فصلنامه تحقیقات کلامی
پیاپی 25 (تابستان 1398)

Sikhism, according to many, is a result of the combination of Islamic and Brahman teachings. In order to be theologically criticized, Sikhism must be more studied. To prepare the preliminaries of this purpose, therefore, we compare its basic beliefs with Islamic-Shi’i teachings. In the Islamic theology, it is talked about the unity of the Divine nature, attributes, acts and worship that are the foundation of religion. In Sikhism, the concept of unity is centric. The Sikh’s “transcendental” and “Omni-Present” God is the Creator of the world, as it is the belief in Islam. According the Islamic teleology, the spirit will be separated of the body when death occurs, will stay in the purgatory universe, will rejoin the body in resurrection and will be presented in the court of the Divine justice. But the Sikhs believe in the Avaguan that means the cycle of birth and death. Sikhism is near to and influenced by Islam in theology, and in eschatology and teleology it is similar and near to the Brahma and Indian religions.

The epistemological bases of Mirza Mehdi Isfahani (Rah) formed in the realms of linguistics, cosmology and theology on the basis of the theory of innate nature (al-fiṭrah). In his belief, the innate nature in its general and widespread meaning is direct encounter of the reasonable with the outer world and omission of the pictures and mental conceptions in the realm of reasoning and thinking. The light of knowledge and reason bring to light the outer things for the reasonable and the mental pictures have no intervention in the knowledge process. But the knowledge of God is by an innate knowledge (ma’rifah al-fiṭrī), neither by rational picture nor by the light of knowledge and reason. The innate knowledge of God is to receive the knowledge of God by God, and human being enters this worldly life with this knowledge. Comprehensive knowledge of God is impossible and the only way for rational knowledge is exit of the two boundaries.

One of the religious teachings in the discussion of resurrection is the issue of the obstinate and pertinacious nonbelievers’ immortality in hell suffering. The consensus of all the Muslim scholars (Jurists, theologians and philosophers) is that the immortality of the suffering of these people of hell is explicit in the religious texts. Ibn Arabi, on the contrary, believes that this is contradictory the inclusive divine mercy and justice. Thus, he submitted to ta’wīl (allegorical interpretation) and interpreted the Immortality (khulūd) in the religious texts as “long period of time” and believes that after expiration of some punishment, the people of the hell would be comprehended by the Divine justice and mercy, and hell suffering is removed. As a jurist, theologian, philosopher and mystic, Ayatullah Javadi Amoli does not accept the Ibn Arabi’s interpretation and believes that the eternal suffering not only does not contradict the Divine comprehensive mercy and justice but also is coherent with it. This article critically examines the Ibn Arabi’s point of view from the perspective of Ayatullah Javadi Amoli.

One of the polytheists’ thought challenges during the history, despite of believing in the monotheism of creation and unity of creator, has been doubt in Monotheism of Lordship (al-tawhīd al-rubūbī) that Qur’an set forth this Kalami thought with clear reasons. Endeavor for guiding conserving the people’s generosity and freedom in dialogue and exchange of opinions and asking arguments of the opponents with the purpose of awakening the innate self, stimulating the reasons and dynamism of thoughts of the audience are among the specifics of Qur’an and the authentic Islamic culture. According to the Qur’an, the holly Prophet, by inviting the polytheists to the monotheist religion of Islam, guiding and convincing them and welcoming the criticisms of the opponents in the religious and belief issues, used the way of “argumentation”. By explaining, examining and analyzing the qualities and varieties of the holly Prophet’s argument method in the Qur’an emphasizing the divine power, this research formed in order to prove the “Monotheism of Lordship”.

Theḳatul-Islam Kulayni and Sheikh Ṣadūḳ, two great narrators of Imamiyyah and author of two worthy ḥadith works of al-‘Uṣūl min al-Kāfī and al-Tawḥīd, each of them is heir of a trend of the Imamiyyah history of ḥadith and narrative kalam which has chosen and classified the narrations pertaining to divine will on the basis of his pattern and knowledge system. Although the common theoretical points between these two high-ranking narration-transmitters such as the will being created, being an act attribute, being certain and uncertain, including the creation and legislation worlds and the like are so much, the most distinct different point between Sheikh Ṣadūḳ and Kulayni is in offering other themes of the content pertaining to the divine will such as the levels of the divine act. Kulayni believes in the divine act as having levels on the basis of some narrations, but Sheikh Ṣadūḳ did not narrated these themes probably because they have affinities with determinism in acts, but he tried to explain the divine role in human will and to show the generality and encompassment of the divine will and providence.

The question of possibility, quality and resolution of the reason and narration contradiction is an old one in the scholarly circles and everyone has set forth it as he sees. One of those who widely discussed this topic is Ibn Timiyyah who, denying the possibility of contradiction between explicit reason and authentic narration, tried to offer an inclusive resolution for the cases regarded as contradictory. Although seemingly correct in theory, the resolution he offered leads in application to denial of some parts of clear rational propositions and putting aside some parts of authentic narrations.

The cause of the Islamic societies retardation in comparison to the western societies, according to al-Jaberi, is irrational view to the world. Therefore, the realization of progress in the Arabic-Islamic thought needs a rational scheme in all the theoretical issues. The essential characteristic of such rationality is critique which begins with the critique of the theoretical instruments and heritage ruling the Arabic culture that is reason. But al-Jaberi’s definition of reason is based on a positivist attitude which the unseen and revealed knowledge has no way to this realm and he is ignorant of the notion of reason latent in the Islamic heritage. He regards the Arabic reason as the same physics of the Arabic text and considers the retardation of civilization in the Arabic culture in relation of the contemporary Arabic language with atmosphere current in the pre-Islamic (Djāhilī) and the relation of Qur’an to that atmosphere. He ignored the difference between the epistemology of Arabic-Islamic sciences and the natural and experimental sciences that are two different realms in nature of subject and method. By structure critique, al-Jaberi categorized the rational system in three systems of explaining, argument and mysticism and divided reason into three parts; while the realms of Jurisprudence, Kalam, mysticism and philosophy are various manifests of this reason and al-Jaberi ignored the single and organic structure of this reason.