نشریه کلام اسلامی
پیاپی 92 (زمستان 1393)

The argument of movement is one of the oldest arguments that the godly philosophers posed to prove the originator of the existence. Aristotle is the first godly Philosopher who posed the argument of movement explicitly; hence it has been known as Aristotelian argument. The argument of movement has been considered in Islamic philosophy and theology and has been exposed and explained in many ways. These expositions have been founded on the absolute movement in terms of the agent and the goal, the movement of the souls of the spheres and human soul and the movement of the substantial soul. Because of the deficiency of the scientific and philosophical basis, the exposition of the argument of movement based on the movement of spheres is defective, but other expositions are generally trustworthy; although are not the same respecting their firmness, solidity and consequences. The expositions of the argument of movement are successful in voiding materialistic and naturalistic thoughts but do not prove the existence of the necessary being by itself and the ultimate unlimited perfection.

Reasoning about the creation of universe in general and human being in special is and has been one of most fundamental concerns of human being. He finds his existence in the arena of being predesigned which entered in this arena not by his will or authority, so this question is being posed for him that why human is convicted to live? Why was not he consulted with concerning his creation? These questions are seriously being posed for man especially when he or she faces several problems. The creation as a divine act takes root from the ontological perfections of God and while God’s perfections fit His essence, God’s creation also originates from his essential perfections. On the other hand, while neither human nor any other creature was present in the stage of creation, the issue of consultation with them will void automatically. The present article aims to explain the mentioned problems and some of their branches which lean on rational and transmitted basis.

The belief of the existence of twelve Imams or caliphs as the Prophet’s successors and the leaders of the Islamic community after the prophet is one of the common beliefs of the Islamic community and from the principles on which Shi’a and Sunni have a consensus in their textual sources. Therefore, belief in the existence of twelve Imams as the successors of the prophet is an Islamic matter and is not unique to an especial denomination, although only Imami Shi’ite denomination adhere to this principle practically and while the followers of other Islamic denominations accepted this principle in the status of belief and even registered some of the narrations of twelve caliphs in their works sooner than Shi’ite narrators for decades, but did not consider themselves obligated to this essential principle practically. we have tried in the present article to prove the leadership of the shi’ite Imams based on the first hand Sunni sources and show that the case of the twelve caliphs of the Prophet in the hadith of twelve caliphs, are twelve Imams who come from the household of the Prophet (p.h).

There is a teaching in Shi’ite fundamental doctrines as “the features of Imams” which is apparently similar to the ancient Persians’ doctrines about their kings. Such a similarity caused some orientalists to pose the claim that the Imami doctrines have been influenced from the beliefs of ancient Persians, so this claim has been explained and then criticized according the following four reasons:Firstly: These similarities are apparent similarities while there are essential and fundamental differences.
Secondly: If – assumedly - there were not essential differences between two beliefs and the both essentially were equal, but again to prove the influence of one from another would not be possible; because the Shi’ite beliefs about the features of Imams have been established in the first decade of Hijrah and before the connections of Iranian and Muslims.
Thirdly: the texts and sources which convey the beliefs of ancient Persians are mostly unauthentic and their authority can not be proved according to the scientific criteria.
Fourthly: many of these sources have been compiled and gathered years after the arrival of Islam to Iran, so not only the claim of the influence of Imami doctrines can not be accepted but the possibility of the influence of the beliefs scribed to the ancient Persians is stronger.

Saikh Sadough is the well known scholar and Shi’ite high status theologian who lived in the forth century after hijrah. He left behind several valuable works. It can be known through his works that he used both valid transmitted reasons and rational reasoning to explain and prove the Islamic doctrinal teachings. Shaikh Sagough is introduced as a textualist theologian while the right view is that his method gathered the reason and transmitted wisdom. Although he delivered the doctrinal issues from the perspective of the narrations but in many of his works he has notable and important rational discussions and in many cases interpreted the transmitted narrations which appose the reason. Expressing the role of different sciences in theological thought of Shaikh Mofid, In order to explain the theological method of him, the present article studied the role of each of reason and transmitted wisdoms in his theological method and in the end, studied the method by which he faced other doctrinal schools.

Shi’ite theology had not been organized in the era of the presence of infallible Imams (peace be upon them). Shi’ite theologians were dealing with particular issues and problems according to the demands of time and due to their special talents in that time. Shi’ite theology became structured in the age of occultation by theologians such as al-shaykh al-Sadugh, al-Shaykh al-Mofid, al-Sayyed al-Murtadha, al-Shaykh al-Tusi and continued later by other theologians and with different methods. Two general structures can be found altogether: The first are texts and theological works that have been specified to the doctrinal problems and the second are texts and theological works that posed philosophical discussions before beginning to deal with the doctrinal problems. Chronologically, the first method precedes the second method, and the second method performed by Ibrahim bin Nowbakht in his book “al-Yaghoot” in brief and by Khajah Nasir ad-Din al-Tusi in his book “Tajrid al-I’tighad” in a more perfect and detailed manner. The second method was the norm method from that age to a while, but again the first method spread in the contemporary age and those theologians who have the philosophical approach, pose the philosophical discussions in separate works and take advantage of them in the study and explanation of theological discussions. Inside each of the two mentioned methods, different methods in organizing the theological discussions has been used which you will find the details of that in the present article.