فهرست مطالب محمدجواد اخگری

Examining the opinions of Al-Ghazali and Mullā Sadrā on the issue of individual unity of existence shows that despite the differences in their foundations, they agree on the results. Mullā Sadrā has referred to Al-Ghazali's views on this issue in various positions of his works and has considered Al-Ghazali's viewpoint as supporting the combination of rational and religious methods in this subject. In his analysis, Mullā Sadrā has referred to Al-Ghazali's views in several stages, including: 1. Multiplicity of contingents, according to which believing in the individual unity of existence does not imply denying the existence of contingents; 2. The real existence of God and the metaphorical existence of contingents, according to which the existence of God Almighty and His Face is the only real existence and, others enjoy a metaphorical existence. The main question is, "What uses did Mullā Sadrā make of Al-Ghazali's opinions on the issue of individual unity of existence and what results did he achieve by referring to them?" This article has benefited from the rational and, where needed, scriptural method and has referred to the verses of the Quran. Based on his philosophical foundations and using Al-Ghazali's ideas in this matter, Mullā Sadrā has solved some philosophical and theological problems such as: "proving knowledge for all beings", "explaining the way of the righteous" and "the relation between particular monotheism and the servants' free will"; However, he considered the main purpose of these references to be the compatibility of reason and religion. As a result, the two thinkers' intellectual discourses show close affinities.

One of the viewpoints about bodily resurrection is Ghazali's theory, which believes in the alike of the otherworldly body and the worldly body. On the other hand, Mulla Sadra explained the physical resurrection according to the principles of his philosophical system and concluded that the soul and the body will be the same. Mulla Sadra criticizes Ghazali's theory; He considers the most important criticism of Ghazali's theory to be that it is not compatible with rational principles and that his opinion requires reincarnation. In this article, we have examined Mulla Sadra's criticisms of Ghazali on the issue of physical resurrection, and following that, we have stated the similarities and differences between the theories of these two thinkers. The similarities and differences between these two theories can be found through the method of intellectual analysis and through the analysis of Mulla Sadra's discussion on Ghazali. Similarities can be seen between the theory of these two thinkers regarding the survival of the soul after death and the intellectual celibacy of the soul, although these two theories are distinct and different from each other in their approach to the nature of the human soul and the relationship between the soul and the body. Therefore, in the quality of the afterlife body, they interpreted it as the similarity or objectivity of the afterlife body with the worldly body, but this difference is in the interpretation, and in fact, the meaning of these two thinkers is the same thing, and that is that the identity between the person in the afterlife and the world is established.

 Knowledge by presence (al-ʿilm al-ḥuḍūrī) is a problem explicitly discussed by Suhrawardī (Shaykh al-Ishrāq). This issue has since become a significant topic in Islamic epistemology. More recently, Allameh Tabatabai has examined this problem and drawn noteworthy conclusions. According to him, knowledge by presence is an existential concept, and is detached from matter. He establishes the existence of such knowledge by appealing to human self-consciousness, which manifests the presence of the existence of our own selves to us. In his view, the criterion for knowledge by presence consists in the real presence of something (the known) to another thing (the knower). Accordingly, he broadens the instances of knowledge by presence to encompass self-knowledge, a cause’s knowledge of its own effects, the effect’s knowledge of its cause, an effect’s knowledge of other effects of its cause, and human knowledge of his own sensory impressions. As for the reduction of knowledge by acquisition (al-ʿilm al-ḥuṣūlī) to knowledge by presence, Allameh Tabatabai believes that each instance of the former is indeed an instance of the latter. In fact, knowledge by acquisition always involves knowledge by presence. It follows that all human knowledge is by presence through and through. This is because it is always an instance of knowledge by presence that turns into an instance of knowledge by acquisition. This transformation is done through the imaginative faculty, which he dubs the faculty of transforming knowledge by presence to knowledge by acquisition. According to Allameh Tabatabai’s view of knowledge by presence and its transformation into knowledge by acquisition, the soul has an effective agential role with respect to epistemic forms or images, obtaining both universal and particular epistemic forms via “unification.” This implies that the process of perception consists in the “strengthening of the detached (immaterial) existence of the world” and its unification with the intellectual level of existence. Another corollary of his view is that, since knowledge is in fact something existential that cannot be subsumed under any of the quiddity-based categories, it cannot be characterized as corresponding or failing to correspond to the reality, whereas knowledge by acquisition can be thus characterized. Furthermore, his view of knowledge by presence implies that knowledge by acquisition is restricted to the material world, since material entities can neither know, nor be known. Of course, material entities involve immaterial dimensions such as change and ignorance in virtue of which knowledge applies to them.

 This research was carried out with the library-analytical method.

 The main conclusion to be drawn from Allameh Tabatabai’s discussion of the nature of knowledge by presence and its corollaries is that it can be used to determine the ground of distinction between real (ḥaqīqī) and constructed (iʿtibārī) perceptions and how they relate to knowledge by presence. Since an instance of knowledge by presence is involved in any instance of knowledge by acquisition, it follows that when knowledge is divided, what is actually divided is knowledge by presence. That is, there are two types of knowledge by presence: pure knowledge by presence and knowledge presence that can be transformed into knowledge by acquisition. Moreover, given the account of the process through which the former is transformed into the latter and how constructed perceptions emerge from real perceptions with the aid of the estimative (wahmiyya) faculty, it can be concluded that the criterion for the division of perceptions into real and constructed, on Allameh Tabatabai’s account, is the same criterion depicted in the distinction between knowledge by presence and knowledge by acquisition. In other words, just as the mind draws on the activities of the estimative faculty to transform knowledge by presence into knowledge by acquisition for purposes of convenience in ordinary life, it utilizes the same activities to derive constructed perceptions from real perceptions.

