Theory of Revelation/Prophethood according to Mohammad Mojtahed Shabestari

By Adis Duderija, New Age Islam 9 March 2025 For centuries, a dominant narrative within Islamic orthodoxy has presented revelation as a largely mechanistic process, with the prophet Muhammad often depicted as a passive conduit through which the divine word was transmitted, verbatim, to humanity. Shabestari’s approach, like that of Abu Zayd and Soroush, underscores the critical need for a fundamental reconsideration of the traditional understanding of revelation, urging a move away from a passive, word-for-word model towards one that acknowledges the profound and active role of the Prophet’s experience, perception, and interpretation. Mohammad Mojtahed Shabestari ---- The traditional account often portrays the prophet as a mere reciter, an audio channel that only transmits voices to its addressees. This view emphasises the divine origin of the Qur’ān to such an extent that the prophet’s own engagement with the revelatory experience is often minimized or entirely obscured. Shabestari directly challenges this classical position, clearly distancing himself from the notion that the prophet was simply a ‘passive channel of communication between the divine realm and the human one’. He argues that this understanding fails to provide a theologically sound account of the concept of Prophethood and revelation. Shabestari’s alternative theory offers a significant departure from this passive model. He proposes that revelation was transmitted through ‘signs’ and ‘perceptions’ (Eshāreh), a concept he encapsulates with the German term Blick, meaning an ‘attitude’ or an ‘outlook’ on existence. For Shabestari, the core function of revelation was to imbue the prophet with a particular worldview, a monotheistic Blick, which then shaped his understanding of the world and humanity. This perspective shifts the focus from a literal, verbal transmission to an experiential encounter between God and the prophet. Shabestari emphasizes that even the prophet ‘experienced God’s call and signs sent to him’, suggesting that ‘in early Islam we encounter a person [Muhammad] who speaks of an experience’. This experiential core of revelation is further highlighted by Shabestari’s assertion, much like Soroush, that ‘faith in its very essence has an experiential nature’. This emphasis on the prophet’s experience naturally leads to a profound shift in understanding the nature of the Qur’ān itself. Shabestari argues that the Qur’anic verses were not originally revealed in their current verbal form; rather, they were ‘signs’ indicative of the prophet’s response to revelation. He explicitly states that even the prophet ‘never claimed [himself] that the meaning and wording of [Qur’anic] verses come directly from God and he only narrates them to his audiences’. Instead, Shabestari posits that the Qur’ān is the articulation of the outlook in human language by the prophet himself. This means the Qur’ān is ‘the Prophet’s human speech (Kalām-e Insanī-e Payāmbar)’. Just as any individual attempting to articulate a profound experience is bound by the limitations and conventions of their language, so too was the prophet. He used a language and ideasthat he and his contemporaries were familiar with, making the Qur’ān an ‘interpretive’ text by its very nature. Thus, ‘the Qurʾān is the product of Waḥy and ‘not Waḥy itself’’. However, this acknowledgment of the prophet’s active role does not diminish the divine nature of revelation in Shabestari’s framework. He argues that Muhammad was ‘divinely empowered’ with a ‘special gift’ from God that enabled him to translate his revelatory experiences into human words. For Shabestari, attributing the verses of the Qur’ān to God does not mean disregarding the natural cause of the verses, which is the prophet himself and the context in which he launched his prophetic mission. Central to Shabestari’s critique of the mechanistic view of revelation and Prophethood is his understanding of God’s Word and the nature of language itself. Drawing on thinkers like Albert Keller and Ludwig Wittgenstein, Shabestari emphasizes that language is inherently a human construct. This fundamentally challenges the notion that the Arabic language of the Qur’ān is inherently sacred or a direct, unmediated speech of God. Shabestari points out that language requires a speaker, a listener, and a social context, characteristics that cannot be applied to God in the same literal way we understand human communication. Consequently, he argues that there is no ‘Word of God in the true sense of the term because it by definition implies anthropomorphism’. If the Word of God is not literal human speech, what then is its nature? Drawing inspiration from Karl Barth, Shabestari describes the