Research Vice Chancellor of Islamic Denominations University held the second meeting of formulating and defining research strategies on Sunday, September 24, 2010 in the conference hall of this university.
At the scientific-specialist meeting, these questions were discussed by the visiting professors: "What does the University of Islamic Denominations mission expect from its research outputs?" What are the Islamic congruences with its goals? ";" What are the applicable levels of research strategies, and how should the departments use them in formulating dissertations , as well as in compiling theses? " Contextual Study Methods in Producing Approximate Research Works Have a "special guest of the meeting, Dr. Ahmed Pakatchi , a professor of Islamic studies, religious studies, and prominent linguist who were following them will be referred to the statements.
Dr. Ahmad Pakakti, Dean of the Encyclopedia of Biography and a member of the faculty of Imam Sadiq University, described the main reason for the separation of religions in the "ignorance" of Denominations. He added that when all religions are studied together, so the distances will be reduced. Dr. Pakatchi called "Contextual Studies" a strategy that can be implemented in two ways, and it is the university's management who decide which of the two strategies to use. One strategy is to make congruent studies "polar". It means we see it in black and white. The second strategy is to consider congruent reading as a "rainbow" spectrum and see it as "polyphonic". The first strategy is to compare "black" with "white" or "positive" with "negative" and the second strategy is to compare "orange" with "yellow" and like that.
Dr Pakatchi added that the reality is that we have seen both experiences in the history of Islam; sometimes we have written as opposed to the negative and positive poles of each other and sometimes we have gone into moderation and produced many sound effects. In another part of his remarks, he added that Shiite jurisprudence is not opposed to Sunni jurisprudence, and when studying jurisprudential and non-jurisprudential works of Denominations we should ask ourselves which Shiites and which Sunnis? At the heart of each are a wide range of different trends and currents. Sometimes a Mu'tazilite is closer to the Shiite than to the Sunnis, and sometimes a Shafi'i is closer to the Shiite than to the Hanafi, and so on and so forth.
When we decide to study in parallel, what should we aim for? Do we want to compare two poles that are sometimes exaggerated in black and white? Or, in this way, are we looking for "connected circles" and proximity studies? which one? Obviously the method of studying the second constellations will be both more productive and more accurate. He noted that paying attention to this important and defining the study approach from the outset would have an impact on all aspects, even in the literature of theses and dissertations.
Another argument to be considered in comparative or comparative studies is that any research work in this field should be pursuade for a "special purpose", otherwise the comparative study of the two Denominations other than the practical and the luxurious will have no bearing. We might write hundreds of books and compare "A" to "B", so what ?! If we continue this way for thousands of years, nothing "epistemic" will happen. For methodologists, therefore, comparative work is worthwhile when it leads to a definite conclusion. This clear result can be the answer to the "whats" and "whys"; the answer to the "whys" and "whys" will result in clarity, and its transparency will be closer to each other. The mere comparison of no matter what the whispers and whims, will yield no particular result. Paying attention to what and why leads to inter-Denominations and interDenominations approximation. Dr. Packatchi considers comparative studies to be comparative studies.
In another part of his remarks, Dr. Pakatchi said in response to why controversial studies in the field of jurisprudence are more prominent, they said that this was related to two issues: the difficulty and ease of work and the nature of jurisprudence knowledge. A high percentage of jurisprudential knowledge research, especially dissertations, will be referred to jurisprudential "doctrines". But we do not have such a situation in "interpretation" for example, and there are dozens of sources to be found. On the other hand, the "nature" of jurisprudence knowledge itself has a greater capacity for controversial work. The experience of working together in jurisprudence is almost identical to the history of jurisprudence itself. That is, from the second century on, the work of scholars has witnessed the phenomenon of concurrent jurisprudence; in other words, it has a very long accumulated experience, and this has made it easier for jurisprudential to do so, as has been the case with jurisprudence in the field to this day. We are jurisprudents. In the field of, for example, the "interpretation of coincidences", the history of coexistence goes back almost two decades. Therefore, the subject relates both to the capital of that field of knowledge and to the propositions in that field of knowledge. Jurisprudence, whether we like it or not, is commonplace; in some Denominations it has been asserted that it is not common in others. The fact is that jurisprudence "reading in the best of the convention" and there is no doubt about it; and since the best of the most common the best in itself, it is not customary in the field of theology, for example. If there is any, it will be ignored and when it is ignored it automatically closes Bob. The volume of books written in the field of jurisprudence is not comparable to any other field of jurisprudence.
On the other hand, it should be noted that in the knowledge of jurisprudence we are faced with a system of argumentation based on the knowledge of the "principles of jurisprudence" which we do not see in other sciences. For example, in the knowledge of history and the knowledge of interpretation we do not see a systematic reasoning pattern. Therefore, when you want to do comparative work in the field of knowledge such as commentary, you will have a series of case-by-case comparisons that will not usually lead to a conclusion, but in jurisprudence as all religions have formulated their own jurisprudential principles and so on They have their own reasoning system, can compare and contrast, and get results. In the realm of knowledge such as history, theology and interpretation, and so on, it is very difficult, if possible.
Back to Top