Mohammad Ghotbi's essay 'Doboni Theology: Theological Discussions' 1

در ۱۲ مقاله نخست، طی سه فصل، به احیای بعد اجتماعی-سیاسی دین در جریان نواندیشی دینی در سه ساحت جهان‌بینی (توحید وجود)، سلوک عرفانی ( عرفان اجتماعی) و الاهیات ( الهیات رهایی‌بخش تعاونی)، به بازخوانی میراث نواندیشان متقدم پرداخته شد. سپس با تاکید برآنکه نواندیشان متقدم بر وجوه اجتماعی دین تاکید بیشتر داشتند و نواندیشان متاخر بر وجوه فردی دین، برای رویکرد متوازن در امر دینی، در تلاش برای ترکیب دو رویکرد وجودی-فردگرا (الهیات لیبرال نواندیشان متاخر) و رویکرد وجودی جمع‌گرا (الهیات سوسیال نواندیشان متقدم)، سنتزی به نام الهیات دوبنی معرفی شد. در مجموعه نوشتار جدید و آخرین مجموعه نوشتار این دفتر《درآمدی بر الهیات دوبنی》در نوشتار نخست به مدل دین‌شناسانه این الهیات و در نوشتار دوم به نیایش‌گری در این الهیات پرداخته شد. در این نوشتار به دیدگاه الهیات دوبنی درباره تشبیه و تنزیه، گونه‌های مختلف خداباوری و پدیده تنوع ادیان پرداخته خواهد شد.

الهیات دوبنی تجمیع الهیات سلبی و ایجابی

اکثر نواندیشان دینی متقدم و متاخر به الهیات سلبی و تنزیهی باور داشته‌اند. یاسر میردامادی درباره تفاوت الاهیات ایجابی و سلبی می‌گوید: 《الاهیات ایجابی و سلبی دو پاسخ متضاد به این سؤال هستند که: آیا می‌توان به خداوند معرفت یافت و در باب او سخن معرفت‌بخش گفت و اگر بلی، چگونه؟ پاسخ الاهیات ایجابی این است که بله تا حدودی می‌توان به خداوند معرفت یافت و درباره‌ی خداوند به نحو اثباتی سخن گفت.. الاهیات ایجابی دینی، با تکیه بر متون مرکزی دین (مثل تورات، انجیل، قرآن و غیره) عموماً خداوند را به عنوان: واجب الوجود، قادر مطلق (همه‌توان)، عالم مطلق (همه‌دان)، خیرخواه محض، خالق جهان از عدم، مدبّر جهان، شارع انسان‌ها (از طریق فرستادن پیامبران)، پاسخ‌دهنده به دعاهای انسان‌ها و داوری‌کننده در باب آن‌ها در روز بازپسین (قیامت) تصویر می‌کند (به این تلقی از خدا زین پس به طور خلاصه خدای مطلق می‌گویم). در الاهیات ایجابی -دست‌کم در صورت غالب و شایع دینیِ آن- خداوند، انسان‌وار است یعنی صفاتی شبیه به انسان‌ها دارد با این تفاوت که محدودیت بشریِ آن صفات را ندارد، مثلاً، مطابق قرآن، خداوند غضب‌ناک می‌شود (غیر المغضوب علیهم)، قرض می‌دهد (تقرضوا اللّه قرضاً حسناً)، حتی تیر می‌اندازد (و لکن اللّه رمی) و مسخره می‌کند (اللّه یستهزئ بهم). گرچه در قرآن، به نحوی متناقض‌نما (paradoxical)، آیاتی نیز وجود دارد که به الاهیات سلبی نزدیک است، مانند: هیچ چیز شبیه خداوند نیست (لیس کمثله شیء)، اما سویه‌ی غالب آیات قرآنی، سویه‌ی ایجابی است.الاهیات سلبی اما به پرسش بالا جواب منفی می‌دهد. به نظر الاهی‌دانان سلبی، درباره‌ی خداوند به نحو ایجابی نمی‌توان سخن معرفت‌بخش گفت، یعنی نمی‌توان گفت خدا چه «هست»، بلکه تنها می‌توان گفت خدا چه «نیست»: خدا ناقص نیست، خدا محدود نیست، خدا جاهل نیست، (و حتی شاید بتوان گفت) خدا موجود نیست (موجود به معنای محدودی که برای اشیاء جهان قائل هستیم و مثلا می‌گوییم بهمان کوه موجود است). یکی از مهم‌ترین دلایلی که الاهی‌دانان سلبی برای دفاع از الاهیات سلبی و ردّ الاهیات ایجابی می‌آورند این است که انسان برای توصیف ایجابی خداوند باید از مفاهیم بشری استفاده کند و این مفاهیم اصولا برای ارجاع به و سخن گفتن از امور بشری برساخته شده اند ولی خداوند -مطابق تعریف- از این جهان و هرچه در آن است، متعالی و فرازین است، پس، به نظر الاهی‌دان سلبی، این مفاهیم به کار توصیف ایجابی خداوند نمی‌آید و رهزن معنا است. در نظر آنان از زبان صرفاً می‌توان برای نشان دادن ناتوانی از سخن گفتن از خداوند استفاده کرد. به تعبیر مارتین بوبر الاهی‌دان و فیلسوف یهودی قرن بیستم «به نحو شایسته و درست، فقط می‌توان «با» خداوند سخن گفت، امّا نمی‌توان «از» او سخن گفت.»..》.

