This article was formed in response to the main question, “How is Sheikh Mohammad Javad Khorasani’s method of criticizing the basis of emancipation from the Sharia in order to reject mysticism analyzed and criticized?” In this regard, the present article, using library tools, analyzes and criticizes Khorasani’s methods of criticizing the basis of emancipation from the Sharia, and after criticizing and analyzing Khorasani’s thoughts on this matter, it has been concluded that his description of this basis is flawed; because Khorasani considers this issue to be equivalent to Sufism and does not differentiate between a mystic who adheres to the Sharia and a deviant Sufi, and accuses mystics of pretending to be religious. More importantly, the meaning that Khorasani has derived from the rule “if the truths appear, the Sharia is invalid” is drastically different from the meaning intended by the mystics. By referring to the works of mystics such as Lahiji, Seyyed Heydar Amoli, and Imam Khomeini, it becomes clear that none of the mystics considered the result of mysticism to be without the need for religious law, and they condemn those who accept this basis; rather, the meaning of the will of the mystics, which is the direct observation of the divine will as opposed to understanding it through its mediation, leads to greater devotion and adherence, which is seen in true mystics. Then, Khorasani describes the mystics in their own words, considering them to be people of discovery and connection, and in an ironic language, introduces the poems of the mystics as satanic due to their non-divine austerities, and by giving examples of the poems of the mystics and without paying attention to the ironic meanings that the mystics themselves have expressed, he criticizes them. This is while the mystics themselves are aware of the possibility of satanic discovery and have introduced religious law and reason as the error gauge of observation; Regarding poetry, wise poems have been absolutely approved by the Ahl al-Bayt (a.s.).