Jump to content

Draft:Qāʾida al-Wāḥid

Add links
From wikishia

Qāʾida al-Wāḥid (The Rule of the One) is a fundamental principle in philosophical discourse, utilized to explicate the emanation of created beings from God. The maxim is articulated as "Al-wahidu la yasduru minhu illa l-wahid" (From the One proceeds nothing but the One). Philosophically, this rule pertains to Causality, positing that a singular, simple cause can produce only a single effect. In mysticism, however, the principle is interpreted as unity in manifestation and appearance. In this context, "One" denotes a simple entity void of internal composition. Prominent philosophers, such as Avicenna and Mulla Sadra, employ this rule to elucidate the mechanism by which God creates beings, applying it to the unity of the efficient cause, specifically the Wajib al-Wujud (Necessary Being).

Opponents of this rule, including Al-Ghazali and Fakhr al-Din al-Razi, argue that it constrains absolute Divine power and contend that accepting the Rule of the One fails to justify the multiplicity observed in the universe. Conversely, mystics such as Ibn Arabi offer complex perspectives; despite appearing to hold contradictory views, they accept the rule only under their distinct mystical interpretation.

Beyond its primary use in philosophy, the Rule of the One is applied in various other disciplines, including the Principles of Jurisprudence, literature, and mysticism. Critics primarily challenge the rule on the grounds that it conflicts with God's omnipotence, lacks a concrete instance in philosophy, and contradicts religious texts.

Significance and Status

The Rule of the One is regarded as a cornerstone of philosophical thought.[1] Mir Damad classified it among the innate ideas of sound intellect and as one of the most fundamental rational principles. According to Nasir al-Din al-Tusi, several pivotal philosophical issues, including the explanation of multiplicity in the cosmos, depend upon the Rule of the One.[2] This philosophical principle has also been extended to other disciplines, including mysticism and Principles of Jurisprudence.[3]

Content of the Rule of the One

The maxim is textually defined as: "Al-wahidu la yasduru minhu illa l-wahidu: From the One proceeds nothing but the One".[4] From a philosophical perspective, the term "proceeding" (sudur) refers to philosophical Causality,[5] indicating that a single cause can only yield a single effect.[6] In the mystical view, where causality is supplanted by the concept of manifestation, the Rule of the One signifies unity in theophany and appearance.[7]
The term "One" in this rule denotes a being devoid of any parts or internal composition, remaining simple in all aspects.[8][9] Mulla Sadra explicitly states that the rule applies exclusively to a simple agent free from conditions, additions, or instruments.[10]
In elucidating the Rule of the One, philosophers also emphasize the unity of the aspect of emanation. They posit that from a single being, as long as the aspect of emanation is singular, no more than one being can come into existence.[11] However, if multiple aspects are considered within the cause, the emanation of multiple effects from that single cause becomes possible.[12]

Gholamhossein Ebrahimi Dinani, philosophy researcher and scholar:

While the emanation of multiple beings from a source that is "One from all aspects" is rationally impossible, and nothing but a single entity may proceed from the pure One, this does not imply that the "One from all aspects" is an incapable being. The definition of capability in actions, according to rational criteria, dictates that "From the One proceeds nothing but the One." Therefore, the rule is in no way contrary to the general power of God Almighty, nor is the emanation of beings from Him via causal sequence contrary to His absolute power. Power is defined as "the ability to perform an action in a manner that is intelligible." By analogy, the fact that a human consumes food and drink solely through the mouth and not other bodily channels does not render them incapable of eating or drinking; rather, the act of human consumption is intrinsically realized through the mouth.

Dīnānī, Qawāʿid-i kullī dar falsafa-yi Islāmī, vol. 1, pp. 471-472.

Scope of the Rule of the One

While some scholars argue that the Rule of the One encompasses all types of causes, including preparatory ones,[13] it is generally held that, at least according to Avicenna's arguments, the rule applies specifically to the Efficient Cause (the agent of existence) and not to others.[14] Philosophers use the term "proceeding" (sudur) and discuss the rule within sections dedicated to the rulings of the efficient cause; furthermore, Peripatetic philosophers accept a single Final Cause for multiple effects. These factors imply that philosophers view the rule as pertaining to efficient causes.[15] However, there are indications in the works of some philosophers suggesting the rule's application to the material cause as well.[16]

Instance of the Rule of the One

Philosophers generally identify the Wajib al-Wujud (Necessary Being) as the instance of the One on the side of the cause.[17] The application of the Rule of the One to the Necessary Being is a point of near-consensus among philosophers.[18] However, citing the rule of Basit al-Haqiqa (Simple Reality), some argue that the Rule of the One applies only to a being possessing a single mode of existence, and thus does not apply to the Creator of the universe.[19] On the side of the effect, philosophers identify the First Intellect as the instance of the One.[20]

