JOURNAL OF IMAMIYYAH STUDIES
Year:2020 | Volume:6 | Issue:11|Papers Count:12

There have been various views about Solaym ibn Qays and the book attributed to him, the Book of Solaym, which can be classified into five headings: the authenticity of Solaym and absolute validity of the Book; Solaym 's authenticity and relative validity of the book; The authenticity of Solaym and falsehood of the book; Falsehood of Solaym and the book both, falsehood of Solaym and relative authenticity of the book. This research has reached another point of view by studying available data: 1. Solaym should be stopped on, although the possibility of his being a usual narrator is notable; 2. The author / authors of this book have hidden their identity due to Taqiyyah and attributed the book to Solaym, who was not alive at that time; and 3. Based on some evidence, only a part of this book has been of its original identity and originality, and it seems that a considerable part of it has been added late. The novelty of this view goes back to the first component and the combination of the three components.

Attitude towards ʿ Ā shū rā , as one of the most important events in Shiʿ ite history in contemporary times, has taken different forms. In the meantime, the Mashrū ṭ ih and Pahlavī eras have presented the most frequent inter-Imā mian discourses in the field. The present study seeks to answer the reason why for the formation of different types of readings and approaches of ʿ Ā shū rā based on the descriptive method of ritual studies and analysis of sociological readings of texts. According to the hypothesis of this research, Shiʿ ites in preserving the messages and consequences of this event after a period of chronology, gradually distancing themselves from the style of historiography and influenced by currents of thought, have had a tremendous impact on the type of maqtal writing with specific readings and approaches in later periods. The findings show that the evolution of religious discourse in the Shiʿ ite community influenced by modern developments and emerging currents, from the Mashrū ṭ ih era to that of Pahlavī and gradually until the Islamic Revolution, has provided the basis for the formation of new readings and approaches. Multiple approaches derived from these newly discovered elements in various models such as martyrdom-seeking, political-revolutionary tendencies, etc. have been studied in this research.

Belief in the unseen is fundamental in all heavenly religions, and the invitation of heavenly leaders is effective in the people who believes in the existence of a world and things beyond this tangible world. Belief in the advent of the last reformer and Mahdī of the time is also one of these matters that the Messenger of God (PBUH) informed about and its approval and acceptance is obligatory. Quranic verses, frequently transmitted narrations from Shiʿ ites and Sunnis and the consensus of Muslims and what agreed with by various schools and religions in the field are among the most important proofs for the necessary emergence of the Mahdī of the generation of the last prophet. Therefore, belief in prophecy requires belief in the appearance of that Imā m, and it is not permissible to separate the two. In this way, it seems necessary to pay attention to both dimensions of religious content and the requirements of the media and to benefit from these two wings in order to recognize the last promised. Therefore, in this study, by using religious texts and narratives with the method of theme analysis, we distinguish the unique characteristics of Ḥ aḍ rat Ḥ ujjat (AS) from false claimants, and then by analyzing the discourse, the approaches and the discourse governing the media effects of 9 main active groups. We will extract Mahdism from the false claimants, and between these two and the analysis of the content of interviews with Mahdism and media experts, we will explain the desired model of the media to oppose them.

This article is responsible for comparing the views of Abul Ḥ asan Ash'arī and Ibn Taymiyyah on the non-indicative and indicative attributes of God and their humanistic interpretation of them with a descriptive-analytical method. In the category of non-indicative attributes, Ibn Taymiyyah has often taken the approach of his predecessor, salaf, and related the subject to the same preferred way of the Sunnis, but Ash'arī has tried to prove those attributes. Despite the slight differences between them, they have reached similar conclusions, which is the introduction of God with human-like attributes. But on the subject of indicative attributes, there is not much difference between the two theologians. Because the thought of the two is basically the same and goes back to a single intellectual origin, that is the same as stopping in appearances, without any explanation. In fact, Ash'arī and Ibn Taymiyyah do not differ much in the field of theology and have practically failed to offer a coherent thought. Part of this lack goes back to the theological method of the two, who, by a superficial interpretation of the attributes of God, have practically introduced a humanistic deity. This article shows the aspects of their humanistic view of God and states that both of them have practically failed to introduce pure Islam to their followers.

