یحیی کبیر

The purpose of this research is to answer the question, what is the relationship between God and the universe from the perspective of Mirza Javad Tehrani? For this purpose, his written works were analyzed by means of content analysis of sources in a library manner. Sages in response to this question of rational assumptions such as; They have used the principle of causation, falsification, composition, the principle of oneness, the subject of manifestation, etc., and by proposing a separation between the first creation and the first emission, they have considered the relationship as an existential matter. Mirza Javad, one of the thinkers of the separation school, while not accepting the aforementioned principles, does not consider the claim of the sages to be free of problems. He believes that determining the example of the first creature and expressing the type of relationship is beyond the realm of human knowledge, so we must obey the Sharia texts in this regard. Therefore, the relationship between God and the universe is definitely established. Although its quality is unknown to us.

One of the most important discussions in the Quranic sciences is the topic of Mohkam (the verses which have clear meaning) and Motashabeh (the verses which have not clear meaning or have several similar meanings) in Quran, the way of glossing of Quran and one who deserves the conditions of this important. There are different proposed reasons for the existence of these kinds of verses in Quran. There are also different methods provided by Quran interpreters to understand the meanings of these verses. Mullasadra as a transcendent sage, who knew the Quran as the infrastructure of his philosophy doctrine, not only tried to categorize interpreters' approaches about these teams of verses and criticized their attitude, but also introduced a special method to encounter these verses which is not much different from mystics' methods. He believed that everything we know in material world has an exemplar in the kingdom of heaven (malakoot). Motashabeh verses are about affairs that have roots in kingdom world and their glosses are tied to understanding of the relationships of these two worlds. In his viewpoint transfusion toward inner concept of Quran, needs related background knowledge and spiritual abilities that could be reached by special meditation and scientific efforts.

Qāḍī Sa‘īd Qumī is one of the greatest philosophers and mystics of Iran during the Safavid era. He was competent in peripatetic and Illumination philosophies, and had mystic tendencies. With regard to the divine attributes, he believes in the negative divinity and believes that what we understand from the existence and attributes of the possible beings cannot be attributed to God. The reasons he gives in for this is that God is the pure Being and has no attribute, and the human intellect does not have the capability to understand God and His attributes. With regard to the ontology of attributes, Qāḍī deems detestable the belief in the addition and sameness of attributes with God, and favors the representativeness of attributes for the divine essence. He extensively discusses the divine knowledge attribute and believes that God’s knowledge is not intuitive, acquired, or differentiated (the views commonly hold by philosophers). This study aimed to adopt a critical view to examine Qāḍī’s viewpoint in the divine attributes’ domain – especially the divine knowledge attribute – and to show that despite its congruence with the outer appearance of some narrations, his viewpoint suffers from some internal weaknesses such as adherence to some questionable principles – such as belief in the overall difference between God and possible beings – and disagrees with some intellectual principles and narrations.

.
In addition to a study of the major interpretations of the "principality of existence", (ʾIṣāla al-wujūd) this article studies Mullā Ṣadrā's view through the third person narration method. According to this method, the main point in "principality of existence" is the distinction, the rules and the relation of existence and quiddity. Mullā Ṣadrā describes his view in the form of the proposition, "Existence exists", and he claims that this proposition is a "common technical Predication." This proposition can be interpreted as follows: 1. Quiddity has instantiations in the external world. 2. Quiddity does not have any instantiation in the external world. 3. Quiddity, primarily, does not have any instantiation in the external world, but it has instantiations through existence. There are many explanations for each of the three interpretations. The major point of this article is that it is not possible for quiddity in-itself to exist in the external world.

