In stylistics, analysis of syntactic categories is very important especially in the branches that examine the power relationships such as critical stylistics. The present paper considers the question of text certainty and author’s certitude in GHAZALI’S LETTERS. Using statistical methods, the study analyzes modality and examines the impact of this stylistic feature on the interpersonal relationship of the author and his addressees. The results show how the high percentage of both cognitive and imperative modes asserts the authority of the author’s position vis-à-vis the power institution. The high certainty of the texts surely emanates from GHAZALI’S position as a high-ranking Shafi'i scholar and, in turn, enhances his authority. The purpose of this study is to show the role of stylistic features in a contextual study of GHAZALI’S LETTERS.

Persian literature has been an epiphany of invaluable works by great thinkers, poets and renowned men of literature which have made immunity for the noble literature of Iran through creating invaluable pieces and works and protecting them from numerous fearful events during the course of history. Examination of the nature of thoughts in these noble men is of prominence for promotion of literary level in this country. Studying numerous personality dimensions and these authors, poets and men of literature’s thoughts in various aspects including mystical, religious, amore and philosophical approaches can provide a new image for recognition of novel aspects in their thinking layers and can prepare a new way for creating new path and literary works. Among such figures who are invaluable for recognition is the2 th century mystic, Ahmad Ghazali. In his works, Ahmad Ghazali always clearly showed the truth of love and manifested it as base and origin of existence and his book “Savaneh Al-Oshagh” is full of pictures, imageries, Quranic verses and Traditions accompanying poems which attract his special audience for contemplating on Ahmad GHAZALI’S mystical and lyrical points to comprehend his mystical and mysterious states. The present research, by means of content analysis method and library research aims at introducing and examining thoughts of Ahmad Ghazali.

This paper addresses to validate the mental perceptions and GHAZALI’S levels of understanding, dealing with the departure point starting from his well- known attack against philosophers. The main question in this paper is that how much is the validity of philosophical reason when it is going beyond its own epistemological realm, trying to explain the religious concepts by its own method? Ghazali believes that the philosophical reason is not sufficient. For it is beyond the reason ability, therefore, the reason must be illuminated by the revelation to understand such issues. Accordingly, the reason is not an independent source of knowledge, if it wants to speak about the religious propositions; it will go beyond its own limitation. He begins with the certain science denying the philosophical reason determining the limitation of reason, explaining the problems of philosophers, theologians and sufis by delivering the criteria of episteme. Finally, he concludes the philosophical knowledge is not the instrument which can help us to understand the scriptures and it is not related to it, because the reason beyond its limitation will engage in contradiction and skepticism and cannot show the reality as such is. Therefore, the religion must be independent. As a result, this paper criticizes the methodical incoherency that can be found in the meaning of reason has been depicted in his works.

It is clear that Ghazali opposed philosophers. Considering the arguments of the intellectuals about the clarity of this opposition, the most popular explanation is the opposition of religion with wisdom, religion with philosophy, or theology with philosophy. Probably the reason for this interpretation is that Ghazali regarded himself as the defendant of Islam, so he excommunicated philosophers. The final inference out of his books reveals that he, as one of the standard-bearers of Islam considered some philosophers’ ideas, particularly Ibn Sina and Faraby as blasphemy, but it does not mean he believed wisdom, thought and philosophy were totally disbelief. His recognition, of course, as a single issue without extension can be true. While Ghazali introduces Ibn Sina and Farabi’s ideas as aspects of disbelief, there are doubts about the accuracy of this view, and the use of excommunication as the only solution to the problem. The discussion here is not for investigating the truth or falsity of these doubts, but preventing confused reasoning. The aim of this study is to clarify the issue that the opposition is mainly between a theological and a philosophical deduction of Islam.

