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

Due to the expansion of experimental sciences and the certainty of these sciences and the influx of this idea from western world to the Islamic world, one of fundamental doubts in new era is the conflict between science and Quran. The conflict between science and the Quran means that there is an apparent inconsistency between the propositions of science and the Qur'an on a single subject, although a real conflict between the Quran and science is inherently impossible. Since Islamic thinkers such as Tabatabayi and Abdoh, have tried to resolve this conflict, the present research aims to to examine, criticize and compare principles and methods of these two thinkers, with a descriptive analytical method to solve problem. In this regard, some of the views of these thinkers are: according to Tabatabai, experimental sciences cannot judge about verses related to supernatural. In the comparison between experimental sciences and the scientific verses of Qur'an, the separation between scientific certainty and non-certainty should be considered. Abdoh believes that Quran evolves in sync with human thought; therefore, it is inevitable to change some rulings due to the necessity of science; for this reason, the interpretation of some occult concepts of the Quran is allowed.

One of the issues that has always been a point of contention among interpreters and scholars of Quranic sciences is the concept of interpretation based on opinion. The considerable effort of interpreters from both factions to uncover the correct meaning of interpretation based on opinion is due to the fact that the collection of narrations presented in the narrative communities and interpretive texts of both factions on this topic have a threatening tone and have deemed the result of such interpretation, even if correct, as reprehensible and condemnable. Two contemporary prominent Quranic scholars who have presented specific views regarding the concept of interpretation based on opinion are Dhahabi in his book al-Tafsīr wa al-Mufassirūn and Ṫabāṭabai in Tafsir al-Mizan. The approach of the present article, with a descriptive-analytical method, has examined their viewpoints. The result of this study indicates that Dhahabi has categorized interpretation based on opinion into two types: praiseworthy and blameworthy, considering only the interpretation with an Ashʿari tinge as praiseworthy and others, such as the Shia interpretation, with certain examples, as blameworthy. However, categorizing some interpretations as praiseworthy or blameworthy is far from a scientific judgment due to prejudgment and a lack of proper understanding of interpretive foundations, and essentially, praiseworthy interpretation should be specifically excluded from the subject of interpretation based on opinion. Tabatabai, after examining the totality of narrations on this topic, considers interpretation based on opinion to pertain to the method of interpretation and not the essence of interpretation itself. Referring to one of the cases of interpretation based on opinion, namely independence of opinion and not referring to other verses of the Quran, he believes that if interpretation is carried out with an erroneous method and approach, even if it leads to a correct result, it is still reprehensible and condemnable and lacks scientific value and credibility.

Paying attention to the correct meanings of the words of the Quran plays an important role in interpreting and understanding the meaning of God Almighty. Hence, the meanings of words are considered as one of the important keywords of every commentator in understanding the divine word, based on which, his interpretation has a special direction and may be influential in the works of later commentators. One of these commentators is Zamakhshari, who in his commentary (Kashaf) has chosen special meanings for some words that have been criticized by other commentators such as Allameh Tabatabai. In this research, the question has been answered that what words did Allameh Tabataba'i criticize in Keshaf's commentary and what is the validity of his criticisms? This article, by descriptive-analytical method and library method, while collecting these words and mentioning the meanings of Zamakhshari and Tabatabai's critique, also examines the accuracy of these meanings and the critiques made in order to find out which meanings; The meanings of Zamakhshari or Allameh Tabatabai are correct. The result of the research is that although the critical opinions of the author of al-Mizan are often correct, in some cases, Zamakhshari's point of view is valid and preferable, and Tabatabai's criticism does not apply to it.

One of the important topics in Quranic sciences and interpretation is the issue of "ventricle". Allameh Tabatabai and Allameh Javadi Amoli are among the commentators who have offered an analytical and reflective view on the inner context of the Holy Quran. In this article, the descriptive-analytical method, the nature of the Qur'an and the validity of the Qur'an in interpretation have been explained and evaluated from his point of view and the components that he has presented for his point of view. The result of the research shows that Allameh Tabatabai considers the difference between the capacity of human beings in understanding the Qur'an in relation to matters beyond the senses and matter as the main reason for the existence of an esoteric dimension for the Qur'an.  However, Allameh Javadi Amoli has considered the existence of the womb in the verses of the Qur'an as his interpretive basis and has accepted it as one of the interpretive methods of the Ahl al-Bayt (AS) and the secret of the immortality of the Qur'an. The most important characteristics of ventricular validity from his point of view include: the universality of understanding the Qur'an, the hierarchy of the Qur'an, the permission to use the word in more than one meaning, the alignment of external knowledge with esoteric knowledge.

