Seddiqin Argument or the argument of the righteous is an argument for the existence of God in Islamic philosophy. This argument was explained by Islamic philosophers such as Avicenna, Mulla Sadra and Muhammad Husayn Tabatabai.
1. The name of Seddiqin
Seddiqin means the argument of the sincere men or truthful ones. Seddiqin refers to those who are just only argue for the Gods existence through God. In other words, in this argument, the existence of God argued through only the existence. According to Legenhausen the Seddiqin is a synonym of "sincere" and an antonym of "hypocritical". The word "Seddiqin" is a sighah mubalighah in Arabic grammar which shows extra attribution. Consequently, Seddiqin means those who are extremist in faith and belief.
2. Historical views
The Seddiqin counted as one of the lasting and permanent argument in Islamic philosophy for the existence of God. This argument also posed by most of Islamic philosophers in different explanation to justify the Necessity Being. It seems that one who first presented the argument is Avicenna. after him, many of Islamic philosophers try to show other explanation of the Seddiqin argument.
2.1. Historical views Avicennas Argument
Avicenna detailed the argument for the existence of God in three books namely Al-ShifaThe Book of Healing and Al-Nejat and Al-isharat wa al-tanbihat. it seems that for the first time applied the argument of Seddiqin. According to Muhammad Legenhausen little pay attention to Avicennas proof of sincere.Avicenna described the argument as seddiqinBorhane seddiqin because this argumentation applies by those who are truthful. According to Avicenna, those who are truthful persons, their argument is pure truth while there is no symbols of untruthfulness in their argumentation. In other words, Seddiqin witness to existence of God and truth just only by one argument which is the essence of Truth and God. Avicenna refers to the argument as follows:
Consider how our statements in proving the First-almighty and His unity and his acquittance from all deficiencies did not anything other than existence itself; and there is no need to consider his creatures and acts. Also they are, also, some reasons for His existence, but this kind of demonstration is a stronger one and a higher position. This means when we survey the mode of existence we consider that existence in so far as it is existence, witness to the existence of God, then it witness to other beings.
Also Avicenna quotes the Quran to support the argumentation:" Is it not sufficient as regards your Lord that he is witness over all things"surah 41, verse 53.
Avicenna focuses on the view that God is a necessary being in itself. This argument is based on contingency. The claim of Avicenna is that we can establish the existence of God directly by consideration of his existence itself. In other words in the proof of sincere, Avicenna tries to reach the existence of God just through an analysis of existence itself along with the supposition that God is the necessary existent. According to him, if we reflect on any things generally and consider only to its existence, then the existence is either necessary or not. If the existence is necessary then it is God-Avicenna call it al-Wajib al-wujud and if the existent is not necessary then it is impossible or contingent. It is not impossible because we assume that it is something therefore it must be contingent. In fact, if we consider the existence of existent alone then it is either the necessary or contingent. The contingent, in respect to its existence, needed ab alio or something which brings it into existence. The preponderant itself is necessary or contingent. If it is necessary, then it is God. If it is contingent, then it is in need of a transcendent cause. The series of these transcendent causes themselves are finite or infinite. The finite series finally arrives to God since that the last member doesnt need to any cause and therefore itself is by definition the Necessary Existent. If the series would be infinite then series as a whole needed to its components in its existence and therefore is contingent.
2.2. Historical views Shihab al-Din Yahya Suhrawardi’s Argumant
Suhrawardi, founder of illuminatinism, also referred to the seddiqin. its version is important for two reasons. first that he introduce mystical ideas into the argument. secondly mulla Sadra Shirazi known himself closer to Suhrawardi rather than Avicenna. Suhrawardi has its terminology for the argument. For instance he used word the lights of light in place of God or necessary being. He used rich for necessary being and poor for contingent being. His argument in his collected works are as follows:
If immaterial light were poor in its essence, then its need would not be for a dusky dead substance, for it would not be proper that the more noble and complete should be founded on that which is not in that direction, substantially jawhariyah relying on it. According to each of these alternatives it has been proven and demonstrated that the existence of the Necessary Existent is in its ipseity needless of any other. This is what we intended. And know that this argument is extremely firm and strong, and its source is near to the way of the Illuminationists, which is based on the principle of light.
their essence. Sadra put forward a new argument known as Seddiqin Argument or Argument of the Righteous. The argument attempts to prove the existence of
A cosmological argument in natural theology and natural philosophy not cosmology is an argument in which the existence of God is inferred from alleged
teleological or physico - theological argument also known as the argument from design, or intelligent design argument is an argument for the existence of God or
The argument from religious experience is an argument for the existence of God. It holds that the best explanation for religious experiences is that they
The argument from morality is an argument for the existence of God. Arguments from morality tend to be based on moral normativity or moral order. Arguments
An argument from nonbelief is a philosophical argument that asserts an inconsistency between the existence of God and a world in which people fail to
The argument from free will, also called the paradox of free will or theological fatalism, contends that omniscience and free will are incompatible and
The Argument from love is an argument for the existence of God. Tom Wright suggests that materialist philosophy and scepticism has paved our world with
ontological argument Ibn Rushd Averroes and Thomas Aquinas, who presented their own versions of the cosmological argument the kalam argument and the first
The argument from miracles is an argument for the existence of God that relies on the belief that events witnessed and described as miracles i.e. as