What Does Dr. Abdolkarim Soroush Do with His Critics? (Part Two, Final), Mohammad Sohimi

Mohammad Sohimi:

Dr. Soroush and Mr. Morad Farhadpour: Mr. Farhadpour is a writer, translator, and one of the figures of the "New Left." In his article "The Merciless Presence of the Axe of Destruction" (October 2008), Dr. Soroush addresses Mr. Farhadpour, saying: "You who do not wish to climb the rotten ladder of anti-Popperism and, like that [Reza Davari] polemicist of the early years of the revolution (who, incidentally, should be called the ideologue of the ruling current, who sought the root of the idea of guardianship in Plato), receive grand posts and rewards? 'Tell the king that a day is destined.' This manner of speaking, whatever name or attribute it may have, is not scholarly and fair criticism. It is destruction, belittlement, insult, and injustice, and a bad example for the youth who observe and are influenced by these acts of demolition. I do not know how long our writers wish to compete with one another in anti-Popperism and remain trapped in the vortex of this discourse? The one who initiated these hysterical attacks is now himself regretful and distressed, and shamefacedly confesses to his hostile and unscholarly quarrel, and by writing articles and books strives to restore his tarnished reputation to the stream of good name—what place is there for imitators and distorters?" In the same article, Dr. Soroush, in response to Mr. Farhadpour's critique of his views on the relationship between reason and revolution, wrote: "My impression is that Morad Farhadpour does not attach much importance to 'thoughts' as he does to their peripheries. To put it more plainly, he lacks the courage to confront thought and the power to critique it epistemologically, and he cloaks this impotence and lack of courage in a wrapping of motive-reading, financial politicking and whitewashing, belittlement and ridicule, taunts and innuendos, gloating and reproaches, violations of respect and projections... In his writings, no matter how much you search, you do not sense the delicate silence of reflection, but you hear as much as you want the rude clamor of mockery. The pleasure of destroying and the hatred of providing proof, the painful absence of the lens of analysis and the merciless presence of the axe of destruction are the four main characteristics of his works... [Farhadpour] tells me, plainly and bluntly (and flayingly), that these words do not suit you. You were nobody. You had neither the learning nor the competence. At most, you repeated, half-chewed and half-baked, the words of (Heidegger?) and Popper. A door hit a board and overnight you became the 'main ideologue' of the ruling current, and now you show ingratitude and send reason to war against the revolution... I have made a claim (and that is that in revolutions, the share of reason is not well fulfilled)... Break the back of my claim, why do you break my head?... These very stones that are thrown at me make the wall of my claim taller. When an ignorant and incompetent person whose only capital is foolishness becomes the main ideologue of the revolution overnight, is this not itself the clearest proof that revolutions are irrational? What proof is higher than this? They say that those who humiliate others themselves have an inferiority complex... Morad Farhadpour wants to ride the camel of desire and roll up the scroll of religious intellectualism and place it on the shelf of obsolescence... Of course, these very scrutinies of mine are also of the analytic philosophy type and must suit the taste of dealers and rent-seekers... Farhadpour twists through a hundred alleys and back-alleys of translation, montage, rent-seeking, and dealing... and knocks on a hundred doors so as not to walk the straight path and not to confront the thought itself... It is clear that from the very beginning they want to strike at one's possessions, undermine the author, flee from confronting thought, and take the easier path, that is, stringing together the names of this and that, attaching everything to everything, deriving everything from everything, and finally pronouncing the death of logic and analysis, mocking analytic philosophers, and placing their hands in the hands of rent-seekers. I understand well, of course, the pleasure of this destruction and these profitable and heart-cooling acts of undermining: we both pretend that we are doing something and not sitting idle, and we show the intellectuals that we are adept at stitching things together and that it is not the case that we have only read Adorno, Habermas, Horkheimer, Pannenberg, Žižek, Agamben, Badiou... we have also thumbed through Bultmann, Barth, and Schweitzer... It is clearer than day to me that he has not properly read either Qabz va Bast or Barth and Bultmann. Unfortunately, parading and flaunting the names of those theologians has no use or purpose other than pedantry and pretentiousness... What knowledge, what fairness, what an unappreciative, uncomprehending gem! It is clear that the neighbor's chicken is a goose, and whatever Qabz va Bast does, it does not reach the stature of Bultmann's pen. Its crime is that it is homegrown, and the son-in-law of the house has no honor... The sudden entry of Luther into this fray is also a spectacle."

