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

Examining statements related to power in ancient texts is an approach to understanding the political and management discourses formed in the context of history. Discourse analysis based on power distance can provide a profile of the political and managerial culture dimensions of an organization or society. The symmetrical land of Hijaz, with the formation of Quraysh's commercial trips, witnessed the emergence of the wealth foundation discourse, which temporarily faded with the emergence of Islam and the establishment of the prophetic government in Medina and gave way to another discourse; The new discourse was expanded and promoted in an unprecedented way during the rule of Imam Ali (AS). In the present article, which was organized with the descriptive analytical method based on library sources, two competing discourses were analyzed based on the indicators of power distance, and at the end the following result was obtained: Imam Ali (AS), while challenging the authority of the wealthy elite, opposed hierarchical relationships and advocated for intellectual enlightenment within the political and administrative organization. Fundamentally, he did not believe in maintaining a power distance. Based on this research, the result of adopting these strategies was the creation of an open political space for freely expressing positions and criticisms, meritocracy, and also a serious fight against favoritism in the Alevi government, which was unprecedented in the previous and subsequent governments.

Encountering the variety of logic systems, three theories have been introduced; exclusivism, pluralism and instrumentalism. Exclusivists consider only one system of logic to be correct. Pluralists consider all systems of logic to be correct. Instrumentalists do not consider any system of logic to be correct (correctness of logic is irrelevant for them). The theory introduced in this essay is inclusivism. Inclusivism is neither exclusivism, because it does not consider more than one system of logic to be correct, nor it is pluralism because it does not consider all systems of logic to be correct, and nor is it instrumentalism, because the correctness and incorrectness of the logic system is irrelevant for it. Avicenna also faced diversity in the knowledge of logic; Aristotelian logic and Stoic-Megarian logic. He has not been exclusivist in this encounter, because if that was the case, he would choose one and give up the other. He was not a pluralist, because if that was the case, he would have taken both of them without any unwarranted change and all in one piece. Avicenna was not an instrumentalist either, because the correctness of the logic system was relevant for him.

Orientalists’ followers who tie their horizons of thought to the Orientalists and use their foundations, methods and tendencies to deduce, give value to philosophical hermeneutics for reading and understanding texts and view the text as the dialogue of the object (text) and subject (interpreter), combine them with historical hypotheses historical presupposes. So, we have tried with descriptive – analytical method to explain the viewpoints of Orientalists’ followers like Soroush, Shabistani, Abu Zayd, and Fazlur Rahman in accordance the philosophical hermeneutics, to criticize the plurality in meaning and its fluidity in other words, its cognitive relativism and its usage by the Orientalists is regarded incompatible with the Islamic interpretive tradition in understanding the texts of revelation

Using a qualitative method based on textual hermeneutics, the present study aims to answer “what are the criticisms to the principles of the theory of freedom in the view of Isiah Berlin based on the idea of Allāma Javādi ‘Amoli?” The results showed that the idea of freedom in the perspective of Isiah Berlin has a root in humanistic and pluralistic thinking and that Allāma Javādi ‘Amoli’s return point in the above criticism relies on the principle of “the recognition of origin”. Accordingly, a human as a finite being, in Takwin (creation) and Tashri’ (legislation), needs an infinite being that is God. The spread of human needs to God involves the evaluation and prioritization of values too so a human has no choice but to obey God and follow the commands and prohibitions of the religion. This issue is in contrast with humanistic and pluralistic ideas in Berlin’s view.

Unitarism and pluralism are the two main trends in political thought based on which all the works of political philosophers from the classical to the contemporary era can be explained and interpreted. Social contract is also one of the most important theories in political thought that explains the transition of human societies from the natural to the civil state. The proponents of social contract (Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau) do not have the same explanation of civil state. Therefore, using the analytical-interpretive method, the present paper seeks to compare the views of the proponents of social contract in explaining the civil state on the basis of political unitarism and pluralism. The findings of this study indicate that three different models of unitarism and pluralism are inferred from the political thought of social contract. Contractual unitarism, democratic unitarism, and contractual pluralism are three models that emerge from explaining the position of the three variables of citizens, political groups, and government in the civil state in the political thought of Hobbes, Rousseau, and Locke.

