Man is the ultimate end in creation although ranked as the last. In Mowlana’s view, although fruit is produced from a tree, yet the ultimate purpose of the tree is its fruit.However, entangled in the nitty gritty of the material world he has remained ignorant of his spiritual truth. The purpose of creation is the manifestation of God’s attributes, and actions hence man is the embodiment of such manifestation. The seeker of God must die to self before he can shine with the divine light. After putting out the fires of ego, the divine light of the soul shines through, when burnished of all its rust, the mirror of the soul perfectly reflects the attributes of God. By bringing such stories as Merchant and the parrot, Mowlana illustrates that the ultimate end of the Mystic path is this conscious death. This annihilation in the Beloved’s being facilitates the union.In this station, if the mystic wishes to give voice to his most intimate experience, his saying would come out as the ‘shath’, the ecstatic utterance and only a true mystic could perceive that state. In this stage, the traveler reaches an ecstatic state completely intoxicated and bewildered faced with the glory of God. Although in Mowlana’s view the melody which is inside the Perfect man, is the reflection of the eternal melody and Hallaj’s words were in fact the resonance of his own chords of existence which experienced selflessness, he was not, but the truth was. Mowlana believed that what the mystic attains in this ascent is total absorption in God and must not be confused with the incarnation of a spirit in a body because in this stage, the mystic merges in God, the part partakes the whole and not becoming whole.

One aspect of self-knowledge is consisted of interaction between soul and actions, ethics and knowledge. According to Sadra's opinion, soul is united with its acquired knowledge and long-term dispositions. The main Principles of the theory include: nivocal of Entity, (Principality of Existence) and its Gradation) Substantial Motion of Soul, Identity of the Knower and the Known, bodily Contingency, Unity of Soul and Human Body, Reciprocal Causation of Soul and Body.Based on mentioned premises, every human reality at first is in the lowest rank of existence. By conjunction of substantial motion, the soul intensifies until reaches perfections while all result degrees are just the ranks of a single reality. The highest level of soul has all acquired perfections in simple form, whereas the lowest rank (material body) is affected by habits and states of soul.). Middle ranks also are common in impression and impressionability from each other. Therefore, relationship between soul and action is conceived in three species:1. The presence of mental forms of actions in the soul extent.2. The presence of habits in soul essence.3. Incarnation and ideation of long-term dispositions at appropriate forms in physical body.

