Treatise on Dispelling Doubts

The Concept and Meaning of Innovation (Bid’ah)

In linguistics, bid’ah means creating something new, and in religious terms, it refers to introducing into the religion something that was not originally part of it, which is divided into forbidden and non-forbidden aspects from a primary perspective.

Some jurists have classified what appeared after the Prophet - peace be upon him and his family - into the five rulings: obligatory, forbidden, recommended, disliked, and permissible. However, they have reserved the term bid’ah specifically for the forbidden category, which is the common understanding today, as indicated by Shahid Awwal in his book “Qawaid”.

An obligatory example includes: disseminating religious rulings in any way that does not explicitly contradict Sharia laws, such as the necessity of preserving and recording religious hadiths narrated by the great figures of the religion.

A recommended example includes: establishing schools and hospitals, or reciting supplications in a specific order or after the five daily prayers, or resorting to the names of religious figures and making them a regular practice, even if there is no explicit text from the Imams of Guidance - peace be upon them - on this matter.

A forbidden example includes: the Qadariyya and Jabriyya sects, belief in vision and incarnation, and the like, or saying اَلصَّلوةُ خَیر مِن النّوم instead of حی عَلی خَیرِ العَمَل and including it in the call to prayer, or leading congregational prayers in voluntary prayers, or saying Amen after Surah Hamd in prayer, and neglecting Taqsir in the Umrah of Tamattu', and the like.

Others have said that bid’ah is of two types: bid’ah of guidance and bid’ah of misguidance; that which goes against God’s command is misguidance and forbidden, and that which is pleasing to God, even if it has not explicitly reached the Sharia, is praiseworthy and good.

However, the Imami jurists, as mentioned, have reserved the term bid’ah for what has been introduced in worship or in general rulings contrary to the commands of the sacred lawgiver, which constitutes the forbidden category, and they do not consider the obligatory or recommended as bid’ah.

Accordingly, continuing practices from the time of the Prophet - peace be upon him and his family - and the Imams of Guidance - peace be upon them - even if some believe their reasons have disappeared during the occultation, is not considered bid’ah, especially if it is a matter of ijtihad.

For example, the belief in the obligation of the Friday prayer, which some Shia scholars have issued a fatwa for, is not considered bid’ah by those who believe its reasons have ceased during the occultation and have deemed it forbidden, even if it contradicts their fatwa and opinion. Or if a matter is mentioned to facilitate practice and caution is observed, it is not bid’ah because it is not the introduction of a new ruling in the religion and is not forbidden.

Likewise, invoking God with any supplication or in a specific arrangement that aids focus, even if it has not been transmitted in that arrangement by the pure Imams - peace be upon them - is not contrary unless there is an explicit text specifying a particular order or number, in which case deviation is not commendable, such as adding or subtracting in the Tasbih of Lady Fatimah - peace be upon her - which is against the instructions because it is recommended in its specific arrangement, just as additions or omissions in obligatory worship are forbidden and invalidate it.

With this explanation, adhering to specific supplications or resorting to the names of the Imams of Guidance - peace be upon them - even if not transmitted, is not problematic and is not considered bid’ah or forbidden; in fact, resorting to them and repeating their noble names in any way is praiseworthy.

Similarly, opposing rulings that are subject to disagreement, and even opposing the well-known ruling or nearly unanimous fatwa, is not bid’ah unless it is a matter of consensus, which must be explicit, not reported, as the validity of reported consensus is disputed. Opposing rulings accepted due to leniency in the evidence of Sunan is not considered bid’ah since it is not opposing a definitive religious ruling.

Regarding Mahdi and Mahdism

The term “Mahdi” means guided and is a title and attribute for all the Twelve Imams - peace be upon them - each of whom was a guide, Mahdi, successor, proof, and master of the sword in their time. As it is said: كُلُّنا هادٍ وَ كلُّنا مهدی . Each had a specific title, like Baqir and Sadiq, or Taqi and Hadi, which are special titles. The awaited Mahdi, Hazrat Hujjat ibn Hasan al-Askari - may God hasten his reappearance - is the twelfth successor of the Prophet - peace be upon him and his family - whose specific title is also Mahdi. He is the refuge of the mystics, the sanctuary of the pious, and the axis of the universe, with the world being alive through his existence and his grace reaching the world from behind the veil of occultation, ولَولاه لَسَاختِ الارضُ بِاَهلِها .

Some have expressed that Mahdism in a broader sense means what was mentioned, not something else to be objected to; that is, all divine representatives are guides and Mahdi, derived from a hadith from the infallibles stating that all those great ones are guides and Mahdi. This title, in truth, is exclusive to the Imams of Guidance - peace be upon them. Representatives of the Imams of Guidance - peace be upon them - are Mahdi in a shadow and subsidiary sense, guided by those great ones, and also guides and leaders. This designation for them is figurative and due to their connection to those great ones, not implying a divine proof, as this position in Islam is exclusive to the sacred beings of the Prophet - peace be upon him and his family - and the Imams of Guidance - peace be upon them.

Most Sunnis believe that Hazrat al-Askari - peace be upon him - had no children, and some who acknowledge his birth think he passed away after a natural lifespan. They generally say that the awaited Mahdi, who will appear, will be one of the descendants of the Holy Prophet (PBUH), who may not yet be born.

However, the Twelver Shia belief, generally among mystics and others, is that Hazrat al-Askari (PBUH) had a male child who is his immediate successor, the Mahdi, and the proof of the era, alive and in occultation, and the world awaits his appearance.

Hazrat Shah Nematollah Vali, whose Nematollahi order is proud to be associated with him, was known for his zeal in the Twelver faith. Even when Shia were in dissimulation, he openly professed Shiism and even wore a twelve-segmented crown representing Twelver Shiism. As it is written, one of his close followers, Sayyid Minhaj, received instructions from him to sew the twelve-segmented crown for followers in honor of being Twelver, and he personally wore it. Since then, the Nematollahi dervishes have worn the twelve-segmented crown. The naming of the order as Razavi is because the affairs of the path were more widely spread by Imam Reza (PBUH) than other Imams, just as the rulings of the Sharia were more widely spread by Imam Sadiq (PBUH). Thus, the Twelver path is known as the Razavi path, and the doctrine as the Jafari doctrine. This fame does not mean that the Imams after Imam Sadiq (PBUH) or Imam Reza (PBUH) are not accepted. The formalization of Shiism in Iran was by the Safavid kings, who undoubtedly were Sufis.

Therefore, Shia Sufis, besides being Twelvers themselves, take pride in having promoted the Twelver doctrine in Iran and made it official. Some Sunni hardliners have cast doubt among their followers by claiming that Shiism was created by Shah Ismail Safavi, which is not the case. According to our belief, the original doctrine of Islam is Shiism, and doctrines contrary to it are fabricated because Shiism is following the Prophet’s command: مَنْ كُنْتُ مولاهُ فَهذا علی مولاه and doctrines contrary to it were created after his passing.

The Nematollahi dervishes always seek recourse to that noble figure and mention his name several times a day, reciting the “Salawat Kabira” , and as it has been included among the names of the other infallibles - peace be upon them - it is mentioned in succession, removing any aspect of disrespect in mentioning the name. Even when sleeping, they seek recourse to his essence and the great forefathers, with their main intention being to rise in obedience. They consider outward standing, which specifically involves mentioning the name, acceptable when it represents inward commitment. But if we only rely on outward standing and do not consider his satisfaction in our behavior and speech, this standing has no effect.

I hope that the Almighty God grants us the success to rise in obedience to that great figure.

Specific and General Deputization

There are two terms for deputization: one used by jurists and scholars of hadith, and the other by mystics and followers of the spiritual path. One refers to the general and specific nature of permission itself, while the other pertains to the context and application of the permission.

Jurists refer to a specific deputy as someone directly authorized by the Imam - peace be upon him - and a general deputy as jurists who fall under the acceptance of the Hadith of Umar ibn Hanzala . According to this terminology, specific deputization is considered non-existent during the Greater Occultation, and claiming it is incorrect, a belief shared by mystics.

However, the mystics’ terminology differs. They consider a specific deputy to be someone authorized by the Imam - peace be upon him - either directly or through sound and unblemished intermediaries in a specific matter (such as leading congregational prayers, collecting alms, explaining rulings, or teaching supplications). A general deputy is someone authorized by the Imam - peace be upon him - in all religious matters, but the permission must reach the Imam - peace be upon him - even through intermediaries. This meaning is also used in some jurisprudential contexts (Sharh Lum’a, Book of Jihad, Chapter: Abandoning Combat).

During the Greater Occultation, as visiting the Imam - peace be upon him - is not outwardly possible, direct permission does not exist. However, the connection of permission to the time of the Imam - peace be upon him - is possible, and those who undertake religious affairs must have this permission. Previous scholars used to include their permission in their writings as evidence of their commitment to obtaining permission.

Therefore, if mystics mention specific or general deputization, they mean their terminology, which is not problematic, and specific deputization in that sense is possible. General deputization in the mystics’ terminology is more important than specific deputization, contrary to the jurists’ terminology, where it is the opposite. According to the mystics’ terminology, both series have specific deputization; scholars in narrating and propagating religious rulings, and mystics in understanding and teaching spiritual practices and heart-focused instructions. This difference is due to differing terminologies ولا مُشاحَةَ فِی الاِصْطَلاح , and the mystics’ claim is only deputization from the Imam according to their terminology, not otherwise.

Umar ibn Hanzala asked Imam Sadiq - peace be upon him - about two of our companions (Shia) who have a dispute over a loan or inheritance. Is it permissible to refer to the current ruler or judge? He replied: Whoever refers to opponents of the guardianship and followers of Satan, if they rule in his favor, even if he is right, his action is invalid as it is based on the judgment of a tyrant ruler, and God has commanded disbelief in the tyrant ruler. Umar ibn Hanzala asked, “What is the duty then?” He replied: If one of you narrates our hadiths, is aware of our halal and haram, and knows our rulings, make him a judge among you, for I have appointed him as a judge. In another narration, it states: If he issues a ruling and they do not obey, they have disregarded God’s ruling and rejected us, and whoever rejects us rejects God, as if associating partners with Him.

In a detailed narration from Imam Sadiq (PBUH) about the difference between the scholars and common people of the Jews and the scholars and common people of my community, it is stated: فَامّا مَنْ كانَ مِنَ الْفُقَهاء صائناً لِنَفْسِهِ حافظاً لِدینِهِ مُخالِفاً عَلی هَواه مُطیعاً لِاَمْرِ مولاه فَلِلْعَوامِ اَنْ یقَلِّدوهُ. Meaning, whoever among the jurists controls and preserves himself, maintains his religion, opposes his desires, and obeys his master’s commands, the people must follow him.

The Concept of Allegiance (Bay’ah)

Allegiance (Bay’ah) is the act of making a covenant with God through the Prophet or his representative, pledging to follow his commands and be completely obedient. In other words, it is selling one’s life and wealth to God through His representative, as stated: اِنَّ اللّهَ اشّتَری مِنَ المُومِنینَ اَنْفُسَهُم وَ اَمْوالَهُم بِاَنَّ لَهُم الْجَنَّة.

The first step on the path to perfection is this allegiance, as having a guide is essential in Shia Islam. The acceptance of worship and progression in faith depend on connection to a guide, and the practical connection is through allegiance.

Therefore, allegiance is required not only by scriptural evidence from verses and Hadiths but also by reason. It existed before Islam, and the concept of baptism of repentance mentioned in the Gospel is the same. Allegiance is not limited to times of war, as verses and Hadiths on allegiance, like the verse above and اِنَّ الّذینَ یبایعونَكَ اِنّما یبایعونَ اللّه (Indeed, those who ally with you, they are allying with Allah.), and as interpreters write, the verse: وَ مَنْ یهاجِرْ فی سَبیلِ اللّهِ یجِدْ فِی الاَرْضِ مُراغَماً كَثیراً وَ سَعَةً وَ مَنْ یخْرُجْ مِنْ بَیتِهِ مُهاجِراً اِلی اللّهِ وَ رَسولِهِ refer to Dhamra bin Ays, who, despite being ill, said it was forbidden for him to stay in Mecca and prepared to leave, declaring his allegiance to God. This shows that allegiance is general and not limited to war, as the command for jihad had not yet been issued.

The verse on women’s allegiance is also general, and without specific reason, it is not restricted. Historically, allegiance during jihad emphasized obedience and sacrifice, but it was generally for entering the faith, as seen with the people of Medina’s allegiance to Mus’ab after bathing, even though there was no jihad ruling then.

The phrase وَ اَثابَهُم فَتْحاً قَریباً refers to the conquest of Khaybar, which happened later and was not directly related to that allegiance, showing its general nature. Caliphs insisted on taking allegiance, adopting it from the rightful ones.

In Shia Islam, allegiance is necessary, and the party of allegiance must be a divine representative, such as the Prophet, an Imam, or an authorized representative of the Imam, since allegiance is a transaction with God. The representative’s legitimacy from God must be confirmed to conduct what is exclusively God’s right, requiring careful attention to avoid errors.

In the time of the Prophet and the Imams, when direct access was not possible, representatives were appointed to take allegiance, and their physical absence did not remove the obligation. Similarly, the absence of the Imam does not remove obligations, and logical evidence shows that this essential aspect of the faith must exist. Even during the occultation, representatives of the Imam should be present to convey religious rulings, as real and true scholars. Representatives of the hidden Imam - may God hasten his reappearance - should also be among the people to guide them, and their permission should securely reach the Imam, making allegiance to them, as authorized by the Imam, an allegiance to him. In one of the visitations of Imam Mahdi - may God hasten his reappearance - recited every morning, mentioned in Mafatih by Sheikh Abbas Qomi, it states: اِنّی اُجَدِّدُ لَهُ فِی هذا الیوْمِ وَ فِی كُلّ یوْمٍ عَهْداً و عَقْداً و بَیعَةً فِی رَقَبَتی . It’s clear that during the occultation, direct access to the Imam is not possible, so allegiance should be through authorized representatives.

The known Supplication of Relief, also called the Supplication of the Covenant, mentioned in that book and other supplication collections, with great merit for reciting it for forty mornings, includes: اَللّهُمَّ اِنّی اُجَدِّدُ لَهُ فی صَبیحَةِ یوْمی هذا و ما عِشْتُ مِنْ ایامی عَهْداً و عَقْداً و بَیعَةً لَهُ فی عُنُقی لا اَحولُ عَنْها و لا اَزُولُ. Since direct visitation and allegiance with the Imam is not possible, this implies that allegiance is through intermediaries, and representatives should exist for conveying detailed rulings, which are the jurists - كَثَّرَ اللّه امْثالَهُم - as previously mentioned. These two branches existed among Shia during the time of appearance, both inviting on behalf of the Imam, not independently, as Mus’ab ibn Umair came to Medina for allegiance to Islam on behalf of the Prophet - peace be upon him and his family - and Muslim ibn Aqil - peace be upon him - was sent to Kufa by Imam Husayn - peace be upon him - to take allegiance. Thus, allegiance during the occultation must also be with the rightful ones, with a proper understanding of who is worthy, and allegiance with unworthy individuals is innovation. This principle applies not only to allegiance but to all religious matters, where following unworthy individuals in legal and spiritual matters is not permissible. In legal matters, only those who truly embody the acceptance of Umar ibn Hanzala’s narration can be leaders for Shia. The real difference lies in determining the subject and instance, not the principle, and it requires investigation and inquiry to understand, as وَالَّذینَ جاهدُوا فینا لَنَهدِینَّهُم سُبُلَنا states that whoever seeks God and true religion, God will eventually guide them, even if initially doubtful.

Allegiance of men differs from that of women, as for men, according to the verses, the right hands should touch, but for women, this is not the case, as shaking hands with a non-mahram woman is not permissible. Allegiance was taken differently, as narrated in Al-Kafi from Imam Sadiq (PBUH) that Umm al-Hakam, wife of Ikrimah ibn Abi Jahl, during the conquest of Mecca, came to pledge allegiance to the Prophet (PBUH). After asking questions, she said: یا رَسولَ اللّه، كَیفَ نُبایعُك؟ قال: اِننّی لا اُصافِحُ النّساءَ فَدَعا بِقَدحٍ مِنْ ماءٍ فَاَدْخَلَ یدَهُ ثُمَّ اَخْرَجَها. فَقالَ: اَدْخِلْنَ ایدیكُنَّ فِی هذا الماء. Meaning, she asked how they should pledge allegiance, and he replied that he does not shake hands with women. He then called for a vessel of water, placed his hand in it and withdrew it, and said, “Put your hands in this water.” Another narration of the same kind states: فَكانَتْ یدُ رَسولِ اللّهِ الطّاهِرَةِ اَطْیبُ مِنْ اَنْ یمُسَّ بها كَفَّ اُنْثی لَیسَتْ لَهُ بِمَحْرمٍ. Meaning, the pure hand of the Prophet was too noble to touch the hand of a woman who was not a mahram, indicating that a mediator should be present for allegiance to avoid direct contact between non-mahram hands.

Regarding the Islamic Ritual Bath (Ghusl)

In this context, Islam refers to submitting to God’s command. When a person decides to fully surrender and obey the sacred law, they perform a ritual bath (Ghusl) with this intention, which is permissible. Similar to the ritual baths for repentance, visitation, and needs, this concept is supported by scripture, as seen in the verse: وَ مَنْ یسْلِمْ وَجْهَهُ اِلی اللّهِ وَ هُوَ مُحْسِنٌ فَقَدِ اسْتَمْسَكَ بِالْعُرْوَةِ الْوُثْقی .

In Al-Kafi , it is narrated from Imam Ali - peace be upon him - who said: لَاَنْسِبَنّ الاسلامَ نِسْبَةً لَمْ ینْسِبْهُ اَحَدٌ قَبْلی و لا ینْسِبُهُ [احدٌ [بَعدی الاّ بِمِثْلِ ذلِكَ. اِنَّ الاِسْلامَ هُوَ التّسلیمُ و التّسلیمُ هُوَ الیقینُ وَ الْیقینُ هُوَ التّصدیقُ و التّصدیقُ هُوَ الاقرارُ، وَ الاقرارُ هُوَ العَمَلُ وَ الْعَمَلُ هُوَ الاداءُ .

Islam also means sincerity in action, as mentioned in the Quran: وَ مَنْ اَحْسَنُ دیناً مِمَّنْ اَسْلَمَ وَجْهَهُ ِللَّه and elsewhere: فَاِنْ حاجُّوكَ فَقُلْ اَسْلَمْتُ وَجْهِی لِلّه وَ مَن اتَّبَعَنِ . Some linguists say that when Islam is followed by “إلى” it means submission, and with “لـ” it means sincerity, though some say both meanings apply in both cases. The Quran uses the term Islam in various senses, such as in the story of Abraham - peace be upon him: اِذْ قالَ لَهُ رَبُّهُ اَسْلِمْ قالَ اَسْلَمْتُ لِرَبِّ العالَمین and in Sura Al-Saffat: فَلَمّا اَسْلَما وَ تَلَّهُ لِلجَبینِ . This demonstrates that the term here is not referring to outward Islam. In Sura Al-Naml, regarding Solomon and the Queen of Sheba: بِسْمِ اللّهِ الرَّحْمنِ الرَّحیمِ اَلاّ تَعْلوا عَلَی وَاْتونی مُسْلِمینَ and about the Queen: وَ اَسْلَمْتُ مَعَ سُلَیمانَ لِلّهِ رَبِّ العالَمینَ . These instances occurred before the formal establishment of Islam, indicating the use of the term in its linguistic sense.

Every accountable individual initially accepts Islam through their parents or by observing others, and ideally, acceptance should be before scholars and authorized narrators. Today, those entering Islam often do so with the help of scholars. If someone did not perform this ritual at the beginning of their accountability and wishes to affirm it later, it is permissible, and performing a Ghusl is not problematic. Generally, Ghusl is an act of worship and superior to ablution, as mentioned in the traditions. In Islamic history, it is noted that before his migration to Medina, the Prophet (PBUH) sent Mus’ab ibn Umayr to invite people to Islam, and those who wished to convert would perform Ghusl from a well before accepting Islam. Thus, performing a Ghusl after reaching maturity with this intention is commendable and acts as a fulfillment of a missed opportunity. This should not be seen as an indication that the person was previously non-Muslim, akin to performing other ritual baths. It is not an innovation, as some might think, because it is called the Ghusl of Islam, not submission, which is a stage of Islam. Just as the Ghusl of Friday is intended for readiness for the gathering and meeting believers with cleanliness, it is not to be considered a legal or established obligation that would be deemed an innovation. Criticizing such practices is often done out of opposition rather than religious concern, and similar practices can be found among opponents of faqr (spiritual poverty, dervishhood) and mysticism, such as organizing Du’a Kumayl gatherings, which, if scrutinized, might also be considered innovations, though they can have valid purposes like encouraging prayer and supplication.

