Unity and Distinction between Proof and Revelation

While proof and the Qur’an may align in certain aspects, their distinction remains evident in other areas. Some key points of distinction include:

1. Generality of Revelation vs. Proof: Revelation encompasses a broader scope than rational proof. Rational proof does not extend to specific external individuals and particular beings but operates within the realm of universal entities.

2. Nature of Knowledge: Knowledge derived from revelation pertains to a concrete existent, whereas knowledge derived from proof is a mental construct. Proof engages with conceptual frameworks, even when those concepts point to tangible realities. Revelation, however, is directly tied to the concrete existent, encompassing both universal and particular forms.

3. Presential vs. Acquired Knowledge: Knowledge in revelation is presential (ḥuḍūrī), whereas rational proof offers acquired (ḥuṣūlī) knowledge. This difference stems from the preceding point, as concrete and presential knowledge can only be accessed through intuitive means.

4. Path of Revelation vs. Path of Reason: The infallible path of revelation is exclusive to infallible figures like the prophets and imams (a.s.). In contrast, the path of reason—rooted in theological and philosophical proofs—is infallible only in terms of the logical integrity of its premises and conclusions. However, the scholars who navigate this path, such as exegetes, philosophers, theologians, and jurists, are not themselves infallible. Thus, their work is subject to errors, such as changes in subjects, transformations in predicates, or alterations in conclusions, often highlighted in the field of fallacies.

Despite the substantial distinctions between rational proof and revelation, it is important to recognize that the Qur’anic revelation or sacred ḥadīth, as manifested in the form of the infallible tradition (sunnat al-maʿṣūm), is conveyed to others through concepts and words. What is available to the broader community consists of these concepts and words, confined to the realm of acquired knowledge (ʿilm ḥuṣūlī). Therefore, when assessing rational proof and transmitted proof, the focus should not be on the infallible’s own direct findings but rather on their articulated statements, which are also concepts and a form of acquired knowledge.

However, if someone embarks on a path similar to that of Ḥāritha ibn Mālik,(249) attaining proximity to intuitive knowledge (ʿilm shuhūdī), the evaluation shifts to a comparison between mysticism (ʿirfān) and the Qur’an—an analysis that extends beyond our current discussion.