تحلیل «گستاخی با حق‌تعالی» در داستان عمید خراسان به روایت عطار و مولوی با تکیه بر «نظریۀ نفی و اثبات»

   Present study aims at analyzing the concept of insolence towards Almighty in the story of Amid Khorasan, narrated by Attar and Rumi. The theory of negation and affirmation is the research’s theoretical basis. This study, which is conducted in a descriptive-analytical method, aims to analyze the contradiction of insolence towards God in the story of Amid Khorasan narrated by the Conference of the birds and Masnavi. Finally, it provides a correct interpretation of Attar’s and Rumi’s viewpoints using the evidence in their works, and the theory of negation and affirmation.The concept of insolence in the narration of the Conference of the birds and Masnavi does not follow the same discourse, since Attar's narration praises the insolence towards God and Rumi's blames it. In total, both poets have common approaches towards insolence in their works. It means insolence towards God is reflected in Attar’s and Rumi’s view in two states. While insolence is reprehensible in the servantship state, it is praiseworthy in the love state. Therefore, the difference between Attar's and Rumi's narration of the same story does not mean their attitudes are different, but rather it shows that they try to address a facet of different aspects of insolence.
Keywords: Insolence towards God, the story of Amid Khorasan, the theory of negation and affirmation, Attar, Rumi.
Introduction
   Present study aims at analyzing the concept of insolence towards Almighty in the story of Amid Khorasan, narrated by Attar and Rumi. The theory of negation and affirmation is the research’s theoretical basis. The concept of insolence in the narration of the Conference of the birds and Masnavi does not follow the same discourse, since Attar's narration praises the insolence towards God and Rumi's blames it. In total, both poets have common approaches towards insolence in their works. It means insolence towards God is reflected in Attar’s and Rumi’s view in two states. While insolence is reprehensible in the servantship state, it is praiseworthy in the love state. Therefore, the difference between Attar's and Rumi's narrations of the same story does not mean their attitudes are different, but rather it shows that they try to address a facet of different aspects of insolence.
Literature, method and aim of the research
Although no independent study has been conducted about insolence towards God in Islamic mysticism, the aforementioned concept has appeared implicitly in some mystical studies. For example, Hellmut Ritter (1995) in the 10^th chapter of the book the Ocean of the Soul, describes the assertiveness which the crazy-wise men make towards God in the works of Attar. Hossein Arian (2006) in his article Craziness and pretending to be crazy in Mystical Literature briefly refers to the assertiveness of crazy-wise men towards God. Fatemeh Modarresi (2007) in her study Theophanic locutions of the mystic and insolence of the crazy-man in Attar's Masnavis states that the insolence of the crazy-men reflects the material tensions arising from the injustices ruling the society. Parsa Yaqoubi (2011) in the article Breaking taboos in mystical texts considers some words of mystics such as Arguing with God as examples of taboo breaking. Mehdi Rezaei (2013) in a part of the article Examination and analysis of the mystical boasting, deals with some boastings in which there are a comparison between a servant and God, and sometimes the superiority of the servant over God.
This study, which is conducted in a descriptive-analytical method, aims to analyze the contradiction of insolence towards God in the story of Amid Khorasan narrated by the Attar and Rumi, and provides a correct interpretation of their viewpoints using the theory of negation and affirmation.
Discussion  
This part is divided into two general parts. The first part deals with Insolence in Attar's viewpoint, which has four subdivisions. The first subdivision which is called the insolence negation approach, deals with the evidence in Attar's works emphasizing the negation of insolence towards Almighty. The evidence shows that the relationship between human and God is like the relationship between a servant and a lord. The second subdivision which is named insolence affirmation approach, provides lots of evidence in Attar’s poems in praise of insolence caused by love for God. The third subdivision deals with the Attar’s narration of the story of Amid Khorasan. The result of this part shows that Attar describes a positive meaning of insolence towards God in this narrative. The fourth subdivision analyzes Attar’s viewpoint based on the theory of negation and affirmation. In this regard, insolence is manifested in two different positions. First, in the position before love which is reprehensible. Second, in the position of love which is praiseworthy. Therefore, the insolence in each position has its own ruling i.e., the affirmation of insolence is allowed only in the position of love and negation of insolence is allowed only in the position of servantship.
      The second part deals with insolence in Rumi’s viewpoint. This part has four subdivisions too. The first subdivision deals with the insolence negation approach. It provides significant evidence from Rumi's poems implying the avoidance of insolence and rudeness towards God. The second subdivision is the insolence affirmation approach, which provides evidence from Rumi's poems indicating he praises the insolence towards God in the state of love. The third subdivision is dedicated to Rumi's narration of the story of Amid Khorasan. In this narrative, Rumi used the insolence towards God in a negative meaning, and advises the reader to avoid assertiveness towards Almighty. The fourth subdivision analyzes Rumi’s viewpoint based on the theory of negation and affirmation. In this regard, insolence is understood in two different positions. First, reprehensible insolence dedicated to the time the traveler does not reach the love state. Second, praiseworthy insolence which is in the position of love. Therefore, in the description of insolence, Rumi considers both the relation a traveler has with the domain of servantship, and the relation he has with the domain of Divine love.
Conclusion
Examining insolence in the works of Attar and Rumi shows that both mystics have a special regard for the concept of insolence towards God in both reprehensible and praiseworthy ways. In addition, based on the theory of negation and affirmation, Attar and Rumi interpret the concept of insolence towards God with different rules in two states of servantship and love. According to both mystics, insolence towards God is reprehensible in the position of servantship since the traveler has not yet reached the love state. Furthermore, it is praiseworthy in the love position. The insolence in the position of love is derived from either craziness or intoxication.
    Although the concept of insolence in Attar’s narration is based on love discourse so that it is praiseworthy, and in Rumi’s narration is based on servantship discourse so that it is reprehensible, the difference between these two narrations of the same story does not show that each poet has a distinct approach, but rather it shows that each of them pays attention to one of the aspects of the concept of insolence in praying.