جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه « proofs » در نشریات گروه « علوم انسانی »

The discussion of the miracles of the prophets is one of the important theological topics that has been receiving the attention of Imamiyya theologians for a long time. There are different views on this matter. This article seeks to explain the miracles of the Prophets from the perspective of Abdul Razzaq Lahiji and Mulla Sadra. express them in this regard. Qur'an's proofs are based on verses such as: 248 Surah Baqarah, 10 Surah Abrahimi, verse 37 of Enam. It has been cited, the difference between Sahar and Miracles and the objectives of the prophets' miracles have been examined from the point of view of Allameh Lahiji and Mulla Sadra, and the reasons for each It has been presented in this regard and some verses of the Quran have been cited to explain this issue.

The transmission of reports regarding miracles and proofs in the lives of the Imams, which aim to establish their Imamate and legitimacy, is a common topic discussed by each of the infallible Imams alongside the narration of historical events and incidents during their lives. One of the subjects present in the transmission of these reports is the repetition or similarity of certain miracles attributed to two or more infallible Imams. This research aims to explore how some of these miracle accounts have been attributed similarly to multiple Imams. Based on available sources, one of these miracles is related to a claim made by a woman named Zainab, who identified herself as the daughter of Imam Ali. However, through the miracle of an Imam, her true nature was revealed, and she confessed to her falsehood. This miracle has been attributed to multiple Imams. In this article, through a descriptive-analytical method and examination of the sources and documentary evidence, some of the influential factors in the transmission of this miracle to more than one Imam will be investigated and clarified, demonstrating that even if the essence of the story is true, its occurrence in the time of three Imams, in the same manner, is not acceptable.

It is widely-held by Imami jurists that if confession, which is one of the methods of proving a lawsuit, happens twice, it proves the punishment (hadd) for theft. According to Article 172 of the Islamic Penal Code of Iran (passed in 2013), the legislator sees eye to eye with the famous or widely-held opinion. Meanwhile, some early jurists have explicitly opposed this notion, and it is also deciphered from the words of some more recent jurists that they also disagree with this position inasmuch as they maintain that a full confession made only one time shall suffice for proving the hadd (punishment) for theft.  Considering that the narrations cited by famous jurists can be undermined in terms of their "chain of transmission" and "denotation" and no other convincing proof has been presented in this regard, and also, in view of the existence of authentic narrations indicating the sufficiency of one confession for proving the punishment for theft as well as the conformity of this saying with the generality of the proofs of the validity of the confession and the traditions that prove the punishment for theft by confession, the writer considers one confession that meets all the conditions to be sufficient for proving the punishment for theft.  

The existence of God is one of the most significant concerns that human beings have addressed throughout history. It has been an important philosophical and theological question. Thus, the way God argues His presence to human beings is significant in the Qur'an. The purpose of this study is to introduce the way God’s existence is discussed in the Qur'an. Allameh Tabataba'i is one of the commentators who have noted that the Qur'an does not attempt to prove God's existence. His viewpoints have been challenged. In this research, Allameh's point of view has been confirmed using a descriptive-analytical technique, and also the criticism to his views has been answered. Therefore, the Qur'an's approach to the Almighty's existence has and implications and conclusions, some of which are described in the article.

This paper, with a critico-comparative approach, has intended to examine Allamah Tabatabaei and Alvin Plantinga`s views on the philosophical foundations needed for proving the existence of God. The purpose lies in explaining, comparing, and surveying Allameh Tabatabaei and Alvin Plantinga`s views in the field. As Allameh Tabatabaei believes, the existence of God is self-evident, and the proofs denote solely on Its being self-evident. And as Plantinga views, there may be found a number of minor propositions not acceptable without the belief in the existence of God. It is God who introduces these partial propositions to a religious scholar of a truly basic proposition. Although Plantinga knows the existence of God as a base, he dose not know the existence of God to be eself-evident. So there is a considerable difference between the two. The claim of self-evidence of God's existence and confirming Allameh's view is extremely difficult, as Plotninga`s view will be based on induction.

