Part 3: Lessons On Interpretation Of Surah Al-Hamd
The First Session
I take refuge in God from Satan the accursed. In the Name of God, the Lord of Compassionate, the Merciful. I have been asked to give one or few interpretations of the Qur’an. The interpretation of the Qur’an is not an easy task for someone like myself to be fulfilled.
Rather, the eminent theologians throughout history, both Sunni and Shi’ah have written numerous books on this subject-and their efforts have, of course been most valuable. But each of them wrote from the stand point of his own specialization and skill and could interpret only a certain aspect of the Qur’an, and do that much only imperfectly.
For example, commentaries have been written over the centuries, by such mystics as Muhy al-Din ibn ‘Arabi,1 “Abd al-Razzaq Kashani (author of Ta’wilat),2 and Mulla Sultan ‘Ali,3 Some of these commentators wrote well from the standpoint of their specialization and skill. But what they wrote is not commensurate to the Qur’an; it represents only a few pages or aspects of the Qur’an.
Tantawi,4 Sayyid Qutb,5 and others like them interpreted the Qur’an in a different way, but their work too does not represent a complete interpretation of the Qur’an with respect to all of its meanings; again, it is concerned only with a single aspect of the Qur’an.
There are other commentaries still that do not belong to either of these groups; for example, the Majma’ al-Bayan,6 which we Shi’is use, is a good commentary that includes the views of hath Sunni and Shi'a exegetes, but it, too, is not exhaustive.
The Qur’an is not a book that someone can interpret comprehensively and exhaustively, for its sciences are unique and ultimately beyond our understanding. We can understand only a given aspect or dimension of the Qur’an; interpretation of the rest depends upon the Ahl al- Ismah7 who received instruction from the Messenger of God.
Recently, people have appeared who, without the slightest qualification for interpreting the Qur’an, try to impose their own objectives and ideas upon both the Qur’an and the Sunni; even a group of leftist and communists now claims to be basing themselves and their aims on the Qur’an.8
Their real interest is not the Qur’an or its interpretation, but trying to convince our young people to accept their objectives under the pretext that they are Islamic. I emphasize, therefore, that those who have not pursued religious studies, young people who are not well grounded in Islamic matters, and all; who are uninformed concerning Islam should not attempt to interpret the Qur’an. If they do so nevertheless for the sake of their own goals, no one should pay any attention to their interpretations.
One or the things that is forbidden in Islam is interpretation or the Qur’an according to personal opinion, or attempting to make the Qur’an con form to one’s own opinions. Let us suppose that one man is a materialist and tries to make every verse in the Qur’an conform notions, while another is concerned exclusively with spiritual matters, so that every part of the Qur’an he encounters will be interpreted in the light of his preoccupation. They both extremes and attitudes that are to be avoided.
In interpreting the Qur’an, then, we are subject to certain restrictions. The field is not open for anyone to try to impose on the Qur’an any idea that enters his head and then tell people. “This is the Qur’an.” Now if I say a few words concerning certain verses of the Qur’an, I do not in any way claim to be expounding their ultimate meaning. What I say represents a possibility, not a certainty; I do not say, “This, and nothing else, is the true meaning.”
Because I have been asked, then, to say a few words on these subjects, I will speak briefly every few clays or once a week, for a limited period, concerning the opening chapter of the Qur’an or one of the last chapters, for neither person have time for a detailed interpretation of the Qur’an. I will briefly set forth some of the noble verses of the Qur’an and I repeat that what I have to say is based on possibility, not certainty.
أعوذ بالله من الشيطان الرجيم
I take refuge in God from Satan the accursed.
بِسْمِ اللَّهِ الرَّحْمَٰنِ الرَّحِيمِ
In the Name of God, the All-compassionate, the All-Merciful (1:1).
الْحَمْدُ لِلَّهِ رَبِّ الْعَالَمِينَ
Praise belongs to the Lord of the Worlds. (1:2).
It is probable that this phrase, “In the Name of God,” at the beginning of all surahs of the Qur’an is syntactically connected to the verses that fallow it. It is sometimes said that the phrase is connected to an implied statement that follows upon it, but it seems more likely that it is connected to the Surah itself. So, we understand the Surah of Praise in this sense: “In the Name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful, praise belongs to God.”
A name is a sign, Names are given to people and assigned to things in order to provide them with a sign by which they may be recognized and to distinguish one from another. The names of God are also signs of His Sacred Essence; and it is only His names that are knowledge to man.
The Essence itself is something that lies totally beyond the reach of man, and even the seal of the Prophets,9 the most knowledge and noble of men, was unable to attain knowledge of the essence. The Sacred Essence is unknown to all but itself. It is the names of God that are accessible to man. There are, however, different levels for understanding those names.
We can understand them at certain levels, but comprehension at other levels is reserved for the Awliya,10 for the Most Noble Messenger and those whom he has instructed.
The whole world is a name of God, for a name is a sign, and all the creatures that exist in the world are signs of the Sacred Essence of God Almighty. Here some people may reach a profound understanding of what is meant by “signs” while others may grasp only the general meaning that no creature comes into existence by itself.
It is a rationally self-evident proposition, intuitively understood every human being, that no being can come into existence by itself--no being for which it is possible both to exist and not to exist. For such a being to come into existence, there must be a being that exists by virtue of its essence, that is, a being from whom existence cannot be withdrawn, unlike other beings for whom it is possible both to exist and not to exist.
There require that something external to them into existence. There are those who say that in finite space existed from the cry beginning and that within infinitude, forms came into existence, followed first by vapours and gases and then by forms of life. It is against the dictates of reason, however, that a thing would change into something other than itself without the action of an external cause.
Such a cause is always needed for the transformation of one thing into something different, as for example when water freezes or boils. If the temperature did not pass below zero or above one hundred degrees (both of these being external causes), the water would remain just as it is. Likewise, an external cause is required to make water stagnate.
Equally, anyone who reflects a little will regard it as rationally self-evident, and assent to the proposition, that in the case of a thing that may exist or not exist, its non -existence as opposed to its existence does not require a cause. But its transformation from a contingent being that does not exist to a contingent being that does exist is inconceivable without a cause.
As for the proposition that all being in the world are a name and a sign of God, any rational person can understand it in the general sense, in light of our foregoing discussion of causality. But to attain a real understanding of the matter, we must realize that here it is not a question of naming something or someone in order to render it knowable of other-than- itself, as, for example, when we attach a name to a lamp, a car, or a man.
For God is a being that is infinite, that possesses the attributes of perfect ion to an infinite degree, and that is subject to no limitation. A being that is unlimited in this manner cannot be contingent for it is in the nature or a contingent being to be limited.
If there is no limitation in the existence of a thing, then, reason dictates that it cannot be other than the absolute and necessary being that possesses all forms of perfection, foe once a being lacks a single form of perfection, it becomes limited and thus contingent.
The difference between contingent and necessary being is that the latter is infinite in all respects and constitutes absolute being, whereas the former is in its nature, unite. If it turns out that not all of the attributes or perfection are present to an infinite degree in the being we thought necessary, it is no longer regarded as necessary, but instead as contingent.
Now if we take necessary being as the origin and source of all other being, the beings that come into existence as a result of its origination inherently represent the aggregate of its attributes. These attributes, however, exist in different degrees, and the highest degree is that wherein all the attributes of God Almighty are contained, to the extent that it is possible for a world to subsume them.
This highest degree of the attributes is represented by the Supreme Name,11 which consists of the name or the sign that contains, however defectively, all the perfections of God Almighty. Although it is defective with respect to God, it is perfect with respect to all other beings. Beings that are subordinate to the Supreme Name also possess perfection, but to an inferior degree, one limited by their inherent capacity.
The lowest degree is represented by material beings, which we imagine have neither knowledge of any form of perfection nor the capacity to acquire it. This belief is not true, however, and is caused by our being veiled from the truth. These beings, which are lower than man and the animals and are deficient, still have the divine perfections reflected in them, but to a degree dictated by their inherent capacity. They even have perception, the same perception that is present in man.
وَإِنْ مِنْ شَيْءٍ إِلَّا يُسَبِّحُ بِحَمْدِهِ وَلَٰكِنْ لَا تَفْقَهُونَ تَسْبِيحَهُمْ
“There is naugh but glorifies and praises Him, but you understand not their glorifying.” (17:44).
Since it has been considered impossible for material beings to have perception, it has been said that they are an example of static glorification, although the verse just quoted does not indicate this. We know that it cannot be a question or such glorification because they are material beings subject to causes.
Traditions describe certain material beings as engaging in glorification, for example, the pebbles that were held in the hands of the Most Noble Messenger.12
Their glorification of God was a kind inaudible to your ear or mine, and their language and speech were different from ours, yet it still involved perception, perception to a degree dictated by the inherent capacity of the pebbles.
It may be that men. who possess the higher degree of perception and regard themselves as the source of all perception, have wished to deny all perception to other orders of being. It is true, of course that those orders do not possess the same high degree of perception, but we, too, are veiled from full perception of the truth.
Because of those veils, we are not fully aware, and because we are not fully aware, we imagine many things not to be that are. It is simply that you and I are alien to them. Today many things are becoming known that previously were not.
For example, although the vegetable realm was formerly thought to lack consciousness, it is now said that a certain kind of sensor can pick up sounds from the roots of a tree when they are immersed in boiling water. I do not know if this is true or not, but it is certain that the whole world is alive and in ferment.
Everything is a name of God, You, too, are names of God: your tongues are names of God, You hands are names of God.
When you praise God, saying, “In the Name of God. praise belongs to God,” your tongue is a name of God as it moves. When you get up to go home, you cannot separate yourself from the you get up to go home, you cannot separate yourself from the names of God: you go in the name of God, and you are the name or God; the movements of your heart are the names of God, and the movements of you pulse are the name of God. The winds that are blowing are the name of God.
This is a possible meaning of the noble verse we have cited, as well as others where mention is made of the name of God. Everything is a name or God; conversely, the names of God are everything, and they are effaced within His being.
We imagine that we have some independence, that we are something in and of ourselves. It is not so. Were those rays of absolute being that every instant creates us with an expression of the divine will and a manifestation of God to cease for a second, all beings would instantly lose their state of existence, reverting to their original state of non-existence, for their continued existence depends on His continued manifestation.
It is by means of God’s manifestation that the whole world has acquired existence; that manifestation, or light, is the origin and essence of being.
اللَّهُ نُورُ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضِ
“God is the light of the heavens and earth.” (24:35).
and conversely, the heave ns and earth are His light of manifestation; the light of all that exists is from God. Whatever emerges from potentiality in to actuality, whatever appears in this world, is light, for the characteristic of light is to appear and be visible. Man appears and is visible, and is light; the animals are light; all beings are light, the light of God. “God is the light of the heavens and the earth”-that is, the existence of the heavens and earth is from light and from God. So destined to effacement in the divine being are the heavens and earth that the verse says,
“God is the light of the heavens,” not “The heavens are illumined by God,” which would imply a certain mode of separation. “God is the light of the heavens”-that is, they are nothing in and of themselves, and there is no being in the world that possesses independence. By “independence,” we mean here a being’s leaving the stage of contingency and advancing to that of necessity, which is impossible, since God Almighty alone is the necessary being.
Therefore, when God says,
بِسْمِ اللَّهِ الرَّحْمَٰنِ الرَّحِيمِ
In the Name of God, the All-compassionate, the All-Merciful (1:1).
الْحَمْدُ لِلَّهِ رَبِّ الْعَالَمِينَ
Praise belongs to the Lord of the Worlds. (1:2).
Or:
بِسْمِ اللَّهِ الرَّحْمَٰنِ الرَّحِيمِ
In the Name of God, the All-compassionate, the All-Merciful
قُلْ هُوَ اللَّهُ أَحَدٌ
Say, ‘God is One’ (112:1).
The meaning probably is not so much that we are to stay, “In the Name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful.” as “With the Name of God.” where your speaking is a name of God. Notice, too, that the Qur’an says, “Whatever is in the heavens and earth glorifies Him, whoever is in the heavens and earth...” Whatever exists on earth and in the heavens glorifies God by means of the name that is His manifestation.
All beings share in this manifestation; all motion that takes place derives from it, and all that occurs in the world proceeds from it. Since all things proceed from Him and return to Him and return to Him, and no being has anything in and of itself there can be no question of the independent possession of anything.
Is there anyone who can say, “I have something in and of myself.” that is, “Independently of the light that is the origin of my being. I have something?” What you have is not yours; even the eye you have is not yours. It came in to being through His manifestation. The praise and laudation we offer in concert with all other beings is with the name of God and by the name of God; it is for this reason that God has said, “In the Name of God.”
The name God (Allah)13 is a comprehensive manifestation; it is a manifestation of God Almighty that embraces all other manifestations, including those of Compassionate and Merciful. To put is differently, the name of God (Allah) is a manifestation of God, and the names Compassionate and Merciful are, in turn, manifestations of that manifestation. God, the Compassionate One, created all beings with mercy and compassion, and existence itself is mercy.
Even the existence bestowed on creatures known to be evil is mercy, universal mercy that embraces all beings: all beings are mercy.
The name God (Allah), then, is the fullest and most complete manifestation; it is a comprehensive name and manifestation.
The Essence of God Almighty does not itself have a name: “He has neither name nor trace.”14
As for the names Compassionate and Merciful,15 they too are manifestations; they are means whereby the name God (Allah), which combines all perfections in itself, becomes apparent. God has mentioned these two names here because mercy, which has the two aspects they express, pertains to His Essence, whereas the attributes of anger and revenge are secondary.16
بِسْمِ اللَّهِ الرَّحْمَٰنِ الرَّحِيمِ الْحَمْدُ لِلَّهِ رَبِّ الْعَالَمِينَ
“In the Name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful, praise belongs to God.”
All praiseworthy qualities and perfections, all instances of praise and laudation that exist in the world, pertain to Him and are for Him. When a person cats a meal and praises it, saying, “What delicious food that was,” he is praising God even without knowing it. Similarly, if we say of someone, “What a good man he is, what a philosopher, what a scholar!” this expression of praise also belongs to God, even if we are unaware of it.
Why is this? Because the philosopher and scholar in question has nothing in and of himself; all that he has is a manifestation of God. If someone has come to perceive something, it is a perception that is a manifestation of God. Likewise, the thing perceived is a manifestation of God; everything is from God.
People may imagine that they praise a carpet, for example, or a certain individual, but there is no praise that is uttered that is not for God. For when you praise someone, you do so on account of something he has, not on account of something non-existent, and whatever that person may have, is from God. So whatever praise you utter belongs to God.
The meaning of al-Hamd, which we translate as “praise,” is generic; it includes all forms and instances of praise, the essence of praise. All belongs to God. We think we praise Zayd or ‘Amr,17 we think we praise the light of the sun or the moon, but that is because we are veiled from full perception of the truth.
We imagine we praise a particular person or thing, but when the veil is removed, we see that all praise belongs to Him and the manifestation we are praising is a manifestation of Him. “God is the light of the heavens and the earth.” Whatever good exists has come from Him; whatever perfection exists has come from Him.
Everything and everyone that we praise is manifestation of God and they were all created by means of a manifestation. We imagine that we act independently, but God said to the Most Noble Messenger:
فَلَمْ تَقْتُلُوهُمْ وَلَٰكِنَّ اللَّهَ قَتَلَهُمْ
“When you cast the dust, you did not cast it; rather God cast it” (8:17)18
That is, you casting the dust was a manifestation of God. Similarly:
إِنَّ الَّذِينَ يُبَايِعُونَكَ إِنَّمَا يُبَايِعُونَ اللَّهَ
“When they swore allegiance to you, they swore allegiance to God” (48:10)19
The hand of God’s Messenger is a manifestation of God, but since we are veiled from full perception of reality, we do not recognize it as such.
The only persons who have such a perception are those who received direct instruction from God. I do not have the certainty such instruction bestows, but I can say that one may assume that the expression “In the Name of God” is syntactically connected with al-Hamd (“praise”). meaning. “With the Name of God, all praise, al laudation, belongs to God and is His manifestation, because He draws it all to Himself in such a way that nothing remains for other-than- Him.”
