Sermon 124: Put the armoured man forward...

Exhorting his followers to fight1

ومن كلام له (عليه السلام)

في حضّ أصحابه على القتال

Put the armoured man forward and keep the unarmoured one behind. Grit your teeth because this will make the swords skip off the skull, and dodge on the sides of the spears for it changes the direction of their blades. Close the eyes because it strengthens the spirit and gives peace to the heart. Kill the voices because this will keep off spiritlessness.

فَقَدِّمُوا الدَّارِعَ، وَأَخِّرُوا الْحَاسِرَ، وَعَضُّوا عَلَى الاْضْرَاسِ فَإِنَّهُ أَنْبَى لِلسُّيُوفِ عَنِ الْهَامِ، وَالْتَوُوا فِي أَطْرَافِ الرِّمَاحِ فَإِنَّهُ أَمْوَرُ لِلاْسِنَّةِ، وَغُضُّوا الاْبْصَارَ فَإِنَّهُ أَرْبَطُ لَلْجَأْشِ وَأسْكَنُ لِلْقُلُوبِ، وَأَمِيتُوا الاْصْوَاتَ فَإِنَّهُ أطْرَدُ لِلْفَشَلِ

Do not let your banner bend down, nor leave it alone. Do not give it to anyone except the brave and the defenders of honour among you because they alone endure the befalling of troubles; they surround the banners and encircle them on both sides, their rear and their front. They do not separate from them lest they give them over (to the enemy). They do not go ahead of them lest they leave them alone. Everyone should deal with his adversary and also help his comrade by his own life, and should not leave the adversary to his comrade lest both his own adversary and his comrade join against him.

وَرَايَتَكُمْ فَلاَ تُمِيلُوهَا وَلاَ تُخِلُّوهَا، وَلاَ تَجْعَلُوهَا إِلاَّ بِأَيْدِي شُجْعَانِكُمْ، وَالمَانِعِينَ الذِّمَارَ مِنْكُمْ، فَإِنَّ الصَّابِرِينَ عَلَى نُزُولِ الْحَقَائِقِ هُمُ الَّذِينَ يَحُفُّونَ بِرَايَاتِهمْ، وَيَكْتَنِفُونَهَا: حفَافَيْهَا، وَوَرَاءَهَا، وَأَمَامَهَا، لاَ يَتَأَخَّرُونَ عَنْهَا فَيُسْلِمُوهَا، وَلاَ يَتَقَدَّمُونَ عَلَيْهَا فَيُفْرِدُوهَا. أَجْزَأَ امْرُؤٌ قِرْنَهُ، وَآسَى أَخَاهُ بِنَفْسِهِ، وَلَمْ يَكِلْ قِرْنَهُ إِلَى أَخِيهِ فَيَجْتَمِعَ عَلَيْهِ قِرْنُهُ وَقِرْنُ أَخِيهِ

By Allah, even if you run away from the sword of today you would not remain safe from the sword of the next world. You are the foremost among the Arabs and great figures. Certainly in running away there is the wrath of Allah, unceasing disgrace and lasting shame.

And certainly a runner-away does not lengthen his life, nor does any thing come to intervene between him and his day (of death). Who is there to go towards Allah like the thirsty going to the water? Paradise lies under the edges of spears. Today the reputations (about the valour of warriors) will be tested.

By Allah! I am more eager to meet them (in combat) than they are for (returning to) their houses. O My God! If they reject truth disperse their group, divide their words (opinion) and destroy them on account of their sins.

وَايْمُ اللهِ لَئِنْ فَرَرْتُمْ مِنْ سَيْفِ الْعَاجِلَةِ، لاَ تَسْلَمُوا مِنْ سَيْفِ الاْخِرَةِ، أَنْتُمْ لَهَامِيمُ الْعَرَبِ، وَالسَّنَامُ الاْعْظَمُ، إِنَّ فِي الْفِرَارِ مَوْجِدَةَ اللهِ، وَالذُّلَّ اللاَّزِمَ، وَالْعَارَ الْبَاقِيَ، وَإِنَّ الْفَارَّ لَغَيْرُ مَزِيد فِي عُمُرِهِ، وَلاَ مَحْجُوز بَيْنَهُ وَبَيْنَ يَوْمِهِ. مَنْ رائِحٌ إِلَى اللهِ كَالظَّمَآنِ يَرِدُ الْمَاءَ؟ الْجَنَّةُ تَحْتَ أَطْرَافِ الْعَوَالِي ! الْيَوْمَ تُبْلَى الاْخْبَارُ! وَاللهِ لاَنَا أَشْوَقُ إِلَى لِقَائِهِمْ مِنْهُمْ إِلَى دِيَارِهِمْ اللَّهُمَّ فَإِنْ رَدُّوا الْحَقَّ فَافْضُضْ جَمَاعَتَهُمْ، وَشَتِّتْ كَلِمَتَهُمْ، وَأَبْسِلْهُمْ بِخَطَايَاهُمْ

They will not budge from their stand till the continuous striking of spears causes piercings (of wounds) through which wind may pass, and the hitting of swords cuts through the skull, cleaves bones and breaks forearms and legs, till they are attacked by contingent after contingent and assaulted by detachments which are followed by reserves for support, till their cities are continuously assailed by force after force, and till the horses trample even the extreme ends of the lands, the tracks of their beast and their meadows.

إِنَّهُمْ لَنْ يَزُولُوا عَنْ مَوَاقِفِهمْ دُونَ طَعْن دِرَاك يَخْرُجُ مِنْهُ النَّسِيمُ، وَضَرْب يَفْلِقُ الْهَامَ، وَيُطِيحُ العِظَامَ، وَيُنْدِرُ السَّوَاعِدَ وَالاْقدْاَمَ، وَحَتَّى يُرْمَوْا بِالمَنَاسِرِ تَتْبَعُهَا الْمَنَاسَرُ، وَيُرْجَمُوا بِالْكَتَائِبِ، تَقْفُوهَا الْحَلاَئِبُ حَتَّى يُجَرَّ بِبِلاَدِهِمُ الْخَمِيسُ يَتْلُوهُ الْخَمِيسُ، وَحَتَّى تَدْعَقَ الْخُيُولُ فِي نَوَاحِر أَرْضِهِمْ، وَبِأَعْنَانِ مَسَارِبِهِمْ وَمَسَارِحِهِمْ

As-Sayyid ar-Radi says: "ad-da`q" means trampling, e.g., "taduqqu'l-khuyulu bihawafiriha ardahum" (the horses trample the ground with their hoofs). "nawahini ardihim" means lands opposite each other, it is said, "manazilu bani fulanin tatanaharu" meaning the 'houses of so-and-so are opposite each other.'

قال الشريف: الدّعْقُ: الدّقُّ، أي: تَدُقُّ الخُيُولُ بِحَوَافِرِهَا أرْضَهُمْ. نَوَاحِرُ أَرْضِهِمْ: مُتَقَابِلاَتُهَا، يُقَالُ: مَنَازِلُ بَنِي فُلان تتَنَاحَرُ، أيْ: تَتَقَابَلُ

Alternative Sources for Sermon 124

(1) Nasr ibn Muzahim, Siffin,235 ;

(2) al-Tabari, Ta'rikh, VI, 9, events of 37 H.;

(3) al-Kulayni, al-Kafi, V, 39;

(4) Ibn A`tham al-Kufi, al-Futuh, III, 73;

(5) Ibn Miskawayh, Tajarib, I,583 ;

(6) Al-Tawhidi, al-Basa'ir,185 ;

(7) al-Mufid, al-'Irshad,154 .

Notes

1. Amir al-mu'minin delivered this Sermon on the occasion of the battle of Siffin. This battle was fought in the year 37 A.H. between Amir al-mu'minin and the Governor of Syria (ash-Sham), Mu`awiyah, for the so-called avenging for the killing of Caliph `Uthman. But in reality it was nothing more than Mu`awiyah who had been the Autonomous Governor of Syria from Caliph `Umar's days not wanting to lose that position by swearing allegiance to Amir al-mu'minin but wanting to keep his authority intact by exploiting the killing of Caliph `Uthman, for later events proved that after securing the government he did not take any practical step to avenge `Uthman's blood, and never spoke, not even through omission, about the killers of `Uthman.

Although from the first day Amir al-mu'minin realised that war was inevitable, it was still necessary to exhaust all pleas. Therefore when on Monday the 12th Rajeb, 36 A.H. he returned to Kufah after the battle of Jamal he sent Jarir ibn `Abdallah al-Bajali with a letter to Mu`awiyah at Damascus wherein he wrote that the muhajirun and the ansar had sworn allegiance to him and that he too should first swear him allegiance and thereafter place the case of `Uthman's killing before him so that he could pass verdict thereon according to the Qur'an and Sunnah. But Mu`awiyah detained Jarir on several pretexts and after consulting `Amr ibn al-`As staged a revolt on the excuse of `Uthman's killing, and with the help of important persons of Syria convinced the ignorant people that the liability for `Uthman's life lay on `Ali (p.b.u.h) and that he, with his conduct had encouraged the besiegers and had given them protection. Meanwhile he hung the blood-stained shirt of `Uthman and the amputated fingers of his wife Na'ilah bint al-Farafisah on the pulpit in the Central Mosque of Damascus around which seventy thousand Syrians cried and swore the pledge to avenge `Uthman's blood. When Mu`awiyah had roused the feelings of the Syrians to such an extent that they were determined to lay down their lives and be killed, he secured their allegiance on the cause of avenging `Uthman's blood and busied himself in equipping for the battle. Thereafter, he showed all this to Jarir and then sent him back mortified.

When Amir al-mu'minin learnt of these matters through Jarir ibn `Abdallah al-Bajali he was forced to rise against Mu`awiyah, and ordered Malik ibn Habib al-Yarbu`i to mobilise the forces in the valley of An-Nukhaylah. Consequently, people from the suburbs of Kufah began arriving there in large numbers, till they exceeded eighty thousand. First of all, Amir al-mu'minin sent a vanguard contingent, eight thousand strong, under Ziyad ibn an-Nadr al-Harithi and another of four thousand strong under Shurayh ibn Hani al-Harithi towards Syria. After the departure of this vanguard contingent he himself set out for Syria at the head of the remaining army on Wednesday the 5th of Shawwal. When he was out of the boundary of Kufah he offered zuhr (noon) prayer and after staying at Dayr Abi Musa, Nahr (river) Nars, Qubbat Qubbin, Babil, Dayr Ka`b, Karbala', Sabat, Bahurasini, al-Anbar and al-Jazirah arrived at ar-Riqqah. The people of this place were in favour of `Uthman, and at this very place Simak ibn Makhtamah al-Asadi was putting up with his eight hundred men. These people had left Kufah to join Mu`awiyah after deserting Amir al-mu'minin; when they had seen Amir al-mu'minin's force they had dismantled the bridge over the River Euphrates so that Amir al-mu'minin's army should not cross over to the other side of the River. But at the threatening of Malik ibn al-Harith al-Ashtar an-Nakha`i they were frightened, and after consultations among themselves they put the bridge together again and Amir al-mu'minin passed over it with his army. When he alighted on the other side of the River he saw that Ziyad and Shurayh were also putting up there along with their men since both of them had adopted the land route. When, on reaching here, they found that Mu`awiyah was advancing with his armies towards the Euphrates and thinking that they would not be able to face him, they stopped there waiting for Amir al-mu'minin. When they had given the reason for their stopping there, Amir al-mu'minin accepted their plea and sent them forward. When they reached Sur ar-Rum they found that Abu al-A`war as-Sulami was camping there with his army. Both of them informed Amir al-mu'minin of this, whereupon he despatched Ma1ik ibn al-Harith al-Ashtar an-Nakha`i in their wake as the Officer in Command and cautioned him not to initiate the fighting but to try to counsel them and apprise them of the correct position as far as possible. In this way, on reaching there Malik al-Ashtar encamped a little distance away. Fighting could have commenced any moment, but he did not interfere with the other side nor did he take any step by which fighting could have been commenced. But Abu al-A`war suddenly attacked them at night, whereupon they took their swords out of the sheaths and prepared to repulse them. Clashes between the two sides went on for sometime but in the end, taking benefit of the darkness of night Abu al-A`war fled away. Since fighting had already commenced, soon after the appearance of dawn an Iraqi commander, Hashim ibn `Utbah al-Mirqal az-Zuhri, took his position in the battlefield. From the other side also a contingent came to face him, and the flames of fighting rose high. At last Malik al-Ashtar challenged Abu al-A`war to fight him, but he did not dare to face him, and towards the evening Malik al-Ashtar went onwards with his men. The next day Amir al-mu'minin reached there with his force and set off for Siffin with the vanguard contingent and other forces. Mu`awiyah had already reached there and had set up his bases. He had also placed a guard on the Euphrates and had occupied it. On reaching there Amir al-mu'minin sent him word to remove the guard from Euphrates, but he refused, whereupon the Iraqis took out their swords and in a courageous attack captured the Euphrates. When this stage was over Amir al-mu'minin sent Bashir ibn `Amr al-Ansari, Sa`id ibn Qays al-Hamdani and Shabath ibn Rib`i at-Tamimi to Mu`awiyah to apprise him of the consequences of war and to make him agree to settlement and allegiance. But his reply was that they could not by any means let `Uthman's blood remain neglected, and that now the sword alone would arbitrate between them. Consequently in the month of Dhi'l-hijjah 36 A.H. both the parties decided on war and warriors from each side came out into the field to face their adversary. Those who entered the battlefield from Amir al-mu'minin's side were: Hujr ibn `Adi al-Kindi, Shabath ibn Rib`i at-Tamimi, Khalid ibn al-Mu`ammar, Ziyad ibn an-Nadr al-Harithi, Ziyad ibn Khasafah at-Taymi, Sa`id ibn Qays al-Hamdani, Qays ibn Sa`d al-Ansari and Malik ibn al-Harith al-Ashtar an-Nakha`i while from the Syrians there were, `Abd ar-Rahman ibn Khalid ibn Walid al-Makhzuni, Abu al-A`war as-Sulami, Habib ibn Maslamah al-Fihri, `Abdallah ibn Dhi'l-Kala` al-Himyari, `Ubaydallah ibn `Umar ibn al-Khattab, Shurahbil ibn Simt al-Kindi, and Hamzah ibn Malik al-Hamdani. When the month of Dhi'l-hijjah came to end the fighting had to be stopped for Muharram, but from the first of Safar fighting was resumed and both parties arrayed themselves opposite each other, equipped with swords, spears and other weapons. On Amir al-mu'minin's side Malik al-Ashtar was in command of the horsemen and `Ammar ibn Yasir of the foot soldiers of Kufah while Sahl ibn Hunayf al-Ansari was in command of the horsemen and Qays ibn Sa`d of the foot soldiers of Basrah. The banner of the army was given to Hashim ibn `Utbah. In the army of the Syrians on the right hand contingent Ibn Dhi'l-Kala` was in command, while on the left hand contingent Habib ibn Maslamah, on horsemen `Amr ibn al-`As and on foot soldiers ad-Dahhak ibn Qays al-Fihri were in command.

