فصلنامه آینه معرفت
پیاپی 66 (بهار 1400)

One of the most important issues in religious teachings is the relationship between science and religion, which was first appeared in the West and then found its way into Islamic theology and caused much controversy. Ayatollah Javadi Amoli, as a philosopher and Quranic commentator, has discussed this issue in his various books and has proposed his theory as the "theory of discovery". This theory delineates the position of reason along with the other tools of religious knowledge. The present study, using the descriptive-analytical method, first explains the theory of discovery with a critical stance and then attempts to provide a critique of thestructure of this geometry, emphasizing its adherence to the verbal commonality of the experimental sciences and its idealistic conception of experimental sciences. The study shows that, to understand the nature of the new experimental sciences, one must examine the true evolution of the experimental sciences, so that its place in the geometry of religious knowledge can be accurately mapped.

The genesis of pluralities from the unit has always been at the center of attention of philosophers since the formation of philosophy. Thomas Aquinas and Mulla Sadra have also expressed their views on it based on their philosophical and ontological foundations. How many beings originated from a simple unit preoccupied the minds of both, and they, like other philosophers, had to find a way out of this problem. The present article intends to survey the works of Thomas Aquinas and Mulla Sadra and their commentators and researchers in an analytical way to probe their views on the genesis of pluralities from the unit and as a result determine how each of them justified the genesis of pluralities from the unit. Do they pay attention to the rule of the One in this way? How did multiple being came into being? What was the first thing that came from God? The findings suggest that Thomas Acquinas, based on his ontology, denies the rule of the One and criticizes those who believe in it. But Mulla Sadra, by accepting the rule of the One, has restored it and based on his philosophical principles, has presented a new plan for it and introduced the extending existence as the first thing issued by the Supreme Being.

According to Islamic philosophers, knowing the Supreme Being is one of the highest level of human spiritual perfection. Knowing the Supreme Being involves different dimensions. One aspect of knowing God is knowing His attributes correctly. Adopting a descriptive-analytical method, the present article attempts to answer the question: Is it legitimate to describe the Supreme Being with attributes of the act? In order to answer this question, we define the meaning of attributes of the act, explain the context and factors contributing to belief in such attributes, present the interpretation of the Islamic philosophers of these attributes and the limitations of this theory and finally, offer an acceptable view. The result of the study of the "theory of attributes of the act" reveals that although the Supreme Being is described by some attributes of the act, the way these attributes are understood firstly is rooted in popular interpretation of some early narrators, and secondly is subject to some significant criticism like weakness and deficiency of the Almighty Allah. A survey of the interpretations of the Islamic philosophers from these narrations shows that they do not necessarily require the acceptance of attributes of the act. Besides, there are some narrations that show some attributes of the act like Creator, All-provider, etc. are exact representation of the Essence of God.

While theologists consider art as a product of imagination and refer to imagination as an independent faculty, Sadra’s view, which is based on the unity of the soul as the source of all faculties, considers all faculties originating from the soul. Therefore, imagination is a function of the soul and as a result resides in it. Art is the act of soul and attributing it to imagination, which is secondary, can be considered as an act of negligence. The various manifestations of the soul constitute three stages of artistic creation, the highest stage of which is the single, concise and simple stage of the collective existence of the soul. At this stage, artistic creation is one with all the elements of perfection of the soul. Therefore, all bits of knowledge exist in the human soul, and, in this regard, there is no difference between the artist, the sage and the mystic. It is only at the next level, the level of imagination and the external manifestation of the work of art, that the collective unity of the soul is revealed in a particular artistic image.

In the present study, we focus on Ibn Sina's thoughts (359-416 AH) on the what, why, principles, realm and how of interpretation and its explanation based on Islamic mysticism. According to Ibn Sina, interpretation refers to the act of revealing truth in its true sense. In this regard, there is no difference between Ibn Sina and Ibn Arabi. Although they have their own language and terminology, they are similar in definition, principles and the why of interpretation. There are, of course, differences between the two in the realm of interpretation and how to interpret a proposition. To deal with the differences, we first draw on the works of Ibn Sina and then explain our findings based on the sources of Islamic mysticism. The most important finding of the present study is the new explanation of Ibn Sina's thought based on the teachings of Islamic mysticism.  Our goal is a deeper understanding of Ibn Sina's terms and their mystical explanation. To this end, we have adopted the method of philosophical-intellectual analysis of words and propositions.

According to Sa’id Qumi’s negative theology, God has no attributes, neither essential nor non-essential, and there is no congruity between Him and His creatures. Therefore, the words attributed to the Creator and creatures are affirmative for creatures, but negative for the Creator. As an example, His existence is synonymous with His not being non-existent. Therefore, we do not have any understanding except the negative one. However, the affirmative understanding of the Creator leads to divesting God of His attributes. This article aims to examine Sa’id Qumi’s solutions and to evaluate whether his solution logically eliminate the issue of divesting God of His attributes. Sa’id Qumi has proposed four solutions: (1) Replacement of positive knowledge with the negative one; (2) Propounding God as attribute Endower, not the endowed; (3) God has essential reality which is not the subject to our perceptual powers; (4) The replacement of negative understanding of titles and attributes with positive understanding of the Creator’s essence. Rational evaluation shows no solution can eliminate the issue of divesting God of His attributes in Sa’id Qumi monotheistic thought.

Mohammad Shahrour and Allameh Tabatabai have been careful not to ignore the scientific theories in their interpretation of the holy Quran. The Darwinian evolution theory, which has been accepted by biologists, has taken the attention of these two commentators. The main idea of the theory of evolution, the gradual creation and derivation of living things from the same ancestors, dates back to ancient Greek. This idea and its alternative, that is, “stability of species” had been introduced to scientific circles before the decent of the holy Quran. The present paper is a comparative study of the way the theory of human evolution has been viewed by Allameh Tabatabai and Mohammad Shahrour in the interpretation of Quranic verses. According to Allameh Tabatabai, although it is stipulated in the verses of the holy Qur'an that human beings are traced back to Adam and Eve, this is subject to interpretation. The most explicit evidence referred to by Allameh Tabatabai is the analogy drawn between Jesus (pbuh) and Adam (pbuh) in the holy Qur'an. Nevertheless, it is not certain that the analogy is based on lack of father. Historical evidence shows that the point of similarity is the fact that both are human beings created by God. Believing in no contradiction, Shahrour tries to reconcile the difference, but in some cases his attempts are overshadowed with formalities. He believes that the blowing of the soul in Adam (pbuh) is a turning point that marks the beginning of emergence of contemporary man.