The Concept of the Manifestation of the Imam’s Image

Worship should only be directed towards the Divine Essence, and divinity is exclusive to Him. In the thought of the Sufis, what is contemplated is the name of God, the Most High. The belief of the Sufis is that if a person becomes immersed in the remembrance and contemplation of God in such a way that they are overwhelmed by it, and their entire being is influenced by this power, and this state persists, they may experience unveilings. Among these, in the initial stages, the image of the guiding Sheikh manifests, but since their focus is on the prescribed thought, this manifestation fades away. If they do not become arrogant in this state and persist in their contemplation, higher visions occur, and at advanced levels, the image of the Imam manifests. The visions of Prophet Ibrahim - peace be upon him - regarding the star, moon, and sun also symbolize spiritual unveilings in interpretation, indicating that the seeker should not become arrogant or satisfied with these insights that occur during the journey, but rather continue with a focus on the unseen aspect they are commanded to pay attention to, so that higher visions may occur. As it is said for the seeker on the path: ذَلَّ مَنْ قَنَعَ وَ عَزَّ مَنْ طَمَعَ meaning: in spiritual levels and mystical visions, one should not be content but always strive to reach higher and have greater aspirations.

However, these visions in all these levels are considered manifestations, not representations; meaning they are not by choice but appear like dreams that manifest in the imagination or thought without their will, and these manifestations also emerge from the unseen world without their intention. If this manifestation occurs during worship and the recitation of “You alone we worship,” since their thought is directed towards God, and this manifestation is also from God and represents His names and attributes, it is addressed by this statement, but the true object of worship is the immutable Divine Essence. It’s like addressing someone, and during the conversation, another passes before our eyes, and we glance at them, thinking they are the addressee, although the attention was incidental and unintentional, and they were not the intended addressee.

All existential and verbal expressions are names of God, and the Imam - peace be upon him - is the great sign and greatest name of God, but his manifestation may not be constant. However, the seeker’s thought is constant, and their heart is attached to one:

And that is the Divine Essence, exalted be His name. و تَذَكَّرَ رَسولَ اللّهِ - صَلَّی اللّهُ عَلَیهِ و آلِهِ - وَ اجْعَلْ واحداً مِنَ الائمَّةِ نَصْبَ عَینَیكَ also relates to the intention before prayer, where they are made intercessors before starting the prayer, which is the meaning of اِنّا تَوَجَّهْنا اِلَیكَ . If an intentional representation is mentioned in some cases, it is outside of worship and only for considering them as intercessors before the Oneness of God, and the focus and contemplation on them is not intrinsic but for the appreciation of contemplating God’s signs, and in other words, it is for what is observed through them, not مافیهِ ینْظَرُ . It is like looking in a mirror where the gaze is incidental, and the main intent is the image in the mirror. Of course, this also occurs outside of worship, and the purpose of intentional representation is the effect derived from remembrance; because when a person remembers something, its image naturally imprints in their mind, and remembering the Imams - peace be upon them - and seeking their intercession naturally entails the manifestation of their imaginary image in the mind, which is not false or polytheistic. Those who mention representation mean this, but during worship, attention to anyone other than God, even the Prophet and Imam, is not permissible and is considered polytheism. However, naturally, when a name is mentioned, even of those never seen, an image of them immediately forms in the mind, and since the names of the Prophet and Ali are mentioned in the call to prayer or testimony, it may inadvertently draw attention or bring an image to mind, and if it is unintentional, it is not polytheism.

The late Mr. Sultan Ali Shah, in a letter to Mr. Sheikh Hussein Basiri Sabzevari, wrote: “It is written everywhere that the content of the reports states: whoever worships the name is an infidel, and whoever worships the name and the named is a polytheist, and whoever worships the named with the enactment of names is a monotheist. It is not that in the book it is written that 'You alone we worship’ should be addressed to the guide.” In the same letter, if one considers and refers to the rest, the matter becomes clear. In the Tafsir Bayan al-Sa’ada, in the interpretation of Surah Al-Fatiha, اِهْدِنا الصِّراطَ الْمُسْتَقیمَ (Guide us to the straight path.) is mentioned, stating that what has become famous among the mystics of Persia, to intentionally place the Sheikh’s image before their eyes, is false and akin to idol worship. Furthermore, concerning the noble verse: فَمَنْ تَبِعَ هُدای فَلاخَوف عَلَیهِم وَلاهُم یحْزَنُونَ at the beginning of Surah Al-Baqarah, it is stated that the aim of the Sufis in focusing on the Sheikh is to be so attentive and obedient to his commands that the followed and obeyed figure unintentionally manifests before them, not that it should be done by force and without following and obedience, because choosing to focus on an image is disbelief and its owner has no place but the fire. It is said that the appearance of the Qa’im in the microcosm is also the manifestation of the Qa’im, and two lines later it is stated: This seems to indicate that involuntary thought, like voluntary thought, is engaging with the name and neglecting the named, which is also disbelief and engaging with an idol.

On the Correctness of Using “Love” in Relation to the Sacred Status of Divinity

This topic has been extensively discussed and reasoned in many Sufi texts, but to provide a brief answer, here’s a summary.

In language, love refers to an excessive form of affection, as mentioned in dictionaries like Qamus and Al-Munjid. In the Majma, it is noted: وَ هُوَ تَجاوُزُ الحدّ فی المَحَبَّةِ and of course, this does not necessarily imply lustful or base desires. Words are established for general meanings, and excessive affection towards anything is called love.

Love is one of the noble emotions of the heart, which, in its essence, is free from the impurities of base desires. Even if it is sometimes associated with them, it does not necessarily have to accompany them in all stages. According to the Sufis, inferred from the linguistic meaning, lustful love is not a true instance of love, and applying the term to it is metaphorical. In their view, calling it love is inappropriate:

Because base desires lead to decay and interruption, and this affection arises from sexual instinct, it is outside the realm of genuine spiritual emotion and akin to other animal instincts. True love becomes a part of human nature and does not fade.

Intense affection, wherever it exists, can rightly be called love; for example, a mother’s love for her child or vice versa, or in higher stages and noble human emotions, such as love for knowledge or love for serving society. Therefore, applying the term love to God is also correct, as the Quran states: والّذینَ آمَنوُا اَشَّدُ حُباً لِلّهِ and intense love is nothing but true love, as mentioned in dictionaries, and this word appears in traditions, explicitly mentioned in Majma, and in Wafi, in the chapter of the attributes of believers in «التّفرّغ لِلعِبادة,» (devotion to worship) it is narrated from Imam Sadiq - peace be upon him:

قال رسوُل اللّهِ (ص) : اَفْضَلُ النّاسِ مَنْ عَشِقَ العِبادَة فَعانَقَها و اَحَبَّها بِقَلْبِهِ و باشَرَها بِجَسَدِهِ وَ تَفَرَّغَ لَها فَهُوَ لایبالی عَلی ما اَصْبَحَ مِنَ الدُّنیا عَلی عُسْرٍ اَمْ عَلی یسْرٍ indicating that the application of love is not limited to lustful or material matters; otherwise, the term love would not be used in this hadith. By delving into dictionaries and psychology texts, and even precise reports, we find justification for this usage by the Sufis. Only in medical texts discussing love from a lustful perspective does it relate to medicine, which is essentially a type of melancholic or hypochondriacal disorder.

Even if this term has not appeared in language or Sharia, the Sufis mean intense love, not anything else. Of course, love itself surpasses material matters, and they have coined this term for that meaning, و لا مُشاحّة فِی الاصطلاح (without any exaggeration in its terminology) calling the Divine “beloved” as a name is not correct or permissible, as the names of God are fixed, and unless explicitly stated by the sacred lawgiver, no name should be given to God. However, as a descriptive term, since it does not imply naming, it should not be problematic, as it means beloved, and it is attributed to a sacred hadith:

اذا كانَ الْغالِبُ عَلَی الْعَبْدِ الاشْتِغالُ بی جَعَلْتُ بِغْیتَهُ وَلَذَّتَهُ فی ذِكری. فَاذا جَعَلْتُ بِغْیتَهُ و لَذَّتَهُ فی ذكری عَشِقَنی و عَشِقْتُهُ. فاذا عَشِقَنی عَشِقْتُهُ، وَ رَفَعْتُ الحِجابَ فِیما بَینی وَ بَینَهُ and several other hadiths. Many scholars have also mentioned this term; as Sheikh Baha’i states in Kashkul: اَلْعِشْقُ انجِذابُ القلبِ اِلی مِقناطیس الْحُسْنِ و كَیفِیةُ هذا الانْجِذابِ لا مَطْمَعَ فی الاطّلاعِ عَلی حَقیقَتِها .

Mullah Muhammad Taqi Majlisi I, in the explanation of the phrase: وَ بمُوالاتِكُم تُقْبَلُ الطّاعةُ المُفْتَرَضَة و لَكُم المَوَدَّةُ الواجبَةُ , states: وَالاَخبارُ بوُجوبِ الْمَوَدَّةِ مُتواتِرِةٌ وَ اَقَلُّ مَراتِبِها اَنْ یكونوا اَحَبُّ النّاسِ اِلَینا مِنْ اَنْفُسِنا و اَقْصاها العِشْق .

Sheikh Abu al-Muhasin Husayn ibn Hasan Jurjani, in his interpretation known as Jala al-Adhan and Jala al-Ahzan, known as Tafsir Gazur, in the interpretation of “Hamaasq,” says: “Some have said the verse is about the Prophet (PBUH). Ha, the destined pool. Meem, the extended kingdom. Ayn, the love of the worshiped and unlimited elevation. Seen, the manifest brilliance. Qaf, his standing in the praised station, and his nearness in the grace of the worshiped…” where love for the worshiped is mentioned.

Overall, this doubt arises from mixing the terminologies of different sects, and often, upon investigation, it becomes clear that the disagreement is merely verbal. If there is goodwill and doubt arises, it is soon resolved. Unfortunately, most who spread these criticisms lack goodwill and aim to sow doubt and intellectual deviation among the simple-minded believers. They even object that because the word love is not in the Quran, and even if the hadith مَنْ عَشِقَ العِبادَةَ is rare, using the word love for God is against decorum. But as mentioned, these are terminologies, and the word love is not limited to its metaphorical meaning; it is broader, and using it for God is not problematic. Moreover, many terms common among the same opponents and the general Shia are not mentioned in this common sense in the Quran or narrations, such as the word ijtihad, yet citing them poses no issue, and there is consensus on this point.

On the Emergence and Origin of Sufism

This topic is thoroughly explained in Plotinus' philosophy treatise, but it is briefly mentioned here.

Some writers have claimed its origin is from Buddhism and other Indian religions, arguing that many Sufi beliefs align with Buddhist doctrines, such as the pessimistic view of the world and achieving Nirvana in Buddhism, which is akin to the term “Fana” in mysticism. However, these views are quite far-fetched because, firstly, true Islamic Sufism does not mention pessimism but instead combines optimism in relation to the higher world and pessimism regarding personal existence, as Saadi - may peace be upon him - states:

Moreover, although the original Buddhist creed is believed by us to be based on monotheism, today’s Buddhism is among polytheistic religions due to Buddha’s vague presentation of monotheistic concepts within moral teachings, leading his followers astray later. Louis Massignon, the French scholar, aptly refuted this notion in 1318, stating to the esteemed scholar the late Haj Abu Abdullah Zanjani that there is a significant difference between these two religions; Indian Sufism seeks an imaginary god, while Islamic Sufism worships a known God.

Some have attributed it to Zoroastrianism due to the optimism present in Zoroastrianism appearing foundational to Sufism. They claim the emergence of Sufism in Islam was due to connections with Iranians, but this is also incorrect; many principles of Islamic Sufism have no relation to Zoroastrianism, though some aspects may be similar, and many may even oppose it.

Some consider it derived from the philosophy of Illuminationism or from the later Platonic philosophers and Plotinus, but these views are also incorrect; Islamic Sufism aligns all its beliefs with verses and traditions, and those who criticize do so without understanding, often out of bias. Sufism, after drawing from the verses and traditions, engages in rational reasoning, not merely ruling by intellect. The claim that Sufis believe verses and traditions are riddles understood only by the masters of the khanqah is a mistake and a slander, for a true Sufi considers themselves a follower of the Imams - peace be upon them - in beliefs and actions.

The most unfounded claim is by some recent scholars who say it is derived from Manichaeism, which is based on dualism and idolatry, while Sufism is founded on pure monotheism at all levels. It’s hard to understand how they could make such a baseless accusation, which may be influenced by ulterior motives.

Some have taken it from Christianity and the teachings of Jesus - peace be upon him - but this is also inappropriate, as Christianity favored monasticism and renouncing the world like Buddhism, whereas Islamic Sufism, according to the noble hadith: لا رُهبانیة فِی الاسلام , does not permit renouncing the world, only opposing love and attachment to it as contrary to the path to God, considering work necessary for everyone, embodying the proverb “hands at work, heart with the beloved.” Sufism, which is the spirit of perfection and the journey towards God, stems from the teachings of prophets and their successors in every era, unlike sciences and methods that belong to specific nations.

Islamic Sufism emerged from the actions and states of the Prophet of God and the verses and traditions of the Imams - peace be upon them. The great Sufis claim nothing for themselves; what they possess comes from the lamp of prophecy, the niche of guardianship, the mines of knowledge and wisdom, and the source of revelation and inspiration from the family of purity and infallibility. Of course, some details or terminologies or formal customs may have been borrowed from other religious or philosophical traditions, such as scientific terms or social and interpersonal practices that do not contradict the sacred laws of Islam. These kinds of things exist in all sects and groups, in words and actions, like the term “Ijtihad” and others in the science of principles, or the large turban or long garments some clerics wear, which are not forbidden. But the essence and true foundation of Sufism come from the sacred law of Islam, and the accusations that Islamic Sufism borrowed from others are similar to the accusation made against the Prophet (PBUH), as mentioned in the Quran: اِنّما یعَلِّمُهُ بَشَرٌ . The purpose of this accusation is to make the naive believe that Sufism is not part of Islam and is an added element, which is not the case. We believe that none of the true religions lack the essence of Sufism, and the sacred religion of Islam is no exception, as we have said, the essence of Sufism is the connection between the servant and God through the heart, which is the foundation of religions and the main reason for their emergence. Even the ritual worship acts and social laws are meant to complete this spiritual connection, so in truth, the spirit of religions is Sufism.

Some might say that certain beliefs or behaviors of some Sufis contradict Islamic beliefs. We respond, as we have often emphasized, anything contrary to the Quran and traditions is false, and true Sufism shuns it. The behavior of some pretenders should never be considered the fundamental belief or practice of the entire order. Therefore, if actions against the Islamic path to God are observed or heard from some Sufis, it indicates their deviation from the true Sufism. A real Sufi must unite outward and inward practices, adhering to the clear laws of the holy Shariah while being attentive to spiritual and moral matters. Any contradiction from certain individuals opposes the true essence of Sufism, just as some pretenders to spirituality behave against the duties of their claimed position, causing others' disrepute.

Controversial Beliefs Attributed to Some Sufi Masters

The beliefs attributed to some great mystics have been thoroughly discussed in earlier works, but a brief mention here will help clarify doubts.

Some controversial beliefs attributed to mystics are due to misunderstandings by those who ascribe them, while others are not related to the mystics but are expressed by those who appear to be among them but are not truly part of them.

For instance, the topic of “Wahdat al-Wujud” is a philosophical and scientific discussion that requires an understanding of philosophical principles. The mystics’ intention in this matter is different from what critics perceive as contrary to religious law. The mystic’s understanding of Wahdat al-Wujud aligns with the meaning of لاَ إِلَهَ إِلاَّ اللَّهَ (There is no God but Allah) and they justify their views with Quranic verses, traditions, and sayings of the household of revelation and divine message. They have no intention of anything contrary to Shariah as perceived by the critic. Those who speak against it either misunderstand or speak blasphemously, or at times, it is ecstatic utterances akin to dreams, as some accounts in “Tadhkirat al-Awliya” by Sheikh Fariduddin Attar are attributed to dreams or to claimants of Sufism from the Sunni tradition, whom we do not consider true Sufis. Often, these are like dreams or visionary experiences or ecstatic utterances, which we deem false. A true seeker, if such false imaginings arise, should immediately repent and move beyond these states, as discussed in detail in the works of the mystics. Praise be to God, the Nimatullahi Gonabadi Order is free from such errors, even if they occur in dreams, they have no effect.

In general, mystics say that a unity of existence that does not contradict the word of monotheism is valid, and anything contrary is false and condemned. They believe that without the belief in the unity of existence, true monotheism cannot be realized, and the essence of both is one. This does not entail the primacy of essence as some philosophers claim, which is beyond the scope of this summary. Critics should first understand its meaning and intention before passing judgment. Many Quranic verses such as:

هُوَ الاَوّلُ وَ الْآخِرُ وَ الظّاهِرُ وَ الباطِنُ and the verse: اینَما تُوَلُّوا فَثَّمَ وَجْهُ اللّهِ and others, along with many traditions like داخِل فِی الاَشْیاءِ لا بِالمُمازَجَةِ وَ خارِجٌ عَنْها لابِالْمُباینَةِ , indicate that in the realm of existence, there is no reality except the eternal essence of God, and all beings are shadows or rays of His grace, possessing no independent existence; assuming their independence implies polytheism, as no entity has independence against the divine essence. The late Ayatollah Sheikh Muhammad Husayn Al-Kashif al-Ghita wrote an extensive treatise on Wahdat al-Wujud, proving it. His expressions suggest that he even favored the unity of existence and being, yet this does not mean all beings are divine, which would imply polytheism or disbelief; rather, it means the essence of existence, independent of contingent determinations, is one, which is the effusion of divine light upon all beings. و ما تَری فی خَلْقِ الرّحمنِ مِنْ تَفاوُتٍ points to this, and the discussion is detailed and requires consulting relevant texts. The attribution of the belief in incarnation and union to mystics is false, as the great mystics have explicitly denounced it, stating: “Incarnation and union are impossible here” because incarnation requires a container and content, and union implies duality leading to union. Yet, mystics see all beings as entirely perishing in the face of the divine, making the incarnation of absolute truth in falsehood or the union of the two impossible. اینَ التّراب و ربّ الارباب However, a seeker may experience states during some stages of their journey that suggest incarnation or union; in such cases, they must immediately dispel such thoughts as they lead to decline and deception, and remaining in them results in spiritual corruption - اَعاذَنا اللّهُ مِنهُ .

Certain claims attributed to some individuals, such as states or sayings noted in “Tadhkirat al-Awliya,” are not our concern to verify, as some could be false claims or merely dreams. However, if respected figures among the seekers and mystics have made claims of states, they are based on truth and reality, spoken when they are in a state of divine attention, forgetting themselves, and these claims do not reflect their personal status but rather their connection to servitude and divinity; similar to a representative of a landowner directing subordinates, issuing commands, even saying “I will do” and such, which, due to their association with the landowner, are valid, though they hold no personal status without this association.

Prophets and Imams - peace be upon them - also expressed such words at times; as in the “Sermon of the Bayan” attributed to Imam Ali, certain words are mentioned, and similar states are recorded about Zayd ibn Harithah during the Prophet’s time. Some companions of Imam Ali - peace be upon him - also foretold the future, and those who doubt these expressions should refer to the books and states, and study the histories. Some great Sufis, because they draw from the niche of the Twelve Imams’ guardianship, sometimes make claims or compose poetry, but they themselves acknowledge in other states and words that they possess nothing of their own, and all they have comes from divine effusion and His saints.

Other differing beliefs that contradict religious teachings attributed to some mystics, if they exist, are of course condemned, and one must distance themselves from such beliefs, as many undesirable beliefs have been introduced by outsiders, tarnishing the reputation of a few. This issue is not exclusive to the Sufi order but can also be found in other groups, including the esteemed scholars, where some unworthy individuals may cause disrepute and hold unsavory beliefs or commit wrongful acts, thereby tarnishing others as well. Any controversial beliefs seen under the name of Sufism are of this nature and are unrelated to the beliefs of the mystics, similar to many beliefs attributed to various sects by different names that lack reality, such as the Ishaqiyya, Malamatiyya, Hululiyya, and Ittihadiyya, and others. If these beliefs exist, they have no connection to true Sufism, and their holders are not Sufis.

However, those who take pride in following the Twelve Imams - peace be upon them - and derive all their beliefs from the family of revelation and prophecy, and sources of knowledge and wisdom, remain steadfast in their beliefs and see no contradiction in them.