The special methodology of the Sadra’ian wisdom prepared the ground for the philosphical presentation of many theological and mystical discussions; including the discussion of “perfect human”, a term first used by Ibn Arabi in mystical books. Molla-Sadra has put forward various aspects of the status of “perfect human”, especially the infallible perfect human, in his important writings. The commentators of Sadra’ian philosophy have rather noticed this topic as well. The two great contemporary scholars, Motahhari and professor Javadi Amoli, have presented various researches with different approaches in this regard. This research tries to explain their views on the concept of “perfect human”. The three categories of “background of the term”, “definitions” and  of the infallible perfect [human] ” are discussed in this comparative study. The result of this research is that Motahhari has payed more attention to the background of the term “perfect human” and has relied on the philosophical discussions of ‘potentiality and actuality’ for his non-narrational definition of the term; yet professor Javadi Amoli has more stressed on the meaning of the term, rather than its background, and his non-narrational definitions are based on soluk (mystical conduct or manner) and mystical bases. Distinguishing infallible perfect human and non-infallible ones, the theological aspect is dominant in Motahhari’s works; thus no methodical model for the explanation of the genetic position of the infallible perfect human is seen in his works. On the other hand, professor Javadi Amoli uses mystical concepts to explain the infallible perfect human’s donated stations and genetic walayah (guardianship).

Mulla Sadra’s rational explanation of “termination of the after death torment” came under Sabziwari's several criticisms. He has leveled two criticisms to Mulla Sadra’s point of view: first is based on the denial of the “no compulsion persists” rule, and second on that the God-given innate nature does not go away, even as to those who shall suffer due to their nature and temper. Sabziwari holds that through regular practice evil habits go implanted in the soul of damned people as an inseparable part of their nature. Therefore, there will be no room to resort to the "no compulsion persists" rule in order to prove the termination of torment. Furthermore, it is incorrect to argue that the torment of some people depends on their temper and required nature, because the God-given nature keeps exiting. According to Mulla Sadra’s viewpoint, however, none of the two criticisms are acceptable, because he merely applies the rule to one case and one particular people of hell punishment; the very viewpoint is embraced by Sabziwari himself, too. Accordingly, Mulla Sadra has never held that the God-given nature of all people in hellfire goes away. In this essay, the authors have comparatively and analytically examined this issue in detail.

Some Muslim thinkers have had disagreements over the use of the word “‘ishq” in religious texts since many years ago. The main claim made by those who prohibit the use of this word for the sacred associations such as God, the Prophet (s), and Imāms is that the meaning of this word is appropriate only to the material and carnal issues and so, it has not been used in religious texts and its concept has even been blamed in some traditions, but the philosophers and Sufis have promoted it in the form of poem and prose among Muslims inadvertently or in order to subvert the Muḥammadan Law. On the contrary, some researchers have relied on the literal meaning of the word “‘ishq” and some traditions to consider this term a constant added-nouns similar to ḥubb and bughḍ, which are not blameworthy or praiseworthy per se and are rather praised or blamed due to their associations. Therefore, we observe in the religious texts that the term “‘ishq” has been used in both meanings and it has been actually used more in a praiseworthy manner. The study at hand aims at strengthening the latter viewpoint. To this end, this article is divided into four parts: expressing the root and literal meaning of the word “‘ishq”, narrating and explaining the traditions that approve the use of “‘ishq” about the religious associations, narrating the traditions that blame “‘ishq” and analyzing the incorrect understandings made about suchlike traditions, and investigating and providing the final analysis about the various viewpoints to the associations of the word “‘ishq”.

