Patterns of Religious Thought

Patterns of Religious Thought

Bibliographic Details:

• Main Entry: Nekoonam, Mohammad Reza (born 1327)
• Title: Patterns of Religious Thought / Nekoonam
• Publication Details: Tehran: Sobh Farda Publications, 2014
• Physical Description: 84 pages
• ISBN: 978-600-7347-93-5
• Cataloging Status: FIPA
• Note: Previous Edition: Zohor Shafaq, 2007
• Edition: Second Edition
• Subject: Islam – Beliefs
• Subject: Islamic Philosophy
• Library of Congress Classification: BP211/5/N74f7 2014
• Dewey Decimal Classification: 297/4172
• National Bibliography Number: 3684110

Preface

Praise be to Allah, the Lord of the Worlds, and peace and blessings be upon Muhammad and his pure family, and eternal curse upon all their enemies.

Humanity has traveled a long path in the pursuit of understanding truths and comprehending realities. However, even after thousands of years, it is still unclear how far along this journey mankind has progressed and where it stands. Everyone moves forward, everyone speaks, and everyone discusses science and thought, but it remains uncertain at what stage of knowledge and discovery human thought is currently governed.

The reason for this is that each individual has chosen a path, advancing it, and in doing so, only perceives themselves, thinking only of themselves, and regards only themselves as the standard of knowledge—unless they are a fair-minded and understanding person who perhaps observes others as well.

This characteristic of humanity has been a significant cause of intellectual divergence, marked paths of thought, a multitude of ideas, and the formation of schools and creativity—although other natural and coercive factors have also played a role in this respect.

Is this manner of thinking, this diversity in perception, devoid of companionship, the only essential way for human beings to progress, or is there another path that mankind has not shown much interest in or has not sought to understand?

What, in truth, are the steps mankind has taken in this existing diversity? What philosophical and human steps have been taken, and what do they convey? How do they compare, and what is the outcome of such comparisons? There are many other topics in this area that require careful consideration and reflection.

Of course, we do not intend to discuss any of these issues in depth here, as research into them deserves more time and a separate book for thorough reflection and exploration.

The only subject currently at hand and which we seek to address in this context is the exploration of a few Islamic philosophical schools and divine thoughts, as well as classical ideas that have emerged throughout the history of religion and prophets, particularly in the fruitful life of Islam, growing significantly, capturing the attention of many. We must now list these schools in general terms, examine what each one says, identify their distinguishing features, and understand which aspects of human thought each has dominated and to what extent.

In a broad classification, the well-known classical intellectual schools and divine thoughts that have had significant intellectual value, practical capacity, and social influence can be divided into five main foundations and fundamental schools, each with different backgrounds and contrasting characteristics. For each, an independent and comprehensive framework must be drawn, as each has its own boundaries and unique characteristics. Each of these also has many branches and offshoots, with distinctive motivations that would require further investigation.

The five main and prominent intellectual schools of humanity are as follows:

1. Theological Discourse (Kalam)
2. Peripatetic Philosophy (Mashsha’i)
3. Illuminationist Philosophy (Ishraq)
4. Transcendental Philosophy (Hikmat Muta’aliya)
5. Mysticism (Irfan)

In this text, we will first define and explain the characteristics of each school and then proceed to examine their intellectual boundaries, comparing their content, value, and philosophical importance. This will allow us to clarify the areas of unity and distinction between them, providing a clear understanding of these schools and of their followers and seekers. The result of this analysis will reveal the depth of human thought and the various levels of human intellectual development.

In Islamic philosophical culture and science, a topic that was typically introduced at the beginning of each scientific book for the enlightenment of the novice was the “Eight Key Topics”. These include matters such as the type of knowledge, its author, its relation to other sciences, and its purpose and goal.

One of the key aspects of this categorization of knowledge is the classification of sciences and their positions within the broader system of knowledge, indicating their relationship with other fields of study.

For instance, in the classification of sciences, it is explained which sciences serve as prerequisites for others and which are considered superior to others.

