نشریه کلام اسلامی
پیاپی 87 (پاییز 1392)

The gross phenomenon of excommunication (takfir) which with the exception of some specific instances, totally contrasts with the Islamic rules, was committed in the era of the holy prophet (s) by Usamah b. Zayd and Valid b. Ughbah but the both were condemned by the prophet. After them, Kharijites provoked the phenomenon. According to the perspective of the Qur’an and the Sunnah, sublime human values reject that the blood of a man be shed in vain soon. The noble Prophet of Islam always accepted the faith and Islam of any one merely with the acceptance of his or her two testimonies and never spoke about theological problems that are a pretext in the hands of takfiries.

There in no doubt that the occurrence of miracles is attributed to the special will and providence of God and about whether this attribution is direct or with the mediation of the souls and the wills of the prophets, three views have been posed. Based on their specific view about the unity of Divine Acts, Ash’arites believe that miracles like other usual occurrences are from direct Divine Acts. Based on principles like impossibility of direct effusion of variables from God, the principle of cognation between cause and effect and the rule of the One (the One dose not emanate but the one), philosophers believe that the direct effusion of the miracles from God is impossible but the mediation of the souls and the wills of the prophets is necessary. Finally, while the theodicean theologians regard the both kinds as possible, but to specify whether the Divine action in a miracle is direct or indirect they refer to the Qur’anic verses and Islamic narrations that reported the miracles. Proving the inaccuracy of the views of Ash’arites and philosophers, the present article established the accuracy of the view of the theodicean theologians.

As the ideologue of Salafi thought and Wahhabism, Ibn Taymiyyah has particular thoughts. There are many books and articles aiming to study and criticize his views. The present article aims firstly to gather Ibn Taymiyyah’s views on Imam Ali’s caliphate and secondly to criticize and scrutinize them and specifically tries to answer these two questions of whether he accepts Imam Ali’s caliphate or not? In addition, whether he treats Imam Ali as the other caliphates or he treats the Imam with blaming, weakening his authority and casting doubt on his personality? So based on the method of archival research the article studied Ibn Teymiyyah’s works and finally through analyzing the statements tries to gain his opinion in this matter. The result is that Ibn Tayymiyyah’s statements about Imam Ali’s caliphate are not steady and coherent: in some of his words, Ibn Taymiyah considered the Imam as the last caliph of the rightly guided caliphs but elsewhere he cast doubts about the legitimacy of the Imam’s caliphate and even subjected it to the blame and calumniation.

From among the narrations quoted in the chapter of resorting (tawassul) in theological books is a narration quoted from A’ishah, the holy Prophets wife. According to the narration, in a famine, people opened a hole in the roof of the tomb of the prophet (s) so it rained by the grace of God. The Wahhabis, who regard resorting as unlawful and innovation in religion, always have been posed doubts about the chain of transmitters and the signification of the mentioned narration so those who appose them in opinion could not use the narration at all. Nonetheless regarding the chain of transmitters the narration is well authorized and regarding the content, it signifies the occurrence of resort (tawassul) to the Prophet after his demise and none of the doubts raised by the Wahhabis is acceptable.

The narration “there was God and there was nothing with him” is one of the known traditions which its content has been expressed in many other narrations. The Islamic thinkers have posed different views about its significance. Based on the each principle of the unity of existence or essential contingency or temporal contingency, different Islamic thinkers have explained and interpreted the narration differently. The present article aims to study the chain of transmitters and the text of the narration and then to pose and study the views of the Islamic thinkers in this matter.

Following his intellectualist teacher - Sheykh Mufid- and as a scholar who was educated in the school of Baghdad, Sayyid Murtada regarded a special status for intellect in theological discussion and took benefit from rational reasons extensively in his argumentations. Nevertheless, he did not neglect the textual proofs and used this cognitive method in its due place. This approach and method caused sayyid’s several theological works to be appeared which beside their rational smell and color possessed the textual heritage too; the works that rightly could play an effective role in fixing Shi’a School and removing the objections and doubts of the opponents. Although Sayyid Murtada fallows the way established by Shaykh Mufid in confronting extreme traditionalism and intellectualism, but there some differences in opinion between these two thinkers in some issues.