Theoretical policy of Mullah Sadra

We know that our political philosophy begins by Farabi and ends in a sense with Farabi that’s why, after Farabi, our philosophy as it should, did not concentrate on discussions of knowledge especially politics. This comment is not the author’s opinion and I do not think that some one to have idea contrary to that it means that if the volume of all the things that philosophers since Farabi up to now the have said is being compared, the measure of Farabi’s works will be heavier . More importantly, the issues that after Farabi have come in the works of philosophers are the summary of Farabi’s judgments and sometimes their repetition. For example, in the Nazareth ethics of Khauwja Nasir Al-Din Tusi, the brief of civil politics has been mentioned that, to his own promise, is just adapted from Farabi's books. We should not conclude from this statement that philosophy of politic after Farabi has been closed therefore; this philosophy must be coordinated during Islamic history and according to Mullah Sadra and with spirit of Sadra philosophy. Our Philosophers have more or less regarded to politics. Gazali, who had had certain influence on the direction of Islamic philosophy, has more tried to prepare religion based policy but, a philosopher who in the Islamic world has paid more attention to politics, is Farabi. Farabi thought the principles of political philosophy and theoretical policy from his Greek professors and considered especially like Plato to the ideal policy and the plot of utopia and the president of that Medina. After farabi, significant researches were not conducted in theoretical politics and whatever was said, was more or less a summary or commentary of Farabi’s ideas. When we get to Mullah Sadra, the situation is somewhat different and we see that he has either intended toward policy of utopia or actual policy and daily affairs. If it is sometime felt that the contents of his policy does not completely fit together, we should not dare to talk contradictory about him, because in fact, this philosopher, every time that has said something , it has been the requirement of situation and talk and the issues have come out differently. Mullah Sadra has recognized two policies from each other: he either intends to politics derived from human intellect or the policy that its claim is active intellect. Perhaps the humanist interpretation is not bad here so, humanism in politics briefly has been mentioned in the ideas of Mullah Sadra. Among the remaining dissertations since the establishment of Islamic philosophy, there is a treatise name of Plato's honor. Badavi has published this dissertation in a collection called Plato in Islam in the second section of the book, which is dedicated to the attributed mission. He has had the right that has considered this treatise attributed to Plato, because if this treatise is being compared with Plato’s honors, not only there is no the contents of honors in it but also, its contents are not consistent with his views While, the book of honor breviary which is Farabi’s work, though is not a full work, more or less affected by his views. If we want to comment on the contents of this paper, we argue that it is a type of free breviary of Plato's content honors, but the book to which pointed does not belong to Plato. But considering that in our history, it has been attributed to Plato and a man like Mullah Sadra has been attributing it to Plato, it keeps us to ponder over the issue. Now, we are not concerned whether Mullah Sadra has noted and discussed this book or they have attributed it to the Plato, the important is that Mullah Sadra has regarded this book and has discussed it. When a great philosopher and thinker views an issue in a book then, no longer we discuss whether the book is rejected or not and if so, we say that this attention has not been a proper one and we should not pay attention to that but, the book should be considered valid that one or more of the elites among the people have considered that and have said it is likely the book belongs to Plato. The content of the book is that politics and religion are different from the four terms: in terms of origin, result, action and passivity however, I do not explain what is going on here and what are these differences, now, I shall confine myself to this point however, Mullah Sadra has narrated it has just been mentioned in the book of “rejected honors’. Mullah Sadra’s implication is very important; He believes that the policy in terms of origin is different from religion according to him this policy has the human origin it means its origin is human nature. Could it be said that this policy is a humanist one? Mullah Sadra in addition to the normal policy also recognizes another policy. So, I do not care that politics of Mullah Sadra regarding the policy that has human origin, what has said however, they are important in their own content. Before Mullah Sadra, some of these concepts have come in the works of Ghazali and Fakhr Razi and sometimes Mullah Sadra has brought them in the content of his works. It is very important for our scholars that if they saw something in a book and enjoyed it then, they attribute it to themselves and even sometimes they have quoted the same phrase of others. Something that I want to say is that some of what Farabi had said in his various books has also been favored by Mullah Sadra and sometimes that Farabi has made comments in different ways, Mullah Sadra also has stated the same idea in different places. For example (the example I will think over it through all article), Farabi has numbered twelve traits for the president of utopia. Mullah Sadra also on various occasions, including in his work, “Hereafter”, “God’s signs”, has mentioned twelve traits for President of Medina, too. But somewhere also Farabi has called the traits of the president of utopia eight or six character thus, Mullah Sadra also, in one of his writing eight traits and in another six traits has attributed to the head of utopia but, in all these cases, both the philosophers have considered the time and position.
This point implies that Mullah Sadra has noticed the works of Farabi and he has been aware of all the contents of this philosopher. In fact, Mullah is extenders, completer and finisher of Farabi’s notions, not only have narrated those quotes. If I have said that Mullah Sadra has cited the copy of Farabi’s content , id not negate my statement but, I want to show that Sadra has not been an imitator. Farabi, in discussion of President of Medina, has said the head of the Medina is prophet and founder of honor.
