Problem of evil
The problem of evil refers to the inconsistency between the occurrence of unfortunate events such as earthquakes, floods, death, illness, and instances like oppression and discrimination with Islamic beliefs. On one hand, this problem calls into question the existence of God; because one cannot simultaneously believe in the existence of God and the existence of evil. On the other hand, it challenges the oneness of God; in the sense that some believers in two gods maintain that goodness should be attributed to God and badness to Ahriman. This doubt creates a basis for skepticism regarding attributes such as power, knowledge, and the benevolence of God; for if God is omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent toward His servants, why does He not prevent evil? Furthermore, this doubt scrutinizes the domains of wisdom and Divine Justice.
Evil is divided into various types, including natural and moral evil, social evil, and perceptual and emotional evil. Philosophers and theologians have addressed this problem with diverse approaches. Many philosophers believe that evils are non-existential (i.e., they are of the category of non-being or privation). Therefore, they do not require a creator, because creation is specific to existence and being. However, a group of theologians considers it an existential matter that must be made compatible with Divine justice. Numerous responses have been provided for the doubt of evil, the most important of which include the best possible system, the non-existential nature of evil, categorization of types of evil, the transcendence of the human soul, human ignorance, the theory of compensation (a'wad), and intisaf. Many philosophers and theologians consider moral evils to be the result of human free will. There are other responses that have not been accepted by Muslim thinkers, including retribution of actions, the illusionism of the material world, the theory of global organism, dualism, process theology, pragmatism, and picturing. Benefits have also been enumerated for some evils.
Evil has various definitions in literal and technical terms. In Western Philosophy, evil is usually defined as suffering. In the 20th and 21st centuries, the problem of evil has become one of the most controversial topics in the Philosophy of Religion and has attracted the attention of both proponents and opponents of religious thought. Epicurus, the Greek, was the first to point to the contradiction between the problem of evil and the three attributes of power, knowledge, and benevolence of God.
Status and Importance of the Problem of Evil
The existence of pains, calamities, and types of material, physical, and spiritual losses, which are collectively given the name "evil",[1] is among the most important challenges in the doctrinal discussions of Abrahamic religions such as Islam and Christianity.[2] Its history dates back to the early days of human life.[3] At first glance, the existence of evil appears inconsistent with Monotheism in creation, God's wisdom, Divine justice, and the best possible system.[4] Nevertheless, it is said that it was never raised as a primary problem and was always addressed in the margins of other issues, including the discussion of Divine attributes.[5]
The problem of evil became one of the prominent and controversial topics in the field of the Philosophy of Religion after the World Wars and in the 20th and 21st centuries.[6] In the philosophy of religion and new theology, the problem of evil is raised as a rational challenge and one of the most serious critiques against the principle of the existence of God. So much so that Hans Küng, the German philosopher, considers this subject a sanctuary for Atheism.[7]
What is evil? How has evil come into being? Why has it come into being, and who brought it into being? Was it not possible for the world to be full of only beauty and good? Did God create evils, and if so, why did God create evil, and why should evils not be removed? In other words, the question is how a benevolent, wise, and omnipotent God could directly or indirectly allow the existence of diseases like cancer, natural disasters, congenital defects, etc., which bring about much suffering for mankind?[8]
Other questions have also been raised from theological and philosophical perspectives, such as whether the existence of evil is consistent with belief in attributes like justice, wisdom, and power of God. Is the existing system and the world the best possible world, and is its system the best system of existence?[9]
The Problem of Evil in Islamic and Shi'a Literature
According to researchers, the word sharr (evil) in the sense of unpleasantness, suffering, and losses has been used more than thirty times in the Qur'an.[10] According to Morteza Motahhari, Muslim philosophers usually raise the discussion of evil in topics related to Tawhid, in response to the doubt of dualists, or in the discussion of Divine Providence and in response to the doubt of duality of origin or the attachment of God's will to evils.[11] In the theological and doctrinal books of Muslims and Shi'as, there is usually a specific discussion about the justice of God in the discussion of Divine acts, in which attention is paid to the problem of evil.[12] Morteza Motahhari, the Shi'a theologian, wrote the book Divine Justice in this same regard.[13] The Iranian Association for Philosophy of Religion has compiled a list of books and articles published in Persian about evil.[14]
Meaning of Evil and Its Relation to Suffering
Al-Raghib al-Isfahani in the lexical book al-Mufradat defined evil as something that everyone avoids.[15] Similarly, the meaning of evil in religious texts (Qur'an and traditions) is identified as the same general concept in society.[16] However, technically, Ibn Sina, the Muslim philosopher, considered evil to mean privation (nothingness) from a philosophical perspective.[17] People of philosophy and theology refer to all the bad things and problems of human life, including wars, crimes, suicides, diseases, destruction resulting from earthquakes and severe storms, and the inevitability of death under the name of evil.[18]
In the view of Western scientists, evil is defined as suffering,[19] bad will,[20] and impotence or weakness.[21] Aristotle, the Greek philosopher, was the first to describe evil as something undesirable.[22] According to some researchers, most Western thinkers have defined evil as suffering.[23] The author of the article "Good and Evil" in the Encyclopedia of Imam Ali (a), based on traditions from Imam Ali (a), introduced good and evil as two psychological matters arising from the perception of human joy or suffering, and external phenomena are called good or evil when they provide the ground for joy or suffering in man. Natural evils like earthquakes, floods, and volcanoes or moral evils, are considered evil because they cause suffering, pain, and trouble for man.[24] Muhammad Taqi Ja'fari, the Shi'a philosopher and theologian, considers the use of the word "evil" to be wrong and suggests that instead, words like "unpleasantness" should be used, which conveys the meaning of suffering.[25]
Natural Evils and Moral Evils
The division of evil into natural and moral is the most famous classification mentioned.[26] Natural Evils are events that happen in nature without human intervention and cause suffering and pain, such as storms, earthquakes, floods, volcanoes, diseases, and disabilities not created by human factors. In contrast, moral evils refer to undesirable behaviors and moral characteristics committed by humans, such as lying, arrogance, greed, and acts like murder and theft. This category of evils is the direct result of human actions and choices.[27]
