This article seeks to analyze Mulla Sadra’s theory of substantial motion (substantive motion) and to recount the criticisms about it in the field of reasons, supplies, and effects, its obvious and internal inconsistencies, in addition to showing some of the essential conflicts of this theory with religious texts. The theory of substantive motion has been severely criticized in the area of reason, to the extent that great people such as Allameh Tabatabai, while acknowledging their objections, have argued in this position, in addition to the requirements of this theory in the face of religious texts such as the principle of resurrection, the principle of return and creation The former ghost cannot respond to conflicts.
Sadr al-Din Muhammad b. Ibrahim b. Yahya Qawami Shirazi (ca. 1571–1636) is arguably the most significant Islamic philosopher after Avicenna. Best known as Mulla Sadra, he was later given the title of Sadr al-Muta’allihin (Master of the theosists) for his approach to philosophy that combined an interest in theology and drew upon insights from mystical intuition. He considered philosophy to be a set of spiritual exercises and a process of theosis, a pursuit of wisdom whose goal was to acquire wisdom and become a sage, and hence become godlike. He championed a radical philosophical method that attempted to transcend the simple dichotomy between a discursive, ratiocinative mode of reasoning and knowing, and a more intuitive, poetic and non-propositional mode of knowledge. He became famous as the thinker who revolutionized the doctrine of existence in Islamic metaphysics. By critiquing an Aristotelian metaphysics which assumed that the basic stuff of reality was constituted by substances, he initiated a (Neoplatonic) process metaphysics of change, founded upon and moved by acts of being. A keen thinker who wrote works in philosophy, theology, mysticism, and scriptural exegesis, he attempted a wide-ranging synthesis of approaches to Islamic thought and argued for the necessity of the method of understanding reality through a mixture of logical reasoning, spiritual inspiration, and a deep meditation upon the key scriptural sources of the Twelver Shi‘i tradition in Islam. Having a holistic approach to philosophical inquiry, his understanding of the pursuit of wisdom included scriptural hermeneutics and exegesis as well as theological reasoning. A key figure of a group of thinkers whom Nasr and Corbin referred to as the “School of Isfahan”, he played a major role in intellectual life during the revitalization of philosophy under the Safavid Shah ‘Abbas I (r. 996–1038 AH/1588–1629 CE) and later on in life was the most important teacher at the philosophical seminary known as Madrasa-yi Khan in his hometown of Shiraz. Since the early 19th century, the thought of Mulla Sadra has become the dominant philosophical paradigm in the Shi‘i seminary in the Islamic East and was also widely influential in South Asia.
Transcendent Wisdom as a result of the rational efforts and mystical struggles of Sadr al-Muta’allehin was able to bring about a change in the world of thought, but this does not mean that there is no ambiguity in transcendent wisdom because this philosophical system, in turn, has problems and problems. The truthful of the transcendent wisdom, while accepting it, have not refrained from criticizing the views of Sadr al-Muta’allehin. Star thinkers in the field of Sadra philosophy (such as Haji Sabzevari and Allameh Tabatabai) have criticized some of the principles and teachings of this philosophical system, and this indicates that philosophical liberal thought is one of the most important principles of behavior that the clergy and influential followers of his thought make They have put their philosophy. The theory of substantial motion is also one of the most challenging teachings, which has attracted a lot of pros and cons since its inception as a philosophical thesis.
This research seeks to critically study this theory by examining the reasons and explanations of the companions of transcendent wisdom (especially the mullahs) regarding this theory and examining its compatibility with religious texts.
In this article, first, the definition, background, and position of the theory of substantial motion in Islamic philosophy are stated. Then, the reasons, effects, and accessories of this theory will be examined along with the relevant criticisms and answers.
1- Definition and background of substantial motion
One of the oldest intellectual issues is the issue of motion. Some have defined the movement as “otherness” and “departure from equality”, “gradual departure of the object from power to action” and “first perfection for the potential being because it is potential” [source] (Sadr al-Din Shirazi, 1419 AH, vol. 3): 24-26). According to Sadr al-Muta’allehin, the truth of motion is a gradual occurrence, and the best definition of motion is that the body fulfills all the boundaries between the origin and the end in the form and intensity of connection (Sadr al-Din Shirazi, 1419 AH, vols. 3: 22 and 31).