Even if you wish to, you cannot praise other-than-God; your praise will revert to Him. If you imagine that you are praising something other than God that is only because you do not know its true nature. However much you try to speak or other-than-God. you cannot; there is nothing to be said in praise of other-than-God, for other-than-God is anything but deficiency.
By this I mean that all things that exist have two aspects: an aspect of existence and an aspect of deficiency. The aspect of existence is light; it is free from all deficiency and pertains to God. The other aspect, the negative aspect of that of deficiency, pertains to us. Now no one can praise the negative; it is only the affirmative-existence and perfection- that can be praised. There is only one perfection in the world and that is God, and there is only one beauty and that is God.
We must understand this, and understand it with our heart. If we understand it, not with words or speech, but with our heart, it will suffice us. It is easy to state this truth, but to convey it to the heart and understand it there is difficult. One may say freely, in words, that hell fire exists, and even be convinced of it. But believing is different from being intellectually convinced. Proofs can be adduced, but the reality of belief has nothing to do with proofs.
The quality of ‘Ismah20 that exists in the prophets is the result of believe. Once one truly believes, it is not possible for one to sin. If you believe that someone is waiting with drawn sword to behead you if you utter a word against him, you will also become sinless after a fashion, for loving your life, you will never defy the swordsman’s.
If someone believes that if he backbites with so much as a single word, he will be punished in the Hereafter by having his tongue grow as long as the distance is between him and the subject of his back biting; if he further believes that the backbiter is fed to the dogs of hell, that fiery dogs will devour him, not with a devouring that has a beginning and end, but one that continues indefinitely m hellfire-if he believes this, he will never engage in backbiting.21
If (God forbid) we decide to engage in back biting, it is because we have not believed in the existence of hell fire. A person who believes that all his deeds will assume an appropriate form in the next world, good if the deed is good, evil if it is evil, and that he will be ca1led to account, will necessarily abstain from sin.
We must believe that the backbiter will be called to account, and that paradise awaits the believer and the doer of charitable deeds. We must believe this, not read it in a book or comprehend it with our reason, because there is a great deference between rational perception and belief with the heart (by heart, of course, I do not mean this physical heart).22
Men may rationally perceive something to be true, but since they do not believe in it, they will not act in according with it. Only when they believe in it will they act in accordance with it. Faith consists of this form of belief that impels man to action. Merely knowing about the Prophet is of no use; one must believe in him.
Likewise with God: establishing proofs of God’s existence is not enough; man must have faith, must believe in his heart and submit to Him. Once faith comes, everything else follows. If man believes that a certain being originated this world, that man will be called to account at a later stage, that death is not the end of all things, but a transition from a deficient realm to a perfect one, such belief will protect him all sin. The only question remaining is: how should he believe? The answer is indicated in the Qur’an: “In the Name of God, praise belongs to God.”
Again, let me stress that the sense I am discussing is possible, not certain; and part of the possible meaning I am suggesting is that if man believes that all expressions and instances of praise belong to God, shirk23 will not penetrate his heart.
As an example, if you hold to this belief, and wish to compose a panegyric for a prince, you will understand that it really pertains to God, because the prince is a manifestation of God. You will be praising that manifestation, because all praiseworthy qualities belong to God.
If the prince arrogantly beats the drum of kingship, it will he because he does not know himself: he does not know that he is nothing. “One who knows himself knows also his Lord.”24
If a person understands and believes that he is nothing, that all that exists is He, he will have come to know his Lord.25
Our fundamental problem is that we know neither God, nor ourselves and we believe neither in ourselves nor in God. That is to say, we do not believe that we are nothing and that everything is from Him. As long as this belief is not operative, all that the Qur’an has sought to establish will be ineffective.
In our egoistic obstinacy and mutual enmity, we still say, “I possess such-and-such qualities, but you do not.” All the empty claims to leadership and so on arise out of enmity, and enmity can exist only when man has his attention fixed on himself. All the disasters that afflict man derive from his love of self, but if he were to perceive the truth of the matter, he would understand that his, self does not belong to him.
True love of self, therefore, is love of other-than-self, but is has been mistakenly regarded as self-love. This error destroys man; all the miseries we suffer arise from this misguided love of the self and desire for its exaltation. This desire leads men to death and destruction; it carries them off to hell fire, and it is the source of all sin. When man fixes his attention on himself and desired everything for himself, he becomes the enemy or anyone who stands in his way, and grants others no rights. That is the source of all our miseries.
It may be for this reason-to make it clear that everything is God’s and that man had nothing in and of himself -that God begin the Qur’an by saying, “Praise belongs of God.” In other words, we cannot say that only some praise belongs to God and no other praise; I cannot praise you without praising God.
“Praise belongs to God” means that all expressions of praise, together with the very essence and notion of praise, belong to God and are His. You may imagine that you are praising something other than Him, but this verse removes the veil from this question and many others that are related.
The whole point is to believe in this verse; if one believes that all forms of praise belong to God, all forms of shirk will be negated within the heart. When he said, “Throughout my entire life I have never committed shirk,”26 that was because he had intuitively perceived the truth, had experienced it with his conscience; it was not something he had been taught, but a truth he had experienced. Proofs are not very effective.
They are good, of course, and even necessary, but they are a means by which you are able to perceives something with your reason, as a preliminary to believing in it by means of inner exertion. Philosophy itself is a means, not and end; a means for you to convey truths and forms of knowledge to your reason to your reason through proofs. That is its sole scope. It has been said, “Those who seek proofs have wooden legs.”27
This means that the leg of rational proof is wooden, while the leg that conveys man and actually enables him to walk is his knowledge of himself as a manifestation of God; it is the faith that enters his heart and his conscience.
When a man achieves such believe he should always be aware that there are higher degrees of belief still for him to attain.
Let us not be satisfied merely to read the Qur’an and study its interpretation. Let us read every topic and every word of the Qur’an with faith. For the Qur’an is a book that purposes to reform men, to restore them to the state in which God created them by means of His Supreme Name.
God is everything in man, although he does not understand that. The Qur’an wished to advance man from the defective stale in which he finds himself to the higher state that befits him. This is the purpose for which the Qur’an had been revealed and all the prophets have been sent: to take man by the hand and deliver him from the deep pit into which he has fallen-the pit of egohood, the deepest or all pits-and to show him the manifestations of God, that he may forget all other-than-God.
May God grant that we attain such a state. And may peace be upon you, and also God 's mercy and blessings.
The Second Session
Last time I discussed the possibility that the expression “In the Name of God,” in every surah that it heads, is syntactically connected to the surah itself, or to the first part of its subject matter. For example, in the Surah of Praise, the meaning that emerges is “praise in, or by, the name of God.” The same expression, then. has a different meaning in each surah, for in each case it relates to the particular topic that opens the surah.
In the Surah of praise, it is connected with the word “praise” and it indicates the name by which praise is achieved, and the name is a manifestation of God. In the case of another surah, that of unity (112), for example, the sense of the expression changes to indicate the name that appropriate to the statement:
قُلْ هُوَ اللَّهُ أَحَدٌ
“Say, ‘He is God, One.’” (112:1)
It is also specified in fiqh,28 that if one wishes to recite more than one surah, a single recitation of the expression “In the Name of God'” at the very beginning is not enough; the phrase must be repeated at the beginning of every surah. The reason for this is that the precise sense and function of the expression varies on each occasion.
Were this not the case, each occurrence would be identical with the next. Indeed, some people have said that the expression does not form part of the Surah except in the Surah of Praise, where it has been included in the Surah because of its blessedness. That is not true, however.
At present we are concerned with the Surah of Praise, and here the expression is connected with the word praise that immediately follows it. This yields the probable meaning that “praise” al-Hamd)-meaning all instances or praise, by whomever uttered -is accomplished by the name of God; it is the name itself that produces the utterance.
All the limbs and members of man’s body are names, and whenever m an engages in praise, the praise takes place through God’s name. Each individual constitutes a different name of God, or the manifestation of a different name.
Notice that there are many differences between the divine agent-which is the agent of existence-and natural agents.29 One distinctive characteristic of that which emerges from the Divine Principle, which we know as the divine agent, is that in some sense, it is reabsorbed or destined to be reabsorbed into its origin; it has no reality or independence of its own.
In order to understand this better, you may compare the relation of the divine agent to the Divine Principle with that of the rays of the sun to the sun. This is not an exact comparison, but it is true insofar as the rays of the sun have no independence with respect to the sun, and the divine agent similarly lacks independence with respect to that Principle of absolute good from which its existence is derived -that is, it cannot come into existence or remain in existence independently.
If the rays of existence from a being for a single instant it will not be able to subsist for a single instant for just as it depends on the principle in order to come into existence, it also depends on it in order to remain in existence. Having no standing of its own, then, it is reabsorbed into the principle.
This being the case, the manifestation of God’s names is, in a sense, identical with the names themselves. “God is the light of the heavens and the earth”- the light is the manifestation of God, not God Himself, but the manifestation has no existence apart from the principal from which it derives; it is reabsorbed in it since it possesses no independence. It is in this sense that we are to understand: “God is the light of the heavens and the earth.”
Returning to “praise” (al-Hamd), we see that the definite article has a generic sense, and connection it with the expression “In the Name of God.” which precedes it, we concluded that every instance of praise, by whomever it is uttered, takes place by means and that which is praised; from a certain point of view, they are once and the same, the instance of manifestation and the general principle of manifestation.
When the Prophet (S) said, “You are as You praise Yourself to be,” or on another occasion, “I take refuge in You from You,” path of what is indicated is that the one who praises is effaced in the One Who is praised. It is as if God praising Himself, therefore. No one else enjoys any real existence that enables him to say, “I am praising Him”; it is He who praises Himself.
Another possibility is that the definite article in al-Hamd is not generic in the sense of “praise” being a category applicable to many individual acts. Instead, the sense may be that nature, in its very essence, is deprived of all the characteristics of praise, and that praise resists all individuation. “In the Name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful, praise belongs to God” then comes to mean that praise is without individuation and is absolute.
This second interpretation is the exact opposite of the first in that the praise we utter does not truly pertain to God, and only that praise pertains to Him that He Himself utters. The praise offered by others is limited and individuated, but He is unlimited. Li mi ted praise cannot pertain to the unlimited, since it contradicts His nature.
We said previously that nothing can be praised except God. You imagine that you praise someone’s handwriting, but in reality, you are praising God. You imagine that you praise a scholar, but in reality, you are praising God. Whatever praise is uttered, no matter who utters it, reverts to God, because there is no perfection in the world that is not it is and no beauty in the world that is not His.
Created things are nothing: if the divine manifestation is taken away from them, nothing of them, nothing of them remains; it is by means or that manifestation that they exist. All things are the manifestation of God, and are light. Since there is no perfection other than God’s for it is a manifestation of God, and since it is this manifestation that is being praised, other-than God cannot, in the very nature of things, be praised.
There is no perfection other than His, the perfection of His Essence and His attributes. All the perfections that exist in the world are His perfections made manifest; praise of those perfections, therefore, is praise of Him.
According to the second possibility (which is no more than that), “praise” (al-Hamd) does not mean all instances of praise, but absolute praise, praise without any condition or limitation. The praise in which we engage is individuated; it is limited, among other things, by the intention with which we utter it. We have no access to God in His absoluteness in order to praise Him correspondingly.
When you say, “Praise belongs to God (al-Hamdu lil-Lah),” you have not fully perceived reality in order to praise Him. Any praise that you utter relates not to Him, but to His manifestations. Here again, the second possibility contradicts the first. According to the first possibility, all instances of praise necessarily are praise of Him. According to the second, however, no instance of praise can be praise of Him except His own praise of Himself.
If it be the case, the meaning of “name” in “In the Name of God, praise belongs to God” cannot be what we suggested-that you are a name, and everyone else is a name. Instead, the name of God comes to be unlimited manifestation of the Absolute, a sign of the unseen, and it is by means of this name alone that God is praised; that is. He praises Himself. The manifestation praises the One Who makes manifest.
All of this, then, represents another possibility. On the one hand, “praise” (al- Hamd) may mean all instances of praise; on the other, it may mean absolute and undifferentiated praise. The first possibility is that all instances of pride cannot relate to other-than-God, and the second is that no praise, being limited, can relate to God. Who is absolute. This second possibility means further that absolute and undifferentiated praise is His by means of the name that is appropriate to Him.
A third possibility mentioned by some people is that the expression “In the Name of God” is not connected to the Surah at all, but relates only to the manifestation of being. That is, whatever comes into existence does so by means of the name of God; the name is the origin from which the manifestation of all beings derives.
It may be possible to connect this interpretation with the tradition that says, “God created will by means of itself, and He created other things by means of His will.” Here, will represents the first manifestation of God, created “by means of itself” (that is, without any intermediary), and everything else came into being by means of the will. Similarly, according to our third possibility-which rejects any syntactic connection between “In the Name of God’s, and the surah, but connects it instead to something outside the surah – “In the Name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful” is the means whereby things attain existence.
Those who have examined the Qur’an using the method of the grammarians have suggested that the sense of “In the Name of God” is: “I seek God’s aid” or something similar. Now even if that is the meaning, still the concept of name must be present, whatever or not they are aware of it, for whoever seeks God’s said does by the invocation of His name: he cannot do so without it.
This does not mean that “In the Name of God” is a simple verbal formula of invocation; for the “Name of God” means His manifestation in all things, and the one who seek God’s help, invoking His name, is in fact seeking His aid by means or His manifestation. All things are by means or His manifestation, so that this interpretation, too, refers matters back to God.
So much for the syntactic relationship of “In the Name of God.” As for the sense of “name.” I have already said that it is the sign of the thing that it names. Whatever you may imagine to exist, its name is a manifestation or sign or it.
Not all names are equal in this respect. There are names that are signs in the fullest sense of the word, and others that function at a lower degree. All things are signs and manifestations, manifestation of the name, but to different degrees.
There is a tradition that states: “We are the Most Beautiful Names”,30 that is, the Supreme Name manifests itself as the Most Noble Messenger and the Immaculate Imams, those who have attained the degree of advancement from deficiency to perfection, who have liberated themselves from nature and all things. They are not like us, who are still in the pit and have not even begun to walk on the path. They have left the pit and are advancing on the path; they have migrated.
“When anyone leaves his home, migrating to God and His Messenger, and is then overtaken by death, it is incumbent on God to reward him.”31 One possible meaning this tradition is that the migration referred to is a migration from the self toward God, and the home mentioned is man man’s selfhood. There is a class of men who have left their dark home of egohood and migrated from it, “migrating to God and His Messenger,” and they are then “overtaken by death”-that is, they reach a point where there is no longer anything of themselves; i.e., absolute death.
Their reward is incumbent upon God; there is no question of any other reward, neither paradise with its bounties nor anything else, save God Himself. If a person departs from the home of egohood and migrates to God and His Messenger (migrating to the Messenger being a form migrating to God), and then reaches a state where he is “overtaken by death,” where nothing remains of his self and he sees all things as coming from God-if he engages in such a migration, then it is incumbent upon God to reward him.
There is a class of people who have accomplished this: they have migrated in this way; and attained their goal (although in another sense their migration is continuing),32 and it had become incumbent upon God to reward them. There are others who have migrated but not yet reached the goal of being “overtaken by death.”
And then is still another group-to which you and I belong-that has not even begun to migrate.33 We are still caught up in the dark ness; we are captives in the pit of attachment to the world, to nature, and, worst of all, to our own egos. We are enclosed in our home of selfhood, and all that exists for us is our selves. Whatever we want, we want for ourselves.
The thought of migrating has not even occurred to us; all our thoughts are devoted to this world. We do not return to God the trust of the strength and energy. He has put in us,34 but expend all of it for the sake of this world. As time goes on, we become more and more distant from our point of Origin, that place toward which we are supposed to migrate.
According to a tradition, the Prophet was once seated with his companions when suddenly they heard a noise. They asked him what it is was and he told them, “Once a stone fell into hell fire, and now, seventy years later, it has reached the bottom, making the sound you just heard.” By this the Prophet was referring to a man who had sinned for seventy years and just died. I, too, have travelled in the same direction, but for eighty years, not seventy; and you have, too, for differing numbers of year. I hope that hence forth you will the opposite direction.
