Al-Mustafa International University Theology Journal 2476-5325 12 22 2025 06 22 Methodology of Imami Theologians in Proving the Tawātur of Imamate Hadiths Methodology of Imami Theologians in Proving the Tawātur of Imamate Hadiths 3 25 10040 10.22034/pke.2025.20620.1965 FA Ali Asghar Parsamoghadam Graduated from the fourth level of explanatory Imamate at the Imamology Center of Qom Islamic Seminary, Qom, Iran. Journal Article 2025 02 16 As the second source for understanding religion after the Qurʾān, the Ḥadīth holds particular significance in the comprehension of Islamic doctrines. Among these, the mutawātir ḥadīth (a report of mass transmission) occupies a prominent position in theological (Kalām) discussions due to its absolute authority (ḥujjiyyah) and its capacity to confer definitive knowledge. Furthermore, the utilization of shared and methodologically sound principles is a fundamental component of substantiating claims in theological dialogues. Employing a descriptive-analytical methodology and based on library research, this study investigates the methods used by Imāmī theologians (mutakallimūn) to prove the tawātur of traditions concerning the Imamate (imāmah). The findings indicate that Imāmī theologians have utilized five principal methods to establish tawātur: Principle-Based Tawātur (based on the foundational principles of ḥadīth sciences), Transmission-Based Tawātur (based on works that compile the various chains of transmission—ṭuruq—of a ḥadīth), Confessional Tawātur (established through the acknowledgment of a tradition's authenticity by theological opponents), Criterion-Based Tawātur (which involves defining specific criteria for tawātur and demonstrating that the traditions meet them), and Collective Tawātur (proven by collating the chains of transmission from diverse Islamic and inter-sectarian sources). These methodologies provide a methodologically sound and effective framework for utilization and argumentation (iḥtijāj) in theological dialogues concerning the Imamate, which can be highly influential in advancing innovation within the field of Kalām. As the second source for understanding religion after the Qurʾān, the Ḥadīth holds particular significance in the comprehension of Islamic doctrines. Among these, the mutawātir ḥadīth (a report of mass transmission) occupies a prominent position in theological (Kalām) discussions due to its absolute authority (ḥujjiyyah) and its capacity to confer definitive knowledge. Furthermore, the utilization of shared and methodologically sound principles is a fundamental component of substantiating claims in theological dialogues. Employing a descriptive-analytical methodology and based on library research, this study investigates the methods used by Imāmī theologians (mutakallimūn) to prove the tawātur of traditions concerning the Imamate (imāmah). The findings indicate that Imāmī theologians have utilized five principal methods to establish tawātur: Principle-Based Tawātur (based on the foundational principles of ḥadīth sciences), Transmission-Based Tawātur (based on works that compile the various chains of transmission—ṭuruq—of a ḥadīth), Confessional Tawātur (established through the acknowledgment of a tradition's authenticity by theological opponents), Criterion-Based Tawātur (which involves defining specific criteria for tawātur and demonstrating that the traditions meet them), and Collective Tawātur (proven by collating the chains of transmission from diverse Islamic and inter-sectarian sources). These methodologies provide a methodologically sound and effective framework for utilization and argumentation (iḥtijāj) in theological dialogues concerning the Imamate, which can be highly influential in advancing innovation within the field of Kalām.

http://pke.journals.miu.ac.ir/article_10040_22042090df5931f555609d0c81deb4b1.pdf

Al-Mustafa International University Theology Journal 2476-5325 12 22 2025 08 23 A Critical Analysis of Muʻjam al-Mu'allafāt fi al-Radd alā al-Shīʻa al-Ithnā Ashariyyah A Critical Analysis of Muʻjam al-Mu'allafāt fi al-Radd alā al-Shīʻa al-Ithnā Ashariyyah 27 50 10396 10.22034/pke.2025.21341.1989 FA Narges Nejati PhD Student, Department of Shia Studies, Qom University of Religions and Sects, Qom, Iran Muhammad Ghafoorinezhad Associate Professor, Department of Shia Studies, Faculty of Shia Studies, Qom University of Religions and Sects, Qom, Iran Maryam Azizian Assistant Professor, Department of History, Faculty of Literature and Humanities, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran Journal Article 2025 05 31 Bibliographic compilation has been a significant area of interest for Muslim scholars across various historical periods. Evaluating their bibliographic methodologies in the contemporary era can illuminate the scientific growth and the epistemological, social, and religious dimensions of Islamic intellectual ecosystems. Motivated by this imperative, the present article critically examines a bibliographic work in the domain of sectarian polemics—Muʿjam al-Muʾallafāt fī al-Radd ʿalā al-Shiʿa al-Ithnā ʿAshariyya—within the academic landscape of Saudi Arabia. Employing a descriptive-analytical methodology, the research interrogates the extent to which the authors of Muʿjam al-Muʾallafāt adhered to scientific and technical bibliographic practices, particularly in concept definition and substantiation, during the documentation of anti-Twelver Shiʿi works across the first four Islamic centuries. The findings reveal significant methodological deficiencies: the work suffers from imprecise definitional parameters regarding key concepts such as “Twelver Shiʿism,” methodological transgressions, inclusion of heterogeneous materials incongruent with Imami Shiʿi scholarship, and substantive weaknesses in citations and attributions. Moreover, numerous works cited are not inherently polemical texts, and the analytical approach demonstrates a pronounced departure from scholarly objectivity. Through a critical examination of representative examples of the work's errors and limitations, this article emphasizes the urgent necessity for comprehensive revision and methodological recalibration. Bibliographic compilation has been a significant area of interest for Muslim scholars across various historical periods. Evaluating their bibliographic methodologies in the contemporary era can illuminate the scientific growth and the epistemological, social, and religious dimensions of Islamic intellectual ecosystems. Motivated by this imperative, the present article critically examines a bibliographic work in the domain of sectarian polemics—Muʿjam al-Muʾallafāt fī al-Radd ʿalā al-Shiʿa al-Ithnā ʿAshariyya—within the academic landscape of Saudi Arabia. Employing a descriptive-analytical methodology, the research interrogates the extent to which the authors of Muʿjam al-Muʾallafāt adhered to scientific and technical bibliographic practices, particularly in concept definition and substantiation, during the documentation of anti-Twelver Shiʿi works across the first four Islamic centuries. The findings reveal significant methodological deficiencies: the work suffers from imprecise definitional parameters regarding key concepts such as “Twelver Shiʿism,” methodological transgressions, inclusion of heterogeneous materials incongruent with Imami Shiʿi scholarship, and substantive weaknesses in citations and attributions. Moreover, numerous works cited are not inherently polemical texts, and the analytical approach demonstrates a pronounced departure from scholarly objectivity. Through a critical examination of representative examples of the work's errors and limitations, this article emphasizes the urgent necessity for comprehensive revision and methodological recalibration.

