University of Isfahan Comparative Theology 2008-9651 17 3 2026 09 23 Holy Protest in the Face of the Psychologically Devastating Effects of Illness Holy Protest in the Face of the Psychologically Devastating Effects of Illness 1 22 30259 10.22108/coth.2026.147592.2074 FA Mohamadreza Samadi Foroushani Assistant Professor, Department of Education, Art University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran Journal Article 2025 12 02 The theology of protest is a contemporary theological trend that emerged in the aftermath of the Holocaust, emphasizing humanity's right to protest and lament before God in the face of evil and suffering. This article adopts a comparative-analytical approach to examine the theoretical foundations of protest theology in both Judeo-Christian and Islamic traditions, with particular focus on its manifestations in classical Islamic texts—including Quranic verses and the supplications of the Infallibles (peace be upon them). The findings indicate that protest theology in the context of illness and suffering fundamentally differs from traditional theologies of patience and passive submission. It offers instead a sacrificial, pragmatic, and hope-oriented approach that encourages patients to express their pain honestly and to direct their complaint respectfully toward God. This approach plays an effective role in strengthening spiritual conviction, alleviating psychological distress, and restoring the patient’s relationship with the Divine. Protest theology is shown to be adaptable within Islamic culture and can serve as a new strategic component in the spiritual care of patients in Muslim-majority contexts. While affirming the legitimate right to lament as part of the faith experience, the article also critiques traditional and cultural challenges to this approach and underscores the need for education and attitudinal reform to facilitate its broader acceptance. Keywords: Theology of Protest, Problem of Evil, ʿil, ʿ of Nishapur, Mushapur, ur, Theodicy. Introduction The problem of evil and suffering—particularly psychological suffering caused by illness—has long constituted a central challenge in theological discourse. Patients frequently experience crises of faith, anger toward God, and profound questioning of divine justice. In response, religious traditions have proposed various frameworks. Traditional theological responses centered solely on patience (ṣabr) and submission have often proven inadequate in addressing deep psycho-spiritual crises such as ruptured faith, divine anger, and existential doubt. In the 20th century, following the Holocaust, a new movement known as Theology of Protest emerged within Jewish theology and later influenced Christian thought. This theological current affirms humanity’s right—even duty—to protest and lament before God amid suffering, contrasting sharply with emphasis on silent endurance. This study investigates whether and how protest theology can be appropriated within an Islamic framework to address the psychological and spiritual distress of patients. Its main research question is: How can protest theology be understood and applied within Islamic tradition to support patients experiencing psychological suffering? Building on prior research in Jewish and Christian protest theology and emerging studies in Islamic mysticism (notably the works of ʿAṭṭār), this article tests the hypothesis that Islamic scriptural and devotional texts inherently contain—and sanction—a legitimate form of sacred complaint, one that can be systematized into a therapeutic theological model. Materials and Methods This research employs a comparative-analytical methodology, integrating textual analysis with theological interpretation. Primary sources include the Qurʾān, ḥadīth literature, supplications of the Imams (especially from al-Ṣaḥīfah al-Sajjādiyyah), and classical Persian mystical texts such as ʿAṭṭār Nīshābūrī’s Muṣībat-nāma. Secondary sources consist of contemporary works on protest theology in Jewish and Christian thought, alongside Islamic theological and mystical commentaries. The analysis is structured thematically, examining: Theoretical foundations of protest theology Its historical development in the Abrahamic traditions Its manifestations in Islamic scripture and devotional literature Its relationship to concepts of patience (ṣabr) and complaint (shakwā) Its practical applications in patient care Insights from Islamic mysticism (ʿirfān) are incorporated to deepen the theological dimension of the discussion. Research Findings This study confirms its central hypothesis, demonstrating that the Islamic tradition provides a robust theological foundation for a “theology of protest,” one that can be systematically applied to support patients in crisis. The research problem—the inadequacy of passive submission alone in addressing psycho-spiritual distress—finds a compelling response within this framework. The findings of the study affirm that sacred protest is not foreign to Islam but is deeply embedded in its scriptural and devotional corpus, from the Qurʾanic lamentations of prophets to the intimate supplications of the Imams and the radical dialogues of mystics such as ʿAṭṭār. Analysis also reveals that protest within this tradition is fundamentally an act of profound faith and tawḥīd (monotheism), representing a dynamic, dialogical relationship with God rather than a rupture. It redefines the Islamic virtue of ṣabr (patience) not as silent endurance, but as perseverance that channels anguish exclusively toward God, avoiding complaint to other people. This distinction is crucial for practical application, as it sanctifies the patient's emotional expression without compromising theological principles. Discussion of Results and Conclusions Considering the results of the present study, it can be said that this theology can be operationalized in spiritual care to achieve core objectives: alleviating anxiety by legitimizing emotional honesty, rebuilding the divine relationship through authentic dialogue, and nurturing active hope through empowered prayer. However, successful implementation requires navigating significant challenges, particularly the risk of misinterpretation as theological rebellion. This necessitates careful education of caregivers, patients, and families to distinguish between protest to God (sanctioned, relationship-affirming) and protest against God (rejection of divine wisdom). In conclusion, integrating the theology of protest into Islamic pastoral care offers a powerful, culturally-grounded model that bridges traditional spirituality and contemporary psychological needs. It provides a theologically coherent language for suffering—one that acknowledges pain while actively reinforcing faith. Future research should focus on developing concrete pedagogical tools and clinical guidelines to equip caregivers in applying this model effectively across diverse healthcare settings. The theology of protest is a contemporary theological trend that emerged in the aftermath of the Holocaust, emphasizing humanity's right to protest and lament before God in the face of evil and suffering. This article adopts a comparative-analytical approach to examine the theoretical foundations of protest theology in both Judeo-Christian and Islamic traditions, with particular focus on its manifestations in classical Islamic texts—including Quranic verses and the supplications of the Infallibles (peace be upon them). The findings indicate that protest theology in the context of illness and suffering fundamentally differs from traditional theologies of patience and passive submission. It offers instead a sacrificial, pragmatic, and hope-oriented approach that encourages patients to express their pain honestly and to direct their complaint respectfully toward God. This approach plays an effective role in strengthening spiritual conviction, alleviating psychological distress, and restoring the patient’s relationship with the Divine. Protest theology is shown to be adaptable within Islamic culture and can serve as a new strategic component in the spiritual care of patients in Muslim-majority contexts. While affirming the legitimate right to lament as part of the faith experience, the article also critiques traditional and cultural challenges to this approach and underscores the need for education and attitudinal reform to facilitate its broader acceptance. Keywords: Theology of Protest, Problem of Evil, ʿil, ʿ of Nishapur, Mushapur, ur, Theodicy. Introduction The problem of evil and suffering—particularly psychological suffering caused by illness—has long constituted a central challenge in