Among all the classifications, there is an elementary division that divides sciences into two categories: theoretical and practical. These two terms have various meanings in the intellectual culture, and there is a difference of opinion in philosophy regarding their definition. However, we will explain the basic distinction between them in a simple and clear manner.

Theoretical sciences are those that aim to understand thought and reasoning but have limited practical application for human affairs, although practical outcomes are often based on them.

Practical sciences are those whose ultimate aim is knowledge that leads to action.

Theoretical sciences explain the relationship of humans with existence, while practical sciences deal with shaping the human soul.

Sciences such as philosophy and theology are considered theoretical, while disciplines like jurisprudence (fiqh) and ethics belong to practical sciences. Some disciplines, such as theoretical and practical mysticism (irfan), encompass both directions, each of which engages with existence in its own way.

With this explanation, the current discussion has two main aspects: first, the definition and comparison of ideas in the theoretical sciences, and secondly, the consideration of how the three directions manifest in practical sciences within the context of the five main schools of philosophy, thought, and belief.

Moreover, it has become clear that these five philosophical schools—ranging from Theology (Kalam) to Peripatetic Philosophy, Illuminationist Philosophy, Transcendental Wisdom, and Mysticism—are theoretical sciences, each of which represents a distinct and independent system of thought, with unique features and commonalities shared among them. Each of them offers a distinct approach to practical wisdom and action.

The initial definitions, comparisons, and distinctions are presented within the realm of theoretical sciences, and subsequently, we will explore the practical dimensions within these fields.

Chapter One: Theological Thoughts

Theology and Superficial Thoughts

The most elementary and superficial form of thought is the study of Theology. Kalam is the most formal approach to addressing religious and philosophical issues, heavily based on textual evidence, and can essentially be classified as a branch of transmitted knowledge.

A mutakallim (theologian) is one who engages with matters of religious belief and the foundational principles of faith, arguing in defense of these ideas, yet never straying from the apparent meanings of religious texts. They never depart from the literal meanings of religious texts and firmly maintain that all philosophical and intellectual matters should be framed within religious doctrines as understood by them. They resolve their mental challenges through interpretation or simply by silencing further thought, believing they have resolved the issue.

Theology, in this sense, is a form of transmitted science, and it does not belong to the realm of rational sciences. A theologian bases their beliefs solely on the apparent meanings of religious texts, and when a conflict arises between reason and the apparent meaning of a religious text, they prioritize the latter and either dismiss or reinterpret the reasoned argument.

They have not been captives of worldly rulers. Although, either consciously or unconsciously, they have created numerous challenges for religion and thought.

An important issue to address here is that although theologians, in general, have a complete similarity in their methods of work and intellectual style, each has been more influenced by and inspired by a specific sect and religion. However, many of them have also been the founders and inventors of various sects and beliefs within Islam, which has contributed to the fragmentation and division of the Muslim community. We do not intend to discuss this issue in this context, although it does require careful consideration and investigation.

What is pertinent to mention here is that all theologians, despite their vast numbers and subdivisions, can be broadly categorised into two groups: Sunni theologians and Shia theologians.

While these two groups share a certain direction in thought and intellectual orientation, they differ in many significant ways, to the extent that they are not comparable. This is because the basis and foundation of each group differ fundamentally, and we will briefly touch upon each in this context.

Sunni Theologians

The basis and foundation of Sunni theologians’ work primarily consist of unauthenticated, unknown, fabricated, and baseless narrations and superstitions, which are the fabrications of worldly rulers and the agents of oppressive governments. Beyond these sources, they often use reasoning and personal opinions, which have a vast range and much room for discourse.

Therefore, a theologian whose reasoning is based on these kinds of narrations and sources will have a clear and distinct intellectual content. Indeed, their books and sources serve as the best evidence of this, with no ambiguity.

In general, Sunni theologians have books and statements filled with baseless, fabricated, and false content, to the extent that some of their material is no different from the fabricated superstitions of the Torah and the distorted Gospels created by the religious architects of medieval Europe. Thus, the thought of Sunni theologians should be regarded as a patchwork of superficial, unauthenticated narrations, medieval superstitions, and individual and sectarian preferences. However, we should not overlook the few correct and valid elements within their works, and we should distinguish them accordingly.