Dr. Soroush and Mr. Mahmoud Dowlatabadi: At a campaign event for Engineer Mir Hossein Mousavi, while declaring his support for Mousavi's presidential candidacy, Mr. Dowlatabadi criticized Dr. Soroush for his role in the Cultural Revolution. Dr. Soroush responded to him as follows: "I set out to search for what the story was and who Mahmoud Dowlatabadi is. They brought word that he is a sleeper in a cave near Dowlatabad who, after 30 years, suddenly lost his sleep and, unwashed, was hurled behind a lectern, turned his back on modesty and courtesy, raised his voice, and with 'vulgarity and vileness' spoke of a teacher named Abdolkarim Soroush, calling him the 'Sheikh of the Cultural Revolution,' weaving lies upon deceit, and arrogantly disputing the truth. And all this unburdening of complexes and inauspiciousness at a gathering in the name and support of Engineer Mousavi, who seeks to don the auspicious robe of premiership. I had heard much extravagance and nonsense, but these extravagant gaffes were truly novel. They were of a different ilk... He could have taught this delirious sleeper... Being a sheikh of the campaign headquarters is neither a virtue nor a vice. The vice is lying, beggary, and sycophancy, having a Stalinist past, and opportunistically striking a freedom-loving pose... Now behold the sleeper in the cave who does not know the difference between the Cultural Revolution, the Cultural Revolution Headquarters, and the Cultural Revolution Council, does not recognize their members, has no knowledge of their work, conflates yesterday and today, traverses time, piles lie upon lie, and spins ignorance upon ignorance, like an unexcused officer, hoping for a promised reward, attacks a teacher of one robe who, from a Stalinist viewpoint, has no crime or sin other than independence of thought, being a Muslim, and advocating democracy... As retribution for having an independent and legitimate opinion, they throw them before the gladiators, flay them, and, cheering, tell the tale in the marketplace and the streets and publish it in their news media. But let them not forget that feeding critics to predators is a horrific image that will never be forgotten by the youth of this land." Dr. Soroush and Dr. Aramesh Doustdar: In response to Dr. Doustdar's claim about the "impossibility of thought in religious culture," Dr. Soroush has replied as follows: "The combination of thought and religiosity is entirely possible... Intellectualism is also a form of thought, and therefore the combination of intellectualism and religiosity is also possible. Unless someone claims from the outset that thought and piety are fundamentally incompatible, like that gentleman sitting in Germany who is neither a lover of truth nor has truth brought him any peace (Aramesh). He beats the drum of this unsound idea that piety and thought cannot be combined. I truly see no statement more unjustified than this. Both historical experience and rational reflection testify that this category is a completely possible one. They have made an error, and I have seen this error in the Iranian imitators of that thought as well. They have read about this in modern epistemology, particularly in the works of some French thinkers who speak of the 'impossibility of thought.' But they have wrongly thought that this impossibility of thought applies only to religion and religiosity. They have not understood that every intellectual system renders a series of matters unthinkable and unquestionable. Even the freest intellectual paradigm, because it is a system, generates some questions and pushes other questions to the back of the mind, rendering them unquestionable. This is not exclusive to religious thought. Today, no physicist thinks or asks about the motion of a pendulum in the Aristotelian manner, nor do such questions arise in his mind... They have heard the phrase 'impossibility of thought' but do not know that this term was not coined to reject religious epistemic systems. Every epistemic, intellectual, and philosophical system automatically makes a set of questions unquestionable. Then they have cried out that the requisite of religious thought is the impossibility of thought, and what other misguidances they have thereby produced." In the author's view, it is precisely in confronting anti-religion figures like Dr. Doustdar that Dr. Soroush should, with utmost patience and calm, and using gentle words and that beautiful prose he employs in his writings, engage in criticizing such personalities. Dr. Soroush and the members of the Office for Strengthening Unity: Dr. Soroush's treatment of his opponents and critics was so harsh that 21 members of the Office for Strengthening Unity protested to him in a letter. A number of them, including Mr. Abdollah Momeni, spent years in prison.In parts of their long letter, they write: "Esteemed Professor Dr. Abdolkarim Soroush... what has happened now that our teacher has laid aside that sweet speech and, in criticizing another's view, finds fault with his memory, honesty, and knowledge? What has happened to our teacher now that his subtle, profound, and generally rightful words, when confronting opponents, critics, and slanderers, are tainted with a hundred reproaches and humiliations?... To ask, in those indefensible years when a revolution in all its grandeur was being confiscated solely for the benefit of one group, where our teacher stood in history—is that more dreadful than any of the criticisms, slanders, and accusations leveled at you in these past few years? You yourself are one of the victims of the purge of dissidents from the university, but posing the question of what you were doing in those days when the 'elimination of others' became law in this country and protesting that lawlessness was punishable—cannot be an improper question. In those days, many whose crime was understanding and whose benefit was struggle were expelled from the university. But you were not, and at least for a short while you were trusted and remained. Now, is questioning their memory an appropriate response to those left behind the door? Do all those who delve into your past and offer criticism do so with the intent of excommunicating you? Can all of them be considered raw liars craving fame—those who are themselves among the renowned of this land? You yourself once warned that the taunts of taunters and the hindrances of hinderers should not prevent us from walking the path toward the springs of truth. Are all the criticisms directed at you the taunts of taunters, and have none of them partaken of the truth? When you, too, do the same, upon what can one rely, and are the foundations of criticism in this land so shaky? Truly, are all the marks inscribed on the tablet of a short period of the teacher's past written on water? And are we so bewildered that those who show us the path themselves stumble into the valley of darkness at the time of action?" Britain and Baha'ism Recently, the author, in the article "Dr. Abdolkarim Soroush and Baha'ism," explained his views on the Baha'i faith. In that article, it was mentioned that Dr. Soroush describes the prophet of the Baha'is as dishonest and a liar. Of course, he provides no example to prove the untruthfulness of their prophet. But Dr. Soroush goes even further than this. On Dr. Soroush's official Facebook page, his followers ask him their religious questions, and he, in turn, announces his fatwas. Look at the following query and Dr. Soroush's fatwa: "24) Matin: Is it truly the case that the Baha'i faith, as the majority of jurists and certain elites say, is a fabrication of colonialism, or specifically of England?" Dr. Soroush: "There is no doubt that Britain looked upon this faith with the very eye of favor. A sign of this is the granting of the title 'Sir' to Abbas Effendi (Abdu'l-Bahá). For more than this, ask the historians." Dr. Soroush, as a teacher of ethics and philosophy, teaches us how to criticize the opinions of others and the religion of others. By the same method, one can judge him. Question: Why does the BBC dedicate so much time and website space to Dr. Soroush? Why were two episodes of the Pargar program devoted to the theory of "Prophetic Dreams"? Why was his long article on "Prophetic Dreams" published on the BBC? Why has the BBC been making a biographical film about Dr. Soroush for some time now, recording hours of programming? This is not the correct way to criticize. Dr. Soroush received a fellowship from the Library of Congress in the United States and spent several months there. Can one claim that the U.S. government looks upon Dr. Soroush with the very eye of favor? If we take the method Dr. Soroush teaches seriously, we must consider all the support that Western institutions and centers have given him, and the awards they have bestowed upon him, as evidence of Western governments' backing of Dr. Soroush. Dr. Soroush gave a speech at the Hoover Institution, the organ of the American far-right, in November 2003. Should this be taken as a sign of their support for Dr. Soroush? Or of his intellectual proximity to them? In the author's view, the answer to these questions is negative. But the aim is to show that if Dr. Soroush does not exercise care in his discussions and arguments, critics can easily use the same against him. Dear Dr. Soroush. We explained the story of the PEN International World Congress, where the Finnish Ministry of Foreign Affairs supported you and exerted pressure to impose you as the representative of an association that had no external existence upon PEN International. But the opposition of writers prevented this from happening. شما در توضیح امر نوشته اید

