فصلنامه فلسفه دین
سال شانزدهم شماره 4 (پیاپی 45، زمستان 1398)

The article at hand has been authored to clarify the quiddity of the philosophy of jurisprudence and the way its issues are categorized. With regard to the definition of the philosophy of jurisprudence, the article ultimately selects the last given definition which exists in the last review of the philosophy of jurisprudence. Therefore, based on the three layers of the philosophy of jurisprudence – namely, general paradigmatic principles, the generalities of the philosophy of Islamic jurisprudence, and the specific principles of this philosophy – we might maintain that it is a science that analyzes, criticizes, and suggests the conceptual scope, status, structure, and mechanism of jurisprudence in line with certain paradigmatic principles. In cooperation with other domains of arbitrary perceptions, this science processes desirable reference systems. Moreover, in its evaluation of the history of jurisprudence, this science adopts the posteriori criticism method to process the principle chosen by the jurist. Furthermore, in the light of the necessity of determining the scientific scope of various issues and in order to use the methods of understanding and problem solving in each domain of knowledge, it provides classifications of various issues of the philosophy of jurisprudence at seven levels, namely general epistemic principles, specific principles of the philosophy of that science, psychological principles, sociological principles, principles of linguistic philosophy, principles of the history of science, and methodological principles. In terms of method, the study at hand is a descriptive-analytical research project that uses library research data.

This article first presents a brief description of the concepts of “mystical experience”, “constructivism”, and “essentialism”. Next, it addresses the disagreements on the concept of “common core”. Then, adopting the concept of “natural disposition” as its premise, prioritizing the internal experience over external experience, and using a descriptive-comparative method, it concludes that “inborn natural disposition” in wayfarers and in humans in general can be the common core of mystical experiences and function as a comprehensive rival theory against constructivism and essentialism, provided that we believe in a kind of “non-volitional potentiality”. This derives from the fact that potentiality expresses that a being attains its experiences and cultural achievements voluntarily, under the impact of external compulsion, or due to its mode of existence (i.e. natural disposition).

Abu Zayd, the Egyptian thinker, proposes three viewpoints to the quiddity of revelation. In his first viewpoint, he compares prophethood with fortunetelling so as to introduce it as culturally accepted and familiar. However, Abu Zayd’s investigation of fortunetelling and its cultural acceptability is not sufficient. Moreover, cultural superstitions such as fortunetelling cannot provide appropriate justifications for the divine revelation. Furthermore, his claims are not congruent with intra-religious evidences. In his second viewpoint, Abu Zayd introduces the Qur’ān as the religious experience of the Prophet (s). He presented a third viewpoint toward the end of his life, based on which he deems the Qur’ān not as the Divine Word, but rather as the fallible words of the Prophet (s). From the viewpoint of Abu Zayd, the Qur’ān is the result of the discussions of the Prophet (s) with Arabs who faced him. He asserts that the Qur’ān is not a unified and consolidated text, but rather, it is a set of speeches. That is to say, he thinks that the Qur’ān is a fragmented text whose disagreements are justifiable and its inconsistencies are solvable, because each of its statements have been articulated in certain conditions, due to certain requirements, and for a certain audience. This article has examined and criticized the opinions of Abu Zayd, and their erroneousness has been shown.

In this paper, we examine descriptively and analytically William James’ view of the relation between religion and the meaning of life and existential pains. As a result, the article is made of two parts. In part one, we describe James’ view to religion and its relationship with the meaning of life and existential pains; and in part two, we try to analyze and criticize James’ view to religion and its relationship with the meaning of life and existential pains. In James’ view, the essence of religion is in fact the personal experiences which are a kind of emotion, and the religious doctrines and rites are outer structures of religion. In his opinion, the personal relationship with the Divine Act causes mental calmness and the decrease in any fear of death and, in consequence, leads to the meaningfulness of life. To criticize James’ views, we examined his perception of the meaning of life and existential pains and its relation with religion, and we put forth some of its faults.

