عین القضات

The discussion about the thought and views of Ayn-al-Qużāt Hamadānī, the famous mystic of the 6th century, has always been attractive due to his special mystical-philosophical system of thought, as well as his openness and exemplary carelessness in expressing his inner thoughts. Along with the rational view of a religious philosopher, he has presented a different view from the point of view of a mystic. One of the important things in the intellectual system of Ayn-al-Qużāt Hamadānī is his definition and analysis of the category of” wisdom”. He has specified a way for wisdom, and where the wisdom cannot reach, he calls it beyond wisdom, and to achieve this, the eyes of human insight must be opened. Moreover, the judge calls wisdom a “special measure” and believes it does not have the ability to reach the realm of the kingdom. Therefore, beyond wisdom, it is pure knowledge and insight that can guide the seeker to the truth of existence. By researching and pondering the works of Ayn-al-Qużāt Hamadānī, this article analyzes his philosophical-mystical points of views on the status and dignity of wisdom and also introduces the definition and characteristics of wisdom from his mystical point of view.

This study addresses the separation and lack of alignment between truth and the various levels of human knowledge. The levels of knowledge referred to here are the types of cognition Ayn al-Quzat discusses, namely: sensory, imaginative, rational, and mystical knowledge. The aim of this study is to assess the extent to which each type of human cognition corresponds to reality and the ultimate truth of the world. For this purpose, a descriptive-analytical method has been used. Ayn al-Qadat primarily views rational and mystical knowledge as the core forms of human cognition, whereas sensory and imaginative knowledge serve mainly as preliminary steps towards rational cognition. With respect to correspondence to reality, rational knowledge is capable only of grasping sensory objects as they appear, while its understanding of the metaphysical realm and human states remains allegorical and cannot be considered to truly correspond to reality. With respect to mystical knowledge, while it enables the perception of truths beyond the sensory world, this correspondence is from a human perspective and does not fully coincide with the ultimate truth of the world. This misalignment can be seen in Ayn al-Quzat’s discussion of the relation between divine attributes and God’s essence, the evaluation of the attributes, the status of Iblis, and the perception of God’s love for His servant. Exiting this human perspective and reaching the stage of annihilation (fana) leads to the perception of the truth of the world, although in this state, attributing cognition to the human being becomes very difficult.

There are various viewpoints on the levels of creation and issuing the plurality of unity in the history of Islamic thoughts. Among them, Abu Hamed Ghazali and Ain al-Quzat Hamedani, despite their discrepancies with Islamic Peripatetic Plotinus in the theory of Emanations and oneness (Al-Vahed) principle, keeping theoretical aspects, tried to solve the problem through illuminations perspectives and with the discussion on light and manifestation. The present study implemented a comparative-analytical methodology to investigate the ontological view of Ghazali and Ain al-Quzat in issuing the plurality of unity. The findings represent that the concept of the Great Soul in the ontological system of Ain al-Quzat has similarities with Mutaa in Abu Hamed Ghazali's view. The Great Soul and Mutaa refer to a divine order responsible for creation and world regulation. Both viewpoints are examples of Mohammad’s light which is the first manifestation of Nour al Anwar (light of lights). Ghazali focused on its true knowledge aspect and Ain al-Quzat on its ontology. Although Mutaa and Great Soul have similar nature to the First Intellect of Islamic Peripatetic since their relations to God is like the relation between light and the source of light, they lack true existence and agency. Therefore, rejecting the linear and sequential order of creation, both thinkers raised the view of stewardship or the coexistence of the creator with creatures.

The present article is concerned with the essence of man and his states of perfection from Ayn-al-Qużāt Hamadānī’s viewpoint. His anthropology, like that of other mystics, is based on the theory of manifestation, according to which the whole universe, including man, is the ‘manifestation’ of the existence of God. According to mystics, man is the perfect manifestation of God and therefore has the utmost similarity and consistency with His being. According to Ayn-al-Qużāt, man is a two-dimensional being composed of soul and body, but his essence originates from his spiritual dimension. Like philosophers, he considers the soul as an abstract being and as a result he has raised objections against theologians who deny the abstract nature of the soul. He considers their views blasphemous and contrary to the Qur'an and Tradition; At the same time, he rejects the philosophers’ view that man is a ‘rational animal’. He considers ‘insight’, perceived by intuitive knowledge and spiritual vision, as the most important human characteristic. In addition, he believes in the heavenly nature of man that has been imparted to him from the higher world. He highlights the mediatory function of the existence of the Holy Prophet (PBUH) and asserts that "after a person becomes intoxicated with the wine of knowledge, when he reaches the perfection of intoxication and reaches his highest state, the soul of Muhammad (PBUH) will appear to him." His view of the Prophet of Islam stems from the same view based on the manifestation that reveals the knowledge of God to the wayfarer man. Our findings show that whatever Ayn-al-Qużāt has mentioned about human beings and existential perfection is taken from the Qur'an and Tradition, and that he was a true Muslim believer who adhered to the Shari'a and he himself practiced it. The method adopted in this study is descriptive-analytical.