The problem of this article is that what’s the political implications of Tabatai’s researches as a whole (in two domain of west and Iran) for Iran’s present time. This problem is solved on the basis of this presupposition: Tabatai’s historiography reflects an intellectual constellation that signifies his implicit intention for Iran’s present time. The goal of this article is that clarify status of tradition (Iran’ past) and west (European thought) in this constellation. This research is done through Straussian interlinear interpretation and supposed that his intention for historiography isn’t clear and clarified with application of Strauss's hermeneutics. Applying of this method of research, namely Straussian interpretation that emphasize on interlinear implications in interpretation of texts, is compatible with Tabatabai's way. Because, his way in dealing with everyday events shows that he is neutral in political tentions. This procedure is compatible with his epistemological basis tow, such that he emphasizes on distinction between true knowledge and ideology and until he tries to conceal his intentions about Iran’s present time. However Applying of this method of research is necessary for understanding of his works. Also its theoretical framework is Althuserian problematic. But what’s Althuserian problematic that Tabatabai seeks to present Iran as a problematic? Problematic is equivalent with Kuhn’s paradigm and Lakatos’s research program and like them, is distinct to empiricist epistemology and consist of presuppositions and heuristic device that knowledge is based on it and second order knowledge is equivalent with knowing of its components. Also in spite of Althuserian epistemology’s belief about realism and testing of knowing claims, the relation between objectivity and subjectivity isn’t injective equivalent and their changes is different. Althusser believes that Marx's work is fundamentally incompatible with its antecedents because it is built on a groundbreaking epistemology (theory of knowledge) that rejects the distinction between subject and object. In opposition to empiricism, Althusser claims that Marx's philosophy, dialectical materialism, counters the theory of knowledge as vision with a theory of knowledge as production. Tabatabai precisely seeks to transform the domain of Iran’s studies (that political thought is one section of it) from ideological approach to an active research program, insofar as be applicable in several academic research. The first question that presents in Tabatabaei’s problematic is about modern stat. This question is: What’s the equivalence of this phenomena in Iranshahri tradition? Tabatabaie holds that modern state has no equivalent in Iranshahri tradition, but the nation’s gene, as a modern concept, exists in Iran’s pre-modern history. Because, Iran as a sign, implies on a meta-ethnic or inter-ethnic phenomena that make it districted in all non-west nations, until ancient ones. However modern state has exclusively western gene and is born from European kingdom in late middle centuries and evolves gradually. In primitive form of state, constitution is a variety of fundamental custom, separation of powers is order between nobles and king and so on. This embryonic form of stat evolve and transform to present form of state in Western Europe. In fact, Tabatabaie’s endeavors in historiography of political thought in Western Europe, can be reduce to this trajectory in history of Western Europe. The cause of this approach is that he thinks in all historical aspect must continuation of tradition in modern time be considered and presupposes the continuation of Iranshahri tradition. Although he holds that because of dysfunctions, historical degeneration and deterioration of thought, it is necessary that logic of modernity and its provisions be considered. He wants through this way, revitalizes pregnant concepts that is implicit in Iranshahri tradition. He seeks to trace back the genes of modern stat in Iranshahri tradition (in special domain, namely governance). It is important be said that he doesn’t hold the tradition in modern time is redemptive. Until he holds that without of historical degeneration and deterioration of thought, tradition has no solution for modern problems. In his view, despite tradition is dysfunctional, but determines deferent aspects of modern life. However it is necessary that in making state and institutionalizing of governance, be noted and consideration of thinkers and political agents doesn’t concentrates only on modern concepts. With negligence of cultural-historical contingency, application of this modern concepts, will be disadvantage. The problematic that Tabatabaie tend to produce it is a productive paradigm not only for political thought, but also can be applied for courses such as public law, Iran’s cultural studies and art researches. When this problematic will be apparent that his reply to critics is considered and his passages about these critics be interpreted through interlinear approach. Tabatabaie ascribes critics of his historiography as ideologist, uninformed historiographer and lay thinker. It can’t be said that being ideologist be excluded to Iran’s historiographers and lay thinkers isn’t named ideologist. In fact, the relation between being ideologist and being uninformed about foundations of west thought, is mutual and everyone reinforces another. Tabatabaei’s approach in this subject, shows that he selects althusserian epistemology as his meta-theory. He distinguishes between his way and his ideologist critics and this leads him to constitutes a problematic (in althusserian meaning) for Iran’s studies (specially for political thought). Also he prevents from lay historiography and in this way seeks to the most prominent argumentations, most difficult texts and most important interpretations about West’s political thought, in order to explain the foundations of west thought and shows the gap between this problematic of West and Iran’s historical materials. This is a sign that implies who applies West’s problematic for knowing of Iran’s history, are ideologists. In turn he seeks to constitute a problematic that is compatible with Iran (specially, Iran’s political thought). The basic question is that what is the political implications of this problematic for Iran’ present time. He counts constitutional revolution, the second unsuccessful renaissance and tries to realize it in Iran’s present time through removing the obstacles in intellectual domain. The ideal order that is equivalent with it can’t be incompatible with modern state’s components and necessaries. Although he emphasizes simultaneously both on European gene of these components and necessaries and the necessity of being compatible with historical-cultural identity. This is inseparable in any institutionalizing and making the constituting legal principles.