Ibn ʿ Arabi and his commentators opened a new way of explaining difficult theological and mystical categories by developing the mystical concept of "archetypes". For example, Muḥ ammad Jaʿ far Lā hī jī , an Iranian mystic of the 13th century AH, tried to analyze the role of determinism and free will in human happiness and misery with the help of the teachings of archetypes. This research, with a descriptive-analytical method, shows that archetypes have some clues which may lead one to solve some of the most important theological problems. Lā hī jī , relying on the category of "capacity of individuals" and the principle of "subordinate state of the existent objects with regard to their archetypes", may explain such topics as "God's prior knowledge before the creation of man", "the quality of the emergence of human objects and actions based on the archetypes` capacity, the concept of "inherent happiness and misery of human beings" and "the relationship between archetypes and human perfection and guidance". Based on this inference, the degree of individual`s determinism and free will and other related issues should be measured by the capacity of the archetype and in fact, it is the archetype that determines the boundaries of human action and the path of transcendence.

Aḥ mad ibn Muḥ ammad ibn ʿ Ī sā al-Ashʿ arī is one of the companions of Imā m Reḍ ā , Imā m Javā d and Imā m Hā dī (AS) and one of the great Shiʿ ite narrators in the third century AH. All jurists and scholars have agreed on his trustworthiness and there may not found any doubt in the field. According to the narrations transmitted by Aḥ mad Ashʿ arī about the status of the Infallible Imā m, his beliefs about what Imā mate is, the necessity of the existence of the Imā m, the necessity of knowing the Imā m, the knowledge of the Imā m, the infallibility of the Imā m, the common characteristics of the Imā ms, Imā m`s state of having the power to do extraordinary things and. . . have been explained. As explained in the article, the beliefs common in Qom and, common in the third century in general, and the beliefs of Aḥ mad ibn Muḥ ammad ibn ʿ Ī sa al-Ashʿ arī in particular do not differ from those common among Shiʿ ites today considerably. Of course, among the theological issues raised in the narrations narrated by Aḥ mad ibn Muḥ ammad ibn ʿ Isa al-Ashʿ arī , those related to Imā mate are more extensive than other issues, and the fact shows the importance and controversial state of the issue.

The importance of a critical look at the primary sources in history and biography and addressing its strengths and weaknesses with regard to research references seems necessary. The reflection of the biographies of the Prophet (PBUH) on the historical studies, considering its relation to the policy and beliefs of the audience, is far more important than the narration of history in other parts of it. This article, studying historical sources in an analytical and descriptive manner, has sought to find and explain the reason why of not reporting the event of Mubā halah in the works of some early biographers as well as the discrepancies between Ibn Hamshā m and other historians` reports of Mubā halah. It seems that the causes of discrepancy in the year that Mubā halah took place may be counted as: the claim of the Prophet's silence in answering the questions of the representatives of Najrā n, the deletion of the name of Ahl al-Bayt (AS); and incomplete report of that very event in Ibn Hishā m's biography may be caused by lack of biographers` attention, the influence of rulers of the time on recording the events, and religious and theological orientations in narration.

Constructive social relations are among the conditions for the continuation of human life and one of the effective factors in achieving goals or overcoming the problems of collective life. Shiʿ ite state of being in minority, in addition to keeping them out of the arena of political and economic power, forced Shiʿ ite leaders to use cultural measures as the soft power of Shiʿ ites to free their followers from severe political and economic hardships and, while protecting the Shi Shiʿ ite minority, make it a cohesive, dynamic and effective community. What is the most important strategy of Shiʿ ite Imā ms to achieve such a situation is the subject of this study; an effort that, on the basis of historical sources and with a descriptive-analytical approach, seeks to emphasize "social compatibility" as Imā ms` strategy as well as its characteristics and consequences. According to this study, "strengthening internal solidarity" and "increasing external convergence" are among the social supports of internal and external construction of identification and power, which through preserving social unity, expanding benevolent life and promoting Shiʿ ite social dignity caused Shiʿ ite external differentiation and gradual expansion of its social influence in a vaster geography and history. It seems that a well-documented analysis of these items would lead to an effective model for restoring the essential causes of Shiʿ ite life and power in the past and future respectively, as it can offer fundamental achievements for the radiance of Islamic civilization in general and strengthening the Shiʿ ite role-playing in it in particular.