Anything that afflicts us is caused by our love of self, our egoism. There is a welk -known saying: “The most hostile of your enemies is yourself, enclosed between your two sides.”35 Yourself is worse than all your enemies, worse than all idols. It is, in fact, the chief of all idols, compelling you to worship it with a greater force than that of all other idols.
Until one breaks this idol, one cannot turn to God; the idol and God, egoism and divinity, cannot coexist within you. Unless we leave this idol temple, turn our backs on this idol, and set our faces toward God Almighty, we will in reality idolaters, even though we may outwardly worship God. We say “God” with our tongues, but our selves are what is in our hearts. When we stand in prayer we say,
إِيَّاكَ نَعْبُدُ وَإِيَّاكَ نَسْتَعِينُ
“You alone do we worship and from You alone do we seek help,” (1:5)
But in reality, it is ourselves that we are worshipping.
I mean that we are exclusively concerned with ourselves, and desire everything for ourselves. All the problems besetting the world, including wars, arise from this egoism. True believers36 will not got to war with each other; if war breaks out between two people, they must realize that they are not believers. When there is no belief, but only attention to self, concern for the self and its desires, then trouble arises. I want this seat for myself; conflicts arise, for these are incompatible.
I may want a carpet for myself, or some position of leadership, which you desire equally for yourself, so that a dispute ensues between us. Someone wants to rule a country himself; another ha harbours the same desire, so war breaks out between them. All wars that take place in the worlds are wars between opposing egos.
The Awliya’ are exempt from this egoism, and no war takes place among them. If they were all gathered together, neither strife nor dispute would occur among them, for they are all devoted entirely to a single aim, God, and nothing remains of their selfhood that might cause them to pull in different directions.
But we are trapped in a pit in darkness of the worst kind, the darkness of egoism. Yes, we are caught in a dark pit of egoism. We are preoccupied with our own desires and ourselves and while we are willing to consider harm for others if it is to our benefit, we refuse to accept what is proper and right if it threatens our interests. We also believe immediately whatever we think is to our benefit, but refuse to believe anything contrary to our interests.
All human sufferings are caused by egoism of these and other forms; people pull in different directions dictated by their own selfish desires. As long as matters continue this way, there will be no question of worshipping God, but only the self.
Who can escape this temple of the self, this idol-temple that is situated with in man himself? Man needs a helping hand from the world of the unseen to reach him and lead him out. It is precisely for this purpose, to lead man out of his idol -temple that all the prophets have been sent and all the heavenly books revealed. They have enabled man to shatter the idol and being worshipping God.
The prophets all came to make this world a divine world after it had been a satanic world, a world governed by Satan. It is Satan that is ruling us, too; we follow him, and our vein desires are a manifestation of him. As long as that great Satan that is our unredeemed soul exists within us, whatever we do will be done in egoism. We must destroy the government of Satan within us.
When we migrate to the teachings of the prophets and the Awliya, turn our backs on egoism, we will have begun to emerge from the pit. Some will even succeed, while still in this world, in reaching a stage that is now beyond our imagination-that of non-being, of effaced in God. We must desire to make this migration from egoism, and be prepared to struggle in order to migrate.
The Prophet said, “You have now returned from the lesser jihad; the greater jihad still remains as duty for you.”37 All forms of jihad that may be waged in the world depend on this greater jihad; if we succeed in the greater jihad, then all our other strivings will count as jihad, and if not, they will be satanic. Some who waged jihad may have been given simply a slave girl as their just reward, whereas others who made the migration to God received God as their reward.
There are different categories or deeds. The deeds of the Awliya’ are completely different from our deeds because of the source from which they spring. It is said of the Commander of the Faithful, for example, that a single blow struck by him during the Battle of the Ditch38 was better than all the deeds of worship performed by both men and jinn.
Part of the explanation is, of course, that the blow he delivered that day to kill an enemy was struck during a confrontation between Islam and all the forces of kufr;39 if Islam had been defeated on that day, it would have been destroyed.
The other part of the explanation, however, lies in his pure intention, sincerity, and absorption in God. Was this not the same commander of the Faithful who once rose from the breast of an enemy he was about to kill, because the man spat in his face and he feared that his deed might be diminished by egoism.
When such meticulous concern for the right motive inspires a deed, the spirit of that deed will indeed exceed all possible acts of worship, for is that spirit that makes worship truly worship.
Polytheists and monotheists, those who worship idols and those who do not, may resemble each other outwardly. Abu Sufyan40 used to pray, and Mu’awiyah41 even used to lead the congregation in prayer. These outward appearances are of no value in themselves. What elevates prayer is the spirit that animates it. If that spirit is present, prayer ascends to the divine presence and itself becomes divine.
But we engage in worship for our own sakes. At most, if one of us is very good, he engages in worship for the sake of paradise. But take away paradise and see how many people will be left praying. One should aspire to the state of the Commander or the faithful. who was “enamoured of worship and embraced it.”42
There is no question of paradise for him; he is unaware or it, having died, or been “overtaken by death.” Since he no longer has any consciousness of the self, paradise and hell are equal in his view. His worship and praise are devoted exclusively to the Essence of God Almighty, for he has recognized God as deserving to be worshipped.
This is the degree of a person who is “enamoured of worship”; he worships God because lie deserves to be worshipped.
This, then, is the first step: to quit your home or egoism, to take a step in the direction of God. We must awaken from our sleep, for it is only the animal dimension of our being that is now awake; the human dimension is sound asleep.
“People are asleep, and when they die, they awaken.”43 And when they awaken, they ask themselves what the sense was of their chaotic lives. But it is too late, for:
وَإِنَّ جَهَنَّمَ لَمُحِيطَةٌ بِالْكَافِرِينَ
“Hellfire surrounds the unbelievers” (Qur’an, 9:49).
Even now it surrounds them, but drugged by nature, they are unaware of it and fail to take heed. When the effects of the drug wear off, they see that they are surrounded by names and are being borne off to hell, whether they 1ike it or not.
Yes, we must wake up while there is still time, and embark on the Straight Path under the guidance of the prophets. The prophets, without a single expectation, all had as their mission the reformation of man. Both justice and injustice arise from men’s deeds, and the purpose of justice, therefore, is to transform the unjust in to the just, the mushrik,44 into the believer. So, the person who, if left to his own devices, would have headed for the deepest pit of hellfire will listen and obey when he is shown the path he must take.
We have not yet set out on this path, not even begun on our migration, despite the seventy or eighty years we have lived. But you, young people are better able to refine your souls; you are closer to the spiritual realm than the elderly are, and the roots of corruption within you are still weak and undeveloped. But if you postpone your task of self-reform, those roots will grow stronger and firmer with every passing clay.
Do not leave it, then, until old age; begin now. Make your lives conform to the teachings of the prophets; that is the starting point. One must follow the path they have indicated-it is they who know where the path lies; we do not. They are physicians and know the path to true health; if you desire health, you must follow their path.
Gradually, you must extricate yourself from the demands of your ego; naturally, this cannot be achieved all at a once. All our worldly hopes and desires will be buried with us, and all this incessant attention to the self will work to our disadvantage.
For all that can remain in the Hereafter is what belongs to God:
مَا عِنْدَكُمْ يَنْفَدُ ۖ وَمَا عِنْدَ اللَّهِ بَاقٍ
“What is with you will perish, and what is with God will remain” (16:96).
Man has what is “with himself” and he also has what is “with God.” What is “with himself” is all that comes from his preoccupation with himself and it will inevitably perish. But whatever he has that relates to God, what is “with God,” will remain by virtue of the divine name Eternal (Baqi).
So let us strive to extricate ourselves from the situation in which we find ourselves. Those who fight in jihad against the external enemy never fear superior numbers: for the Prophet said that he would never turn back even if all the Arabs united against him. His cause was the cause of God, and the cause of God can never be defeated, nor is there any turning back from it.
Those who engaged in jihad in the first age of Islam advanced and pushed forward without any regard for themselves or their personal desires, for they had earlier waged a jihad against their selves. Without the inner jihad, the outer jihad is impossible. Jihad is inconceivable unless a person turns his back on his own desires and the world.
For what we mean here by “world” is the aggregate of man’s aspirations that effectively constitute his world, not the external world of nature with the sun and the moon, which are manifestations of God. It is the world in this narrow, individual sense that prevents man from drawing near to the realm of sanctity and perfection.
May Goel grant us success in emerging from the pit and following the path of prophets and the Awliya, for it is they who have been “overtaken by death.”
Third Session
In order to understand some of the questions I have been discussing, it is necessary to understand the nature of the relation of God to creation. We may understand this relation of a certain degree with the help of a proof, we have learned to recite parrot like (since what lies beyond proof is inaccessible to us).
The relation of God to creation is not like that linking one creature to another; for example, father to son to father, where it is a question of two independent beings standing in relation to each other. The relationship of the rays of the sun and the sun itself is of a higher order, but again it concerns two beings linked to each other, or a higher order still is the relation linking the faculties of the soul to the soul, but this relationship of the auditory, visual, and other faculties and the soul is still marked by a certain separation and multiplicity.
The relation that links all beings to their principle, God Almighty, cannot be regarded as similar to any of the foregoing.
There are expressions in both the Qur’an and the Sunnah indicating the true nature of this relationship. For example,
تَجَلَّىٰ رَبُّهُ لِلْجَبَلِ
“His Lord manifested Himself to the mountain” (7:143).
Or this phrase from the Prayer of Simat:45 “By the light of Your face, which You manifested to the mountain, causing it to crumble.”
Both expressions indicate that the nature of God’s relation to creation is one of manifestation. The same thing is indicated by the verse:
اللَّهُ يَتَوَفَّى الْأَنْفُسَ حِينَ مَوْتِهَا
“God takes souls at the time of their death” (39:42).
For it means that God takes the life even of the person who is apparently killed by another, and by the Verse:
فَلَمْ تَقْتُلُوهُمْ وَلَٰكِنَّ اللَّهَ قَتَلَهُمْ
“When you cast the dust you did not cast it; rather cast it” (8:17).
Which states the matter explicitly. God’s relation to His creation, then, is one of manifestation and lightly. If we understand this, even based on proof repeated parrot-fashion, it will assist us understanding many matters in these noble verses.
According to the first possibility we suggested, “praise” (al Hamd) means the sum total of instances of praise and is infinitely multiple, and the sense of “name” in the expression “In the Name of God” is correspondingly multiple. Whatever praise is uttered cannot but revert to God Almighty, for it is the manifestations that are being praised, and they are God’s.
The manifestation of God is of a higher order than that of the sun through its rays, or that of the soul through its auditory and visual faculties. Praise belongs to the manifestations, and the corresponding multiple names belong to Him.
The second possibility we advanced was that “praise” means absolute praise and, contrary to the first possibility, no praise uttered a praiser can relate to God. It relates only to His manifestations, and cannot be absolute. However, insofar as all forms of multiplicity are effaced in that absolute being, again it can be said that any praise that is uttered pertains to Him. The difference here is between the vantage point of multiplicity and that of unity.
According to the former, no praise uttered can pertain to the absolute being, and according to the latter, all instances of praise pertain to Him, given that multiplicity is effaced in unity.
The two interpretations of the verse differ completely. If praise is generic, meaning the sum total of instances of praise, then “name” in the expression “In the Name of God” also means
in effect, “the sum total of multiple names,” so that every being is a name. But if we hold to the other interpretation of “praise,” then the sense of “name” also changes. Each name will differ and be marked by multiplicity. The name Allah becomes a manifestation of God Al-mighty in multiplicity and differentiation.
According to the first possibility, the Supreme Name is a manifestation of God’s Essence in beings, and the names Compassionate and Merciful are a manifestation of the acts of His Essence.
The same is true of the name Lord of the Worlds. But according to the second possibility, which regards “praise” as meaning absolute and unrestricted praise, praise belongs only to the name Allah, while the names Compassionate, Merciful, and Lord of the Worlds are subsumed within the essence for which the Supreme Name stands, instead of being manifestations of that Essence.
All of the foregoing depends on inductive reasoning, as employed in the higher forms of philosophy. It is, however, very different from what the Awliya experienced and came to witness directly after traversing the stages of spiritual wayfaring.
The Awliya cannot convey their witnessing to men. It was also necessary that the Qur’an descend, come down to a level where it would be able to address humanity, trapped in its fetters and the pit of misguidance. The tongue of the Prophet was tied; he could not convey reality to men except by descending to their level of perception.
The Qur’an has seven of seventy levels of meaning.1 and the lowest or those levels is the one where it addresses us. For example, God Almighty makes Himself known to us by in invoking the camel:
أَفَلَا يَنْظُرُونَ إِلَى الْإِبِلِ كَيْفَ خُلِقَتْ
“Do they not look upon the she camel, to see how it was created?” (88:17).
The sun, the heavens, the earth, and man himself are similarly invoked.
Th is inability of men to comprehend was a source of sorrow to the prophets. Their tongues were all tied, and Moses (‘a) prayed to God:
رَبِّ اشْرَحْ لِي صَدْرِي
O my Lord! Expand my breast for me (20:25).
وَيَسِّرْ لِي أَمْرِي
And make my affair easy to me (20:26).
وَاحْلُلْ عُقْدَةً مِنْ لِسَانِي
And loose the knot from my tongue (20:27).
There were knots confining the prophets’ tongues or their hearts in the sense that they were unable to convey to men the realities they had experienced and the way in which they had experienced them. The realities were ineffable, but the prophets tried to convey something of them to us by means of parables and symbols.
If God makes Himself known to us by invoking the camel, it is obvious that we exist on a very low level in fact on the same level as the animal itself, and that the knowledge we are capable of attaining is extremely deficient.
Let us examine the Qur’anic narrative concerning Moses.
فَلَمَّا تَجَلَّىٰ رَبُّهُ لِلْجَبَلِ جَعَلَهُ دَكًّا وَخَرَّ مُوسَىٰ صَعِقًا
“And when his Lord manifested His glory to the mountain. He made it crumble to dust, and Moses fell down in a swoon” (7:143).
That is, Moses was overwhelmed by h is Lord, and passed beyond the levels of perception to which we are limited. But then he said:
أَرِنِي أَنْظُرْ إِلَيْكَ
“Show me, that I may look upon You.” (7:143).
Moses, a great prophet, asked to see God with his own eyes; that is, he asked for a mode or vision, involving seer and seen, that is unattainable for us with respect to God. Although he had advanced to the point of receiving direct address from God, he said:
رَبِّ أَرِنِي أَنْظُرْ إِلَيْكَ ۚ قَالَ لَنْ تَرَانِي
“My Lord, show me that I may look upon You.” The answer came: “You shall not see Me” (7:143).
The probable meaning of this response is: “As long as you are Moses, as long as you are you, you shall not see Me.” But God did not leave Moses without any hope, and told him to look instead at the mountain. What was the mountain? Was the mountain that received the divine manifestation denied to Moses Mount Sinai? If there had been people on the mountain that day, would have seen the manifestation, perhaps in the form of bright sunlight?
وَلَٰكِنِ انْظُرْ إِلَى الْجَبَلِ فَإِنِ اسْتَقَرَّ مَكَانَهُ فَسَوْفَ تَرَانِي
“Look upon the mountain, and when the mountain subsides you shall see Me.” (7:143).
What is meant by the mountain subsiding is probably its dissolving into dust as a result of the divine manifestation. As for the mountain itself, it is probably a symbol for the egoism of the human soul, traces of which still persisted in Moses.
When God reduced the mountain to dust by His manifestation, all egoism perished and Moses attained the station of death: “Moses fell in a swoon.”
All this is a story for us; what others have witnessed and experienced directly is conveyed to us in the form of a story, the story of Mount Sinai, because we are still imprisoned in the darkness. The manifestation itself appears to have been in the form of light seen by Moses on Mount Sinai, and insofar as it was capable of being perceived by the senses, others too would have seen it.
Likewise, when Jibra’il, the Trusted Spirit, recited the Qur’an to the Most Noble Messenger, those present also heard it. But the seeing and hearing were as it from afar.46
The prophets are like men who have seen a dream that they cannot describe; their tongues are tied, and those around them are deaf. They are unable to speak and we are unable to hear; rather they do speak, but not for us. We understand only those things that are comprehensible to us.