http://pke.journals.miu.ac.ir/article_10396_b349fcac62bc1403cfc515605186b9d3.pdf

Al-Mustafa International University Theology Journal 2476-5325 12 22 2025 08 23 A Critical Review of the Physical Embodiment of Resurrection from the Perspective of Ayatollah Sobhani A Critical Review of the Physical Embodiment of Resurrection from the Perspective of Ayatollah Sobhani 51 73 10340 10.22034/pke.2025.20980.1976 FA Ali Ghadrdan Gharamaleki Assistant Professor, Department of Islamic Theology, Faculty of Theology and Islamic Studies, University of Tabriz, Tabriz, Iran Journal Article 2025 04 14 The Problem of Resurrection has always been a central concern for scholars of religion, and a wide range of interpretations has been offered in this regard. Among these, the doctrine of bodily resurrection has attracted both staunch supporters and strong critics. Ṣubḥānī is regarded as one of the prominent contemporary defenders of this position. The central question of the present study is: What are Ṣubḥānī’s arguments in favor of bodily resurrection, and to what extent are they open to critique? The aim of this research is to provide a precise account of the arguments for the corporeality of resurrection as articulated by Ṣubḥānī. To achieve this aim, the study adopts a theoretical, problem-oriented approach that builds upon prior data. The necessary information has been gathered through library-based research, particularly from scriptural sources and the works of Ṣubḥānī, and evaluated by means of both rational analysis and transmitted evidence. Accordingly, after an examination of Ṣubḥānī’s perspective, his arguments for bodily resurrection are subjected to close scrutiny. These arguments, analyzed under two categories—affirmative (ījābī) and negative (salbī)—seek to establish both the possibility and actuality of the return of the elemental body (al-badan al-ʿunṣurī) in the Hereafter, while simultaneously rejecting competing theories. The findings of the study indicate that Ṣubḥānī’s arguments for bodily resurrection remain inconclusive and suffer from a variety of ambiguities. The Problem of Resurrection has always been a central concern for scholars of religion, and a wide range of interpretations has been offered in this regard. Among these, the doctrine of bodily resurrection has attracted both staunch supporters and strong critics. Ṣubḥānī is regarded as one of the prominent contemporary defenders of this position. The central question of the present study is: What are Ṣubḥānī’s arguments in favor of bodily resurrection, and to what extent are they open to critique? The aim of this research is to provide a precise account of the arguments for the corporeality of resurrection as articulated by Ṣubḥānī. To achieve this aim, the study adopts a theoretical, problem-oriented approach that builds upon prior data. The necessary information has been gathered through library-based research, particularly from scriptural sources and the works of Ṣubḥānī, and evaluated by means of both rational analysis and transmitted evidence. Accordingly, after an examination of Ṣubḥānī’s perspective, his arguments for bodily resurrection are subjected to close scrutiny. These arguments, analyzed under two categories—affirmative (ījābī) and negative (salbī)—seek to establish both the possibility and actuality of the return of the elemental body (al-badan al-ʿunṣurī) in the Hereafter, while simultaneously rejecting competing theories. The findings of the study indicate that Ṣubḥānī’s arguments for bodily resurrection remain inconclusive and suffer from a variety of ambiguities.

