The Superiority of the Polytheists in Soroush’s “Dreams of Muhammad” Hypothesis, Akbar Ganji

By proposing the hypothesis of prophetic dreams, Abdolkarim Soroush rightly compelled the religious to rethink the issue of revelation and the Quran. Believers in the traditional conception of revelation as the Word of God, if they oppose Soroush’s hypothesis, should have no doubt that their conception also requires reconstruction and justification. In this respect, Soroush was a good catalyst, and if he leads the religious toward rational inquiries on this matter, he has succeeded in his work.

In my article “Soroush: Interpreting the Words of God or the Dreams of Muhammad,” I attempted to take a step toward refining this hypothesis by raising 14 objections and demonstrating the inconsistencies and ambiguities in its claims, concepts, and arguments. “The unacceptability of Soroush’s hypothesis for the community of believers” was the subject of the tenth objection. This objection provoked criticism from well-wishers (“The Prophetic Dream and the Community of Believers – A Critique of Akbar Ganji”).

But I believe this objection has not been correctly understood. A- This objection is not meant to crush the hypothesizer; indeed, at the beginning of the article, I not only presented my critique of the traditional narrative but also defended Soroush’s right to propose the prophetic dreams hypothesis, writing: “Naturally, it is Soroush’s right to offer a new hypothesis for understanding revelation and the Quran, but this hypothesis must be sufficiently clear and precise to open the door to critical dialogue.” B- Soroush’s emphasis on the “community of believers” was because, without a faith-based acceptance of certain presuppositions and claims—including Muhammad’s truthfulness—neither his hypothesis nor the traditional model can be accepted. C- When someone puts forward a new claim and argues for it, the claim and the premises used in the argument must have a degree of plausibility, if not for everyone, at least for the audience of that claim. Among the problems with the prophetic dreams hypothesis is that it has no plausibility whatsoever within the “scientific community of believers.” It is even possible for someone to make a claim that is not plausible at first glance, but which is the result of an argument whose premises are highly plausible. The prophetic dreams hypothesis is neither plausible in itself, nor does it have an argument based on highly plausible premises. When the final claim of a hypothesis is highly anomalous and transformative, and no adequate argument at the same level has been presented for it, and that argument itself is based on other anomalous premises, then that hypothesis is not a successful one. D- This objection pertained to a more important point that Soroush himself believes in.

Soroush claims that Thomas Kuhn’s theory of the “scientific community” in the book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions has been accepted by almost everyone in science. Thus, a hypothesis or theory is considered scientific if the “scientific community”—that is, “the people of science”—accepts it. According to Kuhn’s theory, science is almost reduced to the collective historical behavior of scientists. When the scientific community accepts a theory, that theory becomes a paradigm, and all research for solving puzzles will be conducted according to this paradigm.

In what context has Soroush put forward this claim? He has shown that the resurrection and personal afterlife of the ancients and mystics occurred within the cosmos of this very material world, and even Rumi said that after death the souls of the dead would go to the spheres and the “planet Saturn.” The afterlife took place in this same cosmos, which was a subtle matter. Critics have told him that if the resurrection, paradise, and hell of the mystics occur in this same material cosmos, since that cosmology has been invalidated, then the claims of the mystics, which are based on their personal experiences, are also invalid. Soroush has responded by saying: “I do not know; there are very complex issues here.” Hypotheses and claims must be testable and public, and must be confirmed by the scientific community. The experiences of the mystics possessed and still possess all of these characteristics. It is in this context, and in defense of mystical experiences, that Soroush says in “Resurrection in the Cosmology of the Ancients”:

“In the modern philosophy of science, they say that science is what the Community of Scientists believes. If you want your discourse to be scientific, they must believe it. That is, it is not enough for you to say that I have conducted an experiment in my laboratory, in my own lab, in my house, and I am one hundred percent certain of it. This is not, so to speak, scientific; it may be correct and it may not be correct. But if it enters the ‘community of scientists’—this is Thomas Kuhn’s theory, which almost everyone has accepted—if it enters the community of scientists, and others also validate it and it becomes a public opinion, then it enters that realm and is presented as a scientific matter, which is also fallible; its invalidity may become apparent the day after tomorrow…. Being public and becoming public is the secret to becoming scientific. In order for it to be accepted, you must make your method and the results of your experiment public; there we have nothing secret or hidden” (Minutes 33-36 ).

Let us assume that Soroush’s account of Thomas Kuhn’s theory is valid, and that if the scientific community does not accept a theory, that theory will not be scientific.

