جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه "tafkik" در نشریات گروه "فلسفه و کلام"

Resurrection is one of the important and basic belief principles in Islam, and various opinions have been presented about its types and modality. The Tafkik school (a current separates philosophy and religion) claims that the appearance of the verses on: the contrast between the creator and the creature, the stories of the return of the soul to the material body, gathering again after death from the dust and coming back to life, coming alive like the dead earth, coming out of the grave or earth, the course of human creation and returning to the material body and bodily heaven and hell and its appendages, clearly and textually with the narrations below indicate the bodily resurrection of a pure mater, and opposing this indication is opposing the explicit text of the Qur'an and the Sunnah. This article first mentions the Qur'anic evidences of Tafkik and then by analyzing and criticizing them based on Quranic findings such as: doubts and apparent lack of clarity on the claims, the contrary appearances to the claims, etc., it comes to the conclusion that the evidences claimed by Tafkik are based on cases of like the return to this world, the possibility of bodily resurrection, the principle of resurrection and the appearance of physical resurrection are carried in the this world and not the afterlife, the documentation of which should be searched in the article.

Mīrza Mahdī Iṣfahānī, the founder of Tafkīk School (separatism) and one of the contemporary figures opposing philosophy in the present era, has falsified the method of the theologians, philosophers, and mystics concerning acquiring religious knowledge and believes that he has provided a new way that is compatible with religious law (sharī‘a). Separating Divine knowledge from human knowledge, he believes that the Divine knowledge that is acquired through paying attention to luminous intellect, innate knowledge, and by referring to the external meanings (ẓawāhir) of traditions is totally distinct from human knowledge, which is achieved through logical argument. In justification of this viewpoint, Mīrza Mahdī Iṣfahānī has presented new meanings for intellect, science, and reasoning and calls the knowledge acquired in this method as Divine knowledge in contrast to human knowledge. Nevertheless, in practice, Mīrza Mahdī has not abided by this viewpoint and when explaining and proving what he claims, he has employed the very logical argument that he has called it human. On the other hand, despite his recommendation as to understanding religious text with a clear mind, Mīrzā’s impressions are totally based on his separatist (tafkīkī) preconceptions and, as a result, in many instances he has drifted away from the external meanings of the traditions and has interpreted the traditions according to his own viewpoints and contrary to their external meanings. It is attempted in this writing to critically examine Mīrzā Mahdī’s viewpoint on religious knowledge method and disclose the incompatibilities existing in Mīrzā’s viewpoint in theory and in practice.

The question of why different events have occurred has always been in human being's mind and challenged his curiosity. The question word "why" is used to ask about the cause of a phenomenon,and if man was not aware of the law of causality and did not confirm that every phenomenon needed a cause, he could not imagine any questions with "why". About this law and its related subjects such as compatibility between cause and effect, many schools and theories have emerged, among which, the schools of TafkῙk(Segregation) and MulāṢadrāare of special importance. The proponents of TafkῙk believe in the segregation of philosophical – theosophical instructions and religious contents. They reject many of the principles of philosophy by referring to Quran and Hadiths and conclude that philosophy is in contradiction with Quranic teachings. The school of MulāṢadrā however, has a comprehensive view and incudes as its principles all teachings gained from wisdom, texts, theosophy and reasoning. One of the controversial issues discussed by both schools is the subject of compatibility between cause and effect. It is obvious that every effect does not stem from any cause and even there is not always causal relation between concurrent and subsequent phenomena, rather the causality exists only between specific beings. In other words, there must be specialcongruencybetween cause and effect which is referred to as compatibility between cause and effect. Since cause is what brings about the existence of effect and gives it reality, then it itself should possess the existence which it gives to the effect. When one object lacks something, it cannot give it to the other. Because by giving existence to the effect, the existence of cause will not be negated, it becomes clear that cause possesses the existence in a perfect way so that the existence of effect is regarded as a beam of light radiated from cause. The scholars of the school of TafkῙkhowever, believe that compatibility between cause and effect may lead to some clearly rejected consequences such as rejection of monotheism, oxymoron and …. As a result they refuse this law. In this study, the subject of compatibility between cause and effect according to the schools of TafkῙk and MulāṢadrāhas been compared. First, the influence of compatibility between cause and effect on God's cognition in both schools has been discussed, then the bases and reasons for which these schools either confirmor reject the idea of compatibility have been introduced and compared with Quranic and traditional proofs. In the end, two principles of "Indivisible Reality" and "The object causing something cannot devoid of it" will be offered as two proofs necessitating compatibility.

Mulla Sadra in his transcendent philosophy used Tafkik method (i.e. separation of reason and tradition); it is claimed in a theory. According to the theory Mulla Sadra changed from his early philosophical-mystical and ta'vili method to Tafkik. The evidence of this claim is a case study on Mulla Sadra and the problem of bodily resurrection. Considering Transcendent Philosophy as a transformative school, and objectively examining his thoughts, is among the merits of this investigation. Nevertheless, there are major challenges to the theory like the exclusive view to transformation, the illusion that integrating disciplines implicates ta'vil, the inadequacy of the supportive evidence, and confusing the two claimed stages (i.e. philosophical stage and Tafkik stage).