Religious New Thinkers Many prominent figures of religious new thinking have for years parted ways with Dr. Soroush's project. His claims in recent years about revelation and prophethood have also been criticized by many well-known religious new thinkers, who have tried to show the fundamental weaknesses of these claims. Dr. Soroush has continued his harsh treatment of this group as well and, regrettably, has even used his eldest son to attack his new-thinking critics, writing the harshest words in his son's name against them. Let us consider three cases. Dr. Soroush and Dr. Mohsen Kadivar: On November 10, 2015, Dr. Kadivar delivered a lecture titled "Reflections on Religious New Thinking in Contemporary Iran." Dr. Kadivar's claim and argument was that some religious intellectuals, such as Dr. Soroush, have, in terms of belief (not in practical and personal terms), moved beyond Islam and fundamentally altered the principles of the Islamic faith, while still presenting themselves to their audience as they did before this shift. Dr. Kadivar's point was that they should honestly declare their doctrinal transformation to their audience. He wrote: "If the approach of religious intellectuals leads to the gradual irrelevance of religion, God, the Prophet, revelation, and the Quran—that is, if the gradual process of this spectrum has been to secularize religion itself and reduce it to the point of elimination—then what justification remains for using the suffix 'religious'? If the sacred in religious intellectual thought has been replaced by other matters such as philosophy or rationality, mysticism, ethics, and spirituality, religious intellectualism must inform its enthusiasts and followers of its metamorphosis into mystical, ethical, philosophical, or spiritual intellectualism... To move beyond religion and still use the title of religious intellectualism, or to remain silent in the face of such a contrary-to-fact attribution, is an unethical act. Honesty and consistency between the title and the entitled is the first condition of rationality, ethics, religiosity, spirituality, and mysticism." In an interview with the Zeitoon website, Dr. Soroush responded to Dr. Kadivar's critiques as follows: "I even see some clerics, from whom it was unexpected, gradually casting doubt on the faith of religious intellectuals and taking up the rusty weapon of takfir, which has no cutting edge except to the benefit of oppressive rulers. This is a definite religious and historical error." In the article "The Blocking of the Path of Critique," Dr. Kadivar responded to Dr. Soroush's accusation, writing: "One of the misreadings of contemporary religious literature is that anyone who seriously critiques an unconventional thought in this domain has necessarily taken up the rusty weapon of takfir, aligned with the henchmen of religious despotism, and cast doubt on the religious faith of the dissenting speaker or writer. That is, the critique of religious dissent is reduced to takfir and casting doubt on the dissenter's faith. The confusion of two domains has led to this erroneous conclusion: the first domain is personal faith, and the second is scholarly and religious opinions. The first domain is a personal matter. Its judge is God in the hereafter. As long as someone considers themselves a Muslim, they are a Muslim. Expressing any opinion or performing any action, especially by a scholar who considers themselves a Muslim, does not cause their departure from Islam. The second domain is the expressed opinion, which, separate from the personality and belief of the speaker, is an independent matter and subject to critique, and critiquing it has no necessary connection to the personal faith of the speaker or writer being criticized... If a speaker or writer accuses sympathetic critics of takfir and casting doubt on their religious faith, it means they fundamentally cannot tolerate critique and consider their position above criticism. This, of course, is a trait borrowed from religious despotism. The rulers of the Islamic Republic also consider any criticism an insult and subject legal, unarmed critics to the harshest punishments in their show trials. If some are to interpret any critique as casting doubt on religious faith and taking up the rusty weapon of takfir, does this ominous method not lead to the 'blocking of the path of critique'? What befits wise believers is a measured and logical response to critique, nothing else." Dr. Soroush's eldest son wrote a very harsh text against Dr. Kadivar, parts of which (comment 36) read: "I believe that Mr. Kadivar is a researcher and scholar who has worked very hard and published numerous good, source-based, scholarly works; however, as his works attest, he is not a thinker or intellectual and does not at all possess the stature and position of figures like Ali Shariati, Mehdi Bazargan, Dariush Shayegan, Abdolkarim Soroush, Mujtahid Shabestari, and Mostafa Malekian; in the field of jurisprudence, he also lacks the boldness, courage, and audacity of someone like Ahmad Ghabel. ..In these years, at my own discretion, I have engaged with the works of several thinkers and intend, for instance, after completing the “Bazarganology” course, to hold a “Malekianology” course. Since I did not and do not accord Mr. Kadivar such status and standing, I have not engaged with him so far and do not intend to... Mr. Kadivar has done no serious work in the field of Islamic philosophy apart from editing some works of the ancients, which requires little philosophical taste. … In the realm of religious studies, as I find, his works attest that he has no innovation or novel opinion and has not coined any new concept. His article on the “Pious Scholars” is also entirely derived from Mr. Modarresi Tabatabai’s book. .. Mr. Kadivar gained his initial credibility from politics and not the realm of thought, unlike Soroush, Shabestari, and Malekian; in the field of political jurisprudence, he has done good research and published works that can serve as material for historians writing the history of thought; but he is not content with his own standing and flails left and right to perhaps present a different image of himself. Mr. Kadivar does not appreciate that the rules of the world of thought and reflection are very subtle and complex and have their own reckoning. No one gains credibility in this arena through force, insistence, recommendation, and patronage, nor is anyone’s credibility stripped away, and this process is not a conspiracy by any person or group. The importance of Shariati, Soroush, Shabestari, Malekian, and Shayegan has been conferred upon them by the academic and cultural community and their audience, and it is, so to speak, a “social fact.” Being a “scholar” is different from being a “thinker”; being a thinker requires a sharp mind, intuition, taste, and the power of conceptualization; something seen in Shariati, Soroush, Shayegan, and, in subsequent ranks, Fardid, Shabestari, and Malekian, but Kadivar does not belong to this epistemic game, and his cultural and scientific activities are of a different hue, although he does not wish to accept this and, as I wrote, seeks unapportioned sustenance…..”. If it is a matter of specialization, Dr. Soroush holds a doctorate in pharmacology from the University of Tehran. In the West, where the author lives, specialization is assessed based on university education, and employment at universities at various levels, from assistant professor to distinguished professor, is based on that. Therefore, Dr. Soroush’s primary and academic specialization is modern sciences, and he has no university education in religion and philosophy. Nevertheless, due to his studies, thought, and works, he is respected by many (including the author). Mr. Dr. Kadivar has both completed his seminary education (his ijtihad was confirmed by the late Ayatollah Montazeri) and holds a doctorate in Islamic Philosophy and Wisdom from Tarbiat Modares University. His university employment status in America is as follows: “Kadivar went to America in September 2008 at the one-year invitation of the Department of Religious Studies at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville to teach. From the fall of 2009 to the spring of 2015, he was employed as a Visiting Research Professor in the Department of Religious Studies at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina... In the fall of 2014, the distinguished visiting Kohin professorship at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill was awarded to him. From August 2012 to December 2014, he was a member of the Global Ethics group at the Carnegie Foundation.” Yet, Dr. Soroush’s eldest son, who also lacks specialized religious education, considers even Mr. Dr. Kadivar a novice in religious studies. Is such treatment of Mr. Dr. Kadivar ethical? How old is Dr. Soroush’s eldest son that he attacks Mr. Dr. Kadivar in this manner? In our culture, the younger used to respect the elder. Dr. Soroush and Dr. Arash Naraghi: Dr. Naraghi is also a critic and opponent of Dr. Soroush’s views. Dr. Naraghi wrote on his Facebook page, in a part of his critique of Dr. Soroush’s opinions: “The theological system of the Baha’i Faith seems, in important and diverse respects, closer to traditional and prevalent Shiite thought than the theological system of religious intellectuals. For instance, the Baha’i Faith’s conception of the nature of revelation, the nature of the phenomenon of prophethood, the divine nature of the Quran (i.e., its being the Word of God), the image of God as a personal being, and many other cases are far closer to the current and historical thought of Shiism than the views of Soroush, Shabestari, and Malekian (and other figures of this current) on such matters. But why is the Baha’i Faith considered a new religion, while the project of religious intellectualism cannot be considered the founding of a new religion?... But I think Kadivar’s question can be understood as asking whether, for example, reducing the Quran to Muhammad’s dreams can really secure its alleged authority among Muslims? آیا در این صورت فاصله معناداری میان خوابهای محمّد و خوابهای مثلاً بهاءالله وجود خواهد داشت؟ چرا خوابهای محمّد را باید واجد حجیت نهایی دانست (اگر بواقع باید برای آن چنان حجیتی قائل شد) و برای خوابهای بهاءالله یا عطاالله نباید؟ اگر تلقی ما از خاتمیت پیامبر و حجیت قرآن چندان کم رنگ شود که فاصله معناداری میان او و کتابش با انسانهای شریف و کتابهای عمیق دیگر نماند، در آن صورت چرا و به کدام معنا پروژه روشنفکری دینی را نباید تأسیس یا توّلد یک دین تازه از دل آیین اسلام دانست؟". آقای دکتر نراقی مدافع "سنت گرایی انتقادی" است و طبعاً نمی تواند موافق آرای آقای دکتر سروش باشد. ایشان در ۲۸ آوریل ۲۰۱۳ در صفحه فیس بوک خود متن زیر را پست کرد: " (الف) روایت متن مقدّس در اساس روایت رؤیاست. و روایت رؤیا مهمترین راهی است که "راز" از ورای آن به جهان ما می تراود. از منظر عالم بیداری روایت رؤیا بر منطق "چنانکه گویی" استوار است: الف چنان به نظر می رسد که گویی ب است. اما در جهان رؤیا "چنانکه گویی" محو می شود، "چنانکه گویی" تبدیل به "واقعیت" می شود: الف دیگر چنان نیست که گویی ب است؛ الف ب است. (ب) روایت رؤیا بر "نشانه" استوار است. در جهان رؤیا "واقعه" وجود ندارد، واقعه "نشانه" است، "آیه" است، یعنی ناظر به خود نیست به چیزی ورای خود، به امری پنهان، اشاره می کند. در روایت رؤیا آنچه بر صحنه پدیدار می شود نشانه آن چیزی است که در پس صحنه پنهان است. نشانه ها پرتو می افشانند، اما آنچه در پرتو ایشان آشکار می شود خود واقعیت نیست، اشارتی به واقعیت پنهان است- واقعیتی که موجودیتش عین اختفاست، و اگر برهنه به نور درآید مسخ و نابود می شود. پوست او را فقط از ورای حریر نشانه ها می توان لمس کرد. خانه اش نیمه تاریک ماه است، و فقط از ورای منطق اشارت است که گاه رخ می نماید و در نقاب می رود. (ج) روایت رؤیا گزینشی و گسسته است. واقعیت پنهان را نمی توان مستقیما روایت کرد، تکه های پراکنده ای از آن در قالب نشانه ها بر صحنه ظاهر می شود، و این مخاطب است که از این تکه های پراکنده طرح و تصویری از واقعیت پنهان می آفریند- واقعیت مقدّس محصول تخیّل است.