On the first day Malik ibn al-Ashtar entered the battle-field with his men, and from the other side Habib ibn Maslamah came out with his men to face him and from both sides a fierce battle ensued. Throughout the day swords clashed with swords and spears with spears.

Next day, Hashim ibn `Utbah came out with `Ali's army and from the other side Abu al-A`war with his footmen came to face him. When the two armies approached near to each other, horsemen fell upon horsemen and footmen upon footmen and continued attacking each other. and they endured with great patience and steadfastness.

On the third day, `Ammar ibn Yasir and Ziyad ibn an-Nadr came out with horsemen and foot soldiers and from the other side `Amr ibn al-`As came forward with a big force. Ziyad attacked the horsemen of the opposite side and Malik al-Ashtar attacked the foot soldiers so furiously that the enemy's men lost ground and, failing to offer resistance, returned to their camps.

On the fourth day Muhammad ibn al-Hanafiyyah appeared on the battle-field with his men. From the other side `Ubaydallah ibn `Umar came forward with the Syrian army and both the armies had a serious encounter.

On the fifth day `Abdallah ibn `Abbas came forward and from the other side al-Walid ibn `Uqba ibn Abi Mu`ayt came to face him. `Abdallah ibn `Abbas carried the assaults with great steadfastness and courage and gave such a brave fight that the enemy left the field in retreat.

On the sixth day Qays ibn Sa`d al-Ansari came forward with the army and to face him Ibn Dhi'l-Kala` came out with his contingent, and such a severe fighting ensued that at every step bodies were seen falling and blood flowing like streams. At last the darkness of the night separated the two armies.

On the seventh day Malik al-Ashtar came out and to face him, Habib ibn Maslamah came forward with his men, and fighting raged till zuhr (noon).

On the eighth day Amir al-mu'minin himself came out with the army and made such an assault that the entire battlefield quaked, and piercing through the ranks and warding off shots of arrows and spears he came and stood between both the lines. Then he challenged Mu`awiyah, whereupon the latter, along with `Amr ibn al-`As, came a bit closer. Then Amir al-mu'minin said to him: "Come out and face me. Let whoever kills the other be the ruler." Whereupon `Amr ibn al-`As said to Mu`awiyah: "`Ali is right. Gather up a little courage and face him. Mu`awiyah replied: "l am not prepared to waste my life ar your taunting." Saying this he went back. When Amir al-mu'minin saw him retreating he smiled and himself too returned. The daring with which Amir al-mu'minin led the attacks in Siffin can only be called a miraculous feat. Thus, whenever he came out challenging in the battlefield, the enemy lines were dispersed into utter disarray and confusion, and even courageous combatants hesitated to appear against him. That is why on a few occasions he came onto the battlefield in changed dress so that the enemy should not recognise him and someone should be prepared to engage with him personally. Once `Arar ibn Ad'ham came from the other side to engage with al-`Abbas ibn Rabi`ah al-Harith ibn `Abd al-Muttalib. They remained engaged but neither could defeat the other, until al-`Abbas chanced to see that a link of his adversary's armour was loose. With a swift stroke he entangled the point of his sword in it, and then with a quick jerk he cut through a few more links. Then with true aim he gave such a blow that his sword went straight into his bosom. Seeing this, people raised the call of takbir. Mu`awiyah was startled at this noise and on coming to know that `Arar ibn Ad'ham had been slain he was much disturbed and shouted if there was anyone to take revenge for `Arar ibn Ad'ham and kill al-`Abbas, whereupon some tired swordsmen of the tribe of Lakhm came out challenging al-`Abbas. Al-`Abbas said he would come after taking his Chief's permission. Saying al-`Abbas came to Amir al-mu'minin to seek permission. Amir al-mu'minin detained him, put on al-`Abbas's dress. and riding on al-`Abbas's horse entered the battlefield. Taking him to be al-`Abbas, the Lakhms said: "So you have got your Chief's permission." In reply Amir al-mu'minin recited the following verse:

Permission (to fight) is given unto those upon whom war is made for they have been oppressed, and verily, to help them, Allah is Most Potent. (Qur'an, 22:39)

Now one man came out from the other side shouting like an elephant, ran amok and assaulted Amir al-mu'minin, but he avoided the blow and then gave such a clean cut with his sword to the other's back that he was split into two. People thought the blow had gone without avail, but when his horse jumped his two separate parts fell on the ground. After him another man came out but he too was finished in the twinkling of an eye. Then Amir al-mu'minin challenged others but from the strokes of his sword the enemy came to know that it was Amir al-mu'minin in the dress of al-`Abbas and so none dared come to face him.

On the ninth day the right wing was under the command of `Abdullah ibn Budayl and the left wing under that of `Abdullah ibn al-`Abbas. In the centre was Amir al-mu'minin himself. On the other side Habib ibn Maslamah commanded the Syrian army. When both the lines had come face to face with each other, the valiant soldiers drew out their swords and pounced upon one another like ferocious lions, and fighting raged on all sides. The banner of the right wing Amir al-mu'minin's army was revolving in the hands of Banu Hamdan. Whenever anyone of them fell, martyred, someone else would pick up the banner. First of all Kurayb ibn Shurayh raised the banner, on his fall Shurahbil ibn Shurayh took it up, then Marthad ibn Shurayh, then Hubayrah ibn Shurayh then Yarim ibn Shurayh, then Sumayr ibn Shurayh and after the killing of all these six brothers the banner was taken up by Sufyan, then `Abd, then Kurayb, the three sons of Zayd, who all fell martyred. After that the banner was lifted by two brothers (sons) of Bashir namely `Umayr and al-Harith and when they too fell martyred, Wahb ibn Kurayb took up the banner. On this day the enemy's greater attention was on the right wing and its assaults were so fierce that the men lost ground and began to retreat from the battlefield. Only three hundred men remained with the Officer in Command `Abdullah ibn Budayl. On seeing this Amir al-mu'minin asked Malik al-Ashtar to call them back and challenge them as to where they were fleeing. "If the days of life are over they cannot avoid death by running away." Now the defeat of the right wing could not be without effect on the left wing, so Amir al-mu'minin turned to the left wing and advanced forward, forcing through the enemy lines, whereupon a slave of Banu Umayyah named Ahmar said to him, "Allah may make me die if I fail to slay you today." On hearing this Amir al-mu'minin's slave Kaysan leapt over him but was killed by him. When Amir al-mu'minin saw this he caught him by the skirt of his armour and, picking him up, threw him down so forcefully that all his joints were smashed, whereupon Imam Hasan (p.b.u.h.) and Muhammad ibn al-Hanafiyyah came forward and despatched him to Hell. Meanwhile, after having been called to Malik al-Ashtar and his having made them feel ashamed, the retreaters came back and again assaulted so steadfastly that pushing back the enemy they reached the place where `Abdullah ibn Budayl was surrounded by the enemy. When he saw his own men he picked up courage and leapt towards Mu`awiyah's tent with drawn sword. Malik al-Ashtar tried to stop him but he couldn't, and, killing seven Syrians, he reached the tent of Mu`awiyah. When Mu`awiyah noticed him close by he ordered him to be stoned, as a result of which he was overpowered and the Syrians crowded over him and killed him. When Malik al-Ashtar saw this he proceeded forward with the combatants of Banu Hamdan and Banu Madh'hij for an attack on Mu`awiyah, and began dispersing the contingent on guard around him. When, out of the five circles of his guards only one remained to be dispersed, Mu`awiyah put his foot in the stirrup of his horse in order to run away, but on someone's encouragement again stopped. On another side of the battlefield a tumult was raging from one end to the other by the swords of `Ammar ibn Yasir and Hashim ibn `Utbah. From whatever side `Ammar passed, the companions (of the Holy Prophet) flocked around him and then made such a joint assault that destruction spread throughout the enemy lines. When Mu`awiyah saw them advancing he threw his fresh forces towards them. But he continued displaying the excellence of his bravery under the storm of swords and spears. At last Abu al-`Adiyah al-Juhani hit him with a spear from which he could not balance himself and then Ibn Hawiy (Jawn as-Saksiki) came forward and slew him. `Ammar ibn Yasir's death caused tumult in Mu`awiyah's ranks because about him they had heard the Holy Prophet (S) having said: " `Ammar will be killed at the hands of a rebellious party." Thus before he fell as martyr Dhu'l-Kala` had said to `Amr ibn al-`As: "I see `Ammar on `Ali's side; are we that rebellious party?" `Amr ibn al-`As had assured him that eventually `Ammar would join them, but when he killed fighting on `Ali's side the rebellious party stood exposed and no scope was left for any other interpretation. Nevertheless Mu`awiyah started telling the Syrians that: "We did not kill `Ammar, but `Ali did it because he brought him to the battlefield." When Amir al-mu'minin heard this cunning sentence he remarked: "In that case the Holy Prophet (S) killed Hamzah as he had brought him to the battlefield of Uhud." Hashim ibn `Utbah also fell in this conflict. He was killed by al-Harith ibn Mundhir at-Tanukhi. After him the banner of the contingent was taken over by his son `Abdullah.

When such fearless warriors were gone Amir al-mu'minin said to the warriors from the tribes of Hamdan and Rabi`ah: "To me you are like armour and spear. Get up and teach these rebels a lesson. " Consequently, twelve thousand combatants of the tribes of Rabi`ah and Hamdan stood up, swords in hand. The banner was taken up by Hudayn ibn al-Mundhir. Entering the lines of the enemy, they used their swords in such a way that heads began to drop, bodies fell in huge heaps and on every side streams of blood flowed. And the assaults of these swordsmen knew no stopping till the day began to end with all its devastation and the gloom of eve set in, ushering in that fearful night which is known in history as the night of al-Harir, wherein the clashing of weapons, the hoofs of horses and the hue and cry of the Syrians created such notice that even voices reaching the ears could not be heard. On Amir al-mu'minin's side, his wrong-crushing slogans raised waves of courage and valour, and on the enemy's side they shook the hearts in their bosoms. The battle was at its zenith. The quivers of the bowmen had become empty. The stalks of the spears had been broken. Hand to hand fighting went on with swords only and dead bodies collected in heaps, till by morning the number of killed had exceeded thirty thousand.

On the tenth day Amir al-mu'minin's men showed the same morale. On the right wing Malik al-Ashtar held the command and on the left wing `Abdullah ibn al-`Abbas.

Assaults went on like the assaults of new soldiers. Signs of defeat appeared on the Syrians, and they were about to leave the battlefield and run away, when five hundred Qur'ans were raised on spears changing the entire face of the battle. Moving swords stopped, the weapon of deceit was successful, and the way was clear for wrong to hold its sway.

In this battle forty-five thousand Syrians were killed while twenty-five thousand Iraqis fell as martyrs. (Kitab Siffin by Nasr ibn Muzahim al-Minqari [d. 212 A.H.] and at-Tarikh at-Tabari, vol. 1, pp. 3256-3349).

Sermon 125: We did not name people as arbitrators...

About the Kharijites and their opinion on Arbitration

ومن كلام له (عليه السلام)

في معنى الخوارج لمّا أنكروا تحكيم الرجال ويذمّ فيه أصحابه، قال (عليه السلام :(

We did not name people as arbitrators but we named the Qur'an the arbitrator. The Qur'an is a book, covered, between two flaps, and it does not speak. It should therefore necessarily have an interpreter. Men alone can be such interpreters. When these people invited us to name the Qur'an as the arbitrator between us, we could not be the party turning away from the Book of Allah. since Allah has said:

. . And then if ye quarrel about anything refer it to Allah and the Prophet . (Qur'an, 4:59)

Reference to Allah means that we decide according to the Qur'an while reference to the Prophet means that we follow his Sunnah. Now therefore, if arbitration were truly done through the Book of Allah (Qur'an). we would be the most rightful of all people for the Caliphate; or if it were done by the Sunnah of the Holy Prophet (S), we would be the most preferable of them.

