بررسی مقایسه‌ای انسان‌شناسی عرفانی از منظر شیخ نجم‌الدین رازی و عزیز نسفی

انسان‌شناسی از مهم‌ترین مباحث الهیات است که همواره شایان توجه عرفا و متصوفه بوده است. در عرفان اسلامی، انسان به‌عنوان نوع، مهم‌ترین مخلوق و مقصود خلقت تلقی شده و فرد و با نام «انسان کامل» مطرح شده است. نجم‌الدین رازی و عزیز نسفی، از عارفان بزرگ قرن هفتم‌اند که در آثار خود، به موضوع انسان اهمیت ویژه‌ای داده‌اند. رازی در آثار خود، دربارۀ آفرینش و جایگاه انسان بحث کرده است. او پیامبر(ص) را برترین انسان و نخستین آفریده دانسته است. نسفی کتابی با نام النسان الکامل تالیف کرده و در آن، مباحث مربوط به انسان را مطرح کرده است. در پژوهش حاضر به روش توصیفی مقایسه‌ای، دیدگاههای رازی و نسفی تبیین شده‌اند و اختلاف و شباهت آرا و نظرهای ایشان در جایگاه انسان، مراتب و بحث انسان کامل بررسی شده‌اند. نتایج نشان می‌دهند گرچه دو عارف تقریباً در یک عصر زیسته‌اند و در برخی آراءشان نزدیکی به چشم می‌خورد، رویکرد رازی به این مسئله، مانند رویکرد عرفای پیش از خود بوده است؛ در حالی که نسفی به پیروی از اندیشه‌های ابن‌عربی، اصطلاح انسان کامل را به کار برده و ‌علاوه بر آن، ویژگی‌های انسانی والاتر از آن، را با نام «انسان کامل آزاد» تبیین کرده است.

A Comparison Study of Gnostic Anthropology from the Viewpoint of Sheikh Najm alDīn Rāḍī and Azīz Nesafī

Anthropology is one of the most important topics in theology, which has always been considered by the mystics and theologians. In Islamic mysticism, on one hand, human being is considered as the type, the most important creation and its purpose. On the other hand, as a person and entitled "complete man". Considering the importance of the subject of humanity in Islamic mysticism, the present study addresses the mystical philosophy in the opinions of two great mystics of the history of mysticism and Sufism of Iran, namely Najm alDin Rāḍī (573654) and Aziz Nesafī (596 671 AH.), it has been discussed a descriptivecomparative approach to analyzing the similarities and differences between the two mystics’ thoughts about three important issues in the mystical humanistic domain, namely, the place Man, human beings and man. The reason why these two mystics are chosen is to address them in human and humanitarian discussions in their works. In addition, both mystics have come into existence in one century and have been attributed to the Kubraviah. With the difference that Nesafī had an intellectual interest in IbnArabi. The results show that although the two mystics lived in almost an age and were close to some of their votes, Rāḍī’s approach to this issue was similar to that of the previous mystics, while Nasafi followed the thoughts Ibn Arabi used the term "perfect man," and, in addition, he explained the superior human qualities, entitled "Full Free Man." Therefore, the study of their thoughts can lead to some kind of transition from Sufism to a theoretical form and, as a result, to the growing attention of the Muslim mystics of that time and beyond, to the manuscripts and mystical humanistic sciences. In his works, Rāḍī discusses the creation and role of human. He calls the Prophet (PBUH) the best man and the first creator. Besides, Nasafi has written an independent book titled "AlAnsan alQualel" and has devoted to human issues. In the study of the sciences of Rāḍī and Nesafī, human beings are considered as the center of the universe and the highest creature. Of course, the general people are not concerned with this attitude; they purposed human beings that are in high order. Accordingly, both mystics have discussed the issue of human beings. Meanwhile, the distinction between human beings is based on their knowledge. Commons, Special Properties. The distinction point in the discussion of human beings from the perspective of the two mystics is to a great extent attributed to the properties which, in terms of mysticism, include those who transgress the law and proceed in a way; in the context of Nesafī are argumentative. This distinction goes back to the verbal view and the desire and familiarity of Nesafī with philosophy and wisdom. In addition, Rāḍī emphasized the issue of determinism in the expression of human beings; while Nesafī somewhat believed in the human discourse in achieving perfection. This fact highlights the mysterious effect of Ash’arites beliefs in human talk. In addition, the effect of Ibn ’Arabi’s thoughts and expressions on Nasafī has created more fundamental differences in the two mystics’ anthropology, in which, in lots of his works, he speaks of a complete human argument; The person whom the world is under his dominance. In this regard, Nasafi transcends IbnArabi and poses a fullfledged human debate; while the mysterious mystery of the preIbnArabi style has used words such as “Khaas alKhavaas” for expressing human superiority. After all, what is said about the significance and position of man in the two mystics is that the universe and everything in it is the infinite being of the higher, existential and epistemic humans whose most excellent and most actual example, and in this universe is the character of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). The attention of the Prophet in a form beyond his character in Rāḍī’s words indicates that the preconditions for the discussion of the truth of Muhammadiah, which came in the IbnArabi’s system of thought, have been introduced more elementarily in the mysticism of Khorasan.