Some researchers have identified unfortunate events that occur in the natural environment due to the intervention of natural and human factors as social evil.[28] Some have also named human sufferings, such as the grief of separation from friends or the mourning of loved ones, as emotional or feeling evils because they are from psychological states.[29]
Evil is Born of Human Sins
Some Muslim theologians, considering some Quranic verses[30] and traditions,[31] have considered the incorrect and improper deeds and behaviors of humans to be effective in the emergence of natural evils.[32] For instance, in the view of 'Allama Tabataba'i, Qur'an 42:30 expresses this very point; because it considers public and pervasive calamities such as famine, earthquakes, and cholera to be the product of humans' sins and behavioral ugliness. Qur'an 30:41 and Qur'an 13:11 are also counted as sharing the same meaning as the aforementioned verse, which indicate the connection between human actions and the world's system. Tabataba'i has counted the connection and influence of human actions in creating evils as one of the Sunnas of God.[33] It has been said that, according to traditions, the good and righteous deeds of pious individuals also repel punishment and evil.[34] In the belief of Muhammad Taqi Misbah Yazdi, without the teachings of the Qur'an and hadiths, the influence of human deeds on misfortunes and evils would have remained entirely beyond our comprehension.[35]
Philosophical or Metaphysical Evil
Other types have also been counted for evil. Leibniz, a Western philosopher, in the book Theodicy, named an evil under the title "metaphysical" or "philosophical".[36] The criterion for this categorization is the division of beings into Necessary Being and contingent being. Since all contingent beings are accompanied by deficiency and lack, there is always a type of shortage and absence in the essence of all possible beings. Based on this definition, all creatures are considered an instance of metaphysical evil in some way.[37] Abdullah Jawadi Amuli, the Shi'a commentator, divided evil into two types: essential (bi-l-dhat) and accidental (bi-l-arad), where the criterion is existence and non-existence, and essential evil is the same as non-existence and lack of existence.[38] This type of evil is not considered in the discussion of the problem of evil, because such an evil has no contradiction with religious teachings.[39]
Inconsistency of Evils with Religious Beliefs
The problem of evil is perceived as inconsistent with religious teachings in various fields of Islamic theology, such as the principle of the existence of God, the oneness of God, the absolute knowledge, power, and benevolence of God, and Divine justice.
Inconsistency with the Existence of God
The problem of evil and life's sufferings is raised as a fundamental challenge against the existence of God. The explanation is that the existence of evil in the world is in conflict and contradiction with the existence of the God that religious people believe in, because either there must be a God who created a world free of evil, or the existence of evil is proof of the non-existence of God.[40] This problem is also raised under the name of the argument from evil against God or the evidential problem of evil.
The problem of evil refers to any kind of injustice, badness, suffering, and pain that exists in the world and appears inconsistent with the existence of a God who possesses absolute attributes such as knowledge, power, justice, and benevolence, in such a way that the presence of one can negate the presence of the other.[41]
Inconsistency with Oneness
It is said that the doubt of evil can be perceived as an obstacle to the unity of God.[42] Because a God who is good cannot be the creator of evils, and on the other hand, since there are many evils in the world, it must be concluded that these evils have come into being from another origin besides the God who creates goods. Therefore, the supporters of dualism, to escape the problem of evil, developed a belief in two gods: "Yazdan" and "Ahriman".[43]
Inconsistency with Certain Attributes
The existence of evil has been assessed as inconsistent with the attributes of "absolute knowledge," "absolute power," and "absolute benevolence" of God.[44] John Hospers, an American philosopher,[45] J. L. Mackie, an Australian philosopher, and others have also emphasized this inconsistency.[46] Epicurus, the Greek philosopher (d. 270 BC), argued that: if there is a God who is omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient, then evil does not exist; but evil exists in the world; therefore, a God who is omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient does not exist.[47]
Inconsistency with Divine Justice
The existence of evils and bitterness, besides inconsistency with some attributes of God, is also considered in conflict with the attribute of Divine Justice.[48] According to Motahhari, the problem is why deficiency, shortage, annihilation, and non-existence have found their way into the system of existence? Why is one blind, another deaf, and the third born with defects? And are these not instances of injustice?[49] In fact, because some have considered misfortunes and miseries as injustice, these problems have been placed in opposition to justice.[50]
Solutions to the Problem of Evil
Based on a compilation of responses to the problem of evil, it is said that 13 responses have been given to the problem of evil so far.[51] These responses have been categorized into four groups: the theory of greater goods, the aesthetic theory, the theory of perfection, and the theory of the best system and minimal evil.[52] Some have also categorized them into three groups, which are: (a) God exists, and evils also exist, (b) evils are privative, and (c) evils are the requisite of greater goods.[53] Reliance on the best possible system, the privative nature of evil, reliance on compensation (a'wad) and intisaf, and the divisional response are among the most famous responses in the doctrinal, philosophical, and exegetical texts of Muslims.
Some researchers and scholars, by examining various responses to the problem of evil, have come to the belief that each of the responses might be correct on its own, but none can be the answer to all questions related to evil. Therefore, they have adhered to a combined solution from the set of responses to find a comprehensive and convincing answer to the problem of evil.[54] Muhammad Taqi Misbah Yazdi, among Shi'a philosophers and theologians, is also one of the thinkers who gave a combined response to the problem of evil.[55]
Other responses have also been mentioned for the doubt of evil. For example, Hindus have responded to the doubt of evil using the law of "Karma" or retribution of action.[56] Mayas also addressed the issue of the illusionism of the material world, which indicates the lack of external reality for the world. Based on this view, the world is nothing but pure illusion and fancy, and consequently, there is no reality in the world that can be attributed to good or evil. Therefore, based on this worldview, evil is also denied.[57] Likewise, the response of global organism, dualism, process theology, pragmatism, and image-belief has been given to the problem of evil, which has not been accepted by Muslim thinkers.[58]
Evil Does Not Exist
A group of solutions to the problem of evil consists of responses that deny the real existence of evil in the world.