theological discourse. Patients frequently experience crises of faith, anger toward God, and profound questioning of divine justice. In response, religious traditions have proposed various frameworks. Traditional theological responses centered solely on patience (ṣabr) and submission have often proven inadequate in addressing deep psycho-spiritual crises such as ruptured faith, divine anger, and existential doubt. In the 20th century, following the Holocaust, a new movement known as Theology of Protest emerged within Jewish theology and later influenced Christian thought. This theological current affirms humanity’s right—even duty—to protest and lament before God amid suffering, contrasting sharply with emphasis on silent endurance. This study investigates whether and how protest theology can be appropriated within an Islamic framework to address the psychological and spiritual distress of patients. Its main research question is: How can protest theology be understood and applied within Islamic tradition to support patients experiencing psychological suffering? Building on prior research in Jewish and Christian protest theology and emerging studies in Islamic mysticism (notably the works of ʿAṭṭār), this article tests the hypothesis that Islamic scriptural and devotional texts inherently contain—and sanction—a legitimate form of sacred complaint, one that can be systematized into a therapeutic theological model. Materials and Methods This research employs a comparative-analytical methodology, integrating textual analysis with theological interpretation. Primary sources include the Qurʾān, ḥadīth literature, supplications of the Imams (especially from al-Ṣaḥīfah al-Sajjādiyyah), and classical Persian mystical texts such as ʿAṭṭār Nīshābūrī’s Muṣībat-nāma. Secondary sources consist of contemporary works on protest theology in Jewish and Christian thought, alongside Islamic theological and mystical commentaries. The analysis is structured thematically, examining: Theoretical foundations of protest theology Its historical development in the Abrahamic traditions Its manifestations in Islamic scripture and devotional literature Its relationship to concepts of patience (ṣabr) and complaint (shakwā) Its practical applications in patient care Insights from Islamic mysticism (ʿirfān) are incorporated to deepen the theological dimension of the discussion. Research Findings This study confirms its central hypothesis, demonstrating that the Islamic tradition provides a robust theological foundation for a “theology of protest,” one that can be systematically applied to support patients in crisis. The research problem—the inadequacy of passive submission alone in addressing psycho-spiritual distress—finds a compelling response within this framework. The findings of the study affirm that sacred protest is not foreign to Islam but is deeply embedded in its scriptural and devotional corpus, from the Qurʾanic lamentations of prophets to the intimate supplications of the Imams and the radical dialogues of mystics such as ʿAṭṭār. Analysis also reveals that protest within this tradition is fundamentally an act of profound faith and tawḥīd (monotheism), representing a dynamic, dialogical relationship with God rather than a rupture. It redefines the Islamic virtue of ṣabr (patience) not as silent endurance, but as perseverance that channels anguish exclusively toward God, avoiding complaint to other people. This distinction is crucial for practical application, as it sanctifies the patient's emotional expression without compromising theological principles. Discussion of Results and Conclusions Considering the results of the present study, it can be said that this theology can be operationalized in spiritual care to achieve core objectives: alleviating anxiety by legitimizing emotional honesty, rebuilding the divine relationship through authentic dialogue, and nurturing active hope through empowered prayer. However, successful implementation requires navigating significant challenges, particularly the risk of misinterpretation as theological rebellion. This necessitates careful education of caregivers, patients, and families to distinguish between protest to God (sanctioned, relationship-affirming) and protest against God (rejection of divine wisdom). In conclusion, integrating the theology of protest into Islamic pastoral care offers a powerful, culturally-grounded model that bridges traditional spirituality and contemporary psychological needs. It provides a theologically coherent language for suffering—one that acknowledges pain while actively reinforcing faith. Future research should focus on developing concrete pedagogical tools and clinical guidelines to equip caregivers in applying this model effectively across diverse healthcare settings.

https://coth.ui.ac.ir/article_30259_85bc1abe37ba2d1d1b5746b08a903b98.pdf

University of Isfahan Comparative Theology 2008-9651 17 3 2026 09 23 A Comparative Study of Ghiyath al-Din Dashtaki’s and Ayatollah Javadi Amoli’s Views on the Factors of Spiritual Wayfaring from a Foundational Perspective A Comparative Study of Ghiyath al-Din Dashtaki’s and Ayatollah Javadi Amoli’s Views on the Factors of Spiritual Wayfaring from a Foundational Perspective 23 42 30111 10.22108/coth.2025.142009.1914 FA Mehri Mehrabi Fodani Ph.D. Student of Islamic Philosophy and Theology,lsf.C, Islamic Azad University, Isfahan, Iran 0000-0009-0009-0009 Sayyed Hossain Vaezi Associate Professor, Department of Islamic Philosophy and Theology,lsf.C, Islamic Azad University, Isfahan, Iran 0000-0002-1231-8732 Azam Rejali Assistant Professor, Department of Islamic Philosophy and Theology, lsf.C, Islamic Azad University, Isfahan, Iran Journal Article 2024 08 05 The spiritual journey in Islamic wisdom aims at reaching the highest stage of perfection, which is direct intuitive knowledge of the Divine Reality. Achieving this goal demands accurate cognition, spiritual refinement, and guidance under a qualified master. This study examines the factors underlying spiritual wayfaring by comparing the foundations of Ghiyāth al-Din Dashtaki and Ayatollah Javadi Amoli. The research investigates how their philosophical premises shape their interpretation of spiritual stages and moral transformation, and how their mystical frameworks display shared roots despite temporal and intellectual distance. The analysis demonstrates that central elements such as rational contemplation, divine unity, ethical discipline, and existential poverty hold pivotal significance in defining the structure of the mystical path. Methodologically, this work adopts a descriptive–analytical approach and relies on primary mystical texts and philosophical sources. Based on this comparative reading, Dashtaki divides spiritual progress into preliminary preparations, principal foundations, and complementary perfections, each associated with specific virtues and psychological states. Conversely, Javadi Amoli grounds spiritual ascent in poverty (faqr), guardianship (wilāyah), and the fourfold journeys, culminating in unity and annihilation. Although the two scholars differ in emphasis—particularly regarding the social dimension of spirituality in Javadi Amoli’s thought—the similarities suggest continuity across intellectual traditions. The study concludes that their perspectives converge on a unified theocentric model in which mystical insight is inseparable from philosophical reasoning. Keywords: Knowledge, Wayfaring, Station, Javadi Amoli, Ghiyāth al-Din Dashtaki. Introduction A central enterprise in Islamic philosophy and mysticism is to interpret spiritual wayfaring not merely as a personal ethical effort but as a disciplined process grounded in ontological certainty and epistemic orientation. The present study seeks to compare Ghiyāth al-Din Dashtaki and Ayatollah Javadi Amoli in terms of the foundational elements that define spiritual advancement in their thought. Although the two thinkers lived in distant intellectual environments, the underlying continuity of Islamic metaphysical discourse creates a fertile ground for examining their shared assumptions. Accordingly, this research aims to understand how foundations such as rational demonstration, illumination, anthropology, and the nature of existence influence the structure of the mystical path. Despite the abundance of literature on the mystical teachings of Javadi Amoli, studies presenting a structured comparison between him and Dashtaki are scarce. Moreover, due to historical and textual limitations, Dashtaki’s writings are relatively scattered and occasionally attributed to later scholars. This has constrained accurate scholarly