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

In the history of human thinking, no fundamental problem has forced mankind to think as much as the knowledge of God, which cannot grow except through His attributes. Answering how to use these attributes has been a serious request from thinkers of every age, especially philosophers and theologians. The view of Sheikh Mofid and Avicenna, as the most influential and stable views in the field of theology and philosophy, which caused profound intellectual changes after them, have special privileges among Islamic thinkers and in the theological-philosophical thought of Imamiyya. Modeling these two philosophical and theological views in the system of Shia thought, this article aims to examine them on an important issue regarding divine attributes, that is, "tawghifiyat of divine names and attributes". In this regard, although Sheikh Mofid believes in tawghifiyat, and Avicenna does not, both of them have stated that it is intellectually permissible. Therefore, taking into account the common bases inferred and extracted from the opinions of both thinkers and paying attention to the lack of fundamental differences between them in this regard, the article concluded the monotheistic value of Shiite thought as the basis of the two views and also as the comprehensive aspect between the Imami theology and Islamic philosophy.

This essay aims to explain the course of rational development of the Shiite theologians adopting library reference method and critical study of the data. Not only, the author has venerated the academic position and genius of Sheikh Mofid as a pioneer in his method of reconciliation between the faith and reason in theology and the rationalization of matters of faith, but also respected his particular introduction of Shiism as a coherent and independent school of thought separate from other schools. The author has studied his theological principles about the created world considering his idea that the world is material incorrect. He has shed light on the consequences of Mofid’s theory particularly his reliance on the mere rational arguments in order to interpret the apparent meaning of the Qur’an and traditions and also his acceptance of doctrines irreconcilable with his own principles. Thus, the author has gone to challenge Mofid’s arguments for cases such as the corporeality of man’s spirit, the negation of the world of pre-existence “Dharr”, the negation of spiritual blessings of heaven and the metaphorical interpretation of some verses and traditions. Some critical articles have been written on the theologian’s materialistic approach; however, Sheikh Mofid’s opinions have not been inferred from his books and answered one by one and separately, yet. Some suggested answers are new of their kind.

The issue of the relationship between reason and transmission and the realm of priority and posteriority and their types of functions from the perspective of Sheikh Mofid has been explored in this study by an analytical-descriptive method. The results of the research show that Sheikh Mofid specifies the role of being a light, miṣbāh, and also supports the interactive role of reason. In defining reason, he has dealt with both its theoretical and practical aspects. Sheikh Mufid, like the Mu'tazilites, considers religious knowledge to be acquired, but they leave the necessity of opinion because of the Divine command, not reason. He considers reason as being in need to revelation in all stages of reasoning and conclusion. In other words, revelation is both the first stimulus of the intellect and teaches the oblige, mukallaf, the quality of reasoning. Sheikh Mufid used reason in jurisprudence, unlike the people of hadith, but this did not cause him to accept feqhi analogy.

