Two Substantial Critiques of the Theory of “Muhammad as the Narrator of Prophetic Dreams”, Hossein Pourfaraj

Two Substantial Critiques of the Theory of “Muhammad as the Narrator of Prophetic Dreams”, Hossein Pourfaraj

.

Soroush’s Muhammad

Two Substantial Critiques of the Theory "Muhammad as the Narrator of Prophetic Dreams"

Hossein Pourfaraj

 

Dr. Abdolkarim Soroush’s theory[1] regarding the dream-like nature of the Quran is a controversial theory. In truth, this theory must be considered a revolution in understanding the manner of the text’s emergence, development, and consolidation. The essence of the dream theory is precisely what Dr. Soroush has also pointed out in his latest article:

The “auditory-verbal” nature of the Quran was, until now, a subject of reflection and research; now its “visual-dreamlike” nature beckons and invites contemplation and deliberation. In both hypotheses, Muhammad (PBUH) was the agent, not the patient; and he sometimes sat in the first person and sometimes in the second and third person. But in the new hypothesis, it is as if, in some instances, he is a witness to scenes (not a listener to statements) that take shape on a horizon higher than the sensory horizon (imagination, dream, the celestial realm), and he sees and narrates them. Parts of the Quran are such imagery that the “auditory-visual” nature of Muhammad’s (PBUH) revelatory experience is the best expression for it.[2]

A Critique of the Critics

First, it is good to recount a critique of some opponents’ criticisms of this theory and then proceed to analyze two fundamental weaknesses of the theory itself:

• The first objection to the general body of criticisms leveled is the conflation of the issue of the essence of revelation with the phenomenology of revelation. Dr. Soroush has repeatedly emphasized that he never denies revelation but rather seeks the mechanism of revelation. It is as if the esteemed critics have forgotten that the discussion is not about the existence or non-existence of revelation, but about the manner of its reception and presentation:

In any case, the discussion is neither about accepting prophethood nor about the truth of revelation, for believers have already made their judgment on these matters and have faith in them; rather, the discussion is about the phenomenon of revelation and its dreamlike language and its enigmatic, misty atmosphere, which is the Prophet’s enduring legacy, and unlocking it has been left to our efforts.[3]

• Critic friends have generally not clarified their position regarding Dr. Soroush’s doctrinal metaphysics. This lack of attention is a major flaw. Critics must express their reasoned viewpoint regarding the connective metaphysics of this religious intellectual. Most critics, due to unfamiliarity and (or, with a slight discount) because they deem this metaphysics incapable compared to the metaphysics of separation, have shied away from addressing this mode of theology and have leaped over it without the slightest regard for this type of metaphysics. Dr. Soroush says that connective metaphysics sees God and the Prophet (PBUH) as close to one another, indeed sees them as within one another, and unlike the metaphysics of separation, does not consider God separate from His creations. This metaphysics considers the Prophet (PBUH) to be filled with God and regards God as dwelling in the mind, consciousness, and even in all the limbs and organs of Muhammad (PBUH):

That is, Muhammad (PBUH) becomes filled with God, and God takes on the stature and form of Muhammad (PBUH), and therefore Muhammad’s speech is commensurate with Muhammad’s knowledge, not with God’s knowledge. Like a colorless light shining through a colored bubble and taking on the color of the bubble. Limitation begets deficiency, and nothing limited can be perfect. The deficiency of the author flows into the work, and therefore the Quran, which is the composition of a novel and sublime, yet imperfect and limited human being, can in no way and from no perspective be perfect. Muhammad himself was aware and confessed: Ma ‘arafnaka haqqa ma‘rifatik (O God, we have not known You as You ought to be known), and if his knowledge of God, with whom he had a loving intimacy, is such, what could it be of other things?

Thus, the entry of scientific and philosophical deficiencies into the Quran is no cause for wonder. (Rabbi zidni ‘ilma – My Lord, increase me in knowledge). And God still has words He has not spoken; and one cannot say that with the coming of the Quran and the last Prophet, revelation and inspiration have ended and no new word remains for God; yes, it remains, and therefore the expansion of prophetic experience is possible.[4]

Now that things have reached this point, let me briefly acknowledge my own position regarding the metaphysics of “union” (wisali): In my view, Dr. Soroush’s metaphysics of union implicitly suffers from numerous problems. Perhaps one of the most important of these is the problem of “the diminishment of God.”[5] In this metaphysics, there is God and God alone; it is pure unity. Beings are virtual, not real. Everything is God; and God is utterly alone. God is both the Prophet and Abu Sufyan. Both animal and plant. If a thief steals, it is God who steals; and if the earth quakes, it is God who quakes. I believe that the metaphysics of union does not preserve the “dignity of God” and removes Him from His rightful station.

