What criteria have shaped the Islamic GNOSIS, and what major factors have arranged its path, and how has it corrected its mistakes? Surveys reveal that the root of Islamic GNOSIS and mysticism are just Quran and the Prophet's path known as "Sirat" in Islamic terms. But as it has moved on its way, it has been influenced by the rituals, attitudes and even the customs of other nations as well. Probably the reason why some have tried to show that the Islamic GNOSIS and mysticism has had an adverse path- even though they had enjoyed a variety of differing attitudes- is because they were influenced by their own religious and political views. On the other hand, maybe depending on their own attitude, as they have wanted to show that these enjoy a non-Islamic root, they have meant to consider the Islamic GNOSIS and mysticism opposing to the Islamic beliefs. They might have even intended to introduce it in a manner showing that the traditional mystical Persian literature does not need to follow the Islamic principles at all. Yet several documents imply that the Islamic mysticism is directly rooted in the Quran and the Prophet's path, the Islamic figures manner including the Imams, their companions and the Islamic disciples. However, gradually the views of the followers of the other schools, the social rituals of different nations and tribes and especially the desires of the hypocritical sophists have influenced this. Therefore some bad changes were made into the original issue. Therefore the sophists' great sheikhs have seriously tried to correct this by writing many books, guiding their followers so that the path of the theoretical and practical mysticism is once again based on its original criteria; that is Quran and the Prophet's Sirat. So finally, the Islamic GNOSIS and mysticism would proceed in its major path.

Gnosticism is one of the important religious - Gnostic schools at the beginning centuries of Christian era. In this paper, the important Gnostic schools of the second and the third century A.D. are analyzed. These Gnostic schools are mainly based on the ideas of Gnostics of the early Christianity, such as Simon the Magus. Valentine, Marcion, and Basilides. Gnostic attitude in Hermetic literature and in Mandaism, Sabaeans (Sābiūn) or Mughtasilah (Babtizers), is a complementary analysis of Gnosticism.The new theme that is presented through this paper is Manichaean GNOSIS which originated from Gnosticism of the early Christianity. In the 3rd century A.D., the eastern religious intellectuals (as the followers of Denavariyye in khorasan (and the western religious - Gnostic schools (in Asia Minor, Syria and Egypt) were grossly influenced by it. Manichaean Gnostic motif is the descend of spirit from the light paradise to this material world. So, human function, according to this school, is to release the celestial spirit particles imprisoned in the material bodies, salvation of the souls, and finally to the Realm of Light.

Intuitive GNOSIS or mystical knowledge is different from conventional sensual or rational knowledge. This knowledge is not achieved through theoretical contemplation but is attained through remembering God, meditation, purification of soul and mystical life. In this knowledge there is no distance or medium between the object and subject of knowledge. In other words, the knower and the known or the witness and witnessed enjoy a kind of unity or union and connection. Hence, this knowledge is known as direct, intuitive and without medium. The subjects of this GNOSIS are God, universes of being and inner and hidden worlds which, in the viewpoint of mystic, are nothing but the divine inner manifestations. As our ordinary knowledge is diverse and gradational, mystical intuition too is diverse and gradational. As our ordinary perceptions are divided into sensual and rational, our mystical discoveries are divided into formal and spiritual.From the perspective of Islamic mysticism, the superior path to GNOSIS of God and faith in Him is intuitive knowledge. There are two criteria for assessment of mystical institution, particularly for non-mystics, i.e. reason and revelation. The main thrust of the present paper is to sum up the viewpoints of the Muslim mystics about this issue.

In the series articles by Mr. Biabani Oskouei, "GNOSIS of God" was regarded as "the Act of God and His blessing" and the concept of acquiring this knowledge based on Quran and traditions was rejected. In this essay, the author tries to answer these questions: If "GNOSIS of God" is Act of God and is only from God, why is it regarded as the man’s duty to accept it?What is the role of Prophets in creating this knowledge and understanding it by logic?In cases where God puts instruments and tools for gaining knowledge, these instruments are instruments, therefore what is the meaning of God’s direct creation and if they are ineffective, what are they needed for? In order to prove God’s full one-and-only Power, the rejectionists of "Elliyat" principle refused the impact of middle causes; neglecting the fact that "being middle causes of some other cause" (sababbiyat) is created and endowed by God the Alimighty Himself.

In the history of Islamic though, faith and GNOSIS -Iman va Ma’rifat- are two key and controversial theological concepts, having always been subject the argument. Some important theological problems such as excommunication and calling one profligate-Takfir va Tafsiq-, principle of rational goodness and badness -Hosn va Qobh-i Aqli- are obviously consequences of diversity in definition of these two concepts. Among Muslim scholars, Sufis based on their own world- view, have had a particular conception towards them. Sufis attractive attitude stimulates us to investigate their definition of Iman and Ma’rifat.So, the present paperis an attempt to survey them semantically and examine their relation with each other and the impact of reseating on faith according to Sufis’ words and views. Eventually the resemblance of Sufis’ viewpoint with the approach of the fideists and reformed epistemologists have briefly been presented.

