per Sadra Islamic Philosophy Research Instituteتاریخ فلسفه2008-95892676-51602026-0916434articleيادداشت سردبيرHossein Kalbasi Ashtarihkashtari@yahoo.com1Professor of Philosophy at Allameh Tabataba’i University, Tehran, Iran<p>خطر بیخاصیت کردن سازمان ملل متحد، شورای امنیت و نهادهای حقوقی بین‌المللی توسط ایالات متحده، امروزه به یکی از چالشهای بنیادین نظام بین‌الملل تبدیل شده است. این تهدید نه‌تنها ساختار قدرت را در سطح جهانی دستخوش تغییر کرده، بلکه اعتبار و مشروعیت هنجارهای حقوقی بین‌المللی را نیز با مخاطره مواجه ساخته است. ۱. فلج‌سازی شورای امنیت؛ کارزار وتوهای نامشروع و ظالمانه مهمترین جلوه این بیخاصیتی، استفاده راهبردی آمریکا از حق وتو در شورای امنیت است. این نهاد که بر اساس منشور ملل متحد، برای «حفظ صلح و امنیت بین‌المللی» ایجاد شده، در عمل به ابزاری برای پیشبرد منافع ضدانسانی یک کشور مستبد و هنجارشکن تبدیل شده است. برای نمونه، وتوی مکرر قطعنامه‌های آتش‌بس در غزه توسط دولت ظالم و آدمکش آمریکا ـ‌که گاه با مخالفت چهارده عضو دیگر شورا همراه بوده‌ـ نشان‌دهندۀ «فلج نهادی» ناشی از اولویت‌دهی به منافع و مطامع این طاغوت زمانه بر اصول انسانی است. این اقدامات، شورای امنیت را به نهادی ناکارآمد تبدیل کرده که دبیرکل سازمان ملل نیز آن را «دیگر بازنمایندة جهان» نمیداند. ۲. خروج از معاهده‌های بین المللی؛ تضعیف نهادهای حقوفی و اجتماعی در کنار فلج‌سازی شورای امنیت، راهبرد دوم، خروج یکجانبۀ آمریکا از نهادهای بین‌المللی است. در اقدامی بیسابقه، آمریکا از ۶۶ سازمان بین‌المللی، از جمله نهادهای کلیدی وابسته به ملل متحد در حوزه‌های اقلیم، توسعه و برابری نژادی و قومی خارج شده است. این اقدام با اعتراف وقیحانۀ «تقدم منافع آمریکا بر اهداف جهانی‌گرایانه» توجیه شده، اما پیامد آن، اختلال در مأموریتهای حیاتی این نهادها و ایجاد خلأ در حکمرانی حقوق و قوانین مورد اتفاق جهانی است. 3. چالش با دیوان کیفری بین‌المللی؛ تضعیف حاکمیت قانون تهدید سوم، مقابلۀ مستقیم با نهادهای حقوقی، بویژه دیوان کیفری بین‌المللی (ICC) است. آمریکا با تهدید، تحریم و اعمال فشار بر قضات این دیوان، بویژه در تقابل با رأی دیوان مبنی بر جنایتکار جنگی بودن رئیس رژیم صهیونی، در عمل مانع از اجرای احکام، پیگرد و پیگیری و مسئولیت‌پذیری بین‌المللی میشود. این رفتار، رویه‌یی گزینشی را ترویج میدهد که در آن، آمریکا خود را «شاخص و معیار سنجش حقوق بین‌الملل» دانسته و تنها در صورت همجهتی با منافعش، از آن حمایت میکند. بعلاوه، خودداری این رژیم روسیاه از امضای معاهدات کلیدی حقوق بشری، گواهی بر این رویکرد دوگانه و البته ضدانسانی اوست. 4. اعتراف به بحران مشروعیت از نگاه دبیرکل سازمان ملل آنتونیو گوترش، دبیرکل سازمان ملل، با صراحت به این بحران اذعان کرده و گفته است آمریکا «قدرتش را مهمتر از قوانین بین‌المللی میداند». او هشدار داده که «قانون قدرت» در حال جایگزینی «قدرت قانون» است و سازمان ملل «هیچ اهرم فشاری» برای وادار کردن قدرتهای بزرگ به رعایت قوانین بین‌المللی ندارد. این اظهارات، نشان از عمق بحران مشروعیتی دارد که نظام ملل متحد با آن دست‌وپنجه نرم میکند؛ بحرانی که از زمان تصویب اعلامیۀ حقوق بشر در قرن گذشته تاکنون بیسابقه بوده و نشان از حفره‌های عمیق اخلاقی، حقوقی و معرفتی اندیشة مدرن و بنیانگذاران آن دارد. 5. پیامدهای راهبردی و افق پیش‌رو تداوم این روند، نظم بین‌المللی را با چندین پیامد جدی مواجه خواهد کرد: ـ بی‌اعتباری قوانین بین‌المللی: تبدیل حقوق بین‌الملل به ابزاری گزینشی در دست قدرتهای نظامی و سیاسی و اقتصادی. ـ افول نقش سازمان ملل: کمرنگ شدن نقش این سازمان در حل‌وفصل منازعات و جایگزینی آن با ائتلافهای موردی قدرتها. ـ شکاف در نظم جهانی: افزایش بی‌اعتمادی کشورها به نظام چندجانبه و تشویق به اتخاذ رویکردهای یکجانبه. در مجموع، اقدامات آمریکا و همراهی یا سکوت اروپا بعنوان مدعی لیبرالیسم و حقوق مدنی، نه یک تهدید موقتی، بلکه تهاجمی نظاممند به بنیانهای نظم حقوقی بین‌المللی است که میتواند سازمان ملل را به نهادی تشریفاتی و بی‌اثر تبدیل کرده و راه را برای هرج‌ومرجی هموار سازد که در آن، زور بر قانون حاکم خواهد بود. این تهدید از سوی دیگر، خلأها و رخنه‌های مدرنیته در ایجاد جهانی سرشار از صلح و امنیت و وعده‌های خیالی معماران تجدد را بیش از پیش آشکار میکند. آنچه امروزه بیتردید سرشت تبهکارانه، هنجارشکنانه و فرعونی نماد قدرت مدرن، یعنی آمریکا را نمایان ساخت، مقاومت و حماسۀ جاویدان مردم شریف ایران در نیم قرن اخیر و بویژه در خلال جنگ تحمیلی یک سال و چند ماه اخیر بوده است که در مجالی دیگر به ابعاد تاریخی و جهانی آن خواهیم پرداخت.