I also believe that this metaphysics has other flaws. In summary, Soroush’s metaphysics calls into question God’s creativity, the world of resurrection, the actions and reactions of nature, and many other issues, finding no place for them whatsoever within its framework; just like that amateur repairman who, for instance, opens a broken radio and, upon reassembling it, finds a few extra screws and bolts left over; and so on...[6]

• Some respected critics have forgotten that Dr. Soroush’s view this time concerns the Quran being visual-dreamlike, not auditory-verbal. The result of this conflation of approaches is that these friends’ criticism is directed at the theory of the Quran as the Word of Muhammad (PBUH), not the theory of “Muhammad; the Narrator of Prophetic Dreams.” I believe that as a result of this mistake, many of the critics’ criticisms are fundamentally invalid and misplaced and should be disregarded. Although the author himself believes that Dr. Soroush’s leap from the theory of the Word of Muhammad (PBUH) to the dream theory is quite hasty and premature, and the former theory is certainly more robust. This means the theory of the Word of Muhammad (PBUH) can better be subjected to rational-historical judgments, and its truth or falsehood can be better assessed.
• Another critique of the general body of critics is their taking the traditional reading of the Quran for granted. In other words, many critics have viewed the revelatory apparatus of the Quran’s descent as itself being a revealed scripture, and thus they have considered the traditional view of the mechanism of revelation to be eternal and everlasting. Now, the product of such a view is also clear: opposition to any new understanding, denial and reaction against any new comprehension, and so on...
• The respected critics have unfortunately spoken irrelevantly in many instances when faced with Dr. Soroush’s arguments. For example, in response to the bracketing of conventional presuppositions, they have adduced arguments from those very presuppositions, or they have adopted disproportionate approaches in response to the “phenomenological approach.” Dr. Soroush speaks of the mechanism of revelation, and they speak of the product of this mechanism. In my belief, if we consider the dream theory a mechanistic theory, we must discuss it mechanistically, and if we consider it, for example, an x-centered theory, then x-centered.
• Another critique is directed at the pseudo-critics of the theory known as the dream theory. Unfortunately, some respected critics have forgotten that the developer of the dream theory is one of the scientific-epistemic prides of Iranian society, and indeed he holds a great right over the religious people of this land. Some friends have, in a way, sought to take revenge on this enamored, heart-stricken nightingale and have resorted to every pretext to blacken the beauty of his character. Nevertheless, the author believes that these pseudo-critics have in no way observed the ethics of research and the decorum of criticism, and due to epistemic poverty, have resorted to profanity and insult. For, as Rumi says:

From God we seek the grace of decorum

The indecorous is deprived of the Lord’s grace

The indecorous did not only harm himself

But set fire to all horizons[7]

Critique of the Dream Theory:

Unlike the theory of “Muhammad’s speech,” the dream theory does not represent much of a step forward. The theory of “Muhammad’s speech” is a falsifiable theory whose claims can be evaluated; the dream theory, however, is not, and one cannot subject it to rational-logical judgments. In other words, the dream theory is like a slippery fish that never settles in the critics’ hands and is constantly slipping from their grasp. This theory seems to have a single, one-word answer to all questions and all attempts to catch it out, and that very answer essentially boycotts all the critiques raised. What is that answer? Obviously, the Prophet’s dreams.

Therefore, critiquing the theory of prophetic dreams is truly difficult. As Akbar Ganji has noted, Dr. Soroush, by equating the concept of dream with other concepts, has cleverly closed off any avenue of critique and criticism. This has, in a way, rendered the said theory critique-proof:

“Expressing concepts and claims imprecisely is part and parcel of ‘Prophetic Dreams.’ The concept of dream is the basis of Soroush’s hypothesis. When critics set out to critique the dream hypothesis, Soroush blocks the path of critique by bringing into play concepts such as vision, unveiling, intuition, imagination, and so on. The dream hypothesis can be critiqued when it remains a dream, but when it is expanded into intuition, vision, mystical unveiling, the imaginative knowledge of the philosophers, and so forth, it becomes so vague that the path of critique is closed off and the hypothesis is immunized against criticism.”[8]

First Critique: Is the Mechanism of Revelation General or Specific?!

