The present article deals with the sayings of Baha al-din Valad written in his famous journal, entitled Maaref which has been published in 13333 by the efforts of Professor Fourouzanfar. It is an attempt to make a compariSon between the characteristics of the beloved in the words of Baha Valad with what Moulana has drawn of his beloved and master Shams Tabrizi in his Ghazaliat.Through this compariSon and assessment, the writer seeks similarities in line of thought of the Father and the Son and also reveals point of departure in their thoughts.

The style of conversation has been used as one of the most prominent modes of expression and a wise method for communicating and inviting people in Islam and its propaganda. Each conversation-as a linguistic composition-has rhetorical, lexical and style features and secrets that need to be analyzed. One example of these conversations is the Father-child conversation. Their literary and rhetorical styles are such beauties that they have both constructive educational effects and have valuable literary-rhetorical ideas and patterns. Objectives: The purpose of this essay is providing a beautiful reading of the dialogue between Father and child in Quran. Method: The present study is a qualitative study using analytical-descriptive method based on inferential method. Results: It indicates that theological issues have been expressed in the conversations with the use of theology and the anatomical issues with the wisdom style and the obscene acts with the metaphor and the resurrection and the problem of the resurrection with the metaphorical language and sometimes the inquisitive style. Conclusion: In the Quranic dialogues, generally speaking, children spoke to their Fathers with the view of bowing down and preserving the dignity of their Father, which is ethical, and thus being infidels. All are evident, which can be highlighted as a role model in society. In cases where the Fathers addressed their children, the rhetoric expressing affection and affection would flow into the language, even though the child was misguided.

Corresponding member of the Academay of Persian language and literatureThe Father-Son battle is a prominent motif in the epic literature of various cultures worldwide, and many researchers have studied this motif from different perspectives, including comparative approaches. One notable example of this motif in epic texts is the Russian narrative of the battle between two heroic figures, a Father and Son. Despite its significant similarities to the Iranian version (the battle between Rostam and Sohrab in Shahnameh), it has not yet been translated into Persian, and Iranian researchers have only had access to a general outline of the plot and main events. This article provides a translation of the most famous Russian version of the Father-Son battle narrative, highlighting its structural and stylistic features, and discusses points regarding the similarities and differences between the Russian and Persian versions. The aim is to demonstrate that these two epic texts are connected, either directly or indirectly, and that their similarities cannot be explained by coincidence or parallel historical and social conditions.

The nexus between literature and psyche has been conceived of from ancient times but an exact and methodical explanation for it was formed after Freud’s theory. Oedipus complex is one of the important theories suggested by Freud whereby baby boys’ affection to their mothers and their feelings to kill their Fathers are accounted for. From this perspective and based on different pieces of evidence and justifications, the present study presents a different reading of the battle between Rostam and Sohrab. Zal cannot overcome the Oedipus complex, because of Sam’s (Father) rejection, his absence and dissimilarity with him in achieving an inextricable link with phoenix (mother-beloved) and an unsuccessful life with Rudabeh. From the perspective of killing the Father, since Sam is immortal, another layer of story reveals itself in the form of characters’ transmutation and behind the battle of Rostam and Sohrab, is in fact the quarrel between Zal (=Rostam) and Sam (=Sohrab).

Legends and epic stories featuring Father- Son conflict are considered as historical concepts of old Aryan tribes reflecting the challenge between the myth and real. As a case in point, numerous similarities between "Rostam and Sohrab" epic and the German poem of Hildebrand have always attracted the attention of the Western and Eastern researchers for two centuries. The present article is a comparaSon between two epic masterpieces in delving further into rooting out archetypes, their stabilization among different cultures and the possibility of their correspondence.

Christianity is an Abrahamic religion and believes in monotheism on the one hand, and constantly emphasizes the three concepts of Father, Son and Holy Spirit on the other hand. Determining the nature of the relationship between these three concepts has been one of the most important issues in classical Christian theology. With regard to these three essential foundations, Arius, one of the theologians of the Patriarchal Age, holds a view which has been regarded heresy and has been condemned by the Council of Nicaea since (325 AD). Drawing on the historical-analytical method, this article seeks to identify related intellectual contexts and reconstruct his theology based on the reliable works of Arius. This study shows that Arius believed that the Father is transcendent and the other, and in terms of eternity and essence, he is alone and unique. By his own will, the Father created the Son out of nothingness to mediate the creation of time and the universe. The Son is not the same as the Father in terms of eternity and essence; the Father-Son relationship is the creator’s relationship with the creature; and the Holy Spirit is the first creation of the Son, and these three essential foundations are different in essence and glory.

The commonalities and continuation of some mythological archetypes and concepts in an individual, racial and human being collective unconsciousness is the principal criterion for the use of mythological criticism in recalling and analyzing various manifestations of myth and rituals in literary genres. According to mythological criticism, some important points are revealed in Attar's Tazkart-al awliya. For instance if we take structuralism approach to the story of Ebrahim Adham and his Son and compare the elements of this story with famous narratives on "Father-Son" battle, we can conclude that this story is designed based on the narrative of "Rostam and Sohrab".

The purpose of this article is to study the myth of Father and Son from Freud’ s point of view in the novel of the dead Father written by Donald Barthelme and its compariSon with the tale of Rostam and Sohrab in Shahnameh. To reach this end, Freud’ s approach regarding Oedipus Complex in analysis of the relationship between Father and Son in two stories been used. This relationship is formed in the heart of family overtly portrayed in Barthelme’ s novel. First Donald Barthelme is introduced, then Oedipus Complex from Freud’ s point of view is discussed in order to provide the theoretical basis for the research. Next, this concept in the novel of the dead Father, and the tale of Rostam and Sohrab is presented and finally both works from Freud’ s psychological approach are studied. The aim is to focus on the myth of Father and the Son applying Freud’ s psychological approach to portray the nature of this myth based on the text of the novel and Shahnameh. The method of research is a descriptive analytic one and the method of study makes use of library approach.

According to the Shīʿa jurisconsults, the execution of punishment (ḥadd) cannot be applied if the thief is the Father or paternal grandFather of the victim. The question is whether in this case it is neither possible to implement the discretionary punishment (Taʿzīrī) as well as the punishment of ḥadd. Adopting the descriptive-analytical method, the current study attempts to demonstrate that issuing discretionary judgment is not possible, and that such an offender cannot be labeled as a thief. Moreover, according to the evidence and documentations, this ruling applies not only to theft, but also to other crimes against property. Given the current legislative status, it is possible to employ this theory in the implementation of law as well.