Jump to content

Principle of al-Wahid

Add links
From wikishia

The Principle of al-Wāḥid (the One) is a philosophical principle whose applications include explaining the manner of creation of creatures by God. This principle, expressed as "al-Wāḥidu lā yaṣduru ʿanhu illā l-wāḥid" ("From the One, only one can emanate"), dictates that from the One, only one can emanate. In philosophy, this principle signifies philosophical causality, meaning that from a single cause, only one effect can emanate. In mysticism, this principle is interpreted as unity in manifestation and appearance. In this view, "the One" refers to a simple being devoid of composition. Some philosophers, such as Ibn Sina and Mulla Sadra, use this principle to explain how beings are created by God and apply it to the unity of the efficient cause, such as the Necessary Being (wājib al-wujūd).

Opponents of this principle, including al-Ghazali and Fakhr al-Razi, consider it to conflict with absolute divine power and believe that accepting the principle of al-Wāḥid would not justify the multiplicity of the world. In contrast, some mystics, like Ibn 'Arabi, with contradictory viewpoints, accept it only according to their specific interpretation.

Regarding the applications of the principle of al-Wahid, besides its use in philosophy, it is also applied in various sciences, including the principles of Islamic jurisprudence, and even in literature and mysticism. Critics of this principle primarily object to issues such as its conflict with God's absolute power, its lack of a concrete instance in philosophy, and its contradiction with religious texts.

Significance and Status

The principle of al-Wahid (the One) is considered one of the most important philosophical principles.[1] Mir Damad regarded it as among the self-evident truths of sound reason and one of the most fundamental rational principles. According to Nasir al-Din al-Tusi, several of the most significant philosophical problems, including the explanation of multiplicity in the universe, depend on the principle of al-Wahid.[2] This philosophical principle has also been applied in other fields of knowledge, including mysticism (ʿirfān) and the principles of Islamic jurisprudence.[3]

Content of the Principle of al-Wahid

The text of the principle of al-Wahid is: "al-Wāḥidu lā yaṣduru minhu illā l-wāḥid: From the One, only one emanates."[4] According to the philosophical view, what is meant by emanation (ṣudūr) in this statement is philosophical causality,[5] and the aforementioned principle indicates that from a single cause, only one effect emanates.[6] According to the mystical view, in which causality has no place and manifestation takes its place, the content of the principle of al-Wahid is unity in manifestation and appearance.[7]

The meaning of "the One" (al-Wāḥid) in this principle is a being that lacks any internal part or composition and is simple (basīṭ) from all aspects.[8][9] Mulla Sadra specifies that this principle applies only to an agent that is simple and free from conditions, relations, and instruments.[10]

Philosophers, in explaining the principle of al-Wahid, also add the concept of the unity of the aspect of emanation (waḥdat-i jihāt-i ṣudūr). They state that from a single being, as long as the aspect of emanation remains one, no more than one being can come into existence.[11] However, if multiple aspects are considered, it becomes possible for multiple effects to come into existence from a single cause.[12]

Ibrahimi Dinani, a Researcher and Scholar of Philosophy:

If the emanation of multiple beings from the One, which is simple from all aspects, is rationally impossible, and from the Pure One nothing but one can emanate, this never means that the "One that is simple from all aspects" is incapable. Because the meaning of capability in actions, according to rational criteria, is that: "From the One, only one can emanate." Therefore, the principle of "al-Wāḥid lā yaṣduru ʿanhu illā l-wāḥid" (From the One, only one emanates) is in no way in conflict with the absolute power of God, and the emanation of beings from Him in a causal and effectual order is in no way inconsistent with His absolute power. Power is defined as: "the ability to perform an action in a manner that is rationally conceivable." Just as the fact that a human does not eat and drink through other bodily passages never means they are incapable of eating and drinking, rather, the meaning of eating and drinking for a human is that it is always realized through the mouth.

Dinani, Qawā'id-i kullī dar falsafa-yi Islāmī, vol. 1, pp. 471-472.