In contrast to the philosophical model, where the rule connects the Necessary Being to the First Intellect, mysticism applies the rule between the Divine Essence and the Nafs al-Rahman (Breath of the Compassionate) or Wujud Munbasit (Unfolded Existence),[21] which possesses permeating unity.[22] The distinction lies in the fact that the philosophical Necessary Being possesses attributes that, while externally identical to the Essence, are conceptually multiple.[23] In mysticism, however, the "Divine Essence" is devoid of any consideration; indeed, even the description of "being devoid of considerations" is not technically applicable to It.[24] Mystics refer to the station of Essence as the station of the pure Unseen because all names and attributes, though present, lack manifestation and exist in a state of undifferentiated integration (indimāj)[25] and absorption.[26] Consequently, the mystical interpretation evades the objection regarding the lack of a concrete instance,[27] as the mystical "Divine Essence" is pure Unseen, free from the conceptual multiplicity found in the philosophical conception of the Necessary Being.[28]

Applications of the Rule of the One

Although the Rule of the One is a philosophical principle, some scholars present it as a metadisciplinary rule governing various sciences.[29]
Its primary philosophical application lies in explaining the emanation of creation from God.[30] Philosophers posit that God created only one being directly—the First Intellect. Due to the multiple aspects inherent in its essence, the First Intellect subsequently generated multiple beings, including the Second Intellect, the soul of the first sphere, and its body. Subsequent Intellects continued this process, leading to the emergence of the cosmos in its present form.[31]

Philosophers also utilize the Rule of the One to demonstrate the multiplicity of the soul's faculties,[32] the distinction between common sense and the faculty of imagination,[33] the validity of the rule of Imkan al-Ashraf,[34] God's Actual Knowledge of beings,[35] the hylomorphic composition of bodies (matter as pure potentiality and form),[36] and the differentiation between the perceptive and practical faculties of the human soul.[37]
The mystical perspective differs significantly. In philosophy, the multiple aspects within the First Intellect generate multiplicity. In mysticism, however, the "Nafs al-Rahman" or "Wujud Munbasit" (the First Emanation) does not *create* multiplicities but rather *contains* them in a manner compatible with unity. This permeating unity digests multiplicity, a state referred to in mysticism as "Oneness of Multiplicity" (Ahadiyyat al-Kathra), which is distinct from the Oneness of Essence.[38]
Reference to the Rule of the One extends beyond philosophy. Scholars of the Principles of Jurisprudence have applied it to various issues,[39] including the debate on Sahih (correct) versus A'amm (broader) meanings,[40] the validity of general specifying evidence for remaining individuals,[41] the usage of a word with multiple meanings,[42] the certainty yielded by Mutawatir reports,[43] and the differentiation of sciences based on their singular purposes.[44]
In literature, the rule has been invoked to refute the theory that assigns the accusative case to both the verb and the subject simultaneously.[45]
Additionally, some scholars have attempted to establish a novel proof for the Walaya of the Ahl al-Bayt (a) over all creation by citing this rule.[46]

History of the Rule of the One

Ibn Rushd attributes the origin of this rule to Plato,[47] whereas Al-Farabi ascribes it to Aristotle.[48] Some historians trace the concept back to the pre-Socratics, identifying elements of the rule in the works of Anaximander.[49]
The concept reportedly entered the Muslim world via translations of Plotinus.[50] Al-Farabi was the first Muslim philosopher to incorporate it into his system,[51] while Ibn Sina was the first to provide formal arguments substantiating it.[52]

Proof of the Rule of the One

Nasir al-Din al-Tusi regarded the Rule of the One as close to self-evident,[53] a view shared by Qutb al-Din al-Shirazi.[54] Ibn Sina famously titled his argument in Al-Isharat wa al-tanbihat a "Tanbih" (Reminder), suggesting he considered the rule self-evident or nearly so.[55] Similarly, Mulla Sadra, despite expressing varying views on the rule, classifies it in one instance as an innate idea of the sound intellect.[56]
Nevertheless, philosophers have advanced numerous arguments—up to eighteen—to prove this principle.[57] Mulla Hadi Sabzawari and Sayyid Jalal al-Din Ashtiyani maintain that all such arguments ultimately reduce to the Principle of Congruity between Cause and Effect.[58]
In Al-Isharat wa al-tanbihat, Ibn Sina argues that if two distinct effects, "A" and "B", proceed from a single (simple) cause, the causality required for A must differ from the causality required for B. This implies the cause is composed of two aspects: one from which "A" proceeds and another from which "B" proceeds. This contradicts the initial assumption that the cause is one.[59] Mulla Sadra presents a similar argument in Al-Asfar.[60] The logical structure of this argument is as follows:

  1. The concept of a thing's causality for "A" differs from the concept of its causality for "B".
  2. Truths indicated by differing concepts are themselves distinct.
  3. Distinct truths possess distinct instances in external reality.
  4. Therefore, if an object causes two effects, it must contain two factors, each responsible for one of the effects.
  5. These two factors are either both constitutive of the cause, both concomitants of the cause, or one is constitutive and the other concomitant.
  6. If both are constitutive, the essence of the cause is composite rather than simple, which contradicts the assumption and is impossible.
  7. The second and third scenarios ultimately reduce to the first, also necessitating composition within the cause.

