Islamic Philosophy from Its Origin to the Present: Philosophy in the ...

From the School of Isfahan to the School of Tehran 241
sidered by some to be the most significant work in the school of al-
÷ikmat al-muta‘åliyah after the Asfår. 20 Written in Persian, it compares
with the works of Af∂al al-D¥n Kåshån¥ and Suhraward¥ in its
significance for philosophical prose in that language. It also deals with
|adrean metaphysics in a remarkably creative manner. Furthermore,
this work is considered by some to be the first in which traditional
Islamic philosophy and Western philosophy, mostly Kantian, meet,
for ≈qå ‘Al¥ sets out in this book to respond to certain philosophical
questions brought to him from Europe by the Qajar prince Bad¥‘ almulk.
For this reason some have considered the Badåyi‘ al-÷ikam as
being not only the most important text of |adrean philosophy in Persian
but also the first text of comparative philosophy (in relation to
European philosophy) within the Islamic philosophical tradition, 21 the
beginning of a path that was to be followed later in Persia by ‘Allåmah
appleabå†abå˘¥, M¥rzå Mahd¥ ¡a˘ir¥ Yazd¥, and several younger philosophers
of this generation.
As for ≈qå ‘Al¥’s annotations upon the Asfår, they cover nearly
the whole text and constitute in themselves a cycle of |adarean philosophy.
The glosses of Sabziwår¥ upon the Asfår are among the most
detailed and clarifying of the many commentaries written on the text.
These glosses have been published in the lithographed edition of the
text of Mullå |adrå. The only commentary upon the Asfår to compare
in significance with that of Sabziwår¥ is that of ≈qå ‘Al¥, which, however,
departs more from the text than does Sabziwår¥’s. S. J. ≈shtiyån¥
goes as far as to say, “I believe that in philosophical discussions ≈qå
‘Al¥ was more meticulous and more confirmed in the truth than
Sabziwår¥.” 22 Some in fact consider ≈qå ‘Al¥ Mudarris to be the greatest
figure of the school of al-÷ikmat al- muta‘åliyah after Mullå |adrå
himself, 23 but others bestow this honor upon Mullå ‘Al¥ N¨r¥. Although
it is true that ≈qå ‘Al¥ must be considered along with Mullå |adrå
himself, Mullå ‘Al¥ N¨r¥, Håjj¥ Mullå Håd¥ Sabziwår¥, ≈qå Mu±ammad
Ri∂å Qumsha˘¥, and one or two others as the greatest master of the
school of al-÷ikmat-al-muta‘åliyah, he was not simply an imitator and
commentator of Mullå |adrå. Rather, he expressed certain views not
found in |adr al-D¥n’s works and may be said to have begun a new
chapter in the history of the |adrean school rather that being simply
a continuation of the same chapter. Not only did he criticize certain
|adrean tenets, but he also formulated several new theses of his own
concerning such questions as corporeal resurrection, attribution, knowledge,
second philosophical intelligibles, trans-substantial motion, the
principiality of being, gradation, the unity of the arc of descent and
the arc of ascent, and many other major issues. A thorough study of