فصلنامه الهیات هنر
پیاپی 2 (تابستان 1393)

The relationship between art and religion could be defined through the form.The art could be divided into two groups as well: approximating arts and diverging arts. Approximating arts are those ones which facilitate the approximation of art to religious notions, not going through details while representing the subject. For these arts, the addressee is not only a passive person but also the one who helps the art piece be completed. Islamic arts mostly use symbols and by means of them transmit what they mean to the addressee without disturbing the religious theme; therefore, approximating art could transmit religious notions to the addressee, keeping its framework. But diverging arts are those ones which try to depict the entire details ignoring nothing while it is not impossible to do it through imperceptible matters, because they insist on representing a detailed image of an imperceptible matter while they do not have such an image within themselves. Consequently, they present a biased fake image of religious imperceptible matters. It is obvious that this kind of arts could not be a medium between the addressee and a religious message.

The "Soul-Body Allegory" has always been utilized to clarify the "Act of God" and His relation with the creatures throughout the history of philosophy, in which soul is considered as the example of God, supplying appropriate answers for some theological and metaphysical questions. I this allegory the shadow unity of the soul functions as a model for understanding creation, creativeness and activeness of God, becoming more clarified and constructive through Sadr-ol-Moteallehin, s approach in Islamic philosophy. This article explores problems like the definition of art, the secret of its immortality, human, s natural propensity towards it as well as the meaning of artistic creativity that are of importance in the philosophy of art, based on the above-mentioned allegory, since it could be a way for understanding the meaning and finding solutions for these problems in the science of soul. Human soul, this abstract substance, in the realm of his power, understanding and act, like God, deals with constant creativity which, more than any other field, is reflected in art. The implications of this thesis in the realm of art clarifies the essential creativity of human, discovers the secret of his artistic life and experiences, defines the meanings of "unity in plurality" and "plurality in Unity", represents deeper notions of "allegorization" and "mimesis" and analyzes the endless power of soul in the creation of art.

Traditionalists consider Islamic art as having unity and integrity despite borrowing various and sometime paradoxical elements from the other civilizations. Islamic art like what occurs in other tribal groups not only originates in the personal skills and capabilities of the artist but also derives from the mystical and metaphysical aspects of his soul. As a result what a traditionalist artist creates is an embodiment of philosophical, mystical and epistemological facts in his mind, especially in its highest level i.e. holy art. In this article it is attempted to survey the similarities and dissimilarities (seven cases, mostly constitutional) throughout the viewpoints of the traditionalists towards the Islamic art, regardless of their thought integrity in the realm of art and religion or the positive aspects of their ideas as well as reviewing and criticizing some of their reactions to these problems.

Remembrance and memory are the crucial subjects of Hafez, s poetical thought turning them into the most important elements of his thought system. Hafez is a thoughtful poet, since his poetry aims at answering the most fundamental questions of the human being such as the basis of being, the goal behind the creation of the cosmos and mankind, the meaning of life and etc. He finds the secret of the life in love and friendship which have resulted in the creation of the cosmos and mankind in a primordial event. Man owns an astute love-oriented being because of an understanding of love, compared to other creatures, being called crazy, insane and drunk by Hafez, as a result. But for the same reason of understanding love, man is exposed to the dangers like loneliness and disappearance. Hafez believes that man must remember the primordial event of his "Reception of the Responsibility" in order to be able to survive in a world, full of pain and discomfort.

In the present article this basic question is answered: Has myth found its way into the stories of Qurān? What necessitates answering this question is that given the existence of myth in the stories of Qurān accepted, a part of claims regarding the realization of some propositions of Qurān is challenged to a great deal, paving the way for challenging some others as well. Myth, in this article, means: a legend with no basis, decorated in a way that is believed to be real by man. The entrance of myth into the stories of Qurān could independently be traced through the works of interpreters like Fakhr-e-Razi; but the first dependant and challenging of these belongs to Dr. Mohammad Ahmad Khalafullāh. In his words, Qurān does not repudiate myth but it denies the composition of itself by the Prophet Muhammad. In the present article this approach is criticized under the title of mythological. The research method of this article is an inter–text study based on a comparative analysis of some selected verses of Qurān and their interpretations in exegesis works.

This article aims at surveying the subject of "Ghinā". The commandment of illegalness of Ghinā is agreed by all Shiite Jurisprudence Ulamā but what has still been a subject of disagreement is the clarification of its limits. This article first quotes some pioneers of Islamic Jurisprudence on the illegalness of Ghinā to prove its undeniability as well as its being a fundamental necessity of Islam. Then, mentioning the fact that Ghinā, unlike some other assignments such as Fasting and Praying, needs not to be defined by Jurisprudencial authority, it considers some of the definitions of Ghinā by a number of Ulamā as a guidance for making it understandable for the common people with no Imitation function. In addition, it surveys some of definitions on the subject of Ghinā by a number of prominent Ulamā, exploring the ambiguities in some of their key words that are still non-discussed despite the attempts done so far. Finally it presents a definition regarding an old Arabic proverb as well as some text clues testifying that. The last part of the article also analyzes Feiz, s definition of Ghinā, mentions the two paraphrases by Sheikh Ansāri on that, and comes up with a third one to conclude all discussions by the former.