پژوهشنامه حکمت و فلسفه اسلامی
سال سوم شماره 4 (بهار و تابستان 1394)

On explaining the concomitance of “self-knowledge” and “knowledge of God” stated in the hadith “one who knows himself verily has known his Lord” there are different views and statements in the works of people of gnosis. On answering the fundamental question of connection between self-knowledge and knowledge of the Lord there are interpretations and statements in the works of Ibn Arabi and his followers: “manifestation’’, “identity”, “affinity” and “attributes and characters”. Having offered these four interpretations for the hadith, Mulla Sadra has given three statements to explain the relation between self-knowledge and knowledge of the Lord through “affinity” “poverty” and “attributes and characters”. The present article is to make a comparison between views of Ibn Arabi and Mulla Sadra, explaining their similarities and dissimilarities.

“Breath of Clemency” is an utterly mystical term which refers to the first, single and immanent manifestation of the Reality. In mystical works the breath of clemency is always referred to as a universal all-embracing reality that is flowing in temples of quiddities and gives rise to appearance of multiplicity. Due to its teleological convergence with theoretical mysticism the transcendent philosophy of Mulla Sadra implicitly or explicitly adopts mystical terms. Of these terms and terminology is the breath of clemency used frequently by the Foremost among theosophers in his works. Mulla Sadra on many occasions uses both terms of Breath of Clemency and expansive existence. At first glance they seem to be the same but there are some differences in usage and implications which require more consideration and investigation. The present article is to study the nature of Breath of Clemency, its status and extent as well as its implications and properties. It continues with the study of “expansive existence” as subject to be explored in Sadra’s works.

The proof of the Truthful for the existence of God was introduced to philosophical discussion by second Teacher, al-Farabi. Different formulations of the proof were given after him. In some of these versions there are fewer premises while in others more premises and assumptions are needed to obtain the desired conclusion. The question is which argument can be regarded as proof of the Truthful. What is the criterion? Of different versions of the proof which one is more preferred? Mulla Sadra and Allama Tabatabae have offered different versions of the argument. The present argument is to make a comparison of these versions, focusing on two criteria of the proof: that it is “seemingly propterquid” and “identity of the Way and the End”. The article is also considers four preferences “not-based-on vicious circle and absurdity of infinite regress”, “simplicity and briefness” “convergence with scriptural evidences in meaning and content” and “invocation of Divine Attributes after the proof of the Essence”. It authors conclude that this proof of the Truthful is not conceptual but based on unveiling. Of the conceptual versions Allama Tabatabae’s is more precise and perfect.

This investigation is intended to present a critical analysis of rhizomatic approach on the basis of Illuminationism. Our method in this study is descriptive analytic. Rhizomatic is a central concept in Deleuze’s philosophy. Rhizomatic Approach as a post-structuralist current focuses on ‘becoming’, negation of metaworld-versions, horizontal relations, multiplicity, and nomadic thought. By contrast, the basis of Illuminationist approach is the movement from darkness and nightfall to light and illumination. Illumination is but intuition and vision. Unlike rhizomatic approach Illuminationist philosophy understand the world in terms of hierarchical relations rather than purely horizontal ones. In Deleuze philosophy no element is to be regarded as higher than another. Both approaches seek to interiorize knowledge and criticize the formal inflexible constructions and as result regard human reason inadequate. Rhizomatic approach however rejects grand realm of reality and renders reason as a perceptive faculty unnecessary. Illuminationist approach is teleological and calls into question rhizomatic approach.

Infallibility is most often regarded by Muslim theologians as divine gift bestowed to special men so that others do not enjoy this God-given gift. According to some theologians infallibility is rooted in flawless and indubitable knowledge. Still another group of theologians take it to be a human disposition (habitus) which prevents man from sins. These accounts of infallibility are subject to serious objections and criticisms. Such questions as relation between infallibility and free will, value of this status and distinction of the Infallible Imams with ordinary people cannot be properly answered by any of these views. The author of the article is of the view that infallibility from sins is the matter of freedom and every man can attain this status. As to the infallibility from mistake and error is something different and is deserved for the holy Prophets and Imams. Having chosen some as prophet or Imam, God makes them immune from wrong-doing so much so that they do not make any mistake in proclamation of divine faith. Only this view of infallibility can meet the challenges and provide proper and clear response.

Mystical vision, unveiling and veridical dream-vision are among keywords in mysticism and they are examined and analyzed in all schools of Islamic mysticism and Sufism. The terms are semantically close to each other. Veridical visions can be regarded as an instance and stage of formal unveiling, i.e. awareness of the reality hidden by the veils. Revelation is the highest level of unveiling. The crucial question, however, is how to distinguish the divine unveilings from satanic incoming thoughts. Which unveiling and incoming thoughts are true and which one is false and misleading? With reference to the ideas and doctrines of Muslim philosophers and mystics from various schools such as Ibn Arabi, Dawoud Qasari, Sayed Heidar Amoli, Najmuddin Razi, Ibn Sina, Suhrawardi and Mulla Sadra, the present article attempts to define and categorize all sorts of unveilings and visions and gives an analysis of the views of the mystics on the problem in question and the ways in which true unveilings are to be distinguished from false and Satanic suggestions. How veridical dream visions can be recognized from confused dreams is also examined. The conclusion is that the most important criteria emphasized by mystics are first holy Quran and Tradition and then the view and control of the spiritual adept who successfully experienced stages of spiritual journey and is deeply familiar with the mystical stations and states. To this end it is of high importance for the wayfarer to avoid sins and acts of disobedience and perform his ritual obligations and follow the fourteen Muhammadan Infallibles so that he well attains the true unveilings and visions. The wayfarer should always compare his visions with those of the prophets and saints (particularly those of the perfect Muhammadan vision which is infallible) and thus make sure of their truth.