taher karimzadeh

The Imami commentators and theologians have relied on verses from the Holy Quran to prove the doctrine of Bada`. From his point of view, some of the verses indicate the possibility of bada's occurrence, some others condemn the opponents of bada', and the third category indicates the occurrence of bada' in previous nations. Among these, the verses of the third category have the most argumentative value. Among the verses of the third category, which have been disputed by both supporters and opponents, are verses 142 of A`raaf and 51 of Baqarah, which are known as the verses of Miqat of the Prophet Moses. The problem of the present research is to investigate the implication or lack of implication of Miqat's verses on Bada' and its purpose is to investigate the extent and manner of the implication of these verses on the proof of Bada'. For this purpose, the opinions of supporters and opponents of Bada'i interpretation of these verses have been studied in a descriptive-analytical way. The analysis of bada`i and non-bada`i interpretations and the confirmation of the latter based on the reasons and evidence mentioned in the research are among its findings.

The truth of revelation has always been the scholars’ concern, and the study on how prophets and their Imams gained knowledge can be considered as a step in explaining this truth. Using a descriptive-analytical method, this study examines Mulla Sadra’s and Allameh Tabataba’i’s views on how prophets and Imams gained knowledge. The connection and union from the existential intensity of the prophet’s or Imam’s soul with the active intellect are considered as the origin of the infallibles’ knowledge by Mulla Sadra. He could explain how prophets and Imams gained knowledge based on the principles of transcendental wisdom, but his view was not without problems. Allameh Tabataba’i, while benefiting from the principles and concepts of transcendental wisdom, was able to compensate for the shortcomings of Sadra’s view by using the verses of the Holy Qur’an methodically and analyze it in a way that is more compatible with religious texts, verses and traditions. The findings of this study include setting forth some shortcomings of Mulla Sadra’s viewpoint and explaining Allameh Tabataba’i’s method in analyzing the Infallibles’ knowledge.

One of the important issues in philosophy and mysticism, with considerable ontological and epistemological effects, is explaining the truth of fact-itself (nafs al-amr). This is because the truth of fact-itself is directly related to affirmation and falsification of epistemic propositions and statements. The subject of the present inquiry is a comparative investigation of the views of Islamic philosophers and mystics regarding the truth of fact-itself in a descriptive-analytical method. The related data were gathered through library studies. The inquiry aims at a general expression and stating the common and different points among the views of most philosophers and mystics regarding the fact-itself and presenting a brief analysis on them. The most important findings of the inquiry are as follows: the mystics’ interpretations of the fact-itself are focused on the ontological sphere and are proposed for explaining the existential unity of the universe. But the philosophers’ interpretations are focused on the epistemological sphere and aim at explaining the verity and falsity of the epistemic propositions. According to this approach, some of the philosophers’ interpretations such as ‘fact and outside in particular sense’, ‘active intellect’, and ‘existence-self’, are not the precise and right interpretations of fact-itself. But, some others such as ‘general affirmation’ or ‘absolute container of affirmation of external realities’ and ‘container of rational affirmation of the facts’ are justifiable. It seems that ‘thing-itself’ (nafs al-shayʾ) is the most precise and most comprehensive interpretation that enjoys the capability to explain the verity and falsity of any epistemic proposition.

The doctrine of Badā’, as a specific attribute of Shiite beliefs, has constantly been the subject of derision and criticism by Shia opponents. They have accused the Shiites of attributing ignorance and remorse to God and, for that reason, have taunted them as such. In response, Shiite scholars have always defended the doctrine of Badā’ and tried, based on their own thought systems, to clarify the true nature of Badā’ and to provide an accurate account of its relationship with the divine attributes. Ayatollah Seyyed Muhammad Kazem Assar is among the recent great figures who have dealt with the doctrine of Badā’ in detail. He has developed an independent treatise on this subject with a philosophical-mystical approach. Ayatollah Assar’s initiatives in explaining the truth of Badā’, especially his mystical view of it, are unique. Using Sadra’s philosophical and mystical principles, he has managed to provide a novel and new explanation of the truth of Badā’, its relationship with the knowledge and will of God and divine destiny, and the way it is expounded through the knowledge and narratives of the Ma’suumin (P.B.U.T.). Adopting his viewpoint, the present paper is an attempt to explain the truth of Badā’ and to analyze its relationship with Knowledge, will and divine destiny, and the knowledge and infallibility of the Ma’suumin (P.B.U.T.).