In this research, we are using a descriptive-analytical method to answer that why does Ghazali establish an epistemological system with a taste of phenomenology to deal with the truth of the doctrines of religious life? It seems that Ghazali's skepticism about the validity of the doctrines of religious life and the falsifiability of theoretical reason in this regard leads him to the doctrines of this type of life. This causes Ghazali to deal with Sufism in the context of practical reason to achieve certain knowledge. Therefore, Ghazali's skepticism in the field of common sciences of religious life and deviation from theoretical reason in the context of dogmatic metaphysics leads him to the perceptions of practical reason and ethics and ultimately Sufism. Sufism became a means for Ghazali's serious entry into the field of anagogical exegesis and interpretation of the world of religious life and common texts in this type of life. Therefore, his tendency towards sufism and anagogical exegesis prepared the ground for the phenomenological approach to the aforementioned sciences to organize an intuitive epistemological system in order to prove the truth of the doctrines of religious life.

GHAZALI’S tendency towards a Sufistic worldview and life, especially after his repentance, influenced his political vision. The impact of this event on Ghazali's seclusion and the strengthening of his Sufistic worldview was significant, inasmuch as his special language as a prominent Sufi was reflected in his writings in general and especially in his political writings. This was a sort of intellectual experience, which, with the support of GHAZALI’S life experiences in the field of Sufism and pious life, led to a closer and more integration of mystical insight and the principles of Iranshahri politics by him. As a result, his orations to the sultans and the pillars of power and monarchy were directed towards more ascetic, pious, spiritual, and cautious advice. This phenomenon deeply affected his expository literature, especially in his political writings. The hypothesis of this research is that GHAZALI’S repentance led to the integration and fusion of the two visions of Iranshahrian politics and Sufistic-mystical visions in such a way that, under its influence, concepts such as justice, monarchy, power, tax and ministry, etc were interpreted in an otherworldly and Sufistic context. In this research, in an analytical method and based on the analysis of Makatib’s treatise, the impact of his Sufistic-mystical worldview and life in the creation of a mystical-sufic narrative of Iransharian politics will be reconsidered.

The Nature of Language in Ahmad Ghazali’s View   Mostafa Mirdar Rezaei* Farzad Baloo**   In the Sufi tradition, Ahmad Ghazali is a prominent mystic who profoundly influenced mystics, writers, and poets after him from various perspectives. One of the significant aspects of his personality is theorizing in different fields. Therefore, examining Ahmad Ghazali’s opinions and views from various aspects is necessary and important. One of the essential and investigable aspects in Ghazali’s works is the examination of his perspectives on the element of “language” and its nature. The present research, written in a descriptive-analytical manner with a phenomenological approach to Ahmad Ghazali’s works, examines his views on the nature of language. The results of this study show that in dealing with the category of language, he has a more ontological view than an instrumental and linguistic one. Apart from his general approach to language, which is linked to the element of the “heart,” by contemplating Ghazali’s works, his perception of the concept of language can be categorized into two areas: 1- Examining the nature of language in the general sense, and based on the theory of language games. 2- Examining language in its specific mystical sense in the form of speech, silence, and beyond-silence (meta-silence).   Keywords: Ahmad Ghazali, Language, Language Games, and Linguistic Possibilities.   