Scope of Application and Function of Reason in Understanding and Implementation of Religion
Professor Ali Akbar Rasahd
Faculty Member, Research Institute of Islamic Culture and Thought
Abstract
Reason has a number of applications and functions in studying the religion, investigating about religion, in religiosity and in implementation of religion; these functions can be divided into various and different categories. The present article is an attempt to present eight categories on the basis of one of the most prevailing classifications of the applications of reason, that is, the general and particular applications. It is quite clear that is not possible to discuss the subject in details in one article. Hence a research proposal titled “Comprehensive Structure of Application and Function of Reason in Religious Studies” is given in the end of the article for a comprehensive study of the subject.
Keywords: Reason, sources of religion, religious studies, methodology of exploration of religion, functions of religion
Introduction
What we mean by functions of reason in the field of religion refers to different roles and contribution of reason in the field of religious studies and religiosity. Reason has many different functions and applications in the field of investigation ‘in religion’ and ‘about religion’ as well as about ‘religiosity’ and ‘implementation of religion’. Application and function of reason in the field of religious studies is one of the fundamental issues in logic of understanding of religious statements and doctrines. The functions of religion can be classified into the following three categories:
1- Production of knowledge; 2 – Interpretation, and 3 – verification
Production of knowledge by reason in understanding religion:
Production of knowledge is reason’s first and most important role. It means that reason produces some religious knowledge for us. “God exists” is an epistemological statement which refers to the issue itself This statement states: there is a truth called God outside man’s perception. Despite the fact that “God exists” is a fundamental religious statement, it is not an achievement of narration – the Quranic verses or narrations handed down from the Infallibles (PBUT).
Before proving the origin of religion and general and particular prophecy and before ascertaining the authority of the revealed Book and the word and practice of the Infallibles, holding fast to the narration is of secondary necessity. In the first place the existence of God who has dispatched the prophet and the Book should be proved and then one should rely on narration in order to prove the religious statements. Indeed, the statement “God exists” is the founding stone or the prime principle of religion. All religious philosophical statements are based on the said principle. If there is no origin or source, then sacred ‘ought to’ and ‘ought not to’ as well as value-based ‘must’ and ‘must not’ will be meaningless. All creedal and ethical doctrines of religion owe their meaningfulness and value to it and are understood and proved with the help of reason.
The fact that the principles of religion are five, three or more, is merely a broad classification, otherwise, the original principle of religion is only one, that is, the following statement: “Allah exists”. We say: Since God is wise, just, merciful and benevolent, He directs His creatures towards the direction of perfection; Thus prophecy and revelation are proved. He punishes the wrongdoers and rewards the good-doers; Hence the Day of Judgment is necessary.
The divine prophets ask human beings to rely on their reason or primordial nature in order to ascertain the principle of the principles of religion. Addressing the deniers of the existence of God, they announce: “Is there any doubt about God, the Originator of Heaven and Earth? (14: 10) That is, refer to your reason and primordial nature to realize whether non existence of God is possible.
Hence, reason and primordial nature play a role of knowledge creating and create some parts of religious knowledge. Some of the verses emphasize on the creation of knowledge by reason; such the following ones: “Thus God revives the dead and shows you His sings so you may use your reason.” (2: 73); “Woe be to you, and why do you worship other than God, don’t you think?” (21: 10) The following verses too emphasize on the creation of knowledge by reason: 2:164, 170, 171 and 8:22.
There are some other verses of the holy Quran that consider science (knowledge) as a source of epistemology and truth-finding, and counterpart of the divine book, such as the following verse: “Bring me a Book (Revealed) before this, or any remnant of knowledge (ye may have)” (46:4)
Some other verses consider hearing (the tradition) and reason at par with each other, challenging the deniers: “…If we had only listened and reasoned things out, we would not have become inmates of the Blaze.” (67: 10)
The secondary role of reason in religious studies is interpretation and clarification of other documents; without application of reason, it is not possible to understand the tradition. If the addressees of religion did not have reason, they would not be the addressees of religion either; the reason that man has been chosen as the addressee of religion is that he is rational. And man by application of this blessing has achieved the understanding of the sacred address. Some of the verses of the holy Quran allude to the interpretive role of reason: “…have already heard God’s word, they temper with it once they have studied it, and they realize it.” (2: 75)
The above verse considers the listening to the word of God as prelude to its understanding. There are also other verses in this regard such as: “We have sent it [Quran] down as an Arabic reading so that you may reason.” (12: 2); “We have made it a Qur’an in Arabic, that ye may be able to understand (and learn wisdom).” (43:3)
The secret of the eloquence of the language of Holy Quran is to facilitate reflection (reasoning) on and understanding of the Quran.
The third role of reason is interpretation and verification; that is, when a specific knowledge and meaning is acquired through certain documents and reasons, the latter evaluates that meaning. In case the appearance of the Quranic verse or word of the Infallibles leads to some statement or conclusion which in incompatible with the rational criteria or doctrines, reason would encourage us to once again review them so that the precise, correct meaning of the verse or tradition is extracted, and if access to rational and acceptable meaning was not possible, while acknowledging our inability we stop right there.
There is no doubt about the divine origin of the verses, but if the appearance of the tradition imparts an irrational claim, one can cast doubt on its attribution to the Infallibles.
The role of reason in production of knowledge, meaning and verification of knowledge in the field of religion, emerges both in understanding of religious teachings as well as in application of other evidences and proofs – for instance, in assisting the application of the Quran and practical and narrative traditions for the discovery of divine objectives – and in the field of materialization and application of religion.
