The Dream of the Apostles and the Community of Believers, Seyyed Hadi Tabatabai

Mockery and ridicule are neither a criterion nor a proof. One cannot speak on their basis, nor can one fall silent out of fear of them. The business of intellectualism is such that wherever it finds a truth, it deems itself duty-bound to speak and allows no fear into its heart. Abdolkarim Soroush had well shared this mission with us. When he equated the intellectual’s striving with the prophetic mission, he was also aware of this duty of his.

.

The Dream of the Apostles and the Community of Believers

(A Critique of Akbar Ganji)

Seyyed Hadi Tabatabai

1-Akbar Ganji has written a scholarly article critiquing the hypothesis of the prophetic dream[1]. In 14 sections, he addresses criticisms aimed at Abdolkarim Soroush’s view. Ganji’s critiques are certainly worthy of reflection and can, in some respects, help refine this theory. However, in one of his criticisms of Soroush, Ganji takes issue with why his theory is not accepted by the community of believers and is a hypothesis that does not take root in the hearts of believers. He asserts that Soroush cares about the community of believers and therefore must observe their doctrinal sensibilities and speak within those bounds. In Ganji’s words: "The community of believers does not consider Soroush’s hypothesis to be religious. Let us forget the fundamentalists and traditionalists; even religious modernists have been so selective that in opposing Soroush they sometimes use the language of satire and jest, and as an example, one of them said we were walking in Tehran when an old woman sitting on the street corner was shouting that she tells fortunes, interprets dreams, and so on and so forth. Our friend said: Bring her the Quran, she is Dr. Soroush’s representative, let’s have her interpret it for us. Another said this claim is similar to Salman Rushdie’s claim in the book The Satanic Verses. A person of moral integrity like Abdolali Bazargan has not only spoken of the 'heretical' nature of Soroush’s hypothesis but has also written that this hypothesis strips many believers of their trust in the very foundation of religion."

2-It seems that Abdolkarim Soroush, in his concern for the community of believers, had in view the negative aspect of the matter and prohibited the non-religious from entering into the matter of the prophetic dream. Soroush’s dispute is with the religious. Those who believe in the very category of revelation and consider the Prophet to be chosen by God, and are now seeking the mechanism and manner of the revelation’s descent. Akbar Ganji’s criticism, however, with the claim that "Soroush’s opponents sometimes use the language of satire and jest," is not permissible. It is as if it has been a familiar and constant habit of humanity that wherever it heard a new word and saw a finger pointing to a further horizon, it opened its tongue in mockery and engaged in ridicule. The prophets were the first victims of such encounters. The Quranic text has also explicitly acknowledged this matter: Ya hasratan ‘ala al-‘ibad, ma ya’tihim min rasulin illa kanu bihi yastahzi’un (Ya-Sin 30). No prophet came but that they mocked him. It seems there was no exception. All the prophets were driven away with this stick by the people, but the Quranic glad tiding is that "Wa laqad istuhzi’a bi-rusulin min qablika fa-haqa bi-lladhina sakhiru minhum ma kanu bihi yastahzi’un (Al-An‘am, 10) (Messengers before you were ridiculed, so those who mocked them were enveloped by that which they used to ridicule).

Mockery and ridicule are neither a criterion nor a proof. One cannot speak on their basis, nor can one fall silent out of fear of them. The business of the intellectual is such that wherever they find a truth, they consider themselves duty-bound to speak and let no fear enter their heart. Abdolkarim Soroush had well shared this mission with us. When he equated the intellectual's striving with the prophetic mission, he was also aware of this duty of his. Years earlier, he had said: "The work of the intellectual requires prophetic resolve, endeavor, and patience. This work has its difficulties, creates many enemies, produces numerous constraints, and takes away many of the sweet attachments of friendship, family, career, and so on from a person... If the intellectual does not possess strong resolve, rich capital, and profound thought, they will break in the face of these difficulties; they will abandon their path and squander the capital's profit."[2] It was for this reason that Soroush would cling to this fine saying of Rumi:

Noah preached for nine hundred years, / Moment by moment his people's denial increased.

Did he ever pull back the reins from preaching? / Did he ever creep into the cave of silence?

But the call comes from the Creator; / What business has he with acceptance or rejection? [3]

In Soroush's belief, the intellectual must be steadfast and firm, backed by the understanding of the truth they have attained, and not leave the scene because of these cavils. This was a prophetic mission

Every prophet was steadfast in the world, / Alone, he struck against the armies of kings.

3- Having concern for the community of believers and concealing the truth and covering it up befits neither intellectuals nor is it worthy of believers. In the realm of knowledge, neither tolerance and forbearance have a place, nor pluralism. In a position where one must speak scholarly, neither imitation is permissible, nor stepping back and raising no voice. Shiite scholars have also given repeated reminders of this and warned against imitation in this field. The late Seyyed Morteza (355-436 AH), more than ten centuries ago, addressed researchers and scholars, saying: "We adjure anyone who reflects upon our teachings not to imitate us in any of the approaches and arguments, and not to refrain from thinking and contemplation based on a good opinion, on the grounds that we have taken sufficient pains; rather, let them examine every proposition like a person who wants to begin from the start, and through this way strive to distinguish truth from falsehood and right from wrong."[4] He had adjured researchers to beware of the method of imitation, not to content themselves merely with the words of the great, and to engage in scholarly investigation themselves.

Sheikh Mofid was also so fearful of imitation in the scholarly arena and so warned against it that he even interpreted the occultation of the Imam of the Age (may God hasten his reappearance) in this way: "The Hidden Imam has not yet appeared because he knows that the belief of most of his followers is based on imitation, and such people cannot be relied upon."[5] In these scholarly approaches of the Shiite world, neither is the community of believers the criterion for truth and falsehood, nor can even the "well-known opinion" of scholars be a winning card in the acquisition of truth.

4-As Ganjī has stated, quoting Abdolali Bazargan, Soroush's hypothesis is a