إِنَّا لَمْ نُحَكِّمِ الرِّجَالَ، وَإِنَّمَا حَكَّمْنَا الْقُرْآنَ. وهذَا الْقُرْآنُ إِنَّمَا هُوَ خَطٌّ مَسْتُورٌ بَيْنَ الدَّفَّتَيْنِ، لاَ يَنْطِقُ بِلِسَان، وَلاَ بُدَّ لَهُ مِنْ تَرْجُمَان، وَإِنَّمَا يَنْطِقُ عَنْهُ الرِّجَالُ. وَلَمَّا دَعَانَا الْقَوْمُ إِلَى أَنْ نُحَكِّمَ بَيْنَنَا الْقُرْآنَ لَمْ نَكُنِ الْفَرِيقَ الْمُتَوَلِّيَ عَنْ كِتَابِ اللهِ، وقَالَ اللهُ سُبْحَانَهُ: (فَإِنْ تَنَازَعْتُمْ في شَيْء فَرُدُّوهُ إِلَى اللهِ وَالرَّسُول)، فَرَدُّهُ إِلَى اللهِ أَنْ نَحْكُمَ بِكِتَابِهِ، وَرَدُّهُ إِلَى الرَّسُولِ أَنْ نَأْخُذَ بسُنَّتِهِ; فَإِذَا حُكِمَ بِالصِّدْقِ فِي كِتَابِ اللهِ، فَنَحْنُ أَحَقُّ النَّاسِ بِهِ، وَإِنْ حُكمَ بسُنَّةِ رَسُولِهِ فَنَحْنُ أَوْلاَهُمْ بِهِ

Concerning your point why I allowed a time lag between myself and them with regard to the Arbitration, I did so in order that the ignorant may find out (the truth) and one who already knows may hold with it firmly. Possibly Allah may, as a result of this peace, improve the condition of these people, and they will not be caught by the throats and will not, before indication of the right, fall into rebellion as before. Certainly the best man before Allah is he who loves most to act according to right, even though it causes him hardship and grief rather than according to wrong, even though it gives him benefit and increase.

وَأَمَّا قَوْلُكُمْ: لِمَ جَعَلْتَ بَيْنَكَ وَبَيْنَهُمْ أَجَلاً فِي التَّحْكِيمِ؟ فَإِنَّمَا فَعَلْتُ ذلِكَ لِيَتَبَيَّنَ الْجَاهِلُ، وَيَتَثَبَّتَ الْعَالِمُ، وَلَعَلَّ اللهَ أَنْ يُصْلِحَ فِي هذِهِ الْهُدْنَةِ أَمْرَ هذِهِ الاْمَّةِ، وَلاَ تُؤْخَدُ بِأَكْظَامِهَا، فَتَعْجَلَ عَنْ تَبَيُّنِ الْحَقِّ، وَتَنْقَادَ لاِوَّلِ الْغَيِّ. إِنَّ أَفْضَلَ النَّاسِ عِنْدَ اللهِ مَنْ كَانَ الْعَمَلُ بِالْحَقِّ أَحَبَّ إِلَيْهِ ـ وَإِنْ نَقَصَهُ وَكَرَثَهُ ـ مِنَ الْبَاطِلِ وَإِنْ جَرَّ إِلَيْهِ فَائِدَةً وَزَادَهُ،

So, where are you being misled and from where have you been brought (to this state)? Be prepared to march to the people who have deviated from the right and do not see it, have been entangled in wrong-doing and are not corrected. They are away from the Book and turned from the (right) path. You are not trustworthy to rely upon, nor are you holders of honour to be adhered to. You are very bad in kindling the fire of fighting. Woe to you! I had to bear a lot of worries from you. Some day I call you (to jihad) and some day I speak to you in confidence, you are neither true free men at the time of call, nor trustworthy brothers at the time of speaking in confidence.

فَأَيْنَ يُتَاهُ بِكُمْ؟! وَمِنْ أَيْنَ أُتِيتُمْ؟! اسْتَعِدُّوا لِلْمَسِيرِ إِلَى قَوْم حَيَارَى عَنِ الْحَقِّ لاَ يُبْصِرُونَهُ، وَمُوزَعِينَ بِالْجَوْرِ لاَ يَعْدِلُونَ بِهِ، جُفَاة عَنِ الْكِتَابِ، نُكُب عَنِ الطَّرِيقِ. مَا أَنْتُمْ بَوَثِيقَة يُعْلَقُ بِهَا، وَلاَ زَوَافِرَ يُعْتَصَمُ إِلَيْهَا، لَبِئْس حُشَّاشُ نَارِ الْحَرْبِ أَنْتُمْ! أُفٍّ لَكُمْ! لَقَدْ لَقِيتُ مِنْكُمْ بَرْحاً، يَوْماً أُنَادِيكُمْ وَيَوْماً أُنَاجِيكُمْ، فَلاَ أحْرارُ صِدْق عِنْدَ النِّدَاءِ، وَلاَ إِخْوَانُ ثِقَة عِنْدَ النَّجَاءِ !

Alternative Sources for Sermon 125

(1) Al-Tabari, Ta'rikh, VI, 37, events of 37 H.;

(2) Sibt ibn al-Jawzi, Tadhkirah,100 ;

(3) al-Mufid, al-'Irshad,157 ;

(4) al-Tabarsi, al-'Ihtijaj, I,275 .

Sermon 126: Do you command me that I should seek....

When Amir al-mu'minin was spoken ill of for showing equality in the distribution (of shares from Bayt al-mal or the Muslim Public Treasury) he said:

ومن كلام له (عليه السلام)

لمّا عوتب على تصييره الناس أسوة في العطاء من غير تفضيل إلى السابقات والشرف، قال :

Do you command me that I should seek support by oppressing those over whom I have been placed? By Allah, I won't do so as long as the world goes on, and as long as one star leads another in the sky. Even if it were my property, I would have distributed it equally among them, then why not when the property is that of Allah.

Beware; certainly that giving of wealth without any right for it is wastefulness and lavishness. It raises its doer in this world, but lowers him in the next world. It honours him before people, but disgraces him with Allah. If a man gives his property to those who have no right for it or do not deserve it, Allah deprives him of their gratefulness, and their love too would be for others. Then if he falls on bad days and needs their help, they would prove the worst comrades and ignoble friends.

أَتَأْمُرُونِّي أَنْ أَطْلُبَ النَّصْرَ بِالْجَوْرِ فِيمَنْ وُلِّيتُ عَلَيْهِ! وَاللهِ لاَ أَطُورُ بِهِ مَا سَمَرَ سَميرٌ وَمَا أَمَّ نَجْمٌ فِي السَّمَاءِ نَجْماً! لَوْ كَانَ الْمَالُ لي لَسَوَّيْتُ بَيْنَهُمْ، فَكَيْفَ وَإِنَّمَا الْمَالُ مَالُ اللهِ ! أَلاَ وَإِنَّ إِعْطَاءَ الْمَالِ فِي غَيْرِ حَقِّهَ تَبْذِيرٌ وَإِسْرَافٌ، وَهُوَ يَرْفَعُ صَاحِبَهُ فِي الدُّنْيَا وَيَضَعُهُ فِي الاخِرَةِ، وَيُكْرِمُهُ فِي النَّاسِ وَيُهِينُهُ عِنْدَ اللهِ، وَلَمْ يَضَعِ امْرُؤٌ مَالَهُ فِي غَيْرِ حَقِّهِ وَعِنْدَ غَيْرِ أَهْلِهِ إِلاَّ حَرَمَهُ اللهُ شُكْرَهُمْ وَكَانَ لِغَيْرِهِ وَدُّهُمْ، فَإِنْ زَلَّتْ بِهِ النَّعْلُ يَوْماً فَاحْتَاجَ إِلى مَعُونَتِهِمْ فَشَرُّ خَلِيل وَأَلاْمُ خَدِين !

Alternative Sources for Sermon 126

(1) Ibn Qutaybah, al-'Imamah, I,153 ;

(2) al-Harrani, Tuhaf,131 ;

(3) al-Kulayni, Furu` al-Kafi, IV, 31;

(4) al-Mufid, al-Majalis, 95;

(5) al-Tusi, al-'Amali, I,197 ;

(6) al-Mada'ini, see Ibn Abi al-Hadid, I,182 ;

(7) al-Thaqafi, al-Gharat, I, 75.

Sermon 127: If you refuse to stop claiming

About the Kharijites

ومن كلام له (عليه السلام)

للخوارج أيضاً

If you refuse to stop claiming that I have gone wrong and been misled, why do you consider that the common men among the followers of the Prophet Muhammad (S) have gone astray like me, and accuse them with my wrong, and hold them unbelievers on account of my sins. You are holding your swords on your shoulders and using them right and wrong. You are confusing those who have committed sins with those who have not. You know that the Prophet (S) stoned the protected (married) adulterer, then he also said his burial prayer and allowed his successors to inherit from him. He killed the murderer and allowed his successors to inherit from him.

He amputated (the hand of) the thief and whipped the unprotected (unmarried) adulterer, but thereafter allowed their shares from the booty, and they married Muslim women. Thus the Prophet (S) took them to task for their sins and also abided by Allah's commands about them, but did not disallow them their rights created by Islam, nor did he remove their names from its followers.

فإنْ أَبَيْتُمْ إِلاَّ أَنْ تَزْعُمُوا أَنِّي أَخْطَأْتُ وَضَلَلْتُ، فَلِمَ تُضَلِّلونُ عَامَّةَ أُمَّةِ مُحَمَّد(صلى الله عليه وآله) بِضَلاَلِي، وَتَأْخُذُونَهُمْ بِخَطَئِي، وَتُكَفِّرُونَهُمْ بِذُنُوِبي! سُيُوفُكُمْ عَلَى عَوَاتِقِكُمْ تَضَعُونَهَا مَوَاضِعَ البَراءةِ وَالسُّقْمِ، وَتَخْلِطُونَ مَنْ أَذْنَبَ بِمَنْ لَمْ يُذْنِبْ. وَقَدْ عَلِمْتُمْ أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللهِ(صلى الله عليه وآله) رَجَمَ الزَّانِيَ [الْـمُحْصَنَ] ثُمَّ صَلَّى عَلَيْهِ ثُمَّ وَرَّثَهُ أَهْلَهُ، وَقَتَلَ الْقَاتِلَ وَوَرَّثَ مِيرَاثَهُ أَهْلَهُ، وَقَطَعَ السَّارِقَ وَجَلَدَ الزَّانِيَ غَيْرَ الْمحْصَنِ ثُمَّ قَسَمَ عَلَيْهِمَا مِنَ الْفَيْءِ وَنَكَحَا الْمُسْلِمَاتِ; فَأَخَذَهُمْ رَسُولُ اللهِ (صلى الله عليه وآله) بِذُنُوبِهمْ، وَأَقَامَ حَقَّ اللهِ فِيهمْ، وَلَمْ يَمْنَعْهُمْ سَهْمَهُمْ مِنَ الاْسْلاَمِ، وَلَمْ يُخْرِجْ أَسْمَاءَهُمْ مِنْ بَيْنِ أَهْلِهِ

Certainly you are the most evil of all persons and are those whom Satan has put on his lines and thrown out into his wayless land. With regard to me, two categories of people will be ruined, namely he who loves me too much and the love takes him away from rightfulness, and he who hates me too much and the hatred takes him away from rightfulness. The best man with regard to me is he who is on the middle course. So be with him and be with the great majority (of Muslims) because Allah's hand (of protection) is on keeping unity. You should beware of division because the one isolated from the group is (a prey) to Satan just as the one isolated from the flock of sheep is (a prey) to the wolf.

ثُمَّ أَنْتُمْ شِرَارُ النَّاسِ، وَمَنْ رَمَى بِهِ الشَّيْطَانُ مَرَامِيَهُ، وَضَرَبَ بِهِ تِيهَهُ ! وَسَيَهْلِكُ فِيَّ صِنْفَانِ: مُحِبٌّ مُفْرِطٌ يَذْهَبُ بِهِ الْحُبُّ إِلَى غَيْرِ الْحَقِّ، وَمُبْغِضٌ مُفْرِطٌ يَذْهَبُ بِهِ الْبُغْضُ إِلَى غَيْرِ الْحَقِّ، وَخَيْرُ النَّاسِ فيَّ حَالاً الَّنمَطُ الاْوْسَطُ فَالْزَمُوهُ، وَالْزَمُوا السَّوَادَ الاَعْظَم فَإِنَّ يَدَ اللهِ مَعَ الْجَمَاعَةِ، وَإِيَّاكُمْ وَالْفُرْقَةَ! فَإِنَّ الشَّاذَّ مِنَ النَّاسِ لِلشَّيْطَانِ، كَمَا أَنَّ الشَّاذَّةَ مِنَ الْغَنَمِ لِلذِّئْبِ

Beware; whoever calls to this course, kill him, even though he may be under this headband of mine. Certainly the two arbitrators were appointed to revive what the Qur'an revives and to destroy what the Qur'an destroys. Revival means to unite on it (in a matter) and destruction means to divide on a matter. If the Qur'an drives us to them we should follow them, and if it drives them to us they should follow up.

May you have no father! (Woe to you), I did not cause you any misfortune, nor have I deceived you in any matter, nor created any confusion. Your own group had unanimously suggested in favour of these two men and we bound them that they would not exceed the Qur'an but they deviated from it and abandoned the right although both of them were conversant with it. This wrong-doing was the dictate of their hearts and so they trod upon it, although we had stipulated that in arbitrating with justice and sticking to rightfulness they would avoid the evil of their own views and the mischief of their own verdict (but since this has happened the award is not acceptable to us).

