نشریه کلام اسلامی
پیاپی 95 (پاییز 1394)

Natural (rational) theology, utilizes rational thinking about descriptions of the world like possibility, movement and temporality (natural theology in its most general sense) or orderliness and accuracy in the world of nature (natural theology in its most particular sense) to explain and prove religious teachings. Natural theology in its most particular sense –specially in Christian world – passed ups and downs and has had known both adherents and critics among philosophers, scholars and theologians. Ian Barbour has reported a detailed explanation of these developments and then he himself criticized it from two perspectives of epistemology and theology. While some of reports posed about natural theology are infirm and disputable, some of them are firm and defendable and some of the critiques rose from improper expectations of it.

Exploring the question of goodness and badness, Martyr Sadr has aimed to explain the meaning of goodness and badness and their status in the station of realization and affirmation and typology of statements of goodness and badness. According to his view, interpretation of goodness and badness as “expediency and aftermath”, “deserving reward and punishment”, “deserving praise and blame”, “desire and instinct” is not correct but the authentic meaning of goodness and badness is the moral necessity which - regardless of the realm of conventions - has had actuality in the tablet of reality and is other than cosmic necessity. According to him, the difference between essential and canonical goodness and badness is substantial and is not limited to the quality of ascription. He has criticized some of justice-oriented ('adliyyah) theologians for proving essential and rational goodness and badness and regarded the two propositions of “justice is good” and “oppression is bad” as assertoric propositions. According to him, the propositions of goodness and badness are indemonstrable and are among certainties and Muhaqqiq Isfahani’s argument for their being among conventional proposition is not valid. Beside its strong points, Martyr Sadr’s view has some weak points which have been dealt with in the present article.

The present article aims to explain the quality of Divine knowledge of creatures which is the matter of controversy among Muslim scholars including theologians and philosophers and in this regard, explains the theory of peripatetics and Avicenna in particular about the problem and then the critiques posed by al-Tousi of it and as fallows, expressing Muhaqiq al-Lahiji's responds to Muhaqiq al-Tousi in support of Avicenna, examines al-Lahiji's responds with a critical approach and proves that Avicenna’s theory of the quality of Divine knowledge of creatures necessitates Divine Essence's lacking detailed knowledge of creatures, ascription of real additional attributes to Divine Essence and also ascription of passive reception and receiving from the other to the Essence which are regarded as impossible by Avicenna and Muhaqiq al-Lahiji themselves. Obviously, the present article aims to estate the responds ignoring their bases, otherwise Avicenna’s basis and also his follower's (al-Lahiji) basis and Muhaqiq al-Tousi's basis need to be criticized so the basal critiques are alluded to amidst the critiques and studies.

Tamima Bayhom Daou in the article “Husham b. al-Hakam and his doctrine of the Imam's knowledge” has aimed to reconstruct Husham’s views on the knowledge of Imam. From among the most important critiques of her research is that it relies on Madelung’s unproved hypothesis which Daou regarded it as undisputable and based her study on it. Based on some instances, Madelung claimed that Nowbakhti and Ash’ari utilized Husam’s book of “Ikhtilaf al-nas fi al-Imamah” in heresiographical works (Firaq al-Shi’a and al-Maqalat va al-Firaq) ascribed to them. Presupposing Madelung’s hypothesis, Daou aimed to study the layers of Firagh al-Shi’a and analyzed and scrutinized that parts of the book that he thought that they were adopted from the book of Hisham. In this way he has tried to reconstruct Hisham’s views on the knowledge of Imam through Hisham’s heresiographical reports. According to the result of the present article, Madelung’s testimonies to his claim are not that strong to make a research for reconstruction of Hisham’s views based on them. There are other serious critiques of some other Daou’s claims and arguments too that resulted from his negligence and also the negligence of the sources that he used about some historical data including the reports about the transmitters of narrations and the reports about Islamic traditions.

The present article has studied the problem of prayer near graves and has proven its legitimacy with the support of the following reasons: 1- Stating narrations from the noble Prophet quoted in valid Sunni sources which have proven the legitimacy of doing prayer near the graves of Muslims unconditionally. 2- Stating some examples about the conduct and views of early Muslims about prayer near the grave of the Prophet. 3- Introducing especial places which have been noticed for prayer. 4- Revealing contradictions existed in the works of Ibn Taymiyyah and Wahhabies about the problem of prayer near the graves. 5- Proving the invalidity of wahhabie's interpretation about the traditions. 6- Proving the deficiency of the principle of “Sadd al-DharaI’” (blocking the means).

Khajah Nasir al-Din al-Tousi was an eminent Shiite theologian who left valuable works. His theological works especially "Tajrid al-Etiqad" was noticed by both Shiite and Sunni scholars. His mastery of different sciences, rational sciences in particular, put him among known scholars in the Islamic world who had their own special method. Although his theological arguments include pure rational arguments, pure transmitted arguments and rational and transmitted arguments together but the role of the first part is more than the two other parts so the role of reason and rational argument are remarkable and outstanding. This article tries to explain the general lines that al-Tousi follows in his studies. These general lines include: using philosophical rules and principles, symbolic interpretation of transmitted argument which opposes definite rational argument, minimum reliance of arguments on theoretical statements, inclusive perspective and etc.