What are the classical Islamic theories about how revelation occurs (Ashʿarites, Muʿtazilites, Sufis), and which is most philosophically defensible?

Classical Islamic theories about how revelation occurs constitute one of the deepest inquiries in Islamic kalām and philosophy. The question about "how" the Prophet connects with the unseen, and how divine speech is transmitted to humans, has been posed since the early centuries and produced sophisticated theories that deserve serious study, especially in the context of contemporary dialogue between philosophy and religion.

Inadequate Responses to Avoid

From some contemporary theologians:

"Revelation is a metaphysical matter whose modality cannot be questioned." This evades a legitimate question. The classical theologians themselves — Ashʿarites and Muʿtazilites — examined the modality in detail. Asking about the modality does not negate the metaphysical nature but attempts to understand the conditions of its possibility.

"The Ashʿarite theory is the doctrine of ahl al-sunna, and the rest are innovations." This is historical reductionism. Ashʿarism itself evolved over centuries and includes diverse positions. The Muʿtazilites and Sufis offered philosophical contributions worthy of objective assessment.

"Philosophical defensibility is a Western criterion unsuitable for revelation." This confuses method with subject matter. Philosophical defensibility means the ability to withstand rational objections — precisely what the classical theologians themselves practiced.

From some secularist critics:

"All kalām theories are attempts to rationalize superstition." This is a priori rejection rather than assessment. Kalām theories attempt to answer genuine philosophical questions: How can the infinite connect with the finite? What is the nature of prophetic knowledge?

"The theories contradict each other, proving revelation's falsehood." This is a logical leap. Diversity of theories about a phenomenon does not negate the phenomenon itself. In contemporary philosophy of mind, theories about consciousness vary without negating consciousness's existence.

Why These Responses Are Inadequate

They share a disregard for the fact that the question of "how revelation occurs" is a serious philosophical matter intersecting with epistemology (how do we know?), metaphysics (how does the absolute connect with the relative?), and philosophy of mind (what is the nature of religious experience?). Serious assessment requires understanding each theory in its philosophical context and evaluating its explanatory power.

The Ashʿarite Theory: Direct Creation of Inner Speech

The Ashʿarites — from al-Ashʿarī (d. 324 AH) to al-Bāqillānī, al-Juwaynī, and al-Ghazālī — developed a complex theory distinguishing between:

— Inner speech (kalām nafsī): The meaning subsisting in God's essence, eternal and uncreated.
— Verbal speech: The words and letters heard/read, created.

The modality of revelation according to them: God creates in the Prophet direct perception of the inner speech, then inspires him to express it in Arabic words. Gabriel is an intermediary, but his role is transmitting inspiration, not creating meaning.

Philosophical strength: Solves the problem "how can God's speech be eternal while the Qurʾān is temporal?" by distinguishing between levels. Preserves divine transcendence (God does not dwell in creatures).

Philosophical weakness: The distinction between inner and verbal speech may seem artificial. How do we verify the correspondence between utterance and inner meaning? Reliance on inspiration raises epistemological questions.

The Muʿtazilite Theory: External Creation and Prophetic Perception

The Muʿtazilites — from Wāṣil ibn ʿAṭāʾ to Qāḍī ʿAbd al-Jabbār — rejected the idea of inner speech. According to them: The Qurʾān is entirely created, God created it in the Preserved Tablet or in Gabriel.

The modality of revelation: Gabriel receives the created speech and conveys it to the Prophet. The Prophet hears it through special hearing (possibly internal) and memorizes it. No "inspiration" in the Ashʿarite sense, but objective transmission.

Philosophical strength: Simpler and clearer. Avoids the complex distinction between inner and verbal. Makes revelation objectively verifiable (specific speech is transmitted).

Philosophical weakness: The problem of "creating the Qurʾān" sparked doctrinal controversy. If the Qurʾān is created like other creatures, what distinguishes it? How do we understand "God's speech" if it is not an attribute subsisting in His essence?