http://pke.journals.miu.ac.ir/article_10340_15fef00eba252e84fed675b0e046bdff.pdf

Al-Mustafa International University Theology Journal 2476-5325 12 22 2025 08 23 A Strategic Analysis of Verbal Politeness Mechanisms in the Fifteen Supplications of Imam Sajjad (AS): An Approach to Ahl al-Bayt Epistemological Insights A Strategic Analysis of Verbal Politeness Mechanisms in the Fifteen Supplications of Imam Sajjad (AS): An Approach to Ahl al-Bayt Epistemological Insights 75 96 10358 10.22034/pke.2025.21162.1985 FA Abdulbasit Arab Youssefabadi Assistant Professor, Department of Arabic Language and Literature, Faculty of Literature and Humanities, University of Zabol, Zabol, Iran. Moslem Fatollahi Assistant Professor, Department of English, Faculty of Literature and Humanities, University of Zabol, Zabol, Iran. Journal Article 2025 05 04 Prayer, as one of the most prominent linguistic and spiritual acts in human-divine communication, possesses distinctive linguistic and theological structures. This qualitative, corpus-based research analyzes the discursive strategies in the English translation of Imam al-Sajjād's fifteen supplications (munājāt). Findings reveal that the most frequent discursive strategy in these supplications is the indirect strategy (encompassing request and allusion), deeply rooted in the theological and spiritual structures of devotional prayers. This approach, employed to preserve decorum and reverence in verbal discourse with the Divine, demonstrates the humility and spiritual depth of Imam al-Sajjād as the author of these supplications. Such a characteristic not only facilitates the deepening of spiritual and theological communication with God but also creates a respectful interpretive space within these texts. An examination of the English translation indicates that the translator, by adhering to the original Arabic text's theological structure and precisely conveying the embedded politeness and spirituality, successfully reflects a nuanced representation of Ahl al-Bayt theological insights in the English language. This research contributes to elucidating the theological dimensions of Imam al-Sajjād's supplications and their role in disseminating Shi'i theological knowledge on the international stage. Prayer, as one of the most prominent linguistic and spiritual acts in human-divine communication, possesses distinctive linguistic and theological structures. This qualitative, corpus-based research analyzes the discursive strategies in the English translation of Imam al-Sajjād's fifteen supplications (munājāt). Findings reveal that the most frequent discursive strategy in these supplications is the indirect strategy (encompassing request and allusion), deeply rooted in the theological and spiritual structures of devotional prayers. This approach, employed to preserve decorum and reverence in verbal discourse with the Divine, demonstrates the humility and spiritual depth of Imam al-Sajjād as the author of these supplications. Such a characteristic not only facilitates the deepening of spiritual and theological communication with God but also creates a respectful interpretive space within these texts. An examination of the English translation indicates that the translator, by adhering to the original Arabic text's theological structure and precisely conveying the embedded politeness and spirituality, successfully reflects a nuanced representation of Ahl al-Bayt theological insights in the English language. This research contributes to elucidating the theological dimensions of Imam al-Sajjād's supplications and their role in disseminating Shi'i theological knowledge on the international stage.

http://pke.journals.miu.ac.ir/article_10358_f211c0b3afe65748373896e6fde50d06.pdf

Al-Mustafa International University Theology Journal 2476-5325 12 22 2025 08 23 Scope of Iḥbāṭ: A Critical Perspective from Imami and Sunni Viewpoints Scope of Iḥbāṭ: A Critical Perspective from Imami and Sunni Viewpoints 97 118 10378 10.22034/pke.2025.21130.1983 FA Davuod Khoshbavar Assistant Professor Department of Islamic Studies, Farhangian University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran (Corresponding Author). 0000-0001-5557-697X Hossein Ziaee Graduate of the level of Four Jurisprudence and Principles of Qom Seminary, Qom, Iran. Journal Article 2025 05 05 The issue of iḥbāṭ (nullification of deeds) is a foundational topic in the field of Islamic theology (kalām) that elucidates the relationship between faith (īmān), righteous deeds (‘amal ṣāliḥ), and eschatological felicity. It stands in contrast to the eternal damnation resulting from disbelief (kufr) and sin (ma‘ṣiyat). The central point of disagreement in this domain concerns the nature and modality of how iḥbāṭ is actualized. The objective of this research is to analyze and examine three theological perspectives on the issue of iḥbāṭ in relation to the reckoning of deeds, divine wisdom (ḥikmah), and divine justice (‘adl)—a subject that has perpetually been a site of debate and discourse among theologians (mutakallimūn). Accordingly, this article emphasizes the Imāmī perspective and compares it with the views of the Ahl al-Sunnah, particularly the Mu‘tazilah. The research methodology is descriptive-analytical, grounded in documentary sources and library-based data. The findings indicate that, according to the Imāmī view, the denial of iḥbāṭ and its metaphorical interpretation (tafsīr majāzī) possess greater soundness (itqān), based on arguments from the Qur’an and narrative traditions (riwāyāt). Conversely, the Mu‘tazilah affirm the literal meaning of iḥbāṭ and are divided into two factions: one that upholds the total nullification (iḥbāṭ kullī) of deeds, and another that proposes the theory of partial nullification (iḥbāṭ juz’ī) and a counterbalancing (muwāzanah) between good deeds (ḥasanāt) and evil deeds (sayyi’āt). Through a documented analysis of these three viewpoints, the final conclusion affirms the Imāmī position, which involves the negation of the total nullification of deeds and an emphasis on divine justice and wisdom in matters of reward and punishment. The issue of iḥbāṭ (nullification of deeds) is a foundational topic in the field of Islamic theology (kalām) that elucidates the relationship between faith (īmān), righteous deeds (‘amal ṣāliḥ), and eschatological felicity. It stands in contrast to the eternal damnation resulting from disbelief (kufr) and sin (ma‘ṣiyat). The central point of disagreement in this domain concerns the nature and modality of how iḥbāṭ is actualized. The objective of this research is to analyze and examine three theological perspectives on the issue of iḥbāṭ in relation to the reckoning of deeds, divine wisdom (ḥikmah), and divine justice (‘adl)—a subject that has perpetually been a site of debate and discourse among theologians (mutakallimūn). Accordingly, this article emphasizes the Imāmī perspective and compares it with the views of the Ahl al-Sunnah, particularly the Mu‘tazilah. The research methodology is descriptive-analytical, grounded in documentary sources and library-based data. The findings indicate that, according to the Imāmī view, the denial of iḥbāṭ and its metaphorical interpretation (tafsīr majāzī) possess greater soundness (itqān), based on arguments from the Qur’an and narrative traditions (riwāyāt). Conversely, the Mu‘tazilah affirm the literal meaning of iḥbāṭ and are divided into two factions: one that upholds the total nullification (iḥbāṭ kullī) of deeds, and another that proposes the theory of partial nullification (iḥbāṭ juz’ī) and a counterbalancing (muwāzanah) between good deeds (ḥasanāt) and evil deeds (sayyi’āt). Through a documented analysis of these three viewpoints, the final conclusion affirms the Imāmī position, which involves the negation of the total nullification of deeds and an emphasis on divine justice and wisdom in matters of reward and punishment.