(d) The Quranic narrative, especially in recounting stories or describing apocalyptic events, is also of the nature of dream narrative. The stories have, “as it were,” seeped into our world from the realm of dreams. The apocalyptic scenes have, “as it were,” erupted from the depths of the unconscious mind. But all the “as it weres” have been deleted from the text. Sacred reality is born through the deletion of these “as it weres.”
(e) Perhaps in our time, no one has uncovered the secret of sacred narrative better than Kafka. In my view, Kafka’s book “The Castle” is the most important work created on the model of sacred narrative, and in the style of the narrative of holy books, it leads us by the hand over the skin of the secret. The Kafkaesque world is created based on the same logic as the world of the prophets of the Children of Israel in the Quran and the Old Testament!”
The next day, on April 29, 2013, on the Facebook page of Dr. Soroush’s eldest child, Dr. Naraghi was accused of stealing Dr. Soroush’s unpublished theory. Of course, anyone familiar with Dr. Soroush’s prose knew that the pen was Dr. Soroush’s pen, just as those very phrases later appeared verbatim in Dr. Soroush’s articles “The Prophet’s Dreams.” The sections concerning Dr. Naraghi are as follows:
“A few weeks ago, during the days I was in London, in a private gathering among like-minded friends, Father (Dr. Soroush) spoke about his new reflections on revelation under the title ‘Prophetic Dream.’ According to his conception, the category of revelation and revealed speech is of the nature of interpreting dreams that the Prophet of Islam saw over many years and shared with his audience… For a long time, I have discussed this in detail with Father in private. Also, in various and numerous gatherings held over the past year with like-minded friends in America and England, he has briefly unveiled his new reflections on revelation… I hope that Abdolkarim Soroush’s important, thought-provoking, and comfort-destroying article ‘The Expansion of the Prophetic Dream’ will be published online within the next month and be placed before the eyes of enthusiasts and people of insight.”
The next day, April 30, 2013, Dr. Naraghi responded to that accusation as follows:
“Following my last note on sacred narrative and its relationship with dream narrative, my dear friend Mr. Soroush Dabbagh, son of Professor Abdolkarim Soroush, posted a note on their Facebook page about the Professor’s ‘novel and unconventional conception’ of the category of revelation. According to his statement, Dr. Soroush’s view is that ‘the category of revelation and revealed speech is of the nature of interpreting dreams that the Prophet of Islam saw over many years.’ ‘It is as if the Prophet of Islam was observing revelations he saw in the world of dreams and then shared them with his audience.’ Apparently, this note has given some friends the incorrect impression that the content of my recent note bears some relation to Dr. Soroush’s views on this matter, especially since Mr. Dabbagh added that the Professor had been sharing these views ‘for a long time’ with ‘like-minded friends in America and England.’ The truth is that I am not precisely aware of the content of Dr. Soroush’s views on this matter. I remember that last year, at the invitation of our dear friend Dr. Mahmoud Sadri, we had a joint meeting in Texas with Dr. Soroush and Mr. Dabbagh, and in my lecture at that meeting, I emphasized, among other things, the relationship between sacred narrative and dream narrative (the outcome of memory and imagination). (Incidentally, the audio file of my lecture at that meeting is accessible on Dr. Soroush’s website. A few months later, I delivered a more detailed version of that lecture in London in the presence of a group of friends, including Mr. Dabbagh.) This idea is, of course, not mine, and many thinkers before have emphasized it; for example, Erich Auerbach, in his classic essay ‘Odysseus’ Scar,’ has carefully explored the characteristics of this kind of narrative in the story of Abraham and the sacrifice of his son. Anyway, it was the day after that meeting that Dr. Soroush mentioned for the first time that, in his view, ‘the Quranic revelation is the dreams of the Prophet of Islam himself.’ I, of course, found this idea intriguing, although it seems to me that this claim, at least in this form, is not defensible from a theological and textual perspective. It was clear, of course, that he was in the process of thinking about this idea, and many of its aspects were not yet clear to him. I hope he will soon publish his detailed view on this matter so that everyone can benefit from the details of his opinion. But my view has absolutely no relation to what has been quoted from Dr. Soroush. My talk is about the ‘narrative’ of the sacred text, meaning the method and style of expression of the sacred text and its relationship with the ‘narrative’ of dream (and not the dream itself).
In other words, my point concerns a structuralist analysis of the narrative style of the sacred text and its relationship to a literary genre sometimes called the "dream narrative" (a matter in the domain of stylistics), whereas Soroush's view concerns the nature of revelation and its ontological status as a dream (a matter in the domain of metaphysics). Of course, the distinction between these two claims is obvious to specialists, and I doubt that anyone versed in philosophy would fail to grasp this clear difference. But in any case, I offered these explanations for that group of friends who did not see this obvious point and mistakenly considered my opinion and that of Professor Soroush to be of the same kind." Although Dr. Naraghi released the files of his previous lectures and demanded the retraction of the accusation of plagiarism against Dr. Soroush's theory, Dr. Soroush did not retract that accusation. (It is also worth noting that the esteemed scholar Mr. Mohammad Mojtahed Shabestari, in his series of articles "A Prophetic Reading of the World," wrote: "In the article A Prophetic Reading of the World (2) [i.e., 11 February 2009], I wrote that the language of the Quran is narrative and storytelling. In article 14, in addition to repeating this claim, I stated that the language of the Quran is 'metaphor.' Thus, I added the two key concepts of narrative and metaphor to the key concept of 'reading,' which was the focus of my previous articles." Dr. Soroush made this claim a year after Professor Shabestari. Therefore, even if an accusation of plagiarism were at