In Germany, as in Iran, all literary works in which war is addressed are traditionally counted as "war literature"; however, it is very doubtful whether this can provide a picture of the attitudes of the authors of literary war books to the phenomenon of "war". The fact that, in addition to the term "war literature", terms such as "anti-war literature" (in Germany) and "literature of holy defence" (in Iran) have also become established shows that the essence of literary war books can only be done justice if they are evaluated and subsumed against the background of their authors' attitudes towards war. The establishment of the term "anti-war literature" alongside the term "war literature" in Germany is due to different attitudes of the authors of literary war works to war, while in Iran the term "war literature" is used sporadically and due to (almost) uniform attitudes of war writers to war, another widely used term, namely "the literature of holy defense", is preferred. Against the backdrop of Ernst Jünger’s and Hamidreza Taleghani’s attitudes towards war—Jünger as a representative of German war literature and Taleghani of the literature of the Holy Defense in Iran—this article aims to crystallize and justify the characteristics of war literature and the literature of the Holy Defense through a comparative study, highlighting that their authors' differing perspectives on war necessitate a distinct categorization of theirworks. Ernst Jünger als Inkarnation der Kriegsliteratur versus Hamidreza Taleghani als Inkarnation der Literatur der heiligen Verteidigung In Deutschland wie im Iran zählt man traditionell alle literarischen Werke, in denen der Krieg thematisiert wird, zur „Kriegsliteratur“; ob man damit ein Bild von Einstellungen der Verfasser von literarischen Kriegsbüchern zum Phänomen „Krieg“ liefern kann, ist jedoch sehr zweifelhaft. Die Tatsache, dass sich neben dem Begriff „Kriegsliteratur“ auch Begriffe wie „Antikriegs¬literatur“ (in Deutschland) und „Literatur der heiligen Verteidigung“ (im Iran) etabliert haben, zeigt, dass man dem Wesen von literarischen Kriegsbü¬chern nur dann gerecht wird, wenn man sie vor dem Hintergrund von Ein¬stellungen ihrer Verfasser zum Krieg bewertet und subsumiert. Die Etablie¬rung des Begriffs „Antikriegsliteratur“ neben dem Begriff „Kriegsliteratur“ in Deutschland hat den Grund in unterschiedlichen Einstellungen der Ver¬fasser von literarischen Kriegswerken zum Krieg, während man im Iran den Begriff „Kriegsliteratur“ sporadisch verwendet und aufgrund (fast) einheit¬licher Einstellungen von Kriegsliteraten zum Krieg einen anderen weit ver¬breiteten Begriff, nämlich „die Literatur der heiligen Verteidigung“ bevor¬zugt. Der vorliegende Beitrag will vor dem Hintergrund der Einstellungen von Ernst Jünger (als Inkarnation der Kriegsliteratur in Deutschland) und Hamidreza Taleghani (als Inkarnation der Literatur der heiligen Verteidi¬gung im Iran) zum Krieg in ihren literarischen Kriegswerken mit einer ver¬gleichenden Studie die Charakteristika der Kriegsliteratur und der Literatur der heiligen Verteidigung herauskristallisieren und zugleich rechtfertigen, dass eine Subsumierung von Kriegsbüchern wegen unterschiedlicher Ein¬stellungen ihrer Autoren zum Krieg unvermeidbar ist. Schlüsselwörter: Krieg, Nationalismus, Kriegsliteratur, Literatur der heiligen Ver¬teidigung, Antikriegsliteratur, Ästhetisierung des Kriegs, Verherrlichung des Verteidigungskriegs

Knowing God and relationship with him is one of the important theological issues in Abraham`s religions. Christianity believes that invisible God reflects in the incarnation of Christ. In the Christians` view, the Jesus Christ is the revelation of God. As a result, incarnation is one of the most important principles of Christianity. The Jews are opposed to incarnation but believe in anthropomorphism. However, belief in incarnation is sometimes considered. Islam neither accepts incarnation nor anthropomorphism of God; although anthropomorphism of angles and Satan are accepted but God may have theophanic manifestation in humans with his characteristics. The present paper describes anthropomorphism, incarnation, and theophany in three religions of Islam, Christianity, and Judaism.

Incarnation, which concerns the cyclical return of a soul to live another life in a new body, is among the beliefs of great antiquity; it is most characteristic of some Eastern philosophical thoughts as well as religions such as Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism. The idea of transmigration has also been adopted by some Western figures and groups. The doctrine of incarnation has also been part of the mystical thought of Sufism, which is considered as the mystical branch of Islam. In the meantime, the transmigration of souls was discussed and criticized by some great thinkers, among whom Muslim thinkers are outstanding. Explaining the age-old idea, the author attempts to show its refutation on the basis of the Islamic thinkers’ opinions and to discuss its incompatibility with the Koranic doctrines.

"Incarnation and Unification" are two of the controversial issues in Islamic mysticism and Sufism which have been condemned by the majority of Islamic scholars and mystics. According to these scholars, it is against Sharia'ah and Tariqa (Sharia'ah and Sufi order); however, some statements have been quoted from a few of Sufis which seemingly denote incarnation and unification. The researchers with mystical order have either been uncertain on the appropriateness to attribution to Sufis, or have interpreted them in way which will lead to incarnation and unification. Imam Mohammad Ghazali is one of the hardworking and influential intellectuals in the field of Islamic mysticism and Sufism. Although Ghazali was seriously against the idea of incarnation and unification, he has engaged himself in interpreting and justifying the Great men of Sufism. This actual fact ended to accusing him of contradicting (inconsistency) in this respect. In this study, effort has been made to investigate the issue of incarnation and unification. This paper also investigates the ways of interpreting and commenting on the statements of some of the Great men of Sufism utilizing descriptive-analytical method shedding some light on the views of Imam Mohammad Ghazali.

