Reviewing and Criticizing the Nature of Revelation from the Viewpoint of Nasr Hamid Abu Zayd

Abu Zayd, the Egyptian thinker, proposes three viewpoints to the quiddity of revelation. In his first viewpoint, he compares prophethood with fortunetelling so as to introduce it as culturally accepted and familiar. However, Abu Zayd’s investigation of fortunetelling and its cultural acceptability is not sufficient. Moreover, cultural superstitions such as fortunetelling cannot provide appropriate justifications for the divine revelation. Furthermore, his claims are not congruent with intra-religious evidences. In his second viewpoint, Abu Zayd introduces the Qur’ān as the religious experience of the Prophet (s). He presented a third viewpoint toward the end of his life, based on which he deems the Qur’ān not as the Divine Word, but rather as the fallible words of the Prophet (s). From the viewpoint of Abu Zayd, the Qur’ān is the result of the discussions of the Prophet (s) with Arabs who faced him. He asserts that the Qur’ān is not a unified and consolidated text, but rather, it is a set of speeches. That is to say, he thinks that the Qur’ān is a fragmented text whose disagreements are justifiable and its inconsistencies are solvable, because each of its statements have been articulated in certain conditions, due to certain requirements, and for a certain audience. This article has examined and criticized the opinions of Abu Zayd, and their erroneousness has been shown.