The subject of Divine Will is discussed in three views of Imammieh, Moatazeleh, and ASHAEREH scholars. In views of them, God has Will, however, there are differences between their beliefs: Is Divine Will a substance attribute or an attribute surplus to substance Is Divine Will an ancient or created attribute Is Divine Will an affirmative or privative attribute Is Divine Will a real or unreal attribute Is Divine Will an existing attribute In this article, the opinions of the three scholars are studied

Proverbs, originates from religion, culture, theological and philosophic beliefs and conventions of a society. They show the popular beliefs. The ASHAEREH theological sect, which is one of the most important theological sects in the field of Islamic civilization, has played a pivotal and fateful role in creating the Islamic dimension of Iranian thought. In the present research, the authors have tried to analyze and show the different dimensions of the ASHAEREH ideas in the mentality of the Iranian people through Persian proverbs.The ASHAEREH considered freedom and divine will free without any conditions and did not consider any matter of goodness and righteousness and grace obligatory on God. According to the "Wisdom of God" component, they believe that God wills the good of man from wisdom. They believe that although it is not obligatory on God to do a righteous deed, it has been proven that God's deeds are based on wisdom and expediency, even if one is not aware of its wisdom. The ASHAEREH, like the Mo'tazeleh and others, consider only God as sustenance and attribute this attribute exclusively to God. Also, they consider "haram" as sustenance and believe that God gives both "halal" sustenance and "haram" sustenance, and the meaning that God makes "haram" sustenance for man is that it makes the body consistent and stable. In addition, they believe that sustenance is predestined for the rest of their lives and nothing is reduced or added to human sustenance. Also, they believe that although God has decreed sustenance, it is obligatory to earn a living. The ASHAEREH, believe that the victim dies on his own death, that is, when it is predestined for his death. They believe that the Creator of the universe is one, because the concept of obligatory existence cannot be true except on a single essence. They believe the Resurrection and its accessories, such as "the truth of the resurrection of the dead", "the truth of the question", "the truth Letter of deeds", "right of weight and measurement of deeds" and "Bridge being right". We see all of these beliefs in Persian Proverbs.

The main concern of the present article is to survey the issue of adopting religion as a voluntary or compulsory act. Voluntary act signifies man’s will to measure and choose when facing miscellaneous paths and options. Thus, measuring, making decision and choosing are accounted as three essential elements of voluntary acts.The followers of Ashareh sect believe that it is compulsory for all people to adopt religion as it is God’s gift to man; thus, man has no alternative save to adopt religion. Imamiyeh sect, on the contrary, stresses the adoption of religion as a voluntary act, referring to the common sense and holy Prophet’s traditions. They are of the opinion that every voluntary act enjoys at least three elements, including insight, tendency and power to choose. Accordingly, to prove their claim, they invoke the holy Quran verses and traditions for each one of these elements.

Paying attention to the intellect and wisdom at the outset of islam for understanding the koran and the narratives was presented to the people. This presentation was in such a way that Islam was equal to rationality and pagan was equal to irrationality. The effect of this thought was so obvious in the verses of the early poets of the Persian literatures like ferdousi and Naser khosrou that the praise of intellect was one of the movties in their verses. Due to religious diversities and the advent of the speech schools, especially after the appearance of Abolhasan Ashari in the third century and the establishment of this thought by the militants in the fifth century, the arguments against rationanily started.The effect of this thought with the appearance of Sanai became obvious in the Persian literature. After that irrationality became one of the themes in the poetry and intellection became the biggest rival for the love, this thought was dominant for several years in such a way that the attempts of philosophers like Molla Sadra, in the subject of the supreme philosphy, or writers like saenaldin Ali torkeh couldn't eradicate such thoughts entirely.

