بررسي مدينه عادله از منظر ابن ‏سينا با تطبيق بر آراي فارابي

Review of Just City Theory in Avicennaʹʹs View with Comparison to al-Farabiʹʹs Ideas

ابن‏سينا از جمله فيلسوفاني است كه با تكيه بر ميراث فارابي، نبوت و سياست، عقل و وحي، و فلسفه و شريعت را به هم پيوند مي زند و راه تجات جامعه را در استقرار نظام سياسي برآمده از شريعت و دين عقلاني مي داند. وي بر اين اساس حكومت مطلوب خود را پايه ريزي مي كند و جامعه اي را كه با چنين حكومتي اداره مي شود مدينه عادله مي نامد. با بررسي مدينه عادله از منظر ابن‏سينا و تطبيق آن بر آراي فارابي از سويي تاثير و تاثّر و نيز مواضع خلاف و وفاق ديدگاه ايشان آشكار مي‏شود و از سويي ديگر نقش و جايگاه انديشه سياسي ابن‏سينا مشخص مي‏شود. در مواردي نظير مدني بالطبع بودن انسان، هماهنگي نظام مدينه با نظام هستي، ابتناي مدينه بر پايه فضيلت، اخلاق و عدالت، و منحصر بودن حاكميت به صاحبان معرفت به حقايق عالم اعلي، بين ديدگاه ابن‏سينا با آراي فارابي شباهت هايي وجود دارد. در حالي كه در مبحث رييس مدينه و صفات او و نيز مراتب مدينه و جزييات آن، راه اين دو فيلسوف از هم جدا مي شود.

Avicenna is one of the philosophers who binds prophecy and politics, intellect and revelation as well as philosophy and shariah together relying on al-Farabiʹs legacy. He introduces the establishment of a political system stemming from shariah and rational religion as the way of saving the society and accordingly, establishes his favorite theory for ideal government and calls the society which is administered by such government a just city. Reviewing just city theory in Avicennaʹs view and its adapting to al-Farabiʹs ideas, on the one hand, their affecting and being affected as well as their opposition and consensus become clear and on the other, the role and position of Avicennaʹs political thought is identified. There are similarities between the views of al-Farabi and Avicenna such as humanʹs being civil in nature, conformity and harmony between the system of universe and the system of the city, building city on the basis of virtue, morality and justice, as well as monopoly of sovereignty to the owners of knowledge of the facts of the supreme world. While their ideas are different on the topic of the chief of the city and his attributes as well as city levels and its details the approach of these two philosophers divides.