One of the doctrines shared by Hinduism and Christianity is the doctrine of incarnation and bodily fall of divinity, which on surface sounds to have been understood by both schools in the same terms. Since both schools insist on transcendent unity of God in his essence; for example in Upanishads which is one of the key scriptures of Hinduism it is insisted that the origin of existence is a transcendent, invisible and unfathomable God called Brahman which is the highest the most excellent and beyond description. By the same token, in Christianity God has always been envisaged as a unique and transcendent being. Nevertheless, these two religions believe that transcendent God gets incarnated in some conditions. Thus some have paired these two schools in their belief in incarnation without understanding the nuances.

incarnation theory is one of the most important Christian and Hinduism theological teachings. According to this theory, God as the most Supreme Being incarnates in human appearance. In chapter 11 of Bhagavad Gita (as a part of Mahabharata which is the greatest poem book of wisdom among Hindus), Arjuna asks Krishna (as the 8th avatar of Vishnu) to show him his real and divine face and Krishna who is serving him as a charioteer (in a human form), reveals his real face to him. In Christianity as well, God becomes incarnate on Jesus based on the first verses of Gospel of John. For this reason, visual arts like iconography, architecture and sculpture are sacred in these religions. In Islam, however, according to the verses of holy Quran, "You can never see me", what God replies once Moses asks Him the same request of Arjuna in Bhagavad Gita, one cannot see God. In this paper, incarnation means appearance of God in a human form. In other words, God is manifest in human flesh. But manifestation just stays opposite to incarnation and stands for appearance of God in signs. For this reason, various parts of Quran are named "verse" (Aieh) or actually signs. Therefore, in comparative study of Christianity and Hinduism to Islam we realize that in Islam, Absolute Quality (God) is never manifest in any form and no incarnation takes place. In return, God speaks of manifestation in The Heights Surah of Quran. This paper believes that the two different replies to the same request of humans to see God have been the reason for visual arts becoming sacred in some religions like Hinduism and Christianity and iconography which remain in shadow in Islam. While dealing with this issue in the present paper, we try to shed light on differences between Islamic arts on the one side and Christian and Hinduism art on the other. Manifestation of God on the mountain indicates necessity of paying attention to mediators in observing God. In Islamic art, symbols are the very mediators functioning the way the verses of holy Quran do and it should not be overlooked that the word verse in Arabic language means sign. Islamic typology deems the entire universe full of evidence testifying a cause like God. Manifestation principle in Islamic thoughts calls us for observing a view of Divinity’s views in which God has a mirror-like presence. In addition to the hearts of mystics in their mystical experience, this kind of observation has been manifested in Islamic art and architecture leading to creation of an art indebted to world of imagination and its manifestations. In this way, Islamic art is manifestation of manifestation because it takes its essence from a universe that is itself a mirror of a farther universe. The main concept of this paper is to put forward theory of manifestation instead of theory of incarnation. The present paper is based on a historical-analytical methodology in which the attitudes of three great religions on art are comparatively discussed. This paper aims to explain that theology of a variety of religions has a great effect on the form and nature of such religions.

Referring briefly to the appearance of the, Greek word 'Logos', this article presents the different senses of the term 'logos' as used in Greek, Jewish and Christian philosophy and theology as well as by those thinkers at the contemporary times. In Greek usage, it means 'word', 'speech', and 'reason'. In Jewish theologians' employment, in particular Philo, the Logos figuratively means 'prophet', 'apostle'. And in Christian theology, it refers to the word' of God incarnate in Jesus, and often identified with the ‘second person' of the Trinity. Finally in the contemporary age, Logos has different meanings: Hegel used it in the meaning of 'spirit'; in Derrida's usage it denotes 'writing' ; and inTillich's, 'manifestation of God.