Religious Inquiries
Volume:13 Issue: 1, Winter-spring 2024

During the Renaissance and Reformation eras, the discipline of religious studies saw a notable paradigm change. This movement entailed a departure from the previous emphasis on Christian apologetics and polemics towards a more rigorous and analytical evaluation of established religious ideas. Friedrich Max Müller and Cornelis Petrus Tiele were instrumental in facilitating this paradigm shift by their rigorous scientific investigations into the field of religion. This article provides an overview of the scholarly contributions made by the authors in the field of religious studies. It explores their viewpoints on key concepts such as neutrality, objectivity, error study, and comparative religion. Notwithstanding the presence of detractors, their scholarly endeavors established the foundational framework for conducting a thorough examination of religious phenomena on an international level, hence facilitating the development of comparative religious studies. In the present day, the academic investigation of religion persists as a means for researchers to engage in a systematic and analytical examination, hence there is need to incorporate environmental and ecological aspects and poststructuralist deconstruction, thereby enhancing comprehension of the societal significance of religion. The founding studies of Müller and Tiele continue to hold significance and are indispensable in present-day study.

Averroes or Ibn Rushd (520/1126-595/1198), the great Western Islamic thinker, contemplated the relationship between philosophy and religion seriously and created some important works such as Fasl al-maqal fīmā bayn al-ḥikma wa-l-sharīʿa min ittiṣāl (The decisive treatise, determining the nature of the connection between religion and philosophy), al-Kashf ʿan manāhij al-adillah fī ʿaqāʾid al-milla (Discovery of the methods of proof concerning religious doctrines), and Tahāfut al-tahāfut (The incoherence of the incoherence). Ibn Rushd believed that there is no contradiction between religion and philosophy, and they bear no opposition to each other. He argues that since Sharia (religious law) is true and encourages people to engage in rational reasoning which leads to knowledge of the Truth, then both are the truth; hence, truth does not oppose truth. On the contrary, these two agree and recognize each other. However, this statement that philosophy does not contradict religion is related to the innermost layer of religion and Quranic verses because philosophy or rational contemplation sometimes go against the exoteric meaning of religious ideas and scripture phrases. Achieving the esoteric meaning of the verses through inner interpretation or taʾwīl is Averroes's solution to eliminate this confliction. Unlike some other Islamic philosophers, Ibn Rushd does not accept the unity of religion and philosophy but simply thinks of their consistency with each other and the lack of opposition between them. That is why philosophy and religion are forced to be independent and separated from each other for their own safety. Therefore, we should not confuse the issues related to each of them. This current paper addresses the problem of the coordination between philosophy and religion from Ibn Rushd’s point of view in general, and his theory on interpretation, in particular. I will demonstrate that one of the main goals of Averroes in raising the esoteric interpretation in the discussion of the harmony between religion and philosophy is to defend philosophy and to grant the “people of reasoning” (philosophers) the right to interpret the Quran esoterically. In this paper, we attempt to show that Averroes's theory has many insights to offer. Ultimately, we will review and criticize this theory from the perspectives of Khwaja Nasir Tusi and Mulla Sadra.

“The Day of the Lord” is a common term used in both the Bible and the Quran. This research aims to address some basic questions about this term: Why are only some specific days called “God's days”? When does the Day of the Lord happen? Moreover, what are the distinctive characteristics that set it apart from other days? What are the similarities and differences between the concept and example of the Day of the Lord in the Bible and the Quran? In general, the Day of the Lord in the Bible and the Quran refers to four important events. The first is the day of judgment and reckoning that occurs in the Day of Resurrection. This is the most common use of the term in all three scriptures. The second is the day when God bestows abundant blessings and mercies upon a community. This use occurs in the Old Testament and the Quran. The third is the day when God takes revenge on the wicked. This use is found in the Old and New Testament. The fourth is the day of Christ's return, which is only mentioned in the New Testament. Among these four cases, only the first occurs in the hereafter, while the other three transpire in this world.

Natana J. Delong-Bas, a relatively famous contemporary Islamic scholar, claims that Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab was a religious reformer and intellectual and did not spawn the Jihadist culture, but rather, this culture is emanated from the ideology of Ibn Taymiyyah (1263-1328), a famous Muslim scholar who fought against the crusaders and Mongols, believing that the foundations of Islam are the Qur’an and the sword. She maintains that the current Salafi Jihadi ideologues such as Sayyed Qutb are influenced by Ibn Taymiyyah's views, and Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab had his own principles and was not a sheer copier of Ibn Taymiyyah's teachings. She maintains that Abd al-Wahhab's genuine path is distorted after his death by Neo-Wahhabism. However, it seems that Natana Delong's ideas are so partial. According to the finding of this essay: not only did Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab reverberate the Ibn Taymiyyah's teachings but, by forging an alliance with the Saud dynasty, implemented his rigid teachings as well. Furthermore, the Wahabi path is not distorted, but rather the al-Saud Dynasty is currently distancing itself from the genuine Wahhabi principles, and the Salafi Jihadi groups like ISIS and Al-Qaeda are trying to lead them to the Ibn Abd al-Wahhab's utopia.

