Al-Daleel

This study tries to compare between two thoughts of two followers of Darwinism in the field of evolutionary genetics. The first one is Richard Dawkins, who attempted, by making use of the theory of evolution and genetics, to make his readers to deny the existence of God and be atheists. The other one is Francis Collins, who tried his best, by making use of those sciences, to defend the faith in God and monotheistic evolutionary doctrine. It is worth to mention that both of these two personalities are Neo-Darwinists, and both of them underwent atheism, but with the difference that the first one has become the most famous atheist in the world and the biggest authority to whom it is referred in this matter, whereas the second one has abandoned atheism to become one of the hard defenders of the faith in God.By comparing the views of these two scientists, we will get to two conclusions: the first is that the theory of evolution is neither atheistic nor theistic in itself. The second conclusion is the possibility of combining Darwin’s evolution with creationism and getting to the monotheistic evolution theory, as done by some scholars like Collins.

The problem of evil in Christian theology has occupied a large area in discussions as an issue related to the Almighty God. It has a close relation with the existence of God and his attributes of knowledge, all-capability and wisdom. Moreover, it has caused one of the suspicions to the religious system in general, and on Christian theology in particular. Therefore, many attempts were made in Christian theology to deal with this problem and show that it is inconsistent with the belief that there is a god who is All-Knowing, Wise, Just, Merciful. However, there are different theories trying to solve this problem in Christian theology and other monotheistic religions. Perhaps the most prominent theories in this concern are the Doctrine of Sin, the theory of Divine Providence, and Theodism, in addition to other theories, such as the theory of Open Faith and the theory of Human Free Will. In this study, we have followed the inductive-analytical approach in reviewing the theories and trying seriously to analyze them, in order to get to the theory that could be the closest to theological conception for solving the problem. Maybe the best theory offered as a solution to this problem is the theory of nonexistence of evil, which is accepted by both the philosophers and theologians. It also adopted by Islamic philosophy and some Islamic theologians, besides the theory of Divine Providence.

The time period between the third and fifth century AH, of the Twelver Shiite theology has been known as the systematic transformation stage, as this stage has witnessed a qualitative change in the deductive approach in theology. Sheikh al-Mufid and Sayyid al-Murtadha had a big role in establishing this so-called systematic transformation stage with its features and foundations. In this stage, syllogism was a general standard in most of theological studies. From the most important reasons that led to the development in the tools of the theological approach at that stage was the suitable ground that encouraged rational topics and studies in the Twelver Shiite thought, thanks to a good group of Shiite theologians, who had inherited scientific legacy in theological researches from the theologians of the [religious] Text Era. And also because of the common belief among the theologians of that stage that there was no legal prohibition against the benefiting from these cognitive tools in doctrinal fields, as long as they were rational tools acknowledged by human mind. In this article, we shed light on the role of Sheikh al-Mufid and Sayyid al-Murtadha in developing the mechanisms of theological reasoning. In this study, we make use if the descriptive, analytical approach.

The article discusses an important topic related to the subject of freedom in the human and the religious thought, through studying the limits of one of the most important items of the concept of freedom, that is the freedom of expression as one of the basic freedoms established for man. Human law and religious law perform two basic functions concerning the freedom of expression; the first is to secure this freedom against the actions that harm it, and this is done by considering any form of aggression against this kind of freedom as a crime. And the second is to prevent individuals from violating the permitted and lawful limits of exercising the freedom of expression. In fact, the violation of the freedom of expression leads to criminal responsibility. And through human and religious law, a balance is achieved between the interest of individuals and the interest of society, for the protection of man and society constitute the purpose of any legal legislation. At the same time, it preserves society and keeps it safe and secure. So, this article tries to establish the areas and limits of the freedom of expression and put it in its proper context. Through the study, it has become clear to us that both the humanitarian law and the Islamic law agree on protecting the freedom of expression.

