Authenticating revelation
On my way in to work this morning, I listened to Karen Armstrong’s Muhammad: A Prophet for Our Time on audiobook. (Public libraries are a great way to take some of the pain out of lengthy commutes.) I’m at the point in the prophet’s life where he has recited–then retracted–a sura that elevated three of the Meccan goddesses to the level of intercessors with Allah. Various explanations for this episode exist. Christian apologists use it as a demonstration that there is a satanic origin to the entire Qu’ran. Among followers of Islam, there are explanations that range from fabrication (the event never even occurred) to Satan deceiving Muhammad to Satan throwing his voice to make it appear as if Muhammad receited the words.
The episode may or may not be historical. I’m interested in its utility as a thought experiment. It seems to be straight out of Decartes’ Meditations, where he wonders whether it’s possible that he’s being deceived by a powerful evil being. Of course, Descartes isn’t seriously entertaining the notion, just using it to test his rational intuitions.
In the revelatory scenario, the first question is about the causal origin of the words being spoken. There’s nothing particularly mysterious about the physical creation of what Muhammad said. His brain’s speech center was implicated in some way, and his lungs pushed air through his vocal chords. The question is whether the phrases he felt were “forced” out of him originate in some deep subconscious mechanism, which made him feel as if they were originating externally, or from some outside source. Normally, this is my primary interest–establishing the cause of mystical and/or revelatory experience. But if we assume the origin is from an outside source, then the question becomes, “What kind?”
In the historical description of Muhammad’s continuing revelations, analysis is tricky because the phenomenology of these events is not identical. On the Night of Power, the angel Gabriel is said to have choked Muhammad until he recited words (which came from the prophet without his feeling that he was responsible for them). In other instances, he heard what sounded like a bell ringing and he had to ascertain words from that sound. And at other times, Gabriel came to him and dictated words for Muhammad to remember.
Assuming that Muhammad is not generally hallucinating when he receives his revelation, but rather is in communication with a being, then what evidence would he have that a single episode is consistent with those prior? That is, let’s assume that he was visited by a powerful being on the Night of Power, one who was able to implant–without Muhammad’s awareness–words inside of his mind, for him to recite. How could he be confident that the next visitation was from the same being? (I’m setting aside the possibility that he has a valid revelation followed by a hallucination, for the sake of simplicity.)
Character of Experience
It seems that the character of the experience itself isn’t evidence. What reason would we have to assert that Gabriel must always first choke Muhammad to cause him to speak? In communicative events between humans, there are different characteristics, given varying contexts. Perhaps the first time I meet an important person, I must be formal in my address, give proper bows or curtsies, etc. Once that introduction is in place, my next meeting may be more informal. Further, if we’re assuming that Muhammad is in contact with a being that is somehow personal (as the speech, choking and apparition of a figure imply), then that being might have a changeable personality.
Thus the being may decide to appear as the sound of bells, the angel Gabriel, or merely compel Muhammad to speak, all for entirely inscrutable reasons. There is no prima facie reason to reject an additional revelation because it seems different than the first.
Internal Sense
Maybe, however, there is some additional, authenticating sense that a prophet has which tells him or her that the being giving revelation is the same as the earlier one. Perhaps in the first instance, the prophet felt an overwhelming sense of awe and humility. When another episode arises, that sensation isn’t present, leading to doubts about whether the same being is involved.
What is problematic about this approach is that if we’ve already said there is no prima facie reason to reject an additional revelation because it seems different than the first, then isn’t it possible that a new context would provoke new responses from Muhammad? The first time I meet a great figure, I am overwhelmed, awed, etc. Perhaps these sensations would continue, but be accompanied by a sensation of love and peace which gives another quality to the internal sense.
However, what if the opposite emotions arise? What if, instead of awe and humility, accompanied by a sense of love and peace, the prophet feels foreboding, terror and unease? Assuming that the being has a unified personality, although ability to appear in different guises, then contradictory responses would indicate we’re dealing with a malevolent jinni, maybe. This, unfortunately, precludes the possibility of a continuing self-revelation which contains apparently contradictory traits. Again, keeping context in mind, it is possible that a second episode takes place after the prophet has strayed from the being’s will, and it is projecting anger. Religious traditions generally allow for paradoxical combinations of personality in their superbeings.
Content of Revelation
Another way to test the continuity of revelatory episodes is by comparing the content of the statements that are given. If an episode conflicts with earlier accounts, then it is to be rejected. Thus, in the case of the Satanic Verses, the primacy of Allah is threatened by this new sura, demonstrating that it is false. Again, this is difficult to accept because speakers (whether superbeings or not) often correct earlier statements, add new ideas, etc. Unless we are to assume at the outset that the being is of a certain type–infallible to the extent that it would have no need or motive for amending earlier revelations–this option is implausible. In practice, religions often find reasons to supercede earlier testaments or formerly uncompromisible stances.
Second, even with an infallible being, arguments have been made that such beings may choose to bring fallible human beings into alignment with their ideas slowly, by starting with ideas more easily understandable.
Third and most difficult, because paradox is allowable within the person of revelatory superbeings, it is also allowable within their statements.
Problems for Ordinary Speech
If Muhammad was not justified in discriminating between the “Satanic Verses” and those given by Allah, and religious prophets have no firm grounds for asserting continuity between revelatory episodes, what does that imply for ordinary speech with less-than-superbeings?
Throughout this thought experiment, we’ve assumed that there is an analogy between the revealing superbeing and encounters with human persons. What assurance do I have, daily, that my communication with, let’s say, an important government official, is with her and not a double? I met with him in his office the first time, surrounded by impressive plaques and photographs on the wall, and with a cadre of junior officials at her beck and call. The second time, she asks me to meet at a coffee shop on the corner. We speak briefly and she passes me an envelope with a typed letter, but signed in what I perceive to be her hand (I saw it in her office). A few other times we talk on the phone and occasionally I meet back in her office. The context of her communications changes–perhaps one day it is about my role as a journalist, the next about some inner workings in the government, and in one incident, she takes back earlier statements about occurences she had reported to me.
What would I need to have confidence this communication, whose content conflicts with earlier episodes, is from her?
Well, it could be that I am sitting in front of her and have perceptual evidence that it is her and not someone imitating her voice on the phone. Perhaps I ask questions that only she can answer. Those would be typical ways to check if I’m dealing with who I think I am.
Do the problems above for revelation mean I need to be a skeptic about every day communication? Your thoughts… my answer in the next post.
Image: Muhammad and Moses, Persian Timurid miniature, 15th century, The Granger Collection, New York. From Encyclopedia Britannica Online.