Substantial motion is the intrinsic and internal motion of material objects, which is the source of the apparent motions of phenomena and causes a change in the essence and essence of the object, in other words, substantial motion means movement in the institution, truth, and principle of the object. Some have attributed the promise of substantial motion to Heraclitus (Malekshahi, 1997: 278). Some consider the rule of modernity like mystics to be the ancient root of this way of moving (Malekshahi, 1375: 14). Some have attributed the discussion of the substantive motion to some theologians (Ahmadi, 1988: 124). One group considers substantial motion as one of the initiatives of Sadr al-Muta’allehin and considers him as the hero of proving the rationality of this mode of motion. [source](Motahari, 1998, J 13: 188). Sadr al-Muta’allehin himself, in the face of those who believe that there is no substantive movement among the sages, cites some verses and believes that God, who is the most truthful of the sages, is the first sage who has promised the substantive movement in the Holy Qur’an. He then gives a speech from the onology which he attributes to Aristotle and from Xenon Akbar as well as from the famous mystic of the Islamic world Mohieddin Arabi in confirmation of the movement of a substance (Sadr al-Din Shirazi, 1419 AH, vol. 3: 108-113).
Muslim peripatetic people considered motion as one of the properties of the body, so they considered the discussion of motion as a natural issue, and if they discussed the issue of motion in metaphysical issues, they noted that the main place of this discussion is in nature (Bahmanyar, 1375: 418). But Sadr al-Muta’allehin in his writings has introduced movement in the subject of theology because in his view movement is the way of existence and a kind of being and being, which will be the result of being of two kinds, being constant and is variable. That is why movement in transcendent wisdom is not discussed in nature but metaphysics. Hakim Sabzevari on the sidelines of Asfar knows the reason for the design of the motion of matter in metaphysics is that the motion of matter is the flow of nature, so it is not a matter of the body to be discussed in nature but is one of its principles (Sadraddin Shirazi, 1419, J 3: 21).
2- The reasons for the theory of substantial motion and the criticisms surrounding it
Movement in distances is clear and obvious, many of the forerunners of peripatetic philosophers considered the movement to be conceivable only in distances and considered a movement in substance impossible and impossible. On the contrary, those who believe in substantial motion not only did not consider motion in substance to be forbidden, but also considered motion in deviations to be dependent on accepting substantial motion, so they provided several reasons to prove substantial motion [source] (Sadraddin Shirazi, 1419 AH, vol. 3: 103). This article outlines three reasons why fans of the substantive movement agree:
2-1- The first argument
Philosophers have divided possible beings into two categories of substance and width. The essence is a matter inherent and has an independent existence and its width is that it does not have an independent existence and is independent of others. Deviations are divided into strange and intrinsic since the cause of intrinsic deviations is the essence of the carrier of those deviations, so the inherent deviations will be subject to their carrier essence in the conversion and non-transformation of the essence. According to what has been mentioned, any gradual change that occurs in the intrinsic (disabled) latitude is the reason for the change and transformation of the essence of that latitude: because philosophers have proved that the variable cause is variable and the fixed cause is fixed. [source]
2-1-1- Critique of the first argument: As it was written, the first argument is based on the causality of the jewel for the deviations. On this basis, we can ask, why do we not know the stillness of some deviations as the reason for the lack of movement in their carrier essence? The coercive place occurs from outside the shear, and the substance of the object accepts the motion, not the subject of the motion. The addition between the subject and the object is also forbidden. In this case, how can the coercive spatial motion of objects be justified by the substantial motion? On the other hand, what is the obstacle to attributing the existence of fluidity directly to the divine and supernatural agent and to consider the role of jewelry in its research, such as the role of matter in the study of the face, and not as the causal cause? (Mesbah Yazdi, 1387, vol. 2: 234)
Another problem that arises is that by accepting this argument, there will be no difference between the existence of a link and a link? Because latitude is a relation to the subject of existence and the effect is a relation to the cause of the existence of a relation (Mesbah Yazdi, 1375: 284).
Another question that arises is whether in addition to less and less in “this” and “situation” there is a substantial movement or not? Is it possible to show that by changing the position of this body, a change and movement has occurred in the essence of that body? (Falaturi, 1340: Tenth 922).