issue, Dr. Soroush could not be the one to have originated it.) Mr. Dr. Naraghi, in a Facebook post on 10 July 2016, explained that Dr. Soroush had entered a "phase of sect-building" or "phase of ritual-making" or the "Soroushiyya sect": "For a long time, Soroush has been murmuring in his lectures and writings about the necessity of establishing a new religious sect or ritual. And it seems to me that he now wishes to take newer practical steps to announce the existence of this new religious sect or ritual. For example, I think perhaps his claim about reading the Quran as a dream book can be seen as an effort in this direction... It seems to me that perhaps the claim of the Quran being a dream book can also be seen (regardless of its correctness or incorrectness) as an effort through which the claimant tries, without absolutely negating the validity and authority of the Quran, to open a space for the 'non-jihadi love letters' of the visionaries and dreamers of future generations. Visionaries whose dreams' authority can be considered a basis for establishing a new ritual." Dr. Soroush responded to Dr. Naraghi in a question-and-answer format on his Facebook page on 20 July 2016: "Mahyar: A piece has been published by Dr. Arash Naraghi accusing you of sect-building. Have you responded to this anywhere? Answer: Pay no attention to those slanders. He has unfortunately been treading this crooked path for some time now." Dr. Naraghi, in a post on 17 August 2016, wrote that the current of religious intellectualism has transformed into three different currents: (1) the current of "reform of religious thought," (2) the current of "reconstruction of religion," and (3) the current of "trans-religious spiritualism," and that Dr. Soroush belongs to the current of religion-making and sect-building. Dr. Naraghi explained the theoretical differences between these three projects. Dr. Soroush and Mr. Akbar Ganji: As mentioned at the beginning, Mr. Ganji criticized Dr. Soroush's new views in five articles. Initially, a piece under the pseudonym of a professor who did not want his name revealed was published on Dr. Soroush's Facebook page in response to Mr. Ganji, the prose of which was exactly that of Dr. Soroush. The said text sought to portray Mr. Ganji as an illiterate individual who should only speak in the realm of politics. On 13 August 2016, on Dr. Soroush's Facebook page, in response to a person who had said: "Could I please ask you to give a response to Mr. Akbar Ganji's statements?" he wrote: "A short answer has already been given to these kinds of slanders, similar to those leveled by Dr. Naraghi; Dr. [Soroush] believes you should be indifferent to those who have gone astray for some time now (Admin)." So it seems that anyone who criticizes Dr. Soroush will be accused of leaving the straight path and falling into crooked ways. On 16 August 2016, a new question and answer was published on Dr. Soroush's Facebook page regarding this matter: "Soheil's question: 'Dr. Soroush, a series of articles by Mr. Ganji about your dream theory has been published on Radio Zamaneh, in which he ultimately, citing his own presuppositions and a narrative-like jest from you in one of your lectures where you referred to the "Soroushiyya sect," has accused you of sect-building and claiming prophethood. What is your answer?' Dr. Soroush's answer: 'Pass over these malicious slanders with magnanimity. And when they pass by vain talk, they pass by with dignity.'" Dr. Soroush's reference is to Surah Al-Furqan, verse 72.Its translation (close to the meaning) is "and those who encounter vanity pass by it with dignity." Q&A from Dr. Soroush's Facebook page, August 17, 2016, on this matter: "Mohammad: Dear Dr. Soroush, in your recent audio files and some of your and your friends' responses, there is a strong scent of judgment, as if you have replaced analysis with judgment; for a magnanimous person like you, who has himself been wounded by judgment and adjudication for many years, it is unbecoming to judge, and as Jesus Christ (PBUH) said: 'Judge not, that ye be judged!' For example, in response to Soheil regarding Mr. Ganji, you said: 'Pass by these malicious slanders with magnanimity,' citing the verse 'and when they pass by ill speech, they pass by with dignity.' Firstly, Mr. Ganji may not have taken the matter well; how do you consider it slander and malicious? Secondly, no one but the Knower of hidden things, who is aware of secrets, can fully, completely, and clearly discern motives and ailments; how are you so certain that the slanders are malicious? Thirdly, it seems your forgiveness is magnanimous, while the other's not-so-scholarly critique is full of malice, ailment, and self-conceit, and to confirm yourself, you have cited a Quranic verse, as if you and your supporters are the 'servants of the All-Merciful,' and others are outside this circle, so that if we read to the end of the Surah, we also become 'and make us leaders for the righteous' (leaders of the pious). Dear Doctor; esteemed master, by God, I love you. Let us replace judgment with analysis so that we are not subjected to judgment, to keep our hearts free from smoke and grudges, for where there is judgment, there is war, and where there is war, there is judgment. Let us analyze, for where there is reconciliation, there is analysis, and where there is analysis, reconciliation prevails. And as the famous one of Shiraz, the Tongue of the Unseen, Hafez (may God's mercy be upon him), said: I will tell you one Sufi word, if you permit: O light of the eye, peace is better than war and judgment." Dr. Soroush's response: "Thank you for your goodwill. The author of that critique has invented the claim of prophethood and falsely attributed it to me. This part is nowhere in my expression or language and is one hundred percent malicious. The rest, of course, is an incomplete understanding of intent and stems from a failure of comprehension or an inability to correctly deduce logically, for: Points are sharp like a steel blade—if you have no shield, retreat." Mentioning a few points about Dr. Soroush's responses seems necessary. First, in his new theory, Dr. Soroush considers the entire Quran to be the product of Prophet Muhammad's dreams (regarding Dr. Soroush's transformation of revelation into Prophet Muhammad's dreams, read the excellent article "The Prophetic Dream, or Muhammad's Alpha, Beta, Theta, and Delta Waves"), whose verses must be interpreted as dreams (regarding the dream interpretation of the Quran, read the excellent article "Some