On this basis, the acceptance or rejection of the “scientific community of believers” also plays a key role in the sociology of religion. The “scientific community of believers” cited in the critique consisted of scholars of religion, Qur’anic studies, mysticism, theologians, specialists in analytic philosophy, and historians (Mostafa Malekian, Mohammad Mojtahed Shabestari, Hamid Vahid Dastjerdi, Arash Naraghi, Mahmoud Morvarid, Amir Saemi, Ali Paya, Hossein Modarressi Tabatabai, Mohammad Ayazi, Baha’ al-Din Khorramshahi, Nasrollah Pourjavady, Mohsen Armin, Abdolali Bazargan, Kadivar, Abolqasem Fanaei, Yousefi Eshkevari, Hossein Kamali, Ahmad Sadri, Mahmoud Sadri, and others). The “scientific community of believers” still believes that the traditional paradigm is capable of solving problems and still trusts it. In other words, we have not yet entered a period of crisis; we are still in the era of “normal science” and there is no need for a scientific revolution and an entirely different paradigm.

It might be objected that Thomas Kuhn’s theory of the “scientific community” cannot be extended to the “scientific community of believers,” because the epistemic content of religion is of little importance, and not only was religion not founded on knowledge, but if knowledge were the basis, religion would have decayed very rapidly.

First: Soroush posits three types of religiosity: livelihood-oriented, knowledge-oriented, and mystical experience-oriented. If we set aside “knowledge-oriented” religion, which takes an epistemic approach to religion, he uses Thomas Kuhn’s theory to justify mystical experience-oriented religion and claims that their experiences are also public and are confirmed or rejected by the scientific community of mystics. We too, on the basis that Soroush believes in, have argued that the “scientific community of believers” does not consider the hypothesis of Muhammad’s dreams valid at all.

Second: As far as I know, religious studies has at least seven branches: phenomenology of religion, psychology of religion, sociology of religion, philosophy of religion, comparative religion, history of religion, and theology. Soroush claims to offer a research program—in Imre Lakatos’s terms. He has called this program the phenomenology of revelation and the Qur’an, which has been confirmed through inference to the best explanation. We too have said that the validity of this epistemic hypothesis must be confirmed by the “scientific community of believers”—composed of phenomenologists, philosophers, sociologists, theologians, historians, psychologists, and hermeneutics specialists. Therefore, the criterion is not the faith of this group; their scientific expertise is the basis for rejection or acceptance.

They do not consider the hypothesis of prophetic dreams to be justified and true for scientific, philosophical, religious, and historical reasons. Also, in the view of this group, Soroush’s hypothesis is probably not a new theory either, although as I wrote in the previous critique: “The novelty or antiquity of a hypothesis has no bearing whatsoever on its truth or falsity, or its being justified or unjustified. What matters is whether the claim can be justified with strong reasons.” Nevertheless, the point that Soroush’s theory is a repetition of old claims under a new guise is noteworthy in itself.

On the other hand, as far as I understand, the rejection of the prophetic dreams hypothesis by the “scientific community of believers” does not render that hypothesis non-religious. In a separate article, I will show that Soroush does not subscribe to the intra-religious claim of the “seal of prophethood,” and that his “expansion of prophetic experience” has moved from Muhammad to Rumi, and he is now in the process of constructing a “new religion” compatible with modernity and the modern social order. Perhaps he will succeed in founding a “religious sect,” or he may fail in this endeavor.

From the fact that the “current scientific community of believers” has not accepted Soroush’s hypothesis, one cannot conclude that the “future scientific communities of believers” will in no way accept this hypothesis. Perhaps, after reconstructing the hypothesis through conceptual clarification, elucidating its claims and their evidence—in a philosophical and logical manner—the hypothesis will become promising and turn into a paradigm and research program for believers and scholars of religion.

Thomas Kuhn has well explained that the acceptance or rejection of hypotheses is not necessarily governed by purely scientific criteria; rather, psychological and social causes play a decisive role in this matter. The fame of the hypothesis-maker is very important, and Soroush is not only a very famous individual, but also quite consciously uses mystical poetry (Rumi, Hafez, Saadi, etc.) and his excellent, pleasant recitation of it to establish his hypothesis.

According to Kuhn’s theory, rival hypotheses—in the absence of objective and rational criteria—prevail through power struggles within the scientific community (control of major media by editorial boards, dominance of relevant university faculties by their academic staff, use of rhetoric and propaganda, etc.). The media play a decisive role in establishing a hypothesis. As an example, consider the prophetic dreams hypothesis before and after its presentation on the “BBC Pargar program.” Although several years had passed since the publication of Soroush’s numerous articles and lectures on this hypothesis, BBC television and its website brought it into the public sphere in an unprecedented way. If the BBC continues to promote Soroush and his hypothesis, this will not be without effect on his success.

