فصلنامه اندیشه نوین دینی
پیاپی 28 (بهار 1391)

One of the most fundamental elements for perceiving the meanings of Quranic statements lies in its special linguistics. Today there can be found lots of questions on the language of Quran of which some examples are: is Quranic Language meaningful or not? Is it cognitive or instrumental? Is it literal, symbolic or …? Is its structure based on speech or writing? How is the relationship of inner parts and meanings of Quranic verses to one another? Every answer to the questions, in addition to a special viewpoint carried by, would prepare a fundamental theory for understanding Quran and its principles. This paper, viewing Quranic language to be cognitive, believes that the holy Quran is of a tetralateral complete language. The output of such a completeness has been studied in the paper.

The verse of purification has been regarded by Shiites as a Quranic proof for the household of the Prophet to be pure. It, therefore, has been studied in different aspects of which the one little attended to is the problem of the paper. The paper, having shown the essential part of continuity in forming a valid contextual body, has proved independent revelation of the verse of purification in different ways. As is proved in the paper, the will intended in the verse is creative and the members of the household of the prophet have been determined.

One of the most problems in Kalam, philosophy and theoretical mysticism lies in God`s purity of quiddity. The problem has been established upon precise reasonable principles. This reasonable rule is of considerable affect in understanding some Quranic verses. Theologians, however, have opposed the rule. It can be said that the main cause for their opposition lies in their misunderstanding of the meaning of existence. The method of study in the paper is logico-analytical, the one appropriate for philosophical problems. Reflecting on the bases and logical structure of the claims and their ends is the main instrument for the study.

When regarding the extension and depth of modern studies on religion and the necessities for an inter-religious discourse, one would view precise scientific methods to be an inevitable instrument for comparative stuies of religions. Performed by using a combining method in quantitative and qualitatve content-analizing and as a part of an extensive research report, this paper has explained the meaning of negative sanctions or punishments and, then, the problem of the study, namely perceiving the differences and resemblances in the field on the texts of Old Testament, New Testament and Quran have been justified.

Muslim philosophers and the ologians have presented various definitions of power. As is well understood, the formers have defined power as the ability for arbitrarily doing or not doing an action and the later as the correctness of doing and not doing. It seems that power is to be considered as such an existential fact with gradual orders that its high grades include all the perfections of the low ones. Such being the case, the former`s definition includes all orders of existence while that of the latter only includes the orders lower than Divine.

Islam Prophet`s state of being the Seal and eternity of Islam have been focused on by many contemporary scholars. The reason why lies in the fact that the appearance of such phenomena as modernity and renascence has caused it to be challenged. Abdolkarim Soroosh is among those theorizing the problem in their works. Considering the works in the field, one can find three commentaries. This paper has studied and reconsidered them critically.

Divine knowledge has been counted as one of the most important problems for religious scholars in both Christianity and Islam. Moulavi and Kierkegaard are among those in eastern and western traditions who paid severe attention to the problem with some differences and resemblances. In this paper, knowledge on God for the two scholars has been studied. In spite of their unity of idea when negating the authority of individual intellect, they have fundamental differences in conceptual elements, possibility of knowing God and the way for negating the authority of individual intellect.

Divine detailed prior knowledge to creature before creation has been regarded as an important problem in religious, theological, philosophical and mystical texts. In this paper, different views on the definition of knowledge and Divine prior knowledge have been introduced and, then, Sadra`s view in which a kind of multiplicity and complexity have been accepted, has been critically studied. Sadra has taken the idea from Ibn Arabi and believes that this multiplicity and complexity differ from those in possible world and do not contradict Divine Essence simplicity.

As is understood in holy Quran, all human beings have been originated from a single man called Adam. Adam has been created from soil with a breath of God. Yet hat is viewed in biology essentially contradicts the Quranic teaching. Biologists, therefore, believe that human being has come into existence from lower animals. Some have turned external meanings of Quranic verses to solve the contradiction. In the paper it has been showed that Quranic verses in the field are of such a full designation that never can be neglected or turned. Furthermore, the biologist theory cannot be an unavoidable and dogmatic one.

Religious belief has been known as the most important problem in religious studies. Therefore, various lines of thought have presented different ideas in the field. The author of Mawahib u-Rhman, seyyed Abdola`la Sabzevari, relying on the sayings of the Prophet and pure Imams, has defined belief as acceptance by hearth, expressing orally and acting by the parts of body. He, thus, knows action as a part of the essence of belief. However, his view differs with that of Moatazelite and Khavarej knowing action as a part of belief. The reason why is that he knows belief to be of gradation. By the meaning is meant social and legal aspects only and, therefore, one cannot call it belief in true meaning. On his view, true belief is found only in the level of lawful duties.