Possible Consequences of the 'Prophetic Dreams' Theory"). On this basis, he cannot cite verse 72 of Surah Al-Furqan against Mr. Ganji. According to his own theory, by which only specialists can examine such claims, Dr. Soroush must wait for psychoanalysts and anthropologists to interpret and expound this verse as a dream. Perhaps the meaning of the verse for wakefulness is something else. Second, let Dr. Soroush specify which "malicious slanders" and "lies" he is talking about. He should at least mention one so the reader understands. Two main claims were made in Mr. Ganji's latest article titled "Soroush's Claim of Prophethood and the Promise of the Global Spread of the 'Soroushi Sect'". First, the Soroushi sect and the promise of its global spread. Mr. Ganji merely quoted Dr. Soroush's words with complete accuracy and provided their exact source. Is this slander and a lie? It was the exact words of Dr. Soroush, both the naming and the promise of global spread and its vision in a dream. If Dr. Soroush was joking, or if Mr. Ganji's interpretation of his statements is mistaken, it is enough for him to clarify this matter in a calm tone and with his usual beautiful prose, so the "dispute" ends. Second, the invention of a new religion by Dr. Soroush and his being a prophet. Dr. Soroush has written that "he has invented the claim of prophethood and falsely attributed it to me. This part is nowhere in my expression or language and is one hundred percent malicious." The author has no expertise whatsoever in such matters, but based on his religious beliefs and also on common sense [or the English "common sense"], points out a few things, pending the opinion of experts: First, the author and every Muslim knows that a prophet or messenger is someone to whom God has revealed a revelation. Dr. Soroush has claimed with complete clarity that he has received revelation. Does Dr. Soroush’s claim of receiving revelation not entail his being a prophet? Did prophets such as Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad claim anything other than that they received revelation from God? Mr. Ganji has quoted these statements of Dr. Soroush with full precision and by citing the exact source. So this claim is not slander, falsehood, or malice either. At most, it is an error in Mr. Ganji’s interpretation of Dr. Soroush’s words, although his words are so explicit and clear that they leave little room for any other interpretation. Perhaps Dr. Soroush would say that prophets had the duty to convey the revelation they received. But, first, according to Dr. Soroush’s view, the entire Quran is the product of Muhammad’s dreams. There was no mission from God involved. Second, Dr. Soroush has also conveyed the revelation he received to everyone. If Dr. Soroush believes that receiving revelation from the Divine Essence is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for being a prophet, let him declare this in his own beautiful prose so that people like the author may learn and reflect upon it. Second, Dr. Soroush has said that those rare individuals who experience the formless God are no longer bound in any way to the forms that Muhammad gave to the formless God (i.e., the Quran) and are not text-centered. Rather, they themselves must bestow new forms upon the formless matter they have experienced. Dr. Soroush has said in several different lectures in various cities that he has seen the formless God. Does the implication of these words not also amount to a claim of prophethood? If not, let Dr. Soroush explain in his beautiful prose so that his followers may learn. As far as the author knows, Dr. Soroush’s writings and speeches indicate that he is in the process of new form-giving, which he has personally declared differs from the form-giving of Islam. Mr. Ganji has quoted these statements of Dr. Soroush with full precision as well. So this is not evidence of slander, falsehood, or malice either. Third, Dr. Soroush has said that Muhammad saw and heard the entire Quran in a dream, both auditorily and visually. He then said that my poems were also told and shown to me in a dream. What is the meaning of these words within the framework of and in connection with the theory of “Prophetic Dreams”? Is quoting these statements of Dr. Soroush slander, falsehood, and malice? Fourth, in a poem published in the magazine headed by his eldest son, Dr. Soroush has said that he is one of the “friends of God” and also the “heavenly Soroush of the celestial realm.” He said: “Beware, O shameless hemp-smokers—of the awe and the contraction and expansion of the friends of God.... O heavenly Soroush of the celestial realm—hark, sleep not from the assault of the opium-eaters.” Dr. Soroush has said in several different lectures and classes that all affairs of the world are delivered to the Friend of God. If you want God, if you want the Resurrection, if you want your prayers to be answered, all is in the hands of the Friend of God, and God has descended into His Friend. Go to him and sit in silence. Mr. Ganji has quoted these statements of Dr. Soroush with the exact source. Is this quotation slander, falsehood, and malice? Fifth, Dr. Soroush has said that Rumi also brought a new religion and that he is the “prophet of love,” and his book, the Masnavi, is the “non-jihadi epistle of freedom.” The Quran, he says, is the “jihadi epistle of awe and slavery.” Mr. Ganji has mentioned all of Dr. Soroush’s reasons for this claim and has presented 50 pages of his speeches as evidence. Mr. Ganji’s claim, which at most could be mistaken due to a misinterpretation of Dr. Soroush’s talks, is that the meaning of these views is a transition from the prophethood of Muhammad to the prophethood of Rumi, and from there to the prophethood of Dr. Soroush. Where in these words is the slander, falsehood, and malice? It would suffice for Dr. Soroush to respond without harshness, in his own beautiful prose, that, no, this is not correct, and that the meaning of his words is not what Mr. Ganji has written, and to state their true meaning. But worse than all this was that Dr. Soroush’s eldest son, in his father’s own prose, on his Facebook page, portrayed Mr. Ganji as a completely illiterate person, a “bulletin writer for the IRGC,” and a path-smoother for the Islamic Republic to criticize Dr. Soroush. No lie is permissible for the character assassination of one’s critic. If there is credible evidence of Mr. Ganji being a “bulletin writer” for the IRGC, it must be made public. But as far as the author is aware, this is a false accusation.