Scope of the Principle of al-Wahid

Although some believe that the principle of al-Wahid applies to all types of causes, including preparatory causes (al-ʿilal al-muʿidda),[13] it is said that, at least according to Ibn Sina and based on his arguments, this principle applies to the efficient cause (al-ʿilla al-fāʿiliyya) and does not apply to non-efficient causes.[14] From the fact that philosophers use the term "emanation" (ṣudūr) in this principle, that they discuss it in the section on the rulings of the efficient cause, that they use the title "efficient cause" in their explanations, and that the Peripatetic (Mashshāʾ) philosophers accept a single final cause for multiple effects, it has been inferred that, in the view of philosophers, this principle applies to efficient causes.[15] It is also said that, in the words of some philosophers, there are indications suggesting the application of this philosophical principle to material causes as well.[16]

Instance of the Principle of al-Wahid

Philosophers have often identified the instance of "the One" on the side of the cause as the Necessary Being (wājib al-wujūd).[17] It is said that among philosophers, the application of the principle of al-Wāḥid to the Necessary Being is virtually undisputed.[18] Nevertheless, some philosophers, citing the principle of "the simple reality" (basīṭ al-ḥaqīqa), believe that the principle of al-Wāḥid does not apply to the Creator of the universe; rather, it applies only to a being that possesses only one mode (sunf) of existence.[19] On the side of the effect, philosophers identify the instance of "the One" as the First Intellect (al-ʿaql al-awwal).[20]

Unlike in philosophy, where the principle of al-Wahid applies between the Necessary Being and the First Intellect, in mysticism (ʿirfān), this principle applies between the Divine Essence (Dhāt al-Ḥaqq) and the "All-Merciful Breath" (al-Nafas al-Raḥmānī) or the "Expansive Existence" (al-wujūd al-munbasiṭ),[21] which has a pervasive unity (waḥda saryānī).[22] The difference between this interpretation and the philosophical one lies in the fact that the Necessary Being of philosophy possesses attributes which, although externally identical to each other and all identical to the Essence, are conceptually multiple and diverse.[23] However, in mysticism, the "Divine Essence" is devoid of any qualification (iʿtibār), and even this very attribute of being devoid of all qualifications does not apply to It.[24] The mystics call the station of the Essence the station of pure unseen (ghayb-i maḥḍ); because although all Names and Attributes are present in It, they have no manifestation and exist in an undifferentiated (indimājī)[25] and annihilated form.[26]

Applications of the Principle of al-Wahid

Although the principle of al-Wahid is a philosophical principle, some philosophers introduce it as a principle that presides over all sciences.[27] The most important application of the principle of al-Wahid in philosophy is to explain the manner in which God creates creatures.[28] According to this principle, philosophers believe that God has created only one being without any intermediary, which is the First Intellect. Then, 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 also its (celestial) body. Each subsequent intellect, on this same basis, creates beings, ultimately leading to the emergence of the universe as it is.[29]

Philosophers also utilize the principle of al-Wahid to demonstrate the multiplicity of the faculties of the soul's,[30] the distinction between common sense and the faculty of imagination,[31] the validity of the rule of Imkan al-Ashraf,[32] God's Actual Knowledge of beings,[33] the hylomorphic composition of bodies (matter as pure potentiality and form),[34] and the differentiation between the perceptive and practical faculties of the human soul.[35]
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.[36]
Reference to the Rule of the One extends beyond philosophy. Scholars of the principles of jurisprudence have applied it to various issues,[37] including the debate on Sahih (correct) versus A'amm (broader) meanings,[38] the validity of general specifying evidence for remaining individuals,[39] the usage of a word with multiple meanings,[40] the certainty yielded by Mutawatir reports,[41] and the differentiation of sciences based on their singular purposes.[42]
In literature, the rule has been invoked to refute the theory that assigns the accusative case to both the verb and the subject simultaneously.[43]
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.[44]

History of the Rule of the One

Ibn Rushd attributes the origin of this rule to Plato,[45] whereas Al-Farabi ascribes it to Aristotle.[46] Some historians trace the concept back to the pre-Socratics, identifying elements of the rule in the works of Anaximander.[47]
The concept reportedly entered the Muslim world via translations of Plotinus.[48] Al-Farabi was the first Muslim philosopher to incorporate it into his system,[49] while Ibn Sina was the first to provide formal arguments substantiating it.[50]