The Qur’an in everything: it contains exoteric material, legal injunctions, as well as narratives whose inner sense we cannot understand; we understand and benefit from their outer aspects only. Full benefit can be drawn from the Qur’an only by the man to whom it was addressed- the Messenger of God.47
All others are deprived of such complete benefit unless they attain it by means of instruction from him, as was the case with the Awliya’. The Qur’an indicates that it descended to the Prophet:
نَزَلَ بِهِ الرُّوحُ الْأَمِينُ
“The Trusted Spirit descended with it to your heart” (26:193).
The Qur’an underwent a descent to the Prophet by means of the Trusted Spirit so that it might be received by him at his station. In the same connection. God says:
إِنَّا أَنْزَلْنَاهُ فِي لَيْلَةِ الْقَدْرِ
“We sent it [the Qur’an] down on the Night of Power” (97:1).
That is, “We sent it down in its entirety to the Prophet on the Night of Power, in the form of a manifestation.” First, the Qur’an was in the keeping of the Trusted Spirit, and then it underwent a descent in order to enter the heart of the Prophet.
The Qur’an descended, then, from level to level, from degree to degree, until finally it assumed a verbal form. The Qur’an is not verbal in substance; it does not pertain to the audio-visual realm; it does not belong to the category or accidents. It was, however, “brought down” so that we, the dumb and the blind, might benefit from it to the extent of our ability.
But as for those who can bene fit more fully, their understanding of the Qur’an is different, and their orientation to the principle from which the Qur’an has descended is different. When the manifestation of God Almighty emerges from the unseen and descends to the world of nature of bodies, there is a vast distance separating this lowest degree from the infinite realms or the of the unseen, and beyond them. the first appearance of that manifestation.
There is a correspondingly vast distance separating our perception from that of those superior to us, at the pinnacle of whom stand the Awliya’ and the prophets of God.
Moses, then, witnessed a divine manifestation when his Lord manifested Himself to the mountain. The Prayer of Simat48 also makes reference to this manifestation in the phrase “by the light of your face which You manifested to the mountain.”
A different form of manifestation is referred to in the verse:
يَا مُوسَىٰ إِنِّي أَنَا اللَّهُ
“O Moses, I, verily I am God.” (28:30).
Here the tree is the vehicle for the manifestation. All these statements referring to manifestation are true, and represent different aspects of manifestation. But if we wish to learn the Qur’an, what are we to do? Matters like these can neither be taught nor learned in their deepest sense.
When we wish to study the Qur’an and its interpretation, we have recourse to the commentaries currently in use that contain indications likely to be of use to deaf and blind persons like ourselves. The Qur’an contains everything, but only he who was addressed by it fully understands it.
The high degree of that person indicated in the verses: “The Trusted Spirit descended with it [the Qur’an] to your heart” (26:193), and “We sent it [the Qur’an] down on the Night of Power” (97:1). The visiona1y experience indicated in these verses cannot be shared by anyone else. It is not a question open to rational proof of demonstration, but a question of immediate perception of the unseen; no one else can attain it by any means, whether by unveiling49 or by vision of the soul, the intellect. or the heart.
It was only the heart of the world-the heart of the Prophet-that was vouchsafed that perception, as “he who was addressed by the Qur’an. He is unable to con vey what he has perceived except by clothing in words and symbols. How can you make the blind understand what the light of the sun is? What language, what words can you use? Light is something that dispels darkness; how can you make one who has never seen light understand what it is? There is, then, a knot tying the tongues of the prophets, and there are k nots tying the cars or t hose who hear them.
The difficulties of the Most Noble Messenger were greater than those of the other prophets in this respect. To whom could he convey those dimensions of the Qur’an that had descended upon his heart, except the one whom he had appointed to be his successor in every respect?50
He is reputed to have said: “No other prophet was vexed as I have been.” If this tradition is authentic, it may be that part of its meaning relates to the Prophet’s inability to convey fully what he had experienced, or to find anyone to convey it to.
It grieved him that although what he had experienced was greater than what all the earlier prophets had experienced; he was unable to convey it to everybody as he wished to. Imagine the sorrow of a father who wishes to make his blind son understand what the sun is what could he possibly say that would convey to him the meaning of light?
All he has available to him are verbal formulae that may even serve as a barrier to understanding. It has been said that “Knowledges is the thickest of veil,” for pursuit of knowledge causes man to be preoccupied with rational and general concepts and hinders him from embarking on the path.
The more knowledge increases, the thicker the evil becomes. and the scholar may come to imagine that the knowledge he has achieved rationally represents everything, for man is arrogant as long as his skin contains him, and any branch of learning he has studied and mastered he regards as the sum total of perfection.
The faqih imagines that there is nothing but Fiqh the mystic, that there is nothing but mysticism; the philosopher, that there is nothing but philosophy; and the engineer, that there is nothing but engineering. In each case, they imagine that science consists exclusively of what they have learned, observed, and experienced, and that nothing else should be regarded as knowledge.
Knowledge, once seen in this way, becomes the thickest of all veils, until what was meant to be a guide on the path serves as a hindrance. The knowledge that was intended to guide man now denies him guidance. That is the case with all formal learning: it may veil man from what he should be. Whenever learning enters an unpurified heart, it induces egoism in it and holds back, and the greater the weight of accumulated knowledge, the greater its harmful effects. Seed that is sown in brackish, stony ground will never yield fruit.
When veils keep a heart from the perception of truth, a heart that has not been purified, that does not fear the name of God, it will shrink back from contemplating philosophical matters as if they were a snake, even though philosophy is merely a branch of formal teaming. The philosopher, in turn, will shrink back from mysticism, and even the mystic will shrink back from what lies beyond him. For all branches or formal learning consist of transmitted verbal formulae.
At the very least, therefore. we ought to strive to purify ourselves so that formal learning does not completely bar our access to God or prevent us from remembering Him. This, too, is an important concern: our lack of knowledge should not cause us to be heedless of God, or induce such arrogance in us that we fall away from the source of all perfection.
This arrogance is to be seen in all learned people, what her concerned with the physical and natural sciences, the sciences of the Shari’ah, or the rational sciences. If the heart is not purified, learning brings arrogance, and it is precisely arrogance that hinders man from setting out toward God.
When the scholar studies, he is completely absorbed in his study, but when he prays, he is not present in his prayer. A friend of mine (may God have mercy upon him) used to say: “I have forgotten; let me pray so maybe I can remember.”51 When such men pray, it is as if they were completely absent from the prayer: they do not direct their attention to God and their hearts are elsewhere. They might be attempting to solve some academic problem, so that what was meant to be an aid attaining the goal now holds them back.
There are the sciences of the Shari’ah, of Qur’anic interpretation, of Tawhid,52 but, placed in an un prepared and unpurified heart, they become like fellers and chains tying one down. The sciences and concerns or the Shari’ah are all a means, means for proper action, and act ton, in turn, is a means for attaining the ultimate goal, which is the awakening of the soul and its emergence from the dark veils that envelop it.
Even then, the soul will find itself facing veils of light, for: “God has seventy thousand veils of light and of darkness.” Veils of light are no less veils for being composed of light, but we have not even emerged from the veils of darkness; we are thoroughly entangled in veils. What is to become or us? Learning has had entirely negative effects on our souls.
All the sciences of the Shari’ah as well as the rational sciences (which are also called the “abstract” sciences; i.e., sciences that have no objective existence) are intended as means for attain in the goal, but instead, each of them has come to serve as a hindrance.
It is, no longer a question of learning, but of a dark veil, an obstacle in the path of man preventing him from attaining that goal for the sake of which all the prophets came to lead man forth from this world, out of the darkness, and to convey him to the realm of absolute light.
The prophets wanted to immerse man in that absolute light, to merge the drop with the ocean (this image, of course, is not exact).
It is for this purpose that all the prophets were sent. All true knowledge and objective reality be long exclusively to that light; we are all non-beings, and our origin is that light. All the prophets were sent to deliver us from the darkness and convey is to the absolute light, freeing us from both the veils of darkness and those of light.
The science of Tawhid may itself tum into a veil. It establishes proofs for the existence of God Almighty, but simultaneously veils man from God and prevents him from: becoming what he should be. The prophets and the Awliya’ did not depend on proofs; they knew the proofs but never cared to use them to establish the existence of God. The Lord of the Martyrs said, addressing God Almighty: “When were You ever absent? It is blind eyes that have failed to see Your presence.”
The point of departure is “arising” (qiyam), as is enjoined in this Qur’anic verse:
إِنَّمَا أَعِظُكُمْ بِوَاحِدَةٍ أَنْ تَقُومُوا لِلَّهِ
“I admonish you to do one thing: to arise for God” (34:46).
Those who have analysed spiritual wayfaring, for example, Shaykh ‘Abdullah Ansari in this Manazil al-Sa’irin.53 have regarded this “arising” as the first stage on the path. (It may not be a stage at all, however, but rather a preliminary, followed by the stages.) First there is an admonition, an injunction, coming from someone who has attained the goal himself and is instructed by God to summon men to arise.
It all starts with this “arising for God.” Man begins to move for the sake of God, to remain still for the sake of God -to awaken from his sleep. In this verse, it is as if an order is being given to tell the sleeping and heedless to arise for God’s sake and to embark on God’s path. We have not heeded this simple injunction and have therefore been unable to set out on that path. We prefer instead to follow our own paths; that is true even of the best or us.
This admonition is directed to us, not to the Awliya’; they are a different breed of men and have already attained the goal. We too will be taken in that direction: no one can say that we are here to stay. The angels empowered over all our faculties are taking us in that direction, and have been doing so ever since we entered the natural realm. But we will go burdened by darkness and veils.
Love of the self is the source and origin of all sins and errors, together with love of the world. This love may sometimes cause a man, even though he is a worshipper of the One God, to leave the world with resentment and hatred in his heart if he believes that God has taken something from him. It is said that when a man is about to depart from this world, the demons that do not want him to leave it a believer will display to him all the things be loves.
A student of the religious sciences, for example, might be attached to a book. They will bring the book to him and say, “Unless you renounce your belief. we will burn this book.” They will threaten others in a similar way with their children or whatever they may be particularly attached to.
Do not imagine that it is necessarily the wealthy who are regarded as worldly. It is possible, for example, that someone might own vast estates but not be worldly,54 while a student might possess only a book and yet be quite worldly. The criterion is attachment, the ties that bind man to things. These ties may make man an enemy of God when he sees them being severed at the end of his life, so that he then leaves the world in a state of enmity toward God.
So, curtail your attachments; we will leave this world whether or not we are bound in affection to something. Maybe you are attached to a book you own and maybe you are not, but in either case the book is yours and what is important is that you make use of it. Likewise, maybe you are attached to the house you live in and maybe you are not, but again, the house is yours, and what is important is that you make use of it. So, curtail your attachments, or even eliminate them if possible.
What afflicts man is his attachments, and they, in turn, arise out of his love of self. Love of the world, love of leadership, love of authority, love for a particular mosque, all these are forms of attachment to the world, a series of veils that envelop us. Let us not sit and discuss the state of others, but let us pay attention to our own situation. Let us see how strong our attachments are to our possessions, and whether what we find objectionable in others also exists in us.
Were it not for this self-love and arrogance, man would never find fault with others. When some of us do so, it is because in our love of self, we see ourselves as perfect and purified and others as full of defects and salts. You know of that poem - I do not wish to recite it - in which someone condemns a certain woman and she replies: “I am indeed all that you say, but are you truly all that you seem?”55
We pretend to society that we have conic to the madrasa to study the Shar’iah for the God, and that we are part of God’s army. But are we really what our outward appearances proclaim us to be? All too often, our inner reality does not conform to our outer appearance but instead contradicts it.
What is this if not hypocrisy? It is not hypocrisy to proclaim one’s religiosity without being religious, as Abu Sufyan56 did? It is also hypocrisy to pretend to possess qualities without in fact doing so. All of these are different forms of hypocrisy.
We must forgo this world, then, and avoid the attachment to it that arises from love of self. But let it not be said that the prophets have summoned us only to the Hereafter, not to this world. For while they did indeed summon men to an awareness of the Hereafter, they also established justice in this world.
The Most Noble Messenger was a being close to God, but because of his perpetual involvement in this world, he is reported to have said: “My heart is clouded, and I seek pardon of God seventy times a day.”57
Interacting with men at a lower level than himself clouded his heart, for he was meant to be constantly in the presence of his Beloved. Even if the person who came to him was a truly good man prompted by the desire to ask a question, still he prevented the Prophet from remaining uninterruptedly at the level where he wished to be. Naturally, the Prophet submitted to the necessity of such interaction with men and regarded those who came to speak to him as manifestations of God.
Nonetheless, he was prevented from remaining constantly in the presence of his Beloved, and thus he said: “My heart is clouded, and I seek pardon of God seventy times a day.”
Preoccupation with the faults of other is a veil that we must remove. Let us at least strive to be what we appear to be, not something else. If there are marks of constant prostration on our foreheads suggesting that we are labouring for God’s sake, let us shun all hypocrisy in our prayer. If we present ourselves as very saintly, let us not accept interest or deceive people, and so on.
The idea that the spiritual sciences discourage people from activity is untrue. The man who taught these sciences to the people and who was more versed in their truths than anyone, after the Messenger of God, took up his pickaxe and went about his work immediately after receiving the allegiance of the people.58 There is no contradiction between spirituality and activity.
Those who would dissuade people from engaging in supplicatory prayer and dhikr59 on the pretext of involving them more fully in the world do not understand how matters lie. They do not know that it is precisely prayer and the like that make man become a true human being so that he may conduct himself toward the world as he ought. It was, after all, the prophets who established justice in this world, while they were engaged in meditation and dhikr.
The same was true of those who rose up against tyrants; look, for example, at the prayer made on the Day of ‘Arafat60 by Husayn ibn ‘Ali (‘a). Prayer and dhikr are the beginning of all things, for if man practices them correctly, they cause him to turn toward the origin of his being in the unseen and to strengthen his attachment to it.
Not only does this not deter him from activity, it even produces in him the best of activity, for he comes to understand that his activity should not be for his own sake but for the sake of God’s bondsmen, and that his activity should be service to God.
Those who criticize the books of prayer do so out of ignorance. The poor people do not know the way these books make true human being of men. The prayers that have been handed down from the Imams, like the Invocations of Sha’ban,61 the Prayer of Kumayl,62 or the Prayer of the Lord of the Martyrs (‘a) on the Day of ‘Arafat, all contribute to the making of true human beings.
The person who recited the Invocations of Sha’ban was also the same one who drew his sword to go into battle against the unbelievers. Indeed, according to tradition, all the Imams recited the Invocations of Sha’ban, something that is not recorded concerning any other prayer. These prayers lead man out of the darkness, and once he has emerged, he wields his sword for God’s sake, lights for God’s sake, and rises up for God’s sake.
These prayers do not deter from labour and activity, as those people imagine for whom the world consist exclusively of personal desires, while everything else becomes “abstract.” Eventually they will come to realize that what they thought was abstract is objective and real, and vice versa. Books of elevating sermons and prayer-Nahj al-Balaghah,63 Mafatih al-Jinan64 and the like - all prefer support for man in his efforts to become a true human being.
Once a man has become a true human being, he will be the most active of men. He will until the land, but until it for God’s sake. He will also wage war, for all the wars waged against unbelievers and oppressors were waged by men absorbed in the divine unity and engaged in the constant recitation of prayer. Most of those who fought with the Most Noble Messenger (S) or with the Commander of the Faithful (‘a) were men devoted to countless acts of worship.
The Commander of the Faithful not only stood in prayer at the beginning of a battle; he would also continue his prayer in its midst. Once someone asked him a question concerning the divine unity just as a battle was about to begin, and he proceeded to answer it. When another person objected, “I now the time for such things?” he replied, “This is the reason that we are fighting Mu’awiyah, not for any worldly again.
It is not our true aim to capture Syria; of what value is Syria?” It was not the aim of the Prophet or the Commander of the Faithful to capture Syria and Iraq, but rather to make men into true human beings, and to free them from the clutches of oppressors. This they did because they were reciters of prayer, not in spite of that fact. Lock at the Prayer of Kumayl, which has been transmitted from the Commander of the Faithful, and reflect on the fact that it was composed by a man who wielded the sword.
