نشریه پژوهش های ادیانی
پیاپی 17 (بهار و تابستان 1400)

One of the issues that is clearly addressed in the verses of the Quran and the tradition of the Prophet (S) is how to treat the People of the Book and to interact with them. The Quran, as the original and irreplaceable source of Islamic theories, by endorsing the divine religions of Christianity and Judaism, introduces the mission of the Prophet Muhammad (S) in line with the monotheism of Moses and Jesus and considers all divine religions as one nation. Moreover, by studying and researching the life of the Messenger of God (S), it is clear that the Prophet, in addition to defining and explaining "reasonable and legal respect for non-Muslims", attached special value to their customs, rituals and places of worship and did not oblige any non-Muslim to change religion. Although the Prophet (S) did not force anyone to change his/her religion and always used the sciences and genius of non-Muslims in various matters and consulted with their scholars, he did not spare any effort to propagate Islamic principles and teachings. He based all his life activities, including political, social, economic and familial, on the call to God and the true religion of Islam. The real and basic strategy of the Prophet and his government was the practical and comprehensive respect of all human beings, both Muslims and non-Muslims, but also of all beings, and with this theory as well as his practical approach, many non-Muslims have become interested in Islam and its Prophet. This article explores the theory of honoring and the practical approach of the Prophet (S).

In general, there are two main issues in the possibility of classifying Hinduism in the category of "the People of the Book" or "the ones who have pseudo-book". First issue is whether "the People of the Book" are limited to only the four religions whose names are mentioned in the Quran. This article has come to the conclusion that this is not true, and on the contrary, there are other religions that may be part of "the People of the Book" whose names are not mentioned in the Quran, including Hinduism, and even if we do not accept this, at least Hinduism can be counted among "the ones who have pseudo-book". Hence, the second issue is: how close is Hinduism to the religions of "the People of the Book"? This study, after examining the teachings of Hinduism in the three fields of theology, revelation and prophethood, and eschatology, concludes that although the superficial shell of many myths and rituals of this religion is polytheistic and superstitious, there are deep and explicit monotheistic beliefs in its sacred texts and basic teachings. Also, contrary to popular belief, Hinduism does not deny divine revelation, but the belief in divine inspiration (Akashvani) is one of its important foundations. Of course, as for the Hereafter, Hinduism believes in reincarnation and is far from the view of other religions of "the People of the Book". However, the sacred texts of this religion explicitly refer to heaven (swargah), hell (naragah) and the Day of Judgment (mahapralyah), albeit from their own views. Therefore, we have finally come to the conclusion that this religion, based on the principles of the Imami sect, has the capacity to be included in the religions of "the People of the Book", or at least it is one of the religions of "the ones who have pseudo-book".

Marriage in many religions is a divine bond that is performed through rituals. Every religion has rules, permissions and prohibitions for marriage. One of the important issues in Zoroastrianism is incestuous marriage happening among the ancient Zoroastrians. This article analyzes this issue based on Islamic narrations. Here, the term "Maharem" refers to first-degree female relatives, i.e. daughter, sister and mother. By observing the collection of narrations and examining their chain of transmission and content, it is concluded that the incestuous marriage has occurred among Zoroastrians in the past, although its scarcity or multiplicity is not understood from the narrations. This research is not about contemporary Zoroastrians; because they do not consider this type of marriage permissible and it does not take place among them.

The Logos is the key to Christian theology and has a very long history. The Gospel of John begins with the Logos and calls Jesus the Logos. A correct and deep understanding of the Logos depends on understanding several things: the historical background of its technical and special meaning according to Heraclitus the Stoics, its history in the literature of the Old Testament, especially the wisdom and intertestamental literature, the philosophical field of Alexandria, especially Philo, and finally the New Testament and Christian theology. Haghighat Muhammadiyah (the reality of Muhammad) is also one of the most important concepts of Islamic Sufism that Ibn Arabi and his commentators have paid special attention to. The term is common to the Logos in many applications. The discussion of Haghighat Muhammadiyah is ultimately deeply related to the issue of the perfect man, through whom the grace of the Almighty reaches the creatures. Christian and Jewish theologians seem to be saying the same thing that Muslim Sufis have been trying to say while intuitively reflecting. Here the language of Islamic Sufism approaches Christian theology and provides a basis for understanding the key concepts of these two religions, resulting in a deeper understanding of the two religions of Islam and Christianity.