Recent religious intellectuals (Soroush, Shabestari, Malekian, and even Yousefi Eshkevari) have adopted a kind of radical apophatic theology, which, according to critics, has made connecting with such a God difficult. Doboni theology takes an integrative approach to apophatic and cataphatic theology—a God who, while transcendent, is communicable and connectable, and has a palpable presence in one's personal world and the surrounding world. Regarding the background of integrating this transcendence and immanence, Mirdamadi says: "...Apophatic and cataphatic theology have historically generally accompanied and assisted one another, in such a way that cataphatic theology has created a predicate for the negation of apophatic theology, and apophatic theology has, metaphorically speaking, dredged and bestowed transcendence upon cataphatic theology. In this sense, for example, cataphatic theology would say: God is love (love, in this sentence, is the predicate, and God is the subject). Then apophatic theology would arrive and say: God is not love (or in other words: God is too transcendent to be called love), and in this way, it would negate the attribution of this predicate to the subject. This can be called the mutual services of apophatic and cataphatic theology, and it is referred to as the 'reconciliation of immanence and transcendence.' For this reconciliation, it is usually said that God's essence is unknowable, but His manifestations and attributes are knowable. In the Islamic world, Ibn Arabi, Ayn al-Quzat Hamadani, and Rumi have been among the mystics who have tried to propose a model for reconciling apophatic and cataphatic theology (the reconciliation of immanence and transcendence). Among Muslim philosophers, Mulla Sadra Shirazi has also devoted attention to the reconciliation of immanence and transcendence..." Regarding the importance of apophatic theology, Mirdamadi says: "The faith of religious people is fundamentally built upon cataphatic theology, and this is the function of such theology. An approach based on apophatic theology, however, helps the religious avoid absolutizing their images of God. Such an approach is essential for theists who consider a specific religious text sacred. This approach can help the religious not forget, and take seriously, the idea that God—if He exists—does not fall within the grasp of our understanding, an idea that can be considered an epistemological interpretation of God's transcendence (meaning that if God is transcendent or sublime, He is therefore also transcendent and sublime beyond our understanding, and if He is sublime beyond our understanding, He is also beyond the images of God derived from our understanding). Religious texts, generally through the imagery and figures they attach to the absolute, are prone to forgetting God's transcendence. Through these images, God is domesticated, meaning He becomes someone like ourselves—only much stronger. Once God is domesticated, once He falls within grasp, He acquires a custodian, a keyholder, a guardian of truth, and becomes a killer of truth. De-imaging God through apophatic theology can have a liberating dimension for the religious; it helps them transcend the (literal) text of the religious text and measure the religious text against reason, and not the other way around. This liberation also finds political expression in the public sphere through the negation of the hoarding of religion (i.e., its monopoly in the hands of the clergy)..." But in his view, "No religion can be built upon pure transcendence or, in other words, radical apophatic theology. Because for its formation and continuation, a religion needs, among other things, a set of beliefs, symbolic forms, and rituals, whereas apophatic theology is form-burning and belief-averse, and therefore is not useful for religion-making—though it is useful for religion-refining."