Critics also play a decisive role in this matter. If scholars and intellectuals ignore a hypothesis, it will likely be forgotten. Critics can turn a bold hypothesis into a serious one. Thomas Kuhn cites the example of Einstein’s theory, which a famous experimental physicist named R. A. Millikan spent 10 years trying to refute, but failed. Kuhn says not all hypothesis-makers encounter such a “really significant exception.” Donald Gillies also writes:

“Not all scientists who propose a bold new hypothesis have the good fortune that a Millikan will emerge to test it rigorously. That is why scientists must internalize the prescriptions of falsificationism, subject their own theory to criticism, and try to falsify it” (Donald Gillies, Philosophy of Science in the Twentieth Century, translated by Hassan Miandari, SAMT Publications, p. 264).

If we subscribe to the strong programme in the sociology of science, which seeks sociological explanations for beliefs independent of the truth or falsity of hypotheses, then all critics of the prophetic dreams hypothesis have contributed to its expansion.

Nevertheless, the prophetic dreams hypothesis is not a new hypothesis. The antiquity of Soroush’s prophetic dreams hypothesis has very important consequences, one of which the present writing will address. But—and this principle is very important—the most unjustifiable and ridiculous approach in religious studies and the understanding of religion is excommunication, rejection, and suppression. Excommunication is the work of jurists, but they too are gradually coming to understand and discover the reality that in the contemporary era, excommunication not only does not prevent the expansion of what they consider “heresy” and “blasphemy,” but socially, it works entirely to the benefit of the theorist and their hypothesis. For this reason, some individuals insult the fundamental beliefs of Muslims and the Muslims themselves in the harshest possible way in order to gain some benefit from the resulting excommunicative reactions.

The Polytheists and the Problem of Death

The image that the Quran and Muslims have presented—and continue to present—of the polytheists is that of an idol-worshipping, backward, and savage group. However, the hypothesis of the Prophetic Dreams demonstrated that in the most fundamental claims of Islam, the polytheists were right, not Muhammad.

The polytheists denied personal life after death and argued, who will bring decayed bones back to life? Consider the following:

“And they say, ‘When we have become decayed bones and dust, shall we indeed be raised up in a new creation?’” (Al-Isra, 49).

“They say, ‘When we have become decayed bones and dust, shall we indeed be raised up in a new creation?’” (Al-Isra, 98).

“They say, ‘Shall we indeed be returned to our former state [of life]? Even after we have become decayed bones?’” (An-Nazi‘at, 10-11).

“Does he promise you that when you have died and become dust and decayed bones, you will be brought forth anew? Far-fetched, far-fetched is what you are promised. There is nothing but our worldly life; we die and we live, and we shall not be raised up. He is nothing but a man who has fabricated a lie against God, and we do not believe in his word.” (Al-Mu’minun, 35-38).

“They say, ‘When we have died and become dust and decayed bones, shall we indeed be raised up anew?’” (Al-Mu’minun, 82).

“[They say,] ‘When we have died and become dust and decayed bones, shall we indeed be raised up anew? And our forefathers as well?’” (As-Saffat, 16-17).

The polytheists, by raising the objection of the eater and the eaten, denied Muhammad’s revelation and prophethood, saying:

“And the disbelievers say, ‘Shall we point out to you a man who informs you that when you have been utterly torn to pieces, you will then be in a new creation? Has he fabricated a lie against God, or is there madness in him?’ [Neither,] but those who do not believe in the Hereafter are in torment and far-reaching error.” (Saba, 7-8).

“And they say, ‘When we have disappeared within the earth, shall we indeed be in a new creation?’” (As-Sajdah, 10).

When the polytheists saw that their negation of personal, physical life after death was not accepted by Muhammad, they resorted to oaths, swearing by God that reviving the dead was impossible:

“And they swear by God their most solemn oaths that God will not resurrect those who have died. Yes, [He will]; it is a true promise binding upon Him, but most people do not know.” (An-Nahl, 38).

The disbelievers considered the Prophet’s promise of personal, physical life after death a legend, saying:

“And the disbelievers say, ‘When we and our forefathers have died and become dust, shall we indeed be raised up? We and our forefathers were promised this before; this is nothing but legends of the ancients.’” (An-Naml, 67-68).

“And the disbelievers say, ‘This is a strange thing. When we have died and become dust [shall we be brought back to life?]; that is a far-fetched return.’” (Qaf, 2-3).

“These will say: ‘There is nothing but our first death, and we shall not be raised up. So bring back our forefathers, if you are truthful.’” (Ad-Dukhan, 34-36).

The Quran’s Response to the Polytheists

In this years-long dispute, Muhammad responded to the claims of the polytheists as follows:

“Say, ‘Be you stones or iron, or some creation that seems great within your hearts.’ Soon they will say, ‘Who will bring us back [after death]?’ Say, ‘He who created you the first time.’ Then they will shake their heads at you [in denial] and say, ‘When will that be?’ Say, ‘Perhaps it is near.’” (Al-Isra, 50-51).