Endless differences and conflicts between the followers of religions and denominations seriously damage the social and religious life of religious people and question the current state of the religious community. The fundamental presuppositions of Islamic mysticism, which are based on the knowledge of the existential realm of God and man, are the key to paving the way for human peace and tranquility. Explaining the basics of the nature of mystical teachings plays a key role in the peaceful coexistence of the followers of religions and denominations, and the establishment of solidarity, unity and lasting peace among Muslims. Mystics consider self-purification to be the cause of spiritual peace and vitality in the life of society and a manifestation of external peace. Emphasizing the goal of freedom in the advent of the prophets, they seek the piety and freedom of the followers of denominations and believe in the internal unity of religions based on the unity of existence and the validity of the pluralities. The mystical attitude, while acknowledging differences and endorsing internal unity, properly plays a unifying and connecting role not only in the internal components of Islamic civilization, but also in human beings. In this article, we try to explain the effective components of mystical unificationism (unity of existence, self-cultivation, introversion and free thought) on the unity of mystical society by referring to some mystical attitudes with a descriptive-analytical approach and to show their role in shaping the attitude of solidarity and social unity in Islamic society

Today, in modern thought, the issue of tolerance with various branches such as political, social, cultural and religious tolerance has become a basic necessity accepted in the world culture and beyond that, much attention has been paid to the issue of religious and social freedoms and pluralism. Given that Western and Christian society throughout history, as many say, has not been tolerant, the question is: How did this idea find its way into Christian culture in the West? Did it have religious and social roots that were forgotten, or did the cultural elements and requirements of the time make this discourse necessary at a particular time? The fact is that despite the positive points about religious tolerance in the life and words of the early Christian leaders, this change was not spontaneous and self-originated from the text and foundations of the religion and tradition of the church, nor did it lead to a continuous tradition. But its acceptance in the late period, which occurred out of compulsion and due to the weakness of the church as well as political and economic interests and other requirements of the modern age (such as democracy, human rights, freedom of expression and thought, etc.), has been a continuation of Protestant developments and religious wars since the seventeenth century, which fundamentally distinguishes it from Islam and the Islamic world. In the Islamic world, under the influence of the practice and tradition of the Prophet and the Imams (AS), a "tradition of tolerance" was formed from the very beginning, which the rulers more or less observed over time. Of course, this does not negate the violent deviant currents in the Islamic world, especially in the present, which have led to Islamophobia in the West through misunderstanding and opportunism.

The doctrine of the Hereafter is one of the important teachings of the Bible and the Holy Quran. In both texts, there are several verses in this regard. However, the meaning and nature of the Hereafter are different in these two books. Such a difference has also ultimately led to differences in the approach of the two books in introducing the doctrine of the resurrection. This article has been written with the aim of showing the fundamental difference between the approaches of these two texts in introducing the doctrine of resurrection. The method of the article is customary content analysis through which the authors have explored the conceptual framework of the mentioned doctrine in both texts. According to this method, the Bible, using a special conceptual framework, introduces the doctrine of the Hereafter, which is as follows: death, return of Christ, resurrection, day of God, letters of action, judgment, renewal of earth and sky, afterlife, heaven and hell. The conceptual framework of both books is somewhat similar. Concepts such as "Letter of Action", "Witnesses", and "Judgment" show that the main and general approach and purpose of both books in presenting the doctrine of the Hereafter is ethical. However, the Holy Quran pursues this goal more clearly than the Bible. In contrast with regard to presenting the doctrine of the Hereafter, the Bible pursues more theological contexts than the Quran. The Gospels seek to justify the Christian faith by emphasizing the return of Jesus and the resurrection of the dead.

