Al-Daleel

Religious pluralism is based on cognitive foundations and intellectual principles, as well as on social roots that should be focused on. Religious pluralism cannot be criticized and evaluated without taking these factors into consideration. These cognitive foundations are Kants theory, religious experience, philosophical hermeneutics, the history of religion, and the non-realism in religious language. There are also social reasons that have led to the emergence of religious pluralism, such as disputes, conflicts, and bloody wars between the followers of Christian denominations, especially between the followers of the Protestant denomination represented by Martin Luther and John Calvin, and the followers of Catholicism. It is noteworthy that the exclusive vision in Christianity played an important role in presenting the theory of religious pluralism.The theory of religious pluralism suffers several problems; for it relies on Emmanuel Kants interpretations about the knowledge of reality (noumenon) and the appearance (phenomenon), which is a flawed foundation. It also suffers from a confusion between two levels of religious pluralism: the level of authenticity and truthfulness, and the social level and peaceful coexistence, and the falling into «relativism». In this article, we have discussed the intellectual and social roots and foundations of religious pluralism, and then criticized and evaluated them according to the intellectual and logical standards in light of the rational-analytical method.

The article discusses one of the most important issues that has caused a big tumult in the scientific communities in the Islamic world and beyond, namely the matter of religious knowledge and its possibility. There are those who support the possibility of Islamizing the humanities, and even the necessity of reforming these sciences in a way to be consistent with the Islamic teachings and principles. They argue that the Islamic religion has the necessary competence to be a starting point and a framework for humanities, relying on evidences to support their claim, and then, they offered many methods and mechanisms about how to run this process. On the other hand, there is another trend, opposing the matter of religious knowledge, considering it as impossible and unreasonable. And this is due to the difference between the fields of science and religion and the impossibility of combining them. They see that science is neutral and cannot be ideologized. This study presents the opinions of both trends (those who support and those who oppose religious knowledge), analyzes and criticizes them, and discusses the evidence for each of them, and then the criticisms against each of them. Finally, the study concludes the preference of the first one, and that the possibility of Islamic humanities is a feasible matter, saying that efforts must be made to establish it.

Secularism has presented itself, in recent ages, as an alternative to the religious existence in human life. After man had taken himself away from the Church, secularism hastened to heal the wound of that separation by convincing people of their ability to be legislators and take the place if the divine religious legislations. There was no similarity between the secular products (and the calls aroused by secularism to achieve the alleged freedom of man), and the divine legislations that Islam had brought to be universal and comprehensive for every time and place.The article discusses the characteristics of the Islamic legislation represented by (the divinity of legislation, innate accordance, existential richness, and the reality of taking place), and shows evidences on the universality of the Islamic legislation through reason and tradition. The article shows that comprehensiveness is one of the axioms of belief in Islam. The article, then, discusses the most important spurious arguments of secularism against the universality of the Islamic rulings and legislations, which cannot withstand the rational and traditional texts and arguments.

This article discusses the topic of man and his two ontological dimensions, the soul and the body, and the relationship between them from a philosophical perspective. First, we introduce preliminary concepts and talk about the importance of this study. Then, we give arguments of the human soul›s detachment from matter and its difference from the body, explaining the kind of the relationship between the soul and the body by dividing the powers of the soul into intellectual and practical, beside explaining the purpose of the soul›s connection to the body and how it integrates through two kinds of perfection: scientific cognitive integration and practical moral integration. We, also, refer to the contradiction of the power of illusion to the theoretical mind, and the contradiction of the power of desire and anger to the practical mind, discussing, at the same time, the dimension that represents the reality of man. In other words, which one of the two dimensions makes man a human being, referring to the role and importance of man’s material dimension. The result we have got to is that man has two dimensions, and that the abstract dimension is superior to the material one. They both are linked by an integrative mechanism through the perception represented by the theoretical mind, and management represented by the practical mind. Thus, man would be perfect with the wings of science and action together.

This is an analytical and descriptive comparative study between the philosophical rational perspective and the Islamic religious perspectives about the unseen world related to the beginning, the afterlife, and man, in order to show the extent of connection and difference between the two perspectives. Through reviewing the emergence of Greek metaphysical philosophy and its development by Islamic philosophers and their metaphysical philosophical opinions, as well as the appearance of the Abrahamic religions and their integration with the pure Islamic religion and reviewing its Qur’anic and traditional (Hadith) texts, we have concluded that the Islamic philosophy is superior to the Greek philosophy, especially in the subject of the divine unity of acts monotheism and the afterlife. We also have got to that the both the philosophical and Islam perspectives are similar, but with the Islamic perspective being distinguished by many details in the subjects of the physical and spiritual monotheism and resurrection, and this is only due to the influence of the Islamic religious perspective on the Islamic philosophy, besides the interest of Muslim philosophers in its texts, in addition to the easy emotional method of religious texts.

The contemplation of this amazing universe creates a question for pondering man about the creativity of this organized universe, which science cannot fully comprehend despite its development. However, some doubts may arise in man’s mind, including the doubt of evil. Some people try to deny the existence of the Creator through this doubt, as well as to doubt some of the attributes of the Creator, such as knowledge, power, will, and benevolence. In this article, we try to study the roots of this question and discuss the claims from two perspectives: first, experimental sciences and, second, the teachings of the Islamic religion. The religious texts (the Qur’an and the Sunnah) provide clear solutions to refute this doubt. In this article, the analytical descriptive method was followed to explain the views of scientists about experimental sciences and religious texts, and then analyze them. The article tries to prove the claim in a demonstrative manner and to conclude that this doubt is too old and that scientific and religious replies have been sufficient to refute it with conclusive arguments.

Muslim thinkers have had varying viewpoints on the nature of the relationship between reason and tradition and how to define them. As a result, three conflicting approaches have appeared in the scientific arena. The extremist textual approach believes that reason is incompatible with tradition the Qur’an and the Sunna and is contrary to the foundations of faith. Therefore, the two cannot be reconciled, and it is not permissible to violate the apparent meaning of religious texts or interpret them according to rational evidence. The extremist rational approach, that made the auditory evidence subordinate to the rational evidence and dependent on it, tried to deduce all important religious knowledge according to reason and its deductions. The moderate rational approach, that sees that religion is sometimes explained by reason and sometimes by tradition, says, on the one hand, that reason has an independent mission in rational matters and the agreed-upon scientific issues, and that tradition supports it. And, on the other hand, tradition has its own mission, and that reason is as lantern for it. This is a moderate rational approach that has appeared under the influence of the Infallible Imams (peace be on them). So, reason is not allowed to exceed its limits and scope, nor is it, as well as reasoning, and rational arguments are frozen in the field of religious knowledge. Through our analytical, inductive research, the coordinative role between reason and tradition has become clear in various fields and in generating religious knowledge.

The article discusses the opinions of two scholars: Nasiruddin al-Albani (a contemporary Salafi scholar) and Sayyid Muhammad Hussein Tabatabaei (a contemporary Shia scholar), on the nature of reason, its kinds and authenticity in religious knowledge. The article reviews their opinions on interpretation with comparison and criticism as possible at the end of each topic. The main point is that the Salafi thought sees the authenticity of perception and tradition, and so it does not rely on reason as an independent source. Instead, it relies on the explicit meaning of religious texts and prefers them reason, without, usually, interpret religious texts. The traditions, that show the authenticity of reason, are not reliable for this school of thought. In contrast, the Shia school of thought sees the authenticity of reason; therefore, this school of thought relies on reason as an independent source, and interprets religious texts while explaining the difference in the meanings of interpretation according to famous opinions. However, reason is a self-evident argument that does not need others to prove its authenticity.