“Does man not reflect that We created him from a drop of fluid, and yet he is an open quarreler? And he makes comparisons for Us, forgetting his own creation; he says, ‘Who will revive the bones when they have decayed?’ Say, ‘He who brought them into being the first time will revive them; He has knowledge of every creation. He who produced fire for you out of the green tree, so that you kindle from it. Is He who created the heavens and the earth not able to create the like of them? Yes indeed, and He is the Knowing Creator. His command, when He wills a thing, is only that He says to it, ‘Be,’ and it is.’” (Ya-Sin, 77–82).

“Does man suppose that We shall never gather his [decayed and scattered] bones? Indeed, We are able to restore even his fingertips.” (Al-Qiyama, 3–4).

“And he whom God guides is rightly guided; and as for those whom He leaves astray, you will never find protectors for them besides Him; and We shall gather them on the Day of Resurrection, blind, dumb, and deaf, fallen on their faces; their refuge is Hell; whenever it subsides, We increase the blazing fire for them. That is their recompense because they denied Our signs and said, ‘When we have become [decayed] bones and crumbled dust, shall we indeed be raised up in a new creation?’ Have they not seen that God, who created the heavens and the earth, is able to create the like of them? And He has appointed for them a term, about which there is no doubt; yet the wrongdoers [polytheists] refuse all but ingratitude.” (Al-Isra’, 97–99).

In another argument, the Quran says that reviving the dead and initiating their personal, bodily life is “easier” than their initial creation:

“And He it is who originates creation, then brings it back again, and this is easier for Him.” (Ar-Rum, 27).

Commentators have debated extensively whether “ahwan” means easy or easier. Imam Fakhr al-Din al-Razi accepted both interpretations, while al-Zamakhshari and Mulla Muhsin Fayd Kashani accepted “easier.”

The Quran even presents instances of bodily revivification of the dead in this very world as examples:

“Or [the story of] the one who passed by a town whose roofs and walls had collapsed; he said [to himself], ‘How will God revive [the people of] this [town] after their death?’ Then God caused him to die for a hundred years, then raised him up; He said, ‘How long have you remained [in this state]?’ He said, ‘I have remained a day, or part of a day.’ He said, ‘No, you have remained a hundred years; look at your food and drink, they have not changed with time; and look at your donkey, and [thus] We shall make you a sign for the people; and look at the bones, how We set them together, then clothe them with flesh.’ And when [the truth of the matter] became clear to him, he said, ‘I know that God has power over all things.’” (Al-Baqara, 259).

Soroush has written that Muhammad dreamed this story, not that it occurred in the real world. The Quran presents five other examples of revivification in this world as evidence (Al-Baqara, 55–56; Al-Baqara, 72–73; Al-Baqara, 243; Al-Baqara, 260; Al-Kahf, 21). According to the hypothesis of prophetic dreams, Muhammad dreamed all of these cases as well, and they must be interpreted.

Soroush’s Judgment on the Dispute Between Muhammad and the Polytheists

Soroush explicitly states that all the outward meanings of the Quranic verses indicate bodily resurrection, and all commentators from ancient times have understood the verses in this way. Yet none of the Muslim philosophers could accept bodily resurrection, because it contradicts philosophical principles. This is where the objections of the eater and the eaten arise. That is:

“If someone is devoured by wild beasts in the desert, how will God then gather his parts together? Now, if that beast is eaten by another beast, and that beast is eaten by yet another beast, a part of one person’s body becomes a part of several people’s bodies—how is this to be resurrected? They had many problems. But they would say the Prophet said it, the Quran said it, and we affirm it” (Minute 60).

As far as I know, Mulla Sadra does not accept the objection of the restoration of the non-existent concerning the dead. In his view, an existent does not become non-existent, because the non-existence of existents would entail their departure from Divine knowledge. Citing the verse “Not a particle’s weight in the earth or in the heaven is hidden from your Lord” (Yunus, 61), Sadra says all existents are known to God, and what is known to God never becomes unknown:

“The truth in our view is that whatever has come into existence cannot truly become non-existent; otherwise, it would necessarily follow that it has departed, vanished, and become absent from the knowledge of God Almighty, and He has said—the verse” (Tafsir al-Quran al-Karim, vol. 6, p. 79).