Many Western thinkers subscribe to the theory of Pluralism. This idea is based on the assumption that there are different ways of salvation. The religion of Islam has a monopoly on the path to the truth. Some verses of the Holy Quran with emphasis on the verses "Islam prevails over all religions" can be used as an intra-religious response to the notion of pluralism. This research has tried to explain the degree of recognition of the plurality of religions in the age of advent. As such, the author has attempted to represent the age of [Imam Mahdichr('39')s] appearance according to the ninth verse of Chapter As-Saff. Based on the findings of the research, the Holy Quran predicts that truth will surpass the falsehood and Islam will prevail over other religions. For Islam is the only way to the truth in achieving salvation. At the advent age salvation will be realized under the leadership of Imam al-Asr (May Allah hasten his appearance].

This article seeks to investigate the question of the foundations of “the ruling of a single religion” in the age of Appearance and to clarify how John Hick’s religious pluralism is false. At the age pf Appearance, there will be a comprehensive religion that will meet the needs of the people until the resurrection. The promise of the victory of the righteous, their inheritance over the whole earth, and the promise of God Almighty that the religion of Islam will appear and prevail over other religions implies that at the age of Appearance, only one right religion will prevail, not that all religions gain legitimacy. John Hick’s ‘religious pluralism” is widely criticized. Giving the legitimacy to all divine religions whose laws were abrogated after the advent of Islam as well as non-divine religions such as Hinduism, Bid, Mat and Sikhism, which do not believe in one God, and considering them to be right cannot intellectually get together. Thus, in the age of Appearance, instead of having multiple religions, only one religion will rule the world.

Pluralism is one of the ideas emerging from the diversity of religions in Christian theology that reduces religion to a religious experience. One of the theories about the religious experience is Schleiermacher's theory of emotion. The theory emphasizes the intuitive and emotional aspect of religion, and religion is seen as independent of human experience and lacks the epistemic dimension. In this article, while explaining Schleiermacher's theory of emotion, it deals with its problems based on the definition of religion and the relationship among religion, reason, and emotion, and uses the logic of Nahj al-Balagha to present the correct method of religiosity and its essential components. The research method is descriptive-analytical and the results indicate that Schleiermacher's feeling theory does not provide a comprehensive explanation of the basis and end of the human religious act. In contrast, the Islamic view of the principle of religion is an approach that prioritizes religion's artifact by God and its control over beliefs and practices. In this approach, there is a logical and conceptual balance to the existence of reason and feeling within religion.

There are three religious exclusivism, inclusivism and pluralism approaches that try to take rational answers to the questions regarding religions epistemological and soteriological truthiness. The problems of mentioned approaches, takes enough background for the approach of religions gradual truthiness in which all religions and their believers gradually and hierarchically benefit epistemological and soteriological truthiness. It seems Mowlavi by considering his mystical tendency, supports the approach of religions gradual truthiness. The foundation and principles of Mowlavi’s thought concerning religions gradual truthiness can be considered as follows: transcendent unity of religions, the fact of external plurality of religions, differentiation between religion and divine law, differences between right and wrong paths, Islam as the superior manifestation of religion and divine law, and the Prophet of Islam as the final and perfect messenger. The sum of these cases show that Mowlavi thinks of divine and non-divine religions based on gradual truthiness in which all religions according to their benefiting of absolute truth, have truthiness and are led to salvation. Meantime logical requirement of accepting religions gradual truthiness is welcoming to Islam as the final and the perfect religion, and to the Prophet Muhammad as the last and the best messenger of God. In this approach, the superiority and perfection of the final religion and its Prophet does not mean rejecting merits of pervious religions.

