Miraculousness or inimitability is one of the important issues of the Quran, which initiated from the second half of the second century (AH) and reached its full extent of growth and development until the eighth century (AH). Al-Fanari is one of the prominent figures in the field of interpretation sciences of the Quran who has studied and refined this important issue. Shams al-Din al-Fanari is the author of Ein al-A’ yan Commentary with a mystical approach. In his view, a miracle is an extraordinary act that is accompanied by tahaddi (to challenges people to do something extraordinary) without meeting with any opposition, and it is different from keramat (an extraordinary thing that some ordinary people do and is not accompanied by challenging people to do something extraordinary) and erhas (the occurrence of extraordinary acts that take place before the claim of prophecy and as an introduction to it). Compared to the scholars before him, al-Fanari has two new approaches to miracle in his commentary: first, the miraculousness which belongs to the Quran itself, and second, the miraculousness which is related to prohibiting people from using the power of opposing the Quran, not from the opposition itself despite having the power. The findings of this study reveals that al-Fanari, in addition to being in agreement with other scholars in the field of miracles, has also had some novel ideas and thoughts, the most outstanding of which is a completely mystical analysis of the authorities of the Prophet of Islam (p. b. u. h. ) and his power to present miracles, as well as an analysis of the nature of order with its five components.

Fanari was among the first scholars who, with the title of Sheikh al-Islam, endeavored to propagate and promote the school of Ibn Arabī in Anatolia. Şā’in al-Dīn Ali ibn Muhammad Turkah Işfahānī (d. 836 AH), who himself was a mystic and philosopher of the Ibn Arabī school and a contemporary of Fanārī, in response to opponents of Ibn Arabī’s ideas, referred to the status and credit of Fanārī and stated that he had been teaching Fusūs al-Ḥikam and the teachings of the Ibn Arabī school for twenty years, and this did not cause the scholars and scientists of Rome and Egypt to criticize and reproach Fanari. However, probably due to the unpopularity of this tendency among the Hanbalis and Egyptian jurists, Fanari avoided expressing ideas based on Ibn Arabī’s views during his stay in Cairo, and accordingly, most of the scholars who came to his discussion and lesson sessions testified to his excellence and knowledge. It has also been said that Fanari held the position of caliphate in some Sufi orders, such as the Rifā’iyya and Zayniyya.

Miftah al-Ghayb, is the first work in theoretical mysticism has been written by Sadr al-din Qunavi and therefore, Sham al-din Fanari’ s work, Misbah al-Uns, is its interpretation which has important role to make mystical discussions rationally. Mystics’ interpretation, such as Imam Khomeini among scholars, has been very useful in explaining and clarifying Misbah al-Uns purposes. In this essay, structure of arguments for oneness of Being, based on Imam Khomeini’ s periphrases on Misbah al-Uns, have been derived and then assessed these arguments, by clarification, explanation and criticism of Imam. Imam's criticism of the arguments of Oneness of Being and obfuscations have been raised against them, is based on two axes: misunderstanding between intention and extension or between primary essential predicate with scientific common predicate and absolute Being with being regarded as absolute. According to Imam, these types of obfuscations derived from misunderstanding between concept with extension, do not distinguish between conceptual absolute Being and being regarded as absolute, While intended absolute on God is Objective Being. Imam believes that these arguments are not delivered on necessary being, but on the nature of being, claiming that if removed being as regarded absolute, necessary being will be removed. While being regarded as absolute is more general than necessary and contingent being or absolute and districted one.

Sadr al-din Qunavi, and consequently, Shams al-din Fanari, believe that according to the rule of the Unit, the Common Being, is the first issuance of God. In Qunavi’s point of view, the first issuance of God, is the Common Being and essential grace that is interpreted as the self-disclosure of current in the truths of contingents; from the First Intellect to the first matter. In other words, in view of Qunavi, the first issuance of God, is the Common Being in the truths of entities and what has come into being the truths of entities and is common the Common Being between the First Intellect and other entities, and in a sense, is the truth of being-made, belong to the Being. The largest concentration of Imam Khomeini, in his iinterpretations on Misbah al-Uns is the interpretation of Qunavi’s Miftah al-Ghayb, in explaining the system degrees of Being, is according to the First Issuance or as he put it, Absolute Providence. Imam believes that the First Issuance, it is no plurality and it is plurality in afterwards that it is the same determinations of the First Issuance. However, according to Imam, the First Issuance has the credit of unity and vanishing plurality in its nature and the credit of plurality and appearance in the manifestations. Imam solves the problem of the Divine Knowledge of details tthrough the First Issuance and also, contrary to Qunavi and Fanari, does not accept being-made of Being, because he believes that the First Issuance or the Common Being, is the pure connection and the pure connection has not judgment and therefore can not be something made that, in this case, forgathers the principality of Being and being-made of quiddity together.

Qunavi’s Miftah al-Ghayb is the most important work that was written in the knowledge of theoretical mysticism and also Fanari’s Misbah al-Uns as detailed description on Miftahal-Ghayb, having shared in arguing mystical topics. But the last chapter at the beginning of the Misbahal-Uns, is devoted to spiritual journey that Fanari in this chapter states the way of Khwaja Abdullah Ansari, in Manazelal-Saerin that, in fact, rewriting Farghani’s design in Montahal-Madarek, because Farghani, Khwaja Abdullah’s spiritual stations of the journey in accordance with the principles of the his master’s school, Qunavi, written and practical mysticism is studied from the perspective of philosophical mysticism.Imam Khomeini also has writing commentaries on this chapter of Misbah al-Uns that considers Khwaja Abdullah’swaystations, with Farghani statementand designs newfound points, particularly in terms of theoretical mysticism. Indeed, the commentaries are Imam Khomeini’s reading of Farghani’swaystations of the wayfar, thatin total, has written empathetic.

According to a well-known traditional view, any specific human knowledge needs to have a specific subject-matter by which specified and characterized. Moreover, no scientific discipline should discuss of its own subject-matter but this is a task must be undertaken by another discipline prior to it. As to Islamic mysticism there have been controversial whether it is a scientific discipline with a certain subject-matter or not. Some Muslim mystics such as Qunawi, believe that God is the subject-matter of mysticism and the Names of the Essence are its principles, and the Names of his Attributes as well as His Acts are its problems. According to Imam Khomeini’s view, however, different branches of human sciences, on the testimony of their historical development, don’t need to have a unique subject-matter. In this point of view, the difference between several branches returns to their intrinsic authenticity. Then the subject of mysticism is God who is a personal and particular, not a universal.

Criticism of theoretical reason in the history of Islamic mysticism and in the schools of thought of Khorasani and Ibn Arabi are reflected in two different ways. In Khorasani mysticism emphasis has been laid on its incapability to accompany love in the course of wayfaring. This approach is mainly based on incapability of reason to encourage practice and involvement in the realm of practical mysticism. In theoretical mysticism emphasis is laid on incapability of reason in the field of understanding and attention to the limitations of theoretical reason in understanding the truths. There are arenas of the truth beyond the understanding of reason which should be understood through other ways related to those truths. Sadruddin Qunavi, a renowned figure in the field of theoretical mysticism, through relying on arguments based on philosophy and mysticism has tried to prove the incapability of theoretical reason. His arguments have been collected by Hamzeh Fanari. Attempts have been made in the present paper to review and assess the said arguments to find out their capability for proving this hypothesis.