It would be wise for those who, based on the words of a few biased individuals, expel a large group of Muslims, especially Twelver Shiites, from faith and religion contrary to the Quran and the sacred prophetic tradition and the pure household - peace be upon them - to set aside bias if they truly intend to serve the religion and benefit society. They should fairly consult the books of the mystics or inquire from those knowledgeable, understand the meanings of their words, and then, if there are objections, mention them. In Islam, such matters require precision and depth, and until certainty is achieved, declaring someone corrupt or faithless is not permissible, and even if words seem ambiguous, until we discern the speaker’s intent, judgment cannot be passed, as illustrated by the story:

A man was brought before the second caliph, who asked him: کَیفَ اَصْبَحْتَ؟ (How are you this morning?) He replied: اَصْبَحْتُ اُحِبُّ الْفِتْنَةَ وَ اُكْرِهُ الحَقَّ و اُصَدِّقُ الْیهودَ و النَّصاری وَ اُومِنُ بِما لَمْ اَرَهُ وَ اُقِرُّ بِما لَمْ یخْلَقْ. Meaning: This morning, I love turmoil, dislike truth, believe the Jews and Christians, have faith in what I have not seen, and confess to what has not been created. This statement was criticized, and some accused him of disbelief or apostasy, calling for a penalty. The caliph called upon Ali - peace be upon him - and presented the case. Ali explained: He spoke truthfully, and when he said he loves turmoil, he referred to the verse: اِنَّما اَمْوالُكُمْ وَ اَوْلادُكُم فِتْنَةٌ meaning he loves his wealth and children; his dislike of truth refers to his dislike of death, which is the truth: وَ جائَتْ سَكْرَةُ الموتِ بِالحَقّ ; his belief in the Jews and Christians is because the Jews say the Christians are not right and vice versa; his faith in what he has not seen refers to belief in God; and his confession to what has not been created refers to the Day of Judgment. The second caliph then said: اعوذُ بِاللّهِ مِنْ مُعْضَلَةٍ لا عَلی لَها .

Therefore, one should not judge based merely on words, but delve deeply, and where necessary, consult with the elders of the order and present any issues that arise, so doubts can be resolved. Persisting in erroneous beliefs after clarification is blameworthy and does not necessarily imply disbelief.

Condemning an entire group due to a few unworthy individuals is against justice and fairness, as bad elements exist in every group. To extend their judgment to all members of that group is contrary to custom, religion, and reason, leaving no room for truth. Similarly, among various groups with a shared name, the behavior or beliefs of one should not be attributed to another. Just as in the noble order of scholars, if one person acts wrongly, it should not be generalized, as this is not accepted by any wise person.

In general, any belief or action that is definitively proven to contradict the teachings of the sacred Islamic law is false, and its adherent is condemned for that reason. However, mere attribution is not enough; it must be verified and proven.

Some Improper and Unlawful Acts Attributed to Certain Mystics

It is deeply distressing and regrettable that individuals, under the guise of religion and promoting faith, attribute false accusations to some great figures, contrary to the explicit text of the Quran and the traditions of the Ahl al-Bayt - peace be upon them. Some of these accusations are so shameful that any devout and sensible person would be embarrassed to hear them, recognizing the malice and unlawful nature of these claims. Intelligent people can discern the speaker’s ulterior motives and disregard for religion from their writing style, thus discrediting their words. In Islam and the Shiite sect, principles such as the presumption of purity, correctness, and permissibility are emphasized and must be upheld. It is necessary to assume the correctness of a Muslim’s actions unless a clear contradiction to the essentials of Islam is observed, which is: دَعْ اَمْرَ اَخیكَ عَلی اَحْسَنِهِ . Even Imam Musa al-Kadhim - peace be upon him - stated that if fifty people testify to someone’s transgression and he denies it, صَدِّقْهُ و كَذِّبْهُمْ, meaning affirm him and deny them. Moreover, Imam Ja’far al-Sadiq - peace be upon him - narrated that:

مَنْ قالَ فِی المؤمِنِ مارَاَتْهُ عَیناهُ وَ سَمِعَتْهُ اُذُناهُ فَهُوَ مِنَ الّذینَ قالَ اللّهُ - عزَّوَ جَلَّ - اِنَّ الذینَ یحبُّونَ... الایة. Meaning, anyone who reports what his eyes have seen and his ears have heard about a believer is among those whom God has said: اِنَّ الّذینَ یحِبُّونَ اَنْ تَشیعَ الْفاحِشَةُ . Even if he has seen it himself and has no witnesses, he should not disclose it. How, then, do some people disregard religion and make unfounded accusations against others without seeing or hearing anything? This is nothing but malice, or even irreligion and godlessness اعاذنا اللّه مِنْه . Additionally, the Holy Quran states: وَ لا تَقوُلوا لِمَنَ الْقی اِلَیكُم السَّلامَ لَسْتَ مُؤمِناً تَبتَغُونَ عَرَضَ الْحَیوةِ الدُّنیا . Although this verse was revealed regarding Usama bin Zayd, who, after the conquest of Khaybar, was assigned to open a village in the region of Fadak, where a Jew named Mirdas bin Nuhayk gathered his family and possessions and came forward, testifying the Shahada. Yet, Usama did not accept it, spearing him to death. Later, he reported to the Prophet (PBUH), who reprimanded him, saying: You neither knew what was in his heart nor accepted what he said with his tongue. Subsequently, Usama vowed never to harm anyone who professed the Shahada again. However, the general address applies to all believers at all times, like many other Islamic rulings that were revealed for specific cases but have a universal ruling. The Prophet (PBUH) also narrated that he said: مِنْ اصْلِ الاسْلامِ اَنْ تَكُفَّ عَمَّنْ قالَ لاَ إِلَهَ إِلاَّ اللَّهَ وَ لاتَكْفِرْهُ بِذَنْبٍ, meaning it is fundamental to Islam to refrain from harming anyone who says لاَ إِلَهَ إِلاَّ اللَّهَ (There is no God but Allah) and not to declare him an unbeliever for committing a sin.

And elsewhere it says: یا ایهَا الَّذینَ آمَنوا اِنْ جائَكُمْ فاسِقٌ بِنَبَأٍ فَتَبَینُوا اَن تُصیبُوا قَوماً بِجَهالَة . Although this verse was also revealed about Walid bin Uqbah, who went to the tribe of Banu al-Mustaliq to collect zakat, and when they came to greet him, he thought they intended to kill him. He fled and reported to the Prophet that they did not give zakat. The Prophet became angry, and this verse was revealed. But the term “fasiq” is general and applies universally.

And he also said: یایها الَّذینَ آمَنُوا اجْتَنِبُوا كَثیراً مِن الظَّنِ اِنَّ بَعْضَ الظَّن اثْمٌ وَ لاتَجَسَّسُوا .

Furthermore, there are strong emphases on preserving the honor and dignity of Muslims, and slandering and falsely attributing evil deeds to Muslims without evidence is prohibited and considered a major sin, as indicated by the verses of Ifk.

It is also said: اِنَّ الَّذینَ یحِبّونَ اَنْ تَشیعَ الفاحِشَةُ فِی الّذینَ آمَنوا لَهُم عَذاب اَلیم .

Therefore, in jurisprudence, conditions are stipulated for proving unlawful acts, and unless these conditions are met, they are not legally established. For example, in some cases, the presence of four witnesses is required, and if four witnesses are not present, even if three people testify, their testimony is not accepted, and they are considered unjust unless they repent as per the prescribed order in jurisprudence. In some cases, this may even lead to punishment, indicating that believers, and Muslims in general, should not easily seek to tarnish the honor and dignity of a Muslim and should strive to maintain their honor as much as possible.

With these premises, I do not understand how some people dare, under the name of defending religion, to attribute ugly and false accusations to a fellow Muslim! Especially those who observe all the etiquettes of religion and have not been witnessed committing any wrongdoing, yet are accused based on the words of a biased individual with clear and evident material motives, imitating Muawiyah’s conduct!

Is it justifiable to say that their acts of worship and devotions are meant to deceive people? Where in the pure Shariah is such a notion found?

How does it align with any of the laws of Sharia to bring baseless accusations and false slanders against someone based solely on one person’s statement? A devout person should not accuse someone seen as righteous of wrongdoing, and if he hears something similar to slander against another, he must investigate according to the pure Shariah’s law, accepting it only if the conditions for its truth are met and the witnesses reach the required number; otherwise, he should prevent those false accusations, as it is said: لَولا جائُوا عَلَیهِ بِاَرْبَعَةِ شُهداءَ فَاِذْ لَمْ یأتُوا بِالشُّهَداءِ فَاولئكَ عِنْدَ اللّهِ هُمُ الكاذِبُونَ . He should prevent gossip, slander, and defamation, rather than spreading them himself, mixing malice with religion, lest he too becomes among those who love that indecency should spread. Especially if he holds a spiritual position, he must be more diligent in these matters, preventing those who fabricate lies out of personal motives from violating a Muslim’s dignity and enjoining what is right. Otherwise, he will share in their sin and be accountable before God. Such people, even if they wear clerical garb, bring disgrace to the clergy. It is the duty of the prominent figures and religious leaders to always ensure the preservation of limits and rulings and not let Islamic sanctities become toys for the malicious and prey to the satanic desires of the worldly. They should expel those who falsely adorn themselves with religious attire for material gain from their ranks, or people will become distrustful of others as well!

Some might refer to the term باهِتُوهُم found in a hadith and claim it means slandering, but this is not the case. It means to confound them, interpreted as جادِلُوهُم, meaning to engage in dialogue and compel them.

The hadith is: فی الكافی عَنْ داودَبنِ سِرْحانَ عَن ابی عبداللّه - عَلَیهِ السّلام - قال: قال رسول اللّه (ص) اِذا رَایتُم اَهْلَ البِدَع ِ و الرّیبِ مِنْ بَعدی فَاَظْهِروا البِرائةَ مِنْهُم و أكْثِروا مِنْ سَبِّهِم وَالقَوْل فیهم والوَقیعةَ و باهِتوهُم حَتّی لایطْمَعوا فی الفَسادِ فِی الاسلامِ و یحْذَرُهُمُ النّاسُ و لایتَعَلَّمونَ مِن بِدَعِهِم، یكْتُبُ اللّهُ لَكُم بِذلِكَ الْحَسَناتِ و یرْفَعُ لَكُم الدَّرَجاتِ. Meaning the Prophet said: When you see the people of innovation and doubt after me, declare disassociation from them, speak ill of them, expose their faults, and argue with them so they do not aspire to spread corruption in Islam, and so people beware of them and do not learn their innovations. In this way, God will record good deeds for you and elevate your ranks. This hadith applies to those who falsely assume clerical roles that we mentioned, who should be expelled by the religious community in accordance with this hadith. But no one is permitted to slander or falsely accuse anyone. The term باهِتُوهُم (they were confounded) is derived from بُهت (confounded), like فَبُهِتَ الّذی كَفَرَ , not from «بهتان» (slander), which is against reason and religion.

The argument that this hadith is used to refute Sufism is incorrect, for first, the existence of innovation among them must be proven. True mystics claim their sayings are based on the teachings of the Prophet (PBUH) and the Imams of guidance - peace be upon them. The objections others have and consider innovations do not exist among them and have all been addressed.

Therefore, the accusations against this group or some of their great figures are contrary to reality, reason, and religion, and are pure slander. It is unfortunate that we Muslims today trample on the rulings of Islam and do not act as we should! It is astonishing that some individuals, out of malice and hostility, consider the writings of a humble person as insults to scholars and curse the writer; yet, we have not insulted the sacred status of knowledge and true scholars and hold them in high regard. Our focus is on those who, out of malice and hostility, make accusations that have led to misunderstandings among some simple and devout scholars. In my opinion, these biased individuals who curse such writers are actually insulting themselves. And they say why has there been disrespect towards some sacred figures in this treatise, yet they themselves show more disrespect and rudeness in their writings, whereas there has been no disrespect here whatsoever.

In which Islamic sect is it permissible to accuse a group of devout people of using their diligence in prayer and other obligatory and recommended acts to deceive the foolish and ignorant? If this accusation were valid, others could say the same. Or how is it permissible to bring ugly, unfounded accusations that would embarrass any unbiased devout person to hear and reveal the speaker’s enmity and irreligion? These are in clear contradiction to the Quran and traditions. Have these people who seek to harm and disgrace Muslims not heard the saying: اَلْمُسْلِمُ مَنْ سَلِمَ الْمُسْلِمونَ مِنْ یدِهِ وَ لِسانِهِ؟

When the Prophet (PBUH) said that penalties are removed by doubts, which indicates utmost precision and caution in this matter, or when the laws and principles mentioned at the beginning were established, considering Islamic principles and the dignity of Muslims, by what justification and reason can slander and defamation be committed?

Is the topic of Ifk, which was revealed with utmost severity and wrath, not akin to the accusations made against great mystics from the early centuries until now? If we examine Islamic rulings and compare them with these inappropriate behaviors, we should weep for Islam and its isolation!

Indeed, what remains of Islam is still due to the presence of great scholars and esteemed mystics, who are the pillars of the Islamic faith and the Twelver Shiite sect. Malicious and deceitful individuals in either group who appear to be like them, exploiting their good names, practicing their satanic motives under the guise of religion, bear more guilt than others, for they damage the reputation of faith.

I apologize for the intensity of this writing, which was involuntarily driven by strong emotions and sorrow for Islam’s isolation. The intention was not to provide a comprehensive explanation but rather to present a path for investigation and reflection for those who seek it.

I pray to Almighty God to keep us steadfast and committed to the path of the Twelve Imams - peace be upon them.

Narrations Criticizing Sufism from the Imams (AS)

Many narrations criticize Sufism, such as the hadith attributed to Imam Reza (AS) who said: مَنْ ذُكِرَ عِنْدَهُ الصّوفیةُ وَ لَمْ ینْكِرْهُم بِلِسانِهِ و قَلْبِهِ فَلَیسَ مِنّا وَ مَنْ اَنْكَرَهُم فَكَاَنَّما جاهَدَ الْكُفّارَ بَینَ یدَی رَسولِ اللّهِ - صَلّی اللّهُ عَلَیهِ وَ آلِهِ . And the hadith attributed to Imam Sadiq - peace be upon him - mentioned in “Hadiqat al-Shi’a” where it was asked: قَدْ ظَهَرَ فی هذالزَّمانِ قَوْمٌ یقالُ لَهُم الصّوفیةُ فَما تَقولُ فیهم؟ فَاَجابَ - علیه السّلام - اِنّهُم اَعْدائِنا فَمَنْ مالَ اِلَیهِم فَهُوَ مِنْهُم وَ یحْشُرُ مَعَهُم تا آخر .

And the hadith attributed to Abu Dhar from the Prophet (PBUH) who said: یا اباذر، یكونُ فِی آخِرالزّمان قَوْمٌ یلْبِسُونَ الصّوفَ فِی صَیفِهم وَ شِتائِهِم یرُونَ الْفَضْلَ بِذلِكَ عَلی غَیرِهِم اُولئكَ یلْعَنُهُم مَلائكَةُ السّمواتِ و الارضِ and similar narrations found in some books. However, it is important for someone truly seeking to understand and search for the truth to delve deeper to avoid falling into doubt or error, as understanding narrations and discerning their authenticity requires:

1. Considering the context, time, purpose, and intent;
2. Searching for any conflicting narrations, and if possible, reconciling them or otherwise referring to principles of preference and balance as detailed in foundational texts;
3. In matters related to faith and disbelief, caution should be exercised, and one should not hastily judge a group as disbelievers or sinners, as legal limits are lifted in cases of doubt. Unlike narrations about virtuous acts, these require full certainty before judging disbelief or sin;
4. Investigating and using the traits criticized in the narrations as criteria to judge those who possess them.

Thus, one should also refer to narrations praising Sufism, mentioned by scholars like Ibn Abi Jumhur Ahsa’i and others, and apply principles of caution or balance and preference; such as the hadith attributed to the Prophet (PBUH): مَنْ سَرَّهُ اَنْ یجْلِسَ مَعَ اللّه فَلْیجْلِسْ مَعَ اَهْلِ التَّصَوُّف . And the hadith: لاتَطْعَنوا اَهْلَ التّصوفِ وَ الْخِرَقِ فَاِنَّ اخلاقَهُم اخلاقُ الانْبیاء و لباسَهُم لباسُ الانْبیاء and the hadith attributed to Imam Ali (AS): التّصوّف اَرْبَعَةُ اَحْرُفٍ، تاءٌ و صادٌ و واوٌ و فاءٌ. التّاء: تركٌ و توبةٌ و تُقی؛ و الصّادٌ: صبرٌ و صِدْ و صَفاءٌ؛ و الواو: وردٌ و وُدٌّ و وَفاءٌ؛ و الفاء: فردٌ و فقرٌ و فناءٌ . These and other narrations are detailed in the works of Muhammad ibn Ali ibn Ibrahim ibn Abi Jumhur Ahsa’i , a distinguished Shiite scholar of the ninth century Hijri. It is surprising that some biased individuals write that the praising hadiths have weak chains, while considering the criticizing ones as definitive; whereas, if authentic, they pertain to Sunnis who called themselves Sufis, yet these critics generalize them to Shiite Sufis, taking their assumptions as facts. This is akin to applying narrations criticizing Sunni scholars to Shiites, which is incorrect, as true Shiite scholars were praised by the Imams - peace be upon them - and criticisms from the Imams regarding scholars and Sufis pertain to Sunnis.

Martyr the First in the book “Waqf Durus” states: الصّوفیونَ المُشْتَغلون بِالعبادةِ و المُعرِضوُنَ عَنِ الدّنیا . And in “Kashf al-Ghita” by the late Sheikh Ja’far al-Kabir Kashif al-Ghita in the book “Waqf” writes: وَ لَوْ وَقَفَ عَلَی الصّوفیة و كان عارفاً وَرَعاً نَزَلَ عَلَی الْمُعْرِضینَ عَنِ الدُّنیا المَشغولینَ بالعِبادة .

The statements of these two great jurists indicate approval and validation of true Sufism; as if it were considered a corrupt and false sect, they would have declared such endowments invalid. They have merely specified this condition to exclude others who falsely resemble them, and even in “Kashf al-Ghita” it is later stated: وَ رُبَّما یدْخُلُ بِتَعْمیم الْعُلَماء فِی هذا الایامِ اَهْلُ الطّریقةِ الباطلة , indicating that the Sheikh believed in the existence of a true path within Sufism.

From Mulla Mohsen Fayz Kashani, a letter is also mentioned in response to a question from a scholar about the Akhbaris, jurists, and Sufis, in which he affirms the validity and truth of Sufism within Shiism. This letter is recorded in the book “Riyad al-Siyaha” by the late Mirza Zain al-Abedin Shirwani in the biography of Mulla Mohsen Fayz Kashani - may God’s rank be elevated - and in the book “Waqi’at al-Ayyam Fi Tatimma Muharram al-Haram” by Hajj Mulla Ali Wa’ez Tabrizi. Many other narrations and statements from the Imams - peace be upon them - and other scholars are similar in this regard.

In cases where we see two conflicting types of narrations, if we do not act with caution, we should reconcile them by applying the praising narrations to those Sufis who adhere to the Twelver Shiite doctrine, strictly follow the rules of the pure Shariah, and take pride in following the Imams - peace be upon them. And apply the criticizing narrations to those who claim Sufism but do not follow the Imams - peace be upon them - in doctrine, and those who equate others with them in spiritual ranks or do not adhere to the rules of the Shariah. If these two types of narrations are not on equal footing in terms of authenticity, we should refer to the principles of balance and preference, and apply the one that appears more accurate. Since these matters relate to beliefs, caution should be observed, and one should not declare disbelief or sin until certainty is achieved, but rather act according to appearances. If we observe a belief or practice contrary to the pure Shariah and the true Ja’fari doctrine, we should criticize its holder for that belief or practice, not merely for bearing a name we dislike. Furthermore, if the narrations are authentic, it is clear they refer to those who ascribe the name Sufism to themselves while harboring enmity towards the Ahl al-Bayt, as stated, and even if they claim friendship, it is only a superficial association with the Ahl al-Bayt, not acknowledging their superiority over the companions or other followers, and placing others on their level.

In rulings, they do not follow the jurisprudence of the Ahl al-Bayt, but adopt others' jurisprudence. Certainly, anyone without the guardianship of the Ahl al-Bayt and the Imams - peace be upon them - or who considers others equal to them in spiritual rank and guardianship is not among the saved, regardless of being a pious man of the time or a sheikh of the path!