 Sheikh Mofid (deceased 413 AH/1022) is a representative of Imami theology from the Theological School of Baghdad II with a rational approach. Khajeh Nasir Toosi (597-672 AH) is a representative of Imami theology from the theological school of ‘Holleh’ with a philosophical approach and has its own independent method compared to the Imami theologians of its predecessors. In Islamic philosophy and theology, God is called by various names and the concepts used in philosophy for God's specific name are different from the word. Sheikh Mofid was a theologian who used the Mu'tazilites, and his view of God is rational in the religious concept. He calls God ‘Allah’. However, Nasir al-Din al-Toosi is among philosophers and theologians with the view that God is a benefit to both. He has used the term ‘Maker’ (Saane), ‘Creator’, ‘Bari’, ‘God’ (Allah) as well as the ‘Necessary Being’ for God, which are conceptually different. The aim of this study is to determine the place of philosophy and theology in the conceptualization of God in two Imami theologians in two centuries and different methods and how they are influenced by theology and philosophy and religion to conceptualize God. The question is: To what extent is the concept of God in Sheikh Mofid and Nasir al-Din al-Toosi theological and philosophical? According to Sheikh Mofid, in the content structure, the discussion of ontology and its importance for theology in explaining the conceptualization of God has been very low and the name used is ‘God’. In Al-Nakt al-I'tiqadiyah, which is suspected of being attributed to him, the author uses the concept of ‘obligatory existence’ in combining the theological approach. In Avaeil al-maghlat, the author speaks of ‘the creator’ (Mojid) and ‘maker’ (Mohdis). But the author delivers the creator (Mojid) to Allah. Because of his belief in Togifi of names, it has limited himself to the religious and theological use of conceptualization for God. Khajeh Nasir, based on ontology to talk about God, considers the absolute name of God to be ‘Allah’, which is a Qur'anic, theological, religious, and Islamic name. But in the conceptualization of God, he is strongly influenced by philosophy, and the name he chooses for God with a decisive influence on philosophy, which he explains in his numerous sources, is ‘Necessity’ (Vojoob). Based on the philosophical foundations of "existence, bound existence and absolute existence, Necessity and Possibility, and the intrinsic and non-essential necessity”, the issue of obligatory existence is discussed.  In Sheikh Mofid's methodology, the rational method and listening are used. In proving the existence of God, he uses theological rational arguments in the argument of occurrence and uses the possibility in the argument that does not make Him needless of the philosophical method. In discussing attributes, he pays attention to both intellect/hearing (Samaa) and revelation. In attributes that he cannot use reason to analyze, he uses hearing and narration, but with the help of interpretation, he explains their attributes not by returning to the true meaning of the attributes, but by interpreting the meanings of the attributes. Khajeh Nasir also uses the argument of ‘Necessity and Possibility’ in philosophical and theological discourse to prove the existence of God. In the theological discourse, it is based on the criterion of genesis (Hodous), and in the philosophical approach, it is based on the criterion of ‘possibility’ and especially ‘the existence of possibility’ for the need for cause and existence. In explaining the proof of necessity and possibility, he also uses Quranic verses. In Tajrid ol-eiteqad and Fosoul in explaining attributes and returning attributes to the necessity of existence, there is a philosophical approach because it uses Necessary of Being to explain attributes. But in the attributes he uses for God, he obtains permission from the Shari'a with a Toghifi approach. He has considered the application of attributes to God to be conditional on the permission of Sharia and his method is negative and positive, which is used in philosophy and theology to speak of God. According to all that has been said, Sheikh Mofid is a theologian who rationalizes the word and his method is rational but he accepts reason in interaction with revelation and does not believe in the independence of reason. Khajeh is a theologian-philosopher who uses philosophy to explain God and to conceptualize God. The diversity of specific names of philosophy for the conceptualization of God is less common in Khajeh to discuss God and he is confronted with the text of philosophy and theology before him and the religious text (the Qur'an) and ignores the Greek philosophy. Although he is familiar with the philosophical concepts of ‘cause and effect’ as well as ‘power and action’, he does not use cause to conceptualize God. Khajeh emphasizes only the concept derived from Farabi and Avicenna. However, in the case of the to be Toghifi of names and attributes for God, he obtains his permission from the Shari'ah. The same is true of Sheikh Mofid. Therefore, Khajeh uses philosophy to explain theology and for him, philosophy is used to discuss God without contradicting the Shari'a and sharia is the basis that determines the limits of his philosophical explanation. According to Sheikh Mofid, the intellect has the same position. It can operate within the realm of religion and serve religion.

