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

The hermeneutic understanding and interpretation of the text is the result of the interaction between the interpreter and the text and is based on the four pillars of author, text, interpreter and context. Understanding and comparing the principles of hermeneutic theories is important since it is the bedrock of critiques of the critics. With a descriptive-analytical method, this article seeks to compare and analyze the principles of the views held by the contemporary Muslim thinker Mojtahed Shabestari and the contemporary western hermeneutist Eric Hirsch. This will lead to answering this main question: What is the result of a comparative study of the principles of hermeneutic understanding in the views of Mojtahed Shabestari and Hirsch? The result of a comparative study in the four mentioned axes shows that the similarities are more than the differences. The most important commonalities are accepting the author’s intention in producing the text, determining the meaning by the author, the interpreter’s interrogating the text, the effect of the interpreter’s presuppositions, interests and expectations in understanding the text and accepting the hermeneutic cycle in understanding the text. The main difference is that Shabestari believes in the multiplicity of meanings and Hirsch believes in the stability of meaning. Also, Shabestari establishes the hermeneutic circle between the pre-understanding and the author’s semantic horizon of the text, but Hirsch between the genre of the text and the elements of the text and the interpreter’s pre-knowledge. By accepting the historicity of the text, Shabestari supports the meaning related to the current state of the text, while Hirsch accepts the historicity in the interpretation and not in the understanding.

Relying on his hermeneutic and interpretive perspective, Mohammad Mojtahed Shabestari regards the Holy Quran as "prophetic words" and the Prophet's monotheistic reading of the world in the light of revelation. In this paper, we have used a library-research method within the descriptive-analytical approach to criticize his interpretive perspective to illustrate the weaknesses of this view so as to indicate the weakness of his theory of the prophetic origin of the Qur'an. In addition to the fact that his interpretive theory leads to the denial of prophethood and Islam, there are also other weaknesses in that theory. These involve ignoring the other meaning of interpretation, not paying attention to all kinds of presuppositions, not paying attention to the degrees of understanding and implications, integrating two perspectives as well as two methods which are incompatible, generalizing the doctrines of the age of modernity and philosophical hermeneutics,  confusion of part and whole, not adhering to one of his foundations, introducing a loose criterion as a criterion for the examination and evaluation of presuppositions, and ignoring the most important use of language.

One of the most important debates in the field of religious studies and understanding of religion teachings today is the ability to understand religion based on human readings and religious experience. When it comes to the human readings of religion, two points are assumed to be concurrent: first, it is possible for human beings to understand religion; It is not unique and can be read as human. This last point, the change in the structures of understanding religion, is due to the changes that human beings are facing today. Mojtahed Shabestari, a contemporary thinker, believes that, given the dramatic changes in human life today, their thinking, religion, spirituality, and faith must also undergo a fundamental change, and one must go beyond their religious tradition, ideas, or beliefs. It gained a new understanding of it until it finally came to religious experience. He believes that there are different readings on religion and that one single reading cannot be accomplished. The main purpose of this research is to explain the aforementioned claim by presenting the arguments presented and responding to them by the content analysis method of explaining the data. The findings of the study show that human readings of religion are in contrast to divine readings, and the Shabestari perspective is sometimes explicitly and sometimes slightly hidden and rooted in relativity, hermeneutics, religious experience, and humanism.

One of the areas that Mojtahed Shabestari has entered, is the argument of essential and accidential of religion or the gem and shell. He looks at this two: Once, he knows the gem of religion as religious experience and in other cases, represents the gem of religion as the by-itself purpose. These two views can be evaluated separately, but it seems, his goal to discuss the by-itself purpose is finding common aspect between the religious experiences that completely different from one another in essentiality. The contribution of the foregoing share the religious experiences with each other, for the sake of purpose. This paper aims to examine the two proposed views: First, examine the relationship between these two views, secondly, the logic of the discovery of the essences of religion analyze, as it has been posited in his opinion. It also validates the method used in this theory.

Mr. Mohammad Mojtahed Shabestari is a contemporary dissident which, based on the principles derived from hermeneutics, has analyzed various religious and social issues and he has produced a lot of works. He introduced his thought base, as well as the thought-maker of his hermeneutic system, on the twentieth-century Continental Philosophy of Germany and in its importance it has said that now the problem of the Islamic world is not resort to hermeneutical school taken from philosophical hermeneutics. However, his hermeneutic system is a collection of elements which is non-academic from various hermeneutic schools which unscientificly has been borrowed and put together from the hermeneutic schools, which are completely opposite and even contradictory in the foundations as well as in the buildings. For example, he spoke on the of anthropological and semantic principles and also the place of interpretation in understanding the meaning based on doctrines of methodic hermeneutic and methodological hermeneutic, and also he has chosen a combination of philosophical hermeneutics and methodic hermeneutics in the subject of epistemology of understanding and its process. In addition, his conception of Schleiermacher's methodological is inaccurate, and is incorrectly identified his main problem. This paper tries to illustrate and discuss these non-technical adaptations and misconceptions.