نشریه جستارهایی در فلسفه و کلام
سال چهل و نهم شماره 1 (پیاپی 98، بهار و تابستان 1396)

Portraying the quality of bodily Resurrection requires providing for various approaches; and the difference between philosophical and theological theorizing is concerned with more complete coverage of these dimensions. With a profound attention to these dimensions, metaphysicians have undertaken to explain and reinforce its various principles. First of all, these principles are themselves in need of a powerful and deep-sighted philosophical system. The Divine, methodological, epistemological, humanistic, and cosmological principles are needed to guarantee the successful solution of the multi-faceted problems of the Return (ma‘ād). Concerning the Return, in general, the Ash’arites and their peers are on one side and the philosophers on the other. The Ash’arites are among the pioneers and advocates of the “elemental bodily Resurrection”, who have expressed their opinions with their specific principles of soul studies, including materiality of souls and denial of the soul’s detachment and by relying on Divine random volition (irāda-yi jazāfiya), disconnected from wisdom, and denial of the causal order and have utilized the apparent meaning of some traditions fancied as “textualism”. On the other side, there are the metaphysicians in a wide expectrum, who with rational and religious principles have considered the elemental Return as impossible and assessed it as the continuation of the world and not transfer to the Hereafter. More than anyone else, Mullā Ṣadrā, with his scholarly endeavors in the expanse of transcendental philosophy, has presented a scheme to make the quality of bodily Return justifiable and the transcendental philosophers have each in turn followed this path in different periods. In the meantime, while maintaining the Ṣadrā’s philosophical system, the founding philosopher plans to provide a reconciliation between these two sides; neither consider the soul as returnable to the world and the elemental body as pivot of Return, as the theologians claim, nor regard the world by totally invalid in the Resurrection.

In Shaykh Ishrāq’s cosmology, the world is divided into two sections of light and darkness and according to the principle of gradation of light certain ranks
are introduced among lights, which are different from each other in their intensity and weakness. After the world of lights, there comes the world of material bodies, which is pure darkness and there is no light (except for sensible vertical lights) in it. Separate study of each one of the ranks of the world in Shaykh Ishrāq’s View, the way that rank appeared, and its relation to the higher ranks of being, especially to God or the Light of all lights are the topics we have addressed in this article. Since for presenting a more accurate picture of Suhrawardī’s cosmology, his ontology is to be taken into consideration as well, we have considered some of important principles of illuminationist ontology, such as essentialism and gradation in quiddity and demonstrated how Suhrawardī’s viewpoint about the world is connected to his principles of ontology.

The identity (ittiḥād or unification) of subject and object is an attempt in elucidating the manner of relation between the knowledge and the knower and the quality of perception by means of which the known problems concerning mental existence are removed. With the acceptance of this theory the problem of a single object as being substance and accident and the applicability of two subjects to one object, which according to Ḥakīm Sabzevari has bewildered intellects, would not be addressed. In theory of identity, Mullā Ṣadrā claims that every intelligible existence is intelligent too; furthermore, if it is achieved in human rational soul, whether intelligible or sensible, it is one with its percipient. The identity that Ibn Sīnā has argued on its invalidity is related to the two existents that potentially exist and are actualized in their accident before unification (and the contradiction of the two is real, not a rational analysis). Ṣadrā does not regard as acceptable such an identity for the same reasons that Ibn Sīnā has stated.
In the identity of subject and object, philosophers are divided upon the knowledge of the soul of the other, while all agree that each abstract object persisting in its essence is intellect, subject, and object in relation to itself. None of the Muslim philosophers denies unity in the knowledge of the abstract of its essence because in this case there is no mental image so that it is accident to the soul and not its object. What is doubtful in this discourse relates to the perception of another. In fact, there is a substance here that is in one sense subject, in another sense intellect, and yet in another sense object. Actually, here it is unity not identity.

