiful, and someone who believes that this book has a divine aspect and that there is spirituality and truth behind it can be reminded and have a spiritual experience just by reading that Arabic. It is quite possible that someone has never read a translation of Surah At-Takwir, but when they hear Abdul Basit's recitation of "Iza ash-shamsu kuwwirat," they get goosebumps and experience a lasting spiritual feeling. Suppose someone understands nothing from reading the Arabic Quran and, for whatever reason—busyness, lack of inclination, or not being a studious person—does not seek out a translation either, but they sit down with great hope, desire, and love and read the Arabic Quran. How tasteless, unfair, and closed-minded would I have to be to say that you derive no benefit at all? The world is not always either this or that, all or nothing. Does he derive benefit? Why not? But could he derive far greater benefit by knowing the meaning of the verses? Of course, yes.

Q: What is the distinction between the subject of guidance and the goal of purification in your words?

Guidance has no meaning in and of itself. Guidance is a movement, but towards which direction? Guidance can also be towards abasement. The Quran's guidance is towards purification. Furthermore, emphasizing that the Quran's guidance is for the goal of purification dispels the expectation or illusion that the Quran is also a source of guidance in other subjects, such as empirical sciences, history, or the management of societies.

Q: What prerequisites are needed for understanding the Quran? For example, the occasion of revelation?

In an article in Kheymeh monthly magazine (issue 140), I have tried to briefly explain this; I have put its address on my Telegram channel. The occasion of revelation may help, but the narrations of the occasion of revelation are generally not very reliable, and relying on them is difficult. You see that for one verse, more than one occasion of revelation has been reported, and then you are forced to go and see which narration is more authentic. Then that itself is another story. Using the science of rijal to investigate narrations is also usually based on the traditional method, which has its own problems. More scientific methods have emerged today. Some commentators, like Allameh Tabatabai among the Shia and Amin Ahsan Islahi among the Sunnis, hold that you do not need the occasion of revelation much because the Quran itself clarifies the occasion of revelation for the verses. Some narrations of the occasion of revelation impose a meaning on the verse that is not at all consistent with the context, words, and background of the verses, as if there was an insistence on changing the meaning of the verse.

But a more general answer to this question: If using the Arabic Quran directly is difficult for you, definitely try to use several translations. One of these translations should definitely be a word-for-word translation. That is, under each Arabic word, the Persian translation is provided. This will not be a fluent translation, of course, but because it is translated word for word, it imposes interpretive opinions less and provides the possibility of freer contemplation. Alongside this, also use two non-literal and fluent translations that are from two different perspectives; for example, one based on famous commentaries and the other based on literary precision, or the interpretation of the Quran by the Quran. Another point is that, in my opinion, if we try to understand just two surahs of the Quran to a good extent, we will grasp many Quranic concepts and teachings; I mean the two surahs of Al-Baqarah and Al-Imran, which are also similar. Fortunately, diverse and abundant discussion and commentary are available for these two surahs.

Another point is that we should definitely use the views of others, but not in an imitative way; rather, with contemplation and by weighing the reasons and arguments. Research articles on Quranic exegesis and the explanation of words can be especially very useful. Furthermore, we should try to look at the Quran with a critical eye. Please note: "critical," not "fault-finding." For instance, let us see if one verse apparently contradicts another? Do references to scientific phenomena align with science? Are there rulings, commands, or judgments that seem unjust? Such contemplations help us to become a little deeper, understand the connection between concepts, and achieve a more complete and profound understanding of the Quran, the nature of the Quran, and revelation.

Q:  Perhaps, over several centuries and in a traditional manner, religious texts and the Quran have been viewed so much as a realistic text that it rarely occurs to us to see it as a metaphorical or mythological text. Or, for instance, our view of Adam and Eve, the apple, and the tree might not be what the traditional view says. For modern people, digesting these subjects is difficult.

 You mention Adam and Eve. We have matters beyond this. The very concept of God as presented in the Quran. A God who creates, lets Satan loose, afflicts humanity with tribulation, judges them, and then there will be punishment and reward, and so on...

All of these can be discussed as to how much of them is the exact truth and how much is an image of the truth suited to the Quran's direct audience. I believe that all of these are an image of that truth. In the discussion of pluralism, someone might criticize how it is possible to believe in a pluralism that includes non-Abrahamic religions when, for example, in Hinduism, the afterlife is not seen in the way it is in Abrahamic religions, and in Buddhism, for instance, not only is there no afterlife but not even a personal God; ultimately, it is either this or that. My answer is that it is neither this nor that. Both of these are an image of that truth and the Transcendent. This was the understanding and image of the religious leaders of these paths, which was, of course, suited to their audience.

Interestingly, these different understandings are not so contradictory in concept and practice; rather, they point in the same direction. A system is at work in existence, and how you are in this world will be very influential in the quality of life after death. If you say this sentence to a Hindu, a Buddhist, a Christian, or a Muslim, they will all generally confirm it.