أَلاَ مَنْ دَعَا إِلَى هذَا الشِّعَارِ فَاقْتُلُوهُ، وَلَوْ كَانَ تَحْتَ عِمَامَتِي هذِهِ، فَإِنَمَّا حُكِّمَ الْحَكَمَانِ لِيُحْيِيَا مَا أَحْيا الْقُرْآنُ، وَيُمِيتَا مَا أَمَاتَ الْقُرْآنُ، وَإِحْيَاؤُهُ الاجْتِماعُ عَلَيْهِ، وَإِمَاتَتُهُ الافْتَرَاقُ عَنْهُ، فَإِنْ جَرَّنَا الْقُرْآنُ إِلَيْهِمُ اتَّبَعْنَاهُم، وَإِنْ جَرَّهُمْ إِلَيْنَا اتَّبَعُونَا

فَلَمْ آتِ ـ لاَأَبَا لَكُمْ ـ بُجْراً، وَلاَ خَتَلْتُكُمْ عَنْ أَمْرِكُمْ، وَلاَ لبَّسْتُهُ عَلَيْكُمْ، إِنَّمَا اجْتَمَعَ رَأْيُ مَلَئِكُمْ عَلَى اخْتِيَارِ رَجُلَيْنِ، أَخَذْنَا عَلَيْهِمَا أَلاَّ يَتَعَدَّيَا الْقُرْآنَ، فَتَاهَا عَنْهُ، وَتَرَكَا الْحَقَّ وَهُمَا يُبْصِرَانِهِ، وَكَانَ الْجَوْرُ هَوَاهُمَا فَمَضَيَا عَليْهِ، وَقَدْ سَبَقَ استِثْنَاؤُنَا عَلَيْهِمَا ـ فِي الْحُكُومَةِ بِالْعَدْلِ، وَالصَّمْدِ لِلْحَقِّ ـ سُوءَ رَأْيِهِمَا، وَجَوْرَ حُكْمِهِمَا

Alternative Sources for Sermon 127

(1) Al-Tabari, Ta'rikh, VI, 48, events of 37 H.;

(2) Ibn al-'Athir, al-Nihayah, (b.j.r);

(3) al-Jahiz, al-Hayawan, II, 90;

(4) al-Bayhaqi, al-Mahasin, 41;

(5) al-Saduq, al-'Amali;

(6) al-'Amidi, Ghurar,329 ;

(7) al-Karajiki, Ma`dan,226 .

Chapter Four: Is Learning Philosophy Necessary?

In this chapter we shall try to discover whether learning philosophy is necessary and if it is for whom? In order to answer this question we have to enumerate all the things this field of study can accomplish and briefly explain it uses. We have to study these one by one and show whether any of these function makes learning philosophy necessary and if so will it be necessary for all people or only for certain group and in the latter case which groups are these ? but before listing and discussing the use of philosophy we have to clarify what is intended by ‘necessity ‘ and what is the standard o criterion for being necessary .Therefore , we begin our discussion by defining ‘necessity ‘ and its criterion and then list the used of philosophy and discuss their necessity of philosophy and then explain its uses.

Necessity and its Criterion

Clearly enough what intended my ‘necessity ‘ here is not religion necessity or legal obligation in contract to prohibition for the study of such obligation belongs to the domain of jurisprudence rather than philosophy. It is intellectual or rational necessity. For example, if the intellects determine that acquiring a certain benefit is necessary and philosophy is used to acquire such a benefit, it naturally declares that learning philosophy necessary.

Now, let us turn our attentions to this benefit and ask why it is necessary from a rational point of view, to acquire such a benefit? In other word, what is the criterion by which reason declares a certain benefit as necessary and another as unnecessary? It is certain that according to the judgement of a sound mind all those things are necessary whose absence would 1. Harm man’s individual or social life, and 2 expose man to eternal punishment in the hereafter.

There is problem with the first criterion but regarding the second there is a problem in that many people do not believe in a divinely revealed faith and therefore have no reason to believe in eternal life and its rewards or punishment s. On the other hand, so far in this book we have not proved the existence of these things so that intellectually they have to accept them.

Therefore, this criterion cannot be accepted under these conditions.

However, this objection is not acceptable since acceptance if this criterion does not require certitude concerning the existence of eternal life and the mere fact that it may exist would suffice, and no doubt logically speaking such possibility exist.

The possibility mentioned above exist since, firstly no irrefutable proof or convincing reason denying God existence, the next world or other spiritual matter has been set forth. Therefore, we cannot be certain of the non-existence of these things and the negation of the certainty of their non- existence would lead to the possibility of their existence. Secondly this is not a week possibility, for history shows that even those who denied the prophet admitted that in their behaviour,intelligence, andunderstanding of the truth they were far ahead of their time. Thus those who have no faith in the divinely revealed religions and the prophets still cannot deny the truthfulness and intelligence of this prophet s. Moreover the holy scripture and the history of religion show that all prophet, from Adam, peace be upon him, to Mohammed, the seal of the prophet, peace be upon him and his household, without exception have informed the people of the existence of God and his oneness, the existence of the next world, the different degrees of closeness to, or remoteness from God and paradise and hell. Moreover many mystics from different nation and sects throughout history have borne witness to some of these things. To a sound intellect his great volume of evidence greatly increases the probability that such things do indeed exist.

The reason tat for the acceptance of that criterion the mere probability of the existence of these things is enough is that firstly from a logical perspective not only preventing a definite harm is necessary but so is a avoiding a probable one That is if someone thinks that there is a chance he be exposed to certain harm and avoiding that harm would not entail similar or greater harm, reason dictates that he should aroid that harm.

According to the Quranic verse , Prophetic tradition and the teaching of other holy scripture, the intentional denial of the spiritual truths mentioned above and disbelieving them will incur internal punishment the mildest of which is incomparably this world. The same dire consequence is also in store for those who neglect issue concerning the hereafter.

Secondly from the rational perspective the mathematical expectation (the amount of probability multiplied by the value of the probable ) of dealing with spiritual and otherworld thing and also the mathematical expectation of reflecting over and investigating these matters are infinite , while the mathematical expectation of the greatest worldly pleasure and joys is limited and as any sound reason would decree, once in doubt , we should choose the thing whose mathematical expectation is greater.

We can conclude, then that the second criterion also unproblematic and on its basis we can infer the rational necessity of thing. On the ground if these two criteria we can have an assessment of the uses of philosophy and shoe that it is necessary for the following groups to learn it.

1- Those who fear that natural sensuality may lead them into philosophical sensationalism.

2- Those who have doubt abut their worldview.

3- Those whose worldview is exposed to doubts.

4- Those who are obliged to defend their religion rationally.

5- Those who feel the necessity to search for a deeper understanding of divine knowledge.

6- Those scholars who are intellectually qualified to learn philosophy.

We should not forget, however , that in cases where learning philosophy is declared to be unnecessary this should not be taken to mean that it is undesirable In general there is no doubt that learning philosophy is desirable.

The uses of Philosophy and their evolution

1- Satisfying the Sense of Curiosity

Philosophy, like any other field of scholarship satisfies mans curiosity concerning question related o its subject matter. Clearly enough, if we overlook its other characteristics and consider only this single quality , learning philosophy would not be necessary for, although ignoring the sense of curiosity altogether by completely repressing it is essentially impossible , satisfying it cannot be said to make the study of philosophy a necessity. Both in the past or at present there have been many people who do not study any field of scholarship. Including philosophy and so have ignored their instinctive curiosity, nevertheless, they have enjoyed relatively comfortable lives and who have attained spiritual stations.

2- Removing Double Ignorance

All forms of learning, including philosophy, put an end to man double ignorance concerning issues related to their subject. For example, many people wrongly believe in chance and accident, or mistakenly believe that spirit is material, and by philosophical demonstration we can make such people aware of their mistakes. Still however, if we overlook other characteristics of philosophy and evaluate philosophy would not be necessary. For in general man‘s ignorance of certain things neither disrupts his life in this world nor ruin it in the hereafter. It is true that it would be right to say that doubt ignorance about issues discussed in philosophy can be harmful to his life in this world and the another issue altogether and will be discussed in due course. Therefore the mere removal of double ignorance does not make learning philosophy necessary.

3- The Indispensable Foundation of Life.

What is meant by the above title is that life without philosophical statement would be impossible. In order to understand the turn of this claim we may consider one simple routine occurrence. Suppose that you have returned from your friend’s house but you suddenly remember that you have left your ring on his dinner table. You call him, describe the ring to him and ask him if he has found it. After looking for it, he tells you, “there is no ring on the table, but there is a ring under the table which is yours.” The analysis of this simple occurrence shows that it cannot be justified without presupposing a number of philosophical statements.

For example, let us consider the statement; we have to presuppose the concepts of existence, nonexistence, object or thing, essence or substance (by which is meant the body of the table or the ring), space and time. All these concepts are intellectual rather than tangible. Moreover, to make this statement true, we have to assume the truth of the following philosophical statement:

1- ‘A thing that is seen in a certain place must be there’.

Without presupposing this statement we cannot accept that there is a ring under the table.

2- ‘A visible thing which is not seen in a certain place is not there.’ Without presupposing this statement we cannot accept that there is no ring on the table.

3- ‘Behind these visible appearances, such as colour, shape and size, there is a substance or an essence, in short a body, such as a ring or a table, etc.’ Without presupposing this statement we cannot speak of the ring or the table.

4- ‘The spatial position of a particular object is an accidental issue and changing it would not result in turning that object into something else.’ Without presupposing this statement we cannot be sure the ring under the table is the same that was on the table.

5- ‘The temporal position of an object is an accidental issue and changing it would not cause the thing in question to turn into something else.’ Without presupposing this statement we cannot be sure whether the present ring is the same as the one that existed before.

6- ‘The agreement of two contradictories or their simultaneous elimination is impossible,’ which, applied both true and false, or neither true nor false. It must necessary be either true or false. Without presupposing this statement we can argue that your formed statement is both true and false or it is neither true nor false.

7- Every body occupies a space and space is not an illusory or imaginary things. Although this statement has nothing to do for the ring here and there is based on ones belief in the existence of space.

Further reflection will perhaps rival more statement and presupposition. If we look closely into our and other daily affair, we see that we use much other philosophical statement, such ad causal necessity the law of causal homogeneity, the law of the simultaneity of cause and affect the impossibility of regress and so on. These philosophical statements exist in all human minds people believe in them and constantly use them, though perhaps not consciously. We many appreciate the function of these statement in our every life if we imagine a situation in which they were complete erased from the people minds for a shirt time or everyone seriously believed them to be false we would seaside perceive , then , that in such a situation life would degenerate into utter choa.

Does the benefit just allude to make the study of philosophy necessary? No for all people gradually perceive these statements and unconsciously use them without any need to learn philosophy. Why these statement are also called common sense conviction. Furthermore, no doubt they are not clearly or precisely understood in their common sense usage. In philosophy they become more exact, their meaning are clarified their limit and boundaries are defined and objective to be answered. In short their ambiguity is removed <Still, we do not need this clarification to manage our daily affair s and can content ourselves with their common interpretation.

Defining the Border between Sense and Reason

In order to delineate the border between sense and reason must return to the hypothetical situation mentioned above.

Prior to our analysis of that situation , we could not recognise that intellectual presupposition employed in it, believed it to be a completely sensible occurrence and thought that in similar situation , namely in simple routine events, the intellect does not play an important role.

However, after the analysis we begin to realise our mistake. Now what kind of analysis is that? Certainly it is a philosophical analyse a simple ordinary occurrence to determine precisely the contribution of intellect in that occurrence and show that even in the simplest and most sensible issues we cannot overlook the contribution of intellect and say that our only mean id knowledge are the sense or only those statement are valid that are confirmed by sense and experience. So, one of the uses of philosophy is that it teaches man that the role of the sense in his life is much more limited and that of the intellect much greater, than what he be lives. In other words, learning philosophy liberates man from that natural sensationalism which because of our natural life affect.

However, does this benefit make learning philosophy fro all or most people , since natural sensationalism does not create any problem for our everyday life as most people are affected by it and still face no difficulties in their lives. It is also not incompatible with admitting intellectual accepts propositions or demonstrations so that it should end with blasphemy and denial of life in the hereafter, and so come under the second criterion. He who is affected by y this sensationalism also admits the self-evident intellectual concepts and proposition and accepts and employs their demonstrations that are founded on them and can prove the existence of God and the next world by them. His only mistake is that he thinks that many of these concepts and propositions are sensible and empirical rather than intellectual. it is true that those who fear that natural sensationalism nay lead them to philosophical sensationalism, according to which all intellectual concepts and study of God or the hereafter is possible, may find it necessary to learn philosophy to understand the undeniable contribution of intellect indifferent field of learning.

1- A Holistic Outlook

In the first chapter it was says that the subject of philosophy unlike the subjects of other branched of knowledge is general and logistic and therefore in contrast to other field of scholarship philosophical investigation is not limited to a particular aspect of the world. This difference makes philosophy unlike other kinds of knowledge, holistic and comprehensive in its outlook that is it give us an outline and picture of the whole world of being?

Does this characteristic make learning philosophy necessary? No for acquiring such a picture to the required extent can also be obtained through the conviction if a intellect and there is no need for learning philosophy. No doubt the picture provide by philosophy is much more exact and complete than the one set more desirable, but such an exact picture according to the two criteria set forth earlier is unnecessary .

2- A Profound Outlook

Most of the people often look superficially at the phenomena they encounter in this world. They see many things that are apparently diverse and different and see no connection or similarity between them, such as the fall of different bodies on earth the rotation of the moon round the earth the flow and ebb of the sea, the arrow -like route of the of canon shell, and the change of season However, scholars look at these things more profoundly. On the basis of certain philosophy and non- philosophical presupposition s and by experiment and reflection, they look into phenomena are indeed similar to each other for it is only one law (that appears in different forms) such as general gravel which in one place appears in the form of the fall of bodies to earth and in another place in the form of the rotation of the moon round the earth and so on .Second on the basis of this one dominant law all apparently diverse things and phenomena are linked with each other in a causal relationship In short scientists do not content themselves with the appearance and the surface of things and phenomena, but by probing them deeply look at roots and see a united and coherent world. But how far does this probing and looking in depth continue? It continues until they come to presuppositions. As soon as they reach this point they stop and scientific investigation comes to an end. However, philosophy start precisely at this point and philosophical investigation begins here. In its analysis confirmation, negation, endorsement, and explanation of philosophical presuppositions of science, philosophy looks even more deeply into things. Therefore in this journey from the surface of phenomena to their depths, and in this profound investigation, philosophy begins where all other branched of learning stop. It deals with the roots on which other discipline depend and by the help of which try to explore the phenomena we encounter in the world, philosophy looks at root of all other field of learning and this is why it is deeper than other discipline. This profound approach is not limited to philosophical discussion about the presupposition of science but rather philosophy discussions and perspective in general are essentially profound and deep.

