Skip Navigation

Journal of Islamic Studies 2007 18(2):183-201; doi:10.1093/jis/etm002
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Kalin, I.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author (2007). Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

Mulla Sadra on Theodicy and the Best of All Possible Worlds

Ibrahim Kalin

College of the Holy Cross

E-mail: ikalin{at}holycross.edu


   Abstract

The argument that the world that God has created is the best of all possible world-orders (ahsan al-nizam) is based on the premise that God always acts optimally. As a response to the problem of evil, the argument seeks to remove any tensions between the imperfection of the world and God's power and goodness. Sadr al-Din al-Shirazi, known commonly as Mulla Sadra (d. 1640), develops a number of arguments to defend the thesis as formulated by al-Ghazali. While reiterating the previous arguments, Mulla Sadra revises the question of theodicy within the context of his concept of existence and its modalities. Instead of discussing the problem of evil in terms of moral imperfections alone, he defines the world of existence as ‘that which is necessarily less than God’ and thus bound to be imperfect. Furthermore, Mulla Sadra interprets all evil, natural or moral, as serving a higher purpose because the world is structured in a hierarchical way and for everything there is a teleological history. The article looks critically at the eight arguments which Sadra advances to defend his position. At the end of his elaborate discussions, however, Sadra takes refuge in blessed ignorance and faithfully accepts that not all problems of philosophy can be solved decisively.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.