Result: Consequently, if a single object simultaneously causes two effects, that cause must be composite; as this violates the premise of singularity, it is impossible.[61]

Opponents of the Rule of the One

While the Rule of the One is widely accepted in philosophy, particularly within Peripatetic philosophy,[62] it has faced significant opposition from scholars in theology, jurisprudence, and mysticism. Notable opponents include Al-Allama al-Hilli, Allama Majlisi, Ayatollah Khoei, Sayf al-Din al-Amidi, Fakhr al-Din al-Razi, Al-Ghazali, and Ibn Taymiyya.[63]
Even some philosophers, such as Allama Ja'fari, have criticized the rule, and certain statements by Nasir al-Din al-Tusi suggest possible opposition.[64] Mulla Sadra's position is also a subject of debate.[65]
Al-Ghazali and Fakhr al-Razi are cited as the leading opponents.[66] Al-Ghazali dismissed the principle as baseless, attributing arguments for it to "ill temperament" and describing philosophical discourse on the matter as "darkness upon darkness."[67] Fakhr al-Razi argued that accepting the Rule of the One renders the multiplicity of the world unjustifiable.[68] He critiqued philosophical arguments, limiting them to four proofs.[69] Fundamentally, the opposition of theologians stems from the belief that the rule violates God's absolute power.[70]
Mystics hold diverse views. Some, like Fanari, adhere to the principle, while others reject it strongly, even reprimanding its proponents.[71] There are reports of individual mystics expressing contradictory stances. Ibn Arabi, for instance, declares those who believe in the Rule of the One to be the most ignorant,[72] reiterating theological objections regarding Divine power and formulating a new version of Fakhr al-Razi's "point and circle" objection.[73][74] Yet, in other contexts, he utilizes the rule to substantiate his points[75] or accepts it with a specific interpretation known only to the "people of God."[76] Scholars suggest these apparent contradictions arise because Ibn Arabi rejects the philosophers' interpretation of the rule but accepts it within his own mystical framework.[77]
Mulla Sadra's position is similarly complex.[78] At times, he discusses God's immediate agency, implying a denial of the rule, or mentions principles seemingly incompatible with its application to God. Elsewhere, he accepts the rule, expounding it such that its only instance is the Necessary Being,[79] while in other texts, he considers it valid for every true unit.[80]

Objections Raised Against the Rule of the One

Critics challenge both the arguments presented by philosophers[81] and the content and application of the rule itself.[82] Key objections include:

  • Conflict with absolute Divine power.[83]
  • The negation of Divine attributes under the pretext of transcendence (likened to the beliefs of certain Jewish sects during the Prophet's era).[84]
  • The absence of a concrete instance for the rule in philosophy, given the conceptual multiplicity of Divine attributes.[85]
  • The rule's inapplicability to free agents, as it strictly pertains to compelled agents.[86]
  • Contradiction with religious texts indicating God's immediate agency in creation.[87]
  • Non-applicability to the Necessary Being, as multiple truths exist within His Essence in a state of absolute simplicity, rather than as multiple distinct existences.[88]

