Ayeneh Ma‘refat
Year:2009 | Volume:- | Issue:19|Papers Count:7

Moslem scholars have proposed a number of categorisations for existence. One of these categorisations is the polyhedral division. Ibn Sina divides existence into the needy and the self-sufficient.Using different words, Suhravardi divides light into light in-itself, light for-itself and light for-something else. In his view, where there is no light, there is dark substance.Mulla Sadra’s exalted theology, in agreement with the previous two illuminationist and peripatetist theologians sets existence as the source of division and divides it into existence not-in-itself and existence initself and their related subdivisions. Sabzevari presents the same categorization in a more completed form.Theologians and some mystics such as Ibn Arabi have also referred to some form of division in existence.Some later philosophers have criticized Sabzevari’s categorization for its not being complete, mixing the concept with its referent and mixing logical with philosophical concepts. The particular theory of Mulla Sadra is that existence is divided into copulative and non-copulative.The copulative existence is in absolute need and dependency while the non-copulative existence is absolutely needs-free and self-sufficient.Correspondingly, non-existence is dividable. The present article suggests some other criteria for the polyhedral division of existence which are free of the difficulties mentioned above.

The distinction between the primitive predication and common predication is one the most important innovations of the Moslem logicians which was first introduced explicitly and used in Allamah Davani’s works and the later logicians such as Mulla Sadra and others benefited from it in solving logical and philosophical problems. Meanwhile, this distinction had been implicitly mentioned in the works of Aristotle, Al-Farabi and Avicenna and the primitive predication had been vehemently criticised and rejected. Surveying the works on logics at the two periods before and after Allamah Davani, the present article presents five logical and illogical reasons (reasons and causes) behind the opposition explained to the primitive predication in the works of the first period. The assumption is that without responding to these reasons the shift from the paradigm of the first period to that of the second seems less likely.Qutb Al-din Al-Razi and Qoushji from the first period and Davani form the second were the three logicians who responded to the five reasons and brought the primitive predication back from neglect and made it the key in solving philosophical problems.

Charles Hartshorne is associated with the contemporary process theology. He is considered the sole philosopher who has recorded the design argument in a priori form.His argument has been formed on the basis of his view of reality. He considers the orderly world as an organic body with an image of change and interrelated events; and with a social conception of reality, he depicts unity within multiplicity in the world. In his view, the natural order holds true for social order. The all-embracing cosmic order entails a metaphysical ordering power.God as proven by this argument possesses attributes which bear no relation to God in the theistic religions.

If we consider the major components of worldview as one’s own perspective toward the beginning and end of existence and the man’s mission and position, the significance of anthropology and its definition will be clarified. The present article is concerned with the relationship between the divine attributes of beauty and magnificence and anthropology. Since, according to Koranic verses and transmissions of texts, theologians, philosophers and mystics consider man as the vicegerent of Allah and define divine vicegerent as the acquisition of divine attributes by man or as the locus of the theophony of divine names and attributes, examination of the two divine attributes of beauty and magnificence plays an important role in the explanation of descriptive, normative and educational anthropology.This article first reviews the attributes of beauty and magnificence from the point of view of some theologians, philosophers and mystics and then presents a specific interpretation of the views which has implications for descriptive, normative and educational anthropology.

Although discussed only by theologians in the past, the topic of the acceptance of non-Muslims’ good deeds and their salvation and redemption has entered the public arena as an issue of divine justice at the present time due to the expansion of information technology which has facilitated communication among followers of different religions. The question raised is whether the good deeds done by non-Muslims or by polytheists have any rewards in the hereafter or the path to salvation and redemption is exclusive to belief in Islam and following its path. Is it possible to achieve salvation and redemption through belief in other religions along with good deeds.Otherwise, how is this compatible with divine justice? With regard to the fact that this issue was introduced in a serious way at Ayatollah Motahhari’s time, he, as a sagacious Islamic scholar and a vigilant observer and as someone familiar with the requirements of the time and place, dealt with the issue of salvation of the followers of other religions from an Islamic perspective discussing its relationship with divine justice.According to Ayatollah Motahhari, the followers of other religions who do good deeds with good intentions and are not prejudiced and hostile toward the true religion can achieve salvation and redemption. Also, polytheists who do good deeds can achieve some level of salvation under certain conditions. The present article is concerned with the brief explanation of Ayatollah Motahhari’s views on the issue of the acceptance of good deeds done by non-Moslems and the salvation of the follower of other religions. The study is dialectic and argumentative in terms of its purpose and interpretative and explanatory in terms of its method of research.

Resurrection and its philosophical analysis in Mulla Sadra’s philosophical system consistent with the existential levels was critically re-examined by his prominent pupil, Milla Muhsin Fayd Kashani. Kashani’s change of attitude toward the issue of intellect that led to his modest approach to the relationship between reason and religion was succeeded by changes by his theory of resurrection during his lifetime. A survey of his early works compared with his later ones clearly shows the changes in his approach to resurrection and its levels. The present article is an attempt to trace the changes of Kashani’s approach to resurrection in his works.

Strange as it might seem to put Al-Farabi and Machiavelli alongside each other, the unity of the essence of philosophy provides a basis for a comparative outlook. The present article is an endeavour to introduce a new comparative reading of the political philosophy of Abu Nasr Al-Farabi (870 –950) and Niccol Machiavelli (1469 – 1527) as two influential figures in the political philosophy of Islam and the modern political philosophy of the west. For this purpose, some of Al-Farabi’s works which have not attracted much attention and Machiavelli’s major political treatises are examined with a realistic empirical approach to present a realistic picture of Al-Farabi’s political philosophy and a philosophical picture of Machiavelli’s political thought. The reading through initiation of a dialogue between the two great thinkers is intended to open a window through which we can appreciate the efficacy of our dignitaries and in this way take a step into the real world. To achieve this aim, we first present the similarities and differences identified in the political thought of the two philosophers. The similarities are consideration of facts, the importance of empirical perception, presentation of the foundations of politics and the relationship between politics andanthropology.The differences are the different religious backgrounds, the differential emphasis on objectivity and subjectivity, the relationship between politics and existence and the allegory of the physician. The conclusion is that rationality underlying Al-Farabi’s political philosophy has a lot of potentiality for the development and efficacy of human beings, while Machiavelli’s radical subjectivism and pessimism has negative consequences for the world. While Al-Farabi’s rationalism is empirically-based and is consistent with the foundations of the modern world and man’s awareness and freedom and as a result useful for us in this world, Machiavelli’s egocentric and fortuitous thought makes fear and horror as a natural state of human minds.