Ma`rifat-e Adyan
Year:2024 | Volume:15 | Issue:3|Papers Count:8

Some Orientalists in the 20th century claimed that the title "Allah" was the name of the moon god worshipped by the pre-Islamic Arab pagans and that it was transformed into the name of the One, Eternal God after the advent of Islam. This claim became a tool for missionary critics of Islam. In this research, we aim to determine whether there is any connection between the "moon god" and "Allah". To investigate this claim, we first examined the references of archaeologists and found no evidence indicating any relationship between the "moon god" and "Allah". In the second phase, we analyzed the usage of this term among Christians before Islam. The results showed that derivatives of the name "Allah" were used in the Bible to refer to God in Christianity, and Arab Christians before Islam worshipped God under the name "Allah". Additionally, in the beliefs of the Arabs prior to the advent of Islam, there existed a principal god named "Allah", alongside numerous idols that had lesser responsibilities; however, no idol or god other than the Almighty and Transcendent Creator was referred to as "Allah".

A significant part of Shia hadiths about the character of Jesus (PBUH) and his teachings, sayings and controversies have been included. In the meantime, the image of this divine personality is more prominent in the hadiths of Sheikh Sadouq, and through the traditions narrated by him, it has entered the Shia hadith discourse more and more. Using a descriptive-analytical method, this research tries to show the presented image of the personality of Jesus (PBUH) in the context of the hadiths narrated by the scholar of the Qom school, namely Ibn Babawayh, and at the same time, to show the connection of some Shiite ideas with Jesus (PBUH). The results show that on the one hand these hadiths were introduced to know the identity of Jesus (PBUH) and on the other hand they were brought up in connection with important issues and principles such as monotheism, prophethood and imamate. For this reason, his relationship with the issue of guardianship, Mahdism, intercession, tidings of the coming of the Prophet of Islam (PBUH & HH), the issue of exaggeration has been discussed. Also, the answers to some doubts raised by some sects and other issues such as the identity of Jesus and his identification with some Shiite teachings in the hadiths narrated by Ibn Babawayh are revealed.

The general principles of the beliefs of every religion and ritual are based on the teachings of its founder, and its followers are somehow continuing the path of their leader. The position of the bringer of a religion has always been prominent throughout history in advancing its goals. Christianity, as its name suggests, is centered on Jesus Christ (PBUH), and it is natural that the main teachings and dogmas of Christianity should be based on the words and behavior of Jesus. If it is proven that such fundamental beliefs and beliefs in a religion are not rooted in the teachings and beliefs of its founder, it can cause serious damage to the principle of its legitimacy. The role of Jesus (PBUH) in the main teachings of Christianity can be extracted from the New Testament. Using the descriptive-analytical method and focusing on the writings of the New Testament, this article tries to answer the role of Jesus (PBUH) in the formation of the main Christian doctrines and dogmas. The results indicate that Jesus had no role in the most important of these principles, including the principle of "Trinity", "divinity of Jesus", "original sin", "grace" and "sacrifice", and, his teachings are devoid of these matters.

The debate on whether Zoroastrian teachings and Zoroastrian religion are mystical among researchers of ancient Iranian religions has been a controversial issue. Some researchers, both Iranian and much less non-Iranian, believe in the mysticism of Zoroastrian teachings and Zoroastrian religion. They believe in mystical and esoteric interpretations of the Avesta (especially Gahan) and other Zoroastrian texts and have followed this Zoroastrian mystical view in the works of famous and great people such as Ferdowsi, Sheikh Eshraq, Rumi, etc. Using the descriptive-analytical method, in this article, their claims and their reasons are mentioned first; Then, citing the Avesta text and the opinions of prominent researchers, the view that the Zoroastrian religion has mystical and monotheistic foundations in the field of theology and cosmology is criticized and rejected; Then it is shown with analyzes that this religion lacks mystical elements in the field of practical mysticism. Naturally, by rejecting the monotheism and mysticism of Zoroastrian religion, its relationship with Islamic mysticism and monotheism will also be of a kind of contradiction.

