The eternity of divine punishment is among the important eschatological problems and discussions in philosophy and gnosis. Ibn ‘Arabī and Mullā Ṣadrā’s scrutiny and analysis of this problem attracted the attention of several Muslim thinkers to this subject in later time More
The eternity of divine punishment is among the important eschatological problems and discussions in philosophy and gnosis. Ibn ‘Arabī and Mullā Ṣadrā’s scrutiny and analysis of this problem attracted the attention of several Muslim thinkers to this subject in later times. Among them, Āqā ‘Alī Mudarres Zunūzī was one of the advocates of the theory of sinners’ eternal punishment in hell. In his glosses on al-Asfār, he adduced three arguments for this theory including the direct reference of some Qur’anīc verses to the eternity of punishment, the absence of any defense against divine punishment, and the concomitance of Man’s free will with eternal punishment. Zunūzī does not agree with the ḥadīth that Mullā Ṣadrā cites in order to demonstrate the interruption of punishment. However, in this paper the authors demonstrate that his criticism of Mullā Ṣadrā’s view is unfounded. Therefore, it can be said that the arguments adduced by some philosophers and gnostics in defense of the interruption of punishment are complete and can rationally justify this problem.
Manuscript profile
The argument of the righteous (Burhān al-Ṣiddīqīn) demonstrates the essence of the Necessary Being without resorting to an intermediary. This title was chosen for the first time by Ibn Sīnā in order to provide a new interpretation of an argument that Fārābī had previous More
The argument of the righteous (Burhān al-Ṣiddīqīn) demonstrates the essence of the Necessary Being without resorting to an intermediary. This title was chosen for the first time by Ibn Sīnā in order to provide a new interpretation of an argument that Fārābī had previously adduced. The argument of the righteous is one of the best and most concise philosophical and rational arguments on demonstrating the existence of God.This argument reasons from “being” to the “Necessary Being” so that none of God’s acts, such as motion or origination, functions as the middle term. Haeri Yazdi has tried to respond to the problems of this argument by explaining the meaning of possibility in the Peripatetic and Transcendent Schools of philosophy. Given his accurate analysis of the meaning of possibility, he believes that it can be used as a basis for proving the existence of the Necessary Being; therefore, it is not necessary to resort to the impossibility of infinite regression. Following an analytic comparative method and based on Mullā Ṣadrā’s valid criteria for the truth of the argument of the righteous, the present paper analyzes and examines Haeri Yazdi’s interpretation and shows that his view is not immune to criticism.
Manuscript profile
