نشریه حکمت اسرا
سال سوم شماره 4 (پیاپی 10، زمستان 1390)

From a religious point of view, man’s happiness is achieved through correct insights and beliefs as well as the character and behavior deriving from the primordial nature and in accordance with the religious law. As the character and behavior of people is the outcome of the kind of their insights and beliefs, it has also an impact upon them. Man’s behavior gradually brings about positive or negative qualities and innate dispositions. Negative qualities and innate dispositions produce an insight in conformity with them which sometimes leads to denial of obvious truths, while positive qualities and innate dispositions establish and reinforce innate and intellectual insights causing heart to become luminous with the light of knowledge and wisdom. Attachment to this world is the root of negative characters and behaviors and abstaining from attachment to this-worldly desires is the root of positive characters and behaviors. The Qur’an and Tradition (al-Sunna) have stressed the importance of this fact and originated a specific frame for thoughts of Muslim scholars, particularly mystics and philosophers on epistemology. Relying on of Āyatullāh Jawādī Àmulī’s thought, the present article explains this Qur’anic reality.

There is a prevailing view today that science and religion have two radically different cultures. Some scientists hold that they are related to two independent cultures. Others believe that they overlap in some areas while according to some others they belong to two complementary cultures. This article tries to prove that science, as is generally understood, does not have a self-sufficient culture and shares common ground with religion in some aspects. Furthermore, science is dependent upon metaphysical assumptions and scientists deal with some ethical considerations. Therefore, science and religion, at least, do not belong to two entirely independent cultures, and in fact they can have an underlying common worldview.

The concept of “Islamization of knowledge” was introduced in 1960. Al-Faruqi, whose views have constantly drawn serious attention of the experts has been one of the pioneers of this idea. This study seeks to explain, analyze and examine his viewpoints in this field. Like some others, Al-Faruqi holds that the solution to the Muslim backwardness is reforming the educational system and bringing it under the rule of Islamic thoughts and beliefs. As this system is relied upon appropriate texts, structure and appropriate management, Islamization should be carried out in all of them. Al-Faruqi’s solution in this area is the five Islamic principles governing the science as well as the twelve stages of production and composition of texts. Through examination and critique of Al-Faruqi’s aforementioned ideas, this study tries to explore the most challenging aspects of his theory.

The meaning of life is a central philosophical issue which has long been discussed under the title of “the purpose of life”. Among man’s fundamental and frequently-asked questions are: What is the meaning of life? Why have we been created? And why must we endure so much suffering in life? In this way, the position of the contemporary commentator and philosopher, ÝAllama ÓabÁÔabÁī, influence of whose thoughts on later thinkers is undeniable, has been discussed. The innovative point is that according to him, life is meaningful in knowledge, morality, human behavior, accountability in light of religious doctrines, belief in God and monotheism, and the entire meaninglessness of life lies in self-forgetfulness, worldliness, not understanding human status, atheism and humanism which are the gifts of the western civilization.

Hegel and Mulla Sadra have both extended the motion within the whole nature; however, closer examination of this single conclusion and its premises indicates major disagreement of the two philosophers over the question of motion. Based on principles of the Transcendent Wisdom (al-Îikmat al-mutaÝÁliya), Mulla Sadra made major transformations in the discussion of motion, and in this process the principality or existence (aÒÁlat al-wujūd) had the most substantial part. On the basis of his own essentials, Hegel too has dealt with the motion presenting some new ideas. Taking some principles of Hegel and mixing them with Feuerbach’s views, Marxists introduced a new reading of the motion. Through analyzing and criticizing Marxists, Shahīd MuÔahharī also undertook a comparative study of motion in Islamic and western philosophies.This article, which has a critical approach to the Hegelian dialectical motion as well as that of dialectical materialism, consists of three parts: part I, dialectical motion of Hegel; part II, dialectical materialism; and part III, a critique of parts I and II on the basis of Shahīd MuÔahharī’s thoughts. It should be noted that Shahīd MuÔahharī makes his own analysis and criticism on various occasions; that is why such discussions have no systematic itinerary in MuÔahharī’s works. It is attempted in this article to extract and organize his views in a systematic manner.

Causality is one of the central issues in philosophy and at least each rationalist philosopher is expected to be adhering to it. The aim of this article is to examine the status of causality from Viewpoints of two rationalist philosophers, Ibn SīnÁ and Descartes. First, it deals with the fact that how causality developed in works of each of these two great philosophers showing that both Ibn SīnÁ and Descartes have accepted it. So, they are supposed to believe in its implications (i.e. necessity and cognation) too. Then, it sets out to explain whether they are actually committed to its implications in the process of dealing with it. Ultimately, the contributor comes to the conclusion that Ibn SīnÁ is committed to both the principle of causality and its implications, namely necessity and cognation; but Descartes, who is the founder of modern western philosophy is in fact paving the way for questioning important consequences of causality, that is, necessity and cognation and as a result, the principle of causality through presenting the divine will and the providence. Thus, in his conception of causality Descartes has some opinions other than Ibn SīnÁ, which cast doubt on his adherence to the consequences of causality.

The faculty of representation and the realm of imaginative forms, act as an intermediary between the intellectual and physical world. In the history of the Islamic philosophy, from FÁrÁbī’s time to the present, the question of imagination has been a very important topic and has contributed to solving a great deal of problems, such as the problem of cognition, connection of contingent to the Eternal, and the Hereafter. Some experts have considered this as a distinguishing characteristic of Islamic philosophy. In this study, we are seeking to present briefly opinions of al-FÁrÁbī, Ibn SīnÁ, Suhrawardī, MullÁ ÑadrÁ and Ibn al-ÝArabī on the realm of imagination so that we could deal with their points of agreement and disagreement in this issue.