The Sufi/Illuminationist Theory: Existential Connection

Philosophical Sufism — from al-Ghazālī in "Mishkāt al-anwār" to Ibn ʿArabī and Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Shīrāzī — developed a radically different theory.

According to them: Prophecy is an elevated degree of existential connection. The Prophet ascends (or is elevated) to a station where he connects with divine reality existentially. Revelation is a manifestation of divine realities in the mirror of the polished prophetic heart.

The mechanism: Not external hearing nor simple inspiration, but "taste" (dhawq), "unveiling" (kashf), and "witnessing" (shuhūd). The Prophet perceives realities in the moment of connection, then translates them into human language.

Philosophical strength: Explains the diversity in revelation styles (vision, inspiration, direct speech). Links prophecy to deep religious experience. Harmonizes with some contemporary theories in philosophy of religious experience.

Philosophical weakness: Raises the verification problem: How do we distinguish true prophecy from Sufi delusions? May tend toward problematic pantheism. Makes revelation more subjective than necessary.

Subsidiary Theories and Developments

— Muslim philosophers (al-Fārābī, Ibn Sīnā): The Active Intellect theory. Prophecy is connection with the Active Intellect (the tenth intellect). Influenced by Neoplatonism.

— Ibn Rushd: Attempted reconciliation between philosophical and kalām perspectives. Prophecy as perfection in both imaginative and rational powers.

— The Māturīdite school: Close to Ashʿarism with subtle differences in understanding inspiration.

Comparative Philosophical Assessment

Criteria for philosophical defensibility:
1. Internal consistency
2. Ability to respond to objections
3. Compatibility with textual and historical data
4. Explanatory power

The Ashʿarite Theory: Strong in preserving transcendence and explaining the Qurʾān's eternity. Weak in explaining the transmission mechanism from inner to verbal. Faces the challenge of "arbitrariness": Why these particular words?

The Muʿtazilite Theory: Strong in simplicity and clarity. Weak in explaining the Qurʾān's distinctive divine character. Faces the challenge of "equalization": If the Qurʾān is created like other things, what is the secret of its inimitability?

The Sufi Theory: Strong in linking revelation to religious experience and explaining its diversity. Weak in objective verification criteria. Faces the challenge of "subjectivity": How do we distinguish true revelation from psychological experiences?

Which Is Most Philosophically Defensible Today?

In the contemporary context, we observe:

— The developed Ashʿarite theory (in Muḥammad Saʿīd Ramaḍān al-Būṭī, ʿAbd Allāh Darāz) attempts to incorporate insights from contemporary philosophy of language to strengthen the inner/verbal distinction.

— Contemporary versions of Sufi theory (in Seyyed Hossein Nasr, William Chittick) benefit from philosophy of religious experience in James and Otto.

— Reconciliatory attempts (in Fazlur Rahman, Naṣr Ḥāmid Abū Zayd) combine elements from different theories.

Judging the most defensible varies by criteria and context. In Western academic contexts, theories integrating revelation with philosophy of religious experience (modernized Sufism) find greater acceptance. In traditional Islamic contexts, the developed Ashʿarite theory retains considerable defensive strength.

Contemporary Conclusion

The discussion about how revelation occurs is not merely historical. In contemporary philosophy of religion, questions such as:
— How can the infinite communicate with the finite?
— What is the nature of religious knowledge?
— How do we distinguish true from false revelation?

Remain vigorously posed. Classical kalām theories provide rich intellectual resources for answers, provided they are developed to suit contemporary challenges.

The most defensible position today may be critical pluralism: recognizing that each theory captures an aspect of a complex reality. Revelation may include elements of inspiration (Ashʿarism), objective transmission (Muʿtazilism), and existential experience (Sufism), in a synthesis transcending monistic theories.

For Advanced Reading

— Advanced level: Ibn Rushd's critique of Ibn Sī-