KALAM ISLAMI
Year:2013 | Volume:22 | Issue:1 (85)|Papers Count:7

The present article has attended to verify the true meanings of "qarn" and "salaf" and has answered simultaneously to some of doubts posed by Ibn Taymiyyah and his followers. "Qarn" in the Qur’anic usage is a group of people who live in a special condition concerning religion or culture or politics and have something in common. Accordingly, what the Prophet meant by "qarn", in the narration of "khair al-qurun" (the best of generations) is also the era in which Islam emerged an expanded. Taking the new meaning of "qarn" that is one hundred years, Ibn Taymiyya and his followers have taken the sayings and actions of Muslims who lived in the beginning of Islam as the criterion for making a distinction between right and wrong and have not recognized an authority for the time after it. While firstly the meaning of "qarn" as used in the Qur’an, is not conditioned to a particular time. Secondly, the Muslim who lived in the beginning of Islam had different schools and methods to all of which can not be referred.

‘Uthman ibn Hunaif is one of the Prophet’s companions from whom two narrations about "tawassul" has been quoted from the Prophet. Concerning the chain of narrators, these two narrations are authentic and concerning the signification, they signify three kinds of "tawassul": 1- The resort to the Prophet’s prayer during his lifetime and after it. 2- The resort to the prophet himself during his lifetime and after it. 3- The resort to the dignity and status of the Prophet during his lifetime and after it. Among the mentioned cases, Wahhabis have mentioned the resort to the prophet in his lifetime as allowable and count other cases as unlawful and innovation in religion. This opinion made them pose some doubts concerning the chain of transmitters and signification of these two traditions so those who appose their opinion can not use these two traditions. The writers in this article explained and responded to all doubts posed by Wahhabis about these two narrations and proved the authenticity of the chain of transmitters and the signification of the both traditions.

The title of "seddiq" and the discussions about its referent are among challenging discussions which existed from the first centuries among Shiite and Sunnite scholars and found their way in books on theology and exegesis of the Qur’an. It seems that the reason of this disagreement over specifying the referent of "seddiq" is different narrations that existed in Shiite and Sunni sources. Sunnis recognize Abu-Bakr as the referent of seddiq and based on this opinion took many results in proving accomplishments for him. The importance of this subject is to the extent that some Sunni theologians and interpreters of the Qur’an like Fakhr Razi and Qurtubi posed the authenticity of the caliphate of Abu-Bakr in this way and made reference to the Qur’an as their reason in this case. The present article has scrutinized the transmitted evidences of the both sects and manifested that the narrations clamed by Sunnis - even based on their own rijal sources - are weak and unreliable.

The problem of inconsistency between the rule of prior necessity and free will and also the problem of compulsoriness of will are among the important discussions in the problem of determinism and free will. Philosophers have presented some solutions to respond to these two questions. Regarding the solutions of the philosophers as inadequate, Some of the resent scholars of the principles of jurisprudence like "Muhaqiq Na’ini" and "Muhaqiq Khu’i" and "Shahid Sadr" thought that the philosopher’s view necessitates the rejection of free will so to solve the problem of determinism and free will suggested a new view known as the theory of "Talab=demand" or the theory of sovereignty of self. This theory suffers from many defaults which has been criticized and studied in the present article.

Because of their being abstract and permanent, mental images do not accept a change or evolution and the issue of truth and falsehood of predicates and prepositions is concerned with existence and nonexistence and therefore the concept of being truer or falser is nonsense. Although acknowledgment of obvious and inevitable propositions is immune from change, better understanding of them can be possible. On the other hand, theories are changeable, although logical certainties are firm logically. Better understanding in the sense of qualitative development of understanding is possible too which emerges in its turn with the evolution of self. Human self can develop through inner refinement and unity with one’s own knowledge and any kind of change or development take place only in the human selves.

Modernity is the trait of the new world which began from the west and extended to the east. The important question here is that what the essence of modernity is and whether it is in harmony with Islam. In Descartes’s view, the essence of modernity is objectivity and in Kant’s view it is subjectivity. What intended by objectivity and subjectivity in Cartesian and Kantian philosophy is to prioritize human knowing subject by whom the existence of other existences even God is assigned. It is possible for this essence to prove God or have doubt about it or even deny it and in all of these three conditions it is not accepted in the paradigm of modernity that the divine knowing subject deals with the whatness of human being and universe and speak about the quality of their developments. Not only in modernism, but it is the case in postmodernism. All the outcomes of the modern age including philosophy, science, technology and industry, politics, security, spirituality, health, art and architecture, media and communication etc, originated from human self-centered and egoist rationality. While Islam accepts a rationality that is independent of religion, it rejects the subjectivism and emphasizes on the divine knowing subject. This does not mean an objection to all outcomes of the modern age. Islamic rationality helps the religious to deal with modern outcomes with a critical and selective attitude.

According to the spirituality without religion, while the doctrines of religion and its moral propositions are rooted in emotions and faith, they are not provable and so are not reasonable whatsoever. On the contrary, while the spiritual doctrines are rooted in experience, they are provable and reasonable. This attitude emerged based on the view according to which religiousness without obedience is not religiousness and spirituality if obediently is not spirituality. Such an attitude toward spirituality and confining it to experience, on one hand has restricted the realm of rationality and on the other, has inserted the irrational experiences into the definition of rationality, while such an attitude will damage the inclusion and exclusion of the definition of rationality. In addition, while this attitude toward spirituality emerged under the influence of the bases of modernity including skepticism and relativism, it will not enjoy moral and doctrinal permanency whatsoever. With a true clarification of rationality, religious morals will be in the realm of spirituality and experiential morals which are not taken from reason will be out of this realm.