The issue of this research is the emphasis on "theology" and the articles of faith as the basis of Shiite political thought. According to this view, theological concepts such as prophecy, Imamate, occultation and guardianship of jurists create an ontological and epistemological framework that requires its own socio-political implications. The method of the present study is descriptive-analytical and text-oriented; their political thought and the foundations of Shiite political thought has been inferred based on the basic concepts in the theological texts of Sheikh Mofid and Seyyed Morteza Alam al-Huda as two central figures of Shiite theology. The most important findings of this study are the explanation of the basic characteristics of Shiite-based political thought, the main ones being the connection between the essential and structural tension of religion and politics, the focus of "duty" on political thought and action, and looking at politics as a bedrock. For the establishment of religion, for this reason, the Shiite political discourse emphasizes the need for attributes such as knowledge and infallibility for those in charge of government.

Because any moral system is organized by a school of thought and belief system, and considering that Sheikh Mofid was one of the pioneers in establishing and organizing the theological and doctrinal school of Imamiyya, the present article has attempted to extract the theological foundations of ethics via content analysis. Hence, Sheikh Mofid’s theological propositions in the fields of epistemology, theology, guidance studies, anthropology and cosmology were extracted with an ethical approach. Among them are the monotheistic moral system, the originality of the soul, the employment of the body in performing moral actions, man's free will in moral life, the necessary existence of the model of the Infallibles for proximity and the meaningfulness of the physical Resurrection in the moral-monotheistic system with heaven and hell at it center. In conclusion, the comprehensiveness of Sheikh Mofid’s theory of duty- and goal-orientation, the human inclusion of this theory, its superiority over the secular moral system, the meaningfulness of the moral life with the belief in the Hereafter, and the moral consequence of the aimlessness were revealed.

Examining the basic issues of Imamate from the view point of Sheikh Mofid, this paper deals with how Sheikh Mofid, an Imamites theologian and a great scholar, depicts Imam with his rationalist method and explains the necessity of the existence and characteristics of Imamate. Carried out through an analytical-descriptive method, this paper shows that he agrees with other Imamites theologians on many issues of Imamate, but some differences are revealed in two challenging issues, i.e. infallibility and knowledge of Imam. According to the rationalist approach of Sheikh Mufid, the necessity of the existence of Imam is due to the grace and mercy of God, not His justice. The pure infallibility of Imam is related to his Imamate era, and before his Imamate, committing an inadvertant sin which does not lead to his disgrace and disputation is permissible. Knowledge of the unseen and non-religious matters have no rational necessity for Imam. In all these issues, the traditional evidence is sometimes for and some other times against the rational perspective. Depending on the validity of the tradition, Sheikh Mofid's method in contradictory cases involves inclusion or exclusion.

In spite of few diversities in its extent and boundaries, infallibility ofprophets is a common belief of mostnumerous of the Muslim theology sects and many of other revealed religions, believers.Therefore, it has a special situation and importance among theological subjects.Among Shiite thinkers, there also are great theologians both ancient, like Sheikh Mofid and recent like AllamehTabatabaii have turned to various features of this object. AllamehTabatabaii being bound over rational proofs, regardsimmunity from oversight, forgetfulness, and mistake in reception, communication, propagation, and description of revelation as necessities of prophetess, and defines immunity from sin as keeping away of duty abandonment and doing prohibations, namely actions opposed to servituale and God’s mastership. He regards thenegation of mistake in palpable perception and nominal sciences, and recognition of expedience and corruption of creative affairs out of the object of "prophets in fallibility",so, adduse no reason about the matter.Sheikh Mofid in his turn, regarding the infallibility from Holy prophet superior to another ones, believes His Excellency tohave infallibility from any kind of purposeless and purposeful, cardinal or lesser sin, from birth, and considers other prophets liable to purposeless lesser sins that don’t cause the doers to be despised, before their prophetic mission.The present article tends to explain and comparer the opinions and reasons of these two thinker about “prophet’s infallibility", based on library method and text analysis.The most important result of this article is clarifying the similarity of viewpoints of these two grand theologians about absolute infallibility of all prophets in the area of revelation and prophecy, during their prophetic missions, and their diversity ofthoughts, out of the prophecy domain before their prophet hood.