Introduction Ghazali is a multi-dimensional mystic with expertise in various fields. One of the important aspects of his personality is theorizing in different fields. For this reason, Shafiei Kadkani considers him more inclined to “intervene” compared to his brother Muhammad because what he says is “the result of his own reflections and spiritual achievements” (Shafiei Kadkani, 2013: 521). Therefore, examining Ahmad Ghazali’s opinions and views from various aspects is necessary and important. One of the essential and investigable aspects in Ghazali’s works is the examination of his perspectives on the element of “language.” It is important to note that the category of language in this study refers to understanding the nature of language itself and the mystic’s perception of its essence (first-degree knowledge), rather than focusing on its instrumental aspect, which is considered second-degree knowledge. More precisely, it is about the nature of language itself, not the aspect of language that “determines how we think” (Culler, 2003: 80). To enter the spiritual world of mystics, we are compelled to recognize and think about the behavior and speech (words and phrases) of Sufis (Shafiei Kadkani, 2013: 26). Therefore, this research does not deal with the type of Ghazali’s prose and poetry and the language he uses to express his thoughts (the stage of proving and realizing language), but rather seeks to address Ghazali’s understanding of the concept of language (perception and establishment of language). The present research, written in a descriptive-analytical manner with a phenomenological approach to Ahmad Ghazali’s works, examines his views on the nature of language and seeks to answer these two questions: What is the nature of language from Ahmad Ghazali’s point of view? What is the nature of Ghazali’s encounter with the category of language, especially in the path of spiritual journey?   Research Background A review of the research that has examined Ahmad Ghazali’s opinions and thoughts shows that most of these studies have focused on the subject of “love.” Ghazali’s prominence in this field, especially his views on mystical love, has been influential in this regard. Even a superficial review and consideration of the titles of the articles can confirm this. However, regarding the subject of the present study, i.e., examining the nature of language in Ghazali’s works, no independent study has been conducted so far, or if it has been done (such as the book “The Language of Poetry in Sufi Prose”), it relates to its instrumental aspect (second-degree knowledge), which was explained earlier.   Discussion Unlike Muhammad Ghazali, who “has a linguistic approach in presenting and explaining linguistic concepts and vocabulary” (Mirdar Rezaei and Baloo, 2022: 323), his brother Ahmad, in dealing with the category of language, has a more ontological view than an instrumental and linguistic one. Among the various views that he has put forward regarding language and its related vocabulary, a relatively systematic plan of his linguistic reflections can be formulated. In the first step, there is Ahmad Ghazali’s general approach to the concept of language and the relationship between signifier and signifieds, and in the specific approach, there is the special attention he pays to language in the realm of mystical experiences. Ghazali believes in a general approach to language. Every human being pours and expresses what they have of meaning and concept (signified) in their heart into a linguistic vessel and mold, which is their language: “Everyone can express the meaning that is in their heart with that phrase that is their language. If they are Arabic, how can they express it in Turkish? And if they are non-Arabic, how can they express it in Arabic?” (Ghazali, 1997: 240) In this definition, language is a tool for expressing the meanings present in the heart. To explain that in our mystical tradition, “the heart is not the pine-shaped organ that is located in the chest and its job is to supply blood to all parts of the body; rather, the heart is an organ of human existence that is the center and gathering place of human awareness and consciousness of all existence and its creation” (Fallah et al., 2009: 50). By contemplating Ghazali’s works, his perception of the concept of language can be divided into two areas: 1- What is language in its general sense: Analyzing different types of language in human society based on language games falls into this area. 2- Examining