Privative Nature of Evil
One of the ways to respond to the problem of evil is the nihilistic response or the theory of the privative nature of evil. According to philosophers like Farabi, Ibn Sina, and Nasir al-Din al-Tusi, matters like death or blindness are privative matters and have no external existence at all, and even beings like predatory animals or floods and earthquakes that cause human suffering, although they themselves exist, they provide the ground for privative matters, and for this reason they are called evil.[59] Based on this perspective, evils are not considered existential realities of which an agent could be spoken, and thus the contradiction between God and the existence of evil is also removed.[60] Farabi, Ibn Sina, Suhrawardi, Mulla Sadra, Tabataba'i, Motahhari, Jawadi Amuli, and Misbah Yazdi are among the philosophers who align with the nihilistic theory of evil.[61] This solution, which has been used more in natural evil, can be used for the inconsistency of evil with the principle of God's existence and also the inconsistency with the oneness of God, and invalidates dualism.[62] However, it has been said that this response cannot solve the problem of perceptual evil because Perceptual Evil is from the category of existences, and its being existential cannot be denied.[63]
Comparative Nature of Evils
One of the common responses to the problem of evil is its comparative and relative nature. According to Morteza Motahhari, the Shi'a philosopher, everything is good in its place, and there is no evil in creation. Sufferings and pains are actually found when these beings cause suffering and pain in other beings.[64] Predatory animals are considered evil when they harm humans but are not evil in their own place. According to Jawadi Amuli, the Shi'a theologian, comparative (accidental) evil is an essentially good existence, but its existence is perceived as evil in comparison and relative to another being.[65]
Evil is an Effect of Human Ignorance (Does Every Suffering Have a Wisdom?)
According to some theologians, anything that initially appears to man as evil is a hasty judgment arising either from ignorance and unawareness regarding the hidden dimensions and details of matters,[66] or from partial vision and lack of attention to other dimensions of an event.[67] Just as a child hates medicine because of its bitterness, while in fact that medicine brings nothing but health and recovery for the child, the approach of the Holy Qur'an in responding to the problem of evil has been assessed as based on this very human ignorance, and Qur'an 2:216 has been considered in this same regard which says: it may be that you dislike a thing while it is good for you. [68] In fact, because God is omniscient and omnipotent and has no ignorance or stinginess, the ground for doing injustice also does not exist in His Essence, and behind every suffering that man considers evil, a good and wisdom is hidden that man may not be aware of.[69]
Inevitability of Evil
A category of responses to the problem of evil is formed based on analyses of the universe that accept the existence of evil but consider it inevitable, believing that the creation of a material world free from any evil is impossible.[70]
Best Possible System
Reliance on the theory of the best possible system is one of the responses of Muslim thinkers to the problem of evil.[71] The best system means the universe has been created in the best possible form.[72] Al-Sayyid al-Murtada, the Shi'a jurist and theologian, believes that, based on the best system, creation is designed in such a way that makes everything good and noble, and no being exists as absolute evil. God has created all creatures with a beautiful and proportional order, and the existence of any evil in the world is somehow in harmony with this system.[73] The response of the best system has been attended to by Muslim scholars in two forms: limmi (deductive) and inni (inductive).[74] Morteza Motahhari, the Shi'a philosopher, stated the inni argument of the best system in the book Divine Justice, and Abdullah Jawadi Amuli, the Shi'a commentator and philosopher, explained its limmi argument in detail. This solution is used more in natural and social evil.
This response is introduced in Islamic theology as the "Rule of al-Aslah" and in Islamic philosophy as "the best system" or "providence" (inaya).[75] The initiator of this issue among Islamic philosophers was Farabi in the book Al-Taʿliqat and its completer was Ibn Sina.[76] In Shi'a theological books, the oldest work that addressed the issue of the best system (obligation of al-aslah) is the book al-Yaqut fi 'ilm al-kalam by al-Nawbakhti, and after that al-Dhakhira fi 'ilm al-kalam written by al-Sayyid al-Murtada.
Divisional Response
The divisional response is a response given from a philosophical perspective to the problem of evil. In this response, to justify natural evils, it is argued that among the possible forms for the creation of the world, the only form capable of being created by God is the one whose good is more than its evil. Because a world that is pure evil, or its evil is more than its good, does not emanate from God, and a world whose good and evil are equal is a choice without reason (tarjih bila murajjih). On the other hand, if God had not created the world of existence to avoid small evils, He would have acted against interests and wisdom because He would have put aside extensive goods.[77] A world that is pure good also exists, which is the world of abstract beings, which is not material and lacks any evil. Based on this analysis, God, in creating the material world, chose the third option, which, although it has small evils, brings about abundant goods.[78]
Evils are the Requisite of Free Will
One of the common responses to the problem of moral evil has been formed by relying on the status of human choice. Based on this response, the free will of humans plays a role in the occurrence of unfortunate events, and human freedom provides the ground for the emergence of evil. God created man with choice so he could reach perfection. The requisite of this choice is the possibility of choosing between good and bad options; therefore, man, with the freedom he has, can also choose undesirable options.[79] Some thinkers believe that the response based on choice is the most important solution suggested for the problem of evil.[80] According to John Hospers, the Western philosopher, this solution cannot be responsive to natural evils that occur without human choice.[81]
Compensation of Evils in the Afterlife (A'wad and Intisaf)
Some responses to the problem of evil are formed based on the compensation of human sufferings and pains in the afterlife. In these responses, natural sufferings and diseases are compensated with a reward that is called a'wad (plural of ʿawaḍ) in theological literature.[82] But moral evils arising from human oppression toward each other are compensated based on God's seeking of justice and prosecution from the oppressors, which is named intisaf.[83]
In the discussion of Divine compensation, it is said that the belief of Shi'as is that God's compensation and substitute must be more than the individual's suffering, such that if the suffering individual were given the power of choice, they would choose the sufferings themselves.[84] According to al-Fadil al-Miqdad, the 9th-century Shi'a theologian, intisaf is obligatory upon God because He granted the power of oppression to the servants.[85] It is said that a'wad includes innocent humans, including children, the insane, believers, prophets, and Divine friends.[86] The response based on a'wad is considered one of the best responses to the problem of evil.[87] Muslim theologians, especially Shi'as, have examined the theory of compensation under the doctrine of Divine justice.[88]
In the Holy Qur'an, Qur'an 2:155 is considered as directed toward the issue of compensation and a response to the problem of evil.[89] Researchers believe that in the traditions of the Ahl al-Bayt (a), they emphasize more on the principle of "ʿawaḍ" and "intisaf" and worldly and otherworldly compensation for evils.[90] For instance, it is mentioned in various traditions that mortality arising from natural events like floods and earthquakes is compensated in the afterlife and the victims are considered martyrs,[91] or it is explicitly stated that the suffering of diseases is compensated on the Day of Resurrection.[92] Al-Shahid al-Thani, the Shi'a jurist, wrote the book Musakkin al-fu'ad in this regard and collected about 200 related traditions.[93] In the first chapter of the book, he narrated 45 hadiths on the subject of God's rewards against calamities, and in the second chapter, he compiled several verses and dozens of hadiths about patience in life's sufferings.[94]
Evils provide the Ground for Human Growth and Transcendence
Some of the responses given to the problem of evil are directed toward the benefits of evil in life, which are usually raised after philosophical responses.[95] Some have named these responses existential and being-related responses,[96] because evils affect the human soul and psyche and cause the manifestation of God's mercy, closeness and dependence of man on God, submission to God, and understanding and harmony with others.[97]
In some verses like Qur'an 17:83, evils provide the ground for man's request and distress toward God; in others like Qur'an 21:35, evil is an examination and test; and in Qur'an 7:136 and some other verses, evils are introduced as the penalty for deeds of humans.[98]
Facing evils provides the ground for distinguishing believing servants from non-believers.[99] Evil and suffering can have other benefits, such as strengthening faith, scientific progress, and clarifying the differences between good and bad.[100] Many innovations reach fruition in the face of challenges and problems. Just as many inventions are the result of abundant efforts and hardships.[101] Sometimes evils and sufferings wake humans from the sleep of negligence.[102] To achieve true perfection and happiness, man must pass through a path accompanied by evil, pain, and suffering. Therefore, the world acts as a ladder for evolution and reaching eternal happiness for man.[103] Just as, according to an aesthetic argument, the existence of ugliness alongside beauty causes beauty to be recognized and appreciated.[104]
Some thinkers believe that utility-based responses look at aspects of otherworldly happiness, and if reaching happiness and perfection is explained from a worldly aspect, it can be considered an independent response under the title "evils as the origin of goods".[105]
Notes
- ↑ Qadrdān Qarā-malikī, Masʾala-yi sharr az dīdagān-i mutakallimān, p. 23.
