Acquisition of the theological knowledge of religions is recommended along with other religious studies to sociologists of religion who are bound to safeguard their perceptions and manifestations from the APOLOGETICS damages. Up to now, the avoidance from theology has been the positivistic solution in order to be immunized from APOLOGETICS partiality. However, the solution this paper puts forward is the distinction and segregation of 'theology1' from' APOLOGETICS' at the first stance and then the description and limitation of the courses experiencing penetration of APOLOGETICS' notations in the studies of religion.With the required recommendation from theology, not only the weaknesses of sociology of religion will be removed so far as acquaintance with the subjects is concerned but it would also prevent from the unjust label of APOLOGETICS to sociologists who possess valuable theological Knowledge of religion during the course of their studies.

AbstractIntroduction The perennial problem of evil, which includes a set of problems, was generally formulated in three ways: (1) the logical problem of evil (logical inconsistency of God’s existence and attributes with the existence of evil), (2) the evidential problem of evil (evil as evidence against the rationality of theism), and (3) the existential problem of evil (the inconsistency between religious beliefs and one’s lived experiences). The main APOLOGETICS provided in contemporary Islamic philosophy in reply to the logical problem of evil include (i) evil as illusory, (ii) evil as nonexistent, (iii) evil as relative, (iv) the necessary of there being an existing entity whose good outweighs its evil (or the necessity of little evil to perceive the good), (v) matter as the origin of evils, (vi) the necessity of evil for the realization of the good, (vii) the necessity of evil for perceiving the good, (viii) evil as what results from an atomistic view of the world, (ix) evil as existing only from the human perspective, and (x) evil as existing as a result of human free will. From the perspective of modern philosophy of religion, discourse criticisms were raised against the traditional APOLOGETICS and theodicies, which include Islamic philosophy as well. The criticisms include the following: (a) with respect to the proponent of the APOLOGETICS and theodicy: theoretical, subjective, and non-historical, (b) with respect to the nature of evils: abstract, essentialist, observer-related, and second-order, (c) with respect to the language of the APOLOGETICS and theodicy: non-tragic, (d) with respect to the practice of APOLOGETICS and theodicy: looking for professionalization and systematization. The present research considers the replies to the problem of evil offered by ʿAllama Tabatabaʾi and Ayatollah Motahhari, and analyzes and asses the above criticisms. Method of the Research The present research adopts a descriptive-analytic and critical method to consider the replies to the problem of evil offered in contemporary Islamic philosophy (ʿAllama Tabatabaʾi and Ayatollah Motahhari) as well as criticisms raised against them. It then deals with an analysis and elucidation of discourse criticisms of their replies from the perspective of modern philosophy of religion. Finally, it evaluates their criticisms and the extent to which they apply to the replies provided by ʿAllama Tabatabaʾi and Ayatollah Motahhari. Moreover, it offers suggestions and solutions to revise or supplement their APOLOGETICS. Discussion and Results Islamic APOLOGETICS, particularly those of ʿAllama Tabatabaʾi and Ayatollah Motahhari, tend to adopt a subjective-theoretical approach. However, if we say that APOLOGETICS have practical commitments or approaches as well, then a particular approach will follow from such an interaction between theory and practice (theoretical and practical reason), which in addition to dealing with theoretical problems, will address the versions that are more specifically focused on practical concerns and solutions to the practical problems of evil. Moreover, the APOLOGETICS provided by Tabatabaʾi and Motahhari are subjective and are often focused on eliminating the feeling of evil in the subject’s mind. In this way, social and objective categorizations of the object will be warded off. Furthermore, their APOLOGETICS are non-historical, which might undermine their efficiency and might not deploy any social or political act. Evil is something non-conceptual, non-absolute, varied, and situation-dependent. For this reason, we need to think of providing practical, objective, and historical APOLOGETICS. ʿAllama Tabatabaʾi’s and Ayatollah Motahhari’s APOLOGETICS tend to be abstract and conceptual, rather than objective. They justify the evils not individually, but abstractly. That is, they do not engage much with objective evils and the realities of evil in time and place and its victims or agents. In this perspective, evil is no longer a problem that needs a solution. Moreover, their APOLOGETICS make a universal, static, and common essence for evil. However, evil is indeed situation-dependent, temporal, spatial, and highly varied. It thus seems that APOLOGETICS overcome the concept or ghost of evil, rather than the real evil. Further, APOLOGETICS are often observer-relative; that is, the ways in which theologians encountered the narratives of suffering and pains come down to the theological question(s) they give importance to. Such pictures, positions, and perspective demarcate the boundary and form a logical space within which people seek their replies. In addition, proponents of the APOLOGETICS use a second-order language, in the sense that they theorize about evils, and evil is described by philosophers and theologians, while the narratives and language of victims are first-order languages that can serve as models and might be inspiring, and in fact, effective novel replies may come out of their narratives. For this reason, we need to create a discourse that can collapse the prevalent discourse and be concrete, objective, non-essentialist, and non-absolute. The APOLOGETICS offered by ʿAllama Tabatabaʾi and Ayatollah Motahhari avoid the tragic emotional language and are solely focused on eliminating logical inconsistencies. APOLOGETICS can reply to the subjective and emotional problem of evil and at the same time sympathize, give consolations, and give meaning to the suffering so that they might not only be concerned with solving the theological and philosophical problem of evil, but also be concerned with solving the human problem of evil. The APOLOGETICS or theodicy of ʿAllama Tabatabaʾi and Ayatollah Motahhari tend to be a profession, chiefly focused on providing an intellectual system consistent with other elements of theology or philosophy. With mere focus on professionalization and systematization of APOLOGETICS and making theories about evil consistent with other philosophical and theological sections, APOLOGETICS might turn into a purely theoretical exercise and deviate from its goal of providing an answer to the person in pain and solving the problem of evil for the object. Furthermore, it hinders creative unproblematic answers, or those with a practical, objective, historical, concrete, structural, victim-centered, first-order, and tragic approach. APOLOGETICS can have more liberal discourses with respect to philosophical and theological systems. Conclusion An overview of the replies offered by ʿAllama Tabatabaʾi and Ayatollah Motahhari, and a consideration of the above criticisms, require a reform, supplementation, invention, and presentation of new varieties of APOLOGETICS in Islamic philosophy, which particularly takes account of the practical dimension of evil as well. In that case, APOLOGETICS will be more responsive, more efficient, and more virtuous, and will face fewer criticisms and objections. On the other hand, APOLOGETICS should be consistent and compatible with the data from the religious tradition on which the APOLOGETICS is based and with the data about the world. Accordingly, in formulating and constructing theories, it is illuminating to consider the data from the transmitted tradition, reason, and experience at the same time.

