جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه « divine justice » در نشریات گروه « علوم انسانی »

Incurable diseases cause severe changes in the patient and his family in various economic, family, social and psychological dimensions. These changes in the patient's religious beliefs lead to extensive spiritual conflicts. Spiritual conflicts in the field of incurable diseases have created new beliefs. The emphasis of the World Health Organization on the existence of spiritual health as the fourth dimension of health, along with the dimensions of body, mind and society, doubles the necessity of re-reading the statements of Imam Ali (peace be upon him) in resolving emerging spiritual conflicts. Meanwhile, the issue of "justice" plays a significant role in creating these conflicts. The authors' clinical experiences in examining this category in subtopics such as the cause of disease, God and disease, the wisdom of disease, the evil nature of disease, human actions and disease, in the form of questions such as "Why me?" Why have I been good? why now? Why my child? It is related to spiritual health. Philosophical and religious analysis of the issue of justice, the necessity of natural laws, the mutual relationship between evil and disease; God's immutable laws in getting sick from the perspective of Nahj alBalagheh have been examined in accordance with the spiritual conflicts of the justice of the patients in line with their spiritual health.

One of the most important principles in theology, laying the foundation for many rules and issues in this field, is the principle of "rational goodness and badness." Acceptance of this principle significantly influences our perspective on the world, theology, and other crucial theological matters. Muslim theologians have two perspectives on this principle. The Adlīyah (including Mu'tazilites and Imamis) accept it, believing that the goodness and badness of actions are intrinsic, and human reason and nature comprehend them without considering anything else. On the other hand, the Ash'aris deny its rational nature, asserting that the divine law specifies the goodness and badness. In this paper, we aim to analyze and explore this principle from the perspective of the narratives of the Imāms (peace be upon them) using an analytical-descriptive and library-based approach. We seek to clarify whether the principle itself or its substance is mentioned in the narratives. According to the findings of this research, the Imāms have addressed this issue, and the narratives sometimes explicitly and sometimes implicitly indicate the rational goodness and badness. This article will elaborate on the explanation of these narratives.

The popular opinion among Islamic scholars is that most of God's prophets were men and God did not choose any woman to be a prophet. The proof of this point of view is the Quranic verses and Islamic traditions. Some have claimed the position of prophethood for a number of women by citing some verses and traditions, but what is obtained from those evidences is prophetic prophecy, not legislative prophecy, which is intended as a theological and religious issu. According to the famous view, the suspicion of incompatibility with God's justice has been raised and based on it, the divine origin of prophethood has been denied. In this article, by using the method of reporting and analysis (narrative and reason), the evidence of the famous point of view has been expressed and the doubt has been answered by explaining the philosophy of assigning prophecy to men.

CS Lewis and Motahari are two monotheistic thinkers who have tried to provide a solution to the problem of evil. C.S. Lewis, one of the defenders of Christianity, tried to solve the problem of evil by correcting the meaning of concepts such as absolute power, absolute benevolence and human happiness. He also justifies the existence of evil by presenting the speaker's theodicy, which is based on the educational benefits of evil. Lewis also proposes a practical solution to the problem of evil. Professor Motahari also rejects the objections to divine justice by analyzing the nature of evil and nonexistence and considering it relative, as well as justifying evil by using the educational benefits of evil. He also considers evil to be inseparable from the structure of the world. The findings of the research show that Lewis's theory is generally based on the doctrine of descent. which causes fundamental problems in his theory, hence Professor Motahari's answer is more successful.

Dunaduni, or the belief in reincarnation, is the second principle of belief within Yarsanism and remains a highly contentious doctrine. Adherents of this creed maintain that dunaduni entails a series of successive lives in one thousand and one bodies, serving to explain the hardships encountered in life. According to their perspective, embracing dunaduni is integral to affirming divine justice, representing the sole pathway to its affirmation. Without embracing dunaduni, they belive, God cannot be deemed just. During the developments of this creed, there have been disagreements among Yarsanists over the construal of dunaduni. Moreover, the doctrine was criticized by non-Yarsanists as well, as many researchers believe this is a belief in the transmigration of the soul. The question in this research is what implications and consequences this belief has for the belief in divine justice within Yarsanism. By collecting library data and deploying the descriptive and analytical method, this research seeks to explain the nature of dunaduni in line with the prevalent interpretation of the doctrine among Yarsanists as well as its implications for divine justice.