The last question is that this argument is based on the principle that the cause of the variable is the variable and the fixed cause is fixed.
2-2- The second argument
According to Sadr al-Muta’allehin, every physical being has a single existence that is self-determined and determined, and contrary to the notion that objects need their attributes in their distinction, in transcendent wisdom, they are identified according to the originality of attributes and signs, not the cause of identification and objects based on specific existence. They are differentiated from each other and each object does not have more than one identity that has different faces and appearances, so the signs and attributes of a being are a manifestation or a ray of existence and signs of its recognition. Since there is motion in the four, low, bag, position, and so on, the motion in these deviations will be a sign of the essential motion in the existence of the subjects of these deviations of substance. In other words, the movement of deviations is a sign of the existential movement of their jewels [source] (Falatouri, 1340: tenth 922).
2-2-1 Critique of the second argument: According to the second argument, deviations from the levels of existence and dignity are matters of substance, and any movement in them is considered a sign of movement in substance. The question that has been raised is that this statement can not justify qualities. Be carnal because the carnal qualities are not the same as the existence of the soul and there is no unity between them and the soul, but they have a kind of unity with each other, so the flow of this reason in these qualities can be considered (Mesbah Yazdi, 1378, J 2: 335). He considers the material and the physical as part of the affairs and emergence of the Supreme Being.
Finally, some believe that the cause of widths, such as color and taste, is not modernity and change of nature, but modernity and pursuit of degrees of width, modernity and pursuit of degrees close to the moving destination, and until this possibility remains, the proof of the movement of substance is incomplete (Rafiei Qazvini, 1988). : 37).
2-3- Third argument
This argument is based on Sadr al-Muta’allehin’s view of the truth of time. According to him, every material being has two extensions, one in the context of place and the other in the context of time. Time is also a transient extension, not an independent container in which objects are contained. If material objects did not have such an extension, they could not be measured with time scales, just as if they did not have a spatial extension, they could not be measured with length, width, surface, and volume scales. According to these contents, any creature that in its nature has a time extension. Existence will be gradual because time is transient until one component passes and the other component does not materialize. So material objects that have a transient extension have a gradual identity that is inherently and inseparable to them. The logical form of this reason is:
One. Every material being is temporal and has a temporal dimension,
Two. Any creature that has a time dimension is a gradual being,
Three. The existence of material substance will be gradual, that is, it will have moved. [source]
2-3-1- Critique of the third argument: According to the third argument, the existence of time is the reason for the existence of substantial motion. The question that arises here is that the reason for the existence of time only conveys that there is motion. How can we prove that if we move? Do not have ink. We will not have time, if it is said that because these movements must end in our movement with pleasures, then this will be the first argument.
Another question that arises is that Mulla Sadra proves time as the fourth dimension of objects based on the motion of matter. In this case, can the principle of motion of matter be proved through time?
2-4- Joint critique of arguments
The last question, about the reasons given in proving the theory of substantial motion, is a common question that has challenged all the arguments of this theory, and it is:
The reasons for substantial motion prove existential intensity, but existential intensity cannot be called a substantial motion in two ways:
A) Motion is a matter between power and actuality. In every movement, a force reaches actuality, that is, a force disappears and actuality is realized because the sum between force and action is not possible, but nothing disappears in existential intensity, but the weak becomes a strong order. What is lost is the limit itself, which is non-existent, while the extinct force is not in non-existent motion.
B) Existence of the same actuality and actuality is equal to the existence, and the difference between the existential levels is not to power and actuality, but belonging and non-belonging. Not to it. Sadr al-Muta’allehin has clarified this point in the sixth volume of Asfar, page 16, in explaining the argument of the truthful.
Considering these two directions, we can not call substantial intensification a movement, but it should really be called existential intensification, and the breadth and permissibility of substantial intensification, therefore, proves the existential intensification that proves existential intensification, not substantial motion (Saadat Mostafavi, 1998: 61). -62).