However does its deep outlook make learning philosophy necessary? The answer is negative for most people, for though the deep philosophical perspective is interesting and desirable its absence will not disturb man life either in this world or in the next. we have all know ,many people who did not have this deep outlook but incurred no great material or spiritual harm because of it , it is true that if a society lacks such deep thinkers altogether it ill face culture decay and deterioration and no doubt this decadence may disturb its social life .

Therefore this characteristic makes it necessary that in every society some learned and qualified people should study philosophy and specialise.

Providing The Presuppositions of the other fields of Study

It was explained in the last chapter that all branches of knowledge posses some general particular philosophical presuppositions without which research in those discipline would be either meaningless is impossible. The principle of non- contradiction , the principle of the possibility of knowledge , the principle of causality, the law of causal necessity, the law of causal homogeneity , the law of the simultaneity of cause and effect , the impossibility of circle and degree , the impossibility of opposition , the principle if simplicity the existence or nonexistence of nature , the existence or nonexistence of nature movement, the existence or nonexistence of absolute space the existence or non-existence of the whole as something independence from the part determinism versus free will. The existence or non - existence of quantity in the external world and many other philosophical laws and proposition are among there presuppositions. Some of these are discussed in philosophy , some other in type of philosophy that is used in genitive constructions, such as the philosophy of the empirical science , the philosophy of mathematic , the philosophy of the social science and the philosophy of science and skill other problems, in their different aspects are studied in both. We can say, then that it is philosophy that provide many of the presupposition of the other field of study depend, each discipline is dependent on a certain form of philosophy and when that discipline is accepted and finds current and as soon as that philosophy associated with it also become as that philosophy is destroyed that particular discipline will also be undermined. In short it is not the case that every philosophy can permit any intellectual discipline to grow out of it or to be more evident in the humanities and especially in the social science.

Does this characteristic make learning philosophy necessary?

The truth is that if we consider only this characteristic and disregards the impact of these branches of knowledge on man private and social life, still according to our two criteria the answer would be in the negative, for the mere fact that philosophy provides the presupposition of the other field of learning does not make learning ir necessary. It is true, however that if we consider the impact of these intellectual disciplines on man individual and social life it world is a different story and we shall do this in 2.8.

Providing The Fundamental Principle of Systems and Movement

As every intellectual disciple is dependent on true or false philosophical presuppositions or in other words as every field of learning is dependent on a type of philosophy, every social movement and every human system are also dependent on a philosophy. The Nazi Fascist and Marxist movement were dependent on the philosophies of Nazism Fascism and Marxism. Less important movement such as those of the Hippies, the Beatles, the Punks and the Raps are also dependant on their philosophies. In general al big or small movement that have emerged or will emerge have been influenced and will be influenced by a particular philosophy. Every kind of human systems whether ethical, political, legal economic or educational also depends on principle and presuppositions most of which are essentially philosophy.

Thus it is the task of philosophy that provides the principle and presuppositions of systems and movement. In short every true or false social movement or human system is based on a particular philosophy true or false. Social philosophers deal with these philosophies directly. However other social classes also have some understanding of these philosophies and in a general way and directly are affected by them through the circulation of the ideal promoted by this philosopher and because of this influence a particular philosophy becomes current in the society and is widely accepted by the public. Clearly enough a society will accept only those movement and system that are compatible with its accepted philosophy. Accordingly, every with any type of philosophy. Form this we can understand the hidden role of philosophy in man individual and social life As we have already seen, because of this characteristic philosophy plays a hidden role individual and social life of the people so that absence of a true philosophy may lead to confusion in those spheres and even lead to their Nazim Fascim and Marxism imposed on the human society or on a part of it, proves this claim. Hence according to the first criterion, there is no doubt that the existence of a true philosophy is necessary to avoid such damages and this in true make the study of philosophy necessary. Would it, however be necessary for all people? The answer is no .in fact the existence of a number of learned philosophy would be enough for once their thoughts circulate in the society other will be duly influence.

Therefore because of this characteristic, it is necessary that you should be some learned and well-qualified people to learned become experts in philosophy.

Laying the Foundation of Worldviews

We have all seen or heard about sages whom no worldly joy or bliss could make happily nor any misfortune or defeat downcast and forlorn. In contract, we have seen many people who have been destroyed by small miseries and misfortunes. Where is the root of this difference? it lies in their attitude towards existence , themselves their future their happiness or misfortune the world and its joy and pains. In short it lies i their attitude toward the world and the position of man in it, that is, in their ‘’ worldview’’ it would be no exaggeration if we say that no aspect of man could be more important than his worldview for this affects or rather determines all this action, his life in this world and in the hereafter and all his private and social affairs. Therefore in light of the two criteria already set forth, having a correct worldview is necessary for every one A worldview or as it has been described above, the individual attitude toward the world and man positions in it contain three basic questions:

1- Is the cause of the world phenomena, including man only material action and reaction and no non- material power has an role in their creation or even the creation of matter its lf? And essentially is existence equal to matter or is it rather that the material world is only a part of the world of existence, depending for it realization on another being that lies beyond it? in other words, does the world need a god and if it does , does it need gods, or is it that the existence of gods is impossible and the one God satisfies all that needs of being including man?

2- Is man life confirmed to his life in this world, or does he also have another life after death? And if he has another life is it limited or eternal? In my case, what is its relationship with his life in this world? This question entails another question Besides his corporeal body does man have something else called ‘spirit’

3- What is the surest way to find the right plan for one private and social life? Besides the conventional plans available to people, which in practice result in contradictory conclusions; is there any other plan whose validity is certain? The importance of the last question becomes more apparent when the answer to the second question is affirmative; that is, we come to the conclusion that man has an eternal life after death and he has to prepare, with his voluntary work in this mortal life, for felicity in the one to come. In that case, finding a sure means that shows the relationship between the two lives and an exact plan that can ensure eternal happiness becomes more urgent, and to the extent that life after death is valued more, finding the way to ensure happiness in it becomes more important. The first question is discussed under the title of “Monotheism”, the second under ‘Resurrection’ and third under ‘Prophet Hood’, which collectively account for the basic convictions is also necessary.

Does this make learning philosophy necessary for all people? Still the answer is negative. For most people, whose minds are not used to critiquing and raising questions can, on the basis of common sense convictions, find the correct answers to the philosophical questions related to worldview. What makes people err in their attempt to find worldview is the fact that they are prey to opposing inclinations rather than lack of proof or ignorance of philosophy? Hence, the philosophical nature of the questions discussed in worldview does not oblige people to learn philosophy. It is true, however that his characteristic makes learning philosophy necessary for the following two groups:

4- Those who have doubts about their worldview and are not certain whether it is right or wrong. Their mind is active and meticulous, and they cannot be satisfied with the simple proofs with which common people are contented. No doubt such people need the help of philosophy.

5- Those who have the right worldview, the monotheistic worldview, and have no doubt in it for the time being, but

Questions

1- How many factors does the necessity criterion include? Name them.

2- What are the uses of philosophy?

3- Which groups have to learn philosophy?

4- What is the difference between philosophical propositions and their corresponding common sense convictions?

5- By giving an example, show that philosophy looks at phenomena more deeply than science and science looks at the phenomena more deeply than convention!

6- Name the essential questions of worldview and explain them briefly.

7- It is possible that in Muslim countries, as long as the people believe in Islam, economic systems that abolish private ownership to be established and stabilized? Why? (In your answer you may also consider the philosophical aspect of the question).

8- In the holy verse “When you threw, it was not you that threw, but God who threw” (Anfal “8”:17) which refers to a pebble or an arrow thrown by the prophet, peace be upon him and his household, two issues have been admitted simultaneously:

1- Throwing is the Prophet’s action , peace be upon him and his household (because of the expression “when you threw”);

2- Throwing is God’s action (becaus e of the expression “but God threw”).

Explain on the solution of what philosophical question deep understanding of the compatibility of the two depend?

3- Explain how deep understanding o f the verse “And God created you and what you make” (Saffat “37”:96) depend on solving the philosophical problem on solving the philosophical problem of how one action may have two agents.

4- On understanding what philosophica l issue does deep understanding of the holy verse “But you will not unless God wills” (Insan “76”:30) depend?

Chapter Five: Necessity, Impossibility, and Possibility

In this chapter terms such as ‘necessity’, ‘impossibility’, ‘necessity by essence’, ‘impossibility by essence’, ‘possibility by essence’, ‘necessity by others’, and ‘impossibility by others’ are introduced.

Therefore, we start our discussion by giving a brief and indefinable concept in philosophy, and then we will try to explain these terms in the light of the two self-evident concepts of existence and non-existence.

Necessity

If we consider such items as ‘flower’, ‘even’, ‘white’, ‘sweet’, and ‘eight’, we will see that among these items only ‘even’ can be related to ‘eight’, and ‘white’ to ‘flower’, and these relationships are reflected in the mind of man in the two statements of ‘eight is even’ and ‘flower is white’. No doubt because ‘even’, ‘sweet’ or ‘eight’ have nothing in common with ‘flower’, or ‘flower’, ‘white’, or ‘eight’, or finally ‘white’, ‘sweet’, and ‘even’ with each other, there can exist no statement in our mind describing their relationship, such as ‘eight is sweet’ and so on. In other words, the statement ‘eight is an even number’ expresses the relationship between the attribute ‘even’ and the number eight and the statement ‘the flower is white’ indicates the relationship between the attribute ‘white’ and the flower.

Now we turn our attention to the two mentioned relationships. It is clear that the attribute ‘even’ and the number eight, unlike the attribute ‘white’ and the flower are inseparable related to each other. We cannot imagine any number eight that is not even. However, we can imagine a flower that is not white, or even imagine certain states and conditions where the white flower loses its whiteness and acquires another colour. In philosophical terms it is said that the relationship between ‘white’ and ‘flower’ is unnecessary. We can also put the necessity or non-necessity of this relationship in a statement, and say, for example, “Eight is necessarily even,” and “Flower is white but unnecessarily.” In these two statements, besides showing the relationship, we have identified its kind. In technical terms, words such as ‘necessity’ or ‘non-necessity’, which show the kind of relationship, are called ‘modes’.

We should know that concept such as necessity and non-necessity, or necessary and unnecessary are evident and certainly need no definition for their presence in the mind, and even such concepts cannot be defined. These concepts are gradually and automatically are formed in the human mind. Therefore, we do not intend here to define these concepts, and have only tried to show to which concepts of the mind the philosophers refer by the terms ‘necessity’ and ‘non-necessity’.

Necessity and impossibility

The above-mentioned necessity and nonnecessity were not specific to any special attribute. In general, the relationship f each attribute with the thing it describes is either necessary or unnecessary, that is, it is either an attribute inseparable from that thing, or it is a separable attribute.

‘Even’, for example, is the necessary attribute of number eight, whereas whiteness is the unnecessary attribute of the flower. Now we turn our attention to existence and non-existence.

As the relationship of one thing and its attributes could be either necessary or unnecessary, the existence or nonexistence of one object could be necessary or unnecessary. In other words, the existence of one things can be necessary or unnecessary, and its non-existence can also be necessary or unnecessary. In technical terms, things that have a necessary existence are called ‘necessary’, and those whose non-existence is necessary are named ‘impossible’. The necessity of existence is also named ‘necessity’, and the necessity of nonexistence is called ‘impossibility’. So, when we say something is necessary, we mean its existence is necessary, it must exist, and its non-existence is impossible.

On the other hand, when we say something is impossible, we mean its non-existence is necessary, it should not exist, and its existence would be impossible.

For further clarification of the issue, let’s consider one of the phenomena, the storm, for example. Suppose that we know all the factors responsible for the existence of the storm, and decisively judge that the storm must exist. In other words, with this supposition the storm will necessarily exist, and, in philosophical terms, it is necessary. Now, suppose that some or all of these factors do not exist; then, according to the judgment of the intellect, the storm should not exist. In other words, with this supposition the storm would be necessarily non-existent, and in philosophical terms it would be impossible.

Impossibility by essence and impossibility by other

If we suppose that the causes and factors necessary for the existence of a storm do not exist, the storm will never exist. With this supposition, the storm should be impossible. Moreover, we are all familiar with concepts of ‘circle’ and ‘angle’, and we know that a circle can never have and angle. Therefore, an angled circle or a circle with an angle would be impossible.

Here we are faced with two impossible things; the storm and an angled circle. Is there any difference between these two impossible things? No doubt there is a difference. Although the storm is now impossible, we can do something to remove this impossibility; in other words, its impossibility is removable and separable, whereas the impossibility of an angled circle can never be lifted.

What is the origin of this difference? What is its cause? Its cause is that the impossibility of an angled circle emanates from its essence. What we mean by the essence of a particular thing is the thing itself, regardless of the existence or nonexistence of other things. Therefore, if we want to consider the essence of a thing, we must consider only that thing, irrespective of the existence or nonexistence of any other thing. The essence of an angled circle, then, would be impossible. Why? Because it is contradictory in its essence, circle being a closed equidistant curve that has no angle. An angled circle would be, then, a curve that both possesses and does not possess an angle. This, obviously enough, is a contradiction, and every contradiction, no doubt, in essence and in itself would be impossible. The storm, however, is not contradictory in itself; its impossibility is not a part of its essence so that it should be inseparable from it and make its existence automatically impossible; rather, its impossibility is caused by external factors, that is, things outside it have caused its impossibility.