reconstruction but has simultaneously made the comparative perspective more valuable. The significance of the research is twofold. First, from a theoretical perspective, it highlights the continuity of Islamic wisdom from classical Peripatetic philosophy through Illuminationism to contemporary Transcendent Theosophy. Second, at a practical level, the comparison helps clarify how intellectual principles translate into moral conduct and spiritual transformation. Thus, exploring the philosophical premises behind wayfaring provides insights into the dynamic interplay between metaphysical knowledge and ethical refinement in Islamic spirituality. Materials and Methods Considering its objectives, this study adopts a fundamental research design grounded in descriptive–analytical reasoning. Data collection was conducted through a classical library-based method, including printed manuscripts, edited texts, thematic studies, and academic databases. After extracting source material, the content was systematically categorized according to major themes such as ontology, epistemology, anthropology, and practical mysticism. The research proceeds by coding conceptual indicators, classifying the terms used by the two scholars, and identifying correspondences between their metaphysical assumptions and their spiritual frameworks. After establishing these correlations, the study applies comparative interpretation, assessing similarities and differences regarding the stages, conditions, and ultimate goals of wayfaring. Thus, the methodological framework integrates historical reading, conceptual reconstruction, critical comparison, and thematic synthesis. Research Findings The comparative analysis reveals that both Dashtaki and Javadi Amoli perceive spiritual wayfaring as a structured ascent that integrates psychological reformation, metaphysical realization, and ethical purification. Dashtaki proposes a tripartite structure comprising preparatory virtues, principal foundations, and complementary achievements. Key notions such as resolve, sincerity, worship, seclusion, and unity are presented not merely as moral traits but as existential transformations rooted in ontological unity and illuminative knowledge. His classification draws heavily on Peripatetic reasoning while simultaneously admitting illuminative intuition, thereby merging rational discipline with experiential unveiling. In contrast, Javadi Amoli frames wayfaring through an integrated view of anthropology and ontology, especially emphasizing poverty, guardianship, and the four symbolic journeys. His analysis differs in highlighting social and communal dimensions, situating spiritual advancement within the civilizational mission of divine monotheism. Although he relies on earlier Sufi heritage, his approach is deeply affected by the principles of Transcendent Philosophy, particularly gradational existence and intellectual witnessing. Consequently, while differences in vocabulary and emphasis occur, the convergence of both thinkers lies in their view of spiritual realization as a movement toward unity, annihilation in God, and the harmonization of reason and mystical experience. Discussion of Results and Conclusions The findings of this research indicate that the spiritual teachings of both Dashtaki and Javadi Amoli emerge from systems in which metaphysics provides the structural foundation of moral practice. Dashtaki, as an intermediary figure between Peripatetic and Illuminationist traditions, paved the intellectual ground for synthesizing rational inquiry with mystical unveiling. His model of wayfaring incorporates notions of self-transformation, inner witnessing, unity, and existential refinement. Javadi Amoli, inheriting the philosophical legacy of Mullā Ṣadrā, expands this synthesis through rational precision and metaphysical argumentation, while simultaneously grounding spiritual progress in social responsibility and theological guardianship. From a comparative viewpoint, their shared insistence on revelation-centered certainty demonstrates that Islamic mysticism is not autonomous from philosophy but is structured by it at its deepest levels. Philosophy shapes definitions of human identity, spiritual capacity, and the ontological hierarchy leading toward divine union. Mysticism, in turn, transforms philosophical propositions into lived experience and existential realization. Therefore, this research shows that both thinkers ultimately arrive at the same integrative horizon: rationally grounded spirituality, in which the soul ascends through graded existential intensification until achieving unity, witnessing, and annihilation. The convergence of two different historical figures thus reflects the persistent logic of Islamic wisdom in harmonizing intellect, experience, and revelation. The spiritual journey in Islamic wisdom aims at reaching the highest stage of perfection, which is direct intuitive knowledge of the Divine Reality. Achieving this goal demands accurate cognition, spiritual refinement, and guidance under a qualified master. This study examines the factors underlying spiritual wayfaring by comparing the foundations of Ghiyāth al-Din Dashtaki and Ayatollah Javadi Amoli. The research investigates how their philosophical premises shape their interpretation of spiritual stages and moral transformation, and how their mystical frameworks display shared roots despite temporal and intellectual distance. The analysis demonstrates that central elements such as rational contemplation, divine unity, ethical discipline, and existential poverty hold pivotal significance in defining the structure of the mystical path. Methodologically, this work adopts a descriptive–analytical approach and relies on primary mystical texts and philosophical sources. Based on this comparative reading, Dashtaki divides spiritual progress into preliminary preparations, principal foundations, and complementary perfections, each associated with specific virtues and psychological states. Conversely, Javadi Amoli grounds spiritual ascent in poverty (faqr), guardianship (wilāyah), and the fourfold journeys, culminating in unity and annihilation. Although the two scholars differ in emphasis—particularly regarding the social dimension of spirituality in Javadi Amoli’s thought—the similarities suggest continuity across intellectual traditions. The study concludes that their perspectives converge on a unified theocentric model in which mystical insight is inseparable from philosophical reasoning. Keywords: Knowledge, Wayfaring, Station, Javadi Amoli, Ghiyāth al-Din Dashtaki. Introduction A central enterprise in Islamic philosophy and mysticism is to interpret spiritual wayfaring not merely as a personal ethical effort but as a disciplined process grounded in ontological certainty and epistemic orientation. The present study seeks to compare Ghiyāth al-Din Dashtaki and Ayatollah Javadi Amoli in terms of the foundational elements that define spiritual advancement in their thought. Although the two thinkers lived in distant intellectual environments, the underlying continuity of Islamic metaphysical discourse creates a fertile ground for examining their shared assumptions. Accordingly, this research aims to understand how foundations such as rational demonstration, illumination, anthropology, and the nature of existence influence the structure of the mystical path. Despite the abundance of literature on the mystical teachings of Javadi Amoli, studies presenting a structured comparison between him and Dashtaki are scarce. Moreover, due to historical and textual limitations, Dashtaki’s writings are relatively scattered and occasionally attributed to later scholars. This has constrained accurate scholarly reconstruction but has simultaneously made the comparative perspective more valuable. The significance of the research is twofold. First, from a theoretical perspective, it highlights the continuity of Islamic wisdom from classical Peripatetic philosophy through Illuminationism to contemporary Transcendent Theosophy. Second, at a practical level, the comparison helps clarify how intellectual principles translate into moral conduct and spiritual transformation. Thus, exploring the philosophical premises behind wayfaring provides insights into the dynamic interplay between metaphysical knowledge and ethical refinement in Islamic spirituality. Materials and Methods Considering its objectives, this study adopts a fundamental research design grounded in descriptive–analytical reasoning. Data collection was conducted through a classical library-based method, including printed manuscripts, edited texts, thematic studies, and academic