3- Substantive movement and survival of the subject
The most important question that has been raised from the beginning against the substantive motion and has caused people like Ibn Sina and his followers to refuse to accept the substantial motion, is the question of the survival of the matter in the substantial motion. In his second article on the natural science of healing, called the natural hearing, Sheikh al-Ra’is provides a comprehensive discussion of motion and time in thirteen chapters. In the thirteenth chapter, which is written under the title of “Chapter on the expression of the words which are the part of the movement in which there are no others”, he considered the occurrence of movement in the category of substance impossible by asking the question of the survival of the subject. [source] Ibn Sina’s summary is: (Ibn Sina, 1360: 123-125)
A) In the subject of the motion, it has been proven that motion requires six things [source]: One of them is the subject. Motion is in the realms because they have a fixed subject that is substance, but substance no longer has a subject, and if motion occurs in substance, this motion remains irrelevant, so motion in substance is impossible.
B) If the motion is to take place in ink, since motion is gradual, it requires the emergence of new ink at any moment. Therefore, it is possible to realize all kinds of substances to infinity, and this is impossible.
In response to the question of the survival of the matter in the motion of matter, Sadr al-Muta’allehin first considers the reasons of the questioners as solidification and fallacy due to confusion between nature and existence and confusion of what is potential instead of what is actual, then expresses his views on it. His collection of opinions in this regard is briefly as follows: [source] (Sadraddin Shirazi, 1419, vol. 3: 86-88)
One. We have the subject and that matter is with our face (a monster with our image),
Two. What remains is nature,
Three. The preserver of unity is in the essential motion of the separate and abstract matter,
Four. The souls of the essential forms have their unity, and we, who are united in the movement, from the first to the last, are the guardians of their unity and do not need a subject.
Five. The need for the subject is in the transcendental movements, and in the intrinsic movements of the substance, there is no need for such a subject.
Allameh Tabatabai in the margins of Asfar in response to the doubt of the survival of the issue to Sadr al-Muta’allehin has taken shape and considers his insistence on proving the issue for substantial movement without substance, but Martyr Motahhari in the book of movement and time tried to collect different sayings of Sadr al-Muta’allehin in this regard. Allameh Tabatabai is also considered unfinished in this case and the efforts of Sadr al-Muta’allehin in proving the issue are necessary because the movement is necessary. After all, it is the first perfection (Motahari, 1987, vol. 1: 457).
According to the answers given by Sadr al-Muta’allehin to this question, some other questions are posed as follows:
A) If the subject of motion is our essence, the monster, and our image, if the monster is inherently neither connected nor disconnected, it must inherently neither remain nor disappear and if the infinite forms that enter this monster are unstable, it is necessary that the monster Also has no stability and position (Ahani, 1362: 138).
B) If there are intensification and defect in the motion of the substance, the form of the substance in the middle of the defect and intensification, either remains or disappears and remains, in the form of the substance remains, the motion seems unreasonable, and if the form of the substance disappears, the subject of motion is a monster. And its characteristic form must also disappear and as a result, the subject will not be imagined for the movement of the substance (Ahani, 1362: 139).
C) Movement in any form is thought to be a kind of actuality and talking about actuality in a monster is disproportionate.
D) Sadr al-Muta’allehin has solved the problem of the existence of the subject of the movement of substance with the duality of the truth of the body in such a way that he considers matter as the subject of movement and the face as the bed of motion. , This base loses its value in addition to the fact that Sadr al-Muta’allehin’s idea of the body as a substance without parts and with personal unity, is now nothing more than a slang (Yathribi, 1379: 152).
E) An object does not exist as long as it is not identified, as long as an object does not exist, it will not be able to create. (Ebrahimi Dinani, 1376: 101-102).
The truth of images in terms of connection and unity of personality is not other than the essence of images, given that the subject of the motion of matter can not be monster and matter alone because matter itself is not actual and is not known, but the individuality and actuality of matter are formed if a specific form In this movement it causes the identification of matter, with movement, this form loses its recognition of the existence and can not be a moving essence, and if the form of connection – which is the exchangeable and rational forms of modern connection – wants to cause the identification of matter if Moving is inherently before the mafia of motion, it must be inherently and realistically before the mafia of motion and to motion, which is the same as the various forms while moving (forms of attachment) is essentially the essence of images (mafia of motion and motionless). This requires the essence of images to take precedence over the essence of images without regard to connection and causality.