language in its specific sense: That is, explaining the possibilities of the manifestation of mystical language in the form of speech, silence, and beyond-silence. While Wittgenstein, in the picture theory of language, believes that every name is assigned to a specific thing, in the theory of language games, he considers meaning to be the same as usage, and understanding a word depends on knowing how to use it or the ability to use it. However, Ghazali does not limit himself to this general definition of the relationship between signifier and signifieds at the level of the specific languages of each region and territory, and points to a very important point under each specific language system. From his point of view, in the relations governing the mind and language of people in social life, each class and profession has its own world and language, and each language has its own function. Each of these language games is actually a manifestation of human life, and to understand each language game, we must participate in that form of life (Ghazali, 1997: 241). Ghazali tries to explain the specific language system of each land with various examples and then deals with the language games existing in each language. And then he points to one of the language games existing in that era, which, for example, in the world of mysticism, when an event happens to a disciple, the signifieds intended by the disciple in the mystical context will only be decoded by the master. Other examples of language games in Ghazali’s works that form the basis of his intellectual divisions: One of Ghazali’s language games is the separation of the realm of knowledge and the realm of science. In one, words grow without LETTERS, and in the other, words, speech, and sound are its essence. Another language game is the distinction that Ghazali makes between the speech of lovers and the speech of poets. Another language game of Ghazali is “the indication of expression” and “the expression of indication.” Demand and passion are two mystical terms that Ghazali creates his other language game by giving the word “language” to them.   Conclusion What emerges from the examination of Ghazali’s views on the nature and essence of language indicates that the foundation of his linguistic reflections is philosophical and existential, not a linguistic one. As has been shown, the arrangement of Ghazali’s classifications in terms of theory is based on language games. In examining the nature of language in its general sense, he has considered the different classes and professions of human society to have a language distinct from other social layers and has defined signifier and signifieds based on that. The realm of knowledge/the realm of science, the speech of poets/the speech of lovers, the indication of expression/the expression of indication, the language of demand/the language of passion, etc., are among them. But given that Ghazali himself is a mystic, he ultimately focuses specifically on mystical language and the possibilities inherent in it. It is as if in each rank and realm, one of the linguistic possibilities can be realized. In one realm, speech becomes necessary, and in another realm, silence. Beyond silence and finding manifestation and intuition is the last station that Ghazali, as a mystic, walks in the hope of reaching union. The novelty of this research, in the first look, is presenting a systematic view of Ghazali’s linguistic views; a task that has not been done so far, and secondly, in particular, presenting Ghazali’s attention to different types of language - which allows it to be examined based on Wittgenstein’s linguistic theories - an issue that deserves more reflection and consideration.   References Abdolghassemi, M. (2002) “A Review of Ahmad Ghazali’s Thoughts and Ideas.” Journal of Human Sciences Research of Shahid Beheshti University, 33, pp. 233-252. (In Persian) Ahmadi, R. (2013) “A Study of the Mystical Thoughts of Hafez and Ghazali.” Journal of Tadbir, 44, pp. 104-117. (In Persian) Al-Abadi, Q. (1983) Sufi-Nameh (Al-Tasfiya fi Ahwal al-Mutasawwifa). Edited by Gholam-Hossein Yousefi. 