Tabatabai and Motahari consider Sadra's philosophy to be a realistic philosophy and claim a kind of realism in the book "Principles of Philosophy and the Method of Realism". Ilham Dilman also believes that Wittgenstein's rejection of realism does not make him an idealist. Rather, Wittgenstein is also considered a realist in a sense. This article examines and compares the realism proposed in "Principles..." on the one hand and the realism that Dillman attributes to Wittgenstein on the other hand.

of the failure of the Constitutional Revolution in bringing about change in the political structure of Iranian society. Among the existing literature, what has been paid less attention and even neglected is an analysis of the objective conditions of society, institutions and socio-political forces in Iranian society on the eve of the Constitutional Revolution. This has led some writers to provide an abstract and non-concrete analysis of the reasons for the failure of the Constitutional Revolution. Using the ideas of Pierre Bourdieu and examining the objective conditions of Iranian society on the eve of the Constitutional Revolution, the authors have come to the conclusion that "the failure of the Constitution was due to the lack of forces to defend the ideas of the revolution objectively, concretely and more importantly." Due to the nature of the subject, library and documentary methods have been used for data collection and qualitative analysis method has been used for data analysis. In terms of the nature of this research, it is descriptive and historical

The method of the works of these sages when compared, it may be said that one of the most important epistemological topics of the illuminative philosophy is the emphasis on the discussion of knowledge in presence and intuition. He considers the knowledge in presence to be infallible and true knowledge, but he considers the acquired knowledge to be a pure mental imagination which has no benefit from the  reality; Rather, what it has is only a form and an image of an object in the mind with external reality; of course, in the discussion of truth and falsehood, it agrees with the "theory of conformity" and in the discussion of the value of knowledge, it is "fundamentalist". Unlike Sheikh Ishraq, Allameh believes in a purely rational way that first; The origin of all knowledge and perceptions, even axioms, is  senses and sensual perceptions, and the abstraction of axioms from sensory concepts is unimpeded; He also attributes the formation of self-evident intelligences to another activity of the mind, which is the abstraction and derivation of philosophical second intelligences; Acquired knowledge is a rational derivation obtained from a known  in presence to which the intellect has inevitably admitted, and it is the known in presence of an imaginal and rational being which comes to the present of knower with its external existence, and this is the basis for Allameh to enter Discussion of knowledge in presence. Allameh, like Suhrawardi, believes in the "theory of conformity" and "foundationalism".

