The Debate Between Cause and Reason, Reza Babaei

In the debate between Mr. Bazargan and Mr. Soroush, Mr. Bazargan defends the traditional view of the Quran, while Mr. Soroush advocates a theory that has little historical precedent or backing in Iran. Mr. Soroush does not provide reasons to prove his theory; rather, he largely outlines a new perspective on revelation and the language of the Quran—although the traditional theory also lacks a rational demonstrative proof. The fact that Mr. Soroush describes the Quran as the Prophet's veridical dreams, rather than God's explicit words to him in wakefulness, while lacking a reason, is not without a cause. Theories or hypotheses in all sciences have a cause in addition to a reason. The cause is what brings something into being; the reason is what indicates it. The cause bestows existence, and the reason bestows awareness. For example, the specific position of the Earth relative to the sun is the 'cause' of cold weather, and the freezing of water is the 'reason' for it; that is, from the freezing of water, we infer that the air temperature is below zero. But the freezing of water is not the cause of the cold weather; rather, it is the reason for it. Mr. Soroush's theory about the Quran lacks a reason; but it is important to know why such a theory has emerged and why many religious intellectuals hold a reading of the Quran and Hadith similar to it—in its consequences and effects. In other words, we must see what the origin of this theory, whether correct or incorrect, is and what problem it is supposed to solve or what path it is meant to open before Muslims. In my opinion, the proponents of this theory and similar ones have perceived a knot in religious studies and religiosity that they deem impossible to untie through traditional means. In their belief, whether correct or incorrect, the traditional conception of the Quran does not answer certain questions, and this very inability and silence has paved the way for the creation of other theories about revelation and the Quran. But what is that problem which—in the view of some religious intellectuals—the traditional theory about the Quran is incapable of solving? The main problem lies in text-centrism. The text-centrism of religions makes them inflexible and fundamentalist. If the pillar of religion is its text, or texts, or historical propositions, there is no hope for its compatibility with new interests and truths. When the text is placed at the center of religion, it prevents any flexibility in the implementation of rulings and legislation. It is for this reason that fundamentalism is more prevalent among text-oriented and text-centric religions than in concept-oriented faiths and religions, such as Buddhism. The more sacred and heavenly a text appears, the more difficult its alignment with earthly events becomes. However, if we consider a text to be the joint product of God, humanity, and specific audiences, harmonizing it with the self-evident truths of the age becomes easier and less costly, and it is more effective in solving worldly and contemporary problems. The difference between texts of the first type (entirely heavenly) and the second type (divine-human) is the difference between 'the path' and 'the guide.' Entirely heavenly texts are the path and the guide; but divine-human texts claim nothing more than general guidance. The incongruity of certain Quranic propositions with new human approaches is another problem with the traditional theory about the Quran. The traditional theory, which sees the Quran's relationship to God as akin to the relationship of a written text to its author, either denies or justifies those incongruities, and if it does accept them, it says: these approaches are wrong and must change. But religious intellectuals are neither willing to turn a blind eye to these approaches, nor do they accept abandoning religion. Therefore, they seek a new conception of religion in which the text is not the sole axis and backbone, so that they can present religion not as the path but as the guide. However, from the traditional perspective, the Quran is the very Word of God, eternal and universal, and its explicit statements in the realm of social laws and rulings cannot be ignored in any way. The theory of 'Prophetic Dreams' and similar theories have taken on an intellectualist mission. In these theories, the Quran is a book that narrates the spiritual experiences and instructions pertaining to the person of the Prophet (PBUH). Therefore, its relationship to God is like the relationship of the Prophet's (PBUH) spiritual and historical experiences to God. It is for this reason that the Prophet (PBUH) did not undertake the collection of the Quran; because the collection of the Quran by the Prophet (PBUH) would have meant that this book had the same relationship to others as it had to him, whereas 'Only he to whom it is addressed knows the Quran.' (Wasā'il al-Shīʿa, vol. 18, p. 136) Mr. Soroush's theory and similar ones have their origins in such a source. In these theories, the cause is more important than the reason. Opponents, instead of grappling with the reasons, should be able to dry up the source of such theories and, for example, demonstrate that the law of qisas and diyat in the Quran is more effective than the latest theories of jurists on issues such as the death penalty, blood money, inheritance, and women's rights.

.

---

.

Reza Babaei | Friday, May 13, 2016 | Reza Babaei's Personal Website

.

---

.