Sufism is regarded as an internal revolution and a mental evolution to perceive the unity of the existence and release from the materialistic world and its belongings. Sufism was first emerged in 2 A.D As time dragged on, the objectives and features of the mental flow emerged to expand it and the tendency of others to this school in poem. In consequence, the Sufi poet's sapped forward to compose their Sufi notions, thus; a new spectrum of poetry came into existence in literature called Sufi poetry. Undoubtedly, this type of poetry was first initiated among the Arab poets right from its emergence and the development of Sufism. However, it has not been well- developed and glorified by the pioneer poets. According to the fact that the Sufi poets had been anonymous and there is no written record of their poem books, researchers did not take steps to elucidate them. Ibn-e- Kenaseh is one of those poets who is less recognized. He lived in Abbasid dynasty. There are traces of Sufism thoughts in his Sufism thoughts. Up to now, researchers have not considered these issues. The authors have done this research based on a descriptive- analytical method to present a new review of asceticism and elegies to the addresses. Therefore, the authors of this research aim to dissect the Sufism thought in the asceticism and elegies of Ibn-e- Kenaseh. In fact, this research has tried to provide the addresses with a broad view of the features of these poems and the way of their emergences and the motifs of the poets. It also ims to identify the position of this anonymous poet among the Sufism poets during Safavide era. This research aims to respond the following questions: 1. How the intentions and subjects of the Sufism poems have emerged in the asceticism and elegies of Ibn-e-Kenaseh? 2. What are the aims and motifs of the poet of composing this type of poem? 3. What are the features of Sufi poetry in the poems of this poet? Conclusions Since the poet had been in the gatherings of the great men of this school, he had realized and comprehended the thoughts of this tendency. He had been affected by the concepts of prominent ones like Ibn-e-Adham, he achieved the glory and perfection of the existence. Hence, the asceticism and elegies of Sufism intensions are apparent in his poems. One of the main concerns of the poet is the arrogance of the boastful ones that has annoyed the Sufi one. He tried to guide those who have lost their way as well as the arrogant ones. Further, such attempts can be traced in his poems. Rasai, the son of the poet, and Yahya, his uncle and disciple express his honest emotions and his delicate spirit. Before, the poet commenced composing Sufism poems, he had experienced and joined the Sufism gatherings and he had learned their doctrines. Being meek and humble to God's will and determination are the prominent specifications of Sufism poetry. This is considered as the attributes of the great men the Prophet (peace upon him). As there are harmony and rhythm in his poems, it is easier to keep in mind the Sufism notions and thoughts. As a result, this type of poetry could be glorified. Hence, another aim of the poet is to expand the doctrines of Islam in the form of Sufism. Considering that Ibn Kenaseh was influenced by the Sufi views and thoughts of Ibrahim Ibn Adham and this figure was one of the first Sufis of the second century AH after Hassan Basri and Uthman Ibn Sharik known as Abu Hisham Kufi, he may be deliberated as one of the first Sufi poets. He considered himself a sect or even the first Sufi poet. Lucidity and clarity and dodging of ambiguity and vagueness and mystery and symbol are also the protruding features of Ibn Kenaseh's poetry in this field. As t Ibn Kenaseh lived in the first centuries of the emergence of Sufi poetry, this type of poetry has not yet developed and has not reached the stage of ambiguity, consequently the absence of Sufi mysteries and vagueness and complexity in his poems is quite natural. Furthermore, the lack of using complex poetic images and difficult metaphors similarly indicate the lack of maturity of Sufi poetry in the poet's era and accordingly in our poet's poetry.

The essential substance (nature) by itself only consists of its own essence according to the principle of “existence distinction from nature”, which is considered among the most important principles of Avicenna’s metaphysics and the metaphysical element of existence in order to exist must be occurred on it from the outside and from the determinant cause. Ibn Sīnā (Arabic: ابن سینا, Avicenna) also, based on this principle, establishes the important principle of “the necessary existent distinction from the potential existent” and he explains the issue of creation and the proof of existence of God on the basis of these two principles. Some of Avicenna’s phrases in explaining the distinction of existence on nature have led to different interpretations of his word. Ibn Rushd (Arabic: ابن رشد, Averroes)’ reading is one of the most important of these readings which has become popular among medieval thinkers through translating his works and his followers. Avicenna considers the distinction of nature and existence to be external according to Averroes’ view and believes that existence, like accidental categories, affects the nature. However, attention in Avicenna’s phrases shows that his purpose of considering ascription of existence to subject as accidental means that existence is not a part of essence and essentials and it is occurred from external over essence and nature and not that the existence is occurred to the nature like categorical accidents. Thomas Aquinas, though influenced by Averroes, considers his principle of distinction to be different from Avicenna’s and in some minor cases is different from Avicenna but the examination of his works shows that he is influenced by Avicenna in the main framework of the principle of distinction and its explanation is not significantly different from Avicenna’s.

