According to divine philosophers, there is an Origin at the peak of the pyramid of BEING Who is the NECESSARY BEING and is absolutely Independent. His Existence can be demonstrated based on rational arguments; however, it is not possible for human BEINGs to know His Truth and Essence. This is because He is the Absolute BEING. He can only be known through specific attributes that exclusively qualify Him. His characteristics are generally in contrast to those of possible BEINGs. In other words, all of them reveal His Needlessness. In sum, "the NECESSARY BEING" never needs and depends on the other, since He is the Origin of the existence of all existents of the world. Rather, He possesses every and all ontological perfections. Otherwise, He would be one of the existents of the world, who need another origin to exist. The present paper deals with a study and analysis of the characteristics of the NECESSARY BEING from the viewpoint of Islamic philosophers.

To many philosophers the concept of NECESSARY BEING is a universal concept and in proving unity of NECESSARY BEING we are to demonstrate the unity of what is signified (mesdaq) of it. This view is not consistent with the doctrine of personal single God of theistic faiths. In order to meet the challenge some come to believe that the concept “NECESSARY BEING” is a particular one in such a way that it is impossible to conceive multiple instances for it. Accordingly, universal as it may seem to be at the first glance, through further examination it become clear that it is particular. This article is to examine the pros and cons of the this philosophical view.

The main questions of this paper concern how the human mind attains the notion of the NECESSARY BEING in Peripatetic Philosophy, and to what extent it can know Him in terms of concept and judgment.A short response of the present paper to the above questions is that our realist intellect, based on its first judgment, qualifies each existing object with a NECESSARY or possible attribute and, in this way, learns the concept of the NECESSARY BEING. Later, based on philosophical arguments, it tries to demonstrate its applications. However, in spite of attaining a conceptual system of God Almighty in the light of rational analysis and a justified and honest belief in His Existence on the basis of philosophical arguments, our intellect is not capable of knowing Him perfectly.Therefore, in this philosophical system the unique source of our knowledge of God is the intellect. Moreover, in spite of enjoying the capacity for entering this domain, this intellect, too, is not capable of perceiving the existence of this Almighty Truth due to its essential limitations and the infinity of the object of recognition. Rather, it merely knows that the concept of the NECESSARY BEING and the other concepts that are based on it have referents the truths of which are unknown to us.

Knowing God is the hiest level of human knowledges. The mode of this knowledge has always been notable and controversial subject. The acquired knowledge is one of the two kinds of knowledge in which by the mental concepts the knowledge of objects can be achieved. In Transcendental theosophy, Knowledge of thing, has been On the basis of criteria such as the existential relationship between Two objects, Perceived thing should be an effect and depends on its existential degree. Accordingly, the basic question is, How is the acquired knowledge to the NECESSARY BEING? Mulla Sadra, by representing different levels of knowledge of God such as essence, attributes and acts, rejects the acquired knowledge in certain levels. In this article, at the first section, three criteria for obtaining acquired knowledge between two objects has been Explained. in the second part, the reasons for rejecting the acquired knowledge to God’ s nature such as: God's specific BEING, essential simpility & his infinity, And the possibility of acquired knowledge of divine attributes and acts has been taken into consideration.

In this article, we review the main reasons of Muslim philosophers for denying the nature of the NECESSARY BEING. First, by separating the three meanings of nature and three different interpretations of the originality of existence, We try to get a clear picture of the conflict. Then we mention the most important arguments for denying the nature of the NECESSARY BEING And we show that most of these arguments were either based on the originality of nature or are based on a particular understanding of the originality of existence that is debatable. Finally, we show that according to the correct interpretation of the originality of existence The nature is determination of existence, and existence without determination has no meaning. Therefore, every BEING has a nature; Both limited and unlimited. However, because the NECESSARY BEING is unlimited, its nature, which which exists with the same existence, will be unlimited. Accordingly, there was no conclusive reason for denying the nature of the NECESSARY BEING, but There is argument that NECESSARY BEING has nature. NECESSARY and possible BEINGs have nature in the same meaning. However, the referencce of nature is different in them.

Usually, an explanation regarded as the answer to Why questions and therefore the ultimate explanation is to be the answer to the question of “ why there is anything rather than nothing? ” . In this article after clarifying the notion of explanation and ultimate explanation, first of all, the rational role of seeking for ultimate explanation is confirmed and then argued that an ultimate explanation, by principle, never obtained in the realm of scientific explanations. Scientific explanations, although fruitful and inevitable, deal with contingency and this remains the intelligible question of why there is so. Demanding an ultimate explanation can only be satisfied in the realm of metaphysics, as the ultimate question is also a metaphysical question. The most acceptable kind of such an explanation is to explain contingency with necessity. During the process of this article, the focus is on O'Connor’ s ideas and his thoughts are described and analyzed through the investigation of the problem of ultimate explanation. We found some useful ideas in O’ Connor’ s approach especially his treatment with the problem of ultimate explanation and using it as a proof for God existence regarded as a kind of Leibnizian cosmological argument. But his special notion of agent causation that he uses to conquest the objection of modal collapse doesn't seem to be acceptable.

Transcendence of NECESSARY BEING as compared with possible BEINGs and their imperfections which is taken from religious teachings is one of the most important theistic preoccupation of Muslim Philosophers. In the meantime, Ibn Sina has a more transcendental view compared with other philosophers, including Mulla Sadra. He believes in God’s separateness from the universe. The distinction between God and possible BEINGs is so great that Bu Ali has called it a total difference. The origin of God’s transcendenee should be sought in common ontological foundations of Sheikh al-Rais with other philosophers and the origins of separation of NECESSARY BEING from possible BEINGs must be seen in his special view about this matter. His discussions in general theology and his speculations in subjects such as BEING and quiddity, NECESSARY and possible and their characteristics can be conceived as a preparing ground for God’s transcendence. But what has been a motive in Ibn Sina’s more transcendental view as compared with other philosophers is his pluralistic view towards creation and his rejection of special gradation. In such a view, God is separate and distinctive of other BEINGs. In the present article first the common foundations of Ibn Sina with other philosophers in presenting a transcendental view towards God and in the following the grounds for formation a more transcendental image towards God in Ibn Sina’s philosophy will be considered.

Essentiality of existence, established on stable demonstrations in Sdra's transcendent philosophy, led to a deep transformation in theology and philosophy. This paper, having explained the problem of essentiality of existence, has sought to prove its relationship to the unity of existence. The main question, therefore, poses itself as: does the proved relationship lead to the unity of NECESSARY BEING? The author has concluded that after proving the essentiality and unity of existence, one can prove the unity of the NECESSARY BEING.

One of the most important debates between a mystic and a philosopher is on the essence of "NECESSARY BEING on itself"; they both believe the essence of the NECESSARY BEING is its existence and believe a NECESSARY BEING, unlike possible BEINGs, does not have two aspects of existence and essence; rather they say the essence of a NECESSARY BEING is exactly the same as its existence. But mystics and philosophers disagree on the existence which is identical with the essence of NECESSARY. Mystics say the existence which is identical with the essence of the NECESSARY on itself is a "labeshart" (non_conditioned) existence which has no determination and philosophers believe the existence which is identical with the essence of the NECESSARY on itself is a special BEING which is, because of the characteristics of a NECESSARY BEING, distinctive from other realities. The idea of philosophers seems to be false and the view of mystics is logical and acceptable and it has – or may have-some proofs.