Nevertheless, this theory can still be critiqued from other angles. One of these angles is the historical perspective. Dr. Soroush’s theory, contrary to his own view, sweeps everything before it. The Prophet of Islam was not and is not the only prophet of God. Many prophets came and went before him. From the Prophet Noah to Jesus Christ, peace be upon them. Now the question arises: What was the mechanism of revelation like for the other prophets?! Did they also see dreams?! Did they also undergo visionary/visual experiences?! In the author’s opinion, if the dream theory holds true for the Seal of the Prophets, it also holds true for the other prophets. That is, both the Prophet Noah saw dreams and Jesus Christ underwent visionary/visual experiences.[9] Therefore, the dream theory is only acceptable if we consider the dream mechanism of revelation to be true for the other prophets as well and regard their process of revelation as visual/visionary. The proponent of the dream theory must clarify his position regarding the historical background of the issue of revelation and, therefore, when hypothesizing, must also clarify his position on the experiences of the other prophets. The author believes that the mechanism of revelation for all prophets should, as a rule, be similar and identical, drawing from a single, consistent, and aligned context. In truth, the dream theory has remained silent on the nature of the revelation mechanism for the divine prophets other than the Prophet of Islam, and it is precisely unclear in this theory whether the phenomenology of revelation took a visual/visionary form only for the Prophet of Islam?! Or was this mechanism also at work for the other divine prophets?!

Any theory concerning the phenomenology of revelation must represent the entire community of prophets and thus avoid case-specific analysis. In my view, the fundamental critique of Dr. Soroush’s theory is precisely this case-specific view of the revelation mechanism regarding the Seal of the Prophets and the lack of attention to the historical precedent of this history-making event. If, indeed, according to Dr. Soroush, revelation had a dreamlike/visual state, then this theory should not be proposed solely for the Seal of the Prophets while forgetting the other prophets. This mechanism must be confirmed and traced for all prophets and be, in principle, applicable to all of them.

Therefore, based on the foregoing, we can conclude as follows:

Muhammad is the narrator of prophetic dreams (the mechanism of revelation is dreams);

The mechanism of revelation (according to evidence) is similar and identical,

Noah, Abraham, Moses, and Jesus (+ other prophets) are narrators of prophetic dreams.

In that case, I find it unlikely that the aforementioned theory could serve as an explanation for the revelatory experiences of other prophets or resolve the intra-religious issues of other faiths. In my opinion, the most significant critique of the dream theory is precisely this particularism regarding the mechanism or phenomenology of revelation. Dr. Soroush seems to have forgotten that, concerning the mechanism of revelation, resolving the historical background of this issue is more important than addressing the matter itself; and indeed, this historical precedent is a weighty problem that absolutely must be dealt with.

Second Critique: Interpreting Fourteen-Hundred-Year-Old Dreams

Let us take another step. This step is not a priori but a posteriori. Dr. Soroush's theory has precisely conflated the supervision of dreams with the narration of dreams. In this theory, it was said that the Prophet has total involvement and is, in fact, himself considered the author of the Quran:

"The description of what relates to the supernatural, from the divine essence and attributes to the world of ants (the realm of pre-existence and the Day of Alast), to the story of creation and the tale of Adam, to the comings and goings of angels, Satan, jinn, and celestial meteors, to events after death, to the Resurrection and the witnessing of its strange and unfamiliar scenes, to the description of Hell and Paradise, the gathering of the dead, the lining up of prophets and saints, the opening of the record of servants' deeds, the setting up of the scales of justice, the fifty-thousand-year ascent of angels toward the Divine Throne, the placement of God's Throne upon the shoulders of eight angels, God sitting on the Throne and His Throne resting upon the water, the blowing of the trumpet, the gathering of wild beasts, the seas catching fire, the eclipse of the sun and stars, the drunken staggering of people at the gathering, the miscarrying of pregnant women, the roasting of sinners' skin and its renewal, the exchange of cups of wine among the people of Paradise, gardens full of pomegranates, bananas, and grapes, the service of graceful young boys, and so on—are so visual, pictorial, and cinematic that they seem to shine upon the screen of imagination in the world of dreams. Even if we consider their reality to be formless, we cannot deny the involvement of Muhammad's (PBUH) faculty of imagination in giving form to those formless things..."

