درخت حوزه‌های تخصصی

Aristotle and Mulla Sadra have similar approaches to acquiring moral virtues. The three main ethical approaches are virtue ethics, deontology, and consequentialism. Mulla Sadra, while accepting Aristotelian virtue-centeredness and moderation as the manifestation of true virtue, completes it and reveals the nature of true virtue. True virtue is of the genus of knowledge and belongs to the highest part of human identity, namely, the theoretical intellect. Moderation in practical reason provides the necessary ground for attaining the true virtue of theoretical wisdom. The final flourishing of the theoretical intellect is achieved by knowing the highest stage of unity. Both thinkers emphasize the acquisition of all moral virtues and the completion of all dimensions of human identity. Mulla Sadra considers all virtues, even moderation, to be preliminary, viewing true virtue as the theoretical intellect's knowledge of the high stage of unity. The teacher of philosophers (Aristotle), however, while also focusing on theoretical wisdom, considers all virtues related to human perfections as true virtues and does not accept the deprivation of any of them. In this paper, the author aims to integrate Aristotle's holistic approach with Mulla Sadra's monism using an analytical method and to explain this process in order to provide a more complete depiction of ethical virtue-centeredness. The data collection method for this paper is library-based, and the research method is descriptive-analytical, which are methods of qualitative research.

The present study aimed to investigate the translation strategies used in the English renditions of the end-of-the-world saviourship verses of the Holy Qur’ān, from the perspective of the translators' religious backgrounds. For this purpose, the English translations by three translators, Muslim, Christian, and Jewish (namely, Saffarzadeh (2001), Arberry (1957), and Dawood (1956), respectively), on the topic of saviourship in the Holy Qur’ān were collected and examined. To identify the translation strategy or strategies and to support the analysis of the translations and the ideologies underlying them, Newmark’s (1988) translation strategies, as well as a revised model of Larson’s (1998) TQA proposed by Rahimi (2004) (including accuracy, clarity, and naturalness), were employed as theoretical frameworks. Additionally, two Qur’ānic exegeses by Gulam Malik Farid and Tafsir al-Mizan by Allameh Tabataba’I, alongside selected authentic traditions or Hadiths, were consulted to provide a deeper understanding of the Qur’ānic interpretations. The results of the study indicated that ideological factors played a significant role in the choice of translation procedures, the translator’s intentions, and the academic and exegetical references used in each translation. More specifically, the Muslim translator tended toward a more meaning-oriented approach, placing greater emphasis on conveying meaning than the Jewish and Christian translators. Saffarzadeh also made more deliberate efforts to avoid manipulation and distortion compared to the other two translators.

Social justice in the modern state is among those concepts whose essence and implementation are difficult to trace historically, particularly in Islamic history and the conduct (sīra) of the Infallibles. Understanding concepts such as the state, democracy, and social justice from religious foundations is itself a formidable task. The challenge becomes even greater when this complex notion of social justice is further subdivided into more specific domains, such as cultural justice, and examined through the lens of the conduct. This study aims to analyze Imam al-Riḍā’s activism in promoting cultural justice through a descriptive-analytical method. His engagement appears to be explicable across three main areas. First, the debate between agency and structure within justice studies can be specifically traced in Imam al-Riḍā’s conduct. Notably, he not only advanced justice through individual actions but also created structural opportunities, having directly entered existing structures. Second, cultural diversity—recognized as a pillar of cultural justice—is evident in his practice. Third, in the tension between teleology and deontology within cultural justice, teleology holds a distinguished position in Imam al-Riḍā’s conduct. This article elucidates these three dimensions.

Surah al-Jinn possesses a unique linguistic context, presenting the Jinn's encounters with the Quran, the bringer of the Quran, and the ultimate source of the Quran, namely God, in the form of speech acts. Therefore, in this paper, based on Van Dijk's critical discourse analysis model, this Surah was examined through the formation of an ideological square. Assessing the effectiveness of Van Dijk's ideological square in analyzing the application of discursive strategies in Surah al-Jinn revealed that the polarization of the Surah's discursive system is structured around the belief and disbelief of Jinn and humans in the Quran and the Prophet's mission (PBUH), and the discourse of Surah al-Jinn flows on a foundation of ideological oppositions. A central dichotomy in Surah al-Jinn takes shape between the believing and disbelieving groups of Jinn. In this context, the group of believing Jinn strives to manifest its opposition to the "Other" by utilizing discursive components. What is presented in the discourse of Surah al-Jinn is a current generated by a group of believing Jinn who have heard the Quran. In effect, the "Other" (disbelieving Jinn) is represented by the believers from among the Jinn, and their beliefs are presented. The believing Jinn, with faith in Allah, the Messenger, and the Quran, employ discursive strategies such as "Stating Norms" and "Testifying" to "Highlight the Self," and utilize components like "Actor Description," "Categorization," "Distancing," "Deniers," and "Negative representation of the other and positive representation of the self" to "Marginalize the other." In the second half of Surah al-Jinn, we encounter the introduction of the main actor of the discourse, namely God, who solidifies power relations. The ultimate point in determining power relations is the description of God as the "Knower of the unseen