What I said earlier, that looking at the Quran with a critical eye, will aid in such contemplations and help us look at the Quran more deeply and inclusively. Like the discussion of Surah Al-Fatiha in response to the "Third Fundamental Question," where I tried to show that although it gives us an image of truth according to the perspective of Abrahamic religions, with a little contemplation and inclusive thinking, this same image can be processed in such a way that if you tell it to a Buddhist, or even to someone who does not believe in any God at all, they would also accept it, and if they do not accept it, they would at least find it a familiar discourse.

Q: Does being spiritual require a special talent, and are some people inherently endowed with spiritual talent, like Ibn Arabi?

It is a difficult question; I wish one could ask God this question. I would like to say no, we are all the same, and the possibility of spirituality is the same for everyone, but I cannot deny that some human beings seem to have more talent for spirituality than others.

One of the arguments made in favor of reincarnation, as opposed to the discussion of heaven and hell, is precisely this. Some have more talent and some less, and proponents of reincarnation argue that if, based on this talent, one were to go to heaven forever and another to hell, this would not be just; however, reincarnation provides more opportunities so that eventually everyone can traverse this path.

On the other hand, among the philosophers of the Abrahamic religions, especially Islam, numerous philosophical objections are also raised against reincarnation. As I said, in my belief, all of these are an image of the truth of what happens after death.

What I said, that some seem to have more talent, was regarding spirituality. I recall that according to the formulation I made, spirituality is that state in which good character in those three relationships (with the transcendent, with oneself, and with others) has a synergistic effect on one another, and the triangle of purification approaches the shape of a circle, the circle of spirituality.

Regarding purification, I do not hold this belief, meaning I do not consider it dependent on aptitude. Purification, in the end, is entirely a matter of ethics (ethics in the three relationships discussed). It may be that, due to the type of thinking and the intellectual system into which we were born, we do not place much value on that dimension of ethics which is the relationship with the transcendent, or we may not even be aware of it, but the other two dimensions still exist. If we do not believe in the transcendent, that is, the sublime, at all, and this disbelief is sincere, then having bad ethics in that relationship becomes meaningless. Ethics exists where we are aware of the relationship. From this perspective, and considering those other two relationships, I see no excuse for having bad ethics.

Therefore, while I say that spirituality seems to be related to aptitude as well, I cannot say this about purification. Anyone can set out on the path of purification and strive on that path within the limits of their own capacity.

Purification means, as Abu Sa'id Abu'l-Khayr said, taking a step beyond where we are. "Qad aflaha man zakkaha" does not mean that one who has completely purified themselves is saved. Purification has no end because God is infinite. What matters is being on the path of purification. That very act of taking a step further. In my view, none of a person's individual characteristics are an obstacle to being on the path of purification. Of course, I mean the human being as such, and I do not deny that some psychological illnesses may hinder movement on the path of purification.

Q: Are we permitted to seek help from psychologists on the path of purification?

Absolutely. Some time ago, friends invited me to speak about how we might suffer less. The first thing I said was, why am I the only one here, and why do we not have a psychologist and a sociologist among the speakers? This notion that for purification one must only draw upon religious scholars and researchers is a very mistaken notion. The matter is far more complex than that, and certainly many scientific disciplines can help. Self-knowledge is one of the first steps of purification.

Q: What is your view on the arguments for proving God's existence?

When I was younger, I tried to use the argument from design and others to prove God's existence, or to say that the Quran is a miracle. I later saw that these did not satisfy me, although I have always said that the Quran is, for me, a reason for God's existence, but this is more of a personal perception, and I cannot expect it to be so for everyone. I now look at the matter differently. If someone says to me, "Prove God to me," I say, "I cannot prove God to you, but what perhaps you too might accept is that the possibility of living spiritually, in the formulation that was given, exists, and that to be spiritual, you do not need to believe in a specific image of a God. Simply accepting that this is not all that I see before my eyes is a gateway to developing a spiritual perspective. The very acceptance that existence is vaster and more complex than can be contained solely in the findings of the empirical sciences, that there is a mystery—this, when it has a positive effect on our ethics, is the beginning of spirituality." You see this view of spirituality, which is not dependent on belief in God, in many atheists. To the one who asks me to prove God, I would say, "Move along this spiritual path; the entire point of belief in God is to walk this very spiritual path. Now, on this path you are walking, an image of that mystery may, in the future, manifest itself to you as God."

It is also possible that you may arrive at a different image, or at no image at all. As long as you are moving on that spiritual path with sincerity, the God whom you ask me to prove to you is pleased with you, and perhaps more pleased with you than with the likes of me who claim to have faith. And if a believer seeks proof of God, I would say, "Elevate your spirituality, and God will make His place in your being." The discussion of the pragmatic God that I raised shifts the concern from proving God to proving the possibility of spirituality. Through this very path, the existence of God is also provable.

Q: Is the Quran, as Dr. Soroush says, a book of awe?

