جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه « حشر حیوانات » در نشریات گروه « فلسفه و کلام »

The resurrection of animals is one of the topics that has always been controversial among philosophers, theologians and religious leaders. Some of them believe that the animal's souls have no survival after death, and others who have accepted the abstraction of animals believe in their resurrection. In this article, while accepting the resurrection of the animal's souls based on verses and hadiths, the purgatory and otherworldly life of animals from the perspective of two philosophers of transcendent wisdom, Mulla Sadra and Imam Khomeini, is examined and what is the difference between animal and human resurrection and Is this resurrection common to all animals, or is the manner of the resurrection of animals also different from each other, and what will be the end of these souls, and is there any happiness and misery for the animals in the world of the Hereafter? In this article, while answering the above questions, one of the most important issues of soul reunification, ie the presence or absence of imagination in animals, is examined. Proof of imagination in animals is one of the reasons for proving their celibacy. Then, by stating other reasons for the celibacy of the animal souls and based on the views of Mulla Sadra and Imam Khomeini, it is finally concluded that animals that have the power of imagination, by connecting to their kind, have purgatory celibacy and have a minor personal resurrection on the Day of Resurrection. Other animals have a connection and with their death they unite with their Lord and lose their determination.

The reality of animal suffering in nature has raised the suspicions of evil, which atheists see it as evidence of the existence of an exaggerated evil that is incompatible with God, or His attributes. Resolving this discrepancy has always been of interest to theists, but Islamic theologians have faced a more serious problem due to their emphasis on monotheism and the consideration of absolute attributes of "Knowledge", "Power" and "Pure Benevolence" to God. Desk-research studies show that the historical course of theologians' encountering with this issue is very different. Some of these views are, denying the resurrection of animals, believing in animals' reincarnation, calling their fate insignificant to God, believing in their resurrection and disagreeing on whether they are obligated or not. According to Allame Tabatabai in Al-Mizan Comantary, it seems, on a weaker level, animals are perceptive, autonomous and obligated, and on the Day of Resurrection, they will receive a ransom and cultivation of the soul for the suffering they endure.

This paper seeks to investigate the efforts of the Muslim theologians and philosophers with regard to the issue of the resurrection of animals from the two aspects of the rational possibility of resurrection and its reason. The answers provided by the theologians to the first question are varied. Some have considered the resurrection of animals like that of human beings as the rejoining of the scattered body parts, as they basically do not believe in any immaterial other than Allah; some others have denied the existence of an immaterial being in animals as they consider humans and animals to be in an equal level and so they have denied the resurrection of animals; and yet another group have tried to prove the existence of an immaterial being in animals through a proof based on induction. However, based on the philosophers’ view, the animal soul resides in the perceptive-imaginable level; this is why Farabi has taken the animal souls to be non-immaterial due to a lack of intellectual perception. In Avicenna and Sheik Eshraq’s works, there seems to be a duality with regard to the immateriality of imagination in which the stronger argument is the one that has denied the immateriality of imagination and, consequently, the immateriality of animal souls and their resurrection. By proving the immateriality of imagination, Mulla Sadra has taken a novel step towards the justification of the rational possibility of the resurrection of animals. With regard to the second question, the theologians have focused on the issue of countervalue which has been criticized due to incomprehensiveness. Allameh Tabatabaaii has also believed in a sort of obligation for animals through a discussion of freewill and intelligence in animals. Using the theological argument, Mulla Sadra has proved that all the creation will go back to their origin; otherwise, we will face inconsistency and contradiction. This research aims to show, by putting forth a novel perspective, that the resurrection of animals can be considered to be the resurrection of some human beings as animals on the judgment day which is, in fact, the failure of ascension from the animal level to the human level.

Although the existence of the world after death and otherworldly life are among the fundamental tenets of the whole Muslims, Islamic thinkers are divided as to what category of existents this kind of life belongs. Aside from various interpretations of the Quranic verses and Islamic traditions, the issue of the animal resurrection in theological and philosophical sources of different Islamic schools is closely associated with the two principles of whether animals possess rational soul or not and how would it be possible while they are not religiously obligated. Though it seems certain that animals are not religiously obligated, the fact that they are considered as a community by the Quran, suggests both their knowledge of being and their shared and definite purpose in the life of this world. The two factors of consciousness and purposiveness in animals have caused Quran to identify them with human being and to speak of their other-worldly life. With this assumption, it might be claimed that the resurrection of animals in the Hereafter, in addition to the pleading for justice from themselves, is also meant to plead justice from human being. Thus, the principle of accepting man's responsibility towards animals is open to discussion, one which denies any exploitation of them outside the essential purpose of their creation.