A Comparative Approach to the Rule of One (Qāʿida Al-Wāḥid) from the Viewpoint of Akhund Khurāsānī and Allameh Tabatabaei

This article tries to reread the opinions of the two great thinkers Akhund Khurāsānī and Allameh Tabatabaei about the rule of one (qāʿida al-wāḥid) in order to explain their differences and clarify their weaknesses. Despite their noteworthy strengths the author thinks that both views can be violated: for instance, Akhund's assumption that considers this rule can be validly applied to all kinds of cause and to both real and conventional sciences, unlike Allameh's assumption that confines the rule to efficient causes including emanative and natural. Considering the intellectual foundations of these two thinkers in the principles of jurisprudence and philosophy and considering the fact that the exact explanation of this rule belongs to philosophy, it should be said, as the conclusion of this research, that the rule of one exclusively includes the emanative causes that possess and can create only one specific perfection (except for the Creator who possesses all the perfections despite His complete simplicity and unity). It is worth noting that the rule of one is not limited to a "numerically" one; therefore, the application of this rule in cases such as the issues of "being correct and more general" or "obligatory with choice" is not justified in the principles of jurisprudence and philosophy in which the above topics are not discussed.