The Inebriated Myth Tellers or the Sober Observers? (Molavi's and Shams' Different Views About Mystical State)

Although it is supposed that Molana and Shams are in all consensuses, contemplation in their slants shows their disagreement in some subordination. One diverse is their slants about the mystical state and its different dimensions which causes this disagreement and its reply is because of the preference of mystical inebriation to observation by the mystical pattern of each mystic. Molana's slant is like Bayazid. Hence, the ecstasy of mystics in inebriation’s step is a symbol of being faithful and joining God, namely, a mystic with obligatory quiescent and motionless surprise God until God uses his tongue for a satisfying statement. But Shams like Junaid's mystical pattern believes that a mystic state does not have any meaning but metempsychosis, arrogance, disability, and inconsistency, achieving God knowing the reality of religion in observation level, founded beyond quartet steps of inebriation. Also, because of the new feelings of this research quality of the relation between obligation and authorization with a mystical state are their idea. In Molana's slant, mystics are despots who optionally asked God to make them compulsive and mortal in it. So, they did not accept any action and statement to themselves considering God the teller and also the doer of all deeds. But for Shams mystics are inebriated because they are just symbols of God's blessing, they have not achieved any dominance in states, stability, and observant authorization also they faced determinism plus misguidance, but, the observant are authorities who can dominate their states because of achieving traits of God's wrath and kindness deserving to get a position of headship, typical for people of observant