A Formulation of the Minimal Mechanism of Ayatollah Javadi Amoli’s Theory of Dividing Sciences

Document Type : The Quarterly Jornal

Authors

1 PhD of Philosophy of Religion, University of Tehran, Farabi Pardis and researcher at Islamic Sciences and Culture Academy

2 PhD student of moral philosophy, University of Qom

3 MA, philosophy, Mofid University, Qom, Iran

Abstract

Different theories have been formulated in order to settle the dispute between science and religion. Some people have reappropriated sciences in favor of religion, rejecting all achievements of sciences, while others emphasize on the experimental method, rejecting religion altogether. A third group talks about a peaceful interaction between science and religion. However, Ayatollah Javadi Amoli has theorized about religious science in two ways: sometimes he refers to all sciences as religious as a factual description and in ontological terms, and sometimes he divides sciences into religious and non-religious in epistemological terms. In this paper, we consider criteria of the theory in the process of Islamization of sciences, and by reducing them to the subject-matter criteria, we show the implications of this theory for sciences and how it can succeed in the organization of sciences. It seems that a formulation of analytic arguments gleaned from his writings and a comparison with rival theories can lead us to the conclusion that the theory divides sciences with an theological view of the reality of modern sciences or at least, it presents new criteria for the division of sciences in such a way that, given this assumption we can have a minimal ground for the division of sciences into Islamic and non-Islamic.

Keywords

References

  1. Ibn Sīna, Ḥusayn b. ‘Abd Allāh (2005), al-Qānūn fī al-Ṭibb, Beirut: Dar Ihya’ al-Turath al-‘Arabi
  2. Okasha, Samir (1387), Philosophy of Science, translated into Persian by Hooman Panahandeh, Tehran: Farhang-e Moaser
  3. Parsania, Hamid (1393), “Guftigu, naqd-i naqd dar partuw-i iḍāḥ-i mafhūmī-yi naẓarīyya-yi ‘ilm-i dīnī-yi Ayatollah Javadi Amoli,” Ketab-e Naqd, no. 70-71
  4. Javadi Amoli, Abdollah (1383), “Az falsafa-yi Arasṭū’ī tā falsafa-yi Islāmī,” Marefat-e Falsafi, no. 3
  5. Javadi Amoli, Abdollah (1393), “Falsafa ilḥādī hama-yi ‘ulūm rā ilḥādī mīkunad,” ‘Ulum-e Ensani-e Eslami, no. 11-12
  6. Javadi Amoli, Abdollah (1395), Manzilat-i ‘Aql dar Hindisa-yi Ma’rifat-i Dīnī, Qom: Esra Foundation of Revelatory Sciences
  7. Javadi Amoli, Abdollah (1386), Sharī’at dar Āyina-yi Ma’rifat, fifth edition, Qom: Esra Foundation of Revelatory Sciences
  8. Danesh Shahraki, Habibollah and Karami, Mohammad (1395), “Barrasī wa naqd-i Naẓarīya-yi ‘Ilm-i Dīnī-yi Ayatollah Javadi Amoli,” Pajoohesh-haye Falsafi-Kalami, no. 70
  9. Damyāṭī, al-Sayyid al-Kubrā (1418), ‘I’ānat al-Ṭālibīn, Beirut: Dar al-Fikr
  10. Schuon, Frithjof (1383), Islām wa Ḥikmat-i Khālida, translated into Persian by Forouzan Rasekhi, Tehran: Hermes
  11. Al-Fārūqī, Ismā’īl (1384), ‘Ulūm-i ‘Aqlī wa Tajrubī dar ‘Ālam-i Islāmī, translated into Persian by Mohammad Firouzkouhi and Rouhollah Nasrollahi, Tehran: International Publishing Corporation
  12. Golshani, Mahdi (1380), Az ‘Ilm-i Secular tā ‘Ilm-i Dīnī, Tehran: Institute for Humanities and Cultural Studies
  13. Golshani, Mahdi (1393), “Ta’ammulātī pīrāmūn-i Naẓarīya-yi ‘Ilm-i Dīnī-yi Ayatollah Javadi Amoli,” Ketab-e Naqd, no. 70-71
  14. Movahed Abtahi, Sayyed Mohammad Taghi (1389), “Irādagarāyī bi-mathāba-yi ‘Ilm-i Dīnī dar Naẓarīya-yi Farhangistān,” Ulum-e Eslami, no. 4
  15. Nasr, Seyyed Hossein (1359), ‘Ilm wa Tamaddun dar Islām, translated into Persian by Ahmad Aram, Tehran: Kharazmi
  16. Nasr, Seyyed Hossein (1379), Nīyāz bi ‘Ilm-i Muqaddas, translated into Persian by Hassan Miandari, Qom: Taha Cultural Institute
  17. Webster Online Dictionary at: www.merriam-webster.com
  18. Al-Faruqi, I. R. & A. H. Abusulayman (1989), Islamization of Knowledge: General Principles and Work plan, Virginia: International Institute of Islamic Thought.
  19. ladyman, J. (2002), understanding philosophy of science, London: Routledge.

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics