Our main objective in this research is to affirm that philosophy, in its true essence and depth, has never been inherently opposed to religion. Rather, the turn toward atheism within philosophy represents isolated, personal stances, often reactionary in nature, and not rooted in genuine intellectual reflection, which the Qur’an encourages and calls people to adhere to. Our endeavor is to show that the call to atheism is foreign to reason, understood as a sound faculty or a sense linked to the pursuit of truth, as previously demonstrated by Descartes in his focus on the principles and methods of philosophical inquiry. To facilitate the achievement of these goals, we have employed several methodologies, primarily the structural method, which helps us analyze selected texts, this methodology enables the understanding of the elements within the studied positions, the relationships that link them, and the underlying implications upon which they are based. We will apply this method practically when analyzing conceptions that reject religion, uncovering the framework underpinning each conception. This approach facilitates comprehension by examining the rational foundations that support each interpretation of religion and later pave the way for its denial or transcendence. the historical method, which allows us to trace the development and dissemination of atheism, this approach is based on the premise that every sensory or intellectual phenomenon has an origin defined by time and place, evolving through transformations and additions over time. By employing this method, we can trace the development of various interpretations of religion and understand the intellectual accumulations shaped by successive historical periods, and the deconstructionist method, through which we identify the contradictions and flawed principles underlying atheistic arguments, this method allows for in-depth critique of the foundations, developmental trajectories, and final outcomes of phenomena. It also provides a means to establish new perspectives—whether by modifying the existing model, recontextualizing it, or replacing it with an entirely new framework. The importance of re-examining the relationship between philosophy and atheism stems from the profound influence of certain philosophical positions and their negative views on religion within various atheistic currents, especially contemporary ones. Contemporary atheism today poses a threat to religion as a symbolic human system, rich in a value-laden framework that upholds the essence of humanity in an era dominated by materialism and the absence of values. The central question of this research is: Can the human being truly achieve existence independently? Or can one live in this world isolated from all influential forces, including the creative and divine force?

This paper aims to explore the issue of human actions in Islamic thought, focusing on the various stances regarding determinism, free will, and the intermediate position between them. This topic is linked to an ontological question: What are the limits of human responsibility for their actions? Our view is that the different positions on human actions reflect the presence of pluralism within Islamic thought, specifically through the discipline of Islamic theology (kalām). The difference in positions about the human actions within the science of theology expresses the vitality of Islamic thought and its appreciation of the right to differ between theological schools such as the Mu’tazila, Shi’a, and Sunnis, especially in an era dominated by the rationalism of Mu’tazila thought influenced by the methodology of Greek philosophical thought. This difference was recognized, especially in the third and fourth centuries AH/ninth and tenth centuries AD. We consider this difference in discussing the subject of the human actions as evidence of the principle of pluralism in Islam, which allows us to speak of the existence of a significant degree of intellectual tolerance, a subject that has not been studied to date. The prevailing view in studies today on this subject is that the theological groups accuse each other of unbelief, which is a mistaken position, because the saying of unbelief did not appear until after the fourth century AH/tenth century AD when transmission, reliability, and conservatism prevailed in Islamic thought. In addressing this issue, we examine three major stances on human actions as represented by three theological schools: The Mu’tazila (who advocated free will in human actions), the Jabriya (who advocated determinism in human actions), and the Ash’ariyya (who upheld the theory of acquisition). Once this is accomplished, we will explore the philosophy of pluralism in Islam through the lens of kalām. The most important conclusion we reached is that the debate on human actions opened, by the mid-4th century AH/10th century CE, an intellectual horizon that laid the foundations for pluralism in Islamic theological discussions. However, this horizon was soon closed due to various factors, which we have discussed throughout the paper.

Based on the analysis of phenomenology and etymology, we argue that as three different components of Chinese philosophy, Confucianism, Taoism and Buddhism focus on human beings’ transcendence of behavior, body, and mind, which is made concrete as Ming (name of reputation), Qi (physical body), and Dao(way)-De(virtue), respectively. Chinese philosophy has its own system, but it is still a philosophical component in ontology, and its constituent elements are identified as “affirmative universal” by Euler’s Identity Diagrams in contrast both to existences in Heidegger’s triad Seinede-Dasein-Sein ontology, i.e., Being-Beings-To be, and to Freud’s triple self-Ego, Id (body-ego), and Superego. Taoism shapes the physical id with the “Type 1” natural Dao(way) personality”,Buddhism shapes the bodhisattva”Type-1” selfless De(virtue) personality and Confucianism pursues the mediocre”Type 0” social Dao-de(morality)personality”. Therefore, when q equals p, the ideal personality shaped by Chinese philosophy is the perfect combination of the three, displaying its “affirmative particular” unity in elemental composition and the ideal realm of Chinese philosophy follows the Euler’s Identify. Individuals who believe in the tenets of Chinese philosophy should have the personality of triadic mixtures. Nevertheless, one may become an extremely selfish hypocrites wearing social masks while one’s morality value reaches 1.