databases. After extracting source material, the content was systematically categorized according to major themes such as ontology, epistemology, anthropology, and practical mysticism. The research proceeds by coding conceptual indicators, classifying the terms used by the two scholars, and identifying correspondences between their metaphysical assumptions and their spiritual frameworks. After establishing these correlations, the study applies comparative interpretation, assessing similarities and differences regarding the stages, conditions, and ultimate goals of wayfaring. Thus, the methodological framework integrates historical reading, conceptual reconstruction, critical comparison, and thematic synthesis. Research Findings The comparative analysis reveals that both Dashtaki and Javadi Amoli perceive spiritual wayfaring as a structured ascent that integrates psychological reformation, metaphysical realization, and ethical purification. Dashtaki proposes a tripartite structure comprising preparatory virtues, principal foundations, and complementary achievements. Key notions such as resolve, sincerity, worship, seclusion, and unity are presented not merely as moral traits but as existential transformations rooted in ontological unity and illuminative knowledge. His classification draws heavily on Peripatetic reasoning while simultaneously admitting illuminative intuition, thereby merging rational discipline with experiential unveiling. In contrast, Javadi Amoli frames wayfaring through an integrated view of anthropology and ontology, especially emphasizing poverty, guardianship, and the four symbolic journeys. His analysis differs in highlighting social and communal dimensions, situating spiritual advancement within the civilizational mission of divine monotheism. Although he relies on earlier Sufi heritage, his approach is deeply affected by the principles of Transcendent Philosophy, particularly gradational existence and intellectual witnessing. Consequently, while differences in vocabulary and emphasis occur, the convergence of both thinkers lies in their view of spiritual realization as a movement toward unity, annihilation in God, and the harmonization of reason and mystical experience. Discussion of Results and Conclusions The findings of this research indicate that the spiritual teachings of both Dashtaki and Javadi Amoli emerge from systems in which metaphysics provides the structural foundation of moral practice. Dashtaki, as an intermediary figure between Peripatetic and Illuminationist traditions, paved the intellectual ground for synthesizing rational inquiry with mystical unveiling. His model of wayfaring incorporates notions of self-transformation, inner witnessing, unity, and existential refinement. Javadi Amoli, inheriting the philosophical legacy of Mullā Ṣadrā, expands this synthesis through rational precision and metaphysical argumentation, while simultaneously grounding spiritual progress in social responsibility and theological guardianship. From a comparative viewpoint, their shared insistence on revelation-centered certainty demonstrates that Islamic mysticism is not autonomous from philosophy but is structured by it at its deepest levels. Philosophy shapes definitions of human identity, spiritual capacity, and the ontological hierarchy leading toward divine union. Mysticism, in turn, transforms philosophical propositions into lived experience and existential realization. Therefore, this research shows that both thinkers ultimately arrive at the same integrative horizon: rationally grounded spirituality, in which the soul ascends through graded existential intensification until achieving unity, witnessing, and annihilation. The convergence of two different historical figures thus reflects the persistent logic of Islamic wisdom in harmonizing intellect, experience, and revelation.

https://coth.ui.ac.ir/article_30111_4be03f6c3c25d1f4bc8c286afec410b4.pdf

University of Isfahan Comparative Theology 2008-9651 17 3 2026 09 23 A Qualitative Approach to Understanding Religion in the Thought of Mohammad Taqi Mesbah Yazdi and Mostafa Malekian A Qualitative Approach to Understanding Religion in the Thought of Mohammad Taqi Mesbah Yazdi and Mostafa Malekian 43 60 29943 10.22108/coth.2025.144864.1981 FA Majid Jafarian Assistant Professor, Department of Social Ethics, Research Institute of Islamic Sciences and Culture, Qom, Iran Nayre Zarei Ph.D. Student in Philosophy and Theology, Faculty of Philosophy, University of Religions and Denominations, Qom, Iran Journal Article 2025 04 12 Religion has always been regarded as one of the fundamental pillars of legitimacy and governance in post-revolutionary Iran. Consequently, various theoretical and discursive efforts have emerged to understand, interpret, and reexamine religion, among which two major currents—“traditional Islam” and “religious intellectualism”—hold a prominent place. This study focuses on the ideas of two influential thinkers, Ayatollah Mohammad-Taqi Mesbah Yazdi and Mostafa Malekian, as key representatives of these two intellectual streams, aiming to explore and analyze the components and mechanisms underlying their understanding of religion. The research adopts a qualitative methodology based on Attride-Stirling’s three-stage thematic analysis, using excerpts from speeches and written works by these two figures to extract the core themes. The findings reveal that Malekian’s thought emphasizes three overarching themes: “the variability of religious knowledge,” “the rationalization of religious beliefs,” and “ethics and spirituality as the foundation of religiosity.” In contrast, Ayatollah Mesbah highlights three central components: “the necessity of explaining religious beliefs,” “the comprehensiveness of religion,” and “faith-based obligation.” This divergence reflects a fundamental difference in the epistemological, methodological, and teleological foundations of their respective approaches to understanding religion. Keywords: Understanding Religion, Religious Intellectualism, Traditional Islam, Misbah Yazdi, Malekian, Qualitative Approach. Introduction In contemporary Iranian intellectual discourse, religion continues to serve as a foundational pillar for social legitimacy and governance, shaping both normative frameworks and individual ethical conduct. The perspectives of key thinkers such as Ayatollah Mohammad-Taqi Mesbah Yazdi and Mostafa Malekian illustrate the tension between preserving traditional religious frameworks and adapting religious understanding to the epistemic and ethical demands of modernity. While Mesbah emphasizes the comprehensive and duty-bound nature of religion rooted in scriptural authority, Malekian foregrounds the variability, rationalization, and ethical-spiritual dimensions of religiosity, reflecting the influence of modern philosophical thought. Examining these divergent approaches provides insight into how religion is interpreted, justified, and enacted in contemporary Iran, and highlights the broader dynamics between traditional and reformist currents in shaping social and political norms. Materials and Methods This study employs a qualitative thematic analysis. Through identifying basic, organizing, and global themes, the content of speeches, writings, and secondary sources related to Mesbah’s and Malekian’s thought was systematically analyzed. The process involved: In-depth study of primary and secondary sources, Extraction of basic themes from their statements and works, Categorization of these into organizing themes, and Synthesizing global themes to map the conceptual frameworks underlying their understanding of religion. This approach enables a structured comparison of their epistemological and normative frameworks. Research Findings The analysis of the primary and secondary sources revealed distinct conceptual patterns in how each thinker approaches religion. While both engage deeply with the philosophical, ethical, and social dimensions of religiosity, their frameworks differ fundamentally in epistemology, methodology, and priorities. The following sections outline the core themes that characterize Mesbah Yazdi’s and Malekian’s understandings of religion: Mesbah’s Understanding of Religion Necessity of explicating religious beliefs: Defending religion is achieved through both intra-religious (scriptural and traditional) and extra-religious (rational and philosophical) reasoning. Mesbah emphasizes religious rationality and the struggle against innovations (bid‘a), viewing reason as complementary to revelation. Comprehensiveness of religion: Religion, in his view, encompasses all aspects of human