There are certain obstacles, for example, preventing its existence, or there are certain factors that are necessary for its existence and have not been realized yet.

It is clear that once those barriers are lifted or those necessary causes are made available the storm will no longer be impossible. This is why philosophers argue that the existence of an angled circle would be ‘impossible by essence’ and its impossibility would be ‘an impossibility by essence’ or ‘essential impossibility’, whereas the existence of the storm, whose causes do not exist yet or there are certain obstacles preventing it, is ‘impossible by other’ and its impossibility is ‘impossibility by other’.

From what has already been said it becomes clear that the impossible by essence can never exist, and it is impossible to find any extension for it in the external world. It would not exist simply by changing states and situations, by stipulating new conditions, or by changing particular factors. The impossible by essence is absolutely nonexistent in any state, unlike the impossible by other, which though in the present state and situation and in the present condition cannot exist and can never have an extension, in certain cases by changing the state, situation or condition, and, in short, by changing the factors responsible or its impossibility, it can exist.

Necessity by essence and necessity byother

We are already familiar with the philosophical term ‘essence’. The essence of a particular thing is the thing itself regardless of other things; therefore, our conception of the essences of a thing would be equal to our conception of the thing without conceiving or stipulation the existence or non - existence of any other things. Considering the meaning of essence and the explanation given on the impossible by essence and the impossible by other, we can easily understand at the meaning of the necessary by essence and the necessary by other.

If there essence of a thing is necessary that is if exist necessary without the mediation of any other the influence of any other factor, dependence on any cause or condition or in short if it exists necessary by itself and in more simple term, if its non- existence is self-contradictory , such a thing would be necessary by essence it is evident that if the essence of a thing is not necessary , but it becomes necessary on stipulating certain causes and factors , such as thing would be necessary by other , for in fact , it is made necessary by external causes and factors ; it’s necessary is the result of those cause Therefore necessity by essence is that necessities which results from the thing itself and is dependent no on external factor necessity by other however result from something other than the thing itself.

From what has been said we may after that it impossible to annihilate the necessary by essence. We cannot make it non-existent by simply changing some states situation as or conditional or my producing certain factors the necessary by essence enjoys absolute existence under all circumstances. However though in the present situation , state and condition the necessary by other is necessary and con not be annihilated once the situation , state and condition change or in short as soon as the removal of the cause of it necessity become possible , it may lose its state of necessary existence and become non-existence .

We many mention many examples of the necessary by other. All the existent we may observe in our surroundings, such as different kinds of element, plants animal and men are necessary by other. The tree that we see is the effect is a claim of cause, such as water, air, certain, degree of temperature and many other factors that may not be easily enumerated. If this chain of cause stays as it is and none of the cause change, this tree will necessary continue existing, and it will never become non-existence. To destroy it, certain changes have to take place in this chain. In that case, the tree would not be necessary and is would become nonexistent.

This means that it the chain of these causes that makes the tree necessary and its non - existence impossible. Accordingly, by changing this claim its necessary might be lifted and it would become non-existent. The necessary by essence is limited to the existence of God. Philosophers have proved that it is only God who is necessary by essence.

Possibility by essence

So far we have understood that the impossible by essence is the thing which when conceived without conceiving the existence or non-existence of any other thing with itwe understand that is existence is self - contradictory, and therefore impossible In itself rather than because of any other factor. On the other hand, the necessary by essence is that which is necessary by itself - contradictory and is impossible and therefore its existence is caused by essence, that is it essence is necessary neither in its existence nor non- existence and neither its existence nor selfcontradictory such a thing would be possible by essence Possibility then means that neither existence nor nonexistence is necessary.

Therefore in order to understand whether a thing is possible by essences or not we have to conceive only that thing without considering the existence or non - existence of other things and examine it in regard to existence and non-existence and consider it position. If we find that it not contradictory i its existence that is tots existence is not impossible and also it is not contradictory in its non- existence, that is it non-existence is not impossible it will be possible by essence.

We can mention many examples of the possible by essence. All the things we find in our surroundings, including ourselves are possible by essence. However let us take the aforementioned storm as an example. you may be asked to consider only the existence of it cause or factor , or, in more philosophical; term to conceive only the essence of the storm, say if the thing you have considered can ever find an extension band whether its existence is self - contradictory. Your answer will be negative, and your reason will be that in the past there have been many storms. You might also be asked whether the non-existence if the thing you have considered is impossible, and if is non- existence will be lf contradictory.

Once again your answers will be negative, for usually she weather is claim and there is no storm. Therefore, the storm is essentially neither necessary nor impossible or in other words it possible by essence.

Compatibly of possibility by essence with necessity or impossibility by other

There is no doubt that possibility by essence is incompatible with necessary or impossibility by essence. In other words, the possible by essence can never become necessary or impossible by essence, for the possible by essence is that which in itself is necessary neither in its existence nor in its non- existence, whereas the necessary by essence or the impossible by essence is that which is necessary in its existence or in its non -existence , respectively. Therefore , there would be a contradiction and an impossibility if a thing could be both possible and necessary in its existence , Similarly there would also be a contradiction and an impossibility if a single thing could be both possible and impossible by essence , that is its non = existence be both necessary and unnecessary .therefore the possible by essence cannot be necessary or impossible by essence , that is possibility by essences in incompatible with necessity or impossibility by essence.

Now is possibility by essence also incompatible with necessity or impossibly by other? In other words, will there be any contradiction if the possible by essence could be the necessary or the impossible by other? The answer is no!

from the rational perspective there is no contradiction if a thing whose existence or non- existence is essentially not necessary to become necessary in its existence or non-existence by external factors just as it is not impossible for a thing that is not luminous in itself to become luminous by external factors, like iron for example which is itself is not luminous and becomes luminous through heating. Thus possibility by essence is compatible with necessary and impossibility by other. However this is not all for as we shall demonstrate in chapter eleven by priming the law of ‘causal necessary ‘everything that is possible by essence is simultaneously necessary or impossible by others.

Turning to the example of the storm mentioned above, this is why once we know that all the causes and factor of the storm are realized we will judge at once that the weather must necessary be stormy, and that is impossible for it to be otherwise. In other words the storm is necessary, by which of course, we mean it is necessary by others for allegedly this necessary is imposed on it by the cause and factors that create it. Now if at the time we proclaim the necessity of the storm we are asked if the same storm, irrespective of the causes of it creation, necessarily exists and is necessary in it, we will definitely reply in the negative at say that in itself it is still only possible.

The meaning of theses two simultaneous judgements made you the intellect is that from the rational point of view the mentioned storm is simultaneously possible by essence and between these two. In the same way, possible by essence is show to be compatible with impossibility other.

Question

1- What is the meaning of necessity, impossibility or possibility?

2- What is the difference between the necessary by essence and the necessity by other?

3- What is the difference between the impossible by essence and the impossible by other?

4- Can the necessary by essence be possible by essence, too? Why?

5- Can the impossible by essence be possible by essence too? Why?

6- Which of the following items have necessary relationship with each Earth and the situational movement Equilateral triangle and equal angles Man and existence A man whose factors of creation have all been realized and existence Dinosaurs and non- existence in the present states of nature Edible salt and saltiness.

6- Can the possible by essence be necessary by other, too? If so, demonstrate it by giving an example beside the one mentioned in this book.

7- Can the possible by essence be impossible my others, to? If yes, demonstrate it by giving an example besides that given in his book.

8- Give three example for things that are possible or impossible by essence.

8- Which of the following is necessary by essence impossible by essences our possible by essence and which are necessary or impossible my others?

A monster whose head alone is bigger than the earth, Phoenix, you dinosaur and equilateral triangle with three unequal angles, earth the movement of the earth round the sun, the movement of the sun round the earth.

Chapter Four: Is Learning Philosophy Necessary?

In this chapter we shall try to discover whether learning philosophy is necessary and if it is for whom? In order to answer this question we have to enumerate all the things this field of study can accomplish and briefly explain it uses. We have to study these one by one and show whether any of these function makes learning philosophy necessary and if so will it be necessary for all people or only for certain group and in the latter case which groups are these ? but before listing and discussing the use of philosophy we have to clarify what is intended by ‘necessity ‘ and what is the standard o criterion for being necessary .Therefore , we begin our discussion by defining ‘necessity ‘ and its criterion and then list the used of philosophy and discuss their necessity of philosophy and then explain its uses.

Necessity and its Criterion

Clearly enough what intended my ‘necessity ‘ here is not religion necessity or legal obligation in contract to prohibition for the study of such obligation belongs to the domain of jurisprudence rather than philosophy. It is intellectual or rational necessity. For example, if the intellects determine that acquiring a certain benefit is necessary and philosophy is used to acquire such a benefit, it naturally declares that learning philosophy necessary.

Now, let us turn our attentions to this benefit and ask why it is necessary from a rational point of view, to acquire such a benefit? In other word, what is the criterion by which reason declares a certain benefit as necessary and another as unnecessary? It is certain that according to the judgement of a sound mind all those things are necessary whose absence would 1. Harm man’s individual or social life, and 2 expose man to eternal punishment in the hereafter.

There is problem with the first criterion but regarding the second there is a problem in that many people do not believe in a divinely revealed faith and therefore have no reason to believe in eternal life and its rewards or punishment s. On the other hand, so far in this book we have not proved the existence of these things so that intellectually they have to accept them.

Therefore, this criterion cannot be accepted under these conditions.

However, this objection is not acceptable since acceptance if this criterion does not require certitude concerning the existence of eternal life and the mere fact that it may exist would suffice, and no doubt logically speaking such possibility exist.

The possibility mentioned above exist since, firstly no irrefutable proof or convincing reason denying God existence, the next world or other spiritual matter has been set forth. Therefore, we cannot be certain of the non-existence of these things and the negation of the certainty of their non- existence would lead to the possibility of their existence. Secondly this is not a week possibility, for history shows that even those who denied the prophet admitted that in their behaviour,intelligence, andunderstanding of the truth they were far ahead of their time. Thus those who have no faith in the divinely revealed religions and the prophets still cannot deny the truthfulness and intelligence of this prophet s. Moreover the holy scripture and the history of religion show that all prophet, from Adam, peace be upon him, to Mohammed, the seal of the prophet, peace be upon him and his household, without exception have informed the people of the existence of God and his oneness, the existence of the next world, the different degrees of closeness to, or remoteness from God and paradise and hell. Moreover many mystics from different nation and sects throughout history have borne witness to some of these things. To a sound intellect his great volume of evidence greatly increases the probability that such things do indeed exist.

The reason tat for the acceptance of that criterion the mere probability of the existence of these things is enough is that firstly from a logical perspective not only preventing a definite harm is necessary but so is a avoiding a probable one That is if someone thinks that there is a chance he be exposed to certain harm and avoiding that harm would not entail similar or greater harm, reason dictates that he should aroid that harm.

According to the Quranic verse , Prophetic tradition and the teaching of other holy scripture, the intentional denial of the spiritual truths mentioned above and disbelieving them will incur internal punishment the mildest of which is incomparably this world. The same dire consequence is also in store for those who neglect issue concerning the hereafter.

Secondly from the rational perspective the mathematical expectation (the amount of probability multiplied by the value of the probable ) of dealing with spiritual and otherworld thing and also the mathematical expectation of reflecting over and investigating these matters are infinite , while the mathematical expectation of the greatest worldly pleasure and joys is limited and as any sound reason would decree, once in doubt , we should choose the thing whose mathematical expectation is greater.

We can conclude, then that the second criterion also unproblematic and on its basis we can infer the rational necessity of thing. On the ground if these two criteria we can have an assessment of the uses of philosophy and shoe that it is necessary for the following groups to learn it.

1- Those who fear that natural sensuality may lead them into philosophical sensationalism.

2- Those who have doubt abut their worldview.

3- Those whose worldview is exposed to doubts.

4- Those who are obliged to defend their religion rationally.

5- Those who feel the necessity to search for a deeper understanding of divine knowledge.

6- Those scholars who are intellectually qualified to learn philosophy.

We should not forget, however , that in cases where learning philosophy is declared to be unnecessary this should not be taken to mean that it is undesirable In general there is no doubt that learning philosophy is desirable.

The uses of Philosophy and their evolution

1- Satisfying the Sense of Curiosity

Philosophy, like any other field of scholarship satisfies mans curiosity concerning question related o its subject matter. Clearly enough, if we overlook its other characteristics and consider only this single quality , learning philosophy would not be necessary for, although ignoring the sense of curiosity altogether by completely repressing it is essentially impossible , satisfying it cannot be said to make the study of philosophy a necessity. Both in the past or at present there have been many people who do not study any field of scholarship. Including philosophy and so have ignored their instinctive curiosity, nevertheless, they have enjoyed relatively comfortable lives and who have attained spiritual stations.

2- Removing Double Ignorance

All forms of learning, including philosophy, put an end to man double ignorance concerning issues related to their subject. For example, many people wrongly believe in chance and accident, or mistakenly believe that spirit is material, and by philosophical demonstration we can make such people aware of their mistakes. Still however, if we overlook other characteristics of philosophy and evaluate philosophy would not be necessary. For in general man‘s ignorance of certain things neither disrupts his life in this world nor ruin it in the hereafter. It is true that it would be right to say that doubt ignorance about issues discussed in philosophy can be harmful to his life in this world and the another issue altogether and will be discussed in due course. Therefore the mere removal of double ignorance does not make learning philosophy necessary.

3- The Indispensable Foundation of Life.

What is meant by the above title is that life without philosophical statement would be impossible. In order to understand the turn of this claim we may consider one simple routine occurrence. Suppose that you have returned from your friend’s house but you suddenly remember that you have left your ring on his dinner table. You call him, describe the ring to him and ask him if he has found it. After looking for it, he tells you, “there is no ring on the table, but there is a ring under the table which is yours.” The analysis of this simple occurrence shows that it cannot be justified without presupposing a number of philosophical statements.