At one time, it was the practice to burn the books of prayer in order to deprive people of them. That vile person Kasrawi65 set aside a day on which books relating to mysticism or supplicatory prayer would be brought in for burning. They fail to understand what effect supplicatory prayer has on the souls of men; they do not realize that it is the reciters of prayer who perform all virtuous and blesses deeds.
Those who recite prayers and engage in dhikr, even in a weak and parrotlike manner, will benefit to a certain degree, and to that degree they will be better off than those who abandon prayer and invocation. Similarly, the person who performs his daily prayers, even at a low level of awareness, is better than the person who does not; he will purer of soul, and at least will not engage in theft, for example.
Look at the statistics on crime and see how few crimes have been committed by students of the religious sciences in comparison with other people. See how few mullahs are guilty of theft, drunkenness, or other offenses. Of course, there are some persons, who have infiltrated the religious institutions, but they are not given to prayer or other forms of worship; they have merely assumed the guise of the Mulla for the sake of worldly benefit.
As for those who are given to reciting prayers and fulfilling the outward duties of Islam, they have cither no criminal records or relatively few. They are a support for the order of the world.
We must not, then, dismiss supplicatory prayer or dissuade our young from engaging in it. There are people who would do so on the pretext of bringing the Qur’an into greater prominence, but supplicatory prayer is a path understanding the Qur’an, a path we must not lose. The notion that the Qur’an alone should be recited, to the total exclusion of supplicatory prayer and hadith, is an insinuation of the devil.
Once we exclude supplicatory prayer and hadith, we will lose the Qur’an itself. Those who wish to set aside hadith in order to promote the Qur’an are in capable of promoting it, and likewise, those who say, “We do not want supplicatory prayer, only the Qur’an” are incapable of acting in accordance with the Qur’an.
All these notions are insinuation of the devil designed to mislead our young. But our young must ask themselves which group has served society better - those who cultivate the hadith and engage in supplicatory prayer and dhikr, or those who have abandoned them all, claiming to be devoted exclusively to the Qur’an.
It is the believers, those who supplicate and remember God and perform their prayers regularly that have performed virtuous and charitable acts and established institutions to aid the weak. Those who could afford it have also established madrasah and hospitals.
These forms of devotional practice, then, must not be banished from our people. On the contrary, let us encourage the people to turn increasingly to God through them. Quite apart from the fact that helps man in his movement toward absolute perfection, they are of benefit to society.
For the person who devotes himself to prayer will not disturb lawful public order, nor will he engage in thievery, and prevention of theft is more beneficial to society than apprehension of thief once a theft has already been committed. Suppose that half the members of society engage in supplicatory prayer, dhikr, and so forth; this means that half of society will be abstaining from sin. The merchant, for example, will not be stealing from his customers.
But those who take their guns to go lie in wait on mountain passes and shoot people are strangers to prayer and invocation.
Society is trained and educated, then, by means of these supplicatory prayers, as God and the Most Noble Messenger have indicated:
قُلْ مَا يَعْبَأُ بِكُمْ رَبِّي لَوْلَا دُعَاؤُكُمْ
“Say: Were it not for your supplicatory prayer, your Lord would not pay you heed’” (25:77).
Those who claim to be devoted to the Qur’an should realize that the Qur’an itself exalts supplicatory prayer and exhorts men to engage in it. God tells them that if it were not for their calling upon Him, He would not pay any attention to them. Those who claim to reject supplicatory prayer on the authority of the Qur’an are rejecting the Qur’an for the Qur’an says:
ادْعُونِي أَسْتَجِبْ لَكُمْ
“Call upon Me in prayer, that I may answer you” (40:60).
May God make us devotees of supplicatory prayer, devotees of shirk, and devotees of the Qur’an, if He so wills.
Fourth Session
Another matter that emerges from what we said on previous occasions is that the “ba” in bismillah (“In the Name of God”) is not a causative “ba”, as the grammarians would put it. There can be no question cause and effect with respect to God’s action. God's action is best described in terms of manifestation, for that is the term the Qur’an itself uses in the verse:
تَجَلَّىٰ رَبُّهُ لِلْجَبَلِ
“His Lord manifested Himself to the mountain” (7:143).
And implies in the verse:
هُوَ الْأَوَّلُ وَالْآخِرُ وَالظَّاهِرُ وَالْبَاطِنُ
“He is the First and the Last, and the Outward and the Inward” (57:3).
Manifestation implies a relationship of a different mode than that of cause and effect, which would presuppose an inclination on the pail of the Divine Essence toward creation.
Therefore, we must either interpret causality broadly enough to accommodate manifestation, or say flatly that the in bismillah is not a causative “ba”. Bismillah has the sense of “by means of the name of God,” by means of His manifestation,” and in conjunction with al-Hamdu lil-Lah, it means: “Praise belongs to God by means of His name.” It is a cause of which praise is the effect (to the best of my recollection, the expression “cause and effect” does not occur anywhere in the Qur’an or the Sunnah).
Rather, it is an expression used by the philosophers. The terms we encounter in the Qur’an are “manifestation” and “creation.” Another point to be mentioned, and one that is the subject of a certain tradition, is the dot under the ba of bismillah. It is referred to in a particular tradition attributed to the Commander of the Faithful (‘a).
The authenticity of the tradition is uncertain, and there are some indications, that it has been falsely ascribed to him. In any event, he is reputed to have said: “I am the dot under the ba.”66
If the tradition is authentic, we can take the dot to mean “absolute manifestation,” the first individuation, which consists of wilayat in its essential meaning; i.e., universal wilayat.67 The first individuation or absolute manifestation, in turn, may be understood as the highest degree of being, corresponding to universal wilayat.
There are also a number of questions connected with the sense of the word “name.” One is that the name sometimes stands for the Divine Essence; it is comprehensive or Supreme Name, of which the names Compassionate and Merciful are the manifestations.
Allah is the supreme name, the first manifestation standing for the essence, and the other names represent nominal manifestation. The essence also has other manifestations, notably active manifestations, which are said to relate cither to the oneness (vahidiyat)68 or the will. These terms should be noted. Many divine names are mentioned in the last three verses of surah Al-Hashr.
هُوَ اللَّهُ الَّذِي لَا إِلَٰهَ إِلَّا هُوَ ۖ عَالِمُ الْغَيْبِ وَالشَّهَادَةِ ۖ هُوَ الرَّحْمَٰنُ الرَّحِيمُ
He is Allah besides Whom there is no god; the Knower of the unseen and the seen; He is the Beneficent, the Merciful (59:22).
هُوَ اللَّهُ الَّذِي لَا إِلَٰهَ إِلَّا هُوَ الْمَلِكُ الْقُدُّوسُ السَّلَامُ الْمُؤْمِنُ الْمُهَيْمِنُ الْعَزِيزُ الْجَبَّارُ الْمُتَكَبِّرُ ۚ سُبْحَانَ اللَّهِ عَمَّا يُشْرِكُونَ
He is Allah, besides Whom there is no god; the King, the Holy, the Giver of peace, the Granter of security, Guardian over all, the Mighty, the Supreme, the Possessor of every greatness Glory be to Allah from what they set up (with Him). (59:23).
هُوَ اللَّهُ الْخَالِقُ الْبَارِئُ الْمُصَوِّرُ ۖ لَهُ الْأَسْمَاءُ الْحُسْنَىٰ ۚ يُسَبِّحُ لَهُ مَا فِي السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضِ ۖ وَهُوَ الْعَزِيزُ الْحَكِيمُ
He is Allah the Creator, the Maker, the Fashioner; His are the most excellent names; whatever is in the heavens and the earth declares His glory; and He is the Mighty, the Wise. (59:24).
We see three possible categories of names mentioned in each of these verses. In the first, the name Allah stands for the essence, and the names that follow it are apposite to the essence. In the second, the name Allah stands for the manifestation of the essence by means of the attributes, and the names that follow it correspond to that.
While in the third, Allah stands for the active manifestation of the Essence, and the names following it are again correspondent. To put it differently, there are three forms of manifestation: the manifestation of the Essence to the Essence, the manifestation through the names, and the manifestation through the acts.
“He is the First and the Last”: this may mean that the existence of all that lies between first and last is negated; there is only He. Again, “He is the Outward and the Inward”: that is, whatever is manifest is He, not from Him. There are different degrees of manifestation, but the manifestations are not separate from the Manifestos. This is difficult to conceive, but once a person has grasped it, it is easy for him to salient to it.
Allah may also be a name indicating the manifestation of the essence through the attributes; and if that is the case, it is a comprehensive (Jami’ah) manifestation. This does not contradict the first two possibilities; it compatible with both of them, although they are mutually incompatible. The compatibility is due to the absence of separation between the degrees of manifestation.
We are, of course, passing over these matters very rapidly without discussing them hilly, but there is a further matter to which I must draw attention. Sometimes we attempt to gauge reality in accordance with sensory perception; at other times, we view in accordance with reason; and at still other times, we contemplate it with our heart. Beyond the vision of the heart, there is also the possibility of witnessing.69
Generally, however, we rely on rational perception and the weighing of proof, and even according to this usual method, we can recognize that all reality can be reduced to the Sacred Essence and the manifestations.
There are three categories of manifestation then - the manifestation of the Essence to the Essence, the manifestation through the attributes, and the manifestation through the acts - that may be indicated in the verses cited above. They also yield the meaning that in the face of God Almighty, nothing exists; in the face of absolute being, nothing can exist.
If we understand this through rational perception, we can examine ourselves and see whether we have conveyed it to our hearts, where it can be converted into faith; whether we have assimilated it by means of spiritual wayfaring, for it to be converted into gnosis; and whether we have attained states even beyond that.
Regardless of the mode and degree of our perception, reality remains what it is. And the reality is this: there is nothing other than God Almighty; whatever is, is He. The manifestation is not only His; it is also He. There is no exact image that can be evoked in this respect; the object that casts a shadow together with the shadow itself is imprecise and defective. A preferable image would be the ocean and its waves.
The wave has no separate existence with respect to the ocean; it is the ocean, although one cannot say the conserve, that the ocean is its waves. Waves come into existence only through the motion of the ocean. When we consider the matter rationally, it appears to us that both the ocean and the waves exist, the latter being an accident with respect to the former. But the truth of the matter is that there is nothing but ocean; the wave is also the ocean.
This world is also like a wave with respect to God. This image, too, is inevitably defective, of course. When we attempt to understand these matters in accordance with our limited perception, we are bound to have recourse se to general images that enable us to grasp the concepts involved. The next stage is to establish the truth of those concepts by means of rational proof.
And if we wish to establish the truth of the statement that there exists only the Essence and its manifestations, that there is only pure and absolute being, being without qualification, we say that if being is subject to any or defect, it is not absolute being; absolute being is that in which there is neither defect nor individuation. And since there is neither defect nor individuation in absolute being, it must be the entirety of being, not lacking in any respect. All of his attributes are absolute, not individuated: compassion, mercy, divinity - all these are absolute.
Once light or being is absolute and undifferentiated, it must include all perfections within itself, since the loss of a single perfection entails individuation. If there is even a single point of deficiency in the Divine Essence, it will mean that a point of being is absent; being will no longer be absolute, and becoming deficient, it will also become contingent and no longer necessary, for necessary being is absolute perfection and beauty.
Therefore, when we regard the matter using the imperfect method of rational proof, we conclude that Allah is the name for the Essence of absolute being, which is the source of all manifestation. It contains all the names and all the attributes and is absolute perfection, perfection without individuation.
This perfection cannot lack anything, for if it did, it would no longer be absolute but contingent, however high the degree of relative perfection that it might still enjoy. It is said that “Pure being is all things, but is not a single thing among them.” That is, it is all things, not by means of individuation, but in absolute perfection.
In addition, since the names are not separate from the essence, all that allies to the name Allah must also apply to the name Compassionate. Once Compassionate becomes absolute perfection, absolute mercy must also possess all the perfection of being, for otherwise it would not be absolute.
قُلِ ادْعُوا اللَّهَ أَوِ ادْعُوا الرَّحْمَٰنَ أَيًّا مَا تَدْعُوا فَلَهُ الْأَسْمَاءُ الْحُسْنَىٰ
“Call upon Allah or call upon the Compassionate; however, you call upon Him, His are the Most Beautiful Names” (17:110).
All the Most Beautiful Names are present in all attributes of God Almighty in absolute fashion. This being the case, there can be no question of boundaries between the name and the thing named, or between one name and another name. The Most Beautiful Names are not like the names that we apply to things, each in accordance with different perceptions that we have.
For example, we speak of light and manifestation, but light and manifestation are not two separates of the same reality: manifestation is identical to light, and light to manifestation. Absolute being, then, is absolute perfection, and absolute perfection means the possession of all attributes in absolute fashion, in such a way that no separation among them is conceivable.
The foregoing represents a process of rational argument. A certain mystic is reputed to have said, “Wherever I go, I find this blind man with his stick.” By the blind man he meant Avicenna and the sentence as a whole means that whatever he70 attained by means of visionary experience, Avicenna attained by means of rational argument.
He was blind, but had a stick - that is, rational argument - and supporting himself on that stick, he advanced to the same place that the mystic had reached through witnessing.
The mystic rightly described us who depend on rational argument as blind, for even after expounding the divine unity, absolute unity, and establishing by means of argument that the principle of being is absolute perfection, we are still dependent on our rational proofs and sit outside the wall of proof we have erected without being able to see.
We may, of course, convey the result of our arguments to the heart by means of strenuous effort, so that the heart, in turn, comes to perceive that “Pure being is all things.” The heart is like an infant that must be fed slowly and carefully, with small morsels. One who has reached a rational perception of the truth by means of proof and argument must gradually inculcate it to the heart, spelling it, as it were, letter by letter and constantly repeating it.
Once the heart has perceived that pure being is the sum total of all perfection, it will have attained faith. When the fruit of rational perception is conveyed to the heart through constant effort and repetition, the heart begins to read the Qur’an itself and to loam the truths contained in it. It will come to believe that “There is no one in the house but the owner of the house.”71
This still represents the degree of faith, and even the degree of “tranquillity of the heart”72 is inferior to what the prophets attained. Witnessing is superior to all of these, as Moses witnessed the beauty of God Almighty that He made manifest upon the mountain. After thirty-and then forty-day periods of vigil, Moses left the house of his wife’s lather, Shu’ayb, and set out with his wife and children. He said to his wife:
إِنِّي آنَسْتُ نَارًا
“I perceive a fire” (20:10),
and the fire that he saw was completely invisible to his wife and children.
لَعَلِّي آتِيكُمْ مِنْهَا بِقَبَسٍ
“[I will go to the fire] and bring you back a burning brand” (20:10):
that is, “I will convey to you a manifestation of the fire. When Moses approached the fire, a voice called out to him from the fire that was enveloping the tree:
إِنِّي أَنَا رَبُّكَ
“Verily I, I am God” (20:12).
That is, Moses now witnessed what the blind man with his staff could not see, and what the mystic could only see with his heart.
These words that I may speaking and you are hearing fall far short of the reality. Other than Moses, no one could see the light emitted by that fire, just as when revelation came to the Prophet, no one could understand what it was. Who could understand the descent of the Qur’an - it all its thirty’ parts73 - to the heart of the Prophet, when ordinary hearts would have been incapable of beating the burden?
The heart has special properties; it is for this reason that the Qur’an descended to the heart. The Qur’an is a mystery, a mystery within a mystery, a mystery veiled and enveloped in mystery. It was necessary for the Qur’an to undergo a process of descent in order to arrive at the lowly degree of man. Even its entry into the heart of the Prophet was a descent, and from there it had to descend still further in order to become intelligible to others.
But man, too, is a mystery, a mystery within a mystery. All we see of man is his outward appearance, which is entirely animal and maybe even inferior to other animals. Man, however is an animal endowed with the aptitude of becoming human and attaining perfection, even absolute perfection, of becoming what is now inconceivable for him and transcending existence.
The Qur’an and man, then, both represent a series of mysteries. There is also a mystery pertaining to the outer world, the world of nature - namely, that you cannot perceive the essence of bodies but only their accidents. Our eyes see colour and other visible qualities; our ears hear sounds; our sense of taste experiences flavour; and with our hands we feel the external dimensions of an object. But all of these are accidents.
