فصلنامه اندیشه دینی
پیاپی 72 (پاییز 1398)

In some Zoroastrian texts, especially Pahlavi texts, the first divine covenant dates back to the pre-creation of the material world whereas there has been no mention of such a covenant in the Avesta. Among the Zohar Kabbalistic mystics, the eternal covenant is a common belief. However, it has not been treated in the Torah and Talmud. The Holy Quran mentions the first divine covenant and refers to it as "Alast covenant”, and most commentators trace it back to the pre-creation of Mankind. In addition to addressing this issue, the article takes a comparative-analytical study of the Zoroastrians, Quranic, and mystic Kabbalah texts. It shows that believing in such a covenant depends on the importance of answering three basic human questions about the origin, purpose, and destination of creation. The analysis also indicates that although the Zoroastrians, Kabbalah mystics and most Muslims commonly believe in the eternal covenant” and the primordial spirits, the functions of this covenant differ in different religions. In addition, even though the eternal covenant was commonly debated among Iranian Zoroastrians in the pre-Islamic era, the characteristics of each differed according to their beliefs and principles. However, Islam's perspective on the eternal covenant is superior to the other two traditions in its emphasis on reasoning, morality, and unity.

One of the issues that have attracted the attention of scientists throughout history is the relationship between the components of the universe and the ontology derived from such thinking. Since ancient Greece, many physicists and philosophers have been exploring this issue, and the results of their research and understanding of the issue have generally influenced one another, so that the discovery of a problem has led to fundamental changes in the thinking of the other group. With the advent of new physics, a new vantage point in the ontology of the universe has been created, and compared to the past scholars have been writing differently on this topic. Teller is one of the scholars influenced by the new findings of physics and has attempted to refute the divisive view of classical physics and raised his own theory which is based on universal and relational holism. This article attempts to explain Teller's point of view mentioned in his own essay within the framework of Bell’s theory of “Relativity, Relational Holism and Inequality" and critique and evaluate it on the basis of the ontological principles of transcendent theosophy. The results of this study emphasize that the empirical method is partial and not suitable for proving the holism of matter. Rather, with general and philosophical principles such as the individual unity of being, the principle of causality, and the principal of self-existence, a more plausible reasoning can be achieved. Undoubtedly, such dialogues between philosophy and physics will pave the way for a better and more complete understanding of existence.

Simplexity is a perfection attribute and determines the existential rank to which it belongs. The scope of this attribute in God is expressed in terms of the “simple reality is everything and in the meantime it is none” while in the human soul it is expressed through “the soul in its unity is whole faculties”. The importance of explaining the relationship between the two rules is that it is a way of knowing God through one’s soul. In addition, it reasonably illustrates the causal relationship between God and the universe as well as the soul. The problem is to determine the relationship between the two rules in terms of concept and representation. In Sadra’s philosophy the soul is the God’s successor and His great representation and there are both similarities and differences between them while maintaining their hierarchies. Similarly, the “simple reality” rule is an alternative of the “whole faculties” rule.   Given the above, there are special existential and epistemic issues between these two rules which are elaborated on in this paper.

Freedom and authority are the two essential and inherent needs of mankind. These two concepts are fundamental and complex, yet important in the history of religions, and there has been a great deal of controversy among scholars about their meanings. The present study addressees the central question of whether or not these two concepts are synonymous in terms of philosophical and epistemological view points, and the course of historical evolution. That is, the researcher seeks to answer the following questions: Is Man autonomous? Does he have absolute autonomy or have obligations to fulfill too (determinism)? Are his obligations incompatible with his free will?
The research method in this study is based on library research and takes an analytical and descriptive approach. This study is novel in that it includes a critique of the common reading of freedom and authority, the philosophical synonymy, and the delineation of the boundaries of these two concepts which have caused a great deal of schism among scholars, especially in the new discourse.

In Fakhr Razi’s thinking, on the one hand, the causality argument and the mutual effects of the creatures on one another are discussed. On the other hand, the arguments of unity of actions and the general nature of God's causality and agency over all actions and causes, and the monopoly of God’s causality and agency have been raised. Some believe there is a conflict between these two statements. The present article aims at providing a clearer explanation and makes an attempt to investigate this issue with an analytical method within the framework of Fakhr Razi’s perspective. The analysis shows that although the unity of actions, the principle of causality and its derivatives are not incompatible, the principle of causality and its derivatives originate from the philosophical foundations of the Unity of Divine Acts and provide a better explanation for the issue. But the view of unity of divine actions and the acceptance of the principle of causality and some of its derivatives in Fakhr Razi's thought reflects an internal inconsistency in his epistemic system. It is possible, however, to distinguish between the philosopher Fakhri Razi and the theologian Fakhri Razi. His argument of the principle of causality may be considered philosophical while his argument of the unity of divine acts falls within his theological perspective. Nevertheless, his theological views dominate philosophical ones in his works.

Comparative Religious research faced many challenges in its relations with Christianity and science from its inception in the 19th century. Christianity and modern science were critical of theology from both religious and scientific points of view respectively. During the same period, a pioneering school in Protestant Theology known as Liberal Theology was established, which sought compatibility with the new developments, paved the way for the nascent Comparative Religious research, and exerted some impact on it, too. The analytical and descriptive approach in this study has elaborated on some of the effects of liberal theology on Comparative Religious research. Liberal theology was not an exclusivist and held a broader view of religion, took the non-rational and intuitional experiences more seriously, made revisions in metaphysical Christian doctrines and, while lessening the importance of some of them, attached more significance to some others. It underlined the importance of morality, and historical research on early Christianity and the Bible. Moreover, it attempted to reconcile science and religion. These characteristics of Liberal Theology were instrumental in resolving the difficulties in the path of Comparative Religious research. By introducing these subjects, Liberal theology paved the ground for the establishment of Comparative Religious research. In addition, the liberal tendencies of some scholars sparked in Comparative Religious research discussions about such concepts as pacifism, the conciliation of religions, and the emergence of an attitude of non-rational experience based on Rudolph Otto’s idea of the numinous.

In epistemology, the "idealism" school has had a profound effect on the formation of cognition. Since the construction of epistemology in Islamic philosophy relies on certainty, the obvious knowledge of the real world and the denial of any skepticism and relativism, this philosophical trend and its areas of application, among the Muslim philosophers, have been scantily explored. In this regard, Allameh-Tabatabai has treated this school and attempts to explain the flow of Islamic philosophy and calls it "realism" in contrast to the European movement and the epistemology of the philosophers of the West. He called epistemology as "realism" and proposed it against the common "idealism" movement in the West, and asserts that the point of separation of "realism" from "idealism" is the acknowledgment of the existence of the outside world. He believes that if one admits the existence of the outside world, he is a "philosopher" or a "realist," and whoever does not recognize the outside world in an absolute sense is an "idealist" and "sophist". This article, through a descriptive and conceptual analysis, discusses Allameh Tabatabai’s approach and his perception of idealism in the sense that is prevalent among the philosophers of the West. The results show that the meaning of idealism in Islamic philosophy, especially to Allameh Tabatabai , is different from the meanings and definitions proposed by Western philosophers. This different perception led to ambiguities that have ultimately resulted in inconsistencies between their analysis with some of the principles and meanings of idealism.