However, those who take pride in the love and guardianship of the Ahl al-Bayt - peace be upon them - are not among that group, even if they call themselves Sufis; for the name alone does not cause sin or disbelief. Just as the name Shi’a or believer without action does not bring honor or salvation. “Mim and Waw and Mim and Nun are not honors,” just as the term “mujtahid” was not used among the Shi’a during the time of the Imams and was specific to the Sunnis. Even Sunni scholars faced criticism from the Imams - peace be upon them - for their varied fatwas, as mentioned in a sermon in “Nahj al-Balagha,” which contains much criticism of them and also for scholars who do not practice what they preach. Certainly, those criticized by the Imams - peace be upon them - were Sunni scholars and their mujtahids or non-practicing scholars who tarnished the reputation and honor of the clerical community by acting without adhering to the Ahl al-Bayt, relying instead on opinion and analogy in their reasoning, while Shi’a scholars and jurists of the Ja’fari school who hold fast to the guardianship of the Immaculate Imams - peace be upon them - and refer to the narrations of the Ahl al-Bayt in their jurisprudence, also relying on their divine insight in issuing fatwas, while practicing their knowledge, are not subject to criticizing narrations; as they possess the real treasure, which is the love of the Ahl al-Bayt, and they also act upon their knowledge.

Likewise, the narrations criticizing Sufism refer to that form of Sufism found among Sunnis, who positioned themselves against the Immaculate Imams - peace be upon them - and the Ahl al-Bayt, not those who base their path to spiritual perfection on the love, followership, and guardianship of the Twelve Imams (AS) and adhere strictly to the religious practices as prescribed by the Imams - peace be upon them. And the hadith attributed to Abu Dhar is not about Sufism, but about those who wore woolen clothes and considered it a mark of superiority and pride, whereas today wearing woolen garments is common among all classes, including scholars, and wool is more expensive than cotton, with some taking pride in it and using it as a sign of superiority over others, which is unrelated to religious matters.

As the intention is to remind and clear doubts, this suffices, and further elaboration is avoided. It is hoped that what has been mentioned will serve as a means for fair and religious individuals to investigate and ponder deeply.

The Mystics' Belief on the Seeing of God

The topic of the seeing of God is a significant theological, philosophical, and mystical issue with various discussions and beliefs across different religious sects. For instance, the Mu’tazilites entirely reject the possibility of seeing, both in this world and the hereafter, considering it impossible. The Ash’arites, however, consider it possible. Abu al-Hasan al-Ash’ari, the founder of the Ash’ari school, states that God can be seen but without direction or limitation, and without pointing to Him. The Karramiyya, followers of Karram ibn Abi Abdullah Muhammad, and the Hanbalis, followers of Ahmad ibn Hanbal, believe that believers will see God in the hereafter, in a direction above, but disbelievers will not. The Salimiyya and some of the Hashawiyya say that disbelievers will also see Him on the Day of Judgment, and the Murji’ah believe that touching is also possible. Various other beliefs exist, each detailed in their respective doctrines .

However, the mystics, who always draw from sources of infallibility and mines of revelation and wisdom and take pride in following the great ones, base their beliefs on the Quran and the narrations of the Imams. They believe that seeing God with physical eyes or material perception is not possible, as visual sight requires conditions such as the visible object being neither too close nor too distant; for example, the eye cannot see behind or beneath itself if it is too close, nor can it see very far away. The viewer and the viewed must be opposite each other, similar to a mirror facing the viewer, and the visible must be a dense body , as very clear and transparent bodies like air are not visible. The viewer must also encompass the visible because the light of the eye must surround the visible, none of which apply to God. Thus, He cannot be seen with physical eyes.

However, spiritual unveiling and witnessing of divine manifestation, which surpasses seeing by eye, imagination, dream, or thought, may occur when one reaches the height of spiritual journeying, annihilates their ego, and no longer focuses on their own identity. When their mountain of ego collapses, they may experience a state of witnessing: فَلَمّا تَجَلّی رَبُّهُ لِلْجَبَلِ جَعَلَهُ دَكّاً وَ خَرَّ موُسی صَعِقاً , and this is not with physical eyes, as Imam Baqir (AS) replied to a Kharijite asking: یا ابا جَعْفَر، ای شی‌ءٍ تَعْبُدُ؟ (O Abu Ja’far, what is it that you worship?) He said: اللّه تعالی (Allah, the Exalted.). When asked if he had seen Him, he replied: لَمْ تَرَهُ الْعُیوُن بمُشاهَدَةِ الابصارِ وَ لكِنْ رَاَتْهُ الْقُلُوبُ بحقائِقِ الایمان .

In “Al-Kafi” , Imam Sadiq (AS) narrates that a learned Jew asked the Commander of the Faithful (AS), “Have you seen your Lord when you worshipped Him?” He replied, “Woe to you, I do not worship a Lord I have not seen.” When asked how he saw Him, he replied, “Woe to you, eyes do not perceive Him through visual sight, but hearts perceive Him through the realities of faith.”

Another hadith in “Tawhid al-Saduq” mentions that believers achieve the bliss of witnessing before the Day of Resurrection. Abu Basir narrates from Imam Sadiq (AS): قُلْتُ لَهُ أخبِرنی عَن اللّهِ عَزَّوَجَلَّ. هَلْ یراهُ المؤمنونَ یوْمَ القیمَة؟ قالَ: نَعَمْ وَ قَدْ رَأَوهُ قَبْلَ یوْمِ القِیمَة. He asked when, and the Imam replied, “When He asked them, ‘Am I not your Lord?’ and they said, ‘Yes.’ After a pause, he added, ‘Believers see Him in this world before the Day of Judgment.’” He concluded, “Seeing with the heart is not like seeing with the eye. God is exalted above what the anthropomorphists and heretics describe.”

There are many other narrations on this subject, and some may suggest anthropomorphism and embodiment, similar to certain Quranic verses like: اِلی رَبِّها ناظِرَةٌ and: فَمَنْ كانَ یرْجُوا لِقاءَ رَبِّهِ . Or the hadith narrated by Abdul-Rahman ibn Auf from Aisha in “Jami al-Asrar wa Manba al-Anwar” by the mystic Sayyid Haydar Amuli, where the Prophet said: رَایتُ رَبّی تَبارَكَ و تَعالی لَیلَةَ المِعراجِ فی اَحْسَنِ صُورةٍ . The anthropomorphists took it literally, leading to beliefs in embodiment. In our view, belief in corporeality or physical seeing and touching, as some Hashawiyya and Murji’ah say, is false and even disbelief.

Thus, seeing with physical eyes is false and claiming it is disbelief. However, if a believer ascends the stages of the spiritual path, transitioning from the outward to the inward, and follows the stages that mystics have realized from the Quran and narrations, adapting them to their spiritual journey, and reaches the final stage, becoming unaware of their senses and attributes, moving beyond limits, they may experience visions varying with the stages of annihilation of actions, attributes, and essence, with different manifestations. In the final stage, the manifestation of attributes, and even for the closest ones like the Prophet (PBUH) and the Immaculate Imams (AS), the ultimate manifestation occurs. Yet, at that stage, neither the viewer remains nor attention to the witnessing exists, as the poet said:

In that state, there is no place for discourse; as mentioned in the Hadith of Mi’raj, where the Prophet said that he is not permitted to disclose many of the witnessed states and heard things.

Thus, seeing with physical eyes is impossible, and it must occur through inner insight and true faith. It is not possible to witness the Divine Essence, and only those close to God may witness the manifestation of attributes and actions. In all these stages, as long as the seeker is aware of their own essence and ego remains, witnessing does not occur; rather, they must annihilate themselves and witness the manifestation through Divine revelation:

Mystics base their statements on Quranic verses and narrations and rely on the witnessing of stages. In a divine hadith, it is stated: یابْنَ آدَمَ لَوْاَكَلَ قَلْبَكَ طائرٌ لَمْ یشْبَعْهُ وَ بَصَرُكَ لَوْ وُضِعَ عَلَیهِ خِرَقٍ إبْرَةٍ لغَطّاهُ و تُریدُ اَنْ تَعْرِفَ بِهِما مَلَكُوتُ السّمواتِ و الارضِ اِنْ كُنْتَ صادقاً فَهذِهِ الشَّمْسُ خَلْقٌ مِنْ خِلَق اللّهِ فَاِنْ قَدَرْتَ اَنْ تَمْلَأَ عَینَیكَ مِنْها فَهُو كَما تَقُولُ.

This means, “O son of Adam, if a bird would eat your heart, it would not be full, and if a small piece of cloth covers your eye, it would be covered. And with these limitations, you wish to comprehend the kingdom of the heavens and the earth? If you are honest, the sun is one of God’s creations; if you can gaze upon it fully, then it is as you say.” This indicates that the heart, in its initial stages of imagination and thought, cannot attain the bliss of witnessing the truths of the world, let alone witnessing the ultimate truth, which is God - exalted is He. Thus, one must surpass the stages of the heart and reach the hidden and innermost stages to gain the capacity to witness the realms of the kingdom. In the final stage, specific to our Prophet (PBUH), he transcends even Gabriel in the Mi’raj to reach the station of proximity and complete witnessing.

What is their belief about Determinism and Free-Will?

It has been repeatedly mentioned in response to other questions that the mystics and followers of the Ne’matollahi Gonabadi order have the same beliefs and practices that have been passed down from the Imams of guidance - peace be upon them - and have nothing of their own. They say: This breath that has reached us, we have from Adam. Therefore, in the belief of Determinism and Free-Will, they adhere to what is understood from the verses of the Holy Quran and what has been received from the sources of infallibility and the purified family of the Prophet.

Regarding Determinism and Free-Will, Islamic religious beliefs vary. Sheikh Abu al-Hasan Ash’ari, the founder of the Ash’ari school, believes that the actions of the servants are by God’s power and creation, and the servant has no influence on them. Rather, God has decreed that within the servant, power and choice are created, and his action is created coinciding with that power and choice, without the servant’s power and choice having any involvement. Among them, the Jahmites, who are followers of Jahm ibn Safwan, have gone further, believing that humans have no power or choice at all and are compelled in all instances. Qadi Abu Bakr, one of their prominent theologians, said: the act itself is by God’s power, but becoming an act of obedience like prayer, or an act of sin like drinking wine, are attributes of the act and by the power of the servant. Sheikh Abu Ishaq Isfaraini believes that the effective force in actions is the combination of God’s power and the servant’s power. Two of his students, Imam al-Haramayn and Abu al-Husayn al-Basri, said that the actions of the servants are through the power that God has created in the servant. The Mu’tazilites, followers of Wasil ibn Ata, said that the servant independently creates actions without the intervention of divine will, and God has created the servant and granted him power and will to do what he wants. The Ash’ari and Jahmite view is pure Predestination, and the Mu’tazilite belief is pure Delegation.

However, what the Twelver Shia Imams, jurists, mystics, and philosophers believe, and what they have taken from the sayings of the infallibles, is a matter between these two, where it is said: لاجَبْرَ و لاتَفْویضَ بَلْ امرٌ بَینَ الاَمْرَینِ (It is neither free-will nor delegation; rather, it is a matter between the two). The correct view and true belief, which is based on rational evidence and verses and reports, is this. Of course, those who believe in Determinism and Free-Will each cite verses from the Holy Quran. But when compared with other verses and supported by reports, they all align with the Shia Imamiyya belief.

In brief, the voluntary actions of the servants are based on internal premises and external causes; because the action that emanates from them first appears in their minds, then they consider its purpose and outcome, and if it is beneficial, they affirm it. Then comes inclination, followed by determination, and finally, they will to perform it externally, and it manifests through the limbs. But the very conception and affirmation that occurred in them earlier are cast upon their imagination and thought by God, so the doer is God. Moreover, the will and choice they possess are not from themselves but given by God, so their will and choice are by God’s command. Therefore, the actions that emanate from them are not independent but are with God’s will. Complete delegation does not exist as the Mu’tazilites said, and they are not purely compelled; because possessing will and choice is evident in humans. Moreover, the consequence of Predestination is that there is a compeller and the compelled, and the meaning of the compelled is that it has independence in existence and is willing and choosing, but its choice has been taken away. Its movement is by the will of the compeller, while it has no independence in existence and no independent will and choice to be compelled. It is not such that it has a will and is subordinate to the will of the Truth, which would mean being overpowered, but the matter is much more subtle than this, and the meaning of the matter between the two matters is that the doer of things is the Divine Essence - Exalted is His State - which manifests and appears in the ranks and limits of the servants and creates will in them; like the sunlight that shines through glass and windows and illuminates and warms the room, where the true cause of warmth and light is the sun. But its manifestation is in the glass, though the matter is much higher and more subtle than this as well; because here, it is still possible to imagine that the glass has no effect at all and it is the light of the sun, but in the case of actions, the manifestation of the divine will is through the servant, which is indicated by: ما رَمَیتَ اِذْ رَمَیت وَ لكِنَّ اللّه رَمی .

In another explanation, the great scholar Khawaja Nasir al-Din Tusi said that the servant’s will is the proximate cause of the act and the divine will is its distant cause. The Ash’arites only consider the distant cause and speak of Predestination, while the Mu’tazilites only consider the proximate cause and speak of Delegation, whereas all causes, both distant and proximate, should be considered, which is the meaning of the matter between the two matters.

In another mystical expression, one who does not pay attention to the world of meaning and is only immersed in material things sees everything from himself and assumes independence of will for himself and speaks of Delegation; and the purely absorbed sees no will for himself and pays full attention to the higher world and sees everything from the Divine. But true perfection is in combining attraction and journey, the apparent and the hidden, observing the divine will in human manifestations. Witnessing the distant cause in the proximate causes is the meaning of: ما رَمَیتَ اِذ رَمَیتَ وَ لكِنَّ اللّهَ رَمی:

The meaning of monotheism is this, and it is either the monotheism of actions, where in the world, there is no doer or influencer other than God, as in: لاحَوْلَ وَ لاقُوَّةَ اِلاّ بِاللّه; and then the monotheism of attributes, where all good and virtues are seen as exclusive to the Divine Essence, as in: اَلْحَمْدُلِلّهِ; and known to be solely His essence, as in: لاَ إِلَهَ إِلاَّ اللَّهَ (All praise is due to Allah.); and beyond that, it is that in the world, nothing truly exists except the Divine Essence, as in: لاهُوَ الّا هُو (There is none other than Him). Before entering the stage of monotheism of actions, in truth, it is the belief in Delegation, and in the final stage of annihilation, as no individuality remains, the doer and indeed the true existence is acknowledged as the Divine. The perfection lies in the comprehensiveness that our Prophet (peace be upon him) and his successors were fully realized in, where “you did not throw” pertains to the act regarding the Prophet وَلكِنَّ اللّهَ رَمی (but Allah threw) pertains to the manifest Divine, and this is the reality of the matter between the two matters.

But sins and wrongdoings appear due to deficiency and distance from the truth, and they are not related to the divine will but to one’s own power; just as if the eye does not see, the deficiency is from the organ itself, not from the spirit’s effusion. But seeing is through the spirit’s effusion on the eye, as Muhammad ibn Ahmad al-Washa narrated from Imam Reza (peace be upon him), saying: سَئَلْتُهُ، فَقُلْتُ: اللّهُ فَوَّضَ الامرَ اِلی الْعِباد. قالَ: اَللّه اَعَزُّ مِنْ ذلِكَ. قُلْتُ: فَجَبَرَهُم عَلَی الْمَعاصی؟ قال: اَللّهُ اَعْدَلُ و اَحْكَمُ مِنْ ذلكَ. ثُمَّ قالَ (ع): قالَ اللّهُ: [یابْنَ آدَمَ] اَنَا اَوْلی بِحَسَناتِكَ مِنْكَ وَ اَنْتَ اَوْلی بِسَیئاتِكَ مِنّی عَمِلْتَ الْمَعاصی بِقوّتی الّتی جَعَلْتُها فِیكَ meaning, I asked Imam Reza (peace be upon him) if God has delegated the matter to the servants. He replied: God is more exalted than this. I asked: Then has He compelled them to sin? He replied: God is more just and wise than this. Then he said: God has said, ‘O son of Adam, I am more entitled to your good deeds than you are, but you are more entitled to your wrongdoings than I am. You commit sins with the power I have given you.’

And it is narrated from Yunus ibn Abdul-Rahman from Imams Baqir and Sadiq - peace be upon them -: اِنَّ اللّهَ تعالی اَرْحَمُ بِخَلْقِهِ مِنْ اَنْ یجْبِرَ خَلقَه عَلَی الذّنُوبِ ثُمَّ یعَذِّبُهُم عَلَیها وَ اِنَّهُ اَعَزُّ مِنْ اَنْ یریدَ اَمْراً فَلایكونُ. قالَ: فَسُئلا - عَلَیهِم‌االسّلامُ - هَلْ بَینَ الْجَبْرِ وَ الْقَدَرِ مَنْزِلَةٌ ثالثةٌ؟ قالا: نَعَم، اَوْسَعُ مِمّابَینَ السّماءِ وَ الاَرْض . Meaning, those two great ones said: God is more merciful to His creation than to compel them to sin and then punish them for it. And God is too exalted to will something and it not occur. Then they were asked if there is a third position between Determinism and Free-Will. They replied: Yes, it exists and is wider than between the heavens and the earth.

What is the Mystics' View on the Hereafter?

The hereafter, meaning return, is when a person returns to their original place after a journey. If someone moves from their homeland to another place, even multiple times, it is not called a return. Thus, our true homeland is that world, and here we are like travelers who must return to our homeland. Some philosophers believe the hereafter is only spiritual, theologians believe it is physical, and mystics believe in both. They propose levels for the afterlife and spiritual ascension or descent, as indicated by the various levels of paradise such as the Garden of Eden, Ridwan, and the Beatific Vision, or the different levels of hell. Since the essence of a thing is its final actuality and the essence of matter is its form, divine justice requires that good and bad deeds align with what has occurred here and reach their final actuality, allowing the individual to see the outcome of their actions in that world according to the causes and means of this world.

Thus, reward and punishment relate to the final actuality a person has in this world. However, the body that one has in paradise lacks deficiencies and impurities, as in: «اَهْلُ الجَنَّةِ جَرْدٌ مَرْدٌ» , meaning that what causes deficiency—like the need to expel waste—does not exist there. But the existing perfections of the current body do not disappear, and the pleasures of paradise are eternal.

Similarly, the torment and hardship in that world and hell are not perishable; the highest level of paradise is the Garden of the Beatific Vision, where the individual is blessed with the grace and vision of divine benevolence. This is, of course, the vision of mercy and divine grace, as human vision, which has limits, cannot achieve it. Therefore, verses that seemingly refer to this have an implied word, such as: «فَمَنْ كانَ یرجُوا لِقاءَ رَبِّهِ» , which is interpreted as: «یرجُوا لِقاء رحمةِ رَبِّهِ» (hopes for the encounter with the mercy of his Lord). The greatest torment is also the distance from divine mercy, which is the object of His wrath. The mystics believe that this paradise is the highest level of paradise and God’s wrath is the harshest level of hell. Those who consider this spiritual paradise and hell to be imaginary are far from the truth, as the final level of truth is this paradise and hell, with the physical levels preceding it. True mystics, who follow the Shia and Twelver doctrine, do not deny the physical resurrection but acknowledge both. The misunderstanding of some as a denial of physical resurrection is because they say that questioning will be from the soul in the body, but what is necessary in this world does not exist in the resurrected body. In other words, this world is called the world of ‘becoming and corruption,’ and in that world, the aspect of corruption does not exist; like a silkworm that, after weaving and forming a cocoon, breaks out as a butterfly and flies, the butterfly is the same worm that emerged from the cocoon and transformed into a flying creature. The evidence is that after its emergence, nothing remains inside the cocoon, proving the butterfly is the same as the cocoon. Another proof of this identity is that the egg laid by the butterfly is the material of the same worm, which later appears as that worm, and this example is to bring the concept closer to the mind, though the matter is beyond our imagination.

And if in hell, the body wants to develop defects or wither in its physicality, its form is completed to match the worldly body, as in: «كُلَّما نَضِجَتْ جُلُودُهُمْ بَدَّلناهُم جُلُوداً غَیرَها» , which means: whenever their bodies become accustomed to the torment, we replace them with other skins so they are continually subjected to torment and punishment; meaning the torment never becomes sweet or pleasant. This brief mention is to make it accessible to the general public, hence we did not delve into a scientific discussion and summarized it to dispel the slander and accusations that some biased individuals have made against mystics. If some have denied the physical resurrection, they are not true mystics or genuine followers of the school of Sufism and mysticism; like those who wear the garb of spirituality but lack the true spirit of God-consciousness, asceticism, piety, benevolence to society, and other necessary qualities. They have not truly grasped the essence of mysticism and Sufism because true mysticism is based on the verses of the Holy Scripture and the traditions of the Prophet and the Imams - peace be upon them - and if it contradicts them, it is far from mysticism. Those who have considered closeness and distance from God as mere imagination and Sufi fantasies are far from the truth and have taken a mythical path. In general, as I have reminded again, all the beliefs of the mystics are derived from the Holy Scripture and the traditions narrated from the pure Imams - peace be upon them.