Where is the body itself to be founds? When we wish to define something, we mention it with its depth, and its length, but these too are accidents. If the body in question has the power of attraction that is likewise an accident. Any attributes you may use in your attempt to define it are accidents. Where, then, is the body itself? The body itself is a mystery, the shade or reflection of a higher mystery.
It is the shadow cast by the unity of the Divine Essence, for the names and attributes of all that exists are the same names and attributes of the Essence that are made manifest to us. Were it not for the names and attributes, the world itself would be part of the unseen.
One meaning of “the unseen and the manifest”74 may be that the world of nature itself comprises unseen and manifest sectors. The unseen sector is that which is unseen and imperceptible to us, for whenever we wish to define a thing, we speak only of its attributes, names, effects, and so on.
Man’s ability to perceive the thing that is a shadow of the absolute mystery is necessarily defective; unless it happens that he has advanced of means of wilayat75 to the point where the manifestation of God Almighty, in all its dimensions, has entered his heart.
This mystery exists in all things; the unseen and the manifest are everywhere commingled. “The unseen,” of course, may also mean the world of the angels, the world of the intelligences, or the like. These too comprise an inner mystery and an outer appearance hiddenness and manifestation, as is implied in the expression:
هُوَ … الظَّاهِرُ وَالْبَاطِنُ
“He is …the Outward and the Inward” (57:3).
Wherever there is outwardness, there is also inwardness, and wherever there is inwardness, there is also outwardness. All the names of God Almighty, then, participate in all the degree of being, and each name is all of the names, it is not the case for example, that the name or attribute Compassionate stands in contradistinction to the name Merciful, or the name Avenger. All of them possess everything:
أَيًّا مَا تَدْعُوا فَلَهُ الْأَسْمَاءُ الْحُسْنَىٰ
“However, you call upon Him, His are the Most Beautiful Names” (17:110).
All the Most Beautiful Names belong to the Compassionate, as they belong, too, to the Merciful and to the Eternally Self-Subsistent. It is not as if one of the names relates to one thing, and another relates to something else. Were this the case, the name Compassionate would indicate a particular aspect or degree of
God Almighty distinct from other aspects, and the Essence of God Almighty would then become a compendium of aspects. That is impossible for absolute being; it is not divisible into aspects. Absolute being is Compassionate qua absolute being, and it is also Merciful qua absolute being. God is Compassionate with all of His Essence, and Merci fill with all of His Essence, and Light with all of His Essence; He is Allah. His being Compassionate is not something separate from His being Merciful.76
There are those who ascend by means of gnosis to the point where a complete manifestation of the essence enters their hearts - not, of course, this physical heart, but the heart where the Qur’an descended, the heart where Jibra’il alighted, the heart that is the point of departure of revelation.
That manifestation contains all other manifestation within itself; it is the Supreme Name. The Messenger of God himself is also the Supreme Name made manifest, for it has been said: “We are the Most Beautiful Names.”
We began tonight’s talk by discussing the question of causality and pointing out that the relation of God to His creation is not one of simple causality. Indeed, that relationship cannot be stated adequately, but only indicated by various approximate images. We also discussed the sense of the “dot under the ba,” always supposing the tradition in question to be authentic.
Then we spoke of the various forms of manifestation: the manifestation of the Essence to the Essence, the manifestation of the Essence to the attributes, and the manifestation of the Essence to beings. This last constitutes our beings. To have recourse to another metaphor, imagine one hundred mirrors
positioned so that the light of the sun is reflected in each. From one point of view, you might say that there are a hundred lights - one hundred separate, finite lights, each in a mirror. All of them, however, are the same light, the same manifestation of the sun visible in a hundred mirrors. Let me repeat that the image is approximate.
The manifestation of God Almighty takes place by means of individuations, which is not to say that the individuation is separate from the manifestation or light. When light manifests itself as an act, the concomitant is individuation. “Name” in the expression “In the Name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful” means the name of the essence, and the name Allah is the manifestation of the essence that includes all manifestations. Compassionate and Merciful are part of this same comprehensive manifestation; they do not refer to separate things.
Allah, Compassionate, and Merciful are like three names for the same entity. There is but one manifestation: He is Allah with all His Essence, Compassionate with all His Essence, and Merciful with all His Essence. It is impossible that this not be so, for if it were not, God would be limited and thus contingent.
As I said previously, “In the Name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful” is syntactically connected to: “Praise belongs to God.” We may therefore paraphrase the two expressions taken together as follows. “All instances of praise belong (or absolute praise belongs) to the comprehensive manifestation of Allah, who with the entirely of His Essence is also Compassionate and Merciful.”
If one takes the second form of manifestation - that of the essence to the attributes - the name indicating comprehensive manifestation is equivalent to absolute will; all things occur by means of it, by means of the name Allah. Finally, if we consider manifestation through the acts, the name Allah as a comprehensive manifestation will be equivalent to reality. To summarize, the, the name Allah is the name indicating the comprehensive manifestation within the Essence itself, with respect to the attributes, and with respect to the acts.
There is much else to be said concerning the names Compassionate and Merciful, but we must be brief. I hope we all feel that the discussion of these matters is necessary. Some people in their hearts totally deny all the concerns of mysticism and gnosis. He who lives at the level of an animal cannot believe that anything exists beyond his bestial state. We, however, must believe in the validity of these concerns, and the first step toward advancing beyond our present state is to refrain from denying them.
A person should not deny whatever he is ignorant of. It was Avicenna who said: “Whoever denies something without proof forfeits the attribute of humanity.”
Just as the affirmation of something depends upon proof, so, too, does its denial. To deny is different from to confess ignorance. There are certain hearts that are given to denial; they deny everything they are unable to perceive and thereby “forfeit the attribute of humanity.” A person must have proof in order both to affirm something and to deny it.
Otherwise, he must say: “I do not know; it may be so: Anything you hear, regard as possible; it is possible that it might be, and also possible that it might not be. But why should we engage in denial, when our hands cannot reach beyond this world, and what they touched is only a small part of this world? What we know of this world is very limited; many things of which we were ignorant a hundred years ago have now become known, and others will become known in the future.
We who have not been able to comprehend fully the world of nature and man-why should we deny what has been granted to the Awliya’? Certain hearts are predisposed to denial, hearts that are entirely deprived of the penetration of truth and light. A person with such a heart will not say, “I do not know”; he will say instead, “It is not true.” He will accuse the mystics of talking nonsense, whereas in reality, he is veiled from the perception of what they are saying.
The same concerns that the deniers label “nonsense” is also io be found in the Qur’an and the Sunna, although the deniers would not dare admit it.
Such denial is a type of unbelief, although not, of course, unbelief as defined by the Shari’ah. It is unbelief to deny what one is ignorant of. All the misfortunes that beset man arise out of his inability to perceive reality and his consequent denial of it. Unable to attain what the Awliya’ have attained, he denies it and falls prey to the worst form of unbelief.
The first step to take is to refrain from denying what is in the Qur’an and the Sunnah, what the Awliya’ have said, what the mystics and philosophers have said, within the limits of their perception. (There are some who go so far in their denial as to say: “I will not believe unless I can dissect God with this knife.”)
Let us at least not deny what the prophets and the Awliya’ have said, for unless we take this first step, we cannot take the second. Denial does not allow the denier to pursue anything unless it lies immediately in front of him. If a person wished to emerge from the dark abode in which he is caught, he must at least grant the possibility that all these matters are true, for otherwise he will remain a prisoner behind the wall of denial. Let him pray to God that, He unfold a path before him, a path that leads where he must go, for it is God alone who can unfold the path.
Once a man ceases his denial and beseeches God for a path, a path will gradually open itself up before him, for God will not refuse him. Let us, then, at least attain the stage of not denying what is contained in the Qur’an and the Sunnah. There are some who claim to believe in the Qur’an and the Sunnah, but deny whatever contains that lies outside their perception.
They do not express their denial outright with respect to the Qur’an and the Sunna, but if someone begins to speak on the mystical matters contained therein, they will begin to talk nonsense and deny the truth of what is said. Such denial deprives man of many things.
It prevents him from attaining him from attaining the state needed to set out on the path; it is an obstacle that bars his way.
I recommend to all of you, then, that you at least grant the possibility that what the Awliya’ attained and experienced is true. You might not declare openly, “It is possible”; but do not make a downright denial and say, “It is all nonsense”; for if you do, you will not be able to set out on the path. So, remove this obstacle.
1 hope that we may remove this veil of denial from our hearts and ask God Almighty to acquaint us with the language of the Qur’an. For the Qur’an has been revealed in its own distinct language, and we must become familiar with that language. The Qur’an possesses everything. It is like a vast banquet that God has spread out in front of all humanity and that everyone partakes of according to his own appetite.
The sicknesses of the heart deprive man of his appetite, but if his heart is healthy, he will partake of the banquet according to his appetite. The world, too, is a vast banquet and all creatures partake of it according to their needs and capacities: some are content with mere grass, others cat fruit, and still others aspire to more elaborate nourishment. Man partakes of this banquet of being in one way when he is at the animal level and in another way when he has risen above it.
So, too, with the Qur’an: everyone partakes of its banquet according to his own capacities and appetite. The highest share is reserved for the one to whom it was revealed: “The only person who truly knows the Qur’an is he who was addressed by it.” We should not despair, though, but rather should take our own share of the banquet.
The first step is to stop imagining that nothing exists except nature, and that the Qur’an was revealed exclusively to discuss matters of nature and society. Imagine this is to deny prophethood, for the Qur’an was revealed to make men into men, and all matters of worldly and social concern are means to this end.
Worship and prayer are also means to this end, the end of eliciting the true nature of man and making if manifest, of bringing it forth from potentiality into actuality. Natural man should become divine man in the sense that everything pertaining to him should become divine; whatever he looks at he will see God. All the prophets were sent to assist man in attaining this goal.
They did not wish to establish a government or administer the world as an end in itself, although this was part of their mission, for even the animals have a worldly existence and administer their part of the world.
Those who have eyes to see with know that justice is an attribute of God Almighty, and so they strive to establish a government of justice and to ensure social justice. But this is not their ultimate aim; it is merely a means for advancing man toward that goal for the sake of which all the prophets were sent. May God Almighty support us and grant us success in all things.
Fifth Session
Before proceeding, I would like to raise a point, which you Might and useful or even necessary. The disagreements that occur between the visionary and the scholar are caused by their failure to understand each other’s languages, for each has his own distinctive way of expressing things. I do not know whether you have heard the story of the three people - one a Persian, one a Turk, and the other an Arab - who were discussing what they should cat for lunch.
The Persian said, “Let us eat angur”; the Arab said, let us have ‘anab; and the Turk said, “As for me, I would prefer uzum.” Now all three words mean “grapes,” but since they did not understand each other’s languages, they argued until each had to fetch what he desired and they realized they had all wanted the same thing.77
Different languages express the same thing in different ways. The philosophers for example, have their own language and terminology; so, do the mystics, the fuqaha and even the poets.
The Ma’sumin78 (‘a) also have their own language, and we must examine the language of each of the other four groups to see which is closest to the language of the ma’sumin and also to that of the Qur’an. The matter to be expressed is the same: no rational human being who believers in the divine unity will disagree that God Almighty exists and that He is the origin of all existence: all creatures are the outcome of this origin.
No rational person will believe that a man dressed in jacket and trousers, or in turban and cloak, could be God; such a man is a created being. When it comes to interpreting the relationship of God and His creation, however, and choosing terms to express it, disagreements arise. Let us see, then, why the mystics express matters in a certain way, what prompts them to do so.
It is my intention to reconcile the various groups, of course, and to point out that they are all saying the same thing. I do not wish to justify all the philosophers, all the mystics, or all the fuqaha. As the saying goes, “There’s many a cloak that deserves the fire,”79 and the members of each group frequently may deserve criticism. Conversely, within each group there have been many pure individuals, and the disagreements that have arisen have been caused by the failure to comprehend each other’s terminology.
For example, within the madrasa, the Akhbaris80 and the Usulis81 have denounced each other as unbelievers, even though their concerns and beliefs are identical.
The philosophers, or some of them, use terminology like “cause of causes,” “primary cause,” “secondary cause,” “causality,” and so forth. This dry terminology of “causality,” “cause and effect,” “principle and derivative” was especially used at the pre-Islamic philosophers, but our fuqaha have also made free use of it, although, at the same time, they speak of “Creator” and “creation.”
Then there are certain mystics who use a different terminology, such as “manifest,” “manifestation,” and the like. Let us see why they use those terms, and why the terms also occur in the usage of the Imams (‘a), who also refrain from speaking of “causality,” although they do mention “creation.” Why is it that the mystics refrain from using the terminology of the philosophers or common usage, and instead express matters differently?
To speak of cause and effect means that one being - the cause - brings another being - the effect - into existence, so that on the one hand, we have the cause, and on the other, the effect. What do we mean by “on the one hand... and on the other”? Is there a spatial difference between the cause and the effect, as there is with the sun and its light?
The sun possesses the light, insofar as the light emerges from it and is its manifestation, but the sun is a substance located in one place, and its light is another substance located in another place, although it is the effect produced by the sun.
Can we speak of the Essence of the necessary being acting as cause in the sense of natural causation, as when, for example, fire causes heat or the sun causes light, where the effects in both cases is spatially separated from the cause? Can we say that the Supreme Principle is separate from other beings, or that they are spatially and temporally separate from Him?
As I said before, it is difficult to imagine fully the nature of abstract being, particularly the Supreme Principle of all being, God Almighty, and the manner in which He holds all being in His sustaining embrace. What is meant by the Qur’anic saying:
وَهُوَ مَعَكُمْ أَيْنَ مَا كُنْتُمْ
“He is with you wherever you are” (57:4)?
Does “with you” imply some type of physical presence? Phrases like this have been used in the Qur’an and the Sunnah because they are the closest approximation to a reality that cannot be fully expressed. It is extremely difficult to understand the concepts of Creator and created. God Almighty is the Creator and we are created by Him, but does this involve a special difference, and what is the nature of the relationship of the Creator and His creation?
Does it resemble the relationship of fire and the effect it creates, or that of the soul and its visual, auditory, and other capacities? The latter provides a more adequate parallel than any other image, but it still does not fully correspond to the sustaining embrace of all beings, for that embrace means that there is no place in creation where He does not exist.
“Were you to let a rope descend to the nether pails of the earth...”82 you would find there. This and similar traditions are not intended to point out a literal truth, that God Almighty is restrictively located in a certain place like a contingent being, like one of us dressed in turban and cloak. No rational person would make such a statement. Expressions implying a location for God Almighty are merely attempts to make relationship of the Creator and creation comprehensible.
It may happen, however, that someone not fully conversant with these matters might say of a certain thing: “This is God.” It is for this reason that the philosophers, including the Muslims, have said: “Pure being is all things, but is not a single thing among them.”
This statement is not a contradiction, despite its appearance, because pure being rejects all deficiency and possesses all perfection, whereas discrete beings are all deficient. If pure being were then to become identified with a discrete being, it would become deficient, whereas it is complete and exempt from all deficiency.
Being exempt from all deficiency, it is impossible that it should lack a single perfection, and every perfection found in every being therefore comes it and its trace or manifestation. When the manifestation exists in the essence in simple (as opposed to compound) form, it is the totality of perfection and the essence of all perfection.
The statement that pure being is “all things” means, then, that it is all perfection, and the statement that it is “not a single thing among them” means that it is free of all deficiency. That pure being is all things should not be taken to mean that you and I are pure being, for pure being is “not a single thing among them,” and it alone is the totality of perfection.
There are some who, failing to understand matters properly, have quoted in this connection the saying: “Colourlessness tell prey to colour.” The verse in which this saying occurs is not at all related to the matter under discussion, which is the nature of reality. Instead, the verse concerns a war or dispute that arose between two men; but failing to understand the statement, people have regarded it as blasphemous.83
The verse it occurs in seeks to answer the question of why wars arise in the world. What is meant by “colour” in this verse is “attachment,” another expression that occurs in the usage of some poets, as, for example, in the phrase “who is free of all that takes on the colour of attachment.”84
As for colourlessness,” it means lack of attachment to anything in the natural realm. When such attachment no longer exists, dispute and war will vanish. All disputes that arise derive from the covetous attachment of two or more adversaries to the natural realm; the adversaries necessarily oppose each other in everything.
