https://rationaltheology.jahromu.ac.ir/ Rational theology en daily 1 Wed, 06 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0330 Wed, 06 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0330 https://rationaltheology.jahromu.ac.ir/article_231574.html Since the time of Qutbuddin Shirazi, the commentator of the wisdom of illumination, it has become so famous that Suhrawardi considers the human knowledge of the senses (unlike the preparators (Mashaites) who believed it to be an acquisition (Husuli) knowledge) to be a direct and immediate knowledge by presence (Huzuri). In his works, Mulla Sadra sometimes accepted this attribution and had many problems with it, and sometimes he rejected such an attribution to Sheikh Eshraq(Suhrwardi). This article is intended to criticize the promise of the knowledge of the presence of human beings to the senses concerning historical and philosophical topics. First, it is shown that Suhrawardi's theory was misunderstood by Qutb Shirazi and some contemporary commentators of Hikmat Ishraq, so Mulla Sadra's interpretation of Sheikh Ashraq's theory is more reasonable. Secondly, it has been shown that if the topic (direct and present knowledge of sensations) is in the object-known by essence (subjective concept), it is correct according to most philosophers, because from their point of view, this knowledge is understood as knowledge by presence. Still, if the topic is an object -known by accident (external object), the statement conflicts with many philosophical and reasoning rules (even the rules accepted by Suhrwardi). Suhrawardi also makes some clear statements about this topic. https://rationaltheology.jahromu.ac.ir/article_231576.html Aristotle’s "Unmoved Mover" theory, which in recent centuries has been at the center of discussions under the title "Aristotle’s Theology," is originally part of his first philosophy or metaphysics. It is considered one of the most influential yet controversial aspects of his philosophical system, leaving a profound mark not only in most Greco-oriented schools (especially the Neoplatonic school) but also in medieval philosophical-theological traditions, particularly within Christian theology, as well as among Islamic philosophers through critiques, commentaries, and elaborations. Beyond classical interpretations, the analyses and interpretations of contemporary continental Aristotelian scholars present us with various distinctions and perspectives on Aristotle’s views. Among the most important of these commentators in the German-speaking world are Eduard Zeller and Werner Jaeger, who, despite being contemporaries and sharing a linguistic background, approached Aristotle’s theological views differently, offering their own unique commentaries on the position of concepts such as God, substance, and the relationship between metaphysics and physics within the Aristotelian system as a whole. Influenced by the Neo-Kantian school, Eduard Zeller regards Aristotle’s theology as an integral part of first philosophy, where concepts such as substance, form, matter, and the Unmoved Mover play central roles. In his view, Aristotle’s theology is the product of rational thought and an attempt to explain the ultimate causes of existence—a narrative that continued in Islamic philosophy, particularly in the works of Avicenna. Through historical analysis, Zeller demonstrates how Aristotle seemingly detached the realm of the first cause from Greek mythology and traditional religion, placing it within the framework of his own rational and scientific system. On the other hand, Werner Jaeger, with his historicist approach and emphasis on the genealogy of ideas and concepts, sees Aristotle’s theology not as a fully independent system but as part of a continuum with the evolution of Greek thought, especially in relation to the teachings of the Academy. According to Jaeger, although Aristotle thinks within the tradition of the Pre-Socratics and Plato, he links theology with physics through a kind of realistic rationalism. Jaeger also argues that Aristotle’s theology should be seen as both a continuation and a critical reconstruction of Platonic theology, rather than a complete break from it.This paper, by comparing the perspectives of these two Hellenists, demonstrates how their differing methodologies—based on Zeller’s analytical-critical approach and Jaeger’s historical-evolutionary approach—lead to two distinct interpretations of Aristotle’s theology. Ultimately, it reveals that our understanding of Aristotle’s theology is significantly dependent on ancient and modern interpretive frameworks—interpretations that, based on evidence from Aristotle’s original or attributed texts, have helped substantiate their inferences and presuppositions. Thus, it can be said that revisiting this theology is not merely a study in the history of philosophy but also a contribution to contemporary metaphysical and philosophical understandings. https://rationaltheology.jahromu.ac.ir/article_231575.html