نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی
نویسنده
دانشیار دانشگاه قرآن و حدیث
چکیده
موضوع اصلی پژوهش حاضر تحلیل قاعده لطف در الگوی استنباط کلامی است. هدف این نوشتار تلقین ضرورت روی آوردن به روش مند سازی استنباط کلامی و ارائه الگوی استنباطی است. برای رسیدن به هدف مذکور از روش توصیفی تحلیلی استفاده می شود. پرداخته نشدن به موضوع حاضر در تحقیقات پیشین ضرورت آن را نمایان می سازد.
یافته های تحقیق: نتیجه حاصل از تحقیق حاضر عدم وجوب لطف بر خداوند است که این نتیجه بر این اساس به دست آمد که در مرحله اول از مراحل استنباط جریان اصل در اعتقادات پذیرفته شد و قواعدی که در مرحله دوم از مراحل بیان گردید مورد پذیرش واقع نشد و به طریق اولی ادله ذکر شده در مرحله سوم که ناظر به تقیید ادله مرحله دوم است پذیرفت نگردید. ادله خاص ذکر شده در مرحله چهارم دال بر وجوب لطف با نقد مواجه گردید. از سوی دیگر قواعد و ادله عام ذکر شده در مرحله پنجم از مراحل استنباط و همچنین دلیل خاص ذکر شده در مرحله هفتم که دال بر عدم وجوب لطف است مردود اعلام گردید در نتیجه با مناقشه در ادله اثبات گر وجوب لطف بر خداوند و ادله اثبات گر عدم وجوب لطف بر خداوند و به علت فقدان دلیل، بر اساس اصل اولیه اعلام نظر صورت گرفت و لطف واجب نگردید.
کلیدواژهها
عنوان مقاله [English]
Analysis of the Rule of Lutf (Divine Grace) in the Pattern of Theological Inference
نویسنده [English]
- mehdi nosratianahoor
Associate Professor at the University of Quran and Hadith
چکیده [English]
The main subject of the current research is the analysis of the rule of “Lutf” (divine grace/favor) within the framework of Kalamic inference. The objective of this paper is to impress upon the reader the necessity of adopting a methodical approach to Kalamic inference and to present such a model. To achieve this goal, a descriptive-analytical method based on instructional analysis is employed. This approach not only presents the accepted conclusion but also discusses outcomes based on various foundational principles to foster the scientific growth of the audience and to teach the process of ijtihad (independent reasoning) in theological matters.
Research Findings: Nine hypotheses were formulated for the possibility of announcing a result based on the proposed inference stages. However, in this article, one of these scenarios (the seventh hypothesis) was accepted and scientific opinions were formed based on it. In this hypothesis, the general principle in beliefs is accepted, but the implications of opposing rules to the general principle, mentioned in the second stage, were not accepted. Consequently, there is no room for discussing the qualifications of these stages. Specific evidence presented for the necessity of “Lutf” was rejected. The rules mentioned in the fifth stage, which align with the general principle, were not accepted. The specific evidence presented in the seventh stage, regarding the non-obligation of “Lutf,” was also refuted. As a result, the evidence for both viewpoints (the opinion of obligation and the opinion of non-obligation) was debated. Due to the lack of definitive proof, a decision was made based on the primary principle, and “Lutf” was not deemed obligatory.
کلیدواژهها [English]
- Understood! Here are just the English translations
- Stages of Kalamic Inference
- The Rule of Lutf
- Lutf that achieves and brings nearer
- Ordinary Lutf and Extraordinary Lutf
- Methodological Framework