KALAM ISLAMI
Year:2012 | Volume:21 | Issue:2 (82)|Papers Count:8

Monotheism in worship is one of the fundamental concepts in the realm of religious doctrines a defective or fault understanding of which will have a destructive effect on the solidarity of the Islamic community and also on the judgment about the doctrines of different clans and denominations of Muslims. The present article has concentrated on the exact and true explanation of this term. Also it did not miss to explain the reasons of monotheism in worship and it briefly indicated to this important issue. A full attention and contemplation on the definitions given by the lexicographers about the word of worship (Ibadah) and also the definitions given by the exegetes like Sheikh al-Toosi, al-Zamakhshari, Qurtubi and Fakhr al-Razi, proves that this kind of definitions are not exclusive and the conformation of their signification can never be undertaken to external instances. Beside the exoteric element of worship, what can complete the definition of monotheism in worship is to pay attention to the common motive of all monotheists and polytheists in the status of worship that is the extreme modesty and humility before an existence. This motive consists of the belief in the divinity of the object of worship that is to believe that the object of worship is the creator and sustainer of the existences and the determiner of the fate of the worshipper.

Divine revelation to the mankind generally and to the prophets particularly has been in three general ways; first: revealing the concepts and the truths to the heart of a prophet or a friend of God, with out using any words or the medium of an angel of revelation. Second: revelation through words but not through the mediation of the angle of revelation. Third: verbal or nonverbal revelation by the angel of revelation. The third way has been the most common way through Gabriel the top angle of revelation was appearing as a man and those prophets who have been named as “rasool” or messengers of God were observing the mankind appearance of Gabriel both in wake and sleep. But those prophets who have been called just as “nabi” or prophets of God, they had been observing the mankind appearance of Gabriel only in the realm of dream. Meanwhile the “muhaddath” or the one whom is being spoken to and is an imam, hears the sound of the angel only and while such a feature is related to the time of knowing the religious wisdoms and rulings through the angle so it does not negate the observance of mankind appearance of the angle by an Imam in other times and situations. Further, while the observance of the mankind appearance of an angel is not a sign of perfection by itself so such a matter will not be inconsistent with the supremacy of the Imam’s of the household of the prophet to all the prophets other than the prophet of Islam.

The existence of false stories about the infallible prophets of God in the holy book of the Jews has been always posed this question before the reader that what profit the fabricators and makes of these stories were gaining so polluted the infallible face of the prophets of God with the ugliness of their desires . declaring that many motives could have a role in the alteration and distortion of the holy book of the Jews (the Old Testament) it has been attempted in the present article that a motive that is racialism and the act of proving the supremacy of the race of the Jew or Bani Isra’il (the sons of Israel) has had the prominent role and trying to exclude other folks and races from the generality of god’s grace which has been promised to all mankind they began to make false stories so they say that they are only the Jews who have been included by the divine grace and have been called as the supreme nation and others do not have a choice but to fallow and obey this supreme race.

One of the most important issues of controversy between Shiites and Sunnis is the issue of supremacy of the household of the Prophet or the triple caliphs. Giving the pivotal role to the narration of “al-Hassan and al-Husain are two masters of the youth of paradise”, the present article has engaged in the discovery of the true opinion in this matter. Firstly, the chain of the transmitters of the above narration has been discussed and it has been accepted by Sunnis and some of them have admitted its successive transmission. Regarding the content of the narration, firstly single elements of the narration that are the word “seyyed =master” and compiling words of “shababu ahli-l-jannah= the youth of the inhabitants of paradise” are being analyzed. According to the first meaning occurred to the mind of lexicographers and traditionalists, sayyed or master is the one who is the top and the head of others concerning the reason and all good virtues. Regarding “Shibabu ahi-l-jannah”, it is shown that the phrase grammatically is of expressive and explaining relation and regarding several and different testimonies, all the residents of the paradise are young. Gathering these two issues proves that Imam Hassan and Imam Hussein are the masters of whomever inter the paradise. Of course, the holy prophet (p.h) and Imam Ali (p.h) and according to some narrations Jesus and John, has been excluded from the generality of it. The narration that quotes: ”Abubakr and ‘Umar are two masters of the elders of the inhabitants of paradise” can not specify the generality of the narration, because this narration is afflicted by several problems. When the supremacy of this two Imams was proved, the supremacy of the commander of the faithful (Imam Ali) would be proved and based on the principle of the necessity of the supremacy of Imam which is accepted by all the Sunnis, the immediate caliphate of Imam Ali would be manifest.