The study of Shariati's methodology in Islamology shows that his creativity and modernity in the different interpretation of religion is undoubtedly the result of his methodological innovations in applying the achievements of sociology and modern philosophy of history in redefining religious concepts and beliefs. Shariati's approach to Islamic studies can be placed in the context of the sociology of religion. Shariati has always considered the three components of historicism (attention to the background and historical role of phenomena), objectivism and systematic attitude as the main features of his method. Using an interpretive method with an analytical approach, this article seeks to show that Shariati's unique method in Islamic studies has paved the way for attention to new dimensions of religious texts and Islamic history, which has enabled him to have an ideological understanding of religion. In Shariati's approach to Islamology, special attention has been paid to the political and social capacities of Islam and the Shiite religion.

One of the most important issues in the field of religion is to gain a proper understanding of religious writing and speech. The misunderstanding of them will lead to division, deviation and even turning away from religion. In the Islamic tradition, Ibn Roshd with the theory of tawil (esoteric interpretation of the Quran) and in the Jewish tradition, Spinoza with his own interpretive (hermeneutic) theory, have seriously addressed the issue. Despite the differences in some principles, the mechanisms they have proposed are very similar in how to achieve a correct understanding of religious texts. Believing in two categories of overt and covert texts, returning the covert texts to the overt ones, validating the appearance of the text, paying special attention to the grammar of the source language, avoiding the interference of presuppositions and prejudices, seeking intra-textual evidence, paying attention to the occasion to get rid of conflict and using natural methods are among the common mechanisms presented by these two rationalist philosophers. This article intends to first provide a descriptive explanation of the mentioned mechanisms and then comparatively show the various aspects of the harmony of these two philosophers on this issue.

With the arrival of Muslim Arabs in Egypt, there were extensive social and cultural changes in the region. During this period, Muslim relations with Coptic Christians, who made up the majority of Egyptians, were subject to changes in the power and policies of Muslim rulers. Under such circumstances, the situation of Melkite Christians of St. Catherine's Monastery in Sinai was somewhat different from that of other Christians living in Egypt. The Melkite Christians living in this monastery always experienced a better situation than their fellow believers and all the time were considered by Muslims, while many Muslim rulers of the region gave a hard time to the other Christians. These relations were never one-sided and the monks of this monastery also had a peaceful attitude towards Muslims. This article seeks to examine the reasons for the interaction of the Melkite Christians of St. Catherine's Monastery with the Muslim rulers of the Fatimid, Ayyubid, and Mamluk periods.

The purpose of this study is to investigate the relationship between religiosity and consumption patterns among followers of the three religions of Islam, Christianity and Zoroastrianism. The statistical population of the study includes Muslims, Christians and Zoroastrians living in Isfahan and Kerman. Using snowball sampling, sixty people (180 in total) from each religion were selected as the research sample. This is an applied research with descriptive-correlation method. The data collection tool is a questionnaire that after validation and experimental implementation was performed on the research samples to ensure its reliability. SmartPLS software was used to analyze the data. According to the significance coefficients of "T", it was found that in the Muslim community, religiosity has a significant inverse relationship with the variable of cultural acceptability, but in Christian and Zoroastrian society this relationship was rejected due to low t-value and in other samples due to higher t-value of 1.96, all research hypotheses were confirmed. The general conclusion showed that there is an inverse relationship between religiosity and consumption pattern among Muslims and there is no significant relationship between religiosity and consumption pattern among Zoroastrians and Christians.

Gahan,considered as foundation  of Zoroastrianism and due to its attribution to Zoroaster, is the most important and oldest text of Avesta. On the other hand ,the idea of choosing between good and evil is the main theme of Zoroastrian religion .Based on these two central issues and by exploring the works of prominent researches ,the present article seeks to offer its solution in explaning the origin of evil from the perspective of Gahan and their classification and analysis؛the solution which relies on re-reading are re-considering the Gahan chapters .This solution has two areas:The first area relates to Gahan itself and is that we don’t concider Gahan as a theological text, but rather accept it as a text which has a moral nature,while researches have considered it as a theological text .The second area relates to reconsideration and revision of the nature of evil in Zoroasrianism.Accordingly, instead of accepting an existential nature for evil,we consider it non-existent,although in works and writings related to evil and its origion,the existential nature of evil is clearly  emphasized.