Word of God as ‘wholly other’. This ‘wholly otherness’ signifies that divine communication transcends the limitations of human language and cannot be fully captured by it. Instead, God’s Word functions to open a ‘horizon’ for its listeners. Furthermore, drawing on the insights of Ibn ʿArabi, Shabestari suggests that the revelatory nature of a statement should be judged by the effects it produces on its addressees, effects that other statements do not bring about. This highlights the subjective and transformative power of revelation, suggesting that a word is revealed only when it becomes wholly other, and thus ‘there is no such thing as revelation in itself for all people and all times. This emphasis on the subjective and experiential nature of revelation stands in stark contrast to the objective and purely textual focus of the mechanistic view defended by Islamic orthodoxy. Another crucial aspect of Shabestari’s departure from the traditional understanding is his concept of the continuity of revelation. Echoing Soroush’s ideas, Shabestari posits that while Muhammad was the last prophet, the dialogue between God and humanity continues in other forms. He believes in the ‘dynamics’ of divine revelation, arguing that the process never comes to an end through the act of interpretation. This ongoing conversation is described as a ‘timeless, wrangling, passionate, and two-sided conversation between God and man’. Since human beings remain the ultimate addressees of God’s revelation, they will always be a party in this dialogue, constantly engaging with and reinterpreting the divine message in new historical contexts. This dynamic view is inherently incompatible with a static, mechanistic understanding of revelation as a fixed and immutable textual deposit. Finally, Shabestari emphasises the historical nature of the Qur’ān. He argues that the Qur’ān ‘expresses the prophetic interpretation of the social life of the people of Hijaz, and the religious precepts [of the text] are the products of this interpretation’. The conversations and discussions between the prophet and his contemporaries are reflected within its verses. Consequently, Shabestari concludes that ‘the Qurʾān is a historical text (Matn-e Tārīkhī), not a metaphysical text (Matn-e Māvarāʾ al-Tabiyee)’. This perspective necessitates understanding the Qur’ān within its specific historical and social context, recognizing that its interpretations and applications may evolve over time, further challenging the rigid and ahistorical approach inherent in the purely mechanistic view. Moving away from a mechanistic and passive understanding of revelation, as advocated by Shabestari, has profound implications for contemporary Muslim thought and practice. It opens the door for a more dynamic and intellectually engaged approach to religious texts, encouraging critical reflection and interpretation in light of evolving social realities. Understanding the historical and linguistic context of the Qur’ān allows for more nuanced and relevant interpretations, addressing the challenges of the modern world without being constrained by rigid, literalist readings. Furthermore, embracing the idea of the continuity of revelation through ongoing dialogue and interpretation empowers believers to actively participate in understanding and applying their faith in their own time. Shabestari’s work provides a compelling and intellectually rigorous argument for the urgent need to move beyond a mechanistic and passive understanding of the theory of revelation in Islamic orthodoxy. His emphasis on the Prophet’s experiential encounter with the divine, his active role in articulating this experience in human language, the ‘wholly otherness’ and horizon-opening nature of God’s Word, the continuity of revelation through interpretation, and the historical context of the Qur’ān all point towards a more dynamic, nuanced, and ultimately more theologically sound understanding of the relationship between God and humanity. ------ A decades old patron of New Age Islam, Dr Adis Duderija is a Senior Lecturer in the Study of Islam and Society, School of Humanities, Languages and Social Science; Senior Fellow Centre for Interfaith and Intercultural Dialogue, Griffith University | Nathan | Queensland | Australia. His forthcoming books are (co-edited) - Shame, Modesty, and Honour in Islam and Interfaith Engagement beyond the Divide (Springer) URL: https://www.newageislam.com/debating-islam/theory-revelation-prophethood-mojtahed-shabestari/d/135101 New Age Islam, Islam Online, Islamic Website, African Muslim News, Arab World News, South Asia News, Indian Muslim News, World Muslim News, Women in Islam, Islamic Feminism, Arab Women, Women In Arab, Islamophobia in America, Muslim Women in West, Islam Women and Feminism