Today as it was in the past, faith in shafaat is accepted by some groups while it is rejected by some others and both sides base their views on the Qur’an. When we examine the Qur'an, we see that some of the verses related to the theme refer to the existence of shafaat and the other part of it speaks the absence of shafaat. The Qur'an is a divine book which superstitious cannot get close to it in (...) anyway. One of the most important characteristics of the Qur’an is that there are no contradictory information and provisions that lie against each other. However, the Qur’an was taken as a reference for both denial and proscription of shafaat. Both the approval and rejection of the Qur'an the same intercession is a paradoxical situation incompatible with the divine word. This leads us to determine two different types of shafaat accepted and rejected according to the Qur'an and the differences between them; therefore, this leads us also to examine the related verses holistically. In this respect, we will try in this article to examine the verses about the possibility and impossibility of shafaat in the Qur’anic integrity. In the same way, we will try to determine the nature of the shafaat that the Qur’an rejects and approves of. (shrink)

I have conducted a similar investigation on a text by a different author. The results of this investigation, which was performed on a text passage of 100,000 letters, are presented in the following tables from which one can see how and to what extent the limit theorems of the calculus of probability actually become evident.

Presentation of the thesis that Kumāril Bhaṭṭa and Dharmakīrti, 7th cent., Sanskrit philosophers, were Assamese by birth, contrary to the traditional belief that they are from South India.

Buddhist connections in Friedrich Nietzsche's philosophy; a study.

Upshot: Since all my commentators express some reservation about the distinction between the cognitive and non-cognitive aspects of knowledge in general, and its applicability and relevance in the domain of religious belief in particular, I will address the question of why this distinction is important and whether these two modes of knowledge can be communicated. Further questions I try to address include: Can a radical constructivist be an atheist, or alternatively a religious believer? What exactly would these designations mean? Is (...) it at all possible to discuss meaningfully the question of whether God exists? Can two or more people ascertain whether they in fact share their concept of a God? (shrink)

t. 1. Raboty po istoriosofii -- t. 2. Raboty po bogoslovii︠u︡.