Moses Cordovero is one of the main characters in Jewish Kabbalah mysticism and one of the interpreters of Zohar teachings. Some Kabbalistic researchers, such as "Baraka Zack" believe that the relationship between "Ein Sof" and "Sefirot" as well as the theory of "Tzimtzum" which is the invention of Isaac Luria, has its roots in the works of Cordovero. Cordovero's Kabbalah theology should be considered a mixture of philosophy and mysticism. In the subject of theology, he follows monotheism; However, in some of his works, such as "Shi'ur Qoma" and "The Palm Tree of Deborah", he has used metaphors to describe divine attributes, which may lead the reader astray; But these descriptions refer to the current divine attributes that have been manifested by God in the form of ten Sefirot. Using a descriptive-analytical method and referring to Cordovero works, his theology has been investigated in this research. Also, the connection between his theories about God, such as the theory of "Pantheism", "Ein Sof and Sefirot" and the theory of "Imitation of God" has been mentioned.

The confrontation of religions with the category of suffering has different aspects that have been addressed from different perspectives. Using the descriptive-analytical method, this research examines how Buddhism uses the capacity of suffering in explaining and describing anthropological aspects. In this article, different approaches of Buddhism in exploiting the capacity of suffering to explain and describe a wide range of human characteristics are proposed. In the following, anthropological requirements are mentioned and it is stated that what is the relationship between suffering and human nature and what is the relationship between the existence of suffering and human agency. The findings of the research show that Buddhism's exploitation of the capacity of suffering is an effective tool in explaining anthropology, and this religion believes that suffering is not only an inevitable part of life, but also an opportunity for transformation. In this direction, Buddhism separates suffering into two categories, natural and unnatural, voluntary and non-voluntary, and considers the result of enduring suffering to reach nirvana.

In the Zoroastrian texts, there are tidings about the appearance of three divine saviors who will rise at different times and at very far intervals from each other and save humanity, especially the Zoroastrians, who live under the burden of oppression, and spread the divine justice in the world. The signs and characteristics mentioned for these three saviors and the time of their appearance have been interpreted by Bahá'í leaders and they have claimed that they themselves are the Zoroastrian saviors. Using the descriptive-analytical method, we have challenged this claim in this article. Due to the inconsistency of signs to Bahá'í leaders, such as "the birth of the saviors from Zarathustra's sperm and virgin mothers", "the sun stopping at the time of the beginning of the mission of the saviors", "the renewal of the world by the last savior", "the end of the world" and "the resurrection of the dead by Saoshyant", it is concluded that the signs of the appearance of Zoroastrian saviors do not match the Bahá'í claims.

Among the religions and philosophical schools of India - most of which are pragmatists - the Sankhya school has a special philosophical position in terms of its theoretical discussions and complex system of categories. The two categories of "Purusha" (soul) and "Prakriti" (matter), the basic principles of metaphysics, seem to be Sankhya's duality. For this reason, some sages and commentators of this system of thought have discussed the issue of God's existence. Most of the advanced commentators, based on the belief in multiple eternal souls and also the special concept of causality among the Sankhya philosophers, are of the opinion that God has no place in the Sankhya school, as it is proposed in monotheistic religions; But the later commentators of this system of thought, who have more followers, believe that the existence of God as a perfect spirit overseeing the creative function of Prakriti is necessary; But they have not always explained their idea correctly according to the metaphysics of the Sankhya school. Using the descriptive-analytical method, this study investigates the "problem of belief in God" in this intellectual system; To what extent is the belief in the existence of a single God compatible with other main structures of Sankhya's metaphysics? Examining the presuppositions and reasons of the parties to the conflict, it seems that Purusha in Sankhya's intellectual system is the same as God; But the incredulous commentators have confused Purusha with the term "énaniat" (the second imperfection of Prakrit).