Reviewing and Criticizing Mohammad Mojtahed Shabestari's View about Understanding Divine Inspiration

The issue of inspiration is one of the fundamental issues in Islam, which is faced with two attitudes, earthly and heavenly. The heavenly attitude considers inspiration as a message from God to mankind and considers the Prophet of Islam as the messenger of its communication. But the earthly attitude, which is a product of the modernity period, has different aspects and dimensions. Some modern thinkers such as Mohammad Mojtahed Shabestari believe that the inspiration originated from the subconscious mind of the Prophet and came in the form of words in the Quran. Shabestari believes that if the inspiration is the word of God is not understandable by the audience. he cited to the views of linguists and implication of affirmation in the science of principles jurisprudence and its comparison with the Quran and concludes that the Quran is the word of the Prophet. Shabestari considers pre-understanding to be the main element of understanding and considers it to be influenced by time, place and personal interests. With this point of view, understanding is a historical matter. As a result, regardless of whether the Quran is the word of the Prophet or the word of God, he considers it impossible to truly understand the Quran. The purpose of this article is to review and criticize Shabestri's comparative reasons regarding the impossibility of understanding divine inspiration, which he cited the opinions of some linguist philosophers and the principles of jurisprudence in this context. The flaws in his arguments in the discussed field have been clarified and explained in a new method. In the present article, the philosophical definition of language, the possibility of understanding divine inspiration and the implication of affirmation from Shabestari's point of view were analyzed with analytical-critical method and it was proved by rational and narrative criteria that he has presented a wrong understanding of the definitions of linguists and the issue of understanding and the implication of affirmation. And with presuppositions and illogical reasoning method, it has achieved false results. Therefore, the cases cited by Shabestari do not indicate the impossibility of understanding God's inspiration.