- ↑ Qadrdān Qarā-malikī, Khudā wa masʾala-yi sharr, pp. 9-10.
- ↑ Qadrdān Qarā-malikī, Khudā wa masʾala-yi sharr, p. 9.
- ↑ ʿĀmirī, Barrasī-yi taṣādum-i shurūr bā ṣifāt-i ilāhī bar asās-i mabānī-yi ḥikmat-i mutaʿāliya, p. 26.
- ↑ Mīr-ṣadrī, Farāsū-yi sharr, farārū-yi ranj, p. 29.
- ↑ Mīr-ṣadrī, Farāsū-yi sharr, farārū-yi ranj, p. 29.
- ↑ Peterson et al., ʿAql wa iʿtiqād-i dīnī, p. 177.
- ↑ Rustamī, Khudā wa masʾala-yi sharr (dard wa ranj), p. 743.
- ↑ Rustamī, Khudā wa masʾala-yi sharr (dard wa ranj), p. 743.
- ↑ Qadrdān Qarā-malikī, Khudā wa masʾala-yi sharr, p. 240.
- ↑ Muṭahharī, ʿAdl-i ilāhī, p. 124.
- ↑ Muṭahharī, ʿAdl-i ilāhī, p. 17.
- ↑ Qadrdān Qarā-malikī, ʿAdl-i ilāhī, p. 22.
- ↑ Iranian Association for Philosophy of Religion, Bibliography on the Problem of Evil.
- ↑ Rāghib al-Iṣfahānī, al-Mufradāt, under the root sharr.
- ↑ Allāh-budāshtī, Mafhūm-i sharr az manẓar-i Qurʾān-i Karīm, pp. 5-10.
- ↑ Ibn Sīnā, al-Shifāʾ: al-Ilāhiyyāt, p. 416.
- ↑ Aḥmadī-zāda, Masʾala-yi sharr dar ilāhiyyāt-i pūyishī wa ḥikmat-i mutaʿāliya, p. 162.
- ↑ Copleston, Tārīkh-i falsafa, vol. 1, p. 467.
- ↑ Kant, Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, p. 59.
- ↑ Nietzsche, The Antichrist, pp. 135-136.
- ↑ Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, p. 45.
- ↑ Ḥasanzāda Mishkānī, Barrasī-yi taṭbīqī-yi dīdgāh-i John Hospers wa Āyatullāh Jawādī Āmulī dar masʾala-yi sharr, pp. 200-207.
- ↑ Ṣādiqī, Khayr wa sharr, pp. 354-355.
- ↑ Jaʿfarī, Jabr wa ikhtiyār, p. 293.
- ↑ Riḍāʾī, Teʾodīsa wa ʿadl-i ilāhī, p. 89.
- ↑ Ḥasanzāda Mishkānī, Barrasī-yi taṭbīqī-yi dīdgāh-i John Hospers wa Āyatullāh Jawādī Āmulī dar masʾala-yi sharr, p. 29.
- ↑ Karīmzāda Qarā-malikī, Masʾala-yi sharr dar ḥikmat wa sharīʿat, pp. 39-40.
- ↑ Ṣādiqī, Khayr wa sharr, p. 346.
- ↑ See: Qur'an 42:30; Qur'an 30:41; Qur'an 7:96.
- ↑ See: Kulaynī, al-Kāfī, vol. 2, pp. 373-374; Ṣadūq, ʿUyūn akhbār al-Riḍā (a), vol. 2, p. 29.
- ↑ See: Miṣbāḥ Yazdī, Khudā-shināsī, p. 325; Saʿīdī-mihr, Āmūzish-i kalām-i Islāmī (1), pp. 306-307; Rabbānī Gulpāygānī, Naqsh-i insān dar shurūr-i ṭabīʿī az nigāh-i waḥy wa ʿaql, p. 42.
- ↑ Ṭabāṭabāʾī, al-Mīzān, vol. 18, p. 59.
- ↑ See: Rabbānī Gulpāygānī, Naqsh-i insān dar shurūr-i ṭabīʿī az nigāh-i waḥy wa ʿaql, p. 52.
- ↑ Miṣbāḥ Yazdī, Khudā-shināsī, p. 326.
- ↑ Riḍāʾī, Teʾodīsa wa ʿadl-i ilāhī, p. 89.
- ↑ Riḍāʾī, Teʾodīsa wa ʿadl-i ilāhī, p. 89.
- ↑ Jawādī Āmulī, Islām wa muḥīṭ-i zīst, p. 147.
- ↑ Tabārṣafar, Masʾala-yi sharr, p. 90.
- ↑ Qadrdān Qarā-malikī, Khudā wa masʾala-yi sharr, p. 10.