The poet means the primordial disposition of man is free of colour, and when this colour does not exist, dispute will also not exist. If Pharaoh had been, like Moses, without the colour of
attachment, no dispute would have arisen between the two, and if all the people in the world were prophets, no dispute would ever arise.
Disputes arise out of competing attachments. But colourlessness “fell prey to colour: man’s primordial disposition, free of the colour of attachment, and discord arose. Were it not for the colour of attachment, Pharaoh would have made peace with Moses.”
This is the true sense of the verse, on that relates to two separate beings that are at war with each other, not to the nature of arete beings that are with each other, not to the nature of reality or the relation of the Creator of creation. Some people, who have failed to understand the true
meaning of certain terms and expressions used by the mystics, have gone so far as to declare them unbelievers. But let us see whether these concepts and terms do not also occur in the prayers of the Imams (‘a).
In the Invocations of Sha’ban,85 which were recited by all the Imams (something true of no other prayer or invocation), we read as follows:
“O God, grant me total separation from other than You and attachment to You and brighten the vision of our hearts with the light of looking upon You, so that they may pierce the veils of light and attain the fountainhead of magnificence, and our spirits may be suspended from the splendour of Your sanctity. O God, make me one of those who answer You when You call, and who cry out at Your Splendour”
What is meant by these pleas? What did the Imam mean by “total separation from other-than-You and attachment to You”? Why did he petition God for this form of spiritual advancement? He pleads: “Brighten the vision of our hearts.” What could this mean if not a form of vision enabling man to look upon God Almighty?
As for piercing “the veils of light” and attaining “the fountainhead of magnificence,” and our spirits being “suspended from the splendour of God’s sanctity,” this is none other than the state that the Qur’an describes Moses as have in attained, and none other than the effacement and vanishing of which the mystics speak. Similarly, the process of “attaining” the fountainhead of magnificence is precisely the same as the “attaining” to which the mystics refer.86
As for “the fountainhead of magnificence,” it is, of course, God Almighty; since all magnificence derives from Him, He is its fountainhead.
The terminology used by the mystics, then, is consistent with the Qur’an and the asunna, and for this reason, the concept of manifestation they employ is to be preferred to the constricting
notions of causality used the philosophers. “Creator” and “creation” are the terms employed in common usage, but “manifestation” is also preferable to them since it more closely approximates what is an ineffable reality. One may easily assent to the relation of God to His creation, but to imagine it is extremely difficult.
How can we imagine a being that is present everywhere, that is both hidden in things and manifest in them? Indeed, God is the cause of creation, but to say that is not enough, for God is present in all things; in their outward in inward aspects, “There is naught that is without Him.” There is no way that such truths can be fully expressed in words; all that is possible is, for those who have the capacity, to petition God for the immediate experience of reality, as in the Invocations of Sha’ban.
The differences that exist in terminology, then, are no reason for one group to denouncing its accusers as ignorant. We must first understand what is being said, and in the case of the mystic, we must comprehend the inner state that prompts him to express himself in a certain way. Light may sometimes enter his heart in such a manner that he finds himself saying,
“Everything is God.” Remember that in the prayers you recite, expressions occur like “the eye of God,” “the car of God,” “the hand of God,” and all of these are in the same vein as the terminology of the mystics. There is also the tradition to the effect that when you place alms in the hands of the pauper, you are placing them in the hands of God. Then, too, there is the Qur’anic verse:
فَلَمْ تَقْتُلُوهُمْ وَلَٰكِنَّ اللَّهَ قَتَلَهُمْ
“When you cast the dust you did not cast it; rather cast it” (8:17).
What does it mean? That God the dust instead of the Prophet? That is the literal meaning, which you all accept, but those who experience the reality that is indicated in this verse cannot see matters in the same way, and are bound to express themselves differently. Nonetheless, you will the expressions they use throughout the Qur’an and especially in the prayers of the Imams. There is no reason to regard them which suspicion.
We must understand why they express themselves in their particular, distinct way, and why they have deliberately abandoned the common usage of which they are certainly aware.
They have insisted on doing this out of a refusal to sacrifice reality to themselves, and instead, they have sacrificed themselves to reality. If we understand what such persons are attempting to say, we will also understand the terms that they use, which are, after all, expressions derived from the Qur’an and the traditions of the Imams. None of us has the right to say of a certain person or thing, “This is God,” and no rational person would accept such a claim.
However, one may perceive a manifestation of God that is completely impossible to express other than by formulations such as this, which occurs in a prayer concerning the Awliya’: “There is no difference between You and them, except that they are Your servants, whose creation and dissolution lies in Your hands.”
All expressions are necessarily inadequate, but those of the Qur’an and the Sunnah come closer to conveying the truth than all others. Not everyone, of course, is able to comprehend and correctly employ these expressions. There have been some persons, however, who, having a complete and exact mastery of all the sciences, would talk about the manifestation and visage of God. Some of them were my contemporaries, and I was closely acquainted with them.
So, make peace with those given to the use of a certain terminology. I repeat, it is not my wish to defend any category of persons as a whole, or to generalize concerning them. For example, when I speak of the religious scholars, I do not mean that they all possess a given set of attributes. What I wish to make clear is that no class should be rejected as a whole, and that no one should be denounced as an unbeliever merely because he uses the language of the mystics.
First, see what he is saying and then try to understand it; if you do, I do not think you will deny its truth. Bear in mind the parable with which I started: the difference between ‘anab, angiir, and uzum is the same as that between “causality,” “creation,” and “manifestation.”
This problem of terminology is caused by the difficulty of discussing a being who is everywhere but is not identifiable with any object, although we do encounter the terms “hand of God” and “eye of God,” as for example in,
يَدُ اللَّهِ فَوْقَ أَيْدِيهِمْ
“God’s hand is over their hands” (48:10).
In what sense is God's hand over their hands? Clearly, in a supralateral sense, but beyond that we can say very little. In just the same way that God Almighty is exalted beyond commingling with men or substantially conjoining with anything, so, too. He is exalted beyond our fully comprehending a single one of His manifestations. Even His manifestations in their ground are unknown to us. We still believe and do not reject, and we hope that those matters occurring in the Qur’an and the Sunna that we believe in will be made accessible to us.
God says in surah al-Hadid, “He is the First and the Last, the Outward and the Inward,” and also, “He is with you wherever you are.” According to a certain tradition, full comprehension of these expressions, as well as the rest of this sura’s First six verses, is reserved for those who shall come at the end of time. And who among us understand even what is meant by “the end of time”? Probably not more than one or two people in the entire world.
The important point to be noted is that Islam does not merely consist of its ordinances. Ordinances are secondary, not the essence of religion, and the essence should not be sacrificed to the secondary. Once the late Shaykh Muhammad Bahari,87 in seeing a certain person approach, said: “He is a just and unbelieving person.” We asked how this could be. He answered: “He is just in that he acts according to the stipulations of the law, but he is an unbeliever because the god he worships is not God.”
There is also the story in tradition of an ant who thought God had two feelers, for in his self-love, he regarded the possession of two feelers as the mark of perfection! The ant is also mentioned in the Qur’an, in the verse, “When they came to the valley of the ants, one of the ants said to its fellows:
يَا أَيُّهَا النَّمْلُ ادْخُلُوا مَسَاكِنَكُمْ لَا يَحْطِمَنَّكُمْ سُلَيْمَانُ وَجُنُودُهُ وَهُمْ لَا يَشْعُرُونَ
‘O ants! Enter your dwellings lest Solomon and his troops destroy you, for they are unaware (27:18).
فَتَبَسَّمَ ضَاحِكًا مِنْ قَوْلِهَا
So, he [ Solomon] smiled, amused at her speech” (27:19).
The common and that we see everywhere regarded Solomon, then, as unaware. Similarly, the hoopoe said to him:
أَحَطْتُ بِمَا لَمْ تُحِطْ بِهِ
“I have compassed territory that you have not compassed” (27:22).
Now Solomon was a prophet, and one of his companions had brought the throne of Bilqis to him,
قَبْلَ أَنْ يَرْتَدَّ إِلَيْكَ طَرْفُكَ
“In the twinkling of an eye” (27:40).
(This was something unprecedented: was it some form of communication, or was the throne destroyed and then recreated)? It is also said in a certain tradition that another of the companions of Solomon knew one letter of the Supreme Name, Nonetheless, the hoopoe said to Solomon, who had companions of this rank and whose commands unknown to Solomon. We find certain scholars; however, whose rank is obviously less than that of Solomon, denying the validity of mysticism and thus depriving themselves of a form of knowledge.
It is regrettable. When I first went to Qom (soon after the religious leaching institution had been established).88 the late Mirza Akbar Hakim89 (may God have mercy upon him) was still alive. A certain pious individual (may God have mercy upon him, too) said: “See the level to which Islam had fallen; the doors of Mirza ‘Ali Akbar are open to receive students.”
For some of the ‘ulama, among them the late Khwansari90 and the late Ishraqi,91 would go to
Mirza ‘All Akbar’s house to study mysticism with him. Now Mirza ‘All Akbar was a very worthy man. but when he died, there was so much suspicion about him that a preacher found it necessary to testify from the minbar that he had seen him reading the Qur’an.
This greatly disturbed the late Shahabadi92 It is regrettable that some of the ‘ulama should entertain those suspicions and deprive themselves of the benefits to be gained from studying mysticism. Similar attitudes prevail toward philosophy, which is actually very straightforward.
Now if the ‘ulama in question had achieved the same goal that is common to all the groups, such disputes would not have arisen. Those who wear cloaks and turbans and denounce the mystics as unbelievers do not understand what they are saying; if they did, they would not denounce them.
The whole problem is caused by differing terms and expressions. Some people find that the language of causality does not correspond to reality. For as I have repeatedly said in the course of these talks, the name is not separate from the thing named. The name is a manifestation, not s sign comparable to a milestone. The term most suggestive of the relation of creation to God, although still inadequate, is the Qur’anic term ayah.93
The Qur’an is like a banquet which everyone must partake in accordance with his capacity. It belongs to everyone, not to any particular group; there is a share in it for everyone. The same is true of the prayers of the Imams (‘a). They are replete with mystical insight and may be regarded as the tongue or interpreter of the Qur'an, interpreting those aspects of it that lie beyond the reach of other men. People should not be dissuaded from the recitation and study of these prayers; no one should say, “We wish to confine ourselves to the Qur'an.”
It is by means of these prayers that people make the acquaintance of God, and once they do so, neither the world nor their own selves will be of value in their eyes any longer, and they will set to work for God. Those who recited these prayers and experienced the states reflected in them were the very ones who wielded the sword for God’s sake. The Qur’an and prayer are not separate from each other.
Would it occur to anyone to say, “we have the Qur’an., so we no longer need the Prophet”? The Qur'an and the Prophet belong together, and they shall never be separate. Those who wish io bring about such separations - the Qur’an from the Imams, the Imams from their prayers - even going so far as to burn books of prayer, are motivated by the error that invariably befalls those who try to venture beyond their innate limits.
Kasrawi,94 for example, was a historian well-versed in history and also a good writer. But he became arrogant and went so far as to claim prophethood. He laid aside the prayers of the Imams completely, although he continued to accept the Qur’an. Unable to rise to the level of prophethood, Kasrawi brought prophethood down to his own level.
The mystics, the mystically inclines poets, and the philosophers are all saving the same thing, although they use different idioms. The poets have their own terminology and idioms, and among them, Hafiz95 has his own peculiar mode of expression,
If I make repeated use of the same expressions - “manifestation” and so forth - do not object that I have mentioned them already; they must constantly be repeated. Once a group of merchants came to see the late Shahabadi (may God have mercy upon him), and he began to speak to them on the same mystical topics that he taught to everyone.
I asked him whether it was appropriate to speak to them of such matters and he replies: “Let them be exposed just once to these ‘heretical’ teachings!” I too now find it incorrect to divide people into categories and pronounce some incapable of understanding these matters.
A subject for further discussion would be “the Compassionate, the Merciful,” as it occurs both in the bismillah, and in the third verse of the surah, in particular whether the two attributes in the expression bismillah describe the name or Allah.
- 1. Muhy al-Din ibn ‘Arabi: a master of theosophic sufism, 560/1165-638-1240. His influence came to penneate the intellectual and spiritual life of virtually the entire Muslim world. The complete but relatively concise commentary on the Qur’an attributed to him appears in fact to have been written by a later Sufi. ‘Abd al-Razzaq Kashani; nonetheless, it very clearly bears the stamp of ibn ‘Arabi’s thought. In addition. manuscripts survive of partial but more detailed commentaries. See Sulayman Ates, Isari Tefsir Okulu (Ankara, 1974), pp. 177-191.
- 2. ‘Abd al-Razzaq Kashani prolific Suji author, d 730/ 1330 Most of his work bears the imprint of Ibn ‘Arabi’s influence. His best-known work is the Qur’an commentary entitled Ta’wilat, which has been wrongly ascribed to Ibn ‘Arabi See Ates, Isari Tesfir Okuku, pp. 204-211.
- 3. Mulla Sultan ‘Ali: more commonly known as Sultan ‘Alishah, a scholar and Sufi, 125/ 1835-1327/1909. He belonged to the Ginabadi branch of the Ni’matullahi order His commentary on the Qur’an. Bayan as-Sa’adah fi Maqamat al- Ibadah, was completed in 1311/1893 and first published three years later.
- 4. Tantawi: that is, Tantawi Jawhari, an Egyptian scholar, 1287/1871-1358/1940. His commentary on the Qur’an, Tafsir al-Jawahir, is marked by rationalizing tendencies.
- 5. Sayyid Qutb: leader of the Muslim Brethren in Egypt. 1324/1906-1386/1966. He was martyred by the regime of Jamal ‘Abd al-Nasir, which accused him of conspiracy against the state, a charge it was unable to substantiate in court. He was skilful and influential writer and his commentary on the Qur’an. Fi Zilal al-Qur'an, is widely read in the Arab world. It places particular emphasis on the relevance of the Qur’an to the contemporary problems of the Muslim world, as well as on its structural coherence Parts of the commentary have been translated into Persian under the title Dar Sayeh-ye Qur’an. His work on social justice in Islam, al-Idalat al-Ijitima ‘yyah fi’l-lslam, has been made available in Persian translations and has enjoyed in Iran.
- 6. Majma’ al-Bayan: more fully, Majma’ al-Bayan li ‘Ulum al-Qur’an, one of the most voluminous and authoritative Shi’a commentaries on the Qur’an, written by Shaykh Abu ‘Ali Amin al-Din Tabarsi (d. 548/ 1153), who also wrote a number of shorter works on Qur’anic exegesis. See Muhammad ‘Ali Mudarris, Rayhanat al-Adab (Tabriz. n.d.). IV. 36-41.
- 7. Ahle-‘Ismah: t hose possessing the quality of ‘Ismah (see p. 156, n. 67). Viz., the Prophet, his daughter Falimah, and the Twelve Imams. Obviously, the instruction that the Imams received from the Prophet in the interpretation of the Qur’an was not given to them directly (except in the case of ‘Ali, the first Imam). What is meant, rather, is that the Imams inherited from the Prophet a certain body of teaching concerning the interpretation of the Qur’an, which they enriched as they transmitted it.
- 8. See p. 317, no. 105.
- 9. Seal of the Prophet: an epithet of the Prophet Muhammad, in whom prophethood reached its culmination and perfection.
- 10. Awliya’: see p. 361, no. 2.
- 11. The Supreme Name is generally held to be the name Allah, which is supreme in that it relates to the essence and all other names are subsumed within it.
- 12. See al-Qasi ‘Iyad, ash-Shifa bi Ta’rif Huquq al-Mustafa (Damascus, n.d.), I. 577-578.
- 13. Given the special qualities of the name Allah that are under discussion here; qualities that are absent from all other designations of God, we leave it untranslated.
- 14. Arabic expression of unknown provenance.