Notes

  1. ↑ Pārsāyī, "Barrasī-yi gustara-yi barāhīn-i qāʾida-yi al-wāḥid", p. 47.
  2. ↑ Al-Ṭūsī, Ajwibat al-masāʾil al-naṣīriyya, 2004, p. 208.
  3. ↑ Pārsāyī, "Barrasī-yi gustara-yi barāhīn-i qāʾida-yi al-wāḥid", p. 47.
  4. ↑ Mullā Ṣadrā, Al-Ḥikma al-mutaʿāliya, 1981, vol. 8, p. 64.
  5. ↑ Ḥaydar-pūr and Fayyāḍī, "Taḥlīl wa arzyābī-yi qāʾida-yi al-wāḥid dar ḥikmat-i mutaʿāliya", p. 83.
  6. ↑ Khāliqī-pūr, ʿAlī, "Qāʾida-yi al-wāḥid az manẓar-i falsafa wa ʿirfān-i Islāmī bā taʾkīd bar ārā-yi Ibn ʿArabī wa Mashshāʾīyān", p. 47.
  7. ↑ Khāliqī-pūr and Saʿīdī, "Qāʾida-yi al-wāḥid az manẓar-i falsafa wa ʿirfān-i Islāmī bā taʾkīd bar ārā-yi Ibn ʿArabī wa Mashshāʾīyān", pp. 53-54.
  8. ↑ Khāliqī-pūr and Saʿīdī, "Qāʾida-yi al-wāḥid az manẓar-i falsafa wa ʿirfān-i Islāmī bā taʾkīd bar ārā-yi Ibn ʿArabī wa Mashshāʾīyān", p. 47.
  9. ↑ Al-Suhrawardī, Majmūʿa-yi muṣannafāt-i Shaykh-i Ishrāq, 1996, vol. 4, p. 64.
  10. ↑ Mullā Ṣadrā, Al-Ḥikma al-mutaʿāliya, 1981, vol. 8, p. 64.
  11. ↑ Al-Ṭūsī, Sharḥ al-ishārāt wa l-tanbīhāt, 1996, vol. 3, p. 244.
  12. ↑ Al-Ṭūsī, Ajwibat al-masāʾil al-naṣīriyya, 2004, p. 230.
  13. ↑ Āshtiyānī, Asās al-tawḥīd, p. 49, as cited in Ḥaydar-pūr, "Taḥlīl wa arzyābī-yi qāʾida-yi al-wāḥid dar ḥikmat-i mutaʿāliya", p. 85.
  14. ↑ Kurd Fīrūzjāyī, Ḥikmat-i Mashshāʾ, 2012, p. 225.
  15. ↑ Ḥaydar-pūr and Fayyāḍī, "Taḥlīl wa arzyābī-yi qāʾida-yi al-wāḥid dar ḥikmat-i mutaʿāliya", 2018, p. 83.
  16. ↑ Ḥaydar-pūr, "Taḥlīl wa arzyābī-yi qāʾida-yi al-wāḥid dar ḥikmat-i mutaʿāliya", 2018, p. 83.
  17. ↑ Jawādī Āmulī, vol. 2, p. 414, as cited in: Ḥaydar-pūr and Fayyāḍī, "Taḥlīl wa arzyābī-yi qāʾida-yi al-wāḥid dar ḥikmat-i mutaʿāliya", p. 81.
  18. ↑ Khāliqī-pūr and Saʿīdī, "Qāʾida-yi al-wāḥid az manẓar-i falsafa wa ʿirfān-i Islāmī bā taʾkīd bar ārā-yi Ibn ʿArabī wa Mashshāʾīyān", p. 51.
  19. ↑ Fayyāḍī, "Taʿlīqa", in Nihāyat al-ḥikma, 2007, vol. 3, p. 640.
  20. ↑ Al-Ṭūsī, Ajwibat al-masāʾil al-naṣīriyya, 2004, p. 208; Mullā Ṣadrā, Al-Shawāhid al-rubūbiyya, Markaz-i Nashr-i Dānishgāhī, pp. 139-140.
  21. ↑ Mullā Ṣadrā, Al-Ḥikma al-mutaʿāliya, 1981, vol. 2, p. 331.
  22. ↑ Khāliqī-pūr, ʿAlī and Saʿīdī, "Qāʾida-yi al-wāḥid az manẓar-i falsafa wa ʿirfān-i Islāmī bā taʾkīd bar ārā-yi Ibn ʿArabī wa Mashshāʾīyān", p. 59.
  23. ↑ Khāliqī-pūr and Saʿīdī, "Qāʾida-yi al-wāḥid az manẓar-i falsafa wa ʿirfān-i Islāmī bā taʾkīd bar ārā-yi Ibn ʿArabī wa Mashshāʾīyān", pp. 51-52.
  24. ↑ Ibn Turka, Tamhīd al-qawāʿid, 1981, p. 119.
  25. ↑ Indimāj: Entering into something and becoming established in it. Dehkhoda, Dictionary, under Indimāj
  26. ↑ Khāliqī-pūr and Saʿīdī, "Qāʾida-yi al-wāḥid az manẓar-i falsafa wa ʿirfān-i Islāmī bā taʾkīd bar ārā-yi Ibn ʿArabī wa Mashshāʾīyān", p. 53.
  27. ↑ Muḥaqqiq Khwānsārī, Al-Ḥāshiya ʿalā shurūḥ al-ishārāt, n.d., vol. 2, p. 304.