- ↑ Shākirī et al., Naqd wa barrasī-yi rāh-ḥall-i nīstī-ingārī-yi shurūr bā takya bar dīdgāh-i Āyatullāh Jawādī Āmulī, pp. 63-64.
- ↑ ʿĀmirī, Barrasī-yi taṣadum-i shurūr bā ṣifāt-i ilāhī bar asās-i mabānī-yi ḥikmat-i mutaʿāliya, p. 26.
- ↑ Muṭahharī, ʿAdl-i ilāhī, pp. 64-65.
- ↑ Jabraʾīlī, Masʾala-yi sharr wa rāz-i tafāwut-hā, pp. 85-86.
- ↑ Hospers, An Introduction to Philosophical Analysis, p. 310.
- ↑ Ḥasanzāda, Barrasī-yi taṭbīqī-yi dīdgāh-i John Hospers wa Āyatullāh Jawādī Āmulī dar masʾala-yi sharr, p. 16, quoting the lectures on Fiqh of Professor Reza Berenjkar, April 5, 2020.
- ↑ Hickson, A Brief History of Problems of Evil, pp. 6-7.
- ↑ Subḥānī, al-Ilāhiyyāt, vol. 1, p. 260 and p. 273.
- ↑ Muṭahharī, ʿAdl-i ilāhī, p. 135.
- ↑ Muṭahharī, ʿAdl-i ilāhī, p. 63; Qadrdān Qarā-malikī, ʿAdl-i ilāhī, p. 51 and p. 68.
- ↑ Sulgī and Pūrḥasan, Khudā-yi mihrabān wa masʾala-yi sharr, p. 45.
- ↑ Pūrḥasan, Pīsh-guftār, p. H.
- ↑ Aʿwānī, Teʾodīsa wa ʿadl-i ilāhī az nigāh-i Lāyib-nīts, p. 5.
- ↑ Muḥammadzādih and Nīrūmand, Rahyāft-i tarkībī dar ḥall-i masʾalih-yi sharr, p. 103.
- ↑ Bahrāmī et al., Taḥlīl-i masʾala-yi sharr dar andīsha-yi Ustād Miṣbāḥ, p. 47.
- ↑ Qadrdān Qarā-malikī, Khudā wa masʾala-yi sharr, p. 229.
- ↑ Qadrdān Qarā-malikī, Khudā wa masʾala-yi sharr, p. 37.
- ↑ Qadrdān Qarā-malikī, Khudā wa masʾala-yi sharr, pp. 229-274.
- ↑ Muḥammad-riḍāʾī, Masʾala-yi sharr wa rāh-ḥall-hā-yi ān, p. 28.
- ↑ Ḥasanzāda, Barrasī-yi taṭbīqī-yi dīdgāh-i John Hospers wa Āyatullāh Jawādī Āmulī dar masʾala-yi sharr, p. 40.
- ↑ Arshadī-bahādur, Barrasī-yi rūykard-i kullī bih masʾalih-yi sharr dar nigāh-i falāsifih-yi mashhūr-i Musulmān, p. 45.
- ↑ ʿĀmirī, Barrasī-yi taṭbīqī-yi shurūr bā ṣifāt-i ilāhī bar asās-i mabānī-yi ḥikmat-i mutaʿāliya, p. 29.
- ↑ Ḥasanzāda, Barrasī wa naqd-i rāh-ḥall-i ʿadamī-ingārī-yi shurūr dar dīdgāh-i Āyatullāh Jawādī Āmulī, pp. 85-94.
- ↑ Muṭahharī, ʿAdl-i ilāhī, pp. 131-132.
- ↑ Jawādī Āmulī, Islām wa muḥīṭ-i zīst, p. 147.
- ↑ Ghazālī, Iḥyāʾ ʿulūm al-dīn, vol. 4, pp. 5-9.
- ↑ Muḥammadzāda and Nīrūmand, Rahyāft-i tarkībī dar ḥall-i masʾalih-yi sharr, p. 109.
- ↑ Qadrdān Qarā-malikī, Khudā wa masʾala-yi sharr, p. 194.
- ↑ Qadrdān Qarā-malikī, Masʾala-yi sharr az dīdgāh-i mutakallimān", p. 35.
- ↑ Qadrdān Qarā-malikī, Masʾala-yi sharr az dīdgāh-i mutakallimān, p. 41.
- ↑ Aḥmadī, Tabyīn-i masʾala-yi sharr dar tafakkur-i Ustād Jawādī Āmulī, p. 153.
- ↑ Muṭahharī, ʿAdl-i ilāhī, p. 63.
- ↑ Sayyid al-Murtada, al-Dhakhīra fī ʿilm al-kalām, vol. 1, p. 199. For further study, refer to the following article: Muḥammadī, Taḥlīl wa barrasī-yi ravish-hā-yi waḥyānī, burhānī wa ʿirfānī dar ithbāt-i masʾalih-yi niẓām-i aḥsan az manẓar-i Āyatullāh Jawādī Āmulī, pp. 5-15.
- ↑ Shākirī, Naqd wa barrasī-yi adillih-yi John Hospers dar masʾalih-yi niẓām-i aḥsan, p. 320.
- ↑ Ḥasanzāda Mishkānī, Barrasī-yi taṭbīqī-yi dīdgāh-i John Hospers wa Āyatullāh Jawādī Āmulī dar masʾalih-yi sharr, p. 113. For further study on the Rule of al-Aslah, refer to the article: Qāʿida-yi aṣlaḥ az dīdgāh-i mutakallimān-i Islām by Mahdi Niku'ei.
- ↑ Ibn Sīnā, al-Najāt, pp. 668-681. Ibn Sina in the book al-Shifa, theology section, Ninth Article, Sixth Chapter Fī l-ʿInāya wa bayān kayfiyyat dukhūl al-sharr fī l-qaḍāʾ al-ilāhī, expanded the subject of providence.
- ↑ Aristotle, Metaphysics, p. 27.
- ↑ Ibn Sīnā, al-Najāt, p. 679; Ilāhiyyāt al-Shifāʾ, pp. 421-423.
- ↑ Qadrdān Qarā-malikī, Khudā wa masʾala-yi sharr, p. 210.
- ↑ Plantinga, Kalām-i falsafī, p. 161.
- ↑ Hospers, Philosophy of Religion, p. 119.
- ↑ Qāḍī ʿAbd al-Jabbār, Sharḥ al-Uṣūl al-khamsa, p. 494.
