فصلنامه فلسفه دین
سال هشتم شماره 10 (پیاپی 14، تابستان 1390)

Mulla-Sadra in his different philosophical and theological works has discussed the issue of resurrection (Ma-add), both in spiritual and bodily way. In this works he attempted to demonstrate the issue of bodily resurrection according to the principles that formerly have been proved in his philosophical system. The subject is that, the quantity of these principles differs from one work to another. In some works there are six principle and in others twelve; this 12 or 16 principles, if is viewed altogether with omission of the two, encompasses of theological-anthropological and ontological principles. In explanation of the issue of bodily resurrection, Sadra uses a language that at the same time bases on existence and nature (quiddity). Although we all know that most of his principles conclude from an existential language.

One of the most important and disputable problems in philosophy of religion is “the problem of evil”. At the course of the history, theologians have put forward different solutions to this problem. One of them which have been propounded by some western philosophers and almost all Islamic philosophers, is called the doctrine of “inexistency of evils” So the main purpose of this article is as follow: 1. Criticizing of this doctrine and showing that: firstly, it cannot effectively solve the problem of evils; Secondly, some of those evils that Islamic philosophers called them evils per se, are concrete beings, not mere privations; such as darkness, death and pain. 2. Here I want to say that: even this inexistent (privation) are not evils per se, but evils by accident and there is only one evil per se that is concrete being, not mere.

Rational explanation of the doctrine of IMAMAT (spiritual leadership of the Shi`ites) is one of the most important and efficient instruments that can prepare the ground for extension and propagation of this view in all over the world. So, in this article I want to study one of the first rational explanation of this view in Islamic world which proposed by AL- FARABI. In the world of Islam, FARABI is one of the first philosophers who toke into consideration the necessity of existence of first ruler and his successor (IMAM) in his Utopia (Madina al-fazila), and proposed a rational argument for it. His view is here to some extent in accordance with Shiites attitude. But for understanding whether his ideas is in complete agreement with Shiites works or not, I study this view point in two stages: First of all, I will explain his view point and...

Most of the theologians and Muslim philosophers, at least In accordance with tradition and narrative, believe in bodily resurrection as a necessary faith; but they have different conceptualizations of the “body of resurrection” such as: elemental body, heavenly body, intermediary body and imaginary body. The presentation of these conceptualizations will help us to find guidelines for more accurate judgments of bodily resurrection; especially in ascribing the issue of rational repudiation of bodily resurrection to Ibn-Sina, and understanding theologians view about homogenization of body of resurrection with worldly body.

The issue of God’s foreknowledge and its relation with Human being’s freewill is one of the main subjects that from the beginning have been controversial among Christian and Judaic theologians and philosophers. So in Islamic and western world have proponed many solutions for solving this problem. In this article our purpose is taking into consideration some of these solutions that each of which has strong and weak points. At the end, we will defend of the solution that, in comparison with others, is more reliable and sufficient.

Among Muslim thinkers, MullaSadra and Ahsai are two important figures who have specific approach to the cognitive extents of the wisdom in understanding of the Qur’an as a revealed text. One of the consecrate conditions of MullaSadra view about Ta’vil; is that from his point of view independent comprehension of Qur’anic Verses is permissible; but Ahsai believes that Ta’vil should not be contradictory with common apprehension of Qur’anic Verses as well as Traditions. Moreover, Sadra believe that internal authority can help to reason’s intergrowth and prevent it from imitation and solidity. So, he never considers religion without rational principles. But Ahsai in no way believe in independency of the wisdom, and maintain that understanding of the religion by intellectual reasons, independently, is not allowed. So, MullaSadra takes reason as a necessary means for understanding of Qur’an and Traditions. Whiles Ahsai, is more conservative in this respect and oppose with any...

Different concepts and approaches toward God in western theology and philosophy, from Greek period to modern age, has regarded from negative theology view point. But this concepts and approaches at the same time can be regarded from new perspective in modern age. In other word, it can be shown that in the modern age we can see a negative theology, i.e. refutation of resemblance between God and Man, and transcendence and distance of God from world and Man. According to this view, God doesnt intervene in history and nature. This new negative theology has some results such as mistrust in believe on revelation and miracle, and heavenly understanding of man.