Examining the similarities and differences between Ibn Sina's and Allameh Tabatabai's interpretations of Sediqin's argument

The main question of this research is: "What is Ibn Sina's and Allameh Tabatabayi's report on Siddiquin's argument and what are their commonalities and differences with each other?" The purpose of examining this issue is to gain a deeper awareness of the position and value of one of the most important proofs of God in Islamic philosophy. In this article, using the analytical-rational method, an attempt has been made to present a report of Avicenna's speech from Burhan (Argument) Siddiqin by examining his works. Then Allameh Tabatabayi's speech about this argument is presented. By comparing these two speeches, their commonalities and differences are discussed, and at the end, the findings of the research are presented in the form of conclusions. Based on the results obtained from this research, there are three aspects in common between the above two speeches: “demonstration through the cause” (being Lemmi) of both speeches, the absence of the need for both speeches to negate logical turn and sequence, and proving the attributes of Wajib al-Wujud in addition to proving his existence. On the other hand, there are four differences between the two mentioned speeches: in Ibn Sina's speech, the principle of existence is used, while in Allameh Tabatabayi's speech, the principle of reality is used; Ibn Sina's speech is only capable of proving the inherent necessity of wajib al-wujud, but Allameh Tabatabayi's speech also proves the eternal necessity of inherent wajib-ul-wujud. Ibn Sina has used many preliminaries in his speech, but Allameh Tabatabayi has proved the ideal by using the fewest preliminaries in his speech.