Mulla Shamsa Gilani, one of the shining and famous figures of the 11th century LH in the Isfahan school of philosophy who – like other notable philosophers of his era such as Mulla Sadra and Mir Damad – was skillful in using the qur’ānic verses and Islamic traditions to prove his philosophical discussions. As one of the outstanding students of Mir Damad, he was greatly influenced by him and learned the peripatetic style and foundations from him. Mulla Shamsa opposed many great philosophers – especially the head of the largest school of philosophy in his era, i.e. Mulla Sadra – with regard to some philosophical issues such as the principality of existence, substantial movement, God’s a priori knowledge, and God’s knowledge of Himself. With regard to the relationship between the essential attributes and the essence, Mulla Shamsa adopts a view similar to Mu‘tazila, peripatetic philosophers, and Mulla Sadra, and believes in the sameness of the essential attributes and the essence. Concerning God’s a priori knowledge of the creatures, he believes in a third form (that is, not acquired nor direct), which is the pure and simple Being of God, and considers the existence of creatures as irrelevant and ineffective in God’s knowledge. Mulla Shamsa takes God’s knowledge of Himself as the most direct and does not deem permissible the application of the commonly used conception of the collective knowledge to God. The article at hand adopts a library research method to clarify Mulla Shamsa’s viewpoint about God’s knowledge.

Most of the debates on the topic of divine knowledge target Almighty Necessary’s knowledge of what is other than Him. This paper aims to provide an answer to the question of which model of explaining the divine knowledge could not only demonstrate all levels of knowledge for God but also be compatible with His being the Necessary Being. In order to provide an answer to this question, Ibn Sina provides a model with imprinted forms at its center and, in this way, demonstrates God’s acquired knowledge of what is other than Himself. To explain the quality of divine agency, Ibn Sina once more focuses on divine knowledge and, through posing the idea of agency through fore-knowledge, maintains that, the creation of existents is the result of God’s active knowledge of the world and His satisfaction with the best order. However, Suhrawardi challenges the Sinan model in his philosophy. He believes that Ibn Sina’s explanation not only contradicts the simplicity of the essence of Almighty Truth but is also limited to the demonstration of a single faculty for God. Nevertheless, Mulla Sadra criticizes both of them and, based on the principle of simple truth, presents a transcendent explanation regarding the issue which neither suffers from the problem of the subjectivity of the Sinan imprinted forms nor, similar to Suhrawardi’s explanation, is incapable of proving God’s fore-knowledge. He demonstrates that all existents and types of knowledge are included in God’s existence and His knowledge of His Essence.

One of the most crucial issues in philosophy of religion is verification of religious proposition. Subject matter of this problem is whether religious propositions are verifiable by reason or not. This present article aim at analyzing both proponent and opponent’s idea. Some opponents are of rationalist whom intend to abandon faith in favor of reason, and some are fideists which in their idea faith is unreachable by reason and other are positivists which state that only those propositions are cognitively meaningful that pass empirical observation. On the contrary, some by possibility theory and other by choosing classical foundationalism or reformed epistemology as an epistemological base, endeavor to prove verifiability of religious propositions. Mathematical certainty is a precious gift that each of abovementioned group try to argue over the possibility of its achievement and based on that claim that religious propositions are whether verifiable or not. Just classical foundationalism claim responsibility for providing such certainty. In this article we take into deep and concise consideration both opponent and proponent’s evidence and criticize them and to prove such certainty in religious propositions not only is possible but in fact has already occurred.

In this paper has been studied the developments in contemporary theology since Schleiermacher, as the founder of a new theology, and definitions have been provided by the theologians of religion. From the perspective of Schleiermacher Religion is not merely Moral imperative, but is mysterious and forth Experience and is separate the wisdom of faith. Karl Barth insisted that the talk of God is not made and the type of propositions, But is an event or occurrence Reinhold Niebuhr shown in new orthodoxy that reason and faith are two distinct and separately context. Some existentialists, Like Rudolf Boltzmann and Paul Tillich, Tried to "de-myth" From the Bible and to show that statements about God are iconic and symbolic. In contemporary theology dominates the Critical attitude, Hermeneutic, Pluralistic, Text-based, Historical and non-dogmatic, with the rejection of totalitarianism.