Islam in the East and West

It is with great regret and sorrow that we must admit that, in both the East and West, there is little beyond such thoughts in existence. The Islam that prevails today is nothing more than the superficial and contradictory ideas of Sunni theologians, filled with confusion and superstition.

This tragedy has two significant internal and external factors that have consistently worked together to bring about this unfortunate state of affairs.

Internally, it is the arrogance and sectarianism of the theologians who, through their numbers and the apparent dominance of Sunni governments in the Muslim world, have been able to propagate such ideas among Muslims and the wider world. These governments, pretending to represent Islam, have used this distorted form of religion to eliminate any movements or opposition within the Muslim community and to consolidate their own power. They knew very well that no opposition or independence would arise from these theologians, as they were, beyond any doubt, dependent on the support of these governments and lacked any genuine capacity for rebellion or protest.

Externally, the imperialist policies of global powers, who have sought to destroy true Islam and remove the truth from the scene, have played a role. Due to the lack of strong intellectual foundations and sound logic, they have consistently sought to distort Islam with such ideas to mislead the world’s public opinion and create indifference towards Islam.

As a result, both internal and external factors have meant that today, especially in the East and West, intellectuals are largely unaware of the profound thoughts of Shia scholars. This lack of recognition has led to the widespread belief that there is no significant or prominent thought within Islam beyond the teachings of Sunni theologians, thus leading to the tragic marginalisation of Shia intellectual thought.

Disarray within the Islamic Community

The Sunni faithful and their dogmatic theologians have, with their numerous ideas, rendered Islamic thought meaningless, introducing superstitions and stifling the intellectual vigour of the Muslim community. They have made the Muslim world, with its vast population and rich religious and cultural heritage, weak, submissive, and intellectually barren. As a result, the one billion Muslims in the world today are subjugated by the desires and agents of powerful worldly rulers, both within and outside the Muslim community.

In contrast, there has been little intellectual movement or enlightenment from the supporters of these governments. Furthermore, these governments have been the main supporters of these theologians, who have supported the falsehoods of imperial powers. For theologians and their leaders, breaking free from this system is a daunting and difficult task.

Thus far, we have spoken briefly about Sunni theologians, though a detailed discussion of all their sub-branches would exceed the scope of this work. Moreover, such a discussion is not necessary for the present purpose.

Shia Theologians

Shia theologians, while sharing similar methods of intellectual investigation and research as Sunni theologians, differ in several fundamental ways. This is true in terms of both the sources they rely on and the conclusions they reach.

To fully understand these two theological groups, a thorough and well-supported discussion of all the differences and distinctions would be necessary, which is beyond the scope of this work.

The Intellectual Foundation of Theologians

The important intellectual sources for theologians can be divided into two major categories: one is the transmitted (narrative) matters, and the other is the rational (intellectual) matters. These two categories form the tools that a theologian uses to base their beliefs and doctrinal conclusions upon.

Although both Sunni and Shia theologians share these two categories of sources, they differ significantly in their methods of using them. Their fundamental principles and goals are also distinctly different.

The core of a theologian’s work is based on transmitted texts and apparent legal matters. The theologian will rely on their reasoning, but the difference between Shia and Sunni theologians lies in how they approach these sources. Shia theologians, due to their belief in the infallibility and authority of the Twelve Imams, follow their teachings unconditionally and regard the Imams as the interpreters of the Quran and the tradition of the Prophet. Thus, for Shia theologians, the Quran and the teachings of the Imams are considered the true sources of religious knowledge, and obedience to these two “weights” is essential for understanding the truth of Islam.

In contrast, Sunni theologians, who have rejected the concept of infallibility and divine authority of the Imams, rely primarily on the apparent meaning of the Quran and Hadith, but they lack the capacity to interpret these sources with the depth and authority that Shia scholars possess.

Thus, Shia theology encompasses both the Quran and the Hadith with the authority of the infallible Imams, whereas Sunni theology deals only with the apparent meanings of the Quran, without the interpretative authority granted to the Imams.