Questions About the Ascension and Its Nature

The topic of the Ascension (Mi’raj) is a significant matter in Islam and universally accepted by all Muslims, but there is disagreement on its nature.

Philosophers and many Islamic scholars believe the Ascension was spiritual and not physical, providing arguments such as the impossibility of a heavy body ascending upwards and surpassing lighter bodies, and the idea that physical ascension to the heavens is impossible. They also argue that the tearing and mending of celestial spheres, which is philosophically impossible, would be required. Furthermore, a physical journey across realms would take a long time, whereas the Ascension did not take long, with some saying it happened in an instant, indicating its spiritual nature.

Islamic theologians assert that the Prophet’s Ascension was physical, with his body traversing all realms up to the Throne and the Divine Seat, considered the eighth and ninth spheres, witnessing all celestial beings, and observing heaven and hell , which they believe are located in the sky and the depths of the earth, respectively, along with their inhabitants. The challenges presented by philosophers are ineffective against divine power, and God can take this earthly body to the heavens in a very short time and create ruptures and mends in the celestial spheres.

Followers of Sheikh Ahmad al-Ahsa’i, known as the Shaykhis, a sect within Shiism from the past two centuries, believe that the Prophet left each element of his body on the corresponding celestial sphere of that element. After passing through the spheres of water, earth, air, and fire, which they consider the four primary elements, he ascended the heavens with a subtle body called the Hoor-Qulya, a symbolic body. This theory contradicts the previous two beliefs and might attempt to reconcile them, but it is weak and disproven by rational and traditional evidence, with more issues than the previous beliefs.

Shiite scholars and mystics, along with the leaders of the Ne’matollahi order, believe that the Prophet’s Ascension was both physical and spiritual. A spiritual Ascension is not unique to the Prophet and does not confer any special status, as it is available to all the great ones. Every believer can inherit this spiritual Ascension according to their spiritual connection with Muhammad and Ali - peace be upon them. According to the noble hadith, “Prayer is the Ascension of the believer,” if a believer achieves a state of presence and prays with full attention, an example of Ascension is achieved for them. Thus, spiritual Ascension can occur for each of the saints. For Ali (peace be upon him), it happened in every prayer, sometimes seventy times a night, and for the Prophet (peace be upon him), this Ascension had no specific count.

The Ascension unique to the Prophet, one of his distinctions that no one else shared, occurred only once or twice in his noble life and combined both spiritual and physical elements. His soul was so strong and complete that it could carry his body during the Ascension, allowing his physical powers to ascend with his purified spirit. The two noble verses: ما كَذَبَ الفُؤادُ مارَای - ما زاغ البَصَرُ وَ ما طَغی in Surah An-Najm refer to both Ascensions. The first refers to the ascent of the soul, and the second to its manifestation in the body and the physical Ascension, where even the eyes observed. The Prophet reached the divine presence and grandeur, with attention to his body and even its accessories, like sandals, which in some narrations are interpreted as offspring and wife, as in a spiritual Ascension, attention to the body diminishes or disappears. As Ali (peace be upon him) initially became completely oblivious to his body, the Prophet (peace be upon him) maintained full awareness of all bodily needs and conditions during the physical Ascension.

Since the goal of Ascension is to reach the state of closeness and presence, and God has no physical location, being present with every particle and encompassing all places, the Prophet also reached the state of nearness during the Ascension. فكانَ قابَ قوسَینِ اَوْ اَدْني , accompanying every particle and being, encompassing all creatures from the Throne and Divine Seat, which are the realities of this world, to other material and immaterial beings. Time and space were removed from his vision, allowing him to observe both past prophets and future events like the land of Tus and the burial of one of his descendants there, and similar occurrences. The highs and lows of places disappeared, enabling him to see the Al-Aqsa Mosque and caravans of the Quraysh in their resting places that night, providing information on their arrival in Mecca.

However, investigating the details and manner of this journey is beyond our understanding and intellect. If a group who has never seen Mecca were to discuss its geography and the shape of the Masjid al-Haram, they would differ in opinion. If someone who has fully seen it joins them, they would say: “Since you haven’t seen the truth, you’ve ventured into myths; discussing this is futile for those who haven’t seen Mecca and the Masjid al-Haram. It’s better to travel there to at least perceive an example of it.” Similarly, for a first or second-grade student, discussing advanced mathematics taught at universities is incomprehensible, and two elementary students cannot discuss it. Therefore, we cannot discuss the nature of the Ascension, as it is beyond our intellect and perception. We must accept what has been received from the sources of infallibility (peace be upon them), who have approached that state, without elaboration. The reports on this matter are often symbolic and meant to bring understanding closer, and we must accept them all and refrain from discussion.

The Ne’matollahi Order’s View on Eminent Scholars

This topic requires no questioning, as it is mentioned in all the books of the order’s elders, and complete guidance is provided in the blessed letter “Pand-e Saleh.”

Eminent scholars are the propagators of Islam and the disseminators of sacred laws. Just as the great mystics are authorized in understanding and imparting litanies and prayers, scholars are authorized in narration, and religious rulings must be taken from them. In the past, there was complete unity between these two groups, each fulfilling their duties. Many past scholars, such as Shahid Thani, Ibn Fahd Hilli, Ibn Tawus, Ibn Abi Jumhur, Sayyid Haydar Amuli, Sheikh Baha’i, Fayz Kashani, Qadi Nurullah Shushtari, Sheikh Murtada Ansari, the late Mirza Shirazi, and the late Ayatollah Esfahani - may Allah have mercy on them - were either involved in Sufism or showed interest in it. In biographical works, some are even referred to as Sufis, like in Abu Ali’s “Rijal” regarding Ibn Fahd Hilli and in “Mirat al-Haq” by the late Majzub Ali Shah, where this is elaborately discussed. Among narrators, some are famously known as Sufis, like Hussein ibn Ali Sufi and Hussein ibn Anbasa Sufi, and Ahmad ibn Yahya ibn Hakim Sufi. Although some claim they were wool sellers, hence the name, this is unlikely because in Arabic, they would be called “Sawwaf”," not “Sufi,” similar to terms like “Baqal” (grocer) and “Tammar” (date seller). Abu al-Hasan Ali, known as Abi al-Adyan, who narrated from Imam al-Askari (peace be upon him), was also known for his Sufism and was a close friend of Junayd, who was favored by Imam al-Askari (peace be upon him), as mentioned in biographical sources about Junayd and Fars ibn Hatam.

Even today, there is no disagreement between true scholars and genuine mystics; conflicts arise from biased individuals or the ignorant. As mentioned in “Majalis al-Mu’minin” by the late Qadi Nurullah Shushtari, in the sixth session, a detailed praise of Sufism is given, quoting the book “Jami al-Asrar” by the esteemed scholar Sayyid Haydar ibn Ali Amuli, which states that Shia and Sufi are two names for the same truth. It also mentions that there is no disagreement between the scholars of Sharia and the spiritual leaders among the Shia. In describing the states of Sayyid Haydar, a detailed account of Sufism is presented. Some have insulted the author, claiming this is a fallacy and that they were not Sufis at all. I do not know what Sufi they refer to or whom we mentioned! We also reject those who label themselves Sufis but do not practice, yet true Sufism is what those scholars possessed, and we take pride in it. I believe their writing is closer to fallacy.

The late Ayatollah Zanjani explicitly told the writer that great scholars secretly maintained connections with faqr and the spiritual path. For example, regarding the late Ayatollah Sayyid Muhammad Kazim Tabataba’i Yazdi, he stated that he had studied with him for years and was among his trusted associates, realizing that he was engaged in the spiritual path.

The followers are obliged to maintain respect for the eminent scholars as mentioned in the letter Pand-e Saleh. They should regard those who truly fulfill their spiritual duties and strive to serve the sacred law and disseminate its rulings with reverence and seek the religious rulings, which every Muslim must practice, from them.

What is the Practical Approach of the Ni’matullahi Order?

The Ni’matullahi Order takes pride in its adherence to Shi’ism, following the Twelve Imams (peace be upon them), and acting according to the true Ja’fari school of thought. In summary, three characteristics distinguish the Ni’matullahi Order:

1. Commitment to the rituals of the sacred Sharia; because the outward form reflects the inner state, and unless one corrects the outward, the inward will not be corrected. The great figures of religion attained their status through servitude to God and obedience to His commands. We, too, who claim to follow those great figures, must tread in their footsteps. This world is a place of duty, and as long as there is material life, duty is not lifted; certainty in the holy verse: واعْبُدْ رَبَّكَ حَتّی یأتِیكَ الْیقین is interpreted by some commentators as death; meaning that as long as one is alive, one should not abandon servitude and obedience. Even if it means certainty as opposed to doubt, the ultimate aim is included in the objective. Indeed, when certainty is achieved, one should worship even more, for one’s faith before attaining certainty is faith in the unseen, and later, one’s passion and eagerness for worship increases, as in: بَلْ وَجَدْتُكَ اَهْلاً للعِبادةِ فَعَبَدْتُك . Therefore, the great mystics who had attained knowledge also fully adhered to recommended practices and avoided the reprehensible by following the infallible Imams (peace be upon them). The seeker of God must first correct their religious practices to complete their inner orientation and connection with the unseen, as maintaining it also depends on observing the outward rituals of Sharia.
2. Commitment to work and livelihood; because a person must earn a living in this world, either through work, theft, or begging. The second and third options are entirely prohibited both rationally and textually, so one must manage life through work and should not be idle and a burden on society, as relying on others is akin to begging.
3. No specific dress code; in many orders, specific clothing is designated for followers, but this restriction does not exist in the Ni’matullahi Order; because the sacred religion of Islam has designated the true and real garment for a believer as the garment of piety. Outwardly, specific clothing is only designated in two instances: one for the living during the state of Ihram in Mecca, and the other for the dead, which is the shroud. Other than these two instances, no specific clothing is required, and servitude to God is possible in any clothing. One must only avoid what is religiously prohibited, such as usurped clothing or wearing pure silk and gold-embroidered garments for men.

Another distinction is the prevalence of openness over constriction; meaning one should always interact with people and participate in social gatherings, and according to the guidance of the Commander of the Faithful (peace be upon him) regarding a believer’s مؤمن بِشْرُهُ فِی وَجْهِهِ وَ حُزْنُهُ فِی قَلْبِهِ , one should always be cheerful and kind to all, not avoiding social interactions, and combine the remembrance of God in the heart with outward interaction with people, and not behave in a way that makes people uncomfortable or turn away.

With these few distinctions mentioned, if individuals in some other orders act against the pure Sharia or lack adherence to manners, or if individuals in the Ni’matullahi order are seen behaving inappropriately, they are, of course, deserving of blame due to their conduct, and the leaders of the Ni’matullahi order are also displeased with and disavow such behavior. However, one cannot use their conduct as a basis for blaming the entire order. As in other sects, even among the clergy, there are good and bad individuals, and generally, inappropriate behavior of some individuals in any group cannot be a reason for criticism of the whole.

Moreover, laziness and idleness are contrary to the approach and instructions of the leaders of the Sufi path, and all the great figures were involved in worldly work; as the prophets and saints generally had occupations. For instance, Ali (peace be upon him) often engaged in farming, and Imam Baqir and Imam Sadiq (peace be upon them) throughout their lives. Imam Hadi and Imam Askari (peace be upon them) were compelled to military work by the caliph, and followers like Maytham Tammar and Safwan Jammal also had worldly occupations. The great mystics, who take pride in following those noble figures, each had a profession; for instance, the late Shah Ni’matullah Wali and the late Sultan Ali Shah, despite their high status and scholarly qualifications, engaged in agriculture, and a few like Saadat Ali Shah Isfahani were involved in trade. None of these are contrary to worship, asceticism, and reliance on God; because reliance on God means that in all conditions one’s heart depends on God, and all affairs are entrusted to Him, and it does not necessitate leaving work but rather one must be engaged in work according to God’s command and the guidance of religious leaders. Yet, one should know that God is the cause of causes and the provider, and not cease striving, and indeed, one could say that abandoning worldly work is contrary to reliance on God; because someone who does not work relies on others to help them. But someone who works expects God to provide for them and bless their work, so one must be engaged in work. Except in situations where the sacred Sharia has instructed to abandon work, such as Friday until after the noon prayer according to the holy verse: اِذا نُودِی لِلصَّلوةِ مِنْ یوْمِ الْجُمُعَةِ فَاسْعَوْا اِلی ذِكْرِاللَّهِ وَ ذَرُواالْبَیعَ where worldly work and trade are not favored, or when prayer time is tight and it is not permissible to work, or during the preferred times for prayer when leaving work is preferable unless necessary, one should not be idle at other times.

Therefore, those who have adopted laziness and called it reliance on God have made a mistake and often considered comfort and ease for the self. Religion and devotion to God do not oppose worldly work; rather, perfection lies in being engaged in worldly work while not neglecting the remembrance of God and religious matters, as the famous saying indicates: hands at work and heart with the beloved, and the holy verse: رجالٌ لا تُلْهیهِمْ تِجارَةٌ و لا بَیعٌ عَنْ ذِكْرِاللَّهِ refers to this. One of the advantages of the sacred religion of Islam is the combination of the outward and inward, the world and the hereafter. Monasticism, which is to abandon work, isolate oneself, and avoid people and social matters, and to engage solely in worship, is favored in the Christian religion (peace be upon him) but is prohibited in Islam, and everyone should help each other in work and serve the community. And if by chance someone lacks this state and prefers seclusion and abandoning worldly work, it cannot be a basis for the general public and open to criticism; just as among the clergy, there are those who spend their entire lives in seclusion and in the corner of a school, although this state is sometimes and for some individuals commendable but not for the general public.

Even in Islam, activity and effort in work with the intention of expanding sustenance for family and children and helping others is commendable, and it differs from greed and love for the world; because greed or love for the world occurs when the sole intention is personal gain and hoarding wealth without using it for necessary expenses, and being so engrossed in accumulating worldly possessions that it leads to neglect of devotional and social responsibilities. However, if the effort in work is intended to obey commands, necessary and recommended charity, and expansion for those one is obliged to support, it is praiseworthy, and the great figures of religion had the same approach; for instance, Commander of the Faithful, Imam Baqir, and Imam Sadiq (peace be upon them) had the same approach and even enjoyed worldly adornments and decorations, such as wearing opulent cloaks and generally had the best food and clothing, as mentioned in the Quran: یا ایها الرُّسُلُ كُلُوا مِنَ الطَّیباتِ وَاعْمَلُوا صالِحاً , and elsewhere it says: قُلْ مَنْ حَرَّمَ زینَةَاللَّهِ الَّتی اَخْرَجَ لِعِبادِهِ وَالطَّیباتِ مِنَ الرِّزْقِ . So those who think that distinction and adornment and good clothing are contrary to asceticism have misunderstood; because asceticism means not being attached to the world even if one possesses all the world’s wealth, and the sign of it is that if, for example, suddenly a great fortune comes to him overnight, it does not create excessive joy and happiness in him, and if all his wealth, like Prophet Job’s (peace be upon him), is lost in a short time, he remains unfazed and is patient and grateful in all circumstances, seeing the owner of wealth as someone else who has entrusted it to him. In this case, if the tent pegs are made of gold, since he knows they are from God and he spends them in God’s way and under His command, and is not attached to them, he is an ascetic; but if he is attached to worldly possessions, even if his possessions are only a beggar’s bowl and stick, he is not an ascetic, as his heart is attached to worldly wealth; so the criterion is the absence of attachment in the heart. Therefore, having wealth, no matter how much, if obtained through lawful and legitimate means, is not blameworthy, but if acquired through forbidden and unlawful means, it is undoubtedly against Sharia and reason and is undesirable. Prophet Solomon (peace be upon him) had both the position of prophethood and kingship.

So those who criticize some of the great mystics for having wealth and possessions have not considered the situation of the infallible Imams (peace be upon them) after the Commander of the Faithful. And those who think, conversely, that dervishhood necessitates laziness and idleness and being a burden on society, and criticize from that angle, are mistaken. And those who have named themselves dervishes and possess such undesirable states have not benefited from the true essence of dervishhood.

One must always consider and measure the behavior of the infallible Imams (peace be upon them) in all actions. What aligns with it should be accepted, and what contradicts it should be rejected wherever it is seen; because the mystics have what they have from the great figures of religion and take pride in following them.

What Does «إِذَا عَرَفْتَ فَاعْمَلْ‌ مَا شِئْتَ» Mean?

The meaning of this hadith is that once you have attained knowledge of the truth, you may perform any good deeds you wish, whether many or few; as some versions of the hadith specify, مِنْ كَثیرِ الخَیر وَ قَلِیلِهِ (whether much good or little good). It does not mean you can do whatever you want, whether good or bad, lawful or unlawful; because the essence of knowing the truth involves strict observance of the law and careful adherence to duties. One who knows the truth sees God present everywhere and does not act against His commands.

As long as a person lives in this world, they are in a place of duty and must act according to prescribed duties, as some commentators have interpreted the holy verse: وَاعْبُدْ رَبَّكَ حتّی یأتیكَ الْیقینَ (Worship your Lord until certainty comes to you) as یأتیكَ الْمَوْتَ (until death comes to you); even if we take it to mean certainty itself, there is no problem, and the ultimate aim is included in the objective. As one’s spiritual perfection and knowledge increase, their desire to serve and obey God grows, reaching a point where the burden of worship and duty is lifted and it becomes a comfort, which occurs when certainty is achieved, and they find joy in worship; as the great figures of religion and the guided Imams (peace be upon them) never neglected any duty and took great pleasure in worship, as it was said: و قُرَّةُ عَینِی فِی الصّلوةِ .

Those who are not committed to religious laws act against God’s and the Prophet’s (peace be upon him) commands, and their faith is incomplete. Some among the Qalandariyya claim they have reached a state where they are not bound by obligations, which is contrary to reason and Sharia, as their aim is freedom in worldly desires and pleasures, and their actions contradict their claims; because closeness and arrival necessitate persistence in worship and servitude and careful observance of duties, not indulging the self in worldly pleasures.

One of the advantages of the esteemed Ni’matullahi Order, as we have elaborated, is adherence to the rituals of the sacred Sharia.

Our duty as the fuqara (plural of faqir, darvish in Persian) of the Ni’matullahi Order is to preserve the sacred principles of the Sharia and act according to its holy instructions, as inner perfection is not possible without preserving the outward aspects of Sharia. If we fall short, we act against the pleasure of God and the great figures of religion, causing them distress; as interpreted in the holy verse: وَ قُل اعْمَلُوا فَسَیري‌اللَّهُ عَمَلَكُم وَ رَسُولُهُ وَالمُومِنُون , it is narrated from Imam Sadiq (peace be upon him) in Al-Kafi that he said:
مالَكُم تَسُوئونَ رَسولَ‌اللَّهِ؟ فَقیلَ: كَیفَ نَسُوئُهُ؟ فَقالَ: اَماتَعْلَمُونَ [اَنَّ] اعْمالَكُم تُعْرَضُ عَلَیهِ فَاِذا رَای مَعْصِیةً فِیها سائَهُ ذلِكَ فلا تَسُوئوا رَسولَ‌اللَّهِ و سُرُّوه.

Meaning, why do you wrong the Prophet of God? It was asked how do we wrong him? He replied: Do you not know that your deeds are presented to him, and when he sees a sin among them, he is distressed by it? So do not wrong the Prophet of God, but rather please him. And the word «والمؤمنون» mentioned in that verse is interpreted as referring to Ali and the Imams (peace be upon them).

What is the Subject of Tithing on Profits?

Regarding the tithe on income, it has been elaborated by the late Hajj Mulla Ali Nur Ali Shah Thani in his treatise “Muhammadiyah” under the section on Khums. It is also mentioned in the book “The Genius of Science and Mysticism” that this is for ease of calculation. The late Sultan Ali Shah in his letter to the late Hajj Abdulhadi wrote: “One-tenth of the profits from trade and agriculture should be given, which will suffice as Zakat and Khums, God willing.” This implies that this topic is related to agricultural produce, i.e., for the four staple crops, but for minted money and livestock, which are less commonly needed, it’s done as detailed in jurisprudence. In agriculture, if watered by running water, rain, or springs, it is a tenth, but if irrigated by drawing water from wells, it is half a tenth. Therefore, there is no significant discrepancy in appearance, and it is correct, even better, for anyone who wants to pay according to the exact standards mentioned in jurisprudence, as the term “sufficient” indicates; because in agriculture, paying the actual produce is preferable.