- ↑ Qadrdān Qarā-malikī, Khudā wa masʾala-yi sharr, pp. 231-234.
- ↑ Ḥillī, Nahj al-ḥaqq wa kashf al-ṣidq, p. 137; Muẓaffar, Dalāʾil al-ṣidq li-Nahj al-ḥaqq, vol. 3, p. 402.
- ↑ al-Suyūrī, Irshād al-ṭālibīn ilā Nahj al-mustarshidīn, p. 285.
- ↑ Qāḍī ʿAbd al-Jabbār, Sharḥ al-Uṣūl al-khamsa, p. 494.
- ↑ Akbarī Muṭlaq, Naẓariyya-yi ʿawaḍ wa rāh-ḥall-i mutakallimān-i Musulmān barā-yi masʾala-yi shurūr, p. 71.
- ↑ Akbarī Muṭlaq, Naẓariyya-yi ʿawaḍ wa rāh-ḥall-i mutakallimān-i Musulmān barā-yi masʾala-yi shurūr, p. 72.
- ↑ Faṣīḥī, Aʿwāḍ, p. 343.
- ↑ Qadrdān Qarā-malikī, Khudā wa masʾala-yi sharr, p. 242.
- ↑ Muḥammadī Rayshahrī, Mīzān al-ḥikma, vol. 6, p. 154.
- ↑ Ṣadūq, Thawāb al-aʿmāl wa ʿiqāb al-aʿmāl, vol. 1, pp. 373-374.
- ↑ Jannātī, Pīsh-guftār, p. 15.
- ↑ Jannātī, Pīsh-guftār, pp. 13-14.
- ↑ Ṭayyibī-nasab, Barrasī-yi masʾala-yi shurūr (2), p. 35.
- ↑ Rustamī, Khidā wa masʾala-yi sharr (dard wa ranj), p. 753.
- ↑ Rustamī, Khudā wa masʾala-yi sharr (dard wa ranj), pp. 753-755.
- ↑ Qadrdān Qarā-malikī, Masʾala-yi sharr az dīdagān-i mutakallimān, pp. 28-29.
- ↑ Subḥānī, Andīshih-yi Islāmī 1, p. 63.
- ↑ Muṭahharī, ʿAdl-i ilāhī, p. 172.
- ↑ Subḥānī, Andīsha-yi Islāmī 1, p. 61.
- ↑ Subḥānī, Andīshih-yi Islāmī 1, p. 62.
- ↑ Qadrdān Qarā-malikī, Khudā wa masʾala-yi sharr, p. 176.
- ↑ Maẓāhirī, Khayr wa sharr dar falsafa wa āyāt wa riwāyāt, pp. 169-170.
- ↑ Qadrdān Qarā-malikī, Khudā wa masʾala-yi sharr, p. 186.
References
- The Holy Qur'an.
- Aḥmadī, Fāṭima. Tabyīn-i masʾala-yi sharr dar tafakkur-i Ustād Jawādī Āmulī. In Ilāhiyyāt wa masʾala-yi sharr. Edited by Qasim Pur-Hassan. Tehran: Institute for Humanities and Cultural Studies, 1393 Sh.
- Aḥmadī-zāda, Ḥasan. Masʾala-yi sharr dar ilāhiyyāt-i pūyishī wa ḥikmat-i mutaʿāliya. In Ilāhiyyāt wa masʾala-yi sharr. Edited by Qasim Pur-Hassan. Tehran: Institute for Humanities and Cultural Studies, 1393 Sh.
- Akbarī Muṭlaq, Kubrā. Naẓariyya-yi ʿawaḍ, wa rāh-ḥall-i mutakallimān-i Musulmān barā-yi masʾala-yi shurūr. Biannual Journal of Asfār, no. 6, Autumn and Winter 1396 Sh.
- Allāh-budāshtī, ʿAlī. Mafhūm-i sharr az manẓar-i Qurʾān-i Karīm. Mubīn, no. 6, 1388 Sh.
- ʿĀmirī, Maʿṣūma. Barrasī-yi taṭādum-i shurūr bā ṣifāt-i ilāhī bar asās-i ḥikmat-i mutaʿāliya. Biannual Journal of Asfār, no. 3, Spring and Summer 1395 Sh.
- Aristotle. Metaphysics. Translated by Sharaf al-Din Khurasani. Tehran: Guftar Publishing, 1367 Sh.
- Aristotle. Nicomachean Ethics. Translated by Dr Sayyid Abu l-Qasim Pur-huseini. 2 vols. 2nd ed. Tehran: University of Tehran, 1381 Sh.
- Arshadī-bahādur, Mujtabā. Barrasī-yi rūykard-i kullī bi masʾala-yi sharr dar nigāh-i falāsifa-yi mashhūr-i Musulmān. Monthly Journal of Maʿrifat, no. 286, Mihr 1400 Sh.
- Aʿwānī, Shahīn. Teʾodīsa wa ʿadl-i ilāhī az nigāh-i Lāyib-nīts. Quarterly Journal of Pazhūhish-hā-yi Falsafī, no. 30, Spring 1399 Sh.
- Bahrāmī, ʿAlī-riḍā et al. Taḥlīl-i masʾala-yi sharr dar andīsha-yi Ustād Miṣbāḥ. Quarterly Journal of Kalām-i Islāmī, no. 109, Spring 1398 Sh.
- Copleston, Frederick. Tārīkh-i falsafa. vol. 1. Translated by Sayyid Jalal al-Din Mujtabawi. Tehran: Ilmi Farhangi Publishing Company and Surush Publications, 1391 Sh.
- Faṣīḥī, Muḥammad Ḥusayn. Aʿwāḍ. In Dānishnāma-yi kalām-i Islāmī. Qom, Winter 1378 Sh.
- Ghazālī, al-. Iḥyāʾ ʿulūm al-dīn. Beirut: Dar al-Ma'rifa, 1402 AH.
- Ḥasanzāda Mishkānī, Muḥammad Jawād. Barrasī wa naqd-i rāh-ḥall-i ʿadamī-ingārī-yi shurūr dar dīdgāh-i Āyatullāh Jawādī Āmulī. Journal of Ḥikmat-i Isrā, no. 1, 16th year, Spring 1403 Sh.
- Ḥasanzāda Mishkānī, Muḥammad Jawād. Barrasī-yi taṭbīqī-yi dīdgāh-i John Hospers wa Āyatullāh Jawādī Āmulī dar masʾala-yi sharr. PhD thesis, Farabi Faculty of Tehran University, Qom: 1402 Sh.
