Volume 3 . Number 1 . March 2002 Transcendent Philosophy An International Journal for Comparative Philosophy and Mysticism Articles Mohsen Araki Causality and Freedom Fatima Modarresi A Tale of Occidental Estrangement Mas’oud Oumid A comparative study of the epistemology of Suhrawardi and Allamah Tabataba`i Vida Ahmadi Philosophical and Mystical Approaches to the ‘Dialogue of Civilizations’ Book Reviews Robert McKim, Religious Ambiguity and Religious Diversity, New York: Oxford University Press, 2001 (Oliver Leaman) Valérie Gonzalez, Beauty and Islam: Aesthetics in Islamic Art and Architecture, London, I.B. Tauris in association with the Institute of Ismaili Studies, 2001 (Nader El‐Bizri) Ali Benmakhlouf, Le vocabulaire de Frege, Paris, Ellipses, 2001 (Oliver Leaman) A. de Libera, A. Elamrani‐Jamal & A. Galonnier (eds), Langages et philosophie: Hommage à Jean Jolivet, Études de Philosophie Médiévale LXXIV, Paris: Librairie Philosophique J. Vrin 1997, pp. xx + 426, paper, FF 342 (Sajjad Rizvi) A. Maurières & Eric Ossart, Paradise Gardens, London: I B Tauris, 2001 (Oliver Leaman) Nader El‐Bizri, The Phenomenological Quest between Avicenna and Heidegger, Binghamton: Global Publications, 2000 (Ronald Bruzina) Oliver Leaman, A Brief Introduction to Islamic Philosophy, Cambridge: Polity Press 1999, pp. 199, paper, £12.95. (Sajjad Rizvi) Books Received Causality and Freedom Mohsen Araki, Islamic Centre of England, UK Abstract According to Mull¡ ˉadr¡’s theory of necessity, a determined causal law governs the relationship between cause and effect, a relationship that encompasses human behaviour. There is no contrast between this determined causal law and free will. This theory will be examined and contrasted with the Sayyed Mu¦ammad B¡qir al‐ˉadr’s exposition on free will. Al‐ˉadr’s theory of al‐sal§ana or mastery suggests that free will is not compatible with the determined casual law. Free action and moral agency is led by the power of mastery. In this study, these two theories will be explained briefly. We shall attempt to evaluate which one of the two is more reasonable and preferable as a theory of human agency. One of the earliest problems in philosophy that has occupied minds of great philosophers and has been debated in different philosophical ages is the problem of causality and its relation to freedom. Depth of philosophical problems pertaining to causality and freedom on the one hand and the close relation between these two notions, theoretical and practical systems of man and also many problems in philosophy, theology and humanities such as law, ethics and psychology on the other hand, has made this discussion very important and vital. In Islamic philosophy, the great Muslim philosopher, Sadrul Muta’llihin, known as Sadra, has made one of the most profound studies of "causality" and its relation to "human freedom". One of the controversial problems among Muslim philosophers and theologians that led to some of the most heated debates in philosophy and theology is the very problem of "causality" and interpretation of "freedom" on its basis. These debates were marginalised after the decline of traditional theology and its inclusion in philosophy, mostly after the appearance of transcendental philosophy of Sadra. For a short period Sadra’s philosophy managed to be the dominant and governing trend in the history of Islamic thought. This situation did not last for a long time, because simultaneous to the decline of "theological thought", the science of the principles of jurisprudence tremendously developed in Shi‘a thought and replaced "the theological current" in its intellectual debates with the philosophical thought. In this way, some of the earlier disputes between Muslim theologians and philosophers were revived in another form and a new school with a new way of thinking merged against the philosophical thought, which was embodied in the transcendental philosophy of Sadra. This new school can be called, "The School of Modern Usuliyyun", those who became experts in the principles of jurisprudence. Among the modern usuliyun, Akhund Mulla Muhammad Kazim Khurasani represents Sadrian Islamic thought. Defending principles of "Sadrian philosophy", Akhund greatly supported the Sadrean view in the interpretation of causality and its relation to freedom. On the other side, his intelligent and insightful pupil, i.e. Mirza Na‘ini was one of the strong critics of Sadrian view. In a new way and method, he criticised the Sadrian philosophical thought and presented a new viewpoint on the relation between causality and human freedom. Na‘ini can be considered as the one who started a new way of dealing with the problem of causality and its relation to human freedom. Although his idea was not developed into a complete theory, it opened the way for a new and complete theory that was developed by the great contemporary thinker and philosopher Ayatullah Sayyed Muhammad Baqir al‐ Sadr. This theory was called the theory of