Dr. Soroush has given his children a special place, which makes even this non-specialist writer wonder what the reason might be. The elder child gives harsh responses to his father’s critics, and in doing so sometimes even levels accusations. Meanwhile, the father constantly elevates the children. For example, at the beginning of the article “Prophetic Dreams; What a Coquettish Dream, Better Than Wakefulness,” Dr. Soroush wrote: “‘The heart, like a compass, ran in every direction,’ until at last I took the plunge and asked the pen to retell the untold, and retell the told, so that it might benefit learners and increase the insight of the learned.” He then told those who demanded evidence for the claim of “Prophetic Dreams” to read his elder son’s article. He wrote: “See the article below by Soroush Dabbagh, which has nicely expounded and set forth the evidence for revelatory dreams.” Dr. Soroush’s children make a myth of their father, which also compels the writer to examine such behavior in religious and political groups and sects. For instance, Dr. Soroush’s younger child wrote on the Maulana School Facebook page on December 16, 2015: “Today is the birthday of Abdolkarim Soroush, the prominent Iranian thinker and philosopher. The Maulana School congratulates this thinker on his seventieth birthday to all admirers and critics of his thought and works! Soroush is a symbol of someone who must be praised… He is an original thinker. Soroush is a symbol of someone who not only deems thinking and reasoning permissible in the realm of religiosity but considers them essential. He wants the religious to be thinkers and demands reasons from them for their religious beliefs. Negating devotion and elevating reason-seeking above religion-seeking is precisely what makes Soroush dear and esteemed… Soroush, however, is truly a successful thinker. Despite all the adversities the Iranian government has imposed on him, from expulsion from the university to being banned from writing, his thought has nonetheless gained such ground in present-day Iran that some of his ideas have now become self-evident truths… Soroush’s forced departure from Iran internationalized him and his ideas. Now, it can be acknowledged that there are few books or university courses in contemporary Islam that do not discuss and teach Soroush’s ideas and do not dedicate part of the academic term to him. The sheer volume of theses, books, and numerous articles written about him has now turned him into a first-rate figure in the Islamic world.” There is little doubt that Dr. Soroush is a prominent religious thinker. But calling him the “Luther of Islam,” or elevating him to the level of the world’s greatest philosophers, should be done by others, not by Dr. Soroush himself and his family, and repeating such behavior only creates suspicion, nothing more.

