A Comparative Study and Evaluation of Mulla Sadra's Argument by the Truthful Ones and the Argument by Necessity and Possibility of Ibn Sina and Thomas Aquina

Abstract

The argument by necessity and possibility was first described by Ibn Sina and he called it the argument by the truthful ones. Thomas Aquinas Under the influence of Islamic philosophers has also provided some argument of this argument and it's the third path of his theology. Mulla Sadra, after presenting the argument by the possibility of Ibn Sina and intrducing criticism drawing on the original principles of transcendent wisdom, he has devised a new version of the Siddiqin argument. And he knows it the way of prophets, mystics and divine philosophers. The present article, while presenting an analysis of these three interpretations and examining their subscriptions and ratings, shows that First, none of these interpretations are error-free. Secondly, Ibn Sina's argument is more honorable than that of Thomas’s one and Mulla Sadra's Argument is honorable than both of them. Reasoning from Essence to Essence and Attributes, systematically explaining and justifying causality, and drawing a unified relationship between God and the world on the basis of the possibility of poverty, originality, and the objective existence of existence, and the need for distant nullification and supremacy, are the most important aspects of the Sadrian argument.

Keywords

• ibn sina
• mulla sadra
• aquinas
• argument of the truthful ones
• argument of necessity and possibility