The Difference in Reliance on Transmitted Narrations

Beyond the nature of the transmitted materials, there is a significant difference in the quality and conditions for accepting narrations. Shia scholars require two main conditions for a narration to be considered valid: first, the narration must come from the infallible Imams, and second, the narration must be trustworthy and reliable in terms of its chain of transmission. Without these two conditions, a narration is not considered reliable and cannot be used for doctrinal or practical purposes.

In contrast, Sunni scholars accept narrations from a wider range of sources, including companions of the Prophet, and do not impose the same stringent conditions on the authenticity of the narrations. As a result, many of the narrations in Sunni collections are unauthenticated, weak, or fabricated.

The Great Tragedy

The major collections of narrations available to Sunni Muslims today were compiled long after the death of the Prophet. The early caliphs and their agents actively suppressed the collection and transmission of Hadith for over a century. They even burned Hadith texts and punished those who transmitted them, claiming that the Quran alone was sufficient.

Only after this period of suppression did some scholars begin to recognise the catastrophic consequences of such actions and began to collect and preserve the Hadith. However, it is clear that a century of suppression, coupled with corruption and misguidance, led to a situation where many Hadiths were lost, fabricated, or distorted.

Thus, the early caliphs and their agents, in their attempts to eliminate the teachings of the Prophet, acted similarly to the clergy of medieval Europe, who suppressed new scientific discoveries. This negligence resulted in the loss of much of the original Islamic tradition.

Shia Approach to the Hadith

Shia scholars, aware of this plot, always urged the community to preserve and transmit Hadith accurately, ensuring the reliability of both the text and its transmission. As a result, Shia collections of Hadith are much more rigorous in their authenticity, and the Shia community has a far more reliable and detailed record of the Prophet’s teachings.

In conclusion, the foundation of Shia theology is based on both the Quran and the Hadith, with the added authority of the infallible Imams. In contrast, Sunni theology relies solely on the apparent meaning of the Quran and Hadith, without the deep interpretative authority of the Imams.

The Role of Shi’a Scholars and the Concept of Independent Thought

The Shi’a theologians have long spent their lives in isolation, preserving the truth within themselves. Many of them have invited notable intellectuals to their gatherings, offering guidance to those who sought it.

Different theological schools within Shi’ism have found their own unique positions in this matter. As a result, there has been a decline in the influence of theological rhetoric and the role of theologians, particularly in recent centuries and the present age.

However, the relative isolation of the Shi’a theologians has brought great prosperity and significant success to Shi’ism. Thanks to the blessings of the concepts of Imamate and Infallibility, Shi’a theologians have never been a source of intellectual stagnation. They have not imprisoned their communities in self-centeredness, narrow thinking, or self-deception.

With the help of God’s grace and the guidance of the infallible Imams, whether consciously or unconsciously, Shi’a theologians have never confined the rightful Islamic community to simplistic thinking. Moreover, by interacting with other intellectual groups within Shi’ism, they have stayed far from the dogmatic theology of Sunni scholars.

Due to the emphasis on reason, intellect, and reflection in the Shi’a faith, and the strong connection to divine revelation and Imamate, there has not been significant room for theological speculation to hinder intellectual and social progress.

In contrast, within Sunni theology, the situation has been reversed. In Sunni history, theology has been the most prominent field. Due to the absence of a connection to the position of leadership and Imamate, the lack of belief in infallibility, and the absence of innovation and independent reasoning, Sunni scholars have always been the nominal leaders, and their theological and philosophical discourse has remained incomplete and imperfect. This will likely continue unless they follow the right path and are nourished by the pure springs of Imamate and Infallibility, to rectify their historical disarray. However, such a hope remains far-fetched.

The Independence of Shi’a Theologians

The fifth and fundamental reason for the separation of Shi’a theologians from their Sunni counterparts is that Shi’a theologians, like other scholarly groups within Shi’ism, have always been independent, resilient, and free-spirited, much like their rightful leaders. They have never succumbed to compromise or submission. They have always preferred resistance, imprisonment, torture, and martyrdom over comfort, peace, silence, or compromise. At least, in certain moments, they have made negation and practical avoidance of falsehood their motto, placing it at the core of their lives and social conduct.

