نشریه عقل و دین
پیاپی 20 (بهار و تابستان 1398)

Common sense is a tablet that receives the form either through the senses or through the imagination. What one receives through sensory perceptions is the form in which the tablet is drawn. The imagination is activated in sleep and in some diseases, and draws forms in common sense. As a result, one sees things that others do not understand. In such illnesses, the soul cares for the disease and the imagination works. In this situation, low-cost medicine goes to the elders and prayers, and the medieval medicine ignores the soul and goes to straight the body, and the transcendental medicine hurry up to help the soul and strengthens it by drugs, prayer and charity to do his job well and restores health to the body.

This article wants to examine the difference between the mystic and the prophet from Mulla Sadra's perspective and to critique the problem of Equality the Prophet and the mystic from the point of view of Dr. Soroush and his contemporaries. From Soroush's point of view, the foundation of revelation and mystical experience are same. But the Prophet, after experiencing the mystical experience, feels a new responsibility, Unlike the mystic. True mystics have a high place in transcendent wisdom, but the mystic can’t be the same with the noble position of Prophet. From Mulla Sadra's view, the Prophet is alone in the descending arc and there are no mystics in this arc. But in the Climbing arc, the Prophet and the mystic are present and share in the discovery of the world of imagination and reason. But Prophet's discovery of the above-mentioned worlds is not ambiguous and is not affected by the Prophet's inner and outer factors unlike the mystic, which is due to the moral and religious skilling of Prophet's soul and The Prophet soul’s gradation Because of the unity with his consciousness. Consequently, because of The discovery of the Prophet is clear, there is no reason to manipulate and interfere Prophet's soul in the receiving process, whether in ascending or descending arches.

One of the topics whose roots have a long history in the words of philosophers is the discussion of material and physical causes. Philosophers believe that physical causes cannot have unlimited effects. In order to prove this claim, they have argued the need for "position and parallel" as a prerequisite for influencing these causes. Some later philosophers, such as Sabzevari and Tabatabai, have made other arguments for this claim on the basis of a substantial motion. Based on these arguments, if the effect of the physical cause is finite, the passivity of physical activity can't be unlimited. Because what is claimed to be finite is the effect of the subject and the physical cause. This effect, requires an affected one, which is the passivity of the physical that due to the limited effect of the cause, it can't be unlimited. But on the other hand, there are some examples of religious teachings that, according to some assumptions, there is no physical limit to passivity and affection. In this article, by descriptive and analytical method, the reasons for proving the limitation of the effects of physical causes are evaluated. By expressing some religious and philosophical evidence, the incompatibility of this evidence with the finiteness of physical effects is explained. The result of the research shows that the two proofs are incomplete in proving the finiteness of the effects of the physical cause. And infinite passivity of material objects according to some religious and philosophical doctrines is not impossible.

In this paper, we compare between Ontological Argument and Seddiqin Argument and we assume that these Arguments represent two metaphysical point of view (Idealism and Originality of Being) and we assume that with regarding this representation, we can thought on these argument in more correct way. In our view, Ontological Argument  is based on Idealism, and Idealism gone a fundamental change from premodern to modern period, for this reason, Ontological argument gone a fundamental change  and this change entails to fundamental different  in  the  sense of final consequence of this argument and by this reason, it is necessary  that we regard this difference. Given that Presentation of two readings of ontological argument, we can find which reading of ontological argument Correspondence with seddiqin argument and which one diverge from it. Meanwhile, Given that different bases in Ontological Argument and Seddiqin Argument, we can obtain a more correct understand of  metaphysical background of Ontological argument.

The issues of “religious enjoyment” and “intellectual enjoyment” are some of the important subjects in Mathnavi, which will be unfinished unless you know Mowlana’s theoretical bases and gnostic disposition meticulously. In his opinion, the concept of enjoyment is indefinable and it has an internal, not an external origin; he knows real enjoyment in leaving the transient enjoyments while he divides the enjoyment into factual and virtual. In his viewpoint, virtuous people deserve religious enjoyment. Mowlana strongly believes in booming religious wisdom in the shadow of intellect. When the human understands principles of belief and religion through intellect, he can well be entitled to its necessities willingly, Mowlana’s imitation aversion results from this very issue too. Finally, Mowlana values religious and faith intellect, which discovers and perceives realities, since it is the follower’s guardian of conscience and spiritual worlds. In his opinion religious and rational enjoyment have manifestations that cause realization of enjoyment.

Intellect is one of the important epistemological sources in discovering religious realities and its epistemological function in the field of theology has long had significance validity among theologians and those who study religion and its validity is emphasized nowadays as well. However, among some intellectual-theological groups, there are some significant points regarding its epistemological role and function than can create doubts which can lead to doubts in the validity of the epistemological functions of the intellect. Therefore, the following question is raised: What is the validity of the epistemological function of the intellect in discovering religious realities? The present article seeks to deal with the validity of the epistemological function of the intellect by emphasizing the viewpoint of Sheikh al-Mufid (RA) by using library sources and descriptive-analytical method and the fact that intellectual understandings enjoy functional validity in producing wisdom, meaning-orientedness of narration and evaluating the right and the wrong are the findings of this article. Although it has some limitations in some cases like the nature of God, details of religion and affairs related to the Hereafter like chastisement in the Hereafter and physical resurrection.