The functions of reason in the field of religion have several classifications and categorizations. Among the most comprehensive classifications of the functions of reason one can mention the following ones: 1- General functions; and 2- particular functions. On the basis of the said classification, some thirty five functions of reason are briefly discussed below.
In the first place the general functions of reason (first category) are discussed, and then its particular functions (second category) are elucidated and finally a scheme titled “Comprehensive Structure of Functions and Applications of Reason in Religious Studies” is discussed.
General Functions of Reason in Understanding and Application of Religion
General function of reason refers to the function which is not assigned to a specific field of religion; the function of reason in a specific field is considered a practical function.
The general functions of reason are very wide some of which are discussed below.
1.1 Understanding the Presuppositions of Necessity of religion
Before acceptance of religion, its non-narrative epistemological sources, foundations and principles should be elucidated. Relying on the accumulated experience, reason states that man is a social being and since reason and other epistemological sources at man’s disposal do not have command of all the truths of the universe and all exigencies of man, it cannot by itself define all laws that take all his true interests into account as they must be. Hence the Lawgiver should be one who has knowledge of man and his interests as they are. He is no one other than the Creator of mankind. Thus the fundamentals of the necessity of religion and naturally the philosophy of prophecy is proved with the assistance of the reason, and consequently, the necessity of acceptance of religion by man and the necessity of religiosity are proved. In the viewpoint of reason, it is not merely enough to have faith in religion, but also it is necessary to be committed to it and practice its teachings in the individual and social life, otherwise its nullification becomes necessary. Hence, besides proving the source of religion and elucidating its fundamentals and sources, reason is also in charge of proving the necessity of religion, religiosity and faithfulness.
1.2 – Laying the Foundations for Understanding the Religious epistemological Systems
Besides proving the presuppositions of acceptance of religion, and belief in it, reason according to different principles – including proving the “principles for moving towards understanding of religion” – specifies the principles for the understanding of each of the five epistemological fields and systems (insight, action, value, upbringing and knowledge).
For instance, reason proves that God is wise and just. Hence, it is proved that His word and action should be sagacious and just. Thus it introduces belief in the divine wisdom and justice as a base for the understanding of religious epistemological systems. Hence, the interpreter organizes the understanding of the secondary principles and if in the inferred decrees he comes across a doctrine which is unwise or unjust, he would consider such a decree vague or unreasonable due to its incompatibility with the principles and characteristics of justice and wisdom, or would acknowledge his own inability to understand it. This very acknowledgement of inability is a kind of understanding of the problem.
1.3 – Proving the Understandability of Religion
The significance of the question “whether access to proper and precise understanding of religion is possible or not?” becomes clear if due attention is paid to the existing controversies over the possibility or impossibility of true understanding of religion and understanding of true religion. Some experts believe that due to its readability, the religious text lacks a definite definition and does not have an objective, ultimate interpretation.
They sometimes consider readability as a characteristic of religion!
They also maintain that readability of religion even tolerates contradictory readings of the same text. They believe that this general rule applies to all scriptures.
On the basis of clear proofs and evidences, reason refutes the readability of revealed text and on the other hand proves the understandability of religion. It is not deniable that some of the texts (verses and traditions) are understood differently by different persons. But it does not mean that all religious texts are totally understood differently by different persons or these different understandings are contradictory and paradoxical. This claim is not a general rule and is only applicable to particular cases; for incomprehensibility of religion is not compatible with the attributes of wisdom and justice of the Originator, and sagacity and guiding nature of the text of religions.
Many questions related to the possibility and methodologicalness of understanding of religion can be answered only with the application of the reason .
1.4 – Contributing to Identification of Epistemological Fields of Religion
Reason helps us identify each of the attributes and characteristics of the epistemological fields of religion. Reason plays an important role in the understanding of the characteristics of theoretical and practical philosophy, features of the fields of science, faith and ethic; religious decrees, as well as in the process of understanding of religion and definition and establishment of laws and criteria for the discovery (understanding) of the religious statements and doctrines of each of the epistemological fields.
1.5 – Contribution to the Formulation of Logic of Understanding of Religion
Another general function of the reason in the field of religion is assisting the formulation of a set of rational criteria and rules for understanding – discovery – of religion as well as systematizing the rules which are received through other sources including the Quran and tradition. Hadn’t it been for the assistance of the reason, this systematization would not have become possible. Man, in the absence of reason – suppose that man could establish rules of understanding and we could use the word ‘rules’ for them – could never organize them systematically to employ them for the understanding of religion and its premises. Therefore, it is with the help of reason that the systematization of what is called the logic of understanding – discovery – of religion becomes possible.
1.6 – Setting the Criteria and Legislating for Understanding of Religion
Reason offers some of the rules and criteria for the discovery –understanding- of religion. Some of these rules have general application and are used in understanding of several fields. Some of them have limited applications and are used for the understanding of specific fields.
One of the general rules which is used in all the fields is the rule of mercy, which is widely used in theology and jurisprudence.
In the field of beliefs we say: Because of His mercy, God is expected to send some prophets to guide man; and thus the universal prophecy is proved. We also rely on reason in order to prove the necessity of the appointment of the Infallible Imam; as we rely on the same rule in order to prove the necessity of religious legislation of canonical and governmental rules: God because of His mercy provides man with canonical rules and effective governmental political doctrines so that man achieves salvation and be guided through them.