Thus, in reality, the subject of tithing usually pertains to matters of Khums and rarely includes Zakat; as Sultan Ali Shah mentioned in one of his correspondences : “Regarding the Khums of the family of the Prophet, Khums should be taken from the surplus after expenses, and if one-tenth is taken from all income before expenses, God willing, it will be accepted.” This shows that the purpose is to simplify calculations, as initially, the rule of Khums is stated, which is after expenses, and then the tithe from total income before expenses is mentioned to simplify accounting. Additionally, in Khums, although two-tenths should be taken out, half of which pertains to the Imam, according to some traditions and fatwas, during the time of occultation, if it is not given, it is pardoned by the Imam to ensure the purity of the Shiite lineage, as mentioned in the book “Wafi” in the chapter on باب تحلیلهم الخمس لشیعتهم و تشدیدهم الامر فیه (Chapter: Analyzing Their Division of Khums for Their Sect and Their Emphasis on It), where related narrations are included, and at the end of that chapter, the late Fayz says:

وَ اَمّا مِثْلُ هذاالزَّمانِ حَیثُ لا یمْكِنُ الْوُصولُ اِلَیهِم - عَلَیهم السّلام - فَیسْقِطُ حِصَّتُهُم - عَلَیهم السّلام - رأساً لِتَعَذُّر ذلِكَ وَ غِنائِهِم عَنْهُ راساً دُون السَّهام الباقیة لِوجودِ مُسْتَحَقّیها و مَنْ صَرَفَ الكُلَّ حینَئَذٍ اِلی الاَصْنافِ الثّلاثةِ فَقَد اَحْسَنَ و اَحْتاطَ وَ الْعِلْمُ عِنْدَاللَّهِ . Therefore, according to this view, one-tenth remains, which pertains to the orphans, the needy, and the wayfarer among the Bani Hashim, and of course, anyone who wishes to pay the tithe must consider this aspect: if it is from Zakat assets, it should be given to the deserving of Zakat, and if it pertains to Khums, it should be given to the rightful Khums beneficiaries. If one wishes to deliver it through their leader or guide, they should specify how much is from Zakat and how much is Khums so that it is consumed accordingly. In other words, determining the tithe specifies the amount that is separated and distinguished, but in terms of payment to the deserving, the categories differ and must be separated; hence when one of the religious brothers pays something as a tithe, it is asked whether it is Zakat or Khums unless it is known. All brothers should remember to spend it in its rightful place, and some who are more particular about the Imam’s share and wish to pay it to avoid self-interest, deliver it to the deputies and scholars, paying half of the Khums as the Imam’s share and spending the other half themselves in its place. In general, in the matter of financial rights, like other rulings, no specific instructions beyond general guidelines are given, and many people themselves, with or without mention, personally deliver it to the deserving, or some pay it to scholars and religious authorities, with the purpose of fulfilling it and ensuring it reaches its proper use, so there is certainty of releasing one’s duty, as: حلالُ محمّد حلالٌ اِلی یومِ الْقِیامَةِ و حَرامُهُ حَرامٌ اِلی یوْمِ الْقِیمَة .

Those who have raised objections should be assured that the intention is not legislation or innovation, but merely to facilitate accounting. Nonetheless, as we have explained, of course, if everyone accurately aligns with the Zakat and Khums directives, it is preferable. The author of those objections seems to consider only themselves knowledgeable in precise jurisprudential matters and not others, and they have written that precise jurisprudential issues should be left to the experts; meaning they consider me, despite having the license to practice jurisprudence, unaware of the law, and to them, it must be answered: حَفِظْتَ شَیئاً وَ غابَتْ عَنْكَ اشیاءٌ (You have preserved some things, while others have been omitted from you). And those who have written that one should maintain Islamic etiquette in conversations, unfortunately, have acted entirely contrary, and as the Imam said, arrogance with the arrogant is commendable, the response to such malicious individuals should be in kind.

In conclusion, I find it appropriate to point out that in addition to spending the divine rights of others in their place and never using them for personal expenses, I have complete adherence in paying my own divine obligations, both Zakat and Khums, to the rightful places and deserving individuals and the areas specified by the sacred law, and even have a separate account for this to prevent any negligence or oversight due to forgetfulness.

Question about Spiritual Handshaking

There has been an inquiry about the spiritual handshake and its basis. Briefly, it is mentioned that in language, handshaking means to touch hands, derived from the root “Safh,” and in the terminology of traditions, it refers to two people shaking hands. According to transmitted reports, it is specific to the right hand, with no involvement of the left hand, as indicated by the narration from “Uyoon Akhbar al-Ridha” from Rayyan ibn Shabib regarding the allegiance of people to Hazrat al-Ridha (A) and Mamun. It states: عَقْدُ الْبَیعَةِ هُوَ مِنْ اَعلی الْخِنْصَر اِلی اَعلَی الْاِبهامِ وَ فَسْخُها مِنْ اَعلی الْاِبهامِ إلی اَعْلَی الْخِنْصَرِ. This means, sealing allegiance from the top of the little finger (Khinsar) to the top of the thumb and annulling it from the top of the thumb to the top of the little finger; which, if considered, only aligns with the spiritual handshake.

In the narration from Sulaym ibn Qays Hilali from Salman Farsi, he said: When people pledged allegiance to Abu Bakr, I came to the service of Amir al-Mu’minin Ali (A) while he was busy washing the Prophet (PBUH). I said: Abu Bakr is on the Prophet’s pulpit, and people are pledging allegiance to him with both hands, and he is not satisfied with allegiance with one hand.

Therefore, the practice of some who shake hands with both hands does not seem to correspond to the traditional religious handshake. In the right-hand handshake, “Tashbeek al-Asabe” which means intertwining fingers, and “Safqah al-Yamin” which means striking the right hands together, and “Safqah al-Ibaham” which means striking the thumbs together, have been narrated. In the hadith from Abi Ubaidah Haza’ from Imam Baqir (A): ما مِنْ مُسْلِمٍ لَقِی اَخاهُ الْمُسلِمَ فَصافَحَهُ و شَبَّكَ اَصابِعَهُ فِی اَصابِعِه إلّاتَناثَرَتْ عَنْهُما ذُنُوبُهُما . Meaning, no Muslim meets his Muslim brother and shakes hands with him and intertwines his fingers with his, except that their sins fall away. Since there is no historical or traditional record indicating that “Tashbeek” means grasping all fingers like a claw, and in the usual handshake, which is with both hands, “Tashbeek” does not apply, so the spiritual handshake is closer to the traditions. In another report: مَنْ فارَقَ جَماعَةَ الْمُسْلِمینَ وَ نَكَثَ صَفْقةَ الْاِبهام حَشَرَهُ‌اللَّهُ اَجْذَم. Meaning, whoever separates from the Muslim community and breaks the striking of thumbs together, God will resurrect him as a leper. Another hadith states: مَنْ نَكَثَ صَفْقَةَ الامامِ جاءَ اِلي‌اللَّهِ اَجْذَم. Meaning, whoever breaks the handshake with the Imam will come to God as a leper.

In the same narration from “Uyoon Akhbar al-Ridha,” it is mentioned: فَكانُوا یصْفُقُون بِایمانِهِم . “Safq” means striking, indicating that in spiritual handshaking, there should be striking of the right thumbs together and intertwining fingers in the manner we described. Therefore, if we examine the current types of handshaking among people, the spiritual handshake appears closer to the traditions.

In “Tafsir Safi,” under the verse in Surah Al-Fath: اِنَّ الَّذینَ یبایعونَكَ اِنَّما یبایعونَ اللَّه , it is narrated from Sheikh Mufid about the people’s pledge to Hazrat al-Ridha (A): فَرَفَعَ الرّضا(ع) یدَهُ فَتلقی بِها وَجْهُهُ وَ بِبَطْنِها وُجُوهُهُم. فَقالَ لَهُ الْمأمونُ: اَبْسِطْ یدَكَ لِلْبَیعَةِ. فَقالَ الرّضا(ع): اَنَّ رَسُولَ‌اللَّهِ هكذا كانَ یبایعُ فَبایعَهُ النّاسُ وَ یدُهُ فَوْقَ ایدیهِم. Meaning, when pledging allegiance, he raised his hand, with the inside facing them. Mamun said: Open your hand for allegiance. He replied: The Messenger of God used to take allegiance this way; people pledged to him with his hand above theirs. If we consider this, it aligns with the spiritual handshake.

As for kissing the hand, which some have criticized, it is not without justification because, according to the noble verse: یدُاللَّه فَوْقَ ایدیهِم, (The hand of divine grace is above their hands). In the hadith from Abi Khalid Qammat from Imam Baqir (A):

اِنَّ المُؤمنینَ اِذا الْتَقَیا وَ تَصافَحا اَدْخَلَ‌اللَّهُ یدَهُ بَینَ ایدیهِما فَصافَحَ اَشَدَّهُما حُبّاً لصاحِبِهِ . Meaning, whenever believers meet and shake hands, God places His hand between their hands and shakes hands with the one who has more love for his companion. Therefore, each of the two who shake hands kisses the other’s hand, which is, in truth, shaking hands with God. From one perspective, every believer has a spiritual connection to the Prophet and Imam because of faith, and kissing his hand is, in reality, for that connection and affiliation: اُقَبِّلُ ذَاالجدارَ و ذاالجدارا .

Rafaa narrated from Imam Sadiq (A) who said: لا یقَبَّلُ رَأسُ اَحَدٍ و لا یدُهُ اِلاّ [ید] رَسوُلَ‌اللَّهِ(ص) اَوْ مَنْ اُریدَ بِهِ رسولُ‌اللَّهِ صَلّی اللَّهُ عَلَیهِ وَ آلِهِ وَ سَلَّمَ . Meaning, the head or hand of no one should be kissed except the Prophet of God or someone whose hand, by kissing, the Prophet is intended; and the latter part is interpreted only for the Infallible Imams (A), and some have extended it to scholars as well. According to what has been transmitted from our elders, kissing the hand of a believer is also permissible due to the spiritual connection to those great ones and falls within the same hadith. In “Amali” by Sheikh Tusi, it is narrated from Aisha who said:

ما رَایتُ مِنَ النّاسِ اَحَداً اَشْبَه كَلاماً وَ حَدیثاً بِرَسولِ‌اللَّهِ (ص) مِنْ فاطِمَةَ كانَتْ اِذا دَخَلَتْ عَلَیهِ رَحَّبَ بِها و قَبَّلَ یدَیها وَ أجْلَسَها فِی مَجْلِسِه وَ اِذا دَخَلَ عَلَیها قامَت اِلَیهِ فَرَحَّبَتْ بِهِ و قَبَّلَتْ یدَیهِ.

Meaning, I saw no one more similar in speech and talk to the Prophet of God than Fatima. When Fatima would come to the Prophet, he would welcome her, kiss her hands, and seat her in his place. And when the Prophet would enter upon her, she would rise to him, welcome him, and kiss his hands. Meaning, whoever would enter, the other would come forward and initiate kissing. A similar narration is in the book “Yanabi’ al-Mawaddah,” authored by Khwaja Sulayman ibn Ibrahim, known as Khwaja Kalan, who was a Sunni and Hanafi scholar, indicating that the Prophet also kissed Fatima’s hand, which supports our point.

In “Tafsir Safi,” under the verse in Surah Tawbah: اَلَمْ یعْلَمُوا اَنّ‌اللَّه هُوَ یقْبَلُ التَّوبَة عَنْ عِبادِهِ وَ یأخُذُ الصَدَقاتِ , it is narrated about Imam Sajjad (A): اِنَّهُ كانَ اِذا اَعْطَی السائِلَ قَبَّلَ یدَالسّائِلَ. فَقیلَ لَهُ لِمَ تَفْعَلُ ذلكَ؟ قالَ لِاَنها تَقَعُ فِی یدِاللَّهِ قَبْلَ یدِالْعَبْدِ. Meaning, whenever he gave something to a beggar, he would kiss the beggar’s hand. It was said to him: Why do you do that? He replied: Because it reaches the hand of God before the hand of the servant.

Of course, kissing the hand is not a necessity of handshaking; it is a form of etiquette that we also find commendable from a religious perspective. However, kissing anything other than the hand, such as the forehead, knee, or foot, which some consider honorable because they are parts of the prostration places for God, is different and often discouraged unless it is due to overwhelming emotions of affection, akin to: أُقَبِّلَ ذا الجِدارَ وَذا الجِدارا (Part of a poem from Layla and Majnun, means: I kiss this wall, sometimes I kiss that one), because such actions, if done out of imitation or show, are not commendable and should be avoided unless driven by overwhelming feelings of longing and love. Kissing the forehead can be included under the above-mentioned hadith لا یقَبَّلُ رَأسُ اَحَدٍ وَ لا یدُهُ (No one’s head is to be kissed, nor his hand). Again, one of the objectors has written that the narrations of allegiance and handshaking have been mixed. Firstly, nowhere has it been mentioned that the method of taking allegiance was different from handshaking; and secondly, as per your own words, examine the traditions of handshaking in “Al-Kafi” and judge fairly to see which type of handshaking aligns with those traditions. Therefore, what we say is not based on personal whims as you have written, but is rooted in traditions.

What Do Mystics Say About the Purity or Impurity of People of the Book?

The issue of the purity and impurity of the People of the Book is a point of contention among jurists. While most have deemed them impure, some believe they are pure, citing Quranic verses as evidence. Haj Mulla Sultan Muhammad Sultan Ali Shah and his son, the late Haj Mulla Ali Nur Ali Shah II (may their secrets be sanctified), also expressed this view, stating that the People of the Book are pure unless they engage with wine and pork, in which case they become impure until certain of their purification. The noble verse: اِنَّما المُشْركُونَ نَجَسٌ explicitly refers to the impurity of polytheists, but does not mention the People of the Book, implying their purity. Although these two revered figures were of a high degree of ijtihad and did not issue fatwas on all matters, directing followers to contemporary sources of emulation, the late great ancestor in his commentary issued a fatwa on only a few subjects, including the purity of the People of the Book.

Some argue that because Jews claim Uzair as the son of God and Christians believe in the Trinity or the sonship of Christ, they are considered polytheists. However, it is undeniable that such beliefs existed among them during the Prophet’s time, yet they were still regarded as the People of the Book, not polytheists. Additionally, the noble verse: وَ طَعامُ الَّذینَ اُوتُواالكِتابَ حِلٌّ لَكُم وَ طَعامُكُم حِلٌّ لَهُمْ in the beginning of Surah Al-Ma’idah can be seen as supporting this view. If the term “food” refers to grains and legumes, as some interpretations citing traditions from the Imam (peace be upon him) suggest, it does not exclusively apply to them, and if obtained from non-Muslims and non-People of the Book, as it is dry, there is no issue. If it refers to their slaughtered meat, it is nearly unanimous among Shia jurists that it is not permissible, indicating that the reference is to eating their cooked food, provided the meat is not their own and is from a Muslim market.

Moreover, the allowance of enjoying relationships with women of the People of the Book (even if we consider permanent marriage forbidden) itself indicates their purity, as touching their bodies and its implications are impossible without considering them pure, unless one believes in the absolute prohibition of marriage. Furthermore, there are reports suggesting their purity. As narrated in the beginning of “Wasa’il,” a narrator says, “I asked Imam Ridha (peace be upon him): My Christian maidservant serves me, and I know she is Christian and does not perform ghusl after major ritual impurity.” The Imam replied: “There is no problem; she should wash her hands.” It is also narrated that a narrator asked Imam Sadiq (peace be upon him): “May I sacrifice myself for you, should I eat the food of Jews and Christians?” He replied: “Do not eat it.” Then he said: “O Ismail, not because it is forbidden, but for the sake of cleanliness, as their containers are contaminated with wine and pork.” This hadith indicates that avoidance is due to their lack of abstention from wine and pork. We can also infer from the general rule: كُلُّ شَي‌ءٍ طاهرٌ حَتّی تَعْلَمَ إنَّهُ قَذِرٌ ; since the People of the Book are not polytheists, any doubt about their purity is dismissed by this rule, affirming their purity.

For this reason, the late Sultan Ali Shah in his commentary “Bayan al-Sa’adah,” under the mentioned noble verse: وَ طَعامُ الَّذینَ اُوتوا الكِتابَ (And the food of those who were given the Book), favored the inherent purity of the People of the Book and their incidental impurity due to wine and pork, unless we see them washing their hands, mouth, and containers. The late Nur Ali Shah II also explicitly stated this in his nine general instructions.

Inquiry About Apostasy and Mystics' Views on It

Apostasy, as mentioned by Shia jurists, is of two types: national and innate. A national apostate is someone who was a non-believer at the age of maturity, whose parents were also non-believers, and who converted to Islam after maturity but later returned to disbelief. It is called national because they return from the nation and connection with Muslims. An innate apostate is someone whose parents are Muslim, who was born and matured as a Muslim, but later rejected Islam after maturity. They are called innate because they have turned away from their natural inclination towards Islam.

Apostasy and disbelief can manifest in various forms: denying the Creator, rejecting prophethood, denying essential tenets of the faith, insulting or mocking the Prophet, or disrespecting Islamic sanctities, such as burning the Quran or claiming abrogation of sacred Islamic law. According to Shia belief, insulting one of the Imams of guidance (peace be upon them) also leads to apostasy and disbelief.

The near consensus among Shia is that the repentance of an innate apostate is not accepted outwardly, and they must be killed. During their life, their wife becomes forbidden to them and must observe the waiting period for a deceased spouse, and their property is distributed among heirs, even if they are alive. This is supported by narrations, including one from Ammar bin Musa Abu Al-Yaqzan Sabati, a companion of Imam Sadiq (peace be upon him), who narrated that the Imam said: كُلُّ مُسْلِمٍ بَینَ مُسْلِمینَ ارْتَدَّ عَن الاِسلام وَ جَحَدَ مُحمَّداً(ص) نُبُوَّتَهُ و كَذَّبَهُ فَاِنَّ دَمَهُ مُباح لِكُلّ مَنْ سَمِعَ ذلكَ عَنْهُ وَامْرَئَتُهُ بائنةٌ یوْمَ ارْتَدَّ فَلا تَقْرَبُهُ وَ یقْسَمُ مالُهُ عَلی وَرَثَتِه وَ تَعْتَدُّ امْرَأتُهُ عِدَّة المُتَوَّفی عَنْها زَوْجُها و عَلَی الامام اَنْ یقْتُلَهُ وَ لا یستَتیبَهُ . Meaning, any Muslim born to Muslim parents who denies the prophethood of Muhammad (PBUH) has his blood made permissible for anyone who hears this from him, and his wife becomes irrevocably divorced and must observe the waiting period for a widowed woman, and his property is divided among his heirs. The Imam is obliged to kill him and not accept his repentance. Although he is still obligated to accept the truth, it is believed that his repentance may be accepted inwardly, and God may forgive him, as rejecting his repentance before God contradicts divine justice. If no one becomes aware of his apostasy and he repents, his worship is accepted, and his body is purified. Full details are found in detailed jurisprudential texts. If his apostasy is national, he is coerced into repentance and given three days. If he repents, he is freed; if not, he is killed, but as long as he is alive, his marriage and ownership rights remain intact. If he repents and then apostatizes again, by the third or fourth time, he is considered an innate apostate and is executed. A narration from Ali bin Ja’far, who asked his brother Imam Musa bin Ja’far (peace be upon them) about a Muslim who converted to Christianity, states: عَنْ مُسلِمٍ تَنَصَّرَ. قالَ: یقْتَلُ وَ لا یسْتَتابُ. قُلْتُ: فَنَصْرانی اَسْلَمَ ثُمَّ ارْتَدَّ مِنَ الاِسْلامِ. قالَ: یسْتَتابُ فَاِنْ تابَ وَ اِلاّ قُتِلَ. I asked about a Muslim who became a Christian. He said: He is killed, and his repentance is not accepted. I asked if a Christian converted to Islam and then apostatized. He said: He is coerced into repentance; if he repents, otherwise he is killed. The details are mentioned in jurisprudential texts.