For example, let us consider the statement; we have to presuppose the concepts of existence, nonexistence, object or thing, essence or substance (by which is meant the body of the table or the ring), space and time. All these concepts are intellectual rather than tangible. Moreover, to make this statement true, we have to assume the truth of the following philosophical statement:

1- ‘A thing that is seen in a certain place must be there’.

Without presupposing this statement we cannot accept that there is a ring under the table.

2- ‘A visible thing which is not seen in a certain place is not there.’ Without presupposing this statement we cannot accept that there is no ring on the table.

3- ‘Behind these visible appearances, such as colour, shape and size, there is a substance or an essence, in short a body, such as a ring or a table, etc.’ Without presupposing this statement we cannot speak of the ring or the table.

4- ‘The spatial position of a particular object is an accidental issue and changing it would not result in turning that object into something else.’ Without presupposing this statement we cannot be sure the ring under the table is the same that was on the table.

5- ‘The temporal position of an object is an accidental issue and changing it would not cause the thing in question to turn into something else.’ Without presupposing this statement we cannot be sure whether the present ring is the same as the one that existed before.

6- ‘The agreement of two contradictories or their simultaneous elimination is impossible,’ which, applied both true and false, or neither true nor false. It must necessary be either true or false. Without presupposing this statement we can argue that your formed statement is both true and false or it is neither true nor false.

7- Every body occupies a space and space is not an illusory or imaginary things. Although this statement has nothing to do for the ring here and there is based on ones belief in the existence of space.

Further reflection will perhaps rival more statement and presupposition. If we look closely into our and other daily affair, we see that we use much other philosophical statement, such ad causal necessity the law of causal homogeneity, the law of the simultaneity of cause and affect the impossibility of regress and so on. These philosophical statements exist in all human minds people believe in them and constantly use them, though perhaps not consciously. We many appreciate the function of these statement in our every life if we imagine a situation in which they were complete erased from the people minds for a shirt time or everyone seriously believed them to be false we would seaside perceive , then , that in such a situation life would degenerate into utter choa.

Does the benefit just allude to make the study of philosophy necessary? No for all people gradually perceive these statements and unconsciously use them without any need to learn philosophy. Why these statement are also called common sense conviction. Furthermore, no doubt they are not clearly or precisely understood in their common sense usage. In philosophy they become more exact, their meaning are clarified their limit and boundaries are defined and objective to be answered. In short their ambiguity is removed <Still, we do not need this clarification to manage our daily affair s and can content ourselves with their common interpretation.

Defining the Border between Sense and Reason

In order to delineate the border between sense and reason must return to the hypothetical situation mentioned above.

Prior to our analysis of that situation , we could not recognise that intellectual presupposition employed in it, believed it to be a completely sensible occurrence and thought that in similar situation , namely in simple routine events, the intellect does not play an important role.

However, after the analysis we begin to realise our mistake. Now what kind of analysis is that? Certainly it is a philosophical analyse a simple ordinary occurrence to determine precisely the contribution of intellect in that occurrence and show that even in the simplest and most sensible issues we cannot overlook the contribution of intellect and say that our only mean id knowledge are the sense or only those statement are valid that are confirmed by sense and experience. So, one of the uses of philosophy is that it teaches man that the role of the sense in his life is much more limited and that of the intellect much greater, than what he be lives. In other words, learning philosophy liberates man from that natural sensationalism which because of our natural life affect.

However, does this benefit make learning philosophy fro all or most people , since natural sensationalism does not create any problem for our everyday life as most people are affected by it and still face no difficulties in their lives. It is also not incompatible with admitting intellectual accepts propositions or demonstrations so that it should end with blasphemy and denial of life in the hereafter, and so come under the second criterion. He who is affected by y this sensationalism also admits the self-evident intellectual concepts and proposition and accepts and employs their demonstrations that are founded on them and can prove the existence of God and the next world by them. His only mistake is that he thinks that many of these concepts and propositions are sensible and empirical rather than intellectual. it is true that those who fear that natural sensationalism nay lead them to philosophical sensationalism, according to which all intellectual concepts and study of God or the hereafter is possible, may find it necessary to learn philosophy to understand the undeniable contribution of intellect indifferent field of learning.

1- A Holistic Outlook

In the first chapter it was says that the subject of philosophy unlike the subjects of other branched of knowledge is general and logistic and therefore in contrast to other field of scholarship philosophical investigation is not limited to a particular aspect of the world. This difference makes philosophy unlike other kinds of knowledge, holistic and comprehensive in its outlook that is it give us an outline and picture of the whole world of being?

Does this characteristic make learning philosophy necessary? No for acquiring such a picture to the required extent can also be obtained through the conviction if a intellect and there is no need for learning philosophy. No doubt the picture provide by philosophy is much more exact and complete than the one set more desirable, but such an exact picture according to the two criteria set forth earlier is unnecessary .

2- A Profound Outlook

Most of the people often look superficially at the phenomena they encounter in this world. They see many things that are apparently diverse and different and see no connection or similarity between them, such as the fall of different bodies on earth the rotation of the moon round the earth the flow and ebb of the sea, the arrow -like route of the of canon shell, and the change of season However, scholars look at these things more profoundly. On the basis of certain philosophy and non- philosophical presupposition s and by experiment and reflection, they look into phenomena are indeed similar to each other for it is only one law (that appears in different forms) such as general gravel which in one place appears in the form of the fall of bodies to earth and in another place in the form of the rotation of the moon round the earth and so on .Second on the basis of this one dominant law all apparently diverse things and phenomena are linked with each other in a causal relationship In short scientists do not content themselves with the appearance and the surface of things and phenomena, but by probing them deeply look at roots and see a united and coherent world. But how far does this probing and looking in depth continue? It continues until they come to presuppositions. As soon as they reach this point they stop and scientific investigation comes to an end. However, philosophy start precisely at this point and philosophical investigation begins here. In its analysis confirmation, negation, endorsement, and explanation of philosophical presuppositions of science, philosophy looks even more deeply into things. Therefore in this journey from the surface of phenomena to their depths, and in this profound investigation, philosophy begins where all other branched of learning stop. It deals with the roots on which other discipline depend and by the help of which try to explore the phenomena we encounter in the world, philosophy looks at root of all other field of learning and this is why it is deeper than other discipline. This profound approach is not limited to philosophical discussion about the presupposition of science but rather philosophy discussions and perspective in general are essentially profound and deep.

However does its deep outlook make learning philosophy necessary? The answer is negative for most people, for though the deep philosophical perspective is interesting and desirable its absence will not disturb man life either in this world or in the next. we have all know ,many people who did not have this deep outlook but incurred no great material or spiritual harm because of it , it is true that if a society lacks such deep thinkers altogether it ill face culture decay and deterioration and no doubt this decadence may disturb its social life .

Therefore this characteristic makes it necessary that in every society some learned and qualified people should study philosophy and specialise.

Providing The Presuppositions of the other fields of Study

It was explained in the last chapter that all branches of knowledge posses some general particular philosophical presuppositions without which research in those discipline would be either meaningless is impossible. The principle of non- contradiction , the principle of the possibility of knowledge , the principle of causality, the law of causal necessity, the law of causal homogeneity , the law of the simultaneity of cause and effect , the impossibility of circle and degree , the impossibility of opposition , the principle if simplicity the existence or nonexistence of nature , the existence or nonexistence of nature movement, the existence or nonexistence of absolute space the existence or non-existence of the whole as something independence from the part determinism versus free will. The existence or non - existence of quantity in the external world and many other philosophical laws and proposition are among there presuppositions. Some of these are discussed in philosophy , some other in type of philosophy that is used in genitive constructions, such as the philosophy of the empirical science , the philosophy of mathematic , the philosophy of the social science and the philosophy of science and skill other problems, in their different aspects are studied in both. We can say, then that it is philosophy that provide many of the presupposition of the other field of study depend, each discipline is dependent on a certain form of philosophy and when that discipline is accepted and finds current and as soon as that philosophy associated with it also become as that philosophy is destroyed that particular discipline will also be undermined. In short it is not the case that every philosophy can permit any intellectual discipline to grow out of it or to be more evident in the humanities and especially in the social science.

Does this characteristic make learning philosophy necessary?

The truth is that if we consider only this characteristic and disregards the impact of these branches of knowledge on man private and social life, still according to our two criteria the answer would be in the negative, for the mere fact that philosophy provides the presupposition of the other field of learning does not make learning ir necessary. It is true, however that if we consider the impact of these intellectual disciplines on man individual and social life it world is a different story and we shall do this in 2.8.

Providing The Fundamental Principle of Systems and Movement

As every intellectual disciple is dependent on true or false philosophical presuppositions or in other words as every field of learning is dependent on a type of philosophy, every social movement and every human system are also dependent on a philosophy. The Nazi Fascist and Marxist movement were dependent on the philosophies of Nazism Fascism and Marxism. Less important movement such as those of the Hippies, the Beatles, the Punks and the Raps are also dependant on their philosophies. In general al big or small movement that have emerged or will emerge have been influenced and will be influenced by a particular philosophy. Every kind of human systems whether ethical, political, legal economic or educational also depends on principle and presuppositions most of which are essentially philosophy.

Thus it is the task of philosophy that provides the principle and presuppositions of systems and movement. In short every true or false social movement or human system is based on a particular philosophy true or false. Social philosophers deal with these philosophies directly. However other social classes also have some understanding of these philosophies and in a general way and directly are affected by them through the circulation of the ideal promoted by this philosopher and because of this influence a particular philosophy becomes current in the society and is widely accepted by the public. Clearly enough a society will accept only those movement and system that are compatible with its accepted philosophy. Accordingly, every with any type of philosophy. Form this we can understand the hidden role of philosophy in man individual and social life As we have already seen, because of this characteristic philosophy plays a hidden role individual and social life of the people so that absence of a true philosophy may lead to confusion in those spheres and even lead to their Nazim Fascim and Marxism imposed on the human society or on a part of it, proves this claim. Hence according to the first criterion, there is no doubt that the existence of a true philosophy is necessary to avoid such damages and this in true make the study of philosophy necessary. Would it, however be necessary for all people? The answer is no .in fact the existence of a number of learned philosophy would be enough for once their thoughts circulate in the society other will be duly influence.

Therefore because of this characteristic, it is necessary that you should be some learned and well-qualified people to learned become experts in philosophy.

Laying the Foundation of Worldviews

We have all seen or heard about sages whom no worldly joy or bliss could make happily nor any misfortune or defeat downcast and forlorn. In contract, we have seen many people who have been destroyed by small miseries and misfortunes. Where is the root of this difference? it lies in their attitude towards existence , themselves their future their happiness or misfortune the world and its joy and pains. In short it lies i their attitude toward the world and the position of man in it, that is, in their ‘’ worldview’’ it would be no exaggeration if we say that no aspect of man could be more important than his worldview for this affects or rather determines all this action, his life in this world and in the hereafter and all his private and social affairs. Therefore in light of the two criteria already set forth, having a correct worldview is necessary for every one A worldview or as it has been described above, the individual attitude toward the world and man positions in it contain three basic questions:

1- Is the cause of the world phenomena, including man only material action and reaction and no non- material power has an role in their creation or even the creation of matter its lf? And essentially is existence equal to matter or is it rather that the material world is only a part of the world of existence, depending for it realization on another being that lies beyond it? in other words, does the world need a god and if it does , does it need gods, or is it that the existence of gods is impossible and the one God satisfies all that needs of being including man?

2- Is man life confirmed to his life in this world, or does he also have another life after death? And if he has another life is it limited or eternal? In my case, what is its relationship with his life in this world? This question entails another question Besides his corporeal body does man have something else called ‘spirit’

3- What is the surest way to find the right plan for one private and social life? Besides the conventional plans available to people, which in practice result in contradictory conclusions; is there any other plan whose validity is certain? The importance of the last question becomes more apparent when the answer to the second question is affirmative; that is, we come to the conclusion that man has an eternal life after death and he has to prepare, with his voluntary work in this mortal life, for felicity in the one to come. In that case, finding a sure means that shows the relationship between the two lives and an exact plan that can ensure eternal happiness becomes more urgent, and to the extent that life after death is valued more, finding the way to ensure happiness in it becomes more important. The first question is discussed under the title of “Monotheism”, the second under ‘Resurrection’ and third under ‘Prophet Hood’, which collectively account for the basic convictions is also necessary.

Does this make learning philosophy necessary for all people? Still the answer is negative. For most people, whose minds are not used to critiquing and raising questions can, on the basis of common sense convictions, find the correct answers to the philosophical questions related to worldview. What makes people err in their attempt to find worldview is the fact that they are prey to opposing inclinations rather than lack of proof or ignorance of philosophy? Hence, the philosophical nature of the questions discussed in worldview does not oblige people to learn philosophy. It is true, however that his characteristic makes learning philosophy necessary for the following two groups:

4- Those who have doubts about their worldview and are not certain whether it is right or wrong. Their mind is active and meticulous, and they cannot be satisfied with the simple proofs with which common people are contented. No doubt such people need the help of philosophy.

5- Those who have the right worldview, the monotheistic worldview, and have no doubt in it for the time being, but

Questions

1- How many factors does the necessity criterion include? Name them.

2- What are the uses of philosophy?

3- Which groups have to learn philosophy?

4- What is the difference between philosophical propositions and their corresponding common sense convictions?

5- By giving an example, show that philosophy looks at phenomena more deeply than science and science looks at the phenomena more deeply than convention!

6- Name the essential questions of worldview and explain them briefly.