Ibn Ghadāʿirī (Arabic: إبن غضائری) is one of the prominent ḥadīth narrators in the earlier age who has reread the ḥadīth narrator's status using the knowledge of ḥadīth and biographical evaluation (Arabic: الرجال, Romanized: al-rijāl) specific to his time. His field of biographical evaluation studies is a representation of his scientific personality, intellectual model and method of accessing Rijāl sources. His critical approach to this knowledge can be represented and judged by his historical Rijāl (not objective). However, the lack of historical narrative sources about Ibn Ghadāʿirī's personal and social identity has become a position for different epistemological speculations in the field of his historical personality, beliefs and knowledge among the earlier and later (posterior) scholars of Rijāl and other scholars. It was attempted in this article to reread analytically, Ibn Ghadāʿirī's scientific and religious character by using the narrations of the contemporary Rijālian scholars of Ibn Ghadāʿirī and the narratorologists after him

Verse 57 of Sūrat Az-Zukhruf is a parable that has been mocked at and ridiculed by the polytheists and they dispute with the Prophet Muhammad(PBUH). Mufassirūn (Arabic: مفسرون, an author of a tafsīr) have not been consonant or consonant in what is meant by the mentioned parable and what this verse means and have raised views that each one faces a kind of challenge. The present research, by a descriptive-analytical and critical method, has tried to provide the most appropriate tafsīr (Arabic: تفسیر, Quranic exegesis) or Quranic exegesis by examining this verse and other verses and analyzing the Quranic exegesis and narratives that are under the verse. The results show that there is a confusion between the two types of narratives related to the cause of the revelation and ignoring this point has made it more difficult to understand the verse. Therefore, the narration that attributes the parable to the polytheists and not necessarily to Ibn Zibaʿrī (Arabic: ابن زبعری) is more correct and at the same time more consistent with the context of the verses themselves. This can be considered as a criticism of the Quran based on examining ʾaḥādīṯ transmitted to mufassirūn who consider the given parable to be from God.

Ibn Roshd is one of the Muslim philosophers who had great influence on western scholars, especially the Jewish through his translating and explaining of Aristotle's works and the relationship between reason and religion. Ibn Meymun is a Jewish thinker who was influenced by Ibn Rushd. In Judaism the preliminary steps on the relationship between reason and religion were of special interest to Philo of Alexandria. Later on, anti – Hellenistic thoughts and non- intellectual attempts to prove religious matters had developed. In twelfth century, the Jewish thought was deeply influenced by main trends of Islamic thought and Aristotelian and neo–Platonian schools, which was manifested in Musa b. Meymun's thought.Using a library survey method, the present paper investigates Ibn Rushd and Ibn Meymun's views about the interaction between reason and religion and the influence of Ibn Rushd's thoughts on Jewish philosophical thought and on Ibn Meymun's thought in particular.

It has been seen, in the writings of western scholars in history of philosophy, that Avicenna was considered as a commentator of Aristotle, and many of Muslim and Arab authors have accepted this view, more or less. But as we Know he denied it in the several positions of his works: (Introduction of Hekmat-olmashreqien,outobiography and Almobahe ssat,).
The questions about of Avicenna’s philosophy: Is the philosophy of Avicenna continuation of Aristotle one? If not, what are the differences between tow philosophy (philosophy of Avicenna and Aristotle one)? And what criteria for recognition of these differences is reasonable? The article with using the Averroes reading of Aristotle, answers these three questions, and tally the differences on narration of Averroes, who is the credible and important commentator of Aristotle- regardless of Averroes’s critic of Avicenna and the answers to him.
Thus, as shown in the article, Averroes believed the philosophy of Avicenna is different from Aristotle one in more than fifty stands and isn’t the continuation of it. The Averroes’s point of view can be considered from three aspects: the phrases that show the differents, the Fundamental principles, and the philosophical details (more than the fifty stands). The criterion is the same comparison Averroes has done, as listed.

Nahj al-Balagha's description by Ibn Abi'l-Hadid and Maitham al- Bahrani are prominent descriptions of Nahj al-Balagha. The authors of these descriptions, in an overview with a common theological and literary approach, have described the words of Imam Ali (AS). For instance the unique sermons of Nahj al-Balagha in the recognition of past historical events regarding Imam is the sermon of Shaqshaqiya, of course, Ibn Abi'l-Hadid and Maitham al- Bahrani have elaborated it. Maitham al- Bahrani considers Shaqshaqiya sermon more spiritual and not literal; although Ibn Abi'l-Hadid does not explicitly state that the Imam's words have been stated in  Tawator (sequencing), but in some other statements, the sequencing of Imam Ali's (AS) words regarding his complain about cruelty toward him, has been proved to Ibn Abi'l-Hadid . Maitham al- Bahrani, through realistic approach, and Ibn Abi'l-Hadid with his dismissal theological approach, and of course biased approach, provided a detailed and historical description of the Imam's utterances, and in various instances described the utterances through false justifications and misinformation which is in need of further investigation. This paper compares Ibn Abi'l-Hadid and Maitham al- Bahrani's approaches to the Shaqshaqiya sermon with a descriptive-analytical review.

The relationship between reason and sharia has been one of the most important and controversial issues among religious thinkers. The main question of this article is "What is the effect of Ibn Rushd on Ibn Maimon in using reason in Shari'a?" Some of the points that we achieved in this research indicate the deep influence of Ibn Rushd on Ibn Maimon in the discussion of reason and Shari'a. In various passages of his works, Ibn Rushd warns of the dangers of pure rationalism and restricts its use in sharia. He believes that the intellect alone cannot interpret and should be done by the people of Shari'a with the conditions explained in religion. Ibn Maimon also states that the use of reason in the sharia is conditional and believes that the Bible of Judaism sets the standard for the use of reason in the Shari'a, which is done by the people of the sharia. In applying the views of Ibn Rushd and Ibn Maimon, we encounter reasons that emphasize the influence of Ibn Rushd on Ibn Maimon in this issue.