The several islands of the Persian Gulf, particularly, Abu Musa and the Greater and Lesser Tunbs, have always been the dominions of Iran. If during some periods of time, no explicit reference has been made to this rule, it is not because Iran had no control over them. Rather, it means that Iran’s possession of and rule over these islands have always been so absolute and certain that there has never been any need to emphasize it again. Iran has never accepted the rule of any country and colonial power over the islands of the Persian Gulf in any historical period; in fact, the occupation of some of these islands by England in the past has always been opposed by Iran. The international law, United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, some official documents of the Iranian and British embassies and the correspondences between them, some official and administrative reports of the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs of the United Kingdom, the law of priority in property and proving Britain’s unlawful occupation of the islands, the doctrine of promissory estoppel and admitting Iran’s sovereignty over the islands, the law of succession agreement and the necessity of commitment to it, and the content of the 1977 agreement are all among the proofs demonstrating Iran’s longstanding ownership of and sovereignty over the three island in the Persian Gulf.

The immortality of the rational soul is one of the most important issues of Ibn Sina’s philosophy and anthropology. He poses many arguments in proving this subject. Ibn Sina proves the immortality of rational soul by not having relation or position of the intelligible concepts, indefinite power of the rational soul in his actions as well as its needlessness to sensible faculties in some of its perceptions. In spite of the fact, Ibn Sina denies the immortality of imagination faculty and, therefore, in his view, this faculty is material. In this essay, the author, analyzing these proofs, is going to prove that they also prove the immortality of imaginary faculty for lack of any relation or position in the case of imaginary concepts, its indefinite power of imagination in actions and its needlessness to sensible faculties in some perceptions.

In the sixth century BC, pre-Socratic philosophers introduced different research methods in the realms of science and philosophy, wrote the first scientific treatises, and presented the basic concepts in the process of deduction. However, we do not have access to any of their independent works except for some extracts which have been quoted in the works of post-Socratic scholars. Nevertheless, this method lacks the required efficiency in understanding and evaluating the words of pre-Socratic scientists at all times. Hermann Alexander Diels presented a new method of doxography in his book of Doxographi Graeci (Greek Doxographers). He returned the tradition of doxography to the one adopted in a book by Theophrastus, who was a student of Aristotle. Diels’ method was criticized by later scientists, such as Mansfield. Based on his critique, the effects of Sufists’ ideas, Aristotle’s theory of edited collections and books of principles, tradition of genealogy writing, and commentators’ glosses on the formation of doxographical texts have not been much appreciated in Diels’ method.

The imprisonment penalty is one of the earliest means of punishments exerted in the world. According to the Islamic divine law،it is accepted to protect the status and dignity of man،and it is agreed that this penalty is a necessity and is considered as a secondary nature. In modern world، the quest of imprisonment is one of the dilemmas of the judicial systems which has caused the governments to encounter certain problems in civic affairs as well as in penalty system and in general and particular rights. Of course،there is no prohibition in this concern in the religious thought and speculation while the legal proofs and texts in different Islamic sects indicate its permission and application in a few cases. A comparative study on the imprisonment punishment in early times and in modern era with the Islamic jurisprudential schools reveals that the main purpose of imprisonment in Islam is simply to discover the reality so that the jurists or the rulers could apply in Islamic societies when the suspicious person might possibly escape from the punishment. The present paper seeks to indicate the aims of the imprisonment punishment in Islam which are to establish justice and equity and to prevent injustice and inequity in society as well as amending،training and preserving the social discipline and finally the criminals'' purification.

Mohammad ibn Sanan is one of the best-known narrators of Hadith who is as authentic as Hosham ibn Hikam and Mofazal ibn Omar, three of them companions of infallible Imams (A.S.). Although there are more than one thousand Hadith narrated by him and mentioned in the Four- Books, his authenticity has been discussed and doubted by some authorities; some considered him as authentic, while others believed his narrations are weak. Examining his background, this essay tries to prove his authenticity. To do so, the author reviews his life and works, and then mentions the reasons of those who try to call him unauthentic. The proofs for authenticity of Mohammad ibn Sanan are finally presented.

Judge’s own personal knowledge as one way of substantiation ofclaims has always been emphasized by all jurists especially Shiites onthe basis of some traditions none of which has implication enough inorder to prove that and some may even be used as a basis for lack ofauthority of such a knowledge. Thus, some jurists referred theknowledge in question to necessity of being knowledgeable of juristiccriteria of truth and justice and interpreted those traditions asconformity of trial with juristic criteria. Judge’s personal knowledge ischallenged by later Sunni jurists and in the Iranian juristic system isconsidered refutable through various legal ways which practicallyannounces unauthority of judge’s personal knowledge as a basis forjudgment. Judge’s knowledge of juristic criteria, however, remains anundeniable necessity for judgment