جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه "conflict" در نشریات گروه "ادیان و عرفان"

Due to the expansion of experimental sciences and the certainty of these sciences and the influx of this idea from western world to the Islamic world, one of fundamental doubts in new era is the conflict between science and Quran. The conflict between science and the Quran means that there is an apparent inconsistency between the propositions of science and the Qur'an on a single subject, although a real conflict between the Quran and science is inherently impossible. Since Islamic thinkers such as Tabatabayi and Abdoh, have tried to resolve this conflict, the present research aims to to examine, criticize and compare principles and methods of these two thinkers, with a descriptive analytical method to solve problem. In this regard, some of the views of these thinkers are: according to Tabatabai, experimental sciences cannot judge about verses related to supernatural. In the comparison between experimental sciences and the scientific verses of Qur'an, the separation between scientific certainty and non-certainty should be considered. Abdoh believes that Quran evolves in sync with human thought; therefore, it is inevitable to change some rulings due to the necessity of science; for this reason, the interpretation of some occult concepts of the Quran is allowed.

Today, the rule or principle of “the more important and the less important” (al-ahamm wa-l-muhimm) has shown its dominance in all fields. It has been differently appealed to by the five jurisprudential schools due to the principles and evidence they cite for its validity. All the five schools agree on the core idea of the rule and the necessity of choosing what is more important when there is a conflict in acting upon different rulings. However, they have different evidence and sharia principles to support the rule. That is to say, they share some of their evidence, such as the Quran and the Tradition, and differ over other types of evidence such as consensus (ijmā’), reason, analogy (qīyās), personal discretion (istihān), public interests (al-maṣāliḥ al-mursala), and blocking the means (sadd al-dharā’i’). Given the terminological meaning of “the more important and the less important” as it appears in the above evidence and principles, we conclude that the rule should be considered as concerning conflicts among rulings. And as to such conflicts, what establishes the “importance” is consideration of interests and harms, priorities of the rulings, time, and place.

Due to the differences in viewpoints on the effects of al-Khabar al-Wahid on knowledge and practice, as well as on the validity of the analogy, the conflict between al-Khabar al-Wahid and analogy is one of the controversial topics in the science of principles of jurisprudence (Usul al-Fiqh). The conflict between the two is either a general conflict or a partial conflict. A partial conflict between al-Khabar al-Wahid and analogy occurs when one of these two is the specific reason and the other one is the general reason; therefore, there are two modes for a partial conflict between al-Khabar al-Wahid and analogy: either al-Khabar al-Wahid is specific and the analogy is general or the analogy is specific and al-Khabar al-Wahid is general. The first mode has its own challenges which are not related to this article, but about the mode of conflict between al-Khabar al-Wahid which is general and the analogy which is specific, scholars have different opinions. Some people believe in the superiority of al-Khabar al-Wahid. Some of the scholars consider analogy to be prevalent. Some of them believe in a detailed theory, and some have not commented on this. By examining the reasons given by the owners of these opinions, the preferred opinion is the absolute permission of the specification of al-Khabar al-Wahid by means of analogy.

In the Islamic philosophy, principle of contrariety has been accepted in the world of being, of course in the horizontal order of the nature universe. It’s our claim that reason and religion are not included in principle of contrariety, but they are coordinated and harmonious together. What should do, if occur conflict in the place of affirmation? Should we denigrate the reason or paraphrase the religion problem? And of course, conclusion of denigration of reason is congelation on the religion appearances that it has great dangers.

This writing wants to express vital methods of the religion and its role in social and individual fate of human; and so studies and analyzes sensitive mechanism of reason in the realm of religion. In the one part, analyses pathology of reason and religion and in another part, studies compact relation of them. So, argues about essential authority of reason and revelation, and religious and hearty obligation introduces as the most valuable motive for morality and human duties. The prophet's method, against the extremist tendencies, isnt antagonist of reason, but on the one hand, it's ultra reason and on the other hand, it's complementary of reason and coordinated with genesis of humans. Also in the end of article, attempts that removes tension between two approaches of rationalism and religious legalism, and reveals possibility of proximity of them.