The truth about Divine Names and the meanings of Divine Names and Attributes have always been regarded as key issues in Islamic theology and philosophy, and their surrounding debates have so far triggered controversial and challenging ideas. In this context, the difference of opinions between Ibn Sina as the head of the Peripatetic School and Mulla Sadra as the founder of Transcendental Theosophy have been underestimated. Therefore, in the beginning of the article, some principles in relation to the issue of Beautiful Divine Names have been shortly mentioned in order to set the ground for the primary discussion, i.e. the disagreement between Ibn Sina and Mulla Sadra on unity and the conceptual differences of divine names and attributes. Then, the ideas of Ibn Sina and Mulla Sadra are analyzed and their disagreement is reviewed

The term nouns and attributes, like most Islamic terminology, have a Quranic origin. Among the prevailing ideas in Islamic theology are promises of the arrest of divine names and attributes, including those from the hadith, the Za'ir and even the Ash'arites. Matrides believe that God should be named and described only by the names and attributes in the book and the tradition, and that they know the names and other attributes of heresy. From the Mu'tazilite point of view, the divine attributes and attributes are not forbidden, and the name and attribution of transcendence to the names and attributes not mentioned in the Qur'an and traditions is valid, while mystics and Sufis and many close to them believe that God Any good name can be read. Saadi, inspired by the Ash'arites' beliefs, repeatedly reads God in the names and descriptions mentioned in the book and tradition. Therefore, in this research, considering the Ash'arism of Saadi's professionalism, we will examine descriptive-analytic method by extracting nouns and attributes in general, to see to what extent Sa'adi's thoughts and beliefs regarding the arrest of Asmau are discussed. The traits correspond to the Ash'arites.

This essay attempts to explain Avicenna's view of the relation between God's essence and His attributes. The problem of God's attributes is much important such that it was held to be the first and the most basic issue of Islamic theology. There is no doubt that some excessive or negligence views concerning the relation of God's attributes to His essence have misunderstood the issue and reached to some bad consequences. According to the famous and commonly accepted theory, all of God's attributes having different concepts refer to one extensive that is His essence.Avicenna's view of the relation of God's essence to His attributes which is known as the unique theory of God's attributes is contrary to the commonly accepted view, namely, the extensional identity of attributes without the conceptual identity of them. Unfortunately, Avicenna's theory because of its eccentric character was neglected by the later philosophers.This article tries to explain Avicenna's view and compares it to the view of the founder of the Transcendent Philosophy, MullaSadra.

The present study seeks to answer the main question: "What kind of relationship does Fakhr Razi introduce between the essence and the divine attributes?" It was formed and in the study of the two theories of trait negation and the objectivity of traits, it explored to find the answer. The research findings are as follows: Fakhr Razi tries to minimize verbal conflicts by reducing the frequency of most of the issues related to adjectives to verbal issues, but he does not rely on this theory and the ontological issues of the relationship between traits and Examining Essence, Fakhr's existentialist studies concluded that he proved the existence of attributes by distorting the reasons for denying attributes, although Fakhr speaks erroneously in quoting the negation of attributes. He says that he himself is somehow in the House of Lords denying the attributes - but with a different justification. He goes on to point out the relationship between divine attributes and essence, and sometimes clarifies the objectivity of attributes with essence, although he cannot be considered a defender of the theory of objectivity, but in order to analyze the change of his theological positions and his fairness in accepting cases. Whoever considers the arguments sufficient, will be thoughtful and useful

This article seeks to explore the relationship between God's essence and His attributes from the perspective of Fakhr al-Rāzī, with a specific focus on essential divine attributes. In examining Fakhr al-Rāzī's views, we observe that he often simplifies various theological disagreements pertaining to divine attributes by reducing them to verbal issues. However, he does not consistently apply this approach universally, as he also delves into ontological investigations of divine attributes and essence in several instances. In his examination of general and specific arguments concerning the attribution of each attribute to God, Fakhr al-Rāzī endeavors to challenge the notion of identity between the essence and the attributes. Despite being an Ashʿarite theologian, he finds the arguments against this identification to be insufficient and occasionally leans toward affirming their identity. However, in order to reconcile these divergent perspectives, he ultimately supports the distinction between divine attributes and God's essence, while addressing the inherent issues associated with this distinction by positing that the attributes are dependent on the essence. This perspective implies that the essence has brought forth the attributes, aligning closely with the viewpoint espoused by Muslim mystics.