7- It is possible that in Muslim countries, as long as the people believe in Islam, economic systems that abolish private ownership to be established and stabilized? Why? (In your answer you may also consider the philosophical aspect of the question).

8- In the holy verse “When you threw, it was not you that threw, but God who threw” (Anfal “8”:17) which refers to a pebble or an arrow thrown by the prophet, peace be upon him and his household, two issues have been admitted simultaneously:

1- Throwing is the Prophet’s action , peace be upon him and his household (because of the expression “when you threw”);

2- Throwing is God’s action (becaus e of the expression “but God threw”).

Explain on the solution of what philosophical question deep understanding of the compatibility of the two depend?

3- Explain how deep understanding o f the verse “And God created you and what you make” (Saffat “37”:96) depend on solving the philosophical problem on solving the philosophical problem of how one action may have two agents.

4- On understanding what philosophica l issue does deep understanding of the holy verse “But you will not unless God wills” (Insan “76”:30) depend?

Chapter Five: Necessity, Impossibility, and Possibility

In this chapter terms such as ‘necessity’, ‘impossibility’, ‘necessity by essence’, ‘impossibility by essence’, ‘possibility by essence’, ‘necessity by others’, and ‘impossibility by others’ are introduced.

Therefore, we start our discussion by giving a brief and indefinable concept in philosophy, and then we will try to explain these terms in the light of the two self-evident concepts of existence and non-existence.

Necessity

If we consider such items as ‘flower’, ‘even’, ‘white’, ‘sweet’, and ‘eight’, we will see that among these items only ‘even’ can be related to ‘eight’, and ‘white’ to ‘flower’, and these relationships are reflected in the mind of man in the two statements of ‘eight is even’ and ‘flower is white’. No doubt because ‘even’, ‘sweet’ or ‘eight’ have nothing in common with ‘flower’, or ‘flower’, ‘white’, or ‘eight’, or finally ‘white’, ‘sweet’, and ‘even’ with each other, there can exist no statement in our mind describing their relationship, such as ‘eight is sweet’ and so on. In other words, the statement ‘eight is an even number’ expresses the relationship between the attribute ‘even’ and the number eight and the statement ‘the flower is white’ indicates the relationship between the attribute ‘white’ and the flower.

Now we turn our attention to the two mentioned relationships. It is clear that the attribute ‘even’ and the number eight, unlike the attribute ‘white’ and the flower are inseparable related to each other. We cannot imagine any number eight that is not even. However, we can imagine a flower that is not white, or even imagine certain states and conditions where the white flower loses its whiteness and acquires another colour. In philosophical terms it is said that the relationship between ‘white’ and ‘flower’ is unnecessary. We can also put the necessity or non-necessity of this relationship in a statement, and say, for example, “Eight is necessarily even,” and “Flower is white but unnecessarily.” In these two statements, besides showing the relationship, we have identified its kind. In technical terms, words such as ‘necessity’ or ‘non-necessity’, which show the kind of relationship, are called ‘modes’.

We should know that concept such as necessity and non-necessity, or necessary and unnecessary are evident and certainly need no definition for their presence in the mind, and even such concepts cannot be defined. These concepts are gradually and automatically are formed in the human mind. Therefore, we do not intend here to define these concepts, and have only tried to show to which concepts of the mind the philosophers refer by the terms ‘necessity’ and ‘non-necessity’.

Necessity and impossibility

The above-mentioned necessity and nonnecessity were not specific to any special attribute. In general, the relationship f each attribute with the thing it describes is either necessary or unnecessary, that is, it is either an attribute inseparable from that thing, or it is a separable attribute.

‘Even’, for example, is the necessary attribute of number eight, whereas whiteness is the unnecessary attribute of the flower. Now we turn our attention to existence and non-existence.

As the relationship of one thing and its attributes could be either necessary or unnecessary, the existence or nonexistence of one object could be necessary or unnecessary. In other words, the existence of one things can be necessary or unnecessary, and its non-existence can also be necessary or unnecessary. In technical terms, things that have a necessary existence are called ‘necessary’, and those whose non-existence is necessary are named ‘impossible’. The necessity of existence is also named ‘necessity’, and the necessity of nonexistence is called ‘impossibility’. So, when we say something is necessary, we mean its existence is necessary, it must exist, and its non-existence is impossible.

On the other hand, when we say something is impossible, we mean its non-existence is necessary, it should not exist, and its existence would be impossible.

For further clarification of the issue, let’s consider one of the phenomena, the storm, for example. Suppose that we know all the factors responsible for the existence of the storm, and decisively judge that the storm must exist. In other words, with this supposition the storm will necessarily exist, and, in philosophical terms, it is necessary. Now, suppose that some or all of these factors do not exist; then, according to the judgment of the intellect, the storm should not exist. In other words, with this supposition the storm would be necessarily non-existent, and in philosophical terms it would be impossible.

Impossibility by essence and impossibility by other

If we suppose that the causes and factors necessary for the existence of a storm do not exist, the storm will never exist. With this supposition, the storm should be impossible. Moreover, we are all familiar with concepts of ‘circle’ and ‘angle’, and we know that a circle can never have and angle. Therefore, an angled circle or a circle with an angle would be impossible.

Here we are faced with two impossible things; the storm and an angled circle. Is there any difference between these two impossible things? No doubt there is a difference. Although the storm is now impossible, we can do something to remove this impossibility; in other words, its impossibility is removable and separable, whereas the impossibility of an angled circle can never be lifted.

What is the origin of this difference? What is its cause? Its cause is that the impossibility of an angled circle emanates from its essence. What we mean by the essence of a particular thing is the thing itself, regardless of the existence or nonexistence of other things. Therefore, if we want to consider the essence of a thing, we must consider only that thing, irrespective of the existence or nonexistence of any other thing. The essence of an angled circle, then, would be impossible. Why? Because it is contradictory in its essence, circle being a closed equidistant curve that has no angle. An angled circle would be, then, a curve that both possesses and does not possess an angle. This, obviously enough, is a contradiction, and every contradiction, no doubt, in essence and in itself would be impossible. The storm, however, is not contradictory in itself; its impossibility is not a part of its essence so that it should be inseparable from it and make its existence automatically impossible; rather, its impossibility is caused by external factors, that is, things outside it have caused its impossibility.

There are certain obstacles, for example, preventing its existence, or there are certain factors that are necessary for its existence and have not been realized yet.

It is clear that once those barriers are lifted or those necessary causes are made available the storm will no longer be impossible. This is why philosophers argue that the existence of an angled circle would be ‘impossible by essence’ and its impossibility would be ‘an impossibility by essence’ or ‘essential impossibility’, whereas the existence of the storm, whose causes do not exist yet or there are certain obstacles preventing it, is ‘impossible by other’ and its impossibility is ‘impossibility by other’.

From what has already been said it becomes clear that the impossible by essence can never exist, and it is impossible to find any extension for it in the external world. It would not exist simply by changing states and situations, by stipulating new conditions, or by changing particular factors. The impossible by essence is absolutely nonexistent in any state, unlike the impossible by other, which though in the present state and situation and in the present condition cannot exist and can never have an extension, in certain cases by changing the state, situation or condition, and, in short, by changing the factors responsible or its impossibility, it can exist.

Necessity by essence and necessity byother

We are already familiar with the philosophical term ‘essence’. The essence of a particular thing is the thing itself regardless of other things; therefore, our conception of the essences of a thing would be equal to our conception of the thing without conceiving or stipulation the existence or non - existence of any other things. Considering the meaning of essence and the explanation given on the impossible by essence and the impossible by other, we can easily understand at the meaning of the necessary by essence and the necessary by other.

If there essence of a thing is necessary that is if exist necessary without the mediation of any other the influence of any other factor, dependence on any cause or condition or in short if it exists necessary by itself and in more simple term, if its non- existence is self-contradictory , such a thing would be necessary by essence it is evident that if the essence of a thing is not necessary , but it becomes necessary on stipulating certain causes and factors , such as thing would be necessary by other , for in fact , it is made necessary by external causes and factors ; it’s necessary is the result of those cause Therefore necessity by essence is that necessities which results from the thing itself and is dependent no on external factor necessity by other however result from something other than the thing itself.

From what has been said we may after that it impossible to annihilate the necessary by essence. We cannot make it non-existent by simply changing some states situation as or conditional or my producing certain factors the necessary by essence enjoys absolute existence under all circumstances. However though in the present situation , state and condition the necessary by other is necessary and con not be annihilated once the situation , state and condition change or in short as soon as the removal of the cause of it necessity become possible , it may lose its state of necessary existence and become non-existence .

We many mention many examples of the necessary by other. All the existent we may observe in our surroundings, such as different kinds of element, plants animal and men are necessary by other. The tree that we see is the effect is a claim of cause, such as water, air, certain, degree of temperature and many other factors that may not be easily enumerated. If this chain of cause stays as it is and none of the cause change, this tree will necessary continue existing, and it will never become non-existence. To destroy it, certain changes have to take place in this chain. In that case, the tree would not be necessary and is would become nonexistent.

This means that it the chain of these causes that makes the tree necessary and its non - existence impossible. Accordingly, by changing this claim its necessary might be lifted and it would become non-existent. The necessary by essence is limited to the existence of God. Philosophers have proved that it is only God who is necessary by essence.

Possibility by essence

So far we have understood that the impossible by essence is the thing which when conceived without conceiving the existence or non-existence of any other thing with itwe understand that is existence is self - contradictory, and therefore impossible In itself rather than because of any other factor. On the other hand, the necessary by essence is that which is necessary by itself - contradictory and is impossible and therefore its existence is caused by essence, that is it essence is necessary neither in its existence nor non- existence and neither its existence nor selfcontradictory such a thing would be possible by essence Possibility then means that neither existence nor nonexistence is necessary.

Therefore in order to understand whether a thing is possible by essences or not we have to conceive only that thing without considering the existence or non - existence of other things and examine it in regard to existence and non-existence and consider it position. If we find that it not contradictory i its existence that is tots existence is not impossible and also it is not contradictory in its non- existence, that is it non-existence is not impossible it will be possible by essence.

We can mention many examples of the possible by essence. All the things we find in our surroundings, including ourselves are possible by essence. However let us take the aforementioned storm as an example. you may be asked to consider only the existence of it cause or factor , or, in more philosophical; term to conceive only the essence of the storm, say if the thing you have considered can ever find an extension band whether its existence is self - contradictory. Your answer will be negative, and your reason will be that in the past there have been many storms. You might also be asked whether the non-existence if the thing you have considered is impossible, and if is non- existence will be lf contradictory.

Once again your answers will be negative, for usually she weather is claim and there is no storm. Therefore, the storm is essentially neither necessary nor impossible or in other words it possible by essence.

Compatibly of possibility by essence with necessity or impossibility by other

There is no doubt that possibility by essence is incompatible with necessary or impossibility by essence. In other words, the possible by essence can never become necessary or impossible by essence, for the possible by essence is that which in itself is necessary neither in its existence nor in its non- existence, whereas the necessary by essence or the impossible by essence is that which is necessary in its existence or in its non -existence , respectively. Therefore , there would be a contradiction and an impossibility if a thing could be both possible and necessary in its existence , Similarly there would also be a contradiction and an impossibility if a single thing could be both possible and impossible by essence , that is its non = existence be both necessary and unnecessary .therefore the possible by essence cannot be necessary or impossible by essence , that is possibility by essences in incompatible with necessity or impossibility by essence.

Now is possibility by essence also incompatible with necessity or impossibly by other? In other words, will there be any contradiction if the possible by essence could be the necessary or the impossible by other? The answer is no!

from the rational perspective there is no contradiction if a thing whose existence or non- existence is essentially not necessary to become necessary in its existence or non-existence by external factors just as it is not impossible for a thing that is not luminous in itself to become luminous by external factors, like iron for example which is itself is not luminous and becomes luminous through heating. Thus possibility by essence is compatible with necessary and impossibility by other. However this is not all for as we shall demonstrate in chapter eleven by priming the law of ‘causal necessary ‘everything that is possible by essence is simultaneously necessary or impossible by others.

Turning to the example of the storm mentioned above, this is why once we know that all the causes and factor of the storm are realized we will judge at once that the weather must necessary be stormy, and that is impossible for it to be otherwise. In other words the storm is necessary, by which of course, we mean it is necessary by others for allegedly this necessary is imposed on it by the cause and factors that create it. Now if at the time we proclaim the necessity of the storm we are asked if the same storm, irrespective of the causes of it creation, necessarily exists and is necessary in it, we will definitely reply in the negative at say that in itself it is still only possible.

The meaning of theses two simultaneous judgements made you the intellect is that from the rational point of view the mentioned storm is simultaneously possible by essence and between these two. In the same way, possible by essence is show to be compatible with impossibility other.

Question

1- What is the meaning of necessity, impossibility or possibility?

2- What is the difference between the necessary by essence and the necessity by other?

3- What is the difference between the impossible by essence and the impossible by other?

4- Can the necessary by essence be possible by essence, too? Why?

5- Can the impossible by essence be possible by essence too? Why?

6- Which of the following items have necessary relationship with each Earth and the situational movement Equilateral triangle and equal angles Man and existence A man whose factors of creation have all been realized and existence Dinosaurs and non- existence in the present states of nature Edible salt and saltiness.

6- Can the possible by essence be necessary by other, too? If so, demonstrate it by giving an example beside the one mentioned in this book.

7- Can the possible by essence be impossible my others, to? If yes, demonstrate it by giving an example besides that given in his book.

8- Give three example for things that are possible or impossible by essence.

8- Which of the following is necessary by essence impossible by essences our possible by essence and which are necessary or impossible my others?

A monster whose head alone is bigger than the earth, Phoenix, you dinosaur and equilateral triangle with three unequal angles, earth the movement of the earth round the sun, the movement of the sun round the earth.