Besides being used in the field of faith and commandments, the Rule of Mercy is used in the field of philosophy of rules as well. For instance, some experts have relied on this rule in order to prove the authority of consensus. Those who rely on this rule regarding consensus, maintain that if all the jurisprudents and religious scholars of a time reach a consensus on a decree and all of them issue a single but wrong decree, since due to their wrong decree the entire ummah will be misguided, it is the duty of the Infallible Imam not to allow all the jurisprudents to commit a mistake, for such a mistake would consequently misguide the entire ummah, Hence the Imam would somehow indoctrinate the correct decree to one of the jurisprudents or in the garb of a jurisprudent, he himself would offer the correct decree so that the unanimity on the wrong decree is removed and all the believers do not do wrong.
The effectiveness and application of a document or method or rule is subject to materialization and observation of certain conditions. By criteria of discovery or understanding we mean the conditions of effectiveness of an application of a document or evidence, as well as method in discovery of the religious teachings and doctrines. Reason can identify and determine many of these conditions and situations.
1.7 – Discovery and proof of the authority of religious documents and evidences is mainly done with the help of reason. The evaluation of this function of reason, constitutes a major chunk of the discipline of principles of jurisprudence. A major chunk of the issues related to principles of jurisprudence, even regarding their wording, is rational.
1.8 – Setting the rules and criteria for verification of religious documents
Besides proving the authenticity of the documents and authentic evidences (religious documents), their identification and recognition too are among the significant functions of reason. In fact through offering rules, criteria, and methods, reason assists the interpreter and the comprehending person to ascertain the document of authoritativeness and for instance distinguishes between tradition and non-tradition. Without the assistance of reason, neither can we prove the authority nor verify the evidences and documents for understanding of religion.
1.9 Studying the Relations between Evidences and Authentic Documents
Determination of general relations between each of the documents and evidences with each other is among the significant and sensitive issues of the logic of understanding of religion. The determination of the order of reference to reason, primordial nature, the Book, narrative tradition and mode of conduct, as well as determining which one is function and which one is leading, which one is prior and which one is posterior are among the crucial issues of understanding of religion; reason plays a very important, clear role in this regard. This issue differs from the issue of contradiction between reasons; in the contradiction between reasons, in order to solve the contradiction belonging to the same category of documents and evidences, they are investigated and studied.
1.10 Interpretation and Provision of Documents
Another function of reason is interpretation and explanation of the verses and traditions. Expression of the meaning (understanding and interpretation) of the Book, narrative traditions and mode of conduct is mainly carried out with the help of reason.
1.11 Evaluation and Verification of Correct and Incorrect in Religious Knowledge
Besides playing a role in the understanding of religion, proving the authority and verifying the documents and evidences and expressing their meanings, reason helps us to distinguish correct knowledge from incorrect knowledge. Through setting the criteria and rules and designing suitable methods, reason provides this possibility for the interpreter.
1.12 – Removing the Impediments and Correcting the Mistakes in Understanding Religion
Besides the functions mentioned for reason above, another function of reason in the field of religious studies is correcting the mistakes which have happened in the field of knowledge of religion. If after we gained some knowledge through any means – either through reason or other documents –we realized that we have committed a mistake in gaining the said knowledge, it will be the very reason that teaches us the way to remove and compensate for the mistake.
Besides pathology of religious knowledge (which was mentioned above), reason removes the impediments from religious knowledge – this capability is an independent function – and one can and must consider these two functions as two independent functions. Hence, under the title of logic of understanding of religion, it becomes necessary to put forth the idea of pathology of religion and methods to remove impediments to the understanding of religion as well as application of the documents on understanding of religion, These methods are mainly rational.
1.13, 1.14, 1.15 – Finding a Solution to Different Contradictions
There may be three kinds of contradictions in the field of logic of understanding of religion:
1. Conflict between two decrees: It is when two decrees overlap and their simultaneous implementation is not possible. Like rescuing of two drawn persons.
2. Conflict between two evidences: It is when there is conflict between two evidences.
3. Conflict between two referents of two decrees (that is, sometimes the referent of two decrees become one). In this case, the decrees or the evidences don’t contradict or confront each other but our referent becomes a referent of prohibition and a referent of commandment as well. As if an action is at the same time prohibited and commanded as well. In the discipline of Principles of Jurisprudence it is called “overlapping of commandment and prohibition regarding a single issue”.
An example of this issue which is normally mentioned in the books of Principles of Jurisprudence is as such: a person is located in a usurped place and must offer his prayers. On the one hand it is mandatory for him to offer his prayers, and on the other, he must refrain from usurping. When such a person prostrates, on the one hand his action is part of the mandatory daily prayers and is a mandatory practice, but on the other the same action from another angle is a referent of occupation of other’s properties, is an act of usurpation and is impermissible; only the absolute forms of the two decrees from the viewpoint of reference are true and compatible.
Of course the issue is not as easy as mentioned. It is a challenging one. Indeed such great scholars as Akhund Khorasani (Khorasani, n.d., 89-160) and Mirzai Naini (1355 lunar hegira – Kazemeini, 1404 H: 395-453) who are great jurisprudents and scholars of principles of jurisprudence of the same age, have contradictory viewpoints in this regard. This polemic existed before them and continued to preoccupy the scholars after them as well. Finding solution to the abovementioned three problems, that is, conflict of decrees, overlapping of evidences, and conflict between two referents is a function of reason, particularly in the field of inferring the decrees. However, it is also a function of reason to solve the contradiction in the field of creedal statements. Thus the thirteenth, fourteenth and fifteenth functions of reason have been mentioned.
