غلامرضا فیاضی

The distinction between existence and quiddity, as well as the link between the two, has been a substantial issue in Islamic philosophy throughout history, having profound effects on other issues. Muslim philosophers argue that contingent beings possess both existence and quiddity in its narrow sense. However, many philosophers believe that Necessary Being (Wājib al-Wujūd) is devoid of quiddity and some deny the quiddity-based reality. Nonetheless, logical reasoning indicates that all ranks of the essence of things (including real and constructed (i‘tibārī), as well as existential and non-existential) are predicated on quiddity. Hence, first and foremost, it is not impossible to put forward an integrated analysis of existence and quiddity for Necessary Being, where quiddity, like existence, is limitless. Second, the copula notions (ma‘ānī rabaṭī) are quiddity-based, even if their quiddity, like their existence, is the quiddity for others. Third, non-existent matters are, in fact, distinct from one another. For example, while the non-existence of a vicious circle and a giant (ghūl) is the same in that they are both non-existent, their distinction stems from their adherence to their quiddity (the whatness of a vicious circle and a giant (ghūl). Fourth, constructed matters (umūr i‘tibārī) are similarly quiddity-based, though their quiddity, like their existence, is constructed (i‘tibārī). As a result, the property of being quiddity-based elevates to an existent qua existent axiom, becoming a direct accident comparable to reality.

The hadith "Al-Saeed Man Saad fi Batn Umma wa Al-Shaqi Man Shaqi Fi Batn Umma" is one of the famous hadiths in Islamic traditions, which has been studied and debated by thinkers since the past. Based on this hadith, some people believed in the theory of predestination and lack of free will. In this research, ten semantic possibilities mentioned in this hadith have been pointed out, and finally, the accepted meaning has been explained by descriptive-analytical method and examination of the collection of related traditions and philosophical foundations. In the accepted meaning, the meaning of "Al-Saeed" is the end of the human being for the good, and the meaning of "Fi Batin Umme" is the time when the soul breathes in the fetus, and the meaning of happiness in the mother's womb is the divine destiny based on the test of the human being in the "Alam Dhar" has been taken .Of course, this divine destiny is changeable and not deterministic, and divine prior knowledge is not the cause of determinism either. And even though God's inherent knowledge does not change and bad'a does not belong to it, this hadith has nothing to do with God's inherent knowledge. In this analysis, the philosophical ambiguities of this narrative have been explained in such a way that a reasonable meaning can be taken from this narrative.

Famous philosophers believe in the principle of "Al-Shi Ma Lam Ya Jab Lam Yojd" which indicates the validity of the former necessity; But some theologians and fundamentalists found problems in it. Master Fayazi does not accept the above rule with the popular reading and considers the former necessity impossible due to the height of contradictions, which of course is fully explained in the book "Philosophical Algebra from Professor Fayazi's point of view" along with the four basic forms. As a defender of the rule, Ostad Kohensal makes four criticisms of Fayazi's speech, which are discussed. Also, in order to analyze the mentioned rule, in the analysis of the nature and truth of the obligation, a dialogue is carried out. Finally, among the mentioned points, it is clear that the reading of Ustad Kohansal is not according to the popular rule, and there is no difference between his opinion and Ustad Fayazi regarding non-independent verbs; But in Mukhtar verbs, Professor Fayazi, while rejecting the necessity, apparently, does not consider the existence of the cause to be sufficient for the realization of the effect, which is not prohibited in the opinion of the old professor.

The knowledge of all creatures about God is one of the issues that is confirmed by many Qur'anic and narrative evidences. Many thinkers addressed this issue and many of them pointed to the consciousness of all creatures to God. One of the proofs of the knowledge of all creatures towards God is the glorification of all creatures towards God, and since the glorification of creatures is associated with their knowledge and intelligence, it follows that all creatures have knowledge of God. This article aims to investigate the meaning of glorifying all creatures and prove its connedge and consciousness. has it.ction with science, which comes to this conclusion after examining the opposing views The glorification of all creatures means glorifying them verbally and verbally. By saying "Glory be to God" or any other word that means glorifying, they consider God free from all defects, and this glorification is connected to God with their knowle

As one true issue documented by the verses of the Qur’an and many traditions, general perception of all beings has called the attention of Muslim intellectuals.  Transcendent philosophy has taken valuable steps in the course of explanation of the presence of perception in all beings; however, the arguments for incorporeality of knowledge has proven a serious obstacle to the demonstration of such a claim.Having adopted a critical approach and a descriptive-analytic method, the authors went to show that those arguments fail to prove an obstacle to the claim. As per the findings, those arguments fail to prove that all kinds of knowledge are conditioned by incorporeality and thus they cannot be an obstacle to the general perception in all beings. When such rational obstacles are gone, we can resort to the revealed arguments for the general perception in all beings, although rational arguments for the claim are insufficient.