  28. ↑ Khāliqī-pūr and Saʿīdī, "Qāʾida-yi al-wāḥid az manẓar-i falsafa wa ʿirfān-i Islāmī bā taʾkīd bar ārā-yi Ibn ʿArabī wa Mashshāʾīyān", May 2016, p. 52.
  29. ↑ ʿAsgarī and Khādimī, "Barrasī-yi pīshīna-yi Yūnānī-yi qāʾida-yi al-wāḥid wa chigūnagī-yi intiqāl wa naqd-i ān dar falsafa-yi Islāmī", p. 61.
  30. ↑ Pārsāyī and Mūsawī, "Barrasī-yi gustara-yi barāhīn-i qāʾida-yi al-wāḥid", p. 48.
  31. ↑ Ṣawlatī, "Chigūnagī-yi ṣudūr-i kathrat az waḥdat bar mabnā-yi qāʾida-yi al-wāḥid dar nazd-i Ibn Sīnā wa Suhrawardī", p. 114.
  32. ↑ Ibn Sīnā, Al-Nafs min kitāb al-shifāʾ, 2000, p. 50.
  33. ↑ Al-Ṭūsī, Sharḥ al-ishārāt wa l-tanbīhāt, 1996, vol. 2, p. 335.
  34. ↑ Mīrī (Ḥusaynī), "Kārburdhā-yi qāʾida-yi al-wāḥid dar ʿulūm-i Islāmī", p. 37.
  35. ↑ Sabzawārī, Sharḥ manẓūmat al-Sabzawārī, n.d., p. 339.
  36. ↑ Mīrī (Ḥusaynī), "Kārburdhā-yi qāʾida-yi al-wāḥid dar ʿulūm-i Islāmī", p. 40.
  37. ↑ Mīrī (Ḥusaynī), "Kārburdhā-yi qāʾida-yi al-wāḥid dar ʿulūm-i Islāmī", p. 39.
  38. ↑ Khāliqī-pūr and Saʿīdī, "Qāʾida-yi al-wāḥid az manẓar-i falsafa wa ʿirfān-i Islāmī bā taʾkīd bar ārā-yi Ibn ʿArabī wa Mashshāʾīyān", p. 54.
  39. ↑ Pārsāyī and Mūsawī, "Barrasī-yi gustara-yi barāhīn-i qāʾida-yi al-wāḥid", p. 48.
  40. ↑ Pārsāyī, "Barrasī-yi gustara-yi barāhīn-i qāʾida-yi al-wāḥid", p. 143.
  41. ↑ Taqawī Ishtihārdī, Tanqīḥ al-uṣūl, 1997, p. 339.
  42. ↑ Khumaynī, Tahdhīb al-uṣūl, n.d., p. 71.
  43. ↑ Mīrī (Ḥusaynī), "Kārburdhā-yi qāʾida-yi al-wāḥid dar ʿulūm-i Islāmī", p. 49.
  44. ↑ Taqawī Ishtihārdī, Tanqīḥ al-uṣūl, 1997, p. 15.
  45. ↑ Mīrī (Ḥusaynī), "Kārburdhā-yi qāʾida-yi al-wāḥid dar ʿulūm-i Islāmī", p. 52.
  46. ↑ Farsāddūst, "Ithbāt-i wilāyat-i Ahl al-Bayt bar tamām-i mawjūdāt az ṭarīq-i qāʾida-yi al-wāḥid", p. 194.
  47. ↑ Ibn Rushd, Risālat mā baʿd al-ṭabīʿa, 1994, p. 163.
  48. ↑ Kākāyī, Qāsim, "Barrasī-yi taṭbīqī-yi maʿnā wa mafhūm-i qāʾida-yi 'al-wāḥid' az dīdgāh-i Ibn Sīnā wa Mullā Ṣadrā", p. 134.
  49. ↑ ʿAsgarī and Khādimī, "Barrasī-yi pīshīna-yi Yūnānī-yi qāʾida-yi al-wāḥid wa chigūnagī-yi intiqāl wa naqd-i ān dar falsafa-yi Islāmī", pp. 55-56.
  50. ↑ ʿAsgarī and Khādimī, "Barrasī-yi pīshīna-yi Yūnānī-yi qāʾida-yi al-wāḥid wa chigūnagī-yi intiqāl wa naqd-i ān dar falsafa-yi Islāmī", p. 58.
  51. ↑ ʿAsgarī and Khādimī, "Barrasī-yi pīshīna-yi Yūnānī-yi qāʾida-yi al-wāḥid wa chigūnagī-yi intiqāl wa naqd-i ān dar falsafa-yi Islāmī", p. 56.
  52. ↑ Kurd Fīrūzjāyī, Ḥikmat-i Mashshāʾ, 2014, p. 224.
  53. ↑ Ṣādiq-zāda Qamṣarī, "Qāʾida-yi al-wāḥid wa niẓām-i ʿillī az dīdgāh-i Ibn Sīnā wa Muḥaqqiq Ṭūsī", p. 9.
  54. ↑ Quṭb al-Dīn al-Shīrāzī, Sharḥ ḥikmat al-ishrāq, 2004, p. 305.
  55. ↑ ʿAsgarī and Khādimī, "Barrasī-yi pīshīna-yi Yūnānī-yi qāʾida-yi al-wāḥid wa chigūnagī-yi intiqāl wa naqd-i ān dar falsafa-yi Islāmī", p. 59.
  56. ↑ Mullā Ṣadrā, Al-Ḥikma al-mutaʿāliya, 1981, vol. 7, pp. 204-205.
  57. ↑ Ḥaydar-pūr and Fayyāḍī, "Taḥlīl wa arzyābī-yi qāʾida-yi al-wāḥid dar ḥikmat-i mutaʿāliya", p. 85.