5th ed. Tehran: Elmi va Sokhan. (In Persian) Alami, A. (2010) Pathology of Islamic Civilization Based on the Thoughts of Seyyed Hossein Nasr. Qom: The International Center for Translation and Publication of Al-Mustafa (PBUH). (In Persian) Ameli, S.H. (1988) Al-Muqaddamat fi Kitab Nass al-Nusus fi Sharh Fusus al-Hukm. With an introduction and correction by Henry Corbin. 2nd ed. Tehran: Toos. (In Persian) Ansari, K.A. (1986) Resael-e Jameh Khajeh Abdullah Ansari. Corrected by Vahid Dastgerdi, Introduction and Commentary by Sultan Hossein Tabandeh Gonabadi, Tehran, Foroughi Bookstore. (In Persian) Asgari Yazdi, A. (2013) “A Critique of Ludwig Wittgenstein’s ‘Language Games’ Theory.” Journal of Philosophy of Religion, 10(4), pp. 121-136. (In Persian) Attar Neyshabouri, F. (2004) Tazkirat al-Awliya. Correction, explanation, and index by Mohammad Estealami. 15th ed. Tehran: Zavar. (In Persian) ---------------------------- (2004) Mantiq al-Tair. Correction and commentary by Mohammad Reza Shafiei Kadkani. Tehran: Sokhan. (In Persian) Chenari, A. (1998) Paradox in Persian Poetry. Tehran: Farzan Rooz Publishing and Research. (In Persian) Ayn al-Qudat Hamedani, A.A. (1990) Tamhidat. Explanation by Afif Osseiran. Tehran: Manouchehri. (In Persian) Asgari Yazdi, A. (2013) “Naghde va Barrasiye Nazariyehye Bazihaye Zabaniye Ludvig Vitgenshtain [Critique and Review of Ludwig Wittgenstein’s ‘Language Games’ Theory]”. Falsafe-ye Din [Philosophy of Religion] 10 (4): 121–36. (In Persian) oladi, A. (2010) Language of Mysticism. 2nd ed. Qom: Faragoft. (In Persian) Fallah, G. et al. (2009) “The Image of the Heart in Nizami Ganjavi’s Makhzan al-Asrar.” Journal of the Faculty of Literature and Humanities, Kharazmi University, 17(47), pp. 50-65. (In Persian) Ghazali, A. (1997). Majmu’e-ye Asar-e Farsi-ye Ahmad Ghazali. Edited by Ahmad Mojahed. Tehran: University of Tehran. (In Persian) --------------- (1980) Sawanih. Corrected by Nasrallah Pourjavadi. Tehran: Iranian Culture Foundation. (In Persian) Gorgani, M.S.A. (1998) Ta’rifat. Translated by Hassan Seyed Arab and Sima Nourbakhsh. Tehran: Farzan Rooz Research. (In Persian) Hojviri, A.I. (2004) Kashf al-Mahjub. Corrected by Zhukovsky and with an introduction by Ghasem Ansari. Tehran: Tahuri. (In Persian) Ibn Arabi, M. (n.d.). Al-Futuhat al-Makkiyyah. Vols. 1 & 2. Beirut: Dar Sader. (In Arabic) Ibn Karbalaei, H.H. (2004) Rawdat al-Jinan wa Jannat al-Janan. Edited by Jafar Sultan al-Qaraei. Tehran: Sotoodeh. (In Persian) Eslami, I., & Shahmoradi, A. (2018) “Examining Ahmad Ghazali’s Thoughts.” Urmazd Quarterly, 43, pp. 4-28. (In Persian) Jorjani, M.S.A. (1998) Ta’rifat. Translated by Hassan Seyed Arab and Sima Nourbakhsh. Tehran: Farzan Rooz Research. (In Persian) Kalla, J. (2003) Literary Theory: A Very Short Introduction. Translated by Farzaneh Zaheri. Tehran: Markaz. (In Persian) Kalabadi, A.M.I. (2007) Kholaseye Sharhe Ta’arof. Corrected by Ahmad Ali Rajaei. 2nd ed. Tehran: Research Institute for Humanities and Cultural Studies. (In Persian) Mirdar Rezaei, M., & Baloo, F. (2022) “The Nature of Language and Its Vocabulary in the Thought of Imam Muhammad Ghazali.” Double-Quarterly Journal of Persian Language and Literature, Kharazmi University, 30(93), pp. 307-328. (In Persian) Mostamli Bukhari. (1984) Sharh al-Ta’arruf li-Madhhab al-Tasawwuf. Correction, annotation, and introduction by Mohammad Roshan. Tehran: Asatir. (In Persian) Mowlavi, J.M. (2011) Fihi Ma Fihi. Correction and explanation by Toufiq Hashemipour Sobhani. 3rd ed. Tehran: Parseh Book Translation and Publishing House. (In Persian) Naderloo, B. (2011) “Wittgenstein’s Theory of Language Games: A Postmodern Philosophical Perspective on Language.” Gharb-Shenasi-ye Bonyadi, 2(1), pp. 87-100. (In Persian) Norian, M., & Bagherzadeh, H. (2017) “The Role of Manifestation in the Stations of Spiritual Journey.” Journal of Mysticism, 16, pp. 221-253. (In Persian) Oghdaei, T., & Bida Khoveidi, F. (2015) “The Interaction of Language and Meaning in Ahmad Ghazali’s Savaneh Based on Jakobson’s Communication Theory.” Journal of Mystical Literature and Mythology, 14, pp. 199-232. (In Persian) Pourjavadi, N. (2005) Ahmad Ghazali: In the Acquaintances of the Path of Love. Edited by Mahmoudreza Esfandia. Under the supervision of Nasrallah Pourjavadi. Tehran: University Publishing Center. (In Persian) Qushayri, A.H. (2002) Resaleh Qushayriyah. Translated by Abu Ali Hassan bin Ahmad