ملاصدرا و علم تفسير(تفسير قرآن)

Mulla Sadraʹs Life, Works, and Philosophy

About Shahrzuri and his al-Shajarat al-ilahiyyah, he writes: Shams al-Din Shahrzuriʹs discussions of ethics in Shajarat al-ilahiyyah are exactly the same as those of Nasir al-Din Tusi in Akhlaq Nasiri, which Shahrzuri has translated into Arabic. The section on physics of this book has been adopted from al-Isharat, and the section on theology from al-Shifa, although here the writer claims to have been involved in unveiling. Apparently, this is a long story, and, in his view, there are many thieves in the field of wisdom. He says, "There are so many corpses that we cannot shroud all of them." Therefore, here we will only refer to a few other instances. In his Theftology, he writes: One of the thieves of scientific works is Mulla Ali Qushchi. He has combined Sharh-i maqasid and Sharh-i mawaqif with each other and called the product Sharh-i tajrid-i Tusi. Mulla Abdulrazzaq Lahiji has to some extent disgraced him in his Shawariq (al-ilham). Qushchi has also changed Tusiʹs Zubdat al-ilahiyyah (in Persian) slightly and presented it under the Persian title Hey \at in his own name. Mulla Muzaffar Gawanabadi (Gunabadi) has written a commentary on Mulla ʹAbdulahi Birjandiʹs Bist bab and has exactly copied Tusiʹs sentences. If this scholar had lived longer, there would have remained no philosopher who had not been accused of plagiarism by him. In addition to the pessimistic views of this researcher in the field of literary and scientific theft, he has sometimes used vulgar words about philosophers and gnostics which they do not deserve and we are ashamed of quoting. Thus we will ignore them here. From this introduction and the divulgences of this mistrusting scholar, any insightful person understands that, at that time quoting the exact words of others, especially when they supported the writersʹ idea, was not viewed as plagiarism. Rather it was a kind of subtlety in writing because, in this way, not only did the writer add the speaker of the quoted words to the group of those who shared the same view with him, but also he economized in using words and structuring the phrases. It was even considered to be a service to the person who had been quoted. As mentioned before, this act has a long history under the title "adaptation" and was a literary figure. This is a subtle historical point that not everyone can grasp. When recognizing scientific and literary theft, one must first pay attention to its meaning and instance because not all instances can be called theft. Certainly, choosing the titles of books, chapters, or sections written by others for oneʹs work or discussing subjects discussed by earlier thinkers is not considered plagiarism or literary theft. As we can see, people choose the names of others for their children, and no one deems this as an immoral or unusual act. Therefore, choosing the name The Transcendent Philosophy for the book al-Asfar is not a case of literary theft and is not indecent. Repeating the titles of the parts or chapters of othersʹ books is also a totally normal and common act.It is senseless for a philosopher writing philosophical books not to repeat or discuss previous topics in his book or discuss an issue without referring to its previous appearance in othersʹ books. Unfortunately, critics of Mulla Sadra, in order to fill the pages of their books, have even criticized him for similar cases. For example, Ziaʹ Durri writes at the end of the translation of Shahrzuriʹs History as follows: "The chapter on general affairs in al-Asfar has been copied from Ibn Sinaʹs works." In the view of this scholar, since Ibn Sina starts this chapter with a set of specific words, Mulla Sadra and others must use other words and phrases so that they would not be accused of plagiarism. After Aqa Ziaʹ Durri, the obsession with recognizing theft was transmitted to others. One of these people is the contemporary bibliographer, Muhammed Taqi Daneshpajouh. He seizes any opportunity to attack Mulla Sadra and accuses him of plagiarism. For example, in the Introduction to Kasr al-asnam al-jahiliyyah, he quotes from Muhaddith Nuriʹs1 Mustadrik that Mulls Sadraʹs Interpretation of al-ʹAla Chapter is the same al-Tanbih ʹala bʹaz al-asrar al-muwaddiah written by Fakhr al-Din Razi. Then he states that the Interpretation of al-ʹAla Chapter is attributed to Ibn Sina. He also adds that Mulla Sadraʹs treatise of Jabr wa tafwiz - or its first part - is the same as Gorganiʹs treatise with a similar title. In order to complete his studies, he presents a new theory and claims: "Since Mulla Sadra was a rich man, he had a big library. Therefore, he selected parts of other scholarsʹ works and included them, whether by referring or not referring to their names, in his own works." Although