ماهنامه معرفت
سال بیست و دوم شماره 12 (پیاپی 195، اسفند 1392)

The present paper examines the possibility of knowledge of God. Religious teachings offer some recommendations on the necessity of knowing God through internal and external ways. However, some go to extremes in this regard. The fact is that knowing the Most High God is possible through intuitive and acquired knowledge. As some theologians and philosophers specify, we cannot know the core of essence of God through acquired knowledge. However, regarding the question whether man's intuitive knowledge pertains to the core of essence and divine attributes, it should be said that although some Quranic verses and traditions prove that men can have intuitive knowledge of God, no one, even the Holy prophet- the most noble of all creatures- cannot know the core of essence of God and divine attributes, because this knowledge necessitates knowledge of the core of essence and existential encompassing on God, but it is impossible for a limited thing to encompass an unlimited thing.

The intellectual, cultural, political and social atmosphere of western societies was suddenly subject to extensive changes due to the domination of modern culture over these societies. The God and hereafter-oriented society became a man and world-oriented one and human intellect replaced divine revelation. On the other hand, cultural interchanges and hegemonies caused Islamic societies to face modernity as a new phenomenon, and challenged Islamic criteria. Reviewing the foundations of the culture of modernity, the present paper explains the contradiction between these foundations and those of Islamic thought and assesses the possibility of living based on Islamic and religious principles in modern age and contemporary modernized world.

The principle of grace is one of the important and influential principles in theology and means any act that makes a responsible person to approximate to obedience and distance from sin by doing it. In principle, the strength of the responsible person does not involve in doing the act which should not be obligatory. Mutazilites support this principle and most of them believe that God is obliged to do the act of grace. In contract, Asharites reject this principle and essentially do not believe in any obligation on the part of God. So they do not believe that God is obliged to do the act of grace. Most Imamiyyah scholars believe in God's obligation to do the act of grace and prove such issues as the necessity of prophecy and the necessity of existence of infallible Imam in every time by using this principle. This principle is widely used in theology and those who believe in the necessity of grace prove such issues as the necessity of legal duty, the good end of initial pains, the necessity of promise and threat, the necessity of infallibility of prophets, the necessity of sending prophets and the necessity of appointing Imam by this principle.

Some people who expressed their views and argued with infallible Imams (peace be upon them) got involved in fallacious arguments consciously or unconsciously. Can we find some distinct examples of these fallacies in these debates and learn the correct way of dealing with fallacy from infallible Imam's ways of confrontation with fallacies? Searching transmitted sources, particularly the noble book of "Al-Ihtijaj" (argumentation), the present paper discusses some of these fallacies such as keeping to a presupposition, blocking the way of reasoning, changing a definition, allegory, objectionable syllogism of a hidden thing, threatening, core and aspect, requiring the opponent to offer argument, incorrect interpretation, parasite, incomplete quotation, poisoning a well, embodiment, lie, etc. The present paper seeks to find these fallacies and show how infallible Imams confronted them.

The question of resurrection, one of the Islamic beliefs, has some branches in different Islamic sects. Religious scholars have always discussed and debated about its correctness and incorrectness. In the meantime, Shiism believes that the Most High God, as the main owner of the Day of Judgment and real punisher and reward-giver, grants some of His creatures including their best ones- the holy Prophet and infallible Imams- with some affairs of resurrection, on His choice. These holy entities (peace be upon them) are the reference of people and responsible for reckoning the creature's deeds in the Day of Judgment, and as traditions specify, people will return to them. The present paper seeks to prove this issue by using intellectual and transmitted proofs. The findings indicate that the Most High God is in principle the reference and responsible for reckoning creature's deeds in the Day of Judgment, and that infallible Imams are accidentally and by the permission of the Most High God and depending on Him responsible for reckoning creature's deeds in the Day of Judgment.

Revelation can be regarded one of the important pillars and common aspects of true religions, particularly Abrahamic religions. However, the thinkers of these religions have great differences on their definition and understanding of revelation. Even within each religion there are different groups with different views about revelation. First, the present paper points to the literal meaning of revelation. Then it explains, defines and examines the views about revelation in Islam, Judaism and Christianity. Regarding Islam, it explains Muslim theologians and philosopher's view. Regarding Christianity, it takes into consideration the linguistic and non-linguistic views as well as inner non-linguistic and empirical views about revelation.

Mutazilite and Imamiyyah theologians have negotiated and debated from the very early days. Using a comparative-analytical method, the present paper seeks to analyze and criticize the "idea that Imamiyyah theologians were affected by Mutazilite school in terms of Divine Justice". The schools of Imamiyyah and Mutazilite are known as 'Adliyah because they accepted the idea of intellectual good and evil as the basis of divine justice and other religious teachings. Using this basis, they analyzed the religious teachings in a way that resulted in man's choice, the necessity of grace and observing the best, the necessity of duty, negation of duty beyond one's strength, the necessity of compensations for initial pains and philosophical interpretation of evils. No doubt, they had minor differences on some beliefs and great difference on will and choice. Mutazilites adopted the extreme approach of delegation, but Imamiyyah adopted the theory of "neither determination nor delegation, but intermediate position" by following Imams of right guidance.

The present paper seeks to review the components of Jaberi's intellectual system, including how his intellectual cultural foundations are formed, the model of his thought and his deconstruction, etc. However, it sometimes points to the criticism directed against him and reminds his admirable approach if there may be one. This thinker is famous for the criticism of Arabic intellect which brought him global fame through writing such important works as Takwin Al-'Aql 'Arabi (creation of Arabic intellect), bonyatal 'Aql Al-'Arabi (foundation of Arabic intellect), Al-'Aql Al-Siyasi Al-'Arabi (Arabic political intellect) and Al-'Aql Al-Akhlaqi Al-'Arabi (Arabic moral intellect). This paper reviews, to some extent, the trend of his thought in relation to these books. Jaberi is more philosophical than theological or, in other words, new Mutazilite, and these works are evidence that he does not have even a single pure theological work. However, his view about discussed issues like Imamate, justice and monotheism is implicitly extracted from his different works and mentioned in the text of the paper.