Monism and pluralism are two main approaches to political thought, and we can interpret all the works of political philosophers from the classical to the contemporary period based on that. Throughout history, these two approaches have had many supporters among political philosophers. Among classical philosophers, Plato believes in monism and Aristotle in pluralism, and hence the challenge of monism and pluralism in their political philosophy has been formed, whose can be seen their effects in the political philosophy of the political philosophers of later periods. Briefly, monism with the emphasizing unity in civil life, believes in the concentration of political power; and Pluralism by defending multiplicity in the field of politics, believes in the diversity and distribution of power among different groups and currents. Therefore, this article explain Platonic virtue-centered monism and Aristotle's virtue-centered Pluralism. through this explanation, the difference between two
approaches becomes clear.

Doctor Soroush has attempted in his paper, "Serathaye Mostaghim", to prove religious pluralism through ten ways. He has also tried to resolve the problems regarding this viewpoint and to answer the questions. The purpose of this article is to mention briefly ten ways of Doctor Soroush then to describe them in details. This article claims that in these ten ways unproven premises or false premises have been used, or argument with a true premises are not able to prove the claim, or instead of proving pluralism, to void monopolization. So none of his arguments can prove pluralism

Unity and plurality is one of the important issues in the history of political philosophy, tendency of political philosopher towards each of which can influence all aspects of his political philosophy. Throughout history, political philosophers have raised different ideas in dealing with these two issues. The status of Peripatetic political philosophers like Farabi, Avicenna and Khwajeh Nasiruddin Tusi in the history of Islamic philosophy directed us to explore the issue and the political aftermaths in peripatetic political philosophy. Although Peripatetic political philosophers underscore the need for unity in political life, they have not shown any interest in embracing plurality which can be based upon their principles; in cases where they have dealt with it, they normally observed elimination of plurality from utopia rather than the acceptance. Besides, when components of Unitarianism and pluralism are examined in peripatetic political philosophy, signs of Unitarianism are totally seen in such a way that, they in dealing with different political issues, have proceeded to have the unity concerned in political community which is finally materialized.

An investigation into the interpretations of the Quran reveals that the understanding and interpretation of some former interpreters on some Quranic verses are somewhat different from those of contemporary interpreters. This issue leads to these questions: Why do basically such controversies and view changes occur about understanding and interpreting some Quranic verses? And how can such occurrences be scientifically explained and explicated? In response to these questions, Quranic scholars have often spoken of epistemological factors and have less been concerned with non-epistemological factors. One of the most influential non-epistemological factors in the transformation of the opinions of the interpreters is the concept of discourse in linguistics. In this study, the transformation taken place in the interpretation of some Quranic verses in the contemporary period in comparison with that of former periods has been investigated using the concept of discourse. The obtained results reveal that formation of new discourses in the contemporary period has transformed the understanding and interpretation of contemporary interpreters.

The pluralism theory does not know the reality and redemption to a certain religion and believes that all religions joy the reality relatively. Some of the Islamic thinkers also agree this theory and emphasis the plurality of Straight Path. The author of the present article attempts to prove that the religious pluralism is ignored from Holy Quran point of view and the Straight Path is unique. Thus the author criticizes the Quranic documents of pluralisms and proves that previous religions are outdated by emergence of the new religion; the criteria of right and wrong is Islam which is both global and eternal.

"Pluralism" means acceptance of coexistence of many different races, religions, and political beliefs and its purpose in philosophy of religion is to accept the legitimacy of different religions. Advocates of religious pluralism in order referred to the verses of the Holy Quran to justify and legitimize their claims. This article has is arranged into three sections. The first section deals with the study of different conceptualization with brief look at the literature review. The second section, which is the main objective of this article, is concerned with the examination of and criticizing nine classifications of advocates of pluralism relying on the Quran’s verses. The general topics of those categories are as follows: Islamic verses, verses of Surah Al-Kaafiroon, the freedom to choose a religion, no compulsion in religion, God will belong to the plurality of faiths, verses of straight path, the multitude of witnesses to the Resurrection, and so forth. The third section of the study allocated to mentioning some quotations right from the holy Quran to criticize the claims of the advocates of pluralism.

