Dr. Soroush Dabbagh's Critique of Dr. Gholamhossein Dinani (2)

Writing that "Uthman must have been a musician" is unbefitting a book intended for a general audience; with a little research one could have discovered that "Sharaf al-Din Uthman" was a rabāb player in Rumi's era and included that in Shu'ā' al-Shams. More importantly, on numerous pages of this two-volume work, remarks about Western philosophy, analytic philosophy, and philosophers such as Hegel, Heidegger, and Wittgenstein are mentioned that are generally unjustified, false, and misleading, and instead of guiding the reader, have led them astray...

.

By this path you ascend to the luminous summit

Soroush Dabbagh

About a month and a half ago, I published a piece critiquing the book Shu'ā' al-Shams, a conversation between Karim Fayzi and Dr. Gholamhossein Dinani, which elicited various and diverse reactions.[1] Some readers liked it and considered it justified and illuminating, while others did not and found in it a kind of unfairness and harshness; to the extent that I saw an article was also published in critique of that piece. In addition, numerous individuals wrote to me with their observations on this writing via Facebook messages, Telegram, and email. I write the following lines in response to the friends and dear ones who have asked about and inquired into the reason for my publication of this text. I hope that, in this way, my purely epistemic motivations in publishing the critique of the work Shu'ā' al-Shams will become clear.

When I was in Iran, I read numerous books by Dr. Dinani and benefited from them; works such as Niyāyish-i Faylasūf (The Philosopher's Prayer), Shu'ā' al-Andīsha va Shuhūd dar Falsafa-yi Islāmī (The Ray of Thought and Intuition in Islamic Philosophy), Mājarā-yi Fikr-i Falsafī dar Islām (The Adventure of Philosophical Thought in Islam), and Daftar-i 'Aql va Āyat-i 'Ishq (The Book of Reason and the Sign of Love). In comparison with at least some of Dinani's works from the last 10-15 years, I believe the aforementioned books possess greater order and coherence and are more useful for the reader. But works like Shu'ā' al-Shams are, unfortunately, of a different ilk, and as I pointed out in my writing, they have serious and numerous flaws and problems. My point in mentioning this is that, God forbid, I have no personal issue with Dr. Dinani; scholarly fairness demands that the academic record of so-and-so be examined comprehensively and coherently. In the same vein, in encountering his works, I have tried, to the best of human ability, not to abandon justice and fairness.

Some friends, in critiquing my piece, have written: what is wrong with someone speaking about Rumi and his works not in a specialized manner, but in a general way, so that more audiences can benefit from it; not just literary scholars, Rumi researchers, and scholars of mysticism. This statement is, in principle, justified and illuminating. In this regard, the late Zarrinkub, in the field of Rumi studies, published works at various levels; Pilla Pilla tā Mulāqāt-i Khudā (Step by Step to the Meeting with God), which is a readable and enlightening work with delightful prose, has a general audience and addresses all those interested in the history of literature and mysticism of Iran. In addition, Zarrinkub also wrote Sirr-i Nay (The Secret of the Reed) and Bahr dar Kūza (The Sea in a Jug), which are specialized works about the Masnavi. The late Foruzanfar also wrote Sharh-i Masnavi-yi Sharīf (Commentary on the Noble Masnavi) for those familiar with Rumi's mysticism and the context and era of the composition of this timeless work, not for those who are at the beginning of the path and "thirsty for the spiritual sea" and wish to "take a respite on the island of the Masnavi." On the other hand, Sharh-i Jāmi'-i Masnavi (The Comprehensive Commentary on the Masnavi), written by Karim Zamani in seven volumes, also has a general audience and is useful for those who have little familiarity with the Masnavi.

The purpose of enumerating the above cases is to emphasize the diverse and varied works with different audiences that have been published in the field of Rumi studies in recent decades, books that have been very effective in their own right and have acquainted a great many Iranians with this unique spiritual-literary journey. The implication of this statement is that one can easily differentiate between the various levels of works published in the field of Rumi studies, scholarly works that serve different audiences with diverse intellectual backgrounds. My serious criticism of the work "Shu'a-ye Shams" is not that it addresses the general public rather than specialists in this field—for in its proper place, the publication of general works is pioneering and useful—but rather concerns the numerous errors that have found their way into this work. Publishing a work for a general audience does not absolve its creator from research, inquiry, and speaking with rigor. Writing that "Uthman was presumably a musician" is not befitting the dignity of a book aimed at a general audience; with a little research, one could have discovered that "Sharaf al-Din Uthman" was a rabab player in Rumi's era and included this in "Shu'a-ye Shams." More importantly, in numerous pages of this two-volume work, points are mentioned about Western philosophy, analytic philosophy, and philosophers such as Hegel, Heidegger, and Wittgenstein that are generally unjustified, false, and misleading, and instead of guiding the reader, have led them astray. As someone who has worked professionally in this area for years and published numerous works, I was saddened upon reading these passages from "Shu'a-ye Shams"; if I were in Dr. Dinani's place, I would not reprint "Shu'a-ye Shams" in its current quality and would certainly revise it and rewrite parts of it. Speaking to a general audience does not grant the author license to speak imprecisely and unjustifiably.

When I was in the tenth grade, we had an Arabic teacher from whom I first heard this famous Arabic expression: "Man sannafa faqad istahdafa." One who composes a work and places it in the sight and view of others has exposed themselves to criticism. The secret of my engagement with this work by Gholamhossein Dinani is taking the matter of criticism seriously. If I, as an author, know that eyes are observing the published work, reading it carefully, and, when necessary, publishing rigorous scholarly critiques, I will exercise greater care in its publication. As far as I know, Dr. Dinani's works, or as some of his devotees call him, Hakim Dinani, have, for the most part, been deprived of the blessing of serious critical re-reading until now; a matter that seems to me necessary and vital and a service to our cultural and scholarly community. I hope the publication of that critique and this writing will be an opening in this regard:

By this method, you ascend to the luminous zenith

O brother, even if you walk upon fire

.

---

.

[1] http://www.begin.soroushdabagh.com/pdf/439.pdf

.

---

.

Dr. Soroush Dabbagh's Critique of Dr. Gholamhossein Dinani (2)

Dr. Soroush Dabbagh | 8 July 2016

.

---

.

Related Content:

Dr. Soroush Dabbagh's Critique of Dr. Gholamhossein Dinani (1)

.

---

.