Ḥāfiẓ Rajab Bursī is one of the Shi’ite mystics who has high views on the sublime spiritual stations and excellences of Imam Ali (A.S.). Some of the scholars of his time and after him have accused him of zealotry. Some others like Imam Khomeini, ‘Allāma Ḥasanzāda and ‘Allāma Amīnī, have undertaken to defend him and ward off his accusation.
The main topic of the present writing is to study the concept of zealotry and extremism in Bursī’s devotional views about Amīr al-Mu’minīn Ali (A.S.), especially in his devotional Qur’anic interpretations. Thus, some of his most important views in all his works are examined in order to clarify whether the devotional views of this mystic about Imam Ali (A.S.) is zealous, and if they are so, is this zealotry heretic or non-heretic? If they are not zealous, why have some accused him of zealotry and extremism? This study has been carried out by tracing the roots of the concept of ghuluww (zealotry) and its dimensions in Si’ite theology; and since most of the devotional views of this thinker are presented in his Mashāriq al-Anwār al-Yaqīn, this book has been more taken into consideration. The findings of this research is warding off his accusation of zealotry both as heretic and non-heretic in his Qur’anic thoughts and interpretations, although as ‘Allāma Majlisī has said, there are subjects found in the thoughts of this thinker that makes him exclusive in expressing them. Further details are to be sought in the article.

Suhrawardī and Mullā Ṣadrā believe that human perfection is not achievable without love. In Suhrawardī’s view, the lower lights seek to achieve perfection and to remove deficiencies in rank by love and enthusiasm toward higher lights. Similarly, man has inclined toward the world of light and approached the Light of all lights through perceiving the truths, because love is the fruit of knowledge and the more there is knowledge and love of the Almighty God, the more will there be proximity to God and ultimately the easier would be achieving perfection. However, by proving love for all the creatures, Mullā Ṣadrā believes that love for perfection is trusted in each possible being so that that possible being both preserves its existing excellences and is eager for its lost virtues. In his view, every human being would achieve perfection as much as he enjoys love for perfection, because the substantial development of the spiritual wayfarers is not one and the same. Thus, every mover would move toward perfection according to its expanse of being and degree of love.

Active intellect is the pivotal character of Suhrawardī’s enigmatic treatises, which has been exemplified in the world of archetypal images in the form of an enigmatic master (pīr). The present research is intended to examine the pivotal role of active intellect in Suhrawardī’s enigmatic treatises and in two areas of cosmology and epistemology and to decipher the mysterious nuance of this metaphysical truth in the ranks of being and stages of the soul’s wayfaring. The findings of this research reveals that the active intellect is the tenth intellect of the peripatetic and the proximate light (first intellect) in philosophy of illumination and at the same time the holy ghost or Gabriel of religions, which is present in Suhrawardī’s enigmatic treatises as pīr and murshid and the wayfarer’s guide; and in another rank in vertical triumphal lights, the truth of the holy ghost or “active intellect” appears when maintaining individual relationship with a specific human individual in the form of his “complete disposition” (ṭabā‘ tāmm). The mysterious frequenting of this metaphysical truth in the hierarchy of the triumphal lights (longitudinal and vertical) is an illumination based on the theory of gradation of unique reality of light in philosophy of illumination

Murtaḍā Mutahharī believes that ‘Allāma Ṭabāṭabā’ī is the first philosopher in the history of Islamic philosophy who has addressed the quality of abstracting secondary intelligible. He does not mean that this issue has not been paid attention to before ‘Allāma; it can even be said that the main elements of ‘Allāma’s explanation are available in Ṣadr al-Muti’allihīn’s words. The elements inspired by Ṣadr al-Muti’allihīn’s doctrines in ‘Allāma’s explanation include: 1. Secondary ineligibles are acquired knowledge preceded by presential knowledge; 2. Self-mental knowledge, its faculties and actions as well as sensual perception, are presential knowledge; 3. Studying the process of abstracting secondary ineligibles should be started with one of these presential knowledge; 4. The secondary ineligibles are the product of independent look at the relation between the found phenomena, mental or external.