- Hick, John. Masʾala-yi sharr. Noormags website. Posted: November 5, 2024. Accessed: November 5, 2024.
- Hickson, M. W. A Brief History of Problems of Evil. In The Blackwell Companion to The Problem of Evil. Edited by Justin P. McBrayer and Daniel Howard-Snyder. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell, 2014.
- Ḥillī, Ḥasan b. Yūsuf al-. Bāb-i ḥādī ʿashar. Commentary by Fāḍil Miqdād. Translated by Muhsin Sadr-riḍwānī. Qom: Muhsin Sadr-riḍwān, 1380 Sh.
- Ḥillī, Ḥasan b. Yūsuf al-. Nahj al-ḥaqq wa kashf al-ṣidq. Lebanon: Dar al-Kitab al-Lubnani, 1982 CE.
- Hospers, John. Falsafa-yi dīn. Translated by the Islamic Propagation Office of Qom. n.d.
- Hospers, John. An Introduction to Philosophical Analysis. 3rd ed. London: Routledge, 1990.
- Ibn ʿArabī, Muḥammad b. ʿAlī. Fuṣūṣ al-ḥikam. Annotations by Abu l-Ala' Afifi. Tehran: al-Zahra Publications, 1370 Sh.
- Ibn Sīnā, Ḥusayn b. ʿAbd Allāh. Al-Ilāhiyyāt al-Shifāʾ. Edited and annotated by Āyatullāh Ḥasanzāda Āmulī. Qom: Islamic Propagation Office, 1367 Sh.
- Ibn Sīnā, Ḥusayn b. ʿAbd Allāh. Al-Najāt min al-gharaq fī baḥr al-ḍalālāt. 3rd ed. Tehran: Tehran University Press, 1387 Sh.
- Iranian Association for Philosophy of Religion. Bibliography on the Problem of Evil. Accessed: November 30, 2024.
- Jabrayīlī, Muḥammad Ṣafar. Masʾala-yi sharr wa rāz-i tafāwut-hā. Tehran: Kanun-e Andisha-yi Jawan, 1385 Sh.
- Jaʿfarī, Muḥammad Taqī. Jabr wa ikhtiyār. 6th ed. Tehran: Institute for Compilation and Publication of the Works of al-'Allama Ja'fari, 1388 Sh.
- Jannātī, Ḥusayn. Pīsh-guftār. In Ārām-bakhsh-i dil-i dāgh-dīda-gān yā tarjuma-yi Musakkin al-fuʾād. Written by al-Shahid al-Thani. Translated by Hossein Jannati. Qom: Ruh Publishing, 1380 Sh.
- Jawādī Āmulī, ʿAbd Allāh. Islām wa muḥīṭ-i zīst. 5th ed. Qom: Isra Publishing Center, 1388 Sh.
- Kant, Immanuel. Groundwork of Metaphysic of Morals. Translated by H. Paton. In The Moral Law. Hutchinson University Library, 1972.
- Karīmzāda Qarā-malikī, Qurbān-ʿAlī. Masʾala-yi sharr dar ḥikmat wa sharīʿat. Tabriz: Tabriz University Press, 1392 Sh.
- Kharrāzī, Muḥsin. Bidāyat al-maʿārif fī sharḥ al-ʿAqāʾid al-Imāmiyya. Qom: Management Center of the Qom Seminary, 4th ed., n.d.
- Kulaynī, Muḥammad b. Yaʿqūb. Al-Kāfī. Tehran: Dar al-Kutub al-Islamiyya, 1407 AH.
- Maẓāhirī, Muḥammad-mahdī. Khayr wa sharr dar falsafa wa āyāt wa riwāyāt. Biannual Journal of Pazhūhish-nāma-yi Qurʾān wa Ḥadīth, no. 2, Summer 1386 Sh.
- Mīr Dāmād, Muḥammad Bāqir. Al-Qabasāt. Edited by Mahdi Muhaqqiq. Tehran: University of Tehran, 1367 Sh.
- Mīr-ṣadrī, Saʿīda. Farāsū-yi sharr, farārū-yi ranj: bāzsāzī-yi teʾodīsa-yi Islāmī dar sāya-yi wāsāzī-yi sunnat. Qom: Kitab-i Taha, 1401 Sh.
- Miṣbāḥ Yazdī, Muḥammad Taqī. Āmūzish-i falsafa. Tehran: International Printing and Publishing Company, 1382 Sh.
- Muḥammad-riḍāʾī, Muḥammad. Masʾala-yi sharr wa rāh-ḥall-hā-yi ān. Quarterly Journal of Pazhūhish-hā-yi Fiqhī, no. 3, Winter 1384 Sh.
- Muḥammad-riḍāʾī, Muḥammad et al. Kalām-i jadīd bā rūykard-i taṭbīqī. Qom: Ma'arif Publishing, 1390 Sh.
- Muḥammadī Ray-shahrī, Muḥammad. Mīzān al-ḥikma. Qom: Dar al-Hadith Scientific and Cultural Institute, 1389 Sh.
- Muḥammadī, Muslim et al. Taḥlīl wa barrasī-yi rawish-hā-yi waḥyānī, burhānī wa ʿirfānī dar ithbāt-i masʾala-yi niẓām-i aḥsan az manẓar-i Āyatullāh Jawādī Āmulī. Journal of Andīsha-yi Nuwīn-i Dīnī, no. 73, Summer 1402 Sh.
- Muḥammadzāda, Ilhām and Riḍā Nīrūmand. Rahyāft-i tarkībī dar ḥall-i masʾala-yi sharr. Quarterly Journal of Pazhūhish-hā-yi Falsafī Kalāmī, no. 43, Spring and Summer 1389 Sh.
- Mullā Ṣadrā, Muḥammad. Al-Ḥikmat al-mutaʿāliya fī l-asfār al-ʿaqliyya al-arbaʿa. Beirut: Dar Ihya al-Turath al-Arabi, 1981 CE.
- Mullā Ṣadrā, Muḥammad. Sharḥ uṣūl al-Kāfī. Edited by Muhammad Khajawi. Tehran: Institute for Humanities and Cultural Studies, 1383 Sh.
- Muṭahharī, Murtaḍā. ʿAdl-i ilāhī. 9th ed. Tehran: Sadra, 1374 Sh.