The good and evil forces have been considered as the two magnets of human life. By establishing civilizations and cultures, the advent of opposite forces in the human being life paved the way for proposing various ideas and opinions, particularly ideas on the philosophy of creation and existence of a creator and worshipping the creator. Since human being is a two-dimensional creature (spiritual and physical), he needs for worshiping as one of his divine nature's requirements. Hence he sought a creator to worship because of his nature. Worship in its proper form is praising of the only Lord. However, in case of inaccessibility to divine teachings and religions or in the case of noncompliance with these teachings and thoughts, its disgrace form is appeared in the shape of tendency toward worshipping the assumed gods or appearance of Satanism; there is a tendency to exonerating and probably sanctification of the Satan in Sufism that is a Islamic group with some teachings rooted in other groups ideas and rituals. We see this tendency in some of the Sufism works. Einolgozat Hamadani is in the rank of the Sufis that in spite of belief in Islam and monotheism and adherence of Islamic consideration of the Satan. He sometimes has a vision accompanied by exonerating and sanctification on the Satan and writes incoherently about the Satan according to the necessities of the Sufism atmosphere. Due to highlighting this tendency in some of his works and likelihood of misinterpretation on Satanism, this article tries to respond the following questions:a-What are the similarities and difference between the Einolgozat opinions on the Satan and the Satanism viewpoints from the roots, criteria for evaluation of the place of Satan and type of beliefs? b-How Einolgozat and Satanists justify the place of the Satan in the world and his relationship with God and man?
The obeisance resulted from fear or worshipping the Satan was common since beginning of human life in different shapes; such as worshipping jinn among the Arabs and worshipping of the evil souls or Satan in other parts of the world including India, Tibet and Mongolia (Noss, 2011: 224). The discoveries in South America depict that some primary tribes worshipped the Satan. Animism is another aspect of Satanism among primitive tribes (Noss, 2011:20).
Dualism is one of the roots of Satanism. The Zoroastrian texts are ambiguous on the responsibility of Ahouramazda in creating the evil soul and it is unknown that how the evil soul has been created with Ahouramazada since beginning of creation or it has been created later (Noss, 2010: 454). In Islamic viewpoint, Satan was created by the God and it is not an independent force before the God. Einolgozat considers the Satan as manifestation of the trait of misguide of the God (Hamadani, 2008: 232; ibid: 227). Ambiguity in Zoroastrian teachings provided a context for advent of trinity ideology and constituting groups such as Genism, Yazidieh and Dorzovieh that the traces of Satanism can be found in them.
Post-medieval Satanism has a direct relationship with sorcery, so that it is assigned to the Satan and it is also influenced by the Greeks, Romans, Egyptians and Babylon beliefs and also affected by the people with ancient civilization who tended toward sorcery.
Thus, Satanism was publicized after this period due belief in sorcery. The traces of assigning sorcery to the Satan can be found in Einolgozat speeches. However, he considers this issue from different perspective as a result of mystical contemplation of the story of Adam and Eve. It means that the relationship between Adam and prohibited fruit was rooted in goodness and the Satan brought hardship and defects (Hamadani, 2008:313).
Satanism is considered as originated from Kabbalah that is a combination of non-Jewish groups’ beliefs and ideas, but it distances from the Jewish mysticism. Tendency toward sorcery and mixing with non-Jewish mysticism caused Kabbalah to lose its spiritual aspect and move to materiality and superstitions realm gradually. Kabbalah moved the medieval man toward Satanism for gradual combining with forbidden heresy.
The contemporary Satanism mostly denies existence of the Satan as the agent of misleading and loses this place as the human satanic aspect. In Einolgozat opinion, where he defeats the Satan, there is a distinction between the human being and the Satan and the latter gains real entity in this regard (Hamadani, 2008). Although, his defense of the Satan is similar to the Satanism ideals somehow, but it is not meant defeating the ideas and beliefs that lead to Satanism; since the place of the God as the only Lord and creator of the universe is still highlighted; the Sufis who defeat the Satan consider him as unique. In Satanists opinions, the Satan, as the root of any evil conduct, does not deny the God unity; the ancient Satanists considered the God as the only creator of goodness and they did not accept his intervention in evil conducts. In contemporary Satanists opinion, the Satan succeeds the God. Therefore, Einolgozat introduces the Satan as in charge of conducting the divine orders emphasizing the supreme legitimacy of the God and they do not accept servitude of the Satan (Hamadani, 2008, v.3:322).
In conclusion, it can be concluded that a)The opinions of Einolgozat such as considering wrongdoing as the will of God, sanctification of the Satan, believing in his beneficence in inviting Adam toward the forbidden tree and etc. are influenced by Jewish ideas. b) Defeating the Satan approximates Einolgozat opinions to the Gnostic beliefs. c) Considering the outstanding place for the Satan by Einolgozat is due to his closeness and loving of the God in the divine court, which it is not being in contrary to the God. The valuation of the Satan among the Satanists is the consequence of proud and disobedience before the God. d) There is a duality on the issue of the Satan in Einolgozat works; first the accursed Satan appears and then he becomes the loser lover; since Einolgozat speaks in normal condition, so the Satan is normal for him, when he is placed in paradoxical condition, the Satan is appeared differently and exalted. e) In his viewpoint, Satanism is blamed since divinity only belongs to the God and the Satan is His creature and he is under His will and the Satan only overcomes on the misled people.

There is a close and constant relationship between the Quran and gnosis in Islamic gnosticism. In addition of being Muslims’ religious book, the glorious Quran is a literary and artistic text, which has all the features of an artistic work in as far as form and content are concerned. Gnostics talk about peculiar things and mysterious concepts. According to them, meanings and concepts are metaphysical and they can be properly understood by intuition or through manifestation. This gnostics’ perception has prepared the ground for a tendency to interpretation for acquiring a kind of hidden knowledge about realities of existence, which led to developing a special method of interpretation of the Quran, directing them to novel understanding of Qur’anic verses and traditions. Ayn al-Quzat Hamadani is one of the gnostics who has attempted to quote a number of fine proofs from the eloquent Qur’an. The present research aims, with a descriptive- analytical approach, at investigating the Qur’anic verses in Ayn al-Quzat’s preludes and his remarkable and unique understanding of “interpretation” – as the perfectly genuine feature of his literary viewpoint.The findings show that his interpretations of Qur’anic verses sometimes represent his personal way of thinking and often aim at persuading the audience.