فصلنامه اندیشه نوین دینی
پیاپی 35 (زمستان 1392)

Agreeing with the theory of white tablet and sensualism, including inner and outer senses both, in the field of concepts and with intellectualism in the field of judgements, as two bases of Muslim philosophers, would lead to two problems when dealing with invisible phenomena such as experiences of revelation: one is non-explanotry state of them and the other lies in finding an authentic way for studying them. For the latter there can be found four probabilities: 1. avoiding to judge, 2. seeking to aquire such experiences if possible, 3. using examples and models, 4. relying on the people of such experiences, namely prophets, and taking a religious position.In the paper, the meaning of model and the difficulties in the way for using models have been introduced and it has been proved that the only authentic way consists in the four probability.

Religion`s state of being or not being against reason has been a problem focused on by many Muslim and non Muslim scholars. The problem for such a philosopher as Sadrul Mutaallihin Shirazi who, on the one hand, as a philosopher is of demonstrative manner and, on the other, as a Quran and tradition commentator, need more discussion. In additon to supporting justice side when speaking of the mentioned relation, he make the irreasonability of the rival view clear. In the paper, it has been sought to support his view and to criticise those views going from one extreme to the other.

This paper has focused on the arguements of those agreeing with epistemological validity of religious experience and studied them in five groups: 1. arguing as if religious experiences are the same as visible experiences; 2. arguing on the principle of credulity and testimony; 3. arguing by inferring the best explanation; 4. reformed argument of Gutting;5. arguing on the basis of knowledge by persistence. As is described in the paper, all the arguments are exposed to failures. In the paper, general authenticity of religious experience has been argued against; yet a limited authenticity for religious experience has been argued in the field.

As is clearly understood by the teachings of Islam, prophecy has come into its end with the Prophet of Islam and, therefore, there may be no prophet after him. Yet, with regard to the man`s limitedness of knowledge, he would be in need of Divine leader for ever. Just it is at this point that the position of Imamate and guardianship as a necessityy finds its place for continuance of the mission of the Seal of the prophets. In this way, the human need of Divine leadership would be satisfied. Transcendent philosophy has explaind the problem in such a philosophical method by which intellectuals` demur of disagreement between Sealness and Imamate would be eradicated.

Many studies have been performed on the problem of determinism and free will and also on Mowlavi`s view on it. Yet, few have studied the agents affecting the limit of free will in Mowlvi`s view. In this paper, it has been sought to give a clear description on the agents. The pen has relied on a story of the first book in Mathnavi speaking of a Jewish king who killed Christians. It is intended in the paper, to attract the addressed readers`s attention on the limit of free will, the agents affecting the limit of free will and the way in which they affect it and to refer to Mowlavi`s recommendations for avoiding the agents limiting the scope of free will. Such being the case, a full example of expanded free will has been introduced.

Some Small points of similarities between the institution of Catholic Church and that of Shiite have caused some to view the latter as being exposed to the same objections of the former, especially exposed to those in Middle Ages Church. This paper, relying on their original texts, has sought to compare them with regard to authenticity and, describing their similarities and differences, has rejected the view of their being identical. Though the two are similar in Divinity and connection to God through pure men, the real cases of these two teachings and the how for justification as the foundation for authenticity have been regarded as the most basic differences. Therefore, the claim of identicality in the field is not logically impartial.

Allameh Tabatabaei has viewed human being to be of a special nature due to which all his life is directed to a special end, God. The direction other than which one may not take in his life: the nature (framed) of Allah, in which He hath created man. It is on the one hand and on the other, on Kalvin`s theology, human being is of knowledge to the existence of God in depth of his mind; such kind of knowledge may not be counted as something to be taught and learned. Farther it is of those facts established in our depth of mind before our birth and, therefore, it cannot be forgotten at all. In this paper, it has been sought to describe different and common aspects of the two views. Heart, the place of natural knowledge, innate state of natural knowledge, leadership of human being, ever last stability, necessity for the natural ability to develope, effect of sin on this knowledge have known the aspects in common, while aim of putting it forward, its essence, effect of corresponding knowledge on it, its regionality, its object and the how of its happening may be counted as differences.

The bounteous Prophet`s way of life before his Divinely appointment has been of considerable fields historically, theologically and traditionally studied. Noticing cases of evidence for the bounteous Prophet`s knowledge of the unseen in that time, his manner of life with regard to action and belief, paying attention to the differences between two terms of prophecy and mission would lead one to the view of the Prophet`s degrees of prophecy before his appointment. Attaining an overall view on the difference between prophecy and mission and giving a correct definition on prophecy as the base of this paper have been taken as the first step for examining the hypothesis of the paper. In the second step, some cases of evidence reffering clearly to the Prophet`s knowledge of the unseen before declaring the position of prophecy. As is understood by his manner of life and various probability on his religious way of life in that period, he received his code of religious rituals from the unseen.

On the problem: if reward is caused by merit or is a condescension, there can be found three views: on thefirst it is for merit and, therefore, not rewarding would be a case of injustice. On the second, it is condescension; though those of this view differ when speaking of the cause of condescension. For as is understood by Asha`irih, it would be meaningless for God to be obligated. This means lack of criterion in Divine reward. On another principle of this view, regardless of taking reward as condescension, God has considered it as being merit also and, in this way, Divine reward has become of criterion. On the third view, considering God`s life-giving to human being, reward would be known as condescension and, when considering srvant`s actions, as merit. As is understood by the paper, as a fourth view, one can say that God is absolute perfection and, therefore, one should not speak of Divine ownership and gifts; though these are established realities. In such a consideration, some degree of reward would be condescension and some other merit. Needless to say, if regarding Divine ownership and gifts, there can be no place for merit.

This paper is essentially concerned to five contemporary common views of the problem of evil in animal. As one may talk of the problem in human being, so is the case, when considering it with regard to the world of animals. The importance of the problem would be more clear when noticing the difficulties in the way of defending free will in animals. The problem of evil lies in perception, collision and the possibility for perceiving collision. In this way, limiting the proble in human being would lead to redutivism. William Rowe has put the problem forward again. Some scholars have sought to solve the proble. This paper, agreeing with the problem to be proposed in animals, has intended to report and criticize the views presented as answer in five approaches including those of Lewis, Harrison, Hick, Peter Geach and Swinburne respectively focusing on determining the agent for evil, lack of knowledge in animals, distincting pain from suffering, not paying any attention to evil in animals and its being agent for knowledge.