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

Theology (Kalam) is one of the Islamic intellectual sciences that has had proponents and opponents in Islamic sects since its inception. After compiling theological books, some agreed with this science and explained it, and some opposed it and criticized it. The Salafists, following the People of Hadiths (Ahl-alhdith), based on the extreme traditionalism and because of abandonment of rational reasoning, disagree with theology and consider it as a cause of damage and misguidance. Some of the most important arguments of the Salafists in denying and opposing theology are the avoidance of pious predecessors from the theological topics, prohibiting of Companions and Successors (Sahaba and Tabieen of the Holy Prophet) from dealing with theology, considering theology as heresy, its including superstitious, false, and even blasphemy, and the incompatibility between the results of theological discussions and Quran and tradition. The present study critiques and evaluates Salafi arguments and reveals their weaknesses through a documentary and critical analysis method. The arguments of the Salafists are typically fallacious and contradict the Qur'an and the tradition, as well as the manners of the companions, Successors, and other Islamic scholars. The Salafi view has bitter consequences such as the illegitimacy of other sciences and the rejecting of the value of intellectual and instrumental sciences, as well as a kind of exclusivism and absolutism about the understanding of the people of the first three centuries of the Islamic world.

The issue of the disbelief (Kufr) of the Shia's opposition (Mukhaalif) has been raised in many Shiite traditions, based on which, some Imami scholars considered the mukhaalif to be disbeliever (kaafir) and out of the realm of Islam. In terms of the meaning of mukhaalif, Shiite narrations and the writings of Shi'ite scholars convey that mukhaalif includes all Muslims other than twelver Shiites. Though opposing (mukhaalafah) can be in various fields, such as believing in anthropomorphism (tajsim), materialization of Allah (tashbih), predestination (jabr) or delegation (tafwid), however, the most striking instance of opposing is the rejection of the Imamate and leadership of the twelve Imams. On the other hand, many traditions explicitly affirm that anyone who accepts the belief of the unity of God (tawhid) and the prophethood of Prophet Muhammad (s), is considered as a Muslim and all of the rulings of a Muslim are applicable to him/ her. The analysis of these two groups of traditions and referring to the other relevant traditions and the writings of Shiite scholars indicate that neither of Islam and kufr can be proved for the mukhaalif in an absolute manner, nevertheless, a separation between the various meanings of kufr and the different types of mukhaalif is necessary. What can be certainly proved is that kufr, in the sense of being out of the realm of Islam, is only applicable to the prejudiced mukhaalif, and the other two types of mukhaalif, being ignorant and denier, are considered Muslims. However, the inclusiveness of some traditions to all types of mukhaalif, and categorizing them as disbelievers is justified by the different levels and degrees of belief and disbelief.

As one of the seekers after truth, Ghazali's attention is directed to the group of philosophers more than any other groups. He believes that their way of discovering the truth is not efficient. He divides philosophers into materialists, naturalists and metaphysicians and proposes twenty issues in theology according to seventeen of which he considers philosophers as heretic and according to three of which as disbelievers.
This research which uses a descriptive-analytical method, deals with Ghazali’s motivations and stances towards philosophy and philosophers and the criticisms he directs to them. Investigating the views of Ghazali, the paper reaches the conclusion Ghazali's pretext for excommunicating the philosophers is not consistent with the religious and theological beliefs confirmed by him. Motivations have a great effect on Ghazali’s disagreement with philosophy which is not consistent with his reality-seeking.

One of the debatable and new discussions proposed in Iran is secularization; and the experience of the Islamic republic of Iran and its special outcomes has created a suitable situation and a special interest to mention this subject in scientific conferences. The main purpose of this research is to investigate the role of petrifaction and heresy in secularization. There is no agreed concept for petrifaction and heresy in the debates done on this subject. I have investigated the concept of secularization as well as the two mentioned concepts in this article. Then the dimensions of the two kinds of heretical and petrifactive thoughts are briefly identified and it is proved that heresy is a factor that directly affects the process of secularization; and as the amount of heresy increases, the amount of secularization increases as well. On the other hand although petrifaction is considered a factor against secularization but in long-term, through a special mechanism and with a lower speed and an indirect method, it helps the process of secularization of religion and society.