@article { author = {Legenhausen, Hajj Muhammad}, title = {Hegel’s Ethics}, journal = {Religious Inquiries}, volume = {1}, number = {1}, pages = {5-30}, year = {2012}, publisher = {University of Religions and Denominations Press}, issn = {2322-4894}, eissn = {2538-6271}, doi = {}, abstract = {My purpose in this article is not to offer any original insights into Hegel’s ethics, but merely to provide a brief overview that draws upon the most reliable secondary sources. In order to help organize the material, I compare Hegel’s views with the communitarian critique of liberalism. Following this, there is a brief account of the relation between Hegel’s ethical and religious thought. Hegel’s philosophy is one of reconciliation. He is both a follower of Kant and a sharp critic of Kant. With Kant, he affirms the idea of moral autonomy, that moral agency requires us to think for ourselves and impose moral obligations upon ourselves. Unlike Kant (at least as usually interpreted), however, he does not think that this means that the only motivation for moral behavior should be the will to do one’s duty. Because of the antinomy of free will and determinism, Kant concluded that agency springs from a noumenal realm beyond the phenomenal world. Hegel seeks to reconcile freedom with causal constraints in a form of compatibalism that differs fundamentally from the soft determinism of the empiricist tradition. Kant argued that morality must derive from reason. Hegel agrees, but he understands reason as a process in which the finite self overcomes itself through its identification with others. My indebtedness to Robert Wallace’s recent book on this topic will be obvious; my gratitude to him should be, as well}, keywords = {}, url = {https://ri.urd.ac.ir/article_6241.html}, eprint = {https://ri.urd.ac.ir/article_6241_39a3d2b0c9c3a340e48ab8a5c94a5560.pdf} } @article { author = {Tofighi, Hossein}, title = {Islam and other Religions}, journal = {Religious Inquiries}, volume = {1}, number = {1}, pages = {31-66}, year = {2012}, publisher = {University of Religions and Denominations Press}, issn = {2322-4894}, eissn = {2538-6271}, doi = {}, abstract = {Any student of comparative religion will notice - and seek to identify as well - the points of similarity and difference between various religions. One might even claim that the discipline of “influence studies” has its roots in these discussions of comparison and contrast. However, these discussions persistently fail to address the nuances of particular faiths. Here, I intend to shed some light on the similarities and dissimilarities among religions. The point of departure and the framework for the study will be Islam, with a relatively strong focus on Judaism and Christianity}, keywords = {}, url = {https://ri.urd.ac.ir/article_6242.html}, eprint = {https://ri.urd.ac.ir/article_6242_fd7f9f1c24d1495a303248b6d22e924c.pdf} } @article { author = {Khatami, Mahmoud}, title = {The Religion of Islam:The Qur’an’s Essential Notion of Din}, journal = {Religious Inquiries}, volume = {1}, number = {1}, pages = {67-80}, year = {2012}, publisher = {University of Religions and Denominations Press}, issn = {2322-4894}, eissn = {2538-6271}, doi = {}, abstract = {The overall aim of this paper is to highlight a transcendental usage of the Religion of Islamin the Qur’an. I will show that the notion of Islamas a unitary Religion is used in the Qur’an as a genus for religions (adyan) which have appeared throughout human history. This usage will show that there is a sense of Religion which guarantees the essential unity of all religions and prepares us to understand the apparent plurality and conflicting diversity of world religions; however, it is essentially different from the sense which has emerged within the modern discipline of religious studies in Western scholarship which interprets religion as a cultural phenomenon and considers the myriad variety of religions to be mere socio-historical events. In this paper, I will first briefly provide a background on the difficulty faced within this modern Western concept of religion, then I will progress to the Islamic concept of Religion to illustrate a model for understanding the plurality and the diversity of religions, which apparently have their own individual boundaries, yet at the same time enjoy a unitary reality.}, keywords = {DIN,type-Religion,token-religions,Islam,Qur’an,unitary Religion}, url = {https://ri.urd.ac.ir/article_6262.html}, eprint = {https://ri.urd.ac.ir/article_6262_254f810b488fd51ff70d05ac1aca610e.pdf} } @article { author = {Islami Ardekani, Sayyid Hasan}, title = {The Shiite Pluralistic Position on Human Cloning}, journal = {Religious Inquiries}, volume = {1}, number = {1}, pages = {81-108}, year = {2012}, publisher = {University of Religions and Denominations Press}, issn = {2322-4894}, eissn = {2538-6271}, doi = {}, abstract = {With regard to human cloning or artificial human reproduction – and contrary to the opinions of Sunni scholars - Shiite thinkers have not held a unified position. After having surveyed a number of Shiite fatwas and analyses on the subject, this essay will classify them into four groups. The first group states that we are granted absolute permission to engage in human cloning; while the second group believes that there is limited permission; the third group argues that cloning as such is primarily permitted but because of its consequences and secondary grounds it is prohibited and unlawful; and the fourth group is of the view that cloning as such and by itself is prohibited and unlawful. In what follows, the author has examined these four views, ending in support of the permission theory. }, keywords = {}, url = {https://ri.urd.ac.ir/article_6269.html}, eprint = {https://ri.urd.ac.ir/article_6269_975c751a5abcf7a2896f050184eb6df0.pdf} } @article { author = {Mahmoodi, Abolfazl}, title = {On the End of the Mystical Journey: Ibn Arabi and Adi Śankara}, journal = {Religious Inquiries}, volume = {1}, number = {1}, pages = {109-136}, year = {2012}, publisher = {University of Religions and Denominations Press}, issn = {2322-4894}, eissn = {2538-6271}, doi = {}, abstract = {This paper will compare two of the most prominent mystics of Islam and Hinduism on what may be called the “end of the mystical journey,” or mokśa in Hindu spirituality and fanā in Islamic mysticism. The interpretations of these two mystics are naturally developed according to their own epistemological and ontological bases. Thus, referring to their most significant principles of thought, the author has tried to examine three aspects of those concepts, i.e., the nature of mokśa and fanā, how these states can be attained, and whether or not religious obligations still need to be practiced after they have been attained. Having compared and summed up mokśa and fanā within the above contexts, the author has shown some striking similarities and considerable differences between them, both in their principles and in the three above aspects relating to their nature, attainment and obligations. }, keywords = {fanā (annihilation),baqa’ (subsistence) after fanā,mokśa,jivanmukti,and the abolition of obligation}, url = {https://ri.urd.ac.ir/article_6270.html}, eprint = {https://ri.urd.ac.ir/article_6270_eba1c2f41e4b23fcbd2300b069f4de4f.pdf} } @article { author = {}, title = {The complete version of this issue}, journal = {Religious Inquiries}, volume = {1}, number = {1}, pages = {1-144}, year = {2012}, publisher = {University of Religions and Denominations Press}, issn = {2322-4894}, eissn = {2538-6271}, doi = {}, abstract = {}, keywords = {}, url = {https://ri.urd.ac.ir/article_45343.html}, eprint = {https://ri.urd.ac.ir/article_45343_ae4760bdf9d7ed3e27341c9873650b44.pdf} }