فصلنامه قبسات
پیاپی 54 (زمستان 1388)

It's not a long time that the philosophy of mysticism as a new born scientific field, has occupied the minds of scholars of this field. It is to be admitted that this subject has been studied from different perspectives; because some have just explained the ‘eight headings of sciences’ {the bases of science discussed before entering its discussions}, and some have seen the realities of existence philosophically and analytically, and have criticized and evaluated its bases, criterion and frame-works and have chosen a holistic, external and comprehensive perspective. The philosophy of mysticism studies subjects such as: the essence of mysticism, mysticism and religious experience – their similarities and differences, mysticism and inexplicability, the possibility of having a mystical experience and the validity of mystical intuition, the goal and functions of mysticism and some other similar subjects.I believes the discussions of this field are completely open and untouched; and due to the importance of mysticism and its position among other sciences and the necessity of preventing deviation and going to the extremes in this field, the discussions of this subject is a greater duty for the discussers. Yet I believe that the present article includes some introductory and selected discussions which should be completed by specialists.

One of the fundamental and key questions which has occupied the minds of the researchers of mysticism, whether in “philosophy of mysticism”, in the phenomenological aspect of mysticism or in “practical mysticism” and has drawn the attention of intellects is: what is the relation between mysticism and Islam? Is it contrast, equality, absolute generality and peculiarity or generality and peculiarity in some respect? Does Islam contain an independent and original mysticism in the theoretical and practical fields; and anyhow are Islam and mysticism identical or contradictory or neither one? It is difficult to answer such questions and to mention and analyze the different views regarding the mentioned field. Relying on historical evidences on one hand and referring to the rich and pure source of Quran and definite narrations, including Quran’s verses, narrations, prayers and the practical manner of Imams (peace be upon them) on the other hand, and after a report of different perspectives which may be contradictory, I will criticize the theory of separation and contrast between mysticism and Islam.

The language of mysticism is disputable among mystics and non-mystics and they have various theories in this field. Mystics believe their mystical experiences exceed writing and explaining and some believe analysis of mystical experiences is impossible. Therefore it is said that one of the characteristics of mystical experiences is “inexplicability”. There are different theories regarding mystical experiences which are briefly as follows: “the theory of allegory”, the theory of “symbolism”, the theory of “materialization”, “the theory of non-cognitivity of religious language”; theories acceptable for the public such as: “the theory of affections”, the theory of “spiritual blindness”, the theory of figurative language of mysticism and religion, the theory of “paradoxicalness of mystical experience”, the theory of “the artistic and aesthetic language of mysticism”.Some others believe the main problem of inexplicability of mystical experiences is for its “lack of public language logic” which is useful in the field of public understandings and is not useful in the field of mystical experiences.I believe the special language of mysticism is “allusive and symbolic”. This theory does not have the problems of the previous theories and if we precisely study the words of the mystics, this theory is approved.

One of the old worries of researchers is studying religious texts. Muslim researchers have mainly focused on Quran. According to the theological verses of Quran (= verses which are about God’s attributes and deeds), research has the most important positions; this is because Muslim religious researchers believe God and His attributes is the most important subject. Among Muslim religious researchers the mystic researchers have shown a special interest to this subject. Roozbahan Baqli Shirazi (522-606) and Ibn-Arabi (560-638) have more clearly regarded this subject and have two different views in this regard. Using the “shat’h” category, Roozbahan has chosen the “language of shat’h”; rejecting “shat’h” and using the two parameters of “comprehensiveness of simile and immaculateness” and “unity of zaher and mazhar”, Ibn-Arabi has believed the “literal language of the theological verses of the Quran”. The purpose of this article is to compare the linguistic views of the two Muslim scholars and to answer this question: is the language of the theological verses of Quran literal or shat’h? Some of the important findings of the present research are as follows: 1- Roozbahan’s esoteric look at reality; 2- a change in the meaning of shat’h by Roozbahan; 3- Ibn-Arabi’s comprehensive look at reality; 4- Ibn-Arabi’s ontology is close to mind and can be used to present a systematic worldview; 5- Roozbahan’s ontology is far from mind and cannot be used to present a coherent worldview.

According to the expression of Islamic mysticism, heart is the rational soul and the reality of human being. Epistemologically, mysticism is intuitive. A mystic believes knowledge and real understanding is pre-eminent to rational understanding and heartly intuition; and it is for this reason that in their anthropology they believe that the reality and essence of human is his heart and that his reason, sense and all his organs are the surface and are servers of his heart and subordinate to it. Teleologically, the goal of mysticism is to educate a perfect person and since the reality of human being is his heart, therefore his perfection and imperfection is the perfection and imperfection of his heart. The main base of understanding and justifying expressions, in the methodology of mysticism, is heartly intuition which is achieved through practical conduct; and if rational justification is used as well, it is just to translate the intuitional findings to the public rational language and acquirable knowledge. Reason plays the main role in mystical steps in both aspects: being active or passive.

The variety of religions is an undeniable fact but the important point is how we encounter this reality. When we see different religions which claim they are presenting the reality and the path to salvation, what position should we take? Today this is one of the most discussed questions in religious studies and has drawn the attention of many religious and non-religious scholars. To answer this question, many approaches have been created including pluralism. This approach is usually along with the name of John Hick, the contemporary religious philosopher, therefore his philosophy and theology is noticeable. In addition, Hick claims that some mystics before him, such as Ibn-Arabi, have had pluralistic approach to religion. This claim of Hick is first studied in this article and then the mystical view of Ibn-Arabi regarding religious unity and plurality and its bases (unity of existence, manifestation of the Divine Names) are explained.

“The identity of soul and God” is a key term in the ontological aspect of negative theology which is a thriving approach in the mystical theology and new theology. In the present article the meaning of “identity of soul and God” is first mentioned then explaining the uncreated aspect of soul, the three main approaches of Molavi and Eckhart regarding the possibility of identity, which are “the possibility of identity of the soul’s nature and God’s nature”, “disparity of soul and God” and “identity along with difference”, are investigated. At the end of the article I will present some points regarding the possibility of arriving at the final standpoint of Molavi and Eckhart about the possibility of identity of God and soul.

The theory of “conceptual metaphor” is one of the common perspectives in cognitive sciences. This theory has had a great effect in many fields including religious studies. According to this view, metaphor is first related to human’s method of thinking not to his language and thinking is basically metaphorical; in other words human finds epistemological and ontological matting among different fields and for this reason he understands one field on the base of the concepts of another. I will first explain this theory and its difference with the traditional view regarding metaphor and then I will clarify its effect on religious thought and on the course of understanding religious concepts and propositions – in Islam. There is no doubt that this theory will bring about a new theory in understanding of Quran’s verses and their effect on Islamic thought.