1.16 – Commanding the Necessity of Commitment to the Contents of Religious Premises
As reason commands man to be committed to religious decrees and rites and rituals in the field of commandments, it also calls on man to follow ethical doctrines in the field of ethics. This function, in the field of commandments, means justification of the necessity of faith, that is, heartfelt faith. Reason states: if the celestial statement is proved through valid reasons, it is necessary to have faith in it and confess it. When a statement is proved through rational argumentations, it automatically convinces the reason, and consequently leads to conviction. In fact, here, the very demonstration of the statement will lead to its acceptance by heart. As a result, when for instance man realizes the existence of God, simultaneously he develops faith in Him; in other words, there is no distance between cognition and faith and between realization and conviction.
The enumeration and description of the general functions of reason is enough, although the general functions of reason are much more than what we have mentioned in this article. It is pertinent here to enumerate some of the particular functions of reason.
2 – Particular Functions of Reason in Research and Realization of Each Religious Field
As mentioned above, among the eight classifications of the functions of reason, the most important one was the division of the functions to general and particular. The general functions of the reason in the realm of understanding of religion were discussed briefly. Now it is pertinent to briefly discuss the particular functions of reason in the field of research and realization of each epistemological-economic systems and fields of religion. If we refer to the general functions of reason as those functions which are used in most of the five fields or at least in two fields, the particular functions should refer to those functions which are embodied only in one field. Among different particular functions of reason, it has the highest application in the field of beliefs and theology (2.1); followed by the field of commandments (2.2); ethics (2.3); and upbringing (2.4).
2.1 – Particular Functions of Reason in the Field of Faith (Beliefs, Divine Statements)
2.1.1 – Independent understanding of the principles of faith
Independent understanding of main divine statements is one of the major particular functions of reason. Reason independently understands the main fundamental beliefs such as the existence of the necessary being, unity of God, resurrection, necessity of religion and prophecy.
Independent understanding is an understanding which is prelude to the creation of rational knowledge.
2.1.2 – Understanding and Proving the Secondary Divine Statements of Religion
The understanding and proving of some of the secondary statements is possible by reason. For instance, in addition to proving ‘the necessity of prophecy”, some of the secondary principle of this subject such as infallibility are understood by reason. The reason states: if prophet is not immaculate, the possibility of error in understanding, interpreting or propagating the revelation is not ruled out; also in this case, in commitment to the Sharia, the possibility of committing a mistake by him is not ruled out either. These will lead to the bewilderment of the believers. If prophet is not infallible, he will not understand the revelation properly or may consider non-revelation as revelation, or will not be able to correctly interpret the revelation and will commit mistake in transmission or propagation of revelation. “Prophet must be infallible” or “prophet is infallible” are secondary celestial statements, but they are understood and are proved by reason. The list of the secondary divine statements which are understood by reason is a long list.
Theology, in Islamic philosophy in particular, tries to discover and prove the religious beliefs (even through pure argumentation). When one refers to philosophy in its particular sense, naturally one has to deal with a set of rational statements which are understood and proved by rational preliminary steps. It is also true about theology. Although theology is a multidisciplinary science, it is among the rational sciences, for reason is the most important signifier and rational method is the most important method for understanding or defending the convictional statements. Hence, most of the issues and concepts discussed in theology are rational ones.
2.2 – Particular Functions of Reason in the Field of Decrees (Ought to’s)
The functions of reason in the field of decrees are very vast. Some of the outstanding examples are mentioned below.
2.2.1 – Understanding of Some Important Premises and Decrees
A major chunk of the divine principles and decrees are divine-rational decrees. These decrees are comprehendible even without the announcement of the Lawgiver and this is why reason has been one of the sources of jurisprudence. A brief study of the jurisprudential principles which are the general principles of jurisprudence clearly acknowledges this function of reason.
2.2.2 – Independent Understanding of Some Religious Evidences and Commandments
In the field of commandments we deal with the ought to’s (commandment and prohibition: asking the performance of some actions or avoiding some actions). Hence the commandments are interpreted as ‘ought to’s’. But in the field of ethics we deal with good and bad because it deals with desirable and undesirable.
In religious thought, the Muslims have made a distinction between ‘desirable’ and ‘ought to’ which is a very precise and correct measure and this very issue is indebted to the richness and comprehensiveness of Islam. This distinction is not possible in other religions such as the present Christianity or Buddhism. Hence there is not any epistemological field called commandments in these religions or sects rather their teachings are divided into the beliefs and ethics. If there is any ‘ought to’ in these religions, they are classified under the category of ethics. Since commandments are very rich in Islam, the Muslims have segregated this section from ethics. It is however regrettable that in the field of production of knowledge, compared to the section of commandments, the section of ethics lags far behind the former. In the field of commandments, the prime source is the holy Quran; the second, third, fourth and fifth sources are respectively the traditions, reason and mode of conduct and perhaps the primordial nature. Consensus too has been mentioned as a source of jurisprudence. A major chunk of the principles and rules used in inferring decrees are rational rules and principles; even though in argumentation we believe that they are the given laws and try to base their acceptability on Sharia. This is the prevailing method in the principles of jurisprudence. The jurisprudential laws are mainly rational, for they are classified into two categories:
1 – They are inferred on the basis of a rational method, but since they have not been prohibited by the Lawgiver, they are considered as a proof. If we look deep into the proofs of some of these cases, even this group of commandments, we realize that there is a rational argument latent in them. And due this very backing by reason they have been accepted.
