درخت حوزه‌های تخصصی

Freedom, in Kant’s view, is a general concept that encompasses his three Critiques and many of his writings. He introduces freedom as the foundation of ethics and considers it a fundamental characteristic of the subject. In contrast, Mulla Sadra, while accepting the general necessity of causality, clearly explains free will within the scope of causality and as a positive (affirmative) matter, by citing the philosophical foundations of his Transcendent Wisdom. Despite believing in the unity of the identity of the soul and the body—considering them to be of one existence—Mulla Sadra considers the soul to be the true agent of moral behavior among the various causes and influential factors surrounding it, and describes the soul’s mode of agency regarding moral behaviors as a monophonic and radiative (emanationist) agency. From the perspective of Kant’s dual-aspect view, freedom exists in two senses: negative and positive. Of these two, Kant chooses the latter and makes it the basis of his thought. Although Mulla Sadra has a single-aspect anthropological foundation and Kant has a dual-aspect one, they share similarities in the analysis and explanation of free will. The present article has been compiled with the aim of describing and analyzing freedom in the thought of Kant and Mulla Sadra, pointing to some fundamental similarities and differences between these two prominent thinkers, using an analytical method. From the philosophical analysis of freedom in both perspectives, it was concluded that in Kant’s strategy, firstly, freedom is related to the noumenal (trans-phenomenal) realm and not the phenomenal and external realm; in the phenomenal, causal necessity reigns, but the noumenal realm is governed by the rules of pure reason. Secondly, freedom is the independence of the will from being determined by the laws of nature, and it also consists of its determination by unchanging laws of a special kind, the origin of which is within pure reason. Mulla Sadra agrees with Kant on the point that the soul’s agency is independent of the laws of nature for the issuance of moral behavior, as he considers the soul to be the true agent. However, unlike Kant, he does not remove the soul’s sphere of agency from the orbit of the laws of causality.

One of the critical topics in the field of theology is the relationship between religion and ethics. Under discussion of the relationship between religion and ethics, the relationship between the hereafter as an essential religious doctrine and ethics is considered one of the most important. If in religions, especially Abrahamic religions, theology is considered their point of difference, then ethics can be considered the common thread of all these religions. Of course, moral teachings in Islam and Christianity are more eminent than in other religions. What a Shia Muslim and a Catholic Christian have in common is, on the one hand, a set of moral teachings and, on the other hand, a belief in other teachings, including the hereafter. Just as there is a significant relationship between religion and morality, such a relationship can also be imagined between morality and the hereafter. When these two categories are placed together, they have a mutually influential relationship. The afterlife affects morality in several ways. The afterlife in Shia is indeed different from Christianity's in many ways. However, some things are shared between them, including the resurrection of the dead, judgment of actions, and reckoning. This leads us to commonalities in these two religions regarding the relationship between morality and the hereafter. Finally, what has been obtained from the research in this regard is that in both religions, the hereafter affects morality in three areas: giving meaning, giving motivation, and giving purpose. This article will investigate various aspects of this effect with an analytical and comparative method. Keywords  

Abul Qāsim Sulaymān ibn Aḥmad ibn Ayyūb ibn Muṭayyir al-Lakhmī al-Shāmī , known as Ṭabarānī , was one of the greatest Sunni Hadith scholars of the Islamic world and one of the longest-living. In Shi'a books, especially Shaykh Ṣadūq 's al-Khiṣāl , many of his narrations have been transmitted. Shaykh Ṣadūq , through correspondence with him in Isfahan, transmitted the narration " Khayru Nisāʾ al-Jannah " via writing with his permission. This narration is mentioned in various Sunni sources, but in Shi’a sources, Shaykh Ṣadūq was the first to introduce it into Imami sources, transmitting it from his Sunni Shaykh, Lakhmī . For this reason, regarding to the importance of analyzing the chain of narration ( Isnād ) and text ( Matn ) of this narration in both Sunni and Shi’a sources, especially regarding the chronological order of its narrators, the present study was conducted. To this end, using the Isnād-matn analysis method for examining hadiths and a descriptive-analytical approach, after describing the different opinions and views among the hadith scholars in explaining this hadith, we seek a clear answer to the question: ‘What changes are there in the main clause of this hadith?’ The results of the analysis using the Isnād and text method show a high degree of correlation of this hadith in various Sunni sources and a slight difference with the Shi’a transmission. The analysis revealed that almost all Sunni sources transmitted this hadith in a similar manner, whereas in the Shi’a transmission by Shaykh Ṣadūq in the main phrase, slight changes in wording were made. However, the meaning and concept remain the same, and the general sense is conveyed to the reader.