However, Ibn al-Junaid, one of the senior Shia jurists, believes that there is only one type of apostasy, and the apostate should be coerced into repentance. If accepted, they are freed; otherwise, they are killed. Others have also stated that the general evidence supports this view, and specifying it with a few singular reports is problematic. Ammar Sabati, the narrator, was a Fathi. Ibn al-Junaid Muhammad bin Ahmad bin Junaid Abu Ali Katib Iskafi was a prominent Shia jurist, contemporary with the deputies of the sacred precinct and the caliphs and rulers of the Abbasid and Buyid eras, passing away in 381 AH. Sheikh Mufid and Abu Abdullah Ahmad bin Abdulwahid, known as Ibn Abdon, and several other senior Shia figures have narrated from him. Iskaf (with a short ‘a’) is the name of two places in the Nahrawan region and around Baghdad, where the Junaid family were leaders and respected by all people since the time of the Persian kings.

Some have also said Iskaf means cobbler or carpenter, but that is not the intended meaning here. Ibn al-Junaid believes there is no difference between national and innate apostates, and they should be coerced into repentance. If they refuse, they should be killed.

Mystics have a different explanation for national and innate apostasy, stating that by nature, humans have a connection to higher realms, which draws them towards God, representing the divine rope. If they outwardly connect with God’s representatives and religious guides, they also connect to the human rope. However, if they sever this second connection by denying God or His representatives or rejecting essential religious tenets, but their nature remains intact, they are national apostates, having turned away from the nation and human rope connected through representatives. Since their nature has not turned away, their repentance is accepted, as their potential for reconnection remains. If their apostasy reaches a point where hope for reconnection is lost, and disbelief darkens their entire heart, erasing any bright spot, they have turned away from their nature, which is connected to monotheism, severing the divine rope, and their repentance is not accepted; like those who commit murder of prophets and saints, insist on denying religious laws, mocking, and insulting religious decrees, who often lack the condition for repentance and are innate apostates, as their potential for returning to faith has vanished . Thus, حَبلٌ مِنَ اللَّه (A rope from Allah) is natural monotheism, and حَبلٌ مِنَ النّاس (A rope from the people) is legal Islam and faith. With this theory, distinguishing between national and innate apostates is reserved for scholars who are heirs of the prophets and Imams and have a divine insight to discern the reality and inner state of individuals, determining whether repentance is accepted. Such individuals are very rare. Thus, no one can declare someone an innate apostate unless a person with divine insight judges so. Others, even if they wish to opine, must exercise caution and apply the ruling of national apostasy, supported by Ibn al-Junaid’s opinion.

The late great ancestor Haj Mulla Sultan Muhammad Sultan Ali Shah in the commentary “Bayan al-Sa’adah,” at the end of the third section under the interpretation of the noble verse: وَ مَنْ یبْتَغِ غَیرَالاسْلامِ دیناً فَلَنْ یقْبَلَ مِنْهُ , writes an explanation on this, reconciling the views of jurists and mystics, stating that what is mentioned in the traditions about the distinction between national and innate apostates and the jurists’ rulings allude to these two types of apostasy, which are the reality of these two matters. For someone born into Islam and raised in it, their Islam is like an intrinsic quality, rarely departing from it unless their nature is severed. But someone born into disbelief and raised in it, later entering Islam, their Islam is incidental and may be removed, but their nature is not severed. This explanation eliminates the need to laboriously prove that the repentance of an innate apostate is accepted inwardly but not outwardly.

With their explanation, it becomes clear that ruling someone as an innate apostate is specific to those firmly grounded in knowledge and aware of inner states, possessing divine insight, such as the Imams (peace be upon them) or those who possess the divine insight required in ijtihad. These individuals can discern who has died in disbelief, whereas we cannot declare someone a disbeliever or permit cursing them unless those great figures explicitly state their disbelief at death or reject them during life, like Abdullah bin Sa’d bin Abi Sarh, the foster brother of Uthman, and several others rejected during the Prophet’s (PBUH) time. Or Muhammad bin Nasir Numairi, Ahmad bin Hilal Karakhi, Abu Muhammad Hasan al-Shari’i, and Abu Ja’far Muhammad bin Ali Shalmaghani, known as Ibn Abi al-Azafir, who claimed to be the Bab of the Qa’im during the minor occultation and were cursed and declared apostates by the sacred precinct. However, we cannot independently curse anyone unless explicitly cursed in verses and narrations, such as: فَلَعْنَةُ اللَّهِ عَلَی الْقَوْمِ الظّالمین (So the curse of Allah be upon the wrongdoing people.) and similar statements, and the saying: اللّهمَّ الْعَنْ اوّل ظالِمٍ ظَلَمَ حَقَّ مُحمَّدٍ و آلِ مُحَمَّدٍ وَ آخر تابَعَ لَهُمْ عَلی ذلِكَ (O Allah, curse the first oppressor who usurped the right of Muhammad and the family of Muhammad, and (curse) the last one who followed them in that). اَللّهُمَّ الْعَنْ الْعِصابَة الَّتی جاهَدَتِ الْحُسَین (ع) الخٍ (O Allah, curse the group that fought against Hussain (peace be upon him)). واللّهمَّ الْعَنْ بَنِي‌اُمیه قاطِبة (O Allah, curse all of Banu Umayyah), and also those explicitly cursed, like Muawiya and Yazid and others. For those we are unsure about, it is prudent to refrain from cursing, and if they died as disbelievers or sinners, general curses apply without needing to mention names.

Some have criticized this subject, claiming the author of this treatise has overstepped and mixed jurisprudence with mysticism, which should remain separate. In response, it is said: First, most of the great figures of our order had the utmost scholarly and jurisprudential status, even being mujtahids, and combining them is not considered mixing, but both scholars and mystics in Shia are on the same path, both deriving light from the niche of prophecy and guardianship. Such divisions are created by people like the objector to sow discord and division:

The Gonabadi Order’s View on Opium Use

In the Nimatullahi Gonabadi Order, the prohibition of opium use is well-established, deemed religiously and rationally forbidden, with its harms considered greater than those of alcohol. The late Haj Mulla Sultan Muhammad Sultan Ali Shah, who was well-versed in both rational and transmitted sciences and held a recognized status in jurisprudence, explicitly ruled against opium use in his commentary on the verse: وَ یسئَلُونَكَ عَن الخَمر وَالْمَیسَرِ قُلْ فیهما اِثْمٌ كَبیرٌ from Surah Al-Baqarah, detailing its harms and issuing a clear prohibition. I have translated this and included it in the second edition of the book “Zulfiqar.”

His son, our esteemed ancestor Mulla Ali Nur Ali Shah II, also well-versed in both Sharia and Tariqa and a recognized jurist, wrote a treatise on this subject named “Zulfiqar,” seeking the opinion of several contemporary scholars who also ruled it forbidden, included in the book’s appendix.

The late Haji Sheikh Mohammad Hasan Saleh Ali Shah—may his secret be sanctified—also clearly stated in his discussions and speeches his aversion to opium, asserting, “An opium user is not one of us, even if they appear close or are part of the order.” In his treatise, Salih’s Advice, he declared opium, hashish, and bhang to be intoxicants and thus forbidden. Following their rulings, I also consider it religiously forbidden and discourage its use. I even wrote an article on the topic during my studies, with my father’s permission, included in the second edition of “Zulfiqar.” At that time, the prohibition of opium use was unique to the Gonabadi Order, but now many followers uphold this view. Those addicted to opium were not accepted into the order unless they had completely quit, which remains the practice today. Haji Saleh Ali Shah provided instructions for quitting opium, printed at the end of “Zulfiqar.”

Liquid intoxicants and hashish are also explicitly forbidden in jurisprudence, not limited to grape wine but including beer, nabidh, and others.

Recently discovered drugs, which have misled and addicted many young people, are even more harmful to the mind, health, and morality, and thus are forbidden and must be avoided.

Some might think comparing opium to alcohol is analogical reasoning, but we assert it is ‘inferred reasoning,’ permissible in Shia jurisprudence, as the reasons for prohibiting alcohol apply even more to opium, making its prohibition even stronger.

Why Dervishes (Fuqara) Do Not Engage in Politics

There is a misunderstanding regarding this topic. It is not that fuqara should not engage in politics, as true politics, which involves organizing systems and social welfare, is actually part of the social issues of Islam. In the time of the Prophet (PBUH), spirituality and politics were under his guidance. Imam Ali (peace be upon him) also followed this approach during his caliphate. Politics should be subordinate to religion and the sacred laws, as was the practice of Imam Ali (peace be upon him). If politics adheres to this principle, it becomes part of the sacred Sharia. However, if politics is considered in today’s terms—disconnected from Sharia laws, as with Muawiya, who persecuted those loyal to Ali or opposed to him—such politics is contrary to religious and ethical standards and should be avoided.

Politics that aligns with Sharia principles is part of the sacred laws and should follow the rulings of religious authorities. Whatever they decree should be adhered to.

When it is said that fuqara do not engage in politics, it does not mean all individuals. Throughout history, many faithful and devoted fuqara have been in high political positions, like some companions of the Imams, such as Ali bin Yaqtin , the minister of Harun al-Rashid, who was a close associate of Imam Musa al-Kadhim (peace be upon him). With the Imam’s permission—even his directive—he accepted the ministry to alleviate oppression, prevent injustices against Shias or the oppressed. Similarly, some fuqara have entered politics with benevolent intentions and rendered services, gaining a reputation for integrity, piety, and community goodwill. However, the elders of the order have distanced themselves from governmental and political environments. The reference is to these elders, who refrain from issuing general directives on social issues, including politics, as these fall within the realm of Sharia, where guidance should be sought from religious authorities.

True politics must follow genuine spirituality, and civic governance should align with it, as it is part of the apparent Sharia, related to Shia scholars and jurists. In apparent rulings, including politics, one should follow religious authorities. The role of the elders in spirituality is to provide inner guidance and heartfelt instructions, which can also govern morality. If they occasionally express opinions on jurisprudential matters, it is from a scholarly perspective, not implying ignorance of Sharia, which would be an insult and accusation by objectors. Civic governance duties fall within the tasks of religious leaders and jurist authorities, whom fuqara follow in those aspects, often succeeding in political matters by adhering to their fatwas. Inquiries about political issues are referred to the great Shia leaders and authorities; similarly, in the past, spiritual and mystical questions directed to scholars were referred to mystics, unless the scholar was comprehensive, excelling in both Sharia and Tariqa, thereby issuing directives in both areas. In the early occultation period, there was complete unity between these groups, each considering themselves appointed by the Imam to guide in their respective areas, assisting one another, as seen with Sayyid Murtadha and Sayyid Radhi—may God have mercy on them—and the division of apparent tasks reflects this.

As explained, when religious and spiritual governance prevails, since it is part of Sharia, it should be conducted according to the instructions of scholars and religious authorities. However, politics contrary to religious and ethical standards—like today’s conventional politics, characterized by deceit, intrigue, breach of promise, oppression, and harm—should be avoided. Scholars and authorities also prohibit this, as it is against Sharia and conscience.

On Sama and Music

The topic of music and its prohibition is a significant jurisprudential issue with many differing opinions on its definition and instances. However, there is little disagreement among Shia jurists about its prohibition, though the meaning and intent vary. Some define it as any sound, others as vocal modulation, and some as refining and beautifying the voice, all mentioned in its linguistic meaning. Some jurists describe it as modulating the voice in a way that induces rapture, with other interpretations detailed in jurisprudential texts.

There is also disagreement on the instances of prohibition. Some say any sound with modulation—whether it induces rapture or not—is forbidden. According to this view, any poem sung with modulation and elongation, even if it praises or mourns the Imams—or even the Quran recited in this manner—is considered music and thus prohibited, as Abdullah bin Sanan narrated from the Imam: اِقرَؤوا الْقُرْآنَ بِاَلْحانِ الْعَرَبِ وَ ایاكُمْ وَ لُحُونَ اَهْلِ الْفِسْقِ وَ الكَبائِر .

Some jurists, like the late Fayz Kashani, took the opposite view, restricting prohibited music to what contains an external forbidden act. He explains this in the chapter on the profession of female singers in “Kitab al-Ma‘ayish wa al-Makasib al-Wafi,” citing Imam Sajjad (peace be upon him) in “Man La Yahduruhu al-Faqih” , who was asked about purchasing a singing slave girl. He said: ما عَلَیكَ لَوِ اشْتَرَیتَها فَذَكَّرَتْكَ الْجَّنَةَ..., meaning there’s no harm if she reminds you of paradise through Quranic recitation and virtues, not considered music, but if it is music, it’s forbidden. Fayz notes that the last sentence seems to be from the compiler, al-Saduq. In the chapter on Quranic recitation, the Prophet (PBUH) stated: لِكُلِّ شَي‌ءٍ حِلْیةٌ و حِلْیةُ الْقُرْآن الصَّوْتُ الْحَسْنُ .

It is also narrated from Imam Sadiq (peace be upon him): كانَ عَلی بْنُ الْحُسَین(ع) اَحْسَنَ النّاسِ صَوْتاً بِالْقُرْآنِ... , meaning Imam Ali ibn al-Husayn (peace be upon him) had the most beautiful voice in Quranic recitation, and water carriers would stop by his house to listen. Imam Baqir (peace be upon him) also had a beautiful voice.

Some restrict music to non-mourning, non-praising poetry of the Ahl al-Bayt and Quran, stating it involves modulated singing, even if not inducing rapture, unless it involves the Quran or praises and laments the Ahl al-Bayt, using previous traditions as evidence. Many prominent jurists and most great mystics say forbidden music is any frivolous sound that distracts from the remembrance of God and engages one in worldly desires. This does not mean any pleasant sound with non-frivolous modulation is forbidden, a view expressed by the late Sheikh Murtada Ansari. This aligns with the views of great mystics, particularly in the Nimatullahi order, which emphasizes remembering God even in worldly matters, making permissible worldly work an act of worship. Anything that leads to worldly attachment and neglect of God contradicts spiritual progress, being undesirable or rejected by God and religious leaders: كُلّما یشْغَلُكَ عَنْ ذِكْراللَّهِ فَهُوَ صَنَمُكَ (Anything that distracts you from the remembrance of Allah is your idol). Thus, music with frivolous sounds is forbidden and displeasing, but poetry promoting monotheism, ethics, praise, or remembrance of God is permissible, aligning with Fayz’s views and Sheikh’s fatwa. The Nimatullahi order holds this belief, considering frivolous poetry or music with entertainment instruments forbidden. They also prohibit using such instruments, favoring only supplicatory, ethical, praiseworthy, and mystical poetry in their gatherings, with a preference for pleasant voices. However, listening to music involving instruments like flutes and drums, termed “sama” by some, is forbidden in our order, as adhering to sacred Sharia is essential. Those in the order who act otherwise do not follow the instructions, and their behavior is disapproved by the elders. Such individuals exist among Muslims and Shia in general, and their actions cannot be generalized.

Finally, it should be noted that those who hold music as forbidden make two exceptions: singing to hasten a camel’s pace and at weddings, provided it does not involve unlawful or forbidden elements, detailed in jurisprudential texts.

Inquiry About Keeping or Trimming the Mustache

Another subject that seems trivial to the dervishes but has been given undue importance by some naive or biased individuals is the topic of keeping a mustache. Some dervishes and certain Sufi masters do not trim it, which has been criticized by many. Some even claim that adhering to non-essential practices is innovation, and every innovation leads to misguidance, and its proponent is in the fire. Therefore, those who do not trim their mustache are considered innovators.

It is surprising that those who recite the three testimonies and acknowledge the essentials of religion and sect are labeled as innovators and sinners, or even disbelievers, because: Firstly, as the late ancestor, Hazrat Haj Mulla Sultan Muhammad Sultan Ali Shah, said, religion is not tied to a single hair; and secondly, within the dervish order, there is no insistence on trimming or keeping a mustache. It was not commanded by the elders, and in some times or places, it was a means of recognizing one another. Many dervishes do trim and are not criticized within the order because such matters pertain to cleanliness and not worship. The sacred law does not attach importance to these minor issues. For example, although the Prophet (peace be upon him) emphasized dyeing hair, Ali (peace be upon him) did not practice it in his later years. When asked about the Prophet’s command, he explained that it was relevant when Islam was weak and Jews, who did not dye their hair, were strong. The Prophet said to dye hair to avoid resembling them, but now that reason no longer exists. Therefore, the same reasoning can be applied to the mustache, and it becomes a matter of personal choice, not innovation.

Moreover, in a hadith from Al-Kafi, a narrator told the Imam: اِنّی رَجُلٌ شَبَقٌ و لَیسَ لِی مَااتَزَوَّجُ بِهِ فَاِلَیكَ اَشْكومِنَ الْعُزُوبَةِ فَقالَ(ع): وَفِّرْ شَعْرَ جَسَدِكَ وَ اَدِم الصّیام (Indeed, I am a man with intense desire, and I do not have the means to marry, so I complain to you about celibacy. So he (peace be upon him) said: Let the hair on your body grow and persist in fasting), which implies that fasting and increasing body hair reduce desire, which might explain why reducing hair during Ihram is prohibited. Therefore, some might have refrained from trimming hair in the past to curb excess desires and focus more on God and religious matters.

Additionally, this is a matter of jurisprudential interpretation and not a definitive ruling that cannot be opposed, as the narrations about trimming the mustache are mostly either prophetic, which the Shia consider weak due to unreliable narrators, or attributed to Imam Sadiq (peace be upon him), with no other narrations on the mustache from other Imams. Some Sufis argue these can be considered acts of precaution, as Sunni practices heavily emphasize trimming, and the Imam lived in a time of necessity for precautionary actions. Therefore, many precautionary narrations exist, and these Sufis believe that since no other authentic narrations exist on the mustache beyond the prophetic ones, these can be interpreted as precautionary. However, since this matter pertains to cleanliness, jurists generally accept these narrations due to leniency in evidentiary standards, considering the practice commendable despite any weakness in the narrations.

Some may argue that the weakness of certain narrations is compensated by the practice and tradition of the majority of scholars and the frequency of such narrations, but those who argue for precaution state:

1. Following these narrations is not objectionable but commendable, and there is no disagreement on this matter;
2. The early scholars who approved of following them did so for this reason, but since the basis of practice is leniency, the tradition does not compensate for the weakness. Compensation occurs when the tradition is based on another rationale or when the reasoning for the practice is unknown, but in this case, we know the reasoning is these narrations, and the practice stems from leniency. Thus, it does not fully compensate for the weakness. If the narrations were authentic, the obligation would align with the content and apparent meanings of the narrations. Since no scholar has declared trimming the mustache obligatory, it shows they did not adhere strictly to the apparent meanings but followed leniency. However, if a jurist diverges from this leniency due to personal reasoning or contrary evidence, it is not objectionable.

In this matter, if some prominent scholars of the order do not consider it commendable, there is no room for criticism or accusation of innovation or sin, because their interpretation leads them to this view, and they act accordingly, interpreting the narrations as precautionary, supported by the presence of similar narrations in Sunni texts.

A narration from Abdullah bin Sinan mentions that he asked Imam Sadiq (peace be upon him) about the meaning of God’s statement: ثُمَّ لِیقْضُوا تَفْثَهُم (Then let them complete their prescribed duties (or rites).). He replied that it refers to trimming the mustache and cutting nails. When Abdullah mentioned that Dharih al-Muharibi said the intention was meeting the Imam, the reply was that both were correct; the Quran has both an apparent and an inner meaning, and not everyone can grasp what Dharih can. This implies that although Abdullah was among the great companions, he did not possess Dharih’s level, hence the explanation.

Some Sufis believe certain narrations indicate that some great religious figures and Imams (peace be upon them) had mustaches. As noted in Majma‘ al-Bahrain: وَ فِی حَدیث وَصَفَه (ع) اِنَّهُ كانَ وافِرَالسَّبَلَةِ وَ هِی بِالتَّحریكِ الشاربِ (And in a hadith, it describes him (peace be upon him) as having an abundant ‘sabila,’ which, with the diacritical marks, means the mustache), and some may argue that ‘abundance’ means hairy compared to non-hairy. However, if it only meant natural abundance, it would be beyond one’s control, while the earlier mentioned hadith about increasing body hair indicates a voluntary act, suggesting it involves conscious choice, not natural abundance. Additionally, in Majma’ al-Bahrain, it is written: وَالشّارِبُ الشَّعْرُ الّذی یسیلُ عَلَی الْفَمِ (And the mustache is the hair that falls over the mouth). Hence, a mustache is the hair that falls over the mouth, and as mentioned, ‘sibil’ is also defined as a mustache, leading to the interpretation: كانَ وافِرُ السَّبَلَةِ (He had an abundant ‘sabila’) meaning: كانَ الشَّعْرُ الَّذی یسیلُ عَلی فَمِهِ وافِراً (The hair that falls over his mouth was abundant). In Jannat al-Khulud by Muhammad Reza bin Muhammad Mo’min, written in the era of Shah Sultan Hussein Safavi, it is mentioned in the twentieth table regarding the Prophet’s (peace be upon him) use of perfume, particularly violet oil, which he applied to his head, eyebrows, and mustache, indicating he had a mustache. This aligns with a narration stating: كانَ یدْهِنُ شارِبیهِ (He used to apply oil to his mustache).