The existence of evil has been a problem for worshipers for centuries. It seems difficult to believe that the world, with its large number of evil creatures and under the absolute control of the supreme good, the omnipotent, the omniscient. The importance of the worldview regarding evil is such that it is seen as one of the most important and prominent themes, not only in theological, philosophical and theological texts, but also in literary texts. In this article, after brief references to the answers given to the problem of evil, the authors deal with the examples of the problem of evil in Sanae'i Hadiqat Al- Haqiqa by descriptive-analytical method. Hakim Sanaei is a follower of Ash'ari-Maturidi in terms of doctrinal and theological principles and has thought about it in this field of thought. The conclusion obtained from this research indicates that Sanaei agrees with the divine sages on the issue of evil and rejects evil in general. According to his system of thought, the divine will is pure good, and this principle is one of the most basic foundations of his worldview, and he has spoken about it in different interpretations.

Religious task within the limits of one's ability is mentioned in five Quranic verses and has created many challenges in the history of tafsir and theological sciences and has led Muslim scholars to group. Challenges in “tasks as much as possible" are often in four intellectual and auditory issues, possibility and refusal, occurrence and non-occurrence, and its goodness and ugliness. These challenges are answered in two hadiths of Imam Riḍā (as). Despite the importance of these two hadiths, so far no independent research has been published on the conceptual and propositional analysis and their logical components. The main issue of this research is the process of providing evidence and the source of proof in two hadiths of Razavi by examining the effect of the source of proof in these two hadiths on the Shiite exegesis heritage and comparing it with Sunni interpretations. The difference between the source of proof in Imam Riḍā's (as) statement, which is "justice", and the source of proof with Sunni interpretations, which is "mercy", shows the difference in the concept of "religious task within the limits of one's ability". The content of this hadith has a strategic role in the health and efficiency of legal, educational and moral systems. The fairness of the task in this narrative can be used as an indicator for evaluating professional tasks.

Contemporary world is full of religions that have different teachings and adherents. Meanwhile, there are significant differences and commonalities among divine and non-divine, theistic and non-theistic religions. Such a plurality with regarding religions’ geographical and historical spreading and their adherents’ interests to a special religious tradition, is faced us to some questions as follow: What is the relation between divine justice and religious plurality? Does religious plurality, in different times and places, is based on divine will? With regarding appearing some divine religions in the Middle East, can it indicate that divine grace and salvation was/is limited to the people of this region? And what is the duty of those people who have not heard the voice of divine religions or that religions have not properly introduced to them? For answering such questions and doing more research about the relation between divine justice and religions’ plurality, is tried to show that the requisite of divine justice is providing plural ways and paths concerning human beings’ guidance that sending divine Prophets in the form of divine religions are as its’ clear samples. Also, prior to sending Prophets, the most significant path for guiding human beings is relying on internal Prophets that human being’s intellect and innate indicate this aspect. In addition, as human beings live in different cultural, spatial and temporal circumstances, logical requisite of their divine guidance is plurality of guiding’s methods and their justly participation of the divine grace of truth and salvation.

Statesmanship has always been formed based on either domination, or testaments, or consensus. The purpose of the present study is to assess the proportion between each of the above principles and the principle of justice. The issue under study is: which method has state legitimacy based on the principle of divine justice? By using descriptive analysis and searching through epistemic data in Islamic Kalām, and also recognizing aspects and features of domination, testaments, and consensus based on historic, political, and legal ideas and reports, it can be asserted that domination by any means can give legitimacy to a government just in case kingdom from God as the divine destiny is accepted and that admittance of that is the result of faith and obedience to God. State legitimacy based on testament relies on the hypothesis that statesmanship is regarded as the transferable right of a prince. The principle of justice considers any cruel command invalid and illegitimate. Imposing a state and a leader on people based on domination or inheritance is great tyranny due to independent reasons. Therefore, the necessity of establishing a state based on people's votes results from the principle of divine justice and that ignoring public opinion and imposing a state by either force or deceit violates the principle of justice.