In a conversation I had during a group discussion with Dr. Soroush, I thanked him for this expression and said I completely agree, but I do not call it khashyat (awe/fear); I call it indhār (warning). Indhār is not good news like bashārat (glad tidings). Indhār means that if you do not do this, calamities will befall you. He uses khashyat instead of indhār, which has a close meaning. The Quran itself has used indhār, and I prefer this. However, I do not share his view on the use he makes of this expression in the discussion of power, and I understand the Quran's indhār or instilling of khashyat within the framework of the process of itmām al-ḥujjah (completing the proof).

Q: How do the āyāt al-aḥkām (legal verses) help with that reminder you mentioned?

Read the Quran however you like. When you take the Quran in your hands, it is your Quran; use whichever part of it you wish. But there are many who, even when reading those very legal verses, are reminded of God. When you are interested in a great sage, you become so absorbed in him that even sitting in his presence affects you, even if he speaks about a subject that is not appealing to you. Still, that very act of sitting and hearing his voice is impactful. Even if the words are not appealing to you, you are still drawn to the speaker of those words.

Q: Why is it not stated clearly in the Quran that these rulings are specific to that time and place, or that they are not eternal?

Two points: first, an intra-Quranic answer, and then an extra-Quranic one:

First, I think the opposite should be the case. When the Quran says why We sent this prophet, it says "li-tundhira umm al-qurā wa man ḥawlahā" (to warn the Mother of Cities and those around it). It has specified the scope (I also mentioned that al-ʿālamīn [the worlds] means everyone within that same scope). When a spatial limit is given, one can argue that there is a temporal limit as well. Therefore, the question should be reversed: if these rulings are supposed to be extended to other places and times, why is this point not mentioned in the Quran? Bring a single verse that says take these rulings and implement them in other lands, or that they are applicable in other lands. The very claim that these rulings can be identically extended to other places and times requires ijtihād.

My extra-Quranic answer goes back to the issue of revelation, which I explained earlier in response to the "First Fundamental Question" and also in response to one of your questions right here. I spoke about the boundaries, limits, and limitations of the Quran. Limitation not in the sense that there is a flaw. After all, a text has a limitation because it is in human language. One of the limitations of the Quran is that you do not see much concern in it for providing a roadmap for the future of Muslims. The Quran's concern was only for its own time. You ask why. This goes back to the discussion of revelation. As I said before, revelation, as I understand it and as people like Fazlur Rahman say, has two aspects: divine and human. Revelation is the encounter of a human being, with all his limitations, with that divine truth. The sentences of the Quran are the result of this encounter. The limitations we see in the words of the Quran are due to that human aspect of this encounter. In other words, it was Muhammad whose primary concern was his direct audience, and like other human beings, he could not see the future. Therefore, from the image of revelation that settles upon his heart, a speech emerges for the concerns of that time and place, and not foresight and specific instructions for future Muslims.

Q: Regarding the expansion of Islam outside the Arabian Peninsula, yes, you present a coherent interpretation from the text of the Quran, but we do not see such opposition in the understanding of Muslims after the Prophet's passing, whether from the Shia Imams or from the Companions considered by the Sunnis, regarding the military campaign into Iran. That is, it seems the understanding of all was that if the Prophet were present, he would probably have done the same.

We have this fact in history that Muslim Arabs attacked some neighboring countries, including Iran. This is part of history, but the part about them attacking in order to make them Muslim because Islam came for all human beings in the world—this is not a historical fact. This is based on an exclusivist understanding of the Quran. If you read the discussions of historians about that time, you will see that there is debate among them about what the main cause and motivation for these attacks was, and you will see that many believe the main motivation was not to make other nations Muslim. The origin of much of this well-known belief that these conquests were for making other nations Muslim is the story of the letters attributed to the Prophet to the kings and rulers of neighboring countries. I say story because there is serious doubt among researchers and specialists in such artifacts about the authenticity of these letters, the authenticity of what is kept in museums today under this title, and also about the meaning of these letters. The view is put forward that the text, script, and history indicate that these writings were products of years after the Muslim Arab attacks and arose from political motivations to justify the past and present. Moreover, in my opinion, the text of these letters contradicts the Quran and the process of 'completing the proof' as narrated in the Quran. The very fact that in a Quran that repeatedly gives the Prophet instructions about the polytheists and the People of the Book, there is not even a single reference to inviting the people of neighboring countries or their leaders to become Muslim seems to me a very strange matter. In my view, from a perspective that bases itself on giving primacy to the Quran, this alone can be sufficient for not taking the story of the letters seriously as an argument for exclusivism in the discussion of pluralism.

Dr. Farhad Shafti's Telegram channel:

https://t.me/farhadshafti

.

PDF A Rendering of the “Quran and Three Fundamental Questions” Sessions; Part 4 of 4

PDF A Rendering of the “Quran and Three Fundamental Questions” Sessions; All Parts

.

Related Content:

A Rendering of the “Quran and Three Fundamental Questions” Sessions; Part 1 of 4

A Rendering of the “Quran and Three Fundamental Questions” Sessions; Part 2 of 4

A Rendering of the “Quran and Three Fundamental Questions” Sessions; Part 3 of 4

A Rendering of the “Quran and Three Fundamental Questions” Sessions; Part 4 of 4