QABASAT
Year:2012 | Volume:17 | Issue:63|Papers Count:7

Some questions about Imam's knowledge of the unseen have been posed nowadays such as: Imam's knowledge of the unseen is a new-born discussion posed through a long process and a historical course some centuries after the life of Imams; otherwise this knowledge has not been posed from the beginning ages of Islam.This article will investigate the rational and narrational bases of Imam's knowledge of the unseen and will reach to the conclusion that the theory of Imam's knowledge of the unseen is rooted in Quran's verses and narrations. The knowledge of the unseen has been posed in the time of the Prophet (PBUH) and the Imams and they have affirmed this knowledge. Therefore there is no doubt about Imam's knowledge of the unseen among Shi'ite scholars, although they occasionally disagree about the range of this knowledge. Some believe the range of this knowledge is jurisprudence and beliefs and some believe the range is greater than this. This point will be completely clarified in this article.

Practical mysticism or the mystic journey is the base and foundation of mysticism because theoretical mysticism is in fact the reflection of practical mysticism and is the expression and interpretation of the discoveries of one's journey and intuition.Practical mysticism- in which various levels and stations are passed through to achieve perfection and become close and united with God -has rational bases, based on Islam's teachings, which are extracted and explained by Allamah Tabataba'i. These bases, elaborated in his book "Al-Velayah", are discussed in this article and are as follows: the possibility of reaching to Malakoot (the Dominion of God), intuitional knowledge of the soul, tendency to saintship and being religious on the base of religion's apparent meaning and hidden meaning.

The theory of religious pluralism is tied with the name of John Hick (1922-2012) in the West in the present century and the twentieth century. John Hick (which I was informed of his death during the correction of this article) has made a great effort to present an epistemological explanation of the theory of religious pluralism in recent decades. The result of this effort is the theory of religious pluralism noted by various Western scholars which is also seriously criticized. I have tried to investigate the main epistemological parameters and bases of the theory of religious pluralism in this article and will mention some of its results and implications. For this reason this view is analyzed into four main parameters and each one is briefly explained. The main purpose of this article is to prove this hypothesis: the epistemological foundation of Hick's theory of religious pluralism is affected by the theories of four scholars, i.e. Kant and Wittgenstein and Schleiermacher and Gadamer. Although his effort to integrate and create coherency between these parameters is praiseworthy, but in fact analyzing this theory will reduce it to four parameters: the epistemological pattern of Kant, Wittgenstein's theory of seeing as, Schleiermacher's principle of religious experience and Gadamer's base of hermeneutics. Hick himself may not be satisfied with this conclusion. It is mentioned in this article that Hick has himself declared his affection of two theories and two philosophers, i.e. Kant and Wittgenstein, but he has no clear declaration about the affection of his theory from the two other scholars, i.e. Schleiermacher and Gadamer. I believe the effect of these two and their theories is not less than the theories of Kant and Wittgenstein. At the end of this article some main problems of this theory and also the supplanted theory are briefly mentioned; although each of these two discussions – i.e. investigation and criticism of Hick's theory of religious pluralism and the supplanted theory named "pluralism in religion" – should be investigated separately. Therefore the main purpose of this article is to present a new approach to the epistemological investigation and analysis of John Hick's theory of religious pluralism in which the theory is evaluated with four other approaches and bases.

According to Molla Sadra's view and some other scholars, having an acquired knowledge of being is impossible and having an acquired knowledge of the essences is possible and they have presented some demonstrations to prove this point. But according to the correct and stable bases of Molla Sadra's thought, achieving an acquired knowledge of being and also God's being is possible just like achieving an acquired knowledge of essence is possible; also essence may be identified by an immediate knowledge just like being is identified by an immediate knowledge.

The functions of practical reason are briefly and excursively discussed in the books discussing the principles of jurisprudence. Although many commands of practical reason are used in the principles of jurisprudence, both the major commands – such as the rule of rational badness and goodness - and the minor commands – such as the badness of Tajarri (daring against God), the badness of wasting God's purposes, and the goodness of precaution, but this subject is not separately and elaborately discussed in any one of these books. Some aspects of this subject are discussed in some precedent books; for example the discussion of goodness and badness is discussed in these books: 'Al-Fava'ed Al-Ha'eriyyah' (refer to Vahid Behbahani, 1415 LAH, pp. 363-378), 'Al-Fosoul Al-Qaraviyyah' (refer to Saheb Fosool, 1404 LAH, pp. 316-350), 'Fara'ed Al-Osool' (refer to Sheikh Ansari, pp. 230-245) and 'Hedayah Al-Mostarshedin' (refer to Mohaqqeq Isfahani, pp. 433-442). But in the books of recent scholars this little discussion is also rarely found; it is only Isfahani (Mohaqqeq Isfahani, 1374 SAH, v. 2, p. 322 on) who has mentioned this discussion while he presents the reasons of Insidad (lack of religious sources). Martyr Sadr has also mentioned this discussion in his different books to some extent; and recently one of his pupils, Abu Raqif, has presented an independent discussion regarding the applications of practical reason in the principles of jurisprudence in a two volumed book named 'Al-Osas Al-Aqliah'. It is clear that these discussions should not be discussed in the principles of jurisprudence rather they should be discussed in the philosophy of the principles of jurisprudence; and this science, like the philosophy of other sciences, has not been completely developed in religious fields. Yet some worthy scholars have made great efforts in this regard and have tried to establish these sciences.* After explaining the meaning of expressions of this subject and the meaning of practical reason and clarifying the subject and its range, the functions of practical reason in the principles of jurisprudence will be explained in this article.

Muslim scholars believe seeking for a God and worshiping God is innate. In other words one of human's demands and tendencies is to pay attention to God and seek for him. They adduce the fact that human with different races and different geographical and cultural situations, have always searched for God and have tended to a religion in history. On the other hand some evidences may be found in the recent views of psychologists- who have always tried to recognize the essence of human and his existence – which approve this point.I will try to approve the theory of religious innate disposition by explaining one of the psychological theories (semanticism of Victor Frankel) in this article; also investigating its outstanding characteristics in comparison with Muslim's theory regarding innate disposition, I have tried to answer some questions posed regarding this theory.

There is no doubt that nutrition is one of the most important needs of human being and the continuation of life without fulfilling this need is not possible. Therefore God – who is aware of everything – has taken the responsibility of sustaining his servants; and in the Holy Quran, God has assured his servants of his nutrition. This assurance has made some to believe they have an obligatory right against God! The invalidity of this view is clear after a little thought because the concepts of necessary and necessity have meaning only with respect with matters which is possible to assume a kind of harm for them and also punishing them is possible; while God's being does not have any fault or weakness. More reflecting on the philosophy of this assurance, we will understand its purpose – like all other acts of God – and has a monotheistic meaning.