A major problem introduced to the contemporary Islamic philosophy by ʿAllāma Ṭabāṭabāʾī is whether propter quid demonstrations (al-barāhīn al-limmiyya) can be deployed in philosophy. ʿAllāma Ṭabāṭabāʾī’s account has given rise to two responses by contemporary scholars of Islamic philosophy: some have endorsed and defended his view, and others have criticized the account. In this article, we draw on a descriptive-analytic method and adopt a critical approach to assess the two responses. We conclude that, notwithstanding its novelties, ʿAllāma Ṭabāṭabāʾī’s account rests on problematic grounds. Moreover, it is founded upon a redefinition of demonstrations propter quid and quiatic demonstrations (al-barāhīn al-inniyya), which go against the common conception of these demonstrations in Islamic logic.

The social tradition is the usual and common manner that is normally current among the people. These traditions often carry on and are repeatable, expressing the rules governing social phenomena and social life and relationships among individuals or groups. This article has been written with an analytical and theoretical approach aiming at extracting the method of the Qur'an in changing the social traditions incompatible with the teachings of the Qur'an, by focusing on Allameh Tabatabai's point of view. By presenting methods such as motivation based on two factors of choice and awareness, the Qur'an has considered public acceptance the basis of change in society, and by changing attitudes, intellectual lines, and scientific and practical inclinations, it has made man in accordance with social divine values. This article deals with the issue of Qur'anic method in changing traditions belongs to the Age of Ignorance. The findings of this article indicate that the Holy Qur'an's method in changing social customs and traditions to eliminate false beliefs in society, changing people's intellectual infrastructure based on monotheism (Tawhid), resurrection (Ma'ad), realism and moderation, elimination of discrimination and extension of social justice, and expanding noble manners. The result of the Qur'anic method was to reform the fundamental vision of the first Islamic society and shows that this type of change is possible in all societies.

The key to understanding Wittgenstein's late philosophy is to pay attention to grammatical research. This concept of grammar is different from the traditional usage and does not care about language because it is a system of signs. With this approach, the nature of religious propositions finds a special feature that is different from other epistemological categories. From Wittgenstein's point of view, propositions are divided into two categories, "intersubstitutable " and " not intersubstitutable", which religious propositions are not intersubstitutable; therefore, they cannot be explained or interpreted in other sentences. Also, the nature of the language of religion is "internal" and finds meaning only in itself and, they are not such as "external" propositions that find a clearer meaning with the other propositions. Thus, religious propositions are disconnected from other propositions, such as scientific propositions. Although religious categories are used significantly in the field of religion, they are beyond reality or truthfulness and falsity. By the importance of the language of religion in understanding religious issues, this article, by descriptive-analytical method answers two main questions: What is the cognitive or non-cognitive status of the language of religion from Wittgenstein's point of view? From Tabatabai's point of view, what are the criticisms of this view? Accordingly, after examining the characteristics of the language of religion from Wittgenstein's point of view, its consequences are discussed with Tabatabai's views.

Comparison of the views of Wittgenstein and Allameh Tabatabai on the meaningful of religious propositions The meaning of religious propositions is considered by religious thinkers and even devout. Some philosophers of religion emphasize the meaninglessness of religious propositions; While some consider religious propositions meaningful. The early Wittgenstein considered religious propositions meaningless; But in his later philosophy, he has dealt with the issue of the meaning of religious propositions in a special way. Accordingly, religious propositions are considered meaningful only in a particular field and by users in the same field. From Tabatabai's point of view, religious propositions have characteristics that are meaningful and knowledgeable for the general public; Hence, Wittgenstein's method in describing the meaning of religious propositions is different from Tabatabai's attitude. This article answers the two main questions on the subject in a descriptive-analytical method From the point of view of Wittgenstein and Tabatabai, what is criterion the meaningful of religious propositions? What results will we achieve by comparing the thought of the two philosophers? Therefore, after examining the views of two philosophers on the meaningful of religious propositions, their views are compared and the results are stated. Finally, some of Wittgenstein's views on the meaningful of religious propositions are criticized.