In some contexts, philosophical debate can be rancorous even when the volume is kept low. In other contexts, certain stripes of “evangelical APOLOGETICS” can be equally adversarial and inimical in tone. In the name of preserving a professional, if not an irenic spirit, some unspoken ground rules have been adopted for interreligious dialogue. First is the demand to avoid all appearance of circular reasoning, which is to say avoid making any rhetorical moves that depend upon metaphysical presuppositions about the reality of God. Second, it is understood that (supposedly) unimportant theologically-laden details are to be left off until the (supposedly) prior task of establishing God’s reality is achieved. Such ground rules put philosophical theologians at a distinct disadvantage in interreligious dialogue as they sideline the very voices that have the highest stake in the conversation. William Wainwright offers the concept of “passional reason” as a way to counter the ground rules. Wainwright has shown that charges of circularity and subjectivism fail in the cases of such thinkers as Jonathan Edwards, John Henry Newman, and William James. Read in one way, Wainwright’s work may be taken as a strategic defense that prevents antagonists from excluding religious voices from philosophical conversation. I argue that there is an even more fruitful way to read Wainwright. Simply put, Wainwright’s recapture and rehabilitation of “passional reason” for philosophy of religion simultaneously opens the door for more constructive approaches to interreligious dialogue than an agonistic-styled philosophical debate can allow.