4- Substantive movements and weakening movements
Given that Sadr al-Muta’allehin emphasizes the intensity of the movement. [source] The question that arises in this regard is that it can be seen that many creatures in their course are declining, weak and withering, and not only do their movements and gradual changes not increase their perfection, but also continuously reduce their perfection and reduce them to Nothing is approaching. We see an example of this phenomenon in plants and animals, so another challenge of substantive motion is to solve the problem of melting motions in nature. The set of questions that are asked in this regard is as follows:
A) Is the motion of matter just an evolutionary motion whose end is the abstraction of matter? So what kind of movement is the movement of matter such as plants and animals that has not yet reached this point?
B) Decreasing movements such as fruit rot are perfect and what is a similar movement?
C) According to the arguments for proving the substantial motion, these motions must also be substantial, because in this case, too, the intrinsic deviations change, and their change must indicate a change of essence. Jamadi is right to plant, animal, human, and complete abstraction, and finally annihilation. In this case, the question is, what is the reason for the confinement? (Falaturi, 1340: 921-923)
In response to this question, it should be noted that Sadr al-Muta’allehin has emphasized the intensification of substantial motion in several positions. [source] On this basis, Mesbah Yazdi, unlike Allameh, believes that substantial movement, like other movements, does not automatically require evolution and intensification, so he also considers the existence of weak movements and considers them as substantial movements. does not have. [source]
5- Substantial movement and anthropology of Sadra
Mulla Sadra’s anthropology is based on the acceptance of the motion of matter. Based on this idea, he has explained the quality of the origin of the soul and its relation to the body. Accordingly, in Mulla Sadra’s thought, unlike the predecessors, the soul does not exist before belonging to the body, but only has a mental quality, and as a result, the substantial motion of the body is found and then reaches its peak of celibacy with its substantial motion. They have introduced criticisms and questions. Some of them are as follows:
5-1- Ink and breath movement
In the unit motion of a fluid being, no boundary can be determined at any point, while in the substantial motion of the soul, Mulla Sadra believes that the soul is at one point on the border between materiality and abstraction, which means precisely the boundary between the two stages. Eliminates because in a single motion the existence of a definite boundary is meaningless, so the occurrence of the soul at a certain point and its connection with matter is a sign that a new type has occurred in that matter, not that matter itself in this evolutionary stage to this stage of perfection. Has been achieved (Mesbah Yazdi, 2001, vol. 2: 216).
According to Mulla Sadra, the soul first has a physical existence and as a result of perfection becomes an abstract and immaterial existence. But this claim is not acceptable if it is approved by Mulla Sadra because the transformation takes place where at least part of the first object is reduced while the body retains all its material components and does not lose any of its forms. So how can it be claimed that a material being has become an abstract being? What is achieved after the completion of the soul is that the soul finds a new form and perfection of substance while the previous matter and forms are preserved (Mesbah Yazdi, 2001, vol. 2: 216).
According to the movement of matter in human nature, how did an object become many kinds, how did truth become many truths? How can an object be both physical and abstract? These forms are necessary to promise the physicality of occurrence and the spirituality of the survival of the soul.
5-2- Substantial motion and previous creation of spirits
Mulla Sadra himself was aware of this problem and challenge because, given his dogmatic belief in the material origin of the soul, he did not abandon the theory of the single soul before the body. He reconciled his theory with the hadiths that know the creation of spirits before the body. He has expressed various opinions as follows: [source]
A) The precedence of the soul over the body in the narrations means the precedence of the cause of the soul over the body.
B) Man, in terms of his evolutionary stages, is three human beings. The “sensory man” who is the same material bodily person, the “psychic man” who is single and has all the organs of the sensory man but cannot be seen with the naked eye, and another man who calls himself the “intellectual man”. The soul is other than the soul and the rational man is the connection point of the natural man with the active intellect and other intellects.
C) The former existence of the soul over the body, which is mentioned in Islamic texts, is equal to reason and logic, and the souls have a synergistic form before the bodies, and the human population has a total existence before belonging to the collective body in the world of separations and abstractions. The cause itself is present.
It seems that Mulla Sadra’s answer, in this case, is incomplete because Mulla Sadra’s interpretation of the narrations in question is not compatible with the meaning of the narrations. After all, in the hadith of Kant the prophet and man between water and clay, “the prophecy of the Prophet (PBUH) is mentioned and the famous narration” Al-Arwah Janood Our narrator compliments minus etelft and we tanakr minus discord. ”It tells the story of the special relations between people before belonging to the body, and these two meanings are not very compatible with the existence of a rational group, because what could be the meaning of prophecy in the world of differences?