Philosophical explanation of religious concepts is one of the missions of Islamic philosophy. What was known as reincarnation before Mulla Sadra is just the worldly reincarnation (tanāsukh mulkī) in the sense of removal of the soul from one body and its transference into another one. For explaining some of the religious concepts, Mulla Sadra fabricated another term for incarnation: celestial reincarnation (tanāsukh malakūtī), expositing many religious discussions and mystical experiences by using it. Here, we have firstly dealt with the special foundations of Mulla Sadra’s philosophy that help us in explaining the concept of reincarnation and its various types; then, we have stated his philosophical explanation of celestial reincarnation. Afterwards, we have investigated those Quranic verses that show various types of reincarnation. Finally, we have summarized the discussions related to reincarnation in traditions.

Famous philosophers believe that essence - in the sense of “What is the answer to what is essence” - is specific to possibilities and God has no essence. Professor Dr. Alireza Kohansal, like famous philosophers, strengthens and defends this opinion, but in contrast to Professor Hujjat al-Islam and the Muslims Gholamreza Fayazi, contrary to the famous belief, he believes that God also has an essence. In the continuation of this session, professor Kohansal admits that if God has nature and essence, it will have two corrupt results first, the necessarily existing becomes possible existing; Second, in the following to become possible existing, it will need a forger. However, professor Fayazi believes that existence is necessary for God’s nature and essence, and there is an analytical causality between God’s nature and existence, which does not contradict its external necessity. Similarly, God’s combination of existence and nature is also realized in the analysis of reason and does not conflict with its external simplicity.

Civilization is a set of political, cultural, economic, etc. systems in which human beings, based on their worldview, seek material and spiritual growth towards the desired ends. Civilization requires setting priorities. Which of these systems is a priority for reform? The claim of the present article is that according to the theory of the physical occurrence of the soul, the correction and repair of economic relations is a priority. Because according to the theory of the physicality of the soul, the soul is created by the completion of this bodily substance and its formation is from the materials and elements of this world.On the other hand, according to the view of Sadr al-Muta'allehin, seven things are involved in the difference of human intentions and goals: nature, the condition of the parents, the difference in what the sperm springs from, the difference in nutrition, the difference in their condition in discipline, the existence of a tutor. Differences in the amount of effort in self-cultivation. The first factor is the human nature, which is highly dependent on the family economy, how it runs its business. The third and fourth factors also deal with the important issue of economics. The conclusion is that if the origin of the soul starts from the body and economic factors and good and halal nutrition are effective in human matter and sperm, the micro and macro economy of society is in spite of the lack of originality of the base. As the root of the decline and decline of civilization lies in the field of economics.

The realization of multiple significances in a unified reality is a significant principle that may seriously disrupt our epistemology and ontology if an adequate interpretation is not presented or accepted. Based on this principle, in the external world, no consequence is basically realized, and at the same time, reality can be considered as an instance of significance and various consequences. Reality is absolutely non-complex and through its non-complexity, it is an instance of various consequences. The mind does not self-foundedly take significance from the external world, rather it is the non-complex reality that allows the mind to abstract its significance. Thus, the significances are indeed realized in the external world, and at the same time, the reality is an absolute non-complex and no consequence and plurality can make it pluralistic. This is obviously manifested in Existentialism. according to the correct interpretation of Existentialism, reality is not merely of existence or essence; neither existence is the source of abstraction of essence nor conversely, rather the non-complex reality is the source of abstraction of both and the plurality of both. Thus, reality is actually derived from both, but with its non-complexity. The difference between the significance of existence and other significance is that it can be realized through its essence, but other significances are the true realization of the consequence.

In this article, we review the main reasons of Muslim philosophers for denying the nature of the necessary being. First, by separating the three meanings of nature and three different interpretations of the originality of existence, We try to get a clear picture of the conflict. Then we mention the most important arguments for denying the nature of the necessary being And we show that most of these arguments were either based on the originality of nature or are based on a particular understanding of the originality of existence that is debatable. Finally, we show that according to the correct interpretation of the originality of existence The nature is determination of existence, and existence without determination has no meaning.Therefore, every being has a nature; Both limited and unlimited. However, because the necessary being is unlimited, its nature, which which exists with the same existence, will be unlimited. Accordingly, there was no conclusive reason for denying the nature of the necessary being, but There is argument that necessary being  has nature. Necessary and possible beings  have nature  in the same meaning.However, the referencce of nature is different in them.