Proof of the Rule of the One

Nasir al-Din al-Tusi regarded the Rule of the One as close to self-evident,[51] a view shared by Qutb al-Din al-Shirazi.[52] 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.[53] Similarly, Mulla Sadra, despite expressing varying views on the rule, classifies it in one instance as an innate idea of the sound intellect.[54]
Nevertheless, philosophers have advanced numerous arguments—up to eighteen—to prove this principle.[55] 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.[56]
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.[57] Mulla Sadra presents a similar argument in Al-Asfar.[58] 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.[59]

Opponents of the Rule of the One

While the Rule of the One is widely accepted in philosophy, particularly within Peripatetic philosophy,[60] it has faced significant opposition from scholars in theology, jurisprudence, and mysticism. Notable opponents include Allama al-Hilli, Allama al-Majlisi, Ayatollah al-Khoei, Sayf al-Din al-Amidi, Fakhr al-Din al-Razi, Al-Ghazali, and Ibn Taymiyya.[61]
Even some philosophers, such as Allama Ja'fari, have criticized the rule, and certain statements by Nasir al-Din al-Tusi suggest possible opposition.[62] Mulla Sadra's position is also a subject of debate.[63]
Al-Ghazali and Fakhr al-Razi are cited as the leading opponents.[64] 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."[65] Fakhr al-Razi argued that accepting the Rule of the One renders the multiplicity of the world unjustifiable.[66] He critiqued philosophical arguments, limiting them to four proofs.[67] Fundamentally, the opposition of theologians stems from the belief that the rule violates God's absolute power.[68]
Mystics hold diverse views. Some, like Fanari, adhere to the principle, while others reject it strongly, even reprimanding its proponents.[69] 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,[70] reiterating theological objections regarding Divine power and formulating a new version of Fakhr al-Razi's "point and circle" objection.[71][72] Yet, in other contexts, he utilizes the rule to substantiate his points[73] or accepts it with a specific interpretation known only to the "people of God."[74] Scholars suggest these apparent contradictions arise because Ibn Arabi rejects the philosophers' interpretation of the rule but accepts it within his own mystical framework.[75]
Mulla Sadra's position is similarly complex.[76] 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,[77] while in other texts, he considers it valid for every true unit.[78]

Objections Raised Against the Rule of the One

Critics challenge both the arguments presented by philosophers[79] and the content and application of the rule itself.[80] Key objections include:

  • Conflict with absolute Divine power.[81]
  • The negation of Divine attributes under the pretext of transcendence (likened to the beliefs of certain Jewish sects during the Prophet's era).[82]
  • The absence of a concrete instance for the rule in philosophy, given the conceptual multiplicity of Divine attributes.[83]
  • The rule's inapplicability to free agents, as it strictly pertains to compelled agents.[84]
  • Contradiction with religious texts indicating God's immediate agency in creation.[85]
  • 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.[86]