In the second narration, the compliments of the spirits require a kind of real plurality that does not agree with the claim of the oneness and collective existence of these spirits (Mesbah Yazdi, 2001, vol. 2: 226).
Some proponents of transcendent wisdom have given the following views to confirm Mulla Sadra and to combine the narrations and his views on the issue of the physical nature of the soul:
A) The human soul has descended to the material world to achieve the perfections that are achieved in the shadow of the multiplicities of the world, and in its path, it takes the color of that world from every world it passes through and becomes one of the beings of that world. The matter is exactly the material person and his truth is the sperm and then due to the movement of a substance from matter is abstracted and the soul is created (Hosseini Tehrani, 1418 AH: 74-76).
B) According to the narrations, a distinction can be made between the soul and the soul, and the soul is considered to be before the soul and the soul is the result of the movement of material substance (Khamenei, 1999: 59).
C) The meaning of souls in the hadith of the creation of souls before corpses, in general, is the souls of the kidneys, which are intellects, not partial souls that are souls (Hasanzadeh Amoli, Bita: 342).
D) Ruhollah Khomeini believes that in the case of the hadith of the creation of souls before the eternal body, we have to give up its appearance because both the general souls and the body are general, so the meaning of the narration is that the soul created everybody two thousand years ago and that The body that will come three thousand years later, so its soul has not been created yet, and it contradicts the promise of the footsteps of spirits, and if we say that we mean that the first body that was created two thousand years ago, the sum of spirits was created. This is also contrary to the step, and since we have to give up appearance, then we refrain from the appearance of the general elf and say that the general is hierarchical, and the general elf refers to the level of the soul, which is three times for the soul.
5-3- Substantial motion and human free will
Some have questioned the relationship between intrinsic motion and human free will, and have posed the following question:
Is the movement of substance in man voluntary or forced or half of it (ie in plant and animal degrees) is forced and forced and the other half is voluntary and voluntary? Who is the compelling reason if forced? And what if this evolution and movement are allowed? To gain morality? To do worship? To think and learn? By meditating in the depths of the soul and perseverance of the authorities? Why is this the cause of this evolution? Also, how do people who are deprived of these acquisitions, who generally make up the majority in every age and place, evolve, and become abstract?
What happens in addition to the state of substantial motion and attainment of celibacy in the heretics who have stopped moving and have attained eternal decline? (Falaturi, 1340: 921-923).
In response to this question, Allameh Tabatabai believes: It is technically clear that coercion is against nature and will is against nature and there is no opposition between coercion and will, and also algebra is against will, not against the will and the act of will is algebraic, although it is not optional. It turns out that this question is corrupt. It may be said that the technical terms are not used in this question and the meaning is: is the movement of substance voluntary or involuntary for human beings? In this way, the problem of non-confrontation is eliminated, but a heavier problem occurs, and that is that philosophically, the meaning of the question is whether the existence of human existence is by his will? And such a question is never issued by a philosopher (Tabatabai, Farvardin 1341: 1st, 32).
6- Substantial motion and the issue of return
One of the accepted issues of Shiism is the issue of return. Return means return, and the term refers to the return of some pure believers and some immoral hypocrites to this world before the resurrection. There are many hadiths of return. In addition to the pilgrimage of the community, which is one of the most glorious pilgrimages of the Imams (AS), the issue of return has been emphasized. [source]
Amina al-Islam Tabarsi writes in this regard: All Imami Shiites have agreed on the return and confirm the news, and therefore there is never room for interpretation. [source]
Now, according to the above explanation, if we accept regression, how can we prove by accepting the movement of substance that the human soul, after reaching its actuality and perfection of talent and passing through the physical world, returns to the world of power, action and material world because according to motion, In essence, the human soul has reached its perfection and has finally left the body. How will it descend?
In response to this question, some proponents of transcendent wisdom have said:
A) Rafi’i Qazvini believes that because the souls of the saints of God who return to the world have the highest level of identity that can record the sum of the worlds and gentlemen, that is, even though they are all over the unseen world, they pay attention to the world of nature and the world. Appearance is called representation and there is no need for powers and poets so that the process of regression and descent from action to power is necessary and the return of the perfect soul to the world is like the representation of the Holy Spirit in the clothes of humanity (Rafiei Qazvini, 1988: 18). If we consider this answer as negligence for the return of the true believers, the quality of the return of the disbelievers will remain unanswered.
