ANDISHE-E-NOVIN-E-DINI
Year:2010 | Volume:6 | Issue:22|Papers Count:10

The transcendent unity of religions is the common belief of all traditionalists. In their views, all religions, regardless of their being different appearantly, are essentially the same. As is clear, this view would lead to the truthness of all religions. Therefore, those believing in religious exclusivism could not be right. Contrary to John Hick, relying on the transcendent or essential unity of religions, have led to religious multiplicity. Traditionalists use mystical teachings and fundamental common elements of religions to explain their claims. The paper studies the foundations of this theory critically.

Divine knowledge is one of the most complicated problems of the attributes dealth with in theology. Molla Sadra, relying on his philosophical principles in cluding the rule of the pure essence, basit al-haqiqah, has presented a new theory on Divine knowledge.On this basis, God in His essence knows all things in brief, in such a manner that by that brief and pure knowledge all things are known for Him in details. Sadra, furthermore, on his philosophical principles, support the essentiality and necessity of Divine knowledge. Although in Sadra`s view Divine knowledge of the creatures is essential and pure, in accordance to multiplicity of His creatures, one can agree with degrees of the knowledge called attention (inayat), decree (qaza), destiny (qadqr), pen (qalam), table (lauh) and the book of existence.

Divine manner of detailed knowledge has been of the most complicated problems to such an extent that have attracted the attention of philosophers. Avicenna, one of the greatest Muslim philosophers, has declared Divine detailed knowledge to be representative (irtisami) in a general way. He says that this of such a strange problems that one needs a special mental ability to perceive it. This view, however, has been criticized. This paper, having described the view, has examined it critically.

Divine knowledge has been considered one of the most difficult problems in theistical philosophy. In this paper, some religious texts in the field have been mentiond at first and then Avicenna and Sheikh-e Ishraq`s views have been examined. For the former, Divine essential knowledge is by presence, but His detailed knowledge is representative aquired by represented forms. The latter, though thinks about the essential as does the former and analyize it in the shadow of his basic philosophical concept of light, yet, opposes Avicenna on the detailed knowledge. Avicenna thinks detailed knowledge to be providential; while Seikh-e Ishraq denies it and believes that the detailed knowledge is also by presence. Since all beings of the worlds are existentially presence for God by an illuminative relation.

When studying Divine attributes and names, Salafiyya knows rational method of no validity and, therefore, bases religious studies on narration. In narrative method also it centers on the formal meaning of Quran and tradition. It, therefore fails to present a clear description of Divine attributes, in particular of those attributing corporeality to God. In this way, it has proved some attribute additional to Divine essence. As is obvious, this idea opposes the unity of Divine attributes, and thereof opposes the uniqueness of God. In this paper, Salafiyya`s view in the field has been studied critically.

Universality of great prophets` missions is regarded as a theological problem. Ulul ' Azm, Possessors of strong will and perseverance, are commonly known to be Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Mohammad. Universality of the mission has been established by sending the prophetic message to all people of the world as some say, and sending it to those who have met the prophets as others say. The author has classified the verses in the field, and then, using numerous evidences of Quran and Old and New Testaments, has supported the former. And it is evident that the latter would be proven also.

Reasoning the best created system as an answer to the problem of evils, numerous the why proofs have been offered in Islamic and western philosophy. The existential proof for the best created system, however, is Sadra`s innovation. In the paper, Sadra`s proof has been explained and argued against by some objections in such a manner that not replying them, his proof woul fail. The strongest objection in the formal aspect of the proof has been known as lacking the bases of an existential proof. And when regarding the content also we find the defect of lacking the necessary ability in human being to prove the system`s quality of being best in total regulation over it. The objection would become far strongest with regard to the whole creational universe. Finally, Lahiji and Tabatabaei`s views have been critically examined.

Can society be considered as something essentially real? Different answers have been given to the question. Here are given and studied the views of Shahid Motahhari, Ayatollah Mesbah Yazdi and Ayatollah Javadi Amoli. The first knows both individual and society essentially real. For him, therefore, society possesses real existence, life and death and single spirit, entering the bodies of the citizens. The second knows individual as real being but the society something conventional. And the last knows conventional existenc a low degree of real existence; for him, therefore, society is really existent. The views can be presented as: moderate socialism→pure individualism→low real existence.