Some of the contemporary philosophers have commented on two subjects: (1) the principality of existence and the conventionality of quiddity; and (2) various types of intelligibles. However, the consistency between these two discussions needs to be scrutinized in the array of their views. Among those persons, we may name Allama Tabataba’i and Martyr Mutahhari. In the present article, we have shortly expounded the concluding views of those two philosophers and investigated the relationship between the two views for them. Generally, the separation of ‘veracity’ from ‘objective realization’ is resulted from the inconsistency between those theories; and ignoring this would result in separation of epistemology from ontology. In this article, in addition to investigating the opinions of the abovementioned philosophers, we have explained the relationship between the two discussions of ‘veracity’ and ‘objective realization’, and have used this in making the theory of principality of existence consistent with the discussion of types of intelligibles. At the end, we have presented a new classification of the types of intelligibles.

In this article, in addition to proclaiming a position regarding the typical unity or plurality of the human souls, we are seeking to find a proper resolution for the psychological riddle of the human’s quiddity. One of the issues in the philosophical psychology is the question regarding the typical unity or plurality of the human souls. The Muslim scholars have offered a variety of opinions in this regard and, in addition to presenting some arguments, they have used evidences from the Quran and hadith in establishing their idea. Some of the Islamic philosophers believe in the typical unity of the souls and some others believe in the species plurality of the souls. Among them, Mulla Sadra has presented a middle line in some of his books, believing in an initial unity in type of the souls and, at the same time, their typical plurality in the process of a substantial motion. This philosophical issue has a formative association with the psychological discussion posed under the title of the ‘human’s psychological nature’, wherein the scholars have offered various, an even contrasting, views. Some have regarded human’s quiddity as neutral, some have regarded it as having evil leanings, and some others have attributed good leaning to it. By resolving the issue of the typical unity or plurality of the souls in Islamic philosophy, a proper answer would be given to the question posed in psychology.

In Islamic philosophy, two phrases about concept/ meaning of essence are famous: concept of essence: 1) is the most general concept; 2) is vast, upper clear and undefinable. But the independent theory about the affair itself draws us to conclusion that essence (special essence or opposed the inexistence) is in the following of two general concepts: 1) reality meaning general (general essence), 2) real essence (against credit essence). In other words, special essence firstly is subgroup of general essence; secondly is subgroup of real essence. We can define the two mixture as follows: (general essence+ reality= real essence) + property of opposing inexistence= special essence. Therefore, special essence is compound of three affairs (general essence, reality and property of opposing inexistence. Hence, 1. Essence is not the most general concept; 2. Is not vast, upper clear but is secondary clear so is definable. But general essence which is not opposed to inexistence: 1. is the most general concept; 2. is vast, upper clear and undefinable.

Learning rational sciences particularly philosophy plays a significant role in man’s life. In their oral and written works, many philosophers have tried to deal with different dimensions of the issue explaining the necessity to learn philosophy. As a prominent Muslim philosopher, Mulla Sadra has his own particular explanation. This article aims to critically and analytically shed light on the above explanation. Some of Mulla Sadra’s premises seem to be incorrect; the necessity to learn philosophy is undeniable, though. Philosophy is the only means to answer man’s fundamental questions and to clear man’s intellectual doubts. A better understanding of the Qur’an and traditions and the truths of the world owes to philosophy.

The question of moral dignity is one of the important debates of moral philosophy. Despite differences in this issue, all experts agree that human beings have a moral dignity. The question now is, how does faith play a role in determining the stage and degree of one's moral stage, by accepting the issue of moral dignity? Islamic teachings hold that faith plays a central role in determining the existential stages of humanity. In this context, anyone who denies God or the Apostle or the Resurrection is at the lowest existential stages. Faith itself has an equivocal nature that accepts strengths and weaknesses, and since the degree of humanity depends on the degree of faith, the stages of faith also follows the stages of humanity. The various stages of humanity constitute the stages of the human moral dignity, which determine the duties of moral activists before man. Accordingly, the unbeliever has the lowest level of moral rights, but the believer has a much higher legal rights, which, his moral dignity, also changes in accordance to his moral dignity. Using a descriptive-analytical method, the finding of this research shows that, a believer whose piety is established in his soul and hence avoids sin, in comparison with a fasiq believer who has not such stability in his soul, enjoys a higher moral status.

Every contingent thing is in need of a cause in order to bring it into being. For the epistemological importance of this proposition recently, this essay goes to study one current method of its explanation, i.e. to infer causality from the none-contradiction principle. One might, accordingly, say that it would imply contradiction in the very essence of a contingent thing were it to come into being without a cause. Thus the principle of causality is always true and valid. Having examined the philosophical premises and their conclusions here, the authors have denied the inferring of causality from the none-contradiction principle. They have concluded that the coming into being of a contingent thing without a cause leads to contradiction, yet this contradiction stems from the very principle of causality. Rather, one might say that our knowledge of the absurdity of contradiction is a prerequisite of inferring the falsity of contradictory principle of causality from non-contradiction, nonetheless epistemologically the causality principle is prior to the principle of non-contradiction. Thus, the none-contradiction principle might not be reckoned as the prime origin and primary principle of all a priori premises for all self-evident judgments. In general, one cannot demonstrate the principle of causality, nor can he deny it; rather, one might only draw the attention to the fact that it is self-evident.