Among all the Islamic communities, it is only Shi’ism that has remained steadfast in this path, inspired by the guidance of the Infallible Imams. There is no instance in Shi’a history where either the Shi’a community or its leaders — from theologians to other scholarly and leadership groups — have given in to oppression, stagnation, or compromise with the enemy. They have always maintained their commitment to struggle or passive resistance.

This very characteristic has led to a peculiar situation in the Muslim world and the contemporary global scenario. While there is much talk of Islam, and many governments claim to be Islamic, the Shi’a are rarely acknowledged. This is because all power-holders and imperialists are united in the belief that anyone who rises to power with significant influence, except for the Shi’a, poses no danger. The oppressors have always feared the ideas of the Shi’a, and for this reason, they have isolated and pressured Shi’ism, just as they have done with Imam Ali (a.s.) and other Infallibles.

The only point that must be considered — and the future of the world will testify to this — is that there is no escape for the Islamic Ummah and humanity from its current disarray except through the Shi’a path and the way of Imam Ali (a.s.). Even though the Shi’a are attacked daily, slandered, and falsely accused, there will come a day when humanity will accept this living thought and the right path. It will acknowledge that the only way to free itself from all oppression and to guide the Islamic Ummah and the human caravan is by adhering to the path of Imam Ali (a.s.) and the true Shi’a doctrine. On that day, the false claims of all pretenders and corrupt leaders will be exposed, and the world will change its course. We hope for that day.

Comparing Theology and Philosophy

At this point, after discussing theology and theologians and their general classifications, it is necessary to address two important points:

First, what distinguishes theology from philosophy? If a theologian clings to the apparent meanings and does not give due regard to reasoning, this is incorrect. Similarly, if a philosopher disregards the apparent meanings of scripture and focuses solely on abstract reasoning, this too is misguided and even more so, as it overlooks the apparent truths of religion. Both approaches are flawed, as ignoring the external teachings of the scripture — which are in accordance with divine reason — leads to deviation and misguidance. Therefore, while theological reasoning is incomplete, philosophical reasoning is even more so. One cannot consider neglecting the external teachings of religion a virtue simply because of philosophical reasoning.

To respond to this apparent discrepancy, we must clarify the distinction between theology and philosophy and explain the core of this distinction briefly.

The theologian primarily relies on transmitted knowledge and sensory experience, building their beliefs on the basis of these sources, using rational thought only to confirm them. Anything beyond that, the theologian either rejects or interprets in a way that aligns with these established sources.

In contrast, the philosopher does not follow this method. A philosopher directs their efforts towards pure rational concepts and general principles, constructing their thoughts based on logical deduction and reasoning. Sensory experiences hold no intrinsic value unless they have an intellectual or logical foundation.

(72)

Philosophy has been a subject of great significance throughout history, with each school of thought having a substantial number of followers at various times. The most renowned philosophical figures include Avicenna (Ibn Sina) and the prominent figure of the philosophy of illumination (Ishraq), Shaykh al-Ishraq (Sohrevardi). Both of these thinkers have been shining lights in the realm of divine thought.

Throughout centuries, intellectuals have turned to these two philosophical paths, becoming acquainted with their ideas and finding no other way. As a result, each of these two schools of thought has developed its own distinct frameworks and boundaries.

The Peripatetic Philosophy (Mash’ā’ī)

The Peripatetic philosophy relies solely on reasoning, logic, and syllogism, and does not acknowledge the legitimacy of anything beyond these methods. It regards reasoning as the sole path to intellectual perfection and research, seeing it as the sole true means of insight and knowledge, while considering reliance on anything other than it as naïve, superstitious, and thoughtless.

The Peripatetic school is grounded in syllogistic logic, which it regards as the foundation and framework for its philosophy. It sees no other method as beneficial for its philosophical worldview. Philosophy, in this tradition, has always been intertwined with logic, and a shift in one requires a corresponding change in the other. The relationship between logic and philosophy has become so natural and unified that any disruption in one would shake the foundation of the other.

Throughout the history of philosophy, those who sought to challenge or destabilise one school often engaged with the other as well.