Notes

  1. ↑ Pārsāyī, "Barrasī-yi gustara-yi barāhīn-i qāʾida-yi al-wāḥid", p. 47.
  2. ↑ Ṭūsī, Ajwibat al-masāʾil al-naṣīriyya, 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, "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. ↑ Suhrawardī, Majmūʿa-yi muṣannafāt-i Shaykh-i Ishrāq, vol. 4, p. 64.
  10. ↑ Mullā Ṣadrā, al-Ḥikma al-mutaʿāliya, vol. 8, p. 64.
  11. ↑ Ṭūsī, Sharḥ al-ishārāt wa l-tanbīhāt, vol. 3, p. 244.
  12. ↑ Ṭūsī, Ajwibat al-masāʾil al-naṣīriyya, 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, vol. 3, p. 640.
  20. ↑ Ṭūsī, Ajwibat al-masāʾil al-naṣīriyya, p. 208; Mullā Ṣadrā, al-Shawāhid al-rubūbiyya, pp. 139-140.
  21. ↑ Mullā Ṣadrā, al-Ḥikma al-mutaʿāliya, 1981, vol. 2, p. 331.
  22. ↑ 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. 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: Merging into something and becoming firmly established within it. (Dihkhuda, Lughatnāma, 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", May 2016, p. 52.
  27. ↑ 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.
  28. ↑ Pārsāʾī and Mūsawī, "Barrasī-yi gustara-yi barāhīn-i qāʾida-yi al-wāḥid", p. 48.
  29. ↑ Ṣawlatī, "Chigūnagī-yi ṣudūr-i kathrat az waḥdat bar mabnā-yi qāʾida-yi al-wāḥid dar nazd-i Ibn Sīnā wa Suhrawardī", p. 114.
  30. ↑ Ibn Sīnā, al-Nafs min kitāb al-shifāʾ, p. 50.
  31. ↑ Ṭūsī, Sharḥ al-ishārāt wa l-tanbīhāt, vol. 2, p. 335.
  32. ↑ Mīrī (Ḥusaynī), "Kārburdhā-yi qāʾida-yi al-wāḥid dar ʿulūm-i Islāmī", p. 37.
  33. ↑ Sabzawārī, Sharḥ manẓūmat al-Sabzawārī, p. 339.
  34. ↑ Mīrī (Ḥusaynī), "Kārburdhā-yi qāʾida-yi al-wāḥid dar ʿulūm-i Islāmī", p. 40.
  35. ↑ Mīrī (Ḥusaynī), "Kārburdhā-yi qāʾida-yi al-wāḥid dar ʿulūm-i Islāmī", p. 39.
  36. ↑ 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.
  37. ↑ Pārsāʾī and Mūsawī, "Barrasī-yi gustara-yi barāhīn-i qāʾida-yi al-wāḥid", p. 48.
  38. ↑ Pārsāʾī, "Barrasī-yi gustara-yi barāhīn-i qāʾida-yi al-wāḥid", p. 143.
  39. ↑ Taqawī Ishtihārdī, Tanqīḥ al-uṣūl, 1997, p. 339.
  40. ↑ Khumaynī, Tahdhīb al-uṣūl, p. 71.
  41. ↑ Mīrī (Ḥusaynī), "Kārburdhā-yi qāʾida-yi al-wāḥid dar ʿulūm-i Islāmī", p. 49.
  42. ↑ Taqawī Ishtihārdī, Tanqīḥ al-uṣūl, 1997, p. 15.
  43. ↑ Mīrī (Ḥusaynī), "Kārburdhā-yi qāʾida-yi al-wāḥid dar ʿulūm-i Islāmī", p. 52.
  44. ↑ Farsāddūst, "Ithbāt-i wilāyat-i Ahl al-Bayt bar tamām-i mawjūdāt az ṭarīq-i qāʾida-yi al-wāḥid", p. 194.
  45. ↑ Ibn Rushd, Risālat mā baʿd al-ṭabīʿa, p. 163.
  46. ↑ Kākāyī, "Barrasī-yi taṭbīqī-yi maʿnā wa mafhūm-i qāʾida-yi 'al-wāḥid' az dīdgāh-i Ibn Sīnā wa Mullā Ṣadrā", p. 134.
  47. ↑ 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.
  48. ↑ 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.
  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", p. 56.
  50. ↑ Kurd Fīrūzjāyī, Ḥikmat-i Mashshāʾ, p. 224.
  51. ↑ Ṣādiq-zāda Qamṣarī, "Qāʾida-yi al-wāḥid wa niẓām-i ʿillī az dīdgāh-i Ibn Sīnā wa Muḥaqqiq Ṭūsī", p. 9.