The existing division [of things] into ‘immaterial’ and ‘material’ is one of the important and vital divisions in philosophy. Paying attention to it will answer many philosophical problems. Muslim thinkers have discussed material and immaterial beings in their works and have presented definitions for them. In their definitions, they have stated features of the immaterial and material beings and the criteria for distinguishing them. Scrutinizing those criteria and their foundations would reveal challenges. In the present article, by reviewing and investigating criteria such as matter, quantity, form, state, length, width, volume, color, being in the matter  and being with the matter, potentiality, change, motion, capability of being externally divided, time, place, personality and particularity, put forward by Muslim thinkers, a new criterion for distinguishing material beings from immaterial ones is established based on which a material being is a being that is perceived through senses or is dependent on it. An immaterial being, however, is a being neither sensible through senses nor dependent on it.

The free will, that means the possibility of both to do and not to do, contradicts three philosophical rules of “the necessity of the cause and the effect”, “the final cause is the cause for the agency of the agent”, and “the impossibility of preference without preponderant”. And from the other hand, because it is a possible meaning, it is impossible to be an attribute for the Necessary. The resolution of philosophers for this problem is to introduce another meaning for free will that is known as the “philosophical meaning of free will”. But in addition to corrupt consequences of the “philosophical meaning of free will” which the philosophers themselves also do not acknowledge them, their method in solving this contradiction is in contrast with logical principles and bases. Because, in the case of contradiction of an evident knowledge a theoretical one, logically we must reject the theoretical knowledge or, at least doubt about it and reexamine its arguments. Explicitly explaining this contradiction and mentioning the failure of philosophers’ resolution, the main purpose of this writing is to prove the necessity of revise in the abovementioned philosophical principles and rules.

Some believe that God cannot be considered "infinite" because, firstly, "infiniteness" is the modes of the quantitative entities. Secondly, an infinite being contains infinite plurality that is incompatible with God's true unity. Third, the infinite being, itself, is impossible to exist. Therefore, they argue that the narrations that speak of God's infiniteness do not actually mean that God is infinite, because the relationship between finiteness and infiniteness is the relationship between habitus and non-habitus. Hence, by denying finiteness in the quantitative entities, infiniteness cannot be deduced, just as with denying literacy in the stone, it cannot be argued that "the stone is illiterate." Since the followers of this view adhere to this idea because of their religious concerns for supporting narrative arguments, after analyzing the claims of the deniers of this view, we have proved God's infinity through the religious texts to provide a detailed answer to the deniers of God’s infiniteness. Using the rational and narrative method, this paper proves God's infiniteness, and evaluates the opposite view.

The main purpose of the present article is investigating the reasons and the content of the ‘law of higher possibility’ in peripatetic philosophy and transcendental theosophy. Accordingly, it will become clear that in addition to non-integrity of the reasons for that law, its content is not acceptable without aid from personal unity of existence, because the well-known reasons of that law are all based on impossibility of plural emanation from the Most High Necessary existent as well as the sufficiency of the essential possibility of the possibilities for being emanated from the Most High Necessary existent. This is while, firstly, these two foundations are inconsistent, and, secondly, according to Mulla Sadra’s final opinion and that of other scholars, the plural emanation from the Most High Necessary existent is possible. The content of that law, however, involves infinite regression; and the philosophical rules and bases were unable, before the emergence of Mulla Sadra’s philosophy, to resolve that issue. Besides, Mulla Sadra was forced to resort to the ‘personal unity of existence’ to resolve it. Another way prepared by the transcendental theosophy to prove it is arguing for that law through the relationship between the effect and the creating cause. Much research, ample documents, stating the logical form of the arguments, and the critical look are among the features of this article.

The present study aims at presenting a precise explanation of the principle of ‘Unification of Lordship’ in Mulla Sadra’s view and its difference from similar terminologies. The research question is as follows: “How is divine lordship explained from philosophical aspect?” To investigate the issue, first we have given a clear explanation of various types of divine actions. Then, we have compared the quality of divine action with that of the human’s action, stated their differences, and enumerated – to explain the truth of divine attributes – various types of divine attributes, returning them to self-subsistence. Finally, we have scrutinized the difference between Unification of Lordship and unity of divine actions. The findings of the study show that what is realized, in the divine action, outwardly is the very innovation and effusion from whose various modes a variety of conceptions, including Lordship, is abstracted. This relative attribute returns to God’s subsistence without any change. Unification of Lordship, that is supporting and management of the creatures, means the very divine governance, but in a lower rank.