In this article, we argue that Muslim scholars have divided divine knowledge into three categories including substantial knowledge, knowledge of the creatures before creation, and knowledge of creatures and objects after creation. In fact, there is disagreement among the Islamic thinkers over the divine knowledge, its quality, and features. The point of controversy revolves around the wide disagreements over the divine knowledge of the creatures and objects both before and after creation. Therefore, divine knowledge over creatures before and after creation has always been the point of ongoing and challenging rational and dialectical discussion and debate. We examine this issue comparatively between the three Islamic thinkers (Mulla Sadra, Shaarani and Assar).

The following research compares the viewpoint of Mulla Sadra and Muhammad Husayn Tabataba’i about the concept of Badā’ in descriptive and analytical approach.Mulla Sadra clarifies the reality of Badā' by referring to celestial population and analyzes the true course of it’s attribution to God; while Allameh Tabataba’i was able to explain the relation of Badā' with the traits and foreordination of the Almighty through the verses of the Holy Quran without mentioning the cosmos.Allameh Tabataba’i explains the truth of Badā' using the 39th verse of the Sura Rad and also extends it’s inclusion to all creatures who have a fate, and proves it's eternality.Unlike Mulla Sadra who believes that the truth of abrogation and Badā' are different, Allameh Tabataba’i considers them of the same reality, and counts their difference in their inclusion regarding the worlds of Creation and Legislation.Mulla Sadra approves the occurrence of Badā’ in the knowledge and narratives of Ma’suumin [pbut] (the Innocents), meanwhile from the viewpoint of Allameh Tabataba’i the occurrence of Badā’ in the knowledge and narratives of Ma’suumin is not allowed.Obtaining the viewpoint of Allameh about the truth of Badā’ and everything related to it from his publications, and comparison analysis of the viewpoints of Mulla Sadra and Allameh Tabataba’i are the innovations of the present research.

How to explain the doctrine of badā` and to analyze its relationship with the attributes of God, Divine destiny and the knowledge and infallibility of the infallibles (a) from the perspective of Mulla Sadra and Allameh Sha'rani, is the subject of the present study. The present descriptive-analytical study examines the principles of Mulla Sadra and Allameh Sha'rani about the doctrine of badā`. As understood by the study, Mulla Sadra uses the principles of transcendent wisdom to explain the truth of badā` and its relationship with the attributes of God, Divine decree and infallibility of the infallibles (a) in this context. Allameh Sha'rani, though being in the framework of transcendent wisdom, but according to his own hadith-theological principles, considers any change in the attributes of God and Divine decree impossible and criticizes badā` in the meaning intended by Mulla Sadra. He also proves the impossibility of badā` in the news of the infallibles (a) by using the argument of grace, lutf.

Reliance on human inner and natural way to God may be regarded as the best ground for proving the existence of God. The reason why lies in its being essential, public, unchangeable and, therefore, can be regarded as the best proof in the field. As human nature is equipped with various tendencies, natural proof may be presented variously. In the proof, the existence of God is proved with reliance on human natural and inner love to absolute perfection. In another form of the proof, human hope while hardship and lacking of every appear support, His existence would be proved. Relying on Sadra`s meaning of puberty possibility and Avicenna`s proof of possibility and necessity, Shahabadi`s proof of God`s needless essence would be proved. For Shahabadi, other forms of the proof on the basis of human natural humility, fear and hate respectively toward perfection, lacking what beloved and imperfection may be given in the field. The paper has studied Shahabadi`s manner of study on the ground.

This study seeks to explain and critisise religious pluralism in philosophy of rligion of sayyed Hossain Nasr. Accordingly, we first analyze the relation of tradition, religion and perennial philosophy from the Nasr's view point and then make an explanation of the foundations of pluralism in his view. "Holding a unique sourse for all of the religions", "making distinction between external and internal aspect of universe and religion", "distinguishing absolute truth from relational one", "inward unity and outward plurality in the universe" and "similar elements in differen religions" are the foundations and reasons which are cited by Nasr for religious pluralism in his different works. After explanation of his theory, we tried to criticise his views.