 According to Allameh Tabatabai, it is knowledge by presence that is transformed into knowledge by acquisition through the activities of the imaginative faculty. The activities of the estimative faculty concerning real entities result in the formation of constructed perceptions. The criterion proposed by him for the division of perceptions into constructed and real is the one depicted in the distinction between knowledge by acquisition and knowledge by presence.
This clarifies the ground of the distinction between real and constructed perceptions, as well as its relationship with knowledge by presence. The ground of real perceptions is pure knowledge by presence, while the ground of constructed perceptions is the type of knowledge by presence that can be transformed into knowledge by acquisition. The distinction between these two kinds of perceptions lies in the difference of the knowledge by presence involved in them.

By establishing the system of sublime wisdom, Mulla Sadra was able to create a revolution in the course of philosophical thinking in the Islamic world in such a way that the history of Islamic philosophy can be divided into before Mulla Sadra and after him. He was able to rationally explain the important and difficult issue of bodily resurrection with the foundations of transcendental wisdom. Mulla Sadra’s explanation was accepted by most philosophers after him. Akhund Khorasani has also used the principles of transcendental wisdom in this matter. One of the dimensions of Akhund Khorasani's thought is his theological dimension, which has been less noticed and overshadowed by his jurisprudence and principles. One of the most important theological issues raised and discussed in Aakhund's thought is the issue of "resurrection" and especially "physical resurrection". Akhund Khorasani's opinions on this issue are influenced by the philosophical foundations of transcendental wisdom. Therefore, the aim of this research is to explore the opinion of Aakhund Khorasani on the issue of physical resurrection and it is expressed as follows: "What is the opinion of Aakhund Khorasani about physical resurrection and what are its philosophical foundations?" This research was carried out through a rational and reasoning approach. The most important finding of this study is that Akhund Khorasani was influenced by the important principles of transcendental wisdom such as the originality of existence, gradation in being, personal unity of existence, essential movement in the discussion of resurrection, and the issue of physical resurrection.

Mulla Sadra, as the founder of transcendent wisdom, has innovations in many of his views, which are the distinguishing feature of this philosophical school from the previous ones. For example, he has obtained a new interpretation of the Seddiqin proof. The advantage of Sadra's interpretation over Ibn Sina and Suhrawardi's interpretation is based on Sadra's specific principles such as the originality of existence, graded unity of being, simplicity of existence and the possibility of poverty. These innovations are also seen in the expositions of the followers of the Sadra’s school. Their culmination point is in the expositions of Allameh Tabatabai and the expositions that Master Javadi Amoli gives from the explanation of Tabatabai; His innovation is first in determining the exact place of the dispute, according to which the place of the dispute is the absolute status of the truth of existence, and also in correctly explaining the claim that the statement "the truth of existence is necessary (eternally)" is a first obvious proposition. So the main question is: "What are the innovations of Mulla Sadra and Sadrian sages in the seddiqin proof?" The purpose of this study is to be able to reduce the problems with the interpretations of the Seddiqin proof by correctly explaining the two exposition of Tabatabai and Javadi Amoli.

One of characteristics of Gadamer’s philosophical hermeneutics is provision of a new approach in reading texts with reliance on dialectics between the interpreter and the text. Although this method is registered in Gadamer’s name, such an approach can be implied from the Qur’an and traditions as well. According to this approach, the roles of the text and the interpreter are quite equal in the process of understanding and comprehension to the extent that both are equally effective in achieving it. Thus, analysis and explanation of the thinkers’ opinions can be equally dealt with by reason and religion. Accordingly, the question can be raised as to, “Has Mulla Sadra adopted the dialectic approach between reason and religion in his special opinions?” By examining Mulla Sadra’s special opinions, particularly in three issues of “reality of science”, “reality of causality”, and “substantial motion”, we can conclude that he has possessed such an approach, thus being regarded as a synthetic and dialectic philosopher. In this article, the writer undertakes to examine and establish this issue with the “rational analysis” research method as well as “narrative” method.

Although the famous view of philosophers about body is that it is a composite of the tow essences of the mater and form, the nature of body is nothing but quantitative part of substance in view of Suhrawardi and philosophical school of illumination. Accordingly, bodies are sharing in this quantity and their differentiation is also in that quantity. So, in fact distinguishing factor and common factor goes back to one thing. Referring of the distinguishing factor to common factor in the nature of the body means that there is gradation in the substantial nature of the body. Believing in gradation of bodies is result of believing in gradation in substance and this belief is the result of believing in gradation in essence which is regarded as one of the features of the thinking of Suhrawardi and the School of Illumination. Since the analysis of Suhrawardi point of view about the nature of the body helps understanding of the reality of the material world and knowing things from his perspective, this article analyzes this issue and his view of the nature of the body.

Shahid Ayatollah Syed Muhammadbagher Hakim is an Islamic scholar who has had an effective role in disseminating and introducing the theory of Islamic unity and the culture of cohesion. In his viewpoint, an Islamic unity which is formed based on commonalities and principles of all creeds and the one which is in accordance with the Quran and sayings of the Prophet (a.s) and the Imams (a.s) will be accepted by all the Muslims. He ranked Islamic unity in the third place of priorities after ‘principles of belief’ and ‘protection of political integrity’ and described it as the first step toward achieving unity among Islamic creeds. The most important underpinnings of ‘Islamic unity theory’ are the Quran and theviewpoints of the Prophet (s.a) and the Ahl-e Bayt (a.s). Shahid Hamik has had socio-political approach in his activities regarding Islamic unity; this approach reflects Hakim’s practical viewpoints concerning unity. The issue of Iraqi Muslims’ unity against Ba’athRegime, based on the unity of the righteousness against wickedness, was a clear example of Shahid Hakim’s activities concerning unity.