Yaser Salari; mohammad nejati
Abstract
AbstractMulla Sadra believes in interpreting the event of the Resurrection that both the minor and the great resurrection have been realized in the direction of nature and self, and in the interpretation of the Qur'an, he has interpreted the verses related to the realization of the Resurrection and the ...
Read More
AbstractMulla Sadra believes in interpreting the event of the Resurrection that both the minor and the great resurrection have been realized in the direction of nature and self, and in the interpretation of the Qur'an, he has interpreted the verses related to the realization of the Resurrection and the bloating as a mati. In a strange claim, Dr. Soroush considers mulla Sadra's interpretive approach as a means of acknowledging and accepting the basis of the dream of revelation and speaks to himself about the co-ordination of the voices of the muslims. In reviewing and criticizing this claim, which has been done by descriptive and analytical method, two main issues come to mind: first, contrary to Soroush's claim, Mulla Sadra's belief in the realization of the Resurrection is based on his intellectual and philosophical foundations in transcendental wisdom and has nothing to do with the dreaming of revelation. The second issue is that the correct understanding of Mulla Sadra's view of the resurrection will indicate the addressing aspect of the Qur'an. Because from Sadra's point of view, regardless of the prophet's dream and dream, both the soghra and the great resurrection have been realized objectively and its uprising toward different people can be old or late because of their differences in existence.
Abdulkarim Keshvari; Jahangir Masoudi; Jaafar Morvarid
Abstract
Interpretability or the existence of sacred texts and scriptures has been one of the issues raised by Muslim and non-Muslim thinkers. "Interpretation" has been used in the topic of interpretationOne of the most important issues in the Qur'anic sciences is the problem of understanding the analogies and ...
Read More
Interpretability or the existence of sacred texts and scriptures has been one of the issues raised by Muslim and non-Muslim thinkers. "Interpretation" has been used in the topic of interpretationOne of the most important issues in the Qur'anic sciences is the problem of understanding the analogies and the scholars of interpretation in terms of who is qualified to interpret the analogies, including disputes between scholars, especially Shiite and Sunni commentators. Compare the data and opinions of Fakhr Razi and Mulla SadraAccording to the above verse, some scholars consider the science of interpretation to be analogous to God alone, and others do not consider it exclusive to God. Mulla Sadra excludes interpretation from being confined to the domain of language, believing that every phenomenon has interpretation and interpretation. Believes in a certain way and considers the perfect example of Rasikhan in science in addition to the infallible non-infallible scholars.Fakhr Razi, on the other hand, believes that the only Almighty God is aware of the interpretation of the parallels. From their point of view, lack of knowledge of the interpretation of the parallels does not mean denying the existence of God; We also have faithAlthough science is not similar to verses.
Shaker Lavaei; Tayebe Rezaei Rah
Volume 7, Issue 14 , March 2017, , Pages 79-95
Abstract
The argument from contingency which was first put forward by Al-Farabi, was subsequently developed by Avicenna. Al-Farabi's argument is based on the impossibility of an infinite regres, but Avicenna proves this imopssibility during his argument. So, to accept the Avicennian argument one doesn’t ...
Read More
The argument from contingency which was first put forward by Al-Farabi, was subsequently developed by Avicenna. Al-Farabi's argument is based on the impossibility of an infinite regres, but Avicenna proves this imopssibility during his argument. So, to accept the Avicennian argument one doesn’t need to accept the impossibility of an infinite regres in advanced. This is one of the differences between Al-Farabi's and Avicenna's argument from contingency. Although Avicenna claims to have brought a greater innovation in Al-Isharat, and he maintains that this argument proves the existence of the necessary being even with the possibility of an infinite regress, his claim seems unjustified, since first, in contrast to Avicenna's claim and what is commonly believed, there is no crucial distinction between Avicenna's argument from contingency in Al-Isharat and the ones mentioned in Al-Mabdaa- wa-Al-maad and Al-Nijat. And second, his claim is not true about any of his arguments.
Another major flaw in Avicennian argument is his stance on the criterion of the need for a cause.
On the other hand, Mulla sadra's objection to this argument is not acceptable as well. He says contrary to Avicenna's claim, the chain of contingent things is not a contingent being. But Mulla sadra's argument has two problems. First, it's based on the premise that "existence is coextensive with unity" which can not be used as the middle term of an argument. Second, this objection is in conflict with his theory of the real unity of the universe.
Seyyed Mohammad hakak
Volume 5, Issue 10 , February 2015, , Pages 65-83
Abstract
Among the arguments presented to prove God is Seddiqin argument. The advantage of this argument to other arguments is that it does not use any creatures of God to prove the existence of God. Tow versions of this argument are Mulla Sadra's and Allameh Tabatabaee's. This paper depicts that these arguments ...
Read More
Among the arguments presented to prove God is Seddiqin argument. The advantage of this argument to other arguments is that it does not use any creatures of God to prove the existence of God. Tow versions of this argument are Mulla Sadra's and Allameh Tabatabaee's. This paper depicts that these arguments - contrary to their apparent difference and common understanding - are not essentially different, and both - after admitting the principiality of existence - are nothing but reflection in the truth of absolute pure existence, the existence of which is an eternal necessity and thus necessary being. Furthermore the paper shows that Allameh Tabatabaee's argument is based on the principiality of existence and not on the principiality of reality. Also neither of the arguments is, in fact, an argument (becase they have no midle term). The Seddiqin argument is just a statement of the evidence of the existence of God.
