نشریه کلام اسلامی
پیاپی 85 (بهار 1392)

The query of relation between Shariah and expediency is essentially a theological problem, although the works of jurisprudence and principles of jurisprudence have preceded theology in posing it. The known view of the theologians and the scholars of the Principles of jurisprudence who belong to the theodicean school of thought is that the religious laws have been situated according to the benefits and depravities although some of these scholars have posed other viwes in this regard too.While in their theological discussions Asharites rejected that the Divine Actions and Laws to be caused by the benefits and depravities, they accepted it in their discussions of jurisprudence and the principles of jurisprudence to make it as a basis for the authenticity of qiās (reasoning by analogy) and maṣāliḥi mursalih (human welfare). The principle according to which the revealed rules follow the real benefits and depravities is based on three rational (theological-philosophical) principles of essential and rational goodness and badness, purposefulness of Divine Acts and impossibility of preponderance without there being a preponderant. While these three principles are rationally established and undisputable, so this principle will be also demonstrated and undisputable and the arguments posed by the deniers will be fallacious. In addition to the rational reasons, Quranic verses and traditions clearly signify that the revealed rules follow the real benefits and depravities. There is no deference in this case between the laws that define the duties, the laws that define the subject of the duties, the laws that define the real duty, or the laws that define the duty when the real duty is unknown.

The tradition of Silsilat al-Zahab has been quoted from Imam al-Reza who uttered this tradition during his historic entrance into Neyshaboor in 200 A.H. This tradition signifies the intimate relationship between the two fundamental doctrines of monotheism and Imamate. Shiite and Sunnite resources of traditions have quoted this tradition by different chains of transmitters. With a descriptive-analytic approach, the present article has aimed to examine both Shiite and Sunnite view on this tradition, explain its monotheism-centric function and the intimate relation of monotheism and Imamate.

The authority of a single tradition in proving the divine laws is among the most important discussions of the science of the principles of jurisprudence. Scholars of the principles of jurisprudence have proceeded with this topic and have examined and criticized it and finally a huge majority of them have accepted the authority of this kind of tradition while a few number of them who apparently did not accept its authority, have acted and even given verdict according to it unintentionally. The present article aims to study the credibility of single tradition in the religious believes. The central question of the present research is that whether theological statements can be proved with a tradition transmitted by a reliable narrator. Since the subject of the discussion is interdisciplinary, so besides dealing with the views of the scholars of the principles of jurisprudence, the views of theologians and even the interpreters of Quran have also been studied and criticized. Based on this assay, the arguments of those who support the authority of single tradition are nicely firm but the arguments of the opponents are stricken by several problems.

AbuJafar, Muhammad bin Ali bin al-Numan –Mumin al-Tāq- is one of remarkable students of Imam Sadiq. He was contemporary with theologians like Hushām bin Hakam and Hushām bin Salim and was active in the field of theology. He resided the city of Kufah, which in its interactive environment and especially beside the competitor currents like Iraqian school of hadith (ahli ḥadith), and Mutazilites or Zaidis and Kharijites, left attractive debates as memorial. He took advantage of both methods of rational reasoning and also argumentations driven from the traditions in his debates. Apparent affinity with the opponent, coming up as a seeker of truth, posing questions and asking the opponent, asking instead of answering, making opponent to confess, behavior instead of speech, analogy, allegory and historical testimonies, solving the falsities by clarifying the terminology are from the methods that Mumin al-Tāq used in his theologian argumentations.

Special believes of different Shiite groups caused the appearance of several sects. Nowbakhti's book of "Firaq al-Shia" as the oldest existed books in knowing sects includes widespread data in this field. The special style and the antiquity of this book doubled the necessity of a revising and a critic review of it and has justified a historical study and critique of it. Based on the review of some of the principles prevailing the mentioned book and through analyzing and criticizing them it can be claimed that historic and literal Nowbakhti's view in defining sect, diversity in applying the word of "Shia", untrue timing (scadualing) of the sects and the author's changing his method of categorizing the sects based on the definition of "Imam", creating ambiguity in reporting the process of the doctrine of Mahdaviyyat, deficiency of the conception of "Tavaqqof" and defectively defining "zendiqs", are from the issues that paved the way for forming a current against the Shia and have blocked the way for the new researches.

The quality of relationship between man's soul and body and the cooperation of these two components together have been among the most crucial questions of humankind. Regarding this important issue and discussions which have been posed under the title of "close to death experiences" in the end of the 20th century and according to the opening of new horizons for differently answering to the questions of this realm, the present research using the theory of systems and the discussions about the close to death experiences, has proceeded to the study of the quality of relationshipbetween soul and body. Regarding the definition of system and its characteristics, human being can be regarded as a system that is composed of different physical (body) and metaphysical (spirit) parts. On one hand every kind of change either in the spirit or body effect the whole system (human being) and on the other a system because of the relation of its components, owns features that if these relations is detached and weaken, these features will pale and the essential features of each component will appear. The close to death actual experiences are also counted as a testimony and an actual sample for the study of the essential duality of soul and body for these experiences are a kind of the weakness of relation between soul and body.

The name of Gadamer correlates with Philosophic Hermeneutics and specially his book "truth and method".In this book he has proceeded with the analysis and critique of Methodical Hermeneutics. The goal of Methodical Hermeneutics is to offer principles, rules and methodology of an authentic interpretation of texts, while Gadamer bases his hermeneutic system on denial of method, phenomenology of existential understanding and practical understanding and relaying on his philosophical bases and hermeneutic principles he presents the model of dialectical understanding. The present article describes Gadamer's philosophical hermeneutic system and analyzes it so in addition to explanation of the philosophical background of Gadamer and the quality of mixture of philosophy and hermeneutic and the birth of existential understanding based on phenomenology and dialectic understanding in Gadamer's intellectual system, it will be able to provide an opportunity for the critical examination of this hermeneutic system. It will turn clear that the model presented by Gadamer is paradoxical, lacks an authentic methodology of theorization, and ruins the systematization of claimed philosophical system and support the multiplicity of interpretations, relativism, and pluralism.