درخت حوزه‌های تخصصی

The study of the so-called Khabarī attributes has long been a subject of investigation among Muslim scholars. Accordingly, based on certain Qurʾanic verses and narrations, God is described by the attribute of "Face" ( Wajh ), and according to some narrations, He is also described by the attribute of "Form" ( Ṣūrah ). Reliance on the literal meanings of these two attributes gives rise to ambiguities such as anthropomorphism ( Tajsīm ) and assimilation ( Tashbīḥ ). Therefore, examining exegetical and hadith-commentarial theories is necessary in order to clarify a view consistent with the principles of divine unity ( Tawḥīd ). In this regard, hadith commentators of the two intellectual traditions of Salafism and Imami Shiʿism, in accordance with their distinct doctrinal foundations, have offered explanations of these two attributes. Clarifying and critically evaluating these views is essential for identifying the correct position concerning the divine attributes. For this reason, the present study examines the attributes of "Form" and "Face" in the Qurʾan and narrations, with a focus on the perspectives of Salafi and Imami hadith commentators. Adopting a comparative approach, it analyzes and critiques the exegetical and hadith-commentarial views of Sunni, Salafi, and Shiʿi scholars, and seeks to identify the sound interpretation of these two attributes. The findings indicate that Salafis, by accepting the apparent meaning of the text in the narration "God created Adam in His form" ( Khalaqa Allāhu Ādama ʿalā Ṣūratih ), refer the pronoun "His form" ( Ṣūratih ) to God and, based on the principle of adherence to the literal meaning, regard the "Face of God" as visible on the Day of Resurrection. In contrast, Imami commentators, relying on an interpretive approach, understand "Form" as the manifestation of divine attributes in the human being, and interpret "Face" either as the luminous reality of the Prophet or as the divine essence without any literal, corporeal meaning. Consequently, the perspective of Imami hadith commentators is more consistent with Qurʾanic- and Sunnah-based principles of divine unity, whereas the literalist Salafi approach leads to numerous rational challenges, such as anthropomorphism and assimilation.

The starting point of the reflection is the assertion that to live is to be in a relationship. In society, relationships are built through dialogue, which is particularly evident in communication between religious communities of different religions. The article presents the decision of the Catholic Church for interreligious dialogue at the last Vatican Council (the document Nostra Aetate), which was made possible by the development of the doctrine of salvation. A sincere dialogue with those who think differently renews religion and deepens faith. The article concludes with a presentation of dialogical actions between Catholics and Muslims in the world and an outline of the religious situation in Slovenia. There is no salvation outside of dialogue, and dialogue is the most effective means of preventing war and maintaining peace.

The occultation of Imam al-Mahdī (AS) is a key issue in Mahdavi thought, for which various reasons have been stated in Shia narrative sources. In an article entitled " al-Ghaybah ʻinda al-Shīʻah al-Ithnā ʻAsharīyyah wa Asbābuhā; Dirāsatun Taḥlīlīyyatun Naqdīyyah " written by Ṭāriq ibn Saʻīd ibn ʻAbdullāh al-Qaḥṭānī, " it is claimed, by adhering to these very narrations, that Shia narrations regarding the reason for the occultation are unreliable, contradictory, and irreconcilable. The present study, with the aim of responding to the doubts raised in the aforementioned article regarding the reason for the occultation of Imam al-Mahdī (AS) and using the descriptive-analytical method, first, while stating the claim made, examines the authenticity of the narrations' chains of transmission based on two approaches: "Narrator-centric and evidence-centric authentication." It demonstrates that, with the exception of one narration, the rest are capable of being considered authentic and sound. Then, by examining their implications, it concludes that since all the reasons for the occultation mentioned in the narrations are of the nature of incomplete causes (causa sine qua non) and not complete causes, therefore, a semantic reconciliation can be made between them, and there is no need to prioritize them over each other. In this way, we can consider some of them as the cause of the occurrence of the occultation and others as the cause of the continuation of the occultation, or consider one of the causes as the principle and the rest as its branches.