http://pke.journals.miu.ac.ir/article_10378_a32525a736eff6fc28e6fa7739ce6923.pdf

Al-Mustafa International University Theology Journal 2476-5325 12 22 2025 08 23 A Comparative Analysis of the Divine Names and Attributes in the Thought of Imām Khomeynī and Maimonides: An Ontological and Phenomenological Approach A Comparative Analysis of the Divine Names and Attributes in the Thought of Imām Khomeynī and Maimonides: An Ontological and Phenomenological Approach 119 140 10072 10.22034/pke.2025.20775.1969 FA Sayyid Masoud Omrani Assistant Professor, Department of Education, Farhangian University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran,(Corresponding Author) Hassan Muhamadi PhD in Theology and Islamic Studies, Field of Study:History and Civilization of Islamic Nations, Islamic Azad University ,Mashhad, Branch Mashhad, Iran. Journal Article 2025 03 05 The discourse on the asmāʾ wa-ṣifāt (divine names and attributes) constitutes one of the central issues in Islamic theology (kalām), as the knowledge of these names and attributes strengthens faith and deepens human understanding of God and the relationship between humankind and the Divine. This article undertakes a comparative study of the views of two prominent thinkers: Mūsā b. Maymūn (Ibn Maymūn, i.e., Maimonides) in the Jewish tradition and Imām Khomeinī in the Islamic tradition, specifically on the question of the Divine essence and attributes. Employing a comparative-analytical methodology and focusing on the key works of these two thinkers—most notably Ibn Maymūn’s Dalālat al-ḥāʾirīn (Guide for the Perplexed) and Imām Khomeinī’s philosophical-mystical writings such as his Taʿlīqa ʿalā al-Fuṣūṣ al-ḥikam—this study addresses the central research question: What are the points of similarity and difference between Ibn Maymūn’s and Imām Khomeinī’s approaches to the Divine essence and attributes, and what doctrinal and methodological foundations underlie these differences? The findings of this study indicate that Ibn Maymūn, relying on negative theology and Aristotelian rationalism, reduces the attributes either to negations of imperfection or to divine actions. By contrast, Imām Khomeinī, synthesizing ḥikmat-i mutaʿāliya (Transcendent Philosophy) with Shīʿī mysticism, interprets the attributes as manifestations of the Divine perfections across the gradations of being. Beyond delineating similarities and divergences, this article proposes a model for comparative research in the philosophy of religion across different intellectual traditions. The discourse on the asmāʾ wa-ṣifāt (divine names and attributes) constitutes one of the central issues in Islamic theology (kalām), as the knowledge of these names and attributes strengthens faith and deepens human understanding of God and the relationship between humankind and the Divine. This article undertakes a comparative study of the views of two prominent thinkers: Mūsā b. Maymūn (Ibn Maymūn, i.e., Maimonides) in the Jewish tradition and Imām Khomeinī in the Islamic tradition, specifically on the question of the Divine essence and attributes. Employing a comparative-analytical methodology and focusing on the key works of these two thinkers—most notably Ibn Maymūn’s Dalālat al-ḥāʾirīn (Guide for the Perplexed) and Imām Khomeinī’s philosophical-mystical writings such as his Taʿlīqa ʿalā al-Fuṣūṣ al-ḥikam—this study addresses the central research question: What are the points of similarity and difference between Ibn Maymūn’s and Imām Khomeinī’s approaches to the Divine essence and attributes, and what doctrinal and methodological foundations underlie these differences? The findings of this study indicate that Ibn Maymūn, relying on negative theology and Aristotelian rationalism, reduces the attributes either to negations of imperfection or to divine actions. By contrast, Imām Khomeinī, synthesizing ḥikmat-i mutaʿāliya (Transcendent Philosophy) with Shīʿī mysticism, interprets the attributes as manifestations of the Divine perfections across the gradations of being. Beyond delineating similarities and divergences, this article proposes a model for comparative research in the philosophy of religion across different intellectual traditions.