the premise of this hypothetical syllogism is correct, its conclusion is false because having a big library does not necessarily lead to plagiarism. However, he might have quoted others without referring to their names out of negligence. Before the writing of al-Asfar and his other books, he might have taken notes of othersʹ statements, and since in the past they were not bound to record page numbers or the names of writers, these notes might have been considered to belong to Mulla Sadra himself by mistake, or they might have been added to al-Asfar by his students. Of course, in the past page numbers were not recorded in most books. Fortunately, today attributing plagiarism and literary theft to Mulla Sadra and other philosophers and scholars is not taken seriously anymore and is considered to be a mark of lack of courtesy. A deeper knowledge of Mulla Sadraʹs life and deliberation on the philosophy of this unparalleled philosopher reveals the unfoundedness of such words and attributes. * * * Sources of Mulla Sadraʹs Books Evidence suggests that Mulla Sadra had two important scientific treasures: a very strong memory and a comprehensive library. When quoting others and even referring to the noble verses of the Qurʹan or hadith, he sometimes changed some words or their places by mistake. This was not due to negligence; rather, it naturally happens to anyone who has been long familiar with verses, hadiths, and poems.In Mulla Sadraʹs books, such free quotations or change of words in quotations are also witnessed. This is one of the reasons why some critics have objected to him and accused him of stealing othersʹ statements. The strong memory of this philosopher which had stored the theories and ideas of philosophers and gnostics since his adolescence, could have been the reason for such errors. Apparently, Mulla Sadra had numerous philosophical books. Either he had bought the original copy using the family wealth, or, following the old tradition of scholars and seminary students, he had copied them. Although he sometimes used the quotations given by other philosophers out of trust, the instances are quite limited. Relying on the above-mentioned two sources, Mulla Sadra used quotations of othersʹ ideas as an introduction to his own ideas and theories in most of his books. He did so in order to shed some light on the context of the discussion, clarify the points of disagreement, and, at the same time, familiarize the seekers of wisdom with the ideas of early philosophers. * * * Mulla Sadraʹs main and first source of knowledge and inspiration was the Holy Qurʹan, to which he was greatly committed. He has frequently written in his books, "Cursed be the philosophy that does not conform to the Qurʹan and hadith."3 This is because our philosophy must lead us to realities and the Qurʹan is the mirror of realities. Mulla Sadraʹs sources of quotation, in addition to the Qurʹan, hadith, and transmitted and prophetic traditions, are numerous and even include the Bible, the Torah, and the works of early Iranian philosophers and non-Iranian pre-Socratic philosophers and those after him, such as Plotinus and Alexandrians, as well as Muslim philosophers from Farabi to Dawani and other followers of the Shiraz School. We have no knowledge of his major sources in quoting sentences from Khusrawani philosophy, Fahlawis, the Magi, and Iranian Ishraqi philosophers. He might have quoted all of them from Suhrawardiʹs Hikmat al-ishraq. During the Safawid era, a treasure of ancient Persian books was found by accident; however, no reference has been made to them in Mulla Sadraʹs works. From among the works of pre-Socratic philosophers he had only access to Pythagorasʹs precious will, al-Risalat al-dhahabiyyah; however, he had seen all or most of Platoʹs articles and had them in his possession. He frequently referred to Timaeus, Phaedo, and Laws. Aristotleʹs works, which comprised the core of the first period of Islamic philosophy, were naturally at Mulla Sadraʹs disposal. That is why he sometimes quoted from his Metaphysics, On the Soul, On Sophistical Refutations, and On Heaven and the World. From among the philosophers of later centuries, the names of Zenon, Stoics, and Diogenes are seen in his works, and more than anyone else, he pays attention to Plotinus or Shaykh al-hukamaʹ (master of philosophers). However, like other Muslim philosophers and sages, he believes that Ethologia (.Enneads) belongs to Aristotle, and, in this way, he committed some errors in his interpretations of Aristotle and presented some contradictory words in this regard. Mulla Sadraʹs philosophy or school mainly relies on Ibn Sinaʹs philosophy as a representative of the Peripatetic school. Nevertheless, it can be considered a branch separate from Aristotelian schools but similar to them.