جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه « free will » در نشریات گروه « علوم قرآن و حدیث »

The theory of subjective considerations (i’tibāriyāt) is an epistemological theory that has had a significant influence in various domains of knowledge. The Principles of Jurisprudence is one of the most important sciences where the theory of subjective considerations has been foundational, and ‘Allāmah Ṭabāṭabā’ī, in his book "Al-Kifāyah with annotation", has utilized this theory to explore the issues of this major science. According to him, "command and prohibition" are subjective matters, and the consequences of subjectivity is the leadership. Command is the act of associating and connecting the desire and will to another action. One of the most contemporary issues in the domain of command in the Principles of Jurisprudence is the problem of the unity of desire and will, where scholars like Ākhūnd Khurāsānī have endorsed unity of desire and will in terms of meaning, creation, and the outside. However, ‘Allāmah Ṭabāṭabā’ī has addressed this issue in the three domains: linguistic, usūlī and rational. He utilizes the implications of the theory of subjective considerations to explain and resolve it.

Afali monotheism is one of the branches of theoretical monotheism, whose branches include monotheism in creation, lordship, wealth, sovereignty, and ownership.
Since each of these branches, especially monotheism in creation, is related to human free will, in explaining the relationship between monotheism of actions and human free will, Ash'areh do not consider man to be a free-willed being by referring to the verses indicating the generality of God's actions. Mu'tazila accept the monotheism of verbs, but they do not consider the optional actions of man to be God's actions and only attribute them to man himself. Following the Ahl al-Bayt (Aal), the Imami Shiites consider both views to be incorrect and hold to a third view called the theory of Amron Bayn Al-amreyn, which is free from the negative consequences of the other two views.

The most fundamental principles of quantum can be put forward in the principle of uncertainty and the influence of the observer in the behavior of quantum particles, of which the former is closely related to free will and the latter to consciousness of particles. If we add the interpretation of the creation of measurement in quantum particles to these two principles, the claim of the effect of transcendental affairs in the creation of particles through free will and consciousness would not be too much. Because Ibn Sina's basis in free will and awareness is thought to be through the bestowing of "active intellect"; that is, whenever something is intended, quantum particles or particles that have the greatest affinity with incorporeal things are created in the brain and consciousness flows. The question is, how can the model of free will and consciousness in physics be based on Islamic philosophy? The purpose of this article is to examine the physical philosophy of Avicenna in the relationship between free will and consciousness and compare it with the current philosophy of physics. This research collects information in a library form and analyzes it descriptively and analytically. In the end, it comes to the conclusion that Avicenna's model is significantly superior to the current models in physics. In addition, this model can be improved from the point of view of religion.

It is related in the Qur’an that after being expelled from the divine sanctuary, Iblis attributed his misguidance to God by the phrase bi mā aghwaytanī (As you have consigned me to perversity). Some interpreters have considered the statement by Iblis to be true and some have considered it to be false, and made this confirmation or denial the basis for bringing up the issue of predestination and free will.This research has reached the following conclusions by examining the interpreters’ opinion:Some interpreters have kept silent due to lack of dealing with the issue.Believers in predestination have considered ighwā’ (perversity) as meaning misguidance and have implied jabr (predestination) from it.Some believers in Divine Justice, despite having considered Iblis’s claim to be true, have interpreted ighwā’ in such a way that it does not imply God’s Injustice and creatures’ predestination towards sin.Some other interpreters have considered Iblis as false and malicious in this claim due to sensing predestination from the word ighwā’.Although having considered Iblis’s words to be true, Allāma Ṭabāṭabā’ī, in order to avoid predestination, has considered ighwā’ to be a secondary perversity and the result of Iblis’s own wrong choice.

Al-amāna (the trust) verse is one of the unequivocal and key verses of the Qur’an about the creation of man, which has been the subject of various and sometimes conflicting opinions among interpreters. Among the many meanings that interpreters have chosen for amāna; such as sharī‘a, wilāya, fiṭra, al-rūḥ al-manfūkh (the spirit breathed in), etc., it seems that the meaning that some mystics have reached, that is, the absolute caliphate over the entire human beings from God, as well as the meaning of free will, is of more accuracy; because, firstly, these meanings are based on the Qur’an’s emphatic truth about the intelligence, understanding and rationality of all the universe; secondly, they are specific to humans; thirdly, they are evolutionary and are in line with other verses of creation; fourthly, they provide the most suitable justification for the words ishfāq (apprehending), iniquity, and senselessness in al-amāna verse. Therefore, they are like two sides of the coin of amāna.