2. They rely on rational reason or grounds and are considered rational rules.
Hence, the understanding and proving of the main jurisprudential decrees is carried out with the help of reason. However the presence and influence of reason in the field of worship or rites and rituals is not much strong.
2.2.3 – Recognition of Referents of General Canonical (Shar’i) Rules
Recognition of the referents of general canonical decrees is one of the functions of reason. It is not possible to reject a secondary principles vis-à-vis a primary principle without relying on reason. For instance, it is reason that can recognize harmful from non-harmful and can prepare the grounds for the application of the principle of ‘no-loss’ to cases and referents.
2.2.4 – Recognition of the Subjects of Commandments
The subjects of the commandments are of three kinds: canonical, commonsense and scientific.
1 – The canonical subjects: the subjects invented by the Lawgiver such as daily prayers and fasting.
2– Subjects related to commonsense: the subjects that follow the people’s commonsense and the Lawgiver has taken them from the commonsense. When a kind of financial or material activity is called transaction and the Lawgiver accepts it, the commandments issued by the Lawgiver are applied to such a practice as it is understood by the commonsense.
3 – Scientific subjects: some time the subjects neither fall within the category that have been invented by the Lawgiver, nor within the category that can be understood by the people on the basis of commonsense. Rather their recognition requires professional knowledge and expertise. Hence they should be recognized on the basis of special skills and expertise. This group of subjects are called the scientific subjects.
The above trio classification is proposed by the author, for it is believed that subjects related to the commonsense are those which are recognized by the common people. But the subjects whose understanding requires scientific scrutiny and professional investigation fall under the category of scientific subjects. The recognition of this group at times requires serious individual inference which is the job of jurisprudent and at times it is the job of other professionals such as biologists, sociologists, anthropologists…it is not correct to say that jurisprudent is not concerned with the subjects of decrees; for the invented canonical subjects can be inferred by the jurisprudent alone. It is neither correct to exclude subjects related to commonsense from the realm of activities of jurisprudent on the pretext that such subjects are non-religious. Indeed, although some of the subjects are not religious, their recognition requires knowledge and expertise and this recognition is sometime possible only through jurisprudential expertise.
Reason plays a crucial role in scientific issues, for science, even experimental science, is the outcome of reason because sense recognizes the particulars and does not issue decree. In fact it is incapable of general understanding and is not in a position to issue general rules. The inference of the invented canonical subjects, like other issues related to individual inference, is not possible without the intervention of reason.
2.2.5 – Understanding the Philosophy of Commandments
Commandments are based on utility and harm and reason can realize many of these utilities and harms. It is the function of the reason to elucidate the philosophy of commandments (not the philosophy of the discipline of jurisprudence, for the latter is a part of the philosophy of religious knowledge) which also includes the objectives of cannon and reasons of canonical commandments and is a part of the philosophy of religion. Basically such philosophies belong to the category of philosophy and are subject matter of rational sciences.
2.2.6 – Understanding the Implications of Execution of Commandments
Besides recognizing the utilities and harms at theoretical level, reason is also in charge of recognizing the implications of execution of commandments in practice. It is reason that recognizes what would happen after a commandment is executed – utility or harm. This function of the reason has leaved a considerable impact on the kind of decree issued on a subject to the extent that sometimes it causes a change in the decree. According to some traditions, the execution of some of the commandments must be suspended due to certain reasons or circumstances (Hurr Ameli, 1403 H: 318). Which faculty except reason can recognize this issue? However the recognition of the harms incurring from execution of commandments (in practice) may sometimes be a referent of the function of reason in solving the conflict in commandments.
2.2.7 – Issuing Decrees Regarding Generalization, Permissibility or Legislation Regarding the Cases That Do Not Have a Clear Decree in Jurisprudence
In some cases which are called “on which there is no direct text” as mentioned by Mirzai Shirazi, or neutral zone by martyr Sadr or ‘permitted to be legislated’ by the author, reason dictates permissibility or legislation by man. There is a clear reference to this issue in some of our traditions.
For instance, the commander of wisdom and eloquence has said:
“Verily God has kept silent regarding things, but has not kept silent out of forgetfulness.” (61: 129)
Inspired by this phrase, one can interpret such subjects as those on which the Sharia is silent; of course this very silence can be interpreted as investiture which is the decree on such subjects.
In such cases some thinkers maintain that reason dictates permissibility, that is, since, there is no prohibition in the text, their decree is permissibility. Some others maintain that the Lawgiver should have issued the decree in one way or another. Since the Lawgiver has not announced the decree, if the follower commits the act on which there is no decree, he or she cannot be punished. Still some thinkers maintain that since God is Wise and punishment without announcement is bad, and the Wise never commits a wrong, the doer is immune against punishment.
Permissible has three meanings or applications: 1 – without any decree; 2 – lawful, permissible in its particular sense; 3 – opposite unlawful or impermissible, which includes obligatory, recommended, permissible and not-recommended, that is, whatever is not unlawful, and permissible in its general sense. However, when we say lack of text or the silence of the Lawgiver, it requires detail discussion in its proper place.