http://pke.journals.miu.ac.ir/article_10072_afd32eb548f8629989db5e2760b03335.pdf

Al-Mustafa International University Theology Journal 2476-5325 12 22 2025 08 23 Critical Analysis of the Wahhabi Approach to the Hadith “Alī is the Divider of Paradise and Hellfire,” with Emphasis on Sunni and Shiʻi Sources Critical Analysis of the Wahhabi Approach to the Hadith “Alī is the Divider of Paradise and Hellfire,” with Emphasis on Sunni and Shiʻi Sources 141 164 10274 10.22034/pke.2025.20981.1977 FA Safdar Rajabzadeh Collaborative Researcher, Department of Comparative Studies of Islam and Religions, Imam Reza International Research Institute, Al-Mustafa International University, Khorasan Branch, Mashhad, Iran (Corresponding Author). Muhammad Ghafoorinezhad Associate Professor, Department of Shia Studies, Faculty of Shia Studies, Qom University of Religions and Sects, Qom, Iran Journal Article 2025 04 13 The Wahhābī movement has consistently exerted considerable effort in criticizing and repudiating the virtues attributed to Amīr al-Muʾminīn ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib (ʿa). Among these virtues, the traditions that underscore his exalted status among the Companions have received particular attention and dispute. The ḥadīth ʿAlī qasīm al-nār waʾl-janna (“ʿAlī is the Divider of Paradise and Hellfire”) is one such narration that has become a central target of Wahhābī critique. Contemporary Wahhābī scholars regard this report as fabricated and lacking both textual and isnād authenticity. However, a close examination of authoritative Sunnī works in faḍāʾil literature, historiography, ʿilm al-rijāl, kalām, and ḥadīth studies reveals a perspective contrary to Wahhābī claims. Adopting a descriptive-analytical method and a critical approach, this article examines the objections and doubts raised by Wahhābī scholars concerning this ḥadīth. The study concludes that the narration in question is indeed transmitted in reliable Sunnī sources, with numerous prominent scholars affirming the trustworthiness of its transmitters. Furthermore, additional evidence highlights the ḥadīth’s indication of Imām ʿAlī’s (ʿa) exalted spiritual rank in distinguishing truth from falsehood, as well as his elevated metaphysical status. The Wahhābī movement has consistently exerted considerable effort in criticizing and repudiating the virtues attributed to Amīr al-Muʾminīn ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib (ʿa). Among these virtues, the traditions that underscore his exalted status among the Companions have received particular attention and dispute. The ḥadīth ʿAlī qasīm al-nār waʾl-janna (“ʿAlī is the Divider of Paradise and Hellfire”) is one such narration that has become a central target of Wahhābī critique. Contemporary Wahhābī scholars regard this report as fabricated and lacking both textual and isnād authenticity. However, a close examination of authoritative Sunnī works in faḍāʾil literature, historiography, ʿilm al-rijāl, kalām, and ḥadīth studies reveals a perspective contrary to Wahhābī claims. Adopting a descriptive-analytical method and a critical approach, this article examines the objections and doubts raised by Wahhābī scholars concerning this ḥadīth. The study concludes that the narration in question is indeed transmitted in reliable Sunnī sources, with numerous prominent scholars affirming the trustworthiness of its transmitters. Furthermore, additional evidence highlights the ḥadīth’s indication of Imām ʿAlī’s (ʿa) exalted spiritual rank in distinguishing truth from falsehood, as well as his elevated metaphysical status.