As same as many other philosophical principles, the rule of al-Wahid have been subjected to a great criticism and cavil by scholars and authorities throughout ages. This rule has, despite the celebrated point of view, been challenged by not only the theologians but also some philosophers and mystics as well– at least, in the extensional aspects. Having taken the background of this rule into consideration and the purpose of philosophers who had in presenting it, this article has endeavored to analyze the prominent statements regarding the rule of al-Wahid and also point out each of their main presumptions in order to show that the expositions made by Muhaqiq-Tusi are the most comprehensive comparing to those scholars before or even after him; other statements presented by other authorities contain specific ambiguities in regard to al-Wahid on the effect side. Therefore, thanks to the more accurate expositions provided by Khajeh and the resolution of the ambiguity, the conceptual contradictions involved in the rule mentioned above due to the formation based on the principle of the resemblance become evident. Presuming that the rule of al-Wahid is theoretically accurate, the author has analyzed the extensional criticisms made by some thinkers in regard to this philosophical principle. Thus, it has been shown that the rule of al-Wahid lacks outer extensions in terms of compatibility with the external world regarding the principle of resemblance, unity on the causal side, unity on the effect side, and the concept of emanation.

Among the religious doctrines to which Muslims adhere is the world of pre-existence. Deepening people’s understanding of religious beliefs is necessary for their upholding the faith and developing their ability to counter dubious ideas. So, this paper sheds light on the different views of Muslim intellectuals. Muslim intellectuals draw their conclusions from Qur’anic verses and narrations. In the world of pre-existence, man has born testimony to the Lordship of God and to his being God’s servant. The question of the nature of this world has been a subject of inquiry and different ideas have been shown. To sum up, seven theories are proposed. They are: the authoritative character of the appearance of narrations and impermissibility of any interpretation in them, the assumption of precedence of incorporeal souls, exclusivness of the world of pre-existence to especial group of people and not to all of them, the metaphorical and allegorical property of Qur’anic verses and narrations, interpreting this world as taking a covenant and reflecting reality through revelation and intellect, considering quiddities to be objective and non-existents to be positive and esoteric interpretation of the meaning of the Qur’anic verses and the narrations related to the world of pre-existence. Most of these views and statements have problems which cannot be easily solved, but from among them the ocultists’ interpretation is considered as the strongest interpretative view.

The dual nature of human existence, and having both physical and spiritual affairs have been accepted by religious scholars and divine philosophers . Most philosophers, especially Muslim philosophers, despite the disagreement on the way of soul creation have agreed About the soul creation itself and lack of its precedence over body .at least we can prove this idea with two arguments from Ebnesina in particular in SHIFA. Molla sadra has brought different arguments in favor of this idea. He accepted some of them and rejected others critics and likely questions. No doubt on the other hand, many evidences prove soul creation before body. This article takes care about the idea of coincidence of soul creation and body on which most Muslim philosophers agree. The author with regard for evaluation of philosopher's arguments who believe the thought and for criticism of their argument shows that the conflict between intellect and appearance of quotation is just a clammed conflict.

Many verses in the Holy Quran prove that there is a certain kind of knowledge that can be obtained through the practice of religious laws (Sharia) and the way to doctrine (tarighat)، progress and conduct towards the Most Holy God and attention to the sacred universe. This knowledge is that intuitive knowledge which stands beside the other cognitive resources as a way of understanding. But like any other source of causing knowledge، revelation and intuition require proper criterion by which the revelation of corruption and correction are recognized. And what comes out of all mystic''s words، two kinds of scales are needed to assess intuitive knowledge، general scale and specific scale. The gift of the divine prophets and saints are considered as general scale and widespread intuitive knowledge and the intellectual and philosophical rules are considered as specific scale which is limited within the scope of conceptual learning.

Discussion of the semantics of word of God is one of the most important and earliest philosophico-mystic discussions in Islamic world. Since early days of Islamic thought, scholars of different schools of thought and ideology has been always argued on the status of words for the possible and material affairs in that what the meaning of the word of God is when attributed to something. To answer this question, different theories have been proposed by scholars including verbal word proposed by some scholars of Adliyyeh, inner word by Asharites, and the inherent characteristics signifyingthe essence of God proposed by group of philosophers. Putting emphasis on three fundamental principles of Sadrian Hekmat i.e. genuineness of existence, spiritual subscription with the meaning of existence, and doubt in the reality of existence, the study investigates the nature of word of God based on Allameh Tabatabaie􀀅s viewpoint coming to this conclusion that word of God includes any matter discovered from divine intensions, whether the type of that matter is word and sound, the type of external existence, a material or an abstract existence.

