Ma`rifat Farhangi Ejtemaei

Religious science has different dimensions, domains, principles, definitions, presuppositions, and representations. Those who hold that it is not possible to have religious science cite such precedent reasons like: ideologizing science has an unsuccessful background; discussion about religious science is abrogated; religious science lacks scientific and political support; defending religious science is emotional; there is a disparity between what ‘is’ and what ‘ought to be’, every science has unity in subject matter and method; the accidental nature of science; the term "religious science" is paradoxical, and its implications are unacceptable. The reasons stated above cannot establish the claim that it is impossible to have religious science because ideologizing science in Christianity and Marxism cannot be considered as evidence for inefficiency of religious science. This illusion arises from the incorrect presupposition that Islam is identical to other religions. Other aforementioned reasons such as abrogation of religious science, accidental nature of science, disparity between what ‘is’ and what ‘ought to be’, and lack of scientific support for religious science are unfounded claims which do not correspond to the facts of the history of science. The conclusion that the unity of subject matter and method of religious science is incorrect and that the term "religious science" is paradoxical are a sort of fallacy. Finally, the idea that the implications of religious science are unacceptable is a mere claim which has to do with the realization of religious science and resulting from the unfamiliarity with Islamic sciences and domain of the doctrines of Islam. Key words: religious science, the evidence of proponents of religious science, distinction between sciences, precedent of religious science