Final Word: From One Father to Another The author has two children, born in America. The author's eldest child is in their first year of university, is very curious about religion and politics, and has asked the author about Islam many times. The author and his spouse wish for their children to enter society with a belief in a compassionate Islam, and for this reason have provided their eldest child with the Quran and its English translation. Can the author recount Dr. Soroush's claims about Islam and the Quran to his child—namely, that the Quran is the dreams of an Arab from 1,400 years ago, who misinterpreted his own dreams and attributed them to God; that the Quran is a disordered book, full of contradictions and in complete conflict with science and philosophy; that the Quran is a jihadist and slavery-inducing book of fear? By expressing these claims, would the author's child find any reason to remain a Muslim? Dr. Soroush, people like the author wish to present an ideal model of a religiously faithful intellectual to their children, but what is certain is that harshness toward critics—a manner it seems you always adopt toward your critics—cannot be part of the characteristics of this model intellectual. Dr. Soroush, in your interview with the Zeitoun website, you said: "In some of my statements, there are things that differ from orthodox Shiism and orthodox Islam. And there is no fear in that... Religious intellectuals, due to their reliance on rationality and religious experience, engage in criticism of the Prophet and even criticism of the Quran... That is, they reduce, as much as possible, those things that are indefensible to reach that minimum which is defensible and preserve it. In this sense, we have a critical view of both the Quran and the Prophet." Mr. Kadivar, Mr. Naraghi, and Mr. Ganji have all offered you respectful criticisms with solid foundations. Mr. Kadivar argues that you have, in terms of belief, moved beyond Islam. Mr. Naraghi says that you are in the process of founding a new religion and creating a sect. Mr. Ganji also says that you have moved from the stage of sect-creation to the stage of inventing a new religion and prophethood. Not all critics are illiterate, unqualified, liars, biased, or slanderers. Either retract your claims about receiving revelation, seeing a formless God, smelling the scent of God, experiencing the God of Rumi, and being a friend of God, so that the prophethood necessitated by these words is dispelled, or, with your beautiful prose, patiently, carefully, and kindly explain where the error of these intellectuals lies, and what the true interpretation of your statements should be. In that case, the respect of your followers, our people, and research-oriented humans who believe in Islam, like the author, will be multiplied a hundredfold for you. If the Almighty Truth, the God of Dr. Soroush, the author, and other believers, were to deal with sinners with the same harshness that Dr. Soroush deals with his critics, woe unto us sinners, for we would lose our hope in God's mercy.

.

---

.

PDF file of the article What Does Dr. Abdolkarim Soroush Do with His Critics? (Part Two, Final)

.

---

.

Related Content:

What Does Dr. Abdolkarim Soroush Do with His Critics (Part One)? Mohammad Sohimi

.

---

.