Al-Daleel

The topic of conventionalism, or institutional facts holds a special importance in contemporary discussions in epistemology, as it falls opposite to true and real concepts within the human epistemic system, including both concepts and assents. John Searle, a contemporary Western philosopher, dedicated his studies on social realities, and has unique views in this regard. He divided realities existing in this world into two: natural realities and institutional facts. Searle believed that natural realities are realities that exist independently from the perceiver, like trees, valleys, etc. As for institutional facts, their existence relies on a type of perception by the perceiver, like money, ownership, leadership, and so on. Among the problems Searle faced was his attempt to include institutional facts in the external world, and within material things. This led him to contradictions, because what is external cannot depend on the perception of the perceiver. When he rejected the immaterial and metaphysical realm, he also fell into the problem of a person being coerced, or predestined, because he had to analyse perception as it being something biological, formed within the nerve system of the brain. His claim that institutional facts originate from language also led him to a vicious circle, because that language itself would need language. In this paper, we used the analytical critical methodology in studying the theory of social realities according to John Searle, aiming at understanding this theory and its scope of usage.

In this study, we aim at looking into the methodology that experts in this field rely on in understanding religious texts, a fixed and defined methodology that jurists use to deduce a religious ruling, and also the propositions that religion has presented in revealing the meaning of understanding the text. We have presented the instruments the jurist relies upon for understanding, as it includes the process of understanding religious texts, even though what concerns us here in this study is the hadith heritage. What we concluded with is that this process of understanding is taken from a series of principles and laws that must be observed, and if it was not for them, there would be no correct and precise results that have a binding nature. The reader would also be able to use it as proof, due to the understanding he has of the text. We then looked into the necessary pre-assumptions in the procedure of understanding, that cannot be avoided, as they are within the necessary principles that must be activated within it and form the framework of how the process is followed. There are also harmful pre-assumptions that must be avoided in the process of understanding a text, as they form the basis of multiple understandings of one text, and the reader falls very distant from what the text really aims at saying.

Religion is made up of various dimensions, like beliefs, values and commands, and they are real issues that a person is able to know. The foundations of religious reality and its examples are also clear to understand, and so are cases of primary religious values, which can be understood and verified through demonstrative arguments. This means itt is possible to acquire certainty of them through reason. The criterion of truthfulness of legislative commands, like prayer and fasting, is their reliance on theological principles. It is also possible to refer the philosophy of religious behavioural commands back to primary religious propositions as well, and the united actions of humans stem back to the realities that are based on rational arguments. As for commands of values and behaviour, even though they go back to the framework of imperative sentences, but with correct analysis, it is based on factual benefits, and go back to true realities. As for the particulars of acts of religious devotion and their details that are explained in narrations of the Sunnah, or apparent meaning of the Quran that result in speculative indication, they also result in a considerable understanding that leads to rational validity. They are accepted as certain within the understanding of principles or jurisprudence, or at least specific speculation that results in absolute assurance, which is equal to common certainty. According to this criterion, the method of research in religious propositions and proving its validity and truthfulness is based on the type of proposition, and with the goal of explaining the possibility of definite understanding that comes from truthfulness of religious propositions. The outcome of this is analytical refutation of the sceptical theory and religious vagueness that claims that it is not possible to achieve certainty in religion. This view is attributed to relativists who claim the influence of knowledge in prior suppositions.

Among the important issues widely discussed in scientific circles in general, and in particular religious circles, is the issue of understanding text and the correct method in dealing with text. There is the famous view that primarily relies on the external understanding of the text to know what the purport of the speaker, because the objective is to know what the speaker wants to say. There is also the view of philosophical hermeneutics that holds a different view, where it relies of the centralisation of the interpreter. It does not want to know what the speaker says, but rather its goal is to achieve a reliable understanding of what the reader understands, based on his potential and education. The reader dictates the new text and can have a different result, and another reader can have another result, with eternal understandings to one text. This study looks into the centralisation of the interpreter in these two methods and its foundations. We have relied on the analytical critical methodology to reach a correct understanding of the Quranic text, because some Muslim researchers have fell under the influence of philosophical hermeneutics and have applied it to the holy Quran. This research shows the errors of this theory through arguing with evidence how to reach the purport of the speaker, which opposes the method of those who rely on philosophical hermeneutics.

This study researches two primary materialist trends, Liberalism and Marxism, as far as their formulation, their influence in the realm of thought and epistemology, and the struggle between them in order to take lead in materialism. Liberalism is a product of secularism, which created the pillars of liberalist thought when it included the human into what is called Humanism, which focuses on the human and makes the human being the center and master of the universe without any equal. For them, the universe ultimately serves the human. Opposite to this was the forming of Marxism, which made the society submit to dialectical production and the relations of production under material dialectics and the history of social evolution, which resulted in Communism. The paper concludes that these two methods are incompetent, due to the epistemic inconsistency between them in solving human problems. It was required for the nature of this research to rely on the descriptive-analytical methodology.

This paper discusses political ideology according to two worldviews: the divine and the material. The importance of this study stems from two aspects. First: the importance of a worldview and its fundamental effect in the ideological system a person has in all his theoretical and scientific dimensions. Second: the major importance political ideology has, which is the ideology that influences the formulation of theories and political stances. It is clear that politics holds a central importance in a human’s life, throughout history, because a human is social in nature, so he cannot be without political order and laws in its general sense. This study has more importance in the time we are in now, where we see a clear increase in the influence of politics and political ideology in every aspect of our lives. This research aims at conducting a comparative study between two fundamental types of worldviews, and they are the divine worldview, and the material worldview, and it argues that each of these two worldviews lead to a political worldview that is different theoretically, in its foundations and theories, and also different in practice, as far as its methods, means and practical results, in what each worldview leads to.

Presuppositions play an important role in forming the framework that texts are understood by. They influence how texts are understood, and result in different explanations for one text. There are many types of presuppositions, like instrumental presuppositions, implicit presuppositions, presuppositions that are related to historical influences, presuppositions that influence deeper understanding, and presuppositions that influence critical and evaluative understanding. It is important to distinguish between these types, and distinguish between what is allowed and what is necessary in understanding a text, like the reality of idea, combining of two contradictory things, context, vertical and horizontal understanding of meanings of words, and to that which is not allowed in understanding text, like comparing the unseen to the seen, religious good and bad, and restricting meanings to one level, and restricting meaning of text to the views of the predecessors. In this research, we relied on the descriptive-analytical methodology in explaining the different views related to each of these presuppositions, and the critical methodology in evaluating them.