نشریه هفت آسمان
پیاپی 45 (بهار 1389)

The sins which the Bible attributes to the prophets have intrigued many readers. On the one hand, for Muslims, these sins have been enough evidence for the invalidity of the Bible; the Jewish exegetes, on the other hand, have attempted to reinterpret those passages. In this research, some major instances of the reinterpretation of the sins of the biblical characters in medieval rabbinic literature shall be discussed. The rabbis used different methods like: transformation of the literal reading of the passage, attention to the ambiguity of the words, emphasis upon the pre-knowledge of the prophets, reliance upon other verses which testify to the justification of the character, reference to a presumed pre-Mosiac law, and elaboration on the biblical story with aggadic-midrashic narratives or anecdotes. The latter way is very predominant in Jewish exegesis and leads to a fundamental change in understanding the biblical narratives. Thus, with the help of later interpretations, the biblical picture of the prophets became closer to the readers’ conception of what a prophet should look like.

Mafatih Al-Asrar wa Masabih Al-Abrar is among the unique exegeses of the 6th century of Hegira with a theological orientation, which characterizes the Ismaili sect. This exegesis, which remains unfinished, is a traditional one whose style of interpretation is ordinal rather than thematic; it is in Arabic and the tone it adopts is that of the people of the Great Khorasan. It is among the few works which reflect the mystical exegesis method of this religious school in an acceptable way in the 6th century. The significance of this enterprise is due to the theological character of its exegete and the distinguishing characteristics of his exegesis. His method of exegesis is based upon some particular principles which are lacking in the similar ones. On the one hand, it is theologically orientated and is concerned with the criticism of the Asharites and the Mutazila and on the other hand, it is an intuitive exegesis, which is similar to mystical exegeses, and which is carried out in terms of unraveling the mysteries and other layers of the Quran. The author initially gives an account of the life and works of Al-Shahristani; and then he considers the bases of the tradition of Tawil, intellectual context and some instances of of his intuitive interpretation; and ultimately he concerns himself with general considerations on introducing Al-Shahristani's exegesis, his sources and methodology, and the characteristics of his exegesis.

The historical evidence shows that the concern to see God predates Islam. In Islam too, ever since the call to monotheism, the vision of God has been among the central preoccupations of the Muslims. In contrast with the visibility of the idols, the invisibility of God was appealed to by the pagans in order to mislead the newly converted Muslims. Regardless of this controversy, which was short lived, there was a controversy among the theists and the Islamic thinkers over the problem of the vision of God. Asharites were the most remarkable exponents of the vision of God among the Muslim community. In addition to providing evidence from the Quran and traditions, they claimed that the vision of God is rationally justified. Meanwhile, the vagueness of the position taken by the mystics and the apparent similarities between Asharites and the mystics with regard to some issues have prepared the ground for the hypothesis that the latter are associated with the former and are their followers, one way or another. By investigating into the Asharite views and arguments in this regard and comparing them with those of Ibn Arabi, who is the unexampled founder of theoretical mysticism, the present paper tries to show the relationship between these two positions.

The author is seeking to explain the underlying idea of the Vedic religion; he thinks that the key to this enterprise is to be found in its cosmogony; therefore, he concerns himself with the mythology of the origin of the universe. In the beginning there was only water, which bore in itself the germ of life; and then an unformed clod of earth rose to the surface, where it floated about; but this state of undifferentiated unity came to a sudden end by the second stage of cosmogony. It started with the birth of the god Indra, outside the primeval world. The author of the present paper holds that the function of the myth of Indra is limited to the creation of the dualist world in which good and light are counterbalanced by evil and darkness. The article, then, deals with war between Asuras, the gods of the primordial world, and the Devas who are headed by Indra; this symbolizes the dualism which has entered into the world of the Vedic gods. The article finally points out the universal periods and the destruction of the universe.

The controversy, which was provoked during the eighteenth century Europe with Voltaire and Hume being its leading characters, over the question whether polytheism preceded monotheism or vice versa, took on a new form due to the advancements made in the anthropological studies. In contrast with those who believed that monotheism had developed from polytheism, there were those who believed in the primordial monotheism. The author of the present article holds that both of the theories have considered the formation of monotheism with reference to the religions of the uncivilized people, whereas this method isn’t an acceptable one. In order to investigate into this problem adequately, one should consider the polytheistic religions of a variety of civilized people in the ancient periods. He is of opinion that monotheism neither was primordial nor grew out of polytheism. He believes that monotheism was the outcome of a revolt against polytheism or idolatry, and that this event has rarely happened in the history of mankind.

In this paper, Mircea Eliade concerns himself with the study of a period in which the scholars of religion created a variety of works and put forward different theories in their quest for the primordial form of the religious beliefs. Such attempts, which began with the Renaissance, were the result of a tendency to fill the gap which appeared in human spirituality. He also deals with the pseudo-religious movements which during the nineteenth and twentieth century came into being so as to fulfill the spiritual needs of the modern man. He also considers the development of the history of religions as a discipline and elaborates on the role played by the scholars of this discipline with regard to the "man's primordial religion". Although Eliade criticizes the empirical and relativistic orientations of some of the historical and sociological schools, he holds that an appropriate question can revive the science of the history of religions.

By laying emphasis upon the distinction between the three ways of acquiring knowledge, i.e., revelation, reason, and vision, the School of Separation introduced itself to the Shiite community, claiming that religion is incompatible with philosophy and mysticism. This position was criticized by the exponents of Islamic philosophy; they pointed out that religion, philosophy and mysticism are consistent in the Shiite system, finding fault with the School of Separation. Divine Theology and Humanist Theology, which occupies itself with the arguments in favor of this school, has been recently published. The author of the present paper has made an attempt to review the book in methodological terms, trying to invalidate its claims and to show that this school should go a far too long way before it could prove its point. The claims of the book are presented in the form of an argument, which consists of two premises: first, some philosophers have regarded philosophy as invalid; second, given that what they say is true, philosophy is wrong. To begin with, the author has made an attempt to show that the first premise is false and in fact, the views of the philosophers have been corrupted or partially quoted; then, he tries to show that no philosopher is justified to invalidate philosophy merely on account of being a philosopher.