Free will or determinism is a debate that has engaged Muslims' minds since the first years of the rise of Islam and led to the emergence of various theological theories. There are three fundamental approaches to this issue. According to the first view, man is subject to determinism. Based on the second theory, man has freedom of will. The third theory, developed by the Imamiyyeh, is the proof of God's Providence and man's providence simultaneously. Under this view, the apparent contradiction between man's providence and God's Providence is solved, and man's freedom of will is proved parallel to God's will. The current study, which was prepared by the library (desk) collection method and descriptive-analytical and critical processing, seeks to present the statement of free in the determinism and free will through the review, analysis, and critique of these three theological views and their manifestation in the interpretations given by verse 30 of Surah Al-Insan (Man), and reveal the falseness of other statements. The study's findings indicate that the most important criticism on determinists is the disregard for divine wisdom, and the most fundamental objection to the delegation theory is to limit the power and ownership of God.

In verse 24 of Surah An-Nisa, Muhsinat has various examples in earlier Shiite and Sunni interpretations. The meaning of captive married women was meant, but a different context in Shia meant that the meaning of captive married woman was not expressed in previous Shiite interpretations, and they considered most of the products to mean a free woman or a slave.And this difference disappeared after writing the first comprehensive commentaries and the recitation of Shiites and Sunnis from each other's interpretive sources was motivated not to see the first distinction between Shiites and Sunnis about the meaning of the products in these interpretations. In this way, it seems that the contexts and contexts that were the pretext for accepting an interpretive point of view in the previous interpretations were not given much attention in later periods. In particular, there was no equal use of each other's resources between Shiites and Sunnis, and Shiite interpretations, due to the acceptance of the preferred view of previous Sunni interpretations by Sheikh Tusi, the influence of his character and books on later Shiite commentators, are more influenced by Sunni interpretations. Were.

There are two initial and penal types of Divine leading and misleading; Neither of these two types is in conflict with human free will; Because either it may not be related to God or, if it may, it is in such a manner that is in full agreement with human authority. But the primary guidance, which means showing the way to perfection and happiness to man, and the penal guidance, which is the result of man's voluntary use of the means of God's primary guidance, and the penal misleading, which is the result of man's own arbitrary intention and decision, nonetheless, relating these three types to God would not be against human free will. The primary misleading, however, may not be attributed to God. The importance of the issue of divine leading and misleading lies in the fact that by which the well-known doubt of determinism in the field may be answered. Because the appearance of divine misleading and leading is that man has no choice but to go astray and God forces people to the right or wrong path. This research proves that man's guidance and misguidance are at his own free will.

This study aims to examine the fire defense strategies in political management to combat soft war from the perspective of the Supreme Leader. In this regard, using thematic analysis tools, arbitrary fire defense strategies in political management to combat soft war in the intellectual-political system of the Supreme Leader based on three ontological, epistemological and methodological approaches were studied. The process of the Supreme Leader's optional method of firing on the subject of political management to counter the soft war in the first place is the correct knowledge of the enemy and his plans; If the enemy is not accurately identified in this area, then the necessary and appropriate defensive and offensive measures will not be taken. The next step in the fight against arrogance of power is readiness because victory in combat will be achieved when the forces are sufficiently prepared to confront the enemy and its plans. Ultimately, the requirement of faith is the presence of the believer in the combat, a necessity that, if fulfilled, according to the Supreme Leader of the Revolution, the arrogant will not be able to defeat this nation and the revolution.

Various currents of thought in the Islamic world have focused on the Holy Quran, and some, due to the appearance of the verses and its multifaceted possibility, have provided the ground for choosing and interpreting the verses in their favor, including the verses: "Say: Nothing shall ever happen to us …". Sunni commentators are divided into two about the comment of the verse. Most of them believe that the verse is about omniscience and absolute will of God, which introduces everything written on a fixed tablet. In contrast, the minority including Meybodi and Fakhr Razi have viewed that this verse is incompatible with causality and man`s free will. Therefore, the present study intends to rely on Shiite interpretations to confirm the promise that this verse has no implication for human lack of free will and does not contradict the principle human free will, and it is man who can pursue happiness and perfection optionally.

