Epistemological justification is one of the parts of tripartite definition (analysis) of knowledge. due to this defination "true belief" is knowledge, if it is justified. Justification theories, due to epistemologist's views on relation of belief to free will, are divided into two groups: deontologism and non- deontologism. Deontologism results to evidentialism and internalism and the result of non- deontologism is externalism. Internalism results to foundationalism and coherentism and the subsequent of externalism is reliabilism and naturalism. In this essay we consider the relation of belief to free will, volitionalism and non- volitionalism and then see how the different theories of justification are formed from the two theories mentioned and then, due to theses, classify the justification theories.

The present essay is a critical study of Zagzebski’s reading and criticism of Plantinga’s virtue-epistemology. Zagzebski, on the account of her definition of knowledge and the role that she assigns to ‘volition’ and ‘awareness’ in virtuous acts, along with her acceptance of the uniformity of moral and epistemic virtue, challenges Plantinga’s theory of Knowledge. Zagzebski believes that although Plantinga’s theory of Proper Function is better than Straight Reliabilism and that it is possible to interpret it in a way that is analogous to her own theory of Knowledge and even the fact that its calling virtueepistemology seems appropriate, yet taking into account Plantinga’s epistemological presuppositions and his mechanistic picture of the theory of Knowledge, his theory of Proper Function owing to its disregard for the elements of volition and awareness, in the final analysis, cannot be considered as a type of virtue-epistemology.

The epistemological value and validity of intuitive consciousness and knowledge has always been discussed by philosophers and mystics. Naturally, mystics defend such heartfelt cognition, or so-called discovery and intuition but for an epistemologist who looks at the problem with rational criteria, the question is why and for what reason should the intuition of the mystic be acknowledged and believed? In various mystical traditions and even some philosophical schools, especially among the theologians of the Abrahamic religions, revelation and the resulting beliefs are considered valid and are emphasized and accepted as one of the important ways of acquiring knowledge. The claim of this paper is that it seems that the theory of reliabilism can justifiably justify the propositions and beliefs about the universe that have been obtained through intuition. This justification is especially valuable for those who did not themselves participate in mystical experience. Reliabilism is one of the external approaches to epistemic justification that has a greater talent for justifying intuitive motives.

The Ahādith of Ahl al-Bayt (PBUH) are among the most important resources for exegesis of the Qur’an so the assessment of their credibility can have a tremendous effect on using them in the science of Tafsir. It seems that the comparative survey of informational and informant validity approaches has significant effects in the validation of exegetical Ahādith. By surveying the above 2 approaches and preferring the informational validity approach based on document study, text study, and reference study, the present article attempts to explain the impact of adopting each of the above approaches and the role of Ahādith in the interpretation of the Qur’an. Using descriptive analysis, this research study explains both of the above approaches and then compares them in terms of exegesis of the Qur’an. The Informant validity approach pays attention to the authority of Āhād news in interpretation of the Noble Qur’an and regarding the preference of information validity approach, the application methods of document study, text study, and reference study are presented. © Abbdollāh Zādeh, A; Izadi, M (2021) A Comparative Study of the Informational and Informant Validity Approaches to the Ahādith of Ahl al-Bayt and Its Role in the Exegesis of the Noble Qur’an.

One of the important and influential topics in the science of jurisprudence is examining the reliability of hadith narrators. Ahmad bin Hilal Al-Abarta'i is one of the narrators from whom numerous jurisprudential and non-jurispruden0tial narrations remain. The reliability or unreliability of this narrator has long been a subject of disagreement and dispute among jurists. This article examines the doctrine and reliability of this narrator. Six reports regarding the belief and doctrine of this narrator have been mentioned, and the summary of these historical accounts indicates the corruption of doctrine and deviation of Ahmad bin Hilal in his later life. Several arguments have been mentioned regarding the weakness of this narrator: Najashi's weakening in the book of Fihrist, corruption of doctrine, reported weakening from Ibn Ghada'iri, and the exclusion of this narrator from the narrations of the book Nawadir al-Hikmah by Ibn Walid. Additionally, his occurrence in the book Kamil al-Ziyarat and the interpretation of Ali bin Ibrahim, Najashi's description, the abundance of narrations from eminent figures, Sheikh Tusi's statement, the practice of companions, the seniority of permission, and occurrence in Sheikh Saduq's Mashyakhah are evidence of this narrator's reliability. Among all the evidence of weakness and reliability, only Najashi's description and the abundance of narrations from eminent figures are acceptable, and this narrator is reliable.