</p>http://hop.mullasadra.org/Article/54828سازمان ملل متحد شورای امنیت نهادهای حقوقی بینالمللی ساختار قدرت مشروعیت هنجارهای حقوقی بینالمللی per Sadra Islamic Philosophy Research Instituteتاریخ فلسفه2008-95892676-51602026-09164534articleHistorical and Cultural Backgrounds of the Emergence of Philosophy in China and its Relations with Ancient India and IranAli Aqajaniaqajani@rihu.ac.ir1Assistant Professor, Department of Political Sciences, Research Institute of Hawzah and University, Qom, Iran<p>This study examines the historical, cultural, social, and political backgrounds underlying the emergence and development of philosophy in ancient China, from the Shang and Zhou dynasties to the fifth century AD, with particular emphasis on its conceptual interactions with the civilizations of ancient India and Iran. Chinese philosophy was developed in the context of the crises of the Spring and Autumn and Warring States periods. The socio-political structures of the Shang (a ritual theocracy characterized by ancestor worship and the worship of Shangdi) and the Zhou (the feudal fengjian system and the concept of the Mandate of Heaven) constituted the principal context for the emergence of the “Hundred Schools of Thought.” Myths (Pangu and Nüwa), rituals (ancestor worship and li), and pre-philosophical texts (the Yijing) provided foundational concepts concerning cosmic order, the balance of yin and yang, the Five Phases (wuxing), and the harmony between human beings and nature. Adopting a comparative approach, the present study demonstrates that Chinese philosophy did not develop in isolation; rather, it remained in continual interaction, through the Silk Road and the routes of Central Asia, with India (as evidenced by the transmission of Buddhism from the first century AD, conceptual parallels with dharma and ahimsa, the translation of texts, and the emergence of Chinese schools such as Chan) and with ancient Iran (as reflected in the correspondence between asha and the Dao, the Mandate of Heaven and xvarənah (divine glory), the Han–Parthian and Sasanian diplomatic exchanges, and the shared cosmological and ethical concepts). While Chinese philosophy was predominantly human-centered, practical, and oriented toward social harmony and cosmic order, these characteristics were enriched through engagement with the Buddhist Indian concerns with individual liberation and profound metaphysics, as well as with ancient Iran’s conception of ethical responsibility and divine order (asha). These exchanges enriched the concepts of duality, cosmic legitimacy, political ethics, and liberation, and contributed to syncretic developments such as Neo-Confucianism. Ultimately, it can be said that ancient Chinese philosophy represents a form of human-centered, practical, and cosmological thought that, through reciprocal dialogs with Asian civilizations, has become one of the major pillars of Eastern thought and continues to offer considerable potential for perceiving the diversity and cultural interconnectedness of Asia.</p>http://hop.mullasadra.org/Article/54829ancient Chinese philosophy socio-political backgrounds of philosophy Mandate of Heaven Iran–India–China interactions Silk Road transmission of Buddhism per Sadra Islamic Philosophy Research Instituteتاریخ فلسفه2008-95892676-51602026-091643554articleA Comparative Review of the Application of the Rule of “The Emanation of the Simple from the Composite” in Explaining the Emanation of Multiple from the Perspectives of Suhrawardī and MutakallimūnMohammad Mahdi Salamimahdisalami4794@gmail.com1Mostafa SalamiMostafasalami7710@gmail.com2PhD Graduate in Islamic Philosophy and Kalam, Razavi University of Islamic Sciences, Mashhad, IranMA Student in Islamic Philosophy and Kalam, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran<p style="direction: ltr;">The rational explanation of how multiple proceeds from the one has always been one of the most fundamental questions in Islamic philosophy. In fact, the problem is how multiple effects can emanate from a simple and one origin. The Peripatetic philosophers, on the basis of the Rule of the One, explained the emanation of multiple through a hierarchy of intellects; however, this approach encountered a number of objections. Suhrawardī, through innovations in his