life—individual, social, doctrinal, and ethical—and contains both fixed and flexible rulings. Changing circumstances affect applications, not principles. Faith and duty: Faith is inseparable from religious duty. The relationship between rights and duties is reciprocal, and justice is defined through their balance. Religious obligations form the basis for moral action and the realization of both individual and collective good. Malekian’s Understanding of Religion Changeability of religious knowledge: Religious knowledge is historically and experientially conditioned. With modernity, epistemological shifts have turned religion into a more personal and functional matter. Rationalization of religious beliefs: Religious beliefs are acceptable only if rationally justified. Malekian highlights the fundamental distinction between traditional rationality and modern rationality as a source of epistemic transformation. Ethics and spirituality as the foundation of religiosity: Unlike traditional approaches centered on divine command and law, Malekian grounds religiosity in ethics and inner spirituality. He sees spirituality as compatible with modernity and capable of providing personal meaning and psychological well-being. Discussion of Results and Conclusion The findings of the study reveal that Mesbah’s model of religious understanding is anchored in preserving the traditional framework of religion. Reason complements but does not replace revelation; faith is tied to obligation; and religion encompasses all spheres of life through a combination of fixed principles and contextual applications. In contrast, Malekian builds his framework on epistemic transformation, modern rationality, and personal spirituality. He views traditional religion as unable to respond adequately to the needs of modern individuals and proposes rationalized spirituality as an alternative. The comparison highlights that the gap between traditional and modern approaches is not merely rhetorical but rooted in epistemological sources, concepts of rationality, the role of duty, and the social function of religion. Mesbah’s thought aims to preserve and defend a fixed religious structure, whereas Malekian seeks to reinterpret religion as an individual, rational, and ethical-spiritual experience within modernity. Religion has always been regarded as one of the fundamental pillars of legitimacy and governance in post-revolutionary Iran. Consequently, various theoretical and discursive efforts have emerged to understand, interpret, and reexamine religion, among which two major currents—“traditional Islam” and “religious intellectualism”—hold a prominent place. This study focuses on the ideas of two influential thinkers, Ayatollah Mohammad-Taqi Mesbah Yazdi and Mostafa Malekian, as key representatives of these two intellectual streams, aiming to explore and analyze the components and mechanisms underlying their understanding of religion. The research adopts a qualitative methodology based on Attride-Stirling’s three-stage thematic analysis, using excerpts from speeches and written works by these two figures to extract the core themes. The findings reveal that Malekian’s thought emphasizes three overarching themes: “the variability of religious knowledge,” “the rationalization of religious beliefs,” and “ethics and spirituality as the foundation of religiosity.” In contrast, Ayatollah Mesbah highlights three central components: “the necessity of explaining religious beliefs,” “the comprehensiveness of religion,” and “faith-based obligation.” This divergence reflects a fundamental difference in the epistemological, methodological, and teleological foundations of their respective approaches to understanding religion. Keywords: Understanding Religion, Religious Intellectualism, Traditional Islam, Misbah Yazdi, Malekian, Qualitative Approach. Introduction In contemporary Iranian intellectual discourse, religion continues to serve as a foundational pillar for social legitimacy and governance, shaping both normative frameworks and individual ethical conduct. The perspectives of key thinkers such as Ayatollah Mohammad-Taqi Mesbah Yazdi and Mostafa Malekian illustrate the tension between preserving traditional religious frameworks and adapting religious understanding to the epistemic and ethical demands of modernity. While Mesbah emphasizes the comprehensive and duty-bound nature of religion rooted in scriptural authority, Malekian foregrounds the variability, rationalization, and ethical-spiritual dimensions of religiosity, reflecting the influence of modern philosophical thought. Examining these divergent approaches provides insight into how religion is interpreted, justified, and enacted in contemporary Iran, and highlights the broader dynamics between traditional and reformist currents in shaping social and political norms. Materials and Methods This study employs a qualitative thematic analysis. Through identifying basic, organizing, and global themes, the content of speeches, writings, and secondary sources related to Mesbah’s and Malekian’s thought was systematically analyzed. The process involved: In-depth study of primary and secondary sources, Extraction of basic themes from their statements and works, Categorization of these into organizing themes, and Synthesizing global themes to map the conceptual frameworks underlying their understanding of religion. This approach enables a structured comparison of their epistemological and normative frameworks. Research Findings The analysis of the primary and secondary sources revealed distinct conceptual patterns in how each thinker approaches religion. While both engage deeply with the philosophical, ethical, and social dimensions of religiosity, their frameworks differ fundamentally in epistemology, methodology, and priorities. The following sections outline the core themes that characterize Mesbah Yazdi’s and Malekian’s understandings of religion: Mesbah’s Understanding of Religion Necessity of explicating religious beliefs: Defending religion is achieved through both intra-religious (scriptural and traditional) and extra-religious (rational and philosophical) reasoning. Mesbah emphasizes religious rationality and the struggle against innovations (bid‘a), viewing reason as complementary to revelation. Comprehensiveness of religion: Religion, in his view, encompasses all aspects of human life—individual, social, doctrinal, and ethical—and contains both fixed and flexible rulings. Changing circumstances affect applications, not principles. Faith and duty: Faith is inseparable from religious duty. The relationship between rights and duties is reciprocal, and justice is defined through their balance. Religious obligations form the basis for moral action and the realization of both individual and collective good. Malekian’s Understanding of Religion Changeability of religious knowledge: Religious knowledge is historically and experientially conditioned. With modernity, epistemological shifts have turned religion into a more personal and functional matter. Rationalization of religious beliefs: Religious beliefs are acceptable only if rationally justified. Malekian highlights the fundamental distinction between traditional rationality and modern rationality as a source of epistemic transformation. Ethics and spirituality as the foundation of religiosity: Unlike traditional approaches centered on divine command and law, Malekian grounds religiosity in ethics and inner spirituality. He sees spirituality as compatible with modernity and capable of providing personal meaning and psychological well-being. Discussion of Results and Conclusion The findings of the study reveal that Mesbah’s model of religious understanding is anchored in preserving the traditional framework of religion. Reason complements but does not replace revelation; faith is tied to obligation; and religion encompasses all spheres of life through a combination of fixed principles and contextual applications. In contrast, Malekian builds his framework on epistemic transformation, modern rationality, and personal spirituality. He views traditional religion as unable to respond adequately to the needs of modern individuals and proposes rationalized spirituality as an alternative. The comparison highlights that the gap between traditional and modern approaches is not merely rhetorical but rooted in epistemological sources, concepts of rationality, the role of duty, and the social function of religion. Mesbah’s thought aims to preserve and defend a fixed religious structure, whereas Malekian seeks to reinterpret religion as an individual, rational, and ethical-spiritual experience within modernity.