  58. ↑ ʿĀshūrī Langarūdī, "Qāʾida-yi al-wāḥid wa qudrat-i muṭlaq-i Khudāwand", pp. 18-19.
  59. ↑ Ibn Sīnā, Al-Ishārāt wa l-tanbīhāt, n.d., p. 108; Al-Ṭūsī, Sharḥ al-ishārāt wa l-tanbīhāt, 1996, vol. 3, pp. 122-125.
  60. ↑ Mullā Ṣadrā, Al-Ḥikma al-mutaʿāliya, 1981, vol. 2, p. 204.
  61. ↑ Ḥaydar-pūr and Fayyāḍī, "Taḥlīl wa arzyābī-yi qāʾida-yi al-wāḥid dar ḥikmat-i mutaʿāliya", p. 93.
  62. ↑ Ṣādiq-zāda Qamṣarī, "Qāʾida-yi al-wāḥid wa niẓām-i ʿillī az dīdgāh-i Ibn Sīnā wa Muḥaqqiq Ṭūsī", p. 7.
  63. ↑ Shāyān, "Bāz-andīshī dar mabānī-yi qāʾida-yi al-wāḥid", p. 140.
  64. ↑ ʿĀshūrī Langarūdī, "Qāʾida-yi al-wāḥid wa qudrat-i muṭlaq-i Khudāwand", p. 11.
  65. ↑ Ḥaydar-pūr and Fayyāḍī, "Taḥlīl wa arzyābī-yi qāʾida-yi al-wāḥid dar ḥikmat-i mutaʿāliya", p. 80.
  66. ↑ ʿĀshūrī Langarūdī, "Qāʾida-yi al-wāḥid wa qudrat-i muṭlaq-i Khudāwand", p. 11.
  67. ↑ Al-Ghazālī, Tahāfut al-falāsifa, p. 90, as cited in ʿĀshūrī Langarūdī, "Qāʾida-yi al-wāḥid wa qudrat-i muṭlaq-i Khudāwand", pp. 11-12.
  68. ↑ ʿĀshūrī Langarūdī, "Qāʾida-yi al-wāḥid wa qudrat-i muṭlaq-i Khudāwand", p. 12.
  69. ↑ Fakhr al-Rāzī, Al-Mabāḥith al-mashriqiyya, 1411/1990-91, p. 468.
  70. ↑ Ṣādiq-zāda Qamṣarī, "Qāʾida-yi al-wāḥid wa niẓām-i ʿillī az dīdgāh-i Ibn Sīnā wa Muḥaqqiq Ṭūsī", p. 9.
  71. ↑ Khāliqī-pūr and Saʿīdī, "Qāʾida-yi al-wāḥid az manẓar-i falsafa wa ʿirfān-i Islāmī bā taʾkīd bar ārā-yi Ibn ʿArabī wa Mashshāʾīyān", p. 46.
  72. ↑ Ibn ʿArabī, Al-Futūḥāt al-makkiyya, n.d., vol. 1, p. 715.
  73. ↑ Ḥikmat, "Ibn ʿArabī wa naqd-i qāʾida-yi al-wāḥid", p. 130.
  74. ↑ Ḥikmat, "Ibn ʿArabī wa naqd-i qāʾida-yi al-wāḥid", p. 131.
  75. ↑ Ibn ʿArabī, Majmūʿat rasāʾil Ibn ʿArabī, vol. 1, p. 394.
  76. ↑ Ibn ʿArabī, Al-Futūḥāt al-makkiyya, n.d., vol. 2, pp. 434-435.
  77. ↑ Ḥikmat, "Ibn ʿArabī wa naqd-i qāʾida-yi al-wāḥid", p. 136.
  78. ↑ Shāyān, "Bāz-andīshī dar mabānī-yi qāʾida-yi al-wāḥid", p. 144.
  79. ↑ Ḥaydar-pūr and Fayyāḍī, "Taḥlīl wa arzyābī-yi qāʾida-yi al-wāḥid dar ḥikmat-i mutaʿāliya", p. 95.
  80. ↑ Ḥaydar-pūr and Fayyāḍī, "Taḥlīl wa arzyābī-yi qāʾida-yi al-wāḥid dar ḥikmat-i mutaʿāliya", p. 82.
  81. ↑ Ḥaydar-pūr and Fayyāḍī, "Taḥlīl wa arzyābī-yi qāʾida-yi al-wāḥid dar ḥikmat-i mutaʿāliya", p. 97; Qāsimī Muqaddam and Arshad Riyāḥī, "Qāʾida-yi al-wāḥid dar būta-yi naqd", p. 23.
  82. ↑ Qāsimī Muqaddam and Arshad Riyāḥī, "Qāʾida-yi al-wāḥid dar būta-yi naqd", p. 23.
  83. ↑ ʿĀshūrī Langarūdī, "Qāʾida-yi al-wāḥid wa qudrat-i muṭlaq-i Khudāwand", p. 21.
  84. ↑ Āmulī, Tafsīr al-muḥīṭ al-aʿẓam, 2006, vol. 5, pp. 213-214.
  85. ↑ Muḥaqqiq Khwānsārī, Al-Ḥāshiya ʿalā shurūḥ al-ishārāt, Būstān-i Kitāb, vol. 2, p. 304.
  86. ↑ Al-ʿAllāma al-Ḥillī, Kashf al-murād, 1413/1992-93, p. 116.
  87. ↑ Ḥaydar-pūr and Fayyāḍī, "Taḥlīl wa arzyābī-yi qāʾida-yi al-wāḥid dar ḥikmat-i mutaʿāliya", p. 79.
  88. ↑ Ḥaydar-pūr and Fayyāḍī, "Taḥlīl wa arzyābī-yi qāʾida-yi al-wāḥid dar ḥikmat-i mutaʿāliya", p. 92.