The rationality within the network of religious beliefs in theological systems demonstrates a hierarchical relationship among them, where each belief possesses rationality corresponding to its existential position within the belief structure. Accordingly, three levels of religious beliefs can be identified: fundamental, intermediate, and peripheral beliefs. In this hierarchy, fundamental beliefs possess maximum rationality, followed by intermediate beliefs, while peripheral beliefs exhibit the least rationality compared to higher-level beliefs. An examination of these belief levels reveals two shared fundamental beliefs in Islamic and Christian theology: faith in one God and belief in the afterlife. The common intermediate beliefs of both traditions primarily concern divine attributes, the relationship between humans and God, the doctrine of creation, and similar themes. Additionally, distinct intermediate beliefs can be observed in Christian theology (e.g., Trinity, Incarnation, Atonement, Original Sin) and Islamic theology (e.g., divine attributes and essence, temporality/eternity of the Quran, Imamate and Caliphate). Finally, peripheral beliefs in both traditions relate to the sanctity of places, times, events, objects, individuals, and circumstances. This study demonstrates that while all religious beliefs are subject to epistemic and non-epistemic factors and undergo historical expansion/contraction, the fundamental beliefs of these two traditions exhibit greater stability, universality, and alignment with human nature, making them less susceptible to such influences and thus more rational. Islamic and Christian intermediate beliefs are largely shaped by these factors and reflect diverse interpretations of sacred texts, whereas peripheral beliefs depend on multiple variables and are more prone to change. The key finding is that the rationality of belief networks in Islamic and Christian theology diminishes from fundamental to peripheral levels and is constantly influenced by various expansive/contractive factors. Consequently, engaging with religious rationality requires careful consideration of how these belief networks develop and transform under different influences.  https://rationaltheology.jahromu.ac.ir/article_231577.html The issue of knowledge has put forwarded many times in Quranic verses and in general it is cited along with the issue of purification. Moreover, in many verses knowledge and purification is considered as the main aim for divine messengers to deal with. The aim in this paper is to deal with the relationship of knowledge and purification. I attempt to demonstrate the close anthropological connection between them. Of course, the term of knowledge in this research is referred to religious beliefs. The attempts is doe to display how injustice behaviors and ethical break down according to Quranic verses influence directly on cognitive aspect of human life. The writer will argue that the effect and the connection of injustice and moral illness with cognitive life of man is due to anthropological and cosmological view favored by Qur`aan. In many verses the mundane life is regarded as the place of testing and the religious beliefs are basically considered as the innate and inborn knowledge due to which the effect of non-cognitive element on knowledge is recognized. The notion of justice, therefore, might be as the main purpose of all divine messengers.  https://rationaltheology.jahromu.ac.ir/article_231578.html In recent decades, marked by the rise of comparative religious studies, the need for a theological system that encompasses not just one religion but all major world religions has been widely discussed. Wilfred Cantwell Smith is one of the leading proponents of this view. He defines global theology as "the theology of the religious history ofhumankind."Global theology is a comparative theology of religion that is constructed collectively and is, therefore,"acceptable and even convincing to all of humanity." Using this theological framework, Smith envisions a “global process of religious convergence.” He emphasizes that global theology is "a theology for which 'religions' are the subject, not the object; a theology that emerges from 'all the world’s religions,' from all religious communities and sub-communities of humanity." In other words, global theology is “the theology of the religious history of humankind” or “the history of our human faith.” While Smith considers such a theological system possible based on the unity of religious history, faith—as the essence and common principle of religions—and the potential for a new kind of knowledge beyond scientific objectivism and sectarian subjectivism, some scholars argue that the realization of such a theology is impossible due to the lack of convergence among many of the philosophical presuppositions of different religions, especially between Abrahamic and non-Abrahamic traditions. https://rationaltheology.jahromu.ac.ir/article_231579.html