http://pke.journals.miu.ac.ir/article_10274_c1c75c577c01111bcd2a5f1ccea26a30.pdf

Al-Mustafa International University Theology Journal 2476-5325 12 22 2025 08 23 A Critique of Turki ibn Ali's View on the Takfir of a Ruler Who Does Not Rule by What Allah Has Revealed A Critique of Turki ibn Ali's View on the Takfir of a Ruler Who Does Not Rule by What Allah Has Revealed 165 182 10042 10.22034/pke.2025.20366.1953 FA Hasan Zarnooshe Farahani Associate Professor in Department of Theology and Islamic Studies, Shahid Rajaee Teacher Training University, Tehran, Iran (Corresponding Author). Mohammad Hosein Zarnooshe Farahani MA of Quranic and Hadith Studies, Allameh Tabataba'i University, Tehran, Iran. Journal Article 2025 01 20 Turkī bin ʿAlī (1984–2017) was one of the most prominent clerics of the takfīrī group known as the Islamic State (ISIS). He produced numerous sermons and works aimed at providing a religious veneer for ISIS and its atrocities, including a commentary on Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhāb’s the Ten Nullifiers of Islam (al-Nawāqiḍ al-Islāmiyya al-ʿAshara). The fourth of these ten nullifiers is "ruling by other than what God has revealed (al-ḥukm bi-ghayr mā anzala Allāh)." From al-Binʿālī’s perspective, this act possesses six distinct grades. With the exception of the first grade—mere sin—the remaining five, namely: 1) ruling by other than what God has revealed on a specific matter; 2) replacing God’s ruling with another; 3) legislating a ruling in place of God’s; 4) claiming an absolute right to legislate; and 5) suspending divine rulings by force, all necessitate the legal ruling (ḥukm fiqhī) of takfīr (excommunication) and expulsion from the fold of Islam. This article examines and critiques al-Binʿālī’s viewpoint using a "descriptive and analytical" methodology. The research findings indicate that al-Binʿālī’s claim regarding the excommunication of one who rules by other than what God has revealed is, first, fraught with internal contradiction and incoherence, as he should have consistently applied the conditions of istiḥlāl (deeming the forbidden permissible) or istikbār (arrogant refusal) for takfīr across all grades of this nullifier. Second, it contravenes the teachings of the Qurʾān and the Sunna concerning the distinction between Islām (submission) and īmān (faith), and between doctrinal unbelief (kufr iʿtiqādī) and practical unbelief (kufr ʿamalī). Third, it is predicated on an unsubstantiated hermeneutical principle that has distanced al-Binʿālī from the exegetical tradition of Ahl al-Sunna wa-l-Jamāʿa (the Sunni orthodoxy). Turkī bin ʿAlī (1984–2017) was one of the most prominent clerics of the takfīrī group known as the Islamic State (ISIS). He produced numerous sermons and works aimed at providing a religious veneer for ISIS and its atrocities, including a commentary on Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhāb’s the Ten Nullifiers of Islam (al-Nawāqiḍ al-Islāmiyya al-ʿAshara). The fourth of these ten nullifiers is "ruling by other than what God has revealed (al-ḥukm bi-ghayr mā anzala Allāh)." From al-Binʿālī’s perspective, this act possesses six distinct grades. With the exception of the first grade—mere sin—the remaining five, namely: 1) ruling by other than what God has revealed on a specific matter; 2) replacing God’s ruling with another; 3) legislating a ruling in place of God’s; 4) claiming an absolute right to legislate; and 5) suspending divine rulings by force, all necessitate the legal ruling (ḥukm fiqhī) of takfīr (excommunication) and expulsion from the fold of Islam. This article examines and critiques al-Binʿālī’s viewpoint using a "descriptive and analytical" methodology. The research findings indicate that al-Binʿālī’s claim regarding the excommunication of one who rules by other than what God has revealed is, first, fraught with internal contradiction and incoherence, as he should have consistently applied the conditions of istiḥlāl (deeming the forbidden permissible) or istikbār (arrogant refusal) for takfīr across all grades of this nullifier. Second, it contravenes the teachings of the Qurʾān and the Sunna concerning the distinction between Islām (submission) and īmān (faith), and between doctrinal unbelief (kufr iʿtiqādī) and practical unbelief (kufr ʿamalī). Third, it is predicated on an unsubstantiated hermeneutical principle that has distanced al-Binʿālī from the exegetical tradition of Ahl al-Sunna wa-l-Jamāʿa (the Sunni orthodoxy).

http://pke.journals.miu.ac.ir/article_10042_4ceaf55613d45173116780fd38cb5763.pdf

Al-Mustafa International University Theology Journal 2476-5325 12 22 2025 08 23 A Critical Analysis of the Pluralist Interpretation of Q. 109:6 (Sūrat al-Kāfirūn) in Light of Intratextual and Extratextual Approaches A Critical Analysis of the Pluralist Interpretation of Q. 109:6 (Sūrat al-Kāfirūn) in Light of Intratextual and Extratextual Approaches 183 204 10041 10.22034/pke.2025.20525.1962 FA Gholamali Moqaddam Assistant Professor, Department of Philosophy and Islamic Theology, Razavi University of Islamic Sciences, Mashhad, Iran. Journal Article 2025 02 03 The issue of religious pluralism in theoretical belief and practical program represents one of the enduring questions in the history of interfaith encounters that has received renewed attention in recent periods due to various causes and purposes. Religious pluralism encompasses different meanings and dimensions, and proponents of pluralism have relied on various arguments, including religious content and Quranic verses, to establish their position. Many of these claims and their supporting evidence have frequently been subject to examination, critique, and refutation. One verse that has received less scholarly attention is the sixth verse of Sūrat al-Kāfirūn: "To you your religion, and to me my religion" (lakum dīnukum wa-liya dīn). Pluralism advocates maintain that this verse confirms pluralism in truth and veracity, grants various religions and beliefs a share in truth, and accepts the multiplicity of religions. The principal research question is whether, based on conventional approaches to Quranic understanding, this interpretation of the verse is correct, and if problematic, what criticisms may be raised against it? In this article, employing a descriptive-analytical method, we explain two interpretive approaches—namely, the use of internal contextual indicators and reliance on supportive external principles—and examine the pluralistic interpretation of the verse against these two approaches. We attempt to prove the hypothesis that such an interpretation is unacceptable neither through reliance on context and internal indicators nor through dependence on general external principles. The issue of religious pluralism in theoretical belief and practical program represents one of the enduring questions in the history of interfaith encounters that has received renewed attention in recent periods due to various causes and purposes. Religious pluralism encompasses different meanings and dimensions, and proponents of pluralism have relied on various arguments, including religious content and Quranic verses, to establish their position. Many of these claims and their supporting evidence have frequently been subject to examination, critique, and refutation. One verse that has received less scholarly attention is the sixth verse of Sūrat al-Kāfirūn: "To you your religion, and to me my religion" (lakum dīnukum wa-liya dīn). Pluralism advocates maintain that this verse confirms pluralism in truth and veracity, grants various religions and beliefs a share in truth, and accepts the multiplicity of religions. The principal research question is whether, based on conventional approaches to Quranic understanding, this interpretation of the verse is correct, and if problematic, what criticisms may be raised against it? In this article, employing a descriptive-analytical method, we explain two interpretive approaches—namely, the use of internal contextual indicators and reliance on supportive external principles—and examine the pluralistic interpretation of the verse against these two approaches. We attempt to prove the hypothesis that such an interpretation is unacceptable neither through reliance on context and internal indicators nor through dependence on general external principles.

