Religious Inquiries
Volume:1 Issue: 2, Summer and Autumn 2012

In this article the author first gives an introduction to his own approach to comparative theology (CT). After some introductory considerations, an outline of the idea and foundation of CT is given and is contrasted with traditional approaches to other religions; the methods, goals, and also the limits of CT are discussed; CT is differentiated from religious studies and the theology of religions; finally, CT is defended against some of its most important critiques. All in all, the author presents an approach to CT that suits Christian confessional theology, yet is open to Islamic theology as well, and which is inviting to theology as a dialogical enterprise which should be performed by Muslims and Christians and other religious believers together.

One of the fundamental problems of theoretical mysticism is how to explain the difference between God and the world on the basis of the idea of wahdat al-wujud (the unity of existence). Following the explanation of certain necessary premises, this paper presents the theory of divine manifestation as one that can explain and analyze multiplicity.
In this article we especially seek to solidify the relation of such claims to mystics in general and to the adherents of Ibn ‘Arabi’s school of thought in particular. This is especially important because, in some of the works of many specialists in this field, we find that some unrealistic claims have been attributed to Ibn ‘Arabi. The only way to counteract such false claims, in any field, including theoretical mysticism, is to make it binding upon ourselves to delve into the views of others in a cautious way. We must not take the apparent meanings of the sayings of the mystics as a proof in this matter. Therefore, the research methodology of the writer of this article is to relate the sayings of Ibn ‘Arabi and his commentators, while simultaneously commenting upon and analyzing them as well.

Neither the Ash‘arites nor Kierkegaard’s systems of theology are anti-rational, for Kierkegaard regards the contradiction present in the object of faith as absolute rather than logical, suggesting thereby the existential dialectics for understanding this contradiction instead of resolving it. The Ash‘arites also hold that one can understand the existence of God through absolute reason, or reason that is not commanded by shar‘ (religion), yet such understanding does not lead to any practical outcome. The anti-rationalism option is thus rejected. The other two options here are supra-rationalism and rationalism. Kierkegaard’s theology is that of supra-rationalism while the theology of the Ash‘arite is rationalist. Faith, Kierkegaard says, is not rational because it will be undecided by the abeyance and postponementof philosophical reasoning, by the approximation of historical evidence, and because of the lack of confidence in the Bible; however, it is not irrational because the contradiction is present in the understanding of faith rather than in existence. For the Ash‘arite, however, faith can be made rational and justified through the command and guidance of shar’ in order to find sound reasoning. Reason has no contribution in Kierkegaard’s theology neither as a necessary nor as a sufficient condition. For the Ash‘arite, nonetheless, reason is a necessary but not a sufficient condition and is in need of shar‘. Reason, in Ash‘arite theology, both fails to penetrate into all of the premises of the argument and falls short of binding man to accept its knowledge. It is shar‘ which comes into play in order to help reason both improve its objection and compensate the binding and obligation.

Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, as he is more commonly known, was a Jesuit priest who died in 1955, having worked for some twenty years as a paleontologist in China. While being a renowned scientist, who assisted in the finding of the Peking Man fossil, Teilhard’s main desire and scholastic efforts were to reshape modern Christian theology in the light of contemporary science, especially in his own creative and synthesizing interpretation of the various theories of evolution. My hope is to discuss the following: the implications of the findings of modern science for how we understand time, space and mind; the theological concepts that Teilhard developed to help us to deepen our faith traditions: namely the ideas of personalization, complexity-consciousness, noosphere, omega point, and convergence; the ethical concepts for an evolving global ethic valuing the person, action and growth; a few concrete applications in the areas of research, the United Nations, an option for the poor and the need for global leadership.

This article examines the Mu‘tazilite Qādī ‘Abd al-Jabbār’s views on the denotation of miracles according to his own particular methodology. Despite his acceptance of the celebrated method of the theologians in the denotation of miracles with respect to the authenticity of prophets, i.e., resorting to divine wisdom, Qādī ‘Abd al-Jabbār instead proposed the issue within the structure of conventional denotation; thus, his so-called “convention theory” distinguishes his endeavors from that of others. His efforts suggest the rationality of miracles. Unlike other Muslim theologians, he also argues that miracles not only vindicate the authenticity of prophetic claims, but that its connotation also includes the existence of God and the authenticity of the teachings of prophets.

In what follows, the author has dealt with the relation between the necessary being as an unchangeable Essence and His changeable and unchangeable attributes. Neither is the ascription of any changeable attribute impossible for God nor is the ascription of any kind of unchangeable attribute possible. As the change of genitive attributes does not demand the change in the Essence, it is possible to ascribe changeable attributes to the Essence. And as the real attached attributes bring about some dilemmas mentioned here, it is necessary for real attributes to be identical with the Essence. The article ends in a brief account on the cognitive form theory proposed by Avicenna and strongly defended by Mulla Sadra.