The present article expounds on part of Imam ALis speech number 233 in Nahjul Balagha, which refers to the hypocritical clergymen.
Finding people whose moral behavior is not agreeable is no astonishment, i.e. it is not unusual to see in a society groups of youth who do not behave properly; their disagreeable behavior can be the result of wrong education, and so they behave like that because they have no or little knowledge about Islamic precepts. But what is unusual and regretful is to see clergymen who adhere to falsehood, go astray, are divoid of chivalry and are unjust in their decisions. This type of people are referred to by Imam Ali (upon him be peace) as "hypocritical clergymen".
In a society, in which religion and Islamic values are dominant, believers are respected but ungodly people are not. Some of the ungodly try to trick others by pretending to be faithful. They, in fact, seek to satisfy their mean desires and reach their evil goals, such as gaining the respect of thers or collecting wealth. The holy Quran refers to this type of people as in the verses 8 - 9 of the Cow:
"And some men there are who say, We believe in God and the Last Day; but they are no believers. They would trick God and the believers, and only themselves they deceive, and they are not aware".
One of the most vigorous critics of Hume has been Richard Swinburne, professor of philosophy of religion at Oxford University, who takes issue with him. Swinburne first inquires whether there could be evidence that a law of nature had been violated and, second, whether there could be evidence that the violation was due to a god. To satisfy the first inquiry, we would have to have good reason to believe it to be a law of nature; and furthermore we would have to have good reason to belive that events similar to the first event would not occur in circumstances similar to those of the original occurance.
To be a miracle the violation of a natural law would have to be the work of a god, who is not a material object. What kind of evidence would we have to have to believe that a divine being had intervened in our world? Here Swinburne distinguishes between situations in which we do and in which we do not have sufficient circumstantial evidence to warrant our attributing the anomolous event to the work of an invisible deity.
According to Swinburne a miracle is a violation of a law of Nature by a god.
The present article is concerned with the question whether there could be strong historical evidence for the occurance of miracles.
No doubt the relationship between reason and religion is one of the most important and central issues in the philosophy of religion. Today, this question with the issues related to it provokes most ferocious debate among philosophers of religion, and the sharp distinctions in their ideas indicate how challanging this issue is.
The relationship between reason and religion consists, first and foremost, in the consistency of the elements of the two. As a matter of fact, there is no basis for beliefs and religious fundamental other than faith. Hence, delibrating on the concept and nature of faith can help us to delve into the various aspects of the relationship between reason and religion. It is noticed that the religious views put forward by religious thinkers have exerted great influnce in this regard.
In his critical discussion, the writer of this essay selects two examples from among the intellectuals to show how they view religious faith and then to come to conclusion about the points in question.
One of the main intellectual and religious concerns of human beings throughout history is the question whether or not reason and revelation are consistent.
Books were written and speeches were given by religious thinkers and also by anti - religous groups; some defend the idea of the accord between reason and revelation and others deny it. Christians, too, gave special attention to this particular question, and so a very great number of their religious texts elaborate on this topic in an attempt to find a satisfactory answer. Also, among the questions, about which Christians were concerned for nearly nine centuries, were such teachings like trinity, incarnation and original sin.
In Islam, too, the relationship between wisedom and Shariah or between reason and revelation has been
ABSTRACTS, gnostics, theologists and philosophers.
Owing to their deep concern about their religion and creed and due to the rejection shown by most Muslim religious figures to the process of translating the ideas of the Greek philosophers, Muslim philosophers directed their main attention to the question of reason and revelation and to the relationship between wisedom and Shariah. Among the distinguished figures who were the first to pursue this course were al - Kandi, al - Farabi, Ibn Sinna and al - Sahrawardi.
These efforts reached the climax when Mulla Sadra, A.H. (solar) 979- 1050, an eminent philosopher, introduced his well known theory the "transcendent philosophy", which he considered as manifestation of the unanimity between the Quran, mysticsm and demonstration (burhan).
He presents objective ideas about the relationship between reason and revelation, and taking into account the precincts of reason and mysticism he points out their real status. He sees that revelation and the Quran take the precedence over every other thing.
The present article seeks to reveiw Mulla Sadras approach and give a brief idea about his achievement.