Saltanah, sovereignty. In this essay, after explaining briefly the philosophical theory of Sadra on the relation between causality and freedom which we shall call later the theory of necessity (wujub) and martyr Sadr’s theory of sovereignty (saltanah), we will compare these two theories with each other. We will also criticise and analyse them. The Theory of Necessity (Sadra’s theory in the interpretation of causality and its relation to human freedom) Before explaining the theory of necessity, it is noteworthy that the reason beyond calling this theory "The Theory of Necessity" lies in the fact that according to this theory the relation between cause and effect is both the relation of existence and that of necessity. The dispute between Muslim philosophers and theologians on all types of cause on one hand and between philosophers and modern usuliyyun on voluntary agent or cause on the other hand does not concern bringing of the effect into existence by the cause, but rather granting necessity to the effect by the cause. According to the theory of necessity, the effect not only depends on the cause for its existence, but also for its necessity. Early theologians took the cause in a general sense and the mainstream of modern usuliyyun take the voluntary agent in a particular sense just as the originator of the effect and not as the necessitating. To give a comprehensive account of "necessity" containing its philosophical grounds in Sadra’s view requires a long and broad discussion which is beyond the scope of this short essay. Here we are concerned with three subjects that we will study in the following order: short explanation of "The Theory of Necessity" in Sadra’s thought an account of the hypotheses of philosophical contradiction between this theory and the principle of free will method of philosophical solution of the above‐mentioned contradiction according to Sadra and the theory of necessity. 1‐ Short Explanation of the Theory of Necessity According to the theory of asalat al‐wujud (principiality of existence), natures (quiddities) are conventions of our mind and what is really there is just "being" or "existence". In other words, among all concepts and mental images, the only concept that can describe the external world and can genuinely represent the reality outside our mind is the concept of "being". Therefore, the key to know the universal laws and rules that govern the universe is the universal principle of asalat al‐wujud. The general structure of philosophical knowledge of the world is based on this principle, from which the universal philosophical laws governing the world have to be derived. The most important philosophical principles of cosmology derived from asalat al‐wujud are: A‐ Graduation (hierarchical structure) of Being According to asalat al‐wujud, the differences that we understand among things in the world are all rooted in their "being" and can have no root other than the reality of ‘being’. Therefore, all things in the world differ in "being", just as they share ‘being’. The reality of being [in contrast to the concept of being] is a reality that admits differences and multicity of types and every type of being is a level of being which is different from other beings in intensity and weakness, and unlimitedness and limitedness. Different types of being differ from each other in that one is weaker, that is, more dependent and more needy and the other is more intense, that is, more independent and less needy. The difference of being in degrees of dependence on and need for the other which is the same as the difference in weakness and intensity is the source for all differences and varieties in the world. The peak and the most intense being is the self‐independent being which is absolutely free from need, that is, the eternal self‐necessary being. The self‐necessary being has no need for any condition and is the absolute being and enjoys the ultimate existential actuality. The self‐necessary being is the originator of the hierarchy of being. All other levels of being are manifestations of self‐necessary being, on whom they entirely depend. Despite its total dependence on the self‐necessary being, the first being created by the self‐necessary being has no need to other levels of being and therefore in relation to other levels of being enjoys independence, freedom from need and absoluteness. Other levels of being depend for their existence on self‐necessary being and on the first creature as well, since through it the grace of being extends to other levels. Thus, the highest being is the completely actual independent absolute self‐necessary being and the lowest is the being that has nothing other than potentiality of being. In his Mabda’ wa Ma‘ad, Mulla, Sadra says: And beings do not differ in their essence except in intensity and weakness, perfection and imperfection, priority and posteriority. Being accidentally differs because of those notions that are subordinate to them, i.e.