فصلنامه حکمت اسلامی
پیاپی 14 (پاییز 1396)

Historicist approach towards Islamic tradition is a fresh approach in the Islamic world that has been focused on in recent centuries by some thinkers and intellectual trends. Among others, the Neo-Muatazilites especially Muhammad Abid al-Jabiri and Muhammad Arkoun have strongly stuck to this approach applying it to assessing Islamic heritage. Using this approach, they aim at presenting a new version of Islam, a version that considers many of the juristic and ideological issues of Islam as historical issues confined thus to the time of revelation. They do not accept that Islamic doctrines are universal including all times and places. This is because they believe that the belief in the universality of Islamic teachings leads eventually to an ideological understanding of Islam which is in turn deemed as the main factor behind the decline of Muslims. Putting aside the classic approach, they followed neo-historicism supported among others by Annal school in France. It has to be however admitted that both Jabiri and Arkoun were under the influence of Western post-modern thinkers, especially French philosophers. They have tried to apply their theory in a literal way to Islamic intellectual climate. This is while some believe that Islamic and Western epistemic domains are fundamentally different from each other. Thus one cannot subscribe the same prescription for both. This article studies how Jabiri and Arkoun apply neo-historicism to Islamic thoughts. It also compares it with its rivals so as to help readers reach a conclusion by themselves.

Although some one hundred fifty years haves passed since On the Origin of Species was published, the theory of evolution is still a matter of interest to the scholars of religion and science. This theory consists of various components the misunderstanding of which has given rise on most cases to futile disputes. One such component is 'natural selection'. Relying on 'natural selection, Richard Dawkins, a biologist tries to refute the existence of God. He calls this component 'a blind watchmaker' which is also the title of one of his books. This has however to be understood that the acceptance of a blind watchmaker is not in contradiction with the existence of |God. This is because like Dawkins many Muslim philosophers believe in the existence of a blind watchmaker in nature holding that this is not something running counter to the existence of God. Unlike natural selection, Muslim philosopher's blind watchmaker is the philosophical forms and natural agents which work in a linear way with divine agency paving the ground for the evolution of natural organs.

The question of the relation between reason and revelation existed in the most ancient periods of history of human thought. Like others, Muslim philosophers were also preoccupied with such a question. The present article studies Farabi and Averroes's opinions (about this issue) and compares them with each other. The comparison shows that they, having their own original ideas, were present at two critical moments; when Islamic philosophy was on the rise and when Islamic philosophy was revived (after it was attacked by al-Ghazzali). Both philosophers agree that reason and revelation are in harmony with each other, for they speak of the same reality with this minor difference that Averroes admits the apparent difference between them and attempts to resolve it through the science of interpretation whereas according to Farabi there is no difference at all between the two for the audience of philosophy is quite different from that of religion. Referring to the works of these two philosophers, this paper studies their most important ideas and compares them with each other.

As a science that studies being in its entirety philosophy has always been rejected by some and advocated yet by others. Some believe that the rules proved in this science are of no authority having thus no application in interpretation of religious texts. On the contrary, others hold that they deepen our understanding of religious texts. By writing his al-Mizan (a mutt volume commentary on the Holy Quran), Allama proved that philosophy can be instrumental in deepening our understating of the Holy Quran. One such important instance is the application of these rules to proving the unity of God. Being available in religion and philosophy, the argument of Tamanua relying on the fact that the universe is not corrupt, negate the existence of many gods. Using an analytico-descriptive methodology, the author tries to show how philosophical rules are instrumental in understanding the verses that are related to the argument of Tamanua. While interpreting such verses, Allama makes use of four philosophical rules: 1. An immaterial kind has only one instance 2. An effect cannot be separated from its perfect cause. 3. The unity of God is not numerical 4. The necessity of similarity between a cause and its effect.

The arguments for the existence of God reach their climax in Islamic philosophy with the argument of the truthful ones. While dealing philosophically with the concept of 'necessary', we need more than anything else some ontological grounds that regard God from the very beginning as the principle of existence. In Islamic philosophy, Allama Tabatabaei's argument has attained this goal. He starts his discussion with reality and ends up in proving its necessity. His innovative point that distinguishes him from other Sadrian philosophers is that he does not deal with 'existence' as a merely metaphysical issue presupposing the priority of existence and the unity of existence. He commences his theory with the fact that 'reality exists', a thing which is the starting point of thinking, making a distinction between philosophy and sophistry. By focusing on reality, he directs attentions to an initial discussion that precedes the famous controversy between the primacy of existence and essence. This is because this reality is a pre-physical one termed in some languages as 'universal'. Every kind of thought inevitably accepts it. It is the prerequisite for being a realist and a pre-condition for entering into a meaningful debate. As a result, the very reality (necessary by itself) is equated with the very existence. The fact that Allama's premises for his argument are self-evident and the fact that his version of the argument of truthful argument is closer to the criterion of truthful ones pave the ground for answering some of the critiques posed in this paper.

Research questions [known as matalib in Arabic classic logic] play a key role in guiding scientific researches and that is why scholars since long have paid attention to them. The present article aims to find out whether research questions in classic logic can address the research needs of humanities [today]. Using a descriptive methodology, the author describes research questions and their place in classic logic. He criticizes his predecessor's opinions in this regard using an analytic methodology. Given the functions expected from humanities, he presents a new version of research questions. The six achievements of this study are as under: a) traditional logicians differ on 1) the kind of primary and secondary research questions 2) the number of research questions 3) the source of secondary questions 4) varied philosophical approaches are unanimous on how they look at research questions. B) It also shows that the traditional outlook is inefficient in humanities and thus it presents a new version of research questions and their order.

Based on a classic definition, knowledge is "true justified belief". Though this definition is faced with many criticisms, there is a relative consensus about it. Being one of constituents of this definition, justification [when used in a moral context] means the justification of ethics. It is however sometimes used in the sense of criterion of truth for moral statements. This article uses 'justification' in its later sense, trying to explain the truth of moral statements on the basis of Allama Tabatabaei's theory of considered concepts. According to the author, only the realist moral schools of thought are capable of justifying moral statements. Albeit Allama deals with moral statements as considerations, he believes that these considerations (contracts) are based on realities having real consequences. He likewise says that some of the considerations are stable not undergoing any change. Thus he is a moral realist and that is why based on his theory of considerations moral statements are justifiable.

While some philosophers advocated the theory of soul created in time others however defended the theory of eternal soul. Mulla Sadra believes that soul enjoys an intellectual existence before joining a body. This stage belongs to divine knowledge. This theory is not the same as the Platonic theory of eternal soul. While assessing Mulla Sadra's theory we come to know that in the arc of descent soul experiences a symbolic existence (wujud mithali) that explains the religious texts supporting the priority of soul to body. The Holy Quran somewhere mentions that soul existed prior to body. Philosophers have tried their best to reconcile their theory of the existence of soul with Quranic verses. It seems that Mulla Sadra has been able to do so. According to him before joining a body soul has an intellectual or symbolic existence. The Quranic verses and traditions that are related to divine covenant, divine treasuries or descent may be taken to mean the intellectual or symbolic existence of soul. This is because descent (for instance) indicates that soul, before joining a body was enjoying a higher level of existence (compared to its physical existence). Relying on this theory Mulla Sadra explains traditions that tell us that soul existed before it belonged to a body.