2.2.8 – Determining the Mechanism for Execution of Social Commandments of Religion (program, organization, method)
One of the realms of divine legislative providence is implementation of Sharia, which requires planning, organization and method (delineation, formulation and compilation). The objective of these measures is implementation of religion or in other words it is practicing of cannons within the context of every age, territory, ethnicity, and geography.
Some of the said three elements essentially belong to the religious society and government which are not replaceable and hence must be inferred from the religious documents. Some of them are accidental. Basically the commandments related to the government are of three types: 1 – explicit commandments; 2 – inferred commandments, 3 – delegated commandments.
The essential elements of religious government belong to the first and second categories and the non-essential elements belong to the third category. Reason plays the role of interpretation and evaluation regarding the first two categories and contributes to the third category, that is, takes the seat of knowledge creation and becomes the source of legislation. The Lawgiver has announced that during the presence of an infallible figure, the rein of government must be in his hands and during the absence of an infallible, a qualified jurisprudent should rise to implement the commandments. This is among the essential features of religion. But is it necessary to have separation of powers? If it is necessary, can the jurisprudent take charge of the Legislative and on his side the heads of other two branches, that is, the executive and judiciary, under his supervision and coordination run these branches while preserving the principle of separation of powers? Or is it suitable to run the legislative independently, but combine the judiciary and executive in one branch while the jurisprudent guides and supervises all of them? It may be also proposed that the branches of government should be increased to four branches. For instance the army should be independent of other three branches so that these branches would not be able to impose their wills on other branches by relying on the military power. Or it may be suggested that in addition to the four branches, an independent cultural branch should be established, for if one of the three branches has an exclusive control over the intellectual apparatuses, it will be able to produce votes too. In the present political system of the Islamic Republic, the cultural branch and the army are not under any of the three branches but are under the supervision of the leader which is a very wise and realistic decision. Hence the independence of the cultural branch and the army is defendable within the framework of the principle of separation of powers. As a result, the government can be organized by different contexts but through a scientific method; while science is a product of reason. Since the determination of the essential features of religious government is based on individual inference, reason in this field plays an interpretative and evaluative role. This function of reason may be a referent of some of the abovementioned referents, hence its independent mentioning here is at least as an example of emphasis on a particular case.
1.13 – Functions of Reason in the Field of Ethics (religious values and behavioral system)
The functions of reason in the field of ethics are more or less similar to its functions in the field of commandments and practical system of religion. The reason for this similarity is that the two fields of ethics and commandments are defined within the practical philosophy of religion. Hence, one of the classifications of functions of reason, is: 1 – theoretical philosophy (beliefs, and religious teachings); and 2 – practical philosophy (commandments, ethics and religious upbringing). Man’s ethical characteristics of man are reflected in his behavior, although according to another interpretation, practical philosophy refers only to ethics.
It is pertinent to refer to some of the functions of reason in the field of ethics.
2.1.3 – Understanding the Bases of Ethics and the Causes and Reasons of Ethical Premises
Understanding of good and bad is one of the functions of reason in the field of an epistemological system based on ethics. Khawja Nasir Tusi (597-672 H.) elaborated the rules of action regarding their goodness or badness within the framework of rational argumentation and then in order to prove that the recognition of badness and goodness of actions is rational, he relied on the following reasons:
1 – On the basis of our conscience we realize that some acts are bad and some are good. Even if the Lawgiver would not consider oppression as bad and justice as good, we realize the goodness of justice and badness of oppression by our conscience.
2 – If we think that the goodness and badness of the acts that are essentially good or bad are subject to the commandment of the Lawgiver (as the Ash’arites think), we have also denied the religious (canonical) bad and good. In other words if we suppose that the good and bad acts cannot be recognized by reason, then it would be permissible for the Lawgiver to commit bad acts, like lying (God forbid), as He does good deeds.
If it is rationally permissible for the Lawgiver to lie, we cannot be certain about the truthfulness of His announcements and statement, for we can always assume that He lies: we say “this is good and that is bad” is because when we rationally deny the goodness and badness, we have indeed denied the goodness and badness from canonical point of view.
2 – If goodness and badness are not rationally comprehensible, they must be interchangeable; that is, something which is bad should replace something which is good and the other way round! While it is clear that this is impossible for truthfulness to be replaced with falsehood and then one concludes that lying is good. Hence we can conclude that good and bad are rationally understood .
Since reason is distinct from primordial nature and is not an aspect of self, and self is innate and imbedded in the divine nature, the first aspect of the three aspects mentioned can be considered a primordial natural reason. In the light of the above explanations, it is now clear that one of the most important functions of reason is recognition and proving of goodness and badness of acts. This understanding is the basis of ethic and a basis of many jurisprudential and ethical issues, for a single religion cannot issue two contradictory parallel decrees in two behavioral and ethical systems; it cannot consider something permissible in ethics but impermissible in jurisprudence or the other way round. At least with regard to the intensity of goodness and badness, which makes an ethical principle binding, contradiction between the rulings of the two systems and epistemological fields of religion will not be defendable.
2.3.2 – Independent Understanding of Major Ethical Premises
Besides offering the reasons for an ethical decree, reason understands the nature and whatness of major ethical premises as well. When we study the mindset, lifestyle, acts and behaviors of different nations and ethnic communities, either believing or unbelieving, we realize that there are many common values and ethical commonalities amongst human communities and individuals.