In Al-Kafi, under the chapter on the virtue of perfume, it is narrated by Abu Basir that Imam Sadiq (peace be upon him) said: قالَ اَمیرالمؤمنین - صَلَواتُ اللَّهِ عَلَیهِ: الطِّیبُ فِی الشّارِبِ مِنْ اَخْلاق النَّبِیینَ وَ كِرامَةٌ لِلكاتِبین (Amir al-Mu’minin (peace be upon him) said: Applying perfume to the mustache is among the manners of the prophets and an honor for the scribes (angels)). The apparent meaning suggests that ‘mustache’ is intended, not ‘drinker,’ and it seems more fitting with having a mustache.

Sheikh Jalil Razi al-Din Abu Nasr Hasan bin Fazl Tabarsi, son of the esteemed jurist and commentator Abu Ali Tabarsi, both prominent Shia figures in the sixth century, mentions in Makarim al-Akhlaq, in the fifth section of the first chapter: كانَ - صَلّي‌اللَّهُ عَلَیهِ وَ آلِهِ - اِذا اَدْهَنَ بَدَءَ بِحاجِبَیهِ ثُمَّ بِشارِبَیهِ ثُمَّ یدْخِلُهُ فِی اَنْفِهِ وَ یشُمُّهُ ثُمَّ یدْهِنُ رَاسَهُ وَ كانَ یدْهِنُ حاجِبَیهِ مِنَ الصُّداع وَ یدْهِنُ شارِبیهِ بِدُهْنٍ سِوی دُهْنِ لِحْیتِهِ. This means that the Prophet, peace be upon him and his family, when applying oil, would begin with his eyebrows, then his mustache, then insert it into his nose and smell it, followed by oiling his head. He would oil his eyebrows to prevent headaches and used different oil for his mustache than for his beard, indicating he had a mustache.

Some scholars have noted that certain narrations in some books of battles mention: اَلدَّمُ یقْطُرُ مِنْ شَوارِبِهِ (Blood was dripping from his mustache). Elsewhere: وَالنّورُ یسْطَعُ مِنْ شَواربِهِ (And light was shining from his mustache), and also وَالرّیحُ یحرِّكُ شارِبَهُ یمیناً و شِمالاً (And the wind was moving his mustache to the right and left). It is attributed to Amir al-Mu’minin (peace be upon him) that during the Battle of the Camel, he told his companions: قَصِّروا لِحاكُم وَ وَفِّروا سِبالَكُم فَاِنَّهُ اَهْیبُ لِلْعَدُوِّ (Shorten your beards and let your mustaches grow, for it is more intimidating to the enemy), all of which indicate the existence of mustaches, though the writer has not seen them.

From the Tatrieh poem mentioned by the late Qazi Nurullah in Majalis al-Mu’minin, and in the third volume of “Anwar al-Rabi’ fi Anza’ al-Badi’” by Sayyid Ali Sadr al-Din bin Ma’sum al-Madani (born 15 Jumada al-Awwal 1052 and died in 1120 in Shiraz), who was among the great Shia scholars, regarding the states of Ibn Munir, and in the letter of scholars, and later mentioned in detail in Dehkhoda’s dictionary, it is understood that:

In the early days of the occultation, the Shia did not trim their mustaches to distinguish themselves from the Sunnis. The story in brief is about Ahmad bin Muflih Tarablosi, known as Ibn Munir, a famous poet and scholar of the late fifth and early sixth centuries. He adopted Shiism under Sayyid Abu al-Rida Musavi Naqib al-Ashraf, a Shia authority of his time, and occasionally sent gifts to Sayyid, including once sending a beloved servant named Tatar. Sayyid, thinking the servant was part of the gifts, kept him. Ibn Munir, through hints and later other means, conveyed that Tatar was not among the gifts, but to no avail. Eventually, he devised a plan and composed a poem suggesting that if Sayyid did not return the servant, he would abandon Shiism for Sunnism and oppose Shia beliefs and practices. Among his declarations:

وَ اَقُولُ ما اَخْطَاَ مُعاوِیةُ یزیدُ ما كَفَر (…and I will say that Muawiya did not err and Yazid did not disbelieve) … until he says: و وَقَفْتُ فِی وَسَطِ الطَّریق اَقُصُّ شارِبَ مَنْ عَبَر (and I will stand in the middle of the road trimming the mustache of whoever passes by...)

This indicates that trimming the mustache was a Sunni custom and not practiced among the Shia for distinction. This poem is mentioned in Al-Kuny wa al-Alqab by the late Sheikh Abbas Qomi (Abbas bin Muhammad Reza) in the account of Ibn Munir, noting his death in 548 and burial near Mashhad al-Saqat in Mount Joush. Until recently, it was heard that Shia in Bukhara did not trim their mustaches, and for these reasons, some Sufi elders practiced keeping mustaches.

As the late ancestor stated, religion is not tied to a hair. Therefore, this matter has neither been commanded nor prohibited, and followers are free. Criticizing these minor details often cannot be attributed to anything other than bias because many other recommended or obligatory practices are neglected without criticism. For example, among those who consider Friday prayer recommended, some never perform it throughout their lives, or maintaining purity, which is generally agreed upon, is often neglected and sometimes criticized outside of prayer or other acts of worship. The emphasized recommendation of night prayers and wakefulness, which the dervishes are instructed to observe, is not criticized among non-dervishes who are generally not committed.

Yet, such objections are raised about the mustache, which is insignificant, indicating bias or ignorance of its true nature. Disagreements over trimming or keeping a mustache are like disagreements over clothing styles, which are not significant. If trimming is praised, it is for hygiene, as many are not committed to cleanliness and maintaining it. For such individuals, trimming is preferable.

In these times, as polytheism and disbelief increase, and the fabric of faith and worship seems to unravel, we should all strive and set aside personal biases and these minor differences, which are rooted in personal grudges and have material and spiritual harms for the Islamic community. We should unite and even draw closer to Jews and Christians who believe in God to respond to those who deny God’s existence.

The critic writer has further insulted and objected, stating that even if having a mustache is not prohibited, growing it long to the point of covering the mouth is either forbidden or disliked, not the mustache itself. They also insulted again. It is unclear where they derived this distinction, considering it definitive and worthy of criticism. These matters can only be attributed to bias and hostility, and we repeat: why is there so much objection to a single hair, when it holds no significant importance in sacred law?

Inquiry About Profits from Money and Grains (Riba)

Answer: Riba (usury) is one of the forbidden transactions in the sacred religion of Islam, and engaging in it is, according to the clear text of the Quran, a declaration of war against God and His Messenger, which is the most severe warning imaginable: فَاِنْ لَمْ تَفْعَلوا فأذَنُوا بِحَرْبٍ مِنَ اللَّهِ وَ رَسُولِهِ . No other prohibition is described in such terms.

Numerous reports emphasize its prohibition. For instance, Imam Ali (peace be upon him) stated that the Prophet cursed the one who takes riba, the giver, the recorder, and the witnesses. Another narration states that a single dirham of riba is worse in the sight of God than seventy acts of incest. Many other reports exist, but since it is a social issue, mentioning all is unnecessary. If a person truly believes and is committed to the sacred religion, they should not approach it at all. Unfortunately, we Muslims do not give importance to the laws of our pure Shariah. Riba is so prevalent among us that it’s as if it has no prohibition.

Riba occurs in money and grains and other items that can be measured or weighed and are considered the same type, but if they are not the same type, like wheat and rice or dates and raisins, it is permissible. It is generally prohibited, except between a father and son, husband and wife, and a Muslim and a harbi infidel. One reason for its prohibition may be that it erodes trust and reliance on God. According to some mystics, as mentioned in Tafsir Safi, a usurer has no reliance on God, and God abandons him, severing any connection between them. Thus, his state is worse than those who commit other major sins, as his hope lies in his financial gains. Moreover, having money and earning interest leads to laziness, causing the person to abandon work, while Islam emphasizes engaging in work and condemns idleness. Money given against the sincere will of the lender lacks blessing, especially if the debtor is in dire need or has suffered a loss in a transaction involving that money, making interest payments unbearable. Certain methods are mentioned in narrations to rectify the situation and avoid riba, such as not including the excess in the sale and offering it as a settlement or gift without the requirement of acceptance by the giver, like exchanging a thousand rials with a small gold coin worth less than a hundred rials for two thousand rials. Alternatively, each party could lend an amount to the other and later forgive the loans, which rectifies the appearance, although some argue that such agreements are inherently flawed because the intent is not truly a gift or settlement but rather riba, making it invalid. However, most scholars and the apparent texts support its validity because the intent is to avoid the forbidden and riba, which is a correct intention. Yet, in Tafsir Bayan al-Sa’dah, Hazrat Mulla Sultan Muhammad Sultan Ali Shah states under the verse: وَ اَحَلَّ اللَّهُ الْبَیعَ وَ حَرَّمَ الرّبوا : even if the appearance is rectified, if the transaction lacks fairness, it remains blameworthy, even considered part of riba, as God says: یمْحَقُ اللَّهُ الرّبوا وَ یرْبِی الصَّدَقاتِ . For example, exchanging a thousand dirhams with a small gold coin for two thousand dirhams clearly reflects the usurious nature despite the apparent correction, indicating its undesirability. This shows his meticulous care and caution in this matter, emphasizing more caution than other scholars.

Unfortunately, today, riba is so widespread among Muslims that it seems as though it is not prohibited in Islam or is considered a permissible means of livelihood. The reason for our weakness and decline as Muslims is our failure to adhere to and practice the sacred laws of our religion.

Inquiry About the Use of Gold and Silver Utensils

This topic, like other religious rulings, is detailed in jurisprudential books. The practices of the dervishes and mystics in these matters, as mentioned in the detailed books of the great masters of Sufism, align with the fatwas of the jurists and religious authorities, to whom one must refer.

Therefore, using pure gold and silver utensils is prohibited unless the gold and silver content is less than other materials or if it is uncertain and knowledge is not attainable when needed. In such cases, according to Sharia, avoiding them is not obligatory, and the presumption of permissibility applies, although some consider caution preferable and advocate avoidance.

Conclusion

Other objections and questions raised are brief and detailed responses are found in the mentioned books and are also referenced in the noble letter Pand-e Saleh. Some answers are evident from the context of previously mentioned responses, so they are not addressed separately.

The responses to these questions, posed by certain individuals, were elaborately explained for the awareness of our faithful brothers and compiled into a booklet for their reminder. Additionally, they are presented to some esteemed scholars who might have been subjected to doubts by malicious individuals.

These esteemed figures, according to the pure Shariah and the explicit verse: “If a sinful person brings you news, verify it,” do not heed malicious rumors without thorough investigation and full diligence. Unfounded accusations and baseless claims, which Shariah does not permit against any Muslim until proven, are prevented and condemned. Such claims could even be considered slander if not meeting conditions, potentially subjecting the speaker to punishment, as they deviate from justice. They uphold the sacred laws and principles and apply the general directive: وَ لا تَقَولوا لِمَنْ اَلْقی اِلَیكُم السَّلامَ لَسْتَ مُؤمِناً تَبْتَغُونَ عَرَضَ الْحَیوةِ الدُّنیا . They instruct all Shiites and followers, disallowing the religion’s name to become a tool for those with personal vendettas to levy accusations and declarations of disbelief.

Especially in this era, creating discord among Muslims is highly detrimental and harms the Islamic community. The esteemed religious authorities, who are aware of the situation and prioritize Islamic unity, do not support such conflicts and actively prevent them.

Nevertheless, to prevent and address the spread of doubts by malicious individuals, if necessary, present the included content to the esteemed figures. If the distinguished scholars deem it appropriate, they might instruct both parties to engage in dialogue and association, resolving any doubts through interaction, following the approach of the Imams (peace be upon them) and the principle of: و جادِلْهُم بِالّتی هِی اَحْسَن . This approach can guide the misguided and quickly resolve misunderstandings and doubts on both sides.

Letter of Mulla Muhammad Baqir Majlisi

As mentioned in “Riyad al-Siyahah” by the esteemed late scholar Haj Mirza Zayn al-Abidin Shirvani, and in “Basharat al-Mu’minin” by the distinguished late scholar Haj Mulla Sultan Muhammad Gonabadi, and in “Waqa’i’ al-Ayyam fi Tamimat Muharram al-Haram” by the revered narrator Haj Mulla Ali Wa’iz Tabrizi, it is noted that the late Mulla Khalil Qazvini , a distinguished figure of his time, inquired from Mulla Muhammad Baqir Majlisi II, the author of “Bihar al-Anwar”, about three fundamental Islamic issues:

1. The way of the philosophers and its truth and falsehood.
2. The way of the Mujtahids and Akhbaris.
3. The way of the jurists and Sufis.

Mulla Majlisi wrote a detailed response to the three questions, which is presented below. My honorable father, Janab Agha Saleh Ali Shah, also stated that in the year 1330 AH, during his return from Hajj and his visit to the holy sites, he met the late Ayatollah Sheikh al-Shari’ah Isfahani. During his statements, the esteemed scholar mentioned that Shah Sultan Hussein Safavi asked Mulla Majlisi II questions, including the most permissible means of personal sustenance and questions regarding wisdom and Sufi sects, to which Majlisi responded. He stated that the original writing of Majlisi is with him. It is possible that the response mentioned below is the same, but since access to it was not possible, I cannot definitively state that they are one and the same.

The Form of the Responses Is As Follows

It should be noted that anyone who rids themselves of selfish desires in their religious path and seeks the truth, surely God Almighty, in accordance with وَالَّذینَ جاهَدوا فینا لَنَهْدینَّهُمْ سُبُلَنا , will guide them to the right path. And, praise be to God, you have been acquainted with the reports and traditions of the Ahl al-Bayt - peace be upon them - and you can derive the truth in these matters from their guiding words. Since you emphasized these three issues, which are among the fundamental Islamic issues, this humble servant outlines the way of the Imamiyya; therefore, in obedience to your command and in observance of the rights of fraternal faith, I am obliged to briefly mention them and refer the details to expansive books:

As for the first issue: the way of the philosophers and its truth and falsehood; it must be understood that if God Almighty deemed people independent in their intellects, He would not have sent prophets and messengers - peace be upon them - to them, and would have referred all to their intellects. Since He did not do so, and commanded us to obey the prophets and their successors, and said: و ما آتیكُمْ الرَّسولُ فَخُذُوه وَ ما نَهاكُمْ عَنْهُ فَانْتَهُوا . So, during the time of the Messenger of Allah - peace be upon him and his family - one must refer to him, and when that noble figure departed to the eternal world, he said: انّی تارِكٌ فیكُم الثَّقَلَین كتاب اللَّهِ و عِتْرَتی and referred us to the Book of God and his household, stating that the book is with the Ahl al-Bayt and they know its meaning. Thus, we must refer to them in all religious matters, both fundamental and subsidiary. Since the infallible is absent, he said: Refer to our traditions and hadiths in problematic matters that are unclear to you. Therefore, being independent in matters with one’s intellect and interpreting the Quran and recurring hadiths with the weak doubts of philosophers, and abandoning the book, is a clear mistake.

As for the second issue: the way of the Mujtahids and Akhbaris; an answer to the previous question sheds some light on this issue as well, and my approach in this matter is moderate, as excess and deficiency in all matters are blameworthy. I consider the approach of those who harbor ill assumptions about the scholars of the Imamiyya and accuse them of lack of religiosity to be erroneous, as they were the greats of the religion, and I believe their efforts and faults are forgiven. Likewise, the approach of those who make them leaders and deem any opposition to them in any matter unacceptable, and become their followers, is incorrect. Neither acting on rational principles not derived from the book and tradition is acceptable, but general principles known from the generalities of the book and tradition, provided there is no specific opposing text, are to be followed. The details of these matters are mentioned in the last volume of “Bihar al-Anwar”.

And as for the third issue: regarding the truth and falsehood of the Sufi way; it must be understood that the path of religion is singular. God Almighty sent one prophet and established one Sharia, yet people vary in their degrees of practice and piety. Some Muslims adhere to the apparent teachings of the prophetic Sharia, practice the Sunnah and recommended acts, avoid disliked and dubious matters, detach from worldly excesses, and dedicate their time to obedience and worship, distancing themselves from most people whose company wastes time. These individuals are called believers, ascetics, and devout, and are also named Sufis; because they contented themselves with wool in their clothing, which is rougher and cheaper, out of utmost frugality, and this group is the elite of the people. However, since in every order, some individuals join who undermine it, and among every sect, whether Sunni, Shia, or Zaydi, or followers of false sects, distinctions must be made among them, just as among scholars. As scholars are the noblest of people, their worst are the worst of creation, and among them are devils and Abu Hanifa. Similarly, among the Sufis, there are Shia and Sunni and heretics. And just as the Shia order has been distinguished among this community from other orders, likewise, the Shia Sufi order has been distinguished from others. And just as the Sunni Sufis opposed the Imams in the eras of the infallible Imams - peace be upon them - in the time of the Imam’s occultation, Sunni Sufis have opposed and antagonized the Sufis of the truth, and there are numerous testimonies to this.

1. Mullah Jami, who wrote “Nafahat” and claimed to mention all Sufi sheikhs, did not mention Hazrat Sultan al-Arifin and Burhan al-Wasilin Sheikh Safi al-Din - may God illuminate his grave - who was more famous than the sun and excelled in knowledge, forbearance, virtue, state, and miracles. And he mentioned a group from the Naqshbandi sheikhs and others, whose names are not known except by the ignorant Uzbeks. Similarly, the noble Sayyid Ali bin Tawus - may God be pleased with him - who possessed miracles and stations, and Sheikh Ibn Fahd al-Hilli, famous for his asceticism and piety, whose books on the subtleties of Sufi secrets are well known, and others like them among the Imamiyya Sufis were not mentioned due to prejudice and opposition to their path.
2. The Shia Sufis combined knowledge and practice and, during times of dissimulation, purified people from false motives through spiritual exercises and struggles, adorning them with the adornment of knowledge and practice. The Sufis who follow the Sunnis prevent people from learning because they know that with knowledge, no one will regard anyone higher than the Commander of the Faithful, so they must remain ignorant to accept such false matters. Sheikh Safi al-Din brought thousands to the true religion of Shi’ism through this direct path, and the world was illuminated with the light of faith by the blessings of his noble descendants.
3. The way of the great Sufis, who were supporters of the clear religion in remembrance, contemplation, guidance, and spiritual exercise, differs from the way of Sufis whose sheikhs are attributed to practices like spinning, listening to music, jumping, and reciting romantic mythical poetry, which are not found among them. Besides the glorification and monotheism of God Almighty and resorting to the lights of the Imams of guidance and the support of the protectors of the Shia of the Commander of the Faithful, nothing else exists among them, and all this aligns with the sacred Sharia. Also, many scholars of the religion have adopted the praiseworthy way of the true Sufis and were associated with the manners and ethics of this group; like Baha’ al-Din Muhammad - may God be pleased with him - whose books are filled with Sufi investigations, and my late father learned the remembrance from him and would perform a forty-day retreat each year, and many adherents of the sacred Sharia would practice spiritual exercises according to the law of the Sharia, and I have also completed numerous forty-day retreats. In authentic traditions, it is stated that whoever purifies their actions for God for forty mornings, God Almighty will cause springs of wisdom to flow from their heart to their tongue. From these evidences and proofs, the mention of which would prolong the discourse, it should be clear to you that this noble order, which promotes the clear religion and guides the paths of certainty, has no connection with other Sufi orders whose followers are astray. They attribute themselves to this noble order to promote their cause. It must be known that those who reject Sufism altogether do so out of lack of insight, failing to distinguish between Shia Sufis and Sunni Sufis, and because they have seen and heard unsuitable behaviors and beliefs from them, they assume all are the same. They are oblivious that the way of the special Shia of Ali - peace be upon him - has always been spiritual exercise, struggle, remembrance of God, abandonment of the world, and seclusion from the wicked among creation, and the way of the true Sufis is their way. In short, it must be known that extremism and deficiency are not good in all matters, and the true way is the middle way; as God Almighty said: وَ كَذلِكَ جَعَلْناكُمْ اُمَّةً وَسَطاً . If you reflect on what we have said, the truth will become apparent to you in every matter. وَاللَّهُ یهدی مَنْ یشاءُ اِلی صِراطٍ مُسْتَقیمٍ .