https://coth.ui.ac.ir/article_29943_313c595e7105c4622852a1a4918f8763.pdf

University of Isfahan Comparative Theology 2008-9651 17 3 2026 09 23 The Role of Private Evidence in Avoiding Epistemic Suspension of Judgment (Agnosticism) Regarding the Existence of God The Role of Private Evidence in Avoiding Epistemic Suspension of Judgment (Agnosticism) Regarding the Existence of God 61 76 29978 10.22108/coth.2025.146370.2023 FA Gholamhossin Javadpor Assistant Professor, Department of Theology, Iranian Institute of Philosophy, Tehran, Iran Journal Article 2025 08 18 According to the evidentialist approach, one’s final position on a proposition emerges from the balance between supporting and opposing evidence, and justifying that proposition requires considering (or weighing) all available evidence. Unlike theists and atheists—who interpret evidence to favor their own beliefs — the agnostic regards the evidence as neutral, whether due to ambiguity about what counts as evidence, the failure of individual items to establish the claim, or the equal weight of opposing evidence. In this context, “evidence” typically refers to public evidence accessible to all. Occasionally, however, private and non-shareable evidence may arise in favor of one side. The key question is whether such private evidence can challenge or outweigh public evidence and thereby lift the suspension of judgment. Based on this study’s findings, private evidence can be valid and effective in epistemic dilemmas that incline toward agnosticism, provided two conditions are met: it possesses independent epistemic grounding (evidence supporting evidence), and the opposing public evidence is not so overwhelmingly strong as to create a perfect symmetry. Keywords: Private Evidence; Agnosticism; Suspension of Epistemic Judgment; Theism; Atheism; Religious Experience. Introduction The dominant approach in religious epistemology holds that evidence ultimately determines the outcome of debates, with justification resting on the evidence one possesses while rejecting contrary evidence. Theists and atheists both claim that evidence conclusively supports their own stance. In contrast, the epistemic agnostic suspends judgment—often because of uncertainty about what qualifies as evidence, flaws in individual evidential items, or balanced weights among conflicting evidence. Although “evidence” normally denotes public, widely accessible proof, certain private evidence may persuade only a single individual or a limited circle of epistemic agents. This study explores whether and how private evidence can break the stalemate caused by evenly balanced public evidence. While agnosticism has been addressed in recent epistemological debates in the West and has seen limited discussion in Iran, the role of private evidence has not received systematic attention as a central focus. By examining the assumptions underlying agnosticism, the present research clarifies how private evidence may help one escape epistemic skepticism about God’s existence. It analyzes the types of evidence and their roles in two contexts—epistemic disagreement and suspension of judgment—and then establishes the conditions under which private evidence attains validity when it conflicts with public evidence. Materials and Methods The current study employs an analytical research methodology, examining arguments for the epistemic validity of private evidence both under ordinary conditions and in cases of conflict with public evidence. Research Findings The findings of the study show that four possibilities arise regarding the epistemic warrant of private evidence: Valid in ordinary circumstances but invalid in conflict. Valid in both ordinary and conflict situations. Invalid in both ordinary and conflict scenarios. Invalid in ordinary circumstances but valid when in conflict. These scenarios are theoretically conceivable, though not all have clear proponents among religious epistemologists. Various proposals have been made to address these possibilities. On the one hand, agnosticism produces no decisive conclusion and leaves us in epistemic indecision, which we ought to escape. On the other hand, privatizing epistemic structures and processes —grounding belief on factors beyond public scrutiny—undermines the accuracy of our epistemic representations. A balanced approach must reconcile these concerns. This study demonstrates that private evidence can resolve the problem of epistemic suspension if it meets two conditions: It enjoys its own independent epistemic support, ensuring it is not merely subjective. Competing public evidence is not so compelling as to undermine confidence in one’s private deliverances. Discussion of Results and Conclusions Considering the results of the present study, private evidence consists of data or testimony that is not publicly accessible and derives from an individual’s personal epistemic faculties. Its legitimacy is contested both under normal conditions and when it clashes with public evidence. Ordinarily, private testimony may be deemed valid if it can be reconciled with established public epistemic channels, for example, interpreting religious experience as a form of sensory or emotional perception. When public evidence for and against God’s existence is evenly balanced, the debate can slide into suspension of judgment—an agnostic impasse that is epistemically unsatisfactory. Introducing private evidence reshapes this impasse: evidence can no longer be regarded as wholly neutral, and the agent becomes fully justified in acting based on their private conviction. This position is defensible. Beyond the general warrant for private evidence like religious experience, such evidence is especially valuable in an epistemic stalemate. Individuals may legitimately rely on private evidence when two conditions hold: it has its own epistemic grounding, and the opposing public evidence is not overwhelmingly strong. In the specific case of belief in God, objections to theism are not so decisive as to weaken both public and private supports for belief. Moreover, the imperative to avoid unbelief—and its attendant epistemic shortcomings—further underscores the prudence of crediting private evidence when public and private testimonies diverge. According to the evidentialist approach, one’s final position on a proposition emerges from the balance between supporting and opposing evidence, and justifying that proposition requires considering (or weighing) all available evidence. Unlike theists and atheists—who interpret evidence to favor their own beliefs — the agnostic regards the evidence as neutral, whether due to ambiguity about what counts as evidence, the failure of individual items to establish the claim, or the equal weight of opposing evidence. In this context, “evidence” typically refers to public evidence accessible to all. Occasionally, however, private and non-shareable evidence may arise in favor of one side. The key question is whether such private evidence can challenge or outweigh public evidence and thereby lift the suspension of judgment. Based on this study’s findings, private evidence can be valid and effective in epistemic dilemmas that incline toward agnosticism, provided two conditions are met: it possesses independent epistemic grounding (evidence supporting evidence), and the opposing public evidence is not so overwhelmingly strong as to create a perfect symmetry. Keywords: Private Evidence; Agnosticism; Suspension of Epistemic Judgment; Theism; Atheism; Religious Experience. Introduction The dominant approach in religious epistemology holds that evidence ultimately determines the outcome of debates, with justification resting on the evidence one possesses while rejecting contrary evidence. Theists and atheists both claim that evidence conclusively supports their own stance. In contrast, the epistemic agnostic suspends judgment—often because of uncertainty about what qualifies as evidence, flaws in individual evidential items, or balanced weights among conflicting evidence. Although “evidence” normally denotes public, widely accessible proof, certain private evidence may persuade only a single individual or a limited circle of epistemic agents. This study explores whether and how private evidence can break the stalemate caused by evenly balanced public evidence. While agnosticism has been addressed in recent epistemological debates in the West and has seen limited discussion in Iran, the role of private evidence has not received systematic attention as a central focus. By examining the assumptions underlying agnosticism, the present research clarifies how private evidence may help one escape epistemic skepticism about God’s existence. It analyzes the types of evidence and their roles in two contexts—epistemic disagreement and suspension of judgment—and then establishes the conditions under which private evidence attains validity when it conflicts with public evidence. Materials and Methods The current study employs an analytical research methodology, examining arguments for the epistemic validity of private evidence both under ordinary conditions and in cases of conflict with public evidence. Research Findings The findings of the study show that four possibilities arise regarding the epistemic warrant of private evidence: Valid in ordinary circumstances but invalid in conflict. Valid in both ordinary and conflict situations. Invalid in both ordinary and conflict scenarios. Invalid in ordinary circumstances but valid when in conflict. These scenarios are theoretically conceivable, though not all have clear proponents among religious epistemologists. Various proposals have been made to address these possibilities. On the one hand, agnosticism produces no decisive conclusion and leaves us in epistemic indecision, which we ought to escape. On the other hand, privatizing epistemic structures and processes —grounding belief on factors beyond public scrutiny—undermines the accuracy of our epistemic representations. A balanced approach must reconcile these concerns. This study demonstrates that private evidence can resolve the problem of epistemic suspension if it meets two conditions: It enjoys its own independent epistemic support, ensuring it is not merely subjective. Competing public evidence is not so compelling as to undermine confidence in one’s private deliverances. Discussion of Results and Conclusions Considering the results of the present study, private evidence consists of data or testimony that is not publicly accessible and derives from an individual’s personal epistemic faculties. Its legitimacy is contested both under normal conditions and when it clashes with public evidence. Ordinarily, private testimony may be deemed valid if it can be reconciled with established public epistemic channels, for example, interpreting religious experience as a form of sensory or emotional perception. When public evidence for and against God’s existence is evenly balanced, the debate can slide into suspension of judgment—an agnostic impasse that is epistemically unsatisfactory. Introducing private evidence reshapes this impasse: evidence can no longer be regarded as wholly neutral, and the agent becomes fully justified in acting based on their private conviction. This position is defensible. Beyond the general warrant for private evidence like religious experience, such evidence is especially valuable in an epistemic stalemate. Individuals may legitimately rely on private evidence when two conditions hold: it has its own epistemic grounding, and the opposing public evidence is not overwhelmingly strong. In the specific case of belief in God, objections to theism are not so decisive as to weaken both public and private supports for belief. Moreover, the imperative to avoid unbelief—and its attendant epistemic shortcomings—further underscores the prudence of crediting private evidence when public and private testimonies diverge.