philosophy based on the division of light and darkness, opened a new path in this discussion. Alongside his employment of the rule of the nobler possibility (<em>imkān ashraf</em>), he proposed the rule of “the emanation of the simple from the composite,” which provides a justification for the possibility of the emanation of a simple effect from a composite cause. This principle holds a central position in his philosophical system. This is because it enabled him to respond to the objections raised against the Peripatetic theory and to establish the position of the vertical and horizontal intellects and the world of Ideas within the structure of his philosophy. Suhrawardī regards the Light of Lights (<em>Nūr al-Anwār</em>) as the First Origin, which, through the production of the First Emanant, opens the way for the emergence of a series of intuitive and contemplative lights. These lights become the source of infinite multiple beings and, in this way, the required multiplicity between the One Origin and the material world is created. The significance of this explanation lies in its connection with illuminative and intuitive taste (<em>dhawq</em>) and, consequently, its compatibility with the gnostic aspects of Islamic philosophy. Employing an analytical method, this study demonstrates that Suhrawardī departed from the Peripatetic method and, through the application of the rule of “the emanation of the simple from the composite,” was able to present a new model for elucidating the emanation of multiplicity.</p>http://hop.mullasadra.org/Article/53743Suhrawardī emanation of multiple Simple composite emanation of the simple from the composite divine lights Ideal worldper Sadra Islamic Philosophy Research Instituteتاریخ فلسفه2008-95892676-51602026-091645582articleMethodological Transformation of the Esoteric Exegetical Approach from Mullā Ṣadrā to ʻAllāmah Ṭabāṭabā’īS. Mohammad Hosain Mirdamadismhm751@yahoo.com1Assistant Professor, Department of Islamic Philosophy and Kalam, University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran<p style="direction: ltr;">The present paper, while examining the historical development of <em>ta’wīli </em>(esoteric exegesis) thought, investigates the evolution or methodological transformation of esoteric exegetical approach during the period extending from Mullā Ṣadrā and his most important students to ʻAllāmah Ṭabāṭabā’ī. The central question here is how <em>ta’wīl</em>, as a method of understanding, developed from Ṣadrā to ʻAllāmah Ṭabāṭabā’ī, and what implications this transition has for the formation of a method equivalent to a theory of textual understanding within the Islamic tradition. This study was conducted utilizing an analytical-comparative method and library-based sources. First, the foundations of <em>ta’wīl</em> in Mullā Ṣadrā’s system are examined; next, the role of Fayḍ Kāshānī in connecting ontological <em>ta’wīl</em> with religious language and the contribution of Lāhījī to explaining the rationality of the method of <em>ta’wīl</em> are analyzed; finally, the model of <em>ta’wīl</em> in the philosophy of ʻAllāmah Ṭabāṭabā’ī is examined on the basis of the logic of “the Qurʾān by the Qurʾān” and its linguistic foundations. The findings indicate that, from Mullā Ṣadrā to ʻAllāmah Ṭabāṭabā’ī, <em>ta’wīl</em> underwent a transition from the course of being to the course of meaning; in other words, <em>ta’wīl</em> developed from the intuitive experience of being and its rational explication into the rational-semantic process of understanding texts within the Islamic tradition, particularly the text of the Qur’ān. This transformation does not constitute a rupture with the Transcendent Philosophy but, rather, its extension into the domains of knowledge and language, thereby providing the basis for the formation of a “theory of textual understanding in the Islamic tradition” as a logic of understanding religion. One of the most significant findings of the study is its potential to inspire the development of the humanities in accordance with Iran’s cultural environment. This paper constitutes a continuation of the author’s previous study, entitled “<em>A Study of the Methodological Development of Interpretive Philosophy in Islam from al-Kindī to Mīr Dāmād</em>,” which was previously published in the scholarly journal <em>History of Philosophy</em>.