And:

"I must emphasize that everything that happened to the Prophet, and everything that settled upon his soul, arose from the strength of his soul, the sharpness of his inner eye, his creative imagination, his illuminative experience, and his unparalleled intellectual ability, all of which were special divine gifts that permitted him, commensurate with his human capacity, to see distant horizons and bring embers from the unseen world to the visible world, setting fire to the accumulated equilibrium of history. The centrality and involvement of the Prophet in the phenomenon of revelation is inevitable and undeniable, and all of religion revolves around the axis of his personality and experience, and he revolves around the axis of God. If Muhammad (PBUH) had had other experiences, Muhammadan Islam would have taken on a different color and fragrance. All religions, according to the explicit text of the Quran, are Islam: we have Mosaic Islam and Christian Islam, and the religion of Muslims is Muhammadan Islam, peace be upon them all."[10]

Now the fundamental problem becomes completely clear. If we accept Dr. Soroush's statements above, then this statement of his will become moot:

"In the language of dreams, there is no room for figurative language or allusion, meaning words are not taken to mean other than their literal meanings, although to understand them, one cannot consult a dictionary, but must instead employ the method of dream interpretation";[11]

And:

"As history testifies, when he entered a state of unconsciousness, selflessness, and absorption (which I have called a dream, to avoid the heavy and difficult metaphysics embedded in words like unveiling, connected imagination, disconnected imagination, and the higher and lower realms of dominion, and so as not to explain the unknown with the unknown, but rather to define the unknown revelation through the known dream), he would see and hear things that, upon returning, he would recount to his companions. The companions would write them down or commit them to memory, and twenty years after his passing, they compiled them into a volume and named it the Mushaf. Therefore, the language of Muhammad's (PBUH) Mushaf is the language of the unconscious world (although it appears to be in the language of wakefulness, and this is the missing link and the neglected point in the work of the Mushaf's interpreters), and consequently, it requires dream interpretation."[12]

Why are these discourses of Dr. Soroush without substance?! The answer is clear. If the Prophet truly presented his dreams based on a superior intellect and creative mind, and if he precisely gave form to formless matters, then what need is there for dream interpretation?! The Prophet himself has interpreted the Qur'an. According to the dream theory, the Prophet has complete involvement in the composition of the Qur'an, and it is he who expresses his dreams in human language. According to this supervision and narration, dreams are de-dreamed and presented to all audiences. Thus, "what is said" is no longer equal to "what is seen," and there are indeed differences between the two. Dr. Soroush cannot interpret this involvement of the Prophet as anything other than dream interpretation and give it another name. In my view, according to the content of the dream theory, "what the Prophet saw" are his dreams, and "what the Prophet said" are his dream interpretations.

Therefore, I believe that the dream theory, according to its other stated contents, does not require dream interpretation, as this task has already been performed by the Prophet himself; how can the Qur'an be left ambiguous and unclarified while simultaneously being considered clear and illuminating? A truth that has clearly escaped the proponent of the dream theory, and this has consequently entangled him in subsequent dilemmas. In any case, the dream theory—if accepted—never requires a dream interpreter, and the interpreter of the Qur'an's dreams is the person of the Prophet of Islam himself. This theory considers the Prophet as the axis and thus the focal point, but forgets his role in dream interpretation. Dr. Soroush conflates the supervision of dreams with the narration of dreams and delegates the interpretation of what exists to others.

Consequently, in the opinion of this writer, the dream theory suffers somewhat from internal incoherence and, according to its own content, undermines itself. This theory considers the Seal of the Prophets as the sole actor but removes him from his primary task—namely, dream interpretation. Without this recognition, the theory truly falls into interpretive crises and gets caught in anarchistic dilemmas, offering no standard criterion for the interpretation and reception of the Qur'an; for how can the prophetic dreams of the Prophet—especially since they are unique dreams and unrepeatable experiences—be convincingly interpreted and brought closer to intersubjective understanding? How can these slippery and mysterious dreams be considered a source of guidance and direction for believers and be regarded, in the true sense of the word, as the Qur'an in this world? Nevertheless, in the author's belief, this oversight turns the Qur'an into a book of "unrevealable secrets" and makes it not a clarification but a problem. I am astonished by this oversight: if the dream theory considers the Prophet of Islam as the central role and sole actor of the Qur'an, and recognizes him as the alpha and omega of all Qur'anic-writing activities, then how is it that this theory places the dream interpretation of this book on the shoulders of others—that is, on dream interpreters other than the Prophet of Islam—and does not introduce the Prophet himself as the dream interpreter? If the Prophet has complete involvement, then why is he not the dream interpreter himself?! And why is he not the interpreter and elucidator?! This theory, due to its failure to recognize the Prophet's role in the quick apprehension and facilitation of what was seen and clothed in speech (according to the theory's supposition, of course), truly turns the Qur'an into an incomprehensible book and, as I said, into a "book of secrets," and indeed, through this, it engages in unwarranted pretext-making. And so on and so forth.