There are different views among the Muslim scholars on the authority of consensus in doctrinal issues: All Asha’irites accept the validity of consensus in doctrinal matters, although some of them believe in some limitations in this matter. Mu’tazelites, except for Nazzam, believe that consensus is a prove in the doctrinal issues and it can be referred to in such matters but Nazza does not give any value to consensus, not in the rules of law nor in doctrinal issues. Maturidites believe in the validity of consensus on the condition that it is supported by the Qur’an and the Islamic traditions; so according to them the consensus which is not supported by the two mentioned sources, not only in not valid but is a cause of the deviation of the community. There are some groups among Imamites- like Akhbarites- who do not believe in the validity of consensus, not in jurisprudential laws nor in theological issues. But the scholars of the principles of jurisprudence believe in the validity of the consensus that reveals the verdict of the infallible Imam. Two general views can be obtained from their words. First: the majority of the ancient and resent scholars believe in the validity of consensus both in jurisprudential laws and all doctrinal issues unless in the matters that the authority of consensus itself is based on them, like the existence of God or the prophethood. second: majority of the scholars of the recent countries – particularly fallowing the time of Sheikh al-Ansari, Have believed in the validity of consensus only in the jurisprudential laws and in other than these, they do not believe that it is a revealer of the verdict of the infallible because they believe that it is just the task of the Imam and his duty to express the jurisprudential laws and religious verdicts.

One of the pivots of controversy among the Islamic sects is the issue of the Divine Attributes. From among the Divine Attributes, the informative attributes have been stood as the matter of discussion and controversy more than the other Attributes. The main semantic question concerning the informative Attributes is that whether those [words related to the] Attributes of the essence like hand, foot and face or the reporting attributes of the action like sitting [upon the throne], descend and ascend which have been brought in the book [of Qur’an] and the traditions should be defined with their exoteric meaning or must allegorically be interpreted or none but basically the knowledge of the informative Attributes must only be conferred on God! The answer of Vahhabism –fallowing Ibn Teimiyyah- is an intense denial of both the allegorical interpretation and the leaving the judgment to God. To escape from the constraint of corporeality and anthropomorphism, they defend the theory of “conferring [knowledge of] quality”. According to this theory, in addition to attributing the informative attributes to the exoteric meaning, quality is being affirmed for the Divine Aattributes, but they claim that we do not have the knowledge of that quality. This attempt of Vahhabism has not succeeded and never solve the problem of corporeality of God.

The problem of proving or neglecting the whatness –in its particular meaning- for the necessary being is one of the important and effective issues in the discussions of the philosophical theology. There are two main views in this issue; First: Fakhr al-Razi believes that necessary being has the whatness and the occurrence of his existence on his whatness is an external occurrence. Second: In contrast with al-Razi, the majority of philosophers believe that the necessary being does not have the whatness in its particular meaning. The followers of each of these two views have restored to some reasons. The adopted view in this issue is that: firstly: fakhr al-Razi’s reason to prove that the necessary being has the whatness and also the most reasons of the philosophers proving that God dose not have whatness are not sufficient. Secondly, it is necessary to distinguish between the two interpretations of whatness in its particular meaning in the way that whatness in its particular meaning is not affirmed for the necessary being when it is interpreted as the border of the existence but it is affirmed for the necessary being when it is interpreted as the expresser of the existence. The issue of affirmation or negation of whatness in its particular meaning for the necessary being has a tight relationship with many issues of theology from which is the issue of negation of compilation from the necessary being. What has brought in this writing is the explanation and analysis of this issue from the view point of fakhr al-Razi and also the view point of majority of the philosophers, accompanied with the analysis of each of them. Also the adopted view has been explained and justified and finally this issue has been studied from the perspective of the Islamic narrations.