https://coth.ui.ac.ir/article_29978_0651a54a157022e288985fb28cff7df7.pdf

University of Isfahan Comparative Theology 2008-9651 17 3 2026 09 23 A Comparative Study of Apostasy in Zoroastrianism and Islam Based on Pahlavi Literature of the Sassanid Period and the Early Islamic Centuries A Comparative Study of Apostasy in Zoroastrianism and Islam Based on Pahlavi Literature of the Sassanid Period and the Early Islamic Centuries 77 96 30116 10.22108/coth.2025.145737.1999 FA Hosein Basir Tariqat Talab PhD. Student in Archaeology, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Mohaghegh Ardabili, Ardabil, Iran Reza Bashi Fomani M.A. Graduate in Criminal Law, Islamic Azad University, Anzali Branch, Anzali, Iran Behrouz Afkhami Professor, Department of Archaeology, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Mohaghegh Ardabili, Ardabil, Iran Habib Shahbazi Shiran Professor, Department of Archaeology, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Mohaghegh Ardabili, Ardabil, Iran Journal Article 2025 07 14 Apostasy has been a controversial issue in many religions, particularly among monotheistic faiths. This study investigates the historical and jurisprudential aspects of apostasy in Zoroastrianism and Islam, drawing upon Pahlavi sources from the Sassanian era and early Islamic centuries, as well as classical Islamic jurisprudence. Texts such as Mādiyān-e Hezār Dādestān, Vendidad, Pahlavi narratives, and early Islamic legal writings discuss the causes of apostasy, worldly and otherworldly punishments, property rights, guardianship, marital bonds, and conditions for repentance. The study highlights similarities, such as the ultimate punishment of death and ritual impurity, and divergences, including grace periods for returning to the faith, property distribution, and treatment of female apostates. Using a descriptive-analytical methodology and library-based resources, the study first examines apostasy in Zoroastrianism, then in Islam, and finally provides a comparative perspective on these traditions. The analysis demonstrates both the continuity and divergence in legal and religious thought concerning apostasy across time and cultures. Keywords: Apostasy in Zoroastrianism, Zoroastrian Jurisprudence and Law, Apostasy in Islam, Apostasy, Sassanian Era. Introduction Apostasy, or the renunciation of one’s faith, has historically been regarded as a serious transgression in many religious traditions. In ancient Iran, Zoroastrianism provided structured legal and religious frameworks to address apostasy, particularly during the Sassanian period, when Zoroastrian priests (mobeds) were often involved in judicial processes. Early Pahlavi texts like Mādiyān-e Hezār Dādestān and later Zoroastrian narratives illustrate the legal and ritual dimensions of apostasy, including worldly punishment, purification rites, property confiscation, and marital consequences. These texts reflect a response to both internal religious challenges and external pressures following the Islamic conquest of Persia, demonstrating an effort to codify and preserve Zoroastrian traditions. In parallel, Islamic jurisprudence addresses apostasy extensively, emphasizing both spiritual and societal dimensions. The Qur’an and classical jurists outline punishment, procedural safeguards, property implications, and gender-specific regulations for apostates. By comparing these frameworks, the study aims to explore points of convergence and divergence between Zoroastrian and Islamic approaches, assessing how cultural, religious, and legal contexts shaped their treatment of apostasy. This research contributes to understanding the historical development of religious law and its ethical, social, and legal implications. Materials and Methods This study employs a descriptive-analytical approach, relying on library and archival resources. Primary sources include Sassanian-era Zoroastrian legal texts (Mādiyān-e Hezār Dādestān, Vendidad), Pahlavi narratives, and early Islamic jurisprudential writings. Relevant secondary literature and scholarly analyses were also consulted to contextualize the findings. Information was systematically collected, categorized, and compared, focusing on legal rulings, social implications, and doctrinal interpretations of apostasy in both religions. The methodology ensures that comparative insights are grounded in historical evidence and scholarly interpretation. Research Findings A comparative examination of apostasy in Zoroastrianism and Islam reveals significant similarities and differences in legal and ritual treatments. In both traditions, apostasy is punishable by death, yet the grace period for repentance differs: one year in Zoroastrianism and three days in Islamic jurisprudence. Apostates are considered ritually impure in both religions, although Zoroastrian texts hold that the corpse of the apostate is not impure, contrasting with Islamic concepts of spiritual impurity. Property confiscation also varies, with Zoroastrian law assigning seized assets to the first Zoroastrian claimant, while Islamic law distributes property to heirs or the public treasury depending on sect and timing. Regarding women, Zoroastrian law treats male and female apostates equally, whereas Islamic law provides nuanced procedures for female apostates, including imprisonment and opportunities for repentance. Apostasy dissolves marital bonds in both religions, although the specifics of guardianship and family law differ. Finally, maturity is a common condition for apostasy, but age thresholds vary between traditions and among Islamic legal schools. These findings highlight both the shared ethical concerns and culturally distinct legal solutions surrounding apostasy in Zoroastrian and Islamic contexts. Discussion of Results and Conclusions This study demonstrates that while Zoroastrianism and Islam share common principles regarding apostasy—such as punishment, impurity, and marital consequences—differences arise from historical, cultural, and theological contexts. The Sassanian-era Zoroastrian texts reflect a legal system deeply intertwined with religious authority and social control, emphasizing ritual observance and preservation of faith. In contrast, Islamic jurisprudence combines divine guidance with codified legal mechanisms, providing varying interpretations across sects and schools. The comparative analysis underscores how both traditions sought to protect community cohesion, religious identity, and moral order. Zoroastrian texts illustrate adaptation to post-conquest realities, reinforcing internal religious norms, while Islamic jurisprudence demonstrates flexibility within a broader legal-theological framework. By examining apostasy in these two traditions, the study provides insights into the evolution of religious law, highlighting continuity and divergence in ethical, social, and legal approaches. Ultimately, the research contributes to a nuanced understanding of apostasy as a complex intersection of faith, law, and society across historical periods. Apostasy has been a controversial issue in many religions, particularly among monotheistic faiths. This study investigates the historical and jurisprudential aspects of apostasy in Zoroastrianism and Islam, drawing upon Pahlavi sources from the Sassanian era and early Islamic centuries, as well as classical Islamic jurisprudence. Texts such as Mādiyān-e Hezār Dādestān, Vendidad, Pahlavi narratives, and early Islamic legal writings discuss the causes of apostasy, worldly and otherworldly punishments, property rights, guardianship, marital bonds, and conditions for repentance. The study highlights similarities, such as the ultimate punishment of death and ritual impurity, and divergences, including grace periods for returning to the faith, property distribution, and treatment of female apostates. Using a descriptive-analytical methodology and library-based resources, the study first examines apostasy in Zoroastrianism, then in Islam, and finally provides a comparative perspective on these traditions. The analysis demonstrates both the continuity and divergence in legal and religious thought concerning apostasy across time and cultures. Keywords: Apostasy in Zoroastrianism, Zoroastrian