- 15. The names Compassionate (Rahman) and Merciful (Rahim) relate to different aspects of divine mercy. The former manifests itself through the provision that God makes for the material necessities of all creatures by placing appropriate forms of sustenance in the world and equipping them with bodily senses and organs. Since the manifestation of this name makes no distinction between believer and nonbeliever, worshipper and sinner; rainfall may be regarded as its outward symbol. The name Merciful is manifested through the sending of revelation and guidance and the granting of salvation in the hereafter: only those who believe in religion and follow it benefit from this manifestation. See al-Ghazali, al-Maqsad al-Asna fi Sharh Ma’ani Asma alHusna, ed. Fadlou Shihadi (Beirut, 1971 ), pp. 65-70.
- 16. An allusion to the tradition: “My compassion has out stripped My anger,” a celebrated hadith qudsi recorded by Bukhari, Muslim, Ibn Maja, and others. The sense is that mercy is intrinsic to the essence and thereby has primacy over anger.
- 17. Zayd and ‘Amr: two paradigmatic names commonly used in grammatical and legal discussions.
- 18. This verse revealed with reference to the Battle of Badr, the first engagement of the Muslim community in Medina with its enemies in Mecca, which took place in the second year of the Islamic era. In the course of the battle, the Prophet cast a handful of dust in the direction of the enemy, miraculously inducing panic in them. The statement that in reality it was not the Prophet but God Who cast the dust means that the Prophet, emptied of personal volition, was a pure instrument for the accomplishment of a divine act.
- 19. In the sixth year of the Islamic era, a group of Muslims swore allegiance to the Prophet at Hudaybiyyah. When they placed their hands on the hand of the Prophet as the outward sign of their pledge, his hand was a “manifestation of God” because obedience: to him was equivalent to obedience to God. (see Qur’an, 4:80: “Whoever obeys the Messenger obeys God.” and p. 78).
- 20. Ismah: see p. 156, n. 67.
- 21. Backbiting (qibah) is defined as mentioning behind the back of; mother a fault that he may possess but that one would not mention in h is hearing. This practice is severely condemned in Qur’an. 49:12, where it is compared to eating the flesh of one’s dead brother.
- 22. In addition to the physical heart (often termed qalb senubari, “pineal heart”), there is a subtle heart that stands in an indefinable relationship to it and serves as the organ of faith and inner vision.
- 23. Shirk: see p. 154, n. 42.
- 24. A tradition of the Prophet.
- 25. The statement that “everything that is, is He,” as well as similar formulations elsewhere in these lectures, should not be understood in a pantheistic sense. It does not mean that God is coextensive with His creation, so that creation enjoys divinity, but rather that other-than-God does not exist: He is the sole reality and the sole existence.
- 26. An utterance probably of the Commander of the Faithful. ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib.
- 27. A celebrated hemistich from the Mathnawi of the great Sufi poet Mawlana Jalal al-Din Rumi (604/1207-672-1273). The complete line reads: “Those who seek proof have wooden legs: wooden legs are very infirm.” (Book 1, line 2128).
- 28. Fiqh: see p. 157, n. 81.
- 29. Divine agent: fa’il-e Ilahi, “that which makes the thing caused (ma’lul) emerge from utter non-existence into existence, which bestows perfection without losing it, and from the scope of whose being and the radiation of whose light none may escape” (Mulla Hadi Sabzevari, Sharh-e Manzumah, eds, M. Muhaqqiq and T. Izutsu [Tehran. 1348 Sh./ 1979], p. I 85).
- 30. Tradition ascribed to Imam Ja’far al-Sadiq.
- 31. For a similar interpretation of this verse by the Sufi ‘Ayn al-Qudat Hamadani (d.526/1137), see Namahat-e ‘Ayn al-Qudat Hamadani, eds, ‘A, Munzawi and ‘A, ‘Usayran (Tehran, 1350 Sh./1972), 11, 24.
- 32. In the other sense, their migration is continuing because given the infinity of the divine being, there is no question of His constituting a destination that sooner or later may he reached.
- 33. Imam Khomeini’s inclusion of himself in the group of those who have “not even begun to migrate” should be taken neither; as an accurate description of his state nor as formal self-deprecation. Instead, it is an expression of genuine humility and, at the same time, self-identification with his audience for didactic purposes.
- 34. Cf, Surah An-Nisa: “God commands you to return trusts to their possessors” (4:58).
- 35. A tradition recorded by Bayhaqi.
- 36. These remarks should not be taken to imply a total disavowal of war. They are intended rather to condemn the wars that arise from two competing egoisms, which disregard divine norms, not the wars waged by truth against falsehood or-the wars the Islamic state may find itself compelled to wage. For clarification, see the discussion of the conflict between Moses and the Pharaoh on pp. 419-420.
- 37. The lesser jihad is the struggle against the visible enemy in the battle field, and the greater or supreme jihad is the ceaseless war man is called upon to wage against his lower self. See p. 349.
- 38. Battle of the Ditch: a battle fought in the fifth year of the Islamic era against the Maccan polytheists and their allies who sought to conquer Medina. The battle was so called because of the ditch dug around the city as a defensive measure. See also p. 160, n 123.
- 39. Kufr: see p 153, n. 40.
- 40. Abu Sufyan: the leader of the Meccan opposition to the Prophet for many years who later accepted Islam when it became apparent that the Muslims were about to conquer Mecca. He died during the caliphate of ‘Uthman, at the age of 88.
- 41. Mu’awyah: see p. 158, n. 101.
- 42. This phrase, the source of which we have been unable to identify, is quoted by Imam Khomeini in Arabic.
- 43. A tradition varyingly attributed to the Prophet and to Imam ‘Ali.
- 44. Mushrik: one who is guilty of shirk (see p. 154, n. 42).
- 45. A prayer attributed to the fifth and sixth Imams. Its recitation is particularly recommended during the last hours of Friday. For the text of the prayer, see Shaykh ‘Abbas Qummi, Mafatih al-Jinan (Tehran, n.d.), pp. 95-100.
- 46. See Jalal al-Din al-Suyun al-Itqan fi ‘Ulum al-Qu’an (Cairo, 1370/1951), I. 39 ff.
- 47. The Prophet was not only the transmitter of the Qur’an to mankind at large but also its primary recipient: certain aspects of its meaning were reserved for him alone.
- 48. See no. 46 above.
- 49. Unveiling: kashf, immediate awareness of those unseen matters that lie beyond the dark and light veils of God’s creation.
- 50. I.e., Ali ibn Abi Talib, the phrase, “in every respect” obviously does not mean that he succeeded to the prophetic function of the Messenger, but rather that he inherited full political authority as well as a unique competence to understand and interpret the Qur’an. See no 47 above.
- 51. That is, the mind of this man would wander so uncontrollably during prayer that he might accidentally remember something he had forgotten.
- 52. The science of tawhid: that discipline of theology which seeks to establish the divine unity and related doctrines by means of rational argument.
- 53. Shaykh ‘Abdullah Ansari: a prolific Sufi author, 396/1006-481/1089. A scholar of great literary skill anti spiritual insight, he wrote in both Persian anti Arabic. For the relevant passage in his Manazil al-Sai’rin (“The Stage of the Wayfarers”), see pp. 16-17 of the edit ion published in Cairo in 1954 by Serge Laugier de Beaurecueil, together with the Sharh (“commentary”) of ‘Abd al-mu’ti al-Iskandari. The commentary defines “arising” as: “awakening” from the slumber of neglect and emerging from the pit of apathy.
- 54. This statement is not intended to sanction “vast estates,” but merely to emphasize that the essence of worldliness is attachment to possessions, not the mere owing of them.
- 55. An allusion to one of the celebrated quatrains of ‘Umar Khayyam (412/1021-515/112):
1. A shaykh once said to a whore: “You’re drunk.
2.And held each night in a different embrace!”
3. Said she: “O Shaykh, I am indeed all that you say.
4. But are you truly all that you seem? - 56. Abu Sufyan: see no. 41 above.
- 57. A similar interpretation of this “clouding” of the Prophet's heart is to be found in the celebrated seventh- thirteenth - century Sufi compendium Mirsad al-‘Ibad, by Najm al-Din Radi (p. 326 of the Tehran edition of 1352 Sh./1973).
- 58. i.e., ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib.
- 59. Dhikr: inducing or maintaining a slate of awareness of God. especially by means of the vocal or silent recitation of His Supreme Name.
- 60. Day of Arafat: the ninth of the month of Dhu’l-Hijjah. when all the pilgrims participating in the hajj must be present at the plain of ‘Arafat outside Mecca. For the text of the prayer that Imam Husayn recited on this day, see Shaykh ‘Abbas Qummi, Mafatih al-Jinan, pp. 350-369, and for a translation of it, see William C. Chittick, A Sh‘ite Anthology (Albany. N.Y., 1980), Pp. 93-113.
- 61. Invocations of Sha’ban: see p. 349.
- 62. The Prayer of Kumayl: a prayer taught to Kumayl ibn Ziyad, a close associate of Imam ‘Ali, by the Imam. Its recitation is particularly recommended during the early hours of Friday. For the text, see Shaykh ‘Abbas Qummi, Mafatih al-Jinan, pp. 83-90. See introductory note by Shaykh ‘Abbas Qummi, Mafatih al-Jinan, p. 213.
- 63. Nahj al-Balaghah: a collection of sermons, addresses and epistles attributed to ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib. It was compiled by Sayyid Sharif Radi in the fourth/tenth century.
- 64. Mafatih al-Jinan: the standard manual of Shi’i devotion, containing the supplicatory prayers of the Imams, as well as formulae for recitation at particular times or during visitation of the tombs of the Imams. Its compiler, Shaykh ‘Abbas Qummi, was a scholar of vas learning who died in Najaf in 1359/ 1940.
- 65. Kasrawi: more fully, Ahmad Kasrawi, an Iranian historian, 1306/1888- l364/l 945. In a series of controcersial worls, he attacked both Sufism and Shi’i Islam as sources of superstition and national retardation (see his Sufigari and Shi’agari). He also attempted to propagate a “pure Persian” language, replacing all Arabic loanwords with coinages of his own, mid a pseudo-religion he called Pak-Din (the pure religion). He was assassinated in 1945 by Nawwab Safawi, founder of the Fida‘iyan-e Islam, an organization dedicated to the: installation of an Islamic polity in Iran. See also p. 425.
- 66. The sense of this tradition (which may not be authentic) is connected to another tradition, which states: “All that is in the revealed books is in the Qur’an; all that is in the Qur’an is in Sunah al-Fatihah: all that is in Surah al Fatihah is in bismillah; all that is in bismillah is in the letter ba: all that is in the letter ba is in the dot beneath it.” See Isma’il haqqi al-Burusawi. Ruh al Bayan (Istanbul, 1389/1969). I. 10. Correlating the two traditions, we conclude that ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib was a compressed manifestation in human forms of the truths of revelation.
- 67. Concerning universal wilayah, see p. 155, no. 63
- 68. Wahidiyyat: oneness as it pertains to the divine attributes; the unity that pervades the multiplicity of the divine attributes and assures the coherence of their manifestation in creation.
- 69. Witnessing: shuhud, the witnessing of God that excludes any awareness of self and that takes place through the agency of God Himself, not by means of any organ of vision, whether outer or inner.
- 70. This sentence is quoted by Imam Khomeini in Arabic. We have not been able to identify its origin.
- 71. We are unable to identify the mystic intended here. It may be Abu Sa’id ibn Abu’l-Khayr (350/967-440/1049), a contemporary of Avicenna, who was paid a visit by the great philosopher in about 403/10 12. Abu Sa’id and Avicenna were closeted together for three days, at the end of which Avicenna’s pupils asked him his opinion of the mystic. He replied: “All that I know, he sees,” Similarly, the disciples of Abu Sa’id asked him for his evaluation of Avicenna. He answered: “All that I see, he knows,” See Muhammad ibn Manawwar, Asrar at-Tawhid (Tehran, 1348 Sh./ l 979), pp. 209-211.
- 72. “Tranquillity of the heart”: an allusion to Qur’an: “Is it not by the remembrance of God that hearts attain tranquillity?” (13:28).
- 73. In addition to the division of the Qur’an into suras of differing lengths, there is also a purely quantitative division into thirty equal parts.
- 74. “The unseen and the manifest”: the two realms of creation mentioned in numerous verses of the Qur’an that subsume all orders of being.
- 75. Wilayat: See p. 155, n. 63
- 76. That is although the two names are separate in meaning, (see no. 15 above), they do not designate separate “aspects” of God, which would be to the entirety of the essence.
- 77. This celebrated story is taken from the Mathnawi of Jalal al-Din Rumi, where the Persian, the Arab, and the Turk are joined by a Greek who expresses a preference for istafil. See Mathnawi, II, lines 3681 -3686.
- 78. Ma’sumin: those possessing the quality of ‘Ismah (see p. 1 56, no. 67 above): i.e., the Prophet, Fatimah, and the Twelve Imams.
- 79. In this saying, the cloak (khirqah) serves as a symbol of the Sufi, particularly the one who puts trust in outward appearances.
- 80. Akhbaris: a school of Shi’a law that in outward to a narrow reliance on the Qur’an and the Sunna of the Prophet and the Imams, rejecting secondary sources of law. It was largely displaced in Iran toward the end of the eighteenth century, but it continues to exist in Shi’a communities of Kuwait, Bahrayn, and the Qatif region of Eastern Arabia.
- 81. Usulis: the: adversaries of the Akhbaris. They hold that the faqih may legitimately apply rational exertion to the: solution of legal problems. The Iranian religious scholars have been overwhelmingly Usuli since the late eighteenth century. For an account of the disputes between the Akhbaris and Unis, see Hamid Algar, Religion and State in Iran. 1785-1906 (Berkeley, 1969), pp. 33-36.
- 82. The first part of a tradition of the Prophet, indicating the universal presence of God.
- 83. “Colourlessness fell prey to colour,” a quotation from Jalal al-Din Rumi. Mathawi, I, line 2467: “When colourlessness fell prey to colour, a Moses came into conflict a Moses.” The meaning is that Pharaoh, in his primordial nature free of attachment and colour (and therefore himself “a Moses”), became coloured by attachment and thus the antithesis of Moses. The erroneous interpretation of the verse that Imam Khomeini is seeking to correct sees “colourlessness” as pure being and “colour” as things in their multiplicity.
- 84. See Hafiz, Diwan, eds, Furughi and Ghani (Tehran. n.d.), p. 37. The complete line reads: “I am a slave to the aspiration of him who is free of all that takes on the colour of attachment.”
- 85. See p. 349.
- 86. See Shaykh Abbas Qummi, Mafatih al-Jinan, p. 216.
- 87. Shaykh Muhammad Bahari: presumably a contemporary of Imam Khomeini during his years of study at Qom.
- 88. See the introduction to this anthology, p 14.
- 89. Mirza Ali Akhbar Hakim: also, Yazdi, one of Imam Khomeini’s; teachers of philosophy, and himself, the foremost pupil of the celebrate Mulla Hadi Sabzevari (1212/l797-1295/1878). He died in 1344/1925. See Muhammad Radi, Asrar al-Hujjah, (Qum, 1332 Sh, 1953) I, 216.
- 90. Khwansari: see p. 165, n. 188.
- 91. Ishraqi: more fully. Mirza Muhmmad Taqi Ishraqi, a celebrated scholar and preacher. l313/1895-1368/ l949. He used to include political comment in the sermons he gave in Qum: he was also the father of Imam Khomeini’s son-inlaw. Hujjat al-lslam Shahab Ishraqi. See Radi, Asrar al-Hujjah, I 135-137.
- 92. Shahabadi: more fully, Mirza Muhammad ‘Ali Shahabadi,” master of both the religious and the rational sciences, 1292/1875-1369/1950. He spent the years between 1347/1928 and 1347/1935 teaching in Qum, where Imam Khomeini was among his foremost students. See Razi, Asrar al-Hujjah, I, 217-219.
- 93. Aya: sign, Cf, Qur’an: “We shall show them Our signs (Ayat) on the horizons and and their own selves” (41:53), that is, God has placed in man’s cosmic environment and within his own being indications of His reality.
- 94. Kasrawi, See no. 68 above.
- 95. Hafiz: the supreme master of Persian lyrical poetry, 726/1325-792/1390. His verse is marked by a rich interplay between different levels of meaning mystical and profane, personal and political.