The burhā ni ṣ iddī qī n, the proof of ṣ iddī qī n, is one of the most important proofs of the existence of God. Various interpretations of this argument have been made from the time of Fā rā bī and Ibn Sī nā to the present day. Mullā Hā dī Sabziwā rī is one of the commentators of Ṣ adrā 's thought and sometimes among its critics who tries to open a new way in ilā hiyyā t bi`l ma`n al-akhaṣ ṣ , theology in its narrowest sense, by proposing four manners of expression for the proof. The purpose of this article is to re-read these manners of explanation to measure them. On the other hand, contemporary philosophers, such as Abdullā h Javā dī Ā mulī and Muḥ ammad Taqī Misbā h Yazdī , have also criticized these arguments while quoting them. In this article, we try to explain and analyze these critiques with a descriptive analytical method. As explained in the article, only in two explanations Sabziwā rī has taken a step toward the proof on the basis of originality and simplicity of existence, and the step is also a case of objection. That is, both aforementioned bases are theoretical issues and need to be proven, and using such doubtful bases reduces the strength of the proof.

Divine word, kalā m-i ilahī , is one of the most important, long-standing and controversial issues among Islamic religions. Muslim thinkers have offered various interpretations of this concept and the quality of God's attribution to speech. This study comparatively examines the views of Abul Ḥ asan Ashʿ arī and Muḥ ammad Ḥ usayn Ṭ abā ṭ abā ʾ ī about the divine speech. Both consider God to be a Being of speech, but each has a different interpretation of it. Abu al-Ḥ asan Ashʿ arī considers the divine speech to be one of the categories of the mental speech, kalā m-i nafsī , and introduces it as Divine essential speech and non-temporal attribute. Ṭ abā ṭ abā ʾ ī introduces a different and broader concept of the Divine speech and extends it to all matters that reveal Divine intentions. From Ṭ abā ṭ abā ʾ ī ʾ s point of view, the Divine speech has many levels and examples. Accordingly, all creation, which came into being with the existential word of "be", would be the word of God, and the Divine message that reveald to the prophets is another example of the Divine word.

In the words of Imā m ʿ Alī (as), monotheism, which is the foundation of all religious teachings, has a high status. He has expressed valuable arguments about monotheism in the fields of essence, attributes, actions and worship in common and reasoned language in Nahj al-balaghah, so that in addition to proving the oneness of God, he denies any similarity between Him and the creatures as well as any composition in Essence. According to Imā m`s speeches, describing God with limited human attributes would be incorrect. He has stated monotheism and its rules in a reasoned way that helps the audience's mind to reach a reasonable conclusion from understanding the preliminaries. This article examines the issues of monotheism through by measure of logic and in a descriptive-analytical method by studying the words of the Imā m with an emphasis on the noble book of Nahj albalaghah. The results of the research indicate that his words, in terms of content and structure, are in accordance with the principles and rules of logic, and such being the case, new horizons of Nahj al-balaghah are exposed to profound thoughts.

The proof of seddiqin is the title of the proof in which the essence of the necessary existence is proved regardless of the specific being of the beings in the system of existence. Ibn Sina first chose this title for the new interpretation of the proof that Fā rā bi had previously given. This proof is the best and most concise philosophical and intellectual one presented to prove the essence of God. In this proof, with reliance on the existence itself, the Necessary Being is proved, so that none of the Divine actions, such as movement and occurrence, are taken as the middle term. Mullā Ṣ adrā presented this proof in a different way, considering the flaws in that of Ibn Sina. After that, Sabziwā rī , due to the many preliminaries that were stated in Mullā Ṣ adrā 's, tried to express the proof in a different way. He has presented three expressions of the proof, some of which are based on logical impossibility of vicious circle and unending chain of causes and the causeds, and some of them are shorter than Mullā Ṣ adrā `s proof and less preliminaries have been used in it. After expressing Sabziwarī 's different expressions, the author tries to analyze and examine them.