One of the most controversial issues in Islamic philosophy and theology is God's Will. However, there are certain questions in this regard that require convincing answers. They include' What is the meaning of Will, how is it realized in human beings, and what are its prerequisites and concomitants?', 'How can we attribute will to God so that it is not accompanied with possible concomitants?', 'Is God's Will one of the attributes of His Essence or Act?', 'How is it attributed to human acts?', and finally, 'How should we think about this issue so that we are not accused of following a determinist insight?'The present paper undertakes to explain this issue and provide answers to related questions.

Discussion of God’s Knowledge is among the most important problems of Philosophy and theology. Great philosophers have expressed different and opposing views on God’s knowledge of Himself and the things other than God. Based on his main works, the present article attempts to study Plato’s view on this subject. So the author selects and explains some phrases drawn from Plato’s works such as the Parmenides, Sophist, Republic and Timaeus; at the same time, the author pays attention to the opinions of the expounders of Plato’s views, particularly to those of Neo-Platonist expounders. Another point in the problem of God’s knowledge is the how of God’s action and its relation to the divine knowledge; taking the Dialogue of Timaeus into consideration, the author tries to explain the how of God’s activity. Meanwhile, it examines themes such as the relation between idea of good and the world of ideas as well as Demiurge, place of the world of idea, the six causes, and the reason of creating the universe.

The word "right" is the most basic and practical concepts in the domain of law. The word Right is known as an easy and impossible concept. Although the apparent of this word seems simply,but has a countless complicated nature. The word has multiple dimensions and wide aspects, the "foreclosure" is one of its dimensions and the subject of this article. There are several types of deprivation of rights. It may be done by one person or another or by the ruling political power. It may be thought of as absolute or relative, and it may also be regarded as a right, or as an effect of a right, or as a punishment. This article is an attempt to define the concepts surrounding foreclosures and analyze similarities and differences in the legal literature of Iran, religious teachings and Western legal texts.

This study aims to find answer to the question of “what are the limits of human knowledge of God, the Truth?” In response to the above question most scholars admit that God, in His very Essence, is not the object of our knowledge; yet, they agree that we can basically know Him through His attributes. Accordingly, to discuss man’s knowledge of God, a group of them adopt assimilation, as an approach; another opts for dissimilation and the third group a way in-between. This paper reviews the above approaches and demonstrates the insufficiency of each. The contention here is that due to the identity between God’s Essence and His attributes, His Attributes, too, fall out of the reach of human perception. Thus the extent to which human being can come to know God is only determined through His acts which are manifestations of His attributes. Beyond doubt, the most perfect knowledge of God can be achieved through His most perfect act, i.e. the Perfect Man, or ideally speaking: Imam. Thus, Man’s true knowledge of God, within the measure of his ability, is only possible as a result of the evolutional movement, manifestation of God’s attributes, attaining to the station of the devoted and the realization of the intuitive wisdom (not just argumentative wisdom). The man who, on the basis of the unity of Being, has reached the unity of intuition can be a mirror capable of showing the Truth in the most perfect manner and can therefore characterize the Truth with his existence (not merely by his words). This is confirmed by His Divine Words in the Holy Quran, saying: “Purity is to Allah from the matters they fabricate. Except the chosen bondmen of Allah.”. According to the above verses, only the purest and the devoted have the permission to describe Him.