According to Soroush, personal life after death also grapples with the philosophically impossible problem of metempsychosis and cannot be a true claim. He says:

“It has been said that in the resurrection, the soul returns to the body. The problem begins right here. Mulla Sadra says the return of the soul to the body is precisely metempsychosis, and metempsychosis is forbidden and impossible. He says metempsychosis is not just the soul returning to a body again in this world; the return of the soul to a body is metempsychosis, period. Wherever it may be, because a philosophical principle admits no exceptions. And those who believe that on the Day of Resurrection the soul returns to the body have unknowingly subscribed to metempsychosis. And metempsychosis is philosophically impossible. So that path is also closed. So what are we to do now? In short, Mulla Sadra’s solution is that the resurrection is of the nature of the world of dreams, not of the nature of this material world… He believes that the world of the resurrection is of the nature of the world of dreams. Not that we are dreaming, but of that nature. Beings there are of the nature of dream-beings” (Minutes 64-65).

Soroush says that Mulla Sadra considered one of his prides to be having solved the problem of bodily resurrection. But the scholarly community of believers deemed his theory a “fraud” and would say:

“Yes, you did this, but you destroyed the resurrection. You destroyed bodily resurrection. He [Mulla Sadra] would say, no, even in a dream you see the body. When you see me in a dream, do you see my spirit or do you see me with this very physical stature? They said, you are pulling the wool over our eyes. It is true that we see a body in a dream, but well, that is not the body that exists externally” (Minutes 65-66).

According to Soroush, Mulla Sadra’s theory contradicts the Quranic verses indicating bodily resurrection, and the faithful cannot accept it. That is, they have considered the bodily nature of the resurrection among the necessities of religion and have excommunicated its deniers for this very reason. Just as some of them excommunicated Mulla Sadra for this very reason.

Let us assume that Soroush’s account of Mulla Sadra’s theory of the resurrection is entirely valid. According to Soroush, personal life after death for Sadra is of the “nature of dreams.” Let us assume Sadra’s claim is true and he has confirmed it with justified reasons. However, from the proposition that “personal life after death is of the nature of dreams,” one cannot deduce the claim that “when Muhammad reported on personal life after death, he was reporting on his dreams and visions.” Even assuming that personal life after death is of the nature of dreams, it is entirely possible that Muhammad became aware of it while awake. In other words, from the fact that the object of knowledge is of the nature of a dream, one cannot logically conclude that the knowledge of that object also arose in a dream.

There is no trace of contemporary philosophical literature in Soroush’s statements regarding the possibility of bodily resurrection, the possibility of reincarnation, and the relationship between soul and body. Based on a narrative from the philosophy of Muslim philosophers, he finds the impossibility of reincarnation and bodily resurrection convincing, and for philosophical reasons cannot accept personal life after death. Thus, in the dispute between the polytheists and Muhammad over this issue, he apparently sides with the polytheists.

Resurrection in the Prophetic Dream Hypothesis

Mulla Sadra attempted to solve the problem of bodily resurrection through metaphysical theorizing. According to Soroush, proponents of bodily resurrection considered his work a fraud. But Sadra’s theory, compared to Soroush’s hypothesis which considers the verses on resurrection—that is, about one-third of the Quran—to be Muhammad’s dreams, takes a more conservative approach and yet is not acceptable to Soroush. For Sadra writes in his Quran commentary:

“In our view, the resurrection is precisely this same person, with this same face, this same hand, and with these same limbs and organs” (Muhammad ibn Ibrahim Sadr al-Din Shirazi, Tafsir al-Quran al-Karim, edited by: Muhammad Khwajavi, third edition, Bidar Publications, vol. 5, p. 96).

And

“Our belief concerning the gathering of bodies on the Day of Resurrection is that bodies will be raised from the graves such that whenever you look at any one of them, you will say this is so-and-so, this is so-and-so, and this is so-and-so. This belief corresponds to reality, and it is not the case that those bodies are likenesses and phantoms of human entities; for it is derived from the verses of the Quran, and it is also understood from the religious laws and faiths that what is returned in the resurrection is precisely the totality of body and soul, not merely the soul” ( Tafsir al-Quran al-Karim, vol. 6, p. 73).

And in the commentary on the verse “Is not He who created the heavens and the earth Able to create the like of them?…” (Ya-Sin, 81), he writes:

“Our belief regarding the restoration is that what is returned in the Hereafter is the human being with the totality of soul and body, and this same specific and determinate body is returned with the soul in the Hereafter, not with another body, as some groups have believed. And this is the true belief about the resurrection, which conforms to explicit religious law and sound reason” ( Tafsir al-Quran al-Karim, vol. 5, p. 434).

According to the Prophetic Dreams hypothesis, the Resurrection, Paradise, Hell, personal life after death, and so on… are all Muhammad’s dreams.

He says one of the most important instances confirming the truth of the Prophetic Dreams hypothesis is the issue of resurrection. Resurrection is the most imagistic part of the Quran (Minute 30). He says:

“Everything that is seen in the Quran in bodily form, meaning that the bodies of people are resurrected, was seen in a dream [by Muhammad], like a sun that eclipses. Therefore, it neither indicates that we will definitely be resurrected bodily there, nor does it indicate that our resurrection is spiritual. We must interpret this as a dream. We should by no means say that when the word body or corpse is mentioned, it means the waking body or corpse” (Minutes 66-67).

