ماهنامه معرفت
سال بیست و هفتم شماره 5 (پیاپی 248، امرداد 1397)

This article is a commentary on the words of Amir al-Mu'minnān concerning the characteristics of the true Shiite. Not being overcome by wishes, not having long-held ambitions, having few faults and mistakes, and remembering death are some other qualities of true believers. Having wishes is not a bad quality in itself; rather, it is considered as a good divine blessing. If one does not have any wishes and aspirations in life, he will not be able to continue working and trying, but if man's hopes and aspirations are orientated towards the other world and eternal happiness, surely, its value exceeds the worldly ambitions and wishes. A wrong wish is a far-fetched and long-standing worldly one which takes away the individual's comfort and prevents him from performing worldly duties and good deeds. The worldly and spiritual wishes are aimed at maintaining the dignity of Islam, the glory of the Islamic system and its superiority over the implacable and sworn enemies of Islam. Some believe that everything is summed up in the world and worldly delights, the world is authentic, and the hereafter is a superstition! What is considered in the monotheistic view is that this world is just an introduction, and worldly life is temporary. The immortal and real life is the life after death.

The doctrine of "monotheism" is among the principles emphasized by all divine religions, among which only Judaism and Islam have pure monotheism. Since Ibn Meimoon, in Judaism, and Allamah Tabatabai, in Imamiyah, played a significant role in the advancement of religious teachings, after presenting the views of these two great scholars about the arguments for monotheism, the present paper uses a comparative -analytical method to express, study and analyze their agreements and disagreements. The only argument of Ibn Meimoon for monotheism is the simplicity of divine essence, whereas the most important argument of Allamah Tabataba'i is the purification of divine existence, which he has proposed besides the argument of simplicity and other proofs for monotheism. Regarding the criticisms that Ibn Meimoon has made about the arguments for monotheism, this paper indicates that none of them can be directed at the statements of Allamah Tabatabai about the arguments of hindrance and contradiction.

"Fitra" or innate nature is an existential issue and a part of man's nature which is related to man's incorporeal or spiritual dimension. There is no disagreement among Islamic thinkers over the existence of the divine Fitra which is a ground for innate desire for seeking and knowing God. It seems that the difference lies in ways and methods to prove Fitra, the characteristics of innate affairs and its relation to religion. Hence, there are diverse and somewhat different views in their works. Using a descriptive-analytical method and studying the views of contemporary Islamic scholars which are derived from the Qur'an and the divine tradition, this paper seeks to prove the existence of "Fitra" and its position. The research findings show that Islamic scholars have proposed rational and mystical intuition, historical and experimental evidences, and rational and narrative arguments to prove the existence of "Fitra" in human beings. The most important evidence in this regard is rational reasoning, and the other arguments are regarded as supporting evidence.

Examining the basic issues of Imamate from the view point of Sheikh Mofid, this paper deals with how Sheikh Mofid, an Imamites theologian and a great scholar, depicts Imam with his rationalist method and explains the necessity of the existence and characteristics of Imamate. Carried out through an analytical-descriptive method, this paper shows that he agrees with other Imamites theologians on many issues of Imamate, but some differences are revealed in two challenging issues, i.e. infallibility and knowledge of Imam. According to the rationalist approach of Sheikh Mufid, the necessity of the existence of Imam is due to the grace and mercy of God, not His justice. The pure infallibility of Imam is related to his Imamate era, and before his Imamate, committing an inadvertant sin which does not lead to his disgrace and disputation is permissible. Knowledge of the unseen and non-religious matters have no rational necessity for Imam. In all these issues, the traditional evidence is sometimes for and some other times against the rational perspective. Depending on the validity of the tradition, Sheikh Mofid's method in contradictory cases involves inclusion or exclusion.

There are a variety of questions on creation, its purpose and cause. In order to solve the question of the philosophy of creation, it is essential to differentiate the questions and provide appropriate answers to each one. Regarding this issue, four questions can be distinguished from one another: the first question concerns the creator's purpose, and the second question addresses the purpose of creature. The third question deals with the cause of creation, and the fourth is about the wisdom in the creation of the universe. The answer to the first and the second questions is that because of being absolutely perfect, God, the Almighty who is the creator of the universe, has not had any purpose. The goal of creating each creature is to reach the perfection it deserves. The answer to the third question is that love of perfection is the cause of creation, and since creation has occurred in the best possible way, it is wise. The details of these questions and their answers constitute the content of this paper.

Knowing man as the noblest creature of God depends on knowing his existential truth, which can be achieved through various epistemological means such as reason tradition, intuition, experience, and so on. "Valid tradition" is narrated by the infallible Imams who have scientific command of the whole world of existence, including mankind; therefore, it has always been the best way of acquiring knowledge. This paper deals with the narrative data derived from library-based information collected through the analytical and descriptive method, and investigates the narrations about the truth of the soul. The paper mentions eight categories of hadiths ranging from narratives that are supposedly for the spirituality of the soul to the narratives that are consistent only with the immaterial soul. The result of this paper is the expression of the harmony between reason and tradition in the two dimensions of humanity and the immaterialness of his/her spiritual dimension.

According to the hadith about God’s hesitation in seizure of believer's spirits, which is mentioned in the narratives and supplications, God hesitates in nothing as much as in the seizure of believer's spirits because, on the other hand, he loves meeting the believer, which is possible only by the seizure of his/her spirit and, on the other hand, the believer dislikes death, and Allah is unpleased by the believer's dissatisfaction. Therefore, Allah gets hesitant in seizing his spirit. Considering his wisdom, knowledge and immutable divine will, and in response to the question as to the meaning of God's hesitation and its appearance in God, Islamic scholars have posed many possibilities, some of which are based on the non-literal and figurative meaning of hesitation, and some others are based on the literal meaning of the term. Using an analytical approach, this paper tries to examine these answers and express some peripheral points. It addresses the believer's doubts about death, his dislike of it, and God’s dislike of the displeasure of his servant, which are remarkable issues in this hadith.

This paper is a comparative study of inner satisfaction in modern spirituality and religious spirituality, and discusses their common points and differences by using a descriptive-analytical method and referring to the Quranic verses and narratives. These two kinds of spirituality similarly emphasize how man deals with immutable things in the world. From the perspective of these two kinds of spirituality, all aspects of man must be in the same direction, and they all should be in accord with each other. The basis for accepting a religion is studying it rationally. But the difference between these two is that modern spirituality considers inner satisfaction and tranquility as the ultimate goal of all religions, and explains inner satisfaction regardless of the centrality of God. But religious spirituality regards that inner satisfaction is possible only in the light of believing in God and seeking Him, and provides some guidelines to achieve it. In this spirituality, God's satisfaction is the ultimate goal. In modern spirituality, suffering has no justification, and in religious spirituality, it is the means to perfection.