JOURNAL OF PHILOSOPHICAL THEOLOGICAL RESEARCH
Year:2015 | Volume:17 | Issue:1 (65)|Papers Count:8

The idea of Platonic archetypes, which was a solution for some problems related to knowledge of things, a justification for multitudes and a way of finding stable ultimate beginning for variable creatures, soon caused many problems in epistemology and knowledge of things. In Islamic world, the idea has famous proponents and opponents. Three great Muslim philosophers-Avicenna, Sohrevardi and Mulla Sadra- have discussed the issue in detail. Avicenna has firmly rejected the idea while Sohrevardi and Mulla Sadra have greatly tried to prove it. Since the theory of Platonic archetypes is strongly connected with the theory of emanation multitudes from a real One, the present paper seeks to elaborate on the dilemmas faced by the theory of emanation multitudes from a real One with regard to the idea of Platonic archetypes, and reviewing arguments of proponents and opponents.

"Wilayat " (authority) is one of the most important issues in theoretical Sufism. The main reason for dealing with this epistemic issue in Islamic mysticism is perhaps rooted in Islamic texts, especially the Quran, which has led to numerous interpretations and views provided by commentators. In the meantime, the mystical interpretations have had a significant role in changing the meaning and concept of the term and in proposing various discussions in this regard. Among these views, it can be referred to the view of Hakim Tirmizi, Iranian Sufi in the fifth century and that of Ibn Arabi, the founder of theoretical Sufism in the seventh century. The importance of the discussion lies in the fact that there are significant doctrinal and rhetorical similarities between these two famous Sufis, such that the influence of Tirmizi's view on Ibn Arabi cannot be ignored or denied. Proposing the theory of the need for wilayat(authority) and wali (religious authority), the concept of preference of wilayat over prophecy, the characteristics of true wali of the Most High God, and finally the concept and instance of seal of wilayat and seal of prophecy are among the key issues related to wilayat. The present paper seeks to study these issues from the view of Tirmizi and Ibn Arabi's views due to their particular importance in order to find their views and refer to their doctrinal similarities.

Qadi Abdul Jabbar Hamedani regards the followings as the conditions for prayer (du'a): having will, knowing the status of whom we are presenting our request, having no corrupt intentions in what is requested and being humble and submissive while praying. In his Mu' tazilite view, the philosophy of prayer is that it is a kind of grace (luṭf) as Allah orders us to pray and He never orders to evil. Prayer has different types including praying for others, cursing, praying for the believers, sinful people and the infidels, praying for good or evil and praying for the dead. According to Qadi Abdul Jabbar, praying for the dead is ineffective. Praying is sometimes obligatory. This obligation is either in terms of the object of prayer or the one who prays. Praying and requesting sustenance is effective because intellect and sacred law regard it as good and requesting good is good.

Sohrevardi should be regarded as the mediator of illuminationist and peripatetic philosophers and mystics. He deeply mixed mysticism and philosophy, such that philosophy lost its pure strictness and mysticism gained strong argumentative foundations. In other words, such individuals as Ibn Arabi, ' Aziz al-din Nasafi, and even Mulla Sadra emerged as the result of Sohrevardi's influence on philosophy and mysticism. One of the most important commonalities between peripatetic philosophy, illuminationist philosophy and Islamic mysticism is the discussion of existence which is interpreted as "light" by illuminationists and mystics. The most important manifestation of light in the Holy Quran is the verse 35 in the Chapter of "light" for which philosophers and mystics have provided different commentaries and esoteric interpretations. In his esoteric interpretations, Sohrevardi has been influenced by both peripatetic philosophers and mystics. For example, like Avicenna, he interprets "La Sharqiyyah wa La Gharbiyyah (neither eastern nor western)" as something which is neither intellect nor matter; like Ghazali, he interprets "Shajara al-Zeytoonah (olive tree)" as intellectual faculty. However, he interprets "noor ala noor (light upon light) " as returning of a thing to its genus while Ghazali and 'Ayn al-Qozat interpret it as prophetic spirit. The present paper discusses Sohrevardi's esoteric commentaries and interpretations of light (generally) and the verse of light (particularly) and reviews the amount of previous philosophers and mystics' influence on him as well as innovative aspects of his esoteric commentaries.

This present paper seeks to show Avicenna's view on the truthfulness and falsity of the generally accepted premises and look for a certain type of these premises which can be qualified as truth and false. Given Avicenna's comments on basing rules of dialectics on submission, reputation and invalidity of dialectical preliminaries and generally accepted premises according to truth, as well as his other specifications about the truthfulness and falsity of the generally accepted premises, it can be concluded that his view on the truthfulness and falsity of well-known views is non-conditioned. It seems that truthfulness and falsity among different types of the generally accepted premises data is the attribution of associate to the moral type of generally accepted premises, that super sensual world will be as the actuality of the generally accepted moral propositions, and that religion is considered as the criterion for the truth of these propositions. Otherwise, these views will be variable and relative like other well-known ones and thus the finality of the Holy Prophet (May the blessing and peace of Allah be upon him and his progeny) and the purpose of his mission will be called into doubt and questioned. The justification of the truthfulness and falsity of the generally accepted premises is also possible on the basis of the theories of pragmatism and coherence.

Many famous philosophers have paid attention to the concepts of sleep and dream and their status in philosophy, and have discussed about them within the framework of their own philosophical foundations and principles. According to Muslim philosophers, dream occurs when the soul separates from external senses and tends towards intrinsic forces, that is, man sometimes apprehends the realities of the existence and sees future events, thus attains an intuitive knowledge and apprehension. If these states occur in natural dream world and are clear, then they are "veridical dreams". If they are unclear and obscure, then their message should be explained and analyzed (interpreted). Avicenna shares with Mulla Sadra in the belief that imaginal faculty connects to sanctified world in world of dream and attains inspiration and manifestation through common sense, but the latter believes that a person should attain the status and stage of all-comprehensiveness in three intellectual, spiritual and sensual modes of being in order to unite with active intellect. Such questions as "what is the nature of dream? ", "are dreams needed to be interpreted ", if so, "should all dreams be interpreted or some of them", "is there any difference between interpretation and esoteric interpretation" etc. may be asked by anyone with common sense. The present paper analyzes the aforementioned issues from the view of Avicenna and Mulla Sadra.

Using his mastery in Islamic philosophy and natural sciences and his familiarity with modernity, Seyyed Hussein Nasr criticizes the theory of evolution. The present paper reviews his criticisms and arguments against the theory of evolution and its effects. He believes that an objectless thing cannot be existence-giver and blind nature with any time extension is not its creator. This is a sense which will be clear by contemplation on God’s (The Truth) agency which is existence-giver not preparatory cause. It is logically impossible for higher existing forms to evolve from lower existing ones. From a heavenly perspective, the only accepted meaning of evolution is the actualization of hidden powers of an object. In Nasr’s view, improper generalization of evolutional necessities to ethics, anthropology and other disciplines, modern world’s treatment of evolution as an ideology not a mere scientific theory, negating heavenly affairs and having a historical view about them and representing material and natural things as heavenly without taking into consideration the hierarchy of existence are among the criticisms which can be directed against those who claim Evolution.