One of the concepts mentioned in the Qurchr('39')an is that of khaza`in, which is introduced as the source of the world of creation and is within the power of God Almighty. In this descriptive-comparative study, the concept of khaza`in and its ontological dimensions has been studied analytically and comparatively from the perspective of Allameh Tabatabai in Al-Mizan and Rashid al-Din Meybodi in Kashf al-Asrar. Regarding the ilmi and/or `ayni nature of khaza`in, the research findings show that divine khaza`in consist of two worlds of ilmi and `ayni, which is evident in Allameh Tabatabaichr('39')s theory, but a one-sided view of khaza`in in Meybodichr('39')s commentary (taking the realm of `ayn only), it is obvious. In the realm of treasures and levels of existence, Allameh Tabatabai considers khaza`in as the supreme source of divine grace, the degradation of which is in the form of a sequence from a higher origin based on a causal relationship, while in the latter view, khaza`in oversee Godchr('39')s knowledge of managing affairs and surrounding the graces and levels of the worlds and the soul in the realm of human ability and authority, but there may not be found any reference to the quality of the establishment of the hierarchical system and the way of expressing grace.

It is essential to address the challenges of modernist theories in the interpretation of the Qur'an in recent times from a scholarly perspective. In this article, the fundamental principles of understanding and interpreting the Qur'an are described and compared from the stance of Mohammad Hossein Tabātabāi and Mohammad Mujtahid Shabestari, as the representatives of the traditional and modern approaches to the Qur'an, respectively. The findings of the research suggest that such principles in their views in four major categories of the role of the author, text, exegete and context of understanding and interpreting the Qur'an have 11 overlapping points and 13 differences, which exhibit 45% homogeneity and 55% divergence in their stances. The main overlapping dimensions in their ideas is "the role of intentionality and extraction of meaning by the author", "semantic links and comprehensibility of the Qur'an", "the necessity of textual investigation ", and "the role of context and conditions of revelation in understanding the Qur'an". Moreover, they have conflicting views in the "metaphysical or human nature of Qur'anic language", "the stability of the text meaning or its readability", "semantic or hermeneutic study of the Qur'an to discover the author’s intention", "the role of the hermeneutic circle" and "the role of investigation, previous knowledge and expectation of the exegetes in the process of understanding and interpreting the Qur'an".

Examining the role of ta`wīl in understanding religious texts and passing from the appearances of the words of Quranic verses has been one of the most challenging issues for Muslim scholars. In the last century, appearance of the school of tafkīk, and specifically denial of ta`wīl and emphasis on the necessity of the purity of the appearances of Qur'anic texts, has led to two poles of proponents and opponents of ta`wīl in the field of religious studies. This article examines the issue with an analytic method and library-based technique and compared of the works of professor Hakimi and Allameh Tabatabai in the field. The findings indicate maximum difference between the two views in the type and method of explanation. Also, due to the revelation`s state of being of various levels, no sect or school has escaped from ta`wīl. The way to separate the appearances of religious texts to avoid ta`wīl will remain an impractical idea and dream.

Any kind of preparedness and power against enemy's aggression is called defense readiness and power, which are considered as components of the power in religious and non-religious political systems, and are the basis of any progress, development and confrontation. Therefore, every (system) tries to strengthen, develop and equip their defense organization in every way, because the preservation of their existence, territorial integrity, independence and freedom is ensured in the shadow of this important matter. Also, this is a very important theme emphasized in the verses of The Holy Qur'an. Therefore, this article uses a descriptive-analytical and interpretive method to study the existential philosophy of readiness and defense power from the Quran's point of view with Allameh Tabatabai's interpretive approach. The findings of this study are as follows: Defense readiness and strength are considered as a continuous mechanism and a prerequisite for defense and jihad. And it has an effective role in creating fear in enemy. There is also a direct relationship between it and deterrence. When the level of readiness and defense power increases, the level of deterrence increases too. Also, with the increase of the levels of readiness and defense power, the armed forces and the defenders of the Islamic system's possibility of being surprised decreases. Finally, comprehensive defense readiness and power is an important factor in maintaining the religion and divine rites and guardianship of the Islamic Ummah, which in Allameh Tabatabai's view, is the most important existential philosophy and the ultimate goal of defense readiness and power.

