درخت حوزه‌های تخصصی

The rationally and theologically analyzed meaning of Badā, as one of the most fundamental theological doctrines of the Imamites (Twelver Shiism), is not heretical but is compatible with Intellect and Narrations. The Sunnites disapprove Badā in their narrative and theological works and regard it as a heresy. On the contrary, the Imamites believe that if the real meaning of the term is clarified, which is the main purpose of the present paper, all Muslims will accept it. This paper briefly reviews the views of famous Sunnite scholars regarding Badā, and then by using analytical method discusses in detail the idea of Shiite theologians about this concept. Critical issues such as literal and technical meanings of Badā, the difference between Badā and Naskh (Abrogation), the relationship between Badā and God’s knowledge will be discussed. The article concludes that Badā is a concept compatible with the two most important sources of Islamic doctrines, that is, ‘Aql (Intellect) and Naql (Narrations); we are drawing on these two sources because of their relationship with Shiism and Sunniism as two Islamic sects.

The issue of causation is one of the most important philosophical issues, so that without having a good understanding of this concept, it is impossible to understand the world. Any kind of discussion, speaking, and experience, or any human action is based on some kind of understanding of the concept of causation and accepting its reality. The issue of causation can be discussed from various aspects. Modern Western philosophers including Hume and Kant have treated this issue from epistemological point of view. But Muslim philosophers consider it as an ontological one. Mullah Sadrā as a great Muslim philosopher has dealt with this issue and has given its correct meaning with reference to its various forms in his works particularly, in his main book al-Asfār. By proving the principality of existence and mentally-positedness of quiddity, he claimed that it is not possible to explain causation on the basis of quiddity and quiddative possibility. At first, he explained causation on the basis of gradational unity of existence, but since this unity may lead to the separation of cause and effect, he finally by following a mystical approach to this principle, shifted from gradational unity to the individual unity of existence. He explained the principle of causation with reference to the mystical oneness of being, since there is no room for multiplicity. In such an approach, effect will be nothing other than a symbol or sign and has no identity other than a kind of mirror