Multiculturalism is an emerging notion within human rights discourse based on unity in diversity. It is usually admitted that human rights is in favor of difference and diversity, and this was clearly affirmed during the World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance. However, even though the idea of multiculturalism has been developed in political science and philosophy, the legal discourse regarding multiculturalism remains very limited. Usually, human rights treaty bodies and international and regional tribunals are reluctant to use the term. One of the reasons is the lack of a precise legal definition. The paper proposes to explore: how human rights law is in favor of multiculturalism though it never specifically refers to it, the definitional problem and how the notion of legal pluralism is preferred to multiculturalism, the advantage in the recognition of multiculturalism from a legal perspective.

The primary focus of this research centers on the analysis and critique of Moritz Shclick's perspective concerning the "relationship between free will and determinism." Its objective is to demonstrate the inadequacy of his proposed solution in a descriptive-analytical manner. According to Shclick, the purported dilemma surrounding free will and determinism is a pseudo-philosophical quandary stemming from a conflation of key concepts. He contends that disentangling these concepts through differentiation of terms in common sense, such as "normative law" from "descriptive law," "causality" (representing determinism) from "compulsion," and "non-causality" (indeterminism) from "freedom," will naturally dissipate this pseudo-problem. Shclick posits that "compulsion" falls within the realm of normative concepts, while determinism and the principle of causal necessity reside in the domain of descriptive concepts, thereby rendering any connection between "compulsion" and "determinism" non-existent. In this study, I illustrate through three innovative examples that: a) "compulsion" and "freedom" possess at least two distinct meanings in common sense, and Shclick's claim succumbs to the fallacy of reductionism. b) The crux of the issue surrounding free will revolves around the secondary meaning of these terms. c) Shclick's definition of freedom encompasses not only humans but also extends to animals, thereby not impeding others. These three critiques collectively demonstrate the untenability of Shclick's compatibilist perspective.

Reliabilism is one the externalist theories of justification which, according to some epistemologists, can be used to avoid skepticism. Alvin Plantinga believes that reliabilism can prevent skepticism only if it is not combined with metaphysical naturalism, materialism, and evolution-based explanation because, according to him, the output of such a combination would be that the reliability of all productions of cognitive faculties, including naturalism itself, will be subject to extreme skepticism, and the naturalist is forced to abandon the presumption of the reliability of cognitive faculties. Plantinga conditions reliability of cognitive faculties to its combination with supernatural metaphysics and believes that only those who follow the Abrahamic religions can claim the reliability of their cognitive faculties in the virtue of believing in God who has created human beings in His image. The present research, while accepting his ability to depict inefficiencies of naturalism and materialism in justifying the various manifestations of life, criticizes him of committing a kind of Cartesian circle.

Cultural relativism is one of the well-known arguments of those who believe in moral relativism; different morals existing among diverse cultures indicate that moral absolutism has no value. Hence, there is no single origin as wisdom or human nature for common moral judgment .On the other hand, according to moral absolutism, moral precepts are universal and considered the antithesis of moral relativism. We show in this article that encounter between these two theories before and after the appearance of communication age and cyberspace have serious consequences and previous moral and cultural achievements are to be undermined. This article argues that cultural relativism does not necessarily lead to moral relativism without taking information era into consideration. That is to say, cultural relativism interrelates with moral absolutism. Afterwards, we indicate that cultural relativism is more connected with moral relativism by considering communication in the context of information era. That is why cyberspace plays a key role in creating values and modern cultural and moral phenomena. It provides a new version of the relationship between culture and morality, so that we can call it a new theory that is "cyber moral and cultural relativism".