The Holy Qur'an, on the one hand, has called its followers to self-knowledge, and on the other hand, has introduced the output of faith and righteous deeds as good life. The purpose of this study is to investigate the role of self-knowledge and good life in giving meaning to life. Therefore, the main question of the research is: from the point of view of Allameh Tabatabai, and with emphasis on the interpretation of Al-Mizan, what role do self-knowledge and good life play in giving meaning to life. Since the meaning of life in the Islamic tradition is defined on the basis of closeness to God, in this study, a functionalist analysis of self-knowledge and its effect on the meaning of life has been done. Studies have shown that self-knowledge will have the effects of: "Awareness of the imperfections of the soul", "refinement and self-correction", "self-care", "liberation from a passive life", "seeing the world in the presence of God" "Reaching God" and "perishing", this self-awareness can lead to a good life, the result of which is "the companionship of faith and righteous deeds", "the symmetry of worldly life with divine contentment and satisfaction", alignment with the divine law of nature. And "The believer does not deviate from justice and fairness in life. The output of this self-awareness and good life will be the attainment of a far advanced nearness to God and the meaning of life in all its dimensions.

Faith is the most basic element of spiritual life, the jewel that adorns the human soul and the brightest ray of the Alawite world, One of the most important theological issues is faith and its related elements, so that its fundamental role in the formation of religious belief in the meaning of life can not be ignored. The present study seeks to examine the role of religious components such as prophecy, Imamate, worship on faith and its accessories in the meaning of life in both cognitive and functional dimensions, with a descriptive-comparative method from the perspective of two great thinkers with two different Islamic traditions, Sunni and Shiite. It has been used to collect data through a library. The research data has been analyzed by collecting similarities and differences between the views of these two great thinkers based on their anthropological foundations. The results showed that every thinker considers faith to be meaningful in life, although there are differences in the details based on the principles of their thoughts, In the issue of Ghazali worship, more emphasis is placed on the individual dimension of worship, but Allameh emphasizes both the individual and social dimensions of worship. The most important difference between these two scholars is the issue of Imamate, which Ghazali considers as a worldly management and a jurisprudential and sub-matter. Allameh considers Imamate as the continuation of prophecy and divine covenant.

Mulla Sadra, as the founder of transcendent wisdom, has innovations in many of his views, which are the distinguishing feature of this philosophical school from the previous ones. For example, he has obtained a new interpretation of the Seddiqin proof. The advantage of Sadra's interpretation over Ibn Sina and Suhrawardi's interpretation is based on Sadra's specific principles such as the originality of existence, graded unity of being, simplicity of existence and the possibility of poverty. These innovations are also seen in the expositions of the followers of the Sadra’s school. Their culmination point is in the expositions of Allameh Tabatabai and the expositions that Master Javadi Amoli gives from the explanation of Tabatabai; His innovation is first in determining the exact place of the dispute, according to which the place of the dispute is the absolute status of the truth of existence, and also in correctly explaining the claim that the statement "the truth of existence is necessary (eternally)" is a first obvious proposition. So the main question is: "What are the innovations of Mulla Sadra and Sadrian sages in the seddiqin proof?" The purpose of this study is to be able to reduce the problems with the interpretations of the Seddiqin proof by correctly explaining the two exposition of Tabatabai and Javadi Amoli.

Late Iranian intellectuals present their ideas based on two fundamental elements, namely religious rule in Iran and the age of globalization. In fact, intellectuals such as Seyyed Javad Tabatabai highlight issues such as government, authority, tradition, modernity, secularism, and democracy on two components. Therefore, the study of his views should be done according to his epistemological approach. Based on his epistemological principles such as Iranshahri, Sunnah, and the Hegelian West, Tabatabai tries to respond to the current challenges and issues of Iranians. This study examines Tabatabai's intellectual foundations and criticisms of these foundations. In this context, the principles of Hegelian West, Iranshahri, his methodology, and concepts have been criticized. We have criticized his ambiguity in the basic concepts such as Iran and modernity in Iran, his Hegelian view of Iranian history, and his disregard for democracy.