There are many statements which are agreed upon by all human communities such as “lying is bad”, “truth is good”, trust-keeping is good”, “betrayal of trust is bad”, etc. Even if religion had not announced them, we could realize and prove them with the help of reason and primordial nature.
2.3.3- Recognition of Minor Ethical Premises and Referents of ethical Premises
Besides recognizing the foundations and premises, reason also recognizes the actions which are the referents and premises or generalities of ethics. That is, it not only states that lying is bad, but also recognizes action which is the referent of lying.
2.3.3 – Recognition of Harm or utility Incurring from the Implementation of Ethical Decrees and Realization of Priorities and Removal of Conflicts between the Ethical Issues and Also Conflicts between the Ethical Issues and Jurisprudential Issues
If some criminals persecute the prophet of God and I know the place of his hiding, when they ask me about his place, should I tell them where he has hidden? In this case, reason realizes that if an ethical principle is to be observed, a more important principle is trampled upon and murder, that is, murder of a prophet takes place. Hence, reason gives priority to the protection of the more important principle and commands the abandoning of the important principle, for telling the truth in this case is practically contribution and collaboration in the murder of the prophet which is the worst among bad acts. Reason recognizes the interests and impediments incurring from the implementation of an ethical issue and sets the priorities on that basis. Hence, on the basis of rational decree, we are able to prefer the matter of priority to non-priority.
2.3.5 – Permissibility or Issuance of Ethical Decree in the Absence of Decree by the Lawgiver
Where the Lawgiver has not issued an ethical commandment, reason on the basis of its recognition issues the decree. The role of reason in the field of ethics is stronger than that in the field of commandments; for the maneuverability of reason in the field of commandments is limited, and in the field of transactions, there are clear statements such as the chapter of Islamic punishments, blood-money, retaliation and the like. Hence, consensus among human beings in the field of ethics is more than that in the fields of commandments and law. In fact, most of them base their ethical principles on the common sources of reason and man’s primordial nature. But in the field of commandments since the faithful also rely on the source of Sharia, while the unbelievers are negligent of the Sharia, the differences between the religious and non-religious societies are outstanding.
2.3.6 – Encouraging to Do Good and Acquire Virtue and Discouraging Commitment of Wrong
Another function of reason in the field of ethics is to encourage the people to do good and acquire virtue and also discourage them from doing wrong or committing misdeed.
2.3.7 – Determining the Mechanism of Implementation of Religious Ethics
Another function of reason is to determine the main mechanisms (plan, organization and methods) of realization of ethics.
Note: If the general functions refer to the common functions between the fields – even the two fields – most of the functions of reason in the field of practical philosophy will fall within the realm of general functions.
2.4 – Particular Functions of Reason in the Field of Religious Upbringing and Theology
The functions of reason in the field of religious upbringing are expandable just like its functions in the fields of beliefs, commandments and ethics. One may stipulate some subdivisions for this field similar to those for the three abovementioned fields, as reason has several functions in the of theology. Because of shortage of space only the functions of reason in these two fields are discussed in details.
Thus far a perspective of the approaches to the scope and functions of reason in the field of discovery and application of religious statements and doctrines has been depicted. However, fairness demands detailed research in this regard.
3 – Detailed Structure of “Function of Reason in Theological Studies”
Introduction: Statement of the problem
Section 1: Overview
Chapter 1: Meanings and grades of reason and methodology of its ascertaining
Part 1: Meanings of generalization of reason
1.1 – etymology and genealogy of the concept and meanings and application of reason in lexicology
1.2 – Application of reason in the Quran and tradition and in viewpoint of the transmitters of tradition and exegetes
1.3 Application of reason in viewpoint of Muslim philosophers
1.4 Application of reason in viewpoint of theologians
1.5 Application of reason in viewpoint of experts of principles of jurisprudence
1.6 The chosen viewpoint
Chapter II Types and Grades of Reason
2.1 – Theoretical Reason and practical reason
2.2 – Natural and experimental reason
Chapter III: Methodology of verification reason
1.1 Methods
1.2 Rules
Second Section: Reasons and Proofs of Authoritativeness of Reason
Introduction – Meanings of authoritativeness of Reason
Chapter I: Bases of authoritativeness of Reason in Religious Studies
Chapter II: Evidences of general authoritativeness of reason in religious studies
Section III: Scope and different functions of reason in religious studies
Introduction
Chapter 1: General and Common Functions of Reason
First part: Understanding of Presumptions of Necessity of Religion
Second part: Laying the foundations for understanding of epistemological, practical systems and fields related to the five arenas of religion (provision of the material and philosophical concepts of each arena)
Part III: Proving the understandability of religion
Part IV: Contribution to the recognition of identity of religious fields (the effective requirements for proving each of them)
Part V: Participating in formulation of logic of discovery – understanding – of religion
Part VI: Setting the criteria and rules for understanding of religion
Part VII: Discovery of the religious documents and signifiers and proving their authoritativeness
Part VIII: Setting the criteria and rules for verification of the proofs
Part IX: Finding the relationship between proofs and documents
Part X: Interpretation and assisting the understanding and application of other documents of religion (primordial nature, revelation, narratives and practical traditions)
Part XI: Verification of religious knowledge and verification of application of other religious evidences.