The God of Rumi's apophatic theology, which is also accepted by Abdolkarim Soroush, according to Soroush Dabbagh's explanation of Rumi: "...The wayfarer is an image-maker who casts an image upon the imageless and boundless, an image and idol that is finite and limited; hence, in the next stage, they burn it and pass beyond it so that the next image may arrive, and they burn that in its turn; for no stopping point or end to this work is conceivable, and 'He is neither this nor that; He is simple,' and 'He has placed your image before you':

I am an image-making painter, every moment I fashion an idol—then I melt all the idols before you

I conjure a hundred images, I mingle them with spirit—when I see your image, I cast them into the fire."

Thus, we are compelled, due to human limitations and in order to transform abstract matters into concrete ones, to impose forms upon the face of the formless God. In response to criticisms regarding the inability to connect with the God of apophatic theology, Yousefi Eshkevari says: 《If in our theology the principle is the transcendent God (a principle also insisted upon in the Qur'an), logically, anthropomorphic propositions must be interpreted based on that rule, and this is a rule we apply in all matters. If we do so, the attribution of attributes such as Powerful, All-Hearing, All-Knowing, All-Aware, and the like is necessarily metaphorical and serves to approximate to the mind, make intelligible, and provide a sensory explanation of abstract matters.》

The next writing will address how transcendence and immanence are combined in Doboni theology, the multi-dimensional monotheistic God, the nature of God's relationship with the individual, and the type of faith involved.

Doboni Theology and Various Types of Theism

Soroush Dabbagh mentions the theism of Abrahamic religions, natural theism, pantheism, the God of the unity of existence, agnosticism, and atheism as varieties of encountering the Transcendent. In describing these types, he writes: 《..Theism entails belief in a personal, anthropomorphic God characterized by attributes such as will, knowledge, power, and goodness. This image of the Transcendent is presented in the teachings of the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam)... Natural theism (Deism) entails belief in the sacred dimension of existence. At the same time, unlike the theism of Abrahamic religions, it is devoid of anthropomorphic attributes. In other words, according to natural theists, from an ontological perspective, the Transcendent is personal and determinate and is separate from the surrounding world; however, human attributes such as mercy and compassion cannot be sought in it.. (Non-religious theism).. Pantheism, unlike theism as narrated by Abrahamic religions and natural theism, entails transcending the separation between the surrounding world and the sacred realm and moving beyond Platonic ontological dualism. According to pantheists, God is immanent in nature and the surrounding world. If we assume the total number of entities in the universe is n, for pantheists, adding God to the entities of the universe does not make the number of entities n+1, but remains n, because God is immanent in all entities and has no independent personhood or determination... The God of the unity of existence (Panentheism) bears affinity to the pantheistic God and differs from the God of Abrahamic theism and natural theism. However, unlike the pantheistic God, it does not hold that the Transcendent is reducible to nature and the surrounding world. The concept of 'manifestation' (tajalli) in the Islamic mystical tradition is responsible for explaining the relationship between the Transcendent and the multiple surrounding entities. According to this account, the Transcendent, in itself, is colorless, indeterminate, formless, and shapeless; yet, its determinations and manifestations have filled the world.. Agnosticism entails the suspension of judgment; the agnostic person does not know whether the surrounding world possesses a sacred dimension or not; for them, the arguments for and against in this matter are equally balanced and matched. Therefore, the agnostic has no sympathy with any of the four aforementioned alternatives and does not consider them justified, because each of these alternatives, in one way or another, posits the determination and establishment of the sacred dimension of existence and considers belief in the Transcendent justified.. Atheism entails considering belief in the sacred dimension of existence unjustified. Unlike the agnostic, the atheist believes that any kind of reading of the sacred dimension of existence (the theism of Abrahamic religions, natural theism, pantheism, and the God of the unity of existence) is unjustified..》.