Jurisprudence and Law, Apostasy in Islam, Apostasy, Sassanian Era. Introduction Apostasy, or the renunciation of one’s faith, has historically been regarded as a serious transgression in many religious traditions. In ancient Iran, Zoroastrianism provided structured legal and religious frameworks to address apostasy, particularly during the Sassanian period, when Zoroastrian priests (mobeds) were often involved in judicial processes. Early Pahlavi texts like Mādiyān-e Hezār Dādestān and later Zoroastrian narratives illustrate the legal and ritual dimensions of apostasy, including worldly punishment, purification rites, property confiscation, and marital consequences. These texts reflect a response to both internal religious challenges and external pressures following the Islamic conquest of Persia, demonstrating an effort to codify and preserve Zoroastrian traditions. In parallel, Islamic jurisprudence addresses apostasy extensively, emphasizing both spiritual and societal dimensions. The Qur’an and classical jurists outline punishment, procedural safeguards, property implications, and gender-specific regulations for apostates. By comparing these frameworks, the study aims to explore points of convergence and divergence between Zoroastrian and Islamic approaches, assessing how cultural, religious, and legal contexts shaped their treatment of apostasy. This research contributes to understanding the historical development of religious law and its ethical, social, and legal implications. Materials and Methods This study employs a descriptive-analytical approach, relying on library and archival resources. Primary sources include Sassanian-era Zoroastrian legal texts (Mādiyān-e Hezār Dādestān, Vendidad), Pahlavi narratives, and early Islamic jurisprudential writings. Relevant secondary literature and scholarly analyses were also consulted to contextualize the findings. Information was systematically collected, categorized, and compared, focusing on legal rulings, social implications, and doctrinal interpretations of apostasy in both religions. The methodology ensures that comparative insights are grounded in historical evidence and scholarly interpretation. Research Findings A comparative examination of apostasy in Zoroastrianism and Islam reveals significant similarities and differences in legal and ritual treatments. In both traditions, apostasy is punishable by death, yet the grace period for repentance differs: one year in Zoroastrianism and three days in Islamic jurisprudence. Apostates are considered ritually impure in both religions, although Zoroastrian texts hold that the corpse of the apostate is not impure, contrasting with Islamic concepts of spiritual impurity. Property confiscation also varies, with Zoroastrian law assigning seized assets to the first Zoroastrian claimant, while Islamic law distributes property to heirs or the public treasury depending on sect and timing. Regarding women, Zoroastrian law treats male and female apostates equally, whereas Islamic law provides nuanced procedures for female apostates, including imprisonment and opportunities for repentance. Apostasy dissolves marital bonds in both religions, although the specifics of guardianship and family law differ. Finally, maturity is a common condition for apostasy, but age thresholds vary between traditions and among Islamic legal schools. These findings highlight both the shared ethical concerns and culturally distinct legal solutions surrounding apostasy in Zoroastrian and Islamic contexts. Discussion of Results and Conclusions This study demonstrates that while Zoroastrianism and Islam share common principles regarding apostasy—such as punishment, impurity, and marital consequences—differences arise from historical, cultural, and theological contexts. The Sassanian-era Zoroastrian texts reflect a legal system deeply intertwined with religious authority and social control, emphasizing ritual observance and preservation of faith. In contrast, Islamic jurisprudence combines divine guidance with codified legal mechanisms, providing varying interpretations across sects and schools. The comparative analysis underscores how both traditions sought to protect community cohesion, religious identity, and moral order. Zoroastrian texts illustrate adaptation to post-conquest realities, reinforcing internal religious norms, while Islamic jurisprudence demonstrates flexibility within a broader legal-theological framework. By examining apostasy in these two traditions, the study provides insights into the evolution of religious law, highlighting continuity and divergence in ethical, social, and legal approaches. Ultimately, the research contributes to a nuanced understanding of apostasy as a complex intersection of faith, law, and society across historical periods.

https://coth.ui.ac.ir/article_30116_fec021727c50501b4f8381d56783ac5d.pdf

University of Isfahan Comparative Theology 2008-9651 17 3 2026 09 23 A Comparative Study of the Manifestation of Man in Christianity and the Religion of the Righteous on the Perfection of Man A Comparative Study of the Manifestation of Man in Christianity and the Religion of the Righteous on the Perfection of Man 97 113 29648 10.22108/coth.2025.144389.1963 FA Mansour Rostami Ph. D. Graduated of Philosophy, Payame noor University, South Tehran Branch, Tehran, Iran Journal Article 2025 02 16 The Religion of the Righteous emerged in the early centuries of the Islamic calendar in western Iran, particularly among the Kurdish people. Although this religion traces its origins to a sect that diverged from Islam, many of its teachings reflect the influence of ancient religious traditions, including pre-Islamic Abrahamic faiths such as Christianity. The followers of the Religion of the Righteous believe in the existence of one God, and the foundational doctrine of their faith is based on the concept of divine manifestation. This study seeks to explore the question: What theological or anthropological elements are shared between the Religion of the Righteous and Christianity regarding the perfection of human beings? The findings of this research demonstrate that the Religion of the Righteous, grounded in the idea of divine agency and manifestation, identifies exceptional human beings as reflections of the divine essence (grace). Such individuals are considered to possess divine attributes and are viewed as manifestations of God’s essence. This theological position shows significant parallels with Christian teachings, wherein Jesus Christ (peace be upon him) is understood to be one of the three persons of the Holy Trinity and is endowed with divine qualities. This study highlights the mutual emphasis in both traditions on the divine-human figure as the path to human perfection. The Religion of the Righteous emerged in the early centuries of the Islamic calendar in western Iran, particularly among the Kurdish people. Although this religion traces its origins to a sect that diverged from Islam, many of its teachings reflect the influence of ancient religious traditions, including pre-Islamic Abrahamic faiths such as Christianity. The followers of the Religion of the Righteous believe in the existence of one God, and the foundational doctrine of their faith is based on the concept of divine manifestation. This study seeks to explore the question: What theological or anthropological elements are shared between the Religion of the Righteous and Christianity regarding the perfection of human beings? The findings of this research demonstrate that the Religion of the Righteous, grounded in the idea of divine agency and manifestation, identifies exceptional human beings as reflections of the divine essence (grace). Such individuals are considered to possess divine attributes and are viewed as manifestations of God’s essence. This theological position shows significant parallels with Christian teachings, wherein Jesus Christ (peace be upon him) is understood to be one of the three persons of the Holy Trinity and is endowed with divine qualities. This study highlights the mutual emphasis in both traditions on the divine-human figure as the path to human perfection.

https://coth.ui.ac.ir/article_29648_a52642c4e779f0b02035ee720a3a13f1.pdf