Mohammad Rezaei

Focusing on some contemporary Islamic reformers’ solutions, in particular, Abolkarim Soroush, Mohsen Kadivar, and Fazlur Rahman, to concrete issues in Muslim societies, this article examines two different methodological strategies of alternative readings of the Sunna: an archeological one and a genealogical one. In the archeological perspective, the holy text has been considered as a repository of answers to all sorts of questions. Through a pathological analysis, this view suggests solutions to correct distortions and looks for new windows seeking an original interpretation of the Qur’an. The genealogical view, on the other hand, puts aside this pathology and instead insists on the idea of the contingency of any interpretation. Regardless of accuracy and validity, according to the genealogical view, all interpretations have addressed temporal and contextual questions. What is important in this perspective is not returning to an original source for finding the exact message of Allah, or correcting previous interpretations, but recurrently referring to an open-ended text in order to explore the futures of the Qur’an.

Ibn Sina and Suhrawardi as representatives of peripatetic and Ishraqi schools have disagreements over different topics which the most serious of them is dispute over “prime matter “as something which lacks actuality and is mere receptibility. By reference to philosophical books -in particular those relating to Avecennian wisdom- it can be observed that at most three arguments in proving the prime matter from Ibn Sina’s works is observable that its results is a belief in the composition of body from matter of bodily form. The author of Hikmat-al- Ishraq considers one of these arguments as nothing and criticizes the other two arguments seriously and regards the body as lacking prime matter and is mere substantial connection; but he in his “Talvihat” under the influence of the ideas of Ismaili sage and Ikhwan-al safa subscribes to the existence of prime matter in bodies. Following this dual reaction, these questions can be raised: is Suhrawardi in agreement with Ibn Sina in Talvihat, but disagrees with him in Hikmat-Al Ishraq? Is his dispute with Ibn Sina on this problem a literal disagreement? The purpose of this reaserch is to present the differences of opinion between Suhrawardi and Ibn Sina, remove controvercy from Suhrawardi's point of view regarding prime matter. On this basis some ideas of contemporary thinkers are studied and criticized.