Truereligion is unique and non-diverse and contrary to what pluralistshave claimed, there has been only a single religion during the whole period when prophets were calling people unto God. Although this religion has haddifferent names,it has been the origin of all the teachings of all the prophets and, in general terms, it is Islam.Of course,the truth of religion has remainedunchanged,but shari’as have been different and unstable. This religion and this single truth was completed by the Prophet on behalf of all prophets during the last years of hislife when he introduced the Commander of the Faithful and it was named Islam and its outcomewas satisfaction of God. It is the same religion that will not be limited by the boundaries of space and timeduring the last days of the universe and will be introduced to the public by the Reformer and Savior of all periods and Islamwill be universal.

In determining the relationship of the revealed religions, the equality and opposition is void and similarity and differences are a fixed assumption. To explain this, it should be mentioned that the common ordinances (ahkám) are resulted from Oneness of God and differences are not resulted from plurality in the revealed religions and not because of the abrogation (naskh) of the previous revealed religions but the reality is that sharia is a single-absolute truth which the evolutionary process of the application of Islamic law or making-law makes differences reveal. This note creates a principle (rule) which determines that the governed principle is the development of divine ordinances (ahkam) in the process of the application of Islamic law or making-law. Therefore, divine ordinances (ahkam) of the revealed religions are not abrogated but the more perfect ordinance (hukm) has repudiated the practical validity of the pre- Islamic prefect ordinance. Hence, the jurisprudential premises of the pre-Islamic revealed religions are valid until the perfected form of the ordinances (ahkam) in Islam has not been obtained. If acting according to the perfect ordinance (Islamic law) is not possible because of an obstacle, the ordinance (hukm) of the pervious revealed religions is obliged. According to this principle, the realm of the Islamic jurist thought additionally to the Quran stories stretches to the stories of the prophets. The relationship between the ordinances of the pervious revealed religions with Islam ones can be imagined in a three forms: 1. If it is obtained in Islam religion with no change, it will be obliged to act for all. 2. Neither the sameness of that ordinance nor the perfected form is obtained; the pervious ordinance is valid in this situation. 3. The perfected form of the ordinances is obtained in Islam religion; it is acted according to Islam religion in normal situation otherwise it is acted according to the previous revealed religions.

This paper is concerned with the examination and analysis of the TV approach to the religious rites with an emphasis on the Ramadan Month as one of the longest periods for delivering religious messages via TV. This approach, affected by definitions and possibilities of religion-media relations, has various forms of methodological or conceptual problems in the process of producing video contents. In addition to the attempt to review the main ambiguous points in the minds of working managers, the paper tries to examine and analyze successful or unsuccessful experiences and provide proposals in order to re-read the definition of media and religion in order to facilitate the employment of this technology in lines with the objectives of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The conflict between religion and media, the emphasis on dialogue, the adjustment of the degree of employing attractions, avoiding plurality and the production of media rites are some of the problems discussed in this paper, and at the end, some policies have been proposed in this respect.

Based on a socio-theological view, Peter Berger explains religion and religiosity. In a long-term intellectual period, he endorses the theory that religion can be regarded as a sacred canopy which spreads above society, giving birth to social order. In this regard, religion is a cognitive and meaningful mechanism which provides the society, in a sacred manner, with the individual and collective way of life. In another period of his life, Berger considers the relationship between religion and secularization, concluding that the underlying and organizing function of religion is reducing but its individual cognitive function is gaining considerable ground. In the first period, he is occupied with the thought that modernity leads on to secularization; in the second period he concentrates on the synthetic religiosity and styles of religiosity and in general he considers private religion as the central component of modern period. Accordingly, his evolutionary theory of religion regarding the relationship between science and religion is replaced by his synthetic theory according to which modernity does not end in removing religion but contributes to changing religion.