نشریه معرفت کلامی
سال چهارم شماره 2 (پیاپی 11، پاییز و زمستان 1392)

The issue of determining to what extent theological beliefs contribute to Rejali judgments, considering the synoptic review of the original existence of the discrepancy in theological bases and effectiveness of these discrepancies on the way of interacting with the narrators of hadiths while revising books about Rejali and narration, needs obvious explanation. The importance of this survey is ascribed to the Ijtihadi (based on independent judgment) look behind the passed judgments along with understanding its role in the way of interacting with theological narrations. Using a methodological attitude and analyzing Rejali and theological data, the present paper seeks to expose the stand and rate of the effectiveness of ideological thoughts in measuring the reliability or unreliability of the narrator. The process of data and outlook depth in probing in to the instances of this issue indicates that Rejali judgments are influenced by theological beliefs. This survey indicates that the area of these reactions manifests itself in the principles and the braches of beliefs and specifically in the way of dealing with the issues under the principle of Imamate and it can be consider as inter-religion reactions against ideological actions in the area of Rejali evaluations.

Mutavatirat (unanimously agreed on) which are a kind of arguments based on transmitted knowledge, have a significant role in such sciences like theology, history and homogenous sciences in which the arguments based on transmitted knowledge are powerful. This paper discuses Mutavatir propositions using an epistemological view in that they have certainty and can be the genesis proof. As an introduction, the paper first defines Khabar (tradition) or mutavatir proposition, evaluates the presented definitions and expounds the conditions of the validity of a tradition and then to discover what kind of knowledge we get from mutavatirat: suppositional or certain? If certain, then is it valid or personal? Finally, the paper addresses the principal question, i.e. their being self-evident and origin of theorem. The criticisms which are directed to their self-evidence or certainty are assessed. It is concluded that their epistemological degree is inferior to certainty in its strict sense.

At the end of the tenth century AH a new trend in Shia figh came to existence and it influenced the atmosphere of figh, (Osul), theology and Shia philosophy for two centuries. Attaching Shiah scholars, this trend, known as traditionalism, marginalized the principles of Islam. Some of the traditionalists accused scholars of Usool of heresy and considered them heretic, heathen and propagandists for Sunnism. The consequences of this thought led scholars to expound the main causes behind the emergence of this trend. so that some great scholars critized its results. Among these causes anticipated by Shahid Mutahhari, quoting from Ayatollah Borujerdi and Shahid Sadr. Traditionalist might have been influenced by their contemporary western sensualists. This article, using a descriptive-analytic method, seeks to investigate the different evidence and thoughts of the tenth century's eminent traditionalists who were contemporary with Francis Bacon and evaluate this perspective. Accordingly, referring to some evidence, some of the causes of this thought and its ramifications have been examined.

As fiqh and morality cannot be established without proving the beliefs, beliefs are among the most important issues of every religion. There have been long and heated discussions among theologians about the means for recognizing the beliefs. One of these discussions is related to the possibility or impossibility of imitation of beliefs i.e. referring to a religious authority. The question that arises is can one refer to religious authority and act according to his verdicts? If possible, to what extend? The following paper seeks to come to correct conclusions as to whether or not imitation of beliefs is possible and demonstrate its limits. Using a descriptive-analytical approach, the paper first discusses and then criticizes the leading views and proofs given in this regard. It seems that imitation regarding secondary religious teachings is allowed, provided that one uses reasoning and refers to authentic traditions.

In recent centuries, the issue of evil has been logically and contextually discussed against the existence of God and criticisms have been leveled to religious teachings. Philosophers and theologians suggest different solutions among which are Hick, the idea of theodicy of spiritual cultivation proposed by a Christian philosopher and theologian and Allame Tabatabaii’s belief that evil is not-existent and has to do with the material world and man’s free will. Despite having some similarities, these two views about justice have fundamental differences. This paper makes a comparison between these two views, sheds light on the different aspects of this question and provides a new solution.

Since Divine wisdom is an essential attribute, ignorance has no place in Essence; and when it is a quality act, it either means accuracy and perfection of Divine Acts (including ontological acts or legislative obligations and prohibitions) or purposefulness of Divine act, because performing useless acts is unbecoming and unworthy of The Most High Necessary Existence and His wisdom. Therefore, the Asharite's belief that there is no purpose behind divine acts is rejected, and their justifications and interpretations of the relevant verses are not acceptable, this entails doing foolish because act by God, which is impossible, whereas the Essence of the Divine, the Pure Being, the Necessary Existence has, in every aspect, attributes of perfection and possesses absolute independence and knowledge. So wisdom is prerequisite for such a Being. This paper which seeks to clarify the meaning of the various kinds of divine wisdom investigates and criticizes the Asharites’ misconceptions of some Quranic verses.