  52. ↑ Quṭb al-Dīn al-Shīrāzī, Sharḥ ḥikmat al-ishrāq, p. 305.
  53. ↑ 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.
  54. ↑ Mullā Ṣadrā, al-Ḥikma al-mutaʿāliya, vol. 7, pp. 204-205.
  55. ↑ Ḥaydar-pūr and Fayyāḍī, "Taḥlīl wa arzyābī-yi qāʾida-yi al-wāḥid dar ḥikmat-i mutaʿāliya", p. 85.
  56. ↑ ʿĀshūrī Langarūdī, "Qāʾida-yi al-wāḥid wa qudrat-i muṭlaq-i Khudāwand", pp. 18-19.
  57. ↑ Ibn Sīnā, al-Ishārāt wa l-tanbīhāt, p. 108; Ṭūsī, Sharḥ al-ishārāt wa l-tanbīhāt, vol. 3, pp. 122-125.
  58. ↑ Mullā Ṣadrā, al-Ḥikma al-mutaʿāliya, vol. 2, p. 204.
  59. ↑ Ḥaydar-pūr and Fayyāḍī, "Taḥlīl wa arzyābī-yi qāʾida-yi al-wāḥid dar ḥikmat-i mutaʿāliya", p. 93.
  60. ↑ Ṣādiq-zāda Qamṣarī, Qāʾida-yi al-wāḥid wa niẓām-i ʿillī az dīdgāh-i Ibn Sīnā wa Muḥaqqiq Ṭūsī, p. 7.
  61. ↑ Shāyān, Bāz-andīshī dar mabānī-yi qāʾida-yi al-wāḥid, p. 140.
  62. ↑ ʿĀshūrī Langarūdī, Qāʾida-yi al-wāḥid wa qudrat-i muṭlaq-i Khudāwand, p. 11.
  63. ↑ Ḥaydar-pūr and Fayyāḍī, Taḥlīl wa arzyābī-yi qāʾida-yi al-wāḥid dar ḥikmat-i mutaʿāliya, p. 80.
  64. ↑ ʿĀshūrī Langarūdī, Qāʾida-yi al-wāḥid wa qudrat-i muṭlaq-i Khudāwand, p. 11.
  65. ↑ Ghazālī, Tahāfut al-falāsifa, p. 90, as cited in ʿĀshūrī Langarūdī, Qāʾida-yi al-wāḥid wa qudrat-i muṭlaq-i Khudāwand, pp. 11-12.
  66. ↑ ʿĀshūrī Langarūdī, Qāʾida-yi al-wāḥid wa qudrat-i muṭlaq-i Khudāwand, p. 12.
  67. ↑ Fakhr al-Rāzī, al-Mabāḥith al-mashriqiyya, p. 468.
  68. ↑ Ṣādiq-zāda Qamṣarī, Qāʾida-yi al-wāḥid wa niẓām-i ʿillī az dīdgāh-i Ibn Sīnā wa Muḥaqqiq Ṭūsī, p. 9.
  69. ↑ 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.
  70. ↑ Ibn ʿArabī, al-Futūḥāt al-makkiyya, n.d., vol. 1, p. 715.
  71. ↑ Ḥikmat, Ibn ʿArabī wa naqd-i qāʾida-yi al-wāḥid, p. 130.
  72. ↑ Ḥikmat, Ibn ʿArabī wa naqd-i qāʾida-yi al-wāḥid, p. 131.
  73. ↑ Ibn ʿArabī, Majmūʿat rasāʾil Ibn ʿArabī, vol. 1, p. 394.
  74. ↑ Ibn ʿArabī, al-Futūḥāt al-makkiyya, vol. 2, pp. 434-435.
  75. ↑ Ḥikmat, Ibn ʿArabī wa naqd-i qāʾida-yi al-wāḥid, p. 136.
  76. ↑ Shāyān, Bāz-andīshī dar mabānī-yi qāʾida-yi al-wāḥid, p. 144.
  77. ↑ Ḥaydar-pūr and Fayyāḍī, Taḥlīl wa arzyābī-yi qāʾida-yi al-wāḥid dar ḥikmat-i mutaʿāliya, p. 95.
  78. ↑ Ḥaydar-pūr and Fayyāḍī, Taḥlīl wa arzyābī-yi qāʾida-yi al-wāḥid dar ḥikmat-i mutaʿāliya, p. 82.
  79. ↑ 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.
  80. ↑ Qāsimī Muqaddam and Arshad Riyāḥī, Qāʾida-yi al-wāḥid dar būta-yi naqd, p. 23.
  81. ↑ ʿĀshūrī Langarūdī, Qāʾida-yi al-wāḥid wa qudrat-i muṭlaq-i Khudāwand, p. 21.
  82. ↑ Āmulī, Tafsīr al-muḥīṭ al-aʿẓam, 2006, vol. 5, pp. 213-214.
  83. ↑ Muḥaqqiq Khwānsārī, al-Ḥāshiya ʿalā shurūḥ al-ishārāt, Būstān-i Kitāb, vol. 2, p. 304.
  84. ↑ ʿAllāma al-Ḥillī, Kashf al-murād, p. 116.
  85. ↑ Ḥaydar-pūr and Fayyāḍī, Taḥlīl wa arzyābī-yi qāʾida-yi al-wāḥid dar ḥikmat-i mutaʿāliya, p. 79.
  86. ↑ 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=Principle_of_al-Wahid&oldid=207477"