According to the foregoing, Doboni theology is compatible with the God of the Abrahamic religions, pantheism, and panentheism. However, with a critical view of the unity of existence and panentheism, it believes in the unity of existence as narrated by Iqbal Lahori. In the words of Yousefi Eshkevari, 《...He (Iqbal) has four propositions, which he of course stated in different places and on different occasions, but I analyze them within a single epistemological and theological system: -The world is a line in the process of being drawn. -The life of God is in His self-manifestation. -God's self-manifestation is in nature. -And nature is the behavior of God. In this conception, determinate being has a beginning but no end, and Iqbal explicitly states that even God is unaware of the end of this line and its final point (in this case, contingent and eternal take on different meanings). Perhaps the concept of 'becoming' and 'unto Allah is the journeying' (verse 28 of Surah Al-Baqarah) in the sense of becoming refers to this very meaning. But if we consider the three subsequent propositions reasonable and acceptable, logically, God is not seated outside the world (for instance, somewhere in a place called the Throne or above the heavens) like an autonomous king, exercising His will however He pleases; rather, the divine life is in His self-manifestations, and His self-manifestations are in nature, and inevitably, nature—meaning the laws governing nature, meaning the universe and humanity—is the very providence, will, and desire, in other words, the attributes and actions of God. Perhaps this view evokes a kind of unity of existence or pantheism, but considering Iqbal's other thoughts, such a doubt would be irrelevant... Iqbal, in one place, considers the relationship between humanity and God as the relationship of a shell and the sea, not a drop and the sea. In the conception of the unity of existence (especially its extreme and radical type), the relationship of the universe and the knower with God is the relationship of shadow and the owner of the shadow, meaning that all else besides God is truly nothing and possesses a borrowed and illusory existence, and in reality, like a drop that is of the substance of water and, upon joining the sea, is completely dissolved in it and, so to speak, reaches 'annihilation in God.' But in the analogy and metaphor of the shell and the sea, although the shell is from the sea and a product of the divine emanation, it ultimately possesses an independent personality. Freedom and free will are also concomitant with this thought. Let me add that the thought of the unity of existence, although attractive and particularly pleasing to the mind and emotions of mystically inclined believers and monotheists, is, if we pay attention to its logical requirements, ultimately a dangerous thought, as it will lead to the dissolution of humanity with all its components. Among these, free will, the power of choice, responsibility, and freedom in their precise and comprehensive sense would be negated. Freedom and free will are so prominent in the anthropology of Iqbal (and also Shariati) that, fundamentally, human humanity is determined by 'rebellion' in the myth of creation in the Quran (verses 30 to 38 of Surah Al-Baqarah), and otherwise, the station of 'the Best of Creators' (verse 14 of Surah Al-Mu'minun) for God would also become irrelevant.》

This has been discussed earlier in the collection of writings on social mysticism, and it will also be discussed in a forthcoming writing.