The discourse on determinism and free will is one of the important philosophical issues and dilemmas about which philosophers of the East and the West have pondered a lot throughout history. ‘Allāma Ṭabāṭabā’ī, as an Islamic thinker, both in his philosophical works and in the interpretation of Al-Mīzān, has studied different dimensions of determinism and free will. Leibniz, as one of the great thinkers of the pre-Kant era, has done a great deal of research on determinism and free will. The main question of the present research is whether the belief in the principle of pre-established harmony is not a kind of negating free will and sovereignty of necessity? How is the eternal Divine will compatible with human free will? Leibniz sought to establish human free will by distinguishing between absolute necessity and conditional necessity and the theory of possible worlds. ‘Allāma Ṭabāṭabā’ī also considers free will to be an innate entity and maintains that the principle of prior necessity, “a thing comes into being only after it is necessitated”, does not contradict human free will. In this research, after explaining the principles of Leibniz and ‘Allāma Ṭabāṭabā’ī, we would examine, analyze and compare the viewpoints of these two thinkers.

With the expansion of free access to cyberspace, it is necessary to explain the jurisprudential criteria of its cultural application, for free access to all data in such a space entails many issues, of which is the jurisprudential considerations regarding the idea that cyberspace is an al-alah al-mushtarikah (a device capable of being used in sinful way).This research critiques this idea and its consequent inferring that using cyberspace is absolutely lawful. As a result, as long as the technical capability of the national cyber infrastructure and management is not achieved, it’s usage exceeding the necessities is not permissible.

Free will and determinism are among the topics discussed among commentators. This article, considering the definition and role of human power in explaining human actions` state of being deterministic or optional and using the method of presenting the interpretation of the Qurchr('39')an to the sound religious theological principles taken from verses and hadiths, has explained the role of human power in actions from the perspective of Fakhr Razi and Allameh Tabatabai with regard to the verse 125 of An` ām. According to Fakhr Razi, in addition to the human will, human power is created by God from beginning to the end of action, so it has no effect on human action and expansion of bosom and closeness of bosom, therefore, would be taken as the motivation given by God. While, according to Allameh Tabatabai, the effects of power and will are caused by man and effective in achieving action, but since the existence of man depends essentially and actually on God, this effect is also ultimately originated from God. The meaning of the verse mentioned, then, is very far from Fakhr Razichr('39')s claim. The result of Fakhr Razichr('39')s view is determinism, while, that of Allameh Tabatabaichr('39')s view is amr bayn amrain.

Many of the Muslim philosophers view human free-will as among the most significant means of knowing God; that is because they believe that man is similar to God in his essence, attributes, and actions and thus knowing human free-will and its limits would clarify his role in the world of being as well as his relation to God. Mulla Sadra has stated this discourse in a coherent and innovative way based on the principle of the ontology of genuineness, gradation, and oneness of being and ultimately has ingeniously explained the theory of intermediate position (amr-i bain al-amrain) through the theory of individual oneness. Similarly, in respect to explaining human free-will, Gazzaniga, as a leading researcher in cognitive neuroscience and the study of the neural basis of mind, believes that human free-will is made up by the brain's "interpreter" and freedom of choice is attained for man through interaction in society and environment, but at the same time humans are responsible beings. In this paper, first, each of these thinkers' principles of thoughts is elucidated and then, after explaining the similarities and differences of their viewpoints, both viewpoints are analyzed and evaluated.

The purpose of the present study is to review some social preventive measures in the Islamic Republic of Iran to protect freedom of thought and speech based on the Islamic instructions. The method of study is descriptive analysis and the results showed that Islam has offered special social preventives measures to protect freedom of thought and speech as this subject has widely been taken into consideration in Islamic texts. Furthermore, Islam has also offered some other measures such as rationalism, poverty prevention, extension of free and critical thinking, spread of religious arguments, giving advice to the officials, and the protection of critics in order to decrease likely crimes in this field. Therefore, the above measures should be taken into account before any disciplinary or penal measure in order to protect freedom of thought and speech. It should be noted that the implementation of the preventive measures does not intend to omit penal and disciplinary measures, but rather they should also be definitely used as the last step for those who refuse preventive measures and just follow their own deviated way.

