Essays in Philosophy and Kalam
Year:2010 | Volume:42 | Issue:84/2|Papers Count:7

Among the ways of stating God’s actions in the Qur’an is the causal inference (talil) of any one of them by Divine names and attributes. Promise and threat as God’s actions is not an exception in this regard. According to the verses of the Qur’an, Divine names and attributes have a basic role in issuing promise and threat for human beings. Sometimes, it is done directly, that is to say, it is stated along with the promise and threat of a name or an attribute of God, and sometimes, the concept of Divine attributes is implied from the content of the verses of promise and threats in interpreters’ statements. This research is intended to find an answer to the question as to whether the content of promise and threat through God’s attributes contains different semantic degrees in human beings. The present article seeks to examine one or two proper names in different degrees of promise and threat in relation to human beings; for instance: the relation of the two names “The Forgiving, The Merciful” in various human degrees has a significant role in achieving perfection, since each one of them enjoys differently from these two names. Thus, other names of God, such as: The Creator, The Originator, The Sustainer, The Form-giver, etc. cannot substitute these two names, as the concept of expansion and perfection fully exists in the word Mercy. Therefore, the Prophets have a higher enjoyment of Divine Mercy than others (Q. 7:23). On the next level (degree) are the believers and strivers (mujahids) who are hopeful of Divine Mercy and Forgiveness, and God, in turn, forgives their probable blunders and submerge them in His Mercy and Forgiveness (Q. 2:218). On another level, the sinners who have awakened and repented to God enjoy from his Mercy and Forgiveness according to their capacity (Q. 2:86-89). Yet on another level, Divine Mercy toward the sinners who have persisted in their sinfulness is in such a way that they still have a chance remained for them to repent and not undergo the torments of desperation (Q. 18:57 & 58).

Finality of prophethood is among the fundamental components of Islam, according to which the Prophet of Islam (S.A.W.) is the last of the prophets and Islam is the last of the revealed religions. The principle of finality is regarded as one of the self-evident premises of Islam among the Muslims. One of the effective factors in the finality of prophethood is human beings’ intellectual and social maturity, which is noted in the viewpoints of such thinkers as Allama Iqbal, Ustad Mutahhari, and Dr. Surush. In the present article, besides explaining the foundations and pivots of each theory and the criticisms leveled against them, there will be a brief reference to the status of belief in Imamate and each theory and its consistency or inconsistency with the above-mentioned thinkers in respect to finality. In conclusion, it will be emphasized that whatever the criterion and basis for finality is, it does not mean total freedom from need for a divine leader. In other words, finality in fact means the finality of prophethood and new revelation, rather than meaning the finality and seal of any type of divine leadership and authority. Therefore, whatever degree of intellectual and rational maturity that man may achieve, he would still be in need of guardianship (wilayat) and leadership by the Infallible Imam (A.S.).

Proving the religious patterns as being transhistorical would mean accepting the impact of these patterns in the lives of human beings; accordingly, religious patterns are not only exemplar in their time of presence, but also despite time demands, they would unveil their exemplar feature by passing through historical frontiers. In the history-oriented perspective of religious patterns, the paradigms of past, such as the Prophet (S.A.W.), cannot be exemplar for today; therefore, their way of life (sira) is silent concerning contemporary philosophical, moral, and political issues and, in view of the lawmaker’s intentions, is related to a specific time! According to this attitude, with the presence of modern thinking, transhistorical understanding of the Book and the Tradition is incorrect. However, in view of the trans-historians, the eternality of social issues in cultural, political, judicial, religious, moral dimensions, etc. that the Infallible Imams (A.S.) have established, would not be overwhelmed by time demands, and any impression contrary to it is a result of erroneous mental and material preconceptions of religious doctrines as well as the academic and logical shallowness of the holders of this attitude. Anyway, such reasons as “the Qur’an and Sunna” and “inner nature and intellect” emphasize the transhistoricality of religious patterns as well as their consistency with time demands; the illusion of the inconsistency of time demands with religious patterns is rooted in contemporizing the software of religion and not separating factual propositions from actual propositions. On this basis, the styles that can be generalized by religious patterns and determining their direction with the help of the method of contemporizing their life style will remove the above-mentioned illusion.

“Mind” is among the words frequently used in the works of Muslim philosophers, including Avicenna; however, a positive meaning can hardly be elucidated from it.Given the type of applications of this word in the works of Avicenna and considering the extension and variety of those works, it may be possible to elucidate the approximate meaning of this word in his view. This word has common borders with the soul (nafs) on the one hand and the brain and the nervous system on the other. Also, some unstated words can be implied from Avicenna’s statements.

Deliberation on beauty, like other categories of philosophy and humanities, is as old as over two thousand years, so as the ancient Greeks, as implied from Plato’s Greater Hippias and Aristotle’s Poetica treatises, had a significant role in its formation. Of course, application of the term “aesthetic” to these writing is not free from tolerance. However, the human thinkers’ works and deliberations in aesthetic field cannot be ignored and their various profound viewpoints and theories neglected.In this writing, it is tried to address this category from different aspects. To this end, first, a definition and explanation of beauty and its epistemic correlation with love is given in a mystico-philosophical approach, and then, an analysis of “aestheticism” is undertaken. Mulla Sadra’s transcendentalism concerning the role of beauty in creating love is another issue that is researched in this article.Aesthetic in light of intellect, which indicates the topicality and authority of intellect in the field of ethical and philosophical aesthetic, is regarded as one of the pivotal issues of the present discussion. This research has in conclusion claimed with a mystico-empirical approach that beauty has a role in creating love and affection, and proceeded to prove this claim by making reference to some viewpoints and theories.

Although the present article addresses a philosopher interpreter, but it is to say that Sadr al-Mutiallihin’s exegetical method is comprehensive and that he has made use of rational, traditional, and intuitive methods in his interpretation of the Quran. Similarly, in the field of exegetical trends, although the prevailing trend in his interpretation is mystico-philosophical, but sapiential (hikami) is a more befitting name for this prevailing trend; because, as much as his philosophy is transcendental and consequently sapiential and different from other current philosophies, so also his interpretation is transcendental and therefore sapiential and different from other interpretations.

One of the Imam’s features, which has been controversial among the Muslim theologians is his superiority over other people of the community (umma). From their viewpoint, superiority is brought up in two aspects: first, superiority as surplus of nobility and reward with God; and the second, superiority in attributes, which is a condition for apparent Imamate. Imamiyya theologians unanimously view the superiority in both aspects as among the prerequisites for Imamate. This issue was first set forth by the Shias so as by relying on the superiority of their Imams they would prove the rightfulness of their Imamate. As for the people who were appointed as government officials, such as governors, military commanders, and judges, although superiority is not an absolute condition, they are to be superior over the subjects in what they are in charge of; and in no way the precedence of the inferior (mafdul) over the superior (fadil) is permissible. But, the Sunni theologians have had no unanimous and consistent viewpoint. Some have theoretically supported the necessity of a superior Imam and have regarded the order of the caliphs in its historical reality in the order of their superiority. However, most of the Mutazilites and Asharites have not necessarily deemed advisable the superior Imamate and have, under the pretext of protecting the umma’s interests, opined for the permissibility of inferior Imam despite the presence of the superior one. Each group has resorted to some evidence from the Book, Sunna, consensus (ijma), and intellect to prove their own claim. Given that the acceptance of each one of these two bases would have a profound impact on outlining the politico-governmental structure of Islam, this article seeks to explain and critically review their viewpoints in this respect.