References

  • Al-Āmulī, Sayyid Ḥaydar, Tafsīr al-muḥīṭ al-aʿẓam wa l-baḥr al-khiḍam, research: Mūsawī Tabrīzī, Sayyid Muḥsin, Tehran, Sāzmān-i Chāp wa Intishārāt-i Wizārat-i Irshād-i Islāmī, 3rd ed., 1422 AH.
  • ʿAsgarī, Mahdī and Ḥamīd Riḍā Khādimī, "Barrasī-yi pīshīna-yi Yūnānī-yi qāʾida-yi al-wāḥid wa chigūnagī-yi intiqāl wa naqd-i ān dar falsafa-yi Islāmī", Ilāhiyyāt-i Taṭbīqī, 8th year, no. 18, Autumn and Winter 2017.
  • ʿĀshūrī Langarūdī, Ḥasan, "Qāʾida-yi al-wāḥid wa qudrat-i muṭlaq-i Khudāwand", Andīsha-yi Dīnī, no. 14, Spring 2005.
  • Fakhr al-Rāzī, Muḥammad b. ʿUmar, Al-Mabāḥith al-mashriqiyya fī l-ʿilm al-ilāhiyyāt wa l-ṭabīʿiyyāt, Qom, Bīdār, 2nd ed., 1411 AH.
  • Farsāddūst, ʿĀdil, "Ithbāt-i wilāyat-i Ahl al-Bayt bar tamām-i mawjūdāt az ṭarīq-i qāʾida-yi al-wāḥid", Faṣlnāma-yi ʿIlmī-Pazhūhishī-yi Mahdawiyyat, 16th year, no. 63, Summer 2022.
  • Fayyāḍī, Ghulām Riḍā, "Taʿlīqa", in Nihāyat al-ḥikma, authored by Sayyid Muḥammad Ḥusayn Ṭabāṭabāʾī, Qom, Muʾassasa-yi Āmūzishī Pazhūhishī-yi Imām Khumaynī, 2007.
  • Ḥaydar-pūr, Aḥmad and Ghulām Riḍā Fayyāḍī, "Taḥlīl wa arzyābī-yi qāʾida-yi al-wāḥid dar ḥikmat-i mutaʿāliya", Ḥikmat-i Islāmī, 4th year, no. 4, Winter 2018.
  • Ḥikmat, Naṣr Allāh, "Ibn ʿArabī wa naqd-i qāʾida-yi al-wāḥid", Falsafa, no. 7, 2006.
  • Ibn ʿArabī, Muḥammad b. ʿAlī, Al-Futūḥāt al-makkiyya, Beirut, Dār Iḥyāʾ al-Turāth, n.d.
  • Ibn ʿArabī, Muḥammad b. ʿAlī, Majmūʿat rasāʾil Ibn ʿArabī, Beirut, Dār al-Maḥajja al-Bayḍāʾ, 1421 AH.
  • Ibn Rushd, Muḥammad b. Aḥmad, Risālat mā baʿd al-ṭabīʿa, Beirut, Dār al-Fikr al-Lubnānī, 1994.
  • Ibn Sīnā, ʿAbd Allāh, Al-Ishārāt wa l-tanbīhāt, n.p., Nashr al-Balāgha, n.d.
  • Ibn Sīnā, Ḥusayn b. ʿAbd Allāh, Al-Nafs min kitāb al-shifāʾ, Qom, Daftar-i Tablīghāt-i Ḥawza-yi ʿIlmiyya-yi Qom, 4th ed., 2000.
  • Kākāyī, Qāsim and Zahrā Hūshmandī, "Barrasī-yi taṭbīqī-yi maʿnā wa mafhūm-i qāʾida-yi 'al-wāḥid' az dīdgāh-i Ibn Sīnā wa Mullā Ṣadrā", Andīsha-yi Dīnī, University of Shiraz, vol. 14, no. 1, Spring 2014, consecutive no. 50.
  • Khāliqī-pūr, ʿAlī and Aḥmad Saʿīdī, "Qāʾida-yi al-wāḥid az manẓar-i falsafa wa ʿirfān-i Islāmī bā taʾkīd bar ārā-yi Ibn ʿArabī wa Mashshāʾīyān", Maʿrifat, 25th year, no. 221, May 2016.