This research has put the negation of the rule of necessity and the principle of causality in Kant’, s practical philosophy and post-Kantian theology to the test of Islamic philosophy by a citation method. According to this research, concepts such as transcendental creation, transcendental negation, dialectic, Dasein (existence) and the idea are the watchwords that are the common boundary between the two theological sects of Mu'tazilism (Arabic: المعتزلة al-muʿ, tazilah or اعتزال iʿ, tizā, l) and Ashʿ, arism (Arabic: الأشعریة: al-ʾ, Ashʿ, arī, yah, or Ashʿ, arī, ) in Islamic theology and two currents of liberal theology and dialectical theology are in Christian theology, and these currents have been inevitably led to the negation of the rule of necessity and the principle of causality, which had no result other than the entering of the imagination of composition in the essence of God, accepting the notion of “, the existence of Ajwaf”,(Arabic: وجود أجوَف, hollow existence) and preventing Sharia (Arabic: شریعة, Romanized: sharī, ʿ, a) law in favor of free will. This was the immediate consequence of the separation of philosophy from the defensive APOLOGETICS or the subordination of philosophy to the defensive APOLOGETICS in theology according to this research. Returning to the early philosophical order under a monotheistic worldview and subordinating the defensive APOLOGETICS to metaphysical philosophy is the suggested solution of this research to solve the issue.

Abstract ABSTRACT: This paper explores the significance of moral virtues in the conduct of healthcare providers towards patients. The key moral virtues of the medical professions if accompanied by APOLOGETICS, healthcare professionals can mitigate the likelihood of patient complaints resulting from medical or nursing errors.The concept of apology, comprising three steps -regret, cause and remedy -serves as a means to foster improved relations between healthcare providers and patients. In situations where mistakes occur, offering an apology is deemed the most appropriate course of action.

With the advent of the Islamic invitation by the Prophet (PBUH), Christians living in the peninsula and the Byzantine Empire, took different approaches toward Islam. One of those approaches was the writing of The APOLOGETICS which has been evaluated by the contemporary Muslim scholars as hostile, groundless and based on forged traditions. It seems that john of Damascus was the first Eastern Christian to write an apologetic against Islam. This study seeks to examine some of the historical statements mentioned in john's work to determine whether these were purely illusions or that they can also be traced back to Islamic traditions. The findings show that what are seen as the most significant problems or reproofs of Christians against Islam and have the highest frequency came out of the Islamic community during the era of the Umayyad's dominance. John and his father, Sarjun ibn Mansur, lived in Umayyad court for decades, and their outlook on Islam was strongly influenced by Mu'awiyah and Yazid.

The purpose of writing this article is to examine the literature of asking for forgiveness or asking for forgiveness, confessing to sin and asking God to accept repentance and forgiveness from the servant in two books of Confessions and Safiha Sajjadiyeh. Analysis of Sajjadiyeh's book and Augustine's Confessions What kind of literature and in what axes can it be investigated? It has been written that the concepts mentioned in the two books have been widely discussed, and it can be conclusively stated that the majority of the literature of the two books is made up of concepts related to asking for forgiveness, asking for forgiveness, and confessing and confessing sins. From the linguistic point of view, the repetition of the concepts of asking for forgiveness and confession and confession of guilt is the dominant and common feature in the two books of Confessions and the Sahifah of Sajjadiyeh, as well as the expression of moral, educational and ideological concepts while expressing the concepts of asking for forgiveness is a common feature in the two works. In the following article, the apologetic concepts of both books have been examined and the main topics raised show that it is important that the themes of APOLOGETICS have been repeated a lot in both books, and the similarity of these repetitions and the way of talking to God are among other commonalities. Another characteristic that is seen more in the Sajjadiyyah and is more prominent is the issue of asking God not to commit sin.

Islamic-Christian apologetic works are part of the precious heritage of Abrahamic religions because they reflect the abundance of religious information. Despite their mainly polemical approach, these texts help us to understand the evolution of Muslims› encounters with the Bible, and on the contrary, Christians› encounters with the Qur›an. A large amount of these refutations belong to the 19th century; meanwhile, few treatises can be found that have creativity and innovation in their method and content. Sabīl Al-Najāt treatise is one of these few texts that deserve to be examined and analyzed. As the main topic of Pfander›s treatise was sin and its consequences, the topics of Sabīl Al-Najāt treatise also correspond to it. On the one hand, its author cites certain passages from Pfander›s Tariq al-Hayat treatise, and clearly criticizes them. On the other hand, Sabīl Al-Najāt is one of the treatises in which there are many references to the Bible, especially the New Testament. The present article focuses on the methodology of the author and the sources of Sabīl Al-Najāt.