The cancellation and compensation, and in case of the possibility of occurrence, its relation to divine justice  are among the challenging issues in Islamic Theology. The views and perspectives of Mu’tazilite, Ash’ari, and Shi’i theologians vary greatly on the contingency or non-contingency of cancellation and compensation and reckoning of deeds. Mu’tazilites acknowledge the cancellation and compensation in its absolute and balanced form and have referred to the rational arguments and revealed arguments. On the contrary, Ash’arites and Imamiyya theologians with reference to the rational and revealed arguments have attempted to refute Mu’tazilites’ proposition and substantiate their viewpoint. However, the matter of contention is that in light of some verses in Quran indicating the occurrence of cancellation and compensation, in addition to the verses emphasizing the precise retribution of every deed, how can the compatibility of cancellation and compensation with divine justice be interpreted, justified and clarified? By elucidating the viewpoints and arguments of theologians about the occurrence or non-occurrence of cancellation and compensation, the current article is aimed at examining its relation with divine justice.

In this article, through research on what is the meaning of divine justice, we examined the issue of human rights against God. The main question is what meaning of justice can be attributed to God? Given that divine justice is presented in three areas of creation, legislation and punishment, the meaning of justice that covers these three areas is "giving everyone the right to it." There is no problem in imagining the right of non-God to God when this right of God himself is positive. Moral justice is the meaning of justice that has no place in attributing it to God in the works of thinkers, especially our philosophers. Among the meanings of justice according to Shahid Motahhari, the meaning that is doubtful is the one that he considers to be the only appropriate meaning of justice to attribute to God: formative or philosophical justice. Moreover, the design of the discussion of justice in the position of creation, which has not yet been created, is questionable; This meaning of justice does not cover criminal and legislative justice, nor is it a suitable explanation for the verses and hadiths that attribute justice to God in all actions and purify him from any oppression

The question of whether Sharia’h laws should follow or not follow the considerations of common good and depravity is an interdisciplinary issue lying at the intersection of theology and jurisprudence. In this regard, the Shiite thinkers disagree with the Ash'arites, who insist on non-following side of the issue. However, Shiite thinkers themselves are not unanimous in their views on this issue. Some put emphasis on the absolute adherence of the laws to the considerations of common good and depravity, and some believe in the relative adherence of the laws to those considerations. What this article seeks to do is to show the impact of the theological principles on the resolution of this issue. To solve this problem, it seems that we should clarify our position toward the four important theological and intellectual bases: essential and legal good and badness; Divine justice, God's purposefulness in actions and the impossibility of preponderance without there being preponderance. By showing how these principles affect the solution of this problem, the author has ultimately taken side with the theory of absolute adherence of the laws to the considerations of common good and depravity.

God as the creator and lord of humans, and as All-Provider (razzāq), is in charge of providing for human primary basic needs, as in the Qur’an God promises to make basic provisions for everyone. The promise led some people to think that humans have a right to receive provisions from God, expecting that God should optimally and fully provide for human needs. For this reason, the difference in people’s provisions has led to questions concerning divine justice.The problem with which this paper is concerned is why God has allotted different amounts of provisions to different people, instead of giving different people equal shares of provisions. Moreover, if allotment of provisions is attributed to God, why is it emphasized that people try hard to gain provisions?These questions have frequently been raised in religious milieus throughout the history, often with the intention of casting doubts on religious beliefs by questioning divine justice, since different provisions for different people are thought to be at odds with God’s justice.A number of papers in the field of Quranic sciences have been written about this problem, which are based on the views of Quranic exegetes, on which we draw in this paper. The contribution of this paper is that it offers a philosophical consideration of the problem in terms of Avicenna’s philosophy, particularly his essay on provisions (Risāla fi-l-arzāq). It is noteworthy that the problem was not tackled by any other Muslim philosophers. In Islamic philosophy, God’s attribute of All-Provider is mentioned in passing as an attribute of action—it is at most defined and reduced to divine attributes of essence such as knowledge, wisdom, and power. Avicenna deals with the problem of provisions in his Risāla fi-l-arzāq. This is an essay attributed to Avicenna. Over 20 manuscripts of the essay are available in libraries, and its attribution to Avicenna has not been a matter of dispute.The essay is concerned with questions about divine justice and how to treat people’s differences in their provisions in these terms. Avicenna explicitly deals with the problem in terms of a debate. In line with his Peripatetic framework, he considers different aspects and possible results of the question, as illustrated with numerous examples. In this paper, I provide an account of Avicenna’s remarks here given his general theoretical framework as explicated in other works of his. I also offer criticisms of his account. Taking account of the views of Quranic exegetes concerning the problem, I offer my own account of the problem.

