نشریه کلام اسلامی
پیاپی 105 (بهار 1397)

The discussion of religious science concerning experimental sciences is a new issue in religious studies, philosophy of science and new theology. There are two contradictory tendencies regarding it. First tendency holds that the description of experimental sciences to religious and non-religious, or in other word making religious sciences, is cogent and plausible, as well as helpful and necessary. The second tendency maintains that this is implausible and impossible. Exponents of this view has developed many arguments the most significant ones are: meaninglessness of religiosity in subject, the purpose and method of science, the separation between asking and replying and between assemblage and judgment in scientific investigations, study of threefold stages of scientific investigation, insufficiency of principles for making Islamic humanities, non-relatedness of science, undermining the incorrigibility of scientific sciences and vulnerability of religion according to scientific theories. These arguments have been criticized and assessed in this paper.

The problem of evils is a longstanding challenge against divine justice and wisdom. Discrepancies and differences in creatures and its cause is a kind of evil have been discussed in new theology and philosophy of religion. Many accounts and interpretations have been put forward. Some materialists have considered it as an evidence of injustice and prejudice, while Muslim thinkers have sought to explain these discrepancies and prove its consistency with divine justice and wisdom. Asharite’s explanation could not reply the questions and doubts. Nor did early Adliya theologian deal with the matter comprehensively, though we might be able to provide a general and succinct reason based on their principles. The most proper analysis and explanation is the one of some philosophers, mystics and contemporary Imamiyah theologians. The most element of their answers and explanations are: using demonstration from cause to effect for establishment of divine justice, believing that differences of things is inherent, concomitance of the best arranged system with final goal with consideration of necessity of discrepancies, and effect of voluntary and involuntary mediums in creation of discrepancies.

Criticism of Ahadith as a method to recognition of soundness or unsoundness of Ahadith and scope of rational understanding have invariably been a matter of dispute among scholars of Hadith, and thus a variety of view have been ventured. Ayatollah Sobhani, the contemporary jurist and theologian, has employed this method, along with other avenues to analyze Ahadith and recognize forged ones, in his book entitled “al-Hadith al-Nabavi Bayn al-Revayah Va al-Derayah”. Studying this book and other works of Ayatollah Sobhani, this article seeks to explain his view concerning rationality, validity and scope of understanding, limitations of intellect, and finally the degree of its function in recognition of forged Ahadith. Presenting objective instances, the paper intends to present an analysis of the functions of intellect as a source and means for assessment of Ahadith according to Ayatollah Sobhani, and explain the degree of functionality of intellect in recognition of forged Ahadith.

One of the important discussions concerning Imamah is the knowledge of Imam. Shia believes that Imam, since appointed by God, must have complete knowledge concerning religious laws, and God has given this knowledge to Imam without any instruction or acquaintance. Infallible Imams has indicated to this issue, introducing himself as heirs of the knowledge of the prophet of Islam. Exploring the Ahadith, we can conclude that the infallible Imams have introduced some things as sources and ways of receiving of their own knowledge. The ways are: receiving from God (revelation), receiving from angels (Tahdith and Amud Noor), receiving from the holy prophet and receiving from Fatemah al-Zahra. Employing the analytical method, this paper addresses the content and narrators of these Ahadith, explaining how and which sort of knowledge is received by Imam according to Ahadith

Given the profound effect of hermeneutics in religious understanding, study and criticism of it is an avenue to reply existing doubts in this area and to develop religious sciences. Paul Ricœur, the contemporary philosopher, is a prominent thinker in the hermeneutics and methodologies of sciences, strengthened the philosophical hermeneutics versus other related thoughts concerning the methodology of understanding, and developed a reformed and compound method in interpretation of texts and understanding of religion. He has endeavored to provide a logical process from stage of reading to interpretation of understanding, employing phenomenological method and combining the element of structure explanation with element of understanding and ownership. The process, from one hand, has been formed based on independence of the meaning of text from intention of the author and unity of the meaning of the text, and from other hand has resisted absolute relativity, and have presented a criterion for judgement among interpretation. This article endeavors to address the most important element of hermeneutics of Paul Ricœur, criticizing the weak points and strong points of it by using fundamental thoughts of Islamic sciences.

Shahid Thani is a great Shia jurist. In addition to jurisprudence, he Is a major figure in theology. He cared extensively to the matter of methodology of theology and it is his distinguished characteristics in this era. he used combined method of rationality, revealed knowlege and inborn reasoning in his theological discussion. Inborn knowledge has a particular status in Shahid Thani view. He believed in independence of reason in fundamental theological beliefs, though the role of revealed knowledge in this methodology is significant. He disagreed with authority of unique tradition in theological affairs, interpreting revealed scriptures when contradict with rational reasoning.