The followers of this school have worked extensively with this logic, refining and advancing it to an unparalleled degree. The works of Aristotle, Avicenna, and al-Ghazali, such as Al-Shifa and Al-Asas al-Iqtabas, have made significant contributions to the proliferation of Aristotle’s philosophy. Although these great thinkers admitted that they offered no more than an understanding and detailed exposition of Aristotle’s ideas, the distinctive feature of al-Ghazali’s Al-Asas al-Iqtabas is that it is written in Persian, although it largely mirrors the discussions of Ibn Sina’s Al-Shifa.

Among the most important texts in the Peripatetic tradition, after Etymologia—a work attributed to the students of Aristotle or Plato—are the books of Avicenna, particularly Al-Shifa and Al-Isharat. These texts have been so highly regarded by intellectuals that they have become essential reading in the educational institutions of this school of thought.

Numerous scholars have written extensive commentaries on these texts, which are too numerous to elaborate on here. However, it is also important to note that many criticisms have been made against these works, which should be addressed in their proper context.

The Illuminative Philosophy (Ishraqī)

This school is traditionally attributed to Plato, passed down to us through Farabi, who was a pioneer of this thought in the philosophical community. The illuminative philosophy does not consider syllogism to be the sole path to truth, and it does not regard it as sufficient to reach the realm of higher truths. Instead, it posits that the perception of truth is attainable through intuition, direct insight, and divine illumination, with reasoning serving merely as a tool in the hands of those who possess such insight.

Throughout the history of philosophy, many adherents of the illuminative school have emerged, with the most famous among them being Shaykh al-Ishraq Sadr al-Din al-Sohrevardi. His writings, abundant in number, are filled with philosophical meanings presented in the style of illumination.

Adherents of this tradition tend to lean more towards mysticism, considering their mystical experiences as a truth superior to logical reasoning. Their ideas are often in direct contrast with those of the Peripatetics, and reconciling these two systems has proven to be an insurmountable challenge. Those who attempted to reconcile the two schools often resorted to misguided interpretations and rationalisations that neither side would accept.

Three central figures in the history of human thought are Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. Socrates was the teacher of Plato, and Aristotle was Plato’s student. Plato and Aristotle represent two opposing poles in the history of human thought, each critically analysing and refuting the ideas of the other.

Throughout the history of divine thought and philosophy, these two schools have continuously competed, conflicting and critiquing one another. Both have had numerous supporters and detractors, to the point where, at times, the defence of one’s own school of thought led to the acceptance of erroneous ideas, while rejecting the truths proposed by the other. This mutual, often adversarial, interaction is evident in the history of these two intellectual traditions.

The Peripatetics view direct mystical perception and intuition as delusions, while the Illuminatives regard logical reasoning as a fleeting remedy. As a result of these entrenched positions, a great deal of animosity and rivalry has arisen, often overshadowing the pursuit of truth itself. Each school has expended its energy in defending its own worldview, prioritising it over the objective search for truth. The result has been a situation where any deviation from one’s own school of thought is regarded as doctrinal error.

One significant reason for the failure of both schools is their dogmatism, which ultimately led to the innovations of the great philosopher Mulla Sadra, the founder of the Asfar school, and others.

These two schools, throughout history, established clear boundaries and gained considerable influence, shaping social and religious certainties in their wake. Each school, in its intellectual pursuits, sought to reinterpret and justify religious principles to align with its own worldview, considering its own doctrine as the true foundation of religious truth.

Such a situation created an opportunity for innovation, as thinkers began to question and dismantle the rigid boundaries of these schools, offering fresh perspectives on philosophy. Mulla Sadra, after extensive study of the foundations of both schools, as well as theology, mysticism, and other necessary fields, began to engage in a process of synthesis, offering a new vision of philosophical thought that transcended the constraints of these established schools. His works proved transformative, bringing a new era of philosophical inquiry.

The School of the Theologians (Mutakallimun)

Although preliminary attempts to develop a new philosophy had been made before Mulla Sadra, and many intellectuals had worked hard on this project, none had managed to fully present a unified system or framework. Thus, Mulla Sadra’s achievements in this regard are particularly praiseworthy, as he succeeded in preserving the intellectual heritage of his predecessors and articulating a comprehensive philosophical system.