In order to reconcile two groups of Quranic verses in one of which the allotment of provisions is attributed to God and in the other the attainment of provisions is conditioned upon the human labor and efforts, one might offer the following account: in a monotheistic view, provisions are ultimately allotted and distributed by God, but this is in terms of unchanging traditions in accordance to the divine wisdom. In the best or optimal order and the dynamics of the universe, human wills and the amount and quality of their labors and efforts play roles in the expansion or diminution of one’s provisions. For obtaining a desirable provision, a set of conditions should be satisfied and certain grounds should be prepared.Given one’s material and spiritual possessions, which are in turn from God, every person tries to obtain provisions by drawing upon one’s insight, intelligence, as well as spiritual and material capitals. The better one performs in utilizing one’s opportunities the more provisions one attains, and the more negligent and indolent one is in using one’s existential and material capacities and the more vulnerable one makes oneself to unpredictable economic circumstances the more deprived one will be and the more futile one’s efforts will turn out to be, in which case one will have a diminished provision. In this way, God the Wise has established laws and traditions in the creation in such a way that everyone can attain his or her own share of provisions with their mental and physical capacities, without there being any injustice.In his “Essay on provisions” Avicenna has dealt with the problem of the difference in people’s provisions and its bearing upon the divine justice. In this essay, he tries to rely on divine wisdom and grace to correct wrong conceptions and establish divine justice in the measurement of people’s provisions. Through an articulation of the contradictions involved in different aspects of the problem, Avicenna shows that the idea of exactly equal provisions leads to an impossibility or the human destruction.

Without doubt, one of the important schools of thought in Islam is the Muʿtazilite rationalism school of thought and, in addition, one of the most challenging historical discussions also revolves around the decision of “determinism (jabr) and delegation (tafwīḍ).” Based on many accounts, the theory of “delegation” meaning human independent power in performing actions has been attributed to the Muʿtazilites as one of the important Islamic sects; a theory that, according to many of the Ashʿarite and Twelver Shiite thinkers without doubt belongs to them. However, nowadays, this attribution has been challenged by some researchers and, in contrast, some have risen in support of it. This article utilizes a library method and through investigation of the intellectual foundations of the Muʿtazilites in the discussion regarding the method of creation of human actions and on one hand, striving to understand their words and on the other, by relying on ancient historical records in the works of sect-researchers and rhetoric tactics in the typology of the terms “delegation (tafwīḍ) and destiny (qadar)” seeks to pass judgment and give fruit to logical contributions in response to the main question of “how the link between the Muʿtazilites and delegation can be evaluated?” Based on this, citing assemblage of that which has passed to understand the relationship between the “Muʿtazilites” and “tafwīḍ,” the following can be mentioned as the main points: 1. The word qadar can mean “ikhtiyār (free will)” and “tafwīḍ (delegation)” and is equivocal. By studying the works of the Muʿtazilites, we can see that the attribution of the qadar to them has mostly been line with the meaning of free will regarding this term. Therefore, it cannot simply be deduced from the attribution of this term that the Muʿtazilites believe in delegation because we would suffer from the fallacy of equivocality. 2. According to experts in the area of sects, and considering the different evidence in historical books, the “qadariyya” and “mufawwida” are different from the “Muʿtazilites” and for this reason they must not be considered as one group. According to some sources, these two even had disputes between themselves. For this reason, it is not right that we consider the Muʿtazilite scholars as “qadariyya and mufawwida.” 3. The philosophical system accepted by most of the Muʿtazilites is based on accepted the linear cause and effect system along with and aligned with the theory of “denial of delegation” and can be evidence of the Muʿtazilites not accepting delegation because the theory of delegation of free will results in the violation of the law of causality by a precise breach of it and this is a serious challenge for this philosophical system. 4. Shiite scholars such as Shaykh Mufid, Syed Murtada, and Shaykh Tusi who lived in the age of development of the Muʿtazilites did not only not approve of the attribution of the theory of delegation of free will to them; rather, in some instances, they considered the beliefs of the Muʿtazilites to be the same beliefs as that of the Twelver Shiites. 5. The evidence that some of the opponents of the attribution of the theory of delegation of free will to the Muʿtazilites have presented such as “denying fate and destiny by the Muʿtazilites” and “accepting the impossibility of the gathering of two powerfuls over a single object of power” are not acceptable because, firstly, the Muʿtazilites do not deny fate and destiny and believe in them and secondly, the aforementioned law is not correlated to the theory of delegation in a correct reading of it in the discussion of the creating actions.