In spite of Aristotle، who settled the fundamental basis of his philosophical system «the metaphysical difference between matter and form»، to reach the difference between sensible and nonsensory and to reach the unmoved mover that is natural agent، Avicenna chose «the metaphysical difference between existence and essence» to reach the difference between necessity and possibility and to prove the divine agent، namely creational agent cause and pure being that is Allah Almighty. But Mulla Sadra discussed about objective reality of existence and its gradational degrees، instead of discussion about extensions of existence and conformity of the concept of existence on them، to settle the fundamental basis of his philosophical system «primacy of existence over quiddity» or «principality of existence». This article، explains various views about agency of Allah Almighty and finally concludes that Avicenna believes in Allah Almighty as agent-by-foreknowledge in the first sense، but Mulla Sadra believes in Allah Almighty as agent by self-manifestation and، in his another view، as agent-by-foreknowledge in the second sense.

Rational explanation of the doctrine of IMAMAT (spiritual leadership of the Shi`ites) is one of the most important and efficient instruments that can prepare the ground for extension and propagation of this view in all over the world. So, in this article I want to study one of the first rational explanation of this view in Islamic world which proposed by AL- FARABI. In the world of Islam, FARABI is one of the first philosophers who toke into consideration the necessity of existence of first ruler and his successor (IMAM) in his Utopia (Madina al-fazila), and proposed a rational argument for it. His view is here to some extent in accordance with Shiites attitude. But for understanding whether his ideas is in complete agreement with Shiites works or not, I study this view point in two stages: First of all.

Linda Badham has offered some objections against the belief in the hereafter. In her view, as different bodies have been made of the same atoms and have not been of any stability during human life, one never can argue for resurrecting thesematerial bodies in the hereafter. He, furthermore, says that even believing in an immaterial soul may not help to justify the existential distinction of man in this and that world. In the paper, bedham view has been clarified and, using the sayingsof the pures, maasumin, and Muslim theologian, it has been clear that human body in the hereafter is the same as that in this world and, therefore, there can be no disagreement in the field.

In this article, the theory of Parodoxicality of mystical experiences that was proposed by Stace - the author of Mysticism and Philosophy- is being discussed with regard to islamic mysticism issues. Here we show that irrationality of mysticism which is stated in Stace’s theory is not consistent with basics of Islamic mysticism. The main reason of this inconsistency is inappropriate view of Stace in pantheism interpretation in which the deep separation of "Ahadiyat" (divine essence) and "Vahediyat" (appearances of essence) is considered as mystic’s justification and is neglected. This separation, especially islamic mysticism, is due to separation of existence and its appearances.Existence is a single truth and the appearances of existence is multiple. Regarding the unity of existences, entities are completely related to that single existence and don’t have independent existence. Therefore, although theory of unity in multiplicity accepts conflication in divine essence, it is not associated with any contradiction.

Induction is the issue about which many philosophers have discussed. The main question was raised in quest for how it is possible to constitute a theory or a hypothesis just by assembling some extensions. Philosophers of science have indicated different speculations on the theme in view of empiricism, arithmetic, contingencies and... Martyr Sadr, in his book "Al ‘Asases Al Manteqeiya Le Al Isteqra", not only has criticized the western philosophers, but suggested a new theory, on the basis of which inductive demonstration has been analyzed into two stages of subjective production and essential production; and moreover, he has distinguished between essence logical certitude and subjective logical one. Additionally, by making use of collective knowledge in principles in Islamic jurisprudence, he justified certitude based on inductive demonstration.