</p>http://hop.mullasadra.org/Article/52443Ta’wīl Mullā Ṣadrā Fayḍ Kāshānī Lāhījī ʻAllāmah Ṭabāṭabā’ī theory of textual understanding logic of understanding religionper Sadra Islamic Philosophy Research Instituteتاریخ فلسفه2008-95892676-51602026-0916483102articleA Historical-Analytical Study of the Arguments for Mental Existence with an Emphasis on the Preservation of QuiddityHossein Khorsandiaminh.khorsandiamin@gmail.com1Mohammad Ali Vatandoostma.vatandoost@um.ac.ir2Alireza KohansalKohansal-a@um.ac.ir3PhD Student in Transcendent Philosophy, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, IranAssociate Professor, Department of Islamic Philosophy and Wisdom, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, IranAssociate Professor, Department of Islamic Philosophy and Wisdom, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran<p style="direction: ltr;">The hypothesis of Muslim philosophers concerning mental existence is based on the preservation of quiddity in the mind and external world. They believe that, in acquired knowledge, where the mental form of things is present to the subject, the mental form of each thing is identical with that external thing through primary predication (<em>ḥaml awwalī</em>); that is, the two possess quiddative identity. The difference, however, is that a quiddity, when possessing external existence, carries the effects that are expected of it, whereas it does not possess those effects with mental existence. Philosophers have advanced numerous arguments in support of this claim. Among these, three arguments may be regarded as particularly important: affirmative judgment concerning a nonexistent, the universality of the mental form, and the purity of mental form. Later philosophers, such as Ḥakīm Sabzavārī and ʿAllāmah Ṭabāṭabāʾī have referred to these arguments in their works. From an early period, these arguments have faced various objections and questions; for instance, it has been argued that they establish only mental existence and are incapable of establishing a quiddative identity between mental and external existence. Another objection asks: if the nonexistent has no quiddity, how can the existence of a mental form of the nonexistent demonstrate the preservation of quiddity in both mental and external existence? The present study seeks both to review the history of these three arguments and to address the objections and questions raised against them. A historical-analytical investigation of the three arguments demonstrates that, firstly, they are capable of proving mental existence and the preservation of quiddity in the two loci of the mind and external reality. Secondly, it acknowledges that appropriate responses can be provided to the objections raised against them.</p>http://hop.mullasadra.org/Article/52866mental existence arguments for mental existence quiddative identity preservation of quiddityper Sadra Islamic Philosophy Research Instituteتاریخ فلسفه2008-95892676-51602026-09164103128articleAn Assessment of Some of ʻAlā’ al-Dīn al-Ṭūsī’s Logical Views in His Persian Commentary on Lawāmiʻ al-AsrārHamid Alaeinejadalaeinejad@irip.ac.ir1MohammadMasood Khodaverdim.m_khodaverdi@yahoo.com2Assistant Professor, Department of Logic, Iranian Research Institute of Philosophy, Tehran, IranMA Graduate in Hadith Studies, University of Qur’an and Hadith, Qom, Iran<p style="direction: ltr;">Although a substantial part of the logical heritage of Muslim scholars was written in Arabic, the identification and study of Persian texts and specialized translations are of particular importance for a precise understanding of the development of this discipline. Studies indicate that, within the logical tradition of the later Islamic period, commentary- and gloss-writing were not limited to the transmission of texts but were, in some cases, accompanied by theoretical contributions to logical discussions. From this perspective, the Persian