According to the Prophetic Dreams hypothesis, the Resurrection, Paradise, Hell, personal life after death; are all subjective and internal matters, not objective, external, and outward (Soroush considers all the claims of the Abrahamic religions to be subjective. I will document this claim in the next critique). The Prophet saw all of them in a dream and he himself told his audience that these are my dreams. He says Muhammad saw these dreams:

“And he has come and shared the very same with us. That, friends, dear ones, listeners, companions, Muslims, I have seen in a dream stars seized, the sun eclipsed, pregnant camels wandering astray, these things I have seen in a dream. And alongside this, I also saw in a dream that there is a paradise and a hell; I saw such an extraordinarily strange, tumultuous, and busy scene” (Minute 45 ).

This claim by Soroush is false and very strange. Muhammad denied that revelation was a dream and never told his audience that the verses of the Quran were his dreams. Attributing the dream hypothesis to Muhammad himself as a report is contrary to fact.

According to this hypothesis, what Muhammad saw in a dream concerning the Resurrection, Paradise, and Hell should not be interpreted realistically, nor should it be claimed that their meaning is the same as in the waking world. Dream interpreters must interpret these dreams: “The Quran says no more than that the Prophet saw in a dream the dead rising from the earth; and seeing a body in a dream does not necessarily mean a body in wakefulness and must be interpreted” (“How excellent are the ranks of dreams, which are better than wakefulness” ). According to the prophetic dreams hypothesis, the Resurrection was Muhammad himself, and whoever now wishes for a resurrection to occur within them must connect to the current saint of God so that he, who is the embodiment of the Resurrection, may also bring about a resurrection within you.

Is the Quran Revelation or Poetry?

The polytheists claimed that the style of the Quran was the style of poetry and that Muhammad was a poet:

“Or they say, ‘[The Quran is] confused dreams.’ Or [they say], ‘He has fabricated it.’ Or [they say], ‘He is a poet’” (Al-Anbiya, 5).

“Or do they say, ‘He is a poet for whom we await the misfortunes of time [death]’” (At-Tur, 30).

Muhammad vehemently denied that the Quran was poetry and that he was a poet. He said:

“And We have not taught him [the Prophet] poetry, nor is it befitting for him; this is but a reminder and a clear Quran” (Ya-Sin, 69).

“And the poets—the deviators follow them. Do you not see that they wander in every valley, and that they say what they do not do? Except those who believe and do righteous deeds and remember God often” (Ash-Shu'ara, 224-227).

“It [the Quran] is the recitation of a noble messenger. And it is not the word of a poet” (Al-Haqqah, 41-42).

One of the objections critics have raised against the prophetic dreams hypothesis is the “Say”s of the Quran. In response to these critiques, Soroush, while citing extensively from Rumi, Hafez, Saadi, and other poets, has shown that they too would say to themselves: “Say.” According to Soroush, the Quran is primarily and essentially a literary text, akin to poetry. He says :

“The Quran is an intensely literary book. If we forget this and suppose that the Quran is a journalistic book, we are mistaken. That is, it is a newspaper, plainly saying and writing things that we must read and understand. That is journalistic expression. In a newspaper, yes, they don’t speak like this. As I said… what dominates this book is the literary aspect, meaning a litterateur in the true sense of the word—now God, whoever we want to consider—has sat down and crafted this book with the utmost eloquence. The Quran itself boasts, saying, after all, you cannot produce the like of me; even if jinn and mankind were to join forces, they could not. So where does this lie? If this were straightforward prose and could be read without these rhetorical flourishes, the Quran would not be the Quran. It was for this very reason that some said it was like poetry. It was indeed like poetry, except that, well, God [meaning Muhammad himself] would say he is not a poet, not a fantasist” (minutes 31-33 ).

Thus, in this dispute too, the hypothesis of prophetic dreams shows that the polytheists were right, not Muhammad.

Muhammad’s Use of the Mythical Stories of the Ancients

In their dispute with Muhammad, the polytheists claimed that his words about the history of past peoples and their forefathers were a retelling of the mythical stories of the ancients—including the stories of the Torah and the Gospel:

“This is nothing but the fables of the ancients” (Al-Ahqaf, 17), “This is nothing but the fables of the ancients” (Al-Anfal, 31), “When it is said to them, ‘What has your Lord sent down?’ they say, ‘Fables of the ancients’” (An-Nahl, 24), “And they said, ‘Fables of the ancients which he has had written down, and they are recited to him morning and evening’” (Al-Furqan, 5).

