نشریه آموزه های فلسفه اسلامی
سال دهم شماره 2 (پیاپی 17، پاییز و زمستان 1394)

With considering the importance of the current of thoughts in the evolution of human thought, this paper has tried to examine the influence of the philosophical opinions of Ibn Sina on European philosophy on the Middle Ages. Although Christians had no codified philosophy but for their theological determination of their notions they turned to the current Greek philosophies in the Middle Ages. But for the limitations and conflicts between philosophical teachings and religious ones, they obliged to turn to look to other philosophies such as Islamic philosophy. Because the philosophy opinions of Muslims and at the top of them Ibn Sina’s opinions being able to establish the Adaptation between intellect (aql) and the Sharia or Islamic law, they could help the European thinkers in solving problems. The translation of Ibn Sina’s works to European languages was begun shortly after his death. His opinions about ontology, theism, psychology and eschatology were considered by European Christian philosophers and theologians. Scholars such as Gundisalvus, John Duns Scotus, Dionysius ,Eckhart and Roger Bacon were deeply affected by Ibn Sina’s philosophy and and although scholars such as Albert the Great, Thomas Aquinas, Alexander Of Hales, and Larusian did not accept some opinions of Ibn Sina, but their thoughts were profoundly influenced by Ibn Sina’s philosophy. Three of Ibn Sina’s theories which had the most influence on scholastic philosophy of the Middle Ages are: knowledge, ishraq (the wisdom of illumination), the relationship between essence (dhat) and existence (wujud), the primal origin of individuation of matter.

“DHikr” as the language of the heart is the most meaningful type of the relationship with God which it is constantly regarded by philosophers and mystics. Ibn ’Arabi and Mullā Ṣadrā have determined and reexamined this category in their opinions. In this paper with referring to the works of these scholars and collecting their views about the nature and stages of “dhikr” and after analyzing and comparing them, these outcomes have been achieved that reliance on “speculation” (khalvat) as an obligation for the real “dhikr” has been accepted by both of them. But Mullā Ṣadrā believes that “knowledge” (marifa/ gnosis) and thought are two non-separable obligations of “speculation” (khalvat) which they cannot be viewed in the notion of Ibn ’Arabi. Conversely, Ibn ’Arabi states the relationship between “Kashf” (Unveiling) and “dhikr” which it has not been paid attention by Mullā Ṣadrā. Ibn ’Arabi has stated the stages of “dhikr” in the world of creation (takvin) with considering all cosmos (universe) but Mullā Ṣadrā states those stages in the world of legislation and with man-centered. The result of this comparative study clears when a gnostic issue from the view of the transcendent theosophy or
al-hikmat al-muta’li is looked what changes establishes.

The issue of the perfect man is of the most fundamental issues of the Islamic wisdom (hikma) and philosophy area. The importance of this subject in this gnostic (knowledgeable) realm is that the perfect man (al-insan al-kamil) is the interface (intermediary) between non-delimited existence (Being) (al-wujûd al-mutlaq) and delimited existence. In other word, because of the prefect man, the cosmos (world/ universe) has been developed and expanded and the hidden treasure is revealed and disclosed. This aspect of ontology of the prefect man with his epistemology area will be completed. It means from the view of the great scholars such as Ibn ’Arabi and Mullā Ṣadrā, the knowledge (acknowledgment) of the Real is impossible except through the knowledge (acknowledgment) of the prefect man. Due to this, the prefect man is the agent of developing being and it is a sign of the knowledge to the essence of the Real and it is exactly the mirror of the Names and Attributes of God. For this, this note with analytic and comparative method will study and research the concept of the prefect man in two aspects: ontologically and epistemologically with emphasizing on the opinions of Ibn ’Arabi and Mullā Ṣadrā. The hypothesis of this paper is based on this meaning that the approach of these two great men to the concept and application of the prefect man in the knowledge of God and doctrines while it contains obvious similarities, has dissimilarities, too. The differences which should be mentioned the most aspect of them in the functional look of Mullā Ṣadrā to the prefect man and ethically showing of him can be seen rather than merely examining the prefect man from the abstract position and area.

