فصلنامه قبسات
پیاپی 86 (زمستان 1396)

The theory of historicity of the Holy Quran is much discussed in scientific assemblies. The ones who believe in this theory say many historical parameters have been involved in the formation of Quran which makes the base of Quran historic. The meaning of historicity in this theory is: Quran is the result of historical, temporal-topical, cultural and human conditions of the time of its descent, and with the disappearance of those conditions, the part of the Quran which was affected from that specific condition will become historical and will give up its competence at other times. The followers of this theory have different bases which I have criticized in its place. Explaining and analyzing the anthropological base of the theory of historicity of the Holy Quran, I have also criticized this base, with both intra-religious and extra-religious perspectives, in this article. I believe all knowledge and cognition of the Holy Prophet PBUH is trans-historical and is free of being affected by historical situation, especially in the case of religion and in [the process of] receiving the revelation and conveying it to the others and human's guidance. The Holy Quran can never be declined from a Divine book to a human fallible book.

There are two views on the initial origin of the Divine action and creation (eternity of God's action and the creation of the world, and denying its eternity and believing the contingency of the Divine action). The author of this article first explains and proves his hypothesis (eternity of the world) considering that the Divine essence is a sufficient cause for its action, invalidating the other theory (contingency of the world after nonexistence) by pointing its two rational inhibitions (irrationality of the idea of contingency of God's activity and the necessity of stopping God's blessing). Then to prove and confirm this theory, he will use different verses of the Holy Quran – such as "not having an eternal creation leads to Allah's hand to be tied up" and "incompletion of the Divine words and creatures" and "God's power on eternal creation" – and narrations such as – "the relation between pre-eternity and God's action" and "the relation between pre-eternity and God's creature" - with a new explanation and classification which necessitates the validity of the theory of eternity of God's activity and consequently eternity of creation of the world.

One of the most common consequences of relativism in epistemology is relativity of culture. According to this theory, the value of one cultural parameter is only understandable in one special cultural field. There are three main accounts for relativism: conceptual relativism, ideological relativism and value-normative relativism. The different accounts of relativism can be evaluated through natural (or innate) epistemology and anthropology. The accounts of relativism have incorrect epistemological bases in the subject of truth such as skepticism or coherency or… and have a methodological mistake based on the confusion of the sociological descriptive view and the philosophical analytical view. Emphasizing on nature, both the cognitive foundationalism which is based on self-evident truths in cognition can be defended – which says the criterion of truth is correspondence and defends a kind of realism – and a kind of ethical foundationalism which is based on the self-evident statements of ethics can be defended which rationally justifies and explains the cognitive-ethical common traits of societies and the different cultures. Some of the factors which prepare the situation for the concordance of human societies and challenges cultural relativism are historical continuity and geographical expansion of the universal cultural parameters such as truth, spirituality, justice and freedom, regardless of their different forms based on human nature.

The present writing researches ethical finality. Some scholars believe this view necessitates the negation of the ethical title of the action and thus believe an act is ethical when it is merely done as a duty, regardless of its conclusion and goal. But I believe having a conclusion oriented view to the performance of an ethical action does not necessitate the negation of its ethical title and on the other hand, it is an encouragement and motivation for the performance of the ethical action. Not only these encouragements, according to the Islamic view, has no obligation, it is rather emphasized and recommended.

One of the main discussions in the economical systems and schools is the way to distribute wealth and income among individuals. This subject is usually tied up with justice and although the criterion for just distribution is different in different schools, but they usually have tried to consider their criterion for the distribution of the resources to be fair. Although the socialistic system considers equal distribution fair and capitalism considers market's distribution fair, Islam's economic system – making people's essential differences customary because of their [different] talents and geographical positions and approving higher share for the one who makes more effort – gives a minimum portion to every individual to provide them an average life. These strategies are managed in three fields: initial distribution, distribution after production, and secondary distribution. Using the sources of deduction and applying an analytic-descriptive method of research, the criterion for the distribution in the above three fields from Islam's point of view is explained in this article. Researches show that the distribution of income and wealth in Islam's economic system is in the three fields of distribution before production, distribution after production, and another distribution on the basis of work and attempt on the one hand and need on the other hand, and will be a righteous system.