The Quran denied the polytheists’ claim and said that Muhammad had no knowledge at all of the stories of the ancients and that We—God—had informed him of them:

“We recount to you the best of narratives through what We have revealed to you of this Quran, though before it you were surely among the unaware” (Yusuf, 3).

“This is from the tidings of the Unseen which We reveal to you; neither you nor your people knew them before this” (Hud, 49).

But it has now become clear that Muhammad made extensive use of the mythical, historical stories of the Arabs, the Torah, and the Gospel. Soroush even shows how much of the cosmology of the Zoroastrian religion, and particularly the issue of their resurrection, has been repeated in the Quran.

Soroush not only believes in the entry of the mythical stories of the ancients into the Quran, but also claims that Muhammad saw all of them in his dreams. He says:

“It must now be said: ‘The dream of Ahmad is the dream of all the prophets.’ The history of the prophets is repeated in the dreams of Muhammad, and he sees and experiences Adam, Noah, Abraham, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Jesus… and their peoples. In a dream he sees that Noah preaches for nine hundred and fifty years; some of the Jews are turned into pigs and apes for their disobedience; Jesus does not go to the cross, but someone else does and is mistakenly thought to be Jesus; Ezra and his mount are brought back to life and return to the world; Moses parts the Nile, turns his staff into a serpent, Pharaoh drowns in the sea, and Dhul-Qarnayn builds the iron wall; Idris ascends to heaven and… All these are dreams that Muhammad is the narrator of, and what harm is there if there is no trace of them in history! Is the pig and ape he sees in a dream the same as in wakefulness? Should not the revival of Ezra and his return to the world be interpreted in a dream-like manner? Is parting the sea and seeing a serpent in a dream the same as seeing a serpent and parting the sea in wakefulness? All these require interpretation to find a direct meaning, otherwise, we will fall into the abyss of contrivances that distort their message” (Prophetic Dreams 2).

And

“The story of Adam… clearly has a dreamlike hue and nature… so too is the story of Khidr and Moses in Surah al-Kahf, and so too is the six-day creation of the heavens and the earth… This statement supports the meaning that the prophets (Moses – Muhammad) truly saw the creation of the world and humanity in six days in a dream, not six periods” (“What a lofty state is a dream, better than wakefulness“).

Mohammed Abed al-Jabri devoted 238 pages of the book An Approach to the Noble Quran, in Defining the Quran to the historical stories of the Quran. His explicit opinion is that the Quran is not a book of history. These stories were current among the people of that era. God used those same stories—regardless of their truth or falsehood and regardless of whether they were mythical or real—for two purposes: A- Counsel, admonition, and moral lesson. B- “Proof” for establishing the prophethood of Muhammad in confrontation with opponents. “Narrative in the Quran is a rhetorical device that substitutes for proof and argument to establish the Muhammadan mission and its complex content” (Mohammed Abed al-Jabri, An Approach to the Noble Quran, in Defining the Quran, translated by Mohsen Armin, Ney Publishing, p. 387).

Based on the order of the revelation of the verses, al-Jabri reconstructed all the stories and shows how Muhammad used them in his encounters with the polytheists, Jews, and Christians to prove his prophethood. Historical truth was not at all the consideration; rather, the confirmation of prophethood was the criterion, “but the events and matters related to the Muhammadan call that are raised within the telling of these narratives are historical truths” (Mohammed Abed al-Jabri, An Approach to the Noble Quran, in Defining the Quran, translated by Mohsen Armin, Ney Publishing, p. 350).

A Picture of the Site of Conflict

In light of the Prophetic Dreams hypothesis, the following issues can be raised:

First- Philosophically and scientifically, regarding personal life after death, the polytheists were right and Muhammad was mistaken.

Second- If we take the Prophetic Dreams hypothesis seriously, since the entire Quran is the product of Muhammad’s dreams, then the conflict between Muhammad and the polytheists must also have occurred in a dream, not in wakefulness. Soroush has said in some instances that Muhammad also saw the historical conflicts of the Prophet’s time in a dream:

“The Quran recounts for us that God made the enemies of Muhammad appear few in his eyes in a dream so that he would gain courage and embolden his troops to be victorious in battle, and they were victorious. Muhammad truly believed that the enemies were few and mistook his dream for wakefulness. And this was a divine contrivance and a requirement of the nature of dreams, which inverted reality and showed the few as many, and the many as few” (Prophetic Dreams 2).

Let us note in parentheses that not only have all Muslims throughout history erred by interpreting the Quran and taking dreams for waking reality, but Soroush here explicitly writes that Muhammad himself committed this error and “mistook his dream for waking reality.” When Muhammad himself did not distinguish between dream and waking, it is clear that his followers, modeling themselves on him, have committed and continue to commit the same error.