Doboni Theology and the Phenomenon of Religious Diversity

According to Yaser Mirdamadi, the major views presented in the philosophical explanation of religious diversity can be divided into at least 9 categories. In explaining these views, he writes: 《The first view is religious relativism. Simply and succinctly put, religious relativists believe that: there are different and incompatible conceptions of the sacred... there is no way to judge between these different and incompatible conceptions of the sacred. Then, by putting these two premises together, religious relativists conclude that each group's conception is true for that group, and we do not, in fact, have a trans-group, trans-personal, or trans-tribal truth; and if one can speak of truth, it can only be spoken of as bound by a personal or group qualification, or to a specific religion, sect, tribe, group, or creed... The second view is “religious suspensionism.” This view holds that, historically, many people have killed and eliminated one another in the name of truth (sacred truth, God, the Prophet, and the like). From this premise, religious suspensionists conclude: let us abandon the discussion of truth, the discussion of which God is true and which God is fabricated, which prophet is true and which one is fabricated or, as they say, a false prophet, which religion's book is truly divine and which one's book is man-made; they say abandon these discussions, this debate cannot be resolved... The third and fourth views are religious exclusivism. Religious exclusivism itself has two models: militant religious exclusivism and friendly religious exclusivism. Religious exclusivism, in general, says that God or the sacred has manifested in only one of the religions, and other religions are deprived of the manifestation of the sacred or the divine manifestation, and consequently, of salvation... [From the perspective of friendly exclusivists] only Christianity is the true religion, but if a person is a Muslim, a Jew, or a Baha'i, we tolerate them. That is, they grant individuals, so to speak, the “right to be wrong”... But militant exclusivism is naturally not like this. A militant Muslim exclusivist does not grant anyone the right to be a Baha'i; does not grant the right of conversion, meaning, in their view, a Muslim has no right to leave their religion and become a Christian or a Baha'i. However, friendly religious exclusivism grants such a right to individuals. The fifth view is religious inclusivism. Religious inclusivism has similarities with religious exclusivism and, of course, differences as well. The similarity between these two groups is that inclusivists, just like religious exclusivists, believe that God has manifested completely and perfectly in one religion. So, one religion is pure truth. Up to this point, they share common ground with religious exclusivists. However, the difference with inclusivists is that they say other religions, to the extent that they resemble the complete religion, possess lower degrees of truth... The sixth and seventh views are atheism (friendly and militant)... Atheism has two versions: friendly atheism and militant atheism. Friendly atheism has many proponents among atheists. Friendly atheists say that theists of any religion hold a philosophically indefensible view, but they have the right to be upon their falsehood, because they possess the “right to be wrong”... But those who are militant atheists say no, theism is a virus, and this virus must be eradicated... The ninth view is religious pluralism... From the perspective of religious pluralists, the great religions of the world are all manifestations of the Truth and bringers of salvation.》

According to the theologians themselves, religious pluralism can be divided into two categories: truth pluralism and salvation pluralism. In the words of Soroush Dabbagh, "To understand the philosophical basis of pluralism, I believe one must distinguish between 'salvation pluralism' and 'truth pluralism.' The main issue in the discussion of pluralism is salvation pluralism, that is, the salvation of the majority of adherents to different religions; whereas truth pluralism concerns the simultaneous truth of the sometimes conflicting claims of various religions. Personally, as a pluralist, I defend 'salvation pluralism,' a pluralism that considers the majority of adherents to different religions to be on the right path. The issue of 'truth pluralism' is different, and in a sense, raising it is not necessary for understanding the issue of the salvation of adherents to different religions... Truth pluralism means considering all the different claims of religions to be correct, which, given the evident contradictions among these claims, is unacceptable. For example, one clear contradiction is the contradiction between the Trinity and Tawhid between Christians and Muslims." Doboni theology is compatible with friendly exclusivists, inclusivists, and truth pluralists, and believers among these individuals can practice their faith within the framework of this theology. However, the primary view of this theology leans toward truth pluralism.

Therefore, Doboni theology believes in the synthesis of tashbih (immanence) and tanzih (transcendence) and is incompatible with radical apophatic theology and anthropomorphic theology without transcendence. On the subject of types of theism, it is compatible with the God of Abrahamic religions, pantheism, and panentheism, and with a critical view of wahdat al-wujud (unity of existence) and panentheism, it believes in the unity of existence as narrated by Iqbal Lahori. On the subject of religious diversity, it also believes in truth pluralism and is compatible with friendly exclusivism and inclusivism. In the forthcoming writing, the multi-dimensional monotheist's conception of God, the nature of their relationship with God, and the quality of their faith will be addressed.