نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی
نویسندگان
1 دانشیار گروه فلسفه و کلام دانشگاه قم
2 دانشپژوه سطح 4 تفسیر تطبیقی، استاد حوزه و دانشگاه
چکیده
کلیدواژهها
عنوان مقاله [English]
نویسندگان [English]
The issue of praying to God to change the preordainment (qaḍā) and the issue of being content with God's preordainment and predestination may from a certain perspective be considered incompatible and conflicting; because praying to God is either to change the existing conditions and remove difficulties or to reach desired and missing conditions, and this apparently involves dissatisfaction with the existing situation. For this reason, two rival views have been formed among the people of knowledge. The first point of view, which belongs to "Ibn ‘Arabī", maintains that absolute submission to divine predestinations and not complaining about calamities before God is a form of rudeness in the manners of servitude, and it contains the slave's secret conflict with God's lordship. In contrast, another rival theory has been proposed which considers refraining from asking for specific needs and avoiding insisting on one's desires as a requirement of pure submission to divine preordainment and considers it more compatible with the ethics of servitude. This article, in a descriptive-analytical way, with the aim of introducing a more comprehensive theory, has identified and expressed the main components and axes of these two theories separately and evaluated each of them in the scales of the Qur'anic verses. One of the findings of the discussion is that paying attention to the levels and types of prayer can reconcile and resolve the conflict between these two theories in some aspects. Another outcome of the discussion is that by comparative analysis of these two theories, it tried to prove with several reasons the superiority of Ibn Arabi's view from the perspective of the ethics of servitude.
کلیدواژهها [English]
DOI:10.30470/phm.2019.34352
DOI:10.22059/jpht.2021.309038.1005778
)