Final Word

Here I conclude my critique of the dream theory. Of course, this critique could have continued. I have refrained from presenting many other criticisms in this space. The reason for this restraint is clear; the critiques I have not brought here have been well articulated in the articles of other critics.[13] Among the criticisms raised, I greatly admire (in most respects) two: "A Critical Look at the Theory of 'Prophetic Dreams' from a Phenomenological and Hermeneutic Perspective" by Bijan Abdolkarimi and the critique "Interpreting the Words of God or the Interpretation of Muhammad's Dreams" by Akbar Ganji, and I believe that a response to these critiques from Dr. Soroush could resolve many ambiguities. In any case, the dream theory has gained considerable ground among Muslims, and of course, more so among intellectually-inclined Muslims, and therefore this development, as much as it can be a cause for the elevation of the Quran, can also be considered a factor in weakening this particular revelation.

In closing, I end my words by reciting some verses from Iqbal Lahori and consider the aforementioned issue elucidated. (In parentheses, it is necessary to mention this point: Dr. Soroush refers to the Iranian mystic Rumi in many places throughout his writings. I believe it is obligatory to raise this issue here: Dr. Soroush has said on several occasions that the prophetic experience is akin to the poetic experience. In my opinion, if this statement holds true for the theory of Muhammad's speech, it is certainly not true for the theory of prophetic dreams. The mechanism of composing a poem, like the verses of Rumi, has never been and is not oneiric/visual. Poets have never had visionary experiences in this manner and style, and such exaggeration about them is, in fact, contrary to reality.) Read:

Once the Quran's inscription settled in this world,

The inscriptions of the priest and the transient were shattered.

I speak openly what is hidden in the heart,

This is not a book; it is something else.

When it enters the soul, the soul becomes other,

When the soul becomes other, the world becomes other.

Like the Truth, this is hidden and also manifest,

Living, enduring, and speaking is this. [14]

Hossein Pourfaraj

7/7/2016

.

---

.

[1] - Dr. Abdolkarim Soroush holds a great right over this author. I have always learned from him and continue to learn, and I would never trade this discipleship for a thousand professorships.

[2] - Refer to: How Excellent is the State of Sleep, Which is Better than Wakefulness / Zeitoon Website

[3] - Refer to: Muhammad (PBUH): The Narrator of Prophetic Dreams (2) / Author's Website.

[4] - Refer to: How Excellent is the State of Sleep, Which is Better than Wakefulness / Zeitoon Website.

[5] —Martin Buber (Martin Buber): was an Austrian Jewish philosopher and writer. He advocated for a spiritual Jewish national revival and wrote many works on Judaism and Jewish nationalism... Buber also has a readable book titled Eclipse of God. The title “Diminution of God” is partly derived from that book. In it, Martin Buber speaks of two types of relationship concerning God: the “I-Thou” relationship and the “I-It” relationship. This renowned Jewish theologian and philosopher is entirely a defender of the first type of relationship and, of course, the eclipse of this relationship in the sphere of life. Read more in:

Eclipse of God, translated by Abbas Kashef and Aboutorab Sohrab, Farzan Rooz Publishing and Research, Tehran, 1392 [2013/2014].

[6] —Let me say in advance that this position of mine regarding the metaphysics of union (visali) in no way signifies an endorsement of the metaphysics of separation (feraqi). In the future, God willing, I will present a complete essay on these two types of metaphysics.

[7] —Masnavi-ye Ma'navi/ Book One/ Section 4

[8] —Please refer to the article: Interpretation of God's Words or the Interpretation of Muhammad's Dreams / The Third Problem—Epistemologically Unacceptable Consequences.