http://pke.journals.miu.ac.ir/article_10041_ccc40e30ddae8eb1be1e72654a5165ce.pdf

Al-Mustafa International University Theology Journal 2476-5325 12 22 2025 08 23 A Qualitative Analysis of the Distinction Between Rajah and Tanāsukh from the Perspective of Islamic Philosophers A Qualitative Analysis of the Distinction Between Rajah and Tanāsukh from the Perspective of Islamic Philosophers 205 229 10320 10.22034/pke.2025.20447.1957 FA Mojtaba Seydi PhD student in Islamic Philosophy and Theology, Razavi University of Islamic Sciences, Mashhad, Iran. Sayyid Muhammad Musavi Baigi, Associate Professor, Department of Philosophy and Islamic Theology, Razavi University of Islamic Sciences, Mashhad, Iran (Corresponding Author). Ramin Golmakani Assistant Professor, Department of Philosophy and Islamic Theology, Razavi University of Islamic Sciences, Mashhad, Iran. Journal Article 2025 02 08 While the principle of belief in the Return (rajʿat) is an essential and unanimously held doctrine among the Imāmiyyah, its specific modality is not a credal necessity. Owing to a perceived similarity between rajʿat and transmigration (tanāsukh), some have erroneously equated the two. Among the most significant and challenging discussions in this area is the problem of elucidating the modality of rajʿat and distinguishing it from tanāsukh. This study aims, first, to present a tenable modality for the Return that is consistent with rational and scriptural principles, and second, to articulate its distinction from tanāsukh from the perspective of the theosophers (ḥukamāʾ). Tanāsukh is beset by rational and scriptural impediments. Mullā Ṣadrā and ʿAllāmah Ṭabāṭabāʾī did not specify the modality of the Return; they only sought to resolve the rational improbabilities associated with it, arguing that it is not an instance of regression from actuality (fiʿl) to potentiality (quwwah), nor is it a retrogressive motion (ḥarakat taḍaʿʿufī). Fayḍ Kāshānī and Shāhābādī maintained that the Return involves a return to the imaginal body (badan mithālī), thus positing a fundamental difference from tanāsukh. From the viewpoint of Rafīʿī Qazvīnī and Imam Khomeini, the Return occurs with the elemental body (badan ʿunṣurī). They argue that an intrinsic relationship exists between the body and the soul (nafs), as the body is a direct positing of the soul. Therefore, rajʿat is distinct from tanāsukh, in which the soul becomes attached to a different body. While the principle of belief in the Return (rajʿat) is an essential and unanimously held doctrine among the Imāmiyyah, its specific modality is not a credal necessity. Owing to a perceived similarity between rajʿat and transmigration (tanāsukh), some have erroneously equated the two. Among the most significant and challenging discussions in this area is the problem of elucidating the modality of rajʿat and distinguishing it from tanāsukh. This study aims, first, to present a tenable modality for the Return that is consistent with rational and scriptural principles, and second, to articulate its distinction from tanāsukh from the perspective of the theosophers (ḥukamāʾ). Tanāsukh is beset by rational and scriptural impediments. Mullā Ṣadrā and ʿAllāmah Ṭabāṭabāʾī did not specify the modality of the Return; they only sought to resolve the rational improbabilities associated with it, arguing that it is not an instance of regression from actuality (fiʿl) to potentiality (quwwah), nor is it a retrogressive motion (ḥarakat taḍaʿʿufī). Fayḍ Kāshānī and Shāhābādī maintained that the Return involves a return to the imaginal body (badan mithālī), thus positing a fundamental difference from tanāsukh. From the viewpoint of Rafīʿī Qazvīnī and Imam Khomeini, the Return occurs with the elemental body (badan ʿunṣurī). They argue that an intrinsic relationship exists between the body and the soul (nafs), as the body is a direct positing of the soul. Therefore, rajʿat is distinct from tanāsukh, in which the soul becomes attached to a different body.