Osmani, corrected and with additions by Badi’-al-Zaman Forouzanfar, Tehran, Elmi va Farhangi. (In Persian) Rajaei Bokharai, A.A. (1985) Farhang-e Ash’ar-e Hafez. Tehran: Elmi. (In Persian) Rahimian, S. (2004) Mabani-ye Erfan-e Nazari. Tehran: Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance. (In Persian) Sajjadi, S.J. (1960) Farhang-e Mustalahat-e Orfa va Motesawwefeh. Tehran: Chapkhaneh-ye Mustafavi. (In Persian) Sells, M.A. (1994) Mystical Languages of Unsaying. University of Chicago Press. Seraj Tousi, A. (2002) Allama. Investigation of Abdul Halim Mahmoud, 3rd ed., Cairo, Al-Nashrah Maktabat al-Saqafa al-Diniyah. (In Arabic) Shafiei Kadkani, M.R. (1995) Mofles-e Kimiaforoush (Critique and Analysis of Anvari’s Poetry). 2nd ed. Tehran: Sokhan. (In Persian) ------------------------------ (2013) The Language of Poetry in Sufi Prose. Tehran: Sokhan. (In Persian) Shajari, M., & Gozlu, Z. (2013) “The Human Heart and Its Levels in Islamic Mysticism.” Mystical Literature and Mythology, 9(33), pp. 139-176. (In Persian) Shamisa, S. (2001) Farhang-e Esharat-e Adabiyat-e Farsi. Tehran: Firdows. (In Persian) ----------------- (2003) Sabk-shenasi-ye She’r. 9th ed. Tehran: Firdows. (In Persian) Soltani, M., & Pourazimi, S. (2014) “The Inexpressibility of Mystical Experience about Molana’s Views on Form and Meaning.” Journal of Mystical Literature and Mythology, Islamic Azad University, South Tehran Branch, 10(34), pp. 131-159. (In Persian) Stace, W.T. (1982) Mysticism and Philosophy. Translated by Bahauddin Khorramshahi. 2nd ed. Tehran: Soroush. (In Persian) Taghavi, A. (2005) A Study of Ahmad Ghazali’s Mystical Thoughts. Tehran: Amirkabir. (In Persian) Tizheh, Z. (2014) “A Comparison of the Thoughts of Ahmad Ghazali and Hafez.” Master’s thesis, Department of Persian Language and Literature, Faculty of Literature and Humanities, Islamic Azad University of Kermanshah, Supervisor: Dr. Khalil Bigzadeh. (In Persian) Webster, R. (2003) A Preliminary to the Study of Literary Theory. Translated by Elaha Dehnavi. Tehran: Rouzgar. (In Persian) Wittgenstein, L. (2001) Philosophical Investigations. Translated by Fereydoun Fatemi. Tehran: Markaz. (In Persian) ---------------------- (2006) The Blue and Brown Books: Preparations. Translated by Iraj Ghanouni. Tehran: Ney. (In Persian) Zarrinkoub, A.H. (1994) Iranian Sufism in Historical Perspective. Translated by Mojdeddin Keyvani. Tehran: Sokhan. (In Persian) ----------------------- (2010) The Value of the Sufi Heritage. Tehran: Amirkabir. (In Persian)       * Corresponding Author: Assistant Professor, Department of Persian Language and Literature, University of Guilan, Rasht, Iran. mostafamirdar@guilan.ac.ir ** Associate Professor, Department of Persian Language and Literature, University of Mazandaran, Iran. f.baloo@umz.ac.ir

Theology (Kalam).is a rational attempt to illustrate and defend religious belief. This branch of science has been criticized by both some faithful people and some disbelievers.Ghazali in some of his works has helped this science to improve and in other places has strong opposition to it. How we can reconcile these two opposite approaches.Is there any change or contradiction in his thought? In this paper we will discuss these questions and conclude that he suggests different approaches to religion for different people and his teachings in this relation have important implications in religious education.

The problem with research on al-GHAZALI’S works is that one can observe some inconsistency in his utterances. As an example, al-GHAZALI’S remarks on ‘reason’ are among those cases. The present writing is going to give the uses of ‘reason’ a logical framework in terms of ontological, psychological, and epistemological applications. To understand al-GHAZALI’S main intention, one should perform a thorough investigation into his works so as to find the general spirit dominating them. Here we can consider two meanings of reason used by al-Ghazali: the particular sense is ‘discursive reason’; another meaning is ‘the whole stage of humanity’ in knowing. Reason in the latter meaning consists of different manifestations including the level of reasoning to the prophetic level of knowledge. Such a point is one of the basic principles in al-GHAZALI’S system of thought.