Part XII: Removing the impediments and correcting the mistakes in religious knowledge and application of documents
Part XIII: Finding a solution to contradictions between the proofs, commandments and referents
Part XIV: Issuing a decree on the necessity of abiding by religious articles and requirements in practice
Chapter II: Particular functions of reason in the religious arenas and systems
Part I: Particular function of reason in the field beliefs
1.1. Understanding the main principles of belief and main celestial statements (such as the necessary being, unity of God…)
1.2. Understanding of many secondary celestial principles
Part II: Particular functions of reason in the field of commandments (ought to’s)
2.1. Understanding some of the main jurisprudential principles and premises (rationality of major jurisprudential decrees in the fields other than worship)
2.2. Independent understanding of some of evidences and philosophies of the commandments
2.3. Contribution to the understanding of premises and referents of the general canonical commandments
2.4. Contribution to the determination of the subjects of commandments
2.5. Recognizing the priority among some of commandments and offering solution to solve the conflict between the commandments and referents
2.6. Understanding the harm an utility incurring from the implementation of commandments (influencing the inference)
2.7. Issuing a decree on the necessity of provision, impermissibility or legislation of commandment in the field of impermissible fields (in the light of different viewpoints about the issues on which there is no text and where legislation has been allowed)
2.8. Determining the necessary mechanisms for materialization of social and governmental religious commandments (offering plans, organizations and method of implementation with regard to the explicit issues)
Part III: Particular functions of reason in the field of values (ethics)
3.1. Understanding the goodness and badness of deeds and reasons and philosophies of ethical premises
3.2. Independent understanding of the major ethical premises
3.3. Recognizing the main premises and referents of the ethical premises
3.4. Recognizing the harm an utility incurring from implementation of ethical commandments
3.5. Understanding the priorities and means of removing conflicts between the ethical issues
3.6. Establishing an ethical principle where there is no commandment
3.7. Encouraging the acquisition of virtues and doing good and also discarding wrongdoing
3.8. Offering the mechanisms for realization of religious ethics
Chapter III: Functions of Reason in the Field of Religious Upbringing
Chapter IV: Functions of Reason in the Field of Religious Knowledge
Chapter V: Functions of Reason in the Field of Understanding the Principles of Religion
Part I: Function of Reason in the Field of Understanding of Principles of Religion (attributes of the Lawgiver)
Part II: Functions of reason in the field of recognition of the essential nature and characteristics of religion
Part III: Function of reason in the realm of recognition of the epistemological principles of religion (evidences and documents of understanding of religion)
Part IV: Function of reason in describing the principles of addressees of religion (characteristic of man as a duty-bound exegete)
Part V: Function of reason in the field of recognition of the indentificational principles of religious arenas and systems and its epistemological fields (characteristics and requirements of each of the five fields which are influential in the field of understanding of religion)
Chapter VI:
Part I: Function of reason regarding its contribution to understanding of the premises of the five fields.
1.1. As a total proof (and the complete cause for understanding and proving of the statement and doctrine of being)
1.2. As part of the proof (a partial proof in understanding and proving of being)
Part II: Regarding creation of knowledge, interpretation and verification
2.1. Creation of knowledge (contributing to the understanding of religious statements and doctrines)
2.2. Interpretation (its role in understanding religion through assisting the application of documents on understanding of religion)
2.3. Or verification (assessment and pathological study of the data of other documents of religion)
Part III: Function of Religion, regarding separation of functions of reasons
3.1. about religion
3.2. in religion
Part IV: Due to classification of reason into theoretical or practical, function of reason in practical and scientific realm of religion too are divided into two groups.
Part V: Regarding the different functions that reason has in the field of each of the other four fields, the functions of reason can be divided into four groups.
Part VI: Classification of reason on the basis of the four fields of religious individual inference (that is, the fields of understanding, conceptualization, imparting and realization of religion)
Note: The foundations of the eight classifications and meanings and referents of each of the categories too must be provided and explained under the specific evidences of each of them.
Chapter IV: Methodology of Application of Reason in Religious Studies
Introduction: Meaning of Application of Reason
Part I: Methods and Rules of Application of Reason in understanding of religion
Part II: Criteria Dominating the Methods and Rules (Conditions and Requisites of Their Application and Effectiveness)
Part III: Obstacles in the Way of Application and Effectiveness of Reason in Religious Studies (Pathology)
Part IV: Relationship or Reason with other Evidences and Documents
Sources:
1. Hurr Ameli, Muhammad bin Hassan, Wasail al-Shaia, Edited by Abdulrahim Rabbani, Dar Ihya al-Turath al-Arabi, Beirut, 1403 H., Vol. 18.
2. Khorasani, Muhammad Kazem, Kifayat ul-Usul, Intisharat Ilmiyeh Islamiyeh, n.d. Terhan, Vol.1.
3. Rasadh, Ali Akbar, “Sources of Understanding of the Quran”, Qabasat, No. 32, Vol., 9, Summer 2004.
4. Rashad, Ali Akbar, Sacred Democracy, Research Institute of Islamic Culture and Thought, Publication Department, Tehran, 2003.
5. Saduq, Muhamad bin Ali bin Hussein, Man La Yahzarahul Faqih, Islamic Publication Institute, 1404 H. 2nd Ed., Qum, Vol.4.
6. Tusi, Khawaja Nasiruddin, Tajrid ul I’tiqad, compiled by Muhammad Javad Hosseini Jalali, Markaz ul Nashr, Maktab ul A’alam al Islami, 1407 H.
7. Kazemeini, Muhammad Ali, Fawa’id ul Islam, Islamic Publication Institute, 1404 H., Qum, Vols. 1-2.