نشریه ادیان و عرفان
سال چهل و ششم شماره 1 (بهار و تابستان1392)

There is a quotation in the Holy Quran (21:105) from the book of Psalms: “The righteous shall inherit the earth”. A similar sentence can be found in Psalm (37:29). A comparison between these verses would illustrate that “Salih” is the Quranic equivalent of the Hebrew word “Saddiq”. This equivalence would allow us to compare usages of “Salih” in Quran and “Saddiq” in the book of Psalms. This comparative study will show that: (a) on the one hand, “Saddiq” has been used in Psalms either as an attribute of God or as a description of some peoples and on the other, “Salih” has been used in Quran for describing either some peoples or their acts; (b) These two words have similar usages in Psalms and Quran to the extent that they have been used for the description of some peoples and (c) the Qurano-psalmic use of this notion can be linked with the concept of “divine selection(istifā)”.

In sacred text of the religion of Yari, we are confronted with some emphasized moral principles which have been stated by the great men of this religion repeatedly. These moral principles are honesty, purity, inexistence and Rada. This article attempts to study the root of the term of Rada in Yaresan literature. It specifies that the term Rada in Yaresan literature which means donation, generosity and bounty is the same with Rata in Avesta and Zoroastrianism; because Rata in Zoroastrianism is the god of generosity and bounty, and it is also considered as a moral criterion in this religion. The only difference between these two terms is in the phonemes “d“and “t“that is considered as a general rule among the rules of the phonemes transformation.

For finding a correct and precise label to new spiritual movements, it is necessary to define religion and mysticism. It is apparent that religion is experience of numinous encounter and accommodation with it. Religion manifests itself in a set of practical, speculative and social dimensions. Mysticism only refers to esoteric attitude in the realm of a tradition. Mysticism is an intuitive insight to religious teachings and this insight is often monotheistic. All of the dimensions of religion are there in new spiritual groups and movements. So, we can in a justifiable manner, name these movements, “religion”. "New spiritualities" arent a kind of attitude to religions. Indeed, they are opponents of religion and assume themselves as independent doctrinal systems. Because of their claims about completeness for happiness, felicity and salvation, these systems can be more properly named "religion" than "mysticism".

'Ayn al-Quzat Hamadani(1098-1131) and John of theCross(1542-1591) are two great representatives of Islamic Sufism and Christian Mysticism. There are many similar concepts in their works, such as the divine love, spiritual or mystical death, and union with God, necessity of celibacy, guidance by Pir and the imitation of Christ. Comparison of self-annihilation and spiritual death among them is very important. John's approach to annihilation has much in common with 'Ayn al-Quzat's approach to fana and baqa. They both emphasize in the necessity of following of authoritative figures and holy men, that John explains it as "the imitation of Christ" and 'Ayn al-Quzat explains it as "khedmat pir". From this perspective, relationship between Christ and monk can be compared with relationship between pir and sufi disciple. In connection with this subject issues such as fana and self-annihilation, spiritual or mystical death, union with God and necessity of celibacy are studied.

One of the consequences of accepting personal unity of existence as well as the philosophical rule of “al-wahid” is Wujud-e Munbasit (the extended existence). Sayyid Haydar Amuli explains origination of multiplicity from the One on the basis of Wujud-e Munbasit. According to him the first emanation from Being is universal and extendedand contains all degrees of contingent world. By depicting of three degrees of existence, Mulla Sadra says that the first emanation is the extended existence and, in its light, he explains the real multiplicity of contingent things and the way in which they may be externally realized. Based on the principality of existence and its gradation and employing the idea of Illuminationistic relation, he considers the essence of effect as a manifestation of the cause. On the basis of the idea of the extended existence, he explains relation between multiplicity and the One as well. The main difference between the two lies in the fact that Mulla Sadra, by employing of philosophical foundations such as principality of existence and its gradation, has considered some sort of hierarchical penetration for the extended existence; this cannot be, however, seen in Sayyid Haydar Amuli’s ideas, since he does not found his points on gradation of existence.

Research about Satan is always very important for scholars. In this respect, Muslim mystics with the paraphrastic approaches, Intuitional interpretations and introspectional knowledge, with mystical expressions, have an unrivaled position. Some Muslim mystics, especially the Followers of Sokr doctrine are justifying disobedience of Satan (in prostrate to Adam) with determinism (Algebra) and the eternal will of Allah. We know that the creation of an idea is influenced by discursive and non-discursive Causes. The Four main reasons of that idea (justifying Disobedience of Satan) are: Belief in Asharite algebra; Belief in pantheism; Superficial Interpretation of Quran; Referencing to some Hadiths. This article tries to analyze and specify the mentioned sources of that approach in some poetry and prose of Mansur Al-Hallaj, Ahmad Ghazali, Ayn al-Quzat Hamadani, Rashid al-Din Meybodi, Attar Nishapury.

The school of Tafkik rejects reason and philosophical arguments to understand religious propositions and religious beliefs. They hold that the philosophical approach to understand religion is inconsistent to revealed religion. Thus, the only true way to understand religion is revealed one. The purpose of this paper is to examine the approach of the school of Tafkik and its arguments. In this article, we study critically this approach. It shows that their arguments not only are not strong enough but it also is faced with outstanding problems. It shows that in spite of the restriction of reason in understanding religion, philosophical attitude is not inconsistent with religious beliefs. Of course, the extreme rationalistic approach to understand religion is not defendable too. So, the philosophical understanding is epistemologically valid.