Riff’at Hassan is one of the most important Muslim thinkers in the US and is the leader of Muslim feminists. Influenced by Feminist theology in Christianity, she proposes “feminist theology in the Qur’ān”. From the viewpoint of Riff’at Hassan, three theological factors in the world of Islam and the Qur’ān have led to the appearance and expansion of the belief in the supremacy of the man over the woman: the subordination of the woman to man in creation, Eve’s deception of Adam which led to their fall from the Eden paradise, and the creation of the woman for the cause of man. Suchlike factors and attitudes are basically proposed in the Sunnī interpretations and traditions, and the themes of traditions she has used are rejected in Shī‘a narrations. Nonetheless, even if we accept the claims of Riff’at Hassan, her arguments lead to the proposition that the man and the woman are not different in creation, both have been deceived by Satan, and both have been expelled and fallen from Paradise, and there is no difference between them in these regards. However, the key point here is that this theory does not prove the legal-jurisprudential equality between men and women, and the Qur’ān gives in different orders in this regard, especially with regard to inheritance and retaliation.

The diversity of religions is one of the most challenging issues in the contemporary world that has instigated various reactions such as pluralism which has been specified by contemporary philosophers of religion in the form of a unified theory. John Hick claims that regardless of the formation method of theory, its content has been suggested many centuries ago by thinkers such as Ibn ‘Arabi. In addition to the examination of this claim, the article at hand aimed at studying the way Ibn ‘Arabi has addressed the question of the diversity of religions based on the principles of this thought. This examination led us to conclude that Ibn ‘Arabi’s thought system is a solid one which entails several key ideas as its focal points; Ibn ‘Arabi’s solutions for many issues are based on these key ideas. Ibn ‘Arabi’s attention to the difference between beliefs and the diversity of religions does not derive from external factors and social issues; rather, it originates directly from his pivotal ideas such as the Unity of Being, Divine Names, and the manifestation and sovereignty of God in the whole World of Being. Based on these principles, Ibn ‘Arabi rules that all paths are right and all religions and their followers are also right. The title of this article is adopted from the very statements of Ibn ‘Arabi in his works; he calls his heart as the “receiver of all forms” and advises everyone to be the “matter of all beliefs”.

In Sadrian theology and wisdom, the station of the "Divine Vicegerency” is the ultimate end of the existence of the man and the Universe. Mulla Sadra is trying to explain this idea with the help of rational specifications and explanations based on the teachings of the divine revelation. The writers’ purpose in this essay is to re-read Mulla Sadra's theory and contemplate on some of his rational interpretations. According to this theory, the Vicegerent human is the representative and symbol of Sublime God, whether in the form of minor Vicegerency (on earth) or major Vicegerency (in the heavens and spiritual worlds). Mulla Sadra asserts that the human has got the competence to be the divine Vicegerent and the object of the angels’ prostration because of the knowledge taught him by God. The difference in the existence, nature, and destiny of the human and other beings – including angels, demons, animals, plants, and inanimate beings – is based on this. For this reason, the man is the "trustee" of God; that is to say, an existential attribute and a kind of luminous perfection has been bestowed upon the human and is allocated only and solely to him.

The present article is a critical examination of the deconstructive thinking of Derrida in the domain of the philosophy of religion based on the opinions of Allameh Tabataba’i. Derrida’s theology – with its deconstructive approach to the philosophy of religion – never wants to achieve truth in its exploration of the issues of the philosophy of religion such as the existence of God. The reason is that Derrida does not believe in the existence of a truth that is disclosed to the human through the demonstrative method. In his opinion, an emphasis on the mysteriousness can guarantee the endurance of the religious matter. Although Allameh, too, acknowledges the limitedness of the human mind in the domain of the divine philosophy, he does not give up on the use of the unified and systematic thinking as well as the intellectual arguments to discover the truth of the religious matter. Epistemic pluralism, instability of meaning, and the gradation of self-evidence are some of the problems of Derrida’s thought. Allameh believes that truth has a unified structure that can be discovered by the human through his constant intellectual practice. He never accepts Derrida’s relativist view to reality, and believes that the path of knowledge in the philosophy of religion goes through the absoluteness and universality of reality.