Jaspers and Mulla Sadra's view on Relationship Between "causation and knowledge" is based on the Existential-transcendental approach of their philosophy. Accordingly. The two common points are as follows: First, they both consider causalities as a rule of the objective world. Second, both argue that causation by the existence of the universe and to the analysis of the relationships of beings is related with cognition. Thus, they both tried to identify causation as proof and realization of knowledge.but, The distinction is as follows: First, the validity of the principle of causality in the absolute knowledge of the being and the existence of man; with the explanation that, causation in the thought of Mulla Sadra plays a fundamental role in human cognition, but from the perspective of Jaspers, the recognition of this Problems is out of traditional circle of cosmology and phenomenological categories. Second, the meaning and scope of freedom are different according to their attitude to the principle of causality. Jaspers denies the causality because it limits the freedom of man, but Mulla Sadra believes that man is free from the fact that he is forced and he is forced from the fact that he is free. Ultimately, Mulla Sadra seems to consider causation as a position for the transcendence of human. Jaspers, however, have put the denial of causality in the field of human will and behavior as a basis for justifying transcendence of human.

The purpose of the present study is to review the viewpoints of two theological schools known as Asha’ereh and Mo’tazeleh about one of anthropological principles called “free will”. The method of study was descriptive analysis and the results indicated that Mo’tazeleh’s adherence to the principle of favor, divine justice and its balance with free will and punishment in terms of compatibility with human free will, the necessity of not attributing evil acts to God, and admitting God’s omnipotence and power in creating human acts connote that free will cannot be attributed to Mo’tazeleh. However, Asha’ereh assume that human acts are definitely attributed to God they obey divine will. They hold that even classifying human acts into good and bad has a divine origin so good and evil acts have a religious dimension and it will not logically be justifiable and acceptable.

The current research has examined the role of Fakhr Razi’s theological fundamentals in interpretation of verses that deal with predestination and free will. Needless to say, subjective interpretation must be avoided in interpretation of Quranic verses. A good example from subjective interpretation is when the interpreter’s unverified personal views and fundamentals stemming from inaccurate inferences affect his act of interpretation. This research shows that Fakhr Razi's deterministic view has had a great impact on the interpretation of verses that are related to determinism and free will. And the fundamentals he has accepted are incompatible with many verses of the Qur'an. Although Fakhr Razi has deterministic point of view, but pretends to oppose it. Relying on his personal point of view, he clearly ignores the apparent meaning of some verses and imposes his deterministic point of view on the Qur'an while interpreting verses that deal with predestination and free will. It is a clear example of subjective interpretation.

Ghazali believes that ‘moral responsibility’ denotes ‘being subjected to reprimand’, and reprimand means that some kind of quality is created in man’s heart, and he distances himself from God, the Exalted. In Ghazali’s belief, man is responsible for the judgment in his heart and for his intention for doing an action. With an individual and collective outlook, Ghazali holds man accountable to God, himself and others, but in order for this responsibility to be realized, the doer of the action must meet the requirements of the fulfillment of the action and avoid the factors that impede the sense of responsibility in man. Therefore, Ghazali considers moral responsibility to have its components and conditions. With the strong support of the Quranic verses, he expresses his views although, due to his attachment to the Ash’arites, his ideas of moral responsibility are challenging and have created some contradictions

In some verses of the Quran, the guidance and misguidance is related to God and on the other hand, man hasthe free will, and his guidance and misguidance happen by him. The purpose of this paper is to investigate this apparent contradiction and the possibility of a combination of these two ratios. The main question is: How can the attribution of guidance and error to both man and God Almighty be explained? The discussion of divine guidance and misguidance is important because it solves the determinism in guidance and misguidance. Because the appearance of divine misguidance and guidance is that man has no choice in his misguidance, and God forces people to walk the right or wrong path. This research is a kind of content analysis and has been done by examining the verses and related narrations and referring to the available sources and interpretations of the Quran. The findings show that there are two types of divine guidance and error: primary and penal; And neither of these two types is contrary to human free will, because it cannot be invoked by God, or if it is, it does not deprive man of his free will. Also, elementary guidance (meaning showing the way to perfection and happiness to man) and criminal guidance (as a result of man's voluntary use of the means of primary guidance of God) as well as criminal error (as a result of man's own abuse), while these three kinds can be invoked by God but do not contradict human will. But the primary misguidance cannot be cited by God.