چکیده:
Reason and religious law are not new topics in the field of human sciences, and the books of thinkers are full of deep analyses on this subject. What is important in the aforementioned discussion is the talk of the connection between these two. Kashani, contrary to his Akhbari school of thought, believes in using a certain type of reason in understanding the rulings of religious law, in such a way that demonstrative reason is used as a tool to reach a religious ruling from its defined sources. This view is contrary to the opinion of those who believe in rational reasoning, and differs from the view of those who consider reason to be the source of deriving religious rulings; his type of attitude towards reason and its instrumental nature for reaching religious rulings from defined sources brings his method of jurisprudence closer to mujtahids and distinguishes his Akhbari method of jurisprudence from other Akhbaris. Mirdamad considers reason to be the force that perceives external reality and distinguishes truth from error. He is a supporter of the theory of rational appreciation and depreciation of actions and believes in the entailment between the judgment of reason and religious law, and considers reason to be one of the sources of human knowledge and cognition. He believes that both categories report from an objective and external reality. Therefore, the reporting of reason and religious law is harmonious with each other, and this statement is consistent with the essence of truth, because truth, by its very nature, is not compatible with multiplicity and duality. In his belief, truth, insofar as it is known as truth, is one; therefore, what religious law provides is identical and entailed with what reason reaches.
خلاصه ماشینی:
He is a supporter of the theory of rational commendation and condemnation of actions and believes in the entailment between the judgment of reason and Sharia, considering reason to be one of the sources of human knowledge and cognition.
The answers of Islamic scholars to these questions have been different; some believe that human reason perceives the truths, knowledge, and rulings of the world, and in fact, rational evidences are consistent and in accordance with those same divine knowledges and Sharia rulings in the Preserved Tablet (Lawh-e Mahfuz), and there is compatibility and harmony between these two.
For this reason, to receive and understand this matter, attention must be paid to the words of scholars regarding the issue of beauty (husn) and ugliness (qubh); from examining their content in this regard, their theory and assumption regarding the relationship between reason and Sharia will be revealed, because this discussion was used among scholars before Fadel Toni under the same title of rational beauty and ugliness among scholars of jurisprudence, Usul (principles of jurisprudence), and theology...
If we want to clarify Mirdamad's position within that classification, we must consider Mirdamad to be an adherent of the second theory, because someone who believes in rational beauty and ugliness accepts the correlation between the judgment of reason and Sharia.
In terms of classification, Mirdamad should be considered an adherent of the second theory, because someone who believes in rational beauty and ugliness (husn and qubh) accepts the correlation between the judgment of reason and Sharia.
(
, 
, 
)
