نشریه حکمت اسرا
سال دوم شماره 4 (پیاپی 6، زمستان 1389)

A proper study of the development of science and its interactions within the human sphere after the Renaissance clearly shows that alongside certain positive characteristics and opportunities, science has had many negative effects and detrimental consequences. These effects, which have sometimes reached the level of a crisis for all humanity, have led thinkers to search for solutions. One of the solutions offered has been to alter the perspective and meaning given to “science.” Muslim thinkers, on their part, have introduced the idea of a “religious science” in the last few decades. The article begins by enumerating some of the negative and detrimental effects of science and, after an analysis of the same, it concludes by offering a religious framework that can procure the change in perspective on “science.”

The topic of “religious science” is controversial and has its supporters and detractors. One of the supporters of “religious science” is ÀyatullÁh JawÁdÐ ÀmulÐ. In this debate the ÀyatullÁh takes “science” in its most general meaning to include all sciences and fields of knowledge, and sees religion as hierarchically subsuming all such sciences. He accepts the possibility of the existence of a religious science and uses both interpretive and philosophical methods to prove the same. With respect to the realization of religious science, he takes an absolutist approach and holds that religion covers and comprehends all sciences—there being no such thing as a “non-religious” science. Such a perspective is the result of a three stage process: 1) Determination of the central position of the intellect in the matrix of all religious understanding; 2) Validation of the universal reason and understanding of rational beings by religious Law; 3) Exposition of the universality of the sciences by recourse to textual evidence. When these three steps or stages are obtained, they progressively subsume all sciences and fields of knowledge.

Some of the theoretical and practical slips in the realm of mysticism stem from an incorrect exposition of mystical knowledge and the criteria used to evaluate it. The article aims to prevent such errors by expounding mystical knowledge—its distinction from all other fields of knowledge and the way it should be used to reach reality, as well as the criteria of its validity.

Knowledge and cognition—in particular beliefs and convictions—are fundamental in the determining of man’s identity and the formation of both the individual self and society. As such, they have been given due attention from ancient times and have been the subject of much research and study from varying perspectives. Without doubt, beliefs, just like other phenomena, not only have influence but are also influenced by both Epistemological and non- Epistemological factors. The noble QurÞÁn has spoken of this mutual influencing and has considered all of its dimensions. By expounding the processes and means by which this interaction takes place, it goes on to prescribe the normative precepts that facilitate human perfection and felicity. After some introductory points, the article at hand enumerates those factors that, from the perspective of the QurÞÁn, have an influence on belief, focussing in particular on “arrogance” or “self-aggrandizement.” The paramount importance of such discussions lies in the fact that one of the ways of Islamizing the sciences calls for the systematic and comprehensive theorization of normative beliefs according to the QurÞÁn and the traditions of the Prophet and his Progeny (upon them be peace).

The dichotomy between the natural and human sciences is one of the most established dichotomies in Western thought. This dichotomy, as exemplified in Western philosophy, has been very consequential. The author, referring to this dichotomy and its consequences, elucidates it inherent incongruity with religious thought. In expounding on the topic he uses MullÁ ÑadrÁ’s philosophical discussions on the human soul to put forth his hierarchical model of religious knowledge. Three important consequences and characteristics of this model are that it is: non-reductionist, non-interpretive, and anti-naturalistic; all of which are discussed and analysed in the text of the article. It is noted that: there are different types of reductionism which, it is argued, are acceptable only to the extent that they do not reduce the most fundamental dimension of man to just his material aspect; explanation and interpretation form a hierarchical continuum; and naturalism employs a single methodology in both the experimental and the human sciences or even stresses that the subject matter of these sciences is one and the same. Anti-naturalist stances, on the other hand, hold that both the methodology and the subject matter of these two fields differ. The debate between naturalism and anti-naturalism has a long history. According to the hierarchical model, the natural and the human sciences are fundamentally different.

The widespread importance given to finding a “Proof from Religious Experience” for the existence of God is a new phenomenon pertaining to the “Christian” philosophy of religion of the second half of the twentieth century; and as such, this endeavour has been influenced by the intellectual and cultural ethos of Western civilisation. The article covers the historical context which led to such a proof and gives the Islamic response, in particular the opinions of ÝAllÁmah JawÁdÐ ÀmulÐ. The reliance of Muslim scholars on metaphysical proofs for the existence of God, in particular the Proof from Necessity and Possibility, has curtailed the development of all other possible methods and proofs, including the Proof rom Religious Experience. Nonetheless, it is possible to find the necessary bases and rationales within the corpus of the ÀyatullÁh’s writings that would allow for an informed response to the proof at hand as well as other proofs that are comparable to the different variants of the Proof from Religious Experience.

The Prophet (Ò), as perfect man, is the ultimate manifestation of the divine names and attributes on the tripartite existential planes—the supernal, the angelic, and the terrestrial—corresponding to the three stations of sanctity (walÁyah), prophethood (nubuwwah), and messengership (risÁlah). His terrestrial role as the viceroy and vicegerent of God is nothing but the realization and determination of the higher states in the lowest one. The article employs intellectual and traditional methods to analyse the subject at hand.