  • Khumaynī, Rūḥ Allāh, Tahdhīb al-uṣūl, n.p., n.d.
  • Kurd Fīrūzjāyī, Yār ʿAlī, Ḥikmat-i Mashshāʾ, Qom, Intishārāt-i Ḥikmat-i Islāmī, 1st ed., 2014.
  • Mīrī (Ḥusaynī), Sayyid Muḥsin, "Kārburdhā-yi qāʾida-yi al-wāḥid dar ʿulūm-i Islāmī", Isrāʾ, 2nd year, no. 1, Spring 2019.
  • Muḥaqqiq Khwānsārī, Ḥusayn b. Muḥammad, Al-Ḥāshiya ʿalā shurūḥ al-ishārāt, Qom, Būstān-i Kitāb, n.d.
  • Mullā Ṣadrā, Muḥammad b. Ibrāhīm, Al-Ḥikma al-mutaʿāliya fī l-asfār al-ʿaqliyya al-arbaʿa, Beirut, Dār Iḥyāʾ al-Turāth al-ʿArabī, 3rd ed., 1981.
  • Mullā Ṣadrā, Muḥammad b. Ibrāhīm, Al-Shawāhid al-rubūbiyya, Tehran, Markaz-i Nashr-i Dānishgāhī, n.d.
  • Pārsāyī, Jawād and Sayyid Muḥammad Mūsawī, "Barrasī-yi gustara-yi barāhīn-i qāʾida-yi al-wāḥid", Āyīna-yi Pazhūhish, 13th year, no. 37, Winter 2014.
  • Qāsimī Muqaddam, Ḥasan and Muḥammad Arshad Riyāḥī, "Qāʾida-yi al-wāḥid dar būta-yi naqd", Maʿārif-i ʿaqlī, 4th year, no. 1, Spring 2009.
  • Quṭb al-Dīn al-Shīrāzī, Maḥmūd b. Masʿūd, Sharḥ ḥikmat al-ishrāq, Tehran, Anjuman-i Āthār wa Mafākhir-i Farhangī, 2004.
  • Sabzawārī, Mullā Hādī, Sharḥ manẓūmat al-Sabzawārī, n.p., n.d.
  • Ṣādiq-zāda Qamṣarī, Fāṭima, "Qāʾida-yi al-wāḥid wa niẓām-i ʿillī az dīdgāh-i Ibn Sīnā wa Muḥaqqiq Ṭūsī", Mishkāt al-Nūr, Winter 2009, no. 41.
  • Ṣawlatī, Yaḥyā, "Chigūnagī-yi ṣudūr-i kathrat az waḥdat bar mabnā-yi qāʾida-yi al-wāḥid dar nazd-i Ibn Sīnā wa Suhrawardī", Ḥikmat wa Falsafa, 11th year, no. 1, Spring 2015.
  • Shāyān, ʿAlī Riḍā, "Bāz-andīshī dar mabānī-yi qāʾida-yi al-wāḥid", Pazhūhish-hā-yi Hastī-shinākhtī, 6th year, no. 11, Spring and Summer 1990.
  • Al-Suhrawardī, Shihāb al-Dīn, Majmūʿa-yi muṣannafāt-i Shaykh-i Ishrāq, research: Henry Corbin, Tehran, Ministry of Culture and Higher Education, 1996.
  • Taqawī Ishtihārdī, Ḥusayn, Tanqīḥ al-uṣūl, 1997.
  • Al-Ṭūsī, Naṣīr al-Dīn, Ajwibat al-masāʾil al-naṣīriyya, Tehran, Pazhūhishgāh-i ʿUlūm-i Insānī, 1st ed., 2004.
  • Al-Ṭūsī, Naṣīr al-Dīn, Sharḥ al-ishārāt wa l-tanbīhāt, Qom, Nashr al-Balāgha, 1st ed., 1996.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikishia.net/w/index.php?title=Draft:Qāʾida_al-Wāḥid&oldid=205827"