The wisdom of man is the real differenttia of man in relation to other animals, and all religious duties and human perfection are based on it.  The cleanness of the intellect in the theoretical and practical reason leads to the real prosperity of man.  The nature of the intellect is based on monotheism and is incompatible with multiplicity and employment. The cleansing of wisdom can be pursued in two respects. First: The wisdom of the intellect should not be illusory. Second: The discovery of the facts should not be limited to the extent; therefore, for cleanness and transcendence such ways as: thinking, withdrawing from habit, having all the same.  , Unity of self, presence and care are provided. When the intellect is purified and transcendent,, some of the effects emerg as mentioned: imagination, fantasy, influence on the intensity of conjecture, connection with active reason, promising miracles, attaining to monotheism;  For this reason, in this article, we will explain what the purity of the power of wisdom is, how it is obtained, and the effects of purity and transcendence on the human being are discussed.

The issue of religious science has received agreement and disagreement from domestic researchers in recent years, and those who agree do not share a single attitude either. Two approaches can be mentioned in this regard: religious science in the context of Islamic culture, tradition, and civilization and inclusivist religious science based on reason and narration. Although there are things in common between these two perspectives, they have different principles, components, and results. The first perspective regards religious science as return to Islamic tradition and civilization in earlier ages, and finds revival of that civilization equal to revival of religious science. This perspective considers novel Western science as absolutely contradictory to the Islamic worldview, and holds that it will have no particular effect on the modern Islamic civilization. The second perspective, on the other hand, is focused on the belief that religious science will be one of the key elements in the modern Islamic civilization and that novel Western science will also be effective on this civilization. By generalizing the religious validity of reason from abstract to semi-abstract reason, the latter view also approves and acknowledges empirical data. In this research, the capacity of each of these two approaches in development of the modern Islamic civilization will be mentioned with an analytical-compar

Reason and Shari'ah are not new topics in the humanities and the books of scholars have been full of in-depth analysis,what matters is the relationship between the two,Kashani believes in the instrumental use of reason in his understanding of Shari'a laws, contrary to his Akhbari's method,In this way, reason is used as a tool in the path of reasoning to reach a Shari'a law from its defined sources.That is contrary to what believers because of reason express and his view contradicts those who regard reason as the source of the inference of the Shari'a law, His approach to reason and the nature of his instrumental approach to the Shari'a of the sources of the defined sources of his method of approach brings him closer to the Jurists .And the his method in jurisprudence distinguishes him from other Akhbari's jurists.Mirdamad regards reason as the perceiving force of external reality and recognizing the truth of error.He is in favor of the theory of rational Good and Evil of Deeds  and he believed in the interplay between the Reason and Shari'ah and he considers reason to be one of the sources of human knowledge.He believes that both cases convey an objective and external truth, hence, reason and Shari'ah are in harmony with one another and this statement is consistent with the essence of truth, for truth is not compatible with multiplicity and duality in its essence.He believes that truth is unique in that it is known as truth, so what the Shari'ah gives is equal to what the intellect attains.

In the introduction to Tafsir al-Mizan, Allameh Tabataba'i believes that some exegesists of the Holy Quran have imposed their theological beliefs on the Quranic verses and have used interpretation in what has been incompatible with their religious beliefs, yet such an explanation cannot be described as exegesis. The question that is raised is that despite others' warning against falling into the trap of presuppositions, how does Allameh react to the fallacious verses of non-infallibility while encountering with the presupposition of the infallibility of the prophets? Regarding the type of Allameh's encounter with such verses, the author generally maintains that in his explanation, while adhering to the theory of maximal infallibility, Allameh decides on justification and interpretation in lexical analysis of verses that are inconsistent with this theory, or in intellectual rhetoric, or in encrypting the relevant verses, and sometimes overlooks thorough examination of the verses. In dealing with these verses, Allameh attempts to somewhat rectify the apparent divergence between the presupposition of the absolute infallibility of the prophets and the fallacious verses of non-infallibility through rational analysis and the use of exegetic interpretation of the Quran by the Quran. This analytical-critical research collected data though a desk study.   Keywords: Allameh Tabatabai, Theological Presupposition, Infallibility of the Prophets, Interpretation, Exegesis

Talk about the rationality of religion is considered one of the most important issues in the field of religious studies. Some believe that the rationality of religion is maximal. In their view all religious teachings are directly logical provable. According to another view, the evaluation of religious propositions with the reason is against religion. Therefore, religiosity has no compatible with rationalism and they are contraries. The third group believes that only some religious statements can be substantiated, but all of them can be criticized. in this article based on theory of Allamah Tabatabaei in real and credit perceptions, we believe that all of the religious propositions are rational, but the meaning of rationality of theoretical part of religion is different from the meaning of rationality of practical part.Rationality of theoretical propositions of religion can be evaluated by provability of them. But practical propositions of religion although are indemonstrable by logical arguments, but this did not mean they were not rationality. Because their rationality is proved by the rational ends of them.