Nowadays, we are facing intellectual and political currents, standing against accordance and compliance among peoples and nations, which might justify some strategists speculations of the inevitability of the clash of civilizations. This means that we shall be governed by the law of chaos in this respect. Our study wants to shed light on the possibility of cognitive communication according to what Muslim scholars see, focusing on analyzing the way in which language and concept can mediate in our dialogue, where language mediates between communicators. We have called this as traditional and moral communication, but when concept mediates between communicators, we have called it as real and philosophical communication. So, the concept of cognitive communication is a common statement between communicators. Based on the invention of language, the value of traditional communication is inventive, which has led philosophers to follow demonstrative communication as an alternative, where the value shall be universal and fixed, provided that there would a mutual influence between them that could leave an impact on their value. We have deducted, from the concept of intuition, the principle of methodological objectivity, and we also have established the principle of methodological plurality out of social upbringing that manipulates the properties of concepts; so intuitive concepts have changed to theoretical ones, and theoretical concepts have changed to intuitive ones. These two are exclusive in this article, through which we claim the possibility of solving philosophical communication crises.

In this article, we shed light on the concept of humanism, which has begun to take root in Western thought, especially in the age of Renaissance and afterward. We have mentioned the most important historical roots, principles and premises adopted by the followers of this trend to build their cognitive base. However, the trend is not free from cognitive problems that affect man’s lifestyle and thinking, as it focuses on man, pays too much attention to him and considers him the axis of everything, while leaving away the centrality of God Almighty in the universe. This movement pays most attention to the material side of man and ignores his spiritual side. It works to maintain mans happiness in this worldly live rather than the afterlife, relying on experimental, instrumental reason, trying through which to exclude religion and revelation from mans daily life and thinking. Accordingly, we have no way but to care for all man’s existential and epistemological aspects, which, certainly, are not limited to his material sides only, but rather his spiritual sides, since he has been created by God Almighty and would return to Him.

Humanism is an intellectual doctrine, resulting from the age of enlightenment and renaissance. It emphasizes mans significance and centrality rather than God Almighty. This doctrine relies on empirical reason, rejecting all other cognitive tools. Therefore, it rejects metaphysics, and instead, it focuses of man’s personal freedom. Deism is a doctrinal situation that believes in God and that He is the Creator of the world, but it denies His relation with the world through revelation, mission and prophets. It sees that God has created the universe and left alone, without asking human beings to abide by faith or religion. In this article, we discuss the relationship between humanism and deism by showing the flaws and problems of both of these doctrines, which lead to a wrong view about the relationship between God and man, through the deification of man, abolition of the supremacy of God, and the denial of the prophets’ missions. In addition to that, we criticize absolute personal freedom that is not controlled by any restrictions or conditions. On the other hand, we show the true nature of religions in understanding the relationship between God and the world, and that centrality is for God Almighty. Moreover, the study assures the necessity of sending prophets with divine missions to nations, and that freedom must be controlled by the divine teachings. Finally, it is worth mentioning that the study has followed the critical, analytical approach.

Atheism is the deviation from integrity and the denial of the existence of God Almighty, monotheism and Islam. Even though that man has been created with the pure nature of Islam, he might incline to atheism because of some reasons and motives. However, the phenomenon of atheism was available at the time of the Ahlul-Bayt (peace be on them), but its general characteristics, at that time, were sensualism and naturalism, and that knowledge was limited to senses, imagination, and rationality tainted by illusion and imagination, emphasizing mans physical aspects. Heretics and atheists denied the existence of the Creator, after denying the creation of the possible world, making use of imaginary and illusory reason. The Ahlul-Bayt (peace be on them), as being the scientific reference then, responded to atheism at their time in many ways, in order to undertake their duty of guiding humanity toward perfection. In this task, the Infallible Imams (peace be on them) followed ethical and rational methods. By ethical methods, we mean giving the chance to atheists to ask questions and offer their suspicions, without criticizing an atheist’s personality, but his arguments. Rational methods, both conceptual and contextual, can be summarized into the provocative approach, avoiding of possible harm, making use of rational and logical rules, with emphasizing the principle of causality, and reasoning according to the self arguments, quoting the proofs the human self, referring to it and establishing clear evidence by making use of empirical sciences to prove the existence of the Creator and refute atheism.