[9] —In parentheses, note this Quranic verse: Indeed, We have revealed to you, [O Muhammad], as We revealed to Noah and the prophets after him. And We revealed to Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, the Descendants, Jesus, Job, Jonah, Aaron, and Solomon, and... (An-Nisa/163) / We have sent thee inspiration, as We sent it to Noah and the Messengers after him: we sent inspiration to Abraham, Isma'il, Isaac, Jacob and the Tribes, to Jesus, Job, Jonah, Aaron, and Solomon, and...

[10] —Please refer to: How many are the ranks of sleep, which are better than wakefulness / Zeitoon website .

[11] —Please refer to: Muhammad (PBUH): The Narrator of Prophetic Dreams (1) / Author's website.

[12] —Please refer to: How many are the ranks of sleep, which are better than wakefulness / Zeitoon website

[13] —Among those critiques that I truly consider valid, but have refrained from mentioning because other critics have addressed them, are these:

- First, that the dream theory itself leads to strange consequences, whereas the emergence of such consequences is considered a problem for the interpretation theory. For example, if God is called All-Hearing and All-Seeing in the Quran, according to the dream theory, one must assume that the Prophet saw God in the dream world with two eyes and two ears, because the language of dreams is the language of imagination and imagery. (By: Khosrow Bagheri Noaparast / Article: A Reflection on Dr. Abdolkarim Soroush's Theory of Prophetic Dreams)

- The claim that the entire Quran is visual is astonishing. In the Quran, there are universal propositions. There are ethical propositions, there are counterfactual propositions, there are conditional propositions, there are negative propositions. How can such propositions, for instance universal or counterfactual propositions, be expressed with images? Can ethical and immaterial concepts be expressed with images? How can the concept of God be expressed? For example, suppose it is stated in the Quran that God will reward whomever He wills. How can this proposition be expressed with an image? (By: Akbar Ganji / Article: Interpretation of God's Words or the Interpretation of Muhammad's Dreams)

-The proponent of the theory has cited the words of Shaykh al-Ishrāq and others concerning dreams, the dreams of Abraham and Joseph, the Prophet's Mi'rāj, the various kinds of dreams, and the notion that a dream is one part out of the forty-six parts of prophethood, as evidence for prophetic dreams. All of this evidence is correct regarding the reality of dreams, but it does not prove that the Qur'an is a dream, just as the Torah and the Gospel were not dreams. The noble Prophet of Islam, of course, also experienced true dreams, and the Qur'an has alluded to this in two instances in a veiled manner (Isrā' 60 and Fath 27), but it has distinguished the Qur'an from these dreams. (By: Abdolali Bazargan / Article: A Second Critique of "Prophetic Dreams")

-Therefore, although the motivations and concerns of the proponent of the theory of prophetic dreams are clearly and fully evident in their opposition to the fundamentalism of traditional theological systems, and reveal a part of the truth, when they state that "the language of the Qur'an is human and earthly, and the Qur'an is directly and without mediation the composition, experience, effervescence, and growth of Muhammad's (PBUH) soul and his tongue and expression" or "we have said that those grand achievements [the Qur'an] in the Arabic, conventional, and human language… arose from the source of the Prophet's inner self,… meaning God did not speak and did not write a book, but a historical human spoke and wrote a book in His place, and his speech was the same as His speech," at the same time, it confronts us with the danger of secularizing and desacralizing sacred texts. (By: Bijan Abdolkarimi / Article: A Critical Look at the Theory of "Prophetic Dreams" from a Phenomenological and Hermeneutic Perspective)

-My emphasis here is that, in reality, contrary to Dr. Soroush's claim and wish, his theory can only explain the status of a portion of the Qur'an's verses, and that too from the perspective of the discussion of the language of the Qur'an. However, regarding the verses of rulings and Sharia, or the historical events contemporary with the time of the Prophet whose echo is seen in the Qur'an, his argument is incapable of providing an explanation. These distinctions in the Qur'an can be better explained by the method that the aforementioned Muslim philosophers, theologians, and scholars have used in discussing the nature of revelation. This, incidentally, is a point that has been alluded to in certain hadiths, as we shall discuss. (By: Hassan Ansari / Article: A Critique of Dr. Soroush's Theory on Revelation (1): Preliminaries to the Discussion)

And...

[14] - Javid Nama / The Afghan Message to the Russian Nation

.

---

.

Two Substantial Critiques of the Theory of “Muhammad as the Narrator of Prophetic Dreams”

Hossein Pourfaraj

95/4/17

.

---

.