Among his notable publications, the Dutch orientalist van Vloten (1866-1903) authored a book titled A Study on Arab Domination, Shiism and Messianic Beliefs Under the Umayyad Caliphate. Within this book, there is a dedicated chapter that explores Shiism, its beliefs, and its various denominations. In this chapter, the author engages in challenging discussions between Shiism and Sunnism. However, it is important to note that his conclusions regarding the origins and influences of Shiism are flawed. Van Vloten asserts that Shiism originated from Kufa and was established by Mukhtār al-Thaqafī. He further claims that Shiite beliefs are influenced by other religions, and that the Shiite denominations consist of the Sabaʾi and Kaysanite beliefs. These conclusions, however, lack a solid foundation and demonstrate a lack of understanding of Shiite history and beliefs. Van Vloten's comments can be attributed to his ignorance of the original Shiite sources. This article aims to examine the basis for van Vloten's remarks by analyzing the sources and content of the claims made in this particular chapter. Additionally, it seeks to scrutinize the biased perspectives of van Vloten and other orientalists when it comes to Shiism.

Bishop John Henry Newman is one of the most prominent theologians and philosophers of the nineteenth century. His groundbreaking moral argument for the existence of God through conscience is remarkably original. Although so much research has been done about his argument, this paper provides a thorough dissection of his argument. To do so, we bring up his relevant epistemological grounds; i.e. assent, apprehension, and inference, and their relation to each other and their application to the argument. Newman attempts to prove the existence of God through certain shared feelings of human beings, which are produced by our conscience. By investigating the nature of these feelings, including fear, shame, and guilt, he concludes that they require only one Divine Being, before which conscience invokes these feelings. This paper offers a novel formulation of his argument in seven steps to make it more persuasive. In the end, we mention two main opponents of Newman’s argument and respond to their objections through Newman’s own replies.

In the extensive existing literature, religion has often been ambivalently associated with both conflict and peace. Arguably, such an “ambivalence of the scared” can significantly be studied at the functional, rather than essential, dimension of religion. Drawing mainly on Hardenberg's theories of socio-cosmic field, value, and resources, as well as Ninian Smart’s dimensional anatomy of religion, this study aims to interpret cultural dynamics in a systematic correlation between religion and peacebuilding. Based on the description and analysis of data collected from a qualitative research in Paderborn (Germany) and Mashhad (Iran), and with a thematic focus on interreligiosity in the two settings, this article approaches religion as a ResourceCulture for peacebuilding and suggests that the “ambivalence” can be interpreted in light of a discernible contingency in resources, meanings, and values, as well as the role of human agency in their production, interpretation, and consumption.

This study aimed to explain the truth of the throne and its logical and narrative devices. In this regard, the truth of the Throne was studied using the Quranic verses and the narrations of the Shiite Imams in library research and theoretical analysis method. The "truth of the Throne" is one of the most controversial issues for Islamic scholars. Some theologians such as Moshabbahe and Mojassame consider the Throne purely material and physical, like sitting on the throne, and others consider it transcendental, abstract, equivalent to knowledge, or the center of divine providence. The materialistic and superficial interpretation of the truth of the Throne, in addition to being contrary to the rational and philosophical understanding, conflicts with some narrations of the Shiite Imams, just as the virtual and metaphorical interpretation of the Throne is incompatible with the texts of verses and hadiths. In conclusion, the Divine Throne is an independent truth and is of the kind of unseen truths and in the rank of abstract worlds. The Throne refers to the place of divine providence and lordship, and all divine commands lead to it, and accordingly, the "Throne" is also the place of God Almighty’s knowledge of the creatures.

one of the basic issues in the Hindu and ancient Iranian religions is that what are territory, power and function of evil forces with prominent names such as demons and Asuras depicted in Iran and India against the divine forces (gods) and their followers? Also, what are the differences and similarities in terms of the power, territory and function of the Indian Asuras and the Iranian demons against forces of daevas and Ahura? Based on these questions, by analyzing important Indian and Iranian and valid references, the results indicate that evil forces in Iran always appear destructive and are in conflict with the function and interest of the Ahura forces. So, finally due to the superiority of gods' nature over the demonic forces, success will be with the good (Ahura) forces. But in India, with all the evils of the Indian Asuras, which in some cases make them resemble the Iranian demons, sometimes the Indian Asuras are consistent with the forces of good, and in many cases Asuras have some privileges and features similar to the Gods. Thus, in Indian mythology; we are witnessing the relative equality of the power of the gods and demons.