commentary on <em>Lawāmiʻ al-Asrār</em> may be regarded as evidence of the vitality of logical discussions in the ninth century AH and as an important source for reconstructing the debates in logic in the late Islamic period. As a critical commentator, ʻAlā’ al-Dīn al-Ṭūsī evaluated and criticized the views of logicians such as Quṭb al-Dīn al-Rāzī, Mīr Sayyid Sharīf al-Jurjānī, and Kātibī al-Qazwīnī on a number of logical issues. Adopting a descriptive-analytical approach, the present study introduces the scholarly figure of ʻAlā’ al-Dīn al-Ṭūsī, a philosopher of the ninth century AH, and examines some of his logical views in his Persian commentary on <em>Lawāmiʻ al-Asrār</em>. To this end, it first presents an account of his life and works on the basis of historical sources and biographical dictionaries; it then examines some of his most important logical views and critical interventions, focusing on the Persian translation and commentary on <em>Lawāmiʻ al-Asrār fī Sharḥ Maṭāliʻ al-Anwār</em>.</p>http://hop.mullasadra.org/Article/53542Aristotelian logic ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn al-Ṭūsī Lawāmiʿ al-Asrār history of logic Persian logicper Sadra Islamic Philosophy Research Instituteتاریخ فلسفه2008-95892676-51602026-09164129146articleThe Relation between the Rule of the One and the gnostic Nafs al-Amr in Explaining Multiple Beings (A Historical Approach)Mostafa Ramazanimostafaramazani985@gmail.com1Mahdi Safaei Aslsafaei.a@ut.ac.ir2PhD Candidate in Islamic Philosophy and Kalam, Farabi Campus, University of Tehran, Qom, IranAssistant Professor, Department of Islamic Philosophy and Kalam, Farabi Campus, University of Tehran, Qom, Iran <p style="direction: ltr;">The present study examines the complementary relationship between the “Rule of the One” and the “gnostic <em>nafs al-amr</em>” in justifying the problem of multiple beings within the framework of Transcendent Philosophy. The quality of the emanation of multiple existents from a single and simple origin is an important problem in philosophy and <em>kalam</em>; one that becomes more acute with the acceptance of the Rule of the One. Although the Rule of the One and the problem of multiplicity have a long history in the Peripatetic and Illuminationist schools, the innovation of this paper lies in examining the relationship between the Ṣadrian interpretation of this principle and the concept of the “gnostic <em>nafs al-amr</em>” as the cause of multiple beings; an area that has received comparatively little attention. The findings of the study indicate that, in the Ṣadrian formulation, the Rule of the One is actualized in “distributed existence” (<em>al-wujūd al-munbasiṭ</em>) or absolute existence, which is the First Emanant and is simple. Multiplicity, however, emerges at a lower level, namely, “confined existence” (<em>al-wujūd al-muqayyad</em>). At this level, the <em>nafs al-amr </em>plays the central role, which is identified with the same “immutable entities” (<em>al-aʻyān al-thābita</em>) or the a priori truths of existents in divine knowledge. Although immutable entities do not possess external existence, they have determinate and distinct identities. When “distributed existence” is related to multiple <em>nafs al-amr</em>s, each of them manifests in the external world as a determinate and distinct existent. Consequently, explaining multiplicity requires two components: (1) the Rule of the One, which explains how existence emanates from the Origin, and (2) the gnostic <em>nafs al-amr</em>, which explains the direction and multiplication of this single existence. Using a descriptive-analytical method and drawing upon primary philosophical and gnostic sources, the present study seeks to demonstrate that the two doctrines of the <em>nafs al-amr</em> and the Rule of the One are not only non-contradictory but also complementary, such that the elimination of either would deprive the system of emanation and <em>tasha’un</em> (ontological manifestation) of a rigorous and comprehensive explanation.</p>http://hop.mullasadra.org/Article/51922rule of the One mystical nafs al-amr Mullā Ṣadrā Transcendent Philosophy