Monotheism (Oneness of God or Unity of Allah) is the first principle of our religious beliefs (theological beliefs) which embodies a vast meaning and includes Unity (Tawhid) in thought and act or action and each of these branches has sub branches which the Unity of the Acts (Tawhid afa’ali) is a kind of theoretical Unity (Tawhid). From the perspective of Islamic philosophers and theologians, it means that all creation of the universe (all created beings) not only in essence (dhat) and attributes but also in the realm of effectiveness and being affected are dependent on God. Every cause gets his existence, effectiveness and creative agency from Him. The branches of the Unity of Acts like Unity in creation, Lordship, providing, governing and owning which every of these branches relates to free will of man and follows problems such as determinism and free will. But these deviations in thought can be completely removed with clarifying (presenting) the theory of moderation and belief to the state between these two categories (determinism and free will) which are of Shia’s beliefs.

It has been dealt in this paper with the fact that “thinking” is the act of human “mind”. “Mind” is also one of the faculties of the human soul. Mind is different from intellect and soul. Both intellect and mind are the faculties of the soul. Everything that can be invoked to the faculties of the mind and intellect, it can be invoked to the soul too, weather we believe that the soul has many individual faculties or they are its modes. There are different interpretations in the words of theologians and philosophers about the definition of “thinking”. But all of the philosophers typically agree that “thinking” is both moving from the subject of thinking to the principles and turning again to the subject of thinking. Those who only have confined themselves with the second move, perhaps because the second movement has the first movement in itself, so there is no need to its mentioning. The reason of disagreement in citation of “thinking” to the intellect, mind, or soul, is perhaps for this reason that the attention of the mind is sometimes to the immaterial things, so thinking will be the act of rational soul, and sometimes to the material, so it will be the act of animal soul, that is not to fact that it is the direct act of animal soul, but because the faculties of animal soul help the rational soul in reaching a conclusion.

Some Islamic philosophers have used Dahr (Meta-Time or Aeviternity) and Sarmad (Eternity or No Time) in opposition to Zaman (Time). Philosophers have sometimes explained these two terms with brief (unclear) statements which it is possible to be interpreted to different aspects. Therefore, the different interpretations and explanations have been presented for the relation between Dahr, Sarmad and Zaman. Dahr and Sarmad and their relation to Zaman, in other words, how to determine the worlds of Being or Existence in comparison to Zaman have been constantly challenged and argued by different Islamic thinkers. Among them Ibn Sina (Avicenna) and Mīr Dāmād have attempted to clarify comprehensive interpretation of Dahr, Sarmad and Zaman and their relationship. They have defined these as three separate being containers which are resulted from the relationship of immutable to changeable and immutable to immutable. In opposition Fakhr al-Din al-Razi and Consequently Plato believes that “Zaman” (Time) is a durable (flowing) substance which if it is not simultaneous with the originated matters the endurance will be without changing in modes (ahwal) which it is the same Dahr and Sarmad and if it is simultaneous with the originated matters because of happening these incidents and changing in the relation of things “Zaman” (time) is resulted. Abu’l-Barakāt with determining “Zaman” (time) to the measure of being and being temporal every created thing, he has tried to determine Dahr and Sarmad to temporal method. Some philosophers and theologians believe “Zaman” (time) is virtual (imaginary/ mawhum) time. This paper is going to investigate these views.

This note studies the theory of Shabah (image/ resemblance) in the area of the mental existence and examines three interpretations. In the first interpretation, it investigates the attitude of the famous scholars about Shabah (image/ resemblance) which they believe that the theory of Shabah (image/ resemblance) is against the theory of the essential union which besides the existential difference between dhin (mind) and ’ayn (entity), they believe the essential differences between dhin (mind) and ’ayn (entity) too. These interpretations embody four types which willingly or unwillingly it has been presented in the movement of the philosophical-theological discussions (subjects). The types are: 1. resembling Shabah (image)
2. coding Shabah (image) 3. shabah (image) with changing
4. combination between Essential union and Shabah (image). The second interpretation (some scholars have clarified) believes that the theory of Shabah (image) is the same of the theory of the Essence union between dhin (mind) and ’ayn (entity) and the third interpretation is the conceptual-Anecdotal aspect that its quiddity does not come to dhin (mind) but what come to dhin (mind) is a concept that specifying objective things after explaining and presenting in detail the interpretations, they have been judged by this paper and at last the second interpretation of Shabah (image) is accepted.