Al-Daleel

The study presents a review of the theory of induction according to Aristotle and his followers. It examines the relationship between induction, on the one hand, and syllogism and experiment, on the other hand. It then discusses the so-called problem of induction, or the problem of generalization, and the most important attempts that have been put forward by thinkers to solve it. Among these attempts are the principle of sufficient number, the accumulation of probabilities, and the adoption of the famous Aristotelian rational principle, which states that the accidental is neither continuous nor is it the mostly. The study, then, presents the Sayyid Muhammad Baqir al-Sadr›s report on this principle and the problem that he raised based on his report, in which he showed that the aforementioned principle refers to total knowledge in determining coincidence. He also considered the aforementioned principle to be one of the assumptions that refers to induction. The study discusses what Sayyid al-Sadr decided for the Aristotelian principle, arguing that the explanation that he presented is far from the intention of Aristotelian logic. Consequently, the problem that he raised is invalid because it is based on his own reading, not on what is established in the science of logic. Finally, the study concludes by presenting a new vision for inductive and experimental syllogism.

In this article, we try to explore the phenomenon of how the approach to understanding religious texts is influenced by the world of interests and harms, where it constitutes the infrastructure from which the Legislator proceeds to formulate His legislative texts and entrusts them to the responsible person (who has reached the required age to perform religious duties in Islam), and the impact that the real world can have on that approach. In this article, we have reviewed the influence of reality on understanding the religious texts in a way showing that this reality is not the basis for the production of religious texts, but rather contributes to establishing a deeper understanding that is most consistence with the truth. It can create a vital context from which one, who practices the process of ijtihad, starts to address the many questions that may arise from the evolution and expansion of life in all fields.We also examine the extent to which the understanding of religious texts is influenced by the world of interests and harms, so that it becomes an understanding consistent with this world. We also discuss the potential consequences of ignoring the infrastructure of texts, that have become clear among modernist thinkers in their studying of religious texts, and the resulting multiplicity of understandings or interpretations.

The issue of religious identity, which is one of the aspects of cultural identity, is one of the most important and contentious issues for humans, given the meaning it imparts to human life. Although identity is a general topic with general principles that are discussed regardless of the phenomenon of social media networks, in this study, using a critical philosophical approach, we will focus on addressing these principles and discussions in the context of social media platforms, especially in the world connected to this modern phenomenon. We will also illustrate how they are related to the phenomenon of religion and religiousness. We have discussed and critiqued some thinkers› views on cyber identity or identity influenced by these networks, and we have attempted to apply them to the subject of religious identity. One of the conclusions we have reached through the discussions presented is that social media networks, in their current form and structure, are imbued with non-religious perspectives, Western lifestyle patterns, and non-religious ideologies. All these factors result in the weakening of religious identity, despite the fact that humans are in dire need of religious identity, especially in the modern age. Finally, we have provided some recommendations to prevent falling into these problems and crises.

The question of reason and its states is one of the important matters discussed by thinkers both negatively and positively. The problem revolves around the nature of reason and its states. Are they material things that related to the brain or mind, or reason is an entity beyond matter and its variables? Here, we shed light on the three most important theories that answer these and other questions, where we analyze and criticize them, starting with the theory of dualism associated with René Descartes. It is one of the mental theories that sees humans as having another dimension besides the physical body. Then, we move on to the most important materialistic theories; behaviorism and exclusionism, which reduce the reality of man and limit it to the body. Analytical behaviorism interprets reason and its states as patterns of personal behavior, saying that what is referred to as reason is not something with an entity independent from the body, but rather a collection of predispositions to behavior when certain circumstances are provided. And as for exclusionism, it interprets the question by attributing reason and its states to neural activity.These theories are not free from confusions and ambiguities here and there, especially as to the materialistic perspective, which contradicts the axioms of reason and some experimental scientific studies as well.

There is no doubt that the science of Usool al-Fiqh (fundamentals of Islamic jurisprudence), which is relied upon in interpreting religious texts, has reached a significant level of maturity among Muslims. It has evolved to the extent that it may be thought of as a science that has matured to the point of stagnation. The door seems closed to any new developments, but the reality is that many aspects of this science are still open to research and investigation, especially in the areas of semantics and rational evidence. Western linguistic studies have presented a unique approach to linguistic analysis since the late 19th century, giving rise to philosophical schools that primarily base their philosophical construction on the study of language and its laws. This is also the case in hermeneutics, where its outcomes are closely linked to linguistic analysis. Since becoming an independent science, it has provided new data for understanding texts and their associated elements. This output has caught the attention of a group of advocates for renewal and enlightenment, who have called for its utilization and application in dealing with religious heritage. However, the religious domain, especially in its foundational dimension, is not an open field for everyone. A responsible stance is necessary in the face of these calls, as they can be a gateway to renewing and positively developing knowledge, or they can be a destructive path that undermines the sincere efforts made by Islamic scholars. This study aims to delineate the scope within which the science of Usool al-Fiqh aligns with the Western contribution to interpreting religious texts by identifying the constraints it imposes on the incorporation of the outcomes of linguistics and hermeneutics in dealing with religious texts. To achieve this goal, we have adopted an inductive-analytical approach in dealing with the data of the two sciences for which the constraints are to be established.

Fideism is an intellectual trend that has emerged in both the Western and Islamic worlds from ancient times to the present day. It emphasizes the primacy of faith over reason, and seeks to exclude and neutralize reason from the realm of faith. In the Islamic world, fideism is embodied in the Salafi school, which unequivocally advocates for the exclusion of reason, rational evidence, and purely rational sciences, framing reason within the bounds of religious law. In the Western world, fideism is represented by the Empirical school, which believes that religious doctrinal systems are not subject to rational evaluation. Any attempt to prove religious beliefs through reason and rational evidence, such as proving the existence of God, is deemed futile, as the domain of religious beliefs is not one of rationality, contemplation, or inference, but rather one of passion, love, emotion, and sentiment and no more. Therefore, it can be said that there are two fundamental interpretations of fideism: first, that religion and faith are opposed to reason; and second, that faith is not opposed to reason, but rather it is above reason.In this comparative study, we analyze the characteristics and features of fideism from the perspective of the Salafi and Empirical schools of thought. We highlight the common foundations and pillars between the two schools, and ultimately, we undertake an absolute evaluation and critique of comprehensive fideism.

This article discusses the apparent contradiction between the openly declaring of apostasy and the criminal penalties that follow it, notably death, and the freedom of belief in Islamic thought. It questions how one can reconcile the assertion that Islam guarantees freedom of belief with the punitive measures for apostasy. It also raises the point that threatening a Muslim with death for changing their religion could be considered a form of coercion to accept Islam, thereby clearly infringing upon religious freedom, as recognized by the Holy Qur’an. In order to remove this alleged contradiction, we adopted a descriptive approach in defining the terms of the study, and the inductive and analytical approach in citing the guidelines conducive to defending the well-known opinion of the necessity of killing an openly fitri (one who was born into a Muslim family) apostate, and killing an unrepentant milli (one who converted to Islam by choice) apostate if they refuse to repent. We also employed a comparative approach to highlight the strengths, distinctions, and superiority of Islamic thought compared to other legislative systems. The study yielded several results, including: that Islamic thought guarantees realistic freedom of belief for individuals, and that there is a variety of valid justifications, even if some involve reconciling the necessity of punishment for an openly apostate with the freedom to choose one›s beliefs.