نشریه کلام اسلامی
پیاپی 130 (تابستان 1403)

The issue of whether the determination of good and evil in actions is based on reason or religious law is a significant and widely used topic in Islamic sciences, addressed in three disciplines: principles of jurisprudence, theology, and ethics. Ayatollah Hakim’s approach to examining this rule has three important characteristics. First, innovation in defining the point of contention and using it to present a novel argument for the intellectual determination of good and evil. In this argument, the starting point is the action of God, and by analyzing how it occurs, the intellectual determination of good and evil is proven. Second, utilizing the implications of conscience and ingrained understanding in proving the chosen view (intellectual determination of good and evil) and critiquing competing views (critiquing the notion that the principles of the goodness of justice and the evil of oppression are well-known, critiquing the tripartite division of actions in terms of being characterized by good and evil, and critiquing the Ash’ari view). After accepting reason as a source of knowledge, Ayatollah Hakim considers his intent of reason to be referring to the intuitions that God has placed within human beings, and deems the use of complex intellectual arguments unnecessary. The third characteristic is the use of textual evidence in critiquing the Ash’ari argument for God’s absolute sovereignty and ownership.

The main subject of the present research is to evaluate the methodological approach and application of the discussions of the science of Usul al-Fiqh, especially the discourse of words such as the derivative (mushtaq) and the present tense verb, in the article “The Significance of the Verse La Yanal in Proving the Infallibility of Prophets,” which is organized based on an analytical-critical method with the aim of demonstrating the extent of the strength of the result mentioned in the mentioned article. The most important achievements of the current research are showing the author’s lack of attention to all aspects that affect the inference from the verse La Yanal (Al-Baqarah: 124) - such as: adding the meaning of the derivative to the analysis of the meaning of the present tense verb, and explaining the text or the apparent meaning of the derivative on the exclusivity of the true meaning in the essence characterized by the origin - in a way that if such attention were paid, the verse’s indication of the absolute infallibility of the prophets would be acknowledged. The author’s non-adherence to his claim to avoid imposing a premise in the analysis of the verse, as well as the inconsistency of some of the content with the author’s chosen foundations, and the failure to analyze the relationship between the two concepts of injustice and justice, are among the influential factors in the incorrect inference from the verse La Yanal in the mentioned article.

The committer of a major sin, or Fasiq, is someone who has committed a major sin and died without repentance. There has been disagreement regarding the faith and afterlife punishment of the Fasiq. The Wa’idiyyah of the Kharijites consider Fisq to be disbelief (Kufr), while the Wa’idiyyah of the Mu’tazilites consider it to be a status between faith and disbelief. From the perspective of both, the afterlife punishment of the Fasiq is obligatory and permanent. In the Tafdhiliyyah view, the Fasiq is a sinful believer, and his afterlife punishment is possible and only occurs if the Fasiq dies without repentance and is not subject to intercession and afterlife forgiveness. In the absence of these three factors or their lack of effect, the punishment of the Fasiq occurs in the hereafter, but this punishment will be temporary, meaning intermittent and finite. This article criticizes the idea of the Wa’idiyyah and proves the view of the Tafdhiliyyah through a descriptive-analytical method.

In theological writings and well-known and common treatises on sects and religions, the title “Khorramiyya” has been repeated many times, and it is considered one of the deviant sects among Muslims. Subsequently, many contradictory and opposing claims have been made about it. How the title Khorramiyya was formed in the second and third centuries AH and their religious beliefs remain among the ambiguous and sometimes mysterious issues in sect studies. Therefore, this article attempts to use the library method and examine historical books and theological and sect-writing texts, in addition to removing the ambiguity of the ideological currents titled “Khorramiyya,” to provide a clear and transparent picture of the beliefs of the followers of these currents. The result was that throughout history, the title “Khorramiyya” was applied to three separate ideological-military currents that emerged in the regions of Khorasan and Transoxiana, Ray and Jabal, as well as Azerbaijan, and the common axis of this naming and application of this title was only their commonality in opposing and fighting the Abbasid Caliphate.