Farabi has hints that the researcher can carry those references as he has been considering the position of philosopher higher than the prophets however, we can find evidences to refute it of course, these evidences are extended in the works of Farabi. However, those narrated Farabi have concluded he has described the position of philosopher higher than the prophet. Mullah Sadra dedicates two chapters mentioning position and traits of the head of Medina thus, in the first chapter debates on the first perfection of the head and in the second obe discusses his second features. In the second chapter which focuses on the second perfection, states twelve traits for the president and these characteristics are those mentioned in the ideas of Farabi’s Utopia and Mullah Sadra and others have also narrated from him but, the first chapter of perfection is the a proof of special comment of Mullah Sadra.
In this season the issue is expressed in a way that the doubt of philosophy priority over religion (which was drawn by Farabi) is generally being ruled out. When we consider the notion of Farabi, we may think that the prophet is the one who one of his powers (intelligence power) has much grown up and other powers in comparison to this power have stalled. As Mullah Sadra explains, they are those who a power of their powers swans grow; For example, in some cases the power of sensor and the force driving in some people become so strong that the owners of those forces can do strange things and do miracles without their wisdom to be developed, some one or might have a strong imagination and his other powers have not been developed yet. Mullah Sadra does not ignore this possibility and accepts that there are such persons but this issue does not relate to prophets or the first head of the Medina. According to Farabi, the first head of Medina, speaks to the language of the people. He is the one who in the power of his dreams interpret partial objects, according to Mullah Sadra himself, with breathing and stories and speaks them because the audiences of the prophet are all trades and classes of people. The prophet’s audiences are people wherever, and whoever they are do not understand the language of philosophy. The language of Prophet is the language of speaking with the public so, this language is the same as specific language of people. Understanding this language is also a certain understanding however, Mullah Sadra with this statement, confirming Farabi’s comment. Farabi had also said that what was the prophet’s statement and to whom he had addressed and to what language he speaks. But, Mullah Sadra describing the first perfections of the head of Medina proves the coordination in the powers of the prophet so, according to him, the prophet’s powers grow together. That’s why three powers of reasoning, imagination and sensory and motor (sensory and motor to take one) grow together. Of course, I did not say anything concerning the power of dreams here (In some divisions the dead Sadral Motãlehin has reported four powers). Perhaps the prophet does not speak to the language of reason and rational but, he is familiar with this language, and that is, he has understood the reasons and knows them. Farabi had also said that the head of utopia is a philosopher in the prophet’s dressed but, " prophet’s dress " is an inaccurate concept of course, Farabi’s interpretation is not a bad one, but is interpretive. Secondly, the point of power balancing which has come in the expression of Mullah Sadra , is not in the language of Farabi and it can not be easily inferred from the context of his words but, Mullah Sadra states the issue in a way to be interpreted that the prophet is wise. Of course, when it is said that the prophet is wise and the prophets are wise men, it is not implied that everyone to be attributed to the wisdom while he is prophet. Perhaps It can be argued that there is no need a man like Mullah Sadra explains so clearly, especially when his audiences are the intellectuals therefore, the result of the speech is that in the persons the wisdom power has developed and they have become philosopher, teacher and teacher of philosophy. But it is not necessarily that the prophet has to be a warner and benefits from the imagination power that the prophet did. When Mullah cites this introduction, then, there would be remained no doubt or hesitation about offering the prophet’s position to the philosopher. And we can not say that because the prophet can connect from the active ways to the wisdom then, his knowledge is put lower than the philosopher’s knowledge and here there is no up and down for knowledge. According to Mullah Sadra whatever philosopher knows, the God messenger (prophet) knows, too but, whatever the prophet knows and can does it necessarily is not in the abilities of the philosopher. He sometimes expresses the issue subject to interpretation of prophecy and Velayat which he has considerably developed in philosophy and mysticism before Avicenna. Mullah Sadra, like many other philosophers, considers Velayat as the heart of prophecy and the purpose of Velayat is wisdom and reason. In fact, Mullah Sadra has accepted the same plan that Plato had accepted and that plan is the wise men’s plan of autocracy. Although he has had nothing to do with policy of operation and more or less has been dealing with isolation and seclusion, philosophically advices the politicians and began to warn them. In short, Sadra has interpreted the notion of Farabi concerning philosophy and prophecy in a way that is not adverse to the origin of religious prophecy. Farabi in the history of Islamic philosophy has stated something that has been developed in the work of Sadra Shirazi. Apparently, Farabi has not wanted something unless what Mullah Sadra has said, says, but his comment has not been still (as it should) developed and was therefore inconclusive thus, the history of philosophy ,in a sense, is full of also of detail. Philosophy begins with “finding” and Philosophy is finding. Farabi has found something that is not what the Plato has "found" and when Farabi said the philosopher is the states of honor, contrary to what some persons supposed, it was not for this reason that based on the appearance of Islam they stick to their own opinion. The goal of was gathering of philosophy, religion and establishment of Islamic philosophy which was extended in Islamic world especially in Iran. Of course, some said that this objective has not been achieved and Farabi has just adorned the philosophy with apparently Islamic dress. Now, whether Islamic or Christian philosophy makes sense or not?" we do not debate. The point is that Farabi had spoken about prophecy and the position of the prophet that was disputable. Mullah Sadra, with distinguishing the steps and keeping them, showed that if the philosopher wants to lead government or speaks a language other than philosophy, or speaks a language to which the peoples’ ear is familiar.