GNOSIS is the paramount kind of knowledge about the most supreme truth of the existence and as the elder scholars have said it is the noblest knowledge about the noblest issues. Furthermore, the tendency toward GNOSIS is innate in human being. Hence, GNOSIS enjoys a unique power of fascination and lots of the people who search for culmination seek it enthusiastically. Meanwhile, as a result of the high value of the pearl of GNOSIS, distinguishing the pure GNOSIS from the false and fake ones is difficult. Most of time, the pure GNOSIS remains unknown and abandoned because of the ornamented façade and deceitfulness of the fake GNOSIS. Although GNOSIS is inherent in the Islamic knowledge and an inseparable part to the Shiite knowledge, unfortunately it has remained hidden and its reality is unknown and lots of its aspirers wander around in its search. Therefore, in order to enjoy the bounty of GNOSIS and remain intact from the semi-GNOSIS and fake spiritualities, it is crucial to realize the features of the true GNOSIS, which is the very same pure Shiite GNOSIS. The present work, as a small step in this long route, is an attempt to provide some of the most important features of the Shiite GNOSIS.

In viewpoint of Ibn Arabi and according to the theory of continuous generation, knowledge is the permanent manifestation of God in the hearts which have not been veiled by the worldly amusements. True knowledge is accompanied with practice whose result is spiritual paradise. In his viewpoint, the status of knowledge is divine and the status of GNOSIS is related to the Lordship.Therefore, knowledge is superior to GNOSIS. A mystic is only the place of witness of the Lord's Name, but scholar is one in whom God is manifested with His quiddity and divinity. Hence he witnesses all the Divine Names. On the basis of this distinction, GNOSIS belongs to the world of generation while knowledge belongs to the world of commandment. Meanwhile, mystic enjoys mystical conditions while they are not manifest in the scholar. Mystics are monotheists, but scholars are monotheists because of being Gnostic, i.e., only it is the scholars who who possess the knowled of uniqness of multiplicity.

The mystics believe that knowledge is necessary in mystic journey, because the ignorance is the cause of corruption in many of travelers on the mystic way. According to Abdullah Ansari a Sufi without knowledge is Devil while ignorance is poison that which destroys travelers on the mystic way. In his opinion, GNOSIS is spirit of knowledge and it is Divine vision that it don’t happen by acquisition. In mystic journey, Knowledge is a light that illumines darkness of the mystic way, while GNOSIS is ladder that which ascends travelers on the mystic way. If a mystic talks with religious scholars and they acquire his talking, this is knowledge for scholars, while all of knowledge is GNOSIS for mystics. In reality intellectual knowledge turns into esoteric knowledge i.e. whenever is known for religious scholars is witnessed for Gnostics. As a result of that it is necessary that a traveler on the mystic way takes away veil of knowledge and remove to the states of the mysticism. In station of knowledge, i.e. before taking away its veil human intelligence is knowledgeable and rational soul joys of that, but in station of GNOSIS, rational soul is effacement and spirit is knowledgeable and joys of that.

Modern (theoretical) physics seems to be in deep crisis today as many of its core aspects are not empirically well-confirmed. Heated exchanges among physicists on the scientific status of physical theories with little or, at best, a tenuous connection to possible experimental tests is highly visible in the popular scientific literature. Some physicists (e.g., Carroll 2014, 2019; Ijjas et al., 2017) argue that science must discard empirical testability as one of its defining properties and the highly explanatory theories of present-day physics should be exempted from experimental testing, while others (e.g., Ellis & Silk 2014) spot in these arguments (for softening the testability or falsifiability requirement for modern physics) a dangerous tendency to undermine science. The philosopher of science who naturally draws most attention in these current debates is Karl Popper (1902-1994). His views, however, are often misrepresented in these debates. The prime objective of this paper is to explain how a more enlightened perspective on the ongoing debates can be obtained by a careful scrutiny of the Popperian criterion of falsifiability. As a first step in achieving this objective we will analyze the two major (conceptual) failures on which the current controversies rest. Our next step will be examining the controversial string theory to see whether the criteria of falsifiability is a ‘blunt instrument’ for determining its scientific status.

In John’s Gaspel, Jesus heralds the coming of someone called Peraclete or Paraclete. Peraclete means “praised” and has been used in ancient texts.Paraclete in the sense accepted by the Church means “consolation” or the “Holy Spirit”.Through a study of the Gnostic theory of Theophany, the quality of the manifestation of divine names and attributes in the various levels of being, the perfect man’s being the manifestation of the supreme name of God, its manifestation in the existence of the Holy Prophet (s) and Infallible Imams (a) and its continuity with the presence of God’s remainder (Imam Mahdi (a)), aims to demonstrate that what Jesus heralds in John’s Gospel is the same Muhammedan truth, which existed in all the prophets and reached its perfect manifestation in the Holy Prophet (s) and the Infallible Imams (a).In line with this goal, the writer of this paper first explains the first theophany and manifestation of Muhammedan truth, whose other names are the “first intellect” and the “Holy Spirit”. Then she refers to the second theophany as a result of which all the existents that are present in the divine Knowledge in the first theophany appear in the outside world, and the Muhammedan truth, which appears as the perfect man in the clothes of prophet hood, messenger ship, and leadership (Imamat) and is the guardian of all the worlds of being, is the same consoling entity, the Holy Spirit or the praised whose coming and staying Jesus has heralded. Hence, in spite of the conceptual differences between the two words of Peraclete and Paraclete, there is no difference between them in terms of their referents. The referent of both is one truth which is the Muhammedan truth.