The status of caliphate (viceroy) is one of the positions which belong to a complete person. Among all creatures, God has chosen human being for this status. But are all humans equal in the achievement of this position? What are the differences between real and conventional and minor and major caliphate? I will explain Molla-Sadra's view as a philosopher and Nasafi's view as a mystic. Using a comparative method in this article, I will try to answer this question: are the theories of Molla- Sadra and Nasafi on Caliphate in accordance with each other or they have differences? Although it seems, at the beginning, that their theories are in accordance, but speculating on their words makes it clear that their views are different.

Fakhr Razi believes the discusison of God's quiddity is based on the discussion on whether existence is univocal or equivocal. On this base, he invalidates the Asharite's view on the essential and existential differences of the necessary and possible beings by proving univocality; because this theory is based on the equivocality of being. Fakhr Razi's criticisms of the reason which proves God has no quiddity and also his reasoning on the quiddity of God has the fallacies of rules of quiddity and existence, inside the mind and outside the mind, transferring the rule of concept to its referent, and neglecting the graded difference between the degrees of being. Therefore Fakhr Razi's theory in this field has various fallacies.

There are various ideas on the essence of religiousness. Some believe having a mere pure heart – even without having good practice - is enough for being religious. Some immoderately emphasize on human's reason and say the essence of human's existence is his rationality and some others stress on inner methods and the refinement of soul and have given less value to reason and understanding. Some others believe religious experience is the essence of religiousness. Viewing these theories and emphasizing on professor Motahhari's perception of Islam, monotheism is introduced as the essence of all [Islams] beliefs in this article; even the two next steps – which are ethics and religious commands – are greatly connected with this main belief. The origin of all moral habits and virtues is being monotheistic; and jurisprudence and its practice is a path that God has shown us which its purpose is to become a mere servant of God.

The political approach of Allameh Tabatabai in his book 'Tafsir Al- Mizan' has a special significance because of the comprehensiveness of this interpretation and the [significance of] its interpreter who is a great interpreter of the Holy Quran. After explaining the relation between religion and politics and dividing politics into two part – the Divine and tyrannical politics – Allameh stresses on the higher status of Islamic politics and believes it has special principles and characteristics which distinguishes it from non-Islamic politics. I will study the essence, different aspects, and principles of Islamic politics according to 'Tafsir Al-Mizan' in this article. In this study I will try to take a step toward increasing the productions in the field of politics, based on Islamic politics and revival of the Islamic form of life. This article will analyze, explain and interpret the essence of Islamic politics using a documentary method and a kind of qualitative analysis of the content of 'Tafsir Al- Mizan'.

Rokno-Din Al-Malahemi Al-Kharazmi (death 536LAH/ 1141 AD) is one of the motazeli theologians who is unknown to a great extent. His writings are only known among Zeidi Shiites of Yemen in which motazeli theology was common. Ibn Al-Malahemi is one of the philosophers who has vigorously analyzed and criticized the beliefs of philosophers. After Ghazali, he has written a book named "Tohfat-ol-Motakallemin fi al-Rad ala al-Falasefeh" and has investigated and criticized the theories of philosophers. One of the discussions noticed in this book is falsification of the immateriality of soul. Ibn Al-Malahemi believes the soul is materialistic and denies the immateriality of the soul. He believes human's identity is the main parts of his body. He believes the soul and the body are identical and says the soul is the very same sensible body. One of Ibn Al- Malahemi's criticisms of philosophers is as follows: if the soul is immaterial, why does it enter one body [and moves] to another in different ways? If the soul is immaterial, its creating cause should be immaterial as well; the cause that makes it necessary should be immaterial as well; then why should not all beings be immaterial? I have first presented an introduction on the life and writings of Ibn Al- Malahemi and then have discussed the differences and similarities between Ghazali and Ibn Al-Malahemi in criticizing philosophers, and have studied Ibn Al-Malahemi's egology and finally have discussed the criticisms of philosopher's egology posed by Ibn Al-Malahemi.