The Research Issue: 

The spread of disease, especially hardly curable diseases, has led to the emergence of emerging spiritual conflicts between patients and families. Meanwhile, the issue of "justice" plays an important role in creating these conflicts. Examine this topic in the form of questions such as "Why I? Why does God do this with me? Why now? "Why my child?" is of a widespread appearance in the field of spiritual health. The method of reviewing the article is qualitative of descriptive-exploratory-analytical. After communicating with patients and extracting their beliefs in the field of "justice", answers are provided by a philosophical analytical method.

The most important answer is that according to the system of causes, each disability exists only through its cause and no disability is an exception to this rule, so the course of the disease will also be included. The authorschr('39') extensive clinical experiences of hardly curable patients indicate comprehensive persuasion and, consequently, transition from spiritual distress to the true realization of the target groupchr('39')s spiritual health.

Job (Arabic: Ayyub) the prophet and his story is very well-known for all Jews, Christians and Muslims. In Islamic culture, Job is the unmatched symbol for patience and endurance in so much as the expression "patience of Job" in Muslim literature has become a permanent combination. However, instead of the symbol of patience, we surprisingly find him in the Bible as a symbol for Impatience; for he complains God by his weeping and moaning. Even he accused God of injustice. Although both biblical and Qur'anic and Islamic texts indicate that he experienced a lot of suffering and misery, however, in the Islamic culture, his character is outcome of patience and enormous suffering, whereas according to the Bible, his personality is the resultant of suffering and impatience that at last it leads in the knowledge of God and submission to His will. An important issue in the story of Job, is why he should have suffered and that what is the implication of the theological aspect of suffering and how it is consistent with the justice of God. In this paper, studying the biblical and Qur’anic texts regarding Job, differences and similarities have been studied. In this paper, studying the biblical and Qur’anic texts regarding Job, differences and similarities have been studied.

An examination of the history of the development of the philosophical issues in the West indicates that since the Demiurge (Demiourgos) of Plato in the Timaeus created the sensible world in imitation of the intelligible archetypes, failing at the same time, to overcome some necessities, until the beginning of the seventeenth century and the emergence of the Cartesian anthropocentric conception of reality, the common question most often raised by modern philosophers, in their discussions about the nature of God, man and universes in this: What is Justice? Is God just? Was man created in the best form? Is the existing world, the best among all the possible worlds? The answer to these questions among the Christian thinkers before Leibniz (1646- 1716) was mostly based on the principles of dogmatic theology. Even in the fifteenth century the question as to how God's providence and foreknowledge could be reconciled with the human free choice was the pivot and axis of most philosophical and theological problems. In addition, the progress of natural sciences and the emergence of necessary causal laws in the domain of the various sciences impaired the human freedom of choice.Spinoza and Leibniz, each in his own peculiar way, endeavored to prove that the human free choice is compatible with the causal determinism required. By science. In Leibniz, God wills the most harmonious and compossible worlds. In the present article, prior to Leibniz's rational justifications of the principle of "the best possible World", his conception of the world as based on the principle of the pre-established harmony (in the framework of the monads ), along with some other related issues are analyzed.