فصلنامه اندیشه دینی
پیاپی 10 (بهار 1383)

In this article, first, the thesis of “Ideas” is investigated and criticized. Then, the most important arguments of Suhrevardi and Sadra in support of, and the most important objections of Avicenna and Fakhre Razi to this thesis are analyzed, and criticized. It is proved that neither the argument of those two philosophers to prove this thesis, nor the objections of the two scholars to reject it are valid. Thus, this thesis cannot be confirmed because of the lack of convincing proofs, not because of objections against it. In the second part of this article, Sadra’s interpretations, influenced by the thesis of “Ideas”, are studied. For this purpose, all Sadra’s interpretations of verses that under the influence of this thesis have offered meanings different from their literal ones are gathered from his philosophic and interpretative works. Then, in the light of traditions, Quranic verses, and rational and verbal circumstantial evidences, his interpretations are verified. In this research, it is proved that none of Sadra’s four interpretations that are under the influence of this thesis is valid.

This paper intends to compare and contrast the roots and background of the theory of religious pluralism in the field of Christian and Islamic epistemology. This paper starts with a discussion of a few principles regarding the emergence of new theories in modern theology and philosophy of religion. Then, it follows to investigate the epistemological and historical reasons behind the theory of religious pluralism in Christianity. This paper tries to prove that in essence pluralism has its roots in Christianity. Hence, any attempt to islamicize pluralism, which has its own roots and social backgrounds, is a big mistake. Of course, towards the end of this paper, it is argued that pluralism has its own particular origin and essence in Islam. Islam has always been the harbinger of the theory of "Religious Pluralism", not in the sense that it has been a reaction to any event, but it enjoys its own independent and clear essence and has a certain definition in Islamic teachings.

The relationship between God and creation of world is one of the most important problem for theologians and lots of philosophers. So this essay describes the two theological and mystical theories about it. First, causality through intention (Faaliyat bi al-Qasd) as thesis of the speculative theologians. Second, causality through self-disclosure (Faaliyat bi al-Tajally) as theory of Gnostics and Mulla Sadra in his transcendental wisdom (Hikmat al-mutaalia).Moreover, this article tries to solve these following problems from Sadra’s viewpoint:1- There is a paradox in above subject: Negation of goal in God's creating act, in some theology sources, in spite of the verification goals, in other sources of Islamic theology. 2- According to the some theologians, all of the philosophers had rejected the free will of God and denied any intention in God's creating act. How can Sadra defend philosophers? He proves God’s power and freedom in creating act based on two factors, knowledge and intention. 3- In creating act, God does not pursue anything except his own essence. So, He is the aim of all aims. How can we explain this?4- How does Sadra prove causality through self-disclosure, and what is its relation to the mystical theory?

Hermenutics and the quality of Canonical Understandin of the Quran and Hadith as religion and sacred law are two significant issues in scientific and religious circles, and can be studied from different perspectives. The results of investigation on these two issues have become the source of various researches in social sciences and humanities. The knowledge of the fundamentals of jurisprudence is essential to quality canonical understanding. Issues such as mere verbal utterances, surface meanings, and validity of surface meanings are in direct relation with semantics and important trends in contemporary hemeneutics. Although the roots of hermeneutics in the west are different from the fundamentals of jurisprudence, this paper tends to clarify the position of hermenotics and semantics in the field of canonical understanding of the Quran and Hadith and its relation to fundamentals of the science of jurisprudence. In this regard, the basics of semantics and hermeneutics have been discussed briefly.

Studying Al-Dawani's (1427-1510) logical opinions, as the leader of Jalalie school in Shiraz, is important to understand the development of logical thoughts in Islamic civilization. His legal works are classified in Logic and Meta Logic (philosophy of Logical). Commentary on Reasoning of Intellect and his treatises on Lair paradox, in which he wrote about truth, are examples of his last works. His glosses on the legal works belong to two- chapter structure (Logic of definition and Logic of proof). His glosses are on two recent centuries Logical works. Relativism of evidency, predicatability of Logical particular, reducing Natural proposition to singular proposition, denying validity of salebat–al-Mahmol are some of his logical opinions.

In this article, first, Semnani’s view of the mystical unity has been discussed. Then, his oppositions to the theory of “unity of being” is explained, and then, in answering the question that how he could be a mystic and at the same time criticize “unity of being”, five possibilities and justifications, from the weakest to the strongest, have been discussed. The author has preferred the fourth and the fifth ones and has concluded that Semnani emphasizez "unity of vision" rather than " unity of being".

Foundationalism is the most ancient theory on epistemic justification. This theory employs the metaphor of a building. Every building consists of two parts: foundation and superstructure. Superstructure always relies on the foundation. Man's beliefs are shaped in a similar fashion, i.e., some beliefs are foundations and some are superstructure. This article first shows the principles and different kinds of foundationalism and then discusses the most important argument of its supporters, namely, infinite regress argument, and finally shows that from this argument point of view the coherentists are in a better position than foundationalists.