نشریه کلام اسلامی
پیاپی 127 (پاییز 1402)

Studying the relation between religion and morality is an essential problem in the new theology, philosophy of religion and ethics. Danniel C. Dennett, the contemporary physicalist philosopher of mind and a horseman of new atheism is one of the researchers of the subject. Some parts of his studies include the way of achieving ethical knowledge, specialy from the view point of its relation to religion. Not only he rejects relying on religion in this field, but also introduces it as far away from human understanding. Therefor he knows ethical naturalism and secularization of morality something unavoidable. The present issue, however, is to study the mentioned view and evaluate it by a rational analytical glance. The conclusion is that Dennett has not pressented an exact report of religious ethical knowledge, nor has given a reliable evaluation of it. He can not also replace a better idea and his evolutionary foundation can bring about no considerable outco.

For a long time, Muslim theologians have considered the "proof of the creation of the world" as one of the important ways of proving the Creator and have relied on narrative and rational arguments to prove the creation of the world. Among the narrational evidences, hadiths with the theme "There was God and nothing was with Him" are of special importance. From the point of view of theologians, these hadiths indicate the temporal occurrence of the world, but from the point of view of philosophers, they only indicate the intrinsic occurrence. Mystics also consider the unity of existence as the main purpose of these narrations. Some have also dismissed these hadiths under the title of single news. The current research has examined these views by using the descriptive-analytical method and a critical approach. The results of the research indicate that, first of all, due to the multiplicity of these hadiths, it is possible to ensure the issuance of this content. Secondly, considering things such as: internal proofs of hadiths and external proofs and the time lag of other views, it is clear that the correct view, among the three views, is the view of the theologians.

The theologians of the Imamiyyah have relied on the "rule of grace" to prove some important theological issues. The question of the current research is, what developments has the rule of grace undergone in Imamiyyah theology, in three axes: definition, divisions and rulings The research results are revealed in the form of four distinct periods. In the first period (before Sheikh Mofid), except for Abu Ishaq Ibrahim bin Nubakht, none of the theologians said anything about these three axes. In the second period (from Sheikh Mufid to Khwaja Nasir Tusi), the principle of favor with all the elements and topics that can be assumed for it (including the aforementioned three axes) appeared in the works of theologians - with differences in coverage, summaries and details. is The obvious point in the written works of the theologians of this period is the detailed expression, as well as the difference in the interpretations of the theologians in the explanation and exposition of the contents. The main difference of the third period (from Khwaja Nasir Tusi to the beginning of the 11th century) with the previous period is in the concise expression and unity of interpretations. In the fourth period (from the 11th century to the contemporary period), the contents are said in a concise and comprehensive manner, and the chapters and phrases are close to what "Allameh Hali" said; However, about the definition of grace, new points can be seen in some works.

The Barilavi school is attributed to Ahmad Reza Khan Barilavi (1921-1856). This school is one of the internal currents of the Hanafi-Matridi religion in the subcontinent (India, Pakistan, Bangladesh) and today it has the largest Muslim population in this region. In addition to its mystical nature, the most important difference between this school and Wahhabism is its view on the authorities of the Prophet (pbuh) and issues such as belief in invocation, hearing the dead, pilgrimage, formative guardianship, intercession and especially celebrating the birth of the Prophet (pbuh). Is. While the Wahhabis have a very minimal view of these issues, the Brilavis have a very expansive approach to these teachings and have even stolen the lead from other Muslims. This has also fueled the creation of demagoguery and superstition among Brillovians. But in general, such characteristics have made the Barilavi school the most important enemy of Wahhabism, and on the other hand, Wahhabism has become the most important enemy of Barilavi. Also, these teachings have caused strong enmity between Brilloy and the Deoband school. In this article, the specific beliefs of the Barilavi school regarding the doubts of Wahhabism have been examined.

By dividing affairs into two categories, "what is in the power of the slave" and "what is only in the power of God", asking someone other than God to perform the actions of the second category is considered shirk. This division has become the main criterion of Wahhabis for considering matters such as Istighah to be shirk. Descriptive-analytical research about this division shows that Islamic scholars have never used this division to separate between polytheistic and non-polytheistic supplications. This division is not used in this sense in the traditions of Ahl al-Bayt (PBUH). Rather, traces of this division can be seen in two lexical and conceptual areas. The lexical application of this term has been used to teach monotheism and explain Shari'i standards, and the conceptual application has been the focus of narrations to express the limitlessness of the creator and the limitation of the creature. Analyzing the meaning of this division also informs about the perceptual challenge in promoting this division, which may lead to shirk in the absolute lordship of God.

Muhammad Baqer Hosseini of Ester Abadi, known as Mirdamad, is one of the great scholars of Imamiya in the 11th century of Hijri and a master of intellectual and narrative sciences. The dominant aspect of his verbal method is philosophical rationalism, that is, he pays special attention to the role of reason in religious issues with a philosophical approach. His verbal arguments include pure reasoning, pure narration, and synthesis; But the share of rational arguments is more. However, in theological issues - especially those that are dominated by narrative - he has also used narrative evidence.