B) The late Shahabadi in his book Al-Iman wa Al-Raja ‘considers the return of souls to purgatory bodies not to worldly material bodies, but considers this in detail and considers the return to the elemental body possible according to the authority of the souls of the saints with the help of air and air. The souls of the weak and the souls of the infidels and Ashqia also consider it possible with the help of their souls from the holy souls of the saints (Rafiei Qazvini, 1988: 36).
C) Ruhollah Khomeini in explaining the issue of return believes that what is certain is the principle of return and this is a necessary religion and we have the same reason for it, but in addition to the fact that the body is created or the first body is brought and pure souls return Those who enter it, we have no reason for it, so the issue of return may be represented as an example, even in the realm of property, and the return of Hosseiniyah maybe like this because we have a reason for the principle of return, not it’s quality and quality. It is not necessary for our religion (Ardabili, 2002, vol. 3: 194-195).
7- Substantial motion and the origin of the universe
Another result that Mulla Sadra has achieved in the light of the motion of matter is the proof of the temporal occurrence of the natural world. Mulla Sadra proves that according to the motion of matter, all beings in the natural world are inherently evolving and all its components are constantly evolving and declining, so the whole universe, which has no rule other than the rule of components, with all that is in it, is a temporal event. The universe as a whole is an accident. It must inevitably intend all the obligatory actions and effects of transcendence, while Sadra’s argument based on the motion of matter includes only the body and corporeality, so how can a general conclusion be drawn from the cobra of a particular argument? It is claimed that such an argument is not valid if they say that Sadra said that the world of abstractions and the origin of the obligatory creative acts are not considered superior to God in the first cause and essential nature due to their small nature, and therefore they are not part of the world. There is a creation that includes nature and the physical, and the reality of the universe is none other than these two propositions, the proof of their temporal occurrence being based on motion in matter, this interpretation is also unfounded because the matter is abstract in the first cause and the whole physical universe is existential. Mortals are in truth and Mandas are in the illumination of absolute existence, so what is the universe that has been created by the movement of the essence of time? (Mousavi Modares Behbahani, 1998:
8- Substantive movement and resurrection
Another result that Mulla Sadra has obtained from the motion of matter is the proof of the bodily resurrection. He has emphasized that all beings, by moving their essence, are eagerly and eagerly moving towards their desired perfection, and ultimately they are insects and reaching the desired and purpose, and this is the inherent worship that creatures seek to approach. They do it to God Almighty. [source] Some of the questions raised in this regard are as follows:
A) Substantive motion in proving the resurrection proves only a fixed and complete goal without motion, not the final stage of the resurrection such as meeting God because the resurrection and the resurrection also have degrees and degrees, some of which are possible for certain people and others benefit from it. Now, can it be accepted that the resurrection that is achieved in this way is the same resurrection that is intended by the Shari’a?
B) The sphere of influence of the argument of the motion of the universe is the fluidity of nature and is not sufficient to prove single beings (Javadi Amoli, 1363: 283). (Mulla Sadra, 1419 AH, vol. 9: 244) but against this position, the following questions have been raised:
First. There is no movement of matter in the abstract, so it is not possible to prove their resurrection in this way.
Secondly. If we believe in the resurrection of the abstract through the ultimate cause, another question is that in any case, pure intellects also exist, and every being must reach its end. How is it possible that there is no insect for pure intellects?
C) If the motion is necessary for the body, and if the bodily resurrection is accepted, it must also be a substantial move in the Hereafter, because it is necessary, and it is necessary to distinguish between two bodies in the means of domination, if there is also a substantial motion:
First. It is contrary to the saying of Sadr al-Muta’allehin, who said that on the Day of Resurrection, the movements will end and everything will return to its origin and everything will lead to God.
Secondly. It requires that substantive motion have no purpose, and this is both contrary and requires no motion.
Thirdly. If we accept that everyone reaches God, this will lead to the denial of the infidels and polytheism in hell.
