mohammadali sohani

One of the important issues discussed by Ghazali in the book Tahaft Al-Falasafah is the issue of divine knowledge. Mulla Sadra is one of the philosophers who has important and specific opinions about divine science. Therefore, in this article, we will criticize it from Mulla Sadra's method. Now, it should be seen if Ghazali's problems are related to Sadr al-Maltahin's method in divine science. What is Sadra's new interpretation of divine knowledge? The results obtained are as follows: 1. When existence is extremely intense and there is no dignity in him, nothing will be hidden from him, because obligatory knowledge is in the weight of his existence. 2. Wajib al-Wujud activity is in the form of al-Anaya activity, which has discretion. 3. Based on the originality of existence and creation of existence, the lower and middle levels are present in the higher level without the necessity of plurality. 4. The presence knowledge of God is the origin of the presence knowledge of Ma'ada. 5. God's knowledge of the existence of things is the same as their existence. It should be noted that the research method in this article is a library and in terms of approach, it is rational and critical.

Consensus is one of the sources of reaching rulings, which may be a source of beliefs as well. In the theological books of Islamic scholars, Shia or Sunni, the reason for consensus has been used to prove some of the doctrines. And what is the criterion of credibility and the scope of its validity? This research aims to examine the answers to the above questions from the most important theological schools, namely the Imamiyyah, Mu'tazilah, Ash'ari, and Matridiyyah. This research, which is of a fundamental type, has tried to explain the different dimensions of consensus with the analytical and library methods and with the approach of rational and narrative reasoning. In this article, the reasons given for the validity of consensus in matters of belief have been undermined. The most important results obtained in this research are that: the fundamentalists of the Imamiyyah and some Akhbaris accept the authority of consensus based on reason, the Ash'arites accept the authority of consensus through narration, and most of the Mu'tazila and Matridiyya also accept the authenticity of consensus through narration. In this article, there is a flaw in the arguments presented, and Mukhtar's opinion is that: there is no evidence for the validity of consensus in matters of faith.