Religions and Mysticism
Year:2010 | Volume:43 | Issue:1|Papers Count:7

Monotheism, the advanced level (Pantheism) always is of the main issues and difficulties in the Muslim mysticism. Sanai importance of this topic, and there he is among the first is the mystics that could the idea of unity to remove profanity and pollution. Sanai comments causes the question that what is model of monotheistic idea that to justify unity so that impossible without knowledge and worship of God.  In this study, to find the answer to the first forms of monotheism and the monotheistic thinking, and then examined the Sanai monotheistic thought. Then shown Sanai innovations by discussing about unity on verb and non-rejection of God. This are distinct the Sanai comments of comments of other mystics.

The question of “what is the meaning of life?” has been the subject of a detailed discussion by Garrett Thomson in his book On the Meaning of Life. He considers “purposefulness” just a necessary condition for meaningfulness of life and believes that life is inherently valuable, other than being a means to an exalted or non-exalted end. Thomson argues that the meaning of life is the status of life with regard to transcendental truth of the world. In his view, understanding the meaning of life has to have practical implications for the way of life. Moreover, he believes, another element of meaningfulness is to relate with values beyond our existence. Love, he continues, is the most complicated relationship between human beings and it is through such a relation that they achieve a kind of “us-consciousness” by way of which participate in their values and, hence, make their process of lives more meaningful. In the end, Thomson refers to plan of life of an individual which is influenced by her background knowledge and understanding, a plan that leaves its impact on the interpretation of the process of her life. In this paper, Thomson’s views on evaluating the mentioned arguments shall be introduced, criticized and evaluated.

French revolution was a starting point for the emergence of concepts such as secular and laic. Although most of the people in Iran and Arab countries consider them equivalent, purpose and lexical roots of these two should make a distinction between them. Abuse or overuse of these terms by Marxist, Socialist, Liberal, ond other movements has resulted in a misunderstanding of them and consequently they are considered the same. Laicism means separation od religious from government, a government which is not limited to the executive affairs. It includes all Catholic countries; while secularism is specially limited to Protestant countries. Most of the Iranians and Arabs have a misconception of the terms, so they cosider them the same or they mix one of them with another concept such as democracy and infer something quite different.In what follows, a history of the terms, plus their Latin root as well as their Persian and Arabic equivalents are presented.

Buraq Baba or Buraq e Rumi of Mawlawiya sect was born in Tuqat (between Kunya and Sivas) (mid of 7th century A.H).He became one of Mashayikh of Baba'iya after his apprentice to his Murshid Sari Saltuq and was entitled Buraq. Apparently Baba'iya was subdivision of Mawlawiya specially its Qalandari Tariqas (ways) which was vocal in Azerbaijan and Anatolia for a long time. Buraq Baba's personality is very notable regarding his political activities and his efforts for the development of Islam in Ilkhanid time. Also, the importance of the Daravish attributed to him who is called Heydari makes Buraq's personality, from the Qalandari point of view, an important person. In this article, we will discuss some topics such as: Buraq Baba's life, Buraq's appellation, the sources that cited him, some of his works, and political missions. The article includes some other parts such as his Shari 'a, his Tariqa, and his extant works.

Ibn Meymun and Qazi Saeid Qomi both believe there is no likeness between God and His creatures; He is completely different from His creatures in all forms and sense. They also refute the view that God has any positive essential attribute and claim that God’s negative attributes are His true attributes since positive attributes of God imply polytheism.Based on this, they contend two things: negative attributes of God and pure homonymity. They maintain that God can only be described in negative terms and since God has nothing in common with other beings, even common terms that are used for God and His creatures (like existence, power) must be understood in a linguistic, not in a real or actual sense. Qazi Saeid Qomi, based on a Prophetic statement (hadith) adds a third element; i.e., Isbat e Mosmerat (God has endowed  to His creatures “life” “knowledge” “power’… but He does not have those attributes in His essence). Both scholars also reject the theory of Gradation (Tashkik) and maintain that belief in Tashkik is tantamount to infidelity and deviation from religion. In this essay we will compare and analyze the perspectives of both these scholars.

Molavi's theological and mystical point of view on Determinism is different. He criticizes of theological Determinism, but advocates of mystical determinism. Molavi refuses the determinists' belief about determinism because it has unfavorable results in worldly and eternal life. But he accepts the free and amorous determinism of mystics. His reasons in refusing theological determinism are egoism, world tendency and truth elusive. Inappropriate usage and incorrect interpretation of deterministic form of determinism make it unfavorable; and the perfect use and perfect interpretation of lovers of god makes mystical determinism acceptable and admissible.

Historically, the Logos was very important in the religious and philosophical schools and cultures. The idea of the Logos is considerable in ancient Greek philosophy, Judaism and Christianity. Jesus in Christianity was identified with the Logos as well as in Islam (Quran) he was called Kalemeh at Allah (the Word of God). This conception was in the Christian-Muslim relations very controversial. On the one hand, eastern Christian patriarchs such as John of Damascus insisted that the identification of Kalemeh with Jesus Christ in the Quran is similar to Logos in the Gospel of john i.e. both are eternal and Godlike. On the other hand, Muslim theologians had, in the light of Quran, denied the eternity and divinity of Kalemeh and according to them it has the meaning of Kon. In addition to this, for some scholars Kalemeh is similar to Nestorians' belief about the Logos and even derivates from their opinions. And for others it is similar to Ebionites believes. But by examination of the first three centuries A.H sources it is clear that Kalemeh has been used in the Quran without any intention in the other words it is not derivated from Nestorians.