D) If, according to the motion of matter, all things are moving towards their desired perfection, what will be the situation of children and adolescents who die before their final growth, as well as those who die in this world with the death of a star? Therefore, the movement of substance cannot explain the imperfect resurrection of the intellect, the immature and the people who do not go through the world of perfection with the death of a star, or Ashqia, who not only did not go through the path of perfection but also degenerated and went down (Malekshahi). , 1376: 304).
What was written were some of the questions and answers that have been raised about the movement of substance, and all this shows the importance of this principle and its impact on religious and philosophical issues, so because of its importance, more sensitivity by Islamic thinkers, both opponents, and supporters of wisdom. The transcendent has been expressed to this principle. In general, the sum of the questions that arise about the result of the motion of matter can be divided into three categories. First: The questions that have been asked about the arguments of the motion of matter, the most important of which is the inadequacy of the reasons and the need to provide a clear and comprehensive reason and obstacle in proving the theory of motion of matter. It has been a theory, as Allameh Tabatabai writes in this regard: (Tabatabai, 1341: 30)
“The author has not accepted the four points of the argument presented by the late Sadr al-Muta’allehin to prove the motion of matter due to the disorder in some of them and the many controversies he has pointed out to others. I have clarified the philosophical principles of the extracted Sadr al-Muta’allehin himself. “
But it seems that if it is said: since the plaintiff is the cause if the problem is also confirmed by the reasons for proving the motion of the substance, the principle of the claimant (the motion of the substance) will not be distorted. Because in scientific matters, the correctness of the claimant includes reason and one can accept the scientific claim of a scientist and at the same time not accept the reason given to prove his claim and it can be said that some believe that Sadr al-Muta’allehin has some reasons to prove the essential movement to accompany the people Has provided (Feyz, 1362: 296). Therefore, the existence of some defects and the inadequacy of some reasons for proving the motion of matter will not be a reason for distorting the principle of motion of matter.
Second, there are questions about the principle of substantial motion, the most important of which is the discussion of the survival of the matter in substantial motion. Third, there are questions about the results of the motion of matter, the most important of which is the compatibility of the motion of the substance with the religious texts and the incompleteness of the arguments presented to prove the results and the existence of accessories that will accept the results of the motion of the substance. But different views in response to questions about the motion of matter can be categorized as follows:
One. Some believe that to answer the questions, it is necessary to know that the movement of substance is a matter of taste and intuition, not of philosophical and argumentative propositions, and thus it is beyond reason, so there is no place to ask rational questions (Homayi, 1375: 51).
Two. Some believe that the questions raised are due to misunderstanding and misunderstanding of the motion of the substance. If the motion of the substance is understood correctly, no insoluble conflict will be observed in it (Ashtiani, 1378: 20 and Feyz, 1362: 296).
Three. While accepting some problems on the motion of matter, some have considered it necessary to try to explain the motion of matter and its results correctly, and by using other principles of transcendent wisdom, they have presented Brahim, who believes in the motion of matter, and have explained the problems (Tabatabai, 1341: 30; Mesbah Yazdi, 1378: 334-331).
Finally, it can be said that substantive motion is a human endeavor to explain existence, and there is no human endeavor that is unquestioned and infallible
The Kavian Scientific Research Association (KSRA) is a non-profit research organization to provide research / educational services in December 2013. The members of the community had formed a virtual group on the Viber social network. The core of the Kavian Scientific Association was formed with these members as founders. These individuals, led by Professor Siavosh Kaviani, decided to launch a scientific / research association with an emphasis on education.
KSRA research association, as a non-profit research firm, is committed to providing research services in the field of knowledge. The main beneficiaries of this association are public or private knowledge-based companies, students, researchers, researchers, professors, universities, and industrial and semi-industrial centers around the world.
Our main services Based on Education for all Spectrum people in the world. We want to make an integration between researches and educations. We believe education is the main right of Human beings. So our services should be concentrated on inclusive education.
The KSRA team partners with local under-served communities around the world to improve the access to and quality of knowledge based on education, amplify and augment learning programs where they exist, and create new opportunities for e-learning where traditional education systems are lacking or non-existent.
Professor Siavosh Kaviani was born in 1961 in Tehran. He had a professorship. He holds a Ph.D. in Software Engineering from the QL University of Software Development Methodology and an honorary Ph.D. from the University of Chelsea.