بررسي و تحليل نظريه ولايت كليه اهل‌بيت : از ديدگاه فخرالمحققين شيرازي و سيد ابوالفضل نبوي قمي با محوريت دو كتاب تجلي ولايت و امراء هستي

Theory eva‎luation an‎d Understan‎ding of Ahl-albait universal sainthood based on Fakhr-almohagheghin an‎d Seyed Abolfazl Nabavi Ghomi book related Tajalli Velayat an‎d Omara Hasti

فلسفه و كلام اسلامي

Throughout the history of Islamic thought, the most important debate that has caused severe disagreements among Muslims is the issue of Imamate. Although Shiites agree on the divine nature of Imamate, there are many differences of opinion among Shiites on matters of Imamate, including the creational Cosmic sainthood; some consider it to be outside Shiite thought, while others believe that it is a pillar of Shiite religious thought. Among the latter group, due to different ontological, epistemological, an‎d methodological foundations, different explanations an‎d interpretations of this fact have been presented. By examining the evidence an‎d intellectual systems of individuals, one can understan‎d their foundations an‎d present a scientific diagram of different foundations to enable scientific comparison an‎d eva‎luation of different opinions. However, since it is not possible to examine all sources an‎d all works, this study focuses on two views that are related to the last century an‎d have received less attention in scientific circles. In this research, information has been collected with a library approach, then this information has been examined with an analytical an‎d descriptive perspective, an‎d the theories have been interpreted an‎d explained in a semantic way based on the paradigm that governs them. After that, the opinions of the two thinkers have been compared with a comparative approach, an‎d the similarities an‎d differences of the two theories have been expressed to achieve a deeper understan‎ding of the theory. Finally, this study concludes that Allama Fakhr al-Muhaqqiin Shirazi an‎d Ayatollah Seyyed Abul-Fazl Nabavi Qomi have many similarities in methodology. For example, both use different methods in different issues, intra-religious methods, analytical-logical approach, comparative approach, literary interpretation, theological interpretation an‎d semantic interpretation, but nevertheless they have important methodological differences, such as the fact that they do not agree on the quality of the realm of analytical-logical method an‎d its scope. They are not the same in using philosophical an‎d mystical approaches in explaining issues. They also have important differences in using different methods in one issue, an‎d it can be said that the Allamaʹs approach is a synthesis like Mulla Sadra Shirazi, but the approach of Ayatollah Nabavi Qomi is a theological-philosophical approach like the method of Khwaja Nasir al-Din Tusi in Tajrid al-eteghad. These important differences in epistemology have led to ontological differences an‎d various arguments an‎d explanations of the issue of the Universal sainthood of Ahl al-Bayt. Although they have in common the definition of the whole an‎d the realm of the Universal sainthood an‎d the justification an‎d explanation of its results, including knowledge an‎d power, the way they explain them is completely different; Allamah has a mystical-philosophical explanation an‎d his attention an‎d focus is on providing a suitable explanation of the necessity an‎d position of Universal sainthood in the system of existence. While the explanation of Ayatollah Nabavi Qomi focuses more on solving the problems an‎d refusals of Universal sainthood an‎d does not provide a comprehensive explanation of the position of Universal sainthood in the system of existence an‎d the quality of its issuance from God an‎d the quality of the issuance of subsequent levels from it, an‎d relies more on divine power in his explanation. It must be admitted that in the section of justification an‎d argumentation, Ayatollah Nabavi Qomiʹs efforts an‎d organization of arguments an‎d explanation of implications are very commendable, unlike Allamah who did not work in depth an‎d detail in the section of justification such as explanation.

5

147751