At the time when these two schools were becoming entrenched in their intellectual positions, a new and profound way of thinking emerged, one that sought to dismantle rigid intellectual boundaries, overcome dogmatic attitudes, and pursue the discovery of truth in its purest form.

Mulla Sadra, a deeply committed and industrious philosopher, conducted a thorough study of logic, mysticism, Peripatetic philosophy, and illumination. From each of these traditions, he selectively integrated ideas that were both philosophically sound and supported by reasoning, without becoming biased toward any one school. In doing so, he opened a new pathway that merged reason and intuition.

Though Sadra was deeply drawn to mysticism and the philosophy of Ibn Arabi, he did not abandon theology or logic. He held that these fields could be integrated in such a way that mystical insight and logical reasoning would complement one another. His work laid the groundwork for a synthesis that allowed the philosophy of illumination and the Peripatetic tradition to coexist, while also incorporating new insights from theology and mysticism.

Sadra’s contributions were so successful that, over time, they came to dominate the philosophical landscape, influencing not only his contemporaries but also the future development of Islamic philosophy. His intellectual synthesis had a profound impact on subsequent thinkers, and his influence continues to shape the philosophical discourse to this day.

Conclusion

Mulla Sadra’s philosophy is often viewed as a combination of the Peripatetic and Illuminative schools, along with elements of theology and mysticism. While he did not create an entirely new system of thought, his work represents a significant synthesis that provided a new direction for philosophical inquiry. His ability to navigate the complex ideas of earlier thinkers, synthesising them into a coherent system, was a remarkable achievement, and his intellectual legacy has had a lasting influence on Islamic philosophy.

Mysticism, the Final Summit of Human Ascent

After traversing the stages of rhetoric and philosophy in their various directions and levels, it is time for mysticism, the highest stage of human discovery and knowledge. Mysticism is both the theoretical understanding and the direct experience of the human being, and the subject of this journey is the Divine Essence. Mysticism serves as the gateway for us to reach this divine figure.

Mysticism is the vision of the Divine without any mental or intellectual adornment, and the being of the Divine in every manifestation and appearance; it is the experience of the Divine without any deficiency or imperfection. The words of the Divine are truth, and His deeds are truth. He seeks and He finds, and this seeking and finding is truth itself. The mystic discovers that it is only the Divine who manifests countless names, for all names are manifestations of His beauty and majesty, and the true name is the named One. He alone is the face of certainty and determination. He is the unique essence, incapable of change, alteration, or transformation.

The subject of this knowledge is the Divine, and the mystic is the path to this understanding. This knowledge involves a subject that is inherently the subject of the matters and souls involved, where duality, transition, and the mind do not find a place. The mind of the mystic, his being and transitions, are the essence of stability. Mysticism is the very soul of the mystic, and the mystic is the very soul of mysticism; both are two expressions of one meaning. The mystic recognises the ultimate goal within himself, and himself as the ultimate goal. In mysticism, the subject and the object are one and the same. The mystic does not highly value the ideas and thoughts of the mind; instead, he focuses on direct perception, and he knows nothing but what he perceives. He knows the Divine as the Divine alone, sees nothing but the Divine, desires nothing but the Divine, and places his heart solely with the Divine, free from all distractions, on a perpetual journey.

Like the theologian, the mystic does not cling to words; he does not strike the stone of reasoning with the hammer of comparison. He sees absolute philosophy as mysticism, and the absolute philosophy as logic born of thought and words. He never seeks the basis of words or the type of comparison and does not surrender to speech and mouth. He has no use for evidence or inference; he seeks the Divine because the Divine desires him, and he chooses nothing but the Divine.

The Great and Profound Artistic Masterpieces of Mysticism

Mysticism has many profound and elevated artistic masterpieces, which are difficult to comprehend for most individuals, even for those who are familiar with it. Many esteemed and lofty mystics have been enmeshed in this perception and vision, which cannot be fully conveyed in words. This applies both to classical and instructional mysticism—as well as to direct and completed mysticism, where the Divine is found without the adornment of lessons and classes.

