فصلنامه آینه معرفت
پیاپی 68 (پاییز 1400)

When a natural disaster, such as corona, occurs, the question is often asked why God did not intervene to prevent it from happening. In this paper, we address this issue. In specific, the main issue we deal with in the present paper is whether a particular divine act can be carried out in the world. In other words, we raise the question of whether or not the presuppositions of the special divine act in the world and the presupposition of the laws of nature, some of which are causal, are contradictory. In fact, we consider the rationality of the possibility of special divine acts in the world, and we try to consider their implications for the laws of nature, especially the causal laws. In this regard, we make some remarks about causality. It is concluded that the special non-interventionist divine act can be exercised directly in the world, but it can occur in very, very rare cases.

One of the outstanding features of transcendent wisdom is its attention to beauty in fine arts. From the ontological point of view, Mulla Sadra has looked at art and artistic aesthetics and the relationship between love and art and the abilities hidden in art and has dealt with details that are remarkable and contemplative in aesthetics. According to Mulla Sadra's ontological and anthropological assumptions, man has worlds and art, as a subtle human industry, grows and matures in these worlds. In this article, an attempt has been made to explain art and creation as a work of art from the perspective of Mulla Sadra. According to the results of the present study, in Sadra's wisdom, transcendent art makes a person look like a transcendent being. Mulla Sadra looks at art in a general and all-encompassing way and gives it a spiritual and sacred character. Because it connects fine arts and crafts with virtuous love and in fact gives art a valuable, spiritual and sacred place.Mulla Sadra goes a step further in his conception of art and presents his point of view in the form of a single theory which can be called "transcendent imitation"..

In the field of ethics, the theories of natural law and the inherent good and evil are sometimes considered the same. The reason is that the theory of natural law has not been clearly defined and no attempt has been made to identify he differences between the two theories. According to the findings of the present study, there are six key differences between the two: (1) In the theory of natural law, contrary to the theory of intrinsic good and evil, recognition of values is a kind of reminder; (2) in the theory of natural law, ethics is based on human capacity, intrinsic needs and orientations; (3) In the theory of natural law, the origin of the propositions of practical reason goes back to fundamental goodness which is rooted in the natural needs and desires; (4) These two theories are formulated in two completely different intellectual traditions, one in the Aristotelian ethics and the other in the Islamic ideological theology; (5) The theory of natural law has more successful applications; (6) The interpretation of the theory of natural law is different from that of the theory of intrinsic good and evil. Relying on intrinsic goodness, the theory of intrinsic good and evil, seeks moral truths among facts outside human existence, such as the essence of action based on rational arguments, while the theory of natural law lays the foundation of moral laws in natural capacities of human existence. Adopting an analytical-descriptive method, the present paper tries to explain the differences between these two theories.

Those Iranian authors who have commented on the verification or falsification of the theory of evolution have approached it in very general way. Two types of explications can make future comments more accurate: first, noticing the fact that this theory consists of several sub-theories:  It seems that ‘evolution-as-such’, ‘natural selection’, ‘common ancestor’, and ‘gradualism’ are largely confused in the writings of some Iranian writers. Most Iranian thinkers (Isfahani, Allameh Tabatabai, Allameh Jafari, Motahhari, Yadollah Sahabi, Makarem Shirazi, Mesbah Yazdi, Sobhani, Meshkini, and Abdolkarim Soroush) point to the issue of natural selection and common ancestor and believe that the reason for refutation or falsification of this theory is based on these two sub-theories. When considering the verification or falsification of a theory, it is necessary to pay attention to the analyses that have been made in the philosophy of science over the last century about the refutation and proof of a scientific theory. The present paper shows that the majority of Iranian writers' comments are based on these two sub-theories, though there are some exceptions. The authors' findings in this paper are twofold: first, the theory of natural selection as a principle is mathematically provable and therefore not subject to falsification. Second, other parts of the theory of evolution are falsifiable and unprovable, but subject to modification. That is why, many parts of the theory have been refuted or modified since Darwin.

In the Shiite culture, the Imam has unique virtues, attributes, and his knowledge is beyond the knowledge of ordinery people, because his knowledge has divine origins. In his book titled "Mashareq al-Anwar al-Yaghin fi Asrar al-Amir al-Mu'minin”, Hafiz Rajab Bursi, one of the scholars of the eighth century A.H., has mentioned more than seventy narrations that testifies to the divine knowledge of the Imams (A.S.). He belivies that these narrations are proof of the divine origins of Imam’s knowledge. He has tried to explain the bases of this knowledge. Since Bursi's views are somewhat different from those of other Shiite thinkers, we dicided to present his ideas in the form of an article. Our findings testify that Bursi has inferred the sources of the knowledge of the infallible Imam and the various aspects of his knowledge and awareness. His belief is that Imam’s knowledge is not limited to shariah law and incldes different types of knowledge such as: knowledge of the great names of God, knowledge of society, knowledge of Jafr, knowledge of the events of "Makan" and "Mayakon", knowledge of disasters, and knowledge of all languages, even the language of animals, knowledge of the holy scriptures of previous prophets, knowledge to the world of purgatory and resurrection and the state of heaven and hell. Although, with aim of better explaining the issues raised in this article, we have used various sources, the focus has been on "Mashareq al-Anwar al-Yaqin fi Asrar al-Amir al-Mu'minin". The mthod adopted in the pesnet study is an impirical descriptive-analytical one.

Man and God constitute the central pillars of Ibn Sina’s ideas. From Ibn Sina’s view, man as an entity in the world of sense objects and the world of intellects and non-material objects is the outcome of creation and the knowledge of God is the essential goal of the world after and the most important part of thought. The validity of other types of knowledge are assessed against the knowledge of God. To understand the status of art in Ibn Sina’s ideas, one should determine it place against this end. What gives art a special place in Ibn Sina’s cosmology is the fact that Ibn Sina’s world is a circle whose descending arc starts with the originator and ends with the material and in its ascending arc it starts with man and moves toward the world of intellects and non-materials. The prime intellect is within the capacity of man. Being aware of his limitations and capacities, Ibn Sina approaches the assessment of intellect. The outcome of his assessment is the appearance of mysticism and art in Ibn his world. Although Ibn Sina considers mysticism capable enough for the spiritual journey, the difficulty of its expression and mysticism’s silence and its limitation to special individuals are the factors which guided him toward art.

Ibn Taymiyyah claims that “Fixed Entities” should be considered as one of the important pillars of the Unity Theory. He believes that  the stable non-existent and considering it as an object by Ibn Arabi is blasphemous and worse than Eternal Fixed (Sabetate Azali) which stated by Mutazila. This study attempts to discover Ibn aymiyyah’s ideas by descriptive-analytical method. Ibn taymiyyah can be considered as does not have enough knowledge about mysticism and its terms. since in all his works, he has criticized its principles and foundations with an academic and materialistic mind, as well as without paying attention to the common mystical language and terms. Fixed entities in Ibn Arabi's point of view, in second determination of the Almighty, have a fixed objectivity, not an existential object and is directly related to the manifestation of divine names and attributes. Accordingly, the believes that the divine names emerge through the path of the fixed entities and the external entities are the manifestations and existential effects of the fixed entities. Therefore, it should be said: neither the defects of the eternal fixed (Sabetate Azali) affect this theory nor the criticisms of Ibn Taymiyyah. Ibn Taymiyyah's critique is rooted in his ontological and epistemological foundations.