Third— Muhammad was engaged in dialogue and dispute with the polytheists. They denied the resurrection of the dead and personal life after death. But Muhammad presented his dreams to them as reality. The polytheists said that Muhammad himself had fabricated all of this and presented it as the words of God. Muhammad said, no, these are the words of God. The hypothesis of prophetic dreams sides with the polytheists and says that Muhammad produced the entire Quran.

The polytheists said these were Muhammad’s confused dreams:

“بَلْ قَالُواْ أَضْغَاثُ أَحْلاَمٍ بَلِ افْتَرَاهُ بَلْ هُوَ شَاعِرٌ فَلْیَأْتِنَا بِآیَهٍ کَمَا أُرْسِلَ الأَوَّلُونَ: Or they say, ‘[The Quran is] confused dreams.’ Or [they say], ‘He has fabricated it.’ Or [they say], ‘He is a poet.’ So let him bring us a sign like those sent to the ancients” (Al-Anbiya, 5).

Muhammad would reply that these were not his dreams or fabrications, but the words of God. The hypothesis of prophetic dreams confirms the polytheists’ view and says it was all Muhammad’s dreams.

The hypothesis of prophetic dreams shows that in all these cases, the polytheists were right. They spoke of reality, and Muhammad of dreams. They spoke of what is possible and impossible in the real world, but Muhammad told them that all of this is the very truth in dreams. Fourth— The dispute between the polytheists and Muhammad was a dispute between waking and dreaming. The polytheists—according to the level of knowledge of the time—argued that: a) The Quran is not the words of God. b) Muhammad himself fabricated and concocted the entire Quran. c) The Quran is Muhammad’s dreams. d) The Quran is a poetic text and its poet is Muhammad. e) The stories of the Quran are the myths of the ancients.

The hypothesis of prophetic dreams says that dream interpreters must come and interpret Muhammad’s dreams for us. Whatever their interpretation, one point is certainly clear: the sun, the moon, water, and none of the things observed in the dream are entities of the real world. Thus, dream interpreters will also confirm that the polytheists were in the right.

The polytheists denied Muhammad’s beliefs, and according to the hypothesis of prophetic dreams, Muhammad told them that after death they would go to the hell of his dreams or be punished in the hell he sees in his dreams:

“[They say] You and what you worship besides God are fuel for Hell; you will enter it. Had these been true gods, they would not have entered it [Hell], and all shall abide therein eternally” (Al-Anbiya, 98-99).

Fifth— In light of the hypothesis of prophetic dreams, new historical research must be undertaken. The real polytheists are not those Muhammad saw in his dreams; they were intellectuals who understood revelation, prophethood, the Quran, and the afterlife better than Muhammad.

Regarding monotheism as well, Allah, Rahman (Al-Zukhruf, 20; Al-Furqan, 60), Rahim, and so on were some of their gods, among whom Allah, of course, held a special place and was considered the creator of the world (Al-Zumar, 38; Yunus, 31; Al-Ankabut, 63; Al-An‘am, 136). The polytheists considered partners for Allah (Al-An‘am, 100). Muhammad transformed all the gods of the polytheists into the one God, Allah, and turned the rest into names of this one God. Nevertheless, he also accepted that God could be called by the names Allah or Rahman (Al-Isra, 110; Taha, 5; Al-Furqan, 59). The polytheists in no way accepted the claim that Allah had spoken with Muhammad and did not consider the Quran to be the words of Allah. The hypothesis of prophetic dreams also sides with the polytheists in this dispute. Regarding the transformation of the polytheists’ gods into the one God (Allah), the hypothesis of prophetic dreams faces a historical problem that we will address independently.

Sixth— Soroush certainly does not think about Muhammad in the way the polytheists did. He regards Muhammad as a truthful, great man, filled with God, God incarnate, the Resurrection present, and a prophet. He loves Muhammad, but the discussion concerns the theoretical and practical consequences of a hypothesis, not the hypothesizer.

Seventh— Muhammad and the polytheists saw different dreams. According to the prophetic dreams hypothesis, one must look at the outcomes of the dreams and judge them accordingly. The outcome of the dreams showed that the polytheists were right in their claims about the Qur’an being fabricated by Muhammad, the Qur’an being a dream, the Qur’an being poetry, personal life after death, and the bringing of mythical stories of the ancients into the Qur’an. The important question: Did the polytheists dream better, or did Muhammad?

Eighth— If the prophetic dreams hypothesis becomes established as a paradigm or research program, then the status of the polytheists will completely change, and researchers working within this research program will present an image of them contrary to the Qur’anic accounts.

.

---

.

The Superiority of the Polytheists in Soroush’s “Dreams of Muhammad” Hypothesis

Author: Akbar Ganji

.

---

.