The Wayfarers of Mysticism

The number of those who walk this path is very small, and even fewer reach the destination, yet those who claim to follow it are not so few. The one who walks this path says nothing, while the one who reaches it says “no”, and in the state of pure attainment, no “yes” or “no” remains, and they do not give way to self-reflection. Though at the beginning of their journey, they may consider secrecy as a sign of complete attainment and walk along this path.

There is a vast distance between speaking, walking, and arriving, each having its own separate journey. “Speech” is action, “walking” is burden, and “arriving” is rest and freedom. The first is a trap, the second is the grain, and for the third, there is no need for words, for it cannot be described or defined.

Throughout the history of mysticism, the journey and arrival have always been directly associated with claims and deceit. Typically, those who make claims are far from reality, while those who possess something have not permitted themselves to speak. There are many claimants, but they yield no results, and many who have arrived, but they speak little. This imbalance has created challenges, making the distinction between truth and falsehood, sincerity and deceit, an exceedingly difficult task.

Therefore, in understanding mysticism, we must dedicate the essential portion of our discussion and efforts towards the recognition of true mysticism and the path followed by the infallible ones (Ahl al-Bayt) and the Commander of the Faithful (Imam Ali), and the other infallible Imams. For these figures have a different calling and foundation; a mysticism whose limit of attainment calls out the necessity of being, and whose contemplation of possibility brings news from the unseen. They are with the Divine, yet not unaware of themselves; they are with the people, yet not oblivious to the Divine; they are intelligent, intoxicated with ecstasy, and passionately eloquent, with language immersed in meaning, and meaning enhancing the beauty of language.

The wayfarers who can engage in this struggle without a school or formal lessons find a mysticism distinct from others, becoming guides and leaders for others. The mysticism of figures like Salman, Abu Dharr, Miqdad, and Ammar should be considered in this category. Mysticism that is not simply words, lessons, schools, or books, but is everything. It is truth and truth; not just a word of truth. It is mysticism and the mystic, both of which share the same face. The mystic, after arrival, continues to search and burn, and before arrival, he searches and burns, not as one who builds without speaking. This is the mysticism that is the ultimate goal of knowledge, and it is never attainable without this school and teacher.

Summary of the Discussion and Conclusion

In general terms, it can be said that all intellectual traditions, although having their own specific levels of success, have, relatively speaking, posed problems for human thought. From the neglect of evidence and the weakness of the foundations of argumentation, to unnecessary factionalism, each has in some way tarnished the theoretical aspect of their thoughts. Intolerance, rigid dogmatism, and the harshness of practical encounters have also distanced their practical aspect from fairness. Though not all are the same in these respects, those more concerned with appearances have often fallen into these pitfalls. However, one should not overlook the negligence of mysticism by the uninformed.

The theologians have often pursued matters in a more popular and argumentative way, while the Peripatetics have shown a strong attachment to reasoning, sometimes straying off the path with their reliance on evidence. The Illuminative philosophers have ascended into the heavens of clouds and smoke without any true revelation. The mystics have relied on their hearts as the measure of reality, even though the pure truth was rarely attained by anyone.

The theologians, like all those concerned with appearances, have mostly discussed matters of permissible and impermissible, regarding only the outward and superficial aspects of rulings as valid. Mystics, without hesitation, have claimed vision and witnessing, while the Peripatetics have believed in smoke and fire through the walls of imagination.

Mystics have followed a kind of carelessness, the theologians with various forms of intolerance and argumentation, and the Peripatetics with a bundle of words and reasoning. These issues have caused Islamic scientific thought and rational and religious reasoning to gradually fade, to the point where the intellectual prestige of the human community has diminished. If philosophical and theological institutions continue in this way, in the near future, only their names will remain in history. Unless Islamic scholars make a concerted effort to address these disruptions, remove the obstacles to thought, and engage in the necessary and essential discussions, they will fail to foster the growth of religious thought. Through full reliance on the divine book and the traditions of the infallible ones, they must work to revive and strengthen both theoretical and practical wisdom.