Penelitian ini mengkaji fenomena pro-kontra di antara sarjana muslim Indonesia yang dipicu oleh gagasan Naṣr Ḥāmid Abū Zayd tentang wahyu yang kontroversial. Adu argumentasi secara tidak langsung terjadi antara mereka, terlihat dari buku yang mereka tulis. Penelitian ini bertujuan memetakan argumentasi para sarjana muslim Indonesia baik pro maupun kontra, kemudian mengkajinya dari sudut pandang Sosiologi Pengetahuan. Sosiologi Pengetahuan Karl Mannheim digunakan sebagai teori yang berfungsi meneliti fenomena pro-kontra dan menggali konstruksi serta nalar berpikir masing-masing kubu tanpa keberpihakan. Penelitian ini bersifat kualtitatif dengan menggunakan studi kepustakaan. Penelitian ini menghasilkan peta argumentasi perdebatan konsep wahyu menurut Naṣr Ḥāmid pada lima titik. Pertama, gagasan al-Qur’an teks manusiawi diperdebatkan karena perbedaan mereka dalam memposisikan peran Nabi dalam pewahyuan. Kedua, gagasan al-Qur’an produk budaya ditolak karena al-Qur’an tidak mungkin lahir dari budaya jahiliyah. Di sisi lain, gagasan ini didukung karena al-Qur’an lahir dalam budaya syair Arab Pra-Islam dan akhirnya menjadi counter teologis budaya jahiliyah. Ketiga, gagasan al-Qur’an teks historis diterima karena fakta turunnya yang berangsur-angsur menunjukkan sisi historisitasnya, sebaliknya gagasan tersebut ditolak karena sifat teks al-Qur’an yang transhistoris dan relevan sepanjang zaman. Keempat, gagasan al-Qur’an teks linguistik diterima karena status tersebut memungkinkan al-Qur’an didekati dengan teori linguistik modern sehingga ditemukan semangat teksnya. Sebaliknya ia tertolak karena Bahasa Arab al-Qur’an adalah Bahasa Arab versi baru sehingga tidak dapat disamakan dengan teks bahasa pada umumnya. Kelima, al-Qur’an produsen budaya diterima kedua kubu, namun dengan titik keberangkatan yang berbeda. Sosiologi Pengetahuan memandang perdebatan ini didukung oleh faktor perbedaan ideologi dan utopia masing-masing kubu. Kelompok dan instansi yang menaungi tokoh-tokoh tersebut juga memperkuat masing-masing argumentasi.

ABSTRACT:
This study examines the pro-contra phenomenon among Indonesian Muslim scholars triggered by Naṣr Ḥāmid Abū Zayd's idea of controversial revelation. Arguments indirectly occurred between them, as seen from the books they wrote. This study aims to construct a map of pro and con arguments and then examine it from the sociology of knowledge perspective. Karl Mannheim’s sociology of knowledge is used as a theory that can examine pro-contra phenomena in order to explore the construction and reasoning of each sentiment without partiality. This research is qualitative and applies the use of library research. This research produced a map of arguments arguing the concept of revelation according to Naṣr Ḥāmid at five triggers. First, the idea of Qur'an as a humane text is disputed because of their differences in positioning the role of the prophet in revelation. Secondly, idea of the Quran as a cultural product is rejected because the Qur'an could not have been born from jahiliyah culture. On the other hand, this idea is admitted because the Qur'an was born in Pre-Islamic Arabic poetry culture and eventually became the theological counter of jahiliyah culture. Thirdly, the idea of the Qur'an being a historical text was accepted due to the fact that its gradual descent showed its historicity side. On the contrary, it was rejected due to the transhistorical and relevant nature of the Qur'anic text throughout the ages. Fourth, the idea of Qur’an as a linguistic text is accepted because of its status that it allows the Qur'an being approached with modern linguistic theory. So, the significance of the text could be discovered. On the contrary, his idea was rejected because the Arabic Language of the Qur'an is a new version of Arabic Language, so Qur’an text cannot be equated with the linguistics text in general. Fifth, the Qur'an as cultural producer is accepted by both sides in different points of departure. Thus, the sociology of knowledge views this debate as supported by factors of ideological differences and utopias of each sides. The groups and agencies that house these figures also strengthen each argument. Each group has a strong argument.