The issue of good and bad has been one of the most important issues which has attracted the attention of scholars. The theologians called Adliehinsist on the essentiality and rationality of moral goodness and badness of the rational individual’s actions. On the contraryAshaere insist on the divinity and legitimacy of such actions. The central question is what Muslim theologians meant by the words ‘good’, ‘bad’; ‘essentiality’, ‘rationality’; and divinity, legitimacy. In this present article, four distinct meanings are attributed to ‘Good’ and ‘bad’ and it is demonstrated that the disagreement between the Muslim Philosophers can be traced to the fourth meaning. Therefore, considering the domain of reality (ontology) together with the domain of knowledge (epistemology) the following four probabilities are discussed for the fourth meaning.A) ‘Good’ and ‘Bad’ are ontologically based on divine will and they will be known by revelation.B) ‘Good’ and ‘Bad’ are ontologically essentials of the actions and they will be known by revelation.C) ‘Good’ and ‘Bad’ are ontologically based on divine will and they will be known by independent reason.D) ‘Good’ and ‘Bad’ are ontologically essentials of the actions and will be known by independent reason.ASHAEREHsupport the first option but Adlieh support one of the three other options.

One of the significant points on which ASHAEREH, schematics and Imamate fallowers have a different view is rational virtue and vice. Prior to presenting the opinion of each and every one of these sects, the contradictory points will be propounded to know what ASHAEREH denies. Although three meaning are mentioned in the most sources, rational virtue and obscenity possesses seven possible meanings and these discrepancies are due to superficial deliberation. Moreover, ASHAEREH's sayings, in. this regard, are too vague to choose only one meaning. However, from their determinism it is not probable to say thatthey deny the understanding of rational virtue and vice. 

One of the important theological issues that influenced the works of great scholars of Persian literature and its effects appeared in poetry and prose is the issue of the limits of human"s will in the world.After manydebates in this regard, with the appearance of Abolhasan Ashari, his theology, based on determinism, was developed among the the Sunni tradition. And in the 5th century, with the foundation of Nezamieh schools, it found an established status. Sadi who was educated in these schools, not only was familiar with such a wayof thinking but also he used it in his works. One example is the fourth story of the first chapter of Golestan that is the dispute between a king and his minister in training a teenager from a group of bandits. What the king has expressed in this story, is intact the reflection of Ashari"s determinist thinking and what the minister has expressed is the reflection of those who believe in will (arbitrariness). Comparing these two with other sayings of Sadi we can understand the fact that he analysed these two ways of thinking artistically without mentioning "will" and "determinism",Finally he supported what the king had said. In fact, in this way,Sadi has implicitlyexpressed the justification for his point of view.

Although different theologians schismatic sects of schismatics such as ASHAEREH and Imamieh have different ideas about the principles and branches of religion, but they are unanimous on montheism that is the religious pivot of Islam. Inspite of this, they present different, sometines antithetical commentaries which are the roots of all disputes and differences. Theologians Schismatic who lay stress on rational reasons about monotheism by emphasising the absolute simplicity of substance and negating the unity of quality and the qualified, believe in disqualified substance, and then the discrite the qualities that are introduced in the Quran they have to exaggerate. If we consider their ideas about God" s authority and knowledge we will see that they negate those qualities.

Being the most important principles of all divine religions, Divine uniqueness contains different orders one of which is uniqueness of action. ASHAEREH, denying the causal system in the world and referring it to Divine habit, believe that the only real agent in the world is God. Mulavi, seeing nothing but love and unity in the world and knowing the essence and action of the lover fully disappearing in the beloved, believes that the manifestation of God's names and qualities makes the causative system inevitable. Since Mulavi's causality is different from what is common in peripatetic philosophy, it has no contradictions with God's being absolute agent. Mulla Sadra, using his own philosophical principles, gives a strong reasoning for Mulavi' s idea.

The most outstanding gift won by Muslims is that their heavenly Book, i.e., the holy Quran, was collected soon after the holy Prophet’s demise and during the Ahlul Bayt’s lifetime and his companions, and then the holy Quran, the primary source of Islamic teachings, was dedicated to the holy Prophet’s Nation. However, the high merits and potentials of the holy Quran have brought about many controversies with regard to the religious issues. One of them is the issue of “seeing God” as ASHAEREH firmly believe that God is visible on the Day of Doom while Motazeleh strongly rebut it, believing that we can only have faith in His Omnipresence. Shiism also believes that God is invisible neither in this world nor in the next and move further to state that one can observe Him with one’s “perception”, i.e., the heart’s eye. In this regard, the Mystics are in agreement with Shia, stating that man should attain perception. It is noteworthy to mention that Ahlul Bayt (peace be upon them) have also maintained the perception rather than the “intuitive feeling”, i.e., head’s eye, what the present article is to elaborate on.