Various perspectives exist regarding theoretical reason ('aql nazarī) and practical reason ('aql 'amalī). For instance, some consider theoretical reason responsible for all cognitive perceptions, while practical reason governs action and motivation. Others view theoretical reason as the center for perceiving universals, whereas practical reason deals with particulars. The main question of this research is: What is the innovative viewpoint of Professor Javadi Amoli on theoretical and practical reason? The findings of this study are as follows:1. According to Ayatollah Javadi Amoli, theoretical reason is responsible for understanding, thought, certainty, and conviction, while practical reason governs inclination, intention, motivation, faith, piety, trust in God (tawakkul), patience (sabr), sincerity (ikhlas), love, enmity, power, and resolve. Human flourishing (sa'āda) results from the harmony between theoretical and practical reason in establishing these two connections. Additionally, theoretical reason is responsible for perceiving all issues of theoretical and practical wisdom (hikma), but it is practical reason that ensures the actualization of practical wisdom.2. In an innovative approach, based on distinguishing the functions of theoretical and practical reason (where perception is the function of theoretical reason and inclination is that of practical reason), he presents the self-evident nature (badāha) of theoretical and practical reason as fundamentally different. That is, the self-evidence of theoretical reason is of the nature of perception, whereas that of practical reason is of the nature of inclination.3. Ayatollah Javadi Amoli’s view aligns closely with the position hat theoretical reason is the source of perception, while practical reason is the source of motivation. However, his perspective is formulated in such a way that it avoids the criticisms leveled against the aforementioned view. https://rationaltheology.jahromu.ac.ir/article_226859.html Since the time of Qutbuddin Shirazi, the commentator of the wisdom of illumination, it has become so famous that Suhrawardi considers the human knowledge of the senses (unlike the preparators (Mashaites) who believed it to be an acquisition (Husuli) knowledge) to be a direct and immediate knowledge by presence (Huzuri). In his works, Mulla Sadra sometimes accepted this attribution and had many problems with it, and sometimes he rejected such an attribution to Sheikh Eshraq(Suhrwardi). This article is intended to criticize the promise of the knowledge of the presence of human beings to the senses concerning historical and philosophical topics. First, it is shown that Suhrawardi's theory was misunderstood by Qutb Shirazi and some contemporary commentators of Hikmat Ishraq, so Mulla Sadra's interpretation of Sheikh Ashraq's theory is more reasonable. Secondly, it has been shown that if the topic (direct and present knowledge of sensations) is in the object-known by essence (subjective concept), it is correct according to most philosophers, because from their point of view, this knowledge is understood as knowledge by presence. Still, if the topic is an object -known by accident (external object), the statement conflicts with many philosophical and reasoning rules (even the rules accepted by Suhrwardi). Suhrawardi also makes some clear statements about this topic. https://rationaltheology.jahromu.ac.ir/article_226860.html During the last three decades, ones marked with a growth in comparative studies in religion, the need of the theological discipline to embrace not only one but all great religions of world has been often discussed. Cantwell Smith is one of the leading advocates of the vision of global theology or, using his own term, . He sees it as a "theology of the religious history of humankind. It is a theology of comparative religion which is constructed by all, and therefore "acceptable to, even cogent for all humankind. With this global theology, Smith anticipates a "world process of religious convergence." Smith emphasizes that global theology is 'a theology for which 'the religions' are the subject, not the object; a theology that emerges out of 'all the religions of the world', all the religious communities of the world, or all the religious sub-communities of the human community. In other words, global theology as a future discipline must be 'a theology of the religious history of humankind' or 'the faith history of us human beings'. Although Smith believed that such a global theology on the bases of the unity of the history of religion, faith as a universal human quality and thus as a common essence of religions, and the possibility of a new mode of knowledge beyond both scientific objectivism and sectarian subjectivism is possible, but the loss of convergence in some of philosophic presupposes of different religions, especially revealed religions and non-revealed ones, makes its realization impossible.