- Muẓaffar, Muḥammad Ḥasan. Dalāʾil al-ṣidq li-Nahj al-ḥaqq. Qom: al-Al-Bayt (a) Institute, 1422 AH.
- Nahj al-balāgha. Edited by Sharīf al-Raḍī and Subḥī al-Ṣāliḥ. Qom: Hijrat, 1st ed., 1414 AH.
- Nietzsche, Friedrich. The Antichrist. Tehran: Pursish Publishing, 1376 Sh.
- Noss, John Boyer. Tārīkh-i jāmiʿ-i adyān. Translated by Ali Asghar Hekmat. Tehran: Parwaz Publications, 1363 Sh.
- Peterson, Michael et al. ʿAql wa iʿtiqād-i dīnī dar-āmadī bar falsafa-yi dīn. Translated by Ahmad Naraqi. 3rd ed. Tehran: Tarh-i No, 1379 Sh.
- Plantinga, Alvin et al. Kalām-i falsafī. Translated by Ibrahim Sultani. Tehran: Serat Cultural Institute, 1374 Sh.
- Pūr-ḥasan, Qāsim. Pīsh-guftār. In Ilāhiyyāt wa masʾala-yi sharr. Edited by Qasim Pur-Hassan. Tehran: Institute for Humanities and Cultural Studies, 1393 Sh.
- Qāḍī ʿAbd al-Jabbār, Abu l-Hasan. Sharḥ al-Uṣūl al-khamsa. Beirut: Dar Ihya al-Turath al-Arabi, 1422 AH.
- Qadrdān Qarā-malikī, Muḥammad Ḥasan. ʿAdl-i ilāhī. Tehran: Research Institute for Islamic Culture and Thought, 1st ed., 1391 Sh.
- Qadrdān Qarā-malikī, Muḥammad Ḥasan. Masʾala-yi sharr az dīdgāh-i mutakallimān. Nāma-yi Mufīd, no. 11, Autumn 1376 Sh.
- Qadrdān Qarā-malikī, Muḥammad Ḥasan. Khidā wa masʾala-yi sharr. Qom: Bustan-i Kitab, 1388 Sh.
- Rāghib al-Iṣfahānī, Ḥusayn b. Muḥammad. Al-Mufradāt fī gharīb al-Qurʾān. Beirut: Dar al-Ilm, 1st ed., 1412 AH.
- Riḍāʾī, Mahīn. Teʾodīsa wa ʿadl-i ilāhī (muqāyisa-ʾī miyān-i ārā-yi Lāyib-nīts wa Ustād Muṭahharī). Tehran: Suhrawardi Research and Publishing Office, 1380 Sh.
- Rustamī, Yad Allāh. Khidā wa masʾala-yi sharr (dard wa ranj). Quarterly Journal of Falsafa-yi Dīn, vol. 11, no. 4, Bahman 1393 Sh.
- Ṣādiqī, Hādī. Khayr wa sharr. In Dānishnāma-yi Imām ʿAlī (a). vol. 2. Tehran: Research Institute for Islamic Culture and Thought, 1380 Sh.
- Sanjarī, Ghulām-ʿAlī. Masʾala-yi manṭiqī-yi sharr az dīdgāh-i ʿAllāma Ṭabāṭabāʾī wa Alvin Plantinga. Qom: Bustan-i Kitab Institute, 1390 Sh.
- Sayyid al-Murtaḍā, al-. Al-Dhakhīra fī ʿilm al-kalām. Edited by Ahmad Husayni. Qom: Society of Seminary Teachers, 1411 AH.
- Shākirī, Rūḥ Allāh et al. Naqd wa barrasī-yi adilla-yi John Hospers dar masʾala-yi niẓām-i aḥsan. Journal of Falsafa-yi Dīn, no. 3, Autumn 1401 Sh.
- Shākirī, Rūḥ Allāh et al. Naqd wa barrasī-yi rāh-ḥall-i nīstī-ingārī-yi shurūr bā takya bar dīdgāh-i Āyatullāh Jawādī Āmulī. Journal of Andīsha-yi Nuwīn-i Dīnī, no. 67, Winter 1400 Sh.
- Ṣadūq, Muḥammad b. ʿAlī, al-. Thawāb al-aʿmāl wa ʿiqāb al-aʿmāl. Translated by Muhammad Rida Ansari Mahallati. Qom: Kowsar, 1382 Sh.
- Muḥammad b. ʿAlī, al-. Al-Tawḥīd. Qom: Islamic Publishing Institute, n.d.
- Subḥānī, Jaʿfar. Al-Ilāhiyyāt ʿalā hudā al-Kitāb wa l-Sunna wa l-ʿAql. Qom: Islamic World Science Center, 1412 AH.
- Subḥānī, Jaʿfar and Muḥammad Muḥammad-riḍāʾī. Andīsha-yi Islāmī. Qom: Ma'arif Publishing, 1385 Sh.
- Suhrawardī, Shihāb al-Dīn. Manṭiq al-talwīḥāt. Tehran: University of Tehran, 1334 Sh.
- Sulgī, Maryam and Qāsim Pūr-ḥasan. Khidā-yi mihrabān wa masʾala-yi sharr: masʾala-yi sharr; muʿḍalāt, rūykard-hā wa rāh-ḥall-hā. Tehran: Allameh Tabataba'i University, 1397 Sh.
- Suyūrī, ʿAbd Allāh b. Muḥammad ,al-. Irshād al-ṭālibīn ilā Nahj al-mustarshidīn. Qom: Library of Ayatollah Mar'ashi, 1405 AH.
- Ṭabāṭabāʾī, Sayyid Muḥammad Ḥusayn. Al-Mīzān fī tafsīr al-Qurʾān. Qom: Isma'iliyan, 1393 AH.
- Ṭabāṭabāʾī, Sayyid Muḥammad Ḥusayn. Nihāyat al-ḥikma. Qom: Islamic Publishing Institute, 1426 AH.
- Ṭabarṣafar, Ṣafdar. Masʾala-yi sharr. Monthly Journal of Maʿrifat, no. 88, Farwardin 1384 Sh.
- Ṭayyībī-nasab, Ḥamīd-riḍā. Barrasī-yi masʾala-yi shurūr (2). Quarterly Journal of Kalām-i Islāmī, no. 67, Autumn 1387 Sh.
- Trakakis, N. The God Beyond Belief: In Defence of William Rowe's Evidential Argument from Evil. Springer, 2007.