Response to Mulla Sadra’s Critics on Corporeal Resurrection: Denying Claims of Incosistency with Divine Law and Limitation to Spirtual Resurrection

MullaSadra’s theory of corporeal resurrection, in addition to consistency withreligious foundations, is rooted in rational and philosophical principles andfoundations. Since Mulla Sadra was aware of the shortcoming of previoustheologues, especially Fakhr Razi, stood away from these flaws and submitted rational proofs on corporeal resurrection for the first time. In the formulation ofthis theory, Sadra have used new philosophical principles of his school. By believingin the hereafter corporeal resurrection and denying the elemental corporealresurrection, Sadra stood against most of the thologues who believed in the elemental material distinct resurrection of the body in the hereafter which is anincorporeal world. He also rejected the inconsistency of his theory with divine lawby holding a belief in the assimilation of a resurrected individual and an individualexisting in this world.  Despite that,the theory was subject to severe criticism and ambiguities. Some criticsbelieve that this theory is philosophical and inconsistent with divine law whilesome others approve some dimensions of the theory. However, some exegetesapprove this theory and support it. Itwas concluded that a unidimensional analysis of this theory had given rise tothese criticisms. Mulla Sadra proposes tripartite worlds (natural, imaginal,intellectual) and three types of Man (sensible, physical, and intellectual) andproves resurrections beyond imaginal resurrection that includes resurrectionfor other animals too.