درخت حوزه‌های تخصصی

The succession of humans from God is generally accepted in the Abrahamic religions. The present study aims to examine the thematic domain of human succession from God from the perspectives of the Qur'an and the Bible through a comparative approach; it also aims to understand and define the mission of humans as successors of God in the world based on the teachings of the Abrahamic religions, which can assist in reconciling the views of the followers of these religions in fulfilling human responsibilities in the contemporary world. To this aim was used a library-based approach for data collection and uses a descriptive-interpretive method with a comparative focus to address the issues. The findings indicate that the Qur'an explicitly affirms the principle of human succession from God, considering humans as successors of God in both existential and legislative matters, supported by evidence such as the generality of verse 30 of Surah Al-Baqarah in appointing humans as successors and the compatibility of the successor with the one succeeded upon in attributes. However, in the Bible, the succession of humans from God is implicitly mentioned. In the Old Testament , humans are introduced as representatives of God on earth, with the responsibility of cultivating the earth and governing its inhabitants. This indicates a form of succession in legislative matters. From the New Testament , a concept similar to the Qur'anic view (succession in all matters) can be inferred, which is certainly built around the centrality of the personality and succession of Jesus Christ (peace be upon him). 

Although apophatic theology has attracted considerable scholarly attention, studies remain flawed both in terms of research methodology and fragmented analysis, neglecting in-depth examination of prominent philosophers. This study addresses this gap by exploring Ibn Sīnā’s perspective, a pivotal figure in Islamic philosophy. Exploring existential, cognitive, and linguistic dimensions of his writings, the study elucidates his approach to theology. This study argues that his theological framework remains integrative and harmonizes apophatic (negative) and positive methods, rejecting absolute negation while affirming the relative capacity of human cognition to comprehend the divine. He acknowledges both the transcendence of God and the limitations of the human intellect, integrating knowledge and ontology to demonstrate that a complete understanding of God and His attributes necessitates both negative and affirmative approaches. While recognizing the necessity of apophatic approaches due to the omnipotence of God and the constraints of human cognition, he diverges in his explanations of God and existence, rejecting the idea of attributing qualities of the Divine to His beings, attributing qualities to God, and emphasizing the apophatic discourse in the cognition of God and His attributes comprehensively.