http://pke.journals.miu.ac.ir/article_10320_5a4dbd56e5f54a98a96feee2f0e132c5.pdf

Al-Mustafa International University Theology Journal 2476-5325 12 22 2025 08 23 Explicating the Infallibility of Prophets in Light of Q 38:46: A Critical Examination of Other Qur'anic Verses Cited in Its Support Explicating the Infallibility of Prophets in Light of Q 38:46: A Critical Examination of Other Qur'anic Verses Cited in Its Support 231 250 10412 10.22034/pke.2025.21537.2000 FA Morteza Agha Mohammadi Assistant Professor of the Department of Islamic Studies, Higher Education Complex for Language, Literature and Culturology, Al-Mustafa international University, Qom, Iran. Journal Article 2025 06 10 Infallibility from sin constitutes one of the foundational doctrines of the Shiʿi school, referring to the purity and immunity of prophets from committing acts of disobedience (maʿāṣī). This article employs the research method of content analysis to examine the perspectives of Shiʿi scholars on infallibility (ʿiṣma) and their arguments in this domain. Initially, the rational proofs advanced for establishing the infallibility of prophets (anbiyāʾ) are elucidated. Subsequently, the Qurʾānic verses invoked by certain Shiʿi scholars to substantiate this form of infallibility are explicated, critiqued, and analyzed. The author of the article, drawing upon verse 46 of Sūrat Ṣād, endeavors to accord greater emphasis to this verse in proving infallibility. The merit of argumentation based on this verse lies in its capacity to both affirm the infallibility of prophets from sin and illuminate its essence, thereby resolving objections such as the notion that the infallible individual is compelled to abstain from sin. Based on the article's findings, infallibility possesses a "grace-knowledge" (luṭfī-ʿilmī) nature. The objective of this article is to foster a deeper comprehension of the concept and essence of infallibility, along with its associated Qurʾānic evidence, thereby contributing to the elucidation of this concept's role in Islamic beliefs and teachings, while also highlighting the weaknesses in certain proofs proffered by Shiʿi scholars. Infallibility from sin constitutes one of the foundational doctrines of the Shiʿi school, referring to the purity and immunity of prophets from committing acts of disobedience (maʿāṣī). This article employs the research method of content analysis to examine the perspectives of Shiʿi scholars on infallibility (ʿiṣma) and their arguments in this domain. Initially, the rational proofs advanced for establishing the infallibility of prophets (anbiyāʾ) are elucidated. Subsequently, the Qurʾānic verses invoked by certain Shiʿi scholars to substantiate this form of infallibility are explicated, critiqued, and analyzed. The author of the article, drawing upon verse 46 of Sūrat Ṣād, endeavors to accord greater emphasis to this verse in proving infallibility. The merit of argumentation based on this verse lies in its capacity to both affirm the infallibility of prophets from sin and illuminate its essence, thereby resolving objections such as the notion that the infallible individual is compelled to abstain from sin. Based on the article's findings, infallibility possesses a "grace-knowledge" (luṭfī-ʿilmī) nature. The objective of this article is to foster a deeper comprehension of the concept and essence of infallibility, along with its associated Qurʾānic evidence, thereby contributing to the elucidation of this concept's role in Islamic beliefs and teachings, while also highlighting the weaknesses in certain proofs proffered by Shiʿi scholars.

Al-Mustafa International University Theology Journal 2476-5325 12 22 2025 08 23 Pledge of Allegiance to Abū Bakr as a “Faltaˮ (Sudden/Unplanned Event): An Examination in Sunnī and Shīʻī Sources Pledge of Allegiance to Abū Bakr as a “Faltaˮ (Sudden/Unplanned Event): An Examination in Sunnī and Shīʻī Sources 251 271 10383 10.22034/pke.2025.20355.1954 FA Abdolmajid Zahadat Assistant Professor, Islamic Theology Department, Wisdom and Religious Studies Complex, Al-Mustafa Al-Alamiyah University of Qom, Qom, Iran. Journal Article 2025 01 18 The report of the falta—“kānat bayʿat Abī Bakr falta(tan)” (“The allegiance to Abū Bakr was a sudden/unplanned event”)—which is unanimously accepted among Sunnīs and transmitted through multiple chains, carries clear implications that conflict with certain fundamental Sunnī doctrines. Among these are the legitimacy of the caliphate emerging from the Saqīfa episode and the claim that this caliphate was grounded in consensus (ijmāʿ). Consequently, Sunnī scholars, particularly their theologians (mutakallimūn), have made considerable efforts to reinterpret (taʾwīl) this report.Since inconsistency between word and deed, as well as forced reinterpretation against the apparent meaning, are neither commendable nor acceptable within common scholarly convention, some Sunnī scholars have found themselves compelled either to deny the very occurrence of the report or to cast doubt upon its plausibility. This article examines both the implications of the khabar al-falta and the responses offered by Sunnī scholars. The analysis demonstrates that the principal actors in the Saqīfa event, along with their followers, implicitly acknowledged the inadequacy of this method of designating a caliph. In attempting to escape the problematic consequences of this mode of succession, they resorted to strained justifications, but these efforts ultimately failed to resolve the inherent contradictions. The report of the falta—“kānat bayʿat Abī Bakr falta(tan)” (“The allegiance to Abū Bakr was a sudden/unplanned event”)—which is unanimously accepted among Sunnīs and transmitted through multiple chains, carries clear implications that conflict with certain fundamental Sunnī doctrines. Among these are the legitimacy of the caliphate emerging from the Saqīfa episode and the claim that this caliphate was grounded in consensus (ijmāʿ). Consequently, Sunnī scholars, particularly their theologians (mutakallimūn), have made considerable efforts to reinterpret (taʾwīl) this report.Since inconsistency between word and deed, as well as forced reinterpretation against the apparent meaning, are neither commendable nor acceptable within common scholarly convention, some Sunnī scholars have found themselves compelled either to deny the very occurrence of the report or to cast doubt upon its plausibility. This article examines both the implications of the khabar al-falta and the responses offered by Sunnī scholars. The analysis demonstrates that the principal actors in the Saqīfa event, along with their followers, implicitly acknowledged the inadequacy of this method of designating a caliph. In attempting to escape the problematic consequences of this mode of succession, they resorted to strained justifications, but these efforts ultimately failed to resolve the inherent contradictions.

http://pke.journals.miu.ac.ir/article_10383_09da9a5fd21007ae9326a274a20d2b02.pdf